quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Anything that can be done by either side pretty much equally should not be considered gamey. As you said, it is just a game quirk.

Okay, I would define gamey as something that relies on game mechanics to be possible and which wouldn't be a valid tactic in real life. I want to emphasize again that just because I think it's gamey doesn't mean I think it's necessarily wrong to make use of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

[&:], Sure there is.

Ah, yes, the way I phrased it was a bit flawed and naturally interpreted in a way I didn't mean. Sorry about being unclear. What I meant is that if you are, say, at the Gilbert Islands you can sweep the area with naval search and just use naval attack to hit shipping in the area. You can't efficiently do that and have recon plus port attacks against ships at the small atolls at the same time. In a real world scenario anchoring at one of these small islands would hardly hide them from the naval search, right?
Clearing out ships disbanded like that seems more of a hassle than it ought to be. You can, in theory, naval attack + naval search + port attack with a single group. To recon a base to find disbanded ships you need an entirely separate group though which won't participate in the port attacks. Or have I been doing something wrong/overlooking something?

quote:

Ah, yes, the way I phrased it was a bit flawed and naturally interpreted in a way I didn't mean. Sorry about being unclear. What I meant is that if you are, say, at the Gilbert Islands you can sweep the area with naval search and just use naval attack to hit shipping in the area. You can't efficiently do that and have recon plus port attacks against ships at the small atolls at the same time. In a real world scenario anchoring at one of these small islands would hardly hide them from the naval search, right? Clearing out ships disbanded like that seems more of a hassle than it ought to be. You can, in theory, naval attack + naval search + port attack with a single group. To recon a base to find disbanded ships you need an entirely separate group though which won't participate in the port attacks. Or have I been doing something wrong/overlooking something?

quote:

zuluhour: I ain't sharing everthing for Christmas sake.

quote:

afraid of running into a brace of destroyers,

quote:

To tell you the truth, hiding ships in dot bases is an art Japan needs to learn if you hope to have any large ships survive into 1945.

quote:

You can easily break a group of bombers/floats into thirds and cover quite a few bases.

quote:

Also have Iboats patrol across dot bases is effective against disbanded ships.

quote:

There's no "attack ships at sea OR port"

quote:

ORIGINAL: mmoaorrke

As the opponent in question and since our game is on pause while Paul advertises for a replacement player, (and I hope we get one), to possibly clear up any misconceptions on my play, and since I found this post today, I thought it would be a good idea to reply to this thread. I'm certainly not the best player, there are many better in the various AARs, some of which posted here. I don't have the password, that would be just wrong. Doubt it is glitchy AI. Not using dot bases. I have over the last 2 years read a bunch of AARs and for any new player, there are ALOT of good tips and ideas in them. I even picked up a new tactic in this thread (thanks zulu) in the discussion about using dot bases for ambushes. One of the tips I picked up in one of the AARs (I forget whose it was, so can't give proper credit) was how to improve chances for mid-ocean intercepts. In the interest of giving back, and since it seemed to work so well it frustrated Paul, using the patrol feature, max reaction range, good commanders, and a bit of luck I've been able to make a few. In addition, I've also been a little late to some invasions but intercepted after the unload phase. Paul did fool me once at Perth, I transferred alot units but it was a false intel as that is when he landed at Wyndahm. Once he landed there and went for Darwin it was pretty obvious that was his supply source and where additional TFs would be coming. With allied intel, guessing intentions, some sub contacts (I always read the intel, watch the combat replay and read the combat report and take copious notes) in the port and between there and enemy ports I think that is what led to the intercept example in question. That (intel and sub contacts) would not show detection levels if I understand the game mechanic. I won't say which route but as someone pointed out, search arcs are important (e.g., day and night on patrolling TFs). As to it happening frequently, I think as the allied player and knowing generally where the enemy is going in the first part of the game, increases chances.
Mark