Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Early US CV TF #'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 >> Early US CV TF #'s Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Early US CV TF #'s - 12/12/2021 4:55:04 PM   
abulbulian


Posts: 1047
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline 		I'm sure this question has been asked several times. So if you can link me to answers that would be great or just give me your 2cents.

Early on US can have a handful of CVs (4-6) to use for operations. I'm not looking for how to use them but rather the best way to employ them. I can see pro and cons for all 4, 2, or even 1 per TF. The US is lacking BBs but does have enough support ships to flush out 4 CV TFs each with 1 CV. But is that the best way to go? What is the general thought on CVs/CVLs per TF?

Thanks for any advice.

_____________________________

- Beta Tester WitE and ATG
- Alpha/Beta Tester WitW and WitE2

"Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack." - Sun Tzu
Post #: 1
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/12/2021 5:01:14 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		It all depends upon what you want to do with them and any expected threats . . .

But if you are going into harm's way, you had better make sure that you also have a surface task force or two handy.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to abulbulian)
Post #: 2
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/12/2021 5:50:01 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		Remember that the US/Allies suffers a penalty if operating more than a certain number of CV based aircraft (note this is determined by the number of aircraft, NOT the number of aircraft carriers) in a TF. This penalty is lowered as time progresses (meaning the US can operate MORE aircraft later in the war in a single TF). So if you put too many CVs in a TF, you start having problems getting all the aircraft into the air that you want until later in the war. This simulates the lack of CV coordination practiced in the USN early in the war, NOT something the Japanese had a problem with in 1941 (witness Pearl Harbor!).

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 3
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/12/2021 6:24:18 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		I’ve posted on this before but I can’t find the thread.

I would say that in early war 1942/early43 you don’t ever want to go with a one carrier task force.
That can be a real bad mistake.

However there is something called the “single CV task force tactic” which I first saw explained in
A post by Joe Wilkerson in 2011. I’ll provide a link to it at the end of this post.

I’ve never tried that tactic because I focus on defense as the Allies in 1942 and I don’t like the idea
of dancing with the skilled pilots of the full KB. It gives me the shakes. I have used multiple task forces
in the same hex with good success; just never one CV per task force.

In my opinion here is the best single thread on this subject:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3939691
(Note post #2) and very good advice on AA and BB’s in the thread as well.
Note the posts by crsutton he is/was a very good player and gives good advice.

For me the question about how many carriers should be in an Allied task force is not mainly about
the coordination penalty. As stated in the thread it is not really a penalty just the chance of
A penalty. I agree it is not a real big deal. The word “penalty” seems to scare some players.
The computer makes a random die roll for a percentage chance of penalty.

A configuration which might be good in one situation may not work well in another.
There are a large number number of factors involved other than coordination.

Weather, Task force leader, detection level, pilot experience, Air group set up, Search settings,
Plane types, Cap percentage, Task force total AA, Reaction settings, Air group leadership, etc…

You need to evaluate your situation, the enemy, and the year you are in.
I agree with Bullwinkle that in 1942 your main concern is defense not offense.
I’m willing to send all my carriers through the Panama Canal to safety if I’m up
against a tough opponent. There is not anything I need to capture in 1942 that is
worth the loss of my carrier forces.

If I go out, I don’t worry so much about offensive coordination I just don’t stick my neck out unnecessarily
and reducing cap in 1942 by using just one CV can be fatal as noted in post #11.

As the Allies if you lose your carriers in 1942 you are at the total mercy of the Japanese.

Another major factor for me is the size of the task force footprint.
The more ships you have in a task force the greater the chance of detection.
Also the chance that if the enemy gets that good detection he may get a more
accurate spotting report on your task force composition.

This can be good or bad depending on the situation because it can be a major factor
In whether he will accept combat in a PBEM game. Fog of war ever present.

In other words, if he sees multiple carriers in your task force he may decline combat and run away.
(This factor more important after you start getting the Essex class carriers in 1943)

But in 1942/early 43 he may also come after you in a big way depending on the situation.
He could win big and sink multiple Allied carriers.

1942 is a critical year for the Allies. Going with one CV per task force can be fatal.
Going with multiple CV’s in a task force can also be fatal in a much larger way.

It could be bad or it could be really bad…...Welcome to the Pacific War.

The “single CV task force tactic”:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2809164
Be sure to read the entire thread.



< Message edited by Trugrit -- 12/12/2021 6:32:30 PM >

(in reply to abulbulian)
Post #: 4
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/12/2021 6:37:30 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Against the computer, you can take a chance against going against the Japanese carriers since they don't seem come at you with more than three large ones. It is even better if you have land based air which can attrition the enemy carrier air wings first, then have multiple small SCTF with low aggression settings attack during the night with some larger SCTFs with the larger CAs and CLs with higher agression setting to punish the already attacked and possibly depleted enemy TFs. Then the Land Based Air (LBA) and the carrier air wings attack.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 5
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/12/2021 9:28:54 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		Short version:

I put two US CVs in a TF - there is an 80% chance of suffering the increase in the chance of non-coordination in 1942, but a 1 carrier strike group (which is not usually all available airframes) is not big enough. The alternative is to have single CV TFs following the leader, hoping co-ordination puts different TF's aircraft over the target together. Don't forget that all the usual factors relevant to co-ordination of strikes coming from different bases apply, except for HQ command chains (they are independent). Hint - put everything at 12,000 ft, including the torpedo carriers.

Then I start adding CVLs in as they become available - 1 CV, with 1 or 2 CVL,s in 1943 puts you on the airframe threshold.

In 1944 it is 2 CVs, 2 CVLs. With 250 aircraft it's only a 25% chance of attracting the increase.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 6
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/13/2021 12:46:42 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		Here is an example of about "as good as it gets" coordination in 1942, with a two-carrier USN TF. That is almost a 100% strike package (?? with 5/72 SBDs and 1/18 TBF unavailable). Even the escorts (36 airframes each, on 60% CAP/40% escort) have maxed. You don't get this very often, though, there are too many checks/die rolls in the way.

quote:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Jarvis Island at 166,141

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 14
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14
SBD-3 Dauntless x 67
TBD-1 Devastator x 18
TBF-1 Avenger x 17

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Kashima, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Yamagumo, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
CL Kinu, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Shirakumo, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
18 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
17 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
5 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CL Kinu
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Yamagumo
Magazine explodes on DD Shirakumo
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring a Japanese CL
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Shirakumo


_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 7
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/15/2021 4:31:24 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Japan has limit of 200 planes , I think it says in the manual - I assume after the fixed Dec 7th attack hard coded in some way?

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 8
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/15/2021 4:32:04 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Japan has limit of 200 planes , I think it says in the manual - I assume after the fixed Dec 7th attack hard coded in some way?

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 9
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/15/2021 4:32:44 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Japan has limit of 200 planes , I think it says in the manual - I assume after the fixed Dec 7th attack hard coded in some way?

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 10
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/15/2021 4:53:35 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		From the manual we get this

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).

What it doesn't talk about is what is the original chance of uncoordination.

TBH I have never worried about it.
To me it seems that a TF Commander with a good air rating and having well rated commanders
for each air unit seems to work fine for me. I do get an occasional Alpha strike with one or two smaller follow on strikes, but I have not been hurt by that.

I have had 6 CVs with 4 CVLS in a USN ACTF and have launched a single alpha strike.
It did so over three days, launching 5 separate attacks, all single alpha strikes.
It launched 3 morning attacks and 2 afternoon attacks, sinking all ships in range.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 12/15/2021 4:57:17 PM >

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 11
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/15/2021 4:58:57 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Agree - With Japan I usually have over 200 planes and rarely see an issue. For the allies its tedious because 1943 rules still mean you still cannot have two big CV in the same TF. I usually ignore this as well usually as lack escorts.

The chances of the un cordinated strike see to be more determind by the leaders in the first place and maybe weather??

< Message edited by Cavalry Corp -- 12/15/2021 5:02:02 PM >

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 12
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/16/2021 3:32:37 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cavalry Corp

Japan has limit of 200 planes , I think it says in the manual - I assume after the fixed Dec 7th attack hard coded in some way?


The threshold # is 200 + Rnd 200 - so with 400+ planes that's an automatic increased chance. Then again, I recall reading here that something was done to code PH so that the usual rules about port attacks (not, or mostly not)using torpedoes don't apply.



_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 13
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/16/2021 5:36:21 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		In addition to other factors you must consider, the aircraft types and pilot quality the Allies have to work with in 1942 are big ones. Because the Allies must be mostly defensive and the Devastator TBs are mostly ineffective, many players sent the TBs to a base and take on more fighters. Look at the fighter characteristics carefully. The F4F-3 is not too bad but the F4F-3A has worse stats (I think it carries a heavy camera) so it should not be relied on. When the F4F-4 comes out, convert to that as fast as airframes become available.

Most of the Air Group leaders are very good, but if you are bringing on Marine fighter squadrons, check the leaders.

Also, when the first Corsair group shows up (F4U-1 IIRC), do not be too eager to take it on a carrier. It has no tail hook so it is not carrier capable.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 14
RE: Early US CV TF #'s - 12/16/2021 8:58:55 AM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Thanks for these interesting posts esp about the 400 planes!

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Early US CV TF #'s 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

1.172