Shattered Vow

[CaptBeefheart]

Fascinating AAR and a bit more exciting than Q-Ball's. I'm sure you mentioned this somewhere earlier, but what's the story on the CV Constellation? Are you playing a mod or did you rename a carrier?

Thanks,
CC

[Canoerebel]

6/28/44 and 6/29/44
 
Constellation:  The Allies get some Essex class carriers that the player can rename if you wish to do so.  I renamed two of mine when they arrived in San Francisco in 1943:  CV Constellation and CV Constitution.  Both sailed to the DEI and engaged in the massive Battle of Morotai in which Constitution was sunk and Constellation lightly damaged.
 
Q-Ball's Game:  Yes, this game has been more "edgy" than Q-Ball's, though through no fault of his.  He kept his carriers intact and gained tremendous strategic advantage in the DEI.  So he's had a bit of a cake walk.  I, on the other hand, I lost my carriers (well, many of them) and didn't get strategic surprise in the DEI.  I guarantee you, though, that Q-Ball is having a blast.
 
Celebes:  The initial Allied deliberate attacks at Makassar achieve 2:1 odds and drop forts to three.  The Japanese suffer greatly disproportionate losses.  This base will fall within the week.  The Allies take the little base of Pare Pare up the peninsula.  It is currently a level zero airfield but can be built large (something like level eight).
 
Borneo:  The Allies tried another probing attack at Sampit, which Miller is reinforcing by air.  The odds were 1:2 with about equal casualites.   The Allies are loading boukoups reinforcements that should arrive within the week (barring the KB blocking the way).  That should be enough to do the trick.  The Allies will be content to stay the course at Balikpan for awhile, as the main effort will be to (1) reinforce Sampit; (2) invade vacant Billiton Island; and (3) possibly invade Ketapang (west of Sampit) if lightly held.  Troops for these three operations are now loaded and moving to the staging point near Makassar.
 
Allied carriers:  Finished refueling and replacing lost aircraft at Darwin and will move immediately to the staging area near Makassar.  Eight or nine CVE upgraded from FM-2 Wildcats to Hellcats.  Constellation arrived at Perth and departs tonight for the yards at Capetown.
 
KB:  Sighted at Manila for the past four days.  The question is whether Miller will maintain position there (or around Mindanao) to permit a quick move to protect Balikpan, or whether he sends the KB south toward Java to protect Sampit/Ketapang etc.  DD Swanson continues its circumnavigations of Borneo to act as a scout.  Alot is going to happen in the next week.
 
Thailand:  The Allies are moving in great force east out of Nikon Richtisima and should be able to brush aside the moderately stout, but defeated and weary, Japanese force blocking the way east.  Another Allied force is moving northeast.  The Japanese position barring the way to Cambodia and Vietnam is tenuous now - the question is whether Miller can put together a defense that can stop the Allies long enough for the IJA to regroup.  The Japanese still hold Bangkok in force, but if the Allies are able to threat Cambodia and Vietnam, then Bangkok becomes somewhat irrelevant.
 
Superforts:  The Allies have scheduled the first B-29 raid of the war.  Six 7-plane squadrons at Kenari are to hit oil at Palembag (assuming these pilots, who have experience around 50, are capable of flying).

[Canoerebel]

6/30/44 and 7/1/44
 
Celebes:  Makassar falls to the Allies on July 1, 1944.  In addition to the obvious benefits of a big airfield at this location it gives the Allies a good port to serve as a refuge in the event of upcoming battles in the Makassar Strait or between Java and Borneo.  Once the troops wipe out the remaining Japanese units they will begin prepping for new targets - some possibilities will be Tarakan, Ketapang, and perhaps even a port on Java (I don't plan to conquer the entire island, but taking a base or two might be helpful).
 
Cirumnavigations by DD Swanson:  On yet another circumnavigation of Borneo for scouting purposes (keeping an eye out for the KB), Swanson bumps into a TK TF and roughs up four of them.  My opponent is protesting this as gamey.  I think he fears the Allies could do this kind of thing all the time.  I wouldn't, but I do want to be able to use the occasional destroyer to scout for the KB (after all, the Allies in the real war had much more information about Japanese carriers than we get in the game).  What do you guys think?  Is using the occasional destroyer to scout behind enemy lines kosher (as long as I try to avoid gamey clashes with transports and tankers) or is it gamey?
 
Superforts:  They didn't fly.
 

[JohnDillworth]

Cirumnavigations by DD Swanson: On yet another circumnavigation of Borneo for scouting purposes (keeping an eye out for the KB), Swanson bumps into a TK TF and roughs up four of them. My opponent is protesting this as gamey. I think he fears the Allies could do this kind of thing all the time. I wouldn't, but I do want to be able to use the occasional destroyer to scout for the KB (after all, the Allies in the real war had much more information about Japanese carriers than we get in the game). What do you guys think? Is using the occasional destroyer to scout behind enemy lines kosher (as long as I try to avoid gamey clashes with transports and tankers) or is it gamey?

I don't think so. The Navy was willing to sacrifice a DD for early warning and intelligence. How about the picket destroyers they put arond the fltt to they could pick up the kamakaze's before the big ships radar could detect them. Plenty of those got slammed. Make it 4 DD's and start to make him escort his tankers better. You should be doing that anyway.

As for t he forts not flying, not surprised. Funny thing was I got them to fly against Tokyo with similar experience. Can they fly at night?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Cirumnavigations by DD Swanson:[/b]  On yet another circumnavigation of Borneo for scouting purposes (keeping an eye out for the KB), Swanson bumps into a TK TF and roughs up four of them.  My opponent is protesting this as gamey.  I think he fears the Allies could do this kind of thing all the time.  I wouldn't, but I do want to be able to use the occasional destroyer to scout for the KB (after all, the Allies in the real war had much more information about Japanese carriers than we get in the game).  What do you guys think?  Is using the occasional destroyer to scout behind enemy lines kosher (as long as I try to avoid gamey clashes with transports and tankers) or is it gamey?

Are you kidding me?

Look, in Vegas, you put your bet down on the table and dare the house to beat you. If you lose, they take your money. If you win, they give you more money. It's a game, but it's not gamey.

You're betting your ship. He has the house advantage of interior lines, short naval search arcs, and a concentration of response bases. Your job is to sink his ships. To do that, you need to go where they are. (Or are you supposed to wait for him to serve them to you?)

His job is to stop you from sinking his ships. If not that, what is this game all about?

I've been urging you to stage DD raids for a long time, because guess what? That's what the game is about, sinking his ships so they can't haul stuff to Japan to make more stuff to kill YOUR ships. So you have defined-by-him "allowed" areas where this can happen? Baloney! If you're willing to risk your ships by sailing into Tokyo Bay he doesn't have a beef. He needs to stop you. When he can't any longer, he loses. Simple.

The more I think about your opponent's protest, the more I have to stiffle a laugh. Gamey!?

[Canoerebel]

I've just sent off a new turn.  Here's the skinny:
 
1.  Miller says he doesn't mind me using DDs for scouting, but he does feel that using them way beyond air cover to hunt convoys is a little gamey.  I think he should protect his convoys better, but I'm willing to accede to his wishes here. (Note:  I send combat TFs on raiding missions, but since the last successful action at Soerabaja I've haven't had a successful intercept).
2.  The KB disappeared at a most inauspicious moment.  My carriers and transports are nearing the rendezvous point off Makassar.  I want to send them on to Sampit, Ketapang, and Billiton, but I don't want to sail well beyond my LBA only to face the combination of the KB and 1500 LBA.
3.  My carrier fighter squadrons that upgraded are at 50% now, so they need another day or two to come 100% online.  That gives me another turn to search for the KB (DD Swanson is still patroling the waters just west of Borneo).  So all carriers and transports will rendezvous two hexes south of Watampone under cover of LRCAP.
4.  If Miller clogs the Java Sea with carriers and LBA (as he seems to be doing), the Allies will feint towards Balikpan (where he has a TON of LBA).  If necessary, I can postpone the South Borneo gambit and instead load a stout force to invade Samarinda, which is much less stoutly defended than is Balikpan.
5.  Several hundred B-24 are set to hit Tarakan tomorrow.
6.  The pressure is mounting on the Japanese and I feel a titanic convergence of forces.  Something big will happen in the near future.
7.  Thailand:  The Allied army east of Nikon Richtisima will try a deliberate attack tomorrow.  If successful, the road to the east is open.

[Yank]

I agree with Bullwinkle. You're certainly cutting your opponent a lot of slack on point #1.  Agsint my PBEM partner, I just staged a couple of crusier TF raids on the North Shore of New Guineau to bust up some small Japanese TFs unloading there. It's January 1942 and I could not exactly place the whereabouts of KB. Certainly no air cover from Port Moresby or Australia was available for that raid. Is that gamey?  I rolled the dice and had a small success. If KB had been in the neighborhood I would have regretted it...balancing risk/reward that's what the game is all about.  TFs sailed without air cover when commanders needed them to.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Cirumnavigations by DD Swanson:[/b]  On yet another circumnavigation of Borneo for scouting purposes (keeping an eye out for the KB), Swanson bumps into a TK TF and roughs up four of them.  My opponent is protesting this as gamey.  I think he fears the Allies could do this kind of thing all the time.  I wouldn't, but I do want to be able to use the occasional destroyer to scout for the KB (after all, the Allies in the real war had much more information about Japanese carriers than we get in the game).  What do you guys think?  Is using the occasional destroyer to scout behind enemy lines kosher (as long as I try to avoid gamey clashes with transports and tankers) or is it gamey?

Are you kidding me?

Look, in Vegas, you put your bet down on the table and dare the house to beat you. If you lose, they take your money. If you win, they give you more money. It's a game, but it's not gamey.

You're betting your ship. He has the house advantage of interior lines, short naval search arcs, and a concentration of response bases. Your job is to sink his ships. To do that, you need to go where they are. (Or are you supposed to wait for him to serve them to you?)

His job is to stop you from sinking his ships. If not that, what is this game all about?

I've been urging you to stage DD raids for a long time, because guess what? That's what the game is about, sinking his ships so they can't haul stuff to Japan to make more stuff to kill YOUR ships. So you have defined-by-him "allowed" areas where this can happen? Baloney! If you're willing to risk your ships by sailing into Tokyo Bay he doesn't have a beef. He needs to stop you. When he can't any longer, he loses. Simple.

The more I think about your opponent's protest, the more I have to stiffle a laugh. Gamey!?

Well Bullwinkle58,

Yes and no.

Miller doesn't have an AAR so we don't know what exactly he finds objectionable, but let me have a stab at what that might be.

Miller is probably seeing a DD which is continuously moving from point A to point B back to A then again to B back to A etc. He is probably of the view that the only reason why the DD is there is only to draw an over the top KB strike on a picket ship which in turn leaves the KB open to a counter strike from Allied carriers. The objectionable part would be that:

(a) this is a potential suicide mission - as a former USN dolphin, do you really think that the United States just sends its assets on suicide missions, immune to the impact of public opinion when the lives of real men (and nowadays real women) are sacificed in impossible situations just to get intel?

(b) this is not akin to sending a fleet, no matter how small or large or how mismatched, into Tokyo Bay. If you sail into Tokyo Bay, even with zero intel of what is there, you can safely assume that (i) there is some enemy ship there which could be attacked, or (ii) there is some fixed installation there which could be attacked, or (iii) you might want to distract the enemy from looking elsewhere where the real Allied thrust is occuring. These three considerations (I bet there are others too) might just justify exposing a volunteer crew exposing itself to a mission against the odds, but to order a non volunteer crew to merely sail about with no purpose other than to attract an air strike for intel purposes in lieu of using electronic means to gather intel, might be construed as being gamey in the sence that no American politician would accept the political flak. We do remember the outcry over the Pueblo and that occurred in international waters in "peacetime".

Alfred

[Canoerebel]

Edited to Add: This was in reply to the post by Rains:

I understand your point and appreciate your sentiment.  But the kind of operation my opponent is concerned about is much different.  He's worried about the Allies sending one-DD TFs into the South China Sea to intercept Japanese tankers.  These would be suicide missions since those waters are totally controlled by Japanese air and ships.  The Allies wouldn't ordinarly do such a thing in the war, but in this case they can get away with it because game mechanics don't give the Japanese a reasonable shot at intercepting a single DD.  So, the Allies would actually be exploiting game mechanics if they did missions of this sort.

But note that scouting missions are not an exploitation of game mechanics and are designed to provide the Allies with the same sort of information they might have had in the real war (through radio intercepts, small craft, scouting units, or other intel).

Note that Miller is not protesting the kind of raid you describe, Yank.  If I sent a CL/DD force into the South China Sea and destroyed 50 tankers, my opponent would be mortified at himself, not me.  In those circumstances, the game would permit a reasonable chance for Japanese aircraft to target and attack that TF.

So I think everything is fine.

[Canoerebel]

7/2/44 and 7/3/44
 
KB:  Shows up west of Kuching, Borneo, as expected (sinking scout DD Swanson in the process).  Miller is squawking about the position of Swanson.  I need to think further about whether employing a destroyer in this fashion is gamey.  I cannot venture into the Java Sea as long as the KB is there - too far from my own bases and right between a bunch of Japanese bases.  But I can put together a move on Samarinda, a hex north of Balikpan.  The troops and transports are at Manado, so I'll load in preparation for such a move.
 
Situation:  We are at a real impass around Borneo.  The Allies can't take on both carrier- and land-based air away from their own land bases, so Miller's got me blocked. I'm giving this some thought.  I'd accept a carrier battle on neutral ground, but I doubt Miller will give that now.
 
Thailand:  The Allied attack east of Nikon Richtisima really roughs up IJA 44th Division.  The Allies didn't take the hex, but they should next turn.
 
 

[Alfred]

Ah yes. Sending a mismatched sized TF with a specific rational military object in mind, in this case finding enemy tankers, would be a different thing. One could quibble whether it should be done, but not that in itself it is an exploitation of the game engine.

So yes, if Miller accepts that single DD TFs are being sent into the South China Sea to attack enemy tankers (or for that matter some other merchantment), the fact that the DD raider is operating in very dangerous waters (open to attack from LBA or enemy patrolling naval surface units etc) albeit with the hope that the DD can safely return to port, would not warrant a claim of "gameyness".

Ultimately it is a matter between the two players as to what the intent is. A high risk tactical operation is not "gamey", whereas one that intends to exploit the game engine which gives one side an advantage, that would be "gamey" in a game which purports to be consistent with historical and real world constraints.

Alfred

[JohnDillworth]

Miller is squawking about the position of Swanson. I need to think further about whether employing a destroyer in this fashion is gamey.

This probably deserves full discussion in the general forum where Miller can participate. May I suggest yuo open the thread there and keep it in general terms. I'd really like to hear Millers take on this.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Well Bullwinkle58,

Yes and no.

Miller doesn't have an AAR so we don't know what exactly he finds objectionable, but let me have a stab at what that might be.

Miller is probably seeing a DD which is continuously moving from point A to point B back to A then again to B back to A etc. He is probably of the view that the only reason why the DD is there is only to draw an over the top KB strike on a picket ship which in turn leaves the KB open to a counter strike from Allied carriers. The objectionable part would be that:

(a) this is a potential suicide mission - as a former USN dolphin, do you really think that the United States just sends its assets on suicide missions, immune to the impact of public opinion when the lives of real men (and nowadays real women) are sacificed in impossible situations just to get intel?

(b) this is not akin to sending a fleet, no matter how small or large or how mismatched, into Tokyo Bay. If you sail into Tokyo Bay, even with zero intel of what is there, you can safely assume that (i) there is some enemy ship there which could be attacked, or (ii) there is some fixed installation there which could be attacked, or (iii) you might want to distract the enemy from looking elsewhere where the real Allied thrust is occuring. These three considerations (I bet there are others too) might just justify exposing a volunteer crew exposing itself to a mission against the odds, but to order a non volunteer crew to merely sail about with no purpose other than to attract an air strike for intel purposes in lieu of using electronic means to gather intel, might be construed as being gamey in the sence that no American politician would accept the political flak. We do remember the outcry over the Pueblo and that occurred in international waters in "peacetime".

Alfred

Overcome by events, more has been posted since we both responded. However . . .

"Suicide mission" is well-used in TV and movies, but is pretty rare in RL. Canoerebel has sent that lone DD all the way aorund Borneo twice now (I think) and it's very much alive. High-risk missions come with the territory in wartime. Take a look, for example, at USS Barb's exploits in VERY shallow water off the coast of China. (Who knew a fleet boat could do 21+ knots when it really, absolutely, positively, has to get there before morning?)

From Wikipedia:

"The last two war patrols conducted by Barb deserve mention. Under Commander Eugene B. Fluckey, her 11th patrol lasted from 19 December 1944-15 February 1945, in the Formosa Straits and East China Sea off the east coast of China, from Shanghai to Kam Kit. During this patrol, Barb sank four Japanese merchant ships and numerous enemy small craft. On 22–23 January Barb penetrated Namkwan Harbor on the China coast and wrought havoc upon a convoy of some 30 enemy ships at anchor. Riding dangerously in shallow waters, Barb launched her torpedoes into the enemy group and then retired at high speed on the surface in a full hour’s run through uncharted, heavily mined, and rock-obstructed waters. In recognition of this outstanding patrol, Commander Fluckey was awarded the Medal of Honor and Barb received the Presidential Unit Citation."

(FWIW, Admiral Fluckey spoke at the commissioning of my boat in 1964.)

Moreover, in general game (and real war) terms, it's 1944 here. The USA has striven mightily to build overwhelming forces and technological leads in order to secure operational and tactical options needed to finish the war. Part of this lead is sheer numbers of assets. By 1944, if he is wiling to take the irsks, Canoerebel is within his "rights" to flood the convoy routes headed for the HI with anything that will shoot. He just can, if he accepts the risk of retaliation. This isn't Marquis of Queensberry boxing. If you can sink the other guy's ships, you do. In the long run that saves lives. I think CR shold be runing dozens of small STF hunting parties into the western and northern convoy routes; he has DDs and DEs to burn. But one is as acceptable as twenty. It's his choice, not his opponent's.

It's also "gamey" for a Japanese player who ran amuck in 1942 to whine about the Allies having more toys to play with in the end game.

Raising the Japanese player's pucker factor, forcing him to heavily escort his convoys and rob his combat TFs of small boys, is perfectly good tactical decision-making. Miller seems to be demanding that he be allowed to run fat, dumb, and happy tanker gaggles home so that his combat TFs going toe-to-toe in the DEI have his remaining escorts available. But a big part of successful warfighting is doing that which your opponent doesn't want you to do. You don't lean into the punch. Especially when you're overflowing with ships, and he isn't. You exert implacable pressure where he can least afford it. War isn't a fair fight when it's waged well.

As for forcing a KB response, OK, maybe. But intel is often gained at cost. Planes are shot down just after radioing coordinates. Subs are DFed and prosecuted after sending locations to the wolfpack commander. If Miller wants EMCON, OPCON, and ANYCON, he can stand down his air groups and accept being blind. Or, he can sink the scout (if he can; so far he can't) and deal with having to re-position the KB afterward. It's his choice(s).

Bottom line though, it's CR's call how he uses his assets to win. It's not Miller's to decree that a, say, 4-ship STF is "valid" or "non-gamey", but a 1-ship STF isn't. Or even twenty 1-ship TF's. If he doesn't like it, he can detail twenty 1-ship TFs of his own to hunt down the intruders, at the cost of leaving the KB short. It's a beyotch being short of ships sometimes. I hope he enjoyed 1942.[:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I understand your point and appreciate your sentiment.  But the kind of operation my opponent is concerned about is much different.  He's worried about the Allies sending one-DD TFs into the South China Sea to intercept Japanese tankers.  These would be suicide missions since those waters are totally controlled by Japanese air and ships.  The Allies wouldn't ordinarly do such a thing in the war, but in this case they can get away with it because game mechanics don't give the Japanese a reasonable shot at intercepting a single DD.  So, the Allies would actually be exploiting game mechanics if they did missions of this sort.

/quote]

I disagree. He can get 100% "interception" of your 1-ship STF by escorting tankers. The escorts will engage 100% of the time when you attack the convoy. He just doesn't want to have to deal with that complication to his combat plans' need for those small boys elsewhere.

[Nemo121]

Umm, Canoerebel, what you are describing is utterly not gamey. If Miller hasn't taken measures to prevent it then that's his problem. If you do something he doesn't prevent then that's a sign of poor play on his part, not gameyness on yours.

If he had naval search laterally along his front and not just into the depth of your position ( something I pushed for in my AAR ) then he'd spot the DDs and all it would take are a few fighter-bombers or dive-bombers or 100 foot strafers to take care of the DD.

Instead of whining about gameyness he should just counter it in-game and claim an easy DD kill. Do players really find it fun to beat their opponent through rules-lawyering them to death in preference to just countering them in-game?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Well Bullwinkle58,

Yes and no.

Miller doesn't have an AAR so we don't know what exactly he finds objectionable, but let me have a stab at what that might be.

Miller is probably seeing a DD which is continuously moving from point A to point B back to A then again to B back to A etc. He is probably of the view that the only reason why the DD is there is only to draw an over the top KB strike on a picket ship which in turn leaves the KB open to a counter strike from Allied carriers. The objectionable part would be that:

(a) this is a potential suicide mission - as a former USN dolphin, do you really think that the United States just sends its assets on suicide missions, immune to the impact of public opinion when the lives of real men (and nowadays real women) are sacificed in impossible situations just to get intel?

(b) this is not akin to sending a fleet, no matter how small or large or how mismatched, into Tokyo Bay. If you sail into Tokyo Bay, even with zero intel of what is there, you can safely assume that (i) there is some enemy ship there which could be attacked, or (ii) there is some fixed installation there which could be attacked, or (iii) you might want to distract the enemy from looking elsewhere where the real Allied thrust is occuring. These three considerations (I bet there are others too) might just justify exposing a volunteer crew exposing itself to a mission against the odds, but to order a non volunteer crew to merely sail about with no purpose other than to attract an air strike for intel purposes in lieu of using electronic means to gather intel, might be construed as being gamey in the sence that no American politician would accept the political flak. We do remember the outcry over the Pueblo and that occurred in international waters in "peacetime".

Alfred

Overcome by events, more has been posted since we both responded. However . . .

"Suicide mission" is well-used in TV and movies, but is pretty rare in RL. Canoerebel has sent that lone DD all the way aorund Borneo twice now (I think) and it's very much alive. High-risk missions come with the territory in wartime. Take a look, for example, at USS Barb's exploits in VERY shallow water off the coast of China. (Who knew a fleet boat could do 21+ knots when it really, absolutely, positively, has to get there before morning?)

From Wikipedia:

"The last two war patrols conducted by Barb deserve mention. Under Commander Eugene B. Fluckey, her 11th patrol lasted from 19 December 1944-15 February 1945, in the Formosa Straits and East China Sea off the east coast of China, from Shanghai to Kam Kit. During this patrol, Barb sank four Japanese merchant ships and numerous enemy small craft. On 22–23 January Barb penetrated Namkwan Harbor on the China coast and wrought havoc upon a convoy of some 30 enemy ships at anchor. Riding dangerously in shallow waters, Barb launched her torpedoes into the enemy group and then retired at high speed on the surface in a full hour’s run through uncharted, heavily mined, and rock-obstructed waters. In recognition of this outstanding patrol, Commander Fluckey was awarded the Medal of Honor and Barb received the Presidential Unit Citation."

(FWIW, Admiral Fluckey spoke at the commissioning of my boat in 1964.)

Moreover, in general game (and real war) terms, it's 1944 here. The USA has striven mightily to build overwhelming forces and technological leads in order to secure operational and tactical options needed to finish the war. Part of this lead is sheer numbers of assets. By 1944, if he is wiling to take the irsks, Canoerebel is within his "rights" to flood the convoy routes headed for the HI with anything that will shoot. He just can, if he accepts the risk of retaliation. This isn't Marquis of Queensberry boxing. If you can sink the other guy's ships, you do. In the long run that saves lives. I think CR shold be runing dozens of small STF hunting parties into the western and northern convoy routes; he has DDs and DEs to burn. But one is as acceptable as twenty. It's his choice, not his opponent's.

It's also "gamey" for a Japanese player who ran amuck in 1942 to whine about the Allies having more toys to play with in the end game.

Raising the Japanese player's pucker factor, forcing him to heavily escort his convoys and rob his combat TFs of small boys, is perfectly good tactical decision-making. Miller seems to be demanding that he be allowed to run fat, dumb, and happy tanker gaggles home so that his combat TFs going toe-to-toe in the DEI have his remaining escorts available. But a big part of successful warfighting is doing that which your opponent doesn't want you to do. You don't lean into the punch. Especially when you're overflowing with ships, and he isn't. You exert implacable pressure where he can least afford it. War isn't a fair fight when it's waged well.

As for forcing a KB response, OK, maybe. But intel is often gained at cost. Planes are shot down just after radioing coordinates. Subs are DFed and prosecuted after sending locations to the wolfpack commander. If Miller wants EMCON, OPCON, and ANYCON, he can stand down his air groups and accept being blind. Or, he can sink the scout (if he can; so far he can't) and deal with having to re-position the KB afterward. It's his choice(s).

Bottom line though, it's CR's call how he uses his assets to win. It's not Miller's to decree that a, say, 4-ship STF is "valid" or "non-gamey", but a 1-ship STF isn't. Or even twenty 1-ship TF's. If he doesn't like it, he can detail twenty 1-ship TFs of his own to hunt down the intruders, at the cost of leaving the KB short. It's a beyotch being short of ships sometimes. I hope he enjoyed 1942.[:)]

Bullwinkle58,

I find nothing in your quoted post to be ojectionable. In fact I agree, particuarly your observation re suicide mission in RL (which was the essential point I was trying to make in my earlier post).

What I am trying to do is to walk in Miller's shoes and try to postulate publicly what he might post, or were he to have an AAR or to open a specific thread, to explain why he emailed to his opponent his concern.

To recapitulate, it would be "gamey" if the intent is to sail a single DD around on a suicide mission (possible in this electronic universe, not so easy IRL) with the intention to exploit the game engine to give one side an advantage which is not similarly available (or can't be countered) by the other. If the intent is to sail a single DD to draw a full KB strike (surely far in excess of what would be launched IRL to sink a single DD - after all the game engine does not give the player the option to tailor the size of his strike to take into account the value of the target) which would severely deplete the available KB strikes or tire his fighters on an unnecessary escort mission against a DD which is beyond friendly LRCAP range, and as a result the KB is vulnerable to a strike from follow on Allied carriers, that would be "gamey" as it game engine exploitation.

Please understand that I am not arguing that creative play is ipso facto "gamey". Nor should players be shielded from the consequences of their own poor play/decisions by simply claiming they are the victims of "gaminess".

Alfred

[Nemo121]

Aye, I'd agree with Alfred. IF there is a game code issue which means that single DDs aren't spotted as they should be then one shouldn't use single DD TFs. But the concept of raiding deeply and trying to sink AOs, TKs etc deep in the enemy rear ( even at huge risk ) is not inherently gamey.

As far as I am aware though a single ship DD TF isn't somehow magically stealthed. If there is enough naval search it'll be spotted and attacked, just as it should be.

[Yank]

Canoerebel - I understand the two examples, your scouting TF, and my cruiser raiders, are not completely analogous. The purpose of each was different. I was focused the point your oppoenent made about about air cover which is common in the two examples. His argument there is really a non-starter.
 
For that matter, if yuo wre playing against me, I wouldn't have any issues if you had a DD circumnavigate (Borneo?) every day. It's my fault if the TKs are unprotected, and heavy IJN escort losses earlier in the game would not be an excuse. That said, I would like to hear Miller's viewpoint. Perhaps there's some context I'm missing from his side.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Aye, I'd agree with Alfred. IF there is a game code issue which means that single DDs aren't spotted as they should be then one shouldn't use single DD TFs. But the concept of raiding deeply and trying to sink AOs, TKs etc deep in the enemy rear ( even at huge risk ) is not inherently gamey.

As far as I am aware though a single ship DD TF isn't somehow magically stealthed. If there is enough naval search it'll be spotted and attacked, just as it should be.

Adding to this point, though, it's not realistic to argue that detection is, or ought to be, equal regardless of the size or value of an asset. A PT boat can spot a CV battlegroup far more easily than the reverse. CAP is a pretty good indicator that the CV is somewhere in a multi-hundred mile circle; the PT is a matchstick on tossing waters. A submarine risks 90 or so men, but can hear a 100-ship convoy passively pounding by while being at essentially no risk of counter-detection. To argue that the game code doesn't mindlessly democratically prosecute any and all targets (you aren't, but Miller may be) is a non-starter in any realistic terms.

Alfred counter-counter-argues that the problem may be an over-reaction--a full-deck KB strike on one, lonely DD. Maybe, but sighting intel is notoriously bad, in RL and the game. Better be safe than have "one DD" be four cruisers and some unfortunate fog.

Regardless, Miller, in the thread on the main forum, says his beef is that CR sent this DD out from under air cover, and it was thus a de facto "suicide mission." That categorically is NOT his call to make, IMO.

[Nemo121]

it's not realistic to argue that detection is, or ought to be, equal regardless of the size or value of an asset.

Agreed, I didn't argue that and that's not how the game model works. A single BB will be more easily spotted than a single DD.