One Hex Reaction of Air Combat TF
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3426
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
One Hex Reaction of Air Combat TF
I find this irritating, no matter which side I play.
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
It's rather silly that the "react" gets set to no, but it reacts anyways. I always split off one ship, just to have the CV's follow and disable this jumping around.
One should note that it STRONGLY affects the Japan player with their longer range, with the Allied ships possibly stepping into Torpedo bomber range. The Allies on the other hand sometimes get an extra airstrike due to the 4 hexes stepped by the 2 TFs.
The classic is when you LRCAP your transports, the CV steps a hex and has 0 CAP now and gets creamed!
One should note that it STRONGLY affects the Japan player with their longer range, with the Allied ships possibly stepping into Torpedo bomber range. The Allies on the other hand sometimes get an extra airstrike due to the 4 hexes stepped by the 2 TFs.
The classic is when you LRCAP your transports, the CV steps a hex and has 0 CAP now and gets creamed!
I like it. Keep it!
Though I think if a TF is set to follow, it should follow the 'reacting' TF into the new hex. Maybe make this dependent on a dice roll depending on some factors - weather, radar, leadership?
The only problem with it is the 'follow' commad. Otherwise it works GREAT and is one of the better features of UV!
Though I think if a TF is set to follow, it should follow the 'reacting' TF into the new hex. Maybe make this dependent on a dice roll depending on some factors - weather, radar, leadership?
The only problem with it is the 'follow' commad. Otherwise it works GREAT and is one of the better features of UV!
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
Again I say...
I mean this should be the "acid test" for a feature like this in games like UV and WitP, right?
Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
I don't know so this is not scarcastic...
Is there a historical reason for this feature (keeping in mind that each hex is 30 miles across)?
I mean this should be the "acid test" for a feature like this in games like UV and WitP, right?
The Grumbling Grognard
-
Pkunzipper
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:27 pm
Originally posted by Pkunzipper
Mmmmhh...
I left a TF with 2 CV in the Tulagi base hex, in order to have the cover of 7-8 fighter squadrons based there... Imagine my surprise when that TF reacted to a 5 CV japanese TF and moved 1 hex off Tulagi (even if I set "don't react")....
You need a less aggressive commander - replace the current commander and send him back home for some R&R.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
I voted to get rid of it.
Seems like there should be a general set of reaction movement rules for AC TF commanders. Depending on the situation, their temperment and their judgement, they should be trying to close the range to the enemy or open the range to the enemy. So once an AC TF commander has
a) received a spotting report of what is or may be an enemy AC TF, and
b) the partial movement of their plotted moves has carried them into a position where a battle with this force is likely,
then the remainder of the movement of that TF should be controlled by the reaction moves sequence.
The AI commander should be making judgements as to whether they should force or avoid a battle, and then if the decision is made or force to join a battle, then the AI commander should be trying to get to an optimum range to fight the battle.
As an area strategic commander, my movement orders to the TF should be discarded when this battle sequence begins. I should be directing a TF towards a strategic location, or towards the enemy. But once combat is joined, my original movement orders should be discarded in favor of what the TF commander feels is the best moves for his TF.
In game terms I'd say the TF's should probably move one hex at a time along their plotted courses. But when they reach a certain proximity to each other (12 to 15 hexes maybe???), they should abandon those orders and move the rest on reaction moves.
If you look at the movement tracks of the TF's in something like the Coral Sea battle, then you see something that looks more like this pattern that what UV currently creates. On something like the 2nd day at Coral Sea, Nimitz wasn't directing the movement of the TF's by saying go exactly to this area. Instead all he would be doing would be issuing strategic orders that might order the TF's back towards Austrailia or Noumea, or maybe to another objective if a crisis arose and he wanted the battle broken off.
Seems like there should be a general set of reaction movement rules for AC TF commanders. Depending on the situation, their temperment and their judgement, they should be trying to close the range to the enemy or open the range to the enemy. So once an AC TF commander has
a) received a spotting report of what is or may be an enemy AC TF, and
b) the partial movement of their plotted moves has carried them into a position where a battle with this force is likely,
then the remainder of the movement of that TF should be controlled by the reaction moves sequence.
The AI commander should be making judgements as to whether they should force or avoid a battle, and then if the decision is made or force to join a battle, then the AI commander should be trying to get to an optimum range to fight the battle.
As an area strategic commander, my movement orders to the TF should be discarded when this battle sequence begins. I should be directing a TF towards a strategic location, or towards the enemy. But once combat is joined, my original movement orders should be discarded in favor of what the TF commander feels is the best moves for his TF.
In game terms I'd say the TF's should probably move one hex at a time along their plotted courses. But when they reach a certain proximity to each other (12 to 15 hexes maybe???), they should abandon those orders and move the rest on reaction moves.
If you look at the movement tracks of the TF's in something like the Coral Sea battle, then you see something that looks more like this pattern that what UV currently creates. On something like the 2nd day at Coral Sea, Nimitz wasn't directing the movement of the TF's by saying go exactly to this area. Instead all he would be doing would be issuing strategic orders that might order the TF's back towards Austrailia or Noumea, or maybe to another objective if a crisis arose and he wanted the battle broken off.
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington
The Big Question
Hi. First off your CV do not get attacked because they move this one hex.
Sometimes you'd rather they got attacked and did not launch a counter strike (CV sitting on base with lots of CAP, moves 1 hex and loses protection)(really sucks when said CV is already damaged and has no airgroups)
The reason they move is they are going to get attacked, move one hex or not the enemy is inbound. The TF commander will try to launch a counter strike. For allied players this means any range over 4 hexes might provoke a reaction.
Remember we are not driving every TF, Airgroup, sub, ship.
(we only wish we were when they muck up)
My one alternative would be, they react, but the TF commander is
afraid of losing ships so they react as many hexes as needed (within movement allowance) to get out of range of attack that they currently react into.
But remember this 1 hex movement is really
"ah s%$# I'm under attack, close range and turn into the wind. get everything up"
Sometimes you'd rather they got attacked and did not launch a counter strike (CV sitting on base with lots of CAP, moves 1 hex and loses protection)(really sucks when said CV is already damaged and has no airgroups)
The reason they move is they are going to get attacked, move one hex or not the enemy is inbound. The TF commander will try to launch a counter strike. For allied players this means any range over 4 hexes might provoke a reaction.
Remember we are not driving every TF, Airgroup, sub, ship.
(we only wish we were when they muck up)
My one alternative would be, they react, but the TF commander is
afraid of losing ships so they react as many hexes as needed (within movement allowance) to get out of range of attack that they currently react into.
But remember this 1 hex movement is really
"ah s%$# I'm under attack, close range and turn into the wind. get everything up"
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
I don't mind it as carriers historically closed the range to give their air groups an improved chance to get home. The problem here I think is that other TFs in the hex, regardless of their orders/relationship to CV TF (ie CV TF is escorting an invasion fleet, providing air cover etc., and has orders to follow the transports) are left vulnerable. There is no ability for the game AI to adjust for this an maintain LR CAP over the transports or anything else.
I know Halsey did this at Leyte Gulf, but this should not be taken as the norm. The consequences of this are not too severe in a one day turn cycle, as the enemy will have the CV TF as a priority anyway (unless they are not spotted...a real long shot), but in longer turn cycles, I've noticed the CVs not resuming their mission of "follow".
CV TFs will also continue to react towards enemy, even when their airgroups are decimated and closing the enemy would otherwise be "imprudent" to say the least.
I know Halsey did this at Leyte Gulf, but this should not be taken as the norm. The consequences of this are not too severe in a one day turn cycle, as the enemy will have the CV TF as a priority anyway (unless they are not spotted...a real long shot), but in longer turn cycles, I've noticed the CVs not resuming their mission of "follow".
CV TFs will also continue to react towards enemy, even when their airgroups are decimated and closing the enemy would otherwise be "imprudent" to say the least.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Reaction
Hi, The only time a reacting aircombat TF does not launch a strike at enemy aircombat TF is weather. If the TF reacts 1 hex it is because there is an enemy aircombat TF that is within range of launching a strike. This reaction might result in the TF not providing CAP over other TF's that were in it's starting hex. However the aircombat TF is simply trying to launch a strike against a target it thinks is going to launch. I really can't see any one saying they would like their carrier commander to recieve a strike and not give one back. (Aircombat TF's set to follow a transport TF will never react, not even 1 hex)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
bradfordkay
- Posts: 8686
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
It did make a huge difference once when my lead TF had orders to perform LRCAP over a troop convoy, leaving the two following TFs to provide CAP for all the carriers. Unfortunately, this was how I learned that the TFs set to follow do not take this reaction move. My lead TF went ahead alone with no CAP and was clobbered (as were its SBDs which had no fighter escort). Ever since, I have been far more careful about setting carrier TFs to follow each other (it was a simple way to give orders, now I have to carefully give the same movement orders to each TF).
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
IF CV TFs did this historically I am fine with it.
I do question this when we are talking about 30 mile hexes though... :rolleyes:
And keep in mind this happens even if the unit is in port, in formation or has no air groups (or so others have said).
It would seem that this is not very realistic to me. But, what the hell do I know.
I do question this when we are talking about 30 mile hexes though... :rolleyes:
And keep in mind this happens even if the unit is in port, in formation or has no air groups (or so others have said).
It would seem that this is not very realistic to me. But, what the hell do I know.
The Grumbling Grognard
The Main Point
Hi, The main point with 1 hex reaction is the TF is going to be attacked regardless of whether it moves or not.
It's a problem when the TF moves from a hex where it has other protection to one where it is now on it's own. The reason it does this is the TF commander thinks he can launch a counter strike.
Damaged CV should react away rather then towards the enemy. (I've lost a couple of CV that reacted by leaving a port where they had CAP to 1 hex away where they were sunk)
But this would only help if the TF could react "out of range"
It's a two edged sword, wait for your TF that reacts and actually gets in a good counter strike where if it had remained in the hex it
would be attacked without a response.
It will be a while before games of this scope have no result that makes you scratch your head.
It's a problem when the TF moves from a hex where it has other protection to one where it is now on it's own. The reason it does this is the TF commander thinks he can launch a counter strike.
Damaged CV should react away rather then towards the enemy. (I've lost a couple of CV that reacted by leaving a port where they had CAP to 1 hex away where they were sunk)
But this would only help if the TF could react "out of range"
It's a two edged sword, wait for your TF that reacts and actually gets in a good counter strike where if it had remained in the hex it
would be attacked without a response.
It will be a while before games of this scope have no result that makes you scratch your head.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3426
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Ron,Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
I don't mind it as carriers historically closed the range to give their air groups an improved chance to get home....
...I know Halsey did this at Leyte Gulf, but this should not be taken as the norm.
That is a good example of the "React to Enemy" setting.
Maybe the designers were attempting to model something that I believe happened at Midway.
Spruance launched just after 7:00 am, and then set course to close the distance. Fletcher closed the distance while waiting to recover search planes.
When Nagumo discovered USN CV's were present, he changed course after recovering the Midway strike (causing VS-8 and VB-8 to miss him) to close with the American carriers.
The question now becomes: does UV model IJN and USN carrier doctrine correctly, or does it model just one battle?
The initial direction a CV TF launching strikes will move is dictated by the wind. And given the time involved in turning into the wind and launching many planes, along with the need to move at top speed, the distance travelled is probably a good portion of a hex.
Grigsby and/or Billings took this into account in CAW and/or War in the South Pacific. Don't know why that doesn't seem to apply here. I recall having to wait to launch at times because the wind wasn't favorable vis a vis the distance to the target, as well as times when the wind allowed me to launch sooner.
The facing of the CV's when landing aircraft also depends upon the wind. So with favorable winds the CV may move a significant distance toward the enemy target, while in other cases it may be forced to, in effect, move in circles while its planes are in the air.
Don't know how this affects the debate, but it suggests that an automatic move toward the target TF may not be historically realistic for CV's launching strikes.
Grigsby and/or Billings took this into account in CAW and/or War in the South Pacific. Don't know why that doesn't seem to apply here. I recall having to wait to launch at times because the wind wasn't favorable vis a vis the distance to the target, as well as times when the wind allowed me to launch sooner.
The facing of the CV's when landing aircraft also depends upon the wind. So with favorable winds the CV may move a significant distance toward the enemy target, while in other cases it may be forced to, in effect, move in circles while its planes are in the air.
Don't know how this affects the debate, but it suggests that an automatic move toward the target TF may not be historically realistic for CV's launching strikes.