Surface combat TFs not fighting

Surface combat TFs not fighting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

yubari -> Surface combat TFs not fighting (2/27/2011 7:33:41 AM)
Allow me to set the scene first. The allies, very ably led by Yakface take an island in the Aleutians early in 1943. The Japanese send a huge counter invasion force backed by pretty much the entire Japanese navy aside from a few light cruisers. With the enemy carriers known to be out of position, this battle marks the perfect opportunity to fight the Decisive Battle! With the Japanese invasion force one day from the island there is no sign so far of enemy forces, aside from a few PT boats. "They shall be no threat" says an over-confident Yamamoto. We have 12 battleships in our navy, plus a large number of heavy and light cruisers, why even in destroyers alone we outnumber them more than three to one. In game terms I send two surface combat fleets both of around three cruisers and four destroyers, an ASW fleet of four escorts and a bombardment fleet of two battleships, two cruisers and four destroyers to the island to escort my invasion ships. Then this happens. Night Time Surface Combat, near Kiska Island at 157,51, Range 7,000 Yards Japanese Ships CL Kashii, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Asakaze DD Harukaze E Kiji AK Awazisan Maru, Shell hits 13 AK Azumasan Maru xAK Hawaii Maru AK Manila Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk xAK Azuma Maru, Shell hits 1, heavy fires xAK Katuragi Maru xAK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires AK Hokkai Maru, Shell hits 2 AK Asakasan Maru, Shell hits 1 AK Yamazuki Maru, Shell hits 2 AK Nissyu Maru, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk xAP Teiko Maru, Shell hits 6 xAP Hie Maru xAP Hikawa Maru, Shell hits 24, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk xAP Hakone Maru, Shell hits 5 xAP Hakozaki Maru, Shell hits 5 xAP Hakusan Maru xAP Teika Maru, Shell hits 12, heavy fires xAP Teison Maru, Shell hits 3 xAP Teibi Maru, Shell hits 20, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk xAP Teiritsu Maru, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk Allied Ships PT-80, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT-81 PT-82 PT-83 PT-84 PT-128 PT-142 PT-143 PT-144 PT-145, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT-146, Shell hits 2, on fire PT-147, Shell hits 1 Japanese ground losses: 6700 casualties reported Squads: 162 destroyed, 171 disabled Non Combat: 138 destroyed, 81 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 37 (36 destroyed, 1 disabled) Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 53% moonlight: 7,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards... Range closes to 7,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 7,000 yards Japanese ships attempt to get underway The PT boats dance around the defending ships like they are not there. Then a second enemy task force attacks. Night Time Surface Combat, near Kiska Island at 157,51, Range 5,000 Yards Japanese Ships DD Naganami E Hishu E Kiku AK Sasako Maru, Shell hits 8 AK Kinka Maru, Shell hits 1 AMC Asaka Maru AMC Awata Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Arimasan Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage AK Tatuwa Maru, Shell hits 3 AK Yamabiko Maru, Shell hits 2 AK Nitti Maru, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk xAP Kongo Maru, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk xAP Kobe Maru, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk xAP Dairen Maru, Shell hits 2 xAP Tsingtao Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk xAP Taizan Maru, Shell hits 4 xAP Ussuri Maru, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk xAP Ural Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire xAP Baikal Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk Allied Ships PT-26 PT-34 PT-66 PT-67 PT-68 PT-73, Shell hits 1 PT-74 PT-75 PT-76 PT-77 PT-78 PT-79 Japanese ground losses: 4514 casualties reported Squads: 75 destroyed, 60 disabled Non Combat: 190 destroyed, 80 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Vehicles lost 104 (85 destroyed, 19 disabled) Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 53% moonlight: 5,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards... Range closes to 7,000 yards... Range closes to 6,000 yards... Range closes to 5,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 5,000 yards Japanese ships attempt to get underway The slaughter is even worse this time. During this time, none of the four combat task forces I have in the hex even try to attack, despite there apparently being maximum visibility. Now one could certainly argue that I should have had more ships embedded in the invasion task force itself but it has been my experience that those ships fight like Audley Harrison against David Haye, they might as well not be there. Hence the reason for the two powerful surface combat task forces. There is even maximum visibility as indicated in the combat report. My question is, how can I get the surface combat task forces to try to stop the PT boats? Should I set the invasion task forces to follow the surface combat task force? Did I forget to say three hail Marys? Does the numbering of the task forces, ie having the surface combat as the lowest number TF have an effect? Should have strangled a chicken and lain its entrails on the ground to invoke good luck first? Any suggestions gratefully received.

Puhis -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (2/27/2011 8:00:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yubari Should I set the invasion task forces to follow the surface combat task force? Does the numbering of the task forces, ie having the surface combat as the lowest number TF have an effect? I'd say yes to both...

inqistor -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (2/27/2011 10:23:01 AM)
Every ship over 15 in Task Force will seriously hamper behaviour of ships present. So large transport forces fight really poor. Probably the best solution will be to send SCTF first, before transports enter hex. Also, MAYBE, speed difference is important? So BBs generally slower TFs speed, and can not reach fast PTs?

khyberbill -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (2/27/2011 3:37:08 PM)
I wish my PT boats had that effect! They mostly act as anchors and sink right away.

Don Bowen -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (2/27/2011 6:55:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: yubari Should I set the invasion task forces to follow the surface combat task force? Does the numbering of the task forces, ie having the surface combat as the lowest number TF have an effect? I'd say yes to both... Yes and No. You should always lead with the fighting force. It may seem a little backward, but transports following combat TF is the way to go. No. TF numbering does not affect order of combat. There is a function that will select the TF to fight (sorry, interruption by granddaughter, what was I saying?). Oh yes. When there are more than one TF in the same hex as the enemy, the one that will engage in combat is determined by a routine that scans the available TFs and assigns a ranking based on strength, ammo level, commander aggression, day-or-night, fuel levels, TF mission, and the ever-popular random. The random is always the issue. We don't say that the best TF will always fight. (Oh Oh, Eden Amelia again!). There's always a chance that other TFs might stumble into each other. Trying for real life here. A good chance the best TF will fight, a fair chance another combat TF will be picked, and always a chance that the wrong one will get into the scrap. That's the way it has always been - UV, WITP, AE. The player puts the right units into the combat zone and things don't always go right.

crsutton -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (2/27/2011 8:36:17 PM)
I would have to say that it is the most lopsided PT action that I have seen, so perhaps you were just unforturnate in your rolls. However, I suspect that the large size of all of your TFs are a problem as well. Do you have and 4-5 DD/CL Tfs on patrol? I find that these are the best for taking on small surface ships such as PT or E type boats. We do have a HR limiting PTs to a max of six in a squadron and only one squadron attacking or defending an object. This is really left over from WTIP but it seems to keep PTs in perspective.

bradfordkay -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (2/27/2011 10:31:29 PM)
"We do have a HR limiting PTs to a max of six in a squadron and only one squadron attacking or defending an object." This is more difficult to achieve in AE. Chez and I agreed to an HR in CHS limiting PT TFs to six boats and two PT TFs at any one base. Under the original WITP (and CHS) the most PTs created when you hit the create PTs button was twelve, so this was very easy to achieve. Now when you create PTs it will put more than that into the TF/location if there are more in the pool.

yubari -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (3/5/2011 8:19:16 AM)
Thanks for the answers everyone, particularly Don Bowen. I noticed that I had set the transport TFs to move at full speed whereas the surface combat TFs were set to move at mission speed, could this be another reason?

offenseman -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (3/5/2011 5:16:53 PM)
Unless every ship in that Transport Group had a max speed higher than the cruise speed of you SCTFs then it might have allowed the Transports to pull ahead. It is possible to set up a Transport group with a 15-18 knot max speed, but looking at the ships involved, I believe the max speed would have been 14 at best. That means the SCTFs should have had no trouble keeping up. Bad break though....

crsutton -> RE: Surface combat TFs not fighting (3/5/2011 7:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay "We do have a HR limiting PTs to a max of six in a squadron and only one squadron attacking or defending an object." This is more difficult to achieve in AE. Chez and I agreed to an HR in CHS limiting PT TFs to six boats and two PT TFs at any one base. Under the original WITP (and CHS) the most PTs created when you hit the create PTs button was twelve, so this was very easy to achieve. Now when you create PTs it will put more than that into the TF/location if there are more in the pool.� Well, we have no limit to the number of PTs in a base so I just disband the surplus and use them to replace losses or return the surplus to the pool if I am worried about port attacks. I has not been difficult.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8125