Matrix Games Forums

I don't really think it's gamey per se, but more a question of the game engine handling and prioritizing what TFs to attack with carrier forces. Would KB launch an attack on a lone AKL it has spotted whilst it was on its way to ambush an allied invasion somewhere?
(The same goes for the other side of course).
KB sure a shell launches in game when it has a naval strike mission set.
 
So it's not a question whether both sides used picket/patrol ships in the war as they did. IRL.
The game just doesn't handle this practice well so I think using small ships to attract incoming strikes on purpose isn't gamey, it's plainly abusing game mechanics in my opinion.
 
I intend not to play this way, but if your opponent is okay with it, that's totally fine.
 
My 0.02 cents.
 
d0mbo.
 
 

Japan can convert xAKLs to PBs. Same crews. Same ship. But its "gamey" to use them as pickets unless you convert them. Not EVEN going to comment.

Where would the allies use "picket" xAKLs? 2 places come to mind. Between India and Oz - sending single ship TFs through there is certainly not out of the question, and between the Aleutians and Hawaii - same notation.

So, to avoid being "gamey" send a "supply ship" every other day or so between the 2 and this argument is over. Both sides should be happy. Nothing "gamey" here. Move along.

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy

Whats the opinions on use of Picket line's of Merchant ships?

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Variing.

See? [:D]

Although in these discussions I think there is a very divergent understanding of what actuall means "picket line"

From the involved parties the difinition ranges from a hex-by-hex stack of chapships to the occasional picket ship
patroling potential entry points of major fleets.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Can't you convert most of your "AKL" (I presume you meant xAKL) to something of a military craft-e.g., xAKL to ACM, PB, AMc or other military auxiliary? I would envision those to have more legitimate military purpose. IIRC, the 'x' prefix designation is a tip of the hat to a more civilian / civil maritime origin. Those 'tuna boats' weren't really tuna boats, were they? More akin to EW ships, gathering ELINT. Using an xAKL would be, literally, putting a tuna boat as is out there. Wouldn't really work very well. Convert them to another auxiliary craft? Now we're talking.

This may be the source of some of the disagreement. The Allies cannot convert large numbers of small merchants to military use in the same way the Japanese can. Later on the Allies get a lot of AM and KV-type ships for ASW, but most have shorter legs than would be needed for true picket duty.

As I understand it most gamers want to improve on strategies used in the actual war. As this strategy was definitely used, why should it be 'gamey' or somehow unfair to improve upon it?

It's no different than creating a more effective Japanese economy, or choosing not send to send force Z to the bottom (based on knowledge the actual decision makers did not have in ITRW) under the Netties, (and much less important to play, as well).

We're not really playing to give an accurate rendition of how things could have gone if you'd just moved things to different places. We're playing to creatively use the tools available to us to attempt to outsmart, outplay, and outshoot our opponents. This is not taking advantage of some quirk of the game mechanism, but a historical strategy seen to be effective and expanded for new and different purposes.

(As another example, coastwatchers were actually much more effective ITRW than in AE. They gave vital information to the Allies about ship distribution and movement, air strikes, and troop movements, in close to real time).

If someone wants to sacrifice ships for information, let them. It's not that big a deal.

Also, a pretty hair-raising site on US destroyer pickets at Okinawa. When it needed to, the US did send guys out there on ships knowing it was a one way mission, but in order to savve more behind them.

http://www.apacheclips.com/boards/showt ... -Kamikazes

ORIGINAL: obvert

As I understand it most gamers want to improve on strategies used in the actual war. As this strategy was definitely used, why should it be 'gamey' or somehow unfair to improve upon it?

While I agree with you on the ahistory front, I think Alfred made an excellent series of points yesterday concerning merchant crews being sent out as sacrificial lambs. The Allies did not do this, nor would they have. To me this crewing difference is the key variance with the older debate in CR's old AAR concerning sending a DD on an around-the-island recon of Borneo. That wasn't done either, but that was a military crew and the intel they could gather was probably worth the risk. It wasn't done historically either, but I think US admirals woudl have considered it if other intel-gathering not present in the game had not been available.

I think when we get into the loaded word "gamey" these threads usually turn from their course. I wouldn't sit a lone xAKL out in the middle of an invasion route for the reasons Alfreed stated. I would sit a KV, and figure out how to get her fuel if it were that important to have her there. But I also think opinions can differ on intel-gathering between players of good will. The game doesn't reflect true Allied code-breaking prowess, as CR said, nor does it fully model submarine intel gathering. Allied players may want to work with what they have. But it's a close call.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Absolutely not gamey. Totally sensible, and the Allies would have done the same if operating under the conditions we do in the game.

In real life, the Allies often knew where the KB was, and when they didn't they usually had a pretty good idea where it wasn't. This allowed the Allies to commit carriers and invasion TFs with relatively little risk of wholesale destruction. Also, the Japanese didn't mass six or eight carriers at a time, which also limited the extent of destruction.

In the game, the Allies have very little information to go on - much less than in real life. It would be folly to send a big carrier TF, battleships, or major invasion TF into hostile waters not knowing where enemy carriers were. To do so would have gotten you sacked in real life. You'd be a joke of a commander. So you instead you use our version of "fishing trawlers" as pickets and flankers. Perfectly sensible and I can't imagine why somebody would object.

Had the Allies in the real war operated under similar conditions, I'm sure they would have used rusty buckets to serve as a picket line. In fact, I bet they did so.

Good point. How many times were the Allied surprised after Pearl Harbor? But, the Allies were able to pull of a few surprise attacks vs Japan. Yet, in the game with the way surface combat works and the spottyness of air recon, you are too vulnerable to surprise raids. Japan too. I try to limit it to small warships. Both sides have enough for this purpose.

Air raid pickets such as at Okinawa were largely "in-hex" in regards to distance and were tied specifically to the amphib op at hand vs. air attack. (a small # of them would exceed a single hex in WitP terms....more so in AE with the reduction in hex size) Besides the distance, these small groups of ships (1-6 depending on the patrol area) were integrated with air CAP's present overhead to help protect them and FDO officers were assigned aboard key picket ships to help co-ord with the carriers providing overall protection to the invasion fleet. They were NOT sacrficial lambs though the mission could be highly dangerous.

They are like an Apples and Oranges comparison whenever the controversial issue of "pickets" comes up in the game. Players tend to use pickets at multi hex distances to give instantanious (and i do mean instantanious) warning of enemy assets in the area due to the nature of the combat report phase as well as draw off attack strength to eliminate them.

If two players are ok with it then have at it. I don't do it in my games as i consider it too exploitive and absolute and neither do any of my regular PBEM opponents. Again it comes down to preferences.

There have been alot of good points made in this thread. Somebody (Alfred?) pointed out that we are often talking about different things when we refer to "picket ships." Here's what I mean (and don't mean):

1. I used scattered, independently operating, low-value, single-ship TFs for picket and flanker duty. For pickets, I generally use xAK and xAKL, though others may fit the bill. For flankers, I usually use DDs. Pickets serve as an early-warning detection force usually set in place to warn of an oncoming raid. Flankers are the ships that accompany or preceed my carriers into hostile waters. Sometimes, I'll use picket ships as flankers when they are already out front of an invasion TF or carrier TF that's moving into enemy country.

2. I do not send out scads of low-value ships to draw strikes from enemy carriers in hopes of lowering sortie levels. In fact, when I know or strongly suspect that enemy carriers are present, I try to get my pickets/flankers out of the way.

3. I never "flood the zone" trying to create consternation amongst enemy carriers, combat TFs, or bombardment TFs, soaking off their attacks and ammunition levels.

4. Before beginning my current game, I cleared my use of pickets/flankers with my opponent.

5. In the game, there are no merchant men on merchant ships; and no Navy men on naval ships. The best way I can approximate what the Allies were able to do in the real war is to employ ships in this fashion. It doesn't matter one whit what kind of ships I use. They are all pretty low value, so the designation doesn't mean much from a victory point standpoint. And I am absolutely certain that the Allies would have done exactly the same thing had they been in my shoes.

I can't imagine anyone playing the Japanese side complaining about pickets used in the manner rebel just mentioned, if they do I'd hope they'd hold to the same limits on their war conduct which would start with no low naval attack training until kamikazees are in affect (I mean how could they train for something it wasn't generally accepted as a tactic prior to implementation) , insist on player defined upgrades to weed out the junk produced by the Japanese air industry, no real training of pilots because in this game the Japanese never suffer from historical shortages of trained airmen but certainly wouldn't end at that.

Except for item #4, I do pretty much as Canoerebel posted. I can't see playing without some pickets as warning. The Allies are very short on their intel and the Japanese used small vessels for this purpose.

When I saw the thread title Gettysburg popped in my head! [:D]

Air raid pickets such as at Okinawa were largely "in-hex" in regards to distance and were tied specifically to the amphib op at hand vs. air attack. (a small # of them would exceed a single hex in WitP terms....more so in AE with the reduction in hex size) Besides the distance, these small groups of ships (1-6 depending on the patrol area) were integrated with air CAP's present overhead to help protect them and FDO officers were assigned aboard key picket ships to help co-ord with the carriers providing overall protection to the invasion fleet. They were NOT sacrficial lambs though the mission could be highly dangerous.

They are like an Apples and Oranges comparison whenever the controversial issue of "pickets" comes up in the game. Players tend to use pickets at multi hex distances to give instantanious (and i do mean instantanious) warning of enemy assets in the area due to the nature of the combat report phase as well as draw off attack strength to eliminate them.

Nikademus

If you have read the article, one of the few men who survived this strategy explains that the men on these ships DID think they were being sent out sacrificially, (but of course believed in the strategy and the reason for employing it).

I'm arguing that these methods ARE apples and oranges. [;)] But they are both fruit. If you're walking around the woods, and you know what an apple looks like, but have never seen an orange, (just forget about climatic conditions needed for a second), once you do see them you might notice the similarity and give them a try. This game is expanding the range of fruit and vegetables that are out there. Each player attempts new strategies for using the tools that are available in historically relevant but creatively implemented ways.

While I agree with you on the ahistory front, I think Alfred made an excellent series of points yesterday concerning merchant crews being sent out as sacrificial lambs. The Allies did not do this, nor would they have. To me this crewing difference is the key variance with the older debate in CR's old AAR concerning sending a DD on an around-the-island recon of Borneo. That wasn't done either, but that was a military crew and the intel they could gather was probably worth the risk. It wasn't done historically either, but I think US admirals woudl have considered it if other intel-gathering not present in the game had not been available.

Bullwinkle

I'm wondering why, if these are merchant ships on lease to the US govt, a few might not have some or all of the crews replaced by military personnel, or volunteers even, who would perform as scouts for the navy? This would not require a refit, or and changes to the ship proper. Just a visit to port and a few different men on board. They could even have skeleton crews with 'escape' motor launches at the ready.

5. In the game, there are no merchant men on merchant ships; and no Navy men on naval ships. The best way I can approximate what the Allies were able to do in the real war is to employ ships in this fashion. It doesn't matter one whit what kind of ships I use. They are all pretty low value, so the designation doesn't mean much from a victory point standpoint. And I am absolutely certain that the Allies would have done exactly the same thing had they been in my shoes

If the need was there, they would have figured out a way to use these ships in this way.

ORIGINAL: obvert
If you have read the article, one of the few men who survived this strategy explains that the men on these ships DID think they were being sent out sacrificially, (but of course believed in the strategy and the reason for employing it).

Many soldiers and sailors have felt as such.....that doesn't mean it was the case. I often feel picked on at work. Doesn't mean the company is gunning for me intentionally.

I'm arguing that these methods ARE apples and oranges. [;)] But they are both fruit.

As i said.....players are free to do whatever they want in their games as long as both sides agree its kosher. However if someone is try to justify their tactic to me along the lines of historical comparison. I will politely continue to disagree with said viewpoint in such cases as the above.

That article on the pickets stated that 80% of the 182 destroyers used as pickets were sunk or damaged beyond service. Thats 146 destroyers. The USN didn't lose 146 destroyers in the entire war (Atlantic and Pacific from 1941 to 1945) let alone at Okinawa. Even including all the various classes of picket ships used (DE's, LCI's, etc.), I'd be very surprised that 146 were lost in the entire war, let alone Okinawa. So, let's just say that the article is a little suspect in it's facts.


Mike

A recent book on the pickets of Okinawa quoted a far smaller figure.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
As i said.....players are free to do whatever they want in their games as long as both sides agree its kosher. However if someone is try to justify their tactic to me along the lines of historical comparison. I will politely continue to disagree with said viewpoint in such cases as the above.

Agree whole heartedly. Just FYI, the difference between an xAK and and an AK ain't magic. An AK (without the x) is just a designation field in the Ship Class structure, that lets those guys get a stage-1 amphib load/unload bonus. Also helps keep ship capability strait on the menu screen. An xAK can do the exact same thing, but it just don't get the bonus. So if it's got an "x" then the game assumes a certain capability (or lack thereof). It don't say squat about the crew, or if they wore uniform or jockey shorts.

IIRC, the Doolittle raid started early because it bumped into a picket line of fishing trawlers.

As with many other things in the game, flexibily allows things to be done that were done. The same flexibility allows things to be done that were not done.

As Nik says, 'players are free to do whatever they want in their games as long as both sides agree its kosher'. Rule of reason, rule of reason, rule of reason.

A house rule which seems obvious:

Whichever side I am playing gets tuna boats. [:D][:D]
Number and armament negotiable.

ORIGINAL: JWE
IIRC, the Doolittle raid started early because it bumped into a picket line of fishing trawlers.

Fishing trawlers are not represented in the game though. So that is rather beside the point.