Is this gamey?

[Fallschirmjager]

In my current PBEM I have an idea.

I have all six USN carriers at PH. My idea is to unload them of all torpedo planes and DBs and add on Marine fighter squadrons.
One carrier will have it's SBDs and TBDs left to act as scouts.
My idea is to set all of the figthers to 100% cap and 'escort'

My idea is to add CLs, CLAAs and DDs with high AA ratings and are fast and have high MNVR to the AA screen.
I will sail this TF into the central pacific to Marcus Island, Wake, Truk and maybe even close to the Philippines.

The idea is that I WANT this TF to be attacked.
I will not fly sweeps and the escort will not actually escort any strikes.
I hope I can draw out LB planes and have then engage 200-300 USN fighters and inflict casualties.

I should have enough scouts to try and stay away from surface forces or if KB shows up I can run due to the TF speed.


My questions, is this gamey? I am add on Marine squadrons who can operate off carriers but are not trained for it.
Also, I am making a decision not to make my carriers into a weapon to attack but instead use them as a magnet to draw the Japanese into an engagement where I can inflict losses.

Is this something that is kosher?

[btd64]

Your adjusting the carrier load. Not gamey. Sometimes I have swapped the old TBD squadrons with dive bomber squadrons....GP

[BBfanboy]

Not gamey per se, but you might regret it. Many players have bemoaned the fact that attackers can still slip through massive CAP. This happened in real life and it seems to be modeled in the way the game handles A2A combat. And after first contact with such a massive fighter buzz-saw the Japanese are likely to call off their air attacks and send in the SCTFs and subs.

A balance of offensive/defensive power is the most versatile approach.

[Peever]

It doesn't sound gamey. You're not exploiting game mechanics to get an advantage, you're trying to get the enemy to react to you're moves. That's tactics. It's very unorthodox and risky though. Some bombers can still get through the cap, you have to worry about weather, and the ends need to justify the means.

I take it the goal is to kill experienced bomber crews. How many to you hope to kill off? If your opponent sends out a huge amount some might get through and sink a carrier. If he sends out too few and sees unusually high cap he may not send any out the next turn and this would defeat the purpose.

[tiemanjw]

I agree with BBfanboy, but I have to ask the question - why remove the bombers?
USN CVs can carry 103 A/C (except Wasp). You say you have 6 CVs. I don't know the date, but I'm going to assume you are in the time where the VFs are 36 A/C each.
So adjust you CVW to:
VF (36 A/C)
VMF (18 A/C)
VB - grab one that can be resized, and make it between 18-27 A/C
VT - 15-18 A/C

That is between 87-99 A/C.
Even if you can't find enough VBs that can be resized, you can still carry the full 36 VBs and no (or a 9 A/C VT) for 90 (or 99) A/C.
Such a force has good CAP, and still has some punch.

[dr.hal]

The US actually did set up CVs with only fighters, so no, it is not "gamey" although in "real" life, never was this done on a full TF level. Toward early 1945 the Japs put ANYTHING on CVs that could fly, but that was desperation, not "gamey"!

[pmelheck1]

Are the air frames Carrier Capable and are the pilots carrier trained. If the frames are not carrier capable you can fly them off but not land them. If the pilots are not carrier trained I believe they suffer much higher attrition rates with every take off and landing (7.0.1.1.1 in the manual in reference to both). Also to my way of thinking a carrier task force is less a defensive force than an offense one. I would be fine with losing a carrier as the allies for a Japanese carrier but with just fighters on board no strike at their carriers. If against the computer this might work but against a player if he sees you have such a large force of fighters he might set all his fighters to escort with no cap and get some of this attack planes through in spite if your cap. Some of those pacific islands had huge numbers of fighters especially if he has set up an air bridge and can shift large numbers of fighters to your location before you can get out of range. In my games my carrier units tend to be some of my best units and I would not like to swap them for a much lower quality cover that may drop the ball when the Japanese are pressing an attack on your carriers. Also Of he loses a bunch of planes those are much easer to replace than 1 or more of you carriers or worse if you have a "Midway Moment"

[Admiral DadMan]

Remember this though: your opponent would also then be free to rearrange his air group structures and/or tactics as well. Be prepared for when he figures out what you've done, and comes up with a counter strategy...

Personally, I would goad you into doing what you propose, fix your location, and then use Dai-Ichi Kido Butai and Dai-Ni Kido Butai to tear apart Allied shipping without fear of a counter strike.

[HansBolter]

The penalty for non-carrier trained appears to be negligible.

Most experienced players state that they hardly notice a difference.

I am one that concurs.

[Lokasenna]

What would you do if your opponent met you with a task force full of Kongos and Yamatos and CAs and all kinds of other bugbears? You would really regret not having the ordnance to sink them [;)].

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The penalty for non-carrier trained appears to be negligible.

Most experienced players state that they hardly notice a difference.

I am one that concurs.

It was quite prodigious in Beta, and there was enough push back that the ops penalties were reduced. I for one disagreed with "nerfing" it as much as it was. Carrier Capable but should suffer more ops losses until Carrier Trained, but that's a whole 'nother discussion...

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The penalty for non-carrier trained appears to be negligible.

Most experienced players state that they hardly notice a difference.

I am one that concurs.

PLUS ONE

[Fallschirmjager]

This 'raid' will probably only be 5-7 days in length. I will have scouts on one carrier to hopefully detect surface TFs.
Plus I happen to know most of his heavy surface units are around the NG area.

This TF will be 32 knots at the slowest speed since I am not taking BBs or CAs.

I am worried about bombers slipping through but as stated earlier, this is more to kill pilots.
We are at June 3rd 1942 and so far I have shot down 1200 Betties. I really want to eat into his pilot production program and so far my carriers have been almost all on the sidelines.

I am not looking to shoot down hundreds of planes.
I am hoping in the central Pacific he has individual Sentai's or even half sentai's
If I can meet this and defeat them in detail then it will be a good use of my carriers who are not doing much at the moment.

Also, if any planes do make it through, my AA is pretty stout. I have 3 CLAA's and 4 St. Louis class CL's and 8 modern DD's
They do not have their Oct 1942 AA upgrades but they are still upgraded to their April standards.
And my carriers have their June AA upgrades.

I also plan on stacking my cap at 5000, 10000, 15000 and 20000 feet so that I have a better intercept chance.
I still expect some to slip through.

Maybe this is indeed too risky. But so far I feel like he has gotten off too easily and his pilot numbers are too high and his air staff levels are too elite and this could be trouble in 1943 when I go onto the offensive.
Plus I need to take pressure off Aus and the supply line to it.
He is making life hard on the supply line and has added weeks onto me getting supply and fuel to Aus, NZ and New Caledonia.

[geofflambert]

If I were going to try something like that I'd use escort carriers. Once I had CVLs (when I played Allied) I did set up TFs with 2 CVs with 1/2 fighters and 1/2 bombers, and with one CVL with fighters only and set for CAP only.

[pws1225]

Perfectly legit in my book.

[Lowpe]

1200 Betties down by June 3rd, 1942.[X(]

I'd say you already cut into his pilot pool. Sheesh!

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

I agree with BBfanboy, but I have to ask the question - why remove the bombers?

I am not looking to drop bombs. This area of the Pacific has nothing worth bombing. I have raided before and hit the odd cargo ship and bombed coconut plantations and airfields.
But Ops and flak losses make it not very worth it for the fuel used and cruising damage.

This is designed to see if his planes are on 'auto' naval attack and I can get him to react to my fleet and sent out strike forces to be shredded.
Every pilot I can kill makes it easier for me later in the war.
And right now my carriers are just swinging anchor at PH training.


And these Marine pilots are not second line pilots. They have been on pure 70% escort training for 4-5 months are now in the 70s in air skill and defensive skill.

This plan is not without risk, but I think if I can kill off some pilots it will be worth it.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If I were going to try something like that I'd use escort carriers. Once I had CVLs (when I played Allied) I did set up TFs with 2 CVs with 1/2 fighters and 1/2 bombers, and with one CVL with fighters only and set for CAP only.

This is June 1942

The only CVE I have is the Long Island. I am taking a risk but not suicide [:D]

[spence]

What would you do if your opponent met you with a task force full of Kongos and Yamatos and CAs and all kinds of other bugbears? You would really regret not having the ordnance to sink them .

Well from my experience the TBFs couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a bat, let alone a torpedo, even when they have 60-75 experience AND are unopposed by CAP and ths 1000 lbers dropped by SBDs might as well be snowballs for all the good they do in stopping an IJN BB. Since the mining effect of even 500 lbers seems to have been enough to sink Haruna, Ise and Hyuga at Kure in 1945 I think the near immunity of IJN BBs to anything the Allies (air) have during 1942 seems grossly overstated.

[tiemanjw]

I am not looking to drop bombs. This area of the Pacific has nothing worth bombing. I have raided before and hit the odd cargo ship and bombed coconut plantations and airfields.

as the plan, no... but if an unexpected SAG shows up (or heaven help you, the KB) having no bombers along with empty "slots" on the CVs doesn't seem very wise. Do you really have 600 VFs sitting around to load on the CVs? Either fill up the decks, send a subset of the CVs, or don't do it at all. The only truly wrong decision, as I see it, is to send all of your CVs with only half a load.