Page 1 of 1

Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:34 pm
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?

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:49 pm
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.

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:58 pm
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?

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:07 pm
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?

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:30 pm
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!

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:20 pm
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.

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:40 pm
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.

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:59 pm
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?

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:50 pm
by Lifer
Mis = Number of combat missions flown

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:42 pm
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

RE: Carrier vs Carrier engagements

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:30 am
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!)