CV Escort

[kip1213]

Hello and merry Xmas. Which ships do u suggest to be put in a CV escort group, and does have to be is the same hex and or adjacent to ur carrier task force?

[EHansen]

CV Escort TFs are not for escorting CVTFs. They are used to provide air cover and maybe Close Air Support for transport type TFs.
Read section 6.1.1.1 of the manual.

Note that you can only use CVE ships and not CV or CVL ships in a CV Escort TF.

[EHansen]

I guess I didn't really answer your question.

I use 4 - 6 CVE with 6-8 DE/DDs These really become useful starting in 1944, that is when you start to get tons of CVEs and DEs.
I train the TBs mostly in ASW and ground attack. I use them for ASW work on the way to an invasion and then ground attack
to help the ground units. Generally the Fighters provide CAP for all of the TFs moving together to the invasion hex.

[kip1213]

Cool thanks for the info. Learning as I play. Lot to digest.

[geofflambert]

Sometimes you have to put your escorts in the same TF with your carriers. They will attempt to screen off enemy surface TFs before shells start landing on your carriers. Within the CV TF you usually want some CAs or fast BBs. If you can afford a separate screening TF, it may include BBs that are not so fast and/or CAs along with CLs and DDs. They will usually intercept any surface TF attempting to intercept your carriers and if nothing else use up a lot of the enemy's ammo. Your screening TF should be "following" the CVTF by zero hexes. On occasion you might want to have the screen leading by one or two hexes in order that its float planes are searching ahead. The faster CV TF will still be able to use its speed to react towards or evade away even though it's "following" the screen. I've not yet ever done that, and any added complications to "follow" and "meet" to multi TF formations is problematic, and you may see bizaare results.

[btd64]

I have setup CV TF's to follow a SAG and had a second SAG follow the CV TF. I worked on the 2 or 3 times I used it....GP

[dcpollay]

Here's a related question: Functionally, what is the difference between placing your CVEs in a CV Escort TF and placing them directly in the invasion force? Is one advantageous over the other?

On one hand, it seems to me that in the invasion force, they could share escorts and AA. On the other hand, if in a separate TF, would they draw attacking aircraft away from the transports? And are CVEs always exempt from the "base hex - 1/2 flight" rule, or only if they are in a CV Escort TF?

[m10bob]

I like to put a CVE group(with at least 4 DE's as escort) patrolling the shipping lanes between Frisco and Pearl to protect the convoys from subs.
The bombers on the CVE are set for ASW missions..

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard

Here's a related question: Functionally, what is the difference between placing your CVEs in a CV Escort TF and placing them directly in the invasion force? Is one advantageous over the other?

On one hand, it seems to me that in the invasion force, they could share escorts and AA. On the other hand, if in a separate TF, would they draw attacking aircraft away from the transports? And are CVEs always exempt from the "base hex - 1/2 flight" rule, or only if they are in a CV Escort TF?

The advantages are your pilots will not suffer the long range morale attrition of the different hex.
The downside is the carrier will be target number one when the enemy arrives so have a solid CAP up.
I do use this tactic when possible but I try to have at least 2 CVE's when I can, and having one of them carrying nothing but fighters is a good thing.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard

Here's a related question: Functionally, what is the difference between placing your CVEs in a CV Escort TF and placing them directly in the invasion force? Is one advantageous over the other?

On one hand, it seems to me that in the invasion force, they could share escorts and AA. On the other hand, if in a separate TF, would they draw attacking aircraft away from the transports? And are CVEs always exempt from the "base hex - 1/2 flight" rule, or only if they are in a CV Escort TF?

None really, except for the safety factor. If a surface force gets in among your invasion fleet then the CVEs stand a very good chance to get blown to bits. However, I have done it when the occasion calls for it. CVEs always can put up a full complement of aircraft when in a base hex. I don't think it matters what sort of TF they are in. If you put old BBs in an invasion TF then then it is more likely that will draw most of the attacks. Seems like BBs rate a higher target preference over CVEs. Many Allied player piss away their old BBs in surface fights early in the campaign but this is there true calling. Upgrade them to the max and save them for your late war invasions.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: kip1213

Hello and merry Xmas. Which ships do u suggest to be put in a CV escort group, and does have to be is the same hex and or adjacent to ur carrier task force?

One real benefit to a CVE TF is they do not seem to react towards the enemy. I carelessly just formed them into CV TFs but after a few reaction disasters quickly learned that they actually do need to be in a CVE's TF. Do not ever mix them with fast CVs and CVLs as a TF can only go as fast as the slowest ship which makes them (CVs) more vulnerable in any sort of attack. I like six to eight CVEs in one force with half being fighters and the other half attack aircraft. I use DEs and DDs as escort but don't waste fast CLs or CAs on them. If I have an old BB to spare, I will slip it into the TF as well. They provide AA and draw a lot of the attacks away from the fragile CVEs. Don't think that 20 CVEs are an equal match for a stong CV TF. One torpedo or 1,000 bomb will put a CVE out of action while a big carrier can take a few hits and still put up a second strike. Use them the way they were used historically. And late in the war I use about a half a dozen as replenishment CVEs with the VR squadrons. They are actually a big help this way.

[HansBolter]

Carrier ops are reduced by 50% in port hexes. It used to be all coastal hexes but was changed to coastal port hexes.

If you are invading a port it is better to have your CVE in a separate TF one hex away rather than in the same TF as the invasion forces or a separate TF in the same hex as the invasion forces.

IE....if you want your carriers to operate at full effectiveness keep them out of port hexes for operations.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Carrier ops are reduced by 50% in port hexes. It used to be all coastal hexes but was changed to coastal port hexes.

If you are invading a port it is better to have your CVE in a separate TF one hex away rather than in the same TF as the invasion forces or a separate TF in the same hex as the invasion forces.

IE....if you want your carriers to operate at full effectiveness keep them out of port hexes for operations.

That's a negative Hans ol' buddy.[8|] CVE's do operate at 100% in a base hex, that's their vig' when supporting a landing.[:)]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Carrier ops are reduced by 50% in port hexes. It used to be all coastal hexes but was changed to coastal port hexes.

If you are invading a port it is better to have your CVE in a separate TF one hex away rather than in the same TF as the invasion forces or a separate TF in the same hex as the invasion forces.

IE....if you want your carriers to operate at full effectiveness keep them out of port hexes for operations.

That's a negative Hans ol' buddy.[8|] CVE's do operate at 100% in a base hex, that's their vig' when supporting a landing.[:)]

I think that applies with CVs as well, up and until you capture the port.

[rustysi]

I think that applies with CVs as well, up and until you capture the port.

Not according to the manual, in 7.2.1.13.2 on p167. Simple says "...search, CAP or strike Missions from a carrier in a base hex will only launch 50% of the normal amount...". Keep in mind that carriers are differentiated from escort carriers. I can't find the reference for the escorts operating at 100%, but its one I'm sure of from memory. I'll keep looking and post when I find it.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard

Here's a related question: Functionally, what is the difference between placing your CVEs in a CV Escort TF and placing them directly in the invasion force? Is one advantageous over the other?

On one hand, it seems to me that in the invasion force, they could share escorts and AA. On the other hand, if in a separate TF, would they draw attacking aircraft away from the transports? And are CVEs always exempt from the "base hex - 1/2 flight" rule, or only if they are in a CV Escort TF?

The main raison d'etre for the existence of the CVE Escort TF mission is to assist the computer AI in selecting and populating it's task forces. Otherwise it would tend to deploy CVEs inappropriately together with fast fleet CVs.

Alfred

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I think that applies with CVs as well, up and until you capture the port.

Not according to the manual, in 7.2.1.13.2 on p167. Simple says "...search, CAP or strike Missions from a carrier in a base hex will only launch 50% of the normal amount...". Keep in mind that carriers are differentiated from escort carriers. I can't find the reference for the escorts operating at 100%, but its one I'm sure of from memory. I'll keep looking and post when I find it.

Not according to the manual, in 7.2.1.13.2 on p167. Simple says "...search, CAP or strike Missions from a carrier in a base hex will only launch 50% of the normal amount...". Keep in mind that carriers are differentiated from escort carriers. I can't find the reference for the escorts operating at 100%, but its one I'm sure of from memory. I'll keep looking and post when I find it.



_____________________________

I don't think it applies to an enemy base. If you own the base, move your CVE support out one hex.

[geofflambert]

Sorry, I didn't read that carefully. Where does it say that CVs are differentiated from CVEs? And if that's so what happens if you mix them in one TF? (Not suggesting you should, unless maybe the CVs in question are reduced in speed due to damage).

[crsutton]

There is no difference in that you can put CVEs into a carrier TF and the only penalty would be that the TF would be slower and could suffer as a result of the TF's slower speed. Otherwise you can mix and match away. Don't have the game open but if I recall correctly you cannot put CVs or CVLs into an CVE Escort TF or in an amphibious TF but if you set up a carrier TF you can mix them. Although for reasons stated, I could not imagine why anyone would want to. You are correct that one useful use is to allow CVEs to escort already damaged carriers. So, yes it can be done.

However, CVs suffer a 50% reduction in air effectiveness if located in "any" base hex. CVEs do not suffer this penalty. The purpose was to reflect the room needed to maneuver and launch aircraft for the larger carriers, this problem would not change due to the ownership of the base.

[geofflambert]

I've never put CVEs in anything other than an Air Combat TF and had them follow the invasion TF. Never had problem 1. Am I missing something?