Carrier Strikes Take 2 (video)

[*Lava*]

In this video I carry out another round of CV vs CV strikes, this time using land based air support which much more mimics the actual War in the Pacific. I carry out 2 different scenarios, each with 25 battles each and then report the somewhat surprising results.

You can find the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57-plbkGz8M

[*Lava*]

As usual I make all kinds of blunders verbalizing and demonstrating the situation... [:D]

But I thing the overall analysis at the end, shows folks how they can do better with the US CVs in a PvP game.

[Rasputitsa]

Thanks for taking the time to make these videos.

It's very helpful to see how you handle these situations.

It seems that if you play historically, using the support of land-based air, you can get historically credible results. Remembering that this is 1942 and I guess results should be different for later in the campaign.

It puts the importance of the Midway based aircraft and the Cactus air-force at Guadalcanal into context.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Thanks for taking the time to make these videos.

It's very helpful to see how you handle these situations.

It seems that if you play historically, using the support of land-based air, you can get historically credible results. Remembering that this is 1942 and I guess results should be different for later in the campaign.

It puts the importance of the Midway based aircraft and the Cactus air-force at Guadalcanal into context.

Cheers,

With the years I find myself having more problems explaining myself, and this video isn't much different.

To ensure understanding of what happened... When the Japanese moved into attack, the losses in CVs were 39 Japanese and 47 US. When the Americans moved into attack, the losses in CVs were 31 Japanese and 46 US. Thus the US lost 8 more CVs when the Japanese moved into attack, but more importantly the US lost 15 more CVs when they moved into attack.

THAT is a big difference.

The conclusion I reached was that it was better to allow the Japanese to attack the US and that having tactical bombers supporting the US CVs was essential. While charging the Japanese with your CVs results in huge losses, even with air cover.

[*Lava*]

Another thing that contributes to this big difference in US CV losses, is that as wargamers we are used to "attacking" by moving our units forward. Notice how I label moving the Japanese into the combat area as the "Japanese attack test?"

However, in this game when you move into the battle area, it is actually the other CV group which attacks first and that attack will be accompanied by any tactical aircraft in support.

So to be completely accurate, I should have called the Japanese moving into the combat area the "US attack test," as they attack first.

[*Lava*]

Yikes!

This test, unfortunately, is no longer valid do to the last patch.

It appears air interdiction has been changed quite a bit, and carrier aircraft no longer do the same amount of damage as before.

While I will have to do some research, it appears from just a quick look, that you will no longer have major battles with many CVs lost. Not only do CV aircraft do less damage, but much more of them are destroyed in each strike.

We'll see, but the pendulum may have swung a bit too far the other way.

Sorry for wasting everybody's time.

[Rasputitsa]

It's never a waste of time, as your videos are informative and helpful for players starting out. Whatever the detail of combats with the latest patch, your demonstrations have been very useful and much appreciated.

[Remington700]

+1