Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Save the ship, save the LCU or Air Unit aboard too.

Put them across multiple ships and don't worry if one goes down.[8D]

Doesn’t work for squadrons, sadly. Which is why I prefer not to put those on ships, and fly them across bases. With good pilots and taking a day or two of rest between each leg, it limits the operational losses.

A gamey move would be to downgrade to an older model with good range (and drop tanks), and then upgrade back to a newer model once arrived.[8|]

Actually, technically it works for squadrons too. You just need a very small sized cargo hold, say 50-100 representing a yacht pressed into military service. In the official scenarios all merchantmen ship classes have a cargo hold large enough to accommodate an entire air unit.

Alfred

Alfred

Putting good quality captains in charge of merchantmen is basically a waste of PPs and time/effort. Merchantmen lack:

(a) the speed
(b) the weapon suite
(c) maneuverability

to support the capabilities of an "A" grade ship captain.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Putting good quality captains in charge of merchantmen is basically a waste of PPs and time/effort. Merchantmen lack:

(a) the speed
(b) the weapon suite
(c) maneuverability

to support the capabilities of an "A" grade ship captain.

Ship survivability comes to mind. It also depends on Naval skill if I recall correctly?

Also, Japan has so many B grade captains (50-59 Naval skill), that with switch cost at exactly 0 PP for most merchantmen it's just about player effort

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Putting good quality captains in charge of merchantmen is basically a waste of PPs and time/effort. Merchantmen lack:

(a) the speed
(b) the weapon suite
(c) maneuverability

to support the capabilities of an "A" grade ship captain.

Alfred

I rarely need to use PP. The merchant ship captains can usually be changed for no PP cost. Most of my xAK/xAKL captains have ~ 27-31 Naval Skill. xAP captains get a little higher ~ 33-45 depending on size and speed of the ship.

Exception for Commonwealth captains where the pools if very small and the candidates are gawdawful.
Japan might be a different story than the Allies though.

Not that it matters since the game is very unlikely to ever be officially changed but the ships of the US Coast Guard actually had considerably more naval experience along with their COs than the ships of the US Navy (including some gunnery practice under REAL conditions on various Canadian schooners). In the early 30's about 25 USN DDs were transferred to the USCG in order that the smuggling of liquor by sea be ended. Several classes of cutter were also commissioned during the late 20's and 30's to halt this traffic. Although liquor became legal in 1933 the newer ships were retained as the smuggling of UN-TAXED liquor became even more profitable than it was was during Prohibition. USCG units ashore also developed Radio Direction Finding units and cryptographic units (Elizabeth Friedman) broke the smuggler's codes and then moved on to virtually all German codes used by their agents in Latin America (prior to the War). When war finally broke out it was two 165 ft (don't think they're in AE Vanilla) that sank two of the first German U-boats sunk by any US forces (one resulting in the first capture of German POWs). Although most CG cutters operated alone prior to the war the USCGC Taney, as a very capable ASW ship, was assigned as part of the same destroyer division as the USS Ward (which sank the midget sub on Dec 7. Her sister-ships in the Atlantic would go on to sink several more U-boats. CGC Taney herself would receive a unique AA suite in 1943, escort convoys into the Mediterranean and shoot down several German a/c while escorting those convoys),

BTW I have never seen CGC Taney (which stays in the game a-historically) rise above 45/45 in day/night experience regardless of combats engaged in.

Doesn’t work for squadrons, sadly.

Sure it does, if the squadron may be divided. Divide it and load each section on an individual one ship TF. Then combine the TF's and you have the squadron loaded in three different ships.[;)]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Doesn’t work for squadrons, sadly.

Sure it does, if the squadron may be divided. Divide it and load each section on an individual one ship TF. Then combine the TF's and you have the squadron loaded in three different ships.[;)]

Oh, right ![&o]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Doesn’t work for squadrons, sadly.

Sure it does, if the squadron may be divided. Divide it and load each section on an individual one ship TF. Then combine the TF's and you have the squadron loaded in three different ships.[;)]

You can create a TF with three xAKs, divide an air group into ABC, and load the group at once into the three xAKs.

I have actually started to put guys with decent Naval rating in charge of large convoys. Might help with collisions, not sure.

This is basically because usually those Transport TF commanders are like 20-30something in Naval and I like my convoys big [8D]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have actually started to put guys with decent Naval rating in charge of large convoys. Might help with collisions, not sure.

This is basically because usually those Transport TF commanders are like 20-30something in Naval and I like my convoys big [8D]

If you have an actual Naval ship like a DD there, then that commander usually becomes the convoy commander. If someone commands a DD, they had better have a good Naval rating!

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have actually started to put guys with decent Naval rating in charge of large convoys. Might help with collisions, not sure.

This is basically because usually those Transport TF commanders are like 20-30something in Naval and I like my convoys big [8D]

If you have an actual Naval ship like a DD there, then that commander usually becomes the convoy commander. If someone commands a DD, they had better have a good Naval rating!

I remember a discussion a few months ago about the effect of the TF leader’s Naval skill on collisions, and that it had no influence. I remember that because I had the same feeling as you earlier.

This post by Alfred seems to confirm that.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Collisions at sea are based on the following factors.

• number of ships in the TF, the more ships in the TF the increased chance of a collision occuring
• the speed of the TF, at maximum speed the chance of a collision occuring increase
• what the TF is doing, a TF engaged in combat is more likely to see a collision than if it is trundling along sedately carrying cargo from A to B
• random luck

When a collision does occur, the smaller ship of the two involved in the collision usually comes off worse.

Alfred

Its funny when your xAK enter combat and survives. I remember a couple of xAKs with 65-70 XP after defeat a surfaced SS with the gun.

I have actually started to put guys with decent Naval rating in charge of large convoys. Might help with collisions, not sure.

That was my understanding as well. It has shown itself empirically correct in my experience. Since I've started using better leaders leading my convoys I've had zero collisions. Time will tell.

ORIGINAL: traskott

Its funny when your xAK enter combat and survives. I remember a couple of xAKs with 65-70 XP after defeat a surfaced SS with the gun.

Interesting.

Just checked some sunk xAKLs in Tracker. Notice the unusually high exp on xAKL Lepus.










Here are the details. The ships gained 35 exp points in a short combat versus Jap surface ships






Here is the combat report:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Taytay at 76,82, Range 22,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
DD Uzuki
DD Kikuzuki

Allied Ships
xAKL Paz, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
xAKL Lepus, Shell hits 10, and is sunk

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: traskott

Its funny when your xAK enter combat and survives. I remember a couple of xAKs with 65-70 XP after defeat a surfaced SS with the gun.

Interesting.

Just checked some sunk xAKLs in Tracker. Notice the unusually high exp on xAKL Lepus.










Here are the details. The ships gained 35 exp points in a short combat versus Jap surface ships






Here is the combat report:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Taytay at 76,82, Range 22,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
DD Uzuki
DD Kikuzuki

Allied Ships
xAKL Paz, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
xAKL Lepus, Shell hits 10, and is sunk

Most often my xAK types gain some experience from being level/torpedo bombed ineffectively. As I understand it, if the ships fire their AA guns they begin to gain experience.
I also recall that dealing with damage can yield experience if the crew did not lose members in the process, so even for weather damage I try to let the crew repair it in port by disbanding the ship but not putting it in pierside repair where the port would deal with the damage.

I did have an xAK's day experience go from 15 to 55 from a surface combat while in convoy against a surfaced sub. It was a long drawn-out battle in this thread.

Thanks, sanch.

My problem is with unarmed xAKLs. They gain exp when they die from surface TF. The xAKLs dont have any weapons, so I reckon they get this experience from being shelled and trying to control the damage. However, if the xAKLs take a 250kg SAP bomb during the enemy air search phase, are very badly damaged (sys 80, float 60, 60 fires)and somehow make it to port, they get ZERO exp points. Nothing. Happens all the time with my starting xAKLs in Phillipine islands, where they haul resources from the small islands to Luzon. Mind you, in both situations (vs SCTFs and aircraft) the xAKLs do not fire weapons, since they have none. Thus, the resulting exp discrepancy is strange.

Don't know why you insist xAKLs do not have weapons - a mod perhaps. All of mine have at least 50 cal MGs. This one also has a 12 pounder (about a 3" gun).

BBFanboy, I am talking about 1000 capacity xAKLs at start (mostly Dutch, British, Australian and Phillipines). Some of them do get weapon upgrades in 02 1942. I use them from the get-go and they get consistently damaged by 250kg SAP bombs from Nells/Betties, during Japanese air search, though there is no message in the phase that ships are under attack ( I actually discover this on following turns by going to the "Ships" icon and checking ships damage globally), neither is there any message in Operations report. Mind you, in Combat animations, any Nell/Baetty bombing horizontally from 6000-7000 feet will CONSISTENTLY miss a single, maneuvering xAKL. If it drops to 200 feet to attack with torpedoes, then yes, the xAKL attacked is toast.

It got so bad, that I had to disband my xAKL TFs, give them any kind of escort with a small AA gun (AM, PG), just to enforce a Combat animation attack from Betty/Nell, so instead of being almost killed during air serach phase (almost one xAKL per tunr), the ships will be saved by forcing Betty/Nell into bombing horizontally at 6000 feet during Combat animation.

The code just acts quirky during air phases if TF possesses NO WEAPONS at all, as if combat between attacking aircraft and unarmed TF (I tried both single- and two-ship TFs with unarmed xAKLs) cannot be initiated in Combat animation window.

EDIT: In Phillipines, I get messages that Mavis are spotting the ships, thus those strange attacks can be attributed to Mavis. However, there are no Mavis spotted over Rangoon, only Nells and Betties. From three 1000 capacity xAKL sent on CS missions to Rangoon, two got damaged heavily by 250kg SAP bombs from those invisible attacks. Does AI perform air search missions at 100 feet perhaps?

I’d attribute the different results in bombing during a naval attack or naval search (if there is any discrepancy - given the number of planes doing search, and the number of false reports of hits, I can’t be sure) to the fact a ship may be surprised by a lone search plane flying hiding between clouds, and so general quarters might be sounded late, but rarely are when facing a large attack by whole squadrons.

IF there are different parameters applying to naval attack and naval search/ASW hit chances, this is how I’d rationalize that, anyway.