Matrix Games Forums

So, it's all because that ADM Halsey has lost his flagship?

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

So, it's all because that ADM Halsey has lost his flagship?

But isn't Adm Halsey fighting for the Japanese in this one?

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

So, it's all because that ADM Halsey has lost his flagship?

I am the Japanese in both of our games. There have been bugs that have frustrated both of us in this game.

This carrier battle happened near Fiji as I was going in with an invasion TF. It is April 42 when this battle took place. The American carriers were not within range to strike the Japanese carriers. At max range Nagumo sent out his aircraft and hit the Enterprise and Yorktown.

I wish Ron would reconsider his decision to halt both games. I will be more than happy to continue these games or start a new one. To bad we do not live closer to each other that way we could play board games like War in the Pacific from Decision Games (old SPI game).

Is the issue that the Allies didn't launch a strike or that 44 bomb hits on the Big E seems to be a bit much?

The "Death Star" KB is nothing new.......

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Is the issue that the Allies didn't launch a strike or that 44 bomb hits on the Big E seems to be a bit much?

The "Death Star" KB is nothing new.......

There were all but 3 Japanese carriers present in the 4 TFs that were involved in the battle.

There was a naval reaction by TE 1167 to TF 13.

This is TF1's composition. There is one other air combat TF, one bombardment TF, and one troop transport TF in this hex.

Air combat TF 75

Situation the day of the battle. May 01, 1942. Sorry to give the wrong date earlier.

So, basically you sank a couple of Ron;s CV's and he quit?  Bah.
 
jw

Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)?

I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case.

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)?

I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case.

I believe it was a surface action fleet that reacted.

I had something similar happen to me near the same place. Two of my CVs launched dive bombers on a transport TF and not the CV TF that was one hex closer. I did not get a strike in on his CVs and lost both of mine.

I was upset like you would not believe. I am holding on in that game with only CVEs and 1 CV. It is still a long time off before I receive the Essex class CVs.

I can not ask Ron since I have not heard from him since that turn.

The whole problem relates back to a big bitch about aircraft flying to thier death to make a naval strike in the UV days, because all aircraft would attempt to strike the CVs and get butchered by the CAP. It would have been better to fix the CAP and how it is modeled, but they chose instead to "fix" how targets were selected.

So we are left with a model that seeks to hit the undefended target and leave the heavily protected target alone. This has opened the door for the "soak off" TF made up of empty transports to attract the CV strikes and allow CV TFs to go untouched. I am not saying you did that Halsey, but it is a by product of that "fix".

Edited for spelling Drunk and dslexic is no way to go through life, but what choice do I have?

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)?

I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case.

I believe it was a surface action fleet that reacted.

I had something similar happen to me near the same place. Two of my CVs launched dive bombers on a transport TF and not the CV TF that was one hex closer. I did not get a strike in on his CVs and lost both of mine.

I was upset like you would not believe. I am holding on in that game with only CVEs and 1 CV. It is still a long time off before I receive the Essex class CVs.

I can not ask Ron since I have not heard from him since that turn.

The whole problem relates back to a big bitch about aircraft flying to thier death to make a naval strike in the UV days, because all aircraft would attempt to strike the CVs and get butchered by the CAP. It would have been better to fix the CAP and how it is modeled, but they chose instead to "fix" how targets were selected.

So we are left with a model that seeks to hit the undefended target and leave the heavily protected target alone. This has opened the door for the "soak off" TF made up of empty transports to attract the CV strikes and allow CV TFs to go untouched. I am not saying you did that Halsey, but it is a by product of that "fix".

I have seen that tactic used on me before. Ron's CVs were just not in strike range, mine were but the CAP bug drove them from the CVs. That strike was even unescorted. I understand what Ron is trying to get acrossed by posting what he does. The game we were playing was modified by him in an attempt to fix A2A loses. The changes he made work to keep down the loses. I would even consider letting him change his moves with his CVs so the loss of them does not happen. I just like playing the game for the fun and challenge.

I've had a half dozen opponents that quit after I killed their CV's.  Basically they bring out the CV's to fight, engage, and if they lose they quit.  I suspect that if they had won and the tables were turned around they'd be keen to continue.

In one of my games with Bill, my 3 US CV's were stalking his CVE's and made the mistake of getting a little too close. Close enough for his Kates to hit me, but not close enough for me to hit him. I lost Saratoga for no gain on that one. Next turn I corrected the mistake and was lucky enough to get all of his CVE's. C'est la Guerre.

That's why I really value playing Bill in both of my games with him - sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses.  But when you have 6 months of life into a game, you want an opponent to continue. It's a long war, and the Americans in particular can recover from CV losses.

jw

That's why I really value playing Bill in both of my games with him - sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses. But when you have 6 months of life into a game, you want an opponent to continue. It's a long war, and the Americans in particular can recover from CV losses.

I have lost all of my starting CVs in the game as allies I have the Hornet and Wasp to arrives yet in that game. I can not remember what I was able to do against his carriers.

In the other game it is a 2 vs 1. I am playing the Japanese and they are giving me a hard time. I have lost all the Japanese CVLs and CVE against the America carriers in action in the South Pacific. They lost the Saratoga and I think Enterprise and Lexington took some hits.

The reaction stank, and I too have noticed the problem with strikes, I lost ALL of KB in March 42 in about the same place for Lex only. The tin can CV's and CVL's have managed to get York, Sara and Hornet since then, we are now in June 42. Watchin 1/2 of KB's strike go in against transports with the sara and York w/in one hex Almost made me quit.[8|]

I am not saying there are not things that should be fix. There are.

1 Auto Convoys sending out lone ships with no escort.
2 Auto Convoys taking a path past a base within range of bombers.
3 Air units not flying that have good moral and low fatiuge.
4 Priority of targets for naval strikes.
5 Land movement hang ups.
6 Units not able to withdrawal from an enemy hex to disengage from combat.


I am sure there are other things that could be fix. The game as a whole I enjoy playing. I just hate to lose friends over a game. I am not sure if Ron will log back on to the forum or not but I have to heard from him.

Well, it is war, shit happens. The way I view it is that if it is a game mechanic which applies equally to both sides then one should just roll with it but if it is a clear case of something being broken or only applying to one side or the other then calling the game off is reasonable.

To be fair though what happened here could have happened the other way round quite easily. It is bad luck and the result of poor programming but it could happen to either side and if you start calling games on the basis of things which could happen to both sides then no game would go beyond the first week.

Reading the above posts I could not help but think the American and Japanese commanders at the Battle of Coral Sea felt much like the players do. Fletcher - "Why are my planes attacking a light carrier while two fleet carrierrs are out there?" Admiral Takagi " Why is my full strike attacking an oiler while two fleet carriers are out there?"