Ship Task force size of 15?

[dlth]

Just read on the site that the proposed size for a task force in the game is up to 15 ships? I think this is not very realistic, usually there are more ships than that in a task force in world war two. e.g. Nagumo's fleet at Pearl habour was listed as 6 carriers, 2 battleships, 3 cruisers and 9 destroyers a total of 20 ships, this does not included the auxillary ships like the oil tankers that followed the fleet in the first half of the journey.
One of the very annoying aspect in a similar game PTO2 is the limitation of having just 8 ships to a fleet. This probably simplified progamming but it is highly unrealistic.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Well, USUALLY Task Forces (and later for the USN Task Groups) contained around 15 vessels. This is primarily for command and control reasons, as a TF commander would find it VERY tough to control more than 15 vessels. Fleet support units are actually of separate TF's / TG's from those of the main TF/TG, and are only with the group when refuling/rearming is required. Many TF's have ships that are nominally a part of the TF but are in reality a separate group, with their own Admiral (Vice or Rear) in command and only attached to the larger command temporarily. This was the escort force for the Pearl Harbour strike (the Kongo's, Heavy Cruisers and many of the Destroyers were attached to the 1st Carrier Strike Force and had their own Rear Admiral who commanded them, so in fact it was in reality 2 TF's that operated closely together).

So, the 15 ship limit is not unhistorical, and may in fact be very generous.

[TIMJOT]

I would just add, that since you can have multiple TFs in a hex, there really isnt any need TFs any larger than 15.

[RevRick]

They can be mutually supportive of each other during an immediate attack or in ASW prosecution. In TF organization there may have been multiple TG's within a TF but they were operating together, usually within the same formation. For example, TF58.1 may be a CV task force, which may include TG58.1.1 and TG58.1.2 (two CV divisions each with a subordinate rear admiral), TG58.1.3 and even possible TG58.1.4 may include one or two heavy escort divisions of anything from BB's to CLAA's (also with a subordinate rear admiral each), and TG58.1.5 and TG58.1.6 would be the destroyer escort (two squadrons each commanded by a Commodore or senior Captain) - all of them operating in the same patch of ocean alongside some miles away TF58.2, also a CV TF similarly composed. To while TG 58.1.1 may be two carriers and TG58.1.5 may be six DD's - TF 58.1 would be likely to be between 18-24 ships. As I said earlier in a much earlier post (months ago) this 15 ship limit is NOT realistic.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I beleive due to simplicity sake, that TF = TG. Multiple TF's in WitP will act like TG's, supporting eachother without direct command (i.e., they have their own group commander). Checking most of the TG, they were generally commanded by a Rear Admiral and attached to a TF that was commanded by a Vice Admiral. This is what WitP is modelling. Having TF's operate 30 ships is ignoring the fact that TF's were divided up into TG's, that had their own Admirals in command (i.e., having TF = JUST TF, and not TG's).

Battles will probably have to be modelled differently then in UV (I don't have it so I cannot say exactly). TF (TG's) in the same hex should be mutually supporting (unlike PacWar where they were just individual groups). This would be exactly like what you want a TG organization to be like, but what Matrix Games is doing is just dropping the Task Group title and leaving all Task Forces as Task Forces, that behave like both TF and TG when the situation calls for it. So the 15 ship limit is realistic.

Vice Admirals were more of a strategic commander, determining the missions of the TF as a whole, while Rear Admirals would command the actual actions of the individual TG.

I do think that asking for a command and control system to be developed to better represent USN TF organization would be a good idea, however, each different TG (TF in the game) would retain its independence (like they did in history, being detached as a TG when times called for it) and act as only supporting units to one another (not as a single solid unit like one TF of 30 ships would be).

[John Carney]

It would be nice to designate mission of TF (TG's) to the overall mission. (like Carriers at War) Commander XX Screen Force, Main Body (Air, Invasion, Supply, Bombardment), Support Force, Trail (AO, AM, ect). And the commander understand to stay with Main Body (DO NOT React to Enemy) or detach and engage enemy (React to Enemy).

[iceboy105]

why not just compromise and make a TF contain 20 ships and make everyone happy?

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I really think that there is confusion over what exactly a TF is.

In WitP a task force (WPTF) will be any single group of ships combined in to a single unit that operates together for a set period of time (running into weeks). However, a Historical Task Force (HTF) was usually composed of many different Task Groups that operated as individual units but closely tied together. These Historical Task Groups (HTG) operated within a HTF.

HTF's have ships numbering into 20-40, however, HTG's usually had around 10-15.

What a WPTF represents is not a HTF, but rather a HTG. To me this is better, because if it represented a HTF you will miss out in the flexability of the HTG (i.e., splitting off groups to perform different tasks however these groups would be mutually supportive like HTG).

What you should press for, which I am not sure is included or not, is to create a symbolic (i.e., like a seabore HQ) HTF that you can group your WPTF's into which will act just like a HTF (i.e., support eachother but still separate groups, just like a HTF was).

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

The limit for task force size has been increased from 15 to 25, in War in the Pacific, since the posting you read. There are penalties to including more than 10 to 15 ships in a task force in the game. The task force, as defined in the game, is really a task group, in naval terms. So, if you create, say, a transport task force and then three others, such as bombardment, surface action and cargo, and give them orders to follow the transport task force, they will all move together and perform assigned tasks and the surface task force will try to protect the others.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Mike Wood
The limit for task force size has been increased from 15 to 25, in War in the Pacific, since the posting you read. There are penalties to including more than 10 to 15 ships in a task force in the game. The task force, as defined in the game, is really a task group, in naval terms. So, if you create, say, a transport task force and then three others, such as bombardment, surface action and cargo, and give them orders to follow the transport task force, they will all move together and perform assigned tasks and the surface task force will try to protect the others.

Mike,

That is helpful. It makes a lot of sense, thanks.

To pick up on Jeremy's point: if this game is going to model leaders down to the individual ship level, it should also model the (far more important) influence of real task force commanders, and not just the "task group" (mislabelled 'task force' in the game) commanders.

To use your example: the four task groups; transport, bombardment, surface action and cargo, each with their own commander, are formed into a single task force. The task force commander's ratings would determine if the combat task groups could protect the others, and his agressiveness would determine if invasions were made or cancelled. The task group commanders' ratings would influence how well their own ships fought in combat.

Call a "task group" a task group and allow them to be formed into "task forces" led by a task force commander. What's so hard about that?

[Frank W.]

hello

20 ships would be okay!

[Ron Saueracker]

Task Groups or TFs were given decimal points to show chain of command/coordination. Ie. TF 31.1, 31.2, 31.1.1 etc. Maybe this can be used to clarify a few points made here in game terms.