Advice!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Advice!

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 >> Advice!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Advice! - 3/10/2014 4:42:49 PM

heckler

Posts: 42
Joined: 6/29/2011
Status: offline

So I'm going to be amphibiously landing in the face of air and naval resistance (Iknow, I know...)-I think I have two choices and would like some input...

Am I better off putting the combat ships in a Surface Combat TF, or leave them embedded with the transports?

Post #: 1

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 5:21:46 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

I hope that when you say "air... resistance" you mean that you DO have local air superiority but that there is some enemy air in the area that might turn up. If this is NOT true, I would strongly submit that you rethink the idea of doing the landing..... Hal

_____________________________

(in reply to heckler)

Post #: 2

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 5:42:28 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler
Am I better off putting the combat ships in a Surface Combat TF, or leave them embedded with the transports?

You need both.

How you balance the distribution of your combat ships depends on the naval opposition, your available naval force, the coastal defense setup, the ammount of transports used, the air superiority, the general area, and thats only the beginning of factors to take into account...

_____________________________

(in reply to heckler)

Post #: 3

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 5:42:36 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

If you suspect the presence of a large number of CD guns or artillery, then I would embed an old BB or one or two CAs into the TF. They will suppress the fire and absorb most of the return fire. Old BBs are the best for this as only a few Japanese guns can harm them. I think this is a better use than to put your BBs into a bombardment TF. Note, if you have a two day landing then you might have to swap the ships out as they will burn up all their ammo in one day if they do a lot of counter battery.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 4

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 6:14:00 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

Actually, when going up against dedicated CD units like the Saipan Fortress and such, I like having two old BBs. Not just one. On successive "trips" to the beach to unload, just one BB is going to run out of ammo suppressing the large CD units rather quickly.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 5

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 7:03:40 PM

heckler

Posts: 42
Joined: 6/29/2011
Status: offline

This isn't a major base-I'm just starting to claw myself into an offensive posture. I'm not really as worried about CD as I am a TF interdicting the landing...

And thanks for the thoughts-chime in with whatever you got folks

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 6

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 8:11:02 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler

This isn't a major base-I'm just starting to claw myself into an offensive posture. I'm not really as worried about CD as I am a TF interdicting the landing...

And thanks for the thoughts-chime in with whatever you got folks

Then you want separate dedicated surface TFs in the hex with your landing TF. Major ships embedded with transports suffer a big disadvantage in combat-probably because they are going at a very slow speed.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to heckler)

Post #: 7

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 8:26:00 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler

This isn't a major base-I'm just starting to claw myself into an offensive posture. I'm not really as worried about CD as I am a TF interdicting the landing...

And thanks for the thoughts-chime in with whatever you got folks

The other question is "what are you landing?" I use fast transport TFs almost exclusively for small quick landings in the DEI early. If it's 1-2 SNLF they fit on CL/DD combos. Occasionally I'll throw in an AMC if needed for a regiment. This has the double benefit of good protection and deception. The Allies can't tell if it's a SAG or a fast transport. I've had them get caught by Allied cruisers and still fight them off as well in spite of the penalty for fast transports in combat. Lost a few squads shot off the deck!

As the Allies this doesn't work as easily because you get only a few APD to start and a few AVD that might help with supply.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to heckler)

Post #: 8

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 9:15:30 PM

czert2

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler
Am I better off putting the combat ships in a Surface Combat TF, or leave them embedded with the transports?

You need both.

How you balance the distribution of your combat ships depends on the naval opposition, your available naval force, the coastal defense setup, the ammount of transports used, the air superiority, the general area, and thats only the beginning of factors to take into account...

You know how to make thinks easier, you know :).

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 9

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 10:09:38 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler
Am I better off putting the combat ships in a Surface Combat TF, or leave them embedded with the transports?

You need both.

How you balance the distribution of your combat ships depends on the naval opposition, your available naval force, the coastal defense setup, the ammount of transports used, the air superiority, the general area, and thats only the beginning of factors to take into account...

You know how to make thinks easier, you know :).

That was unintentional. Actually I want to make things more difficult.

(in reply to czert2)

Post #: 10

RE: Advice! - 3/10/2014 10:34:59 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

In my first PBEM I blithely sent one of the set-up existing IJ convoys, originally destined for Legaspi I think, to Ambon. It was a mixed up mess, with fast xAKs and small slow PBs and even a tanker thrown in for good measure. It was absolutely ripped to pieces by Allied SAGs at Ambon after moving at a snails pace with a big DL signature for too many days.

After that I learned something though.

Cater the force to the job. Nothing extra, nothing that messes with the pace, not too much or too little unless there is a reason to do so, and don't broadcast intentions for days ahead of landing.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 11

RE: Advice! - 3/11/2014 12:00:19 AM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler

This isn't a major base-I'm just starting to claw myself into an offensive posture. I'm not really as worried about CD as I am a TF interdicting the landing...

And thanks for the thoughts-chime in with whatever you got folks

Then you want separate dedicated surface TFs in the hex with your landing TF. Major ships embedded with transports suffer a big disadvantage in combat-probably because they are going at a very slow speed.

Agreed, but if the enemy TF makes short work of the dedicated TF and gets to the landing TF, what ships would put there to fight back and draw fire from the transports until the enemy TF has to call it quits.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 12

RE: Advice! - 3/11/2014 1:02:59 AM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler

This isn't a major base-I'm just starting to claw myself into an offensive posture. I'm not really as worried about CD as I am a TF interdicting the landing...

And thanks for the thoughts-chime in with whatever you got folks

Then you want separate dedicated surface TFs in the hex with your landing TF. Major ships embedded with transports suffer a big disadvantage in combat-probably because they are going at a very slow speed.

Agreed, but if the enemy TF makes short work of the dedicated TF and gets to the landing TF, what ships would put there to fight back and draw fire from the transports until the enemy TF has to call it quits.

True that having ships in the landing TF might help screen transports and soak up hits, but they also may have expended a lot of their main gun ammo supporting the landing.

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 13

RE: Advice! - 3/11/2014 6:24:43 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Yes, independent on the ammo supply condition a BB would become a primary target in an engagement. This might just be enough to save the amphibs and possible troops still on board in case a surface fight cannot be avoided.

Thats a good point to consider.

The same method helps against air attacks obviously.

The obvious questions would be, does the possible sacrifice of a specific BB outweight the possible losses in amphibs, and how can probability minimized that the amphibs need to engage in combat in the first place. The answer to the latter could also result in detaching the BB from the amphibs and adding it to a dedicated SAG instead, to guard a possible line of approach for example.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/11/2014 7:33:24 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 14

RE: Advice! - 3/11/2014 1:45:22 PM

heckler

Posts: 42
Joined: 6/29/2011
Status: offline

[/quote]

That was unintentional. Actually I want to make things more difficult.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 15

RE: Advice! - 3/11/2014 2:51:21 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

One thing to consider is that it's good to have a few combat ships with your invasion TF, but they are more vulnerable in there due to the slow speed of transports and their orders to protect/screen the convoy.

If you make a SAG (or more) make sure to set them on patrol in the hex you're heading to, and I've found a 1 hex react is good to try to ensure they will hit the enemy before they get to your vulnerable forces.

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/12/2014 12:47:03 AM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to heckler)

Post #: 16

RE: Advice! - 3/11/2014 11:43:17 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Yes, independent on the ammo supply condition a BB would become a primary target in an engagement. This might just be enough to save the amphibs and possible troops still on board in case a surface fight cannot be avoided.

Thats a good point to consider.

The same method helps against air attacks obviously.

The obvious questions would be, does the possible sacrifice of a specific BB outweight the possible losses in amphibs, and how can probability minimized that the amphibs need to engage in combat in the first place. The answer to the latter could also result in detaching the BB from the amphibs and adding it to a dedicated SAG instead, to guard a possible line of approach for example.

I found it more of a waste to put slow old BBs into surface TFs where they are just torpedo bait and on many occasions do not even fire their guns. I know that it is hard to resist in the mayhem of 1942 but Allied old BBs become more valuable as the war progresses. I almost always reserve them for counter battery fire in amphibious TFs and as added air protection for slower TFs such as CVEs.

It sounds counter intuitive but I prefer fighting Japanese BBs with light ships. They do not hit much at night either.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 17

RE: Advice! - 3/12/2014 1:36:52 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Ramming Speed!!!!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 18

RE: Advice! - 3/12/2014 5:55:10 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Edit

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/12/2014 8:43:49 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 19

RE: Advice! - 3/12/2014 6:23:51 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

The use of old BBs in an amphib TF has a disadvantage seldom mentioned.

While most modern amphibs can reach 15kts cruise speed, the old BBs are tied to 12kts. So by adding them to a well chosen TF you increase the time to target by 20%, which, depending on the total time to target, can have a notable negative effect on troop fatigue and might increase the danger to tip off the invasion plan. This effect is enhanced by by the high fuel consumption and low bunker capacity of most of the old ships. Also, the reduction in cruise speed increases probability of sub attacks.

So whether the benefit of adding BBs outweights those drawbacks depends on the situation.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/12/2014 8:44:42 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 20

RE: Advice! - 3/12/2014 6:35:55 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
and as added air protection for slower TFs such as CVEs.

It sounds counter intuitive but I prefer fighting Japanese BBs with light ships. They do not hit much at night either.

Agree. Late war I find a major use for old BBs, and this is CVE TF flag. There is simply no better protection to thin skinned tuna cans than a layer of Great War Steel.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 21

RE: Advice! - 3/12/2014 3:00:39 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The use of old BBs in an amphib TF has a disadvantage seldom mentioned.

While most modern amphibs can reach 15kts cruise speed, the old BBs are tied to 12kts. So by adding them to a well chosen TF you increase the time to target by 20%, which, depending on the total time to target, can have a notable negative effect on troop fatigue and might increase the danger to tip off the invasion plan. This effect is enhanced by by the high fuel consumption and low bunker capacity of most of the old ships. Also, the reduction in cruise speed increases probability of sub attacks.

So whether the benefit of adding BBs outweights those drawbacks depends on the situation.

Well if you plan things right

, you have the Amph TF which has the BBs in it within one turn of the beach before you add the BBs in. So you should not run the BBs in the TF until right before the invasion so you do not have to worry so much about the BBs slowing the invasion down.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 22

RE: Advice! - 3/12/2014 3:29:19 PM

Amoral

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The use of old BBs in an amphib TF has a disadvantage seldom mentioned.

While most modern amphibs can reach 15kts cruise speed, the old BBs are tied to 12kts. So by adding them to a well chosen TF you increase the time to target by 20%, which, depending on the total time to target, can have a notable negative effect on troop fatigue and might increase the danger to tip off the invasion plan. This effect is enhanced by by the high fuel consumption and low bunker capacity of most of the old ships. Also, the reduction in cruise speed increases probability of sub attacks.

So whether the benefit of adding BBs outweights those drawbacks depends on the situation.

It is possible to control the speed a task force moves at by putting in an anchor ship. So for example, if I wanted to include the BBs in an amphibious TF, but still have it move at 15kts, I would build my amphibious TF as normal, and then add two ships with a maximum speed of 15kts. Then I would order the amphib TF to move at full speed. You have to babysit such a TF each turn, because the anchor ships will accumulate system damage, and might hit the point that their top speed drops off. That is why I include 2, if that happens the damaged ship goes into an escort TF and turns back.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 23

RE: Advice! - 3/12/2014 5:13:12 PM

czert2

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler

That was unintentional. Actually I want to make things more difficult.

Jokes aside, to assume that a generic question relating to a very specific situation will produce simple answers is the best method to see the wrong ships getting trashed in combat animations.

I think I'm coming from a place of "you don't know what you don't know". I was indeed hoping for a simplish answer tied to mechanics-something like "yes, there is an excellent chance a Surface Combat TF will engage the enemy force and keep them off your transports" or "the enemy will likely still engage the landing TF, so you need combat ships embedded to fight from within that TF"

I certainly wasn't expecting greater detail in how to best load out my Luganville (2nd effort, guh!) invasion force with the minimal information I provided. Being late 1942, the majority of ships involved with be xAP and xAK, with a pretty fair quantity of ships to spread the load and hopefully unload fairly quickly.

Great conversation and I truly appreciate all feedback. I've learned so much following the forum-thanks guys and keep it coming!

Well, fom my experince, it is hard to tell, i runed one turn 4 times, in all cases amhibious TF was covered by SAG in same hex, in 1 case it was night action against ATF, socodn day action agaisnt ATF and 2x daily against SAG.
So har to tell :), but generaly speaking i think it is best think to do amphibius landing in terrible weather (if you fear enemy naval ships) - with early radars chance to dect you are relative low and bad weather increase stealth :), but OTOH is make greater losses during uloading due to drowning.�
Well, it depend on your style, but i think putting most heavy unit (e.q. 1-2x bb/c)a to AFT to soak up dmage in case that ATF is dicovered and to have punching power, and then have SCG made from rest (bb/ca/cl/dd) with hope thy will engae enemy first :).
Having set reaction range for SAG and good naval search helps to detect enemy and increase chance that SAG will enage first.

(in reply to heckler)

Post #: 24

RE: Advice! - 3/12/2014 10:11:35 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The use of old BBs in an amphib TF has a disadvantage seldom mentioned.

While most modern amphibs can reach 15kts cruise speed, the old BBs are tied to 12kts. So by adding them to a well chosen TF you increase the time to target by 20%, which, depending on the total time to target, can have a notable negative effect on troop fatigue and might increase the danger to tip off the invasion plan. This effect is enhanced by by the high fuel consumption and low bunker capacity of most of the old ships. Also, the reduction in cruise speed increases probability of sub attacks.

So whether the benefit of adding BBs outweights those drawbacks depends on the situation.

It is possible to control the speed a task force moves at by putting in an anchor ship. So for example, if I wanted to include the BBs in an amphibious TF, but still have it move at 15kts, I would build my amphibious TF as normal, and then add two ships with a maximum speed of 15kts. Then I would order the amphib TF to move at full speed. You have to babysit such a TF each turn, because the anchor ships will accumulate system damage, and might hit the point that their top speed drops off. That is why I include 2, if that happens the damaged ship goes into an escort TF and turns back.

Might be a sub-par solution for 1 day/turn games. Although I would not use it as it a) ties the TF max speed to the max speed of that slow ship, and b) potentially creates all kinds of weird or unwanted TF behaviour (hello mid-term refuelling).

For 2 day/turn PBEM I would consider it an absolute no-go as the impact of those negative factors increase by an order of magnitude.

_____________________________

(in reply to Amoral)

Post #: 25

RE: Advice! - 3/13/2014 3:08:41 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heckler

So I'm going to be amphibiously landing in the face of air and naval resistance (Iknow, I know...)-I think I have two choices and would like some input...

Am I better off putting the combat ships in a Surface Combat TF, or leave them embedded with the transports?

My advice is that you should break your WitP-AE habit and take up heroin or methamphetamines instead. You might live longer.