New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War



Message

Gregor_SSG -> New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/22/2007 7:26:17 AM)


Guys,

I just thought I'd let you know that we have formulated a new rule that concerns carrier groups and surface combat. The rul is as follows:

If there is a TG with capital ships, and no carriers, in the same hex, or one hex away, from a TG with carriers (or transports) then the capital ship TG will be first chosen for any surface combat.

In other words an escort group will interpose itself between the attacking surface group and the high value targets.

This should address some concerns people had about carrier groups being unduly vulnerable to surface combat. It won't cover every contingency. Early in the war the US often didn't have enough ships available to enable the formation of such TGs. It won't necessarily cover flawed operational decisions, such as those that led to the surface combat against the US CVEs at Leyte Gulf. However, if you have capital TGs available then you now have another reason to deploy them correctly as escorts for your carriers.

Gregor



Ursa MAior -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/22/2007 11:33:56 AM)

Does that mean that the disputed "CVs wont move after launching" issue is not solved?



Gregor_SSG -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/23/2007 1:13:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Does that mean that the disputed "CVs wont move after launching" issue is not solved?


Nothing has changed on my view of the undesirability of changing the current arrangements for carriers waiting for strike recovery. I know that players will be unable to resist the temptation of abusing the system if it is changed, and CV TGs will be seen heading 180 degrees from the airborne threat axis even if there are no enemy surface TGs within 200 miles.

The announced rule change will reduce the already very low probability of ambush by surface TGs in almost all scenarios to effectively zero. I can't see a problem with that.

Gregor



David Sandberg -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/24/2007 4:45:41 AM)

I'm guessing that cruisers will not be counted as capital ships for the purposes of determing a valid "screening TF" for this rule?

I still disagree with your view about the "on station" rule, but that was bandied about more than enough a long time ago.  I do thank you guys very much for listening to the concerns and trying to find a way to address them to some degree, and I will continue to pay attention to the forum to see how users feel the released game plays with this new rule in place.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/24/2007 5:25:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Sandberg

I'm guessing that cruisers will not be counted as capital ships for the purposes of determing a valid "screening TF" for this rule?



I'm guessing that David is wrong. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



alexs -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/24/2007 5:59:52 AM)

Hi Guys,
   Heavy cruisers, battle cruisers and battleships are counted as capital ships for game purposes (and are eligable to screen carrier groups).
Light cruisers, light AA cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts and torpedo boats are considered minor ships for game purposes (and are not eligable to screen carrier groups).

Alex



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/24/2007 6:51:41 AM)

You might want to consider counting the U.S. Brooklyn-class as CA for purposes of the rule.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



David Sandberg -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/24/2007 7:14:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
quote:

ORIGINAL: David Sandberg
I'm guessing that cruisers will not be counted as capital ships for the purposes of determing a valid "screening TF" for this rule?


I'm guessing that David is wrong. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)


Hehe, I'm all in favor of being wrong about this. [:)] To clarify, I suspected CAs would be considered capital ships, and was entirely certain that CLs would not be (which Alex's post confirmed). What I was wondering about was CCs (I chose my words very carefully). Or perhaps my memory is failing and there weren't any plain old "cruisers" (neither heavy nor light) in the previous incarnation of the game?



Gregor_SSG -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/25/2007 2:33:31 AM)


From memory, all cruisers get to be either CA, CL or CLAA for game purposes.

Gregor



freeboy -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/25/2007 4:20:10 AM)

If I can get that close to the enemy, before radar.. is there a chance for night surface action? If yes do those wonderfull JAP ships with a ton of torpedoes get to use them, ships and torps? I always thought if you could afford a race with two or three surface groups against a known spotted enemy tf you could give an early war US player tough chioces, attack Jap Carrier or the closing surfase forces.



Ursa MAior -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/25/2007 2:52:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Does that mean that the disputed "CVs wont move after launching" issue is not solved?


Nothing has changed on my view of the undesirability of changing the current arrangements for carriers waiting for strike recovery. I know that players will be unable to resist the temptation of abusing the system if it is changed, and CV TGs will be seen heading 180 degrees from the airborne threat axis even if there are no enemy surface TGs within 200 miles.

The announced rule change will reduce the already very low probability of ambush by surface TGs in almost all scenarios to effectively zero. I can't see a problem with that.

Gregor


Although numerous solutions were suggested to solve this issue, at the end it's your game, your risk and at last not at least your money not mine. All I can do is accept your decision. I'll wait with the purchase until some feedback from the players is available.




Akos Gergely -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/26/2007 10:58:49 AM)

Second to that ;-)



freeboy -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/26/2007 4:53:01 PM)

msybe I do not understand, while the planes are flying the carriers are forced to remain in one hex? is that the rule? did not have older game or maybe I just do not remember it?



Marc gto -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/26/2007 6:47:40 PM)

dont remember that one....



Marauders -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/26/2007 7:39:09 PM)

quote:

Nothing has changed on my view of the undesirability of changing the current arrangements for carriers waiting for strike recovery. I know that players will be unable to resist the temptation of abusing the system if it is changed, and CV TGs will be seen heading 180 degrees from the airborne threat axis even if there are no enemy surface TGs within 200 miles.


Wouldn't the Carriers move away, or at an angle, from potential threats? 

Couldn't there be a "one hex" compromise?  That would mean seven potential recovery locations.

If it is preset at launch, it would add realism to CAW.



orey22 -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/27/2007 4:52:04 AM)

I tend to agree with the majority opinion on this one -- the game could be improved tremendously by allowing the carriers to continue moving when a strike is away -- why not put a random generator in to see if the returning planes find the carriers on the way back -- I wouldn't think the programming would be that difficult -- This issue, with the fact there isn't a campaign game does cause concerns, but hopefully all these issues will be addressed before release.



JSS -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/27/2007 5:25:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: orey22

I tend to agree with the majority opinion on this one -- the game could be improved tremendously by allowing the carriers to continue moving when a strike is away -- why not put a random generator in to see if the returning planes find the carriers on the way back -- I wouldn't think the programming would be that difficult -- This issue, with the fact there isn't a campaign game does cause concerns, but hopefully all these issues will be addressed before release.


I personally haven't seen the need for the launch and move while testing the game.

Perhaps this discussion would be best brought up after playing the game. SSG has listened closely to player comments in the past (with the DB series) and their experiences with the game... I'm sure that will continue with CAW.



RayWolfe -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/27/2007 11:22:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: orey22
I tend to agree with the majority opinion on this one

I think you will find many "majority" opinions on this matter.
As JSS says, the nuances of the game are probably more usefully discussed when playing the game. [;)]
Cheers
Ray



freeboy -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/27/2007 5:45:59 PM)

ok, so I am still in the dark here , what ?? are you restricted from moving a carrier, I see no practacal logic.. the carriers certainly after radar could have opened radio contact and directed planes home...



RayWolfe -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/27/2007 6:25:06 PM)

This has been discussed ad nausium. See this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1291698
Cheers
Ray



Gregor_SSG -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/29/2007 7:31:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

If I can get that close to the enemy, before radar.. is there a chance for night surface action? If yes do those wonderfull JAP ships with a ton of torpedoes get to use them, ships and torps? I always thought if you could afford a race with two or three surface groups against a known spotted enemy tf you could give an early war US player tough chioces, attack Jap Carrier or the closing surfase forces.


Yes, there is a chance for night surface action and Japanese torpedoes are significantly better than US torps. However, sightings decay at night, and since the CVs have presumably finished recovering planes by nightfall, or shortly thereafter, they're probably not hanging around where they last were, so it's not at all easy to bring them to action.

Gregor



freeboy -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/29/2007 9:17:30 AM)

do you do anything for surface action, or does the program play out and show you the results? IE do we have choices?



David Sandberg -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/29/2007 5:32:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy
do you do anything for surface action, or does the program play out and show you the results? IE do we have choices?


You did have decisions to make during surface action in the old versions of CAW (albeit relatively abstract ones), so I presume you still will in the new game. My recollection of the old game is that, from round to round of surface combat, you mainly chose which groups of ships in your TF to order to close range, hold range, or attempt a withdrawal. So, for example, if a carrier TF is attacked, you would certainly attempt to have the carriers retire, while possibly pushing forward your screening forces to cover said retirement.

One problem back then was that, mere minutes after such a battle ended because all of your ships had either retired or been sunk, a new surface battle with the same groups would kick off (I suppose because they were still within the same hex on the map). So you would get this repeating series of actions, probably with your screening forces more and more damaged each time until they could no longer protect the carriers. (It sure would be nice if that didn't happen anymore in the new game.)



freeboy -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/29/2007 8:27:52 PM)

I remember playing microprose "Task Forse 1942" I think that ws the name.. really increaible for its day, had searchlights for night action plus flares smoke long lance torps etc.. too bad these games are not being revisited too.. ok, thanks ,, ssg products have always played well and have gone towards abstract /playability.. I am sure I will be happy..

? Can we adjust the difficulty levels to help the ai?



FAdmiral -> RE: New Rule for Surface Combat and Carriers (1/30/2007 9:58:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alexs

Hi Guys,
   Heavy cruisers, battle cruisers and battleships are counted as capital ships for game purposes (and are eligable to screen carrier groups).
Light cruisers, light AA cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts and torpedo boats are considered minor ships for game purposes (and are not eligable to screen carrier groups).

Alex



Can I assume then that the minor ships would be classified as "ESCORTS" and
protect all the Carriers and capital ships as an outer limit barrier?

JIM



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.140625