Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Better formation?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Better formation? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Better formation? - 11/4/2011 10:15:32 AM   
kriegmarine


Posts: 37
Joined: 11/28/2007
From: Spain(Seville)
Status: offline 		Today is August 42 , now I have 8 CV and 3 CVL, What would be the ideal training?
The KB is forming in 3 TF:
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 2 CV, 1 CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 6 DD.
Would you be good, or better distributed differently?

< Message edited by kriegmarine -- 11/4/2011 1:08:13 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Better formation? - 11/4/2011 11:24:50 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kriegmarine

Today is August 42 , now I have 8 hp and 3 CVL, What would be the ideal training?
The KB is forming in 3 TF:
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 2 CV, 1 CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 6 DD.
Would you be good, or better distributed differently?


Ideally you'd need more destroyers in each task force...but not sure how many fast ones you have?

(in reply to kriegmarine)
Post #: 2
RE: Better formation? - 11/4/2011 11:35:03 AM   
henhute6

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 1/8/2002
From: Tehran
Status: offline 		I like to put fast carriers together: Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku. Rest of the carriers will form another slower fleet. I usually put one heavy cruiser to fleet in case on surprise surface battle. In my opinion BB is wasted in pure AA platform role in carrier force. BB can be in separate surface task force which is mopping up the remnants of enemy fleet. I also use 6 destroyer package with KB fleet.

(in reply to kriegmarine)
Post #: 3
RE: Better formation? - 11/4/2011 11:40:53 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: henhute6

I like to put fast carriers together: Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku. Rest of the carriers will form another slower fleet. I usually put one heavy cruiser to fleet in case on surprise surface battle. In my opinion BB is wasted in pure AA platform role in carrier force. BB can be in separate surface task force which is mopping up the remnants of enemy fleet. I also use 6 destroyer package with KB fleet.


Fast BBs are great for soaking up damage...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to henhute6)
Post #: 4
RE: Better formation? - 11/4/2011 1:19:13 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Carrier's best protection is a battleship. BBs are bomber magnets, easily 1/3 of bombers attack battleships instead of those precious flight decks. And battleships can take more bomb hits than carriers. 


Usually I'll have 2 KBs, fast ones (Hiryu, Shokakus and Akagi) and slower ones (speed 28 kts or less).

Later I might even separate slowest 25-26 kts carriers and use 3 KBs.

< Message edited by Puhis -- 11/4/2011 1:21:48 PM >

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 5
RE: Better formation? - 11/4/2011 5:16:31 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Yep totally agree. BB in a carrier TF are a must. I would much rather have them eat torpedoes than a first class carrier.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 6
RE: Better formation? - 11/4/2011 11:28:37 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		Ok, related question.  Do you guys also agree on putting a fast BB in an Allied CVTF, for the same reasons?  Or do you put them in a SAG with the carriers following?  I've seen both options posted, so I'm a might confused.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 7
RE: Better formation? - 11/4/2011 11:47:36 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		I'd put the CVLs (along with Junyo and Hiyo) in a separate TF than the original 6 CVs. They slow down the fast CVs.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 8
RE: Better formation? - 11/5/2011 7:53:25 AM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Remember, japanese CVLs (except Ryuho) are as fast as Kaga, so Kaga too slows down rest of the original 6.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 9
RE: Better formation? - 11/5/2011 8:51:41 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kriegmarine

Today is August 42 , now I have 8 CV and 3 CVL, What would be the ideal training?
The KB is forming in 3 TF:
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 2 CV, 1 CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 6 DD.
Would you be good, or better distributed differently?

BBs are great targets for enemy DBs, so you should keep them. DDs are your ASW weapon, but what is purpose of Cruisers? When CVTF gets attacked in the surface combat, it will immediately try to retreat, so not much use of combat ships, except for screening.

You can eventually look into AAA statistics (and use CLAAs), or number of search planes on board (so CS are perfect), to relieve your CAGs from search duties.

(in reply to kriegmarine)
Post #: 10
RE: Better formation? - 11/5/2011 10:00:13 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Just in case this went unnoticed:

Contrary to the original WitP, in AE naval attacks will target shipps in a hex, not in a TF.
This implies that the BBs don´t have to be in the same TF, only in the same hex. Depends on how your plans look like
on a tactical scale.


_____________________________


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 11
RE: Better formation? - 11/5/2011 11:13:25 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ok, related question.  Do you guys also agree on putting a fast BB in an Allied CVTF, for the same reasons?  Or do you put them in a SAG with the carriers following?  I've seen both options posted, so I'm a might confused.


I usually put fast BB into CV TF. But as been said, one can do it both ways.

Just that Allies do not have really fast BBs before Iowas, SoDak/NoDaks have max. speed of 28 knots and that can slow down CV TF, since other ships often have max. speed of 32+ knots. That 5 knots can make difference sometimes.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 12
RE: Better formation? - 11/5/2011 2:46:43 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kriegmarine

Today is August 42 , now I have 8 CV and 3 CVL, What would be the ideal training?
The KB is forming in 3 TF:
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 2 CV, 1 CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 6 DD.
Would you be good, or better distributed differently?

That's a pretty good start, IMO. I agree with the others re: clustering slower CV and CVLs together. Also agree about the benefits of putting a battleship in with the CVTF for AAA and soaking up damage.

If you're fighting defensively, I'm not adamantly opposed to using some of your CVEs for CAP or search too, they'd need to be linked with your slower groups.

IMO, the most important criterion is the number of airplanes in your CVTF. Tread very carefully on exceeding the CVTF air numbers / year, lest your strikes be uncoordinated. These values may be found in the manual.

_____________________________


(in reply to kriegmarine)
Post #: 13
RE: Better formation? - 11/7/2011 4:20:20 AM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline 		Shokaku and Zuikaku get airsearch radar in their june 42 upgrade. After the upgrade, I tend to split them between KB1 and KB2. In august, a number of your APDs also get good airsearch radar. They have short legs and cannot be added to a CV TF, but I use them when possible as radar pickets (in the same hex) as the CVs.

I generally don't put CAs in the KB. The fast BBs are much more useful in attracting the attention away from the CVs and the CAs are one of the IJNs most potent surface threats in night actions. Of course, the Kongo's are very useful ships too, but...

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Better formation? 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

0.718