Docked TF using Endurance and Fuel

Docked TF using Endurance and Fuel (Full Version)

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

Message

Badger -> Docked TF using Endurance and Fuel (9/3/2002 2:04:51 PM)
I have an Air Combat and Surface Combat TF docked at Noumea, and both of them are using Endurance and/or fuel every turn. The Air Combat TF is using 4 fuel and 126 endurance and the Surface Combat TF is using 0 fuel and 6 endurance every turn. They are, however, repairing system damage. I know I can refuel the TF's without any problem, but it uses 140 op points that are better used to chase enemy TF's. I know I can disband the TF's and then recreate them later, but I shouldn’t have to. I have other TF's in other ports that do not expend any Endurance or Fuel while they are docked. Can somebody tell me what is going on here?

Apollo11 -> (9/3/2002 2:36:16 PM)
Hi all, The manual is wrong and all docked TFs do expend endurance points (this was answered here - UV forum - before). Leo "Apollo11"

Badger -> (9/3/2002 9:12:38 PM)
I have some docked TF's that do not expend any endurance and others that do. Also, the Air Combat TF is expending fuel as well as endurance. I thought that TF's only expended fuel when they were moving. I know from the manual that TF's expend endurance when launching CAP, strike missions, is involved in surface combat or is bombed or strafed. Is the Air Combat TF expending fuel so it can launch CAP? And if so, why would this not apply to docked CV's that are not part of a TF? I could accept the answer that all docked TF's use endurance if all my docked TF's did indeed expend endurance. But it is only some TF's that do, not all of them. What I am trying to understand is what causes some TF's to expend endurance while docked while other TF's that are docked do not expend endurance, and why is my Air Combat TF expending fuel in addition to endurance. I find it easier to leave my TF's intact while in port so I don't have to recreate them when I need them. It is not a big deal to disband TF's when they reach port to avoid this issue, but this seems unnecessary. If this is a "feature" of the game and not a bug, should it be changed? Any thoughts?

Joel Billings -> (9/4/2002 1:21:02 AM)
Gary and I think this fuel loss is due to launching planes. The endurance use by the SC TF could be from seaplanes and a round off between fuel/endurance. We aren't looking to make a change here at this time.

Badger -> (9/4/2002 4:59:20 AM)
Joel, I was reading in Spooky's excellent FAQ/Strategy v1.06 that - "docked TFs need to use some endurance to keep their engines going so that they are ready to move quickly and go into action if attacked. Ships in port (disbanded) don't use endurance but are considered "cold" and therefore can't get underway and make for easier targets." Which makes a lot of sense. But to the best of my knowledge, carries did not routinely launch planes while docked. And they definately did not set sail every day to launch airplanes and then redock. It seems to me that any ship based airplanes operating while their assigned ship was docked would use base supplies and not the ships supplies. I think your comment that "The endurance use by the SC TF could be from seaplanes and a round off between fuel/endurance." is what is happening with the surface TF, because the TF's I have without seaplanes do not use any endurance while docked. Neither of these is a huge issue. I was just trying to understand what was going on. However, you might want to rethink the fuel use of the Air Combat TF's.

Apollo11 -> (9/5/2002 5:18:11 PM)
Hi all, Just as I already pointed out (and Badger quoted) this was discussed here. Here is what Erik Rutins wrote: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23075 [QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins [B]The manual is in error - docked TFs need to use some endurance to keep their engines going so that they are ready to move quickly and go into action if attacked. Ships in port (disbanded) don't use endurance but are considered "cold" and therefore can't get underway and make for easier targets. Regards, - Erik [/B][/QUOTE] Leo "Apollo11"

EricLarsen -> No political garbage! (9/5/2002 9:42:20 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badger [B]Liberals believe that the further a political philosophy is from reality, the more morally pure it is.[/B] Badger, I just love the way conservatives always blame their own faults upon the other side! Try leaving out the false, pedantic political advertising as it is not appropriate here. Eric Larsen

Badger -> (9/5/2002 10:31:05 PM)
Eric, In the "current and Future Support Policy" thread, there is a quote from dpstafford (08-30-2002 11:59 AM)- ""Conservatives aren't necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." --John Stuart Mill" with a post from you right below (09-03-2002 08:56 AM). I noticed you did not demand that dpstafford "Try leaving out the false, pedantic political advertising as it is not appropriate here."

NorthStar -> Air Operations (9/6/2002 2:41:21 AM)
Badger, You might try making sure that none of the CV Air Groups have orders to fly. Carrier Groups might not routinely fly air missions, but if you tell them to in the game, they probably will. If you are flying missions, the carriers have to leave the dock, launch their planes, then loiter until the planes return. If I'm not mistaken, even modern carriers leave the immediate port area to run air ops!

Badger -> (9/6/2002 3:37:53 AM)
NorthStar, You are right, I know I did not change the orders for the CV air groups once the carriers docked, so the fighters still have orders to perform CAP. I just assumed that once I docked the CV task force, the fighters would no longer perform CAP. This is obviously not the case. This situation leads to an interesting question. Should fighters still perform CAP over docked TF's? And if so, should they use the base facilities to do this? It seems a waste to have all those fighters available and not have them do anything if the ships in port are attacked. You could of course transfer all the fighters to the base and have them perform CAP from there while the CV's are in port. It just seems odd to have the whole TF set sail just so the CV's can launch CAP. I don’t have a good solution to this issue, but now that I understand what is happening, I can work around it. Im just wondering if there is a way to reduce the amount of micromanagement required. An additional thought. If CV'c TF's are sailing to launch aircraft, are they vulnerable to hitting mines?

NorthStar -> (9/6/2002 3:51:05 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badger [B]NorthStar, You are right, I know I did not change the orders for the CV air groups once the carriers docked, so the fighters still have orders to perform CAP. I just assumed that once I docked the CV task force, the fighters would no longer perform CAP. This is obviously not the case. This situation leads to an interesting question. Should fighters still perform CAP over docked TF's? And if so, should they use the base facilities to do this? It seems a waste to have all those fighters available and not have them do anything if the ships in port are attacked. You could of course transfer all the fighters to the base and have them perform CAP from there while the CV's are in port. It just seems odd to have the whole TF set sail just so the CV's can launch CAP. I don’t have a good solution to this issue, but now that I understand what is happening, I can work around it. Im just wondering if there is a way to reduce the amount of micromanagement required. An additional thought. If CV'c TF's are sailing to launch aircraft, are they vulnerable to hitting mines? [/B][/QUOTE] I think you are kind of stuck here, Badger. With WWII Carriers, you have no choice -- if you want Air Ops, you need to be underway. I suppose you could break off just the CV into its own TF temporarily so the rest of the ships don't use endurance, but that could be dangerous. If you do get hit, I don't know how effective AA from other TFs in the same hex is in the game. Same with sub attacks. I don't see any way to automate it either -- I don't think we want the AI making this type of decision for us. And yes, in theory they should be vulnerable to mines, but I don't know when the computer checks for that. I suspect it checks when the hex is ENTERED, in which case, since the TF doesn't actually leave the hex, it should not be subject to an additional check. Don't know for sure, though. That's the cool thing about this game. There are so many layers . . . :)

Badger -> (9/6/2002 4:21:47 AM)
Your right Northstar. I dont want the AI making the decision as to how to use the air groups on carriers. But now that I undesrtand what is going on, I can make intelligent decisions about disbanding the TF vs setting CAP to 0% vs leaving the TF docked with CAP, vs transfering air groups to land bases, etc.

EricLarsen -> Oh Well (9/6/2002 10:13:34 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badger [B]Eric, In the "current and Future Support Policy" thread, there is a quote from dpstafford (08-30-2002 11:59 AM)- ""Conservatives aren't necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." --John Stuart Mill" with a post from you right below (09-03-2002 08:56 AM). I noticed you did not demand that dpstafford "Try leaving out the false, pedantic political advertising as it is not appropriate here." [/B] Badger, I didn't notice that one, but I wish he'd keep politics out of this forum as well. Don't forget that just because my post was below his it does not mean I saw his post. The program just puts a post at the end of the line and it does not mean that the poster may have read the last message. Eric Larsen

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.109131