Mass-Suicide

Mass-Suicide (Full Version)

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

Message

BigBadBrahman -> Mass-Suicide (10/19/2002 2:15:13 AM)
something strange happened to me.... i´m playing the US in #19 in PBEM in the first week, i sent my two carriers from cairns to brisbane, they were stripped of ship-escorts and no fighters on board (needed them both elsewhere). in the next turn i have to see that the stupid commander didnt steer home, but took course the opposite direction to the jap CVs to fight them all alone: "let´s throw them to death with our wrenches" !?! they were both sunk...... so my question: is that normal commander´s behaviour (in UV of course) ? ok, they were set to "react to enemy", but includes that comitting suicide? thx for your answers

mogami -> ?????? (10/19/2002 2:34:30 AM)
Greetings, the game has no idea what you want to do. It does what you tell it to do. React to enemy for air combat TF means react to enemy. (Your suicide order might have been a decoy for another operation, the program has no way of knowing it was an error) You do have to be very carefull when giving orders in UV. (many people want the game to correct their errors while at the same time follow orders) (Your opponent is most likely rolling on the floor)(I did something very similar in first PBEM game with Dan-1 lone USN CV took off north looking for adventure and was blown out of the water by 6 IJN CV-I really only wanted it to return to port)

Matt Erickson -> (10/20/2002 5:54:07 PM)
mogami hit it on the head.... a day after a three day air battle in which my zeros trounced the enemy I put them on fifty percent cap...well some of my squadron commanders decided that they could do better an did a sweep over australia 5 to loss ratio in his favor needless to say I was pissed...that will never happen again...whatch over your little children!:mad:

Oleg Mastruko -> (10/20/2002 8:16:29 PM)
Big Bad why, oh why I wasn't your Jap PBEM opponent in that game? I think I'd have multiple orgasms seeing that scene... helpless enemy CVs attacked by wave after wave of my Vals and Kates. Just like they did on an excercise in the Ryu-Kyus (or somewhere) :D Only this time it's US CVs and live-ammo instead of decomissioned rusty target-ships and practice torpedos without warheads... Anyway, you made a HUGE mistake of using CVs as CVEs. You say it all happened in the first week, and your CVs were in Cairns - so you most probably rushed them from Noumea to carry their planes to Cairns, and than go back to Brisbane - sorry to say that but it was a huge semi-strategic mistake on your side and you deserved to be punished in some way. Use it as a lerning experience :) O.

mogami -> stripping fighters from CV (10/21/2002 4:36:16 AM)
Hello, I did not even want to inquire where a fighter group could be better employed then on an operational CV

U2 -> (10/21/2002 4:39:17 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B]- sorry to say that but it was a huge semi-strategic mistake on your side and you deserved to be punished in some way. O. [/B][/QUOTE] Your just killing me here Oleg:D Dan

Oleg Mastruko -> Re: stripping fighters from CV (10/21/2002 5:52:53 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hello, I did not even want to inquire where a fighter group could be better employed then on an operational CV [/B][/QUOTE] Well that's easy - just about anywhere :) I tend to be very unlucky with CVs in my games. I do everything right with all the assets I have, I am very pleased with myself, and then screw up with CV battles. Funny thing is - I personally don't care that much for losing a CV or two, but the GAME does care - ie., they are worth mucho points! CV is worth as much points as some major base - and while the base is rarely lost without fight, longish preparation on the side of your enemy etc. CVs are lost in a matter of minutes (Midway anyone?). Also - base can be recaptured, but lost CV cannot be redeemed. And they are so dan fragile... I really really don't like CVs. If there is some sort of Battleship club here - count me in :) Yes, I am among those idiots that would be seriously tempted to trade Lex for Washington, and Akagi for Yamato. Of course, I'd like to be able to strip CVs of their aircraft before sending them back to Tokyo or Noumea :) Those BBs can kick some mean **, and take incredible damage in the process, and still be afloat. And even if I lose them - who cares, 100-150 points is not that much. CV battle is always huge gamble. One incredibly little detail may screw months of planning and give your opponent hundereds of points. I tend to avoid gambles if possible. So there's your answer, form a player who usually does everything right, then loses a CV or two and spends rest of the scenario using CV aircraft from his land bases. (I might just as well start using them from land bases right from the start :D O.

mogami -> practice practice practice (10/21/2002 6:45:25 AM)
Greetings. Any air group is more usefull when it's base can move. (the enemy can not sit just beyond your range and cause harm) Of course 350vp per CV means you do have to carefully weigh when and where to commit them. CV's placed to intercept a BB TF will score unanswered points. (and the BB's are subject to all the ills a CV TF are only they can not respond) Range is often the most important stat for an aircraft type. The CV makes the aircraft onboard able to project to any point (provided the situation merits the risk) Aircraft not ships are the key to the Pacific war. The battles are for possession of airbases. The CV being a floating airbase makes them more important then most of the bases (hence their high VP cost) Just as the land airbases need support from other friendly air bases the CV's need the support of other CV or LBA. If by risking the loss of a 350 vp CV (or more then 1) you can provide the ability to capture enemy bases (and score points in the future) Then it is a trade. I acknowledge the fact they can not be thrown away (but really no ship/unit can be thrown away) LBA are subject to night bombardment (where they are lost for nothing) Requiring surface units to be deployed for protection. Transports may need to move beyond the range of LRCAP from shore and need CV's nearby. You must sadly give up the Battleship mentality and learn to use your CV. Against a human you will not be able to control events without your CV's. 10 times the landbased air will not compensate if the battle is outside their range. CV's make the enemy worry about every base and prevent their sending unprotected TF's into otherwise safe areas. (and yes it does hurt when you lose a CV unanswered)

Drongo -> (10/21/2002 10:56:06 AM)
Mogami, Good advice as usual. In my experience however, I do find that CV's have a major offensive limitation. While their strengths are as ship killers and the supply of mobile aircover, I find them near useless in suppressing enemy held locations. Even when I have a 6 CV strong TF covering an invasion, I feel it is normally not worthwhile to use the CV's strike power against the enemy location (esp if it is a medium plus base). The damage that I tend to inflict on ground units, airfields and ports are rarely decisive (ie wont render the airbase unusable etc). When combined with the fairly heavy casualties that you tend to take from even from modest AA, I find it's better to just to not attack. Instead my strike a/c are used for search and ASW (with a reserve on Naval attack). My attitude is probably influenced by normally being the Japanese player in games. I feel the need to preserve as much as possible the high quality IJN attack squadrons as I know I will need to make every plane count when I go up against the later period USN CV TF's with strong CAP and flak. I'm curious about other players thoughts on carrier strikes vs land targets as I might be missing something in what I'm doing.

BigBadBrahman -> (10/21/2002 11:42:57 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B]Anyway, you made a HUGE mistake of using CVs as CVEs. You say it all happened in the first week, and your CVs were in Cairns - so you most probably rushed them from Noumea to carry their planes to Cairns, and than go back to Brisbane - sorry to say that but it was a huge semi-strategic mistake on your side and you deserved to be punished in some way. O. [/B][/QUOTE] actually i used the CVs to cover my transportTFs, which headed for NG. after a little airstrike from the jap CVs near buna, CV was slightly damaged, so i decided to sent them to brisbane for repair. but i needed the aircraft (and escort) for defending PM (vs. airstrikes and bombardements) so they were stripped. the fighters served well, so all would have been nice, if my CVs hadnt committed suicide...... "Use it as a lerning experience" i will do.......so do not beat me too hard ;) greetz

BK6583 -> CVs and ground attacks (10/22/2002 12:02:32 AM)
"I'm curious about other players thoughts on carrier strikes vs land targets as I might be missing something in what I'm doing". Well, with 3 US CVs, two of which sent all of their dive bombers on ground attack missions against Tulagi for 3 straight turns, I inflicted close to 350 Japanese ground casualties. I guess there are a lot of factors involved here, many of which I confess to still not quite understanding, but my lone experience here sure seemed to make CV ground attacks worth while.

seydlitz_slith -> (10/22/2002 11:21:11 AM)
Well, I often will keep my carriers firmly anchored in port and transfer the planes to land bases for training or use as needed. I usually do this when I know that the enemy has carrier superiority, and that I will have morrre carriers arriving. An example would be scenario 19 where the US is temporarily disadvantaged waiting on the reinforcement CVs to arrive while the Japanese "CV Superstack" roams the board killing whatever it wants. By doing this, I preserve my CVs long enough to get numbers for a respectable fight, yet I can still project airpower where needed. Anyboody else do this? Don

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8115234