Convoy escorts (Full Version)

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



Message

TulliusDetritus -> Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 9:51:40 PM)

Hello again,

I have a question for the "gurus" about the convoy escorts (well, every opinion is good, appreciated). Anyway, keep in mind that I am assuming that convoys = 10 ships maximum (so, no "big fat convoys") and the "house rules" for ports: Ron Sauracker rule?

My question then. Let's say we talk about a very long sea route: San Francisco => Sidney. Your convoy leaves SF. Will the same escorts follow the convoy (as far as Sidney and then come back) or should we be changing the escorts? Example: the escorts in SF follow the convoy as far as Pearl Harbor (or even before). In PH (or near) other escorts are ordered to escort the convoy (and the "old" escorts return to SF). Then same thing in Palmyra, Canton, Suva, Noumea, or any other base.

What is the most rational, intelligent method in your opinion? And why? And what was the historic method if you know it (needless to say, in the Pacific)?

Thanks in advance.



pauk -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 10:01:29 PM)

are you talking about separate TF "Escort mission"? if so, then answer doesn't matter. Escort mission do not have nothing with escort conwoys. Only ships which are part of a convoy (PG,PC,DD,MSW,SC) protect (escort) convoy.

Escort mission is for escort damaged ships to the safety waters....



rogueusmc -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 10:02:20 PM)

I think you are using 'escort' TFs and having them follow the 'transport' TFs?

If so, you aren't escorting anything.

Put the escorts IN the 'transport' TF.

The 'escort' TF only keeps the TF together with damaged ships..the damaged ships don't split off.



pauk -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 10:06:31 PM)

buahahaha!

i was faster[:D]



rogueusmc -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 10:11:44 PM)

I know not how to type....[:D]

Besides, I read his post, went and nuked some chicken strips and then came back to type my post...lol



jwilkerson -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 10:13:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Hello again,

I have a question for the "gurus" about the convoy escorts (well, every opinion is good, appreciated). Anyway, keep in mind that I am assuming that convoys = 10 ships maximum (so, no "big fat convoys") and the "house rules" for ports: Ron Sauracker rule?

My question then. Let's say we talk about a very long sea route: San Francisco => Sidney. Your convoy leaves SF. Will the same escorts follow the convoy (as far as Sidney and then come back) or should we be changing the escorts? Example: the escorts in SF follow the convoy as far as Pearl Harbor (or even before). In PH (or near) other escorts are ordered to escort the convoy (and the "old" escorts return to SF). Then same thing in Palmyra, Canton, Suva, Noumea, or any other base.

What is the most rational, intelligent method in your opinion? And why? And what was the historic method if you know it (needless to say, in the Pacific)?

Thanks in advance.


As stated by other posters the "Escort" mission was designed to allow ships to act as cover to critically damaged ships ... and is not an "escort" mission in the sense that you ( and I ) might have first thought.

There are 2 ways to escort convoy's however and I use both, separately and together. One way is to put escort ships in with the convoy. The other is to have an ASW TF with a follow order. I don't have data on which way works better. My guess is that the ASW mission will be more likely to attack ( and hit and damage or sink ) an encountered submarine whereas escort ships in the convoy might be more likely to prevent an attack on a ship in the convoy ( but less likely to attack, damage or sink an attacking submarine ). Most of the time I use ASW TF with follow, because I'n willing to risk 1 escorted ship being hit in return for a better chance of hitting the attacker back. With high value cargoes ( like infantry divisions ) I will use both together ... 3 escorts in the convoy .. and 3 escorts in an ASW TF with follow.

Historically, basically neither side escorted non-combat transports ( in the Pacific ) until the Japanese started doing it in 1944. As to invasion convoy's both sides used escorts ... and in game terms these would have been in the TF(s) being escorted.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 10:14:47 PM)

NO, no "Escort TF" following the AK's, AP's, TK's, etc. They are the "escorts" IN the cargo/transport TF => real life terminology, sorry [:)]

So, what is your method?

And I already know what are "escort TF's" for, thank you [:D]



pauk -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 10:20:39 PM)

hmph! can't help here.

As japanese player i already pretty much stuck in the micromanagment, so.... i leave escort IN THE conwoy all the way...



rogueusmc -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/2/2005 10:20:47 PM)

I detail an escort to the TF when they are ready to go. When at destination, unloading, the escort brings another TF back if an escort is needed. In other words, I rotated the escorts...keep them busy.



DJAndrews -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 12:04:23 AM)

I have been playing as the Japanese and find myself chronically short of escorts to include in convoys. As a result I deal with convoys in several ways.

The larger, sustaining convoys with tankers and large AKs are protected by two or maybe 3 PC/PG/MSW and follow very twisted circuitous routes carrying suppies on the way out and circling around to get oil/resources on the trip back. This type of convoy runs as often as I can fill it, almost always in deep water, right from the beginning of the game as I try to stockpile a lot of supply about two thirds of the way toward the front. It is intended to avoid subs and shallows where possible and deter sub attack where necessary and so doesn't need a lot of escort power (1 or 2 is a good as twenty as a deterent)

The smaller AKs are used with similar internal escorts on short, full speed runs to and from specific forward bases. They usually start out as a group of 6-12 ships which then split off in ones and twos to go to individual forward ports (without escort) when they are a hex or two away. Small convoys attract few LBA attacks whther at sea or in port.

Troop convoys typically are formed around destroyer and CL escorts with a good sampling of PG/PC and long distance MSW. These escorts are intended to fight off numerous subs if the TF is discovered and swarmed or to make a contested landing if necessary. They are not strong enough to fightoff surface attack and need to be accompanied by a surface combat TF if this is expected.

In addition to the above, I keep small, 5-6 ship ASW TFs led by destroyers at choke points where subs tend to congregate. I do not seach for subs on a daily basis at these choke points because the enemy subs are harmless as long as I don't feed them. Rather I start sweeping the passage with the destroyer group a day or two before the convoy arrives and then have it lead the convoy through the passage (with "follow" orders) at the appropriate time.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 12:53:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DJAndrews

This type of convoy runs as often as I can fill it, almost always in deep water, right from the beginning of the game as I try to stockpile a lot of supply about two thirds of the way toward the front. It is intended to avoid subs and shallows where possible and deter sub attack where necessary and so doesn't need a lot of escort power (1 or 2 is a good as twenty as a deterent)



Subs hate shallows. I would assume that transports would like shallows. Coastal and shallow water are transports best friends. They are enemies to the subs that are attacking them.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 1:01:21 AM)

What I do for anti-sub "escorts" and it seems to work well is to have the ships I want to protect mostly in one TF (with a few DDs) and then make a second ASW TF. Put that ASW TF on "follow TF" to tag along with the CV or Transport TF. The ASW TF stays in the same hex but seems to be more aggressive at attacking the subs before the subs attack the more valuable ships in the other TF. You will lose some DDs in the ASW TF this way, however.



Hornblower -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 2:05:53 AM)

If its a long haul convoy - pure supplies i'm talking too, say SF to Noumea or Brisbane don't use SC's. Those i save for the short routes that i don't expect any Air or surface opposition to. The long hauls are DD's perferable the pre 1941 types, and i normally attach an AO to refuel them so i can make it in one leap and not have to stop to refuel from a base along the way.



bradfordkay -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 6:48:25 AM)

WHen playing the AI sometimes I will have the convoys run unescorted from SF to Pago Pago with orders "Do not unload." I have kept an AD and some DDs and DMSs at Pago Pago to then join the convoys on their way to the final destination (Pearl Harbor and Trincomolee are my other staging areas). This reduces system damage to the escorts and doesn't leave the convoys in danger (against the AI, human players like to target your convoys between the west coast and Hawaii). On the return trip they still head to the staging base, where the escorts are dropped off.

Sometimes I am too lazy to do this and have them run the whole distance. I usually will protect my important troops convoys all the way, just to be sure.



DJAndrews -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 2:31:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: DJAndrews

This type of convoy runs as often as I can fill it, almost always in deep water, right from the beginning of the game as I try to stockpile a lot of supply about two thirds of the way toward the front. It is intended to avoid subs and shallows where possible and deter sub attack where necessary and so doesn't need a lot of escort power (1 or 2 is a good as twenty as a deterent)



Subs hate shallows. I would assume that transports would like shallows. Coastal and shallow water are transports best friends. They are enemies to the subs that are attacking them.


You're right of course that subs are more vulnerable in shallow water than deep, but it is much easier for them to find targets in coastal areas and between land masses than out in the open ocean. In particular, AI generated routes (whether in a PBeM game or not) follow specific patterns and often hug the coast.

As a result, a TF that moves directly to open water, well away from land before adopting a heading to its destination is less likely to encounter a sub. I often send my convoys out at full speed for the first day out from Japan in order to clear the concentration of subs in home waters quickly.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 5:32:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DJAndrews


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: DJAndrews

This type of convoy runs as often as I can fill it, almost always in deep water, right from the beginning of the game as I try to stockpile a lot of supply about two thirds of the way toward the front. It is intended to avoid subs and shallows where possible and deter sub attack where necessary and so doesn't need a lot of escort power (1 or 2 is a good as twenty as a deterent)



Subs hate shallows. I would assume that transports would like shallows. Coastal and shallow water are transports best friends. They are enemies to the subs that are attacking them.


You're right of course that subs are more vulnerable in shallow water than deep, but it is much easier for them to find targets in coastal areas and between land masses than out in the open ocean. In particular, AI generated routes (whether in a PBeM game or not) follow specific patterns and often hug the coast.

As a result, a TF that moves directly to open water, well away from land before adopting a heading to its destination is less likely to encounter a sub. I often send my convoys out at full speed for the first day out from Japan in order to clear the concentration of subs in home waters quickly.



That is definitely and interesting approach. I guess I'd rather have a ship hit and a better chance of sinking the sub. You're going with the "I want my ship to make it" approach. Both have their advantages. I'll check where I'm sending my high-priority ships. I'll go with deep water if I want to protect them.



mc3744 -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 5:53:47 PM)

I now have 5 PBEM's running, All with the Allies.
And I played 7 in total (one with Japan). That's as far as my experience goes.
Having said that, in my experience Jap subs are never a real problem.

Allied ASW capabilities are so strong that you need not to worry.

The way I go is to station lots of Catalina's along the convoy route. I also station some ASW capable ships along the route. As soon as a Catalina spots a sub I send the closest ASW assets in.

If the Jap keep moving the subs I usually miss the them by they gets ut of the convoy route and remain a threat only in terms of spotting capabilites (for raiding carriers). If they stick to the convoy route, 9 times out of ten they are sunk in one turn.
In two three months every Japanese player I faced learnt to keep the subs away [;)]

My main problem now is that they are being used for mine laying, hence the keep moving and I have seriuos problems sinking them. The mine have scores more hits than the subs themeselves [:(]



mc3744 -> RE: Convoy escorts (6/3/2005 5:55:57 PM)

One thing I forgot to mention.

Every once in a while I send a strong ASW TF on the exact convoy route. All the way.
The never come back empty handed [:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.828125