The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I've never flown a nighttime bombing mission in any game that I've played, primarily because reading the forums gives the impression that it's vastly more effective than it should be.

In one game, perhaps vs. Chez, he did do some small nightime strikes. I told him I was fine with that, but thought he might like to know that if he didn't do them, I wouldn't, and if he did, I would. IIRC, he stopped doing them.

In this game, John has flow perhaps a half dozen or so nighttime raids - most vs. Sabang and a couple vs. Akyab. He's scored a couple of hits against non-essential shipping. At some point in the game, I might respond on a similar scale, but I reserve the right to eschew nightime bombing entirely.

Ark and I limited it to one unit per theater per turn with only one or two elite Betty or Cat squadrons on night torpedo missions. It is a gentleman's agreement and it has worked very well.

[BBfanboy]

Crud! Don't people realize that even inadvertent op sec breaches could lead to the antagonists suspending their AARs?

The rule should be ironclad - if you read both AARs, you post in neither nor PM either participant. [:-]

[Nemo121]

CR,

Well, clearly John is as free to rationalise what he does/might do ( night bombing by hundreds of bombers ) as you are to rationalise your use of civilian ships as pickets. Personally I don't find using military units at lower levels than normal gamey but I do find picket ships gamey. Your mileage obviously differs, and that's fine.


As to the Private Message you received. Well I don't know who posts here who also posts in John3rd's AAR but it is clear that OPSEC of John's AAR has been breached - by this person who PMed you. If what they say is true they've just told you that John is being encouraged to do large-scale night-bombing attacks. This MUST change your appreciation of the risk of there being large-scale night-bombing and therefore constitutes a clear breach of OPSEC.

This is the problem with self-appointed people privately messaging others.... If you've got something to say about an AAR you should be able to say it publicly. If you can only say it via PM then that's highly suspicious IMO, as I've said many times before. I'm sure this person's intentions were good but they've clearly breached OPSEC by telling you what has been discussed in John3rd's AAR. This is why people reading both AARs need to be super-careful not to give anything away even in passing.

E.g. Just a few days ago I had a significant OPSEC breach in my AAR vs Damian. A poster posted to a general thread in the main forum discussing my use of an OMG ( Operational Manoeuvre Group ) in Burma. Well the problem is that I've NEVER mentioned to Damian that I've created an Operational Manoeuvre Group and I certainly never told him I had one in Burma. Since OMGs are always tank-heavy this is tantamount to telling Damian I've massed a tank-heavy force to exploit into his strategic depth in Burma --- which is precisely what I have done. If Damian has read that post then Damian will put 2 and 2 together and a large component of my planning and operational secrecy in Burma has just gone out the window. Was it an intentional breach of OPSEC? No, but it was a clear breach of OPSEC.


Since I started the talking about night bombing I should clarify how it came up:
1. I'm a big fan of low-level night-bombing as a great equaliser in the late-war period and ANYONE who has played me from '43 onwards will be able to tell you that once I begin being unable to break Allied CAP during the daytime I switch to low-level night-time raids on airfields as my standard operating procedure.

2. I've AARed this from several years ago, particularly in my Armageddon AAR.

3. I don't read John's AAR.

4. I've talked about positive and negative space before. This AAR has gotten really focused on the positive space recently with everyone focusing on what CR's doing and what John is doing or might do. No-one has been asking the question: "What am I seeing and what is what I'm seeing preventing me from seeing?" IOW no-one's looking at the negative space and seeing what might be lying in wait there. IMO the counter to an airfield with impenetrable daytime CAP and SC TFs protecting from bombardment is, rather obviously, a low-level night-time raid since that's what I always do in that situation. In fact I've frequently used the one-two of night-time IJAAF raid vs the airfield followed by daytime IJNAF torpedo and dive-bomber strikes vs the SC TFs guarding the base.

It was also sparked by the talk about "unbreakable" CAP etc... My thinking is that whenever you create a situation like that you make your opponent figure out a way to "go around" it rather than take it head-on. Whats the simplest way to avoid 250 fighters on day-time CAP? Bomb it at night. Simple!!!

5. I wasn't going to mention anything about this since it didn't seem any night-time raids were ever mentioned in the AAR ( since I started reading at least )but when CR mentioned night-time raids occuring I felt that this was a clear indication that John was alive to the possibility of night-time raids and a nudge in the right direction was required since CR had never mentioned anything about defending them or how devastating they could be.... And note, night-time bomber raids were mentioned as being "pinpricks" when I'm aware that they are, potentially, the most effective anti-airfield raid possible vs the Allies from 1944 onwards AND can close Level 8 or 9 airfields ( as I've done in PBEMs myself ). So they clearly aren't pinpricks and CR was clearly not treating them with the respect they deserved.

So, that's how I arrived at my comments --- personal experience of using night-time raids in AARs going back several years and highlighting them as the best way of breaking through precisely the situation you've given John3rd now. He has read those AARs so I know he is alive to the possibility.


Bottom line though:
1. It is up to those who read Johns AAR to decide if they've breached OPSEC or not and account for it publicly ( and not via some secret PM )

2. Whoever PMed you privately HAS broken OPSEC - albeit unintentionally - and you need to let JOhn3rd know this.

3. Maybe someone who reads both AARs and is independent and trusted by both sides could look into the timeline of when this person posted their post and when things started being posted here and which posts were made by people who read both AARs? I'm sure that any breaching of OPSEC was unintentional and due to people just knowing a little too much and thus advocating one position over another a bit too much but highlighting it ( not in a punitive way but in a helpful way ) might just help people be more careful in future.

4. Maybe make it a rule that people who read both aren't allowed to post in either? I know that since yesterday I've been PMed by someone discussing the HRs used and the viewing of night-time bombing as gamey but picket ships as not gamey but this person was clear that they didn't want to discuss it publicly because they were reading both AARs and didn't want to risk an OPSEC breach because of that, hence just having the discussion privately. Maybe that self-discipline needs to be enforced in both AARs by the AAR founders?


Most important thing though is that you have to let John know about the unintentional OPSEC breach by whoever PMed you. That's the only OPSEC breach we can be sure HAS happened.


As an aside: In one of my games where OPSEC was breached it was because of a self-appointed moral guardian who was accusing others of breaching OPSEC... Almost precisely the same situation as here ( well, except for the fact that in my case the breach wasn't unintentional but was intentional ). Perhaps in addition to people reading both being banned from commenting on either anyone accusing others of OPSEC breaches should be asked to do so publicly in a separate thread? An OPSEC thread if you will? That way the issue can be raised publicly where both AAR writers can read it and judge for themselves AND we might be able to avoid the situation where the person who thinks OPSEC has been breached ( and in my case the whistleblower got it wrong but then breached OPSEC hugely themselves ) actually becomes the breach themselves ( as has happened, again, here - albeit unintentionally I'm sure ).


What do people think? Would some sort of OPSEC thread where people are asked to report OPSEC breaches be worthwhile? It might avoid this sort of PMing warning of breaches which becomes a breach itself...

[GreyJoy]

Sorry to hear that Dan. [:o]

[Cribtop]

Bummer. I do think the read 'em both, comment in neither approach is the safest policy for all concerned.

[paullus99]

That stinks, if true & somebody did that.....

[pws1225]

I've just received a discouraging PM from a reader of John's AAR. If I understand him correctly, he made a post in John's AAR yesterday encouraging John to do an uber night attack; then, four hours later, a flurry of night-fighting discussions ensued in my AAR.

I'm reading both sides and I didn't see anything that mentioned night attacks in John's AAR as described by CR. If I missed something, my bad, but to my eyes, it just ain't there.

[Cap Mandrake]

There is one post that seems to skirt past the usual girl talk about knitting needles, waterproof eye shadow and ginger snap recipes into over-informed advocacy but, really, it seems pretty harmless.

The discussion here seems to have originated by sponateous generation, just like mice springing to life out of dirty laundry.

The alleged leak here is something considerably south of Klaus Fuchs. There is nothing of real value to either side considering what might have been disclosed. 99% harmless.

Of course, the PM business discloses info just by sending it and even St. Francis would be tempted to prove how smart he was by cross-pollinating...so....<takes out ritual self-embowelment knife>...oh, come on! Try it, it's fun!

[Canoerebel]

Nemo makes a good point. I wrote back to the person who initially sent me the PM and asked him to fill John in on what's occurred. IE, what raised questions in the PMers mind and what he told me. (To clarify: the PMer came to me out of genuine concern about whether there had been an OPSec breach in my AAR; he was trying to keep things honest, but may have unintentionally created an OpSec breach in telling me about his comments in John's AAR.)

To fix this, I think what I'm going to do is "pretend like" I wasn't alerted to the night bombing problem by Nemo, who's experience and cleverness I would LOVE to benefit from, but won't at this time. Just to aviod the appearance of impropriety (a phrase which lawyers and judges like to kick around), I'm not going to use any night fighters, continuing in the blissful ignorance that I was in yesterday before Nemo gave me a rousing shake. Only if the situation comes up independently and obviously at some point - say a big raid that doesn't go right for John, but "wakes me up" and makes me consider the issue fully - will I employ more reasonable defenses against a night assault. IE, I won't do anything until there comes a clear point where I would obviously become aware of the threat and ask the questions that would lead me to where I am today.

To be clear: I want to thank Nemo for excellent teaching and advice. I want to thank the PMer, who had genuine concerns that something was amiss in my AAR. And I want to extend my thanks to all you gents who read my AAR and observe OpSec so assiduously. This had the potential for getting messy, but I think we've largely defused the matter.

[Nemo121]

he made a post in John's AAR yesterday encouraging John to do an uber night attack;

Pws etc.... Well this should be easy to sort out. Whoever PMed CR said he made a post urging night attacks. Is there such a post? If there isn't then this could be a malicious OPSEC breach.

So, was there a post urging night attacks there? Someone has clearly told CR there was. This is getting weirder and weirder and potentially less inadvertent and more something else

I know I'm suspicious about this but ANYONE posting PMs instead of publicly about OPSEC always gets me suspicious cause of my troubles with FatR.

Just read CRs post...
*sigh* I think you're being too magnanimous here. Whatever happened this PM HAS broken OPSEC. Maybe it was inadvertent but what the hell lets these moral guardians keep doing this sort of thing and getting away Scott free? It is REALLY frustrating. This is why I only AAR when playing people I trust to ignore these sorts of PMs and have made not admitting to PBEMing me a condition of playing some people ( because I wouldn't trust others not to PM them leaking my plans - based on my past experiences). Jesus but this stuff actually makes me angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]

[Canoerebel]

No, this wasn't something intentional. I'm 100% sure of that. I think you'll find a post in John's AAR of the kind described.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Does this make you reconsider your extensive use of 'picket' xAKL and xAKs? I'd consider that the other pea in this pod, were I in John's position. Not identical, but comparable.

No, for reasons already explained. First, I've made limited use of xAKs and clear them out once they've served their purpose. I think it's historical, in keeping with what the Allied would have done had they needed to, and is necessary to avoid things that would be egregiously non historical (as stated in length earlier).

An example. I currently have six or eight ships on picket duty west of Sumatra. These include a mix of DDs and xAKs. John has used a three-DD patrol to sink several of the xAK and at least one of the DD. Then, last turn, a carrier force turned up and devoted a handful of Kates to dispose of an xAK. Knowing that the enemy was present, I dispersed the rest of my fleet. John probably used up 1% of his sortie capability. It has had absoltuley no deletorious affect on his ability to wage war, but it did help guard against the truly ridiculous ability of a Japanese carrier force to steam at flank speed (if desired), covering something like 750 miles in a single day, all the while the Allied ships just continue about their business without taking any evasive action.

I'm here to tell you. The reasonable use of picket ships is absolutely fair, historical, and called for. The failure to use them - at least for the Allies - would be the abuse.

[Cpt Sherwood]

I will only state that there was a post in Johns AAR about night bombing. No other details are necessary.

[Nemo121]

pws hasn't seen it. I'm sorry but if this post is there how could pws miss it? I don't see anyone else jumping in to say that post is there. Doesn't that make you just a bit suspicious?

CR,
You seem like a decent guy but, really, sometimes I worry that you're too nice for your own good.


Captain Sherwood,
Other details are necessary. The person who PMed CR said he made the post advocating it 4 hrs before it was raised here.
So, 3 items need to be checked.
1. Was there a post. You say there was.
2. Did it advocate night bombing to John - that's key.
3. Was it 4 hrs before a discussion began here- that's another key.

That a post was made is 1 thing but the other facts need to check out also.

Even if that's all kosher it doesn't change the fact that another person has, in alleging an OPSEC breach broken OPSEC themselves. This has happened before and like lambs the entire forum seems to just shrug and accept it and say "no foul". That's crazy, nonsensical behaviour..

[Cpt Sherwood]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Does this make you reconsider your extensive use of 'picket' xAKL and xAKs? I'd consider that the other pea in this pod, were I in John's position. Not identical, but comparable.

No, for reasons already explained. First, I've made limited use of xAKs and clear them out once they've served their purpose. I think it's historical, in keeping with what the Allied would have done had they needed to, and is necessary to avoid things that would be egregiously non historical (as stated in length earlier).

An example. I currently have six or eight ships on picket duty west of Sumatra. These include a mix of DDs and xAKs. John has used a three-DD patrol to sink several of the xAK and at least one of the DD. Then, last turn, a carrier force turned up and devoted a handful of Kates to dispose of an xAK. Knowing that the enemy was present, I dispersed the rest of my fleet. John probably used up 1% of his sortie capability. It has had absoltuley no deletorious affect on his ability to wage war, but it did help guard against the truly ridiculous ability of a Japanese carrier force to steam at flank speed (if desired), covering something like 750 miles in a single day, all the while the Allied ships just continue about their business without taking any evasive action.

I'm here to tell you. The reasonable use of picket ships is absolutely fair, historical, and called for. The failure to use them - at least for the Allies - would be the abuse.

I do agree with your reasoning and analysis on this subject.

[Nemo121]

I'm here to tell you. The reasonable use of picket ships is absolutely fair, historical, and called for. The failure to use them - at least for the Allies - would be the abuse.

Really? [8D] I don't use them, am I abusing the game? [:D]

[Canoerebel]

[Note to Self: Super-Secret strategy to insert controversy into AAR to heighten interest so that I can overtake GreyJoy is working! Remember to introduce sex into discussion tomorrow.]

[catwhoorg]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

I will only state that there was a post in Johns AAR about night bombing. No other details are necessary.

Yep. There was a post and I found the timing an odd coincidence.When I checked in on my phone earlier I was a little shocked in fact that the discussion was going on in both places. I couldn't PM from the phone easily, but was going to raise it when I had the chance tonight (only to find it had been raised).

I'll keep with my policy of not commenting on matters of substance but reading both. Its a amazing education for me to be reading both.

[JuanG]

I have been reading both AARs, but restrict comments to game mechanics questions (which makes two posts from me so far in Johns AAR). This is intentionally to avoid contamination, since its so great watching you guys go at it.

Nemo, if you'd like I can PM you the answers to those questions since you seem to be taking the role of neutral party in this. Would like you to ok it first though.

[Cpt Sherwood]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

pws hasn't seen it. I'm sorry but if this post is there how could pws miss it? I don't see anyone else jumping in to say that post is there. Doesn't that make you just a bit suspicious?

CR,
You seem like a decent guy but, really, sometimes I worry that you're too nice for your own good.


Captain Sherwood,
Other details are necessary. The person who PMed CR said he made the post advocating it 4 hrs before it was raised here.
So, 3 items need to be checked.
1. Was there a post. You say there was.
2. Did it advocate night bombing to John - that's key.
3. Was it 4 hrs before a discussion began here- that's another key.

That a post was made is 1 thing but the other facts need to check out also.

Even if that's all kosher it doesn't change the fact that another person has, in alleging an OPSEC breach broken OPSEC themselves. This has happened before and like lambs the entire forum seems to just shrug and accept it and say "no foul". That's crazy, nonsensical behaviour..

So now you doubt my honesty? I refuse to provide any other details in this thread, it would be highly inappropriate. I do not take the breaking of opsec lightly, and do not accept it. But you were ranting about no post being made without verifying the facts.