Problems with CV's

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Problems with CV's

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 >> The War Room >> Problems with CV's

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 2:32:01 PM

Poku

Posts: 6
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

I am REALLY frustrated. I am playing in American side. I have a strong CV TF near New Guinea (3 CV's) and nice Jap CV TF nearby. My TF sends only 5 fighters, 3 DB's and 2 TB's to attac japs, and what happens? Nothing!!! But, as japan (AI) sends 56 Zeros, 40 DB's and 40 TB's, all my three CV's are sunk. I had CAP's in air etc. Aargh. Why does this happen. I know that my CV's were not overloaded, there was still room in the plane capacity. Have you had similar experiences?

Post #: 1

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 2:35:06 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

You probably have all the US CVs in one TF.

Worr, out

(in reply to Poku)

Post #: 2

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 2:45:29 PM

Poku

Posts: 6
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

Yes I do, then following your question I shouldn't.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 3

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 2:58:16 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: worr

You probably have all the US CVs in one TF.

Worr, out

Can someone tell me why this is important?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 4

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 2:58:54 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

I didn't look up the rule either...but it is under the Task Force section.

After 1943 you can put more CVs in one TF due to better coordination. Better again in 1944.

< Message edited by worr -- 11/28/2005 2:59:26 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 5

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 3:04:30 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Poku

Yes I do, then following your question I shouldn't.

The program is written to simulate the difficulties the Americans had coordinating carrier airstrikes early in the war. So the more US carriers you have in a task force, the fewer the number of planes will fly to attack. The Japanese player does not have that same restriction. It's a matter of the interpretation that the Game Designer had of the doctrinal situation during the early stages of the War.

So, for example, starting in 1944 the Allied player will be able to put two CVs and two CVLs in the same TF and get good strikes. But in 1942 the Allied player will only be able to lauch nearly full strikes from TFs with single CVs. (Because that's how the US operated in 1942.)

There are other factors involved in the Game in 1942. Japanese search/patrol is much more effective and longer ranged than US search/patrol. Japanese leaders and pilots are much more experienced than US leaders and pilots. Japanese planes are much longer ranged than US planes in 1942. What this means is that when the Program checks all the decision factors that allow an attack to occur, more things come up "negative" for the Allied side than for the Japanese side.

There is no way around this. An Allied player will usually lose out in a 1942 carrier battle against the AI because the AI always optimizes all of the critical conditions. An Allied player may win a carrier battle in 1942 against a PBEM opponent if the Japanese player makes a mistake, but don't count on it.

Your best strategy as an Allied player is to never send your carriers against the Japanese carriers in 1942 - let your land-based air take on the Japanese carriers - your land bases can't be sunk. Save your Allied carriers for attacks against Japanese non-carrier task forces. They will be more effective and gain desperately needed experience.

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Poku)

Post #: 6

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 3:36:36 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

The program is written to simulate the difficulties the Americans had coordinating carrier airstrikes early in the war. So the more US carriers you have in a task force, the fewer the number of planes will fly to attack.

Soooo...3 CVs in the same TF manage to launch 5 VF, 3 VB and 2 VT? Uggggghhhh. What bollocks. This isn't a coordination penalty, it goes waaaaay beyond it. Castration is what it looks like.

Those CVs should have launched their air groups but would have sufferred a probable 3-6 wave attack as opposed to 1-3 larger ones.

Is it too late to read a book or two? I can see the point of trying to force players to operate the Allied CVs more historically, but why with a bogus coordination penalty and why only apply it to Allied CVs? Seeing as there is no end to the wide open play the game lends itself to, just refer to the "lunacy games"AARs, I can't see the inclusion of such a mechanic simply to force USN to adopt 1 CV TFs.

This is right up there with basing air ops on morale/fatigue of individual pilots. "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?"

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 11/28/2005 4:07:59 PM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 7

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 3:53:24 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

This is right up there with basing air ops on morale/fatigue of individual pilots. "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?"

I guess the difference in thought processes comes from relative experience. I wonder if GG was ever in the Service?

I'll have to ask my Dad, who was in the RCAF during WW II, if pilots got to use that excuse. Certainly my uncles on my Mom's side, who were in US Army Air Corp bomber crews out of England in WW II, didn't get to use that excuse...but then, that's how they got to fly 25 missions over Europe in B-17s and then go home.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 8

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 4:00:05 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

This is right up there with basing air ops on morale/fatigue of individual pilots. "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?"

I guess the difference in thought processes comes from relative experience. I wonder if GG was ever in the Service?

I'll have to ask my Dad, who was in the RCAF during WW II, if pilots got to use that excuse. Certainly my uncles on my Mom's side, who were in US Army Air Corp bomber crews out of England in WW II, didn't get to use that excuse...but then, that's how they got to fly 25 missions over Europe in B-17s and then go home.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

Just for the record, this would be less flim flam if fatigue/morale was deliberately linked to the abstract modelling of servicability of the aircraft and availability of parts and ordinance. But it is not seeing as this is tied in with basic airfield size, one size fits all AV support, seemingly unlimited generic supply and repair rates/# engines.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 9

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 4:50:28 PM

dereck

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

This is right up there with basing air ops on morale/fatigue of individual pilots. "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?"

I guess the difference in thought processes comes from relative experience. I wonder if GG was ever in the Service?

I'll have to ask my Dad, who was in the RCAF during WW II, if pilots got to use that excuse. Certainly my uncles on my Mom's side, who were in US Army Air Corp bomber crews out of England in WW II, didn't get to use that excuse...but then, that's how they got to fly 25 missions over Europe in B-17s and then go home.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

Being a military veteran I can tell you the "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?" is pure Bull****. If you were given a legal order you DID it. If you didn't it was known as insubordination, deriliction of duty, mutiny or desertion depending on circumstances.

quote:

Ron Saueracker

Soooo...3 CVs in the same TF manage to launch 5 VF, 3 VB and 2 VT? Uggggghhhh. What bollocks. This isn't a coordination penalty, it goes waaaaay beyond it. Castration is what it looks like.

What do you think many of us Allied players have been complaining about for so long? But we always end up getting shouted down by the people who benefit from such things.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 10

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 4:57:42 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

This is right up there with basing air ops on morale/fatigue of individual pilots. "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?"

I guess the difference in thought processes comes from relative experience. I wonder if GG was ever in the Service?

I'll have to ask my Dad, who was in the RCAF during WW II, if pilots got to use that excuse. Certainly my uncles on my Mom's side, who were in US Army Air Corp bomber crews out of England in WW II, didn't get to use that excuse...but then, that's how they got to fly 25 missions over Europe in B-17s and then go home.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

Being a military veteran I can tell you the "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?" is pure Bull****. If you were given a legal order you DID it. If you didn't it was known as insubordination, deriliction of duty, mutiny or desertion depending on circumstances.

quote:

Ron Saueracker

Soooo...3 CVs in the same TF manage to launch 5 VF, 3 VB and 2 VT? Uggggghhhh. What bollocks. This isn't a coordination penalty, it goes waaaaay beyond it. Castration is what it looks like.

What do you think many of us Allied players have been complaining about for so long? But we always end up getting shouted down by the people who benefit from such things.

"What do you think many of us Allied players have been complaining about for so long? But we always end up getting shouted down by the people who benefit from such things."

This has got to be the worst example I've seen to date. Nobody with any clue should be able to defend this present format without lying to themselves.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 11

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:04:34 PM

DFalcon

Posts: 318
Joined: 11/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Poku

I am REALLY frustrated. I am playing in American side. I have a strong CV TF near New Guinea (3 CV's) and nice Jap CV TF nearby. My TF sends only 5 fighters, 3 DB's and 2 TB's to attac japs, and what happens? Nothing!!! But, as japan (AI) sends 56 Zeros, 40 DB's and 40 TB's, all my three CV's are sunk. I had CAP's in air etc. Aargh. Why does this happen. I know that my CV's were not overloaded, there was still room in the plane capacity. Have you had similar experiences?

What happened here goes beyond the coordination penalty.

There are several things that will interfere with a strike. You might have used up too many OPs moving, a large portion of your strike might have been unable to find the target, you may have been hit with less pilots than planes bug, or a combination of those factors.

(in reply to Poku)

Post #: 12

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:04:51 PM

dereck

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

This has got to be the worst example I've seen to date. Nobody with any clue should be able to defend this present format without lying to themselves.

Oh they will come up with something - they always have before.

What's bad is it's not just my opinion. I've shown this forum to a few internet friends from England who were interested in this game but after reading this forum they decided it was a fantasy game and not based on history and all decided to pass on the game. So I know I'm not the only one who thinks this game/forum is biased against the allied player.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 13

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:09:59 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

This is right up there with basing air ops on morale/fatigue of individual pilots. "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?"

Actually, this was a problem during the war, but not to the degree seen in the game. Pilots would take off and then abort the mission shortly after getting airborn "for mechanical problems". When it got up in numbers (i forget the exact number but it ran in the 10 -25% range), Gen. LeMay said he would courtmartial anyone returning to base prematurely for any reason. The problem immediately vanished.

The stuff that happens in the game though (units refusing to fly) is way beyond the pale of what went on historically.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 14

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:11:05 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

This has got to be the worst example I've seen to date. Nobody with any clue should be able to defend this present format without lying to themselves.

Oh they will come up with something - they always have before.

What's bad is it's not just my opinion. I've shown this forum to a few internet friends from England who were interested in this game but after reading this forum they decided it was a fantasy game and not based on history and all decided to pass on the game. So I know I'm not the only one who thinks this game/forum is biased against the allied player.

Well, that sucks. Sounds like they were prime candidates for a grog game like WITP. Was it the glaring design issues like this one in the game or the very real chance that the issues won't be rectified that made them pass?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 15

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:12:29 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Being a military veteran I can tell you the "Sorry, Major, I'm knackered. Perhaps another day?" is pure Bull****. If you were given a legal order you DID it. If you didn't it was known as insubordination, deriliction of duty, mutiny or desertion depending on circumstances.

And, of course, what was a "legal order" was much different during WW II then in these "enlightened" times...

One of the stories that my Dad told me regarding duty and discipline in the RCAF went something like this - There were occasional visits to Canada by various members of the Royal Family during the War. The procedure was that when a motorcade containing a Royal was travelling, every intersection had to have a guard of 4 soldiers on it, at attention. So one time when there was a motorcade travelling from Montreal to Ottawa, soldiers were stationed at every intersection and crossing along the route. This was in mid-summer, and the foursome that my Dad was in was posted all day, without replacements, in full uniform, and at attention at a crossing out in the the countryside. They didn't know when the motorcade was due to pass. One soldier fainted, and he was left there. He got up a while later, brushed himself off, and went back to attention. Finally the motorcade passed and they were allowed to leave.

Pointless? Maybe, but that was the attitude of the times, and my Dad and his fellow soldiers saw nothing wrong in this sort of thing.

I've argued that "morale" and "usability" of equipment should be separated since UV was first released. This is probably a very petty little attitude problem on my part, but I believe that using the term "morale" in the way that it is used in UV and WitP is an insult to the incredible bravery, loyalty and determination that the men and women of those more "innocent" times had in the face of demands that go beyond what most of us will ever face.

But that's my soapbox...

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 16

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:15:53 PM

dereck

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

This has got to be the worst example I've seen to date. Nobody with any clue should be able to defend this present format without lying to themselves.

Oh they will come up with something - they always have before.

What's bad is it's not just my opinion. I've shown this forum to a few internet friends from England who were interested in this game but after reading this forum they decided it was a fantasy game and not based on history and all decided to pass on the game. So I know I'm not the only one who thinks this game/forum is biased against the allied player.

Well, that sucks. Sounds like they were prime candidates for a grog game like WITP. Was it the glaring design issues like this one in the game or the very real chance that the issues won't be rectified that made them pass?

They said if they wanted a fantasy game they'd buy Dungeons and Dragons. I told them how this game - in my opinion - was getting very biased against the allied player but to check the forum out and decide for themselves. They checked it out and decided I was right.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 17

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:17:51 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Poku

I am REALLY frustrated. I am playing in American side. I have a strong CV TF near New Guinea (3 CV's) and nice Jap CV TF nearby. My TF sends only 5 fighters, 3 DB's and 2 TB's to attac japs, and what happens? Nothing!!! But, as japan (AI) sends 56 Zeros, 40 DB's and 40 TB's, all my three CV's are sunk. I had CAP's in air etc. Aargh. Why does this happen. I know that my CV's were not overloaded, there was still room in the plane capacity. Have you had similar experiences?

What happened here goes beyond the coordination penalty.

There are several things that will interfere with a strike. You might have used up too many OPs moving, a large portion of your strike might have been unable to find the target, you may have been hit with less pilots than planes bug, or a combination of those factors.

"You might have used up too many OPs moving,"

This is another of those issues where something was added willy nilly rather than across the board (within a universally applied ops model), and as a result is somewhat pointless. There are no ops differentation between types of CVs so this is rather out of place. Worse, no doubt the CV TFs reacted towards the enemy TF, and if they blew off these ops points to get to a launch point only to have no ops points to launch strikes well, this is just groundless hail mary design.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 11/28/2005 5:20:20 PM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to DFalcon)

Post #: 18

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:19:52 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

The stuff that happens in the game though (units refusing to fly) is way beyond the pale of what went on historically.

I'm seeing that a lot more in my v1.602 game that I ever remember seeing it in earlier versions of the game. Most turns nowadays Tophat and I get off less than a dozen air missions between the two of us over the entire map...

I'm suspicious that the conditions for launching air attacks were "tweaked" in the v1.50 and onwards patches in response to the complaints about the game moving "too fast".

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 19

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:20:39 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Why does this happen. I know that my CV's were not overloaded, there was still room in the plane capacity. Have you had similar experiences?

Your problem MIGHT be the infamous "not enough pilots" bug, which still exists (although there are claims it is fixed in 1.7xx patch - but we'll see).

If your carriers (especially, but also other air units) do not have AT LEAST the same number of pilots as aircraft, they might not fly at all. I.e. - if your carriers fighter squadrons had 24 planes, but only 23 pilots - they might not (?probably) won't fly. Ditto for your dive bombers and torpedo planes. You can easily lose pilots from ops, have a plane replaced, and bingo - nobody flies.

The only way i KNOW to get around this is to check each and every aircraft squadron every turn to make sure they have enough pilots, otherwise they might not fly - and you will notice it (probably) only when something critical happens - like when carriers are supposed to attack - or defend. I suspect since nobody flew attack missions, nobody much flew CAP, either. Scratch three carriers.

This checking all of this is a huge time sink.

(in reply to Poku)

Post #: 20

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:26:33 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

Why does this happen. I know that my CV's were not overloaded, there was still room in the plane capacity. Have you had similar experiences?

Your problem MIGHT be the infamous "not enough pilots" bug, which still exists (although there are claims it is fixed in 1.7xx patch - but we'll see).

If your carriers (especially, but also other air units) do not have AT LEAST the same number of pilots as aircraft, they might not fly at all. I.e. - if your carriers fighter squadrons had 24 planes, but only 23 pilots - they might not (?probably) won't fly. Ditto for your dive bombers and torpedo planes. You can easily lose pilots from ops, have a plane replaced, and bingo - nobody flies.

The only way i KNOW to get around this is to check each and every aircraft squadron every turn to make sure they have enough pilots, otherwise they might not fly - and you will notice it (probably) only when something critical happens - like when carriers are supposed to attack - or defend. I suspect since nobody flew attack missions, nobody much flew CAP, either. Scratch three carriers.

This checking all of this is a huge time sink.

Ah, good point. I had forgotten about that. I'm paranoid and check all my air units each turn, so I've gotten used to "filling-in" pilots that disappear. That is a big potential contributor too.

But never-the-less, even if all air units had full pilot quotas, a 1942 attack by US carriers on Japanese carriers is always a very risky thing in this game and will rarely turn in the US favor, for all the reasons that we mentioned above.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 21

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 5:27:23 PM

dereck

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

The stuff that happens in the game though (units refusing to fly) is way beyond the pale of what went on historically.

I'm seeing that a lot more in my v1.602 game that I ever remember seeing it in earlier versions of the game. Most turns nowadays Tophat and I get off less than a dozen air missions between the two of us over the entire map...

I'm suspicious that the conditions for launching air attacks were "tweaked" in the v1.50 and onwards patches in response to the complaints about the game moving "too fast".

Dave Baranyi

Which, frankly, pardon my language, pisses me off. I'm playing against the AI and yet I have to put up with the whining and crying of PBEMers who do things that are ahistorical and then cry and complain about the outcome and manage to get changes put through which end up affecting someone like me who plays within reason against the AI.

This is not the game I bought a year ago. I LIKED that game and I've seen it change from one I bought and liked to one that I don't like anymore. I try and change things in the editor (like making bombs more effective to counter the nerfing done to bombing) only to see changes HARDCODED that would negate anything I've done in my editor!! If PBEMers think bombing accuracy, etc is too accurate then it's about time THEY change things in their editors and let people like me who think the game is working fine alone.

I'd love to still be playing version 1.3 (which I liked and saw no problems with) but because of pilot replacement/leader bugs I was forced to upgrade and now my game is completely hosed in my opinion.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 22

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 6:14:42 PM

BlackSunshine

Posts: 366
Joined: 11/22/2002
Status: offline

Good question to the thread starter. I have wondered this myself, and have seen it hinted at in a few threads after some searching.

I also found through some searching that having 3 seperate CV task forces of 1CV each in the same hex will optimize your strike potential. Is this still the case?

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 23

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 6:23:33 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

By splitting the CVs into separate TFs it means

a. There is no coordination penalty. The individual CV TFs will launch smaller, but coordinated strikes.

b. All in the same hex, you get all the CAP combined. So if a lone CV TF gets attacked, it still gets all 80 fighters from all from the separate TFs.

c. It also gives the enemy multiple TFs attack. If KB hits your TF with 3 CVs, they're all going be sunk. But 3 CVs in 3 TFs, means that KB will launch a mega-strike vs. one of the TFs (or maybe two). Those two TFs will gain the benefit of all the fighters on CAP (same hex), and then get clobbed by whatever bombers get thru. But at least you'll have one or two CVs left afterwards.

-F-

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BlackSunshine)

Post #: 24

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 6:27:03 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSunshine

Good question to the thread starter. I have wondered this myself, and have seen it hinted at in a few threads after some searching.

I also found through some searching that having 3 seperate CV task forces of 1CV each in the same hex will optimize your strike potential. Is this still the case?

Apparently the strike potential IS improved by both quantity of flying aircraft and cohesion of flying aircaft if CVs are not in the same TF. I can't figure out what causes this or why the design stipulates this.

Having seperate CV TFs just grabs the UBER CAP issue by the horns too. The seperate CVs still manage to keep up the full CAP (CAP would be the same if all CVs were in the same TF but for some reason strikes are arbitrarily nerfed) and the IJ coordinated strikes are negated as they split up BEFORE CAP resolution and attack each TF! Weird and I still don't understand the reasoning.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 11/28/2005 6:30:49 PM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to BlackSunshine)

Post #: 25

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 7:24:29 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Poku

I am REALLY frustrated. I am playing in American side. I have a strong CV TF near New Guinea (3 CV's) and nice Jap CV TF nearby. My TF sends only 5 fighters, 3 DB's and 2 TB's to attac japs, and what happens? Nothing!!! But, as japan (AI) sends 56 Zeros, 40 DB's and 40 TB's, all my three CV's are sunk. I had CAP's in air etc. Aargh. Why does this happen. I know that my CV's were not overloaded, there was still room in the plane capacity. Have you had similar experiences?

What happened here goes beyond the coordination penalty.

There are several things that will interfere with a strike. You might have used up too many OPs moving, a large portion of your strike might have been unable to find the target, you may have been hit with less pilots than planes bug, or a combination of those factors.

I second DFalcon's assessment. I don't think that this is just a coordination problem. You may have had other issues like lack of AIR ops points or weather problems.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to DFalcon)

Post #: 26

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 7:40:47 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSunshine

Good question to the thread starter. I have wondered this myself, and have seen it hinted at in a few threads after some searching.

I also found through some searching that having 3 seperate CV task forces of 1CV each in the same hex will optimize your strike potential. Is this still the case?

It will improve your strike potential. However, keep in mind that there are a lot of factors weighing against successful Allied naval air attacks on Japanese carriers in 1942. Just because you get better attacks off, doesn't mean that you will get the success that you need. Unless you are very, very close you won't have torpedo planes flying before you get Avengers, and if your Dauntlesses fly with 500 lb bombs they won't scratch the Japanese fleet carriers because of their armored decks. So you can have everything "working" and still have your carriers devastated.

You might get "lucky", but do you really want to risk your carriers on "luck" or do you want to try to use them to their full potential. Come September 1942, when you have Avengers and 36-plane fighter units on your carriers, wouldn't you rather have six carriers instead of only a couple?

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

< Message edited by ADavidB -- 11/28/2005 7:41:30 PM >

(in reply to BlackSunshine)

Post #: 27

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 8:14:03 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSunshine

Good question to the thread starter. I have wondered this myself, and have seen it hinted at in a few threads after some searching.

I also found through some searching that having 3 seperate CV task forces of 1CV each in the same hex will optimize your strike potential. Is this still the case?

It will improve your strike potential. However, keep in mind that there are a lot of factors weighing against successful Allied naval air attacks on Japanese carriers in 1942. Just because you get better attacks off, doesn't mean that you will get the success that you need. Unless you are very, very close you won't have torpedo planes flying before you get Avengers, and if your Dauntlesses fly with 500 lb bombs they won't scratch the Japanese fleet carriers because of their armored decks. So you can have everything "working" and still have your carriers devastated.

You might get "lucky", but do you really want to risk your carriers on "luck" or do you want to try to use them to their full potential. Come September 1942, when you have Avengers and 36-plane fighter units on your carriers, wouldn't you rather have six carriers instead of only a couple?

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

I ditched the BS "armoured decks" quandry. I arbitrarily halved the armour rating to make the decks vulnerable to 500lb and 250kg bombs. What is more important? Vulnerability of wooden decked CVs or keeping the maximum deck armour over the machinery and magazines by allowing this wooden deck armor because of the 1982 damage model? I figure if the damage model can't handle the actual armour thickness, the actual thickness has got to go.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 28

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 10:39:21 PM

testarossa

Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck
I try and change things in the editor (like making bombs more effective to counter the nerfing done to bombing) only to see changes HARDCODED that would negate anything I've done in my editor!! .

Not for the sake of argument but as an advice on editor.

To improve effect against land targets bombload needs to be changed. For B-24 from 8000 to 16000 for example or any other number until you get results you desire.

To make LB deadly ship-killers change device accuracy for 500 lb and 1000lb bomb and increase number of bombs if you wish. If you want some particular aircraft to be a ship-killer (which i wanted to by PB4Y), i created separate 500lb bomb with increased accuracy and put it on PB4Y only.

Ron advised me once to put armoured decks on subs to negate uber-ASW air patrols. It worked. But they fixed air-patrol problem in 1.7xx.

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 29

RE: Problems with CV's - 11/28/2005 11:00:17 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

But they fixed air-patrol problem in 1.7xx.

Like they fixed the disappearing units, and the leader bug(s) in 1.40, 1.50, 1.60?

(in reply to testarossa)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Problems with CV's

Page: [1] 2 next > >>