Air Coordination in 1942

[vettim89]

I posed this question in m AAR but thought I might get more response here.

In 1942, is putting two USN CVs in the same TF a valid option. Typically I use single CVTF at this point in the war. However, if the coordination penalty shows itself at 150, two CVs should be workable. If 50% or more of the VFs are assigned to CAP, the remaining a/c left for strikes on the enemy should be just below 150.

I was wondering if others have experimented with this.

[Alfred]

The Allied carrier air limits are:

1942 - 100
1943 - 150
1944 - 200

Exceeding these limits do not guarantee coordination problems but they do increase the odds of having them.

Alfred

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The Allied carrier air limits are:

1942 - 100
1943 - 150
1944 - 200

Exceeding these limits do not guarantee coordination problems but they do increase the odds of having them.

Alfred

Thank you Alfred. That about limits the USN to Single CV TF until '43. Correct me if I am wrong, but those limits are for a hex not a TF. Is that right?

[Alfred]

The limits are per TF. You could have a lot of single CV TFs in the same hex.[:)] Of course then you have the problem, in 1942, of finding sufficient escorts to place within the CV TF.[;)]

Some Allied players are not concerned about the coordination penalty. I'm not one of those but FYI you should be aware that some AFB play with 2 CVs within a TF even in 1942.

Alfred

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The limits are per TF. You could have a lot of single CV TFs in the same hex.[:)] Of course then you have the problem, in 1942, of finding sufficient escorts to place within the CV TF.[;)]

Some Allied players are not concerned about the coordination penalty. I'm not one of those but FYI you should be aware that some AFB play with 2 CVs within a TF even in 1942.

Alfred

I go with the 2 CV TF for 42, as mentioned your CAP will bring you below the limit, same with any losses. Your CV at this time are probably your best AAA platforms, 2 of them are better than 1. I also have around 20 ships in the TF for much the same reason, and any damaged ships get an escort without dropping the screen strength too much.

In 43 I add some CVL when available and in 44 make them 3CV & 1 CVL and run with that fro the war.

[bush]

I always thought the coordination kicked in based on the total number of planes in the TF, not necessarily the number assigned to a specific strike mission. This definitely will change my way of setting up early TFs.

[Omat]

Hello

A complement:

The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances. So even if you under these values there is a chace of uncoordination.

1942 -> 100 + rnd(100)
1943 -> 150 + rnd(150)
1944 -> 200 + rnd(200)

Hope it helps..


Omat

[sandman455]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

I always thought the coordination kicked in based on the total number of planes in the TF, not necessarily the number assigned to a specific strike mission. This definitely will change my way of setting up early TFs.

Based on the manual (7.2.1.11 Coorinating Strikes) it is based on the number of aircraft within the TF.

The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:
»»Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»»Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»»Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

[Dan Nichols]

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

A complement:

The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances. So even if you under these values there is a chace of uncoordination.

1942 -> 100 + rnd(100)
1943 -> 150 + rnd(150)
1944 -> 200 + rnd(200)

Hope it helps..


Omat

This begs the question, What is the coordination penalty and how is it calculated? I often use 2 CV TFs in 1942 because of the escort problem.

[MarkMohrifield]

Newbie question; what is an rnd?

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: MarkMohrifield

Newbie question; what is an rnd?

random

. . . as is random(100) means a random number between 1 and 100

[crsutton]

There is another angle on that in that with multiple carrier TFs, you run the risk of one of the TF reacting toward the enemy while the rest hang back. This can be disasterous. I keep my carriers together for this reason.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any complaints about this lately. Is it still happening to players?

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

There is another angle on that in that with multiple carrier TFs, you run the risk of one of the TF reacting toward the enemy while the rest hang back. This can be disasterous. I keep my carriers together for this reason.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any complaints about this lately. Is it still happening to players?

It happened to my opponent couple weeks ago. Poor old Wasp was left all alone... [:D]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols
This begs the question, What is the coordination penalty and how is it calculated? I often use 2 CV TFs in 1942 because of the escort problem.

When a mission is flown, the game designates a lead squad and - depending on your settings and external factors such as weather -
rolls a dice to decide whether this succeeds.
If no, you will see messages like "X loses cohesion, rtb" or "y loses contact with formation, continueing to target".

If you don´t see these messages, the flights did not coordinate in the first place.
For these to arrive at the same time over target you need to balance out all attributes of the units to still ensure the order
of arrival and cohesion.

In both you have a chance to see several combat replays representing the different raid packs arriving.

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: sandman455
...
The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:
»»Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»»Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»»Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).

That's what I thought - so CAP planes would still count against the coordination limits. Has there been any mentioning of a developer or proof to the contrary?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: crsutton

There is another angle on that in that with multiple carrier TFs, you run the risk of one of the TF reacting toward the enemy while the rest hang back. This can be disasterous. I keep my carriers together for this reason.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any complaints about this lately. Is it still happening to players?

It happened to my opponent couple weeks ago. Poor old Wasp was left all alone... [:D]

Every once in a while you get lucky though. I recently had four individual CV TFs all react together to get into TBD range. You just need to be sure your CV TF commanders are all very, very agressive. You don't want FJF commanding one with Halsey commanding another [;)].

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: crsutton

There is another angle on that in that with multiple carrier TFs, you run the risk of one of the TF reacting toward the enemy while the rest hang back. This can be disasterous. I keep my carriers together for this reason.

However, I have to admit that I have not read any complaints about this lately. Is it still happening to players?

It happened to my opponent couple weeks ago. Poor old Wasp was left all alone... [:D]

Every once in a while you get lucky though. I recently had four individual CV TFs all react together to get into TBD range. You just need to be sure your CV TF commanders are all very, very agressive. You don't want FJF commanding one with Halsey commanding another [;)].

For this reason I keep them together. I suppose someday I will pay a coordination penalty but it has not happened yet.

[dr.hal]

A way to keep a number of CV TFs together and have them react together is for the slowest carrier TF have a reaction number of 6 or less and an aggressive commander while all the other assigned to follow this TF with a reaction range of 0. I've not had a stray CV TF yet.