Matrix Games Forums

How many carriers can the allies have per task force in 41-42? In WITP it was recommended one. Does that still apply in AE?
What about in 43 onwards? Do the restrictions still apply?

Thanks

Matthew

I keep just one CV in a TF until I get Hellcats. Then I will have two CVs if it makes sense or a CV and two CVL's.

ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth

How many carriers can the allies have per task force in 41-42? In WITP it was recommended one. Does that still apply in AE?
What about in 43 onwards? Do the restrictions still apply?

Thanks

Matthew

See Rule 7.2.1.11

"The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in
the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following
circumstances:
»» Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»» Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»» Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the
number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200)."

the question was and still is if it´s worth it to follow the rules just for the sake of coordination. As Bullwinkle posted, The chance of uncoordination is doubled . So I wonder if it´s doubled if you have 101 ac in 42 for example and if it´s only doubled if you have 600 ac in 42 than having 6x100. If there´s no random factor for above 100 (whatever number it is) then I prefer having 600 ac in one TF (and a huge flak value together with a nice escort). You can still have uncoordinated strikes if you follow the rule and the chance is only doubled if you don´t follow the rule (if it´s correct in the manual).

I'm giving serious thought to putting the Japanese into single-CV or double CV-TF from the start of the war on.  If it limits the damage the Americans can take then doesn't it also make sense for the Japanese?  Hmmm...
 

By division sounds ok. Single cvtfs would eat up a lot of escorts.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I'm giving serious thought to putting the Japanese into single-CV or double CV-TF from the start of the war on.  If it limits the damage the Americans can take then doesn't it also make sense for the Japanese?  Hmmm...

John, unless you put them in different hexes, the multiple TFs don't really limit "damage" anymore. Gone are the UV and WiTP days of the entire KB strike hitting only one of six CV TFs in the same hex...

I still like matched pairs (divisions). Soryu/Hiryu, Lexington/Saratoga, etc..

Working by Division is how I generally do it.  I certainly deploy my KB-1, KB-2, and KB-3 by divisions.  Makes a bunch of sense.  Concur about the escort issue if the Japanese were to do single-CV TF.
 

Careful of subs though. I seems to take 6 DDs to make a CV safe from Sub attack; that's 30-36 DDs depending on the side you play. That's alot. When I have been parsimonious with my DDs, I have paid dearly (see my game with Cuttlefish; no less than 5 different successful sub attacks on CVs!)

I agree with Q-ball. 6 DDs per CV TF for ASW screen

Careful of subs though. I seems to take 6 DDs to make a CV safe from Sub attack; that's 30-36 DDs depending on the side you play. That's alot. When I have been parsimonious with my DDs, I have paid dearly (see my game with Cuttlefish; no less than 5 different successful sub attacks on CVs!)

_____________________________

I will also attach one or two separate ASW tf's to screen a large group of CV TFs. These tend to hunt down any pesky subs. I havent lost any CV's yet to subs, but have lost several CVEs.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Careful of subs though. I seems to take 6 DDs to make a CV safe from Sub attack; that's 30-36 DDs depending on the side you play. That's alot.

Not to mention forward fuel supplies and Replenishment TF risks (and they eat up escorts too . . .)

ORIGINAL: castor troy

the question was and still is if it´s worth it to follow the rules just for the sake of coordination. As Bullwinkle posted, The chance of uncoordination is doubled . So I wonder if it´s doubled if you have 101 ac in 42 for example and if it´s only doubled if you have 600 ac in 42 than having 6x100. If there´s no random factor for above 100 (whatever number it is) then I prefer having 600 ac in one TF (and a huge flak value together with a nice escort). You can still have uncoordinated strikes if you follow the rule and the chance is only doubled if you don´t follow the rule (if it´s correct in the manual).

I may not understand how the rule works. Does "rnd(100) mean "a random number from 1 to 100"? If that's what the syntax means, then your question seems to apply. It's only doubled whether you have 101 planes or 600 planes.

However, in exchange for the possible conbat benefit of the 600 planes is the possible risk of far higher combat losses IF you get the uncoordinated case. You have no chance of doubled uncoordination in the 6 x 100 case. Other than possible escort ship savings, and fuel, and certainly mouse clicks, why would you ever risk circa 300 strike planes going in with no coordinated fighter support?

Am I missing something?

Coordination aside, I like them in pairs. Ideally with a fast BB in each TF for extra AA. Coupla CA or Cls, coupla CLAAs and plenty of DDs. It is not the coordination that keeps me from seeking a fight but AA. I feel like the American CVs can hold their own with KB once they upgrade to 40mm bofors. Before that, advantage KB.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Coordination aside, I like them in pairs. Ideally with a fast BB in each TF for extra AA. Coupla CA or Cls, coupla CLAAs and plenty of DDs. It is not the coordination that keeps me from seeking a fight but AA. I feel like the American CVs can hold their own with KB once they upgrade to 40mm bofors. Before that, advantage KB.

I thnk you're still in 1942 or so, right?

I'm in July 1944, and 2x2x2x2 gets old on a clicking basis, as well as managing who-follows-whom. I'm usually doing x4 TFs, keeping the Essexes together, and the old-timers together. May not be smartest against a human, but the AI doesn't seem to mind throwing hundreds of LBA at them, and losing same.

FWIW, all you PBEM guys and your superiority (snort!![:)]) In my game the Japanese have lost almost 25,000 planes and there haven't even been big kami ops yet. They've lost 8500 Oscars alone. What was the total production run on them? 5800? Lost 4200 Betties. Total production, about 2500? And I looked in the Japanese side at pools, and they're full of even more. Limited Allied aircraft production is a problem for us AI types too.

I may not understand how the rule works. Does "rnd(100) mean "a random number from 1 to 100"? If that's what the syntax means, then your question seems to apply. It's only doubled whether you have 101 planes or 600 planes.

Yup its a random number from 1-100 , so a 1942 TF with 101 planes would have a 1% chance of doubling ts co-ordination mishap chance , but any TF over 200 planes will automatically fail and be subject to the double penalty all the time.

Agree with you on losses bullwinkle , If the player wants to lose all his valauble SBD's in 1942 go ahead and use 200 planes TF's , given the replacement rate I'll keep mine under 100 for now [;)]

Escorts are for me the main factor affecting air combat TF size's .. If im sending them out of harms way (probably) then 2-3 CV's covered by as many DD's as possible is the way to go. Into possible aircombat though I'll try and keep 1 CV /TF escorts permitting. This is much more felt by Japan though, especially as the war wears on.

In 44 however the allies should have plenty of ships for escort and keeping the total planes over 200 is just lazy play imo. (caveat a few over is fine given the 200RND). Why risk high value assets to a mjor kamikazi attack when your much more efficient using the 200 rule and also minimising targets too.

EDIT - just read your post Bull .. Yeah it can be a grind vs the AI making perfect TF's .. so not so lazy there[:D] , but vs a human I'd be very wary of doing it.

this raises the question of multiple ACTF's following each other around the map .. does this make an allied UBER CAP ? not having got into 44 personally i don't know.

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

this raises the question of multiple ACTF's following each other around the map .. does this make an allied UBER CAP ? not having got into 44 personally i don't know.

In summer 1944 I've raided right up to a hex SE of Okinawa with x4 x 2 Air TFs, with CAP on 60%. They didn't lay a glove on me, and I took down several hundred multi-engine and mid-grade fighters from multiple vectors. It's almost like harvesting.[:)]

May be AI gamey, but after the CD debacle at Saipan I wanted some revenge.

I've just got to say. I was suprised my IJ opponent insisting on the ' one port strike only ' especially playing scen#2. I think anybody without the gumption to play IJ (like me; playing the allies) should be more than willing to take their and anybody else on the block's licks. I may be missing something here, but if every opportunity is not taken to give IJ a snowball's chance in hell of winning the game - if not the war- what is the point of playing? BTW - I'm trying to grow Samurai Stones - I'm just not there yet. Given that it took me 12 hrs to make the first turn as ally (now tht I have a clue how to play, and even peek at China -shudder-) Maybe there is hope for me to eventually give IJ a try. My hat is off to the gentlemen from the east( so far one from Italy and one from Denmark-), without them I would be stuck vs AI trying to learn. My opinion only - but whether it's first person, flight sim(HEY 1946) the only real opponent's are LIVE.

Samurai stones can get you into trouble. .
 
In my game I also went with the one strike and retire. But on the way home I made an effort to run into the US carriers at sea if I could. In hindsight it didn't work, but I really didn't want to lose a lot of pilots on the second day.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

this raises the question of multiple ACTF's following each other around the map .. does this make an allied UBER CAP ? not having got into 44 personally i don't know.

In summer 1944 I've raided right up to a hex SE of Okinawa with x4 x 2 Air TFs, with CAP on 60%. They didn't lay a glove on me, and I took down several hundred multi-engine and mid-grade fighters from multiple vectors. It's almost like harvesting.[:)]

May be AI gamey, but after the CD debacle at Saipan I wanted some revenge.

OK, post-script (through the tears.)

This, uh, didn't end up like I wanted. Revenge is over-rated. 'Nuff said.