Page 1 of 1
non-historic start
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:26 pm
by pauk
Greetings,
1. i'm interested about unhistorical turn 1. Is there some other home rules except no port attacks on turn 1 other then PH (movement&invasion restrictions)?
2. i made experiment with KB attack on PH - changed that Vals and Kates were odrered airfield attack and put them on port attack... result was expected: less ac destroyed on the field, but 4 or 5 BB were sunk during replay phase! two more BB were seriously damaged...
do you find that is a gamey?
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:08 pm
by 2ndACR
Heck no it is not gamey. I will limit myself in PBEM to 1 port attack only though.
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:34 pm
by pauk
My first question is answered (although from other threads), however i'm still wandering my self what to do with some bombers daitai's from KB which are set on the airfield attack.
I would like to hear more opinions is it a gamey if i put all Vals and Kates on port attack and inflict more damage to the american fleet (and less damage to american air force)?
From what i know, japanese plan was flexible. If suprise is achieved, then all bombers are supposed to atack port (fleet). We all know that KB suprised americans, but japanese poor coordination resulted with divided attacks on port and airfields.
What happend?
Signal for all-out attack on the port was single blue-flare (on the parachuts), but some of apanese air crew didn't see blue flare. Then japanese commander fired another flare, and this made confusion. Those which seen first flare (and second one) turned to airfield attack (two blue flares signaled the need of bombing airfields), even there is no need for that.
yes, i know, i'm going to much into details, but i really want to hear more opinions on this question...
so gentelmens...? what do you think.... changing target (to port attack) gamey or not?
thx in advance...
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:39 pm
by 2ndACR
IMO it is not gamey to reset all the planes to port attack if you go after PH. IF I attack PH on turn 1, I set 4 Vals to airfield attack and all Kates to port attack. The Vals cannot penetrate BB armor, but do system damage and cause fires. My main concern is to put BIG holes in those ships, hence the use of Kates.
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:37 pm
by pauk
thx, i will try that.
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:54 pm
by admiral56
I think unhistorical is good!
If someone is gonna go all historical-all the time, just buy the war in the pacific CD collection, its much faster, or read a history book.
In history, japan lost, the whole point of the game is to try to make Japan win, so u have to do stuff that Japs didnt do, maybe like a massive air on attack manilla on Dec. 7th, or whatever...
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:12 pm
by Sardaukar
Any experiences about hitting Manila instead of PH ?? Might be better to get those subs in long run...
Cheers,
M.S.
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:18 pm
by tsimmonds
Any experiences about hitting Manila instead of PH ?? Might be better to get those subs in long run...
I tried this yesterday just for fun. Sank about 16 subs, most of the DDs & PTs, four or six other ships. The rest of them would be in the bag; the subs are nearly all damaged into the red, the only ships left in the green are AP/AK, and KB is waiting.
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:05 pm
by Caranorn
My personal opinion is that indeed changeing the PH raid aircraft targets is not a big issue. If anything, from the allied perspective I'd probably prefer it if you went only afetr the ships and left my airfields fully operational;-). And yes, sending Kate's against the airfields seems like a big waste, playing against the ai (haven't played japan yet in PBEM) I tend to change all Kate's to port and all Val's but one to airfield. I also usually put more Zeroes on airfiel attack at 100 feet to get maximal strafing damage.
One thing I do find somewhat gamey are naval invasions into areas where your force would have been detected for several days without any justification of their presence (invading past the Strait of Malacca, or beyond the outter belt of the Phillipines and Indonesian islands). I'm sure in such a case at least the alert rate of allied forces would have gone up drastically (preventing surprise attacks), possibly this would even have led to a preemptive attack from the US and the british Empire (not sure about the Dutch as they were no where near ready). Currently I am seing something similar in my ongoing PBEM game, not bad enough for me to scream foul, but pretty annoying (mostly once I found out one invading unit's ID and knowing that could only get to it's current location by sailing for several days through the Phillipine island narrows (I don't think anyone believes Mac would have waited for them to put boats into the water and start landing:-).
Marc aka Caran...
P.S.: The no invasions past straits rule also makes one of my preferred invasion ideas impossible, I had a nice hammer and anvil plan for the Japanese, but using it on turn one of the campaign would be plain gamey as there is no defense against it in addition to being unrealistic. Doing it a few turns later with the Allies able to try and bomb my fleet on the other hand looks fine.
RE: non-historic start
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:38 pm
by mogami
Hi, In the short term the subs at Manila look like a major problem. But they are mostly old and slow and have bad skippers and torpedos. The BB at PH are old and slow but they upgrade. Those old subs never do.
20x10 VP submarine=200 VP
1xBB=192 VP Those old BB will be what provide the shore bombardment that knock out your CD units your fields your airgroups and your troops. Each old sub will be lucky to sink 20 points of ships (20x20=400 VP or 2 BB worth)
In the very short term you save a few ships (or not the USN subs may not damage anything and there are already a load of subs at sea in the area so you may not even notice you sank 20. However because the USN has BB in 1942. You will need to provide covering TF that contain at least an equal number of BB when ever you move into areas the USN BB might be lurking. While I agree it is silly for the USN to bombard Kwajalean there are still a lot of places where they can be used to hurt the Japanese.
A submarine will not stop one of your landings, a submarine will not prevent you from entering a base hex, a submarine will not close a airfield or destroy aircraft/supply/fuel
There are 8 USN BB at PH 1 on West Coast 1 RN BB Singapore go back and count IJN BB again and remember that if the USN BB are active your 4 Kongo Class are the BB punks of the Pacific (thats why they made them fast)