Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter deployment strategy"

 
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 >> Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter deployment strategy" Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter deploy... - 4/26/2017 5:30:09 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 853
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
All opinions welcome though I have / am playing as Allied Primarily.

Gentlemen/ Lady

A number of threads ago a few vets expressed being sold on the idea to deploy CV Fighters "all or nothing".I was actually quite intrigued by this suggestion. I cannot recall specifically who...

Question: If you have a Air Combat Task Force how do you typically deploy the fighters as "all or nothing"?

-Do you always have 5+ CV CVL ?
-Do you always keep the CV Squads on 100% CAP and send only the CVL Squads on Escort ?
-Do you have a percentage in mind for those in Escort ? i.e. 50% - 50% ignoring difference in squad sizes?
-Do you load up CVLs or CVs with a custom arrangement of Fighters vs TBD/SBD ?

I went home and tried to set it up.

I cannot opine that is was a rip roaring success for me in early 43 then mid 43 (verses AI / Hard).

However limited sample size here so please accept I am inexperienced and I mostly want to learn

- CVLs in the task force have fewer fighters and generally less average experience.
- I "feel" my escorted bombers got hammered a little harder albeit in only one or two test samples.
- The mix per flattop seemed to me to get better results...
- Perhaps my set ups are too 'historical and stodgy'

--

So my typical set up.

Generally I prefer to built my (Allied) CV Task force as:

Early 1943 : 3 X CV 2X CA 2X CL 1X CLAA 10X DD : Under Mischner / Bull. All F4F
Cruising CAP (i.e. no imminent threat detected) : 50 CAP 20 Train 10 Rest
Combat CAP (i.e. geared up for confrontation) : 70 CAP 10 Rest.... Leaves me 20% escort to attack

Mid Late 43 : 3 X CV 1 X CVL s2X CA 2X CL 1X CLAA 10X DD: Usually Mischner / Bull / Spruance. All F6F
Cruising CAP (i.e. no imminent threat detected) : 50 CAP 20 Train 10 Rest
Combat CAP (i.e. geared up for confrontation) : 70 CAP 10 Rest.... Leaves me 20% escort to attack

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
Post #: 1
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/26/2017 5:39:00 PM   
John B.


Posts: 2118
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: online
Interesting. I remember reading someplace the carrier TFs become less efficient if they have more than 14 ships. If so, yours might be just little bit too large. As for CAP, my fighter jockeys tend to get tired and see their morale go down if I leave then at high CAP levels for too long. Do you see the same thing? Also, if I can I put in a BB (Iowa class if available) since my theory is that it's an extra target for the IJN that has more armor and can take more hits. Every sortie that hits the BB is one less that hits the CV. But, other than Iowa class there is a small speed sacrifice to that strategy.

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 2
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/26/2017 5:48:34 PM   
dave sindel

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

All opinions welcome though I have / am playing as Allied Primarily.

Gentlemen/ Lady

A number of threads ago a few vets expressed being sold on the idea to deploy CV Fighters "all or nothing".I was actually quite intrigued by this suggestion. I cannot recall specifically who...

Question: If you have a Air Combat Task Force how do you typically deploy the fighters as "all or nothing"?

-Do you always have 5+ CV CVL ?
-Do you always keep the CV Squads on 100% CAP and send only the CVL Squads on Escort ?
-Do you have a percentage in mind for those in Escort ? i.e. 50% - 50% ignoring difference in squad sizes?
-Do you load up CVLs or CVs with a custom arrangement of Fighters vs TBD/SBD ?

I went home and tried to set it up.

I cannot opine that is was a rip roaring success for me in early 43 then mid 43 (verses AI / Hard).

However limited sample size here so please accept I am inexperienced and I mostly want to learn

- CVLs in the task force have fewer fighters and generally less average experience.
- I "feel" my escorted bombers got hammered a little harder albeit in only one or two test samples.
- The mix per flattop seemed to me to get better results...
- Perhaps my set ups are too 'historical and stodgy'

--

So my typical set up.

Generally I prefer to built my (Allied) CV Task force as:

Early 1943 : 3 X CV 2X CA 2X CL 1X CLAA 10X DD : Under Mischner / Bull. All F4F
Cruising CAP (i.e. no imminent threat detected) : 50 CAP 20 Train 10 Rest
Combat CAP (i.e. geared up for confrontation) : 70 CAP 10 Rest.... Leaves me 20% escort to attack

Mid Late 43 : 3 X CV 1 X CVL s2X CA 2X CL 1X CLAA 10X DD: Usually Mischner / Bull / Spruance. All F6F
Cruising CAP (i.e. no imminent threat detected) : 50 CAP 20 Train 10 Rest
Combat CAP (i.e. geared up for confrontation) : 70 CAP 10 Rest.... Leaves me 20% escort to attack


I believe that it was Lokasenna who advanced the idea of keeping fighters in a single role for the group. Either assigned to a CAP role, or assigned to an escort role.

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 3
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/26/2017 6:11:01 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6036
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dave sindel
I believe that it was Lokasenna who advanced the idea of keeping fighters in a single role for the group. Either assigned to a CAP role, or assigned to an escort role.


I also subscribe to this line of thought. In addition, I max carrier forces as 3 CV, 1 CVL compositions. Any more and I seem to get strike disorganization. Other people may have different views on this.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to dave sindel)
Post #: 4
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/26/2017 7:04:54 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 853
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
Thanks you all...

Re: BB in the TF - fair thanks - have done that time to time. Don't think my number of ships / types causes "Air coordination penalties" and so is a different issue than I am exploring.

Re: subscribe - In fact I think you opined the same in the thread Lecivius

Again I am just sort of learning.

--

I'm not looking for empirical proof honest - rather what is the typical deployment using this strategy ?

How you balance the "overall" CAP verse Escort in rough percentages

If it is really mostly effective in 44 45 or do you use it from 42 on will smaller number of CVs available (Allied)

--

The concept actually make inherent sense and when I recall detailed readings of say Battle of the Philippine Sea - it actually seems to "game mechanic" correspond to real life.

My thought/ deployment was:

- to place all the CVL Fighter Escort >> 10% Rest so that 90% actually Escorted.
- 2 of 3 CV : Escort >> 90% CAP >> 10% Rest so it was basically all CAP say "Hornet and Wasp'
- 1 of 3 CV : Escort >> 50% CAP 10% Rest so 40% of say 'Enterprise' might fly with all the Bombers.

The handicap (??) so to speak is (at least in 1943)

- CVL fighter squadrons are fewer in number and generally less experienced.
- I got strikes though I had more damaged and shot down SDBs/TDB's per 'Alpha strike'
- I got the same damage to "my" Carriers both times...

(in early 43 against F4Fs - glancing blows - `1 Torp - and in mid late 43 with F6Fs the IJN did not even scratch my CVs)

Now of course this is all based on 2 small tests of a very inexperienced player.

Random die rolls could account for any differential.

I might be doing it ALL WRONG

Just looking for more insight.

Cheers



< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 4/26/2017 7:07:03 PM >


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 5
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/26/2017 8:38:21 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
Lokasenna crystallized something for me after a painful episode. Paraphrasing: "CVLs are just CVEs with fleet speed." Changes a number of things for me.

I would never train pilots while on a war deployment. Train before. Once you're in Indian country, no.

What you can or should do is different in 1942, first half 43, second half 43, and 1944.

Another Loka-ism--stick ten or fifteen CVEs in an Air TF and follow the CVs at zero hexes. Let the CVEs do CAP. Attack with the CV air wings, fighters on 100% Escort. Yes, the CVEs slow everything down. So what?


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 6
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/27/2017 7:51:22 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 853
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Lokasenna crystallized something for me after a painful episode. Paraphrasing: "CVLs are just CVEs with fleet speed." Changes a number of things for me.

I would never train pilots while on a war deployment. Train before. Once you're in Indian country, no.

What you can or should do is different in 1942, first half 43, second half 43, and 1944.

Another Loka-ism--stick ten or fifteen CVEs in an Air TF and follow the CVs at zero hexes. Let the CVEs do CAP. Attack with the CV air wings, fighters on 100% Escort. Yes, the CVEs slow everything down. So what?



1) Hey Ya ! Thats right !

Actually as circumstances dictate I have included Sagamon CVE (s) in a Carrier Taskforce... and now as I think of it much of the advice of "never do so" is not fully correct. In this game "as situations dictate" is the correct mantra. Speed is not always the most important thing.

2) Agreed. Only train when "cruising" if not entirely clear. I tend to micromanage the various squadron orders daily.. but I often cruise the CV Task force between "say Pearl and Canton" when I know its safe - to provide some threat to IJN raiders vs my merchant shipments and to gain experience.

3) The very essence of the question. Its much less possible in 1942. Simply a lack of flattops for example.

4) Ahhh now that answers even more... especially for late 43 and onwards. Again above speed is not everything and I had not considered that.

re: 4 Most CVEs end up with F4F and the GM version of F4Fs so actually you loose Hellcat (in some instances) CAP. Maybe I should even consider the other way around (depending on threat from KB or LBA)?? Perhaps the Carrier Hellcats should CAP and the F4Fs Escort ???


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 7
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/27/2017 8:26:54 PM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 274
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada (Lives in Brandon, MB)
Status: offline
I try every now and then playing a Mariana's scenario against myself in hopes of finding a way to stop the USN CV attacks and even with 100% CAP on all IJN CV's AND land based air, the results always remain the same: complete or almost complete destruction of the Kido Butai. My theories now is that the IJN will always remain an offensive force as long as the A6M is still in service, its a great escort fighter, but doesn't pack the punch to knock down many late war US CV aircraft.

_____________________________

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"- attributed to Isoroko Yamamoto

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 8
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/28/2017 4:03:39 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
Re CVE fighters, I immediately change out the Wildcats for Hellcats. I've never been short of Hellcats (first model), and in the game, by the time the CVEs begin to really roll out, the Japanese have second- and third-gen fighters everywhere. So CVEs doing all the CAP is no sacrifice. You can play the game or you can lose playing history.

In September 1944 I have roughly 1000 Wildcats in the pools. They're staying there.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 9
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/28/2017 4:27:23 PM   
Vipersp

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 12/6/2014
Status: offline
As a Japanese player, from 1943 ahead I use to create dedicated CVs with only fighters based in, maximizing the fighter wing to the full carrier capacity and keeping CVLs or less capacity CVs in Kido Buttai forming the attack force with TBs and DBs;
If facing a possible allied treat I set my fighters to 90% CAP and 10% rest and no offensive ops so I just keep defending the fleet till the allied force exaust its sortie number and have most of its offensive bomber force destroyed;
Only then I pass into offensive..
So far it has working nicely against my allied opponent

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 10
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/28/2017 6:26:33 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2128
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
The all-or-nothing approach to CV usage works very well, and it takes a real perfect storm for the Japanese player to breach it.

What Bullwinkle says is the harsh truth. The fleet CV's should be the core of any Allied CV deployment, bulked out by the CVL's as force multipliers. The CVE's serve as ablative armour.

What it boils down to is critical mass. If the Allies can amass a large enough CAP, then it takes a bigger Japanese strike package to break through.

In the late game, Allied CAP numbers go through the roof. Allied carrier aircraft can number 5k by mid-1945 - that takes a monumental Japanese strike to breach (even if only some of that 5k are fighters).

On top of that is the innate advantages to the defenders in air combat - CAP doesn't get fragmented or refuse to fly, radar tends to give excellent warning by 1945, and you've gargantuan numbers of good flak guns on your ships.

Amusingly enough, it is easier to sink Allied carriers with surface ships in 1945 than it is with aircraft.

(in reply to Vipersp)
Post #: 11
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/28/2017 7:34:12 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vipersp

As a Japanese player, from 1943 ahead I use to create dedicated CVs with only fighters based in, maximizing the fighter wing to the full carrier capacity and keeping CVLs or less capacity CVs in Kido Buttai forming the attack force with TBs and DBs;
If facing a possible allied treat I set my fighters to 90% CAP and 10% rest and no offensive ops so I just keep defending the fleet till the allied force exaust its sortie number and have most of its offensive bomber force destroyed;
Only then I pass into offensive..
So far it has working nicely against my allied opponent



It works so long as the Allies care about sinking your CVs. As soon as he sees the Air TFs have minimal strike forces he ought to get on with the business of taking real estate and getting closer to the HI.

I've said it many times here. A lesson from early in OCS: "Ships exist only to influence events on land."

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Vipersp)
Post #: 12
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/29/2017 12:12:16 AM   
Vipersp

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 12/6/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vipersp

As a Japanese player, from 1943 ahead I use to create dedicated CVs with only fighters based in, maximizing the fighter wing to the full carrier capacity and keeping CVLs or less capacity CVs in Kido Buttai forming the attack force with TBs and DBs;
If facing a possible allied treat I set my fighters to 90% CAP and 10% rest and no offensive ops so I just keep defending the fleet till the allied force exaust its sortie number and have most of its offensive bomber force destroyed;
Only then I pass into offensive..
So far it has working nicely against my allied opponent



It works so long as the Allies care about sinking your CVs. As soon as he sees the Air TFs have minimal strike forces he ought to get on with the business of taking real estate and getting closer to the HI.

I've said it many times here. A lesson from early in OCS: "Ships exist only to influence events on land."



That's pretty sure for sure but if the Jap player achieve success and disable the allied CV TF so it can turn the odds and disrupt allied landings..in stock scenarios Japan only can fight to hurt the allies the hard they can after 43;

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 13
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/29/2017 2:03:13 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
CV TFs generally should not have more than 15 ships. From the game manual, page 91 in my copy, "Task forces that consist of more than 15 ships suffer diminishing returns in effectiveness defending against air attack and fighting in surface battles."

So you should limit your TFs, in general, to 15 ships. More ships also tend to lead to many more collisions, in my experience, in all circumstances, including amphibious operations. I also firmly believe that the number of ships that are ASW capable should equal or exceed the number of ships that are not. This seems to greatly reduce the probability of a torpedo hit on the larger ships. So I generally try to use 8 DDs for a 15-ship CV TF.

The total number of aircraft in the strike should not exceed approx. 250 for Japan. Less for the allies until 1944 if the TF will be conducting offensive operations. Per 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)."

So 4 CVs is really the limit if you want a high probability of good strike coordination. Therefore, CAP and escort settings and whether or not to "go all-in" on one or the other really is not as important as TF composition, altitude settings, range, detection level, and so forth.

Of course, you can always have more than 1 TF in the same hex to provide extra CAP. So in large-scale CV battles, involving more than 3 or 4 CVs per side, offensive operations are costly and difficult, regardless of settings. This is why a late-war CV strike by Japan against Deathstar is doomed to fail. More often than not, the strike will be uncoordinated and destroyed piecemeal. CVs were simply not capable of launching massive numbers of aircraft in offensive operations. CVs had to be turned into the wind. The deck could not contain every plane and still have space for takeoff. Planes had to be reserved in the hangars and brought up by elevator as the planes on the deck took off, and only a few planes could take off every few minutes. These planes then had to gain altitude and remain on station, burning fuel while waiting for the others to trickle off the CVs.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 4/29/2017 2:10:14 PM >

(in reply to Vipersp)
Post #: 14
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/29/2017 4:00:58 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

CV TFs generally should not have more than 15 ships. From the game manual, page 91 in my copy, "Task forces that consist of more than 15 ships suffer diminishing returns in effectiveness defending against air attack and fighting in surface battles."

So you should limit your TFs, in general, to 15 ships. More ships also tend to lead to many more collisions, in my experience, in all circumstances, including amphibious operations. I also firmly believe that the number of ships that are ASW capable should equal or exceed the number of ships that are not. This seems to greatly reduce the probability of a torpedo hit on the larger ships. So I generally try to use 8 DDs for a 15-ship CV TF.

The total number of aircraft in the strike should not exceed approx. 250 for Japan. Less for the allies until 1944 if the TF will be conducting offensive operations. Per 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)."

So 4 CVs is really the limit if you want a high probability of good strike coordination. Therefore, CAP and escort settings and whether or not to "go all-in" on one or the other really is not as important as TF composition, altitude settings, range, detection level, and so forth.

Of course, you can always have more than 1 TF in the same hex to provide extra CAP. So in large-scale CV battles, involving more than 3 or 4 CVs per side, offensive operations are costly and difficult, regardless of settings. This is why a late-war CV strike by Japan against Deathstar is doomed to fail. More often than not, the strike will be uncoordinated and destroyed piecemeal. CVs were simply not capable of launching massive numbers of aircraft in offensive operations. CVs had to be turned into the wind. The deck could not contain every plane and still have space for takeoff. Planes had to be reserved in the hangars and brought up by elevator as the planes on the deck took off, and only a few planes could take off every few minutes. These planes then had to gain altitude and remain on station, burning fuel while waiting for the others to trickle off the CVs.


I disagree with pretty much this whole post. Big surprise.

The coordination code is a minor issue. Veteran players will tell you it's not even in the top 5 things they worry about. It's a random roll, not a sure thing. The un-coordination can be minor even when the roll fails, with only one squadron affected. In the game--not real history--the be-all and end-all of carrier strikes is number of planes in the strike. Nothing else is even close. If you restrict yourself to four CVs, and use a 50-50 split on CAP and escort, AND you play a Japan player who didn't read history, your 100-120 fighter escort is going to fly into 500 late-model Zeroes and the strike will be shredded.

The 15-ship limit is also a weak trade-off in carrier ops. Every ship in an Air TF gets a roll to act as the target for that next attack plane. If you insist on 15 ships, and you make 8 of them ASW platforms, you have only three pure AA platforms i.e. CLAAs, BBs, CAs. That's not enough with your flaccid CAP from only four carriers. You get torched by that Japan player operating 10 CVs in one TF and his 600 plane strike. Collisions are a concern sure, but a minor one. In September 1944 in my Loka game I've had about ten collisions, all tankers and xAKs. No combat ships, and my Air TFs are maxed out. Loka has had a few CL collisions I know about, maybe a DD or two, but nothing crippling. It's a cost of doing business.

Half your ships for ASW? Not after 1942. I'll risk the subs if I can have 3-4 more heavy-hitter AA platforms. Some of the DDs, like the Porters, are good AA platforms, but not close to a CLAA or fast BB.

Strike packages form as they form in the game. Lots of things aren't exactly as they were in history. Although if you look at the Marianas Turkey Shoot, by 1944 the USN was pretty good at shoving planes off decks pretty quickly.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 15
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/29/2017 4:45:42 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
What I am saying is that the odds in large-scale CV battles post 1943 are stacked heavily against the attacker. To plan on achieving a decisive victory in a large-scale CV battle in 1944, however big one makes a TF, is to play against the odds and the outs. It is not history alone upon which I base this opinion. The experiences of many players in their AARs confirms this. Generally, the strike craft suffer significant loss without achieving much. There are exceptions of course, but this is the norm.

In my opinion, putting every CV available in one big TF and hoping for the best, is not the best play. In my opinion, if you must fight a large CV battle, post 1943, is to try to plan the battle so as to be able to attack first with a large land-based strike from a large airbase with an HQ, then follow up the next day if possible, with your CV strike or strikes. For the allies, this means a more deliberate offensive: island hopping and building bases, rather than making sudden long leaps, if the KB has suffered few losses. For the Japanese this means focusing your defense around a major airfield.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 16
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/29/2017 5:05:20 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

What I am saying is that the odds in large-scale CV battles post 1943 are stacked heavily against the attacker. To plan on achieving a decisive victory in a large-scale CV battle in 1944, however big one makes a TF, is to play against the odds and the outs. It is not history alone upon which I base this opinion. The experiences of many players in their AARs confirms this. Generally, the strike craft suffer significant loss without achieving much. There are exceptions of course, but this is the norm.

In my opinion, putting every CV available in one big TF and hoping for the best, is not the best play. In my opinion, if you must fight a large CV battle, post 1943, is to try to plan the battle so as to be able to attack first with a large land-based strike from a large airbase with an HQ, then follow up the next day if possible, with your CV strike or strikes. For the allies, this means a more deliberate offensive: island hopping and building bases, rather than making sudden long leaps, if the KB has suffered few losses. For the Japanese this means focusing your defense around a major airfield.


With AA code changes shipboard AA is much more a factor than earlier in the game's history, yes. Loka has told me he's on his fourth Akagi DB corps (I think fourth.) He has sunk many more of my carriers than I have his, mostly due to me not fully understanding the CVL as well as what I said in this post--total number of aircraft rules. My VP side-dish has been his aircraft attrition in exchange for my decks. Not an even trade.

In my experience--being on the other side mostly--putting all the CVs in one big TF IS the best move, in the GAME. Dedicating fighters to either 100% CAP or 100% Escort is associated with this. And that's facing either CV-pure attacks, or combos with LBA. Don't split your fighters by range. Hold your CAP in tight.

Adding in LBA changes the geometry, no question. If you're a good Allied player there won't be a Day 2 CV-only strike though. You'll be gone. A Day-1 combo is a tough defense, but it's on the Allies if they Go There. War is hell.

And 1943 is a different fish than 1944-45. My hardest carrier "problem" was trying to retake Suva/Noumea before I had enough carriers and pure amphibs. A huge black hole to the north, with anything lurking. That said, my worst ass-whipping came when I went north from Java with insufficient decks to chase cripples and he had the WHOLE KB--ten CVs I think--in one TF out of my search range. I lost eight carriers of various sizes and shapes and didn't get one hit in on him. The worst day I've ever had playing AE or WITP in twelve years. If Loka had been a banzai-ing ass I would have conceded. But he isn't and I didn't.

Carriers. What ya gonna do?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 17
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/29/2017 5:40:16 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

What I am saying is that the odds in large-scale CV battles post 1943 are stacked heavily against the attacker. To plan on achieving a decisive victory in a large-scale CV battle in 1944, however big one makes a TF, is to play against the odds and the outs. It is not history alone upon which I base this opinion. The experiences of many players in their AARs confirms this. Generally, the strike craft suffer significant loss without achieving much. There are exceptions of course, but this is the norm.

In my opinion, putting every CV available in one big TF and hoping for the best, is not the best play. In my opinion, if you must fight a large CV battle, post 1943, is to try to plan the battle so as to be able to attack first with a large land-based strike from a large airbase with an HQ, then follow up the next day if possible, with your CV strike or strikes. For the allies, this means a more deliberate offensive: island hopping and building bases, rather than making sudden long leaps, if the KB has suffered few losses. For the Japanese this means focusing your defense around a major airfield.


With AA code changes shipboard AA is much more a factor than earlier in the game's history, yes. Loka has told me he's on his fourth Akagi DB corps (I think fourth.) He has sunk many more of my carriers than I have his, mostly due to me not fully understanding the CVL as well as what I said in this post--total number of aircraft rules. My VP side-dish has been his aircraft attrition in exchange for my decks. Not an even trade.

In my experience--being on the other side mostly--putting all the CVs in one big TF IS the best move, in the GAME. Dedicating fighters to either 100% CAP or 100% Escort is associated with this. And that's facing either CV-pure attacks, or combos with LBA. Don't split your fighters by range. Hold your CAP in tight.

Adding in LBA changes the geometry, no question. If you're a good Allied player there won't be a Day 2 CV-only strike though. You'll be gone. A Day-1 combo is a tough defense, but it's on the Allies if they Go There. War is hell.

And 1943 is a different fish than 1944-45. My hardest carrier "problem" was trying to retake Suva/Noumea before I had enough carriers and pure amphibs. A huge black hole to the north, with anything lurking. That said, my worst ass-whipping came when I went north from Java with insufficient decks to chase cripples and he had the WHOLE KB--ten CVs I think--in one TF out of my search range. I lost eight carriers of various sizes and shapes and didn't get one hit in on him. The worst day I've ever had playing AE or WITP in twelve years. If Loka had been a banzai-ing ass I would have conceded. But he isn't and I didn't.

Carriers. What ya gonna do?



Lol... What ya gonna do... . I agree 1942-43 is completely different than the the end-game. BTW, and I have tested this to some extent, the probability of good strike coordination from CVs operating in different TFs in the same hex and the probability of good strike coordination from one TF containing a large number of CVs is about the same. In fact, I do not have any hard evidence to prove the case, but I think it is better with multiple 15-ship TFs operating out of the same hex (providing they are all operating under the same naval HQ) than from one large TF. I will give you an example from the game that I am playing now. Here is a strike on a base... not a TF, but I have had similar results many times on TFs.


Afternoon Air attack on Bandjermasin Base Force, at 60,99 (Bandjermasin)

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 7
A6M2 Zero x 39
B4Y1 Jean x 5
B5N1 Kate x 31
B5N2 Kate x 51
D3A1 Val x 47

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
81 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 15 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)


These aircraft came from 3 different CV groups all operating out of the same hex, and they coordinated their strike perfectly 3 days consecutively. The Jeans, 9 Vals, and the A5Ms came from the Hosho and the Taiyo, 2 CVEs in their own TF with a CS and 5 DDs. The B5N1 Kates came from the Ryujo and the Zuiho, also operating in their own TF with 3 CAs and 7 DDs. The B5N2s and the rest of the Vals came from the Zuikako and Shokaku, also operating in their own TF with 3 CAs and 7 DDs.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 18
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/29/2017 6:47:41 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8672
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
I routinely run my Allied CVTFs up to 25 ships in 1944 and 1945, including up to about 700 aircraft. The IJN CVTFs I've put together have comparable numbers of aircraft, but there are fewer escorts to go around so they aren't as bulky there (they're largely identical except for a lack of CLAA's and a plethora of fast BBs, actually).

Just because the chance is doubled doesn't mean it's large to begin with. In hundreds of strikes, I've had very few splinter. Just had one this past turn, but it's fine - the aircraft pools can take it, so you just need to plan for periodic pilot losses. It is much better to combine your TFs together. So long as it's protected properly, there's minimal risk for the all-eggs-in-basket catastrophe.

And just because there are diminishing returns to AA doesn't mean there aren't returns to AA. It's like income and tax brackets - just because you pay a higher marginal rate when you move up a bracket (i.e., more than 15 ships) doesn't mean you aren't still making more money (i.e., have more flak).

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 19
RE: Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter de... - 4/29/2017 7:48:52 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1720
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I agree with Bull and Loka. My current CV TF( mid 1943 ) is 6 CVs, 3 CVLs 8 BB-CA-CLAA, and 8 DDs. I have not had any problems with coordination. Like Loka I have had a partial squadron go in alone, but it is no problem.
I configure my CVLS for 8 TBs and 25 Fighters and those fighters are all on 100% CAP, zero range.
The CV fighters are changed depending on the circumstances.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 4/29/2017 7:49:27 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Vet advice : "The all or nothing CV Fighter deployment strategy" 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

0.152