Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Gamey or not?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Gamey or not? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 3:48:58 PM   
Jaypea

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
Status: offline 		Full campaign versus Japanese AI ->

I have been facing a large japanese Carrier fleet near my base at kendari (March/April 1942). This force would show up and scare all my ships away (killing a few) for several days then dissappear. Then returning a week or two later. So I moved two Fighter groups of P40E (144 planes) and my five carriers to kendari. I soon as I spotted the SEVEN japanese carriers approaching, i got nervous about losing my fleet, so I offloaded all my airplanes to Macassar and moved the P40E;s there. The Japanese fleet came after my retreating carriers and I hade my self my own MIDWAY. 250 Fighters versus 65 zeroes on CAP. My fighters got massacred but almost all of my divebombers and TBD's got through. So I ended up sinking (4) Japanese carriers while my own carriers were safely headed to Darwin. After 2-3 turns the Japanese fleet retreated badly hurt. I then sent my carriers back and reboarded my planes.

Gamey? I was thinking it was but then I remembered that the Japanese historically moved air groups off there ships to reinforce land based air. Why shouldn't the Allies? Has anyone tried this versus a human player? would it work?

Opinions please

JP
Post #: 1
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 4:00:30 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Yep thats gamey

Had you not used your CV's to hook them, it would be fine, but thats just a tad too much bait & switch for me

(in reply to Jaypea)
Post #: 2
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 4:15:55 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline 		Absolutely gamey. This is the kind of "out of the box" play that will break the AI. If you want a balanced game, playing the AI, you have to really try and limite yourself to standard tactics.

(in reply to Jaypea)
Post #: 3
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 4:46:25 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Against the AI..it is a sandbag, but if the action mimics something that could be done in the real world, despite being a bit whacky, it is fair in PBEM.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 4
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 4:50:19 PM   
mavraam


Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Has anyone tried this versus a human player? would it work?


Mabye once!

Seriously though, I would say vs AI: gamey, vs human: fair game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jaypea)
Post #: 5
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 5:33:14 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I would say that it was Gamey in this instance, but if you had planned to move your carrier air to a Land base in that area, and it just so happened that after you transferred them the JP carriers showed up, I would not call it gamey. In UV playing as allies I often took my main fleet carriers and dropped off their air wings at a forward base. I didn't have enough CV power to actually do anything with them, so I transferred the planes and either sent them to Noumea for repairs or back to Pearl for upgrades.

So, I don't know if it was gamey, just the intention seems gamey.

UB

(in reply to mavraam)
Post #: 6
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 5:57:17 PM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		It screws the AIs head up, but, it would be something that might work in real life....not that anyone would have done it....

Gamey against the AI because the AI doesn'tthink outside the box, as has been already said

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to mavraam)
Post #: 7
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 6:41:27 PM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		Agree, gamey against AI. Fair ruse de guerre in PBEM

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 8
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:00:14 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Not gamey in the slightest. All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock. What was gamey was the fact that there were 7 Japanese CVs operating in close proximity, and that you could hit a 65 plane Japanese cap with 100+ P40s and F4Fs and get the snot shot out of your fighters. The results should have been much more one-sided in favor of the Allies.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to kaleun)
Post #: 9
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:17:13 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock


You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.

< Message edited by Mr.Frag -- 7/21/2004 12:17:35 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 10
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:19:29 PM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock


You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.


It's the US that's doing it... thus not gamey!

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 11
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:32:44 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.


If the base already has the capacity to hold and service that many a/c, which is a function of the size and the support personnel, what's the problem? What's "realistic" about assuming that every a/c blows a tire on landing just because it was transferred from a CV to a land base? This is in essence the very same strategy that the Japanese did (and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Japanese players WILL use) in the Marianas Turkey Shoot... only in this case the shoe is on the other foot.

What's "realistic" about the Japanese maintaining a 65 plane CAP?

The game allows it. The game makes it a viable alternative strategy. Call it the law of unintended consequences or whatever, but exploiting the rules is, in my opinion, the closest thing that a consim can allow towards realism.

quote:

It's the US that's doing it... thus not gamey!


Alot of the AFs were complaining that the Allied player unfairly chooses not to stay and fight futile battles so that the Japanese can run up the VP talley in sunk ships without real risk of losing any vessels of their own. Jaypea developed an ad hoc strategy that allowed him to confront a threat that the Japanese never would have concocted in the real war and, incidently, that allowed him to offer some real resistence. Seems like the complaint from some is that the Allied player has any options at all.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Reiryc)
Post #: 12
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:39:34 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		I'm just impressed that he's still got Kendari in April. Looks to me like the game is over. Start over.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 13
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:51:37 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.


considering the US was hard pressed to attempt coordiated attacks off of carriers, i dont see how transfering the CAG's to a base magically erases this fobile.
Is it possible? yes. The Japanese, as mentioned did it. (and look how successful it was) Probably whats truely "gamey" about it is, as you mentioned, that a player can instantaniously transfer then attack with no time to prep and plan from the new base of operations.

Thats why i tend to not do this at all in my games for either side. carrier squadrons stay on their carriers mainly because thats how the carrier commanders would want it that way and would resist having their precious airgroups comendered by land commanders.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 14
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:56:18 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic


ditto, its not just the blown tires.. its all those bombs, and fuel and .. where do these guys sleep etc type issues

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 15
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:56:54 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

considering the US was hard pressed to attempt coordiated attacks off of carriers,


In the game perhaps. Not in the real war. US launched many well coordinated strikes in 1942. It just happens that the US CVs didn't fare so well in that matter in the only battle that most bother to study -- Midway. And even then, people overlook the fact that risking a poorly coordinate strike was a deliberate choice and not "the usual practice."

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 7/21/2004 5:57:54 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 16
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:58:17 PM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ditto, its not just the blown tires.. its all those bombs, and fuel and .. where do these guys sleep etc type issues


You are right, the VD they pick up when off the ship won't keep them from flying.

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 17
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 7:59:56 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In the game perhaps. Not in the real war. US launched many well coordinated strikes in 1942. It just happens that the US CVs didn't fare so well in that matter in the only battle that most bother to study -- Midway. And even then, people overlook the fact that risking a poorly coordinate strike was a deliberate choice and not "the usual practice."


This is incorrect. Coordinated attacks were attempted at Midway but ended up badly fragmented. Multi-carrier and even single carrier coordination was the bane of USN carrier aviation in 1942

_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 18
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 8:06:08 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		It's not incorrect if you read what I said. At Midway the US knowingly ran a greater risk of uncoordinated strikes.. largely in an effort to get in the first hit, a problem compounded by the extended range.

So, I agree, the Midway strike was not well coordinated. And I agree that the USN attempted to get the strike waves to form up. I do not agree that the usual procedure was followed at Midway or that Midway can plausibly be viewed as typical of US plane strike-coordination efforts. The US had no problem making coordinated strikes at Coral Sea or in the, err, Yorktown-Lexington (IIRC) "Over the Stanleys" raid in early 1942 -- much less any of the single ship raids.

This "poorly coordinated raids was the bane of USN CV ops in 1942" thing is an imagined phenomenon.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 7/21/2004 6:08:08 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 19
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 8:08:18 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep thats gamey

Had you not used your CV's to hook them, it would be fine, but thats just a tad too much bait & switch for me


Its exactly the strategy the Japanese used during the US invasion of the Phillipines. The northern force of empty carriers was supposed to allow itself to be spotted and then run, drawing the US carriers out of position protecting the landings so the IJN battleships could reach the transports.

The fact that the carriers were empty because they didn't planes and pilots for them in the first place rather than because they offloaded them is just a minor detail.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 20
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 8:09:14 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		gamey = tricking the "dumb" ia.. not unrealistic

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 21
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 8:11:43 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's not incorrect if you read what I said. At Midway the US knowingly ran a greater risk of uncoordinated strikes.. largely in an effort to get in the first hit, a problem compounded by the extended range.



except the US did not "knowingly" run a greater risk of uncoordinated strikes. They attempted a coordinated strike but failed at it.

quote:



So, I agree, the Midway strike was not well coordinated. And I agree that the USN attempted to get the strike waves to form up. I do not agree that the usual procedure was followed at Midway or that Midway can plausibly be viewed as typical of US plane strike-coordination efforts. The US had no problem making coordinated strikes at Coral Sea or in the, err, Yorktown-Lexington (IIRC) "Over the Stanleys" raid in early 1942 -- much less any of the single ship raids.


I'm not saying the US would "always" suffer issues of coordination, but it happened often enough for it to be a documented problem. The US also had no mulit-carrier coordination doctrine. Midway was not a sole example though for obvious reasons, it was greatly highlighted. The game reflects this by giving a greater "chance" for fragmentation to occur but it is not a gurantee. The Japanese also have a chance for fragmentation albeit a lower one.

quote:


This "poorly coordinated raids was the bane of USN CV ops in 1942" thing is an imagined phenomenon


The quote comes from John Lundstrom.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 7/21/2004 6:14:21 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 22
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 8:12:27 PM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		gamey = tricking the "dumb" ia.. not unrealistic


That's why the general consensus was that it is gamey versus the IA, but not in PBEM.

< Message edited by kaleun -- 7/21/2004 5:12:54 PM >

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 23
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 8:23:03 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

The quote comes from John Lundstrom.


I don't recall reading that. In any case I still think it is incorrect. The over-the stanleys. Coral Sea. The Rendova raid. Eastern Solomons. I can't think offhand of a 1942 example OTHER than Midway where the CV strike escort simply failed to find its charges.

We'll just have to disagree in re Midway. The US deviated from its usual practice of having the bombers form up and await the arrival of the escorts in a designated waiting area. The choice was made in order to maximize the likelihood of taking the Japanese by surprise. It was hoped that the faster SBDs would overtake the TBDs along the way, and that the yet faster F4Fs find the whole mess en route. Standard procedure was not followed. IMO had the range been 120 miles rather than 180 going to 200 or whatever, the US strike would have arrived in a coordinated fashion.

And this is of course a different cat entirely from coordinating defensive CAP, at which the US was better than the Japanese from the get go (owing in large part to IFF and radar). Which is why I think the most disturbing thing about the post that started this thread is that 65 Japanese aircraft were operating on CAP in the first place.

quote:

That's why the general consensus was that it is gamey versus the IA, but not in PBEM.


In that case, "gamey" was the AI having 7 CVs operating together in the first place.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 7/21/2004 6:25:18 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to kaleun)
Post #: 24
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 8:30:22 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I don't recall reading that. In any case I still think it is incorrect. The over-the stanleys. Coral Sea. The Rendova raid. Eastern Solomons. I can't think offhand of a 1942 example OTHER than Midway where the CV strike escort simply failed to find its charges.



See Vol II, FIrst Team... Lundstrom was describing yet another episode of strike coordination problems during the battle of the Santa Cruz islands. Problems were experienced in all four major carrier battles to varying degrees.

quote:



We'll just have to disagree in re Midway. The US deviated from its usual practice of having the bombers form up and await the arrival of the escorts in a designated waiting area. The choice was made in order to maximize the likelihood of taking the Japanese by surprise. It was hoped that the faster SBDs would overtake the TBDs along the way, and that the yet faster F4Fs find the whole mess en route. Standard procedure was not followed. IMO had the range been 120 miles rather than 180 going to 200 or whatever, the US strike would have arrived in a coordinated fashion.



I guess we will Standard procedure was followed, but the US "procedure" was overcomplicated and had no less than three depature scenerios. The desire to take the Japanese by suprise only factored in the US desire to get in the first strike. Since the Japanese were sighted first, this was not exactly an issue. An attempt at coordinated strikes was made in order to inflict maximum damage. Delays and other issues contributed greatly to the sending off of indiv. squadrons alone. Yes, the different cruising speeds and ranges of the three aircraft types exaserbated an already problem plauged situation

_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 25
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 8:40:41 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		On board Enterprise at 0900 on Oct 26, 1942, during the Battle of Santa Cruz. As strike aircraft taxi into launch position, they are given final instructions by means of chalk boards. The one on the left displays a corrected sighting position. The one on the right reads "Proceed without Hornet".

One of those 1000-word pictures.....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 26
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 9:16:52 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock


You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.



I agree. They should make a rule like this in the next patch.

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 7/21/2004 2:22:50 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 27
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 9:17:59 PM   
Jaypea

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
Status: offline 		Good discussion! Thanks for the input. I was thinking it was gamey too.


JP

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 28
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 9:18:21 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.


If the base already has the capacity to hold and service that many a/c, which is a function of the size and the support personnel, what's the problem? What's "realistic" about assuming that every a/c blows a tire on landing just because it was transferred from a CV to a land base? This is in essence the very same strategy that the Japanese did (and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Japanese players WILL use) in the Marianas Turkey Shoot... only in this case the shoe is on the other foot.

What's "realistic" about the Japanese maintaining a 65 plane CAP?

The game allows it. The game makes it a viable alternative strategy. Call it the law of unintended consequences or whatever, but exploiting the rules is, in my opinion, the closest thing that a consim can allow towards realism.

quote:

It's the US that's doing it... thus not gamey!


Alot of the AFs were complaining that the Allied player unfairly chooses not to stay and fight futile battles so that the Japanese can run up the VP talley in sunk ships without real risk of losing any vessels of their own. Jaypea developed an ad hoc strategy that allowed him to confront a threat that the Japanese never would have concocted in the real war and, incidently, that allowed him to offer some real resistence. Seems like the complaint from some is that the Allied player has any options at all.


Not "every" aircraft should be damaged but a decent amount should be waiting in line to be serviced.

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 7/21/2004 2:23:19 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 29
RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 9:21:25 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep thats gamey

Had you not used your CV's to hook them, it would be fine, but thats just a tad too much bait & switch for me


Its exactly the strategy the Japanese used during the US invasion of the Phillipines. The northern force of empty carriers was supposed to allow itself to be spotted and then run, drawing the US carriers out of position protecting the landings so the IJN battleships could reach the transports.

The fact that the carriers were empty because they didn't planes and pilots for them in the first place rather than because they offloaded them is just a minor detail.



the problem isnt using your carriers for bait but offloading all your carrier planes at a base to attack right away.

_____________________________


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Gamey or not? 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

0.734