Matrix Games Forums

Further note: at 13:45 I incorrectly state that the CV TFs are trying to move into the enemy hex. The 4 TFs seen reacting are the ones in 99,93 moving to 99,92. I said this because I thought before checking how many TFs I had there that I only had 4 Air Combat TFs, not 5.

There's not actually anything really wrong with them reacting at that point, as it's stated that it's possible (provided a commander who is aggressive enough) to react in both the AM and PM air phases after the search. What I'm concerned with/looking at is the morning air phase with the multiple reactions.

I guess you had multiple 1 hex reactions because there were 4 possible enemy air fleets to react to, including that one far to the west.

I, too, am curious for an elaboration on ASW reactions....

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I guess you had multiple 1 hex reactions because there were 4 possible enemy air fleets to react to, including that one far to the west.

I, too, am curious for an elaboration on ASW reactions....

That's my guess also. Which is ridiculous, and the potential for intentional abuse... what would happen if I set up 4-5 (or more) air combat TFs for my opponent to react to in succession? I would need him to detect them all, but it could mean that I could lure opposing CV TFs hundreds of miles away from where they were supposed to be, which could have enormous consequences.

If the intent is that the special carrier movement is supposed to be just 1 hex maximum per air phase, then this seems to be a bug.

If this is completely intended behavior, then.... well, it screws up the naval game completely. It would be different if this game weren't multiple real years in duration, but this kind of thing would mean that an entire naval campaign spanning years could blow up from factors completely beyond the player's control.


I think the quoted section from the manual refers to original WITP hex range, not WITP:AE hex ranges.

Another thing that just occurred to me. In the video, you can see his TFs react first (beginning with TF 89), so it seems to be a check first for the IJN before a check for the Allies, rather than being based off of TF designation numbers. His each only react 1 time. Why should this be the case, when mine reacted 4 times?

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



Still doesn't explain why the IJN reacted from 6 hexes away, though...

That 72 guy may have started it. Anyway, it's a die roll. It wasn't automatic they would but it was possible and it happened.

Besides, if the die roll occurs each react you would have been 4 hexes away if the Japanese moved too. Then two.

edit: As usual, didn't read all the postings before posting myself.

ORIGINAL: witpqs


2.  Due to technical coding issues, there is no reaction towards a sub TF.  An ASW TF will not react towards a detected sub TF.  The ASW TF may engage in combat with a detected sub TF if it comes across it in a hex traversed during the ASW TF normal or patrol movement path but it will not deviate from it's normal or patrol movement path towards the sub TF.

This surprises me. On a number of occasions I have seen ASW TFs pursue subs well outside of their patrol areas (and not on their way to/from patrol/port). I don't know what mechanism is at play but I have seen it a number of times.
[/quote]

I'm sure they would (or should) if a land based plane reported the sub and especially if they were the only ASW TF in range. Just doing their job. They're not planning to combat the sub and very rarely do (I'm talking about the sub shooting back) they're going to DC it. It should be 100 percent.

quote:


2. Due to technical coding issues, there is no reaction towards a sub TF. An ASW TF will not react towards a detected sub TF. The ASW TF may engage in combat with a detected sub TF if it comes across it in a hex traversed during the ASW TF normal or patrol movement path but it will not deviate from it's normal or patrol movement path towards the sub TF.


This surprises me. On a number of occasions I have seen ASW TFs pursue subs well outside of their patrol areas (and not on their way to/from patrol/port). I don't know what mechanism is at play but I have seen it a number of times.

I've seen ASW TFs react, but they have never initiated an attack from doing so. At least, there is a message that they've reacted during the replay, but I'm not certain if they actually moved or, if they moved, if they will ever prosecute an attack. However, I do look for the message as I think it indicates to me whether my aerial search is working to detect subs to such a level that my ASW TFs that are on patrol can find/attack the subs.

I too have had ASW TF's react. At least two of which resulted in lost Allied subs as they were caught in shallow water hexes that they were trans-versing. Not all reactions resulted in attacks. I'm sure this is due to the die rolls that are incorporated into the game.

As far as tactics go if I were Allied player I would choose aggressive ones with react range > 1(Americans only) once you have 4 carriers together because they can totally win a battle. IJN always range = 0 because their range advantage might make it a one-sided battle, or a two strike to one battle.

I say this because my doctrine as the Allied player, at least in '42 to '43, is never venture beyond your land based Naval Search field. An exception might be if you have a cruiser force ahead to detect the enemy, but that's risky depending on whether you get heavy seas the next day.

I also say that because every KB (4 or 5 of them) I've annihilated was beyond his land based searches and within mine.

His each only react 1 time. Why should this be the case, when mine reacted 4 times?

Could this be due to most of your CV TF's ending up under bad weather before they were spotted? Also is it possible that you had better search assets raising his DL's higher while yours remained low?

Edit: I did notice in the replay a number of Japanese search planes being shot down.

I also say that because every KB (4 or 5 of them) I've annihilated was beyond his land based searches and within mine.

A situation to be avoided by the Japanese player if possible.

BTW I have seen this occur a number of times with SCTF's. Not with CV TF's as yet, but then again I haven't had that many CV battles and none with multiple CV TF's on each side.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

His each only react 1 time. Why should this be the case, when mine reacted 4 times?

Could this be due to most of your CV TF's ending up under bad weather before they were spotted? Also is it possible that you had better search assets raising his DL's higher while yours remained low?

Edit: I did notice in the replay a number of Japanese search planes being shot down.

A very large number... he did launch strikes, and his biggest strike in the AM went against my largest concentration of forces. I don't think he had any problems with DL. I also don't know if he had reaction set to a number above 0.

His far west TF(s) didn't react, because I was out of reaction range for them. I was actually out of strike range initially for the furthest west TF, but the 4-hex reaction took one (and then four) of my TFs to the 8-hex range.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:


2. Due to technical coding issues, there is no reaction towards a sub TF. An ASW TF will not react towards a detected sub TF. The ASW TF may engage in combat with a detected sub TF if it comes across it in a hex traversed during the ASW TF normal or patrol movement path but it will not deviate from it's normal or patrol movement path towards the sub TF.


This surprises me. On a number of occasions I have seen ASW TFs pursue subs well outside of their patrol areas (and not on their way to/from patrol/port). I don't know what mechanism is at play but I have seen it a number of times.

I've seen ASW TFs react, but they have never initiated an attack from doing so. At least, there is a message that they've reacted during the replay, but I'm not certain if they actually moved or, if they moved, if they will ever prosecute an attack. However, I do look for the message as I think it indicates to me whether my aerial search is working to detect subs to such a level that my ASW TFs that are on patrol can find/attack the subs.

I too have had ASW TF's react. At least two of which resulted in lost Allied subs as they were caught in shallow water hexes that they were trans-versing. Not all reactions resulted in attacks. I'm sure this is due to the die rolls that are incorporated into the game.

I have had combat result from the ASW force reacting, however it's rare... and it's not because the sub was "located by (ship with ASW capability)" - it occurred because the ASW TF reacted into the hex with the sub, the sub sighted them, and the sub attacked one of the ships.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



Still doesn't explain why the IJN reacted from 6 hexes away, though...

That 72 guy may have started it. Anyway, it's a die roll. It wasn't automatic they would but it was possible and it happened.

Besides, if the die roll occurs each react you would have been 4 hexes away if the Japanese moved too. Then two.

edit: As usual, didn't read all the postings before posting myself.

I think the 6 hexes thing is explained by conversion from original WITP hex size to WITP:AE hex size.


As for the Aggression of my TF commanders and the die roll on whether they would override the React 0 setting... clearly they did, but given that some of them had low Aggression I am guessing that because I had such high DL on the enemy (and that my forces had such high numbers of aircraft, vs. observed CAP/fighter strength being relatively over the enemy TFs) the low Aggression guys reacted anyway. Basically, I think the high DL/comparative force strengths made it easier for them to react aggressively.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

BTW I have seen this occur a number of times with SCTF's. Not with CV TF's as yet, but then again I haven't had that many CV battles and none with multiple CV TF's on each side.

The "Carrier TF ### reacting to enemy" message that shows up in the air search phase is a unique reaction, vs. the "naval reaction" that SCTFs will do. I've seen naval TFs react many times, but only when the reaction range is set above 0 and when the commander (and the circumstances) calls for it. Also, it occurs in a different phase - and never in the air phase.

For ease of readability I am going to respond to some of the comments made after post #14 in separate posts.
 
First up is the surprise re ASW TFs.
 
I think most of you realise that I don't just make up comments and that I  extensively research before posting these lengthy explanations.  This particular exercise took me about 10 hours over two days.  I used several search terms and collated info from 4 different devs.  It is therefore possible that I missed some crucial dev post but the odds of that being the case must be very low.  I too was somewhat surprised by the non reaction towards sub TFs but I can't ignore the following direct comments from Don Bowen.
 
1.  Post #13 dated 18 July 2009 in this thread
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2168721&mpage=1&key=reaction&#2169637
 
2.  Post #3 dated 3 August 2009 in this thread
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2191230&mpage=1&key=react&#2191292
 
The technical problem alluded to by Don Bowen has never been disclosed but I think the problem involves a difficulty in getting the ASW TF to return back to it's patrol zone after reacting.  Due to the nature of ASW combat, which is different to surface combat, I can see how it would be difficult to get a timely discontinuation of a react pursuit.
 
Lokasenna's ASW comment in post #32 about differentiating the prosecution of an ASW attack is also very likely to be close to the mark.  An ASW TF which returns fire after it has been targeted by a sub TF is not tied to the reaction algorithms.
 
Alfred

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I also say that because every KB (4 or 5 of them) I've annihilated was beyond his land based searches and within mine.

A situation to be avoided by the Japanese player if possible.

You can't avoid it (in the first couple of months), but as soon as he can assemble 4 CVs you're crazy if you don't. I think you're at great risk if you even do risky behavior in front of 3 American CVs.
Just don't do it. I understand that the Japanese are already in the hole by December 8, but setting up Midways for the Allied player to exploit is foolish. Don't do it.

All I can say is that I don't set patrol zones for my ASW. I set a point near subs that are spotted by my Air Search and I've had ASW TF's move to a subs' location. In at least one case I'm definitely sure because the ASW wasn't set in a shallow water hex and that is in fact where the sub was attacked and sunk, so the ASW TF moved. Wish I could remember the date so I could check for a save, but I didn't think it anything special. If I get another in the future I'll be glad to post. I see what the dev above says and don't know why I'm experience something different, but there it is... Could be something I'm overlooking.

An ASW TF which returns fire after it has been targeted by a sub TF is not tied to the reaction algorithms.

Didn't see this occur either. In the case sited above there was no prior combat in any hex around the ASW TF. Could the sub have moved through the ASW TF hex and the ASW TF follow it without an attack occurring in the ASW TF hex? Don't know.

Don't know what else to say, I'll keep looking. As I said I'll post if any such thing occurs in the future, and we can take it from there. I'll also watch more closely and maybe that'll shead some light on what I saw, or thought I saw.

In regards to the last post from Alfred, I'd like to say a couple of things. Not too long ago a "newby" (I want to point out that veteran players never call anyone a "newby") referred to the "mythical" Alfred. Obviously in this thread he is not mythical and he never has been. He comes down our chimney on special occasions when the debate is substantive, the arguments valid (for ones with limited experience)and where necessary, his posts refer to older posts and threads which have already covered the topic ad infinitum.He is the most valuable resource we have in this forum and a great number of other valuable resources would agree emphatically. He doesn't appear to have a sense of humor, but is not offended by the usual teasing that goes on. He also converts many threads which started out lamely to ones where someone of extensive experience says "this needs to be a sticky".

We must be grateful for his continuing participation in the forum. Primarily that means taking the time to read all our ridiculous threads to see if there's anything of merit to comment on. This is coming from someone who surely has to be the most prolific producer of silly threads. I don't need to tell you the value of what he contributes is, but it's rare for anyone to say "Thank You".

Thank you Alfred.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

All I can say is that I don't set patrol zones for my ASW. I set a point near subs that are spotted by my Air Search and I've had ASW TF's move to a subs' location. In at least one case I'm definitely sure because the ASW wasn't set in a shallow water hex and that is in fact where the sub was attacked and sunk, so the ASW TF moved. Wish I could remember the date so I could check for a save, but I didn't think it anything special. If I get another in the future I'll be glad to post. I see what the dev above says and don't know why I'm experience something different, but there it is... Could be something I'm overlooking.

Point 2 of post #14 does not say that an ASW TF will not attack a sub TF. It says it won't move away from it's travel path. As I said further down that post, the point of a type (A) reaction, is to get the two masses together for combat to occur. What Don Bowen is simply saying is that an ASW TF will not deviate from it's scheduled travel path to engage in combat with a sub TF.

There is no inconsistency with what I posted (plus the direct Don Bowen posts I provided subsequently) and an ASW TF being able to prosecute an attack in a regularly scheduled travel path hex. What you describe is merely having a MDL and probably a high DL on a sub TF, sending an ASW TF to the known MDL point and the ASW TF attacking the sub either at that MDL hex or along the scheduled path to/from the MDL hex.

An ASW TF which returns fire after it has been targeted by a sub TF is not tied to the reaction algorithms.

Didn't see this occur either. In the case sited above there was no prior combat in any hex around the ASW TF. Could the sub have moved through the ASW TF hex and the ASW TF follow it without an attack occurring in the ASW TF hex? Don't know.

Yes.[:)]

There are various aspects to ASW. One needs to first make "contact". Just because an ASW TF has been vectored to the known MDL hex of the sub TF, does not mean "contact" is automatic. The ASW TF still needs to "acquire" it's own target. If "contact" is made, the ASW TF still needs to prosecute the attack. Ship experience, leader stats, DL etc all have to align properly for an ASW Attack to actually be made. Then of course how well that attack pans out is another element in the process.

Don't know what else to say, I'll keep looking. As I said I'll post if any such thing occurs in the future, and we can take it from there. I'll also watch more closely and maybe that'll shead some light on what I saw, or thought I saw.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In surface combats I have many times seen multiple reacts, so I assume it is valid for carriers too.

Correct because both types (A) and (B) naval reaction are checked every single hex of movement. Players tend to forget that carrier TFs are also checked for type (A).

Alfred

Did everyone see that? He totally ignored my praise because it had no material value. Does he look like a Vulcan?