Ships preferring deep water

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: sprior

Because people in ships generally shy away from land unless it's their destination.

They also have this strange distaste for torpedoes.

I'd rather dodge a torpedo doing 30kts in a wide seaway , then face one at 5kts in a restricted channel.

Unfortunately, when you're talking about sub fired torpedoes, you almost never know there is one to dodge.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: geofflambert




They also have this strange distaste for torpedoes.

I'd rather dodge a torpedo doing 30kts in a wide seaway , then face one at 5kts in a restricted channel.

Unfortunately, when you're talking about sub fired torpedoes, you almost never know there is one to dodge.

That depends on the torpedo type, the water conditions(such as luminecscent) or if the torpedo is shallow enough to cavatite, the light conditions, and the alertness of your look outs or SONAR operators.

[Capt Hornblower]

To OP:

You can also try DIRECT routing for a task force, if convenient.

[Itdepends]

RE unexplained merchant ship damage- it's more commonly due to collisions- particularly in large taskforces. The xAK's don't come with the best commanders.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower

To OP:

You can also try DIRECT routing for a task force, if convenient.

All the time but does not work most of the time. The behavior is weird with it, maybe has to do with ship size. I mean sometimes ships even with direct on only decide to do one hex in a coast hex and then return to deep ocean for two and then again to the shallow one..

[d0mbo]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: d0mbo

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

What's with almost every ship type preferring deep water instead of shallower by default? It is a pain in the ass trying to avoid submarines with waypoints every time. The game does not simulate ships hitting the bottom so why would not choose shallower water when subs are around as in everywhere in the Pacific.

But you are wrong here. I've had a ship hitting a rock and I remember a forum poster losing a CV because its bottom was ripped off due to a sharp rock......

Doesn't happen a lot though, but still

Damn, this would explain some mysterious damages i have encountered on my freighters from time to time..

If it happens, it will show up in the ''ops'' report. Let me see if i can find the post on these forums.

[spence]

Ever hear of Battleship Espana? Or HMS Frobisher? Both ripped their bottoms out between the wars. How about USS Guardian? It became a permanent part of the reef in the Phillipines earlier this year. Or the Point Hondo naval disaster? Seven Destroyers played follow the leader up onto the rocks.

IRL HIJMS Kaga found a rock during the DEI Campaign...no accolades for the discovery were heaped on the CO though. Quite a few of the US submarines lost during WWII were lost due to groundings - seems to me particularly so during the DEI Campaign. I know that I have read somewhere that charts of the region were very unreliable.

[dr.hal]

ASW defensive action is far more effective in shallow waters, thus I always send my TFs through shallow areas to increase the chances of an effective ASW attack. I think the risk of hitting underwater objects is insignificant in comparison to either avoiding or killing a sub. I've never run aground, knock on wood. By the way, I'm assuming that the CV air restriction is applicable to only partial land hexes, whether they are deep water or shallow, am I right about that? Hal

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ASW defensive action is far more effective in shallow waters, thus I always send my TFs through shallow areas to increase the chances of an effective ASW attack. I think the risk of hitting underwater objects is insignificant in comparison to either avoiding or killing a sub. I've never run aground, knock on wood. By the way, I'm assuming that the CV air restriction is applicable to only partial land hexes, whether they are deep water or shallow, am I right about that? Hal

This exactly..

I would also like to know about the CV restrictions? I have Kido Butai at Cape Gloucester and I have no problem attacking Port Moresby from there..

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ASW defensive action is far more effective in shallow waters, thus I always send my TFs through shallow areas to increase the chances of an effective ASW attack. I think the risk of hitting underwater objects is insignificant in comparison to either avoiding or killing a sub. I've never run aground, knock on wood. By the way, I'm assuming that the CV air restriction is applicable to only partial land hexes, whether they are deep water or shallow, am I right about that? Hal

This exactly..

I would also like to know about the CV restrictions? I have Kido Butai at Cape Gloucester and I have no problem attacking Port Moresby from there..

Everything I've heard on the CV restriction says "coastal hexes", which to me means land in the hex.

I've often wondered whether reefs count, and whether some hexes actually have land in them.

I wouldn't be surprised if it just applied to shallow water hexes, but I've never really let it affect my operations - I can usually find a deep water hex with no reef/land to render my lack of clarity on the subject unimportant, or the objective is important enough to be worth the risk.


FWIW, from observation it seems to me that there needs to be land in the hex and not just shallow water. My CAP/strikes when operating between Java and Borneo, for example, don't seem to be reduced in strength.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ASW defensive action is far more effective in shallow waters, thus I always send my TFs through shallow areas to increase the chances of an effective ASW attack. I think the risk of hitting underwater objects is insignificant in comparison to either avoiding or killing a sub. I've never run aground, knock on wood. By the way, I'm assuming that the CV air restriction is applicable to only partial land hexes, whether they are deep water or shallow, am I right about that? Hal

This exactly..

I would also like to know about the CV restrictions? I have Kido Butai at Cape Gloucester and I have no problem attacking Port Moresby from there..

Everything I've heard on the CV restriction says "coastal hexes", which to me means land in the hex.

I've often wondered whether reefs count, and whether some hexes actually have land in them.

I wouldn't be surprised if it just applied to shallow water hexes, but I've never really let it affect my operations - I can usually find a deep water hex with no reef/land to render my lack of clarity on the subject unimportant, or the objective is important enough to be worth the risk.


FWIW, from observation it seems to me that there needs to be land in the hex and not just shallow water. My CAP/strikes when operating between Java and Borneo, for example, don't seem to be reduced in strength.

Yes and Cape Gloucester consists over half of land. I've had no problem sending about 150 planes to Port Moresby from the Kido Butai, that has only large CV's. So I've been wondering what people are talking about..

[Alfred]

Like several recent threads, this one is going around in circles with inaccurate answers.

Excluding algorithms, the manual (and other documents released with patches) almost always gives the precise answer. It is no different here with regard to carriers operations being reduced.

Hint: the clear answer is found in chapter 7 of the manual under the subsection titled in bold print and upper case

[center]"AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN BASE HEXES"[/center]

Can't be bothered with doing some actual work to learn the game, up to you but don't expect to intuitively distinguish good from bad answers.

I'll let you find by yourself the relevant commentary in the manual re shallow hexes for subs.

Alfred

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Like several recent threads, this one is going around in circles with inaccurate answers.

Excluding algorithms, the manual (and other documents released with patches) almost always gives the precise answer. It is no different here with regard to carriers operations being reduced.

Hint: the clear answer is found in chapter 7 of the manual under the subsection titled in bold print and upper case

[center]"AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN BASE HEXES"[/center]

Can't be bothered with doing some actual work to learn the game, up to you but don't expect to intuitively distinguish good from bad answers.

I'll let you find by yourself the relevant commentary in the manual re shallow hexes for subs.

Alfred

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN BASE HEXES

Thanks for the answer and sorry if these irritate you. However the manual speaks only of shallow hexes affecting subs, not carriers. If it's so, then some misinformation here on the forums and thanks again for the clarification. Cape Gloucester is not a base for Japan in my game, so it might not affect at all also.

[Alfred]

What part of this:

[center][center]"AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN BASE HEXES"[/center][/center]


refers to subs?

Commentary on subs and shallow water is found elsewhere in the manual. I did not give you a hint as to where to find that different commentary.

Alfred

[Sieppo]

deleted: double message for some reason

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred


I'll let you find by yourself the relevant commentary in the manual re shallow hexes for subs.

Alfred

The word "shallow" is found on the manual pages 38 and 134. As for it's impact on objects, only mines and subs are referred to. Maybe I misunderstood something.

[GreyJoy]

CVs do not have any restrictions in shallow waters NOR in coastal hexes. CVs' operations are limited ONLY in dot/base hexes.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Can't be bothered with doing some actual work to learn the game, up to you but don't expect to intuitively distinguish good from bad answers.

Well this was extremely mean. What do you think I'm doing here all the time? Maybe getting some help for this learning? I have read the manual and done extensive studying and playing mostly hours per day for a half a year now but as everyone knows, it requires a lot of effort and I'm sure everyone agrees that the manual COULD be better not to mention that it is missing some information.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

CVs do not have any restrictions in shallow waters NOR in coastal hexes. CVs' operations are limited ONLY in dot/base hexes.

This is clear now. I have read in several other threads that CV's are restricted by coastal hexes and somehow escort carriers etc. are not BUT these seem to have been false information now.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Can't be bothered with doing some actual work to learn the game, up to you but don't expect to intuitively distinguish good from bad answers.

Well this was extremely mean. What do you think I'm doing here all the time? Maybe getting some help for this learning? I have read the manual and done extensive studying and playing mostly hours per day for a half a year now but as everyone knows, it requires a lot of effort and I'm sure everyone agrees that the manual COULD be better not to mention that it is missing some information.

This post just demonstrates that your post #38 is not accurate or you are not good at reading the manual. What I said in post #32 is confirmed by these last two posts of yours.

1. The manual is very clear, direct and succinct on where carrier flight operations are adversely affected and how they are adversely affected.

2. Your own post where you mention where you place your carriers discloses no evidence that you were aware of what the manual says.

3. When an inaccurate answer was provided to you regarding restricted carrier operations you had no clue as to whether it was a good or inadequate reply.

4. If you have read the manual but had forgotten what it said about restricted carrier operations, the minimum you should have done after reading my post #32 was to find the relevant section in the manual. Instead you replied to me that the manual spoke about subs. That was not an appropriate reply if the intent was for you to be accorded any respect from me.

5. The only conclusions possible from point 4 above are:

(a) you have never read the manual, or
(b) you read it very superficially, or
(c) you do not consolidate your learning by rereading the manual when you come across a point you are unsure of, or
(d) when directed to the manual you decline to do so preferring someone else to spoon feed you an answer, which may or may not be correct

6. GreyJoy gave you an answer. It so happens that his answer is consistent with the relevant section of the manual but without having read the relevant section of the manual yourself, how do you know his answer is more accurate than what others have said. But the complete answer is more than what GreyJoy said, so you still have to look it up in the manual, a task which this thread and many others of yours, demonstrate a singular lack of interest in undertaking.



I reiterate my central point. Excluding algorithms, the manual (and the other released official documents) does provide the answer to practically all questions. Many people, as you have, come here to the forum claiming the manual is inadequate and does not provide an answer. Almost without exception I or someone else will find the exact answer, or one good enough, in the manual. So how come they fail where I and others succeed?

Where the manual is weak is in teaching strategy or in providing opinions. In another concurrent thread you are soliciting opinions on appropriate airframes to research. That is the sort of subject you will not get good coverage in the manual but will elicit various views from the forum. Assessing the value of those opinions still requires a firm understanding of the game mechanics which does bring us back to studying the manual.

Someone else on another thread recently asked how best to use an ARD. Again a failure to read the manual by that individual because there is only one use for an ARD and that is clearly spelt out in the manual. No ifs or buts but one thing only, which once known made the question quite redundant. No inquiry as to where to deploy the ARD best nor did he seek confirmation that his understanding of what an ARD does was correct (or even what it is), which would have indicated some prior attempt had been made to answer the question himself; instead he only asked what was its use.

Anyone who asks a game question here reveals themselves as wanting to improve their game play. AE is not maths where 2 + 2 = 4 always, with no other answer possible. There are too many variables at play in AE to allow a mathematical approach to succeed. Nor is it feasible to ask every possible question; that would be akin to writing every number up to and including infinity.

To improve there is no substitute but to understand how things interrelate and for that a firm grasp of the manual is indispensable as the base. There is no short cut to learning. Then you can assess the quality of the answers provided on the forum. Quickly you will then discover that some respondents are more reliable than others, some providing at best only anecdote based opinions and others providing AE rule based facts. Just because someone posts something in an AAR is no evidence that the comment is accurate, no matter how well meaning that person might be.

Alfred