Is this a gamey tactic?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Icedawg »

I'm starting a GC game as the Japanese and was thinking of dropping relatively small para fragments on some of the unoccupied bases in N Luzon (Laoag, Aparri, Vigan) while simultaneously landing some amphibious troops. I am doing this so that the amphibious troops will be able to start moving South one turn earlier. (If I just used the amphibious troops, they would have to attack the turn after they land to secure the base. By using paras at the same time, the paras should take the base using their automatic shock attack. This way, the amphibious troops can save a turn.)

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Puhis »

IMO, no.
Schanilec
Posts: 4038
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Grand Forks, ND

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Schanilec »

I don't think its gamey at all. IJA used paratroops in the DEI.
This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.
User avatar
cantona2
Posts: 3749
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Gibraltar

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by cantona2 »

It all depends on what you and your opponent agree upon. A lot of PBEM HRs suggest a para drop with the entire unit in one location rather that fragments all over the place. If you have already agreed a HR for paras then no probs, if in doubt I always ask my opponent what he thinks about a particular rule before carrying the move out.
1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26237
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by witpqs »

It is gamey to use small fragments, IMO. You should make a best effort to drop a whole unit on one place, not drop fragments of the same unit in multiple locales.
User avatar
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum »

I happen to agree with witpqs opinion, that to drop tiny fragments to capture bases is gamey.

Dropping the whole unit on a base? Perfectly fine and a viable tactic.

For Turn 1, you have 2 para units you can use in Luzon, that's 2 areas where you can land and free up units, which is plenty IMHO.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Chickenboy »

Agree with my Argletonian colleague and TLG.

Ask yourself the question: Is it realistic that a small para fragment-basically a squad or two of troops can reliably capture a critical crossroads and lay claim to a 40 mile hex? It's almost a stretch to think about a whole para unit (as small as it is) doing that, let alone a multitude of fragments.

Image
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Agree with my Argletonian colleague and TLG.

Ask yourself the question: Is it realistic that a small para fragment-basically a squad or two of troops can reliably capture a critical crossroads and lay claim to a 40 mile hex? It's almost a stretch to think about a whole para unit (as small as it is) doing that, let alone a multitude of fragments.


Agree. Paras were particularly prone to disruption and scattering. These are 46-mile hexes.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Schorsch
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Schorsch »

ORIGINAL: Puhis

IMO, no.

+1
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by m10bob »

Former paratrooper..I say not gamey, sounds like a realistic mission to me.

For those who mention the size of the hexes, I ask how accurate the drop was on St Mere Eglise and how long did it take to get there?

The point is, if that was the mission, they "got there".
Image

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26237
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Former paratrooper..I say not gamey, sounds like a realistic mission to me.

For those who mention the size of the hexes, I ask how accurate the drop was on St Mere Eglise and how long did it take to get there?

The point is, if that was the mission, they "got there".

But Bob, he's talking about small fragments of the same para unit dropping on multiple bases. I totally have no problem with dropping paras, and I have no problem with dropping paras in conjunction with either over-land or amphib assaults. The fact that dropping paras cuts defending Assault Strength by 1/2 is fine with me too, because it does represent the kind of IRL disruption that you are alluding to (on that point I only think it should be some reasonable proportion: dropping a company-sized para unit on a stack of 150,000 defenders to cut their AS for the main overland attack would be gamey only because it is too few paras and the game engine does not distinguish number of paras involved, only that they are dropped).

I only object to small fragments of the same para unit being dropped into multiple bases. I even realize you might not successfully drop the whole para unit (because of air transport vagaries), that's why I say "best effort" to drop the whole unit. I love having paras in the game.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3931
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

Gamey. To me base control represents inherent civilian governmental organizations and/or military presence sufficient to enjoy the benefits of ownership of a hex. Imo a fragment isn't enough to overcome those forces and obtain approx. 1600 sq. miles of land.
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

I happen to agree with witpqs opinion, that to drop tiny fragments to capture bases is gamey.

Dropping the whole unit on a base? Perfectly fine and a viable tactic.

For Turn 1, you have 2 para units you can use in Luzon, that's 2 areas where you can land and free up units, which is plenty IMHO.

I agree that if you are only using paras and no other units, it would be gamey. But I am using them in conjuntion with amphibious forces on known-to-be-empty enemy bases.

I guess I should have mentioned in my original post that I basically just don't like the idea that an amphibious force (landing in a non-atoll hex) has to wait an extra turn before they can start moving inland. You have to land on turn 1, attack on turn 2 then, and only then, move out on turn 3. With the simultaneous para drop, you land and get the attack on turn 1 so you can move on turn 2.

It just seems ridiculous to me that 10k+ guys landing on an empty beach need 24 hours to secure the location. This use of paras seems to be a simple (and at least semi-plausible) way around this.
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".


GAMEY! You KNOW because you can examine the game at leisure. The Japanese did not KNOW that any particular base was going to be unoccupied on that particular morning..., only that Northern Luzon was "lightly defended". Basically, any time you think you have to ask if something is "gamey", it is.
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Gamey. To me base control represents inherent civilian governmental organizations and/or military presence sufficient to enjoy the benefits of ownership of a hex. Imo a fragment isn't enough to overcome those forces and obtain approx. 1600 sq. miles of land.

But you're not necessarily worried about the entire hex. In the situation I'm proposing, we're just talking about securing a pier or two and/or a small fighter strip. Example = Vigan - port size 1, airfield size 2. 50-100 guys should do the trick, right?
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".


GAMEY! You KNOW because you can examine the game at leisure. The Japanese did not KNOW that any particular base was going to be unoccupied on that particular morning..., only that Northern Luzon was "lightly defended". Basically, any time you think you have to ask if something is "gamey", it is.

Okay, poor word choice on my part. "Know" implies certainty. How about "have a high degree of confidence that"? If the paras drop and the enemy was in fact absent, then they could secure the essential, unoccupied base facilities in short order. If the paras drop and the enemy was present, then the tiny fragment is wiped out, you don't secure the base and you lose a 100 or so troops.

User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Icedawg »

Weren't there tons of instances in WWII where commandos went into lightly defended areas to secure important crossroads, ports and airstrips? Maybe 100 or so guys airdropped or landed in small craft under the cover of darkness?

For example, in the Battle of the Bulge, didnt' the Germans utilize a small airborne unit dropped in the intended path of Kampfgroup Peiper? If I recall correctly, these guys operated in small groups changing road signs and creating general chaos in advance of Peiper. In addition, I vaguely remember "Grief" teams also from the Battle of the Bulge. These were small groups of infantry that infiltrated the American lines and secured key objectives in advance of the main force.

This is how I'm envisioning these para fragments I'm talking about in my original post. Using them by themselves is DEFINITELY gamey. Using them in concert with a larger force for the sole purpose of scouting and speeding the advance of that force - seems possible to me.
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: Icedawg
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".


GAMEY! You KNOW because you can examine the game at leisure. The Japanese did not KNOW that any particular base was going to be unoccupied on that particular morning..., only that Northern Luzon was "lightly defended". Basically, any time you think you have to ask if something is "gamey", it is.

Okay, poor word choice on my part. "Know" implies certainty. How about "have a high degree of confidence that"? If the paras drop and the enemy was in fact absent, then they could secure the essential, unoccupied base facilities in short order. If the paras drop and the enemy was present, then the tiny fragment is wiped out, you don't secure the base and you lose a 100 or so troops.


Problem is that you DO "know". It's a game, and you are making use of information your real life counterparts had no way of knowing..., the definition of "gamey".

If you Allies had the option of redeploying their assets before you moved, you would have a point. They don't..., so your explanation is just semantics.
User avatar
cookie monster
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Birmingham,England

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by cookie monster »

Its not gamey if you use 1 para unit per base, so theres two you can capture in Luzon at the start.
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Is this a gamey tactic?

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Icedawg
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1




GAMEY! You KNOW because you can examine the game at leisure. The Japanese did not KNOW that any particular base was going to be unoccupied on that particular morning..., only that Northern Luzon was "lightly defended". Basically, any time you think you have to ask if something is "gamey", it is.

Okay, poor word choice on my part. "Know" implies certainty. How about "have a high degree of confidence that"? If the paras drop and the enemy was in fact absent, then they could secure the essential, unoccupied base facilities in short order. If the paras drop and the enemy was present, then the tiny fragment is wiped out, you don't secure the base and you lose a 100 or so troops.


Problem is that you DO "know". It's a game, and you are making use of information your real life counterparts had no way of knowing..., the definition of "gamey".

If you Allies had the option of redeploying their assets before you moved, you would have a point. They don't..., so your explanation is just semantics.

I see your point about turn 1 knowledge (its a little too all-knowing). But what if you postpone the airdrop until turn 2 and on turn 1 you heavily recon the base? So you have earned the information about the base, plus you have given the allied player opportunity to quickly get some troops there to defend the base (PBY air transfer). Is this getting toward more reasonable?

By the way, inappropriately using pre-knowledge is only one example of being gamey. Therefore, it is only one aspect of the definition of gamey. Others involve intentionally taking advantage of the way the game runs. (And these are the ones I find to be more upsetting.) Using 50+ single xAKLs or LBs sailing in front of your CV TF to draw enemy air attacks is an example of this way of being gamey.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”