I'm new and I come bearing questions

[Anachro]

I was trying to test out idea of going torp heavy for PH attack while having a smaller KB for other ops

[Sardaukar]

Use of torpedoes or bombs in port attack is a dice roll, AFAIK.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I was trying to test out idea of going torp heavy for PH attack while having a smaller KB for other ops

One time when I started an AI game, I tried transferring some LBA torpedo bombers to the KB to boost the strike force. It didn't work very well - none of the extra groups launched. I ran the turn again (being against the AI, it was new results). Again, they didn't launch. So I ran it again... the third time, even fewer launched. This is just a few data points, but... I wouldn't bother trying it again.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I was trying to test out idea of going torp heavy for PH attack while having a smaller KB for other ops

One time when I started an AI game, I tried transferring some LBA torpedo bombers to the KB to boost the strike force. It didn't work very well - none of the extra groups launched. I ran the turn again (being against the AI, it was new results). Again, they didn't launch. So I ran it again... the third time, even fewer launched. This is just a few data points, but... I wouldn't bother trying it again.

You can overstack a carrier by up to 10% "without penalty", but even when not overstacked it is nearly impossible for a carrier to launch its full complement of planes in one strike.

That is why Nagumo had to break his PH strike into two waves. There was just not enough deck space nor crew to prep the aircraft simultaneously, while maintaining an ongoing CAP.

When the AI is deciding which aircraft will go in which wave of its launches, it will ignore the guest squadrons for the first strike, and if there isn't opportunity for a second strike the guests will sit out the battle. I have loaded up US carriers with a fifth squadron (Marine VF/VMSB, etc.) and they seem to operate with the main squadrons when they are fully carrier qualified (as opposed to carrier capable).

[Anachro]

I ran about 15 simulations of PH yesterday and today (as Japanese player). All were non-historical start (with 5 leaving orders as is to simulate the history start). In all those simulations, I think a BB only sunk once after a second-day KB attack. I believe the highest damage to any BB was around 60-65 system damage and 30-50 flooding. There were almost never any fires (maybe 0-10 pts of fire), even in the historically unaltered simulations. I should also mentioned that I never sank Repulse or Prince of Wales on any of those simulations, with orders unaltered for air power in that area.

Just ran a scenario simulation with historical first turn turned on. Similar results, although 1 BB managed to get up to 84 flooding. Again no fire points, etc. Task Force Z took minimal damage.

I should mention that I'm simulating this on DBB-Extended Map Scenario 28 Dec 7th start. Is it normal for these results to be so different from the historical result? Or am I doing something wrong? Mind you, many of these simulations were with unaltered orders. Others had minor changes, such as changing altitude of fighters in PH attack to not take so much flak, or lowering altitude of Kates for more effective torpedo attacks. In a few scenarios, I also altered fleet compositions, such as using 5 for PH attack and 1 for DEI.

1 time I even had full KB attack Manila, but I didn't sink anything in it till a second attack on 2nd turn. [&:][:(] This doesn't feel right...

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I was trying to test out idea of going torp heavy for PH attack while having a smaller KB for other ops

One time when I started an AI game, I tried transferring some LBA torpedo bombers to the KB to boost the strike force. It didn't work very well - none of the extra groups launched. I ran the turn again (being against the AI, it was new results). Again, they didn't launch. So I ran it again... the third time, even fewer launched. This is just a few data points, but... I wouldn't bother trying it again.

You can overstack a carrier by up to 10% "without penalty", but even when not overstacked it is nearly impossible for a carrier to launch its full complement of planes in one strike.

That is why Nagumo had to break his PH strike into two waves. There was just not enough deck space nor crew to prep the aircraft simultaneously, while maintaining an ongoing CAP.

When the AI is deciding which aircraft will go in which wave of its launches, it will ignore the guest squadrons for the first strike, and if there isn't opportunity for a second strike the guests will sit out the battle. I have loaded up US carriers with a fifth squadron (Marine VF/VMSB, etc.) and they seem to operate with the main squadrons when they are fully carrier qualified (as opposed to carrier capable).

In real life, yeah, the logistics of launching the entire complement for one strike was impossible at any kind of range. The game makes it possible, though.

In any case, I think I transferred the Vals off of Akagi and transferred 2 Kate units from Honshu to the ship. They didn't like to fly. I gave them good leaders, experimented with values, etc. I know there are multiple factors that can affect whether the group flies or not, and I'm pretty sure I'm aware of all of them... I don't think there was zero chance they would fly, but it certainly seemed to be low. And not worth the risk of the carrier(s) with extra planes not launching at all. I was curious if the carrier trained & capable vs. just carrier capable was making any difference there. All I know is that just launching the strike with the planes already on KB is good enough - going through the trouble to try to get extra planes is just not worth the headache [:'(].

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I ran about 15 simulations of PH yesterday and today (as Japanese player). All were non-historical start (with 5 leaving orders as is to simulate the history start). In all those simulations, I think a BB only sunk once after a second-day KB attack. I believe the highest damage to any BB was around 60-65 system damage and 30-50 flooding. There were almost never any fires (maybe 0-10 pts of fire), even in the historically unaltered simulations. I should also mentioned that I never sank Repulse or Prince of Wales on any of those simulations, with orders unaltered for air power in that area.

Just ran a scenario simulation with historical first turn turned on. Similar results, although 1 BB managed to get up to 84 flooding. Again no fire points, etc. Task Force Z took minimal damage.

I should mention that I'm simulating this on DBB-Extended Map Scenario 28 Dec 7th start. Is it normal for these results to be so different from the historical result? Or am I doing something wrong? Mind you, many of these simulations were with unaltered orders. Others had minor changes, such as changing altitude of fighters in PH attack to not take so much flak, or lowering altitude of Kates for more effective torpedo attacks. In a few scenarios, I also altered fleet compositions, such as using 5 for PH attack and 1 for DEI.

1 time I even had full KB attack Manila, but I didn't sink anything in it till a second attack on 2nd turn. [&:][:(] This doesn't feel right...

The Manila strikes must have had some really bad weather effects, and possibly heavier than normal CAP.

I seem to recall that DBB pioneered increased effectiveness of flak - and gave lots of units more flak guns. That alone would cause many bombers to miss their aim, even if not shot down.

[witpaemail]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I ran about 15 simulations of PH yesterday and today (as Japanese player). All were non-historical start (with 5 leaving orders as is to simulate the history start). In all those simulations, I think a BB only sunk once after a second-day KB attack. I believe the highest damage to any BB was around 60-65 system damage and 30-50 flooding. There were almost never any fires (maybe 0-10 pts of fire), even in the historically unaltered simulations. I should also mentioned that I never sank Repulse or Prince of Wales on any of those simulations, with orders unaltered for air power in that area.

Just ran a scenario simulation with historical first turn turned on. Similar results, although 1 BB managed to get up to 84 flooding. Again no fire points, etc. Task Force Z took minimal damage.

I should mention that I'm simulating this on DBB-Extended Map Scenario 28 Dec 7th start. Is it normal for these results to be so different from the historical result? Or am I doing something wrong? Mind you, many of these simulations were with unaltered orders. Others had minor changes, such as changing altitude of fighters in PH attack to not take so much flak, or lowering altitude of Kates for more effective torpedo attacks. In a few scenarios, I also altered fleet compositions, such as using 5 for PH attack and 1 for DEI.

1 time I even had full KB attack Manila, but I didn't sink anything in it till a second attack on 2nd turn. [&:][:(] This doesn't feel right...

Cant answer about that scenario, but in scen 1 or 2, yeah a non-historical start usually results in less damage than average for a historical start. Not to say it doesnt achieve more damage than historical, just seems to me that the damage is usually less. One reason why I (personally) usually do a historical first turn.

If you ran that many tests and got those results, then yeah, I would say its something in the scenario. But again, I have never played it, Im going off what you reported.

As for torp bombers. Strike altitude means nothing. They always attack at 200 feet regardless of the strike altitude (when they carry torps that is, if they carry bombs they attack at strike altitude).

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Anachro

One additional question

Do people leave their subs on computer control or tend to control them themselves?

Only one other poster touched on this so I will give a more definite opinion .... DO NOT let the AI control your subs! It does a terrible job with placements, patrol zone layouts and sub commanders.

Subs can be enormously useful if you use them in conjunction with your strategies and give them good commanders. Do not expect much at first from the US fleet subs because of the dud torpedoes, but they can find enemy TFs and help prevent surprises. It is not onerous to manage subs as you typically only need to pay attention to them a couple of times a month.

+1 Definitely set your own patrol zones. If you leave it to the AI you get Allied Subs circling the Japanese Home Islands in 1942 when 90% of their torpedoes are duds, and with Japaense subs, they like to go sight-seeing at The Great Barrier Reef.

Since I play mostly as the IJN, my advice on sub patrols for the IJN is to set them in places that you know convoys will be passing through. Also, in the opening moves, try to place some around Java, Borneo (particularly Tarakan and Balikpapan). Place them in narrow places where you know that Allied ships will pass fleeing from the PI and other places.

[witpaemail]

+2

And keep them in DEEP water hexes. Esp allied subs. The allies have almost no chance of losing a sub in deep water.

Flip side of the coin, as the Jap, you want to keep your supply convoys in shallow water as much as you can. If the allies come in after you, THEN you got a shot to kill them. And the Jap can be quite effective at killing subs in shallow water.

[Anachro]

Is there a way to automate a supply/resources/oil/fuel convoy once initially setup to continue doing such a run in perpetuity (or until out of fuel, etc.)?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Is there a way to automate a supply/resources/oil/fuel convoy once initially setup to continue doing such a run in perpetuity (or until out of fuel, etc.)?

Yes, you set the TF to Continuous Supply.

You do this near the center of the TF interface where you have yellow clickable text defaulted to Player Control.

Clicking that text will toggle through three choices: Player Control, Computer Control, or CS Convoy.

Don't forget to set your refueling options and click the box to use the same waypoints on return trips (if you are routing manually to avoid threats).

[rustysi]

Don't forget to set your refueling options

I could be doing something wrong, but in my experience CS convoys fully refuel at both ends. I have also seen mention of them not refueling if way-points are set. As I don't use many CS convoys and those that I do are short routes I haven't noticed this. One other thing I have noticed about CS convoys is that if there are not enough items for them to pick up at either base they will sail partially filled. Oh, and realize you can set them up to carry cargo both ways. For example, ship out supplies, pickup resources.

[witpaemail]

You can turn the TF to "do not refuel". With that on, you wont fuel at either end. There are times when that is handy.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: witpaemail

You can turn the TF to "do not refuel". With that on, you wont fuel at either end. There are times when that is handy.

Yeah, but the problem with that is then I have to monitor the TF's for fuel, when to me the whole idea of a CS TF is to set it and forget it.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: witpaemail
You can turn the TF to "do not refuel". With that on, you wont fuel at either end. There are times when that is handy.

This is incorrect. "Do not refuel" forbids refuelling at destination base, but CS convoy will still refuel at home base. Sometimes this is mildly annoying like in Hokkaido-Ominate route where you don't want them to refuel at Hokkaido which is short of fuel

[urtel]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: witpaemail

You can turn the TF to "do not refuel". With that on, you wont fuel at either end. There are times when that is handy.

Yeah, but the problem with that is then I have to monitor the TF's for fuel, when to me the whole idea of a CS TF is to set it and forget it.

I think CS TF will refuel in Home port and it will not refuel at destination or potential ports at way points if it is set to "do not refuel"...
if my memory not trick me all mine CS convoys from SF to PH work with "do not refuel" option and i m pretty sure i m not manually refuel them...

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: witpaemail
You can turn the TF to "do not refuel". With that on, you wont fuel at either end. There are times when that is handy.

This is incorrect. "Do not refuel" forbids refuelling at destination base, but CS convoy will still refuel at home base. Sometimes this is mildly annoying like in Hokkaido-Ominate route where you don't want them to refuel at Hokkaido which is short of fuel

Wait this is good to know and I will have to try it. At least then I can stop drawing fuel from Hokkaido, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

[Anachro]

That is good to know. I had all my CS convoys set to "minimal refuel" last night. Luckily, they haven't reached their destinations yet.

[Anachro]

I'm noticing on some convoys I have setup in a PBEM that are currently underway that I cannot set them to Continuous Supply. Rather, the only two options are Human or Computer control.

Are there restrictions on when I can set a TF (cargo, etc.) to continuous supply?