"Gamey" Tactics

[tocaff]

I had a new backwater suggestion as to the ultimate of "gamey" moves.  How about banning Japanese invasions of Brisbane and Noumea?  It was stated that these places in the wrong hands stop the flow of supplies and reinforcements which in life would be total BS.

Joe no answers for you yet?  Either nobody knows or they don't care enough to go digging for the answer.  Maybe it's time to enlighten Mike.

[decaro]

I recall Pac War house rules had a restriction that Aussie home guard troops couldn't be used outside of the continent.

Tocaff, no one should be digging for the answer as it's all right in the post.
Maybe I'll give it more time.

How do you like the new IJN/US ship artwork? UV is one of the few games that actually gets better w/age. Well, I guess that's the advantage of a cult following.

[USSAmerica]

Joe, I think I was trying too hard to find out "why" the Marine unit your Army unit was attached to, instead of recognizing that you asked "how it was possible."  Just about anyone assigned to a unit that earns an award will receive it.  Army tankers attached to, and fighting with Marines can certainly be awarded a Navy Unit Citation.  Congratulations, and a bit belated thank you for your service![8D]

[decaro]

We have a winner!

Now, as to why we were attached to 2nd Marines -- since the leather necks had the old, obsolete M60 tanks, they were slated to be reinforced w/a Brit arm'd unit.

But when the Brits found-out that the thrust into Kuwait was just a diversion and that the real show was the "Hail Mary" move west into Iraq, they opt'ed out and went w/the glory guys -- 1st AD et al -- and said farewell to the Marines.

1st Cav and 2nd AD -- two units that shared the same post -- hated each other, so it was easy for 1st Bde, 2AD to be transferred operationally (op Con'd) and supply the "new" -- although we actually had the oldest Abrams fleet in the Army -- tanks to the Marines.

So, a deactivating unit that was supposed to be the round-out brigade for 1st Cav -- as the 49th AD of the Texas NG was a no show for Desert Storm -- ends up w/the Marines and goes into Kuwait. Since we became part of their order of battle, we got what they got, and since I was actually there, I was entitled to wear the ribbon when I was eventually transferred to Army Materiel Command. The ribbon is still listed as an award on my DD-214 discharge.

As for 1st Cav, they were used mostly as a diversion during ODS and never caught-up w/VII Corp's main thrust into Iraq.

Served them right!

[tocaff]

Always, I repeat always, look for the obivous first for your answer. 

So if it's "gamey" to take Brisbane or Noumea to stop supply and reinforcement is it "gamey" not to station defensive troops at these bases since your opponent can't assault them?

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: tocaff
I had a new backwater suggestion as to the ultimate of "gamey" moves.  How about banning Japanese invasions of Brisbane and Noumea?  It was stated that these places in the wrong hands stop the flow of supplies and reinforcements which in life would be total BS.

This is very "Gamey". Japanese invasions of Brisbane and Noumea represent reasonable if unlikely options. Supply & Reinforcements would have been blocked historically, and although the Allies would have moved the supply destinations, the new sites would be "off map" at ( proberly ) Sydney/Melbourne and Auckland/Suva ( Fiji ). Such moves are not covered by the rules of the game however.
This is proberly why Brisbane & Nouméa have such high Japanese VP
ratings in the game - to prompt the Allied player to ensure these are NOT lost.

So if it's "gamey" to take Brisbane or Noumea to stop supply and reinforcement is it "gamey" not to station defensive troops at these bases since your opponent can't assault them?

It's not "gamey" ( in my view ) to take Brisbane or Nouméa, but if you decide to play UV as if it is & not allow such attacks, then it is indeed "gamey" not to station defensive troops at these bases.


Personally, I would not play a game that disallows this attacking option and allows this non-defense option. I would also not be keen to play a game that disallows the attacking option only. If you fail to defend Brisbane & Nouméa and lose them, then you deserve to lose the game!

[decaro]

It's ironic that the two people who don't play PBEM have the most to say re gamey tactics.

That confessed, if it's hypothetically possible, then it should be allowed, i.e., you can turn-off the Jap sub doctrine switch to see what would have happened if the IJN went after transports instead of just capital ships. And doesn't UV have "what if' scenarios?

Half the fun of UV is finding "innovative" ways to beat your opponent, whatever he/she/it is. And if you try to "cheat" by stacking fleets or subs, there are in-game penalties. Also, UV's supply/upgrade doctrine keeps you from turning the airfield on Guadalcanal into LaGuardia.

And yes, if you don't defend something, then blame yourself for not keeping it.

[tocaff]

Finding new ways of doing things is fine, but the "gamey" point is about taking advantage of the game engine.  If I call these things flaws I'll get accused of degrading the game, which I'm not.  A case in point is I hold a base, PM for instance, and Allied LBA is making it to dangerous to run a transport TF in with supplies so instead I run multiple TFs of 1 transport each and all together into PM. This way each air attack will be limited to hitting 1 ship at the most so instead of not being able to get anything other than barges into PM I am now running 20 APs in 20 TFs and I'm getting thousands of supply points into PM.  By abusing the game the Japanese player has broken the Allied player's virtual strangle hold on PM and these supplies can make or break the defense against invasion.  We all know that PM and Lunga, when in Allied hands, makes life almost impossible for the Japanese player due to the LBA dominating the game.  Again innovation is great and nobody's suggesting that "house rules" must be used.

[decaro]

I wonder if surrounding the hexes around the port w/subs -- one per hex -- would put an end to the 1 ship supply TFs; w/o escorts, the transports would be vunerable to multiple sub attacks in the same turn.

And you can always use a sub to mine enemy harbors; w/o MSWs and DDs, a one transport TF wouldn't stand much of a chance in a minefield.

UV does allow for a lower detection rate for smaller TFs.

[tocaff]

There's nothing like a good strong air strike conducted by veteran air crews, especially if they carry torps.  Minfields containing thousands of mines do good to damage a few ships before they're swept and subs must be in the hex that the TF stops in to have a chance of attcking so they are good to have but not the killers that surface or air attacks are.

[decaro]

OK, but those (gamey) 1 ship transport TFs have no escorts, so they can't sweep away mines.

Re subs: in earlier UV versions, the ship had to actually stop in the hex containing a sub for an attack to occur, but that was patched so that any sub crossing the path of a surface vessel will have a chance of attacking it. And w/o escorts, the subs will be free to fight on the surface and use their deck guns.

Between mines, subs and air power, these lone transport TFs will soon suffer high attrition rates. And if you run out of undamaged transports, you will have to use bombers and war ships -- even subs -- for routine supply. When that happens, you're going to find it hard to go on the offensive w/all your assets busy keeping your bases from going into the red.

I think for every measure in UV there's a counter measure, and if it's hypothetically possible, it probably should be allowed. Otherwise, you're going to have a pretty long "don't do" list.

[tocaff]

Actually the "don't do" list is pretty short and if you hook up with good players it's almost something that's totally uneeded.  Think of the Allied LBA being green, horrible Allied torp reliability, Allied lack of mining capabilites and then factor in 6 months of Japan hunting the USN and you have a situation that the Japanese player can really take advantage of.  Remember that in both World Wars the convoy system was used by the Allies because to send lone shipping was to dangerous, but not in our beloved game.  That was not a knock on UV by the way.  The smart Japanese player convoys his shipping too.  Think of how you would react if I ran 30 APs and 10 tankers into PM in 3 different TFs at the same time.  Now how would you deal with a resupply surge of those same ships if they all went in but in 40 different TFs.  I could always cover them with a Surface, ASW or even Air TF and any loses suffered would be minimalized by this tactic because your air strike can only hit 1 TF per raid.  I would also use fewer combat assets to cover this way too.  It's a "gamey" tactic, but it's OK to do if you and your opponent don't ban it.  This thread is just about those tactics that we don't like to see because of them taking advantage of quirks in the game, not about banning everything because it wasn't historical.  The advantage of wargaming is the hindsight available to us so we can do what ifs and nobody dies.

[decaro]

Ironic that the real Japanese didn't take advantage of this situation; perhaps they were too tied-up in China and else where.

A Japanese diplomat surrendering aboard the Missourri said he was finally able to see all the uniformed representatives of the many nations arrayed against him and his country; he then understood that his tiny island nation had bitten-off much more than it could chew.

One final thought; even if my mines and subs don't stop all your transports, I can still bomb/bombard their port of call and put supplies in the red; TFs coming to PM from all different directions will eventually wind-up in the same target hex.

Bonzai, Tocaff: (may you) live for a thousand years.

[tocaff]

BANZAI!

[DEB]

As trees are more likely to live a thousand years, maybe Bonsai is more appropriate!!

[tocaff]

The only sure things in life are death, taxes and losing to Miller.  

[decaro]

Giant California Redwoods might make it to a thousand years, but even with the best of care, you're lucky if a bonsai lives 100; you're cheating tocaff out of nine centuries!

[tocaff]

Now that's "gamey"!

[DEB]

According to my brother's book on Bonsai, they can live for Hundreds of years. I guess it depends on which tree type you are talking about. As for 1,000 years who knows.

However, Banzai relates to 10,000 years and not 1,000. So you did tocaff out of more years than me! [;)]

By, the way; it may mean little to you, but accusing anyone of cheating, has historically always been consided a gross insult. Many people died for insulting people thus ( even when they were right )!


You should choose your word's more carefully ( as well as spell them correct / get your facts correct ). [:-]

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Now that's "gamey"!

However, Banzai relates to 10,000 years and not 1,000. So you did tocaff out of more years than me!

So who's gamey now??