Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
findmeifyoucan
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:11 pm

Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by findmeifyoucan »

I just had my first Carrier vs Carrier engagement and wonder why the two Carrier forces did not move closer together after the first air phase. I was air searching like crazy so definately found his carrier's as he found mine. Doesn't matter as he had no chance with my 6 Japanese carriers vs his lonely 1 American. I had my task force at Reaction 0 as I did not want to have any Surface engagements.
Comments anyone?
hunchback77
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by hunchback77 »

The CV Task Force Reaction Range at 0 is not for surface engagments findmeifyoucan, its to react to other CV task forces. The reason the 2 carrier forces didn't move closer is because you had a react of 0 and the lonely1 American carrier probably had the same setting. A react of 6 means your carrier forces will jump up to 6 hexes in order to launch the aircraft at a better range, the carrier forces may still be several hexes away from each other, especially if they were really far apart to begin with. Sometimes you don't want to react to much and get drawn into his Land Based Air Range.
If you had it set at 6 your carrier forces would probably have been right next to the 1 lonely american carrier, but would not have tried a surface engagement with it.
findmeifyoucan
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by findmeifyoucan »

Oh okay thanks. As it turned out I was only 3 hexes away from his Carrier to start with so it didn't matter anyhow but it is nice to know for future reference. I guessed pretty much perfectly where his Carriers would be. So do carriers by default always try to shy away from Surface Engagements then?
hunchback77
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by hunchback77 »

Yes and the Carrier Task force Commander's aggresiveness rating plays a part too.
ORIGINAL: findmeifyoucan

Oh okay thanks. As it turned out I was only 3 hexes away from his Carrier to start with so it didn't matter anyhow but it is nice to know for future reference. I guessed pretty much perfectly where his Carriers would be. So do carriers by default always try to shy away from Surface Engagements then?
findmeifyoucan
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by findmeifyoucan »

Nice, there is more to this game design than what I first thought!! I am liking this game the more I play it!
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by John Lansford »

ORIGINAL: findmeifyoucan

Oh okay thanks. As it turned out I was only 3 hexes away from his Carrier to start with so it didn't matter anyhow but it is nice to know for future reference. I guessed pretty much perfectly where his Carriers would be. So do carriers by default always try to shy away from Surface Engagements then?

Yes; I sent a CVTF with Wasp and North Carolina up to Dutch Harbor to break up some persistent invasion attempts up there, and they ran right up on a transport TF in the same hex. Rather than screening Wasp and letting NC blow away the few transport ships, the two TF's avoided contact and disengaged without firing a shot at either side.
User avatar
aciddrinker
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by aciddrinker »

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ORIGINAL: findmeifyoucan

Oh okay thanks. As it turned out I was only 3 hexes away from his Carrier to start with so it didn't matter anyhow but it is nice to know for future reference. I guessed pretty much perfectly where his Carriers would be. So do carriers by default always try to shy away from Surface Engagements then?



Yes; I sent a CVTF with Wasp and North Carolina up to Dutch Harbor to break up some persistent invasion attempts up there, and they ran right up on a transport TF in the same hex. Rather than screening Wasp and letting NC blow away the few transport ships, the two TF's avoided contact and disengaged without firing a shot at either side.
Thats why i use other SCTF thats follow Carrier TF to screen.
findmeifyoucan
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by findmeifyoucan »

With regard to Endurance and Durability ratings which is better, the lower or higher number?
Also in the Air Pilot department columns, next to "Delay", what does "Mis" mean or stand for?
Lifer
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 3:37 am
Location: East Coast, USA

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by Lifer »

Mis = Number of combat missions flown
Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second.
Ardant du Picq
findmeifyoucan
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by findmeifyoucan »

Are you sure the Reaction Rating number for Carriers is for Reaction to Carrier Air Forces and not for reating to surface fleets? I think you may be wrong on this one as I had Reaction set at 6 and my Carrier Force went and Reacted with a enemy Surface Fleet which was not a very pleasurable result. Grrrrr
xj900uk
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Post by xj900uk »

But typical of what could have happened, and sometimes did happen, in real life.  just be thankful that the surface fleet your carriers attacked was the enemies and not your own (sometimes that did happen as well!)
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”