doesn't model the IJN doctrine at all with the one exception that it allows multiple carrier TFs to launch well coordinated offensive strikes - something only the Japanese PRACTICED before Pearl Harbor. But defense of the fleet was not well integrated into Japanese doctrine. The continual independent recycling of the CAP by all 4 carriers prevented the spotting of any kind of strike once the Americans were located at Midway. In the account in Shattered Sword, which is incredibly detailed mainly from the Japanese side, I have seemingly "watched" the Japanese defense become more and more unglued as each American squadron goes into the meatgrinder all morning, finally but by now almost inevitably culminating in the attack by the 3 SBD squadrons that destroyed the heart of the KB.
Does this book give credit to Admiral King for giving Genda the idea of pulling of the Japanese carriers together in one TF ? I've seen a quote from Genda, saying he got the idea ( late 1940 ) from watching a news reel of 4 US carriers operating together - which pretty much has to be the manuvers off Panama canal when King was running the carriers and was trying promulgate running them together in one TF.
The USN had debates about single carrier TF versus multiple carrier TF ... both ideas having their proponents .. interestingly before Midway .. King was a proponent of multiple carrier TFs .. after Midway he "ordered" the USN to operate in single carrier TFs with a separate admiral in charge of each. We can speculate that he wanted to avoid a reverse Midway - seeing that massed carriers was a heck of a risk. Between late 42 and mid-43 the debate raged mostly between Ramsey and Sherman commanding Sara and Enterprise respectively. However, the debate was mostly moot at this point due to lack of carriers with which to form multi-carrier TFs. However, by mid-43 with the number of carriers increasing and the AA effectiveness also increasing - the virtually unanimous decision was made to form multi-carrier task forces. Thus finally realising King's pre-war vision of carrier task forces.
Spence and I have been involved in this "debate" from day one of WITP ... and my position is pretty much that tactical organization of the fleet should be up to the players and not hard coded into the game. There are advantages and disadvantages to operating the carriers together or in separate TFs all in the same hex. Unfortunately the game does exactly represent the RL tradeoffs but there are tradeoffs in the game. CAP effectiness being the primary issue - the ability of all CAP to cover everything in the hex with a high probability - minimizes one of the trade offs of operating "separately" ... also the ability to launch strikes which form up and reach the target at the same time, is more difficult when operating separately - another trade off not represented in the game. The only real advantage in the game of putting the carriers in the same TF is slightly less risk that they wander off into the wrong hex during reaction ... and higher AA defense ( Japanese carriers especially have higher AA values than all other IJN ships ).
These thoughts coupled with the "CV Strike coordination" penalty applied to US CVs virtually forces the US player to operate in single CV TFs in 1942 ... increasing to 2 CV TFs in 1943 ... and then the 3-5 CV/CVL TFs from 1944 on ... with as many times as we've heard reasoning about how players should be free to make their own mistakes ... this strike coordination penalty stands out as a gleaming red light asking to get removed one day !
But also having the game offer the correct trade-offs of operating together, versus operating separately and then giving the players the choice would be my preference. And I know I've said all this before - but it has been a while - so here I am saying it again !
