Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
If the current commander of a CV TF is incapacitated this usually means a lot of trouble for the carriers it contains, and your flagship - the largest CV in the TF - already sunk.
Maximizing strike size might be one of your lesser problems by then.

To make this clear: All I am saying is that nav skill is by far more important for CV captains than air skill, nothing prevents you from looking for air skill as good secondary.

There is always the possibility of sub attack or collision in the night before a CV battle that could leave the flagship sunk or separated from the main fleet but the majority of the carrier force intact. Is the benefit from nav skill that much more important than ensuring that the CVs aren't led by someone with air skill 30?

ORIGINAL: alanschu

Sometimes TF splitting happens automatically based on damage.

The original TF commander will always remain with the original (in this case air combat) TF.
The newly created TF will always be an escort TF (never an air combat TF).

Even in the very unlikely case that a CV which has been moved to the newly created escort TF is still able to conduct flight operations (rare occurance considering that the TF was automatically
created because of the carriers´high damage level), it will not be able to conduct any offensive air ops because of TF type.

So air skill will not matter for the commander of this new TF, but probably naval skill will - assuming it supports damage control and works against accumulation of additional damage,
or correct behaviour in surface battles.

Have you done experiments with differing nav skills and things like damage control and collisions and whatnot? The leader ratings are definitely hiding behind some level of a nebulous cloud.

Yes, but a long time ago, and most of em with the original WitP, and the even older Uncommon Valor.

I know for a fact that damage control is directly related to crew exp, ship type and ship size. I have also seen many hints that it is also related to naval skill, but not enough to confirm it
statistically. Same for collisions. I am very sure that TF size and Leadership/Naval skill of the TF commander factor in, but I suspect a contribution of naval skill of the individual ship commanders.

What I am sure of (besides the TF commanders´ attributes) is that the combination of naval skill and aggression rating of a ship commander govern the ships´ behaviour in a (surface) engagement.
These surface fights look pretty simple and highly random, but actually there are very complex calculations behind the battles relying on a lot of variables.

Personally I am convinced that naval skill is involved in a high percentage of ship related dice rolls, so I prefer to play safe.

ORIGINAL: House Stark
There is always the possibility of sub attack or collision in the night before a CV battle that could leave the flagship sunk or separated from the main fleet but the majority of the carrier force intact. Is the benefit from nav skill that much more important than ensuring that the CVs aren't led by someone with air skill 30?

Such a scenario is only possible if you use a ship commander as TF commander. I suggest you NEVER do that for any TF larger - or more important - than an ASW hunting group.

For combat task forces the commander should always be handpicked and not commanding a specific ship at the same time.
This is a similar basic rule of thumb for naval units as for air units it is to never use an active pilot as squadron commander.

The original TF commander will always remain with the original (in this case air combat) TF.
The newly created TF will always be an escort TF (never an air combat TF).

Ah fair enough. I figured (for some reason) he'd stay with the flagship. Though if the flagship is disengaging I probably have more serious issues.


I agree that ship crew experience seems pretty vital! (I am noticing that my AMs are now reporting the odd hit in ASW, now that they have 45+ exp instead of in the 20s/30s).

The Naval Skill definitely seems useful in surface engagements (both for commander and for ship leaders).

This is a similar basic rule of thumb for naval units as for air units it is to never use an active pilot as squadron commander.

Hmmmm. I have noticed that the leader is often a pilot, but typically have never done anything about it (mostly because I figured replacing the leader would replace the pilot too). This is not the case? There doesn't seem to be anyway to remove him from the squadron (he seems to rejoin the squadron the next day)

ORIGINAL: alanschu

Hmmmm. I have noticed that the leader is often a pilot, but typically have never done anything about it (mostly because I figured replacing the leader would replace the pilot too). This is not the case? There doesn't seem to be anyway to remove him from the squadron (he seems to rejoin the squadron the next day)

A bit off topic for this thread, but just to clearify why exchanging active pilots as commanders is so important:

If your current squadron commander gets shot down, he gets replaced by a pilot from the squadron. Very often this autoselected commander
has atrocious skills (leadership, air, inspiration, admin, aggression,...), but you will not notice until until you actually look at the squdron.

Meanwhile the squadrons' performance will drop significantly resulting in failed missions and lots of dead pilots in a combat environment.
On the contrary, non flying squadron commanders cannot die, except for a diceroll in case the complete squadron gets destroyed (rare event,
usually when a carrier sinks mid-ocean), so you can assume that such a commander will always be with the squad, and usually improve over
time.

When I send a squad to the frontline, one of the first things I do is check the commander for skill and if he is an active pilot. If he is an active pilot
I even replace him if that means a slight drop in initial stats.

You are correct that replacing the leader also removes the pilot from the squadron. The new leader (if he is a non flying officer) will then only show
up as commander, not as pilot.

When selecting a new commander from the pool pay attention to the asterisks next to the commanders' names. Commanders with asterisks are pilots
of the squadron, do not select those.

Okay cool. I'd argue that is still relevant to effective carrier ops as well

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: House Stark
There is always the possibility of sub attack or collision in the night before a CV battle that could leave the flagship sunk or separated from the main fleet but the majority of the carrier force intact. Is the benefit from nav skill that much more important than ensuring that the CVs aren't led by someone with air skill 30?

Such a scenario is only possible if you use a ship commander as TF commander. I suggest you NEVER do that for any TF larger - or more important - than an ASW hunting group.

For combat task forces the commander should always be handpicked and not commanding a specific ship at the same time.
This is a similar basic rule of thumb for naval units as for air units it is to never use an active pilot as squadron commander.

I hadn't thought about the downsides to having a ship commander as TF commander. I'd just been thinking of the PPs saved by having good individual ship captains lead the TFs.

ORIGINAL: alanschu

Okay cool. I'd argue that is still relevant to effective carrier ops as well

On second thought you are absolutely correct, sir. I think I will even add this to the TF commander section when I finally enhance the guide.
Consider the off topic remark obsolete. [:)]

ORIGINAL: House Stark

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: House Stark
There is always the possibility of sub attack or collision in the night before a CV battle that could leave the flagship sunk or separated from the main fleet but the majority of the carrier force intact. Is the benefit from nav skill that much more important than ensuring that the CVs aren't led by someone with air skill 30?

Such a scenario is only possible if you use a ship commander as TF commander. I suggest you NEVER do that for any TF larger - or more important - than an ASW hunting group.

For combat task forces the commander should always be handpicked and not commanding a specific ship at the same time.
This is a similar basic rule of thumb for naval units as for air units it is to never use an active pilot as squadron commander.

I hadn't thought about the downsides to having a ship commander as TF commander. I'd just been thinking of the PPs saved by having good individual ship captains lead the TFs.

The PP cost is the downside of handpicking commanders, true. And for low priority TFs (backwater convoys, shipping on transfer missions, low threat area operations,...) using ship
captains as TF commanders it is a valid tactic to save some.

The true cost is a bit dependent on playstyle though.

I often create TFs and keep them operational for a long time. For example in a specific TOO I create surface combat group and call it "Main SAG [area]". I exchange ships to and from the
TF to ports, depending on its current mission profile. When the operational center of gravity shifts to another area, I simply remove ships from the area but do not disband the TF. So for
me the true PP cost of handpicking commanders is minimal compared to exchanging bad ship captains with competent ones, or buying out LCUs or air units.

That has the additional benefit of flexibility because there is no neccessity to select the "correct" ship as flag.

Sometimes a "Main Battle SAG" only contains a DD when it is not on a mission, while the major combatants are either disbanded in port or on a different mission in a different TF,
but the DD TF is still commanded by a good RADM (not that rank has any combat relevance FWIIW, just an example).

In some cases you could argue not having a dedicated TF commander is still useful to exploit that.

If you are only going to have Lexington in combat, for instance, she has a great air Admiral, but if the TF gets split for some reason, then presumably a superior captain will spearhead the new TF (which is now a surface combatant)

ORIGINAL: icepharmy

So this chart is only valid for the CVTF commander - not the CV captain itself? Only one modifier/check is used for the air ops of the TF?

Anyone know what the "4" stands for in row "LCU - Rear Area" & column "Land"?

(PS: Quick follow up question, what is considered a "Rear Area"? Any unoccupied hex by your opponent??)

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Extreme settings such as 100% or 0% CAP always have a disadvantage in WitP.
For 100% the most obvious are that you deny escorts for your strikes, and that you get a very high fatigue gain with this setting.
Both points work against you immediately in case something does not turn out exactly as you planned.

Being new to AE, trying to figure out CAP has been an interesting, still ongoing learning experience. I find curious that there isn't a separate altitude setting for your CAP i.e.
there appears only one altitude setting you can make for your fighter squadron, and I have been making sure that setting is made to match or be slightly higher than the
bombers the fighter squadron might be escorting on a mission. (Am I'm missing something here?) So I don't know - do CAP fly at some pre-determined altitude? Should I
be instead setting Fighter altitude for CAP rather than ESCORT? Is there an additional setting somewhere I'm missing??

I also find the way you set CAP by percentage (%) distracting as I still end up doing the math of the actual number of planes in the fighter squadron, calculating
the percentages (and reducing down the results) to know exactly how many planes will be in CAP. And also in addition to that, how many will actually be in-the-air -
makes me do another calculation of 1/3rd - again rounding down. I really want to know how many planes I will have in the air to defend against what I suspect will
be the incoming air raid - and a simple CAP percentage selection doesn't do this for me.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
I general I would reccommend to start at a 50% setting and slightly adapt due to mission specific factors, force relation, and admin stuff...
Personally I would consider 80/20 settings for CAP as already quite extreme, but YMMV.

Interesting. The computer AI defaults to much less - usually 10%? So as a noob (playing Coral Sea of course [:D] ) I made my CAP similar
to computer AI. Although I adjusted often based on the tactical situation, and more importantly as you mentioned earlier - CAP really is
about how many planes you want going out on Escort - that's what is really being set. Since (as I read the manual more and understood more) - even
say a 50% CAP doesn't mean the other 50% of the squadron will do nothing if the TF is attacked - if they are present they will scramble, albeit
much more slowly than if they were part of the original assigned CAP percentage. The CAP question then becomes: how much fatigue will be
generated by higher levels of readiness? And how much do I want available for Escort? And I imagine the fatigue level calculations may be so
intricate that to provide some kind of simplified chart would be not so useful (such as pilot skill levels, type of aircraft, type of commanders,
airframes, etc.)

So I find myself adjusting per turn based on current fatigue levels, tactical needs and what I suspect might occur - risk management - i.e. if
I am very certain I have incoming next turn, I'm going to keep pushing higher CAP levels despite growing fatigue - until it gets to the point
I really need to remove the TF from the combat air zone and stand down (if I have the choice available.)

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
EDIT: just to avoid misunderstandings: I am referring to CV borne CAP in combination with escort settings for potential naval strikes here.
As soon as LBA or other mission types are concerned, entirely different factors come into play.

Also the above does not cover special cases, such CVE groups solely assigned to CAP/ASW duty for example.

Yes got it. Thanks for your tips LoBaron. Most helpful - as have been your later discussion on this thread regarding assigning leaders.

Anyone know what the "4" stands for in row "LCU - Rear Area" & column "Land"?

I am pretty sure those numbers are just priority. The table doesn't indicate what advantage it gives, however. Though as the lowest priority, perhaps we shouldn't care so much? And yes, rear area means not engaged in fighting. Basically what type of commander do you want for guys that aren't actively fighting is the way that I take it.

ORIGINAL: alanschu

Anyone know what the "4" stands for in row "LCU - Rear Area" & column "Land"?

I am pretty sure those numbers are just priority. The table doesn't indicate what advantage it gives, however. Though as the lowest priority, perhaps we shouldn't care so much? And yes, rear area means not engaged in fighting. Basically what type of commander do you want for guys that aren't actively fighting is the way that I take it.

"Priority" Not sure what you mean by Priority?

Ah - ok, so as soon as unit not engaged, considered rear. I guess I had this WWI trench situation pictured in my mind. [:D] Thx.

Priority meaning simply "what stats are good for a Rear Unit LCU commander?" 4 means it's the 4th most important. The ones marked 1, 2, and 3 are considered more important (according to whomever made the chart, anyways).

I still haven't bought into the concept of naval skill completely subordinating air skill for carrier commanders. Obviously, it'd be nice to have both, but in late '42 in my current PBEM I'm noticing a dearth of captains that have at least passable skills in both naval and air skill and thus I have to sacrifice one of the other in some cases. Has then been any further analysis on the value if any of air skill to a carrier ship captain? The game itself seems to suggest captains with high air skill are "suited to commanding a carrier."

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I still haven't bought into the concept of naval skill completely subordinating air skill for carrier commanders. Obviously, it'd be nice to have both, but in late '42 in my current PBEM I'm noticing a dearth of captains that have at least passable skills in both naval and air skill and thus I have to sacrifice one of the other in some cases. Has then been any further analysis on the value if any of air skill to a carrier ship captain? The game itself seems to suggest captains with high air skill are "suited to commanding a carrier."

I took my cue from the game stats for carrier captains like Forrest Sherman. All the US Carrier commanders had been assigned high air skills even if their naval skills were mediocre. Since the designers were trying to design a reasonable simulation of RL combat factors, I presume that their emphasis on Air skills was around getting aircraft on and off the carrier in good order.

The high naval skills are only needed to dodge attacks and deal with damage. Crew experience can help a lot with the damage issue.

Holy Necrothread Batman! [8|]

Since the question was posed in this thread (and comes up from time to time elsewhere), davbaker is the author of the "Leader Benefits" chart posted earlier in this thread:

ORIGINAL: davbaker

Added Leader selection chart I use all the time I made from another post detailing leader benefits.

The table first appeared in the FAQ/Info for Newb's thread which is stickied here in the War Room. As alanschu surmises in Post #92 above (and davbaker confirms), the chart is a compilation of the findings in wwengr's How to Choose Leaders thread. He in turn credits others (Mike Wood in particular), and notes that the original analysis was done using WitP data (not AE). One of the most interesting items in that thread is a comment from JWE, in which he validates the findings. I'll quote it here since to me it's the definitive answer to the question, "is the table reliable and applicable to AE?"

ORIGINAL: JWE

I think you folks have gotten very far on your own. wwengr has defined the space very clearly. And Mike Wood, although not on the AE team, has very significant insights into the game system. He is as much a dev as anyone and his input should be put in your 'book'.

You guys are trying to make this way too hard. It's really very simple. So far as Naval stuff goes, if you look at wwengr's post, it's pretty clear, if you have any kind of "Surface" TF (and that includes subs), then pick a leader with good Naval stats. If you have any kind of "Air" TF, then pick a leader with good Air stats. If you have a mixed TF with CVs and BBs, then decide which is more important and go with that kind of leader but pick one with good secondary skills for the secondary ships. It's really that simple.

The sidebar crap doesn't matter much in the combat environment. Aggression helps mostly in responding to detection and reaction thingys. It does not help for airplanes, it does not help for gunnery, it only helps for things that require a response to something; is the dude aggressive? will he "hie to the sound of the hounds"? It's really that simple.

Admin, inspiration, leadership, work within sub, and sub/sub, routines that probably aren't of interest to you folks anyway, since they have little to no impact on detect, react, or combat, so I'll leave them alone.

wwengr's stuff, and an intelligent application thereof, is the best you all will ever get. I trust you all will use it wisely.