Guadalcanal Scenario, Bombarding Lunga & Other

[Dante Fierro]

I just started the Guadalcanal scenario as Allies vs AI Japan. I've been looking over my Amphibious TFs and SC TFs at Espiritu, ready to head out at the beginning of the scenario. One of the first order changes I made is to have Amphib TFs not go directly to the landing hex but sail one hex off, and then will be ordered at Full Speed into the landing hex (on the assumption that this will allow more time for the landing/assault).

A have a few questions that any vets willing to offer suggestions on would be appreciated:

1) One of the primary goals of assaulting Lunga is to capture the Airfield there. Should I still bombard Lunga beforehand? Or should I just go in with the Marines in the hope to capture the Airfield fairly in tact? And if I bombard, do I change the Mission Types of the SC TFs to bombard just before they reach the target hex?

2) The two different Amphib TFs are split between Lunga & Tulagi. But this divides the Marine divisions landing. Does anyone ever in this scenario, simply land all troops at Lunga and worry about Tulagi later?

3) I have read elsewhere on the forums that the 'Follow' TF mechanic does not work as well as just directing each TF on its own. And that SC TFs should lead an Amphib assault (I guess by one or two hexes?) What are people's opinions on this?

Again, thanks to anyone that is willing to put in their two cents on the questions.

[RangerJoe]

You can have them sail to the hex but not unload them. If you bombard, do so on the same turn as the invasion.

Make an ASW TF, have all ships follow that one. Have the ASW TF the lowest number as that one should move first.

If you have engineers, you should not worry about an intact airfield since you will also need air support squads. Unless those are with the invasion and land, you can't service aircraft.

[Dante Fierro]

Thanks RangerJoe for the suggestions. Some follow up questions/comments here:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You can have them sail to the hex but not unload them. If you bombard, do so on the same turn as the invasion.

Interesting. I read somewhere else in the forum that it was better to stop 1 hex off then move in full-speed. I wonder why they suggested that? Is there more risk involved to going directly to the hex (i.e. such as detect level?) than holding 1 hex off? Or perhaps the person didn't know you can move directly to the landing hex and not unload?

Thanks for the tip on simultaneity of bombardment. Seems like more surprise would take place, but more than one day of bombardment would raise detection levels??

Make an ASW TF, have all ships follow that one. Have the ASW TF the lowest number as that one should move first.

I'm not sure what the purpose of the 'follow' mechanic is. For starters, why would you have a Transport TF follow a SC TF? Apparently if you do that, if the SC reacts into a surface engagement, the Transports will follow it right into the engagement?? Or is that incorrect? Wouldn't that also apply to an ASW TF?

I noticed the react range of the SC TFs starting at Espiritu is 6 hexes. Normally, is that a good range for SC TFs accompanying Transports?

If you have engineers, you should not worry about an intact airfield since you will also need air support squads. Unless those are with the invasion and land, you can't service aircraft.

Roger. Thanks again for your suggestions and advice. Much appreciated.

[Alfred]

1.  The "Follow" order is the only means a player has to set the order of movement of TFs into a hex.  The advice which is often given in the forum that TFs move in order of ID number from lowest ID to highest, is not technically correct.  The TF ID determines the order (from lowest to highest) that TFs are processed.  TF order processing and TF movement, and especially TF arrival in a hex, are not the same thing.
 
2.  Amphibious TFs sprinting at maximum speed from 1 hex out just wastes fuel.  They should remain on mission speed.
 
Alfred

[Dante Fierro]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  The "Follow" order is the only means a player has to set the order of movement of TFs into a hex.  The advice which is often given in the forum that TFs move in order of ID number from lowest ID to highest, is not technically correct.  The TF ID determines the order (from lowest to highest) that TFs are processed.  TF order processing and TF movement, and especially TF arrival in a hex, are not the same thing.

2.  Amphibious TFs sprinting at maximum speed from 1 hex out just wastes fuel.  They should remain on mission speed.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred for the clarifications.

I've been looking at the manual and reviewing the "Follow" orders (and also have been culling what I can from the Forums). It appears that if you set up a Carrier TF to 'Follow' another TF, that Carrier TF will provide air cover as well. So (apparently) not only as you state, is the order of Movement determined by the Follow order (just into a hex? but also in a hex??) but some functionality is also provided correct?

I am wondering if any other functionality is provided with the 'Follow' order given different TF types? The manual doesn't seem to suggest anything more than the Carrier TF Follow. However, I did see posted somewhere that if a Transport TF is following a SC TF, and it reacts for a surface engagement, the Transport TF will follow the SC TF into the engagement! Do you know if this is true? It seems like that would not be a good idea.

Thanks again.

[RangerJoe]

The reason why I saw set the ASW TF to the lowest number is to let you know that you have it. Then the SCTFs for that invasion follow that ASW, then the Invasion TFs follow that with any transport TFs last. Then you can start again with another set. This is useful for when you have multiple invasion targets close to each other. It is easier to keep track of things. Mine sweeping TFs are also useful. The Minesweepers could also be your ASW TF but only in as a last resort since you will want a dedicated ASW TF to prosecute submarines trying to interfere with the landings.

Maybe you don't need to do all of that now, but in later cases you just might have to.

[rustysi]

I read somewhere else in the forum that it was better to stop 1 hex off then move in full-speed. I wonder why they suggested that? Is there more risk involved to going directly to the hex (i.e. such as detect level?) than holding 1 hex off? Or perhaps the person didn't know you can move directly to the landing hex and not unload?

IIRC the reason to do this was such that the Amphib TF would have all unload 'phases' to do so before it has to attack, or be attacked. Also IIRC there are four 'phases' during the turn to unload.

The full speed suggestion I think is rather moot from one hex away.

One the other side of the coin you now sit one hex from your objective as a target. I think it all depends on the tactical situation on whether or not its a good idea. Of course that is just MHO.

[Dante Fierro]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The reason why I saw set the ASW TF to the lowest number is to let you know that you have it. Then the SCTFs for that invasion follow that ASW, then the Invasion TFs follow that with any transport TFs last. Then you can start again with another set. This is useful for when you have multiple invasion targets close to each other. It is easier to keep track of things. Mine sweeping TFs are also useful. The Minesweepers could also be your ASW TF but only in as a last resort since you will want a dedicated ASW TF to prosecute submarines trying to interfere with the landings.

Maybe you don't need to do all of that now, but in later cases you just might have to.

Got it thanks. So what I understand right now (with both of your posts) is that 'Follow' determines the order of Movement of your tasks force (into a hex) ... but also in the hex?? Other than order of movement is there any other functionality that accompanies the 'Follow' orders? Again, I've read a few forum posters say they don't use 'Follow' because you run into a number of pitfalls that can be detrimental to your actions. That it is better just to plot each TF on its own. So I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons! heh

The Guadalcanal scenario (v1) I am using with the latest beta of AE, starts with 3 SC TFs and 2 Amphib TFs at Esperitu. Getting ready to head out. So what you are suggesting is perhaps I should make some additional TFs other than the starting default TFs (which means I will need to break up some of the default SCs in the scenario).

Thanks again guys for your input here. I imagine whatever answers you provide to me here will help others new players as well.

[Dante Fierro]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I read somewhere else in the forum that it was better to stop 1 hex off then move in full-speed. I wonder why they suggested that? Is there more risk involved to going directly to the hex (i.e. such as detect level?) than holding 1 hex off? Or perhaps the person didn't know you can move directly to the landing hex and not unload?

IIRC the reason to do this was such that the Amphib TF would have all unload 'phases' to do so before it has to attack, or be attacked. Also IIRC there are four 'phases' during the turn to unload.

The full speed suggestion I think is rather moot from one hex away.

One the other side of the coin you now sit one hex from your objective as a target. I think it all depends on the tactical situation on whether or not its a good idea. Of course that is just MHO.

Well it seems like you don't need to do a stand-off '1 hex away' and rush in, if you can simply go to the landing beach hex, and just wait until the next turn to begin your landing. It seems like that would be even more efficient, both fuel and time wise).

But like you say, maybe there is more of a risk going directly to the landing hex zone rather than 1 hex off?? In the Guadalcanal scenario, the IJN are pretty much caught by surprise (as they were historically) ... so tactically, I'm not too worried about too much interference. I think what would concern me the most is Detection levels. If my amphibious invasion TFs are sitting right off shore where the Japanese can easily see them - won't the DL spike, thus exposing the TFs more? As opposed to rushing into the hex 1 hex away?

From the responses here so far, it sounds like no, there's not much of a difference 1 hex away as opposed to in the landing hex (other than fuel costs).

[rustysi]

You need to be careful with the follow command for several reasons. TF's that have commanders with lower aggressiveness levels might now act as you wish WRT each other.

Using a follow command 'string' is not a good idea. IOW having one TF set to follow another, and then a third to follow a second. Things could get wonky under such conditions.

In addition I doubt I'd have a transport TF follow a surface combat TF. Just doesn't seem it'll turn out well. Not only that, some here have advocated following an ASW TF with a CV TF. I could think of nothing worse than putting my CV's behind such a commander. Just put adequate ASW ships in the CV TF.

[RangerJoe]

When I say the TFs follow, I mean in numerical order on the TF listing screen. All the TFs follow the ASW TF. The SCTF can break off to intercept an enemy but the invasion TF is not following that. You would also want to have some heavy ships in the invasion TFs when attacking a heavily defended beach to suppress the enemy fire. They will also take hits that they can shrug off to a certain extent unlike a transport or cargo ship.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro


...Well it seems like you don't need to do a stand-off '1 hex away' and rush in, if you can simply go to the landing beach hex, and just wait until the next turn to begin your landing. It seems like that would be even more efficient, both fuel and time wise)...

Enjoy the two rounds of minefield exposure. Certainly a more efficient usage of the defensive minefield by the defenders.

Alfred

[rustysi]

Well it seems like you don't need to do a stand-off '1 hex away' and rush in, if you can simply go to the landing beach hex, and just wait until the next turn to begin your landing. It seems like that would be even more efficient, both fuel and time wise).

Keep in mind I'm talking about a general situation, not a specific instance.

So if you sit in the target hex (or base), I'm not 100% sure, but I think that will expose your TF to any CD guns in the hex.

At the very least you'd have to remember to turn the TF to 'do not unload' and then turn it back on to 'unload' the next turn. Too much for me.[:D]

[rustysi]

Enjoy the two rounds of minefield exposure.

Yeah, that too.[:D]

Good point.

[Dante Fierro]

You would also want to have some heavy ships in the invasion TFs when attacking a heavily defended beach to suppress the enemy fire.

Thanks for that tip. As the Amphibious TFs that you start off with in Espiritu only contain DDs along with the various Transport ships. So you're saying, actually but a few heavy's into the Amphib TFs themselves? It is not enough just to have the heavy ship present in other TFs in the same hex during the beach landings?

[rustysi]

So if you sit in the target hex (or base), I'm not 100% sure, but I think that will expose your TF to any CD guns in the hex.

On further thought, IIRC that would only occur in a 'straight' location.

[Dante Fierro]

Enjoy the two rounds of minefield exposure. Certainly a more efficient usage of the defensive minefield by the defenders.

Alfred

HaHa [:D]

Well that pretty much blows the 1 hex concept out of the water (in many situations). heh

[Dante Fierro]

At the very least you'd have to remember to turn the TF to 'do not unload' and then turn it back on to 'unload' the next turn. Too much for me.

HaHa. I enjoy micro-managing ... so I guess that makes AE and me a perfect fit? 0.o

So if all it takes is flipping a switch back on just before landing ... I'll put chips on the table for that!

[rustysi]

It is not enough just to have the heavy ship present in other TFs in the same hex during the beach landings?

No, only ships embedded in the invasion TF will respond to shore fire during the landing phase.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

Enjoy the two rounds of minefield exposure. Certainly a more efficient usage of the defensive minefield by the defenders.

Alfred

HaHa [:D]

Well that pretty much blows the 1 hex concept out of the water (in many situations). heh

No, at one hex away you won't be exposed to any mines in the base hex, only if you are in a mined base itself.

Now the other hex could also be mined.[:'(]