Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 6:38:29 PM   
doktor1957

 

Posts: 134
Joined: 6/6/2004
Status: offline 		I can't find it in the manual (believe me, I looked) but I seem to recall that there is a penalty for more than two carriers in an Allied Air Combat TF in 1942. Is that correct? Anyone know where in the manual it is located? Thanks.



Dave
Logo challenged
Post #: 1
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 6:47:55 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor1957

I can't find it in the manual (believe me, I looked) but I seem to recall that there is a penalty for more than two carriers in an Allied Air Combat TF in 1942. Is that correct? Anyone know where in the manual it is located? Thanks.



Dave
Logo challenged


I believe it should be around page 130.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to doktor1957)
Post #: 2
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 6:55:15 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Dont believe the penalty is, per say, for number of Aircraft carriers, rather the rule is about uncoordinated airstrikes. Anything over 100 increases the uncoordination and then it just gets worse the more aircraft you send. This drops as time passes ( or rather the number of aircraft to be uncoordinate grows so more aircraft can fly together)

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 3
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 7:08:51 PM   
MarcA


Posts: 1181
Joined: 3/2/2005
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor1957

I can't find it in the manual (believe me, I looked) but I seem to recall that there is a penalty for more than two carriers in an Allied Air Combat TF in 1942. Is that correct? Anyone know where in the manual it is located? Thanks.



Dave
Logo challenged



Section 7.2.2.11

_____________________________


(in reply to doktor1957)
Post #: 4
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 7:22:28 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		As I said, number of aircraft not specifically number of carriers ( though obviously they are related)

In 1942 any American CV with any other CV or CVL will be over 100 aircraft if full strength. In 1943 2 American carriers can generally operate together. Starting in 1944 and after 2 CV and a CVE or CVL can function together before tripping the poor coordination check.

The Japanese have smaller aircraft capacity but 6 fleet carriers together will trigger a check.

(in reply to doktor1957)
Post #: 5
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 7:48:14 PM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 533
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline 		So just to clarify, I should only have 1-2 CV's in a given carrier task force. Now can i have multiple task forces in teh same hex, say 4 TF's with a CV in each one? Is that still effective or should I keep 4 CV's in 4 separate hexes? etc

thanks!

_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to doktor1957)
Post #: 6
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 8:03:59 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline 		1-2 CV in a task force, all TFs in the same hex ( the CAP for each TF is added together - so all fighters defend each TF). Not true IRL but thats the way the game mechanics work lol

_____________________________


Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)
Post #: 7
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 8:09:12 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Actually in all the games I've been playing ( 2000+ PBEM turns over the past 20 months ) the primary tactic for USN carrier has become single CV Task force ... this preserves them in the face of the "penalty" ... and yes most definitely they can operate in same hex ... this is key element of the tactic ... if you want to do this .. I suggest practicing against AI ... I used May 42 start ... run all carriers on both sides out to area between Kwaj and Johnson Is ... and then save and then you can fight carrier battles ad nauseum ... try IJN death start against one USN death star ( a few times ) and then start over with USN in a group of single CV TFs ... and repeat everything .. you'll see a big difference in survivability of USN CV ...

Use slowest CV TF as the "lead" and have the others follow ... I put all on patrol else faster ones sometimes "return to base" and get one hex out ... the system isn't perfect ... sometimes ... on TF might be in wrong hex ... but still in many many cases ... all are in one hex ... IJN will have to fight all cap and get only bomb one CV for each time through flak ... and USN has plenty of escorts ... someplayers even use slow BB group in the mix as the lead and as a decoy ... also some player add extra ( marine ) fighters to max out the fighters - probably only necessary fairly early in the war ...

But you will fight like you train .. so practice the technique before using in real PBEM .. you only get about 1 chance in real PBEM and if you screw it up ... oh well ... you have to wait until the next game !



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)
Post #: 8
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 10:46:55 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline 		I believe the limit ot avoind the penalty is:

Allies: 100 in 1942
150 in 1943
200 in 1944 or later

Japan 200 at all times.

The numbers may be a little off but the important thing I remember is that at the end the Allied numbers are the same as Japan's number (which is the same always). It stands out in my memory because it's one of the few areas when Japan starts with an advantage and, though it is eventually eliminated, they never actually end up with a disadvantage.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 9
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 11:24:55 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		To be perfectly honest, I don't think very highly of the Allied Coordination penalty (for various reasons), but it is what it is.

It also works both ways.

Having a "spoiler" flight or two of unescorted, or lightly escorted bombers can be useful. The effectiveness of CAP degrades dramatically with every attack (even if the CAP slaughters everything). If you're Allies, and lucky enough to lead with one or two spoiler strikes with only a FEW aircraft, this will dramatically reduce the effectiveness of Japanese CAP. When the "the main attack" comes in, against disrupted CAP, and takes far fewer losses.

It not something that you can plan, it's just a crap-shoot. And of course, you're just a likely to get a massive formation of SBDs that is lighty escorted (in which case, it's time to cry).

But if you're going up against veteran KB CAP, you're going to take substantial losses whether you're coordinated or not. So again, if you are able to lead with some smaller, uncoordinated strikes, it sufficiently disrupts CAP to get more bombers thru on the main (coordinated) strike.

[* shrug *]

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 9/23/2005 11:27:10 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 10
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/23/2005 11:43:24 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

To be perfectly honest, I don't think very highly of the Allied Coordination penalty (for various reasons), but it is what it is.



I hear you. Penalize the allies for their problems at Midway, but don't reward them for their luck at Midway. The game allows the destruction of the TBD flights, but does not allow the surprise of the SBD's.

Oh well. It is what it is.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 11
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/24/2005 12:52:40 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

To be perfectly honest, I don't think very highly of the Allied Coordination penalty (for various reasons), but it is what it is.

It also works both ways.

Having a "spoiler" flight or two of unescorted, or lightly escorted bombers can be useful. The effectiveness of CAP degrades dramatically with every attack (even if the CAP slaughters everything). If you're Allies, and lucky enough to lead with one or two spoiler strikes with only a FEW aircraft, this will dramatically reduce the effectiveness of Japanese CAP. When the "the main attack" comes in, against disrupted CAP, and takes far fewer losses.

It not something that you can plan, it's just a crap-shoot. And of course, you're just a likely to get a massive formation of SBDs that is lighty escorted (in which case, it's time to cry).

But if you're going up against veteran KB CAP, you're going to take substantial losses whether you're coordinated or not. So again, if you are able to lead with some smaller, uncoordinated strikes, it sufficiently disrupts CAP to get more bombers thru on the main (coordinated) strike.

[* shrug *]

-F-



BTW I was leaving my "feelings" about the "Allied Coordination Penalty" out of the discussion - I've voiced those vociferously in a number earlier threads - I was just going with the "since it is there - what do you do about it" idea !




_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 12
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/24/2005 1:04:54 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

BTW I was leaving my "feelings" about the "Allied Coordination Penalty" out of the discussion - I've voiced those vociferously in a number earlier threads - I was just going with the "since it is there - what do you do about it" idea !





< Message edited by Halsey -- 9/24/2005 1:05:09 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 13
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/24/2005 2:54:00 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Day-um, you even spelled it right.

Erm, what do you do about it (besides use appropriately-sized TFs)?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 14
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/24/2005 2:58:19 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		"TOP SECRET"

< Message edited by Halsey -- 9/24/2005 3:01:13 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 15
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/24/2005 3:38:36 AM   
Zebedee


Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline 		Hmmm.. would this be an undocumented 'feature' in UV too?

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 16
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/24/2005 4:53:37 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		No Simon, it was added to WitP and not back filled into UV.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 17
RE: Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty - 9/24/2005 7:19:56 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		It's all about fleet composition.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Allied Carrier Coordination Penalty Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.391