Gamey or not?

[freeboy]

gamey = tricking the "dumb" ia.. not unrealistic

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's not incorrect if you read what I said. At Midway the US knowingly ran a greater risk of uncoordinated strikes.. largely in an effort to get in the first hit, a problem compounded by the extended range.

except the US did not "knowingly" run a greater risk of uncoordinated strikes. They attempted a coordinated strike but failed at it.

So, I agree, the Midway strike was not well coordinated. And I agree that the USN attempted to get the strike waves to form up. I do not agree that the usual procedure was followed at Midway or that Midway can plausibly be viewed as typical of US plane strike-coordination efforts. The US had no problem making coordinated strikes at Coral Sea or in the, err, Yorktown-Lexington (IIRC) "Over the Stanleys" raid in early 1942 -- much less any of the single ship raids.

I'm not saying the US would "always" suffer issues of coordination, but it happened often enough for it to be a documented problem. The US also had no mulit-carrier coordination doctrine. Midway was not a sole example though for obvious reasons, it was greatly highlighted. The game reflects this by giving a greater "chance" for fragmentation to occur but it is not a gurantee. The Japanese also have a chance for fragmentation albeit a lower one.

This "poorly coordinated raids was the bane of USN CV ops in 1942" thing is an imagined phenomenon

The quote comes from John Lundstrom.

[kaleun]

gamey = tricking the "dumb" ia.. not unrealistic


That's why the general consensus was that it is gamey versus the IA, but not in PBEM.

[mdiehl]

The quote comes from John Lundstrom.

I don't recall reading that. In any case I still think it is incorrect. The over-the stanleys. Coral Sea. The Rendova raid. Eastern Solomons. I can't think offhand of a 1942 example OTHER than Midway where the CV strike escort simply failed to find its charges.

We'll just have to disagree in re Midway. The US deviated from its usual practice of having the bombers form up and await the arrival of the escorts in a designated waiting area. The choice was made in order to maximize the likelihood of taking the Japanese by surprise. It was hoped that the faster SBDs would overtake the TBDs along the way, and that the yet faster F4Fs find the whole mess en route. Standard procedure was not followed. IMO had the range been 120 miles rather than 180 going to 200 or whatever, the US strike would have arrived in a coordinated fashion.

And this is of course a different cat entirely from coordinating defensive CAP, at which the US was better than the Japanese from the get go (owing in large part to IFF and radar). Which is why I think the most disturbing thing about the post that started this thread is that 65 Japanese aircraft were operating on CAP in the first place.

That's why the general consensus was that it is gamey versus the IA, but not in PBEM.

In that case, "gamey" was the AI having 7 CVs operating together in the first place.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I don't recall reading that. In any case I still think it is incorrect. The over-the stanleys. Coral Sea. The Rendova raid. Eastern Solomons. I can't think offhand of a 1942 example OTHER than Midway where the CV strike escort simply failed to find its charges.

See Vol II, FIrst Team... Lundstrom was describing yet another episode of strike coordination problems during the battle of the Santa Cruz islands. Problems were experienced in all four major carrier battles to varying degrees.

We'll just have to disagree in re Midway. The US deviated from its usual practice of having the bombers form up and await the arrival of the escorts in a designated waiting area. The choice was made in order to maximize the likelihood of taking the Japanese by surprise. It was hoped that the faster SBDs would overtake the TBDs along the way, and that the yet faster F4Fs find the whole mess en route. Standard procedure was not followed. IMO had the range been 120 miles rather than 180 going to 200 or whatever, the US strike would have arrived in a coordinated fashion.

I guess we will [:)] Standard procedure was followed, but the US "procedure" was overcomplicated and had no less than three depature scenerios. The desire to take the Japanese by suprise only factored in the US desire to get in the first strike. Since the Japanese were sighted first, this was not exactly an issue. An attempt at coordinated strikes was made in order to inflict maximum damage. Delays and other issues contributed greatly to the sending off of indiv. squadrons alone. Yes, the different cruising speeds and ranges of the three aircraft types exaserbated an already problem plauged situation

[tsimmonds]

On board Enterprise at 0900 on Oct 26, 1942, during the Battle of Santa Cruz. As strike aircraft taxi into launch position, they are given final instructions by means of chalk boards. The one on the left displays a corrected sighting position. The one on the right reads "Proceed without Hornet".

One of those 1000-word pictures.....

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock

You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.

I agree. They should make a rule like this in the next patch.

[Jaypea]

Good discussion! Thanks for the input. I was thinking it was gamey too.


JP

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.

If the base already has the capacity to hold and service that many a/c, which is a function of the size and the support personnel, what's the problem? What's "realistic" about assuming that every a/c blows a tire on landing just because it was transferred from a CV to a land base? This is in essence the very same strategy that the Japanese did (and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Japanese players WILL use) in the Marianas Turkey Shoot... only in this case the shoe is on the other foot.

What's "realistic" about the Japanese maintaining a 65 plane CAP?

The game allows it. The game makes it a viable alternative strategy. Call it the law of unintended consequences or whatever, but exploiting the rules is, in my opinion, the closest thing that a consim can allow towards realism.

It's the US that's doing it... thus not gamey!

Alot of the AFs were complaining that the Allied player unfairly chooses not to stay and fight futile battles so that the Japanese can run up the VP talley in sunk ships without real risk of losing any vessels of their own. Jaypea developed an ad hoc strategy that allowed him to confront a threat that the Japanese never would have concocted in the real war and, incidently, that allowed him to offer some real resistence. Seems like the complaint from some is that the Allied player has any options at all.

Not "every" aircraft should be damaged but a decent amount should be waiting in line to be serviced.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep thats gamey [:D]

Had you not used your CV's to hook them, it would be fine, but thats just a tad too much bait & switch for me [:D]

Its exactly the strategy the Japanese used during the US invasion of the Phillipines. The northern force of empty carriers was supposed to allow itself to be spotted and then run, drawing the US carriers out of position protecting the landings so the IJN battleships could reach the transports.

The fact that the carriers were empty because they didn't planes and pilots for them in the first place rather than because they offloaded them is just a minor detail. [:D]

the problem isnt using your carriers for bait but offloading all your carrier planes at a base to attack right away.

[UncleBuck]

I think the game is fine, and should not be tweaked for this. It was gamey IMHO not because he was able to do it, and launch the next day but that he did it, expecting to get his carriers sunk and tried to save the planes. In the real world the planes would have stayed on board to protect the Carrier, however if the carriers were on a ferry mission, even ferrying thier own A/C, it is a differnt situation. If it had just been coincidence that his carriers acted as bait, then no problem. If he had sent the planes to a base and a day had passed and the carriers showed would it be gamey?

[Cap Mandrake]

Wait..let me get this straight...you want to take a bunch of land-based B-25's with a nominal take off roll 1000 ft longer than the deck of a carrier, crew them with Army Air Corps crews that have never even been salt water fishing, then stick 'em on a carrier, then, risking 1/3 of our Pacific Carrier fleet, sail up near Japan, then launch the darn things at maximum range and low bomb load to attack poorly recconoitred targets at low level without fighter cover...AND you dont have adequate landing fields, or communication liason with the Chinese?

Gen. Mitchell..do you realize how "gamey" this is?

[DrewMatrix]

Gen. Mitchell..do you realize how "gamey" this is?

It's not just gamey, it isn't even original. Why there was this Doolittle guy in here last week pushing the same crazy plan. We showed him the door too!

[McNaughton]

Well, defeating the AI because of a known AI weakness is gamey. It is like challenging a blind man to a game of eye-spy.

I really don't think that the air strikes during Midway were intentionally uncoordinated (fighters did never meet up with the bombers they were supposed to escort), or else the guy who planned it should be tried and executed for malously throwing away pilot's lives. However, just because the US weren't able to do it at Midway does NOT mean that they would not be able to do it at anytime, anywhere during this period. Should the base be large enough, and equipped with ground personell, a strike COULD be done the very next day, as what really is the difference if the planes flew off the carriers to attack, or flew off the carriers, landed and refueled, had the crew rest up, then flew off to attack the next morning other than the stop-over?

So, you are both wrong, the strike itself ISN'T gamey, but the act of guaranteeing that the AI will be drawn in to be defeated by this strike IS gamey. It would be like the Japanese dropping all aircraft in New England, and having their empty carrier fleet draw in the USN carriers.

[freeboy]

play me- play me.. I want you to take your planes off your ships... and then let me hunt them down ...yummy

[Titanwarrior89]

I agree with Mr. Fragg, even though there is truth in the other points you guys made on the subject. Now i have a question. I was getting creamed at the Canal and Munda. Three carriers in the states for repair and one headed to pearl(sys damage). One good carrier, I pulled away from the Canal area and sent it to Oz--But flew off all of it 80+ aircraft. I had no other air support in the area and it looked like they(Japs)land at anytime. Was this Gamey? Would like to know.[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

All you did was transfer assets to an unsinkable "carrier" and let the enemy bash himself on a rock

You don't see pulling 20 squadrons of aircraft off multiple CV's and have them fly fly a coordinated attack the very next morning as gamey???

As far as i am concerned, the aircraft transfering from CV to Land should go to damaged state to simulate the ramping up of the base to be able to service and fly them. Dumping 400+ planes on a base and having them fly the very next day is not realistic.

[Fallschirmjager]

He could of just as easily had several uncordinated strikes smash themselves on the Japanese CAP and then had the AI chase and sink his CV's.
He got some good dice rolls.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I agree with Mr. Fragg, even though there is truth in the other points you guys made on the subject. Now i have a question. I was getting creamed at the Canal and Munda. Three carriers in the states for repair and one headed to pearl(sys damage). One good carrier, I pulled away from the Canal area and sent it to Oz--But flew off all of it 80+ aircraft. I had no other air support in the area and it looked like they(Japs)land at anytime. Was this Gamey? Would like to know.[:'(]

Of course it's gamey. [:@]

And the fact that the historical USN and IJN also pulled similar stunts with their CV squadrons in the Solomons in '42 means they weren't playing within the spirit of the game either. [:-]

[Maliki]

Anything is only gamey if your opponent cries foul..and for some reason i don't think the AI is going to be doing that[:D]

If it's worth the loss to you than fine..don't know about anyone else but Jap ships seem to have some kind of force field around them in the game from what i have played(how many people have had 1000 pound bomb hits shrugged off,from the lowliest AK to the grand CV)while allied ships open up at the slightest hit like MJ rottincroch on her prom night[:D]

Take your victories where and how you can,and don't complain about them[;)]

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
The game allows it. The game makes it a viable… exploiting the rules is…

…but it is not gamey? Haven’t you pretty much defined gamey? [&:]