Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

In any case, I find it strange they do not engage if they really have enough ammunition, thing that sincerely I'm prone to doubt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

One thing you are seeing that is important is that if you have a large carrier force break them up into smaller flotillas. Incoming enemy are apt to attack one of them only and ignore or not find the others. This happened historically IIRC at the battle of Santa Cruz. As the allied player I tried to group them like this: CV CV CVL if I could manage that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK

Playing early game as the Allie4s, mid Jan 42.

I am consistently able to intercept Japanese amphibious and cargo TF's that have no or only PB type combat units with surface combat units. Problems:

1. After a fight MY units return to port (even if orders are remain on station, I get a XXXX returning to port after surface combat message) and the Japanese return to happily unloading their troops/supplies. This has cost me a number of based on the DEI and now Rabaul/Lae.
2. The Japanese send multiple TF's to the same hex and my interceptors won't engage all of them because they are too busy sailing home. I can savage one task force but the others just keep right on doing what they do. It feels like the AI is abusing something here. I have actually tried breaking by SC TF's into smaller units hoping to hit all of the assorted enemy TF's but no dice.
3. My surface units engage but do not fire on said enemy units and then sail for home. This seems to happen when the engagement range opens at long ranges, like 30,000 so I get the "not in range" aspect but, you know, close in on the slow moving transports rather than running away.

My TF's have ammo and fuel so what I am missing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK

Playing early game as the Allie4s, mid Jan 42.

I am consistently able to intercept Japanese amphibious and cargo TF's that have no or only PB type combat units with surface combat units. Problems:

1. After a fight MY units return to port (even if orders are remain on station, I get a XXXX returning to port after surface combat message) and the Japanese return to happily unloading their troops/supplies. This has cost me a number of based on the DEI and now Rabaul/Lae.
2. The Japanese send multiple TF's to the same hex and my interceptors won't engage all of them because they are too busy sailing home. I can savage one task force but the others just keep right on doing what they do. It feels like the AI is abusing something here. I have actually tried breaking by SC TF's into smaller units hoping to hit all of the assorted enemy TF's but no dice.
3. My surface units engage but do not fire on said enemy units and then sail for home. This seems to happen when the engagement range opens at long ranges, like 30,000 so I get the "not in range" aspect but, you know, close in on the slow moving transports rather than running away.

My TF's have ammo and fuel so what I am missing?

1. Stating that your TFs "have ammo and fuel" is not really helpful. A TF can have plenty of aggregated ammo but be considered to be low in ammo (as per s.6.3.5 of the manual) and therefore automatically returns to its home port.

2. Section 6.2.9 of the manual lists conditions under which TFs will automatically return to their home port.

3. The "Remain on Station" command for a Surface Combat TF does not do what you think it should be doing. Particularly if the TF has also been given a reaction range greater than zero. The command simply tells the Surface Combat TF to not automatically return to its home port upon reaching its Destination Hex (the "DH"). Without it, the TF would automatically retire upon reaching the DH. With that command together with a reaction range set, the Surface Combat TF remains at the DH until a single combat ensues or one of the conditions listed in the manual for automatic return to home port is met.

4. The correct setting to be used in this situation is for the TF to patrol the area. Provided a high enough Maximum Detection Level is maintained on enemy TFs and a suitable leader is in charge of the TF, a Surface Combat TF can engage in multiple combats in the same turn until the one of the conditions listed in the manual for automatic return to home port is met.

5. Even under optimum settings, it is unrealistic to expect that a single Surface Combat TF can all by itself grapple with multiple enemy TFs. When the enemy is sending multiple TFs to the same location, best praxis is to also send in multiple Surface Combat TFs. There is no 11th Commandment written on a stone tablet which says that one must only ever use 25 ship Surface Combat TFs. Particularly when s.6.3.5 of the manual makes it clear that a single ship in the TF can trigger the automatic return to home port.

6. The AI is not abusing anything. It is playing by the same rules which apply equally to human and AI players. It's natural advantage over human players is that it has "read" closely the rules and knows how they operate.

7. There are many reasons (outlined in the manual) why an inconclusive encounter results. No fighting commences until visual contact is made. This is one of the reasons why the range between TFs is closed. Closing the range is made more difficult if the other side doesn't want to reciprocate.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK


1. The manual states 1/3 or less and it heads for home - this is why I was asking. These ships left port fully loaded, had- in some cases brief encounters that resulted in < 20% ammo consumption per ship. There was not a single vessel that meets the requirement in the section you referred to. I actually thought it might send me back for low torpedoes but per the manual it is only main gun ammo.

I directed you to s.6.3.5 of the manual because it provides the objective standard of what is considered to be a low ammo state. New players are prone to substitute their own subjective standards when they post sweeping unverifiable statements.

2. ...and thus my question since none of the conditions outlined there are true for my TF's.

I did not state that s.6.2.9 lists the only circumstances which lead to an automatic return to home port. Nor does that section of the manual quite state it either. That section lists events, it does not fully address all the possible circumstances which may result in one of those events from arising. My following point (#3) gave you a specific circumstance which leads to one of the events arising which result in automatic return to home port.

3. That does not appear to be what 6.2.9 indicates plus in 6.2.5 all it says is that "If not ordered to Remain on Station (i.e. Retire) it will return to its home base as soon as it has completed it’s assigned mission (such as loading or unloading)." Does this mean that it considered a single "surface combat" completion of the mission regardless of the fuel/ammo considerations discussed in 1? That doesn't seem to be the behavior on ASW ships I have ordered to remain on station by comparison.

The manual is actually quite good. Even though it was sent off to the printers before all the game mechanics were bedded down and 7 detailed patches have been put out after the game was issued in mid 2009, it still remains the single best source of information on game mechanics.

Your reference to how your ASW ships operate is irrelevant. I specifically identified Surface Combat TFs, I did not mention any of the other 24 different types of TFs which can be created.

I repeat, a Surface Combat TF with the "Remain on Station" command and with a reaction range, will return to home port after a single combat. This is because the command is automatically changed and thus one of the events listed in s.6.2.9 of the manual arises.

You can either believe me and rely on what I tell you or you can disregard me totally and put your faith on the manual on any issue not knowing whether that specific issue was altered between manual printing and game publication, or is an issue subsequently addressed by one of the 7 official patches, or might be an issue which the manual's explanation is not worded optimally.[/I]

4. This sounds like the actual issue/answer to the problem.

Not really. Your complaint is that a Surface Combat TF with a "Remain on Station" command does not do so. Nothing I said in point #4 overrides the way that command applies to such a TF. In AE "Remain" and "Patrol" are mutually exclusive concepts.

5. As I said I broke up my surface combat fleets into 2 and 3 HK groups with a CL + DD's in most cases. I got a lot of repeat attacks on the "lead" IJN TF's but never saw more than a single TF engaged by any of my TF's.

And the MDL on each enemy TF was what? Which enemy TF was deemed by the algorithms to be the most suitable for targetting? What are the stats of your TF commander? These are just some of the relevant factors which are involved in targeting an enemy TF and are in addition to what a Surface Combat TF with a "Remain" command and reaction set does when it meets the targeted enemy TF. Unless all relevant data is provided with precision and in verifiable format, the value of sweeping statements is of little probative value.

6. I think it "understands" the rules but I suspect there is more to it. Per 6.4 surface combat happens when a TF crosses into a hex with another fleet or ends the turn with another ship. Question then is this: say I have 2 TF's with the same Y speed leaving from the same base to intercept in the same hex (this is what I did). IJN sends 2 transport fleets one speed X (TF12) and one speed X-Z (TF99). So in each pulse TF12 should move more than TF99 (lots of weird rounding and stuff per 6.2.3) but in theory both my TF's should encounter TF12 first and, if they run for home, will never encounter TF99. Since the check happens in the movement phase it sounds like that would be the case.

Section 6.2.3 of the manual lists how TF speed is determined but it does not fully capture all the relevant circumstances which impact on the actual travel rate achieved. IOW it explains ceteris paribus and subject to rounding up/down what will usually occur. Thus your theoretical TF 99 would (provided "Z" is a significant value) usually travel slower than your TF 12. But what if TF 12 has had to expend more Operational Points en route than did TF 99? What if more routine system/engine damage was incurred by TF 12 en route? These are just some of the circumstances which can arise to cancel out the initial speed differential.

Putting aside the targeting aspect I have previously touched upon, you don't know for certain that your two TFs would actually arrive in tandem (again the circumstances which I outlined regarding the enemy TFs also apply to your own TFs) and find themselves with only the enemy TF 12 present at the destination.

It should be obvious from my two posts that, to quote you, "there is more to it" but as I have pointed out, the more to it applies equally to you. It is not an AI cheat.[/I]

7. I see no reasons given.

Then you haven't read the manual closely enough. Leader states, detection levels, weather conditions are just some of the relevant factors discussed in the manual. You cannot base all your knowledge of how naval operations are conducted solely on reading chapter 6 of the manual.

The note I am specifically curious about is "Task forces that are stopped (loading/unloading, docked or fueling from a port) when engaged are at a severe disadvantage and their
ships are sitting ducks for a few combat rounds until they can get underway." from 6.4.2 in the specific case I had 2 speed = 32 CA's (full ammo and fuel sailed from Moresby) sail (each in their own TF) engage an unloading fleet at Madang. Sighting opened at 30k both times and in both cases no shots were fired. I have reloaded and seen the same effect and opened the game as the IJN player and confirmed that these ships are unloading, all speed < 16 and there are no naval forces larger than a PB class ship within 10 hexes - and Rabaul still hasn't fallen so there is no Japanese air threat.

This is just wishful thinking on your part. You see enemy TFs unloading and automatically expect them to be sitting ducks. That is not how the game operates. There are many considerations which are fed into the algorithms. The end result might be that by the time your TFs come within firing range the enemy is still unloading and if so, yes what 6.4.2 states would apply (although again there are certain factors at play which may prevent carnage from ensuing). Less optimal fighting conditions for you would see the enemy TFs cease unloading and be underway before the range has closed enough for firing to commence.

As to your statement of Rabaul not having fallen yet and therefore there is no Japanese air threat. This is another of your sweeping subjective statements. On what empirical basis can you be certain that enemy air power is not factored into the algorithms. Who says Japan needs Rabaul in order to have local air superiority or project a relevant air threat.[/I]