Trouble with attacking CVs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Trouble with attacking CVs

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 >> Trouble with attacking CVs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 12:50:59 AM

samuraigg

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

Hey guys. I recently invaded Guadacanal. Wanting to support my troops, I sent in two CVs and a 3 escort carriers to sit just northeast of the island. Several turns later, a few enemy CVs showed up 4 hexes away from my fleet. Every single one of my dive bombers was set to range of 4, naval attack as their primary mission. Same for my torpedo bombers. Fighters set to escort. The carriers were spotted with my PBYs before the turn. Rather than my carriers sending their bombers to attack the enemy, they sat throughout the entire turn doing nothing. Also, my land based bombers (b17s and b24s) which were set to their maximum range and to Naval attack, did not choose to attack the CVS. Rather, they decided to attack three empty transport ships a couple hexes to the northwest of Lunga. Yay.

By the end of the turn, one my escort carriers was sunk, and several more heavily damaged.

Lunga is a size 5 airfield, has enough aviation support and has an HQ aviation unit present.

Any idea how I got screwed over?

The land based bombers did not have any escort fighters capable of reaching the enemy carriers.. maybe thats why they did not attack them? But that still doesn't explain why my carrier aircraft stood by and refused to strike back against the Japanese fleet.

< Message edited by samuraigg -- 9/25/2004 11:05:47 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 1:06:05 AM

CMDRMCTOAST

Posts: 673
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: Mount Vernon wa..
Status: offline

Your land based bombers probably won't attack unless there avg experiance
is above 70% - 80% and would have joined in if your CV'S attacked, you
may have overcrowded your CV'S, if you added extra Sqdrns and that would cause
your planes to sit out. ( 10% over and they don't fly )

_____________________________

The essence of military genius is to bring under
consideration all of the tendencies of the mind
and soul in combination towards the business of
war..... Karl von Clausewitz

(in reply to samuraigg)

Post #: 2

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 1:11:55 AM

samuraigg

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

Uh oh... overcrowded and they won't fly?

Erm.. I have to go run to Pearl Harbor and dump some extra planes...

(in reply to CMDRMCTOAST)

Post #: 3

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 1:26:27 AM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

Dump them on Lunga?

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to samuraigg)

Post #: 4

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 1:39:48 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

section 14.5, pp 190

It's a page I have trouble finding although I now know it's there

< Message edited by pompack -- 9/25/2004 5:40:20 PM >

(in reply to samuraigg)

Post #: 5

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 2:17:49 AM

Hartley

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/2/2003
Status: offline

B17s won't attack CVs unless they're already crippled, or there is heavy escort.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 6

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 3:31:11 AM

Peter Fisla

Posts: 2503
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

section 14.5, pp 190

It's a page I have trouble finding although I now know it's there

You are right, page 190 at the bottom:

"if the number of aircraft on board exceeds 115% of the ship's capacity, only transfer Missions can be flown. Planes won't make emergency landing (refer to 7.2.2.16) on another Carrier in such a wayas to cause it to exceed 110% of the carriers aircraft capacity"

Damn I learned something new

I have an extra Wildcat squadron on Lexington (they are not even carrier trained) better leave them on Wake I. It look sooo good though as a back up. However I have extra dive bomber squadron on another squadron and they do fly missions...hmmm go figure.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 7

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 3:42:48 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

You can have up to 5 squadrons on a carrier and they will still fly. The fly/no fly check is based solely on the number of a/c on board. Do round down, just to be safe

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Peter Fisla)

Post #: 8

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 4:16:57 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hartley

B17s won't attack CVs unless they're already crippled, or there is heavy escort.

Which is silly, as B-17's were perfectly willing to fly over just about anything at
between 18-25,000 feet slinging bombs into the water and generally making
life exciting for those below while butchering fish and whales. I've never under-
stood this restriction. If they would fly against Kido Butai at Midway, they should
be able to fly anywhere else as well. What they couldn't do was manage to hit
much of anything. This refusal to attack bit should only kick in when a player tries
to get them to bomb from a more effective altitude. And then they should still
attack, while just reporting 18,000 feet as having been 6,000 feet. Save the
high morale/experiance restraint for trying to get them to really bomb from 6,000.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hartley)

Post #: 9

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 7:05:46 AM

CMDRMCTOAST

Posts: 673
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: Mount Vernon wa..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

You can have up to 5 squadrons on a carrier and they will still fly. The fly/no fly check is based solely on the number of a/c on board. Do round down, just to be safe

Ya, I sometimes in the beginning put an extra fighter group on one of the heavies
when the SQDRNS are not at full strength to strengthen the cap but you have to watch
for replacements not getting you over capacity. especially in UV.

_____________________________

The essence of military genius is to bring under
consideration all of the tendencies of the mind
and soul in combination towards the business of
war..... Karl von Clausewitz

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 10

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 10:13:10 AM

Vorsteher

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/1/2000
Status: offline

July 1942 .Why do my carriers attack not on?(Some CA�s in Range) I have a US carrier group with 6 carriers. Per ship, 1000 Op�s to the decree. Commander Halsey.Not overloaded the carriers ! Reaction Range=6

V.

_____________________________

(in reply to CMDRMCTOAST)

Post #: 11

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 12:27:56 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vorsteher

July 1942 .Why do my carriers attack not on?(Some CA�s in Range) I have a US carrier group with 6 carriers. Per ship, 1000 Op�s to the decree. Commander Halsey.Not overloaded the carriers ! Reaction Range=6

V.

Under op points in the TF screen does that read 1000? If it does, then those ships can not launch air strikes or anything. You want the number to read 0.

(in reply to Vorsteher)

Post #: 12

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 1:28:26 PM

Vorsteher

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/1/2000
Status: offline

i test this too. No reaction !

V.

_____________________________

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 13

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 2:04:47 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

What I meant was if you see in the ops column the number 1000, that means the TF can perform no more operstions of any kind.

I need to know if there is the number 1000 or a 0 in the column.

(in reply to Vorsteher)

Post #: 14

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 4:13:48 PM

CMDRMCTOAST

Posts: 673
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: Mount Vernon wa..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vorsteher

July 1942 .Why do my carriers attack not on?(Some CA�s in Range) I have a US carrier group with 6 carriers. Per ship, 1000 Op�s to the decree. Commander Halsey.Not overloaded the carriers ! Reaction Range=6

V.

If you have 6 carriers in one task force this early in the game as allies you
have a penalty I believe, not sure on the details though, better too have
3 carrier task forces of 2 CV'S each and have them follow a surface force.

_____________________________

The essence of military genius is to bring under
consideration all of the tendencies of the mind
and soul in combination towards the business of
war..... Karl von Clausewitz

(in reply to Vorsteher)

Post #: 15

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 5:49:39 PM

GBirkn

Posts: 249
Joined: 5/6/2004
From: the briny deep
Status: offline

I think you're referring to the rules on coordinating airstrikes, CmdrMcToast. Section 7.2.2.11, page 130:

quote:

The coordination of airstrikes 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).

If that's the problem, the planes should still fly, they'll just arrive at the target separately (bombers with no fighter escort and so on) rather than together.

_____________________________

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let's give them all they want." -- Gen. W. T. Sherman

(in reply to CMDRMCTOAST)

Post #: 16

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 6:42:57 PM

SpitfireIX

Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

section 14.5, pp 190

It's a page I have trouble finding although I now know it's there

You are right, page 190 at the bottom:

"if the number of aircraft on board exceeds 115% of the ship's capacity, only transfer Missions can be flown. Planes won't make emergency landing (refer to 7.2.2.16) on another Carrier in such a wayas to cause it to exceed 110% of the carriers aircraft capacity"

Damn I learned something new I have an extra Wildcat squadron on Lexington (they are not even carrier trained) better leave them on Wake I. It look sooo good though as a back up. However I have extra dive bomber squadron on another squadron and they do fly missions...hmmm go figure.

This brings up an interesting point--does the pilot-loss model take into account the situation where there aren't enough operational carriers to accomodate all of the planes returning from a strike, but there is at least one carrier operational? Any excess planes may have to be pushed overboard, but the pilots would be safe aboard the remaining carrier(s).

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Peter Fisla)

Post #: 17

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 7:40:59 PM

Vorsteher

Posts: 251
Joined: 4/1/2000
Status: offline

Trouble to end. Four carriers attack.Six not !

V.

_____________________________

(in reply to SpitfireIX)

Post #: 18

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 7:54:26 PM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

This brings up an interesting point--does the pilot-loss model take into account the situation where there aren't enough operational carriers to accomodate all of the planes returning from a strike, but there is at least one carrier operational? Any excess planes may have to be pushed overboard, but the pilots would be safe aboard the remaining carrier(s).

Groups will attempt to land at their *own* CV.

If their CV is belly up, they will go for a land base if in range.

If there is no land base in range, they will attempt to land on CV's that have space.

If no space, they swim.

(in reply to SpitfireIX)

Post #: 19

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 8:21:11 PM

Wildhack

Posts: 26
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline

I've been meaning to start a post asking if anyone has some tactics they've found useful for CV vs. CV encounters myself (though it sounds like samuraigg's problem may have just been overcrowding).

I'm wary to say even this, but about the only hunches I have so far are:

1.) I seem to have better luck setting my fighter cap to 90% and letting my attack planes fend for themselves (because the counterstrike is always coming, I've never been able to pull off any Midway type stuff against the Japs), and

2.) I seem to do better after making a long fast move toward the enemy carriers to get in range, rather than (in a general sense) having them do that to me.

Anyone else have a suggestion or observation on these battles in WitP?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 20

RE: Trouble with attacking CVs - 9/26/2004 9:19:53 PM

CMDRMCTOAST

Posts: 673
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: Mount Vernon wa..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildhack

I've been meaning to start a post asking if anyone has some tactics they've found useful for CV vs. CV encounters myself (though it sounds like samuraigg's problem may have just been overcrowding).

I'm wary to say even this, but about the only hunches I have so far are:

1.) I seem to have better luck setting my fighter cap to 90% and letting my attack planes fend for themselves (because the counterstrike is always coming, I've never been able to pull off any Midway type stuff against the Japs), and

This option will sometimes protect your carriers at the loss of most of your attack craft
and then you have no teeth.

2.) I seem to do better after making a long fast move toward the enemy carriers to get in range, rather than (in a general sense) having them do that to me.

Choosing when to fight is always better than being suprised.
I will only try to attack Japanese carriers after they have been in combat for several days on end, when I think they lost a good portion of thier capability do to AAA flak, fatiuge and op losses and my carriers are rested and in position to interdict then
and only then I will attack. always make sure you are trained up and at full strength
or you will almost always come up short.
also if you can have a coordinated land based situation with your carriers and the
above holds true you have a great chance at putting to them.
can't give advise on the japanese side.....

Anyone else have a suggestion or observation on these battles in WitP?

_____________________________

The essence of military genius is to bring under
consideration all of the tendencies of the mind
and soul in combination towards the business of
war..... Karl von Clausewitz

(in reply to Wildhack)

Post #: 21

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Trouble with attacking CVs

Page: [1]