CV TF Optimal Size

[ringerthrawn]

I did a search and came back with zilch...

Was there ever a consensus on the optimal size of a CV TF? I assume that putting 25 CV/CVL in the same TF incurs some stacking penalty, but is there a recommended formula (CV to BB to escort ratio for example) for making the ideal CV TF size?

[Lokasenna]

The penalties on coordination are covered in the manual. It is based on the number of aircraft in the TF, and the penalty is not a sure thing - it is simply that you suffer a doubled chance for your strike to splinter and not be coordinated. That chance is based on various factors, several of which are under your control, such as air group and TF leaders. For the Allies, it starts at a lower number and goes up as the war moves on. For Japan, it is the same as the Allies in 1944 and onwards - more than 200 aircraft incurs the possible penalty.

However, if you see enough CV strikes, you'll notice that in most cases TFs with 201+ aircraft function just fine.

Diminishing returns on AA also begin after 15 ships, so take that into account as well.

[Admiral DadMan]

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).

[cohimbra]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

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).

What rnd mean?

[Admiral DadMan]

rnd= randomly generated number- i.e. a die roll. rnd (100) is a range from 0-99.

[geofflambert]

If you're the Allied Player: thru '42 at least only 1 CV to a TF. Add a couple CA's a CL and 8 to 12 DDs and you're good. If you have fast BBs 2 in a screening TF with a CL and some DDs is a good idea. Once you have CVs coming out of your ears I like 2 CVs and 1 CVL plus adequate escort. If you're in a carrier battle and you have multiple CV TFs in a hex the enemy is likely to pick one of them and concentrate on that. If they're not in the same hex but within range of the enemy it will dilute their attacks. I like to keep them together though. CVE's go ahead and put them in mobs with some DDs and maybe a CL with a separate CA screening TF.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If you're the Allied Player: thru '42 at least only 1 CV to a TF. Add a couple CA's a CL and 8 to 12 DDs and you're good. If you have fast BBs 2 in a screening TF with a CL and some DDs is a good idea. Once you have CVs coming out of your ears I like 2 CVs and 1 CVL plus adequate escort. If you're in a carrier battle and you have multiple CV TFs in a hex the enemy is likely to pick one of them and concentrate on that. If they're not in the same hex but within range of the enemy it will dilute their attacks. I like to keep them together though. CVE's go ahead and put them in mobs with some DDs and maybe a CL with a separate CA screening TF.

And I of course completely disagree with this post.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: ringerthrawn

I did a search and came back with zilch...

Was there ever a consensus on the optimal size of a CV TF? I assume that putting 25 CV/CVL in the same TF incurs some stacking penalty, but is there a recommended formula (CV to BB to escort ratio for example) for making the ideal CV TF size?

In addition to the coordination penalties mentioned, you need to consider, at least, fuel strategy vis a vis how you're going to use them in this op (DDs can eat up your reserves), AA coverage, and for sure collision chances. The more you gots the more you cans bump.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: ringerthrawn

I did a search and came back with zilch...

Was there ever a consensus on the optimal size of a CV TF? I assume that putting 25 CV/CVL in the same TF incurs some stacking penalty, but is there a recommended formula (CV to BB to escort ratio for example) for making the ideal CV TF size?

In addition to the coordination penalties mentioned, you need to consider, at least, fuel strategy vis a vis how you're going to use them in this op (DDs can eat up your reserves), AA coverage, and for sure collision chances. The more you gots the more you cans bump.

I'm agreeing with what you're saying, smaller TFs are better, but there's only so much escort to go around and by '44 or before you have to break them up into chunks.

[geofflambert]

Are you saying 8-12 DDs are too many?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: ringerthrawn

I did a search and came back with zilch...

Was there ever a consensus on the optimal size of a CV TF? I assume that putting 25 CV/CVL in the same TF incurs some stacking penalty, but is there a recommended formula (CV to BB to escort ratio for example) for making the ideal CV TF size?

In addition to the coordination penalties mentioned, you need to consider, at least, fuel strategy vis a vis how you're going to use them in this op (DDs can eat up your reserves), AA coverage, and for sure collision chances. The more you gots the more you cans bump.

I'm agreeing with what you're saying, smaller TFs are better, but there's only so much escort to go around and by '44 or before you have to break them up into chunks.

And I was disagreeing that 1 CV per TF in 1942 is smart. It's usually fatal. As Lokasenna says, the coordination penalty is a thing, but it's not that big a thing. In 1942 your #1 issue is fleet defense, not striking power. If you can strike, great. But better to keep the hulls for later after upgrades and far better planes.

Me, I usually just keep the CV crews playing baseball until they can defend themselves.

[geofflambert]

Let's crunch the numbers, if it's '44 and you're the USN this is what I recommend: 2 x CV, 1 x CVL, 2 x CA, 1 x CL, 8 - 12 x DD.

Can you put up your rec in similar format?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Let's crunch the numbers, if it's '44 and you're the USN this is what I recommend: 2 x CV, 1 x CVL, 2 x CA, 1 x CL, 8 - 12 x DD.

Can you put up your rec in similar format?

I could, but Lokasenna takes notes. [8D]

More like 5 CV, 1 fast BB, 2 CA, 6-8 good ASW DDs.

Some of the CVs probably don't have any TBs. Extra fighter squadron instead.

[geofflambert]

Are you telling us you're playing the IJN side? That would be new wouldn't it? The only problem I have is putting a BB in there. Until the Iowas they would likely slow it down. Also if you have multiple TFs present having a separate BB screening TF covers all (in most cases). The USN using POW and Repulse early on is not objectionable to me and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start adding up all the help the US gives the UK in every form. But I would still use them as a separate screening force.

[geofflambert]

Let me say this, CVs best defense against surface TFs is their speed. Don't put slower ships in their TF no matter what type they are if you can avoid it.

[geofflambert]

The Japanese can sometimes put BBs with their CVs because some of their CVs aren't very fast. For the USN even the Alabama's are dead weight. When you have some Iowas go ahead.

[BillBrown]

In 44, 4 X CV, 2 X CVL, 2 X CLAA, 4 X CA, 8 - 10 X DDs

[Mike Solli]

Per the norm around here, ask 20 people and get 21 different answers. [:D]

[Lokasenna]

I favor a higher concentration of CVs/CVLs in my TFs, as it frees up escorts to perform other roles - surface interdiction, bombardment, amphib escort, etc.

In 1944, I've been running 3 CV/2 CVL as the Allies. This will grow later when I get more hulls, probably to 4-5 CV and 3-4 CVL per TF. It just depends. But if you're going to go over the limit, you may as well keep going - there's no additional penalty for being over 400 planes in 1944. And it's called a penalty, but it's not actually a penalty in itself: it is a doubled chance of experiencing a penalty. It's not guaranteed.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Are you telling us you're playing the IJN side? That would be new wouldn't it? The only problem I have is putting a BB in there. Until the Iowas they would likely slow it down. Also if you have multiple TFs present having a separate BB screening TF covers all (in most cases). The USN using POW and Repulse early on is not objectionable to me and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start adding up all the help the US gives the UK in every form. But I would still use them as a separate screening force.

A fast BB is worth the minor speed trade-off for AA numbers and torpedo magnetability. Two are better. Also a fuel bunker for DDs if needed in emergency.

I don't like to depend on follow commands with TF CO variability and react code. I like my Air TFs to be independent. If there's a Surface TF along it has a different job than riding herd on carriers.