Am I wrong or naval combat can only happens in two cases:
1-during a bombardment mission against the attacking TF and any docked TF
2-If and only if the destintation hex of a surface combat TF is the same of any other enemy TF.
Otherwise (even with Patrol/don't retire and React orders) in all my tests was impossible to have a naval battle....
Surface Combat
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
That is correct, based on what the designers posted, unfortunately. I would hope that in the patch it will be changed so that surface combat task forces with “react to” orders would react to any non-carrier sighting as long as it didn’t put them within land based air range. I would even like to have a chance to run down a carrier with my battleline at night. I remember doing this a few times in Carriers At War.
Yamamoto
Yamamoto
-
Pkunzipper
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:27 pm
-
Marc von Martial
- Posts: 5292
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Bonn, Germany
- Contact:
-
Pkunzipper
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:27 pm
Yes, I often have a battle between a bombardment TF and the docked ships, but after 2 years of play (in the game time) I had no surface combat in any non base hex (except for SS attacks)...
maybe I'm doing something wrong, but in h2h against me combat occurred only when I stabilished a common dest hex for both TF...
No combat occurred even if 2 TF pass through the same hex (the first for both)...
I set my TF with Patrol/don't retire and React to enemy.
How do you get them to engage?
maybe I'm doing something wrong, but in h2h against me combat occurred only when I stabilished a common dest hex for both TF...
No combat occurred even if 2 TF pass through the same hex (the first for both)...
I set my TF with Patrol/don't retire and React to enemy.
How do you get them to engage?
-
Wilhammer
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
- Contact:
Without getting into details, surface engagements on the open sea are VERY rare throughout history.
That said, just how do you get one in UV?
I have had about half a dozen surface engagements on the "high" seas.
Since UV does not have mid-course interception, you have to make a guess as to where the target will be, and plot a surface force to go to that hex.
[This is an important concept to grasp. NO MID COURSE INTERCEPTIONS TAKE PLACE. BATTLES ONLY OCCUR AT END POINTS. Even though scores of ships might "pass" through the same hex, you CANNOT stop them. This means that you cannot BLOCK passages or the "Slot". Thus, the screening forces you read about are NOT possible in the scale of this game. But should it be? For example, First Savo was about a Jap force probing towards the invasion force, and the Allied surface force was blocking them. IS this not simulated in UV? I think it is. I have noticed that if you attack a multiple task force hex, the combat vessels will face you before you can get to the transports.]
You know that a Task Force can move XX hexes in a day. If you know to what location they are heading, you could, in theory, make clock work of intercepting them.
As the speed of a TF goes up, this method becomes almost worthless, but as the speed goes down, it becomes invaluable.
Most of my use has been to mop up after air attacks.
I have used this same tactic to create DD sub hunter packs that go out and sink subs. Sure helps get rid of those pesky ones hanging around Gili Gili.
====================================
Interface Request.
When a my mouse hovers over a hex during selection of TF destination, it would be nice if the hex coordinate would "balloon".
That said, just how do you get one in UV?
I have had about half a dozen surface engagements on the "high" seas.
Since UV does not have mid-course interception, you have to make a guess as to where the target will be, and plot a surface force to go to that hex.
[This is an important concept to grasp. NO MID COURSE INTERCEPTIONS TAKE PLACE. BATTLES ONLY OCCUR AT END POINTS. Even though scores of ships might "pass" through the same hex, you CANNOT stop them. This means that you cannot BLOCK passages or the "Slot". Thus, the screening forces you read about are NOT possible in the scale of this game. But should it be? For example, First Savo was about a Jap force probing towards the invasion force, and the Allied surface force was blocking them. IS this not simulated in UV? I think it is. I have noticed that if you attack a multiple task force hex, the combat vessels will face you before you can get to the transports.]
You know that a Task Force can move XX hexes in a day. If you know to what location they are heading, you could, in theory, make clock work of intercepting them.
As the speed of a TF goes up, this method becomes almost worthless, but as the speed goes down, it becomes invaluable.
Most of my use has been to mop up after air attacks.
I have used this same tactic to create DD sub hunter packs that go out and sink subs. Sure helps get rid of those pesky ones hanging around Gili Gili.
====================================
Interface Request.
When a my mouse hovers over a hex during selection of TF destination, it would be nice if the hex coordinate would "balloon".
-
Pkunzipper
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:27 pm
-
Wilhammer
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
- Contact:
Agreed.
It is missing from the game that we don't get headings and speed from spotted task forces, but then again, what good would it do in this scale?
I devine the speeds and direction by noteing the following:
1. NO Ships start at sea at the beginning of the game.
2. Liberal use of PGs, PCs, SCa as recon forces.
3. You KNOW the main supply hub locations. A cruiser-centric raiding force between Rabaul and Truk should finf plenty of opportunity.
4. After a battle, crippled ships run away. You can chase them, as you generally know in in which direction they head; towards the hubs.
5. Lots of planes on spotting missions.
6. Taking hand written notes. Yes, I identify task forces on the game map, pencil track their progression, predict paths, and launch intercepts.
Using these methods (which I just started using this past weekend), I have fallen into a routine of intercepting/shadowing task forces from Australia to PM. My subs and cruiser/dd task forces are hunting them down and killing them. I had 1 surface engagement prior to Sunday, last night I had about a half-dozen.
=========================================
After thought....
The truth is, we have something one should rarely get; the EXACT locations of enemy TFs at the end of each day.
Every spotted enemy TF is PRECISELY fixed and located at the end of each day, thus making it easier to track them down and hunt them down.
I am still working this technique out to its finest details. Hopefully I will be able to gun down a CV force with a BB force on the high seas. After all, as long as I spotted them, I KNOW EXACTLY where they are prior to plotting night time surface engagements.
It is missing from the game that we don't get headings and speed from spotted task forces, but then again, what good would it do in this scale?
I devine the speeds and direction by noteing the following:
1. NO Ships start at sea at the beginning of the game.
2. Liberal use of PGs, PCs, SCa as recon forces.
3. You KNOW the main supply hub locations. A cruiser-centric raiding force between Rabaul and Truk should finf plenty of opportunity.
4. After a battle, crippled ships run away. You can chase them, as you generally know in in which direction they head; towards the hubs.
5. Lots of planes on spotting missions.
6. Taking hand written notes. Yes, I identify task forces on the game map, pencil track their progression, predict paths, and launch intercepts.
Using these methods (which I just started using this past weekend), I have fallen into a routine of intercepting/shadowing task forces from Australia to PM. My subs and cruiser/dd task forces are hunting them down and killing them. I had 1 surface engagement prior to Sunday, last night I had about a half-dozen.
=========================================
After thought....
The truth is, we have something one should rarely get; the EXACT locations of enemy TFs at the end of each day.
Every spotted enemy TF is PRECISELY fixed and located at the end of each day, thus making it easier to track them down and hunt them down.
I am still working this technique out to its finest details. Hopefully I will be able to gun down a CV force with a BB force on the high seas. After all, as long as I spotted them, I KNOW EXACTLY where they are prior to plotting night time surface engagements.
-
Pkunzipper
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:27 pm
I agree with you when you say that heading and speed of a TF it's not needed at this scale, but so the command "react to enemy" should work also for surface combat TFs (as it works for CV TFs), since this represent the orders of the TF commander,that once received the contact report (including heading and speed, not needed by us (the theatre commander)), tries to intercept the enemy.
I hope to have explained my thought, since my english isn't very good
I hope to have explained my thought, since my english isn't very good
-
Wilhammer
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
- Contact:
Your points came through loud and clear, by the way.
Perhaps mine did not, as it was just one phrase long.
"Surface combat is RARE on the high seas".
It rarely even happenmed in WW2, the Battle of North Cape and Kommisart Island (sp?) being the only two to come to mind.
I question the need for React to enemy surface forces, unless it is at VERY short range, like one hex.
Perhaps mine did not, as it was just one phrase long.
"Surface combat is RARE on the high seas".
It rarely even happenmed in WW2, the Battle of North Cape and Kommisart Island (sp?) being the only two to come to mind.
I question the need for React to enemy surface forces, unless it is at VERY short range, like one hex.
'Random' surface engagements were rare i would agree
TF's with a specific mission however have a much greater chance, dependant on the level of commitment of the naval staff involved, the agressiveness of the attacker/intruder, and the willingness to engage by the defender. (examples would be the Barrants Sea engagement, North Cape, Java sea, Battle of Sirte etc etc)
carrier TF's on the other hand would have virtually a nil chance for engagement as any carrier commander worth his salt will usually attempt to avoid making themselves an easy target while nighttime grounds their primary weapon for the most part. (dependant again on stance and course settings. (and the speed of the group) So while the surface commander has the desire, and the agressiveness, the carrier commander most definately does not wish to initiate reducing the chances for a meeting of the minds.....that is, unless the operational commander (i.e. YOU
), overrides him and orders the TF to remain in the area (no retirement allowed) or same hex or advances them farther into enemy territory. If a fast enemy surface TF is nearby.....it might/should increase the chance for an intercept.
I would agree that a surface TF, with a specific mission for combat/interception should be able to "react to enemy" in the same vein as a carrier TF. However it is a given that it is far more difficult to arrange a rondevous between surface ships, which must obtain visual or near visual contact with their target, and aircraft which are far far faster and can be launched from even hundreds of miles away. The difference therin is the more subtle but key advantage of airpower as represented in the game
IIRC, with previous wargames, the chance for an link up between surface forces at the operational level was largely a factor of mission, rating of the commander (if factored at all) and most importantly, speed and the ratio of speed difference between opposing TF's.
For example, if a fast cruiser force with a 'surface combat' mission detects or is pointed in the direction of a slow transport force then the chance for a successful interception ('react to enemy' interaction) should be much greater than an opposing TF of similar speed.
Add to that variables to determine move-countermove etc etc and you get the eventual modified percentage, all of which would be invisible to the player who is cast in the role of operational commander.
In game terms these variables could be influenced by the orders given at the onset by the player, such as the "do not retire/retirement allowed" toggle
A transport TF with the former setting would be a simulation of a must-get through convoy regardless of risk and any current threat acessments, such as the early British Malta convoys.
A transport/supply TF with a retirement allowed option would be the opposite.....important (as all supply TF's are) but not so important as to ignore developments in the threat situation. Such a convoy/TF should be by default much harder to intercept assuming the defending side becomes aware of the presence of enemy forces (which usually happens in the game due to the proliferation of seaplanes and other search aircraft)
Leadership and inspiration ratings should also play a direct part in these interactions.
From what i've read on this thread, it sounds like UV is pretty much doing this though admitedly, i have yet to see a sucessful 'intercept' due to 'react to enemy'
In my test scenerios to check on the other aspects of the surface combat routine however, i can confirm that two surface TF's that share the same destination hex, even if its an open sea hex, do indeed initiate combat, (day and night)
base interactions work well too. Bombardment TF's are usually intercepted first by defending surface combat TF's before they can bombard. Same situation when transport TF's are present, the intruding TF must first fight it's way through the defending surface combat TF.
TF's with a specific mission however have a much greater chance, dependant on the level of commitment of the naval staff involved, the agressiveness of the attacker/intruder, and the willingness to engage by the defender. (examples would be the Barrants Sea engagement, North Cape, Java sea, Battle of Sirte etc etc)
carrier TF's on the other hand would have virtually a nil chance for engagement as any carrier commander worth his salt will usually attempt to avoid making themselves an easy target while nighttime grounds their primary weapon for the most part. (dependant again on stance and course settings. (and the speed of the group) So while the surface commander has the desire, and the agressiveness, the carrier commander most definately does not wish to initiate reducing the chances for a meeting of the minds.....that is, unless the operational commander (i.e. YOU
), overrides him and orders the TF to remain in the area (no retirement allowed) or same hex or advances them farther into enemy territory. If a fast enemy surface TF is nearby.....it might/should increase the chance for an intercept.I would agree that a surface TF, with a specific mission for combat/interception should be able to "react to enemy" in the same vein as a carrier TF. However it is a given that it is far more difficult to arrange a rondevous between surface ships, which must obtain visual or near visual contact with their target, and aircraft which are far far faster and can be launched from even hundreds of miles away. The difference therin is the more subtle but key advantage of airpower as represented in the game
IIRC, with previous wargames, the chance for an link up between surface forces at the operational level was largely a factor of mission, rating of the commander (if factored at all) and most importantly, speed and the ratio of speed difference between opposing TF's.
For example, if a fast cruiser force with a 'surface combat' mission detects or is pointed in the direction of a slow transport force then the chance for a successful interception ('react to enemy' interaction) should be much greater than an opposing TF of similar speed.
Add to that variables to determine move-countermove etc etc and you get the eventual modified percentage, all of which would be invisible to the player who is cast in the role of operational commander.
In game terms these variables could be influenced by the orders given at the onset by the player, such as the "do not retire/retirement allowed" toggle
A transport TF with the former setting would be a simulation of a must-get through convoy regardless of risk and any current threat acessments, such as the early British Malta convoys.
A transport/supply TF with a retirement allowed option would be the opposite.....important (as all supply TF's are) but not so important as to ignore developments in the threat situation. Such a convoy/TF should be by default much harder to intercept assuming the defending side becomes aware of the presence of enemy forces (which usually happens in the game due to the proliferation of seaplanes and other search aircraft)
Leadership and inspiration ratings should also play a direct part in these interactions.
From what i've read on this thread, it sounds like UV is pretty much doing this though admitedly, i have yet to see a sucessful 'intercept' due to 'react to enemy'
In my test scenerios to check on the other aspects of the surface combat routine however, i can confirm that two surface TF's that share the same destination hex, even if its an open sea hex, do indeed initiate combat, (day and night)
base interactions work well too. Bombardment TF's are usually intercepted first by defending surface combat TF's before they can bombard. Same situation when transport TF's are present, the intruding TF must first fight it's way through the defending surface combat TF.
This is one area that needs to be corrected. Surface combat
TF's should be able to intercept each other in mid course,
wherever they might happen to be. If you set a surface combat TF
to "react to enemy", they should do just that. If an enemy TF
comes within sighting range, they should try to go after/intercept
them and engage.
Now, since the hexes are 30 miles across, this would mean
that spotting would most commonly occur only when TF's are
in the same hex. But a TF might not be in the middle of a hex at
any given time, it might be near one of the edges of a hex, and
thus able to see well into the next hex. So perhaps a routine
could be set up to determine near what edge of the hex
a TF is at during each impulse. And then if an enemy TF is
in the same hex or in the hex that the other TF is near to the
edge of, it may spot them.
Now if for some reason figuring out if the TF is near the edge
of a certain hex can't be determined by the game engine, then
at least allow spotting and interception if the enemy TF's are in
the same hex with one another, whether they are just
traveling through the hex or not. That would be a huge
improvement over what we have now.
Obviously one TF would have to spot the other in order for
there to be an interception, which would be greatly affected
by weather, if it's day or night, crew experience (how good the
lookouts are), etc. So often times TF's could slip past one
another in a 30 mile hex and not be noticed, especially if the
TF's are small. But there would also be a very realistic chance
that they would be spotted and could be engaged.
TF's should be able to intercept each other in mid course,
wherever they might happen to be. If you set a surface combat TF
to "react to enemy", they should do just that. If an enemy TF
comes within sighting range, they should try to go after/intercept
them and engage.
Now, since the hexes are 30 miles across, this would mean
that spotting would most commonly occur only when TF's are
in the same hex. But a TF might not be in the middle of a hex at
any given time, it might be near one of the edges of a hex, and
thus able to see well into the next hex. So perhaps a routine
could be set up to determine near what edge of the hex
a TF is at during each impulse. And then if an enemy TF is
in the same hex or in the hex that the other TF is near to the
edge of, it may spot them.
Now if for some reason figuring out if the TF is near the edge
of a certain hex can't be determined by the game engine, then
at least allow spotting and interception if the enemy TF's are in
the same hex with one another, whether they are just
traveling through the hex or not. That would be a huge
improvement over what we have now.
Obviously one TF would have to spot the other in order for
there to be an interception, which would be greatly affected
by weather, if it's day or night, crew experience (how good the
lookouts are), etc. So often times TF's could slip past one
another in a 30 mile hex and not be noticed, especially if the
TF's are small. But there would also be a very realistic chance
that they would be spotted and could be engaged.
-
Wilhammer
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
- Contact:
On this I agree.
If two opposing TFs cross paths, a routine should check if they spot each other and engage.
In essence, time influenced ZOCs.
For example, if you wanted to block a narrow passage, like that between the "Archipelago" and Gili-Gil, you would consider putting a surface TF on near permanent patrol to guard it.
As it stands now, it is nothing to the enemy to sail right on through.
This is why I mentioned one might want to consider a ONE HEX or SAME HEX "en passant" routine.
If two opposing TFs cross paths, a routine should check if they spot each other and engage.
In essence, time influenced ZOCs.
For example, if you wanted to block a narrow passage, like that between the "Archipelago" and Gili-Gil, you would consider putting a surface TF on near permanent patrol to guard it.
As it stands now, it is nothing to the enemy to sail right on through.
This is why I mentioned one might want to consider a ONE HEX or SAME HEX "en passant" routine.
-
Pkunzipper
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:27 pm
This is the point!!Originally posted by Nikademus
For example, if a fast cruiser force with a 'surface combat' mission detects or is pointed in the direction of a slow transport force then the chance for a successful interception ('react to enemy' interaction) should be much greater than an opposing TF of similar speed.
for example:
I'm the commander of a CA TF, my orders are to patrol the area of the sea where I am now and react to the enemy.
A just landed Kingfisher pilot reported a small enemy tanker TF just 60 km (2 hex) north of here going at 9 knots.....
Why shall I not try to intercept it????
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
A couple possible options are being looked at, but as the game currently works, surface combats tend to revolve around supporting landings or bombardments. (hence the "react to enemy in bases" rule) - a very historical limitation.
Out in "open ocean" unless you are going after a retiring cripple, the ability of a taskforce to bring another taskforce to battle was problematic. Even an auxillery that you have a 10 knot speed advantage on could take you 10 hours to overtake at 3 hex range. It could be lost in a squall, screen a turn with smoke putting you out of position, etc. For combatants of like speed, even if it detects you entering the hex at 15nm, it could take you 5 or 6 hours of stern chase if it refuses battle.
Haze, heavy sea state, etc can cause ships pasisng nearby to misseach other, so given the in frequence of two task forces occupying the same hex at the same time, the processing load and delay in game play does not seem worth the couple encouters such a rule would generate.
THe issue seems to be in close waters and choke points were the probability of interception is high and the ability to prevent the passage of supply ships is desired. Since these sorts of situations can be handled at the base terminus, this leaves only the attempt at ambushing replenishment ships the case that is lacking. This proved historically difficult.
This is one of those "design decision bugs" where "brute force" calculation may seem to be "more realistic" when it may in reality slow the game execution down for little return. This could cause there to be a great deal more surface actions than historically occured because the players ability to "game the sytem" and use knowledge no real commander would have to force surface engagements. In the absence of realtively simple solution, its not an area that is likely to be "overhauled" extensively. The gme is working as intended.
You can disagree with the design decision, but compromises have to made to balance realism and playability.
Out in "open ocean" unless you are going after a retiring cripple, the ability of a taskforce to bring another taskforce to battle was problematic. Even an auxillery that you have a 10 knot speed advantage on could take you 10 hours to overtake at 3 hex range. It could be lost in a squall, screen a turn with smoke putting you out of position, etc. For combatants of like speed, even if it detects you entering the hex at 15nm, it could take you 5 or 6 hours of stern chase if it refuses battle.
Haze, heavy sea state, etc can cause ships pasisng nearby to misseach other, so given the in frequence of two task forces occupying the same hex at the same time, the processing load and delay in game play does not seem worth the couple encouters such a rule would generate.
THe issue seems to be in close waters and choke points were the probability of interception is high and the ability to prevent the passage of supply ships is desired. Since these sorts of situations can be handled at the base terminus, this leaves only the attempt at ambushing replenishment ships the case that is lacking. This proved historically difficult.
This is one of those "design decision bugs" where "brute force" calculation may seem to be "more realistic" when it may in reality slow the game execution down for little return. This could cause there to be a great deal more surface actions than historically occured because the players ability to "game the sytem" and use knowledge no real commander would have to force surface engagements. In the absence of realtively simple solution, its not an area that is likely to be "overhauled" extensively. The gme is working as intended.
You can disagree with the design decision, but compromises have to made to balance realism and playability.
-
Wilhammer
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
- Contact:
I think it is a good call Paul.
The truth is, like any other naval war, it is all about the bases.
....and a 30 mile wide "hex" of open ocean is a huge place.
As you put it with many examples, finding an enemy TF at other than bases is extremely rare, and not really worth it.
As for running down nearby TFs just 6o miles away (or 30 miles or less), it happened all to rarely in the real war.
..and when this system is laid down in WitP at a 60 mile hex scale, it is even more unneeded overhead.
It is with great foresight that you layered TFs in port. The combat TFs you go through first BEFORE you get to the supply ships (or the bombard mission).
===========================
Question; does this apply to mixed Surface/Air TFs?
The Americans adopted a method of putting AA laden warships in the path of expected Japanese air, and when they struck, they first got shot up by this screening TF. I have noticed the early war Japanes to be VERY good at going straight for the CVs.
The truth is, like any other naval war, it is all about the bases.
....and a 30 mile wide "hex" of open ocean is a huge place.
As you put it with many examples, finding an enemy TF at other than bases is extremely rare, and not really worth it.
As for running down nearby TFs just 6o miles away (or 30 miles or less), it happened all to rarely in the real war.
..and when this system is laid down in WitP at a 60 mile hex scale, it is even more unneeded overhead.
It is with great foresight that you layered TFs in port. The combat TFs you go through first BEFORE you get to the supply ships (or the bombard mission).
===========================
Question; does this apply to mixed Surface/Air TFs?
The Americans adopted a method of putting AA laden warships in the path of expected Japanese air, and when they struck, they first got shot up by this screening TF. I have noticed the early war Japanes to be VERY good at going straight for the CVs.
-
Pkunzipper
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:27 pm
Paul:
I agree that interceptions shouldn't be taking place constantly
and that's certainly not what I would want to see happen.
But if I send a CA TF out with orders to seek out and engage (react)
to enemy TF's and they run into, say, another enemy CA TF that
also has orders to engage enemy ships, shouldn't they be able
to battle it out, even if they don't happen to be in some base or destination hex?
Now, if the other CA TF has orders to retire and he runs for it
as soon as he spots my TF, then obviously he would
have good chance of getting away and not much would likely
come from the encounter. And, of course, we still have the
weather factor, etc. to make spotting tricky. This would keep
open ocean surface engagements pretty uncommon, as they
should be. But it would still allow surface combat TF's to
mix it up if they want to. Also, if you have an aggressive commander
he would be more likely to decide to take on the enemy TF, etc.
This makes for the possibility of some very interesting battles
when TF's meet up in non-base hexes, while still keeping the
engagements believable.
And I think I can safely say that the kind of people that like
to play complex wargames like UV and the upcoming WitP aren't
going to mind a little extra time for the computer to calculate
these important details.
And considering the processing
power of CPU's these days, it isn't a problem. Plus UV is going
to be being played for years, it has to last us a long time, since in all
likelihood no one else will make such a computer wargame
covering this topic any time soon. And two years from now
the CPU's will be so fast that all these calcs will be even less
significant in terms of processing time than they are now.
I agree that interceptions shouldn't be taking place constantly
and that's certainly not what I would want to see happen.
But if I send a CA TF out with orders to seek out and engage (react)
to enemy TF's and they run into, say, another enemy CA TF that
also has orders to engage enemy ships, shouldn't they be able
to battle it out, even if they don't happen to be in some base or destination hex?
Now, if the other CA TF has orders to retire and he runs for it
as soon as he spots my TF, then obviously he would
have good chance of getting away and not much would likely
come from the encounter. And, of course, we still have the
weather factor, etc. to make spotting tricky. This would keep
open ocean surface engagements pretty uncommon, as they
should be. But it would still allow surface combat TF's to
mix it up if they want to. Also, if you have an aggressive commander
he would be more likely to decide to take on the enemy TF, etc.
This makes for the possibility of some very interesting battles
when TF's meet up in non-base hexes, while still keeping the
engagements believable.
And I think I can safely say that the kind of people that like
to play complex wargames like UV and the upcoming WitP aren't
going to mind a little extra time for the computer to calculate
these important details.
And considering the processingpower of CPU's these days, it isn't a problem. Plus UV is going
to be being played for years, it has to last us a long time, since in all
likelihood no one else will make such a computer wargame
covering this topic any time soon. And two years from now
the CPU's will be so fast that all these calcs will be even less
significant in terms of processing time than they are now.
A related question, if 2 TF end up in the same hex will there always be combat. I was so excited when my first use of the PT boats endup om tje same ocean hex as the crippled Soryu and crippled destroyer. However, since neither side had radar I am not sure how likely it was they would find each other.
Of course the battle was anti-clamatic. All 6 PT boats missed with all torps.. They did managed some belt hits and even critical hits!! with 50 cals on the destroyers.. I know 50 cals are pretty powerful but can the really get penetration hits on destroyers!
Of course the battle was anti-clamatic. All 6 PT boats missed with all torps.. They did managed some belt hits and even critical hits!! with 50 cals on the destroyers.. I know 50 cals are pretty powerful but can the really get penetration hits on destroyers!