Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea
Whichever side I am playing gets tuna boats. [:D][:D]
Number and armament negotiable.

Gazillion of them in DaBabes. [:D]

and they all have 5 different upgrades

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
If you have read the article, one of the few men who survived this strategy explains that the men on these ships DID think they were being sent out sacrificially, (but of course believed in the strategy and the reason for employing it).


Many soldiers and sailors have felt as such.....that doesn't mean it was the case. I often feel picked on at work. Doesn't mean the company is gunning for me intentionally.

Nikademus

I had just never heard of the extreme use of picket DDs in this manner during the war and thought it was interesting to read a first hand account. It seems relevant because this man, whether he or the reporter have accurate figures or not, (and not seems more likely), paints a clear picture of absolute terror knowing you were the chosen first line of information and defense against kamikazis. He isn't just talking about Okinawa. He mentions most guys not sleeping for four and a half months thinking they always had to be ready for the next attack.

He also says if you were the picket 1 ship, and an attack came, you were virtually sure to be sunk. The navy intentionally put them in that position because it had to, and those men knew it and did their duty.

That article on the pickets stated that 80% of the 182 destroyers used as pickets were sunk or damaged beyond service. Thats 146 destroyers. The USN didn't lose 146 destroyers in the entire war (Atlantic and Pacific from 1941 to 1945) let alone at Okinawa. Even including all the various classes of picket ships used (DE's, LCI's, etc.), I'd be very surprised that 146 were lost in the entire war, let alone Okinawa. So, let's just say that the article is a little suspect in it's facts.

They surely did not lose over a hundred DDs in the last four months of the war. It seems the article is referring to pickets in general, although this is vague. But all of this implies they were used extensively and in multiple ways, as needed.

I agree players should decide rules between themselves, but just by being a part of this discussion I've learned a bit more about both the war and the game, and we all realize that this is one of many interesting abstractions of the real war present in AE, which I think is the point.

By the way, I haven't ever used pickets. Yet. But I might if it becomes necessary.

ORIGINAL: JWE

IIRC, the Doolittle raid started early because it bumped into a picket line of fishing trawlers.

Yes, but they were fishing, not participating in picket duty. They were also what, 400-500 miles off their own coast? (I haven't read "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" since the 70s.) That's far different than sticking a lone small merchant off some rock in the Arctic Ocean to give warning as it dies. And in the US at least, it did matter whether they were civilians or military. The former could quit and walk ashore if ordered on a suicide mission. Probably file a union grievance when they got there.

I agree that it could have been done. Lots of things could have been done, but weren't, for ethical or legal reasons in the Allied culture. And I agree tha players can agree to allow anything that they both like.

AFAIK the boat that spotted the Doolittle task force was a patrol boat on picket duty.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

AFAIK the boat that spotted the Doolittle task force was a patrol boat on picket duty.

As I said, my main source is "TSOT", and it's written more from the 1st person POV of the pilot of the Ruptured Duck. I thought that the frantic preps to launch early began when fishing boats were sighted and there was fear that they had radioed a report. I do recall from somewhere reading about a naval patrol boat showing up and being engaged by Hornet's escorts, but I think that was after the decision to launch early had been made and preps were well along.

But my memory of the 1970s is fuzzy.[:)]

My recollection is that they were fishing trawlers with lots of antennas.

It was a fishing boat with military radio team on board. Does this make it a patrol boat? Probably, I guess.

But in the Falklands two options available to Admiral Woodward, which he writes about in his book, were to use merchant ships to check for mines in Falkland Sound with their hulls; and to place merchants deliberately 'up-threat' in regard to potential Exocet attacks. He dismissed both options as being not quite 'the done thing,' even though in 'wargame terms' they would be valid and potentially even correct. HMS Arrow got 'mine sacrifice' duty, but her luck was in.

For a western navy in particular, it only seems right to me for warships to be used in this fashion. Personally, I don't like the tactic.

ORIGINAL: obvert
He also says if you were the picket 1 ship, and an attack came, you were virtually sure to be sunk. The navy intentionally put them in that position because it had to, and those men knew it and did their duty.

If you have a real interest in the subject, I suggest this book:

http://www.amazon.com/KAMIKAZES-CORSAIR ... 737&sr=8-1

It explains the working use of the pickets and the situation that the pilots, sailors and FDO crews working inside some of the ships faced....without the melodrama of the article you read online. The men described in this book did not expect to die but they did do the job despite the risks because it was part of the overall strategy of the amphibious op being conducted.

All the 'gamey' threads end up going the same way, mostly because there is no one single definition of 'gamey'. In my book, gamey is any tactic that either exploits a weakness of the code (ammunition magnets for example), or strays in to areas of RL that are just not in scope of the game, or otherwise are not modelled. An example of the latter is the use of Merchant ships as pickets. The developers have not considered what would happen to a merchant in such a role, or to the rest of the ships in the game. If single merchants had a high % chance of not showing any reports when they get hit by overwhelming force (equals anything larger than a SC/PB!), and were highly inaccurate and slow in their reports even when they do see small forces, and had a very high chance of going off and hiding rather than patrolling where they were meant to be (said chance =fn(number of merchants lost in the same role)), using them as a picket would be not too gamey.

Since this is not the case, the tactic must be considered gamey, even if in real life it was possible/likely to happen.

The key is not to look at the input (player action) but the result (game outcome).

The argument has come down to using xAKL's vs weenie "combat" aux ship (amc, yp, etc.)s in a picket line sense.
|
What does the difference between the two ships have in terms of AE?

Quantity and amount of housekeeping.

If xAKL's are allowed, there are more ships available for picket line, and it requires less "mouseclicking" by the allies.

If xAkl's aren't allowed, then all it means, in reality, is that the Allied player has to click his mouse button a heck of a lot more times per 7 turns.

That's really it.  There is no real "combat" difference between a weenie combat ship like a pb and an xAKL... they're both pretty much toast to anything they might come across that will matter.  If the PB comes across a yp, for example, and both ships die that turn by however, the PB "failed" in that it was sunk without spotting anything of relevance.

If, the PB or xAKL comes across a 2 BB, 2 CA, 6 DD sctf, well, does anyone believe the PB will somehow have a "much better" chance of escaping?  I don't.

I don't find much of a difference between using weenie combat ships and xAKL ships, for picket duty.  Either they spot something valuable in which case their mission is a success... or they spot nothing but don't get sunk, in which case the mission is a success as they 'proved' nothing is out there.... or they get sunk without spotting anything, in which case mission is a failure.

So from a combat sense, I don't find much of a difference.  They are both suicide missions no matter if you're in a PB or an xAk.

From a mouseclick standpoint... it's far less mouseclicks to put a 4k endurance xAKL on a spot, than it is a 1.5k AM.  2.5k endurance worth of less mouseclicks.  If you use xAKLs, then you also free up ships, as you have less ships "intransit every 1k endurance". 

This is all a "convenience" issue for the Allies.  It's not a difference in the actual combat theaters.  Those lanes should always be plugged, the allies have plenty enough crap-combat ships to throw away on picket duty.

But making xAKL's not able to do picket duty does free THEM up for something else.  Transport duty.  If the allies aren't using xAKL's for picket duty (by choice, or hr), then they can all be grouped up in a couple of tf's and make fuel transport runs to bases every month.

It's a pick your poison for the Japanese... you want those ships on picket or transport duty.  I'm fine either way.  As long as they are used appropriately.  I mean, no "20tf suicide run picket ships runs to china sea's in late '42" for the allies kinda thing.

If you have a real interest in the subject, I suggest this book:

http://www.amazon.com/KAMIKAZES-CORSAIR ... 737&sr=8-1

It explains the working use of the pickets and the situation that the pilots, sailors and FDO crews working inside some of the ships faced....without the melodrama of the article you read online. The men described in this book did not expect to die but they did do the job despite the risks because it was part of the overall strategy of the amphibious op being conducted.

Nikademus

Thanks Nikademus. I did run across that in my searches and it looks interesting. I might pick it up after I finish 'Reality is Broken,' which is about the influence of computer gaming on contemporary culture and the potential for games to help us toward a better future. A good read so far about how computer games fulfill genuine human needs that contemporary culture is not providing for.

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

So from a combat sense, I don't find much of a difference.  They are both suicide missions no matter if you're in a PB or an xAk.

From a mouseclick standpoint... it's far less mouseclicks to put a 4k endurance xAKL on a spot, than it is a 1.5k AM.  2.5k endurance worth of less mouseclicks.  If you use xAKLs, then you also free up ships, as you have less ships "intransit every 1k endurance". 

This is all a "convenience" issue for the Allies.  It's not a difference in the actual combat theaters.  Those lanes should always be plugged, the allies have plenty enough crap-combat ships to throw away on picket duty.

But making xAKL's not able to do picket duty does free THEM up for something else.  Transport duty.  If the allies aren't using xAKL's for picket duty (by choice, or hr), then they can all be grouped up in a couple of tf's and make fuel transport runs to bases every month.

Yes, not using xAKLs frees up xAKLs for transport duty. But not using an AM or a KV as a picket frees them up for ASW duty, to sink a sub which might get a carrier next week.

So it's not a wash after all, is it? It does matter which you use, from more than a convenience standpoint.

Kinda think that makes it more of a wash.

Use xAKLs = more am's freed up for asw duty
Use AM's = more xports freed up for xport duty

Who knows. Maybe that AM on picket duty sinks the sub heading to the west coast. Maybe not.

My 2 pennies for S&G's ...

Using a line of "static 'pickets'"...would be fishing trawlers, etc. operating a distance off the coast = acceptable. To me represents the civie fishing fleet.

On the other hand...Using a mobile line of xAk's to screen the KB or TF58 or the Saipan Invasion or Midway Invasion - "gamey".

Hey I like that... transport ships within a set distance of friendly territory, combat ships beyond.  

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

All the 'gamey' threads end up going the same way, mostly because there is no one single definition of 'gamey'. In my book, gamey is any tactic that either exploits a weakness of the code (ammunition magnets for example), or strays in to areas of RL that are just not in scope of the game, or otherwise are not modelled. An example of the latter is the use of Merchant ships as pickets. The developers have not considered what would happen to a merchant in such a role, or to the rest of the ships in the game. If single merchants had a high % chance of not showing any reports when they get hit by overwhelming force (equals anything larger than a SC/PB!), and were highly inaccurate and slow in their reports even when they do see small forces, and had a very high chance of going off and hiding rather than patrolling where they were meant to be (said chance =fn(number of merchants lost in the same role)), using them as a picket would be not too gamey.

Since this is not the case, the tactic must be considered gamey, even if in real life it was possible/likely to happen.

The key is not to look at the input (player action) but the result (game outcome).

Interesting discussion and I totally agree with the above. My issue with this is not so much the recon/intel aspect of it - it's the fact that my carrier TF out hunting for the other side's carriers invariably launch a full alpha strike on a poor djonk. Doesn't matter to me if it was on picket or just hauling supply to some outpost. My carrier commander should be spanked for expending a third of his torpedo loadout on anything other than major enemy fleet units! But since there is no way to tell him to hold back on the ammo UNTIL he finds a carrier (or possibly a fat troop/tanker convoy) this is what happens...

/M

ORIGINAL: PMN

nteresting discussion and I totally agree with the above. My issue with this is not so much the recon/intel aspect of it - it's the fact that my carrier TF out hunting for the other side's carriers invariably launch a full alpha strike on a poor djonk. Doesn't matter to me if it was on picket or just hauling supply to some outpost. My carrier commander should be spanked for expending a third of his torpedo loadout on anything other than major enemy fleet units! But since there is no way to tell him to hold back on the ammo UNTIL he finds a carrier (or possibly a fat troop/tanker convoy) this is what happens...

/M

There is code, at least for the Allies, where carrier TFs choose not to use torpedoes against targets not worthy of them. I don't know all of the variables that go into the decision, and there are probably randoms and FOW, but in my experience that single 'djonk' is attacked by DBs, not torpedoes, most of the time.

Ah, after all these years I could still probably write a book about all the things I do not know about this game. Well maybe I exaggerated a bit - but the fact remains that even a 12 DB strike on an out of the way xAKL is too much when I'm out carrier-hunting and every sortie counts...

ORIGINAL: PMN

Ah, after all these years I could still probably write a book about all the things I do not know about this game. Well maybe I exaggerated a bit - but the fact remains that even a 12 DB strike on an out of the way xAKL is too much when I'm out carrier-hunting and every sortie counts...

I think part of the "transaction", with randoms and FOW, is that the CV commander doesn't know it's only 1 xAKL every time. Air search reports were notoriously overstated. You can somewhat manage your bomb consumption by setting strike ranges close until you have a soldid ID. But it's a trade-off with getting that first strike away first when it really is a carrier.

Decisions, decisions . . .[:)]