Question from Neptune's Inferno (Full Version)

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



Message

Lifer -> Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 3:57:46 AM)

First off, no catcalls or derisive laughter. I enjoyed the book but have a question that relates to gameplay. The author talks about the US CVs having a "duty " carrier that would assume responsibility for CAP over the fleet and the majority of the search planes sent for the day. Has anyone tried this concept within the game? I played through the "Return to Wake" scenario a few times but I not confident enough at this point to say the concept works. If one CVTF is following a second, does CAP over one cover the second? Does the carrier coordination penalty apply for the total plans sent on a strike or for all planes in the hex?

Greg



Cribtop -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 4:12:34 AM)

Not sure how it works in game, but Shattered Sword describes how KB employed the same theory as a matter of doctrine, at least during the transit from the Home Islands to Midway.



jmalter -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 4:49:40 AM)

Sometimes i'll have a CV TF where one of the DB sqns has a range advantage over the others, and it'll become the dedicated 'Search' sqn. IIRC it was an SB2C sqn that i withheld an upgrade on b/c of it's greater range than the SBD's in the TF. But i had to keep an eye on it so it didn't get overheated, from morale decrease and higher service rating.

If TF2 is in the same hex as TF1, TF1's CAP will cover it. If TF2 is 1 or 2 hexes away, only a limited %age of TF1's CAP will cover TF2.

IME, the coord penalty applies per TF, & 2 TFs in the same hex aren't penalized, assuming they're each good separately. But I usually keep them in adjacent hexes if i've got enough ASW to provide coverage for both.




Sredni -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 5:07:54 AM)

I've just always gone with all fighters on escort with 40% cap, all DB's on naval attack with 20% nav search, and all TB's on naval attack (without any search or asw). If I'm in a sub infested area I'll have some DB's on asw, but otherwise I leave it up to the escorts to deal with random subs.

I think having a dedicated nav search squadron would take a fair bit of micromanagement, shifting the load from squadron to squadron every couple days. My way I just send the carriers off on their mission, set the fighters, DB's, and TB's, and then set to all carrier AC in the hex. I dont worry about adjusting settings till the situation changes. Saves on the fiddling.



JeffroK -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 6:35:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Not sure how it works in game, but Shattered Sword describes how KB employed the same theory as a matter of doctrine, at least during the transit from the Home Islands to Midway.

In this case I wont take up the tactic[8D]



ilovestrategy -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 5:42:26 PM)

Jeffk, I actually laughed at that one! [:D]



tocaff -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 7:40:19 PM)

I'm reading that book right now, between turns.  I never knew of this tactic either until reading about it in the book.



Cribtop -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 8:01:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Not sure how it works in game, but Shattered Sword describes how KB employed the same theory as a matter of doctrine, at least during the transit from the Home Islands to Midway.

In this case I wont take up the tactic[8D]


LOL! Probably wise. Limiting CAP or search functions to a single CV means that if anything goes wrong with that ship (sub torp, for example), you are naked that day. Redundancy is good!



tblersch -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 9:46:59 PM)

I question the quality of that book in general (yes, I've read it), and this idea of a "duty carrier" for CAP I find particularly questionable for one simple reason: American doctrine in 1942 was to operate carriers in single-carrier task forces, each employed as a separate tactical entity. While that was evolving by late 1942, it appears to have held true for Santa Cruz (where Hornet and Enterprise were operating separately and apparently each flying their own CAP, near as I can tell from Frank's "Guadalcanal".) For the battle of the Eastern Solomons, I can't find anything, but I have a hard time believing the practice of a "duty carrier" would have been practical given Fletcher's practice of rotating his carrier TFs out of the immediate area for refuelling.

Of course, Enterprise did provide CAP for Hornet during the Doolittle raids...but what about that was doctrinaire to begin with?



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/23/2011 10:49:51 PM)

The concept of a "duty carrier" was used by the USN in 1942. From USS Enterprise Action Report of 24 August 1942 (Battle of Eastern Solomons):

"On August 23, 1942, ENTERPRISE was duty carrier for Task Force SIXTY-ONE (Task Forces ELEVEN and SIXTEEN were present), and conducted the early morning search."

Source: http://www.cv6.org/ship/logs/action19420824.htm

USS Wasp was sunk when being duty carrier and performing search and ASW missions.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Question from Neptune's Inferno (7/24/2011 8:21:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tblersch

I question the quality of that book in general (yes, I've read it), and this idea of a "duty carrier" for CAP I find particularly questionable for one simple reason: American doctrine in 1942 was to operate carriers in single-carrier task forces, each employed as a separate tactical entity. While that was evolving by late 1942, it appears to have held true for Santa Cruz (where Hornet and Enterprise were operating separately and apparently each flying their own CAP, near as I can tell from Frank's "Guadalcanal".) For the battle of the Eastern Solomons, I can't find anything, but I have a hard time believing the practice of a "duty carrier" would have been practical given Fletcher's practice of rotating his carrier TFs out of the immediate area for refuelling.

Of course, Enterprise did provide CAP for Hornet during the Doolittle raids...but what about that was doctrinaire to begin with?


You should read "Black Shoe Carrier Admiral" and the "First Team" books also by John Lundstrom. As LargeSlowTarget said, a "duty carrier" was standard ops procedure.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.25