CV battle - discussion

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Does anyone have any constructive thoughts as to WHY KB planes did not attack the American CV's?

Mogami once stated that it´s a bug if you have set your aircraft to Cap and no fighter is in the air. He proposed to redo such turns. I don´t know though if this is the same if your aircraft don´t attack (I guess it is).

If you saw a message about your Vals failing to locate the target, this is of course a different thing then, as it seems all your strike wasn´t able to locate the enemy.

I've had instances of no attacks for several days running. Changing the orders seems to break the AGs out of the rut.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I just had a similar experience at the very beginning o0f a solitaire game.

I sent the two American carriers over to Wake and set the Wake fighter to naval attack at strafing altitude.

The Wake fighter strafed the Jap ships with very little effect. The first carrier to arrive hit the Jap ships with one sorty that hurt them badly.

For the next two turns straight the Jap ships sat there without moving and without the Wake fighter or either of the two carriers launching a sinlge sorty against them.

All planes had the proper settings to be launching naval strikes.

The carriers were two hexes away from Wake, each carrier TF in a seperate hex.

Planes from three seperate hexes refused to fly against ships with absolutely no CAP over them.

It was Wake, but with the IJN, where my airgroups went on strike.

[ilovestrategy]

I think it's old age and treachery winning over youth and skill! [:D]

[saj42]

I think you got hit really badly by the co-ordination penalty.
As you pointed out some DBs did launch but failed to find a target.
The rest may have stayed put because too many a/c in the TF - how many CVs were in that one TF? - more than the five we see hit?

[BrucePowers]

I think it's cool that you have your dad playing WITP[8D]

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

I think it's cool that you have your dad playing WITP[8D]

I agree 100%! How does he like it, and how did you get him to play? [:)]

[Dive Bomber1]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Wicked. Thanks Dino[;)]

You can see it now. Sorry sir every pilot is going back to have a **** on deck since we can't find that Island we've been reconning for a week on end (no problem that recon plane finding it mind you).

In all seriousness I am not mega p*ssed. I am surprised and VERY disappointed at how it worked out according to:

a.) As MDiehl says this normally turns out in WiTP.

b.) I had planned this well for 3 weeks and had fooled my father into thinking KB was elsewhere.

c.) The fact I have a mass of ace pilots against 4 x USN CV that were in a 'coastal' hex = 1/2 strike apparently.

I expect to lose between 3 and 4 CV's tops. The war has changed and my invasion of India is now scrapped.

The irony of this is that this aggressive action by me will now prevent my AV at the end of 1942 and may actually lead to a much better game since my Dad will have more of a chance despite his in-experience vs my experience.

I had similar things happen to me in most of my early pbems. In each case I had the KB go beyond my land-based patrols and well into the Allied land-based patrol zones. In each case the Allied CVs got good shots at the KB, with enough leakers to put the flight decks out of action. My ships didn't either didn't get off their planes or got off too few to do any serious damage.

My assessment is that there is some sort of local "Patrol Advantage" that allows the side that "controls" the Air Patrol "Zone" to get a jump on the opponent, similar to the "jump" that radar gives air base CAP. It's almost as if it is a Naval Air Attack equivalent to surface combat "crossing the T". So the end result is similar to what you saw.

I'm now rather reluctant to send the KB "raiding blindly" into the enemy zone unless I'm pretty confident that the Allied CVs are not around, or unless the Allied CVs have been in action against targets for several days straight and I can sneak up on them.

Good luck -

[Nikademus]

Speedy,

Took a look at your save. It was weather. The hexes in and all around your CV's were "rain" Normally in the air ops/search phase this should produce a raincload graphic and cancel air ops and prevent the TF(s) from striking. Every once in a while though, this doesn't happen which can lead to an unanswered strike similar to when one side has a range edge or one side has stood down it's planes. Same conditions that i presented way back in early WItP days. Bit of a bug.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: Dino

Well, I checked page 132 of the manual as suggested by Gem35 and found this "gem":

In each airstrike, one air group is designated as the lead group for that strike. If the lead air group fails to find the Target, all air groups in the airstrike will fail to locate the Target. A message will be shown if a group fails to find a Target after takeoff.

Wow Dino! [X(] I haven't read the manual in quite awhile, but that's a real shocker. [:(]

I think I might start breaking my CVs into 2CV TFs... I just learned something new. Sorry for your experience Speedy, but I think I've gained from your loss. Thanks for sharing this.

[bradfordkay]

This is a case where the Japanese coordinated strike becomes a liability, based upon the rule Dino quoted from the manual. This turns it into an "all or nothing" affair...

[trollelite]

Or set them on CAP, or set them on escort, stuck in the middle with 50% most likely get you into such situation... Allies usually doesn't get this problem because their strike is not so called "coordinated", their bombers only refuse to fly when there is NO escort avaiable. This is why so many rookies get their KB cooked...[:D]

[trollelite]

To 1EyedJacks

Break into 2 CV TF is not always a good idea. Sometimes one CV TF would react regardless how you set it, and others perhaps obey the command not to react and remains in the same hex. And then your multiple TFs are dispersed and get nailed by him one by one. Especially dangerous for Japanese! Of course, sometimes it's wise to organize them into multiple TFs.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Speedy,

Took a look at your save. It was weather. The hexes in and all around your CV's were "rain" Normally in the air ops/search phase this should produce a raincload graphic and cancel air ops and prevent the TF(s) from striking. Every once in a while though, this doesn't happen which can lead to an unanswered strike similar to when one side has a range edge or one side has stood down it's planes. Same conditions that i presented way back in early WItP days. Bit of a bug.

Can you run a strike into a rain hex?

OK I checked...

"Hexes affected by bad weather blocks any air units from launching an airstrike from the hex, and it blocks any target in the hex from being attacked."

So if you fail to launch due to bad weather, you should be immune to airstrikes as well.

[Jim D Burns]

I’d have to say what happened is the detection level of your opponents task force was too low thus it contributed to the failure for your planes to locate it. It was a mistake not to have more squadrons on search, as they help increase the DL of enemy task forces sighted.

Page 171 of the EBook manual states you can raise the detection level of a task force several ways, the most common of which is spotting it with search aircraft. This raises the DL 1 per search aircraft that spots the task force, so the more squadrons on search the better chance of multiple sightings of a single task force. I’m not sure if only one plane from a squadron is allowed to spot a task force or if more than one can, so there may be no benefit to having searches higher than 10% set, I just don’t know.

The next most common way and something I hadn’t realized before, is you add 1 to the DL level of a task force that has carriers that are launching a strike mission. Add 1 per air unit that is attacking or escorting. So if your opponent has a large task force like KB with at least 10 air squadrons in it, you’re pretty much guaranteed to have the max DL.

This means large CV task forces like KB have a disadvantage over small single CV task forces, as I assume the rule means it adds 1 DL per squadron launching planes. So 6 CV’s all with 3 squadrons launching a strike guarantees a max detection level of 10 even if the task force wasn’t spotted by search aircraft. So KB is going to have a very hard time getting a reverse Midway result in game as long as all its CV’s are in one task force.

There are lots of other DL increases listed, but the above two are going to add the most to your total DL of an enemy CV task force.

Page 135 lists the causes for failure to locate a target, and DL is listed as a modifier to the location die roll. Experience of the squadrons also plays a role. And then of course the dreaded first squadron rule that means if the lead squadron fails its roll, the entire strike fails to locate it, so KB again is disadvantaged in its rolls if it launches a single large strike.

After reading through these two rules sections, I’d say it is wrong to keep KB or any CV task force together if you know you are going into a CV battle. I’d divide them up so you have no more than 6 air squadrons in a single task force. That guarantees its DL won’t be maxed unless 4 search planes find it and it helps to break up your strikes so your target location roll isn’t so all or nothing.

Jim

[witpqs]

...there goes my gloating over my Father in this war..........

Poor Speedy, I can hear it now:

He he, I told you Boy, I brought you into this world and I can take you out!

[:D][:'(]

Good luck on holiday. Maybe you can defuse the situation by bringing along some (electronic) maps & charts of the Midway battle doctored up to reflect your Dad's victory. Working up some sort of 'Admiralty' decoration for him might be a good idea too.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Speedy,

Took a look at your save. It was weather. The hexes in and all around your CV's were "rain" Normally in the air ops/search phase this should produce a raincload graphic and cancel air ops and prevent the TF(s) from striking. Every once in a while though, this doesn't happen which can lead to an unanswered strike similar to when one side has a range edge or one side has stood down it's planes. Same conditions that i presented way back in early WItP days. Bit of a bug.

Thanks Nik[8D]

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Can you run a strike into a rain hex?

OK I checked...

"Hexes affected by bad weather blocks any air units from launching an airstrike from the hex, and it blocks any target in the hex from being attacked."

So if you fail to launch due to bad weather, you should be immune to airstrikes as well.

Correct?

[Dive Bomber1]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: herwin

Can you run a strike into a rain hex?

OK I checked...

"Hexes affected by bad weather blocks any air units from launching an airstrike from the hex, and it blocks any target in the hex from being attacked."

So if you fail to launch due to bad weather, you should be immune to airstrikes as well.

Correct?

I have a really, really, really hard time believing that this rule is actually true. I've seen my rained-out air bases hit by enemy air attacks time after time after time. I get a message that the air missions from a base are rained-out, then the base gets hammered by bombers.

If this is really a "rule" that is supposed to be coded into the game, then there is something wrong in how it is implemented, or else there are other factors that override it.

[witpqs]

All it takes is a momentary break in the weather. Of course, what are the realistic chances of that happening?