Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval Attack

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Naval Attack Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 7:11:01 AM   
baldbrother

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Why are all units given Naval attack orders under computer control? Why can't I specify what TF,or part of, to attack
Post #: 1
RE: Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 7:29:41 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: baldbrother

Why are all units given Naval attack orders under computer control? Why can't I specify what TF,or part of, to attack

Because, unlike other targets, they move.

_____________________________


(in reply to baldbrother)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 11:12:40 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		I'd love to have switch/option to choose priority TF target for my bombers though. I hate when they fly against distant combat TF when Amphibious TF is landing division right next to their base...

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 3
RE: Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 2:01:12 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Ever since WITP was released, this feature has been asked for.
"CARRIER STRIKE" by Mr Grigsby allowed the player to send his planes against a particular sighting, and not finding it, an option was given to "loiter" for another look, or to move to another sighting, (or return home).
Some folks have tried to explain "ship ID problems" are why planes cannot be delegated, but carrier pilots sure as hell know what carriers look like,IT's WHERE THEY LIVE, so of course they should know a carrier from cruiser,etc.
Yeah, I too would love the ability to delegate my strikes, if not by distance,or threat, by TF type..

_____________________________




(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 4:23:19 PM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Ever since WITP was released, this feature has been asked for.
"CARRIER STRIKE" by Mr Grigsby allowed the player to send his planes against a particular sighting, and not finding it, an option was given to "loiter" for another look, or to move to another sighting, (or return home).
Some folks have tried to explain "ship ID problems" are why planes cannot be delegated, but carrier pilots sure as hell know what carriers look like,IT's WHERE THEY LIVE, so of course they should know a carrier from cruiser,etc.
Yeah, I too would love the ability to delegate my strikes, if not by distance,or threat, by TF type..


All bomber/scout pilots and gunners were trained in ship and aircraft observation. But at certain angles, and distances it is very hard to tell what something it beyond that it makes a very large wake. For example,

ID the type of ship.






This is a picture from the mid-70's of an F-8 Crusader with a Soviet Bear bomber over the USS Orskiany at approximately 15k feet in the air. This was shot from the wingman of the F-8 with a standard 35mm Single Lens Reflex camera.

Try this one, try and ID this Ship by at least type.




Same situation as above but from a different angle. This time it is dead ahead of the USS Orskiany.

Here is another test for you. Count all the Carriers tied up at the piers here at this US Naval Base. THis was shot via a RF-8G from 20k as a direct overhead shot.

Link to the high-res version:http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/1987/Navy/DN-SN-87-08973.JPEG




Correct Answer is two. The other one flight deck ship is a then brand-new Tarawa class LHA.


Trying to observe a fleet, Dead reckon your postion, and keep from being observed is a pain the buttocks. On top of that trying to correctly ID types and numbers can be a pain the buttocks as well. Once you are spotted, well then that just increases the pucker factor ten-fold. Even cooler is to try and observe and report on blobs that are low on the horizion in a mild fog or haze.

< Message edited by YankeeAirRat -- 3/5/2007 5:34:27 PM >

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 5:12:25 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		Yankee Air Rat,

Add to that the natural tendency for most people to exaggerate or over-estimate, particularly in high stress situations.  For example maybe, a naval search mission in contested waters when you think their might be enemy about.  Suddenly, oilers become carriers, cruisers become battleships, etc.



_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 6
RE: Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 7:20:48 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"Some folks have tried to explain "ship ID problems" are why planes cannot be delegated, but carrier pilots sure as hell know what carriers look like,IT's WHERE THEY LIVE, so of course they should know a carrier from cruiser,etc."

Then why did the Japanese carrier bombers attack the fleet oiler Neosho at Coral Sea when they were sent after our carriers?


BTW, Y.A.R., I can at least ID that naval base as Norfolk...

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 3/5/2007 7:35:54 PM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 7
RE: Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 11:36:31 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Mis-Identification and incorrect or exagerrated estimates of total enemy force can be complex. Even more so due to poor weather, misinterpreted/missed reports due to poor radio/telegraph reception, poor search doctrine, or even the poor execution of good Search Doctrine.

One only has to look at the Coral Sea where the Tanker Neosho was launched upon to realize that before a strike lead can decide for himself that the target is worth attacking (ie a CV TF vice Tanker or Battelship) there is a whole series of assessments and decisions to launch a strike in the first place. All of these prerequisites have to be met correctly BEFORE a strike lead gets to make his decision. And THAT is assuming that he finds the intended contact at all.

If you have a CV Air Group that fails to attack an enemy CV TF within range of targeting and you instead target the nearby Amphibious group then you are a victim of this ABSTRACTED breakdown in the process somewhere between the predawn launch of search planes and the the Strike lead finding the target. It may very well be that the Strike Lead realizes he has not made contact with the CV TF, but is at the end of his loiter time and CANNOT afford to continue looking for the preferred target, accepts taht someone before him made an error, and settles for any target he can hit rather than schlepping his bombs back home without doing any damage to the enemy.

The sooner people understand, that even if this issue were addressed officially in the future nothing would likely change, the better.

At least I hope not.

< Message edited by TheElf -- 3/5/2007 11:51:47 PM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 8
RE: Naval Attack - 3/5/2007 11:47:34 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Yeah, I too would love the ability to delegate my strikes, if not by distance,or threat, by TF type..


I bet Yamamoto said the same thing on the morning of 7 JUN 1942....

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 9
RE: Naval Attack - 3/6/2007 12:51:46 AM   
AdmNelson


Posts: 554
Joined: 5/14/2001
From: New Mexico
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Mis-Identification and incorrect or exagerrated estimates of total enemy force can be complex. Even more so due to poor weather, misinterpreted/missed reports due to poor radio/telegraph reception, poor search doctrine, or even the poor execution of good Search Doctrine.


If you have a CV Air Group that fails to attack an enemy CV TF within range of targeting and you instead target the nearby Amphibious group then you are a victim of this ABSTRACTED breakdown in the process somewhere between the predawn launch of search planes and the the Strike lead finding the target. It may very well be that the Strike Lead realizes he has not made contact with the CV TF, but is at the end of his loiter time and CANNOT afford to continue looking for the preferred target, accepts taht someone before him made an error, and settles for any target he can hit rather than schlepping his bombs back home without doing any damage to the enemy.



My question on this would having different range for yoursearch aircraft make a difference?


_____________________________

Very Proud Marine Dad

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 10
RE: Naval Attack - 3/6/2007 2:03:40 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		Having a different range for your Search aircraft would not make a difference. It has been discussed here plenty of times that the only way to get a successful strike against a carrier group is to have high moral, plenty of fighters to defend the strike package, and some other random factor.
I also think that one of the reasons that Naval Attack in WITP and UV are hard to happen against high value assets is that the strike group really needs to know where the enemy task force is. Something more then the random sighting by a PBY/H6K/SBD/D4Y. I think, that it might be coded that two or three different sightings of the group in the same hex needs to occur before a strike can be launched.
The biggest change that I wish could occur is the player could define search pattern from an airbase or a surface group. That way you could concentrate your searches in the expected area from which the enemy could come from. I have known a few games way back in the DOS era that allowed you to do that.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to AdmNelson)
Post #: 11
RE: Naval Attack - 3/6/2007 6:54:17 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: baldbrother

Why are all units given Naval attack orders under computer control? Why can't I specify what TF,or part of, to attack

Because...

you can't...

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to baldbrother)
Post #: 12
RE: Naval Attack - 3/6/2007 8:27:37 PM   
Zeke

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline 		Compared to naval strike, I hope we can have more control and success rate of surface interception...

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 13
RE: Naval Attack - 3/6/2007 8:44:13 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeke

Compared to naval strike, I hope we can have more control and success rate of surface interception...




A jokester?




(in reply to Zeke)
Post #: 14
RE: Naval Attack - 3/6/2007 9:14:44 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeke

Compared to naval strike, I hope we can have more control and success rate of surface interception...

Yes, you have complete and total control over your surface interceptions. All you have to do is to pick the exact hex your enemy will end the phase in, and you will get your interception. No interference from the software whatsoever.




_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Zeke)
Post #: 15
RE: Naval Attack - 3/6/2007 9:30:55 PM   
Zeke

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeke

Compared to naval strike, I hope we can have more control and success rate of surface interception...

Yes, you have complete and total control over your surface interceptions. All you have to do is to pick the exact hex your enemy will end the phase in, and you will get your interception. No interference from the software whatsoever.





Just too difficult to get a successful interception with my beloved raider ship

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 16
RE: Naval Attack - 3/7/2007 3:41:22 AM   
FAdmiral


Posts: 378
Joined: 12/20/2002
From: Atlanta,GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat
The biggest change that I wish could occur is the player could define search pattern from an airbase or a surface group. That way you could concentrate your searches in the expected area from which the enemy could come from. I have known a few games way back in the DOS era that allowed you to do that.


I have thought about this feature too. 12 search planes given a 360 degree circle
to search. Only 180 deg. actually needs to be searched and you KNOW where
that is. I do remember somewhat a game in the past with the ability to specify
a degree pattern for the planes to search in. Don't recall the name of it....

JIM

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 17
RE: Naval Attack - 3/7/2007 6:41:17 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Carriers At War allowed you to choose which sectors your aircraft would search. It was a choice of N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW. Each airbase (or carrier) that had search aircraft up would have a choice of which secotrs its aircraft would search. Is that the one you remember?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to FAdmiral)
Post #: 18
RE: Naval Attack - 3/7/2007 3:00:03 PM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		I remember Carrier Strike by SSI would allow you to define the search size. However, it use to limit the size base on the number fo search aircraft you readied from your ships. So for example during Coral Sea and you only ready 8 total SBD's from both Yorktown and Lady Lex, then you only got a wedge about 45 degrees in size. The most that you could do for the shore bases was just define the number of search aircraft from the units there and where your wedge was supposed to be placed.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Naval Attack Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.094