maximum carriers in a task force?

[Mower]

What is the max number for optimum efficiency in US task forces?

[RangerJoe]

I do believe that depends upon the year. There is some discussion somewhere about this if you search for it.

[Lokasenna]

The correct answer is: as many as you have escorts for.

I should put 25 carriers in a TF in a game and have it launch strike after strike with Halsey as the CO, just to see how much/often the coordination penalty applied (if at all).

[Mower]

Im pretty sure the AI IJN is putting all 6 of the Kido Butai in one TF.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Mower

Im pretty sure the AI IJN is putting all 6 of the Kido Butai in one TF.

That may depend on which scenario you are playing. In basic AI it breaks up KB to add CVs to multiple concurrent missions. That is one of the things that allows the Allied player to break the AI in early 1942.

But the revamped AI and Iron Man scenarios may have coding that keeps the KB together except for upgrades. I haven't played those so I can't say.

[Sardaukar]

In Shattered Sword, peeling off CVs to "sideshows" was deemed to be one factor that doomed IJN in Midway.

Hard to see USN coming out winner in 3 vs 6 fight, even when counting Midway I. airbase into it.

As said, any target worth attacking was worth attacking all of KB or none at all.

Peeling off Shokaku and Zuikaku to Coral Sea was mistake. Also, doctrinally IJN air groups did belong to CV unlike USN where they could be swapped (and often were) between any CVs. IJN could have gotten 1 extra CV into Midway battle by swapping damaged CVs air group to undamaged (which had lost lot of planes). It just was against their doctrine or maybe they didn't see it worth it. Also one reason why they lost, operational rigidity.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Mower

Im pretty sure the AI IJN is putting all 6 of the Kido Butai in one TF.

Rarely, even in Ironman. Once TF1 is disbanded after the return of KB, after the PH strike, the AI will keep using them in groups of 1 to 3. The AI is also quite bad at filling the air groups...

Regarding your original question, I believe you refer to the coordination penalty chance : it is only a chance to get a penalty on the coordination rolls, if you have more planes in the hex than a given number. Whether they’re in the same TF or not is, AFAIK, irrelevant.

The threshold number is also not fixed, at it’s a base number of 100/150/200 (depending on the year) more a random number included between 1-100/1-150/1-200. So, anywhere from 101-200/151-300/201-400.

However, the penalty doesn’t look quite severe, and having all the CV in the same hex gives a much better defense, with a grouped CAP, and all additional escorts (whether in the same TF or accompanying TF) give better security against submarine or surface threats. There are so many factors influencing a strike coordination, so many things which may go wrong, that taking the risk of splitting the CV’s isn’t worth it IMHO.

To get a decent number of escorting warships, I like to include 4-6 CV/CVL, 4-6 BB/CA/CL, and one DD per capital ship (so, 8-12). And additional ASW & Surface Combat TF’s. All in the same hex, following an ASW TF or two.


EDIT : for IJN carriers, the threshold is 200 + 1-200 I think, from the start of the game.

[Nomad]

The manual states that the uncoordination chance is based on the number of carrier aircraft based in the TF, not the hex.

[RangerJoe]

If I remember correctly, and you might want to search on this looking for posts from "Alfred" among others, for US CVs/CVLs it is 3/1 or 2/2.

[Mower]

Great discussion thanks guys

[Dan1977]

Mower,
From the manual (at the bottom see the info on carriers):
7.2.1.11 COORDINATING STRIKES (pages 166 & 167)
Each base or ship containing an air unit is considered a unique entity for purposes of determining offensive Missions and Escorts. Under certain circumstances planes flying different Missions and planes flying from different starting points will coordinate their attacks. Coordination of attack is determined by several factors. Type of Aircraft, altitude selection, and point of origin all help discriminate coordination such that it is more difficult to mount massive raids of several different types of aircraft. The result is a smaller, more selective raid formation.

During the Resolution Phase the computer forms up air strikes from each base/ship depending on the orders the air units have been given and the information those units have about the enemy’s forces. Planes that are performing offensive Missions and their accompanying Escorts, all flying from the same base/ship to the same target hex, will no longer necessarily fly together even if they have different Missions.

For example, you could have 3 bomber units flying together from the same airfield, with 1 each to bomb an airfield, a port and a ground unit within the same target hex. 2 fighter groups flying escort and another fighter group flying a Sweep Mission could accompany these bombers. A plane flying a Recon Mission could also accompany them.

If the Bomber groups were the same type (Medium bomber for example) they would stand a greater chance of coordinating than if they were 1 Dive Bomber group, 1 Attack Bomber Group, and 1 Light Bomber Group.

Air strikes from different bases/ships flying to the same target hex will approach the Target together if the range to the target hex is the same. This allows aircraft carriers to coordinate their attacks. However, before the attacks are made, there is a chance that some of the units will become separated from each other and this may result in piecemeal attacks on the target. In addition, a unit may escort attacks originating at another base/ship if the escorting unit has a Target that matches the target being attacked, and the escorting fighter is closer to the target than the aircraft being escorted. Occasionally this can occur even if no priority target is set for the escorting unit.

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).

[Ambassador]

Yeah, TF, not hex, my bad.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Yeah, TF, not hex, my bad.

Considering what job you have with the need for exact language: [:-][:-][:-][;)]

On the General thread, I made a post about a missing comma that cost a company 5 million USD and there are plenty more examples out there.[X(][X(]

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Yeah, TF, not hex, my bad.

Considering what job you have with the need for exact language: [:-][:-][:-][;)]

That’s why I’m a judge, and not the Pope. I’m not infallible.[:D]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Yeah, TF, not hex, my bad.

Considering what job you have with the need for exact language: [:-][:-][:-][;)]

That’s why I’m a judge, and not the Pope. I’m not infallible.[:D]

I am not even a judge and the only infallible person they nailed to a tree.

[Lokasenna]

I'll keep beating this horse:

It's a chance for strikes to splinter (functionally speaking), and is only a chance. That chance is there whether you exceed the numbers listed in the manual or not. The penalty listed there simply doubles the chance. If you're responsible with your unit and TF commanders, you will basically never see splintered strikes in the first place. Two times almost zero is still almost zero, so when weighing the various factors this doesn't really carry much weight. I seriously give it zero weight, it just doesn't matter. The other considerations are what is going to determine my TF composition before I even get to thinking about this non-factor.

It's easier to protect 1 TF from the air, but potentially more vulnerable if it gets caught on the surface, unless you balloon the size up very high in which case it's easier to spot with a stray search plane so you want to keep escort numbers as low as possible, which also allows you to maintain more surface TFs, and so on... It's a balancing act of those factors more than anything else. And different situations call for different balances.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Yeah, TF, not hex, my bad.

Considering what job you have with the need for exact language: [:-][:-][:-][;)]

That’s why I’m a judge, and not the Pope. I’m not infallible.[:D]

Infallibility only applies to doctrine.

Alfred

[sven6345789]

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).

That translates to

Japan maximum: 4 CV or 2 CV + 4 CVL
Allied Maximum: 3 CV or 2 CV + 2 CVL

To minimize the chance of your whole CV-Fleet going down in one attack, i recommend 2 CVs per task force, with 1 or 2 CVLs if available.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

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).

That translates to

Japan maximum: 4 CV or 2 CV + 4 CVL
Allied Maximum: 3 CV or 2 CV + 2 CVL

To minimize the chance of your whole CV-Fleet going down in one attack, i recommend 2 CVs per task force, with 1 or 2 CVLs if available.

Nope. There is no maximum.

Limiting yourself to these proposed limits is... well, only limiting yourself.

Do not let this rule in the code dictate what you do. It really does not make as much difference as any of your other considerations. Do not consider it at all. If this rule enters into your calculus, you've made a mistake.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

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).

That translates to

Japan maximum: 4 CV or 2 CV + 4 CVL
Allied Maximum: 3 CV or 2 CV + 2 CVL

To minimize the chance of your whole CV-Fleet going down in one attack, i recommend 2 CVs per task force, with 1 or 2 CVLs if available.

Nope. There is no maximum.

Limiting yourself to these proposed limits is... well, only limiting yourself.

Do not let this rule in the code dictate what you do. It really does not make as much difference as any of your other considerations. Do not consider it at all. If this rule enters into your calculus, you've made a mistake.

+1

I typically run the following set up with no discernable negative impact on coordination:

'42: 2 CVs

'43: 2 CVs + 2 CVLs

'44: 4 CVs + 2 CVLs

'45 on: 4-6 CVs + 2 CVLs

As many do, I also keep multiple CV TFs following a leader, staying together in a single hex [AKA..Death Star (DS)] and consistently get coordinated strikes from the entire group.

The coordination penalty, like the non-carrier trained penalty, is negligible.