Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A/C task force size suggestions

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: rustysi
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> A/C task force size suggestions Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A/C task force size suggestions - 5/19/2017 7:05:42 PM   
MrDave

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 2/10/2005
Status: offline
In my reading of the history of the Pacific campaign, it seems that A/C Task Forces did not seem to have but a couple of cruisers and five or six destroyers. At least that seemed to the composition in 1942. Was this due to the lack of combatants?

It also seems that a task force was built around a single carrier. Then those TFs then worked together. Does this play out well in WitPAE?

_____________________________

In Him,
MrDave
TOAW OOBP PC ATG CoH
Post #: 1
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/19/2017 7:41:50 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 870
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrDave

In my reading of the history of the Pacific campaign, it seems that A/C Task Forces did not seem to have but a couple of cruisers and five or six destroyers. At least that seemed to the composition in 1942. Was this due to the lack of combatants?

It also seems that a task force was built around a single carrier. Then those TFs then worked together. Does this play out well in WitPAE?

Perhaps because each carrier need room to maneuver when launching and landing planes.
Nice thing to do is to couple several in the same hex - "follow" with zero space. Then you can
give simultaneous orders to all carrier planes of the various categories at the same time if
you so wish.

Fred

_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B018F2QMEW?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

(in reply to MrDave)
Post #: 2
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/19/2017 8:41:15 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5556
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online
This is really a question that could lead to a treatise in response.

There are pros and cons to single carrier TFs in the early war period for the Americans.

The early war coordination penalty leads many to believe single carrier TFs are best in '42.

However, the penalty is really not that great in practice and two carrier TFs are certainly viable.

Many find this preferable due to the paucity of escorts.

I like to have 8 destroyers in my carrier TFs and this is more easily accomplished early with two carrier TFs.

I typically add a CA for each carrier and a CL, later switched to a CLAA when they become available.

Others likely have different preferences.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 3
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/19/2017 9:09:51 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 2970
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: online
quote:

Was this due to the lack of combatants?


For the US, yes. As for the rest, what Hans said.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 4
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/19/2017 10:34:05 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 6960
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

This is really a question that could lead to a treatise in response.

There are pros and cons to single carrier TFs in the early war period for the Americans.

The early war coordination penalty leads many to believe single carrier TFs are best in '42.

However, the penalty is really not that great in practice and two carrier TFs are certainly viable.

Many find this preferable due to the paucity of escorts.

I like to have 8 destroyers in my carrier TFs and this is more easily accomplished early with two carrier TFs.

I typically add a CA for each carrier and a CL, later switched to a CLAA when they become available.

Others likely have different preferences.


I think it can be summed up, without detail, with:

The bigger the better(, the tighter the sweater, the boys are depending on us...).

As you suggest, there are more details and reasons why you might want to do some things about the size of the TF, but since the thread title just wants a size suggestion for them... I suggest as big as possible.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 5
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 12:12:04 AM   
patrickl


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline
I usually go for the maximum number of ships allowed per TF : 25. 3 carriers, 2 fast BBs, 6 CAs, 6 CLs/CLAAs and 8 DDs. At least in 1943. Against AI, CAP is never enough.

_____________________________


Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 6
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 12:28:56 AM   
MrDave

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 2/10/2005
Status: offline
Thank you all for your "suggestions."
Perhaps the word,suggestion, was poorly chosen. From what I have learned, in the early days of '42 prior to Midway, the A/C TF were used in hit and run tactics. The TFs were fairly small. CLAA's were not even available then, at least, to the best of my knowledge.

Then, of course, game play comes into it. From my early years of playing the game, I seemed to recall that there were penalties if too many carriers were stacked together. Something to do with simulating how well they could be coordinated within one TF. So I typically ran one or two A/C TF in the same hex.

Anyway, thanks for your ideas.

_____________________________

In Him,
MrDave
TOAW OOBP PC ATG CoH

(in reply to patrickl)
Post #: 7
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 12:50:56 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14077
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I hold--whether Japanese or American--that the best 'balanced' CTF is 2 CV and 1 CVL with an escort of 3-4 BB/BC/CA/CL and 8 DDs. Operate them separately where they have enough firepower to hold their own. As war develops they get added to similar TFs to complete the Kido Butai or the American 'Death Star.'

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to MrDave)
Post #: 8
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 1:17:51 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1051
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
I subscribe to the bigger is better philosophy. My current Death Star is composed of 6 CV, 4 CVL, 4 CLAA, 3 CA, and 8 DD

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 9
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 2:29:32 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 6960
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I hold--whether Japanese or American--that the best 'balanced' CTF is 2 CV and 1 CVL with an escort of 3-4 BB/BC/CA/CL and 8 DDs. Operate them separately where they have enough firepower to hold their own. As war develops they get added to similar TFs to complete the Kido Butai or the American 'Death Star.'



quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I subscribe to the bigger is better philosophy. My current Death Star is composed of 6 CV, 4 CVL, 4 CLAA, 3 CA, and 8 DD


Absolutely. There's no reason to use more TFs to do the same job. The only downside to maxing out the TF size is that it's more easily detected.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 10
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 4:19:30 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14077
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Going with that much larger TF size would allow for much greater raid coordination issues. Right?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 11
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 4:24:41 AM   
patrickl


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline
The CAP carried out by Navy planes is never enough. Flak does not guarantee safety of carriers. Land based LCAP is the solution though this is ahistorial. If you have 5 squadrons of P38F LCAP for one AC TF, that should be safe. The difficulty of this is the range of the LCAP fighters. 3 hexes, 5 hexes? Island hopping is going to be slow but you will get to Okinawa in 44. Even taking the Saipan and Guam is not easy. Have to take the small dots nearby and build up first before going for Saipan.

_____________________________


Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 12
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 4:38:51 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1051
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Going with that much larger TF size would allow for much greater raid coordination issues. Right?



I haven't had any problems. Make sure you have a very air minded CFTV commander and that your air units
have good commanders. Remember, it only doubles the chance of a coordination penalty.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 13
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 7:10:43 AM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 4793
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: online
I think it depends on the date.  In 1942 I have small single CV TF but they never operate singly I always have a second and on occasions a third following composed of 1 CV, 1 CL, 1 CA/CL, 6-7 DD all with the greatest amount of AA, commanded by a none aggressive but good air leader in charge of the lead TF.  By 1943 the CV TF will now be typical 2 CV each and by 1944 they are 3 CV or 2 CV, 2 CVL with 1 CLAA, 1 CL and again 7-8 DD but now as I'm hunting I use an (not too) aggressive commander with good naval and air but still never operating singly usually in pairs.

Throughout I have (if available) a SAG following with 2/3 fast BB or 4 CA, 1 CL, 6-8 DD, and a 3 DD ASW.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 14
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 11:27:11 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 10828
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
We seem to be talking about US CV groups. IJN has different problems. A big advantage to having multiple CV groups is that in a battle the enemy may attack only one group while ignoring others. I would keep them in a follow by 0 hexes with the following stipulations: each group would have a minimum of 6 DDs. each group would have a minimum of one CL and one CA. BBs are superfluous until they are fast enough to keep up. Eventually you will have an abundance of carriers and not enough DDs to screen them in single CV groups. The ideal to work towards is CV CV CVL CA CA CL DD DD DD DD DD DD and maybe a few more DDs. Some think it is a good idea for the CVL in the group to have nothing but fighters set on sweep/cap and not on escort. I like the idea but CVLs have stowage for bombs and torpedoes and it seems a waste to me to not use it. SBDs are the dominant weapon so I would always want some of those. I suggest a detachment of Avengers to use up the torpedo inventory along with a small sqd. of Dauntlesses. The rest fighters. Each CV should have about half its air wing consisting of fighters.

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 15
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 11:31:35 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 10828
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
When they become available I would like to have a sqd. of Marine Corsairs aboard doing nothing but CAP and let the Hellcats handle the escort duties.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 16
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 1:56:54 PM   
patrickl


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline
I am concerned about the flak capability of the AC TF. In later half 1942 after the Oct upgrading, 3 CVs, plus Prince of Wales, 6 CAs, 7 CLs and 8 DDs should give you flak figure of 17,000. That should afford some protection but LCAP by land based fighters is still a must. Squadrons of P38, P40 or even P39 goes a long way combating the Bettys and Helens.

_____________________________


Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 17
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 2:13:32 PM   
m_shane_perkins


Posts: 120
Joined: 7/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I hold--whether Japanese or American--that the best 'balanced' CTF is 2 CV and 1 CVL with an escort of 3-4 BB/BC/CA/CL and 8 DDs. Operate them separately where they have enough firepower to hold their own. As war develops they get added to similar TFs to complete the Kido Butai or the American 'Death Star.'


This is what I am doing, in 1944 in my game. I trust the real war lessons learned that the USN figured out this was the right composition. I like to play historical as best I can, to replicate the doctrine of the time.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 18
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 2:34:15 PM   
patrickl


Posts: 1456
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline
But the problem is if you play against AI, AI is uber and their bombers will get thru if you don't have 15 squadrons of fighters CAP and LCAP with flak maxed with BBs, CA and CL/CLAA. DDs provide only decent flak.

_____________________________


Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to m_shane_perkins)
Post #: 19
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 3:55:35 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 6960
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Going with that much larger TF size would allow for much greater raid coordination issues. Right?



Not that I've experienced. The chance of strikes splintering is just doubled, and it only happens one time once the threshold is broken.

I've had a handful of bad strike experiences where entire strike wings have flown without escort (60 DBs, 40 TBs) and gotten really chewed up, but for the most part when the coordination fails it's just one or two units that fail to link up or lose cohesion. This can happen anyway, even if you stay under the threshold, so I don't even know if those are from the doubled chance.

My CVTFs typically have about 700 aircraft in them, on each side.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 5/20/2017 3:56:32 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 20
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 4:08:47 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Multiple TFs with 1 or 2 CVs? Well I tried this in my 1st PBM, as it was suggested in the forum already a while back. Also not to make the TF bigger than 15 ships as the AA fire would be less effectice.

..I had 4 CVs and 2xCVL following the first TF. That cost my a clear victory (imho), as the 4CV TF reacted to enemy CVs, but the 2nd did not re-act. Both TFs set in the same hex and react "0". And the biggest Zero CAP unit was on the 2nd TF with range "0". This CAP was missing when the Allies hit my TF1 and many got through. Also the 2nd TF would send a seperate strike without escort (as it had only the 1 big Zero unit for CAP) which were all slaughtered - some got thorugh I believe for 1 or 2 bomb hits.

But I guess more experienced player may manage this serverall TF thing better, I will try to avoid this in the future.

My latest CV battle was perfect (biggest and fasted 4 CVs with maximum other ships = 25 ships), but the enemey was already weakened. They scored 1 hit. We sunk 2 CV and 1 CVE.

But we had already Zero M5 (bigger resized units!) ONLY flying CAP (on 3 different altitudes) while M2 were escorts. One raid of ours fragmented (17 Val) and were shot down. Also I forgot the set torpedoes for Kates (LOL) but on the 2nd day I corrected it and they flew again catching the 1 left over CV this time with torps and perhaps 2-3 cruisers too. Combat report said 8 torp hits on British CV that was only wounded day before by bombs (armored deck).. guess that should be enough to trust the report she was sunk :) He had setup some LR CAP from near Brisbane but it did not help him much. M5 Zero make big difference as CAP with best leaders and pilots imo (in 42)


Will go with the 4 or 5 CV all in 1 fleet + maxed out escorts now for a while, until late 43 or so when Allies could replenish their CVs/CVLs then think over it again: If hopefully the games goes longer.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 5/20/2017 4:29:20 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 21
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/20/2017 10:26:55 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 6960
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
The reaction setting does not impact CV TFs and whether they react to enemy carriers or not.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 22
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/21/2017 11:50:32 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 561
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
I think it also depends on which version of the game you are playing. It appears, though I do not have enough experience to be certain, that the new Beta increases the severity and probability of uncoordinated strikes from large CVTFs for both sides. Also, the special KB advantages for Japan in 1942 have been removed in the Beta, of this I am certain, and using more than 300 planes in a CVTF for Japan in 1942 now certainly does increase (indeed almost guarantees) a disjointed strike.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 23
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/22/2017 12:49:20 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 6960
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I think it also depends on which version of the game you are playing. It appears, though I do not have enough experience to be certain, that the new Beta increases the severity and probability of uncoordinated strikes from large CVTFs for both sides. Also, the special KB advantages for Japan in 1942 have been removed in the Beta, of this I am certain, and using more than 300 planes in a CVTF for Japan in 1942 now certainly does increase (indeed almost guarantees) a disjointed strike.


As far as I know, there are no changes to this in the betas.

Also, Japan never suffers from the "penalty" until having 200 + random(1-200) aircraft in the TF. So there's a chance of having a double-chance at 201 aircraft... but most people just say 400 because that's when it kicks in always. It would be roughly 50/50 at 300 aircraft.

But as has been said many times, the penalty is minimal and it's really a no-brainer decision to include as many ships as possible unless you care about being spotted more easily.

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 24
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/22/2017 4:25:11 AM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 561
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I think it also depends on which version of the game you are playing. It appears, though I do not have enough experience to be certain, that the new Beta increases the severity and probability of uncoordinated strikes from large CVTFs for both sides. Also, the special KB advantages for Japan in 1942 have been removed in the Beta, of this I am certain, and using more than 300 planes in a CVTF for Japan in 1942 now certainly does increase (indeed almost guarantees) a disjointed strike.


As far as I know, there are no changes to this in the betas.

Also, Japan never suffers from the "penalty" until having 200 + random(1-200) aircraft in the TF. So there's a chance of having a double-chance at 201 aircraft... but most people just say 400 because that's when it kicks in always. It would be roughly 50/50 at 300 aircraft.

But as has been said many times, the penalty is minimal and it's really a no-brainer decision to include as many ships as possible unless you care about being spotted more easily.



I know that nothing has been said about it, but I am playing a couple games right now with the Beta and without, and I am seeing many more problems in strike coordination from large CV groups with the Beta than without.

Also, there have always been additional bonuses in place for Japan's strike coordination in 1942 for KB beyond those given in the rulebook. That is one reason Japan had always been able to launch perfectly coordinated strikes at Pearl, for example. No longer. With 6 CVs in a TF, I am seeing on average about 2/3rds of the planes coordinated on a strike, whereas before it was always near perfect in 1942.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 25
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/22/2017 2:57:08 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 6960
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I think it also depends on which version of the game you are playing. It appears, though I do not have enough experience to be certain, that the new Beta increases the severity and probability of uncoordinated strikes from large CVTFs for both sides. Also, the special KB advantages for Japan in 1942 have been removed in the Beta, of this I am certain, and using more than 300 planes in a CVTF for Japan in 1942 now certainly does increase (indeed almost guarantees) a disjointed strike.


As far as I know, there are no changes to this in the betas.

Also, Japan never suffers from the "penalty" until having 200 + random(1-200) aircraft in the TF. So there's a chance of having a double-chance at 201 aircraft... but most people just say 400 because that's when it kicks in always. It would be roughly 50/50 at 300 aircraft.

But as has been said many times, the penalty is minimal and it's really a no-brainer decision to include as many ships as possible unless you care about being spotted more easily.



I know that nothing has been said about it, but I am playing a couple games right now with the Beta and without, and I am seeing many more problems in strike coordination from large CV groups with the Beta than without.

Also, there have always been additional bonuses in place for Japan's strike coordination in 1942 for KB beyond those given in the rulebook. That is one reason Japan had always been able to launch perfectly coordinated strikes at Pearl, for example. No longer. With 6 CVs in a TF, I am seeing on average about 2/3rds of the planes coordinated on a strike, whereas before it was always near perfect in 1942.


Have you tested it rigorously? There should be no difference, although they may be affected by a very early change that had to do with large strike coordination. Very early. At this point, that should be included in the latest official patch.

And no, Japan's strike coordination in 1942 is no different than in any other year.

I've launched several strikes in the past few months under the near-latest beta (long after that very early change I mentioned) with 700-plane KBs and not suffered from it.

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 26
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/22/2017 3:53:34 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 10692
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


I've launched several strikes in the past few months under the near-latest beta (long after that very early change I mentioned) with 700-plane KBs and not suffered from it.


Word.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 27
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/22/2017 5:22:54 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1051
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
Anecdotal observation reported as fact.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 28
RE: A/C task force size suggestions - 5/22/2017 5:59:32 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 10692
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Anecdotal observation reported as fact.


Fact, plus I'm walking funny.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> A/C task force size suggestions 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

0.938