RE: Notes from a Small Island (Full Version)

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



Message

Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 3:27:37 PM)

The decision about where and when to strike has been made, though its subject to tweaking. The only major decision remaining is to carefully evaluate CVE/CV mixing.

Erik's carrier air took heavy hits during the June clash near Paramushiro. Mine did too, though my losses were mostly limited to fighters (I didn't employ my strike aircraft). Both sides have thus had more than two months to regroup, repair, train. From a ship standpoint, I think I'll be comparatively stronger, having received more reinforcements than he has.

The LBA issue that Chickenboy referenced is critical, so I've give that alot of thought. The current air campaign from Shikuka is with that in mind.




Chickenboy -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 3:46:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Erik's carrier air took heavy hits during the June clash near Paramushiro. Mine did too, though my losses were mostly limited to fighters (I didn't employ my strike aircraft). Both sides have thus had more than two months to regroup, repair, train. From a ship standpoint, I think I'll be comparatively stronger, having received more reinforcements than he has.


When, relative to your capture of any bases on Sakhalin, would you say that the majority of Erik's carrier air suffered? My guess is that IJNAF pilots may have been dealt with more gently-as they could divert to friendly airfields aplenty nearby. Allied OPS and A2A losses likely resulted in higher KIA and MIA pilots than they normally would have had you *any* bases nearby.

Will your comparative ship strength be stronger (CVs?) Have you received >2 "fleet" CV replacements since the previous bout?



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 3:53:06 PM)

Erik lost something over 500 aircraft during the carrier clash near Paramushiro. That clash took place after I'd take Shikuka and Toyohara.

In that battle, I lost one CV and one CVL, plus one CV damaged heavily enough that it won't be available until late October.

For reinforcements, I've received one USN CV (with another on the way, in time for the upcoming campaign), one CVL, two RN CVs, and a bunch of CVEs.

For those reading along, please bear in mind that my main question is for informed opinions about mixing CVs and CVEs in the same TF. See my question near the bottom of the previous page. I don't want that to get lost amid important but tangential discussions of other matters.



Chickenboy -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 4:06:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
my main question is for informed opinions about mixing CVs and CVEs in the same TF. See my question near the bottom of the previous page. I don't want that to get lost amid important but tangential discussions of other matters.


Alright, alright. Don't get yer britches bunched. [:'(]

CVEs are the Allied version of Japanese tanks. One decent hit and they're aflame or done altogether. If they are still afloat after taking damage, the rest of the TF will slow to the lowest common denominator or fragment to accomodate DD escort to a friendly base. En masse, this could be disastrous for unit cohesion and the ability to keep your AAA DD or other escort units in the fight when you need concentration of force.

That's my two bits worth.



BBfanboy -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 5:14:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

That's my two bits worth.

Overpriced!
We can get a bit of advice from China for only one bit![:)]



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 5:48:14 PM)

CVEs are brittle boats, but I don't think that's a significant factor. I think the carrier battle will be decided on day one, with one or both sides suffering debilitating losses in flattops and carrier aircraft. If damaged CVEs (or other ships) detach with escorts thus reducing TF size and AA for day two, okay.

So the underlying question is the same: does the advantage of additional CVE fighters for CAP outweigh the risk of mixing slower CVEs with faster CVs?

BBfanboy posits that it does while Chickenboy casts a nay vote. I hope many other folks will weigh in. And, by any chance, do any of you have game or sandbox experience with this?




zuluhour -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 6:28:12 PM)

I would want to know how many you would plan to mix, the blend as it were. My OPs would see the CVE
trail at "0". While there is the risk of separation at "point luck", operationally, I think they will
function better in separate TFs. 2 cent sir.



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 6:57:36 PM)

What if I dispersed the fleet carriers within large CVE TFs? I have five or six large TFs with six to ten CVEs each. So add one CV or a CV and a CVL to each. The other possibility would be to embed a handful (5? 6?) CVEs into a more standard carrier TF (four or five CVs and a few CVLs).

For readers just coming aboard, I want to know if mixing CVEs with CVs to eliminate reaction concerns is a viable strategy. CVs react, CVEs don't, so combine them so that the CVs never go anywhere without the CVES. The upside is greatly increased CAP from the CVEs. The downside is the possibility (surety?) that CVEs might slow down the CVs, materially increasing exposure to damage and destruction.



HansBolter -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 6:57:56 PM)

To me it depends on how many CVEs you are thinking of embedding.

I had 40 CVEs in my gaggle DS in my Marianas operation, 5 TFs with 8 CVEs each.

That seemed like a significant enough addition to the combat carrier CAP to be worth slowing the combat carriers to add.

I couldn't see slowing my combat carrier TFs for less than that.

60-80 CVEs would be a no brainer for me.



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 7:01:09 PM)

Thanks, Hans.

When I first posted the question, I was under the impression that the Forum consensus would be: No! Never! Horrible! But, thus far, two have said "Do it" and one has said "Don't do it." So the question isn't as settled as I thought. Keep posting, gents.



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 7:02:48 PM)

Oops, wait a sec. I think Hans misunderstood the question. I think he's talking about separate CVE TFs, not CVEs actually embedded into a CV TF.



HansBolter -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 7:08:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oops, wait a sec. I think Hans misunderstood the question. I think he's talking about separate CVE TFs, not CVEs actually embedded into a CV TF.



No, I didn't misunderstand. I was just being clear that I did not combine them in one TF, but did operate them as a gaggle of TFs that did serve to slow my combat carriers.

I understand that you are discussing combining them.

I agree with Alfred that combining everything into one huge TF is not in the spirit of what the designers intended and don't engage in that practice myself.
However, I am not going to pass judgment on players who choose to use that arrangement.

I think a huge TF that included all combat carriers and a quantity of CVEs like I mentioned above would be unwieldy.
Just think of the collision potential.

All that being said, I am finding myself operating some huge TFs in late '44. For the Mariana's operation I formed three SupDivs consisting of 40 liberty ships, 4 DEs and 4 SCs each.
Each Supply Division carried 250k supply and 20k fuel. I had a fourth SupDiv forming at SanFran when the Big Blue Fleet sailed from Pearl.

As my fuel hubs around the world began to fill up nicely in early '44 I pulled a lot of tankers off of distribution duty and added all newly arriving tankers to form three FuelDivs as well.
They weren't as homogenous as the SupDivs, but carried anywhere from 160k to 320k fuel each.

The ability to bring a million supply and nearly 750k fuel along with the BBF meant once ashore any operation would be flush with logistical support.



zuluhour -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 7:15:51 PM)

Very much akin to the "stacker" type in ASL. LOL. I would check the CVE TF CO for aggression and leadership if using my follow method.
I am experimenting with a leaders first strategy this game and seems to have worked especially well in China. My max in '44 is 4CV
in a TF and 6 CVE in a Taffy. I just can't change my ways. For me it is a question of leaders and orders to get what I want, though
it can be a challenge to manage so many TFs late war this way. I also typically have a CRURON in the lead, dispensing with pure ASW
late war.



JeffroK -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/19/2018 8:59:31 PM)

I wouldnt mix them, as with Hans I would include CVE TF in the grouping.

I would also expect to lose a lot of them in a major engagement.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/20/2018 3:06:56 AM)

Rio Bravo mixed CVEs and CVs around pages 51-53 of his AAR, but I don't think there was any conclusive evidence on whether that was a good idea as he didn't have a major carrier engagement. You might PM him to ask his thoughts. Also, an enterprising forumite might try sandboxing the concept.

Cheers,
CC



Barb -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/20/2018 7:28:16 AM)

The reaction is bound to TF Type - Air Combat could react, CV Escort wont. Air Combat reaction is subject to rolls, and these on Leaders and enemy detection level.

Mixing of CVs and CVEs into single TF
- as for purpose of TF speed: slowest ship limits the TF speed.
- as for the purpose of defense in case of air attack - each ship maneuvers separately, so no penalty for CVs.
- as for the purpose of defense against subs - ability of the sub to engage and fire is increased by the slow speed of the TF, but the accuracy of the shot is determined by the ship targeted - so the higher chance to fire at, but no change in a chance to hit for CVs.
- as for the purpose of defense in surface combat - All ships are slowed down to the speed of slowest vessel - in this case CVEs - making the CVs/CVEs/BBs/CLs/DDs more vulnerable to hits by torpedoes or gunfire (almost by factor of 2). Also higher chance of the surface engagement to occur as the slower TF have lesser chance to evade. Once combat is joined, the TF also have lesser chance to escape pursuit.

So I would:
1. Try mixing the CVs and CVEs and keep the TF types as "CV Escort" to avoid reaction (to keep the from reacting) - but check if the TF Type stays and does not change to "Air Combat"
2. IF the TF type changes to Air Combat automatically - try to keep them together by other means (follows, reaction radius, speed, etc..)
3. Keep several surface combat TFs ON PATROL with the CV TFs to prevent enemy surface to join combat with CVs...
4. Usual follow SCTF and ASW TFs around.
5. As far as I know the reaction happens within 6 hexes, both sides tries to close - usually to 2-4 hexes.

Base your plan of action on the possibilities:
- You can use "CV Escort" type TF to stay within single hex, not react to enemy - handing him a chance for a long range strike against you - which could lead to serious depletion of his air strength against your full CAP. You can then peel off your CV/CVLs for pursuit on a second day of action (have enough Air minded commanders around to staff both CVs and CVEs TFs).
- In case he will close enough for your counter strike, the exchange will happen while you keep yourself concentrated.



crsutton -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/20/2018 2:53:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

What if I dispersed the fleet carriers within large CVE TFs? I have five or six large TFs with six to ten CVEs each. So add one CV or a CV and a CVL to each. The other possibility would be to embed a handful (5? 6?) CVEs into a more standard carrier TF (four or five CVs and a few CVLs).

For readers just coming aboard, I want to know if mixing CVEs with CVs to eliminate reaction concerns is a viable strategy. CVs react, CVEs don't, so combine them so that the CVs never go anywhere without the CVES. The upside is greatly increased CAP from the CVEs. The downside is the possibility (surety?) that CVEs might slow down the CVs, materially increasing exposure to damage and destruction.


CVEs will and do react if they are set up as a carrier TF. I have had it happen to me. They do not react in my experience if they are in a CVE Escort TF-which is what they always should be in. Air Combat TFs-no matter the composition, can always react. It is not the type of ship but the type of TF. That is the first reason that you do not want to combine them. Second reason is that CVEs have the same effect on a carrier TF as old BBs do. They slow the TF down and make all ships easier to hit by subs and surface ship-maybe air attacks but I am not sure. I can't think of a reason to ever combine CVEs with fast carriers. I just throw my CVE TFs in the same hex as my fast carriers. You then have the chance that at least one major strike will hit your CVEs. So you then lose some CVEs but your main carriers take much less damage if that happens and probably will end up putting a pretty good whupping on the Japanese. All things being equal that is a win for the Allies. I do not think that you can put any type of carrier but CVEs into a CV-escort TF.

The other option is to hold the CVE TFs a couple hexes behind the Carrier TFs. Let the big carriers fight the big battle with the Japanese carriers (they are very hard to sink with late war AA) and then rush your CVEs in to attack any slowed cripples on the following turn. The benefit to this is that your torpedo bomber equipped CVEs will score more hits on any slowed enemy carriers and the torpedoes are excellent ship killers when they do hit. After a massive carrier fight it is probable that the Japanese fighter and attack planes will have low morale and high fatigue and won't put up much of an attack on your CVEs. Plus in a follow up to a massive air combat it is likely that the Japanese ships will be out or very low on AA ammo. There are many ways to skin a cat...



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/20/2018 3:00:50 PM)

Thanks, Ross. Lots of good things to think over.

I can think of two good reasons to mix CVEs in with CVs, but I'm not sure if those benefits outweigh the risks that you mention. My two reasons: (1) it guarantees that my CV TFs won't separate from my CVE TFs by reacting, as happened in my earlier carrier battle (there are other various work-arounds, as we've discussed, but all of them are very uncertain whereas this method isn't); and (2) I'll have at least 55 CVEs, which will augment CAP by perhaps as many as 750 to 900 fighters.

The question is whether those additional fighters negate the downside - the slower TF speed you refer to.



crsutton -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/20/2018 3:40:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks, Ross. Lots of good things to think over.

I can think of two good reasons to mix CVEs in with CVs, but I'm not sure if those benefits outweigh the risks that you mention. My two reasons: (1) it guarantees that my CV TFs won't separate from my CVE TFs by reacting, as happened in my earlier carrier battle (there are other various work-arounds, as we've discussed, but all of them are very uncertain whereas this method isn't); and (2) I'll have at least 55 CVEs, which will augment CAP by perhaps as many as 750 to 900 fighters.

The question is whether those additional fighters negate the downside - the slower TF speed you refer to.


Not clear if you are going to mix CVEs in the air combat TF with CVs or just mix CVE TFs with air combat TFs. If it is an air combat TF and has CVEs in it then it still has the potential to react. The presence of CVEs in the TF do not negate that. Some claim that having the air combat TF follow a CVE Escort TF (or surface TF) will prevent reaction but I have my doubts about that.



HansBolter -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/20/2018 3:45:35 PM)

I was wondering if it was the TF type and not the ship type that determined reaction.

I had just never seen my CVEs react, even though I typically use them in Air Combat TFs instead of Escort Carrier TF.

Can fleet CVs even be put into an Escort Carrier TF without the TF auto reverting to an Air Combat TF?

I have TFs auto revert to different TF types all the time. Sometimes if you create an Escort TF with ships that are not heavily damaged the engine auto-reverts the TF type.

This also happens with a certain type of non-pool type landing craft, the LCI(G). If this is the only LC type ship in a port and you try to create a TF for it, you cannot create a Landing Craft TF.

You have to create a transport TF to put it in, but as soon as you do the TF type auto-reverts to a Landing Craft TF.

Just trying to point out there may be complications with trying to operate fleet CVs in an Escort Carrier TF type.



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/20/2018 3:48:45 PM)

Yes, I'm talking about mixing CVEs in with CVs in a TF. So I might end up with six carriers TFs, each TF with a mixture of CVEs, CVs, and CVLs.

I don't mind the TFs reacting as long as they ALL react. I don't want the CVs reacting and leaving behind the CVEs, as happened previously, if there's a way to avoid it or minimize the chances.

There are various work arounds, but all of them are susceptible to utter failure. During that last engagement, all of my carrier TFs (CVE TFs and CV/CVL TFs) were set to follow a DD combat TF (or it may have been an ASW TF). The carrier TFs reacted against orders. The CVE TFs (which were in CV TFs and not CV Escort TFS) did not react. The result was that none of my CVEs were engaged, so I lost their robust CAP contribution (but didn't lose any CVEs). My CV/CVL TFs took pretty heavy damage.



tarkalak -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/20/2018 4:06:39 PM)

You may want to read John 3rd's AAR for his game with you. He had the opposite happen - his CVEs reacted, while his CVs didn't, or something like that.

There was a long discussion about CVs and CVEs there.



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 12:10:43 AM)

8/27/44 and 8/28/44

Thanks, gents, for chiming in to answer my question. I'm mulling over and will continue to do so for weeks, so keep on chiming in.

NoPac: A handful of 4EB target Onnekotan on the 27th and Ketoi on the 28th. No opposition. I think KB is still loitering off Hokkaido. No enemy air attacks.

Death Star: The CVEs have reached the port for upgrades. I'll have at least 58 when the time comes for battle. Some of the CVs damaged in the late naval clash have repaired now, with three more available inside three weeks. It's nice to see Franklin is about ready to go, after it ate a sub-launched torp at the start of the battle. Reinforcing Hancock is now in theater. Ticonderoga will arrive in about three weeks.

Rangoon: No enemy opposition against raids vs. Rangoon and Pegu. Allied 4,000+ AV stack is daily bombarding enemy 2,000+ AV stack in the jungle NE of Rangoon. It's going to be tough, but early indications are that the bombardments are having an effect. More and more fully upgraded Allied units are arriving, adding firepower.



Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 5:55:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In about a month, a decisive carrier battle should take place. If the Allies win, the outcome of the war should be secured. If they lose, everything will be a grind until the end or very late.

You'll recall that in the previous carrier battle, near Paramushiro Jima, my fleet carrier TFs reacted while my CVEs did not. So I'm wrestling with how to address that - how to maximize the chances that all of my carriers will be available for the decisive battle.

I do not have confidence in the usual tactics, such as using TF commanders with low aggression ratings, setting the TFs not to react, and having the carrier TFs following a non-carrier TF. I may have to use one or more or all of those tactics, but they don't make me rest easy.

The one sure thing would be to create hybrid carrier TFs - TFs with both fleet carriers and escort carriers. There is, of course, a major downside: the CVEs have speeds of 18 to 21 knots. This slows down all the ships in the TF, including the valuable fleet carriers, making them more vulnerable to the enemy air raids (and in surface clashes, I presume).

The advantage is that this tactic would keep all my carriers together, ensuring that the host of fighters aboard CVEs - probably something like 750 fighters - would be available for defense.

I think the consensus of the experienced Forumites is: "Don't do it!" I'm not so sure.

What do you think?


I'm a few days late to the party.

I haven't suffered many adverse carrier reactions, and none now that the multiple reaction bug has been fixed (they've still reacted but only 1 hex and it's been fine; that's partly luck).

The best advice I can give for avoiding reaction is to either be really confident that you'll be at 7 hexes, or to make sure you get closer than that. Reactions only appear to occur in the 5-6 hex range - I don't know why for sure, but I have a guess that nobody has ever said yay or nay about. I suspect it has to do with what amounts to "legacy code" - the change in hex size, and a potential oversight. If you end up at 7 hexes or at 4 hexes, your guys shouldn't react (I mean I've only had 20 CV battles/skirmishes tops, so this is a small sample, but that's my experience).

Do not mix your CVE and CV TFs. Just don't. They won't really affect you in air raids, except that: (1) the CVE is almost certainly weaker in AA than whichever ship it is replacing, and (2) your CV TFs are more likely to take strikes than your CVE TFs (I think - they should, if DL is high on your CVs which it will be), and CVEs go down easy = easy points. The second big reason is the surface combat threat. If you get caught on the surface, your CVEs will slow your whole TF down and you could end up with a disaster.

Not mixing them also allows you to separate them out by value. You can win without CVEs if you absolutely have to (I think). I don't think you can win without CVs unless you also eliminate enough of his.

If you're that concerned about your CVE TFs not being in the fight to provide the CAP, then set their range to 1 - your CF TFs should not react more than 1 hex away.



Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 5:56:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks, Ross. Lots of good things to think over.

I can think of two good reasons to mix CVEs in with CVs, but I'm not sure if those benefits outweigh the risks that you mention. My two reasons: (1) it guarantees that my CV TFs won't separate from my CVE TFs by reacting, as happened in my earlier carrier battle (there are other various work-arounds, as we've discussed, but all of them are very uncertain whereas this method isn't); and (2) I'll have at least 55 CVEs, which will augment CAP by perhaps as many as 750 to 900 fighters.

The question is whether those additional fighters negate the downside - the slower TF speed you refer to.


Not clear if you are going to mix CVEs in the air combat TF with CVs or just mix CVE TFs with air combat TFs. If it is an air combat TF and has CVEs in it then it still has the potential to react. The presence of CVEs in the TF do not negate that. Some claim that having the air combat TF follow a CVE Escort TF (or surface TF) will prevent reaction but I have my doubts about that.


I'm fairly certain that if they are observing a "failed" reaction (as in none occurs when they think one should have simply because enemy CVs were detected), the cause was actually something else.



Lokasenna -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 6:00:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

So the underlying question is the same: does the advantage of additional CVE fighters for CAP outweigh the risk of mixing slower CVEs with faster CVs?




As mentioned, no.

But I think you should include CVEs with your CVs. That means you're only moving 8 hexes per turn, but honestly that's plenty fast. You're not sailing around in a giant blue ocean at this point - the zone of action is fairly constrained. You just don't need 12-16 hexes of movement to be able to get the positioning you want.


I've had 2 decisive (1 in each game) and several indecisive CV battles in just this manner, as the Allies. CVEs on full CAP supplementing CV CAP, allowing more CV fighters to fly escort and punch through. This really only works if it's a search and destroy mission. If you're splitting tasks (covering an invasion), it gets much harder.



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 8:48:51 AM)

If reaction were limited to no more than a hex, I wouldn't even consider the strategy I'm proposing. As you suggested, I'd set CVE fighters to a range of one, thus ensuring that they'd be within range to provide CAP to reacting CV TFs.

But in two of my last three carrier clashes, I've seen reactions of three or four hexes. This includes the most recent battle in this game (less than three months ago game time, a bit more real time), and a late carrier action in my game with John III (sometime in late '44 or early '45, when John was raiding SoPac and I tried for an intercept just east of Luganville).

If carriers can react multiple hexes, you can see that it eliminates the strategy of "keeping the CVEs within close range for mutual air support).

Addressing one of your concerns, my CVEs wouldn't "take the place of AA platforms." They'd supplement. Usually, my carrier TFs have about 15-18 ships. What if I just fill them up to 25 total with the additional CVEs (or, possibly, pull out a few CV/CVL and add in as many CVE and a few DDs to make up 25)?

As for the surface combat threat, the Allies vastly outnumber the Japanese in combat ships. Death Star should have about eight to ten dedicated combat TFs. In the last battle, Erik didn't try for a surface combat engagement. That doesn't mean that he won't this time, but I think the odds are low, and that even if he does he's likely to come out on the short end.

I agree I probably can't win without CVs or if I lose a carrier clash decisively. That's the reason I'm turning over ever stick and leaf trying to figure out a way to maximize the chances that CVEs are there to enhance CAP. The additional 900 fighters (plus some TBM squadrons for ASW support or follow-up naval strikes) offers a tremendous amount of security.



Canoerebel -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 8:53:40 AM)

I'm not bent on doing this, by the way. I hope none of you throws up hands in frustration, "Well, you're bent on doing this. Do it at your own risk. You'll be sorry." The prospective carrier clash is at least a month away. I have a lot of time left to consider options, weighing and sifting.

To this point, I've seen a good bit of advice, "Don't do this!" I still think embedding CVEs offers more advantages than not, especially if my assumptions are true (CV TFs do react multiple hexes and the combat threat is manageable).

It still boils down to this question: does the benefit of perhaps 900 additional fighters on CAP outweigh the risk posed by incoming air strikes by slowing the carrier TFS from 28 knots to 21 or 18?



BBfanboy -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 1:58:09 PM)

Just a comment on a previous post noting that John 3rd's CVEs reacted in your last game - I am pretty sure he had them in an Air Combat TF rather than a CVE TF. His CVEs were much closer to you than the main KB so they reacted to the detection but I think KB was too far away to get in range with a reaction, or it just failed the die roll for reaction.
So the upshot of this is that CVEs and CVs could react together if they are situated in the same hex and both are in Air Combat TFs.



crsutton -> RE: Notes from a Small Island (4/21/2018 2:25:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

If reaction were limited to no more than a hex, I wouldn't even consider the strategy I'm proposing. As you suggested, I'd set CVE fighters to a range of one, thus ensuring that they'd be within range to provide CAP to reacting CV TFs.

But in two of my last three carrier clashes, I've seen reactions of three or four hexes. This includes the most recent battle in this game (less than three months ago game time, a bit more real time), and a late carrier action in my game with John III (sometime in late '44 or early '45, when John was raiding SoPac and I tried for an intercept just east of Luganville).

If carriers can react multiple hexes, you can see that it eliminates the strategy of "keeping the CVEs within close range for mutual air support).

Addressing one of your concerns, my CVEs wouldn't "take the place of AA platforms." They'd supplement. Usually, my carrier TFs have about 15-18 ships. What if I just fill them up to 25 total with the additional CVEs (or, possibly, pull out a few CV/CVL and add in as many CVE and a few DDs to make up 25)?

As for the surface combat threat, the Allies vastly outnumber the Japanese in combat ships. Death Star should have about eight to ten dedicated combat TFs. In the last battle, Erik didn't try for a surface combat engagement. That doesn't mean that he won't this time, but I think the odds are low, and that even if he does he's likely to come out on the short end.

I agree I probably can't win without CVs or if I lose a carrier clash decisively. That's the reason I'm turning over ever stick and leaf trying to figure out a way to maximize the chances that CVEs are there to enhance CAP. The additional 900 fighters (plus some TBM squadrons for ASW support or follow-up naval strikes) offers a tremendous amount of security.



I don't like to do it but I pretty much mass all my fleet carriers and CVLs in one big TF. I don't fear coordination penalties as much as I do reaction. Later in the war I will form two big TFs each big enough to fight KB to a draw. If one reacts then I just take my medicine but am confident that it can hold it's own. Once I have seriously whittled down KB, I go to five to six carrier TFs. Viberpol my long term opponent never splits his carries so I am just reacting to his tactics.



Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875