Single Ship TF Dispersion of Large Vulnerable TFs in danger

[Anthropoid]

Gamey?

There are lots of examples where dispersing a large TF full of vulnerable (low AA and/or low ASW, low durability vessels) seems, vis a vis the game mechanics, to be an optimal way to reduce losses.

In a conversation about this a buddy expressed that he "despises" it and 'if he sees recon showing lots of single ship TFs [he] calls foul.' He thinks that, because of how naval attack sortie algorithms work, the engine will ignore a single ship TF "80% of the time"?

I found that to be somewhat surprising and I'm wondering if others hold a similar view and if you do, can you convince me why it is an illegitimate tactic?

Based on my understanding of how detection works, and based on my past experience, it seems that dispersing large masses of 'weak' ships into single ship task forces is a reasonably effective tactic to minimize how much gets blown up. Is it an illegitimate tactic? Seems completely legit to me. If you've got five ships, none of which have any ASW or much AA, and as such, are no safer grouped together than they are singleton, then what are you going to do? Clump them together so your opponent can crush all your Easter Eggs in one basket! :LOL!

Hell no! You're going to disperse them so that they are spaced and running on vectors that are not convergent = any enemy who spots them is going to have a harder time (given constraints of fuel, time and ammo) doing harm to more than one or two of them. If the detection and attack algorithms do in fact cause naval attack groups to "ignore" single ship TF, then it is a problem with the game not WAD. However, in that event, I really don't see what sort of house rule one could impose to fix it. Impose a blanket: "no single ship TF rule?"

[jwolf]

Historically the Allies certainly ordered "convoy scatter" on multiple occasions. So I would think that this tactic is legitimate in principle. But I have no idea if somehow this would undercut the game engine's calculations in an unfair way. I'd like to hear from some of the long term veterans on this point.

[AW1Steve]

If this in some way uses a flaw in the "game engine" to gain an advantage, then it's judged to be "gamey". I'm not aware of any , that I've seen or heard of. I have heard a great many players , claim that no merchant marine crew would tolerate being sent out on "suicide missions". Well , yes and no. Independent sailings were not necessarily "suicide". In low combat areas like the IO they were usually standard. And ordering convoys to scatter were frequently used. In desperation. Look at PQ 17.

More of a legitimate concern is you REASON for singletons. If you are using them as "CV strike sponges" , that is to absorb your opponents CV strikes , then yes, it's gamey. And also damned unethical , no matter how you consider it. In that case , the problem is NOT the tactic, it's your opponent. You really need to find someone else to play against.

A gray area is pickets. Single ships were employed by both sides as pickets. A lot of people have problems using AKL's as pickets. Both sides used them , in fact the USN used them as late as 1968 (USS Pueblo and USS Liberty ended that concept). Some people feel that once again you are "sending merchant mariners" on suicide missions. I've always felt that you simple switched them out for USN crews. BUT if this is a contention , put in a house rules. Use MsW' PC's,SC's, and small naval craft.

So the questions are as always is there a computer flaw? I don't think so. If not , why is your opponent using the tactic? Do you trust your opponent to play ethically? If yes , then no problem , is there? If no , then you need to ask yourself , whu are you playing this person.

[dr.hal]

The concern I would have is the fact that an enemy TF would normally be allowed one surface action in a pulse. If you have 20 single ship TFs transiting a hex where there is an enemy SAG TF that would mean the enemy TF would have only one shot at one vessel. That is over a 12 hour period, which I think is not realistic. PQ 17 is an example as Steve indicates. Even if the SAG has more than one vessel, it will not split up to pursue individual ship TFs. Its a difficult call if this is "gamey" or not. The best course of action is to discuss with your opponent and come to a reasonable compromise.

[tiemanjw]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Gamey?

There are lots of examples where dispersing a large TF full of vulnerable (low AA and/or low ASW, low durability vessels) seems, vis a vis the game mechanics, to be an optimal way to reduce losses.

In a conversation about this a buddy expressed that he "despises" it and 'if he sees recon showing lots of single ship TFs [he] calls foul.' He thinks that, because of how naval attack sortie algorithms work, the engine will ignore a single ship TF "80% of the time"?

I found that to be somewhat surprising and I'm wondering if others hold a similar view and if you do, can you convince me why it is an illegitimate tactic?

Based on my understanding of how detection works, and based on my past experience, it seems that dispersing large masses of 'weak' ships into single ship task forces is a reasonably effective tactic to minimize how much gets blown up. Is it an illegitimate tactic? Seems completely legit to me. If you've got five ships, none of which have any ASW or much AA, and as such, are no safer grouped together than they are singleton, then what are you going to do? Clump them together so your opponent can crush all your Easter Eggs in one basket! :LOL!

Hell no! You're going to disperse them so that they are spaced and running on vectors that are not convergent = any enemy who spots them is going to have a harder time (given constraints of fuel, time and ammo) doing harm to more than one or two of them. If the detection and attack algorithms do in fact cause naval attack groups to "ignore" single ship TF, then it is a problem with the game not WAD. However, in that event, I really don't see what sort of house rule one could impose to fix it. Impose a blanket: "no single ship TF rule?"

This one touches a nerve with me. I can not see how it is gamey in the least. I've run experiments to see if single ship TFs don't get targeted by aircraft - and it is true if you are talking about xAKL or other small fry most of the time. Try putting a CL by itself near enemy airpower and see how long it lasts. The air targeting algorithms appear (to me at least) to be very good at picking the best targets - assuming you have high DLs... and that requires diligence. You need night and day searches and interlocking search fields.

A few other points:
Why should you be required to risk 3 ships in a high risk environment (say ram-roding supplies into the PI in the early game), just to be allowed to try?

Even with a global war going on, there are many, many ships not modeled in the game - civilians out fishing and doing small trade. This is especially true in the DEI. A small PB or xAKL may slip through unnoticed.

Do you want a squadron of high value betties or TBFs (and their skilled pilots) spinning ordnance on an 3 VP ship - risking ops losses and enemy fighters?

Single ships (especially small fry) are extremely vulnerable to subs and surface raiders. A DD or even a SC can cause havoc. (You hint at scattering to avoid subs - this would be a mistake... a sub can only hit one target at a time)

If you must bomb them, use scout bombing. I know it isn't as satisfying, as you don't get nice movie, but if you know his routes, put a squadron at 1k' in a narrow search arc to put as many planes over his transit corridor as you can. You'll get some hits (and raise his DL for that NavA squadron you are keeping in reserve when he gets cocky and brings in a big xAK).

[Anthropoid]

Interesting posts, and actually giving me new ideas for ingenious uses of single ship TFs! [:D]

I've only ever used them in situations where escaping ships (from a port that is about to be overrun for example) disperse so as to limit how many get bombed into smithereens. Is it true though that that would WORSEN vulnerability to subs. My understanding was that, if a TF has the ammo, it can react to more than one enemy TF in a single day, right? So, assuming that lets say 5 enemy single-ship TF pass through the subs reaction zone during one day, I would think that there is a chance (dependent on Ops points or fuel, etc.) a single sub could conceivably get shots for as many single ship TF as it had ammo to shoot?

Or is it one engagement, and the sub is done for the day? If this, then single ship TFs (lets say nine TF each with a single xAKs or xAKLs without any asw capacity) would still be less vulnerable than say a single nine ship TF? The larger TF is easier to spot, will be less manueverable, and the sub might get to shoot at two or three of them in the single phase no?

So far it isn't actually "my opponent" who has said anything about this, it was a buddy (who also plays the game) who is in a PBEM with a second mutual buddy and with whom we've been comparing notes and stuff. I asked about the tactic (e.g., in the context of escaping vessels from a port like Hong Kong immediately after the war starts) and that was his view on it (the buddy, not my opponent Malagant).

Steve when you say:

A gray area is pickets. Single ships were employed by both sides as pickets. A lot of people have problems using AKL's as pickets. Both sides used them , in fact the USN used them as late as 1968 (USS Pueblo and USS Liberty ended that concept). Some people feel that once again you are "sending merchant mariners" on suicide missions. I've always felt that you simple switched them out for USN crews. BUT if this is a contention , put in a house rules. Use MsW' PC's,SC's, and small naval craft

Do you mean that both Japanese and allies used "Freighters" and the like as Picket ships!?! [X(]

A wiki search on "picket ship" redirects to "Radar Picket ship" and doesn't really make reference to any pre-radar or non-radar equipped vessels used in this way. Were there freighter type ships equipped with radar for this purpose? Is that something you can upgrade an AK with in game? Or are you saying that either in game or real life, it is common to use AK without radar-equipment as pickets? If so, wow that is hardcore. Not sure I could give that order either in real life or in game [:'(]

ADDIT: looking up USS Pueblo damn, I had forgotten the details on that!

Pueblo, still held by North Korea today, officially remains a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy.[3] Since early 2013 the ship has been moored along the Botong River in Pyongyang, and used there as a museum ship.[4] Pueblo is the only ship of the U.S. Navy still on the commissioned roster currently being held captive.[5]

So yeah, effectively what is represented in game as an xAK or xAKL, with detection packages added to it. Wow.

In honesty, I've heard the phrase picket ship for years and have used the tactic (and the phrase) many times, in different games, I and was pretty sure I knew what it was in a vague sense. Consulting Wiki, yep, a forward ship (or land based element it seems), positioned ahead of or around a defensive position (be it a TF or island or whatever) that is intended to (a) offer advance detection and intelligence of incoming offensive actions; while simultaneously (b) risking a minimum of loss, and/or (c) diverting, confusing or 'absorbing' some or all of any incoming offensive action. In sum, a weak ship, with ideally some degree of advanced detection ability that you put out ahead of your "good stuff" with the intent that it provides an advance warning of incoming threats, and if it gets lost, meh, better than losing a capital ship or having your island bombed into an inferno.

Sort of the "human shield" of modern naval tactics!! [X(]

I was not aware of that very specific definition of a picket ship, and yes, the way I conceive of 'legitimate' single ship TF in the game exactly corresponds to that quite pragmatic, view. If "not putting some at risk to protect the whole" was a widespread ethic, organized militaries might never have evolved in the first place!

I do seem to recall that adolescent men were widely used as scouts, runners and skirmishers by pre-modern armies, and it would seem to be a quite effective pragmatic use of 'small fry' in a different context.

[Malagant]

Picket ships are one thing, but as Hal and Steve say, there are other possible uses for spamming single ship task forces in the game that I think explicitly fall in to the realm of gaminess.

If the intent is to have a single vessel along expected threat axis to give advanced warning for a main-body, that's fine.

If it's a bunch of small undefended ships trying to escape an overpowering enemy force, that's not a big deal either.

Where it becomes a problem is when multiple small expendable groups are intentionally thrown in the path of an enemy threat (surface, sub, or air) with the intent of having the enemy attack those small vessels to protect a more valuable asset...or worse.

There was some discussion of this topic in Dan's AAR here, where they tried to address this problem with a House Rule..

tm.asp?m=3798452

So if the intent is to use single ships in a historical function (picket, lone raider, etc), that's one thing.
But if the intent is to take advantage how the game forces attacks to happen and gain an advantage based on how the GAME works (spamming multiple small TFs to cause enemy tf to waste resources), that's something else entirely.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Interesting posts, and actually giving me new ideas for ingenious uses of single ship TFs! [:D]

I've only ever used them in situations where escaping ships (from a port that is about to be overrun for example) disperse so as to limit how many get bombed into smithereens. Is it true though that that would WORSEN vulnerability to subs. My understanding was that, if a TF has the ammo, it can react to more than one enemy TF in a single day, right? So, assuming that lets say 5 enemy single-ship TF pass through the subs reaction zone during one day, I would think that there is a chance (dependent on Ops points or fuel, etc.) a single sub could conceivably get shots for as many single ship TF as it had ammo to shoot?

Or is it one engagement, and the sub is done for the day? If this, then single ship TFs (lets say nine TF each with a single xAKs or xAKLs without any asw capacity) would still be less vulnerable than say a single nine ship TF? The larger TF is easier to spot, will be less manueverable, and the sub might get to shoot at two or three of them in the single phase no?

So far it isn't actually "my opponent" who has said anything about this, it was a buddy (who also plays the game) who is in a PBEM with a second mutual buddy and with whom we've been comparing notes and stuff. I asked about the tactic (e.g., in the context of escaping vessels from a port like Hong Kong immediately after the war starts) and that was his view on it (the buddy, not my opponent Malagant).

Steve when you say:

A gray area is pickets. Single ships were employed by both sides as pickets. A lot of people have problems using AKL's as pickets. Both sides used them , in fact the USN used them as late as 1968 (USS Pueblo and USS Liberty ended that concept). Some people feel that once again you are "sending merchant mariners" on suicide missions. I've always felt that you simple switched them out for USN crews. BUT if this is a contention , put in a house rules. Use MsW' PC's,SC's, and small naval craft

Do you mean that both Japanese and allies used "Freighters" and the like as Picket ships!?! [X(]

A wiki search on "picket ship" redirects to "Radar Picket ship" and doesn't really make reference to any pre-radar or non-radar equipped vessels used in this way. Were there freighter type ships equipped with radar for this purpose? Is that something you can upgrade an AK with in game? Or are you saying that either in game or real life, it is common to use AK without radar-equipment as pickets? If so, wow that is hardcore. Not sure I could give that order either in real life or in game [:'(]

ADDIT: looking up USS Pueblo damn, I had forgotten the details on that!

Pueblo, still held by North Korea today, officially remains a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy.[3] Since early 2013 the ship has been moored along the Botong River in Pyongyang, and used there as a museum ship.[4] Pueblo is the only ship of the U.S. Navy still on the commissioned roster currently being held captive.[5]

So yeah, effectively what is represented in game as an xAK or xAKL, with detection packages added to it. Wow.

In honesty, I've heard the phrase picket ship for years and have used the tactic (and the phrase) many times, in different games, I and was pretty sure I knew what it was in a vague sense. Consulting Wiki, yep, a forward ship (or land based element it seems), positioned ahead of or around a defensive position (be it a TF or island or whatever) that is intended to (a) offer advance detection and intelligence of incoming offensive actions; while simultaneously (b) risking a minimum of loss, and/or (c) diverting, confusing or 'absorbing' some or all of any incoming offensive action. In sum, a weak ship, with ideally some degree of advanced detection ability that you put out ahead of your "good stuff" with the intent that it provides an advance warning of incoming threats, and if it gets lost, meh, better than losing a capital ship or having your island bombed into an inferno.

Sort of the "human shield" of modern naval tactics!! [X(]

I was not aware of that very specific definition of a picket ship, and yes, the way I conceive of 'legitimate' single ship TF in the game exactly corresponds to that quite pragmatic, view. If "not putting some at risk to protect the whole" was a widespread ethic, organized militaries might never have evolved in the first place!

I do seem to recall that adolescent men were widely used as scouts, runners and skirmishers by pre-modern armies, and it would seem to be a quite effective pragmatic use of 'small fry' in a different context.

RADAR pickets are just one type of picket ships. The term comes from the Army , who would place a line of "pickets" , that is to say one or two soldiers head of the front line to warn of an enemy approach. In modern terms Armies today having "listening posts" instead , mainly cause that sounds so much cooler and gives you the idea that the soldiers use some kind of "super-duper" hearing device (the model 1 , mod 0 eardrum). Besides , would you do the job if they called "the tethered goat" duty? Long before RADAR , some Navies would employ expendable boats (like fishing boats) , especially if they were out there any how. "Listen dude , this is wartime see, and if you want to fish , do it where we tell you . And stay there till we tell you. And here's a RADIO , so if you have any problems , call us. And if you see any warships , definitely call us. We'll leave a sailor on board to work the RADIO and "help you". BTW , he has a gun". Obviously the western nations didn't do that , but the Japanese employed a similar program. It fact two of these boats were sunk by Halsey when he approached Japan with the Doolittle raiders.

The USN employed a system and they called themselves "The Hooligan Navy". Volunteer boat owners would perform picket duties , although usually not all that far out. Later the USCG/USN would place ships (sometimes cutters , sometimes converted merchants) on specific locations. Some times they were called "weather ships". Various ships have been used through the years , from PT boats on a scouting line (PT-109 was on such duty when she "found" a Japanese destroyer), sometimes Destroyers were used as "RADAR pickets" (such as off Okinawa) some times converted merchant ships (Pueblo was a AKL , Liberty a Victory ship) and this was an extensive group that morphed into RADAR/Communications/eavesdropping (small letters , you don't think we'd spy on people do you?). Later in the 1950's after the horrendous losses of Destroyers off Okinawa DE's were fitted for the RADAR picket duty (they are cheaper you see?) and submarines were fitted as RADAR pickets including the massive USS Triton.

So pickets , in my humble opinion are a useful , and valid tactic. I may employ a line of YMS's till I get some PC's and SC's (so then they do double duty as ASW pickets too). My friend Andre the Chickenboy particularly likes to send out cruisers to slaughter the poor dears. I mean , they are worth what , a whole point? [:D]

The point is , I find them valid. My opponent finds them valid , or we agree before hand.

As always , unless there is an inherent game flaw , what many people in the forum call "gamey" is better called "matters to be discussed" with your opponent (who presumably is your friend....or your future friend...use good judgement . And good manners. Discuss.


Any other questions? [:D]

[Anthropoid]

All seems very reasonable and savage.

Once more into the breach!

[Disco Duck]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Interesting posts, and actually giving me new ideas for ingenious uses of single ship TFs! [:D]

I've only ever used them in situations where escaping ships (from a port that is about to be overrun for example) disperse so as to limit how many get bombed into smithereens. Is it true though that that would WORSEN vulnerability to subs. My understanding was that, if a TF has the ammo, it can react to more than one enemy TF in a single day, right? So, assuming that lets say 5 enemy single-ship TF pass through the subs reaction zone during one day, I would think that there is a chance (dependent on Ops points or fuel, etc.) a single sub could conceivably get shots for as many single ship TF as it had ammo to shoot?

Or is it one engagement, and the sub is done for the day? If this, then single ship TFs (lets say nine TF each with a single xAKs or xAKLs without any asw capacity) would still be less vulnerable than say a single nine ship TF? The larger TF is easier to spot, will be less manueverable, and the sub might get to shoot at two or three of them in the single phase no?

So far it isn't actually "my opponent" who has said anything about this, it was a buddy (who also plays the game) who is in a PBEM with a second mutual buddy and with whom we've been comparing notes and stuff. I asked about the tactic (e.g., in the context of escaping vessels from a port like Hong Kong immediately after the war starts) and that was his view on it (the buddy, not my opponent Malagant).

Steve when you say:

A gray area is pickets. Single ships were employed by both sides as pickets. A lot of people have problems using AKL's as pickets. Both sides used them , in fact the USN used them as late as 1968 (USS Pueblo and USS Liberty ended that concept). Some people feel that once again you are "sending merchant mariners" on suicide missions. I've always felt that you simple switched them out for USN crews. BUT if this is a contention , put in a house rules. Use MsW' PC's,SC's, and small naval craft

Do you mean that both Japanese and allies used "Freighters" and the like as Picket ships!?! [X(]

A wiki search on "picket ship" redirects to "Radar Picket ship" and doesn't really make reference to any pre-radar or non-radar equipped vessels used in this way. Were there freighter type ships equipped with radar for this purpose? Is that something you can upgrade an AK with in game? Or are you saying that either in game or real life, it is common to use AK without radar-equipment as pickets? If so, wow that is hardcore. Not sure I could give that order either in real life or in game [:'(]

ADDIT: looking up USS Pueblo damn, I had forgotten the details on that!

Pueblo, still held by North Korea today, officially remains a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy.[3] Since early 2013 the ship has been moored along the Botong River in Pyongyang, and used there as a museum ship.[4] Pueblo is the only ship of the U.S. Navy still on the commissioned roster currently being held captive.[5]

So yeah, effectively what is represented in game as an xAK or xAKL, with detection packages added to it. Wow.

In honesty, I've heard the phrase picket ship for years and have used the tactic (and the phrase) many times, in different games, I and was pretty sure I knew what it was in a vague sense. Consulting Wiki, yep, a forward ship (or land based element it seems), positioned ahead of or around a defensive position (be it a TF or island or whatever) that is intended to (a) offer advance detection and intelligence of incoming offensive actions; while simultaneously (b) risking a minimum of loss, and/or (c) diverting, confusing or 'absorbing' some or all of any incoming offensive action. In sum, a weak ship, with ideally some degree of advanced detection ability that you put out ahead of your "good stuff" with the intent that it provides an advance warning of incoming threats, and if it gets lost, meh, better than losing a capital ship or having your island bombed into an inferno.

Sort of the "human shield" of modern naval tactics!! [X(]

I was not aware of that very specific definition of a picket ship, and yes, the way I conceive of 'legitimate' single ship TF in the game exactly corresponds to that quite pragmatic, view. If "not putting some at risk to protect the whole" was a widespread ethic, organized militaries might never have evolved in the first place!

I do seem to recall that adolescent men were widely used as scouts, runners and skirmishers by pre-modern armies, and it would seem to be a quite effective pragmatic use of 'small fry' in a different context.

RADAR pickets are just one type of picket ships. The term comes from the Army , who would place a line of "pickets" , that is to say one or two soldiers head of the front line to warn of an enemy approach. In modern terms Armies today having "listening posts" instead , mainly cause that sounds so much cooler and gives you the idea that the soldiers use some kind of "super-duper" hearing device (the model 1 , mod 0 eardrum). Besides , would you do the job if they called "the tethered goat" duty? Long before RADAR , some Navies would employ expendable boats (like fishing boats) , especially if they were out there any how. "Listen dude , this is wartime see, and if you want to fish , do it where we tell you . And stay there till we tell you. And here's a RADIO , so if you have any problems , call us. And if you see any warships , definitely call us. We'll leave a sailor on board to work the RADIO and "help you". BTW , he has a gun". Obviously the western nations didn't do that , but the Japanese employed a similar program. It fact two of these boats were sunk by Halsey when he approached Japan with the Doolittle raiders.

The USN employed a system and they called themselves "The Hooligan Navy". Volunteer boat owners would perform picket duties , although usually not all that far out. Later the USCG/USN would place ships (sometimes cutters , sometimes converted merchants) on specific locations. Some times they were called "weather ships". Various ships have been used through the years , from PT boats on a scouting line (PT-109 was on such duty when she "found" a Japanese destroyer), sometimes Destroyers were used as "RADAR pickets" (such as off Okinawa) some times converted merchant ships (Pueblo was a AKL , Liberty a Victory ship) and this was an extensive group that morphed into RADAR/Communications/eavesdropping (small letters , you don't think we'd spy on people do you?). Later in the 1950's after the horrendous losses of Destroyers off Okinawa DE's were fitted for the RADAR picket duty (they are cheaper you see?) and submarines were fitted as RADAR pickets including the massive USS Triton.

So pickets , in my humble opinion are a useful , and valid tactic. I may employ a line of YMS's till I get some PC's and SC's (so then they do double duty as ASW pickets too). My friend Andre the Chickenboy particularly likes to send out cruisers to slaughter the poor dears. I mean , they are worth what , a whole point? [:D]

The point is , I find them valid. My opponent finds them valid , or we agree before hand.

As always , unless there is an inherent game flaw , what many people in the forum call "gamey" is better called "matters to be discussed" with your opponent (who presumably is your friend....or your future friend...use good judgement . And good manners. Discuss.


Any other questions? [:D]

The Japanese used fishing Trawlers. That is what interfered with the Dolittle raid.

What I have a problem with is using them as using single ships as recon vessels.


[:-]
Austraria: Yestahday, some staff idiot reave SCTF on station at Bundaberg and whore bunch of fightahs fry out from Brisbane to attack. Turn out Japan-mens shoot a bunch down and ships not-ah get hit. This give Mandrake-san idea. Find vorunteer AKL and send to Bundaberg and terr them rearry important mission. Turn out, captain of Ugigawa Maru not get enough idodine as baby but stirr rearry enthusiastic.

Morning Air attack on Bundaberg , at 96,155

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 33,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 18

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 13
P-40E Warhawk x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb Trop: 2 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Hory crap! It rike step on corony of Red Imported Fire Ants. Mandrake-san not-ah send enough Zeroes.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Bundaberg at 96,155

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 3
PBY-4 Catalina x 2
PBY-5 Catalina x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAKL Ujigawa Maru

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 3/17/2015 11:11:57 AM >

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Malagant

Picket ships are one thing, but as Hal and Steve say, there are other possible uses for spamming single ship task forces in the game that I think explicitly fall in to the realm of gaminess.

If the intent is to have a single vessel along expected threat axis to give advanced warning for a main-body, that's fine.

If it's a bunch of small undefended ships trying to escape an overpowering enemy force, that's not a big deal either.

Where it becomes a problem is when multiple small expendable groups are intentionally thrown in the path of an enemy threat (surface, sub, or air) with the intent of having the enemy attack those small vessels to protect a more valuable asset...or worse.

There was some discussion of this topic in Dan's AAR here, where they tried to address this problem with a House Rule..

tm.asp?m=3798452

So if the intent is to use single ships in a historical function (picket, lone raider, etc), that's one thing.
But if the intent is to take advantage how the game forces attacks to happen and gain an advantage based on how the GAME works (spamming multiple small TFs to cause enemy tf to waste resources), that's something else entirely.

I agree that the bolded example is gamey. The reason I don't like HRs on the matter is because they automatically rule out the other stuff that is not gamey (as you point out). I figure you have to trust your opponent.

[Chickenboy]

A little late to the conversation, but I'll also echo other above that said there's no clear cut answer to this. Yes, convoy scattering is reasonable to avoid attack en masse.

But I've also heard of / seen AARs of games wherein an opponent puts a singleton (usually civilian xAKL or xAK) ship in every single hex in a sea area. There can only be one reason for this nonsense-to soak up action phases and / or carrier sorties.

You may be able to suss the intention of your opponent if he does this. They may demure, play coy or rap philosophical about 'if it's in the game engine it's fair' or some such. If it was unintentional or explainable (or a one-off) occurrence, then I'd personally let it go after explaining your point of view. If a pattern developed, I'd drop 'em like a hot rock.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
My friend Andre the Chickenboy particularly likes to send out cruisers to slaughter the poor dears. I mean , they are worth what , a whole point? [:D]

That's entirely inaccurate. [:@]

I mostly used destroyers to gut the little twerps. [:'(]

I have no problem with using 'military' vessels (YMS, PC, PG, DD, etc.) as pickets in this manner. It's a suicide mission, but that's what they get for being drunk when they signed their enlistment papers.

[Anthropoid]

DAMN! Malagant already found this thread! [:@] My goose is cooked! (unless of course I'm merely spicing the the soup with disinformation [:'(] )

Leaving xAKLs in every sea hex to soak up enemy action!? SHOCKING!

Yeah, that is past the line I'd draw. Moreover, if you ever see signs of anything you are concerned about Malagant don't hesitate to ask. It is my first time PBEMing AE so I'm happy to learn the standard does and dont's and certainly a new gaming friends is worth infinitely more than a win achieved via cheap and gamey tactics. I like to "win" as much as the next guy, but mostly I enjoy strategy games as simulators of complex events.

That said, I am naturally drawn to 'experimentation' and trying unorthodox and unexpected things [:)] (storing up PPs to free up US restricted forces and launching an invasion of the Home Islands in early '43, you know, that sort of thing!) Just in the interest of full disclosure to you Malagant (or anyone else who might consider a PBEM with me in future).

I played EVE Online as a very active participant in a Wormhole alliance for two years and there is no more wretched a hive of scum and villainy than you will find in the EVE community.

But, doing something that exploits a flaw in the game engine is most definitely anathema to me.

Now exploiting a gap in my opponents thinking is another story entirely! [:D]

I see a lot of the apparently "standard" house rules and a lot of times I'm puzzled at why such restrictions are put in place; but understanding some of them is probably much easier once you've been on the receiving end of the imbalances that the house rules are intended to remedy.

[Anthropoid]

whooops double post

[jwolf]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

But I've also heard of / seen AARs of games wherein an opponent puts a singleton (usually civilian xAKL or xAK) ship in every single hex in a sea area. There can only be one reason for this nonsense-to soak up action phases and / or carrier sorties.

Just wondering naively: could you make a case for this in a small or narrow area? With actual combat ships?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

But I've also heard of / seen AARs of games wherein an opponent puts a singleton (usually civilian xAKL or xAK) ship in every single hex in a sea area. There can only be one reason for this nonsense-to soak up action phases and / or carrier sorties.

Just wondering naively: could you make a case for this in a small or narrow area? With actual combat ships?

That's an important distinction and a good one. I think that falls into a 'grey zone', wherein intent must be considered.

In these circumstances, I try to ask myself what a real life commander would try. I haven't served or been in naval combat (I suspect most here haven't either), so I try to value the lives of my pixeltrupen as real life people. Would I send them to their certain death? Maybe, under the most extreme of circumstances-if the need was dire. Would I routinely do this as a matter of course? No.

I've 'thrown' stricken military ships as a sacrificial lamb at attacking naval forces to throw off their movement cycle and pursuit. I think there are historical precedents for that. Filling the sea with superfluous ships just to botch the enemy's aim? Probably not kosher. Doing it with "civilian" ships? Right out. It's a matter of degrees.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

But I've also heard of / seen AARs of games wherein an opponent puts a singleton (usually civilian xAKL or xAK) ship in every single hex in a sea area. There can only be one reason for this nonsense-to soak up action phases and / or carrier sorties.

Just wondering naively: could you make a case for this in a small or narrow area? With actual combat ships?

That's an important distinction and a good one. I think that falls into a 'grey zone', wherein intent must be considered.

In these circumstances, I try to ask myself what a real life commander would try. I haven't served or been in naval combat (I suspect most here haven't either), so I try to value the lives of my pixeltrupen as real life people. Would I send them to their certain death? Maybe, under the most extreme of circumstances-if the need was dire. Would I routinely do this as a matter of course? No.

I've 'thrown' stricken military ships as a sacrificial lamb at attacking naval forces to throw off their movement cycle and pursuit. I think there are historical precedents for that. Filling the sea with superfluous ships just to botch the enemy's aim? Probably not kosher. Doing it with "civilian" ships? Right out. It's a matter of degrees.

Agree with all of this. To jwolf's question, my answer is it sounds wacky. Put the ships in a TF and have them patrol. Circumstances vary, yes - ships too dissimilar, three avenues of approach to defend and only three ships, any number of situations we could dream up. But the way the question is worded - putting a ship in every hex, just doesn't sound like much taste of something realistic unless there is some very special situation.

Now there is also a distinction to be made here that maybe needs to be articulated again. Some situations where 'sacrifices' are thrown to the wolves are realistic (happened IRL AFAIK), but breaking things out to all singles to work the game engine - that is the issue. Sending singles on supply or other small runs can be very realistic, and so can doing so to take advantage of the IRL issues of spotting and successfully targeting single ships. Singles to game the ops points or air targeting routines (I mean over loading them, not the IRL issue of difficulty finding the single ship again) is a different matter.

The air targeting issue is, thankfully, far less an issue. By intent, single ships are harder to spot and harder to target (which means a different group of aircraft finding the same ship again). But the old issue of just one or two or three huge air strikes on tiny targets was programmed out a long time ago. Now many small strikes can be sent against many small targets. Also, air strikes against any TF in a hex can find and target any ships in that hex, regardless of what TF they are in. That also reduces this problem because it automatically reduces the effect of singletons on air strike allocation.

Edit to add: I mean that no longer are ONLY a few large strikes possible even against small targets. A large strike on a small target can still happen, especially if it does not find its intended target but does find the small target instead.

[Jim D Burns]

There used to be an upper limit to the number of air strikes that could be launched by CV’s and splitting up your ships into single ship task forces prevented the enemy from having any chance at hitting most of them because only ships in a targeted task force were attacked. The game code was changed I believe, so now all ships in a given hex are targeted no matter if they are in the same or different task forces. I believe surface combats work like this too, but I’m going off of very old and fuzzy recollections of a conversation about this long ago before or right after AE released.

So if my recollection is right, I would say single ship task forces placed ahead of carriers or invasion task forces in separate hexes to intentionally draw off air strikes is gamey, but splitting up and scattering to try and get away is not.

Jim

[Cap Mandrake]

Hai! Neither is sending an AKL with suppries and escorts to a forward base to drop off fish head soup and maybe tempt enemy airpranes to fry into ambush.

Maybe war crime if captain have congenitarh cretinism but-ah that anothah mattah.