Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.

My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?

There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.

My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?

In WITP, IIRC single-ship TFs could be used to game the system in the opposite way. Carrier strikes (in particular, but LBA strikes too) did vary in size but not by enough and small or single-ship TFs got way more aircraft than was practical. IRL a mistake like that might happen what with confused sightings and all, but it was pretty near all the time. A change was made (still back in WITP) to basically assign smaller strike packages to smaller targets, and it seems to have worked very well.

In AE that is still the case. It's also true that single-ship TFs, especially smaller ships, are more difficult to pick up on search, (and I presume) more difficult to get a hard fix on for targeting, and more difficult for a strike to find once it's in the air. They DO get targeted and they DO get hit, but they also can get through. BTW I am not suggesting that, say, 10 x single-ship TFs in the same hex are as hard to spot and hit. I have no experience with that but my guess is that they would be much more prone to being found, targeted, and hit. I base that on the fact that ships in different TFs but in the same hex are often targeted together in the same air attack in AE.

For my own part, I use single-ship TFs sparingly in what I figure are realistic situations. "Realistic" obviously is going to vary with the situation, with more desperation increasing the realism. For example when trying to sneak some supplies into beleaguered troops, or even slip some troops out. Areas where there seems to be no threat - obviously. Scattering a convoy that can no longer be protected. I'm sure people can add to the list.

Some people use them as pickets (I do not mean attack magnets as mentioned above). That is historical and therefore certainly realistic. People do argue about the parameters of that realism (which ships, military vs civilian, what exact circumstances, etc.). I don't have those answers, but it's really up to the opponents anyway as part of the game is exploring decisions that might have been made IRL.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: witpqs


Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.

My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?

There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

+10!

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is all good, but it still seems odd that the Betties reacted and the Vals didn't. If anyone has an explanation for that I'm sure that many players besides myself would be interested.

Consider different weather conditions in the base hexes, different agressiveness ratings for the CO's..., there are many reasons why forces react or don't to threats/opportunities.

No restriction although I would say that picket forces should be warships and not cargo vessels. Otherwise I am fine. Single ship Tfs make sense for the Japanese player late in the war. Even if air attack is unlikely they are prone to attack by Allied subs. So, I am OK with it.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Crackaces




My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?

There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

+10!

Just because there are extant HRs regarding one-ship TFs in the game doesn't mean they're myth based, nor does it imply that those that use HRs such as this are ignorant, stupid, liars or whatever else has been suggested. This discussion (use of one-ship TFs) revolves around realistic use, not the mechanics of whether naval torpedo bombers / DBs, etc. will attack them equally.

Definitions of "realistic use" or "gamey use" will vary between players. HRs are designed to head off miscommunications regarding these expectations. Nothing wrong with that in a game to avoid some extant problems with exploitation of this game mechanic by some.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

No restriction although I would say that picket forces should be warships and not cargo vessels. Otherwise I am fine. Single ship Tfs make sense for the Japanese player late in the war. Even if air attack is unlikely they are prone to attack by Allied subs. So, I am OK with it.

So-no restrictions except for your restrictions. I see.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

+10!

Just because there are extant HRs regarding one-ship TFs in the game doesn't mean they're myth based,

In this thread the OP stated his opponent states that his anti-shipping air will not launch against them. This is a myth.

nor does it imply that those that use HRs such as this are ignorant, stupid, liars or whatever else has been suggested.

Project much? [:)]

This discussion (use of one-ship TFs) revolves around realistic use, not the mechanics of whether naval torpedo bombers / DBs, etc. will attack them equally.

Not the OP. As for "realistic" use that horse has been beat to death in endless JFB/AFB threads. As Alfred wears himself out saying, it's a game, not a sim.

Definitions of "realistic use" or "gamey use" will vary between players.

Correct. With some of us saying there is no such thing as "gamey" use. It's a null term in a game.

HRs are designed to head off miscommunications regarding these expectations. Nothing wrong with that in a game to avoid some extant problems with exploitation of this game mechanic by some.

Opinions differ, but I see a lot of games end early with one player in a huff over HRs and "gamey." If more would play the game as designed, with victory conditions as designed, a lot more games would finish without a quit. IMHO.

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What year, date, area of a 'sandbox scenario' would you suggest? I am thinking in updating the superb WitP tutorial to WitP AE; I found it quite useful.

Klink, Oberst

'42 solomon sea for Jap aircraft, Hawaii for US planes. Don't forget to have a reasonable level of search planes as they will also attack single ships. For statistical reasons make it just one such TF and make it a cargo vessel. It might be interesting to repeat with a CV. It would be interesting to note attacks per squadron per day as well as for dedicated search and or ASW sqds.

...

I generally dislike HRs but I have a personal one for when I play the allies, I evacuate Goma as there were never Indian troops there. There should be no fortifications done until you decide you must invade Portuguese territory. Also if you put restricted troops in there it ought to cost PPs every day.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: witpqs


+10!

Just because there are extant HRs regarding one-ship TFs in the game doesn't mean they're myth based,

In this thread the OP stated his opponent states that his anti-shipping air will not launch against them. This is a myth.

nor does it imply that those that use HRs such as this are ignorant, stupid, liars or whatever else has been suggested.

Project much? [:)]

This discussion (use of one-ship TFs) revolves around realistic use, not the mechanics of whether naval torpedo bombers / DBs, etc. will attack them equally.

Not the OP. As for "realistic" use that horse has been beat to death in endless JFB/AFB threads. As Alfred wears himself out saying, it's a game, not a sim.

Definitions of "realistic use" or "gamey use" will vary between players.

Correct. With some of us saying there is no such thing as "gamey" use. It's a null term in a game.

HRs are designed to head off miscommunications regarding these expectations. Nothing wrong with that in a game to avoid some extant problems with exploitation of this game mechanic by some.

Opinions differ, but I see a lot of games end early with one player in a huff over HRs and "gamey." If more would play the game as designed, with victory conditions as designed, a lot more games would finish without a quit. IMHO.

Bull,

Did you really think that I must restrict my responses to merely those initial comments by the OP? My observations of some of the language used by those in this thread regarding opponents 'ignorance' is not projecting if it's stated or implied. [:)] I was pointing out that some posters were unnecessarily brusque and accusatory in their response.

Yes, there are differences from your humble opinion. I see games (plenty of 'em) end because players play the game 'as designed', with victory conditions 'as designed' when a discussion apriori of game issues would have headed these issues off. They quit when the game-get this-isn't matching what they want for entertainment. It's a shame, really.

Alfred and you may think that the 'realistic' angle has been beaten to death in countless fanboi threads, but I don't. It's the principal of selecting an opponent and I couldn't possibly care less what Alfred says about the 'intended' nature of the game.

Players accepting a PBEM match should enter into that arrangement with deliberate forethought and common viewpoints about expectations. One of these expectations is how an opponent will handle some of these sticky issues-single ship TFs is one of them. Don't like it? Doesn't suit your style of play? I really don't care. This is still my standing advice to those considering a PBEM match.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

What's the prevailing opinion on single ship TFs? I know some players object to it, but for what reason? Does the game not deal with them realistically? Is it because you think they didn't exist historically? I know of ways to abuse that ability, but sending AKLs on resupply missions, especially when there haven't been any enemy subs in the area, seems perfectly legit to me. I also don't think there's any safety in numbers, either gamewise or historically, unless one or more of those numbers have ASW ability. Needless to say, there aren't enough escorts early in the war anyway. My opponent objects to single (AKLs in this case) because his anti ship squadrons will not launch against them. That would seem to me to be a problem with the game, if so, and justification to prohibit them where possible anywhere within range of enemy planes. Small cargo ships carrying only supplies or fuel, it seems to me, ought to be able to operate that way. ASW patrols and minesweepers definitely should be able to, I think. Of course everyone does that with subs. DDs just transferring from one port to another should also be able to do that.

Anyways, I'd appreciate hearing all sides of that argument.

edit: I suppose it should be noted that search planes will attack single ships.

Sorry, geofflambert, I didn't answer your original post with my previous postings in this thread.

I don't think there is a 'prevailing' opinion on single ship TFs. This discussion descends into the 'gamey under x circumstances' versus WAD at all times argument, as seen above. I would estimate that most players have some form of HR to restrict useage of single ship TFs to act as ammo or sortie sponges, yet would certainly allow the supply TFs that you describe above.

Does the game deal with single ship TFs 'realistically'? Tough question. I guess it depends on your definition of realism. The game's use of OPs points for TFs, movement or reaction for same and ammunition expenditures does-in my opinion-make overuse of these single ship TFs problematic.

In real life, a large SCTF would hardly have to slow down to deal with a few xAKLs strewn in its path enroute to a scheduled fight against another sizeable enemy surface force. In the game, large quantities of time, movement 'points' and ammunition are expended as the SCTF routes or reacts from surface 'threat' to surface threat. Do your BBs really need to expend their 16" AP ammunition on that 1200 ton TK when they have been ordered to fight a nearby heavy surface force? No? Well, they often will in the game.

These singleton TFs can act as sponges for SCTF ammunition or carrier sorties, thereby screening or preserving the military force "behind them" in an artificial manner. I've seen screenshots of the Sulu Sea wherein each and every hex is filled with an xAKL or other meaningless transport ship intentionally so placed as to absorb an expected SCTFs movements into the area as an antecedent to a naval surface brawl. When the naval brawl occured, Lo! One side was largely out of ammo, skewing the results of the ensuing naval fight.

So, I think there are reasons to object to carpeting an area with xAKL singleton TFs other than the issues with air attacks / non-air attacks occuring. As expressed above, this is something best discussed amongst like-minded players. But I don't see a problem with xAKL singletons being used in a supply capacity in the examples you cited.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



Just because there are extant HRs regarding one-ship TFs in the game doesn't mean they're myth based,

In this thread the OP stated his opponent states that his anti-shipping air will not launch against them. This is a myth.

nor does it imply that those that use HRs such as this are ignorant, stupid, liars or whatever else has been suggested.

Project much? [:)]

This discussion (use of one-ship TFs) revolves around realistic use, not the mechanics of whether naval torpedo bombers / DBs, etc. will attack them equally.

Not the OP. As for "realistic" use that horse has been beat to death in endless JFB/AFB threads. As Alfred wears himself out saying, it's a game, not a sim.

Definitions of "realistic use" or "gamey use" will vary between players.

Correct. With some of us saying there is no such thing as "gamey" use. It's a null term in a game.

HRs are designed to head off miscommunications regarding these expectations. Nothing wrong with that in a game to avoid some extant problems with exploitation of this game mechanic by some.

Opinions differ, but I see a lot of games end early with one player in a huff over HRs and "gamey." If more would play the game as designed, with victory conditions as designed, a lot more games would finish without a quit. IMHO.

Bull,

Did you really think that I must restrict my responses to merely those initial comments by the OP? My observations of some of the language used by those in this thread regarding opponents 'ignorance' is not projecting if it's stated or implied. [:)] I was pointing out that some posters were unnecessarily brusque and accusatory in their response.

Yes, there are differences from your humble opinion. I see games (plenty of 'em) end because players play the game 'as designed', with victory conditions 'as designed' when a discussion apriori of game issues would have headed these issues off. They quit when the game-get this-isn't matching what they want for entertainment. It's a shame, really.

Alfred and you may think that the 'realistic' angle has been beaten to death in countless fanboi threads, but I don't. It's the principal of selecting an opponent and I couldn't possibly care less what Alfred says about the 'intended' nature of the game.

Players accepting a PBEM match should enter into that arrangement with deliberate forethought and common viewpoints about expectations. One of these expectations is how an opponent will handle some of these sticky issues-single ship TFs is one of them. Don't like it? Doesn't suit your style of play? I really don't care. This is still my standing advice to those considering a PBEM match.

Bull wrote "There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs." and I wrote "+10" and I stand by it. There are plenty of HRs built upon myths. And it is the player-opponents' mutual right to do so. And others' right to note that they are built on myths.

Alfred wrote "...ignorant..." and I agree with him in his intended meaning, i.e. ignorant as to the actual fact of the matter.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Look at any typical list of HRs

I'll start here. What is a typical list of mythical HRs that you see in place? Your 'typical' list of HRs is, in and of itself, mythical.

I see few of these carry-over (so-called mythical) myths that I would characterize as 'typically' used. Perhaps they once were, before these issues were addressed in patches or different game versions. As players start more games under more recent patch versions, there are fewer of these in place-sometimes none.

I think that's probably a fairer question to ask: what version of the game is the player playing under. Because so many of these gameplay issues have been resolved over time, it may be more fair to ask this question before chiding the player or stating their ignorance. Surely you must admit that earlier AE versions merited some of the gameplay HRs that were imposed?

So, with regards to the broad spectrum of questions originally posed by the OP in this thread, I still see some 'issues' regarding singleton xAKLs as ammo or sortie sponges. No it's not just the air search / air attack on xAKL singletons aspect of the game. The OPs questions were more broad and they have NOT been entirely dealt with.

Thus the reasonable merit of HRs regarding singleton xAKLs. Mythical? Hardly.

ETA: Spelling and mythical versus mythological. [;)]

Wait - are you using mythologically mythical spelling? This is getting confusing! [:D]

Thanks, CB
On the subject of HRs, one I've run into and went along with is no 4EHBs below 10k, and I may in the future for at least '42 even though I know such attacks did in fact happen. I would draw the line when they're be used as search planes, or if you have nothing better to use, ASW. In those cases I'll put them at whatever altitude I like.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Wait - are you using mythologically mythical spelling? This is getting confusing! [:D]

The dimensions of this are mythic.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Thanks, CB
On the subject of HRs, one I've run into and went along with is no 4EHBs below 10k, and I may in the future for at least '42 even though I know such attacks did in fact happen. I would draw the line when they're be used as search planes, or if you have nothing better to use, ASW. In those cases I'll put them at whatever altitude I like.

The addition of so many pilot skills has really addressed this issue, IMO. You can't just take a group with "high experience" and expect it to get hits on ships at sea as you could in WITP. The hits are few and far between. Against soft targets (merchants, whatever) going to a lower altitude makes sense and is realistic. Going lower against hard targets like warships is very dangerous!

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Did you really think that I must restrict my responses to merely those initial comments by the OP?

Of course not. As I don't have to. But your response indicated to me that you believe no HRs are base don myths. I pointed out one which is. I also reacted to your use of the word "liars."

My observations of some of the language used by those in this thread regarding opponents 'ignorance' is not projecting if it's stated or implied. [:)]

OK, let me say it another ay. It seemed defensive.

I was pointing out that some posters were unnecessarily brusque and accusatory in their response.

Opinions differ.

Yes, there are differences from your humble opinion. I see games (plenty of 'em) end because players play the game 'as designed', with victory conditions 'as designed' when a discussion apriori of game issues would have headed these issues off.

Some. A few. I read the Opponents Wanted thread each and every time a new ad appears. The vast majojrity of them begin with a statement that HR swill be be required. And a fai rnumber--I have no census--of AARs contain some variation of the statement "we're not playing for VPs." Since it is impossible for th eAllied player to win without considering VPs, as the only way he can win is by auto-victory, they aren't playing the game as designed.

They quit when the game-get this-isn't matching what they want for entertainment. It's a shame, really.

You're more charitalble than I am.

Alfred and you may think that the 'realistic' angle has been beaten to death in countless fanboi threads, but I don't. It's the principal of selecting an opponent and I couldn't possibly care less what Alfred says about the 'intended' nature of the game.

Take it up with him. It's a fact that the game is not realistic. A fact. Find some avgas for me if you think it is. It's a series of abstracted decisions to include or not. It's a balance of what was put in and what was left out. So choosing to HR-away or HR-include factors is just as abstract and no more realistic. Most often an HR is there to make the game easier to win for one side or the other. Which I wouldn't mind if the HRers would be honest about it. Instead they hide behind their view of history and ignore the library of history which isn't in there either.

Players accepting a PBEM match should enter into that arrangement with deliberate forethought and common viewpoints about expectations.

As a minimum, yes. Too many don't even do that much, let alone play the game as designed.

One of these expectations is how an opponent will handle some of these sticky issues-single ship TFs is one of them. Don't like it? Doesn't suit your style of play? I really don't care. This is still my standing advice to those considering a PBEM match.

And if it's all right with you I will continue to argue strenuously that playing without HRs makes for a better, smoother, and more honest game.

There's a historical use of one-ship TFs that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread. I speak of evacuating Manila (as the biggest example) in the first couple days of the war, sending all the transports out one at a time.

Myth or not -- and the status could have changed, I don't know -- the belief was that the air groups would attack only one TF apiece, even if there were 20 in the same hex. By creating more TFs, this assured the preservation of more ships for a longer time. They might still get eradicated, but it would take many more turns to accomplish this.

Anyway, that's just background to answer the original question. More and more I find myself agreeing with Bullwinkle; I'd rather play the game as designed and updated (including betas) and not deal with a list of HRs.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



So, with regards to the broad spectrum of questions originally posed by the OP in this thread, I still see some 'issues' regarding singleton xAKLs as ammo or sortie sponges. No it's not just the air search / air attack on xAKL singletons aspect of the game. The OPs questions were more broad and they have NOT been entirely dealt with.

Thus the reasonable merit of HRs regarding singleton xAKLs. Mythical? Hardly.

I know you are a practicing scientist, and as such understand and respect objective fact. However, one big problem I see over and over with HRs is that they become in practice subjective. Single-ship TFs are perhaps the worst offender, which is one reason I seem to always jump in on them.

I'm not a scientist, but I have a bit of legal training. To me an HR is a contract. Or better said it's a contract amendment to the original contract which is the game rules and code design. We've all seen poorly drafted contracts. There are many ways to do this, but two primary ways are ill- or non-defined terms, and failure to anticipate all eventuallities which can occur during contract execution. Single-ship TFs share both of these problems.

You yourself wade into these waters above. It's not ALL single-ship TFs which are "bad" (gamey, unrealsitic, pick yer poison.) It's only some. Which? Not defined in HRs. "Ammo sponge" is subjective. The code doesn't know player intent. I could sail a single-ship TF through a hex intending it to only deliver 1000 pts. of supply to a starving base. But it acts as an "ammo sponge." In certain areas of the map I might do that a lot. Does it matter what my intent was? You'd probably say yes, but where are the objective limits vis a vis the contract? You're immediatley into discussions, and negotiations, and opsec breaches. One player has to give. Hard feelings can ensue.

So, you go totally objective and ban ALL single-ship TFs. "There shall be no 'ammo sponges'" the players declare. Single-ship TFs--ugg, bad. Both players are hamstrung in their efficient use of their assets. Me, the Allies, can't supply the Yukon or Alaska right away because I don't have enough escorts to go around, and sending two transports to many of those ports overwhelms the docking. Maybe I don't want two transports of supply there, sinice it will spoil. Maybe I don't want to risk two ships to subs when one would do just fine. I resent an iron-bound contract which forces me to fight stupid in order to head off possible "ammo sponges" 5000 miles away and two years in the future.

Just what is an "ammo sponge"? What are its exact parameters? To HR against them one must be able to define them. You describe screenshots you've seen where it would be possible to walk across xAKLs in a certain piece of water. I've never seen these, but I'll accept somebody did this. (My first reaction would be to up the OCD meds, but whatever.) What has the player gained? The ability to soak up ammo and attacks from the other player, for a time and at that specific place. OK. What has he lost?

1) Use of the xAKLs for productive cargo hauling, or conversion (if Japanese). For this turn and forever more if sunk.
2) All of their fuel.
3) All of their system damage.
4) Their VPs if sunk.
5) Secrecy on the importance he places on this operation/region/base.
6) About half of their COs if sunk.
7) Ops points at the port they launched from.
8) Potential collisions.

What has the other player gained?

1) Information. Big time.
2) VPs for reaping some xAKLs. Every time you see this, split off three DDs and lunch up.
3) The ability to avoid the whole mess and go elsewhere while he eats fuel and system damage.
4) Target-rich submarine environment.

So now go back to the contract/HR wording and let me ask one last question:

If a player did the exact same move as above, checkerboarded the seas with TFs to act as "ammo sponges", BUT EACH xAKL WAS PAIRED WITH A SUB CHASER . . . so it wasn't a single-ship TF anymore . . .

would you be any happier?