Scout DDs Gamey?

[Nikademus]

Does an extreme one-off example by which a nation, badly losing a naval war concocts a mission whereby the stated goal of a group of ships is likely destruction but by in doing so, they might win a "decisive victory" for their navy compare to a situation whereby a RL admiral tells the crew of a DD to go steam off East and report back if attacked by aircraft because said admiral knows that he will magically be informed of this via the clarvoyance of a routine called the Combat phase?

[mbar]

I see your point. But on the flip side should the admiral of the PTO be able to instantly relay detailed operational orders to all units across the entire PTO and have them carried out the very day they were issued? Should the same admiral be aware of the exact condition of all those units every day of the war?

Which leads into this. If there were a realistic FOW the DD would be sunk and maybe the admiral would become aware he even lost the unit after it was overdue from it's home port several days or even weeks after it sunk.

[Grit]

I sincerely doubt anyone is going to be convinced to change his mind whether it's gamey or not.

It is fun to watch people try though. The crazier the better.

[mbar]

ORIGINAL: Grit

I sincerely doubt anyone is going to be convinced to change his mind whether it's gamey or not.

It is fun to watch people try though. The crazier the better.

Dang. And here I thought I was being all reasonable and stuff. [:D]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mbar

I see your point. But on the flip side should the admiral of the PTO be able to instantly relay detailed operational orders to all units across the entire PTO and have them carried out the very day they were issued? Should the same admiral be aware of the exact condition of all those units every day of the war?

Which leads into this. If there were a realistic FOW the DD would be sunk and maybe the admiral would become aware he even lost the unit after it was overdue from it's home port several days or even weeks after it sunk.

Grigsby based games have always favored what is now termed "Limited FOW" meaning that until a unit is spotted you don't see it but once it is you know where it is no matter what scope size of the game (and in other cases, like Combat Mission, the type of the enemy spotted) So yes it is a tradeoff. At this point, i'm not really caring about the gamey or non-gamey element. Just that some of the "RL" scenarios being presented are stretching things a bit. (pre-WWII cruisers for example, were meant to scout out enemy surface FLEETS.....not offer themselves up as aircraft bait.....or the before mentioned A-go plan at Leyte of which Ozawa's part was to draw off the enemy's carrier protection allowing surface forces to penetrate unmolested....not simply to sacrifice themselves in the hopes of informing Toyoda that yes....there's carrier aircraft in the vicinity!)

In the end its up to players to decide between themselves what kind of game they want to play....thats why its always essentially to have good dialogue going before committing to a PBEM.

[Grit]

ORIGINAL: mbar

ORIGINAL: Grit
I wonder if the Japanese leadership considered the Doolittle Raid gamey?

[:D] Awesome! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I can see the threads now.

NAGUMO: "I lost all 4, count'em FOUR, carriers to the lowly USN while trying to invade Midway. The balance in this game is BORKED."

TOJO: "B-25 are LANDBASED bombers!!!!!! There is now WAY they should launch from a carrier! USN took advantage of an exploit in the game that needs to be hotfixed ASAP!"

USN: GG you guys.

I laughed like hell when I read this.

We need more humor and less, I'm right and you're wrong.

[Ramjet]

My Uncle was lost at sea during WWII on a single ship mission for the US Navy. They could easily have given her escorts and air cover, but they chose to keep it a single ship mission. Sailing a Cruiser through enemy patroled waters resulted in the loss of a Cruiser; the USS Indianopolis. My Uncle was on that ship and went down with her. So the idea of sending Destroyers on high risk missions seems entirely realistic...

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: mbar

I see your point. But on the flip side should the admiral of the PTO be able to instantly relay detailed operational orders to all units across the entire PTO and have them carried out the very day they were issued? Should the same admiral be aware of the exact condition of all those units every day of the war?

Which leads into this. If there were a realistic FOW the DD would be sunk and maybe the admiral would become aware he even lost the unit after it was overdue from it's home port several days or even weeks after it sunk.

Grigsby based games have always favored what is now termed "Limited FOW" meaning that until a unit is spotted you don't see it but once it is you know where it is no matter what scope size of the game (and in other cases, like Combat Mission, the type of the enemy spotted) So yes it is a tradeoff. At this point, i'm not really caring about the gamey or non-gamey element. Just that some of the "RL" scenarios being presented are stretching things a bit. (pre-WWII cruisers for example, were meant to scout out enemy surface FLEETS.....not offer themselves up as aircraft bait.....or the before mentioned A-go plan at Leyte of which Ozawa's part was to draw off the enemy's carrier protection allowing surface forces to penetrate unmolested....not simply to sacrifice themselves in the hopes of informing Toyoda that yes....there's carrier aircraft in the vicinity!)

In the end its up to players to decide between themselves what kind of game they want to play....thats why its always essentially to have good dialogue going before committing to a PBEM.

the question (leyte gulf example) was meant to be rhetorical...didn't mean to imply it was meant to prove anything one way or another...guess it had the desired effect! [;)]

as for getting near omnipotent information from the combat reports, agreed - the way it is obtained can be viewed as gamey...

[BrucePowers]

My 2 cents. Very Gamey.

The USS Indianapolis was a screw up on the part of the USN after the bomb was delivered.

[Bomber]

Gamey,
you knew exactly what you were doing. Ask yourself...if you were a real life commander would you have done that for real?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Bomber

Gamey,
you knew exactly what you were doing. Ask yourself...if you were a real life commander would you have done that for real?

So, say he pushed the EXACT same buttons (Surface Task Force), and sent the DD on the EXACT same course. But, he comes here and asks if it's gamey to hunt tanker TFs around Burma with a surface task force. He has many destroyers, Japanese have few, valuable, tankers.

Same answer? If so, why? Is it the Japanese player's role to specify how the Allied player hunts his ships?

[JWE]

Realize everybody has their dander up on both sides and nothing will change anything .. but .. didn't Uncle Douggie send out an "armed yacht" to the North of the PI, towards Formosa with the express mission of .. "Hey .. hi there, Jap pilots, s'up dudes, we're just hanging here, and we're just wonderin wtf knowmsayn .. uh, oh."

And then there were the Australians who did the exact same thing, in the New Guinea area, with native schooners .. "Ohio, ohio .. hi there Jap fleet, s'up dudes, we're just hanging here carrying pigs and copra .. nobody here but us native folk ('cept for the Aussie subaltern down below who's working the radio and prolly pooping trou' just about now)."

So maybe don't get so hard edged about what could or could not happen. Some scenarios have these boats, but stock doesn't, so a degree of abstraction should be permitted.

[edit] post is just on the Bullwinkle reply button - not in reply to Bullwinkle's post.