Notes from a Small Island

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Simonsez

More than even you can imagine.....[:D]

[:D]

[Canoerebel]

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

[X(] You were right, Simonsez. [:(]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To the best of my knowledge, night fighters can't fly sweep or escort missions at night.

But it just so happens that this turn I set one Black Widow squadron to escort the B-29 raid on Sapporo's port, just to see if it happens to work.

P.S. Erik seems to have plenty of night fighters that work - or at least, fighters that suffice at night.

I'm curious to find out if this escort happens. I've tried setting the F4U-2 Corsair Night Fighers to sweep - the game allows that mission - but I dont think it actually happens. Or at least I've never seen a combat report indicating the mission occurred.

This could be because the fighters do not have a good radar to allow for night intercepts of other fighters. The Black Widow features an intercept radar in that big nose so it might be able to escort. If escort and sweep don't work, they might LRCAP.

[AcePylut]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

And one tactical nuclear weapon?: Yes? No? Drop one when the time comes. I know I will as soon as this upcoming game between ChickenYoungMan and I gets there !

[Canoerebel]

In choosing his emoticon, Mike may or may not have meant to express disapproval about Death Star. I can't tell one way or the other. If any reader wishes to discuss this, send me a PM. I'll be glad to respond in detail. In short, DS is a necessity because of greatly enhanced Japanese capabilities in the game. Faced with these same circumstances, the Allies in the war would have done the same thing.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In choosing his emoticon, Mike may or may not have meant to express disapproval about Death Star. I can't tell one way or the other. If any reader wishes to discuss this, send me a PM. I'll be glad to respond in detail. In short, DS is a necessity because of greatly enhanced Japanese capabilities in the game. Faced with these same circumstances, the Allies in the war would have done the same thing.

I have no problem with it. I've never even reached 1944 in a game (but I'm close!) let alone 1945. The power of the US is amazing. You're right, the Japanese do have enhanced capabilities in this game. Even so, they're doomed. The Japanese never can come close to that type of power. It's pretty scary. I look at 6-8 Japanese CVs and think that's an immense force, until I look at the size of your force. How many carriers have you lost to date?

[Canoerebel]

The Japanese aren't doomed in game terms. Japan has a fair chance to win under the victory point system.

This game is a good example. Erik has a lead of 69k to 56k (or something like that). That's a fairly significant lead in 1945. There's a chance the Allies won't achieve auto victory until 1946. And that's a big improvement over the game situation in September '44, when it seemed unlikely the Allies would every approach auto victory.

Lokasenna has an even bigger lead against Obvert in December 1944. Obvert took over from Bullwinkle, who withdrew after giving the game his best for years and growing weary. I think it's fair to say that Bullwinkle thought the wheels were coming off for the Allies. Obvert may prevail in that game before all is said and done, but the Japanese are definitely "winning" at the point they're at.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

If you had nine of those CVEs in a Replenishment TF with their respective replenishment air squadrons, airframe attrition to the DS while remaining on station would be moot.

Certainly, you have sufficient CAP without those 9 CVEs.


I'm the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Advocate. [:)]


Gotta get me some sig art.

[Mike Solli]

That's interesting. I rarely consider victory points. I know, I should. In my game, I have a lead of 44k to 22k. I have no idea whether that's good or not.

[Canoerebel]

You should consider victory points. Every player should. Every Japanese player must.

It makes the game far richer and more enjoyable for both sides, but especially for the Japanese player. There's a reason to soldier on in 1945. Lowpe has been an excellent example of this. Obvert too.

Your strategy must be built around victory point considerations - every move and gambit evaluated with that in mind. Not paying attention to VP is like playing chess without know about castling and en passant. You can do it, but you're going to pay for it eventually - as soon as you face a player who does know.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

If you had nine of those CVEs in a Replenishment TF with their respective replenishment air squadrons, airframe attrition to the DS while remaining on station would be moot.

Certainly, you have sufficient CAP without those 9 CVEs.


I'm the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Advocate. [:)]


Gotta get me some sig art.

I am the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Opponent. In almost every case, carrier action will last a single day in which every fighter possible is needed for CAP. More so when there are airfields within range, as is the case here. I can send depleted squadrons to Shikuka, etc. to draw fresh aircraft, while sending fresh squadrons from there to the carriers. It's not as seemless as the replenishment routine, but I'd much rather have 150 fighters on CAP than in reserve.

There are exceptions but they are rare.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

Too many TFs [8D]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

If you had nine of those CVEs in a Replenishment TF with their respective replenishment air squadrons, airframe attrition to the DS while remaining on station would be moot.

Certainly, you have sufficient CAP without those 9 CVEs.


I'm the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Advocate. [:)]


Gotta get me some sig art.

I am the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Opponent. In almost every case, carrier action will last a single day in which every fighter possible is needed for CAP. More so when there are airfields within range, as is the case here. I can send depleted squadrons to Shikuka, etc. to draw fresh aircraft, while sending fresh squadrons from there to the carriers. It's not as seemless as the replenishment routine, but I'd much rather have 150 fighters on CAP than in reserve.

There are exceptions but they are rare.

Then we are the Official Replenishment Carrier Opposition Committee.

I always offload the DBs/TBs and retain the 28-plane fighter squadrons, or move the VFR units to land duty (where IIRC they can still supply replacements) and move USMC or sunken-CV V(M)F units to the replenishment CVEs.

More CAP on day 1 is better.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

That's interesting. I rarely consider victory points. I know, I should. In my game, I have a lead of 44k to 22k. I have no idea whether that's good or not.

Like all things - it depends.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

Too many TFs [8D]

I'm not a sand-boxer, but I like the current set up. I have three fleet carrier TFs handling 26 CVs and CVLs. I have eight jeep carrier squadrons for the 57 CVEs. I have enough BBs to spread around, and I have enough combat ships left over to create a large navy. I feel like the risk is spread a bit, and I don't feel like I'm taking away from other uses, so why not? If I should run short of combat ships, I'd likely combine those eight CVE TFs into five or six.

[JohnDillworth]

so you have CV/CVL task forces with 8 or so carriers each? I always thought there was some kind of coordination penalty for having more than 4 or so CV's in a TF? Or is that just an early war thing?

[Canoerebel]

The coordination penalty drops over time. More significantly, many good players have consistently reported that coordination issues are minor and pale in comparison to the advantages of using larger carrier TFs.

[AcePylut]

Well fuddy duddy, I guess I'll have to be the Official Replenishment Carrier Individual Observing Contrary Arguments.

<grabs popcorn and a notepad>

[Squamry]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The coordination penalty drops over time. More significantly, many good players have consistently reported that coordination issues are minor and pale in comparison to the advantages of using larger carrier TFs.

Just curious if this is a late war thought or applies all the way through? When playing as allies I like at most 4 CV/CVLs in a TF but none of my games have got past mid 44. I've found this much better against the KB mega TF used by a couple of opponents because there is usually at least one TF that does not get targeted so I always have some active carriers after the clash.