CV task force composition

[Chiteng]

I dont understand why the people that designed the game didnt at least LOOK at the USN actual force compositions.

4 CV in the core 12 flak intensive ships surrounding them

and up to 24 'picket' ships external to that,
normally however 24 ships total.

I am NOT refering to Surface Combat task force, I mean
CV task force. The facts are, one size does NOT fit all.

[pasternakski]

So, where does this revelatory information come from? It wasn't until very late 1943 that the US even had four fleet carriers to operate with in one theater at the same time. Most often, they had to scrape by with whatever was available, usually two (Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz), three when lucky (Midway), and one when needed (Enterprise at N.B. of Guadalcanal).

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I dont understand why the people that designed the game didnt at least LOOK at the USN actual force compositions.

4 CV in the core 12 flak intensive ships surrounding them

and up to 24 'picket' ships external to that,
normally however 24 ships total.

I am NOT refering to Surface Combat task force, I mean
CV task force. The facts are, one size does NOT fit all.

I know that didn't take effect until later in the war, but at the Battle of Santa Cruz(26 Oct 42), the CV TF 61 under RADM Kinkaid had 23 ships in the TF:

2 CVs
1 BB
3 CAs
3 CLAA
14 DDs

Of course, the Hornet was sunk in the battle.....

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by pasternakski
So, where does this revelatory information come from? It wasn't until very late 1943 that the US even had four fleet carriers to operate with in one theater at the same time. Most often, they had to scrape by with whatever was available, usually two (Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz), three when lucky (Midway), and one when needed (Enterprise at N.B. of Guadalcanal).

Morrison, he uses the example of the Invasion of Saipan
and how the CV tf were arrainged.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Morrison, he uses the example of the Invasion of Saipan
and how the CV tf were arrainged.

So, what does a 1944 campaign have to do with the design of UV, which covers the war in the South Pacific theater from May, 1942 through December, 1943?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by pasternakski
So, what does a 1944 campaign have to do with the design of UV, which covers the war in the South Pacific theater from May, 1942 through December, 1943?

I guess in your mind Pasternaski, none.

But in mine, it matters =)

[Mr.Frag]

By the very end of 43, the USN had finally figured out what a CV was and how to properly deploy them as a weapon. Prior to that, no massed CV use occured at all. Japan on the other hand seemed to grasp the concept all the way back to the start of the war with their attack on Pearl followed by the failure at Midway.

UV ends right about when the USN learned how to fight the war with the new super weapon, and doctrine has never been the same since. One of the funny twists in UV is without Midway, the USN gets to play the entire game with completely unhistorical tactics (land based bombers mass shipping kills and mass CV tactics) which didn't exist at the time.

[brent_2]

yep - we get to play with the benefit of hindsight

Chiteng - I guess the question ought to be - how do the TF compositions for a '44 campaign relate to a game set in an earlier time-frame?

For all - What was the doctrine used by the USN during the game period? ( I don't know )

Imagine what the game would be like if we were not allowed to create task forces etc outside the doctrine of the era....it might be more realistic, but would it be fun?

[Mr.Frag]

I posted a link once upon a time to a report done by the USN in 1946 about it's successes and failures in the Pacific. I can't find it again, but it was a great read. You might have some luck going through the USN website, looking through their history.

Basically, prior to the large massing of CV's in November '43 (just when our game ends), the USN pretty much didn't know how to use a CV, clinging to the older proven methods of the Battle Wagons ruling the seas. The concept of combined arms was not a known thing pre-'44, and it shows quite well in the history, where supporting of landings and advances (island hopping) was bogged down due to the navy simply not being able to coordinate or understand the task at hand properly.

It was a brand new form of war and everyone had to forget the old ways and relearn how. Some of those lessons were quite painful. Japan learned this concept of combined arms well, but had another problem, no assets to combine

[JohnK]

Relating to wargames is how much you force players to do stupid things that were done historically.

As the US found out, the bigger the CV task force, in general, the better; the early war individual TFs were pretty stupid.

So should UV force the US to use individual carrier TFs?

There's always a fine line in these things, and I'd say the game shouldn't. We COULD have had big CV TFs and I don't think it would have required massive differences in training and doctrine.

On the flip side UV does basically nothing to simulate Japanese Army/Navy non-cooperation and I suspect players would wig out if it did.

The game allows players to avoid the stupidity of this non-cooperation; to accurate simulate it you'd need TWO players for the Japanese side, preferably people who hate each other in real life.

One reason I disagree with the AAA falloff for large TFs beyond 12 ships....there wasn't one in reality.

[Veer]

Well, Uptill 1943 US CV's usually operated independetly of one-another. As in they were usually in their own TF. This can best be seen in the Battle for the coral sea where the 2 USN carriers were in seperate TF's. Even at Midway the 3 USN CV's were in 2 TF's. It wasn't untill latter that CV's began operating togther in single TF's as a part of naval doctrine.

The Japs on the other hand usually put most of the their fleet carriers together. They were nototrious for splitting their escort carriers off into other task forces however.

I don't think it's so much of a problem in UV. You can put your CV's in different TF's if you want and thus if one TF gets attacked and hit, your other TF will be safe (not really realistic, but serves the purpose). On the other hand, the reason why most people put all thei carriers in one mega TF is so as not to run the risk of them getting split up by the 'react' feature.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by JohnK
Relating to wargames is how much you force players to do stupid things that were done historically.

As the US found out, the bigger the CV task force, in general, the better; the early war individual TFs were pretty stupid.

So should UV force the US to use individual carrier TFs?

There's always a fine line in these things, and I'd say the game shouldn't. We COULD have had big CV TFs and I don't think it would have required massive differences in training and doctrine.

On the flip side UV does basically nothing to simulate Japanese Army/Navy non-cooperation and I suspect players would wig out if it did.

The game allows players to avoid the stupidity of this non-cooperation; to accurate simulate it you'd need TWO players for the Japanese side, preferably people who hate each other in real life.

One reason I disagree with the AAA falloff for large TFs beyond 12 ships....there wasn't one in reality.

You stole my thunder....it is bad enough that they are penalties for Sub wolf packs. I like this part-The game allows players to avoid the stupidity of this non-cooperation; to accurate simulate it you'd need TWO players for the Japanese side, preferably people who hate each other in real life. . A very very good point.
So the question is.....do you make a game that only allows you to use the tactics/strategy for the period......or do you make a game that allows the player to form the tactics/strategy ?????

[Fred98]

"do you make a game that only allows you to use the tactics/strategy for the period......or"

My answer is always Yes.

The intention should always be to provide the feel for the issues of the day.

But I have no problem if there is an option to change somthing. The best example is: If "A" has certain info he will do such and such - as would you and I - but historicaly he had different info and therefore did somthing else.

But imagine if he had gambled and made the first choice. Either a great victory or a horrible defeat. And the player should have the same choice.


If we knew in 1903 what we know now, the Wright brothers would have invented the 747.

[Admiral_Arctic]

We could have the computer do the orders for the Japanese Army forces without letting the Navy human player know what orders are issued. No navy planes or ships at army bases. The army unloading ships with their troops on board.

[Sardaukar]

Maybe there could be option button like "historical doctrine".
That'd mean to basicly program the game almost twice..so, I don't know if it's feasible.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Joe 98
"do you make a game that only allows you to use the tactics/strategy for the period......or"

My answer is always Yes.

The intention should always be to provide the feel for the issues of the day.

But I have no problem if there is an option to change somthing. The best example is: If "A" has certain info he will do such and such - as would you and I - but historicaly he had different info and therefore did somthing else.

But imagine if he had gambled and made the first choice. Either a great victory or a horrible defeat. And the player should have the same choice.


If we knew in 1903 what we know now, the Wright brothers would have invented the 747.

I prefer to be given the same tools as they had back in whatever time period your game is set in, and construct my strategy/tactics the way I feel will win the battle rather than be forced to follow some per-ordained battle plan. So long as the weapons and tools are true in their limitations/abilities of the day then I am a happy chappy.