Jump to content


Photo

Multi-Carrier Air Strikes


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Bentley

Mike Bentley

    Private

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 03:17 PM

To play the Solomons Campaign my opponent and I have had to learn the air rules. If we read them correctly, carriers in the same group or mission can't combine their aircraft of the same type into one wave. Example: Combine Dive Bombers from two carriers into one wave.Based on what I read in The Shattered Sword, that is realistic for the USN for this time, but not for the IJN.Two questions: 1) Do I understand the rule correctly, and 2) If so, is that accurate for the IJN?

#2 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 27 August 2009 - 09:35 AM

I assume you're referring to the Campaign Air Ops rules? If so, I believe you interpret the rules correctly based on how they are written in 4.5.5:"Squadrons from the same carrier or airfield may form the same wave."It doesn't say "squadrons from the same task force", for example. Now whether they meant something else...I had scratched my head over this a little too. I was working on an Air/Naval Strike Sequence and Display based on - oddly enough - the old SPI game War in the Pacific, though using the GQ3 Campaign Air Ops rules as much as possible. I read the same rules in 4.5.5, and wondered about them too. I thought maybe it might work out if you actually play tested it with single and multiple CV strikes vs. targets with different amounts of CAP and AA. It might be that if you allow waves that are too big, it might overwhelm the AA model, for example. Of course, with a lot of waves, and the limitation of a CAP flight only being allocated against one wave, a lot of waves would tend to overwhelm the CAP vs. Strike model. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to play test my Air/Naval Strike Sequence and Display to see how it all played out.

#3 Mike Bentley

Mike Bentley

    Private

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 27 August 2009 - 02:14 PM

co_diver,Campaign Air Ops, yes, but in section 4.5.3, Campaign Air Movement. In the bulleted paragraph "Air Strike," the last sentence, in italics, says, "Flights launched from different carriers form separate air strikes."I may be prejudiced, since I am going to play the IJN in the campaign, but I think this denies the IJN an advantage they had at that time in the war. I am guessing it is a game balance feature. I would love to hear from the game designer...BTW, instead of War in the Pacific, try USN. Same flavor, but more manageable.Thanks for your reply.

#4 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 27 August 2009 - 02:47 PM

MikeB,You bring up a good point, that the Kaigun airforces may have combined their strikes. I will await a final word for the GQIII rules from the designer, who is currently cruising the Mediterranean. In the meantime, play them as separate strikes, and see what results ensue. In all our playtests of TSC, the first turn or two are dominated by massive carrier battles, while night time sea battles that potentially are more interesting never seem to draw the same kind of interest until later in the game, when the stakes are higher. Let us know how your experience of the game goes.

#5 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 28 August 2009 - 03:14 AM

Well MikeB, I had missed that, but that makes it all the more unambiguous: IAW the rules as written, you will need to separate your multi-CV attacks into seperate strikes.Had a copy of USN once, but don't know what happened to it. Or was it Fast Carriers I had? I forget. I bought WitP back when it first came out in ~1977. A major purchase at the time for a 15 year old. I actually played a few of the smaller scenarios, not recently. It always struck me a little odd that a "monster" game like that had such a detaled, yet elegant, Air/Naval combat system, when the Surface combat system was not that great, and some of the other mechanics (e.g. supply and ground combat) were quite ugly. I did not indulge in the re-release (to the tune of ~$400) from DG.I have, however, fairly recently picked up the computer game(s) from Matrix (I'm waiting for the first patch before I really delve into the new Admiral's Edition). While fun, they do lean a little too much on the micro-management side for my tastes. For example, I can't imagine (yet) playing with fog-of-war enabled. The Intel they provide seems woefully lacking. On the forums, I've seen where people say it's OK, but you have to work at it, plotting stuff every turn. No thanks; I play the game to be Chester Nimitz, not Joe Rochefort.The best part is its given me a couple of ideas for GQ3 scenarios!

#6 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 03 September 2009 - 03:53 PM

poing!

#7 Mike Bentley

Mike Bentley

    Private

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 04 September 2009 - 10:24 AM

Thanks for the replies. We'll play with the rules as written, probably, and see how it goes.

#8 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 20 September 2009 - 09:23 AM

MikeB,Historically, the IJN carriers did combine aircraft from different carriers into a single strike from Pearl harbor on... I would say that they should continue to do so, when the Carriers are operating together.Jim

#9 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 24 September 2009 - 08:35 AM

I agree that historically the IJN usually attempted to coordinate their strikes, both between squadrons on from the same carrier, and between carriers. The USN did too. Unfortunately for them, the abysmal performance of the TBD made it very difficult, unless the strike was much less than at maximum range.All that aside though, I think it's more an issue of the GQ3 Air-to-Surface Combat model being tied to the size of Strikes and Waves to provide a plausible result. Allow a Strike, and/or the Waves within the Strike, to get too big, and you'll have problems.

#10 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 02:42 PM

This is a late reply to your question, but aircraft from the same Japanese task group can form up together to deliver one strike, in one wave. This overrules any contradictory language in The Solomons Campaign since it was common Japanese practice to do so.

#11 Mike Bentley

Mike Bentley

    Private

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 02:20 PM

Poing! to you, too! :-)May start playing finally in late Feb or in March. Have been painting ships....

#12 Mike Bentley

Mike Bentley

    Private

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 02:22 PM

BTW, will you are any Naval-type ODGW folk be at Cold Wars? I plan to attend, and I'd love to talk FtF.Thanks!

#13 Mike Bentley

Mike Bentley

    Private

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 22 January 2010 - 10:59 AM

Thanks for the answer to my question. Once we start playing, I'll post here how it goes wrt this aspect.

#14 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 910 posts

Posted 22 January 2010 - 07:19 PM

BTW, will you are any Naval-type ODGW folk be at Cold Wars? I plan to attend, and I'd love to talk FtF.

ODGW will be at Cold Wars and, according to the PEL, will be running a GQ 3 game (Brit vs German). The main GQ 3 design crew will not be there, though, since we're all out here in Southern California (a bit of a field trip to get to the east cons!). For Historicon, one of the team will be there and possibly a second (that would be me; if I can make it, I plan to run at least one, possibly two games).

#15 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 26 January 2010 - 08:10 AM

MikeB wrote:

BTW, will you are any Naval-type ODGW folk be at Cold Wars? I plan to attend, and I'd love to talk FtF.Thanks!

MikeB,Feel free to send me a note about chatting via VoIP, chat, or Skype. I am not going to Cold Wars, as Coastal noted, but will definitely be at Historicon, barring an act of God. I enjoy talking to all our gamers face to face, and I look forward to seeing you there!

#16 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 29 January 2010 - 05:00 PM

Well I am NOT ODGW, But I plan on being there... glad to talk Jim

#17 Lonnie Gill

Lonnie Gill

    Captain

  • ODGW Staff
  • 295 posts

Posted 01 February 2010 - 12:32 PM

Hereís an even later reply, but now that Iím back in town for a while, I thought it would be useful to add that strikes from multiple Japanese carriers will be added as an optional rule in the upcoming Amendment 2 download for GQ III. (This amendment will, of course be free to GQ III registered owners.)As has been noted in a previous post, the IJN did employ combined strikes from multiple carriers. However, it is not as simple as any group of IJN carriers, any time. This tactic stems from the practice of IJN carrier air groups operating as part of a carrier kokutai (division or squadron) of two, or in a few cases, three carriers rather than as the air group of individual carriers as practiced by the USN and RN. Thus, aircraft from the two carriers of the same kokutai could and did combine, while aircraft from different kokutais did not. Effective combination required common procedures, commanders and, as always, having practiced together for an extended period.Youíll note that this falls in line with the previous post, which allows combination for the same Japanese task group in TSC. The tactic provides a deserved advantage for the IJN, but needs to be tempered to avoid improperly simulating the historic capability and play balance. That translates into some limitations. Thus, it will be an optional rule for those who want to employ the additional detail with the following aspects:1) Limited to two (or rarely) three carriers in the same IJN kokutai. This must be designated in a scenario setup or the Order of Battle for a campaign before beginning a simulation.2) Combining aircraft from separate IJN squadrons requires additional assembly time, resulting in decreasing the Tactical Radius of an attack wave by one 30NM Hex from that shown on the aircraft Formation Card. Attack waves are limited to the same aircraft type.3) This tactic should be used in conjunction with the revised rule Section 4.5.6, which limits IJN AA defense to the target vessel and a maximum of two escorts. While it may seem counter intuitive from 60 years of hindsight, the IJN did not employ the tight AA formations used by the USN and RN. Lacking effective radar and communications for early detection and direction of CAP interceptions, IJN air defense tactics featured dispersion and maneuver with each ship responsible for her own defense.Addition of these doctrinal options and limitations, properly employed, will provide a more detailed simulation. While Amendment 2 is still in work, I would be interested in any feedback from employing these aspects in your games or campaigns.LONNIE

#18 simanton

simanton

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • 147 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 10:45 PM

Possibly related in terms of kokutai designed and trained to operate as a unit, I understand that the reason for the odd "left handed" islands of Akagi and Hiryu was to permit them to operate landing/waveoff patterns that were the mirror image of their consort (Kaga and Soryu respectively). I believe the idea was to have the carriers operating abreast of each other, "Island side to island side" Thus each would have a landing/waveoff pattern which operated away from that of its consort.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users