Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Follow Enemy Taskforce

 
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 >> Follow Enemy Taskforce Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Follow Enemy Taskforce - 10/18/2002 1:58:37 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Now here is a topic that I believe deserves a thread of its own.

Again.

It seems that the subject of following enemy taskforce has been popping up on regular basis for a long time, but it has never really been answered by anybody, or at least I wasn’t able to find such an answer.

Many, including me, have wished for this option for a long time and asked would it be on the next patch, or in WITP.

I have searched the forums but failed to find any answer, so I ask the question once again:

Will it be possible in the future to follow enemy faskforce or not?

If this is intentionally left out, then would somebody please be kind to give the rationale for leaving it out, as now it is a total mystery to me :confused: (<-- see how confused I am)

If it is going to be included in the future, would it happen in the next UV patch?

And please, this thread is about following an enemy task force, not about setting your taskforce to “React to enemy”.

This tread is about possibility of sending high-speed pursuit task forces after slow moving confirmed enemy sightings, such as transports and crippled CVs. Currently this is not possible, unless you can guess the hex where the enemy is going to be at the phase when day surface combat is initiated. This pretty much takes the point out of trying to pursuit anything and many, many times I have wished I would have been able to do so.
Post #: 1
- 10/18/2002 2:03:30 PM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		If you are using subs to follow an enemy TF set the subs to computer control.

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 2
- 10/18/2002 2:14:22 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Thanks for the quick reply.

However, I was talking about surface taskforces consisting DDs, CLs and CAs.

To add one more point. Many CA's have their own recon planes that should have an easy job of spotting burning cripples and following them, thus making it virtually impossible for the taskforce to miss a target that is almost three times slower.

Big thanks for the sub info anyway. I have also tried fruitlessly to pursue cripples with them as well. From now on I try the computer control.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 3
- 10/18/2002 3:08:16 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		Yes, this will be a great future.
I going mad when my Surface Combat TF sitting one hex from light CVs and for three days airplanes wave after wave wiping out my ships. My TF is set to React To Enemy but they do not move anywhere :o

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 4
- 10/18/2002 4:22:17 PM   
Ross Moorhouse


Posts: 2354
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Try 'React to enemy TFs" setting.. they may not exactly follow but my emgage a bit better. Lets us know how this goes for you.

_____________________________

Ross Moorhouse

Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 5
- 10/18/2002 6:34:49 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		As I stated in my first post and I quote myself

[QUOTE]And please, this thread is about following an enemy task force, not about setting your taskforce to “React to enemy”. [/QUOTE]

Following. Not reacting.

To follow, to pursue, to chase, to go after something or somebody. I want to follow a crippled enemy. Actively go after a taskforce that is within the reach of my fast surface combat TF.

Actively to go after.

This is different to wait in a hex if somebody happens to come by.

I want to order a TF to follow enemy TF exactly the same way they can follow my own TFs.

Why can't I do this?

Please answer this question as I believe many wants to know the answer

Ps. The mystery that left me this :confused: confused was:
"What is the rationale to include an order to follow your own taskforces, but not for enemy taskforces.

To make it more clearer: I know why I can follow my own forces and the benefits of it. What I don't know is why I cant follow the enemy the same way to get in to a fight with him.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 6
- 10/18/2002 8:02:38 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		I did notice on one of my subs (and I'm only talking about subs here) that when on Computer control, it would target a TF and follow. It even listed the TF # in the Follow TF area. But I could not do it on my own when I attempted it with other subs.

I seem to remember a game I played that you could target an enemy TF to follow, was it Carriers at War? I know that CaW is a tactical game, but following the logic of a theatre Commander, my orders would be to engage all enemy forces assaulting your position, pursue cripples at your discretion. The last part would be dependant upon the TF Commander's Aggressiveness rating. RAdm Dan Callaghan would chase the Japs back to Truk. RAdm Frank Fletcher would probably not stray out of range of LBA.

BTW as a side note, I feel that Fletcher's Agg rating is too low. His caution did not really emerge until Eastern Solomons in Aug 42. We saw it first when he held back 1/2 his SBD strike force on 4 June at Midway. Imagine if he had launched them too, they might have gotten [I]HIRYU[/I] in the same attack as the other 3 that morning, saving [I]YORKTOWN[/I] from another beating.

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 7
- 10/19/2002 1:10:04 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		When a sub group is chasing a slower moving enemy tast force, do they attack it every turn?

Yamamoto

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 8
- 10/19/2002 3:43:14 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]When a sub group is chasing a slower moving enemy tast force, do they attack it every turn?

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]I don't know...

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 9
- 10/19/2002 4:00:15 AM   
Admiral_Arctic

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 8/15/2002
From: Nonamia
Status: offline 		Maybe you can set your surface TF to follow the sub that is following the enemy Tf.

PS I thought "React to Enemy" only targets TF attacking your own bases.

_____________________________

I'm a hazard to myself.

Want. Take. Have.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 10
- 10/19/2002 6:08:20 AM   
Antonius

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 6/6/2000
From: Saint Arnoult en Yvelines FRANCE
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral_Arctic
[B]Maybe you can set your surface TF to follow the sub that is following the enemy Tf.

PS I thought "React to Enemy" only targets TF attacking your own bases. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have seen my US PT boats in Munda react to jap ships (transports ?) in Shortland

_____________________________

Wargamo, ergo sum

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 11
- 10/20/2002 1:10:03 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Oh my god.

How difficult it is sometimes to communicate in writing.

I thought the purpose of this tread was clear:

Why can't SURFACE COMBAT TF consisting of CAs and DDs be ordered to follow enemy taskforces in order to engage them?

How can the "Follow TF" order get confused with the "React to enemy" setting for your taskforce? There is a world of difference and I dont want to know about the use of "React to enemy". I have played this game long enough to be crystal clear what can be accomplished with react and what cannot be accomplished witht react. One thing that definetly cannot be accomplished with react, is to send a pursuit taskforce to engage crippled enemy carrier that is fleeing away from your patrol hex. It doesn't help to get your surface combat group to vicinity of the enemy either, you have to guess the exact hex in order to initiate the fight.

With "Follow TF" order you are able to get your own ships in the same hex. Why cannot this order be used to get fast surface combat TF to the same hex with slow enemy TF?

I'm I expressing myself unclearly, or don't people just read what has been said earlier in the thread. This thread is not that long, or is it?

So I reiterate my question for about the zillionth time:

Why can you set your SURFACE COMBAT TFs to "Follow TF", but they can only follow your own TFs. Why can't you set them to follow enemy TF?

Is there a rationale behind this?

Is the code lacking this possiblity? (I doubt)

Is this because it would make surface combats too frequent?

Is it somehow unhistorical to follow crippled CVs with surface taskforces?

So just to be sure I ask it once more:

Why can't I follow enemy taskforces?

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 12
- 10/22/2002 12:06:00 AM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Piiska
[B]Oh my god.

How difficult it is sometimes to communicate in writing.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Sometimes very, but in this case I think that nobody know how to order a TF to follow an enemy TF or why it can not be done.

The answer, most likely, is no one thought of doing it so it was not included in the program code.

I would love to have a command that said 'Chase that sucker down and blow him out of the water!'.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 13
- 10/22/2002 12:56:16 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Maybe if you all present a few historical examples from WW2 where this was successfully done it would strengthen the case for your demand for such an option.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 14
- 10/22/2002 3:48:51 AM   
wobbly

 

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline 		There are many instances where a task force is known about and has been chased down once found. Some you could consider borderline - link the Graf Spee (i know - wrong theatre but right war); the actual hunting was deliberate but the final attack could be considered "react to enemy". Hunting the Bismarck definately qualifies! Even Midway to an extent - the US new the Japs were coming (code breaking) and new approximate location. The Japanese attacks in Leyte gulf... other's will know more

This request seems perfectly reasonable:

You know a taskforce is there, and your own fleet is faster - you should be able to target it.

I don't have the game yet, but can you target specific TF's with aircraft? From the aar's i have read it sounds like you can't (target using generic orders and hope they hit the ones you can see). If you can't target a tf with planes you sure as hell shouldn't be able to target them with ships.

This whole thread though, seems to come down to a previous one that revolved around you being a theatre commander that hands orders out along the lines of "hunt out all taskforces in your vacinity/range targeting transports and then warships". Your sub commanders in the battlezone then carry these out to their on the spot interpretation.

So maybe this inability to personally order your ships to attack is by design.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 15
- 10/22/2002 4:03:35 AM   
angus

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Maybe if you all present a few historical examples from WW2 where this was successfully done it would strengthen the case for your demand for such an option. [/B][/QUOTE]

Here are cases where I think side A followed up and engaged side B again either in "a different hex" or on a second/third/whatever day. That's what you wanted isn't it ?

[I]*Definitely and I don't think I need to check*[/I]
Bismarck
Cape Matapan
Java Sea

[I]*Probably but I'm too lazy to check*[/I]
Scharnhorst/JW55B
Barents Sea/PQ18
Operation Vigourous (although it's possible to weasel out of this one by redefining the word battle)

[I]*Possibly but I'm still too lazy to check*[/I]
Punto Stilo
Cape Spartivento/Operation Collar
Operation Pedestal (but that was "PT boats" anyway ...)
River Plate

Now this doesn't include many, many examples where we would say that TF A was given TF B as it's target. Not react to, but find and sink.

Among those sort are the sinking of the Haguro, most of Force K's actions when based in Malta, operations of the Mediterranean Fleet off Crete in annihilating the German seaborne invasion, dozens of operations in the Channel and Biscay and many, many more if only I had the time to look them up.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 16
hunt down and kill - 10/22/2002 9:05:28 AM   
herbieh

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 8/30/2002
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		I seem to recall that the Hornet? (crippled earlier in the day)was sunk by Japanese DDs at the battle of cape esperance just on dusk. Ive read the Jap air commanders comments that her glow was on the horizon, and DDs were detached to try to tow her home, couldnt, so long lances were employed.


. Just like I would love to do in UV, detach DDs and a few CAs to hunt and kill that crippled carrier.:D

Love the game

I must be lucky,Ive a score of 6 correct hex guesses so far in 3 games, scratch 2 cvs, and 1BB.Yaahoooo!!!


Ps Beer is good

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 17
- 10/22/2002 3:18:56 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I can see two reasons why you can’t set your surface TFs to follow enemy.

One reason could be the code. If you set your taskforce to follow your own taskforce, you all the time “know” where the taskforce is. Thus the following TF finds its target.

However, it could be that, due to the game mechanics, pursuit of an enemy TF would create a problem during the phases, when all the contacts disappear, before reappearing again in the air operations phase.

I believe that during the night, the pursuing taskforce would “lose its track”, and the game code wouldn’t know where to direct the TF so that it would still be realistic. I can understand this, as during the night it is very difficult to shadow ships from airplanes, unless they are in fire, and thus it would be unrealistic to intercept a taskforce during the night on an open sea.

To implement pursuit realistically, there would have to be a code representing the TF commanders “best guess” during the night, based on the speed and heading the target had when spotting planes ceased shadowing it due to the coming darkness. Perhaps this “best guess” factor would have required too much to be implemented, as the speed and heading of taskforces are not apparently included in any calculations. At least in any of the calculations player get reports about.

Another reason to exclude the follow command might be playability. Something in lines that if there would be such a command, the frequency of open sea battles would be unhistorical.

I started this thread mainly out of curiosity, as so many people have asked this same question in various form, yet nobody has ever explained why the system is as it is. To put the puzzlement to rest once and for all, it would be great if somebody in the Matrix would have time and be kind enough to give the rationale behind this issue.

If the players know why the system is like this, it would reduce their headache and frustration trying to come up with different ways to get their TFs to pursue.
And believe me. People try all sorts of things: Save/reload and mark the hex where the cripples are, follow submarines that are computer set to follow enemy, pure guessing of the hext and so on and so on…Clearly there is a need for pursuing your enemy, so the big question is: Can this be done in the future?

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 18
another order - 10/22/2002 10:03:00 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, If there was to be a "follow enemy TF" order there would need to be a "evade enemy TF" order. I too like to detach surface ships to try to locate crippled enemy ships but when I am in the reverse situation I order my TF's to make some radical moves to evade. "Follow enemy TF" assumes the friendly TF commander actually knows where the enemy TF is going to be 12-24 hours later. Finding burning, smoking, fuel leaking ships would be easier then following ones moving at full speed and changing course. So I would at least like to get enemy course and speed estimates from contact reports. Also it would be nice if when a search plane spotted a TF there was an oppurtunity to tell that scout to cease his search and shadow the contact he is reporting (and home base launch a relief plane-to shadow through night (later scouts carry radar right?) In all it might be too complex for the system just things I dream about when there are 4 damaged enemy CV 60-90 miles away and I can't find them with surface ships and the weather grounds my aircraft.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 19
- 10/22/2002 10:33:52 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		The code to evade enemy taskforces already exists: “TF x retreating from the enemy carriers”, Why should it be that difficult to code: “TF x retreating from enemy surface action group”.

The possibility to do so would be down to the speed difference of the two groups. If you send a surface TF to chase fully functional, full speed capable CV group, it would simply take one hex sidestep from its pursuer and deal some serious spanking in the following air-action phase. The poor surface group would be doomed.

If the situation would be such, that a crippled carrier group, or slow supply convoy would be in danger, they don’t have that much room to maneuver in the first place: Full possible speed towards Noumea or Rabaul and to the protection of land based aircrafts before the predator catches.

Also if you would decide to protect the TF in danger, you could set up a separate taskforce to follow the slow moving TF. When the enemy TF would arrive, the combat would be carried out normally. First between the protecting TF and then the next day/surface turn, after regrouping and relocating the target, the remaining ships in pursuit could try to catch the prey again. Or remain pounding the burning escorts, if the prey has managed to move beyond the range unwise to trespass.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 20
- 10/25/2002 4:30:35 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I’m really starting to feel myself like a pain in the backside, but here comes a shameless bump:

“Bump”

So there.

Please, please, please, would anybody in the Matrix have time to reply something?

Even to say: “No. You can’t follow your enemy because we say so. And we are not going to code it to the game either”.

Actually never mind about the reasons. Just tell me should I expect it to be implemented in some patch or in WITP.

Thank you in advance

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 21
- 10/25/2002 11:06:59 PM   
Mike Wood


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

Good idea. Already on list with hundreds of other good ideas. If we can get to it, we will add it. Would be quite useful.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
Lead Progammer,
Matrix Games
_________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Piiska
[B]
...Please, please, please, would anybody in the Matrix have time to reply something?
Thank you in advance [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 22
- 10/26/2002 5:02:36 AM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Maybe if you all present a few historical examples from WW2 where this was successfully done it would strengthen the case for your demand for such an option. [/B][/QUOTE]
Just off the top of my head.
Halsey chased down the unarmed Jap Carriers specificly sent to be chased down, The Bismark, the Graf Speer, Cunningham and the Italian fleet, The Altmark (?)(German raider)

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 23
- 10/26/2002 1:28:16 PM   
Shot2Pieces

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 8/7/2002
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline 		Following an enemy task force with the intention of intercepting could be made fairly simple and abstract. Once the task force receives the 'follow enemy task force' mission, an assessment of the chance of success could be made based on such variables as relative speeds of the two task forces, weather, leader aggression, DL of target task force, distance to target task force, task force experience etc.

UNless the DL of the target task force was high and the other factors (especially distance!) are fairly favourable, the chance would be very low I imagine.

Success would mean a successfiul 'follow' if out of range or 'interception/followed and brought to battle' at some hex (perhaps to be determined by the relative task force speeds) if the task forces are close enough.

Failure would mean missing the target task force by some amount of hexes perhaps but remaining in the area to try again if 'Patrol/Do not retire' is set, or return to base if 'Retirement Allowed'.

(in reply to Piiska)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Follow Enemy Taskforce Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.047