Alfred
Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred
Well Bullwinkle58,
Yes and no.
Miller doesn't have an AAR so we don't know what exactly he finds objectionable, but let me have a stab at what that might be.
Miller is probably seeing a DD which is continuously moving from point A to point B back to A then again to B back to A etc. He is probably of the view that the only reason why the DD is there is only to draw an over the top KB strike on a picket ship which in turn leaves the KB open to a counter strike from Allied carriers. The objectionable part would be that:
(a) this is a potential suicide mission - as a former USN dolphin, do you really think that the United States just sends its assets on suicide missions, immune to the impact of public opinion when the lives of real men (and nowadays real women) are sacificed in impossible situations just to get intel?
(b) this is not akin to sending a fleet, no matter how small or large or how mismatched, into Tokyo Bay. If you sail into Tokyo Bay, even with zero intel of what is there, you can safely assume that (i) there is some enemy ship there which could be attacked, or (ii) there is some fixed installation there which could be attacked, or (iii) you might want to distract the enemy from looking elsewhere where the real Allied thrust is occuring. These three considerations (I bet there are others too) might just justify exposing a volunteer crew exposing itself to a mission against the odds, but to order a non volunteer crew to merely sail about with no purpose other than to attract an air strike for intel purposes in lieu of using electronic means to gather intel, might be construed as being gamey in the sence that no American politician would accept the political flak. We do remember the outcry over the Pueblo and that occurred in international waters in "peacetime".
Alfred
Overcome by events, more has been posted since we both responded. However . . .
"Suicide mission" is well-used in TV and movies, but is pretty rare in RL. Canoerebel has sent that lone DD all the way aorund Borneo twice now (I think) and it's very much alive. High-risk missions come with the territory in wartime. Take a look, for example, at USS Barb's exploits in VERY shallow water off the coast of China. (Who knew a fleet boat could do 21+ knots when it really, absolutely, positively, has to get there before morning?)
From Wikipedia:
"The last two war patrols conducted by Barb deserve mention. Under Commander Eugene B. Fluckey, her 11th patrol lasted from 19 December 1944-15 February 1945, in the Formosa Straits and East China Sea off the east coast of China, from Shanghai to Kam Kit. During this patrol, Barb sank four Japanese merchant ships and numerous enemy small craft. On 22–23 January Barb penetrated Namkwan Harbor on the China coast and wrought havoc upon a convoy of some 30 enemy ships at anchor. Riding dangerously in shallow waters, Barb launched her torpedoes into the enemy group and then retired at high speed on the surface in a full hour’s run through uncharted, heavily mined, and rock-obstructed waters. In recognition of this outstanding patrol, Commander Fluckey was awarded the Medal of Honor and Barb received the Presidential Unit Citation."
(FWIW, Admiral Fluckey spoke at the commissioning of my boat in 1964.)
Moreover, in general game (and real war) terms, it's 1944 here. The USA has striven mightily to build overwhelming forces and technological leads in order to secure operational and tactical options needed to finish the war. Part of this lead is sheer numbers of assets. By 1944, if he is wiling to take the irsks, Canoerebel is within his "rights" to flood the convoy routes headed for the HI with anything that will shoot. He just can, if he accepts the risk of retaliation. This isn't Marquis of Queensberry boxing. If you can sink the other guy's ships, you do. In the long run that saves lives. I think CR shold be runing dozens of small STF hunting parties into the western and northern convoy routes; he has DDs and DEs to burn. But one is as acceptable as twenty. It's his choice, not his opponent's.
It's also "gamey" for a Japanese player who ran amuck in 1942 to whine about the Allies having more toys to play with in the end game.
Raising the Japanese player's pucker factor, forcing him to heavily escort his convoys and rob his combat TFs of small boys, is perfectly good tactical decision-making. Miller seems to be demanding that he be allowed to run fat, dumb, and happy tanker gaggles home so that his combat TFs going toe-to-toe in the DEI have his remaining escorts available. But a big part of successful warfighting is doing that which your opponent doesn't want you to do. You don't lean into the punch. Especially when you're overflowing with ships, and he isn't. You exert implacable pressure where he can least afford it. War isn't a fair fight when it's waged well.
As for forcing a KB response, OK, maybe. But intel is often gained at cost. Planes are shot down just after radioing coordinates. Subs are DFed and prosecuted after sending locations to the wolfpack commander. If Miller wants EMCON, OPCON, and ANYCON, he can stand down his air groups and accept being blind. Or, he can sink the scout (if he can; so far he can't) and deal with having to re-position the KB afterward. It's his choice(s).
Bottom line though, it's CR's call how he uses his assets to win. It's not Miller's to decree that a, say, 4-ship STF is "valid" or "non-gamey", but a 1-ship STF isn't. Or even twenty 1-ship TF's. If he doesn't like it, he can detail twenty 1-ship TFs of his own to hunt down the intruders, at the cost of leaving the KB short. It's a beyotch being short of ships sometimes. I hope he enjoyed 1942.
Bullwinkle58,
I find nothing in your quoted post to be ojectionable. In fact I agree, particuarly your observation re suicide mission in RL (which was the essential point I was trying to make in my earlier post).
What I am trying to do is to walk in Miller's shoes and try to postulate publicly what he might post, or were he to have an AAR or to open a specific thread, to explain why he emailed to his opponent his concern.
To recapitulate, it would be "gamey" if the intent is to sail a single DD around on a suicide mission (possible in this electronic universe, not so easy IRL) with the intention to exploit the game engine to give one side an advantage which is not similarly available (or can't be countered) by the other. If the intent is to sail a single DD to draw a full KB strike (surely far in excess of what would be launched IRL to sink a single DD - after all the game engine does not give the player the option to tailor the size of his strike to take into account the value of the target) which would severely deplete the available KB strikes or tire his fighters on an unnecessary escort mission against a DD which is beyond friendly LRCAP range, and as a result the KB is vulnerable to a strike from follow on Allied carriers, that would be "gamey" as it game engine exploitation.
Please understand that I am not arguing that creative play is ipso facto "gamey". Nor should players be shielded from the consequences of their own poor play/decisions by simply claiming they are the victims of "gaminess".
Alfred
|
Printable Version
RE: Yikes! - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread