quote:

ORIGINAL: Thayne

..To send them again and again on the same mission is to tell a group of human beings, "You get to keep doing this until you die."

I may also consider it "gamey" in the sense that, after the first trip, to order the ship out again, should have dropped the crew's morale significantly. The third trip would have dropped it to near zero.

"We're floating corpses. Even if we succeed, the admiral is going to send us out again until we're dead. We're dead. We're fraking dead. If not on this trip, then the next, or the one after that."

By the third trip, there would probably be a half-dozen suicides and a good tenth of the crew would simply vanish. By the fourth trip, somebody would probably just throw a match into the powder room.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
If people think this is gamey because it was against "doctrine", well, I would like to see the "doctrine". 

Cruiser doctrine document is here. Unfortunately, they haven't scanned the destroyer doctrine yet.

The Cruiser doctrine is expressed somewhat in this page.

"By the mid-20th Century, cruisers were medium-sized, general-utility ships. They had a large cruising range and are capable of high speeds (over 30 knots). They served as protective screens against surface and air attacks and also provide gunfire support for land operations. Cruisers were lightly armored, heavily armed, fast ships designed to screen formations and to scout out enemy fleets. Their survivability depended on speed, not armor. This continued to be the meaning until after the Second World War - a fast, long-range, lightly armored ship, although by then more powerful than a destroyer."

And the destroyer doctrine is expressed somewhat in this page:

"The principal mission of destroyers is to operate offensively and defensively against submarines and surface ships and to take defensive action against air attacks. They also provide gunfire support for amphibious assaults and perform patrol, search, and rescue missions."

Sending out a single DD on a suicide mission to scout KB is gamey unless you transfer ship command to General Affleck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nunya D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thayne

..To send them again and again on the same mission is to tell a group of human beings, "You get to keep doing this until you die."

I may also consider it "gamey" in the sense that, after the first trip, to order the ship out again, should have dropped the crew's morale significantly. The third trip would have dropped it to near zero.

"We're floating corpses. Even if we succeed, the admiral is going to send us out again until we're dead. We're dead. We're fraking dead. If not on this trip, then the next, or the one after that."

By the third trip, there would probably be a half-dozen suicides and a good tenth of the crew would simply vanish. By the fourth trip, somebody would probably just throw a match into the powder room.

You mean, kinda like U-boat crews near the end of the war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

A plane with 4 human beings is not the same as a ship with 100's.
And the problem isn't doutrine it is culture. If America was a dictatorship likes Germany, Soviets or Japanese yeah it might do that. For America i could only see it in desperates times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

A plane with 4 human beings is not the same as a ship with 100's.
And the problem isn't doutrine it is culture. If America was a dictatorship likes Germany, Soviets or Japanese yeah it might do that. For America i could only see it in desperates times.

I invite your attention, again, to the Schweinfurt missions. Or Point Du Hoc. Or the Doolittle Raid. Bombing the Ploesti oil fields.

"You want me to do WHAT, General Pickett?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

The Doolittle Raid was done for political reasons and only took place once.
When considering the Schweinfurt and Ploesti raids the intent was to hit important targets, not be suicide raids, which they were not as most did make it back, granted with heavy loses.

There is no way the USN would have sent a lone destroyer 600nm, alone with the intent of "triggering" the KB into attacking, and then say that was normal or routine "back then", it simply was not done. A sub sure, but a sub will not "trigger" a KB response. A scouting Task Force, sure, a lone destroyer designed to be sacrificed, no way. But hey both sides can do this, so I guess it comes down to who is willing to lose destroyers. I just think it is gamey because of the intent was to trigger the KB to respond, reveling it's location, and a willingness to lose the ship to do so.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nunya D.


The raid accomplished almost nothing from a military standpoint and the expected survival rate of the pilots/cew was very low at takeoff. The arguement can be made that the pilots/crew of the Doolittle raid were volunteers and the crew of the DD wasn't. But that is what they did back then. The men back then had a deep sence of pride and honor. They took risks and fought hard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

quote:

The Doolittle Raid was done for political reasons and only took place once.

War is the accomplishemnt of political ends by other means. As for once, is the issue that CR did the DD sweep four times? Somehow I doubt the opponents here would say that was the distinction.

quote:

When considering the Schweinfurt and Ploesti raids the intent was to hit important targets, not be suicide raids, which they were not as most did make it back, granted with heavy loses.

The 305th Bomb Group had 87% casualties on the second Schweinfurt raid.

In contrast, CR's destroyer lost no men in four missions. Hardly comparable. Opponents keep calling this a "suicide mission" (which, as I've said elsewhere has little deterrent effect in history if the mission was necessary.) In truth, the mission(s) were highly effective and led to a successful invasion.

quote:

There is no way the USN would have sent a lone destroyer 600nm, alone with the intent of "triggering" the KB into attacking,

Again, when the DD was NOT attacked it provided essential information as to where the KB WASN'T.

quote:

and then say that was normal or routine "back then", it simply was not done.

I don't believe anyone is saying it was routine or normal back then. They're saying it was possible, the game code allows it, and that it might be reasonable to do given the lack of intel that was "normal" from the game. To date, no one has posted compelling evidence that a well-organized Japanese search and attack couldn't have stopped this DD on its first circumnavigation.

quote:

A sub sure, but a sub will not "trigger" a KB response.

Subs are much slower. And a sub is also open to detection and attack while in transit on the surface. Why are sub sailors' lives worth so little to you?

quote:

A scouting Task Force, sure, a lone destroyer designed to be sacrificed, no way.

I'm sure the JFBs here would love such a restriction, but it simply isn't your call to make. Fight your own war; take your lumps in 1944-45.

quote:

But hey both sides can do this, so I guess it comes down to who is willing to lose destroyers.

Exactly.

quote:

I just think it is gamey because of the intent was to trigger the KB to respond, reveling it's location, and a willingness to lose the ship to do so.

Only CR knows what his intent was. And the Japanese player can prevent what you say by standing-down the KB's attack units. His call.

quote:

I invite your attention, again, to the Schweinfurt missions. Or Point Du Hoc. Or the Doolittle Raid. Bombing the Ploesti oil fields.

quote:

Perhaps the Americans wouldn't be so crazy as to send a lone destroyer on a "suicide mission" but the British are a different matter.
Next time send a British DD or used one of the old Lend Lease destroyers and you should be ok...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther BaitRegarding 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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

When the allied player puts his anti Kamikazee defenses to test I can imagine the threads will be 10 pages long.

Interestingly enough I've read numerous times since release players from the Japanese side invoke "since we have hindsight we're able to make better choices", but when the allied player makes a change from normal operations some almost soil themselves. The allied player is a slave to wartime production, it looks like some want it carried over to operations as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

A plane with 4 human beings is not the same as a ship with 100's.
And the problem isn't doutrine it is culture. If America was a dictatorship likes Germany, Soviets or Japanese yeah it might do that. For America i could only see it in desperates times.

I invite your attention, again, to the Schweinfurt missions. Or Point Du Hoc. Or the Doolittle Raid. Bombing the Ploesti oil fields.

"You want me to do WHAT, General Pickett?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit
I wonder if the Japanese leadership considered the Doolittle Raid gamey?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nunya D.
Is the real question/concern here that he used a DD instead of a CL which were designed and doctrined for this type of mission? [&:]