something that must be fixed in CF:

[bigbaba]

is the target selection of bombers.

we all know how absurd it is, when 200 bombers go for a single AP TF (a bug which is often abused by some players). now i had something even more stuppid in my game with borner.

i went between luganville and nouma (summer 1942) with the KB, attacked a tanker TF at luganville and in the next turn with good flight weather, borner came out with his carriers to have his carrier clash...but it wasnt a carrier clash.

his carriers did their job..they sent wave after wave of SBD with wildcat escort to attack the KB. they lost 160 AC and managed to damage 2 of my CV heavily what is absolutly ok for me as a result. and what did the mighty and professional KB with all this 90+ experience pilots?

-100 kates attacked.....a CA/DD TF instead of his carriers. and to put a crown on this stupidity, 100 vals flew all the way to nouma and attacked a transport TF there instead of the much closer US carriers.

the aircraft attack routine is something on #1 priority for CF. the game engine should make the right decisions about target priority. with such a weak routine i even dont think about buying CF.

[bigred]

What is the morale of your fighters and what is the level of your CAP? Where your fighters able to get a 1/2 attack against the US carrier fleet?
For example, sopose you have 540 planes on all your carriers. 1/3 (180) of these are fighters.
If you put up 60%CAP (110)then you have 70 escort fighters. What if the US put land based Cap of 150 planes on top of the carriers and then add in carrier air at 50%. So he has 200 plan CAP. You had less then 1/2 so they will not fly into that situation.

This is how I read the rules.

Also you state you moved into the sea area between Luganville and Nouma? That is a Kill zone.

[bigbaba]

morale was higher then 90 and CAP was set at 60%.

the fighters were not the problem, because 47 zeros and 100 kates attacked the US CA/DD TF in the same hex where the US carriers were and went through the US CAP. if the 15 wildcats and 35 SBD have no problem flying into a wall of 100 zeros, then 47 zeros, 100 vals and 100 kates should also have no problem flying into the US CAP.

if i knew, where the combat repots are saved on a vista PC, i would post the specific combat report here.

between luganville and nouma means this:



and in summer 1942, its not a kill zone. its outside the range of any US land based fighter.

[tocaff]

I thought it was mentioned that targeting was subjected to review and was being addressed by the CF team.

[SuluSea]

No doubt , the code used to determine what bombers should attack what shipping is very poor. Besides what has already been mentioned here's another which I posted in the CF thread awhile ago.
 

ORIGINAL:  SuluSea
Is it possible in the code for Carrier Task Forces to set a higher priority on loaded transport TFs? I realize under certain circumstances it would be tough to find out if a TF is empty or full but given the below example I think any Task Force Commander would attach a higher priority on the arriving transports (2) instead of the
departing (1) transports. In this example the Carrier has been on station and  along with the  Land Based Recon has witnessed the departing (1) TF come and unload some troops/cargo at Lunga.
 
[center][/center]

 

[a1981stingray]

Bombers should have several options within the Primary and Secondary attack priorities.
 
Bombers assigned Naval / Port Attack would have
Primary - CV/CVL
Secondary - BB/CA
Tertiary - AP/AK (loaded v. unloaded)
or whatever ship class combinations the player chooses.
 
 
Bombers assigned Primary - Airfield and Secondary - Ground
 
Bombers assigned Airfield Attack would have
Primary - Runway
Secondary - Aircraft
Tertiary - Facilities // Supplies
 
Bombers assigned Ground Attack would have
Primary - Anti-Aircraft Guns
Secondary - Troops
Tertiary - Coastal Defense Guns
or whatever combination of AA, CD, Troops, Facilities // Supplies, etc. the player chooses.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

-100 kates attacked.....a CA/DD TF instead of his carriers. and to put a crown on this stupidity, 100 vals flew all the way to nouma and attacked a transport TF there instead of the much closer US carriers.

Although these results are very annoying to anyone playing the game, they are not unrealistic. The main oddity here is the number of aircraft committed to each if the search info. is poor ( although the type used is correct ).

The 100 kates ( it appears ) were sent to try and get the Carrier TF.
They found a smaller TF group. If this group was far enough away from the attacking aircraft's carriers then they would have been attacked as there would not have been enough "search" time to find anyone else.
A minor kill is better than nothing when searches etc. go wrong.

The 100 Vals were proberly also sent after the enemy carriers. Having failed to find their target they attacked a secondary target , which would most likely have been pre allotted prior to their flight, taking into consideration their course.

I find no problem with either result other than the numbers committed, which, presuming the search informaton to hand was proberly poor, was too high. If more smaller searches/attacks had been made, some may have found the required target.

[bigbaba]

hi DEB,

i had 2 CS in the 2 carrier TF with a full load of float planes (with "long legs") on naval search. that should be more then enough.

and one note about the kates attack on the USN CA instead of the CV:

in the battle of santa cruz, nagumo placed a CA TF right before his 4 carriers to distract the american bombers from his carriers. the USN pilots ignored this CA and found the CV TF which they also attacked.

in this case, the CA and CV TF were in the same hex. and one can expect that the pilots go for the gold nuggets instead for the chicken nuggets.[;)]

one last note about the KB: the commanders of the 2 Cv TF were yamagutchi and salamaki?(the admiral with both values over 60 and better then nagumo).

[borner]

I am playing bigbaba in this game. It was a very strange air combat. I had not ordered my CV's to that hex, but had ordered two different CA groups to meet up with my carriers ( all in the same TF at the time), in order to split them up. Apparently, my commander reacted, and the above battle took  place. I think we both had high cap settings, and his bombers looked for an easier target, but I agree this needs to be looked at. (His second strike hitting an uncovered AP force in port is the main reason I believe this)  My bombers flew in seperare waves in spite of all being in the same hex and TF!!!! Why is a mystery. Needless to say losses were very high, but usually some SBD's will get through.
 
His morale should not have been a problem, as his origional high quality airgroups were in the KB

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: bigbaba


in the battle of santa cruz, nagumo placed a CA TF right before his 4 carriers to distract the american bombers from his carriers. the USN pilots ignored this CA and found the CV TF which they also attacked.

True enough, but the USN had sighted the carriers behind it. In your case do you remember how well the US cvtfs were 'lit up' by search planes. I usually have the vals on 20% nav search as well as all the float planes at 100%.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

hi DEB,

and one note about the kates attack on the USN CA instead of the CV:

in the battle of santa cruz, nagumo placed a CA TF right before his 4 carriers to distract the american bombers from his carriers. the USN pilots ignored this CA and found the CV TF which they also attacked.

in this case, the CA and CV TF were in the same hex. and one can expect that the pilots go for the gold nuggets instead for the chicken nuggets.[;)]

A hex is approximately 675 square miles in size. Just because planes can spot 1 TF does not mean they can spot any others, particularly if there is any level of cloud cover.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

True enough, but the USN had sighted the carriers behind it. In your case do you remember how well the US cvtfs were 'lit up' by search planes. I usually have the vals on 20% nav search as well as all the float planes at 100%.

Good point. As far as I am aware ( I may be wrong ), any float planes are likely to search before an attack. Any "attack" aircraft on search are more likely to search during an attack.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: borner

My bombers flew in seperare waves in spite of all being in the same hex and TF!!!! Why is a mystery.

This is normal practise for most carrier actions for a host of reasons.

[tocaff]

A CVTF commander can only dream that the planes will arrive on the designated target simultaneously and deliver a hammer blow as a result.  Real life was that even 1 CV's airwing was likely to deliver fragmented attacks, especially in 1942-43.  Escorts miss their rendevous with the bombers?  So what's new?  It was normal for those days. OK maybe not quite normal, but it happened all to frequently.

[borner]

yes, target selection and TF reactions MUST be fixed. I am in another game. My carriers are in port in Luganville in 3 TF's.  the KB comes in, 2  of my TF's move in reaction to them... although they are not set to react - and get pounded. My planes fly on a BB group. I loose 2 CV's for the trouble, KB gets off free. unreal!
 

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: borner

yes, target selection and TF reactions MUST be fixed. I am in another game. My carriers are in port in Luganville in 3 TF's.  the KB comes in, 2  of my TF's move in reaction to them... although they are not set to react - and get pounded. My planes fly on a BB group. I loose 2 CV's for the trouble, KB gets off free. unreal!

If the carrier TFs are reacting to an enemy carrier TF then all the carrier air groups within range should attack the enemy carriers. I'm in complete agreement with you. Does anyone know if the same issues are present in WITP?

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: borner

yes, target selection and TF reactions MUST be fixed. I am in another game. My carriers are in port in Luganville in 3 TF's.  the KB comes in, 2  of my TF's move in reaction to them... although they are not set to react - and get pounded. My planes fly on a BB group. I loose 2 CV's for the trouble, KB gets off free. unreal!

On the face of it, there may be a problem here ( in particular ).

That said however, since the reaction "spot", the TF/'s move. This may cause problems with a successful "attack" search, which could lead to errors. The "spot" may have been of the BB TF ( mistaking it as a CV TF).
Note also that an attack on a BB ( whilst not what YOU require ) may be considered a good target by someone else in the command chain ( it could after all bombard & be an immediate pain to your base / ships just like the CV's).

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

If the carrier TFs are reacting to an enemy carrier TF then all the carrier air groups within range should attack the enemy carriers. I'm in complete agreement with you.

The Carrier TF's are reacting to a SUSPECTED enemy Carrier TF.
( From a long way up and maybe far away ( enemy FP cap ? ) BB's can be mistaken for CV's. ) See also reply to Borner.

You may both be right, but keep an open mind & consider all possibilities.

[Nomad]

One thing we will never know is what the game has determined what the TF and/or Air group commanders see. Remember at the RL Coral Sea the Japanese sent a bunch of aircraft to sink a CV that was being escorted by a DD. After searching about they attacked AO Nesho and DD Sims. Incorrect identification and missing whole TFs was often the norm in WW2.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

If the carrier TFs are reacting to an enemy carrier TF then all the carrier air groups within range should attack the enemy carriers. I'm in complete agreement with you.

The Carrier TF's are reacting to a SUSPECTED enemy Carrier TF.
( From a long way up and maybe far away ( enemy FP cap ? ) BB's can be mistaken for CV's. ) See also reply to Borner.

You may both be right, but keep an open mind & consider all possibilities.

Good points

ORIGINAL: Nomad

One thing we will never know is what the game has determined what the TF and/or Air group commanders see. Remember at the RL Coral Sea the Japanese sent a bunch of aircraft to sink a CV that was being escorted by a DD. After searching about they attacked AO Nesho and DD Sims. Incorrect identification and missing whole TFs was often the norm in WW2.

Good point as well. Your post got me thinking about how some of the USN carrier air squadrons missed the IJN carriers at Midway. I'll still say that some refinements need to be made to this great game however.[:)]