Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question from Neptune's Inferno

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Question from Neptune's Inferno Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 3:57:46 AM   
Lifer

 

Posts: 384
Joined: 6/8/2003
From: Caprica
Status: offline 		First off, no catcalls or derisive laughter. I enjoyed the book but have a question that relates to gameplay. The author talks about the US CVs having a "duty " carrier that would assume responsibility for CAP over the fleet and the majority of the search planes sent for the day. Has anyone tried this concept within the game? I played through the "Return to Wake" scenario a few times but I not confident enough at this point to say the concept works. If one CVTF is following a second, does CAP over one cover the second? Does the carrier coordination penalty apply for the total plans sent on a strike or for all planes in the hex?

Greg

_____________________________

Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second.
Ardant du Picq
Post #: 1
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 4:12:34 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline 		Not sure how it works in game, but Shattered Sword describes how KB employed the same theory as a matter of doctrine, at least during the transit from the Home Islands to Midway.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lifer)
Post #: 2
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 4:49:40 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline 		Sometimes i'll have a CV TF where one of the DB sqns has a range advantage over the others, and it'll become the dedicated 'Search' sqn. IIRC it was an SB2C sqn that i withheld an upgrade on b/c of it's greater range than the SBD's in the TF. But i had to keep an eye on it so it didn't get overheated, from morale decrease and higher service rating.

If TF2 is in the same hex as TF1, TF1's CAP will cover it. If TF2 is 1 or 2 hexes away, only a limited %age of TF1's CAP will cover TF2.

IME, the coord penalty applies per TF, & 2 TFs in the same hex aren't penalized, assuming they're each good separately. But I usually keep them in adjacent hexes if i've got enough ASW to provide coverage for both.


(in reply to Lifer)
Post #: 3
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 5:07:54 AM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I've just always gone with all fighters on escort with 40% cap, all DB's on naval attack with 20% nav search, and all TB's on naval attack (without any search or asw). If I'm in a sub infested area I'll have some DB's on asw, but otherwise I leave it up to the escorts to deal with random subs.

I think having a dedicated nav search squadron would take a fair bit of micromanagement, shifting the load from squadron to squadron every couple days. My way I just send the carriers off on their mission, set the fighters, DB's, and TB's, and then set to all carrier AC in the hex. I dont worry about adjusting settings till the situation changes. Saves on the fiddling.

(in reply to Lifer)
Post #: 4
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 6:35:56 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Not sure how it works in game, but Shattered Sword describes how KB employed the same theory as a matter of doctrine, at least during the transit from the Home Islands to Midway.

In this case I wont take up the tactic

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 5
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 5:42:26 PM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Jeffk, I actually laughed at that one!

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 6
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 7:40:19 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		I'm reading that book right now, between turns.  I never knew of this tactic either until reading about it in the book.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 7
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 8:01:45 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Not sure how it works in game, but Shattered Sword describes how KB employed the same theory as a matter of doctrine, at least during the transit from the Home Islands to Midway.

In this case I wont take up the tactic


LOL! Probably wise. Limiting CAP or search functions to a single CV means that if anything goes wrong with that ship (sub torp, for example), you are naked that day. Redundancy is good!

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 8
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 9:46:59 PM   
tblersch

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 8/4/2004
Status: offline 		I question the quality of that book in general (yes, I've read it), and this idea of a "duty carrier" for CAP I find particularly questionable for one simple reason: American doctrine in 1942 was to operate carriers in single-carrier task forces, each employed as a separate tactical entity. While that was evolving by late 1942, it appears to have held true for Santa Cruz (where Hornet and Enterprise were operating separately and apparently each flying their own CAP, near as I can tell from Frank's "Guadalcanal".) For the battle of the Eastern Solomons, I can't find anything, but I have a hard time believing the practice of a "duty carrier" would have been practical given Fletcher's practice of rotating his carrier TFs out of the immediate area for refuelling.

Of course, Enterprise did provide CAP for Hornet during the Doolittle raids...but what about that was doctrinaire to begin with?

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 9
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/23/2011 10:49:51 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		The concept of a "duty carrier" was used by the USN in 1942. From USS Enterprise Action Report of 24 August 1942 (Battle of Eastern Solomons):

"On August 23, 1942, ENTERPRISE was duty carrier for Task Force SIXTY-ONE (Task Forces ELEVEN and SIXTEEN were present), and conducted the early morning search."

Source: http://www.cv6.org/ship/logs/action19420824.htm

USS Wasp was sunk when being duty carrier and performing search and ASW missions.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to tblersch)
Post #: 10
RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno - 7/24/2011 8:21:21 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tblersch

I question the quality of that book in general (yes, I've read it), and this idea of a "duty carrier" for CAP I find particularly questionable for one simple reason: American doctrine in 1942 was to operate carriers in single-carrier task forces, each employed as a separate tactical entity. While that was evolving by late 1942, it appears to have held true for Santa Cruz (where Hornet and Enterprise were operating separately and apparently each flying their own CAP, near as I can tell from Frank's "Guadalcanal".) For the battle of the Eastern Solomons, I can't find anything, but I have a hard time believing the practice of a "duty carrier" would have been practical given Fletcher's practice of rotating his carrier TFs out of the immediate area for refuelling.

Of course, Enterprise did provide CAP for Hornet during the Doolittle raids...but what about that was doctrinaire to begin with?


You should read "Black Shoe Carrier Admiral" and the "First Team" books also by John Lundstrom. As LargeSlowTarget said, a "duty carrier" was standard ops procedure.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to tblersch)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Question from Neptune's Inferno 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

1.047