Scout DDs Gamey?

[Misconduct]

Nemo is our HERO.

[Swenslim]

I thing problem was that his air search was set on another places, or weather was bad and allowed destroye to sneak, and dont forget how fast it moves. I think it is normal to send it on fast recon mission.

[Dili]

Perhaps Iachino should have thought of that before bringing the Fleet out and wasting all that fuel! Send a DD first to check for carriers. If they get attacked....and assuming they get off a message in time back to Iachino, and assuming the msg is received clearly and the info recieved and acted on in a timely manner ....it would be worth an entire DD and it's trained crew. Save fuel!....save time! A solution for the "New Busy", just like Hotmail!

[:D]Hehe, i think he assumed always there was a carrier. Nevertheless there was only 2 torpedo hits against the fleet by british carrier based aircraft both at Matapan. The other times evasive maneuvers and AA fire made the stringbag/albacore attacks unsuccessful.

[Thayne]

In my game, I would not perform such a maneuver.

This is because it seems to me as if the maneuver requires treating the unit as a piece in a chess game, rather than as a collection of human beings.

If I was despirate, I may ask for volunteers - with the understanding that, whatever the results of the first circumnavigation happen to be, if the destroyer comes back unharmed, they get a free all-expense paid trip back to the United States where they get to spend the rest of the war telling their story and selling war bonds.

To send them again and again on the same mission is to tell a group of human beings, "You get to keep doing this until you die."

I may also consider it "gamey" in the sense that, after the first trip, to order the ship out again, should have dropped the crew's morale significantly. The third trip would have dropped it to near zero.

"We're floating corpses. Even if we succeed, the admiral is going to send us out again until we're dead. We're dead. We're fraking dead. If not on this trip, then the next, or the one after that."

By the third trip, there would probably be a half-dozen suicides and a good tenth of the crew would simply vanish. By the fourth trip, somebody would probably just throw a match into the powder room.

[eMonticello]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
If people think this is gamey because it was against "doctrine", well, I would like to see the "doctrine". 

Cruiser doctrine document is here. Unfortunately, they haven't scanned the destroyer doctrine yet.

The Cruiser doctrine is expressed somewhat in this page.

"By the mid-20th Century, cruisers were medium-sized, general-utility ships. They had a large cruising range and are capable of high speeds (over 30 knots). They served as protective screens against surface and air attacks and also provide gunfire support for land operations. Cruisers were lightly armored, heavily armed, fast ships designed to screen formations and to scout out enemy fleets. Their survivability depended on speed, not armor. This continued to be the meaning until after the Second World War - a fast, long-range, lightly armored ship, although by then more powerful than a destroyer."

And the destroyer doctrine is expressed somewhat in this page:

"The principal mission of destroyers is to operate offensively and defensively against submarines and surface ships and to take defensive action against air attacks. They also provide gunfire support for amphibious assaults and perform patrol, search, and rescue missions."

Sending out a single DD on a suicide mission to scout KB is gamey unless you transfer ship command to General Affleck.

[sfbaytf]

This article looks like its a very general article geared towards moden day destroyers where you have satellite links, phased array radar,  GPS and communication networks to other ships as well as P-3, Seahawk helos, carrier battle groups ect, ect.

WW2 was a more seat of the pants affair. Look at the battle of Tassafaronga and the other skirmishes you don't hear much about in the Solomons and NG area(Vella Gulf). Basically you had destroyers going out on armed scouting missions looking for trouble.

[Zemke]

To determine if something is gamey, ask yourself "would this have been done during the war, or even today?" I see very few scenarios where the USN would send a lone destroyer 600nm into enemy held waters, to find the KB by suicide, this situation is not one of them. It should not matter what Japan has on search or naval attack, the fact is the Allied player does not know, but has to think of the most likely enemy course of action (COA), and the most likely COA is yes they do, and yes they will attack the lone destroyer, and the risk to the ship and crew is thus too great to order something like this. I vote gamey.

[Dili]

I can see that if USA would be fighting in its coasts against an expected Japanese Invasion, or might against an Invasion against Pearl Harbour. Very Desperate times and only if without submarines.

To do this kind of recon mission a US commander would use submarines.

[Nunya D.]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

To determine if something is gamey, ask yourself "would this have been done during the war, or even today?" I see very few scenarios where the USN would send a lone destroyer 600nm into enemy held waters, to find the KB by suicide, this situation is not one of them. It should not matter what Japan has on search or naval attack, the fact is the Allied player does not know, but has to think of the most likely enemy course of action (COA), and the most likely COA is yes they do, and yes they will attack the lone destroyer, and the risk to the ship and crew is thus too great to order something like this. I vote gamey.

That is the wrong question to ask if something is 'gamey', but it is the right question to ask if something is 'ahistorical'. 'Gamey' would be doing something that takes advantage of the limited game engine.

So, by your question and answer, you would think that this tactic would be 'ahistorical'. OK...well the next logical question in the progression would be to ask "could it be done in real life"? If it could have been done, then why should it be frowned upon just because of doctrine when there are so many other doctrine items that probably get broken more often.

If you want to follow doctrine then the Japanese should never invade India, Oz, or PH. Sure, the Japanese might of had a plan for invasions of this type, but they never did it and it never happened. Who's to say that the US didn't have a plan to use Destoyers as long range scouts in extreme situations? Sure, it might of gotten shot down quickly, but it probably was discussed at some point in time.

[Misconduct]

Honestly the way this discussion has been going, its best to simply say if you don't like using destroyers for scouting, then make it a house rule.

[Nunya D.]

ORIGINAL: Thayne

..To send them again and again on the same mission is to tell a group of human beings, "You get to keep doing this until you die."

I may also consider it "gamey" in the sense that, after the first trip, to order the ship out again, should have dropped the crew's morale significantly. The third trip would have dropped it to near zero.

"We're floating corpses. Even if we succeed, the admiral is going to send us out again until we're dead. We're dead. We're fraking dead. If not on this trip, then the next, or the one after that."

By the third trip, there would probably be a half-dozen suicides and a good tenth of the crew would simply vanish. By the fourth trip, somebody would probably just throw a match into the powder room.

You mean, kinda like U-boat crews near the end of the war?

[Nunya D.]

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
If people think this is gamey because it was against "doctrine", well, I would like to see the "doctrine". 

Cruiser doctrine document is here. Unfortunately, they haven't scanned the destroyer doctrine yet.

The Cruiser doctrine is expressed somewhat in this page.

"By the mid-20th Century, cruisers were medium-sized, general-utility ships. They had a large cruising range and are capable of high speeds (over 30 knots). They served as protective screens against surface and air attacks and also provide gunfire support for land operations. Cruisers were lightly armored, heavily armed, fast ships designed to screen formations and to scout out enemy fleets. Their survivability depended on speed, not armor. This continued to be the meaning until after the Second World War - a fast, long-range, lightly armored ship, although by then more powerful than a destroyer."

And the destroyer doctrine is expressed somewhat in this page:

"The principal mission of destroyers is to operate offensively and defensively against submarines and surface ships and to take defensive action against air attacks. They also provide gunfire support for amphibious assaults and perform patrol, search, and rescue missions."

Sending out a single DD on a suicide mission to scout KB is gamey unless you transfer ship command to General Affleck.

Is the real question/concern here that he used a DD instead of a CL which were designed and doctrined for this type of mission? [&:]

[sfbaytf]

If you want to learn about a suicide raid look no further than Task Force Buam and the Raid on Hammelburg.

I agree with the contention that Admirals were hard back then and would not hesitate to send a destroyer on a scouting mission if thousands of lives depended on it. Sure if word got back to higher up the command chain  the commander ordering it may have some explaining to do and chances are it would have been censored had it gone bad or some heroric cover story concocted, but I have no doubt that under the circumstances described and given the limitations of the game engine to use other methods, it would have been justified.

This isn't going to be resolved here as there is a definite split. The question is what did the 2 parties decided and what if any are the ramifications and remedy? If it is deemed "gamey" is the turn going to be replayed? At this point the cats pretty much out of the bag. KB is known to be at a certain location...

[Canoerebel]

I am the party that started this thread. As announced above, there was enough disagreement over the issue to suggest it was a "gray area." Accordingly, I told my opponent I wouldn't use the tactic any more (not that I won't send out "flankers" and "scouts," just not that far).

I have no question that the tactic was proper for basically the reasons you state in your post. In reading the multitude of replies in here, I think the "not gamey" analysis offers a more insightful, rational analysis of the tactic in light of the realities of the game. But this isn't a court of law or a debate, so I'll just desist from circumnavigating Borneo to "avoid even the appearance of impropriety."

P.S. I strongly suspected the KB's location just where my DD found it, so I didn't gain any big advantage.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nunya D.

ORIGINAL: Thayne

..To send them again and again on the same mission is to tell a group of human beings, "You get to keep doing this until you die."

I may also consider it "gamey" in the sense that, after the first trip, to order the ship out again, should have dropped the crew's morale significantly. The third trip would have dropped it to near zero.

"We're floating corpses. Even if we succeed, the admiral is going to send us out again until we're dead. We're dead. We're fraking dead. If not on this trip, then the next, or the one after that."

By the third trip, there would probably be a half-dozen suicides and a good tenth of the crew would simply vanish. By the fourth trip, somebody would probably just throw a match into the powder room.

You mean, kinda like U-boat crews near the end of the war?

How many beaches must a jarhead breach before a jarhead won't breach beaches? (Apologies to the woodchuck.)

Hey, if sending a whole ship full of guys "way out there" is a suicide mission and thus gamey, I guess sending, EVERY DAY, hundreds of patrol planes out 20+ hexes over enemy territory, alone, with known CAP concentrations, is just too gamey for words. It must stop, forthwith. These are HUMAN BEINGS, man! Stop fighting! This is the War Room![:)]

[Dili]

A plane with 4 human beings is not the same as a ship with 100's.
And the problem isn't doutrine it is culture. If America was a dictatorship likes Germany, Soviets or Japanese yeah it might do that. For America i could only see it in desperates times.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Dili

A plane with 4 human beings is not the same as a ship with 100's.
And the problem isn't doutrine it is culture. If America was a dictatorship likes Germany, Soviets or Japanese yeah it might do that. For America i could only see it in desperates times.

I invite your attention, again, to the Schweinfurt missions. Or Point Du Hoc. Or the Doolittle Raid. Bombing the Ploesti oil fields.

"You want me to do WHAT, General Pickett?"

[Nunya D.]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Dili

A plane with 4 human beings is not the same as a ship with 100's.
And the problem isn't doutrine it is culture. If America was a dictatorship likes Germany, Soviets or Japanese yeah it might do that. For America i could only see it in desperates times.

I invite your attention, again, to the Schweinfurt missions. Or Point Du Hoc. Or the Doolittle Raid. Bombing the Ploesti oil fields.

"You want me to do WHAT, General Pickett?"

The Doolittle Raid is a perfect example of the willingness of the Commanders at that time to assign very dangerous and/or suicidal missions.

The raid accomplished almost nothing from a military standpoint and the expected survival rate of the pilots/cew was very low at takeoff. The arguement can be made that the pilots/crew of the Doolittle raid were volunteers and the crew of the DD wasn't. But that is what they did back then. The men back then had a deep sence of pride and honor. They took risks and fought hard.

[Zemke]

The Doolittle Raid was done for political reasons and only took place once.
When considering the Schweinfurt and Ploesti raids the intent was to hit important targets, not be suicide raids, which they were not as most did make it back, granted with heavy loses.

There is no way the USN would have sent a lone destroyer 600nm, alone with the intent of "triggering" the KB into attacking, and then say that was normal or routine "back then", it simply was not done. A sub sure, but a sub will not "trigger" a KB response. A scouting Task Force, sure, a lone destroyer designed to be sacrificed, no way. But hey both sides can do this, so I guess it comes down to who is willing to lose destroyers. I just think it is gamey because of the intent was to trigger the KB to respond, reveling it's location, and a willingness to lose the ship to do so.

[jimh009]

Just my two cents. If I was your opponent, what would worry me wasn't whether your maneuver was gamey or not (it sort of is, I think, but not in a big way that leads to lasting changes in the actual game).

Instead, I would worry about what it says about your opponents defense network. To have a DD sneak in uncontested into Java/Burma and make a loop of Burma five times says a lot - little of which is positive. You might have even done your opponent a favor by doing this - as it clearly highlighted some big holes in your opponents defenses. I suspect after your destroyers sightseeing around Burma, many "holes" in your opponents defense (there and elsewhere in the game) have been plugged.