Matrix Games Forums

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Air Coordination in 1942

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Air Coordination in 1942 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 4:08:52 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3234
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		I posed this question in m AAR but thought I might get more response here.

In 1942, is putting two USN CVs in the same TF a valid option. Typically I use single CVTF at this point in the war. However, if the coordination penalty shows itself at 150, two CVs should be workable. If 50% or more of the VFs are assigned to CAP, the remaining a/c left for strikes on the enemy should be just below 150.

I was wondering if others have experimented with this.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
Post #: 1
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 4:14:03 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3263
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		The Allied carrier air limits are:

1942 - 100
1943 - 150
1944 - 200

Exceeding these limits do not guarantee coordination problems but they do increase the odds of having them.

Alfred

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 2
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 4:45:54 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3234
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The Allied carrier air limits are:

1942 - 100
1943 - 150
1944 - 200

Exceeding these limits do not guarantee coordination problems but they do increase the odds of having them.

Alfred


Thank you Alfred. That about limits the USN to Single CV TF until '43. Correct me if I am wrong, but those limits are for a hex not a TF. Is that right?

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 5:00:12 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3263
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		The limits are per TF. You could have a lot of single CV TFs in the same hex. Of course then you have the problem, in 1942, of finding sufficient escorts to place within the CV TF.

Some Allied players are not concerned about the coordination penalty. I'm not one of those but FYI you should be aware that some AFB play with 2 CVs within a TF even in 1942.

Alfred

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 4
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 6:58:56 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 4667
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: In a little tin hut in a big tin shed
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The limits are per TF. You could have a lot of single CV TFs in the same hex. Of course then you have the problem, in 1942, of finding sufficient escorts to place within the CV TF.

Some Allied players are not concerned about the coordination penalty. I'm not one of those but FYI you should be aware that some AFB play with 2 CVs within a TF even in 1942.

Alfred

I go with the 2 CV TF for 42, as mentioned your CAP will bring you below the limit, same with any losses. Your CV at this time are probably your best AAA platforms, 2 of them are better than 1. I also have around 20 ships in the TF for much the same reason, and any damaged ships get an escort without dropping the screen strength too much.

In 43 I add some CVL when available and in 44 make them 3CV & 1 CVL and run with that fro the war.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 5
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 12:57:37 PM   
bushpsu

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline 		I always thought the coordination kicked in based on the total number of planes in the TF, not necessarily the number assigned to a specific strike mission. This definitely will change my way of setting up early TFs.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 6
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 1:17:43 PM   
Omat


Posts: 537
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline 		Hello

A complement:

The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances. So even if you under these values there is a chace of uncoordination.

1942 -> 100 + rnd(100)
1943 -> 150 + rnd(150)
1944 -> 200 + rnd(200)

Hope it helps..


Omat



< Message edited by Omat -- 2/27/2012 1:19:44 PM >

_____________________________

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another."
Anatole France

(in reply to bushpsu)
Post #: 7
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 2:11:09 PM   
sandman455


Posts: 165
Joined: 7/5/2011
From: 20 yrs ago - SDO -> med down, w/BC glasses on
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

I always thought the coordination kicked in based on the total number of planes in the TF, not necessarily the number assigned to a specific strike mission. This definitely will change my way of setting up early TFs.



Based on the manual (7.2.1.11 Coorinating Strikes) it is based on the number of aircraft within the TF.

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).

_____________________________

Gary S (USN 1320, 1985-1993)
AOCS 1985, VT10 1985-86, VT86 1986, VS41 1986-87
VS32 1987-90 (NSO/NWTO, deployed w/CV-66, CVN-71)
VS27 1990-91 (NATOPS/Safety)
SFWSLANT 1991-93 (AGM-84 All platforms, S-3 A/B systems)

(in reply to bushpsu)
Post #: 8
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 2/27/2012 2:19:09 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

A complement:

The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances. So even if you under these values there is a chace of uncoordination.

1942 -> 100 + rnd(100)
1943 -> 150 + rnd(150)
1944 -> 200 + rnd(200)

Hope it helps..


Omat




This begs the question, What is the coordination penalty and how is it calculated? I often use 2 CV TFs in 1942 because of the escort problem.

(in reply to Omat)
Post #: 9
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/1/2012 12:04:26 AM   
MarkMohrifield

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/14/2012
Status: offline 		Newbie question; what is an rnd?

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 10
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/1/2012 12:36:03 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1923
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkMohrifield

Newbie question; what is an rnd?


random

. . . as is random(100) means a random number between 1 and 100

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to MarkMohrifield)
Post #: 11
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/1/2012 2:57:44 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6196
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		There is another angle on that in that with multiple carrier TFs, you run the risk of one of the TF reacting toward the enemy while the rest hang back. This can be disasterous. I keep my carriers together for this reason.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any complaints about this lately. Is it still happening to players?

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 12
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/1/2012 4:01:12 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

There is another angle on that in that with multiple carrier TFs, you run the risk of one of the TF reacting toward the enemy while the rest hang back. This can be disasterous. I keep my carriers together for this reason.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any complaints about this lately. Is it still happening to players?


It happened to my opponent couple weeks ago. Poor old Wasp was left all alone...

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 13
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/1/2012 6:32:12 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 3843
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols
This begs the question, What is the coordination penalty and how is it calculated? I often use 2 CV TFs in 1942 because of the escort problem.




When a mission is flown, the game designates a lead squad and - depending on your settings and external factors such as weather -
rolls a dice to decide whether this succeeds.
If no, you will see messages like "X loses cohesion, rtb" or "y loses contact with formation, continueing to target".

If you don´t see these messages, the flights did not coordinate in the first place.
For these to arrive at the same time over target you need to balance out all attributes of the units to still ensure the order
of arrival and cohesion.

In both you have a chance to see several combat replays representing the different raid packs arriving.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 14
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/1/2012 6:36:32 PM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sandman455
...
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).


That's what I thought - so CAP planes would still count against the coordination limits. Has there been any mentioning of a developer or proof to the contrary?


_____________________________

If you gained knowledge through the forum, why not putting it into the AE wiki?

http://witp-ae.wikia.com/wiki/War_in_the_Pacific:_Admiral%27s_Edition_Wiki


(in reply to sandman455)
Post #: 15
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/1/2012 7:15:01 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3148
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

There is another angle on that in that with multiple carrier TFs, you run the risk of one of the TF reacting toward the enemy while the rest hang back. This can be disasterous. I keep my carriers together for this reason.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any complaints about this lately. Is it still happening to players?


It happened to my opponent couple weeks ago. Poor old Wasp was left all alone...



Every once in a while you get lucky though. I recently had four individual CV TFs all react together to get into TBD range. You just need to be sure your CV TF commanders are all very, very agressive. You don't want FJF commanding one with Halsey commanding another .

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 16
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/1/2012 9:41:51 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6196
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

There is another angle on that in that with multiple carrier TFs, you run the risk of one of the TF reacting toward the enemy while the rest hang back. This can be disasterous. I keep my carriers together for this reason.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any complaints about this lately. Is it still happening to players?


It happened to my opponent couple weeks ago. Poor old Wasp was left all alone...



Every once in a while you get lucky though. I recently had four individual CV TFs all react together to get into TBD range. You just need to be sure your CV TF commanders are all very, very agressive. You don't want FJF commanding one with Halsey commanding another .


For this reason I keep them together. I suppose someday I will pay a coordination penalty but it has not happened yet.


_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 17
RE: Air Coordination in 1942 - 3/2/2012 12:25:33 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 1367
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline 		A way to keep a number of CV TFs together and have them react together is for the slowest carrier TF have a reaction number of 6 or less and an aggressive commander while all the other assigned to follow this TF with a reaction range of 0. I've not had a stray CV TF yet.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Air Coordination in 1942 Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.250