Modeling of Carrier Battles

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: spence

The Topic of the Thread is "Modeling of Carrier Battles". I took that to mean that the 5 battles that actually occurred would provide the basis of that modeling.

I must add something that is being ignored in spite of an earlier comment (so I'll put it differently).

Does it matter if a carrier is sunk by land based air? If it does matter, then let's include all attacks on carriers regardless of where they were launched from. Removing from the statistics the land based air that fell to IJN cap at Midway makes no sense. Focusing only on the 5 carrier to carrier battles makes no sense.

When we discuss carrier battles that means carrier air battles (not surface or sub attacks) - but certainly when land based air attacks a carrier TF the carrier will defend the same way. The commander didn't say "Wait! Those torpedo planes must be coming from Midway! Put plan B into action!"

This is correct:

carrier battles vitally involve AAA combat and land based air strikes - and land targets. Whatever is coded into the game is going to be used universally - so it cannot ignore the other cases and work.

Further the function of a game is to show ALTERNATE possibilities. If you ONLY can recreate history - read a history book or see a movie. A GAME is supposed to put YOU in the driver's seat. If the game cannot figure it out when you change something - the game isn't working as it should work.

Ahhh....the last ditch stance by those who want to perpetuate a flawed system because it benefits the historical underdog. Alternate possibilities are fine, but let's start with something that at least has some semblance of reality before magical 20/20 hindsight kicks in. I like being in the driver's seat, but why not drive a car that existed, not some Jetson mobile.[:D]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: treespider

Wonder how the game would play if Japanese Air combat TF were only allowed to be composed of CV's and/or CVL's? And the Screen had to be placed into an ASW, Escort and/or Surface TF?

That's a really interesting idea. It would certainly give KB a potential glass jaw. It would also tend encourage the Allies to stand and fight, if there was a perceptible chance for a Midway.

It would further encourage IJ to be a bit circumspect with his irreplaceable assets.

If you add a capacity for SAG reaction moves during periods of poor visibility so that the AI will send them off chasing carriers in range when there's an opportunity (and return to the original mission afterwards), it would encourage the IJN player to put surface assets into a separate SAG TF following the carrier TF. That would (1) make both sides nervous about leaving their carriers too close to the enemy at night and (2) weaken the IJN AA screens.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs



I must add something that is being ignored in spite of an earlier comment (so I'll put it differently).

Does it matter if a carrier is sunk by land based air? If it does matter, then let's include all attacks on carriers regardless of where they were launched from. Removing from the statistics the land based air that fell to IJN cap at Midway makes no sense. Focusing only on the 5 carrier to carrier battles makes no sense.

When we discuss carrier battles that means carrier air battles (not surface or sub attacks) - but certainly when land based air attacks a carrier TF the carrier will defend the same way. The commander didn't say "Wait! Those torpedo planes must be coming from Midway! Put plan B into action!"

This is correct:

carrier battles vitally involve AAA combat and land based air strikes - and land targets. Whatever is coded into the game is going to be used universally - so it cannot ignore the other cases and work.

Further the function of a game is to show ALTERNATE possibilities. If you ONLY can recreate history - read a history book or see a movie. A GAME is supposed to put YOU in the driver's seat. If the game cannot figure it out when you change something - the game isn't working as it should work.

Ahhh....the last ditch stance by those who want to perpetuate a flawed system because it benefits the historical underdog. Alternate possibilities are fine, but let's start with something that at least has some semblance of reality before magical 20/20 hindsight kicks in. I like being in the driver's seat, but why not drive a car that existed, not some Jetson mobile.[:D]

The allegation I want to benefit the historical underdog is inappropriate: however well or poorly the system works, it does so equally for both sides. If we can change it in the direction of a better model - fine. But "better" is not "you are forbidden to get your act together."

The very idea that someone cannot train and organize a ship or task group for better mission performance flies directly in the face of what I (first) saw and (later) did. I was a "radical" who was "worried about the wildly improbable" when I said that anti-shipping cruise missiles were a threat to modern warships. While both the USN and Soviet Navy had developed these more or less based on the German V-1, they had never achieved anything, and to be worried was to be a nervous nellie. This as late as 1965. But in 1967 an Egyptian patrol boat - which never even left Alexandria harbor - fired on and sank the IDF destroyer Elat (or Elath if you prefer) - and all that "silly worry" went upstairs. Worse, Russia and China had decided to provide North Vietnam with the very same SS-N-2 Styx missiles, and these were identified as working up (on trucks for coastal use and on patrol craft) on Hainan island - a place we could not strike because it was Chinese territory. These weapons could not be detected by search radar and were regarded as "impossible to shoot down" by conventional wisdom. [A US FFG captain in the 1980s, after getting his ship gutted by two Exocets, wrote a book claiming the problem was still that they could not be detected by search radar: one always has the option to be ignorant and drop the ball - and air defense is unforgiving if you do.] They COULD be detected, however - using their own guidance radars as a warning indicator - and those radars COULD be jammed or mis-targeted using chaff. Once they were detected, fire control radar could swing to the threat bearing and they COULD be detected and engaged by missiles and guns as well. We stopped every ASCM attack from 1968 to 1972 (culminating in a jet/missile action in which USS Sterette shot down two MiGs and a Styx in a few moments - using Tartar SAMs) - and in 1973 IDF - using similar methods - instead of losing any more ships - defeated 54 out of 54 Styx attacks (with jamming and guns - they had no SAMs at sea). We knew that the first target would be USS New Jersey in or after August 1968 - because that was when they became operational with Styx and that is when Big J went on station - in sight of land - not hard to find - so she had maximum reach inland. We knew that we initially only had two suitable anti-missile escorts - but we did exactly what is said here cannot be done: train them to do it differently than doctrine and practice. Then we trained the rest of the fleet - and it worked for years (but got lost- so by the 1980s a much better armed ship was hit - because she didn't even man her ECM stations nor weapons stations in a shooting war where 90% of the missiles blindly hit bouys with reflectors on them). What you do is a function of what you decide you want to do in the context of the capabilities you have - or it can be if the admiral in charge is smart enough to let you. When a navy develops a proper AA warship (or in IJN's case more than one type of warship) there is at least the possibility some admiral allows it to tag along with a task group.

Wether or not that happens, clearly the Allies might attach a Dido or an Atlanta to a task group. Or an Iowa or a KGV. It ought to count as well.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: treespider

Wonder how the game would play if Japanese Air combat TF were only allowed to be composed of CV's and/or CVL's? And the Screen had to be placed into an ASW, Escort and/or Surface TF?

That's a really interesting idea. It would certainly give KB a potential glass jaw. It would also tend encourage the Allies to stand and fight, if there was a perceptible chance for a Midway.

It would further encourage IJ to be a bit circumspect with his irreplaceable assets.

If you add a capacity for SAG reaction moves during periods of poor visibility so that the AI will send them off chasing carriers in range when there's an opportunity (and return to the original mission afterwards), it would encourage the IJN player to put surface assets into a separate SAG TF following the carrier TF. That would (1) make both sides nervous about leaving their carriers too close to the enemy at night and (2) weaken the IJN AA screens.

It was also something that might have happened. At Midway the SAG continued sailing Eastward for a while. It isn't clear this is a possibility with present code?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: treespider

Time for my 2p's...and some rambling points to ponder...

A lot of this discussion is comparing apples to oranges...ie real life versus game.

In the game we see players pushing around the KB Death Star...part of the reason for this is the benefits of the uberCAP aspect of the game, another reason is that it just makes sense. In history, following PH the Japanese separated KB for different missions....something we rarely see in the game. IIRC Hiryu and Soryu went to Wake and two of the carDIV's went on the Darwin Raid. It was only for the Indian Ocean Raid that we once again see the Japanese attempt to form the six carrier KB however they had to put Kaga back into port because, in game terms, she had accumulated too much SYS damage requiring repairs.

Something no amount of code can easily simulate is the victory disease that began to afflict the Japanese in the early Spring of 1942. The disease that led them to one of the cardinal sins of warfare - dividing your forces when confronting the enemy. Yes Lee and Jackson pulled it off at Chancellorsville, but my point is we may have seen a very different outcome to the early carrier battles had the Japanese left the Striking force intact.

Now the what if's --

-What if they Japanese had sent the entire Striking Force to cover Operation MO instead of just CarDiv5? I would venture the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea would have been something similar to what we see in game...

-What if Midway is delayed a few weeks because the entire Striking Force was sent to the South Pacific, and the entire Striking Force is again used for Operation MI, giving the Japanese six fleet carriers instead of four for the Midway Operation? Coupled with any potential losses the US would have suffered in the Coral Sea - if any had Nimitz decided not to confront the Japanese.

[8D].......but......what has any of this to do with the actual issues being discussed, IJN vs Allied FLAK, lack of any range penalties for full group coordinated strikes, rigid tactical ranges in an operational scale game, allowing for bizarre outcomes (ie, Allied CVs rarely launching strikes as they are "out of range"...something that never occurred historically). We want a more historical model, not the one we are using currently.

Nothing...other than many times players perceived problems with the game are a symptom of play style more so than the engine. With that being said ... I would rather see a more "historical" engine as well, as at times the engine facilitates a-historical play.

One of your "problems" with the current design is the 'range' issue. Just because in 5 carrier v carrier battles the Japanese were never able to take advantage of the longer range of their aircraft is not necessarily justification to alter the "rigid" tactical ranges. I'm sure there were other factors at play - primarily that if you do not know where the enemy is your not going to launch. In looking at Shattered Sword the Japanese Search pattern at Midway extended out 300nm or 5 hexes. Perhaps we need to look at the Air Search as a possible cause for the 'range' issue you are seeing.

In addition I'm of the opinion that the 'rigid' tactical ranges to which you refer are not that rigid. A hex is 60 miles across (in AE 40 miles). If we make the assumption the TF could be anywhere within the hex within 10 miles of the hex edge...then in my view two TF in adjacent hexes could be 20-100 miles away from each other. 2 hexes away and you are 80-160 miles, 3 hexes 140-220 miles etc...

As far as maximum ranges for ALL aircraft I agree that for the purposes of flying strikes the ranges should likely be reduced by a hex or two as aircraft would have to loiter to form the strike ...and I imagine the larger the strike package the longer the loiter time. So I would tie airfield size and strike size and range to a modifictaion of the amount of fatigue being accumulated.

In regards to the FLAK issue...looking at the game as is...the only issue seems to be that Japanese ships in Air Combat TF's should not benefit from other ships AAA until later in the war as their doctrine stressed individual maneuver for defense early on.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: treespider

Wonder how the game would play if Japanese Air combat TF were only allowed to be composed of CV's and/or CVL's? And the Screen had to be placed into an ASW, Escort and/or Surface TF?

That's a really interesting idea. It would certainly give KB a potential glass jaw. It would also tend encourage the Allies to stand and fight, if there was a perceptible chance for a Midway.

It would further encourage IJ to be a bit circumspect with his irreplaceable assets.

Nothing prevents users (players) from forming such TGs right now - or Allied opponents from requiring they do so as a house rule. It isn't the way it should be IMHO - but the opinion that matters is yours. The game should ALLOW you to do this - not REQUIRE you do this.

Just a simple statement wondering how the game would play? We already have toggles for Sub doctrines why not add a toggle for "Japanese Carrier" Doctrine? If the toggle were on the Japanese would be limited to only having CV's and CVLs' in their air combat TF's through 1942 or some other end point to represent the AAA doctrine. that way the players would have a choice to play with historical doctrines or not.

[m10bob]

Just a thought....According to TITANS OF THE SEAS (Belotes), the American radar was not as effective at Coral Sea due to the ships proximity to land masses which altered the RADAR picture, a phenomenon unknown at the time, and the Japanese RADAR was actually more effective, (for the same reason as they were not as close to land.)

This said, I wonder if it is possible to negate early American radar "bonus"/capability on air search RADAR if the ship is located in a land hex?

Same book also sez the early American air search RADAR at that battle and Santa Cruz detected enemy incoming planes but the CAP directors each time had the CAP positioned much too low, so interception was impossible till the VAL's were already diving.
Since later allied RADAR did not suffer from this height problem, and WITP aircraft database is giving more accurate ROC attributes when considering interception capability, I wonder if there is a way to give the ROC an artificial "boost" if the directed CAP is in the vicinity of later model allied air search/fighter control type radar?
(When I suggest a "boost", what I mean is, could it give a CAP fighter with a 3000 FPM climb capability fighter a temporary ROC greater than that, to produce a better chance to intercept?)
Maybe rather than tinker with the planes' ROC the detection/interception bonus would be dependent on proximity to the friendly CAP RADAR...

Just some fodder for the grist..............[;)]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: irrelevant



That's a really interesting idea. It would certainly give KB a potential glass jaw. It would also tend encourage the Allies to stand and fight, if there was a perceptible chance for a Midway.

It would further encourage IJ to be a bit circumspect with his irreplaceable assets.

If you add a capacity for SAG reaction moves during periods of poor visibility so that the AI will send them off chasing carriers in range when there's an opportunity (and return to the original mission afterwards), it would encourage the IJN player to put surface assets into a separate SAG TF following the carrier TF. That would (1) make both sides nervous about leaving their carriers too close to the enemy at night and (2) weaken the IJN AA screens.

It was also something that might have happened. At Midway the SAG continued sailing Eastward for a while. It isn't clear this is a possibility with present code?

The problem is that chasing down the CVTF is tactical, and the game AI has to take over for tactical actions.

[spence]

Although the Americans may have made a discovery that land affects the radar picture it seems to me that the CV battle between Cardiv 5 and the US CVs occurred out in the middle of the Coral Sea where there were no land masses.

Halsey apparently took the former FDO from Enterprise with him when he took over command of SOPAC so the Enterprise FDO who was in chart of the CAP was inexperienced at Santa Cruz. It showed.

I've been mucking about with the Coral Sea scenario I proposed earlier where the Americans show up with Lexington and Yorktown and Enterprise and Hornet for the Battle of the Coral Sea (postulating a hypothetical 10 day delay in the IJN kickoff for the battle).

The Americans have been organized in 2 TFs of 2 CVs each with 4 cruisers and 8 DDs in each screen (actually didn't even look to see what the screen was for Lex/York in Scen 3: it's whatever it was). The IJN is in one TF with Shokaku, Zuikaku, Shoho, 6 CAs and 7-8 DDsin some of the fights and in 3 TFs of 1 CV or CVL with 1 DD following all the rest of the gunships in a Surf TF. The battle was arranged in the vicinity of Nauru Island. All battles 1 day only. No subtlety on either sides movement but neither side moved more than 3 hexes in the preceding movement phases.
The two US TFs were in different hexes.

Initially the range was set at 3 with no react for all TFs. 3 tries: all with IJN in one big TF.

Damage for CVs listed only (US losses to flak only listed - Japanese losses may be excessive too)

RUN 1: Shokaku: 4sys, 1flt, 3fire; Zuikaku: 35sys, 6flt, 44fire, Shoho: 72sys,55flt,49fire; Lexington: sunk; Yorktown: 56sys,15flt,36fire; Enterprise and Hornet undamaged
US losses to IJN flak: 12 SBD

RUN 2: Shokaku: 89sys,45flt,49fire; Zuikaku: 89sys,44flt,49fire; Shoho: 85sys,44flt,49fire; Lexington: 50sys,30flt,42fire; Yorktown: 79sys,97flt,42fire
USN losses to IJN flak: 11 SBD

RUN 3: Zuikaku: 43sys,26flt,34fire; Lexington: sunk WX blocked Ent/Hor grp in AM, IJN TF in PM
US lossses to IJN flak: 7 SBD

With US TFs set to React 3 but same moves as before

RUN 1: (US strikes included 30 TBD) Zuikaku: 65sys,77flt,49fire; Shokaku: 73sys,91flt,49fire; Shoho: Sunk
Lexington: Sunk; Yorktown: 81sys,77flt,49fire; E&H undamaged
US losses to IJN flak: 7 SBD, 4TBD

RUN2: (US strikes included 29 TBD) Zuikaku: 90sys,72flt,49fire; Shokaku: 71 sys,60flt,49fire; Shoho: 99sys,89flt,49fire; Hornet: 33sys,4flt,36fire; Enterprise: 49sys,11flt,23fire
US losses to IJN flak: 8 SBD, 1 TBD

In 4 tries with the IJN composed of 3 CVTF of 1 CV or CVL and 1 DD the losses to IJN flak were 2 planes in each try.
The damage/losses inflicted on the IJN CVs/CVLs were approxiamately the same depending on range: that is, if the US got a reaction into TBD range the IJN CVs were toast; if the US remainded outside TBD range then the IJN carriers were damaged fairly heavily. US carrier losses didn't really vary much; the IJN CVs traded 1 for 1 with sunk/heavy damage to 2 US CVs every time in spite of being outnumbered 2 to 1.

NOTE: I guess the database was Stock because the TBDs were limited to 2 hex range max (no extended to 3 with 500lb bomb).

[spence]

Just got done running the battle 2 more times. In these runs the IJN had the CV and 1DD TFs and the 2 US CVTFs (of 2CVs+screen) were in the same hex. The US CAP levels were 40% on 2 CVs and 50% on 2.

RUN 1: Zuikaku: SUNK; Lexington: 19sys,9flt,1fire; Yorktown: 29sys,60flt,7fire
For some reason there were no air missions in the afternoon. Zuikaku got obliterated in the morning by one massive US strike. The IJN launched 2 strikes with approx half of their strike aircraft in each. The first one got a bomb hit on Yorktown and a torp hit on Lexington. The 2nd one got a bomb hit on Lexington and 2 torps on Yorktown.

Total US losses to IJN Flak were 3 SBD

RUN 2: Zuikaku: SUNK Shokaku: SUNK (5 days later); Yorktown: 44sys,40flt; Lexington: 55sys,80flt (in port Noumea). Dragged this one out until Lexington made port because it looked touch and go whether it would or not for a while (all other fights were ended right after the fight).
This one again featured one massive US raid in the AM (124 SBD and 54 TBD) which vaporized Zuikaku. The IJN came in one big AM raid as well inflicting as it turned out all the damage done to the USN. The run had a PM phase though. Another big USN raid (54 SBD and 27 TBD) smashed Shokaku. The IJN PM raid was 8 Vals and 10 Kates plus escort. Only 1 Kate was shot down by CAP but the rest scored no hits. The battle was ended at this point and both sides retired - I dragged it out til the damaged CVs either sank or made port. Lexington could still be in danger I suppose since Noumea is only a level 6 port (but I think it's safe). Shokaku never really had a chance having been hit with 12 1000 lbers and a torpedo (I didn't look to see the damage).

Total US losses to IJN Flak were 4 SBD and 1 TBD

[treespider]

Try running Japanese with

1CV TF = Shokaku, Zuikaku + 2 DD's
1CVL TF = Shoho +1DD
1 Surface

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Try running Japanese with

1CV TF = Shokaku, Zuikaku + 2 DD's
1CVL TF = Shoho +1DD
1 Surface

The SAG should follow ("cover") the CVTF, but then react to chase the US carriers. The game won't do it, but that was the idea.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: herwin




If you add a capacity for SAG reaction moves during periods of poor visibility so that the AI will send them off chasing carriers in range when there's an opportunity (and return to the original mission afterwards), it would encourage the IJN player to put surface assets into a separate SAG TF following the carrier TF. That would (1) make both sides nervous about leaving their carriers too close to the enemy at night and (2) weaken the IJN AA screens.

It was also something that might have happened. At Midway the SAG continued sailing Eastward for a while. It isn't clear this is a possibility with present code?

The problem is that chasing down the CVTF is tactical, and the game AI has to take over for tactical actions.

I agree - and AI SHOULD take over - but there is no reason it might not be coded to do that. All this stuff about coding different sides differently could apply here too. A SAG might be programmed to be aggressive - as indeed it is with respect to non CV TFs. Or there could be a switch in the TF screen.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: treespider

Try running Japanese with

1CV TF = Shokaku, Zuikaku + 2 DD's
1CVL TF = Shoho +1DD
1 Surface

The SAG should follow ("cover") the CVTF, but then react to chase the US carriers. The game won't do it, but that was the idea.

I realize...I was more interested in the results of the air combat. As in any such engagement the SAG would have to make an educated guess as to the track of the Allied CV's. And although you may not get an automatic react from the game engine...the player could order his SAG to give chase and risk getting caught in the open when the sun comes up the next day...ie the dilema Nagumo faced after Midway.

[spence]

Try running Japanese with

1CV TF = Shokaku, Zuikaku + 2 DD's
1CVL TF = Shoho +1DD
1 Surface

Since I had saved the game in HtoH with the two fleets about to engage it was no problem to fight the battle requested.
I forgot however that I had set the time interval to 2 day-turns when running the last one.

The battle was at 1 hex range (if the mechanics allowed the SAG would have had a shot I guess).
The US got another massive strike in the AM phase of the 1st day: (128 SBD and 54 TBD). They smashed the Zuikaku and Shokaku with 9 bombs, 5 torpedos and 31 bombs, 2 torpedos respectively. The IJN came in one large raid of 39 Vals and 46 Kates. 1 Kate lost to CAP. They got 1 bomb and 1 torpedo hit on Lexington and 1 bomb, 6 torpedo hits on Yorktown. Strangely there was again no PM air phase (and it wasn't because of weather). Zuikaku, Shokaku and Yorktown sank at the end of Day 1.
Day 2 saw the Lexington retire towards Port Moresby (?) as did the 2 DDs originally assigned to Shokaku and Zuikaku (they headed that way anyways). Hornet and Enterprise launched 3 strikes: the first 2 at the SAG damaging 3 CAs and a DD, the last one at Shoho (with 17 SBD and 12 TBD). Shoho got hit with 6 bombs and a torpedo. Shoho bravely put up a raid of 7 Zeros and 3 Kates which broke through the CAP with the loss of only 1 Zero and scored 2 torpedo hits on Hornet. Meanwhile Lexington sank DD Yugure. Shoho was hit again by a searching SBD in the PM phase. A smallish raid 30 SBD and 6 TBD by the Enterprise/Hornet group (sorta) bombed Shoho (unable to locate target). Shoho sank following the air phase. Hornet sustained 24sys,29flt,8fires andLexington had 15sys,15flt,4fires.
The US lost 2 SBD and 1 TBD to IJN flak for the "game".

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: treespider

Try running Japanese with

1CV TF = Shokaku, Zuikaku + 2 DD's
1CVL TF = Shoho +1DD
1 Surface

The SAG should follow ("cover") the CVTF, but then react to chase the US carriers. The game won't do it, but that was the idea.

I realize...I was more interested in the results of the air combat. As in any such engagement the SAG would have to make an educated guess as to the track of the Allied CV's. And although you may not get an automatic react from the game engine...the player could order his SAG to give chase and risk getting caught in the open when the sun comes up the next day...ie the dilema Nagumo faced after Midway.

It's slightly different--the SAG should react and return (if it can) during the night. That's what the Japanese did for a number of the carrier battles (and close calls) in 1942.

[el cid again]

There is no inherant reason this is impossible in code - if reaction means one hex it is very reasonable as well -
and it would be cool chrome. But it isn't up to us. The mere existence of this would encourage Japanese players NOT to put all their warships in the Carrier TF.

[spence]

It appears that no one finds it interesting that the model "predicts" that the IJN can walk into an ambush where they are outnumbered 2 to 1 in fleet carriers and still come off with an even exchange (of carriers) more often than not.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: herwin


It's slightly different--the SAG should react and return (if it can) during the night. That's what the Japanese did for a number of the carrier battles (and close calls) in 1942.

So how does that differ from how the game currently works - ...

1. Day 1 - Japanese CV TF and SAG engage Allied CV TF in battle.

2. Day 2, Orders Phase - Japanese commander issues orders for the SAG to move to the American CV TF which is 4 hexes distant and sets the SAG to the "Retirement Allowed" setting.

3. Day 2, Execution Phase - SAG moves at night to a hex 4 hexes away where US CV TF had been the day before and either encounters the TF or finds nothing. Then in the second Pulse of the Move the TF begins to move away and return to its home port because it has the "Retirement Allowed" setting.

4. If the Japanese player is good he will be able to calculate what hex the SAG will end up in and also give orders for the CVTF to move to that location to achieve a rendezvous during the daylight.


The only difference I can see in what you propose is that under current rules the SAG does not automatically return to the CV TF it had been following the previous day, before being given orders to engage the Allied CV's...unless the Japanese player knows how to calculate where to place the CV TF to achieve a rendezvous with the SAG upon its second pulse movement.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: herwin


It's slightly different--the SAG should react and return (if it can) during the night. That's what the Japanese did for a number of the carrier battles (and close calls) in 1942.

So how does that differ from how the game currently works - ...

1. Day 1 - Japanese CV TF and SAG engage Allied CV TF in battle.

2. Day 2, Orders Phase - Japanese commander issues orders for the SAG to move to the American CV TF which is 4 hexes distant and sets the SAG to the "Retirement Allowed" setting.

3. Day 2, Execution Phase - SAG moves at night to a hex 4 hexes away where US CV TF had been the day before and either encounters the TF or finds nothing. Then in the second Pulse of the Move the TF begins to move away and return to its home port because it has the "Retirement Allowed" setting.

4. If the Japanese player is good he will be able to calculate what hex the SAG will end up in and also give orders for the CVTF to move to that location to achieve a rendezvous during the daylight.


The only difference I can see in what you propose is that under current rules the SAG does not automatically return to the CV TF it had been following the previous day, before being given orders to engage the Allied CV's...unless the Japanese player knows how to calculate where to place the CV TF to achieve a rendezvous with the SAG upon its second pulse movement.

This is why I advocated the design addition of a mobile home port for TFs, basically a larger formation than a TF which TFs could operated from...ie, return to, keep station on (ie, 1 hex in the van or the rear) etc. Any chance of this be looked into? It would improve the game immeasurably.