"Gamey" Tactics

[tocaff]

What do you consider to be gamey tactics?

Is it OK for the Japanese player to send the CVs, minus the planes, back to Japan as a means of protecting the victory points once 1943 rolls around?

Is it OK for the Allied player to send his CVs, minus planes, back to PH for the first 6 months of the game?

Do you have problems with bombing altitudes or PT abuses?

Let us know your thoughts on these and other issues that you might have in PBEM games that cause you to use "house rules".

[Miller]

Hi Todd. A few of mine are:

Operating CV air groups from forward airstrips whilst the carriers sit safely in port. Fair enough if their carrier has been sunk however.

Base hexes which have lots of PT boat taskforces in them designed to burn up a bombardment groups ammo/op points. Should be no more than 1 TF of max 8-10 boats.

Single SC or PC ships sent in vicinity of enemy CV groups to draw airstrikes that hit pilot morale/fatigue levels- very naughty[:-]

[tocaff]

Nobody else with thoughts on this?  I knew about Paul's pet peeves as we had a game and used some house rules which really weren't needed as we see eye to eye on these things.  Taking advantage of game routines no matter how unrealistic doesn't bother you guys?  

[DEB]

I can't say I'm too fussed re this - but then I have yet to try a PBEM game. If I had, I suspect I'd be rather pissed off with most of the tactics
that have been quoted so far.

Is it OK for the Japanese player to send the CVs, minus the planes, back to Japan as a means of protecting the victory points once 1943 rolls around? No ; Planes & Carriers - Yes.

Is it OK for the Allied player to send his CVs, minus planes, back to PH for the first 6 months of the game? No ; Planes & Carriers - Yes.

Operating CV air groups from forward airstrips whilst the carriers sit safely in port. No.
Fair enough if their carrier has been sunk however. Agreed.

Base hexes which have lots of PT boat taskforces in them designed to burn up a bombardment groups ammo/op points. Should be no more than 1 TF of max 8-10 boats. Hmmm - difficult to find things to do with PT boats other than raid bombardment groups or supply convoys.
Not sure if this is "gamey" or good tactics - I think I tend towards the latter!

Single SC or PC ships sent in vicinity of enemy CV groups to draw airstrikes that hit pilot morale/fatigue levels Agreed - Very very "gamey" ( unless you are the Japanese in late 44 & 45 - beyond this games scope, but not unreasonable in WITP ).

If any others are "posted" I'll comment on them ( to help ).

[decaro]

Although I haven't played PBEM, I have always used 2-plus squadrons of PT boats to help deflect the periodic shelling of Guadalcanal by Jap capital ships. I also mine Lunga; on more than one occaision Jap BB's have hit a mine, got a fish from a PT and were finished-off by an SBD as it limped away from Lunga.

I don't see why I couldn't/shouldn't do this against a human player as well.

In general, I use PTs to help protect forward bases that are constantly under air attacks; In chess, the best defender is a cheap (expendable) defender and PTs make good pawns.

[tocaff]

Using PTs and mines to protect a base are sound tactics, but the # of PTs per TF is what's in question.  Are TFs of 4-6 PTs historical, yes.  Are PT TFs of 16 boats gamey?  The only example of massed PTs hitting a surface fleet was 1944 in the Phillipines and they were more a picket force being used to give advanced warning with any torp hits considered a huge bonus. 

Why haven't you (DEB and Jor D) tried your hands at PBEM yet?  It's a most humbling thing to go through and it really makes you think and plan months in advance only to see your opponent do the totally unexpected.  Games against the AI are for training purposes only.  To really play the game, play against humans.  Get your ass kicked, like I do. 

[decaro]

I try to have 3-4 squadrons of anywhere from 6-10 PT boats in Lunga harbor, depending on what supply points I can get from the transports. I tend to even-out the numbers of boats per squadron, but if I have a good PT commander, he may have more (or even less) boats, depending on what number keeps him in command.

PBEM rules were established for another Grigsby creation, Pac War. However, I can't recall if they were posted on its Matrix forum, or as a readme doc in the PacWar zip. I think it was somewhere in the zip and it might be worth checking-out.

Pac War's AI is pretty primitive, so most people play PBEM. But as I have dial-up, I don't play on-line and I don't have the patience to play a long, turn-by-turn game by email. Besides, if you're not careful -- or just unlucky -- you can still get beat by the AI in UV.

Then there's the compatibility issue, i.e., don't you have to be patched to the same version of UV to play each other? With the new patch, that can be a real problem if you're not at the same version. And I don't even want to think about patching-over not being compatibile with a fresh installed 2.5!

I've tried setting the UV AI to hard, but it seems to "cheat," i.e., Jap fighters become almost invincible at the beginning of hostilities. I actually enjoy setting this game to "historical" and replaying WWII with somewhat predictable results.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
I have always used 2-plus squadrons of PT boats to help deflect the periodic shelling of Guadalcanal by Jap capital ships.

Seems ok to me , so long as each base has 3 TF's max. (I can't see what be achieved with more than that anyway. ) I guess each "squadron"
( TF ) should be 4-6 PT's max. though

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
But as I have dial-up, I don't play on-line and I don't have the patience to play a long, turn-by-turn game by email. Besides, if you're not careful -- or just unlucky -- you can still get beat by the AI in UV.

I have the same problems & reservations here. Still learning anyway so PBEM is a long way off at present.

Then there's the compatibility issue, i.e., don't you have to be patched to the same version of UV to play each other?

As I understand it, yes you do.

And I don't even want to think about patching-over not being compatibile with a fresh installed 2.5!

Agreed.

I've tried setting the UV AI to hard, but it seems to "cheat," i.e., Jap fighters become almost invincible at the beginning of hostilities.

I doubt it's cheating - just biased with the die rolls etc., it would be difficult to make it harder in other ways.

I actually enjoy setting this game to "historical" and replaying WWII with somewhat predictable results.

Now that's a sentiment I can follow. It's about changing history by using different tactics, not just about beating another player . The AI may not be great but it's ok for now ( for me).

[Miller]

PBEM is the only way to go. It is possible to capture every base apart from Truk by early 43 against the AI (even without taking advantage of its obvious flaws).

[tocaff]

Paul is right, once you've learned the mechanics of the game PBEM is the only way to go.  Dialup isn't an excuse for getting a game with a person who's willing to do a turn a day, or less, depending on what your schedule allows.  I was hesitant about PBEM and I've had the game since it 1st came out.  It only took me over 4 years to play my 1st PBEM.  I now will only play PBEM as it's so much better and I've learned so much more.  Try it, you'll like it.  Remember that the only rule that really counts is never quit a PBEM just because things are going from bad to worse because somebody else has invested their time also.  The only ways for a game to end are:
Auto victory
Mutual consent
The end of 1943

[decaro]

I don't know the algorithm UV uses for surface combat, but in my experience, having more PT (pick one) squadrons/flotillas/patrols w/fewer boats gives you better odds against getting "surprised' by the AI/opponenent than having fewer squadrons with more PTs, i.e., chances are that all the squadrons won't be surprised, creating more opportunities for a lucky "dice roll" hit on a capital ship.

(Besides, just as with larger ship fleets, too many PTs in the same squadron is a waste as they all can't engage.)

Several PT squadrons in a mined harbor with an Allied fleet -- set to "react to enemy" -- waiting just off Lunga gives good odds to do some real damage, esp. if the enemy bombardment fleet can't render your airfield useless for that turn. If his ships get hurt, SBDs/TBFs can finish them of before they run home to Shortland.

Yesterday the Yamato and her sister battleship found that out the hard way.

[decaro]

Speaking of years, how many of them does it take to play a long scenario, i.e., Hard Road Ahead, by PBEM?

[tocaff]

The time required to play a PBEM depends on the people involved as some play multi turns per day.  In PBEM you'll find that there are times you can't wait for the next turn, especially when a large operation is in the offing.  Even if you play 1 turn per day and once in a while more you'll find that games progress nicely and if it's a bloody cmpaign one side might offer to surrender as victory is out of reach.  I've had game go so badly for me that in 2 months of game time I've been so badly beaten we've ended the game.

[DEB]

An interesting tactic, but I think this must qualifiy as "gamey."
I doubt if PT group commanders would wait for ships to hit defensive mines prior to engageing. More likely they attempt attacks against CA & above vessels hoping that speed and size will reduce the risk, or at least make any loss acceptable.

In my view, the TF size (in boats) should be limited ( as stated before), but too many TF's regardless of size is also rather "gamey".

Nice idea though !

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Remember that the only rule that really counts is never quit a PBEM just because things are going from bad to worse because somebody else has invested their time also. 

Now thats something I can definitely agree with. I just hate quitters; unless of course the game has obviously become unwinnable, and that side "surrenders".

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Did some reading. Largest group of PT found in an engagement was 15 boats in a night action in the Solomons. Found another with 10 boats.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: DEB

An interesting tactic, but I think this must qualifiy as "gamey."
I doubt if PT group commanders would wait for ships to hit defensive mines prior to engageing. More likely they attempt attacks against CA & above vessels hoping that speed and size will reduce the risk, or at least make any loss acceptable.

In my view, the TF size (in boats) should be limited ( as stated before), but too many TF's regardless of size is also rather "gamey".

Nice idea though !

[tocaff]

Interesting, but these were isolated incidents and not the norm.  Patrols were less than 1/2 that size when PTs went out hunting.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

The standard patrol was 3 boats.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Interesting, but these were isolated incidents and not the norm.  Patrols were less than 1/2 that size when PTs went out hunting.

[decaro]

Gamey or not, if it was good enough for John Wayne, it's good enough for me!

In Otto Preminger's In Harm's Way, Wayne played the fictional Admiral Rock Tory; Tory had to fight a superior IJN TF -- including the Yamato -- that threatened to bombard his landing force.

"The Duke" was out-gunned, so he ordered the waters mined and -- after the IJN hit the mines -- sent in his PTs; both tactics sunk some ships. As one subordinate exclaimed, "That's cutting 'em down to size!"

Playing the Allies, I have fewer capital ships compared to the IJN, which has all the heavy artillery. Mines, PTs and the unsinkable carrier called the 'Canal are the only things I have to "cut 'em down to size" in the Solomons.

By the way, when Wayne finally met the Jap fleet, he ordered his DDs to lay down smoke. Ok, it was only a movie, but it was (losely) based on the battle of Leyte Gulf. In any case, the naval tactics were sound.

And though I was never in the Navy, I have a USN unit citation (ribbon). Anyone care to guess how I possibly got awarded that?