What is a cheesey tactic?(PBEM)

[godochaos]

I recently made a post in opponents wanted in which I said I don't use cheesy tactics. But then I realized I wasn't experienced enough to really know what exactly is cheesy, and its kind of a matter of opinion.
My last opponent taught me to use my PBY's as unbelievable effective low level naval attackers in the early war. Its not entirely unrealistic to use a PBY as a dedicated bomber, but it felt a little bit cheesy.

So post your opinions on what tactics do you consider to be "cheesy"

[jeffk3510]

It would be more of things such as:

Hunting USN CVs from day one. Their position wasn't known at the time, but you know where they are since you can load up the scenario from other side.

That is not to say they didn't want to find them/look for them.. they just didn't know their starting locations that you would on Dec 7th.

tm.asp?m=3514394

[Amoral]

It is a touchy subject, and very open to personal opinion. If you want to avoid being gamey it is best to have open lines of communication with your opponent, and be ready to discuss anything that comes up.

Generally though, if you are using a tactic that works because of a failing of the game engine, rather than a failing on the part of your opponent, that is gamey. One that comes to mind is laying out single ship task forces of tiny, no account, ships in the path of a CVTF, because you know they carriers will launch big strikes to sink them and use up all their sorties.

[obvert]

The fact that PBYs were used this way in the war, just not so early, should make this less 'cheesy.'

It's a tough topic, because everyone's definition of 'cheesy' is different, and some player's 'cheesy' might even be gamey for others. Or not a problem at all (see Bullwinkle). I've even found that conversations that seem clear before a game starts change their tone once it's going on.

What is possible in game is not possible in reality, and I'm not talking about paradropping a few battalions from flotilla of Mavis flying boats (that mitt actually work in reality although it probably wasn't done). I mean things like pace of operations, flying certain planes off of various kinds of ships, blocking 300k troops by closing a hex-side with a regiment. The game has rules of its own. They are not linked or seemingly intended to be perfectly aligned with an accurate reality, but help make the game function.

Corsairs most likely could not have been used on US CVE, and many IJN planes that are routinely used on their CVE wouldn't have worked on those either. While it's fine by most players to stock CVs to 110% though in reality that most likely didn't happen unless ferrying planes, it's not fine (for most) to use anything but Glens off of an IJN I-boat. What's cheesy is fluid and debatable, and not entirely logical. I think it's unlikely that combined USAAF and RAF 4E and 2E bombers could have been used in strikes of 150-200 planes in 42 from Indian airfields, and yet it happened in my game, not only during the day, but at night in 0-10% moonlight. Possible? Unlikely. Does it work. Yep.

As hard as it is to admit after arguing for a long time that two players could come to terms on HRs and play with an understanding of the kind of game they wanted for several years, I now have come to appreciate the Bullwinkle doctrine; anything goes. There are too many places you can misinterpret, too many things that we simply don't understand the workings of until we play through them, especially the late game, and too many competitive moments where the chance elements of the game combined with potentially 'cheesy' tactics can make for bad feelings and compromised relations with opponents.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: godochaos

So post your opinions on what tactics do you consider to be "cheesy"

Is cheesy the same as gamey? [:)]

[Spidery]

Also consider that the game is an abstraction. There are some real life things that are missing and maybe some "cheesy" tactic effectively replaces it in the abstraction.

For example, there is no bombing of transport structure to interdict the movement of supplies. However, you can bomb airfields instead to use up supply. This stops the building of forts to instead repair airfields but then there is no simulation of the need to repair a bridge or jetty that is being used to get the concrete to where the forts are being built. The bombing of an airfield that is not going to be used to base aircraft seems cheesy but is a fair approximation for some of this.

The things I consider "cheesy" are using things outside the game to influence it. For example, taking a major chancy operation knowing that if it fails you will resign.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

I now have come to appreciate the Bullwinkle doctrine; anything goes.

Another one bites the dust! [:)]

I have to offer a corollary though. I also advocate self-censorship. The game allows things I won't do. I don't always announce these, but I know what they are. I got into trouble with Canoerebel there in his last days by saying, in my own AAR, that I thought single-ship merchant TFs as pickets were not on. I might even have used "cheesy; I don't recall. I don't do it, but the code allows it.

I have told both of my PBEM opponents that one thing the code allows, but I will never do, and I will say up-front I will never do, is to spin a TF in any of the off-map wormholes. This can break the game. The ability to do it is, IMO, a case of a lack of an error trap in the code. I have said both times that if I take a TF off-map it is guaranteed it will not return in less time than a round-trip to some off-map base is accomplished.

Other than that, anything an opponent does that the code allows is fine with me. In return, I may do it back at them (even single-ship ammo sponges if they start it.) Or I may do something else. But I don't expect anyone to self-censor in the ways or in the areas I do. And I don't list my self-censor areas either. Look at it as psyops.

[godochaos]

I just read the "Am I a Crybaby" thread and I think its a good debate, or at least good to get it out in the open.
Yes cheesy and gamey are the same

I think the best thing to do is just communicate a lot, I try to avoid exploiting the game system, like intentionally throwing out 1 ship taskforces to soak strikes. But sometimes I'm a little unclear on if I'm really being a jerk, or just really being aggressive.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

I now have come to appreciate the Bullwinkle doctrine; anything goes.

Another one bites the dust! [:)]

Yesss!! I really do think that the game is just fine when played without extra limitations that weren't coded in. Even not paying full PPs to cross borders.

Now if I could just convince you to play Japan again so I could get a second game going from the other side [;)].


As for cheesy... in my book, not much classifies. The 1-ship TF to exploit strike routines and escorts vs. CAP is beardy for sure, but like pretty much everything it's not as if both sides can't do it.

[Feltan]

Keep in mind that the carriers of the Doolittle raid launched their aircraft earlier than planned due to the "gamey" tactic the Japanese used of patrolling with single ship TF's out past the normal range of search aircraft.
 
Regards,
Feltan 

[rsallen64]

It's interesting reading this and the "crybaby" thread, as well as others like it, because they outline "tactics" to me that I would never have thought of, and I'll tell you why: I know it's a game, and an abstraction in some respects of real life, given the limitations of the game engine, coding, etc. However, it's not just a game to me, it's a simulation, the best on the market of what the high level decision makers had to face in WWII in the Pacific to win the war. By that, I mean you don't just have to look at strategy and tactics, you have to look at logistics as well. Oh boy, do you have to look at logistics.! To me, I want to know what those decision makers faced, and to see if I could even do as well as they did, let alone better.

Gamey or cheesy to me is therefore a matter of "would Nimitz or Yamamoto, or any real life commander, have done this?" It might WORK to use single ship TFs as an "ammo sponge," but who in real life would ever risk sacrificing their ships and men that way? Other things may work as well, but would a real life commander use it? That's why it never occurs to me. I want to win by superior skill, tactics, and cunning (if I can), not by exploiting holes in the code, or limits in the game engine that I learned from other players.

That may not be how other people feel, and it may be naive, but it's not just about winning: it's about knowing I beat my opponent, not the game engine, or bad code, or whatever...

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Keep in mind that the carriers of the Doolittle raid launched their aircraft earlier than planned due to the "gamey" tactic the Japanese used of patrolling with single ship TF's out past the normal range of search aircraft.

Regards,
Feltan 

If there were an actual picket-type TF in the game, I'd use it, because this. Really, that's what those single-ship TFs are, but the way the game engine works they end up being so-called ammo sponges and/or CAP traps.

[Encircled]

Only one that appears to be semi-approved by the developers is the PP cost for crossing borders.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Only one that appears to be semi-approved by the developers is the PP cost for crossing borders.

And only one developer spoke up about that only one.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

I now have come to appreciate the Bullwinkle doctrine; anything goes.

Another one bites the dust! [:)]

I have to offer a corollary though. I also advocate self-censorship. The game allows things I won't do. I don't always announce these, but I know what they are. I got into trouble with Canoerebel there in his last days by saying, in my own AAR, that I thought single-ship merchant TFs as pickets were not on. I might even have used "cheesy; I don't recall. I don't do it, but the code allows it.

This is exactly the place I've come to as well. I know what I won't do, but I won't take it off of the table either.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

It's interesting reading this and the "crybaby" thread, as well as others like it, because they outline "tactics" to me that I would never have thought of, and I'll tell you why: I know it's a game, and an abstraction in some respects of real life, given the limitations of the game engine, coding, etc. However, it's not just a game to me, it's a simulation, the best on the market of what the high level decision makers had to face in WWII in the Pacific to win the war. By that, I mean you don't just have to look at strategy and tactics, you have to look at logistics as well. Oh boy, do you have to look at logistics.! To me, I want to know what those decision makers faced, and to see if I could even do as well as they did, let alone better.

Gamey or cheesy to me is therefore a matter of "would Nimitz or Yamamoto, or any real life commander, have done this?" It might WORK to use single ship TFs as an "ammo sponge," but who in real life would ever risk sacrificing their ships and men that way? Other things may work as well, but would a real life commander use it? That's why it never occurs to me. I want to win by superior skill, tactics, and cunning (if I can), not by exploiting holes in the code, or limits in the game engine that I learned from other players.

That may not be how other people feel, and it may be naive, but it's not just about winning: it's about knowing I beat my opponent, not the game engine, or bad code, or whatever...

I stil want to think this way slightly, although not as far as it sounds like you're going, but the game simply doesn't allow this kind of thinking if you're really noticing the kinds of things happening normally every day. I'm not even talking about single ship TF pickets, but hex side control and supply movement and production. Naval strike targeting, ship routing, frequency of ops for air forces, movement through jungle off-road for ground forces in the middle of monsoon season. There are so many things that are completely out of reality that if you really wanted this to be a simulation you'd be frustrated at every turn if you were paying attention completely.

I'm not saying at all people don't play with this stuff in mind and try to fit the game into that framework, but really, it's an abstraction and has to be to function correctly, It still allows those larger strategic ideas and challenges, those logistical difficulties, but you will always have to learn the game and it's subtleties to be successful, and those little details have nothing to do with reality sometimes.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Only one that appears to be semi-approved by the developers is the PP cost for crossing borders.

And only one developer spoke up about that only one.

This is the one that does make the most sense to implement. One developer did also mention that the PP system was not finished at release, but that it was intended to function 'as pay for border crossings.' In his book paying less (buying a division through an air HQ) was a possible solution to the difficulties caused by the rigid PP system.

You still can't really do what either side did in the war when they needed to do it, which was to release troops quickly from what are restricted HQs in game to reinforce an area as needed.

[rsallen64]

I guess you're right, Obvert, regarding sticking exclusively to "real world" choices, but I would like to adhere as close to what would be done, as opposed to exploiting the engine. I have yet to play a PBEM game, because I do not feel comfortable enough with my overall knowledge of the game, so that my opinion may change once I face a real live opponent.

One thing I would like to see the engine do is give the player the ability to pick the targets for Naval strikes. During the war, commanders often had to rely on the bits of intelligence they had before ordering strikes, whether incomplete or not. Especially in the carrier battles. Having Naval strikes handled by the computer has always bothered me.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Only one that appears to be semi-approved by the developers is the PP cost for crossing borders.

And only one developer spoke up about that only one.

This is the one that does make the most sense to implement. One developer did also mention that the PP system was not finished at release, but that it was intended to function 'as pay for border crossings.' In his book paying less (buying a division through an air HQ) was a possible solution to the difficulties caused by the rigid PP system.

You still can't really do what either side did in the war when they needed to do it, which was to release troops quickly from what are restricted HQs in game to reinforce an area as needed.

My issue with it, which was brought up in a different thread recently, is that the PP system is so funky that it's far preferable to me to just play within the game engine. The biggest difference that no PPs to cross borders makes is in China, but IMO that swings both ways. No PPs for Manchurian units walking into China; No PPs for Indian units walking into Burma, which is desperately needed if you want to defend Burma early. Or if you want to walk Chinese into Burma. Until both of Bullwinkle's games play out, I'm not sure which is better. I'm thinking that what he was able to do in his game against 1EyedJacks is better than just dying in China, as it's better to have the Chinese somewhere than nowhere... So yeah, it swings both ways.

I don't know of any other PP rules. I suppose with PDU Off, PPs don't matter quite as much as you don't need to spend 75 per IJAAF unit to upgrade to 2Es from crappy, crappy Sonias.


But what I really want to know is....when will you play Japan again?!

[alanschu]

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

I guess you're right, Obvert, regarding sticking exclusively to "real world" choices, but I would like to adhere as close to what would be done, as opposed to exploiting the engine. I have yet to play a PBEM game, because I do not feel comfortable enough with my overall knowledge of the game, so that my opinion may change once I face a real live opponent.

One thing I would like to see the engine do is give the player the ability to pick the targets for Naval strikes. During the war, commanders often had to rely on the bits of intelligence they had before ordering strikes, whether incomplete or not. Especially in the carrier battles. Having Naval strikes handled by the computer has always bothered me.

I'm in a similar boat. For instance, the tiny picket task forces strike me as an exploitation of the combat resolution, because it operates under the assumption that the opposing admiral will use ordinance on targets that may not actually be worth the air ops.

I've never played a PBEM though, so I'm sure all sorts of things would show up that make me go "argh" in response to a savvy opponent.