Do CAGs target enemy ships at random?
A friend of mine was thinking they should always go after other CVs. I haven't looked at this, but I do think the targeting is purely random. Is that correct?
Also, maybe the CAG targeting depends on the range of the engagement. Not sure.
Naval concepts in GGWAW
Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen
RE: Naval concepts in GGWAW
Hi Aletoledo
It may be that the rules have been changed subsequent to my version of the manual but that gives 3 ranges for naval combat 1 - 3 with torpedo attack allowed only at range 1. However, the odds for each range being selected are stated as 50% range 1, 17% range 2 and 33% range 3. This gives Light Fleets a 1 in 2 chance of attacking Heavy Fleets by torpedo. As far as I can judge subs always get to use torpedo without any range consideration. Come to think of it applying naval combat rules to subs versus warships would at least halve their impact in that area.
In terms of my original post I think that a 50% chance of using torpedoes gives Light Fleets to good a potential hit rate - in game terms I would really like to see the players having to use Heavy units to slug it out for naval supremacy without much risk of being sunk by the Lights albeit having to watch out for air attack.
I understand the point about if there were an equal number of BB's and Planes then the planes lose. I still think that is fair, going back to the actual sinking of Musashi, there were very probably the equivalent of 5 or 6 GGWAW plane units (the US had a total of 16 x CV/CVL and 18 x CVE in the theatre) attacking the IJN TF which was probably equivalent to 2 or at most 3 Heavy Fleet units (Kurita had 5 x BB and 10 x CA). The USN made 259 sorties versus Kurita on 24th October and probably a hundred or so more on 25th when Kurita attacked the Taffy CVE's. I would guess that approaching 400 sorties in two days would be equivalent to what 5 or 6 GGWAW plane units might be expected to do.
I guess one weakness in GGWAW is that it assumes that each plane unit attacks a different Heavy Fleet. What happened to Musashi was that, once she was weakened and lagging behind, the US a/c concentrated on finishing her off rather than go after the rest of Kurita's force. Thus pilots actually sank one BB but reported many hits so Adm Halsey assumed that Kurita's forrce was no longer a threat and famously steamed off to the North, chasing the IJN CV's and leaving an opportunity for Kurita to attack the CVE's and transports. Unfortunately GGWAW cdoes not really replicate this possibility.
Mike
It may be that the rules have been changed subsequent to my version of the manual but that gives 3 ranges for naval combat 1 - 3 with torpedo attack allowed only at range 1. However, the odds for each range being selected are stated as 50% range 1, 17% range 2 and 33% range 3. This gives Light Fleets a 1 in 2 chance of attacking Heavy Fleets by torpedo. As far as I can judge subs always get to use torpedo without any range consideration. Come to think of it applying naval combat rules to subs versus warships would at least halve their impact in that area.
In terms of my original post I think that a 50% chance of using torpedoes gives Light Fleets to good a potential hit rate - in game terms I would really like to see the players having to use Heavy units to slug it out for naval supremacy without much risk of being sunk by the Lights albeit having to watch out for air attack.
I understand the point about if there were an equal number of BB's and Planes then the planes lose. I still think that is fair, going back to the actual sinking of Musashi, there were very probably the equivalent of 5 or 6 GGWAW plane units (the US had a total of 16 x CV/CVL and 18 x CVE in the theatre) attacking the IJN TF which was probably equivalent to 2 or at most 3 Heavy Fleet units (Kurita had 5 x BB and 10 x CA). The USN made 259 sorties versus Kurita on 24th October and probably a hundred or so more on 25th when Kurita attacked the Taffy CVE's. I would guess that approaching 400 sorties in two days would be equivalent to what 5 or 6 GGWAW plane units might be expected to do.
I guess one weakness in GGWAW is that it assumes that each plane unit attacks a different Heavy Fleet. What happened to Musashi was that, once she was weakened and lagging behind, the US a/c concentrated on finishing her off rather than go after the rest of Kurita's force. Thus pilots actually sank one BB but reported many hits so Adm Halsey assumed that Kurita's forrce was no longer a threat and famously steamed off to the North, chasing the IJN CV's and leaving an opportunity for Kurita to attack the CVE's and transports. Unfortunately GGWAW cdoes not really replicate this possibility.
Mike
RE: Naval concepts in GGWAW
Well, what I meant is that once you tech up BB AA, they become effectively immune to everything except their counterparts if you keep them in groups. The Japanese likely have 4 or maybe 5 CAGs max at any one time (less if you have any CAGs of your own). If you send in groupings of 3+ BBs and any LFs as escort, chances are you will potentially suffer one or two damaged fleets in exchange for making nearly the entire Japanese Combined Fleet air arm combat ineffective. To me, that is quite a stretch for surface ships in WW2. I've been on both ends of this equation in the game and believe me, its quite possible.
So, in effect, BBs become something they never were able to muster in WW2...sea superiority. Rather than massing up CVs and CAGs, its quite possible to win control of the seas by using the BB instead. This is in marked contrast to your assertion that BBs are weak (or weaker) in W@W than they were in reality.
When it comes to LFs vs BBs, I still havent seen a problem in game (I usually play Japan or WAllies too, so I fight a lot of naval actions). Sure there are instances where the LFs damage the BBs, but LFs are often destroyed completely in such engagements. Also, odds are certainly not in your favor if you are sending LFs against an enemy force of BBs and LFs. You have a chance of not firing at all (and still being walloped), you have a chance of firing, but only engaging enemy LF escorts, you have a chance of actually engaging a HF, but not hitting, and finally you have a chance of actually engaging and hitting a HF. But that is not a likely outcome in most cases.
Also remember that each 'fleet' is an abstraction. A HF does not necessarily represent 4-5 BBs or whatnot. It includes some escort vessels which might be vulnerable to enemy lighter vessels. The damage suffered in combat is also an abstraction...some might represent losses of screening vessels, while some might represent damage to the capital ships or the loss of one or two of those ships.
At any rate, the point still remains that with minimal efforts, BBs can be transformed into something in the game that they were never able to attain (or even get close to) in reality. I'm actually lobbying to have the World Standard for BB AA reduced by one so that it become at least expensive to increase it to the level where they can invalidate enemy air.
So, in effect, BBs become something they never were able to muster in WW2...sea superiority. Rather than massing up CVs and CAGs, its quite possible to win control of the seas by using the BB instead. This is in marked contrast to your assertion that BBs are weak (or weaker) in W@W than they were in reality.
When it comes to LFs vs BBs, I still havent seen a problem in game (I usually play Japan or WAllies too, so I fight a lot of naval actions). Sure there are instances where the LFs damage the BBs, but LFs are often destroyed completely in such engagements. Also, odds are certainly not in your favor if you are sending LFs against an enemy force of BBs and LFs. You have a chance of not firing at all (and still being walloped), you have a chance of firing, but only engaging enemy LF escorts, you have a chance of actually engaging a HF, but not hitting, and finally you have a chance of actually engaging and hitting a HF. But that is not a likely outcome in most cases.
Also remember that each 'fleet' is an abstraction. A HF does not necessarily represent 4-5 BBs or whatnot. It includes some escort vessels which might be vulnerable to enemy lighter vessels. The damage suffered in combat is also an abstraction...some might represent losses of screening vessels, while some might represent damage to the capital ships or the loss of one or two of those ships.
At any rate, the point still remains that with minimal efforts, BBs can be transformed into something in the game that they were never able to attain (or even get close to) in reality. I'm actually lobbying to have the World Standard for BB AA reduced by one so that it become at least expensive to increase it to the level where they can invalidate enemy air.
RE: Naval concepts in GGWAW
Hi Uncle-Joe
At the Battle of Santa Cruz where South Dakota was providing AA support to CV's Hornet and Enterprise she was creditted with downing 26 Japanese aircraft in one day i.e. 1% of a GGWAW time period.
During the Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa many got through the CAP defence and some minor damage was done to various of the BB's taking part but nothing that put them out of the action. The Japanese lost 2500 aircraft in Kamikaze attacks in the latter stages of the war which were only adopted after they found it quite impossible to successfully attack US TF's using conventional means. I think it is quite possible to argue that US BB's were almost impervious to enemy air attack at this stage, their AA fire control systems were very much superior to those of the IJN and as I pointed out 400 or so US attacks on Kurita's force only managed to sink one out of the 5 BB's that it included.
I agree that BB's fighting off aircraft ought to be considered as a later war capability but you cannot say it did not happen. Remember that the BB only has to take out the torpedo attackers it is relatively impervious to other forms of air attack.
In GGWAW terms by late war the USN had the equivalent of at least a dozen CAG's, the IJN at its peak had less than half of this and probably 4 or 5 Heavy Fleets. The IJN carrier air was effectively defunct after the Marianas Turkey Shoot so it is not ahistoric if this happens in some of your games.
Mike
At the Battle of Santa Cruz where South Dakota was providing AA support to CV's Hornet and Enterprise she was creditted with downing 26 Japanese aircraft in one day i.e. 1% of a GGWAW time period.
During the Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa many got through the CAP defence and some minor damage was done to various of the BB's taking part but nothing that put them out of the action. The Japanese lost 2500 aircraft in Kamikaze attacks in the latter stages of the war which were only adopted after they found it quite impossible to successfully attack US TF's using conventional means. I think it is quite possible to argue that US BB's were almost impervious to enemy air attack at this stage, their AA fire control systems were very much superior to those of the IJN and as I pointed out 400 or so US attacks on Kurita's force only managed to sink one out of the 5 BB's that it included.
I agree that BB's fighting off aircraft ought to be considered as a later war capability but you cannot say it did not happen. Remember that the BB only has to take out the torpedo attackers it is relatively impervious to other forms of air attack.
In GGWAW terms by late war the USN had the equivalent of at least a dozen CAG's, the IJN at its peak had less than half of this and probably 4 or 5 Heavy Fleets. The IJN carrier air was effectively defunct after the Marianas Turkey Shoot so it is not ahistoric if this happens in some of your games.
Mike
RE: Naval concepts in GGWAW
By that point in the war, it was pretty much one-sided regardless. Like I said, the Japanese had greatly declined in pilot quality AND aircraft. Even their newer types were inferior to US aircraft and their training was practically nil. Given those conditions, yes, the US BBs were in pretty good shape.
The game, however, postulates that the Japanese player might not lose the bulk of his experienced air groups in one battle (Midway). Further, the Japanese industry will not be as hamstrung by conflicting factions and requirements on already thin resources.
Note also that the Japanese can do the same thing (if they wanted to invest the resources) and also have air-immune BBs. I certainly think we can all agree how odd that would feel! Also note that I'm not talking about late 44 here. This can be accomplished by late 42 or early 43!
Regardless, like I said above...BBs in W@W are offered the ability to become something they certainly werent in reality...dominant again. Personally, I dont think this ability should be possible (any more than I think other 'conventions' of WW2 should be able to be sidestepped). The thing that has kept this from becoming an issue is that the Pacific campaign rarely plays out anything near along the historical line. There just isnt much incentive to plow through the South Pacific the way the US historically did. Given that, many of the 'traditional' types of engagements dont happen anyways. If they did, I would be good money that people would begin to see how easily BBs can eclipse CVs in the game.
The game, however, postulates that the Japanese player might not lose the bulk of his experienced air groups in one battle (Midway). Further, the Japanese industry will not be as hamstrung by conflicting factions and requirements on already thin resources.
Note also that the Japanese can do the same thing (if they wanted to invest the resources) and also have air-immune BBs. I certainly think we can all agree how odd that would feel! Also note that I'm not talking about late 44 here. This can be accomplished by late 42 or early 43!
Regardless, like I said above...BBs in W@W are offered the ability to become something they certainly werent in reality...dominant again. Personally, I dont think this ability should be possible (any more than I think other 'conventions' of WW2 should be able to be sidestepped). The thing that has kept this from becoming an issue is that the Pacific campaign rarely plays out anything near along the historical line. There just isnt much incentive to plow through the South Pacific the way the US historically did. Given that, many of the 'traditional' types of engagements dont happen anyways. If they did, I would be good money that people would begin to see how easily BBs can eclipse CVs in the game.
RE: Naval concepts in GGWAW
I think we're saying the same thing. the rules state the the range of BB ships is 3, light fleets 2 and torpedoes 1. in practice I can't ever recall getting a shot off when I sent my light fleets against a heavy (unless it was damaged), but this could just be because I was on the wrong side of the 50% every time.t may be that the rules have been changed subsequent to my version of the manual but that gives 3 ranges for naval combat 1 - 3 with torpedo attack allowed only at range 1. However, the odds for each range being selected are stated as 50% range 1, 17% range 2 and 33% range 3.
besides there is no reason not to expect a light fleet to defeat a heavy in a night action. everything is abstracted, so conceiveably that is how light fleets suceed.
mcaryf, I'm not sure if you've had a chance to play 'war in the pacific', but I'm sure you'll enjoy it based on your level of knowledge and interest in accuaracy. there is even a mod to it that is very popular that adds extreme detail into the order of battle (there is even currently a post about what exact ships are supposed to arrive in the pacific in 1943).
RE: Naval concepts in GGWAW
Hi Aletoledo
I have not played War in the Pacific but I have spent a lot of time playing GG's Pacific War which I guess was its forerunner and in my opinion a fantastic game. The trouble is there are just so many hours in the day. I helped design and develop another naval wargame, which is still being supported and sold so I will not identify it here, but that absorbs time as well as family and even real work occasionally!
Mike
Hi Uncle_Joe
I did not set out in this thread to look at the issue of Heavy versus air but rather Heavy versus Light. However, since various posters raised air issues I got involved with that. Having thought about it, the problem is that CAG's are relatively too expensive in this simulation. I understand why the developers wanted to put some long time interval into their production because it did take time to train aircrew but the USN managed to mass produce them in a far more effective way than the IJN. The point to consider is the relative cost of constructing and manning a couple of BB's versus that for a CAG. Plainly you ought to have quite a few real CAG's for the price of 1 real BB but in this game you get 2.5 CAG's in production cost v a heavy and 1 to 1 in manpower costs. Obviously it is stretching reality somewhat to compare the 4,000+ man crew of 2 x BB with the 400 or 500 aircrew on 2 CV's worth of aircraft. CAG's are a special case as compared to land based air as for land a/c you have to factor in the ground crew but for a CAG that is already taken care of in the CV cost.
I think there would be a reasonable case to suggest that the production cost for a CAG should be 2 or 3 and that its manpower cost (probably the true limiter in GGWAW) should be nil. Not actually likely to happen and I guess that players would cheat by developing lots of CAG's for use from land bases so it would require extra code to prevent combat missions from land - just goes to show designing realistic wargames is not easy!
Mike
I have not played War in the Pacific but I have spent a lot of time playing GG's Pacific War which I guess was its forerunner and in my opinion a fantastic game. The trouble is there are just so many hours in the day. I helped design and develop another naval wargame, which is still being supported and sold so I will not identify it here, but that absorbs time as well as family and even real work occasionally!
Mike
Hi Uncle_Joe
I did not set out in this thread to look at the issue of Heavy versus air but rather Heavy versus Light. However, since various posters raised air issues I got involved with that. Having thought about it, the problem is that CAG's are relatively too expensive in this simulation. I understand why the developers wanted to put some long time interval into their production because it did take time to train aircrew but the USN managed to mass produce them in a far more effective way than the IJN. The point to consider is the relative cost of constructing and manning a couple of BB's versus that for a CAG. Plainly you ought to have quite a few real CAG's for the price of 1 real BB but in this game you get 2.5 CAG's in production cost v a heavy and 1 to 1 in manpower costs. Obviously it is stretching reality somewhat to compare the 4,000+ man crew of 2 x BB with the 400 or 500 aircrew on 2 CV's worth of aircraft. CAG's are a special case as compared to land based air as for land a/c you have to factor in the ground crew but for a CAG that is already taken care of in the CV cost.
I think there would be a reasonable case to suggest that the production cost for a CAG should be 2 or 3 and that its manpower cost (probably the true limiter in GGWAW) should be nil. Not actually likely to happen and I guess that players would cheat by developing lots of CAG's for use from land bases so it would require extra code to prevent combat missions from land - just goes to show designing realistic wargames is not easy!
Mike