CV Escort

[EHansen]

The biggest reason I use CV Escort TFs is they show up as a different type of TF in the TF list. It makes is easier to
work out which is which rather than have all of them as ACTFs.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: EHansen

The biggest reason I use CV Escort TFs is they show up as a different type of TF in the TF list. It makes is easier to
work out which is which rather than have all of them as ACTFs.

Well, you're obviously not sufficiently obsessive, needing these 'weird tricks' (I keep hearing about) to keep track of your forces.

[geofflambert]

In case nobody got that, I'm hating the web ads that say you need to learn this 'weird trick' to do the simplest things. For instance, one 'weird trick' to improve your credit rating is to pay your bills on time. Of the many tricks I know, that certainly has to be one of the weirdest. [;)]

[rustysi]

Where does it say that CVs are differentiated from CVEs?

It doesn't, I am wrong again.[:(]

if I recall correctly you cannot put CVs or CVLs into an CVE Escort TF or in an amphibious TF

Correct.

CVEs do not suffer this penalty.

CR, this is exactly what I believed and I was sure I read it somewhere. I had I opened a post back in March titled 'Best use of Japanese CVE's' and its the only place I found anything saying that CVE's don't suffer the 50% penalty. It was you that said it. I'm not bashing you or anything and I'm pretty sure that I had seen it elsewhere, but I can't find such a reference. Based on what Alfred has said above I now believe this item to be what I'm beginning to term 'Forum Lore'. I tell two people, you tell two people and suddenly what's not true is true. Not that I'm a flawless search artist, but I just can't find any 'Official' reference saying that CVE's don't suffer the 50% penalty in a base hex. So, I for one now believe as Alfred says its just a way for the AI to keep slow CVE's outta CV TF's.

Apologies to the forum and especially Hans ol' buddy. I dine on crow once more.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I've never put CVEs in anything other than an Air Combat TF and had them follow the invasion TF. Never had problem 1. Am I missing something?

This will work however any TF set to follow will not only not react but will also not try to avoid an enemy surface TF. So, it is a two edged blade.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Where does it say that CVs are differentiated from CVEs?

It doesn't, I am wrong again.[:(]

if I recall correctly you cannot put CVs or CVLs into an CVE Escort TF or in an amphibious TF

Correct.

CVEs do not suffer this penalty.

CR, this is exactly what I believed and I was sure I read it somewhere. I had I opened a post back in March titled 'Best use of Japanese CVE's' and its the only place I found anything saying that CVE's don't suffer the 50% penalty. It was you that said it. I'm not bashing you or anything and I'm pretty sure that I had seen it elsewhere, but I can't find such a reference. Based on what Alfred has said above I now believe this item to be what I'm beginning to term 'Forum Lore'. I tell two people, you tell two people and suddenly what's not true is true. Not that I'm a flawless search artist, but I just can't find any 'Official' reference saying that CVE's don't suffer the 50% penalty in a base hex. So, I for one now believe as Alfred says its just a way for the AI to keep slow CVE's outta CV TF's.

Apologies to the forum and especially Hans ol' buddy. I dine on crow once more.

Yes, the rule book only refers to "carriers" and makes no mention of CVEs. But there are many things missing in the rule book that have been confirmed later on. However, at this point I cannot direct you to my original source-although I firmly believe it to be true from my personal experience. I will have to leave it to someone else to officially confirm it. Or, you can set up a simple test with the editor and let us know what you have found out. It would not be the first time that I have fallen for forum lore.