Or at lest very unlikely to be attacked ?
I'm playing early in 19# and I've noticed this on both sides, even when there's no issue with escort/morale.
Seems like a potentially big exploit.
Single transports immune to air attack ?
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Re: Single transports immune to air attack ?
Hello...
Single ships are not immune to attack. They are just harder to spot. Likewise, small ships are harder to spot than large ones. A small, single ship (such as a PT Boat) has a fair chance of going unnoticed, especially if it stays in shallow water and close to land (very small ships can sometimes hide this way).
Air group commanders will not always send a flight to attack just one ship or if they do, they may not send many planes. But, if you have ten cargo ships, all traveling alone, there are ten chances to send aircraft after at least one of them
Of course, once spotted, that single ship is more susceptible to submarine attack and will have no other ships to help with anti-aircraft.
We designed the game to allow for such tactics, risky but sometimes useful.
Bye...
Michael Wood
__________________________________________________
Single ships are not immune to attack. They are just harder to spot. Likewise, small ships are harder to spot than large ones. A small, single ship (such as a PT Boat) has a fair chance of going unnoticed, especially if it stays in shallow water and close to land (very small ships can sometimes hide this way).
Air group commanders will not always send a flight to attack just one ship or if they do, they may not send many planes. But, if you have ten cargo ships, all traveling alone, there are ten chances to send aircraft after at least one of them
Of course, once spotted, that single ship is more susceptible to submarine attack and will have no other ships to help with anti-aircraft.
We designed the game to allow for such tactics, risky but sometimes useful.
Bye...
Michael Wood
__________________________________________________
Originally posted by Hartley
Or at lest very unlikely to be attacked ?
I'm playing early in 19# and I've noticed this on both sides, even when there's no issue with escort/morale.
Seems like a potentially big exploit.
Excuse me if this is a psuedo-duplicate reply. I thought that I had posted a response, but it doesn't seem to have come through.
Mike, I disagree, to the point where I use "house rules" to prevent abuse of this characteristic of UV.
Supplying forward bases is difficult for both sides, but more so for the Allies because of the imposed limitations on FT. Use of the single-ship TF tactic, circumvents the effect of these limitations and hence badly unbalances play in favour of the Allies.
If you send a 5-10 ship escorted convoy into any forward (and some not-so forward) port, you will be attacked by Betties or Nells. They will be deadly and you'll lose 70-100% of your TF (along with supplies or troops) unless you are using CAP, LRCAP or lots of surface ships with high AA capabilty. As you indicated, you can avoid this by sending single-ship convoys, but these are very susceptible to subs. So instead, you form a 5-10 ship convoy and assign a single SC unit to it. For some reason, neither side's subs like to attack this form of convoy. They'll attack groups of SC's or DD's formed into hunting TFs, but it is rare for them to attack a convoy guarded by a single SC. Once you get to the port in question you form 5-10 single ship TFs and send them in to unload (all togther) leaving the escorting SC outside of the port (combat ships sometimes trigger attacks). The transport TFs will usually unload without attracting an air strke (90% of the time) and even if they do, the Betties will only get one ship. If the weather is very bad, you may even come out of it ahead on points because of the high Op losses suffered by Betties during bad weather. Once the ships have finished unloading and start on their way home, you reform them into a single convoy, with the waiting escort, and go merrily on your way.
The problem is, that while this approach is tedious, it is so effective, that the Allies completely lose one of their few weaknesses, the difficulty they have in adequately supplying forward bases. With the number of engineering units the Allies have, the rate of supply is the only thing that prevents overwhelmingly rapid expansion of bases. Rapid building of many, large, bases enhances the Allied airpower advantage, causing the
even faster demise of the Japanese chances.
Because of the above I generally play with a rule that prohibits the use of the single-ship TF as a means of avoiding air attack. This forces the player to use FT, sub transport, air transport, CAP or LRCAP to supply dangerous forward bases. It keeps this activity a highly dangerous one, rather than a "cakewalk".
As a final note, the use of single ship TFs does not confer any protection against surface raiders. I've seen surface or bombardment TFs attack and sink 5-6 tranport TFs, one after another, during a single night engagement.
Mike, I disagree, to the point where I use "house rules" to prevent abuse of this characteristic of UV.
Supplying forward bases is difficult for both sides, but more so for the Allies because of the imposed limitations on FT. Use of the single-ship TF tactic, circumvents the effect of these limitations and hence badly unbalances play in favour of the Allies.
If you send a 5-10 ship escorted convoy into any forward (and some not-so forward) port, you will be attacked by Betties or Nells. They will be deadly and you'll lose 70-100% of your TF (along with supplies or troops) unless you are using CAP, LRCAP or lots of surface ships with high AA capabilty. As you indicated, you can avoid this by sending single-ship convoys, but these are very susceptible to subs. So instead, you form a 5-10 ship convoy and assign a single SC unit to it. For some reason, neither side's subs like to attack this form of convoy. They'll attack groups of SC's or DD's formed into hunting TFs, but it is rare for them to attack a convoy guarded by a single SC. Once you get to the port in question you form 5-10 single ship TFs and send them in to unload (all togther) leaving the escorting SC outside of the port (combat ships sometimes trigger attacks). The transport TFs will usually unload without attracting an air strke (90% of the time) and even if they do, the Betties will only get one ship. If the weather is very bad, you may even come out of it ahead on points because of the high Op losses suffered by Betties during bad weather. Once the ships have finished unloading and start on their way home, you reform them into a single convoy, with the waiting escort, and go merrily on your way.
The problem is, that while this approach is tedious, it is so effective, that the Allies completely lose one of their few weaknesses, the difficulty they have in adequately supplying forward bases. With the number of engineering units the Allies have, the rate of supply is the only thing that prevents overwhelmingly rapid expansion of bases. Rapid building of many, large, bases enhances the Allied airpower advantage, causing the
even faster demise of the Japanese chances.
Because of the above I generally play with a rule that prohibits the use of the single-ship TF as a means of avoiding air attack. This forces the player to use FT, sub transport, air transport, CAP or LRCAP to supply dangerous forward bases. It keeps this activity a highly dangerous one, rather than a "cakewalk".
As a final note, the use of single ship TFs does not confer any protection against surface raiders. I've seen surface or bombardment TFs attack and sink 5-6 tranport TFs, one after another, during a single night engagement.
A thorny issue DJ. I myself have utilized this tactic so i know where you are coming from. While i dont consider it "ahistorical" of itself (Lunga was often supplied this way, by a small # of ships darting in and getting out) one must always be wary of 'loopholes' in the game.
The problem with increasing DL's of small or singular TF's is that there is already much consensus that the search routines are too effective as it is, so sharpening them up to close this perceived "hole" would bleed over into detection of regular sized TF's.
One suggestion: have you tried detecting these single or, as i like to do, a two ship TF, with bomber groups set to much higher recon, say 50+% naval search for the bombers? If they still go unnoticed, even when docked, i'd say there might be a problem.
On the debit side.......players can counter this driblet tactic by bombing the base's supply dumps. Often i've found bases like PM untendable if the Japanese player amasses enough bombers to really whollup the base, which especially if it has alot of troops will need much more than what a couple of transports can deliver....and thats not counting sub and surface ship interdiction.
The problem with increasing DL's of small or singular TF's is that there is already much consensus that the search routines are too effective as it is, so sharpening them up to close this perceived "hole" would bleed over into detection of regular sized TF's.
One suggestion: have you tried detecting these single or, as i like to do, a two ship TF, with bomber groups set to much higher recon, say 50+% naval search for the bombers? If they still go unnoticed, even when docked, i'd say there might be a problem.
On the debit side.......players can counter this driblet tactic by bombing the base's supply dumps. Often i've found bases like PM untendable if the Japanese player amasses enough bombers to really whollup the base, which especially if it has alot of troops will need much more than what a couple of transports can deliver....and thats not counting sub and surface ship interdiction.
I've played a lot of PBEM games, always as the allies, and on numerous occasions I’ve tried to sneak supplies in using single ship TF. I have lost many ships this way. I consider it a very desperate move. I will admit that most of the time they make it to the DH hex but they get pounded the next day while they are unloading.
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.
Hi guys, I admit I'm not a PBEM player (as yet) but I'm not sure that would effect the naval attack or submarine attack routines. My understanding is that you can't control these.
In any event, the test game I played was Scen 15 in which the IJN starts with PM and GG and all carries intact. If I look at the results up to mid January 1943 (when the Allies took the lead in points and I stopped the game) the allies had only lost 11 transports. Two were lost to subs and four to surface raiders. Only 5 transports or tankers were lost to aerial torpedoes and 3 of these came in a single attack to a single task force that I neglected against a four ship TF I had forgotten to break up before entering port. I was able to build and supply size 4 bases on Nevea, Irau, Tulagi, Russel Is., and Rossel Is., as well as have one well underway on Woodlark. The only invasion was against a garrison/SNLF force on Tulagi. This was all done using the approach I described. I can imagine a big difference in attempting to use such a strategy against a human, but only because of his ability to use surface fleets and carriers in a superior fashion. I would expect the Naval Attack and Sub functions to be fairly similar between PBEM and AI.
The reason I like to apply "house rule" is that does seem to me to reduce the FT advantage that the IJN has in the game. I does seem ahistorical to me. I mean, at least the way I had applied it. Effectively I'm disbanding a TF into smaller units and distributing it up and down the 30 mile hex. The Betties don't attack or they are ineffective when a target is dispersed in this fashion. The thing is you can't build a base efficiently if you're landing supplies up and down 30 miles of coastline. You have no means to concentrate the supplies once they are landed.
In any event, the test game I played was Scen 15 in which the IJN starts with PM and GG and all carries intact. If I look at the results up to mid January 1943 (when the Allies took the lead in points and I stopped the game) the allies had only lost 11 transports. Two were lost to subs and four to surface raiders. Only 5 transports or tankers were lost to aerial torpedoes and 3 of these came in a single attack to a single task force that I neglected against a four ship TF I had forgotten to break up before entering port. I was able to build and supply size 4 bases on Nevea, Irau, Tulagi, Russel Is., and Rossel Is., as well as have one well underway on Woodlark. The only invasion was against a garrison/SNLF force on Tulagi. This was all done using the approach I described. I can imagine a big difference in attempting to use such a strategy against a human, but only because of his ability to use surface fleets and carriers in a superior fashion. I would expect the Naval Attack and Sub functions to be fairly similar between PBEM and AI.
The reason I like to apply "house rule" is that does seem to me to reduce the FT advantage that the IJN has in the game. I does seem ahistorical to me. I mean, at least the way I had applied it. Effectively I'm disbanding a TF into smaller units and distributing it up and down the 30 mile hex. The Betties don't attack or they are ineffective when a target is dispersed in this fashion. The thing is you can't build a base efficiently if you're landing supplies up and down 30 miles of coastline. You have no means to concentrate the supplies once they are landed.
well thats part of your problem 
The AI usually cannot handle the clever little tactics that human players come up with. Even worse, it will often allow human players to get away with murder in regards to alot of what would normally be considered "donts" in PBEM.
Which side were you playing in this scenerio?
The AI usually cannot handle the clever little tactics that human players come up with. Even worse, it will often allow human players to get away with murder in regards to alot of what would normally be considered "donts" in PBEM.
Which side were you playing in this scenerio?
AI
Hi, Rats I was all excited. I thought I saw a means of training my surface ships. If the enemy was sending single transports to a base I would have sent small fast TF's to the same hex. (and ate all those free night experiance gains)
As for spotting TF's. I sneak around in 10-15 ship TF's quite often without detection. And I was surprised by Bosun who snuck the whole IJN to Brisbane without being spotted (before it pounded Rockhampton)
You have to use your brain a little. Don't enter enemy patrol zones in clear weather. leave you port during bad weather. Sail a bit out of the way. Don't have multiple TF's in same area. Bomb the bases enemy patrol planes fly out of.
One thing. "Forward bases" I think this means "isolated bases"
You should build/occupy bases that are within air cover of one another. (Yike this means players might have to slow down grabbing the South Pacific) This cures most of the problem. LBA must pass a check before attacking TF's with CAP.
I believe this is the true origin of many UV players problems.
They try to move too fast. And they purposly send TF's into exposed areas and then wonder why they are hurt. If you don't have LBA cover then you need carrier air cover. Never try to move without cover from some source.
As for spotting TF's. I sneak around in 10-15 ship TF's quite often without detection. And I was surprised by Bosun who snuck the whole IJN to Brisbane without being spotted (before it pounded Rockhampton)
You have to use your brain a little. Don't enter enemy patrol zones in clear weather. leave you port during bad weather. Sail a bit out of the way. Don't have multiple TF's in same area. Bomb the bases enemy patrol planes fly out of.
One thing. "Forward bases" I think this means "isolated bases"
You should build/occupy bases that are within air cover of one another. (Yike this means players might have to slow down grabbing the South Pacific) This cures most of the problem. LBA must pass a check before attacking TF's with CAP.
I believe this is the true origin of many UV players problems.
They try to move too fast. And they purposly send TF's into exposed areas and then wonder why they are hurt. If you don't have LBA cover then you need carrier air cover. Never try to move without cover from some source.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Yep, as the Japanese learned to their cost at Guadalcanal.
Mogami......want your secret man
I think i've only been able to sneak a 15 ship TF around successfully but once in PBEM...and that was an out of the way raid on Truk. (did make sure to leave during rainy weather too)
rest of the time.....i seem to get pegged each time by snoopers, regardless of which side i play. maybe my men are just too chatty on the airwaves or something
Mogami......want your secret man
I think i've only been able to sneak a 15 ship TF around successfully but once in PBEM...and that was an out of the way raid on Truk. (did make sure to leave during rainy weather too)rest of the time.....i seem to get pegged each time by snoopers, regardless of which side i play. maybe my men are just too chatty on the airwaves or something
I've tried splitting transport taskforces up into individual ships and scattering when faced with an unexpected encounter with enemy carriers.
My rationale is that this is what would have happened in real life but really I'm just trying to save some of the transports.
The results....occasionally massive enemy strikes hit individual ships, but also I've seen the enemy carriers send out many small strikes against most targets and sink virtually everything anyway.
Probably saved a few ships this way though.
My rationale is that this is what would have happened in real life but really I'm just trying to save some of the transports.
The results....occasionally massive enemy strikes hit individual ships, but also I've seen the enemy carriers send out many small strikes against most targets and sink virtually everything anyway.
Probably saved a few ships this way though.
Never give up, never surrender
Sneaking
Hi, I don't know if it is a secret. In all my PBEM games I've seen plenty of TF's of all sizes remain undetected.
Several things I do that I don't always see the enemy doing.
If my TF is spotted I abort the mission and return to port. Disband the TF and reform on a rainy day and try again.
I hide Tf's if I can get out away from my bases (and of course away from enemy bases) I "park" TF's at sea. And then send oilers to keep them fueled or run back into port during bad weather. (I kept 2 CV hidden from Dadman for several weeks and then caught one of his aircombat TF's)
Keep your floatplanes on deck. (I don't know how many times the first notion of enemy I had was "Jake spots TF" It's even worse if it is "SBD" spots TF ( then you know USN CV is within 9 hexes of spotted TF. Draw a circle around it and there you go.)
I only fly search from TF when I am looking for a carrier battle. Or I want to make sure no enemy surface force is within range of my surface force moving toward enemy base.
While you can't directly target enemy patrol planes you can molest their airfields/bases. Pay attention if the enemy flys constant recons of your bases a little harrassment of bases can allow one or two of your TF's in the area to go undetected. (send a few TF's as same size of TF to preform mission out. Sending out 1 TF per day can give you an idea how effective enemy search currently is. (To counter this always use 2 groups for search. rest one fly the other. Have 2 bases doing patrol of area (total 4 groups on search) From time to time add another group at 100 percent for 1 turn) (If a group is rested and has not flown in a while give it a patrol/recon mission.)
I can't prove it but it seems to me TF's formed from ports enemy has not reconed in a while escape more often then TF's formed in ports under constant watch. (I relocate my ships from time to time. )
Several things I do that I don't always see the enemy doing.
If my TF is spotted I abort the mission and return to port. Disband the TF and reform on a rainy day and try again.
I hide Tf's if I can get out away from my bases (and of course away from enemy bases) I "park" TF's at sea. And then send oilers to keep them fueled or run back into port during bad weather. (I kept 2 CV hidden from Dadman for several weeks and then caught one of his aircombat TF's)
Keep your floatplanes on deck. (I don't know how many times the first notion of enemy I had was "Jake spots TF" It's even worse if it is "SBD" spots TF ( then you know USN CV is within 9 hexes of spotted TF. Draw a circle around it and there you go.)
I only fly search from TF when I am looking for a carrier battle. Or I want to make sure no enemy surface force is within range of my surface force moving toward enemy base.
While you can't directly target enemy patrol planes you can molest their airfields/bases. Pay attention if the enemy flys constant recons of your bases a little harrassment of bases can allow one or two of your TF's in the area to go undetected. (send a few TF's as same size of TF to preform mission out. Sending out 1 TF per day can give you an idea how effective enemy search currently is. (To counter this always use 2 groups for search. rest one fly the other. Have 2 bases doing patrol of area (total 4 groups on search) From time to time add another group at 100 percent for 1 turn) (If a group is rested and has not flown in a while give it a patrol/recon mission.)
I can't prove it but it seems to me TF's formed from ports enemy has not reconed in a while escape more often then TF's formed in ports under constant watch. (I relocate my ships from time to time. )
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Re: Sneaking
That was exactly the issue i ran into during my Truk "sneak-a-thon" I had set my SBD's to 10% search out of fear of being "sneaked" myself by my opponent and sure enough, that msg announcement about an SBD sighting such and such TF's was what tipped him off. Up to that point he'd had no clue i was there. Gave the **** game away and then i ended up sticking around one turn too long.Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I don't know if it is a secret. In all my PBEM games I've seen plenty of TF's of all sizes remain undetected.
Several things I do that I don't always see the enemy doing.
Keep your floatplanes on deck. (I don't know how many times the first notion of enemy I had was "Jake spots TF" It's even worse if it is "SBD" spots TF ( then you know USN CV is within 9 hexes of spotted TF. Draw a circle around it and there you go.)
I only fly search from TF when I am looking for a carrier battle. Or I want to make sure no enemy surface force is within range of my surface force moving toward enemy base.
Setting all your floats and bombers to no search though sounds dangerous. How do you know whether or not you've been spotted and your opponent is either sneaking in a surface or worse, an air TF of his own? How about ASW....or does that give away the game as well?
I was under the impression that not every single search finding for one side gets revealed to the other.
Heh.....good suggestion regarding the turn around if detected.....thats a big "A-historical" right there for my playing.....once i get the notion to do something, unless its a raid that is....i tend to follow through vs playing it slow and safe and postponing an operation
addenum to self: dont play Mogami....too sneaky.
Originally posted by Mike_B20
I've tried splitting transport taskforces up into individual ships and scattering when faced with an unexpected encounter with enemy carriers.
My rationale is that this is what would have happened in real life but really I'm just trying to save some of the transports.
The results....occasionally massive enemy strikes hit individual ships, but also I've seen the enemy carriers send out many small strikes against most targets and sink virtually everything anyway.
Probably saved a few ships this way though.
I've tired the same tactic with the same results.
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.
Hi guys, there's a lot of useful information in these posts about how to counter the tactic, which helps a lot. I do some of them already (even to the point of switching Kingfishers onto CL and having them ghost" as BBs) but I'm still left with problems related to being spotted and then bombed by escorted land based aircraft.
In the game I was referring to, the IJN holds PM, GG and Lunga at the start of the game. Very early on they have Betty's and Nell's at Lae, Rabaul and Shortland. Each turn most of my ships (Allied side) anywhere on the board are spotted by the Mavis, Emily, Betty and Nell patrols. Very few TFs remain unspotted after two turns out of port. None of my bombers can reach IJN bomber or patrol plane bases because of their huge range. In order to advance I try to build one base ahead of the other, each within fighter cover of the last base. I have touble flying LRCAP out of a single base because I don't have enough P-38s to take on that many M2s (they never seem to fatigue for the AI).
My problems are many-fold. Supply TFs are hammered by Betties and Nells escorted by M2s (usually 60-80) each time they move to a "forward" base (which I define as being within range of IJN Bombers and fighters and out of range of size 4 (or larger) bases). I have to invade by FT and supply by PBY and FT (later by C-47) until I can get a small airfield built to the point where I can put fighters in place to fly CAP. That's how I came to try the single ship TF approach. I just found it was too effective, however. The problem is, it didn't just make it easier, it made it trivial -- at least against the AI. Since everyone seems to feel they can handle the tactic without any problem, I guess I'll re-include it in my repetoire. I can say though that I don't think it can be stopped by something a simple as DD interdiction. The single TFs are run in conjuction with night runs by surface TFs, combined with single-move CV's, waiting to finish off the survivors of surface battles. I'm sure however from the response, that some tactic, whether its offensive massive mining (another tactic I'm not fond of) or some other measure could stop it.
In the game I was referring to, the IJN holds PM, GG and Lunga at the start of the game. Very early on they have Betty's and Nell's at Lae, Rabaul and Shortland. Each turn most of my ships (Allied side) anywhere on the board are spotted by the Mavis, Emily, Betty and Nell patrols. Very few TFs remain unspotted after two turns out of port. None of my bombers can reach IJN bomber or patrol plane bases because of their huge range. In order to advance I try to build one base ahead of the other, each within fighter cover of the last base. I have touble flying LRCAP out of a single base because I don't have enough P-38s to take on that many M2s (they never seem to fatigue for the AI).
My problems are many-fold. Supply TFs are hammered by Betties and Nells escorted by M2s (usually 60-80) each time they move to a "forward" base (which I define as being within range of IJN Bombers and fighters and out of range of size 4 (or larger) bases). I have to invade by FT and supply by PBY and FT (later by C-47) until I can get a small airfield built to the point where I can put fighters in place to fly CAP. That's how I came to try the single ship TF approach. I just found it was too effective, however. The problem is, it didn't just make it easier, it made it trivial -- at least against the AI. Since everyone seems to feel they can handle the tactic without any problem, I guess I'll re-include it in my repetoire. I can say though that I don't think it can be stopped by something a simple as DD interdiction. The single TFs are run in conjuction with night runs by surface TFs, combined with single-move CV's, waiting to finish off the survivors of surface battles. I'm sure however from the response, that some tactic, whether its offensive massive mining (another tactic I'm not fond of) or some other measure could stop it.
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3426
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Re: Sneaking
Payback for torching his other 4 CV's...Originally posted by Mogami
...I hide Tf's if I can get out away from my bases (and of course away from enemy bases) I "park" TF's at sea. And then send oilers to keep them fueled or run back into port during bad weather. (I kept 2 CV hidden from Dadman for several weeks and then caught one of his aircombat TF's)...