Air Combat TF Size

Air Combat TF Size (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Snigbert -> Air Combat TF Size (4/29/2003 7:43:01 AM)
Just wondering, how many carriers do you put into your Air Combat TF, and why? Would you rather have two tfs with two CVs each, or one tf with four CVs?

Mr.Frag -> (4/29/2003 8:25:40 AM)
It is very dependant on the situation. If you know that the other side has lost CV's, you can split things up, but if you are in the situation of running into 7 japan CV's still, you want to keep your 4 glued together with every AA gun you can stick in the TF to deal with leakers that get through your CAP. Running 30% cap with MORE CV's keeps fatigue much lower then running 2 separate groups of CV's at 50% CAP. With 6 CV's grouped you may even be able to back down to 20% cap, which means fatigue will be almost down to 10% average which means when they do mix it up, they will be in great shape. The price (risk) is a single bad weather glitch and you have no CV's left...

Drex -> (4/29/2003 8:43:12 AM)
i've got a Japanese opponent who has 7 CVs ( in one TF)out hunting for my 3 Cvs. I'm going to keep them together in one TF no matter what.

Tanaka -> (4/29/2003 10:33:25 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex [B]i've got a Japanese opponent who has 7 CVs ( in one TF)out hunting for my 3 Cvs. I'm going to keep them together in one TF no matter what. [/B][/QUOTE] A hunting we will go...a hunting we will go...hi ho the merrio a hunting we will go!!!! Banzai!!! ;)

Fred98 -> (4/29/2003 10:54:32 AM)
To me “fatigue” is a word that falls under “F” in the dictionary; otherwise I have no use for it. I prefer to have 2 TF each of 2 CVs but if my opponent puts his CVs together I need to do likewise. To me there are too many CVs in the game. The longest scenario is not historical as it assumes there was no Midway and all the carriers used there are available for the South West Pacific. The game should be “fight you way up the island chain – with supplies and air support both in short supply”. Instead, the game is “Get your Tiger tanks of the sea and line them up against my opponents Tiger tanks of the sea”. Thank goodness for the scenario editor. Without the scenario editor, B17s, CVs and Subs would dominate the game. Currently I am playing “Turning the Tide” with no CVs and no battleships in a PBEM game. Here are the problems I am encountering: It is hard to provide air cover for transports It is hard to resupply outposts. It is hard to make an infantry attack without adequate supplies or bombers to soften up the enemy. Surface fleets have spectacular but inconclusive battles especially around Guadacanal. All great fun! Does all this sound familiar?

Drex -> (4/29/2003 11:09:39 AM)
Joe you are bringing up the old "historical" versus "recreational " viewpoint and there is no argument for or against it as it is a personal preference. No I don't like being chased by a TF full of CVs but its a long battle and I can still turn things around and it tests my ability. A good player can still win by using historical methods but I don't believe in wearing history as a straitjacket.

Fred98 -> (4/29/2003 12:28:19 PM)
“but I don't believe in wearing history as a straitjacket” Wow I sure agree with you there. But it seems to me that the standard scenario ought to be historical and there be an option to be a-historical. My view is that the game company has succeeded if you get the feel for the action being depicted.

ADavidB -> Re: Air Combat TF Size (4/29/2003 5:11:51 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert [B]Just wondering, how many carriers do you put into your Air Combat TF, and why? Would you rather have two tfs with two CVs each, or one tf with four CVs? [/B][/QUOTE] Instead of thinking first of what might be the best defense against the enemy, why not try thinking like the commanders of the time and use the carriers in support of your offensive strategies. Thus, if you have a strategic reason to split your carriers, do so. Carrier TFs are offensive weapons and best used as such - the commanders at the time didn't send them back home at the first sign of an enemy scout plane. Your enemy has limited resources and must react to your plans, as well as you to his. Sure, the popular non-historical scenarios in the game can allow the Japanese player to amass huge carrrier fleets, but that's a situation of choice. If you play any of the post-Midway historical scenarios it becomes a lot more interesting to use your carrier TFs in a more historic manner. Cheers - Dave Baranyi

ADavidB -> (4/29/2003 5:18:39 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B] To me there are too many CVs in the game. The longest scenario is not historical as it assumes there was no Midway and all the carriers used there are available for the South West Pacific. The game should be “fight you way up the island chain – with supplies and air support both in short supply”. Instead, the game is “Get your Tiger tanks of the sea and line them up against my opponents Tiger tanks of the sea”. Thank goodness for the scenario editor. Without the scenario editor, B17s, CVs and Subs would dominate the game. [/B][/QUOTE] Why not try the post-Midway scenarios instead of fooling with the scenarios. Sure, a Japanese player is at a disadvantage, but no worse than historical. The reality of history is that the Allies creamed the Japanese in that theater, and left them huddled and helpless in their main bases. For a Japanese player in the game, the challenge is to play the strategy differently so that he is huddled and helpless in a few more bases than happened historically. If the points system of the game has been balanced properly, anything better than the historical outcome ought to be a victory for the Japanese player. Dave Baranyi

Luskan -> (4/29/2003 5:39:39 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tanaka [B]A hunting we will go...a hunting we will go...hi ho the merrio a hunting we will go!!!! Banzai!!! ;) [/B][/QUOTE] Relax Drex - here is how you solve the problem. When Tanaka goes wild with his super CV group down to Noumea (as he is against me), he has caught some APs unloading and sunk them, sure - and he caught a surface combat TF and sank them all too (out of port). He's got about 30 of my ships sunk, while I'm yet yo score - but his consistant port raids at Noumea are costing his CVs aircraft - over a hundred so far. And although he's crippled 20 transports and 15 warships - they all just went straight back to pearl. I don't really need them - not until Dec 42! In the meantime, I'm going to bleed him slowly!

denisonh -> (4/29/2003 10:00:01 PM)
One thing to keep in mind is that 4 CVs in 1 TF are more vulnerable than 2 CVs in two TFs. As the USN, I keep my CVs in TFs of 10 ships, with 2-3 CVs a piece, accompanied by at least one surface TF. 10 ship TFs are more difficult to spot, and I have surprised PBEM opponents on a couple of occaisons. When the airstrikes come, they can't hit all your CVs in one strike. With 3 or more TFs in the same hex, the strikes willl be distributed around, so there is less of a chance of all your CVs getting taken out in the morning, leaving no CAP for the afternoon. As for coordinating strikes, I have had coordinated strikes between multiple TFs. And AA effectiveness is begins to lessen at 11 ships, and is marginal past 15. Seeing as the vulnerability is getting all your CVs sunk in one strike, multiple TFs is the way to go.

Drex -> (4/29/2003 10:36:03 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan [B]Relax Drex - here is how you solve the problem. When Tanaka goes wild with his super CV group down to Noumea (as he is against me), he has caught some APs unloading and sunk them, sure - and he caught a surface combat TF and sank them all too (out of port). He's got about 30 of my ships sunk, while I'm yet yo score - but his consistant port raids at Noumea are costing his CVs aircraft - over a hundred so far. And although he's crippled 20 transports and 15 warships - they all just went straight back to pearl. I don't really need them - not until Dec 42! In the meantime, I'm going to bleed him slowly! [/B][/QUOTE] Its good to know I'm not the only one that's being hit by this Juggernaut. So far I've been able to elude his Killer Tf but there is no way my transports can out run him. Like you said I don't need them now anyhow.

Yamamoto -> (4/29/2003 10:38:42 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan [B]. And although he's crippled 20 transports and 15 warships - they all just went straight back to pearl. [/B][/QUOTE] That's why I think that ships with and flooding damage shouldn't be allowed to be teleported back to Pearl. No real commander would do so. Yamamoto

Full Moon -> (4/30/2003 1:28:07 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]One thing to keep in mind is that 4 CVs in 1 TF are more vulnerable than 2 CVs in two TFs. As the USN, I keep my CVs in TFs of 10 ships, with 2-3 CVs a piece, accompanied by at least one surface TF. 10 ship TFs are more difficult to spot, and I have surprised PBEM opponents on a couple of occaisons. When the airstrikes come, they can't hit all your CVs in one strike. With 3 or more TFs in the same hex, the strikes willl be distributed around, so there is less of a chance of all your CVs getting taken out in the morning, leaving no CAP for the afternoon. As for coordinating strikes, I have had coordinated strikes between multiple TFs. And AA effectiveness is begins to lessen at 11 ships, and is marginal past 15. Seeing as the vulnerability is getting all your CVs sunk in one strike, multiple TFs is the way to go. [/B][/QUOTE] Very enlightening post denisonh. So are these true? 1) The possiblity of detecting a TF is determined by the number of ships in a TF not by the number of ships in a hex. So, having 10 ships each in two TF and a TF follows the other TF lessens the possiblity of detection than having a 20 ship TF. 2) Two 10 ship TFs in a hex is more effective in AA than a 20 ship TF in a hex, becuase of the AA penalty applied. 3) The effectiveness of CAP is same in below two cases. a. Having two air TF in a hex. Each TF has 3 CVs. b. Only one air TF in a hex. The TF has 6 CVs.

denisonh -> (4/30/2003 3:06:10 AM)
Not to sure about the mechanics of naval search, but I know that I will often move the TFs in seperate hexes well way from the battle area to mask my movement. As I approach the engagment area, then I will concentrate them. I have achieved surprise on opponents at least 3 times in my PBEM games. Total suprise twice, which may have been more of a function of my opponent's search aircraft (or lack there of). No more than a 15 ship TF is a good rule that I follow. The manual makes it clear TFs "that consist of more than 15 ships suffer diminishing returns in effectiveness defending themselves against air attack and fighting in surface battles." I have no reason to believe otherwise. As for the AA, a 15 ship TF will have better AA than a 10 ship TF, but if those 5 are DDs, how much better is it? (Later in the game the US AA gets better and has more capital ships, but initially, the DDs have low AA and there are fewer capital ships). A TF with 2-3 CVs, 3-4 CA/CLs and 4-5 DDs has a good AA rating. The remaining CA/CLs are in surface combat TFs. And as for CAP, absolutely no difference, as it is all combined in the hex. Being harder to track down and harder to kill are important for the US early in SC#17 to survive. Smaller TFs are no longer necessary later in the game, but I still go with multiple CV TFs to minimize vulnerability. And as a point of operation, I will often set the 2 CV TFs to follow the surface TF. Keeps them from doing the 1 hex advance and I only have to order one TF around..

Oleg Mastruko -> (4/30/2003 3:30:08 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B]That's why I think that ships with and flooding damage shouldn't be allowed to be teleported back to Pearl. No real commander would do so. Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] Yes but in real life there would be no "medieval" sieges of Noumea either. In real life Allies would pull all their vulnerable ships and transports to, say, Sydney, or Auckland, and there would be no new ships/materiel arriving to (besieged) Noumea to be slaughtered either. So I think it is perfectly fair to "teleport" ships in "siege" situations. In regular situations I generally wait for flood damage to be repaired before I send ships back to Japan or PH. O.

Tanaka -> (4/30/2003 3:46:33 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B]That's why I think that ships with and flooding damage shouldn't be allowed to be teleported back to Pearl. No real commander would do so. Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] Yes I totally agree. I am hoping that WITP will address this so you cant click a button and then your fleets disappear and are automatically wisked away to safety. Totally unrealistic. I want to be able to finish them off!!! :rolleyes:

Tanaka -> (4/30/2003 4:03:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan [B]Relax Drex - here is how you solve the problem. When Tanaka goes wild with his super CV group down to Noumea (as he is against me), he has caught some APs unloading and sunk them, sure - and he caught a surface combat TF and sank them all too (out of port). He's got about 30 of my ships sunk, while I'm yet yo score - but his consistant port raids at Noumea are costing his CVs aircraft - over a hundred so far. And although he's crippled 20 transports and 15 warships - they all just went straight back to pearl. I don't really need them - not until Dec 42! In the meantime, I'm going to bleed him slowly! [/B][/QUOTE] hehe yes well i am still going to have some fun in the meantime hehe :D CHARRRRRGEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

Nimits -> (4/30/2003 5:00:23 AM)
What I want to know, is how come everyone plays scenario 17 as opposed to 16 (or whatever the historical grand campaign is). Even if we accept the fact that Midway did not happen, 17 and 19 are pure fancy, as the US would under no circumstances have tried a campaign in the South Pacific in the face of an intact Mobile Fleet. Especially with 2.30, the IJN does have chance at winning the historical campaign, while 17 and 19 are darn near impossible to win even against the AI.

denisonh -> (4/30/2003 5:16:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nimits [B]What I want to know, is how come everyone plays scenario 17 as opposed to 16 (or whatever the historical grand campaign is). Even if we accept the fact that Midway did not happen, 17 and 19 are pure fancy, as the US would under no circumstances have tried a campaign in the South Pacific in the face of an intact Mobile Fleet. Especially with 2.30, the IJN does have chance at winning the historical campaign, while 17 and 19 are darn near impossible to win even against the AI. [/B][/QUOTE] SC#17 is winnable for the USN. Very much so IMHO. And SC#16 is a losing proposition for the IJN. No chance against a good USN player. So, if you want to play a PBEM game that will last 6 months or more, play one in which both sides have a reasonable chance at winning. SC #17. I am playing a SC#19 PBEM started under version 2.3, with the IJN player at 120% committment, and it is tough for the USN. Why, because it is fun. And I do not believe that the US would abandon the theater and risk losing communications with Australia, which makes SC#17 plausible (SC#19, is not as plausible, but interesting nonetheless). What makes you believe that would be the case?

Chiteng -> (4/30/2003 10:55:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Not to sure about the mechanics of naval search, but I know that I will often move the TFs in seperate hexes well way from the battle area to mask my movement. As I approach the engagment area, then I will concentrate them. I have achieved surprise on opponents at least 3 times in my PBEM games. Total suprise twice, which may have been more of a function of my opponent's search aircraft (or lack there of). No more than a 15 ship TF is a good rule that I follow. The manual makes it clear TFs "that consist of more than 15 ships suffer diminishing returns in effectiveness defending themselves against air attack and fighting in surface battles." I have no reason to believe otherwise. As for the AA, a 15 ship TF will have better AA than a 10 ship TF, but if those 5 are DDs, how much better is it? (Later in the game the US AA gets better and has more capital ships, but initially, the DDs have low AA and there are fewer capital ships). A TF with 2-3 CVs, 3-4 CA/CLs and 4-5 DDs has a good AA rating. The remaining CA/CLs are in surface combat TFs. And as for CAP, absolutely no difference, as it is all combined in the hex. Being harder to track down and harder to kill are important for the US early in SC#17 to survive. Smaller TFs are no longer necessary later in the game, but I still go with multiple CV TFs to minimize vulnerability. And as a point of operation, I will often set the 2 CV TFs to follow the surface TF. Keeps them from doing the 1 hex advance and I only have to order one TF around.. [/B][/QUOTE] Well I hope you dont include our game in that 'surprise' you achieved. You didnt surprise the CV task force. You may or may not have surprised the surface combat I have that detail turned off. So I wont contest that.

denisonh -> (4/30/2003 11:07:09 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Well I hope you dont include our game in that 'surprise' you achieved. You didnt surprise the CV task force. You may or may not have surprised the surface combat I have that detail turned off. So I wont contest that. [/B][/QUOTE] Just curious, at what point did you spot my TFs? I saw no spotting report until I was 3 hexes away.

Chiteng -> (4/30/2003 11:12:07 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Just curious, at what point did you spot my TFs? I saw no spotting report until I was 3 hexes away. [/B][/QUOTE] I have no idea, however the outcome didnt suggest surprise

denisonh -> (4/30/2003 11:28:06 AM)
I do not claim to know whether or not you suspected my location or intent. I do know that I had two CV TFs and 2 surface TFs 13 hexes from your carrier group, and they were not spotted by any search aircraft (4 July 1942). Since moving fast TFs return to detection level 0 after the 12 hour night impulse, they must be spotted to show during you planning turn. Without detection, they will not be there. So unless you detected them by some other means (As no spots were seen on the replay), thier location and composition were not confirmed (no little enemy fleet icons). The next turn (5 July1942), you spotted my CV TFs 3 hexes away. When the first confirmed sighting of an enemy CV TF is 3 squares away, it is reasonable to suggest that there was some element of surprise.

Chiteng -> (4/30/2003 11:32:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]I do not claim to know whether or not you suspected my location or intent. I do know that I had two CV TFs and 2 surface TFs 13 hexes from your carrier group, and they were not spotted by any search aircraft (4 July 1942). Since moving fast TFs return to detection level 0 after the 12 hour night impulse, they must be spotted to show during you planning turn. Without detection, they will not be there. So unless you detected them by some other means (As no spots were seen on the replay), thier location and composition were not confirmed (no little enemy fleet icons). The next turn (5 July1942), you spotted my CV TFs 3 hexes away. When the first confirmed sighting of an enemy CV TF is 3 squares away, it is reasonable to suggest that there was some element of surprise. [/B][/QUOTE] I cant say, I dont notice things like that. My CV had a mission, to protect the landing. That is what they did. I myself fully expected an attack, what I did NOT know is that all flight ops were halved in coastal waters. As I said the results do not suggest that they were surprised.

denisonh -> (4/30/2003 11:49:29 AM)
Recon is important. I pay a great deal of attention to it. And I do not refer to the combat results, but the operational implications that are associated with having a multiple CV enemy TF appear for the first time 3 hexes away. The fact you were unconcerned with my location or intent is not the issue, but how enemy CVs got that close without a confirmed siting. Since the issue relates to structuring TFs, and many players try to achieve similiar results (anybody out there like to show up 3 hexes from the enemy CVs without being spotted prior?), I only observe that there may be a relationship to avoiding detection if the TF size is small enough.

Chiteng -> (4/30/2003 11:54:34 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Recon is important. I pay a great deal of attention to it. And I do not refer to the combat results, but the operational implications that are associated with having a multiple CV enemy TF appear for the first time 3 hexes away. The fact you were unconcerned with my location or intent is not the issue, but how enemy CVs got that close without a confirmed siting. Since the issue relates to structuring TFs, and many players try to achieve similiar results (anybody out there like to show up 3 hexes from the enemy CVs without being spotted prior?), I only observe that there may be a relationship to avoiding detection if the TF size is small enough. [/B][/QUOTE] Well, I think that the 15 ship limit is silly. I think it is arbitrary. I think that the limited flak capability of the Japs demands that the use all that they possibly can.

Luskan -> (4/30/2003 8:33:21 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B]Yes but in real life there would be no "medieval" sieges of Noumea either. In real life Allies would pull all their vulnerable ships and transports to, say, Sydney, or Auckland, and there would be no new ships/materiel arriving to (besieged) Noumea to be slaughtered either. So I think it is perfectly fair to "teleport" ships in "siege" situations. In regular situations I generally wait for flood damage to be repaired before I send ships back to Japan or PH. O. [/B][/QUOTE] Exactly - I've had an IJN Super CV tf sitting within 5 hexes of Noumea twice (for 5 or 6 turns in a row each time). What sort of idiot in Pearl keeps sending transports and tankers into this sort of situation?????? I should be allowed to redirect reinforcements to Brisbane (sensible)- or at least veto their being sent (unrealistic though).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.546875