Carrier consolidation

[Supervisor]

I have been (as the Allies) putting the less aggressive commander in the lead (slower) TF. I then set the lead TF to React to enemy, and the follow TF to Do not react. The follower has stuck with the leader and followed he when he does react (in my admittedly limited experience). It's only been a handful of cases so far, not an exhaustive experience.

Erik did say on priority of Follow TF vs. React/Retire: "In my experience, Follow has priority and whatever the followed TF decides to do, the others will try to mirror. " (see thread Follow TF query )

[mogami]

Hi, HmmmI guess I should have read a little closer as he does say they move in differant directions. Looks like lead TF was set to react and follow TF set to follow but with retire allowed.
Was the more aggressive leader in command of the TF that engaged? Even with don't react orders a TF can make a minor 1 or 2 hex reaction/adjustment (meaning total space could end up 4 hexes just from this if aggressive leader moves closer and cautious one adjusts back)

[Rob Roberson]

Well without revealing too much info to my enemy (smile) my lead carrier had my best leader in it...it survived the battle (without launching a single strike at the enemy) my second carrier had a weaker, but not that weak leader in it. It did get planes off the deck. When the battle broke out there two carriers were 150 miles apart on the same hex line. That's what surprised me. Either way I will never seperate carriers in the same Ops again. Lesson learned.

[Ron Saueracker]

Like a few of you said, I believe the separation has much to do with reaction setting and different leader ratings.