CV Airstrike Coordination

[Halsey]

Any word on placing this restriction on both sides? Or, getting rid of it entirely?

I have a great combat save. 15 IJN CV, CVL's, and CVE's (Mega DS's), getting three awesome strikes against 2 US CV TF's. Killing 4 US CV's, while the US airstsrtrikes had to negotiate the massive CAP 8 times in mid August 42. The US got 1 CV straight out, and a possible 3 more will sink trying to get to safety. Four other Allied CV's retired safely.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Any word on placing this restriction on both sides? Or, getting rid of it entirely?

I have a great combat save. 15 IJN CV, CVL's, and CVE's (Mega DS's), getting two or three awesome strikes against 2 US CV TF's. Killing 4 US CV's, while the US airstsrtrikes had to negotiate the massive CAP 8 times in mid August 42. The US got 1 CV straight out, and a possible 3 more will sink trying to get to safety. Four other Allied CV's retired safely.

I wish you'd bother to explain that better. It isn't clear to me exactly what happened.

The USN "sank" one IJN carrier? Four USN carriers sank when the Japanese attacked two carriers?

I take it you don't want CAP as strong as it is. Neither do I. But wasn't the USN CAP behaving in the same unrealistic way when the Japanese strike arrived? Was the Japanese strike more coordinated than the USN strike or what? [&:]

[Halsey]

IJN launched 3 massive strikes. They only had to go through US CAP 3 times.
While the 8 US strikes had to go through the IJN CAP 8 times.

4 US CV's sunk straight out that day.
1 IJN CV sank the next day.

Hiyo: 4-1000# and 1 torp hit-sank next day
Zuiho: 5-1000# hits-sank 6 days later
Akagi: 9-1000# and 1 torp hit-sank two days later
Hiryu: 4-1000# and 2 torp hits-sank two days later
Kaga: 2-1000# hits
Junyo: 1-1000# hit

There were 15 IJN CV,CVL/CVE's in 3 TF's. Located in same hex.
There were 8 Allied CV's in 4 TF's. Located in same hex.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

IJN launched 3 massive strikes. They only had to go through US CAP 3 times.

How many times would expect them to go through it?

While the 8 US strikes had to go through the IJN CAP 8 times.

So the story is the IJN got in all their attacks in three waves while the USN strikes were broken up into eight waves, yes? In other words, the IJN was more coordinated strikewise.

4 US CV's sunk straight out that day.
1 IJN CV sank the next day.

Hiyo: 4-1000# and 1 torp hit-sunk
Zuiho: 5-1000# hits
Akagi: 9-1000# and 1 torp hit
Hiryu: 4-1000# and 2 torp hits
Kaga: 2-1000# hits
Junyo: 1-1000# hit

Akagi ought to be a gone for sure, with Zuiho and Hiryu not far behind.

There were 15 IJN CV,CVL/CVE's in 3 TF's. Located in same hex.
There were 8 Allied CV's in 4 TF's. Located in same hex.

And this is in 1942? Serves you right for playing that way! [:D]

On the other hand, I understand re the system. It doesn't handle this stuff very realistically. It's an old problem, just like in UV. [:(]

[Halsey]

You've got it. Aug 42 battle for Midway.[:D]

Just don't understand why the Allies get a coordination slam. It's not like the IJN operated massive CV TF's all the time and the Allies didn't.

[Mr.Frag]

So let me get this right ... you ignore the coordination rule and get bit by it then complain it exists? Am I reading this right?

[Halsey]

I'd say more than bit. 100% rolls for the IJN all 3 times, and losing rolls everytime on the Allies? Also one of the Allied CV TF's had less than 100 AC. It was composed of 2 British CV's, they flew in without their escort. Good officers were in charge.

I'll still call this battle even. It will be 4 for 4. With 2 extra IJN CV's damaged. The other 4 Allied CV's weren't touched.

[Halsey]

So why do the Japanese get to coordinate 5 CV TF's? Historical precedence because they did it one time at Pearl Harbor?
Ok, two if you count Midway.

All strikes against land targets are coordinated. They happen once a day.

Wasn't every CV vs CV action in the Pacific uncoordinated, for both sides?

[ADavidB]

Two questions:

1 - Was this against the AI? (If against the AI, stop complaining - the poor thing needs all the help it can get. [:-])

2 - Was this against a PBEM opponent? (If against a human opponent, what were you doing massing your carriers in one spot when you could have been "raping and pilaging" unmolested across the Pacific while your opponent wasted his time at Midway? [&:])

Dave Baranyi

[Mr.Frag]

Historical precedence because they did it one time at Pearl Harbor?

How many CV's at Midway? (forget the fact that they lost)

[spence]

(in reply to Mr Frag)
Are you implying that the Japanese coordination of a/c was some masterly handled
coordinated plan? Aside from the fact that they managed to launch a/c from all 4 carriers to hit Midway ISLAND, I see little that warrants any great admiration on their part vis a vis coordination. REMEMBER THAT THEY DID LOSE NOW EVERYONE.[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

At the upper level of AI - coordinating/launching operational strikes the Japanese displayed less skill than the Americans. At the AIs lower level -
individual a/c pressing home attacks successfully the Japanese were better because of higher pilots skill. The lower skill of the Americans tactically contributed to their lower percentage of hits. I think the VTs and VBs became uncoordinated mostly due to the speed disparity of their a/c.

[Halsey]

PBEM. To take advantage of the massive CAP bonus you have to have them in one hex. Especially when there are 150 Betties parked at Midway. Besides they were supporting the reinvasion of Midway. Which by the way is about to fall.

[Halsey]

I suppose the IJN failed that die roll?[:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

You've got it. Aug 42 battle for Midway.[:D]

Just don't understand why the Allies get a coordination slam. It's not like the IJN operated massive CV TF's all the time and the Allies didn't.

There's always been an early-war bias against Allied/for Japanese air/naval assets in Grigsby's games. Some of this makes sense and is based more or less on historical performance; some of it is either pure fabrication (for whatever reason) or due to a gross misunderstanding of the history in question. Bottom line: when playing the Allies in Grigsby games like this it's normally best not to be too aggressive too early. It could be that after the ship upgrades in WitP the playing field will be more level.

Anyway, you seem to imply that those other IJN carriers are soon to be toast. Yes? If so, then it's more than an even swap for you versus (I assume) the AI. It was pretty risky, though. I doubt I'd have played that way so soon.

[Halsey]

I call the battle a draw. Outnumbered 2:1 in CV's and broke even.

Now I have 4 new Essex class coming![:D]

My point is. All CV ops should be uncoordinated for both sides if it's going to be part of the game mechanics.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I call the battle a draw. Outnumbered 2:1 in CV's and broke even.

Now I have 4 new Essex class coming![:D]

My point is. All CV ops should be uncoordinated for both sides if it's going to be part of the game mechanics.

On a random basis, I agree. There's entirely too much coordination in both the air and naval models. For sure and for certain the Japanese were no more "coordinated" than the USN when it came to their naval air arms. It's kind of like what Ron wrote recently, that maybe someone needs to read a book. [:D]

[Halsey]

Random would be cool. It would give some kind of opportunity for a real "Midway like" outcome happening during the game.[:)]

Not based on a timeline. Which is what we have now.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Random would be cool. It would give some kind of opportunity for a real "Midway like" outcome happening during the game.[:)]

Dream on!

Not based on a timeline. Which is what we have now.

But that's just it, to a large extent the "time line" it's based on is pure fantasy whipped up in Grigsby's mind lord only knows how many years ago. We need to set that boy straight. [:)]

[Halsey]

Right Tristan, and both sides base their strategy around this. To balance it, the coordination rule should be discarded.

Or, it should apply to both sides. That might make for some really wild CV battles early in the war.

That would give the Allied player some incentive to use his CV's aggressively in 42. As it stands now a player should just park and upgrade them till 43. What fun is that?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Right Tristan, and both sides base their strategy around this. To balance it, the coordination rule should be discarded.

Or, it should apply to both sides. That might make for some really wild CV battles early in the war.

That would give the Allied player some incentive to use his CV's aggressively in 42. As it stands now a player should just park and upgrade them till 43. What fun is that?

Not only not a lot of fun but ahistorical in the extreme.

Like I said, I wish someone who understood this stuff would get in Gary's ear. (Hasn't happened yet, though. [:(])