quote:

ORIGINAL: Remenents

Roughly when do American carriers no longer have a negative modifier when in task forces of more than 1 carrier? Or is my information wrong, and Americans do not have a negative modifier?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

It counts all aircraft in the TF, but applies the penalty to the strikes. CAP, Nav Search, ASW etc. are unaffected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

It counts all aircraft in the TF, but applies the penalty to the strikes. CAP, Nav Search, ASW etc. are unaffected.

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

If I recall properly, it's only a chance for a coordination penalty, not an automatic lack of coordination, though.

quote:

One day he won the training squadron emblem for stupidity: the Flying Jackass, a large aluminum likeness of a donkey, awarded to anyone who broke a safety regulation. He wore it for two weeks until another student pilot won it away from him. Beut he insisted on keeping that particular badge. When he took command of the Saratoga, he said, he would hang it on the bulkhead of his cabin. Any time he got ready to raise hell with some pilot for an infraction of rules, he was going to look at that Flying Jackass and think twice.

Such tales began the legend of Bill Halsey, the only really flying commander of a carrier, and the true aviators got to love him. When he took over his carrier, he continued to add to bits to the legend. From the Saratoga he went to the Enterprise, one of the new carriers of the fleet, as commander of Carrier Division Two [COMCARDIV Two] and he was promoted to admiral. One day a young officer made an error that delayed the launch of planes. Admiral King was present at the time, and King was a noted disciplinarian (who put an end to the advancement of one naval captain because he ran a cruiser aground in a fog trying to get King back to Washington to make an appointment).

'Who was responsible for the delay?' King demanded by signal, and on the bridge of the Enterprise souls quaked as the message was taken to Admiral Halsey's bridge.

'COMCARDIVE Two', was the reply.

There was no further word from the flagship. But on board the Enterprise the story went from keel to masthead. Admiral Halsey was the sort of officer who protected his men, it said
Edwin Hoyt, Closing the Circle

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

To be more roughly precise,

With two fleet carriers in 1943 with a load of say 180 planes you are looking at roughly around 20% prospect of coordination penalties;

With 2 Essex, and 2 Indies in 1944 you are looking roughly at a full load* of 90+90+32+32= 244 air frames, with a 26% chance of coordination penalties.

* scenario dependent.

The latter does not of course take into account that maxing your CV groups to get 115% capacity on your carriers is so attractive,
that you will do it - until you work out that it is better to have a 15% smaller, properly coordinated strike.

The question to ask and it may be very important is this one: "Does the coordination penalty to the entire number of carrier aircraft carried or is the coordination penalty only applying to the number of carrier aircraft being sent on the mission." So if it is the latter, the aircraft kept back on CAP, the Naval Search, the ASW Search, and/or any other mission does not count against the aircraft coordination penalty.

It counts all aircraft in the TF, but applies the penalty to the strikes. CAP, Nav Search, ASW etc. are unaffected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

Hey, don't complain about that - it worked at Midway!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

they would stand greater chance of coordinating

That word almost invariably means die rolls.

The "chance of uncoordination is doubled" indicates to me that the default condition is 'co-ordinated', although it would I think be naive to think the chance of uncoordination is ever zero%

There is, however, a possibility that if there are enough other factors elevating the % chance uncoordination, doubling might push it over 100$.

As the precise formula will remain undisclosed, it's best just to stay within limits - or if you go over, go way over. Maybe some DBs will sneak in after the CAP is fatigued.

Hey, don't complain about that - it worked at Midway!

I'm not sure it reliably works that way in the game, unless the CAP was already saturated, or what was available and on standby is surprised (E.G. the IJN didn't have radar and detected it late) and has a short time to climb to DB altitude... so maybe on a 'good'(or 'bad') day, and depending on target die rolls as well, it does work in the game in the sense that is possible that accident of history will be recreated.

I remember Harry Rowland (WiF designer) saying that he thought luck should play a part in that game, to prevent perfect plans, but not so as one die roll swung the whole game. AE seems to me to reflect that philosophy, intentionally or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

...I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

...I remember Harry Rowland (WiF designer) saying that he thought luck should play a part in that game, to prevent perfect plans, but not so as one die roll swung the whole game. AE seems to me to reflect that philosophy, intentionally or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


It is quite intentional in AE. The role of luck is a fundamental principle baked into the AE design.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

...I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes...

Not quite.

Air combat is in two stages. Stage 1 is CAP confronting enemy fighters (fighter v fighter) and stage 2 is CAP confronting enemy bombers (fighter v bomber).

All possible available CAP is involved in stage 1. There are several factors which actually determine exactly how much CAP participates in combat. These factors are much more extensive than were those which applied in classical WITP.

Some time is left separate to resolve stage 2 combat. This is a significant difference with classical WITP in that there CAP had to totally defeat the escorting fighters in stage 1 before they could get to the bombers in stage 2. In AE it is possible that stage 2 will commence even though all enemy escorting fighters have not been defeated in stage 1.

CAP addresses the immediate incoming raid. It doesn't keep some fighter aircraft in reserve for possible follow up enemy raids.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

...I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes...

Not quite.

Air combat is in two stages. Stage 1 is CAP confronting enemy fighters (fighter v fighter) and stage 2 is CAP confronting enemy bombers (fighter v bomber).

All possible available CAP is involved in stage 1. There are several factors which actually determine exactly how much CAP participates in combat. These factors are much more extensive than were those which applied in classical WITP.

Some time is left separate to resolve stage 2 combat. This is a significant difference with classical WITP in that there CAP had to totally defeat the escorting fighters in stage 1 before they could get to the bombers in stage 2. In AE it is possible that stage 2 will commence even though all enemy escorting fighters have not been defeated in stage 1.

CAP addresses the immediate incoming raid. It doesn't keep some fighter aircraft in reserve for possible follow up enemy raids.

Alfred

Yeah, I got the two stages, but I thought the game split the CAP between the different strike packages before resolving each of them, and that not all planes appearing on CAP during a raid resolution actually participated to that resolution.

Better explaining goes with an example (I'm not a native English speaker).

Say two squadrons of fighters are on CAP (2x25 fighters), with 50% CAP (and no scrambling fighters to simplify), so 25 fighters are on CAP duty during a raid.
Say this raid splits in three due to lack of coordination or whatever (maybe they're not meant).
I thought the game would allocate the CAP complement to the different strike packages, for example like this :
- 12 fighters against strike 1
- 9 fighters against strike 2
- 4 fighters against strike 3
And that during strike 1 resolution, there might appear more than 12 fighters, but they would not take part in the battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

...I think I remember reading dev comments that the way CAP interacts with multiple strikes is to split the allocated fighters on CAP to various strike packages, instead of the old WitP's way of the full CAP meeting every single strikes...

Not quite.

Air combat is in two stages. Stage 1 is CAP confronting enemy fighters (fighter v fighter) and stage 2 is CAP confronting enemy bombers (fighter v bomber).

All possible available CAP is involved in stage 1. There are several factors which actually determine exactly how much CAP participates in combat. These factors are much more extensive than were those which applied in classical WITP.

Some time is left separate to resolve stage 2 combat. This is a significant difference with classical WITP in that there CAP had to totally defeat the escorting fighters in stage 1 before they could get to the bombers in stage 2. In AE it is possible that stage 2 will commence even though all enemy escorting fighters have not been defeated in stage 1.

CAP addresses the immediate incoming raid. It doesn't keep some fighter aircraft in reserve for possible follow up enemy raids.

Alfred

Yeah, I got the two stages, but I thought the game split the CAP between the different strike packages before resolving each of them, and that not all planes appearing on CAP during a raid resolution actually participated to that resolution.

Better explaining goes with an example (I'm not a native English speaker).

Say two squadrons of fighters are on CAP (2x25 fighters), with 50% CAP (and no scrambling fighters to simplify), so 25 fighters are on CAP duty during a raid.
Say this raid splits in three due to lack of coordination or whatever (maybe they're not meant).
I thought the game would allocate the CAP complement to the different strike packages, for example like this :
- 12 fighters against strike 1
- 9 fighters against strike 2
- 4 fighters against strike 3
And that during strike 1 resolution, there might appear more than 12 fighters, but they would not take part in the battle.

Using your very simplified exemplar.

1. When strike 1 is detected, the defender does not know that a strike 2, strike 3 is incoming, hence all 25 CAP fighters will attempt to engage the enemy escorting fighters. This is stage 1 of the strike 1 air combat.

2. Not all CAP fighters, nor all enemy escorting fighters will necessarily see combat before stage 1 ends. This is the key difference with classical WITP as there, stage 2 air combat only commenced when the CAP or escorts were totally defeated. In AE if possible some CAP is held in reserve to participate in stage 2 of strike 1.

3. When strike 2 is detected, all the remaining CAP fighters are sent up to meet strike 2. The same considerations apply to stages 1 and 2 of strike 2.

4. When strike 3 is detected, all the remaining CAP fighters are sent up to meet strike 3 and so on.


It is precisely because everything possible is sent up to meet each strike as it is detected and each strike reduces the number of available CAP fighters, that there may be no available CAP fighters available to meet the incoming strike 7.

It is not always beneficial to the attacker to have perfect air coordination with all the bombers arriving on time at the target simultaneously with all their escorting fighters in a single strike.

Alfred