"defensive" carrier - gamey?

[jomni]

It's a game so there should be gamey stuff going on.

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: Big B

And as far as the USN is concerned, they too never transferred squadrons from CV to land base and back and forth over night either.

What about all the times CV based squadrons would fly a strike and then land at Henderson field for the evening, then fly back to the carrier the next day. The USN showed a great deal of flexibility about where its carrier based planes were stationed.

[Big B]

There is one point I would add to that.

If it's a game I agree totally ...that's what you are supposed to do.

If you view it as not just a game but also an historical sim, I would suggest one limitation in deference to reality -
Change CV air squadrons only in any major port that could be assumed to supply the CV with the necessary spare engines, munitions, and parts needed to support the new air wing. Other than that, reconfiguring the air wing seems ok.

I'm sure 'The Elf' would agree that a CV can only operate aircraft types that the CV has the means to support.

For example, if the decision was made in Tokyo that Akagi will operate as a Fighter CAP CV only, then the Navy Department will transfer the necessary air units, parts, and mechanics to support that role. But don't expect the Akagi to overnight accommodate the operation of Judy's and Jill's just because they could land on her decks...they would need the support of materiel and trained mechanics to make them operational....as it would be for the USN or Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm also.

You can could configure them how you like - but not change operations "on the fly".

ORIGINAL: jomni

It's a game so there should be gamey stuff going on.

[Big B]

Yes - see post #23 above

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

ORIGINAL: Big B

And as far as the USN is concerned, they too never transferred squadrons from CV to land base and back and forth over night either.

What about all the times CV based squadrons would fly a strike and then land at Henderson field for the evening, then fly back to the carrier the next day. The USN showed a great deal of flexibility about where its carrier based planes were stationed.

[The Gnome]

The Doolittle Raid is another example of flexible thinking on carrier load outs. It's the exact opposite load, all bombers.

[pmelheck1]

I know others wont agree but it's not gamey to me.  Load out of the CV should depend on the mission of the ship.  If it's purely defensive then a purely fighter loadout wouldn't be a unreasonable assumption.  But you rob the CV of it's greatest asset, it's ability to project air power far from allied bases.  This to me hearkens back to the BB days when it was assumed that BB's would slug it out and the CV's were there for scouting and protection only.  By handing air superiority to the enemy you fight on his terms.  The best defense of a CV group is to sink the enemy CV fleet or cripple his bases before he can launch a strike on your fleet.  A fighter fleet would pose no threat to the enemy, and in any engagement you will always come out on the bad end as he will sail away with out any of his ships firing a shot of AA.  If playing as the allies you can afford to lose ships and he can't.  If your playing as Japan such a defensive posture would be unthinkable I think to the Japanese of that time.  Also if he knows your doing this he can leave no cap over his fleet as it would be in no danger of attack and send all those fighters to protect his bombers striking your fleet.  He could also remove all fighters and replace them with bombers.  Even if you shoot most of them down if he sinks 1 or 2 carriers he still comes out way ahead.  I've always viewed CV's as more weapon then armor.

[PaxMondo]

I'm with Gnome and BigB on this, for exactly as they state it.
 
Gamey means taking advantage of the engine in an unrealistic way.  Re-sizing and going to all fighters could have been done.  The fact that it wasn't, but was considered by at least one side moves it into "possible" category.  With the caveat that BigB brought up, needs to be done in a large port where all the provisions could handle this.  So not "on the fly" at say Lunga.  But HI or a major base like Truk?  Sure.
 
I mean, you still have to have the aircraft to fill out the unit.  That means production.  You also have to have the experienced pilots.  If the IJN has them, why wouldn't they be used?  Historically, they were desparately short of both after Coral Sea and Midway.  BUT, if the player has avoided that (like PzB in his AAR), he could easily have a surfeit of both.  He should be able to get them into play, else he is being unfairly handicapped by the historical outcome.  OTOH, you have a "Midway" like Cuttlefish did in his AAR, this won't be an option.  He lost a lot of groups in one day ... very Midway-esque.

[John 3rd]

I don't think I could ever re-size a Daitai to 72 planes. Bringing on-board 3 27 plane Daitai makes far better sense to me.

[RUDOLF]

ORIGINAL: Zsolo007

I've been thinking for a long time whether to post this or not, but I would really like to see opinions about this, so here it is:

I have an ongoing PBEM as Japan, and it was about a year ago in game time ('43 may now) when i lost my first CV to my own stupidity. Then some time later i lost another one, and I began to feel that 4 CVs are not going to be enough if my opponent starts to counter-attack. So I started thinking about what should be done to try to prolong my superiority....and I came up with the idea of the "defensive" carrier.

Since KB was reduced to 4 ships i could move them together in one TF, so i thought that i should somehow increase the number of fighters i have. I looked at my ships, and i still had Akagi. Together with Kaga (which was already at the bottom of the Coral Sea at that time) these are the biggest CVs Japan has. So I removed the DBs and TBs from Akagi and set the fighters to resize. With this i got a squadron of 72 planes...

So my question is: Is it gamey to have a fighter only CV?

I'm not an expert, but as far as I know IRL CVs were thought of as ship capable of individual operation, capable of performing both offensive and defensive tasks by themselves, as well as in a group. What I'm doing here is changing the perspective, I'm looking at CVs the other way around. Since they always move together why not look at what's most beneficial for the group? I need more fighters? Have one CV dedicated to that task. Of course i wouldn't change every CV this way....then it would be the same as having mixed airgroups...

The other thing I'm using to rationalize this is the fact, that airgroups were never static on flattops. Numbers changed according to the mission they were sent to perform, and of course by the number of available frames and pilots. So this is a kind of "expansion" of this fact....the mission requires more fighters .

What do you think of this?

I use dedicated CV's for extra fighters and also use a CV dedicated for 60 Torpedo Bombers + 20 Fighters.. why not? It could been done and it is effective to do. 1 of my CV's has 85 Fighters.

[Dili]

I don't think it is gamey if it is done from a shipyard base to prepare the stores inside the ship for fighters(more guns amno, maybe needs more fuel, no need for torpedos, most bombs, just maybe ome small bombs) there is need of some time spent on training and tactics.

[Razz1]

I've read that two or three CVL's were used as fighter only, but that was near the end of the war.

[STUCKER868]

I would consider Gen. Doolittle putting land based bombers on the Hornet gamey Massing fighters on a CV was not done but I would not call it gamey but rather ahistorical. Remember we have the advantage of hindsight (its bad enough that we know EXACTLY how many CV's each side starts with as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each while our historical counterparts did not know such things.

[minnowguy]

Can't find the reference, but I'm pretty sure that _The First Team_ describes the USN considering exactly this (i.e. a dedicated "CAP carrier" with multiple VFs embarked) after one of the battles in 1942.  The CAP carrier would be primarily responsible for fleet defense and would carry a dedicated FDC team.  They didn't have time to implement before Midway, and it then became a moot point.

Been thinking about a re-read anyway ... will post if/when I find the reference.

I don't find the concept gamey at all (except, possibly, for using the "resize" feature). 

[Stelteck]

I think it is a legitimate tactic, and i often use it to match a stronger foe. It allow me to try to mount some offensive even with inferior navy air force which is always more interesting for both player than waiting one year to have new carriers.

But this tactic have a lot of risk. A 100% fighter carrier will nether sink any ship, allowing surface force to counter attack at will, and the ennemy can adapt without risk the escort/ratio of its own navy air force to increase offensive power. And in WITP AE, massive CAP is not as powerfull as in vanilla....

Finding the composition of the ennemy carrier air force is a mandatory move before engaging battle in my opinion.

This tactic will defeat you only if you make huge mystake in the composition of ennemy air force and launch a raid lightly escorted without knowledge.

In a second part, at the start of the war as US, i often use the navy squadron from ground in order to avoid loosing carriers....

PS: Of course, the resize thing is gamey.

[gajdacs zsolt]

Thanks for your thoughts. I did discuss this with my opponent, and he had no problem with it.

The biggest problem I see is the usage of the resize feature (as a few have pointed out). As John 3rd have said, loading 3 daitais makes more sense, as it gives tactical flexibility. What I tried to do is gaining more fighter frames without having to use other squadrons, as I'm short of those anyway. So i believe that this makes it gamey, not the concept of a CAP-only CV.

[castor troy]

equipping one CV or some CVs with more fighters (or stripping one completely of the bombers) is ok IMO. Doing it with halve a dozen CVs to create a 600+ fighter CV TF without any bombers is off IMO. No way would that have happened in real life. It´s not exploiting the game engine so it´s probably hard to say it´s gamey but IMO, it´s totally off. Especially if you swap the squadrons out in one day like having fighters on day one and bombers on day two. Reason for this can be read in BigB´s posts, which is a good explanation why it´s off.

No problem with reinforcing the carriers with fighters.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

equipping one CV or some CVs with more fighters (or stripping one completely of the bombers) is ok IMO. Doing it with halve a dozen CVs to create a 600+ fighter CV TF without any bombers is off IMO. No way would that have happened in real life. It´s not exploiting the game engine so it´s probably hard to say it´s gamey but IMO, it´s totally off. Especially if you swap the squadrons out in one day like having fighters on day one and bombers on day two. Reason for this can be read in BigB´s posts, which is a good explanation why it´s off.

No problem with reinforcing the carriers with fighters.

The USN CVTF structure that evolved out of the lessons of the Pacific Campaign had a CAP carrier and two attack carriers. The smaller CAP carrier specialised in continuously managing a combat air patrol, when the attack carriers specialised in being able to generate surges of airstrikes.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

ORIGINAL: ckammp

I believe the tactic is gamey, and it can be easily abused.

I don't understand how putting only fighters on a large Japanese carrier in 1942 (never even attempted in RL, and why would they?) can be justified by the late-44/early-45 resizing of US carrier squadrons (historically true, done to counter kamikaze attacks, and only added more fighters while still keeping DBs and TBs).

It isn't "creative" tactics, it's just cheating.   

Why is it cheating? Just curious as to your reasoning.

I'm with Gnome on this one, why is it cheating if hes not resizing to huge individual squadrons and has already lost 2 KB carriers?

I was referring to the tactic of resizing 1 squadron to 72 planes.
I believe this tactic can be abused to create a large number of these huge squadrons, which IMHO is simply cheating.

OTOH, I see no problem if for some reason a player simply replaces his attack plane squadrons with fighter squadrons.
I don't understand why anyone would want to do so; without attack planes on a carrier, the carrier is no longer a threat to enemy ships.

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
I was referring to the tactic of resizing 1 squadron to 72 planes.
I believe this tactic can be abused to create a large number of these huge squadrons, which IMHO is simply cheating.

Not sure if that is even possible. If I'm reading the resize rules correctly (http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.php?title=Resizing_Carrier_Units), he can, at most get his fighters groups up to 37% of his CV capacity. Of course, he might get them bigger if he has a CVL or CVE with a large enough capacity (60% of CVL cap and 90% CVE)

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

ORIGINAL: ckammp
I was referring to the tactic of resizing 1 squadron to 72 planes.
I believe this tactic can be abused to create a large number of these huge squadrons, which IMHO is simply cheating.

Not sure if that is even possible. If I'm reading the resize rules correctly (http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.php?title=Resizing_Carrier_Units), he can, at most get his fighters groups up to 37% of his CV capacity. Of course, he might get them bigger if he has a CVL or CVE with a large enough capacity (60% of CVL cap and 90% CVE)

Yes, it is possible.
From the link you cite:
"Only carrier capable F, FB, NF, DB, and TB groups can resize according to the first applicable condition below
a) if only one group on the CVx, then new size is 9/10 of CV capacity."

Akagi capacity is 81. 9/10 of 81= 72.

Also, the OP stated he had resized a fighter group to 72 planes.

Regardless, I still feel doing so is gamey.