Matrix Games Forums

I do agree that hiding large assets could get really gamey, but it is up to you as the player to alleviate this by using your brain.

naval search will not discover ships in port, disbanded in port, nor disbanded at a dot base.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I do agree that hiding large assets could get really gamey, but it is up to you as the player to alleviate this by using your brain.

And this is exactly what I'm saying. Even with ships in port I often see the 'anchor' symbol to show ships are in the port without recon. Not that it gives direct info as to what's there, but I know something is 'home'. Now that could be as a result of 'intel' or something else, not sure. My point is that to hid 'heavy' vessels in 'plain' site is not conducive to the type of game I seek. As I said, "its playing the code", because as you know this is the result...

naval search will not discover ships in port, disbanded in port, nor disbanded at a dot base.

I don't have trouble with the first two, but do chafe at the last when relatively large numbers, and large ships are involved. The reason for that is quite simple too. Ports are normally well defended with radar, aircraft, and AAA, therby they'll be avoided by a naval search. This is not true of an undeveloped 'dot base'. Now that's not to say as you put it that 'a nav search' aircraft will spend much time lurking around and looking at said 'dot', but I think it may notice the 600lb gorilla lurking at the location. IOW, yeah it may easily miss a ship or two at such a locale, but parking a 'fleet' there should draw notice as the search passes by.

One other thing, you say that as Japan I have a sufficient 'recon' capability. I say nay sir. I don't have near enough to check every little dot base in the SRA or anywhere else for that matter. I do consider myself vigilent in doing as much as possible and I have those little company sized units jumping all over the place taking as many 'dot bases' as possible as soon as it is 'safe' for them to do so.

It is a super valid tactic and not gamey at all...but one you need to think about and plan for.

ORIGINAL: cardas

It is a super valid tactic and not gamey at all...but one you need to think about and plan for.

How is it not gamey? There's no "attack ships at sea OR port" setting for aircraft so a player has to guess which setting they should use. Guess wrong and suddenly a task force becomes, in a sense, invincible. Now don't get me wrong, I'm fine with people making use of quirks of the game engine if both players agree with it. I don't blame anyone for using this tactic however it is still gamey as it relies on the binary nature of air group orders.

ORIGINAL: cardas

There's no "attack ships at sea OR port" setting for aircraft

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Anything that can be done by either side pretty much equally should not be considered gamey. As you said, it is just a game quirk.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

[&:], Sure there is.

ORIGINAL: cardas

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Anything that can be done by either side pretty much equally should not be considered gamey. As you said, it is just a game quirk.

Okay, I would define gamey as something that relies on game mechanics to be possible and which wouldn't be a valid tactic in real life. I want to emphasize again that just because I think it's gamey doesn't mean I think it's necessarily wrong to make use of it.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

[&:], Sure there is.

Ah, yes, the way I phrased it was a bit flawed and naturally interpreted in a way I didn't mean. Sorry about being unclear. What I meant is that if you are, say, at the Gilbert Islands you can sweep the area with naval search and just use naval attack to hit shipping in the area. You can't efficiently do that and have recon plus port attacks against ships at the small atolls at the same time. In a real world scenario anchoring at one of these small islands would hardly hide them from the naval search, right?
Clearing out ships disbanded like that seems more of a hassle than it ought to be. You can, in theory, naval attack + naval search + port attack with a single group. To recon a base to find disbanded ships you need an entirely separate group though which won't participate in the port attacks. Or have I been doing something wrong/overlooking something?

Ah, yes, the way I phrased it was a bit flawed and naturally interpreted in a way I didn't mean. Sorry about being unclear. What I meant is that if you are, say, at the Gilbert Islands you can sweep the area with naval search and just use naval attack to hit shipping in the area. You can't efficiently do that and have recon plus port attacks against ships at the small atolls at the same time. In a real world scenario anchoring at one of these small islands would hardly hide them from the naval search, right? Clearing out ships disbanded like that seems more of a hassle than it ought to be. You can, in theory, naval attack + naval search + port attack with a single group. To recon a base to find disbanded ships you need an entirely separate group though which won't participate in the port attacks. Or have I been doing something wrong/overlooking something?

zuluhour: I ain't sharing everthing for Christmas sake.

afraid of running into a brace of destroyers,

To tell you the truth, hiding ships in dot bases is an art Japan needs to learn if you hope to have any large ships survive into 1945.

You can easily break a group of bombers/floats into thirds and cover quite a few bases.

Also have Iboats patrol across dot bases is effective against disbanded ships.

There's no "attack ships at sea OR port"

ORIGINAL: mmoaorrke

As the opponent in question and since our game is on pause while Paul advertises for a replacement player, (and I hope we get one), to possibly clear up any misconceptions on my play, and since I found this post today, I thought it would be a good idea to reply to this thread. I'm certainly not the best player, there are many better in the various AARs, some of which posted here. I don't have the password, that would be just wrong. Doubt it is glitchy AI. Not using dot bases. I have over the last 2 years read a bunch of AARs and for any new player, there are ALOT of good tips and ideas in them. I even picked up a new tactic in this thread (thanks zulu) in the discussion about using dot bases for ambushes. One of the tips I picked up in one of the AARs (I forget whose it was, so can't give proper credit) was how to improve chances for mid-ocean intercepts. In the interest of giving back, and since it seemed to work so well it frustrated Paul, using the patrol feature, max reaction range, good commanders, and a bit of luck I've been able to make a few. In addition, I've also been a little late to some invasions but intercepted after the unload phase. Paul did fool me once at Perth, I transferred alot units but it was a false intel as that is when he landed at Wyndahm. Once he landed there and went for Darwin it was pretty obvious that was his supply source and where additional TFs would be coming. With allied intel, guessing intentions, some sub contacts (I always read the intel, watch the combat replay and read the combat report and take copious notes) in the port and between there and enemy ports I think that is what led to the intercept example in question. That (intel and sub contacts) would not show detection levels if I understand the game mechanic. I won't say which route but as someone pointed out, search arcs are important (e.g., day and night on patrolling TFs). As to it happening frequently, I think as the allied player and knowing generally where the enemy is going in the first part of the game, increases chances.
Mark