Scout DDs Gamey? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Canoerebel -> Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 6:25:31 PM)

Gents,

My opponent and I have a situation where we wonder whether an Allied tactic is gamey or an unfair exploitation of the game.

It's July 1944 and the Allies have just invaded several points on eastern and southern Borneo. The Japanese remain very strong - the KB is powerful and the Japanese have a powerful network of airases on Borneo, Java, and Mindanao. Thus it would be very risky for the Allies to accept battle with the KB under the umbrella of Japanese LBA.

Several weeks ago the KB retired from the theater. I didn't know where she had gone, but I knew I had better not venture into enemy waters if there was a chance of bumping into here. So I detailed DD Swanson to sail all the way around Borneo to scout for the KB. (What my opponent doesn't know is that Swanson completed at least five circumnavigations of Borneo without incident - making it clear that this wasn't necessarily a "suicide" run).

Recently, Swanson bumped into a tanker TF and badly damaged three and an escort. My opponent protested and I told him that I wasn't (and won't) employ that tactic purposefully. IE, I won't flood Japanese controlled waters with single-ship TFs that are nearly impossible to track and destroy. I think he's okay with that.

However, next turn my scout did "find" the KB lurking off Kuching, Borneo (about where I had expected, though I wasn't sure). DD Swanson was destroyed but served its purpose.

My opponent thinks this is gamey. I don't think so, but wanted to open it to input from the forum.



Q-Ball -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 6:29:34 PM)

I don't think it's gamey. Just goes to show you need to stay alert on air search; Z button is your friend.

The crew of the Swanson probably has a different take.....



CarnageINC -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 6:33:03 PM)

Sending in occasional warships...not noncombat vessels...is fine, its not gamey IMO.



sfbaytf -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 6:39:28 PM)

That one of main missions for destroyers-acting as scouts. They are the eyes and ears of he fleet. Been doing that for ages. Frigates did the same thing during the age of sail. During the Okinawa campaign DEs were used as picket ships far in front of the main battlefleet and very close to Japanese airbases that were launching kamikazies. They knew very well what their purpose was and the risks involved.



Miller -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 6:53:34 PM)

I can except the fact that the US used DDs as picket ships during the war, mainly to warn of Kamikaze raids.

This particular DD was 600 miles from the nearest friendly airfield when it was sunk and within range of air attack from multiple airfields of my own. I did have LBA in position to attack for several turns but I am guessing the game engine did not consider a single DD a worthwhile target.

It was clearly a suicide mission, that is my only comment on this subject.



ny59giants -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 6:55:52 PM)

Along the same lines, is it gamey to have a 4 DD SC TF be followed by a SC TF or CV TF 3 hexes behind?? I ask because TB have a hard time hitting DDs and they may go after the closer target vs the larger warships.

I this case, it is using what you have to your advantage. It is not something that your opponent, or any opponent could do themselves. If anything, I "might" require you to make it a 2 DD TF as the AI doesn't pick up single ships well.



Nemo121 -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 7:02:28 PM)

As a commander it is your job to prevent the enemy doing whatever it is within their capabilities of doing.

Don't defeat your opponent by rules-lawyering to death, instead, destroy them with your forces on-map.

If your opponent decides to send forces on suicide missions then destroy them. Simple. Also, what may seem like a suicide mission to you mightn't to your opponent and, you know what, he might be right. It seems he was right in this case.



Canoerebel -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 7:08:50 PM)

Just to make it clear - this wasn't a suicide mission.  Swanson made the trip around Borneo five times before she bumped into the KB.  As you can imagine, her voyages provided critical information (the fact that the KB wasn't present for awhile and then - presto! - was. 

In the "real war" the Allies had a variety of ways of determining the location of Japanese carriers.  They weren't always right, but most of the time the "real" Allies had far more information about carriers than I do in the game.



Grit -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 7:12:27 PM)

Sounds like a creative use of the tools that are available.

I agree with Nemo, have fun and don't go crazy with a bunch of rules.



Cuttlefish -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 7:35:25 PM)

Is it gamey in the sense that a loophole in the rules or a flaw in the game engine is being exploited to gain an unfair advantage? No.

It depends on the kind of game you want. Personally, I wouldn't do it; I like to keep a historical feel to my operations and the US Navy did not send its ships on suicide missions. Destroyers and destroyer escorts were used well out in front of fleets and invasions as screens and pickets, sure. But this was more like staking out a goat to see if a tiger is around. But that's just me. I don't think I'd squawk if my opponent did it.





Terminus -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 7:45:34 PM)

I think it's gamey. Sending single destroyers out on tasks like this is ahistorical as well as a game system exploit.



Panther Bait -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 7:55:15 PM)

The only potential qualm I would have on the tactic is that the game engine is notorious for not reporting single ship convoys. The fact that the Swanson made it around Borneo 5 times previously without him detecting it suggests that's the case here (or I suppose it's possible that it was reported but it was assumed to be a sub, since the game has a tendency to report subs as anything except subs).

So, if it's a case of Miller doing everything right (set up air searchs, deploy LBA, etc.) to handle the presence of Allied shipping, but the game engine is making it impossible to detect and persecute the Swanson, then it's probably on the gamey side only because there is no counter tactic.

If it's a case where Miller's air search plan was not up to the task and a reasonable air search/LBA deployment would have found the DD and sank it sooner, then it's totally reasonable.

---------

Regarding whether it's a historically based tactic, I don' think you can really defend it with references to the picket ships. Most of the picket DDs/DEs were stationed "relatively" close to either other pickets or whatever force they were protecting, so that there was a very good chance that someone could respond to a Mayday or a request for backup in a reasonable amount of time.

This is just a little different than asking a solitary DD to sail hundreds of miles through enemy seas with virtually no chance of rescue if they get attacked, especially when the DD has no real means to "search" for the KB other than to draw an attack from it. This is akin to ordering an employee to walk down a dark alley with $100 bills taped to his forehead to "search" for muggers, so the boss will know whether to walk down it himself or not. IMO, it would be a lot more historical to confine these search missions to Allied subs. However from the AAR, I get the sense that Canoerebel's game with Miller is more of "do what the engine allows" type of game rather than a "strictly historical" game, so the I wouldn't base a gamey or not call to history in this case.

Mike



Nemo121 -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 7:56:19 PM)

"game system exploit" ---Prove it... What loophole in the game system does this take advantage of?

If it is that 1 DD is hard to spot then, well, in real life a single DD was pretty hard to spot too....



Nikademus -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:05:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think it's gamey. Sending single destroyers out on tasks like this is ahistorical as well as a game system exploit.



it is remenicient of other 1 x ship TF tactics that raise eyebrows. It could be considered gamey in that it's a rather Zhukovian way of utilizing one's destroyermen. Captain....you and your men are being sent out into the middle of enemy held waters in the hopes that he'll reveal his presence to us (through the magic of the combat report) by launching an airstrike on you. Naturally this entails great danger to you and the men under your command.....but know that your sacrfice will be forever immortalized in the Hall of Zeros and Ones. Besides which, your craft is very maneuverable!....it is possible you may survive in which case you'll all get free ice cream and a commemorative plate"

[:D]



crsutton -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:07:30 PM)

Well, the best scouts historically were subs but they do not really do it that well in game unless they get run over. So, it is a toss up. Yeah, I probably would not do it.




Dili -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:09:57 PM)

It is at least culturally gamey. I could see a Japanese destroyer making that for the Emperor in some circunstances, but sending an US destroyer in a recon suicide mission no- it is suicide because finding the KB means dead- USN even didn't had a corsair ship as far as i remember.




Dili -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:12:05 PM)

quote:

Well, the best scouts historically were subs but they do not really do it that well in game unless they get run over. So, it is a toss up. Yeah, I probably would not do it


Yes that is what USN would do. Send Submarines in scout missions.



Nemo121 -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:17:59 PM)

Umm, actually since the mission was run multiple times before the DD died each mission looks like it had no more than a 20% chance of the DD being lost... Hardly a suicide mission.

Anyways, this could ALL have been avoided by Miller if he'd had a naval search unit covering his front laterally ( as should be SOP ) and also some naval attack fighter-bombers or kamis in the area.... That is prudent play, he didn't do it and so this ship, which should have died the second it poked its nose out got away with its mission on 5 separate occasions before dying the 6th time.

A LOT of missions in WW2 had more than 20% chance of not coming back. St Nazaire, various commando raids, beach landings etc yet they were all done.



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:22:43 PM)

Very, very gamey in IMO. Sending single ship in enemy controlled waters to be destroyed by enemy CVs so you coul'd know about their presence... is a gamey situation. [:-]



SuluSea -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:26:29 PM)

It doesn't sound gamey to me. I use single ship TF to scout in front of Bombardment TFs and large transport TFs if I think the KB may be lurking.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Very, very gamey in IMO. Sending single ship in enemy controlled waters to be destroyed by enemy CVs so you coul'd know about their presence... is a gamey situation. [:-]

Swanson made the trip 4 times , you can't control something if assets aren't in place. [:'(][;)]



Canoerebel -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:28:38 PM)

While not typical of destroyer missions by the U.S. Navy in WWII, Swanson's was intended to gather intel that the game doesn't provide in ways or amounts that existed in the real war.

In the real war, the Allies might have patrol craft, submarines, and commando units in and around the islands so plentiful in the triangle between Borneo, Java, and Singapore.  The Allies would also have a vast amount of signals (Magic intercept) information. 

Since the game doesn't permit us to land commando units on islands to watch for and report enemy forces, and since SigInt poorly models the amount of info the Allies had about enemy carriers, we are left to devise ways to find that information (if we can).

It seems that there is a split in the community as to whether the move was gamey or not.  In the overall scheme of things, I think it was a legit way to gather intel.  But in the absence of a strong consensus one way or the other, I will desist from circumnavigation-type recon voyages.  (That doesn't mean I won't send destroyers forward - just that I won't send them THAT far forward).

This concession is made in the spirit of "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety."



Halsey -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:33:25 PM)

The game mechanics seems to handle this well, as long as you have the striking range.

I had an opponent try this, and guess what...
The strike completely ignored his sacrificial lambs, and went straight for the CV TF's 2 hexes behind the decoys.
Strike flew straight over the decoys and smacked the CV's.[;)][:D]



Chickenboy -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:37:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

My opponent and I have a situation where we wonder whether an Allied tactic is gamey or an unfair exploitation of the game.

It's July 1944 and the Allies have just invaded several points on eastern and southern Borneo. The Japanese remain very strong - the KB is powerful and the Japanese have a powerful network of airases on Borneo, Java, and Mindanao. Thus it would be very risky for the Allies to accept battle with the KB under the umbrella of Japanese LBA.

Several weeks ago the KB retired from the theater. I didn't know where she had gone, but I knew I had better not venture into enemy waters if there was a chance of bumping into here. So I detailed DD Swanson to sail all the way around Borneo to scout for the KB. (What my opponent doesn't know is that Swanson completed at least five circumnavigations of Borneo without incident - making it clear that this wasn't necessarily a "suicide" run).

Recently, Swanson bumped into a tanker TF and badly damaged three and an escort. My opponent protested and I told him that I wasn't (and won't) employ that tactic purposefully. IE, I won't flood Japanese controlled waters with single-ship TFs that are nearly impossible to track and destroy. I think he's okay with that.

However, next turn my scout did "find" the KB lurking off Kuching, Borneo (about where I had expected, though I wasn't sure). DD Swanson was destroyed but served its purpose.

My opponent thinks this is gamey. I don't think so, but wanted to open it to input from the forum.

Canoerebel:

Don't think it's gamey.

Since you mention a few things in your post that your opponent 'doesn't know', you may wish to edit your initial post's subject line to intentionally exclude your PBEM partner from the thread...

ETA: Never mind, I saw that Miller has contributed to the thread.



Miller -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:49:18 PM)

Firstly, it seems the defence for this tactic is "He should have had a/c in place to sink the DD but did'nt"- I had a/c (two dive bomber sqds) in place to attack BEFORE the DD ran into my small tanker convoy......they simply did not bother to attack, as some have suggested probably because the AI did not consider it a worthy target.

Secondly, I laugh at suggestions that this was not a suicide mission. Why? Because the aim of this DD was to spot the KB by being attacked.

I can just imagine the Navy briefing the captain of the DD...."Yeah, if you run into the Jap fleet you are a very small target, I'm sure you can avoid any heat that comes your way......P.S.> you may as well have this CMOH now."

Gamey, period.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:49:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

While not typical of destroyer missions by the U.S. Navy in WWII, Swanson's was intended to gather intel that the game doesn't provide in ways or amounts that existed in the real war.

In the real war, the Allies might have patrol craft, submarines, and commando units in and around the islands so plentiful in the triangle between Borneo, Java, and Singapore.  The Allies would also have a vast amount of signals (Magic intercept) information. 

Since the game doesn't permit us to land commando units on islands to watch for and report enemy forces, and since SigInt poorly models the amount of info the Allies had about enemy carriers, we are left to devise ways to find that information (if we can).

It seems that there is a split in the community as to whether the move was gamey or not.  In the overall scheme of things, I think it was a legit way to gather intel.  But in the absence of a strong consensus one way or the other, I will desist from circumnavigation-type recon voyages.  (That doesn't mean I won't send destroyers forward - just that I won't send them THAT far forward).

This concession is made in the spirit of "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety."



I think that this is in a gray area of being gamey. If you had sent a larger force I probably wouldn't have a problem with it (not that I really have a problem with it... it's your game). But I do believe a single DD being sent out to scout far inside enemy waters is somewhat gamey simply because it was a suicide mission. That DD had no chance of surviving an encounter with KB or a larger surface force and that is what made it a suicide mission. The fact that she didn't encounter anything during the first 5 missions really means nothing. The US would not have sent a ship on this type mission unless it was absolutely critical to the conduct of the war.

Having said that, the best means to approach this is to discuss it with your opponent and reach some form of consensus regarding these type missions. IMO it's not gamey if both opponents are of the same thought regardless of what others may think.

Chez



Ikazuchi0585 -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 8:49:46 PM)

risky not gamey.



Nemo121 -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 9:05:05 PM)

Miller, well it is obvious that you are invested in putting this down as a gamey exploitation and not at all interested in looking at how you could better your play to avoid it happening again. That's a pity as that's not the path to improvement.


I note that no-one has, as of yet, posted evidence of that this actually exploits a game engine flaw. Exploiting a gap in your coverage? Yes, exploiting a game engine flaw? No.



Canoerebel -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 9:13:07 PM)

As for Miller having the area covered by LBA...well, Swanson completed four circumnavigations of Borneo before Miller sighted her.



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 9:24:58 PM)

So, sending a single destroyer to cruise arround major enemy bases in hope of being attacked by carrier TF is not gamey at all? [8|] [X(] Interesting... [:D] What is next? Sending AKs to scout deep inside enemy convoy routes? Sending AKs to test which enemy base is mined? Yes, you can play in whatever way you want, but some things are... well... gamey [;)]
Sending subs or big CV/SC TFs in deep recon or S&D missions would not be considered gamey, but this... and for allied side... and single DD cruising arround major enemy bases... [&:]



Nemo121 -> RE: Scout DDs Gamey? (5/13/2010 9:26:08 PM)

Well there's cover and then there's effective cover. If you circumnavigated it 4 times then the loss rate is only 20% per circumnavigation, hardly suicide and evidence that whatever the cover was it wasn't good enough.


Seriously guys, people don't have some sort of divine right not to get taken to the cleaners if they leave gaps for the enemy to move through and covering something with naval search is no guarantee you'll spot something moving through. You need in-depth cover and redundancy in order to be safe.

AGain, since some people seem blind to the obvious, if your opponent sends a single ship into your waters it is your JOB to sink it, not whine about him doing it after the event. No wonder so few people improve no matter how many games they play.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.232422