Matrix Games Forums

PBY's and all floatplanes of both sides are very out of whack. It doesn't seem uncommon for early war Allied floatplanes to get better than 50% hit rates, and the trend continues throughout the whole war!

ORIGINAL: alanschu

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

I guess you're right, Obvert, regarding sticking exclusively to "real world" choices, but I would like to adhere as close to what would be done, as opposed to exploiting the engine. I have yet to play a PBEM game, because I do not feel comfortable enough with my overall knowledge of the game, so that my opinion may change once I face a real live opponent.

One thing I would like to see the engine do is give the player the ability to pick the targets for Naval strikes. During the war, commanders often had to rely on the bits of intelligence they had before ordering strikes, whether incomplete or not. Especially in the carrier battles. Having Naval strikes handled by the computer has always bothered me.

I'm in a similar boat. For instance, the tiny picket task forces strike me as an exploitation of the combat resolution, because it operates under the assumption that the opposing admiral will use ordinance on targets that may not actually be worth the air ops.

I've never played a PBEM though, so I'm sure all sorts of things would show up that make me go "argh" in response to a savvy opponent.

Ha! Then perhaps when we're both ready PBEM, we should match up?

Not against the idea, though in the short term I don't have tooooo much time.

Just as a note, I have exceptionally little familiarity with the Japanese OOB (or even their aircraft types, really), so if you needed me to play Japan I'd likely need some heads up so I can get familiar with what their damn ships can even do! XD

ORIGINAL: alanschu

....if you needed me to play Japan I'd likely need some heads up so I can get familiar with what their damn ships can even do! XD

Sink, mostly. [:D]

The idea, of course, being that I hope I can stop that from happening <.<

I'm not that familiar with the Japanese OOB myself, but it wouldn't really matter which side I'd play. I have been playing scenarios from one side and then the other to get a feel for each side's strengths and weaknesses, and the unique problems they face, but I have to admit I would not be looking forward to the Japanese production nightmare.[:D]

my 2 bits:

-1 ship Tfs gamey unless they are legitimate warships ie DD, DE, Vette etc...the "picket" line of light US warships were the difference between victory and defeat in war on kami
-float planes attacking...historically legitimate and if someone wants to waste precious search asets thusly, GOOD! Each side had float planes that can bite. The awkwardly high hit rate presumably attachs to each side.

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

my 2 bits:

-1 ship Tfs gamey unless they are legitimate warships ie DD, DE, Vette etc...the "picket" line of light US warships were the difference between victory and defeat in war on kami
-float planes attacking...historically legitimate and if someone wants to waste precious search asets thusly, GOOD! Each side had float planes that can bite. The awkwardly high hit rate presumably attachs to each side.

Ok, I can understand AKL's being forbidden (although Pueblo and her sisters were such, and many nations have used trawlers historically as pickets...which we DON'T have in the game , and the AKL is the nearest). How do you feel about AM, YMS. YP's , PC and SC craft. You know , ships that fall under patrol? Would that be acceptable? [&:]

BTW , what's a "legitimate" warship? One whose parents were married? [:D]

ORIGINAL: godochaos

So post your opinions on what tactics do you consider to be "cheesy"

Depends on who you're playing, are you in it for the journey or for the win? If you're happy to play for the journey then there are a lot more cheesy tactics than if you're just in for the win. Examples can include:

Crossing borders without paying PPs is cheesy (some exceptions may apply).
Flying fighter sweeps up in the stratosphere, sure it was possible to fly at 30k but fighting wasn't much of an option up there back in 1942.
Hunting CVs on turn 1.
Landing at Mersing on turn 1.
A full on retreat down Malaya into Singapore without trying to hold back the Japanese tide.
Building massive stacks of troops at refineries and using the 'supply' produced to keep said troops fed (I'm looking at you Palembang! [;)])

Search plane hit rates: Ive been experimenting more with using PBYs occasionally at naval attack at 1000, I am seeing hit rates that are absolutely out of this world. 4 of 4 hitting, 3 of 4 hitting. The hit rates are not realistic relative to the quality of these pilots. My opponent and I have agreed to "tone it down".

I retreated down the Malaya peninsula and concentrated maybe 60% of my force at Johore Bahru, I consider concentration of force to be sensible and not exploitative. So I had noooo clue this could be cheesey, now i feel bad lol. I will check with my opponent and ask him what he thinks.

I personally don't consider retreating down the Malay peninsula a cheesy tactic&nbsp; (not even a complete Sir Robin pack-up-and-bug-out move).&nbsp; While the Brits in '41 and '42 would have been aghast to contemplate the thought, I don't think players in WITPAE should feel so constrained.&nbsp; The Japanese player does not (and should not)&nbsp;feel constrained to put their worst aircraft, pilots & ships on ASW duty -- but historically the Japanese would have revolted at the notion of being assigned such mundane duty.
&nbsp;
There are certain facts and hindsight we have now that can't easily be separated and segregated.&nbsp; I just don't feel players should be compelled to "play stupid" to be faithful to some HR or historical thought paradigm -- the fun of the game to me is being able to avoid such blunders (of course, you fall into other blunders, but we'll save that for another post).
&nbsp;
Regards,
Feltan

I agree it is something players should discuss both before and during the game. But why is invading at Mersing gamey? If the primary objective is Singapore and Mersing is acceptable as an air base, it has a number of advantages, mostly that it cuts off British units from retreating to Singapore. I agree it makes it more difficult for the British, but I would have thought that was the idea. (I am on turn 1 of a game in which I did exactly that, so I am genuinely interested to understand why it is seen as gamey.) Conversly, why is abandoning most of Malaya gamey? Churchill was urging his generals to do exactly that.

There could basically be idea of British having been alerted day or two before the invasion convoy reached Mersing. Or do you believe they would just sit and wait for the 30+ Japanese transports escorted by half of their fleet to actually sail within few miles out of Singapore without reaction?

On the other hand one can say you are using game engine to your advantage - unless you attach carrier support for the task. Because you are limiting allied response to the operation as well as "sending half of the fleet and thousands of troops close to enemy air bases without any own air support". Hardly a risk any general/admiral would undertake...

Invading at Mersing is cheesy because in this game (system) everybody knows that:

1) British a/c can't hit much of anything in the first place.
2) and would much prefer to bounce their bombs off of Japanese BBs than attack transports that could actually cause disruption and loss to Japanese ground troops.

In the extreme off chance that Force Z intercepts the IJN invasion/support force it is still highly unlikely that the British force will get by the support force and imperil the invasion troops.

Thus there is very little of the uncertainty and risk associated with this move that caused the IJN/IJA to reject the idea out of hand. It exploits the game system and prior knowledge of the historically unknown foibles of the potential enemy.

ORIGINAL: spence

Invading at Mersing is cheesy because in this game (system) everybody knows that:

1) British a/c can't hit much of anything in the first place.
2) and would much prefer to bounce their bombs off of Japanese BBs than attack transports that could actually cause disruption and loss to Japanese ground troops.

In the extreme off chance that Force Z intercepts the IJN invasion/support force it is still highly unlikely that the British force will get by the support force and imperil the invasion troops.

Thus there is very little of the uncertainty and risk associated with this move that caused the IJN/IJA to reject the idea out of hand. It exploits the game system and prior knowledge of the historically unknown foibles of the potential enemy.

Attacking at Pearl Harbor is cheesy because in the game (system) everybody knows that:

1) US fighters and flak, although plentiful, will do almost no damage.
2) and Japanese torpedo bombers will attack using torpedoes, unlike every other port attack in the game, virtually guaranteeing massive damage.

In the extreme off chance that house rules allow the Allies to form new task forces on turn 1, odds are that American BBs still won't manage to intercept Japanese carriers or affect the outcome of the battle in the slightest.

Thus there is very little of the uncertainty and risk associated with this move (moving an entire carrier force 1/3 of the way around the world and attacking one of the best defended ports in the world at the time in a surprise attack) which caused the IJA/IJN to reject the idea out of hand. It exploits the game system and prior knowledge of the historically unknown foibles of the potential enemy....

It's a game, Spence.

Everybody has an opinion of what is cheesy and what is not. A lot of them differ. There is not clear answer. If it feels cheesy to you then it probably is. If your opponent objects to something listen to them and then work it out.

So, if I were to invade at Kota baru, I should expect to see Force Z show up, because while everyone knows it is a suicide mission, the Britsh didnt know that. I would also expect to see the British 18th division in Singapore, because while we know it is doomed the Britsh didn't. I would not eXpect to see a mass exodus of shipping from Java, because while we know how fast the Japanese will sweep the area, the allies didn't know that. As someone who has only played Japanese, I have no problem with the allies taking actions which are non historic because of what player knows. I would consider actions to be gamey if they knowingly exploited things the game engine allows but which would not have been possible. But the "everyone knows" approach would be a slippery slope.

ORIGINAL: ndworl

So, if I were to invade at Kota baru, I should expect to see Force Z show up, because while everyone knows it is a suicide mission, the Britsh didnt know that. I would also expect to see the British 18th division in Singapore, because while we know it is doomed the Britsh didn't. I would not eXpect to see a mass exodus of shipping from Java, because while we know how fast the Japanese will sweep the area, the allies didn't know that. As someone who has only played Japanese, I have no problem with the allies taking actions which are non historic because of what player knows. I would consider actions to be gamey if they knowingly exploited things the game engine allows but which would not have been possible. But the "everyone knows" approach would be a slippery slope.

What is cheesy is the fact that allies know he will lose so he don't defend and leave the area avoiding a lot of loss (what historically happen) and giving advantage to the japanese player. In this way he got the units and planes he should have losed to defend late in the year.

It's like if when allies start to invade Burma you could know where he will send units and if he get a huge advantage so you retreat all to Thailand before any fight waiting for kamikaze. I call this cheating. In game the jap try to hold Burma because he don't know and lose units. In my opinion it's like if a jap surrender in mid 1943 because he know he won't win and will have to defend.

ORIGINAL: Gaspote
What is cheesy is the fact that allies know he will lose so he don't defend and leave the area avoiding a lot of loss (what historically happen) and giving advantage to the japanese player. In this way he got the units and planes he should have losed to defend late in the year.

It's like if when allies start to invade Burma you could know where he will send units and if he get a huge advantage so you retreat all to Thailand before any fight waiting for kamikaze. I call this cheating. In game the jap try to hold Burma because he don't know and lose units. In my opinion it's like if a jap surrender in mid 1943 because he know he won't win and will have to defend.

Oh my.