Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Looks like I am playing the up-to-date version.

...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The 10-hex distance leading to a reaction is very odd to me, but I'll take your word on it.

I'm also pretty sure that the hexes quotes as the reaction range in the manual are old WITP hex ranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

This game must be using an old EXE, because my carriers reacted three or four hexes in the previous carrier battle. (I'm computer illiterate, so I don't actually know how to check, but I do know the reaction covered multiple hexes.)

Limiting reaction to just one hex is a most outstanding modification. I look forward to playing an up-to-date game one of these days. It'll be nice not to have to worry about carriers suddenly steaming 200 miles in the wrong direction, against orders, leaving critical combat ships and amphibious TFs unguarded and much-needed CVEs out of position.

Like most players, I hate the old reaction modeling.

If you were running this game version when the multiple hex reaction happened, I want to see it... I'm pretty certain Michael put a hard stop on limiting the special CV reactions to 1 hex per TF.

As mentioned, I still think reactions only occur at 5-6 hexes (maybe 4 but I don't think so). I've never had them occur at 7 hexes (as either side). Again, I think this is an artifact of legacy coding from WITP with more miles per hex. My multiple reactions occurred because the first reaction put the CV TF within reaction range of a second detected enemy CV TF (I slowed it down and watched the messages individually IIRC; it's been a while. I did put it all on YouTube).

I want to note also that that was the only time I ever had the much-maligned reactions occur (and it worked out for me, really). My advice on that is simply to do what I always did: don't be coy about CV battles. You're either all-in, ensuring it happens, or all-out. Never be a 'tweener.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

If this assumption is correct, 10 hex reaction may be induced during night phase processing and, at least if it occurs according to 6.2.5, should be suppressed if following another TF as per 6.2.5. Conversely, reaction after air search in AM/PM phase is controlled by another routine and likelihood reduced by less aggressive TF commander, but maybe not ruled out.

Hartwig

(edited for precision of statement)

quote:


...
3. There are 2 distinct types of naval reaction. Type (A) is based on seahex range and applies to all types of combat TF, be they surface, carrier, sub et al task forces, whilst type (B) is based on hex range and applies only to a carrier TF. It is type (B) which is meant to be explained by s.6.3.4 of the manual. Much of the confusion expressed by players over carrier TF reacting is due to the fact that both types of reaction are in play and not just s.6.3.4 of the manual.

4. The max react button on the TF screen is misunderstood. It's primary function is to toggle on/off whether a naval reaction might occur. Set the reaction button to a 0 range setting tells the code to not check for a type (A) reaction BUT remember that a CV TF also answers to a type (B) reaction where the 0 range setting can be overridden.
...
Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

CV TFs and reaction - is this normal?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3981268&mpage=1&key=reaction�

quote:


...
3. There are 2 distinct types of naval reaction. Type (A) is based on seahex range and applies to all types of combat TF, be they surface, carrier, sub et al task forces, whilst type (B) is based on hex range and applies only to a carrier TF. It is type (B) which is meant to be explained by s.6.3.4 of the manual. Much of the confusion expressed by players over carrier TF reacting is due to the fact that both types of reaction are in play and not just s.6.3.4 of the manual.

4. The max react button on the TF screen is misunderstood. It's primary function is to toggle on/off whether a naval reaction might occur. Set the reaction button to a 0 range setting tells the code to not check for a type (A) reaction BUT remember that a CV TF also answers to a type (B) reaction where the 0 range setting can be overridden.
...
Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

"Unless set to follow another Task Force, Carrier TFs will react to enemy carrier forces and try and avoid enemy surface combat forces. Carrier TFs set to follow another TF are assumed to be providing air cover to that TF."

Hartwig

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

9/1/44

Naval Battle of Sikhalin Island: Truly an epic naval/air battle at Shikuka. Eric first flooded the port with subs, many of which hit mines, but a few scored hits, including one on CA Baltimore and one on BB New Mexico.

Then, Eric sent in every kind of ship he had: CA, CL, DD, DMS, E, AMC, SC. There were a zillion of them. These battles were hard fought and mostly went in favor of the Allies. But, as you'd guess, it emptied ammo bunkers and spread the Allied TFs around, out from under friendly CAP.

Then came LBA and carrier air. Allied fighters handled this, downing hundreds of enemy planes (mostly Peggys and Zero 8s) at low cost. But at the end, a some carrier strikes and one Frances strike got through, enough to finish off ships, damage others, and sink BBs New Mexico and Mississippi and BC Renown. By then, CAs Minneapolis and Baltimore had also gone under, along with a few CLs and some DDs.

In return, Eric lost six or more CLs and a bunch of modern DDs, a host of smaller stuff, and some heavy damage to his CA fleet.

But three big BB TFs made it in unscathed to bombard, brushing aside PT TF opposition and absorbing a few mine hits by DDs. The bombardments were nuclear, destroying nearly 600 aircraft on the ground, including nearly 100 B-29s.

Damage to the airfield is severe - 100% service and 78% runway. I lost plenty of fighters to the bombardments but can put up a decent number if Eric doesn't have fresh TFs available. Usually, bombardments on Day 2 are weak, so I'll have to see.

Erik even landed a ground unit in a forest hex between Shikuka and Toyohara. I have one RCT in each of those hexes, so I hold the important hexsides. I suppose he did this to prevent rail transport of squadrons that enhances the rebuild rate.

I lost a sizeable chunk of my covering combat force....and most of the remaining good stuff is a hex or two from Shikuka and very low on ammo. They're ordered to return to port and may get savaged if any of Eric's combat TFs have ammo. I don't know how this will go. It's key though. If I lose my remaining CAs, yikes.

At Shikuka, I was able to replenish one good DD TF, one TF of moderately damaged CA/DDs. I created a host of additional PT TFs and even some DE combat TFs (one DE TF yesterday finished off two enemy CLs low on ammo with torps). All of the subs in port, including the moderately damaged ones, have been formed into patrolling TFs.

The timeing of this was made worse by 50 USN CVEs going into the yards for upgrades that will take three weeks. I have available for duty 11 CV, 10 CVL, and 8 CVE. In three weeks, I'll have three more CVs and those 50 CVEs. Whether I send what I have now depends alot on what happens tomorrow. If my remaining combat ships at Shikuka get savaged, I may have to at least post a Death Star east of the Kuriles to try to get Eric's attention a bit.

Going forward, in about 25-30 days, Death Star and many stout combat TFs will be ready for action. The enemy to be faced will have been attrited meaningfully - especially subs, CLs and DDs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

9/1/44

A titanic battle just took place at Shikuka. Erik brought everything he had against the base - subs, combat ships, LBA, carrier air.

The defenders performed very, very well until the tail end of the battle. Allied mines took a heavy toll on enemy subs and, to a lesser extent, his combat ships. Allied combat TFs dished out more than they took, especially to enemy CAs, CLs, and DDs.

As best I can piece together from the combat report (I haven't run the turn yet), the long series of surface combats flushed my navy out from under protection of LBA, resulting in a bunch of my capital ships getting heavily damaged or sunk by enemy LBA and carrier air towards the end of things. Then, Erik's bombardments got to the airfield and wrought havoc, destroying hundreds of planes on the ground (including a lot of B-29s).

If my level nine airfield is closed, I'm in trouble. Heck, I'm probably in trouble anyway. I probably don't have anything much in the way of capital ships left. My massive merchant fleet is thus susceptible to annihilation. This is very, very bad.

On the other hand, Erik took a lot of damage, especially to subs and combat ships (and, to a lesser extent, to his air forces).

On yet another hand, this is the 9/1/44 turn, so all my CVEs just went into upgrade mode for three weeks! This leaves me in a poor position to send the cavalry into play to draw Erik's attention and keep him more honest. My CV/CVL fleet is pretty stout, but I'd prefer not to use them, too, for about three weeks. By then, I'll have four additional CVs available.

Sometime tonight, I'll run the turn and take measure of the carnage. The biggest decision to make will be whether to sortie the CVs and CVLs, hoping to draw Erik's attention for a time.

I could lose a vast, vast number of ships here, but there is no danger of losing Sikhalin Island (unless I truly lose the carrier battle that will eventually take place). In some ways, I think what happened today at Shikuka will have seriously eroded Erik's ability to wage war. He'll harvest a great deal of points (and that's serious) but he won't be able to counterinvade and he'll probably be in a poorer position to withstand the battles yet to come.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

How are your fortifications? I'm wondering about their impact on thwarting more disruption from air strikes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

How are your fortifications? I'm wondering about their impact on thwarting more disruption from air strikes.

He mentioned a while back that they are level 8 and 9.