phillipine sea -some comments (Full Version)

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



Message


1275psi -> phillipine sea -some comments (6/17/2007 5:46:05 AM)

Just played raised from the dead scenerio as japan, and gained a decisive victory, sank entire invasion fleet, and 62 ships total.

Comments
Airgroup turnaround is just TOO FAST

I lured allied CVs to launch, and ran away
watched his strike turn back, and launched mine BEFORE HIS could possibly have returned.
By all rights no way allied CVs could have retrieved, rearmed and launched another strike before mine arrived.
Please look at turn around times.

Also, Allied AI really needs to look at CAP over invasion fleet.
Its a good game

But, desperately needs the following
LRCAP assignment ability!!!!!
THIS IS A MUST

Ability to form and detach task groups, not much of a naval game if CVs sink enemy CVs, and you cannot detach all your escort BBs to finish the job, or pound enemy fields.

Still, a pretty good game, quite involving, just wish it had just a little bit more.

Still think WITP is king though.




Owl -> RE: phillipine sea -some comments (6/25/2007 8:45:49 PM)

IN that scenario - when playing the Japanese I always manage to maul the invasion task force to some degree.  With the use of long range air search radar and in 1944 fairly good fighter direction from the carriers you'd expect that virtually any Japanese raiding flight would encounter at least some fighter opposition.

I dunno about WITP (too big for me!) but in UV I find the AI suspciously capable of finding the one task force I have that doesn't have LR cap assigned to it.  At least you CAN assign it though!




PaulRezendes -> RE: phillipine sea -some comments (3/23/2008 6:54:15 PM)

In response to the first post: 

Does the AI know how not to send off a max strike all at once, and instead send off two successive strikes from the same CV TG?  This probably exposes the CV's to being caught with planes on deck for a longer period, but I'm not sure for how much longer.

Assuming a CV TG w/ 2 CV's, 2 CVL's:

Strike ONE:  a cohesive strike with fighters from CV 1 and CVL 1, DB's from CV 2, and TB's from CV 1 and CVL 2, then:

Stike TWO:  a cohesive strike with fighters from CV 2 and CVL 2, DB's from CV 1 and TB's from CV 2 and CVL 1

That would send two decent coherent strikes of about 80-100 planes each off in a matter of about an hour and a half, and would account for why you saw a strike turn around, but another strike come in, if that's what happened.  Turn-around time should be even faster if the number of planes each CV launches in each wave is not greater than its spot number. 

(One of my pet peeves with CAWII and III is the inability to launch less than a full squadron so that a two-CV TG can easily launch a deckload apiece, then assemble a second wave.  Same problem re launching fighters to escort - you have to monkey with the CAP setting to make sure your fighters don't take up too much deck space.  I've come to live with it, though, because the option of micro-managing the number of planes from each squadron, while sometimes fun, etc., can slow the game considerably.)

I think something like this was standard doctrine for the IJN for the entire war, and would be surprised if the AI did not use it.  On the other hand, the on-screen controls that let the computer organize the strike do not have a "deckload strike" option, only full strike and cohesive full strike, so I don't know.







Gregor_SSG -> RE: phillipine sea -some comments (3/26/2008 1:13:43 AM)

Generally speaking, we don't try to finesse things with the AI. In CAW, having the AI send a full strike is either the best option, or a close second in just about all circumstances, so that's what we do. It rare for AI choices to be so clear cut, so we're very happy with the way it works for the AI.

Gregor




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.03125