anyone see this before?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

anyone see this before?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

anyone see this before? - 11/24/2007 7:06:33 PM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

Situation. KB reacts to a US CV task force, traveling 8 hexes to intercept. One TF lags one hex behind. Range 5-6 hexes. US Flys off 2 strikes, Japan NONE! ALL planes but one VAL group set on Naval/Ground attack. CAP set 60-70%. Run into anything like this before, and was curious for some other opinions.

Post #: 1

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/24/2007 10:02:27 PM

tocaff

Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

Yep, happens to both sides. If you have multiple CVTFs with orders for them to follow 1 of the CVTFs thenalso set them to patrol and do not react. The next step is not to use aggressive commanders as they are apt to disobey orders and attack regardless of the odds. Sadly even taking these precautions can find a TF or 2 lagging behind and your getting the chop. As to planes not flying, it happens and it�s maddening and there�s not much you can do about it except pull hair out of your head. I suppose this can reflect finding the enemy to late to fly off a strike in the PM due to daylight. As to the AM I guess it�s one of the many things that go wrong and a commander interpreting orders other than the way they were meant.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 2

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/24/2007 10:52:16 PM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

Yes, TF's breaking off form one other I have seen often. I really is a trade off. Do you keep 3-4 CV's in a TF to keep them together? Or Break them up to make you escorts more effective and make it more difficult for several to get hit in the same strike?
I had just never seen this situation, especially where the CV's reacted to the enemy. I had issues where a strike could not find the enemy, but this was different.

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 3

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/25/2007 2:37:57 AM

tocaff

Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

It�s best to run 2 US CVs to a TF so that you don�t suffer a coordination penalty. Their CAPs will support eachother but the AA will be divided. A TF of more than 15 ships is to easy to find and all ships won�t get in on the action. I run CVTFs with 2 CVs, 3 CAs, 1 CL, 1 CLAA and 6 DDs (these #s can vary depending on what�s available). A TF of this size can accept a couple of ships from another TF in a crtical situation so the strays won�t go it alone.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 4

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/25/2007 6:03:30 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

the risk however, is that once you have 3-4 of these TF's operating together, one will break off when you come into contact with the enemy, and thus be a sitting duck. I agree in general with the 2CV's and 15 ships total, especially for the US. very much a "six of one, half-dozen of the other type issue.

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 5

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/25/2007 1:04:52 PM

tocaff

Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

There�s no way to stop a TF from breaking off or lagging behind, only ways of limiting the odds of it happening. Sort of like using a Micro$oft product and expecting to never have problems.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 6

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/25/2007 7:10:16 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

borner, was your CAP flying?

Another (remote) possibility was that you exceeded UV's 10% rule and had too many planes on (all) your CVs, turning them into mere ferries.

Micro$oft: Todd, you're too funny, but I bet Matrix games won't play on a Mac unless it has a PC sim program; talk about $ !

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 7

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/25/2007 7:39:49 PM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

no, all CV's only had the origional air groups. I am just calling it one of the strange things this game does from time to time

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 8

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/25/2007 11:40:22 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

I wonder if the Allied CV TFs were so fewer in number than that of the IJN that the game engine assumed they launched/coordinated their strikes much quicker and caught your planes on the deck before they could launch?

I think something like this happened only once to my IJN AI opponent; he got hit, but apparently never launched; I thought it might have been wx conditions over his TFs, which are hard to figure out in this game

Could be either a bug or a rare programing event; I wonder if the UV manual has anything relevant?

Edit: Does this help?

8.5 Patrol/Retreat and Reaction Status

The Patrol/Retreat Status determines what the Task Force will do when it gets to its destination hex and how likely the TF will abort its mission in the face of enemy attacks. If it is set to Patrol/Do not retire, the TF will try to press on to complete its mission, regardless of enemy attacks. It will remain at the destination hex while performing its mission, then return when it is low on endurance or seriously damaged.

Task Forces set to Retirement Allowed will move to their destination hex, perform their mission, and immediately return home. If they are forcefully attacked, they will likely abort their mission and return to their base. Non-patrolling Task Forces with certain missions (such as Bombardment) will plan to arrive at their destination at night, moving into and away from the destination at full speed for 12 hours each way.

In addition, players can select the React/Do Not React Status for their Surface Combat and Air Combat TF�s. A Task Force with the React to enemy command may alter course to intercept an enemy TF, if it�s been spotted during its movement turn (A TF with Follow Another TF orders will continue to follow the lead TF). A TF with Do Not React orders will not alter course from its DH to attack an enemy.

< Message edited by Joe D. -- 11/26/2007 12:19:11 AM >

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 9

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/26/2007 12:17:34 PM

tocaff

Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

I just lost a PBEM as I had 2 CVTFs (2 CVs in 1 and 1 in the other) set for 1 to follow the other. The 2 got a few hits on the Japanese CVs and got sunk in return and the other 1 lagged behind a hex and didn�t participate in the battle. SIGH!

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 10

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/26/2007 3:52:50 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

Well, you can't say it wasn't historical; during the battle of Midway the Hornet sortied around five separate strikes, but her planes never even engaged the enemy, and most of her a/c losses were from ditching in the ocean or crash-landing on MI's airstrip.

Was your CV "circumstance" due to section 8.5 (above), or was wx invovled? Isn't there some type of "negative" icon over a CV TF in UV signifying that planes can't launch due to inclement wx? If it's LBA, there's a msg saying that wx stopped the mission, but I don't believe there is a similar bad wx message for CV strikes.

I wonder if CF is addressing this?

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 11

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/27/2007 4:23:34 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

I beleive her TBD's found thier target, but yes, both her SBD groups and the Wildcats escorting them never found anything.

Tocaff, I feel your pain on Cv groups not moving and striking together!

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 12

RE: anyone see this before? - 11/27/2007 4:57:36 AM

Wirraway_Ace

Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

The incident occured against my carriers. It didn't look like the IJN CVs were weathered out when I watched the combat replay. I use one of the updated cloud icons for weather effects that are very hard to miss. Looked like a glitch from my end, as opposed to the fog of war.

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 13

Page: [1]

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

Page: [1]