Battle of the Coral Sea

[Brooke]

Last week, I played in a snapshot involving early-war aircraft and a carrier attack (A6M2's, Vals, Kates, F4F's, SBD's).  It was very fun.  One thing I noted is that the Japanese divebombers and torpedo bombers have a tough time climbing all that high.  Also, if you are too high, you won't spot the carrier group.  If you want it even more thoroughly restricted, you can put in an alt-capping wind layer.

I liked the aspect of having to find the carrier group.  In this case, we were told the sector it was in, and it still took us a while to find it.

As for suicide attacks, there are two things that occur to me.  First, if there were two missions per frame, and if the second mission aircraft numbers were influenced by surviving aircraft from the first mission, that might help.  Second, I'm not sure how survivable attacks on carriers are in Japanese aircraft.  We had about 6 divebombers go in together, and while almost all of us made it in on the carrier, I think none of us made it out.  Mostly, we were shot down by AA on our way out, once we were at lower altitude.  Add more fighter defenses to the mix, and I'm not sure any would get out even if you lessen the AA defenses somehow.

Still, it was very fun.  I really like carrier-to-carrier combat, especially if you don't know the enemy's exact location and have to find him and especially if surviving a mission would involve landing back on the carrier deck.

It would be most fun if each side is working to hit the enemy carrier or carriers while trying to defend their own.  That way, you don't just hang out near your carrier and wait for the slow divebombers to lumber in.

[SilverFox]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The only real issues I see with doing CS next are:

- 2 early-war Pacific events back to back.
- The general unpopularity of early-war Pacific.
- Special rules needed to prevent MA-style anti-shipping attacks (since we are in the pre-Kamikaze era at this point of the war).

The first two issues can be helped with pre-event promotion and getting things like patches and prizes worked into the offering.

I agree with the first and second issues, but I think they can be overcome as noted.  

The rules are written.  And with plenty of scenario experience, and a fresh one (Rangoon 42) to contemplate, I designed in rules that give the COs plenty of room to operate.  There is a tight plane attrition rule that pretty much governs the deployment.  Expending valuable aircraft on suicide attacks would all but ensure defeat.  

Coral Sea was written as "What If" because most of the decisions and resultant actions were guesswork, and mis-calculation.  Any one of several elements that contributed to this battle could have fallen on either side of the fence.  Its well researched, it has "fun factors" built in, and it only needs a chance.


SF

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Brooke
Last week, I played in a snapshot involving early-war aircraft and a carrier attack (A6M2's, Vals, Kates, F4F's, SBD's).  It was very fun.  One thing I noted is that the Japanese divebombers and torpedo bombers have a tough time climbing all that high.  Also, if you are too high, you won't spot the carrier group.  If you want it even more thoroughly restricted, you can put in an alt-capping wind layer.

There are a few things that go on in most of the early war Pacific carrier duels that I've been a part of (And I have spent a good deal of time working on the problems). The race to the sky is an interesting issue, because as you mention, if the Attackers come in too high, they will have a very hard time locating the fleet. At the same time though, if the CAP climbs too high, they will give away the location of the fleet.

One way that players have attempted to keep the CAP lower, is to send the Torpedo strikes in NOE. This almost always results in 100% losses in the Torpedo forces, but does occupy the CAP for about 45 seconds

Anyhow, with short ICON ranges, I think that either side could use enough feints and draws to keep the CAP honest. It has also been my experience that even if the CAP has an alt advantage, once the strike force locates the CV, the bombers will get through.

As far as survivability goes, there are a few things that can be handled there. The first is to bring down the lethality of the ship ack. The second is to manually remove some of the 5" turrets from the fleets.  

If and when this goes forward, I'll dig out the data on the different fleet gun setups we used in the CAP event, they ranged form MA standard (buthery) to waaaay too easy (2 vals dropped, got hits and flew out on the deck without getting killed lol)

-Sik

[68falcon]

The Carriers where positioned close togehter. The thinking being that the IJN knowing what sector the enemy carrier was in would have the opportunity for a fast , quick strike. This would negate the altitude grabbing and cause a more realistic battle. So much for that idea the Zekes went Northeast into 12,6 and then south to the carrier which was in 12,7. The attack force went south to the very bottom of 10,8 and then east and with some timely bulletins and intercepted radio messages (I like to think so)  they turned North at 10,8,2.
The Zekes where engaged by the Allied fighters north of the carrier and where all shot down in sector 12,6. Due to the fact that the Zekes are faster then the bombers the allies had time to engage, fight and fly almost a full sector back to there carrier and establish a CAP before the IJN bomber attack. Some of the IJN did get through and hit the carrier causing substantial damage. Unfortunately not enough to cause the Lex to sink.

The carier was set to destruct at 1,500 lbs. and the ack was set to .5 both settings are below MA standards.

Maybe by positioning the carriers so close it caused the opposite of the intended effect.

[DoKGonZo]

Using bar-dar and down-wind will keep things playing out at reasonable altitudes.

While Zeke's are pretty fragile, they do have cannons. And cannons can shoot down ships. So I can see where if the Vals could knock out most of the AAA, then the Zeke's could go in and finish the ships off. Since the US has no cannon-armed planes, this is an imbalance which could be exploited.

[SilverFox]

I'm really not concerned about altitudes.   Or putting the ships close together.  In fact, there are plenty of opportunities to use historical tactics on the larger map.  And I see no reason to set the carriers damage capacity any lower than 8K.  In fact its probably better to set it higher, since the loss of a carrier involves the loss of all "non airborne" planes of its compliment.  In addition, all planes must recover on a friendly carrier or be lost to attrition.  Sacrificing planes will tip the balance in the NME's favor.

There are many questions that I'll need answered.  But I'm standing firm on many of the rules.  I'm confident that my CO's can use proven tactics to find Carriers.  

We still don't even know if Coral Sea will be a go this year.

[68falcon]

Oops should have quoted Brooke. (Probably should not have even posted in this thread now that I see the title. It popped up in my email and I posted.) I believe he was commenting on a Snapshot that was run last Thursday. Reply was meant to give him some insight into how it was setup and why. As far as using snapshots as means of formulating scenarios that would be like comparing apples and oranges. Not good

Your scenario Coral Sea is one I am hoping will be scheduled this year

[SilverFox]

Originally posted by 68falcon
 Your scenario Coral Sea is one I am hoping will be scheduled this year

Thank you, sir, for that vote of confidence.

My friends, I realize that everyone has good intentions, and that I may seem a bit defensive on some issues, particularly, since we are not confirmed.  If and when Coral Sea gets a green light, I would make the entire outline accessible for comment, and tweaking where necessary.  Up until a few weeks before the frame.

Coral Sea has a detailed outline that I hope stands as a comprehensive scenario designed to replicate the elements of the original battle.  For instance, the number of planes is identical to the original compliment by squadron.

[FiLtH]

I hope its a go. I cancelled work for 2 months j/k