New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers

[Gregor_SSG]

Guys,

I just thought I'd let you know that we have formulated a new rule that concerns carrier groups and surface combat. The rul is as follows:

If there is a TG with capital ships, and no carriers, in the same hex, or one hex away, from a TG with carriers (or transports) then the capital ship TG will be first chosen for any surface combat.

In other words an escort group will interpose itself between the attacking surface group and the high value targets.

This should address some concerns people had about carrier groups being unduly vulnerable to surface combat. It won't cover every contingency. Early in the war the US often didn't have enough ships available to enable the formation of such TGs. It won't necessarily cover flawed operational decisions, such as those that led to the surface combat against the US CVEs at Leyte Gulf. However, if you have capital TGs available then you now have another reason to deploy them correctly as escorts for your carriers.

Gregor

[Ursa MAior]

Does that mean that the disputed "CVs wont move after launching" issue is not solved?

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Does that mean that the disputed "CVs wont move after launching" issue is not solved?

Nothing has changed on my view of the undesirability of changing the current arrangements for carriers waiting for strike recovery. I know that players will be unable to resist the temptation of abusing the system if it is changed, and CV TGs will be seen heading 180 degrees from the airborne threat axis even if there are no enemy surface TGs within 200 miles.

The announced rule change will reduce the already very low probability of ambush by surface TGs in almost all scenarios to effectively zero. I can't see a problem with that.

Gregor

[David Sandberg]

I'm guessing that cruisers will not be counted as capital ships for the purposes of determing a valid "screening TF" for this rule?

I still disagree with your view about the "on station" rule, but that was bandied about more than enough a long time ago.  I do thank you guys very much for listening to the concerns and trying to find a way to address them to some degree, and I will continue to pay attention to the forum to see how users feel the released game plays with this new rule in place.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: David Sandberg

I'm guessing that cruisers will not be counted as capital ships for the purposes of determing a valid "screening TF" for this rule?

I'm guessing that David is wrong. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[alexs]

Hi Guys,
    Heavy cruisers, battle cruisers and battleships are counted as capital ships for game purposes (and are eligable to screen carrier groups).
Light cruisers, light AA cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts and torpedo boats are considered minor ships for game purposes (and are not eligable to screen carrier groups).

Alex

[Prince of Eckmühl]

You might want to consider counting the U.S. Brooklyn-class as CA for purposes of the rule.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[David Sandberg]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: David Sandberg
I'm guessing that cruisers will not be counted as capital ships for the purposes of determing a valid "screening TF" for this rule?

I'm guessing that David is wrong. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Hehe, I'm all in favor of being wrong about this. [:)] To clarify, I suspected CAs would be considered capital ships, and was entirely certain that CLs would not be (which Alex's post confirmed). What I was wondering about was CCs (I chose my words very carefully). Or perhaps my memory is failing and there weren't any plain old "cruisers" (neither heavy nor light) in the previous incarnation of the game?

[Gregor_SSG]

From memory, all cruisers get to be either CA, CL or CLAA for game purposes.

Gregor

[freeboy]

If I can get that close to the enemy, before radar.. is there a chance for night surface action? If yes do those wonderfull JAP ships with a ton of torpedoes get to use them, ships and torps? I always thought if you could afford a race with two or three surface groups against a known spotted enemy tf you could give an early war US player tough chioces, attack Jap Carrier or the closing surfase forces.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Does that mean that the disputed "CVs wont move after launching" issue is not solved?

Nothing has changed on my view of the undesirability of changing the current arrangements for carriers waiting for strike recovery. I know that players will be unable to resist the temptation of abusing the system if it is changed, and CV TGs will be seen heading 180 degrees from the airborne threat axis even if there are no enemy surface TGs within 200 miles.

The announced rule change will reduce the already very low probability of ambush by surface TGs in almost all scenarios to effectively zero. I can't see a problem with that.

Gregor

Although numerous solutions were suggested to solve this issue, at the end it's your game, your risk and at last not at least your money not mine. All I can do is accept your decision. I'll wait with the purchase until some feedback from the players is available.

[Akos Gergely]

Second to that

[freeboy]

msybe I do not understand, while the planes are flying the carriers are forced to remain in one hex? is that the rule? did not have older game or maybe I just do not remember it?

[Marc gto]

dont remember that one....

[Marauders]

Nothing has changed on my view of the undesirability of changing the current arrangements for carriers waiting for strike recovery. I know that players will be unable to resist the temptation of abusing the system if it is changed, and CV TGs will be seen heading 180 degrees from the airborne threat axis even if there are no enemy surface TGs within 200 miles.

Wouldn't the Carriers move away, or at an angle, from potential threats? 

Couldn't there be a "one hex" compromise?  That would mean seven potential recovery locations.

If it is preset at launch, it would add realism to CAW.

[orey22]

I tend to agree with the majority opinion on this one -- the game could be improved tremendously by allowing the carriers to continue moving when a strike is away -- why not put a random generator in to see if the returning planes find the carriers on the way back -- I wouldn't think the programming would be that difficult -- This issue, with the fact there isn't a campaign game does cause concerns, but hopefully all these issues will be addressed before release.

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: orey22

I tend to agree with the majority opinion on this one -- the game could be improved tremendously by allowing the carriers to continue moving when a strike is away -- why not put a random generator in to see if the returning planes find the carriers on the way back -- I wouldn't think the programming would be that difficult -- This issue, with the fact there isn't a campaign game does cause concerns, but hopefully all these issues will be addressed before release.

I personally haven't seen the need for the launch and move while testing the game.

Perhaps this discussion would be best brought up after playing the game. SSG has listened closely to player comments in the past (with the DB series) and their experiences with the game... I'm sure that will continue with CAW.

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: orey22
I tend to agree with the majority opinion on this one

I think you will find many "majority" opinions on this matter.
As JSS says, the nuances of the game are probably more usefully discussed when playing the game. [;)]
Cheers
Ray

[freeboy]

ok, so I am still in the dark here , what ?? are you restricted from moving a carrier, I see no practacal logic.. the carriers certainly after radar could have opened radio contact and directed planes home...

[RayWolfe]

This has been discussed ad nausium. See this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1291698
Cheers
Ray