Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

American carrier coordination

 
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 >> American carrier coordination Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
American carrier coordination - 1/8/2019 3:17:08 AM   
abalido

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline
I'm currently starting 1943 as the allies and i wanted to see if any could give me a good breakdown of how many allied carriers can work together? I was think the following:

1943 2CV
1944 2CV and 1CAL
1945. 3CV
Or is this too many in one fleet?
Any help would be appreciated

Thanks
Post #: 1
RE: American carrier coordination - 1/8/2019 5:19:07 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13650
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
It isn't the number of Carriers, it's the number of aircraft. I haven't bothered to memorize the numbers because the coordination penalty for going over the numbers is apparently very small.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to abalido)
Post #: 2
RE: American carrier coordination - 1/8/2019 6:30:38 AM   
Kursk1943


Posts: 295
Joined: 3/15/2014
From: Bavaria in Southern Germany
Status: offline
As a history fanboy I tend to stick to the habit of the USN: 1943-1946 2 CV and 2 CVL, never had any problems.
The game optimizers will have other solutions for sure..

By the way, abalido, whats a "CAL"?

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 3
RE: American carrier coordination - 1/8/2019 7:48:50 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2465
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
IIRC
1. the game has it as "doubles chance of coordination penalty" (but the exact chance is unknown)
2. it is 250+rnd(250) for the Japs for all the time
3. it is 150+rnd(150) for the Allies in 1941 and 1942
4. it is 200+rnd(200) for the Allies in 1943
5. it is 250+rnd(250) for the Allies in 1944 and 1945

Thus in 1942 you can operate 2 CVs/TF with very good chance of avoiding the penalty, but up to 3 CVs/TF with higher chance of penalty. More than 3 would ensure the penalty.
In 1943 you can go for 2CVs/TF to avoid entirely, up to 4CVs/TF (or 3CVs+3CVLs) to still have a chance to avoid it.

Several players opt to forego the "Chance" of coordination penalty and get bigger Task Forces - this helps with avoiding "CV Reaction" feature producing unwanted results for different TFs.

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to Kursk1943)
Post #: 4
RE: American carrier coordination - 1/8/2019 10:39:55 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2140
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
The information from 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).

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 5
RE: American carrier coordination - 1/8/2019 1:59:24 PM   
Disco Duck


Posts: 619
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
My understanding of how many carriers in a TF force was more of the concept that if you found one you didn't find them all. Just look at Midway with two different carrier groups on the American side and only one on the Japanese.


this was based on Pre-war war-games.

_____________________________

There is no point in believing in things that exist. -Didactylos

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 6
RE: American carrier coordination - 1/8/2019 2:06:31 PM   
abalido

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline
Sorry meant to type CVL

Thanks to everyone for the help

< Message edited by abalido -- 1/8/2019 2:07:48 PM >

(in reply to Kursk1943)
Post #: 7
RE: American carrier coordination - 1/8/2019 4:50:11 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8731
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
If your chance of suffering a penalty is 1%, then doubling it to only 2% is relatively meaningless.

(in reply to abalido)
Post #: 8
RE: American carrier coordination - 1/9/2019 8:46:36 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1444
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

My understanding of how many carriers in a TF force was more of the concept that if you found one you didn't find them all. Just look at Midway with two different carrier groups on the American side and only one on the Japanese.


this was based on Pre-war war-games.


This is a difference of carrier doctrine, and why Stanhope's Hornet's DB's 'missed everything' at Midway.

Waldron disobeyed orders when he went off carrier hunting on his own. Stanhope sent his planes where they thought the Japanese Carriers would be, because US carrier doctrine was "2 carriers per TF"... so Stanhope thought that was the same for the IJ. We "didn't know" that IJ doctrine was to keep them all together.


_____________________________


(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> American carrier coordination 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

0.125