Matrix Games Forums

First impressions of CV battles in v2.30. I feel there is something wrong with the engine, now favoring the IJN. I had 3 CV battles against human opponents. A marginal victory and a overhelming victory as IJN and a overhelming defeat as USN

-Battle#1. Scen#19. Near PM. A US CV TF (3CV´s-Yorktown, Hornet and Saratoga) was patrolling near PM, when it was attacke by IJN CV´s. As IJN had lost 3CV´s and 1 CVL in the former battle, the USN wasn´t expected another IJN incursion. However, the IJN attacked with their remainin CV´s (Hiryu, Akagi, Kaga, Junyo) and 2CVL´s (Zuiho and Ryujo). AF estimated: 260 for USN and 320 for IJN
Outcome. USN crews extremely tired(30-40) from sustaing high levels of CAP (90% with some units recovering from LR-CAP in the former days). US CV´s able to fight the first wave with 80 F4F´s, but two squadrons simply gave up in the middle of battle, an so caused small losses to the incoming bombers. US couterattacked with SBD´s almost unescorted. Three USN CV´s sunk against no damage to IJN CV´s.
-My comments. Not an unexpected result, althought I think my CAP should have performed better.

-Battle#2. Scen #17.Clash of two super CV groups near Lunga. IJN 5 CV´s plus 3 CVL´s (Sho, Zui, Hiryu, Kaga, Akagi, Zuiho, Shoho, Ryujo-450 CV´s) USN 5CV´s (Yorktown, Hornet, Enterprise, Saratoga, Wasp-420 planes). Distance: 8 hexes
Outcome: IJN planes attacked with heavy fighter escort. A6M´s shot down no less than 57 F4F´s (with 41 losses). F4F´s (98 F4F´s flying CAP in 1st wave-around 60-70 in the remaining attacks)and flak, however, decimated IJN bombers. No less than 130 Vals and Kates shot down. However, Hornet was heavily damaged (he sunk a few days after, only 1 hex far from Lungaville) and other 3 CV´s suffered light damage. USN unable to mount a credible counterattack. Just 18 SDB´s attacked (escorted by less than 10 F4F´s), and 13 were shot down by A6M´s. IJN CV´s intact
-Comment: No credible explanation for the enemy being unable to counterstrike(?)

-Battle#3. A premature USN counteroffensive in Lunga clashed with a super CV-TF (6CV´s+3CVL´s , Zui, Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, Akagi, Junyo, Zuiho, Shoho, Ryujo-500 planes). USN had 4 CV´s (Hornet, Enterprise, Wasp, Saratoga-350 planes). My enemy had all his fighters in 100%CAP, two of them had fatigue around 28 and two 32. My CAP was 50%. Both sides put their figters flying at 18000 feet (I divided mine between 18000 and 13000 feet)

Here are the results. I was able to sink 4 CV´s with minimal losses. Game over, since my enemy already had lost two CV´s

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/31/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Sub attack near Taivu at 39,40

Japanese Ships
SS I-2, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
AK Alchiba, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Walke
DD Ralph Talbot
DD Henley


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 42


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 9

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18
B-25D Mitchell x 22
B-26B Marauder x 26

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
B-26B Marauder x 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 55

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 17

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet
9 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet
3 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet
3 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet
3 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet
4 x B-25D Mitchell at 4000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet
5 x B-26B Marauder at 4000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Tassafaronga , at 37,39

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22

no losses


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 57
A6M3 Zero x 29
D3A Val x 125
B5N Kate x 108

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 74

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 10 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
A6M3 Zero x 11 destroyed
D3A Val x 8 destroyed
D3A Val x 12 damaged
B5N Kate x 27 destroyed
B5N Kate x 50 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 17 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 damaged

ENS F.Townsend of VF-71 is credited with kill number 3

Allied Ships
CV Wasp, Bomb hits 10, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
DD Patterson, Bomb hits 1
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 3
CLAA Atlanta, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CV Hornet, Bomb hits 11, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Fanning, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 4, on fire
CLAA San Diego, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CLAA Juneau


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 40,40


WO C.Matsumoto of EIII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

LCDR R. Johnson of VB-8 bails out and is RESCUED
Japanese Ships
SS I-5, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise
DD Farenholt
DD Ellet
DD Maury


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Irau at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged

Allied Ships
AO Kanawha

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 24
G4M1 Betty x 31

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 4 destroyed
G3M Nell x 14 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 25 damaged

Allied Ships
AP Wharton
CA Canberra, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CL Achillies, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
DD Conyngham, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Heywood, Torpedo hits 1
AP Leedstown
AP George Clymer, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
AP Zeilin, Torpedo hits 2
DD Drayton
DD MacDonough
AP President Hayes
DD Arunta


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 10
Guns lost 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 7 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Farragut, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Lamson, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 3
G4M1 Betty x 27

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 3 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 4 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 30 damaged

Allied Ships
AP American Legion
DD Alwin
CL Honolulu
AP Monrovia, Torpedo hits 1
CL Leander
DD Perkins
DD Hammann, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP George F. Elliot

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged

Allied Ships
AP Esperance Bay, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 23

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Taivu at 39,40

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 3 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Electra, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 40,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 51
A6M3 Zero x 21
D3A Val x 106
B5N Kate x 70

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 11, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
DD Mahan
CLAA San Diego, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Phoenix, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Hornet, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA Atlanta, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Patterson, Bomb hits 1
DD Ellet, Bomb hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 40,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24
D3A Val x 24
B5N Kate x 16

no losses

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Mahan
DD Selfridge, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CLAA Juneau, Bomb hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Comment. I simply can´t understand:
1-Why my enemy was unable to rise more than 70 F4F´s
2-Why the F4F´s gave up fighting (he started with 74 F4F´s, but then 60 of them gave up) despite the fact they were winning (F4F´s shot down 30 planes, vs 21 losses)
3-As he still had one CV with light damage after the first wave, he should be able to put some resistance against the second attack
-On the other hand, I think his lack of counterattack is the result of no fighters being released for escort duties?
-What do you guys think on those results?

I am very sorry to have to say this, but I feel you're one of those anal types, using *games* not to *play*, but to over-analyze every **** result, and always look after "bugs", "strange results" etc. and present them with very definitive, authoritative tone...

Please, don't take this (too) personally, there are more of your "sort" on this board, but now it's you.

There are *players* among us that logged tens of hours of playing under 2.30, both against AI, and in PBEM, and don't complain.

Now, to answer your main points.

CV vs CV battles are ALWAYS huge gambles for BOTH sides, as it should be in my opinion (remember Midway?). 2.30 didn't change a thing here.

Players basing their strategies solely on CVs sometimes get incredibly disappointed, when the gamble goes against them, but it's their fault!

To say 2.30 favors IJN is to admit you haven't played enough under 2.30. I played PBEM's under 2.30 from both sides, and have seen nothing but defeats for IJN (be it me, or my opponent). Recently, playing as IJN, I lost 2 CVs and CVL (with another 2 CVLs damaged) to inflict only minor damage to USN CVs.

Also, playing as USN, I defeated ultra-strong IJN CV TF, when his planes simply REFUSED to attack my CVs (not enough escorts to defeat my super-CAP).

Under 2.30, I've seen like 8-10 IJN CVs go down (mine, and my opponent's), and only 1 USN CV (in my game against Tanaka, he caught Enterprise alone, seeing the end is near, I tried to escape, unloaded the planes, and he managed to sink the thing, not being protected by CAP etc.)

O.

I see nothing wrong with the results you cite.

(1) You describe the US problem yourself: pilots tired from a former battle, "patrolling" with depleted airgroups. When you get a win, get the hell out and come back fresh later with an even better winning edge. As any bomber pilot knows, you don't loiter over the target to admire your results.

(2) Again, the answer is in your remarks: "distance 8 hexes." This is extended range for SBDs and beyond the range that they can be escorted by F4Fs. The US here is a victim of superior IJN carrier aircraft range.

(3) A superior IJN air combat TF defeats an inferior Allied air combat TF. This is a wrong outcome because ... ?

The myriad factors that go into the AI's calculations of how, what, and where to attack are largely unmentioned. It could have been better, it could have been worse. What more do you want from a wargame?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
I am very sorry to have to say this, but I feel you're one of those anal types, using *games* not to *play*, but to over-analyze every **** result, and always look after "bugs", "strange results" etc. and present them with very definitive, authoritative tone...

-I really don´t understand this hysterical crisis. I have the right to point to some atypical results. A few months ago I complained about some unexpected results, and some of my complains were actually adressed in v2.20, so my point wasn´t so wrong. If I play three battles vs human opponents and all three gave victories for IJN beyond of that expected for that situation, it may point to some imbalance of the results. However, it can have an explanation, that´s why I put the question here. It seems v2.20 DECREASES the effectiveness of large CAP formations, thus making results more unpredictable. This may have influenced those results.



CV vs CV battles are ALWAYS huge gambles for BOTH sides, as it should be in my opinion (remember Midway?).

-In Midway both sides had almost the same number of planes (actually the USA had more planes) and the Japanese were virtually blinded due to lack of recon planes. This was due to SURPRISE, but I don´t know if UV models surprise (as the old Pacific war did).


Players basing their strategies solely on CVs sometimes get incredibly disappointed, when the gamble goes against them, but it's their fault!

-They also may become disappointed when they win battles and have the strange feeling that the thing was not fair.

To say 2.30 favors IJN is to admit you haven't played enough under 2.30. I played PBEM's under 2.30 from both sides, and have seen nothing but defeats for IJN (be it me, or my opponent). Recently, playing as IJN, I lost 2 CVs and CVL (with another 2 CVLs damaged) to inflict only minor damage to USN CVs.

-The question is not who wins, but how. In the three examples I quoted, the IJN was in better shape, but the extremely poor performance of USN wasn´t expected. If it happens one time, it´s ok., but three times in a row.....

Also, playing as USN, I defeated ultra-strong IJN CV TF, when his planes simply REFUSED to attack my CVs (not enough escorts to defeat my super-CAP)

-How many carriers and planes on CAP did you have? This isn´t a...historical outcome, is it? In what historical situation a CV force REFUSED to attack the enemy due to expectation of high losses?

Under 2.30, I've seen like 8-10 IJN CVs go down (mine, and my opponent's), and only 1 USN CV (in my game against Tanaka, he caught Enterprise alone, seeing the end is near, I tried to escape, unloaded the planes, and he managed to sink the thing, not being protected by CAP etc.)

-Again, what were the circumstances?

Why don't you try something somewhat even remotely close to reality instead and use CAP at somewhat realistic values, such as 30%. It never stops amazing me that people continue to throw history out the window and wonder why the game engine does oddball things as a result.

Your pilots fly multiple missions during the day. If you are looking at them and you see 40% average fatigue, by the second air combat phase they are probably in the 60% range, and rather unlikely to fight at all once you take a couple of losses, hence your results of watching your CAP run away after taking some hits. Perfect game engine there. You made the mistake, not the game.

Second example you say that almost 3 of the 5 squadrons of F4F's are flying CAP (I suspect you probably were LRCAP'ing) or running at VERY high %CAP settings to get that many up in the air. Your planes do not attack in gross numbers, yet your (a) don't mention the weather, (b) don't mention search and (c) don't mention fatigue. It is obvious from the %CAP that you were flying very tired pilots once again here, hence the high loss rates. 96 planes showed up to intercept. 5 CV's at 36 planes per CV = 53% CAP on the intercept (so you must have had a MINIMUM of 60% CAP running since not all planes ever make the intercept). 60% CAP = tired pilots. Again, perfectly normal result.

Third example: 100% CAP? There is no 100% CAP option. You mean LRCAP. I suggest you read the manual to learn the major penalty imposed when LRCAP'ing CV's as you might as well ground the planes for all the effectiveness they have. NEVER fly LRCAP over CV's, it's like sticking a kick me sign on your back and turning around.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of your results given how you are using your CV's.

I have never found an option to fly CAP over a CV.

Instead there is an option to fly LRCAP.

If I don't use LRCAP, then how do I protect CVs with fighters?

My only comment would be that air combat is very bloody.

In my estimation, it is too bloody.

That makes a big CAP a force field that can't be penetrated.

Nothing in combat is a sure thing, but a big enough CAP in UV will protect you from everything and anything.

It was more realistic before when bombers could penetrate the CAP, albeit with losses and damage, as opposed to the utter destruction that takes place in 2.3.

There is always the possibility, as chaos is the rule in combat.

And there is no real need for me to check the pilot fatigue level.

Example: the enemy attacks:

Option 1: rest the pilots and watch my CVs sink

Option 2: send tired pilots into the fight and watch my CVs sink

Option 3: retire the CVs and then watch my transports sink (the REAL job of a CV is to provide air support to other ships and to ground troops)

And so it is that the pilot fatigue level seems not so relevant to me.

But I lose every game so I suppose I am missing something.

Originally posted by Joe 98
I have never found an option to fly CAP over a CV.

Instead there is an option to fly LRCAP.

If I don't use LRCAP, then how do I protect CVs with fighters?

You'll notice if a fighter group is set to things like "sweep" or "escort", below the list of missions there's a setting where you can set the % of that group set to "CAP" in 10% increments.

The highest you can set it is 90%; this means 90% of that squadron will fly regular CAP and the other 10% will sweep or escort or whatever.

It's been a game basic since the first version.

LRCAP causes massive fatigue.

This is why you are "losing every game."

Just out of curiousity, how many games have you played not knowing you can set CV fighters to regular CAP instead of LRCAP?

Granted, there have been game aspects I've missed (not covered in the manual) I've only found out reading this board, but this one is pretty basic.

I'm playing the AI as Japan. Threw 3 fresh CV's at 1 U.S. CV. Sure I sank it but 2 of those fresh new CV's are going back to Japan with lots of damage. Just as said above, carrier battles are a crap shoot. I don't think there was anything wrong with my tactics, all fighter squadrons set to 50% CAP and all bombers set to naval attack. It was just one of those days. The AI did surprise me by putting all of his fighters on escort and when my bombers showed up, they were unaposed.

Von Frag

Originally posted by denisonh [/i]
My only comment would be that air combat is very bloody.

-Agree with you

In my estimation, it is too bloody.

-Again I agree

That makes a big CAP a force field that can't be penetrated.

-Don´t agree, CAP can be penetrated in v2.3, maybe it´s easier than in v2.2

Nothing in combat is a sure thing, but a big enough CAP in UV will protect you from everything and anything.

-Hmmmm #2 points to the opposite. My opponent shot down half of my bombers but had 4 CV´s damaged (1 sank latter)

It was more realistic before when bombers could penetrate the CAP, albeit with losses and damage, as opposed to the utter destruction that takes place in 2.3.

-Super CAP is unrealistic because it´s impossible to have all the planes in the air at the same time. It´s necessary to rearm and refuel them periodically, and it must be coordinated with bomber operations. A thing that is sadly missed in UV is the old rule of coordination penalty we had in the old PW. This would make super CV´s TF and super CAP´s ineffective, forcing the palyer to divide the CV´s into two or more TF´s

[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon
Originally posted by Mr.Frag [/i]
Why don't you try something somewhat even remotely close to reality instead and use CAP at somewhat realistic values, such as 30%. It never stops amazing me that people continue to throw history out the window and wonder why the game engine does oddball things as a result.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Hmmm...from what I´ve been reading, USN used CAP around 50-60%. CAP of 30% is an invitation to disaster. One of my opponents set CAP to 30% and lost 3 CV´s plus 1CVL in one battle. I used 70% CAP with no losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your pilots fly multiple missions during the day. If you are looking at them and you see 40% average fatigue, by the second air combat phase they are probably in the 60% range, and rather unlikely to fight at all once you take a couple of losses, hence your results of watching your CAP run away after taking some hits. Perfect game engine there. You made the mistake, not the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Fatigue in my game as USA was around 40%. It´s ok. I don´t complain about the results. However, they run away in the 1st
combat phase, not in the second.
My enemy in battle#3 reported that their fatigue was in high 20´s and low 30´s. This don´t explain why they run away in the first wave (despite a good performance, they shot more A6M´s than suffered losses). Still I don´t think fatigued pilots will simply run away in any circumstances when defending their home carriers. They can have poor performance, but running away???? To a carrier that they know will be sunk if they don´t stand and fight? Sorry, there is no perfect game engine here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second example you say that almost 3 of the 5 squadrons of F4F's are flying CAP (I suspect you probably were LRCAP'ing) or running at VERY high %CAP settings to get that many up in the air. Your planes do not attack in gross numbers, yet your (a) don't mention the weather, (b) don't mention search and (c) don't mention fatigue. It is obvious from the %CAP that you were flying very tired pilots once again here, hence the high loss rates. 96 planes showed up to intercept. 5 CV's at 36 planes per CV = 53% CAP on the intercept (so you must have had a MINIMUM of 60% CAP running since not all planes ever make the intercept). 60% CAP = tired pilots. Again, perfectly normal result.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Are you talking about #2. I don´t know what was the CAP% of my enemy. I estimate something near 70%. I can ask him if you want. Note that in this battle, his CAP did very well. He wasn´t LR-CAPing. I don´t mention variables related to my enemie´s bombers because I don´t know them, but he had 180 SBD´s, it´s impossible that all of them were on search. Time was ok to attack my CV´s, since it was ok to allow me to attack theirs....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third example: 100% CAP? There is no 100% CAP option. You mean LRCAP. I suggest you read the manual to learn the major penalty imposed when LRCAP'ing CV's as you might as well ground the planes for all the effectiveness they have. NEVER fly LRCAP over CV's, it's like sticking a kick me sign on your back and turning around.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Hmmm..the penalty for flying LR-CAP over own CV´s seem to be around 50% (plus fatigue). This explains why my enemy in#3 had only 50% F4F´s in his CAP. Still don´t explain why these remaining 74 run away, for the reasons explained before. I never use LR-CAP over CV´s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of your results given how you are using your CV's.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-It´s not me, pay attention. I won 2/3 engagements..... I´m complaining mainly from some victories I feel are not legitimate....so do you think I can be happy with them?

>>CV vs CV battles are ALWAYS huge gambles for BOTH sides, as it should be in my opinion (remember Midway?).

>In Midway both sides had almost the same number of planes (actually the USA had more planes) and the Japanese were virtually blinded due to lack of recon planes. This was due to SURPRISE, but I don´t know if UV models surprise (as the old Pacific war did).

They were not surprised in a sense "oh, look, there's some US carriers around" - ie. they expected US to attack them (be it with carriers or with landbased planes) they just couldn't find USN CVs in time to strike first. "Surprise", as you say, may explain the relative uneffectiveness of IJN strike, but not the fantastic results actually achieved by USN strike. In "UV terms" - Midway would be just another of the outcomes that would prop mega-long thread like this one you started, despite being very "historic" - that's what I am trying to say.

>>Players basing their strategies solely on CVs sometimes get incredibly disappointed, when the gamble goes against them, but it's their fault!

>They also may become disappointed when they win battles and have the strange feeling that the thing was not fair.

I never have that feeling when I win (OK this is joke).

>>Also, playing as USN, I defeated ultra-strong IJN CV TF, when his planes simply REFUSED to attack my CVs (not enough escorts to defeat my super-CAP)

>How many carriers and planes on CAP did you have? This isn´t a...historical outcome, is it? In what historical situation a CV force REFUSED to attack the enemy due to expectation of high losses?

I had three carriers in a single TF, with mucho CAP (80 or 90%). He had many many carriers and CVLs, but he divided them into many smaller TFs (ummm, like IJN actually used to do). It seems they couldn't coordinate strikes among various TFs, so some of the TFs sent strikes against my transport TF that was nearby, and some didn't send strikes at all, as they were pasted before they could send the strikes. Results were devastating for IJN.

I guess had he actually sent *uncoordinated* strike(s) against my 90% CAP he'd be slaughtered anyway. Historic? I wouln't know. But I woudn't like to be in an unarmored torpedo bomber attacking into 100+ CAP, that's for sure.

Also, he should have put his Zeros to like 30-40% CAP max. IJN player MUST try to give his unarmored bombers proper protection and escort, he MUST play very offensively, even if it means less protection for his ships. 30-40% CAP is the way to go for IJN. 80-90 for USN. If USN player plays pseudo-offensively, with 30% CAP, he will lose, and lose badly, perhaps that is the reason for the results you complain about? But if USN player plays defensively and puts 80% CAP - in most cases he will do good. His bombers are much more resillient than IJN's, so they may survive even without fighter escort. IJN's can't.

Oleg

/// “Just out of curiosity, how many games have you played not knowing you can set CV fighters to regular CAP instead of LRCAP?”

Every game I have ever played since about June last year – 10 months or so.

I really want fighters to fly “air defence over the carriers” but there is no such order.

So, as my carriers are in the middle of the ocean, what should I do? Are you saying I should fly a Sweep mission over an ocean hex with 90% set to CAP?


/// “LRCAP causes massive fatigue”

Why? How is this different to flying a Sweep mission over a hex in the middle of the ocean? Does a Sweep mission over 100 miles of empty sea cause less fatigue than a LRCAP mission over 100 miles of empty sea?

Whilst I am knowledgable in land combat, you can see my knowledge of CV combat hovers around NIL. But the principles are the same.

Got something against Escort with 30% Cap?

If no strikes fly, fighters sit on the ship and rest, only 30% will be tired. If strikes do fly, they fly with enough escort to punch through anything and get bombs on target.

One always needs to be aware of the replacement pool rates. Fighters come in at 60 a month, bombers at 20. You can replace 3 fighters for each bomber. Take the losses on the fighter side.

I wouldn't go beyond 50% CAP as you will end up with pilots who are completely useless as they are too tired to fight from the way UV handles fatigue. A 0% fatigue pilot will engage 10 aircraft and vs a 40% fatigue pilot MAY run away when his buddy gets shot down. Fatigue is a major force mutipler, the lower side generally wins even though the numbers would seem illogical.

I have had 2 CV's running 30% Cap with rested crews hold off 3 CV's worth of air strikes without a problem. You guys seem to run MUCH higher CAP yet STILL take the same hits. The difference is that my 70% ESCORT just MOPPED the other CV's off the planet and all my bombers engaged. Historical CAP was at best 10% during this time period as they really didn't have the ability to manage air cover overhead effectively.

Originally posted by Joe 98
/// “Just out of curiosity, how many games have you played not knowing you can set CV fighters to regular CAP instead of LRCAP?”

Every game I have ever played since about June last year – 10 months or so.

I really want fighters to fly “air defence over the carriers” but there is no such order.

So, as my carriers are in the middle of the ocean, what should I do? Are you saying I should fly a Sweep mission over an ocean hex with 90% set to CAP?


/// “LRCAP causes massive fatigue”

Why? How is this different to flying a Sweep mission over a hex in the middle of the ocean? Does a Sweep mission over 100 miles of empty sea cause less fatigue than a LRCAP mission over 100 miles of empty sea?

Whilst I am knowledgable in land combat, you can see my knowledge of CV combat hovers around NIL. But the principles are the same.

Put your CV fighter squadrons on escort, then assign the percentage you want for CAP. If your torpedo planes and dive bombers are not flying offensive missions, your fighters will provide the percentage of cover you specify while giving some pilots rest in between their turns at CAP. Just remember that higher percentages assigned to CAP result in higher fatigue and running CAP all the time means tired fighter pilots when you get into a battle - both for escort and CAP purposes. When you are convinced that it is safe to do so, stand down your fighters to let the pilots rest, but remember that, if you are wrong, you're gonna get hit by attacks that meet no CAP.

There's a little art, a little science, and a lotta guesswork to handling your carrier air assets. You have to play around with it a lot before you start finding things that work, and there are never solutions that are perfect in all situations. Altitude assignments, for example, are a semi-mystical experience all in themselves.

Thank you.

There seem lot be a lot more variables than an infantry assault with air/naval/armour in support.

There seem lot be a lot more variables than an infantry assault with air/naval/armour in support

The big difference is quite simple and yet the hardest thing to deal with. You KNOW where YOUR target is with an Assault. It is not playing hide and seek with you, causing your pilots to get tired flying around defending against nothing, causing you to loose sleep waiting for your turn to be returned in the mail.

An assault is generally a well planned action. You might not always win, but at least you had the chance to plan

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [/i]

They were not surprised in a sense "oh, look, there's some US carriers around" - ie. they expected US to attack them (be it with carriers or with landbased planes) they just couldn't find USN CVs in time to strike first. "Surprise", as you say, may explain the relative uneffectiveness of IJN strike, but not the fantastic results actually achieved by USN strike. In "UV terms" - Midway would be just another of the outcomes that would prop mega-long thread like this one you started, despite being very "historic" - that's what I am trying to say.

>>The overall results in Midway were largely due to surprise, because the IJN CV´s were caught before they launched their first strike on CV group. The absence of reliable information on CV´s position led Nagumo to hesitate and use his flight decks as depot for ammunition an planes....had the IJN located the main US force and striked at the same time, the result would be probably a draw with 2 CV´s lost for each side, because (1) A massive attack of the well trained IJN pilots would probably have sunk both the Hornet and the Enterprise and (2) Akagi would probably had survived the SBD attack if her decks were empty (she took only 2 bombs). So I think recon information counts a lot, but it isn´t modeled in UV. And of course, Midway was very historical, it was the only of four 1942 battles that ended with the anihilation of one side (but the winner side still lost a carrier). In my 8 human vs. human CV battles in long campaigns, there were six that ended with the total anihilation of one side withouth ANY losses to the winner. This is worrying...no almost draw results like East Salomons, Coral Sea or Santa Cruz? It maybe that some serious mistakes were commited by one side, but it maybe that the engine is prone to overestimate the effect of fatigue too?



>How many carriers and planes on CAP did you have? This isn´t a...historical outcome, is it? In what historical situation a CV force REFUSED to attack the enemy due to expectation of high losses?

I had three carriers in a single TF, with mucho CAP (80 or 90%). He had many many carriers and CVLs, but he divided them into many smaller TFs (ummm, like IJN actually used to do). It seems they couldn't coordinate strikes among various TFs, so some of the TFs sent strikes against my transport TF that was nearby, and some didn't send strikes at all, as they were pasted before they could send the strikes. Results were devastating for IJN.
I guess had he actually sent *uncoordinated* strike(s) against my 90% CAP he'd be slaughtered anyway. Historic? I wouln't know. But I woudn't like to be in an unarmored torpedo bomber attacking into 100+ CAP, that's for sure.

>Hmmm...that´s really a bad mistake to divide fleets, on the other hand, I woul like to see coordination penalties for Super CV TF´s.

Also, he should have put his Zeros to like 30-40% CAP max. IJN player MUST try to give his unarmored bombers proper protection and escort, he MUST play very offensively, even if it means less protection for his ships. 30-40% CAP is the way to go for IJN. 80-90 for USN. If USN player plays pseudo-offensively, with 30% CAP, he will lose, and lose badly, perhaps that is the reason for the results you complain about?

>No, actually USN has CAP of 90% in #1, 60-70% in #2 and LR-CAP in #3. CAP did a good job only in #2.

But if USN player plays defensively and puts 80% CAP - in most cases he will do good. His bombers are much more resillient than IJN's, so they may survive even without fighter escort. IJN's can't.

>Agree with you, we need higher levels of escort for IJN and higher levels of CAP for USN. I use CAP 50% for IJN and 70% for USN. It worked very well, up to now. The only battles I lost against a human were those where I in´t follow this rule (I started to follow it after my second human vs human CV battle, where I lost 6 carriers). I don´t rely on small levels of CAP covering IJN CV´s, if the USN attacks with more than 100 SBD´s, results are devastating. On the other hand 50% escorts give the IJN bombers a reasonable survival chance.