CS vs AV tactics

CS vs AV tactics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

niceguy2005 -> CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 5:06:06 PM)
So I just thought I would start a thread to gather some ideas about the use of scout cruisers and seaplane tenders for IJ. The first few times played IJ I hardly used my CS and tried to use AV for number of roles...none of which worked very well. I am now starting to play around with a couple of knew ideas. I now use CS quite heavily in my mainline combat (air and surface) TFs. Before I was concerned about getting them shot up, but now I figure they will be shot up at some point, might as well try to get some valuable recon from them. I use them more with SCTFs than ACTFs. Anyone else tried this? How well did it work? I have tried using AV ships for anti-sub warfare. I have had one off Formosa for weeks and the pilots are training up nicely. They are getting attacks, but hits are far too few. I'm thinking about putting 3 together in a TF and flooding the area with seaplanes.

castor troy -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 5:33:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 So I just thought I would start a thread to gather some ideas about the use of scout cruisers and seaplane tenders for IJ. The first few times played IJ I hardly used my CS and tried to use AV for number of roles...none of which worked very well. I am now starting to play around with a couple of knew ideas. I now use CS quite heavily in my mainline combat (air and surface) TFs. Before I was concerned about getting them shot up, but now I figure they will be shot up at some point, might as well try to get some valuable recon from them. I use them more with SCTFs than ACTFs. Anyone else tried this? How well did it work? I have tried using AV ships for anti-sub warfare. I have had one off Formosa for weeks and the pilots are training up nicely. They are getting attacks, but hits are far too few. I'm thinking about putting 3 together in a TF and flooding the area with seaplanes. I have normally one of my fast CS going with KB. This way I have the float planes of all my BB/CA/CL PLUS the two dozen from the CS. This means I can use ALL my KB bombers on nav attack. I had never any problems not spotting something in 4 years of PBEM. And 20 bombers more in a strike can be a major difference.

m10bob -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 6:01:29 PM)
I have wondered if it were feasible for the Japanese to put seaplanes on one of those islands over toward Fiji to assist friendly subs and AMC's in the area. Since the U.S. has to go that route to supply Australia and New Zealand , a lot of allied ship-borne planes and supplies might be lost there, (or at least force the allies to keep the area patrolled?)..

FeurerKrieg -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 6:06:41 PM)
Put them with some CVEs loaded with Zeros and you can patrol SoPac or the Indian Ocean - forces the Allied player to escort his convoys with carriers or else you get easy kills. At the same time, you can keep your KB where you expect the major action to be. And int he Indian Ocean, if the British carriers come along, your Zeros can probably keep you covered. Jakes on CSs (in CHS anyways) can do a real number on anything small than a CA. And you can use all four CS's since your speed will still be above 20 knots, faster than most transports.

niceguy2005 -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 6:08:33 PM)
Well, a Jake from the Chitose just attacked and sunk S-18 which had been stalking the KB....so I guess there's that. [:)]

Anthropoid -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 6:26:55 PM)
quote: I have normally one of my fast CS going with KB. This way I have the float planes of all my BB/CA/CL PLUS the two dozen from the CS. This means I can use ALL my KB bombers on nav attack. . . Wow. Didn't realize there were any ships that had two dozen float planes on them. Or am I misunderstanding what a CS is? This raises a question that I'll bet some of you guys can answer: how many FPs is "too many" in a hex? I'm betting the game engine accounts for the fact that, as you search farther out, you'll need more planes to get equal coverage. It sounds like you are talking about TF with what? 35 float planes on scout? What are some good rules of thumb in terms of numbers of FPs to have scouting from a particular hex at say ranges of 8, 10, 12, assuming of course you want to maximize your spotting capacity.

castor troy -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 6:49:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid quote: I have normally one of my fast CS going with KB. This way I have the float planes of all my BB/CA/CL PLUS the two dozen from the CS. This means I can use ALL my KB bombers on nav attack. . . Wow. Didn't realize there were any ships that had two dozen float planes on them. Or am I misunderstanding what a CS is? This raises a question that I'll bet some of you guys can answer: how many FPs is "too many" in a hex? I'm betting the game engine accounts for the fact that, as you search farther out, you'll need more planes to get equal coverage. It sounds like you are talking about TF with what? 35 float planes on scout? What are some good rules of thumb in terms of numbers of FPs to have scouting from a particular hex at say ranges of 8, 10, 12, assuming of course you want to maximize your spotting capacity. a CS is a scout cruiser and they carry a lot of FP. [:D] 35 is fewer than I normally have. Let´s see... 4 Kongos (12 FP), 5 CA (15 FP), 1 CS (24 FP), 2 CL (4 FP) makes 55 float planes on search 6 or 7 hexes.

Coach Z -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 7:30:57 PM)
I've put the *RUFE* Chutais on board a CS and use it to provide CAP at a newly invaded base, and to cover the unloading transports.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 8:15:47 PM)
Yea, I've considered putting Rufe's on CS as well. That is a viable plan, since it can provide some degree of CAP. I think the key is to use the CS/AVs in the right place - ie supporting KB as scouts, or on their own as an offensive(defensive with Rufes) weapon, but in a secondary theater. I also have seen people (like PZB) drop some Rufes on large battleships like the Yamato so they have some minimal degree of CAP as well.

Andvari -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/2/2008 11:30:32 PM)
The planes on a Japanese AV fly any time I give them a mission at sea (not just when they are docked), just like the CS, yes? The reason I ask is that when I click on an AV TF it doesn't show the search radius of the planes even though I have that option selected.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 1:17:59 AM)
Got me, I only use my AV's when docked. The CS's I use underway all the time though.

Local Yokel -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 2:06:58 AM)
Andvari raises an interesting point: do the AV's embarked aircraft fly whilst the ship is not at a base? I had always assumed so, but now I'm wondering. Most potent scout cruiser of the lot is Mogami after CHS 'post midway' upgrade, when she can embark 11 aircraft; I normally equip her with an additional 9-plane chutai of Type 0 seaplanes, having landed one of her 2 intrinsic seaplane air groups. Obviously Mogami has the necessary speed to stay with the fastest fleet carriers, but Chitose, Chiyoda and Nisshin have the speed to work with a TF that includes Kaga or the light carriers. That then raises the question whether one should permit Chitose and Chiyoda to convert to light carriers themselves or retain them in a configuration that allows them either to work with the carriers or as fast transports, e.g. for evacuation work. Can't say I would fancy using either CS or AV with CVE's as a 'carrier group lite' in the Indian Ocean. Just don't see them being able to live if the RN carriers are about.

RUPD3658 -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 4:13:10 AM)
see: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1197621&mpage=1&key=�

Tophat1815 -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 4:28:33 AM)
I use mine as troop convoy escorts providing ASW protection. I then later use them as resource convoy escorts providing ASW protection.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 6:58:55 AM)
quote: Can't say I would fancy using either CS or AV with CVE's as a 'carrier group lite' in the Indian Ocean. Just don't see them being able to live if the RN carriers are about. Not the Bay of Bengal, but south of Java, in that stretch, were they can easily run back to Zero cover, they can do well enough. Plus, stuff 4 CVE's with A6M2/A6M3a and they can handle the early war RN carrier planes. Later on, Chitose and Chiyoda will be gone anyways (converting to CVL), so the remaining CS usage would probably change.

Dili -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 9:41:56 AM)
I have House rules for them because with so many planes it is not real(and should be considered gamey) to travel at battle speed and at same time recover 10 or more planes which would be a work of a couple hours at slow or zero speed. So i usually force them to use cruise speed only when they are using their planes. I always put them in a support TF and not with main body for that reason. I also feel(i say feel because i am not sure and the game doesnt give feedback)) that floatplanes in ships are overrated. Sea state for example should preclude missions and give more accidents/or diversion to land. There is also a time window when a ship is recovering the floatplane when it is very vulnerable to a submarine. I dont know a case of a hit when a ship was recovering a floatplane but it should be an increased chance. At mid of war British were taking out floatplanes from cruisers. Floatplanes are also an increased ship hazard due to bomb or surface hits.

Q-Ball -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 1:49:01 PM)
These are good comments, and I basically agree: 1. FAST CS are paired with KB to contribute search capability. I also swap out one FP unit for Rufes, and provides even a bit extra CAP. After late '42, this basically means CS Nisshin 2. Slow CS Mizuho is paired with CVE to patrol Oz/India sealane, or used on ASW. Or paired with CV TF containing CVE's, whatever won't slow it down 3. Use Chitose/Chiyoda carefully, you don't want them sunk before conversion I like using AVs to patrol "Dark" areas. If you put them in a replenishment TF with one AO, they can basically sail around forever. I love the AV's with airgroups though. The AV's without airgroups are close to useless as Japan though.

niceguy2005 -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 3:13:59 PM)
I used to use AVs for patrolling areas without naval search capability. I often found they got sunk too quickly...usually by a passing allied CV.

treespider -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 3:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I used to use AVs for patrolling areas without naval search capability. I often found they got sunk too quickly...usually by a passing allied CV. Guess they served their purpose...[:D]

niceguy2005 -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 9:01:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I used to use AVs for patrolling areas without naval search capability. I often found they got sunk too quickly...usually by a passing allied CV. Guess they served their purpose...[:D] A much better way to find out if allied CVs are around is put out a bunch of subs and see if they are spotted by SBDs.

treespider -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/3/2008 9:18:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 I used to use AVs for patrolling areas without naval search capability. I often found they got sunk too quickly...usually by a passing allied CV. Guess they served their purpose...[:D] A much better way to find out if allied CVs are around is put out a bunch of subs and see if they are spotted by SBDs. That's assuming the Allied player has his planes on Naval Search at the place and time...[;)] Think of it terms of the Iragi and Serbian AAA batteries that would keep their RADAR off lest the Americans would detect their radar signature ...

laien607 -> RE: CS vs AV tactics (8/5/2008 6:38:41 AM)
Good to learn about this!

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125