Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CV TF Optimal Size

 
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 >> CV TF Optimal Size Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 2:52:11 PM   
ringerthrawn

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 2/28/2003
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline
I did a search and came back with zilch...

Was there ever a consensus on the optimal size of a CV TF? I assume that putting 25 CV/CVL in the same TF incurs some stacking penalty, but is there a recommended formula (CV to BB to escort ratio for example) for making the ideal CV TF size?
Post #: 1
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 3:22:12 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9131
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
The penalties on coordination are covered in the manual. It is based on the number of aircraft in the TF, and the penalty is not a sure thing - it is simply that you suffer a doubled chance for your strike to splinter and not be coordinated. That chance is based on various factors, several of which are under your control, such as air group and TF leaders. For the Allies, it starts at a lower number and goes up as the war moves on. For Japan, it is the same as the Allies in 1944 and onwards - more than 200 aircraft incurs the possible penalty.

However, if you see enough CV strikes, you'll notice that in most cases TFs with 201+ aircraft function just fine.

Diminishing returns on AA also begin after 15 ships, so take that into account as well.

(in reply to ringerthrawn)
Post #: 2
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 3:32:43 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3586
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
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).

< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 9/30/2015 4:33:52 PM >


_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 4:18:49 PM   
cohimbra


Posts: 631
Joined: 10/15/2011
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

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).

What rnd mean?



< Message edited by cohimbra -- 9/30/2015 5:19:59 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 4
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 4:47:11 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3586
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
rnd= randomly generated number- i.e. a die roll. rnd (100) is a range from 0-99.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to cohimbra)
Post #: 5
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 6:46:48 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
If you're the Allied Player: thru '42 at least only 1 CV to a TF. Add a couple CA's a CL and 8 to 12 DDs and you're good. If you have fast BBs 2 in a screening TF with a CL and some DDs is a good idea. Once you have CVs coming out of your ears I like 2 CVs and 1 CVL plus adequate escort. If you're in a carrier battle and you have multiple CV TFs in a hex the enemy is likely to pick one of them and concentrate on that. If they're not in the same hex but within range of the enemy it will dilute their attacks. I like to keep them together though. CVE's go ahead and put them in mobs with some DDs and maybe a CL with a separate CA screening TF.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 6
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 7:36:11 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If you're the Allied Player: thru '42 at least only 1 CV to a TF. Add a couple CA's a CL and 8 to 12 DDs and you're good. If you have fast BBs 2 in a screening TF with a CL and some DDs is a good idea. Once you have CVs coming out of your ears I like 2 CVs and 1 CVL plus adequate escort. If you're in a carrier battle and you have multiple CV TFs in a hex the enemy is likely to pick one of them and concentrate on that. If they're not in the same hex but within range of the enemy it will dilute their attacks. I like to keep them together though. CVE's go ahead and put them in mobs with some DDs and maybe a CL with a separate CA screening TF.


And I of course completely disagree with this post.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 7
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 7:37:43 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ringerthrawn

I did a search and came back with zilch...

Was there ever a consensus on the optimal size of a CV TF? I assume that putting 25 CV/CVL in the same TF incurs some stacking penalty, but is there a recommended formula (CV to BB to escort ratio for example) for making the ideal CV TF size?


In addition to the coordination penalties mentioned, you need to consider, at least, fuel strategy vis a vis how you're going to use them in this op (DDs can eat up your reserves), AA coverage, and for sure collision chances. The more you gots the more you cans bump.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to ringerthrawn)
Post #: 8
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 7:46:42 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: ringerthrawn

I did a search and came back with zilch...

Was there ever a consensus on the optimal size of a CV TF? I assume that putting 25 CV/CVL in the same TF incurs some stacking penalty, but is there a recommended formula (CV to BB to escort ratio for example) for making the ideal CV TF size?


In addition to the coordination penalties mentioned, you need to consider, at least, fuel strategy vis a vis how you're going to use them in this op (DDs can eat up your reserves), AA coverage, and for sure collision chances. The more you gots the more you cans bump.


I'm agreeing with what you're saying, smaller TFs are better, but there's only so much escort to go around and by '44 or before you have to break them up into chunks.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 9
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 7:51:20 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Are you saying 8-12 DDs are too many?

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 10
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 7:52:29 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: ringerthrawn

I did a search and came back with zilch...

Was there ever a consensus on the optimal size of a CV TF? I assume that putting 25 CV/CVL in the same TF incurs some stacking penalty, but is there a recommended formula (CV to BB to escort ratio for example) for making the ideal CV TF size?


In addition to the coordination penalties mentioned, you need to consider, at least, fuel strategy vis a vis how you're going to use them in this op (DDs can eat up your reserves), AA coverage, and for sure collision chances. The more you gots the more you cans bump.


I'm agreeing with what you're saying, smaller TFs are better, but there's only so much escort to go around and by '44 or before you have to break them up into chunks.


And I was disagreeing that 1 CV per TF in 1942 is smart. It's usually fatal. As Lokasenna says, the coordination penalty is a thing, but it's not that big a thing. In 1942 your #1 issue is fleet defense, not striking power. If you can strike, great. But better to keep the hulls for later after upgrades and far better planes.

Me, I usually just keep the CV crews playing baseball until they can defend themselves.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 11
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 7:54:19 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Let's crunch the numbers, if it's '44 and you're the USN this is what I recommend: 2 x CV, 1 x CVL, 2 x CA, 1 x CL, 8 - 12 x DD.

Can you put up your rec in similar format?

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 12
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 8:12:14 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Let's crunch the numbers, if it's '44 and you're the USN this is what I recommend: 2 x CV, 1 x CVL, 2 x CA, 1 x CL, 8 - 12 x DD.

Can you put up your rec in similar format?


I could, but Lokasenna takes notes.

More like 5 CV, 1 fast BB, 2 CA, 6-8 good ASW DDs.

Some of the CVs probably don't have any TBs. Extra fighter squadron instead.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 13
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 8:21:08 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Are you telling us you're playing the IJN side? That would be new wouldn't it? The only problem I have is putting a BB in there. Until the Iowas they would likely slow it down. Also if you have multiple TFs present having a separate BB screening TF covers all (in most cases). The USN using POW and Repulse early on is not objectionable to me and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start adding up all the help the US gives the UK in every form. But I would still use them as a separate screening force.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 14
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 8:24:08 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Let me say this, CVs best defense against surface TFs is their speed. Don't put slower ships in their TF no matter what type they are if you can avoid it.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 9/30/2015 9:24:37 PM >


_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 15
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 8:28:36 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
The Japanese can sometimes put BBs with their CVs because some of their CVs aren't very fast. For the USN even the Alabama's are dead weight. When you have some Iowas go ahead.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 16
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 8:38:49 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
In 44, 4 X CV, 2 X CVL, 2 X CLAA, 4 X CA, 8 - 10 X DDs

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 9/30/2015 9:39:21 PM >

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 17
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 9:30:45 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15576
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Per the norm around here, ask 20 people and get 21 different answers.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 18
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 9:49:46 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9131
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
I favor a higher concentration of CVs/CVLs in my TFs, as it frees up escorts to perform other roles - surface interdiction, bombardment, amphib escort, etc.

In 1944, I've been running 3 CV/2 CVL as the Allies. This will grow later when I get more hulls, probably to 4-5 CV and 3-4 CVL per TF. It just depends. But if you're going to go over the limit, you may as well keep going - there's no additional penalty for being over 400 planes in 1944. And it's called a penalty, but it's not actually a penalty in itself: it is a doubled chance of experiencing a penalty. It's not guaranteed.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 19
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 10:03:04 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Are you telling us you're playing the IJN side? That would be new wouldn't it? The only problem I have is putting a BB in there. Until the Iowas they would likely slow it down. Also if you have multiple TFs present having a separate BB screening TF covers all (in most cases). The USN using POW and Repulse early on is not objectionable to me and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start adding up all the help the US gives the UK in every form. But I would still use them as a separate screening force.


A fast BB is worth the minor speed trade-off for AA numbers and torpedo magnetability. Two are better. Also a fuel bunker for DDs if needed in emergency.

I don't like to depend on follow commands with TF CO variability and react code. I like my Air TFs to be independent. If there's a Surface TF along it has a different job than riding herd on carriers.



_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 20
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 10:03:41 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The Japanese can sometimes put BBs with their CVs because some of their CVs aren't very fast. For the USN even the Alabama's are dead weight. When you have some Iowas go ahead.


To each his own.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 21
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 10:04:16 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Per the norm around here, ask 20 people and get 21 different answers.


Bingo-rama.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 22
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 10:05:20 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I favor a higher concentration of CVs/CVLs in my TFs, as it frees up escorts to perform other roles - surface interdiction, bombardment, amphib escort, etc.

In 1944, I've been running 3 CV/2 CVL as the Allies. This will grow later when I get more hulls, probably to 4-5 CV and 3-4 CVL per TF. It just depends. But if you're going to go over the limit, you may as well keep going - there's no additional penalty for being over 400 planes in 1944. And it's called a penalty, but it's not actually a penalty in itself: it is a doubled chance of experiencing a penalty. It's not guaranteed.


I'm very mixed on mixing CVs and CVLs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 23
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 11:27:05 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
The USN CVLs mix well, the others not so good. My answer was for USN CVTFs. I also sometimes us a fast BB, but normally use them as surface screens.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 24
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 9/30/2015 11:31:26 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1150
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
To the original poster,

As you can see, there is wide consensus on this topic. Simply form a carrier task force with one or more CV's, zero to a few CVL's, and a duke's mixture of escorts and you'll be in the mainstream.

Alternatively, as I do, you can treat this subject as close to black magic as it comes in WITP-AE -- I never divulge the best ratio of ships in a CV Task Force, and only I know the secret.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 25
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 10/1/2015 2:12:53 AM   
jamesjohns

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 12/2/2013
Status: offline
Lots of answers, who knows?

I'll put in 2 or 3 CV's or CV's and a CVL, a couple of the best AA cruisers I got, a couple of heavy cruisers and about 8 DD's that I hope are balanced between ASW and AA

If I got a fast BB I'll swap out a heavy cruiser

If I can I'll have a surface action group in same hex with BB or two (if fast enough) some cruisers and DD's.

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 26
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 10/1/2015 4:47:04 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If you're the Allied Player: thru '42 at least only 1 CV to a TF. Add a couple CA's a CL and 8 to 12 DDs and you're good. If you have fast BBs 2 in a screening TF with a CL and some DDs is a good idea. Once you have CVs coming out of your ears I like 2 CVs and 1 CVL plus adequate escort. If you're in a carrier battle and you have multiple CV TFs in a hex the enemy is likely to pick one of them and concentrate on that. If they're not in the same hex but within range of the enemy it will dilute their attacks. I like to keep them together though. CVE's go ahead and put them in mobs with some DDs and maybe a CL with a separate CA screening TF.




Totally disagree here. I keep all of my big six carriers in one TF if they are operating in the same theater. Never seen the coordination penalty to amount to much and it eliminates the risk of one TF reacting towards the enemy and getting creamed. I should add that my carriers are not seeking a fleet engagement with KB during the first year of the war so I do this to support other operations. At least one or two fast BBs then perhaps some CLAAs and well armed DDs. CAs and CLs if need be. Later in the war when I have the ships I generally use them with 5-6 six carriers per TF using a mix of CVs and CVLs. Always one fast BB in the mix though. A good commander but not necessarily an aggressive one. Naval and air skill trump aggression.

My experienced opponent uses KB in one big TF and I have never seen anything but massed coordinated attacks come out to that.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 27
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 10/1/2015 6:03:04 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2138
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
I've been following crsutton's advice on this for quite a while to good effect.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 28
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 10/1/2015 8:57:29 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 1933
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Speaking from very, very recent experience with a CV battle as the Japanese, always have a couple of BBs with your carriers to soak up some bomb hits

_____________________________


(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 29
RE: CV TF Optimal Size - 10/1/2015 10:25:24 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I favor a higher concentration of CVs/CVLs in my TFs, as it frees up escorts to perform other roles - surface interdiction, bombardment, amphib escort, etc.

In 1944, I've been running 3 CV/2 CVL as the Allies. This will grow later when I get more hulls, probably to 4-5 CV and 3-4 CVL per TF. It just depends. But if you're going to go over the limit, you may as well keep going - there's no additional penalty for being over 400 planes in 1944. And it's called a penalty, but it's not actually a penalty in itself: it is a doubled chance of experiencing a penalty. It's not guaranteed.


I'm very mixed on mixing CVs and CVLs.


I'm very mixed on mooses who are mixed on mixing.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> CV TF Optimal Size Page: [1] 2   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

0.168