RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room



Message

ctid98 -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/15/2004 5:17:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Just thought I would butt in here ... for a situation to be "like Midway" wouldn't the Japanese have to have about 2/3 of their strike aircraft sent off to attack a land target?


I think its more a case of being able to attack without being attacked yourself. I had one game in UV where I was able to attack in the morning without reply as I hadn't been spotted, but in the afternoon both sides launched attacks.

I think this is the situation Svient was hoping for. Unfortunately the minute you're spotted it all goes to pieces.

I think you have to face each engagement as if you're going to be spotted and they're going to throw everything at you. From that worst case scenario anything like not being spotted, or an enemy air group on ground attack and not coming at you is a bonus.

Therefore, hoping for a good result from 5 v 2 was being a little too optimistic.



Toro -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/15/2004 6:21:19 PM)

Just a quick comment. I'm not really sure why we, as players, expect a Midway-like event to happen in this game as a matter of course. That was a culmination of bad judgment and sheer bad luck, frankly (or good luck, depending on your nationality [;)] ). If WW2 were to run again (being hypothetical for a moment), I doubt Midway would happen just how it did before. Call it Providence or sheer dumb luck, but I don't think we'd see the same results. Yes, truth is stranger than fiction, but we should not expect the strange to happen every game.

Another small note: we're talking 2 CVs against 5+ CVs, right? And why didn't you expect to be crushed? Sure, you may have been tracking them for days, but all that really matters is what happens on the engagement day, not before.

Just my thoughts...



Oznoyng -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/15/2004 7:50:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toro

Just a quick comment. I'm not really sure why we, as players, expect a Midway-like event to happen in this game as a matter of course. That was a culmination of bad judgment and sheer bad luck, frankly (or good luck, depending on your nationality [;)] ). If WW2 were to run again (being hypothetical for a moment), I doubt Midway would happen just how it did before. Call it Providence or sheer dumb luck, but I don't think we'd see the same results. Yes, truth is stranger than fiction, but we should not expect the strange to happen every game.

Another small note: we're talking 2 CVs against 5+ CVs, right? And why didn't you expect to be crushed? Sure, you may have been tracking them for days, but all that really matters is what happens on the engagement day, not before.

Just my thoughts...

In this case, the carrier numbers were skewed toward Mogami, and the Japanese CS float planes are going to make getting the jump on the IJN tough for the USN regardless of previous spotting activity. This is a battle that I would have avoided. Still, I think that previous spotting needs to make more of a difference, and it doesn't seem to be significant enough.

I think the reduction from day to day on DL's may be a bit much. Repeated spotting by aircraft from turn to turn never seems to return more accurate information. I was tracking a task force that contained 10 ships (as near as I can tell), I knew 10 of them by name due to sub encounters and I had 6 submarine float planes doing naval search on them continuously for about 4 days. The task force was moving at 2 knots (crippled BB returning from PH to West Coast), and the task force had no CAP over it. There were supposed to be 4 float planes in the TF (though how a BB as badly damaged as this one was could possibly fly off float planes is another question). Despite that, I never got an accurate listing of the ship types, let alone class names or ships.

Logically, I had a bunch of things in my favor. No CAP, very slow TF, previous spotting, ship names, etc. The only things that might have been problems are pilot experience and weather, though I think both of those should have been at least acceptable.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/15/2004 8:33:58 PM)

If the Japanese get greedy, over confident, and careless in the game as they did historically, the opportunity will arise when it is well worth risking a confrontation between the opposing carrier fleets. There is no need to swing your dick and engage the Jap CV just for the sake of it. If the little nipper moves too far astray, a CV exchange will conceivably cripple KB due to distance from major bases. If not, Allied lines of communication stay secure and CVs get better AA, more experienced, better equipped, and more VF. A win win situation (excepting the friggin retard...ooops [:D], respawn feature) for the Allied player. As the Allied player, you must accept that territory will have to be ceded to the little nippers. Make them pay for every inch by bleeding them with air power, subs and long fighting retreats on land. Don't be an idiot and succumb to impatience, it's a long game.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 1:02:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

Oh well, I admit at them moment I'm a bit perplexed. I'm playing Allies against Japan (Mogami).

Situation on March 29: 2 Allied Carriers receive complete surprise on KB (5 CV and 1 CVL) near Noumea (range 2 hexes, within torpedo bomber range).
Result: Allied carriers sunk and Japanese carriers barely hurt.

This can't be realistic?

Or if it is, in my 2 games as Japan should I just send KB in within Allied LBA as an invincible death star and sink what I like?

Sorry, a bit digrunteled right now. I did everything right and still lost. Shouldn't happen in my book.


Well I just had the opposite happen. Apr 17, 1942 about 300 miles SE of Gili Gili. The full KB TF that attacked PH on day 1 was supporting an amphib op at Port Morseby. A similar American TF of all five early CV's moved up to defend PM. Epic battle. My "Midway". Lost Lexington, will probably lose Yorktown. Saratoga is damaged pretty badly, but Hornet and Enterprise are not even scratched! Sunk all the KB carriers except Hiryu and that one is very badly damaged and out of the war for a long time.



mogami -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 1:33:50 AM)

Hi, Well Sveint your first error is claiming you had surprise. You didn't. OK you knew where Japanese CV were on Mar 27 1942.
To be Midway like you would also have to know where they were going to be on Mar 28 and they would have to be unaware of your where abouts.
The first TF spotted in the AM patrol phase was an USN CV TF. End of any chance for surprise. The IJN CV were on patrol. 70 scouts were out. CAP was up. No mission other then Naval Strike was ordered. There was nothing Midway like.
At Midway is was 3 USN CV versus 4 IJN CV. Here it was 5 IJN CV and 1 IJN CVL versus 2 USN CV. Nothing Midway like here.
Actually you keep thinking the IJN got off scot free. 3 IJN CV and 1 CVL were damaged enough that they are not at sea currently during a major Japanese operation.

There never was any surprise and it is unlikely any USN CV TF will ever surprise an IJN TF before the main USN CV aircraft is the long range torpedo plane. (eventually even the SBD were replaced by torpedo groups because of the range)



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 2:37:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

The first TF spotted in the AM patrol phase was an USN CV TF. End of any chance for surprise. The IJN CV were on patrol. 70 scouts were out. CAP was up. No mission other then Naval Strike was ordered. There was nothing Midway like.


Is there a penalty for using the naval strike - airfield/port attack option? Otherwise why would there ever be a Midway? It seems that a secondary mission should have some kind of penalty applied to make it less effective. Then there could actually be a Midway.



mogami -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 2:50:44 AM)

Hi, There are major draw backs to using port/airfield attack as secondary mission.
First if the CV are sent to close an airfield to cover another TF (amph landing) and they instead fly naval strikes the airfield attack does not occur. This is good when the strikes are against enemy CV it is bad when the airfield/port attack is canceled so the CV can strike a minesweeper.

Also if there are more then 1 airfield/port in range the strike might go against the wrong one or split in multiple attacks that have less effect.

When used as a secondary target the TF waits for patrol/scout planes to complete their searches. If no enemy TF in range the airfield/port attack is made.

If your not out after a particular tartet then it is safer to use secondary mission if however you are out do something specific then port/airfield primary is better.
The work around I use is I assign part of my groups for port/airfield and leave the rest on pure naval strike. But then you have to send enough CV to complete the mission.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 3:06:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, There are major draw backs to using port/airfield attack as secondary mission.
First if the CV are sent to close an airfield to cover another TF (amph landing) and they instead fly naval strikes the airfield attack does not occur. This is good when the strikes are against enemy CV it is bad when the airfield/port attack is canceled so the CV can strike a minesweeper.


Yes, I have thought about this before when attacking. It might be a good trick to use as well. Here come the carriers, time to set sail with that PG boat. [:D]



tsimmonds -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 6:19:06 AM)

quote:

Well I just had the opposite happen. Apr 17, 1942 about 300 miles SE of Gili Gili. The full KB TF that attacked PH on day 1 was supporting an amphib op at Port Morseby. A similar American TF of all five early CV's moved up to defend PM. Epic battle. My "Midway". Lost Lexington, will probably lose Yorktown. Saratoga is damaged pretty badly, but Hornet and Enterprise are not even scratched! Sunk all the KB carriers except Hiryu and that one is very badly damaged and out of the war for a long time.


No, that's not the opposite of 2CV vs 5CV 1 CVL; what you describe is a fair fight. Not surprising the USN did well with their large air groups, and with the Japanese attention divided between land and sea.



Cav Trooper -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 5:19:35 PM)

I've not had that kind of luck but here's what I did have:

2 CV's in one task force, 3 CVL's one CVE in the other separated by 12 hexes in the area north of Truk East of Palau and West of Ein looking to interdict his SLOC's. During the Day I found a Jap Task force of 2 BB's, 1 CV plus assorted escorts, another TF consisting of 1 damaged BB (from an earlier port strike) 3 CA's and a few escorts. Also in range were a 10 ship AK / AP task force, a 5 ship task force of TK, MSW and a DD. Both of my Task Forces located the first two TF's between them, so I manuevered my TF's a bit more north and south to try and sink them both. Next Day Airstrikes went off, did they go after the first two TF's?? not in force, even though the first task force was only 3 hexes away from my CV TF. Majority of my strikes in larger numbers went after the merchies both in the am and pm. Only 20 SBD's and TBF's went after the first TF, 15 and 10 after the second only getting in a couple of torp hits, and a few bomb hits. Now I did maul the merchies, but still not happy. Wish there was a way we could designate Shipping / TF priorities for Carrier Aircraft based upon DL level instead of trusting the computer to do it for us...any thoughts???

As for the Midway Scenario, I don't see how anyone could hope to repeat that in game to the level of success we did in '42. We in my honest opinion got lucky, lucky in the sense that a DD steaming was spotted, followed and we ran smack into the Jap CV TF. Add in the fact that the Jap Carriers were caught in a very sloppy condition, ie, left bombs on deck, in hangars without returning them to the magazines, fuel hoses all over the deck, and crowded decks. Jap planes used Morse code to communicate and could not be recalled rapidly to cover or atleast interfere with the follow on strikes as vast majority of them were " wave hopping to find other torpedo bombers that had just attacked their carriers". So yes we did surprise them, but we had all the cards in our favor at that point. In game, I don't see how we could manage to do just that, without going to hour by hour turns, or even 2 or 3 hour turns. Midway was a fluke, a welcomed and succesful fluke ( much like PH for the Japs)that we capitalized on. But to expect 2 CV's to tangle with a larger CV TF is asking to be used like a rag doll by a Doberman..IMHO..



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 7:15:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 3rd ACR Tanker

I've not had that kind of luck but here's what I did have:

2 CV's in one task force, 3 CVL's one CVE in the other separated by 12 hexes in the area north of Truk East of Palau and West of Ein looking to interdict his SLOC's. During the Day I found a Jap Task force of 2 BB's, 1 CV plus assorted escorts, another TF consisting of 1 damaged BB (from an earlier port strike) 3 CA's and a few escorts. Also in range were a 10 ship AK / AP task force, a 5 ship task force of TK, MSW and a DD. Both of my Task Forces located the first two TF's between them, so I manuevered my TF's a bit more north and south to try and sink them both. Next Day Airstrikes went off, did they go after the first two TF's?? not in force, even though the first task force was only 3 hexes away from my CV TF. Majority of my strikes in larger numbers went after the merchies both in the am and pm. Only 20 SBD's and TBF's went after the first TF, 15 and 10 after the second only getting in a couple of torp hits, and a few bomb hits. Now I did maul the merchies, but still not happy. Wish there was a way we could designate Shipping / TF priorities for Carrier Aircraft based upon DL level instead of trusting the computer to do it for us...any thoughts???




Boy, do I have thoughts. [:D] Goes hand in hand with the series of checks which are conducted at the squadron level, even individual aircraft level when determining strike packages. Unfortunate that military command structure was overlooked in a military sim in this way. My suggestions called for more player imput on the individual base, Command HQ and Theatre HQ level and less on the squadron, individual unit, level. I wanted a target priority menu for the base, along with a intensity level slider (instead of the rather clunky squadron target/CAP % we have to deal with). Considering this an operational level game, we must micromanage details which we should not have to and can't manage details which operational commanders normally would, like set target/operational priorities, engagement doctrines etc.

But these suggestions were made during the Beta phase of UV, not the Alpha when major design revisions are conceivable. (I arrived as a late Beta for UV) Considering that UV was the meat and potatoes of WITP, the devs would have probably had to rewrite complete sections of the design, then test if it worked with the older design elements...can't blame them for not attempting it.

The one suggestion I regret not seeing attempted was my ideas for submarine handling and bases. I suggested historical submarine HQs which would have leaders like Lockwood, Christie, Fife, English etc (and their Japanese and Allied counterparts), and upon entering the respective HQ menu the player could define his own sub doctrine (by accessing the COMSUBPAC HQ or equivalent) as opposed to having the undefinable hard coded one which needed to be selected as game is started.

There would be a chain of command structure of lesser HQs down to submarine squadron level. Submarine bases were to be built at the base as are airfields, ports and fortifications are presently with torpedo stocks dependent upon supply and depot size level. (suggested this for mine depots and naval bases as well, with mine stocks dependent on supply and depot size level for mine depots, and specialist naval ordnance for naval bases...all ports could provide fuel). Neccesitates the importance of submarine and naval bases and restricts ahistoric refuel/rearm at any base ability we presently have.

Within the base menu, one could access the submarine base sub-menu which allowed you to assign subs to the base or to squadrons (SUBRONS) and set the base's submarines (those not in a squadron with an AS as flagship...I'll elaborate later) or entire submarine squadrons stationed at this base to be set to AI or player control (notice, this could be set at the base level, SUBRON level or individual submarine level). From this base menu, one can assign the various patrol areas (WITP map was to be divided into a large number of individual patrol areas which were static and would be utilized to segment the map for both the Allied and Japanese player)

From the submarine base sub-menu, one could have accessed the SUBRONS menu. Each SUBRON had an AS (or in IJN case, a Katori class CL as well) as a flagship. Maximum of eight subs per SUBRON. If no qualifying ship was available the subs are not assigned to SUBRONS but to the sub base itself (as you will see, having a flagship would allow a bit more strategic flexibility and subs benefit from its repair facilities as we have now). Basically, having the flagship would allow the player to further define the patrol area (a player could select specific patrol areas for it's submarines (ie, those which included choke points) whereas bases with no SUBRON flagship must go with the entire patrol area. The more submarine flagships a base has, the more SUBRONs and therefore more strategic flexibility.


The main reason for this structure was to facilitate a more useful AI. Each patrol area would be the area which the subs set to AI control would roam). They would not just go to where the designers programmed them to. Manual player control of subs if selected primarily for those who wish extreme control and to allow special missions such as mine laying, transport etc)

Personally, I still think the game is not to far into development for this to be attempted.

What do ya think?



Cav Trooper -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 8:37:46 PM)

I like it. IF we could also take your sub idea and extend it on to Aircraft Squadrons and Air HQ's we could further define area's of operations even better.

Would also like to have seen or see included is a clock segmented airsearch ability for aircraft searches. For instance:

Carrier Task force steaming from PH towards the Marshall Islands. Initially I would only really want to define my search infront of me from a 9 to 3 o'clock aspect. I know land based AC are clearing the area behind me but not in front. As I proceed into my area of operations, I have deduced that any possible enemy CV operations will probably come from the W NW to N, and not from the area I've just transited intitially. I assign 24 Search aircraft to naval search. I set them to cover the following segments: 9-10, 10-11, 12-12 and 12-1 o'clock, 20 aircraft in this primary search grid(s) with remaining 4 on ASW search for 360 degrees. If other naval vessels found naturally they will be reported.

For land based Patrol and searches the same could be set up. I do believe that this was discussed once before in the UV section, if memory serves me correct, but can not remember the outcome.

Now, if we could search like this, then a possible Midway could happen, surprise could be achieved for first strike success. The Enemy CV's are looking for me in the wrong quadrants, and I've guessed correctly or got really lucky. Nevertheless, First strike goes in, enemies CV's damaged to the point of making a follow up strike from enemy CV's either severely reduced in size , or completely absent due to excessive damage. Then we could honestly seek to "ambush" enemy TF's, execute a Midway, and then possibly recreate such a "fluke" result.

But, I like your idea's Ron... can it be done????



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 9:16:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 3rd ACR Tanker

I like it. IF we could also take your sub idea and extend it on to Aircraft Squadrons and Air HQ's we could further define area's of operations even better.

Would also like to have seen or see included is a clock segmented airsearch ability for aircraft searches. For instance:

Carrier Task force steaming from PH towards the Marshall Islands. Initially I would only really want to define my search infront of me from a 9 to 3 o'clock aspect. I know land based AC are clearing the area behind me but not in front. As I proceed into my area of operations, I have deduced that any possible enemy CV operations will probably come from the W NW to N, and not from the area I've just transited intitially. I assign 24 Search aircraft to naval search. I set them to cover the following segments: 9-10, 10-11, 12-12 and 12-1 o'clock, 20 aircraft in this primary search grid(s) with remaining 4 on ASW search for 360 degrees. If other naval vessels found naturally they will be reported.

For land based Patrol and searches the same could be set up. I do believe that this was discussed once before in the UV section, if memory serves me correct, but can not remember the outcome.

Now, if we could search like this, then a possible Midway could happen, surprise could be achieved for first strike success. The Enemy CV's are looking for me in the wrong quadrants, and I've guessed correctly or got really lucky. Nevertheless, First strike goes in, enemies CV's damaged to the point of making a follow up strike from enemy CV's either severely reduced in size , or completely absent due to excessive damage. Then we could honestly seek to "ambush" enemy TF's, execute a Midway, and then possibly recreate such a "fluke" result.

But, I like your idea's Ron... can it be done????


I sincerely doubt it, but the effort would be worth it as it would greatly improve the feel of the game and ease the burden onplayers.

Air HQs? Of course. The whole point was to take the onus off individual squadron, unit, etc checks and to assign them to the HQs (at what ever level) where they belong. Gives some importance to HQs other than support etc. Gets rid of the strange strike packaging where it always seems every target gets a little piece of the unit's attention pie, thereby diluting the effectiveness of the attacks and exposing them to extra CAP. Concentration of force was never taught at the AI Academy.

Now with the public seeing the guts of WITP through extensive play, some design issues which fall short of the mark might be highlighted more clearly than when in early dev stages. Change is a good thing. With a little thought and effort, this game can go from simply being an entertaining "game" to the benchmark of the genre for years. It might be now, but that is due to the fact that nobody ran against WITP.



Lemurs! -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 10:19:11 PM)

Hey, i like the idea Ron. Gary does two things in an odd way; the first started with Battle of Britain with Talonsoft and the second goes back to the beginning of his game designs.

Gary made BoB into a very low level control game in a strategic/operational situation. It worked for BoB because there was nothing else to do other than take care of your squadrons.

The AI being not AI and instead just a list of priorities of where to go, what to do etc has already been beaten to death.

I like your idea because it would get us up into the realm of decision making(which is interesting) and away from tedious make work (which is uninteresting).

Your idea would be good for naval, air and sub ops.

Mike, no i didn't die, Johnson
Ron will makeme insane though. [:'(]

I am waiting for him to ask me to include the paddle wheel carriers and have them airlifted from the Great Lakes to the Pacific!

Mike



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/16/2004 10:41:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Hey, i like the idea Ron. Gary does two things in an odd way; the first started with Battle of Britain with Talonsoft and the second goes back to the beginning of his game designs.

Gary made BoB into a very low level control game in a strategic/operational situation. It worked for BoB because there was nothing else to do other than take care of your squadrons.

The AI being not AI and instead just a list of priorities of where to go, what to do etc has already been beaten to death.

I like your idea because it would get us up into the realm of decision making(which is interesting) and away from tedious make work (which is uninteresting).

Your idea would be good for naval, air and sub ops.

Mike, no i didn't die, Johnson
Ron will makeme insane though. [:'(]

I am waiting for him to ask me to include the paddle wheel carriers and have them airlifted from the Great Lakes to the Pacific!

Mike


I'm not that bad, am I? All the minor power OOB ommissions and the anti spawn scenario option can't be that, ah, anal, can they?[X(][;)] I just love BoB. Great little game. BTR is a bit of a pig but interesting if you like ironing chequered shirts.



SaintEx -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/20/2004 8:01:43 PM)

Those are excellent ideas: and giving more direction at a base level would both increase player interest and help the AI.

With respect to the question of how strike priorities are determined, I think there are two broad approaches possible. The first would be to allow more micromanagement on the part of the player, but the second would be to enhance how the AI determines this, then make the quality of these decisions more dependant on the quality of the local commander. In other words, whether your planes go after the merchies or the warships would depend at least partly on the aggressiveness and underlying abilities of the task force commander.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/21/2004 8:27:21 AM)

Like it a lot. You're a wealth of solid concepts....

I hope you are around if I ever get an effort started....



Sharkosaurus rex -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/21/2004 11:40:24 AM)

It would be wishful thinking to believe a human Japanese opponent would expose this forces in such a ridiculous plan as the historical Japanese Midway plan. Sure the Japs had time pressures, over-confidence, and a plan that needed the other two carriers from the Battle of Coral Sea. But they went ahead anyway to the crucial battle without the superiority in carrier air that they needed and no margin for the hazards of war. We have all seen the movie so we know all the historical facts and watched 'em CV blowing up after well-aimed bombs landed among the armed planes and improperly stored ammunition (where was the Japanese Health and Safety Officers?).

But it wasn't all luck for the Americans. The Japanese plan was ill-conceived and totally inadequate before they left Japan. The Japanese used the same dismal search/recon efforts in the Indian Ocean and failed badly there. They nearly stuffed up again in the Coral Sea. But after the Doolittle Raid the Japs were too rushed to address some of these problems. So, at Midway they were "expecting the American CVs" until afternoon or the next day or so- so let's launch the bare basic number of planes for the logbook. Human opponents in WITP will surely send enough concentrated force the right spot and cover it with pentiful CAP and recon planes (and your recon planes don't launch 20 minutes late with faulty radios on board [where was their quality checked sticker? they must have been made in Russia]). Also the WITP Air-v-Air system doesn't allow ALL the CAP to go down to sea level so some/all of your SBDs are going to face some fighters.

So even if the Americans had the codes broken and the Japs were moving into an ambush- the Japanese on the day before and day of the battle (3/4th June) should have had plentiful recons out until they found the USN. There first recons should have been taking off in the dark. But their plan and over-confidence ruined their CV force by allowing them to be ambushed. But a human Japanese WITP player will have more respect for his opponent and be better prepared.

Sharkosaurus rex

PS- I guess the Japs thought the Yorktown and Lexington had been sunk in May and they would have a 2-1 advantage in numbers.



Alikchi2 -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/21/2004 10:15:01 PM)

I think what the Allied player should do with his CVs in early 42 is attack the enemy's weakness, not his strength. Unless the Japanese CVs are out on a limb, or there is some special circumstance, then you shouldn't attack them, but rather pick at exposed invasion fleets, ambush transports, and raid bases wherever you can until you do have the opportunity to knock out his CVs somehow.



munited18 -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/22/2004 7:44:47 PM)

I agree with Alikchi. Use the carriers in this way gives you limited success, with limited risk, while ar the same time building up the skill level of pilots and crew. Of course, i say that knowing full well, the yortown is limping back to port in march '42, after 2 Bettys snuck through the CAP and put two torpedoes in her, during the invasion of Mili. grumblegrumble



ColFrost -> Death Star formation (10/22/2004 9:51:03 PM)

I guess waiting for late '42 would be a good idea, but I don't
know.

I am beginning to think that maybe the Death Star formation, while true is being a concentration of fire power, is also a case of putting your eggs in one basket. If you lose, and you have to limp home, you could lose the war (IJN) or lengthen the war (USN) on one attack. Should you really risk doing this?

I've had a UV game where the American player saved his entire carrier force to five vessels (we had 200% commitment) and then sailed to Rabaul to destroy land based air and and shipping (he had sunk Shokaku and Zuikaku on May 3rd, because I had forgot to put up CAP[sm=00000117.gif]) He sidles up with his carrier planes, and nothing can stop him. Betties and Nells fall from the sky like rain, Marus are sinking all over the place. After six days of this, he turns to head for home, and my remaining KB , which had been loitering 300 m east of Buka while the carnage continued, comes through the Shortland Buin gap (forget the name)and sinks all five of his, with only the loss of Junyo. His whole plan of attack is ruined for four months (happpened late Aug). Wouldn't it have been better to have two of the five in reserve, and of course, not linger so long?

(As a side note: the player has stopped sending turns, or responding to email, but won't concede, which I think is bad sportsmanship. When Nomad wasted me, I played out the entire game. I expect the same from others).

In WiTP, I'm thinking of splitting up my carriers so there are no Midways. Always keep 'em guessing. What is all your thoughts on this? Is the force projection value of the Death Star formation worth the price if you lose it all at once?[&:]



munited18 -> RE: Death Star formation (10/22/2004 10:09:02 PM)

As the allies in the big campaign, currently March '42, I have one carrier in the Rabaul secotr. The Yorktown limping toward Baker Island. The lexignton finishing upgrades in San Fran. Then one or two, can't remeber, in PH doing upgrades and repairs. Because I am not looking to go toe to toe with the KB, I have them spread out helping out my different invasions on the outskirts of the war zone. Currently, the KB is off east of Singapore. This is my personal preference, because I remember my first UV campaign, I lost three carriers quickly! I am hoping I have learned my leason in my first WITP go around!! Again, I am not preaching strategy, just saying what I am doing....[8|]



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Death Star formation (10/22/2004 10:12:16 PM)

Generally, in 42 the USN goes where the IJN isn't. The more you know about the location of his carriers the better you'll be able to decide how/if you want to split your carriers. Problem with small cv taskforces is that you can't do much offensively with them. It's difficult and dangerous to go near enemy lba even if you have the capability to do adequate recon in the area. It's foolish and potentially suicidal if you dont, kinda like your UV opponent.



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/24/2004 3:55:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

So even if the Americans had the codes broken and the Japs were moving into an ambush- the Japanese on the day before and day of the battle (3/4th June) should have had plentiful recons out until they found the USN. There first recons should have been taking off in the dark. But their plan and over-confidence ruined their CV force by allowing them to be ambushed. But a human Japanese WITP player will have more respect for his opponent and be better prepared.



Nagumo's Carrier Striking Force was still moving through the "soup" NNW of Midway on 3 June. No recco would have been done.



Desertmole -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/25/2004 1:43:34 PM)

Just a thought. The US Naval War College has supposedly re-fought Midway several times with different gaming systems and never duplicated the results of the Battle of Midway.[X(] I'll probably take heat for suggesting this, but: Luck or Divine Intervention?[&o]



Sharkosaurus rex -> RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? (10/27/2004 1:36:54 PM)

The USN would have needed luck and/or divine intervention if they faced a realistic Japanese plan at Midway. The Japs set themselves up for disaster.

Without Shokakau and Zuikaku the main Jap CV TF at Midway had no margin of superiority over the 3 USN CV. The division of their remainding CV prevented their supporting of each other. Also the Japs had to deal with 2 objectives- suppress Midway and sink USN CV. Grossly inadequate reconnaissance preparations left Nagumo unnecessarily handicapped. Off Midway the full measure of Japanese failure in terms of deficiencies of planning and conduct of operations can be guaged their committing 8 CV, 11 BB, 12 CA,and 9 CL, 64 DD,, 18SS, and 433 planes to the operation, only one USN warships was attacked in the course of the battle. (But they did manage to sink 2 USN warships- the DD [Haman] was hit by a torpedo aimed at Yorktown.)

In regard to the Japs using their subs for advanced recon to warn of the USN CVs coming out. The IJN went to war knowing their doctrine was flawed. In 1939 a navy excercise revealed that Japan's subs could not be trusted achieve any success in recon. In the 1940 excercise (with the rules greatly softened to make success easier for the subs) they were still unable to meet the requirements.

Sharkosaurus rex

But the Japs did capture Attu and Kiska on 7th June. so their efforts weren't totally for nothing.



dan frick -> RE: Death Star formation (10/29/2004 7:36:07 AM)

I'm playing a solo campaign. May 15 '42 now. I took a carrier task force (1 carrier) to DEI with the idea of patroling behind the islands and zorching any Jap transports coming over. The Japs in the meantime created a monster carrier force whipping around Borneo basically rampaging over the general area. My carrier arrived at Batavia as they were even with the south coast. Three turns later I put all CAP up, and just like a charm whacked em GOOD! Hiru & Ryioko off to Davy Jones, and two hits on Zuikaku. The next evening Zuikaku eats two Dutch fish. Three days later I get a note Zuikaku sunk.
Two months go by with me being slowly pushed back (no land units), when signals says carriers moving to Balipan. I arrainge a surprise party for them. Bombers withdrawn from PI are now B-17s. All go to standdown, as I move supplies for the party favors. Fortunately, on their sneaky way over they could not resist a shot at one of my bypassed airports. The next day 30 b-17s dropped by to say hello.
I've done this for 3 days, and they have not moved the carier force. No sinkings, but plenty of hits and of course vists by my friend Mr Fire.
He has withdrawn all of his Bettys to attack Port Morsby, I shall make my super carrier task force and Rampage in DEI. And advance to Iwa Jima.[sm=00000436.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125