rader
Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
|
Further exchange (it's just easier to cut&paste than rewrite out my thoughts in detail):
Me:
And again, I'm really not mad at you and I don't think you thought you were abusing the rules too badly today. It's just that it is a particular weakness in the rules that you can actually just totally nullify any ability I have to defend my bases by consistenly doing these types of "feints" every turn -- indeed sitting directly in my bases with tons of crappy ships until you want to actually invade. And there aint a damn thing I can do about it. I can't issue orders to my commanders to be more cautious, or really do anything differently at all - apart from telling them to ignore any invasion and let the allies land for free.
//////////////////
Greyjoy:
i perfectly understand what you mean. But at the same time i don't think i've "abused" the code that much this time...i sent there a quite respectable force (nearly 50 DD/APDs with some 40 more transports of different natures).
And, for what it worth, you know i won't keep useless ships into your bases just like that...i've never done that. This was a "serious" operational feint...it was planned to lure the japs into a losing battle.
But i get the fact that, if not HRed, this could let me keep constant abusive cap traps.
The idea that a CAP trap must have at least some CV/CVEs isn't a bad one imho...at least if you wanna do that you need to risk something... but we need to decide how many. 180 a/c (so to say 2 CV or 6 CVEs) sounds reasonable?
///////////////////////////////
Me:
I agree that doing it once is probably ok, which is why I'm not really mad and don't think you actually did anything wrong. What worries me is that you visibly exposed what we both knew all along - that this kind of thing can VERY much be abused. I think you can argue that my commmanders got a little trigger happy and caught off-guard by the feint. But they would learn their lesson and receive orders such that next time they would wait until ships were actually landing ashore or enemy carrier TFs were lauching strikes before sending out a strike into heavy CAP. The problem is that no such "learning" has occured on the part of my commanders, and I, even though I am (and was before) alerted to this possibility, can do nothing to stop it. My commanders will continue to send bombers into your CAP at my bases to get torn to pieces and I can't do anything about it. The fact that this is a tactic that can be repeated and has no counter makes this rife for potential abuse.
I'm not so much complaining that you abused the rules here (I'm not even saying you did), as I am pointing out that what you did do demonstrates exactly how the rules can be abused to maximum effect. I think doing it once is maybe ok as a feint, but doing it over and over is definitely abusing the code. That's all I'm saying really. Think about this: how would you feel if I sent a few AKLs into an unguarded allied port with heavy LRCAP to suck in your naval strike bombers. That's effectively what you've done, with a little more flavour. If you keep your worthless ships (including DDs, which we both know are very hard to hit from the air and almost imune from torpedoes, and LCT/LCI/PTs, which are essentially "free") at my bases, my bombers will go out turn after turn and die trying to kill them. I don't mind CAP at your own bases - obviously there is nothing we can do about that. But constantly putting up CAP at my bases or even in an offensive posture over the ocean over worthless ships is way too gamey for me.
I think the 2 CV/6CVE rule is a pretty decent requirement (with no restriction over your own bases). That is probably a credible enough threat that the commanders would choose to launch.
//////////////////////
Greyjoy:
I thought a lot about it. I think that, if used regularly with empty little ships this would surely be a game-abuse. And this wasn't the case.
However I completely agree with you that it may become a problem if used regularly and on a abusing intent.
So if it's ok for you i'd say we have a new HR:
"naval CAP trap will have to use as bait a TF composed at least of platforms with 180 a/c (so 2 Cvs or 5 CVEs)"
But please don't think i was planning to use this tactic on a regular basis...it was an full operation, litterarly speaking, not just a "move".
I'd like to be able to express myself in a better way in english...i feel i'm not saying "enough" to support my thesis here and i don't want to appear to your eyes as someone who's trying to win by cheating....really...i'm not playing to "win"...i'm playing to have fun...and i mean fun for both of us.
Hope you understand my pov
////////////
Me:
I totally understand your POV, and I do believe that you weren't intending to do this on a regular basis. I just wanted to warn you that I though while it maybe could be justified once, it would be a very powerful tactic in the game to do on a regular basis (like every turn), and a very ahsitorical one IMHO with no counter.
Some people asked me about the barge TFs so I wanted to get your opinion on that as well. My view is that you are doing much the same thing with LCI and PT boats, I'm keeping them to a single TF or two, and they in some way replace the suicide motor boats the japs got. But we can discuss if you think this is a problem. And as always, please let me know if anything else is bothering you like this kind of thing.
I trust you and very much enjoy playing with you. I consider the matter closed provided you are happy with the outcome as well :)
< Message edited by rader -- 1/7/2012 12:26:00 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 
Actually I like the European style...
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