Matrix Games Forums

Hell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: single ship TFs

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: single ship TFs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 5:32:49 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18122
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

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.


Sorry, geofflambert, I didn't answer your original post with my previous postings in this thread.

I don't think there is a 'prevailing' opinion on single ship TFs. This discussion descends into the 'gamey under x circumstances' versus WAD at all times argument, as seen above. I would estimate that most players have some form of HR to restrict useage of single ship TFs to act as ammo or sortie sponges, yet would certainly allow the supply TFs that you describe above.

Does the game deal with single ship TFs 'realistically'? Tough question. I guess it depends on your definition of realism. The game's use of OPs points for TFs, movement or reaction for same and ammunition expenditures does-in my opinion-make overuse of these single ship TFs problematic.

In real life, a large SCTF would hardly have to slow down to deal with a few xAKLs strewn in its path enroute to a scheduled fight against another sizeable enemy surface force. In the game, large quantities of time, movement 'points' and ammunition are expended as the SCTF routes or reacts from surface 'threat' to surface threat. Do your BBs really need to expend their 16" AP ammunition on that 1200 ton TK when they have been ordered to fight a nearby heavy surface force? No? Well, they often will in the game.

These singleton TFs can act as sponges for SCTF ammunition or carrier sorties, thereby screening or preserving the military force "behind them" in an artificial manner. I've seen screenshots of the Sulu Sea wherein each and every hex is filled with an xAKL or other meaningless transport ship intentionally so placed as to absorb an expected SCTFs movements into the area as an antecedent to a naval surface brawl. When the naval brawl occured, Lo! One side was largely out of ammo, skewing the results of the ensuing naval fight.

So, I think there are reasons to object to carpeting an area with xAKL singleton TFs other than the issues with air attacks / non-air attacks occuring. As expressed above, this is something best discussed amongst like-minded players. But I don't see a problem with xAKL singletons being used in a supply capacity in the examples you cited.

_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 31
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 5:34:18 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14762
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

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.

Bull wrote "There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs." and I wrote "+10" and I stand by it. There are plenty of HRs built upon myths. And it is the player-opponents' mutual right to do so. And others' right to note that they are built on myths.

Alfred wrote "...ignorant..." and I agree with him in his intended meaning, i.e. ignorant as to the actual fact of the matter.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 32
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 5:47:30 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18122
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Look at any typical list of HRs


I'll start here. What is a typical list of mythical HRs that you see in place? Your 'typical' list of HRs is, in and of itself, mythical.

I see few of these carry-over (so-called mythical) myths that I would characterize as 'typically' used. Perhaps they once were, before these issues were addressed in patches or different game versions. As players start more games under more recent patch versions, there are fewer of these in place-sometimes none.

I think that's probably a fairer question to ask: what version of the game is the player playing under. Because so many of these gameplay issues have been resolved over time, it may be more fair to ask this question before chiding the player or stating their ignorance. Surely you must admit that earlier AE versions merited some of the gameplay HRs that were imposed?

So, with regards to the broad spectrum of questions originally posed by the OP in this thread, I still see some 'issues' regarding singleton xAKLs as ammo or sortie sponges. No it's not just the air search / air attack on xAKL singletons aspect of the game. The OPs questions were more broad and they have NOT been entirely dealt with.

Thus the reasonable merit of HRs regarding singleton xAKLs. Mythical? Hardly.

ETA: Spelling and mythical versus mythological.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 12/3/2012 5:49:02 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 33
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 6:01:22 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14762
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Wait - are you using mythologically mythical spelling? This is getting confusing!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 34
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 6:10:50 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 4896
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Thanks, CB
On the subject of HRs, one I've run into and went along with is no 4EHBs below 10k, and I may in the future for at least '42 even though I know such attacks did in fact happen. I would draw the line when they're be used as search planes, or if you have nothing better to use, ASW. In those cases I'll put them at whatever altitude I like.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 35
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 6:11:37 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 4896
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Wait - are you using mythologically mythical spelling? This is getting confusing!


The dimensions of this are mythic.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 36
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 6:40:27 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14762
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Thanks, CB
On the subject of HRs, one I've run into and went along with is no 4EHBs below 10k, and I may in the future for at least '42 even though I know such attacks did in fact happen. I would draw the line when they're be used as search planes, or if you have nothing better to use, ASW. In those cases I'll put them at whatever altitude I like.

The addition of so many pilot skills has really addressed this issue, IMO. You can't just take a group with "high experience" and expect it to get hits on ships at sea as you could in WITP. The hits are few and far between. Against soft targets (merchants, whatever) going to a lower altitude makes sense and is realistic. Going lower against hard targets like warships is very dangerous!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 37
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 8:53:13 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8546
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Did you really think that I must restrict my responses to merely those initial comments by the OP?

Of course not. As I don't have to. But your response indicated to me that you believe no HRs are base don myths. I pointed out one which is. I also reacted to your use of the word "liars."

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.

OK, let me say it another ay. It seemed defensive.

I was pointing out that some posters were unnecessarily brusque and accusatory in their response.

Opinions differ.

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.

Some. A few. I read the Opponents Wanted thread each and every time a new ad appears. The vast majojrity of them begin with a statement that HR swill be be required. And a fai rnumber--I have no census--of AARs contain some variation of the statement "we're not playing for VPs." Since it is impossible for th eAllied player to win without considering VPs, as the only way he can win is by auto-victory, they aren't playing the game as designed.

They quit when the game-get this-isn't matching what they want for entertainment. It's a shame, really.

You're more charitalble than I am.

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.

Take it up with him. It's a fact that the game is not realistic. A fact. Find some avgas for me if you think it is. It's a series of abstracted decisions to include or not. It's a balance of what was put in and what was left out. So choosing to HR-away or HR-include factors is just as abstract and no more realistic. Most often an HR is there to make the game easier to win for one side or the other. Which I wouldn't mind if the HRers would be honest about it. Instead they hide behind their view of history and ignore the library of history which isn't in there either.

Players accepting a PBEM match should enter into that arrangement with deliberate forethought and common viewpoints about expectations.

As a minimum, yes. Too many don't even do that much, let alone play the game as designed.

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.

And if it's all right with you I will continue to argue strenuously that playing without HRs makes for a better, smoother, and more honest game.



_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 38
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 8:57:45 PM   
CaptDave

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 6/21/2002
From: Federal Way, WA
Status: offline
There's a historical use of one-ship TFs that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread. I speak of evacuating Manila (as the biggest example) in the first couple days of the war, sending all the transports out one at a time.

Myth or not -- and the status could have changed, I don't know -- the belief was that the air groups would attack only one TF apiece, even if there were 20 in the same hex. By creating more TFs, this assured the preservation of more ships for a longer time. They might still get eradicated, but it would take many more turns to accomplish this.

Anyway, that's just background to answer the original question. More and more I find myself agreeing with Bullwinkle; I'd rather play the game as designed and updated (including betas) and not deal with a list of HRs.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 39
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 9:51:24 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8546
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



So, with regards to the broad spectrum of questions originally posed by the OP in this thread, I still see some 'issues' regarding singleton xAKLs as ammo or sortie sponges. No it's not just the air search / air attack on xAKL singletons aspect of the game. The OPs questions were more broad and they have NOT been entirely dealt with.

Thus the reasonable merit of HRs regarding singleton xAKLs. Mythical? Hardly.



I know you are a practicing scientist, and as such understand and respect objective fact. However, one big problem I see over and over with HRs is that they become in practice subjective. Single-ship TFs are perhaps the worst offender, which is one reason I seem to always jump in on them.

I'm not a scientist, but I have a bit of legal training. To me an HR is a contract. Or better said it's a contract amendment to the original contract which is the game rules and code design. We've all seen poorly drafted contracts. There are many ways to do this, but two primary ways are ill- or non-defined terms, and failure to anticipate all eventuallities which can occur during contract execution. Single-ship TFs share both of these problems.

You yourself wade into these waters above. It's not ALL single-ship TFs which are "bad" (gamey, unrealsitic, pick yer poison.) It's only some. Which? Not defined in HRs. "Ammo sponge" is subjective. The code doesn't know player intent. I could sail a single-ship TF through a hex intending it to only deliver 1000 pts. of supply to a starving base. But it acts as an "ammo sponge." In certain areas of the map I might do that a lot. Does it matter what my intent was? You'd probably say yes, but where are the objective limits vis a vis the contract? You're immediatley into discussions, and negotiations, and opsec breaches. One player has to give. Hard feelings can ensue.

So, you go totally objective and ban ALL single-ship TFs. "There shall be no 'ammo sponges'" the players declare. Single-ship TFs--ugg, bad. Both players are hamstrung in their efficient use of their assets. Me, the Allies, can't supply the Yukon or Alaska right away because I don't have enough escorts to go around, and sending two transports to many of those ports overwhelms the docking. Maybe I don't want two transports of supply there, sinice it will spoil. Maybe I don't want to risk two ships to subs when one would do just fine. I resent an iron-bound contract which forces me to fight stupid in order to head off possible "ammo sponges" 5000 miles away and two years in the future.

Just what is an "ammo sponge"? What are its exact parameters? To HR against them one must be able to define them. You describe screenshots you've seen where it would be possible to walk across xAKLs in a certain piece of water. I've never seen these, but I'll accept somebody did this. (My first reaction would be to up the OCD meds, but whatever.) What has the player gained? The ability to soak up ammo and attacks from the other player, for a time and at that specific place. OK. What has he lost?

1) Use of the xAKLs for productive cargo hauling, or conversion (if Japanese). For this turn and forever more if sunk.
2) All of their fuel.
3) All of their system damage.
4) Their VPs if sunk.
5) Secrecy on the importance he places on this operation/region/base.
6) About half of their COs if sunk.
7) Ops points at the port they launched from.
8) Potential collisions.

What has the other player gained?

1) Information. Big time.
2) VPs for reaping some xAKLs. Every time you see this, split off three DDs and lunch up.
3) The ability to avoid the whole mess and go elsewhere while he eats fuel and system damage.
4) Target-rich submarine environment.

So now go back to the contract/HR wording and let me ask one last question:

If a player did the exact same move as above, checkerboarded the seas with TFs to act as "ammo sponges", BUT EACH xAKL WAS PAIRED WITH A SUB CHASER . . . so it wasn't a single-ship TF anymore . . .

would you be any happier?


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 40
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 10:48:24 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18122
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
Like many lawyers, you must find it baffling when, IRL, things are not spelled out in the four corners of a document. Perhaps the issue of 'motive' may be closest to my POV on this. There are no absolutes, as you've come to realize. There are instances where one thing, done under the auspices of one motive are legally legitimized and other instances in which they are criminal.

Absurd example: Is it illegal and wrong to shoot someone? Well, depends. The "Yes, it's always wrong" response wouldn't serve soldiers or police well under all circumstances. Similarly, homeowners are within their rights to do so under certain circumstances, depending on the jurisdiction.

So, we all recognize the grey zone of life in a nation of laws. There are few absolutes. Much depends on motive and timing.

Your examples presuppose no intent, merely reliance upon an iron-clad contract. I'm not proposing this approach as it's too rigid. Motive is an important differentiator.

What happens with your no HRs game when the unarguable need for HRs arises? Could your approach (No HRs-period) serve you when, early in the game there were some pre-patch aspects of gameplay ('nuclear artillery', 'Uber-PTs', etc.) that clearly upset the game? I know you weren't involved in PBEMs then (ergo no need for HRs), but those that WERE involved in PBEMs found the flexibility of their partners on these matters to be most important for continuitous play. I know I did.

Likewise, as the game system has stabilized, I've become more comfortable playing with fewer HRs. Most of the real continuity game killers have been taken care of. There are a few outstanding issues that merit discussion with an opponent before involvement in a game. Still more that argue for a 'meeting of the minds' about gameplay style in general. Iron clad? Nope. Important to agree upon before starting a 'relationship'? You bet.

"Pickets" are an example that comes closest to your final question. The common ground that I've found with my opponent requires that pickets be a 'military' craft-mimicking a small intelligence trawler. Any PB, AMc, PC, PG or other small military vessel will do. Obviously, DDs or other small combatants are fine for that role too. Not OK: xAKL, xAK, xAP and other non-military ships intentionally deployed as early warning. Does that really make a difference? Aren't xAK ship types generally worth more VPs than AMc and PB vessels? Well, yes. But you can make a very different argument about the realism (yes, I'm using that word) of such a decision. Motive: military vessels should be used for military means. Civilian vessels should not be intentionally used as front line combatants.

Motive doesn't make any difference to you? OK. You play your game however you wish.

My way-communication with opponents, meeting of the minds, discussion and agreement on novel developments, working together towards a common shared experience-isn't for everyone, that's for sure. There are few opponents that I am willing to play, as I would have to have studied their play styles, attitudes and tendencies for some time to know (or think I know) how we'd work together.

So, enjoy your non-HR hard line games. More power to you. You'll not convince me of the suitability of your play style for me. There's room enough in the game for all types.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 41
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 10:57:57 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4560
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Wait - are you using mythologically mythical spelling? This is getting confusing!


The dimensions of this are mythic.



If this continues somebody might get mysterical...

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 42
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 10:59:30 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4560
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Chickenboy, Moose, IMHO you both have very valid points.

The detail is just a matter of taste.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 43
RE: single ship TFs - 12/3/2012 11:00:24 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I feel quite lucky in that when I advertised for a PBEM so long ago I ended up with a like minded player. I had advertised for an opponent who likes to play an historically plausible game. Chez and I started up a CHS game with a fairly substantial list of HRs, one of which involved the use of multiple single ship TFs in the defense of a port. Apparently he had an opponent who loved to do this and his attacks all failed because the game did not combine all the single ship TFs into one action but rather made his TFs run the guantlet of single ship TFs, one after another. In that CHS game we had one time that one of our hrs was violated - by me. I had set the hex just outside Exmouth as an invasion rendezvous and my troops were landed there violating the "invasions only in base hexes" rule. I had forgotten to set my Tfs to "do not unload"...

In our AE game we have no HRs. Is this because we want an "anything goes" game? No, it is because we are comfortable with each other's style and know that we can discuss any issues that occur.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 44
RE: single ship TFs - 12/4/2012 12:57:45 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18122
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I feel quite lucky in that when I advertised for a PBEM so long ago I ended up with a like minded player. I had advertised for an opponent who likes to play an historically plausible game. Chez and I started up a CHS game with a fairly substantial list of HRs, one of which involved the use of multiple single ship TFs in the defense of a port. Apparently he had an opponent who loved to do this and his attacks all failed because the game did not combine all the single ship TFs into one action but rather made his TFs run the guantlet of single ship TFs, one after another. In that CHS game we had one time that one of our hrs was violated - by me. I had set the hex just outside Exmouth as an invasion rendezvous and my troops were landed there violating the "invasions only in base hexes" rule. I had forgotten to set my Tfs to "do not unload"...

In our AE game we have no HRs. Is this because we want an "anything goes" game? No, it is because we are comfortable with each other's style and know that we can discuss any issues that occur.

Sweet.

Of course, it took you how many years to get that one partner?

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 45
RE: single ship TFs - 12/4/2012 12:58:21 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8546
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Like many lawyers, you

I'm not a lawyer.

must find it baffling when, IRL, things are not spelled out in the four corners of a document.

Baffling? No. But it's easier. Many folks who run into the law in the normal course of life--probate, divorce, real estate--find out very quickly how fast things can go south when "everybody knows" turns out not to be the case.

Perhaps the issue of 'motive' may be closest to my POV on this. There are no absolutes, as you've come to realize. There are instances where one thing, done under the auspices of one motive are legally legitimized and other instances in which they are criminal.

Contracts are civil law. Criminal law does have as a foundation the requirement for intent. But I'm talking about contracts where the sine qua non is offer and acceptance. In order to have that one must be able to understand the offer. Thus, definitions. "No single-ship TFs" is brutal, crude, over-reaching--but it's clear. "Any single-ship TF" is the same. "Only some single-ship TFs and I'll know the bad ones when I see them and ask you about intent and then judge your intent and argue it's the wrong intent" is over-reaching in a different sense. It subjectifies the contract. And that's always dangerous to comity.

Your examples presuppose no intent, merely reliance upon an iron-clad contract. I'm not proposing this approach as it's too rigid. Motive is an important differentiator.

So what I think I'm hearing is it's not 1-ships, 2-ships, 3-ships, more . . . but ships not there to perform a cpmbat mission but which soak up ammo you wish had gone to the mission-performers? I've never seen an HR say that. I've seen "No 1-ship TFs."

What happens with your no HRs game when the unarguable need for HRs arises?

There will NEVER be such a case. Never. Why? Mike and I have a contract. We agreed to play to the code. The one thing I said I would not do was in the case of spinning TFs in the wormholes. This the code allows, but it's an error state, not a design feature, and it can break the game. Other than that we have a no-whine zone. He can do anything he wants. So can I. It's working fine. Not one thing he's done I object to. I don't expect there will be. But even if there is I'll shut up and soldier because that's what I contracted to do.

And because every single thing that can be done in the game has a counter move. This is the part the HRers never conceed. They prefer to ask for breaks rather than apply logic and skill to find a way to turn the tables.


Could your approach (No HRs-period) serve you when, early in the game there were some pre-patch aspects of gameplay ('nuclear artillery', 'Uber-PTs', etc.) that clearly upset the game?

They made gameplay different. They didn't break it. Each of those has a counter, or an opportunity cost which was never discussed as people were wailing about "historical." The patches came, they were equal for everyone, I play with them. As I said, I play to the code. So does Mike.

The game is asymetirical to its core. It's not chess. It's not baseball. The two sides are not equal. HRs inevitably try to make the two sides be more equal when the historical truth--the biggest one of all--is they never were. The Allies were a 20-lb sledge and Japan was a carpet tack. But if players play the code and play the design Japan can win every time if the player is skillful. And without HRs.


I know you weren't involved in PBEMs then (ergo no need for HRs), but those that WERE involved in PBEMs found the flexibility of their partners on these matters to be most important for continuitous play. I know I did.

I'll let Mike weigh in on his thoughts about the nuclear artillery thing if he wants.

Likewise, as the game system has stabilized, I've become more comfortable playing with fewer HRs. Most of the real continuity game killers have been taken care of. There are a few outstanding issues that merit discussion with an opponent before involvement in a game. Still more that argue for a 'meeting of the minds' about gameplay style in general. Iron clad? Nope. Important to agree upon before starting a 'relationship'? You bet.

So what happened to your relationship with your PBEM game with the recently posted post-mortem AAR?

Please understand my position. I think HRs are unnecessary. But if they are to be used they need to be clearly written. Many are not. And I think "emerging" HRs in the middle of a game are the worst of the lot. Be a man and play the game you took on.


"Pickets" are an example that comes closest to your final question. The common ground that I've found with my opponent requires that pickets be a 'military' craft-mimicking a small intelligence trawler.

What is a picket? That's the first question. Militarily pickets, on land and sea, have a variety of uses and designs. These uses have evolved, sometimes very quickly, as technology has changed. You can't make a rule about something unless you know what it is. When you say "pickets" to me I'm virtually certain we have different things in mind. I could take a stab at a definition, but a big problem is you, as the opponent, might very well have imperfect visibility on what the vessel is doing, and thus see something I didn't do or intend. So you open a discussion. "Hey! That ship at x,y violates HR #27 on pickets!" The only way I can discuss this with you is to give you full info on what that vessel is doing. And I don't want to do that. I'm trying to beat you.


Any PB, AMc, PC, PG or other small military vessel will do. Obviously, DDs or other small combatants are fine for that role too. Not OK: xAKL, xAK, xAP and other non-military ships intentionally deployed as early warning.

Why not a CL? Why not a CA? If I'm trying to buy off air attacks on my carriers I might risk a CA. Would a CA never be a "picket" despite doing that function? In my experience "picket" describes a function, not a platform type. If it's a DD, what does it have to be doing to become a picket and not a hunter? Intent again? Why does it matter? It's a DD. Everybody can see in the OOB what its capability is. Why does it need an HR but a CL doing the same route at the same speed doesnt?

Does that really make a difference? Aren't xAK ship types generally worth more VPs than AMc and PB vessels? Well, yes. But you can make a very different argument about the realism (yes, I'm using that word) of such a decision. Motive: military vessels should be used for military means. Civilian vessels should not be intentionally used as front line combatants.

A picket is only partly a combatant, and sometimes not one at all. It's an intel gatherer. Coastwatchers are pickets. But OK, no "civilian" ships (ignore that in WWII the definitions were gray.) Why stop at certain combatant classes? It's purely subjective. And limiting the classes to small fry which are toast versus planes is an HR which favors the Japanese.

Motive doesn't make any difference to you? OK. You play your game however you wish.

I am. And I encourage others, especially newbies, to do the same. It's liberating.

My way-communication with opponents, meeting of the minds, discussion and agreement on novel developments, working together towards a common shared experience-isn't for everyone, that's for sure.

Mike and I talk by e-mail every day, sometimes a little, sometimes more. We're getting to know each other. He's a great guy, a lot of interests. We're very close in age and lifestyle. He's giving me a great game and I hope he feels the same. But we don't spend our time discussing pickets. There's no need. His ships speak Japanese, and I don't know that one.




_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 46
RE: single ship TFs - 12/4/2012 1:13:15 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14762
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Chickenboy, Moose, IMHO you both have very valid points.

The detail is just a matter of taste.

Well that's just silly - a moose has more points at this time of year. Wait until shed season and you might be right. Chickens are quite tasty, though.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 47
RE: single ship TFs - 12/4/2012 1:16:42 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 4896
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

There's a historical use of one-ship TFs that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread. I speak of evacuating Manila (as the biggest example) in the first couple days of the war, sending all the transports out one at a time.

Myth or not -- and the status could have changed, I don't know -- the belief was that the air groups would attack only one TF apiece, even if there were 20 in the same hex. By creating more TFs, this assured the preservation of more ships for a longer time. They might still get eradicated, but it would take many more turns to accomplish this.

Anyway, that's just background to answer the original question. More and more I find myself agreeing with Bullwinkle; I'd rather play the game as designed and updated (including betas) and not deal with a list of HRs.


I had something happen once, perhaps in the same scenario you mention, where I had several TFs (I don't recall if any were single) in the same hex and the battle replay only showed 2 or 3 attacks, including search planes, but when I examined each TF a whole bunch of ships were badly beat up that were not mentioned in the replay. There was no Typhoon going on that could have caused it.

Anyhow, I think BW and Alf are valuable contributors to the forum, even if I disagree with them sometimes, and they have done some great work which has helped rookies learn the ropes.

(in reply to CaptDave)
Post #: 48
RE: single ship TFs - 12/4/2012 1:37:48 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 4896
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
So, you go totally objective and ban ALL single-ship TFs. "There shall be no 'ammo sponges'" the players declare. Single-ship TFs--ugg, bad. Both players are hamstrung in their efficient use of their assets. Me, the Allies, can't supply the Yukon or Alaska right away because I don't have enough escorts to go around, and sending two transports to many of those ports overwhelms the docking. Maybe I don't want two transports of supply there, sinice it will spoil. Maybe I don't want to risk two ships to subs when one would do just fine. I resent an iron-bound contract which forces me to fight stupid in order to head off possible "ammo sponges" 5000 miles away and two years in the future.


Not that I invented it but here's an idea if you've agreed to limit 1 shp TFs; take, say, two AKLs and put them in separate cargo TFs. Fill one with supply and the other with fuel, then join them into one TF. You often need to keep some supply on hand at various little bases (esp. if you are using them for sub refueling) and in any case it won't hurt, generally. How many times have you said to yourself, 'Boy, I wish I had just a teeny bit of fuel at that base'?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 49
RE: single ship TFs - 12/4/2012 1:58:45 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I feel quite lucky in that when I advertised for a PBEM so long ago I ended up with a like minded player. I had advertised for an opponent who likes to play an historically plausible game. Chez and I started up a CHS game with a fairly substantial list of HRs, one of which involved the use of multiple single ship TFs in the defense of a port. Apparently he had an opponent who loved to do this and his attacks all failed because the game did not combine all the single ship TFs into one action but rather made his TFs run the guantlet of single ship TFs, one after another. In that CHS game we had one time that one of our hrs was violated - by me. I had set the hex just outside Exmouth as an invasion rendezvous and my troops were landed there violating the "invasions only in base hexes" rule. I had forgotten to set my Tfs to "do not unload"...

In our AE game we have no HRs. Is this because we want an "anything goes" game? No, it is because we are comfortable with each other's style and know that we can discuss any issues that occur.

Sweet.

Of course, it took you how many years to get that one partner?



That was my first ever PBEM in UV/WITP. He was on my short list of folks I had hoped would respond to the advert, based upon his comments on this forum prior to that...

The only PBEMs I had ever played before were with an old college gaming buddy from Atlanta, but he wasn't happy with my average of four turns a week - and wanted to play multi-day turns in WITP. I prefer the single day turns and I am not overly "outcome oriented" - I truly enjoy the ride with this great game.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: single ship TFs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.103