Scout DDs Gamey?

[Canoerebel]

Gents,

My opponent and I have a situation where we wonder whether an Allied tactic is gamey or an unfair exploitation of the game.

It's July 1944 and the Allies have just invaded several points on eastern and southern Borneo. The Japanese remain very strong - the KB is powerful and the Japanese have a powerful network of airases on Borneo, Java, and Mindanao. Thus it would be very risky for the Allies to accept battle with the KB under the umbrella of Japanese LBA.

Several weeks ago the KB retired from the theater. I didn't know where she had gone, but I knew I had better not venture into enemy waters if there was a chance of bumping into here. So I detailed DD Swanson to sail all the way around Borneo to scout for the KB. (What my opponent doesn't know is that Swanson completed at least five circumnavigations of Borneo without incident - making it clear that this wasn't necessarily a "suicide" run).

Recently, Swanson bumped into a tanker TF and badly damaged three and an escort. My opponent protested and I told him that I wasn't (and won't) employ that tactic purposefully. IE, I won't flood Japanese controlled waters with single-ship TFs that are nearly impossible to track and destroy. I think he's okay with that.

However, next turn my scout did "find" the KB lurking off Kuching, Borneo (about where I had expected, though I wasn't sure). DD Swanson was destroyed but served its purpose.

My opponent thinks this is gamey. I don't think so, but wanted to open it to input from the forum.

[Q-Ball]

I don't think it's gamey. Just goes to show you need to stay alert on air search; Z button is your friend.

The crew of the Swanson probably has a different take.....

[CarnageINC]

Sending in occasional warships...not noncombat vessels...is fine, its not gamey IMO.

[sfbaytf]

That one of main missions for destroyers-acting as scouts. They are the eyes and ears of he fleet. Been doing that for ages. Frigates did the same thing during the age of sail. During the Okinawa campaign DEs were used as picket ships far in front of the main battlefleet and very close to Japanese airbases that were launching kamikazies. They knew very well what their purpose was and the risks involved.

[Miller]

I can except the fact that the US used DDs as picket ships during the war, mainly to warn of Kamikaze raids.

This particular DD was 600 miles from the nearest friendly airfield when it was sunk and within range of air attack from multiple airfields of my own. I did have LBA in position to attack for several turns but I am guessing the game engine did not consider a single DD a worthwhile target.

It was clearly a suicide mission, that is my only comment on this subject.

[ny59giants]

Along the same lines, is it gamey to have a 4 DD SC TF be followed by a SC TF or CV TF 3 hexes behind?? I ask because TB have a hard time hitting DDs and they may go after the closer target vs the larger warships.

I this case, it is using what you have to your advantage. It is not something that your opponent, or any opponent could do themselves. If anything, I "might" require you to make it a 2 DD TF as the AI doesn't pick up single ships well.

[Nemo121]

As a commander it is your job to prevent the enemy doing whatever it is within their capabilities of doing.

Don't defeat your opponent by rules-lawyering to death, instead, destroy them with your forces on-map.

If your opponent decides to send forces on suicide missions then destroy them. Simple. Also, what may seem like a suicide mission to you mightn't to your opponent and, you know what, he might be right. It seems he was right in this case.

[Canoerebel]

Just to make it clear - this wasn't a suicide mission.  Swanson made the trip around Borneo five times before she bumped into the KB.  As you can imagine, her voyages provided critical information (the fact that the KB wasn't present for awhile and then - presto! - was. 
 
In the "real war" the Allies had a variety of ways of determining the location of Japanese carriers.  They weren't always right, but most of the time the "real" Allies had far more information about carriers than I do in the game.

[Grit]

Sounds like a creative use of the tools that are available.

I agree with Nemo, have fun and don't go crazy with a bunch of rules.

[Cuttlefish]

Is it gamey in the sense that a loophole in the rules or a flaw in the game engine is being exploited to gain an unfair advantage? No.

It depends on the kind of game you want. Personally, I wouldn't do it; I like to keep a historical feel to my operations and the US Navy did not send its ships on suicide missions. Destroyers and destroyer escorts were used well out in front of fleets and invasions as screens and pickets, sure. But this was more like staking out a goat to see if a tiger is around. But that's just me. I don't think I'd squawk if my opponent did it.

[Terminus]

I think it's gamey. Sending single destroyers out on tasks like this is ahistorical as well as a game system exploit.

[Panther Bait]

The only potential qualm I would have on the tactic is that the game engine is notorious for not reporting single ship convoys. The fact that the Swanson made it around Borneo 5 times previously without him detecting it suggests that's the case here (or I suppose it's possible that it was reported but it was assumed to be a sub, since the game has a tendency to report subs as anything except subs).

So, if it's a case of Miller doing everything right (set up air searchs, deploy LBA, etc.) to handle the presence of Allied shipping, but the game engine is making it impossible to detect and persecute the Swanson, then it's probably on the gamey side only because there is no counter tactic.

If it's a case where Miller's air search plan was not up to the task and a reasonable air search/LBA deployment would have found the DD and sank it sooner, then it's totally reasonable.

---------

Regarding whether it's a historically based tactic, I don' think you can really defend it with references to the picket ships. Most of the picket DDs/DEs were stationed "relatively" close to either other pickets or whatever force they were protecting, so that there was a very good chance that someone could respond to a Mayday or a request for backup in a reasonable amount of time.

This is just a little different than asking a solitary DD to sail hundreds of miles through enemy seas with virtually no chance of rescue if they get attacked, especially when the DD has no real means to "search" for the KB other than to draw an attack from it. This is akin to ordering an employee to walk down a dark alley with $100 bills taped to his forehead to "search" for muggers, so the boss will know whether to walk down it himself or not. IMO, it would be a lot more historical to confine these search missions to Allied subs. However from the AAR, I get the sense that Canoerebel's game with Miller is more of "do what the engine allows" type of game rather than a "strictly historical" game, so the I wouldn't base a gamey or not call to history in this case.

Mike

[Nemo121]

"game system exploit" ---Prove it... What loophole in the game system does this take advantage of?

If it is that 1 DD is hard to spot then, well, in real life a single DD was pretty hard to spot too....

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I think it's gamey. Sending single destroyers out on tasks like this is ahistorical as well as a game system exploit.

it is remenicient of other 1 x ship TF tactics that raise eyebrows. It could be considered gamey in that it's a rather Zhukovian way of utilizing one's destroyermen. Captain....you and your men are being sent out into the middle of enemy held waters in the hopes that he'll reveal his presence to us (through the magic of the combat report) by launching an airstrike on you. Naturally this entails great danger to you and the men under your command.....but know that your sacrfice will be forever immortalized in the Hall of Zeros and Ones. Besides which, your craft is very maneuverable!....it is possible you may survive in which case you'll all get free ice cream and a commemorative plate"

[:D]

[crsutton]

Well, the best scouts historically were subs but they do not really do it that well in game unless they get run over. So, it is a toss up. Yeah, I probably would not do it.
 
 

[Dili]

It is at least culturally gamey. I could see a Japanese destroyer making that for the Emperor in some circunstances, but sending an US destroyer in a recon suicide mission no- it is suicide because finding the KB means dead- USN even didn't had a corsair ship as far as i remember.

[Dili]

Well, the best scouts historically were subs but they do not really do it that well in game unless they get run over. So, it is a toss up. Yeah, I probably would not do it

Yes that is what USN would do. Send Submarines in scout missions.

[Nemo121]

Umm, actually since the mission was run multiple times before the DD died each mission looks like it had no more than a 20% chance of the DD being lost... Hardly a suicide mission.

Anyways, this could ALL have been avoided by Miller if he'd had a naval search unit covering his front laterally ( as should be SOP ) and also some naval attack fighter-bombers or kamis in the area.... That is prudent play, he didn't do it and so this ship, which should have died the second it poked its nose out got away with its mission on 5 separate occasions before dying the 6th time.

A LOT of missions in WW2 had more than 20% chance of not coming back. St Nazaire, various commando raids, beach landings etc yet they were all done.

[CV Zuikaku]

Very, very gamey in IMO. Sending single ship in enemy controlled waters to be destroyed by enemy CVs so you coul'd know about their presence... is a gamey situation. [:-]

[SuluSea]

It doesn't sound gamey to me. I use single ship TF to scout in front of Bombardment TFs and large transport TFs if I think the KB may be lurking.

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Very, very gamey in IMO. Sending single ship in enemy controlled waters to be destroyed by enemy CVs so you coul'd know about their presence... is a gamey situation. [:-]

Swanson made the trip 4 times , you can't control something if assets aren't in place. [:'(][;)]