Gung-Ho US Carrier Commanders

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Gung-Ho US Carrier Commanders

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Gung-Ho US Carrier Commanders

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Gung-Ho US Carrier Commanders - 5/21/2002 5:31:24 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

Has anyone else noticed how with 'React to enemy' on the US Carriers seem determined to sail within strike range of Rabaul airbase?

In every scenario so far I have lost both US carriers due to their gung-ho commanders sailing into certain death.

In the first attempt the US CV force had just completely creamed the Japanese invasion force heading for Gilli Gilli leaving the Jomini Passage carpeted with drowning Japanese soldiers. They then took on the IJN CV force that was steaming to assist and crippled three of their CV's. Before sailing straight for Rabaul and getting pounded into scrap metal.

In the second attempt they severely damaged the Lunga Inasion fleet crippling two CA's and an AP before sailing for the Jap base and certain doom.

Now I've decided these guys just are not to be trusted and I have turned the 'React to enemy' option off. It means I miss out on a few juicy targets but so far I have managed to keep both CV's afloat.

Post #: 1

- 5/21/2002 5:34:58 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Sounds like a fix is needed.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 2

- 5/21/2002 5:38:42 PM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Sounds like a fix is needed. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have had no problem with this. Lets take Gili Gili for example. I position my carriers 4-6 hexes from that base and wait and if there is a reaction to carriers it cannot move that far up north. Again I have had no problems with this as jap or yank. But I do treat my CVs as if they were my own kids!:)

Dan

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 3

- 5/21/2002 5:54:58 PM

Fuchida

Posts: 69
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Stevenage, England
Status: offline

It would be nice to have a third option. React to enemy but not if it will take you close to enemy LBA. Surely there must have been orders of that nature historically.

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 4

- 5/21/2002 7:29:47 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida
[B]It would be nice to have a third option. React to enemy but not if it will take you close to enemy LBA. Surely there must have been orders of that nature historically. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well personally I think that would be a given.

Was it common for CV task Groups to approach heavily defended stone frigates in daylight?

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 5

- 5/21/2002 7:31:58 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Back to the timeless dilemma of creating a decent AI.;)

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 6

4TH option - 5/21/2002 8:26:58 PM

vils

Posts: 251
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

4. Load Lexington with TNT and rush her into Tulagi, blowing entire port to schreds! :)

And all 90 pilots can act as kamikazes on every ships in sight, using planes as leathal torpedos.

How about that? ;)

_____________________________

Take Command! - Lewis E. Lyle

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 7

- 5/21/2002 8:47:47 PM

osros

Posts: 52
Joined: 5/3/2002
Status: offline

I too keep my babies on react off, it was 50/50 for me with it on I got the drop on a CV TF and others, but just has many times got hammered myself. Its tricky, Its Timing, Its Luck ( Luck in a computer game? :confused: )

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 8

- 5/21/2002 8:49:08 PM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I generally keep react off, but when I have it on, I make sure Fletcher or another "cautious" commander is at the helm -- seems to do the trick so far.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 9

- 5/21/2002 11:04:14 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

An excellent case of reacting to enemy but staying out of LBA is Spruance at Midway in June 42. He would have kept chasing the Japs back to Hell if it weren't LBA from Wake reaching out to him...

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 10

- 5/22/2002 12:12:24 AM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 11

- 5/22/2002 3:48:10 AM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello...

Have you looked at ther range of the Japanese LBA at Rabaul? Such an order would keep Allied carriers out of battle through out the entire campaign.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida
[B]It would be nice to have a third option. React to enemy but not if it will take you close to enemy LBA. Surely there must have been orders of that nature historically. [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 12

- 5/22/2002 10:10:18 AM

Griffin

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline

However, I don't see any Japanese CVBG commander exhibit such behavior.

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 13

- 5/22/2002 10:39:56 AM

Andrew Offen

Posts: 11
Joined: 10/29/2000
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Played my first game last night (Coral Sea) and had the same problem. US CV TF reacted from around 4 or 5 hexes south of Gilli Gilli to about 3 hexes north west of it on the wrong side of PNG. Result - exchanged strikes with the IJN CV TF (coming off second best) then got cleaned up by land based air out of Rabaul. Yorktown and Lexington sunk vs Shoho damaged, game lost. How do you stop the guys doing that but still be close enough to hit enemy TF's headed around the end of PNG?
Andrew

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 14

React vs. Patrol - 5/22/2002 10:52:31 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

I'm sure most of you have noticed that even with Do Not React orders set, a Carrier TF will conduct a limited reaction when it finds an enemy Carrier TF within range. This usually takes the form of one or two hexes closer for the Allies to get as many planes in range as they can.

Personally, that's the only setting I use for my Air Combat TFs in about 95% of cases. There are rare exceptions where I'm distant enough from enemy LBA that it doesn't matter. Using these rules of thumb, I've had no trouble through many games.

The React orders get the most use for me with surface combat TFs that I need to station in a given area and intercept any enemy units that try to run the gauntlet. Personally, I'm not sure anything more is necessary, but I'm not against a change if it is requested often enough and is not unreasonable from a programming standpoint.

Keep in mind that any good suggestions that don't make it into the list of UV enhancement will most likely show up in WitP, so keep them coming. :)

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 15

- 5/22/2002 2:46:59 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
[B]Hello...

Have you looked at ther range of the Japanese LBA at Rabaul? Such an order would keep Allied carriers out of battle through out the entire campaign.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

[/B][/QUOTE]

Is there a way of checking the effective range of the aircraft at an enemy airbase?

I've just been basing my assessment on the distance between Rabaul and the New Guinea bases they keep bombing.

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 16

- 5/22/2002 2:54:20 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griffin
[B]However, I don't see any Japanese CVBG commander exhibit such behavior. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh! I'm not sure about that in my game (Scn 17) the IJN have moved their CV's within range of Port Moresby several times.

Unfortunately, I only have fighters stationed there normally. A quick transfer of bombers from Australia sometimes catches them out but never in enough strength to do any damage. I certainly don't see them charging my main bomber bases on the Australian mainland.

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 17