American Carrier 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

American Carrier 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 >> American Carrier question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

American Carrier question - 8/6/2020 11:47:28 PM

Remenents

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline

Roughly when do American carriers no longer have a negative modifier when in task forces of more than 1 carrier? Or is my information wrong, and Americans do not have a negative modifier?

_____________________________

Avenge the U.S.S. Houston (CA 30)

Post #: 1

RE: American Carrier question - 8/6/2020 11:57:45 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

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

it is not the # of carriers, it is the # of aircraft
from the manual:

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).

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 8/6/2020 11:58:43 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Remenents)

Post #: 2

RE: American Carrier question - 8/7/2020 7:49:15 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Remenents

Roughly when do American carriers no longer have a negative modifier when in task forces of more than 1 carrier? Or is my information wrong, and Americans do not have a negative modifier?

Roughly January 1943.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Remenents)

Post #: 3

RE: American Carrier question - 8/7/2020 2:54:16 PM

jmalter

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

Thx for this info, it was on my list of 'things I need to look up in the manual.'
I had forgotten that it's the # of aircraft, not the # of carriers, that controls the situation.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 4

RE: American Carrier question - 8/7/2020 3:53:41 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 22% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

Edit: % calculation

< Message edited by Ian R -- 8/8/2020 3:23:51 AM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 5

RE: American Carrier question - 8/7/2020 4:54:31 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 8/7/2020 5:01:35 PM >

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 6

RE: American Carrier question - 8/7/2020 6:09:26 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

It counts all aircraft in the TF, but applies the penalty to the strikes. CAP, Nav Search, ASW etc. are unaffected.

< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 8/7/2020 6:10:41 PM >

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 7

RE: American Carrier question - 8/7/2020 6:16:49 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

It counts all aircraft in the TF, but applies the penalty to the strikes. CAP, Nav Search, ASW etc. are unaffected.

Thank you.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 8

RE: American Carrier question - 8/7/2020 9:49:15 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

It counts all aircraft in the TF, but applies the penalty to the strikes. CAP, Nav Search, ASW etc. are unaffected.

Thank you.

You're welcome. To clarify: all CARRIER based aircraft. Float planes not included.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 9

RE: American Carrier question - 8/8/2020 11:16:02 AM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

If I recall properly, it's only a chance for a coordination penalty, not an automatic lack of coordination, though.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 10

RE: American Carrier question - 8/8/2020 2:15:16 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

If I recall properly, it's only a chance for a coordination penalty, not an automatic lack of coordination, though.

You are correct. "The chance of uncoordination is doubled"

This is the whole section on coordination:

7.2.1.11 COORDINATING STRIKES
Each base or ship containing an air unit is considered a unique entity for purposes of determining
offensive Missions and Escorts. Under certain circumstances planes flying different Missions
and planes flying from different starting points will coordinate their attacks. 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.

During the Resolution Phase the computer forms up air strikes from each base/ship depending
on the orders the air units have been given and the information those units have about the
enemy�s forces. Planes that are performing offensive Missions and their accompanying Escorts,
all flying from the same base/ship to the same target hex, will not necessarily fly together
if they have different Missions.

For example, you could have 3 bomber units flying together from the same airfield, with 1 each
to bomb an airfield, a port and a ground unit within the same target hex. 2 fighter groups flying
escort and another fighter group flying a Sweep Mission could accompany these bombers. A
plane flying a Recon Mission could also accompany them.

If the Bomber groups were the same type (Medium bomber for example) they would stand a
greater chance of coordinating than if they were 1 Dive Bomber group, 1 Attack Bomber Group,
and 1 Light Bomber Group.

Air strikes from different bases/ships flying to the same target hex will approach the Target
together if the range to the target hex is the same. This allows aircraft carriers to coordinate
their attacks. However, before the attacks are made, there is a chance that some of the units
will become separated from each other and this may result in piecemeal attacks on the target.
In addition, a unit may escort attacks originating at another base/ship if the escorting unit has
a Target that matches the target being attacked, and the escorting fighter is closer to the target
than the aircraft being escorted. Occasionally this can occur even if no priority target is set for
the escorting unit.

(Additional Aircraft Carrier coordination considerations:)
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).

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Ambassador)

Post #: 11

RE: American Carrier question - 8/8/2020 5:31:52 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

Well, this quote may be appropriate here, I will quote the entire thing from the article:

quote:

One day he won the training squadron emblem for stupidity: the Flying Jackass, a large aluminum likeness of a donkey, awarded to anyone who broke a safety regulation. He wore it for two weeks until another student pilot won it away from him. Beut he insisted on keeping that particular badge. When he took command of the Saratoga, he said, he would hang it on the bulkhead of his cabin. Any time he got ready to raise hell with some pilot for an infraction of rules, he was going to look at that Flying Jackass and think twice.

Such tales began the legend of Bill Halsey, the only really flying commander of a carrier, and the true aviators got to love him. When he took over his carrier, he continued to add to bits to the legend. From the Saratoga he went to the Enterprise, one of the new carriers of the fleet, as commander of Carrier Division Two [COMCARDIV Two] and he was promoted to admiral. One day a young officer made an error that delayed the launch of planes. Admiral King was present at the time, and King was a noted disciplinarian (who put an end to the advancement of one naval captain because he ran a cruiser aground in a fog trying to get King back to Washington to make an appointment).

'Who was responsible for the delay?' King demanded by signal, and on the bridge of the Enterprise souls quaked as the message was taken to Admiral Halsey's bridge.

'COMCARDIVE Two', was the reply.

There was no further word from the flagship. But on board the Enterprise the story went from keel to masthead. Admiral Halsey was the sort of officer who protected his men, it said
Edwin Hoyt, Closing the Circle

https://leadandgold.blogspot.com/2016/04/lessons-in-leadership-admiral-william.html

So the problems could be anywhere in the system and it takes awhile to train up the efficacy which the Japanese had already apparently done.

He was a Navy Captain in flight school so he could get his wings so he could command the Saratoga.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 12

RE: American Carrier question - 8/8/2020 5:42:08 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 13

RE: American Carrier question - 8/8/2020 5:44:14 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

Hey, don't complain about that - it worked at Midway!

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 14

RE: American Carrier question - 8/8/2020 6:30:18 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

And in this case it does mean a die roll.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 15

RE: American Carrier question - 8/8/2020 11:15:14 PM

fcooke

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

It counts all aircraft in the TF, but applies the penalty to the strikes. CAP, Nav Search, ASW etc. are unaffected.

This is why I try to concentrate Allied CVs early. If they have a target of opportunity, go for it. but I want as many Cats/Buffs on CAP as possible.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 16

RE: American Carrier question - 8/8/2020 11:33:58 PM

fcooke

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline

And the more I learn about Midway, the more I realize how close the US got to a really bad outcome. The land based planes did the best they (not really well trained in naval attack). One CAG completely missed the plot. And Dick Best changing his attack onto the Akagi last minute put her away. Hiryu soldiered on, if Akagi had been with her - who knows. Ytown showed amazing damage control. If the captain had not abandoned ship as quickly as he did, I think she would have made it.

One dogs thoughts.

(in reply to fcooke)

Post #: 17

RE: American Carrier question - 8/9/2020 12:43:06 AM

jdsrae

Posts: 2716
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: Gandangara Country
Status: offline

Each CIC needs to come up with their own answer to this question, depending on the tactical scenario.
Q: is it worth having more aircraft available for defensive CAP duty at higher risk of a coordination penalty for the offensive team?
Most of the time I�d say yes.

The 25 ship limit in a CV task force is another consideration.
Too high a proportion of CVs compared to DDs and the risk probably increases for a submarine attack, and I believe there is a limit to how many ships in the TF add to the close AA umbrella around the CVs.
I read somewhere (I think from an interview with Halsey) that by late war the number of BB+CA+DD that the allies liked having as AA escorts for a 3-4 ship CV Div would be a little over 25. Something like 4CV 2BB 4CA then 16-20 DDs. I remember thinking when I read it �that wouldn�t be possible in WITPAE!� but dropping to 15x DDs would be in the same ballpark.

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to fcooke)

Post #: 18

RE: American Carrier question - 8/9/2020 2:31:05 AM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

The manual indicates that each "ship" (i.e. CV) is treated as a "unit" for determining coordination: not each TF. Therefore, I assume that the penalty is doubled for each CV in the TF. 2 or more CV TFs operating in the same hex will quite often have their CVs coordinate their strikes very well. It seems to me that doubling the chance for each CV to coordinate is not a happy thing and that having multiple CV TFs in the same hex is preferable (although having 2 or more oversized CV TFs seems to be the worst-case scenario). The risk, however, is that one will react while the other will not, separating the 2, their CAP, and strikes, or that a more aggressive CV TF commander will have the CVs in his TF launch an attack, while a less aggressive commander will not: again producing a piecemeal strike. (I have seen whom I suspect is Halsey do this several times resulting in bad things for the allies).

Another thing to consider are the other penalties to large TFs. AA is reduced in TFs above 15 ships, a very important consideration for CV TFs, and the chance of collisions increases with more ships. Literally, every time I create a TF with more than 15 ships, it seems, there is a collision at some point.

(in reply to jdsrae)

Post #: 19

RE: American Carrier question - 8/9/2020 3:19:01 AM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

You can change the CD TF to an escort TF and keep it that way by not having a ship there that can in be a CV TF. The aircraft still fly.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to Alamander)

Post #: 20

RE: American Carrier question - 8/9/2020 4:35:26 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

Hey, don't complain about that - it worked at Midway!

I'm not sure it reliably works that way in the game, unless the CAP was already saturated, or what was available and on standby is surprised (E.G. the IJN didn't have radar and detected it late) and has a short time to climb to DB altitude... so maybe on a 'good'(or 'bad') day, and depending on target die rolls as well, it does work in the game in the sense that is possible that accident of history will be recreated.

I remember Harry Rowland (WiF designer) saying that he thought luck should play a part in that game, to prevent perfect plans, but not so as one die roll swung the whole game. AE seems to me to reflect that philosophy, intentionally or not.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 21

RE: American Carrier question - 8/9/2020 12:06:49 PM

fcooke

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline

IIRC, AA for TFs does not get reduced but the ships over 15 do not add their full 'paper' AA.

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 22

RE: American Carrier question - 8/10/2020 9:36:46 AM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

Hey, don't complain about that - it worked at Midway!

I'm not sure it reliably works that way in the game, unless the CAP was already saturated, or what was available and on standby is surprised (E.G. the IJN didn't have radar and detected it late) and has a short time to climb to DB altitude... so maybe on a 'good'(or 'bad') day, and depending on target die rolls as well, it does work in the game in the sense that is possible that accident of history will be recreated.

I remember Harry Rowland (WiF designer) saying that he thought luck should play a part in that game, to prevent perfect plans, but not so as one die roll swung the whole game. AE seems to me to reflect that philosophy, intentionally or not.

I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes.

That way, I do believe the actual penalty for an actual lack of coordination is lessened compared to the old game, the main contention being unescorted bombers.

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 23

RE: American Carrier question - 8/10/2020 10:33:26 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

...I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes...

Not quite.

Air combat is in two stages. Stage 1 is CAP confronting enemy fighters (fighter v fighter) and stage 2 is CAP confronting enemy bombers (fighter v bomber).

All possible available CAP is involved in stage 1. There are several factors which actually determine exactly how much CAP participates in combat. These factors are much more extensive than were those which applied in classical WITP.

Some time is left separate to resolve stage 2 combat. This is a significant difference with classical WITP in that there CAP had to totally defeat the escorting fighters in stage 1 before they could get to the bombers in stage 2. In AE it is possible that stage 2 will commence even though all enemy escorting fighters have not been defeated in stage 1.

CAP addresses the immediate incoming raid. It doesn't keep some fighter aircraft in reserve for possible follow up enemy raids.

Alfred

(in reply to Ambassador)

Post #: 24

RE: American Carrier question - 8/10/2020 10:35:58 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

...I remember Harry Rowland (WiF designer) saying that he thought luck should play a part in that game, to prevent perfect plans, but not so as one die roll swung the whole game. AE seems to me to reflect that philosophy, intentionally or not.

It is quite intentional in AE. The role of luck is a fundamental principle baked into the AE design.

Alfred

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 25

RE: American Carrier question - 8/10/2020 1:01:43 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is quite intentional in AE. The role of luck is a fundamental principle baked into the AE design.

Alfred

Like in real war.

Sometimes it is better be lucky than good. Noted for to be Napoleon, but:

Cardinal Mazarin, chief minister of France in the 17th century, said.

Mazarin had noted that one must not ask of a general �Est-il habile?� (�Is he skillful?�), but rather �Est-il heureux?� (�Is he lucky?�)

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 26

RE: American Carrier question - 8/11/2020 3:19:50 AM

CaptBeefheart

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

One thing to consider is the possibility of separate CV TFs reacting differently to threats. More than one veteran of this forum has had a Halsey-led TF go ahead of the rest of the Deathstar and get slaughtered, even when set to follow another TF. Another factor is the number of escorts available.

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 27

RE: American Carrier question - 8/11/2020 8:18:25 AM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

...I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes...

Not quite.

Air combat is in two stages. Stage 1 is CAP confronting enemy fighters (fighter v fighter) and stage 2 is CAP confronting enemy bombers (fighter v bomber).

All possible available CAP is involved in stage 1. There are several factors which actually determine exactly how much CAP participates in combat. These factors are much more extensive than were those which applied in classical WITP.

Some time is left separate to resolve stage 2 combat. This is a significant difference with classical WITP in that there CAP had to totally defeat the escorting fighters in stage 1 before they could get to the bombers in stage 2. In AE it is possible that stage 2 will commence even though all enemy escorting fighters have not been defeated in stage 1.

CAP addresses the immediate incoming raid. It doesn't keep some fighter aircraft in reserve for possible follow up enemy raids.

Alfred

Yeah, I got the two stages, but I thought the game split the CAP between the different strike packages before resolving each of them, and that not all planes appearing on CAP during a raid resolution actually participated to that resolution.

Better explaining goes with an example (I'm not a native English speaker).

Say two squadrons of fighters are on CAP (2x25 fighters), with 50% CAP (and no scrambling fighters to simplify), so 25 fighters are on CAP duty during a raid.
Say this raid splits in three due to lack of coordination or whatever (maybe they're not meant).
I thought the game would allocate the CAP complement to the different strike packages, for example like this :
- 12 fighters against strike 1
- 9 fighters against strike 2
- 4 fighters against strike 3
And that during strike 1 resolution, there might appear more than 12 fighters, but they would not take part in the battle.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 28

RE: American Carrier question - 8/11/2020 1:31:05 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

...I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes...

Not quite.

Air combat is in two stages. Stage 1 is CAP confronting enemy fighters (fighter v fighter) and stage 2 is CAP confronting enemy bombers (fighter v bomber).

All possible available CAP is involved in stage 1. There are several factors which actually determine exactly how much CAP participates in combat. These factors are much more extensive than were those which applied in classical WITP.

Some time is left separate to resolve stage 2 combat. This is a significant difference with classical WITP in that there CAP had to totally defeat the escorting fighters in stage 1 before they could get to the bombers in stage 2. In AE it is possible that stage 2 will commence even though all enemy escorting fighters have not been defeated in stage 1.

CAP addresses the immediate incoming raid. It doesn't keep some fighter aircraft in reserve for possible follow up enemy raids.

Alfred

Yeah, I got the two stages, but I thought the game split the CAP between the different strike packages before resolving each of them, and that not all planes appearing on CAP during a raid resolution actually participated to that resolution.

Better explaining goes with an example (I'm not a native English speaker).

Say two squadrons of fighters are on CAP (2x25 fighters), with 50% CAP (and no scrambling fighters to simplify), so 25 fighters are on CAP duty during a raid.
Say this raid splits in three due to lack of coordination or whatever (maybe they're not meant).
I thought the game would allocate the CAP complement to the different strike packages, for example like this :
- 12 fighters against strike 1
- 9 fighters against strike 2
- 4 fighters against strike 3
And that during strike 1 resolution, there might appear more than 12 fighters, but they would not take part in the battle.

Using your very simplified exemplar.

1. When strike 1 is detected, the defender does not know that a strike 2, strike 3 is incoming, hence all 25 CAP fighters will attempt to engage the enemy escorting fighters. This is stage 1 of the strike 1 air combat.

2. Not all CAP fighters, nor all enemy escorting fighters will necessarily see combat before stage 1 ends. This is the key difference with classical WITP as there, stage 2 air combat only commenced when the CAP or escorts were totally defeated. In AE if possible some CAP is held in reserve to participate in stage 2 of strike 1.

3. When strike 2 is detected, all the remaining CAP fighters are sent up to meet strike 2. The same considerations apply to stages 1 and 2 of strike 2.

4. When strike 3 is detected, all the remaining CAP fighters are sent up to meet strike 3 and so on.

It is precisely because everything possible is sent up to meet each strike as it is detected and each strike reduces the number of available CAP fighters, that there may be no available CAP fighters available to meet the incoming strike 7.

It is not always beneficial to the attacker to have perfect air coordination with all the bombers arriving on time at the target simultaneously with all their escorting fighters in a single strike.

Alfred

(in reply to Ambassador)

Post #: 29

RE: American Carrier question - 8/11/2020 10:25:37 PM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

...I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes...

Not quite.

Air combat is in two stages. Stage 1 is CAP confronting enemy fighters (fighter v fighter) and stage 2 is CAP confronting enemy bombers (fighter v bomber).

All possible available CAP is involved in stage 1. There are several factors which actually determine exactly how much CAP participates in combat. These factors are much more extensive than were those which applied in classical WITP.

Some time is left separate to resolve stage 2 combat. This is a significant difference with classical WITP in that there CAP had to totally defeat the escorting fighters in stage 1 before they could get to the bombers in stage 2. In AE it is possible that stage 2 will commence even though all enemy escorting fighters have not been defeated in stage 1.

CAP addresses the immediate incoming raid. It doesn't keep some fighter aircraft in reserve for possible follow up enemy raids.

Alfred

Yeah, I got the two stages, but I thought the game split the CAP between the different strike packages before resolving each of them, and that not all planes appearing on CAP during a raid resolution actually participated to that resolution.

Better explaining goes with an example (I'm not a native English speaker).

Say two squadrons of fighters are on CAP (2x25 fighters), with 50% CAP (and no scrambling fighters to simplify), so 25 fighters are on CAP duty during a raid.
Say this raid splits in three due to lack of coordination or whatever (maybe they're not meant).
I thought the game would allocate the CAP complement to the different strike packages, for example like this :
- 12 fighters against strike 1
- 9 fighters against strike 2
- 4 fighters against strike 3
And that during strike 1 resolution, there might appear more than 12 fighters, but they would not take part in the battle.

Using your very simplified exemplar.

1. When strike 1 is detected, the defender does not know that a strike 2, strike 3 is incoming, hence all 25 CAP fighters will attempt to engage the enemy escorting fighters. This is stage 1 of the strike 1 air combat.

2. Not all CAP fighters, nor all enemy escorting fighters will necessarily see combat before stage 1 ends. This is the key difference with classical WITP as there, stage 2 air combat only commenced when the CAP or escorts were totally defeated. In AE if possible some CAP is held in reserve to participate in stage 2 of strike 1.

3. When strike 2 is detected, all the remaining CAP fighters are sent up to meet strike 2. The same considerations apply to stages 1 and 2 of strike 2.

4. When strike 3 is detected, all the remaining CAP fighters are sent up to meet strike 3 and so on.

It is precisely because everything possible is sent up to meet each strike as it is detected and each strike reduces the number of available CAP fighters, that there may be no available CAP fighters available to meet the incoming strike 7.

It is not always beneficial to the attacker to have perfect air coordination with all the bombers arriving on time at the target simultaneously with all their escorting fighters in a single strike.

Alfred