Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think it's gamey. Sending single destroyers out on tasks like this is ahistorical as well as a game system exploit.

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"



_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

quote:

Well, the best scouts historically were subs but they do not really do it that well in game unless they get run over. So, it is a toss up. Yeah, I probably would not do it

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Very, very gamey in IMO. Sending single ship in enemy controlled waters to be destroyed by enemy CVs so you coul'd know about their presence... is a gamey situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

My opponent and I have a situation where we wonder whether an Allied tactic is gamey or an unfair exploitation of the game.

It's July 1944 and the Allies have just invaded several points on eastern and southern Borneo. The Japanese remain very strong - the KB is powerful and the Japanese have a powerful network of airases on Borneo, Java, and Mindanao. Thus it would be very risky for the Allies to accept battle with the KB under the umbrella of Japanese LBA.

Several weeks ago the KB retired from the theater. I didn't know where she had gone, but I knew I had better not venture into enemy waters if there was a chance of bumping into here. So I detailed DD Swanson to sail all the way around Borneo to scout for the KB. (What my opponent doesn't know is that Swanson completed at least five circumnavigations of Borneo without incident - making it clear that this wasn't necessarily a "suicide" run).

Recently, Swanson bumped into a tanker TF and badly damaged three and an escort. My opponent protested and I told him that I wasn't (and won't) employ that tactic purposefully. IE, I won't flood Japanese controlled waters with single-ship TFs that are nearly impossible to track and destroy. I think he's okay with that.

However, next turn my scout did "find" the KB lurking off Kuching, Borneo (about where I had expected, though I wasn't sure). DD Swanson was destroyed but served its purpose.

My opponent thinks this is gamey. I don't think so, but wanted to open it to input from the forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

While not typical of destroyer missions by the U.S. Navy in WWII, Swanson's was intended to gather intel that the game doesn't provide in ways or amounts that existed in the real war.

In the real war, the Allies might have patrol craft, submarines, and commando units in and around the islands so plentiful in the triangle between Borneo, Java, and Singapore.  The Allies would also have a vast amount of signals (Magic intercept) information. 

Since the game doesn't permit us to land commando units on islands to watch for and report enemy forces, and since SigInt poorly models the amount of info the Allies had about enemy carriers, we are left to devise ways to find that information (if we can).

It seems that there is a split in the community as to whether the move was gamey or not.  In the overall scheme of things, I think it was a legit way to gather intel.  But in the absence of a strong consensus one way or the other, I will desist from circumnavigation-type recon voyages.  (That doesn't mean I won't send destroyers forward - just that I won't send them THAT far forward).

This concession is made in the spirit of "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety."