Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942?

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 >> The War Room >> Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:14:00 AM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

Oh well, I admit at them moment I'm a bit perplexed. I'm playing Allies against Japan (Mogami).

Situation on March 29: 2 Allied Carriers receive complete surprise on KB (5 CV and 1 CVL) near Noumea (range 2 hexes, within torpedo bomber range).
Result: Allied carriers sunk and Japanese carriers barely hurt.

This can't be realistic?

Or if it is, in my 2 games as Japan should I just send KB in within Allied LBA as an invincible death star and sink what I like?

Sorry, a bit digrunteled right now. I did everything right and still lost. Shouldn't happen in my book.

Post #: 1

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:39:08 AM

mogami

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

Hi, You keep saying you had complete surprise. Why do you think that? In the replay the IJN spots the USN CV in the same morning search phase the USN CV spot the IJN CV.
Then the USN fights a battle between less then 270 USN aircraft and 380 Japanese aircraft.
56 A6M2 on CAP 26 F4F-4 on CAP 50 A6M2 on Escort and 14 F4F-4 on escort. (Shokaku's A6M2 group was on training 0 percent resting after providing LCAP the day before or another 24 A6M2 would have taken part in battle. On the bright side I have a rested group for the 29th) (the battle was on the 28th)
The USN scores hits on 3 IJN CV and 1 CVL.
Just what did you expect?

Screen shot of search phase. You will note the IJN finds the USN CV before the USN spots the IJN (the IJN TF is several hexes southeast of USN)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 10/9/2004 4:47:11 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 2

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:46:03 AM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

quote:

Just what did you expect?

Well I don't expect you to be impartial here.

Surprise = having tracked your carriers for a week. Within range of my LBA. My aircraft launch first. In fact the setup for this battle was just like Midway.

"Normal" results for a battle like this? I'd expect your carriers to take some serious damage when they get hit first. Oh well. Right now I'm more interested in knowing if we will see these kinds of results in all the games so that I can adapt my playing to it (i.e. don't bother to fight carrier battles until 1943 = very unhistorical).

Basically the game gives NO bonus to the Allies for intel, which was decisive at Midway.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 3

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:50:10 AM

mogami

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

Hi, Both groups launch their strikes at the same time. It just happened that yours were resolved first. There was no surprise. You were spotted in the morning search phase. Actually before you spotted the IJN TF. (You didn't know what hex it would be in or even if it would be in range. At Midway the USN knew exactly where to wait.)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 4

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:53:26 AM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

quote:

At Midway the USN knew exactly where to wait

Which was possible in reality but is not ingame. My argument is that this was as close to a Midway setup as one can get. I just expect to do better.

Let's hear what other people think.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 5

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:55:59 AM

mogami

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

Hi, You have already in this game had a battle where 1 USN CV took on 1 CV and 2 CVL and sank them all for minor damage in return.
As a result of this most recent battle 3 CV and 1 CVL are on fire. (we all know what that means to IJN ships) They are near the point of losing flight ops. And 1000 miles from port.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 10/9/2004 4:59:00 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 6

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 12:12:08 PM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

quote:

where 1 USN CV took on 1 CV and 2 CVL and sank them all for minor damage

You forgot to put up cap.

And it was 2 US CVs.

Anyway, the battle is over. The question now is:

Is it worth it to fight carrier battles for the US in 1942? Can you achieve decent results?

< Message edited by sveint -- 10/9/2004 12:27:37 AM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 7

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 12:21:44 PM

mogami

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

Hi, I didn't forget to put CAP up. I was resting 1 of the 3 fighter groups (just like this last battle) It just happened to be the largest group. There was still CAp over the TF and the strike was escorted. I just didn't do any damage.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 8

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 5:21:39 PM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

Is it worth it to fight carrier battles for the US in 1942? Can you achieve decent results?

I'd say you went looking for trouble, and you found it. You've had two CV battles. The net result is Japan 1CV 2CVL sunk, 3CV 1 CVL out of action to USN 2CV sunk 2CV slightly damaged (the same ones that later sank or others?) I'd say USN comes out ahead overall, but only you can say whether you consider the result to have been worthwhile (seems like you don't). And taking on 5 carriers with 2, well, I have to agree, what did you expect? Compare the two battles and I think you will find the proper lesson: jump on IJN secondary carrier groups where ever you find them, approach primary carrier groups at your peril.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 9

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 5:22:17 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

wel if you are sinking his cv's yes, in my pbem game the fow really is screwing with me as I thought I sunk or cripple five carriers, only to find them dropping tons on my three remaining carriers costing me 8 months of offensive punch, it is ealrly June 42./ So I damaged some of his carriers, and maybe sunk 2, one confirmed. Lost three, which in itself is ok but early in the game he caught Enterprixe, nasty Zeta16... and dropped 36 bombs on her!!!

So in my opinion if you can trade carrier for carrier and especially if it is nowhere near land his planes and pilots die, not near land like my case, then by all means attack.

Disclaimer, watch out for his lba, and support your carriers with the best aa ships available.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 10

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 8:18:55 PM

Mike Scholl

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

SVEINT. The game does, for whatever reason, seem to have a built-in bias in favor of the
Japanese in the early going. This doesn't mean the US can't win a carrier fight..., but it does
mean that in what you might consider an "even" matchup, you will lose 75-80% of the time.
It seems to die down in the second half of 1942, expecially after TBF's become available.
So if you question was is it better to keep the US CV's out of harms way until the 2nd half
of 1942, then the answer is probably yes unless you're really feeling lucky. On the other
hand, Kido Butai can't be everywhere so your CV's are an asset you don't want to waste.
Just don't hang your hopes on getting a Midway, or even a Coral Sea result in the early
going. You will be dissappointed (and CV-less) more often than not.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 11

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 10:42:50 PM

mogami

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

Hi, Dadman has also won a CV battle early in war. It was against 2 IJN CVL but they launched a strike that did no damage.
It is not just a Japanese bias. When the USN fights a IJN force that is larger during the period the A6m2 still has it's combat bonus the Japanese have an advantage that is known to the Allied player before he commits to the battle.
However under any circumstance in any period of the war the force that has a 100+ aircraft advantage should inflict more damage. Early in the war the torpedo groups on Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu far outclass USN torpedo groups. (better aircraft, torpedo and there are more of them compared to USN torpedo planes on even number of CV. 4xIJN CV=70 torpedo planes 4xUSN CV=60 torpedo planes. The USN divebombers inflict more damage then the Val. And IJN CV are more prone to fire damage then USN CV.
Allied players should keep carefull track of Japanese B5N loss before commiting to carrier battles. In the last battle the Japanese had 103xB5N (all trained pilots) A full force of IJN CV/CVL in this period where no loss had occured to either side would produce a battle where the USN had 75xtorpedo planes against 180xB5N. So before you fight you have to figure the USN damage will be inflicted by 1000lb bombs while the Japanese will score many torpedo hits. After the improved USN torpedo plane is on hand this changes but the USN will still score more bomb hits then torpedo hits. The USN gains a fighter ratio advantage as time passess. (I don't think the USN wants to go 1 on 1 before they have full size F4F-4 groups)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 12

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 10:59:04 PM

erstad

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

Note too that even if the setup was "just like Midway" one should not expect the results each time to be "just like Midway." The US got a number of lucky breaks at Midway. If the same battle was fought within the game system, the system isn't necessarily broken or biased because you don't get the historical result. Sometimes the Allies would win, and sometimes they'll get pasted.

< Message edited by erstad -- 10/10/2004 2:58:09 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 13

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:20:04 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

This was, obviously, not "just like Midway." Sveint, you're lucky to get away with your cojones still attached to your body.

The first half of 1942 is not a good time to be seeking combat with Japanese carriers. One of your biggest problems is lack of an effective torpedo bomber. A second is the short range of your shipborne search aircraft. A third is the limited number of fighter aircraft in your carrier airgroup "mix." A fourth is that your carrier fighters are not as good as the initial Japanese fighters, either in terms of equipment or pilot experience (there has been a huge amount of argument about whether this is historical, but, the fact remains, that's how it is in the game).

There are just too many disabilities, but all is not lost. As many players have learned on both sides (myself included), the Japanese carrier forces are extremely brittle. Any inroad, even the sinking of a small CVL like Shoho, is significant. If you can get yourself into battles where you can bring superior numbers to bear, you have a good chance of starting to tip the balance early. A Japanese player who gets even a minor bloody nose is very reluctant to continue aggressive offensive operations. This is why Coral Sea was such an important "victory" for the Allies historically. It was the left jab that set up the Midway roundhouse.

All the talk on these forums about how nearly impossible (or nearly so) it is (or ought to be) to recreate a Midway victory in mid-1942 is nothing to the point. As the Allies, you must seize opportunities presented by IJN miscalculations, much as what happened historically at Coral Sea, in order to "chip away" and work toward favorable attrition. KB can't be everywhere at once. Hit 'em where they ain't. Once you have whittled the Japanese naval air arm down (not just ships, but pilot losses, as well), you can begin thinking more offensively - but do not throw away what small advantages you have earned. Build on small successes in order to bring about big ones. This is very historical, and it is to the credit of the game design that it is so.

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 14

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:24:47 PM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

(crap board ate my post, this is a short repost)

I've decided what I did wrong: only use 2 US CVs (historical).

I need to use 4 CVs or more at once.

PS: Did not expect a Midway, but did expect to land more than one bomb in each of his carrier (those that were hit).

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 15

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:27:13 PM

grraven2004

Posts: 273
Joined: 3/4/2004
From: Cuyahoga Falls OH
Status: offline

I would think that you would be foolish to risk only 2 CV's vs 5 fleet CV's. Now I do know that trading CV's one for one will eventually work in the Allies favor because of the many Essex class that will be available late war. You have to weigh the risks. Is sinking 1-2 IJN flattops going to slow him down? Are you going to be able to punish troop transports without CV's? Those are tough questions that need to be asked before doing something like that. Also Midway had 3 US vs 4 IJN. NOT 5 and a half vs 2. Just my $.02 worth.

_____________________________

Human by birth

Klingon By choice!

Sig changed per Erik's request

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 16

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/9/2004 11:40:59 PM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

(crap board ate my post, this is a short repost)

I've decided what I did wrong: only use 2 US CVs (historical).

I need to use 4 CVs or more at once.

PS: Did not expect a Midway, but did expect to land more than one bomb in each of his carrier (those that were hit).

I would be interested in knowing ( if possible ) exactly how many of the Strike SBD`s you lost to Fighters and how many to Flak, and how many were left and actually got through and bombed the CV`s. ( as opposed to other ships in his TF )

At that point there could be a reasoned debate about the CV vs CV combat model in the early Game.

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 17

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 12:26:41 AM

mogami

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

Hi, All the CV have returned to port. Damage was 50 percent higher then first inflicted because of fires buring for several days. The 3 CV have system damage from 30 to 50.
Shoho has not yet made it back to port and continues to burn. Damage already over 50.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Black Cat)

Post #: 18

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 4:04:25 AM

WiTP_Dude

Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

You got hammered pretty bad. They will need a few months of work.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 19

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 5:32:59 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

...[In fact the setup for this battle was just like Midway.]

You were on the short end of at least 2:1 odds.

At Midway, Japan's first strike went to the island. In your battle, it went after you. Midway's LBA was also harassing the IJN carriers.

Were you seriously expecting to win a 5 on 2? Spotted or not, that's suicide. A TF can be tracked all you want for 3 weeks; all that matters is if you spot it the day of the battle.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 20

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 5:37:15 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Dadman has also won a CV battle early in war. It was against 2 IJN CVL but they launched a strike that did no damage.
It is not just a Japanese bias. When the USN fights a IJN force that is larger during the period the A6m2 still has it's combat bonus the Japanese have an advantage that is known to the Allied player before he commits to the battle...

I attacked with 2 CVs vs his 2 CVL, just about 2 on 1. He knew his CVLs were toast, but the gamble on my part was whether or not his B5N Kates would hit my CVs or not. Thankfully, they were shredded by CAP and AA fire (both his CVLs launched full strikes.)

It didn't matter if I was spotted or not, because I think he knew I was coming, what matters is that he spotted me that day on my approach.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 21

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 5:40:53 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Is it worth it to fight carrier battles for the US in 1942? Can you achieve decent results?

I'd say you went looking for trouble, and you found it. You've had two CV battles. The net result is Japan 1CV 2CVL sunk, 3CV 1 CVL out of action to USN 2CV sunk 2CV slightly damaged (the same ones that later sank or others?) I'd say USN comes out ahead overall, but only you can say whether you consider the result to have been worthwhile (seems like you don't). And taking on 5 carriers with 2, well, I have to agree, what did you expect? Compare the two battles and I think you will find the proper lesson: jump on IJN secondary carrier groups where ever you find them, approach primary carrier groups at your peril.

Holy Crap! Were I in Mogami's shoes, I'd be crying hard! But I'm not, and Mog's a trouper... When he plays me, he could lose his entire Navy and still kill me in the end. That's what love about playing him.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 22

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 6:32:28 AM

Jon_Hal

Posts: 95
Joined: 2/23/2004
Status: offline

I've got to say against he AI I've had Midway type results happen both ways to me. Against Humans I've only managed to have one carrier battle and that was the Lexington vs. 3 small Jap carriers. Net result. One of the Jap Carriers sunk and the LExingtontakeing damage. Those Buffalos didn't do half bad

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 23

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 6:50:06 AM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Battle of the Coral Sea (7-8 May '42)
USN: CV's Lexington and Yorktown (Lexington sunk, Yorktown hvy dmg)
IJN: CV's Shokaku, Zuikaku CVL Shoho (Shoho sunk, Shokaku hvy dmg)

Battle of Midway (4-6 June '42)
USN: CV's Yorktown, Hornet, Enterprise (Yorktown disabled by air attack, later sunk by sub)
IJN: CV's Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu (All sunk by air attack), plus 2 CVL's that did not engage. (They were with invasion force.)

Battle of the Eastern Solomons (23-25 Aug '42)
USN: CV's Enterprise, Saratoga (Enterprise hvy dmg) with Wasp not engaged (refeulling)
IJN: CV's Shokaku, Zuikaku; CVL Ryujo (Ryujo sunk, an AP sunk, 75 aircraft lost vs. 25 us airmen)

Battle of Santa Cruz (25-27 Oct '42)
USN: CV's Enterprise, Hornet (Hornet sunk, Enterprise hvy dmg, 81 aircraft lost)
IJN: CV's Shokaku, Zuikaku; CVL's Junyo, Zuiho (Shokaku and Zuiho hvy dmg, 91 aircraft lost)

http://www.combinedfleet.com/map.htm

My long winded point: Not all carrier battles were so one sided. 2 CV's vs 5 CV's and 1 CVL, you should have been toast! You should never pin your hope on not being spotted. Where the forces were even, both sides seem to suffer roughly the same damage. Pick fights only where you absolutely NEED to, not because your sick of getting your butt kicked for the first six months of the war.

As a further illustration:
Battle of the Philippine Sea (19-20 June '44)
USN: CV's Hornet, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Wasp, Enterprise, Lexington, Essex; CVL's Belleau Wood, Bataan, Monterey, Cabot, Princeton, San Jacinto, Cowpens, Langley with 950 aircraft.
(130 aircraft lost, BB South Dakota dmg)

IJN: CV's Zuikaku, Shokaku, Taiho; CVL's Hiyo, Junyo, Ryuho, Chiyoda, Chitose, Zuiho with 480 aircraft embarked, another 1200 (!) LBA.
(Hiyo sunk by air, Shokaku and Taiho sunk by subs, approx half of the air assets lost.)

Despite this result, Spruance was accused of being too timid. In his defence, he felt that it was more important to stay near the invasion area and protect the transports from any surprise "end arounds" by IJN surface units.

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)

Post #: 24

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 10:21:12 AM

mogami

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

Hi, As a side note to the battle. (concerning the element of surprise) The IJN TF had 3xCS included. The total number of float planes in the TF was 69. The USN long range scout is the SBD range of 4. The IJN TF had 20xAlf range of 7 on patrol and a number of other scouts with range a 5 and 4 (and 20 or so Petes set to ASW range 1) As far of number of scouts out the morning of the battle I am willing to bet the Japanese had more and had longer range then USN not to mention the Mavis and Emily groups at Tulagi and at a advanced Japanese base established just for patrol/recon. Of course the USN had patrol planes from Noumea up.

(The USN TF was also reported by a glen from IJN sub 1 hex away)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 10/10/2004 3:37:44 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 25

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 4:17:02 PM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, As a side note to the battle. (concerning the element of surprise) The IJN TF had 3xCS included. The total number of float planes in the TF was 69. The USN long range scout is the SBD range of 4. The IJN TF had 20xAlf range of 7 on patrol and a number of other scouts with range a 5 and 4 (and 20 or so Petes set to ASW range 1) As far of number of scouts out the morning of the battle I am willing to bet the Japanese had more and had longer range then USN not to mention the Mavis and Emily groups at Tulagi and at a advanced Japanese base established just for patrol/recon. Of course the USN had patrol planes from Noumea up.

(The USN TF was also reported by a glen from IJN sub 1 hex away)

For the first year of the war or so, packing Rufes on your CS' that are accompanying KB is a decent idea. They do not completely suck against F4Fs, and they are certainly more useful than Petes.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 26

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/10/2004 8:07:43 PM

mogami

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

Hi, I only have 1 group of Rufes (9 aircraft) and they are currently assigned to defending a base that has no regular airfield. The Petes are fine for what they are made for. (ASW in the hex the TF is located in)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 27

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/11/2004 2:47:49 AM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

All I have to say is that Jap carrier TF is basicaly unchallenged untill the USN can upgrade their Torp planes and DB's, the Jap range alone is an unfair fight even if USN carrier TF has 5 flatops in early '42( assuming you are lucky enough to not have lost any up untill then $$)

But, to answer your Question on whether to use them, OF COURSE, just don't try to take on the Jap carriers hehe..I use them to pound islands that I plan to invade, namely the Marshals . or even steam them up past Port Morsby into the Darwin area and maybe stem the tide of jap expansion there...don't ya just love this game ?

< Message edited by Gem35 -- 10/11/2004 12:51:15 AM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 28

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/11/2004 4:23:34 AM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

don't ya just love this game ?

Ohh, yeah...

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Gem35)

Post #: 29

RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 10/11/2004 11:36:31 AM

doktorblood

Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

Just thought I would butt in here ... for a situation to be "like Midway" wouldn't the Japanese have to have about 2/3 of their strike aircraft sent off to attack a land target?

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>