Carrier TFs Following?

[Gunner98]

Just going through the manual and this caught my attention:

"Unless set to follow another Task Force, Carrier TFs will react to enemy carrier forces and try and avoid enemy surface combat forces. Carrier TFs set to follow another TF are assumed to be providing air cover to that TF"

I usualy group my CVs with one or two carriers per TF then set them to follow one lead CVTF - does this mean that only the lead CVTF will react or do the CVTFs following react with it? This is probably SAIAW but not sure if I have been screwing up?

B

[Nomad]

sorry . . . must not of understood the queation

[Gunner98]

Sure, I agree that this method can prevent any unwanted surprises, but if I want my carriers to react to an expected move, I just want to be sure that they will all react. Its been quite a while since I played but I think it works that way in WITP, so just want to confirm if its the same in AE?

B

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
This is probably SAIAW

Yup, SAIEW.

[Gunner98]

Thanks for the quick reply. Just so I understand, will all CVTFs react to enemy carriers or do they follow the lead one which does - equates to the same thing I believe.

B

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Thanks for the quick reply. Just so I understand, will all CVTFs react to enemy carriers or do they follow the lead one which does - equates to the same thing I believe.

B

Reaction of a followed TF will NOT affect the following orders of the TF(s) that are following it. If you have a carrier TF following a carrier TF and the first reacts, the second will tag along.

Players need to be careful with use of reaction combined with follow. If your lead TF is a combat TF and it is followed by a "soft" TF (transports, for instance) you need to be sure NOT to use react for the lead TF. Basically, consider the mission of the TF(s) involved. A TF whose job is to escort/protect a soft convoy should NOT have react set or it will abandon it's primary mission in order to chase down some enemy force. If you have enough ships, you might use multiple combat TFs for close cover (no react) and distant cover (react).

Reaction does include follow "the other way". That is, if a combat TF has reaction set and is following another TF, it will react to protect the TF that it is following. Example, a surface combat TF following a transport TF will react to enemy surface combat TFs that are near the transports as well as enemy TFs that are near itself. A similar TF that is not following will only react to enemy near itself.

TF commanders pacing the bridge could make much more precise decisions, based on size, type, and mission of TF. In this (and other areas) I suspect some common conditions will pop up frequently after release and some adjustment will be required.

[TheElf]

So the title of this thread should be something like....

MANUAL QUESTION - Naval Team....[;)][:D]

PS. I realize this thread was started before I posted the ROE...

[jimh009]

I must be getting old and outdated, but what does SAIAW mean?? Even the urban dictionary didn't have this acronym listed.

[Barb]

Should be SAIEW - Same As It Ever Was ... 

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Should be SAIEW - Same As It Ever Was ... 

or Same As It Always Was....

[bradfordkay]

gunner98 and Don are apparently not Talking Heads fans...

[LeeChard]

Sometimes I will Form a small TF of DD's for ASW then I assign it to follow a convoy assuming it will chase down subs that are spotted in it's reaction range.
Is my assumption wrong?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

Sometimes I will Form a small TF of DD's for ASW then I assign it to follow a convoy assuming it will chase down subs that are spotted in it's reaction range.
Is my assumption wrong?

Unfortunately yes. Due to the mechanics of reaction and retreat we were not able to allow reaction TO a submarine TF. I know this sounds like an easy thing, but t'ain't.

[bradfordkay]

ranger, yours is still a valid tactic because the ASW TF will attack subs that are in the hex with the protected convoy. Il use this method to protect some important convoys. The rest of the time I merely put one or more escorts directly into the convoy and send it off on its own - but very important ones will get an ASW TF as well as integral escorts. 

[Gunner98]

Thanks, understand that much better now. Follow on question - I recall an earlier discussion on the order of TFs in a chain being important. So in the case of CVTFs in a chain, I may want to put the most capable (or aggressive) commander in the lowest numbered TF - this way all of the CVTFs in the chain get the benefit of the one leader's aggressiveness. Essentially the lead TF would contain the Fleet Commander (Halsey or Spruance) and the leaders in each TF would only affect tactical stuff within each individual TF. Have I got that right?


B

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Thanks, understand that much better now. Follow on question - I recall an earlier discussion on the order of TFs in a chain being important. So in the case of CVTFs in a chain, I may want to put the most capable (or aggressive) commander in the lowest numbered TF - this way all of the CVTFs in the chain get the benefit of the one leader's aggressiveness. Essentially the lead TF would contain the Fleet Commander (Halsey or Spruance) and the leaders in each TF would only affect tactical stuff within each individual TF. Have I got that right?


B

Don't know, never tried it. Do it and let us know.

[Sardaukar]

Wonder how many saw this in manual:

6.3.4 SPECIAL AIRCRAFT CARRIER MOVEMENT
Air Combat TF’s that have not aborted their Mission and have at least 30 aircraft may
automatically move one hex towards an enemy air combat TF after each Air Search Phase.
Allied Task Forces between 2 and 4 hexes of the enemy will automatically move and Japanese
Task Forces either 4 or 5 hexes from the enemy will automatically move. TF’s with a Max React
set to 0 will not make this move. A very aggressive AC TF commander can override this.

Me likes.

[Gunner98]

OK sounds good[8D], however at the risk of kittens everywhere - I won't follow through with the next question...[:'(] I look forward to trying this one out.