RE: CV TF Optimal Size

RE: CV TF Optimal Size (Full Version)

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

Message

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 10:27:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan To the original poster, As you can see, there is wide consensus on this topic. Simply form a carrier task force with one or more CV's, zero to a few CVL's, and a duke's mixture of escorts and you'll be in the mainstream. Alternatively, as I do, you can treat this subject as close to black magic as it comes in WITP-AE -- I never divulge the best ratio of ships in a CV Task Force, and only I know the secret. Regards, Feltan Well take it to that show "Fool me" or whatever with Penn and Teller. [:D]

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 10:29:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jamesjohns Lots of answers, who knows? I'll put in 2 or 3 CV's or CV's and a CVL, a couple of the best AA cruisers I got, a couple of heavy cruisers and about 8 DD's that I hope are balanced between ASW and AA If I got a fast BB I'll swap out a heavy cruiser If I can I'll have a surface action group in same hex with BB or two (if fast enough) some cruisers and DD's. I'm with this guy.

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 10:32:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert If you're the Allied Player: thru '42 at least only 1 CV to a TF. Add a couple CA's a CL and 8 to 12 DDs and you're good. If you have fast BBs 2 in a screening TF with a CL and some DDs is a good idea. Once you have CVs coming out of your ears I like 2 CVs and 1 CVL plus adequate escort. If you're in a carrier battle and you have multiple CV TFs in a hex the enemy is likely to pick one of them and concentrate on that. If they're not in the same hex but within range of the enemy it will dilute their attacks. I like to keep them together though. CVE's go ahead and put them in mobs with some DDs and maybe a CL with a separate CA screening TF. Totally disagree here. I keep all of my big six carriers in one TF if they are operating in the same theater. Never seen the coordination penalty to amount to much and it eliminates the risk of one TF reacting towards the enemy and getting creamed. I should add that my carriers are not seeking a fleet engagement with KB during the first year of the war so I do this to support other operations. At least one or two fast BBs then perhaps some CLAAs and well armed DDs. CAs and CLs if need be. Later in the war when I have the ships I generally use them with 5-6 six carriers per TF using a mix of CVs and CVLs. Always one fast BB in the mix though. A good commander but not necessarily an aggressive one. Naval and air skill trump aggression. My experienced opponent uses KB in one big TF and I have never seen anything but massed coordinated attacks come out to that. Are you talking about the Japanese? If so I fail to disagree with you. Another consideration is that at some point, maybe in '42, Japanese CV TFs cease to be a consideration.

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 10:40:33 AM)
I see crsutton, I was thrown by the six carriers you mentioned. There's a trade off with that speed issue. If you get into a surface action with a BB on your side your CVs will take shell hits. That's a no-no. I've never lost a carrier battle playing on the Allied side and I'm talking a bunch of them. One, intercept enemy surface flotilla and stop them from getting to the CVs. Two, failing that run like hell. BBs do not contribute there.

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 10:44:35 AM)
About the fuel, if you haven't made any big mistakes your CVs will keep your DDs fueled. edit: BBs are fuel hogs. Including them as refuelers is, I don't know how to say it, use your own imagination.

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 10:47:27 AM)
Again, or if I didn't make it clear, the considerations for the IJN player are different and fewer options are available.

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 10:57:17 AM)
Also, (I can go on and on forever), having good commanders is really important. However, any decision you can make for them ahead of the day's action that is valid no matter what happens should be made. Fewer options for your make believe admiral friend are always a good idea.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 12:42:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert About the fuel, if you haven't made any big mistakes your CVs will keep your DDs fueled. edit: BBs are fuel hogs. Including them as refuelers is, I don't know how to say it, use your own imagination. If I used the TF makeup plan you described originally (1 CV, etc.) I'd need over 60 DDs to run the five 1942 CVs. Not only don't have them, don't have gas either. BBs can refuel, sure. You also need to be more creative and flex your TF structures while in the op area. If they run low you can detach them and send them home while using the CVs as fuelers, yes. You also fear a surface engagement with an Air TF too much. Sure they can happen, but the game has extra rolls built in to make the odds of an Air TF to disengage before the surface fight higher. And to disengage pretty fast once the shooting starts. Letting a surface TF get that close when you have built-in air search is also a mistake. It can happen, but it's not what I worry about most. I worry about subs and LBA.

crsutton -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 1:27:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Are you telling us you're playing the IJN side? That would be new wouldn't it? The only problem I have is putting a BB in there. Until the Iowas they would likely slow it down. Also if you have multiple TFs present having a separate BB screening TF covers all (in most cases). The USN using POW and Repulse early on is not objectionable to me and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start adding up all the help the US gives the UK in every form. But I would still use them as a separate screening force. A fast BB is worth the minor speed trade-off for AA numbers and torpedo magnetability. Two are better. Also a fuel bunker for DDs if needed in emergency. I don't like to depend on follow commands with TF CO variability and react code. I like my Air TFs to be independent. If there's a Surface TF along it has a different job than riding herd on carriers. Totally agree with Mr Moose here. Japanese planes love to target BBs. A fast BB in a carrier TF might draw 1/5 of all air attacks. That translates to a 20% reduction in hits on your carriers. 250KG and 500KG bombs bounce off BBs and they can absorb torpedo damage much more readily than any carrier. Add the powerful AA batteries they carry and you must have at least one in your carrier TF. I do not believe in using BBs in surface actions before 1944. Most actions are at night and the BBs sometimes do not even shoot while posing as torpedo bait. A very bad exchange if you ask me. Their real purpose is to escort and protect carriers-like they did most of the time in real life. I will trade off the extra hex movement anytime. For the Allies the road to winning comes via the carrier. You had better protect them as best as possible.

crsutton -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 1:29:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert I see crsutton, I was thrown by the six carriers you mentioned. There's a trade off with that speed issue. If you get into a surface action with a BB on your side your CVs will take shell hits. That's a no-no. I've never lost a carrier battle playing on the Allied side and I'm talking a bunch of them. One, intercept enemy surface flotilla and stop them from getting to the CVs. Two, failing that run like hell. BBs do not contribute there. Well, if you get into a surface action with your CV TF, I would argue that you royally f**ked up anyways..[;)]

mind_messing -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 1:45:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert I see crsutton, I was thrown by the six carriers you mentioned. There's a trade off with that speed issue. If you get into a surface action with a BB on your side your CVs will take shell hits. That's a no-no. I've never lost a carrier battle playing on the Allied side and I'm talking a bunch of them. One, intercept enemy surface flotilla and stop them from getting to the CVs. Two, failing that run like hell. BBs do not contribute there. Well, if you get into a surface action with your CV TF, I would argue that you royally f**ked up anyways..[;)] There was an AAR'd game waaaaaay back where I think one player got his carriers caught in the restricted waters off Merakue and his opponent had a field day with surface combat - essentially the carriers ended up retreating from one battle and in to another. Cue a lot of sunk carriers.

crsutton -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 2:08:11 PM)
Had it happen to me once. It was not a pretty sight to see. In the closing days of the war Viberpol somehow got a kamakaze BB and CA TF trough my million warships and got into the middle of a Fleet Carrier TF. He did not sink any but shot the hell out of a quite a few and got away without a scratch. A week or two later the Russians activated and he surrendered. Not a drop of fuel left anywhere in the Empire. [X(]

mind_messing -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 2:51:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Had it happen to me once. It was not a pretty sight to see. In the closing days of the war Viberpol somehow got a kamakaze BB and CA TF trough my million warships and got into the middle of a Fleet Carrier TF. He did not sink any but shot the hell out of a quite a few and got away without a scratch. A week or two later the Russians activated and he surrendered. Not a drop of fuel left anywhere in the Empire. [X(] Who cares about the fuel, it's the supply that matters! No surrender until no supply!

pontiouspilot -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 4:10:27 PM)
I have badly shot up several IJN CV Tfs with CA/CL Tfs. Whenever the fast IJN BCs have been present they were less than flaccid. I don't have any reason to think the US BBs would perform any better vs surface threat. The upshot seems to me to be that having a separate tag along surface TF with a BB MAY provide better performance IF you are in an area where such an ambush may occur....IF you can afford that support. (That is 2x "ifs" and a "may").

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 4:15:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert About the fuel, if you haven't made any big mistakes your CVs will keep your DDs fueled. edit: BBs are fuel hogs. Including them as refuelers is, I don't know how to say it, use your own imagination. If I used the TF makeup plan you described originally (1 CV, etc.) I'd need over 60 DDs to run the five 1942 CVs. Not only don't have them, don't have gas either. BBs can refuel, sure. You also need to be more creative and flex your TF structures while in the op area. If they run low you can detach them and send them home while using the CVs as fuelers, yes. You also fear a surface engagement with an Air TF too much. Sure they can happen, but the game has extra rolls built in to make the odds of an Air TF to disengage before the surface fight higher. And to disengage pretty fast once the shooting starts. Letting a surface TF get that close when you have built-in air search is also a mistake. It can happen, but it's not what I worry about most. I worry about subs and LBA. I said 8 to 12 if you've got them. Enemy BB and/or CA TFs can show up at night starting well beyond your search radius.

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 4:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Are you telling us you're playing the IJN side? That would be new wouldn't it? The only problem I have is putting a BB in there. Until the Iowas they would likely slow it down. Also if you have multiple TFs present having a separate BB screening TF covers all (in most cases). The USN using POW and Repulse early on is not objectionable to me and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start adding up all the help the US gives the UK in every form. But I would still use them as a separate screening force. A fast BB is worth the minor speed trade-off for AA numbers and torpedo magnetability. Two are better. Also a fuel bunker for DDs if needed in emergency. I don't like to depend on follow commands with TF CO variability and react code. I like my Air TFs to be independent. If there's a Surface TF along it has a different job than riding herd on carriers. Totally agree with Mr Moose here. Japanese planes love to target BBs. A fast BB in a carrier TF might draw 1/5 of all air attacks. That translates to a 20% reduction in hits on your carriers. 250KG and 500KG bombs bounce off BBs and they can absorb torpedo damage much more readily than any carrier. Add the powerful AA batteries they carry and you must have at least one in your carrier TF. I do not believe in using BBs in surface actions before 1944. Most actions are at night and the BBs sometimes do not even shoot while posing as torpedo bait. A very bad exchange if you ask me. Their real purpose is to escort and protect carriers-like they did most of the time in real life. I will trade off the extra hex movement anytime. For the Allies the road to winning comes via the carrier. You had better protect them as best as possible. Put the BB's in front and have the CVs follow by a hex or two and you win the battle.

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 4:18:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert I see crsutton, I was thrown by the six carriers you mentioned. There's a trade off with that speed issue. If you get into a surface action with a BB on your side your CVs will take shell hits. That's a no-no. I've never lost a carrier battle playing on the Allied side and I'm talking a bunch of them. One, intercept enemy surface flotilla and stop them from getting to the CVs. Two, failing that run like hell. BBs do not contribute there. Well, if you get into a surface action with your CV TF, I would argue that you royally f**ked up anyways..[;)] Ever attacked PH? Playing Dec 7 I mean w/o house rules?

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/1/2015 4:20:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Had it happen to me once. It was not a pretty sight to see. In the closing days of the war Viberpol somehow got a kamakaze BB and CA TF trough my million warships and got into the middle of a Fleet Carrier TF. He did not sink any but shot the hell out of a quite a few and got away without a scratch. A week or two later the Russians activated and he surrendered. Not a drop of fuel left anywhere in the Empire. [X(] Who cares about the fuel, it's the supply that matters! No surrender until no supply! He was playing the Japanese, not being one. [:'(]

Barb -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/2/2015 6:23:51 AM)
Having BBs in CVTFs acts greatly as "deflectors" for any incoming strikes soaking up hits and putting up a lot of flak. As Japan I usually have 4 Kongos and 2 Yamatos in my Carrier TFs. As US anything from South Dakota up is great. And you can always detach a BB with couple of DDs for whatever work there is for the big shots... Just try to have good commander in those BBs if effecting the split "at sea".

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/2/2015 12:38:12 PM)
http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Santa-Cruz.htm This site has the OOB for the Battle of Santa Cruz. In summary: TF16 RearAdmiral Thomas C Kinkaid CV-6 Enterprise BBx1 CAx1 Clx1 DDx8 TF17 RearAdmiral George D. Murray CV-8 Hornet CAx2 CLx2 DDx6

crsutton -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/2/2015 3:29:50 PM)
Note that the carrier without the BB escort was sunk..[;)]

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/2/2015 4:54:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Note that the carrier without the BB escort was sunk..[;)] Right. On one occasion the Japanese couldn't find CV-6 because it was under a squall. This is one of the reasons I like separating them into separate TFs. Most or all of my victories with US CVs have been heavily influenced by favorable weather for me, rain or worse, and bad weather for him as in clear to partly cloudy over his force.

geofflambert -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/2/2015 5:00:14 PM)
When they see a combination with BB(s) they usually go for the CV. Put BBs between yours and theirs and they often attack the BBs and never find the CVs. The BBs search planes will find him before he finds you, too.

crsutton -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/3/2015 3:10:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Note that the carrier without the BB escort was sunk..[;)] Right. On one occasion the Japanese couldn't find CV-6 because it was under a squall. This is one of the reasons I like separating them into separate TFs. Most or all of my victories with US CVs have been heavily influenced by favorable weather for me, rain or worse, and bad weather for him as in clear to partly cloudy over his force. Well, two things of interest about that battle. First is American CAP did a pretty lousy job, and most Japanese losses were due to AA fire. And the Enterprise TF shot down more than the Hornet TF-probably due to the presence of the BB but also because the Enterprise saw more action due to the Hornet being lost early on. The other thing to note is that some of the Japanese attack aircraft attacked the North Carolina. So the BB actually did it's job and soaked up at least one bomb hit that might have done better service hitting the Enterprise.

wdolson -> RE: CV TF Optimal Size (10/3/2015 6:21:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Note that the carrier without the BB escort was sunk..[;)] And the other was damaged bad enough to put it out of service for most of a year. Santa Cruz was not the USN's best performance. Osprey has a good book on the USN vs IJN carrier battles of 1942. The USN really didn't fare well in the early carrier battles. Bill

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125