IJN question...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

IJN question...

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 >> IJN question...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

IJN question... - 3/10/2014 9:16:29 AM

JockJimmy

Posts: 37
Joined: 5/17/2013
Status: offline

Hi, I am giving thought to ASW protection for my convoys. I'm thinking of using AVs (a/c cap 9) as close in protection. So my question is: how best to organise this?

ie. (i)Have the AV within the convoy, or as part of a separate TF?
(ii)The range, and arcs for the a/c. Will setting range 0 and arc 001 to 359 simply put them over the convoy (which is what I really want) or will I have to adjust the arcs every turn so that they "lead" the direction of travel?

Thanks, as always, in advance.
JJ.

Post #: 1

RE: IJN question... - 3/10/2014 12:07:19 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JockJimmy

Hi, I am giving thought to ASW protection for my convoys. I'm thinking of using AVs (a/c cap 9) as close in protection. So my question is: how best to organise this?

ie. (i)Have the AV within the convoy, or as part of a separate TF?
(ii)The range, and arcs for the a/c. Will setting range 0 and arc 001 to 359 simply put them over the convoy (which is what I really want) or will I have to adjust the arcs every turn so that they "lead" the direction of travel?

Thanks, as always, in advance.
JJ.

Embed it in the convoy (only works for a cargo convoy, not TK). Don't set search arcs. No need from a convoy and they work better 360 when you're moving. (I very rarely set search arcs, anyway).

Either set some % ASW and some search, like 40% ASW 30% search 30% rest, or set to 50% night search.

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/10/2014 1:07:57 PM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JockJimmy)

Post #: 2

RE: IJN question... - 3/10/2014 12:16:45 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

You want point blank defense, or a couple hexes max. so no arc needed.

I think the benefit of the AV for convoy defense is that you can also use the ship's freight capacity. So I would put AVs inside the convoy. (CVEs I won't)

Understand that FPs are more impacted by weather, thus, you can expect them flying not as often as carrier planes. You will have to complement this idea with land based ASW and naval search + subchaser/ DD groups

Finally you will need to use well trained ASW pilots, otherwise, there are good chances the AV will be just another nice SS target

_____________________________

(in reply to JockJimmy)

Post #: 3

RE: IJN question... - 3/10/2014 2:33:24 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

I used CVEs in my Transport TFs as Japan and they worked great. Considering how crappy Japan's CVEs are, this made them useful for something

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 4

RE: IJN question... - 3/10/2014 2:54:04 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I used CVEs in my Transport TFs as Japan and they worked great. Considering how crappy Japan's CVEs are, this made them useful for something

Eh... I like the CVEs in with MKB. Yes, they only have 9 TBs and only 18 torps, but when you have 6 CVEs with 21 Zeroes and 9 Kates each, that's a decent little strike package. Plus their speed isn't that far off of the "real" CVLs, Hiyo/Junyo and the later Mizuho/Nisshin if you convert those.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 5

RE: IJN question... - 3/10/2014 7:14:19 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I used CVEs in my Transport TFs as Japan and they worked great. Considering how crappy Japan's CVEs are, this made them useful for something

Eh... I like the CVEs in with MKB. Yes, they only have 9 TBs and only 18 torps, but when you have 6 CVEs with 21 Zeroes and 9 Kates each, that's a decent little strike package. Plus their speed isn't that far off of the "real" CVLs, Hiyo/Junyo and the later Mizuho/Nisshin if you convert those.

+1

Every little bit helps. Also, I'd rather not lose them in an ASW role to an Allied sub, and they will generally have more air search, better ASW and surface patrols if they are with the KB. I would rather get a CVE hit by a sub that a CV though, so that's another reason to have them there instead of with the tanker convoys. Plus, you can make more AVs, you can't convert xAK to CVE.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 6

RE: IJN question... - 3/10/2014 8:53:09 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I used CVEs in my Transport TFs as Japan and they worked great. Considering how crappy Japan's CVEs are, this made them useful for something

Eh... I like the CVEs in with MKB. Yes, they only have 9 TBs and only 18 torps, but when you have 6 CVEs with 21 Zeroes and 9 Kates each, that's a decent little strike package. Plus their speed isn't that far off of the "real" CVLs, Hiyo/Junyo and the later Mizuho/Nisshin if you convert those.

+1

Every little bit helps. Also, I'd rather not lose them in an ASW role to an Allied sub, and they will generally have more air search, better ASW and surface patrols if they are with the KB. I would rather get a CVE hit by a sub that a CV though, so that's another reason to have them there instead of with the tanker convoys. Plus, you can make more AVs, you can't convert xAK to CVE.

This doesn't hold for the later "CVE Marus", as I call them, but of course I don't even build those anyway. They're basically xAKs with flight capabilities. If they came earlier in the war, they might be worthwhile, but it's impossible to get them out before sometime in 1944 if I'm remembering correctly.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 7

RE: IJN question... - 4/7/2014 3:59:10 PM

Skyros

Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline

I always wondered if the Mizuho's conversion has a typo in it, according to the editor the CS Mizuho has 27 listed in the armor with weapon None for the 12/42 conversion to CVL. It gets the actual weapon device and the same number of Torpedoes on 7/44. The other three CS's get torpedoes when they first convert.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 8

RE: IJN question... - 4/7/2014 4:32:54 PM

GreyJoy

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

For the big convoys full of TKs I have used several AVs along with one CVE with 20 a/c of capacity. 20 Kates with pilots skilled in ASW and 9x5 Jakes on Nav search have worked wonders for me to keep the enemy's subs honest. I've got my CVEs torpedoed twice, but only 2 TKs until april 1944

(in reply to Skyros)

Post #: 9

RE: IJN question... - 4/7/2014 4:54:01 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

This has been my experience as well.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 10

RE: IJN question... - 4/8/2014 11:30:00 AM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

In my game Hosho with 18 Jeans with good ASW pilots goes to sub choke points by May 43 I think I have bagged or damaged 10 allied subs with just this.
Also she follows the KB to detect and ward off subs.

As Japan - if you do not know the value of every ship you will loose fast...

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 11