American carrier coordination

[abalido]

I'm currently starting 1943 as the allies and i wanted to see if any could give me a good breakdown of how many allied carriers can work together? I was think the following:

1943 2CV
1944 2CV and 1CAL
1945. 3CV
Or is this too many in one fleet?
Any help would be appreciated

Thanks

[BBfanboy]

It isn't the number of Carriers, it's the number of aircraft. I haven't bothered to memorize the numbers because the coordination penalty for going over the numbers is apparently very small.

[Kursk1943]

As a history fanboy I tend to stick to the habit of the USN: 1943-1946 2 CV and 2 CVL, never had any problems.
The game optimizers will have other solutions for sure..

By the way, abalido, whats a "CAL"?[:D]

[Barb]

IIRC
1. the game has it as "doubles chance of coordination penalty" (but the exact chance is unknown)
2. it is 250+rnd(250) for the Japs for all the time
3. it is 150+rnd(150) for the Allies in 1941 and 1942
4. it is 200+rnd(200) for the Allies in 1943
5. it is 250+rnd(250) for the Allies in 1944 and 1945

Thus in 1942 you can operate 2 CVs/TF with very good chance of avoiding the penalty, but up to 3 CVs/TF with higher chance of penalty. More than 3 would ensure the penalty.
In 1943 you can go for 2CVs/TF to avoid entirely, up to 4CVs/TF (or 3CVs+3CVLs) to still have a chance to avoid it.

Several players opt to forego the "Chance" of coordination penalty and get bigger Task Forces - this helps with avoiding "CV Reaction" feature producing unwanted results for different TFs.

[BillBrown]

The information from the manual:

The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in the TF launching a strike.
The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:

»» Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).

»» Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).

»» Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

[Disco Duck]

My understanding of how many carriers in a TF force was more of the concept that if you found one you didn't find them all. Just look at Midway with two different carrier groups on the American side and only one on the Japanese.


this was based on Pre-war war-games.

[abalido]

Sorry meant to type CVL

Thanks to everyone for the help

[Lokasenna]

If your chance of suffering a penalty is 1%, then doubling it to only 2% is relatively meaningless.

[AcePylut]

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

My understanding of how many carriers in a TF force was more of the concept that if you found one you didn't find them all. Just look at Midway with two different carrier groups on the American side and only one on the Japanese.


this was based on Pre-war war-games.

This is a difference of carrier doctrine, and why Stanhope's Hornet's DB's 'missed everything' at Midway.

Waldron disobeyed orders when he went off carrier hunting on his own. Stanhope sent his planes where they thought the Japanese Carriers would be, because US carrier doctrine was "2 carriers per TF"... so Stanhope thought that was the same for the IJ. We "didn't know" that IJ doctrine was to keep them all together.