I need commentary on interesting IJN CV tactic

[jeffs]

I am in a PBEM (scen 1) 7/42...Allies doing well enough (Singapore is ours but will fall in a week.

No CV battles yet (though one Japanese CVL was subbed to death in DEI[:D])

I have noticed an interesting Japanese tactic when he has raided with the KB and caught some small convoys.....

Before the main body of DBs and TBs hit 30-40 zeroes come in......Am I correct in assuming that he has set fighters to naval attack (they come in high so there is not strafing run)

Does this work as a sweep (in net affect)? Does this totally destroy the CAP of the allied KB?

Comments, thoughts welcome.

[DivePac88]

Could be an uncoordinated escort, or part of an uncoordinated escort. Does his main strike packages have an escort, or a very light escort?

[jeffs]

I think average size..That said, it has happened on all of his attacks so I tend to think it is because of intent and not lack of coordination

[Shark7]

Are you asking if it is gamey?

I would lean toward not gamey, since Zero's on Naval attack will not be as effective as fighters. Granted it will reduce the effectiveness of the cap for following strikes, but it will also be very costly to your elite Zero pilots.

[jeffs]

I am not questioning whether it is gamey....Just people`s thoughts on it...Also, anyway to counter it so CAP is not riddled....

Actually the last turn (the KB is by Noumea which I have ample defense ) and he launched some attacks on bait / random small convoys in the area).
the tactic was not seen and according to the screen 85 zeroes and 70 kates went sayonara (allies lost about 60 fighters.....) Some small ships were trashed but I will take it...

So maybe just random lost fighters.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: jeffs

I am in a PBEM (scen 1) 7/42...Allies doing well enough (Singapore is ours but will fall in a week.

No CV battles yet (though one Japanese CVL was subbed to death in DEI[:D])

I have noticed an interesting Japanese tactic when he has raided with the KB and caught some small convoys.....

Before the main body of DBs and TBs hit 30-40 zeroes come in......Am I correct in assuming that he has set fighters to naval attack (they come in high so there is not strafing run)

Does this work as a sweep (in net affect)? Does this totally destroy the CAP of the allied KB?

Comments, thoughts welcome.

that´s no tactic, that´s escorts losing their bombers and therefore ending up on a sweep. And while you can´t order your fighters to sweep enemy fleets, with the coordination routine as it is, you end up doing exactly this when the routine "fails". So if it screws up, it´s actually good for you (as long as there are fighters left to escort the bombers).

If they would be on nav attack you could read that in the combat report, you could also see it during replay when you get a message like "5 A6M2 Zero jettison bombs" while they engage your fighters.

[LoBaron]

Two reasons could be:
- You say they come in at vhigh alt, so could be a coordination penalty. Do the DB/TB go in lower?
- Added to this if he keeps the CV´s in an overstacked TF he gets an additional coordination hit.

If both is true its very probable that he gets a coordination hit every time.

If this is the case theres for sure no disadvantage for the defender compared to a coordinated attack.
Could be an advantage for you, though that clearly depends on the numbers game also.

[Sardaukar]

He could have just set his Zeroes to "sweep" instead of "escort", either by mistake or purpose...on the other hand, I don't think one can Sweep TFs. So it's probably a result of uncoordinated strike. if whole KB (6 CVs) is in same TF, he can easily be over Coordination penalty limit.

[Mynok]

It sounds like he is attacking ports. If so, it could definitely be a sweep.

[jeffs]

Not port attacks. It was on small AKLs and AK convoys...

CV is all together so it appears to be Coordination penalty....

I just was confused to the reason... Now that I know......[:)]

[jomni]

Someone was complaining that Japanese are too coordinated compared to history.  He even wants to add more coordination penalty.
That would result into more sweeps. Lol!

[RUDOLF]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Are you asking if it is gamey?

I would lean toward not gamey, since Zero's on Naval attack will not be as effective as fighters. Granted it will reduce the effectiveness of the cap for following strikes, but it will also be very costly to your elite Zero pilots.

I don't think the Elite Pilots are used in Offencive role at all, they stay home guarding the Carriers.
Only the standard pilots go on offencive missions.

[War History]

ORIGINAL: jomni

Someone was complaining that Japanese are too coordinated compared to history.  He even wants to add more coordination penalty.
That would result into more sweeps. Lol!

There aren't really that many examples in history of the Japanese (or the allies post Midway for that matter) having coordination problems. Rare was it that they launched a raid with fighter escort that the fighters "got lost" as happens (to both sides) far too often in the game.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: War History

ORIGINAL: jomni

Someone was complaining that Japanese are too coordinated compared to history.  He even wants to add more coordination penalty.
That would result into more sweeps. Lol!

There aren't really that many examples in history of the Japanese (or the allies post Midway for that matter) having coordination problems. Rare was it that they launched a raid with fighter escort that the fighters "got lost" as happens (to both sides) far too often in the game.

If it happens far too often in your game the you are doing something wrong. [;)]

Well coordinated strikes didn´t come for free in RL too, and 80+ plane formations even less so.
You have to make many things work together to get reliable results. Later in the war its more
easy as exp grows, but was still a huge logistical task.
(If carefully managed the Japanese don´t have many issues right from the start for obvious reasons,
and the Allies catch up fast)

And in case you are referring to strikes being played out in more than one combat replay (strike packages)
think of it as planes out of position to enter combat for whatever reason.
Don´t think theres need to point out that THIS did happen on a regular basis.

Just a little imagination neccesary to translate the abstraction we get into RL examples.


That there is not much evidence for the Japanese to have coordination issues past Midway
is also influenced by the lack of information about their unsuccessful operations as a whole.
Also, contrary to many players, both sides adapted strike size to target and their capabilities.

[War History]

I am not talking about any particular sized raid. I am referring to instances where the fighters (escort) appear as a sweep and then the strike comes in unescorted and gets slaughtered. In other words "the fighters get lost". And usually I am talking about carrier groups (but not in all instances). I operate by Japanese carriers in 2 CV + 1 CVL groups (max of 170 +/- aircraft) which should never suffer a coordination fail because of number of aircraft (assuming there isn't an undiscovered bug in that routine - entirely possible).

[anarchyintheuk]

Not an expert on the routines here but there are probably several reasons for coordination failures (weather, altitude, leader failure?). The penalty for too many planes in a cvtf is just another one of them.

[Sardaukar]

Indeed, there are more factors thhan just number of planes..and LoBaron had nice air coordination guide on this forum, well worth reading.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: War History

I am not talking about any particular sized raid. I am referring to instances where the fighters (escort) appear as a sweep and then the strike comes in unescorted and gets slaughtered. In other words "the fighters get lost". And usually I am talking about carrier groups (but not in all instances). I operate by Japanese carriers in 2 CV + 1 CVL groups (max of 170 +/- aircraft) which should never suffer a coordination fail because of number of aircraft (assuming there isn't an undiscovered bug in that routine - entirely possible).

First, thinking in terms of "always" and "never" has the unpleasent tendency to lead to severe mistakes in this
game. (as in RL)

In case this happens on your CV´s on a regular basis without them being overstacked I´d definitely check for very basic errors.

I get coordination fails too. But it happens for

- a very small percentage of the total missions flown only
- very obvious reasons that would apply to RL missions also (including bad logistic (missing HQ´s), low exp,
bad weather, high number of different squads, squads assigned to different commands, bad leaders, and so on,..)
- failures to comply with game mechanics which are stated in the manual as well as in the coordination
guide and were implemented on purpose (which include different alt settings, high cruise speed deltas of airframes
I am trying to coordinate, additional penalties on airframes, or different missions with different targets at
the same altitude in the same area).

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: War History

I am not talking about any particular sized raid. I am referring to instances where the fighters (escort) appear as a sweep and then the strike comes in unescorted and gets slaughtered. In other words "the fighters get lost". And usually I am talking about carrier groups (but not in all instances). I operate by Japanese carriers in 2 CV + 1 CVL groups (max of 170 +/- aircraft) which should never suffer a coordination fail because of number of aircraft (assuming there isn't an undiscovered bug in that routine - entirely possible).

First, thinking in terms of "always" and "never" has the unpleasent tendency to lead to severe mistakes in this
game. (as in RL)

In case this happens on your CV´s on a regular basis without them being overstacked I´d definitely check for very basic errors.

I get coordination fails too. But it happens for

- a very small percentage of the total missions flown only
- very obvious reasons that would apply to RL missions also (including bad logistic (missing HQ´s), low exp,
bad weather, high number of different squads, squads assigned to different commands, bad leaders, and so on,..)
- failures to comply with game mechanics which are stated in the manual as well as in the coordination
guide and were implemented on purpose (which include different alt settings, high cruise speed deltas of airframes
I am trying to coordinate, additional penalties on airframes, or different missions with different targets at
the same altitude in the same area).

If you set cap levels too high, you'll get unescorted bombers and fighters missing escorts assignments, I've had it happen to me.