Battered and Bloody Confederate Navy
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:25 am
Ladies (???) and Gents,
I'm a newcomer and I've thus far been involved in four PBEM games. I decisively lost a Coral Sea scenario as the Japs and I'm playing three Scenario 17s as the USA (two are in late June '42 and the other is just getting started). I've encountered a few annoying or puzzling situations and would like feedback:
1. Several times I have had USA CV TFs in the same hex with orders "do not react to enemy" only to have somebody blatantly disobey my orders. This happened yesterday with disasterous results when one of two US CV TFs sailed a hex closer to the enemy while the other stayed put (hey, if one is going to disobey, at the the very least the other should also). With my CV TFs and CAP thus divided in two, the Japs savaged the "disobedient" CV TF seriously damaging Hornet and Enterprise (and finishing them off the next turn). I gnashed my teeth and my opponent said that he has had similar problems and thus always puts all his CVs into one TF if they are meant to stay together. So, is a "do not react to enemy" order optional?
2. In another game my opponent (the IJN commander) was dismayed to find his CV TFs reacting and thus sailing well within range of my CV TF bombers rather than acting prudently and keeping a distance of 8 or 9 or 10 hexes which would have been within range of his carrier based bombers and not mine. Why would his admiral act so irresponsibly? Shouldn't the computer program pick up on such an important advantage and try to achieve it on behalf of the IJN? I know the IJN player can set his CV TF to "do not react" and try to maneuver to within 8 - 10 hexes of the USN (but no closer!), but it would make things a heck of alot easier if the computer simply did this for the him.
3. From my own games and judging from another recent posting in the War Room, it seems that CAP is shooting down enormous numbers of enemy bombers while flak gets few if any. That doesn't seem realistic. For instance, in one of my games, USA had six CVs and the Japs had about the same number and both sides launched attacks. I think both sides lost about 400 or 500 planes over two days and nearly all of them were shot down by enemy fighters. In the "real" war, I would think the opposite was true. Of the total number of enemy bombers shot down while attacking a carrier force, I'm "guessing" that perhaps 20% - 40% succumbed to CAP while the balance of the losses came from flak. Didn't flak inflict much greater losses than CAP?
4. If 300 planes were getting shot down in a single day, I'd think surviving pilot morale would plummet to zero and it would be very difficult to get anybody to press home an attack the next day and probably for a long time afterwards. How many times did 300 planes get shot down in a single day? If memory serves, the Mariannas Turkey Shoot had a tremendous number of kills, but what about Midway? That was a titanic carrier battle but I doubt the numbers were anything like that. I don't have the numbers at hand, so I'm not sure about this, but aircraft losses seem disproportionately high in UV. Am I wrong?
5. Another frustrating thing is the inability to order bombers to focus on a particular TF or at least a particular type of ship. Yesterday, while my "disobedient" CV TF was reacting to the enemy against orders and taking a pounding, it sent its bombers to attack an enemy AP TF rather than the dadgum IJN CVs which were even closer! Furthermore, from what I can tell thus far, land-based bombers pretty much refuse to attack CV TFs if there is any other type of ship in the vicinity. Bettys, Nells, B-25s, etc would all rather attack an AP than a CV. What's with that? That problem would be solved if we could order bombers to "prefer CVs" or to attack a particular TF if range permits.
That said, let me say that it's a heck of alot of fun to match wits with an opponent and try to out think him.
Canoerebel
I'm a newcomer and I've thus far been involved in four PBEM games. I decisively lost a Coral Sea scenario as the Japs and I'm playing three Scenario 17s as the USA (two are in late June '42 and the other is just getting started). I've encountered a few annoying or puzzling situations and would like feedback:
1. Several times I have had USA CV TFs in the same hex with orders "do not react to enemy" only to have somebody blatantly disobey my orders. This happened yesterday with disasterous results when one of two US CV TFs sailed a hex closer to the enemy while the other stayed put (hey, if one is going to disobey, at the the very least the other should also). With my CV TFs and CAP thus divided in two, the Japs savaged the "disobedient" CV TF seriously damaging Hornet and Enterprise (and finishing them off the next turn). I gnashed my teeth and my opponent said that he has had similar problems and thus always puts all his CVs into one TF if they are meant to stay together. So, is a "do not react to enemy" order optional?
2. In another game my opponent (the IJN commander) was dismayed to find his CV TFs reacting and thus sailing well within range of my CV TF bombers rather than acting prudently and keeping a distance of 8 or 9 or 10 hexes which would have been within range of his carrier based bombers and not mine. Why would his admiral act so irresponsibly? Shouldn't the computer program pick up on such an important advantage and try to achieve it on behalf of the IJN? I know the IJN player can set his CV TF to "do not react" and try to maneuver to within 8 - 10 hexes of the USN (but no closer!), but it would make things a heck of alot easier if the computer simply did this for the him.
3. From my own games and judging from another recent posting in the War Room, it seems that CAP is shooting down enormous numbers of enemy bombers while flak gets few if any. That doesn't seem realistic. For instance, in one of my games, USA had six CVs and the Japs had about the same number and both sides launched attacks. I think both sides lost about 400 or 500 planes over two days and nearly all of them were shot down by enemy fighters. In the "real" war, I would think the opposite was true. Of the total number of enemy bombers shot down while attacking a carrier force, I'm "guessing" that perhaps 20% - 40% succumbed to CAP while the balance of the losses came from flak. Didn't flak inflict much greater losses than CAP?
4. If 300 planes were getting shot down in a single day, I'd think surviving pilot morale would plummet to zero and it would be very difficult to get anybody to press home an attack the next day and probably for a long time afterwards. How many times did 300 planes get shot down in a single day? If memory serves, the Mariannas Turkey Shoot had a tremendous number of kills, but what about Midway? That was a titanic carrier battle but I doubt the numbers were anything like that. I don't have the numbers at hand, so I'm not sure about this, but aircraft losses seem disproportionately high in UV. Am I wrong?
5. Another frustrating thing is the inability to order bombers to focus on a particular TF or at least a particular type of ship. Yesterday, while my "disobedient" CV TF was reacting to the enemy against orders and taking a pounding, it sent its bombers to attack an enemy AP TF rather than the dadgum IJN CVs which were even closer! Furthermore, from what I can tell thus far, land-based bombers pretty much refuse to attack CV TFs if there is any other type of ship in the vicinity. Bettys, Nells, B-25s, etc would all rather attack an AP than a CV. What's with that? That problem would be solved if we could order bombers to "prefer CVs" or to attack a particular TF if range permits.
That said, let me say that it's a heck of alot of fun to match wits with an opponent and try to out think him.
Canoerebel