Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CAP with multiple CV's

 
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 >> CAP with multiple CV's Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CAP with multiple CV's - 3/11/2017 8:30:57 PM   
jamesjohns

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 12/2/2013
Status: offline
Question for the group, if you have a CV task force with say 3 or 4 CV's, do you have just one CV do all the CAP or is it better to split the CAP between all the squadrons on all the CV's?

Thanks for any advice, always good to get the insight of other players.
Post #: 1
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/11/2017 10:07:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
What happens to your CAP when your CAP CV eats a sub launched torpedo or night strike or a mine and drops out of the task force? Uh-oh!

(in reply to jamesjohns)
Post #: 2
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/11/2017 10:19:43 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
I have been schooled by Lokasenna, a far better player than myself, to either go 100% CAP or 0% CAP on each fighter squadron. The reason is the interface doesn't have a CAP button. It has an Escort button, and CAP is a secondary consequence of that. So if you split you have to set the range spinner to the strike range, and that's where your CAP will CAP out to as well. You want the vast majority of your CAP overhead at range zero, and a bit out 1 or 2 hexes, then multiple altitudes as well to allow for TBs and DBs. Obviously you can't do that with one CV handling CAP. If you have four CVs, you need at least half your fighters on dedicated CAP. If you expect to meet the full KB, just don't go. If you have 10 CVs it's a lot easier. Also, later-war, I pull some of the TBs off the CVs and put a second fighter unit on several CVs, usually Corsairs.

The other trick I've been taught is to let CVEs do the CAP job for the most part. Make a second Air TF, load it with 10-15 CVEs, and put them on 100% CAP at a Follow distance of 0 to the main CV Air TF. You lose speed, but you don't care. It's the 800-pound gorilla situation if you have 10-15 Essexes and 15 CVEs, plus fast BBs and Fletchers. Of course, that's a 1944-45 situation for the most part.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to jamesjohns)
Post #: 3
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/11/2017 10:40:00 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I have been schooled by Lokasenna, a far better player than myself, to either go 100% CAP or 0% CAP on each fighter squadron. The reason is the interface doesn't have a CAP button. It has an Escort button, and CAP is a secondary consequence of that. So if you split you have to set the range spinner to the strike range, and that's where your CAP will CAP out to as well. You want the vast majority of your CAP overhead at range zero, and a bit out 1 or 2 hexes, then multiple altitudes as well to allow for TBs and DBs. Obviously you can't do that with one CV handling CAP. If you have four CVs, you need at least half your fighters on dedicated CAP. If you expect to meet the full KB, just don't go. If you have 10 CVs it's a lot easier. Also, later-war, I pull some of the TBs off the CVs and put a second fighter unit on several CVs, usually Corsairs.

The other trick I've been taught is to let CVEs do the CAP job for the most part. Make a second Air TF, load it with 10-15 CVEs, and put them on 100% CAP at a Follow distance of 0 to the main CV Air TF. You lose speed, but you don't care. It's the 800-pound gorilla situation if you have 10-15 Essexes and 15 CVEs, plus fast BBs and Fletchers. Of course, that's a 1944-45 situation for the most part.


I'm also a convert to the "all or nothing" school of thought regarding carrier CAP.

I can second the effectiveness of this approach. Granted, you do need a critical mass of carriers to an extent, but both sides have flat top's with limited torpedos/ordinance/capacity that are ideal for dedicated CAP carriers.

There's the scope to do it with the IJN as well, in the late war. Convert the TB squadron to the Grace and pull the dive bombers off and replace them with fighters.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/12/2017 4:00:32 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I split my CAP-usually, but will use 100 percent cap at times with other units doing other jobs such as sweeps or LRCAP. It just depends. However, for most situations. I set my CAP on all my fighters to a certain percentage and go with that. If there is a heavy carrier slug fest and half of your flight decks are closed, I don't want to risk that I will have no CAP if a second strike is coming.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 5
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/12/2017 8:04:39 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
The important part is that you don't give any squadron multiple missions. It's either flying CAP or flying escort, not both.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/12/2017 9:25:32 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
But what about Fatigue? If I fly one unit at 100% CAP won't they be combat ineffective in 3 or 4 days?

Or when you say you fly a unit at 100% CAP do you really mean 70% CAP and 30% Rest?

Just curious.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 7
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/12/2017 10:00:10 PM   
Itdepends

 

Posts: 937
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
It means if tasked for escort set it at 0% CAP with the range set to match your strike aircraft OR set to whatever level of CAP you want at short range (for me generally 0 or 1 hex)

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 8
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/12/2017 11:13:30 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

But what about Fatigue? If I fly one unit at 100% CAP won't they be combat ineffective in 3 or 4 days?

Or when you say you fly a unit at 100% CAP do you really mean 70% CAP and 30% Rest?

Just curious.


I think the others have said 100% CAP as in that unit is doing nothing but CAP, but the percentage might be lower like 50 or 70 or 80.

I vary mine between 50 and 100 depending on a mix of factors: current fatigue levels, anticipated threat, altitude of the group (higher alt = lower percentage unless I don't care about fatigue this turn), etc. Most often I am around 70-80 for lower or middle altitudes, and 50-60 for higher or top altitudes. I will go to 90 or 100 if there's going to be a hurricane that turn.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 3/12/2017 11:14:08 PM >

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 9
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/13/2017 12:27:29 AM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
Thank you for the elaboration.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 10
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/13/2017 12:51:56 AM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
Most of the time, complete units for carrier missions. Got to protect the nest so best fighter skill unit(s) for cap. Flying escort can be tricky, so the best escort unit(s) for that.
And as others have said, can be adjusted depending on what else is going on.

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 3/13/2017 1:34:06 AM >

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 11
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 1:17:41 AM   
woods

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
100% Cap. Sure learn something new after playing this game for years.

_____________________________


Art by Rougeusmc

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 12
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 7:24:40 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
So far I am still in favor of all squadrons having 30-70% CAP/Escort settings for CV/CVLs (based on threat).

In case I have a CVEs along, I usually limit their range to keep their CAP in place.

_____________________________


(in reply to woods)
Post #: 13
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 3:58:01 PM   
crsutton


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

So far I am still in favor of all squadrons having 30-70% CAP/Escort settings for CV/CVLs (based on threat).

In case I have a CVEs along, I usually limit their range to keep their CAP in place.


Agree, Allied ships have so much radar by 1944 that they are going to put up extra planes anyways.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 14
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 5:23:11 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
So the more radars the more planes may scramble?? In excess of the amount actually put to Cap and not resting??

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 5:57:52 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I have been schooled by Lokasenna, a far better player than myself, to either go 100% CAP or 0% CAP on each fighter squadron.

The other trick I've been taught is to let CVEs do the CAP job for the most part. Make a second Air TF...


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'm also a convert...



Indeed learn something new after months of playing....

Thank you gentlemen... very very interesting perspective.

Two follow up questions

1) Do you let / force the CVE's to upgrade to Hellcats?

In my first game (PDU Off) many CVE squadrons were restricted to F4Fs or FM1's .. I don't think the CVEs can handle Corsairs.

2) ADVICE : What orders for you alpha stike.. 100% escort ?

Or do you try also to Sweep ? Do you sweep the first day - and rest the bombers ?

I have always had difficulty trying to find the right combo of sweep / then strike from Carrier based task forces..where as from land based it seems so easy...


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 16
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 6:01:50 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
You don't actually set an escort percentage. You just set the squadron to the Escort mission. Any percentages you assign after that subtract from the potential that can fly on escort. Usually, the entire squadron will fly the escort mission, but not always.

I rarely sweep with CVs.

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 17
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 6:14:32 PM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

So the more radars the more planes may scramble?? In excess of the amount actually put to Cap and not resting??



Sort of? Does anyone know how scrambling actually works?

From my observation, it seems to be that if you have a unit of 100 planes set to 30% CAP and 0% rest (so 70% are available to scramble), then here is what happens:

For the first raid, only 1/3 of those set to CAP are in the air. The other 2/3 are on standby. So only 10 planes will begin in the air, but 20 will be on standby and will be launched to meet the raid.

Then, if the raid is of sufficient size (probably compared to CAP size), the other 70 planes can scramble as well. I think this is what you are asking.


For my part, I prefer to have more planes up earlier as at range 0 they do not suffer overmuch from fatigue. I can run 80% CAP at range 0 for days and days at CV strike altitudes (10-20K) and not have fatigue rise about 10 or 12, usually staying under 10. This was argued in a thread some months back and I laid out my reasoning there. It may have been in obvert's LOW ALTITUDE CAP vs. SWEEPS test thread. But basically the summary is this:

(1) Higher percentage on CAP initially -> (2) more planes in the air initially and more on standby instead of scrambling -> (3) better able to intercept incoming raid -> (4) less of your stuff gets hit/damaged -> (5) retaining ability to fly more CAP in PM phase for potential PM strikes

Typically the argument I see tossed against having a higher CAP percentage set is that if you only have 50% up, only 50% can be killed/damaged by the initial strikes (or sweeps, but since we're talking about CV defense here sweeps are irrelevant except when CVEs are CAPping a beachhead). Point #4 above refutes this. I'd rather completely obliterate strikes as they come in than have fighters sitting in my hangars or scrambling to get into the air such that they may not intercept bombers in time.

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 18
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 6:33:25 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
You guys are talking about having a fair bit of carriers. And when you do, then I guess having all or nothing works, since the loss of anyone carrier is small.


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 19
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 8:05:44 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You don't actually set an escort percentage. You just set the squadron to the Escort mission. Any percentages you assign after that subtract from the potential that can fly on escort. Usually, the entire squadron will fly the escort mission, but not always.

I rarely sweep with CVs.


Oops yes... not thinking the question through...

Rarely sweep with CVs ....hmmmm ... no wonder I struggle with it... late war..... hmmmmmmm... more to ponder.

I was very much thinking this is the mechanism; vis a vis the sweeps of 5th Fleet/3rd Fleet both in the prelude and during the Leyte Gulf action.... sweep sweep and then pound the airfields... but I thought perhaps I was being too nervous with my CVs till this thread started to make me think in other ways....

Thanks gents

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 20
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/14/2017 9:13:07 PM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You don't actually set an escort percentage. You just set the squadron to the Escort mission. Any percentages you assign after that subtract from the potential that can fly on escort. Usually, the entire squadron will fly the escort mission, but not always.

I rarely sweep with CVs.


Oops yes... not thinking the question through...

Rarely sweep with CVs ....hmmmm ... no wonder I struggle with it... late war..... hmmmmmmm... more to ponder.

I was very much thinking this is the mechanism; vis a vis the sweeps of 5th Fleet/3rd Fleet both in the prelude and during the Leyte Gulf action.... sweep sweep and then pound the airfields... but I thought perhaps I was being too nervous with my CVs till this thread started to make me think in other ways....

Thanks gents


Mostly because the CV aircraft do not lend themselves well to sweeps. The Corsair is the only one I'll use when expecting decent opposition. The Hellcat is a godawful sweeper.

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 21
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/15/2017 2:53:37 AM   
wtwelder

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 2/20/2011
Status: offline
The suggestions above are very timely because of something that happened recently in my PBEM game and answers part of the question I had about what happened. I'd like to ask what role weather might play in CAP and escort composition.

I had three carrier TFs in a hex with four CVs/CVLs per TF. The fighter groups were set to escort with 50% CAP and were within 1000 ft of the altitude used for the dive and torpedo bombers for a naval strike. In the am turn, a message appeared during the replay indicating that the air groups for one of the three TFs was grounded due to weather and none of the TFs launched a strike against the Japanese side. Neither did the Japanese side launch a strike against the US TFs, though the US TFs were spotted. It seemed likely that weather prevented either side from attacking.

In the pm turn, the replay showed a Japanese strike force attacking the US TFs. What was odd was that at the beginning of the replay the animation showed 0 F4U-1a, 3 F4F and 8 F6F aircraft intercepting the Japanese strike. As the Japanese strike moved in, US forces scrambled until a total of 18 F4U-1a, 30 F4F and 213 F6F arrived (at least that's what the combat summary stated). In addition, the US strike force attacked the Japanese TFs, but no fighters escorted the strike force. I have used the 50% CAP numerous times and it has seemed to allow some fighters to fly CAP and some to escort.

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the low initial CAP strength and lack of escort was possibly influenced by the weather, did I make a mistake of some kind or was this just a random act of bad luck?

Thanks for any thoughts

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 22
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/15/2017 3:35:34 AM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Mostly because the CV aircraft do not lend themselves well to sweeps. The Corsair is the only one I'll use when expecting decent opposition. The Hellcat is a godawful sweeper.


What makes a good sweeper vs a bad sweeper?

_____________________________

Occasionally also known as cf_dallas

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 23
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/15/2017 4:44:13 AM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: homet

The suggestions above are very timely because of something that happened recently in my PBEM game and answers part of the question I had about what happened. I'd like to ask what role weather might play in CAP and escort composition.

I had three carrier TFs in a hex with four CVs/CVLs per TF. The fighter groups were set to escort with 50% CAP and were within 1000 ft of the altitude used for the dive and torpedo bombers for a naval strike. In the am turn, a message appeared during the replay indicating that the air groups for one of the three TFs was grounded due to weather and none of the TFs launched a strike against the Japanese side. Neither did the Japanese side launch a strike against the US TFs, though the US TFs were spotted. It seemed likely that weather prevented either side from attacking.

In the pm turn, the replay showed a Japanese strike force attacking the US TFs. What was odd was that at the beginning of the replay the animation showed 0 F4U-1a, 3 F4F and 8 F6F aircraft intercepting the Japanese strike. As the Japanese strike moved in, US forces scrambled until a total of 18 F4U-1a, 30 F4F and 213 F6F arrived (at least that's what the combat summary stated). In addition, the US strike force attacked the Japanese TFs, but no fighters escorted the strike force. I have used the 50% CAP numerous times and it has seemed to allow some fighters to fly CAP and some to escort.

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the low initial CAP strength and lack of escort was possibly influenced by the weather, did I make a mistake of some kind or was this just a random act of bad luck?

Thanks for any thoughts


The beginning of the animation showing 0, 3, and 8 aircraft is normal. CAP arrives throughout the fight. Look at the text at the bottom to see how many were airborne.

It's possible that no strikes occurred during the AM phase due to DL, but who knows?

It's also possible that your strikes against them during the AM phase didn't fly because of lack of escort against detected CAP levels.

(in reply to wtwelder)
Post #: 24
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/15/2017 4:46:23 AM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Mostly because the CV aircraft do not lend themselves well to sweeps. The Corsair is the only one I'll use when expecting decent opposition. The Hellcat is a godawful sweeper.


What makes a good sweeper vs a bad sweeper?


Primary attribute 1: maximum altitude (and always set to max unless you're trying something funny)
Primary attribute 2: speed (Corsair models are around 400mph, Hellcat is mid-300mph)
Secondary attributes: durability/armor, maneuver, armament, range.

And of course, anticipate which models you'll be facing. If I think Randy-a or Ki-83 will be on CAP, I'm not sweeping with Corsairs. If I think A6M or even A7M, or Tojo/Tony/Oscar, are on CAP, I will sweep with Corsairs.

There's no hard and fast rule. It's all relative. But because of this, you can make some generalizations. For example, I recently scolded someone for continuing to sweep with Tojos. The Tojo is a poor sweeper.

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 25
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/15/2017 12:54:00 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Mostly because the CV aircraft do not lend themselves well to sweeps. The Corsair is the only one I'll use when expecting decent opposition. The Hellcat is a godawful sweeper.


What makes a good sweeper vs a bad sweeper?


Primary attribute 1: maximum altitude (and always set to max unless you're trying something funny)
Primary attribute 2: speed (Corsair models are around 400mph, Hellcat is mid-300mph)
Secondary attributes: durability/armor, maneuver, armament, range.

And of course, anticipate which models you'll be facing. If I think Randy-a or Ki-83 will be on CAP, I'm not sweeping with Corsairs. If I think A6M or even A7M, or Tojo/Tony/Oscar, are on CAP, I will sweep with Corsairs.

There's no hard and fast rule. It's all relative. But because of this, you can make some generalizations. For example, I recently scolded someone for continuing to sweep with Tojos. The Tojo is a poor sweeper.


Thanks! I knew from reading AARs the P38 was a better sweeper than the P40 and cousins, and my play through the Aleutian campaign bore it out. And I'm finding out in the Guadalcanal campaign that the P39 is worthless on a sweep. Now I know why.


_____________________________

Occasionally also known as cf_dallas

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 26
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/15/2017 8:39:14 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

1) Do you let / force the CVE's to upgrade to Hellcats?

In my first game (PDU Off) many CVE squadrons were restricted to F4Fs or FM1's .. I don't think the CVEs can handle Corsairs.



If you are trying to adhere to historical practice, assign Hellcat squadrons to the Sangamon (sp?) class CVEs - they operated Hellcats throughout the war, both in the Pacific and during the invasion of Southern France. However, Hellcats were occasionally operated from the smaller CVEs as well (I believe this was the case during the Tarawa invasion). Marine Corsair squadrons were assigned to the Commencement Bay class CVEs in early 1945. If playing PDU off, follow the USN doctrine of rotating squadrons between carriers and land bases - squadrons were not permanently assigned to particular carriers.

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 27
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/18/2017 11:10:37 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
Grrrrrr....
Thought I had a good addition to the thread, but the damned thing timed out and I have not the patience right now to attempt a re-post. Maybe later.

Edit: Of course this crap posted fine.

< Message edited by rustysi -- 3/18/2017 11:56:25 PM >


_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 28
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/27/2017 8:02:50 AM   
PizzaMan


Posts: 200
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The other trick I've been taught is to let CVEs do the CAP job for the most part. Make a second Air TF, load it with 10-15 CVEs, and put them on 100% CAP at a Follow distance of 0 to the main CV Air TF. You lose speed, but you don't care. It's the 800-pound gorilla situation if you have 10-15 Essexes and 15 CVEs, plus fast BBs and Fletchers. Of course, that's a 1944-45 situation for the most part.


10-15 carriers in a TF? Doesn't that impact the number of CAP that will fly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a morale check with a 50% reduction in CAP numbers if you use more than 4 carriers in a US TF after 1944 (3 in 1943 and 2 in 1942)?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 29
RE: CAP with multiple CV's - 3/27/2017 11:20:43 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The other trick I've been taught is to let CVEs do the CAP job for the most part. Make a second Air TF, load it with 10-15 CVEs, and put them on 100% CAP at a Follow distance of 0 to the main CV Air TF. You lose speed, but you don't care. It's the 800-pound gorilla situation if you have 10-15 Essexes and 15 CVEs, plus fast BBs and Fletchers. Of course, that's a 1944-45 situation for the most part.


10-15 carriers in a TF? Doesn't that impact the number of CAP that will fly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a morale check with a 50% reduction in CAP numbers if you use more than 4 carriers in a US TF after 1944 (3 in 1943 and 2 in 1942)?


"The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in
the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following
circumstances:
»» Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»» Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»» Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the
number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200)."


Strikes, not CAP. And it's a random chance, not a certainty. This has been discussed extensively over the years. Most AFBs happily increase the number of carriers if the trade-off is this rule. There is more defense safety in numbers.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to PizzaMan)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> CAP with multiple CV's Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

1.141