US CV task force?

[SuluSea]

I remember reading it's best to operate the US CVs two to a task force and IJN three, can anyone explain why that is?

An offshoot question of that would be I'm at mid '43 and have complete dominance over IJ forces due to all their fleet carriers and most of their CVLs sunk. I can operate with impunity would it be okay to group more than two fleet carriers in a task force at this point?

Have a great weekend all[:)]

[tocaff]

The reasoning for these groupings is that the strike co ordination levels of the 2 navies aren't equal.  The USN gets better at it in '44 so to put more than 2 CVs together holds no advantage, maybe a penalty.  The IJN is better at it, though their CV divisions were 2 CVs also.

[Hornblower]

cap is also fucused..  as is aa

[tocaff]

CAP will cover each TF in the same hex, so 3 CVTFs of 2 CVs each lend mutual CAP support to eachother.  AA is only for each TF and won't help another TF in the same hex.

[Hornblower]

Each TF is diffrent buit keep 2-3 CV's and 1-2 CVL's together with the necessaryAA's and you will be good

[tocaff]

Over 15 ships per TF and you suffer from diminishing returns as the game is geared to that # or less.  In surface combat there might (probably) even be ships that don't engage so I'd think the same would be true for AA.

[SuluSea]

Using the tips in this thread I'm definately operating my carrier task forces more efficiently.[&o][:)] Thanks!

[tocaff]

[;)]

[SuluSea]

It's a long row back to Truk!!!! [:D]

[RGIJN]

cool pics SuluSea! [:)] Where do they origin from?

[SuluSea]

Silent Hunter 4, The particular shots are from the Philippine Sea Scenario using a Gato Class submarine. Glad you liked them, the game is fabulous if you're into WW2.

[RGIJN]

am familar with SH 1, and it captivated me back in those days. But as I suppose you still can command US submarines only in SH 4?

[borner]

another plus is that you have less of a chance of a TF's commander charging off into the teeth of the enemy. I used to operate my CV's in single TF's of 15 total ships. It maxed AA  and spread out the enemy attack, but it always seemed as if one would seperate from the group and became an easy target.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: borner

another plus is that you have less of a chance of a TF's commander charging off into the teeth of the enemy. I used to operate my CV's in single TF's of 15 total ships. It maxed AA  and spread out the enemy attack, but it always seemed as if one would seperate from the group and became an easy target.

Here's what ya do. Form a surface combat TF (even one ship is enough). Order it to patrol/do not retire. Then, form your air combat TFs, order them to patrol/do not retire, and order them to follow your surface combat TF.

Even with the most aggressive commanders possible, they will tag along wagging their tails behind them. No more of the stupid reacting toward the enemy crap. Some say this solution is "gamey," but I say the game is full of sh1t for having included this silly feature in the first place.

But, of course, nobody listened to me way back when. I'm just glad I found a workaround.

[Kingfisher]

ORIGINAL: borner

another plus is that you have less of a chance of a TF's commander charging off into the teeth of the enemy. I used to operate my CV's in single TF's of 15 total ships. It maxed AA and spread out the enemy attack, but it always seemed as if one would seperate from the group and became an easy target.

Speaking of seperating from the group and becoming an easy target, can someone explain to me the logic behind the computer assigning only one DD to escort a damaged carrier, even if that carrier is still within enemy air range. I recently lost the Wasp due to follow up strikes from Rabaul, even though a 3-CA, 5-DD TF was within a hex of her. Try as I might the Wasp's TF commander refused to intergrate these ships into his defense as she limped home. The lone DD had no chance against 15+ Bettys.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Here's what ya do. Form a surface combat TF (even one ship is enough). Order it to patrol/do not retire. Then, form your air combat TFs, order them to patrol/do not retire, and order them to follow your surface combat TF.

Even with the most aggressive commanders possible, they will tag along wagging their tails behind them. No more of the stupid reacting toward the enemy crap. Some say this solution is "gamey," but I say the game is full of sh1t for having included this silly feature in the first place.

But, of course, nobody listened to me way back when. I'm just glad I found a workaround.

Reacting toeards the enemy is awful and until I figured out to turn it off got tons of my ships sunk for no good reason. I put those ships someplace for a reason.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

am familar with SH 1, and it captivated me back in those days. But as I suppose you still can command US submarines only in SH 4?

Yes U.S. subs only, however I believe there is an expansion pack for SH4 that takes place in the ETO using U-Boats.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

ORIGINAL: borner

another plus is that you have less of a chance of a TF's commander charging off into the teeth of the enemy. I used to operate my CV's in single TF's of 15 total ships. It maxed AA and spread out the enemy attack, but it always seemed as if one would seperate from the group and became an easy target.

Speaking of seperating from the group and becoming an easy target, can someone explain to me the logic behind the computer assigning only one DD to escort a damaged carrier, even if that carrier is still within enemy air range. I recently lost the Wasp due to follow up strikes from Rabaul, even though a 3-CA, 5-DD TF was within a hex of her. Try as I might the Wasp's TF commander refused to intergrate these ships into his defense as she limped home. The lone DD had no chance against 15+ Bettys.

There is no logic behind it. It's a much complained about 'feature' that was fixed in WitP w/ the advent of escort task forces.