Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:50 pm**

ORIGINAL: Luskan

Does the commanding admiral's aggression (or carefulness) affect the "wanting" to intercept?

I only say this because 99% of the allied surface combat admirals aren't aggressive and given a choice to intercept . . .

Yes.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:34 am**

Thanks 2nd - I've been in lurk mode for a while.
 
I may try and write up an AAR about my current battle at some point (but is 1944 and my memory is a bit biased).

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:51 pm**

Bias is what good AAR's are all about... [:)]

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:56 pm**

ORIGINAL: treespider

The waypoints make it easier to intercept as well... especially if you anticipate the base a TF is moving to. I was able to intercept the Legaspi Invasion TF with Boise as they returned to base making use of waypoints. I calculated the path the Leg TF would take back to port and plotted the Boise TF to move back up this path with waypoints. Bammo mid ocean intercept. As Don mentioned the CS's Chitose and Mizuho screened the transports while the transports ran away. Scratch two seaplane carriers.

Of course Boise gets killed next turn returning to base after it encountered a BB off the coast of Mindanao.

I think you came out ahead.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:59 pm**

ORIGINAL: sanderz

thanks for the info on how it works guys - this looks really good

i am very new to this game myself - still in mid 42 in my first game vs the AI - am interested if you find it actually changes tactical decisions on how you use your carrier fleets - do you have to be more cautious, or use a different TF mix?

thanks

sanderz

IRL American CV admirals were very nervous about gunship intercept, so it should affect tactical decisions.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:03 pm**

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Since the one real determining factor in this example is speed, it was not a good idea to put some slower Jap CVL's with the CV's. This likely allowedthe intercept.
Just fyi, Bob, it used to be that just about everybody had a cruise speed of 15, back in WiTP-I. In AE, things are different. My evil, devious, mind gives slower top speed capital ships a slower cruise speed to match. Not only 'full' speed, but also 'cruise' and 'mission' speed will depend on the slowest puke in the pack. So .. early war BBs want to play with the big boys? .. oops. Hiyo, Junyo want to play 'fleet' carrier? .. oops. And on it goes.

Just a fly in the oitment, Hans.

Ciao. John

The cruise speed should be the documented values when known. Also, will you be modelling CV ops? They had to pick up their skirts and turn into the wind to allow flight deck operations to take place. The BBs might plod along at 15 knots, but CVTFs had to make more steam to maintain the same advance rates.

Matrix Games Forums

Ship intercepts on a hex by hex basis - amy effects on tactical play (are carriers more vulnerble?)

RE: Ship intercepts on a hex by hex basis - amy effects on tactical play (are carriers more vulnerble?)

RE: Ship intercepts on a hex by hex basis - amy effects on tactical play (are carriers more vulnerble?)

RE: Ship intercepts on a hex by hex basis - amy effects on tactical play (are carriers more vulnerble?)

RE: Ship intercepts on a hex by hex basis - amy effects on tactical play (are carriers more vulnerbl

RE: Ship intercepts on a hex by hex basis - amy effects on tactical play (are carriers more vulnerbl

RE: Ship intercepts on a hex by hex basis - amy effects on tactical play (are carriers more vulnerbl