Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: fcooke

One of the great many benefits of having lived on both sides of the pond is that you pick up on some of the differences in the 'same' language. CV is the same as resume. elevators are lifts. hoods are bonnets. cigarettes are fags (I kid you not). And so on. I find myself substituting words depending on what geography I am in. And then you have the subtle spelling differences between US and UK, which tends to drive spell checkers nuts - and then the not so subtle ones - jail is gaol.

And I took a bunch of Latin in high school - not a language guy so that almost flunked me out,as did French. But I can now read stained glass windows in churches and cathedrals, for what that is worth. Curriculum Vitae is Latin.

Early morning musings.

Over here it's supposed to be Jeff. My egglayer wanted to be different.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Ian R

On the other hand, if the KB comes by and puts strikes in contact, all your carriers are at risk in one TF. Keeping them in separate TFs can pay dividends, as one might escape attack.

According to Alfred (IIRC), an air strike can attack ships in all the TFs in a hex, so it makes no real difference to split your CVs into various TFs and keep them in the same hex. In a larger TF you might get better AAA support (depending on AAA range and enemy altitude during approach and departure.)

I've seen too many times when one TF is attacked repeatedly (both sides) leaving the others alone to stop me from breaking them up into the smallest groups possible. If you're American (so differences in speed are not a problem my ideal is: CV CV CVL CA CA CL DD DD DD DD DD DD with more DDs if you have 'em.

BBFB isn't the point then if you split up into different TFs the attack will only go in against one?

I agree with BB and Alfred. I have had CV strikes hit ships from multiple TFs in one hex during carrier battles. However, regarding the above, I tend to operate in 15 ship TFs and like to have at least decent escorts for ASW and AA, so as the Allies my carriers are usually split up.

I stand to learn here

Air strikes against multiple TFs in the same hex will tend to go after the most valuable ships first - CVs& CVLs, loaded APs or xAPs, CVEs, then BBs. Some of the choice depends on under-the-hood weather rolls during the combat resolution and some may depend on the qualities of the air squadron commanders or D/L on the various TFs.

I am not saying Geoff/Jeff is wrong, but it is possible to get multiple TF targeting. If he is splitting up his CVs among various TFs, the slowest ones are often the first target. Kaga is almost always the first KB CV on the menu.

Together with the ship class priority order, individual ship detection levels is very important for the auto targeting routines.
 
1.  In AE, having multiple TFs in the same hex does not mean the enemy aircraft will target only one TF and leave all the others untouched.
 
2.  Ceteris paribus, a large TF is more likely to have a higher detection level than a small TF.
 
3.  Ceteris paribus, a large ship in a TF is more likely to have a higher detection level than a small ship within the same TF.
 
 
AE is all about compromises which a player must make.  There are both advantages and disadvantages attached to employing multiple smaller TF v a single large TF in the same hex.
 
Alfred

I would think that AAA is also a big consideration here, smaller TFs having less. Just looking at the PH Strike force and imagining breaking it down six ways gives me some anxiety.

ORIGINAL: dasboot1960

I would think that AAA is also a big consideration here, smaller TFs having less. Just looking at the PH Strike force and imagining breaking it down six ways gives me some anxiety.

If you're playing American in late '44 or '45 you don't have a shortage of anything. You might lose track of some of those TFs. You'll lose more casualties to expended flak raining down on you.

This from the Wiki on the Battle of Santa Cruz. This is just Oct. of '42.

Between 11:40 and 14:00, the two undamaged Japanese carriers, Zuikaku and Jun'yō, recovered the few aircraft that returned from the morning strikes on Hornet and Enterprise and prepared follow-up strikes. It was now that the devastating losses sustained during these attacks became apparent. Lt. Cmdr. Okumiya Masatake, Jun'yō's air staff officer, described the return of the carrier's first strike groups:

We searched the sky with apprehension. There were only a few planes in the air in comparison with the numbers launched several hours before... The planes lurched and staggered onto the deck, every single fighter and bomber bullet holed ... As the pilots climbed wearily from their cramped cockpits, they told of unbelievable opposition, of skies choked with antiaircraft shell bursts and tracers.

Only one of Jun'yō's bomber leaders returned from the first strike, and upon landing he appeared "so shaken that at times he could not speak coherently".

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This from the Wiki on the Battle of Santa Cruz. This is just Oct. of '42.

Between 11:40 and 14:00, the two undamaged Japanese carriers, Zuikaku and Jun'yô, recovered the few aircraft that returned from the morning strikes on Hornet and Enterprise and prepared follow-up strikes. It was now that the devastating losses sustained during these attacks became apparent. Lt. Cmdr. Okumiya Masatake, Jun'yô's air staff officer, described the return of the carrier's first strike groups:

We searched the sky with apprehension. There were only a few planes in the air in comparison with the numbers launched several hours before... The planes lurched and staggered onto the deck, every single fighter and bomber bullet holed ... As the pilots climbed wearily from their cramped cockpits, they told of unbelievable opposition, of skies choked with antiaircraft shell bursts and tracers.

Only one of Jun'yô's bomber leaders returned from the first strike, and upon landing he appeared "so shaken that at times he could not speak coherently".

Ah, the debut of BB South Dakota! The TF admiral had to query if she was on fire when she turned on her AA! The US CVs had pretty good AA upgrades then too.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Ian R

On the other hand, if the KB comes by and puts strikes in contact, all your carriers are at risk in one TF. Keeping them in separate TFs can pay dividends, as one might escape attack.

According to Alfred (IIRC), an air strike can attack ships in all the TFs in a hex, so it makes no real difference to split your CVs into various TFs and keep them in the same hex. In a larger TF you might get better AAA support (depending on AAA range and enemy altitude during approach and departure.)

"Can attack" does not = "will attack" [;)]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

First, Allied players, do not put the first model of Corsairs on one of your carriers. They are not carrier capable and will turn your carrier into a floating parking lot.

....

my ideal is: CV CV CVL CA CA CL DD DD DD DD DD DD

Very good advice Mr Gorn !

For 1st time players - more generally - examine the details of all squadrons carefully. The Planes that are "Carrier Capable" are clearly indicated in the screen details. If you have read your history and wondered how they launched P47 from Escort carriers (i.e. Battle of Okinawa) - that was to launch ONLY and land at an air strip - not land aboard ship again.

--

My ideal is about the same and is based on the post war musings of Admiral Raymond Spruance.

You can search the internet for many references.

3 X CV - 1 X CVL - 1 X CA - 1 X CLAA - 1 X CL and a minimum of 8 destroyers. Usually the ones with the best AA / ASW values.

You can operate such Task Forces - 2 / 3 / 4 / more latter within a single hex or all in nearby hexes proving mutual support.

Some experienced players here intermingle the fast battleships; I actually prefer to group the Battleships / CA / CL / Multiple DD "ahead or leading" of the Carrier Task Forces with strong CAP set up (entire Squadrons on CAP 100% with Range 1 including the BB Task Force)i.e. mimic-ing the deployment of the Battle of the Philippine Sea / Great Mariana's Turkey shoot. It is my "impression" they are sighted and divert a large number of attacks from the CV.

--

However there are plenty of intelligent opinions about creating "Death Star" Carrier TFs / Smaller / Larger.

Above all experiment and learn. The Learning curve is not half as large as it is fun !

The circumstances in the game may differ from the real life situation. For example, in RL the Japanese had lost most of their best pilots already and the rookies they had may have been too keen to hit battleships when orders should have been to go after carriers or loaded transports. In the game, the IJ player usually has a solid cadre of experienced pilots and lots of well-trained rookies by mid-1943. Better pilots tend to find the carriers.

Also IRL, the Japanese did not activate the kamikazes until Leyte Gulf in late October, 1944, but in game they can be activated after January 1, 1944. That would affect the decisions about air group makeup on the carriers.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Another thing. Turn replacements off on all squadrons aboard. I once had something bad happen. The Americans have the option of having replacement squadrons at nearby land bases, that will send replacement planes with pilots to a carrier at sea. The Japanese can't do that. So I was unaware of that and it happened to me. Somehow a training squadron I had nearby was flagged to be a replacement squadron and sent unwanted planes with untrained crews in the middle of a fight. ........

This is called the fortunes of war ?

Do we know there is actually an influx of new players into this time vampire of a game ?

IRL the Allies had not achieved any of the requirements proscribed by the game for Kamikaze activation by the Battle of Leyte Gulf. To do so in the game requires an Allied base within 15 hexes by sea of Saigon, Takao or Tokyo. So, in the game you can create Kamikazes once the Allies have a base in the Gulf of Siam, Central Luzon, Haha-Jima or for the Soviets to have activated. Chinese capture of a port from Shanghai to the West would do. None of this was true by or immediately following Leyte Gulf. So, in order for activation to occur in January of '44 the Allied player would need to be nearly a year ahead of schedule than RL was.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

IRL the Allies had not achieved any of the requirements proscribed by the game for Kamikaze activation by the Battle of Leyte Gulf. To do so in the game requires an Allied base within 15 hexes by sea of Saigon, Takao or Tokyo. So, in the game you can create Kamikazes once the Allies have a base in the Gulf of Siam, Central Luzon, Haha-Jima or for the Soviets to have activated. Chinese capture of a port from Shanghai to the West would do. None of this was true by or immediately following Leyte Gulf. So, in order for activation to occur in January of '44 the Allied player would need to be nearly a year ahead of schedule than RL was.

It has been changed to 20 hexes.

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

Do we know there is actually an influx of new players into this time vampire of a game ?

Just check out the surge of threads from new players questioning how to install the game and how to do some basic things like loading troops.

That's better. That would include northern Leyte and Samar.