Matrix Games Forums

While trying out some stuff against the AI there was a carrier battle which puzzled me. The IJN had three CV TFs which had been bombing Shortlands and Lunga. The TFs were all in the same hex (two following one) wherever they went. There were a total of 5 carriers: Yamaguchi had the Akagi, Nagumo had a CV and a CVL and Fujita had a CV and CVL.

The Allies (me) had three CVs in one task force. The Fighters stood down for two days while traveling from Noumea to where the IJN force was situated just west of Guadalcanal - so they were rested. I figured that the Allies should be able to decimate the tired IJN forces. But the local Allied commander had other ideas. The Wildcats were set to escort 60% CAP. The first wave consisted of 3 escort and 30 SBDs which got creamed by 50+ zeros. The second wave was 15 escort and 12 SBDs which got creamed but managed one bomb hit on a CV. The next wave was 0 escort and another 30 SBDs who got nowhere followed by a fourth wave where 18 escorts and 10 SBDs managed to get a hit on a cruiser. The range was 6(?) so the TBDs did not get into the action. The Japanese only sent one wave 60+ escort with who knows how many Vals and Kates. A very successful strike sending one carrier to the bottom and damaging the other two so badly that they could only move at minimum speed and were sunk the next day.

The puzzlement comes in here: three separate (although in the same hex) TFs coordinate a one wave strike with adequate escort while one TF of three CVs sends piecemeal waves with inadequate escort. Why? There were no messages about any aircraft not finding their target etc. so it is quite surprising that the Allied attack would be so haphazard.

Yes It would seem that with separate CV TFs there would be more of a chance of the individual CV strikes becoming separated and especially when the Japanese planes have no radios! How would they co-ordinate into one strike wave? Has to be other factors involved.

Hi, The USN seems to have trouble coordinating strikes early on. (They get better)
The number of escorts you cite would be correct
(3xCV with 36 fighters each=108 total fighters. Minus 60 Percent for CAP would leave 40 Odd fighters and you list 36. So the real problem was it's being uncoordinated.

Try using the CV against a few enemy surface or Transport TF's before fighting your first Carrier Battle. (and don't place more then 2 CV in a TF (The larger IJN strike then has access to all your carriers. By splitting them the enemy may pound the single CV but your remaining 2 might launch a better afternoon strike.

(I also do not like being outnumbered in carriers. I would not have fought that battle. Even though the USN CV are larger
the IJN had 5 carriers. In 3 TF's it's almost certain they would have had further strikes even had you launched 1 large strike.)

Maybe there is a coordination penalty for having many CVs in a single group. I know PacWar had this. If the Allies had more than 2 CV in a group or the Japanese had more than three there was a chance of the strike coming in in waves. Either that, or it has to do with poor allied experience in 1942.

Yamamoto

In the first months of 1942, Allied strikes seem to be badly organized.

So I use my CV to raid easy targets, usually hitting where I 'm sure Japanese CV are not.

Sometimes I will accept a CV battle early (Lex + York against Shok + Zuik + Shoho). Why ? Because the Allied player is usually not doing that in a PBEM.
In this case, I will attack if the Japanese CV are S of NG and I will try to put my CV at 1 or 2 hexes only. At this distance, both sides will send coordinated strikes and Allied torpedo bomber will be there. The usual result of these battles is that all CV are sunk or damaged on both sides. Then subs and LBA may finish the cripples so it may be a good thing if the Allied player is closer to its base. Also Allied planes may divert to land bases where IJN planes and crew will be lost.

In an IJN PBEM, I had another example. Lex and York raided Rossel Island while I had a 3 CV + 1 CVL TF sailing towards Luganville.
I was excepting them to stay there or to retreat to Australia, where they came from. Just in case, I send my CV on pursuit. The US CV retired towards Noumea and both fleets ended on hex near each other !! I sand 1 CV and damaged the other, but he was able to escape at full speed. On the other hand, 3 of my CV were hit hard enough to be sent back to Japan... tactical victory maybe but strategic defeat for sure. The only good thing was that US planes were too far from their airfields and 50 ditched.

One of the CVs had already seen action in the first carrier battle several weeks before. Another one had moved about but never got into range for a strike. And the third was fresh. There were no afternoon attacks as the IJN TF was under a storm cloud.

I usually don't put more than 2 allied CVs in a TF but like I said, I was trying things out. If that caused the lack of coordination then I've learned something from the experiment.

But it seems to me that strikes from one TF would be far more likely to be coordinated than strikes from three TF. The amount of escort was as pointed out about the right number - it is just the fact that 3 escorted 30 and then 15 escorted 12 and then none escorted and then 18 escorted 10. If 15 would have escorted 30 and then 3 escort 12 and then 18 would have escorted 30 and none escort 10 I would not be posting this.

It just seems so illogical. I understand FoW and miscommunication etc. but there are too many times when this type of thing happens. I quit the game against Mogami (pre v2.30) because of a similar situation. Part of that problem (escorting attacks against surface groups and attacking carriers without escort) has been fixed by giving more weight to CVs in allocating attacks. But the escort problem is still there.

EDIT: The difference in number of CVs I did not see as a problem. I figured any IJN advantage would be evened out by the fatigue factor - IJN pilots had been bombing for 3 days straight and the USN pilots were fresh (except for the 20% SBD search).

What you saw is exactly what happens to the first raids of USN during Midway (the TBF of Hornet attacking alone and all shot down). The difference is that IJN was not ready to launch against CV.

Allready seen that in UV where CV were detected only when the planes they launched attacked. The attacked CV TF reacted only in the afternoon phase, after 2-4 attacks of the other side.

It just seems so illogical.

War is never logical. Murphy's rules are often the only that work in wartime.

I like it in UV that what happens is not what you planned before. Exactly like in real WWII. At least when it's not a bug.

You give orders to your TF commanders. Then once contact is done, this guy (played here by AI) will TRY to follow them with the informations he is aware of at the time. He will order his airmen to attack. And this guys will TRY to follow the orders.
In the end, people finish to do illogical things.

Hi, Also we are assuming the strikes were launched in packets. The USN might have launched everything together only it broke up along the way.

Curious if this happens to be related to the skill of the Air TF commander. The better the skill, the better the coordination of strikes?

Need to play with the editor and test out some variations of skills with both TF commanders and ship/commander skill to see which is the important one to watch.

I too have seen USN do some really stupid things with silly little strikes that basically waste planes for nothing yet at other times this does not happen.

There is probably some form of skill check during mission planning that the USN is failing (at a generally higher rate then Japan). The question is what specifically is this skill check looking at to decide whats going to happen and what can we do to improve conditions?

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Also we are assuming the strikes were launched in packets. The USN might have launched everything together only it broke up along the way.

Does UV really do that? Or is this just your guess as to how UV simulates that RL situation? (i.e. rationalization)

"Game" wise i think range and experience of the airgroups are the largest deciders......particularily range. I've been hit with enough large escorted USN strikes to notice it

Same goes for the Japanese. I think their initial exp levels do help them keep cohesiveness better than USN strikes, however if the player attempts to take advantage of the IJN plane's range in order to try to avoid counter-strikes, the player will see a greater tendancy of disjointed or even unescorted strikes.

One reason i usually try to avoid that tactic unless i'm heavily outnumbered in carriers. Seen too many good pilots die that way to avenging Wildcats, and the few that get through end up doing little.

The exp factor i believe plays a more signifigant role when multiple carriers are involved and should. Cooridnating strikes from multiple and even single carriers was a challenge for the USN early on, while IJN groups had the edge here because they trained for it.

and IJN carrier planes 'did' have radios. Only the land based Zero's such as Tainen's voluntarily removed their sets during the G campaign. No CAG could do without even marginaly working radios at sea.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people and their perfect plans. I have not been able to figure out the perfect tactic for this game yet and have had some "sure thing" plans get wrecked. Really, this is what makes it so dang fun.