Allied CV coordination penalty

[Barb]

I would go with Japanese Carrier Division TFs:
1st: Akagi(72), Kaga(72) + 2 fast BB, 1CL, 6-8DD
2nd: Soryu(63), Hyriu(63)  + 2 fast BB, 1CL, 6-8DD
3rd: Shokaku(72), Zuikaku(72) + 2 Tone class CA, 1CL, 6-8DD

(Feel free to move Kongo class BBs and Tone class CAs between the groups as it fits you - or equals the AA)
As for DDs, Yugumo class has 20DDs. This single class can give you 6,7,7 destroyers for each TF. This will give you historical use of KB. If you want more, add 17 Kageros to get 12,12,13 DDs for TFs.
Later in 1942 add Shoho(30), Zuiho(30), Ryuho(30) to this first three divisons and Ryujo(48) to new Hijo(53) - Dzunyo(53) division. (This will reflect later Japanese usage of 2CV+CVL as divisions).

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: Barb

I would go with Japanese Carrier Division TFs:
1st: Akagi(72), Kaga(72) + 2 fast BB, 1CL, 6-8DD
2nd: Soryu(63), Hyriu(63)  + 2 fast BB, 1CL, 6-8DD
3rd: Shokaku(72), Zuikaku(72) + 2 Tone class CA, 1CL, 6-8DD

(Feel free to move Kongo class BBs and Tone class CAs between the groups as it fits you - or equals the AA)
As for DDs, Yugumo class has 20DDs. This single class can give you 6,7,7 destroyers for each TF. This will give you historical use of KB. If you want more, add 17 Kageros to get 12,12,13 DDs for TFs.
Later in 1942 add Shoho(30), Zuiho(30), Ryuho(30) to this first three divisons and Ryujo(48) to new Hijo(53) - Dzunyo(53) division. (This will reflect later Japanese usage of 2CV+CVL as divisions).

Hi,
personally I prefere to use other DD classes as an KB escort. While Kageros and Yugumos has 5000 endurance, they are also the most modern units with good torp/gun armament, but with low AA value. It seems to me it is more effective to use them in naval combat.
Those older classes like Hatsuharu/Mutsuki/Kamikaze are modernized very early in the game and thanks to that they have much better AA value then their modern counterparts. If you can live with only 4000 endurance, these are better choice IMO. These classes will provide enough units to form 4 carr div with at least 6 DDs in each and therefore you don´t have to "waste" your modern DDs for this duty.
Just my 2p..

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

A basic problem with the game's "coordination penalty" is that it's a one-sided piece of nonsense.  Kido Butai did not launch single big unified coordinated strikes either---they launched "half strikes".  Did it at Pearl Harbor, did it at Midway, did it all the time.  

Actually, no its not. The Jap suffers the same coordination rolls. At US 1945 level for the whole war. GG figures it took the US 3 years to figure out what the Japs knew in 1941 I guess.

[Feinder]

For Japan, I keep like speed and endurance CVs together.  Now, I also push those TFs around in a group (much like smaller TFs in one hex for the USN).

Much like the CarDivs decribed above.  I'd put Soryu-Hiryu together, and Shok-Zui.  But when operating Soryu and Hiryu, esp with the other CV forces, you have to be very mindful of their range (or lack thereof).  I'll also keep Kaga away from Shok-Zui, because she slows them by up to two hexes each day.  I've also been known to temporarily attach Akagi to Sho-Zui and put Kaga with "mini-KB" to increase that hammer size depending on the mission (I think KB can sustain the detachment of 1 CV, but not 2 in 1942). 

Again, as Japan I still strongly advise to just push the whole mob of separate TFs around (albeit at a slower pace), because as a USN player, I jump at the shot if Japan actually split the CVs into separate missions.

-F-

[cantona2]

lol what a hornet's (no pun) nest my little question has stirred.
 
bottom line is that the coordination penalty will not kick in. I disagree with those that have said that its a way around it. Lets face it if you know something works you do not try it, you try to work around it!
 
@Herb you're wishing that's so aren't you [;)]?

[madgamer2]

5 separate TF's?... each with 1 carrier?...14 support ships each?....early in the war? Is it possible to get that many CA,DD,DE,CL,etc for that many TF's. It must be me, but this strikes me as a bad idea. I also would like to know how early are you talking? To get that many CV's you must be playing some kind of early arrival replacement rate. I am playing a game with 15 day early or late arrival and I have 4 CV's in two TF's and a 5th CV that just left SF and I thought I was doing good.

AH Well
Madgamer

[cantona2]

its currently april 42 and its not as many as the number you mention but more than two, BTW also playing with the 15 day interval on reinforcements

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Actually, no its not. The Jap suffers the same coordination rolls. At US 1945 level for the whole war. GG figures it took the US 3 years to figure out what the Japs knew in 1941 I guess.

Undoubtedly explains why the Japanese did SO well during the war... [8|]

[mdiehl]

Actually, no its not. The Jap suffers the same coordination rolls. At US 1945 level for the whole war. GG figures it took the US 3 years to figure out what the Japs knew in 1941 I guess.

And that's a problem. Not only did Japan not launch ANY big CV-based coordinated strikes against naval targets at any time during the war, but in fact by 1945 the US far and vastly outclassed the IJN in terms of naval strike and cap coordination. There should be NO penalties of any kind for the number of CVs in a US TF after March 1944.

[vonSchnitter]

Well,

looks like the issue has not quite sunk in. And believe me, I do not give a rats ... tail on who may gain or loose or what is "historical".

Facts are:
Multiple CV TFs in the same hex will "pool" the cap capabilities.
The Japs have a "strike coordination bonus", which means all strikes from one TF will concentrate on a single enemy TF. Fine - But: All strikes from multiple TFs will most likely go after the same ebemy TF as well. Result: One allied CV out of action.

Remember the old HR discussion on single ship TFs - ruling them out because of gameyness ? Just a different incarnation ..

The USN has a cordination "penalty" - which just means small strike packages will go after several enemy TFs.
This "spread" will increase with the number of single CV TFs present. Result: Multiple CVs impeded.

And now on to day two of the engagement ....

While we are at it. Lets consider a scenario close to Yamamotos wettest dreams:

The USN decides to go for Wake early in 42 - 1st or second quarter.

As the Jap commander all is going your way: Your subs detect the move.
To attrit the bad guys 2 Groups of Zeros and 2 Groups of Bettys are transferred to Wake (size 4)

The Betties atack - with inconclusive results.
Now you send in the equivalent of a carrier air group (Zeroes, Kates, Vals) - again the Cap manages

And now you have two IJN Cardivs off Wake - say 3 hexes off - with 2 carriers each.

What is going to happen.


Any changes in CAP efficiency - Nik mod fashion - will exeggerate the issue.
Either AE tackles the code - or starts to issue a couple of recommendations on HR

[Feinder]

The Japs have a "strike coordination bonus", which means all strikes from one TF will concentrate on a single enemy TF.

To be clear on what the "coordingation bonus" is (or rather what the penalty is not). 
A coordinated strike simply means that you're more likely to get a balanced strike package, meaning DBs + TBs + (and most importantly) Escorts.

The coordination bonus has nothing to do with stiking a single TF.  It has to do with -not- sending 60 DBs unescorted.

TFs strike TFs.

So one mega TF with many CVs will be more likely strike a -single- opposing TF, even if there are multiple TFs in the hex.  TF to TF.  Having lots of CVs in the mega TF means a very large strike vs. a single TF.  And if you're USN with lots of CVs in a mega-TF, you're more likely to hit he coordination penatly - meaning you're alpha strike(s) go unbalanced (potentially without escorts). USN in mega TF means still striking primarily at one TF, but more likely to be un-coordinated.

That's why, regardless of USN or JPN, several smaller TFs can be advantagous.  Let's call it this way
USN TF1 = 4 CVs.

IJN TF1 = 2CVs
IJN TF2 = 1CV
IJN TF3 = 1CV
(all in same hex)

When USN TF1 selects a target, it'll generally fixate on TF becuase it will -try- to launch a coordinated strike with it's availabel AC vs. primary target.  If it -does- succeed it's coordination roll, you'll get a very large, well-balanced strike vs. hapless IJN TF1.  But you INTENTIALLY put all your CVs in one TF, in order to create larger strikes.  Your alpha strike enters the hex with all three IJN TFs, and ecounters CAP by all 3 TFs.  It then attacks it's target TF, and suffers flack from the one TF.  And then (likely) blows the crap out of the one TF.  However, the other 2 TFs get off with whatever losses their CAP suffed.

Now the IJN launch.  Each of the TFs select a target (there is only USN TF1).  Each launch separate but coordinated strikes vs. the USN TF.  Because the TFs are smaller, they are coordinated (and thus well balanced).  Again, each is TF vs. TF, and in each case, the only opposing target is the single USN TF.

What happens is the intial, well-balanced strike by IJN TF1 his CAP by the large CAP of the single TF. It's probably not going to do very well.  IJN TF2 hits the weakened and slightly disrupted CAP.  And when IJN TF3 come in, it hits the even more weakened and disrupted CAP.  Chances are by strike 3, bombers will get past CAP, and you're gonna hit something.

The issue whether a strike should hit the combined CAP in a hex, from all three TFs.  Or even if you do stack all your CVs in the same TF, that you can field hundreds of fighters that are all but impossible to penetrate.  (issues that are being delt with in AE).

But again, to be clear, the coordinatioon bonus has nothing to do with target fixation (hitting one TF).  It's about putting together a balanced strike.

-F-

[vonSchnitter]

Interesting, very interesting.

But again, to be clear, the coordinatioon bonus has nothing to do with target fixation (hitting one TF). It's about putting together a balanced strike.

So it is a an issue of balanced strikes ? Really ?

I am not going to into a splitting a hair controversy,
but according to your analysis "target fixation" exists.
And your run down of CVs per TF just supports my view.

Sorry mate - but in my lights you just shot yourself in one knee.

[Feinder]

Well, my knee doesn't hurt much.

"Target fixation" is element of the game engine that is present regardless and separate of coordination.

TFs strike TFs.

If you have lots of CVs in a TF, you're chosing to create a larger strike vs. (mostly) a single TF.
If you have several TFs, you're chosing to create smaller strikes vs. (potentially) several TFs (unless there's only one as your target).

TFs strike TFs (it's easy enought to catagorize it as "target fixation").

The same choices and game mechanics apply to both sides.

"Coordination" only has to do with balancing the strike, large or small.

I'm just telling you how the game mechanics work.

-F-

[vonSchnitter]

This discussion is getting kind of old ? But at least you got one side of the issue straight

Quote:
If you have lots of CVs in a TF, you're chosing to create a larger strike vs. (mostly) a single TF.
If you have several TFs, you're chosing to create smaller strikes vs. (potentially) several TFs (unless there's only one as your target).

Exactly. If you are allied.
If you are IJN your strike package (Large CV TF, multiple CVTFs) will go after one CV (or not) TF - plain and simple.

Read me ?

[anarchyintheuk]

Hence, don't put all of KB into one cvtf and you wont suffer whatever targeting disadvantage you're complaining about. Put KB into 2 or 3 cvtfs and most likely it will target 2 or 3 other cvtfs. Or put KB into single carrier cvtfs and go mano-a-mano. Yamamoto wouldn't have put all of KB into one cvtf if he had known the strike penalty affected the IJN as well for planes >200. Consider the IJN lucky, in the game they suffer no penalty for having worse cap coordination irl than the allies nor do they suffer a penalty to their flak because of their historically dispersed cvtf formation.

[pompack]

edit: never mind

[Feinder]

If you are IJN your strike package (Large CV TF, multiple CVTFs) will go after one CV (or not) TF - plain and simple

(* sigh *)

Get back to me when you can prove that.

And here I was trying to be diplomatic, and simply explain game mechanics.  Somewhere I missed that bit of code that says

Code: Select all

 If IJN 
   Ignore the targeting routines and attack one TF
 End if.
 

(* shrug *)

-F-

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Hence, don't put all of KB into one cvtf and you wont suffer whatever targeting disadvantage you're complaining about. Put KB into 2 or 3 cvtfs and most likely it will target 2 or 3 other cvtfs. Or put KB into single carrier cvtfs and go mano-a-mano. Yamamoto wouldn't have put all of KB into one cvtf if he had known the strike penalty affected the IJN as well for planes >200. Consider the IJN lucky, in the game they suffer no penalty for having worse cap coordination irl than the allies nor do they suffer a penalty to their flak because of their historically dispersed cvtf formation.

Not even close.

THIS is what happens:

An allied group of 5 carrier TFs launch at a group of 6 Jap carrier TFs. The allied strike will attack the lowest number Jap carrier TF (TF 1). So as the Jap, you put your CVLs or even CVEs in the lower number TFs, because thats the order they are going to be hit in. It isnt a random, this is what happens! (assuming the TF was actually spotted). Once that carrier is sunk, the following PM strike will hit the next lowest numberd TF. Same going the other way, Jap strikes TF 1001. Lowest numbered carrier TF.

Multiple carrier TFs will not launch multiple raids against multiple targets. Doesnt happen. They fly to 1 single target as a coordinated strike.

Edit: This is why I prefer a house rule only allowing 2 carrier TFs in a hex. Dont care if there are 6 carriers in each of these TFs, but at least you going to hit more than 1 carrier.

[Feinder]

I've fiddle around a bit with it, because we've all be frustrated with the targeting routines.  Why did my TF launch vs. that worthless ASW group, and not the invasion TF?  Or grr, they impaled themselves vs. the CVs, they should have hit that tasty TF of oilers!
 
Each ship type has a weight.  CVs have the most weight.  CVLs, then CVEs.  BBs are pretty "heavy" as well.  Naturally, CA/CL are worth more than DDs.  TKs and AOs are also pretty heavy (more than DDs). 
 
Each TF in range considered.
 
Beyond the "weight" of the TF (which among all things, is the most contributing), things also taken into effect
1.  Range to target.
2.  Is the target CAP'd, and by how much.
3.  DL of the target.
4.  Presense of damaged ships (also effects DL level).
5.  Ye old random dice roll.
6.  Probably some other stuff.
 
-F-

[Yamato hugger]

Thats exactly right. Weight factors some. CAP means a lot also. If it can hit a high value target with no CAP vs a carrier TF with beau coup CAP it will. # of CAP vs # of escorts determines this. But if your escorts are anywhere near the CAP level, they going to the flattops.