Allied CV coordination penalty

[cantona2]

Does this apply to two or more CV's in a TF only, or does it also come into effect if there are multiple single CV TF's in the same hex?
Thanks

[anarchyintheuk]

In a tf only.

[Feinder]

I'm pretty sure that strikes are by TF, and coordination penalty is applied by TF.
 
If you have
1.  One mega-TF with many CVs : you'll see the coordination penalty.
2.  Several small TFs with only 2 CVs or so (the number of flight decks is actually irrelevant, it's the number of available AC in the TF) : You'll likely NOT see a coordination penalty (your strikes will more likely be escorted), but they will reflect smaller strikes by each of your TFs.
 
Make sense?
-F-

[engineer]

This leads to a pretty obvious exploit since you can emulate the mega-TF with a gaggle of individual CV TF.  In PBEM that may be a house rule topic.  If you play that way on either side of the then the thing to be on the look-out for is the straggling TF.  If the Allied player moves more than 2 hexes a phase on mission or cruise speed, then it's possible that a TF may fall behind behind.  Once the gaggle breaks up, then you can start peeling off carriers with attacks on each hex with one or more carriers in it.  If you are the Allied player, then your gaggle becomes something of a Phalanx since it has pretty substantial combat power, but your effective speed is severely constrained. 

[1275psi]

Me thinks Cantona is still mulling over a big CV vs CV clash to protect PM - yummy[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Looking forward to the week end mate![:)]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I'm pretty sure that strikes are by TF, and coordination penalty is applied by TF.

If you have
1.  One mega-TF with many CVs : you'll see the coordination penalty.
2.  Several small TFs with only 2 CVs or so (the number of flight decks is actually irrelevant, it's the number of available AC in the TF) : You'll likely NOT see a coordination penalty (your strikes will more likely be escorted), but they will reflect smaller strikes by each of your TFs.

Make sense?
-F-

Clear as my Guinness. [;)]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: engineer

This leads to a pretty obvious exploit since you can emulate the mega-TF with a gaggle of individual CV TF.  In PBEM that may be a house rule topic.  If you play that way on either side of the then the thing to be on the look-out for is the straggling TF.  If the Allied player moves more than 2 hexes a phase on mission or cruise speed, then it's possible that a TF may fall behind behind.  Once the gaggle breaks up, then you can start peeling off carriers with attacks on each hex with one or more carriers in it.  If you are the Allied player, then your gaggle becomes something of a Phalanx since it has pretty substantial combat power, but your effective speed is severely constrained. 

Hmmm...I've played around a lot with different TF configurations. I'm not too sure about the phalanx idea. I haven't tried it. As you say the relatively slow speed to a CV group would be problematic.

I find the only real exploit in breaking up the Allied CV into several TFs and it may not really be an exploit, is that the Allied player can reduce his chances of losing all his CV in one blow to the KB. The increased risk to the KB seems to be minimal.

[vonSchnitter]

A quite interesting issue - and a core question for the AE team.

The issue is multiple TFs (CV or not) in one hex.

The point is: Coordination bonus for the IJN.

In the defence (CAP AA):

On the defence, CV TFs will mutually support each other (IJN/USN) no problem, if in the same hex.
However, if attacking the story is different.

If an allied PBM player manages to concentrate 2 single CV TFs in one Hex, the "coordination Bonus" for the IJN will make sure, KB (6 CV) will just take out one USN CV. While the other USN CV(s) will get away unscathed.
On he other hand - if the allied player uses two CVs in one TF - most likely both will be toast.


The strike(s) from the USN CVs may come in in parcels - but may hit a number of KB CVs - taking them out of action.

Depends on mod - CHS 157 accentuates this.

[saj42]

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

A quite interesting issue - and a core question for the AE team.

The issue is multiple TFs (CV or not) in one hex.

The point is: Coordination bonus for the IJN.

In the defence (CAP AA):

On the defence, CV TFs will mutually support each other (IJN/USN) no problem, if in the same hex.
However, if attacking the story is different.

If an allied PBM player manages to concentrate 2 single CV TFs in one Hex, the "coordination Bonus" for the IJN will make sure, KB (6 CV) will just take out one USN CV. While the other USN CV(s) will get away unscathed.
On he other hand - if the allied player uses two CVs in one TF - most likely both will be toast.


The strike(s) from the USN CVs may come in in parcels - but may hit a number of KB CVs - taking them out of action.

Depends on mod - CHS 157 accentuates this.

So as an Japanese PBM player you split KB into 3 TF (of 2x CV each) - problem solved [;)]
We know IJN doctrine was to disperse ships about 700-800 metres apart when under air attack thus spreading them over a large area of ocean - using smaller TFs would mimic this. Also weren't the Big 6 IJN carriers usually designated CarDiv's 1,2 & 5 (IIRC)

[Feinder]

Why on earth is running multiple TFs an exploit?  How is abiding within the constraints to -not- trigger a coordination penalty, an exploit?
 
That's (historical) Coral Sea, Midway, and E Solomons to a tee.
 
And there's nothing to stop Japan from running multiple smaller TFs as well.
 
-F-

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Why on earth is running multiple TFs an exploit?  How is abiding within the constraints to -not- trigger a coordination penalty, an exploit?

Well, several reasons. Say it is early war and you have 5 US carriers in a hex all in separate TFs:

1) You get all the CAP power for all the carriers in the hex while only risking 1 (a single strike will only attack 1 TF).

2) All strikes from that hex going to the same target will automatically be coordinated and attack together. So 5 carriers in 1 TF will launch uncoordinated strikes, but them same 5 in 5 different TFs in the same hex are automatically coordinated (you dont see an abuse here?).

3) A carrier TF takes up a lot of room (look at how Taffy 3 was deployed as an example). At Okinawa there were 5 or 6 carrier TFs supporting. Look at their dispositions. They couldnt all fit into a single hex because of needed maneuvering room.

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Why on earth is running multiple TFs an exploit?  How is abiding within the constraints to -not- trigger a coordination penalty, an exploit?

Well, several reasons. Say it is early war and you have 5 US carriers in a hex all in separate TFs:

1) You get all the CAP power for all the carriers in the hex while only risking 1 (a single strike will only attack 1 TF).

2) All strikes from that hex going to the same target will automatically be coordinated and attack together. So 5 carriers in 1 TF will launch uncoordinated strikes, but them same 5 in 5 different TFs in the same hex are automatically coordinated (you dont see an abuse here?).

3) A carrier TF takes up a lot of room (look at how Taffy 3 was deployed as an example). At Okinawa there were 5 or 6 carrier TFs supporting. Look at their dispositions. They couldnt all fit into a single hex because of needed maneuvering room.

Like he said though, Japan can do it too...

As for the Okinawa example, they could coordinate a joint strike covering that realestate but TFs in different hexes can't do it in the game.

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Like he said though, Japan can do it too...

That flak sure is going to be light though, even if you scrape up the escorts in order to take advantage of the mechanic.

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Like he said though, Japan can do it too...

That flak sure is going to be light though, even if you scrape up the escorts in order to take advantage of the mechanic.

Agreed but either side can take advantage of this advantage/handicap...

[spence]

We know IJN doctrine was to disperse ships about 700-800 metres apart when under air attack thus spreading them over a large area of ocean - using smaller TFs would mimic this. Also weren't the Big 6 IJN carriers usually designated CarDiv's 1,2 & 5 (IIRC)

IJN DOCTRINE WAS TO DISPERSE THE CV'S BY 7 TO 8 THOUSAND METRES (NOT 7-8 HUNDRED METRES WHICH WOULD BE COMMON IN A USN TF) FROM ANY OTHER SHIP BUT THE PLANE-GUARD DESTROYER (UNTIL 1944). THAT ESSENTIALLY PUTS THEM OUT OF RANGE OF ANY AAA SUPPORT FROM ANY OF THEIR SCREENING SHIPS EXCEPT THE PLANE-GUARD DESTROYER. THE DOCTRINES WERE QUITE DIFFERENT IN SO FAR AS FLEET DEFENSE WAS CONCERNED.

2) All strikes from that hex going to the same target will automatically be coordinated and attack together. So 5 carriers in 1 TF will launch uncoordinated strikes, but them same 5 in 5 different TFs in the same hex are automatically coordinated (you dont see an abuse here?).

My experience is that multiple strikes of varying sizes are generated by the 5 x 1 CV TFs. The KB's enormous, telepathically and infallibly guided CAP (although IJN Doctrine did not even appoint any particular telepath to direct the non-radio equipped fighters in the CAP) intercepts each one with increasingly degraded performance. Admittedly that can result in IJN carriers getting holes in their decks and other unsightly defects but one ought perhaps to consider that the only day the KB got off "scot-free" from attacks on itself IRL was the day that it was attacked by 9 unescorted Blenheim horizontal bombers (from 10000 ft) off Ceylon (apparently the "duty telepath" had trouble guiding the CAP while asleep). Unsightly marring of the paint on one or more of its CVs was an altogether universal occurrence in all the carrier vs carrier fights of 1942 (as well as after that).

[Feinder]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagre (about whether several smaller TFs is a exploit or not) .  I don't think the issue is so much with the disposition of TFs; it doesn't matter if it's 6x CVs in a hex, or 6x TFs in a hex.  I think beef is more the effect of ye much squawked about "uber-CAP". 

But whether Japan has enough ships to fill out single CV TFs or not, isn't really my concern.  The point is they are a able to split the CVs into separate TFs (and would be well advised to do so).  Their quantity of ships is their own problem (as much as the coordination penalty is for for the Allies).  And yes, I have played several PBEM games as Japan.

-F-

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
Agreed but either side can take advantage of this advantage/handicap...

It was a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals. [;)]

Personally, I wouldn't give two hoots other than I really dislike the fact that naval strikes are so darned limited by however TF targetting is carried out within the engine. That goes for both sides equally but does give a built in advantage to the Allied player. It's hard not to get at least a draw in such circumstances as the Allies. It's certainly not 'gamey'to use this btw - it's an unintended consequence of trying to model historic CV practice and it failing to marry up with the naval strike system.

[jwilkerson]

Interesting discussion.

I’ve been debating the “multiple CV TF in one hex” topic going all the way back to the early eighties when I (and several other forum members) used to play the original WITP game. The issue of cap covering all the TFs in the hex was a hot sub-topic even then.

A read through Captain Hughes “Fleet Tactics” helps us understand the trade-offs between concentration and dispersal of naval forces.

Specifically for carrier forces, concentration improves offensive strike coordination and also increases defensive power. According to CPT Hughes, splitting ones force is indicated if your defensive power is insufficient to defeat the enemy’s first strike. Concentration is indicated if your defensive power is sufficient to defeat the enemy’s first strike. Concentration might also be indicated if you believe you will achieve surprise and that by concentrating you will be able to strike effectively first and reduce the enemy’s ability to hit back effectively.

Pre-war, both the IJN and USN had ideas which included general dispersal of their carriers, thus allowing them to strike with surprise and withdraw quickly. Both the IJN and USN also considered grouping their carriers into carrier centric organizations. Though apparently the USN had this idea first, it was the Japanese which first formalized it in April 1941, by creating the First Mobile Fleet (which we like to call “Kido Butai”). This being said, the 6 large Japanese CVs only actually operated together during the war for a few days during and after the Pearl Harbor attack, after that, four and five operated together several times, but never all six.

The USN had advocates of the single CV TF and the multi-CV TF. Up until Midway, both single and double CV TFs were used. After Midway, after seeing the concentrated Japanese carriers knocked out by USN strikes, Admiral King ordered the few remaining US CVs to operate in single CV TFs, though as has been pointed out the distances between the separate TFs were not so different than the distances between the Japanese carriers which might have been nominally operating in a single “Task Force”.

After mid-1943 when the USN again had a respectable carrier force, the rules were changed to allow multiple fast carriers to operate together. It was felt that improvements in AAA and fighter direction had increased defensive power to the point where most likely enemy strike packages could be defeated by defensive measures and the benefits of concentration to improve both defensive and offensive power were worth the risks of concentration. In the event this judgment was proven to be sound.

In WITP the trade-offs of concentration and dispersal are not exactly modeled correctly. Because the CAP covers all TFs in the hex, this encourages dispersal more than would be the case in real life, because one can have the benefits of dispersal (less ability to hit multiple CVs with one strike) will gaining the benefits of concentration (ability to mass all fighters over all TFs).

For AAA fire the model works because AAA fire for TFs only supports that TF.

As far as strike packages, the model is again not exactly correct. If the Japanese disperse, their offensive packages will likely be combined into few larger strikes (though this is never a sure thing). For the USN dispersal actually makes things better because it “works around” the USN strike penalty in 1942 and 1943.

So on balance, except for AAA, dispersal is better in the game than it would be in real life.

In AE, things are a bit better, we have tried to reduce CAP over all and also reduce strike package size. But fundamentally, WITP and AE are NOT tactical games. In WITP, the CAP and strike packages cannot be representing real CAP and strike package sizes and reducing one without reducing the other would not necessarily improve things. We have tried to reduce both in AE and hope that will improve things a bit.

[Mike Scholl]

A basic problem with the game's "coordination penalty" is that it's a one-sided piece of nonsense.  Kido Butai did not launch single big unified coordinated strikes either---they launched "half strikes".  Did it at Pearl Harbor, did it at Midway, did it all the time.  

[Zebedee]

Thanks jwilkerson for highlighting how AE should help improve things for both sides of this divide. I truly hope all the AE team's hard work pays off with this although I appreciate there are limits to what is possible.

All I want is a game without these 'quirks' where mechanics can be gamed. That applies for ubercap, KB uberstrikes and Allied CV TF's shields of mystical untargettability. [:o]