Protecting invasion fleets?

[crsutton]

I am seeing a lot of invasion TF getting slaughtered by surface raiders in the AAR- even those with significant surface ship covering.

I am interested to hear how some are protecting vunerable AP and AK during landings. Do you add major ships to the invasion TF or use separate covering surface forces. Escort TF or surface? What works for you?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

... Do you add major ships to the invasion TF or use separate covering surface forces. Escort TF or surface? What works for you?

A separate and powerful bombardment force that is BB/CA heavy w/CVs 1-2 hexes away.

[String]

Separate covering force that the invasion TF is following. And not the other way around, if you set the surface force to follow the invasion TF then the invasion TF will get engaged first. Don't worry, your surface TF will slow down and wait for your slower merchants.

If you include warships in your invasion TF they will fight poorly as they will start off at the speed of the slowest merchant, or even at 0 if the invasion TF is unloading, and usually get creamed.

Separate TF is the way to go.

[sfbaytf]

I'm not sure about the surface combat routines. I've been able to have my surface combat TFs ravage my opponents carrier TFs while his surface TF fleets that were following in the same hex stood around and did nothing. The same has happened to me - surface TFs that were supposed to be covering other fleets did nothing while the fleets they were supposed to cover got slaughtered. As I mentioned before any carrier TF that gets into any surface engagement is going to suffer greatly and so will any invasion TF

I just read the other post - so it sounds like the order you set TFs to follow makes a big difference. Sounds like you should also set your carrier TFs to follow your surface Combat TFs

I'm also seeing a lot of messages saying my surface fleet is engaging an enemy TF and then nothing. No engagement or anything. Game just moves on.

One other thing of note-the Japanese ASW is far too effective. Even my opponent has noted that. Any allied sub detected is going to get seriously damaged or sunk by IJN escorts of any type. I also notice that even by late 44 American torpedoes work pretty well against merchants, but suffer high dud rates against any escort. Same thing with the Brits. The dud rate against escorts has been well over 70 percent.

[String]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

I'm not sure about the surface combat routines. I've been able to have my surface combat TFs ravage my opponents carrier TFs while his surface TF fleets that were following in the same hex stood around and did nothing. The same has happened to me - surface TFs that were supposed to be covering other fleets did nothing while the fleets they were supposed to cover got slaughtered. As I mentioned before any carrier TF that gets into any surface engagement is going to suffer greatly and so will any invasion TF

I'm also seeing a lot of messages saying my surface fleet is engaging an enemy TF and then nothing. No engagement or anything. Game just moves on.

One other thing of note-the Japanese ASW is far too effective. Even my opponent has noted that. Any allied sub detected is going to get seriously damaged or sunk by IJN escorts of any type. I also notice that even by late 44 American torpedoes work pretty well against merchants, but suffer high dud rates against any escort. Same thing with the Brits. The dud rate against escorts has been well over 70 percent.

Well exactly, the taskforces you want to protect need to follow the protecters, not the other way around.

[sfbaytf]

Thanks. I read your post after I posted mine. Looks like I and perhaps my opponent were setting the wrong order to follow.

Also sounds like putting surface combatants into a carrier or invasion TF with the intention of having them protect the valuable carriers or amphibious ships isn't going to work. That's going to make it tough to decide as many shops that are good surface combatants also have excellent AA capabilities

[String]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Thanks. I read your post after I posted mine. Looks like I and perhaps my opponent were setting the wrong order to follow.

Also sounds like putting surface combatants into a carrier or invasion TF with the intention of having them protect the valuable carriers or amphibious ships isn't going to work. That's going to make it tough to decide as many shops that are good surface combatants also have excellent AA capabilities

Yeah, well they do protect some, but it's not certain that they'll protect your carriers or transports from getting hit. The best way to be sure is to have your carrier or invasion TF follow a surface combat TF around, and then have some decent warships in your other TF as well.

[Speedy Gonzales]

Arghhhh! Wrong thread. Wanted to post in the thread on PT_Boats. Sorryguys.

[sven6345789]

maybe the losses of invading TFs are so high because the operation is either poorly executed or without enough cover.
my 2 cents
a) air cover/air superiority; whether you get it via CVs or LBA doesn't matter
b) Bombardement TF to soften up the defenses; goes in first, at night
c) Surface Combat TF: arrives before the invasion fleet and should remain on station in the hex; if you have enough ships form two or three, maybe to patrol the approaches
d) minesweepers and ASW, use is obvious

This way, air and sea are secure; now the Transports can go in

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Speedy Gonzales

Arghhhh! Wrong thread. Wanted to post in the thread on PT_Boats. Sorryguys.

Well, that's what you get for being Speedy, Gonzales.

[Q-Ball]

What string said, set transports to follow a surface TF with a good commander. This is not foolproof though; if you read my AAR, you know that if the enemy can force your Surface TF away, then they can still slaughter your transports.

Surface ships in AE are more important than they were in WITP, that is for sure

[crsutton]

Too important really.

Should any escorting surface ship TF be set to 0 reaction range to prevent them from leaving the hex where the transport TF is located?

[String]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Too important really.

Should any escorting surface ship TF be set to 0 reaction range to prevent them from leaving the hex where the transport TF is located?

I guess it helps. Also, AFAIK, smaller number TF's still engage first if all else is equal

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Should any escorting surface ship TF be set to 0 reaction range to prevent them from leaving the hex where the transport TF is located?

Yes. If I remember it right, reaction order overrides follow order. So no reaction range if you want to protect transports.

[Nomad]

I think having more than one SCTF is useful. Have one that the invasion and support TFs follow with a 0 reaction range. then have one or more SCTFs that just go to the same hexes and have a reaction range greater than 0. they should range out and engage enemy TFs spotted in the area while the 0 reaction range one protects the invasions TFs.

[Nikademus]

I always protect my most important troop TF's with direct escorts within the TF. I then back it up with a surface combat TF or two set to Absolute/Direct.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am seeing a lot of invasion TF getting slaughtered by surface raiders in the AAR- even those with significant surface ship covering.

I am interested to hear how some are protecting vunerable AP and AK during landings. Do you add major ships to the invasion TF or use separate covering surface forces. Escort TF or surface? What works for you?

Ideally, I prefer to do both. The cover TFs often fail to engage or fail to beat the enemy away, so the attached escorts can at least mitigate the damage. Also, invasion fleets usually benefit from having cruisers to duel with coastal guns anyway (it's almost impossible to supress them completely).