"CAP" Carriers

[Miller]

Is it wise to use light carriers such as Shoho/Zuiho purely as CAP carriers, transferring their attack planes onto the bigger carriers and giving them an airgroup of 30-35 zeroes?

[crsutton]

It is not unwise. It just really depends on your needs. I generally do not transfer airgroups with the Japanese but mix two light carriers with two heavy in the same TF. Sometimes I take an attack group off a large carrier, to move another fighter group on-giving me two groups. I do this when I am supporting a landing and use the extra group for long range cap.

[Blitzer]

Yes this can be a valid tactic. But there are a couple caveats. First, CVLs tend to have a lower speed than their bigger sisters, and this can be an annoying handicap if you intend to use your carrier strike force in a fast mobile role. Crsutton's advice is sound, and especially useful if you are invading a hex, as he indicated. Second however, it can possibly backfire since some enemy bombers inevitably get through unless you muster really overwhelming CAP, and this situation could render your precious ships hors de combat when you would least like.

On an historical note, the USN experimented in 1943 with just the tactics you're proposing, and was disappointed with the results. Subsequently they reverted for the rest of the war to the more traditional and balanced deployment.

In several games I've found it profitable to keep the slower CVLs in a TF of their own behind the main striking TF, and used them to finish off damaged enemy carriers, as well as cover the withdrawal of friendly vessels wounded in CV exchanges.