Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What do you consider 'gamey'?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> What do you consider 'gamey'? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/13/2016 4:53:21 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline 		I am just curious as to forum opinion on this.

I like a pretty wide open game without House Rules.
Nonetheless, I have to acknowledge that there are some thing the game allows you to do - which seem pretty 'gamey'

My own list is pretty short;
Namely, my beef is creating low value TF's (such as single-ship AK TF's) to put around high value TF's - to divert enemy air strikes and absorb bombs... I can't think of a single real-life example of the battle Fleets doing this (they tried to protect them - not troll with them).
Having said that, I will point out this has never happened to me by any opponent, but I am just trying to think of situations which (to me) seem to be just 'gaming the game engine'.

I can't really think of anything else I would condemn off hand, and I wouldn't want to restrict an opponent from doing what he/she can...

Does anyone else have really strong opinions on this?


B




_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard
Post #: 1
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/13/2016 5:26:25 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Might not have happened in RL but if a bunch of CVs were in a port for damage repair and the enemy's CVs were spotted heading that way, I think it is entirely likely that low value ships would have been used to soak off some bombs. Naval ships like AVPs, not civilian xAKLs .

Part of the reason for this is that the game gives the player very limited control over naval strikes, so covering your CVs in port with LBA is not guarantee they can fight off an enemy CV force. IRL the aircraft would be sent regardless of weather.

And of course, both sides can do it, whatever game action you name.

Having said all that, restricting sacrifice TFs is a house rule I would go along with.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 2
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/13/2016 9:28:54 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Does anyone else have really strong opinions on this?


The forum loves to argue this one to death every couple of months.

The simple response is that "gamey" is a spectrum.

On one end, you have the die-hard realists, who'll do their best to recreate history with a long list of house rules to ensure that nothing remotely ahistorical can ever happen.

On the other, you've the crazy-minded folk who'll use the game mechanics to do things that would have never been historically possible.

I fall in the latter category, and that's fine. Some people don't, and that's also fine. The best advice is to find someone who has views that land somewhere close to your own on the spectrum and come to an understanding.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 3
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 12:00:31 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Waterfowl and goat.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 1:51:02 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Waterfowl and goat.

I hate to encourage bad jokes, but I seriously laughed out loud when I read this.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 5
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 11:28:48 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Actually - US used similar tactic IRL - as a counter of Kamikaze Attacks.
They had set up a number of floating "Radar warning posts" - called pickets - with lower value ships (DDs, DEs, PFs, LCI(G), LCT(G), ...) outside the main fleet - just for the purpose of Early radar warning, directing CAP, and soaking up attacks.

One considerable difference vs the "gamey" tactic of using xAKLs or other bunch of ships - They were all Military vessels, not Civilian. And they were not single ship TFs, but picket station contained several ships - example 2-3DDs, 2-3 LCI(G) on each station.

_____________________________


(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 6
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 2:38:20 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline 		Having read a dozen or so AARs and a number of threads - I would have to agree its a spectrum.

I do not think you can accurately define it. There are singleton examples for each and every circumstance.

The singleton low value xAK in front of a Naval Task Force is often cited as an example. BUT what if it was a emergency supply "run the gauntlet" ??

Does that mean the British efforts to resupply Malta were "gamey" ??? Should we call out Sir Winston ?

I recall reading one AAR where the player routed a small US Destroyer convoy (2 or 3 destroyers) to circumnavigate Borneo - scouting and merchant hunting; the Japanese player accused him of gamey tactics because the KB was in the area (damaged?) and reacted exposing their location and damage status... the argument being that such circumnavigation scouting amounts to a suicide mission and would not have happened in real life.

I disagreed with this as 3 Fletcher's very well could have undertaken such a mission.

Its all about calculated risk taking.

-

The answer of course: "it depends" ... as it so often does in this game due to the amount of critical details available.

Hopefully any dispute between players is resolved in a level and mature fashion; else don't play them again.



_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 7
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 4:51:42 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		I find stratosphere-teleporting-to-wavetop torpedo attacks annoying, but they're not the end of the world. And conceivable, a database editing project could "fix" that (I highly doubt a Betty could climb to 28K feet with a 2-ton torpedo and full fuel load, for example. Or a Frances to 33K.).

Besides this, when one thinks in terms of VPs gained and lost.... I can't think of a single thing that's "gamey." Nearly every attempt you make to exploit something can in turn be exploited by your opponent. It's just a matter of adjusting your tactics. Typically, I find cries of gameyness to be coming from someone who doesn't want to adjust their tactics to a challenge that their opponent has presented them.

It's one thing if you and your opponent set out to simulate the actual war instead of playing the game with its host of abstractions and possibilities. But you set out to play WITP:AE and not replay the war in the Pacific with relatively minor what-ifs (and for most games there isn't a difference here), then be a good little player and adjust your tactics.

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 8
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 9:13:42 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline 		I wholeheartedly agree.

And for the record, my original thought was limited to trolling with empty AK's...out in front of your combat task forces.

Pickets are entirely different, as is low value bait TF's, etc.

But as you pointed out below...two can always play that way.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
{snip}....., then be a good little player and adjust your tactics.



_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 9
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 9:33:31 PM   
DD696

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline 		My father was on a destroyer picket ship (USS English) off Okinawa back in '45.

I seriously doubt that he thought that he was being "gamey".

A "target", yes.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 10
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 9:36:56 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		IJN submarines sitting for turn after turn IN an Allied port while half a dozen aircraft are flying ASW missions overhead for turn after turn is permitted only by the game system which rates the whole IJN as experienced in every facet of naval warfare because they conducted a few shore bombardments and landed a few troops in various ports "under the guns" of a (charitably) 4th rate world power engaged in its own civil war.

The game and only the game permits the Japanese Player to break open a pre-existing 3 year stalemate in China by declaring war on the Western Powers. The Japanese had a horse-drawn supply system that essentially kept them in a facsimile of control within a day's foot march (20 miles if one gets generous) of a railroad (if they garrisoned all the bridges and didn't deploy their railroad repair units too far apart). Meanwhile in the game IJ Armor regiments race hither thither and yon overrunning Chinese troops whenever encountered apparently filling up their gas tanks at the local Circle K gas station.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 11
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/14/2016 11:00:05 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

My father was on a destroyer picket ship (USS English) off Okinawa back in '45.

I seriously doubt that he thought that he was being "gamey".

A "target", yes.



..Nor would I suggest such
..on the other hand, maybe the Japanese would have complained that was being 'gamey' had the concept been around at that time - followed by: Too bad - so sad?



_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to DD696)
Post #: 12
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/15/2016 5:38:38 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

IJN submarines sitting for turn after turn IN an Allied port while half a dozen aircraft are flying ASW missions overhead for turn after turn is permitted only by the game system which rates the whole IJN as experienced in every facet of naval warfare because they conducted a few shore bombardments and landed a few troops in various ports "under the guns" of a (charitably) 4th rate world power engaged in its own civil war.



Ah, hello again, old friend.


Please note that being in the same hex (which is a 46-mile radius polygon) does not mean the sub is IN the port. It's only one hex, yes, but there's still a lot of water there.

Also, the IJN sure kicked the snot out of the USN several times when there was "global" force parity (on paper) between the nations (see Guadalcanal, campaign for). Their superior experience levels are cited by every serious source as a major factor in these battles.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 13
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/15/2016 7:11:12 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline 		The very existence of the game is "gamey". But , consider this. You , as the commander , are "grand poobah" of your side. On the allies , FDR, Churchill, Stalin , Chang-Kai-shek , and all of their Admiral and general as one. You can do anything you want , and all are in perfect lockstep. Yes ,m you have to occasionally pay points , but seriously? And the IJN and IJA are in perfect harmony? Yeah , right. Talk about gamey! In seriousness , this is not a simulation. A lot of real world assets are restricted , or limited. Other simply can't be simulated. As far as I'm concerned , the only thing that I consider truly gamey is some design flaw in the game that is deliberately used to win. And for me to accept such a "flaw" , you'd better have at least one developer to say on forum "yeah , this is a problem".

Now as far as "unrealistic play", that's for something for opponents to discuss. Before, during and after. If you see something that bothers you, say something to your opponent.

To me , character is much more important than house rules. My own rule is "if it seems wrong , or even excessively weird, don't do it". And before you try something in the game , justify it in your own mine as honestly fair. If you can't honestly do that , then don't play that way.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 14
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/15/2016 10:14:18 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline 		Anything that takes advantage of a 'flaw' or 'hole' in the code. Not that I believe that the game is really flawed, but as I've said before, the code can't take every little instance into account.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 15
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/17/2016 12:34:45 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Anything that takes advantage of a 'flaw' or 'hole' in the code. Not that I believe that the game is really flawed, but as I've said before, the code can't take every little instance into account.



You'd be surprised at just how durable it is if you seriously press it.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 16
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/18/2016 11:08:02 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		IMO "gamey" in the narrow sense means taking advantage of flaws in the game engine at "operational level" which allow to do things in the game that simply could not be done IRL. Example would be putting anything else than Glens (or Seirans for the I-400 class) on float-plane-carrying-submarines. Not possible IRL due to physical restrictions (size of hangar and planes). Also, adding reserve planes to the submarine air group was not an option IRL, but is possible in the game. Another example would be running all off-map convoys at full speed all the time - made possible in the game by the fact that ships in off-map convoys don't use fuel. IRL fuel consumption is an issue and therefore convoys used cruise speed most of the time.

In a sense the ability for Japan players to conquer China (albeit not easily and without guarantee of success) is gamey on a "strategic level" - and so are the 1945 levels of supply and fuel production available to the Allies from Day 1 which allow earlier-than-IRL Allied counter-offensives - but IMO these issues go beyond being gamey - you simply cannot model everything in a game.

Then there is "gamey" in a wider sense - i.e. stuff that "technically" could have been done IRL, but no sane commander would have ordered. IMO this category includes the deliberate use of "low value" civilian merchant shipping as bait or as shields in order to deflect and soak-up enemy attacks, and the use of civilian ships as "pickets". Usually the job of the military is to protect and defend civilians - not the other way round. Hard to imagine that a "Western" commander would consider the deliberate sacrifice of civilians (at least of his own side) as a valid military tactic (it might be different for China, Russia, Japan and Germany, where the leaders valued lives much less - but even they would not surround a task force with a "deflector shield" made of civilian ships, since these were not "low value" IRL). However, the use of civilian shipping for a supply run with a carrier TF covering it is of course not gamey at all, nor is the use of combatant ships as pickets.
The same issue with "sacrificial tactics" exists for military forces, like "submarine invasions" in the rear areas with splinters of LCUs being sacrificed for no genuine military purpose but just to annoy the enemy, or ground attacks with the only goal to kill devices and squads considered unnecessary "supply eaters" or stacking limit ballast. Difficult to imagine such orders IRL.

Now, as it has been pointed out here and on other threads, there is a spectrum and all depends on the type of game you want. Finding an opponent with the same mindset is important - in that case, even "historic" players do not necessarily need a long list of house rules - just the application of self-restraint.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 17
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/18/2016 12:37:48 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Now, as it has been pointed out here and on other threads, there is a spectrum and all depends on the type of game you want. Finding an opponent with the same mindset is important - in that case, even "historic" players do not necessarily need a long list of house rules - just the application of self-restraint.


Nice line.

I would add "historic players" should/could/would be aware of "roleplay" and consequence as opposed to pure self restraint.
(In fairness I speak as someone who fits that mold more closely).

You mention the Strategic conquest of China which is an excellent example (USA supply as well)

Possible = Yes. Risk = Yes. What if = Yes

Historic = No. For very good reasons.

The Imperial War Cabinet 1939 - 1945 was divided between Army and Naval factions with a small smattering of Civilian (and latter Peace) advocates. The Navy and Army factions were 'famously' mistrustful and antagonistic to one another. They hid important governmental secrets from one another i.e. losses at Midway. They hid weapons designs from one another often and even in the same factory. They competed for resources and the attention of the Emperor; and the household of the Emperor was very careful to balance one faction against another throughout the 1930s and 1940s.

The "all out direction" to fully subdue China (an Army priority) was not really strategically possible because the Navy would have never agreed and the Emperor would have been 'unlikely' to completely support one faction over another.

Further even within the Army faction there was 'caution' about the complete and utter destruction of Communist Chinese factions. The Army considered the Soviet Union to be the primary hemispheric threat base upon the Battle of Kahlkhin Gohol back in 1938 (?)

Self restraint or "roleplay" the realities would of course factor this in.

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 18
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/27/2016 4:06:03 AM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline 		China was essentially the Pacific War's version of the Eastern Front IMHO. Japan went into China with a clear "kick down the door..." policy. Unfortunately for the Empire and the Third Reich, the "whole rotten structure" never came crashing down for either of them. In EF's case, the soviets amassed the most powerful military juggernaut the world had ever seen right after Kursk, and then the end was certain for Hitler and the other lunatics. In China's case, it was just going to be a stalemate for the rest of time until one had a Stalingrad type of loss and even if that loss happened to China they simply would look over their shoulder and 2X the losses would just take their place.

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 19
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/30/2016 4:05:42 PM   
CaptHaggard

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 3/8/2016
From: Sonoma, CA
Status: offline 		Thus far, the only thing that bugs me to the point of commentary is the strict adherence to withdrawal, particularly of naval units.

If—for some unavoidable reason—a particular ship cannot be withdrawn (possibly it's limping somewhere badly damaged, etc.)—why not be given an option of withdrawing a comparable vessel, be dinged a few PP, and call it square? Why the Draconian punishment of endless penalties for a specific ship that, as of now, can't do London/Washington any good in the Atlantic anyway?

Too, in some ways, looking forward to withdrawal schedules and planning around those is gamey as well.


(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 20
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 11/30/2016 4:51:17 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline
quote:

why not be given an option of withdrawing a comparable vessel


This would be more logical, but I assume it would be far more complex to code. It is true that there is an inevitable amount of planning ops around the withdrawal dates. Particularly for certain ground units, use them or lose them anyway. I don't see a good way around this issue.

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 21
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/1/2016 4:04:37 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

quote:

why not be given an option of withdrawing a comparable vessel


This would be more logical, but I assume it would be far more complex to code. It is true that there is an inevitable amount of planning ops around the withdrawal dates. Particularly for certain ground units, use them or lose them anyway. I don't see a good way around this issue.

There is an easy way around it - set "No Unit Withdrawals".

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to jwolf)
Post #: 22
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/2/2016 12:22:10 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

Thus far, the only thing that bugs me to the point of commentary is the strict adherence to withdrawal, particularly of naval units.

If—for some unavoidable reason—a particular ship cannot be withdrawn (possibly it's limping somewhere badly damaged, etc.)—why not be given an option of withdrawing a comparable vessel, be dinged a few PP, and call it square? Why the Draconian punishment of endless penalties for a specific ship that, as of now, can't do London/Washington any good in the Atlantic anyway?

Too, in some ways, looking forward to withdrawal schedules and planning around those is gamey as well.




The alternatives are worse and much more difficult to accommodate with the code.

Alfred

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 23
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/2/2016 4:21:00 AM   
rms1pa

 

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline 		sad to say i had an R class heavely damaged sent it to bombard singapore. vertical withdrawl.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 24
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/2/2016 12:49:47 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline
quote:

vertical withdrawal


I've seen the tactic described before, but not by that euphemism. Nice phrase.

(in reply to rms1pa)
Post #: 25
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/3/2016 1:59:58 AM   
zeezeeazeezee

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/7/2015
Status: offline 		I find I can split an Allied air combat task force in two and have each half refuel the other, but I have only upgraded to 23 not 24.

(in reply to jwolf)
Post #: 26
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/3/2016 10:41:35 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Historically, the squadrons assigned in the Philippines lost most of their ground crews and pilots as the Japanese tide swept over both the Dutch East Indies and Philippines. The US thus disbanded those destroyed squadrons along with the provisional squadrons that had been created to try to reinforce them. In the game all of those squadrons are thus disbanded/withdrawn around the middle of March 1942: that would be 3 squadrons of A-24s and 4 squadrons of P-40Es. IRL they were all pretty much destroyed in combat but the hard and fast withdrawal of the 100 odd fighters and 40 odd bombers seems a bit gamey. If they had made a difference in the campaign it seems unlikely that the USAAF would have disbanded the squadrons which had made the difference in the midst of the campaign. It seems pretty much a game mechanism to allow the Japanese to achieve their historical conquest of the DEI.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 27
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/3/2016 11:07:06 PM   
CaptHaggard

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 3/8/2016
From: Sonoma, CA
Status: offline 		Re withdrawals, I had not grokked the difficulties of coding an alternative. It is, after all, a minor quibble.

Thank you for your responses, gentlemen.

Hag

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 28
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/6/2016 8:34:18 AM   
glyphoglossus

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 9/26/2016
Status: offline 		Hmm. I'm just a new player here, so have yet to absorb the ethics of the community, so take the following for what that's worth.

I would consider "gamey" something that exploits game mechanics in a way that simply beyond the realm of physics in real life. But not one that uses tactics, strategies, approaches, etc. that, while may not have been tried IRL, would not be physically impossible if a person with sufficient clout decided it should be done.

So, by that criterion, the specific example that you list is not gamey, because it is within the possibility of this universe. Sure, a civilian ship out as bait to absorb hits would be politically/humanitarianly/socially difficult to accept in the real world in WW2, especially on the USN side, but it would not be unthinkable. And, for e.g., in the IJ forces, maybe even more politically realistic/possible then, e.g., free transfer of air units from an IJA to IJN HQ, or even IJA air support IJN missions and vice versa which everyone accepts without question?

Similar tactics of deception --- a couple of barge TF's, used to distract air raids while the actual unloading is going on nearby.

Another one: a bunch of barges or empty ships used as bait to bring in the air strikes to be attacked, so that the enemy carriers give away their position?

Or maybe as part of trap to chew up the enemy bombers?

None of this seems gamey to me. An appalling waste of relatively big capital resources (ships/barges), but that is down to the judgement of the player whether the payoff is worth it or not.

I am reminded of Operation Pointblank, where bombers where sent out again and again and again, often deliberately avoiding safer routes or routed near or over enemy airfields, just so the Luftwaffe could be drawn up to fight and attrited away. True, these were military resources rather than civilian ones, and a bomber is cheaper than an AK, but the principle is the same.

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 29
RE: What do you consider 'gamey'? - 12/6/2016 8:33:02 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Aircraft will not normally attack barges if there are other targets about. In fact it is hard to get them to attack barges unless they are the only target and you set fighters or attack bombers at 100' to strafe.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to glyphoglossus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> What do you consider 'gamey'? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.484