Carrier Rope-a-Dope

[DoomedMantis]

no matter how gamey, there is always an answer, and waiting till his units were tired would have been my solution. I would have also put everything no 100%escort if I knew that I had no ships to protect, then wait till my units were fresh then launch. Even if he hits your airfield, he is not going to do massive damage, and you will only lose planes and not pilots which are worth more.

The one gamey thing I dont agree with is using multiple 1 ship TF's to attract your bombers into 300 plane raids that tire them out and then sending in the CV's

[Drex]

I've never encountered that dubious tactic and would have to cry foul. Most players wouldn't think of using it.

[DoomedMantis]

Ive only had it once, and will just make sure that future games I will highlight it before hand. I dont mind splitting up a trasnport TF that has been surprised in order to try to save parts of it as this was a legitimate tactic used during the war (scatter tactics from a convoy), but using it as a deliberate tactic...

What I would prefer, and I hope WitP fixes it, is the stopping of the 300 odd planes attacking one ship TF's, a squadron per undefended lonely AP I can handle. I also hate it when they do two launches against the same target despite the fact that the first raid put 26 torps and 50 odd bombs into the poor ship, and then expect it to still be there for a follow up raid. But thats issues with the AI.

[DoomedMantis]

plus I have already beaton him twice and I know he is determined to not let it happen again

[PzB74]

Each scenario conveys a different possible past - and I don't see why the US couldn't have sent 6 CV's in late 42 on a forray against Japanese ports to sink targets of opportunity and at the same time trying to lure strike planes into a circling maw, waiting to consume them....

Gamey is a word most oftenly used when you don't like or agree with your opponents tactics, I can't stop thinking about the British. In both WWI and early in WWII they regarded the submarine as a unfair and gamey weapon - didn't prevent the Germans from using it You just have to come up with a countermeasure.

[DoomedMantis]

I disagree, gamey is exploiting a flaw in the AI.

[PzB74]

It could be - but using different tactics than the historical ones, is that gamey?
Each and everyone most likely got their own meaning of the term - and that's why I think players should discuss
it before starting a new game. That would efficiently take care of the whole prolem [8D]

[redman1]

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

I disagree, gamey is exploiting a flaw in the AI.

"Flaw" as determined by what?

[Nomad]

The operative word here is 'before'. Discussions need to be made before the game starts, not a couple of months after.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: redman1
Later in the war, the Allies amassed enormous fast carrier TF's that sometimes had 10-15 fleet carriers grouped together in mutual support of each other and of landings.

So the "super TF" idea is not so far fetched.

Hmm, good point. And I also just remembered that some of the landings on the South Pacific islands were supported by monstrous task forces of warships, hundreds IIRC.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis
The one gamey thing I dont agree with is using multiple 1 ship TF's to attract your bombers into 300 plane raids that tire them out and then sending in the CV's

Yes, this is particularly bad because that would require sending the crews of those ships to die, which most crews (particuly western) would be reluctant to do without a real good reason - and 'tiring out the enemy pilots' doesn't really count. And realistically wouldn't work because it is unlikely the CAG would order everything to go and hit what looks to be only one freighter.

In fact my game did that last night (accidentally). My PM AG bombed the snot out of one freighter, something like three seperate sorties in the same turn (a couple dozen bombs hit it over all)!
That freighter was real dead, but I would have prefered the AG was hitting other targets instead of overkilling one freighter.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: PzB
Gamey is a word most oftenly used when you don't like or agree with your opponents tactics, I can't stop thinking about the British. In both WWI and early in WWII they regarded the submarine as a unfair and gamey weapon - didn't prevent the Germans from using it You just have to come up with a countermeasure.

I think the British would have used the term 'dishonourable', not 'unfair and gamey'.

This was a real problem in Europe in WW1 and WW2 (at least for the allies), was that many officers and politicians thought war was about heroics, glory, and honour.

Most of the German and Russian officer core, and I think the Americans as well, understood that war was simply a very messy business that's only real purpose was to destroy the other guys ability to wage war.

Churchill recognized it too.


But I agree with other, gamey is exploiting flaws in a game's system to do something that simply couldn't be done in real life. So while the 'carrier rope-a-dope' may have been possible in real life (although I wouldn't think it advised), a bunch of single ships to attract massive overkill AGs is just silly.

[PzB74]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

I think the British would have used the term 'dishonourable', not 'unfair and gamey'.

This was a real problem in Europe in WW1 and WW2 (at least for the allies), was that many officers and politicians thought war was about heroics, glory, and honour.

Most of the German and Russian officer core, and I think the Americans as well, understood that war was simply a very messy business that's only real purpose was to destroy the other guys ability to wage war.

Churchill recognized it too.


But I agree with other, gamey is exploiting flaws in a game's system to do something that simply couldn't be done in real life. So while the 'carrier rope-a-dope' may have been possible in real life (although I wouldn't think it advised), a bunch of single ships to attract massive overkill AGs is just silly.

Here is the term they did use [;)]

In fact amongst the senior Naval Officers in Britain there was a school of thought that the concept of sneaky Submarines operating secretly below the surface was "Damned unBritish."

I'll leave it up to you to define the 1914 meaning of 'unBritish' .....but dishonorable could be considered together with unfair, flexible and imaginative.

Another question is; How do you achieve the benefits of spreading your e.g. 3 carriers into 3 tf's to prevent them all from being sunk in one airstrike without triggering the massive strike bug that directs everything against only 1 target? Not possible as far as I know, but as long as the rules apply to everyone, I would say it didn't matter that much unless you 'overdo' it and put e.g. 6 cv's into 6 tf's. Having 3 tf's with 2 cv's each would be fair game though if you asked me. One has to be allowed to keep some flexibility even though the game lacks some.

[DoomedMantis]

Which is why I dont say anything, if it wasnt brought up before the gane started, then it is fine to use. I might disagree,and wont use it myself, but wont stop them using it.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The operative word here is 'before'. Discussions need to be made before the game starts, not a couple of months after.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: PzB
I'll leave it up to you to define the 1914 meaning of 'unBritish' .....but dishonorable could be considered together with unfair, flexible and imaginative.

Well the British and French ways of thinking got a lot of boys killed in some very stupid ways in WW1, and to a great extent WW2 as well. Many have argued that WW1 occured because not a few people in power wanted a war; glory, honour, galantry, etc., etc.

Gas, machine guns, artillery, trenches, and so forth killed off the notion. But there were still generals with their huge mustaches sipping tea thinking that this was all some grand game.

Morons.

The Canadians at Vimy ridge got a reputation for being shock troops after the French had lost a stupid number of troops in the preceeding months. But the Canadians weren't really any better than anyone elses's troops, the difference was they didn't think they could just stroll up the frickin' hill in broad day light in front of the German guns and expect to survive the experience. Instead they used stealth to move up at night, coordinated with the artillery to shell right up until they were supposed to charge (and they were in position when the barrage stopped), and then charged like mad to get into the trenches. And then the real fighting started, but at least they hadn't had most of their troops killed before they got anywhere near the trenches (unlike previous attempts).

Another question is; How do you achieve the benefits of spreading your e.g. 3 carriers into 3 tf's to prevent them all from being sunk in one airstrike without triggering the massive strike bug that directs everything against only 1 target? Not possible as far as I know, but as long as the rules apply to everyone, I would say it didn't matter that much unless you 'overdo' it and put e.g. 6 cv's into 6 tf's. Having 3 tf's with 2 cv's each would be fair game though if you asked me. One has to be allowed to keep some flexibility even though the game lacks some.

Well, that is true enough. But I only play against the AI beause I know that I'm generally not that good, so I don't need to worry about it.
[:)]