Two good questions

[Sir George Head]

What are the negative aspects of creating task forces only with carriers or big ships?

When I played PAC War some years ago, I only put in big ships, and left all Destroyers for ASW duties in the Port.

Are there any positive aspects of putting smaller units into a taskforce?

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Sir George Head
What are the negative aspects of creating task forces only with carriers or big ships?

When I played PAC War some years ago, I only put in big ships, and left all Destroyers for ASW duties in the Port.

Are there any positive aspects of putting smaller units into a taskforce?

If you don't have any Destroyers/smaller units in your TF, then who is going to do your ASW for the TF?

[Mojo]

ASW as Raverdave pointed out of course. A screening force for your bigger ships and help with anti aircraft fire. Engaging the enemies smaller faster torpedo equipped surface ships. They are your cavalry and manuever elements.

[Sir George Head]

yes yes, but anyway, the asw capabilities of the Japaneses navys are pretty useless. So why even care to use Destroyers?

And the little ships get mauled in surface combats every time by bigger ships.

I hope there are better solutions in UV and WitP

[henhute6]

Big ships rule, but
- 4 destroyers have slightly better flak value compared to cruiser
- Japanese destroyers are not so great damaging subs, but they can still scare away enemy subs. In submarine waters some destroyers are essential to protect the big ships.

[Sir George Head]

I think the Mk14 is a better protection for enemy ships than any Japanese Destroyer

[mogami]

Hi, If a IJN TF does not have DD screening the effectivness of US subs is enhanced, even if the DD does not sink the sub it helps keep it away and scoring hits. Sometimes a DD is sunk but that is better then a heavy catching a torpedo. US DD's do a nice job keeping IJN subs off the other ships. I learned my lesson a long time ago about sending ships from west coast to PH without escorts.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Many destroyers have greater flak values then other individual ships, unless they are the biggest of battleships. Also, the ASW ability that even a few destroyers give a battle TF is very high.

It is also VERY GAMEY.

Torpedos, even USN, are very powerful. Having a few destroyers in a TF can virtually guarantee at least one torpedo hit per DD group.

[Ranger-75]

Don't forget either those flak ratings in the destroyer screens are PER SHIP. Each destroyer "unit" can have up to 4 ships. Tremendous flak power. That is if the 20mm 40mm "auto upgrades" are working properly:D

Virtual suicide to make repeated runs from SF to PH without DD escorts. I keep several DD units hopping between the two basess, actually I make the trip from to and from Canton Is (just SW of PH), because a group of speed 30 ships can make that rrip from SF or LA in one turn, thus avoiding a PH "sub trap" by the IJN. I wait for a few ships to gather in SF, make a surface or air TF send it to canton, next week send the DDs back to SF. At the same time I send a group from the forward bases back to Canton to escort the new ships from Canton to the forward bases. it works ok.

Slower units take proportionately longer and I can't remember my waypoints.

[Sir George Head]

Ok, and what about TFs with a lot of carriers? I think I read once that a TF commander only can handle a certain number efficently (depents on his air rating?)

[henhute6]

Right now I'm invading Pearl Harbour. All the carriers are in same task force. With a 150 plane CAP it is impossible to enemy air strikes to get through to score hits. IJN carrier strike with 300 planes sunk remaining US battleships. Transports have safe way to get divisions on Kauai and then Pearl Harbour...

Ok, maybe it's not realistic, but efficient and non risky way to play.

[Beckles]

Originally posted by henhute6
Ok, maybe it's not realistic, but efficient and non risky way to play.

Actually, it's quite inefficient ... take a look at page 38 of the manual.

[Ranger-75]

Originally posted by henhute6
Right now I'm invading Pearl Harbour. All the carriers are in same task force. With a 150 plane CAP it is impossible to enemy air strikes to get through to score hits. IJN carrier strike with 300 planes sunk remaining US battleships. Transports have safe way to get divisions on Kauai and then Pearl Harbour...

Ok, maybe it's not realistic, but efficient and non risky way to play.

What level of help are you playing on? Have you made any other "adjustments"?

This is another example of what I call a "stupid human trick"

The maximun penalty of CAP for too many carriers is a halving of CAP. That is in contrast to a strike potentially being 1/8 size for too many carriers. It's a game imbalance not forseen by the designer and should not be "explioted". If your "carrier points" total exceeds 9, then you are doing a "stupid human trick".:p

[henhute6]

No adjustments and balance is even.
I would not dare to send separate carrier fleets, because of their lack to co-operate properly in fighter defence and launching air strikes. Hmm, am I exploiting the game system or fixing the lack of co-operation? :rolleyes:

I have read about penalties in manual, but in my opinion benefits are huge.

Henry H.