Sinking USN CVs - is it worth it?

[Mark VII]

I would trade three USN CV's for one IJN CV any day of the week as the Japanese. As the Allies I would not be very happy.

Depending on damage to the other (both sides)CV's. IJN has 5xCV's and 3xCVL's...USN has only 2xCV's plus a slow CVE. I would think that to be a very favorable situation for the Japanese.

ORIGINAL: mc3744

Ok, let me try one last time.

The USN has 5 main CV.
Would you exchange 1 Jap CV for 3 USN CVs?
You lost one forever but the threat against convoys is not over. He still has 2 CVs + 1 CVE.
I agree that if you annhilate all or 4 out of 5 it's worth it, but if you only obtain a partial while loosing something yourself ... I'm not so sure.

As IJN I feel 'free' with or without USN CVs around.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mc3744

Ok, let me try one last time.

The USN has 5 main CV.
Would you exchange 1 Jap CV for 3 USN CVs?

"if" i had to, certainly. Think of it this way. Whether you preserve KB or not. In 1943 its going to be an uphill battle. I learned that even in PACWAR. The USN just gets too many ships. Eliminating some/most of the USN carriers early on is a + to the Japanese player because it allows him greater freedom of action. KB cant be everywhere, and it's difficult to provide adequate land based air coverage to all the important areas of the defense perimeter. The Japan player has to live in constant fear of haivng one of his supply or troop convoys ambushed by a strong carrier probe.

Eliminating US CV's also retards the Allied player's ability to make serious offensives until mid-late 43 at the earliest.

In the end....player's have to balance the need to preserve a "fleet in being" with the need for direct action. Many a nation has preserved it's fleet only to lose the war anyway. Ships are meant to be used. In this case....given the production of the US....hording your assets serves little purpose by itself...your still going to get out-matched in the end

[Mr.Frag]

Trading CV's in less then a 1:1 ratio is not terribly smart. Trading them at a 1:1 rate makes perfect sense.

Based on that, going after KB with less then 4 CV's is pointless, but going after them with 4+ is fine. Adding the Wasp to the mix and waiting until the A6M2 bonus is gone makes for a sure thing.

Why you would want to play CV games while the A6M2 bonus is in effect still makes no sense to me. If you can sit on your hands until the CV's upgrade from 27 to 36 fighters, you will no loose *any* CV's. It's a question of whether that fits with your play style. (some people can not play a defensive Allies and must go to town from day one of the war).

Keeping your CV's completely hidden is a very effective strategy as Japan must assume they will pop up anywhere and always play that way. Pop up for a turn now and then, hit something and run away. Do it again somewhere completely different. Always keep Japan feeling the stress of never being sure where you are. Smack Tokyo, great distraction. Odds are lots of aircraft sitting there training.

[mc3744]

ok, ok, you convinced me [:)]

It means I'm doing all right as a Jap and very badly as the Allies [8|]

Why do I keep liking the Allies more?!? [&:]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mc3744

ok, ok, you convinced me [:)]

It means I'm doing all right as a Jap and very badly as the Allies [8|]

Why do I keep liking the Allies more?!? [&:]

Because playing the allies is generally easier. Sure early war Japan gets to "have fun" but its also a serious workload to manage all the offensive operations required. [;)]

Its usually easier to play defense than offense

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: mc3744

The USN has 5 main CV.
Would you exchange 1 Jap CV for 3 USN CVs?
You lost one forever but the threat against convoys is not over. He still has 2 CVs + 1 CVE.

Always. This means i can win any CV battle without using KB (i can split carriers), untill Essex's come. Later won't be matter if i have all CV's or one less. Japan can not win the war, but can buy a time.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thing that gets me is why a question like "Are USN CVs worth sinking?" is asked and why? Historically, they were the prime targets. If the game mechanics change this, something is wrong in my book.

Personally, I think it's worth killing USN CVs in WITP...especially with spawning because if the early CV are lost, new spawned ones are a couple years away, and the original historical CVs which were renamed after the four which were historically lost are not even in the OOB! Four early arrival Essexes are not available in mid 43 so that leaves a massive gap of over a year where USN has a CV shortage. Japan would be in a great situation if she can sink 4-6 of the prewar built CVs. GG made it worse for the Allied player, not better as many believe.

Ron my friend you are absolutely wrong regarding this. The USN player does NOT lose ANY early Essex CVs because 2by3 has moved up the historic arrival dates of the Bunkerhill and Hancock. So regardless of US CV losses you will always get the historic number of Essex in 1943. Respawning does however potentially give you 5 addtional Essex CVs in 1943 something that was completely unattainable even for the US in 42/43e. There is NO advantage for the Japanese player and a HUGE advantage for the USN player.

Regards

[mlees]

Another way to look at this:

The more USN CV's you sink, the further into '43 the time table for the Allied counter-offensive is pushed back, especially if, as the IJN, you got 3 or 4 to one odds in sinkings.

[Sardaukar]

Well, if Japanese player hasn't won the game by 1943, he never will, due to massive Allied reinforcements. Sinking USN carriers will give the freedom to achieve that victory, since after 1943 all Japan can hope for is tie.

Cheers,

M.S.

[esteban]

Even taking the replacements for lost American CVs into question, here is my quick and dirty CV exchange calculation:

Trading 1 US CV for 1 IJN CV=Allied victory

Trading 1 US CV for 1 IJN CVL (OR) Trading 2 US CV for 1 IJN CV=I had better have killed a ton of IJN pilots so I can claim a stalemate

Trading 3 US CV for 1 IJN CV=Japanese victory

Losing a disproportionate number of Allied CVs is bad news. It delays your counter-offensive. It gives the IJN a free hand to launch more invasions. It piles up the Japanese VP count for automatic victory purposes.

Especially with the Japanese player having control of his ship production system in WitP. While the Allied player has the ability to replace CVs, the Japanese player can redirect a lot of his shipbuilding efforts into accelerating construction of his CVs/CVLs, meaning that by late 1943, he can replace a lot of his early war losses, even if they are rather severe.

(Personally, I would rather take the Allied CV replacement out of the game, and just have the 4 historical "replacement" Essex-class carriers put into the Allied production queue on their historical Pacific Theater arrival dates. So what if the "Hornet II" ends up fighting alongside the original Hornet in 1944.)

[Mr.Frag]

The more USN CV's you sink, the further into '43 the time table for the Allied counter-offensive is pushed back, especially if, as the IJN, you got 3 or 4 to one odds in sinkings.

Don't forget the score aspect of that as well, loosing those Allied cv's with their air groups is a fair chunk of VP to overcome.

As I always say, Japan can not *win* the game, but the Allies can most certainly *loose* it to Japan by making it possible for Japan. Each Allied CV lost probably buys Japan about 4 months of game time advantage.

As long as Japan has CV's, they can deal with Allied LBA. Forcing Japan to send ships without CV protection due to the threat of a Allied 4+ CV strike puts an end to Japan's advances as they know the gig is up. Anyone playing Japan knows they are done for if late '42 rolls around and the Allied player has all their CV's still.

[String]

ORIGINAL: esteban

Even taking the replacements for lost American CVs into question, here is my quick and dirty CV exchange calculation:

Trading 1 US CV for 1 IJN CV=Allied victory

Trading 1 US CV for 1 IJN CVL (OR) Trading 2 US CV for 1 IJN CV=I had better have killed a ton of IJN pilots so I can claim a stalemate

Trading 3 US CV for 1 IJN CV=Japanese victory

Losing a disproportionate number of Allied CVs is bad news. It delays your counter-offensive. It gives the IJN a free hand to launch more invasions. It piles up the Japanese VP count for automatic victory purposes.

Especially with the Japanese player having control of his ship production system in WitP. While the Allied player has the ability to replace CVs, the Japanese player can redirect a lot of his shipbuilding efforts into accelerating construction of his CVs/CVLs, meaning that by late 1943, he can replace a lot of his early war losses, even if they are rather severe.

(Personally, I would rather take the Allied CV replacement out of the game, and just have the 4 historical "replacement" Essex-class carriers put into the Allied production queue on their historical Pacific Theater arrival dates. So what if the "Hornet II" ends up fighting alongside the original Hornet in 1944.)

losing 4 allied carriers for about 30-40 pilots is nice too

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

GG made it worse for the Allied player, not better as many believe.

Whaaa! Whaaa! Call the "Whaaa" police!

Ron ... one of these days it's going to sink in that GG really doesn't care one way or the other. Just because you lost some CV's doesn't mean GG coded a "Ron" section to seek out and destroy your CV's personally. [8|]

I guess I "whaaaa" too much. [:)] I was not "whaaaaing" there.[:'(][;)] Teehee. I was merely pointing out that I don't think he was out to shaft either side, and many think the respawn is pro Allied.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thing that gets me is why a question like "Are USN CVs worth sinking?" is asked and why? Historically, they were the prime targets. If the game mechanics change this, something is wrong in my book.

Personally, I think it's worth killing USN CVs in WITP...especially with spawning because if the early CV are lost, new spawned ones are a couple years away, and the original historical CVs which were renamed after the four which were historically lost are not even in the OOB! Four early arrival Essexes are not available in mid 43 so that leaves a massive gap of over a year where USN has a CV shortage. Japan would be in a great situation if she can sink 4-6 of the prewar built CVs. GG made it worse for the Allied player, not better as many believe.

Ron my friend you are absolutely wrong regarding this. The USN player does NOT lose ANY early Essex CVs because 2by3 has moved up the historic arrival dates of the Bunkerhill and Hancock. So regardless of US CV losses you will always get the historic number of Essex in 1943. Respawning does however potentially give you 5 addtional Essex CVs in 1943 something that was completely unattainable even for the US in 42/43e. There is NO advantage for the Japanese player and a HUGE advantage for the USN player.

Regards

We've been through this a bazillion times. So what if some Essexes are moved up? If the Allied player does not, how shall I put it..."play like a f----n' idiot"[;)] and lose his CVs piecemiel, for not, and early, he loses whatever number of CVs greater than 2 he saves (Sara and Big E). Basically the respawn feature rewards retards.[:D] How is that an advantage?

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


We've been through this a bazillion times. So what if some Essexes are moved up? If the Allied player does not, how shall I put it..."play like a f----n' idiot"[;)] and lose his CVs piecemiel, for not, and early, he loses whatever number of CVs greater than 2 he saves (Sara and Big E). Basically the respawn feature rewards retards.[:D] How is that an advantage?

Ron

For the Bizillionth time he will regardless of losses, ALWAYS get the HISTORIC number of Essex CVs in 1943 and 44 ( check out the arrival dates of non renamed CVs ). Sure he might lose out on some of the CVs that barely became operational by the end 1945, but by that time it hardly matters and without losses they probably wouldnt have been completed anyway.

Look you dont have to be a "retard" as you put it. You can lose the Lexington on the exact historic date and you will GAIN an EXTRA Essex in 1943! How is that NOT an advantage?

[ChezDaJez]

Do the Allies gain an additional carrier for each pre-war carrier sunk or do they just get renamed Essex carriers that are already planned?

In other words, does the total number of Essex class carriers being built increase because of pre-war CV losses?

Part of me almost thinks it would be better to just severely damage the prewar Allied carriers rather than sink them if the Allies actually gained additional Essex class CVs. You wouldn't get the victory points but it would tie up repair points and require resources (like that would be a huge problem) and escorts to shepherd them back to port.

I can see the Jap pilots briefing now: "Yo, pilots, remember just damage, don't sink 'em." LOL.

Chez

[herbieh]

I go for the carriers, they are always my No 1 target.
I plan my operations with the view of trying to force the allied CVs to commit
Knowing I have dealt them a blow makes me feel so much more comfortable
Having japanese CVs while he has none in early 42 allows invasions or deniel of reinforcement routes to vital bases so much easier
Imagine Wobbly at the moment trying his java gambit without his CVs[X(][X(][X(]

[adsoul]

"if" i had to, certainly. Think of it this way. Whether you preserve KB or not. In 1943 its going to be an uphill battle. I learned that even in PACWAR. The USN just gets too many ships. Eliminating some/most of the USN carriers early on is a + to the Japanese player because it allows him greater freedom of action. KB cant be everywhere, and it's difficult to provide adequate land based air coverage to all the important areas of the defense perimeter. The Japan player has to live in constant fear of haivng one of his supply or troop convoys ambushed by a strong carrier probe.

Eliminating US CV's also retards the Allied player's ability to make serious offensives until mid-late 43 at the earliest.

In the end....player's have to balance the need to preserve a "fleet in being" with the need for direct action. Many a nation has preserved it's fleet only to lose the war anyway. Ships are meant to be used. In this case....given the production of the US....hording your assets serves little purpose by itself...your still going to get out-matched in the end

Nik those are excellent points. I will add my 0.02 cents. I think we're assuming everybody will play the same way. Every Jap will keep almost his carriers together and every Allied will do the same but hiding his CVs. But... what if the Japanese will get overconfident? Something like "OK, I have three CVs in my shipyards but I will go after that last base with my remnant flattops and then my defensive perimether will be OK. Anyway U.S. CVs never showed before so they will be probably in Pearl or WC". If Togo did very well until now, chances are that he can take an auto-victory so the U.S. will probably feels he must do something to prevent him and... yes, 4-5 Allied CVs will strike the little KB... so my answer is: sunk Allied flat tops as soon as you can! they are always a threat.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
respawn

If you would all stop using grape-jelly-for-brains invented language as a substitute for real thinking and analysis, you might get somewhere with this.

All WitP is trying to model is the capabilities of US shipbuilding. As in real life, when losses in crucial weapons systems mounted, every effort was made to replace them as soon as possible. Nothing in the game "rewards" the Allied player for losing CVs, and nothing creates more Essex class CVs than were available historically.

[Mr.Frag]

Nothing in the game "rewards" the Allied player for losing CVs, and nothing creates more Essex class CVs than were available historically.

Gave up trying to get that point understood a long time ago. [:D]