RE: Gamey or not?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Gamey or not?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/21/2004 9:55:01 PM

UncleBuck

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

I think the game is fine, and should not be tweaked for this. It was gamey IMHO not because he was able to do it, and launch the next day but that he did it, expecting to get his carriers sunk and tried to save the planes. In the real world the planes would have stayed on board to protect the Carrier, however if the carriers were on a ferry mission, even ferrying thier own A/C, it is a differnt situation. If it had just been coincidence that his carriers acted as bait, then no problem. If he had sent the planes to a base and a day had passed and the carriers showed would it be gamey?

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 31

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 1:46:39 AM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Wait..let me get this straight...you want to take a bunch of land-based B-25's with a nominal take off roll 1000 ft longer than the deck of a carrier, crew them with Army Air Corps crews that have never even been salt water fishing, then stick 'em on a carrier, then, risking 1/3 of our Pacific Carrier fleet, sail up near Japan, then launch the darn things at maximum range and low bomb load to attack poorly recconoitred targets at low level without fighter cover...AND you dont have adequate landing fields, or communication liason with the Chinese?

Gen. Mitchell..do you realize how "gamey" this is?

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 32

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 2:01:37 AM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Gen. Mitchell..do you realize how "gamey" this is?

It's not just gamey, it isn't even original. Why there was this Doolittle guy in here last week pushing the same crazy plan. We showed him the door too!

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 33

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 2:30:54 AM

McNaughton

Posts: 113
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline

Well, defeating the AI because of a known AI weakness is gamey. It is like challenging a blind man to a game of eye-spy.

I really don't think that the air strikes during Midway were intentionally uncoordinated (fighters did never meet up with the bombers they were supposed to escort), or else the guy who planned it should be tried and executed for malously throwing away pilot's lives. However, just because the US weren't able to do it at Midway does NOT mean that they would not be able to do it at anytime, anywhere during this period. Should the base be large enough, and equipped with ground personell, a strike COULD be done the very next day, as what really is the difference if the planes flew off the carriers to attack, or flew off the carriers, landed and refueled, had the crew rest up, then flew off to attack the next morning other than the stop-over?

So, you are both wrong, the strike itself ISN'T gamey, but the act of guaranteeing that the AI will be drawn in to be defeated by this strike IS gamey. It would be like the Japanese dropping all aircraft in New England, and having their empty carrier fleet draw in the USN carriers.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 34

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 3:06:49 AM

freeboy

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

play me- play me.. I want you to take your planes off your ships... and then let me hunt them down ...yummy

(in reply to McNaughton)

Post #: 35

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 3:31:48 AM

Titanwarrior89

Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline

I agree with Mr. Fragg, even though there is truth in the other points you guys made on the subject. Now i have a question. I was getting creamed at the Canal and Munda. Three carriers in the states for repair and one headed to pearl(sys damage). One good carrier, I pulled away from the Canal area and sent it to Oz--But flew off all of it 80+ aircraft. I had no other air support in the area and it looked like they(Japs)land at anytime. Was this Gamey? Would like to know.

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.

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 36

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 5:57:19 AM

Fallschirmjager

Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

He could of just as easily had several uncordinated strikes smash themselves on the Japanese CAP and then had the AI chase and sink his CV's.
He got some good dice rolls.

_____________________________

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)

Post #: 37

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 6:02:05 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I agree with Mr. Fragg, even though there is truth in the other points you guys made on the subject. Now i have a question. I was getting creamed at the Canal and Munda. Three carriers in the states for repair and one headed to pearl(sys damage). One good carrier, I pulled away from the Canal area and sent it to Oz--But flew off all of it 80+ aircraft. I had no other air support in the area and it looked like they(Japs)land at anytime. Was this Gamey? Would like to know.

Of course it's gamey.

And the fact that the historical USN and IJN also pulled similar stunts with their CV squadrons in the Solomons in '42 means they weren't playing within the spirit of the game either.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)

Post #: 38

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 8:16:32 AM

Maliki

Posts: 2217
Joined: 12/25/2002
Status: offline

Anything is only gamey if your opponent cries foul..and for some reason i don't think the AI is going to be doing that

If it's worth the loss to you than fine..don't know about anyone else but Jap ships seem to have some kind of force field around them in the game from what i have played(how many people have had 1000 pound bomb hits shrugged off,from the lowliest AK to the grand CV)while allied ships open up at the slightest hit like MJ rottincroch on her prom night

Take your victories where and how you can,and don't complain about them

_____________________________

"..if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away."

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 39

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 10:13:38 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
The game allows it. The game makes it a viable� exploiting the rules is�

�but it is not gamey? Haven�t you pretty much defined gamey?

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 40

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/22/2004 12:41:09 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

I think the biggest gamey thing about this tactic is that no RL allied commander would have risked being caught with no CAP *at all* if 2 zekes and a Jap dinghy wandered by. To me it would make sense to offload some planes, ie that might be justified as cautious; since so many Jap carries were in the area the navy might have been concerned about losing all of its air wings at once due to a lucky strike. But offloading all of them seems a little drastic, not to mention the fleet is nearly blind with out planes and no CV skipper would want to be blind *and* lacking pants. Landing a buncha planes on a nearby island could be considered prudent if they were lining up for a big knockout strike, especially if the brass was concerned the CV's' wouldn't survive in an exchange due to being outnumbered.

My vote is mildly gamey with some modifications, but not outside the realm of possibility during the war when you consider some of the crazy stuff that went on.

< Message edited by rlc27 -- 7/22/2004 5:43:53 AM >

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 41

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/23/2004 2:58:25 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

I have to agree with the 'gamey' camp here. True, both sides occasionally flew off their carrier-based squadrons to operate from shore in critical situations - but in almost every case, it was after their home CVs had been damaged and had to get out of Dodge. IMO, several previous posters called it correctly - the Allied CVs might have buggered off (there's no point risking a confrontation with a superior force unless 1) assured of favorable circumstances or 2) something really vital is on the line), but they would not have flown off their air groups first. This falls into the same category as players disembarking their attack squadrons to load up the decks with fighters, putting up an Impenetrable Wall O'CAP, then rotating the air groups back to hit the opposing CVs once they've been denuded of their offensive capability.

Still - as long as you're playing the AI, nobody's going to complain if you use any and all tactics the game engine allows.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 42

RE: Gamey or not? - 7/24/2004 4:00:28 AM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

Extremely gamey.

1. You should have had a revolt on your hands.

(see Revolt of the Admirals - 1949?) No BG commander would give these assets away without a fight. Transfer from ship to shore should result in morale hit. Extremely significant if the airfield is isolated due to concern about being left behind.

2. Less fighters should be available from airfield for cap purposes since you've gone from 5 decks to one.
3. Spare parts, you just left behind all your spare parts and the maintainers who know how to keep navy aircraft running. Airbase support (except Marines) should be significantly less able to support navy aircraft due to the lack of compatible spare parts.
4. Strike planning support - CV's have personnel onboard who's sole job is finding and planning strikes against enemy shipping. Army airfields aren't geared to fight the same war. The navy pilots wouldn't even know where to go to get a brief when they first arrived. Contacts found by CV TF search assets wouldn't be available to aircraft on the ground as quickly as it would if they were on the CV. (i.e. different radio freqs, reporting channels, bureaucracy). These squadrons should take a significant training hit.
5. Unless the airbase is huge these aircraft should become sitting ducks since there wouldn't be sufficient revetments and/or parking spots. They would likely end up parked all over the ramp awaiting compatable support equipment and spare parts.

(in reply to CynicAl)

Post #: 43