I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey...

I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (Full Version)

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

Message

HansBolter -> I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 7:50:06 PM)
Lots of players seem to comment that TFs of small auxiliaries in ports with air cover constitute "gamey" CAP traps. However, I see small TFs of auxiliaries at my ports as performing essential port maintenance and protection. Just about every last operation port I control gets dedicated TFs of ASW and Coastal Minesweepers set with one hex patrol patterns in the port hex with 0 reaction range to keep them in the hex. Each port also gets at least one AG, disbanded in the port, to service the auxiliaries. I see this as essential port maintenance, not an attempt to lure my opponents air units. Port ASW keeps enemy subs honest. Port MSW keeps the port clear of sub laid mines. Small ports may get one ship TFs while larger ports get 2-3 ship TFs. This is what these vessels are for. If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps?

Chickenboy -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 7:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps? Not by me. As you say, that is the intended use of these (military) ships. Have at it. If/when it bothered me, I would take it upon myself to visit the port with a 2-3 DD SCTF. But that's beside the point.

pws1225 -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 8:29:36 PM)
Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

Will_L_OLD -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 9:00:55 PM)
I do the same thing with those units.

BBfanboy -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 9:13:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pws1225 Nope, that looks all fair and square to me. +1 Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 9:15:45 PM)
I would not consider it gamey. Using dozens of TF's to accomplish 1 task in 1 hex far below TF ship limits due to game mechanics advantages is gamey. Putting ASW and minesweeper TF's is good practice, IMO.

Encircled -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 9:22:36 PM)
Not gamey, how else are you supposed to do it?

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 9:40:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: pws1225 Nope, that looks all fair and square to me. +1 Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid). I dont see that as gamey either, and you gave your own example for why.

obvert -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 10:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Lots of players seem to comment that TFs of small auxiliaries in ports with air cover constitute "gamey" CAP traps. However, I see small TFs of auxiliaries at my ports as performing essential port maintenance and protection. Just about every last operation port I control gets dedicated TFs of ASW and Coastal Minesweepers set with one hex patrol patterns in the port hex with 0 reaction range to keep them in the hex. Each port also gets at least one AG, disbanded in the port, to service the auxiliaries. I see this as essential port maintenance, not an attempt to lure my opponents air units. Port ASW keeps enemy subs honest. Port MSW keeps the port clear of sub laid mines. Small ports may get one ship TFs while larger ports get 2-3 ship TFs. This is what these vessels are for. If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps? Naval strikes have to take into consideration the targeting in game. CAP traps around bases/ports are a part of the game, not gamey. They were also part of the war. AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF.

witpqs -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 10:34:01 PM)
Good to go!

SheperdN7 -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 10:56:01 PM)
Fair play on your part Hans. The ONLY thing I consider gamey in AE is the mass spamming of 1 ship TF xAK and xAKL picket ships all over the place when a great CV clash is about to begin but even then, there's a counter to it. I'm one of the few players on here I think that don't see a TRUE need for any house rules.

Major Shane -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/16/2016 11:45:48 PM)
Not gamey. It's historical and fair play.

crsutton -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 1:04:47 AM)
CAP traps are part of the game. I don't think I know a player who does not make use of them and have heard of no HR banning them.

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 1:23:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF. I've never read that... where is that documented?

Big B -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 1:58:37 AM)
If the port in question is far enough forward to be under the threat of enemy air attack - why on earth would anyone NOT set CAP to protect them? IRL failure to do so would get you court-martialed [;)] No - Not Gamey

szmike -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 11:51:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote: ORIGINAL: obvert AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF. I've never read that... where is that documented? iirc in various dev posts around here From my experience AM ships do work and certainly are used before AMc. Or maybe some other factors are involved (experience, commander ratings?)

Zigurat666 -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 3:00:50 PM)
I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP

bradfordkay -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 3:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zigurat666 I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP If it is an important airbase I will have a decent CAP flying.

crsutton -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 3:49:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zigurat666 I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP The problem is that there would be no agreement about the correct number since there are so many variables involved. What about 200 aircraft? Fifty? Nobody is going to agree and there will just be some number where an argument occurs. HRs tend to ruin friendships so as few as possible is the ideal. CAP traps are a part of the game. No real way to avoid them or to regulate them that I can see. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 9:48:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: pws1225 Nope, that looks all fair and square to me. +1 Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid). I dont see that as gamey either, and you gave your own example for why. +1 for the local ASW and MSW and protective local CAP. However, I respectfully disagree about using xAKL as pickets. Although converted from former civilian ships, the picket boats were armed IJN auxiliaries, commanded and manned by military personnel. Thus in game terms they are no longer xAKL types but PB / PC types. The Japanese player can convert many xAKL classes to such patrol craft and should refrain from using xAKLs. The Allied player is more limited in this regard, but has more air search assets and less need for pickets. Using "clouds" of single-(x)AK(L)-TFs as early-warning devices and "buffers" around combat TFs is IMO pretty gamey. It is the duty of warships to protect civilian shipping, not the other way round.

BBfanboy -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/17/2016 10:26:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: pws1225 Nope, that looks all fair and square to me. +1 Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid). I dont see that as gamey either, and you gave your own example for why. +1 for the local ASW and MSW and protective local CAP. However, I respectfully disagree about using xAKL as pickets. Although converted from former civilian ships, the picket boats were armed IJN auxiliaries, commanded and manned by military personnel. Thus in game terms they are no longer xAKL types but PB / PC types. The Japanese player can convert many xAKL classes to such patrol craft and should refrain from using xAKLs. The Allied player is more limited in this regard, but has more air search assets and less need for pickets. Using "clouds" of single-(x)AK(L)-TFs as early-warning devices and "buffers" around combat TFs is IMO pretty gamey. It is the duty of warships to protect civilian shipping, not the other way round. Exactly my point LST - thank you for expanding it.

rustysi -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/18/2016 1:37:03 AM)
quote: Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid). Even here the IJ player has no need to use xAKL's for such duty. These 'picket' vessels that you describe are actually provided to the Japanese player in the form of 99 ton SC's. Commonly referred to as 'tuna boats'. So if he/she wants 'pickets' they should use these 'military' vessels.

rustysi -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/18/2016 1:42:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote: ORIGINAL: obvert AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF. I've never read that... where is that documented? I can attest to this personally. In one of my games a barge TF hit a mine at a minor base to which it was shuttling supplies. One barge down.[:D] After which I dispatched an AMc to said port. Disbanded and the minefield disappeared shortly thereafter. Also I've read it, but could not tell you where at this time.

rustysi -> RE: I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey... (12/18/2016 1:44:12 AM)
Oh, my fifth star. Finally.[:D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984375