I'm sure if I played PBEm I would be accused of being gamey...

[HansBolter]

Lots of players seem to comment that TFs of small auxiliaries in ports with air cover constitute "gamey" CAP traps.

However, I see small TFs of auxiliaries at my ports as performing essential port maintenance and protection.

Just about every last operation port I control gets dedicated TFs of ASW and Coastal Minesweepers set with one hex patrol patterns in the port hex with 0 reaction range to keep them in the hex.
Each port also gets at least one AG, disbanded in the port, to service the auxiliaries.

I see this as essential port maintenance, not an attempt to lure my opponents air units.

Port ASW keeps enemy subs honest. Port MSW keeps the port clear of sub laid mines.
Small ports may get one ship TFs while larger ports get 2-3 ship TFs.

This is what these vessels are for.

If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps?

Not by me. As you say, that is the intended use of these (military) ships. Have at it.

If/when it bothered me, I would take it upon myself to visit the port with a 2-3 DD SCTF. But that's beside the point.

[pws1225]

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

[Will_L_OLD]

I do the same thing with those units.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

+1

Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

[InfiniteMonkey]

I would not consider it gamey. Using dozens of TF's to accomplish 1 task in 1 hex far below TF ship limits due to game mechanics advantages is gamey. Putting ASW and minesweeper TF's is good practice, IMO.

[Encircled]

Not gamey, how else are you supposed to do it?

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

+1

Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

I dont see that as gamey either, and you gave your own example for why.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Lots of players seem to comment that TFs of small auxiliaries in ports with air cover constitute "gamey" CAP traps.

However, I see small TFs of auxiliaries at my ports as performing essential port maintenance and protection.

Just about every last operation port I control gets dedicated TFs of ASW and Coastal Minesweepers set with one hex patrol patterns in the port hex with 0 reaction range to keep them in the hex.
Each port also gets at least one AG, disbanded in the port, to service the auxiliaries.

I see this as essential port maintenance, not an attempt to lure my opponents air units.

Port ASW keeps enemy subs honest. Port MSW keeps the port clear of sub laid mines.
Small ports may get one ship TFs while larger ports get 2-3 ship TFs.

This is what these vessels are for.

If I started playing PBEM, would I be accused of creating gamey CAP traps?

Naval strikes have to take into consideration the targeting in game. CAP traps around bases/ports are a part of the game, not gamey. They were also part of the war.

AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF.

[witpqs]

Good to go!

[SheperdN7]

Fair play on your part Hans. The ONLY thing I consider gamey in AE is the mass spamming of 1 ship TF xAK and xAKL picket ships all over the place when a great CV clash is about to begin but even then, there's a counter to it. I'm one of the few players on here I think that don't see a TRUE need for any house rules.

[Major Shane]

Not gamey. It's historical and fair play.

[crsutton]

CAP traps are part of the game. I don't think I know a player who does not make use of them and have heard of no HR banning them.

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: obvert
AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF.

I've never read that... where is that documented?

[Big B]

If the port in question is far enough forward to be under the threat of enemy air attack - why on earth would anyone NOT set CAP to protect them?
IRL failure to do so would get you court-martialed [;)]

No - Not Gamey

[szmike]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: obvert
AMc don't have to be in TFs though. They do their work when disbanded, as do ACM. If mines are dropped in that port they will clear them without being in a TF.

I've never read that... where is that documented?

iirc in various dev posts around here

From my experience AM ships do work and certainly are used before AMc. Or maybe some other factors are involved (experience, commander ratings?)

[Zigurat666]

I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Zigurat666

I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP

If it is an important airbase I will have a decent CAP flying.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Zigurat666

I think it would be gamey if it were an insignificant size 1 port and the attacking aircraft run into a 300 plane CAP

The problem is that there would be no agreement about the correct number since there are so many variables involved. What about 200 aircraft? Fifty? Nobody is going to agree and there will just be some number where an argument occurs. HRs tend to ruin friendships so as few as possible is the ideal.

CAP traps are a part of the game. No real way to avoid them or to regulate them that I can see. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Nope, that looks all fair and square to me.

+1

Using xAKLs as mid-ocean pickets is another story (although the Japanese used some fishing boat sized patrol vessels that nearly scuttled the Doolitle raid).

I dont see that as gamey either, and you gave your own example for why.

+1 for the local ASW and MSW and protective local CAP. However, I respectfully disagree about using xAKL as pickets. Although converted from former civilian ships, the picket boats were armed IJN auxiliaries, commanded and manned by military personnel. Thus in game terms they are no longer xAKL types but PB / PC types. The Japanese player can convert many xAKL classes to such patrol craft and should refrain from using xAKLs. The Allied player is more limited in this regard, but has more air search assets and less need for pickets. Using "clouds" of single-(x)AK(L)-TFs as early-warning devices and "buffers" around combat TFs is IMO pretty gamey. It is the duty of warships to protect civilian shipping, not the other way round.