Slitherine

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).

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.

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...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Nope. In that place, my screen gives the date (September 17, 2016) but nothing about a version of the game.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.