One TF or two?

[ceyan]

Is it more effective to create multiple TFs, or just stick with one big TF for a mission. I mean if you're creating a carrier group, should you just create the main group of carriers by themselves, then a escort TF and a seperate ASW TF to follow them? I know it's better to seperate bombardment and invasion TFs, but I'm not clear on the other issue.

[Tankerace]

Well, as to the carrier TF, there seems to be two schools of thought. With one large TF, your strikes will be more coordinated. With two smaller TFs, if one TF gets pasted, odds are that the second TF won't, and you can ensure some carriers won't get wacked. THen again, there is no guarantee. I usually have TFs of no more than 4 Carriers, and a surface TF behind that, and then in between have an ASW TF. SHould ocver al your bases.

[tsimmonds]

should you just create the main group of carriers by themselves, then a escort TF and a seperate ASW TF to follow them?

This is an idea that I have started playing around with. No conclusions yet. You need to be aware though that in case of air strikes against your multi-TF force, only the ships actually in the target TF will participate with AAA. So be certain to include with the CVs enough escort ships with decent AA values. I believe up to 15 ships can contribute AAA vs an air strike. The CAP will cover all TFs in the hex.

[Mr.Frag]

Always stick about 3+ ASW capable ships (your best available) into your CV TF's ... they will help to keep that full torpedo spread from a visiting sub under control.

Other then that, keep running in the back of your mind that the smaller a TF is, the less likely it is to get spotted and draw an air attack.

Two schools of though to that aspect though ... you can go down the path of saing "I don't care if you spot me because I am sticking CV's on for protection". Nothing wrong with the "go big or go home" mentality [;)]

[dkurtz39]

In PacWar, there was an optimal air TF size, based on the training of the two nations. US TFs worked best when they had 1-3CVs. Japanese TFs with 3-4 CVs. (if i recall the numbers correctly) Is that still true in WiTP?

[Mr.Frag]

In PacWar, there was an optimal air TF size, based on the training of the two nations. US TFs worked best when they had 1-3CVs. Japanese TFs with 3-4 CVs. (if i recall the numbers correctly) Is that still true in WiTP?

Similar ... CV Coordination rule ... Too many CV's in a group results in the attacks being scattered.

Bottom of page 130 in the manual.

[Fallschirmjager]

Ive been using 20 ship CV groups as the Allies.
3 CV's + 5 CA's + 7 CL's or CLAA +5 DD's

Well balenced and can tackle anything. If it happens to run into a surface combat group the CA's provide protection.

With so many ships air attacks seem to be spread out better among the ships. And that number of ships provides so much flak that it is well protected along with the CAP.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Two schools of though to that aspect though ... you can go down the path of saing "I don't care if you spot me because I am sticking CV's on for protection". Nothing wrong with the "go big or go home" mentality [;)]

Another benefit to a large CV TF in my experience is finding the enemy CV TF's much quicker. Think about it, all those scout planes out there, in Scenario #6 i got bold and sent my CV TF(all CV's filled out with DD's) around Palau...[X(]...7 Jap CV's and 4 BB's sunk after one monsterous battle. Luckily i had my BB TF a heartbeat away for overkill[:D].