Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

In my opinion, sending single DD TFs on scouting missions is gamey, since that was not part of the US Navy destroyer doctrine (USF-33). Had you sent out single CA (or CL if you're really desperate) TFs on scouting missions, then you would be OK, since that is part of the US Navy cruiser doctrine (USF-22). But then again, I tend to play with historical doctrines in mind.

So you'd never undertake a massive two-year campaign in the DEI?

Where do you draw the line on doctrine vs gameyness? If it wasn't a part of US naval doctrine to send out destroyers on these sort of scouting missions, then it wasn't Japanese doctrine or practice to operate all their carriers in one big deathstar like fleet. They preferred complex battleplans and use of multiple TF operating independently. The INJ didn't work with the IJA-so no coordinated operations between the 2 services.

IJN subs hunting merchants would be another no-no. Not in their offficial doctrine.

Launching early invasions of places like Fiji and Nomea should also be a no-no. Not in the official masterplan. Japan wanted to keep the defensive barrier managable.

destroyer picket lines arround mayor fleet formations- yes. But this is not case of destroyer picket line. this is a case of a single, usupported destroyer being sent far behind enemy lines with sole purpose to find KB. And to find it in a way of being destroyed by it. So, we have destroyer who thinks she is a submarine, doing a submarine job. And a mission type is... well... not the one USN woul'd ever undertake. In RL- imagine DD being sent to such a mission... radioing "attacked by carrier planes, sinking at...." . and keep in mind that this was the sole purpose of that mission. Gamey enough for me.

Of course it's gamey! You're playing a game right?
So everything you do is gamey. Cheers!
 

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

In my opinion, sending single DD TFs on scouting missions is gamey, since that was not part of the US Navy destroyer doctrine (USF-33). Had you sent out single CA (or CL if you're really desperate) TFs on scouting missions, then you would be OK, since that is part of the US Navy cruiser doctrine (USF-22). But then again, I tend to play with historical doctrines in mind.

So you'd never undertake a massive two-year campaign in the DEI?

The cruiser and destroyer doctrine publications have nothing to do with strategy. It merely provides information to the commanders on how to manage their ships and task forces. However, sending out lone destroyers as strategic scouts to look for enemy battlegroups is not in the destroyer doctrine. Destroyers might be used as tactical scouts, but most certainly not strategic scouts, which was the role of aircraft and submarines.

What people are failing to understand for the main part is the true question what is "Gamey", basically my best answer is Gamey is something one side can do to exploit the other side. However when both sides can do it, house rules have to come into effect. However I don't believe this tactic was at all gamey since he neither exploited the game to achieve his goal. I can see why japanese players might object to this, being they can't simply throw destroyers around like allied players can.

Whats Gamey? going to play free poker and finding out some guy is using a cheat that can see everyone elses cards, and im wondering why he's going all in every 2-3 hands. Yeah im getting sick of Zynga poker now after seeing that.

For the US, sending a ship on a suicide mission = gamey.  I think that sending a DD around Borneo multiple times to see if it gets sunk approaches gameyness (by my def).
 
Having 1 ship scout TF's out 2-400 miles in front of an invasion fleet, though, not gamey.
 
I think it's in the application of the scout ship that defines it's gameyness.

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

In my opinion, sending single DD TFs on scouting missions is gamey, since that was not part of the US Navy destroyer doctrine (USF-33). Had you sent out single CA (or CL if you're really desperate) TFs on scouting missions, then you would be OK, since that is part of the US Navy cruiser doctrine (USF-22). But then again, I tend to play with historical doctrines in mind.

So you'd never undertake a massive two-year campaign in the DEI?

The cruiser and destroyer doctrine publications have nothing to do with strategy. It merely provides information to the commanders on how to manage their ships and task forces. However, sending out lone destroyers as strategic scouts to look for enemy battlegroups is not in the destroyer doctrine. Destroyers might be used as tactical scouts, but most certainly not strategic scouts, which was the role of aircraft and submarines.

I understand the difference. I was commenting on your seeming obsession with history, not doctrine. The game allows you to change history very easily.

But, on the doctrine front, it allows that to change too. As so many have commented, the Japanese don't seem constrained by the Mother of All Doctrines, the non-cooperation unto hatred by the IJN and IJA. They get along in the game like old pals. On a more micro note, the game doesn't allow pure PT boat doctrine to be employed (control isn't granular enough for formation management), and it ignores a good part of the submarine force's doctrine--no photo recon missions. There are plenty of others.

If the player wants to make this a role-playing game of sorts, they can. If they want to take on dusty doctrine manuals and handcuff themselves, they can. But the base code makes it mandatory that certain important doctrines be ignored.

As for that DD, if the fate of a major invasion TF with a hundred thousand men depended on getting that intel, and there was no other way, that DD would be sent. Admirals were hard men in those days. (Generals too. Ask the men who flew the SECOND Schweinfurt mission.)

Or in case of one of my games just send DD Tf's of 3 to 5 ships several hunderd miles in advance to try to get convoys. Then have them get spotted and then get attack by highly skilled Jill's, Judy's, and Francis and watch 5 or 6 planes get shot down and many damaged for no hits.

I would call that gamey. It is different from picket ships, which are essentially defensive : you post them in an area to see approaching ennemies... Here it is an (unintended) exploit of a a game weakness, ie it lets isolated ships slip around the LBA umbrella way to easily if that umbrella isn't massive... and obviously in 1944 japan, you can't afford a massive LBA on your rear...

That DD should not have been able to go round Borneo 4 times to look for the KB if it worked properly.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




So you'd never undertake a massive two-year campaign in the DEI?

The cruiser and destroyer doctrine publications have nothing to do with strategy. It merely provides information to the commanders on how to manage their ships and task forces. However, sending out lone destroyers as strategic scouts to look for enemy battlegroups is not in the destroyer doctrine. Destroyers might be used as tactical scouts, but most certainly not strategic scouts, which was the role of aircraft and submarines.

Admirals were hard men in those days. (Generals too. Ask the men who flew the SECOND Schweinfurt mission.)

Good point. I think if Halsey was playing this game he would say, "Send it, and send it again."

ORIGINAL: Dili

Edited: I do it also, using a single destroyer to bombard an island to check for coastal guns, yes I loose the ship however the recon work is done in process. Besides what good am I going to use a destroyer with 2 ASW rating and weak 3inch guns? nothing.

You illustrated perfectly the problem. In real world there are people inside those destroyers. Some in this game like to try simulate human behavior in War, others want to just win.

That is why i said it was culturally gamey, an American Commander would never think like you.

Perhaps Iachino should have thought of that before bringing the Fleet out and wasting all that fuel! Send a DD first to check for carriers. If they get attacked....and assuming they get off a message in time back to Iachino, and assuming the msg is received clearly and the info recieved and acted on in a timely manner ....it would be worth an entire DD and it's trained crew. Save fuel!....save time! A solution for the "New Busy", just like Hotmail!

[:'(] [:'(] [:'(]

I always assumed there was a fine line between gamey and "gaming the game". Gamey would be using a tactic the other side can not do, which I can see why Japanese fan boys would be against it since they don't have unlimited ships, however Gaming the game - WITP AE is still a game, is it gamey to send a task force behind Japanese supply lines to destroy a bunch of transports just because americans didn't do raiding?

dunno my idea of gamey is the guy who went up river and bypassed that russian port to land 2 hexes away and didn't trigger the coastguns.

Guess each to our own have our own opinions on whats gamey or not.

If people think this is gamey because it was against "doctrine", well, I would like to see the "doctrine".  As Bullwinkle said, the Admirals fighting the Pacific War were hard men.  They weren't quite as restrained by the level of PC that exists today.  If they felt the risk of a DD or even a CL was worth the intel gathered, there is no doubt in my mind that this tactic would be used.  However, they didn't really need to go to this extreme, because the intel gathered through "magic" usually provided most of what they needed.  AE does not represent this well.
 
As far as being a "suicide mission", it is the game engine that makes this a suicide mission.  The Captains of the assigned DD/CL would have some idea of their detection level based on the number/type of search planes that they spotted overhead.  They could also guestimate were they came from by determining their range by how long they remained overhead.  If they saw a carrier plane reconing them that was out of range from any land base, they would know a carrier was in the area.  The Captains could determine the risk factor and act accordingly....even if they aborted their mission.  AE doesn't allow this latitude.
 
I would bet that almost every player has used tactics that weren't part of the Japanese or Allied "doctrine".  A lot of these tactics are considered "gamey", not because they couldn't be done, but because they weren't done.  There are a lot of things done while playing this game that "weren't done" just to adapt to the game engine that is AE.  Tactics are created based on what you have to work with.  

Posted this in Dan's AAR:

The move would be irritating but I agree with the rest in just fixing it to pick-off those lone ships. Perhaps--if there is a code issue--go to the 2 DD TF but it is up to your opponent to sink them. How hard would it be to simply put a Chutai of Vals/Judys along the route and plaster the offending ship? He just needs to adjust his tactics there.

My definition of gamey may be different then another players. Gamey to me is taking advantage of game quirks or bugs to achieve an advantage over your opponent. I also might add I usually ask myself if something I was about to do would piss me off if it were done to me before I do it. 
 
I would probably not send a DD on an around Borneo cruise looking for KB but thats most likely because I would not appreciate it being done to me.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Ketza

My definition of gamey may be different then another players. Gamey to me is taking advantage of game quirks or bugs to achieve an advantage over your opponent. I also might add I usually ask myself if something I was about to do would piss me off if it were done to me before I do it. 

I would probably not send a DD on an around Borneo cruise looking for KB but thats most likely because I would not appreciate it being done to me.

If I discovered my opponent was doing this, I would just up my Naval Search and pull in my Naval Attack range and let the "decoy" through and wait for the main body. 2 day turns might make this tactic tough, though.

I wouldn't be upset if it was used against me...but then again, you can probably tell that I feel that this is a legitimate use of resoures with historic intent if not application.

Dont get me wrong I would put measures in place to stop such a thing as much as possible. But lets be realistic. We all know how hard it can be to spot a 1 ship TF much less actually hit the ship if its a lone DD flying around at top speed. If my opponent wants to open that door then we will both have to spend the extra time and assets to blunt such tactics.

ORIGINAL: Ketza

.... We all know how hard it can be to spot a 1 ship TF much less actually hit the ship if its a lone DD flying around at top speed......

As it was in Real Life.

First of all not gamey imo or by my 2 öres!



+1 to all of Nemo121 post in this thread.

Think its easy to blame that your opponet makes an "gamey" move than to admit your
on misstakes....

but as stated b4 just my 2 öres...