Scout DDs Gamey?

[Mifune]

I totally agree with Nemo and Dili and could cite examples but why put gas on a fire. But gain thats just my two cents.

[Canoerebel]

The flaw with the "gamey" argument is that you are attempting to apply historic doctrine into a non-historic situation. 

No, the Allies didn't send destroyers on missions that had a very high likelihood of being "suicidal."

But neither did the Allies give orders to huge carrier and transport TFs to "steam forward for two days despite not knowing where the KB is and continue going forward even if the KB is sighted and it becomes clear that the mission is impossibly dangerous." 

In real life, the Allies would (1) have had more info about the KB's location and (2) would have the ability to recall an invasion force at any point information developed about overwhelming enemy forces ahead.

But in AE (with two-day turns) the Allies are faced with the non-historic (and therefore "gamey" per se) situation of putting together invasions under just these circucumstances.

So, to help dampen this decidedly gamey aspect of invasions, the Allies engage in a countermeasure to send a DD around Borneo in search of information about the KB.  Gamey?  Perhaps, but in just a small way necessary to reduce the radical gaminess inherent in the invasion.

[Miller]

Dan and Myself have agreed to put this issue behind us, as in game terms it has had little or no overall impact on our game. Please no more comments, thank you.

[sfbaytf]

Perhaps the Americans wouldn't be so crazy as to send a lone destroyer on a "suicide mission" but the British are a different matter.

Next time send a British DD or used one of the old Lend Lease destroyers and you should be ok...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Buchanan_%28DD-131%29

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

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.

[bigred]

THE BELOW QUOTE IS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL THAT LIKES A "NO RULES" GAME

As a commander it is your job to prevent the enemy doing whatever it is within their capabilities of doing.

Don't defeat your opponent by rules-lawyering to death, instead, destroy them with your forces on-map.

If your opponent decides to send forces on suicide missions then destroy them. Simple. Also, what may seem like a suicide mission to you mightn't to your opponent and, you know what, he might be right. It seems he was right in this case.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS FROM A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PLAYER MORE COMFORTABLE WITH HOUSE RULES.

ORIGINAL: Captain....you and your men are being sent out into the middle of enemy held waters in the hopes that he'll reveal his presence to us (through the magic of the combat report) by launching an airstrike on you. Naturally this entails great danger to you and the men under your command.....but know that your sacrfice will be forever immortalized in the Hall of Zeros and Ones. Besides which, your craft is very maneuverable!....it is possible you may survive in which case you'll all get free ice cream and a commemorative plate"

The above quotes remind me to be careful as I pick my opponent. I personally would want a "no rules" player to get to the down and dirty of a game. 'Kill or Be Killed" with no rules of safety to hide behind in case of disadvantage.


Sorry, lol, just got to the request to stop posting.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nunya D.


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.

I'm sure a fair percentage of the DD's crew would have been volunteers for the Navy. Once you do that and take the oath there's little need to "ask for volunteers" outside of TV and movie portrayals. Or, of draftees either, really. So long as they're legal orders, you carry them out. And a mission with 100% expected casualties is not, without further facts, illegal.

[sfbaytf]

The order for a mission like this would probably read something like this:

Destroyer XXX:

Proceed to coordinates x,y arrive at coordinates x,y at XXX time. Arrive at point x,y no later than XX and no earlier than XX

Report back any enemy contact

Only the Captain and XO would be privy to the actual orders.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

The Doolittle Raid was done for political reasons and only took place once.

War is the accomplishemnt of political ends by other means. As for once, is the issue that CR did the DD sweep four times? Somehow I doubt the opponents here would say that was the distinction.

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.

The 305th Bomb Group had 87% casualties on the second Schweinfurt raid.

In contrast, CR's destroyer lost no men in four missions. Hardly comparable. Opponents keep calling this a "suicide mission" (which, as I've said elsewhere has little deterrent effect in history if the mission was necessary.) In truth, the mission(s) were highly effective and led to a successful invasion.

There is no way the USN would have sent a lone destroyer 600nm, alone with the intent of "triggering" the KB into attacking,

Again, when the DD was NOT attacked it provided essential information as to where the KB WASN'T.

and then say that was normal or routine "back then", it simply was not done.

I don't believe anyone is saying it was routine or normal back then. They're saying it was possible, the game code allows it, and that it might be reasonable to do given the lack of intel that was "normal" from the game. To date, no one has posted compelling evidence that a well-organized Japanese search and attack couldn't have stopped this DD on its first circumnavigation.

A sub sure, but a sub will not "trigger" a KB response.

Subs are much slower. And a sub is also open to detection and attack while in transit on the surface. Why are sub sailors' lives worth so little to you?

A scouting Task Force, sure, a lone destroyer designed to be sacrificed, no way.

I'm sure the JFBs here would love such a restriction, but it simply isn't your call to make. Fight your own war; take your lumps in 1944-45.

But hey both sides can do this, so I guess it comes down to who is willing to lose destroyers.

Exactly.

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.

Only CR knows what his intent was. And the Japanese player can prevent what you say by standing-down the KB's attack units. His call.

[Dili]

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

A strategic operation or desperate times.

Perhaps the Americans wouldn't be so crazy as to send a lone destroyer on a "suicide mission" but the British are a different matter.
Next time send a British DD or used one of the old Lend Lease destroyers and you should be ok...

What's that have to do with this issue? USnavy had also 2DD's transformed as APDs employed in same way in Torch. That is like saying that all opposed disembarks that allies made is evidence that they had same disregard for soldiers life as Soviets, Japanese or Nazis. The issue is reward value vs life expended vs options to achieve same mission.

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The only potential qualm I would have on the tactic is that the game engine is notorious for not reporting single ship convoys. The fact that the Swanson made it around Borneo 5 times previously without him detecting it suggests that's the case here (or I suppose it's possible that it was reported but it was assumed to be a sub, since the game has a tendency to report subs as anything except subs).

So, if it's a case of Miller doing everything right (set up air searchs, deploy LBA, etc.) to handle the presence of Allied shipping, but the game engine is making it impossible to detect and persecute the Swanson, then it's probably on the gamey side only because there is no counter tactic.

If it's a case where Miller's air search plan was not up to the task and a reasonable air search/LBA deployment would have found the DD and sank it sooner, then it's totally reasonable.

I think this is the answer. Use 2x ship TFs so that your opponent has the opportunity to deal with your suicide mission at a distance with Betties and torpedoes before your TFs have a chance to obtain the intelligence they seek. If the search plan is sufficient, the "free market" approach to the game will quickly determine whether you think the missions are worth it or not. If the search plan is not sufficient, shame on your opponent.

ORIGINAL: Panther BaitRegarding whether it's a historically based tactic, I don' think you can really defend it with references to the picket ships. Most of the picket DDs/DEs were stationed "relatively" close to either other pickets or whatever force they were protecting, so that there was a very good chance that someone could respond to a Mayday or a request for backup in a reasonable amount of time.

This is just a little different than asking a solitary DD to sail hundreds of miles through enemy seas with virtually no chance of rescue if they get attacked, especially when the DD has no real means to "search" for the KB other than to draw an attack from it. This is akin to ordering an employee to walk down a dark alley with $100 bills taped to his forehead to "search" for muggers, so the boss will know whether to walk down it himself or not. IMO, it would be a lot more historical to confine these search missions to Allied subs. However from the AAR, I get the sense that Canoerebel's game with Miller is more of "do what the engine allows" type of game rather than a "strictly historical" game, so the I wouldn't base a gamey or not call to history in this case.

Mike

Disagree with this. It is correct inasmuch as you could expect to be rescued after your ship sunk. But the pickets were fairly unique in the U.S. experience of being sent out knowing the pickets were kamikaze fodder and had an unusually high chance of being destroyed. Yes, sunk crews were likely to be rescued, but the loss of vessels and crew made the missions near suicide if you were in one of the hot paths. The commanders thought the losses worth the risk (better to have pickets sunk than carriers); tragic but very real math. If your circumstances are the same, then maybe it is worth it. I'm not sure how you draw the line between this kind of decision and launching waves of LCIs and DEs on suicide missions because you have some many you dont mind losing several dozen rather than keeping track of them.

[Panther Bait]

I'd have to go back and check the numbers, but from what I remember of Morison's History of the US Navy (he has a good table in the Appendix listing US ship losses in the kamikaze timeframe and the cause of each), outright quick sinkings on picket duty were not the norm. Many (maybe even most), of the pickets were either scuttled after evacuating the crew, towed back for salvage, or scrapped in the US instead of repaired because they were not likely to return to service before the predicted end of the war and were going to end up as surplus. Even the USS Laffey served until 1968.

So, while Picket duty was dangerous, it is still in my mind, a lot different than a single ship mission designed to draw a fatal response merely for the gathering of intelligence gathering.

Regardless of whether it's historical or not, though, I do agree with those that say sending a ship on a suicide mission is not gamey, as long as there is an effective counter-tactic. So the issue here really depends on air search effectiveness and the air strike initiation algorithms.

Mike

[SuluSea]

When the allied player puts his anti Kamikazee defenses to test I can imagine the threads will be 10 pages long.

Interestingly enough I've read numerous times since release players from the Japanese side invoke "since we have hindsight we're able to make better choices", but when the allied player makes a change from normal operations some almost soil themselves. The allied player is a slave to wartime production, it looks like some want it carried over to operations as well.

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

When the allied player puts his anti Kamikazee defenses to test I can imagine the threads will be 10 pages long.

Interestingly enough I've read numerous times since release players from the Japanese side invoke "since we have hindsight we're able to make better choices", but when the allied player makes a change from normal operations some almost soil themselves. The allied player is a slave to wartime production, it looks like some want it carried over to operations as well.

I am waiting for the mid-game new house rules.

[Rankorian]

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?"

But if there were terrible losses, sometimes there were consequences in the US. I am thinking of...some Italian attack that caused so many lives that there was a Congressional investigation.

It might not have been entirely fair system, but in the US during WW2, some politician [and I do not find the term "politician" entirely derogatory--comes with Democracy] might actual hold a hearing.

Nevertheless, I am in the non-gamey category in this case. Consenting adults. It is a relationship, between them, which no one else can completely understand.

[Central Blue]

only "gamey" if there is an obvious exploitation of real weakness in the code.

Still, it's pretty clear that some gamers want to play the history with hind sight, and some folks want to play their PBEM opponent's OODA regardless of the fact that Col. Boyd developed his theories subsequent to the period dealt with in this game.

Col. Boyd and Nemo aside, it was standard practice in Pac War to pack Palembang with Allied assets because it didn't repair; and there were no forums to complain about "gamey" behavior of mostly commonwealth assets falling back on Dutch Palembang rather than British Singapore..

The AI never complains, so human players need to carefully negotiate their expectations.

Saying that the Allies can't send this ship out on its suicide mission is akin to invoking an election rule for the various countries on the allied side. The designers didn't care to invoke elections in their design, so everything subsequent has to be negotiated. Folks that bitterly complain about such a tactic might be better off requesting the Japanese side in the Ironman scenario if they are worried about one destroyer.

[Lomri]

I think that the part I like the least is the 100% reporting from your lone DD task force. You have 0% chance of the DD just disappearing on its mission and never returning with no contact about what happened. If the DD was caught flat footed and hit by enemy planes it might not have had a chance to get a coherent radio message out, nor does the game reflect the fact that the radio signal may never get received.

just my 2c

[Grit]

I wonder if the Japanese leadership considered the Doolittle Raid gamey?

The decision to launch early, and Halsey's decision not to break radio silence to warn the Chinese bases clearly doomed the planes/pilots. But it went anyway.

Sometimes military leaders have to make tough decisions.

[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.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Nunya D.
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? [&:]

I'm wondering why a pre-WWII surface scouting doctrine is being cited in an scenario involving carrier aircraft.

[Kwik E Mart]

"The first Japanese task group, called Northern Force, under Admiral Ozawa, was comprised of four aircraft carriers stripped of planes, to act as a decoy, luring Third Fleet north away from Leyte. The carriers had no aircraft because the enormous Japanese losses..."

would this be gamey if enacted in AE?