TF following TF reacting?
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:41 pm
Can a TF following another TF react? For example attack enemy TF further away?
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Yes it does. But it produces a problem.
You see, to make a TF to follow another you need to set it to "remain on station". The reaction range setting contradicts the remain on station command, if triggered (because moving away to intercept a contact contradicts an order to hold position).
So what will happen is, the following TF will react (always depending on threat settings, TF type, DL of the enemy TF in question, TF commander attributes, yadda, yadda..) as this overrides remain on station command, but at the same time the TF will reset to "retirement allowed", and so it will not return to follow the TF it was tasked to, but it will return to base.
@Chris: you are correct, patrol destination hex works better depending on what you want to achieve, see above.
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Yes it does. But it produces a problem.
You see, to make a TF to follow another you need to set it to "remain on station". The reaction range setting contradicts the remain on station command, if triggered (because moving away to intercept a contact contradicts an order to hold position).
So what will happen is, the following TF will react (always depending on threat settings, TF type, DL of the enemy TF in question, TF commander attributes, yadda, yadda..) as this overrides remain on station command, but at the same time the TF will reset to "retirement allowed", and so it will not return to follow the TF it was tasked to, but it will return to base.
@Chris: you are correct, patrol destination hex works better depending on what you want to achieve, see above.
LoBaron I don't think that's true. I set TFs to follow other TFs all the time without "remain on station" orders and have never had a problem with having those TFs following correctly.
I can also say that I have seen it stated multiple times in multiple threads that it is "remain on station" that overrides and prevents "reaction".
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
"Remain on Station" means stay where I put you.
"React" means move to attack any detected enemy nearby.
The two orders are contradictory and the game will ignore "Remain on Station" if "React" is ordered. Reacting will clear the "Remain on Station" order so the TF will return to home port after reacting.
witpqs is right. If you want a TF to be in an area and to react if enemy are detected nearby, use a combination of "Patrol" and "React". You can use a single Patrol Hex to emulate "Remain on Station".
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Yes it does. But it produces a problem.
You see, to make a TF to follow another you need to set it to "remain on station". The reaction range setting contradicts the remain on station command, if triggered (because moving away to intercept a contact contradicts an order to hold position).
So what will happen is, the following TF will react (always depending on threat settings, TF type, DL of the enemy TF in question, TF commander attributes, yadda, yadda..) as this overrides remain on station command, but at the same time the TF will reset to "retirement allowed", and so it will not return to follow the TF it was tasked to, but it will return to base.
@Chris: you are correct, patrol destination hex works better depending on what you want to achieve, see above.
LoBaron I don't think that's true. I set TFs to follow other TFs all the time without "remain on station" orders and have never had a problem with having those TFs following correctly ...
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Yes it does. But it produces a problem.
You see, to make a TF to follow another you need to set it to "remain on station". The reaction range setting contradicts the remain on station command, if triggered (because moving away to intercept a contact contradicts an order to hold position).
So what will happen is, the following TF will react (always depending on threat settings, TF type, DL of the enemy TF in question, TF commander attributes, yadda, yadda..) as this overrides remain on station command, but at the same time the TF will reset to "retirement allowed", and so it will not return to follow the TF it was tasked to, but it will return to base.
@Chris: you are correct, patrol destination hex works better depending on what you want to achieve, see above.
LoBaron I don't think that's true. I set TFs to follow other TFs all the time without "remain on station" orders and have never had a problem with having those TFs following correctly.
I can also say that I have seen it stated multiple times in multiple threads that it is "remain on station" that overrides and prevents "reaction".
Well the AE naval guru himself states different:
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
"Remain on Station" means stay where I put you.
"React" means move to attack any detected enemy nearby.
The two orders are contradictory and the game will ignore "Remain on Station" if "React" is ordered. Reacting will clear the "Remain on Station" order so the TF will return to home port after reacting.
witpqs is right. If you want a TF to be in an area and to react if enemy are detected nearby, use a combination of "Patrol" and "React". You can use a single Patrol Hex to emulate "Remain on Station".
What you say about "retirement allowed" and follow is interesting though. I have never tried that in ages as I thought it does not work in combination (and I vaguely remember that it messed with my follow settings when I tried the last time). I will give it a try.
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Remain On Station, Reaction ordered
Orders are generally contradictory but might be useful in some circumstances. TF will remain on station until something causes it to react (or any of the things above). Once it reacts it will retire. Sort of like a picket.
Glad to know I'm a Guru. I'll bring that up next cocktail party.
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Glad to know I'm a Guru. I'll bring that up next cocktail party.