RE: Picket line's

RE: Picket line's (Full Version)

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

Message

SuluSea -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 3:20:11 PM)
I can't imagine anyone playing the Japanese side complaining about pickets used in the manner rebel just mentioned, if they do I'd hope they'd hold to the same limits on their war conduct which would start with no low naval attack training until kamikazees are in affect (I mean how could they train for something it wasn't generally accepted as a tactic prior to implementation) , insist on player defined upgrades to weed out the junk produced by the Japanese air industry, no real training of pilots because in this game the Japanese never suffer from historical shortages of trained airmen but certainly wouldn't end at that.

Nomad -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 4:06:06 PM)
Except for item #4, I do pretty much as Canoerebel posted. I can't see playing without some pickets as warning. The Allies are very short on their intel and the Japanese used small vessels for this purpose.

ilovestrategy -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 4:09:54 PM)
When I saw the thread title Gettysburg popped in my head! [:D]

obvert -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 4:31:04 PM)
quote: Air raid pickets such as at Okinawa were largely "in-hex" in regards to distance and were tied specifically to the amphib op at hand vs. air attack. (a small # of them would exceed a single hex in WitP terms....more so in AE with the reduction in hex size) Besides the distance, these small groups of ships (1-6 depending on the patrol area) were integrated with air CAP's present overhead to help protect them and FDO officers were assigned aboard key picket ships to help co-ord with the carriers providing overall protection to the invasion fleet. They were NOT sacrficial lambs though the mission could be highly dangerous. They are like an Apples and Oranges comparison whenever the controversial issue of "pickets" comes up in the game. Players tend to use pickets at multi hex distances to give instantanious (and i do mean instantanious) warning of enemy assets in the area due to the nature of the combat report phase as well as draw off attack strength to eliminate them. Nikademus If you have read the article, one of the few men who survived this strategy explains that the men on these ships DID think they were being sent out sacrificially, (but of course believed in the strategy and the reason for employing it). I'm arguing that these methods ARE apples and oranges. [;)] But they are both fruit. If you're walking around the woods, and you know what an apple looks like, but have never seen an orange, (just forget about climatic conditions needed for a second), once you do see them you might notice the similarity and give them a try. This game is expanding the range of fruit and vegetables that are out there. Each player attempts new strategies for using the tools that are available in historically relevant but creatively implemented ways. quote: While I agree with you on the ahistory front, I think Alfred made an excellent series of points yesterday concerning merchant crews being sent out as sacrificial lambs. The Allies did not do this, nor would they have. To me this crewing difference is the key variance with the older debate in CR's old AAR concerning sending a DD on an around-the-island recon of Borneo. That wasn't done either, but that was a military crew and the intel they could gather was probably worth the risk. It wasn't done historically either, but I think US admirals woudl have considered it if other intel-gathering not present in the game had not been available. Bullwinkle I'm wondering why, if these are merchant ships on lease to the US govt, a few might not have some or all of the crews replaced by military personnel, or volunteers even, who would perform as scouts for the navy? This would not require a refit, or and changes to the ship proper. Just a visit to port and a few different men on board. They could even have skeleton crews with 'escape' motor launches at the ready. quote: 5. In the game, there are no merchant men on merchant ships; and no Navy men on naval ships. The best way I can approximate what the Allies were able to do in the real war is to employ ships in this fashion. It doesn't matter one whit what kind of ships I use. They are all pretty low value, so the designation doesn't mean much from a victory point standpoint. And I am absolutely certain that the Allies would have done exactly the same thing had they been in my shoes If the need was there, they would have figured out a way to use these ships in this way.

Nikademus -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 4:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert If you have read the article, one of the few men who survived this strategy explains that the men on these ships DID think they were being sent out sacrificially, (but of course believed in the strategy and the reason for employing it). Many soldiers and sailors have felt as such.....that doesn't mean it was the case. I often feel picked on at work. Doesn't mean the company is gunning for me intentionally. quote: I'm arguing that these methods ARE apples and oranges. [;)] But they are both fruit. As i said.....players are free to do whatever they want in their games as long as both sides agree its kosher. However if someone is try to justify their tactic to me along the lines of historical comparison. I will politely continue to disagree with said viewpoint in such cases as the above.

Panther Bait -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 4:54:22 PM)
That article on the pickets stated that 80% of the 182 destroyers used as pickets were sunk or damaged beyond service. Thats 146 destroyers. The USN didn't lose 146 destroyers in the entire war (Atlantic and Pacific from 1941 to 1945) let alone at Okinawa. Even including all the various classes of picket ships used (DE's, LCI's, etc.), I'd be very surprised that 146 were lost in the entire war, let alone Okinawa. So, let's just say that the article is a little suspect in it's facts. Mike

Nikademus -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 4:55:09 PM)
A recent book on the pickets of Okinawa quoted a far smaller figure.

JWE -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 5:36:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus As i said.....players are free to do whatever they want in their games as long as both sides agree its kosher. However if someone is try to justify their tactic to me along the lines of historical comparison. I will politely continue to disagree with said viewpoint in such cases as the above. Agree whole heartedly. Just FYI, the difference between an xAK and and an AK ain't magic. An AK (without the x) is just a designation field in the Ship Class structure, that lets those guys get a stage-1 amphib load/unload bonus. Also helps keep ship capability strait on the menu screen. An xAK can do the exact same thing, but it just don't get the bonus. So if it's got an "x" then the game assumes a certain capability (or lack thereof). It don't say squat about the crew, or if they wore uniform or jockey shorts. IIRC, the Doolittle raid started early because it bumped into a picket line of fishing trawlers. As with many other things in the game, flexibily allows things to be done that were done. The same flexibility allows things to be done that were not done. As Nik says, 'players are free to do whatever they want in their games as long as both sides agree its kosher'. Rule of reason, rule of reason, rule of reason.

ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 6:40:49 PM)
A house rule which seems obvious: Whichever side I am playing gets tuna boats. [:D][:D] Number and armament negotiable.

Hortlund -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 6:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE IIRC, the Doolittle raid started early because it bumped into a picket line of fishing trawlers. Fishing trawlers are not represented in the game though. So that is rather beside the point.

JWE -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 7:18:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea Whichever side I am playing gets tuna boats. [:D][:D] Number and armament negotiable. Gazillion of them in DaBabes. [:D]

Nikademus -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 7:32:00 PM)
and they all have 5 different upgrades

obvert -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 7:34:46 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: obvert If you have read the article, one of the few men who survived this strategy explains that the men on these ships DID think they were being sent out sacrificially, (but of course believed in the strategy and the reason for employing it). Many soldiers and sailors have felt as such.....that doesn't mean it was the case. I often feel picked on at work. Doesn't mean the company is gunning for me intentionally. Nikademus I had just never heard of the extreme use of picket DDs in this manner during the war and thought it was interesting to read a first hand account. It seems relevant because this man, whether he or the reporter have accurate figures or not, (and not seems more likely), paints a clear picture of absolute terror knowing you were the chosen first line of information and defense against kamikazis. He isn't just talking about Okinawa. He mentions most guys not sleeping for four and a half months thinking they always had to be ready for the next attack. He also says if you were the picket 1 ship, and an attack came, you were virtually sure to be sunk. The navy intentionally put them in that position because it had to, and those men knew it and did their duty. quote: That article on the pickets stated that 80% of the 182 destroyers used as pickets were sunk or damaged beyond service. Thats 146 destroyers. The USN didn't lose 146 destroyers in the entire war (Atlantic and Pacific from 1941 to 1945) let alone at Okinawa. Even including all the various classes of picket ships used (DE's, LCI's, etc.), I'd be very surprised that 146 were lost in the entire war, let alone Okinawa. So, let's just say that the article is a little suspect in it's facts. They surely did not lose over a hundred DDs in the last four months of the war. It seems the article is referring to pickets in general, although this is vague. But all of this implies they were used extensively and in multiple ways, as needed. I agree players should decide rules between themselves, but just by being a part of this discussion I've learned a bit more about both the war and the game, and we all realize that this is one of many interesting abstractions of the real war present in AE, which I think is the point. By the way, I haven't ever used pickets. Yet. But I might if it becomes necessary.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 7:56:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE IIRC, the Doolittle raid started early because it bumped into a picket line of fishing trawlers. Yes, but they were fishing, not participating in picket duty. They were also what, 400-500 miles off their own coast? (I haven't read "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" since the 70s.) That's far different than sticking a lone small merchant off some rock in the Arctic Ocean to give warning as it dies. And in the US at least, it did matter whether they were civilians or military. The former could quit and walk ashore if ordered on a suicide mission. Probably file a union grievance when they got there. I agree that it could have been done. Lots of things could have been done, but weren't, for ethical or legal reasons in the Allied culture. And I agree tha players can agree to allow anything that they both like.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 8:12:06 PM)
AFAIK the boat that spotted the Doolittle task force was a patrol boat on picket duty.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 8:31:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk AFAIK the boat that spotted the Doolittle task force was a patrol boat on picket duty. As I said, my main source is "TSOT", and it's written more from the 1st person POV of the pilot of the Ruptured Duck. I thought that the frantic preps to launch early began when fishing boats were sighted and there was fear that they had radioed a report. I do recall from somewhere reading about a naval patrol boat showing up and being engaged by Hornet's escorts, but I think that was after the decision to launch early had been made and preps were well along. But my memory of the 1970s is fuzzy.[:)]

Nomad -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 8:34:21 PM)
My recollection is that they were fishing trawlers with lots of antennas.

Vladd -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 8:34:31 PM)
It was a fishing boat with military radio team on board. Does this make it a patrol boat? Probably, I guess. But in the Falklands two options available to Admiral Woodward, which he writes about in his book, were to use merchant ships to check for mines in Falkland Sound with their hulls; and to place merchants deliberately 'up-threat' in regard to potential Exocet attacks. He dismissed both options as being not quite 'the done thing,' even though in 'wargame terms' they would be valid and potentially even correct. HMS Arrow got 'mine sacrifice' duty, but her luck was in. For a western navy in particular, it only seems right to me for warships to be used in this fashion. Personally, I don't like the tactic.

Nikademus -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 8:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert He also says if you were the picket 1 ship, and an attack came, you were virtually sure to be sunk. The navy intentionally put them in that position because it had to, and those men knew it and did their duty. If you have a real interest in the subject, I suggest this book: http://www.amazon.com/KAMIKAZES-CORSAIRS-PICKET-SHIPS-Okinawa/dp/1935149415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298580737&sr=8-1 It explains the working use of the pickets and the situation that the pilots, sailors and FDO crews working inside some of the ships faced....without the melodrama of the article you read online. The men described in this book did not expect to die but they did do the job despite the risks because it was part of the overall strategy of the amphibious op being conducted.

HMSWarspite -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 10:03:34 PM)
All the 'gamey' threads end up going the same way, mostly because there is no one single definition of 'gamey'. In my book, gamey is any tactic that either exploits a weakness of the code (ammunition magnets for example), or strays in to areas of RL that are just not in scope of the game, or otherwise are not modelled. An example of the latter is the use of Merchant ships as pickets. The developers have not considered what would happen to a merchant in such a role, or to the rest of the ships in the game. If single merchants had a high % chance of not showing any reports when they get hit by overwhelming force (equals anything larger than a SC/PB!), and were highly inaccurate and slow in their reports even when they do see small forces, and had a very high chance of going off and hiding rather than patrolling where they were meant to be (said chance =fn(number of merchants lost in the same role)), using them as a picket would be not too gamey. Since this is not the case, the tactic must be considered gamey, even if in real life it was possible/likely to happen. The key is not to look at the input (player action) but the result (game outcome).

AcePylut -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 10:14:43 PM)
The argument has come down to using xAKL's vs weenie "combat" aux ship (amc, yp, etc.)s in a picket line sense. \| What does the difference between the two ships have in terms of AE? Quantity and amount of housekeeping. If xAKL's are allowed, there are more ships available for picket line, and it requires less "mouseclicking" by the allies. If xAkl's aren't allowed, then all it means, in reality, is that the Allied player has to click his mouse button a heck of a lot more times per 7 turns. That's really it. There is no real "combat" difference between a weenie combat ship like a pb and an xAKL... they're both pretty much toast to anything they might come across that will matter. If the PB comes across a yp, for example, and both ships die that turn by however, the PB "failed" in that it was sunk without spotting anything of relevance. If, the PB or xAKL comes across a 2 BB, 2 CA, 6 DD sctf, well, does anyone believe the PB will somehow have a "much better" chance of escaping? I don't. I don't find much of a difference between using weenie combat ships and xAKL ships, for picket duty. Either they spot something valuable in which case their mission is a success... or they spot nothing but don't get sunk, in which case the mission is a success as they 'proved' nothing is out there.... or they get sunk without spotting anything, in which case mission is a failure. So from a combat sense, I don't find much of a difference. They are both suicide missions no matter if you're in a PB or an xAk. From a mouseclick standpoint... it's far less mouseclicks to put a 4k endurance xAKL on a spot, than it is a 1.5k AM. 2.5k endurance worth of less mouseclicks. If you use xAKLs, then you also free up ships, as you have less ships "intransit every 1k endurance". This is all a "convenience" issue for the Allies. It's not a difference in the actual combat theaters. Those lanes should always be plugged, the allies have plenty enough crap-combat ships to throw away on picket duty. But making xAKL's not able to do picket duty does free THEM up for something else. Transport duty. If the allies aren't using xAKL's for picket duty (by choice, or hr), then they can all be grouped up in a couple of tf's and make fuel transport runs to bases every month. It's a pick your poison for the Japanese... you want those ships on picket or transport duty. I'm fine either way. As long as they are used appropriately. I mean, no "20tf suicide run picket ships runs to china sea's in late '42" for the allies kinda thing.

obvert -> RE: Picket line's (2/24/2011 10:44:56 PM)
quote: If you have a real interest in the subject, I suggest this book: http://www.amazon.com/KAMIKAZES-CORSAIRS-PICKET-SHIPS-Okinawa/dp/1935149415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298580737&sr=8-1 It explains the working use of the pickets and the situation that the pilots, sailors and FDO crews working inside some of the ships faced....without the melodrama of the article you read online. The men described in this book did not expect to die but they did do the job despite the risks because it was part of the overall strategy of the amphibious op being conducted. Nikademus Thanks Nikademus. I did run across that in my searches and it looks interesting. I might pick it up after I finish 'Reality is Broken,' which is about the influence of computer gaming on contemporary culture and the potential for games to help us toward a better future. A good read so far about how computer games fulfill genuine human needs that contemporary culture is not providing for.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Picket line's (2/25/2011 12:49:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut So from a combat sense, I don't find much of a difference.� They are both suicide missions no matter if you're in a PB or an xAk. From a mouseclick standpoint... it's far less mouseclicks to put a 4k endurance xAKL on a spot, than it is a 1.5k AM.� 2.5k endurance worth of less mouseclicks.� If you use xAKLs, then you also free up ships, as you have less ships "intransit every 1k endurance".� This is all a "convenience" issue for the Allies.� It's not a difference in the actual combat theaters.� Those lanes should always be plugged, the allies have plenty enough crap-combat ships to throw away on picket duty. But making xAKL's not able to do picket duty does free THEM up for something else.� Transport duty.� If the allies aren't using xAKL's for picket duty (by choice, or hr), then they can all be grouped up in a couple of tf's and make fuel transport runs to bases every month. Yes, not using xAKLs frees up xAKLs for transport duty. But not using an AM or a KV as a picket frees them up for ASW duty, to sink a sub which might get a carrier next week. So it's not a wash after all, is it? It does matter which you use, from more than a convenience standpoint.

AcePylut -> RE: Picket line's (2/25/2011 1:38:28 AM)
Kinda think that makes it more of a wash. Use xAKLs = more am's freed up for asw duty Use AM's = more xports freed up for xport duty Who knows. Maybe that AM on picket duty sinks the sub heading to the west coast. Maybe not.

treespider -> RE: Picket line's (2/25/2011 2:19:02 AM)
My 2 pennies for S&G's ... Using a line of "static 'pickets'"...would be fishing trawlers, etc. operating a distance off the coast = acceptable. To me represents the civie fishing fleet. On the other hand...Using a mobile line of xAk's to screen the KB or TF58 or the Saipan Invasion or Midway Invasion - "gamey".

AcePylut -> RE: Picket line's (2/25/2011 5:24:24 AM)
Hey I like that... transport ships within a set distance of friendly territory, combat ships beyond.

pmattiasn -> RE: Picket line's (2/25/2011 12:59:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite All the 'gamey' threads end up going the same way, mostly because there is no one single definition of 'gamey'. In my book, gamey is any tactic that either exploits a weakness of the code (ammunition magnets for example), or strays in to areas of RL that are just not in scope of the game, or otherwise are not modelled. An example of the latter is the use of Merchant ships as pickets. The developers have not considered what would happen to a merchant in such a role, or to the rest of the ships in the game. If single merchants had a high % chance of not showing any reports when they get hit by overwhelming force (equals anything larger than a SC/PB!), and were highly inaccurate and slow in their reports even when they do see small forces, and had a very high chance of going off and hiding rather than patrolling where they were meant to be (said chance =fn(number of merchants lost in the same role)), using them as a picket would be not too gamey. Since this is not the case, the tactic must be considered gamey, even if in real life it was possible/likely to happen. The key is not to look at the input (player action) but the result (game outcome). Interesting discussion and I totally agree with the above. My issue with this is not so much the recon/intel aspect of it - it's the fact that my carrier TF out hunting for the other side's carriers invariably launch a full alpha strike on a poor djonk. Doesn't matter to me if it was on picket or just hauling supply to some outpost. My carrier commander should be spanked for expending a third of his torpedo loadout on anything other than major enemy fleet units! But since there is no way to tell him to hold back on the ammo UNTIL he finds a carrier (or possibly a fat troop/tanker convoy) this is what happens... /M

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Picket line's (2/25/2011 1:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PMN nteresting discussion and I totally agree with the above. My issue with this is not so much the recon/intel aspect of it - it's the fact that my carrier TF out hunting for the other side's carriers invariably launch a full alpha strike on a poor djonk. Doesn't matter to me if it was on picket or just hauling supply to some outpost. My carrier commander should be spanked for expending a third of his torpedo loadout on anything other than major enemy fleet units! But since there is no way to tell him to hold back on the ammo UNTIL he finds a carrier (or possibly a fat troop/tanker convoy) this is what happens... /M There is code, at least for the Allies, where carrier TFs choose not to use torpedoes against targets not worthy of them. I don't know all of the variables that go into the decision, and there are probably randoms and FOW, but in my experience that single 'djonk' is attacked by DBs, not torpedoes, most of the time.

pmattiasn -> RE: Picket line's (2/25/2011 2:02:11 PM)
Ah, after all these years I could still probably write a book about all the things I do not know about this game. Well maybe I exaggerated a bit - but the fact remains that even a 12 DB strike on an out of the way xAKL is too much when I'm out carrier-hunting and every sortie counts...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Picket line's (2/25/2011 2:12:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PMN Ah, after all these years I could still probably write a book about all the things I do not know about this game. Well maybe I exaggerated a bit - but the fact remains that even a 12 DB strike on an out of the way xAKL is too much when I'm out carrier-hunting and every sortie counts... I think part of the "transaction", with randoms and FOW, is that the CV commander doesn't know it's only 1 xAKL every time. Air search reports were notoriously overstated. You can somewhat manage your bomb consumption by setting strike ranges close until you have a soldid ID. But it's a trade-off with getting that first strike away first when it really is a carrier. Decisions, decisions . . .[:)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75