single ship TFs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


geofflambert -> single ship TFs (12/2/2012 8:36:46 PM)

What's the prevailing opinion on single ship TFs? I know some players object to it, but for what reason? Does the game not deal with them realistically? Is it because you think they didn't exist historically? I know of ways to abuse that ability, but sending AKLs on resupply missions, especially when there haven't been any enemy subs in the area, seems perfectly legit to me. I also don't think there's any safety in numbers, either gamewise or historically, unless one or more of those numbers have ASW ability. Needless to say, there aren't enough escorts early in the war anyway. My opponent objects to single (AKLs in this case) because his anti ship squadrons will not launch against them. That would seem to me to be a problem with the game, if so, and justification to prohibit them where possible anywhere within range of enemy planes. Small cargo ships carrying only supplies or fuel, it seems to me, ought to be able to operate that way. ASW patrols and minesweepers definitely should be able to, I think. Of course everyone does that with subs. DDs just transferring from one port to another should also be able to do that.

Anyways, I'd appreciate hearing all sides of that argument.

edit: I suppose it should be noted that search planes will attack single ships.




ny59giants -> RE: single ship TFs (12/2/2012 9:46:17 PM)

I have a HR regardless of what side I play that allows the Allies to form them in Dec '41, but not afterwards. Japan can use them all game long. Some of the reasoning behind not allowing 1 ship TF is the AI will not send out your Nell/Betty to attack a single ship.




jetjockey -> RE: single ship TFs (12/2/2012 9:47:20 PM)

I won't presume to speak for others, but I would only object to single ship TFs when they are used to form a "suicide-screen" in front of a battle-group. I see no problem with single ship TFs otherwise.




geofflambert -> RE: single ship TFs (12/2/2012 11:49:47 PM)

I just watched my partner's Bettys attack one of my 1 ship TFs (without result), he was complaining that his Vals wouldn't launch. The same Vals on the same turn failed to launch against a 4 ship TF while the Bettys attacked both. Could there be programmed in different rules of engagement for carrier capable or trained squadrons? I once tried against the AI strewing about a bunch of AKL's to distract the land based bombers, but they just ignored them and went straight for the carriers.

Also, it is probably useful if posters mention which side they tend to play, to see if this is just a Japanese problem. I have never played the Japanese, I don't think I'm ready for that yet. Anyways I can't think of a valid reason why I wouldn't like the Japanese to send out 1 ship TFs.

Also, it took a year for the US to stop sending out 1 ship TFs on the east coast while they were being hammered by the U-Boats. How about the Indianapolis? Dumb, but they did it.




jetjockey -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 12:42:06 AM)

Though I've never play-tested this issue, I can say I have seen a variety of results from both sides. I've seen single ships slip past unmolested, and others receive appropriate attention; gone are the days when a couple of AKs absorb my entire stock of torpedoes (hopefully).

I can say that finding a ship on the ocean isn't as easy as it might seem. Prior to radar, all a pilot had to rely on was his MK 1, Mod 1 eyeball. Any cloud cover, fog, or haze could hide a ship long enough for the plane to pass. It would seem that the game generates sorties based on DL, modified by the number of search planes and the weather.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 2:32:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jetjockey

I won't presume to speak for others, but I would only object to single ship TFs when they are used to form a "suicide-screen" in front of a battle-group. I see no problem with single ship TFs otherwise.


In my PBEM game either side can use their assets as they see fit with no restrictions. I choose not to run, as you say, "suicide screens" although I could by the parameters of our game. I do, however, make extensive use of 1-ship TFs. Why? Because in a myriad of circumstances that is the correct risk-reward force allocation for the job at hand. They're my ships. I run them as I see fit, and so does my opponent.

As for this widespread fiction that Japanese air forces won't or can't attack 1-ship TFs--that is utter baloney. They can and do and in our game have done so at least a score of times already in five weeks of war. The key is d/l. My opponent, 1EyedJacks, is a master at air search. He finds them, and his planes attack them. Not every time, and sometimes they miss. But enough that my risk-reward calculations are always in force. I do not under any circumstances think a 1-ship TF has some sort of get out of jail free card.




PizzaMan -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 3:22:56 AM)

A common anti-Kamikaze tactic was to deploy picket destroyers 60 miles (1 to 2 hexes) away from the carrier task forces in order to spot and absorb Kamikaze air raids.




geofflambert -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 3:42:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jetjockey

Though I've never play-tested this issue, I can say I have seen a variety of results from both sides. I've seen single ships slip past unmolested, and others receive appropriate attention; gone are the days when a couple of AKs absorb my entire stock of torpedoes (hopefully).

I can say that finding a ship on the ocean isn't as easy as it might seem. Prior to radar, all a pilot had to rely on was his MK 1, Mod 1 eyeball. Any cloud cover, fog, or haze could hide a ship long enough for the plane to pass. It would seem that the game generates sorties based on DL, modified by the number of search planes and the weather.


This is all good, but it still seems odd that the Betties reacted and the Vals didn't. If anyone has an explanation for that I'm sure that many players besides myself would be interested.




Alfred -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 4:25:11 AM)

No data provided to give a definitive answer as to why the Vals did not launch. The subject of not launching has been often discussed.

You should totally disregard your opponent and deploy 1 ship TFs as you see fit. Yes it is possible to use 1 ship TFs in a "gamey" manner but your indicated use of them would not be gamey.

Yes, it IS harder to find and launch against a single ship TF. But then it is also harder to find and launch against a 2 ship TF compared to a 25 ship TF. It is also harder to find and launch against a 3 ship TF than it is compared to a 25 ship TF. The more ships in a TF, the easier it is to spot the TF. The higher the Detection Level of a TF, the more likely that a strike package will find the TF.

Anyone who tells their PBEM opponent that single ship TFs are not targetted by aircraft is one of the following:


  • incompetent in their force disposition/operational handling, or
  • ignorant of how the game plays, or
  • is trying to trick their opponent into making the game easier for themself


Alfred




Insano -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 4:27:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is all good, but it still seems odd that the Betties reacted and the Vals didn't. If anyone has an explanation for that I'm sure that many players besides myself would be interested.


I would say one of the search planes sighting the ship in question was a Betty from the very same formation who attacked. Aircraft are more likely to attack if the sighting comes in from a plane in their own group. This simulates communication "friction" or "inertia" whatever you want to call it. This effect is exaggerated when the detection level is low to midling as it would be on a single ship task force.




geofflambert -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 5:14:23 AM)

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.




Quixote -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 6:31:01 AM)

Geoff, there seems to be some consensus that using single ship TFs the way that you are isn't gamey. I'll agree with most of the posters here (excepting the need to insult anyone) that you're OK playing the way that you are. From a mostly Japanese perspective, there are plenty of counters to early Allied use of single ship TFs, whether your air groups choose to launch or not. Ten single-ship TFs in the same hex might be pushing it, but one or two - no worries.




bradfordkay -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 6:49:28 AM)

One time where single ship TFs is "gamey" is where several of those are placed in a forward base to soak up any incoming bombardment missions. The enemy SCTFs will encounter TF after TF of single ships and use up all their ammunition or operations points and so the bombardment mission is scrubbed. At least, this is how it worked in WITP.

Personally, I am not fond of using single ship TFs as a substitute for aerial Naval Search missions, unless they are submarines. This is where a player will send out a screen of single ship TFs in front of his combat TFs in hopes that they will discover any enemy TFs.




Oberst_Klink -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 8:30:19 AM)

Gents,

there's an easy solution to the single TF debate; a 'sandbox scenario' to test various aspects of the game, mechanics that seem to 'pop up' on a regular base. There are however other factors that need to be addressed. The G4M squadron size, the pilots, the squadron leader (average experience), the weather, detection value, size of the ship,the experience of the captain, etc. etc. I don't see why one shouldn't use single TF transport missions; they're risky, even in non-sub infested waters. But then... I just only started playing the game for 2 weeks. Just my 2p.

Klink, Oberst




geofflambert -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 12:10:35 PM)

Thanks. Did you really say 2 pence, or is it pfennigs? How does that convert into euros? [:D]

I'm going to play it the way my opponent wishes, it's a small matter anyway. In the case of ASW or minesweepers patrolling my ports, I will continue to use singles if that's all that is available.




Oberst_Klink -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 1:04:05 PM)

Well Geoffrey ole'boy,

German I am, but lived in the UK as well. Now dwelling at the most eastern outpost of the EU, with plenty of Brits there.

What year, date, area of a 'sandbox scenario' would you suggest? I am thinking in updating the superb WitP tutorial to WitP AE; I found it quite useful.

Klink, Oberst




witpqs -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 1:35:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.




Crackaces -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 1:51:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan

A common anti-Kamikaze tactic was to deploy picket destroyers 60 miles (1 to 2 hexes) away from the carrier task forces in order to spot and absorb Kamikaze air raids.



Because of an interesting game mechanic this debate has another facet I beleive.
Putting 1-ship TF's will not detect raids as might expect. Detection and reaction happen at the target hex not the path in-between. See LoBaron's CV thread.
However, the absorbing part can happen, and it is possible for Kami's to target the 1 ship DD TF's and miss. Now I can rationalize that if flak was not borked [before Andy Mac's changes] and the air module worked a little more as I would expect .. those planes would have been shot down rather than crash into the ocean. [;)]

My point being that the entire result is more line with equality using these tactics even though some immediate results might be borked ..




Crackaces -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 1:52:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.



My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?




Crackaces -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 2:12:33 PM)

quote:

One time where single ship TFs is "gamey" is where several of those are placed in a forward base to soak up any incoming bombardment missions. The enemy SCTFs will encounter TF after TF of single ships and use up all their ammunition or operations points and so the bombardment mission is scrubbed. At least, this is how it worked in WITP.


I can understand that point in that the game mechnics has BB's firing big shells at xAKL's & YMS's wheb the mission is to bombardard the port. A button to shut off using main ammo on non-capitol ships would solve this "gamey" loophole.

On the other hand, simply leading the bombardment force with a Surface combat force makes this tatic expensive without acheiving the intended results. In fact you can get into who is out "gaming" the other. I sent a DMS minesweeping force react 4, followed by CA lead Surface Action groups patrolling followed by the bombardment force into Truk. Needless to say the DMS's found the 1 ship TF's that scattered/was surprised and sunk while the bombarment mission did its thing ...sometimes I think it is simply finding the right tatic to counter a tatic.

I personaly define "gamey" for a computer game as an exploitation of an algorithum where as one side has no retort. The fact that a tatic does not conform to real life decision making might not qualify as gamey as this is a game -- not a similation.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 2:12:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.



My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?


There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.




witpqs -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 2:22:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.



My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?

In WITP, IIRC single-ship TFs could be used to game the system in the opposite way. Carrier strikes (in particular, but LBA strikes too) did vary in size but not by enough and small or single-ship TFs got way more aircraft than was practical. IRL a mistake like that might happen what with confused sightings and all, but it was pretty near all the time. A change was made (still back in WITP) to basically assign smaller strike packages to smaller targets, and it seems to have worked very well.

In AE that is still the case. It's also true that single-ship TFs, especially smaller ships, are more difficult to pick up on search, (and I presume) more difficult to get a hard fix on for targeting, and more difficult for a strike to find once it's in the air. They DO get targeted and they DO get hit, but they also can get through. BTW I am not suggesting that, say, 10 x single-ship TFs in the same hex are as hard to spot and hit. I have no experience with that but my guess is that they would be much more prone to being found, targeted, and hit. I base that on the fact that ships in different TFs but in the same hex are often targeted together in the same air attack in AE.

For my own part, I use single-ship TFs sparingly in what I figure are realistic situations. "Realistic" obviously is going to vary with the situation, with more desperation increasing the realism. For example when trying to sneak some supplies into beleaguered troops, or even slip some troops out. Areas where there seems to be no threat - obviously. Scattering a convoy that can no longer be protected. I'm sure people can add to the list.

Some people use them as pickets (I do not mean attack magnets as mentioned above). That is historical and therefore certainly realistic. People do argue about the parameters of that realism (which ships, military vs civilian, what exact circumstances, etc.). I don't have those answers, but it's really up to the opponents anyway as part of the game is exploring decisions that might have been made IRL.




witpqs -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 2:23:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.



My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?


There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

+10!




mike scholl 1 -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 2:25:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is all good, but it still seems odd that the Betties reacted and the Vals didn't. If anyone has an explanation for that I'm sure that many players besides myself would be interested.



Consider different weather conditions in the base hexes, different agressiveness ratings for the CO's..., there are many reasons why forces react or don't to threats/opportunities.




crsutton -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 2:53:14 PM)

No restriction although I would say that picket forces should be warships and not cargo vessels. Otherwise I am fine. Single ship Tfs make sense for the Japanese player late in the war. Even if air attack is unlikely they are prone to attack by Allied subs. So, I am OK with it.




Chickenboy -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 4:16:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.



My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?


There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

+10!


Just because there are extant HRs regarding one-ship TFs in the game doesn't mean they're myth based, nor does it imply that those that use HRs such as this are ignorant, stupid, liars or whatever else has been suggested. This discussion (use of one-ship TFs) revolves around realistic use, not the mechanics of whether naval torpedo bombers / DBs, etc. will attack them equally.

Definitions of "realistic use" or "gamey use" will vary between players. HRs are designed to head off miscommunications regarding these expectations. Nothing wrong with that in a game to avoid some extant problems with exploitation of this game mechanic by some.




Chickenboy -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 4:18:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

No restriction although I would say that picket forces should be warships and not cargo vessels. Otherwise I am fine. Single ship Tfs make sense for the Japanese player late in the war. Even if air attack is unlikely they are prone to attack by Allied subs. So, I am OK with it.


So-no restrictions except for your restrictions. I see.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 4:36:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.



My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?


There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

+10!


Just because there are extant HRs regarding one-ship TFs in the game doesn't mean they're myth based,

In this thread the OP stated his opponent states that his anti-shipping air will not launch against them. This is a myth.

nor does it imply that those that use HRs such as this are ignorant, stupid, liars or whatever else has been suggested.

Project much? [:)]

This discussion (use of one-ship TFs) revolves around realistic use, not the mechanics of whether naval torpedo bombers / DBs, etc. will attack them equally.

Not the OP. As for "realistic" use that horse has been beat to death in endless JFB/AFB threads. As Alfred wears himself out saying, it's a game, not a sim.

Definitions of "realistic use" or "gamey use" will vary between players.

Correct. With some of us saying there is no such thing as "gamey" use. It's a null term in a game.

HRs are designed to head off miscommunications regarding these expectations. Nothing wrong with that in a game to avoid some extant problems with exploitation of this game mechanic by some.

Opinions differ, but I see a lot of games end early with one player in a huff over HRs and "gamey." If more would play the game as designed, with victory conditions as designed, a lot more games would finish without a quit. IMHO.





geofflambert -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 4:48:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

What year, date, area of a 'sandbox scenario' would you suggest? I am thinking in updating the superb WitP tutorial to WitP AE; I found it quite useful.

Klink, Oberst


'42 solomon sea for Jap aircraft, Hawaii for US planes. Don't forget to have a reasonable level of search planes as they will also attack single ships. For statistical reasons make it just one such TF and make it a cargo vessel. It might be interesting to repeat with a CV. It would be interesting to note attacks per squadron per day as well as for dedicated search and or ASW sqds.

...

I generally dislike HRs but I have a personal one for when I play the allies, I evacuate Goma as there were never Indian troops there. There should be no fortifications done until you decide you must invade Portuguese territory. Also if you put restricted troops in there it ought to cost PPs every day.




Chickenboy -> RE: single ship TFs (12/3/2012 4:55:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.



My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?


There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

+10!


Just because there are extant HRs regarding one-ship TFs in the game doesn't mean they're myth based,

In this thread the OP stated his opponent states that his anti-shipping air will not launch against them. This is a myth.

nor does it imply that those that use HRs such as this are ignorant, stupid, liars or whatever else has been suggested.

Project much? [:)]

This discussion (use of one-ship TFs) revolves around realistic use, not the mechanics of whether naval torpedo bombers / DBs, etc. will attack them equally.

Not the OP. As for "realistic" use that horse has been beat to death in endless JFB/AFB threads. As Alfred wears himself out saying, it's a game, not a sim.

Definitions of "realistic use" or "gamey use" will vary between players.

Correct. With some of us saying there is no such thing as "gamey" use. It's a null term in a game.

HRs are designed to head off miscommunications regarding these expectations. Nothing wrong with that in a game to avoid some extant problems with exploitation of this game mechanic by some.

Opinions differ, but I see a lot of games end early with one player in a huff over HRs and "gamey." If more would play the game as designed, with victory conditions as designed, a lot more games would finish without a quit. IMHO.




Bull,

Did you really think that I must restrict my responses to merely those initial comments by the OP? My observations of some of the language used by those in this thread regarding opponents 'ignorance' is not projecting if it's stated or implied. [:)] I was pointing out that some posters were unnecessarily brusque and accusatory in their response.

Yes, there are differences from your humble opinion. I see games (plenty of 'em) end because players play the game 'as designed', with victory conditions 'as designed' when a discussion apriori of game issues would have headed these issues off. They quit when the game-get this-isn't matching what they want for entertainment. It's a shame, really.

Alfred and you may think that the 'realistic' angle has been beaten to death in countless fanboi threads, but I don't. It's the principal of selecting an opponent and I couldn't possibly care less what Alfred says about the 'intended' nature of the game.

Players accepting a PBEM match should enter into that arrangement with deliberate forethought and common viewpoints about expectations. One of these expectations is how an opponent will handle some of these sticky issues-single ship TFs is one of them. Don't like it? Doesn't suit your style of play? I really don't care. This is still my standing advice to those considering a PBEM match.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.783203E-02