RE: CV complement?

RE: CV complement? (Full Version)

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

Message

Anachro -> RE: CV complement? (8/31/2016 6:16:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy A wise player here came up with a use for the Whirraways - use them to haul beer kegs to the troops - morale and aggression go up immediately! [sm=00000436.gif] I use them for ASW near ports...not optimal but not bad

Macclan5 -> RE: CV complement? (8/31/2016 6:58:03 PM)
Thematic Question to the Veterans: I fully understand this is a well documented opinion in many threads / my question is not about the technical (air coordination penalties) rather the thematic. IIRC Raymond Spruance opined the ideal Task Force is 4 CV platforms and support. In fact Allied Deployment of TF38 at the Battle Of Leyte Gulf mirrors that advice. It can be clearly demonstrated TF38.3 and TF38.4 were made up of 2XCV and 2X CVL each plus supporting ships. Further they were deployed roughly 60 nautical miles of each other...hmmm... interesting..... Japan raided Midway with a CV TF of 4 carriers and support ships albeit that may have been the consequence of planning diversionary raids / Coral Sea availability. --- Whether playing as Japan or the Allies - but especially as the Allies - does the experienced player 1) Always "simply deathstar" the Carrier Task Force - damn the penalties and go hunt or... 2) Formations of CV TF with 4 platforms and supporting ships / then have the next CV Task Force follow at 1 hex... to be mutually supporting... i.e. CV CV CVL CVL BB CA CL CLAA DD DE follow 1 hex CV CV CVL CVL BB CA CL CLAA DD DE follow 1 hex etc -- Do you tend to follow historical pattern or is it just my amateur historian hobbyist nature that even bothers to ask such silly question ?

mussey -> RE: CV complement? (8/31/2016 7:02:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 Thematic Question to the Veterans: I fully understand this is a well documented opinion in many threads / my question is not about the technical (air coordination penalties) rather the thematic. IIRC Raymond Spruance opined the ideal Task Force is 4 CV platforms and support. In fact Allied Deployment of TF38 at the Battle Of Leyte Gulf mirrors that advice. It can be clearly demonstrated TF38.3 and TF38.4 were made up of 2XCV and 2X CVL each plus supporting ships. Further they were deployed roughly 60 nautical miles of each other...hmmm... interesting..... Japan raided Midway with a CV TF of 4 carriers and support ships albeit that may have been the consequence of planning diversionary raids / Coral Sea availability. --- Whether playing as Japan or the Allies - but especially as the Allies - does the experienced player 1) Always "simply deathstar" the Carrier Task Force - damn the penalties and go hunt or... 2) Formations of CV TF with 4 platforms and supporting ships / then have the next CV Task Force follow at 1 hex... to be mutually supporting... i.e. CV CV CVL CVL BB CA CL CLAA DD DE follow 1 hex CV CV CVL CVL BB CA CL CLAA DD DE follow 1 hex etc -- Do you tend to follow historical pattern or is it just my amateur historian hobbyist nature that even bothers to ask such silly question ? #2, same hex usually

Anachro -> RE: CV complement? (8/31/2016 7:25:07 PM)
As the allies, I always do 2) following in same hex, not 1 hex apart. For the Japanese, I still think it makes sense to divide into more than one KB after 6. I.E. If I have all 6 original CVs when the Hiyo and Junyo come online then they'd probably go into a 2nd CV TF with a cpl CVLs

rustysi -> RE: CV complement? (8/31/2016 10:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 Thematic Question to the Veterans: I fully understand this is a well documented opinion in many threads / my question is not about the technical (air coordination penalties) rather the thematic. IIRC Raymond Spruance opined the ideal Task Force is 4 CV platforms and support. In fact Allied Deployment of TF38 at the Battle Of Leyte Gulf mirrors that advice. It can be clearly demonstrated TF38.3 and TF38.4 were made up of 2XCV and 2X CVL each plus supporting ships. Further they were deployed roughly 60 nautical miles of each other...hmmm... interesting..... Japan raided Midway with a CV TF of 4 carriers and support ships albeit that may have been the consequence of planning diversionary raids / Coral Sea availability. --- Whether playing as Japan or the Allies - but especially as the Allies - does the experienced player 1) Always "simply deathstar" the Carrier Task Force - damn the penalties and go hunt or... 2) Formations of CV TF with 4 platforms and supporting ships / then have the next CV Task Force follow at 1 hex... to be mutually supporting... i.e. CV CV CVL CVL BB CA CL CLAA DD DE follow 1 hex CV CV CVL CVL BB CA CL CLAA DD DE follow 1 hex etc -- Do you tend to follow historical pattern or is it just my amateur historian hobbyist nature that even bothers to ask such silly question ? This has been discussed many times here, and you will probably find as many differences of opinion as entries. Personally I tend with the trend in this post. Several TF's, but in the same hex. However, keep in mind that there are many things for which I may vary that as it depends on the op, time of the conflict, and particular tactical situation. The main thing in this game, at least IMHO, is to remain flexible. Try to set up a ridged doctrine and I can only see failure in your future.

geofflambert -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 9:45:36 AM)
There's not enough CVLs to go around one to one. I like TFs of 1 CV plus escort if I can manage it, all in the same hex following by 1 a BB TF. By 44 as the Allied player the smallest TF you can manage is CV CV CVL. If your CV TFs are following by 1 a BB TF, the BB TF will usually take some of the punishment. Also, it seems to me from experience that if you have several CV TFs in the same hex, incoming attacks seem to key on one of them and leave the rest alone. If I have CV CV CVL TFs I consider having the CVL carry nothing but fighters doing nothing but CAP. The whole TF would ideally look like this: CV CV CVL CA CA CLAA CL CL DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD.

geofflambert -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 10:01:33 AM)
Also if you can afford the luxury I have that leading BB TF followed by zero hexes two cruiser TFs. If a surface TF tries to get at your CVs they end up being engaged separately (and sometimes more than once) by each of those TFs and use up all their ammo before getting to the CV TFs. This whole complicated mess will normally have some hiccups and TFs straggling, but in my view more often than not this actually enhances their effectiveness.

BBfanboy -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 1:52:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Also if you can afford the luxury I have that leading BB TF followed by zero hexes two cruiser TFs. If a surface TF tries to get at your CVs they end up being engaged separately (and sometimes more than once) by each of those TFs and use up all their ammo before getting to the CV TFs. This whole complicated mess will normally have some hiccups and TFs straggling, but in my view more often than not this actually enhances their effectiveness. My only comment is that the "Follow" command should not be daisy-chained. The AI seems to have trouble with handling the sequence of follows so often the last one or two TFs in the chain do not move at all. I pick a key TF and have all the others follow that one.

Macclan5 -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 3:13:28 PM)
Thank you gentlemen - all thoughts very welcome. The notes about "not locking in a deployment" and "daisy chain" especially appreciated. I knew there were countless opinions on this; further it is a very old and debated topic. I read most of the historical threads before posting and as indicated there are lots of opinions. -- My own constraint in this game I find is "reminding myself" to temper the hobby historian. At least on my first GC play through. I may in fact not be very innovate nor insightful. Certainly one measures your own progress verses history; but then I often look to history for deployment examples. All thoughts very appreciated to expand my repertoire of thinking.

Korvar -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 5:34:08 PM)
I'll add some historical context here with the disclaimer that WitPAE's algorithms care not one whit about history, although I have found the game tends to mirror history in a general sense, if not all its particulars. Rustysi made a good point about static doctrine because we are really discussing a 'moving target' here. Early in the war, defenses, both AAA and fighter CAPs, were insufficient to effectively defend against any type of even somewhat coordinated strike. 'Find first, kill first' prevailed. That's why it made more sense to separate CVs such that having one be discovered wasn't a guarantee that all of them were discovered. Sometime just before the Battle of the Philippine Sea the battle calculus flipped for the USN. Enough improvements had been made to the quality (Hellcats) and quantity (allocating additional fighters per carrier TF) of fighter CAP, as well as quantity, quality, and fire control of AAA, that concentrated CV TFs could effectively defend themselves and thus it was possible to nullify opposing strikes. Notice that nothing had changed for the IJN - the continued decimation of experienced naval aviators coupled with relatively much weaker AAA meant that it made more sense for the IJN to separate carriers. Yet IJN carrier doctrine had been written such that carriers were combined in order to maximize the size of coordinated strikes, so there was a strong doctrinal temptation for their commanders to keep their carriers together.

Macclan5 -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 6:50:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Korvar I'll add some historical context here with the disclaimer that WitPAE's algorithms care not one whit about history, although I have found the game tends to mirror history in a general sense, if not all its particulars. Rustysi made a good point about static doctrine because we are really discussing a 'moving target' here. Early in the war, defenses, both AAA and fighter CAPs, were insufficient to effectively defend against any type of even somewhat coordinated strike. 'Find first, kill first' prevailed. That's why it made more sense to separate CVs such that having one be discovered wasn't a guarantee that all of them were discovered. Sometime just before the Battle of the Philippine Sea the battle calculus flipped for the USN. Enough improvements had been made to the quality (Hellcats) and quantity (allocating additional fighters per carrier TF) of fighter CAP, as well as quantity, quality, and fire control of AAA, that concentrated CV TFs could effectively defend themselves and thus it was possible to nullify opposing strikes. Notice that nothing had changed for the IJN - the continued decimation of experienced naval aviators coupled with relatively much weaker AAA meant that it made more sense for the IJN to separate carriers. Yet IJN carrier doctrine had been written such that carriers were combined in order to maximize the size of coordinated strikes, so there was a strong doctrinal temptation for their commanders to keep their carriers together. A very interesting observation. I do not disagree with you; however I will question you out of lack of knowledge on my part. Underlying your statement is that Japan's doctrine didn't change..... But in the game format that WITP AE is as it is ~ and assuming that a Japan Player can: (1) Preserve the KB intact i.e. no Midway and (2) Can preserve trained fight pilot pools of greater depth than in actual history... .... does not the subpar IJN AA and subpar IJN Carrier CAP (quality) improve in late game ?? I have yet to play the IJN side (I intend to) and yet to play PBEM (I intend to) but I would hate to assume that a massed IJN TF in late war is weaker than it actually is ... much to my sorrow.

Korvar -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 7:19:14 PM)
I haven't played as the IJN myself, so I can't comment on the implementation in the game. There are already differences between the game and history as you can 'stack' TFs in the game, and they will be treated differently than if integrated into one TF. In the real war, all those ships would likely be spotted and both sides would be smart enough to allocate at least some of a strike package to each, assuming the strike package found both again. Preserving the quality and quantity of the IJN CAP would go a long way to making a multiple CV IJN TF defendable. The AAA upgrades are what they are. Only the vets here can answer how all that translates into actual practice in-game. I use history as a general guide to the game when I lack the more accurate context of the actual algorithms. We're never going to know exactly how many of them operate other than as a by-product of accumulated anecdotal evidence here about how it plays out. But even if the exact workings of the game are not figured out 100% on a given issue, history does have to be left behind at some point because the game is just a big INPUT - OUTPUT box, and its rules govern whether they match history or not. That said, one of the reasons that I love this game is that actual doctrinal / history considerations can be used to help formulate game decisions, and what makes sense historically can also work in-game too. For instance, many here allocate USMC VMF figher squadrons to their carriers very early in the war, although the USN didn't increase its fighter allocations until after Midway when they began to realize the traditional allocation was inadequate. So there is a lot of flexibility in WitPAE to correct mistakes that were made historically.

mussey -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 9:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Also if you can afford the luxury I have that leading BB TF followed by zero hexes two cruiser TFs. If a surface TF tries to get at your CVs they end up being engaged separately (and sometimes more than once) by each of those TFs and use up all their ammo before getting to the CV TFs. This whole complicated mess will normally have some hiccups and TFs straggling, but in my view more often than not this actually enhances their effectiveness. My only comment is that the "Follow" command should not be daisy-chained. The AI seems to have trouble with handling the sequence of follows so often the last one or two TFs in the chain do not move at all. I pick a key TF and have all the others follow that one. +1 I tried a daisy-chained invasion force of multiple missions that blew up. Since then I do as you mention: multiple TF's all following one lead TF.

geofflambert -> RE: CV complement? (9/1/2016 9:53:42 PM)
I would say to Mac and Korvar, play the allied side until you get sick of kicking ass, then switch to the dark side. The challenge will be greater even than learning this game in the first place. To paraphrase Quint in Jaws, "I'll never wear a life jacket again". Of course, you'll think you need a bigger boat.

Korvar -> RE: CV complement? (9/2/2016 6:10:54 AM)
Oh, I will try the IJN eventually. I'm already at the point where I regret using the Quiet China scenario, so I take it as progress... or at least the life jacket is getting a little itchy.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.203125