Matrix Games Forums

I can't find it in the manual (believe me, I looked) but I seem to recall that there is a penalty for more than two carriers in an Allied Air Combat TF in 1942. Is that correct? Anyone know where in the manual it is located? Thanks.



Dave
Logo challenged

ORIGINAL: doktor1957

I can't find it in the manual (believe me, I looked) but I seem to recall that there is a penalty for more than two carriers in an Allied Air Combat TF in 1942. Is that correct? Anyone know where in the manual it is located? Thanks.



Dave
Logo challenged

I believe it should be around page 130.

Dont believe the penalty is, per say, for number of Aircraft carriers, rather the rule is about uncoordinated airstrikes. Anything over 100 increases the uncoordination and then it just gets worse the more aircraft you send. This drops as time passes ( or rather the number of aircraft to be uncoordinate grows so more aircraft can fly together)

ORIGINAL: doktor1957

I can't find it in the manual (believe me, I looked) but I seem to recall that there is a penalty for more than two carriers in an Allied Air Combat TF in 1942. Is that correct? Anyone know where in the manual it is located? Thanks.



Dave
Logo challenged

Section 7.2.2.11

As I said, number of aircraft not specifically number of carriers ( though obviously they are related)

In 1942 any American CV with any other CV or CVL will be over 100 aircraft if full strength. In 1943 2 American carriers can generally operate together. Starting in 1944 and after 2 CV and a CVE or CVL can function together before tripping the poor coordination check.

The Japanese have smaller aircraft capacity but 6 fleet carriers together will trigger a check.

So just to clarify, I should only have 1-2 CV's in a given carrier task force. Now can i have multiple task forces in teh same hex, say 4 TF's with a CV in each one? Is that still effective or should I keep 4 CV's in 4 separate hexes? etc

thanks!

1-2 CV in a task force, all TFs in the same hex ( the CAP for each TF is added together - so all fighters defend each TF). Not true IRL but thats the way the game mechanics work lol

Actually in all the games I've been playing ( 2000+ PBEM turns over the past 20 months ) the primary tactic for USN carrier has become single CV Task force ... this preserves them in the face of the "penalty" ... and yes most definitely they can operate in same hex ... this is key element of the tactic ... if you want to do this .. I suggest practicing against AI ... I used May 42 start ... run all carriers on both sides out to area between Kwaj and Johnson Is ... and then save and then you can fight carrier battles ad nauseum ... try IJN death start against one USN death star ( a few times ) and then start over with USN in a group of single CV TFs ... and repeat everything .. you'll see a big difference in survivability of USN CV ...

Use slowest CV TF as the "lead" and have the others follow ... I put all on patrol else faster ones sometimes "return to base" and get one hex out ... the system isn't perfect ... sometimes ... on TF might be in wrong hex ... but still in many many cases ... all are in one hex ... IJN will have to fight all cap and get only bomb one CV for each time through flak ... and USN has plenty of escorts ... someplayers even use slow BB group in the mix as the lead and as a decoy ... also some player add extra ( marine ) fighters to max out the fighters - probably only necessary fairly early in the war ...

But you will fight like you train .. so practice the technique before using in real PBEM .. you only get about 1 chance in real PBEM and if you screw it up ... oh well ... you have to wait until the next game !

I believe the limit ot avoind the penalty is:

Allies: 100 in 1942
150 in 1943
200 in 1944 or later

Japan 200 at all times.

The numbers may be a little off but the important thing I remember is that at the end the Allied numbers are the same as Japan's number (which is the same always). It stands out in my memory because it's one of the few areas when Japan starts with an advantage and, though it is eventually eliminated, they never actually end up with a disadvantage.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think very highly of the Allied Coordination penalty (for various reasons), but it is what it is.

It also works both ways.

Having a "spoiler" flight or two of unescorted, or lightly escorted bombers can be useful. The effectiveness of CAP degrades dramatically with every attack (even if the CAP slaughters everything). If you're Allies, and lucky enough to lead with one or two spoiler strikes with only a FEW aircraft, this will dramatically reduce the effectiveness of Japanese CAP. When the "the main attack" comes in, against disrupted CAP, and takes far fewer losses.

It not something that you can plan, it's just a crap-shoot. And of course, you're just a likely to get a massive formation of SBDs that is lighty escorted (in which case, it's time to cry).

But if you're going up against veteran KB CAP, you're going to take substantial losses whether you're coordinated or not. So again, if you are able to lead with some smaller, uncoordinated strikes, it sufficiently disrupts CAP to get more bombers thru on the main (coordinated) strike.

[* shrug *]

-F-

ORIGINAL: Feinder

To be perfectly honest, I don't think very highly of the Allied Coordination penalty (for various reasons), but it is what it is.

I hear you. Penalize the allies for their problems at Midway, but don't reward them for their luck at Midway. The game allows the destruction of the TBD flights, but does not allow the surprise of the SBD's.

Oh well. It is what it is.

ORIGINAL: Feinder

To be perfectly honest, I don't think very highly of the Allied Coordination penalty (for various reasons), but it is what it is.

It also works both ways.

Having a "spoiler" flight or two of unescorted, or lightly escorted bombers can be useful. The effectiveness of CAP degrades dramatically with every attack (even if the CAP slaughters everything). If you're Allies, and lucky enough to lead with one or two spoiler strikes with only a FEW aircraft, this will dramatically reduce the effectiveness of Japanese CAP. When the "the main attack" comes in, against disrupted CAP, and takes far fewer losses.

It not something that you can plan, it's just a crap-shoot. And of course, you're just a likely to get a massive formation of SBDs that is lighty escorted (in which case, it's time to cry).

But if you're going up against veteran KB CAP, you're going to take substantial losses whether you're coordinated or not. So again, if you are able to lead with some smaller, uncoordinated strikes, it sufficiently disrupts CAP to get more bombers thru on the main (coordinated) strike.

[* shrug *]

-F-

BTW I was leaving my "feelings" about the "Allied Coordination Penalty" out of the discussion - I've voiced those vociferously in a number earlier threads - I was just going with the "since it is there - what do you do about it" idea !

BTW I was leaving my "feelings" about the "Allied Coordination Penalty" out of the discussion - I've voiced those vociferously in a number earlier threads - I was just going with the "since it is there - what do you do about it" idea !


[;)][:D][:D]

Day-um, you even spelled it right.[;)]

Erm, what do you do about it (besides use appropriately-sized TFs)?

"TOP SECRET"[:D][;)]

Hmmm.. would this be an undocumented 'feature' in UV too?

No Simon, it was added to WitP and not back filled into UV.

It's all about fleet composition.[;)]