RE: Notes from a Small Island

RE: Notes from a Small Island (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports

Message

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 3:00:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel If reaction were limited to no more than a hex, I wouldn't even consider the strategy I'm proposing. As you suggested, I'd set CVE fighters to a range of one, thus ensuring that they'd be within range to provide CAP to reacting CV TFs. But in two of my last three carrier clashes, I've seen reactions of three or four hexes. This includes the most recent battle in this game (less than three months ago game time, a bit more real time), and a late carrier action in my game with John III (sometime in late '44 or early '45, when John was raiding SoPac and I tried for an intercept just east of Luganville). Are you not running the most recent version? Because multiple-hex reactions were fixed. quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel If carriers can react multiple hexes, you can see that it eliminates the strategy of "keeping the CVEs within close range for mutual air support). Addressing one of your concerns, my CVEs wouldn't "take the place of AA platforms." They'd supplement. Usually, my carrier TFs have about 15-18 ships. What if I just fill them up to 25 total with the additional CVEs (or, possibly, pull out a few CV/CVL and add in as many CVE and a few DDs to make up 25)? As for the surface combat threat, the Allies vastly outnumber the Japanese in combat ships. Death Star should have about eight to ten dedicated combat TFs. In the last battle, Erik didn't try for a surface combat engagement. That doesn't mean that he won't this time, but I think the odds are low, and that even if he does he's likely to come out on the short end. I agree I probably can't win without CVs or if I lose a carrier clash decisively. That's the reason I'm turning over ever stick and leaf trying to figure out a way to maximize the chances that CVEs are there to enhance CAP. The additional 900 fighters (plus some TBM squadrons for ASW support or follow-up naval strikes) offers a tremendous amount of security. With all of that information, I'd be going for the battle. Check your version...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 4:42:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel If reaction were limited to no more than a hex, I wouldn't even consider the strategy I'm proposing. As you suggested, I'd set CVE fighters to a range of one, thus ensuring that they'd be within range to provide CAP to reacting CV TFs. But in two of my last three carrier clashes, I've seen reactions of three or four hexes. This includes the most recent battle in this game (less than three months ago game time, a bit more real time), and a late carrier action in my game with John III (sometime in late '44 or early '45, when John was raiding SoPac and I tried for an intercept just east of Luganville). Are you not running the most recent version? Because multiple-hex reactions were fixed. quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel If carriers can react multiple hexes, you can see that it eliminates the strategy of "keeping the CVEs within close range for mutual air support). Addressing one of your concerns, my CVEs wouldn't "take the place of AA platforms." They'd supplement. Usually, my carrier TFs have about 15-18 ships. What if I just fill them up to 25 total with the additional CVEs (or, possibly, pull out a few CV/CVL and add in as many CVE and a few DDs to make up 25)? As for the surface combat threat, the Allies vastly outnumber the Japanese in combat ships. Death Star should have about eight to ten dedicated combat TFs. In the last battle, Erik didn't try for a surface combat engagement. That doesn't mean that he won't this time, but I think the odds are low, and that even if he does he's likely to come out on the short end. I agree I probably can't win without CVs or if I lose a carrier clash decisively. That's the reason I'm turning over ever stick and leaf trying to figure out a way to maximize the chances that CVEs are there to enhance CAP. The additional 900 fighters (plus some TBM squadrons for ASW support or follow-up naval strikes) offers a tremendous amount of security. With all of that information, I'd be going for the battle. Check your version... This. In the John game you were playing a very old EXE version. Loka is right that the reaction mechanism was fixed by Michael after Loka brought it up and provided a lot of evidence. If this game is using an old EXE your decision is different than if it's current.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 4:48:15 PM)
This game must be using an old EXE, because my carriers reacted three or four hexes in the previous carrier battle. (I'm computer illiterate, so I don't actually know how to check, but I do know the reaction covered multiple hexes.) Limiting reaction to just one hex is a most outstanding modification. I look forward to playing an up-to-date game one of these days. It'll be nice not to have to worry about carriers suddenly steaming 200 miles in the wrong direction, against orders, leaving critical combat ships and amphibious TFs unguarded and much-needed CVEs out of position. Like most players, I hate the old reaction modeling.

BillBrown -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 7:45:30 PM)
Here is where you can see the version # You need to be using version 1126a or above for the different reaction. This game is using version 1126b [image]local://upfiles/6818/52A8CF1FC4424D8B9E092E604DA4D298.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 8:05:51 PM)
Odd, my info screen shows the right date but no version number. [image]local://upfiles/8143/BEE017B62CBA4947BAC0366557E8F341.jpg[/image]

BillBrown -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 9:54:34 PM)
Interesting, I guess it has something to do with the screen resolution. How about here instead? [image]local://upfiles/6818/DA44DFE959F8450B92D3308CC4A4386B.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 9:59:15 PM)
Nope. In that place, my screen gives the date (September 17, 2016) but nothing about a version of the game.

BillBrown -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 10:13:23 PM)
So strange, I wonder if others see what you do or what I do? Anyway, on with the notes. [:)]

Mike McCreery -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 3:28:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Nope. In that place, my screen gives the date (September 17, 2016) but nothing about a version of the game. Your game is so old they hadnt invented versions yet ;]

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 4:10:53 AM)
September 17, 2016, should be the absolute latest beta... Another place you can check is right-click on the .exe and go to the following (note that I'm in Win7 and it may be slightly different in Win8 or Win10, but you should still be able to find this tab): [image]local://upfiles/41335/DDDAF2312B57416C8C97181E5E4DD476.jpg[/image] If you're not updated, ask Erik to update. Non-negotiable, IMO - besides, he should want it as well. And he's running the latest for my game with him anyway, at his request [;)].

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 4:15:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel This game must be using an old EXE, because my carriers reacted three or four hexes in the previous carrier battle. (I'm computer illiterate, so I don't actually know how to check, but I do know the reaction covered multiple hexes.) Limiting reaction to just one hex is a most outstanding modification. I look forward to playing an up-to-date game one of these days. It'll be nice not to have to worry about carriers suddenly steaming 200 miles in the wrong direction, against orders, leaving critical combat ships and amphibious TFs unguarded and much-needed CVEs out of position. Like most players, I hate the old reaction modeling. If you were running this game version when the multiple hex reaction happened, I want to see it... I'm pretty certain Michael put a hard stop on limiting the special CV reactions to 1 hex per TF. As mentioned, I still think reactions only occur at 5-6 hexes (maybe 4 but I don't think so). I've never had them occur at 7 hexes (as either side). Again, I think this is an artifact of legacy coding from WITP with more miles per hex. My multiple reactions occurred because the first reaction put the CV TF within reaction range of a second detected enemy CV TF (I slowed it down and watched the messages individually IIRC; it's been a while. I did put it all on YouTube). I want to note also that that was the only time I ever had the much-maligned reactions occur (and it worked out for me, really). My advice on that is simply to do what I always did: don't be coy about CV battles. You're either all-in, ensuring it happens, or all-out. Never be a 'tweener.

BBfanboy -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 6:21:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel This game must be using an old EXE, because my carriers reacted three or four hexes in the previous carrier battle. (I'm computer illiterate, so I don't actually know how to check, but I do know the reaction covered multiple hexes.) Limiting reaction to just one hex is a most outstanding modification. I look forward to playing an up-to-date game one of these days. It'll be nice not to have to worry about carriers suddenly steaming 200 miles in the wrong direction, against orders, leaving critical combat ships and amphibious TFs unguarded and much-needed CVEs out of position. Like most players, I hate the old reaction modeling. If you were running this game version when the multiple hex reaction happened, I want to see it... I'm pretty certain Michael put a hard stop on limiting the special CV reactions to 1 hex per TF. As mentioned, I still think reactions only occur at 5-6 hexes (maybe 4 but I don't think so). I've never had them occur at 7 hexes (as either side). Again, I think this is an artifact of legacy coding from WITP with more miles per hex. My multiple reactions occurred because the first reaction put the CV TF within reaction range of a second detected enemy CV TF (I slowed it down and watched the messages individually IIRC; it's been a while. I did put it all on YouTube). I want to note also that that was the only time I ever had the much-maligned reactions occur (and it worked out for me, really). My advice on that is simply to do what I always did: don't be coy about CV battles. You're either all-in, ensuring it happens, or all-out. Never be a 'tweener. My understanding of what Alfred said was that it is one hex per reaction check, up to the available movement range of the TF or a failed react roll, whichever comes first. I thought previously the issue was that only one react check was made which, if passed, allowed full available movement on the react.

Squamry -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 8:06:07 AM)
I think I'm just about in the "don't do it" camp. I always run CV/CVLs and CVE seperately but all as air combat TF. I like the fact that some TFs will react and some won't. The key reasons being: 1) Can still co-ordiante strikes across hexes (but at some risk of not). 2) "Leaky CAP" can still cover both hexes 3) Can split enemy strikes across multiple targets so you get benefit of two lots of CAP because of 2. 4) If it does not split then some of yout carriers will survive as they are not tagetted. I think one of the big differences in the upcoming battle is that you will be gunning for him rather than on the defensive. If you pursuede Erik to upgade the version then definitely don't use mixed TFs and use the reaction to your advantage.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 11:46:09 AM)
Looks like I am playing the up-to-date version. The significance of this is that I had a multi-hex carrier reaction, which is contrary to Loka's experience/understsanding of the one-hex limit (supposedly) added via the latest updage (but possibly consistent with BBfanboy's understanding that the change was to create a die-roll check for each hex, meaning a reaction could take place over multiple hexes). Reaction doesn't happen often, mainly (IMO) because carrier battles are rare. But contrary to some of the posts above, there will come times when, despite your best efforts, seriously adverse reactions will take place that will confound you. In the carrier battle in this game, Death Star was shepherding empties home from Sikhalin to the Aleutians. I knew Obvert might attack or might not. I was willing to accept battle and had my carriers seriously connfigured for defense (very heavy on fighters, with strike aircraft mainly set for ASW duties). I think Eric used full-speed to close on Death Star. Death Star then fragmented, the CVs reacting mutliple hexes and the CVEs remaining with the Herd. The resulting battle was chaotic, with Erik losing more than 500 strike aircraft while I suffered mortal damage to a CV, the loss of a CVL, and moderate damage to a bunch of other carriers. I came very close to suffering a major loss, so I felt fortunate under all the circumstances. Reaction is usally bad and sometimes catastrophic. [image]local://upfiles/8143/FE171D88B080422CBB8DE458922312B6.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 11:59:36 AM)
On 6/7/44, my carriers reacted two hexes from a starting distance of 10 hexes from KB. This report is found on page 10 of my AAR. [image]local://upfiles/8143/F4F1B697F43F4F82B1FA399B1B6405D6.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 12:06:04 PM)
The big carrier battle happened on 6/16/44 (page 12 of this AAR). As best I can tell from this screenshot, my carriers again reacted two hexes, beginning at a range of 5 hexes from KB. My CVEs didn't react. [image]local://upfiles/8143/6C86267C308A45B191451B58BEF4C420.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 12:09:50 PM)
If we were using 26b at the time of these two battles (I'm sure we were, as I installed this at start and haven't done any upgrades since then), then these two clashes suggest that two things offered as "certain" aren't: 1. Reaction Takes Place When Carriers are 5 to 6 Hexes Apart. Incorrect: reaction can take place at a variety of separation, including 5 to 10 hexes, as shown in these two examples. 2. Reaction Is Limited to a Single Hex. Incorrect: reaction can take place over multiple hexes, in both of these instances being two hexes.

HansBolter -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 1:05:18 PM)
I still think reaction is limited to one hex PER reaction and you had TFs that reacted twice. I have seen this quite a bit and had it happen recently in my Mariana's operation. You will be get two separate flash messages that a reaction is occurring, one for each instance of reaction. Just a nuance as the practical result is two hexes of reaction no matter how it shakes out. I have had two hexes of reaction in the morning and another two in the afternoon leaving a four hex spread on my TFs by day's end.

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 6:24:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel This game must be using an old EXE, because my carriers reacted three or four hexes in the previous carrier battle. (I'm computer illiterate, so I don't actually know how to check, but I do know the reaction covered multiple hexes.) Limiting reaction to just one hex is a most outstanding modification. I look forward to playing an up-to-date game one of these days. It'll be nice not to have to worry about carriers suddenly steaming 200 miles in the wrong direction, against orders, leaving critical combat ships and amphibious TFs unguarded and much-needed CVEs out of position. Like most players, I hate the old reaction modeling. If you were running this game version when the multiple hex reaction happened, I want to see it... I'm pretty certain Michael put a hard stop on limiting the special CV reactions to 1 hex per TF. As mentioned, I still think reactions only occur at 5-6 hexes (maybe 4 but I don't think so). I've never had them occur at 7 hexes (as either side). Again, I think this is an artifact of legacy coding from WITP with more miles per hex. My multiple reactions occurred because the first reaction put the CV TF within reaction range of a second detected enemy CV TF (I slowed it down and watched the messages individually IIRC; it's been a while. I did put it all on YouTube). I want to note also that that was the only time I ever had the much-maligned reactions occur (and it worked out for me, really). My advice on that is simply to do what I always did: don't be coy about CV battles. You're either all-in, ensuring it happens, or all-out. Never be a 'tweener. My understanding of what Alfred said was that it is one hex per reaction check, up to the available movement range of the TF or a failed react roll, whichever comes first. I thought previously the issue was that only one react check was made which, if passed, allowed full available movement on the react. No, it was 1 hex per special CV TF reaction. I don't know if this was limited by total movement at all (i.e., if you moved at full speed and full distance for 2 phases, I think you could still react). I'm also not entirely sure what Alfred said applies pre-fix. I think what he said (without looking it up) reflects what the intent was, but there was a clear bug that was causing TFs to react multiple times. Here's my thread: www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3981268&mpage=1 Here are Michael's notes on what he changed: quote: 19/12/2015 [1125.7] tweak exclude CVTF with no attack groups from closing with enemy CVTF tweak DL on enemy CVTF to be 3+ to trigger CV reaction; was non-zero DL fix CVTF reported reacting to enemy CVTF more than once per phase 10/01/2016 [1125.9] Tweak to use number of attack planes rather than groups for CV closure That pretty clearly says reactions of only once per phase, as well as 2 other new restrictions based on DL and bombers available. Presumably, you could react in both AM and PM phases - maybe that is what you saw, CR? To really tell, you would need to re-watch the replays and pay close attention to the messages. quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter I still think reaction is limited to one hex PER reaction and you had TFs that reacted twice. I have seen this quite a bit and had it happen recently in my Mariana's operation. You will be get two separate flash messages that a reaction is occurring, one for each instance of reaction. Just a nuance as the practical result is two hexes of reaction no matter how it shakes out. I have had two hexes of reaction in the morning and another two in the afternoon leaving a four hex spread on my TFs by day's end. It should be 1 hex per phase, per TF, full stop. If you can document otherwise, that's a bug (which will unfortunately probably go unfixed at this point).

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 6:26:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel If we were using 26b at the time of these two battles (I'm sure we were, as I installed this at start and haven't done any upgrades since then), then these two clashes suggest that two things offered as "certain" aren't: 1. Reaction Takes Place When Carriers are 5 to 6 Hexes Apart. Incorrect: reaction can take place at a variety of separation, including 5 to 10 hexes, as shown in these two examples. 2. Reaction Is Limited to a Single Hex. Incorrect: reaction can take place over multiple hexes, in both of these instances being two hexes. Again, wondering if you saw reaction in AM and then in PM. It's possible that the times my CVs didn't react at 7 hexes were flukes (or that your reactions at >6 hexes were flukes). Either way, I've been saying the whole time that you need to be getting close (under 6 hexes) or avoiding battle. You can't predict exactly where he's going to end up 99 times out of 100, so if you're looking for a battle you need to be sure. Hence, plan for being about 5 hexes away.

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 6:28:17 PM)
One last point that, if replays were re-watched, would put it to bed for sure: the reaction message tells you which TF your TF is reacting to (at least by range). If you push Ctrl-P during the replay, it will pause at each message.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 6:37:43 PM)
Thanks, Loka. I'll see if I have that turn file and re-play it. I appreciate everybody chiming in, especially those who've had experience with this and can offer counsel from that perspective. Sometimes it may come across as if I am disagreeing or disputing things, but I'm trying to test the various hypotheses and theories against what I know or think I know or wonder about. I'm pretty uncertain of what the realities are here. But that's kind of cool too. If every aspect of the game is understood, eliminating some of the surprise or mystery, the game loses some of its mystery.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 6:59:43 PM)
Here's the initial Death Star position on the morning of June 15, 1944 - having just exited the sea to the west. [image]local://upfiles/8143/3D6BDEC1AB4D4935A6180B575860A7E4.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 7:01:42 PM)
In the A.M. phase, DS begins just five hexes from KB. DS CV TFs react one hex south, closing the distance to four hexes. CVE TFs (which are carrier TFs) don't react. KB doesn't launch air strikes, presumably due to weather. DS doesn't launch, because strike aircraft were set to range two for important reasons. [image]local://upfiles/8143/8397B2D4E2774D00AB0866F00DA79F27.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 7:03:03 PM)
In the PM phase, the Allied CV TFs react another hex to the south, closing to within three hexes of KB. This time, KB launches a full strike. [image]local://upfiles/8143/1509DE388287463C93CC4F54E6BCEB0F.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 7:04:52 PM)
What I take from this: (1) This supports Loka's contention that reaction is limited to one hex per phase; (2) Reaction occured at two different opening distances in my June turns: once at ten hexes and this one at five, leaving me uncertain as to what opening ranges will trigger reaction.

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 7:17:33 PM)
In this clash, the Allied CVs had 975 fighters on CAP, of which 700 were Hellcats. There were 31 CVEs and RN CVLs that didn't react, carrying roughly 600 additional fighters. Some of these were set to range two and probably supplied some LRCAP to the react CV TFs. In the next clash, the CV TFs will be a bit larger. I lost CV Essex and CVL Cowpens; CV Lexington won't be repaired in time to participate. Offsetting those losses, I have received CV Hancock and will soon receive CV Ticonderoga, CV Franklin will be present (she was damaged during the first clash and didn't react), and I'll have an additional CVL and two RN CVs. So the fleet carriers should carry roughly 160 additional aircraft. But the CVE lineup will be greatly enhanced. There will be 58 this time as opposed to 31. All 58 will be carrying Hellcats or Corsairs or relatively modern RN fighters. The fight will take place at or near the Kuriles. Erik now has multiple big airfields there. I think I can suppress those, limiting their contribution to the battle. KB should be about the same size. What this tells me is that I definitely want to maximize the chances that DS will include the CVEs. I'll give thought to weather the "two-hex max" reaction feature is acceptable or whether I need to sprinkle CVEs in with the CVs to ensure all flattops are present for what may prove to be the decisive battle. 58 CVEs and RN CVLs means more than 1,000 fighters.

Bearcat2 -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 10:50:31 PM)
You are not the only one that has a problem with coordination between CVE's and CV's when the CV's TF reacted to an enemy fleet. "That son a bitch Halsey, has left us bare-assed" - Adm Clifton "Ziggy" Sprague

John 3rd -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/22/2018 11:56:59 PM)
I am in a total nightmare with the owner of this thread over in the Opponents Wanted area!

Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/23/2018 1:01:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel What I take from this: (1) This supports Loka's contention that reaction is limited to one hex per phase; (2) Reaction occured at two different opening distances in my June turns: once at ten hexes and this one at five, leaving me uncertain as to what opening ranges will trigger reaction. The 10-hex distance leading to a reaction is very odd to me, but I'll take your word on it. I'm also pretty sure that the hexes quotes as the reaction range in the manual are old WITP hex ranges.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640625