RE: CV Problems - Tactics

RE: CV Problems - Tactics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Warplan Pacific

Message

*Lava* -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/24/2021 3:46:02 PM)
Probably most have seen this, but this is an awesome explanation of the Battle of Midway: The Battle of Midway 1942: Told from the Japanese Perspective (1/3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/24/2021 11:20:13 PM)
First time for me, this was an awesome explanation. Thanks for sharing. Now, how to replicate this in the game? Use a COMINT to locate the enemy carrier fleet Use land based aircrafts to consume the two operation points of the enemy fleet by attacking it Have your carrier fleet hidden in raider mode nearby switch to fleet mode And attack the enemy carrier fleet with your carriers Is it the right tactics for you?

*Lava* -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/25/2021 3:25:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e First time for me, this was an awesome explanation. Thanks for sharing. Now, how to replicate this in the game? Use a COMINT to locate the enemy carrier fleet Use land based aircrafts to consume the two operation points of the enemy fleet by attacking it Have your carrier fleet hidden in raider mode nearby switch to fleet mode And attack the enemy carrier fleet with your carriers Is it the right tactics for you? Yep, that would certainly replicate the 1st phase of the battle quite nicely with probably the same results.

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/25/2021 12:15:13 PM)
Chance is a strong factor anyway. You should have your carrier fleet at the right place at the right moment./

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/25/2021 1:39:41 PM)
But, thinking of it, is Midway not the same? Pure chance.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/25/2021 1:51:31 PM)
It is an excellent video. I have seen this before. But the Japanese naval combat officers were not aggressive enough. Their plans too complicated. I think only one guy named Tanaka had the balls to be aggressive.

*Lava* -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/25/2021 5:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e But, thinking of it, is Midway not the same? Pure chance. Chance always plays a part in any combat. However, the Americans were prepared. Some expressions come to mind from my naval days. quote: As soon as the gear are up (after takeoff), the plan starts changing. quote: Flexibility is the key to Air Power. quote: Prior Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance. The US knows the time, place and OOB of the Japanese attack. They have long range search aircraft at Midway and submarines. They know in what direction to look. The US spots the Japanese first, and all 4 CVs are in the same location. The Japanese spot the Americans second, but only find TF17 with the Yorktown. They never did not find TF16 with the Enterprise and Hornet because the 2 TFs were in 2 different locations. Given that the Americans launch first with 3 Air Wings, they are going to damage 3 CVs. Let's also say (for argument) that the Japanese launch at the same time, but in reality they only know where the Yorktown is, so they take out 1 US CV. The US counter-strike from TF16 with 2 CVs takes out the last Japanese CV. Same result in the end. The Japanese had a CV Gorilla which the US had located first vs 2 separate US TF's of which the Japanese had only located one. The US struck first, which was the whole point of the US strategy... to strike first. That was not luck, and the Japanese paid for it.

*Lava* -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/25/2021 5:28:17 PM)
Now if you want to talk about luck... watch this same guys video of the Battle of the Coral Sea. The Battle of the Coral Sea 1942: The First Aircraft Carrier Battle in History https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB5hH3ksvKE&t=5s

Torplexed -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/25/2021 6:21:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava That was not luck, and the Japanese paid for it. I would tend to agree. When you look at Midway as a whole, not just the battle but everything leading up to it you see that the USN went to great lengths to minimize luck and stack the odds in its favor. Outstanding US intelligence was no accident. Putting the whole of US carrier strength on location was no accident. Having the Yorktown repaired and operational in 24 hours was no accident. Having extra search assets at Midway was no accident. Japan was also its own worst enemy. That the Japanese multi-tasked their carrier task force to simultaneously attempt to accomplish three missions at once was not due to luck. It was haphazard and rushed operational planning once all the set piece battles had been won in the first six months of the war. Japan failing to grasp the implications of enhanced US search assets all along the string of islands that link the Hawaiian Islands to Midway was no accident. Japan failing to note the odd coincidence that American surface vessels just happened to be anchored in their favorite recon lagoon at French Frigate Shoals at the right moment, along with all the other obviously weird going-ons on in the Central Pacific was no accident. The latter two were the result of poor pre-war Japanese commitment to intel and their inability to commit resources to (indicative of their contempt for) strategic intelligence. During the battle, the reckless Japanese decision to stubbornly continue fighting with just the one operational carrier (Hiryu) alone at poor odds was also not luck. Just indicative of naval philosophy that put too much stock into the offensive for the offensive's sake.

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/26/2021 8:09:05 AM)
Indeed. The thing in the game is that you can't know exactly where Japan will attack. Spending a COMINT on one location does not guarantee you will find something.

Elessar2 -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/26/2021 12:56:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Torplexed The latter two were the result of poor pre-war Japanese commitment to intel and their inability to commit resources to (indicative of their contempt for) strategic intelligence. And their total inability to change plans on the fly, or "improvise" off of a superior's original gameplan (like the Germans tended to do). Parshall & Tully said it best in Shattered Sword: quote: At an operational level, plan inertia manifested itself in a stubborn unwillingness to adapt immediately before & during battle. Karl von Clausewitz' famous maxim that "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy," probably never met with a less enthusiastic audience than the Imperial Japanese Navy. [and, quoting a British general] quote: The fundamental fault of their generalship was a lack of moral, as distinct from physical, courage. They were not prepared to admit they made a mistake, that their plans had misfired and needed recasting. Rather than confess that, they passed onto their subordinates, unchanged, the order that they themselves had received, well knowing that with the resources available the tasks demanded were impossible. Time & again, this blind passing of responsibility ran down a chain of disaster. They scored highly by determination; they paid heavily for lack of flexibility.

*Lava* -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 2:51:44 PM)
Back to the problem in game with CVs... let's look at the attack at Pearl Harbor. As the Japanese I attack Pearl Harbor twice with air attacks and sink a paltry 2 BBs. Having expended my OPs, the CV group is unable to move. I then switch to the US, sortie my surface task force and attack the Japanese and sink 1 CV. [:-] So it doesn't make any sense to attack Pearl Harbor. The day that will live in infamy. [&:] In general I think naval units have too few OPs. Hell, once you get into 1943 the American fleet is always at sea... it never returns to port and is replenished at sea. I think that needs to be reflected in the game. My recommendation would be to increase OPs for naval units to 3 OPs. If nothing else, this allows Pearl Harbor as one can attack twice and then move out of the area. I would also recommend that expending a Supply Oiler, not only replenish fuel, but also OPs as well. A fleet at sea is supported by Cargo, Ammunition and Tanker ships. It just doesn't make any sense for major fleets to have to return to Port if the player doesn't want. As the only support ship that is represented in the game is the Supply Oiler, more importance (just like trucks) needs to be placed on this unit. CV vs CV battles really need to be adjusted. You just don't get to have a CV group conduct 2 (or 3 if changed) free attacks without a response, as I have discussed before. It is just not the way CV fights worked. When a CV group attacks another; you should have an attack phase, followed by a counter-attack phase and it shouldn't matter how many OPs the enemy CV group has. So if I want to attack the enemy CV group 2 or 3 times, they should receive a corresponding amount of counter-attacks. After the turn ends, if battle is continued, once again the enemy CV attack should be responded to by a counter-attack. In a full fledged CV vs CV battle, one side will gain the upper hand due to the amount of aircraft lost. CVs will be lost on both sides, not just one. Overall, I think the game needs to take a new look at the way they handle fleets and especially carrier warfare. I know that my proposed changes would cause a major revision of the game. But, IMO, if the naval portion of the game is flawed... you will lose a lot of sales by those who want to relive the amazing naval conflict which was so characteristic of the War against Japan. And that impact will also be felt in WarPlan 2.

YueJin -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 3:19:20 PM)
There's currently an issue with Pearl Harbour where the US fleet can make a night move to get next to the Japanese carriers without interdiction taking place. This didn't use to occur in old versions of the game and shouldn't be the case, the counterattack used to be suicidal for the USN. I'm not sure what you mean by operations points in carrier combat. Operations points have absolutely zero bearing on the actual combat outside of how many strikes the attacker can make. Fleets will fight back whenever attacked at full strength regardless of how many op points they finished their turn with. Increasing op points for fleets to three and reducing maximum movement by 1/3rd would be interesting as it would allow for many more hit and run attacks by small fleets against ships blockading ships without having to leave them vunerable to a counterattack on the opponent's turn. It would make all naval combat much more decisive though as after two attacks one side is typically almost wiped out, the game would be very likely be decided in a single engagement, whether that's a good thing or not is personal opinion I suppose.

*Lava* -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 3:38:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YueJin Fleets will fight back whenever attacked at full strength regardless of how many op points they finished their turn with. They defend themselves, like ground units, but a CV will not only defend itself, it will respond to an attack from another CV with a counter-attack. And that won't be 2 weeks later.

YueJin -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 3:54:34 PM)
A CV attacked defends itself with its air combat value and strikes back with its naval combat value against the attacking ships. When combat takes place it's like both fleets strike at the same time with their values modified by a random dice roll and reconnaissance levels.

*Lava* -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 4:26:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YueJin A CV attacked defends itself with its air combat value and strikes back with its naval combat value against the attacking ships. When combat takes place it's like both fleets strike at the same time with their values modified by a random dice roll and reconnaissance levels. Okay, I'll have to check that out.

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 4:34:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YueJin There's currently an issue with Pearl Harbour where the US fleet can make a night move to get next to the Japanese carriers without interdiction taking place. This didn't use to occur in old versions of the game and shouldn't be the case, the counterattack used to be suicidal for the USN. I have tried several times in hotseat mode using the latest beta version. Night move to counter attack is devastating against the US fleet. Lost all my subs. Lost my air superiority group. Lost few ships. [image]local://upfiles/46661/D6F8F7F008FC496D8F46AA1295C8AC41.jpg[/image]

YueJin -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 8:36:54 PM)
I ran it a couple of times and got 1 Japanese CV or 2 BB/BC sunk for no US losses 3/3 times. Shows how random the game can be for sure.

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 10:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YueJin I ran it a couple of times and got 1 Japanese CV or 2 BB/BC sunk for no US losses 3/3 times. Shows how random the game can be for sure. Are you attacking in a precise order? Planes first? Or subs first? Just trying to understand the difference.

YueJin -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 10:28:37 PM)
Just 2 plane strikes then fleet attack, didn't bother using the sub I find it's a waste. Tried rerunning it a few more times and kept getting enemy fleet not found which didn't tell me much [>:]

YueJin -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/27/2021 10:42:05 PM)
Just 2 plane strikes then fleet attack, didn't bother using the sub I find it's a waste. Tried rerunning it a few more times and kept getting enemy fleet not found which didn't tell me much [>:]

Tanaka -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/28/2021 1:47:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa It is an excellent video. I have seen this before. But the Japanese naval combat officers were not aggressive enough. Their plans too complicated. I think only one guy named Tanaka had the balls to be aggressive. As aggressive as possible! Tenacious Tanaka!

BradK82 -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/28/2021 2:22:21 PM)
What I have never understood about Midway is why Japan committed 4 aircraft carriers to this battle. Perhaps I need to read the article Midway from the Japanese perspective.

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/28/2021 4:15:45 PM)
Two CV under repair after Battle of Coral Sea. Two CVLs used for diversion in the north. Their plan was overly complicated imo.

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/28/2021 8:21:42 PM)
At 4:00 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXjydKPcX60 Carriers Junyo and Ryujo were in the Aleutian islands for the diversion.

ncc1701e -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/28/2021 8:29:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BradK82 What I have never understood about Midway is why Japan committed 4 aircraft carriers to this battle. Perhaps I need to read the article Midway from the Japanese perspective. There is also a good summary at 19:00 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHO6xrSF7Sw

Shellshock -> RE: CV Problems - Tactics (9/28/2021 10:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BradK82 What I have never understood about Midway is why Japan committed 4 aircraft carriers to this battle. Perhaps I need to read the article Midway from the Japanese perspective. Originally there were supposed to be six, but Shokaku and Zuikaku got scratched from the line-up due to damage and ail group losses in the Coral Sea battle.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.03125