Gamey vs. Unorthodox

[Halsey]

It's gamey because CAP and AA is totally ineffective against them. While the bombers usually get very good results.

House rule I play with.
Only manpower city attacks may be conducted by non-night designated air units. No restriction on night naval missions. Night designated air units are not restricted.

[ChezDaJez]

I'm talking about single ship TFs fleeing to the open sea. I'm talking about in a port hex.

25 single ship TFs in a 60 mile hex should be as targetable as a single TF with 25 ships in a port hex. The targeting routines airgroups to split up into smaller attack sections so as too increase the number of ships eligible for attack. So what happens is only one ship gets attacked out of 25 (assuming 1 airgroup). 30+ bombers attacking 1 ship in a port hex when there are 24 others around is not realistic. Think Truk lagoon.... every ship there was able to be attacked by US carrier planes, not just 1 or 2 if only 1 or 2 groups attacked. Didn't matter what the administrative TF assignment was for the ships, they were spotted and were attacked IRL

Chez

[foliveti]

1 ship TF are gamey. cause it is taking advantage of a flaw of a game: targetting routines.

if you have 30 ships and you make 15-20 TF it is gamey cause you already know bombers will attack only 2-3 TF cause will run out of operation points. in RL it wouldn't have mattered if you had 1 TF or 30 TF as long as the ships are all in the same place (hex).

Btw it is also gamey the rest you said: it is gamey to use KB in PHI on turn 1. and gamey to exploit turn 1 rule to invade places taking advantage of surprise effect.

I had an opponent that countered this tactic by setting most of the Japanese carrier aircraft to search. It did a real number on the single ship TFs. I think the single ships represent scattering the transports which is valid and the search tactic is a valid countermeasure.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Gamey: Using the 1st turn rule to land or attack at a-historical places. Seaborne invasions at locations that are not bases (you don't take landing losses at non-bases). Night bomber attacks (I think they are still too good, but maybe 1.5 will fix that). Putting corsairs on CVE's.

Why should one take losses for landing at these hexes? For that matter, why should LCUs take losses landing at a dot base which is not defended by anyone?

I've never understood that complaint. I've never understood the losses at undefended enemy bases. Maybe that's just me, but I think the game mechanic is questionable.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

1 ship TF are gamey. cause it is taking advantage of a flaw of a game: targetting routines.

No it doesnt it takes advantage of the reality of just how difficult it was targeting scattered ships. Single ship TFs scattered to the 4 winds is EXACTLY what the Allies did when evacuating shipping from the Philipines, Java and Ceylon. Almost all these ships escaped using this tactic even when the ships in the PI had to sail thru the South China Sea a veritble Japanese Lake to do it. Ships in Java had to sail through KB and several Surface TFs blocking their escape and even though they suffered some losses the majority got thru. The Brits scattered shipping from Colombo and Tricomolee and again the vast majority survived KB strikes.

It is NOT a gamey tactic

You and I are in agreement on this one. There is also the example of Admiral Turner's tactic, diligently practiced enroute to and put into practice off Lunga Roads. Even for ships in the process of unloading the case would be that they'd be moored by themselves in whatever expanse of water existed. Nobody parked them in the convenient little rows that we might find at Pearl Harbor, which might at least have decent AA fire to help the expected heavy CAP present, at least not unless you were talking about a Pearl Harbor type of port, and we're really not, but rather the Port Moresby's and Noumea's on the map, where only a few ships might be unloaded at the "docks" at a time anyway . . . when there even were docks! For lots of these places it was simply sway at anchor while the lighter pulls up alongside, and so this kind of dispersion of TFs falls in line perfectly with that.

Not only does this technique coincide with actual doctrine during the war (it only made good sense, afterall), but it serves to ameliorate against the worst effects of the goofy air model that is ridiculously too powerful, especially with Bettys/Nells in mind, but also with Allied level bombers, which can be almost as effective (well, bombs never are as effective as torpedoes) themselves. And so the losses to airpower come down more in line with what we'd expect. The opposing player can in turn split his CV TFs/bomber groups up in an effort to get more attacks on different ships per air phase (splitting CV TFs only makes good sense anyhow with their own survival in mind!), but this, too, is a problem as the air model also has this mechanic screwed up and so as often as not all attacking bombers arrive in one giant wave. Well, I can't do anything about that. Gary designed it bad, that's all.

But splitting TFs only makes for good sense. If surface warships enter that hex with the split TF then combat will run just about the same, if not better still, for the raiding player. But meanwhile, common butchery from out of the sky is guarded against, and to me that represents improvement.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: foliveti

1 ship TF are gamey. cause it is taking advantage of a flaw of a game: targetting routines.

if you have 30 ships and you make 15-20 TF it is gamey cause you already know bombers will attack only 2-3 TF cause will run out of operation points. in RL it wouldn't have mattered if you had 1 TF or 30 TF as long as the ships are all in the same place (hex).

Btw it is also gamey the rest you said: it is gamey to use KB in PHI on turn 1. and gamey to exploit turn 1 rule to invade places taking advantage of surprise effect.

I had an opponent that countered this tactic by setting most of the Japanese carrier aircraft to search. It did a real number on the single ship TFs. I think the single ships represent scattering the transports which is valid and the search tactic is a valid countermeasure.

That might be another way around it for the opposing player, though if that many ships are sunk form search missions then it only points to the overall dysfunction of the air model--that it's inherently too powerful.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: foliveti

1 ship TF are gamey. cause it is taking advantage of a flaw of a game: targetting routines.

if you have 30 ships and you make 15-20 TF it is gamey cause you already know bombers will attack only 2-3 TF cause will run out of operation points. in RL it wouldn't have mattered if you had 1 TF or 30 TF as long as the ships are all in the same place (hex).

Btw it is also gamey the rest you said: it is gamey to use KB in PHI on turn 1. and gamey to exploit turn 1 rule to invade places taking advantage of surprise effect.

I had an opponent that countered this tactic by setting most of the Japanese carrier aircraft to search. It did a real number on the single ship TFs. I think the single ships represent scattering the transports which is valid and the search tactic is a valid countermeasure.

First of all you seem to have wanted to quote me, though nothing I've written appears above.

Your friend's tactic might be another way around it for the opposing player, though if that many ships are sunk form search missions then it only points to the overall dysfunction of the air model--that it's inherently too powerful.

I'd also offer that I don't use this tactic of splitting TFs in the game to avoid losses so much. Rather what I'm after is a more realistic simulation. If I thought keeping my transport TFs in a large block would help matters in that area I'd certainly do just that. "Winning" the game is not my top priority.


[/quote]

[Halsey]

Why would you want to set up that many single ship TF's for the slaughter anyway?
Seems to me that they need to vacate the AO as soon as possible.[:D]

This isn't any tactic I'd use to pad a bases defence. More VP's to the enemy, and easy pickings to boot![;)]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

It's gamey because CAP and AA is totally ineffective against them. While the bombers usually get very good results.

House rule I play with.
Only manpower city attacks may be conducted by non-night designated air units. No restriction on night naval missions. Night designated air units are not restricted.

So its gamey because the game engine doesn't support it.... Not because it was an unrealistic tactic that would never have been used because a RL commander would never have considered it.

So a newbie player who is in ignorance of faults within the game engine and decides to conduct night bombing raids because they were done historically...is playing gamey?


To me Gamey is having the Japanese sail an invasion Task force thousands of miles to the West Coast of India to invade Karachi....

[Halsey]

You got it spider! [;)]

Gamey: abusing the game mechanics to achieve an ahistorical result.

For the invasion thing. Another house rule. No invasions without the umbrella of land or CV based airpower.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Why would you want to set up that many single ship TF's for the slaughter anyway?
Seems to me that they need to vacate the AO as soon as possible.[:D]

This isn't any tactic I'd use to pad a bases defence. More VP's to the enemy, and easy pickings to boot![;)]

You're mistaken. Breaking up a large transport TF in port reduces losses to enemy air attacks, as it's intended to.

I haven't seen the "put all planes on naval search" tactic used. But supposing that "works," it just goes to demonstrate, as I've already pointed out, how silly the model is at core. It doesn't work properly because it wasn't designed properly. Never did work properly, probably never will work properly. I'd like to believe I'm wrong about it getting corrected, but my experience suggests I'm right.

Just in case you're unclear as to what we're talking about here: this is all in reference to splitting up transport TFs, not surface combat TFs. My remark re the split-up of CV TFs only meant to say that in this manner they can better defend themselves in case of attack (same principle applies) and send separate flights toward the target which the game engine might break up, thus allowing the oppositon player more than one attack on one transport.

Does that help?

[Halsey]

OK, so in defence against air attack? Gotcha!
In that case I'd send in a DD flottila or two to take care of them.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

OK, so in defence against air attack? Gotcha!
In that case I'd send in a DD flottila or two to take care of them.

You'd send in a DD flotilla or two to take care of them if you could, but that's not always possible, depending on how the other player has arranged his pieces.

In fact, I've lost a couple of large convoys in port so far to bombardment TFs, but that's a price I've been willing to pay to get needed supply in.

[Halsey]

Whatever it takes![:D]

[PzB74]

I invaded India in my first WitP game as Japan...expected a serious rebuff and I had no idea that land combat movement was flawed.
Don't think I'd invade India again - but I just might if my opponent didn't protect his assets properly. Ignorance and punishment walks hand in hand [;)]

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Why would you want to set up that many single ship TF's for the slaughter anyway?
Seems to me that they need to vacate the AO as soon as possible.[:D]

This isn't any tactic I'd use to pad a bases defence. More VP's to the enemy, and easy pickings to boot![;)]

Because single bombardment brought PM airfield to 100-78 damage eliminating in process 43 P-39 and scores of other aircrafts. The only way to prevent the slaughter is to put many small TFs in the port, preferably DDs or MTBs, but AKs will work fine too (they have the same VP cost as DDs and allies have hundreds of them).

Naval bombardment is broken, and this is the only way to offset it.

Unfortunately I don't know how to prevent 150 B-17s and B-24s from pulverising Jap airfields. Setting up strong CAP helps but not much. If you put some effort into attacks, damage to airfield will accumulate cancelling the CAP.

[ChezDaJez]

You're mistaken. Breaking up a large transport TF in port reduces losses to enemy air attacks, as it's intended to.

A large transport TF in port is still inport regardless of what TF it is assigned to. Assignment to a TF was an administrative procedure IRL and did nothing to protect individual ships in port. The attacking player had no way of knowing what TF they were assigned to and could care less. The argument that the ships are spread out over a 60 mile hex that someone else said doesn't wash either as aircraft flying at 10,000' have over a 100nm visual range and would still spot the majority of them.

Don't get me wrong. It's not the single ship TFs I object to so much as it is the inability of the air model to allow a large strike force to target more than 1 TF. Individual ships in a port, whether assigned to 1 or 100 TFs shouldn't make a difference as to how many ships the attacking player can engage. Its unrealsitic to expect a carrier strike force composed of 27 Vals and 27 Kates to attack 1 ship out of XX amount in a port. In reality, the aircraft would swarm the port, attacking any ship in sight.

Take the example of Truk Lagoon. The US attacked it with TF58 composed of 6 CVs and 6 CVLs totaling some 300 bomber and torpedo planes. Did the US think they could only attack 1 ship because they only had 1 strike force? Of course, not. They went in and blasted the place. 45 ships were sunk and 27 damaged.

In the game, you can only attack as many TFs as you have air groups. Attacking with 2 carriers means that can attack a mximum of 2 TFs, regardless of how many ships are in them. How many times during the combat replay have you seen the message "Unable to locate target" displayed time after time once the initial target has been sunk. The combat routine does not allow these other aircraft to seek out and attack anything else. That's a limitation of the game and breaking ships up into single ship TFs to achieve this effect is gamey IMO. In the example above the US would have only been able to hit a maximum of 12 ships if they were in single ship TFs. Is that realistic?

Single ship TFs fleeing a port during an attack is one thing, if that's what they are doing. Breaking up ships into single ship TFs to avoid air attack while continuing to unload is gamey because it is taking advantage of a known limitation of the game. I see it as being little different than operating along the edges of the map board. After all, that too is a limitation of the game.

People complain they have to do this to combat the effectiveness of the Betty. What is it about the Betty that is ahistorical? Its range? The torpedo it carries? Its ability to attack an undefended merchant on the open sea? It can cause havoc when there is no CAP. Whose fault is that? The Allies feared its ability and tried not to operate where it was a threat unless they had CAP. But it seems to me that the majority of complaints come from the Allied players, at least until the tide turns their way. You don't hear them saying "I won't use the B-17 against shipping because it is too effective." Nope they continue to use it. We are now in May 42 in my PBEM game. In April alone, I several MSWs and PCs to B-17 attacks while conducting Minesweeping or ASW tasks. Is that gamey? No, unrealistic maybe but not gamey.

Someone mentioned that the assigning aircraft to Naval search will alleviate this problem. Maybe at sea, but it won't do anything in a port except subject small groups of search planes to enemy CAP without benefit of escort. And search planes rarely attack anything as it is.

I know the game has many flaws which reduces the authenticity of its historical simulation to simply game status. Exploiting the flaws to achieve ahistorical results further degrades it. But there is unrealistic and there is gamey. Using units in the same manner as RL even though their effectiveness is overstated is not gamey, using a tactic to take advantage of a flaw in a combat routine is.

Chez

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Whatever it takes![:D]

It's no snap being an Allied player for the first six months. [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

Don't get me wrong. It's not the single ship TFs I object to so much as it is the inability of the air model to allow a large strike force to target more than 1 TF. Individual ships in a port, whether assigned to 1 or 100 TFs shouldn't make a difference as to how many ships the attacking player can engage. Its unrealsitic to expect a carrier strike force composed of 27 Vals and 27 Kates to attack 1 ship out of XX amount in a port. In reality, the aircraft would swarm the port, attacking any ship in sight.

Comes back to my beef with the coordinated/uncoordinated strike vs CAP routines. I believe the CAP vs Strike should come before target selection because CAP is "hex based".

[ChezDaJez]

Comes back to my beef with the coordinated/uncoordinated strike vs CAP routines. I believe the CAP vs Strike should come before target selection because CAP is "hex based".

I've had many an aircraft slaughtered attacking Rangoon because they became uncoordinated. All my escorts went in with one group, the remaining 10-15 groups went unescorted in groups of 3s and 4s. My air losses were huge whenever that happened.

Chez