Scout DDs Gamey?

[Canoerebel]

While not typical of destroyer missions by the U.S. Navy in WWII, Swanson's was intended to gather intel that the game doesn't provide in ways or amounts that existed in the real war.

In the real war, the Allies might have patrol craft, submarines, and commando units in and around the islands so plentiful in the triangle between Borneo, Java, and Singapore.  The Allies would also have a vast amount of signals (Magic intercept) information. 

Since the game doesn't permit us to land commando units on islands to watch for and report enemy forces, and since SigInt poorly models the amount of info the Allies had about enemy carriers, we are left to devise ways to find that information (if we can).

It seems that there is a split in the community as to whether the move was gamey or not.  In the overall scheme of things, I think it was a legit way to gather intel.  But in the absence of a strong consensus one way or the other, I will desist from circumnavigation-type recon voyages.  (That doesn't mean I won't send destroyers forward - just that I won't send them THAT far forward).

This concession is made in the spirit of "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety."

[Halsey]

The game mechanics seems to handle this well, as long as you have the striking range.

I had an opponent try this, and guess what...
The strike completely ignored his sacrificial lambs, and went straight for the CV TF's 2 hexes behind the decoys.
Strike flew straight over the decoys and smacked the CV's.[;)][:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

My opponent and I have a situation where we wonder whether an Allied tactic is gamey or an unfair exploitation of the game.

It's July 1944 and the Allies have just invaded several points on eastern and southern Borneo. The Japanese remain very strong - the KB is powerful and the Japanese have a powerful network of airases on Borneo, Java, and Mindanao. Thus it would be very risky for the Allies to accept battle with the KB under the umbrella of Japanese LBA.

Several weeks ago the KB retired from the theater. I didn't know where she had gone, but I knew I had better not venture into enemy waters if there was a chance of bumping into here. So I detailed DD Swanson to sail all the way around Borneo to scout for the KB. (What my opponent doesn't know is that Swanson completed at least five circumnavigations of Borneo without incident - making it clear that this wasn't necessarily a "suicide" run).

Recently, Swanson bumped into a tanker TF and badly damaged three and an escort. My opponent protested and I told him that I wasn't (and won't) employ that tactic purposefully. IE, I won't flood Japanese controlled waters with single-ship TFs that are nearly impossible to track and destroy. I think he's okay with that.

However, next turn my scout did "find" the KB lurking off Kuching, Borneo (about where I had expected, though I wasn't sure). DD Swanson was destroyed but served its purpose.

My opponent thinks this is gamey. I don't think so, but wanted to open it to input from the forum.

Canoerebel:

Don't think it's gamey.

Since you mention a few things in your post that your opponent 'doesn't know', you may wish to edit your initial post's subject line to intentionally exclude your PBEM partner from the thread...

ETA: Never mind, I saw that Miller has contributed to the thread.

[Miller]

Firstly, it seems the defence for this tactic is "He should have had a/c in place to sink the DD but did'nt"- I had a/c (two dive bomber sqds) in place to attack BEFORE the DD ran into my small tanker convoy......they simply did not bother to attack, as some have suggested probably because the AI did not consider it a worthy target.

Secondly, I laugh at suggestions that this was not a suicide mission. Why? Because the aim of this DD was to spot the KB by being attacked.

I can just imagine the Navy briefing the captain of the DD...."Yeah, if you run into the Jap fleet you are a very small target, I'm sure you can avoid any heat that comes your way......P.S.> you may as well have this CMOH now."

Gamey, period.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

While not typical of destroyer missions by the U.S. Navy in WWII, Swanson's was intended to gather intel that the game doesn't provide in ways or amounts that existed in the real war.

In the real war, the Allies might have patrol craft, submarines, and commando units in and around the islands so plentiful in the triangle between Borneo, Java, and Singapore.  The Allies would also have a vast amount of signals (Magic intercept) information. 

Since the game doesn't permit us to land commando units on islands to watch for and report enemy forces, and since SigInt poorly models the amount of info the Allies had about enemy carriers, we are left to devise ways to find that information (if we can).

It seems that there is a split in the community as to whether the move was gamey or not.  In the overall scheme of things, I think it was a legit way to gather intel.  But in the absence of a strong consensus one way or the other, I will desist from circumnavigation-type recon voyages.  (That doesn't mean I won't send destroyers forward - just that I won't send them THAT far forward).

This concession is made in the spirit of "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety."

I think that this is in a gray area of being gamey. If you had sent a larger force I probably wouldn't have a problem with it (not that I really have a problem with it... it's your game). But I do believe a single DD being sent out to scout far inside enemy waters is somewhat gamey simply because it was a suicide mission. That DD had no chance of surviving an encounter with KB or a larger surface force and that is what made it a suicide mission. The fact that she didn't encounter anything during the first 5 missions really means nothing. The US would not have sent a ship on this type mission unless it was absolutely critical to the conduct of the war.

Having said that, the best means to approach this is to discuss it with your opponent and reach some form of consensus regarding these type missions. IMO it's not gamey if both opponents are of the same thought regardless of what others may think.

Chez

[Ikazuchi0585]

risky not gamey.

[Nemo121]

Miller, well it is obvious that you are invested in putting this down as a gamey exploitation and not at all interested in looking at how you could better your play to avoid it happening again. That's a pity as that's not the path to improvement.


I note that no-one has, as of yet, posted evidence of that this actually exploits a game engine flaw. Exploiting a gap in your coverage? Yes, exploiting a game engine flaw? No.

[Canoerebel]

As for Miller having the area covered by LBA...well, Swanson completed four circumnavigations of Borneo before Miller sighted her.

[CV Zuikaku]

So, sending a single destroyer to cruise arround major enemy bases in hope of being attacked by carrier TF is not gamey at all? [8|] [X(] Interesting... [:D] What is next? Sending AKs to scout deep inside enemy convoy routes? Sending AKs to test which enemy base is mined? Yes, you can play in whatever way you want, but some things are... well... gamey [;)]
Sending subs or big CV/SC TFs in deep recon or S&D missions would not be considered gamey, but this... and for allied side... and single DD cruising arround major enemy bases... [&:]

[Nemo121]

Well there's cover and then there's effective cover. If you circumnavigated it 4 times then the loss rate is only 20% per circumnavigation, hardly suicide and evidence that whatever the cover was it wasn't good enough.


Seriously guys, people don't have some sort of divine right not to get taken to the cleaners if they leave gaps for the enemy to move through and covering something with naval search is no guarantee you'll spot something moving through. You need in-depth cover and redundancy in order to be safe.

AGain, since some people seem blind to the obvious, if your opponent sends a single ship into your waters it is your JOB to sink it, not whine about him doing it after the event. No wonder so few people improve no matter how many games they play.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku
So, sending a single destroyer to cruise arround major enemy bases in hope of being attacked by carrier TF is not gamey at all? [8|] [X(] Interesting... [:D] What is next? Sending AKs to scout deep inside enemy convoy routes? Sending AKs to test which enemy base is mined? Yes, you can play in whatever way you want, but some things are... well... gamey [;)]
Sending subs or big CV/SC TFs in deep recon or S&D missions would not be considered gamey, but this... and for allied side... and single DD cruising arround major enemy bases... [&:]

Some things that were possible to do in real life can't be done in the game with the forces at hand, so players sometimes get creative and substitute.

For instance, in the real war the Allies landed frogmen on beaches to recon enemy positions prior to invasion. They also scouted and sometimes moved underwater obstructions and mines. We can't do that, so we might use an expendable AKL or xAK to test things. Gamey? From the standpoint that it wasn't done in the war, yes. Not gamey? Yes, from the standpoint that it accomplishes somethign that could have been done in the war.

Similarly, in the war the Japanese used a line of fishing trawlers far off the coast to patrol and serve as early warning devices. The Doolittle Raid encountered them. We don't have fishing trawlers in the game, but a Japanese player might use the expendable AKL and xAK for the same purpose. That's fine!

I think my strategy was similar - an attempt to fill in some gaps that probably didn't exist in the real war by using what I have at hand. No, the American Navy didn't send destroyers on missions like this one, but they might have if they hadn't had the information they got from sources that aren't modeled (or aren't adequately modeled) in the game.

Nevertheless, I won't use the tactic any more since there's a division of opinion over the matter.

[Charbroiled]

I don't think it is gamey and is a very prudent method to scout.  Some may scream that the game doesn't handle single ship TF's well, but the fact that the DD was sunk seems like the game handled it correctly.  A single ship TF is hard to spot IRL, so I wouldn't expect the game to "spot" it every time.
 
Is it a suicide mission?  Maybe, however, in the game, you can't very easily tell the captain to "go to this location, and if you are attacked, turn around".  The ship will usually continue to it's set destination even if attacked by air multiple times.  The only thing I can think that might make the ship turn around if attacked is to assign a Captain with a low aggression level.
 
Is it ahistorical?  Maybe, but I would guess mainly from a political standpoint...and there are a lot of other "historical" political issues that aren't addressed with the game.  From a military standpoint, I know that if I was in charge of the Pacific Fleet, I would rather lose 1 DD on a scouting mission then 100 ships in an invasion fleet.

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Several weeks ago the KB retired from the theater. I didn't know where she had gone, but I knew I had better not venture into enemy waters if there was a chance of bumping into here. So I detailed DD Swanson to sail all the way around Borneo to scout for the KB. (What my opponent doesn't know is that Swanson completed at least five circumnavigations of Borneo without incident - making it clear that this wasn't necessarily a "suicide" run).

However, next turn my scout did "find" the KB lurking off Kuching, Borneo (about where I had expected, though I wasn't sure). DD Swanson was destroyed but served its purpose.

The bold parts are particulary interesting. Obviously the usage of lack of adequate LB ac coverage was not the intention. Intention was to send in destroyer so the KB would react and destroy her. revealing KB position in process was main goal. that reminds me of old WITP days when some players used to surrond their CV TFs by clouds of "junk fleets" consisted of single AKs in order to lure enemy CVs to react.

[Miller]

Gents, lets put aside all this "Should have had better search/more escort/air attack" in place arguement. I had all three, perhaps not in big enough quantites, I got hurt end of story.

The sole role of that DD was to spot the KB. When I say spot, I mean "Be attacked by". Suicide mission????? You decide.

[Misconduct]

Its not gamey to use a tactic called "recon" to scout for your enemies carriers. 

[Canoerebel]

One other thing - we're playing two day turns.  That adds a constraint that isn't present in one-day turns.  Once you issue orders, you can't recall your force even if they catch wind of a terrible threat on the first day.  Instead, your forces sail right on into oblivion.  That's just a "cost of doing business" when you play two-day turns, but the tactic I used is one way to reduce the risk of stumbling into an engagement that a commander wouldn't have accepted.

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Its not gamey to use a tactic called "recon" to scout for your enemies carriers. 

that was a recon deep into enemy controlled waters. sending in some cruisers with scoutplanes have some sense, but this is obviously a one way mission. And it is gamey to me. Imagine map swarming with expendable single ship TFs "scouting" all arround...

[Misconduct]

so what its a one way mission, he loses the ships - bad on his part, however he accomplishes his goal in mean time.

Edited: I do it also, using a single destroyer to bombard an island to check for coastal guns, yes I loose the ship however the recon work is done in process. Besides what good am I going to use a destroyer with 2 ASW rating and weak 3inch guns? nothing.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

that was a recon deep into enemy controlled waters. sending in some cruisers with scoutplanes have some sense, but this is obviously a one way mission. And it is gamey to me. Imagine map swarming with expendable single ship TFs "scouting" all arround...

He would have needed 5 dds to make five trips around Borneo if it were indeed a 1 way mission not to mention if the waters were truly "enemy controlled" it wouldn't have made more than 1 trip.

[CV Zuikaku]

Well, some methods are just gamey to me. I try to use real world methods. And those described here are just to radical for me. Especially when playing Allied side....