I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being 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 >> I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being g... - 12/16/2016 7:50:06 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Lots of players seem to comment that TFs of small auxiliaries in ports with air cover constitute "gamey" CAP traps.

However, I see small TFs of auxiliaries at my ports as performing essential port maintenance and protection.

Just about every last operation port I control gets dedicated TFs of ASW and Coastal Minesweepers set with one hex patrol patterns in the port hex with 0 reaction range to keep them in the hex.
Each port also gets at least one AG, disbanded in the port, to service the auxiliaries.

I see this as essential port maintenance, not an attempt to lure my opponents air units.

Port ASW keeps enemy subs honest. Port MSW keeps the port clear of sub laid mines.
Small ports may get one ship TFs while larger ports get 2-3 ship TFs.

This is what these vessels are for.

If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps?

_____________________________

Hans

Post #: 1

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 7:54:04 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps?

Not by me. As you say, that is the intended use of these (military) ships. Have at it.

If/when it bothered me, I would take it upon myself to visit the port with a 2-3 DD SCTF. But that's beside the point.

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 8:29:36 PM

pws1225

Posts: 1166
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 3

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 9:00:55 PM

Will_L_OLD

Posts: 128
Joined: 5/10/2006
From: NYC-Queens
Status: offline

I do the same thing with those units.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 4

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 9:13:06 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

+1

Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

_____________________________

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 pws1225)

Post #: 5

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 9:15:45 PM

InfiniteMonkey

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

I would not consider it gamey. Using dozens of TF's to accomplish 1 task in 1 hex far below TF ship limits due to game mechanics advantages is gamey. Putting ASW and minesweeper TF's is good practice, IMO.

(in reply to Will_L_OLD)

Post #: 6

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 9:22:36 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Not gamey, how else are you supposed to do it?

_____________________________

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 7

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 9:40:45 PM

InfiniteMonkey

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

+1

Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

I dont see that as gamey either, and you gave your own example for why.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 8

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 10:15:54 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Lots of players seem to comment that TFs of small auxiliaries in ports with air cover constitute "gamey" CAP traps.

However, I see small TFs of auxiliaries at my ports as performing essential port maintenance and protection.

Just about every last operation port I control gets dedicated TFs of ASW and Coastal Minesweepers set with one hex patrol patterns in the port hex with 0 reaction range to keep them in the hex.
Each port also gets at least one AG, disbanded in the port, to service the auxiliaries.

I see this as essential port maintenance, not an attempt to lure my opponents air units.

Port ASW keeps enemy subs honest. Port MSW keeps the port clear of sub laid mines.
Small ports may get one ship TFs while larger ports get 2-3 ship TFs.

This is what these vessels are for.

If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps?

Naval strikes have to take into consideration the targeting in game. CAP traps around bases/ports are a part of the game, not gamey. They were also part of the war.

AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 9

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 10:34:01 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Good to go!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 10

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 10:56:01 PM

SheperdN7

Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline

Fair play on your part Hans. The ONLY thing I consider gamey in AE is the mass spamming of 1 ship TF xAK and xAKL picket ships all over the place when a great CV clash is about to begin but even then, there's a counter to it. I'm one of the few players on here I think that don't see a TRUE need for any house rules.

_____________________________

Current Games:

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

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 11

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/16/2016 11:45:48 PM

Major Shane

Posts: 195
Joined: 7/19/2007
Status: offline

Not gamey. It's historical and fair play.

(in reply to SheperdN7)

Post #: 12

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 1:04:47 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

CAP traps are part of the game. I don't think I know a player who does not make use of them and have heard of no HR banning them.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Major Shane)

Post #: 13

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 1:23:40 AM

InfiniteMonkey

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF.

I've never read that... where is that documented?

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 14

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 1:58:37 AM

Big B

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

If the port in question is far enough forward to be under the threat of enemy air attack - why on earth would anyone NOT set CAP to protect them?
IRL failure to do so would get you court-martialed

No - Not Gamey

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 15

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 11:51:39 AM

szmike

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF.

I've never read that... where is that documented?

iirc in various dev posts around here

From my experience AM ships do work and certainly are used before AMc. Or maybe some other factors are involved (experience, commander ratings?)

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 16

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 3:00:50 PM

Zigurat666

Posts: 374
Joined: 9/26/2008
Status: offline

I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 17

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 3:24:40 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zigurat666

I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP

If it is an important airbase I will have a decent CAP flying.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Zigurat666)

Post #: 18

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 3:49:55 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zigurat666

I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP

The problem is that there would be no agreement about the correct number since there are so many variables involved. What about 200 aircraft? Fifty? Nobody is going to agree and there will just be some number where an argument occurs. HRs tend to ruin friendships so as few as possible is the ideal.

CAP traps are a part of the game. No real way to avoid them or to regulate them that I can see. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Zigurat666)

Post #: 19

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 9:48:56 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

+1

Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

I dont see that as gamey either, and you gave your own example for why.

+1 for the local ASW and MSW and protective local CAP. However, I respectfully disagree about using xAKL as pickets. Although converted from former civilian ships, the picket boats were armed IJN auxiliaries, commanded and manned by military personnel. Thus in game terms they are no longer xAKL types but PB / PC types. The Japanese player can convert many xAKL classes to such patrol craft and should refrain from using xAKLs. The Allied player is more limited in this regard, but has more air search assets and less need for pickets. Using "clouds" of single-(x)AK(L)-TFs as early-warning devices and "buffers" around combat TFs is IMO pretty gamey. It is the duty of warships to protect civilian shipping, not the other way round.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 20

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/17/2016 10:26:32 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

+1

Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

I dont see that as gamey either, and you gave your own example for why.

+1 for the local ASW and MSW and protective local CAP. However, I respectfully disagree about using xAKL as pickets. Although converted from former civilian ships, the picket boats were armed IJN auxiliaries, commanded and manned by military personnel. Thus in game terms they are no longer xAKL types but PB / PC types. The Japanese player can convert many xAKL classes to such patrol craft and should refrain from using xAKLs. The Allied player is more limited in this regard, but has more air search assets and less need for pickets. Using "clouds" of single-(x)AK(L)-TFs as early-warning devices and "buffers" around combat TFs is IMO pretty gamey. It is the duty of warships to protect civilian shipping, not the other way round.

Exactly my point LST - thank you for expanding it.

_____________________________

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 LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 21

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/18/2016 1:37:03 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

Even here the IJ player has no need to use xAKL's for such duty. These 'picket' vessels that you describe are actually provided to the Japanese player in the form of 99 ton SC's. Commonly referred to as 'tuna boats'. So if he/she wants 'pickets' they should use these 'military' vessels.

_____________________________

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 BBfanboy)

Post #: 22

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/18/2016 1:42:48 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF.

I've never read that... where is that documented?

I can attest to this personally. In one of my games a barge TF hit a mine at a minor base to which it was shuttling supplies. One barge down.

After which I dispatched an AMc to said port. Disbanded and the minefield disappeared shortly thereafter. Also I've read it, but could not tell you where at this time.

_____________________________

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 23

RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of bei... - 12/18/2016 1:44:12 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

Oh, my fifth star. Finally.

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 24

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey...

Page: [1]