Carrier Rope-a-Dope

[Drex]

There is a carrier tactic being used against me in a current pbem game on which I would like other's opinion. My worthy opponent is grouping his CVs and 'raiding" my bases yet his planes don't attack. When my planes attack his cap is so high I know he is 80-90% CAP. the result is he is eliminating my offensive airpower without risking his. I can't imagine any navy deliberately using its Carriers in a "rope-a-dope" tactic. Am I being too whiney about this?

[Philwd]

Hi Drex,
While I certainly have used decoys covered with lots of CAP I have never used my CVs as the decoy. I never would as I have had too much experience at the receiving end of the last group of 4 dive bombers putting 4 new skylights in my flight decks.

Quark

[Drex]

Decoy TFs were used historically and I use them myself, especially with the CVs "following" to prevent unwanted reaction moves but the "rope-a-dope" is like not playing the the lottery: if you don't play you don't win. In the last turn I lost a hundred planes but sunk the LI and sent one CV back to Pearl and hit another CV. I don't think I got the better of this exchange because I'm almost out of Vals and Kates in this whole game. But I refuse to ground my attack planes.

[Admiral DadMan]

Consider it a reverse "Fighter Sweep".

[spence]

In 1943 with F6Fs and F4Us it would seem to be an ideal way to kill off any remaining experienced IJN pilots. In 1942/early 43 with F4Fs seems a bit dicey to me.

[Drex]

well my question is not as to its effectiveness but to its fairness. Would any commander venture into enemy territiry and intentionally ground his attack aircraft to absorb the enemy's attacks and eliminate the opponents planes? I don't think so.

[Zeta16]

Drex, it's not fair but so many players just play the game to win. They don't look at history they just try to exploit the game. It maybe just me but I try to do everything as close to how things were done then.

[Drex]

Of course. I just want to bring attention to it because it is not an obvious tactic and a player could be a victim and not immediately realize it. The appearance of 100+ CAP with no counterattack is a sure sign the DBs and TBs are grounded. If you then decide to increase your escort and reduce your CAP , the opponent could then decide to launch his planes and catch you with your CAP down.

[Nemo121]

Two options:

1. Leave him for a day or two and then hit him with everything you've got when his CAP is fatigued.

2. Stand down your own bombers such that no strikes are flown against his carriers. You don't HAVE to attack into 100% CAP.

[Drex]

Fffortunately high cap is no guarantee against some planes getting through. At the cost of 100 planes I was able to put the Hornet out of the war and sink the LI but that was a very high price to pay. Yes I could use the same tactic and both of us could cruise around until fuel ran our but how gamey is that? Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Nemo121]

No need to be gamey about it... Waiting a couple of days to hit him so that his CAP fatigues isn't in the slightest bit gamey.

I also never said anything about replicating your opponent's strategy. I merely pointed out that every strategy has its downside and that you could take advantage of that whilst avoiding playing to its strengths.

[Drex]

I see what you are saying. Of course after a couple of days my CAP is tired too but as I am close to my bases I can use their LRCAP while mine is resting oor aat least at a lower level.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Drex

well my question is not as to its effectiveness but to its fairness. Would any commander venture into enemy territiry and intentionally ground his attack aircraft to absorb the enemy's attacks and eliminate the opponents planes? I don't think so.

Drex, think "Marianas Turkey Shoot"

[Drex]

I'm sorry Admiral Dadman but Spruance was protecting an invasion force and he intercepted an attack. I'm talking about a simple raid with a CV force and SCTF with the sole purpose of inviting air attack in order to decimate it with 90-100% CAP. I don't believe this tactic was taught at the Naval War College.

[neuromancer]

Hmm, interesting.

The one thing that is missing from almost every game is the 'Boss' factor.

So he's got his carriers playing 'Rope a Dope'. Okay fine, but is he actually doing anything useful other than killing planes? I'm not sure High Command would consider that an acceptable exchange for the expense and risk. He could still lose his carriers, and they are just floating out there as targets.

Defended targets, but they are still just bait. And they are a tad expensive to use as bait.

Meanwhile, is he doing anything to actually win the war? While he has some major fleet and naval air assets sitting around playing bait and shoot, what is going on in the rest of the operational area?


And has been pointed out, this is hardly a perfect tactic. It is a good defensive tactic, but not perfect. And defensive tactics are only stalling tactics, not winning tactics (belive me, I know).

I see a few counter-tactics that could well prove the error of his ways.

With all his attack planes grounded, he is risking a surface attack. And a cruiser group backed up by a few IJN BBs is probably going to make a real mess of his carrier group. Particularly oif he is stupid enough to sit in a predictable location so you can just zip up in one turn.

If you have enough fighters to escort your bombers, as has been suggested, rest them up for a couple days. Fly only routine CAP over your own base, and then once the planes are adequately rested, hit that group with everything you have.
You raised a concern that maybe he will decide that day to launch an attack on you while all your planes are out on an attack. So what?
You cannot start down that road of second guessing everything. And even if he does attack you, all that happens is your airfield gets bombed out. His carriers get plastered, and your airfields are much easier to repair than his carriers. And if he cannot land his planes, then they die too.
Actually, in that case I would HOPE that he did switch tactics. Because then he loses, you'll lose more planes blasting through his air cover than if they had gone out that day.

Is there some place else to use your bombers? If this is too high risk, do something else! Keep this group of fighters here for defense in case he gets bored and actually decides to attack, and send the bombers off someplace else to cause trouble for a while. Bomb bases, kill ground troops. Hunt invasion forces. Bomb the crap out of things for your own invasions.

The one thing you DON'T do is play his game. He wants you to keep sending your bombers into a meat grinder with an inadequate escort. So that is exactly what you don't do. You either hit him with everything that can fly with the intent of bombing those CVs into scrap metal, thus removing a significant offensive asset so you can now operate more freely. Or you do something else.


I think the reason that this isn't a good tactic is not because it is gamey, but rather because it is just stupid. Too high risk for questionable return.

Decoy tactics like that are a part of military history, but rarely with such expensive units. The tactics you describe the player using are either a sign of desperation, or stupidity.
On the desperation front, the Japanese used empty carriers to scare away USN assets. But if the USN called their bluff, those carriers were dead.



In a game I'm playing the AI has been hitting Port Moseby with bombers with very large escort groups that are making a mess of my CAP. But really, he isn't causing that much harm - I was more worried about him hitting my transports. If he is doing high level bombing, I just let him. And once I get enough aircraft support into Port Moseby, I'll fly in a large level bomber group, and show him what a real bombing mission is!

[Drex]

i would have sent a SCTF against hime except his attack planes are not grounded, just set on "naval attack" but all the fighters are on CAP, so any ships out there without CAP protection will get hit. However I waited him out, then sent all my CVs out with 60% escort and got through his CAP and sank the Hornet, LI and damaged another CV. He won't try that again. Actually my opponent is not stupid but was trying an unhistorical tactic that obviously has its drqwbacks.

[redman1]

If you don't like the Marianas Turkey Shoot, then think of Leyte Gulf when the IJN used its carriers as decoys.

This is just a more radical example of the cap% versus escort% that we all find ourselves in whenever our TF's sortie. But consider the risks your opponent is taking by doing this:

- pilot fatigue (as has been mentioned) leading to greater ops losses
- risk of loss of CV's
- loss of pilots if/when CV's are lost given he's in your territory
- exposure of CV's to surface combat forces and SS's
- exposure of CV's to combo of land-based air and your CV aircraft
- reduced ability to return damaged CV's to friendly ports

If he wants to use a strategic asset purely for tactical gain, then let him. Personally, I'd roll out the red carpet and welcome this crazy tactic. You may lose dozens of planes, but in truth your in a position to jump 1000 victory points or more - not to mention the impact it will have on the strategic level - if he makes any kind of mistake with his CV's.

[neuromancer]

Fair enough.

Would have used more escort (80 or 90%) though, a real battle royale in the air. Try to preserve as much of your bomber strength as possible.


I was also just reading something about obnoxious sized IJN carrier fleets. Ick.

Those would ruoin anyone's day.



Random thought: Why is it in games the standard tactic is to pull everything together in a 'super group', all your carriers, all your planes, whatever. So you have this one huge super offensive force that can go anywhere and kill anything. The only choice for the opponent is to do the same, and then the two meet and fight it out, winner take all.
But historically, that was never done. At least not in the same way as you see in most games.

My first guess would be that organization and logistics would simply be impossible. So something should exist in a game to reflect that.

There were huge bombing groups in the European Theatre - and they took huge losses - but that was level bombers to pulvarize cities. I somehow don't think it would have worked nearly as well against a relatively small target like a carrier group.

There was of course the huge Overleord landing. But that took about a year to plan and get adequate resources in place (and still wasn't guarenteed of victory).

[redman1]

Keep in mind that the Japanese doctrine was built around a showdown between surface forces that would decide the war. Their historical success against the Russians at Tsushima (sp?) greatly influenced them in this regard. This was in part what the Midway operation was based around- indeed, the only reason why the IJN didn't have the full contingent of six CV's for that battle like they'd had for Pearl Harbor was that the Zui and Sho had been dispatched to cover the PM operation and had been put out of action due to depletion of their carrier air groups and bomb damage, respectively. Indeed, the IJN was counting on winning such a showdown in order to defeat the U.S. given Yamamoto's awareness of the U.S.'s industrial strength and corresponding ability to prevail in a protracted conflict.

Later in the war, the Allies amassed enormous fast carrier TF's that sometimes had 10-15 fleet carriers grouped together in mutual support of each other and of landings.

So the "super TF" idea is not so far fetched.

[Drex]

First of all I have to declare that I use Uber -CV TFs but only because the game mechanics force me to. It is impossible to keep multiple CVTFs together for any length of time when the enemy is near. The "reaction move" destroys any integrity a CVTF group has by having the TF with the most aggressive commander split away from the rest to "count coup" against the enemy. Even the "follow another TF" command will not guarantee integrity. All this does is pit a small CVTF againt the larger enemy CVTF and you know what probably will happen. If you try and put a limit on the number of CVs in a TF, that puts the Jpanese at a disadvantage in plane count: which is another good reason for the Japanese to use large CVTFs.