Japanese Escort Discussion (Full Version)

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



Message

Mike Solli -> Japanese Escort Discussion (9/15/2011 6:51:57 PM)

Ok guys, lets start another discussion, this time on escorts. I think this one is easier, at least the way I look at them. Here's some info on them to start:



[image]local://upfiles/1598/887FA5CB26814945973F2D71D76921C0.jpg[/image]



Xargun -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/15/2011 7:01:26 PM)

You can't just post that and not say anything else [:D]

Xargun



Chickenboy -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/15/2011 7:08:00 PM)

Was thinking that myself...[;)]



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/15/2011 7:18:55 PM)

I look at them from a pretty simplistic viewpoint: Endurance and DC racks.

First off, I like to form my escorts into divisions of 3-4 each. Then I form squadrons of up to 4 divisions with a CL leader, much like the Japanese did historically.

I also divide my DDs into old and new, based on the torpedo type. All the Type 93 are new and the rest are old. That makes new DDs as follows:

Shiratsuyu (10)
Hatsuharu (6)
Akitsuki (0+)
Yugumo (2+)
Kagero (18)
Asashio (10)
Fubuki I (9)
Fubuki II (10)
Akatsuki (Fubuki III) (4)
Mutsuki (12)

The rest are old.

Lets start at the beginning, KB escorts. To me, the Shiratsuyus (10) and Hatsuharus (6) are the logical choice because of their 6000 endurance. There are 16 of them making a nice squadron. As I get Yugumo and Akitsuki reinforcements, they'll form a second squadron with the Akitsukis eventually forming their own squadron. To me it's all endurance to slow down the frequency of refueling.

Now, Baby KB doesn't really need long ranged escorts because they are pretty much a 1-2 shot deal, then they need to go home to rearm. I figure they get a squadron to themselves. Initially, say the Mutsukis (12) after they upgrade in 2/42 and get DCs.

The Battle fleet needs probably a squadron to start. Lets say 12 Kageros and 4 Akatsukis. Their 5k endurance is nice.

Now we need some escorts for the DEI (probably based in Singapore so they can also be used to keep an eye on the Brits and Truk, for the 4 Fleet and SE Fleet areas. If you give them each a squadron, one will get 6 Kageros and 10 Asashios and the other will get the Fubuki I & IIs (19). Note that the Fubuki Is upgrade (to the Fubuki II) in Jan 42. They need to be ready to go at that time. I like to have them in port ready so as soon as Jan 42 comes they go into upgrade. Same with the Mutsukis in Feb 42.

Now we need escorts for the AOs. I divide them into 2 groups, the fast and slow AOs. The fast AOs are 18 kts and the slow are 13 kts. I like to give the Kamikazes (9) to the fast group and Ansyu-Cs to the slow group.

What does that leave for the remaining escorts? They form ASW groups or escort merchant convoys, based on endurance. Anything under 2k endurance are ASW convoys guarding specific port areas, choke points or critical SLOCs. It is possible (and necessary) to use some of them in convoys but the convoys have to have short distances between ports or they continually slow the convoy down to refuel. Not good. We get a lot of the short range SCs. I usually form them into 4 ship ASW TFs and push them out into areas where I want ASW support.

There's one critical question here. When do all of you convert some of your DDs to APD and why? I'm still not convinced.

Have at it guys. Just my initial thoughts....



SuluSea -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/15/2011 10:44:44 PM)

Another good thread Mike!! [:)] 

I may be the last guy most want to listen to from this side but the tradeoff to APD to DD it seems the manueverabilty loss would make it more vulnerable to the allied undersea scourge. At first glance I'd rather use regular vessels as FT forgoing the added APD transport benefits and let the DDs go thru their upgrade cycles plus keeping their manuever benefit. My studying tells me the Wakatake's are alittle different and want to upgrade them to "E" class escorts.

At any rate I'm all ears and looking to learn from veterans of this side. Thanks!

I'll put up some visuals incase anyone wants to print them up.

[image]http://i54.tinypic.com/s4712h.jpg[/image]



SuluSea -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/15/2011 10:52:30 PM)

[image]http://i51.tinypic.com/fvzeyo.jpg[/image]



SuluSea -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/15/2011 10:54:08 PM)

[image]http://i51.tinypic.com/2jawwb4.jpg[/image]



topeverest -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/15/2011 11:47:19 PM)

IMHO APD's are a must in early and mid war. Worth the tradeoff IME, but then restasking away from fleet and ASW missions does have a cost. The supply and 'annoying' strike ability is important IMHO.



PaxMondo -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 12:28:48 AM)

I'll take the other side of the fence for grins and giggles - haven't had much use for APD's. Kami xAKL's work better for me.



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 2:01:42 AM)

I'm still on the fence. I can't see how they carry enough troops to matter.



topeverest -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 2:37:34 AM)

Agreed you cant move large numbers of troops, but they are tailor made to move a sinlge unit fast and moderate amounts of supply. That can be very, very useful early and mid war when a single unit or smaller amoutns of supply can make a big difference if moved quickly --- and I dont want to risk other larger ships.

I would agree that you can survive without APD, but it is an excellent tool for the above referenced missions.



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 4:12:31 AM)

I don't disagree with you topeverest. Question: Once a conversion is made to APD, can it convert back? I think the answer is no....



Chickenboy -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 4:16:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I'll take the other side of the fence for grins and giggles - haven't had much use for APD's. Kami xAKL's work better for me.

I think so too. I try to keep as many genuine combatants for...well...combat. I let the cargo-ish xAKLs, et. al. (escorted by E or PBs) do their thing.

As for DD escort...MAYBE for a valuable AO replenishment TF, but I've too few DDs for escort duty by and large.

My criteria: long-range (6000 and 5000) DDs are right out for anything other than Air Combat escort of SCTF escort. Anything with somewhat less range that packs the 61cm torpedo will be reserved for air combat or SCTF escort. The rest are for shorter range raiding groups (with a CL or CA & CL together), a rare ASW appearance or the occasional AO or TK escort support.



Rainer79 -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 6:45:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I don't disagree with you topeverest. Question: Once a conversion is made to APD, can it convert back? I think the answer is no....


No, you can't convert back. I am also firmly in the "don't convert" camp. If I need a FT mission a PB is nearly as useful and its loss doesn't hurt as much when the FT TF decides to commit suicide (which it still does with some regularity).

You do get some purpose-built APDs late in the war BTW.



Miller -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 1:02:21 PM)

In my experience the fast transport routine does not work very well sometimes so I tend not to covert any of the older DDs to APDS, but will convert them to E later on.

The minekaze DD makes a decent nuisance surface raider in its original form if it can get close in at night and use its weaker torps at close range.



PaxMondo -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 1:46:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I'll take the other side of the fence for grins and giggles - haven't had much use for APD's. Kami xAKL's work better for me.

I think so too. I try to keep as many genuine combatants for...well...combat.

That is exactly my reasoning as well. But, I'm not that good of a player. I put DD"s into harms' way frequently. Doing so means I go through a lot of them. As I play IJ mostly, that is consistent with their tactics; while extremely conservative with capital ships, the IJN was rarely afraid to run what I would consdier high risk/high reward op's with their DD's.



PaxMondo -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 1:49:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

In my experience the fast transport routine does not work very well sometimes ...

Interesting. Not had this expereince. When I play Nik's Guad scen, I use FT DD's (shortage of xAK in that mod and you are given so many DDT's). My experience is that the FT routine works quite well for me. I can get them to run from Rebaul to Lae/Buna very effectively, except for the small loads.

Now I'm worried that I am just lucky when I do that. What error rate are you seeing in the routine?



Miller -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 2:52:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

In my experience the fast transport routine does not work very well sometimes ...

Interesting. Not had this expereince. When I play Nik's Guad scen, I use FT DD's (shortage of xAK in that mod and you are given so many DDT's). My experience is that the FT routine works quite well for me. I can get them to run from Rebaul to Lae/Buna very effectively, except for the small loads.

Now I'm worried that I am just lucky when I do that. What error rate are you seeing in the routine?


This was mine and my opponents opinion in my last game which ended about 18 months ago. Far too often the FT fleet would be caught during the day by enemy air, either still at the drop off hex or within a couple of hexes of it. Of course this may have been fixed in a recent patch or beta version. I rarely try and use them in my current game, too scared of the outcome........



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 4:26:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

In my experience the fast transport routine does not work very well sometimes so I tend not to covert any of the older DDs to APDS, but will convert them to E later on.



I agree with you here, Miller. I love the E. Very nice ASW for the most part.



Puhis -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 5:09:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I don't disagree with you topeverest. Question: Once a conversion is made to APD, can it convert back? I think the answer is no....


No, you can't convert back. I am also firmly in the "don't convert" camp. If I need a FT mission a PB is nearly as useful and its loss doesn't hurt as much when the FT TF decides to commit suicide (which it still does with some regularity).



You can't convert them back to DD, but all DD based APDs can be convert to E. That conversion is available sometimes after the first upgrade (4/43 Kamikaze, 1/43 Mutsuki and Minekaze, 12/43 Momi and 2/43(?) Wakatake).

Usually I'll convert all Minekazes to APDs, but not any other type of DDs.


EDIT: Updated conversion months.



Rainer79 -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/16/2011 5:55:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller
Of course this may have been fixed in a recent patch or beta version. I rarely try and use them in my current game, too scared of the outcome........


It has gotten better but even under the current beta patches it still sometimes happens.

So I'd rather risk a PB or Yu-class transport sub than a far more valuable vessel.



1EyedJacks -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/17/2011 5:24:56 AM)

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.

Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]





PaxMondo -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/17/2011 11:42:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

In my experience the fast transport routine does not work very well sometimes ...

Interesting. Not had this expereince. When I play Nik's Guad scen, I use FT DD's (shortage of xAK in that mod and you are given so many DDT's). My experience is that the FT routine works quite well for me. I can get them to run from Rebaul to Lae/Buna very effectively, except for the small loads.

Now I'm worried that I am just lucky when I do that. What error rate are you seeing in the routine?


This was mine and my opponents opinion in my last game which ended about 18 months ago. Far too often the FT fleet would be caught during the day by enemy air, either still at the drop off hex or within a couple of hexes of it. Of course this may have been fixed in a recent patch or beta version. I rarely try and use them in my current game, too scared of the outcome........

Ahhh ... you may be right. I think way early in the beta there was an adjustment to some of the naval missions. Can't recall specifics now ... (lack of coffee). [;)]



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/18/2011 1:55:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.

Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]



Yeah, I know the Allied subs can't hit much, except for the Dutch ones early in the game. That won't last forever though. Also, you never know when the AA will come in handy. I figure, the more DDs, the greater the chance of a successful engagement.

Interesting thought about having KB follow a single DD. Need to give that some thought.

I always have some FP on ASW with KB as well. I usually just have them patrol the hex KB is in. Not sure if that's a mistake or not though. I like the CS as well for search/ASW. Usually one air unit is on each.

I love the 4 mine carrying subs. Unfortunately, you can only have one of them lay mines per month if you want the mines to last any reasonable amount of time. That really sucks. I almost use them to lay random minefields. Not sure how effective that is but I'm sure it gives my opponent an occasional ulcer. [:D] (How's the stomach, Ted?)



FatR -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/19/2011 2:09:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I look at them from a pretty simplistic viewpoint: Endurance and DC racks.

And therein lies the problem.

Personally, I divide Japanese escorts into several groups:

1)Frontline escorts (ACTFs and convoys within range of enemy airpower). The most important factor for these by far is the number of DP guns. Flak MGs don't matter because they only fire to protect the ship itself, and DCs are of far secondary importance because sub threat is much less potent than air threat. I use Fubuki (I) DDs (yes, even despite their mighty torpedo armament, although if I'm to play DaBabes, where their DP guns have much reduced stats against air targets, I might change my opinion), then Yugumos and Akizukis, as they become available, for these duties. As there are never enough of these, particularly during the period of initial expansions, old DDs with 120 10YT guns can be used in this role as well.
Needless to say, I forbid most upgrades that reduce the number of DP guns. Until advanced upgrades in 1944 the benefits aren't worth the sacrifice.

2)Fast tanker escorts. Hatsuharu-class DDs and Etorofu Es. As their only exceptional trait is high endurance, they can be assigned to serve as a last-chance protection of ships that aren't normally supposed to come under fire.

3)Sub hunters. Super-Es (starting from Shimushu after the 5/43 upgrade) if they are available in the scenario. For everything else chances of taking out an Allied sub in deep water are very low, at least in 1942-43. In shallow water any ships with experienced crews and depth charges better than Type 95 can take them out. This group might expand in 1944, when Japanese ASW becomes fully effective.

4)SRA convoy escorts. Everything with range of 3000 and more, that isn't needed or is useless on the front. As they are largely ineffective at doing more than warding off Allied subs anyway, armament doesn't matter much. Ansyu class PBs form the bulk of them, supplemented by variety of old DDs and TBs, minesweepers (I don't convert DMSs to Es), assorted second-rate Es and so on.

5)NRA convoy escorts. Fast SCs and To'su PBs.

6)Chokepoints patrols. Slow SCs and To'su PBs for deep-water straits, anything from category #4 that carries at least Type 95 Mod 2 DCs for shallow-water straits (as there they actually hope to sink something).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
There's one critical question here. When do all of you convert some of your DDs to APD and why? I'm still not convinced.

I convert all Minekaze DDs immediately after the conclusion of initial offensive operations, because even the first of their DD upgrades reduces their already very limited value as DDs by over 60%, and their APD version gets a relatively good, radar-equipped upgrade on 42/8. To use APDs or conver to Es later as necessary. This conversion is available only until 42/8. I don't conver anything else. In fact, I think that it might be better to never upgrade Minekaze DDs as well, as I do with Kamikaze DDs, and use them as frontline escorts. All of their upgrades exchange DP guns for MGs, and this is a bad deal... Momi and Wakatake classes get far better ASW and AA capabilities with upgrades if they remain DDs.




Icedawg -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/19/2011 4:58:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]



Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/19/2011 5:31:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]



Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]


I can't see it being much of an issue. If the one ship TF is the issue and not the tactic itself then I'd simply insitute a house fule for a minimum number of DD's to make up the ASW TF.

The tactic itself was actually used by the Allies in the Atlantic. When they were able to, they often had one or two escorts detach from the main body of a convoy to range out in front of a TF to force the U-Boats down so the convoy could safely pass over the submerged submarines. I see no difference applying that tactic to protecting a SCTF or CV TF, with one or however many DD's a player wants. Just my opinion of course and it really is something to be discussed between opponents if it's an issue.



1EyedJacks -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/20/2011 3:54:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]



Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]



Well since I'm not playing you I reckon the point is moot. [>:]

The DD TF ahead of KB/Battleship TFs is a tactic I'm thinking about using and in referring to game mechanics in my original post I failed to be discriptive so that could imply I'm trying to game the system.

You don't know me from Adam but gaming the system is not my style.

What I've noticed in my one game with an opponent playing AE though is that allied subs can rarely hit a DD so if you lead with a DD TF it should flush out any subs and attack them. Going to a single DD in the lead TF follows my deployment strategy for DDs at the onset of war as I don't really feel a need for using as many DDs with the Air Combat and Battle Fleet TFs as Mike is proposing to use (and that I tend more to protect my LCU and Tanker investments plus I'm fairly agressive in sub hunting TFs).

I did enjoy reading FatR's thoughts regarding DP guns on the DDs as I haven't really given thought to the upgrade paths. This has been a good thread for me to read and participate in - thanks Mike - for starting us off on this.




John 3rd -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/20/2011 6:11:04 AM)

Those DP guns are the key for effectiveness in my view. The more the better and please don't allow an upgrade to take ANY away!



Chickenboy -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/20/2011 1:05:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Just curious - as the Japan player you realize the allied subs can't hit dirt if they were rain drops - so why so many DD?

Baby-Kay I tend to use a pair with a CL so I can see you there.

KB I give 6 DD and a CL. I'm not tripping to much about subs as I have some of my FP fly N-Search @ 3k with a range of 3 plus I put a few DB on ASW attack by tasking a pair of DB air groups to fly 10% ASW Patrol. My best WAG is that improved spotting of the subs gives me the best chance of attacking them but the real value seems to be in forcing the subs to keep their heads down. I've been thinking about the game mechanics and I think it might be better to have KB follow a 1DD TF and let the DD trip up any subs and attack them. I think following a single DD will help trip up the O-Dark-thirty sub attacks.
Battle Fleet - They are good for another 6 DD and I try to keep a CS or AV to fly the Naval Search/ASW Patrol.

In shallow waters I like to form ASW TFs with a pair of DD and a SC or APD as I'm looking for something with a speed of 15k or better. And I slap in agressive leaders. Adding Jakes or FP with good legs at bases flying Hi/Lo N-Search helps me vector in my ASW TFs (Hi/Lo = 6k/3k altitude).

If you can find an area your opponent tends to patrol regularly with subs it is kind fun to run your subs w/mine laying capabilities over there and lay some eggs. Sure the field dissipates faster in open water but if your opponent is patrolling the area regularly...[;)]

I do beef up escort with my oilers\tankers or on TFs loaded with troops. Losing troops at sea hurts my feelings...[:(]



Isn't this a bit gamey? I really don't like the use of single-ship task forces being used for the sole purpose of manipulating game mechanics. (This seems to be akin to the use of single xAKLs as bait for air attacks.)

As long as your opponent doesn't mind, go for it. But if you were playing against me, this would be a game ender. [:-]


I can't see it being much of an issue. If the one ship TF is the issue and not the tactic itself then I'd simply insitute a house fule for a minimum number of DD's to make up the ASW TF.

The tactic itself was actually used by the Allies in the Atlantic. When they were able to, they often had one or two escorts detach from the main body of a convoy to range out in front of a TF to force the U-Boats down so the convoy could safely pass over the submerged submarines. I see no difference applying that tactic to protecting a SCTF or CV TF, with one or however many DD's a player wants. Just my opinion of course and it really is something to be discussed between opponents if it's an issue.


Agree. The whole objective of the DD in this case is to raise the DL of the enemy submarine, thus spoiling the opportunity of the sub to attack on the surface, hitherto undetected. Happened IRL and it's an effective (and fair) use of the ship class in the game too.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.169922