CVE's

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

CVE's

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 >> CVE's

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

CVE's - 9/7/2010 2:49:55 PM

WriterJWA

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/24/2009
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

Ok ... are CVE's worth anything? I was conducting an amphibious landing on Wewak from Lae and attached a 1 CVE TF in Air Combat mode to follow the transport and bombardment TF (my carriers were busy elsewhere). I set the F4F squadron for Long Range CAP at 100. While conducting landings, a large bomber contingent from Truk came over and routinely bombed by shipping, with absolutely no response from my carrier-based fighters (which I assigned there for this exact reason). The fighter squadron was fresh, never before committed into action.

The damage to my shipping was moderate. I made a successfully landing and took Wewak, but would have liked to retain some of that shipping for my next amphib operation. Plus, I need my CVE's to do their job as the next operation is to me much closer to Truk, or any other Japanese airfields (I'm going after the Admiralty's).

Post #: 1

RE: CVE's - 9/7/2010 4:14:39 PM

radar

Posts: 337
Joined: 11/17/2007
From: Dayton, Ohio
Status: offline

You have two questions here.

The first, are your CVEs worth anything? In UV the short answer is not much. CVE Long Island seems to be useful only as a ferry to take SDBs and TBs to bases too distant for flying. There's not enough aircraft capacity to have a legimate attack group. Its lack of speed is problematic as well. The other CVEs can be put to good use as part of an escort TF for important supply or troop transport TFs. Using them in range of strong Japanese land-based airfields (or the KB)without some of your fleet CVs or long range CAP is risky, because they don't have the capacity to provide fighter protection for the ship while escorting the bombers on missions.

The second question involves the failure to launch missions. This is really an issue with air crew experience and the numbers of escorts available as much as the CVEs themselves, although they are related, again because of the lack of CVE capacity. There are a myriad of reasons as to why missions do not launch on CVEs, CVs or at LBAs. You should be able to find other UV threads that deal with these issues much better than I can explain them. But air crew experience below 60 is certainly one of them.

_____________________________

USS Terry (DD-513) � Battle of the Atlantic, Solomon and Marianas Islands campaigns and the Battle of Iwo Jima

(in reply to WriterJWA)

Post #: 2

RE: CVE's - 9/7/2010 5:14:41 PM

Kingfisher

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/16/2008
Status: offline

One CVE is not going to provide anything in the way of CAP coverage even if the airwing is set at 100%.

The reason is each starts out with only 10 fighters, and from that you deduct rotation to refuel / rearm, pilot fatigue, Op loss and of course having what is airborne having to cover several sectors. Take all that into consideration and you are truly blessed if 1-2 fighters find themselves in the right place and time when the waves of Bettys arrive from Truk.

Best to assemble multiple CVEs, or better yet pair them up with a fleet carrier (Wasp or a CVL) and radar equipped escorts to get the most bang for your buck.

Also, do not place the carriers in the same hex as the landing beach. CAP flying from a carrier that is parked in a shallow water hex will be reduced by 25% (IIRC). That alone is all the more reason to assemble multiple carriers to 'phib Ops - one can provide CAP to the landing zone and the other to the TF.

_____________________________

"splendid was their tactic of diving upon our force from the direction of the sun, taking advantage of intermittent clouds"

-Captain Takahisa Amagai, KAGA, June 4th 1942

(in reply to radar)

Post #: 3

RE: CVE's - 9/8/2010 3:32:05 AM

borner

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

yes, CVE's are useful. Put good escorts with them and sail them in the same hex as your main carriers if you can afford to move slowly. The more planes you can get in the area the better. also, you will be shocked at the punishment they can take and make it back to port.

to the other points, never put your carriers in an invasion hex. First, IJN mines are DEADLY in this game. secondly, your flight rates are cut in half in a coastal hex.
LRCAP missions have a tendancy to cover what the AI wants them to cover unless you order them to a specific hex or TF.

Finally, take care not to judge the game by how the AI plays.

(in reply to Kingfisher)

Post #: 4

RE: CVE's - 9/8/2010 8:06:37 PM

WriterJWA

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/24/2009
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

yes, CVE's are useful. Put good escorts with them and sail them in the same hex as your main carriers if you can afford to move slowly. The more planes you can get in the area the better. also, you will be shocked at the punishment they can take and make it back to port.

to the other points, never put your carriers in an invasion hex. First, IJN mines are DEADLY in this game. secondly, your flight rates are cut in half in a coastal hex.
LRCAP missions have a tendancy to cover what the AI wants them to cover unless you order them to a specific hex or TF.

Finally, take care not to judge the game by how the AI plays.

Judging the AI? Naw ... I love the game, AI regardless. It's as detailed as it is action packed!

_____________________________

Jay
USMC '98-'06
0311-4341

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Omar Bradley

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. "
- Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 5