|
Post by brygun on May 1, 2024 14:08:04 GMT -6
For reference Im using a doctrine of:
1 BX = best battle line, at the main combat 2 BX = 2nd best, usually with 1 BX 3 BX = older homewaters though may be used for a remote colony snatch of an poorly defended sea zone 4 BX = Reserve, often in mothballs, very outdated more of a backup.
Then
1 CV = Support BX 1 = biggest 1-3 CV 2 CV = Support BX 2 = 2nd biggest 3 CV = Support BX 3 = oldest, CVL tend to end up here 4 CV = Support BX 4 = very old, might not have any, maybe the CVL
There may be some CL divisions assigned to 1 BX, 2 BX or to sea zones.
CAs... some games I have them using them as independents "pocket fleet" with no attached DDs. The CA might be sent to a sea zone I have regional DDs in.
I then assign a DD division for each BX Div trying to keep them at 6 destroyers. For the CV they get 2-3 DD most some HAA and submarine screening. A few sea zones get supporting DD divisions. The DD for 1 BX is constantly rotated with the newest best DDs rotating into the DD for 2 BX and so on.
If I want to fight a big fight away from my home waters I send a choice of BX #1 - #3 and that moves the CV, CLs and DDs with them. CAs being used independently might join or already be there.
>>>
Tactically
Now what I found for this game is it just loooooves to rip apart my destroyer formations to mass them around the CVs not the BBs the way I want.
I used to play on Rear Admiral mode but this round switched to Captain's Mode. At least I can manually steer the moved DDs over to the BBs.
As for the CVs since the planes have very long ranges the CVs being in one division or several generally has little impact on the tactical battles.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 15, 2024 8:48:43 GMT -6
Original US doctrine in WW2 was to operate carriers singly or in twos. The belief was that fighter and AA cover were ineffective, so an enemy strike would cripple/sink a carrier. By dispersing they hoped some carriers would remain undetected and thus escape damage. Japanese doctrine was based on groups of four, with CAP from carriers able to defend the group, all escorts available for AA fire (and protection from a surface force) and each carrier able to launch strikes with similar arrival-on-target times.
In general, Japanese carrier doctrine worked better (leaving aside the Midway surprise - which was an intelligence and planning failure and not one of carrier operations). The US realized by Eastern Solomons that Japanese strikes could be detected, intercepted by CAP and deterred (or shredded) by massive AA fire. As soon as the Essex and Independence classes started joining the fleet the US started using the four-carrier task-force.
In my opinion, spreading out your forces with scattered scouting and support groups is just asking to be struck piecemeal. Once I have a carrier arm, I use my floatplane-equipped CAs for scouting and carrier escort and keep a BC or fast-BB force ready if surface action is unavoidable. I hate, detest, abhor and revile the detaching of a single carrier as 'support' (RE: sacrificial lamb) for a battle line.
If my gun-ships are too far away for the carriers to provide CAP, then I'm too exposed for one carrier's fighters to help. Aircraft will scout better than surface ships unless visibility is low, so I try not to detach a scouting force.
Ideally, concentration of force gives concentration of attack, since planes moving a similar distance should arrive at roughly similar times. A massive strike works better than a number of small piece-meal attacks... and the more fighters you can surge overhead, and the more AA you have at the critical spot, the better defended you are.
|
|