Yamato’s banzai (Full Version)

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



Message

Donoda -> Yamato’s banzai (7/28/2002 4:52:56 PM)

Yamato's banzai

Before reading this, English is not my native languish and Portuguese is from no use…I think :(

I can not find a instruction that order my surface TF commander to hunt at all cost at a enemy cv task force that is close at 8 hex.
Second, if my great commander manage to get in the same hex from the enemy CV taskforce, I will like him to first shoot to the cv’s and not to the claa (this happens in my game).
It will be nice to have some target priority list to cheque in before enter in battle. Sometime it is from more value to shoot at the AO and TK than the CL ore DD’s.

What do you think about this guys…..



bradfordkay -> (7/28/2002 11:12:54 PM)

The situation is that the escorting vessels will do everything in their power to interdict the attacking ships. This is why the Yamato must deal with the CLAAs and DDs before it can reach the CVs. In almost any situation where a surface combat TF is approaching an air combat TF or transport TF, the escorts will move to place themselves between the surface combattants and the vulnerable CVs/transports. After all, this is the definition of escort! There were a few occaisions in WW2 where (mainly due to rain squalls) that the escorts were unable to set up their defenses, but this was the exception, not the rule.



Horsejaw -> (7/30/2002 4:50:37 AM)

I'm new to this game,but I have the same problem with my aircraft carriers sending huge strike forces against 2 DDs and 2 APs four hexes away.While ignoring a CVTF sitting 2 hexes away.It would be nice to tell the TF commander to attack enemy CVTF before attacking a transport TF.Common sense would mean fighting the lagest threat to the TF then mopping up the transport TF,but my carriers insist on sending planes after CV TFs only after all other TFs have been sunk.



Oliver Heindorf -> (7/30/2002 5:03:23 AM)

well,

CV warfare is not as easy as it seems

Thinking about the battle of the coral sea:

the japs had a report that a carrier & one escort has been sighted. The japs sent out a full strike towards it, but they found only the poor fleet oiler neoshu & the destroyer sims( or was it hamman , cant remember exactly )

the japs sunk the oiler, I am sure they wished they would had found something else, but thats often happend in CV Warfare in WW2.

reports of spotted ships werent that accurate & I think the game just reflects that, the CV pilots were directed to a CV-TF which were only a minor TF with no CV's at all.

of course, its disturbing, but its realisitc.



Horsejaw -> (7/30/2002 7:04:00 AM)

I understand that,but my CVs are sending everything towards transport TFs and totally ignoring the CV TF, until the other TFs are completly destroyed.I could understand a message of 30 dauntlesses not finding a target and taking another one.The only way to solve this I have found is holding them way back and bringing them in range slowly destroying everything between me and the CV TF,and hope a transport TF doesn't show up at the last second.I'm just saying that I would like to use them a bit more aggressive like the AI CVs are used.



Odin -> (7/31/2002 12:14:47 AM)

The Hammann?

She sank while escorting the damaged Yorktown...both sunk by I-168, under command of Captain Tanabe i think.



Pkunzipper -> (7/31/2002 12:21:13 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Horsejaw
[B]I understand that,but my CVs are sending everything towards transport TFs and totally ignoring the CV TF, until the other TFs are completly destroyed.I could understand a message of 30 dauntlesses not finding a target and taking another one.The only way to solve this I have found is holding them way back and bringing them in range slowly destroying everything between me and the CV TF,and hope a transport TF doesn't show up at the last second.I'm just saying that I would like to use them a bit more aggressive like the AI CVs are used. [/B][/QUOTE]

I understand you, this can be very frustrating, but a thing that I love of this game it's his the amount of random situations that can arise....
Maybe the plane that spotted the CV TF had the radio jammed, and wasn't able to give the information to your CV commander before he launched a full strike against the Transport TF...
Think how many similar situations happened during WWII....



Oliver Heindorf -> (7/31/2002 1:13:21 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Odin
[B]The Hammann?

She sank while escorting the damaged Yorktown...both sunk by I-168, under command of Captain Tanabe i think. [/B][/QUOTE]


Oh, yes, youre right !

Sorry, I forgot the name of the DD who was sunk with the Neosho

Anyway, it doesnt matter that much in this topic - and you wont sent a handicaped man to the library, dont ya ? ;) :)



Supervisor -> (7/31/2002 9:20:20 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oliver Heindorf
[B]Sorry, I forgot the name of the DD who was sunk with the Neosho[/B][/QUOTE]
You were right in your first guess. It was the Sims.



Rick Bradley -> (7/31/2002 10:31:27 AM)

That Japanese strike actually checked out the Neosho and the Sims and then continued on looking for a carrier that wasn't there. The US sailors knew they would be back. That would have been a tough wait.



Erik Rutins -> Comments... (7/31/2002 7:02:18 PM)

One point to add here is that in general the incidence of strikes on non-carrier TFs when enemy carriers are in range can be decreased by upping the number of planes on Naval Search in the area. If your carrier TF commander has a definite confirmed sighting on enemy carriers, they will almost certainly be his primary target. If his sighting on them is somewhat outdated or vague, he may choose to strike another high value target about which he has better information.

Regards,

- Erik



elmo3 -> Re: Comments... (7/31/2002 11:03:08 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]One point to add here is that in general the incidence of strikes on non-carrier TFs when enemy carriers are in range can be decreased by upping the number of planes on Naval Search in the area. ...Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

Erik

Can you give us a recommended percentage based on your experience? I ususally put 20% on Naval Search but I have no idea how effective my coverage really is with that number. Thanks.

elmo3

PS - I'm assuming ~24 a/c in the searching squadron so that 4 or 5 are searching. Obviously the % would vary with the size of the squadron.



Horsejaw -> (7/31/2002 11:51:03 PM)

Thanks I'll try that in the future.



Erik Rutins -> Depends... (8/1/2002 2:12:54 AM)

It depends how much other coverage you have in the area. If you expect the enemy to show up within 10 or so hexes of some land-based search planes that can enhance your coverage, 20% should be enough. If you're outside of land-based assistance, my experience has been that coverage will be a bit unpredictable as far as getting a good look at every target unless you up the percentage significantly, perhaps up to 40% to 50%.

I've seen players in saves sent to me having coverage of 10% or less outside of land-based assistance. That's just not going to cover a lot of ocean.

Regards,

- Erik



elmo3 -> (8/1/2002 2:15:12 AM)

Excellent. Thanks.



NorthStar -> Search Information (8/1/2002 11:23:39 PM)

Maybe Eric or someone at Matrix can confirm or deny this . . .

The feeling I get is that the information we see during the search phases is more complete than what any given TF or Base commander sees. Just because we know there is a CV TF 2 hexes away, does not mean the "on the spot" Commander does -- at least not when he launches the strikes. Thus, in some cases what appears to be a foolish target selection could actually be a case of the commander acting on incomplete information.

Is this correct?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5932617