Good basic strategy guide?

[MarkShot]

I just installed CAW last night.

Anyone have a good reference for the basic concepts/strategies involved CAW?

After so many years of games, I understand tactical air combat, tactical/operational ground combat, and tactical sub commerce raiding. However, I do not understand WWII naval surface and air war. A primer on the basic moves would be helpful.

Thanks.

[freeboy]

hit the enemy carriers befoer the hit you.. try to get into the first circle , this allows torpedo planes imo. I liketo use coordinated strike at first... I also run a screan of the ca and bb groups.. for two reasons,, they lauch planes and thus I can get a jump on the enemy and B.. the "dumb" ai.. used by both sides planes.. will often target the capital ships it sees rather than the carriers it was assigned to attack.. This results in some bb damage, and ca sunk or damaged, but often enemy CV at teh bottom as I run two strike a day against them all the while safe behind my screan.

Wish list, "better " ai for planes to bypass capital ships and some randum add ons so we do not know what we are facing ecatly.. and harder fow.

[Adam Parker]

Welcome to my club! That pic of Shokuku I found and posted in the Coral Sea thread really helped open my eyes as to what naval success expectations should look like.
 
All I can say is let yourself get kicked around by the AI for about 10 times. Chris Merchant gave the forum a great tip in "use the weather".
 
This helped me get my confidence in maneuver and led to my wins at Coral Sea (loss x 12, decisive win, decisive win, marginal win).
 
I just finished my first go at Midway (very little weather to "use" in my game just now!) andgot a marginal win - it came down to the reality - fortune goes to the bold and the Japanese AI exposed its carriers too qucikly!
 
I gotta tell you about my last game of Coral Sea though. Not a spoiler but dawn broke on the 3rd day and by some fluke, there was my Yorktown battlegroup... right next door - adjacent hex [X(] - to some Jap carriers. And somehow I got to see them first... Nightime scares me!
 
Another useful way to learn the game I found, is to play your first scens with full enemy damage feedback on. This sort of gives a feel of what hitting and being hit looks like. When you get comfortable turn it off and you'll be so amazed at what the end of your scenarios look like.
 
Love to hear what others come up with too.

[MarkShot]

In ground combat, you are often faced with deciding whether to mass or split forces. Does the same issue present itself in CAW?

Mass: Makes an easier target, but also gives you the decisive striking power especially if you catch the enemy and defeat in details.

Disperse: Makes you less vulnerable to a single coordinated attack.

Of course, the above only address one's forces, for ground combat one talks about massing fires which may mean that the shooters themselves are dispersed, but they are able to jointly bring fires upon a kill zone.

???

---

Much a of ground combat focuses on valuable terrain. Okay, so we have use weather; makes sense successful sub attacks are very oriented to proper combination of tactics and weather.

So, what is analogous to terrain in naval combat? Do certain island chains create choke points similar to how woods or a mine field can be used to channel an attacker? Are having air bases on islands analogous to holding the high ground and being able to cover lanes of movement with fire?

Time also plays a big role in ground combat. If a small force via a road block can delay reinforcements to reaching the key engagement area when the issue is to be decided (achieve mass), then the outcome of a battle can be altered.

So, what that I have learned of ground combat can be applied to warfare on the ocean?

???

Thanks again!

[MarkShot]

Please forgive with all those references to something which is not CAW, but it is the only frame of reference which I have!?

I recently got SH3. The folk's in subsim's SH3 forum were ready to shoot me a week ago with all the constant references to AOD this and AOD that!

[82nd Airborne]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

In ground combat, you are often faced with deciding whether to mass or split forces. Does the same issue present itself in CAW?

Mass: Makes an easier target, but also gives you the decisive striking power especially if you catch the enemy and defeat in details.

Disperse: Makes you less vulnerable to a single coordinated attack.

in this game you get the "Nagumo dilema", do I send all my forces at 'this' sighting or do I keep a reserve in case enemy carriers show up somewhere else. If I keep a reserve, then the armed and fueled planes make my CV's more vulnerable.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
---

Much a of ground combat focuses on valuable terrain. Okay, so we have use weather; makes sense successful sub attacks are very oriented to proper combination of tactics and weather.

weather is big in this game

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
So, what is analogous to terrain in naval combat? Do certain island chains create choke points similar to how woods or a mine field can be used to channel an attacker? Are having air bases on islands analogous to holding the high ground and being able to cover lanes of movement with fire?

to certain degree the islands dictate movements as you can't sail through them, and certainly the landbased planes dictate where you would move.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
Time also plays a big role in ground combat. If a small force via a road block can delay reinforcements to reaching the key engagement area when the issue is to be decided (achieve mass), then the outcome of a battle can be altered.

So, what that I have learned of ground combat can be applied to warfare on the ocean?

???

Thanks again!

you can position forces such that they hopefully will take the brunt of the enemy attack rather than your Carrieres, and your Carriers themselves are pretty darn good at keeping re-inforcements from going where they want to.

[Adam Parker]

Question to those in the know:

Is it legitimate to use auxiliary/cruiser TG's as bait/cannon fodder?

In answer to Mark:

The real differences in naval combat (as portrayed here) I've found so far are:

1. The need to get into range at risk of exposure to longer enemy striking ranges.
2. The slowness in escaping from harms way - it's very hard to hit and run under an enemy air umbrella on water.
3. The need to compensate for poor accuracy/training by concentration of firepower.

Otherwise, weather it seems is akin to close cover terrain. Bluff and baiting are the same as running an armored feint. And you do get the option (if your TG's are so organised) to consider schwerepunkt vs dispered attack. The pre-determined doctrine of TG organisation per side, will see the need for different hats as Admiral and that's something I'm looking forward to experiencing.

[Banquet]

Hey Markshot

Let me know what you think of CAW. I'm on the fence at the moment. I like carrier warfare and the idea of a quick, realtime game is appealing. On the other hand I've bought sooo many games lately it's not even funny and, like others, I find the lack of scenerio's a bit of a concern.

I trust your judgement! It would be good to know your opinions when you've had the chance explore the game a little.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

In ground combat, you are often faced with deciding whether to mass or split forces. Does the same issue present itself in CAW?

Mass: Makes an easier target, but also gives you the decisive striking power especially if you catch the enemy and defeat in details.

Disperse: Makes you less vulnerable to a single coordinated attack.

Of course, the above only address one's forces, for ground combat one talks about massing fires which may mean that the shooters themselves are dispersed, but they are able to jointly bring fires upon a kill zone.

???

---

Much a of ground combat focuses on valuable terrain. Okay, so we have use weather; makes sense successful sub attacks are very oriented to proper combination of tactics and weather.

So, what is analogous to terrain in naval combat? Do certain island chains create choke points similar to how woods or a mine field can be used to channel an attacker? Are having air bases on islands analogous to holding the high ground and being able to cover lanes of movement with fire?

Time also plays a big role in ground combat. If a small force via a road block can delay reinforcements to reaching the key engagement area when the issue is to be decided (achieve mass), then the outcome of a battle can be altered.

So, what that I have learned of ground combat can be applied to warfare on the ocean?

???

Thanks again!

Good questions, with no easy answers, so I'll give it a go.

Overall, the closest analogy would be desert warfare, in that you can move pretty much anywhere and there's usually nothing to stop you. There is no such thing as flank security. In fact, given the ability of acrriers to project power at long range, there is no oftem no requirement at all for a carrier to be in a particular place, it's the location relative to the enemy forces that is all important, especially on an almost empty map like Midway, where the air power on Midway itself is not particularly potent and the real power resides with the carriers.

However, that is not always the case. In Coral Sea the Japanese have significant land based air at Rabaul, which is quite capable of damaging or even sinking my carriers. Since the Japanese have to come to Port Moresby, there is no reason for me to expose myself to additional risk by venturing within range of that air threat, since I can accomplish my objectives without doing so.

This is where your previous experience will come in very handy. Although the conditions are different, you will still need to assess risks and make decisions based on incomplete and often contradictory information.

The question of dispersal is an interesting one for the US player, who often has multiple carrier TGs to play with, unlike the Japanese who concentrated all their fleet carriers in one TG. A full strike from a single carrier has enough combat power to potentially sink or disable two carriers, which can lead to overkill on a single carrier. If carriers operate too close to each other then they are likely to be spotted and bothattacked by the same strike. If they are too far apart, then one might be out of range of the enemy and unable to counterattack at all.

These, and many others, are questions that you will have to solve.

Gregor

[JD Walter]

[font="Times New Roman"]Hi Markshot,

In playing Carriers at War (CAW) for the first time (or any Pacific War game, for that matter), it helps to understand the objective(s) underlying the strategy used by the USN in prosecuting the war 1942-44. Quite simply, the overall strategy was a cycle:

1. Sieze a location pertinent for interdicting enemy naval supply lines to a base;
2. Build an airfield on it;
3. Use land-based aircraft to interdict all enemy naval transport through the area & thus blockade any enemy base(s) in the region.

Once accomplished, repeat further up the island chain on the way to Tokyo. This was the essence of "island-hopping". Mark Herman's boardgame design, "Empire of the Sun" (GMT) brings out this cycle in great relief, and it is also present in Gary Grigsby's "Uncommon Valor" and "War in the Pacific" games here at Matrix.

In CAW, you are presented with scenarios showing the operations by both sides to put this cycle into effect. At Coral Sea, the Japanese were attempting to capture Port Moresby in order to advance their air coverage towards Australia; at Midway, they were attempting to secure a forward base for air recon to expand their defensive perimeter and (possibly, if successful at eliminating the American carrier fleet) move on Hawaii.

At the operational level, there is also a cycle in accomplishing the above strategy:
1. Transports convey ground forces for seizure of the interdicting location;
2. Ground forces build and protect the airfield;
3. Land-based aircraft patrol and interdict the surrounding area;
4. Regional air superiority allows reinforcement & resupply of one's ground forces, while preventing the enemy from doing the same (thus blockading his base(s) in the area).

We now come to the tactical level, which CAW focuses on. Here, there is another cycle of inter-dependent relationships between units at work:
1. Transports convey troops to capture bases and build airfields;
2. Carriers stop transports;
3. Land-based aircraft stop carriers.

This is not an absolute; in fact, in early-1942 (pre-Midway), I would be hard-pressed to prove American & Australian land-based airforces were capable of stopping the Kido Butai (Japan's Carrier Strike Force) from escorting the Japanese Army's transports wherever they wanted to. But I'm simplifying here so you can see the overall picture and get a grasp of the operations CAW's scenarios are showing.

To this end, one can think of carrier groups as mobile airfields. The objective of CAW is to:
1. Position one's cariers to interdict enemy transport operations, whilst...
2. Staying outside of land-based aircraft range (to keep from getting your CAP overwhelmed and penetrated by airstrikes from airfields larger than your carrier decks); and
3. Parrying enemy carrier groups and their attempts to either:
[blockquote]
a) interdict your transport operations (if any), or
b) provide advance CAP over their own transports enroute to seize a new base.[/blockquote]

The last mission is both offensive and defensive, which is what gives CAW and its predecessors like Craig Taylor's Flat Top (BL/AH) their unique flavor: carriers must both project advance air cover (CAP) to escort naval transport missions, while retaining a strike capability to sink any enemy carrier group(s) which might be operating in the area and attempting to interdict (or sink) one's own transports.

Now that you know what you're trying to do, I'll leave it to you to discover the best way to do it. (That, after all, is what makes CAW challenging.) Some tactical advice:
1. Japanese carrier aircraft can out-range American. Properly positioned, Japanese carrier groups can launch strikes that American carriers can respond to only at extended range, with reduced payloads.
2. Clouds are your friend. Use them to hide in.
3. Clouds are your enemy. Expect your opponent to use them to shield his approach.
4. If possible, stay under the protective umbrella of land-based air. Offensively, move into position under the aegis of land-based air, then strike at the target as quickly as possible and retire back into range of one's land airbases expeditiously.

Good hunting![/font][font="Times New Roman"][/font][font="Times New Roman"][/font]

[JD Walter]

Well, I honestly have no idea why part of my post is showing in strikethrough. Anyone who can show me how to edit, in order to show as plain text, I would be indebted.

[MarkShot]

Just edit the message and looks for codes like:

Code: Select all

 .... 

delete those and that should fix it.

[JD Walter]

Thanks, Markshot. It was interpreting my use of a bracketed "s" in the word "base_s_" as an instruction for a strikethrough. Although no code appeared, by deleting the brackets surrounding the "s" and instead using a second set of parenthesis (in contravention of what I was taught in Grammer, which would horrify my HS English teacher), I was able to set the embedded codes correctly and eliminate the strikethrough.

[AVisme]

All your strikethroughs belongs to us !!

[JD Walter]

Improper grammar, Sir! [:D]

"All your strikethrough are belong to us!"

Let us keep the knowledge of Zero Wing accurate in its aliveness!

[AVisme]

Doh!

[JD Walter]

Hi Markshot.

In specific response to your query as to a good reference for the basic concepts & strategies involved in CAW, the best single source I can recommend is Al Nofi's article "The War in the Pacific 1941-1943", which appeared in S&T #29, November 1971, accompanying Jim Dunnigan's "USN" issue game.

This article was reprinted, in its entirety, as the strategy notes for Gary Grigsby's "Pacific War" (SSI, 1992), when that game was first released.

I can also recommend Mark Herman's website, where he gives a little bit of explanation about his design, "Empire of the Sun":

http://members.tripod.com/~MarkHerman/EOTShome.html

On it, Mark has a monograph discussing the USN's suppression of the Japanese base at Truk, which explains many of the concepts I touched on in my earlier post. There is much useful information in it on the strategic conduct of the War in the Pacific, which will set the tone for the scenarios presented in CAW and give you a feel for what your forces are doing there, and why.

Hope this has been helpful. I ordered HTTR and COA mainly because of your excellent strategy guides, and was able to grasp many of Dave's concepts therein because of them. In a small way, I hope I've repaid the favor.

[MarkShot]

Def Zep,

I am glad you are enjoying HTTR and COTA. Believe it or not, I started out as clueless with that game engine as I am now about carrier combat. It's back to the school of hard knocks for me. But if you read my guides you know I have trouble letting going of anything until I have mastered it. I just need some time.

Thanks.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Def Zep

... the best single source I can recommend is Al Nofi's article "The War in the Pacific 1941-1943", which appeared in S&T #29, November 1971, accompanying Jim Dunnigan's "USN" issue game.

Def Zep, you just reminded me that I have Dunnigan's and Nofi's book "Victory at Sea" - thank you. Totally forgot about it. I'm going to relax with it tonight - meant to be a veritible encyclopedia of trivia, tactics and strategy.

IIRC its genesis was the design notes behind one of Duunigan's games in the 90's. They re-wrote it and added 20% new material, runs 500 pages.

Victory at Sea WW2 in the Pacific

[MarkShot]

Def Zep,

Did you get my PM?