CV TF Optimal Size

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The Japanese can sometimes put BBs with their CVs because some of their CVs aren't very fast. For the USN even the Alabama's are dead weight. When you have some Iowas go ahead.

To each his own.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Per the norm around here, ask 20 people and get 21 different answers. [:D]

Bingo-rama.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I favor a higher concentration of CVs/CVLs in my TFs, as it frees up escorts to perform other roles - surface interdiction, bombardment, amphib escort, etc.

In 1944, I've been running 3 CV/2 CVL as the Allies. This will grow later when I get more hulls, probably to 4-5 CV and 3-4 CVL per TF. It just depends. But if you're going to go over the limit, you may as well keep going - there's no additional penalty for being over 400 planes in 1944. And it's called a penalty, but it's not actually a penalty in itself: it is a doubled chance of experiencing a penalty. It's not guaranteed.

I'm very mixed on mixing CVs and CVLs.

[BillBrown]

The USN CVLs mix well, the others not so good. My answer was for USN CVTFs. I also sometimes us a fast BB, but normally use them as surface screens.

[Feltan]

To the original poster,

As you can see, there is wide consensus on this topic. Simply form a carrier task force with one or more CV's, zero to a few CVL's, and a duke's mixture of escorts and you'll be in the mainstream.

Alternatively, as I do, you can treat this subject as close to black magic as it comes in WITP-AE -- I never divulge the best ratio of ships in a CV Task Force, and only I know the secret.

Regards,
Feltan

[jamesjohns]

Lots of answers, who knows?

I'll put in 2 or 3 CV's or CV's and a CVL, a couple of the best AA cruisers I got, a couple of heavy cruisers and about 8 DD's that I hope are balanced between ASW and AA

If I got a fast BB I'll swap out a heavy cruiser

If I can I'll have a surface action group in same hex with BB or two (if fast enough) some cruisers and DD's.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If you're the Allied Player: thru '42 at least only 1 CV to a TF. Add a couple CA's a CL and 8 to 12 DDs and you're good. If you have fast BBs 2 in a screening TF with a CL and some DDs is a good idea. Once you have CVs coming out of your ears I like 2 CVs and 1 CVL plus adequate escort. If you're in a carrier battle and you have multiple CV TFs in a hex the enemy is likely to pick one of them and concentrate on that. If they're not in the same hex but within range of the enemy it will dilute their attacks. I like to keep them together though. CVE's go ahead and put them in mobs with some DDs and maybe a CL with a separate CA screening TF.

Totally disagree here. I keep all of my big six carriers in one TF if they are operating in the same theater. Never seen the coordination penalty to amount to much and it eliminates the risk of one TF reacting towards the enemy and getting creamed. I should add that my carriers are not seeking a fleet engagement with KB during the first year of the war so I do this to support other operations. At least one or two fast BBs then perhaps some CLAAs and well armed DDs. CAs and CLs if need be. Later in the war when I have the ships I generally use them with 5-6 six carriers per TF using a mix of CVs and CVLs. Always one fast BB in the mix though. A good commander but not necessarily an aggressive one. Naval and air skill trump aggression.

My experienced opponent uses KB in one big TF and I have never seen anything but massed coordinated attacks come out to that.

[CaptBeefheart]

I've been following crsutton's advice on this for quite a while to good effect.

Cheers,
CC

[Encircled]

Speaking from very, very recent experience with a CV battle as the Japanese, always have a couple of BBs with your carriers to soak up some bomb hits

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I favor a higher concentration of CVs/CVLs in my TFs, as it frees up escorts to perform other roles - surface interdiction, bombardment, amphib escort, etc.

In 1944, I've been running 3 CV/2 CVL as the Allies. This will grow later when I get more hulls, probably to 4-5 CV and 3-4 CVL per TF. It just depends. But if you're going to go over the limit, you may as well keep going - there's no additional penalty for being over 400 planes in 1944. And it's called a penalty, but it's not actually a penalty in itself: it is a doubled chance of experiencing a penalty. It's not guaranteed.

I'm very mixed on mixing CVs and CVLs.

I'm very mixed on mooses who are mixed on mixing. [:D]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

To the original poster,

As you can see, there is wide consensus on this topic. Simply form a carrier task force with one or more CV's, zero to a few CVL's, and a duke's mixture of escorts and you'll be in the mainstream.

Alternatively, as I do, you can treat this subject as close to black magic as it comes in WITP-AE -- I never divulge the best ratio of ships in a CV Task Force, and only I know the secret.

Regards,
Feltan

Well take it to that show "Fool me" or whatever with Penn and Teller. [:D]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: jamesjohns

Lots of answers, who knows?

I'll put in 2 or 3 CV's or CV's and a CVL, a couple of the best AA cruisers I got, a couple of heavy cruisers and about 8 DD's that I hope are balanced between ASW and AA

If I got a fast BB I'll swap out a heavy cruiser

If I can I'll have a surface action group in same hex with BB or two (if fast enough) some cruisers and DD's.

I'm with this guy.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If you're the Allied Player: thru '42 at least only 1 CV to a TF. Add a couple CA's a CL and 8 to 12 DDs and you're good. If you have fast BBs 2 in a screening TF with a CL and some DDs is a good idea. Once you have CVs coming out of your ears I like 2 CVs and 1 CVL plus adequate escort. If you're in a carrier battle and you have multiple CV TFs in a hex the enemy is likely to pick one of them and concentrate on that. If they're not in the same hex but within range of the enemy it will dilute their attacks. I like to keep them together though. CVE's go ahead and put them in mobs with some DDs and maybe a CL with a separate CA screening TF.

Totally disagree here. I keep all of my big six carriers in one TF if they are operating in the same theater. Never seen the coordination penalty to amount to much and it eliminates the risk of one TF reacting towards the enemy and getting creamed. I should add that my carriers are not seeking a fleet engagement with KB during the first year of the war so I do this to support other operations. At least one or two fast BBs then perhaps some CLAAs and well armed DDs. CAs and CLs if need be. Later in the war when I have the ships I generally use them with 5-6 six carriers per TF using a mix of CVs and CVLs. Always one fast BB in the mix though. A good commander but not necessarily an aggressive one. Naval and air skill trump aggression.

My experienced opponent uses KB in one big TF and I have never seen anything but massed coordinated attacks come out to that.

Are you talking about the Japanese? If so I fail to disagree with you. Another consideration is that at some point, maybe in '42, Japanese CV TFs cease to be a consideration.

[geofflambert]

I see crsutton, I was thrown by the six carriers you mentioned. There's a trade off with that speed issue. If you get into a surface action with a BB on your side your CVs will take shell hits. That's a no-no. I've never lost a carrier battle playing on the Allied side and I'm talking a bunch of them. One, intercept enemy surface flotilla and stop them from getting to the CVs. Two, failing that run like hell. BBs do not contribute there.

[geofflambert]

About the fuel, if you haven't made any big mistakes your CVs will keep your DDs fueled.

edit: BBs are fuel hogs. Including them as refuelers is, I don't know how to say it, use your own imagination.

[geofflambert]

Again, or if I didn't make it clear, the considerations for the IJN player are different and fewer options are available.

[geofflambert]

Also, (I can go on and on forever), having good commanders is really important. However, any decision you can make for them ahead of the day's action that is valid no matter what happens should be made. Fewer options for your make believe admiral friend are always a good idea.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

About the fuel, if you haven't made any big mistakes your CVs will keep your DDs fueled.

edit: BBs are fuel hogs. Including them as refuelers is, I don't know how to say it, use your own imagination.

If I used the TF makeup plan you described originally (1 CV, etc.) I'd need over 60 DDs to run the five 1942 CVs. Not only don't have them, don't have gas either.

BBs can refuel, sure. You also need to be more creative and flex your TF structures while in the op area. If they run low you can detach them and send them home while using the CVs as fuelers, yes.

You also fear a surface engagement with an Air TF too much. Sure they can happen, but the game has extra rolls built in to make the odds of an Air TF to disengage before the surface fight higher. And to disengage pretty fast once the shooting starts. Letting a surface TF get that close when you have built-in air search is also a mistake. It can happen, but it's not what I worry about most. I worry about subs and LBA.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Are you telling us you're playing the IJN side? That would be new wouldn't it? The only problem I have is putting a BB in there. Until the Iowas they would likely slow it down. Also if you have multiple TFs present having a separate BB screening TF covers all (in most cases). The USN using POW and Repulse early on is not objectionable to me and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start adding up all the help the US gives the UK in every form. But I would still use them as a separate screening force.

A fast BB is worth the minor speed trade-off for AA numbers and torpedo magnetability. Two are better. Also a fuel bunker for DDs if needed in emergency.

I don't like to depend on follow commands with TF CO variability and react code. I like my Air TFs to be independent. If there's a Surface TF along it has a different job than riding herd on carriers.

Totally agree with Mr Moose here. Japanese planes love to target BBs. A fast BB in a carrier TF might draw 1/5 of all air attacks. That translates to a 20% reduction in hits on your carriers. 250KG and 500KG bombs bounce off BBs and they can absorb torpedo damage much more readily than any carrier. Add the powerful AA batteries they carry and you must have at least one in your carrier TF. I do not believe in using BBs in surface actions before 1944. Most actions are at night and the BBs sometimes do not even shoot while posing as torpedo bait. A very bad exchange if you ask me. Their real purpose is to escort and protect carriers-like they did most of the time in real life. I will trade off the extra hex movement anytime. For the Allies the road to winning comes via the carrier. You had better protect them as best as possible.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I see crsutton, I was thrown by the six carriers you mentioned. There's a trade off with that speed issue. If you get into a surface action with a BB on your side your CVs will take shell hits. That's a no-no. I've never lost a carrier battle playing on the Allied side and I'm talking a bunch of them. One, intercept enemy surface flotilla and stop them from getting to the CVs. Two, failing that run like hell. BBs do not contribute there.

Well, if you get into a surface action with your CV TF, I would argue that you royally f**ked up anyways..[;)]