Page 1 of 1
Scenario 16
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:45 pm
by spence
I fired up Scen 16 as the IJN last night and was completely shocked by the difference in initial deployments for the Japanese. THEY HAVEN'T DONE MUCH OF ANYTHING YET (other than bombing PH)! No landings on Wake, Guam, or Luzon and the landing at Khota Bharu has only put a handful of squads on the beach.
Vaguely recalling readings from years ago the situation seems in fact far more historical than the so-called "Historical Start" (other than the small size of the Japanese landing force at Khota Bharu). Are all those extra landings just a gimme to the poor AI?
Have Japanese Players found their "invasions of everything" in the first few months to be more difficult because of the slower start?
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:46 pm
by Big B
ORIGINAL: spence
I fired up Scen 16 as the IJN last night and was completely shocked by the difference in initial deployments for the Japanese. THEY HAVEN'T DONE MUCH OF ANYTHING YET (other than bombing PH)! No landings on Wake, Guam, or Luzon and the landing at Khota Bharu has only put a handful of squads on the beach.
Vaguely recalling readings from years ago the situation seems in fact far more historical than the so-called "Historical Start" (other than the small size of the Japanese landing force at Khota Bharu).
Hi Spence,
Absolutely correct. Scen 16 is far more accurate than Scen 15 in the timing of Japanese invasions.
In fact even Scen 16 is a bit too fast.
I think Wake wasn't even approached for the first landing attempt until Dec 11th, (no actual troop landing until Dec 22nd).
Initial landings in the Philippines was on Dec 8th at Batan Island. The first landings on Northern Luzon were on Dec 10th, with the main landings on Lingayen Gulf not until Dec 22nd.
Guam wasn't seized until Dec 10th.
B
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:23 pm
by BLUESBOB
In Dec., 1941, it seems the Japanese four main concerns were Pearl, PI, Singapore, and Hong Kong. So, basically, they trying to deliver knockout blows to their two biggest threats, the U.S. and Britiain. I think they had everything, a timeline in what and where to invade, mapped out...but they really had to wait and see how these two world powers faired in battle and responded to such. After, with the Pacific Fleet in disarray, Hong Kong gone, and the British falling back in Malaya, could they start committing forces to other invasions. There only hitch came in the PI.
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:00 pm
by ChezDaJez
Initial landings in the Philippines was on Dec 8th at Batan Island.
Don't forget the International dateline. It was already December 8th in the Philippines when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on the 7th! The first air raids on Clark took place just a few hours after PH.
Chez
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:10 pm
by Yava
More about these landings can be found here
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/5-2/5-2_6.htm
Btw. This book is great[&o]
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:14 pm
by Oleg Mastruko
History is always slower than wargames, but in WITP it cuts both ways. My favorite, from the IJN standpoint, is if I don't invade Rabaul in the opening 2 weeks of the war - there's already an allied division there waiting for me by mid-January 41 [:D]
Don't even get me started about Solomons....
I hope I don't have to explain how massivelly unhistoric this is, but hey.... only way for IJN player to counter this, is to invade Rabaul + Solomons EVEN SOONER.
Oleg
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:24 pm
by Nikademus
As a person who has played more than 1 GC as Japan....one often has to move faster than history to counter the instant countermoves of the Allied player. Result is an all around acceleration. Burma is probably the best case. You have to move fast there or else the Allies digs in and turns Burma into an airbase pointed at IndoChina.
Hindsight and the detail instant control of a wargame always leads to acceleration. One reason why i like the 5/42 start. There's not as much of a sense of urgency coupled with the need to secure so many objectives.
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:13 am
by pry
ORIGINAL: spence
I fired up Scen 16 as the IJN last night and was completely shocked by the difference in initial deployments for the Japanese. THEY HAVEN'T DONE MUCH OF ANYTHING YET (other than bombing PH)! No landings on Wake, Guam, or Luzon and the landing at Khota Bharu has only put a handful of squads on the beach.
Vaguely recalling readings from years ago the situation seems in fact far more historical than the so-called "Historical Start" (other than the small size of the Japanese landing force at Khota Bharu). Are all those extra landings just a gimme to the poor AI?
Have Japanese Players found their "invasions of everything" in the first few months to be more difficult because of the slower start?
I never liked the Japanese mad dash start of scenario 15 it was just too quick for my liking so when I created scenario 16 my main goal was to try and slow down the initial Japanese tidal wave just for a few turns at least and make the start more realistic while trying to replicate the historical situation of Dec 8 as close as possible within the capabilities of the game.
Some judgment calls were made here and there but overall I ended up being pleased with the way it put some breaks on the Japanese for the 1st few turns and it actually gave the allied player at least a chance of mounting some sort of defense if they chose to do so during the initial Japanese expansion phase.
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:15 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: pry
ORIGINAL: spence
I fired up Scen 16 as the IJN last night and was completely shocked by the difference in initial deployments for the Japanese. THEY HAVEN'T DONE MUCH OF ANYTHING YET (other than bombing PH)! No landings on Wake, Guam, or Luzon and the landing at Khota Bharu has only put a handful of squads on the beach.
Vaguely recalling readings from years ago the situation seems in fact far more historical than the so-called "Historical Start" (other than the small size of the Japanese landing force at Khota Bharu). Are all those extra landings just a gimme to the poor AI?
Have Japanese Players found their "invasions of everything" in the first few months to be more difficult because of the slower start?
I never liked the Japanese mad dash start of scenario 15 it was just too quick for my liking so when I created scenario 16 my main goal was to try and slow down the initial Japanese tidal wave just for a few turns at least and make the start more realistic while trying to replicate the historical situation of Dec 8 as close as possible within the capabilities of the game.
Some judgment calls were made here and there but overall I ended up being pleased with the way it put some breaks on the Japanese for the 1st few turns and it actually gave the allied player at least a chance of mounting some sort of defense if they chose to do so during the initial Japanese expansion phase.
I really liked your scenario Paul. Best stock scenario out there and the approach you took seems bang on.[&o]
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:48 am
by Big B
Here Here!
Pry, I agree that 16 is the best stock scenario - in PBEM's that's all we play.
B
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: pry
ORIGINAL: spence
I fired up Scen 16 as the IJN last night and was completely shocked by the difference in initial deployments for the Japanese. THEY HAVEN'T DONE MUCH OF ANYTHING YET (other than bombing PH)! No landings on Wake, Guam, or Luzon and the landing at Khota Bharu has only put a handful of squads on the beach.
Vaguely recalling readings from years ago the situation seems in fact far more historical than the so-called "Historical Start" (other than the small size of the Japanese landing force at Khota Bharu). Are all those extra landings just a gimme to the poor AI?
Have Japanese Players found their "invasions of everything" in the first few months to be more difficult because of the slower start?
I never liked the Japanese mad dash start of scenario 15 it was just too quick for my liking so when I created scenario 16 my main goal was to try and slow down the initial Japanese tidal wave just for a few turns at least and make the start more realistic while trying to replicate the historical situation of Dec 8 as close as possible within the capabilities of the game.
Some judgment calls were made here and there but overall I ended up being pleased with the way it put some breaks on the Japanese for the 1st few turns and it actually gave the allied player at least a chance of mounting some sort of defense if they chose to do so during the initial Japanese expansion phase.
I really liked your scenario Paul. Best stock scenario out there and the approach you took seems bang on.[&o]
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:13 am
by BLUESBOB
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
History is always slower than wargames, but in WITP it cuts both ways. My favorite, from the IJN standpoint, is if I don't invade Rabaul in the opening 2 weeks of the war - there's already an allied division there waiting for me by mid-January 41 [:D]
Don't even get me started about Solomons....
I hope I don't have to explain how massivelly unhistoric this is, but hey.... only way for IJN player to counter this, is to invade Rabaul + Solomons EVEN SOONER.
Oleg
This is why I've never minded most of the unhistoric adavantages given to the Japanese in the game. Those adavantages cut down on the "supernatural ability" of the Allies to predict where the Japanese are going next.
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:53 am
by Mark VII
Pry, thanks for the work you put into this scenerio! Prefer it by far over #15 to give us a more realistic start in the campaign game.
ORIGINAL: pry
I never liked the Japanese mad dash start of scenario 15 it was just too quick for my liking so when I created scenario 16 my main goal was to try and slow down the initial Japanese tidal wave just for a few turns at least and make the start more realistic while trying to replicate the historical situation of Dec 8 as close as possible within the capabilities of the game.
Some judgment calls were made here and there but overall I ended up being pleased with the way it put some breaks on the Japanese for the 1st few turns and it actually gave the allied player at least a chance of mounting some sort of defense if they chose to do so during the initial Japanese expansion phase.
RE: Scenario 16
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:57 am
by bradfordkay
I've always wished that there was a CHS version of scenario 16. It was definitely my favorite stock scenario.