Task Group Sizes & cooperation

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Task Group Sizes & cooperation

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Task Group Sizes & cooperation

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Task Group Sizes & cooperation - 2/6/2001 2:51:00 AM

Elvis1965

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/2/2001
Status: offline

I saw that Task Groups of ships are limited to 15 vessels. My first thought was the massive Japanese carrier task force at Midway (4CV, 2BB, 3CC, some 11 DD?). That is 20 ships plus fleet oilers etc. It will be dicey to group 4 CV's together because you can only get 11 screening ships around them... Can Task Groups somehow 'support' or 'screen' for each other if in the same hex? What is the rationale behind limiting to Task Groups to 15 vessels? Can you guys jack-it-up to 20?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 2/7/2001 12:55:00 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

There's nothing sacred about the 15 number. There is an advantage to keeping the number small when dealing with the artificial intelligence in the game. We will consider raising it a little. Other than Midway can you think of any other situations where the TF size was over 15?

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 2

- 2/7/2001 1:59:00 AM

Elvis1965

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/2/2001
Status: offline

Well, the battles of Leyte Gulf and the Phillipine Sea had massive fleet sizes. However, I am no expert; and I do not know the exact sizes of each individual Task Force? Total combatants involved in those battles had to be over one hundred vessels per side???? But those are concerns for the WitP game-- more than the Solomon's game-- I guess...

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 3

- 2/7/2001 4:04:00 AM

Elvis1965

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/2/2001
Status: offline

US at Midway: Task Force 16: 22 vessels- 2 CV Hornet, Enterprise 6 CA 1 CL 9 DD 4 oilers Task Force 17: 9 vessels- 1 CV Yorktown 2 CA 6 DD Japanese at Midway: "Main Body": 18 vessels 3 BB Yamato 1 CVL 1 CL 9 DD 2 Seaplane tenders 2 oilers "Carrier Strike Force": 21 vessels 4 CV 2 BB 2 CA 1 CL 7 DD 5 oilers "Invasion Force": This list is so long, that I am uncertain what even applies. It has 15 warships plus 4 oilers; plus 18 other warships, 12 troop transports, 2 oilers, and a some minesweeps, and other litttle junks. By looking at the Midway Task Forces and how the opponents formed them, I guess the 15 limit isn't to restrictive.

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 4

- 2/7/2001 11:52:00 AM

Bulldog61

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline

In answer to the question about TF size. IJN strike force at Pearl Harbor. 6CV 2BB 2CA 1CL 9DD 20 ships IJN First Mobile Force at Midway 4CV 2BB 2CA 1CL 12DD 21 Ships not counting the 5 oilers Lots more, 25 is probably a better max. Unless each task force breaks into task units ie. TF12 breaks to TG 12.1 which might then break into task units TU 12.1.1 which could be the core say 4 CV's 2BB's and 2CA's. TU 12.1.2 might be the screen say 12DD's.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 5

- 2/7/2001 12:02:00 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

I spoke with Gary earlier today and coincidentally we discussed increasing the limit to 25 but putting some diminishing returns on large task forces in terms of their surface combat and AA ability in order to discourage the larger TF's. We'll do this unless we find some major problem with doing it. As for the oilers, in UV they have to be in a separate TF, but they can be set to follow the CV TF and if they stay with the CV TF they will in large part be protected by it. Thanks for the info and input. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 6

- 2/7/2001 12:29:00 PM

pauls

Posts: 5
Joined: 5/6/2000
Status: offline

But, Uncommon Valor is not going to simulate Pearl Harbor or Midway is it? What were the sizes of the TFs involved in the Coral Sea battles? 15 sounds about right to me for these actions. Paul

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 7

- 2/7/2001 3:37:00 PM

silkworm

Posts: 135
Joined: 8/18/2000
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by MikeKraemer: In answer to the question about TF size. IJN strike force at Pearl Harbor. 6CV 2BB 2CA 1CL 9DD 20 ships IJN First Mobile Force at Midway 4CV 2BB 2CA 1CL 12DD 21 Ships not counting the 5 oilers

15 slots is sufficient for these scenarios because you can put 4 destroyers in one slot. I still think diminishing returns in surface combat and AA is needed even at 15. The player is encouraged to max out a carrier task force with destroyers for AA. Historically, I doubt that more than a few ships can be placed around carriers to give it a useful AA boost. Look at the size of the Pearl Harbor fleet, for example. Just 9 destroyers for 6 carriers...and in any case they were probably used more for scouting, ASW, and torpedo barrier than for AA. Ideally a task force will have a formation with a specific place for each ship, providing fire as appropriate for their position. If we are not going to get into that kind of detail (which is probably a good idea not to), maybe for AA we let the player designate a limited number of escorts for any particulate ship. But then there's the question of escorting the escorts... For surface combat you might have a rule says, only a maximum ship ratio of 2 to 1 can be effectively positioned, the rest contribute minimally, except for torpedo boats...or something like that.

_____________________________

Kirby Zhang
Creator of Cityscape,
Online City Simulation

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 8

- 2/7/2001 8:47:00 PM

Paul Goodman

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline

Whoa, is that right about 4 DD in one slot. The old game did that, but I don't think the new one will. Everything hinges on the cooperation available between so called task forces. What is a task force? For example, for Operation Flintlock (Marshalls attack), TF 58 consisted of 12 aircraft carriers, 8 fast BB's, 6 cruisers and 36 destroyers, a total of 62 ships. But we know these were divided into sub "task forces", designated by point numbers. ie, 58.1, 58.2 and so on. It was also capable of reforming a fast battleship task force had the Mobil Fleet sortied from Truk. By this stage of the war, absolute cooperation between air defense fighters of the various elements of TF58 operating in reasonably close proximity was available. Additionally, although you might have 12 destroyers spread over two sub TF's, these 12 destroyers were a destroyer division and could be reformed as such for a major surface combat. The game engine must support this fluid task force arrangement and must support realistic cooperation between the task force elements. By the way, I am really surprised by the small quantity of cruisers assigned. I realize that my example is for a later period of war. However, I frankly believe that Uncommon Valor is a pay-as-you-go test bed for the full game and I totally support that concept. The difference in scale is a minor facet of the primary game engine development. The OOB is smaller. But the biggest difference is an AI that is vastly more simple. The goals are obvious for both sides. The bottom line is that whatever decisions are made on the game mechanics at this point are going to carry over to the full game. Major changes will result in major schedule delays (boo, hiss!). My typical (PacWar)1944 USN task force would ideally consist of 2 CV, 2 CVL, 2BB, 2CA, 2CL, 1CLAA and (4) 4dd units, a total of 27 ships, occupying 15 slots. I think that would be 27 ships for the new game. However, the high destroyer count was necessitated by the unrealistic effectiveness of submarines against high speed fleet units. We hope that will be fixed. The bottom line is, however, that I think something larger than 15 ships will be necessary and I don't think their should be an operational penalty for larger groupings, only for aircraft carriers in excess of a certain number. And I think that penalty should be a reduction in range, not effectiveness. Paul

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 9

- 2/7/2001 11:31:00 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

DD's are individually tracked in UV and also in WitP. Currently only the PT boats and some smaller transports will be grouped in WitP (they are separate in UV).Thus, unlike the old War in the Pacific, each DD takes up a slot. Just wanted to clear that up. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 10

- 2/8/2001 2:17:00 AM

silkworm

Posts: 135
Joined: 8/18/2000
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Status: offline

Has anyone ever seen carriers engaged in surface combat in PacWar? I never have. Thus I never felt the need to include heavy ships in an air combat task force. Without diminishing returns in the number of AA screens, we wouldn't be able to recreate the historical importance of battleships as heavy AA platforms. Even if destroyers now take up a full slot, they will still dominate in the AA role with their numbers.

_____________________________

Kirby Zhang
Creator of Cityscape,
Online City Simulation

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 11

- 2/8/2001 6:09:00 AM

Paul Goodman

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline

I included BB's with carrier divisions (to use the new terminology) as AA platforms. No, I never saw surface combat occur with carrier TF's, except once. If you set zero standoff and run into the big guys, it can occur. I also did this because it is historical and makes sense. IMO, if we are now one to one for DD's, it will even make more sense. In the end game, the fast BB was pretty much impervious to Kamikaze's, whereas the dd screens suffered terribly. I would expect the new game to be able to reflect this. Paul

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 12

- 2/8/2001 10:32:00 AM

Bulldog61

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline

One way to limit larger TF's might be with the TF commanders abilities. Which could improve with experience. In UV I'm not sure that this is as big a problem as it will be for witp. Looking at the force that invaded Guadalcanal, TF62 the Amphipibious Force had 19 transports and 4 APD's escorted by 3 CA's,1 CL,9 DD's but the were commanded by Kelly Turner. There was an additional gunfire support group of 3CA's,1CL and 6 DD's.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 13

- 2/8/2001 10:54:00 AM

Elvis1965

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/2/2001
Status: offline

To muddy the water... Or clarify it... Can a player of UV use "cooperation" amongst his Task Groups within the same hex-- we are talking about hexes I assume-- to support friendly units? Keep in mind, I am a WW2 junkie and a PC idiot. Wouldn't game options like: "protect troop transports" "protect CV's" "protect ALL" be applicable to the computer models that UV and WitP are attempting to model?

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 14

- 2/8/2001 12:00:00 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

TF's in the same hex do protect other friendly TF's in many different ways. I don't have time to explain it all now but in UV the Guadalcanal invasion force is split into a surface combat group, a bombardment group and a transport group, and they can be set up to move together. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 15

- 2/8/2001 12:02:00 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

A quick correction. The invasion force is currently split into two or three different transport groups, but with our increasing the TF size limit it may become one in the final product. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 16

- 2/9/2001 12:39:00 PM

Paul Dyer

Posts: 60
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by silkworm: Without diminishing returns in the number of AA screens, we wouldn't be able to recreate the historical importance of battleships as heavy AA platforms. Even if destroyers now take up a full slot, they will still dominate in the AA role with their numbers.

Agree. Had this discussion a year or two back on the pacwar email list. In the old Pacwar AA values of all ships present were added together. This left small groups of ships almost defenceless (they might as well be unarmed) but large TFs too powerful. It was pointed out that at the margin additional escorts are always useful - establishing zones of fire etc. Still, I remember calculating that a large, late war TF could expect to down up to 60% of incoming aircraft with its AA. This is out of those that survived the Cap, and before they get to attack. Even with the mushrooming of weapons, proximity fuses etc this seems high. Diminishing returns is the obvious solution. Likewise surface combat TF sizes. Pacwar discouraged putting too many CVs together. If we look at the night surface battles around the Solomons few were fought with really large formations (not enough time to look up all the details). Was this because larger groups of ships became unwieldy? Every commander wants to concentrate his forces, but in computer games this can become too easy. I suspect that some penalties on TF performance as the TF size became too large would incline UV admirals towards more historically accurate formations. [This message has been edited by Paul Dyer (edited February 09, 2001).]

_____________________________

"It is also possible that blondes prefer gentlemen"

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 17

- 2/10/2001 7:38:00 PM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Dyer: Likewise surface combat TF sizes. Pacwar discouraged putting too many CVs together. If we look at the night surface battles around the Solomons few were fought with really large formations (not enough time to look up all the details). Was this because larger groups of ships became unwieldy? Every commander wants to concentrate his forces, but in computer games this can become too easy. I suspect that some penalties on TF performance as the TF size became too large would incline UV admirals towards more historically accurate formations. [/B]

If my memory serves me correctly (probably not!) the US doctrine was to sub-divide the TF's as stated above (58.1 etc) to account for the oilers, transports, battle groups, etc. I believe this is what 2by3 and Matrix are attempting to recreate with the 15 unit maximum. Your statement about span of control is right on, more ships= more orders and chances for disaster (Mogami & Mikuma at Midway?) there were some the US had too but I cant recall them exactly right now...That would be a nice penalty for the "stack players" but I figure they already have something up their sleeves! Just some thoughts Jim [This message has been edited by moore4807 (edited February 10, 2001).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 18

- 2/11/2001 12:06:00 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

In reference to guarding carriers against surface attack: In Pacwar I only once experienced a surface TF v. Carrier battle, but I lost two CVs (playing as Japanese). Since then, I've always thrown in a token CA-CL escort force "just in case." Also, if we look at the Leyte invasion, the US CVE-DD v. Japanese BB battle should also teach us a lesson about leaving the flattops completely unguarded...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 19

- 2/18/2001 12:37:00 PM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

Okay, I'll weigh in on this one again on this thread. The 15 ship limit on TF's is TOO LOW!!! Most of the major TF's in the end of the war were broken down into several TG's, as in TF 58 was broken down into TG 58.1, 58.2, etc, and the were CV TG's,. each with their own rear or vice admiral in command under the overall command of the SOPA. Most of these TG's easily ran into the low and sometimes into the mid twenties when they went into action. Reference Morison's History of Naval Operations in WWII. In the back of some of the issues they have an appendix which lists each command and each ship in the command for the Battle of the Phillipine Sea and Leyte Gulf. Now, early in 1942 the USN doctrine did not call for concentration of force with the CV's. Each individual CV was to operate as a small self contained unit with its escort. (And, by the way, I have had CV's ambushed by large nasty folk with big guns several times - usually to the CV's disadvantage, most of the time when they were trying to escort a crippled or at least severely damaged ship out of the combat zone.) Back to early war doctrine. If we are to have the possibility of scrapping that doctrine, then a large TF becomes almost a necessity. If you have three CV's operating together, you would need a larger screen for ASW ops because they would be spread over a larger chunk of sea, and the SONAR of that time couldn't pick up procreating whales unless they found them in the back seat - thus more DD's were necessary. Same for AA coverage. More CA's and CL's would be needed for the same reason - larger force requires larger area and more targets to protect. If we are to adopt later war doctrine, then the 15 ship limit on TF's would cripple this effort. Further, Just how in the dickens are you going to handle cargo TF's with any significant lift capacity with a fifteen ship limit if that TF has to journey into harm's way? Last time I recall, some of the convoy's to transport troops would be considerably bigger than that, let alone one which was carrying supplies. They might have as many as 25 to 35 ships plus escorts in the Atlantic. And if the IJN subs have the same capability they have in PW, you are going to need that size convoy to get anything from the West Coast to anywhere else west of there. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 20

- 2/18/2001 8:37:00 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by RevRick: Okay, I'll weigh in on this one again on this thread. The 15 ship limit on TF's is TOO LOW!!!

I still haven't heard a clear explanation about this. If the 15 ship limit is for Task Groupings as part of a larger TF, then that could make some sense. You have your heavy surface stuff in one TG and your carriers, plus some ships with strong AA defense, in another. For surface action the TG with your own surface combat ships do the work. If the CVs come under air attack all TGs in the hex with AA ability contribute to the carrier's AA defense. That sounds pretty flexible, but I'm still not sure if a breakup into groupings of TFs is what Matrix is talking about. This issue applies even more so to WitP.

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 21

- 2/20/2001 6:40:00 AM

Ramjet

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/19/2001
From: Charleston, SC. USA
Status: offline

A note on US Navy organization: The USN has 4 elements of it's tactical (afloat) forces: Task Force (TF), Task Group (TG), Task Element (TE), and Task Unit (TU). A Task Force can contain dozens of ships and aircraft, but they may never occupy the same body of water at the same time. TF's will break down into several TG's, which break down into TE's, and even TU's (single ships). Meaning that a US TF may have 60 ships, but they aren't in the same 15 ship limit "Task Force" in the game. It becomes a command and control issue with the numbers of ships. Trying to tactically control 15 ships in itself is very difficult. Now try it with only flags during the day and flashing light at night. The Japanese may have had over 20 ships at Pearl, but they started that trip at peace! When did 6 CV's operate within sight of one another again? I can think of no other time. Bottom line is 15 ships in a TF is fine, and let DD's and DE's count for one slot each.

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 22

- 2/20/2001 7:58:00 AM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Ramjet: A note on US Navy organization: The USN has 4 elements of it's tactical (afloat) forces: Task Force (TF), Task Group (TG), Task Element (TE), and Task Unit (TU). A Task Force can contain dozens of ships and aircraft, but they may never occupy the same body of water at the same time. TF's will break down into several TG's, which break down into TE's, and even TU's (single ships). Meaning that a US TF may have 60 ships, but they aren't in the same 15 ship limit "Task Force" in the game. It becomes a command and control issue with the numbers of ships. Trying to tactically control 15 ships in itself is very difficult. Now try it with only flags during the day and flashing light at night. The Japanese may have had over 20 ships at Pearl, but they started that trip at peace! When did 6 CV's operate within sight of one another again? I can think of no other time. Bottom line is 15 ships in a TF is fine, and let DD's and DE's count for one slot each.

First, they've already said they handle destroyers as separate ships, not a pack of four as in PW. Late war TFs did have much more than 15 ships, this is what started the debate in the first place. Given the scale WitP, at 60 miles per hex, tactical groupings could be separate, but still in the same hex, so there isn't much point to representing the smaller units, the TE and TU. I don't know what the scale is for UV. How about this. a TF is composed of multiple TGs, the total number of TGs is controlled by the skill of the TF commander (and perhaps the date as well?). Lets say 1-5 TGs is possible. A TG is composed of about 12-24 individual ships, the actual number is decided by the skill of the TG leader if there is one, otherwise the TF commander skill is used (again, maybe date as well). The TGs are handled in a way to make the process flexible and simple. So first of all TGs are always assumed to be in the same hex (definitely for WitP, and maybe UV as well?). Second, if a TF is engaged in surface combat for example, any surface combat TGs that are part of the TF defend the TF. Air attacks against the TF are handled first by any carrier based planes in the TF, and all TGs of the TF, if they have appropiate types of ships, contribute to the AA defense of any TGs of the TF. We might also have one or more "picket" TGs composed of DDs guarding the TF but at a distance from it. "Pickets" would be needed to warn the TF of incoming air attacks, and for ASW. Because of its distance from the rest of the TF, these "picket" TGs would be more vulnerable to air attack, compared to the other types of TGs. This would improve the realism, as DDs on picket duty *were* more vulnerable. [This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 19, 2001).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 23

- 2/20/2001 8:21:00 PM

Paul Goodman

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline

Considering the length of a turn, I think it would be an advantage to have the ability to form surface combat task groups automatically. Just as was actually done. In particular, we know we want the BB's as powerful anti-aircraft defenses unless threatened by enemy surface forces. The player should be able to designate which vessels will form the surface force, being able to pull these ships from any hex where the predesignated flagship is or any adjacent hex. When an enemy force is detected, the player should be presented with several options, which could be preplanned or, I think, trigger some form of Windows task box. Fast carriers might want to maintain a fixed standoff distance against detected opposition. The presence of an invasion convoy to protect changes everything. From a gamers standpoint, it might be better to have to preplan these actions over a 24 hour period. What to do? What to do? Paul

_____________________________

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 24

- 2/21/2001 3:41:00 AM

chanman

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Westminster, Colorado, U.S.A.
Status: offline

I like Ed and Paul's suggestions, taken together. One of the historical events that is hard to model is how Oldendorf ran the battle of Suraigo Straight from the U.S. side. The outer screening forces of PT's and DD's hit the Japanese on the way in, sinking Fuso, then the inner screen attacked Kirishima and Mogami while the battle line hammered away. The 15 ship limit really doesn't allow for this kind of engagement to be modeled, while a system modeled after Paul and Ed's suggestions would. Just my $.02 worth

_____________________________

"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"

(in reply to Elvis1965)

Post #: 25