maximum carriers in a task force?

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: maximum carriers in a task force?

Post by Sardaukar »

Only downside with coordination penalty is that your strikes may arrive unescorted. That obviously is a bad thing when facing heavy air opposition.

I have not worried about that too much, since I rarely use carrier air against land targets...and at sea with numbers that usually can overwhelm enemy CAP.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
pontiouspilot
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:09 pm

RE: maximum carriers in a task force?

Post by pontiouspilot »

and that is why I am pontiouspilot!
sven6345789
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:45 am
Location: Sandviken, Sweden

RE: maximum carriers in a task force?

Post by sven6345789 »

"Nope. There is no maximum."

I am aware that you can form larger taskforces. There is no need for that in my opinion.

If you put 6 CVs in one TF all will come under attack if this TF is attacked.

Of course, for the Allies, it doesn't matter anymore in 1944/45 since the japanese should have extreme difficulties getting through the fighter cover and the flak.
Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: maximum carriers in a task force?

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

"Nope. There is no maximum."

I am aware that you can form larger taskforces. There is no need for that in my opinion.

If you put 6 CVs in one TF all will come under attack if this TF is attacked.

Of course, for the Allies, it doesn't matter anymore in 1944/45 since the japanese should have extreme difficulties getting through the fighter cover and the flak.

Leakers get through no matter how large the cap.

I have had carriers sent home to for dry dock repairs when covered by a 1500 plane CAP consisting of mostly Corsairs and Bearcats.

The real point is that by that time losing 3-6 carriers from the Death Star while on station off the HI is simply the cost of doing business and does not result in the kind of setback losing 3-6 carriers in '42-'43 does.
Hans

User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: maximum carriers in a task force?

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Mower

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

not just the AI, me too and it works just perfectly. As the IJ I put up to ten CVs into one carrier TF and it works just as well or as bad as only having four.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: maximum carriers in a task force?

Post by castor troy »

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.

Trust Loka, 100% true!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 6257
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: maximum carriers in a task force?

Post by Nomad »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

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.

Trust Loka, 100% true!
I agree also. The right answer to the OP is 25, that is the maximum size of a CV TF.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: maximum carriers in a task force?

Post by Macclan5 »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


+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.

+2

--

43 3 CV + 1 CVL

It all depends on 'timing' - which ones are 'delivered and in Pearl vs which ones are in the Canal.

i.e. Its different in July 43 vs November 43
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”