Fighter Sweeps

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Fighter Sweeps

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 >> After Action Reports >> Fighter Sweeps

Page: << < prev 87 88 [89] 90 91 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Fighter Sweeps - 9/27/2011 2:35:36 AM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

I am not sure GreyJoy if the results of his fighter sweeps demonstrate pilot proficiency or an exploitation of a weakness in the programing of the game. Certainly I read about stratosphric sweeps and HR about reducing sweep altitudes to an agreed maneuver band. Since no home rule is in your game -- sweeping is an effective tool no matter the state of the pilot experince. But its not the pilot effectiveness it's how the game works.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2641

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 2:39:53 AM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

quote:

The turn starts with a horrible news... 4 Mavis arrived at night over Tulagi and, despite the usual Kingfisher CAp, managed to put a torp into South dakota...
The big proud ship is now limping back...will try to reach Sydney...with 30 sys and 30 flt damage...she'll be out till 1944 more or less...if she ever makes it... a strong escort of 8 DDs is given to her...but cannot say i'm not depressed...a lucky hit and i lose one of my 5 fast battleships...

You have Noumea. You have ARs. You have an ARD. Noumea should be built to a level 7 port and there should be at least the one ARD and 2 ARs in port. With 200+ Naval Support you could have your BB back in shape quite quickly.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2642

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 3:51:19 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

I'm with Dan Nichols on that one. I love ARDs and I usually send the first one to Noumea. An ARD will fix the South Dak's flotation damage fairly quickly.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 2643

RE: Fighter Sweeps - 9/27/2011 9:01:03 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

I am not sure GreyJoy if the results of his fighter sweeps demonstrate pilot proficiency or an exploitation of a weakness in the programing of the game. Certainly I read about stratosphric sweeps and HR about reducing sweep altitudes to an agreed maneuver band. Since no home rule is in your game -- sweeping is an effective tool no matter the state of the pilot experince. But its not the pilot effectiveness it's how the game works.

We have the HR that says the max alt for sweeps and CAP is determined by the second best mvr altitude.
So the Georges always sweep at 31k max
At that height i have the corsairs and the P-38s, while the P-40s and the Spits stay below 20k and the Hellcats and P-47s fly at 31k> ...so his pilots are effective when flown in proper conditions

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2644

RE: Fighter Sweeps - 9/27/2011 9:03:30 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

John, Dan, CC...i see...thanks for the Infos. I'll try to put the damaged BB to Noumea with the ARD so...the latter being so slow to move that it's a real PITA to move it around

...

pretty fast to repair 30 flt?? I remember when Saratoga ate a torp in 1942...it took her 60 days to repair at PH...

However i have no choices, so better not to complain and get back to work

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 2645

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 9:23:26 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Where are your nightfighter squads hanging out now?

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2646

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 9:29:08 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

I only have 1 night fighter squadron, arrived 1 month ago at Eastern USA and now en route from PH to Suva (it's a Ventura Squadron)... the other one i have is at Karachi (a british NF squadron)...

Couldn't do more...

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 2647

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 1:07:35 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

Even day fighters tasked to fly at night will seriously degrade the bombers accuracy. That is a good place for a unit of P-39Ds.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 2648

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 1:53:41 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Even day fighters tasked to fly at night will seriously degrade the bombers accuracy. That is a good place for a unit of P-39Ds.

I know...the previous turns i had a marine Hellcat squadron set to patrol above my fleet...but that turn i withdrew it because i didn't want to lose PPs...and i forgot to substitute it ...

However...we've done another turn...
His Mavis attacked again at night while we were bombing Thousands...no hits this time

His Georges came in again and found only a couple of squadrons on Hellcats over Tulagi (i moved my fleet and my CAP to Lunga)...the battles were furious and we achieved a good 2-1 in our favour (41 vs 82)...however it is still clear that his pilots aren't bad at all, nor his planes surclassed.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GreyJoy -- 9/27/2011 10:40:39 PM >

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 2649

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 6:52:35 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

"Surclassed" GJ, I think you just invented a new word. And, it is a pretty useful one at that.

I am addding it to my vocabulary right now.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 2650

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 9:20:59 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Sorry guys...bad day at work...don't have time to update...just to let you know that we arrived at the 22nd of August...nothing happened. After the last 4 days of air battles over Tulagi Rader took a pause... Tomorrow we'll bomb Auki with a light naval force, covered by the Lee TF (BB Massachusset and Indiana+ CA Wichita + 4 CLs + 8 Fletchers DDs)

I'll try to give a better update tomorrow...

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 2651

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 9:37:49 PM

Cribtop

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

To answer a question from Crackaces, I think he's recalling a discussion from another thread in which it was mentioned that the pilot co-ordination penalties for CVs don't seem as bad as advertised. Not sure I said that as I usually play Japan and thus suffer less from co-ord penalties, but I believe that idea was floated in the thread. As you mention, there is still the "all your eggs in one basket" issue and the fact that only 15 ships contribute to AA defenses. Bottom line, I suspect something between a Death Star and a single CV TF is optimal, especially when factoring in that DDs and CLAAs are somehow always in short supply even for the Allies.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 2652

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 10:34:54 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

To answer a question from Crackaces, I think he's recalling a discussion from another thread in which it was mentioned that the pilot co-ordination penalties for CVs don't seem as bad as advertised. Not sure I said that as I usually play Japan and thus suffer less from co-ord penalties, but I believe that idea was floated in the thread. As you mention, there is still the "all your eggs in one basket" issue and the fact that only 15 ships contribute to AA defenses. Bottom line, I suspect something between a Death Star and a single CV TF is optimal, especially when factoring in that DDs and CLAAs are somehow always in short supply even for the Allies.

Soon i'll know...
In few weeks my CV force will be assembled. 9 CVs and 3 CVLs will form our mobile carrier force. Which is the coordination limit for 1943? 200 planes? I'm planning to create 5 different CV/CVLs TFs, with 8 DDs each, the Old CAs and the new Cleveland Class CLs.
These forces, if well moved, could be backed up by 9 CVEs...not bad if i manage not to screw up everything with one of my well-known stupid moves

We're also ready to move towards Multan in India. 1,000,000 of supplies at Karachi and an army of 10,000 AVs, with lots of armour and AAs...P-38s and P-47s are ready to LRCAP our army, while a group of 120 4Es will be ready in 1 week (waiting for the pilots to be transfered).

We're respecting our timetable. October will be the month of our general offensive

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 2653

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 10:49:11 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

To answer a question from Crackaces, I think he's recalling a discussion from another thread in which it was mentioned that the pilot co-ordination penalties for CVs don't seem as bad as advertised. Not sure I said that as I usually play Japan and thus suffer less from co-ord penalties, but I believe that idea was floated in the thread. As you mention, there is still the "all your eggs in one basket" issue and the fact that only 15 ships contribute to AA defenses. Bottom line, I suspect something between a Death Star and a single CV TF is optimal, especially when factoring in that DDs and CLAAs are somehow always in short supply even for the Allies.

Soon i'll know...
In few weeks my CV force will be assembled. 9 CVs and 3 CVLs will form our mobile carrier force. Which is the coordination limit for 1943? 200 planes? I'm planning to create 5 different CV/CVLs TFs, with 8 DDs each, the Old CAs and the new Cleveland Class CLs.
These forces, if well moved, could be backed up by 9 CVEs...not bad if i manage not to screw up everything with one of my well-known stupid moves

We're also ready to move towards Multan in India. 1,000,000 of supplies at Karachi and an army of 10,000 AVs, with lots of armour and AAs...P-38s and P-47s are ready to LRCAP our army, while a group of 120 4Es will be ready in 1 week (waiting for the pilots to be transfered).

We're respecting our timetable. October will be the month of our general offensive

quote:

The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in
the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following
circumstances:

�� Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
�� Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
�� Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the
number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

So I read here that some number comes from a die roll in 1943 from 150 - 300 and once obtained if current flights > total .. the mission is going to go into the "uncoordinated algoithums" As per the rules I wold assume the algorithum also takes in account weather, leadership, along with:

quote:

Coordination of attack is determined by several factors. Type of Aircraft, altitude selection, and point of origin all
help discriminate coordination such that it is more difficult to mount massive raids of several
different types of aircraft. The result is a smaller, more selective raid formation

But in Cribtop's thread the disscusion was really "So what?" I think Cribtop's thoughts here are worth their weight in that numbers of ships that actively particapte in defense and DD/CL escorts are a much more limiting factor compared to the risk of an uncoordinated strike. Nice input Cribtop, I got something out of the disscussion.

I did find it interesting that the IJNAF is uncorrdinated equal to the Allies in 1944 -- 200 + a random number of 1-200. But 500 aircraft in a death star is going to see this algorithum (400 is maximum on the good side) and affect both sides equallly.

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 9/27/2011 10:52:07 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 2654

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 10:49:32 PM

Cribtop

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

Good. 8 DDs will help with the sub menace as mentioned previously. You might want to read the thread about Cannonfodder's good day vs Arnhem on the main boards as you consider how to protect the CVs from surface threats.

Finally, none of what I'm saying should necessarily be read as an endorsement to use your CVs too much yet. Pick your spots.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 2655

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 11:11:09 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

To answer a question from Crackaces, I think he's recalling a discussion from another thread in which it was mentioned that the pilot co-ordination penalties for CVs don't seem as bad as advertised. Not sure I said that as I usually play Japan and thus suffer less from co-ord penalties, but I believe that idea was floated in the thread. As you mention, there is still the "all your eggs in one basket" issue and the fact that only 15 ships contribute to AA defenses. Bottom line, I suspect something between a Death Star and a single CV TF is optimal, especially when factoring in that DDs and CLAAs are somehow always in short supply even for the Allies.

Soon i'll know...
In few weeks my CV force will be assembled. 9 CVs and 3 CVLs will form our mobile carrier force. Which is the coordination limit for 1943? 200 planes? I'm planning to create 5 different CV/CVLs TFs, with 8 DDs each, the Old CAs and the new Cleveland Class CLs.
These forces, if well moved, could be backed up by 9 CVEs...not bad if i manage not to screw up everything with one of my well-known stupid moves

We're also ready to move towards Multan in India. 1,000,000 of supplies at Karachi and an army of 10,000 AVs, with lots of armour and AAs...P-38s and P-47s are ready to LRCAP our army, while a group of 120 4Es will be ready in 1 week (waiting for the pilots to be transfered).

We're respecting our timetable. October will be the month of our general offensive

quote:

The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in
the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following
circumstances:

�� Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
�� Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
�� Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the
number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

So I read here that some number comes from a die roll in 1943 from 150 - 300 and once obtained if current flights > total .. the mission is going to go into the "uncoordinated algoithums" As per the rules I wold assume the algorithum also takes in account weather, leadership, along with:

quote:

Coordination of attack is determined by several factors. Type of Aircraft, altitude selection, and point of origin all
help discriminate coordination such that it is more difficult to mount massive raids of several
different types of aircraft. The result is a smaller, more selective raid formation

But in Cribtop's thread the disscusion was really "So what?" I think Cribtop's thoughts here are worth their weight in that numbers of ships that actively particapte in defense and DD/CL escorts are a much more limiting factor compared to the risk of an uncoordinated strike. Nice input Cribtop, I got something out of the disscussion.

I did find it interesting that the IJNAF is uncorrdinated equal to the Allies in 1944 -- 200 + a random number of 1-200. But 500 aircraft in a death star is going to see this algorithum (400 is maximum on the good side) and affect both sides equallly.

You should look at the red highlighted portion. The possibility is doubled. To me that means that if you have excellent commanders and pilots the chance of an uncoordinated attack is still low. It is never a zero percent chance, but having good commanders should make it as low as possible.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2656

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/27/2011 11:37:34 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

John, Dan, CC...i see...thanks for the Infos. I'll try to put the damaged BB to Noumea with the ARD so...the latter being so slow to move that it's a real PITA to move it around...

pretty fast to repair 30 flt?? I remember when Saratoga ate a torp in 1942...it took her 60 days to repair at PH...

However i have no choices, so better not to complain and get back to work

I think if you repair the system damage she will be in good enough shape to head for a stateside repair. system damage is pumps and things so ships usually will not lose much floatation. Actually,don't be surprised if your damage control starts to fix some of this stuff at sea, your damage control should be pretty good and getting better. I'm not sure how floatation damage works. Is it based on tonnage or is there some random factor. I've had 2 CV's with 35 flotation and one got fixed in a month and the other took 3. I do know if the torpedo hit your engines and you got engine and flotation damaged you are in for a long visit stateside. I think your stateside drydocks (there are 2 near San Fran) are big, and they might be empty so if you get here there you can fix her as at a critical level. Trick is getting her stateside. 8 DD's might be overkill. If system damage is low, good escorts and a weird route will help. When she is a few days out put evry thing you can into her TF and maybe setup some other ASW task forces. Same goes for Pearl. I'm betting if you don't get any sub trouble, she makes it.

< Message edited by JohnDillworth -- 9/27/2011 11:38:34 PM >

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 2657

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 2:57:06 AM

Cribtop

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

Yep, clear the minor SYS and minor FLOT damage and she should be able to make Pearl or SF so long as you don't meet any I-boats.

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2658

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 4:57:34 AM

pwarner328

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/16/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

To answer a question from Crackaces, I think he's recalling a discussion from another thread in which it was mentioned that the pilot co-ordination penalties for CVs don't seem as bad as advertised. Not sure I said that as I usually play Japan and thus suffer less from co-ord penalties, but I believe that idea was floated in the thread. As you mention, there is still the "all your eggs in one basket" issue and the fact that only 15 ships contribute to AA defenses. Bottom line, I suspect something between a Death Star and a single CV TF is optimal, especially when factoring in that DDs and CLAAs are somehow always in short supply even for the Allies.

maybe 3 or 4 cvs in a tf??

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 2659

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 5:29:07 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

To answer a question from Crackaces, I think he's recalling a discussion from another thread in which it was mentioned that the pilot co-ordination penalties for CVs don't seem as bad as advertised. Not sure I said that as I usually play Japan and thus suffer less from co-ord penalties, but I believe that idea was floated in the thread. As you mention, there is still the "all your eggs in one basket" issue and the fact that only 15 ships contribute to AA defenses. Bottom line, I suspect something between a Death Star and a single CV TF is optimal, especially when factoring in that DDs and CLAAs are somehow always in short supply even for the Allies.

In my opinion the coordination penalty is less of a factor than the reaction penalty for multiple Task forces. You might have coordination problems with one or two big TFs but this is better to me than having one or two smaller TFs react away from your main body and into the teeth of the enemy fleet and getting slaughtered. For this reason alone I keep my carriers in big groups.

This is a no brainer for me....

< Message edited by crsutton -- 9/28/2011 5:31:09 AM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 2660

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 6:44:45 AM

Cribtop

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

crsutton really nails that point re reactions - a bad reaction can ruin your whole day. But yes, I tend to think about 4 CVs or their equivalents in CVL work. If you get too many CVs, you start to lose slots for escorts assuming you want to stick to 15 ships. On occasion it's worth it to slightly violate the 15 ship rule, IMHO, but not by too much.

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 9/28/2011 6:45:16 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 2661

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 6:59:46 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

Cribtop: What is your favorite number of CVEs in a TF? I've used as many as 10, but I get the odd sunk one now and then due to a Betty kami or SS torp, so I'm not sure if that's too many vs. the number of effective escorts or what.

In GreyJoy's case, I'd recommend organizing three CV TFs of 3 CV and 1 CVL each, plus one fast BB per TF to hopefully act as a 250kg sponge. I would also have at least one night fighter squadron per fleet(i.e. one for the fast carriers, one for the CVEs).

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 2662

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 8:06:41 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Hi guys,

hard to tell sincerly which composition is the best one. It seems to me that there are 2 different "phylosophies". The one which prefers the importance of not having uncoordinated strikes and the one which prefers a solid and strong CVTF in order to riminish the risk of the unwanted reactions.
With the first you are forced not to use your best CV leaders (those with high aggression ratings) and you are forced to use many more escorts than needed, with the second one you risk to see your planes get slaughtered in a serie of uless uncoordinated strikes. There are very good players who advocates in favor of both of these phylosophies so i really think it's a matter of taste...and a bit of luck.

Considering the role that will be assigned to my CVs in this first phase of the allied counteroffensive i think i'll shift towards the composition which gives me the best possible CAP. However i haven't completely made up my mind yet...

"surclassed" ? LOL

i wanted to say "outclassed"...

it's a mix of french (surclasser) and english i think..."frenglish" so to say

This afternoon (GMT) i'll be able to make a comprehensive report about the last 3 turns (6 days)...

Thanks

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)

Post #: 2663

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 8:10:55 AM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Hi guys,

� hard to tell sincerly which composition is the best one. It seems to me that there are 2 different "phylosophies". The one which prefers the importance of not having uncoordinated strikes and the one which prefers a solid and strong CVTF in order to riminish the risk of the unwanted reactions.
With the first you are forced not to use your best CV leaders (those with high aggression ratings) and you are forced to use many more escorts than needed, with the second one you risk to see your planes get slaughtered in a serie of uless uncoordinated strikes. There are very good players who advocates in favor of both of these phylosophies so i really think it's a matter of taste...and a bit of luck.

Considering the role that will be assigned to my CVs in this first phase of the allied counteroffensive i think i'll shift towards the composition which gives me the best possible CAP. However i haven't completely made up my mind yet...

"surclassed" ? LOL �i wanted to say "outclassed"...�it's a mix of french (surclasser) and english i think..."frenglish" so to say�

This afternoon (GMT) i'll be able to make a comprehensive report about the last 3 turns (6 days)...

Thanks

Uncoordinated strikes I dont think are the main issue, they'll get through sooner or later and when the targets are Jap CVs you dont need many hits. The problem is that a TF might react inside strike range while other TFs stay out, resulting the one TF getting defeated piecemeal(CAP from other TFs doesnt help much, strike A/C WILL get through). Last thing you want is to see 1-3 of your CVs fight the whole KB death star while all the rest of your CV force does is provide leaking CAP cover, if even that.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 9/28/2011 8:12:45 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 2664

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 7:19:44 PM

Cribtop

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

Cody,

Hard for me to advise on CVEs as I usually play Japan. However, IIRC the USN considered 6 CVEs the equal of a fleet CV in aircraft (although not in speed, of course). Six may be too many, but I would start planning based on nothing less than four.

For the IJN CVLs it's a bit different. Post-Midway they preferred groups of 2 CVs plus one modern CVL. IIRC two IJN fleet CVs plus up to four CVLs is usually doable without co-ordination penalties.

_____________________________

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 2665

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/28/2011 7:29:13 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I'm chiming in on the carrier TF makeup belatedly and perhaps ineffectually, but in creating carrier TFs my highest priority is separating my carriers into as many TFs as is reasonably possible to force enemy strikes to spread out. IE, strikes tend to focus on a single TF, so the less carriers I have in a TF the less targets I have. I also like to have a decent number of escorting ships, especially DDs for my TFs. In 1942, this means I usually have two carriers per TF. In 1943 and later, I often have two CVs and a CVL per carrier TF.

I'm aware of the coordination penalty, but that is always subservient to the other two considerations.

As for the react feature, I get clobbered by this all the time. I always set reaction to zero and have my carriers following other TFs like combat or ASW, but that isn't close to being enough. You also have to have very non-aggressive commanders (which usually is synonymous with poor commanders).

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 2666

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/29/2011 12:24:23 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

August 23, 24 1943

We moved our Lee TF towards Thousands and intercepted a fast transport TF composed by 4 APDs, mauling 3 of them with out 16inches guns

.
At the same time a "light" bombardment TF (CA Astoria + 8 old DDs) bombed at night Auki, damaging the AF and several Tojos stationing there.
Then, always at night, Mavis and Frances attacked our Lee TF...the CAP had the upper hand this time, but the CL Boise collided with a Fletcher DD...which sunk immediately

The Boise needs some R&R having 9 flt damage....

Luckly the BB Indiana and the Massachussets are now again in line, after having upgraded their AA guns and radars.

While our last forces are moving to get assembled (fighters squadrons, more troops, ships and CVs), i decided to go for the 3 CV+1 CVL composition. It makes 300 planes for every TF and it gives enough pounch and CAP in the event that our CVs will react... The CVEs will stay togheder in groups of 4 CVEs.
The CVEs will only have fighters on them, and will move along with the amphibious force, while the CVs will back up them, stayin in the shades...for the "Thousands Operation" we won't need any CV close support cause planes will be based at TLT.

Now the real question is....how many APA does a division need? I have several AK but only few APA/AKAs....while i swim in LSTs....

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2667

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/29/2011 1:48:23 AM

Cribtop

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

That Damn Boise is a living terror even when engaging in a friendly fire ramming attack.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 2668

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/29/2011 1:56:58 AM

princep01

Posts: 943
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

Reek, you do know you can convert certain AKs to AP and then APA, correct? It isn't too late to convery some AP to APA and so forth. You will need them....and can't LST also carry infantry and land them effectively? Don't you have a surfeit of LCI and LSM? All these can carry and land infantry effectively (I think).

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 2669

RE: The Stone and the Waves - 9/29/2011 3:37:37 AM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

rough calc is 3 APA + 1 AKA per regiment. LSTs don't carry troops at all, use them for ARM & ART LCUs.

1st big hurdle in Amph ops is AmphTF composition, they can be up to 100 ships! it's v. important to have cruisers and DDs included, to suppress enemy defensive fire, but as these ships expend their hvy-gun ammo, you must cycle in add'l shooters for suppression. w/ 2-day turns, you'll need a greater amnt of shooters initially, since you can't cycle every turn. if you have sufficient DEs, consider using them in the accompanying CVE & ASW TFs.

always turn on 'do not load fuel', transports & LSTs w/ fuel on board burn really well. loading for Amph is a prob - the screens don't show the 20% load-penalty for combat-loading, you've got to do some pencil-calcs on your own. even when i do this correctly, sometimes a significant proportion of a large LCU won't be loaded - usually the 'support' elements. you'll be wanting to bring along generous amnts of supply, too. So for pencil-calcs, look at each LCU's troop/cargo load-sizes, & multiply them by at least 1.25 (for minimum needed) but mebbe more like 1.4 or 1.5 (to include lotsa supply) to get that LCU's amph-load req'ment.

iirc you said you have a ForceHQ, but don't have an AGC? i'm pert sure that a ForceHQ won't help unless it's loaded on an AGC that's part of the AmphTF. CVE TFs can accompany the AmphTF into the target hex, they won't take the shallow-hex air-ops penalty.

Going against the 1000-Islands target, i'd assume you'll want to get in, unload, & get your ships out as fast as possible - in this case go for min supply load, & plan on a quick follow-up TF w/ add'l supplies ASAP. for these TFs, think about Mission Speed to a hex adjacent to the target, way-pointed to arrive on the 2nd day of your 2-day turn. then in orders for D-day, switch to full-speed to maximize unloading time during the next night turn.

your assault on 1000 is a hvy tac prob - it doesn't look like you'll be faced w/ subs, but BB/CA TFs will react, & presumably multiple IJN MTB flotillas are available at the push of a button. so i'd advise you forgo pre-landing BBTF bombardments on D-day, keep your bigboys available to defend the AmphTF.

< Message edited by jmalter -- 9/29/2011 4:51:09 AM >

(in reply to princep01)

Post #: 2670