Matrix Games Forums

More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge UpdateCommand gets a huge update!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1

 
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 >> How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 10:16:59 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle

Preface:

The recent discussion and complaints about CV engagements being random have convinced me to try my hand at another (air) guide focusing
on this aspect of WitP AE.


Just a few remarks on why such discussions seem so problematic (except that there are many of us running around with a big ego, not excluding myself here):

If such a discussion is wanted to be successful it does not make sense to add combat report after combat report to an existing thread just because
that thread is dubbed "borked CV battle". Instead one should open a new topic for every combat to discuss it without distraction.
People should refrain from randomly adding other battle results to the original one which is the center of a discussion.

If this is not done, those debates quick and easily get out of control.

It not hard to explain why: CV engagements are complex, and got a huge ammount of variables from where it is possible to "insert" mistakes.
Those mistakes often start long before the actual combat, one of the things I intend to show.

If a combat report gets added to a thread which already got a combat report under discussion, this new report usually contains - at least partly -
a wide variety of different root causes for a specific result completely different to the initial report. Also the new battle usually was the result
of a different motivation, environment, strategic overall situation, and initial setup. Result is that 15 topics are discussed at once, nobody knows
what the focus is on anymore, and explanations or quests for gameflaws end nowhere except in a babylonian-tower babble, where noone knows what the
other was referring to.

This was perfectly demonstrated by the recent discussion.

I would like to point this out beforehand, as I want to avoid any discussions on specific examples in this thread anyway. The best
way to do it is not to start at all. Comments on details on what I am trying to explain are very very welcome. I am for sure missing
many finer aspects and do not claim completeness. For those intersted in supporting my guide with comments and additions and ideas,
please do so, my thanks in advance.




Before I now try to concentrate on the relevant aspects of carrier battles in WitP AE, upfront I´d like to emphasise that, yes, there IS
a random element in the battles.
What your aim should be is to minimize the impact of this random element as much as possible.

Also, there often is a grave misunderstanding what "random" means. From what I see, "random" is often used as "there are too many things that
can go wrong to get it right". I agree, you cannot get everything right, I experienced that myself many times.

Point is, you "only" need to get it MORE right than your opponent. You don´t need to get it perfect.


So lets start with the basics.


1) Preparing your carriers:

a) Pilot quality:

This should be obvious, but is still often neglected, also because there is the - false - assumption that stock carrier
pilots are automatically good pilots. They are not.

Look at the pilots assigned to the carrier airgroups. Think about what they are bound to do, and train them accordingly.

This is immensely important! It is not enough to simply train your DB pilots in navB, your TB pilots in NavT, and your fighter
pilots in Air skill. Those might be the primary mission relevant skills, but if you ignore the secondary skills you are putting
yourself at a severe disadvantage to an opponent who does.

I´d like to point out that training up pilots is always a tradeoff between training capacity and number of pilots needed.
You need to adapt. Just one thing: If you feel you need to accept lower quality due to pilot demand, do not automatically
assume that the opponent requires the same. If you need to use lower quality pilots, adjust the force calculations accordingly.

Those secondary skills are:

NavS: Every DB or TB pilot participating in a strike requires this skill maxed out. This actually is no secondary skill at all,
it is close to equally important than NavB/NavT. If you do not find your target, and if you are unable to max out the DL of your
target, you lose the CV battle! Train this skill up with as much enthusiasm as you would train NavB/T.

Def: This is nearly equally important, for fighter pilots as well as strike pilots. For an individual pilot this wont make so much
difference, as a successful air attack might kill the plane anyway, but it has a HUGE impact on strike survivability in the face
of CAP, and CAP survivability in the face of a strike. Def skill lets your opponent waste attacks, buys time, keeps your numbers up,
and so enables you to bring more strike planes over target, keep overal pilot morale up which drops significantly when a unit experiences
losse, and enables CAP pilots to survive and be available for another attack at an inbound strike.

If one player pays attention to that, and the other player does not, this makes the difference between a won and a lost carrier battle.

I cannot put enough emphasis on pilot skill. Many later war carriers arrive with mediocre pilots at best. This applies to both sides.
If you throw them into battle because you expect them to be already trained up anyway, or think that number alone will
compensate, think again. If relative carrier strenght is in balance, the quality of the pilots will be a major deciding factor.

For example USN CVE carriers arrive with squadrons that have average air skill around the med to low 50s, def skill around 30-40,
NavB/T skill around med to low 50, and NavS skill around 20-40. If you think this is enough, expect a lot of sunk carriers.
Similar applies to later war Essex carriers, and replacement squadrons. They are bad. And they are not ready for carrier battle.
Train them up before you send em to a target rich enviroment with teeth.

b) Upgrade your carriers, and all your ships you task as escorts:

Yes, it has been discussed often enough. AAA in stock scenarios is anemic at best, nonexistant at worst. It is better in DaBabes,
but don´t ask me by how much, I have not played it enough to form an opinion.

But this does not mean AAA sits there and does nothing. Even though it leaves a lot to be desired, upgraded AAA can mean the difference
between a lucky torp hit of the final 4 plane TB unit, or 2 damages, one exactly the TB that would have hit. Minimize "random", rememer?
Also, even if later war Allies usually got Radar overkill, simply stay on the safe side and have every major combatant, and every
DD with the most modern radar asset. You minimize chances of late detection. While it is probably already very low with a few
radar assets there is no reason not to reduce "low" to "insignificant".

c) Check your ship skippers:

The premier skill for anybody in command of a ship is naval skill, naval skill, and naval skill. Even for a CV captain, the premier
skill is naval skill.
The skipper needs to know how to maneuver a ship when the bombs start falling and the torp spreads their fingers, and the better
to evade one or the other eager SAG or sub attack. The higher his naval skill, the better he is at that.

Air skill is for the guys in planes or the squadron commanders, it does not help to drive a ship, or help the ship survive in a combat enviroment.

d) Check your plane upgrades:

I know this is tedious, and you want to go over that fast. But from personal experience - and personally I hate automatic plane
upgrades as they in general drain pools when you most need them - this tends to be neglected.

Look for the very best combination of modern plane types on your carriers.

Which not neccesarily means the most modern airframe for every mission type. Let me explain why:

What to upgrade to is a very important question, because there are two very important attributes relevant for carrier ops,
which often are neglected:

These attributes are cruise speed and service rating. I can only tell from the Allied perspective, as thats where my main
experience comes from, but assume the same is relevant for the IJN player.

Cruise speed is a coordination factor. The higher the delta between individual cruise speeds, the bigger the chance of a
fragmented strike. You want to avoid that at all costs for obvious reasons. Note that cruise speed varies notably between
the different a/c types - very often by upgrading one plane type to another you rip open a cruise speed delta between, for
example, fighters and DB´s, which could negate the positive effect of the upgrade.

Service rating is easily similar important. Service rating tells you about how long a plane needs to stand down for maintenance
and so results in how large a percentage of planes is still ready for operations after extensive use. Think this does not
matter for carriers? Then set the first version Helldiver (SR: 3) on naval search until the plane fatigue climbs up high.
Then stand down the unit and check the estimated repair times. You are in for an unpleasent surprize. Planes with high
SR are often outperforming planes with low SR (a good example is the SDB-5 compared to the early Helldiver), but
if you decide to high SR with more performance, pay attention to airframe fatigue and do not plan for extended operations
which require high mission frequency, and do not forget that NavS is a mission too and puts strain on the airframe.

Also if you use different aircraft of the same mission type (e.g. Dauntless/Helldiver), be aware of those differences and plan
accordingly. It is often of advantage to use more than one plane type, but it is important to keep in mind that in
critical situations it could lead to a fragmented strike - depending on your battle setup.


2) Deciding on when and how to do battle:

This is a very important part of the CV game, and was often underestimated by the losing side. There are several
factors flowing into the decision to accept or to avoid battle.

a) Know the global force relation:

Keep track of what is available to you, and what could/should be available to the opponent. This does not need to be precise
down to the exact number, a rough estimate usually is enough.

Why is this important? Because one of the real interesting parts of intel is not "what do I see?", but "what do I not see?".
If you got an estimate how many flightdecks the enemy has available, then based on your knowledge of the whereabouts of a part
of them can give you valuable information about the possible number of flightdecks in another area. Spotting a mini KB in the
IO lets you deduct the number of flight decks available to KB you suspect to be near the Marianas.

Besides this keep an eye out for upgrade dates for the specific carrier types, and arrival dates of the new carriers.
Again, a rough estimate is what you need.

Compare this to your available forces, and based on this decide if and how you need to set up the battle. Being the weaker force
does not neccesarily mean you should avoid battle. Only that you might need to adjust your expectations, and to decide
whether you need more support (e.g. by LBA or submarines) to keep force relations balanced.

If you do not do this, accept battle at your own peril. Just saying "it is ´45, the IJN carriers should not be able to hurt me anymore",
ist the best start to lose a battle.

b) Know the qualitative force relation:

This might look insignificant when looking at numbers of flight decks initially, but it is not. Plane quality
is a deciding factor in a battle - ever seen an IJAAF contingent mauled by Tbolts? - and some plane attributes can make
a significant difference in the air battle or the attack run against the carriers.

There are certain dates where relative quality between Japan and the Allies moves in one or the other direction.
In some instances this change is significant and, neglected, can lead to seriousely different outcomes than expected.

That said, there is a small advantage for the Japanese player: The Allied production numbers are static, and have
fixed start dates. In comparision the Japanese player is able to influence the numbers as well as the start types
of planes produced. Even so, only rough estimates are possible anyway, but those should be taken into account.

I will not list all significant events here, but I will show a few simple examples just to support my point:

IJN:

- Change from Val to Judy: Need I say more? This makes the difference between a 250 and a 500kg hit on your flight deck.
- Change from A6M5c to A7M2: Also not much to add to the obvious, change from a mediocre - at best - fighter to a
rocket with 3220ft/min climb and a max speed of 392kts. Say goodby to Hellcat superiority.

Allies:

- Change from F4F-4 to F6F-3: Must be the same party feeling to the USN pilots as the A6M5c upgrade was to the IJN fighter puke.
- Change from SBD-3 to SB2C-1C: Cool lets keep that 1000lb bomb but get 2 250lb for free!
- Change from TBD-1 to TBF-1: Ok, I guess I don´t need to tell anybody about what this meant to the USN.

There are more examples than that, but I guess you get the picture.

Those plane upgrades change the force balance significantly, not by numbers but quality and the ability to deliver ordinance.
Attempt to time your carrier operations with those upgrades in mind. And be aware your opponent will most probably do the same.

c) Know the local force relation:

This is, obviousely, a bit more specific as the global relation. When you select an are to do battle, optimally you should have
already a good global estimate ("what do I not see?") and a good local part ("what do I see?"). This can only be achieved by tedious
work through the intel reports, naval search, submarine spottings and local base recon. Be aware that a good opponent will
always attempt to hide exactly this data from you so this is basically where the cat and mouse game begins.
Personally I find this aspect of the game one the most interesting, players who play it with a love for detail have less
tendency to run headlong into full scale desaster and have good chances to outguess and outplay the opponent.

Basically what you need to estimate is what the opponent can bring there in time of your planned op. The longer your
op is bound to take, the more unprotected assets from your side need to rely on (CV) protection, the closer the location
of the op is to the opponents line of defense, and the further the loacation of the op is away from your own line of support,
the more likely the opponent will intervene, the larger the opposing forces are you will have to deal with, the more threat
dimensions (e.g. sub, SAG, mines, LBA, CV groups,...) you will need to deal with, and so the more in your favor the initial
force relation needs to be to have a plausable chance of coming out on the bright side of the battle.

d) Take force attrition into account:

This is actually an extension of b), attrition begins at the moment a CV group begins to conduct flight operations to
fulfill the mission requirements, always with the result of weakening the overall combat power and ability to perform
maximum effort strikes of your carriers. Attrition in battle always favours the side who has either shorter operational
timespan, or more assets with combat capability, or a simpler/shorter logistic chain.

Pay attention, this is essential: Using a carrier armada to support and defend a large invasion in the face of LBA threat, and
then expecting the same carriers - a week afterwards - to win a battle against a fresh and rested enemy carrier group that is
not completely understrenght compared to your forces, is dumb, to use the most friendly word that comes to my mind.
Morale and fatigue are extremely important values in such engagements.

If you are unable to rule out the appearence of strong enemy carrier forces while you are protecting an invasion with your fleet
carriers and need to ground attack, airfield attack, LRCAP and cAP against LBA and waste your AAA ammo against the same, need
to deal with surface assets, pay attention to the sub menace, and in general get your forces weary and tired by the daily attacks,
then do one thing of three:

- Set up dedicated mission specific carrier groups, one part with the landing support mission and one part to engage enemy carriers
(but know that by making this split you also weaken your raw combat power) - but we will come back to this later anyway.
- RUN
- Or chose an easier target for an invasion in the first place. Simple as that.

Moving headlong into a carrier desaster because your mighty highly fatigued invasion protection force that supported groundhoggers
for days was ambushed by fresh elite aircrews launched from carriers out of nowhere, and mauled accordingly, is not funny.
But it is a mistake. Not a "random event not under control by the player".

e) Use all assets available:

A carrier battle only fought by carriers is the worst possible way to do it.
Better have subs with your carriers to intercept approaching enemy carriers and sink cripples after battles.
Even better have surface action groups supporting you that can either thwart enemy SAGs, pose a threat to enemy
carriers, or act as a deterrence for your own flattops.
And the best is if you operate in range of your own LBA. Nothing can ruin a day for the enemy nicer than a CV
engagement salted with a couple of medium attack bombers making runs at sealevel.

This has more advantages than just improving your own numbers. It gives the opponend much to worry about, and a
worried opponent makes more mistakes, is bound to lose focus on his primary mission because he wants to deal with
too many threats at once, and usually takes longer to engage.


This concludes the theoretical assets of preparing for carrier battles. I will add a second part to address the practical
aspects of the engagements, but it already took me a bit to write this, so maybe it will take another couple of days
before I update with the next chapters.



Planned for the next update (what I further intend to cover):

Battle location, Set up your carrier task forces, Set up your air groups, The eve of battle, Game engine peculiarities to be aware of,
Licking Wounds.

This might take a whole though to put it up, simply because my life is pretty crowded at the moment, so
I cannot in advance say when, but I hope soon.

I hope you enjoyed the read up to now, if you have any proposals how to expand the guide, please go ahead.





< Message edited by LoBaron -- 12/6/2012 9:33:13 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!
Post #: 1
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 10:53:48 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4444
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Very well written as usual Lo Baron!

On Taskforce disposition: Some people stack all their CVs in the same TF claiming they get better coordination despite the penalty. Have anyone actually tested this?








(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 2
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 11:15:48 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Thanks JocMeister.

I am aware parts of the guide are obvious to many, but for completeness sake, and for the fact that often even the most
obvious things are overseen (at least happens to me on a regular basis), I wanted to include them.

quote:

On Taskforce disposition: Some people stack all their CVs in the same TF claiming they get better coordination despite the penalty. Have anyone actually tested this?


This will definitely part of the guide, intended for chapter "Set up your carrier task forces". Tested, not in a direct comparision I think. But I also think the answer would not
neccessarily be conclusive. There are advantages and disadvantages to both setups.

Personally I am a strong supporter of many balanced mutually supporting CV TFs, for a multitude of reasons I will explain in the above chapter. To sum it up the reasons for me to favor
multiple carrier groups are DL, strike coordination (* see below), TF balance, risk spread, avoiding overconcentration of force (max number of attacks available for CAP), flexibility, damage handling.

*Out of context of this guide I believe that the advantages of this type of setup will get even more distinct when upgrading to the most recent betas which removes an overcoordination bug.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 11/24/2012 11:19:28 AM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 3:51:56 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
LoBaron, Thanks for doing this.  Very helpfull.  Can you add something to the header of this thread.  No Koniu.  Just kidding.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 4
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 4:05:30 PM   
mikkey


Posts: 731
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
thanks for interesting reading LoBaron

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 5
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 6:20:56 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Thank you guys!

Not much time, only updated a small at the end of the pilot quality section (thanks for the quesitons, seille), and added 2)b) "Know the qualitative force relation" (I forgot about that one...).



_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to mikkey)
Post #: 6
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 7:11:46 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 17828
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
Hi LoBaron,

I'd recommend putting in advice about air group leaders and TF commanders' air ratings in the pilot section, as it has an effect on the quality and value of the aviators involved.

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 7
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 7:47:37 PM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: online
thanks, LoBaron - your initial post was a great read.

i hope you'll also script a screed about auxiliary carrier support operations - those CVL/CVE groups that provide add'l CAP/ASW/replacement action. & i sure could use some info wrt Reaction Range.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 8
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 8:16:07 PM   
Admiral Mitscher


Posts: 122
Joined: 12/10/2011
Status: offline
Thank you LoBaron for your wonderful primer on Carrier battles, it has ironed-out some my early and false misconceptions. But it dose reinforce my basic belief; that if you line as many ducks up as you can, you might have a slight chance of wining.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 9
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/24/2012 10:37:38 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7033
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Yep, nice post. I have heard it all before but always need to refresh as it is easy to forget.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Admiral Mitscher)
Post #: 10
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 9:53:08 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi LoBaron,

I'd recommend putting in advice about air group leaders and TF commanders' air ratings in the pilot section, as it has an effect on the quality and value of the aviators involved.


Agree Chickenboy. The plan was initially to take this into chapter "Set up your airgroups", but I wonder if another section would be more appropriate. Or to use a separate section for
leader skills at all. Need to think about it as it is a too important point to get lost.

"Set up your airgroups" was initially intended to cover mainly the aspects of attack altitude, altitude coordination, the drawbacks of using separate alt bands on carriers, mission
percentage settings and the likes. Not sure if leader skills fit into that.

Hm. Separate chapter maybe?

Will keep that in mind, thanks!

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 11
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 10:02:49 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

thanks, LoBaron - your initial post was a great read.

i hope you'll also script a screed about auxiliary carrier support operations - those CVL/CVE groups that provide add'l CAP/ASW/replacement action. & i sure could use some info wrt Reaction Range.


Thanks jmalter!
Will do a chapter on different CV mission profiles, also will try to cover which ship types are appropriate for which carrier TF missions.

Thanks for the reaction range reminder, will be covered. Upfront: CV vs. CV TF reaction is NOT governed by the reaction range slider. It is a default game mechanic that is much older than
the slider is. CV vs. CV reactions task is not to converge on a specific hex, but to establish an optimal strike distance to the enemy carriers. The desired ranges used to be different for Allies and IJN, IIRC
it was Allies: 3-4 hexes, IJN: 4-6 hexes distance. Need to dig into that as I not sure if those were the correct values. Any Encyclopedia Britannica Alfrediensis out there who remembers?

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 12
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 10:26:40 AM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1842
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
You made a lot of good points Lobaron. As for submarines - I have sunk more carriers by use of submarines AFTER a major battle then I sunk carriers DURING the air battle.. Lame ducks are very, very good targets for submarines...

With regards to damage control, the japanese have a distinct disadvantage. If you are very unlucky 1 decent 1000lb SAP hit makes sure the carrier can't recover it's aircraft. The allies often hold the advantage in a battle that lasts longer then one engagement...

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 13
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 2:30:08 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Just a quick thought .. but there are huge differences in game behaviors between Advanced Weather On and Advanced Weather Off. With advanced weather = on that little tibit of using maximum assets becomes more critical. Simply, there is a very high liklihood of bad weather that will ground seaplanes. Land based patrol craft are not affected by this. So venturing a air combat TF into the wilds depending on seaplane based search requires some thinking. The players can devote DB and TB resources that is less likely to be affected with advanced weather on, but one thought is to create multiple surface TF's with assests that have patrol craft and place them in different hexes. Even of the odds were P(.50) of grounding weather -- 4 task forces would reduce these odds to all of them grounded to less than 13%.

The worse environment for the KB is Advanced weather = on, to venture off out of Mavis range and into Catalina range, in a single TF occupying one hex depending exclusevily on seabased float patrol craft..the odds are very good that the Allies will get a first strike like IRF.

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 14
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 3:05:55 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7033
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I just don't put a lot of reliance on seaplane based search. Every attack unit in my carrier fleet is set to 10% patrol and to use drop tanks. Or one or two TBF units is set to 80% naval search with drop tanks. The 10% loss in combat strength is worth the saturated patrol area and increased DLs provided. Your best bet in a carrier fight is to create the highest DL possible. I hope this discussion is stickied. It is going to make a good reference.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 15
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 6:37:11 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I just don't put a lot of reliance on seaplane based search. Every attack unit in my carrier fleet is set to 10% patrol and to use drop tanks. Or one or two TBF units is set to 80% naval search with drop tanks. The 10% loss in combat strength is worth the saturated patrol area and increased DLs provided. Your best bet in a carrier fight is to create the highest DL possible. I hope this discussion is stickied. It is going to make a good reference.


I'm an AFB so I don't do the fighters on seach but I usually put all the TB's on search on arcs where I think the KB could be a comin' ... since the poor torpedo perfromance is bested by finding stuff

One other thing .. the defense comes from the target not an interception path as intuition might suggest .. thus a IJ strike launched from say Baker Island hex toward Caton Is and there are fighters on Baker .. they will never see combat .. besides the fact that LRCAP is severly attrited .. so do not think "Hey I have three bases with aircraft between me and him ..." The detection and the fight is based on the target not the path .. with CAP/LRCAP around the target leaking into the fight. This algorithum produces interesting results .. This affects Kami attacks also ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 16
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 7:58:20 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Your best bet in a carrier fight is to create the highest DL possible.


Very true.

I see it the same way as you, I happily sacrifice over 20% of my combat strenght to maximize enemy TF DL and avoid misses. This is essential
for a successful carrier battle. Naval search needs to be an incremental part of the CV based units, simply because its the only way to combine the
conditions for search and strike. There is nothing worse than a failed search because of weather conditions although the strike would have
been perfectly able to get to target.

The more there is support search (patrol planes, HB´s with NavS skill,....) available, the better. But rely I only would on the CV squadrons themselves.


Crackaces, weather will get a lot of attention, both in "The eve of battle" and the "Game engine peculiarities" chapter.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 17
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 8:02:20 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
.. the defense comes from the target not an interception path as intuition might suggest .. thus a IJ strike launched from say Baker Island hex toward Caton Is and there are fighters on Baker .. they will never see combat ..


This is not completely correct. The detection comes from the target and not the "interception path" - at least according to my experience other bases do not support on strike detection.
The defense may well be from a base or flight deck along the interception path, granted CAP settings permit. This will also be covered in one of the chapters, still need to work out where...

Edit: probably as part of the "Battle Location" chapter, this behaviour has serious consequences for CV borne CAP in a confined environment - like the DEIs for example.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 11/25/2012 8:05:06 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 18
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/25/2012 8:20:53 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
.. the defense comes from the target not an interception path as intuition might suggest .. thus a IJ strike launched from say Baker Island hex toward Caton Is and there are fighters on Baker .. they will never see combat ..


This is not completely correct. The detection comes from the target and not the "interception path" - at least according to my experience other bases do not support on strike detection.
The defense may well be from a base or flight deck within the interception path, granted CAP settings permit. This will also be covered in one of the chapters, still need to work out where...


Ahh my point exactly . if I was not clear. Thus the target hex detects and CAP/LRCAP algorithums orginate from that point. Thus a base full of fighters is say 6 hexes away from the target base but let us say 2 hexes from the strike orgination right in the path of the strike .. the LRCAP computation will be 6 hexes not 2 hexes ......thus intitively one would think hey these guys are right in the path! but in reality in the game they are not. In my case, 40 fighers sitting on Baker Island right under the nose of the KB could not participate in the inteercept although they are sitting in the path of the strike because the strike was detected at Caton Island ..

Add on LRCAP over a TF penality and land based air on the defense becomes a moot point ...

However, Land Based air on a strike package is an entirely different story. Thus ... in a CV confrontation I have zero landbased fighters on CAP/LRCAP and 100% on escort if the KB is in range ... there is very little benifit from land based CAP/LRCAP vs a TF .. and a lot of benefit going toward a target ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 19
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/26/2012 3:01:02 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7033
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Crackaces, I never set arcs for naval searh from my carrier aircraft (LBA, I do set arcs) I have not ever noticed a difference between setting arcs and not. If you put enough aircraft up on search all the arcs will be searched multiple times. Just a preference as I find maintaining arcs for multiple carrier squadrons tedious. And am convinced that it does not matter...

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 20
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/26/2012 4:37:26 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10878
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Well written and excellent advice along with some serious thinking. Thanks!

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 21
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/26/2012 7:09:56 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5954
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Good stuff from LoBaron as always.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 22
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/26/2012 11:30:21 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Crackaces, I never set arcs for naval searh from my carrier aircraft (LBA, I do set arcs) I have not ever noticed a difference between setting arcs and not. If you put enough aircraft up on search all the arcs will be searched multiple times. Just a preference as I find maintaining arcs for multiple carrier squadrons tedious. And am convinced that it does not matter...


It does look more menacing when one presses the 'z' key

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 23
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/27/2012 7:21:18 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 698
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
"Air skill is for the guys in planes or the squadron commanders, it does not help to drive a ship. Period."

Is that related to the specific ship captain; or also to the fleet commander?

I have Kiddo Butai; it contains 6 carrier captain and 1 fleet commander (Nagumo); does this means that the "air" skill of all is irrelevant? or just the 6 carrier captains?

thanks

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 24
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/28/2012 11:55:36 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Thank you guys, and sorry that it will take a bit until the next larger update. I see what I can do to get it up ASAP but I got a pretty crowded
life at the moment. I got some drafts in the works, but not enough for an update yet. Sadly I am that kind of guy who needs a bit of peace and
quiet to write stuff that makes sense, and peace and quiet currently is highly dependent on a 4 months old wannabe TF commander demanding
attention.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

"Air skill is for the guys in planes or the squadron commanders, it does not help to drive a ship. Period."

Is that related to the specific ship captain; or also to the fleet commander?

I have Kiddo Butai; it contains 6 carrier captain and 1 fleet commander (Nagumo); does this means that the "air" skill of all is irrelevant? or just the 6 carrier captains?

thanks


TF commanders air skill, according to all I know, does have an impact on CV TF operations as it increases mission frequency for the planes in
the TF. It is not enough to outweight naval skill - I would not accept a 45 Naval skill TF commander because he has 90 air skill - but it is an
important to have secondary skill.

I was referring to ship captains, wonder if I was specific enough on this.


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 25
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/28/2012 3:01:35 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 698
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
You were specific... I am just getting paranoid ; leadership is probably where my knowledge gap is the greatest.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 26
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/29/2012 2:23:25 AM   
SenToku

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
Has the naval search some function in actual strike, or is it just used to find the enemy's TF?

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 27
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/29/2012 2:49:16 AM   
panzer cat

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 10/2/2011
From: The occupied Southland
Status: offline
This is a great post, wish I had known some of this before I lost most of my carriers. Improving the nav search skill for bomber pilots had never occured to me. Do I need to train my ASW pilots in nav search also.(off topic, sorry).

(in reply to SenToku)
Post #: 28
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/29/2012 3:05:17 AM   
Quixote


Posts: 723
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SenToku

Has the naval search some function in actual strike, or is it just used to find the enemy's TF?




No role in the actual strike, but don't discount it. It doesn't matter how good your strike is if they find nothing to strike.

You'll see bomber groups fail to find their way often enough throughout the game, but the less you see it, the better.

(in reply to SenToku)
Post #: 29
RE: How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 - 11/29/2012 6:00:10 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4518
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Quixote


quote:

ORIGINAL: SenToku

Has the naval search some function in actual strike, or is it just used to find the enemy's TF?




No role in the actual strike, but don't discount it. It doesn't matter how good your strike is if they find nothing to strike.

You'll see bomber groups fail to find their way often enough throughout the game, but the less you see it, the better.


Quixote, check the part of the manual about DL. It does have an important part in the strike itself.

The higher the DL of a unit is, the easier it is to hit. For naval units this rule applies to surface combat as well as air attacks against shipping.
In addition to your comment about finding the target in the first place, this is what makes NavS missions such a dangerous weapons, even if it does not drop a bomb.
(and what makes good radar sets on ships so important FWIIW...)

There is a significant difference in survivability of a spotted target compared to a very well spotted target.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 11/29/2012 6:01:25 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Quixote)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> How To Orchestrate a Carrier Battle v0.1 Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
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

0.129