Gamey vs. Unorthodox

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


Gamey is using game mechanisms to allow impossible things:

_ having bases with just above 250 air support points and 1000 aircraft.

_ dividing air groups in squadrons, so damaged planes are repaired 3 times faster.

_ landing 50 men behind 10 divisions and make them surrender because they have no more retreat path.

_ sending ASW TF with 25 DDs chasing subs. In RL losses by collisions would be more important than sub sinkings.

And so on.

1. Having that many AC gives you a 75% penalty for missions even for a level 10 airfield.
2. To be patched in 1.5 so it will be the same across the board.
3. My opponents accept the no landings at dot/base hexes before we start a game.
4. My opponents limit ASW TF's to 6 ships. Soon to be 4 ships in the next games.

Some things in this game can be modified by agreement. Others can't. Best to agree on these things before starting a game. It'll make it more enjoyable for everyone.

One other thing. Carlson got spanked at Makin. All that raid did was to tip off the Japanese how weak their island defenses were. The Marines paid the price at Tarawa because of that little raid.[;)]

[ChezDaJez]

If you're invading Tarawa with 55 one ship convoys, all of them will sink when encountering the CD guns. Nothing gamey about that. It's just stupid. If your opponent doesn't have CD guns at Tarawa, then he's to blame for not sinking all 55 of them.

The problem, IMO, isn't so much invading with 55 1-ship TFs (haven't seen that yet) as it is defending a port with them. If the opposing player sends a single group of aircraft to attack, whether bombers or torpedo planes, only one ship will be attacked unless the attack becomes unccordinated. In which case the attacker gets massacred regardless of the number of escorts if there is any CAP up. All ships in port should be subject to the attack. The game doesn't allow this.

Same with bombardment. Having 25 1-ship TFs will normally cancel a bombardment because the bombarding ships use up all their ops points before reaching shore. If those same ships were in a single TF, the bombardment force would still have ops points to use. This not only affects bombardment, it also affects the bombarding force's ability to withdraw. They tend to get stuck in the port, wide open to counter attack. As far as I know there is no way to tell the bombarding ships to ignore merchants so they blast them.

That's why I consider it gamey. IRL, a bombardment force would bombard the port and withdraw. Single ship TFs aren't the main issue. Both players need the ability to send single ships into for supply runs and whatnot. It's when mulltiple single-ship TFs are being used exclusively as block ships to blockade the port that I object to.

Chez

[Nikademus]

I would consider using 1 ship TF's as particle shield against bombardment missions gamey as well. Whatever one's opinion of bombardment effects in the game...in RL, no commander would ever anchor transports or any other ship with the intention of thwarting an incursion from the sea.

Fortunately i've yet to encounter an opponent who's tried that trick. In my current game with Ron, he wanted to be able to use the 1-ship TF evasion tactic and i was cool with that though personally i do tend to lean towards the opinion that it exploits the search/attach routines a bit. Personally, if i'm scattering, i'll use a number of small TF's....but not all 1 ship TF's. I actually havn't done badly save for a couple games.

No biggie....i'll get him later......MUUUUUWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [:'(]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

If you're invading Tarawa with 55 one ship convoys, all of them will sink when encountering the CD guns. Nothing gamey about that. It's just stupid. If your opponent doesn't have CD guns at Tarawa, then he's to blame for not sinking all 55 of them.

The problem, IMO, isn't so much invading with 55 1-ship TFs (haven't seen that yet) as it is defending a port with them. If the opposing player sends a single group of aircraft to attack, whether bombers or torpedo planes, only one ship will be attacked unless the attack becomes unccordinated. In which case the attacker gets massacred regardless of the number of escorts if there is any CAP up. All ships in port should be subject to the attack. The game doesn't allow this.

Same with bombardment. Having 25 1-ship TFs will normally cancel a bombardment because the bombarding ships use up all their ops points before reaching shore. If those same ships were in a single TF, the bombardment force would still have ops points to use. This not only affects bombardment, it also affects the bombarding force's ability to withdraw. They tend to get stuck in the port, wide open to counter attack. As far as I know there is no way to tell the bombarding ships to ignore merchants so they blast them.

That's why I consider it gamey. IRL, a bombardment force would bombard the port and withdraw. Single ship TFs aren't the main issue. Both players need the ability to send single ships into for supply runs and whatnot. It's when mulltiple single-ship TFs are being used exclusively as block ships to blockade the port that I object to.

Chez

I haven't seen the multi-single-ship-TF work as described above vis-a-vis OP points and bombardments and offering some sort of "effective defense" against bombardment. Certainly it hasn't worked that way in our PBEM--at Rangoon and at Andaman Isalands your bombardment TFs both sunk all the ships around (many) and then proceeded to effectively bombard those two ports as well. No problem. Maybe it works that way sometimes and not others. Who knows? That wouldn't surprise me, as the game model is inconsistent in many areas, errant all over the place and basically buggy for the rest.

[testarossa]

Doesn't really matter 1 or 3 ships TFs. I had full size convoy at PM. It got shot up pretty badly but prevented the bombardment disaster.

1st bombardment without convoy present

Naval bombardment of Port Moresby, at 54,93

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
B-26B Marauder: 8 destroyed, 13 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 42 destroyed, 30 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 3 destroyed, 17 damaged
Catalina I: 5 destroyed, 10 damaged
Beaufort V-IX: 11 destroyed, 6 damaged
A-20B Boston: 2 destroyed
B-24D Liberator: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 7 destroyed, 14 damaged
Beaufighter VIC: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Maya
CA Atago
CA Takao
BB Yamato
BB Mutsu
BB Nagato
BB Kirishima

Allied Ships
AK Murada, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
5227 casualties reported
Guns lost 49
Vehicles lost 22

Airbase hits 35
Airbase supply hits 18
Runway hits 158
Port fuel hits 1

2nd bombardment with convoy present

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 54,93

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Tenryu
CL Tatsuta
DD Mutsuki
DD Yayoi
DD Uzuki
DD Nagatsuki
DD Mikazuki
DD Mochizuki
DD Yuzuki

Allied Ships
MSW Starling
MSW Robin
SC SC-703, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
AK Arkansan, Shell hits 28, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Kentuckian, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AK Utahan, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AK Santa Rita
AK Edgar Luckenbach, Shell hits 13, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
AK Robert Luckenbach
AK Mormacmar, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AK San Vincente, Shell hits 4, on fire
AK Nabesna

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Port Moresby, at 54,93

Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta
CL Tenryu
CA Kako
CA Furutaka
CA Kinugasa
CA Aoba

Allied ground losses:
113 casualties reported
Guns lost 2