IJN question...

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
JockJimmy
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 11:08 am

IJN question...

Post by JockJimmy »

Hi, I am giving thought to ASW protection for my convoys. I'm thinking of using AVs (a/c cap 9) as close in protection. So my question is: how best to organise this?

ie. (i)Have the AV within the convoy, or as part of a separate TF?
(ii)The range, and arcs for the a/c. Will setting range 0 and arc 001 to 359 simply put them over the convoy (which is what I really want) or will I have to adjust the arcs every turn so that they "lead" the direction of travel?

Thanks, as always, in advance.
JJ.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: IJN question...

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: JockJimmy

Hi, I am giving thought to ASW protection for my convoys. I'm thinking of using AVs (a/c cap 9) as close in protection. So my question is: how best to organise this?

ie. (i)Have the AV within the convoy, or as part of a separate TF?
(ii)The range, and arcs for the a/c. Will setting range 0 and arc 001 to 359 simply put them over the convoy (which is what I really want) or will I have to adjust the arcs every turn so that they "lead" the direction of travel?

Thanks, as always, in advance.
JJ.

Embed it in the convoy (only works for a cargo convoy, not TK). Don't set search arcs. No need from a convoy and they work better 360 when you're moving. (I very rarely set search arcs, anyway).

Either set some % ASW and some search, like 40% ASW 30% search 30% rest, or set to 50% night search.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: IJN question...

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

You want point blank defense, or a couple hexes max. so no arc needed.

I think the benefit of the AV for convoy defense is that you can also use the ship's freight capacity. So I would put AVs inside the convoy. (CVEs I won't)

Understand that FPs are more impacted by weather, thus, you can expect them flying not as often as carrier planes. You will have to complement this idea with land based ASW and naval search + subchaser/ DD groups

Finally you will need to use well trained ASW pilots, otherwise, there are good chances the AV will be just another nice SS target
Numdydar
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: IJN question...

Post by Numdydar »

I used CVEs in my Transport TFs as Japan and they worked great. Considering how crappy Japan's CVEs are, this made them useful for something [:)]
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: IJN question...

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I used CVEs in my Transport TFs as Japan and they worked great. Considering how crappy Japan's CVEs are, this made them useful for something [:)]

Eh... I like the CVEs in with MKB. Yes, they only have 9 TBs and only 18 torps, but when you have 6 CVEs with 21 Zeroes and 9 Kates each, that's a decent little strike package. Plus their speed isn't that far off of the "real" CVLs, Hiyo/Junyo and the later Mizuho/Nisshin if you convert those.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: IJN question...

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I used CVEs in my Transport TFs as Japan and they worked great. Considering how crappy Japan's CVEs are, this made them useful for something [:)]

Eh... I like the CVEs in with MKB. Yes, they only have 9 TBs and only 18 torps, but when you have 6 CVEs with 21 Zeroes and 9 Kates each, that's a decent little strike package. Plus their speed isn't that far off of the "real" CVLs, Hiyo/Junyo and the later Mizuho/Nisshin if you convert those.

+1

Every little bit helps. Also, I'd rather not lose them in an ASW role to an Allied sub, and they will generally have more air search, better ASW and surface patrols if they are with the KB. I would rather get a CVE hit by a sub that a CV though, so that's another reason to have them there instead of with the tanker convoys. Plus, you can make more AVs, you can't convert xAK to CVE.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: IJN question...

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I used CVEs in my Transport TFs as Japan and they worked great. Considering how crappy Japan's CVEs are, this made them useful for something [:)]

Eh... I like the CVEs in with MKB. Yes, they only have 9 TBs and only 18 torps, but when you have 6 CVEs with 21 Zeroes and 9 Kates each, that's a decent little strike package. Plus their speed isn't that far off of the "real" CVLs, Hiyo/Junyo and the later Mizuho/Nisshin if you convert those.

+1

Every little bit helps. Also, I'd rather not lose them in an ASW role to an Allied sub, and they will generally have more air search, better ASW and surface patrols if they are with the KB. I would rather get a CVE hit by a sub that a CV though, so that's another reason to have them there instead of with the tanker convoys. Plus, you can make more AVs, you can't convert xAK to CVE.


This doesn't hold for the later "CVE Marus", as I call them, but of course I don't even build those anyway. They're basically xAKs with flight capabilities. If they came earlier in the war, they might be worthwhile, but it's impossible to get them out before sometime in 1944 if I'm remembering correctly.
User avatar
Skyros
Posts: 1593
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Columbia SC

RE: IJN question...

Post by Skyros »

I always wondered if the Mizuho's conversion has a typo in it, according to the editor the CS Mizuho has 27 listed in the armor with weapon None for the 12/42 conversion to CVL. It gets the actual weapon device and the same number of Torpedoes on 7/44. The other three CS's get torpedoes when they first convert.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: IJN question...

Post by GreyJoy »

For the big convoys full of TKs I have used several AVs along with one CVE with 20 a/c of capacity. 20 Kates with pilots skilled in ASW and 9x5 Jakes on Nav search have worked wonders for me to keep the enemy's subs honest. I've got my CVEs torpedoed twice, but only 2 TKs until april 1944 [8D]
Numdydar
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: IJN question...

Post by Numdydar »

This has been my experience as well.
 
 
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 4313
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: IJN question...

Post by Cavalry Corp »

In my game Hosho with 18 Jeans with good ASW pilots goes to sub choke points by May 43 I think I have bagged or damaged 10 allied subs with just this.
Also she follows the KB to detect and ward off subs.

As Japan - if you do not know the value of every ship you will loose fast...
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”