Controlling TFs with React/Retirement - A Feature Discussion

[mogami]

Greetings, On 9 May weather overcast transports are unloading the 7th Aus Div at PM. US CV TF under Spruance 12 hexes south of Gilli IJN CV TF spotted in channel 2 hexes ne of Gilli. I did not want to risk my CV except to protect the transports so I moved in nw direction placing me 10 Hexes SW of Gilli (I was uncertain whether IJN would move along north coast of NG to attack transports or come south.)
10 May weather raining I moved north (14,43) to be within SBD range if IJN had moved north Japanese transports had unloaded on Gilli several days earlier and I wanted to be in position to strike any follow on TF. My recon being provided by the 4 CA with the CV (each CA has 4 floatplanes I launched 2 from each) and another CA TF under Lee (3 CA 1 CL 5 DD) I did not expect the battle that resulted when enemy TF appeared in hex right next to mine. (Japs moved south when moving along NG coast would have been just as good for reaching my transports, prehaps they had after all spotted my CV the day before. (If I had seen them spot me I would have moved full speed to the west) I had changed CAP from 20 to 50 percent.
Spruance got off a good strike and it appears won a DV


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/10/42

Air attack on TF at 15,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 32

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 23
SBD Dauntless x 72
TBD Devastator x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 3 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 11 damaged
TBD Devastator x 7 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 2 damaged

LCDR N.Reese of VT-5 is KILLED

Japanese Ships
CVL Shoho, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CA Myoko, Bomb hits 1
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
CA Haguro


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 15,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 18

Allied aircraft
Hudson x 6
Wirraway x 5
P-39D Airacobra x 11
A-24 Dauntless x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson x 1 destroyed
Hudson x 1 damaged
Wirraway x 2 destroyed
Wirraway x 1 damaged

WO T.Nikaido of EIII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

SLDR K. Hampshire of 23rd RAAF Squadron is KILLED

Japanese Ships
CVL Shoho, on fire, heavy damage
CV Shokaku, on fire, heavy damage
CV Zuikaku, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x Hudson at 6000 feet
4 x Hudson at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 14,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 34
D3A Val x 38
B5N Kate x 46

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 2 destroyed
D3A Val x 7 damaged
B5N Kate x 9 destroyed
B5N Kate x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 damaged

CPO V.Kamisaka of EI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

LCDR W.Isaacs of VF-42 is KILLED

Allied Ships
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 4
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 1
CA Astoria
DD Morris
CA Chester, Torpedo hits 1, on fire


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rain prevented a second strike, the IJN TF has split and I've ordered Lee to move to their present location at full speed and we will track them day by day till he finds them. Spruance is moving 5 hexes south east to be in position for another battle on the 11th. There was no message concerning the IJN TF 2nd strike being cancelled by weather so I am hoping they can not do flight ops. Damage to Lex and Yorktown very minor.

[brisd]

Having read most of the posts here I can see the point of those who are not into micro-managing their forces. IMHO, I don't see any other way of playing the game and succeeding but to each his own. Gary's games, esp. PacWar have always involved a high level of detail and user control. Many people complained about PacWar that is was too detailed and not user friendly. UV is much more "accessable". There is an answer to avoiding the LBA - put timid commanders in charge of your TF's. Still NO need for a new setting, IMHO.

[dgaad]

IMHO the react behavior takes ZERO cognizance of LBA threats, timid commanders or not. Try some experiments with cautious commanders. Even if you can get them to react against a carrier group, they will do so oblivious to LBA.

The fact that many micromanagers will not care about a new TF behavior control is irrelevant. What does it hurt to add a new one? Is opposition to the concept explained by the desire of micromanagers to have useless or no features so that micromanagers can beat the non-micromanagers in a PBEM game?

The react setting for carrier groups, given active enemy LBA, is for all intents and purposes useless. I want a useful TF behavior control for carrier TFs.

[mogami]

Greetings, The game will evolve no doubt in response to what the players suggest and want. Having a few more options won't hurt. I really do think the issue is more one of playing style. In an area where I only have one TF of CV I don't think of it as micro managing to give it explicit orders. If someone else wants the computer controlling their CV's why not let them? I am thinking of these settings all being possible at one time
1. Human/computer TF control
2. Retire/patrol (from enemy TF)
3. react/don't react
4. retire/don't retire from LBA (this would be triggered by detection and amount of enemy LBA known)
5. approach/don't approach range from a specific base-(would use the set target method of selection)

Mainly these settings would help the AI in human versus AI games but humans who don't want to control their TF's could also use them.

[Capitaine]

Yes, Mogami, there certainly has been a bit of an overreaction to this point. The suggestion is not to enhance some AI routine that will assist the player; it is one simply to refine an existing command that currently ignores the most critical of considerations! Whether a CV TF Cdr decides to "react" or not would certainly be based on his proximity to enemy LBA. Currently, that is not considered in ANY of the calculations. Truly, given that there is an "auto react" mechanism already, allowing a player to specify restrictions (as in how close to go to an enemy air base, e.g.) is reasonable in the extreme.

Let's not get too wrapped up in individual style. Fact is, the "react" command was intended to relieve some folks of micromanagement. For those who wish it, it ought to have some rational restraints as well...

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Capitaine
Fact is, the "react" command was intended to relieve some folks of micromanagement. For those who wish it, it ought to have some rational restraints as well...

And Capitaine has yet another good point : something intended to relieve players of micromanagement is in fact useless for Carrier TFs, thus providing no relief at all.

[sbattler]

Test :rolleyes:

[The Gnome]

The AI in general is not handling the threat of LBA well. In the Solomons I had Shortland ringed with powerful LBA assets and the AI continued to conduct business as usual out of Shortland. Countless ships from CV's and BB's to at least 50 AP's sit at the bottom of Shortland's harbor.

Either the AI is completely ignoring LBA or there is a problem in how it labels it a threat. Shortland should have been abandoned to shipping -excepting MAYBE emergency convoys- it was that dangerous.