air strikes from carriers

[fulcrum28]

closely related to my previous post, i want to know your opinions about the realism of the air strikes operared from carriers in WitP game. I love this game and would like to have the opinions based on different players experiences. I dislike the fact that those strikes depending on the commander(PC) which sometimes, at least in my case, selects low valuable targets that cost valuable planes, pilots and unclose our position.

[aphrochine]

I dont think you have much to base your opinion on until you've played the campaign. In campaign's the JFB rarely splits up the KB and you'll find the KB adequately capable of engaging and massacring multiple targets in anyone battle phase.

Personally, I've found target and ordinance selection more than satisfactory.

[crsutton]

It works well enough. There is a learning curve to getting the maximum out of your effort and then many counters that your opponent can use. This is the "game" part of the game and can on occasion swerve away from the historical. But for the most part it works just fine.

[Kwik E Mart]

...three words...Neosho and Sims...

[DaveConn]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

...three words...Neosho and Sims...

...three words...Neosho and Sims...

Exactly! It is one thing for the "all-seeing player" to know that one target is more valuable than another; it is quite another for a TF commander, perhaps getting multiple and potentially conflicting reports, to know the same thing. I actually really like the way the game reflects the same uncertainty and screw-ups that are common in real life.

[DivePac88]

Works well in my option, and realistic in the fact that AE carrier battles are really like cat-fights, as they were historically in my view.

[fulcrum28]

very interesting adn useful opinions, thank you.

[LoBaron]

You got very good responses here, as well here as in your thread on naval air strikes.


There is a very important lesson in most answers, and Kwik E Mart summed it up beautifully.

Your primery role is that of an in theater commander, and this for all theaters in the PacWar. And then some.

You also govern tactical elements, but the more tactical you get, the higher the chance of random events kicking in. So you need redundancy.

Take Leyte Gulf, and what outcomes could have been possible from the same setup, depending on the decisions and courage of individuals and communication issues.
Here you have a nice display of where your control begins and where it ends. In planning your role is Nimitz and his staff, during the battle it is Nimtz, Kinkaid, maybe
Halsey, but think of it as communication between many parties, prone to errors.

Leyte could have resulted in Nishimura, Shima, or Kurita reaching the amphibs (too late to make an impact on the invasion, but anyways), it also could have resulted
in TF 34 continuing to cover San Bernardino strait and handing the IJN a good one. It could have resulted in Halsey not detecting the carriers and remaining south
with the amphibs, resulting in the IJN getting trashed by fleet CVs. It could have resulted in the retreat or annihilation of 7th Fleet.


WitP puts you into the seat of Nimitz for the master plan, and in the seat of all the different commanders - communicating with each other, prone to errors, and with an
incomplete overall picture for the tactical layout, and then in the seat of Nimitz again for the turn execution, watching from afar.

Leyte Gulf is a nice example of what could happen in game.

When you plan your operations, and when you create your initial tactical layout, you should always keep this in mind to succeed. A plan designed to only to be successful
if every element of the plan works exactly as you intend to, is prone to failure.


Want to include such lessons in my CV guide anyway, which sadly is on hold until less intense times, sadly.