|
Popeye USN -> Historical vs Innovation (5/29/2006 1:27:17 PM)
|
Recently several members have suggested placing restrictions on games they want to play via PBEM. My question is why? Other than changing the commitment levels to make the game more interesting, let the players decide during the game their own fate.
Historically, if you take two equally experienced players, with commentment levels the same, the US will always win. That's not a game, that's replaying history. The outcome in not in question.
"There is nothing fair in love or war." As a "Tin Can" driver, I was once involved in war gaming at the Naval War College in Newport, RI computer combat systems scenario generator facility. My team was find innovative ways to escort merchant ships from Halifax to England during a non-nuclear conflict with the USSR. Our assests: An LHA, CGN, DDG, and several DD's. Enemy forces were unknown. We decided to hug the Greenland coast staying under our LBA umbrella then take an easterly course to England. We estimated our major threat would be from SSN's. If our TF force was detected, how to keep their heads down. We found that not having the old depth charge was tough, as we couldn't afford throwing MK-46 torpedoes all over the ocean. Our innovation: put 500 bombs set on delay detonation on H-47 helo's off the LHA. Probably wouldn't sink a sub, but would sure rattle em' long enough for us to maybe stave off an attack.
Anyway, in playing UV there should be few, if any, constrictions on war gaming. If the IJN wants to put all it's CV's in one TF and run around trying to kick ass, why not. If they want to invade Aussie Land, why not. It's innovative and if they had, maybe the historical outcome would have been different.
Regards, Commander USN-Ret.
|
|
|
|
