RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (Full Version)

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



Message

Icedawg -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/21/2011 4:56:30 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.


That is exactly my point. Temporarily detaching from the convoy and patrolling just ahead of the main body is one thing. In game terms (if I understand correctly), this would just be the assumed role of the escorts in the (same) TF. I would imagine that the escorts in a TF aren't moving side by side with the transports. Some would be a bit out ahead, scouting things out. (Some would be traveling more or less along side while one maybe bringing up the rear.) So, I would think that the game incorporates such techniques into its concept of "escort".

By creating a separate TF to move 46 miles ahead of the transports you've created a very different situation. Did detached DDs operate that far ahead of the main body? I suspect it may have been more like 5 miles or less. Any further ahead and the sub just dives, waits a bit and returns toward the surface to intercept the following ships.

My point is, by sending the single DD TF ahead, you've gone from patrolling to baiting (getting the sub to waste torpedoes and its concealment status).



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/21/2011 7:37:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

That is exactly my point. Temporarily detaching from the convoy and patrolling just ahead of the main body is one thing. In game terms (if I understand correctly), this would just be the assumed role of the escorts in the (same) TF. I would imagine that the escorts in a TF aren't moving side by side with the transports. Some would be a bit out ahead, scouting things out. (Some would be traveling more or less along side while one maybe bringing up the rear.) So, I would think that the game incorporates such techniques into its concept of "escort".

By creating a separate TF to move 46 miles ahead of the transports you've created a very different situation. Did detached DDs operate that far ahead of the main body? I suspect it may have been more like 5 miles or less. Any further ahead and the sub just dives, waits a bit and returns toward the surface to intercept the following ships.

My point is, by sending the single DD TF ahead, you've gone from patrolling to baiting (getting the sub to waste torpedoes and its concealment status).


Hi Icedawg,

From what I've read, detached escorts could spend hours hunting individual contacts and end up hundreds of miles away from the convoy at times, requiring hours to close the distance. Later in the war when the Allies could put actual hunting groups together made up of escorts they did just that, essentially ranged ahead of a convoy and attacked any submarine contacts, and continued to attack until contact was lost or they were needed to close the distance back to the Convoy. You mention a range of 5-6 miles, but you also realize a hex is 40 nautical miles, so theoretically these DD's could range many miles ahead of the TF following.

I honestly don't think the tactic is in any way gamey. A single DD may not always raise the DL enough to prevent a successful submarine attack on the follow up TF. In fact, in my PBEM, I can launch a DC attack against an Allied sub in the am phase and it then targets the same TF or a follow up TF in the PM phase. I'm not trying to discount your opinion or thoughts here, but personally I see no problem with this tactic. As Chickenboy and I have mentioned, it happened in real life and I think kudos to anyone who is able apply that to the game.

To each their own, and as before, if you feel that strongly against the tactic just be clear with your opponent and institute a house rule to eliminate the problem. then it's all good. [8D]

Cheers!



1EyedJacks -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/22/2011 5:16:52 AM)

Something else to consider is the follow command that allows you to set how many hexes you'd like to follow a TF by. If you set it to 0 then it's in the same hex - set for 1 then it follows by a hex...

There might be some seperation as the the two TFs travel based on TF speed but I think at the end of the movement phase the two TFs are seperated by the # of hexes you selected. So as an example, if the seperation of the TFs = 0 hexes, and if you have an ASW TF with a DD in it at 33 speed, and TF 2 is a pair of xAK and a PB at a speed of 12 and the max distance traveled in a turn = 6 hexes, then TF1 can move quickly to hex 6 while TF2 plods to hex 6 - thus creating a "gap" between the two TFs... Just theorizing here - I haven't actually tested this out...

So the game is designed to allow TFs to follow others at various distances. Interesting - as another thought is to have 2 or 3 ASW TFs follow each other by a hex or two to really go after any enemy subs reported in a hex. I think the higher the detection level the higher the percentage for a successful attack by an ASW TF. So if FPs detect a sub in a hex that might raise the detection by 1 or 2. And then if you vector in ASW TFs in a string and perhaps ASW-TF1 attacks the sub it might raise the level by another point or two. If the sub gets damaged the detection level goes up further... If that 2nd or third ASW TF gets a sniff of that sub my WAG is that you'd get a hefty attack bonus... Just a thought.


TTFN,

Mike



SuluSea -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/22/2011 3:39:07 PM)

How about the CMs that have an upgrade to 'E' class escorts . I'd assume with the lack of mine production and the need to combat the improved USN torpedoes they should all go to escorts?

Thanks for the time to write the detailed post Fatr, very informative.



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/22/2011 4:17:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

How about the CMs that have an upgrade to 'E' class escorts . I'd assume with the lack of mine production and the need to combat the improved USN torpedoes they should all go to escorts?

Thanks for the time to write the detailed post Fatr, very informative.


That's a good idea. In the past, I always discounted this. After all, they're minelayers, why convert them to an E. Typical WitP thinking. [;)] Does anyone know which CMs convert to E?



Chickenboy -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/22/2011 6:21:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

How about the CMs that have an upgrade to 'E' class escorts . I'd assume with the lack of mine production and the need to combat the improved USN torpedoes they should all go to escorts?

Thanks for the time to write the detailed post Fatr, very informative.


That's a good idea. In the past, I always discounted this. After all, they're minelayers, why convert them to an E. Typical WitP thinking. [;)] Does anyone know which CMs convert to E?

At work answer:

A bunch of 'em.

I do like Sulu Sea suggests. Convert darn near all of 'em. Many will still retain their ML racks, so you really don't lose much capability. Besides, in this game, the rate limiting step isn't the ML sorties, but it's the production of said mines in the first place.

Of course, some of the PBs can lay mines, so you really, really won't miss those CMs.



awaw -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/22/2011 7:44:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
That's a good idea. In the past, I always discounted this. After all, they're minelayers, why convert them to an E. Typical WitP thinking. [;)] Does anyone know which CMs convert to E?


My list for scen 1 made 6 mths back (probably incomplete) has the following:
Hatsutaka (3 nos, conversion in 6/42)
Natsushima (5 nos, conversion in 6/42)
Okinoshima (1 nos, conversion in 3/43)
Shirataka (1 nos, conversion in 6/42)
Sokuten (5 nos, conversion in 3/43)

*yay, my first real contribution to the forum!*



SuluSea -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/22/2011 8:02:31 PM)

Here's a quick graphic of all Scenario 1 CM's with the help of tracker if anyone wants to print it.

New graphic uploaded with Air/Troop/Cargo capacity.

[img]http://s2.postimage.org/sok3a0bo/CMs1.jpg[/img]



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/22/2011 8:06:06 PM)

Thanks awaw! Looking at this list I see some good candidates to convert to E.

Hatsutaka - Good choice. No DC racks or troop/cargo capacity. 20 kt speed - not sure how that would be affected.
Natsushima - Good choice for same reasons as the Hatsutakas.
Shirataka - Same.
Sokuten - Same.

Converting these would give you 14 more escorts.

The only one I'd keep as a CM is the Okinoshima. I like this ship the way it is. 125 mines in one shot, 20 kt speed, 6400(!) endurance, 350 troop & 250 cargo capacity.



FatR -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/23/2011 1:28:27 PM)

I'm not sure about CM conversions. The scarcity of mines means that to achieve any effect beyond forbidding ports far beyond the reach of the enemy aviation (where ACMs can be kept) to enemy subs, minelayers must be sent into hot zones. And there aren't many of them. I think this should be a situational decision, depending on the extend of the sub threat.



crsutton -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/23/2011 3:55:29 PM)

At the point of sounding redundant, any ship that can carry an ashcan or two is fine. The more escorts the better as with an escorted convoy, the Allied sub commander will about 50% of the time shoot at an escort and usually miss. I would not bother to much with dedicated sub hunter groups until the late war Es come on line. From the Allied persepctive, these ships are obscenely unbalanced but if I were playing the Japanese, these are the ships that I would dedicate to hunting subs. Until they come, I would focus more on escorted convoys moving under heavy air cover. If the APDs carry DC then they can be used in a dual role so converting to APDs is not necessary a bad thing as sometimes a dual role ship is more valuable than a single purpose ship with better armament.

I wonder if we AFBs are not doing ourselves wrong by using all "aggressive" sub commanders. Perhaps a "careful commander" is more likely to target a merchant over the escort. Might be worth a try but then you have to headache of monitoring your subs in two differnt groups. One careful group for merchant shipping and one all "aggro" for warships. That would be another nightmare...[;)] Perhaps careful commanders might survive the deadly "E"s a bit better as well.



Barb -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/23/2011 8:40:11 PM)

I had divided my escort ships according to purpose.

I have 3 permanent "A" Class Escort groups - Long range and fast - ideal for troopship escort work.
Each consists of: 3x Kamikaze class DD , 2x Shimushu E or 3x Hashidate E and 2x W-7 or W-19 class DMS

I had 9 "B" Class Escort Groups - Medium range, medium speed - ideal for long hauls of resources.
Each consists of: 1x Otori class TB and 4-6x Ansyu xPB

I had 5 "C" Class Escort Groups - Short range slow speed - ideal for suppying smaller bases.
Each consists of: 1x Momi class E and 4x Kiso xPB

I had 6 permanent "ME" class Escort Groups - Medium range, but fast - these specialize in tanker escort.
Each consists of: 2-3x Momi or Wakatake or Momo class DD or Tomozuru class TB and 2xW-1 or W-5 or W-13 or W-17 class DMS and 2-3x Hirashima or Sokuten class CM

There are also about 5 "Convoy Escort Groups" - each having Momi class PC as flaghship and three Ch-13 class SCs.

Also some "Coastal Escort Groups" with just 3x CHa-1 class SCs - ideal for moving small number of ships around Japan or Philippines.

CH-1 and CH-4 class SCs are made into 4 groups of 3 as Support Groups (one for each hub).

There are some standalone xPBs spread over the whole area to make some smaller deliveries or escort some smaller convoys.

CMs are absolutely to be converted to Es - they wont lose mine capacity while gaining DCs. And there is not enough mines in pools anyway.



Barb -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (9/23/2011 8:43:59 PM)

And for heavy Anti-raider duty I usually had some surface ships around.
Kiso class CL are ideal for amphibious fire support - while later they are usefull as a torpedo bait. Some other CLs could be used this way too.



sanderz -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (11/30/2011 10:06:21 AM)

Very interesting read - just bumping this for any other new players out there.



Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (11/30/2011 10:36:06 AM)

I just wanted to point out that the Minekazes first APD upgrade gets them radar.



Nanshin ron -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (2/3/2012 5:59:05 AM)

Is there any significance in the Fubukis having 9 torbedo tubes, but mounted in two separate sets, other than amount of reloads? [8|]
What usually determines how many torpedoes are fired and reloaded during a battle? [&:]
Anyone ever had 50-100 torpedos in the water at the same time in a surface battle? [:D]
Best results you have had with DDs and torpedos? [8D]





Shark7 -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (2/3/2012 3:55:51 PM)

Honestly I'd rather have more Y-guns than torpedo tubes...only early in the war will torpedoes make much difference, just not a lot of late war surface combat going on, too much air power by then.

Given the choice I'd remove 1 set of tubes off each IJN DD and replace it with a pair, quartet or triplet of Y-guns (however many can fit within weight/space limits). Nobody talks about allied BB groups decimating japanese convoys, but you can easily see what the silent service accomplished.



Nanshin ron -> RE: Japanese Escort Discussion (2/3/2012 9:09:13 PM)

But how do the torpedoes work when you get to lauch them in "mass"? Or is it limited by the game engine?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5