Better formation?

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
kriegmarine
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:09 am
Location: Spain(Seville)
Contact:

Better formation?

Post by kriegmarine »

Today is August 42 , now I have 8 CV and 3 CVL, What would be the ideal training?
The KB is forming in 3 TF:
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 2 CV, 1 CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 6 DD.
Would you be good, or better distributed differently?
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Better formation?

Post by CT Grognard »

ORIGINAL: kriegmarine

Today is August 42 , now I have 8 hp and 3 CVL, What would be the ideal training?
The KB is forming in 3 TF:
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 2 CV, 1 CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 6 DD.
Would you be good, or better distributed differently?

Ideally you'd need more destroyers in each task force...but not sure how many fast ones you have?
henhute6
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Tehran

RE: Better formation?

Post by henhute6 »

I like to put fast carriers together: Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku. Rest of the carriers will form another slower fleet. I usually put one heavy cruiser to fleet in case on surprise surface battle. In my opinion BB is wasted in pure AA platform role in carrier force. BB can be in separate surface task force which is mopping up the remnants of enemy fleet. I also use 6 destroyer package with KB fleet.
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2958
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: Better formation?

Post by KenchiSulla »

ORIGINAL: henhute6

I like to put fast carriers together: Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku. Rest of the carriers will form another slower fleet. I usually put one heavy cruiser to fleet in case on surprise surface battle. In my opinion BB is wasted in pure AA platform role in carrier force. BB can be in separate surface task force which is mopping up the remnants of enemy fleet. I also use 6 destroyer package with KB fleet.

Fast BBs are great for soaking up damage...
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Better formation?

Post by Puhis »

Carrier's best protection is a battleship. BBs are bomber magnets, easily 1/3 of bombers attack battleships instead of those precious flight decks. And battleships can take more bomb hits than carriers. [;)]


Usually I'll have 2 KBs, fast ones (Hiryu, Shokakus and Akagi) and slower ones (speed 28 kts or less).

Later I might even separate slowest 25-26 kts carriers and use 3 KBs.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Better formation?

Post by crsutton »

Yep totally agree. BB in a carrier TF are a must. I would much rather have them eat torpedoes than a first class carrier.

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Better formation?

Post by Lecivius »

Ok, related question.  Do you guys also agree on putting a fast BB in an Allied CVTF, for the same reasons?  Or do you put them in a SAG with the carriers following?  I've seen both options posted, so I'm a might confused.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16103
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Better formation?

Post by Mike Solli »

I'd put the CVLs (along with Junyo and Hiyo) in a separate TF than the original 6 CVs. They slow down the fast CVs.
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Better formation?

Post by Puhis »

Remember, japanese CVLs (except Ryuho) are as fast as Kaga, so Kaga too slows down rest of the original 6.
User avatar
inqistor
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:19 pm

RE: Better formation?

Post by inqistor »

ORIGINAL: kriegmarine

Today is August 42 , now I have 8 CV and 3 CVL, What would be the ideal training?
The KB is forming in 3 TF:
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 2 CV, 1 CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 6 DD.
Would you be good, or better distributed differently?
BBs are great targets for enemy DBs, so you should keep them. DDs are your ASW weapon, but what is purpose of Cruisers? When CVTF gets attacked in the surface combat, it will immediately try to retreat, so not much use of combat ships, except for screening.

You can eventually look into AAA statistics (and use CLAAs), or number of search planes on board (so CS are perfect), to relieve your CAGs from search duties.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Better formation?

Post by LoBaron »

Just in case this went unnoticed:

Contrary to the original WitP, in AE naval attacks will target shipps in a hex, not in a TF.
This implies that the BBs don´t have to be in the same TF, only in the same hex. Depends on how your plans look like
on a tactical scale.
Image
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12615
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Better formation?

Post by Sardaukar »

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ok, related question.  Do you guys also agree on putting a fast BB in an Allied CVTF, for the same reasons?  Or do you put them in a SAG with the carriers following?  I've seen both options posted, so I'm a might confused.

I usually put fast BB into CV TF. But as been said, one can do it both ways.

Just that Allies do not have really fast BBs before Iowas, SoDak/NoDaks have max. speed of 28 knots and that can slow down CV TF, since other ships often have max. speed of 32+ knots. That 5 knots can make difference sometimes.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Better formation?

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: kriegmarine

Today is August 42 , now I have 8 CV and 3 CVL, What would be the ideal training?
The KB is forming in 3 TF:
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 BB, 1CA, 1CL, 6DD.
- 2 CV, 1 CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 6 DD.
Would you be good, or better distributed differently?
That's a pretty good start, IMO. I agree with the others re: clustering slower CV and CVLs together. Also agree about the benefits of putting a battleship in with the CVTF for AAA and soaking up damage.

If you're fighting defensively, I'm not adamantly opposed to using some of your CVEs for CAP or search too, they'd need to be linked with your slower groups.

IMO, the most important criterion is the number of airplanes in your CVTF. Tread very carefully on exceeding the CVTF air numbers / year, lest your strikes be uncoordinated. These values may be found in the manual.
Image
User avatar
Wirraway_Ace
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Austin / Brisbane

RE: Better formation?

Post by Wirraway_Ace »

Shokaku and Zuikaku get airsearch radar in their june 42 upgrade. After the upgrade, I tend to split them between KB1 and KB2. In august, a number of your APDs also get good airsearch radar. They have short legs and cannot be added to a CV TF, but I use them when possible as radar pickets (in the same hex) as the CVs.

I generally don't put CAs in the KB. The fast BBs are much more useful in attracting the attention away from the CVs and the CAs are one of the IJNs most potent surface threats in night actions. Of course, the Kongo's are very useful ships too, but...
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”