CV Airstrike Coordination

[Ron Saueracker]

Personally, because CAP is too strong (seem to be capable of being in more than one place at a time and don't suffer any apparent lack of coordination themselves) and butchers uncoordinated strikes despite the fact that the strikes might be coming in at relatively the same time but are not organized to attack under optimal conditions (ie torpedo planes make an "anvil" attack while dive bombers attack simultaneously), I'd approach penalizing uncoordinated strikes a different way. Having played UV and WITP long enough allows such revision advocation.

I'd simply reduce the accuracy of the uncoordinated strikes vs ships rather than force each one to run the gauntlet of 100% CAP.

Unfortunately this won't work in all cases so might be inadequate. When you target LCUs on ground attack, the CAP gets to attack the bombers as if uncoordinated even if the strke was successfully coordinated. Why...because of the air combat model's need to split the strikes vs multiple LCUs. To alleviate this, make the strike split and select LCU targets AFTER CAP interception somehow. It is done vs ships. Also, whether a strike is coordinated or not should not impact accuracy of bombers vs LCU from what I can see.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Personally, because CAP is too strong (seem to be capable of being in more than one place at a time and don't suffer any apparent lack of coordination themselves) and butchers uncoordinated strikes despite the fact that the strikes might be coming in at relatively the same time but are not organized to attack under optimal conditions (ie torpedo planes make an "anvil" attack while dive bombers attack simultaneously), I'd approach penalizing uncoordinated strikes a different way. Having played UV and WITP long enough allows such revision advocation.

I'd simply reduce the accuracy of the uncoordinated strikes vs ships rather than force each one to run the gauntlet of 100% CAP.

Unfortunately this won't work in all cases so might be inadequate. When you target LCUs on ground attack, the CAP gets to attack the bombers as if uncoordinated even if the strke was successfully coordinated. Why...because of the air combat model's need to split the strikes vs multiple LCUs. To alleviate this, make the strike split and select LCU targets AFTER CAP interception somehow. It is done vs ships. Also, whether a strike is coordinated or not should not impact accuracy of bombers vs LCU from what I can see.

As good as all these ideas sound . . . (to me at least) . . . you do realize we're just spitting into the wind. Yes? [:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Personally, because CAP is too strong (seem to be capable of being in more than one place at a time and don't suffer any apparent lack of coordination themselves) and butchers uncoordinated strikes despite the fact that the strikes might be coming in at relatively the same time but are not organized to attack under optimal conditions (ie torpedo planes make an "anvil" attack while dive bombers attack simultaneously), I'd approach penalizing uncoordinated strikes a different way. Having played UV and WITP long enough allows such revision advocation.

I'd simply reduce the accuracy of the uncoordinated strikes vs ships rather than force each one to run the gauntlet of 100% CAP.

Unfortunately this won't work in all cases so might be inadequate. When you target LCUs on ground attack, the CAP gets to attack the bombers as if uncoordinated even if the strke was successfully coordinated. Why...because of the air combat model's need to split the strikes vs multiple LCUs. To alleviate this, make the strike split and select LCU targets AFTER CAP interception somehow. It is done vs ships. Also, whether a strike is coordinated or not should not impact accuracy of bombers vs LCU from what I can see.

As good as all these ideas sound . . . (to me at least) . . . you do realize we're just spitting into the wind. Yes? [:)]

Actually it feels more like I'm pissing in the wind sometimes.[:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Personally, because CAP is too strong (seem to be capable of being in more than one place at a time and don't suffer any apparent lack of coordination themselves) and butchers uncoordinated strikes despite the fact that the strikes might be coming in at relatively the same time but are not organized to attack under optimal conditions (ie torpedo planes make an "anvil" attack while dive bombers attack simultaneously), I'd approach penalizing uncoordinated strikes a different way. Having played UV and WITP long enough allows such revision advocation.

I'd simply reduce the accuracy of the uncoordinated strikes vs ships rather than force each one to run the gauntlet of 100% CAP.

Unfortunately this won't work in all cases so might be inadequate. When you target LCUs on ground attack, the CAP gets to attack the bombers as if uncoordinated even if the strke was successfully coordinated. Why...because of the air combat model's need to split the strikes vs multiple LCUs. To alleviate this, make the strike split and select LCU targets AFTER CAP interception somehow. It is done vs ships. Also, whether a strike is coordinated or not should not impact accuracy of bombers vs LCU from what I can see.

As good as all these ideas sound . . . (to me at least) . . . you do realize we're just spitting into the wind. Yes? [:)]

Actually it feels more like I'm pissing in the wind sometimes.[:D]

I was trying to be polite. [:)]

[pfnognoff]

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.

How can you call this battle a draw? You said it yourself, you are getting 4 better CVs in place of all that were lost. What does poor IJN get? This is a total strategic victory for the USN.

If there wasn't somekind of a problem for USN CV force in the game, there wouldn't be any need for the respawning.

Edit: All that should be uncoordinated more are those mega CAP thingies we all love so much.

[tsimmonds]

The coordination penalty for strikes can be argued endlessly. There should probably be a benefit to a CVTF that is launching their first strike following replenishing in port. Or maybe instead the bonus should go only to strikes against bases. This would give a sop to those who feel that IJN needs to be given a bonus to re-create certain historical results (PH). After this first strike, things should deteriorate rapidly. I have studied the carrier battles in some detail, and I can see no evidence that either side had much success in coordinating strikes from more than a single carrier in 1942 at all. Point to one strike by either side in any battle in 1942 that featured planes from more than one CV simultaneously attacking the same enemy TF (except by pure good luck). USN developed considerable expertise here during their 1943 raids in the Central and Southwest Pacific. The IJN strikes at the Turkey Shoot, while futile, were not badly coordinated.

Where there ought to be a coordination penalty is for CAP. Throughout 1942, CAP from both sides was notorious in its inability to effectively come to grips with incoming strikes. Radars were still primitive, fighter direction was in its infancy, radio nets were overloaded (or non-existant!) and totally lacking in discipline; the inevitable result was that while CAP was very effective in shooting down the VT and VB that were intercepted, a feature common to every CV battle in 1942 is that many inbound strike elements on both sides were simply not engaged by CAP at all, and a large portion of CAP never engaged incoming strikes at all. This is where the present model fails IMHO.

[tsimmonds]

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?

I agree with this entirely.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

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. [:(])

I disagree; ahistorical in what way? All CV strikes in 1942 that were directed against TFs at sea suffered from an abysmal lack of coordination. What is ahistorical are the DS megadeath matches that the current system encourages, as described in the top post. Both sides are encouraged to operate their CVTFs in one hex to get the benefits of the combined CAP.

[Sonny]

Less coordination by the attackers and less coordination by the CAP would look better to me - or at least make mega stacks less attractive/necessary. More one-on-one type combat instead of everybody in one big brawl.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Right from the start, the IJN assigned leaders to overall command of strikes composed of air groups from different carriers - e.g. Fuchida at PH, Tomonaga at Midway - for what I assume were coordination purposes. I'm wondering whether the USN had overall commanders for their carrier strikes early in the war - I always had the impression that the individual squadron leaders were pretty much on their own and coordination was a rather haphazard affair, with no overall commander for C&C purposes. Only for later in the war I have seen references to USN strike leaders coordinating the attacks of several squadrons originating from different carriers. Am I wrong?

[Ron Saueracker]

Where there ought to be a coordination penalty is for CAP. Throughout 1942, CAP from both sides was notorious in its inability to effectively come to grips with incoming strikes. Radars were still primitive, fighter direction was in its infancy, radio nets were overloaded (or non-existant!) and totally lacking in discipline; the inevitable result was that while CAP was very effective in shooting down the VT and VB that were intercepted, a feature common to every CV battle in 1942 is that many inbound strike elements on both sides were simply not engaged by CAP at all, and a large portion of CAP never engaged incoming strikes at all. This is where the present model fails IMHO.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[Ron Saueracker]

My big thing is why are uncoordinated strikes always assumed to come in series with enough time in between for the CAP to reorganize or even land, rearm, relaunch and redeploy? What is this, a bad kung fu movie where the hero is outnumbered 20 to 1 but the bad guys only take him on one at a time? (I needed a comparison...can't help finding bad analogies[:)])

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Right from the start, the IJN assigned leaders to overall command of strikes composed of air groups from different carriers - e.g. Fuchida at PH, Tomonaga at Midway - for what I assume were coordination purposes. I'm wondering whether the USN had overall commanders for their carrier strikes early in the war - I always had the impression that the individual squadron leaders were pretty much on their own and coordination was a rather haphazard affair, with no overall commander for C&C purposes. Only for later in the war I have seen references to USN strike leaders coordinating the attacks of several squadrons originating from different carriers. Am I wrong?

Nope, not wrong LST ... This is just another one of those pro USA bias threads where people can't come to terms that the Yanks were not gods.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Right from the start, the IJN assigned leaders to overall command of strikes composed of air groups from different carriers - e.g. Fuchida at PH, Tomonaga at Midway - for what I assume were coordination purposes. I'm wondering whether the USN had overall commanders for their carrier strikes early in the war - I always had the impression that the individual squadron leaders were pretty much on their own and coordination was a rather haphazard affair, with no overall commander for C&C purposes. Only for later in the war I have seen references to USN strike leaders coordinating the attacks of several squadrons originating from different carriers. Am I wrong?

Nope, not wrong LST ... This is just another one of those pro USA bias threads where people can't come to terms that the Yanks were not gods.

The USN had senior CAGs, like William Ault from Lexington at Coral Sea.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Right from the start, the IJN assigned leaders to overall command of strikes composed of air groups from different carriers - e.g. Fuchida at PH, Tomonaga at Midway - for what I assume were coordination purposes. I'm wondering whether the USN had overall commanders for their carrier strikes early in the war - I always had the impression that the individual squadron leaders were pretty much on their own and coordination was a rather haphazard affair, with no overall commander for C&C purposes. Only for later in the war I have seen references to USN strike leaders coordinating the attacks of several squadrons originating from different carriers. Am I wrong?

Nope, not wrong LST ... This is just another one of those pro USA bias threads where people can't come to terms that the Yanks were not gods.

CAP gauntlet vs incoming strikes behaves same way for either side.

[Mr.Frag]

The USN had senior CAGs, like William Ault from Lexington at Coral Sea.

You switching sides? Pointing out the Coral Sea flop just makes my point even better. [:D]

[tsimmonds]

Right from the start, the IJN assigned leaders to overall command of strikes composed of air groups from different carriers - e.g. Fuchida at PH, Tomonaga at Midway - for what I assume were coordination purposes.

Fuchida was leading a strike against a fixed base (btw, his control of the strike broke down when his signal was misread by the dive bombers, and a free-for-all ensued, when his intention was that, surprise having been achieved, the torpedo planes should attack first). Tomonaga was leading a strike launched from a single carrier. edit: As LST points out below, Tomonaga also led the 4-CV strike against the atoll earlier in the day. Another attack vs a fixed base.

Whatever their practice and intentions might have been, as far as I can find, IJ never managed to organize a single multi-carrier strike against a US CVTF (until it was too late, at the Turkey Shoot). They came close at Santa Cruz, but elements of the first strike from Zuiho, Shokaku, and Zuikaku seem to have attacked separately in close succession, not together. They did all fly to towards the US fleet more or less together however. This one attack is why I suggested that if there is a chance for a coordinated strike, it should only be for the first strike following replenishment. Not that replanishment per se has anything to do with anything, but if all CVs are at 100%, that indicates that they have at least had some time to spend on planning for whatever it is that they are about to do.

[Mr.Frag]

CAP gauntlet vs incoming strikes behaves same way for either side.

Yes, it is either overpowered or it wins.

The coordination effect is to break up overpowered raids so the cap wins when normally it would not win.

This one is real simple. Follow the rule or loose CV's for absolutely *nothing*. The choice is completely yours.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The USN had senior CAGs, like William Ault from Lexington at Coral Sea.

You switching sides? Pointing out the Coral Sea flop just makes my point even better. [:D]

I didn't say CAGs were "effective" in the gestation period of CV warfare.[8D] And since we only have five battles to go by, it seems the art never left infancy.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Personally, because CAP is too strong (seem to be capable of being in more than one place at a time and don't suffer any apparent lack of coordination themselves) and butchers uncoordinated strikes despite the fact that the strikes might be coming in at relatively the same time but are not organized to attack under optimal conditions (ie torpedo planes make an "anvil" attack while dive bombers attack simultaneously), I'd approach penalizing uncoordinated strikes a different way. Having played UV and WITP long enough allows such revision advocation.

I'd simply reduce the accuracy of the uncoordinated strikes vs ships rather than force each one to run the gauntlet of 100% CAP.

Unfortunately this won't work in all cases so might be inadequate. When you target LCUs on ground attack, the CAP gets to attack the bombers as if uncoordinated even if the strke was successfully coordinated. Why...because of the air combat model's need to split the strikes vs multiple LCUs. To alleviate this, make the strike split and select LCU targets AFTER CAP interception somehow. It is done vs ships. Also, whether a strike is coordinated or not should not impact accuracy of bombers vs LCU from what I can see.

Good Lord! I agree with Ron!![:D]

At least in principle if not in detail.

I think that the coordination rule has to apply to both offense and defense. If you look at the historical record, in the early war period (through Jan 43)there are more examples of CAP mis-coordination than there are stike mis-coordination.

Just add a slight coordination penalty to more than one CV worth of CAP (nominally 12 ftr for example) with increasing impact as the number of fighters assigned to CAP grows. Keep the USN learning curve effect for fighter direction to account for integrated CIC, IFF and radar in late 43-mid 44.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

CAP gauntlet vs incoming strikes behaves same way for either side.

Yes, it is either overpowered or it wins.

The coordination effect is to break up overpowered raids so the cap wins when normally it would not win.

This one is real simple. Follow the rule or loose CV's for absolutely *nothing*. The choice is completely yours.

Should have added a [:'(] raspberry, Ray.

Really, if this is the arguement (and unfortunately the rule) then it is a flawed by it's absoluteness. So when an overpowered strike (which should be extremely rare if not impossible in the combat model) is split due to lack of coord, the CAP in each case is now overpowered. This lacks any sort of design finesse. Overkill one way or the other.