Carrier Task Force Limits - Observed?

[Texashawk]

Historically, the USN didn't use carrier task forces with more than 2 CV's until very late in the war (and they really weren't too comfortable with even using 2 in the same force). Yet it appears that there is no penalty for piling CV's into a task force regarding command and control, squadron coordination, etc. Is this effect in the game and I'm just missing it (entirely possible) If not, it's a huge oversight in my opinion because the USN would never have operated massive AC task forces in real life because of the coordination issues. (Note the IJN would not suffer these issues).

Thanks for your thoughts/replies in advance!

Steve

[Xargun]

If I remember correctly there is a built in penalty based on number of aircraft in the TF not number of CVs. The Allies start out rather low - like 100 planes or such and then have a chance to suffer coordination losses on their air strikes - which cause less planes to attack targets or even entire squadrons not launching -- its evident from my side (I always plan IJN) when an allied air strikes comes in with SBDs and TBs but no fighters and get mauled by cap -- the TF failed the role and the fighters didn't launch. The rule affects both IJN and Allies and is in the manual. Maybe search under Air Coordination or something like that.

Xargun

PS The number of AC increases at specific intervals which is also listed in the manual.

[Fishbed]

Chap, there is a whole paragraph about coordination penalties in the manual: US CVTF can have more than a hundred aircraft without suffering penalties until a certain time, and then this limit rises, while it's just the opposite with the Japanese carrier: early one you can put as many planes as you want, and coordination worsens overtime (which sounds a little strange if you actually manage, as a Japanese player, to keep the KB intact and its pilots elite, but anyway). Personally, I think that on this later point coordination should be a matter of squadron and admiral air and admin skill in order to prevent this kind of awkward situation, but well, most Japanese CVs don't make it that late, so is that really worth a hundred lines of new code... 

edit: I was too late [;)]

[herwin]

The 6-carrier KB with its paper-thin screen was a purely offensive instrument, as the Japanese learned at Midway. It couldn't defend itself in the air or on the surface. I'm looking for ways to exploit that weakness in my current PBEM.

[herwin]

The USN's optimal late-war CVTF consisted of two heavy strike carriers and one light CAP carrier.

[Texashawk]

OK, must have missed that the first go-round in the manual. I have since found the relevant area.

HOWEVER - that to me still seems 'gamey'. If I'm reading the penalties correctly, it doesn't seem to be much of a penalty to do something in this game that simply wasn't considered part of USN doctrine and would never have been tried before 1943-44.

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: Texashawk

OK, must have missed that the first go-round in the manual. I have since found the relevant area.

HOWEVER - that to me still seems 'gamey'. If I'm reading the penalties correctly, it doesn't seem to be much of a penalty to do something in this game that simply wasn't considered part of USN doctrine and would never have been tried before 1943-44.

Feel free to try such a setup in a carrier engagement and let's discuss the gameyness afterwards. [8D][;)]

[anarchyintheuk]

Spruance's cvtf had 2 carriers at Midway and suffered the strike coordination penalty irl for it. Don't confuse necessity with choice. Had the USN had 6 cvs in operation at one time in '42 or early '43 they would have changed their tactics and doctrine accordingly imo.

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The 6-carrier KB with its paper-thin screen was a purely offensive instrument, as the Japanese learned at Midway. It couldn't defend itself in the air or on the surface. I'm looking for ways to exploit that weakness in my current PBEM.

The Japanese carrier striking force at Midway was actually a 4-carrier force, and therefore lacking 2 carrier fighter groups for operations. This fact, plus the lack of a centralized fighter-direction system should be taken into account also. But at Midway that day the Japanese weren't the only ones making mistakes. In the later part of the battle a Japanese single carrier strike managed to get though the USN defences, and badly damage an American carrier. This was because the Americans had dispersed their carrier force, and therefore there fighter defence.

[spence]

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The 6-carrier KB with its paper-thin screen was a purely offensive instrument, as the Japanese learned at Midway. It couldn't defend itself in the air or on the surface. I'm looking for ways to exploit that weakness in my current PBEM.



The Japanese carrier striking force at Midway was actually a 4-carrier force, and therefore lacking 2 carrier fighter groups for operations. This fact, plus the lack of a centralized fighter-direction system should be taken into account also. But at Midway that day the Japanese weren't the only ones making mistakes. In the later part of the battle a Japanese single carrier strike managed to get though the USN defences, and badly damage an American carrier. This was because the Americans had dispersed their carrier force, and therefore there fighter defence.

The game does not do a good job of simulating the Japanese doctrine for defense of their KB. The fighter defense of the KB seems very adequate...irrespective of a lack of radar and total lack of fighter direction (other than Mk I Mod 0 pilot eyeballs) in every game I've played Allied strikes are opposed by more fighters than I've ever seen in the initial American CAP (American reinforcements usually add to the defense but aren't these the guys that climbing up from the deck and consequently late to the party?). The "paper-thin" screen shooting main guns at the water and laying smoke screens has, according to my Combat Replays. routinely scored kills or damaging shots on the attacking American planes.

And, to top it off, the offensive potential of the IJN's KB is significantly enhanced because all of their strikes are twice as large as they all to be: all strike aircraft in one large wave (usually). Physical factors almost always precluded this in real life (very short range combined with reduced squadrons at Coral Sea allowed the one and only instance where all of the strike elements of an IJN CVTF were simultaneously combined into one strike).
These super-sized airstrikes both inflict more damage (especially since they now get to overflow to more than one TF) AND suffer lower losses than would otherwise be the case.

Or maybe "Git there first with the most" was just a trite and irrelevant non-sequitur used by English teachers as an example of bad grammar.

[jdcorley]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The USN's optimal late-war CVTF consisted of two heavy strike carriers and one light CAP carrier.

e

You are confusing terms. When the fleet got rebuilt in 43, new tactics were learned. In 44, the carriers sailed out in 2cv+1cvl task groups. TF38/58 sailed from early 44 with a 5 TG arrangement consisting of 4 CVTG (8 CVs + 4 CVLs + CA/CL/CLAA/DDs and 1 BB each) TF38/58 could also add 1 SATG with the extra BB/CB/CA/CLs available at the time.

I have found the game works pretty well with the same arrangement so long as you have a replinishment group in trail and keep your squadrons with enough planes and pilots.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: spence
The game does not do a good job of simulating the Japanese doctrine for defense of their KB. The fighter defense of the KB seems very adequate...irrespective of a lack of radar and total lack of fighter direction (other than Mk I Mod 0 pilot eyeballs) in every game I've played Allied strikes are opposed by more fighters than I've ever seen in the initial American CAP (American reinforcements usually add to the defense but aren't these the guys that climbing up from the deck and consequently late to the party?). The "paper-thin" screen shooting main guns at the water and laying smoke screens has, according to my Combat Replays. routinely scored kills or damaging shots on the attacking American planes.

And, to top it off, the offensive potential of the IJN's KB is significantly enhanced because all of their strikes are twice as large as they all to be: all strike aircraft in one large wave (usually). Physical factors almost always precluded this in real life (very short range combined with reduced squadrons at Coral Sea allowed the one and only instance where all of the strike elements of an IJN CVTF were simultaneously combined into one strike).
These super-sized airstrikes both inflict more damage (especially since they now get to overflow to more than one TF) AND suffer lower losses than would otherwise be the case.

Or maybe "Git there first with the most" was just a trite and irrelevant non-sequitur used by English teachers as an example of bad grammar.

What Spence says is (and has been) true of this system, since day one. However, the system designers might argue (they aren't present here, so we will have to speculate) that what the game represents as a "strike" ... and its corresponding "defense" is not necessarily representing a single actual strike. It could also be representing an amalgamation of separate strikes.
AE has made some attempt to increase the tactical "feel" of the game by increasing the (already present in WITP) possible of strike fragmentation, but it is still not an attempt to makde the game absolutely tactical in the sense that every game strike represents one real world strike.

AE CAP is more realistic than WITP CAP in that less planes will be initially present in the CAP and the CAP will rotate to replenish out of ammo or damaged CAP fighters. In WITP, KB would start off with a zillion fighters over head and gradually they would be reduced. But WITP KB CAP can definitely be overwhelming.

However, in both WITP and AE, there is a tactic that allows the USN carriers to behave aggressively, early on. I've practiced this hundreds of times myself and taught most of my USN opponents to use it successfully against me (I've only been allowed to play IJN is real campaign games of either WITP or AE).

This tactic defeats the USN CV strike restrictions and it is arguably as realistic and any other tactic in the game.

THis is the "single CV task force" tactic.

So, you take your 4 or 6 (or however many) USN CV and put them each into a single CV TF with as much escort as you can muster. Then take these 4-6 CV TFs and put them all in one hex. Take the slowest and make it the lead TF. Have the other TFs follow with patrol orders. Give all the TFs the same settings (except the follow orders).

This setup with cause the IJN attacks to hit less than all the USN carriers while giving the USN carriers the benefit of combined CAP and stike. While not totally realistic at all times in the war, this tactic does combat the arguably un-realistic "strike restrictions" and is more realistic in other ways.

The "defensive split" is a very realistic tactic and is exposed in both editions of Captain Huges "Fleet Tactics". That is the weaker fleet should disperse its striking power so it will not be overwhelming by one large enemy strike.

I've practiced the above hundreds of times in controlled tests and it works. I've also seen my opponents use it against me with good results. T

The IJN can try the game tactic though with less numerous and less powerful escorts it will not work as well for them.

I'd be comfortable going up against KB in either game, with this tactic. Practice it a few times before you use it is a real game. You need to make sure you know how to keep your multiple single carrier TF in the same hex, even when reacting. Then once you have practiced and are comfortable, try in a real game and you'll see KB is not so overwhelming that you cannot face it until 1943.

[dr.hal]

JWilkerson your advice and synopsis is outstanding, thanks for detailing it so concisely. One small point I don't fully understand however is your statement to keep the individual TSs that are following the lead TF in "patrol". What do you mean by that and how is it done? I usually keep the TFs all on react with a max of 6 hexes, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Can you give me some more details? Thanks, Hal

[Rainer]

TSs that are following the lead TF in "patrol".

To prevent the fleet from splitting up.

If all TFs are set to "react" it could happen that only one TF reacts and splits away from the main body.

If only the leading TF is set to the desired reaction range then all TFs following will do exactly that - follow the leading TF.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

However, in both WITP and AE, there is a tactic that allows the USN carriers to behave aggressively, early on. I've practiced this hundreds of times myself and taught most of my USN opponents to use it successfully against me (I've only been allowed to play IJN is real campaign games of either WITP or AE).

This is the "single CV task force" tactic.

So, you take your 4 or 6 (or however many) USN CV and put them each into a single CV TF with as much escort as you can muster. Then take these 4-6 CV TFs and put them all in one hex. Take the slowest and make it the lead TF. Have the other TFs follow with patrol orders. Give all the TFs the same settings (except the follow orders).

This setup with cause the IJN attacks to hit less than all the USN carriers while giving the USN carriers the benefit of combined CAP and stike.

Well... in WITP it definetely was a good decision not to put all your eggs in the same basket, but I am under an impression that in AE with latest beta patches a single enemy strike can hit many carriers even if they're dispersed between multiple TFs. [&:]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Well... in WITP it definetely was a good decision not to put all your eggs in the same basket, but I am under an impression that in AE with latest beta patches a single enemy strike can hit many carriers even if they're dispersed between multiple TFs. [&:]

This has always been the case (in AE) but there are no guarrantees!

[Mark VII]

Ask RaverDave how well that tactic worked. During The Battle of Java, all six prewar USN carriers were sunk or heavily damaged in a single day. His damaged CVs were all finished off during the next few days.

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

However, in both WITP and AE, there is a tactic that allows the USN carriers to behave aggressively, early on. I've practiced this hundreds of times myself and taught most of my USN opponents to use it successfully against me (I've only been allowed to play IJN is real campaign games of either WITP or AE).

This is the "single CV task force" tactic.

So, you take your 4 or 6 (or however many) USN CV and put them each into a single CV TF with as much escort as you can muster. Then take these 4-6 CV TFs and put them all in one hex. Take the slowest and make it the lead TF. Have the other TFs follow with patrol orders. Give all the TFs the same settings (except the follow orders).

This setup with cause the IJN attacks to hit less than all the USN carriers while giving the USN carriers the benefit of combined CAP and stike.

Well... in WITP it definetely was a good decision not to put all your eggs in the same basket, but I am under an impression that in AE with latest beta patches a single enemy strike can hit many carriers even if they're dispersed between multiple TFs. [&:]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The 6-carrier KB with its paper-thin screen was a purely offensive instrument, as the Japanese learned at Midway. It couldn't defend itself in the air or on the surface. I'm looking for ways to exploit that weakness in my current PBEM.

Ironically, Midway was KB's best defensive performance in terms of planes shot out of the air so i'd cavet the "couldn't defend itself" comment. Rather.....i'd say of the situation in 1942 was neither carrier force could fully stop a determined large air strike from at least partially getting through. Even @ the turkey shoot....a few leakers managed to make runs amidst the aerial carnage. The USN had the rudiements and tools in 42 to make Fleet Defense much more effective. The UK's fleet defense doctrine was the most developed and efficient at the time.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Texashawk

Historically, the USN didn't use carrier task forces with more than 2 CV's until very late in the war (and they really weren't too comfortable with even using 2 in the same force). Yet it appears that there is no penalty for piling CV's into a task force regarding command and control, squadron coordination, etc. Is this effect in the game and I'm just missing it (entirely possible) If not, it's a huge oversight in my opinion because the USN would never have operated massive AC task forces in real life because of the coordination issues. (Note the IJN would not suffer these issues).

Thanks for your thoughts/replies in advance!

Steve

Opinions vary a tad based on playing experience. Brady told me recently that he never uses 1 x CV TF's in the same hex to avoid the weak coord frag rule in the game.....just puts em all in a multi carrier TF and 9 times out of ten, you'll get a fully coordinated and very large (potent) strike to go up against your opposite number. My experiences have been similar. I have no compunction to avoid putting 2-4 USN CV's in the same hex for better AA defense and have not suffered much if any fragmentation of the strikes. JoeW mentioned the 1 x CV tactic....as a long time opponent of his he was a master at negating the coord rule using them all grouped in 1 hex for mutual CAP and coordinated strikes.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin

The 6-carrier KB with its paper-thin screen was a purely offensive instrument, as the Japanese learned at Midway. It couldn't defend itself in the air or on the surface. I'm looking for ways to exploit that weakness in my current PBEM.

Ironically, Midway was KB's best defensive performance in terms of planes shot out of the air so i'd cavet the "couldn't defend itself" comment. Rather.....i'd say of the situation in 1942 was neither carrier force could fully stop a determined large air strike from at least partially getting through. Even @ the turkey shoot....a few leakers managed to make runs amidst the aerial carnage. The USN had the rudiements and tools in 42 to make Fleet Defense much more effective. The UK's fleet defense doctrine was the most developed and efficient at the time.

A couple of papers I hold give the strong impression that the USN derived much of its fighter direction technique from RN practice, dating from the first courses run by the Fighter Direction Training School at Yeovilton which were were each attended by 6 RNVR and 2 USN officers. Training involved adaptation of the RAF system in which 'fighter' and 'bomber' movements were simulated by means of ice cream tricycles pedalled in time with a metronome. I distantly recall a reference to such tricycles being used in the same way at 'home grown' USN fighter direction schools - can anyone confirm? The edge-lit perspex board used for display of the FDO plot is also attributed to the British, in this case a Belfast electrician.

I agree with you about the Japanese carrier fighters' performance at Midway. I think this reflects the fact that the Japanese cottoned on quicker than the other carrier navies that a good way to beat a large number of bombers is by employment of a large number of fighters, and that you could only get this by massing your carriers. In 1942, perhaps the biggest disadvantage under which the Japanese laboured was the pitiful size of the Reisen's cannon magazine.