Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

henry1611 -> Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/10/2010 1:10:47 AM)

In a number of AARs, I have noticed several people using multiple carriers in one TF.

Other than the coordination penalty that is applied under certain circumstances, are there any other penalties for having more than carrier in a given TF? I understand that you may not want to do so for tactical reasons, but are there "penalties" for doing so (other than possibly to coordination of strikes)?



bklooste -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/10/2010 1:47:18 AM)

The coordination penalty is big....



henry1611 -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/10/2010 4:22:03 PM)

I am not discounting the coordination penalty, I am just trying to find out if a multiple carrier TF that is not subject to the coordination penalty (not enough aircraft) would be subject to some other penalty. In other words, is there a reason not to have multiple carrier TFs other than the coordination penalty and, of course, tactical reasons?



jimh009 -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/12/2010 12:37:57 PM)

Other than the coordination penalty - which is HUGE - there are no other penalties that I'm aware of. Just keep in mind that with multiple CV's in a TF, the TF might be easier to spot since there is likely to be more ships in the task force.



findmeifyoucan -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/14/2010 1:19:16 AM)

So tell me. How big is this coordination penalty as I do run with Multiple CV's in TF's?



henry1611 -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/14/2010 6:06:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: findmeifyoucan

So tell me. How big is this coordination penalty as I do run with Multiple CV's in TF's?

From page 167 of 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).


How the penalty is calculated is being discussed in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2430292



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/17/2010 10:58:47 PM)

Is it only the allies? What about the japs? Reason I ask is I had a 4 vs 4 carrier battle (sep 42) and not one of my planes hit any of his cv's (japs) but of course his hit mine-2 sunk and 2 heavy damaged(me allies). Its this way almost always. Something isn't correct.[:-]
quote:

ORIGINAL: henry1611

quote:

ORIGINAL: findmeifyoucan

So tell me. How big is this coordination penalty as I do run with Multiple CV's in TF's?

From page 167 of 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).


How the penalty is calculated is being discussed in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2430292




Athius -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/18/2010 10:22:57 AM)


»» 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 (20



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/18/2010 1:49:31 PM)

If that is the case then the game is ahistorical. Why because then there is no-Battle of Guadalcanal,Santa Cruz, Eastern Solomons,Coral Sea. Notice none of these carrier vs carrier battles were in 44.[:-][&:][:)]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius


»» 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 (20




Oldguard1970 -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/18/2010 7:27:32 PM)

Oh Dear! The game is broken AGAIN!? Darn!

Titanwarrior - The coordination penalty does not prevent carrier vs. carrier battles. Players who create TFs with lots of carriers will see fewer coordinated strikes than they would see without the penalty. That's all.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Carrier TFs - Single or Multiple CVs? (4/19/2010 10:46:20 PM)

You still didn't answer the question. I understand the penalty. But with KB running around with out the penalty effecting them the results are ahistorical. You know it and I know it. You see my friend the Japs and the americans were just about on par with carriers. Except for the exsperience level of the japanese pilots compared to the americans.

Why do you think that some games on the pacific war at operational level in the pass started with Dec 41 and ended in late 43. Because the after that period it was completely down hill for the japanese. But prior to that period they were close to par. In WitpAE this super KB carrier force of 4 carriers running around willy nilly is off. If you guys think I am wrong - then maybe it wouldn't hurt to do a little rereading on the subject.[:-]

Broke, NA its not broke its just plane ahistorical. [:-]
quote:

ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970

Oh Dear! The game is broken AGAIN!? Darn!

Titanwarrior - The coordination penalty does not prevent carrier vs. carrier battles. Players who create TFs with lots of carriers will see fewer coordinated strikes than they would see without the penalty. That's all.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7192383