"Gaming Taffy 3/Leyte Gulf (and other long-odds encounters)" Topic

TooMuchLead's recent post on the effects of smoke in WW2 naval encounters got me thinking about the feasibility of gaming something like the exploits of Taffy 3 at Leyte Gulf. I just finished reading "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" by James D. Hornfishcher, and have seen a couple of documentaries previously, and I think it's was a spectacular encounter. TML's post makes me think that things like this aren't as far out of the realm of "game-able" events as I'd thought.

My question, as a complete naval gaming neophyte, is whether a scenario-driven set of rules is required to do this, or whether heroic actions like those taken by the American destroyers and destroyer escorts can be represented in a normal WW2 naval game, while sticking to some semblance of "realism" in which crews don't act like automatons.

Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!

- Bob

I have gamed Samar three tiimes. Each time was a relief of Taffy 3 by US task forcs from the 3rd fleet here is the only after action report I have.

metroeastgaming.org/bb04.htm

Terry

I've fought this and other "long odds" scenarios with a range of rules. Sometimes the heroic and historical result ensues, sometimes the long odds are missed. Its important though to maintain the "fog of war" aspects which ofen typified these actions. Double blind for example works well.

I don't think it's gameable.

1) You have to so disguise the scenario that the Japanese player is not aware of what he is playing. The player playing Kurita MUST know the situation, and the other "wings" of the operation. If it is a "historical" scenario, and the player playing Kurita is the least bit literate on WW2 naval operations, he knows what he is facing. He then presses in and wipes out Taffy 3 AND the Leyte landing transports.

2) If you deceive Kurita as to what he is facing, you will have one ed off Japanese player at the end of the game.

Any scenario of this type (First Guadalcanal is another) is difficult to game without providing significant 'what if' options (historical or not) to add uncertainty. As noted, anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history will recognize the situation and there is no 'downside' for the player other than losing a game. In reality, Kurita had no knowledge of Halsey's stupidity and of the true extent of his opposition (with overstated reconaisance/contact reports). Couple this with responsibility for the fleet under his command and it becomes even more difficult to game.

Depending on which source you read, Kurita either thought he was facing the main body of the US fleet and withdrew, or he had learned of the defeat of the other Japanese forces and withdrew to prevent a pointless loss of his command. Either assumption is not going to deter a wargamer. If you are annihilated in one game, you aren't worrying about the forces you'll available in the next one.

John the OFM is wrong. The scenario is definitely gameable.

Only US gamers will know about Taffy 3. For European gamers it would be a very simple matter to disguise the battle.

The key is not to use an 'Old School' set of naval wargame rules that concentrate solely on mechanical factors such as gun size, armour, speed, etc, but to use a ruleset that actually emphasises command & control decisions of Admirals and ability/morale of ship's Captains.

John the OFM is wrong. The scenario is definitely gameable.

Only US gamers will know about Taffy 3. For European gamers it would be a very simple matter to disguise the battle.

Four sentences… four untruths.

Why do you assume that European wargamers are ignorant of one of the most spectacularly heroic naval battles in history?
If a wargamer is the least bit literate in WW2 naval history, he is very aware of this battle. To assume otherwise is a bit of an insult, implying ignorance, willful or otherwise.

What would the "game" in this situation be exactly?

Taffy 3 has zero chance of single handedly stopping the Japanese fleet. It can inflict more or less damage than the historical result, but not enough to "matter" from a purely material standpoint regardless of how well they do. The outcome is never in doubt and offers virtually no chance for dramatic differences from the historical outcome based on the player's decision making.

As OFM points out, a situation where one player is deceived about the nature of the engagement from the beginning is probably not going to result in fun.

Other than that it just comes down to a die roll for a morale check. That's not going to be based on any objective scientifically quantifiable numbers that the players can influence with their decisions. Basically it comes down to whether the scenario/rules author wants it to happen or not determining how likely it is.

Even then, if the Japanese pass their morale check, they wipe out Taffy 3. Not a thrilling game given the imbalance in forces.

If the Japanese fail their morale check they turn and flee from a vastly inferior opponent instead of crushing it. Again. . . not a lot of fun there.

Although the story of Taffy 3 is a dramatic tale of heroism by the U.S. Navy, just doesn't make for a very fun wargame scenario without other "what if" elements thrown in.

I'd more-or-less decided that it would be difficult to get any real feel for the scenario until I read TooMuchLead's post on smoke, and specifically the "heroic self sacrifice" of the destroyer escorts in his game. I'm simply not experienced enough with naval games to have a good feel for what works and what doesn't. To be a bit more specific, I'm wondering…

1. Are there general naval rules that allow something like this to happen -- a sustained, extraordinarily heroic stand against the odds -- while maintaining that level of "realism" that gamers seem to demand?

2. Can general rules provide more than a simple "Japanese roll badly, break off" result abstraction? I could see one roll working well for the Americans, but a sustained set of excellent rolls would, I think, be required to get anywhere near the level of extraordinary events that occurred.

3. Does anything allowing cooperative play exist that would allow the American players to play against "the rules" for such a scenario? The American side could know full well what the odds are, as well as the historical outcome, while the Japanese side is controlled by random events to some degree, with a modifier based on the American actions in some way.

Thinking in land game terms, I may be trying to mix a skirmish-level game (ship-to-ship firing) with a higher level of game. Am I?

- Bob

John. All four sentences are true.

You must accept that looking at WW2 solely from the US point of view does not tell the whole story.

I myself am aware of the details of the battle and would enjoy gaming it. But condsiring the broader aspects of the war as a whole it was not an important battle (for non-Americans).

To put the battle in context:
1) The Pacific theatre was a (very large) sideshow.
2) The war was already won by 1944. A victory for the Japs at Leyte Gulf would not have affected the course of the war.

If/When I run my Battle off Samar scenario again, I'm thinking I will probably have the players all play the Japanese and I'll play the Americans. I'll have the Japanese players compete for sinking the most tonnage.

I'd say these types of scenarios have to be designed carefully so everyone has a good time.

2) The war was already won by 1944. A victory for the Japs at Leyte Gulf would not have affected the course of the war.

One might make the same comment about the Battle of the Bulge. Substite "Germans" for "Japs"…

Your assumption about the ignorance of Europeans regarding battles not in THEIR backyards is also intriguing.
The ONLY people interested in gaming a WW2 naval battle would be those with a fair knowledge of the topic.

1) The Pacific theatre was a (very large) sideshow.

Wow.

Yes, I know that the agreement was to defeat Hitler first, but… wow.

.1) The Pacific theatre was a (very large) sideshow.

I agree with highlandcatfrog. . . wow.

That's probably one of the more indefensible statements I've seen around here for a while.

We ARE talking about the theater in which the only two nuclear weapons ever deployed in anger were used, right?

Just checking. . .

Relax guys.

Just pulling the OFMs chain.

Did a little research on this one over the weekend.

I think the important points for wargamers are:

1. Kurita thought he was facing Fleet Carriers and Heavy and Light Cruisers.
2. Kurita had no air cover.
3. Kurita failed to coordinate the action, and allowed individual commanders to attack piecemeal.
4. U.S. forces fought with little to no regard for their own safety.
5. U.S. forces (the Taffy 3 part), knew they were fighting to gain time for the Escort Carriers. They also knew there were other U.S. forces in the area.

Soooooo, how about:

a: U.S. player is immune to all morale problems.
b: Japanese player has limited info on forces facing him.
c: Japanese player is told to focus on the CVE's. He can gain no victory by sinking the escorts.
d: Keep ALL actual damage secret. You need a referee for this one…
e: Give the U.S. ships immunity from anything larger than a 12" armor piercing shell…. all accounts are these shots just poked holes in the DD's and DDE's and never exploded. For game play purposes, negligable IMHO.
f: Give the U.S. ships plenty of air support.

The biggest challenge for a GAME is to keep the Japanese player from getting frustrated and charging in with everything (the tactic that WOULD have worked in reality…).
If he does this, then Game Over.

Going to necromance this thread rather than starting a new one. I am also just reading Hornfischer and thought about this same question.

I think the best way to game Samar is not as a single scenario but rather as part of a linked campaign representing all of Leyte. You would start with the ambush on the Palawan Pass, then Surigao Strait, then the the air attacks on Kurita, you would have to assume Halsey acts historically, then play Samar, then Cape Engano.

Each side gets points based on certain outcomes of the battle and so on.