RE: CV battles

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: CV battles

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 >> RE: CV battles

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 2:29:25 PM

Rendova

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

I think there should be a really good chance of them lunching but why is it AUTOMATIC? For crying out loud if you launch the first strike and there is carrier force 1 hex away there is a chance your planes will fly 3 hexes the other way and wipe out an 3 AP 1 AK supply convoy, so why shouldn't there be a chance that the counter strike will go after 2 PT boats? Also I heard it mentioned that this is the case in UV? It isn't because I have had my carriers hit an enemy carrier force and the enemy a/c launched an attack on my replenishment TF never hitting my CV's. Which I didn't mind, but I don't think my AO crew was real happy about it.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 301

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 3:17:50 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

To answer the original question of this thread.............take Hawaii and everything west of that, take Darwin and everything north of that.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Rendova)

Post #: 302

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 6:43:44 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In all of WW2 there were no cases of CV launching a strike against enemy CV where that enemy did not launch a strike in return.

Technically, the Philippine Sea might qualify. The Japanese launched all the strikes
one the first day---the US just defended. Then on the second day the US launched
the only strikes (Japs had nothing left to strike with).

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 303

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 6:46:08 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I also hope that the LR CAP mission will be eliminated from the options for CV based a/c. It has no historical precedent.

Not sure about this comment. Where did the fighter cover over initial Guadalcanal/Tulagi landings come from? I don't think an all or nothing LR CAP is very accurate, however. Can't find any precedent where CAP over CVs sacrificed for LR CAP missions. Only a small percentage were ever used as CVs were more valuable.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 304

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 6:49:54 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

In the WITP present model assigning a CV fighter group to LRCAP in the same hex as the TF will allow a percentage of the group to protect targets 2 hexes away. So you place the CV 120 miles from Lunga with this setting and both the CV and Lunga have CAP. Since the number of fighters that will engage is higher the closer to take off base the CV will have the majority.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 305

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 7:44:51 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Hi, In all of WW2 there were no cases of CV launching a strike against enemy CV where that enemy did not launch a strike in return.

Errr... well, there was Midway. Three IJN CVs sunk before they could launch a counterstrike against Yorktown.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 306

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 7:47:45 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

I thought Yorktown was attacked twice? Were both attacks from Hiryu?

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 307

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 7:47:51 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, In WITP terms the 3 IJN CV had already launched an AM strike. The surviving CV launched a PM strike.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 308

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 7:50:24 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Uh yeah, but it wasn't a counterstrike against the US fleet. It was a mission against Midway. In UV terms's that'd be Airfield Attack.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 309

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 7:50:32 PM

Becket

Posts: 1269
Joined: 3/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I also hope that the LR CAP mission will be eliminated from the options for CV based a/c. It has no historical precedent.

Not sure about this comment. Where did the fighter cover over initial Guadalcanal/Tulagi landings come from? I don't think an all or nothing LR CAP is very accurate, however. Can't find any precedent where CAP over CVs sacrificed for LR CAP missions. Only a small percentage were ever used as CVs were more valuable.

You are correct. In "Guadalcanal", Frank details at least one LRCAP mission by the US -- Fletcher's task force on Aug. 7, 1942, covering the landings. He also refers to IJN use of carrier aircraft to cover landings in November (particularly, the miserable failure of Junyo's LR CAP missions, when Enterprise & Cactus planes devastated incoming transports).

< Message edited by Becket -- 4/1/2004 5:49:18 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 310

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 7:51:47 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Ok I'll withdraw the objection to LR CAP.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Becket)

Post #: 311

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 7:56:37 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Uh yeah, but it wasn't a counterstrike against the US fleet. It was a mission against Midway. In UV terms's that'd be Airfield Attack.

Hi, Yes but the fact they had already flown a strike would prevent their launching a counter strike before the PM phase. In fact they were launching when attacked but UV/WITP limits airgroups to 1 AM and 1 PM (depending on setting) mission. The USN strike was an AM launch. So in WITP terms the IJN would have launched a counter strike if they had not been set to airfield attack and already flown. There is no way to actually duplicate Midway verbatim in WITP because in WITP the IJN strike would still be in the air when the CV were hit by the USN strike.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 312

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 8:02:27 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

So, if a CV TF (all it TF A) is undetected and launches an airstrike against another CV TF (call it TF B), the targeted TFB automatically detects TFA and launches a strike against TFA?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 313

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 8:05:48 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Pretty much (provided of course it is set to naval attack)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/1/2004 1:04:50 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 314

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 8:08:08 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Ok I'll withdraw the objection to LR CAP.

That was uncharacteristically easy. What gives?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 315

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 8:10:40 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

It's player neutral. Like the CV autostrike feature when CVs are set to naval attack. And there's historical precedent. I'm sure it will get used more in WitP since it gets used more in UV, than was historical practice, but I'm not sure it changes anything much.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 4/1/2004 6:09:31 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 316

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 8:22:41 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Can you imagine the feedback from players who had scouts out but were still subjected to "undected" strikes and had no counterstrike.
I think the game raises the detection level of a TF that launches a strike to where it is detected and the 2 strikes are assumed to both be in the air prior to the first arriving. There are no perfect solutions other then making UV/WITP 10 minute turns where the players exercise tactical control of TF's. Given the 6 hour nature of airphase (am and then pm)
Also I think both air phases occur after all movement has been executed.
In a more perfect system there would be am ship movement and pm ship movement. (I might be wrong but it appears to me after many hours of playing that ships move at night and then move again before the first air phase but not before the 2nd air phase. This is what allows TF's to close to a target bombard and then be out of range of air attack (to all but long range aircraft)
Aircombat TF's will do some reaction if an enemy aircombat TF is detected. A aircombat TF that is subject to attack from enemy TF that is currently out of range will attempt to close the range and launch before they are attacked. Many players complain about this but they fail to realize that without such reaction they would under go an attack without launching a counter strike. The real complaint is when CV that are damaged beyond flight ops abilty and are located at a base with CAP react out from under the protection and still do not launch a counter strike. Prehaps CV unable to conduct air ops should remain in friendly base and if already in open sea "react" away from the enemy. (hopefully getting beyond strike range)

There will always be items that bother players. CV actions being among those considered critical to the resolution of the war need special consideration.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/1/2004 1:22:10 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 317

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 8:33:58 PM

Rendova

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

If the carrier gets struck first then launches a couterstike does it do so at a reduced rate (ie if a carrier has flood 51% in the initial strike does it launch a/c in the couter strike) when is the counterstrike considered to be launched? because if if is after the ships have taken damage, then its still like you got in one free shot get get hit by a lesser blow.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 318

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 8:42:33 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rendova

If the carrier gets struck first then launches a couterstike does it do so at a reduced rate (ie if a carrier has flood 51% in the initial strike does it launch a/c in the couter strike) when is the counterstrike considered to be launched? because if if is after the ships have taken damage, then its still like you got in one free shot get get hit by a lesser blow.

There is really no such thing as a first strike ... CV's launch search, then launch attacks ... the aircraft are in the air when the opposing strikes hit. You might find yourself having nowhere to land when returning from your strike, but you will get to fly. The afternoon phase will obviously take into account the results of the morning strikes.

I can see where you are heading with this ... a surprise strike as such where the enemy still has all his planes on the deck. Because of the sighting rule that causes CV's launching a strike to be +1, the detection level is will always be at least 1 and barring weather, planes will fly.

(I don't particularly agree with the sighting rule personally but that is the way is has been since UV 1.0, if you are too cheap to fly planes to search, you should be subject to a unannounced strike)

(in reply to Rendova)

Post #: 319

RE: Midway - 4/1/2004 8:43:58 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi All strikes (air missions) in a phase (am or pm) are considered to be in the air at the same time.
If TFA launches a strike at TFB TFB launches one at TFA and the strikes are both in the air. Damage to a CV would be in effect before the next air phase and could prevent launch of another strike (You would be able to predict this because it would also be unable to recover aircraft from the first strike and they would redirect to another CV/airfield or crash)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Rendova)

Post #: 320

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 8:50:33 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Not to rehash an already over discussed topic. BUT as to the question whether it was possible for a surface bombardment force to get within strikeing distance of an atoll base without being detected and or attacked.

Aparently yes. Halsey did it a Wotje, Taroa, and Wake. In all three cases the Bombardment TF split off from the CV TF and reached their target under the cover of darkness. The first two bombardments took place imediately after an initial dawn air attacks. At Wake the bombardment took place prior to the air attack 10 minutes after dawn.

Now before you say anything Mdiehl, I am aware that your initial contention was that a surface bombardment alone could not supress an airbase for long. To which I mostly agree. BUT correct me if I am wrong. You furhter asserted that it would be impossible for a surface force to get within striking range to make a night run to bombard an atoll in the first place.

To support your case though. It appears none of the bases were totally shut down since both the surface and CV TF were subjected to air counterattacks. However it is not clear whether these air strikes were launched prior or after the bombardments. Regardless the counter strikes were insignificant causeing only minor damage.

Regards

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 321

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 8:57:40 PM

Rendova

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

Ok so not only to you get to find out were the enemy CV's are but you get to find out BEFORE ANY contact with him is made only because HE has seen you.... ummm ok

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 322

Wake - 4/1/2004 8:58:16 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Wake became a Naval target range. No USN TF passed by without bombarding the place or if it had a CV making an airstrike. I don't think the Japanese ever hit a USN ship in return.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 323

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 9:01:17 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

It is a function of speed balanced against the search aircraft employed. I suspect it is probably easier for Japan then the USA due mainly to the short legs of the PBY.

If you time the arrival to be in range of the search airacraft only during the dark hours and be well on your wany out before the sun comes up, you probably have a good chance of getting away with it. Planes don't just instantly pop out from the base and start searching at maximum range. It takes time to get there during the time that you are steaming away. It seems a much simpler scenario when it is an island where the direction of the attack can be from more then one axis, bluring the direction the search needs to be in...

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 324

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 9:07:23 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rendova

Ok so not only to you get to find out were the enemy CV's are but you get to find out BEFORE ANY contact with him is made only because HE has seen you.... ummm ok

Hi, I consider the result to be most important. No CV versus CV strike was ever launched that did not produce a counter strike. Now there will still be cases where one side pounds the other because a player has set the airgroups to missions other then naval strike.
However unlike historic Midway in WITP the IJN CV would not have the morning airfield strike on board when the USN strike arrived. (all am strikes are in the air together and all land during the recover aircraft phase.) It's not perfect but we are using a machine and things have to have a set order. People tend to over analyze how the program works and what choice of phrases are used during combat reporting. WITP is an operational level game not a tactical combat game. It is important that the program preform as intended but for me I don't worry about how many BB are hit by torpedos during the PH strike only that a reasonably correct number of BB are damaged to reasonably correct levels with the Japanese strike losing close to historical numbers. WITP does this so I do
not stay awake at night trying to figure out how to sneak up undetected on enemy TF of 6 CV and get in a suprise strike. (Ok leave 6 CV in a port where I can see them and see what happens. But to do this I would need to change my airgroups from Naval Attack to Port Attack.........)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/1/2004 2:06:15 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Rendova)

Post #: 325

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 9:35:08 PM

Rendova

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rendova

Ok so not only to you get to find out were the enemy CV's are but you get to find out BEFORE ANY contact with him is made only because HE has seen you.... ummm ok

Hi, I consider the result to be most important. No CV versus CV strike was ever launched that did not produce a counter strike. Now there will still be cases where one side pounds the other because a player has set the airgroups to missions other then naval strike.
However unlike historic Midway in WITP the IJN CV would not have the morning airfield strike on board when the USN strike arrived. (all am strikes are in the air together and all land during the recover aircraft phase.) It's not perfect but we are using a machine and things have to have a set order. People tend to over analyze how the program works and what choice of phrases are used during combat reporting. WITP is an operational level game not a tactical combat game. It is important that the program preform as intended but for me I don't worry about how many BB are hit by torpedos during the PH strike only that a reasonably correct number of BB are damaged to reasonably correct levels with the Japanese strike losing close to historical numbers. WITP does this so I do
not stay awake at night trying to figure out how to sneak up undetected on enemy TF of 6 CV and get in a suprise strike. (Ok leave 6 CV in a port where I can see them and see what happens. But to do this I would need to change my airgroups from Naval Attack to Port Attack.........)

I understand its a compromise I do really do understand how hard it must be to write code for all these situations, but my only real concern is this..In reality the strike force had to be reduced a bit because some of the attack planes were used at search aircraft, you never really could launch 36 SBD and 15 TBD at once because some of these aircraft were used as scouts, so the tatic that I will take away from this is to leave Naval search settings to 0 for all my SBD's I'll let him find me with 25% of his Vals then I'll pound him with 100% of my SBD's while I only have to fend off 75% of his Vals (plus of coruse any A6M that tag along). That was my concern, you actually get rewarded for not searching because you get a larger strike force.

Thanks again for all the explainations you give ever one here

< Message edited by Rendova -- 4/1/2004 5:00:46 PM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 326

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 9:40:01 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Halsey did it a Wotje, Taroa, and Wake.

There were no aircraft on these islands when the USN TFS subjected them to bombardment, so the observation does not apply to the question at hand.

quote:

I suspect it is probably easier for Japan then the USA due mainly to the short legs of the PBY.

What "short legs?"

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 4/1/2004 7:39:30 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Rendova)

Post #: 327

RE: CV battles - 4/1/2004 11:53:00 PM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rendova
so the tatic that I will take away from this is to leave Naval seatch settings to 0 for all my SBD's I'll let him find me with 25% of his Vals then I'll pound him with 100% of my SBD's while I only have to fend off 75% of his Vals

Of course, you would miss all the non-CV task forces out there if you did that.

(in reply to Rendova)

Post #: 328

RE: CV battles - 4/2/2004 12:01:12 AM

Rendova

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rendova
so the tatic that I will take away from this is to leave Naval seatch settings to 0 for all my SBD's I'll let him find me with 25% of his Vals then I'll pound him with 100% of my SBD's while I only have to fend off 75% of his Vals

Of course, you would miss all the non-CV task forces out there if you did that.

True I would and I would have consider that... but I know/think a CV TF is out there I am not going to go look for it

(in reply to Damien Thorn)

Post #: 329

RE: CV battles - 4/2/2004 12:49:32 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Halsey did it a Wotje, Taroa, and Wake.

There were no aircraft on these islands when the USN TFS subjected them to bombardment, so the observation does not apply to the question at hand.

Actually, there were aircraft on these islands. The USS Chester was attacked by at least 9 twin engine bombers. It recieved several near misses and one bomb hit on the well deck near the port catepult.

The Enterprise was also counter attacked by aircraft. One bomb missed by 30 feet on the port, damaging fuel lines and starting a minor fire.

The main point is however the USN had no good idea what the stength was on these atolls. They in fact expected them to be quite heavely defended. Yet it didnt deter them from planning an air-attack/surface-bombardment combo.

< Message edited by TIMJOT -- 4/1/2004 10:53:02 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 330