RE: Carrier grouping

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Carrier grouping

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Carrier grouping - 2/26/2006 10:03:29 PM

Dino

Posts: 1032
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Serbia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bilbow
The battle was at 4-hex range, so Drex's TBDs could not engage.

AFAIK at 4-hex range, even his SBDs would be less effective (no 1K bombs).

(in reply to bilbow)

Post #: 31

RE: Carrier grouping - 2/27/2006 4:24:24 AM

akdreemer

Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

To come back to the original question: combining CVs into a single TF allows then to provide each other mutual AA support, and CVs are the best AA platforms for both sides in 1941-42. It also allows to use less escorts per CV to provide the same level of protection against subs and air attacks.

Which was the primary argument for equiping the pre-war US Destroyers with not only the best DP gun of the war, but also a very good HA fire control to go with it. This turned US DD's into effective AA vessels, with two DD's the equal in DP firepower as the CV. Open ocean ASW for the USN in ealry war in the Pacific was a hit or miss. US CV's were the target of a very effective IJN sub force.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 32

RE: Carrier grouping - 2/27/2006 2:09:01 PM

medicff

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

However AGAIN...and you seem determined to ignore this point, the Allies can do the same thing defensively with their CAP's en-mass defensively. I don't need an AAR to see that. I just experienced one in one of my PBEM's using a very old version of my mod. Ever try getting several hundred bombers through a 224 x F4F CAP + 3 Brit carriers worth of fighters in early 43? I did. 300 lost bombers later over two days, i'm a bit of a mess. I'm feeling the bias allright.

1943 and later is a different story as the allies get more carriers and the penalty is decreased to allow full strike and cap capacity with 2 CV's per TF.

AdmiralLaurent

quote:

To come back to the original question: combining CVs into a single TF allows then to provide each other mutual AA support, and CVs are the best AA platforms for both sides in 1941-42. It also allows to use less escorts per CV to provide the same level of protection against subs and air attacks.

In 1941-42, combining makes sense for the IJN in all aspects, but for the allies the air attack CAP defense is lessened by mutally escorting TF and strikes are reduced to smaller strikes all hitting the WALL of CAP that KB can put up or you take by combining you take a chance the reduction will occur anyway and you lose all CV's. The positive spin in single TF CV's is that you may only lose one or two CV's that day.

The game's invicible CAP causes the KB (and later allied CV's) to wander without worrying about the few that should get through and at least make an attack and get some hits. Obviously history doesn't point to this CAP wall in 1942 with the results and not 100% to the allied late war AA and CAP wall.

There should be some worry that damage will occur should you venture into an even CV match.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 33

RE: Carrier grouping - 2/27/2006 4:38:39 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

There was a similar issue in Pacific War. The standard tactic in that game was simply to bring overwhelming CAP and Flak defenses to the base being invaded (as Allies) and let the Japanese dash themselves to pieces against it. No need to sweep or preform other offensive actions. Granted, this was also required due to the one week turns which allowed no real preperation/softening up of the target.

in WitP, turns are 24 hours so preperatory actions are possible. However as with Pacwar, they are not a manditory prerequisitite (that is, if the player is willing to accept damage/sinkings of some ships.) It was discovered during UV that the best tactic to use was to stack all the TF's in one hex right up to and including the invasion hex. This would create a shield over all the TF's as the game considers the entire hex to be covered by the CAP. This effectiveness was reduced by the 1/2 effectiveness rule if carriers are operating in shallow-water hexes/base hexes. However players can still stack all TF's in one hex and sit them off the invasion site and invite attacks.

For a future game, i'd like to see CAP be represented a little more dynamically, based on TF location, not hex location. This would help further reduce CAP over-effectiveness and encourage historical tactics such as the sweeping of available airfields. (plane hunting)

_____________________________

(in reply to medicff)

Post #: 34

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]