Over 15 ships useless?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Over 15 ships useless?

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 >> Over 15 ships useless?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Over 15 ships useless? - 7/17/2005 7:48:07 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

According to the manual putting over 15 ships into a carrier task force will create "diminishing returns". Does this mean the 16th ship won't contribute at all to AAA defense or does this mean it just won't contribute as much as it would normally?

Also, which is better, one task force of two carriers plus escorts or two task forces of one carrier each plus escorts operating in close tandem? I assume two task forces would be better with respect to dividing an oncoming enemy attack because I think planes will only attack one task force in a hex at a time even if there are more than one in a hex. However won't two task forces create greater division in air strikes with planes attacking more in a piecemeal manner than in one great big group as would be produced by a single task force full of carriers?

Gary

Post #: 1

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/17/2005 7:59:26 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Woops, perhaps I should clarify the last part.

When two carrier task forces each containing a carrier launch an airstrike against an enemy, won't the airstrikes be more fragmented than if both carriers were in the same task force?

And when an enemy is attacking two carrier task forces instead of one big one, won't the enemy's air strikes be more fragmented?

Or will the planes from two seperate carrier task forces combine to attack the enemy simultaneously instead of showing up piecemeal?

Which is better: two task forces with one carrier each and 28 escort ships total between them or one task force containing both carriers and only 13 escorts total?

Thanks,

Gary

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 2

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/17/2005 8:11:33 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Depends on which side you're playing and how late in the war it. The Japanese start out with the ability to coordinate large CV task forces, while the Allies do not. This gets reversed as the war progresses.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 3

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/17/2005 10:59:35 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the Allies started out with a disadvantage in coordinating more than one carrier in a task force. But it makes sense given the early experience at Midway which of course turned out to be a blessing in disguise. That's the part I have questions on, whether or not there might be some advantage to numerous small task forces instead of one big one containing all my carriers. I've always tried to group all my carriers together in one large force to try to get the most planes up in the air at one time. In Uncommon Valor I had times when I had planes comming from various task forces and it seemed like they would all arrive a few at a time and get shot up before they could do any real damage.

Thanks,

gary

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 4

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/17/2005 11:09:13 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Another good thing about 1 carrier TF's is that they present a smaller target to the Japanese.

Even if you have more than one in the same hex, the Japs are likely to concentrate on just one TF, and if they don't, they dillute their strength going for more than one, which means you'll have a better chance of surviving against 2 small rather than 1 big air attack. That little trick's saved my butt more than once.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 5

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/18/2005 4:11:35 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

According to the manual putting over 15 ships into a carrier task force will create "diminishing returns". Does this mean the 16th ship won't contribute at all to AAA defense or does this mean it just won't contribute as much as it would normally?

Won't contribute as much, but still get a little increment.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 6

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/18/2005 5:44:19 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

True that. For example 25-ship Air/Surface Combat TF has more AA power than 15-ship. Ships over limit of 15 won't contribute *all* their AA to total, but they still add. About only downside is that larger the TF, easier it is to spot.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 7

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/19/2005 12:08:25 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the Allies started out with a disadvantage in coordinating more than one carrier in a task force. But it makes sense given the early experience at Midway which of course turned out to be a blessing in disguise. That's the part I have questions on, whether or not there might be some advantage to numerous small task forces instead of one big one containing all my carriers. I've always tried to group all my carriers together in one large force to try to get the most planes up in the air at one time. In Uncommon Valor I had times when I had planes comming from various task forces and it seemed like they would all arrive a few at a time and get shot up before they could do any real damage.

Thanks,

gary

I didn't realize the Allies started out with a disadvantage in coordinating more than one carrier in a task force. But it makes sense given the early experience at Midway which of course turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

It was a blessing in disguise but WITP won't allow this as does not adequately penalize CAP. CAP in WITP is more like a gauntlet which sorority girls much run through than the uncoordinated mess it was historically. Historically, CAP elements sometimes never entered combat, but in this model they all seem to. When they gave Japan the coord bonus, they forgot that the same books they drew this from also stated that Japanese CAP was uncoordinated.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 7/19/2005 12:09:51 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 8

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/19/2005 1:20:29 AM

sven6345789

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline

how about returning to the good old pacwar days? in the manual of that game, it is said that the perfect taskforce for the japanese should consist of about 2 CVs and 4 CVLs (this i am not sure of at the moment) or 4 CVs. For the Allies, the perfect balance would be 3 CVs or 2 CVs and 2 CVLs (the last three i am sure of). Of course, in 1942, the Allies shouldn't put more than two CVs in a taskforce.
btw, forget about midway if playing against a human japanese opponent. They won't do the mistake of spreading their CV force out across the pacific like the japanese did historically. Most players will see to it that ANY strike they do in the southern or central pacific will be done by forces able to cope with ANYTHING the Allies throw at them, at least in 1942. Up to late 1943, the allied decision to attack or react should be based upon the victory point score and the chance for a japanese automatic victory. After the Hellcats and the new Essex carriers arrive, You can go anywere you want anyhow.

< Message edited by sven6345789 -- 7/19/2005 1:21:32 AM >

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 9

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/19/2005 3:42:46 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

In PacWar, it was about "carrier points"...in WitP it's about number of planes in CV TF. But then as always...more is better for forcee-protection..

.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 7/19/2005 3:46:16 PM >

(in reply to sven6345789)

Post #: 10

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/19/2005 4:36:31 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the Allies started out with a disadvantage in coordinating more than one carrier in a task force. But it makes sense given the early experience at Midway which of course turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

I think this rule is based on the fact that since the Japanese planes arrived together more often, the rule-maker decided that the IJN must have had better coordinating abilities.

But examination of this in more detail makes the assumption very suspect.

Since the Japanese operated their carriers together early in the war, OF COURSE it would be easier to coordinate their planes and ships. When they did NOT operate their ships/planes in one TF, they didn't do so well. Heck, a large percentage of the IJN planes did not have radios (by breakage and sometimes by design), and coordination of units without planes is/was highly problematic. Early in the war, the US did NOT put all their carriers in one basket, and so the attacks were not so well coordinated.

The unifying factor is how many TFs were involved - not the fact the Japanese had an inherrently better system for overall coordination. The rule should read that coordination between air strikes in different TFs is more difficult, not for one side or the other.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 11

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/19/2005 8:47:39 PM

Toast

Posts: 103
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: Charlotte, NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It was a blessing in disguise but WITP won't allow this as does not adequately penalize CAP. CAP in WITP is more like a gauntlet which sorority girls much run through than the uncoordinated mess it was historically.

Wow! Thanks for that analogy. I'll never be able to look at air-to-air combat in WITP in the same way again!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 12

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/20/2005 4:55:55 AM

BigJ62

Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

In section 7.2.2.11 of the manual reads - Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + md(100). Question what does md stand for, what does md(100) mean in this rule?

Thanks...

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 13

RE: Over 15 ships useless? - 7/20/2005 3:15:41 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

In section 7.2.2.11 of the manual reads - Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + md(100). Question what does md stand for, what does md(100) mean in this rule?

Thanks...

It's rnd (100), meaning random roll of 100. More planes you have over 100, bigger the chance for screw-up is.

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 14

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Over 15 ships useless?

Page: [1]