ship types

[Feinder]

And the other Allied dreadnaught (George Averoff), went down (somewhat in vain) trying to defend an invastion TF at Port Blair vs. several IJN heavy cruisers. She wasn't very successful, but she did go down in a surface battle.

-F-

[FeurerKrieg]

Cool. I think a matchup of the Allied DNs versus the Japan DNs would go to the Allies, seeing as they have the 9.2 inch whereas the Japan DNs only have 8".

If I ever get my DN's into action, I'll try to remember to post it in here.

[gladiatt]

I thought CV was for Carrier Vessel ....

[undercovergeek]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Undercover -

Just some generalities -

PC/SC - These guys tend to be shorter range ships (usually under 2000 endurance).  Fair convoy escorts (for ASW), but all but worthless in suface action.  Think of them as bass-boats with a DC rack.  Not the best for long convoy treks (because the convoy will have to keep slowing down to refuel them).  But if you're talking about running between PH and Palmyra (about as far as I'd go), or say Tokyo and Manilla.

PG/DE - There are your ocean-going escorts.  Fair ASW platforms, and can operate well enough in suface combat.  They usually have 3000 - 5000 endurance, so they won't force a refuel every other turn.  Note that, esp in CHS, some of the PGs do not have ASW capabilities.  There are some old dreadnaught-style ones (Soerbaja and Idzumo come to mind), that have no ASW, but their armor is good to put them with an invasion TF to soak up some of the CD fire (unfortunately, they cannot be added to a bombardment TF where their 12" guns would be very useful).

DD - Best escorts (usually) for ASW and surface combat (naturally your convoy wants to -avoid- surface combat, but if push comes to shove).  But you can never have enough DDs (because you're need them for your main fleet units as well).

fantastic - thanks very much indeed.

Have been playing 2 years now and i cant believe this hasnt occured to me before - when you 'escort' the convoys do you actually put DDs in the same TF or have them seperate following the convoy TF - and i think i read here somewhere that the 'escort' mission doesnt work - is this right?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Oh come on guys - those Idzumos and Georgios Averoff are armoured cruisers, not dreadnoughts.

And you can actually put PGs in bombardment TF, they just don't bombard at all.

[saj42]

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

fantastic - thanks very much indeed.

Have been playing 2 years now and i cant believe this hasnt occured to me before - when you 'escort' the convoys do you actually put DDs in the same TF or have them seperate following the convoy TF - and i think i read here somewhere that the 'escort' mission doesnt work - is this right?

When a capital ship gets severely damaged the game code puts it into a separate TF with one DD as escort. To allow you to add more escorts so you can at least protect it while trying to reach a safe port the ESCORT TF was added in an earlier patch. ESCORT TFs DO NOT escort other TFs - they only allow you to 'escort' crippled ships.
To provide additional ASW ships to 'escort' a vital transport TF, use the ASW TF for your extra DDs etc and have it follow the transport TF. This gives you a chance that the ASW TF will detect and intercept an attacking sub before it engages the Transport TF. Escorts organic to the transport TF will usually (in my experience) engage a sub after it attacks the AP/AK/TKs etc.

[Dili]

And the other Allied dreadnaught George Averoff

Averoff was an Italian armored cruiser sold to Greece.
I hope that PG get bombardment capability in AE without that we have to classify Monitors as cruisers.

[undercovergeek]

thanks for help - see me rush round my jap first turn and change all ESCORT tfs to ASW tfs!!!

And finally (!) - i have seen invasion TFs with PCs in - is this just to provide the CDs with more cannon fodder and hopefully miss the APs? or do they support the invasion at all?

[Feinder]

My apologies for calling the Averoff and Idzumo "dreadnaughts".  I suppose I should have called them "really old barges with some armor and guns" because that's pretty much what they amount to.  [;)]
 
While a do recommend a separate (covering) ASW and SC TF to accompany an invasion TF, I usually also put some escorts (PCs/SCs/PGs/DDs) in the invasion TF; in case the covering forces get by-passed (maybe the ASW TF doesn't find the sub and it gets a shot at the invasion TF), at least you have another shot at shooting back. 
 
But yes, the escorts in an invasion TF will draw fire from the CDs.  This is a two edged sword.  Unarmored ships like PC/SC/(most)PG/DD/MSW will have a really bad day when getting shot up by a bunch of CDs during the invasion.  But the escorts do (supposedly) shoot back and suppress the CDs (a little), altho I'm not sure you'd be happy with the results.  That leads to the reason for putting the armored PGs, and CLs and CAs in -with- your invasion TFs.  The armored ships will soak up fire from the CDs (and with their armor, depending on the size of the CD, it probably won't pentetrate), and return fire to supporess the CDs.
 
-F-

[undercovergeek]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

That leads to the reason for putting the armored PGs, and CLs and CAs in -with- your invasion TFs.  The armored ships will soak up fire from the CDs (and with their armor, depending on the size of the CD, it probably won't pentetrate), and return fire to supporess the CDs.

-F-

so you actually mix some big fellas (CAs, CLs) in with the invasion force? would BBs help too?

[Feinder]

Yes, if you can afford them.

Wrinkle being, to add a BB to an invasion TF, you have to either create (or change) the mission of the invasion TF to "escort", then add the BB, then change it back to "transport". You can't add a BB directly to a transport TF, which is why you have to go to escort, then change to transport.

Some (very few) will call this an exploit (because you're circumventing somethign that is obviously coded to not allow BBs in a transport TF). But frankly, this seems more like an over-sight to me, and I have no guilt issues with doing it, and my opponent has certainly been welcome to do it as well.

A fair warning tho - transport TFs seem to suffer heavy penalties in surface combat. Adding a BB to your escort/transport TF means that BB will fighting at a significant disadvantage if it's jumped by a surface combat TF. If you want the BB to screen vs. other ships, put it in a separate SC TF. If you want actively shoot up CD guns, put it in a bombardment TF. If you want your BB to soak up (some) CD fire and "passively" suppress CD guns, add it to your escort/invasion TF.

-F-

[undercovergeek]

cool - thanks for all help
 

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: gladiatt


I thought CV was for Carrier Vessel ....

A misconception. As Feinder said, CV implies Cruiser, 'Heavier than Air'. Why V? Good question but I think it comes from the French verb 'voler - to fly'.

[ttjhowell]

Speaking of the escort mission I have seen it written elsewhere that putting CV airgroups onto the escort mission avoids the 'wandering air combat TF' problem. Is this correct and does at affect air combat at all?

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: ttjhowell

Speaking of the escort mission I have seen it written elsewhere that putting CV airgroups onto the escort mission avoids the 'wandering air combat TF' problem. Is this correct and does at affect air combat at all?

I do this very frequently when I'm sending a transport/invasion TF where I know there are enemy air assets. They tend to stick with the escorted units and I've noticed no change in air ops at all, but I'm not an expert, so I might be wrong.

I always make sure that I put their secondary air missions to "training" or whatever "none" is, so they don't waste sorties hitting any eenmy base I happen to be wandering by.

Once they're close enough to their objective I sometimes switch them back to airbase or port attack if I want them to help in that way.

Do any of you experts do the same?

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

My apologies for calling the Averoff and Idzumo "dreadnaughts".  I suppose I should have called them "really old barges with some armor and guns" because that's pretty much what they amount to.  [;)]

While a do recommend a separate (covering) ASW and SC TF to accompany an invasion TF, I usually also put some escorts (PCs/SCs/PGs/DDs) in the invasion TF; in case the covering forces get by-passed (maybe the ASW TF doesn't find the sub and it gets a shot at the invasion TF), at least you have another shot at shooting back. 

But yes, the escorts in an invasion TF will draw fire from the CDs.  This is a two edged sword.  Unarmored ships like PC/SC/(most)PG/DD/MSW will have a really bad day when getting shot up by a bunch of CDs during the invasion.  But the escorts do (supposedly) shoot back and suppress the CDs (a little), altho I'm not sure you'd be happy with the results.  That leads to the reason for putting the armored PGs, and CLs and CAs in -with- your invasion TFs.  The armored ships will soak up fire from the CDs (and with their armor, depending on the size of the CD, it probably won't pentetrate), and return fire to supporess the CDs.

-F-

Honestly, anything smaller than a Heavy Cruiser is going to have a bad day if it gets shot up by CD fire, and even those aren't going to have a walk in the park. In my current campaign I have a PG that was sunk by a '155mm Field Gun'. Seems a 6 inch army gun got in a good shot.

I tend to use a BB bombardment (with no escort bombard) to help soak up the pre-invasion CD fire. Not to mention you might be able to take a few of those batteries out.

I'm sure every one has a different approach to this problem, in the end you just have to figure out what works best for you.

[AW1Steve]

'terminused' ?[&:]

[undercovergeek]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

'terminused' ?[&:]

without wishing to cause offense to our friend from Denmark, as he has made me laugh out loud on numerous occassions, he does have a habit of cramming the obvious down your throat when just a bit of gentle handholding was required.

its in the dictionary - honest