Gamey or not? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Jaypea -> Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 3:48:58 PM)

Full campaign versus Japanese AI ->

I have been facing a large japanese Carrier fleet near my base at kendari (March/April 1942). This force would show up and scare all my ships away (killing a few) for several days then dissappear. Then returning a week or two later. So I moved two Fighter groups of P40E (144 planes) and my five carriers to kendari. I soon as I spotted the SEVEN japanese carriers approaching, i got nervous about losing my fleet, so I offloaded all my airplanes to Macassar and moved the P40E;s there. The Japanese fleet came after my retreating carriers and I hade my self my own MIDWAY. 250 Fighters versus 65 zeroes on CAP. My fighters got massacred but almost all of my divebombers and TBD's got through. So I ended up sinking (4) Japanese carriers while my own carriers were safely headed to Darwin. After 2-3 turns the Japanese fleet retreated badly hurt. I then sent my carriers back and reboarded my planes.

Gamey? I was thinking it was but then I remembered that the Japanese historically moved air groups off there ships to reinforce land based air. Why shouldn't the Allies? Has anyone tried this versus a human player? would it work?

Opinions please

JP



Mr.Frag -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 4:00:30 PM)

Yep thats gamey [:D]

Had you not used your CV's to hook them, it would be fine, but thats just a tad too much bait & switch for me [:D]



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 4:15:55 PM)

Absolutely gamey. This is the kind of "out of the box" play that will break the AI. If you want a balanced game, playing the AI, you have to really try and limite yourself to standard tactics.



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 4:46:25 PM)

Against the AI..it is a sandbag, but if the action mimics something that could be done in the real world, despite being a bit whacky, it is fair in PBEM.



mavraam -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 4:50:19 PM)

quote:

Has anyone tried this versus a human player? would it work?


Mabye once! [:'(]

Seriously though, I would say vs AI: gamey, vs human: fair game.



UncleBuck -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 5:33:14 PM)

I would say that it was Gamey in this instance, but if you had planned to move your carrier air to a Land base in that area, and it just so happened that after you transferred them the JP carriers showed up, I would not call it gamey. In UV playing as allies I often took my main fleet carriers and dropped off their air wings at a forward base. I didn't have enough CV power to actually do anything with them, so I transferred the planes and either sent them to Noumea for repairs or back to Pearl for upgrades.

So, I don't know if it was gamey, just the intention seems gamey.

UB



rogueusmc -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 5:57:17 PM)

It screws the AIs head up, but, it would be something that might work in real life....not that anyone would have done it....

Gamey against the AI because the AI doesn'tthink outside the box, as has been already said



kaleun -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 6:41:27 PM)

Agree, gamey against AI. Fair ruse de guerre in PBEM



mdiehl -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:00:14 PM)

Not gamey in the slightest. All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock. What was gamey was the fact that there were 7 Japanese CVs operating in close proximity, and that you could hit a 65 plane Japanese cap with 100+ P40s and F4Fs and get the snot shot out of your fighters. The results should have been much more one-sided in favor of the Allies.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:17:13 PM)

quote:

All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock


You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.



Reiryc -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:19:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock


You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.


It's the US that's doing it... thus not gamey! [8|]



mdiehl -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:32:44 PM)

quote:

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.


If the base already has the capacity to hold and service that many a/c, which is a function of the size and the support personnel, what's the problem? What's "realistic" about assuming that every a/c blows a tire on landing just because it was transferred from a CV to a land base? This is in essence the very same strategy that the Japanese did (and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Japanese players WILL use) in the Marianas Turkey Shoot... only in this case the shoe is on the other foot.

What's "realistic" about the Japanese maintaining a 65 plane CAP?

The game allows it. The game makes it a viable alternative strategy. Call it the law of unintended consequences or whatever, but exploiting the rules is, in my opinion, the closest thing that a consim can allow towards realism.

quote:

It's the US that's doing it... thus not gamey!


Alot of the AFs were complaining that the Allied player unfairly chooses not to stay and fight futile battles so that the Japanese can run up the VP talley in sunk ships without real risk of losing any vessels of their own. Jaypea developed an ad hoc strategy that allowed him to confront a threat that the Japanese never would have concocted in the real war and, incidently, that allowed him to offer some real resistence. Seems like the complaint from some is that the Allied player has any options at all.



byron13 -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:39:34 PM)

I'm just impressed that he's still got Kendari in April. Looks to me like the game is over. Start over.



Nikademus -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:51:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.


considering the US was hard pressed to attempt coordiated attacks off of carriers, i dont see how transfering the CAG's to a base magically erases this fobile.
Is it possible? yes. The Japanese, as mentioned did it. (and look how successful it was) Probably whats truely "gamey" about it is, as you mentioned, that a player can instantaniously transfer then attack with no time to prep and plan from the new base of operations.

Thats why i tend to not do this at all in my games for either side. carrier squadrons stay on their carriers mainly because thats how the carrier commanders would want it that way and would resist having their precious airgroups comendered by land commanders.



freeboy -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:56:18 PM)

quote:

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic


ditto, its not just the blown tires.. its all those bombs, and fuel and .. where do these guys sleep etc type issues



mdiehl -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:56:54 PM)

quote:

considering the US was hard pressed to attempt coordiated attacks off of carriers,


In the game perhaps. Not in the real war. US launched many well coordinated strikes in 1942. It just happens that the US CVs didn't fare so well in that matter in the only battle that most bother to study -- Midway. And even then, people overlook the fact that risking a poorly coordinate strike was a deliberate choice and not "the usual practice."



kaleun -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:58:17 PM)

quote:

ditto, its not just the blown tires.. its all those bombs, and fuel and .. where do these guys sleep etc type issues


You are right,[;)] the VD they pick up when off the ship won't keep them from flying.[:D]



Nikademus -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 7:59:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In the game perhaps. Not in the real war. US launched many well coordinated strikes in 1942. It just happens that the US CVs didn't fare so well in that matter in the only battle that most bother to study -- Midway. And even then, people overlook the fact that risking a poorly coordinate strike was a deliberate choice and not "the usual practice."


This is incorrect. Coordinated attacks were attempted at Midway but ended up badly fragmented. Multi-carrier and even single carrier coordination was the bane of USN carrier aviation in 1942



mdiehl -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 8:06:08 PM)

It's not incorrect if you read what I said. At Midway the US knowingly ran a greater risk of uncoordinated strikes.. largely in an effort to get in the first hit, a problem compounded by the extended range.

So, I agree, the Midway strike was not well coordinated. And I agree that the USN attempted to get the strike waves to form up. I do not agree that the usual procedure was followed at Midway or that Midway can plausibly be viewed as typical of US plane strike-coordination efforts. The US had no problem making coordinated strikes at Coral Sea or in the, err, Yorktown-Lexington (IIRC) "Over the Stanleys" raid in early 1942 -- much less any of the single ship raids.

This "poorly coordinated raids was the bane of USN CV ops in 1942" thing is an imagined phenomenon.



dtravel -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 8:08:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep thats gamey [:D]

Had you not used your CV's to hook them, it would be fine, but thats just a tad too much bait & switch for me [:D]


Its exactly the strategy the Japanese used during the US invasion of the Phillipines. The northern force of empty carriers was supposed to allow itself to be spotted and then run, drawing the US carriers out of position protecting the landings so the IJN battleships could reach the transports.

The fact that the carriers were empty because they didn't planes and pilots for them in the first place rather than because they offloaded them is just a minor detail. [:D]



freeboy -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 8:09:14 PM)

gamey = tricking the "dumb" ia.. not unrealistic



Nikademus -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 8:11:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's not incorrect if you read what I said. At Midway the US knowingly ran a greater risk of uncoordinated strikes.. largely in an effort to get in the first hit, a problem compounded by the extended range.



except the US did not "knowingly" run a greater risk of uncoordinated strikes. They attempted a coordinated strike but failed at it.

quote:



So, I agree, the Midway strike was not well coordinated. And I agree that the USN attempted to get the strike waves to form up. I do not agree that the usual procedure was followed at Midway or that Midway can plausibly be viewed as typical of US plane strike-coordination efforts. The US had no problem making coordinated strikes at Coral Sea or in the, err, Yorktown-Lexington (IIRC) "Over the Stanleys" raid in early 1942 -- much less any of the single ship raids.


I'm not saying the US would "always" suffer issues of coordination, but it happened often enough for it to be a documented problem. The US also had no mulit-carrier coordination doctrine. Midway was not a sole example though for obvious reasons, it was greatly highlighted. The game reflects this by giving a greater "chance" for fragmentation to occur but it is not a gurantee. The Japanese also have a chance for fragmentation albeit a lower one.

quote:


This "poorly coordinated raids was the bane of USN CV ops in 1942" thing is an imagined phenomenon


The quote comes from John Lundstrom.



kaleun -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 8:12:27 PM)

gamey = tricking the "dumb" ia.. not unrealistic


That's why the general consensus was that it is gamey versus the IA, but not in PBEM.



mdiehl -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 8:23:03 PM)

quote:

The quote comes from John Lundstrom.


I don't recall reading that. In any case I still think it is incorrect. The over-the stanleys. Coral Sea. The Rendova raid. Eastern Solomons. I can't think offhand of a 1942 example OTHER than Midway where the CV strike escort simply failed to find its charges.

We'll just have to disagree in re Midway. The US deviated from its usual practice of having the bombers form up and await the arrival of the escorts in a designated waiting area. The choice was made in order to maximize the likelihood of taking the Japanese by surprise. It was hoped that the faster SBDs would overtake the TBDs along the way, and that the yet faster F4Fs find the whole mess en route. Standard procedure was not followed. IMO had the range been 120 miles rather than 180 going to 200 or whatever, the US strike would have arrived in a coordinated fashion.

And this is of course a different cat entirely from coordinating defensive CAP, at which the US was better than the Japanese from the get go (owing in large part to IFF and radar). Which is why I think the most disturbing thing about the post that started this thread is that 65 Japanese aircraft were operating on CAP in the first place.

quote:

That's why the general consensus was that it is gamey versus the IA, but not in PBEM.


In that case, "gamey" was the AI having 7 CVs operating together in the first place.



Nikademus -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 8:30:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I don't recall reading that. In any case I still think it is incorrect. The over-the stanleys. Coral Sea. The Rendova raid. Eastern Solomons. I can't think offhand of a 1942 example OTHER than Midway where the CV strike escort simply failed to find its charges.



See Vol II, FIrst Team... Lundstrom was describing yet another episode of strike coordination problems during the battle of the Santa Cruz islands. Problems were experienced in all four major carrier battles to varying degrees.

quote:



We'll just have to disagree in re Midway. The US deviated from its usual practice of having the bombers form up and await the arrival of the escorts in a designated waiting area. The choice was made in order to maximize the likelihood of taking the Japanese by surprise. It was hoped that the faster SBDs would overtake the TBDs along the way, and that the yet faster F4Fs find the whole mess en route. Standard procedure was not followed. IMO had the range been 120 miles rather than 180 going to 200 or whatever, the US strike would have arrived in a coordinated fashion.



I guess we will [:)] Standard procedure was followed, but the US "procedure" was overcomplicated and had no less than three depature scenerios. The desire to take the Japanese by suprise only factored in the US desire to get in the first strike. Since the Japanese were sighted first, this was not exactly an issue. An attempt at coordinated strikes was made in order to inflict maximum damage. Delays and other issues contributed greatly to the sending off of indiv. squadrons alone. Yes, the different cruising speeds and ranges of the three aircraft types exaserbated an already problem plauged situation



tsimmonds -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 8:40:41 PM)

On board Enterprise at 0900 on Oct 26, 1942, during the Battle of Santa Cruz. As strike aircraft taxi into launch position, they are given final instructions by means of chalk boards. The one on the left displays a corrected sighting position. The one on the right reads "Proceed without Hornet".

One of those 1000-word pictures.....

[image]local://upfiles/10816/Ec899095136.jpg[/image]



Tanaka -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 9:16:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock


You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.



I agree. They should make a rule like this in the next patch.



Jaypea -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 9:17:59 PM)

Good discussion! Thanks for the input. I was thinking it was gamey too.


JP



Tanaka -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 9:18:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.


If the base already has the capacity to hold and service that many a/c, which is a function of the size and the support personnel, what's the problem? What's "realistic" about assuming that every a/c blows a tire on landing just because it was transferred from a CV to a land base? This is in essence the very same strategy that the Japanese did (and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Japanese players WILL use) in the Marianas Turkey Shoot... only in this case the shoe is on the other foot.

What's "realistic" about the Japanese maintaining a 65 plane CAP?

The game allows it. The game makes it a viable alternative strategy. Call it the law of unintended consequences or whatever, but exploiting the rules is, in my opinion, the closest thing that a consim can allow towards realism.

quote:

It's the US that's doing it... thus not gamey!


Alot of the AFs were complaining that the Allied player unfairly chooses not to stay and fight futile battles so that the Japanese can run up the VP talley in sunk ships without real risk of losing any vessels of their own. Jaypea developed an ad hoc strategy that allowed him to confront a threat that the Japanese never would have concocted in the real war and, incidently, that allowed him to offer some real resistence. Seems like the complaint from some is that the Allied player has any options at all.


Not "every" aircraft should be damaged but a decent amount should be waiting in line to be serviced.



Tanaka -> RE: Gamey or not? (7/21/2004 9:21:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep thats gamey [:D]

Had you not used your CV's to hook them, it would be fine, but thats just a tad too much bait & switch for me [:D]


Its exactly the strategy the Japanese used during the US invasion of the Phillipines. The northern force of empty carriers was supposed to allow itself to be spotted and then run, drawing the US carriers out of position protecting the landings so the IJN battleships could reach the transports.

The fact that the carriers were empty because they didn't planes and pilots for them in the first place rather than because they offloaded them is just a minor detail. [:D]



the problem isnt using your carriers for bait but offloading all your carrier planes at a base to attack right away.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625