"defensive" carrier - gamey? (Full Version)

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



Message

gajdacs zsolt -> "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 8:42:32 PM)

I've been thinking for a long time whether to post this or not, but I would really like to see opinions about this, so here it is:

I have an ongoing PBEM as Japan, and it was about a year ago in game time ('43 may now) when i lost my first CV to my own stupidity. Then some time later i lost another one, and I began to feel that 4 CVs are not going to be enough if my opponent starts to counter-attack. So I started thinking about what should be done to try to prolong my superiority....and I came up with the idea of the "defensive" carrier.

Since KB was reduced to 4 ships i could move them together in one TF, so i thought that i should somehow increase the number of fighters i have. I looked at my ships, and i still had Akagi. Together with Kaga (which was already at the bottom of the Coral Sea at that time) these are the biggest CVs Japan has. So I removed the DBs and TBs from Akagi and set the fighters to resize. With this i got a squadron of 72 planes...

So my question is: Is it gamey to have a fighter only CV?

I'm not an expert, but as far as I know IRL CVs were thought of as ship capable of individual operation, capable of performing both offensive and defensive tasks by themselves, as well as in a group. What I'm doing here is changing the perspective, I'm looking at CVs the other way around. Since they always move together why not look at what's most beneficial for the group? I need more fighters? Have one CV dedicated to that task. Of course i wouldn't change every CV this way....then it would be the same as having mixed airgroups...

The other thing I'm using to rationalize this is the fact, that airgroups were never static on flattops. Numbers changed according to the mission they were sent to perform, and of course by the number of available frames and pilots. So this is a kind of "expansion" of this fact....the mission requires more fighters :).

What do you think of this?



Q-Ball -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 8:49:15 PM)

I'm on the fence on that one, and I probably say don't do it. It would be pretty easy for one side to put 200 fighters up on CAP and eat whatever comes along, then next-day swap out the airgroups and counterattack.

I say gamey.

EDIT: I will say putting all-fighters on a CVL or something that has no organic airgroups....that's OK. Putting 27 Zeros on Ryuho, for example, is OK. But stuffing SHOKAKU to the gills? I don't think so.



Canoerebel -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 8:50:45 PM)

It wasn't done but it could have been done had certain circumstances meshed with the "right" commanders.  So it falls within the boundaries of legitimate "what if" and "let's give it a try" as far as I am concerned.  Too, the Allied player can react to try to defeat or overcome the strategy, so it doesn't give the Japanese player some unfair advantage that the Allied player can't counteract.  Go for it!



Canoerebel -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 8:52:58 PM)

P.S.  John III employed that tactic against me in our WitP match ("Forlorn Hopes") and I've considered doing it in some of my games, though I never have.



Chickenboy -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 8:55:30 PM)

If with the Reb on this one. Don't see why it couldn't be done. The Allies (and others) changed the % fighter mix on their carriers throughout the war. This would be an extreme of the continuum, but I'd be OK with it.

But don't go cryin' when you fly nothin' but CAP over that juicy Allied TK TF! There's a reason why striking potential is what it's all about for carriers.



AW1Steve -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 8:59:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

If with the Reb on this one. Don't see why it couldn't be done. The Allies (and others) changed the % fighter mix on their carriers throughout the war. This would be an extreme of the continuum, but I'd be OK with it.

But don't go cryin' when you fly nothin' but CAP over that juicy Allied TK TF! There's a reason why striking potential is what it's all about for carriers.


Except that our house rules say "no resize"![:D] But seriously, how's it any different from replacing a badly attritted squadron with a USMC one? [&:]



gajdacs zsolt -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 9:07:21 PM)

So I'm not the first one to come up with this :). I'm relieved :).

In this case i used this as an emergency method. It worked quite well for almost a year.... (with no really big engagement, and no carrier battle at all)

But then in '43 february i walked into a trap and i lost two CVs out of 4 (Akagi was one of them). Based on that battle I'd say, that this setup (the extra fighters) saved my other 2 CVs...

If i were to start a new game i would do it like this:
KB split to 2 TFs, they move together, one is led by Akagi, the other by Kaga, both have 72 fighters and a small number of TBs (you can fit about 12 of them...).

Would this setup be gamey?

Edit: It also has to be said that i think of CVs as big floating airfields, whose job is mobile protection....to go where the enemy wants to strike and try to bleed him there. If i need to go on the offense more fighters will ensure smaller losses to strike craft.



John 3rd -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 9:26:39 PM)

To give credit for the strategy that truly WORKED against Dan's Hokkaido Invasion in our Campaign, Nemo helped a bunch with the concept. He and I were on the same page but went differently about it. I planned to load a 2nd Zero Daitai onto my 4 biggest Cvs adding over 100 more Fighters, however, Nemo convinced me to set it up as a complete CAP Trap and I went with 100% Fighters. It really worked and then I moved bombers onto the decks.

It was provacative but I don't think too gamey. "Creative" might be a better way of describing it... [sm=sterb032.gif][sm=love0028.gif]



Durbik -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 9:52:57 PM)

Not gamey. After all, Japanese came up with completely gamey stuff RL. i mean the REALLY used planes that crashed onto ships! Thing you're saying is strange, but within IJN capabilities to endorse strangeness



crsutton -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 10:08:54 PM)

Well, the Allied did the exact same thing late in the war as a counter to the kamakaze attacks. They removed some of the bombers and torpedo bombers off of the fleet carriers and replaced them with fighters-usually marine corsairs. This is actually going to happen in your game automatically for the Allied player as an upgrade. So, I guess I am OK with it as long as you are reasonable. For example, if you were to pull that 72 plane fighter group off of the carrier to use in land based fighter sweeps then I would have a lot of problems with it because fighter sweeps usually do not coordinate well and the ability to send 72 planes in one sweep would give you an edge because you have one massive air group. This would be mungo gamey. And of course, no sweeps from carriers either.  However, a fighter-only carrier can only defend itself and is not capable of sinking any ships so I think it is sort of a dead end solution.

Best solution is to talk it over with your opponent.  Better to give away some tactics than to lose a friend. Who knows he may be planning to do the same thing.....



The Gnome -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 10:20:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Durbik

Not gamey. After all, Japanese came up with completely gamey stuff RL. i mean the REALLY used planes that crashed onto ships! Thing you're saying is strange, but within IJN capabilities to endorse strangeness


I tend to agree with this line of thinking, but I guess it comes down to how you define "gamey".

In the loosest sense you could say it's anything that takes advantage of a flaw in the game engine, like a bug or an abstraction. In the strictest, you could say it is anything that would not happen in anything other than a game. This of course is a tougher call, as there were all sorts of outlandish ideas tried in WW2, so what ideas that you come up with are just original?

I would say this is something I could see has happening in a combat situation, and maybe even a good idea.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 10:20:58 PM)

In this case I would say "not gamey".  It's an odd choice, but not unprecedented.  The USN considered making Enterprise a "night fighter carrier" later in the war, which would have been even more specialized.  And as someone pointed out, it could prove extrordinarily frustraiting when a juicy target shows up and you have no way to strike it.  To be "gamey" you need to be "gaming the system"; taking advantage of hindsight or a system weakness to make moves your opponent has no chance or way to counter.  This one is open to both sides equally, so I don't think you can call it "gamey".



Feinder -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 10:22:04 PM)

I don't know about the whole re-sizing thing (frankly, I've never used this "feature" of AE). But if somebody wanted to fighter-load a CV, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

It's not completely without precedent. The USN CVs reduced the number of dive and torpedo bombers in 44 and 45, and increased the number of fighter-bombers. It was partly due to the greater need for close air support, and Corsair was aptly equipped, but it also reflected the greater need for defense vs. Kamikazes. To go to the extreme and put ~all~ fighters or fighter-bombers... As I said, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it.

I will point out two things however:

a. The AE conventions have much "leaker" CAP than in WitP. A deckload of fighters may not give you the return on investment that you're hoping it will (evidence the Kami thread where the USN fleet still got stomped, even against the AI.
b. You may have coordination issues if you're expecting fighters from the fighter-only CV, to help provide escorts for your balanced or bomber-only CVs.

-F-



Chickenboy -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/22/2010 10:26:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

If with the Reb on this one. Don't see why it couldn't be done. The Allies (and others) changed the % fighter mix on their carriers throughout the war. This would be an extreme of the continuum, but I'd be OK with it.

But don't go cryin' when you fly nothin' but CAP over that juicy Allied TK TF! There's a reason why striking potential is what it's all about for carriers.


Except that our house rules say "no resize"![:D] But seriously, how's it any different from replacing a badly attritted squadron with a USMC one? [&:]

No. Our HRs say no resizing a carrier group for creation of a supersized training group. Resizing to fit the carrier if the squadrons (as they do) start undersized is OK. You're right that this would take some discussion to figure out the HRs on this before plunging ahead.



Kadrin -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 12:20:22 AM)

The only way I see it as gamey is if after trashing an incoming strike from your opponents carriers you then switch most of your fighters out for strike aircraft and attack him. In game it's a matter of just flying the planes around, in reality I'm pretty sure it would have required more time than that and probably not even possible to coordinate something like that on a short notice.

Just my two cents.



ckammp -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 12:29:06 AM)

I believe the tactic is gamey, and it can be easily abused.

I don't understand how putting only fighters on a large Japanese carrier in 1942 (never even attempted in RL, and why would they?) can be justified by the late-44/early-45 resizing of US carrier squadrons (historically true, done to counter kamikaze attacks, and only added more fighters while still keeping DBs and TBs).

It isn't "creative" tactics, it's just cheating.   



TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 12:41:14 AM)

To me it's only gamey if you actually resize your fighters to fit 72 aircraft in one group.

I'd have no problem with an opponent putting multiple fighter groups on a carrier to get 72 fighters total if that's what they wanted to do.



The Gnome -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 1:21:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

I believe the tactic is gamey, and it can be easily abused.

I don't understand how putting only fighters on a large Japanese carrier in 1942 (never even attempted in RL, and why would they?) can be justified by the late-44/early-45 resizing of US carrier squadrons (historically true, done to counter kamikaze attacks, and only added more fighters while still keeping DBs and TBs).

It isn't "creative" tactics, it's just cheating.   


Why is it cheating? Just curious as to your reasoning.



CarnageINC -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 1:29:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

I believe the tactic is gamey, and it can be easily abused.

I don't understand how putting only fighters on a large Japanese carrier in 1942 (never even attempted in RL, and why would they?) can be justified by the late-44/early-45 resizing of US carrier squadrons (historically true, done to counter kamikaze attacks, and only added more fighters while still keeping DBs and TBs).

It isn't "creative" tactics, it's just cheating.   


Why is it cheating? Just curious as to your reasoning.


I'm with Gnome on this one, why is it cheating if hes not resizing to huge individual squadrons and has already lost 2 KB carriers?



Big B -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 1:55:12 AM)

I would agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

The only way I see it as gamey is if after trashing an incoming strike from your opponents carriers you then switch most of your fighters out for strike aircraft and attack him. In game it's a matter of just flying the planes around, in reality I'm pretty sure it would have required more time than that and probably not even possible to coordinate something like that on a short notice.

Just my two cents.


But it really depends on what your pre-agreed house rules were. If you agreed not to mess with CV air wings, I suppose it's gamey, if not go for it.

But if you are asking if it's just gamey under any circumstances - I would say "not gamey" with a caveat.

The caveat is that IRL, the organization of Japanese Navy air wings were tied to their carriers so much that even after Coral Sea - the Damage to Shokaku and depleted air wing on Zuikaku kept them from combining survivors over to Zuikaku so she could participate in Midway.
With that in mind, it appears that any quick transfer of air units from CV to CV or land base (as USN air units were considered and used as independent formations) was never done by Japan - the more so when it comes to over night transfers between fighters and bombers depending on mission and targets of opportunity. I just don't think that the IJN ever displayed that kind of flexibility...if you're looking for "historical accuracy".
And as far as the USN is concerned, they too never transferred squadrons from CV to land base and back and forth over night either.

Now personally, as far as the game is concerned, if you have no house rules in place prohibiting these things - I love the idea.
Of course that leaves your opponent free to do the same thing, so it comes down to who is better positioned to take advantage of it at any given time - and don't cry foul if you get burned either.

One last point related to the above, I don't have any problem with either player (again barring house rules) experimenting with the realities of the situation, and perhaps thinking that the surface fleet is the best card to play - and CV aviation may be best used as a cover force for the battle fleet.

Overall, I vote "not gamey" - so long as no pre-arranged agreement is broken.

B

PS - IRL the 8th AF did a similar move by making some B-17s "gunships" to accompany the bombers...




jomni -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 2:23:53 AM)

It's a game so there should be gamey stuff going on.



CapAndGown -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 2:33:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

And as far as the USN is concerned, they too never transferred squadrons from CV to land base and back and forth over night either.



What about all the times CV based squadrons would fly a strike and then land at Henderson field for the evening, then fly back to the carrier the next day. The USN showed a great deal of flexibility about where its carrier based planes were stationed.



Big B -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 2:40:24 AM)

There is one point I would add to that.

If it's a game I agree totally ...that's what you are supposed to do.

If you view it as not just a game but also an historical sim, I would suggest one limitation in deference to reality -
Change CV air squadrons only in any major port that could be assumed to supply the CV with the necessary spare engines, munitions, and parts needed to support the new air wing. Other than that, reconfiguring the air wing seems ok.

I'm sure 'The Elf' would agree that a CV can only operate aircraft types that the CV has the means to support.

For example, if the decision was made in Tokyo that Akagi will operate as a Fighter CAP CV only, then the Navy Department will transfer the necessary air units, parts, and mechanics to support that role. But don't expect the Akagi to overnight accommodate the operation of Judy's and Jill's just because they could land on her decks...they would need the support of materiel and trained mechanics to make them operational....as it would be for the USN or Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm also.

You can could configure them how you like - but not change operations "on the fly".

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

It's a game so there should be gamey stuff going on.




Big B -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 2:41:40 AM)

Yes - see post #23 above

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

And as far as the USN is concerned, they too never transferred squadrons from CV to land base and back and forth over night either.



What about all the times CV based squadrons would fly a strike and then land at Henderson field for the evening, then fly back to the carrier the next day. The USN showed a great deal of flexibility about where its carrier based planes were stationed.





The Gnome -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 3:00:10 AM)

The Doolittle Raid is another example of flexible thinking on carrier load outs. It's the exact opposite load, all bombers.



pmelheck1 -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 4:33:03 AM)

I know others wont agree but it's not gamey to me.  Load out of the CV should depend on the mission of the ship.  If it's purely defensive then a purely fighter loadout wouldn't be a unreasonable assumption.  But you rob the CV of it's greatest asset, it's ability to project air power far from allied bases.  This to me hearkens back to the BB days when it was assumed that BB's would slug it out and the CV's were there for scouting and protection only.  By handing air superiority to the enemy you fight on his terms.  The best defense of a CV group is to sink the enemy CV fleet or cripple his bases before he can launch a strike on your fleet.  A fighter fleet would pose no threat to the enemy, and in any engagement you will always come out on the bad end as he will sail away with out any of his ships firing a shot of AA.  If playing as the allies you can afford to lose ships and he can't.  If your playing as Japan such a defensive posture would be unthinkable I think to the Japanese of that time.  Also if he knows your doing this he can leave no cap over his fleet as it would be in no danger of attack and send all those fighters to protect his bombers striking your fleet.  He could also remove all fighters and replace them with bombers.  Even if you shoot most of them down if he sinks 1 or 2 carriers he still comes out way ahead.  I've always viewed CV's as more weapon then armor.



PaxMondo -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 5:05:53 AM)

I'm with Gnome and BigB on this, for exactly as they state it.

Gamey means taking advantage of the engine in an unrealistic way.  Re-sizing and going to all fighters could have been done.  The fact that it wasn't, but was considered by at least one side moves it into "possible" category.  With the caveat that BigB brought up, needs to be done in a large port where all the provisions could handle this.  So not "on the fly" at say Lunga.  But HI or a major base like Truk?  Sure.

I mean, you still have to have the aircraft to fill out the unit.  That means production.  You also have to have the experienced pilots.  If the IJN has them, why wouldn't they be used?  Historically, they were desparately short of both after Coral Sea and Midway.  BUT, if the player has avoided that (like PzB in his AAR), he could easily have a surfeit of both.  He should be able to get them into play, else he is being unfairly handicapped by the historical outcome.  OTOH, you have a "Midway" like Cuttlefish did in his AAR, this won't be an option.  He lost a lot of groups in one day ... very Midway-esque.



John 3rd -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 5:14:33 AM)

I don't think I could ever re-size a Daitai to 72 planes. Bringing on-board 3 27 plane Daitai makes far better sense to me.



RUDOLF -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 5:50:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zsolo007

I've been thinking for a long time whether to post this or not, but I would really like to see opinions about this, so here it is:

I have an ongoing PBEM as Japan, and it was about a year ago in game time ('43 may now) when i lost my first CV to my own stupidity. Then some time later i lost another one, and I began to feel that 4 CVs are not going to be enough if my opponent starts to counter-attack. So I started thinking about what should be done to try to prolong my superiority....and I came up with the idea of the "defensive" carrier.

Since KB was reduced to 4 ships i could move them together in one TF, so i thought that i should somehow increase the number of fighters i have. I looked at my ships, and i still had Akagi. Together with Kaga (which was already at the bottom of the Coral Sea at that time) these are the biggest CVs Japan has. So I removed the DBs and TBs from Akagi and set the fighters to resize. With this i got a squadron of 72 planes...

So my question is: Is it gamey to have a fighter only CV?

I'm not an expert, but as far as I know IRL CVs were thought of as ship capable of individual operation, capable of performing both offensive and defensive tasks by themselves, as well as in a group. What I'm doing here is changing the perspective, I'm looking at CVs the other way around. Since they always move together why not look at what's most beneficial for the group? I need more fighters? Have one CV dedicated to that task. Of course i wouldn't change every CV this way....then it would be the same as having mixed airgroups...

The other thing I'm using to rationalize this is the fact, that airgroups were never static on flattops. Numbers changed according to the mission they were sent to perform, and of course by the number of available frames and pilots. So this is a kind of "expansion" of this fact....the mission requires more fighters :).

What do you think of this?




I use dedicated CV's for extra fighters and also use a CV dedicated for 60 Torpedo Bombers + 20 Fighters.. why not? It could been done and it is effective to do. 1 of my CV's has 85 Fighters.



Dili -> RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey? (6/23/2010 6:07:22 AM)

I don't think it is gamey if it is done from a shipyard base to prepare the stores inside the ship for fighters(more guns amno, maybe needs more fuel, no need for torpedos, most bombs, just maybe ome small bombs) there is need of some time spent on training and tactics.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.203125