Is this gamey? (Full Version)

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



Message

Fallschirmjager -> Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 6:03:02 PM)

In my current PBEM I have an idea.

I have all six USN carriers at PH. My idea is to unload them of all torpedo planes and DBs and add on Marine fighter squadrons.
One carrier will have it's SBDs and TBDs left to act as scouts.
My idea is to set all of the figthers to 100% cap and 'escort'

My idea is to add CLs, CLAAs and DDs with high AA ratings and are fast and have high MNVR to the AA screen.
I will sail this TF into the central pacific to Marcus Island, Wake, Truk and maybe even close to the Philippines.

The idea is that I WANT this TF to be attacked.
I will not fly sweeps and the escort will not actually escort any strikes.
I hope I can draw out LB planes and have then engage 200-300 USN fighters and inflict casualties.

I should have enough scouts to try and stay away from surface forces or if KB shows up I can run due to the TF speed.


My questions, is this gamey? I am add on Marine squadrons who can operate off carriers but are not trained for it.
Also, I am making a decision not to make my carriers into a weapon to attack but instead use them as a magnet to draw the Japanese into an engagement where I can inflict losses.

Is this something that is kosher?



btd64 -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 6:10:09 PM)

Your adjusting the carrier load. Not gamey. Sometimes I have swapped the old TBD squadrons with dive bomber squadrons....GP



BBfanboy -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 6:19:48 PM)

Not gamey per se, but you might regret it. Many players have bemoaned the fact that attackers can still slip through massive CAP. This happened in real life and it seems to be modeled in the way the game handles A2A combat. And after first contact with such a massive fighter buzz-saw the Japanese are likely to call off their air attacks and send in the SCTFs and subs.

A balance of offensive/defensive power is the most versatile approach.



Peever -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 6:41:55 PM)

It doesn't sound gamey. You're not exploiting game mechanics to get an advantage, you're trying to get the enemy to react to you're moves. That's tactics. It's very unorthodox and risky though. Some bombers can still get through the cap, you have to worry about weather, and the ends need to justify the means.

I take it the goal is to kill experienced bomber crews. How many to you hope to kill off? If your opponent sends out a huge amount some might get through and sink a carrier. If he sends out too few and sees unusually high cap he may not send any out the next turn and this would defeat the purpose.



tiemanjw -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 6:45:09 PM)

I agree with BBfanboy, but I have to ask the question - why remove the bombers?
USN CVs can carry 103 A/C (except Wasp). You say you have 6 CVs. I don't know the date, but I'm going to assume you are in the time where the VFs are 36 A/C each.
So adjust you CVW to:
VF (36 A/C)
VMF (18 A/C)
VB - grab one that can be resized, and make it between 18-27 A/C
VT - 15-18 A/C

That is between 87-99 A/C.
Even if you can't find enough VBs that can be resized, you can still carry the full 36 VBs and no (or a 9 A/C VT) for 90 (or 99) A/C.
Such a force has good CAP, and still has some punch.



dr.hal -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 7:22:24 PM)

The US actually did set up CVs with only fighters, so no, it is not "gamey" although in "real" life, never was this done on a full TF level. Toward early 1945 the Japs put ANYTHING on CVs that could fly, but that was desperation, not "gamey"!



pmelheck1 -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 7:47:04 PM)

Are the air frames Carrier Capable and are the pilots carrier trained. If the frames are not carrier capable you can fly them off but not land them. If the pilots are not carrier trained I believe they suffer much higher attrition rates with every take off and landing (7.0.1.1.1 in the manual in reference to both). Also to my way of thinking a carrier task force is less a defensive force than an offense one. I would be fine with losing a carrier as the allies for a Japanese carrier but with just fighters on board no strike at their carriers. If against the computer this might work but against a player if he sees you have such a large force of fighters he might set all his fighters to escort with no cap and get some of this attack planes through in spite if your cap. Some of those pacific islands had huge numbers of fighters especially if he has set up an air bridge and can shift large numbers of fighters to your location before you can get out of range. In my games my carrier units tend to be some of my best units and I would not like to swap them for a much lower quality cover that may drop the ball when the Japanese are pressing an attack on your carriers. Also Of he loses a bunch of planes those are much easer to replace than 1 or more of you carriers or worse if you have a "Midway Moment"



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 7:48:52 PM)

Remember this though: your opponent would also then be free to rearrange his air group structures and/or tactics as well. Be prepared for when he figures out what you've done, and comes up with a counter strategy...

Personally, I would goad you into doing what you propose, fix your location, and then use Dai-Ichi Kido Butai and Dai-Ni Kido Butai to tear apart Allied shipping without fear of a counter strike.



HansBolter -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 7:51:42 PM)

The penalty for non-carrier trained appears to be negligible.

Most experienced players state that they hardly notice a difference.

I am one that concurs.



Lokasenna -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 7:56:45 PM)

What would you do if your opponent met you with a task force full of Kongos and Yamatos and CAs and all kinds of other bugbears? You would really regret not having the ordnance to sink them [;)].



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 7:57:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The penalty for non-carrier trained appears to be negligible.

Most experienced players state that they hardly notice a difference.

I am one that concurs.

It was quite prodigious in Beta, and there was enough push back that the ops penalties were reduced. I for one disagreed with "nerfing" it as much as it was. Carrier Capable but should suffer more ops losses until Carrier Trained, but that's a whole 'nother discussion...



btd64 -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 8:59:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The penalty for non-carrier trained appears to be negligible.

Most experienced players state that they hardly notice a difference.

I am one that concurs.


PLUS ONE



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 9:19:44 PM)

This 'raid' will probably only be 5-7 days in length. I will have scouts on one carrier to hopefully detect surface TFs.
Plus I happen to know most of his heavy surface units are around the NG area.

This TF will be 32 knots at the slowest speed since I am not taking BBs or CAs.

I am worried about bombers slipping through but as stated earlier, this is more to kill pilots.
We are at June 3rd 1942 and so far I have shot down 1200 Betties. I really want to eat into his pilot production program and so far my carriers have been almost all on the sidelines.

I am not looking to shoot down hundreds of planes.
I am hoping in the central Pacific he has individual Sentai's or even half sentai's
If I can meet this and defeat them in detail then it will be a good use of my carriers who are not doing much at the moment.

Also, if any planes do make it through, my AA is pretty stout. I have 3 CLAA's and 4 St. Louis class CL's and 8 modern DD's
They do not have their Oct 1942 AA upgrades but they are still upgraded to their April standards.
And my carriers have their June AA upgrades.

I also plan on stacking my cap at 5000, 10000, 15000 and 20000 feet so that I have a better intercept chance.
I still expect some to slip through.

Maybe this is indeed too risky. But so far I feel like he has gotten off too easily and his pilot numbers are too high and his air staff levels are too elite and this could be trouble in 1943 when I go onto the offensive.
Plus I need to take pressure off Aus and the supply line to it.
He is making life hard on the supply line and has added weeks onto me getting supply and fuel to Aus, NZ and New Caledonia.



geofflambert -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 9:39:39 PM)

If I were going to try something like that I'd use escort carriers. Once I had CVLs (when I played Allied) I did set up TFs with 2 CVs with 1/2 fighters and 1/2 bombers, and with one CVL with fighters only and set for CAP only.



pws1225 -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 9:52:51 PM)

Perfectly legit in my book.



Lowpe -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 10:00:21 PM)

1200 Betties down by June 3rd, 1942.[X(]

I'd say you already cut into his pilot pool. Sheesh!



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 10:01:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

I agree with BBfanboy, but I have to ask the question - why remove the bombers?




I am not looking to drop bombs. This area of the Pacific has nothing worth bombing. I have raided before and hit the odd cargo ship and bombed coconut plantations and airfields.
But Ops and flak losses make it not very worth it for the fuel used and cruising damage.

This is designed to see if his planes are on 'auto' naval attack and I can get him to react to my fleet and sent out strike forces to be shredded.
Every pilot I can kill makes it easier for me later in the war.
And right now my carriers are just swinging anchor at PH training.


And these Marine pilots are not second line pilots. They have been on pure 70% escort training for 4-5 months are now in the 70s in air skill and defensive skill.

This plan is not without risk, but I think if I can kill off some pilots it will be worth it.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 10:03:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If I were going to try something like that I'd use escort carriers. Once I had CVLs (when I played Allied) I did set up TFs with 2 CVs with 1/2 fighters and 1/2 bombers, and with one CVL with fighters only and set for CAP only.



This is June 1942

The only CVE I have is the Long Island. I am taking a risk but not suicide [:D]



spence -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 10:33:15 PM)

quote:

What would you do if your opponent met you with a task force full of Kongos and Yamatos and CAs and all kinds of other bugbears? You would really regret not having the ordnance to sink them .



Well from my experience the TBFs couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a bat, let alone a torpedo, even when they have 60-75 experience AND are unopposed by CAP and ths 1000 lbers dropped by SBDs might as well be snowballs for all the good they do in stopping an IJN BB. Since the mining effect of even 500 lbers seems to have been enough to sink Haruna, Ise and Hyuga at Kure in 1945 I think the near immunity of IJN BBs to anything the Allies (air) have during 1942 seems grossly overstated.



tiemanjw -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 10:59:26 PM)

quote:

I am not looking to drop bombs. This area of the Pacific has nothing worth bombing. I have raided before and hit the odd cargo ship and bombed coconut plantations and airfields.


as the plan, no... but if an unexpected SAG shows up (or heaven help you, the KB) having no bombers along with empty "slots" on the CVs doesn't seem very wise. Do you really have 600 VFs sitting around to load on the CVs? Either fill up the decks, send a subset of the CVs, or don't do it at all. The only truly wrong decision, as I see it, is to send all of your CVs with only half a load.



bomccarthy -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 11:41:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

This is June 1942



You're going to do this with Wildcats?



Leandros -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/12/2016 11:56:57 PM)


I'm dropping off the TBD's all the time. Give it a try.

Fred



Lokasenna -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/13/2016 3:38:07 AM)

Ah, June of 1942... it seems foolhardy. Remember that if you lose your CVs, you have no real counter for his counter for your invasions (the IJN), only half-measures. CVEs and surface groups can only do so much. And you WILL have to invade in 1943.



Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/13/2016 12:59:03 PM)

You are risking your strategic assets for some tactical gains, just saying. Its a really bad idea.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/13/2016 2:50:19 PM)

The plan is underway. I have enough Marine squadrons where I don't have any of my carriers half full. I know where most of his surface assets are.
And I know a portion of KB is raiding down the West coast of Australia and some of the others have to be back in Japan for repair since they have been at sea for a full six months.

There is risk involved but there is risk in everything. And I like trying new things. If I can thin out his air forces then that will lead to benefits later.



Leandros -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/13/2016 4:11:16 PM)


Good luck..!...[;)]

Fred



Lokasenna -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/13/2016 5:12:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

and some of the others have to be back in Japan for repair since they have been at sea for a full six months.



This could be a fatal assumption, especially since I don't think it's necessarily correct.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/13/2016 5:20:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

and some of the others have to be back in Japan for repair since they have been at sea for a full six months.



This could be a fatal assumption, especially since I don't think it's necessarily correct.



My submarines spotted two different ones that had smoke coming from them.
This was 3 turn ago moving through the straights of Taiwan towards Japan.
He has had them at sea since Dec 7th with almost no pause. They have to be running over 10-15 system damage.

I know he has 4-5 carriers on the west coast of Australia from the number of AC involved in strikes.

I am not saying my plan is perfect. But I have some of the odds worked out and I know I am taking a risk. Plus I like trying new things and this is definitely a new concept.
At least for me!



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/13/2016 8:39:34 PM)

Turn sent. 16 ship TF
421 Wildcats
32 SBDs set on 100% naval search
18 float planes set on 100% naval search

We will see how this goes [:(]



Yaab -> RE: Is this gamey? (4/13/2016 9:05:40 PM)

Operation Gamey is born.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.171875