IJN CAP level 100% or 0% and more questions... (Full Version)

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



Message

daddog -> IJN CAP level 100% or 0% and more questions... (7/4/2003 11:50:51 AM)

How come when I want to set up a IJN CAP it is 100%? I don’t have a choice as I did with the Americans of 50%, 60%, 70%, … etc. It is 100% or if I try to change the CAP % it changes it to a sweep.

Also had some PG boats smeared by some PT boats. Is that normal? Lost all 3 PG boats and vs 4 PT boats. We did not sink a single one.

Lastly what is the best way to get American subs. I have yet to sink one in any of the 6 games I have played.

Thanks in advance! :)



Fred98 -> (7/4/2003 12:27:04 PM)

Sinking subs ca be very difficult.

But if you have a squadron of patrol boats together with a squadron of float planes on ASW, they seem to bag subs every now and then.

The float planes need to be at 1,000 - 2,000 feet and at 100% ASW



AmiralLaurent -> (7/4/2003 4:47:20 PM)

For both sides, the long range CAP will always be 100 %, if you want to perform 50% CAP, you should give another order to your fighters (sweep or escort (or any attack for FB)) that will apply to the rest of your unit (here 50%).

It works the same for USN and IJN.

PG against PT... a US victory sounds right to me. The latter have torpedoes.

Sinking US subs with IJN is harder than IJN subs by USN. I put all my floatplanes except Mavis on 100% ASW 1000 feet. When my CV are docked at Rabaul/Shortlands, I transfer their planes on the air base here and put some tens of them on ASW either. If I have DD available, I will send them against subs seen. It works sometimes.
S-boats have short legs and suffer op damage faster than others. After some aerial attacks, they may have 0 fuel and try to rally base, moving two hexes by turn. I track US subs and if I see one moving so slowly, I try to send a chase group of DD and small escorts. It works better than againt subs with fuel (it's easier to know where the sub will be at the end of the turn).

In v2.30, I have never seen an IJN PC or PG score a hit on an USN sub (while I have sunk IJN subs with SC). Only DD and floatplanes have sunk US subs in my games (either at IJN or USN). But I use PC and PG extensively to cover convoys from Truk and return, their mere presence seems to reduce the number of sub attacks, or sometimes they are the target and saved an AP or TK (by taking the torpedo hits).
A good convoy system is very important in UV. Destroyers are also useful on rear lines, not only in the Solomons.



DJAndrews -> (7/4/2003 9:30:11 PM)

I am in agreement with AdmiralLaurent concerning PC/PG and USN subs. One of the odd things about UV is that US subs will rarely attack a transport convoy (even a big juicy one) if there is a single PC, PG or DD escort present. As the Japanese player I often keep damaged DDs (so long as their speed is 15 or more) as convoy escorts. They seem to virtually "bullet-proof" large convoys against subs at sea and this can be very useful in areas that are outside of the range of the enemy's LBA. Since there is little reward for sending Japanese ships back to Japan, you may as well keep them and use them.

Another odd thing about USN sub doctrine is that while they don't like single PCs and PGs in convoys, they will happily attack sub-chasing TFs made up entirely of DDs, PCs and PGs. I have generally found such TFs to be a death trap for the patrol craft. In the first year, you can expect to lose several PCs without even damaging a sub. After they gain experience they get better at hunting and in the end it probably evens out (5-6 PC at 2 VP each versus 1 SS at 11 VP).

Finally, float planes and carrier aircraft are useful if you're playing the AI. The planes seem to scare the AI and the subs usually don't linger or attack as often. You will rarely hit a sub with float planes though and if you do, you'll almost never sink it because the bomb load on float planes is very small. Against a human opponent float planes aren't of much value. You won't scare him off and over the course of a game you'll lose 50-60 VP through operational losses (float planes aren't very sturdy).



AmiralLaurent -> (7/4/2003 9:54:39 PM)

I have to disagree about floatplanes. Yes you will lose many but you can afford it because of the replacement rate. And if the points lost will not be compensated by the sinking of many subs (that may happen), they will be compensated by the shipping saved.

Plane attacks can damage subs and force them to return to base slowly and then to Noumea and Pearl. Or they can use the fuel of subs quickly, another way to make them useless.

In August 1942 against my IJN opponent I am unable to have more than 1 or 2 subs with torpedoes and fuel on a patrol point in enemy waters at any time. And sometimes it is nil for several days. Other subs are sailing from Allied bases, repairing somewhere or returning to resplenish torpedoes or more commonly fuel (and that is while using big subs to resplenish S-boats). And I never put subs in enemy bases, rather lurking some hexes away (preferably in deep water).



DJAndrews -> (7/4/2003 11:02:34 PM)

AmiralLaurent, your post set me to thinking and so I'd like to clarify. I don't actually suffer too much from sub attacks out of port because I escort all convoys and I find this to be very effective in deterring sub attack in the open sea. I do use floats extensively in an attempt to deter subs at sea for AC, SC and bombardment TFs. The escort DDs seem to have about 30% chance of sinking the sub after an attack, while the sub has a slightly higher chance of sinking a DD or hurting a larger ship. Subs rarely sink ships bigger than a DD (in most cases float damage is less than 40 after a sub attack on CLs and larger). The combined Sys and Float damage can be very nasty however and inevitably occurs at a bad time. I once lost two carriers because one was hit by a torpedo that grounded all aircraft on one of them, leaving the other vulnerable to the immediate attack by an enemy carrier TF. On balance I prefer to avoid engagements with subs if I can and the float planes seem to be helpful in doing this. It may be luck, but I usually operate my CSs as single ship TFs, with a squadron of Pete's on constant ASW of 50% and I have never had one attacked by a sub, even in their favourite hunting grounds.

With respect to slowing subs down or making them return to port for lack of fuel, I find that I see about 10 float sitings/attack/reported hits for each real hit. I have never had a sub drop below a speed of 10 after a float plane attack (I have had worse damage from carrier planes). These two things combine to make me believe that you're best to just ignore subs in the early going, unless your opponent concentrates a half dozen or so at a single point. If this happens, its worth going after them with a carrier TF (if you have one available).



BillBrown -> (7/5/2003 3:32:57 AM)

I did sink a S-class sub three hexes outside of Rabaul. I was using only PCs, about 8 of them. Plus I had 8-10 ASW aircraft operating from Rabaul at the same time. Hit it with depth charges from a PC. This was in May 1942.



DJAndrews -> (7/5/2003 3:48:29 AM)

Well done. :cool:

Wish I knew that feeling. :(



Philwd -> (7/5/2003 11:40:36 AM)

Hi DJ,
[QUOTE]One of the odd things about UV is that US subs will rarely attack a transport convoy (even a big juicy one) if there is a single PC, PG or DD escort present. [/QUOTE]

Really? In my games the USN pops off at any TF it sees. My IJN DDs run around and never see anything. I've lost at least 10 transports to sub attacks against escorted convoys.

In my latest game I have been using my CS and AV as escort carriers in convoys. I have sunk 2 S class and damaged 2 more with their floatplanes. I have lost many planes but its worth it. I also see several subs a turn and they almost never attack if you've seen them.

Cheers,
Quark



estaban -> (7/5/2003 11:40:40 AM)

Because subs that get attacked by patrolling planes use significant amounts of fuel and system damage to "crash dive", using float planes to patrol for enemy subs is very effective.

This is especially true for the Japanese because of all the "Petes" they have. Petes have very poor range, almost never enough to actually spot an opposing enemy TF, but assigned to an ASW role, they can make it difficult for American subs to operate within a couple hexes of any anchorage where there are a significant number of Pete's present.

The Japanese player gets lots of Petes. The Japanese battleships all have at least 3-4 on them. Many of the cruisers have one or two mid range search planes, like Jakes or Alfs, and 1-2 Petes. Japanese AVs and CSs often have a squadron of mid-range patrol planes and another squadron of Petes. Because their range is only 4-5 hexes, Petes are almost never needed for spotting enemy TFs. Even if an enemy TF is that close, invariably, the Jakes and Alfs and such that are around will spot it anyway, because it is so close.

So I set the Petes to low altitude ASW most of the time. The replacement rate for them is very high, and they are not good "surface search" planes, and they do not suffer very high battle casualties anyway, because their range is too low to run into enemy fighters and flak.



DJAndrews -> (7/5/2003 6:52:31 PM)

Interesting results guys, particularly the idea of running the subs out of fuel. My experience is that subs (Japanese and USN S-class) generally run out of torpedoes before they run low on fuel. I'll have to keep closer track for a while to find out how much fuel is lost in "reported attacks" (where there is not actually a hit).

I used to use petes extensively as you have all suggested and you're right, I never ran out of them. However, the VP lost to op losses seemed to overwhelm the sub losses (by about a 5:2 ratio). I must admit I'm overly frustrated by the high level of op losses throughout the game. In any event I decided to try not using the floats for routine ASW just to see what would happen.

I guess the real question is "are escorted convoy tactics enough". I believe my perception is likely because I haven't yet graduated to PBEM play. Subs must be much easier to handle against the AI. In a recent scen 17 game against the AI I lost only 7 APs all game to sub attack (game ended on 1/1/43) while sinking 3 S-class. Four were lost to S-boats, 2 to Gato Class and 1 to whatever type of ship fires a 21"- Type 13 torpedo.

These transport losses amounted to about 13000 tons of shipping capacity, which is a drop in the bucket. In comparison, I lost 13 APs to bombing and surface vessels. My surface TFs (which are normally protected by petes) lost more heavily to subs (a CA, CL, 2 DD, 1 APD, 3 MSW, 1 ML and 4 PCs). None of the small escorts were lost in convoy duty. The DDs, APD and PCs were all lost in sub chasing.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875