cap_and_gown(j) v witpqs(a) - no witpqs

[FatR]

Damaged ships are more far more valuable than his invasion target. Common sense dictates retreat.

As about exposing surface TFs to airstrikes in the morning, if you intend to continue the carrier battle, this will actually be a useful diversion.
Reaction seems to work when you allow retirement. I still prefer patrol zones, as tried and true, but, again, even if the surface force fails to retreat in time, this will likely just divert strikes from your more valuable assets. It's a risk, but the possible reward justifies it.

[CapAndGown]

First off, let me note that I took a look at the CR again and found that I had not correctly noted that the Lexington had heavy fires and heavy damage. Therefore, my calculation on allied CAP possibilities were off. I have updated that post to reflect my new thinking. Bottom line: The allies probably only have 200 planes available for CAP. This does not, however, include LRCAP out of Kusaei.

Second, I am going to do some testing to see if I can send in a surface force to intercept the cripples. Moonlight is down to 3% so if we do send in the surface raiders and find someone, it will be a knife fight.

Finally, I think that all this discussion of chasing cripples has overlooked the very important fact that Kusaei Island is a level 5 airfield. SBDs and TBFs based there can range out 11 hexes. Mitchells can range out 14 hexes. As a result, I am not going to send the KB any closer than 12 hexes from Kusaei. The Mitchells will be bad enough. Also facing SBDs is a non-starter for me.

[Johraiken]

Do you have any subs in the area?

[PaxMondo]

Wow.  Great execution.

[janh]

I think you have a really golden opportunity at hand to finish this off as a decapitating strike.  That would put an end to allied offensives in Cent and SWPAC for more than a year, maybe two.

Leaving him flee now, would give you just a tactical victory, from which he will recover in 3-6 months.  Getting all of the CV/CVL cripples and some of the hurt BB/CA/CL now would make that a strategic victory. 

Yorktown (heavy fires, heavy damage), Hornet (heavy fires), Cowpens (heavy fires), Saratoga  (heavy fires, heavy damage), Wasp (heavy fires, heavy damage), CV Lexington, (heavy damage), Independence (heavy damage)

And getting a hit on the last remaining CV, or even his invasion fleets, would crown this victory as decapitating one!  Though supported by the LBA in Kursaie, Essex, Yorktown II, Lexington II, Bunker Hill, Belleau Wood, will be able to put up a good fight, I would think that even loosing one, two or three carriers would be a fine deal if you can in return get all cripples, and a hit on the rest. 

Tough call, but I would probably gamble and following the enemy eastward.  Even if that brings Kursaie and another engagement with his remaining ships into the game. How about using your CA and BB to suppress Kursaie instead of hunting the cripples, and have KB take over the latter?

[veji1]

how far could SBDs be escorted though ? Could you go right behind Ponape and have some LRCAP from there above the KB, even if this LRCAP is quite ineffective and only works in the morning phase before the base is closed from the other Marshall airfields ?

Can't wait to see what happens.

[Ketza]

Wow amazing execution.

As far as your bait tfs being considered gamey I must point out the Japanese used that tactic historically. Thats how Shoho was lost and later the Ryuho (sp) was lost in the Guadacanal campaign.

Not gamey at all in my opinion.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Wow amazing execution.

As far as your bait tfs being considered gamey I must point out the Japanese used that tactic historically. Thats how Shoho was lost and later the Ryuho (sp) was lost in the Guadacanal campaign.

Not gamey at all in my opinion.

Ketza-big difference in TF composition. IRL, the Shoho and Ryuho were bait TFs, but were themselves military targets of (some) value.

Big difference versus a couple rusty PBs and xAK/xAKLs. Do you think the Allied pilots flying those DBs would have foregone a crack at carriers operating in the area to dump their bombs on such a wantonly obvious ruse?

My opinion, not that it's being asked, is that using PB/xAK/xAKLs to soak up either SCTF ammo (see Cap'n gown / Sprior's AAR) or carrier sorties is gamey. This colors my impression of this execution, which was otherwise quite impressive.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Johraiken

Do you have any subs in the area?

There are 10 of them very clearly identified in the screenshot Cap n Gown provided in post 682.

[Ketza]

Well Chickenboy I agree with your conclusion that the Tfs should be made up of something of substantial military value. In my own games I would do that.

There are some aspects of the game that are frustrating like when a player swarms an area with one ship AKL convoys that we all have to deal with. I suppose there is no way to really draw the line between gaminess and tactics as everyone has varying opinions. In this particular instance I didnt seem to be gamey to me but that was probably because the outcome was very atypical of what one would expect of such an encounter given the date in the game.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Ketza
There are some aspects of the game that are frustrating like when a player swarms an area with one ship AKL convoys that we all have to deal with.

Sorry, again, for the hijack Cap N Gown...

[hijack on]

Ketza-we don't all have to deal with this. I would advise picking one's opponents carefully so that this doesn't happen. Or if it does happen, it gets nipped in the bud immediately. If you have been led to believe that you must tolerate repeated actions like those you cite that affect gameplay, you've been misled. There are alternatives that don't involve acquiescence to this behavior.

[hijack off]

[crsutton]

Well the diversionary force only drew a small attack and perhaps it would have not drawn an attack at all if Cap's carriers were actually in range, but they were not and that was the Allied players main mistake. However, if I was the opposing player and half of my force went after the bait then I would have been very unhappy. So yes, bait is OK but it really needs to be something of value. I would not hesitate to do it with a CVL or two if I was the Allied player.

It just goes to show that you need to move your carriers every turn to prevent the Japanese player from exploiting the range advantage. To sit in one hex invites disaster. Really, when you have the advantage in numbers as the Allies, the best move might be just to rush on in and not fool around. I must also say that I am surprised that neither force reacted. It seems like that happens most all of the time in these AARs.

CAP, pleases tell us how many of your aircraft were lost to flak? How many you shot down as well? I would be interested to know. Right now this seems to be the biggest defect in carrier actions.

Thanks.

[invernomuto]

Great plan, excellent execution!

[CapAndGown]

First off, the use of those sacrificial ships was not meant to draw a strike away from the KB, but to draw off allied fighters from CAP duty in case I was able to launch a one-sided attack. As it happened, they only drew away 17 fighters, hardly a decisive difference. The idea that "bait" needs to be a combat ship seems off. The Neosho was reported as a carrier and was treated that way by the Japanese. I should think we should actually be given the option of converting some xAKs into "Bait". It would not have been that hard to weld on a flight deck looking structure to make an xAK look like a carrier.

I suppose what I am working on now will also strike some as gamey. [:'(] At the moment, I am transferring CV AC groups from my slow carriers, such as the CVEs, the Hiyo/Junyo pair, and the Ryuho onto my fast carriers. Since my air groups have been thinned out, I have room on the faster carriers to fit additional AC. So the groups from the slower CV/E/L's are transferring and those slower ships will exit the battle while the faster carriers press on to strike the cripples.

Below is a screen shot showing my AC losses. I would agree that the flak losses seem rather light. Another problem, I think, is that in both the morning and afternoon, the first strike of the phase was able to basically get past the CAP scott-free. Later strikes were treated very roughly by the CAP, but not the first strike of the phase. I have seen that in strikes against land targets as well, both in my game and in PzB's game where Andy's later strikes get mauled but the first strikes do OK.

Pilot losses for the day:
KIA 234
MIA 179
WIA 29

A loss of 400+ pilots is pretty tough. The Navy has 450 in reserve, but they may not all be of the right type. I think I have more fighter pilots than torp/bomber pilots.

I am still thinking about the next turn. Question for the peanut gallery: if I set my surface forces to full speed and give them a patrol zone close to where I think the allied cripples will be, they will react into the cripples before the first air phase. I can then get a shot at a daylight surface engagement. While this might mean shooting at CVs, it would also mean taking on American BBs. And most importantly, it would mean being totally exposed to an air strike without the benefit of CAP protection. It would help divert away strikes from the KB as it moved into range to kill off cripples. But it could mean the loss of my fast BBs. I really don't like the idea of just sacrificing BBs like this, but I really do want those cripples. What are your thoughts?

[Nemo121]

You'll regret not having those BBs later in the game when the opportunity to send them into an invasion hex arises and you have nothing but CAs which can't survive vs US BBs. If you won't even risk your CVs to SBDs when you have strong CAP and crippled enemy CVs then tossing your BBs away is "excessive". The benefits don't outweigh the risks.

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

Personally, I wouldn't want to send my BBs to an early grave having already achieved a nice victory.

The odds of a successful surface engagement aren't high, and the enemy still has plenty of surface power and still has air power.

I'd keep them with your carriers for AA cover and to soak up further damage under the protective umbrella of your own CAP.

Why risk them when you have a better opportunity to hunt down cripples using your own carriers? If the Allies decide to leave them behind because they can no longer keep up with the main fleet, you'll bag more ships and lose a minimum of your own.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

You'll regret not having those BBs later in the game when the opportunity to send them into an invasion hex arises and you have nothing but CAs which can't survive vs US BBs. If you won't even risk your CVs to SBDs when you have strong CAP and crippled enemy CVs then tossing your BBs away is "excessive". The benefits don't outweigh the risks.

I agree.

[rader]

Congrats on your victory!!

I wonder why the allied CVs didn't react to close the range? Surely he would set them to react to prevent the 7-8 range split?

How did you prevent your CVs from reacting closer? The old follow-the-surface TF solution? Did you have agressive Air Combat TF commanders?

[Q-Ball]

I'm with Nemo and Chickenboy; don't sacrifice BBs. CVs are more important than BBs, but BBs are important; moreso than IRL. Get them into an invasion fleet, and it's trouble for the Allies.

While the Allied airpower gets totally overwhelming in 1944, you can still mount a credible surface threat if you haven't chucked your BBs.

[CapAndGown]

I decided to close within 10 hexes of Kusaie. That is outside of torpedo range of TBFs and is extended range for SBDs. My thinking here is that witpqs will probably be dedicating most of his fighters to LRCAP over the carriers and not to escort duties.

To encourage him in the direction of setting his fighters to LRCAP rather than escort, I moved a bomber squadron onto Ponape. This squadron is really there for the sole purpose of showing up on witpqs's rollover and making him think that I will be attacking from Ponape. I need him to feel extremely threatened. In reality, the bombers are filled with newbies and will be running naval search.

I also moved two squadrons of Tojo's to Ponape to provide LRCAP for the KB. 3 squadrons is the stacking limit for Ponape and way beyond the available aviation support. (16 points!)

For the KB, I split off the slower CVs (26 knots or less), and they are going to leave the area. Their squadrons, however, have been rebased to the fast carriers. So most of the fast carriers now have 4 squadrons instead of the usual 3. The CAP percentage was bumped up to 60%. For surface support, the KB will be following around a surface combat TF composed of 4 BBs, 2 CAs, 1 CL, and 9 DD. The BBs and CAs should attract some bombers away from the CVs.

I don't know why my guys don't react and other people's do. They are set to no react and follow around a surface combat group. This used to work in UV. I thought that might have changed in WitP, but I can't confirm. I am fairly certain that witpqs uses the same arrangement and that is why his CVs do not react.

I don't know what he will do right now. He has 4 CVEs and 2 CVs undamaged. He also has 2 lightly damaged CVs and 5 CVs and 3 CVLs with heavy damage. My guess would be that he tries to cover the cripples. The only question is, what about the lightly damaged CVs? Do they head for safety on their own, or stay behind to help provide CAP? Only time will tell.