Tactical Questions

[Rankorian]

1. I had 2 CVs, 2 BBs, several cruisers and a bunch of DDs in a group. They ended up in a night engagement with 3-4 enemy ships, and my CVs took significant damage. Would I have been better off putting the surface ships in one TF, the CVs with some DDs in a second one, and have the second one follow the first? Or would I be risking larger problems if my CV TF still ended up being hit.

In other words, is the "Follow" command mearly administrative, or will a surface TF with a react range screen (completely?)--same hex or 1 hex back?

2. In a land battle, if you have an LCU doing a deliberate attack, should the guns in the same hex bombard attack, or join in the deliberate attack? Does it matter if we are talking about heavy guns, or 81mm mortars?

3. Recon by fire: You are about to attack by land...Singapore. You have a 10/10 detection, but you don't know the fortification level, or the exact AV force in there. Do you ever run a small unit at it in a deliberate attack, as a recon, to find out more info? In FOW, the results you get accurate? I don't like the thought of reconning, essentially, with the whole attack force. And, unlike running in a DD to a port looking for a CD, land recon missions would seem to me to be fairly realistic.

[topeverest]

1. Escort / surface convoys sto react are subject to the commanders initiative but highly effective if you suspect surface combat is highly likely. It does split your force though, so there is no free lunch. A high quality commander in CV convoys usually will screen the CV's, but surprise is a big killer, as it sounds like happened to you.
2. each unit must be ordered individually bombard for artillery. Guns with a unit aleady attacking will join in.
3. Never sacrifice a unit. Fly recon into the enemy hex. You will get a better combat result. There is no way around attacking.

[anarchyintheuk]

1. Take this with a grain of salt as it's a carry over from WitP days but I usually have the cvtf follow the sctf. Don't know offhand how this affects aa tho.

2. I just put all on deliberate as a matter of course but I don't know the effects.

3. Bombardment should give you a good enough picture of the enemy forces/av.

[findmeifyoucan]

I actually got caught a couple of times myself so I always make sure I have good escorts for my Carriers TF. However, after deciding to lead with a strong Surface Fleet first followed by my Carrier TF I have had very little problems. Even if the enemy TF does find my Carriers after a major engagement with my Surface TF that is on max reaction they do not have much ammunition left to do any real damage and then my Carriers can finish off what is left during the day air phase later!!

[xj900uk]

In RL (particularly during ’42) the IJN would often lightly screen/protect their carriers (particularly CVL’s operating alone) with (say) a couple of DD’s and then have a fast cruiser squadron standing off a few miles but able to dash in to protect the CV and at the same time fluid enough to go after any surface TF’s that were spotted.
In the game this would be simulated by having a strong cruiser force following the Air Combat/CV group which has weaker surface assets.
However, it is worth considering having the strong cruiser/surface TF taking the lead, and the Air Combat/CV group following it. Particularly if you are going into an unknown or dangerous area or hostile coastal hex. However make sure you have your surface ships set to ‘Escorts Do Not Bombard’ as you don’t want your bigger ships wasting all their ammo engaging land targets when they should be protecting the CV’s!

[topeverest]

There are good reasons to have a surface convoy protecting CV's. Keep in mind the 'lite cover' strategy you suggest leaves you unduely open to naval surprise surface combat in addition to air assault. I suggest always protecting vital CV assets adequately for AA, anti sub, and anti surface, even if you have a Surface TF in primary guard role.

[findmeifyoucan]

I had a case where I was sending my Carrier fleet in a heavily patroled enemy area by enemy Surface fleets. If I had not sent my strong Battle Surface fleet ahead of my Carriers I would have for sure lost some Carriers. End result my Battle fleet engaged his large Cruiser fleet sinking most of his Cruisers. What had left still managed to engage my Carrier Fleet but inflicting very minor damage as he had next to no ammunition left. My carrier fleet then finished off most of what was left during the Air Pase in the day turn that followed!
My question is do you guy's think that I would have achieved better results if I put my Battlefleet on Escort rather than making ther a Surface Fleet TF?

[Ildabaoth]

If I recall correctly, a fleet in Escort mode will always try to fly. The idea of Escort mode is to have a protected ship in it and some covering force, but they won't try to engage in order not to risk the ship you want to preserve. So if I'm right, it wouldn't work to put your surface fleet in Escort mode. They will sail away like an scared little girl.

[Rankorian]

Thank you for the replies.  As is turns out, my Carriers too 3 hits, while the other side may have (FOW) taken 26, including a shipping loss.  So not bad--but just seeing my carriers in a gun battle, taking hits...you had to pry me off the ceiling.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

There are good reasons to have a surface convoy protecting CV's. Keep in mind the 'lite cover' strategy you suggest leaves you unduely open to naval surprise surface combat in addition to air assault. I suggest always protecting vital CV assets adequately for AA, anti sub, and anti surface, even if you have a Surface TF in primary guard role.

The problem seems to be that somtimes even a well fleshed out TF will not keep your carriers from taking a beating. It actually seemed to work better in WITP where the BBs and CA in your carrier TF would take the hits. In effect screening the carriers which is what they were there for. In AE is is much more random and even in a carrier TF loaded up with surface escort can be a problem.

Most fleet carriers could go as fast if not faster than major surface ships. Even with a smaller screen, the screen would have taken it lumps while the carriers fled at high speed. In the AARs I am seeing too many surface ships shoot up carriers. How often did this really happen?
Now perhaps CVEs and slow carriers this should be different, but not a Hiryu or a Yorktown class.

[Rankorian]

crsutton, that is what suprised me. I had all these support ships, and the Allies seemed to hone in on the Carriers.

On the other hand, it was night, at close range, so maybe they were the largest and most valuable targets, and it makes sense.

But, IRL, night-time fleet engagements involving Carriers? Any precedence for that, or mostly a function of the "react" system--[and, I will hasten to say, I have not seen any simulation of the Pacific better than AE--mostly because it more accurately portrays "it is a big ocean out there to hide in"]