Page 1 of 5
Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:58 am
by Q-Ball
I wanted to ask this question, as I am playing an old and esteemed opponent as Japan. It is 4/15/42 or thereabouts, and I had a force of roughly 3 divisions marching on Katherine, where there was a collection of about 15,000 Allied troops, consisting mostly of 2 Bdes, and the Gull/Sparrow Force, plus other troops.
I pulled most of my units up to Katherine. I sent 2 Recon Regts circling around to the South, and then they moved north back into Katherine from the road south. As a result, the only retreat path was directly east, which is where these troops retreated to.
At this point I am in a clear advantage to block the road south and probably destroy those units entirely, as they are completely in the open.
Was that gamey to send the Recon units around to block escape path? Using a fragment I think is gamey, but not sure about a Recon Regt.
There is no doubt that as Japan it's tempting to keep those divisions un-Rebuilt in order to use the Recon Regts for....well, recon.
Thoughts?
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:32 am
by wwengr
Definately not gamey. A typical Japanese recon regiment had 2 motorized infantry companies (or cavalry), 1 motorized HMG company, 1 motorized antitank company, and 2 tankette companies. The were light combat units made to travel fast. In addition to the traditional recon sneak and peak mission, the Japanese recon regiments performed screening, exploitation of the enemy's flanks and rear areas, etc.
Using cavalry units (fast light units) to develop the battle and out manuever the enemy was much older than WWII and Blitzkrieg was not a WWII German invention. You used the units as intended. The fact that the Allied player did not use a screening force to prevent your movement was simply your advantage.
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:06 am
by Chickenboy
No way, Q-ball. Not gamey.
You're a gentlemen and a scholar for thinking of your opponent, but you cut off his egress with a reasonable force-most of those recon mechanized regiments have between 25-50 AV each, don't they? Doom on him for allowing you to do so.
Oh yeah-Banzai!
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:11 am
by stuman
I do not think it is gamey Q-Ball.
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:18 am
by pad152
First you cut them off, then you destroy them, that's war!
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:53 am
by ckk
Gamey no War yes
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:13 am
by Cuttlefish
Gamey? I'll tell you what's gamey. Descending on an innocent Japanese trade mission at Timor and butchering all of the traders, not to mention a Shinto priest and a delegation from the Nagoya Friends of the Poor, that's gamey! Fiend!
What? Recon units to cut off retreat? Oh. I agree with the others. Perfectly okay, go for it.
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:02 am
by oldman45
You're too nice Q-Ball, you did a text book attack.
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:27 am
by JeffroK
Not Gamey,
Players of all FB status will have realise you need to cover their flanks and defend in depth in open terrain.
Same goes to defending a base from an amphib attack, protect your LOC/retreat and hide from NGFS by having a reserve 1 hex back.
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:53 am
by Mistmatz
Not gamey at all.
Very different from standard WitP as you can encircle enemy units much easier. Its one of WW2 trademarks that warfare relied much more on mobility and maneuverability. So AE is a major improvement regarding realism in this case.
Why do you think it might be gamey?
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:07 am
by Fishbed
ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
Gamey? I'll tell you what's gamey. Descending on an innocent Japanese trade mission at Timor and butchering all of the traders, not to mention a Shinto priest and a delegation from the Nagoya Friends of the Poor, that's gamey! Fiend!
What? Recon units to cut off retreat? Oh. I agree with the others. Perfectly okay, go for it.
Yeah! Cuttlefish is right! Let's ban Q-Ball for gameyness.
Or he may surrender now, and be a good boy. [;)]
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:37 am
by Riva Ridge
Not gamey
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:33 am
by wwengr
It would only be Gamey if you did it to me!
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:55 am
by Panther Bait
Not gamey at all. I might be biased because I did something similar with SNLF and tank regiments, but I think it is viable anyway. You're opponent could have retreated when he noticed the flanking move, but didn't.
Mike
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:32 pm
by cantona2
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
I wanted to ask this question, as I am playing an old and esteemed opponent as Japan. It is 4/15/42 or thereabouts, and I had a force of roughly 3 divisions marching on Katherine, where there was a collection of about 15,000 Allied troops, consisting mostly of 2 Bdes, and the Gull/Sparrow Force, plus other troops.
I pulled most of my units up to Katherine. I sent 2 Recon Regts circling around to the South, and then they moved north back into Katherine from the road south. As a result, the only retreat path was directly east, which is where these troops retreated to.
At this point I am in a clear advantage to block the road south and probably destroy those units entirely, as they are completely in the open.
Was that gamey to send the Recon units around to block escape path? Using a fragment I think is gamey, but not sure about a Recon Regt.
There is no doubt that as Japan it's tempting to keep those divisions un-Rebuilt in order to use the Recon Regts for....well, recon.
Thoughts?
Not at all Gamey Q-Ball in my opinion.
Classic breakthrough and encirclement tactics. You can use a few panzer divisions and make a ring of steel or a few regiments to make a weaker one. In the first example it will difficult ot break out unless the encirceld force is huge or relief comes frm outside the pocket. in the second example a breakthrough by your opponent is feasble as he can attack a weak point in the pocket, concentrate and breakout
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:34 pm
by Canoerebel
This is a tough one for your opponent, because he has to recognize the threat of envelopment and make the decision to stand firm or retreat to prevent encirclement. This is open terrain and your tactics were sensible and in keeping with what you would expect an army to do. It's hard to give up a base, but your opponent should have given ground.
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:30 pm
by carnifex
If you think that's gamey wait until your pilots start slamming perfectly good airplanes into US carrier decks. If you're going to play as the Japanese, you better toughen up
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:45 pm
by tocaff
Not gamey as maneuver is all important to combat. Flanking your enemy by using light, fast units is a good strategy. I suppose this means that I'm firmly with everyone else here.
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:55 pm
by rader
I don't think it's gamey, and I do think it is "legal", but this is one thing that I'm not sure WitP or AE handles all that well. If there are 2 divisions being encircled by a small recon rgt, they might successfully break out of the encirclement to a large extent. The pockets created by such actions (particularly by smaller forces) were notoriously leeky. Also, forces that were encircled were often inclined to fight harder before surrender if no retreat option was available. Furthermore, taking a base in AE is way too much of an all-or nothing affair and often takes much less time than it should (it either falls or it dosen't, when it probably should be more of a percentage control that goes back and fourth as the battle waxes).
All this considerd, AE handles this much better than WitP and of course you should go for it (unless you have an agreement not to do that sort of thing).
Andrew
RE: Gamey or no?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:57 pm
by witpqs
Not gamey. In addition to what others have said, remember that he could detail stronger units to attack into and smash your blocking force. Of course, then he might not have the strength to stand up to your main force. What you did was classic Sun-Tzu.
By forcing him to retreat when he thought he was prepared to stand you might also say it was classic Bruce Lee:
