Carrier Groups

[neuromancer]

Which is better?

Multiple Carrier groups with one carrier in each, and a bunch of escorts?

Or a single large carrier groups with all your carriers in one spot?


I can think of some obvous pros and cons of each.

Multiple groups:
- you can cover more area. Which is good for slapping around the enemy surface fleet. But to take on enemy carrier groups and large bases, you need several groups together for maximum firepower.

- If the enemy jumps on you, the odds are you only lose one carrier (at a time).

- But the obvious problem is that you don't have nearly as much air cover.

One or two large groups:
- Focused firepower, you paste the heck out of whatever the group targets (I've noticed that all the squadrons from one TF tend to all go after the same target).

- Large air cover. The fighter wings from several carriers makes for a lot of CAP fighters. although I've noticed that it doesn't seem to help that much most of the time. You shoot down two or three of his planes for every twenty of yours (and vice versa), and then the remaining 75+% of his wing hammers your carriers to pieces.

- But the obvious drawback is that you are in one place. You are very focused, but have little presence elsewhere, and a single attack can hit all your carriers.

On a side note, I've noticed this tendency in games, that people tend to put almost all their combat assets in one giant grpoup, and go around smashing things.
The only counter is for the enemy is to put everything in one giant group as well, and have a big fight.
OR to simply be where that big group isn't. The enemy splits into a bunch of small groups, only one of which can be caught and killed at a time, and runs around blasting bases and support units.

From experience in UV, and any real world knowledge, which do you folks think is better?

[von Murrin]

Both.

I use 1CV 7-14Escort TF's, all grouped in the same hex. They have individual detection ratings and bonuses, WAY more AA, they pool CAP, coordinate airstrikes (most of the time), and best of all, they can only be hit one at a time. Forcing the enemy strikes to break up is a great way to gun them down, not to mention that you may find that several of these TF's will be ignored or not found at all.

[neuromancer]

I've been noticing that the computer does that, and that it seems to work for them. I'll have to try it as the allies.


Now comes a question. Is it just me or are the Jap planes REALLY accurate?

I do an air strike against a TF, and if I'm lucky, I'll get one hit from a bomb or torp out of every two or three sub groups (1 to 4 planes). Usually I can send in my entire air wing and get maybe 3 or 4 hits out of 50+ planes!

Meanwhile the Japs tend to get multiple hits out of every sub group on a regular basis!

This is becoming extremely frustrating. In a carrier duel, I barely do any damage, and they plaster my carriers so bad they either sink or are will soon.

And this is with comparable numbers of planes, reasonable average experience, and high morale on my squadrons!

[von Murrin]

Okay, here's the deal:

IJN AG's are really good in the beginning. They start with a big advantage in experience. You can lessen that by training your own AG's. An alternative to that is to go attack things like bases with little or no AA and small IJN TF's. Use hit and fade tactics, and don't engage their CV's. It only takes a couple months of this to get your own AG's up into the 75-90 exp. range.

Another problem you may be having is that the Japanese CAP might be outnumbering your strike escorts by more than 2:1. High ratios of CAP to escorts give the striking a/c a really big hit penalty. Unescorted strikes suffer even worse. Ideal CAP levels are from 60-80%, depending on whether your priorities are successful strikes or well defended CV's. 60% makes for well escorted strikes, and 80% makes for relatively secure CV's. 70% is kind of an unsatisfying compromise.

Edit: Another way to reduce the exp. advantage of IJN AG's is to simply shoot them down. Their replacements suck.

[Hartmann]

The effect of a 60%CAP is already impressive with 3 carriers. Unescorted or lightly escorted strikes are usually shot down completely before they get a single go at the target. Another reason to not have single carrier TFs.

The "Jap-replacements-suck" theory is true. I had a huge escorted Betty, Nell and Val group from Lunga attack an Allied TF consisting of BB Northhampton and some CAs and DDs.
They did not score a single hit, but managed to damage or destroy more than half of their own assets!!!! The problem was that these guys were all greenhorns. Afterwards their morale was down at the bottom to boot.

And on top of that, for this dishonorable feat I'm supposed to award them time to rest and recover???? Where is the Kamikaze button?

Hartmann

[Burch]

I have found that for me playing as the US, a very effective tactic is a 3 carrier TF. 2 Carriers with CAP set at 80% for incoming strikes and one carrier with CAP set at 60% for outgoing strikes.
I had the Yorktown, Wasp and Saratoga in this Configuration with several escort vessels when I ran into two IJN CV TF's which consisted of 4 CV's and 1CVL. The first 2 jap strikes had over 100 planes in them but were met by 99 and 95 Wildcats respectively. The Jap strikes were shredded. What got through the CAP was decimated by flak. I suffered a total of 7 hits including one torp hit on the Yorktown. My strikes were not as large about 19 fighters and 48 SBDs and TBD/F's however I was able to (reportedly) score several hits on the CVL and 2 CV's. My strikes were also mauled by the jap CAP but I had few actually destroyed most were damged. I weathered 4 more japanese strikes that were mauled very baddly and suffered a total of 11 more hits on various ships. I managed 2 more strikes before missions were canceled due to weather.
Bottom line I had 2 carriers damged sufficiently to dock them at Noumea for about a month and a half, but I have not seen an IJN carrier in 3 months. Although none were reported sunk they did break up into several smaller tf's so I assume they were badly damged.
I am about to try and rake the massive LBA strikes on Lunga by taking my carriers to the back side of the island and throwing up LR CAP from 2 of them while setting the CAP on the 3rd to 90% iin case I am spotted. I am hoping that the 3 fighter groups on Lunga set up to 90% for a day combined with the carrier planes will put up 100+ fighters.

[neuromancer]

Some very interesting comments

I'm working with the multiple single carrier TFs in one hex right now. This seems to work as I can rotate one TF out easily if I want it to repair or rest up it's fighters while the others continue the fight.

In my latest attempt at a game, which is finally going okay (I'm behind in the lost tonnage, but I'm making the computer pay for it). The computer didn't go for Port Moseby. Instead there is a massive fight for Gili Gili! I've decided I have had enough of that and am going to land a major Marine task force to kick them off the island.


Now then, for the Jap AGs making my life hell:

IJN AG's are really good in the beginning. They start with a big advantage in experience. You can lessen that by training your own AG's. An alternative to that is to go attack things like bases with little or no AA and small IJN TF's. Use hit and fade tactics, and don't engage their CV's. It only takes a couple months of this to get your own AG's up into the 75-90 exp. range.

Ah, so they have an experience advantage at the beginning. Hmm, interesting.

The hit and fade is also a good point. Some people seem to find the Jap game too easy. That doesn't surprise me. The computer can play the Japs well enough using brute force, but probably isn't as good with the Allies as they have to be subtle.

As I've discovered, sailing your carriers striaght off to the north west Coral Sea just gets them dead (although sometimes they go there on their own). Until you have adequate force, taking on the Japs in a straight head on fight doesn't seem to work very well.

Another problem you may be having is that the Japanese CAP might be outnumbering your strike escorts by more than 2:1. High ratios of CAP to escorts give the striking a/c a really big hit penalty. Unescorted strikes suffer even worse. Ideal CAP levels are from 60-80%, depending on whether your priorities are successful strikes or well defended CV's. 60% makes for well escorted strikes, and 80% makes for relatively secure CV's. 70% is kind of an unsatisfying compromise.

This is also interesting, and something I shall have to keep in mind.


BTW: What can you do about your carrier air groups whose leaders have bad inspiration ratings? The group morale quickly hits the floor, and stays there! It's pretty annoying to have two or three squadrons of good planes sitting on the deck because their pilots are too bummed to fly!

Well, they may fly, but the don't do anything.

[Pkunzipper]

neuromancer, when you have a bad airgroup leader, choose a suicidal mission, with a good probability he will be killed in action, and another one (hoping better than him) will take his place.

However it should be nice be able to chosse (as we can do for TF) the airgroup commander....

[neuromancer]

"Look Lieutenant, tactically you are pretty good, as a pilot you aren't bad. But your men wouldn't follow you to the galley let alone into combat!"

Or the more diplomatic 'Band of Brothers' solution.

"Lieutenant, an officer of your calibre should not be risked in combat. Your value to us is such that we need you to train new pilots. You are being promoted, and reassigned to the Naval Air School in San Diego. You'll be teaching young men how to fly, and the tactics of air combat! Congradulations Lieutenant Commander."

[von Murrin]

Originally posted by Pkunzipper
neuromancer, when you have a bad airgroup leader, choose a suicidal mission, with a good probability he will be killed in action, and another one (hoping better than him) will take his place.

However it should be nice be able to chosse (as we can do for TF) the airgroup commander....

LOL

Yes, that's about all you can do at the moment...

[neuromancer]

I've got a bomber group leader with a 35 for inspiration. But he just won't DIE!

I've had commanders die just from landing their airplanes, but this group, flying at only 1000 feet all the time, with a morale of 10, has been taking almost no losses!

The never hit a darn thing, their planes get damaged regularly, but they DON'T DIE!

Very annoying...

[Pkunzipper]

Mmmmh.... Mission for Today?
A daylight unescorted raid at 100 feet against the airport of Rabaul, I know this will be a hard one, but you CPT. xxxxxx are the right man!

[von Murrin]

LOL Pk!

Let them rest to recover their morale. Then, as Pk said, send them in unescorted at 100ft to Rabaul.

[neuromancer]

A very important mission. You are the only ones for the job...

Works for me!

[Hartmann]

Originally posted by Pkunzipper
Mmmmh.... Mission for Today?
A daylight unescorted raid at 100 feet against the airport of Rabaul, I know this will be a hard one, but you CPT. xxxxxx are the right man!

ROFL

That's even better than my ASW tactics ... I wonder what other tricks like these are in use.

Hartmann

[NorthStar]

Just out of curiosity, I've been making it a habit of transferring marine fighter squadrons to any of my carriers which have extra capacity (which seems to be most of them) in order to beef up their protection and/or provide LR Cap without leaving the carriers vulnerable.

Any reason I shouldn't be doing this?

[Sultanofsham]

Originally posted by NorthStar
Just out of curiosity, I've been making it a habit of transferring marine fighter squadrons to any of my carriers which have extra capacity (which seems to be most of them) in order to beef up their protection and/or provide LR Cap without leaving the carriers vulnerable.

Any reason I shouldn't be doing this?

Errrr were they trained for carrier landings? If they were not then they shouldnt be able to. I also wonder if the Japanese navy aircraft that show up in Truk were trained for carrier landings.

[Wilhammer]

The fact is, those Corsairs can fly off of the carriers, and are some super fighters.

It is ahistorical to do this, but it is technically possible. The Corsair was a Marine fighter because the Navy did not like it, mostly because of the length of the nose making visibility during landing and take-offs a bit of a problem.

Other than that, these fine aircraft were navalised and ready for carrier ops.

Eventually, in late late '43 or early 44, they were getting assigned to Navy squadrons.

In UV, a Corsair group is DEADLY.

[Sultanofsham]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
The fact is, those Corsairs can fly off of the carriers, and are some super fighters.

Yes they can fly off but were marine pilots trained for carrier landings, thats the real question.

[von Murrin]

"Any fighter, fighter-bomber, dive-bomber, or torpedo bomber type plane may be based on an aircraft carrier. However, only the following type planes may land on a carrier and perform non-transfer missions from a carrier: SBD, SB2C, F2A, F4F-3, F4F-4, F6F, F4U-1, F4U-4, TBD, TBF, A5M4, A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, A6M5-B, D3A, D4Y, B5N, B6N.

All other planes that can be based on a carrier may only be transferred to a carrier in the same hex (loaded with cranes, as they could not land on a carrier) and may only fly from the carrier when ordered to transfer to a base. Also, carriers may never carry more than 5 air units at one time."

Page 86.