Why are my carriers still reacting to the enemy?

Why are my carriers still reacting to the enemy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Beckles -> Why are my carriers still reacting to the enemy? (5/29/2002 9:10:13 PM)
I had a Transport TF unloading in Lunga and two carrier TF's set to Patrol/Do Not Retire, Do Not React to Enemy, and Follow Transport TF (so they would stay with the Transports and protect them. So, when the enemy carrier TF showed up, why did they both start chasing him (They were commanded by Fletcher and Spruance)? Is this my commanders being "aggressive", i.e., disobeying my orders to guard the transports?

elmo3 -> (5/29/2002 9:19:32 PM)
I noticed this as well, even with the Do Not React order in place, and that is what I assumed. "Orders? What orders? I think these orders were garbled in transmission. Ask for a retransmission and take your time doing it. In the meantime, give me flank speed toward those Jap CV's!"

Beckles -> (5/29/2002 9:29:55 PM)
Well, it's really a poor decision, for two reasons: 1) They're guarding transports, not chasing carriers. 2) The Jap carriers were already witin TBF range, there was no reason for them to move any closer.

Preacher -> (5/29/2002 9:30:26 PM)
The problem MAY be that you set them to follow the AP TF. The CVs can cover them from afar, making it best - imho - to 'station' them nearby so as to be able to cover ingress/unload/egress, rather than giving them 'follow' orders. Just a guess. Ricky

dgaad -> (5/29/2002 9:32:27 PM)
How much sense would it make for a carrier TF to stand idly by while enemy carrier based aircraft blew up the ships in the TF it was ordered to "follow" ?

Beckles -> (5/29/2002 9:51:20 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Preacher [B]The problem MAY be that you set them to follow the AP TF. The CVs can cover them from afar, making it best - imho - to 'station' them nearby so as to be able to cover ingress/unload/egress, rather than giving them 'follow' orders. Just a guess.[/B][/QUOTE] The program tells you when a TF is "reacting to enemy carriers" and that's what happened. In my experience, a TF with a "follow" order will try and remain in the same hex. From a protection standpoint, there is no way I can see that being in a different hex offers better protection to the TF being protected because of the way CAP works in the game.

Beckles -> (5/29/2002 9:53:44 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad [B]How much sense would it make for a carrier TF to stand idly by while enemy carrier based aircraft blew up the ships in the TF it was ordered to "follow" ? [/B][/QUOTE] Like I said, moving closer to the enemies accomplished nothing, except to remove the transport's CAP protection, because the enemy carriers were already within strike range of my carrier TF's before they "reacted".

Preacher -> (5/29/2002 9:57:20 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beckles [B]From a protection standpoint, there is no way I can see that being in a different hex offers better protection to the TF being protected because of the way CAP works in the game. [/B][/QUOTE] Quick answer: Long-range CAP. CAP doesn't have to originate from the same hex. Also, dgaad's comments stand to reason, too. Good luck. It is tough protecting those APs in combat zones. Preacher

Beckles -> (5/29/2002 10:07:18 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Preacher [B]Quick answer: Long-range CAP. CAP doesn't have to originate from the same hex. [/B][/QUOTE] Long range CAP could provide protection, but not better protection than the carriers staying in the same hex. As for moving to strike the other carriers, THEY WERE ALREADY CLOSE ENOUGH! :) The TBF were carrying torps and the SBD carrying 1000 pound bombs ... moving closer did not help in that matter, all they did was screw the transports, who they were supposed to be protecting!

Beckles -> (5/29/2002 10:13:40 PM)
BTW, I can't believe you guys are trying to defend those hacks, Spruance and Fletcher, I obviously need to exercise my command perogative and bust them down to Ensign commanding a couple of sub chasers. :)

Preacher -> (5/29/2002 10:29:13 PM)
[QUOTE]Long range CAP could provide protection, but not better protection than the carriers staying in the same hex.[/QUOTE] You're crazy :) Using carriers as mobile 'same-hex' CAP could be rather costly. Obviously, if CAP is needed in the hex then that means enemy bombs are falling there. If enemy bombs are falling there, why knowingly submit your carriers to possible destruction? Of course, the appearance of the carriers in range of enemy bombers/torp-planes will probably take the pressure off the APs immediately by becoming the preferred target. No need for CAP over the APs :) Seriously, a CV TF on a 'protection' mission probably ought to be commanded by someone a bit more conservative. My opinion, of course. I'm curious: what scenario are you playing and how far along are you? Preacher

Wilhammer -> (5/29/2002 10:51:25 PM)
I agree if, if you select Follow TF and Do Not React to Enemy, the English translation is: "Stay with those transports and don't chase the enemy." What does Do Not React and React represent? It is my understanding they equal "stay put under enemy threat", or "react to enemy threat". That is what I would expect those orders to be, and to be followed.

The Gnome -> (5/29/2002 10:54:50 PM)
Preacher: Crazy is as crazy does ;) I use carriers in the same hex to provide CAP for invasions in order to destroy those bombers once and for all! Keep in mind I use large numbers of CV's (5-6) that throw up enormous amounts of aircraft (150+). Considering I've never seen a large LB Bomber strike of over 40 planes the bet is safe Plus if my cap can lay some smack on those bombers the IJN is out another strategic asset. Those Nells and Bettys aren't half the threat when they come in dribs and drabs with replacement crews!

Beckles -> (5/29/2002 11:00:22 PM)
I'm playing the big one, 17. It's only my second game, and I'm about four months into it. I'm down to two carriers, Wasp and Enterprise, having lost one and sent the rest back for refits. The appearance of the enemy carriers in the numbers that showed up, 2 CV's (Kaga and Akagi) and a CVL, was actually somewhat surprising since I hadn't seen an enemy carrier in months since I had sent Shokaku, Zuikaku, and Junyo (The Shoho having been sunk at the Battle of Milne Bay in the first few weeks of the game) all to the bottom a few months earlier when I had five carriers on strength (I lost my one carrier at that point). They had sortied past Gili Gili in force, ripped apart the LBA that attacked them from Rabaul and made short work of the three Jap CV's (and this was before I figured out how to use my TBD's/TBF's ... can't set them at 100 feet!). I'm now in firm control of New Guineau, controlling all the way up to Lae and moving in on that one base just beyond it (the Japs can have what's North of there for now), so I figured it was time to take back Lunga and I landed the 1st Marine Division, and that has turned out to be a serious mistake. They are now landed, but my transports got ripped apart by the defenders. I also made an error earlier in the game sending a carrier back to Pearl with flotation damage, which is a very bad idea, you can fix it much faster in theater than Pearl does. I'm also didn't quite figure out the supply thing until a little while into this game (didn't need to worry about that on the Coral Sea scenario I played first), but I've got the hang of it now, but have already dug myself into a bit of a hole there, Cooktown, Cairns, and Townville are all out of supply pretty much, so now all supplies are moving up from Brisbane (which I should have started doing first thing) ... One thing I also did was "bust out" an airfield and port on Santa Cruz, I now have a level 3 port and level 4 airfield there which is serving me well for going at Lunga, but I'd probably try and put it on an island closer to Lunga next time and just plan on defending it pretty well ... get it close enough to run fighter sweeps from. If I start it early enough, it shouldn't be a problem. I also had trouble with the Japs running in and bombarding Gili Gili, but my carriers and a few surface engagements appears to have pretty much gutted the Japanese surface fleet for now, the last battle was between 2 CA/1 CL/8 DD's on the Jap side vs. 2 BB/2 CA/3 CL/8 DD on the US side and should hobble them pretty good from here on out (sank two DD and the CL outright, though the CA are still around but hurting). I also had a surface battle in Gili Gili with my carriers there actually at one point, covering some transports landing supplies, but the Japs never got a shot off at my carriers (my escort fleet was much larger than their bombardment force). Oh, back to your original point, like I said, I didn't expect three Jap CV's to be around and I had already gutted the enemy LBA to the point that two CV's should not have had a problem defending themselves, so I did not have a problem with them being "where the bombs were falling". :)

Wilhammer -> (5/29/2002 11:13:56 PM)
CAP as an Offensive Tool. Been my thinking ever since I got into Naval Games, with AH's Midway and Flattop. Them Zeroes are tough to deal with as CAP, and so it is best to let them come to you and kill Kates and Vals and under represented Zekes. After that, then focus on offensive killing of CVs, IF NEED BE. A CV without A/C is just a big barge. ============================== Gamey Tactic Alert! Playing against the AI, I have fed transports into PM JUST to watch the IJN send strikes against them, and to LET my CAP heavy PM defenders attrit the IJN Naval Air away. =============================== BTW, is it me, or does the CAP seem more effective if you have a mix of A/C types in your CAP?

dgaad -> (5/29/2002 11:19:59 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer [B]CAP as an Offensive Tool. A CV without A/C is just a big barge. [/B][/QUOTE] A barge loaded with highly explosive aviation fuel. :o

von Murrin -> (5/30/2002 12:08:57 AM)
Oooo! And I thought I was the only one using 5-6 CV TF's with their rediculous CAP to protect invasion fleets. :p That's murder on the LBA, and the IJN CV's have vulnerable aircrew, too. If you hit them (or rather, let them hit you) hard enough, their replacement crews are even worse than normal. It's 45 for IJAAF and 50 for IJNAF, but if you wipe them out in big chunks, it's much worse. For those of you who don't believe this works, I present the following as evidence: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 26 A6M3 Zero x 14 D3A Val x 57 B5N Kate x 77 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 149 P-38G Lightning x 3 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 34 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged A6M3 Zero x 17 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged D3A Val x 78 destroyed B5N Kate x 82 destroyed B5N Kate x 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 19 damaged CPT U.Gallagher of VMF-212 is credited with kill number 4 LT Y. Shiga of DII-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED Allied Ships CV Wasp CV Lexington -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 7 D3A Val x 18 B5N Kate x 16 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 67 P-38G Lightning x 1 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 6 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged D3A Val x 24 destroyed B5N Kate x 15 destroyed B5N Kate x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 damaged LTJG S.Glass of VF-42 is credited with kill number 4 LCDR L.Minegishi of BII-3 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED Allied Ships CV Wasp CV Yorktown -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 40,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 6 D3A Val x 27 B5N Kate x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 129 P-38G Lightning x 1 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 8 destroyed D3A Val x 27 destroyed B5N Kate x 24 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed ENS I.Gallagher of VF-71 is credited with kill number 5 LT M. Sato of AII-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That WAS the entire strike complement of 6CV's and 3CVL's. :D

The Gnome -> (5/30/2002 12:19:41 AM)
Yeehaa, exactly! Just as losing armor at Kursk was a strategic blow to Germany, losing pilots is a strategic blow to Japan. Any chance I get to attrite their numbers I'll take. If I can take a lot so much the better. :) Japanese replacement pilots come back at 50% exp for navy and 45% for army pilots. Those numbers go down if they need to replace a lot of pilots at a given time. I like to refer to that tactic as porcupining!

Wilhammer -> Death by HUGE CAPs (5/30/2002 12:22:53 AM)
I noticed this kind of slaughter the first time I played the game. In scenario 9, I transferred all of the Corsairs to Lunga, and then Rabaul launched this huge airstrike against Lunga. A large mix of P-38s. Corsairs and P-39s blew them out of the sky with minimal loss to me. After this ONE battle, Rabaul was effectively neutralized. =========================== I invite Matrix, 2by3 to take a closer look at the air to air routines. It might be a little too bloody.

von Murrin -> (5/30/2002 12:26:15 AM)
LOL That's about right. After that little Jap disaster, I hunted their CV's all the way to Truk (I had 6 AO's tagging along). Then I detoured by Kavieng, Rabaul and Shortland on the way back to Irau. I got 3CV's, 3CVL's, 1CA, and something like 30+ other things. I've never initiated such a bloody rampage before. 'Twas kinda fun. :) Oh, and my CV aircrews are all around 85-97 average experience because of that little stunt. :D

von Murrin -> Re: Death by HUGE CAPs (5/30/2002 12:29:48 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer [B]...It might be a little too bloody. [/B][/QUOTE] Not when their crews are still good. Then it's the other way 'round. The reason I get turkey shoots like that is because I don't go on the offensive unless I'm sure the Japanese air crew quality is starting to really crumble.

The Gnome -> (5/30/2002 12:38:19 AM)
Yes, you are right there. Crew quality makes such a dramatic difference. Japanese carrier strikes at or near the begining of the game (long campaign) instill me with terror. Once I've whittled them down a bit they're much less fearsome. Everytime I see a Zero pilot reported killed or captured at the start of the game is a small victory!

von Murrin -> (5/30/2002 12:46:43 AM)
Yup. I don't even bother to engage anymore until Nov/Dec. During the interim, I use my CV's as bait to get theirs into LBA range. Haven't sunk one that way yet, but it sure wears down their aircrews. I find that going out to pound some hapless engineers that have no AA to defend them is a good way to get Kido Butai to come roaring in. It also has a side benefit of drastically increasing the experience of your own aircrews at next to no cost.

Slaughtermeyer -> (5/30/2002 4:15:55 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer [B]Gamey Tactic Alert! Playing against the AI, I have fed transports into PM JUST to watch the IJN send strikes against them, and to LET my CAP heavy PM defenders attrit the IJN Naval Air away. [/B][/QUOTE] This tactic should also work in PBEM games because players have no control over what targets their bombers allocated to naval strike missions will choose to strike (unless the player takes his bombers off of naval strike missions, thereby potentially missing out on poorly-defended worthwhile targets).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.28125