Matrix Games Forums

I think Leo's suggestions will most certainly limit this (adding in the effect of using AEs as well)

The game models a very specific "sneak in under the cover of darkness, conduct an hour long shoot, and run away under the cover of night". These events were much less common, and much less effective.

I would argue that "shoot and scoots" should probably be more effective than a sustained naval bombardment. Sustained bombardments against Tawara, Pelilieu, Iwo and Saipan had little actual effect on the defense due to the level of fortifications constructed at those locations. On the other hand, night bombardments targeted places that had few, if any, fortifications or defensive measures to reduce their effectiveness and were designed to get the heck out of Dodge before the defence could respond. Planes parked in the open without revements, troops in foxholes, and supplies stacked in the open should therefore be much more vulnerable to these attacks.

As to whether they were common or not, US bombing raids weren't very frequent either early on. Should we limit the number of those events also?

Steve

What I see is this.

Naval bombardments have replaced 4E bomber missions and CV strikes as strategic operational doctrine in WITP. The battleship reigns as queen of the seas...the aircraft and aircraft carrier are secondary in WITP. Does anyone, anyone, not find this DISTORTED?

Naval bombardments in support of landings are limited to ships smaller than battleships in WITP, a major gaff. We see coastal guns and even squad level mortars engaging naval assets off the beach, and all operate as if they are directed by the gunnery officer of the Bismarck, and gunfire support from naval vessels seems meek at best. Amphibious operations are being butchered in WITP. When we do use BBs in bombardments, they tend to mutilate base units, airfields, and land units in a 30 minute shoot and scoot, yet historically, weeks of sustained close range deliberate bombardments of Tarawa, Iwo Jima etc achieved little. Does anyone, anyone, not find this DISTORTED?

I can add to this as you well know but it might be more interesting if many piped up.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Naval bombardments have replaced 4E bomber missions and CV strikes as strategic operational doctrine in WITP. The battleship reigns as queen of the seas...the aircraft and aircraft carrier are secondary in WITP. Does anyone, anyone, not find this DISTORTED?

You must be joking, Ron. No offense, but battleships absolutely do not hold a candle to Carriers in WitP.

Everyone in this thread, please take a look at the results Nik took the time to post. Please also note Mogami's comments, I think we are going to otherwise have another feedback loop here.

Regards,

- Erik

You must be joking, Ron. No offense, but battleships absolutely do not hold a candle to Carriers in WitP.

In a way they are superior to CVs Erik. Given the effectiveness of bombardments overall (esp since they are only what...30 min max?), the ease with which ammo and fuel is made readily available at any base without even any ops limits at bases (allowing a regular rinse and repeat employment), AND the inability of single engined tactical aircraft based at the targetted base intercepting the fast bombardment forces as was historically the case, fast battleships are more effective than CVs at neutralising bases.

Is this being disputed? Historically we saw CVs clearing the way for the lesser warships, gaining control of the sea for BBs and other classes to perform their missions without serious risk to themselves. In WITP, we see in many cases the fast BBs doing the same for the lesser ships AND the CVs through neutralization bombardments. This is the distortion I'm talking about...I'm not saying that a BB TF paired off in mid Pacific vs a CV TF would prevail...that would be completely missing the point.

Hi, How hard is this
1. The bombers protecting the airfield or base from bombardment must have a range greater then the distance the enemy TF can move. You can't protect a base with short range aircraft.
2. The base must have a TF equal to what the enemy can bring. If you can't provide such a TF and have no long range aircraft don't place assets there. It is kind of silly to me for Allied player to move to Tarawa in Jan 42 and then post bombardment is excessive.
Bombardment does not bother front line troops who are in supply. It does inflict damage to rear area and support troops.
Any player who is sending a TF and then sending it right back has already arrange for a lot of supply and fuel because bombardment TF's eat a lot of them.
If the enemy is able to bombar you repeated times and you can't provide supporting TF or aircraft guess what? It means on the Operational level your getting stomped and it is being reflected on the tactical level.

TF exposed to air attack (whether any ship in the TF actually gets hit or not) stop moving towards the target and head for home. That is how hard it is to stop a BB TF have aircraft assigned with the proper range. Now CA are harder since they can move farther you need longer ranged aircraft but if the enemy is using CA the number 1 most effective method of preventing bombardment is to park a BB in the hex.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How hard is this
1. The bombers protecting the airfield or base from bombardment must have a range greater then the distance the enemy TF can move. You can't protect a base with short range aircraft.
2. The base must have a TF equal to what the enemy can bring. If you can't provide such a TF and have no long range aircraft don't place assets there. It is kind of silly to me for Allied player to move to Tarawa in Jan 42 and then post bombardment is excessive.
Bombardment does not bother front line troops who are in supply. It does inflict damage to rear area and support troops.
Any player who is sending a TF and then sending it right back has already arrange for a lot of supply and fuel because bombardment TF's eat a lot of them.
If the enemy is able to bombar you repeated times and you can't provide supporting TF or aircraft guess what? It means on the Operational level your getting stomped and it is being reflected on the tactical level.

TF exposed to air attack (whether any ship in the TF actually gets hit or not) stop moving towards the target and head for home. That is how hard it is to stop a BB TF have aircraft assigned with the proper range. Now CA are harder since they can move farther you need longer ranged aircraft but if the enemy is using CA the number 1 most effective method of preventing bombardment is to park a BB in the hex.

As the Japanese in the early months, let's say you have invaded Palembang, Balipapan, Kendari ... and let's say you have allocated 4 BB, 4 CL and 12 DD to "base defense" .... how do you divide up your forces to protect these bases from the RN/Dutch combined fleet of say 2 OBB, 4 CA, 12 CL, 12 DD ? Does this mean "DONT PLACE ASSETS THERE" .. in which case ... "GAME OVER".

And of course because at FULL SPEED, the allied task forces can move 8-12 hexes, placing sufficient Betty/Nell on Naval Strike with Escorts ( as the Rn/Dutch can cover cap there forces with greater than zero fighters ) means a significant number of these bombers are sitting around waiting for targets, which due to weather and other factors, even when targets are within range, this does not mean the opposing naval force is stopped. I don't think I've ever stopped an enemy naval force in the above situation prior to their attack, though picking off survivors has been done.

BTW I do not speak esoterically, I face this situation in most of the games I play !



I usually allow one of the bases to go undefended and try to defend the other ... in this case the B17 bombardment of resource/oil at the "undefended base" must be accepted even though the resource hits for sure will never be repaired ( no ROI ) ... but the undefended one would be the most difficult for the B17s to hit ... hence its choice ...

Am I off base here ?

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How hard is this
1. The bombers protecting the airfield or base from bombardment must have a range greater then the distance the enemy TF can move. You can't protect a base with short range aircraft.
2. The base must have a TF equal to what the enemy can bring. If you can't provide such a TF and have no long range aircraft don't place assets there. It is kind of silly to me for Allied player to move to Tarawa in Jan 42 and then post bombardment is excessive.
Bombardment does not bother front line troops who are in supply. It does inflict damage to rear area and support troops.
Any player who is sending a TF and then sending it right back has already arrange for a lot of supply and fuel because bombardment TF's eat a lot of them.
If the enemy is able to bombar you repeated times and you can't provide supporting TF or aircraft guess what? It means on the Operational level your getting stomped and it is being reflected on the tactical level.

TF exposed to air attack (whether any ship in the TF actually gets hit or not) stop moving towards the target and head for home. That is how hard it is to stop a BB TF have aircraft assigned with the proper range. Now CA are harder since they can move farther you need longer ranged aircraft but if the enemy is using CA the number 1 most effective method of preventing bombardment is to park a BB in the hex.

As the Japanese in the early months, let's say you have invaded Palembang, Balipapan, Kendari ... and let's say you have allocated 4 BB, 4 CL and 12 DD to "base defense" .... how do you divide up your forces to protect these bases from the RN/Dutch combined fleet of say 2 OBB, 4 CA, 12 CL, 12 DD ? Does this mean "DONT PLACE ASSETS THERE" .. in which case ... "GAME OVER".

And of course because at FULL SPEED, the allied task forces can move 8-12 hexes, placing sufficient Betty/Nell on Naval Strike with Escorts ( as the Rn/Dutch can cover cap there forces with greater than zero fighters ) means a significant number of these bombers are sitting around waiting for targets, which due to weather and other factors, even when targets are within range, this does not mean the opposing naval force is stopped. I don't think I've ever stopped an enemy naval force in the above situation prior to their attack, though picking off survivors has been done.

BTW I do not speak esoterically, I face this situation in most of the games I play !



I usually allow one of the bases to go undefended and try to defend the other ... in this case the B17 bombardment of resource/oil at the "undefended base" must be accepted even though the resource hits for sure will never be repaired ( no ROI ) ... but the undefended one would be the most difficult for the B17s to hit ... hence its choice ...

Am I off base here ?

I concur, air assets stopping a bombard tf is worthless. Bombs don't penetrate BB's and torpedo bombers on the allied side are limited in range to be effective. And that is only if the tf is spotted the previous turn. Early war very limited in parking tf to counter and then must have BB's to stop opponent's BB.

I believe the major problem here is the fact that fast speed to the base (6 or 5 hex) travel, Bombard with huge success and then speed away a full speed again. Maybe LIMITING the bombard effectiveness compared to the number of hexes needed to travel. Ops points spent on travel, cannot use to bombard. These long quick strikes would have minimal effectiveness but slower, staged effects would get the full effect. [8D]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How hard is this
1. The bombers protecting the airfield or base from bombardment must have a range greater then the distance the enemy TF can move. You can't protect a base with short range aircraft.
2. The base must have a TF equal to what the enemy can bring. If you can't provide such a TF and have no long range aircraft don't place assets there. It is kind of silly to me for Allied player to move to Tarawa in Jan 42 and then post bombardment is excessive.
Bombardment does not bother front line troops who are in supply. It does inflict damage to rear area and support troops.
Any player who is sending a TF and then sending it right back has already arrange for a lot of supply and fuel because bombardment TF's eat a lot of them.
If the enemy is able to bombar you repeated times and you can't provide supporting TF or aircraft guess what? It means on the Operational level your getting stomped and it is being reflected on the tactical level.

TF exposed to air attack (whether any ship in the TF actually gets hit or not) stop moving towards the target and head for home. That is how hard it is to stop a BB TF have aircraft assigned with the proper range. Now CA are harder since they can move farther you need longer ranged aircraft but if the enemy is using CA the number 1 most effective method of preventing bombardment is to park a BB in the hex.

As the Japanese in the early months, let's say you have invaded Palembang, Balipapan, Kendari ... and let's say you have allocated 4 BB, 4 CL and 12 DD to "base defense" .... how do you divide up your forces to protect these bases from the RN/Dutch combined fleet of say 2 OBB, 4 CA, 12 CL, 12 DD ? Does this mean "DONT PLACE ASSETS THERE" .. in which case ... "GAME OVER".

And of course because at FULL SPEED, the allied task forces can move 8-12 hexes, placing sufficient Betty/Nell on Naval Strike with Escorts ( as the Rn/Dutch can cover cap there forces with greater than zero fighters ) means a significant number of these bombers are sitting around waiting for targets, which due to weather and other factors, even when targets are within range, this does not mean the opposing naval force is stopped. I don't think I've ever stopped an enemy naval force in the above situation prior to their attack, though picking off survivors has been done.

BTW I do not speak esoterically, I face this situation in most of the games I play !



I usually allow one of the bases to go undefended and try to defend the other ... in this case the B17 bombardment of resource/oil at the "undefended base" must be accepted even though the resource hits for sure will never be repaired ( no ROI ) ... but the undefended one would be the most difficult for the B17s to hit ... hence its choice ...

Am I off base here ?

Hi, I believe the rules state no TF can ever move more then 6 hexes in a phase (6.1.7). So you only need bombers with a range of 7 to protect a base. The Japanese with a Betty/Nell can ward off TF without CAP 15 hexes away (torpedo range) The ALlies with a B-17 have a normal range of 10
With escorts the Betty/Nell can go 11 hexes (range of A6M2) the normal range for A6M2 is 8 long enough that even TF with CAP can be attacked.
The Allies have fighters with a range of 7 even early in war. and they get longer ranged fighters later.
The best defense for any base is control of the air. If you have it you are immune to attack as long as you provide groups to maintain patrol and the weather does not desert you for multiple turns. That is where the backup plan of having a TF on patrol comes in. If you control the air this TF should not have to fight. Find bases within the range for reaction and base them there. This means the protecting TF can actually be farther back (away from enemy air)

Look to history for how to stop these fast bombardment task forces. You need to use a bit of each combat arm.

First, only a few battleships early on are fast enough to really pull this off with little to no risk. So, right away most of the battleships at the start of the game aren't viable for this tactic without getting pounded even by some relatively short range air. Those that can do it will need to hope that:

- The enemy has no surface combat TF waiting in range
- The enemy has no longer range torpedo bombers with escorts around (assuming the bombarding player is covering the BBs with CAP, which they don't provide for themselves unlike carriers)
- The enemy has no carrier TF around.

Some of the most devastating blows can come, as they did historically, when the bombardment TF steams in and gets caught in a naval battle. All that needs to happen is for the bombarding BBs to be damaged enough to slow them down. In the morning, instead of being out of range of the land-based air, they are in range and get pounded some more. If the opportunity presents itself to have a carrier nearby, stationing that carrier TF where it is in range to the likely hex that the TF will steam to in the morning is generally the coup de grace.

BBs are useful and an important tool, but I would trade ALL of mine in for CVs if I had the opportunity. In other than optimal conditions, sending BB TFs in alone on night bombardments of strong enemy bases turns them into victory points waiting to happen (for the other side). As with other ships, they can be a very useful, very important part of an overall strategy but they are not the kings of the sea.

Regards,

- Erik

To add to this, I've successfully mauled multiple fast BB bombardment TFs in my time in WitP using just these tactics, which are much the same that worked historically. It is of course even better if you have some BBs on your side for the surface engagement, but even just a carrier TF in the right position or a torpedo from a destroyer before they can run out of range and they're in big trouble.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How hard is this
1. The bombers protecting the airfield or base from bombardment must have a range greater then the distance the enemy TF can move. You can't protect a base with short range aircraft.
2. The base must have a TF equal to what the enemy can bring. If you can't provide such a TF and have no long range aircraft don't place assets there. It is kind of silly to me for Allied player to move to Tarawa in Jan 42 and then post bombardment is excessive.
Bombardment does not bother front line troops who are in supply. It does inflict damage to rear area and support troops.
Any player who is sending a TF and then sending it right back has already arrange for a lot of supply and fuel because bombardment TF's eat a lot of them.
If the enemy is able to bombar you repeated times and you can't provide supporting TF or aircraft guess what? It means on the Operational level your getting stomped and it is being reflected on the tactical level.

TF exposed to air attack (whether any ship in the TF actually gets hit or not) stop moving towards the target and head for home. That is how hard it is to stop a BB TF have aircraft assigned with the proper range. Now CA are harder since they can move farther you need longer ranged aircraft but if the enemy is using CA the number 1 most effective method of preventing bombardment is to park a BB in the hex.

As the Japanese in the early months, let's say you have invaded Palembang, Balipapan, Kendari ... and let's say you have allocated 4 BB, 4 CL and 12 DD to "base defense" .... how do you divide up your forces to protect these bases from the RN/Dutch combined fleet of say 2 OBB, 4 CA, 12 CL, 12 DD ? Does this mean "DONT PLACE ASSETS THERE" .. in which case ... "GAME OVER".

And of course because at FULL SPEED, the allied task forces can move 8-12 hexes, placing sufficient Betty/Nell on Naval Strike with Escorts ( as the Rn/Dutch can cover cap there forces with greater than zero fighters ) means a significant number of these bombers are sitting around waiting for targets, which due to weather and other factors, even when targets are within range, this does not mean the opposing naval force is stopped. I don't think I've ever stopped an enemy naval force in the above situation prior to their attack, though picking off survivors has been done.

BTW I do not speak esoterically, I face this situation in most of the games I play !



I usually allow one of the bases to go undefended and try to defend the other ... in this case the B17 bombardment of resource/oil at the "undefended base" must be accepted even though the resource hits for sure will never be repaired ( no ROI ) ... but the undefended one would be the most difficult for the B17s to hit ... hence its choice ...

Am I off base here ?

Hi, I believe the rules state no TF can ever move more then 6 hexes in a phase (6.1.7). So you only need bombers with a range of 7 to protect a base. The Japanese with a Betty/Nell can ward off TF without CAP 15 hexes away (torpedo range) The ALlies with a B-17 have a normal range of 10

Sounds great in theory ... I have several bases with Betty/Nell on naval strike and zeros on escort and Allied bombardments runs still come in ... I think system "protects" both CV and Bombardment TFs ... .somehow.
I have probably stopped some .. but don't remember because it was a while back ... it past several weeks of play .. I can't remember stopping any ( though in Java sea area ... Dutch can cover cap ... which could be reducing odds of strike launching ). Also, weather is often a factor ...

Hi, The major risk in sending a TF to close enemy airfield is failure to do so and suffering damage in the meantime. Mines will produce this result and PT boats and surface combat TF. If you can't provide any or all of these you are losing the operation to start with. The base is exposed and will get what it deserves. If you plan correctly the enemy fails and then gets what he deserves .

Nikademus has already shown that the BB bombardments are not overly effective by constructing an absoloutly worst case scenario and showing that the casualties even then are not so bad. So what are people arguing about. I think its just a failure to realize that when the combat report shows 1000 casualties it does not mean that you have lost 1000 men.

My opponent has been bombarding my bases in Java repeatedly but with only limited success. In all but one case I saw it coming and dispersed my aircraft. Obviously when you see BB's around you keep your transport fleets away. He has gotten one good bombardment that killed about 30 aircraft. He caught a small transport fleet and sunk one or two AK's. Otherwise its been a bust. Most of his bombardments have hit air and just caused 1 or 2 hundred casualties which we know means very few actual casualties.

I've hit one BB with a torpedo and put a 100 lb dent in 3 other BB's. Thats not a lot of damage but its Feb 42and I'm totaly outguned and yet the BB's are still not some superweapon. It just a threat that you have to combat as best you can.

Naval bombardments have replaced 4E bomber missions and CV strikes as strategic operational doctrine in WITP. The battleship reigns as queen of the seas...the aircraft and aircraft carrier are secondary in WITP. Does anyone, anyone, not find this DISTORTED?

I was going to sit this one out until I saw this.

Then I was going to write a thoughtful response.

But instead:


HA ha ha ...snort You must be joking. Where do you find your opponents, kindergarten?

In my games no one gets results that justify this statement. Bombardment missions are dangerous business that often get wrecked by mines, LBA or a lurking surface TF. Anyone who is allowing the other player to lead with the BBs is a screw up by definition.

I think this is another case of variable player quality being confused for a problem with the game. I will accept that there are nitwits that load single, unsupported, undefended bases to the gills with men and planes, and then shore bombardment comes in and does tons of damage.

But I don't do this, and niether do my opponents, and there are many other stupid things I see posts about that we don't do because we are not STUPID.

Right now I have two games that have two large concentrations of planes in coastal hexes. Both of those concentrations have major fortresses, large coastal defense guns and mine fields. Geuss what, I have no problem with shore bombardment of my air concentrations.

It takes 1 surface combat to screw up the timing of a bombardment mission with the result of it being in range for the morning air runs. Stick a crappy little AK in the hex ... you'll loose it, he'll loose his bombardment ships. Fair trade. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Naval bombardments have replaced 4E bomber missions and CV strikes as strategic operational doctrine in WITP. The battleship reigns as queen of the seas...the aircraft and aircraft carrier are secondary in WITP. Does anyone, anyone, not find this DISTORTED?

I was going to sit this one out until I saw this.

Then I was going to write a thoughtful response.

But instead:


HA ha ha ...snort You must be joking. Where do you find your opponents, kindergarten?

In my games no one gets results that justify this statement. Bombardment missions are dangerous business that often get wrecked by mines, LBA or a lurking surface TF. Anyone who is allowing the other player to lead with the BBs is a screw up by definition.

I think this is another case of variable player quality being confused for a problem with the game. I will accept that there are nitwits that load single, unsupported, undefended bases to the gills with men and planes, and then shore bombardment comes in and does tons of damage.

But I don't do this, and niether do my opponents, and there are many other stupid things I see posts about that we don't do because we are not STUPID.

Right now I have two games that have two large concentrations of planes in coastal hexes. Both of those concentrations have major fortresses, large coastal defense guns and mine fields. Geuss what, I have no problem with shore bombardment of my air concentrations.

Hi, Tom I hope you are coming to Columbus for Origins. I want to drink beer with you.
Kind of sucks that the game gets blamed because people can't count past 6. You have to patrol the air out beyond 6 Hexes. The Japanese should never have a problem and the USN normal range is 9 for PBY.
How hard is it to understand you don't move into bases where you can't see farther then 6 hexes and launch strikes. Any bombardment TF is going to end movement 6 hexes out unless it has slow BB and then it has to end movement closer then that and this movement ends before the first airphase so the events will be two airphases before that night phase where TF moves in. (and then back out to same hex if undamaged)
place a submarine in the hex where enemy TF will end movement. Place a few more farther out on the line between your base and theirs. Mine choke points. Place a TF of 3xPT in your base. Have a surface TF with correct speed in reaction range.
If you don't do any or all of these be quiet about Bombardments.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How hard is this
1. The bombers protecting the airfield or base from bombardment must have a range greater then the distance the enemy TF can move. You can't protect a base with short range aircraft.
2. The base must have a TF equal to what the enemy can bring. If you can't provide such a TF and have no long range aircraft don't place assets there. It is kind of silly to me for Allied player to move to Tarawa in Jan 42 and then post bombardment is excessive.
Bombardment does not bother front line troops who are in supply. It does inflict damage to rear area and support troops.
Any player who is sending a TF and then sending it right back has already arrange for a lot of supply and fuel because bombardment TF's eat a lot of them.
If the enemy is able to bombar you repeated times and you can't provide supporting TF or aircraft guess what? It means on the Operational level your getting stomped and it is being reflected on the tactical level.

TF exposed to air attack (whether any ship in the TF actually gets hit or not) stop moving towards the target and head for home. That is how hard it is to stop a BB TF have aircraft assigned with the proper range. Now CA are harder since they can move farther you need longer ranged aircraft but if the enemy is using CA the number 1 most effective method of preventing bombardment is to park a BB in the hex.

You can't protect a base with short range aircraft.

Henderson field did on many occasions. Take the Nov 14th bombardment for example. Aircraft from Henderson and Enterprise both took a toll on Mikawas cruisers, with Kinugasa going down. Yet in WITP, even slower BBs get to move in and out unmolested because there are not enough air phases during the turn to compensate for the mechanics used to allow the "sprint" in and out from the target.

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Naval bombardments have replaced 4E bomber missions and CV strikes as strategic operational doctrine in WITP. The battleship reigns as queen of the seas...the aircraft and aircraft carrier are secondary in WITP. Does anyone, anyone, not find this DISTORTED?

I was going to sit this one out until I saw this.

Then I was going to write a thoughtful response.

But instead:


HA ha ha ...snort You must be joking. Where do you find your opponents, kindergarten?

In my games no one gets results that justify this statement. Bombardment missions are dangerous business that often get wrecked by mines, LBA or a lurking surface TF. Anyone who is allowing the other player to lead with the BBs is a screw up by definition.

I think this is another case of variable player quality being confused for a problem with the game. I will accept that there are nitwits that load single, unsupported, undefended bases to the gills with men and planes, and then shore bombardment comes in and does tons of damage.

But I don't do this, and niether do my opponents, and there are many other stupid things I see posts about that we don't do because we are not STUPID.

Right now I have two games that have two large concentrations of planes in coastal hexes. Both of those concentrations have major fortresses, large coastal defense guns and mine fields. Geuss what, I have no problem with shore bombardment of my air concentrations.

So, Mogami and I are retards and his bombardments of Darwin were stoppable?[:D]

Hi, Only of one of us would be a retard. If one player achives control he can send TF. It is getting good results (destroying lots of AC on ground) that makes the defender stupid. He should know before the bombardment occurs that conditions exist for the enemy to pull one off. He knows because he can't provide defense to the base. The enemy is entitled to bombard you if he
1. Controls the air
2. has driven all your surface assets away
3. Has the supply and fuel and ships in place.
He can't do this in secret. You know when a base is exposed and it is time to clear out when that condition exists. Not sit there and take the pounding.

Kinugasa was hit by carrier planes. CV can defend a base by locating themselves to where their limited range covers the hex the enemy TF will be located at either the day prior or the morning after. In this case (Kinugasa) It was the morning after. Henderson was bombarded the night before by two IJN CA.
IJN CV do even better because their longer range allows them to sit further back.
After the improved USN torpdeo plane arrives in late 42 the USN CV do just as well.