LB attack against CVs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

LB attack against CVs

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 >> LB attack against CVs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

LB attack against CVs - 3/20/2008 11:30:46 AM

Saso

Posts: 232
Joined: 3/7/2008
From: Italy
Status: offline

In my current PBEM game I made a mistake, I sent Betty and Zero over enemy CVs but they flew at extended range and low altitude.
The enemy fighter (F4F-4 Wildcat) are bouncing my fighters a lot.

In situations like this, is better make an air strike on two different altitude or to send some fighter in sweep mission? Or what?

Thanks in advance.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/20/2008 2:46:36 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saso

In my current PBEM game I made a mistake, I sent Betty and Zero over enemy CVs but they flew at extended range and low altitude.
The enemy fighter (F4F-4 Wildcat) are bouncing my fighters a lot.

In situations like this, is better make an air strike on two different altitude or to send some fighter in sweep mission? Or what?

Thanks in advance.

Not sure how you could "sweep" a moving TF since the mission is assigned to a hex (iirc) ... some players like the different altitudes to try to split up the defenses, but this may result in uncoordinated strikes... it is all a tradeoff, i think.

(in reply to Saso)

Post #: 2

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/20/2008 3:22:12 PM

Saso

Posts: 232
Joined: 3/7/2008
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

Not sure how you could "sweep" a moving TF since the mission is assigned to a hex (iirc)

Right, I'm still several gaps about WitP knowledge...

Thanks rtrapasso

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 3

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/20/2008 4:05:33 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Correct, you can't "sweep" a CV TF in WitP.

Yes, I'd try staggering the heights of your bombers. Going in at several altitudes will help to spread out the CAP (the strike where CAP is closes to altitude will suffer most, but the others alts will benefit). And dive and torpedo bombers don't suffer an accuracy penalty for altitude, since they alway attack at 2000' and 200' anyway. Also, putting stuff high, will also reduce your Flak losses (again, no decrease in accuracy).

You can also create a lead strike and secondary strikes by
a. Lead strike is set for NavAtk (no secondary mission). It will launch in the AM, and bear the brunt of the CAP (and stagger it's alts etc).
b. Secondary strike is set for NavAtk-Port/AF Atk (with a target specified). Unless you've sunk everything, your naval target will still be there in the PM pulse (no movement occurs between AM and PM). This "encourages" you strikes launch in the PM pulse. The naval target is still there, so it attacks the naval target instead of it's specified Port/AF target. Hitting in the PM means that CAP has been reduced by the AM strikes, and you've got a better shot at getting thru.

THIS IS NOT ROCK-SOLID. There are quite a few things that can go wrong, but it's about 60% effective once you get the feel for it.
a. Weather is checked in AM and PM. So your airfield(s) and target might be socked in for one of the strikes, in which case you'll only strike in the AM or PM.
b. It's actually advisable to only use the AM/PM strikes if you're using multiple AFs. Reason being, generaly in WitP airstrikes, you either want very large or very small strikes. The small strikes can creep the CAP anyway. And the very large strikes are better at getting thru. So if you're launching form the same base, more planes is generally better. But if you've got multiple AFs that your launching from, attempting to trigger AM/PM strikes to can help.
c. You PM strike might just decide to bomb the Port/AF instead of the fleet, in which case you've bombed a bunch of dirt and not ships.
d. You could make the argument that setting everything on NavAtk only will cause several strikes in the AM, that wears down CAP. So why use AM-PM strikes? You have no control over the strike order of everythign is AM. I haven't solved that yet, but I'm working on it

(altho I think it's tied to range and the phsical ID # of the base). But anway. In the case where you have "good bombers" and "bad bombers". Say a collection of B-17s and some Hudsons (I know you're Japan, but this is just an example). You -want- the B-17s to go in first, becaus they're the most survivable and can help break up the CAP. But if the Hudsons go in first (no control over this if only NavAtk), they'll be slaughtered. So you deliberately set the B-17s to NavAtk only (go first), and then the Hudsons ast NavAtk-PortAtk, and they'll go in in the PM, after the B-17s have weakened the CAP a little.

For that being said, I don't actually like the way srikes work in WitP. But the engine is what it is, and it helps considerably to actually understand what it's trying to do.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Saso)

Post #: 4

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/21/2008 3:17:51 PM

Saso

Posts: 232
Joined: 3/7/2008
From: Italy
Status: offline

Thanks Feinder, a very interesting lesson!

This is the report of my first strike:
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 41
G4M1 Betty x 29

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 60

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 18 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 11 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 11 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Wasp

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet

Follow the hints I made an air strike with two different altitude selected (all aircraft in the same base):

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25
G4M1 Betty x 39

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 91

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 20 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 19 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 16 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Salt Lake City
CV Wasp

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet

Another slaughter but if we compare with the first strike it seems works better.

Of course the air strike don't have hit the transports but the CVs with their strong CAP

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 5

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/21/2008 5:50:28 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Part of the problem is that the game puts a higher priority on carriers, so they will draw airstrikes like moths to a lamp. You'd be much better off if you could designate your bombers to attack my transports only, but there is no mechanism to do so currently (that I am aware of, maybe someone here knows a way).

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Saso)

Post #: 6

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/21/2008 7:21:23 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saso

Thanks Feinder, a very interesting lesson!

This is the report of my first strike:
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 41
G4M1 Betty x 29

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 60

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 18 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 11 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 11 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Wasp

Follow the hints I made an air strike with two different altitude selected (all aircraft in the same base):

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25
G4M1 Betty x 39

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 91

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 20 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 19 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 16 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Salt Lake City
CV Wasp

Another slaughter but if we compare with the first strike it seems works better.

Of course the air strike don't have hit the transports but the CVs with their strong CAP

In both these cases you are flying aganst Ubercap. You need to outnumber the CAP of the hex to achieve any reasonable results. Your loses have been light, given the amount of CAP you faced. If he can place 91 F4F4's over his carriers, you need at least 150 Zero's to attain the result you are looking for.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to Saso)

Post #: 7

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/21/2008 8:02:24 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

With 90 Wildcats, you're going to have a tough time breaking thru with only 30 escorts.

Also, you did get nearly 40 Bettys past CAP, to launch their fish. With 40 chances to hit (even with disruption from the CAP and Flak), I'm surprised you didn't hit anything.

What is the exp of your pilots?

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 8

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/21/2008 11:10:33 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Here's a good question as well. With 3 carriers and the cap set to 50%, I really shouldn't have 90 defenders should I? I set the cap myself to 50%, so there shouldn't even be 90 Wildcats intercepting, as that is just about all of them 36 x 3 = 108, so 90 would be about 90% of them flying cap.

I will recheck the cap level next turn Saso, something might have bugged.

Edit: I did just recheck the last turn I saved, and they are set to 50%. 90 is actually more fighters than I have left.

FoW perhaps?

< Message edited by Shark7 -- 3/21/2008 11:22:27 PM >

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 9

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/21/2008 11:40:46 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Early warning (radar) allows cap to scramble.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 10

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 12:09:26 AM

Saso

Posts: 232
Joined: 3/7/2008
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

If he can place 91 F4F4's over his carriers, you need at least 150 Zero's to attain the result you are looking for.

Ahi...this is a big problem because is very hard for me concetrated so much fighters.

quote:

What is the exp of your pilots?

Somewhere around 75/80 for all pilots

quote:

Early warning (radar) allows cap to scramble.

Is it as effective?

quote:

I will recheck the cap level next turn Saso, something might have bugged.

Edit: I did just recheck the last turn I saved, and they are set to 50%. 90 is actually more fighters than I have left. FoW perhaps?

No problem Shark7, no one complaint

_____________________________

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 11

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 2:14:33 AM

Zebedee

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saso

quote:

Early warning (radar) allows cap to scramble.

Is it�as effective?

It can be - although you'll note that the planes joining late don't seem to get much of a chance to attack your escort and bombers. That's probably why your losses weren't worse.

(in reply to Saso)

Post #: 12

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 2:29:23 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Welcome to the rest of your WitP life...

Radar usually scrambles 90% of all Allied CV fighters and the size of the Uber CAP will grow
with the number of carriers and size of their air groups.

By 1944 you will find yourself constantly facing 2-300 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and it's next to impossible
to get through. If your opponents 'stacks' more cv's the number can be 3 times has hight

Since Jap radar doesn't work very well the advantage is almost entirely one sided.
Your fighters will usually be bounced all the time - unless the enemy attacks you over your own soil enough hexes away
from his own radar equipped base or ship.

Being bounced by 2-300 Hellcats and Corsairs is a very thrilling experience

Advice you to enjoy the Happy times of 1943

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 13

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 3:33:30 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Early warning (radar) allows cap to scramble.

Well that explains it. I've never played as the allies before, so this is a learning experience.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 14

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 4:01:35 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Look on the bright side, it used to be that every kill scrolled across the window during the combat.
PO Izuki is credited with kill number 12
Ens Michael is credited with kill number 1
Ens Michael is creaded with kill number 2

and so on, and so on, and so on, thru 400 - 500 losses, it took FOREVER to run a turn. Bleh. I don't miss that!

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 15

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 4:02:15 AM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

Ok, excuse me if I am not understanding this, but even if you set cap to 0 percent for the carrier based fighters,, a Carrier with decent radar will allow up to 90% of them to engage incoming enenmy attacks?
I normlly have all of my fighters on carriers set to 90% cap as it is so I have never seen this.

< Message edited by Gem35 -- 3/22/2008 4:03:33 AM >

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?

Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 16

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 5:55:18 AM

Nikademus

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

radar is supposed to allow much larger CAP launches even if you set your standing CAP patrol to low %. Thats one of it's perks. It also improves DL's allowing the CAP to be more effective in general (get more attack rounds)

_____________________________

(in reply to Gem35)

Post #: 17

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 6:14:44 AM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

unchanged in AE?
where is my notepad...

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?

Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 18

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 6:27:13 AM

Nikademus

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

enhanced.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gem35)

Post #: 19

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 6:28:05 AM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

elaborate? please?

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?

Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 20

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 6:35:03 AM

Nikademus

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

you'll see the effect of radar in the combat msgs given during the A2A phase. Your going to see more descriptive msgs in general. The #'s engaging also change more dynamically. They can go up instead of just down (due to morale failure rolls)

_____________________________

(in reply to Gem35)

Post #: 21

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 7:42:41 AM

Dice

Posts: 22
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

you'll see the effect of radar in the combat msgs given during the A2A phase. Your going to see more descriptive msgs in general. The #'s engaging also change more dynamically. They can go up instead of just down (due to morale failure rolls)

I'm glad to here that, more info during air combat would be welcomed by me.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 22

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 4:50:18 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Part of the problem is that the game puts a higher priority on carriers, so they will draw airstrikes like moths to a lamp. You'd be much better off if you could designate your bombers to attack my transports only, but there is no mechanism to do so currently (that I am aware of, maybe someone here knows a way).

No, there isn't a way.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 23

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/22/2008 5:41:36 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Part of the problem is that the game puts a higher priority on carriers, so they will draw airstrikes like moths to a lamp. You'd be much better off if you could designate your bombers to attack my transports only, but there is no mechanism to do so currently (that I am aware of, maybe someone here knows a way).

No, there isn't a way.

Too bad really, kinda pointless to send 200 aircraft to get slaughtered by carrier cap, when the transports are the real threat anyway.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 24

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/23/2008 12:04:50 AM

Dino

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

Ok, excuse me if I am not understanding this, but even if you set cap to 0 percent for the carrier based fighters,, a Carrier with decent radar will allow up to 90% of them to engage incoming enenmy attacks?
I normlly have all of my fighters on carriers set to 90% cap as it is so I have never seen this.

I don't think that 0% will work...any low percentage - yes, but 0 is 0.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gem35)

Post #: 25

RE: LB attack against CVs - 3/23/2008 3:39:48 PM

Saso

Posts: 232
Joined: 3/7/2008
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

By 1944 you will find yourself constantly facing 2-300 Hellcats and Corsairs on CAP and it's next to impossible
to get through. If your opponents 'stacks' more cv's the number can be 3 times has hight

Ehm...how you sink the allied CVs?

quote:

Being bounced by 2-300 Hellcats and Corsairs is a very thrilling experience
Advice you to enjoy the Happy times of 1943

I believe to be a Japanese fanboy, but I think that I choice the wrong side

quote:

I normlly have all of my fighters on carriers set to 90% cap as it is so I have never see

When you make an air strike how you change the CAP?

Is more important the defence or the attack?

quote:

you'll see the effect of radar in the combat msgs given during the A2A phase. Your going to see more descriptive msgs in general. The #'s engaging also change more dynamically. They can go up instead of just down (due to morale failure rolls)

_____________________________

(in reply to Dino)

Post #: 26