Over 15 ships useless?

[GaryChildress]

According to the manual putting over 15 ships into a carrier task force will create "diminishing returns". Does this mean the 16th ship won't contribute at all to AAA defense or does this mean it just won't contribute as much as it would normally?

Also, which is better, one task force of two carriers plus escorts or two task forces of one carrier each plus escorts operating in close tandem? I assume two task forces would be better with respect to dividing an oncoming enemy attack because I think planes will only attack one task force in a hex at a time even if there are more than one in a hex. However won't two task forces create greater division in air strikes with planes attacking more in a piecemeal manner than in one great big group as would be produced by a single task force full of carriers?

[&:]

Gary

[GaryChildress]

Woops, perhaps I should clarify the last part.

When two carrier task forces each containing a carrier launch an airstrike against an enemy, won't the airstrikes be more fragmented than if both carriers were in the same task force?

And when an enemy is attacking two carrier task forces instead of one big one, won't the enemy's air strikes be more fragmented?

Or will the planes from two seperate carrier task forces combine to attack the enemy simultaneously instead of showing up piecemeal?

Which is better: two task forces with one carrier each and 28 escort ships total between them or one task force containing both carriers and only 13 escorts total?


Thanks,

Gary

[Terminus]

Depends on which side you're playing and how late in the war it. The Japanese start out with the ability to coordinate large CV task forces, while the Allies do not. This gets reversed as the war progresses.

[GaryChildress]

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the Allies started out with a disadvantage in coordinating more than one carrier in a task force. But it makes sense given the early experience at Midway which of course turned out to be a blessing in disguise. That's the part I have questions on, whether or not there might be some advantage to numerous small task forces instead of one big one containing all my carriers. I've always tried to group all my carriers together in one large force to try to get the most planes up in the air at one time. In Uncommon Valor I had times when I had planes comming from various task forces and it seemed like they would all arrive a few at a time and get shot up before they could do any real damage.

Thanks,

[:)]

gary

[Terminus]

Another good thing about 1 carrier TF's is that they present a smaller target to the Japanese.

Even if you have more than one in the same hex, the Japs are likely to concentrate on just one TF, and if they don't, they dillute their strength going for more than one, which means you'll have a better chance of surviving against 2 small rather than 1 big air attack. That little trick's saved my butt more than once.

[rtrapasso]

According to the manual putting over 15 ships into a carrier task force will create "diminishing returns". Does this mean the 16th ship won't contribute at all to AAA defense or does this mean it just won't contribute as much as it would normally?

Won't contribute as much, but still get a little increment.

[Sardaukar]

True that. For example 25-ship Air/Surface Combat TF has more AA power than 15-ship. Ships over limit of 15 won't contribute *all* their AA to total, but they still add. About only downside is that larger the TF, easier it is to spot.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the Allies started out with a disadvantage in coordinating more than one carrier in a task force. But it makes sense given the early experience at Midway which of course turned out to be a blessing in disguise. That's the part I have questions on, whether or not there might be some advantage to numerous small task forces instead of one big one containing all my carriers. I've always tried to group all my carriers together in one large force to try to get the most planes up in the air at one time. In Uncommon Valor I had times when I had planes comming from various task forces and it seemed like they would all arrive a few at a time and get shot up before they could do any real damage.

Thanks,

[:)]

gary

I didn't realize the Allies started out with a disadvantage in coordinating more than one carrier in a task force. But it makes sense given the early experience at Midway which of course turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

It was a blessing in disguise but WITP won't allow this as does not adequately penalize CAP. CAP in WITP is more like a gauntlet which sorority girls much run through than the uncoordinated mess it was historically. Historically, CAP elements sometimes never entered combat, but in this model they all seem to. When they gave Japan the coord bonus, they forgot that the same books they drew this from also stated that Japanese CAP was uncoordinated.

[sven6345789]

how about returning to the good old pacwar days? in the manual of that game, it is said that the perfect taskforce for the japanese should consist of about 2 CVs and 4 CVLs (this i am not sure of at the moment) or 4 CVs. For the Allies, the perfect balance would be 3 CVs or 2 CVs and 2 CVLs (the last three i am sure of). Of course, in 1942, the Allies shouldn't put more than two CVs in a taskforce.
btw, forget about midway if playing against a human japanese opponent. They won't do the mistake of spreading their CV force out across the pacific like the japanese did historically. Most players will see to it that ANY strike they do in the southern or central pacific will be done by forces able to cope with ANYTHING the Allies throw at them, at least in 1942. Up to late 1943, the allied decision to attack or react should be based upon the victory point score and the chance for a japanese automatic victory. After the Hellcats and the new Essex carriers arrive, You can go anywere you want anyhow.

[Sardaukar]

In PacWar, it was about "carrier points"...in WitP it's about number of planes in CV TF. But then as always...more is better for forcee-protection..[:D].

[rtrapasso]

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize the Allies started out with a disadvantage in coordinating more than one carrier in a task force. But it makes sense given the early experience at Midway which of course turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

I think this rule is based on the fact that since the Japanese planes arrived together more often, the rule-maker decided that the IJN must have had better coordinating abilities.

But examination of this in more detail makes the assumption very suspect.

Since the Japanese operated their carriers together early in the war, OF COURSE it would be easier to coordinate their planes and ships. When they did NOT operate their ships/planes in one TF, they didn't do so well. Heck, a large percentage of the IJN planes did not have radios (by breakage and sometimes by design), and coordination of units without planes is/was highly problematic. Early in the war, the US did NOT put all their carriers in one basket, and so the attacks were not so well coordinated.

The unifying factor is how many TFs were involved - not the fact the Japanese had an inherrently better system for overall coordination. The rule should read that coordination between air strikes in different TFs is more difficult, not for one side or the other.

[Toast]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



It was a blessing in disguise but WITP won't allow this as does not adequately penalize CAP. CAP in WITP is more like a gauntlet which sorority girls much run through than the uncoordinated mess it was historically.

Wow! Thanks for that analogy. I'll never be able to look at air-to-air combat in WITP in the same way again![:D]

[BigJ62]

In section 7.2.2.11 of the manual reads - Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + md(100). Question what does md stand for, what does md(100) mean in this rule?

Thanks...

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

In section 7.2.2.11 of the manual reads - Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + md(100). Question what does md stand for, what does md(100) mean in this rule?

Thanks...

It's rnd (100), meaning random roll of 100. More planes you have over 100, bigger the chance for screw-up is.