Sinking USN CVs - is it worth it?

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

that was the key to my deciding this was the best ( stupid ) tactic to use ... given that the moderators are refusing to advocate for fixing the coordination RULE ...

Curious why you consider it a stupid tactic. The Single CV TF was the the USN standing operating procedure thru-out 1942. Ordered by non other than COMINCH Adm. King himself. Occasionally these single CV TF would Join temporily and operate together, but they more or less maintained there own indenty having there own screening force and commanded by there own Flag Officer.

Operating multiple single CV TF is exactly what you should be doing. Its far from stupid its rather a historic tactic.

[Tom Hunter]

Going back to the original question, what makes you think you get to make this choice?

From reading AARs its much more up to the allied players than the Japanese. The allies can hide their CVs in the early war and give you nothing to trade. Conversly they can come out with 5 CVs or even 6 in late 42 and trade at or close to 1 to 1.

Personally I have no desire to trade my allied CVs for Japanese, I want to sink the Japanese at no loss to myself. Its a war, trade is what we do when its over.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: spence

Only works if the AI causes all 500 IJN attack planes to launch against the same TF.

I had a battle in UV where my opponent and I fought a CV vs CV battle with both of our forces a bit dispersed and it was a real nail-biter for 5-6 days. My opp was certainly aware of the possibilities of the "Death Star" in that I had used it on him in a previous game but for one reason or another he didn't get the whole thing assembled before this battle started and we ended up with CV TFs occupying 6 or 7 different hexes when the fight began. The result of the fight actually involved some operational decisions (which I am happy to say resulted in the crippling of the IJNs offensive capabilities (3 CVs and 2 CVLs sunk outright and another 2 CVs damaged and subsequently finished off by subs or LBA) though it cost me 4 CVs sunk and damage to a 5th). That just seems about right. It was a hellova fight that made the whole game worthwhile no matter how it ultimately turns out (I still have to actually advance somewhere to end up with more points).

Nope...the KB will almost always divide the strikes to hit all CV TFs. The more CV TFs you have, the more seperate strikes must run the BS CAP gauntlet.

Problem with seperating CVs into more than one TF is that they still react sometimes despite orders to follow and NOT to react. Unbelievable. Really need a better way ti manage TFs. (shameless Task Group plug again.)[:)]

A plug for Task Groups (presumably to operaste integrally within their greater TF parent structures)? A plug for a better organizational mechanics for the naval system?

I babbled away on this topic in a number of posts back when the UV board was active and not only got nowhere with it practically speaking but as far as I could tell raised next to zero (if that much) interest in even a theoretical sense. All of this with an eye to somehow encouraging the developers to design the WitP air/naval models somewhat more realistically, with the hope being that so-called "Death Star" tactics wouldn't be viable in the new title. From what I can see the only workaround for the USN is just what you recommend with smaller multiple USN CV TFs better being able to defend themselves due to the way the system tends to mismanage CAP. Of course that means the multiple USN strikes that go in must also face increased pressure from IJN CAP assets, though it's not clear to me whether this leads to greater or lesser losses to the attackers--probably the former.

I'm in my first WitP PBEM game now and haven't gotten so far where a CV-CV engagement is likely. I did have a brush with KB east of Johnston Island in mid December 41, where my two CVs managed to somehow avoid a terrible result. I think as it stands with the naval/air systems in mind, and the way Japanese players seem to gravitate toward the SUPER CV TF tactic, that this simulation will not very closely follow history as far as CV-CV engagements go. And if not that represents from my point of view a shame for the participants, as both must lose out on a load of potential excitement.

A friendly set of house rules might be in order.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

that was the key to my deciding this was the best ( stupid ) tactic to use ... given that the moderators are refusing to advocate for fixing the coordination RULE ...

Curious why you consider it a stupid tactic. The Single CV TF was the the USN standing operating procedure thru-out 1942. Ordered by non other than COMINCH Adm. King himself. Occasionally these single CV TF would Join temporily and operate together, but they more or less maintained there own indenty having there own screening force and commanded by there own Flag Officer.

Operating multiple single CV TF is exactly what you should be doing. Its far from stupid its rather a historic tactic.

Early on that was USN doctrine, though in the fullness of time it was realized this tactic was not the best. In terms of game play, though, it might well be the only salvation for CV-CV engagements, until 1943 at least. Of course by then the USN was becoming much more adept at coordinating all the assets a large CV TF brought to bear, and so the "Death Star" does not seem quite so ahistoric (as it does in game with KB running amok all over the map forever).

[jwilkerson]

We've debated this before ( in the CV Strike tread ) .. yes King order this AFTER Midway ... when it had become mostly a moot point ( no DS to fight against ). But "separate" single CV task forces still operated in fairly close proximity ... and King was trying to avoid a reverse Miday ... not trying to reduce strike coordination. US Doctrine ( and Japanese doctrine ) at start of war were discussed in the aforementioned thread.

[Zecke]

well after read it, i became surpriese about the allies tactics to loose early cv, to became in the future for EXXES class, if this is true, and happen often, if i would play as allies i will look for a big battle with my six (long island included) earlier allies-CVs, in try to sink some japanese Cv

What would be happend if (after the battle) i scuttle all of them, do i recieve earlier CV class EXXES, as reinforcement earlier in tne campaign,,,that woulb be unfair, i supposse..

[Halsey]

Don't waste your fleet CV's before 7/42. Too many VP points. By that time the Allies will have 9 of them. 3 Brits and 6 US, not counting the CVE/CVL's. You only use them early on if a game breaking target is in jeopardy. As far as I'm concerned there aren't any of those kind of targets on the map.[;)]

Maybe if the Japanese invaded Indianapolis I might use them.[:D]

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: dereck


As the following write-up of the 10 ships of the Essex class shows, the "replacement" carriers were already being built and were in fact renamed from their original names:

Yes Derek, I think we are all aware that these carriers are just renamed hulls of ships already being built. The point is that historically 4 of those carries regardless of what they ended up being named were completed in time to become operational in the pacific in 1943. The game gives you four Essex CVs as well, regardless of what happens to any of the pre-war CVs. The problem isnt the total number of Essex available in the game. Its that an Essex is "inserted" into the arrival list 550 days from the sinking of any pre-war CV. This means that any CVs sunk in the first 6 months of the war will cause an "EARLY" arrival of an Essex in 1943. For a possible total of 9 Essex CVs appearing in 1943.

Hence my example of even the historic lost of the Lexington on the historic date will ultimately result in a unhistorical number of Essex CVs available in 1943.

No you're wrong there. The four carriers which were historically renamed to replace the sunk carriers are NOT available to the US player in this game. So even if the US loses no carriers he ends up being shorted by 4 carriers which historically would have been available to him.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: dereck


No you're wrong there. The four carriers which were historically renamed to replace the sunk carriers are NOT available to the US player in this game. So even if the US loses no carriers he ends up being shorted by 4 carriers which historically would have been available to him.

,


Athough technically your are correct, what you have to understand is that is that 2by3 has moved all the arrival dates of the non-renamed Essex CVs

So that in 1943 regardless of pre-war CV losses you still get the historical 4 operational Essex CV in 43. Essex, Intrepid ( instead of Lex2) Franklin ( instead of Yorktown2) and Bunkerhill.

In 1944 regardless of losses you still get 7 operational Essex Cv; Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Bon Homme Richard, Antietem and Shangrila.

Two of those; Bon Homme Richard and Antietem were not historically completed until 1945. They take the place of Hornet 2 and Wasp 2 in 1944.

The only period you might be short changed without losses to pre-war CVs are the late 1945 arrivals. By that time it hardley matters and besides there is a very high probability they wouldnt have been completed anyway without pre-war CV losses anyway.

[mogami]

Hi, Moderators do not write code.
There is no such thing as a "Death Star" unless you think the entire IJN and IJA in the SRA is a "Death Star"
You are outnumbered. I'm sorry but the historic battle of Midway was not a death star.
When the Japanese pile all their CV into a single TF they mass force. A valid use of their material. If you oppose such mass with less and lose then.....(ding ding. ) Surprise.

What are we going to call the 10 (or more) USN CV that operate together in 1944/45?

KB rules as long as it take the Allies to build up LBA. Once you get 600 AC to Hawaii KB will stay away. You've no business chasing after a TF with 6 IJN CV in it. (Are you silly?)

First wait till you have 6 CV your self
Upgrade all the groups
upgrade the AA of the CV and escorts
Provide escorts to your CV TF and don't place all your CV in 1 TF.
Wait till after A6M2 bonus expires
Let the Japanese attrit their pilots by chasing AK and bombing airfields
Let them put sys damage on their ships.

Surprise!!!!! (I'll say this again) SURPRISE!!!! them. Don't let them know there is going to be a CV battle.

I don't expect to lose CV battles no matter which side I play. (Of course I do lose them)
But I always try to have an advantage.

The Death Star is a normal part of the game (war) It is one of the hurrdles the Allies have to leap in order to win the war.

As far as worring about Allied CV coming back I say "Hah" If the IJN has CV then so what. If they don't have CV then so what?

[esteban]

If anything, I think that WitP is much better at reflecting the "attrition" of CAP than UV was. Each successive attack on a hex in WitP seems to reduce CAP by far more than the number of CAP fighters shot down/damaged. My guess is that this is supposed to reflect CAP fighters that are out of ammo/fuel, out of position because they are off fighting/chasing enemy planes, or are "demoralized" or "confused" out of combat positions.

[Halsey]

The Allies can have their own DS in 7/42 if they don't squander their CV assets early in the war.

Just cause you have em doesn't mean you have to use em![;)]

The threat of them being in play somewhere is the benefit of keeping them alive. If you get your CV's sunk in the early part of the war. You give the Japanese another 6 months, or more, of freedom sailing the seas.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

As far as worring about Allied CV coming back I say "Hah" If the IJN has CV then so what. If they don't have CV then so what?

Oh come Mogami my friend, thats an over simplification. The point has always been that one would expect a resonable return for inflicting losses. In reality the IJN sank 4 USN in 1942 which resulted in them faceing 6 operational CVs Enterprise, Saratoga, Essex, Lex2, York2, and Bunkerhill in 1943.

In the game I could sink 4 CVs in 42 and it would result in me faceing 10 operational USN CVs in 43.

I know full well, this is a deader than dead horse. The feature is what it is and I have reconciled to deal with it as such, but what really irks me is all these convoluted attempts to rationalize it or worse yet the revisionist who actually believe somehow USN CV respawning as implemented in the game, actually benifits Japan and shafts the US.

[mogami]

Hi, If you sink a USN CV on 1 Jan 1942 the replacement will appear west coast USA on (about) July 15 1943. As long as Essex has already arrived. (no replacement CV can arrive before Essex)
I'd have to check the arrival for Essex (+- 60 days max variable arrival)

I didn't say it was of benifit to Japan. I said "So what"

If you had actual CV arrive you would have max number of CV that you get from respawning. Only the historic CV would for the most part arrive sooner then the replacements. Unless of course the USN runs right out andloses them as fast as they can. But then they have to go 1942 without. If you give me a choice. (as Japan) I would give USN double 1943 CV in return for no USN CV in 1942

(Of course the game would always end on 1 Jan 1943)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Moderators do not write code.
There is no such thing as a "Death Star" unless you think the entire IJN and IJA in the SRA is a "Death Star"
You are outnumbered. I'm sorry but the historic battle of Midway was not a death star.
When the Japanese pile all their CV into a single TF they mass force. A valid use of their material. If you oppose such mass with less and lose then.....(ding ding. ) Surprise.

What are we going to call the 10 (or more) USN CV that operate together in 1944/45?

KB rules as long as it take the Allies to build up LBA. Once you get 600 AC to Hawaii KB will stay away. You've no business chasing after a TF with 6 IJN CV in it. (Are you silly?)

First wait till you have 6 CV your self
Upgrade all the groups
upgrade the AA of the CV and escorts
Provide escorts to your CV TF and don't place all your CV in 1 TF.
Wait till after A6M2 bonus expires
Let the Japanese attrit their pilots by chasing AK and bombing airfields
Let them put sys damage on their ships.

Surprise!!!!! (I'll say this again) SURPRISE!!!! them. Don't let them know there is going to be a CV battle.

I don't expect to lose CV battles no matter which side I play. (Of course I do lose them)
But I always try to have an advantage.

The Death Star is a normal part of the game (war) It is one of the hurrdles the Allies have to leap in order to win the war.

As far as worring about Allied CV coming back I say "Hah" If the IJN has CV then so what. If they don't have CV then so what?

Good points but I believe there is a overwhelming concensus that CAP is too powerful in the game at this juncture. The ability of CAP to seemingly engage all strikes with full amount of CAP alotted is excessive...the ability to successfully engage all successive strikes, apparently being in more than one place at a time, is brutal. Just because a strike is uncoordinated does not mean it is delayed enough for CAP to once again be in position to have a go at it. Midway is an excellent example. Historically, the USN strikes were uncoordinated, yet only the TBDs got butchered...the SBDs were barely hasseled until after ordinance delivery. In WITP, the TBDs would be hit, most likely as individual squadrons, by the same number of CAP planes each time. Then the SBDs would receive the same treatment.

This is not right.

[mogami]

Hi, Those are two seperate issues.
1. CAP
2. USN CV introduction to game. (Histoical or replacements)

CAP is CAP. Making it easier for USN bombers would make it easier for IJN bombers the CV would be sunk same as now only more ac would go down with ships or splash out of fuel then crash in flames.

(CAP does not solve the USN problem of how to deal with 10 IJN CV/CVL with less USN CV. The CAP at present compounds the problem but does not cause it. With relaxed CAP the IJN would sink USN CV more often. If it is a matter of exhanging CV then waitng for IJN to split (small CV battles work rather well in my opinion)
Or waiting to have 6 USN CV before going out ot fight (and trading CV)

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, If you sink a USN CV on 1 Jan 1942 the replacement will appear west coast USA on (about) July 15 1943. As long as Essex has already arrived. (no replacement CV can arrive before Essex)
I'd have to check the arrival for Essex (+- 60 days max variable arrival)

Hi Mogami, actually the way the arrival dates are set up, irregardless if you sink a USN CV on Jan 1, 42 or Dec 31, 42 the ultimate result will be a more than historic number of Essex in either 43 or 44. True the game will always have less than historic number of Essex that come available in 45 but as you put it "So what" it hardlys matters by then. The difference in haveing a pre-war (upgraded) CV in 45 instead of an Essex is negligible at best.

If you had actual CV arrive you would have max number of CV that you get from respawning. Only the historic CV would for the most part arrive sooner then the replacements. Unless of course the USN runs right out andloses them as fast as they can. But then they have to go 1942 without. If you give me a choice. (as Japan) I would give USN double 1943 CV in return for no USN CV in 1942

(Of course the game would always end on 1 Jan 1943)

[/quote]


Mogami, its not exactly an all or nothing propostion. Sinking 1 or 2 USN CVs early will not win the war for Japan, but it will result in them faceing 50% more Essex in 43. Its all about the timeing of arrivals not the number of hulls that arrive in the game in total. As this feature is currently implemented , Even the exact historic number of USN CV losses on the exact historic dates in 1942 will result in unhistoric number Essex that come available in 43 and 44. Again I ask were is the rational in that? Why should exact same historic circumstances result in a acceleration in the number of Essex deployed?

[mogami]

Hi, I'll have to go look it all up again but I think several Essex that arrived in 1943 are not in OOB. This results in a USN player who loses no CV having fewer then what he whould have had in 1943 but there is no scenario that gives him more CV in 1943 then USN had or would have had if they lost no CV prior.

OK let me explain. in 1942 the USN gets 6 CV
In 1943 regular Essex arrive minus several that did arrive so if no 1942 Cv lost the USN has fewer 1943 Essex then history.

If USN loses 1942 CV they will arrive (if lost before July 1942 they arrive in 1943 after July 1942 they arrive in 1944) as Essex but no matter how many 1942 CV are lost the USN will never have more Essex then historical. If Wasp is not lost an Essex does not arrive.
Also is there not a limit of 4 replacement CV? (or was that changed as well) whatever the number of replacement CV is equal to the number of actual CV left out of OB and some of these arrived in 1943.


So USN can have fewer Essex then history but never more. And they can have them later if 1942 CV are lost later.

[spence]

(in reply to Mogami)

I've only just started playing against the AI in WiTP and as yet have not seen a conjured out of thin air ESSEX class. I am pretty well convinced that had the USN lost more of its prewar carriers they would have been replaced and that if some other program had to be displaced somewhat to make the replacement happen then that program would have been displaced as necessary. There would have been a time when there was a carrier shortage but the US had the economic base to make up the losses eventually

Then there is the Death Star Issue. The 1942 WiTP/UV IJN Death Star has operational capabilities that have no historical justification; the most outrageous of which is its ability to control a 100+ Zero CAP:

1) A CAP in which at best 1 in 3 a/c has a radio.

2) A CAP composed of excellent pilots but also pilots who by equipment, training tradition and natural preference are well suited and well disposed to engage in INDIVIDUAL dogfights. Japanese Daitai (27 a/c) /Chutai (9 a/c) organization clearly indicates the use of 3 plane sections which had already proven unwieldy and in fact downright disadvantageous to the RAF in the Battle of Britian. For the Japanese I will admit that their propensity for fighting as individuals would at least alleviate the tactical disadvantages of trying to maintain the 3 plane section in action but it would also raise holy H^ll with the ability of the Fighter Direction Officer to control them effectively once the fur started to fly in the sky.

3) A CAP controlled from the jury rigged CIC on a DD or CL by some "Blackshoe" LT who'se spent the last 10 years of his naval career training to launch a night torpedo attack against the enemy's battleline using a basically experimental or very early version of a radar set which won't be ready for widespread deployment to the fleet for another year or so.
(A relevant line of inquiry: What were the first two IJN ships equipped with air search radar? Why as was discussed in some ancient thread they were the Oi and Kitikami. If, as one who knows nothing of WW2 in the Pacific might think, you suppose they must have been envisioned as specially equipped to serve as fleet defense ships then think again. Sure they have an air search radar but they haven't even decent AAA to defend themselves. No they are specially equipped and trained to launch massive torpedo salvoes. Not once in the whole course of the war will they operate with the carriers. Kinda makes one wonder where the doctrine and training for this enormous UBERCAP comes from)

DANG IT, I FORGOT ABOUT THE LEGENDARY ENSIGN YOSHIDA RULE.

I am not complaining about losing a CV battle. In 1942 there was no book to study up on how to fight a CV vs CV battle.
The Japanese had no more experience than the US at the operational level. There are special rules that penalize the USN for its inexperience and consequently reward the IJN for the very same inexperience. That is not right.

[mogami]

Hi, I agree. Whats the point? There remain 10 IJN CV to deal with. Even lousey CAP is going to be good CAP.

However after the USN prepares for the battle they get a draw (they sink as many IJN CV as they lose) this is a victory. If the IJN player splits his CV then he encounters USN Death Star with CAp he can't deal with. It's the numbers that do it most of all.