Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug?

[incbob]

Hi.

I am playing a PBEM and have found a "legal cheat."

I sent a single unescorted ML to lay some mines around Siapan and Guam in scenario #6. I thought I had enough time to get him in and out before the Americans came. However, this single ML was attacked by nearly half of the Carrier planes available to the Americans, thus unintentionally saving my airfields from attacks.

Since most player will rightly leave their CV planes on Naval attack this leads to a possible cheat by sending lone "cheap" ships out to be hit.

Can the AI be made to judge on "how much force" to send? If not this could be exploited.

[Nikademus]

there's really no way to counter the single unit TF "tactic" other than to prohibit it via house rule, whether its being used as a decoy tactic or as a means to difuse airpower effects if your trying to escape mass merchants

[general billy]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/10/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Saipan at 63,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 8

Allied aircraft
FM-2 Wildcat x 38
F6F Hellcat x 192
F4U-1 Corsair x 8
SBD Dauntless x 19
SB2C Helldiver x 120
TBF Avenger x 32
TBM Avenger x 111

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 14 destroyed


Japanese Ships
ML Tsubame, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
3 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
2 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
2 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
2 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
1 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
2 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
2 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
2 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
1 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
1 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
1 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hopefully all those guys didnt use all their bombs, because they wont have any for more important targets [:@]
They just went for the show, huh??

[kaleun]

there's really no way to counter the single unit TF "tactic" other than to prohibit it via house rule, whether its being used as a decoy tactic or as a means to difuse airpower effects if your trying to escape mass merchants

_____________________________

I would have an objection to this. In a game, where you are trying to escape massed merchants from a threatened base, say Manila, it would be foolhardy to create a huge, essentially unescorted, merchant task force, to be savaged by air strikes, sea intercept (yes they will fix that) and subs.
In real life, and what any sane ship's captain would do, would be to escape in single ship TFs, hoping to distract and diffuse the opposition.
Yes the whole enemy airforce may be directed to a single ML, but this needs to be addressed as a code issue, the AI (game or PBEM) needs to prioritize its attacks somehow, but to force large unescorted merchant TFs is IMHO ridiculous.

Also, the idea of trying to mine a hex, "sneaking" in a minelayer, is IMHO not gamey, but something that the underdog may very well try.

[general billy]

I thought this would have been solved, i knew it was the same for UV,
I mean why have so many planes, why didnt the required amount be used to do the job, [8|] and let the others do somthing else.

[neuromancer]

But how do you tell a 'decoy' or 'cheat' from doing something legitimate (not to say decoys aren't legit)?

The single ML running off to drop some mines before the enemy arrives seems legit. I've sent single transports (in UV) to deliver small units or supplies in 'secure' areas (and occassionally found out they weren't). Then of course there are the lone cripples limping home after an attack. And it was a legitimate tactic in the real world (although one of questionable success) to break up transport convoys into groups of only one or two freighters (dispersing the convoy) and hoping that some slip through.

Now the reason why this wasn't so successful was because planes, ships, and subs could still find many of these units out of these dispersed convoys and shoot the snot out of them.

Although if unescorted, it was probably better to disperse them over keeping them all in one spot.

But in UV and WitP (apparently) the computer will sometimes hideously over-react to a single ship being spotted.

Aboard the USS Hornet.
"Sir! Recon planes report spotting a single transport 120 miles to the north-east!"
"My God! A single transport? Signal Enterprise and Yorktown! Scramble everything and destroy that ship!"

3 squadrons of fighters, 6 squadrons of dive bombers, and 3 squadrons of torpedo bombers zip off and blast the living crap out of a lone AK.


The game tree really should have a little proportionality programming. If the recon only reports one transport, then perhaps they shouldn't throw everything and the kitchen sink at it. If nothing else it tires crews and wates ammo. One bomber squadron and some escorting fighters should probably be adequate. If the attack reveals more units in the area, then more attack waves can be launched, or a larger force sent in the next phase.

A single large combat vessel sighting (CA, BB, CV), sure, it probably has escorts and should be sunk. After all, that is more or less what the Japanese did to Yorktown at Midway.

But a single DD or transport? You want to sink it sure, but don't need to over kill it.


The bigger sin though is when the recon spots several of these small forces, and instead of reasonably dividing things up among them, just pastes one of them with everything. Or ignores a larger more important target (a large transport group, surface combat group, or carrier group) in favour of hitting the one lone ship off by itself.

"By the way sir. We've also spotted a major Japanese carrier force, and a group of troop transports. It looks like the lone ship was split off due to engone trouble."
"I don't care about that other stuff! I want that transport DEAD!"


I'm not sure if it can be fixed now, but I'm very surprised - and not a little disappointed - that they didn't correct it while re-designing the 'AI' for WitP.
[:-]

[kaleun]

Usually it will ignore the enemy CV force bearing down on you, and blow the bejeesus out of the two oilers, farther away. Hmmm, Wasn't that what happened at Coral Sea?[;)]

[Nikademus]

wasn't suggesting the player form only huge TF's. The point i was making is that the game can only handle search and (air) attack in a set way therefore there will always be ways to "game" the system in an attempt to confuse it. To me, there is little difference between forming 20 x 1 DD TF's and putting them out in front of your CV or BB TF in the hopes of drawing off some/all air attacks and forming say, 50 x 1 merchant TF's in order to evacuate a port.

But in the end it all comes down to player preferences. If your opponent has no problem with such moves then more power to you. Myself....i wouldn't. I'd still break up my merchants into smaller TF's, i just wouldn't go to that extreme knowing what i know about the air attack phases and that only so many search/attacks are going to be instituted in each major phase (AM/PM)

I"m looking for a historical experience. You could argue (as you are) that its possible for each merchant captain to do a "every man for himself" plan therefore that "justifies" the tactic. But in the end your pitting a potential real life strategy against a more limited system for search and attack. Therefore it could also qualify as an exploit.

Exploits defeat the purpose of wargaming IMO. But again, thats just my view. In the end its the players who decide these things before starting a long PBEM. Given the length of this game, its even MORE important to set up and discuss such boundries before beginning

[kaleun]

Exploits defeat the purpose of wargaming IMO. But again, thats just my view. In the end its the players who decide these things before starting a long PBEM. Given the length of this game, its even MORE important to set up and discuss such boundries before beginning

Agree. So how wouldl you address this? Set a lower limit for fleeing AKs? as in at least 2 AKs per TF or something of the sort? What other "house rules" have you considered?

As far as the single ML, or single AK trying to sneak in supply or mines, I'm not sure that can/should be avoided.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

But how do you tell a 'decoy' or 'cheat' from doing something legitimate?

Thats the tricky part [;)]

A single minelayer or transport trying to run a blockade for example, i would not call an exploit. However if i have 20 merchants, all trying to get to the same base, and instead of convoying in one format or another i instead form 20 x 1 AP TF's and set them to the same destination at the same time in the hopes of creating a mass "under the radar effect" then that could count as an exploit.

One thing for sure...people will indeed have different definitions. Thats why PBEM is so tricky to begin with. How many times have we heard players advertising where they mention past negative experiences?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Agree. So how wouldl you address this? Set a lower limit for fleeing AKs? as in at least 2 AKs per TF or something of the sort? What other "house rules" have you considered?

As far as the single ML, or single AK trying to sneak in supply or mines, I'm not sure that can/should be avoided.

the best way is by finding someone as like minded to your own pref. as possible. that way u dont have to create a swath of house rules to police. baring that, its a learn by doing thing and often it will be a judgement call.

myself? on general principle i'd prob not break down manila to more than a half dozen TF's id pay more attn to the weather and try to sortie during inclement periods.

mines - like PT's i think these weapons & their employment are going to generate some intense discussions in the near future [X(]

[incbob]

1) I do feel that this was not "gamey" that is just my opinion though.

2) I think we could see the difference between cheating and not. I think this is something that no singe "house rule" could encompass because it is a situation by situation call.

3) Even though I think the number of planes sent was ridiculous I could see it. I happened many times during WWII where a ship was miss identified. Maybe the pilot radioed back that it was a BB? Yes, that is crazy, but then again the japanese bombed an oiler and destoryer thinking they were a CV TF.

4) It would be nice however if there was a way to make the AI a little smarter than this.

[kaleun]

I have not been looking at weather, (too many details to think about in the game, gets overwhelming)
Mines, I have observed the high efficiency of the enemy (i.e. Japanese) minesweepers in disposing of my minefields. Even the PG locate the mines without even breaking a sweat!
One transport did hit a mine at Kusching, but I don't think anything happened to it.
Warspite you there? Did anything happen to that transport?[&:]

[Nikademus]

the code has been tweaked to reduce the degree of 'overkill' against small TF's. that emphasises my point. the developers can only do so much. in a game where players have such a large degree of control, control far more absolute and detailed than their historical counterparts, the players have to exercise restraint & set their own boundries as well.

[myros]

LOL I must not be devious enough, I never even thought of sending out 20 single TFs.

I agree it would be a pretty questionable tactic in PBEM. In the real world the attacking planes would pound them all wether it was 1 or 20 TFs ... not "Sorry lads 1 TF per attack, thats the rule ..we cant touch those others" ..uh hu So using a limitation of the game engine to 'exploit' the situation is essentialy cheating in a 2 player game IMO.

Myros

[moses]

During my one big carrier battle so far at one point my carrier group(I'm playing as japan) found itself in the middle of four different task forces. Each one was 2 to 4 hexes away in different dirrections. My carriers launched attacks against all 4 TF's and split the strikes up quite reasonably. I was very pleased.

[Arnir]

When deciding if something is gamey or not, I like to use what I call the Churchill rule:

Would Churchill have done this in real life? If so, it is not gamey.

Of course, Churchill, if playing games instead of fighting the war, would have been considered the king of gamey. What do you mean you are sending a destroyer and some commandos to blow up a harbour? That's gamey! [:D]

[general billy]

ORIGINAL: moses

During my one big carrier battle so far at one point my carrier group(I'm playing as japan) found itself in the middle of four different task forces. Each one was 2 to 4 hexes away in different dirrections. My carriers launched attacks against all 4 TF's and split the strikes up quite reasonably. I was very pleased.

That wounldn't have been nice if one of those task forces was a CV taskforce, it would be 'ouch'

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

the code has been tweaked to reduce the degree of 'overkill' against small TF's. that emphasises my point. the developers can only do so much. in a game where players have such a large degree of control, control far more absolute and detailed than their historical counterparts, the players have to exercise restraint & set their own boundries as well.

I totally agree with this point. I don't think its unsportsmanlike at all to work out any nuances before starting a game. The ant trails of transports are one example, there are others. The things these eyes have seen in UV

If someone did this in a game in was playing , I would just not play PBEM with them anymore. Just find a new partner and start over, there's tons of great fans here to game with.

[maddog0606]

ORIGINAL: incbob
I sent a single unescorted ML to lay some mines around Siapan and Guam in scenario #6. I thought I had enough time to get him in and out before the Americans came. However, this single ML was attacked by nearly half of the Carrier planes available to the Americans, thus unintentionally saving my airfields from attacks.

I truly do not think this is a cheat. Read some of the books concerning Navy battles in the Pacific that happened in WW2. There are descriptions in there where untrained recon pilots (and bomber pilots) would report oilers has carriers and destroyers has cruisers and crusiers has battleships. And since Carrier TFs would err on the side of caution stikes would go out. But enough CAP would aways be left behind.

It is very hard to ID ships from 10000 feet up. Particularly for an untrained pilot. Of course has the war progressed and recon pilots were trained better bad reports did not happen has much.