&%¤(%&¤%&/%¤&¤"(/=&=/¤(?&

[mogami]

Hi, The 2 exceptions to escort rule (won't fly without escorts) are carrier bombers and allied 4 engine bombers.  They do not require the escort check.

[treespider]

&%¤(%&¤%&/%¤&¤"(/=&=/¤(?&

Wonder if that's what Nagumo said?

[Japan]

Thanks for your analyze Gents.

I can verefie after checking, that ALL PLANES and all other factors i can come up with, All Planes and Ships had Proper Orders and avverage leders on 88-95 for all Air Groups, and also good Air Skill and Agression.
ALL leders involved from the Fleet Level to the Individual Aircraft was skilled and good for their position, l
All involved from the Emmely Groups to the Captains on each Destroyer.


I also did some testing, and are personaly now convinsed that  OSO's Analyse is correct,  thanks for the help all. [:)][:)][:)]

[mdiehl]

I don't see why you're complaining. Your CAP was far more effective than any IJN CAP could have been at the time.

[Japan]

didnt mean to do that, i was simply investigating.

Game goes on, but i wanted to learn what caused it. [8D]

[AirGriff]

I am the lucky fellow that sank Japan's carriers. It seems to me I was quite lucky in that his carriers were in two separate TF's and they were separated by 2 or 3 hexes. My carriers were all in one hex and got the jump on him and overwhelmed the first set of carriers in the morning phase. His other carriers launched the ill fated counter strike. In the afternoon phase, my carriers did a repeat performance on the remaining three carriers, and they never got off much of a retaliation, though his CAP did a much better job of chewing up my fighters. I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of an effective counterstrike, but the above discussion seems to shed light on that. I deliberately stayed out of that cold temperate zone specifically because of the weather issue once I suspected I was falling into a trap. He apparently was stalking my carriers out there. I suspected it for a variety of reasons. One of my SBD's spotted one of his subs the day before, and that of course tipped him off of my general location, which was somewhat east of where the battle was fought while I was en route to go help the Aleutians in a big offensive of his. Knowing this, and knowing he knew or suspected all this, I reversed direction to try and throw him off the scent. I reversed right into him, and the rest is newly revamped history. Go figure.

Someone asked about the Hellcats showing up that early. The Essex joined my carriers just 2 days prior to the fight--very lucky there. She comes stocked with Hellcats, and that particular squadron I believe really gave me an edge against the CAP. The Wildcats suffered heavily. His CAP did very little against my attack aircraft, though he had a bit more success on my second raid.

All this said, don't feel too sorry for Japan. You, my friend, have been kicking me all over the map at your leisure the whole bloody game, so it's about time I had something go my way [&o]

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: AirGriff

All this said, don't feel too sorry for Japan. You, my friend, have been kicking me all over the map at your leisure the whole bloody game, so it's about time I had something go my way [&o]

HeHe Yep.

I have no complaints at all, just wanted to understand the moddel for this weather thing...


Now, it will be interesting to see how the development goes, Japan still has Hundreds of Dedicated and Elite Pilots Ready to make that other fellow die for his country... HeHe, See you on the Battlefield my freind.


[;)]

[crsutton]

It is early 1944 in my game as the Allies. I sent all my carriers to cover my invasion of the PI and he finally sent his carriers out for a fight. At this point the IJN had not lost a carrier and possesed all of the original expert pilots. My force was loaded with hellcats, helldivers and avengers and I was sure I could whup him big time. I set a beautiful trap and our carriers ended up squared off two hexes from each other. Well, neither carrier group launched a single strike at the other carrier force. His planes did attack my transport group 4 hexes away with CVEs as cover but it was a weak attack and poorly escorted. He damaged a CVE and I shot down about 100 planes. That was it. Next day I guessed one way and he skeddadled the other and my chance to sink his carriers was gone. It was obviously the weather and can happen. Truthfully, this sort of event is what makes the game fun. If I had smashed his carriers, the game would have been closer to over and less fun. It is now 4/44 and he has most of his fleet intact. I will get him soon.....

[Chris21wen]

Same thing happen to me.  Midway all over again only at Tarawa.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: AirGriff

...his carriers were in two separate TF's and they were separated by 2 or 3 hexes. My carriers were all in one hex and got the jump on him and overwhelmed the first set of carriers in the morning phase.

Seems to me separation of the Japanese carrier TF's is likely to have made a big difference. Would be interested to know the location and composition of the 3rd carrier TF - Hiyo + Junyo + CVL's? Also, was any proportion of the Japanese VT or VB flying search to supplement the floatplanes' efforts?

I infer that the TF with 198 a/c comprised Shokaku (28 x VF), Hiryu (23 x VF) and Soryu (23 x VF) yields 74 x VF max. Then: 50% CAP = 37 x VF max.

In turn, this implies that the TF with 221 a/c comprised Akagi, Kaga + Zuikaku (28 x VF apiece) yields 84 x VF max. Giving: 60% CAP = 50 x VF max.

Yet each TF put up CAP of 56 x VF. Did one/both receive additional CAP from CV TF 3? An escort of only 8 VF for the Japanese strike suggests a higher proportion of VF assigned CAP duties than 50-60%.

But, apart from the weather, dispersion and resulting lack of mutual support appears to me to have been the real killer.

[Japan]

I had spottet him for days ago, and followed him for a few days, and he was going right into my trap, but then he suddenly changed course and i had to adjust the position of the trap, causing the two Carrier groups to be located in 2 different hexes.
 
It was 27 Flote Planes doing Navel Search on Scout Cruiser in Each of the 3 Carrier Groups, so none of the Strike Aircrafts flew Navel Search.
Additionaly it was 2 AV's in 2 Different Task Forces nerby (slightly forward) of the Carriers Positions, this was 24 Float Planes in each also doing Navel Search. Additionaly some Submarines, and 2 Emmely Groups with Range on Navel Search.
The 3rd Carrier Group was defending/escorting   300 AP Ships and 80 AK Ships to the Invation Areas, while Land Based Fighters provided Cover for the Battlefleets and a Replanishment Fleet.

[eloso]

ORIGINAL: Japan

It was 27 Flote Planes doing Navel Search on Scout Cruiser in Each of the 3 Carrier Groups, so none of the Strike Aircrafts flew Navel Search.

Strikes have a better chance of launching when the actual bomber aircraft spot a TF. It doesn't hurt to put 10-20% of the bomber squadrons on naval search.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: OSO

ORIGINAL: Japan

It was 27 Flote Planes doing Navel Search on Scout Cruiser in Each of the 3 Carrier Groups, so none of the Strike Aircrafts flew Navel Search.

Strikes have a better chance of launching when the actual bomber aircraft spot a TF. It doesn't hurt to put 10-20% of the bomber squadrons on naval search.

This is borne out by my own (limited) experience. I usually find that strike aircraft do better at spotting enemy CV task forces than the floatplanes.

ORIGINAL: Japan

The 3rd Carrier Group was defending/escorting   300 AP Ships and 80 AK Ships to the Invation Areas, while Land Based Fighters provided Cover for the Battlefleets and a Replanishment Fleet.

[X(] Wow, at least four big convoys exposed to the risk of enemy carrier strikes! That makes a big difference to the tactical picture: if you had merchant ships to protect he wasn't steaming into your trap; rather, you were confronted with conflicting objectives. In that case you may have had no choice but to engage in a carrier exchange you might otherwise have declined.

The cynical alternative would have been to offer up the transports as a sacrificial lamb, hoping to degrade his carrier air to such an extent that a later strike against his carriers would have overwhelmed tired VF squadrons.

[Jim D Burns]

The fact Japan did launch a weak strike, proves weather was not the problem here. Rather I think due to his total reliance on the CS float planes for searches, he shot himself in the foot with his possible detection levels.

You can get levels that range between 1 and 10, with 10 being the best possible. Each search plane can only give you 1 point of detection and multiple sightings do not stack for this purpose unless your own squadron locates the target, so at best his level for either task force was probably 1 or 2. (I think this is how it works, but I would have to re-read the rule to be sure)

The number of CVs in the enemy fleet plays a role and can easily give automatic levels of 10, but most US players operate single CV task forces, so it is incumbent on Japan to assign EVERY single strike group a minimal level of search aircraft if he hopes to achieve decent detection levels. I never have levels set for less than 20% search for every strike squadron no matter which side I am playing.

My guess is 90% of his strikes got lost and failed to locate the targets. Check the fatigue levels of the surviving squadrons, I bet they all have levels that indicate they flew a strike.

Detection levels are one of the most important concepts in the game, but also one of the least understood. I regularly re-read the rules covering them just before any expected CV engagements. I highly recommend everyone do the same.

If the game reported on strikes that failed to locate targets, then perhaps this rule wouldn’t be so overlooked. We can only hope that AE will encompass some kind of reporting on what happens to strikes when they fail to find targets.

Jim

[Yamato hugger]

No a weak strike doesnt prove its not a weather issue. Weather is rolled on a per group basis with more experienced groups having a greater chance of finding their way through the clouds.

In this case, the "weak strike" goes to show the problem was more than likely weather.

[cyberwop36]

Kates at 17,000 ft.? I thought TB won't carry torps. at that alt.

Is that what you meant to do? I would think you'd want to use the kates in a "co-ordinated" attack."

[cyberwop36]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Japan

Group 1
CARRIER PLANES 221
(3 Carriers)
Total Ships 15

Carrier Leder 65+ Ledership (Rank Above R Admiral)(Agressive)
Avverage Fighter Skill 92 - CAP 60%
Avverage Kate Skill 90 - Navel Attack 16000 Ft
Avverage Val Skill 93 - Navel Attack 10000 Ft
CS With 24 ALF on 90% Navel Search 5000 Ft


Group 2
CARRIER BASED PLANES 198
(3 Carriers)
Total Ships 15

Carrier Leder 65+ Ledership (Rank Above R Admiral)(Agressive)
Avverage Fighter Skill 88 - CAP 50%
Avverage Kate Skill 86 - Navel Attack 17000 Ft
Avverage Val Skill 81 - Navel Attack 11000 Ft
CS With 27 ALF on 90% Navel Search 4000 Ft










[8|]

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: cyberwop36

Kates at 17,000 ft.? I thought TB won't carry torps. at that alt.

Is that what you meant to do? I would think you'd want to use the kates in a "co-ordinated" attack."

Altitude has nothing to do with it. It's range.

[castor troy]

I´ve nearly never bombers on KB or Allied CV TFs on search as soon as there are enough float planes (means 30+) and never had it happen that my strikes didn´t take off. Doubt that it matters if the enemy is spotted by an Alf or a Kate. Detection level of the enemy goes up and that´s the most important thing.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: cyberwop36

Kates at 17,000 ft.? I thought TB won't carry torps. at that alt.

Is that what you meant to do? I would think you'd want to use the kates in a "co-ordinated" attack."

Altitude has nothing to do with it. It's range.

This is correct. I typically send in my Kates at max altitude. P-40s cant intercept them at max altitude so all you have to worry about is the AA fire on the run in. P-40s have a very low ceiling.