Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view

Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Ursa MAior -> Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 3:46:09 PM)
In a recent game of mine I had calculated (rather guessed the range where I can use my range advantage, which was in turn nullified by the opponents turned on reaction. Meaning his cv tf has closed the 'calculated' 5 hex range to 2 where he demolished me with 3 textbook attacks. I had a Midway in the Coral sea. Could we (as a player playing mostly IJN) have a similar possibility, but with the opposing effect or could we skip this option all together for Air ops Tfs?

Nikademus -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 4:39:13 PM)
the game is designed to allow mutual reaction and exchange of strikes but with careful timing you can utilize the Japanese range advantage. TF needs to be set to do not retire, and a less aggressive leader probably helps. Can be tricky and its not guarenteed to work though i recently viewed a combat replay sent to me where it was done to perfection.

Ursa MAior -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 6:30:17 PM)
Could you give me a hint hot to do it? Even in Pm. In the above case I was not careful enough.

Nikademus -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 6:40:53 PM)
As i've never pulled it off, no hints to give. My personal playstyle frowns on extended range strikes so i don't attempt them but I know at least one player who pulled it off. Believe it is also influenced by how far the TF's have moved at the end of the movement phase.

rroberson -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 6:48:00 PM)
talk to 2ACR, he pulled the perfect extended range strike against me early in our game...I never even got a shot off.

Nikademus -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 6:50:21 PM)
That was the game! Yes....2ndACR pulled it off. Were you moving at full speed or anthing Rob? I had thought that maybe it was because you'd used up all your op points.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 7:24:04 PM)
Basically complete luck.

Ursa MAior -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 7:24:35 PM)
Yes this is something I talk about. But it would be 'automatic'. Set keep distance to 5(instead reaction mvement) and the tf commnader moves away from any sighted enemy CV (if ops allow).

Nikademus -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 7:28:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Basically complete luck. good commanders create their own luck.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 9:24:04 PM)
I can't think of a cv battle where a commander had sufficient minute-by-minute information on the enemy's cvtf speed and course to maintain a specific distance from it. Given the state of recon reporting, don't think it would ever be possible in that time period either.

Nikademus -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 9:52:24 PM)
It wouldn't require that degree of precision IRL, but it would require excellent scouting. However I agree that in the period discussed there would be no 'driver' that would encourage a Japanese commander to try to utilize his range edge (which risks higher operational losses due to lower margin of error) Ozawa did it in 44 only because he knew he was outgunned and outnumbered. In 42? The Japanese would most likely close the range aggressively.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 9:54:07 PM)
Same thoughts here. I take it for granted that you saw Curse of the Were-rabbit.

Mynok -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 9:55:17 PM)
Wasn't it SOP for the Japanese to aggressively close to launch strikes, then turn away? Or was that just the Pearl Harbor raid plan of attack?

Nikademus -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 10:04:39 PM)
Japanese doctrine was heavily geared towards attack so the natural tendancy was to close. The best example was Midway. After discovering TF 17 the SS authors suggested that closing was probably not the best course of action as they had a range edge even then. Even after the disaster, yamaguchi closed with Hiryu when he should have been making tracks the other way (though thats partially a bad example......the japanese "blood" was up by then so the instinct to close to grappling range was even stronger)

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 10:20:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Basically complete luck. good commanders create their own luck. Being good does not matter much as the player has very little control over naval units.

Nikademus -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/14/2006 11:04:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Being good does not matter much as the player has very little control over naval units. 2ndACR managed it. Maybe he's just a better player than you. [;)] Besides which....the game isn't designed as a tactical carrier game. Its an operational level wargame.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 12:21:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Being good does not matter much as the player has very little control over naval units. 2ndACR managed it. Maybe he's just a better player than you. [;)] Besides which....the game isn't designed as a tactical carrier game. Its an operational level wargame. Could be, but like I said, it basically luck as player has next to no control. I must admit I'm unlucky with ranges but very lucky with outcomes so far. Usually come out on the short end but have yet to lose a CV (lots damaged).

Mike Solli -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 12:24:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Could be, but like I said, it basically luck as player has next to no control. I must admit I'm unlucky with ranges but very lucky with outcomes so far. Usually come out on the short end but have yet to lose a CV (lots damaged). There are times when I want to shelter my CVs so I try to minimize the reaction by putting someone in command who has low aggressiveness.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 12:29:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Could be, but like I said, it basically luck as player has next to no control. I must admit I'm unlucky with ranges but very lucky with outcomes so far. Usually come out on the short end but have yet to lose a CV (lots damaged). There are times when I want to shelter my CVs so I try to minimize the reaction by putting someone in command who has low aggressiveness. Done that to avoid the reaction which happens even if set to zero. Of course, the one time I have Halsey in command and need him to close the range he does nothing![:D]

Mike Solli -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 12:35:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Done that to avoid the reaction which happens even if set to zero. Of course, the one time I have Halsey in command and need him to close the range he does nothing![:D] I believe the reaction range doesn't apply to ships on the open seas. I was under the impression that it only applies to TFs in friendly base hexes that you want to react to enemy TFs. Basically, it's for surface TFs, not Air TFs.

Sonny -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 1:09:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Done that to avoid the reaction which happens even if set to zero. Of course, the one time I have Halsey in command and need him to close the range he does nothing![:D] I believe the reaction range doesn't apply to ships on the open seas. I was under the impression that it only applies to TFs in friendly base hexes that you want to react to enemy TFs. Basically, it's for surface TFs, not Air TFs. Pretty sure it applies to Air Combat TFs vs another Air Combat TF. Surface TF react range is what you described.

BLUESBOB -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 3:27:50 AM)
The Japanese range advantage is bogus. The Americans are shortchanged on distance for many of their carrier based planes. The Devestator alone should have it's effective range, at the very least, doubled.

2ndACR -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 3:37:07 AM)
I never really planned that ambush, but I had a itch that something was up, so turned reaction off. I hate reaction myself (always moves me into point blank range). I was only allowing them to move a total of 3-4 hexes per turn. Andy just stumbled over me after a speed run. I was actually waiting for him to hit Tarawa before jumping him). I have made a few "perfect" long range (range 5) ambush strikes though. 2 against Panzerjager Hortland, 1 against Ron (he helped by not going to full speed). Once you figure out where the computer will send a TF, stop the TF outside a base etc, it is not really hard to plan one. Every player is different though. Some are aggressive right away, some are very cautious. Aggressive players are easier to ambush most times.

bradfordkay -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 7:05:47 AM)
"talk to 2ACR, he pulled the perfect extended range strike against me early in our game...I never even got a shot off." Gee, Rob, I thought that this was SOP in your games?

ChezDaJez -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/15/2006 7:56:21 AM)
quote: I believe the reaction range doesn't apply to ships on the open seas. I was under the impression that it only applies to TFs in friendly base hexes that you want to react to enemy TFs. Basically, it's for surface TFs, not Air TFs. Most definitely applies to air TFs. That's how I lost Zuikaku and Shokaku near Andamann. They had absorbed a very damaging air strike and were incapable of flight ops. I set them to withdraw towards Rangoon. What happens? They both react to the allied TF (who was heading away from them) and charge right in. Both got sunk outright without a single plane in the air for cover. And their reaction was set to ZERO! Unfortunately they did have an aggressive TF commander. Chez

dtravel -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/16/2006 12:18:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: I believe the reaction range doesn't apply to ships on the open seas. I was under the impression that it only applies to TFs in friendly base hexes that you want to react to enemy TFs. Basically, it's for surface TFs, not Air TFs. Most definitely applies to air TFs. That's how I lost Zuikaku and Shokaku near Andamann. They had absorbed a very damaging air strike and were incapable of flight ops. I set them to withdraw towards Rangoon. What happens? They both react to the allied TF (who was heading away from them) and charge right in. Both got sunk outright without a single plane in the air for cover. And their reaction was set to ZERO! Unfortunately they did have an aggressive TF commander. Chez I remember you posting about that. What's even worse IMHO is that in order to do that, your carriers had to decide at sunrise, before they could have possibly spotted them, to move towards the position the enemy carriers would be at many hours later. And that your own search planes wouldn't even be in range to spot them until after your ships had reacted to spotting them. [sm=crazy.gif]

ChezDaJez -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/16/2006 2:41:01 AM)
quote: And that your own search planes wouldn't even be in range to spot them until after your ships had reacted to spotting them. It is strange the way it works. The only way to rationalize it is to assume the TF commander said, "Well, they were over there yesterday..... CHARGE!!!!" Chez

Ursa MAior -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/16/2006 10:04:43 AM)
That's just the way a non real time strategy game works. Its fine by me. Would you like to have 1-6 hour pulses instead and wait an hour for a day to pass staring at the monitor? I am a big fan historicalicity but given the restraints of the interface IMHO it is the BEST we can get. Uff

herwin -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/16/2006 10:29:52 AM)
I just had an interesting variant on this happen in a CHS 1.06 solitaire game with the extended map. The AI decided to leave the KB at Hawaii for a second day. Took out a cruiser, an AV, and six destroyers. I'm thinking about looking for his oilers with my carriers. I suspect this involved commander initiative.

dtravel -> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view (3/17/2006 1:05:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior That's just the way a non real time strategy game works. Its fine by me. Would you like to have 1-6 hour pulses instead and wait an hour for a day to pass staring at the monitor? I am a big fan historicalicity but given the restraints of the interface IMHO it is the BEST we can get. Uff Uh, no. I don't think you are understanding what happened. Even taking into account the length of the turns and air attack phases, in Chez's case the Allied carriers at the beginning of the day were (IIRC) northwest of the Japanese carriers and far outside of the range of any scouting aircraft he had. The IJN TF commander then ignored orders to head southeast towards a friendly base with his too damaged to fly planes carriers, instead heading due north. At the end of the Japanese moving north and the Allies moving east-southeast, the Allied carriers were just within scout plane range of the Japanese carriers. The Japanese ships were clearly not being moved towards the current position of enemy ships that they couldn't physically know about, but directly towards their future position. Not only did the IJN ships react to Allied ships they hadn't spotted, they moved to intercept them where they were going to be 12 hours later. Sorry, it was NOT a fudgable situation at all.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.484375