Sinking USN CVs - is it worth it?

[Charles2222]

The U.S. had enormous resources and although we couldn't conjure CVs out thin air and Mr Frags data shows that many of those carriers (9) were laid down in 41 or 42 and that it was possible to complete them in less than a year.

Less than a year? Surely this is a typo on your part. I know Frag mentioned 220 days, but the quickest time I saw there was 1.14 years. There's only four carriers in the 1.14-1.30 years range (I'm referring to build time).

[spence]

OK...but he did say something about 226+/- days for completion or something like that. Musta been after the ship was launched.

BUT SO WHAT FOR CRIMMINY'S SAKE. JAPAN CAN CONQUER SOVIET SIBERIA IN A MONTH LAUNCHING THEIR INVASION IN LATE DECEMBER OR JANUARY. THAT'S JUST LIKE REAL, FOR SURE...OH YEAH...NOT!!!

AND MAGICALLY BREAK THE 3 YEAR OLD STALEMENT IN CHINA JUST LIKE THAT WITHOUT FIRST CONQUERING THE SRA - DANG, HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO BLIND TO THE POSSIBILITIES OFFERED BY THEIR SITUATION IN 1941.

Was Ens Yoshida (the poor slob signed in his paybook for the (experimental radar) on Kitikami) the only one in Japan whose powers of intellect (he controlled the 150 Zero CAP by telepathy I believe) allowed him to see such possibilities?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: spence

OK...but he did say something about 226+/- days for completion or something like that. Musta been after the ship was launched.

BUT SO WHAT FOR CRIMMINY'S SAKE. JAPAN CAN CONQUER SOVIET SIBERIA IN A MONTH LAUNCHING THEIR INVASION IN LATE DECEMBER OR JANUARY. THAT'S JUST LIKE REAL, FOR SURE...OH YEAH...NOT!!!

AND MAGICALLY BREAK THE 3 YEAR OLD STALEMENT IN CHINA JUST LIKE THAT WITHOUT FIRST CONQUERING THE SRA - DANG, HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO BLIND TO THE POSSIBILITIES OFFERED BY THEIR SITUATION IN 1941.

Was Ens Yoshida (the poor slob signed in his paybook for the (experimental radar) on Kitikami) the only one in Japan whose powers of intellect (he controlled the 150 Zero CAP by telepathy I believe) allowed him to see such possibilities?

Okay, let's not get all excited[>:]. In my case I say that China and the USSR might be problems, but then again it's perfectly understandable to be flawed when you look at the fact that this game only meant those (especially the USSR) as sideline theatres, such that the hypotheticals of a divergent JA strategy aren't covered. What is more inexcusable is problems with the DIRECT theatre itself, the Pacific Ocean, and how various ships spawn.

How in the world did Frag ever come up with 220 days?

I took all 24 ships listed and divided it by the total years build time. The result was the average of 1.84833 years (one being over 6 years skewed it quite a bit).

[spence]

The problem is that I'm finding it hard to get excited about this game at all because of this completely ahistorical Death Star capability of the IJN and its concurrent ahistorical CAP capability. Granted, the Japanese had blooded and more experienced pilots. Operationally, on 12/07/41, around 1100 local, their air staff had experience planning and launching one surprise attack to initiate hostilities and a number of bombing missions against virtually undefended Chinese cities. As far as protecting their fleet from attack by their opposite numbers in the USN and coordinating air strikes against moving, well defended, targets scores, if not hundreds of miles away, across a featureless sea, their play book was either as blank or full of hokey ideas as the USNs. The game mechanics go out of their way to render a battle between the IJN and USN carriers in 1942 either a) all but impossible for the USN to win or b) unlikely to happen since all the USN carriers are hiding even if it means sailing up to the headwaters of the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

So since nothing in war should be without cost it's all right with me if the success of the ahistorical IJN Death Star provokes ahistorical ship building on the part of the US.

But I'd much rather see carriers operating spread out a bit with CAP performing with something like historical effectiveness and with smaller airstrikes from BOTH sides. That might make the game harder on the IJN Player's chances of absolute victory but I don't think it would reduce his enjoyment that much. [:)]

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Let me put it this way:

If I don't lose any of the 6 prewar CV's, by June 43 I should have: Lex1, Sara, York 1, Enterprise, Hornet1, Wasp1, Essex, Lex2, York2 and Bunkerhill. That's 10 CV's by June 43 (historical).

in WITP, I'd have 8 (6 prewar, essex and bunkerhill). A good allied player who doesn't lose any of his prewar CV's gets screwed in June 43 by two CV's.

Bradely

No, you are incorrect. In Witp you would still have ten, ( 6 pre-war, Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid, Hancock ) 2by3 has pushed up arrivals of Intrepid and Hancock to roughly coincide with historic Lex2 and York2

By 12/43, its even worse. Assume no CV losses for the allied player. I'd have the 10 from above plus Intrepid, Hornet2 and Wasp2 (that's 13 CV's).

First neither Hornet2 or Wasp3 were operational by 12/43. You are confusing commision dates with operational dates again. Commisioned date is just when the ship is ready to leave the ship yard. Its still 3-5 months way from being operational. The intrepid in theory became operational the last few days of 43 on the east coast but for all practical purposes wasnt available until early 44. Regardless the game also pushes up the arrival dates of Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Bon Home Richard, Antietem and Shangrila. So you still get the historic 7 new Essex in 1944 regardless of pre-war CV losses.

In WITP, I'd have 10 (6 prewar, essex, intrepid, bunkerhill and Franklin) I'm now screwed by 3 CV's in late 43.

No you dont get screwed. There were 4 Essex CVs completed in time to be operational in 1943 historically and there are 4 Essex CVs available in 1943 in the game regardless of pre-war CV losses. There were 7 Essex that became operational in 1944 historically and there are 7 Essex Cv that become available in the game.

The model does not reward good play to the allied player. It does the opposite in that Japan faces fewer CV's if they are unsuccessful in sinking CV's in 42.

How do you figure? If I as a Japan player sink all 6 pre-war CVs in the first 6 months of the war. I will end up faceing 10[X(] Essex CV in 1943. And I still will have to face 7 additional Essex that become available in 44. The Japan player will NEVER have to face in 43/44 fewer CVs than historical under any circumstances in the game.

[Grotius]

Spence, I don't find the Japanese CAP to be impenetrable. Especially not after the Zero bonus disappears.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Yep, I'm looking at commission dates.

But, I thought for sure that Intrepid was involved in some ops in 43.

Can anyone tell us what CV's participated in the occupation of Tarawa? That was late 43.

Essex, Lex2, York2, Bunkerhill and some CVLs. Intrepid did not arrive in the Pacific until January 44.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: spence

The problem is that I'm finding it hard to get excited about this game at all because of this completely ahistorical Death Star capability of the IJN and its concurrent ahistorical CAP capability. Granted, the Japanese had blooded and more experienced pilots. Operationally, on 12/07/41, around 1100 local, their air staff had experience planning and launching one surprise attack to initiate hostilities and a number of bombing missions against virtually undefended Chinese cities. As far as protecting their fleet from attack by their opposite numbers in the USN and coordinating air strikes against moving, well defended, targets scores, if not hundreds of miles away, across a featureless sea, their play book was either as blank or full of hokey ideas as the USNs. The game mechanics go out of their way to render a battle between the IJN and USN carriers in 1942 either a) all but impossible for the USN to win or b) unlikely to happen since all the USN carriers are hiding even if it means sailing up to the headwaters of the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

So since nothing in war should be without cost it's all right with me if the success of the ahistorical IJN Death Star provokes ahistorical ship building on the part of the US.

But I'd much rather see carriers operating spread out a bit with CAP performing with something like historical effectiveness and with smaller airstrikes from BOTH sides. That might make the game harder on the IJN Player's chances of absolute victory but I don't think it would reduce his enjoyment that much. [:)]

I agree with you. Cap could be toned down and possibly be tweaked regarding technology, doctrine, etc. I also have always disliked the ability of bombers to hit naval targets at max range with the same chance of finding their target as they would if the target was in same hex. The chance for failing to find the target should increase relative to range.

The ability of CAP to engage successive strikes without suffering any real breakdown in effectiveness that I can see needs to be addressed as well. CAP is like a bunch of frat jocks slapping successive sorority girl's butts with fanny paddles as they run the halls at a frat party. A veritable gauntlet. Mogami just lost over 65 Sallys when they performed an uncoordinated (actually they were coordinated but if they attack seperate LCUs, they are punished as being uncoordinated...a flaw in the game mechanics causes this.) attack against LCUs at Tavoy. It was ugly and totally unacceptable in my view and I'm the Allied player.[8D] This game mechanics induced splitting of strikes really needs to be ammended so that the CAP works as it was meant to.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


The numbers speak for themselves. You will note that later CV's actually took *longer* to produce due to the Ticonderoga refitting efforts.

Youre right the numbers do speak for themselves.

1) They are incorrect regarding the Yorktown-2. It was "Launched" Jan 43, it wasnt "Commisioned" until April 43, which brings it right in line with the other 3 initial Essex CVs. Over a year and half to complete and over two years to become operational

2) That no CV started in 42 was completed intime to be operational in 43.

3) That there were only 7 CVs in total being built at all in 1942. How then can we get a possible 10 Essex in 43 in the game?

4) That Newport News 3 and Quincy Beth Steal 2 CV size slips were operating a full capacity in 42/43

5) That non of the other shipyards were prepared or otherwise unable to start CV construction until late 43.

Frag, I do believe you've been trying to rationalize this particular feature so long that you actually might be starting to really believe it.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


The numbers speak for themselves. You will note that later CV's actually took *longer* to produce due to the Ticonderoga refitting efforts.

Youre right the numbers do speak for themselves.

1) They are incorrect regarding the Yorktown-2. It was "Launched" Jan 43, it wasnt "Commisioned" until April 43, which brings it right in line with the other 3 initial Essex CVs. Over a year and half to complete and over two years to become operational

2) That no CV started in 42 was completed intime to be operational in 43.

3) That there were only 7 CVs in total being built at all in 1942. How then can we get a possible 10 Essex in 43 in the game?

4) That Newport News 3 and Quincy Beth Steal 2 CV size slips were operating a full capacity in 42/43

5) That non of the other shipyards were prepared or otherwise unable to start CV construction until late 43.

Frag, I do believe you've been trying to rationalize this particular feature so long that you actually might be starting to really believe it.[;)]

Go man go! I just love this topic![;)]

[spence]

Here we have game mechanics which make 80% of the carrier battles that EVER occurred unlikely between PBEM players of moderate skill or better. Japanese CAP is way too effective in 1942. Perhaps the IJN CAP managed to hold off a few Blenheims during their Indian Ocean (think they did manage to drop their loads in the vicinity of the IJN CVs but really don't know) but not once during the IJN fights with the USN was their CAP able to stop some of even a single squadron of obsolete planes from at least launching their antiship weapons. It happens all the time in UV and though I have no PBEM experience in WiTP from what I've read the story is the same in WiTP. This from a Navy which had no radar equipped Fighter Direction Centers in direct contact with every single plane in a 150 Zero CAP. Even if some DD had radar do you figure they have 10 guys available to interpret radar information and pass out intercept vectors on 10 different frequencies so that each element of the CAP goes where it is needed...well maybe...after finding out that that was what was necessary the hard way...ala Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz (but better if you have the radar and FDC on the flagship CV rather than in the hands of "the telepathic Ens Yoshida who'se never even seen a naval aviator and lurks in the bean locker of HIJMS Kitikami"). Having been in the CIC of a WWII era DD sized ship designed when radar was in its infancy and FDCs were an idea in somebody's mind I can tell you that there just wasn't enough physical room to cram the necessary people to keep anything like 150 fighters under some kind of control. The KB put somewhere between 30-50 Zeroes in the air at Midway and they had a field day with Torpedo 8 (which still put some fish in the water), but were slightly out of position so Torpedo 6 got off a few "extra" shots and Torpedo 5 got off a few and Scouting 6, Bombing 6 and Bombing 5 all came in unopposed. That's what really happened. The "IJN Death Star" didn't. As far as the way to fight CV vs Cv battles is concerned the rules were written at Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz. And after the rules were finally written the 7 remaining IJN CVs/CVLs at Philippine Sea put up what kind of CAP and achieved what result?....compared to what result for TF58?

[jwilkerson]

Hey Spence ... way back when ( a month or two ago ? ) we had a debate in the CV Strike thread ... we won ... but we lost ... since the moderators refused to agree to try to fix the problem ... however ... in the mean time .. I think I've found a fix ...


Now I'll admit ... the fix is as dumb as the problem ... it is like being able to win a land game by realizing the rules reward your tanks ... by having you toss your fuel overboard and drive your tanks into the swamp ... but hey ... according to the rules .. if you do this you win the battle !!! ...

In WITP .. if you take the early war USN CV ... and split them into TF ... one per TF .. with 1 CV and 5 CA/CL and 7+ DD per task force ... and run them around in the same hex ... you will get pretty much even results against the DEATH STAR ... I have some saves that set up the tests I ran ...

The basic reason this works ... is like judo .. using the power of the DS against itself ... it tends to make one massive attack ... hence ... it kills one CV ... and your other 4 ... at least damage 3-4 IJN CV ... and maybe sink one ... so roughly equal results ...

So given that this is the case ... then the USN can fight CV battles in 1942 and mostly break even ... hence there is no magic Death Star ... hence problem solved ... ( for the wrong reason ... kinda like winning by driving your tanks into the swamp with no supply ) ... but you at least don't have to stop playing because the USN CV have no chance .. .

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Hey Spence ... way back when ( a month or two ago ? ) we had a debate in the CV Strike thread ... we won ... but we lost ... since the moderators refused to agree to try to fix the problem ... however ... in the mean time .. I think I've found a fix ...


Now I'll admit ... the fix is as dumb as the problem ... it is like being able to win a land game by realizing the rules reward your tanks ... by having you toss your fuel overboard and drive your tanks into the swamp ... but hey ... according to the rules .. if you do this you win the battle !!! ...

In WITP .. if you take the early war USN CV ... and split them into TF ... one per TF .. with 1 CV and 5 CA/CL and 7+ DD per task force ... and run them around in the same hex ... you will get pretty much even results against the DEATH STAR ... I have some saves that set up the tests I ran ...

The basic reason this works ... is like judo .. using the power of the DS against itself ... it tends to make one massive attack ... hence ... it kills one CV ... and your other 4 ... at least damage 3-4 IJN CV ... and maybe sink one ... so roughly equal results ...

So given that this is the case ... then the USN can fight CV battles in 1942 and mostly break even ... hence there is no magic Death Star ... hence problem solved ... ( for the wrong reason ... kinda like winning by driving your tanks into the swamp with no supply ) ... but you at least don't have to stop playing because the USN CV have no chance .. .

I've been advocating 1 CV USN TFs forever. The more CV TFs you have, the more are going to be targetted by the enemy CVs. The way CAP works, each wave must pass through the CAP. CAP gets a crack at each. Kinda overkill the way the CAP works in the game, but it's the only way at the moment.

CAP really needs to be tweaked. There is enough people saying so.

[spence]

Only works if the AI causes all 500 IJN attack planes to launch against the same TF.

I had a battle in UV where my opponent and I fought a CV vs CV battle with both of our forces a bit dispersed and it was a real nail-biter for 5-6 days. My opp was certainly aware of the possibilities of the "Death Star" in that I had used it on him in a previous game but for one reason or another he didn't get the whole thing assembled before this battle started and we ended up with CV TFs occupying 6 or 7 different hexes when the fight began. The result of the fight actually involved some operational decisions (which I am happy to say resulted in the crippling of the IJNs offensive capabilities (3 CVs and 2 CVLs sunk outright and another 2 CVs damaged and subsequently finished off by subs or LBA) though it cost me 4 CVs sunk and damage to a 5th). That just seems about right. It was a hellova fight that made the whole game worthwhile no matter how it ultimately turns out (I still have to actually advance somewhere to end up with more points).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: spence

Only works if the AI causes all 500 IJN attack planes to launch against the same TF.

I had a battle in UV where my opponent and I fought a CV vs CV battle with both of our forces a bit dispersed and it was a real nail-biter for 5-6 days. My opp was certainly aware of the possibilities of the "Death Star" in that I had used it on him in a previous game but for one reason or another he didn't get the whole thing assembled before this battle started and we ended up with CV TFs occupying 6 or 7 different hexes when the fight began. The result of the fight actually involved some operational decisions (which I am happy to say resulted in the crippling of the IJNs offensive capabilities (3 CVs and 2 CVLs sunk outright and another 2 CVs damaged and subsequently finished off by subs or LBA) though it cost me 4 CVs sunk and damage to a 5th). That just seems about right. It was a hellova fight that made the whole game worthwhile no matter how it ultimately turns out (I still have to actually advance somewhere to end up with more points).

Nope...the KB will almost always divide the strikes to hit all CV TFs. The more CV TFs you have, the more seperate strikes must run the BS CAP gauntlet.

Problem with seperating CVs into more than one TF is that they still react sometimes despite orders to follow and NOT to react. Unbelievable. Really need a better way ti manage TFs. (shameless Task Group plug again.)[:)]

[spence]

Figured as much.

BTW do Canadians ever sleep?

[Halsey]

Won but lost! I like that![:D]

I'm confident of taking on the IJN DS in July of 42. Can't disclose the details. The enemy might be listening.[:D]

What I can gather from some in the forums is the blatent squandering of early Allied CV assets. I guess they are burning a hole in their pockets and they just have to use them.
Bah! There's nothing the Allies can't take back later if they want to. Let the Japanese over extend themselves. Good luck trying to hold on to any of it in 43.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: spence

Figured as much.

BTW do Canadians ever sleep?

[:D]

[Mr.Frag]

BTW do Canadians ever sleep?

Too cold ... you sleep, you die ...

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Nope...the KB will almost always divide the strikes to hit all CV TFs.

Hum ... my testing indicates the exact opposite ... to run my test I started with 5/1/42 start ... built a DS and built 4 USN task forces ... and sent both groups out into the middle of nowhere about halfway between Kwajalein and Johnson Is. then told them to head straight toward each other and hit the save button ... so in about a dozen repeated replays of the next several turns ... I believe KB split its strike once or twice ... but sent everything after one TF almost every time ... that was the key to my deciding this was the best ( stupid ) tactic to use ... given that the moderators are refusing to advocate for fixing the coordination RULE ...

But even if KB does split strikes ... unless it does it very carefully ( and player has no control over this ) ... then still might not matter ... it is still probably better ... in game terms ... given THE RULE ... to split the USN CV until 1944 comes around THE RULE goes away ... ( maybe 2 CV TF in 1943 is ok ).

I can send you the saves if you like ... but can you describe your testing which reveals the opposite ? I wonder if we do not understand the algorithm that determines whether to split strikes or not ... maybe your testing scenario was different enough to trigger the algorithm to split ...