Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

While apparently not common knowledge, this info is not hard to find.

All you have to do is read one of the umpteenth number of posts of mine regarding the need to create minesweeping TFs FIRST at Manila on December 8th, 1941.

What the OP has experienced is something I don't.

I learned a long time ago not to daisy chain follow orders.

I constantly work to lower the TF number of my air and surface combat TFs.

The result of the above action typically means my Death Star leading TF has a very low TF number and the same is true of any Surface Combat TF that may be leading.

Where things can get dicey for me is when I need the gaggle to follow a Minesweeping TF.

It can take a lot of disbanding and creating TFs to get an MSW TF with a low number to do the leading.

Establishing standardized methodologies for manipulating the TF number movement sequence mechanism goes a long way toward establishing standardized performance.

quote:

Establishing standardized methodologies for manipulating the TF number movement sequence mechanism goes a long way toward establishing standardized performance.

quote:

tolsdorff: What still puzzles me though : if the outcome of this particular setup is determined by a reaction roll of a leader, why do apparently all TF's consistently reach safety when a lesser numbered TF follows the higher numbered one, and vice versa consistently meet disaster when a higher numbered TF follows the lesser numbered one?