Matrix Games Forums

Community impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Combining CVE and CVs in TFs?

 
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 >> Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/20/2013 6:39:37 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7124
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Is this a mistake because it slows the TF down during enemy air attacks? Thus more hits for the enemy on both CVs and CVEs?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Post #: 1
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/20/2013 7:52:56 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4009
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Is this a mistake because it slows the TF down during enemy air attacks? Thus more hits for the enemy on both CVs and CVEs?


I always try to keep my CV groups formed around ships of the same speed... and a CVE would drastically reduce this. You could form them in a seperate task force, and have them work with the CV group, but not always be able to keep up and cover as much ocean. Speed to me is key. I would much prefer all of my CV groups to have a 9 hex movement. The CVEs can cover the invasion forces until they get close to the target and let the CVs cover it from there. Or they can operate in an area that doesn't have as high of LBA threat.

< Message edited by jeffk3510 -- 3/20/2013 7:53:55 PM >


_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/20/2013 8:10:29 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4541
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Is this a mistake because it slows the TF down during enemy air attacks? Thus more hits for the enemy on both CVs and CVEs?


IMHO this is an absolute no-go.

CVE types significantly lower the number of A/C per flight deck, usually half the CV TFs max speed, have no long range AAA that could contribute to
fleet defense, are prone to take damage and will then slow down the TF even more.

Basically, by adding CVE´s you significantly lower the survival chances of the fleet carriers in a TF.

If you absolutely need to let CV/CVL types and CVEs operate in the same hex - which I seldom find reason for except in transit - use them in separate task forces.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/20/2013 8:11:14 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 3
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/20/2013 8:54:06 PM   
guctony


Posts: 415
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline
What about using CVEs as scape goat. If used in same TF they would diffuse the attacking air groups focus. I am assuming here by the way.

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 4
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/20/2013 9:17:53 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4009
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony

What about using CVEs as scape goat. If used in same TF they would diffuse the attacking air groups focus. I am assuming here by the way.


I would NEVER put CVEs in the same group.. that is my opinion.

I am guessing many others are in the same boat.

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 5
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/20/2013 9:30:00 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2539
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony

What about using CVEs as scape goat. If used in same TF they would diffuse the attacking air groups focus. I am assuming here by the way.

The difference in speed tactically was the mitigating factor historically. Under attack, most ships in a CV/CVL TF will operate at 25kt or better. A CVE cannot even reach that speed.

In the game, using a CVE in a Fleet CV task force would force the speed to be akin to operating the Fleet CV TF at cruise speed.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 6
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/20/2013 9:35:45 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I don't think folks are answering the question.  He's asking whether a CVE inside a carrier TF acts to slow down the ships as they face incoming air attacks.  IE, Kates are coming in off the starboard bow and a CVE is going 20 knots as opposed to a CV going 25 knots - does the CVE's slower speed in relation to the attack increase it's vulnerability?

For instance, we know that QE can operate without escort because her high speed makes it nearly impossible for Japanese subs to accurately fire against her, but a regular xAP steaming at 15 knots gets clobbered.  I think the OP is asking whether a similar thing applies to carriers inside a hex during the tactical moments of an incoming air strike.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 7
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/20/2013 10:37:33 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4541
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Ok, in this case:

Big E will still turn and burn @ 32kts when the Kates try to get into launch position, even if Shamrock Bay is part of the TF.


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 8
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 1:23:08 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7124
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok, in this case:

Big E will still turn and burn @ 32kts when the Kates try to get into launch position, even if Shamrock Bay is part of the TF.



Ok, that answers my question. Then it is not the TF speed that is critical during the attack but each individual ship's speed is the factor regardless of slower ship in the TF?

Thanks,


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 9
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 2:17:33 AM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2101
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
Will the CVE be more, less, equally as likely to attract air attack than a CV or BB?

IME, all capital ships in a TF tend to be equally likely to be attacked, but slower ships are more likely to be hit.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 10
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 7:48:00 AM   
guctony


Posts: 415
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline
In all tactical positions in the game the wise thing to do is the abilty of diluting enemy attack force. As japanese used in the last phase of guadal canal. As baits and TP attractors CVEs are very suitable. Indeed in game wise every CV TF encounter means loss for both side even with the best traps. Japan can sustain 5 CV fight probably. Sacrificing CVLs and CVEs is wisest.

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 11
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 8:03:56 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4541
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok, in this case:

Big E will still turn and burn @ 32kts when the Kates try to get into launch position, even if Shamrock Bay is part of the TF.



Ok, that answers my question. Then it is not the TF speed that is critical during the attack but each individual ship's speed is the factor regardless of slower ship in the TF?

Thanks,



Yes.

The TF speed is is used when calculating the odds of success rolls in initiating/evading combat, so that might be critical before the attack (although
not so much for air attack AFAIK).

But when the attack already takes place and the individual plane elements make their runs, the individual flank speed is used in the combat calculations.

It is similar to surface combat. An escorting DD is considered to use flank speed during the engagement, even if theres slow xAKs in the TF.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 12
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 9:33:11 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok, in this case:

Big E will still turn and burn @ 32kts when the Kates try to get into launch position, even if Shamrock Bay is part of the TF.



Ok, that answers my question. Then it is not the TF speed that is critical during the attack but each individual ship's speed is the factor regardless of slower ship in the TF?

Thanks,



I'm not so sure. Isn't this akin to having 22 knot BBs in with fast cruisers and DDs? I've seen in many examples where that has been said to be and turned out based on results to be a poor choice in constructing a TF. This was remarked on often a while back, I think in CR's AAR with Chez, and the reason for not putting slow ships into a fast moving TF is that you hen take everyone down to the slow ships speed. I experienced this early on in my first PBEM as well, and Dan Nichols took advantage with some all fast TFs.

My opinion is that yes, putting CVEs with fast CVs will make ALL ships more vulnerable when being attacked because they are all restricted to the top speed of the slowest ship.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 13
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 9:36:37 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok, in this case:

Big E will still turn and burn @ 32kts when the Kates try to get into launch position, even if Shamrock Bay is part of the TF.



Ok, that answers my question. Then it is not the TF speed that is critical during the attack but each individual ship's speed is the factor regardless of slower ship in the TF?

Thanks,



Yes.

The TF speed is is used when calculating the odds of success rolls in initiating/evading combat, so that might be critical before the attack (although
not so much for air attack AFAIK).

But when the attack already takes place and the individual plane elements make their runs, the individual flank speed is used in the combat calculations.

It is similar to surface combat. An escorting DD is considered to use flank speed during the engagement, even if theres slow xAKs in the TF.


I think this is not correct. My DDs rarely are hit when on their own, but if they're with slower ships they will be hit often. That's not just with transports but with slower combat ships as well, and faced with any kind of threat. Whether it is how it's supposed to work or not, slow ships make all others more vulnerable to attack.

For example I would never put a 12 knot TK with my fast 19 knot AOs. The AOs would be then moving at 12 knots and would be more vulnerable to sub, air or sea attacks. Or, for a combat ship, I would never put my DDs in the same TF with 20 knot Es.

Maybe they do move quicker in combat than the slower ships, but I certainly notice the faster ships die more often as well with this mix. So regardless of how the game is supposed to operate, putting CVEs in a TF with fast CVs will likely mean the fast CVs (being the primary target as well) will get hit more.

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/21/2013 9:50:24 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 14
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 10:08:59 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12263
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok, in this case:

Big E will still turn and burn @ 32kts when the Kates try to get into launch position, even if Shamrock Bay is part of the TF.



Ok, that answers my question. Then it is not the TF speed that is critical during the attack but each individual ship's speed is the factor regardless of slower ship in the TF?

Thanks,



I'm not so sure. Isn't this akin to having 22 knot BBs in with fast cruisers and DDs? I've seen in many examples where that has been said to be and turned out based on results to be a poor choice in constructing a TF. This was remarked on often a while back, I think in CR's AAR with Chez, and the reason for not putting slow ships into a fast moving TF is that you hen take everyone down to the slow ships speed. I experienced this early on in my first PBEM as well, and Dan Nichols took advantage with some all fast TFs.

My opinion is that yes, putting CVEs with fast CVs will make ALL ships more vulnerable when being attacked because they are all restricted to the top speed of the slowest ship.



this is not true when it comes down to air attacks. Doesn't even have to be tested, can be seen in ongoing games, thousands examples on the board. Destroyers are hard to hit because they are fast and agile, if they operate in a cargo TF with 11 knot freighters, they are still fast and agile during air attacks and are not slowed down to the same speed as the freighters. Same goes for a slow CVE in a CV TF or a slow BB in a CV TF.

During air attacks, it's obvious that each ship's individual speed and man rating is taking into account.


edit: as I've just read your last post, if this would be correct, fast escorts going with merchants would be as easily hit as a heavily damaged destroyer for example (guess how much damage it takes to slow down a DD to 11 knots, would be pretty much in sinking condition). And undamaged destroyers in "slow TFs" are for sure not as easily hit as heavily damaged destroyers going alone.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/21/2013 10:12:10 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 15
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 10:14:33 AM   
guctony


Posts: 415
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline
One interesting note though. Have you noticed DDs witout fuel are able to escape from dive bomber hits. When you get the message DD death slow at see "something like that". When the are stand still at see it seems it is harder to hit. Is it like this in real life

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 16
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 10:20:28 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4823
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony

One interesting note though. Have you noticed DDs witout fuel are able to escape from dive bomber hits. When you get the message DD death slow at see "something like that". When the are stand still at see it seems it is harder to hit. Is it like this in real life


Not my experience at all. It says "ship dead in the water" and they get hit like crazy.

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 17
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 10:29:50 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

this is not true when it comes down to air attacks. Doesn't even have to be tested, can be seen in ongoing games, thousands examples on the board. Destroyers are hard to hit because they are fast and agile, if they operate in a cargo TF with 11 knot freighters, they are still fast and agile during air attacks and are not slowed down to the same speed as the freighters. Same goes for a slow CVE in a CV TF or a slow BB in a CV TF.

During air attacks, it's obvious that each ship's individual speed and man rating is taking into account.


edit: as I've just read your last post, if this would be correct, fast escorts going with merchants would be as easily hit as a heavily damaged destroyer for example (guess how much damage it takes to slow down a DD to 11 knots, would be pretty much in sinking condition). And undamaged destroyers in "slow TFs" are for sure not as easily hit as heavily damaged destroyers going alone.


Well, I've seen quite a few more DDs hit by air attacks in transport TFs than when they are in fast TFs with other DDs, for sure. The interesting part of this is that in the transport TFs they're not even the primary target. In fact in most TFs they are not the primary target. But when it's DDs alone, they are slippery.

Still it's all aside from the OP. It's not a good idea to put CVEs and CVs in the same TF, for lots of reasons.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 18
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 10:36:24 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4541
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Yes.

The TF speed is is used when calculating the odds of success rolls in initiating/evading combat, so that might be critical before the attack (although
not so much for air attack AFAIK).

But when the attack already takes place and the individual plane elements make their runs, the individual flank speed is used in the combat calculations.

It is similar to surface combat. An escorting DD is considered to use flank speed during the engagement, even if theres slow xAKs in the TF.


I think this is not correct. My DDs rarely are hit when on their own, but if they're with slower ships they will be hit often. That's not just with transports but with slower combat ships as well, and faced with any kind of threat. Whether it is how it's supposed to work or not, slow ships make all others more vulnerable to attack.

For example I would never put a 12 knot TK with my fast 19 knot AOs. The AOs would be then moving at 12 knots and would be more vulnerable to sub, air or sea attacks. Or, for a combat ship, I would never put my DDs in the same TF with 20 knot Es.

Maybe they do move quicker in combat than the slower ships, but I certainly notice the faster ships die more often as well with this mix. So regardless of how the game is supposed to operate, putting CVEs in a TF with fast CVs will likely mean the fast CVs (being the primary target as well) will get hit more.


Obvert, ships in combat move at ship flank speed, thats a fact, not guesswork.

The reason why combat ships in an transport TF are more prone to damage than, for example, in an SAG, is not related to
individual ship speed, but instead because of a combination of different root causes:

This happens not because they are - as an individual ships - slowed down by the TF, but:

- Because they are usually the high priority targets in that TF
- Suffer from a penalty on ship combat caused by TF type (but unrelated to ship speed)
- Usually suffer from a weaker TF commander
- Usually suffer from worse tactical mvr ('crossing the T')
- Cannot disengage that easily in the face of superior numbers, because for disengaging the TF max speed is relevant again.


Your example with the TK/AO still is partly correct though, as the TK could increase, for example, a subs´ chance to
successfully intercept the convoy.

BUT this has nothing to do with the combat itself, just with the fact that combat takes place at all.
After the dice has set fate that the sub is able to engage, and your 19kts AO is selected as the potential target, the survival chances of
your AO are the same, independent on whether theres a 12kts TK in the TF of not.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 19
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 11:14:25 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4541
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Forgot an important factor:
 
It is much easier to increase the DL of a transport TF, and so also individual ships in a transport TF,
as compared to an independent fast moving DD.
 
Since chances to score hits on a ship also depend on the DL of that ship, this is a factor influencing
combat performance as well.
 
But again, this has no implications on the ships ability to go to flank speed in an engagement.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 20
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 11:31:06 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

- Because they are usually the high priority targets in that TF
[1]- Suffer from a penalty on ship combat caused by TF type (but unrelated to ship speed)
[2]- Usually suffer from a weaker TF commander
[3]- Usually suffer from worse tactical mvr ('crossing the T')
[4]- Cannot disengage that easily in the face of superior numbers, because for disengaging the TF max speed is relevant again.


quote:

It is much easier to increase the DL of a transport TF, and so also individual ships in a transport TF,
as compared to an independent fast moving DD.


Thanks for the clarification. I'm simply going on the evidence of my play and other results I've seen. I have a list as long as my arm for tests I want to do, but as my second game got moving again, no time to try them out.

So my reasoning if off based on how the game works. The results appear to still be much the same, just for different reasons.

1. I had wondered about this, but didn't know for sure. Combat ships nearly always do perform worse when not in a SCTF.

2. The reason I'm careful about the commander type for EVERY important TF. I'll often change the commander of even an ASW TF.

3. Good point. Not relevant to air combat, but still the other factors like DL rise and lack of maneuver does factor in with air attack.

4. This seems very important, but again for surface combat.

My GF goes out of town next week so I might be able to et into the test game and try sue options. I'd one to see the results of these different things in action in a controlled situation.

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/21/2013 11:32:44 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 21
RE: Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? - 3/21/2013 11:35:36 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

edit: as I've just read your last post, if this would be correct, fast escorts going with merchants would be as easily hit as a heavily damaged destroyer for example (guess how much damage it takes to slow down a DD to 11 knots, would be pretty much in sinking condition). And undamaged destroyers in "slow TFs" are for sure not as easily hit as heavily damaged destroyers going alone.


Good clarification. That makes sense.



_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Combining CVE and CVs in TFs? 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

0.117