Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'm a bit late to the CV planning party, but don't hold that against me.

I see the value in having all squadrons contribute equally to CAP and escort, but I think there's more value in keeping dedicated squadrons for escort and dedicated CAP squadrons.

In the event of a offensive strike getting mauled, the dedicated escort squadrons take the morale hit resulting from heavy losses, while the CAP squadrons remain effective.

Might be something worth thinking about.

I'd also play about with the altitude settings. From my experience, CV strikes tend to be very well co-ordinated (amongst the best and most consistent in the game) regardless of altitude settings. I'd keep the Vals at 10k as per Chickenboy, but drop the Kates down to 8k. This puts them above the light Allied AA for most of 1942 (but that changes when the Bofors starts to appear en-masse) but will give a nice boost to accuracy if they end up using bombs instead of torpedoes.

EDIT: Just checked, 6000ft is the max altitude for the 40mm Bofors, so 7k altitude should be fine for your Kates.

That's their mission altitude. Keep in mind when planes attack with torpedoes they are modeled as dropping down much, much, lower during the attack run and drop. Likewise when a plane dive bombs it is modeled to drop very low during the bombing dive.

We're talking about Kates flying at 7k feet using bombs, not torps. Kates with torps drop to 200ft then take a whack from low-level flak, but if they're using bombs it's worthwhile to be flying at 7k so as to get the best accuracy out of the 250kg bombs.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'm a bit late to the CV planning party, but don't hold that against me.

I see the value in having all squadrons contribute equally to CAP and escort, but I think there's more value in keeping dedicated squadrons for escort and dedicated CAP squadrons.

In the event of a offensive strike getting mauled, the dedicated escort squadrons take the morale hit resulting from heavy losses, while the CAP squadrons remain effective.

Might be something worth thinking about.

I'd also play about with the altitude settings. From my experience, CV strikes tend to be very well co-ordinated (amongst the best and most consistent in the game) regardless of altitude settings. I'd keep the Vals at 10k as per Chickenboy, but drop the Kates down to 8k. This puts them above the light Allied AA for most of 1942 (but that changes when the Bofors starts to appear en-masse) but will give a nice boost to accuracy if they end up using bombs instead of torpedoes.

EDIT: Just checked, 6000ft is the max altitude for the 40mm Bofors, so 7k altitude should be fine for your Kates.

I do not know what you looked at, but this is from scenario 1 and shows the 40 Bofor has a ceiling of 9800 feet.
Device # 1539 is the one on USN ships.

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'm a bit late to the CV planning party, but don't hold that against me.

I see the value in having all squadrons contribute equally to CAP and escort, but I think there's more value in keeping dedicated squadrons for escort and dedicated CAP squadrons.

In the event of a offensive strike getting mauled, the dedicated escort squadrons take the morale hit resulting from heavy losses, while the CAP squadrons remain effective.

Might be something worth thinking about.

I'd also play about with the altitude settings. From my experience, CV strikes tend to be very well co-ordinated (amongst the best and most consistent in the game) regardless of altitude settings. I'd keep the Vals at 10k as per Chickenboy, but drop the Kates down to 8k. This puts them above the light Allied AA for most of 1942 (but that changes when the Bofors starts to appear en-masse) but will give a nice boost to accuracy if they end up using bombs instead of torpedoes.

EDIT: Just checked, 6000ft is the max altitude for the 40mm Bofors, so 7k altitude should be fine for your Kates.

I do not know what you looked at, but this is from scenario 1 and shows the 40 Bofor has a ceiling of 9800 feet.
Device # 1539 is the one on USN ships.

That's what I get for trusting the in-game ship database rather than tracker. You are correct, the 6k value refers to the range of the Bofors in naval combat.
Keep the Kates at 10k!

Once again a huge thanks for all the input on naval air. I will stick with the orders previously given (not because I am ignoring all the advice but because the purpose this AAR is to give newbies like me a starting point - without your input frankly this would be unmanageable for me - and not a perfect set up to the detriment of my opponent). So whilst I've taken on board the range comments for future turns, I won't change my orders in post 194. I've chosen not to have individual carriers responsible for certain duties as I was swayed by the idea that its like putting all eggs in one basket in case of loss.

I have ordered the rest of the KB's aircraft as follows:

Right moving onto the submarines around Hawaii I am trying to interpret Kull's spreadsheet and I have this for I-9:

Sub Patrol (SF Convoy Spotter): 1-211,80(4); 2-208,74(4); React:1, Set Home Port: Ominato (Glen Carrier)

As mentioned previously these would appear to be patrol co-ordinates and I am guessing the numbers in brackets must then refer to 'days on station'?

As a sense check that this is what these orders are trying to achieve, does this make sense?

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'm a bit late to the CV planning party, but don't hold that against me.

I see the value in having all squadrons contribute equally to CAP and escort, but I think there's more value in keeping dedicated squadrons for escort and dedicated CAP squadrons.

In the event of a offensive strike getting mauled, the dedicated escort squadrons take the morale hit resulting from heavy losses, while the CAP squadrons remain effective.

Might be something worth thinking about.

I'd also play about with the altitude settings. From my experience, CV strikes tend to be very well co-ordinated (amongst the best and most consistent in the game) regardless of altitude settings. I'd keep the Vals at 10k as per Chickenboy, but drop the Kates down to 8k. This puts them above the light Allied AA for most of 1942 (but that changes when the Bofors starts to appear en-masse) but will give a nice boost to accuracy if they end up using bombs instead of torpedoes.

EDIT: Just checked, 6000ft is the max altitude for the 40mm Bofors, so 7k altitude should be fine for your Kates.

I do not know what you looked at, but this is from scenario 1 and shows the 40 Bofor has a ceiling of 9800 feet.
Device # 1539 is the one on USN ships.

That's what I get for trusting the in-game ship database rather than tracker. You are correct, the 6k value refers to the range of the Bofors in naval combat.
Keep the Kates at 10k!

Ceilings are in feet, naval combat ranges are in yards. So the 6K is about 3nm - sounds about right.

Alfred mentioned recently that the ceiling for AA weapons is somewhat variable, so flying at 10000 feet might not keep clear of a 40mm shell when conditions are good for extra range (lower air density and humidity mostly). Of course the variation is not calculated based on any data in the game turn, it is just another beautiful, subtle abstraction.

I am going to assume that the submarine nos. on the spreadsheet are what I mentioned earlier and so have ordered my submarines around Hawaii accordingly.

Some boats are ordered to patrol off the US West Coast as per below. Aircraft (for those with them) are all set to naval search:

These are the remaining subs around Hawaii. I don't know whether these will be joined by any further boats at this stage.

Speaking of the subs around Hawaii....

Looks like my midget sub attack went..... let's just say the results of the attack were not necessarily to Japan's advantage.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'm a bit late to the CV planning party, but don't hold that against me.

I see the value in having all squadrons contribute equally to CAP and escort, but I think there's more value in keeping dedicated squadrons for escort and dedicated CAP squadrons.

In the event of a offensive strike getting mauled, the dedicated escort squadrons take the morale hit resulting from heavy losses, while the CAP squadrons remain effective.

Might be something worth thinking about.

I'd also play about with the altitude settings. From my experience, CV strikes tend to be very well co-ordinated (amongst the best and most consistent in the game) regardless of altitude settings. I'd keep the Vals at 10k as per Chickenboy, but drop the Kates down to 8k. This puts them above the light Allied AA for most of 1942 (but that changes when the Bofors starts to appear en-masse) but will give a nice boost to accuracy if they end up using bombs instead of torpedoes.

EDIT: Just checked, 6000ft is the max altitude for the 40mm Bofors, so 7k altitude should be fine for your Kates.

I do not know what you looked at, but this is from scenario 1 and shows the 40 Bofor has a ceiling of 9800 feet.
Device # 1539 is the one on USN ships.

That's what I get for trusting the in-game ship database rather than tracker. You are correct, the 6k value refers to the range of the Bofors in naval combat.
Keep the Kates at 10k!

It's a moot point anyways, as the plethora of USN 12.7mm DP guns means you'll still take murderous flak fire, but 10k is the sweet spot in that it reduces the maximum effectiveness of both the most common and most accurate USN AA gun while giving the best altitude bonus to accuracy.


@warspite1


For the ships that have more than one floatplane group, I'd move one group off and resize the remaining group to the maximum size. That way you can get a couple more land-based floatplane squadrons for no extra cost. There are plenty of areas within the Japanese Empire that you'll want floatplane coverage of, but not need a full squadron to do so.

I would also perhaps make at least one floatplane squadron fly naval search at night - it can sometimes make the difference if they blunder into a task force during the night phase.

Regarding the sub blockade of Hawaii - I've found that keeping the subs inshore is a waste of time - they get spotted by aircraft from Pearl and slowly attritioned down. In my view, it's best to do a distant blockade of the San Fran-Pearl route. Identify what the game pegs as the quickest route between Pearl and San Fran and have your subs patrol along it and you're almost certain to pick off something.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Speaking of the subs around Hawaii....

Looks like my midget sub attack went..... let's just say the results of the attack were not necessarily to Japan's advantage.

However, you destroyed an industrial structure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_PeQCPq8QA

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Once again a huge thanks for all the input on naval air. I will stick with the orders previously given (not because I am ignoring all the advice but because the purpose this AAR is to give newbies like me a starting point - without your input frankly this would be unmanageable for me - and not a perfect set up to the detriment of my opponent). So whilst I've taken on board the range comments for future turns, I won't change my orders in post 194. I've chosen not to have individual carriers responsible for certain duties as I was swayed by the idea that its like putting all eggs in one basket in case of loss.

I have ordered the rest of the KB's aircraft as follows:

You'll have to dig down for more detail to make this chart meaningful and useful for Nav float recon capabilities, Warspite1.

I specifically am suggesting that you identify the presence of your CS ships and incorporate them into KB's Nav search functionality. Where are they, if they're not on that list of yours? Chitose and Chiyoda are capable of keeping up with fast fleet CVs. Where are they?

The range should be dictated by the type of float plane flown. Petes are at extreme range =4, so dial 'em back to 3 for maximum longevity. Likewise, 'normal' range for Jakes is 8, so there's no reason not to set them accordingly. I wouldn't be afraid to set 60%-70% search, normal range for my Nav search float planes. You may want to dial that back to 50% for your ASW, as that low altitude tends to be more fatiguing than a more conventional modest altitude.

Also, you do remember that any plane set on "ASW" is, by its definition, only flying half the purported distance, neh? Thus your range =4 ASW float planes in reality won't perform this mission more than 2 hexes distant. In which case, you've likely run over the sub in question and defeated the purpose of such a short range effort.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

You'll have to dig down for more detail to make this chart meaningful and useful for Nav float recon capabilities, Warspite1.

I specifically am suggesting that you identify the presence of your CS ships and incorporate them into KB's Nav search functionality. Where are they, if they're not on that list of yours? Chitose and Chiyoda are capable of keeping up with fast fleet CVs. Where are they?

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


For the ships that have more than one floatplane group, I'd move one group off and resize the remaining group to the maximum size. That way you can get a couple more land-based floatplane squadrons for no extra cost. There are plenty of areas within the Japanese Empire that you'll want floatplane coverage of, but not need a full squadron to do so.

warspite1

Mmmm I'm not really sure what this means at this stage - but I'll take a look at this next - and may amend some of the float plane orders (certainly the range of the ASW units as a minimum).

Chitose starts in the Carolines and Chiyoda is at Hiroshima. According to Kull's first turn suggestion, Chitose is to form an Amphibious TF (not sure of the purpose) and then moves to the 'Marianas & Marshalls(?)' to resize sea plane units (presumably what m_m is referring to). There is a plan for Chiyoda which I've yet to get my head around but involves forming the 'baby KB'; 59 steps to this for day 2 alone!!

Kull is certainly entitled to his opinion, but my opinion is that Chitose and Chiyoda form a badly needed supplement to KB at this stage of the game. Gaming up your float plane groups is something for a couple months from now when you have a surplus of decent float planes in the pools. No reason at all one of these fine CS cruisers can't be helping your sharpest tool's schwerpunkt.

It also depends how you plan to use your KB and your expansion choices. If KB is going to be operating deep in enemy territory where recon is light, say in the deep South Pacific or *cough* off Midway, it probably makes sense to incorporate your CS ships and their additional nav search capabilities. If you are operating and plan to keep expansion well within range of LBA nav search augmented by your existing carrier and escort search capabilities, this isn't necessarily needed.

You don't want to lose your CS ships early to a lucky sub torpedo or some other attrition as they are valuable for conversion later on. So if you plan to operate them before that, be careful and don't operate them alone without the KB and ASW assets nearby.

EDIT

As for the CS conversion, you need to have a size 50 repair yard at Tokyo as that's the only place where they will convert and it requires such a shipyard size, so make sure you are upgrading the repair shipyards there.

Basically, some IJN warships have two floatplane squadrons on board, usually flying different planes. You don't need two squadrons, so you can fly one squadron off, and make the other squadron bigger to compensate for the lost planes. The flown-off squadron can then be used for other stuff.

Regarding the immediate use of the CS ships, I'd get the Mizuho to do your floatplane resizing. It's a slow 22 knot ship that will perform terribly if it ever gets caught in a surface engagement.

The Chitose and Chiyoda belong with your carriers IMO. It's up to you if you prefer them with a Baby KB or with the Daddy KB. I personally prefer the latter, they eventually upgrade into pretty reasonable CVL's and keeping them with the big KB keeps them safe.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Kull is certainly entitled to his opinion, but my opinion is that Chitose and Chiyoda form a badly needed supplement to KB at this stage of the game. Gaming up your float plane groups is something for a couple months from now when you have a surplus of decent float planes in the pools. No reason at all one of these fine CS cruisers can't be helping your sharpest tool's schwerpunkt.

warspite1

And just to be clear, I am not necessarily favouring Kull's opinion over others given here (as has been shown above). I am using Kull's spreadsheet in order to provide some structure to the first Japanese turn - which frankly would be almost impossible without - but amending in light of advice received.

Using Chitose and Chiyoda with the KB is not something I would have even considered for a second without the comments here - but I understand the merits.

ORIGINAL: Anachro

You don't want to lose your CS ships early to a lucky sub torpedo or some other attrition as they are valuable for conversion later on. So if you plan to operate them before that, be careful and don't operate them alone without the KB and ASW assets nearby.

warspite1

Okay I'll have a look at what Kull has planned for the CS ships and bear this in mind.

As for conversion I will need to remember to look at that later too.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Basically, some IJN warships have two floatplane squadrons on board, usually flying different planes. You don't need two squadrons, so you can fly one squadron off, and make the other squadron bigger to compensate for the lost planes. The flown-off squadron can then be used for other stuff.

Regarding the immediate use of the CS ships, I'd get the Mizuho to do your floatplane resizing. It's a slow 22 knot ship that will perform terribly if it ever gets caught in a surface engagement.

The Chitose and Chiyoda belong with your carriers IMO. It's up to you if you prefer them with a Baby KB or with the Daddy KB. I personally prefer the latter, they eventually upgrade into pretty reasonable CVL's and keeping them with the big KB keeps them safe.

warspite1

Okay so I will need to look at the CS next and the float plane resizing too.....

Let's see what Kull has in mind for these ships.

Kull proposes the following:

CVL-CVE-CS Unit Resize Plan

Opening move sequence to maximise the "Resize Air Unit Plan" for CVLs Ryujo & Zuiho, CVEs Hosho & Taiyo, CS Chiyoda, various AV/BB/CAs, and 4 land-based IJN air units:

1. Create an Air Combat TF containing only CVL Zuiho