question about carrier battle - elladan keep out!

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

Stupid newbie question but why?

Also slightly ot but has anyone ever successfuly invaded PH with historical first turn in a pbem?

Well it is not gamey, as the game didn't allow it. You can exchange CV air units between CV at sea.

As for invading PH with a historical turn, I don't think so. But I myself took PH in my AAR Bloody Pacific with a unhistorical first turn but not exploiting the "magic movement" of the 1st turn, except for sending back to Japan the bigger part of the units in Pescadores (historically sent to invade the PI, that I bypassed in my game) and empty AP from various bases. I also reinforced the TF sent to take Wake, and diverted the Guam invasion force to Midway, but again didn't use magic movement to reach it. Midway was invaded and taken in mid-december.

The troopships and their escort left Japan on 9 or 10 Dec IIRC.

[Yamato hugger]

The transports cant even make it to Midway on the first turn (they are like 1 hex short) so to answer your question: No, no one has successfully invaded Hawaii on turn 1.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's extremely gamey.

I wouldnt have had them on the carriers to begin with. Dont know why you would call that gamey. I pull the Vals off Jap carriers and load them with Zeros and Kates also.

It´s gamey because that is something noone in 100 years would have done...

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It´s gamey because that is something noone in 100 years would have done...

Really? 100 years? Lets see, whats the load out on US CVs now?

Early 42:
27 VF
36 VA
15 VT

Late 42:
36 VF
36 VA
15 VT

1943:
36 VF
36 VA
18 VT

Early 44:
40 VF
34 VA
18 VT

Late 44:
42 VF
32 VA
18 VT

1945:
72 VF
15 VA
15 VT

Gamey? Dont think so.

Gamey actually would be using the Kingfishers as recon aircraft in carrier TFs http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Vought-Kingfisher/kingfsh_info/king_info.php

They were actually used for spotting for naval gunfire and rescue work for downed pilots (mainly). The "scouting" were done mainly by VAs and VFs (in late 44 it was 3 plane sections of 1 dive bomber and 2 fighters escorting).

The 15 VAs on the carriers in 1945 were chiefly for spotting work. Yes they did send in dive bombers against the Yamato, but that is the exception rather than the rule. So please, dont tell me I cant use 1945 tactics in 1941 if I choose to, and please dont tell me they wouldnt do it "in 100 years" because they did it in 3.

Edit: The above load out dates are right out of the WitP apendix in the back of the game manual. They did indeed change out the make up of the airgroups to suit their needs at the time. I dont recall if they actually did it, or were just thinking about doing it, but I read somewhere that the Enterprise was to become a night fighter carrier with all its strike aircraft removed.

[tsimmonds]

pwnd![;)]

[Feinder]

What he really needs is a holocast cloak and a wheel barrow.  Those would really be assets...
 
-F-

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It´s gamey because that is something noone in 100 years would have done...

Really? 100 years? Lets see, whats the load out on US CVs now?

Early 42:
27 VF
36 VA
15 VT

Late 42:
36 VF
36 VA
15 VT

1943:
36 VF
36 VA
18 VT

Early 44:
40 VF
34 VA
18 VT

Late 44:
42 VF
32 VA
18 VT

1945:
72 VF
15 VA
15 VT

Gamey? Dont think so.

Gamey actually would be using the Kingfishers as recon aircraft in carrier TFs http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Vought-Kingfisher/kingfsh_info/king_info.php

They were actually used for spotting for naval gunfire and rescue work for downed pilots (mainly). The "scouting" were done mainly by VAs and VFs (in late 44 it was 3 plane sections of 1 dive bomber and 2 fighters escorting).

The 15 VAs on the carriers in 1945 were chiefly for spotting work. Yes they did send in dive bombers against the Yamato, but that is the exception rather than the rule. So please, dont tell me I cant use 1945 tactics in 1941 if I choose to, and please dont tell me they wouldnt do it "in 100 years" because they did it in 3.

Edit: The above load out dates are right out of the WitP apendix in the back of the game manual. They did indeed change out the make up of the airgroups to suit their needs at the time. I dont recall if they actually did it, or were just thinking about doing it, but I read somewhere that the Enterprise was to become a night fighter carrier with all its strike aircraft removed.

I repeat what I posted above (including the quote of your previous post). Highlighting the important things. Surprising to see that you justify what you are doing as Japanese with a post of how the different load outs of US carriers were.



Do you really think a Japanese admiral responsible for sending out a carrier TF where most of the carriers only carry a max of three dozen torps would do what you are describing of being realistic? We have already 100 times more torps available in the game but you are even doubling that by replacing Kates with Vals???[8|]

I stand by the words of Terminus: That´s extremely gamey!

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's extremely gamey.


I wouldnt have had them on the carriers to begin with. Dont know why you would call that gamey. I pull the Vals off Jap carriers and load them with Zeros and Kates also.


It´s gamey because that is something noone in 100 years would have done...

and besides that, what you are describing here about the US CVs is happening automatically anyway in the game. For me it´s as strange and gamey like when people are sailing around a couple of CVs with fighters only to act as a "fighter trap" for incoming bomber strikes from an island.


what I really like also is this statement: So please, dont tell me I cant use 1945 tactics in 1941 if I choose to ... serious? Why not also make the bomb available in 41 so you could use it? Of course you can use 45 tactics in 41 but of course I can call it gamey as you seem to have the learning curve the Allied needed already made in the 30s.

Perhaps you can find the same you described (highlighted in red) also in the appendix of the manual?? [8|]

[String]

Weren't the japanese squadrons doctrinally a part of the japanese ship crews so they couldn't be shuffled around as easily as the USN ones were?

[Yamato hugger]

Nope. Most Jap carrier pilots were killed flying from Rabul.

Do you really think a Japanese admiral responsible for sending out a carrier TF where most of the carriers only carry a max of three dozen torps would do what you are describing of being realistic? We have already 100 times more torps available in the game but you are even doubling that by replacing Kates with Vals???

As the Jap I can determine exactly how many of what type of plane I can produce. I determine what ship goes to pick up oil and where it goes for production. I can dictate if my shipyard crews are going to work on this ship today or not. I can determine exactly what squadron gets this ONE trained pilot.

And you going to tell me I CANT decide if this carriers Val group is coming off and a Kate group is going on it? Come on, get real.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: String

Weren't the japanese squadrons doctrinally a part of the japanese ship crews so they couldn't be shuffled around as easily as the USN ones were?

IRL - yes. Shokaku and Zuikaku were taken out of action at Coral Sea because one was damaged and the other had its air crew mangled. Probably had they had USN doctrine, they would have just moved the air crews over to the undamaged ship and carried on... but the IJN setup didn't allow them to do that, so the IJN was short one carrier at Midway...

EDIT: i think most of the IJN pilots that died at Rabaul were pilots NOT assigned to carriers.

[Yamato hugger]

Japanese shipbuilding doctrine at the begining of the war was CVs first ASW was a distant 9th. By the end of the war CVs were still first but ASW had moved up to number 2. This game allows me the option of changing THAT doctrine. I can shut off ALL the CV production (and frankly, any carrier that isnt produced before mid 1943 I DO shut off).

Japanese aircraft production was geared mainly towards the Oscar (1s and 2s) until late 43 early 44. This game allows me the option of changing THAT doctrine as well.

See where this is going?

[AmiralLaurent]

You're right but that is mainly using the defects of the game...

You can do what you want but don't complain if you face in mid-43 a death satr with 400 Corsairs aboard and in 1944 a land-based star of 1000 B-24J and 1000 P-38J operating from a size 5 AF...

[Barb]

this is debate bout nothing now

1. CVs are strike power, so i think no real Admiral, prezident or "god" will make them only defensive weapons with fighters only aboard.
2. CVs doctrine is to STRIKE FIRST WITH WHATEVER YOU HAVE! not respecting this, costs Japs their 4 carriers at midway.
3. Torpedoes can make a more deadly damage then bomb, only torpedo bombers are slow and vulnerable (Why do you think that US CVEs and CVLs have fighter-avanger duo aboard?)
4. To use a 1945 doctrine in 1941-1942 is the historical feeling. This is only a game, but if you like to play a little histrocialy, you will not use it. Doctrines at the beggining of war were out of date (B-17s high altitude bombing, 3 planes sections, bombers will always get through, ...) and changes in them costs thousands of dead and timie.

If it is gamey or not is your feeling of history.
But my question is still not answered to persuade me.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

You're right but that is mainly using the defects of the game...

You can do what you want but don't complain if you face in mid-43 a death satr with 400 Corsairs aboard and in 1944 a land-based star of 1000 B-24J and 1000 P-38J operating from a size 5 AF...

I dont have a problem with people that stack 1000 planes at a base, because I am going to score a LOT of points against it destroying planes on the ground. Night bombing and BBs are your friend against these monsters. And frankly, if a person is going to do this, they arent going to do it because I put 20 Kates in place of 20 Vals. They have low enough character to do it regardless.

As for the allied late war death stars. Going to face them regardless, so I may as well make it count while I can.

I seriously dont know why you few people have a problem with it. My God, the allies are putting 72 VF per carrier out there in 45 (36 of them being Corsairs the other 36 being "only" Hellcats). You think the Japs even have a prayer of getting a plane through that? So for 3 or 4 months I have 80 extra Kates on the KB in place of Vals. Thats it, thats all the Japs have for spares that arent committed to carriers. This ASSUMES the Japs havent had any Kate losses and have some low experience groups (which they are almost sure to have since the carriers start somewhere around 20 Kates short at start) or disbanded some to bring carrier groups up to strength. So in reality we are talking about 30-40 Kates in place of Vals total.

Good God!!

Edit: And in my opinion there is NOTHING more gamey than using 4E bombers on naval attack. The accuracy rating on these aircraft is based on bombing a stationary target that the bombadier was briefed about beforehand, NOT moving ships at sea. 4E on naval attack at 7000 feet even. Thats the apex of gamey.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Nope. Most Jap carrier pilots were killed flying from Rabul.

Do you really think a Japanese admiral responsible for sending out a carrier TF where most of the carriers only carry a max of three dozen torps would do what you are describing of being realistic? We have already 100 times more torps available in the game but you are even doubling that by replacing Kates with Vals???

And you going to tell me I CANT decide if this carriers Val group is coming off and a Kate group is going on it? Come on, get real.

Better for you to get real![8|] OF COURSE YOU CAN!!! Nobody told you you can´t. The game lets you!

Though only because the game lets you IT´S EXTREMELY GAMEY. And for sure the majority of PBEM players would call it gamey.

GAMEY GAMEY GAMEY

[Yamato hugger]

Whatever you say.

[Barb]

Result of my attempts to Supply Pearl Harbor and Destroy enemy air power at Lahiana Roads:

As he spotted Sara, Lady Lex, York, Big E, his three carrier force retreaterd to Midway.
One US AVD destroyed at Lihue.
After two days, enemy air units on Lahiana roads losts 40 A6Ms, G4Ms, Sallys and Patrol planes. Air strenght of PH grows, runways and ships are repaired.
1 Div and 1RCT is shipped in to streghten US positions, together with Base Force unit. 40k+ supplies landed at Hawaii.
Then whole KB unexpectedly appeared 6 (3CVs) and 7(3CVs) hexes (out of my range) away of Sara, Lex and Ent (York was refuelling at PH) - naval search and sub patrol line should give me warning turn earlier, but weather was against me.
Sara was sunk next day in the entrance of PH (VF-3 is the only surviving unit), other carriers escaped, 100k supplies on the bottom of the pacific with AKs.
Total around 80 A6M2, 23 D3A, 30 B5N, destroyed to 40 SBD, 15 TBD, 10 F2A, 14 F4-F3, 25 P-40.

Bad luck [:@]

[AmiralLaurent]

So you traded the Sara and some tens of AK against 100 IJN elite pilots/crews and the failure of a major Japanese offensive in 1942 (with more supplies and 3.5 Div in PH, Japan Hawaii adventure is going to be pointless).

Not a too bad deal IMOO.