Ways to Win your CV on CV Encounter

[bradfordkay]

I'm playing the CHS Experimental mod and there is (so far - we're into early '43 right now) no UberCAP in this version.

Chez and I even agreed to drop out HR limiting CAP to 60% since we're playing the "Billy Mitchell Mod" - the bombers (nearly) always get through! Air losses are much more reasonable in this version, and it doesn't seem like shipping losses are that much higher - but that could just be due to a mutually conservative style of play.

BTW: I'm still dreaming of getting the situations where I have 100 fighters to his 20. I'm still battling to keep it from being just the opposite!

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'm playing the CHS Experimental mod and there is (so far - we're into early '43 right now) no UberCAP in this version.

Sure?...take a look at my AAR...400 zeros on CAP can neutralize anything

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'm playing the CHS Experimental mod and there is (so far - we're into early '43 right now) no UberCAP in this version.

Sure?...take a look at my AAR...400 zeros on CAP can neutralize anything

There is no end to trots' gaminess is there? Maybe he should play the new Battlefield Heroes game, with Disney like animation?

[farticus]

A new term for the forum maybe?

Ubergamey [;)]

[Q-Ball]

Thank you everyone for your help. This is particularly important, because there are good ideas here to squeeze out capability from CVE's and lesser ships, which will allow me to cover the Indian Ocean with CV support. I have committed way more planes and ground troops there than he suspects in defense, but still nice to have some CV insurance.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'm playing the CHS Experimental mod and there is (so far - we're into early '43 right now) no UberCAP in this version.

Chez and I even agreed to drop out HR limiting CAP to 60% since we're playing the "Billy Mitchell Mod" - the bombers (nearly) always get through! Air losses are much more reasonable in this version, and it doesn't seem like shipping losses are that much higher - but that could just be due to a mutually conservative style of play.

BTW: I'm still dreaming of getting the situations where I have 100 fighters to his 20. I'm still battling to keep it from being just the opposite!

Unfortunately you won't have to wait too long for that given the Corsair's ability to force multiply itself. And the bombers definitely do get through... as Hornet, Yorktown, Akagi, Kaga and Hiryu can attest.

Chez

[Hortlund]

I truly do not understand why having multiple CV TFs operate in the same hex is not considered gamey, when the only reason for the manuever is to break up Japanese attacks while taking advantage of all the different CVs CAP.
 

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I truly do not understand why having multiple CV TFs operate in the same hex is not considered gamey, when the only reason for the manuever is to break up Japanese attacks while taking advantage of all the different CVs CAP.

why should it break up Japanese attacks? Most times you see one big strike on one CV Tf that then gets annihilated. And I can still remember the Betty atacks on my three CV TFs in our game. It was one big attack from Gili Gili (I doubt you had 200 bombers there) that attacked and put torps into several ships. Not 12 attacks with 3 bombers each that were all shot down. I know this is going the way with there´s no difference in having 6 TFs or 28... [8|] besides that it´s surely as often a disadvantage to have your CVs split as it is an advantage.

[witpqs]

If multiple CV's are in the same TF, that one big strike can hit all of them.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

If multiple CV's are in the same TF, that one big strike can hit all of them.

well, this leads to the next discussion: what do you prefer? Two Cvs sunk or 4 damaged? I always prefer the ships that are sunk! Other people prefer the damaged carriers...

[Historiker]

And it's just 10/2/42...

With transfering fuel to Darwin and the Austrialian Eastcoast, I managed to transfer the Lexington into the DEI until January 1942, when he just had the mini-KB there. I attacked it and damaged all 4 light carriers heavily, but only Zuiho and Hosho sank. It seemed that the Lex will even get away, but he transfered G4M1, which finished her off...

In 2/42, I expected his operations in the Aleutians, so I sent my only two available CVs there, the Saratoga and the Yorktown. The encountered 4 enemy CVs. On the first day, the Sara was hit and sank while I sank the Akagi in exchange. The Yorktown was damaged and on fire, but as the fire level was low I expected her to be ready to fight the next day and sent her to the Kurils instead of fleeing. Two days later, she met the enemy Carriers again (I guess one was already damaged from the first encounter and damanged them all while she was sunk, As no enemy carrier sank I expected to have lost the battle, but a week later, both Soryu and Zukaku sank just off Tokyo withon two days.

The last encounter was in 8 or 9 42, when I attacked the occupied Line Islands. He sank the Nassau and the Wasp, I sent the Unyu and the Hiyo to the bottom


So you can even sink enemy carriers with only Buffalos and Groups not at full strength on board - I didn't get enough supplies for the Lexington to upgrade or just to reinforce her groups...

[witpqs]

Was only answering your question re 'why should it break up attacks?'.

In and of itself it's a very sportsmanlike tactical choice. In fact the Allies basically have to do it in 1942 to avoid strike coordination penalties (it's even in the manual).

PzH's question is valid because of the CAP issue - 1) the entire CAP acts as one which is unrealistic, and 2) the much-hated Uber-CAP problem.

For those reasons as Allies I would not split CV's out that way later in the game. Single CV TF's that happen to get together in a hex, yes, but not on purpose when in reality there would have been TF's with (pick a number) 3 or 4 CV's each.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why should it break up Japanese attacks? Most times you see one big strike on one CV Tf that then gets annihilated.

Why should it break up Japanese attacks? [&:] Because the strike can only hit one TF.

That big strike is a threat to its target. If you split up your CVs, only one CV is ever in risk of getting damaged or sunk. Meanwhile all CVs will contribute to the defensive CAP. Meaning that after the big strike, at best you have sunk one enemy CV, while there will be 2-3-4 undamaged ones.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why should it break up Japanese attacks? Most times you see one big strike on one CV Tf that then gets annihilated.

Why should it break up Japanese attacks? [&:] Because the strike can only hit one TF.

That big strike is a threat to its target. If you split up your CVs, only one CV is ever in risk of getting damaged or sunk. Meanwhile all CVs will contribute to the defensive CAP. Meaning that after the big strike, at best you have sunk one enemy CV, while there will be 2-3-4 undamaged ones.

break up means more than one strike. If you have 28 TFs then the strikes are broken up into small bits of strikes while if you have one strike your strikes aren´t broken up. Let´s speak about our game: you had 50 Zeroes and 29 Betties and all attacked one TF (even though there were 3). No other strikes launched... break up would mean 50 Zeroes and 29 Betties divided into three strikes and all get annihilated. Don´t know what you are up to. One time you think it´s super to have 28 TFs in a port hex, the next time you think it´s bad to have 3 CV TFs on the open sea. Broken up strikes are what we saw in that 28 TF turn... It seems you just want to one time so and the other time different, but both times you want to see it working in your favour.

If someone has no stacking limits for seabased aircraft and puts 12 single CV TFs into a hex, I find it extremely gamey, no question about that. This is where I´m again thinking about just too many TFs. If there are no stacking limits, how should he put 12 CVs in one TF though? 12 CVs 2 BBs and 11 DDs? I guess it should be possible to provide each CV with apropriate escorts - while I don´t know how the ratio was in real life.

What I´m doing (as the Allied) in our game is to create 3 TFs and all suffer from a coordination penalty (that is BS, think you know that anyway but that´s another thing that is okay for you?) and every CV TF has 2 or 3 CVs (until I reach the max number of aircraft allowed). As the Japanese I put all CVs into one TF as I want damaged, not sunk CVs.

Again we are at the same discussion, you think it´s okay to have 28 TFs in a hex while I think it´s gaming the engine (especially if all those TFs sitting next to each other in a port). I think it´s okay to have 3 CV TFs while you think it´s gamey...[8|]

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
break up means more than one strike.

Ok, so that is what break up means. However, if we try to leave the semantics discussion and focus on the topic. The problem is that one strike can only hit one TF.

And if I repeat what I said, that big strike is a threat to its target. If you split up your CVs, only one CV is ever in risk of getting damaged or sunk. Meanwhile all CVs will contribute to the defensive CAP. Meaning that after the big strike, at best you have sunk one enemy CV, while there will be 2-3-4 undamaged ones.

In effect it means that a player can create untouchable CVs, by putting them in single CV-TFs and move them around in a stack. And my question is why that would not be considered a gamey exploit of the game engine.

[jwilkerson]

Allowing players the choice of concentrating versus dispersing their ships is certainly valid. In real life the trade off is offensive strike concentration versus defensive vulnerability. So as with with debate about breaking up the merchant ships TFs, this is just another chip off that same block.


In CPT Wayne P. Hughes most excellent tome "Fleet Tactics", he breaks this down for us nicely.

His key principle is "Stike effectively First".


For carrier fleets, in real life, the advantage of being concentrated is that all the strike planes can form up and head towards the target together (to strike most effectively). The downside of concentration is that if your fleet cannot defeat the first enemy strike, then you are vulnerable to being massively defeated (as the Japanese were at Midway).

On the flip side, dispersal means that you are using the "defensive split" tactic, spreading your fleet out so that it is harder to attack and find all the components, of course this, in real life, means that it is harder to launch and form up your strike into one package, so you give up your maximum strike capability to assist in preserving your fleet.

===

of course real life and the game differ some what.


The game rule attempting to penalize US Carriers in 1941-43 for operating in one task force, gives way to the tactic of putting each CV in a separate task force and using "follow me". This totally defeats the oroginal intent as now as long as all these single ship task forces are at the SAME RANGE from the enemy, they will form up and hit together.

On the Japanese side, if there is enough uber cap and AAA to totally defeat and incomming US attack them one uber TF works. Same is true for the Americans once you reach 1944.

But the Japanese also have the option of splitting up their TFs and running them together in the same hex. The Americans have no monopoly on the use of this tactic. They are just "encouraged" (or forced) to use it due to the strike coordination penalty.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
The game rule attempting to penalize US Carriers in 1941-43 for operating in one task force, gives way to the tactic of putting each CV in a separate task force and using "follow me". This totally defeats the oroginal intent as now as long as all these single ship task forces are at the SAME RANGE from the enemy, they will form up and hit together.

Well, there you have it really. The game was designed to penalize US Carriers in 41-43, therefore we have those rules. The player can overcome this by stacking his CVs in single CV-TFs. Not only do they avoid the penalties, they also benefit from the CAP, and they benefit from having some of their CVs "untouchable".

That pretty much closes the book on the gameyness-issue.

[jwilkerson]

I certainly encourage players to explore the necessity of house rules for such as splitting up TFs, whether merchant or carrier (or PT or otherwise).


Moses and I had at least one rule against multiple single ship combat task forces in one hex (I had a player put 50 single ship PT boat TFs in one hex and wanted to avoid that). But I actually encouraged him (unsuccesssfully) to split his Allied carriers up into multiple TF to avoid the strike penalty. Many players think the Japanese carriers are too strong in 42 vis-a-vis the Allies - vis-a-vis real life. Allowing the Allies to split up their TFs can offset this perceived Japanese advantage. But again, each pairing of players is unique, and what works for one pair doesn't necessarily work for all. But these topics should be discussed in an environment of give and take. WITP is a long game. Both sides will need help from each other to make it.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
The game rule attempting to penalize US Carriers in 1941-43 for operating in one task force, gives way to the tactic of putting each CV in a separate task force and using "follow me". This totally defeats the oroginal intent as now as long as all these single ship task forces are at the SAME RANGE from the enemy, they will form up and hit together.

Well, there you have it really. The game was designed to penalize US Carriers in 41-43, therefore we have those rules. The player can overcome this by stacking his CVs in single CV-TFs. Not only do they avoid the penalties, they also benefit from the CAP, and they benefit from having some of their CVs "untouchable".

That pretty much closes the book on the gameyness-issue.

so in your opinion the Japanese should be able to launch coordinated strikes up to 450 aircraft in 43 but the Allied were not being able to do that? Okay, that does cloes the gameyness-issue in every case... If so, then I would guess none of the both were able to do that. The problem in the game is that we see all strikes of the am or pm phase together.

and nevertheless once again I want to point out that it is NOT the same if a player puts 3,5 or 6 TFs into one hex like it would be if there are 28 TFs. If that issue isn´t clear for you so far, please contact someone who can clearly explain the code for you.

[DuckofTindalos]

I'd like to know who explained the code to you...[8|]