Air Combat TF Size

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

Snigbert
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Worcester, MA. USA

Air Combat TF Size

Post by Snigbert »

Just wondering, how many carriers do you put into your Air Combat TF, and why?

Would you rather have two tfs with two CVs each, or one tf with four CVs?
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

Post by Mr.Frag »

It is very dependant on the situation. If you know that the other side has lost CV's, you can split things up, but if you are in the situation of running into 7 japan CV's still, you want to keep your 4 glued together with every AA gun you can stick in the TF to deal with leakers that get through your CAP.

Running 30% cap with MORE CV's keeps fatigue much lower then running 2 separate groups of CV's at 50% CAP. With 6 CV's grouped you may even be able to back down to 20% cap, which means fatigue will be almost down to 10% average which means when they do mix it up, they will be in great shape.

The price (risk) is a single bad weather glitch and you have no CV's left...
User avatar
Drex
Posts: 2512
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Chico,california

Post by Drex »

i've got a Japanese opponent who has 7 CVs ( in one TF)out hunting for my 3 Cvs. I'm going to keep them together in one TF no matter what.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5127
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Post by Tanaka »

Originally posted by Drex
i've got a Japanese opponent who has 7 CVs ( in one TF)out hunting for my 3 Cvs. I'm going to keep them together in one TF no matter what.


A hunting we will go...a hunting we will go...hi ho the merrio a hunting we will go!!!!

Banzai!!! ;)
Image
User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

Post by Fred98 »

To me “fatigue” is a word that falls under “F” in the dictionary; otherwise I have no use for it.

I prefer to have 2 TF each of 2 CVs but if my opponent puts his CVs together I need to do likewise.

To me there are too many CVs in the game. The longest scenario is not historical as it assumes there was no Midway and all the carriers used there are available for the South West Pacific.

The game should be “fight you way up the island chain – with supplies and air support both in short supply”.

Instead, the game is “Get your Tiger tanks of the sea and line them up against my opponents Tiger tanks of the sea”. Thank goodness for the scenario editor.

Without the scenario editor, B17s, CVs and Subs would dominate the game.

Currently I am playing “Turning the Tide” with no CVs and no battleships in a PBEM game. Here are the problems I am encountering:

It is hard to provide air cover for transports
It is hard to resupply outposts.
It is hard to make an infantry attack without adequate supplies or bombers to soften up the enemy.
Surface fleets have spectacular but inconclusive battles especially around Guadacanal.
All great fun!

Does all this sound familiar?
User avatar
Drex
Posts: 2512
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Chico,california

Post by Drex »

Joe you are bringing up the old "historical" versus "recreational " viewpoint and there is no argument for or against it as it is a personal preference. No I don't like being chased by a TF full of CVs but its a long battle and I can still turn things around and it tests my ability. A good player can still win by using historical methods but I don't believe in wearing history as a straitjacket.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

Post by Fred98 »

“but I don't believe in wearing history as a straitjacket”

Wow I sure agree with you there.

But it seems to me that the standard scenario ought to be historical and there be an option to be a-historical.

My view is that the game company has succeeded if you get the feel for the action being depicted.
User avatar
ADavidB
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Air Combat TF Size

Post by ADavidB »

Originally posted by Snigbert
Just wondering, how many carriers do you put into your Air Combat TF, and why?

Would you rather have two tfs with two CVs each, or one tf with four CVs?


Instead of thinking first of what might be the best defense against the enemy, why not try thinking like the commanders of the time and use the carriers in support of your offensive strategies. Thus, if you have a strategic reason to split your carriers, do so. Carrier TFs are offensive weapons and best used as such - the commanders at the time didn't send them back home at the first sign of an enemy scout plane. Your enemy has limited resources and must react to your plans, as well as you to his.

Sure, the popular non-historical scenarios in the game can allow the Japanese player to amass huge carrrier fleets, but that's a situation of choice. If you play any of the post-Midway historical scenarios it becomes a lot more interesting to use your carrier TFs in a more historic manner.

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi
User avatar
ADavidB
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by ADavidB »

Originally posted by Joe 98

To me there are too many CVs in the game. The longest scenario is not historical as it assumes there was no Midway and all the carriers used there are available for the South West Pacific.

The game should be “fight you way up the island chain – with supplies and air support both in short supply”.

Instead, the game is “Get your Tiger tanks of the sea and line them up against my opponents Tiger tanks of the sea”. Thank goodness for the scenario editor.

Without the scenario editor, B17s, CVs and Subs would dominate the game.



Why not try the post-Midway scenarios instead of fooling with the scenarios. Sure, a Japanese player is at a disadvantage, but no worse than historical. The reality of history is that the Allies creamed the Japanese in that theater, and left them huddled and helpless in their main bases. For a Japanese player in the game, the challenge is to play the strategy differently so that he is huddled and helpless in a few more bases than happened historically. If the points system of the game has been balanced properly, anything better than the historical outcome ought to be a victory for the Japanese player.

Dave Baranyi
User avatar
Luskan
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Down Under

Post by Luskan »

Originally posted by Tanaka
A hunting we will go...a hunting we will go...hi ho the merrio a hunting we will go!!!!

Banzai!!! ;)


Relax Drex - here is how you solve the problem. When Tanaka goes wild with his super CV group down to Noumea (as he is against me), he has caught some APs unloading and sunk them, sure - and he caught a surface combat TF and sank them all too (out of port).

He's got about 30 of my ships sunk, while I'm yet yo score - but his consistant port raids at Noumea are costing his CVs aircraft - over a hundred so far. And although he's crippled 20 transports and 15 warships - they all just went straight back to pearl.

I don't really need them - not until Dec 42! In the meantime, I'm going to bleed him slowly!
With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?ImageImage
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

One thing to keep in mind is that 4 CVs in 1 TF are more vulnerable than 2 CVs in two TFs.

As the USN, I keep my CVs in TFs of 10 ships, with 2-3 CVs a piece, accompanied by at least one surface TF.

10 ship TFs are more difficult to spot, and I have surprised PBEM opponents on a couple of occaisons.

When the airstrikes come, they can't hit all your CVs in one strike. With 3 or more TFs in the same hex, the strikes willl be distributed around, so there is less of a chance of all your CVs getting taken out in the morning, leaving no CAP for the afternoon.

As for coordinating strikes, I have had coordinated strikes between multiple TFs. And AA effectiveness is begins to lessen at 11 ships, and is marginal past 15.

Seeing as the vulnerability is getting all your CVs sunk in one strike, multiple TFs is the way to go.
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
Drex
Posts: 2512
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Chico,california

Post by Drex »

Originally posted by Luskan
Relax Drex - here is how you solve the problem. When Tanaka goes wild with his super CV group down to Noumea (as he is against me), he has caught some APs unloading and sunk them, sure - and he caught a surface combat TF and sank them all too (out of port).

He's got about 30 of my ships sunk, while I'm yet yo score - but his consistant port raids at Noumea are costing his CVs aircraft - over a hundred so far. And although he's crippled 20 transports and 15 warships - they all just went straight back to pearl.

I don't really need them - not until Dec 42! In the meantime, I'm going to bleed him slowly!
Its good to know I'm not the only one that's being hit by this Juggernaut. So far I've been able to elude his Killer Tf but there is no way my transports can out run him. Like you said I don't need them now anyhow.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Yamamoto
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.

Post by Yamamoto »

Originally posted by Luskan
. And although he's crippled 20 transports and 15 warships - they all just went straight back to pearl.


That's why I think that ships with and flooding damage shouldn't be allowed to be teleported back to Pearl. No real commander would do so.

Yamamoto
Full Moon
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:52 am
Location: Texas

Post by Full Moon »

Originally posted by denisonh
One thing to keep in mind is that 4 CVs in 1 TF are more vulnerable than 2 CVs in two TFs.

As the USN, I keep my CVs in TFs of 10 ships, with 2-3 CVs a piece, accompanied by at least one surface TF.

10 ship TFs are more difficult to spot, and I have surprised PBEM opponents on a couple of occaisons.

When the airstrikes come, they can't hit all your CVs in one strike. With 3 or more TFs in the same hex, the strikes willl be distributed around, so there is less of a chance of all your CVs getting taken out in the morning, leaving no CAP for the afternoon.

As for coordinating strikes, I have had coordinated strikes between multiple TFs. And AA effectiveness is begins to lessen at 11 ships, and is marginal past 15.

Seeing as the vulnerability is getting all your CVs sunk in one strike, multiple TFs is the way to go.

Very enlightening post denisonh.
So are these true?

1) The possiblity of detecting a TF is determined by the number of ships in a TF not by the number of ships in a hex. So, having 10 ships each in two TF and a TF follows the other TF lessens the possiblity of detection than having a 20 ship TF.

2) Two 10 ship TFs in a hex is more effective in AA than a 20 ship TF in a hex, becuase of the AA penalty applied.

3) The effectiveness of CAP is same in below two cases.
a. Having two air TF in a hex. Each TF has 3 CVs.
b. Only one air TF in a hex. The TF has 6 CVs.
"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."
Georges Clemenceau
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

Not to sure about the mechanics of naval search, but I know that I will often move the TFs in seperate hexes well way from the battle area to mask my movement.

As I approach the engagment area, then I will concentrate them.

I have achieved surprise on opponents at least 3 times in my PBEM games. Total suprise twice, which may have been more of a function of my opponent's search aircraft (or lack there of).

No more than a 15 ship TF is a good rule that I follow. The manual makes it clear TFs "that consist of more than 15 ships suffer diminishing returns in effectiveness defending themselves against air attack and fighting in surface battles." I have no reason to believe otherwise.

As for the AA, a 15 ship TF will have better AA than a 10 ship TF, but if those 5 are DDs, how much better is it? (Later in the game the US AA gets better and has more capital ships, but initially, the DDs have low AA and there are fewer capital ships).

A TF with 2-3 CVs, 3-4 CA/CLs and 4-5 DDs has a good AA rating. The remaining CA/CLs are in surface combat TFs.

And as for CAP, absolutely no difference, as it is all combined in the hex.

Being harder to track down and harder to kill are important for the US early in SC#17 to survive. Smaller TFs are no longer necessary later in the game, but I still go with multiple CV TFs to minimize vulnerability.

And as a point of operation, I will often set the 2 CV TFs to follow the surface TF. Keeps them from doing the 1 hex advance and I only have to order one TF around..
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Originally posted by Yamamoto
That's why I think that ships with and flooding damage shouldn't be allowed to be teleported back to Pearl. No real commander would do so.

Yamamoto


Yes but in real life there would be no "medieval" sieges of Noumea either. In real life Allies would pull all their vulnerable ships and transports to, say, Sydney, or Auckland, and there would be no new ships/materiel arriving to (besieged) Noumea to be slaughtered either.

So I think it is perfectly fair to "teleport" ships in "siege" situations. In regular situations I generally wait for flood damage to be repaired before I send ships back to Japan or PH.

O.
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5127
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Post by Tanaka »

Originally posted by Yamamoto
That's why I think that ships with and flooding damage shouldn't be allowed to be teleported back to Pearl. No real commander would do so.

Yamamoto


Yes I totally agree. I am hoping that WITP will address this so you cant click a button and then your fleets disappear and are automatically wisked away to safety. Totally unrealistic. I want to be able to finish them off!!! :rolleyes:
Image
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5127
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Post by Tanaka »

Originally posted by Luskan
Relax Drex - here is how you solve the problem. When Tanaka goes wild with his super CV group down to Noumea (as he is against me), he has caught some APs unloading and sunk them, sure - and he caught a surface combat TF and sank them all too (out of port).

He's got about 30 of my ships sunk, while I'm yet yo score - but his consistant port raids at Noumea are costing his CVs aircraft - over a hundred so far. And although he's crippled 20 transports and 15 warships - they all just went straight back to pearl.

I don't really need them - not until Dec 42! In the meantime, I'm going to bleed him slowly!


hehe yes well i am still going to have some fun in the meantime hehe :D

CHARRRRRGEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!
Image
Nimits
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Nimits »

What I want to know, is how come everyone plays scenario 17 as opposed to 16 (or whatever the historical grand campaign is). Even if we accept the fact that Midway did not happen, 17 and 19 are pure fancy, as the US would under no circumstances have tried a campaign in the South Pacific in the face of an intact Mobile Fleet. Especially with 2.30, the IJN does have chance at winning the historical campaign, while 17 and 19 are darn near impossible to win even against the AI.
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

Originally posted by Nimits
What I want to know, is how come everyone plays scenario 17 as opposed to 16 (or whatever the historical grand campaign is). Even if we accept the fact that Midway did not happen, 17 and 19 are pure fancy, as the US would under no circumstances have tried a campaign in the South Pacific in the face of an intact Mobile Fleet. Especially with 2.30, the IJN does have chance at winning the historical campaign, while 17 and 19 are darn near impossible to win even against the AI.


SC#17 is winnable for the USN. Very much so IMHO.

And SC#16 is a losing proposition for the IJN. No chance against a good USN player.

So, if you want to play a PBEM game that will last 6 months or more, play one in which both sides have a reasonable chance at winning. SC #17.

I am playing a SC#19 PBEM started under version 2.3, with the IJN player at 120% committment, and it is tough for the USN.

Why, because it is fun.

And I do not believe that the US would abandon the theater and risk losing communications with Australia, which makes SC#17 plausible (SC#19, is not as plausible, but interesting nonetheless). What makes you believe that would be the case?
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”