Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

In my game against Allied AI, LBA is dissapointing me, Nell's and Betty's cant hit anything that protected and moves fast. So I recommend you to have atleast 2 big CV's and all small CVL and CVE in Singapore to react on possible attacks on Java and Makassar-Timor bases. And i think Yamato better to be stationed with few BB's there too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

You can never do too much reconnaissance.
- George S. Patton: War As I Knew It, 1947

---

8/9/1942 – 8/14/1942

The attack at Noumea resumed with odds just short of 1 to 1. That’s a little disappointing for 4 divisions against 1 division plus some smaller units. We will see what kind of progress Japanese forces can make this time, though.

In the meantime I have sent my carriers over towards Suva to do some sniffing around. I looked at my Val units to make some adjustments to their search arcs and got an unpleasant shock. At some point, probably the last patch, all of them had somehow gotten set to 100% training. Not only were the units somewhat fatigued, KB has been sailing around blind and with one arm tied behind its back for days without me knowing it.

And all that training only did a little good, since the pilots are all highly skilled anyway. Ah well, potential disaster averted.

Thinking about search arcs brings up an interesting point, though. Now that the search arc display feature has opened a lot of eyes, mine included, to how searches have always really been done in WITP and AE I have some questions about the best way to set search arcs for carrier groups.

Right now my carrier task forces have eight carriers, all travelling in the same hex. That means I have eight groups of Vals. If I set them all to 10% search each group can cover 40 degrees of arc (20% if the group has 15 or fewer planes – the game seems to round down at 15 or less, meaning that only one plane is assigned to search), or not quite enough to search 360 degrees around the task forces.

Should more planes be added to the search to try to cover 360 degrees? Or should the searches focus be on the likely direction the enemy will approach? Right now I have one group each searching directions considered possible but unlikely for enemy activity (00 to 90 degrees and 180 to 240 degrees) and two groups each searching directions considered likely for enemy activity (90 to 180 degrees). Directions I consider very unlikely (in this case behind the task forces back towards Luganville, with all its aircraft) are not being searched at all.

And of course the heavy cruisers and battleships with the carriers have float planes and they can cover quite a lot of ground too. Some of them (Petes, for instance) only have a range of 4, but Jakes have a range of 10. Do I use these to cover the areas neglected by the Vals or do I use them to reinforce the “best guess” searches?

It might be possible, I suppose, to gain a potentially decisive advantage in a carrier duel by appearing from an unexpected direction, provided one’s opponent is careless in setting search arcs or is looking for your carriers elsewhere. Or does carefully fussing over search arcs not make that much difference? Any opinions about any of this out there?

---

Setting the arc for Zuikaku’s Vals as my carriers approach Suva:

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton



But is this really how it was done in WITP? I always set my carrier attack planes to 20% search and naval attack. It seems to me that they just about always spoted the enemy in any direction. It this was true then all of my planes in WITP would have been searching the same arc. I doubt that. I hope this is not the case in AE. I really don't want to be messing with search arcs for my carriers and ships. I want the computer to do it and if I got 20 to 30 aircraft searching would expect about every arc to be covered. I wish somebody would clarifiy this.

quote:

I want the computer to do it and if I got 20 to 30 aircraft searching would expect about every arc to be covered. I wish somebody would clarifiy this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

In my game against Allied AI, LBA is dissapointing me, Nell's and Betty's cant hit anything that protected and moves fast. So I recommend you to have atleast 2 big CV's and all small CVL and CVE in Singapore to react on possible attacks on Java and Makassar-Timor bases. And i think Yamato better to be stationed with few BB's there too.

In my experience against AI, torpedo-armed Netties fare well against early war Allied ships above DD. Unfortunately, they need very tight fighter cover. Although I suppose there were enough time to train up IJA Sally units for naval attacks in this game (don't remember any mention of them used anywhere for a long time), so Netties won't be alone and swamping enemy by sheer numbers is still an option, as long, as there are several good airfields in range.

Also, I think that splitting KB is folly in this sutuation. On the contrary, assuming that Allies have their carriers intact, I would consider forming 2 taskforces out of 6 original KB carriers and Junyo + Hiyo and use them closely together. Otherwise, Allies can probably bring significantly superior aircraft numbers to a decisive battle, just by massing all of their fast carriers. Splitting large carriers means that even with LBA cover the battle might happen at unfavorable odds. On the other hand, putting all battleships except Kongos (these, IMO, should escort carriers) into DEI or close to DEI (say, on Babeldaob), while CVs guard the Pacific, might be sensible. There they can fight under plenty of land-based air, and if the entire battleline sails together, Allies probably cannot quite match them in surface combat yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

With 1 CS al 360 are searched :) and all CA's and CL'S must have Jake onboard too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
CF,

Could you list your warship losses to this point?

quote:

And the work of taking all those little green dots continues. There are even a few actual bases out there I haven’t picked up. I will probably be working on this into early ’43.

quote:

So far Japan's warship losses are three light cruisers and eleven destroyers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

So far Japan's warship losses are three light cruisers and eleven destroyers.

Including, of course, THE destroyer.

quote:

I also wish I knew how easy it is for him to push supply through the jungle to his advancing units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Some very interesting and highly readable insights into your thinking. As I posted in Q-Ball's AAR, this is currently the most involving game going!

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Are you saving your LBA for later, or the problem is in the lack of suitable airfields for a massed strike, Cuttlefish?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Cuttlefish, I'm sure you've given it plenty of thought, but is not responding with naval force an option?

You now know he has plenty of CAP, and thus plenty of carriers. I'm guessing you could also calculate the chances of actually stopping the invasion when you know the number of transports involved, or have a rough estimate.

Let's assume you send KB and the Combined Fleet there. You lose a few capital ships, and, say, 2 carriers. He also loses a few capital ships and 2 carriers. It won't hurt him, but you're in trouble if your carriers go down with your elite pilots.

Attacking an invading force is basically a gut reaction, many military doctrines emphasize immediate counterattack. However, those counterattacks should be sensible. You would
be putting a lot of equipment you can't lose at risk, and Q-Ball doesn't have much he can't afford to lose. The chances of sinking an entire division in their transports so they won't come back are pretty small, and he will eventually have plenty of every kind of ship.

Instead of reacting to him, perhaps you could save your forces to fight another day. Take a deep breath, swallow the bitter loss of Timor (you could break up the forces at/around Dili and send a detachment away on a transport so the unit will at least come back when the forces remaining on Timor are destroyed), and plan a counteroffensive.

You're reacting to him without a solid plan or intel, a usually disastrous enterprise for Japan: Midway and basically every large naval battle after mid-1943 are good examples. He might be trying to pull you into a war of attrition in a fairly remote area (like Guadalcanal) with little chance of stopping an Allied avalanche considering that he's right next to northern Australia and has plenty of troops and equipment to spare.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, it's your war after all, but you are going to miss every ship, plane and pilot you would lose, and Q-Ball isn't going to miss any ship, plane or pilot you get, no matter how many.