try 5!! and it works!!
Thanks for all the comments and suggestions and so on BTW...
1. I am well aware of the fact that surface or carrier forces had a heck of time finding each other in the open sea and that spotter planes reported every major ship they saw as a CV but I am not sure why you feel this is relevent to the situation at hand? I am discussing a major convoy of MCS that has been under repeated air attack for several days and 3 SAG (including 1 in the hex the convoy moves into) do nothing. Not only once but on 4 seperate occasions. Is it realy that odd that I am wondering just what the code is doing??
As for the routine convoy moving thru the CVBG, well, the trouble is the rules say that routine convoys do not operate when there is an enemy threat present...isn´t an enemy CVBG a threat? That is what I find more puzzeling because it makes no sense to me that the routine convoy would have been able to operate at all.
4. Can you add ships from the pool to a task force at sea? I don´t believe you can but the computer removed 51 APs from my task forces to the pool. That is what I find infuriating. Most infuriating.
5. PC have a durability of 1 and no armor. A hit by a 4" gun should sink them automatically as the rules state that any hit will inflict 1 pt of damage. So a PC surviving 12 hits by 4" guns (a hit is far more than a single 4" shell hitting it I assume) is unbelievable. True a large AP shell would go thru the PC or DD but on the other hand I believe they carried HE or APDP rounds for these smaller guns although I have no way to check and naval history is not my specialty (tanks sure...ships nope).
7. Ah, ok. I can confirm that they do launch attacks when the CVE is part of an actual air combat task force. I have never tried using a CVE task force (in responce to the question)...I was under the impression those were for resupplying CVBGs with spare planes. I was realy wondering why the CVE bombers assigned to transport TF don´t seem to do anything, cap works just fine in this case. I am very tempted to put all my TBM planes on naval intercept as you suggested just to stop the annoying tendancy the computer has of launching them on unescorted air raids.
8. Which number is correct though? The summary or the number you see during combat? As for the effect of flak I haven´t kept such careful track but it seems that the Japanese flak for identical bases is higher...but that may be purely physcological.
9. Well I would not, myself, rate troops that had been fighting in china as 75 to 80. More like 60-70 but that is purely subjective. It all depends on what these numbers are supposed to represent.
The problem for me is that the British and Indian troops that have recovered the bases Manadlay, Rabul, Bangkok, Phenon Pheng, and Siagon have experiences only in the low 60s. They have been fighting for 3 years now and that is all they have?? The japanese troops that I was refering to were not the ones you mentioned but a number of the smaller Bn, Rgt, Bde and so on that I have encountered on Ambon I. (all 5 units there had an experience >90) and in other places around the pacific. It seems that virtually every one of these smaller units has a 99 experience.
The most experienced allied units in my game should be the British and Indian Divisions (in one case this is true as the 7th Arm Bde now has a 97 exp following its particapation the capture of Hienan. It went in at 79 and came out of the battle at 97!), followed by some australian/NZ divisions, and the 2nd Marine division (it has fought since 42). These are the units which have done the most real fighting (not just occuping empty bases). Although the attacks on Kaivang, and Manila plus the two bases on the Island to the south of manila also served as good training grounds for the lower experience american troops.
The effect I see is that during the capture of the base (when it is still under japanese control) phase you loose experience due to the casulties you suffer and then once you take the base you tend to gain experience as you crush the remenents. I am not sure if this is all that realistic. The same is true for the japanese.
Another oddity, I have seen the AI march units when I would have thought the unit had less than 50% readiness. Certainly the number of troops in Saigon was going down and the number of troops in Haiphong was going up. I am not looking forward to that battle at all...I want to isolate them first by capturing the next base up the coast...the 38th Division is already investing the base (there is a rather humorous string on Norther CAC bases leading to the coast).
My list of oddities, bugs and way of improvement...
About troup experience I do agree that 99 is a bit too much for the japanese indian army.
I guess that fighting in China could provide them some experiment, but this hasn't been without losses et lot of stand off time in the late war.
Also my 2cts trick to raise the china army to the up 60 exp and more:
1st stack them to the path node 2 at a time everywhere the japanese could invade. If a japanese base is adj to 2 or more noddle inveade it with 3 army, so you are freeing 1 unit from defense.
2nd use the 2 or 3 army that left you to invade Burma and mandalay, fight there until you take the hex ( usualy less defended cause the japanese army is fighting the Brits closer from india ). Then dig you in it to repulse weak counterattack and start to get the oil ressource for your own personnal use <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
3rd As soon as the Brits take the upper hand ( wich could take them a lot of time versus 99 exp unit ), withdraw from mandalay to let the japanese retreat to it and capture it ( you cant transfer a base to other country ).
You know have 2 3 nice armies and a bunch of experimented air forces ( all where based and upgraded in the North AB and used in Training and Bombing Japanese LCU ).
NExt point to know it that Japan have less army than you to defend all of china. You just need to find the spot that isnt defended. There SIGINT is really helpfull. If there is none trap them:
Lessen defence on a node and attack , japan will take the noddle and start invading china : no big deakl we were ready for just that. Have your experimented corps ready to intercept them in the China province they attack and use 2 or 3 army to invade by the hole their advance plugged in their line. Then using Sigint overrrun as many empty base as you can, trying to isolate the japanese force. You can expect to seize some ports, I even overrun an empty Shangai and capture the ennemy HQ . More important you know have 3 more army with experience rating in the up 50.
Soon you wont find any emptybase anymore so stack against the surrounded Jap and attack them relentlessly, with a mix of good and bad unit at last 6 to 1. You gonna have heavy losses at start but you can replace all of them and the japanese just cant. Also use you air support to kill japanese tank ( the only thing that make them strong against you ).
I guess that fighting in China could provide them some experiment, but this hasn't been without losses et lot of stand off time in the late war.
Also my 2cts trick to raise the china army to the up 60 exp and more:
1st stack them to the path node 2 at a time everywhere the japanese could invade. If a japanese base is adj to 2 or more noddle inveade it with 3 army, so you are freeing 1 unit from defense.
2nd use the 2 or 3 army that left you to invade Burma and mandalay, fight there until you take the hex ( usualy less defended cause the japanese army is fighting the Brits closer from india ). Then dig you in it to repulse weak counterattack and start to get the oil ressource for your own personnal use <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
3rd As soon as the Brits take the upper hand ( wich could take them a lot of time versus 99 exp unit ), withdraw from mandalay to let the japanese retreat to it and capture it ( you cant transfer a base to other country ).
You know have 2 3 nice armies and a bunch of experimented air forces ( all where based and upgraded in the North AB and used in Training and Bombing Japanese LCU ).
NExt point to know it that Japan have less army than you to defend all of china. You just need to find the spot that isnt defended. There SIGINT is really helpfull. If there is none trap them:
Lessen defence on a node and attack , japan will take the noddle and start invading china : no big deakl we were ready for just that. Have your experimented corps ready to intercept them in the China province they attack and use 2 or 3 army to invade by the hole their advance plugged in their line. Then using Sigint overrrun as many empty base as you can, trying to isolate the japanese force. You can expect to seize some ports, I even overrun an empty Shangai and capture the ennemy HQ . More important you know have 3 more army with experience rating in the up 50.
Soon you wont find any emptybase anymore so stack against the surrounded Jap and attack them relentlessly, with a mix of good and bad unit at last 6 to 1. You gonna have heavy losses at start but you can replace all of them and the japanese just cant. Also use you air support to kill japanese tank ( the only thing that make them strong against you ).
Ivan, I finally see what your problem was with the doubled up subs problem.
When you got a message that a sub was sunk/killed, that message meant that ONE sub from the group was killed, not the whole group. When you put that second group there, you now had 2 groups there with the attendant problem that you noted.
Remember that only 1 sub can be killed in an attack at a time, (just like in surface unit combats) Of course, if several air groups / escorts take shots at one group and if they all get "sub sunk" results, then your sub group could conceivabely get eliminated.
Damaged subs don't ever seem to suffer any ill effects
I still can't figure out if the sub groups are getting any regular replacements. I have groups ranging from 5 to 12 in size and the only way I can see that I could even them out would be to bring them all in to port for a turn and use "to pool / get pool" to make them uniform in size. That of course would let the Japanese merchant fleet have 1 or 2 turns off because there would be no subs on patrol, maybe I will, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll do it for all Non-Gatos one turn then all the Gatos the following turn.
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
When you got a message that a sub was sunk/killed, that message meant that ONE sub from the group was killed, not the whole group. When you put that second group there, you now had 2 groups there with the attendant problem that you noted.
Remember that only 1 sub can be killed in an attack at a time, (just like in surface unit combats) Of course, if several air groups / escorts take shots at one group and if they all get "sub sunk" results, then your sub group could conceivabely get eliminated.
Damaged subs don't ever seem to suffer any ill effects
I still can't figure out if the sub groups are getting any regular replacements. I have groups ranging from 5 to 12 in size and the only way I can see that I could even them out would be to bring them all in to port for a turn and use "to pool / get pool" to make them uniform in size. That of course would let the Japanese merchant fleet have 1 or 2 turns off because there would be no subs on patrol, maybe I will, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll do it for all Non-Gatos one turn then all the Gatos the following turn.
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
Transport TFs? Transport TFs! Eureka! That's surely it! Different types of TFs use different AI routines (as I discovered to my chagrin when I spent three months trying to get troops to actually land on Buka after I accidentally formed my APs into a Cargo TF - they'd go, but wouldn't unload until I reorganized the APs into a Transport TF). CAP is one thing - the game will grab any and all fighters within range for that - but I'm not at all surprised to learn that a Transport TF wouldn't launch any strikes.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
If you put Allied CVEs in an Air Combat TF, they WILL attack. If you put them in any other TF, their fighters will put up CAP. The exception is a replenisment TF, where the air Group (if there was one, some CVEs do not have an air group!!!) is temporarily disbanded while the carrier loads up on replacement aircraft.
CVEs in a transport or cargo TF will not attack. The best use is a separate Air combat TF with the same destination and standoff as the attack transport TF.
CVLs are just like CVs, and they will only attack in an Air Combat TF. They fill out the fast carrier TFs nicely.
Don't mix CVEs with CV/CVLs, the CVEs are too slow and will throttle back the range of your Fast Carrier Task Forces.
Once you get enough CVEs you can make a support Air Combat TF to accompany the toop transport TFs while other CVEs go into 1 or 2 replenish TFs (with your speed 18 AO oilers) to follow the fast carriers. Don't use speed 10 tankers, because you'll get strange results, like a replenish TF "retiring" to the northwest map edge and into oblivion.....
I have been able to keep 3 fast carrier TFs off the coast of Tokyo for 4 weeks straight with replenish TFs that contain CVEs. (I'm trying to bomb the Osaka port where I know 5 severely damaged CVs are). All 3 TFs are in the same hex (mutual CAP support that I can verify) all with identical orders to bomb Osaka. Too bad the post hasn't been bombed yet!!! I'm not sure how long i can keep it up (its Aug 1943). I havent suffered any damage, but getting the replenish TFs out to the battle zone is challenging and a single fast carrier TF eats up most of a CVEs supply of aircraft. Lots of aircraft losses in useless strikes against Japanese bases seems to be the rule.
I never use Cargo TFs any more. They will not willingly enter an enemy air zone of control. That's the difference between Cargo and Transport TFs the latter will enter an Air ZOC while the latter will not, unless that is the only way HOME.
I keep on seeing references to bombard SAG being bypassed by enemy supply collums. A bombardment TF has only one function, that is to bombard an emeny ground position. You can get the same result by making Surface Combat TFs and sending them against enemy bases. The Surface Combat TF at least has a Chance of intercepting an enemy TF. If you don't find any enemy TFs to fight, your surface TF will bombard the enemy base. I keep 5 Surface TFs at all times, 1 RN in the indial Ocean/ Malaya area (where it just got plastered by a surprise move by a 3BB IJN TF!!), 2 Australian for the indies areas (harassment purposes only because there are only cruisers there) and 2 USN in the Central Pacific each with 6 old BBs and 4-6 CAs. The fast BBs are with the fast carriers. These TFs do very well (except for the British getting suprised by the IJN last turn - that wouldn't have happened if my 4 R class BBs & 4 "county" class CAs hadn't been "withdrawn" by the fools at Whitehall!) Now I have no RN CAs left and the Warspite will be spending some time in Singapore for repairs... Oh well.
CVEs in a transport or cargo TF will not attack. The best use is a separate Air combat TF with the same destination and standoff as the attack transport TF.
CVLs are just like CVs, and they will only attack in an Air Combat TF. They fill out the fast carrier TFs nicely.
Don't mix CVEs with CV/CVLs, the CVEs are too slow and will throttle back the range of your Fast Carrier Task Forces.
Once you get enough CVEs you can make a support Air Combat TF to accompany the toop transport TFs while other CVEs go into 1 or 2 replenish TFs (with your speed 18 AO oilers) to follow the fast carriers. Don't use speed 10 tankers, because you'll get strange results, like a replenish TF "retiring" to the northwest map edge and into oblivion.....
I have been able to keep 3 fast carrier TFs off the coast of Tokyo for 4 weeks straight with replenish TFs that contain CVEs. (I'm trying to bomb the Osaka port where I know 5 severely damaged CVs are). All 3 TFs are in the same hex (mutual CAP support that I can verify) all with identical orders to bomb Osaka. Too bad the post hasn't been bombed yet!!! I'm not sure how long i can keep it up (its Aug 1943). I havent suffered any damage, but getting the replenish TFs out to the battle zone is challenging and a single fast carrier TF eats up most of a CVEs supply of aircraft. Lots of aircraft losses in useless strikes against Japanese bases seems to be the rule.
I never use Cargo TFs any more. They will not willingly enter an enemy air zone of control. That's the difference between Cargo and Transport TFs the latter will enter an Air ZOC while the latter will not, unless that is the only way HOME.
I keep on seeing references to bombard SAG being bypassed by enemy supply collums. A bombardment TF has only one function, that is to bombard an emeny ground position. You can get the same result by making Surface Combat TFs and sending them against enemy bases. The Surface Combat TF at least has a Chance of intercepting an enemy TF. If you don't find any enemy TFs to fight, your surface TF will bombard the enemy base. I keep 5 Surface TFs at all times, 1 RN in the indial Ocean/ Malaya area (where it just got plastered by a surprise move by a 3BB IJN TF!!), 2 Australian for the indies areas (harassment purposes only because there are only cruisers there) and 2 USN in the Central Pacific each with 6 old BBs and 4-6 CAs. The fast BBs are with the fast carriers. These TFs do very well (except for the British getting suprised by the IJN last turn - that wouldn't have happened if my 4 R class BBs & 4 "county" class CAs hadn't been "withdrawn" by the fools at Whitehall!) Now I have no RN CAs left and the Warspite will be spending some time in Singapore for repairs... Oh well.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
-
Doug Olenick
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ny
I've read through most of the posts here and have a few comments that I hope will clear up some of the game's anamolies. I take a time/space continium approach.
PT boats seeming to survive multiple large calibre hits: Remember, in a group of 10 PTs only the first one is targeted by the opposing force, so if a 4x DD group is firing you have in excess of 20 4 or 5-inch guns aimed at on PT. That is why it's struck so many times before finally sinking.
Surface and CV TFs ignoring prime targets. Since each turn is up to a week in length, I believe the two forces are simply not in the same hex on the same day of that week, even though the computer graphics might indicate otherwise. Same goes for air groups pounding a depot and leaving the ships in port alone. Generally this happens and at the end of the TF move phase yousee all MCS hurrying away. What I think the game is doing, but not showing, is the merchies escaping prior to the arrival of the attack. Technically this is feasible as most TFs approaching a target are spotted by recon craft.
I don't know how much sense this makes, but it's the only way I've been able to mentally overcome some of the game's bugs. Perhaps if each turn was only one day in length these events would not take place.
PT boats seeming to survive multiple large calibre hits: Remember, in a group of 10 PTs only the first one is targeted by the opposing force, so if a 4x DD group is firing you have in excess of 20 4 or 5-inch guns aimed at on PT. That is why it's struck so many times before finally sinking.
Surface and CV TFs ignoring prime targets. Since each turn is up to a week in length, I believe the two forces are simply not in the same hex on the same day of that week, even though the computer graphics might indicate otherwise. Same goes for air groups pounding a depot and leaving the ships in port alone. Generally this happens and at the end of the TF move phase yousee all MCS hurrying away. What I think the game is doing, but not showing, is the merchies escaping prior to the arrival of the attack. Technically this is feasible as most TFs approaching a target are spotted by recon craft.
I don't know how much sense this makes, but it's the only way I've been able to mentally overcome some of the game's bugs. Perhaps if each turn was only one day in length these events would not take place.
Hi Guys thanks for the comments. This is delayed since yesterday was a very nice day plus a holiday here in germany and I went to the Oktoberfest <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Why is it odd that I use CVE in Transport TF? For me they are the first TF to get CVE since I hate that "TF Retiring" message. Currently I have a problem with the sheer number of TF that I have, I had to concilidate several since I had apparently exceeded the allowable number of TFs.
I suspected the bombing of your own commander was a bug. It is rather exasperating but what can you do eh?
The only CVEs I have in a air combat task force are the ones in the 2nd line British CVL BG. There speed is not so critical. As things stand the Eastern fleet has a CVBG (6 CV), a CVLBG (5 CVL and 2 CVE), a fast BB SAG, a slow BB SAG, a CA SAG, 1 TRTF, 1 Cargo TF, plus there is a CW fast TRTF, the Dutch SAG and the RAN SAG, and finally a MTB SAG (but I cheated and made a single DD the commander so I am not limited to 3 hex range).
I finally have started to get some transport. 2 5 ship groups of APA(L) have now shown up plus the british LSI. I got my first (and so far only) group of LST in september of 44, and in june 45 two Iowa class BBs have just shown up (I believe they are nearly a year delayed). I should be able to drop all 5 marine divisions on Okinawa in one get go <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I just had another CVL badly damaged plus some BBs and a CA hit by Kamakazis. I was surprised that the CVBG didn´t put up any CAP over the BB SAG in the next hex (or for that matter that some P51s didn´t fly out) but still the japanese have expended most of their heavy bombers I suspect with these attacks. I am nearly tempted to put a CVE group with the BBs (or at least with my bombardment SAG since it has a top speed of only 20 knots anyway).
As far as bombardment SAG attacking ships, I have no idea what they will do but in the case I was complaining about it wasn´t a bombardment group but a SAG which was bombarding troops. Now I have seen a rule that says a SAG will not initiate combat if it has less than 6 rounds available and since I think the group had bombarded it might have had only 5 but I find it difficult to understand why the other 2 SAGs sat in port, not once but on 4 seperate occasions. Once the CA SAG sortied against the withdrawing PC (all MCS having been sunk by air attacks) but that accomplished nothing since these are the titianium PCs.
Also if what you want is purely bombardment then make a bombardment task force as it is more effective than a SAG that bombards. The SAG will attack only twice and both times at night while the bombardment TF will attack 3 times and one of those will be in daylight which I think is more effective for killing planes and damaging the supply depot (but I am not sure).
As far as PCs go what I fail to understand is why they are so much tougher than a DD. If 9 DDs are attacked by 180 bombers, and fighter bombers they will dead long before all the planes have finished attacking. Yet if that is 9 PCs you might get lucky and sink 4 or you might only sink 2. But then I don´t think I understand the combat results. There is something about seeing * that is important. A ship will sink when you see "Ship hit by 500 lb Bomb *****" but will not sink with 5 "Ship hit by 500 lb Bomb". And the total number of * that one requires from multiple attacks seems to be 7 or 8 to get a sinking. Yet a 4" gun does 3 pts of damage and a PC has a durability of 2. So how can it take 12 hits to sink a PC? I would have thought it would have only take a single hit, no armor so 3 pts of damage should be done to the PC. But it seems to take again a total of about 7 * to sink the PC. I have even seen a PC survive a torpedo hit, but I am not sure if that is any more unbelievable than hitting a PC with a torpedo in the first place.
Why is it odd that I use CVE in Transport TF? For me they are the first TF to get CVE since I hate that "TF Retiring" message. Currently I have a problem with the sheer number of TF that I have, I had to concilidate several since I had apparently exceeded the allowable number of TFs.
I suspected the bombing of your own commander was a bug. It is rather exasperating but what can you do eh?
The only CVEs I have in a air combat task force are the ones in the 2nd line British CVL BG. There speed is not so critical. As things stand the Eastern fleet has a CVBG (6 CV), a CVLBG (5 CVL and 2 CVE), a fast BB SAG, a slow BB SAG, a CA SAG, 1 TRTF, 1 Cargo TF, plus there is a CW fast TRTF, the Dutch SAG and the RAN SAG, and finally a MTB SAG (but I cheated and made a single DD the commander so I am not limited to 3 hex range).
I finally have started to get some transport. 2 5 ship groups of APA(L) have now shown up plus the british LSI. I got my first (and so far only) group of LST in september of 44, and in june 45 two Iowa class BBs have just shown up (I believe they are nearly a year delayed). I should be able to drop all 5 marine divisions on Okinawa in one get go <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I just had another CVL badly damaged plus some BBs and a CA hit by Kamakazis. I was surprised that the CVBG didn´t put up any CAP over the BB SAG in the next hex (or for that matter that some P51s didn´t fly out) but still the japanese have expended most of their heavy bombers I suspect with these attacks. I am nearly tempted to put a CVE group with the BBs (or at least with my bombardment SAG since it has a top speed of only 20 knots anyway).
As far as bombardment SAG attacking ships, I have no idea what they will do but in the case I was complaining about it wasn´t a bombardment group but a SAG which was bombarding troops. Now I have seen a rule that says a SAG will not initiate combat if it has less than 6 rounds available and since I think the group had bombarded it might have had only 5 but I find it difficult to understand why the other 2 SAGs sat in port, not once but on 4 seperate occasions. Once the CA SAG sortied against the withdrawing PC (all MCS having been sunk by air attacks) but that accomplished nothing since these are the titianium PCs.
Also if what you want is purely bombardment then make a bombardment task force as it is more effective than a SAG that bombards. The SAG will attack only twice and both times at night while the bombardment TF will attack 3 times and one of those will be in daylight which I think is more effective for killing planes and damaging the supply depot (but I am not sure).
As far as PCs go what I fail to understand is why they are so much tougher than a DD. If 9 DDs are attacked by 180 bombers, and fighter bombers they will dead long before all the planes have finished attacking. Yet if that is 9 PCs you might get lucky and sink 4 or you might only sink 2. But then I don´t think I understand the combat results. There is something about seeing * that is important. A ship will sink when you see "Ship hit by 500 lb Bomb *****" but will not sink with 5 "Ship hit by 500 lb Bomb". And the total number of * that one requires from multiple attacks seems to be 7 or 8 to get a sinking. Yet a 4" gun does 3 pts of damage and a PC has a durability of 2. So how can it take 12 hits to sink a PC? I would have thought it would have only take a single hit, no armor so 3 pts of damage should be done to the PC. But it seems to take again a total of about 7 * to sink the PC. I have even seen a PC survive a torpedo hit, but I am not sure if that is any more unbelievable than hitting a PC with a torpedo in the first place.
Using CVEs in Transport TFs is a bit ahistorical - the CVEs and DEs weren't actually part of the transport groups they covered, generally. Witness Samar, where the transports and the Taffys were far enough apart that Kurita couldn't reach the former (his main target) for the latter. And since the AI doesn't really know what to do with flattops in Transport TFs (it isn't very flexible about a lot of things), it pays to use the CVEs in Air Combat TFs.
One thing I've noticed is that if several TFs are going to the same destination, the lower-numbered TFs seem to move first. So I try as much as possible to make my CV TFs the lowest numbers (i.e. TF 50 rather than TF 90), then my BB TFs, and only then set up Transport TFs (usually by then I'm up in the mid 70s to low 80s). The warships soak up the initial response and squash the defenders, allowing the transports to sail in and drop off the troops unmolested - no "TF Retiring" here!
One thing I've noticed is that if several TFs are going to the same destination, the lower-numbered TFs seem to move first. So I try as much as possible to make my CV TFs the lowest numbers (i.e. TF 50 rather than TF 90), then my BB TFs, and only then set up Transport TFs (usually by then I'm up in the mid 70s to low 80s). The warships soak up the initial response and squash the defenders, allowing the transports to sail in and drop off the troops unmolested - no "TF Retiring" here!
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
Well I won`t argue with you about how real task forces are arranged I will say that including them in the taskforce makes up for the fact I can´t see how you could otherwise escort the ships since the transport TF is far slower (on account of the MCS) than the CVE TF. So if I have a CVE AC TF and a TRTF sent to the same target from the same base the AC TF will arrive long before the other and it may or may not provide any air cover to the ships it is intended to escort.
So far I have left my DEs in L.A. to escort routine convoys. My transport TF are usually a CVE (or 2 in the case of the british) group, a CA or CL as a flag ship, 1 or more CLs, and several DD groups and then the rest is filled with APs and MCS (the number of which goes up and down as supplies are loaded). I try to get as many VC2 ships in these transport groups since they move at the same speed at the APAs.
I have only one group without a CVE and that is my DPA group where I want the high speed but that one has a CA, 2 CL and 12 DDs to give it some firepower. I´ve had it intercepted in my first game so now I make sure it has some surface firepower since I often use it for critical delieveries early in the game (engineers to Wake for example).
I didn´t realise that was how the TF moved though. I have no idea what the average numbers of various TF are...I suspect some of the lowest belong to the TRTFs since they have been in service the longest.
2 more oddities...
1 6000 T Maru class MCS has shown up in San Fran
I have seen a group of 0 TK. I think the game is ignoring it, but I am not completely sure since I thought I saw a sub attack it. It sure looks funny anyway.
So far I have left my DEs in L.A. to escort routine convoys. My transport TF are usually a CVE (or 2 in the case of the british) group, a CA or CL as a flag ship, 1 or more CLs, and several DD groups and then the rest is filled with APs and MCS (the number of which goes up and down as supplies are loaded). I try to get as many VC2 ships in these transport groups since they move at the same speed at the APAs.
I have only one group without a CVE and that is my DPA group where I want the high speed but that one has a CA, 2 CL and 12 DDs to give it some firepower. I´ve had it intercepted in my first game so now I make sure it has some surface firepower since I often use it for critical delieveries early in the game (engineers to Wake for example).
I didn´t realise that was how the TF moved though. I have no idea what the average numbers of various TF are...I suspect some of the lowest belong to the TRTFs since they have been in service the longest.
2 more oddities...
1 6000 T Maru class MCS has shown up in San Fran
I have seen a group of 0 TK. I think the game is ignoring it, but I am not completely sure since I thought I saw a sub attack it. It sure looks funny anyway.
Back to my combat question. It seems there is a difference between durability and damage...is this correct? I have a CVL with 78 pts of damage sitting in Lyte Harbor (a victem of a Kamakazi attack where half my fighters sat out the battle)...but CVLs have only 38 durability (or something like that). So now I have to admit to being confused totally on how the damage system works. The 4" guns do 2 pts of damage (and can penetrate 2 pts of armor??) but how many pts of damage is necessary to sink a durability 2 ship? My original idea that it was 2 must be wrong!
You already have part of the solution to this:Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
...I can´t see how you could otherwise escort the ships since the transport TF is far slower (on account of the MCS) than the CVE TF.
Exactly! And what's more, they're almost as fast the CVEs. You get plenty of VC2 over the course of the game; appropriate all of them to support your amphibious ops, and leave all the 10k MCS on Routine Convoys. (It's a little harder for the British, but then the Far Eastern Fleet usually won't be up to much before 1945 anyway.)I try to get as many VC2 ships in these transport groups since they move at the same speed at the APAs.
The other part of the answer is staging from closer to your target. Rabaul too far from New Caledonia? Well, since it's going to take two weeks anyway, spend Week 1 moving everything you need from New Cal to Guadalcanal or New Georgia; then launch from your staging base in Week 2. Everything arrives the same week, the warships protect the transports and soften up the defenses, the transports unload, and all is right with the world. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
Well as of sept/45 the Japanese uncondinonally surrendered so I will be able to go back to playing WIR and stop pestering you guys <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Anyway some final oddities that I saw:
1. The ghost tanker. At the end of the war there was groups with 0 ships. I can confirm that these are both torpedoed and attacked by air (with the rather funny message Present:13 Sunk:14 as the result).
2. The "not quite finished Airbase expansion" glitch. I found in several cases that an airbase would not replace lost aircraft. You could base the number of groups there that the base would allow but they never took on replacements. The solution is simple...an engineer unit. Within 1 turn of arriving and begining work you will get the "xxx expands airbase" message and then everything works well. I think that the base was set to expand before it was captured and then when this doesn't happen the code is lost as to the correct size of the base.
3. I confirmed that PC are titatium <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I had a strike against 6 DE and 9 PC. Result 6 DE took 16 hits and all 6 sunk. 9 PC took 54 hits and 2 sunk. Sorry bout this but I couldn't resist. It is the above disparity that I find the most disturbing.
Not an oddity but something that was pleasent to see anyway. Low experience Japanese troops! I was dispairing of seeing such but Kealing was defended by troops with an average experience of 40. The two elite Aussie divisions went thru them like a oxy-acetelyne torch thru plastic. Okinawa wasn't much tougher(1st-4th Marine Divisions...3 weeks of combat).
4. Zhaingang base was always on the iso-base list. This is the base opposite Hainen Island and just up the coast from Hiaphong. I checked the enemy air zones and the closest air base was in japan or korea. So there was no reason for it to be on the list (Okinawa was not on the list for example) and several air groups were based out of it but I have a worry it was facing the "not quite finished" glitch. Dunno, anyway it was very odd that it was on the list of iso-bases for no reason I could see. I controlled all bases near it except canton.
5. Give me my Liberties! I had 70 Liberty MCS in the pool at the end of the game but none in service <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
As far as damage goes I though that the weapon damage was done directly to the ships durability. So a 500lb bomb does 24 pts of damage and will sink any unarmored ship with less than 24 durability and could sink a ship with up to 48 durability if it gets a critical. If it hits a ship with armor but doesn't penetrate (or the armor is effective) than it will do 1 pt of damage. I assumed that the number of damage shown on a damaged ship is the damage done to its durability but I at the end of the war the Independance in Leyte harbor sitll had 57 damage and its durability is 48 so I remain completely baffled. I know what I see in combat, 5 "*" at once and it will sink, 7 to 8 "*" over several hits and it will sink. Beyond that a lot of hits with no * and it will sink, but the mechanics baffle me. Sometimes a single 500 lb will sink a 10,000 T MCS and sometimes it takes 12. And so on, torpedoes normally will sink a TK or MCS 1 per but sometimes it takes 5. Excluding PC most of the time the combat results made sense.
Timing things... Al, the reason I have the CVE in the taskforce is so that if they are attacked the majority of the CVE air group will fly CAP. If it is in another TF then only a small fraction of it shows up (25% or much less). It is like the token 4 aircraft from the LBA fighter groups. So I started including the CVEs so that when the japanese attack they get jumped by 40-50 CAP fighters. This is what I thought was done historically in the atlantic with a CVE attached to the convoy to give it air cover. I would think that what would realy be done is that the CVEs in their own TF would escort the APs in their own TF but with the limitations on the game I find it works better to put the CVE (or for that matter defending warships) into the transport TF.
Thanks for all the usefull comments guys.
Anyway some final oddities that I saw:
1. The ghost tanker. At the end of the war there was groups with 0 ships. I can confirm that these are both torpedoed and attacked by air (with the rather funny message Present:13 Sunk:14 as the result).
2. The "not quite finished Airbase expansion" glitch. I found in several cases that an airbase would not replace lost aircraft. You could base the number of groups there that the base would allow but they never took on replacements. The solution is simple...an engineer unit. Within 1 turn of arriving and begining work you will get the "xxx expands airbase" message and then everything works well. I think that the base was set to expand before it was captured and then when this doesn't happen the code is lost as to the correct size of the base.
3. I confirmed that PC are titatium <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I had a strike against 6 DE and 9 PC. Result 6 DE took 16 hits and all 6 sunk. 9 PC took 54 hits and 2 sunk. Sorry bout this but I couldn't resist. It is the above disparity that I find the most disturbing.
Not an oddity but something that was pleasent to see anyway. Low experience Japanese troops! I was dispairing of seeing such but Kealing was defended by troops with an average experience of 40. The two elite Aussie divisions went thru them like a oxy-acetelyne torch thru plastic. Okinawa wasn't much tougher(1st-4th Marine Divisions...3 weeks of combat).
4. Zhaingang base was always on the iso-base list. This is the base opposite Hainen Island and just up the coast from Hiaphong. I checked the enemy air zones and the closest air base was in japan or korea. So there was no reason for it to be on the list (Okinawa was not on the list for example) and several air groups were based out of it but I have a worry it was facing the "not quite finished" glitch. Dunno, anyway it was very odd that it was on the list of iso-bases for no reason I could see. I controlled all bases near it except canton.
5. Give me my Liberties! I had 70 Liberty MCS in the pool at the end of the game but none in service <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
As far as damage goes I though that the weapon damage was done directly to the ships durability. So a 500lb bomb does 24 pts of damage and will sink any unarmored ship with less than 24 durability and could sink a ship with up to 48 durability if it gets a critical. If it hits a ship with armor but doesn't penetrate (or the armor is effective) than it will do 1 pt of damage. I assumed that the number of damage shown on a damaged ship is the damage done to its durability but I at the end of the war the Independance in Leyte harbor sitll had 57 damage and its durability is 48 so I remain completely baffled. I know what I see in combat, 5 "*" at once and it will sink, 7 to 8 "*" over several hits and it will sink. Beyond that a lot of hits with no * and it will sink, but the mechanics baffle me. Sometimes a single 500 lb will sink a 10,000 T MCS and sometimes it takes 12. And so on, torpedoes normally will sink a TK or MCS 1 per but sometimes it takes 5. Excluding PC most of the time the combat results made sense.
Timing things... Al, the reason I have the CVE in the taskforce is so that if they are attacked the majority of the CVE air group will fly CAP. If it is in another TF then only a small fraction of it shows up (25% or much less). It is like the token 4 aircraft from the LBA fighter groups. So I started including the CVEs so that when the japanese attack they get jumped by 40-50 CAP fighters. This is what I thought was done historically in the atlantic with a CVE attached to the convoy to give it air cover. I would think that what would realy be done is that the CVEs in their own TF would escort the APs in their own TF but with the limitations on the game I find it works better to put the CVE (or for that matter defending warships) into the transport TF.
Thanks for all the usefull comments guys.
-
Blackhorse
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Eastern US
Sounds like you had a fun campaign . . . about the damage. The damage number is the *percent* of the ships durability that has been damaged -- not the total number of hit points the ship had received.Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Well as of sept/45 the Japanese uncondinonally surrendered so I will be able to go back to playing WIR and stop pestering you guys.
As far as damage goes I though that the weapon damage was done directly to the ships durability. So a 500lb bomb does 24 pts of damage and will sink any unarmored ship with less than 24 durability and could sink a ship with up to 48 durability if it gets a critical. If it hits a ship with armor but doesn't penetrate (or the armor is effective) than it will do 1 pt of damage. I assumed that the number of damage shown on a damaged ship is the damage done to its durability but I at the end of the war the Independance in Leyte harbor sitll had 57 damage and its durability is 48 so I remain completely baffled.
In your example, The CVL Independence has a durability of 48. A damage of 57 means that the Independence has taken 57% damage, or about 27 of its 48 points. Another 21 hit points of damage, and the Independence will sink.
Put it another way . . . if your 500lb bomb does a full 24 points of damage to a previously untouched Independence, the ship's damage will be 50 (24 points of damage divided by 48 points of durability).
If the same bomb does the same damage to a CV with a durability of 100, the ship's damage will be 24 (24 points of damage divided by 100 points of durability).
I don't know if this helped . . .
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
I owe Jerimy an appology for being a doubting tomas over the Japanese experience levels. I just started a game as the Japanese and not all (in fact not many) of the units are highly experienced. I don't find the levels objectionable...ah well live and learn. I am trying to figure out now where all the experienced zero groups came from though. You certainly don't start with that many.
I also due to the posts, reading again the combat section of the manual (I must admit I hate reading online documentation...give me a book) and reading the Pacwarhints document I found on Richard Dionne's webpage begin to comprehend the surface combat situation. Indeed the damage is a rating of percentage of hull damaged. All ships can take 100 damage points, the more durable ones just take more damage to equal that 1 pt. It also explains why PC are so damned hard to kill. Jeremy said that AC cannon do at most 1 damage. So 1x40 is the max hit you can inflict (hit by AC**) without a critical and since most of the time the damage multiplier is less than 40 it will take a lot of hits to get the 100 damage pts needed to sink the PC(worst case 100). The same is true of 4" or 5" shell hits (base damage 2 or 3). I would estimate 5 4" or 4 5" round hits would be normal...this is I think highly unrealistic but it is a problem with the extremes of a combat system mechanics.
Although the SAGs not reacting still makes no sense. It actually makes less now that I have read the Pacwarhints doc and realised that I had by acident set things up perfectly according to the hint document. Ah well there must be a random roll in there somewhere I kept missing.
As for the nothern bases not flying check the dates. You are most likely in northern winter and due to bad weather your planes are grounded. I noticed that my B29 and P51s didn't fly for a while too. Wait for better weather in the spring and summer and all will be normal.
Ah, in the new game as the japanese I got extremely lucky. In the first Pearl Harbor attack I sunk 6 BBs...then I turned the task force around sent it back and sent another 2 down. Now I am off to hunt that single CV BG I saw on my way back to the refueling ships. I hope to find it around midway <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Come out, come out, where-ever you are...we want to play!
I also due to the posts, reading again the combat section of the manual (I must admit I hate reading online documentation...give me a book) and reading the Pacwarhints document I found on Richard Dionne's webpage begin to comprehend the surface combat situation. Indeed the damage is a rating of percentage of hull damaged. All ships can take 100 damage points, the more durable ones just take more damage to equal that 1 pt. It also explains why PC are so damned hard to kill. Jeremy said that AC cannon do at most 1 damage. So 1x40 is the max hit you can inflict (hit by AC**) without a critical and since most of the time the damage multiplier is less than 40 it will take a lot of hits to get the 100 damage pts needed to sink the PC(worst case 100). The same is true of 4" or 5" shell hits (base damage 2 or 3). I would estimate 5 4" or 4 5" round hits would be normal...this is I think highly unrealistic but it is a problem with the extremes of a combat system mechanics.
Although the SAGs not reacting still makes no sense. It actually makes less now that I have read the Pacwarhints doc and realised that I had by acident set things up perfectly according to the hint document. Ah well there must be a random roll in there somewhere I kept missing.
As for the nothern bases not flying check the dates. You are most likely in northern winter and due to bad weather your planes are grounded. I noticed that my B29 and P51s didn't fly for a while too. Wait for better weather in the spring and summer and all will be normal.
Ah, in the new game as the japanese I got extremely lucky. In the first Pearl Harbor attack I sunk 6 BBs...then I turned the task force around sent it back and sent another 2 down. Now I am off to hunt that single CV BG I saw on my way back to the refueling ships. I hope to find it around midway <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Come out, come out, where-ever you are...we want to play!
Even in spring and summer, North Pacific weather isn't exactly reliable. Even during summer, the best season, there's still IIRC a 25% chance that your strikes won't go off because of the weather. There's a reason why neither side made a major effort in the Aleutians, historically, despite it being so close to the Japanese Home Islands. In fact, both sides ruled out fighting in the Aleutians very early in their prewar planning, except as a diversionary move.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 5083
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
I usually make TF 50 a strong BB/CA-SAG with the most modern ships available, and keep it in the same hex with my carriers (Lee's BB-Task Group sometimes was detached and interposed between the US carriers and the Japanese). In most cases the enemy airpower goes for it and leave the carriers with their wooden flight-decks unmolested. The BB's armor and flak ratings combined with CAP from the carriers make TF 50 almost invulnerable to air attacks (although I once lost the North Carolina to a single air-dropped torpedo - a very lucky hit, but few of the 120+ Bettys got away to tell the tale). When the targeted Japanese base is weakened by airstrikes and bombardments by older BBs, the newer heavies are sent in for the coup de grace, too.Originally posted by CynicAl:
So I try as much as possible to make my CV TFs the lowest numbers (i.e. TF 50 rather than TF 90), then my BB TFs, and only then set up Transport TFs (usually by then I'm up in the mid 70s to low 80s). The warships soak up the initial response and squash the defenders, allowing the transports to sail in and drop off the troops unmolested - no "TF Retiring" here!
Daniel -
You essentially can't fly out of the Aleutians except for the summer months. It means that it is useful to set up a scout plane base there, but not much else. The best way to raid the Japanese northern islands is to put a few of the old cruisers and destroyers up there and raid the northern islands during the winter when the Japanese can't do any air attacks either. You will likely get a few land units and/or scout units each trip. It's meaningless fun, but it does keep the Japanese player on his toes. ( It is possible to invade from the North, it just takes smart timing and a willingness to take risks. )
Tony Baranyi
You essentially can't fly out of the Aleutians except for the summer months. It means that it is useful to set up a scout plane base there, but not much else. The best way to raid the Japanese northern islands is to put a few of the old cruisers and destroyers up there and raid the northern islands during the winter when the Japanese can't do any air attacks either. You will likely get a few land units and/or scout units each trip. It's meaningless fun, but it does keep the Japanese player on his toes. ( It is possible to invade from the North, it just takes smart timing and a willingness to take risks. )
Tony Baranyi
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 5083
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Another possible improvement, sorry if it has already been mentioned...
I'm not too happy with the assignments of generals at the US HQs. In the North, Central & SoPac only MC generals are available while SWPac get all and only the army guys.
Well, I just read that General Harmon was commander of army forces under Ghormley, and I doubt that an army general commanded the First Marine Division on Cape Cloucester in MacA's theater. Same for the Central Pacific drive, where Tarawa was attacked by the MC and Makin by the Army. What about the army 7th Div in the Aleutians, where PW allows only MC generals?
So, why not pool all american generals together? This would also ease the problem of running out of leaders due to casualties inflicted by enemy or friendly fire. Is there a specific reason why this wasn't done in PW?
I'm not too happy with the assignments of generals at the US HQs. In the North, Central & SoPac only MC generals are available while SWPac get all and only the army guys.
Well, I just read that General Harmon was commander of army forces under Ghormley, and I doubt that an army general commanded the First Marine Division on Cape Cloucester in MacA's theater. Same for the Central Pacific drive, where Tarawa was attacked by the MC and Makin by the Army. What about the army 7th Div in the Aleutians, where PW allows only MC generals?
So, why not pool all american generals together? This would also ease the problem of running out of leaders due to casualties inflicted by enemy or friendly fire. Is there a specific reason why this wasn't done in PW?