A/C task force size suggestions

[Alpha77]

Multiple TFs with 1 or 2 CVs? Well I tried this in my 1st PBM, as it was suggested in the forum already a while back. Also not to make the TF bigger than 15 ships as the AA fire would be less effectice.

..I had 4 CVs and 2xCVL following the first TF. That cost my a clear victory (imho), as the 4CV TF reacted to enemy CVs, but the 2nd did not re-act. Both TFs set in the same hex and react "0". And the biggest Zero CAP unit was on the 2nd TF with range "0". This CAP was missing when the Allies hit my TF1 and many got through. Also the 2nd TF would send a seperate strike without escort (as it had only the 1 big Zero unit for CAP) which were all slaughtered - some got thorugh I believe for 1 or 2 bomb hits.

But I guess more experienced player may manage this serverall TF thing better, I will try to avoid this in the future.

My latest CV battle was perfect (biggest and fasted 4 CVs with maximum other ships = 25 ships), but the enemey was already weakened. They scored 1 hit. We sunk 2 CV and 1 CVE.

But we had already Zero M5 (bigger resized units!) ONLY flying CAP (on 3 different altitudes) while M2 were escorts. One raid of ours fragmented (17 Val) and were shot down. Also I forgot the set torpedoes for Kates (LOL) but on the 2nd day I corrected it and they flew again catching the 1 left over CV this time with torps and perhaps 2-3 cruisers too. Combat report said 8 torp hits on British CV that was only wounded day before by bombs (armored deck).. guess that should be enough to trust the report she was sunk He had setup some LR CAP from near Brisbane but it did not help him much. M5 Zero make big difference as CAP with best leaders and pilots imo (in 42)


Will go with the 4 or 5 CV all in 1 fleet + maxed out escorts now for a while, until late 43 or so when Allies could replenish their CVs/CVLs then think over it again: If hopefully the games goes longer.

[Lokasenna]

The reaction setting does not impact CV TFs and whether they react to enemy carriers or not.

[Aurorus]

I think it also depends on which version of the game you are playing. It appears, though I do not have enough experience to be certain, that the new Beta increases the severity and probability of uncoordinated strikes from large CVTFs for both sides. Also, the special KB advantages for Japan in 1942 have been removed in the Beta, of this I am certain, and using more than 300 planes in a CVTF for Japan in 1942 now certainly does increase (indeed almost guarantees) a disjointed strike.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I think it also depends on which version of the game you are playing. It appears, though I do not have enough experience to be certain, that the new Beta increases the severity and probability of uncoordinated strikes from large CVTFs for both sides. Also, the special KB advantages for Japan in 1942 have been removed in the Beta, of this I am certain, and using more than 300 planes in a CVTF for Japan in 1942 now certainly does increase (indeed almost guarantees) a disjointed strike.

As far as I know, there are no changes to this in the betas.

Also, Japan never suffers from the "penalty" until having 200 + random(1-200) aircraft in the TF. So there's a chance of having a double-chance at 201 aircraft... but most people just say 400 because that's when it kicks in always. It would be roughly 50/50 at 300 aircraft.

But as has been said many times, the penalty is minimal and it's really a no-brainer decision to include as many ships as possible unless you care about being spotted more easily.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I think it also depends on which version of the game you are playing. It appears, though I do not have enough experience to be certain, that the new Beta increases the severity and probability of uncoordinated strikes from large CVTFs for both sides. Also, the special KB advantages for Japan in 1942 have been removed in the Beta, of this I am certain, and using more than 300 planes in a CVTF for Japan in 1942 now certainly does increase (indeed almost guarantees) a disjointed strike.

As far as I know, there are no changes to this in the betas.

Also, Japan never suffers from the "penalty" until having 200 + random(1-200) aircraft in the TF. So there's a chance of having a double-chance at 201 aircraft... but most people just say 400 because that's when it kicks in always. It would be roughly 50/50 at 300 aircraft.

But as has been said many times, the penalty is minimal and it's really a no-brainer decision to include as many ships as possible unless you care about being spotted more easily.

I know that nothing has been said about it, but I am playing a couple games right now with the Beta and without, and I am seeing many more problems in strike coordination from large CV groups with the Beta than without.

Also, there have always been additional bonuses in place for Japan's strike coordination in 1942 for KB beyond those given in the rulebook. That is one reason Japan had always been able to launch perfectly coordinated strikes at Pearl, for example. No longer. With 6 CVs in a TF, I am seeing on average about 2/3rds of the planes coordinated on a strike, whereas before it was always near perfect in 1942.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I think it also depends on which version of the game you are playing. It appears, though I do not have enough experience to be certain, that the new Beta increases the severity and probability of uncoordinated strikes from large CVTFs for both sides. Also, the special KB advantages for Japan in 1942 have been removed in the Beta, of this I am certain, and using more than 300 planes in a CVTF for Japan in 1942 now certainly does increase (indeed almost guarantees) a disjointed strike.

As far as I know, there are no changes to this in the betas.

Also, Japan never suffers from the "penalty" until having 200 + random(1-200) aircraft in the TF. So there's a chance of having a double-chance at 201 aircraft... but most people just say 400 because that's when it kicks in always. It would be roughly 50/50 at 300 aircraft.

But as has been said many times, the penalty is minimal and it's really a no-brainer decision to include as many ships as possible unless you care about being spotted more easily.

I know that nothing has been said about it, but I am playing a couple games right now with the Beta and without, and I am seeing many more problems in strike coordination from large CV groups with the Beta than without.

Also, there have always been additional bonuses in place for Japan's strike coordination in 1942 for KB beyond those given in the rulebook. That is one reason Japan had always been able to launch perfectly coordinated strikes at Pearl, for example. No longer. With 6 CVs in a TF, I am seeing on average about 2/3rds of the planes coordinated on a strike, whereas before it was always near perfect in 1942.

Have you tested it rigorously? There should be no difference, although they may be affected by a very early change that had to do with large strike coordination. Very early. At this point, that should be included in the latest official patch.

And no, Japan's strike coordination in 1942 is no different than in any other year.

I've launched several strikes in the past few months under the near-latest beta (long after that very early change I mentioned) with 700-plane KBs and not suffered from it.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


I've launched several strikes in the past few months under the near-latest beta (long after that very early change I mentioned) with 700-plane KBs and not suffered from it.

Word.

[BillBrown]

Anecdotal observation reported as fact.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Anecdotal observation reported as fact.

Fact, plus I'm walking funny. [X(]