Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Admiral King flirted with the idea of ordering the carriers to stay out of reach of enemy air and just send their squadrons forward to fly from island bases. Thus I cannot call this "gamey" as it was a tactic that was considered in real life...

If this is correct then the tactic should not be considered "gamey". However, how far away is "out of reach" ? I would want to keep them " in theatre", and would not want them going back to PH as some players apparently have done.

Perhaps "gamey" here equates to:

a) Planes off-loaded to a Land Base and Ships sent to PH without need
for repairs.
b) Ships & planes sent to PH without need for replacements or ship
repairs; or when no upgrade is available.

Acceptable would therefore be:

a) Can off-load planes at a Land Base provided the ships stay "in theatre"
( on map ) or the ships go to PH for Repairs ( only ).
b) Ships & planes can go to PH for repairs, replacements/reinforcements
and equipment upgrade only.

I can't speak for PBEM play/players, but there are drawbacks to sending your carriers back home while land-basing their aircraft; not only do you lose offensive capabilities -- such as the element of surprise, as you can never be sure exactly where/when a carrier fleet will appear -- but airfields can get bombed to uselessness while the aircraft die stranded on the ground.

This is what I'm thinking. Pulling your carriers off the board is like pulling your teeth.

You have no offensive capability and your even hurting your defense I think. What you said about putting carrier planes on islands I think is true as well. I think you have to be careful with that.

I tested dropping off one Japanese Zero squadron from a carrier in Lae early in the game. I found even early in the game the allies have enough bomber capability to close the runway down. Result being the Zero squadron couldn't fly CAP, escort, or even transfer out and was stuck there to be smashed on the ground by the bombers. I'm glad this was just in testing.

I'm thinking if someone pulls off all his carriers and places the planes on forward bases just use LRB and even bring in your own carriers to bomb the airfield and ground all the planes. After that you can just destroy them on the ground at your leisure.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

I can't speak for PBEM play/players, but there are drawbacks to sending your carriers back home while land-basing their aircraft; not only do you lose offensive capabilities -- such as the element of surprise, as you can never be sure exactly where/when a carrier fleet will appear -- but airfields can get bombed to uselessness while the aircraft die stranded on the ground.

Very good points. Coupled with my "previous" suggestions ( on another post ) this should be enough to deter ( or penalise ) such play as is in question here.

Sending your CVs back while ahead in the game reminds me of how some Russian Grand Masters would get ahead by a point or two in a chess tournament, and then play "drawish" openings for the remainder of the match. It was never appreciated by their opponents, but it was an acceptable practice that was never considered "gamey."

True, but then, the "King" cannot be "removed" from the game can he?

Maybe PREM was meant to be played "no holds barred," i.e., anything the game engine allows, whether the Allies or the IJN would do it or not.

I doubt it. I believe we are expected to introduce ( or not, as we prefer ) house rules with the agreement of both parties. I think gaining differing people's views on various points, was Tocaff's motive for this post subject. You can also of course, decide not to play any games with someone if you cannot both agree a set of "joint" house rules!

True, but then, the "King" cannot be "removed" from the game can he?

In UV, the Kings would be Truk, Noumea and any other site that, if taken, would result in an immediate autovictory (checkmate). Sticking w/the chess analogy, CVs would be Queens; powerful, capable of great range, therefore something you really wouldn't want to lose, esp. early in the game. But it's only an analogy.

Re House Rules: PacWar needed house rules because, for example, unlike UV, PacWar didn't lock-in Aussie home guard troops, who could be used unfairly by the Allied player for invasions. I think Grigsby incorporated other restrictions into UVs engine, making gentlemen's agreements more an option than a necessity. But if two consenting players want to agree on something to do/not to do, then so be it.

Strict adherence to house rules probably results in playing the same opponenent over and over again, but that's another personal choice.

With regards sending carriers home to PH/Tokyo to keep them from harm - Any Allied player silly enough to do that early in the game will lose. Jap recon of Noumea will be able to tell if they have been sent back and if so I will park the KB off the coast and blast everything to atoms- unless of course he has landed all the carrier airgroups before sending them back[:-]

It is a different story for the IJN player come late 43. No matter how well he looked after his carriers, by that time his airgroups will be rookies who will die under the guns of Corsairs and Hellcats and uber flak. Even if the Zeros onboard all have 99 exp pilots they are useless against Allied heavy bombers who will sink their carriers from under them. No port is a safe haven other than Truk.

If the IJN is defending a small points lead it make sense to keep now impotent KB out of harms reach....gamey perhaps but the only viable option.

All you guys claiming that large PT boat squadrons are a gamey tactic need to do some historical reading.

I just finished rereading The Eagle and the Rising Sun by Alan Schom and on several ocassions the Japanese were harrassed by a squdron of more than 10 boats at the Canal.

Actually PTs operated in smaller groups and rarely did these groups concentrate.  The squadrons that you refer to are made up of 3 or more of these groups.  The best example of concentration of PTs was in the PIs when Kondo's (I think it was him) force was detected and attacked by them before the old battle line crossed his T and mauled him.

Can't believe this old thread was unearthed, but vs. the AI, I have had 3-boat squadrons of PTs automatically combine into 6 vs. an enemy fleet, but that was a rare event and I'm not sure I could reproduce it.

So can we make multiples of 3, say up to 9 or so PTs in a squadron, as there's now a historical precedent?

I just created a 12 boat PT unit and it split into 2 x 6 boat units the next turn. go figure.

So I'm not crazy afterall; I've even found "spare" PTs disbaded in port after some code string/function in UV decided to restructure my squadrons of it's own accord.

Any thoughts on single ship transport convoys? Land-based aircraft will not fly against them. Gamey? They are meat for subs though.

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Any thoughts on single ship transport convoys? Land-based aircraft will not fly against them. Gamey? They are meat for subs though.

Didn't know this but a lot of my routine convoys are 1 ship AK's/AO's right now. I guess I'll consolidate them.

I assume this was done to avoid an even "gamier" outcome of players drawing off airstrikes with 1 ship TF's.

ORIGINAL: ILCK

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Any thoughts on single ship transport convoys? Land-based aircraft will not fly against them. Gamey? They are meat for subs though.

Didn't know this but a lot of my routine convoys are 1 ship AK's/AO's right now. I guess I'll consolidate them.

I assume this was done to avoid an even "gamier" outcome of players drawing off airstrikes with 1 ship TF's.

I agree. I think it works out fairly as long as you don't form a psuedo-convoy of 10 one-ship convoys. It is interesting to note that entire carrier airgroups will fly against one-ship convoys while the land-based crews consider it beneath them.

All you guys claiming that large PT boat squadrons are a gamey tactic need to do some historical reading.

I just finished rereading The Eagle and the Rising Sun by Alan Schom and on several ocassions the Japanese were harrassed by a squdron of more than 10 boats at the Canal.

I think at Phillipine sea a similiar thing happened. Also look at the Japanese ¨gamey tactic¨ in this battle. Using empty carriers as bait to pull off allied airpower against the real threat. The Japanese battleships.

Speaking of the Phillipine Sea and game tactics I remember in my game with Miller when he was invading Irau he sent the Lexington north as a sacrifice at the same time his transport were unloading troops at Irau. Almost all my airpower went after little Lexington.

I wouldn´t consider this ¨gamey¨ at all considering this is very similiar to what happened at Phillipine Sea.

Any thoughts on single ship transport convoys?

Submarines and 2 ships destroyer raider groups. [;)]

Any thoughts on single ship transport convoys? Land-based aircraft will not fly against them. Gamey? They are meat for subs though.

Also I should add...you can get your bombers to attack single ship convoys actually.

The best way to do this is stand down your float recon planes, PBY´s etc., and set your bomber/dive bomber aircraft on naval search. A good high percentage, low altitude...they´ll attack and hit single ship transport convoys.[;)]

edit- you won´t see a combat animation but it´ll say ¨AP (X) reported hit¨

I did think it ought to be possible. However, this idea seems a waste of your better planes. Stick to float planes and seaplanes for this.

OK, I just did some testing on this and I could not get my land based planes to attack a single ship convoy.

If this is by game design or ¨Bug¨ I don´t know but I´m thinking by ¨Bug¨ Maybe, if we all flood 2by3´s email begging for a 2.51 patch and it isn´t a huge time investment they might be able to do something on this

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... Maybe, if we all flood 2by3´s email begging for a 2.51 patch and it isn´t a huge time investment they might be able to do something on this

The new "patch" is called Carrier Force!