LRCAP/CAP and AI decisions

[undercovergeek]

Does the AI look at an incoming threat to my KB and decide how many planes to launch as CAP?

I ask because i have the majority of my KBs Zeroes (65) on 100% LRCAP, the target being TF1 - my opponent is launching small B17 attacks against the ships and only 10-15 Zeroes are flying out to meet the incoming bombers - does the game regard 3-4 bombers insufficient to launch 65 Zeroes against or am i using the wrong instructions - i have ALWAYS used LRCAP and TF1 as the target since day 1 - but should i use CAP instead - will this give better results - while im aware that even 650 Zeroes arent going to shoot down 3-4 B17s id still like them in the air

[LoBaron]

Is TF1 a CV combat TF?
Is it in the same Hex as the KB?

EDIT:
If #1 is true you are suffering from a decrease of LRCAP effectiveness due to radio silence
(which is a hardcoded penalty when flying LRCAP over a CV TF)

In case #2 is true then you better use CAP.


Just a general comment: LRCAP is always less effective than CAP because the number of AC assigned
are either airborne over target, airborne and in transfer to target or RTB, or on ground waiting to replace
the airborne fighters.
This thins out LRCAP quite a lot compared to regular CAP.

[undercovergeek]

TF1 is the KB

so to sum up CAP the KB and not LRCAP - after 5 years now, i dont think ive ever used CAP - do i set the target as the KB or do they automatically CAP the group theyre launched from

[Sredni]

With carriers I've never used LRcap, I always have my carriers in the hex I want protected with fighters on cap. If I want a convoy or a bombardment group protected I keep them in the same hex as my carriers. Cap I find is largely worthless outside of the source hex with very limited cover at range. Land based cap can have enough source fighters to cover larger area's but I find carriers to be too limited in regards to numbers.

I've tried positioning carriers one hex away from invasion TF's and tried to let cap cover the invasion as well as the carriers and it hasn't worked out very well. Even with the coastal penalty carriers in the invasion hex provide much better protection while in the invasion hex and with normal cap then a hex away with normal cap.

I'm not sure how effective carrier fighters set to LRcap would be in this situation.

The times I've used LRcap is when I want a convoy near a base protected by land based fighters. With a lot more fighters required to get decent coverage compared to cap in it's source hex.

I've never even thought about using LRcap on a convoy in the same hex as my carriers (if that's what you're doing). I'm not sure how, say, 40% lrcap would compare to 40% cap. Cap supposedly uses the amount you set, plus any free fighters (fighters who arn't set to another mission or to rest) if there's enough time to get into the air. I'm not sure if lrcap has anything like that. And I've always been paranoid about sending my carrier fighters on LRcap away from their own coverage.

[undercovergeek]

ok, my initial query:-

B17s are bombing the KB, KB despite having 65-70 Zeroes on board all set to 100% LRCAP with the KB as their target is only launching 10-15 fighters to intercept.

Is this because LRCAP/100%/KB as target is an inefficient use of the fighters or because the AI sees 5 B17s and only allocates a small fighter interception despite the number of fighters tasked to intercept?

Follow on query:-

What is the best way to cover the KB - LRCAP/100%/KB as target or CAP with no target and fighter range of 0, or CAP with KB as target and leave the range alone

Ive always been happy with the results of LRCAPing a convoy from 3 or 4 hexes away with the KB - never occurred to me to use CAP

[inqistor]

To get more planes into air, there should be some spare. If you distributed 100%, there will be never any spare left.
I actually never thought about LRCAPing of mother fleet. CAP always protect whole hex, and it could not have set target. The main difference would be, that LRCAP uses more fatigue.
CAP (and LRCAP) could also partially "leak" into nearby hexes (supposedly up to 3). If you detect raid early with radar, more planes will be in the air during battle.

[bradfordkay]

Do not use LRCAP with carrier TFs. I'm at work, so I don't have my manual handy, but if you dig through it you will find that there is a penalty for using LRCAP over Air Combat TFs. This penalty will reduce the number of aircraft that perform the LRCAP.

If you use the carriers fighter squadrons set to CAP they will launch in huge quantities. The other day I had some B-17s launch against Noemea when Chez had a carrier in port and the 15 B-17s ran into a maelstrom of 122 A6Ms (combination of the land based Zeros and the carriers Zeros).

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Do not use LRCAP with carrier TFs. I'm at work, so I don't have my manual handy, but if you dig through it you will find that there is a penalty for using LRCAP over Air Combat TFs. This penalty will reduce the number of aircraft that perform the LRCAP.

If you use the carriers fighter squadrons set to CAP they will launch in huge quantities. The other day I had some B-17s launch against Noemea when Chez had a carrier in port and the 15 B-17s ran into a maelstrom of 122 A6Ms (combination of the land based Zeros and the carriers Zeros).

Page 153 of the manual. LRCAP over air combat TF is only 20% effective.

Alfred

[Local Yokel]

The rationale for this, as given in the manual, is that

"it’s harder to coordinate with an Air Combat TF that is constantly changing course and is using radio silence."

I've always thought this is pretty silly. Your FDO is maintaining radio silence when they're swarming all over you?! And easily circumvented by hiving off a single vessel from the carrier TF's screen into a new TF the LRCAP is assigned to protect.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

The rationale for this, as given in the manual, is that

"it’s harder to coordinate with an Air Combat TF that is constantly changing course and is using radio silence."

I've always thought this is pretty silly. Your FDO is maintaining radio silence when they're swarming all over you?! And easily circumvented by hiving off a single vessel from the carrier TF's screen into a new TF the LRCAP is assigned to protect.

What does LRCAP over a CV TF require? A constant knowledge of the CV TFs wherabouts and future course.
We are not yet talking about actual combat, we are talking about information distribution.

This would expose the carriers to an radio sniffing equipment in the remote area or limit the operational
freedom of the TF.

I can live with that rationale, more so because it has an additional game balancing aspect.


Edit: splitting a vessel into a new TF to avoid the penalty is easy, though in a PBEM I´d consider that very gamey.

[Local Yokel]

I don't have a particularly strong objection to the rationale, save that if everyone is maintaining radio silence there's likely to be a lot of bogeys cluttering the air plot, particularly if some of them have come from some nearby land base.

I just don't see the point of the game's 80% reduction in the effectiveness of LRCAP over an ACTF when you can simply sidestep the penalty by having LRCAP operating at 100% effectiveness over another TF that is keeping station on the ACTF in the same hex.

[LoBaron]

Agree, TBH it should apply to any TF in follow mode also.
I just guess this is extremely hard to code.

[obvert]

This is all very interesting, but back to the original point of the post, why would you ever use LR CAP to protect the Air Combat TF when you can just use CAP and avoid all of the penalties and fatigue?

Yes, if you are trying to protect say another TF nearby, you might set one of two fighter squads to LR CAP, while keeping another on Escort/CAP. No other reason to do it as far as I can see.

[LoBaron]

There is no reason whatsoever to favor LRCAP over CAP if the base hex is equal to the target hex,
which usually applies to a CV TF.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

ok, my initial query:-

B17s are bombing the KB, KB despite having 65-70 Zeroes on board all set to 100% LRCAP with the KB as their target is only launching 10-15 fighters to intercept.

Is this because LRCAP/100%/KB as target is an inefficient use of the fighters or because the AI sees 5 B17s and only allocates a small fighter interception despite the number of fighters tasked to intercept?

Follow on query:-

What is the best way to cover the KB - LRCAP/100%/KB as target or CAP with no target and fighter range of 0, or CAP with KB as target and leave the range alone

Ive always been happy with the results of LRCAPing a convoy from 3 or 4 hexes away with the KB - never occurred to me to use CAP

Set the carrier based fighters on regular cap...up to whatever percent you are comfortable with. LRCAP is for capping a base or TF that doesn't have its own fighters.

Additionally, if you want to boost the KB defense, then you can use LRCAP from land based fighter groups to give you a dozen or so extra fighters.

In short, never use LRCAP on a carrier based fighter group. Land based units can LRCAP when you want to defend a base or TF without its own fighters or airstrip.

[bradfordkay]

I will use CV fighter squadrons set on LRCAP over an invasion force or newly invaded base that has no fighter cover of its on. That is about the only time I will set carrier fighters to LRCAP. 

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

The rationale for this, as given in the manual, is that

"it’s harder to coordinate with an Air Combat TF that is constantly changing course and is using radio silence."

I've always thought this is pretty silly. Your FDO is maintaining radio silence when they're swarming all over you?! And easily circumvented by hiving off a single vessel from the carrier TF's screen into a new TF the LRCAP is assigned to protect.

What does LRCAP over a CV TF require? A constant knowledge of the CV TFs wherabouts and future course.
We are not yet talking about actual combat, we are talking about information distribution.

This would expose the carriers to an radio sniffing equipment in the remote area or limit the operational
freedom of the TF.

I can live with that rationale, more so because it has an additional game balancing aspect.


Edit: splitting a vessel into a new TF to avoid the penalty is easy, though in a PBEM I´d consider that very gamey.

Me too. I find the use of non-sub 1-ship TF's to be very gamey - for example, placing single xAKL TF's out in front of your CV TF to draw air attacks.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

The rationale for this, as given in the manual, is that

"it’s harder to coordinate with an Air Combat TF that is constantly changing course and is using radio silence."

I've always thought this is pretty silly. Your FDO is maintaining radio silence when they're swarming all over you?! And easily circumvented by hiving off a single vessel from the carrier TF's screen into a new TF the LRCAP is assigned to protect.

What does LRCAP over a CV TF require? A constant knowledge of the CV TFs wherabouts and future course.
We are not yet talking about actual combat, we are talking about information distribution.

This would expose the carriers to an radio sniffing equipment in the remote area or limit the operational
freedom of the TF.

I can live with that rationale, more so because it has an additional game balancing aspect.


Edit: splitting a vessel into a new TF to avoid the penalty is easy, though in a PBEM I´d consider that very gamey.

Me too. I find the use of non-sub 1-ship TF's to be very gamey - for example, placing single xAKL TF's out in front of your CV TF to draw air attacks.

Point of view really. AKs...if it is for the express reason to feel out air power, then it is gamey. Single AKL as a supply ship, I do all the time...as Japan you have to, too many bases to supply or pick up resources from and not enough escorts to go around.

I have sent out single AVs and CSs to recon though, nothing gamey about that...its what they were designed for.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

The rationale for this, as given in the manual, is that

"it’s harder to coordinate with an Air Combat TF that is constantly changing course and is using radio silence."

I've always thought this is pretty silly. Your FDO is maintaining radio silence when they're swarming all over you?! And easily circumvented by hiving off a single vessel from the carrier TF's screen into a new TF the LRCAP is assigned to protect.

What does LRCAP over a CV TF require? A constant knowledge of the CV TFs wherabouts and future course.
We are not yet talking about actual combat, we are talking about information distribution.

This would expose the carriers to an radio sniffing equipment in the remote area or limit the operational
freedom of the TF.

I can live with that rationale, more so because it has an additional game balancing aspect.


Edit: splitting a vessel into a new TF to avoid the penalty is easy, though in a PBEM I´d consider that very gamey.

Me too. I find the use of non-sub 1-ship TF's to be very gamey - for example, placing single xAKL TF's out in front of your CV TF to draw air attacks.

I can't recall a single occasion on which splitting off a single vessel for this purpose ever presented itself for consideration, simply because it's exceptional in my experience for an ACTF not to be accompanied by at least one other TF, be that SCTF, ASW group or whatever. In the case of a CVTF being accompanied by, say, a SCTF, would you regard it as being gamey to assign LRCAP to the SCTF rather than the ACTF?

I bet Mitscher foamed at the mouth at how gamey Tojo was being when that picket boat's sighting forced Doolittle to launch early. Typical shabby Jap trick. [:'(]

[inqistor]

IIRC LRCAP over TFs, are less effective, than over land. I have seen this somewhere in manual. That is somewhat different, than in WITP. I wonder what happen with leaky CAP over attacked TF.