Carriers won't launch

[John B.]

Lowpe, Anarch, Rustyi thanks for the very helpful advice! My carriers finally caught up with the DD TF and sank 4 out of 6. That was good enough for me. I'll take all of your advice to heart for future strikes!!

[John B.]

Also thanks to APbarog, BBfanboy & Canoerebel!!

[John B.]

It's happening again! Many bad words!!!! The KB is just a couple of hexes away from the CVE TF. There is no bad weather in either hex. And, I've noted the actual weather. I have two CV TFs with the best Japanese carrier TF commanders in charge. The planes are all set at ranges of 7 or 8. There is LBA detection and carrier search detection (for some reason the carrier search squadron took off but no one else did). If my planes did not want to attack the CV TF that was right next door the TF up to the north is full of AMCs.

[John B.]

Here is the actual reported composition of the allied TF.

[John B.]

I took a number of suggestions to heart, so, for example, you can see that the Amagi is all Amagi squadrons.

[John B.]

Ooops, here you go.

[John B.]

Certainly set on anti-naval at a range of 7.

[John B.]

And a very good Japanese TF commander for air ops.

Honestly, I've played the allies in three campaign games and never once did their CVs fail to launch an airstrike against ships in range. IN this game Scott has never moved carriers near me and they failed to launch a strike.

It cannot always be that just in this game (and only for the Japanese) that unseen and urecorded bad weather stops my strikes no matter how lucrative the target. If there is not some glitch then what am I do wrong over and over again?

[John B.]

BTW, I checked with Scott, he said he only had fighters and squadrons dedicated to search on his carriers so at least there is a reason for his carriers to not attack (but, of course, this has not been an allied problem since they have NEVER been close and not attacked). Is there a Joe Btfsplk line in the code for Japanese carrier operations? (you younguns will have to google that reference).

[apbarog]

Long ago, I was playing as the Japanese and had a full KB, all in one task force, fresh from Pearl Harbor, chasing 2 US carriers near Timor. I was in range of a single carrier task force for 3 days in a row, and nothing launched. Weather was not bad, and there were no apparent reasons for the failure to attack. Finally my opponent recommended that I split up the task force. I did so and sank the carriers immediately.

I can't say that too many carriers in one task force was the definite reason that prevented any strikes, but it appeared that way.

[John B.]

Ap barog, I thought of that too from the earlier failure to launch and so both TFs were at 4 CVs each. Did you split yours down to 3 or less per TF?

[apbarog]

It was a long time ago, but I think I split them into 2 task forces with 3 carriers each. I don't think there is a magic number to make it work, but having 6 together didn't work for me.

[HansBolter]

Too many CVs in the TF beyond the yearly 'coordinated strike' limits only affect strike coordination, not if strikes will fly at all.

This is completely anecdotal, but goes back to my early days of playing Uncommon Valor.

In UV I found that if I relied on a dedicated search squadron at a land air base, the strike squadrons would very often not sortie.

I found that when I allocated 10% of every strike squadron to search they suddenly started flying strike missions.

Strike squadrons seemed to more readily believe and react to the searches performed by their squadron mates.

Ever since that experience I have ALWAYS set every strike squadron to a minimum of 10% search.


Someone mentioned above that relying on dedicated search squadrons rather than assigning a search percentage to the strike squadrons may be the culprit.

I agree.

Its worth a test.

[John B.]

Hans, I will give that a shot. If Scott will leave his carriers there next turn I'll have an answer. I can understand the lack of coordination with LBA as the record is replete with examples of non or mis communication.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John B.

And a very good Japanese TF commander for air ops.

Honestly, I've played the allies in three campaign games and never once did their CVs fail to launch an airstrike against ships in range. IN this game Scott has never moved carriers near me and they failed to launch a strike.

It cannot always be that just in this game (and only for the Japanese) that unseen and urecorded bad weather stops my strikes no matter how lucrative the target. If there is not some glitch then what am I do wrong over and over again?

Two observations that I haven't seen reflected in the comments above:

1. You have a grand total of 7 float planes in this TF. What are their settings?

2. Your D4Y1s are set exclusively on naval attack (range 7). Do you have any other D4Y or B5/B6 aircraft that are doing naval search?

If my supposition is correct, you have an insufficient organic naval search component to merit timely strikes. LBA recon / naval search is useful but sometimes insufficient to result in a naval strike by itself.

Can you do a mouse 'overlay' on the enemy CVTF to show their detection level? Also, consult your Japanese Operations log to see *who* detected that enemy CVTF and with what plane. Your observation that there was 'carrier search detection' needs some additional confirmation-how do you know that?

3. What are your escort (A6/A7M) settings? If they are insufficient, attack aircraft will balk and not attack heavily defended enemy TFs 'naked'.

4. In the turn leading up to this one, how much of your available fuel and or movement points were used? Air combat TFs that have a long ways to move or react will use up their movement points coming into range and sometimes be unable to carry out one or two daily strikes. Similarly, if you exhausted DD fuel points and the TF had to unadvisedly use movement points to fuel some short-legged ships, that could also explain the lack of attack this turn.

There are myriad reasons why your carriers didn't properly launch. These are my thoughts that haven't already been broached in this thread.