Newbees, got to love them...

[Jim Stevens]

Having had the AI poke me in the eye enough times, I got the message much like the Allies that the convoy system is the way to roll. The question is in the refinement. Given you are escorting say 4 vessels, how many escorts would you assign? 1, 2, 4? Would it be different if the load was not cargo but tankers? How many escorts for a big ol' task force of 12 ships?

Would you ever assign escorts that have a top speed at or slightly above the mission speed of the escorted vessels? The thought here is if they can't hardy maneuver in response to threats faster then the escorted vessels, are they really of any value? Or does the game engine even take that into consideration?

[Shellshock]

I guess my philosophy is that usually any escort is better than none. It's not like you always have a lot of choice either. If you assign top notch destroyers to every merchant convoy you'll soon be short of the best ASW assets for the carriers and battleships. As Japan you often have to rely on those lowly converted merchant ship/patrol boats for escort. But even they usually force the US subs to operate submerged with their lousy Mark 14 torpedoes rather than on the surface with guns that can actually inflict damage on the target.

[catwhoorg]

As the Allies, I'm hurting for escorts.

I'd like several for a convoy of 12 ships. Typically they get 1-2.

Tankers certainly are higher on the pecking order for getting escorts.
It is a case or getting thing organized and that really takes months.

[geofflambert]

Usually two will get the job done, no matter how large the convoy. Team up the slow ones with fast ones and they'll be fine. Convoys of oilers I often use 3 because of their value. Troop ship convoys are different, I may use five or more, even throw in a CL or heavier if they happen to be sitting around needing to go to the same area anyways, just in case you run into surface raiders. Sometimes I throw in PGs that have no ASW value and AMCs too. Remember the gunboats will at least keep the subs from doing surface attacks.

[Canoerebel]

It's interesting that in the actual war, the Allies did not use escorted convoys in the Pacific. Distances were too great, escorts with "long legs" too few, and the Japanese just didn't pose a serious threat to merchant shipping in the regular sea lanes. So, voila!, real life departs from game life.

One escort in a convoy makes all the difference in the world, although they aren't fullproof, of course. I rarely use more than one escort (unless I'm trying to move short-legged ships like SCs to distant ports).

[Shellshock]

Playing against the Japanese AI, I used a system where a convoy would be well escorted for the first two or three days out of a major port like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pearl, etc. Then once the convoy was out in the deep blue ocean the escorts would turn back. Then, when the convoy neared it's destination (say Noumea or Sydney) escorts would be sent out to meet it. Against the AI, mid ocean intercepts by subs in certain areas well away from land were pretty rare. Against a much more unpredictable human opponent I don't know if this would work as well.

[Canoerebel]

It would generally work just as well, but the micromanagement will lead to intense headaches and an impending desire to forego AE in favor of Risk and Stratego.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It would generally work just as well, but the micromanagement will lead to intense headaches and an impending desire to forego AE in favor of Risk and Stratego.

There were many instances in which I forgot to give the recall order to the escorts. Many a Clemson class DD found itself in the red somewhere north of Polynesia. [:D]

[catwhoorg]

That's actually fairly representative of the early Atlantic convoys.

Escorted out of the danger zone, then the escorts detach and usually meet an incoming convoy.

That changed somewhat after the fall of France and U-boats being forward deployed, but the principle remained for a long time. Very few escorts went the whole way across with a convoy.


The other thing I do is have roving ASW groups at all busy ports, plus the air search and air ASW.
Try to sanitize the choke points as best you can.

[dr.hal]

I hope you don't mean automatic convoys done by the computer... if so, I would argue that such use of that system be avoided. I only use the auto convoy system for short leg and very safe convoy traffic (such as xAKL runs between back water ports or small tankers doing the same). But if you are saying convoys under your control, I would argue much like some above that escorts are not needed MOST of the time. If the Japanese player goes after your lifeline sea lanes between Oz and the USA, then yes... but normally I only have one or two escorts on laden convoys (with a possible AMC along) and none or at best one for return convoys. It really depends upon how your advisory chooses to wage war. There is no "set" answer. At the beginning of the game don't forget that there are two Japanese AMCs out there south of the equator that can make trouble for you. So they must be guarded against. Hal

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Jim Stevens

Having had the AI poke me in the eye enough times, I got the message much like the Allies that the convoy system is the way to roll. The question is in the refinement. Given you are escorting say 4 vessels, how many escorts would you assign? 1, 2, 4? Would it be different if the load was not cargo but tankers? How many escorts for a big ol' task force of 12 ships?

Would you ever assign escorts that have a top speed at or slightly above the mission speed of the escorted vessels? The thought here is if they can't hardy maneuver in response to threats faster then the escorted vessels, are they really of any value? Or does the game engine even take that into consideration?

Priority for escorts for me goes as follows:

I also always make sure the escorts have ASW capabilities, too. If an "escort" type ship doesn't have ASW capabilities, I don't bother using it...I usually use one escort per convoy and more than one on a big troop convy..invasions are a whole different animal.

Transports with LCUs/planes
Fuel convoys
Large supply convoys
Transports without troops
Oilers/Tankers without fuel
Supply convoys/AKs without supply

I will escort empty APs/TKs/AOs before loaded AKs that are on cargo runs if there aren't enough escorts to go around (early on)

I will run a good chunk of supply convoys that aren't too large without escorts early as there just aren't enough to go around. Keep in mind that there are AMs, DMs, and DMS that make good escorts early on as well and some AMCs

I never leave loaded troop/plane ships unescorted. Wounded capital ships/capital ships moving to new ports..always have escorts that have ASW capabilities, too.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Jim Stevens

Having had the AI poke me in the eye enough times, I got the message much like the Allies that the convoy system is the way to roll. The question is in the refinement. Given you are escorting say 4 vessels, how many escorts would you assign? 1, 2, 4? Would it be different if the load was not cargo but tankers? How many escorts for a big ol' task force of 12 ships?

Would you ever assign escorts that have a top speed at or slightly above the mission speed of the escorted vessels? The thought here is if they can't hardy maneuver in response to threats faster then the escorted vessels, are they really of any value? Or does the game engine even take that into consideration?

Almost all of your escorts are faster and have a higher maneuver rating compared to the ships they are escorting.

If I have two different convoys, and one is speed 10 and the other is 15, I will assign the slower escort so long as it is above 10 to the slower convoy and the faster escort to the faster convoy. This game does seem overwhelming, but it's really not once you roll your sleeves up and have a handful of turns under your belt.

I also group similar speed ships together (all AKs that have speed 4), as well as capacity. However, speed has a priority early on due to lack of escorts...I can post pictures later tonight if you'd like.

[Bo Rearguard]

You often hear it said that the Imperial Japanese Navy should have loosed it submarines on the long convoy lifeline between the US West Coat and Australia much like the Donitz did with the U-Boats in the Atlantic. I wonder how realistically such an effort could have been sustained given the vast distances involved in the Pacific. The Germans had the advantage of working out of major ports in France parked right next to Britain (and Norway to some extent) Japan's subs would have had to conduct such a campaign from limited and somewhat primitive forward bases like Kwajalein or Rabaul where every torpedo and spare part had to be shipped in. Even given the proximity of German bases and radio finding, Allied convoys were tough to locate in the Atlantic. Seems like it would be an even more difficult one in the trackless South Pacific.

[Jim Stevens]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I also group similar speed ships together (all AKs that have speed 4), as well as capacity. However, speed has a priority early on due to lack of escorts...I can post pictures later tonight if you'd like.

That would be very nice... Thanks

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

You often hear it said that the Imperial Japanese Navy should have loosed it submarines on the long convoy lifeline between the US West Coat and Australia much like the Donitz did with the U-Boats in the Atlantic. I wonder how realistically such an effort could have been sustained given the vast distances involved in the Pacific. The Germans had the advantage of working out of major ports in France parked right next to Britain (and Norway to some extent) Japan's subs would have had to conduct such a campaign from limited and somewhat primitive forward bases like Kwajalein or Rabaul where every torpedo and spare part had to be shipped in. Even given the proximity of German bases and radio finding, Allied convoys were tough to locate in the Atlantic. Seems like it would be an even more difficult one in the trackless South Pacific.

I would have to agree with everything you just said.

[dr.hal]

I would fully agree and go further. We all know of the Bushito code which dictated a culture of going after warships and not merchants as the latter were seen as not "worthy". So if we did have a change of direction for the Japanese player, I would argue that there be a time element to it and that going after merchants be restricted until late '43 or so. I'm not sure how this would be done, but I think it a fair reflection of the culture that the Japanese brought to the table. Hal

[catwhoorg]

In any HR restricting strategic bombing, the restricting of Japanese sub usageto be anti-combatant rather anti-merchant should be on the table.

How to do define it though would be rather tough.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

In any HR restricting strategic bombing, the restricting of Japanese sub usageto be anti-combatant rather anti-merchant should be on the table.

How to do define it though would be rather tough.

That would be almost impossible to implement as you can't tell your subs to target certain ships over others...

[nashvillen]

Just tell your subs to not target civilian ships. Civilian ships carrying war materials are fair game. We don't have civilian ships not carrying war materials in this game, otherwise we would be using them to carry war materials, so, it is already built into the game. [;)]

[catwhoorg]

I know its probably unworkable, but then again I'd never agree to a blanket Strat bombing ban before a certain date, as I think that is unworkable.