CV Problems - Tactics

[ncc1701e]

Example 2

[ncc1701e]

Example 3

[ncc1701e]

Example 3(bis)

I left immediately after that... [:D]

[*Lava*]

But that isn't how CV fights work.

Both the Japanese and Americans realized that a CV battle was centered on destroying the opposing CVs. So each would strike against the opposing CVs and not BBs.

If you want to generalize, essentially each side would carry out 2 attacks. The force which found the enemy first attacked first and this is a huge advantage.

Now...

With 4 US CVs vs 6 Japanese CVs and the Yanks attacking first, the game should work like this:

Round 1: US damages 3 Japanese CVs.

Round 2: The 3 remaining Japanese CVs inflict at least 2 US CVs damaged.

Round 3: 2 US CVs inflict at least 1 Japanese damaged.

Round 4: The 2 remaining Japanese CVs inflict at least 1 US CV damaged.

Final score, 4 Japanese CVs damaged with at least 1 or 2 sunk. 3 US CVs damaged with at least 1 sunk. That is a US victory.

-------

The problem I am seeing here is that the attacks between the 2 CV groups appears to be almost simultaneous, single attack by both forces at the same time. This is totally unrepresentative of a CV battle. So if the US has 4 CVs vs the Japanese with 6 CVs, the US should inflict at least 3 CVs damaged, while the Japanese will do at least 4.

That is a crushing Japanese victory and just not representative of carrier warfare.

You need to put 4 rounds of strikes with the attacker having the advantage by striking first. You could do this by having 2 rounds of Carrier Combat. That should be a much better simulation.

[AlvaroSousa]

At this scale there are no individual 4 strike naval battles. It is abstracted in the luck roll.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

At this scale there are no individual 4 strike naval battles. It is abstracted in the luck roll.

Of course I understand that. I mean even WitP can't get this right. In truth, nobody has gotten this right.

From my POV, there is nothing to stop you from having 4 rounds of strikes in a CV vs CV battle on the same turn. Sure, the folks will have to sit there and watch the rounds unfold, but they will be revetted to the screen as the battle plays out.

You know, these battles were horrific in ferocity. When they were finished both sides air wings were almost completely destroyed. The winner wasn't the one with the most aircraft... they were the ones with the most hulls surviving.

[stjeand]

Actually it should not be "Attacker" first it should be...

Attack moves CV fleet to a hex within range of an enemy CV fleet...whether they know it is there or not.
If they know it is there they should get a "find" the fleet bonus.

Next a roll is made to determine if one side ambushes the other.

(Basically at Midway the US surprised the Japanese...)
IF an ambush occurs then that side becomes the first attacker,

Attacker launches attack,
Searches for enemy occurs, if ambush search is successful
Losses are taken by defender

Then the defender should get a "counter-strike"

Defender launches attack,
Searches for enemy occurs,
Losses are taken by attacker if found.


This could occur for each Op point used to attack.

[*Lava*]

I like that stjeand.

Of course there was always a search phase, even if there is a planned ambush. The other CV group is going to be searching as well. The question comes down to who finds who first. And that is very realistic... even today. (Been there... done that.)

One thing though.

The CV's always tried to launch at max range (to keep surface forces from closing). So no matter who finds who first and attacks, the defender will have a high probability of finding him simply by watching what direction the attacker takes to return to their CVs. So the probability of the defender launching a successful counter-strike should be fairly high.

Given the above happens, the second strikes have an almost certain chance of finding their opponents.

Oh, and another thing. In my description of the CV battle, I used the word "damaged." If a CV is damaged, there should be a roll to see if it is knocked out of the battle, which is a pretty high probability. If it is knocked out of the battle, their aircraft can't participate in a counter-strike or second strike. If the CV is knocked out of the battle, there should be a roll to see if it is sunk.

[ncc1701e]

Remains to translate into C# [;)]

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Remains to translate into C# [;)]

Don't look at me. [:)]

[*Lava*]

Probably most have seen this, but this is an awesome explanation of the Battle of Midway:

The Battle of Midway 1942: Told from the Japanese Perspective (1/3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo

[ncc1701e]

First time for me, this was an awesome explanation. Thanks for sharing.

Now, how to replicate this in the game?

Use a COMINT to locate the enemy carrier fleet
Use land based aircrafts to consume the two operation points of the enemy fleet by attacking it
Have your carrier fleet hidden in raider mode nearby switch to fleet mode
And attack the enemy carrier fleet with your carriers

Is it the right tactics for you?

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

First time for me, this was an awesome explanation. Thanks for sharing.

Now, how to replicate this in the game?

Use a COMINT to locate the enemy carrier fleet
Use land based aircrafts to consume the two operation points of the enemy fleet by attacking it
Have your carrier fleet hidden in raider mode nearby switch to fleet mode
And attack the enemy carrier fleet with your carriers

Is it the right tactics for you?

Yep, that would certainly replicate the 1st phase of the battle quite nicely with probably the same results.

[ncc1701e]

Chance is a strong factor anyway. You should have your carrier fleet at the right place at the right moment./

[ncc1701e]

But, thinking of it, is Midway not the same? Pure chance.

[AlvaroSousa]

It is an excellent video. I have seen this before. But the Japanese naval combat officers were not aggressive enough. Their plans too complicated.

I think only one guy named Tanaka had the balls to be aggressive.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

But, thinking of it, is Midway not the same? Pure chance.

Chance always plays a part in any combat. However, the Americans were prepared. Some expressions come to mind from my naval days.

As soon as the gear are up (after takeoff), the plan starts changing.

Flexibility is the key to Air Power.

Prior Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

The US knows the time, place and OOB of the Japanese attack. They have long range search aircraft at Midway and submarines. They know in what direction to look.

The US spots the Japanese first, and all 4 CVs are in the same location. The Japanese spot the Americans second, but only find TF17 with the Yorktown. They never did not find TF16 with the Enterprise and Hornet because the 2 TFs were in 2 different locations.

Given that the Americans launch first with 3 Air Wings, they are going to damage 3 CVs. Let's also say (for argument) that the Japanese launch at the same time, but in reality they only know where the Yorktown is, so they take out 1 US CV. The US counter-strike from TF16 with 2 CVs takes out the last Japanese CV. Same result in the end.

The Japanese had a CV Gorilla which the US had located first vs 2 separate US TF's of which the Japanese had only located one. The US struck first, which was the whole point of the US strategy... to strike first. That was not luck, and the Japanese paid for it.

[*Lava*]

Now if you want to talk about luck... watch this same guys video of the Battle of the Coral Sea.

The Battle of the Coral Sea 1942: The First Aircraft Carrier Battle in History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB5hH3ksvKE&t=5s

[Torplexed]

ORIGINAL: *Lava*


That was not luck, and the Japanese paid for it.

I would tend to agree. When you look at Midway as a whole, not just the battle but everything leading up to it you see that the USN went to great lengths to minimize luck and stack the odds in its favor.

Outstanding US intelligence was no accident. Putting the whole of US carrier strength on location was no accident. Having the Yorktown repaired and operational in 24 hours was no accident. Having extra search assets at Midway was no accident.

Japan was also its own worst enemy. That the Japanese multi-tasked their carrier task force to simultaneously attempt to accomplish three missions at once was not due to luck. It was haphazard and rushed operational planning once all the set piece battles had been won in the first six months of the war. Japan failing to grasp the implications of enhanced US search assets all along the string of islands that link the Hawaiian Islands to Midway was no accident. Japan failing to note the odd coincidence that American surface vessels just happened to be anchored in their favorite recon lagoon at French Frigate Shoals at the right moment, along with all the other obviously weird going-ons on in the Central Pacific was no accident. The latter two were the result of poor pre-war Japanese commitment to intel and their inability to commit resources to (indicative of their contempt for) strategic intelligence.

During the battle, the reckless Japanese decision to stubbornly continue fighting with just the one operational carrier (Hiryu) alone at poor odds was also not luck. Just indicative of naval philosophy that put too much stock into the offensive for the offensive's sake.

[ncc1701e]

Indeed. The thing in the game is that you can't know exactly where Japan will attack. Spending a COMINT on one location does not guarantee you will find something.