Blocking Pearl Harbor

[Darkman]

Hiya all,

Just came on an idea.. what if the US Pacific fleet lets say move 4 Destroyer along the blue line in the pacific to blockade an attack on pearl harbor ?
Seems to be a cheap way for the US to save their battleships

[Micoom]

According the rules, the US is not able to pass the Blue line, before the Axis declare war on them.. (except if you managed the 125 PP level before)
So you can't move DD in front... Or am I wrong here?

But because you only have to have 6 surface ships in Pearl Harbor (no trannies counted) and the BB count as 2, you could send your CA and DD from the west coast and send one BB the other way. You save 1 BB then. If you have build more 2 more DD, you could do it with both BB. This is true right???

[Erc]

We also discovered that depending on where the Japanese planned to launch their attack on Pearl Harbor, the US could use 2, 3 or 4 destoyers to block the attack.  This seemed like a loophole that goes against the games intention of following a somewhat historic path.

Our group agreed on an addition to the Japanese surprise rule.  When Japan has the advantage of surprise over the Allies, Allied ships cannot block the movement of Japanese warships.  This includes all US and British ships as well as the Dutch destroyer.  That way if the US tried to block passage to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese carrier fleet could move right past the destroyers and attack Pearl Harbor.  This rule would encourage to Allies to stay out of the Japanese path to allow them to make the first overt action to draw the US into the war.

[Mark]

Yeah - everybody has interpretted the rules correctly here.

The "block Pearl Harbor with Destroyers and Cruisers plan" was identified a while ago.  But, the Americans would have to sacrifice 5 naval units to block both a Northern and Southern approach to Pearl Harbor - which was about a wash to me in terms of letting 5 small ships get sunk vs. 2 battleships - so we never made a rule to prevent it.

If we are not happy with ignoring this option - Eric's groups optional rule is a good alternative.  Another option would be to say that U.S. surface combat ships can't be adjacent to the Blue line in the Pacifc.  This would keep the mechanics pretty clean, still allow the US the option of transporting marines to or from the Pacifc islands - but prevent them from blocking the Japanese surprise attack.

[Darkman]

Nice new rules Mark :-) printing them right now, but i think the new pearl harbor rule doesn't help. The US still could do a  close circle around Pearl Harbor

I think Erc's rule would be the best way and should be taken into consideration

:-)

[Mark]

Darkman - maybe you are right. . . I just wanted to avoid any "unforseen" happenings with the Japanese being able to surround US ships  - but I guess that probably would not happen. . .

What I was thinking is the the Japanese could move into a US sea zone and still be able to launch their planes into Pearl.  If that does not work game mechanics-wise, I think you are right and Eric's suggestion is the way to go.

Mark

[JD777]

OK.  enough.

Playing Avalon Hill games as well as the old Axis & Allies games, I began to realize that there are two main sets of players.  One sees the game as exactly that...a GAME.  That means utilizing the rules given seeks out the best paths and methods to win it.   The other, which seem to populate these forums, are the "historical buffs" wishing to re-live history in a......game.   The problem is that, these games allow for a whole set of scenarios with given parameters based on historical logistics.  America was producing this much at such and such a time....Germany had this many tanks and postioned to attack at such and such a time, etc.  Games allow for us to replay the main event (in this case WW2) to see if different results could occur.  But here's an inherent problem that in designing these historical war games........It's 2007.  yeah, big problem. Because we have the luxury of hindsight.  We can calculate that since the Germans did such and such, I think the allies will do.....

So you can't keep asking the game designers to keep making rules to compensate for the occurance of events that happened.  Because the more you do that....the less it becomes a game and instead turns into a REANACTMENT model set.  Gotta tell ya....Play tested this game out several times.  we even tested some the theories put out on this forum (which are surprisingly "historical based" strategies).  You wanna know who wins??? yup.  you got it.  when you calculate best possible moves against best possible moves (that's gonna irk some of you, cause you think the game as endless possibilities.  it does if you don't play well..er, smart), and know how to react to each move, well.....you win.   not the guy who tries to "re-live" history in making his moves.  they usually tend to say things like "WELL, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WENT DOWN!" "OH YEAH, THE GERMANS WOULD HAVE NEVER DONE THAT...."

just stop it. honestly.  if you want to re-live history, read a book instead of playing this game.  The game is BRILLIANT.  but if the historical nerds keep asking for rule changes so that they can carry out historical events, then you might as well put in a DVD of your favorite war movie in and watch it, because that's all this game will be. 

you all remember Axis & Allies? the beauty of that game was finding out how one move (by the russians) turned the game.  that move was found by the ones who saw it as that....a game.  What is the best move that Russia can do to prevent a pummeling by the Germans in THIS GAME.  Oh yeah, let' not just stock pile troops.  hmmmm......let's go different.  let's attack and split their forces. 

and so the question at hand......to blockade or not to blockade Pearl Harbor?

Folks the game makers already placed a "revision" cause you all complained that the US could block an attack.  So they helped you out a little bit.  but you know what? turns out that the US can still block an attack depending on where the Japanese position their fleet.  yup.  not cheating.  using the GAME rules. 

"but that prevents the attack on Pearl Harbor," the historical buffs resound.  yup.  it sure does.  cause why? we have the luxury of HINDSIGHT. 

And furthermore, and this is a big furthermore....the US could have easily avoided the Pearl Harbor attack based on the knowledge that they had.....THEN.   Smalller divisions of fleets, which totally plausible even back in the 40's could have patrolled the outer waters surrounding Pearl and could have rescued their ships from being anihilated (spelling?).  True games, give you the actual abilities and facts of that period and then they let YOU DECIDE what to do.  yes, the US population would not have supported a war, and hence the delayed US intervention rules.  Yes, there were ships and very important ones in Pearl Harbor.  But rules implemented that just let units sit there until they are destroyed is not a game element.  it is a reanactment. 

soooooo then.......CHILL OUT.  live with it.  figure out how to beat the US if Pearl Harbor is prevented.  if i'm not mistakened, i think the Japanese can actually do that in the Pacific while gaining all those precious victory points.  It'll be harder if the US fleet survives.

but then again, such would have been the case in .........HISTORY.

sincerely,
an admirer of the game THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE AND ASIA.

[Yoper]

Yes, the game has a very historical undertone.

I have made my feelings know concerning that fact.

As such, Mark has worked with my gaming group to come up with different optional rules to deal with some of our concerns.

For the topic at hand, it is hard to create the conditions that occured (or were allowed to occur    ) at Pearl Harbor without some rules quirkiness.  That is just the way things are.

Do I think that the Game is too tied to a History-Driven Timeline?  Yes!

Can we work within the game's structure to come up with some changes to make it better?  Yes.  That is what we are doing now.

Craig

[John D.]

I have always been very flexible when it comes to games as well.

I find the historical outline very interesting and I always tell my group " Just tell me what the rules are and I will try to win with them".

I have playtested this game to try to break the game, especially because I have had experience "breaking" other games in the past. We have made alot of tweaks even before the Detroit group's input.

I really think that everyone's input has made the game better. I am really happy about the variable entry optional rules which adds a fun dimension to the game without adding much complexity. On the other hand, I have always liked original mechanical entry rules, especially when teaching new players.


Keep in mind that victory is essentially based on whether one side does better or worse then they did historically so of course there will be an historical undertone but how that is done is is up to the players.

Input is always good. Ideas are always good to come up with. Doesn't mean we have to use it all but sometimes they lead to some very good things...

Later - John

[Mark]

JD777,

Hey, thanks for all the compliments on the game - it is always nice to hear positive feedback!  I hope you are able to make it to one of the Cons this Summer and pit your game strategy up against some players who have been playing the game for a few years!

cheers,
Mark

[RandR]

There are 2 primary topics within this forum. One deals with the rules. The other deals with the historical side of WWII. Keeping the 2 trains of thought separate are important here. Working the rules over should be dedicated to making the game easier to play, a clarification, or a simplification and not to imitate the actual historical actions. If you want to follow the historical path of WWII then the game plan is already laid out and you just follow the historical blue print. This could be offered as a group of optional rules, but why bother. As a gamer, one should love the "WHAT IF" activity. There's a board game out with over 9,000 counters that depict ALL of the units involved in the Pacific theater of WWII.

[qxxx]

These are my suggestions:
1. The Axis naval units have a tactical movement of 2 in the pacific, thus they may move past or into the same space as the "blocking naval units" because the defending nation or nations are still techincally at peace with the attacking nation.
War is not declared until the end of phase 1.

However; if "blocking naval units" are attacked they may certainly return fire and they will probably be attacked by the remaining surface ships while the planes attack Pearl Harbor.

2. Change the rule where ships have to stop when entering an occupied space, they can execute combat in any of their tactical movements (Mech movements for Naval)

comments
kenb

[smckenzie]

Thought I had asked about this, but my understanding of RAW is that aircraft carriers whether attacking or defending, may use their planes in a different battle than the one the CV is in, and so with RAw, you can not really block pearl harbor.

The problem is that launching into another space causes a problem in that if the CV retreat the planes may have no place to land.

In general I have been sending surface units with the strike force, and this tends to deter the allies from trying it, although it means my surface units are tied up.

This tends to actually encourage the japanes to go for Midway, Pearl, aleutians, chasing the US out of the pac...not a bad stategy actually.

The question mark in my mind at this point, is do I want to place my CV adjacent to pearl so that their air units can intervene at pearl.

Is this allowed, I do not see anything forbidding it.

I have not done it.  In my recent games theAllies have been desperate for planes, and I actually considered it better to risk the ships than fight an air combat at 4 to 2.

[Mark]

You could do this - and I think players have done it in other games - usually losing precious American fighters in the process.

[smckenzie]

OK.  Thanks.