Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Carrier consolidation

 
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 >> Carrier consolidation Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Carrier consolidation - 6/18/2002 1:28:22 AM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline 		Okay, playing a PBEM had my two remaining carrier task groups steaming North towards Milne Bay (Gili). I set one up to follow the other one. My understanding/belief was that this would have one group follow the other into battle. Sure enough the enemy carriers suddenly appeared. My one task group reacts towards them, then the other...the problem is is that they separated. So when the enemy strikes came they found a lone carrier's worth of CAP and drove her beneath the waves. They did get off a strike, but due to lack of coordination..it was far less then successful (which I agree with and understand).

What I dont understand is why they didnt stay together. When the first carrier was being pounded beneath the waves the second one should of been right next to it. The CAP got divided and the hordes of bombers he sent had no problem getting through. What is the point of setting follow a carrier group if they don't support each other?
Post #: 1
- 6/18/2002 1:32:12 AM   
Hartmann

 

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline 		That's exactly why I do not subscribe to the cherished advice to have multiple TFs in the same hex - while this is fine in theory, they are too likely to get separated. So I rather take the "diminishing return" penalty on the AA. :)

Hartmann

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 2
- 6/18/2002 1:32:18 AM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi

Did you set them both on DO NOT REACT TO ENEMY? Just a thought. I ALWAYS do this myself and they never part. Just like my parents:)
Dan

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 3
- 6/18/2002 1:38:50 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline 		Hmm, I too have never had them separate. I think U2 has the most likely explanation.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 4
- 6/18/2002 1:41:30 AM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline 		I don't like splitting up my carriers either, the more the better:) But in real life thats probably why we won at midway and didnt get smoked at coral sea. If you are on the under dog side, while splitting your forces reduces your chance of a decisive victory, it increases the probability that some of your assets will survive. As in the Midway case, if our 3 carriers had been together, they would most likley all had been hit bad. If the Japanese had been split, we might not have found and hit 3 of their 4 carriers in one lucky strike. The Japanese were just unlucky that day when they rolled snake eyes.

Andy

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 5
- 6/18/2002 1:46:12 AM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2
[B]Hi

Did you set them both on DO NOT REACT TO ENEMY? Just a thought. I ALWAYS do this myself and they never part. Just like my parents:)
Dan [/B][/QUOTE]


Dan, I wanted them to react to the enemy. My opponent just seized Gili and I was escorting tranports groups to take it back. I was using my carriers as bait/blocking force to let the transports get past any enemy warships out there. In this I somewhat suceeded (though he uses the supercarrier taskforce so its hard to fight him). The point is, I was there to fight...I just didnt expect them to seperate when they were suppose to follow each other into battle. Lesson learned, but I want to find out if this is working as intended or if it is a bug?

Rob

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 6
- 6/18/2002 1:49:35 AM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21
[B]I don't like splitting up my carriers either, the more the better:) But in real life thats probably why we won at midway and didnt get smoked at coral sea. If you are on the under dog side, while splitting your forces reduces your chance of a decisive victory, it increases the probability that some of your assets will survive. As in the Midway case, if our 3 carriers had been together, they would most likley all had been hit bad. If the Japanese had been split, we might not have found and hit 3 of their 4 carriers in one lucky strike. The Japanese were just unlucky that day when they rolled snake eyes.

Andy [/B][/QUOTE]

Unfortunetly in game terms Midway would of never happened. In this latest faux paus my forces sent planes aloft piecemeal and his wall of CAP (100 fighters) ate them alive. In the mean time his bombers (from 4 flatops) got through my divided cap and down goes one of my carriers. The computer doesnt divide (or appear to divide) the CAP when uncoodinated strikes are coming through (ie the fighters can go after low level torpedo bombers and then climb quickly to take on the Dive bombers) at least as far as I have seen....

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 7
- 6/18/2002 2:00:25 AM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi

Unforunately Rob my explenation is the only way if you want them to stick togheter. Please correct me if I am wrong. I also understand that you were there to fight but it much better this way with some coordination with your transports than to be defeated one turn earlier.
Dan

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 8
- 6/18/2002 2:01:00 AM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline 		I agree about the in game Midway comments. It seems sometimes that the wall of fighters can be intimidating, but at times I have noticed less than spectacular results when being outnumbered 4 to 1. I have seen only a handful of planes go down and other times a 100% loss for the attacker. I lost all 30 dauntless 1 time when my escorts never showed up..I was grumbling then...while on another attack I lost around 7-8 with the same odds. There must be some varible thrown in there where only a portion of the cap attacks even though you see the entire number available.

Andy

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 9
- 6/18/2002 2:18:08 AM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21
[B]I agree about the in game Midway comments. It seems sometimes that the wall of fighters can be intimidating, but at times I have noticed less than spectacular results when being outnumbered 4 to 1. I have seen only a handful of planes go down and other times a 100% loss for the attacker. I lost all 30 dauntless 1 time when my escorts never showed up..I was grumbling then...while on another attack I lost around 7-8 with the same odds. There must be some varible thrown in there where only a portion of the cap attacks even though you see the entire number available.

Andy [/B][/QUOTE]
Well my opponent actually stated this too...and I agree. I don't want every attack to succeed...:) where is the fun in that. But I would tend to wonder how the Japanese could control all those fighters in the days before effect radar. To me, there should be leakers through your cap. They can't be everywhere and if you are approaching your target from multiple sides...

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 10
:) - 6/18/2002 2:19:38 AM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2
[B]Hi

Unforunately Rob my explenation is the only way if you want them to stick togheter. Please correct me if I am wrong. I also understand that you were there to fight but it much better this way with some coordination with your transports than to be defeated one turn earlier.
Dan [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh I agree, it appears to be the only way, but considering you suffer the AA penalty for more then 10 ship groupings and by the instructions this is the way you should manage your multi carrier groups I am just wondering if this is working as planned or if it is screwed up the way it appears.

Rob

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 11
- 6/18/2002 2:21:57 AM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi Rob

Thats a very good point on IJN radar capabilities and their CAP. Perhaps that 10-20% of divebombers and torpedoplanes always come through? The 10-20% was just something I made up to explain my point. It would be impossible for me to know for sure.
Dan

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 12
- 6/18/2002 2:38:14 AM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline 		My kids used to ask me what I did for fun before computers. I would tell them kill sabre tooth tigers with my bare hands...cuz they evidently thought I grew up in the stone age. So i guess the same applies to the Japs prior to radar...they managed:) Besides, just having radar doesn't mean much unless you know how to use it either...look at the Syrians versus Israeli air battles in '82...what a wipe out.

Andy

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 13
- 6/18/2002 4:44:46 AM   
wmtiz

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/4/2002
From: Belton, Texas
Status: offline 		I have seen similar results. Two separate CV forces, one based on the Yorktown, the onther on the Lexington. The Yorktown force was set up follow the slower Lexington group. The two groups were also escorting an amphib force and a small CA/DD force to Gili Gili to retake the base. They all arrived together in the same hex at Gili Gili. I planned to use the combined CAP from the two carriers to cover the landing from LBA strikes from Rabaul. The Japanese carriers had already been driven from the Solomons and were licking their wounds at Truk, minus the Shoho which sunk on the way, so the only significant threat was the LBA.

Sure enough, multiple strikes were launched from Rabaul. The first were chewed up by the 50+ Wildcats on CAP. But the last raid, made by only 4 G4M1 Bettys with no fighter escort, not only got through the CAP undamaged, they also got through the flak undamaged and manage to score one torpedo hit each on the Yorktown and Lexington. Ouch!!

In an attempt to convince myself this was just a bit of bad luck for me and brilliant success for the LBA, I brought up a save that was taken just before concluding the orders phase of that day's turn and re-ran the combat. Unfortunately, the results were so close to the first time, it appeared there was some sort of "seed" set to the otherwise randomness of the battle outcomes. I replayed it again, this time changing the day or arrival by a day and let the battle take place again and this time the Wildcats knocked the Bettys out of the sky.

I am going to just tip my hat to the Betty pilots and continue the game from its original battle ending and go from there. Those pilots certainly deserve to be decorated for their feat.

It's good to see incredible successes go both ways whether from the execution of a well-planned mission or sheer luck.

_____________________________

Know your enemy and know yourself and you will always be victorious -- Sun Tzu

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 14
- 6/18/2002 7:11:45 AM   
Beckles

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Kansas City, MO, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmtiz
[B]In an attempt to convince myself this was just a bit of bad luck for me and brilliant success for the LBA, I brought up a save that was taken just before concluding the orders phase of that day's turn and re-ran the combat. Unfortunately, the results were so close to the first time, it appeared there was some sort of "seed" set to the otherwise randomness of the battle outcomes. [/B][/QUOTE]

It has already been confirmed by the developers that the "random" numbers a seeded so that you can not replay a turn to get different results.

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 15
- 6/18/2002 7:30:32 AM   
Dirtweasle

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 5/19/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		One explanation might be the "Ops Points". Did the follow on CV TF refuel any of it's escorts?

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 16
- 6/18/2002 8:19:48 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dirtweasle
[B]One explanation might be the "Ops Points". Did the follow on CV TF refuel any of it's escorts? [/B][/QUOTE]

It wasn't op points, although good suggestions.

Basically he had each carrier TF on react to the enemy. One was apparently assigned to follow the other.

I think the game works in that if a TF has a react to the enemy order, it will do that instead of following. Thus both of his Air combat TF's had a react order. They each reacted but went to a differing hex during the reaction.

Reiryc

_____________________________


(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 17
So - 6/18/2002 8:34:42 AM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline 		..the heirarchy of orders when managing carriers are react, follow..etc. I guess the thing that troubles me (know doubt you enjoyed reiyc :)) was the carriers reacted in different directions... dividing my CAP. As many stikes as you sent the result might of been the same or worse, but I'm just trying to figure out if the way I set the orders was correct so I don't suffer anymore humilation at your evil hands :D.

Rob

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 18
Op points - 6/18/2002 8:55:02 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I need the path described to me. Did both TF's travel the same number of hexes only stop in separate ones? Or was one path shorter then the other? Ship speed and fuel need to be the same. On a normal move the following TF might actually have to use more points then the TF it is following but since the lead TF does not move max distance they end in the same hex.
If however on a reaction the leader is a faster TF it can outrun the follower. If just one ship in the following TF has to refuel during the move it slows the whole TF down. Flight ops also use TF op points. If the follower is operating more AC then the leader it can fall behind. The safest way is to plot the move for the leader
with " do not react" and make sure it does not move max distance so that the follow TF has a little room for operations.
The follow order means to end movement in the same hex, if they did not then I would look at how far the reaction move was,
slowest ship in each TF and fuel levels. (having one TF operating just a CAP of 18 planes while follow TF operates 18 CAP and extra scouts could have effected. It is IMHO a matter of TF operation points ending up 1 hex different.

TF's contining low endurance DD following a TF composed of high endurance DD can fall behind on long moves.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 19
Re: Op points - 6/18/2002 9:07:48 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I need the path described to me. Did both TF's travel the same number of hexes only stop in separate ones? Or was one path shorter then the other? Ship speed and fuel need to be the same. On a normal move the following TF might actually have to use more points then the TF it is following but since the lead TF does not move max distance they end in the same hex.
If however on a reaction the leader is a faster TF it can outrun the follower. If just one ship in the following TF has to refuel during the move it slows the whole TF down. Flight ops also use TF op points. If the follower is operating more AC then the leader it can fall behind. The safest way is to plot the move for the leader
with " do not react" and make sure it does not move max distance so that the follow TF has a little room for operations.
The follow order means to end movement in the same hex, if they did not then I would look at how far the reaction move was,
slowest ship in each TF and fuel levels. (having one TF operating just a CAP of 18 planes while follow TF operates 18 CAP and extra scouts could have effected. It is IMHO a matter of TF operation points ending up 1 hex different.

TF's contining low endurance DD following a TF composed of high endurance DD can fall behind on long moves. [/B][/QUOTE]

Has nothing really to do with all this...

They moved in different directions is all.

Reiryc

_____________________________


(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 20
- 6/18/2002 9:13:36 AM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		I have been (as the Allies) putting the less aggressive commander in the lead (slower) TF. I then set the lead TF to React to enemy, and the follow TF to Do not react. The follower has stuck with the leader and followed he when he does react (in my admittedly limited experience). It's only been a handful of cases so far, not an exhaustive experience.

Erik did say on priority of Follow TF vs. React/Retire: "In my experience, Follow has priority and whatever the followed TF decides to do, the others will try to mirror. " (see thread [URL=http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21514]Follow TF query[/URL] )

_____________________________


(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 21
OK - 6/18/2002 9:14:48 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, HmmmI guess I should have read a little closer as he does say they move in differant directions. Looks like lead TF was set to react and follow TF set to follow but with retire allowed.
Was the more aggressive leader in command of the TF that engaged? Even with don't react orders a TF can make a minor 1 or 2 hex reaction/adjustment (meaning total space could end up 4 hexes just from this if aggressive leader moves closer and cautious one adjusts back)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 22
glub glub - 6/18/2002 10:07:35 AM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline 		Well without revealing too much info to my enemy (smile) my lead carrier had my best leader in it...it survived the battle (without launching a single strike at the enemy) my second carrier had a weaker, but not that weak leader in it. It did get planes off the deck. When the battle broke out there two carriers were 150 miles apart on the same hex line. That's what surprised me. Either way I will never seperate carriers in the same Ops again. Lesson learned.

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 23
Has not happened to me yet. - 6/18/2002 10:43:04 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Like a few of you said, I believe the separation has much to do with reaction setting and different leader ratings.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Rob Roberson)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Carrier consolidation Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.863