Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Escorts

 
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 >> Escorts Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Escorts - 6/27/2007 6:24:13 PM   
John S

 

Posts: 101
Joined: 9/5/2004
Status: offline 		I am returning to WITP after about a one year absence. I have picked up and played the game at some length twice before but each time gave up in frustration over some of the game mechanics (disappearing units about two or three years ago caused me to say "The heck with this!").

Over the years, I have compiled comments and tips from this forum and recently went back over these materials and the past year's comments to see how I can better play and enjoy a game which is unique in its scope and detail. I am a veteran war gamer and have, in the past, spent many, many hours playing this game but, if you guys will bear with me over the next several days, I would like to raise the issues regarding game play that still tend to stump me.

First question - as US player vs the computer - 1943 scenario - in the past I have tended to create a task force with a transport mission and, when in a war zone as opposed to a backwater location, I have simply included within the same TF a few DD's or DE's for protection of the transports. Am I better off taking those DD's and DE's and putting them in a separate TF with the Escort Mission?

Thanks for any and all tips.
Post #: 1
RE: Escorts - 6/27/2007 6:35:53 PM   
Bobthehatchit


Posts: 1478
Joined: 4/27/2003
From: GREAT BRITAIN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John S

I am returning to WITP after about a one year absence. I have picked up and played the game at some length twice before but each time gave up in frustration over some of the game mechanics (disappearing units about two or three years ago caused me to say "The heck with this!").

Over the years, I have compiled comments and tips from this forum and recently went back over these materials and the past year's comments to see how I can better play and enjoy a game which is unique in its scope and detail. I am a veteran war gamer and have, in the past, spent many, many hours playing this game but, if you guys will bear with me over the next several days, I would like to raise the issues regarding game play that still tend to stump me.

First question - as US player vs the computer - 1943 scenario - in the past I have tended to create a task force with a transport mission and, when in a war zone as opposed to a backwater location, I have simply included within the same TF a few DD's or DE's for protection of the transports. Am I better off taking those DD's and DE's and putting them in a separate TF with the Escort Mission?

Thanks for any and all tips.


Escort mission is designed to provide large "escort" for very slow damged ships, also allows you to put battleship into transport TF's as well!

Escort TF will attempt to avoid any combat.

Your transport escorts need to be in the "TF" to provide it with any protection.

I usually include a few MSW and PG in to every transport TF as well as DD or DMS ( when not required for mine work ), even if they are away from the combat zone there are usually subs lerking about. Ship Generally don't sail with out an escort.


_____________________________

"Look at yours before laughing at mine". Garfield 1984.

Wanted: ISDII Low millage in Imperial gray.


Just my 2 pence worth.
I might not be right.
Hell I am probaby wrong.
But thats my opinion for what its worth!

(in reply to John S)
Post #: 2
RE: Escorts - 6/27/2007 7:57:05 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline 		The other factor are coastal defense artillery implacements at the point of debarkation. Having some ships that can offer some reasonable counter-fire to CDs at the invasion site seems to absorb a bit of the carnage from the defending CDs which would otherwise be targetted solely at APs, AKs, LSTs, etc. There is a balance to be struck here I think, because depending on your context having a critical warship sunk because it was part of an amphibious invastion TF is more annoying than losing an additional AP with half a squad of engineers.

To clarify that point about escourts: create a transport TF and get it all loaded (and as you pointed out in the other thread, most efficient is to use EXCESS load factor to get an ENTIRE unit loaded in one fell swoop, then combine separate TFs with all troops pre-loaded into one big TF. At this point you can add CL, CA, DD, MSW, etc., types of ships, but not BBs. Change the TF type to Escourt and you can add any ships, then change it back to Transport for the actual trip to the debarkation point.

Another factor which is important in this game engine (which does seem to make sense from my navally naive viewpoint) is that having TFs FOLLOWING other TFs can have a big effect.

For example, let us say I have a fairly small amphib invasion TF that has 4 AKs full of supply, 10 APs full of troops, 2 CLs for some additional AA and counterfire, a couple ASW capable DDs, and maybe a couple CAs. Let's say that I know the invasion point is not that heavily guarded as far as Fort and Assault value, thus the relatively small size of the TF. However, I do know that there is at least one pretty tough CD unit on there (thus the mixture of warships and transports to try to spread out the CD gun fire a bit more), and I also suspect it to be heavily mined, and that there are a number of subs lurking about defensively.

Lets say that, the 4 AKs have a capacity of 20,000 and the 10 APs a capacity of 30,000, but I've only got ~9000 in supply and about ~19,000 in troops loaded on them. I have accomplished this by creating TFs that were about twice as big in capacity as the load value of the units and managed to get them to fully load in one turn, then hit IDLE. In sum, the transports are not stuff to the gills, they are about half full. This accomplishes two things: it forces any prospective CD to hit more times to cause X number of casualties to troops or supply loss; and (this is based on anecdotal evidence but I think it is true) they will unload faster, and perhaps even with less disruption and fatigue. So imagine I've got this all loaded up like this and ready to roll.

In this context (potentially serious minefield, CD and sub defense of a target), a good strategy would be to create some additional TFs. First an MSW TF with a few fairly expendable ships. This one will go in firs and be set to Patrol in order to pre-clear the minefield. Depending on how expendable you consider your MSWs to be compared to boat loads of troops. Also, sprinkle in a few MSWs in the actual invasion TF, and set the invasion TF to follow the MSW, maybe a day or two behind it. Although you have some ASW in the invasion TF, if you really think subs are serious problem, it might not be a bad idea to have a small (4 or 5 ship?) ASW TF following the main amphibious TF. Similar things can be done with surface TFs, and I've noted (as I've heard others do too) that one big TF (lets say 3 BBs, 4 CAs, 6 CLs, and 7 DDs) may actually perform better by dividing it into two smaller TFs (the two slower BBs, 2 slower CAs, two slower CLs, two slower DDs in the lead TF; the remainder of all faster ships [faster meaning, they all can travel at some minimum full speed that is sufficiently faster than the lead TF that they can swoop in and surprise any prospective opposition AFTER it has already had a tousle with the lead TF and has expended ammo, casualties, ship damage, etc.]) . . .

(in reply to Bobthehatchit)
Post #: 3
RE: Escorts - 6/28/2007 12:25:51 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		My experiences with putting combat ships in Amphib Assault TFs that will land opposed is that they do more harm than good.  They don't suppress the defenders to any noticable extent and the program's "automatically return fire" routines mean than having those ships firing at the defenders actually causes more CD fire at the TF.  Which means more shot up APs/AKs/LSTs/etc. and more chewed up LCUs.

I would recommend putting your cruisers and destroyers in separate Bombardment TFs.  Anything they disable will not fire on the transports as the attackers shells come in.  This would also mean putting any ASW escorts in a separate ASW TF set to follow the Transport TF, both so they don't fire at the beach defenders and because a developer once pointed out that subs will engage the ASW TF first if both an ASW and Transport TF are in the same hex.  So putting them in a separate TF means the subs don't even get a shot at the transports.  Surface combatant escorting works the same.  If enemy surface ships enter they hex, they would have to fight your Surface Combat TF before they could fire on the transports.  (Same applies to APDs, MSWs, DMs, etc.  They all have large enough guns that they fire at the beach defenders, triggering more defensive fire.)

(Oh, and as Bob points out, the "Escort" type TF is actually nothing of the sort.  Its the "Run away!  Run away!" type TF, included in the game for damaged ships to be put in to by the program when it splits them off from their original TF.)

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 4
RE: Escorts - 6/28/2007 5:35:26 AM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline 		You know just tonight, I tried something new playing the Western Citadel mod in WPO. The Washington Naval Conference has broken down after a period of more substantial late 1910s arms build up by all sides. Including more substantial fortifications at Guam.

mid Sept 1926, I've finally landed a big TF at Guam. 100 ships, mostly APs, about 75,000 troops (vs 7900 defenders, mwa ha hahah!). I sent ONLY APs and AKs, and there CD fire was legligible.

ADDIT: the one thing I suspect it does help with to include in a amphibious assault TF is minesweeper, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

My experiences with putting combat ships in Amphib Assault TFs that will land opposed is that they do more harm than good.  They don't suppress the defenders to any noticable extent and the program's "automatically return fire" routines mean than having those ships firing at the defenders actually causes more CD fire at the TF.  Which means more shot up APs/AKs/LSTs/etc. and more chewed up LCUs.

I would recommend putting your cruisers and destroyers in separate Bombardment TFs.  Anything they disable will not fire on the transports as the attackers shells come in.  This would also mean putting any ASW escorts in a separate ASW TF set to follow the Transport TF, both so they don't fire at the beach defenders and because a developer once pointed out that subs will engage the ASW TF first if both an ASW and Transport TF are in the same hex.  So putting them in a separate TF means the subs don't even get a shot at the transports.  Surface combatant escorting works the same.  If enemy surface ships enter they hex, they would have to fight your Surface Combat TF before they could fire on the transports.  (Same applies to APDs, MSWs, DMs, etc.  They all have large enough guns that they fire at the beach defenders, triggering more defensive fire.)

(Oh, and as Bob points out, the "Escort" type TF is actually nothing of the sort.  Its the "Run away!  Run away!" type TF, included in the game for damaged ships to be put in to by the program when it splits them off from their original TF.)



< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 6/28/2007 6:22:06 AM >

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 5
RE: Escorts - 6/28/2007 5:51:06 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		Personally, I don't.  I suspect that every ship type works better if its in the TF type for the job.  So, while a MSW in a Transport TF might clear a couple of mines it comes across, as part of a Mine Warfare TF it will clear more mines because that's what its orders are.  More mines cleared equals lower chance of other ships hitting them.

I'd also send the minesweepers in a day or two before the troops under the cover of an Air Combat TF with half-a-dozen CVEs set to follow them.  Air Combat TFs rarely if ever hit mines anyways and the fighters on board the CVEs can chew up the bombers set for Naval Attack that would otherwise survive sinking the minesweepers to hit the transports.  (Of course, there's another CVE Air Combat TF escorting them.   )

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 6
RE: Escorts - 6/29/2007 12:13:02 AM   
John S

 

Posts: 101
Joined: 9/5/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks to each of you for providing these thoughful replies.  I certainly would have headed down the wrong path without your comments.

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 7
RE: Escorts - 6/29/2007 1:17:48 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John S

Thanks to each of you for providing these thoughful replies.  I certainly would have headed down the wrong path without your comments.


Well, you'll still head down the wrong path but at least it will be the same one all the rest of us are on.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to John S)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Escorts Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.906