Naval Air Attacks against Transport TF's (or lack thereof)

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 Air Attacks against Transport TF's (or lack thereof)

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Naval Air Attacks against Transport TF's (or lack thereof)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Naval Air Attacks against Transport TF's (or lack thereof) - 9/3/2002 1:58:28 AM

Badger

Posts: 29
Joined: 8/16/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I am currently playing scenario 17 as the Allies against the Japanese AI, and I have noticed that there is a serious lack of Naval Air Attacks against Transport TF's. The Japanese have not launched a single air attack against the many Transport TF's I have supplying Port Moresby, even though the TF's sit in Port Moresby for a couple of turns unloading supplies. I have also never seen any of my aircraft at Port Moresby attack a Japanese Transport TF, even though I have spotted numerous TF's supplying Gili Gili, Buna and Lae. My aircraft all have high moral, low fatigue and are set to primary Naval Attack and secondary Rest.

Is this situation uncommon or is there something I am doing wrong?

_____________________________

Liberals believe that the further a political philosophy is from reality, the more morally pure it is.

Post #: 1

- 9/3/2002 2:17:14 AM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Badger
well I am playing scen 14 as the Allies, and while I don't seem to attack every ship I see comeing into Lea, I have hit a few of them, and a relief force comeing into Buna, got nailed from PM, gili gili and goodenough

also put a hurting on a bombardment fleet that came to call at Buna, only put some dents into the 2 BB's, but got a CA and CL smoking pretty good (chased them out of there just as my transport came in the next day :))

so maybe it is the luck of the draw, but I seem to be makeing attacks on them

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 2

- 9/3/2002 3:01:29 AM

BPRE

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline

Hi Badger,

I'm in an early scenario 17 as US vs the AI and sofar the AI bombed one of my TFs in Port Moresby
and I've managed 2 or 3 attacks against TFs going to Lae.

I suspect that in my case the lack of further attacks (AI bombs Port Moresby itself more often but not the ships) could be because it hasn't found them when searching.

Regards
BPRE

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 3

- 9/3/2002 7:49:42 AM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Put your LBA on 20% naval search, like SBD's in the fleet, and you might have better luck. You might even add those Hudsons and Beaforts to the seach. If ya can't see'm ya can't hit'm!

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 4

- 9/3/2002 11:10:01 AM

Badger

Posts: 29
Joined: 8/16/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Capt Cliff,

I have found many Transport TF's, but my planes have attacked none of them. Your idea about putting LBA on 20% naval search is a good idea though. Perhaps if I spot more TF's I will get some air strikes. Thanks for the suggestion.

_____________________________

Liberals believe that the further a political philosophy is from reality, the more morally pure it is.

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 5

- 9/4/2002 11:47:57 AM

Top Cat

Posts: 157
Joined: 8/26/2002
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline

I just had the reverse experience in a PBEM game (using version 1.4).

Had 2 CV's and a CVL (Japanese).

About 60 miles away were 2 lone transports.

About 210 miles away were ~15 transports and a few destroyers.

Also about 210 miles away were 2 spotted and named American carriers.

The result :

1st attack : 21 Kates at the 2 lone transports.

2nd & 3rd attacks : 50-60 Vals/Kates at the 15 transports.

Finally attacked carriers as an afterthought with 12 Kates or so.

Luckily for me the Americans had little success with about 150+ bombers in several waves land & sea based, God knows how they missed as my CAP did diddly squat!

Just the FOG of war I suppose

Top Cat

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 6

- 9/4/2002 12:55:40 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

Hey Top Cat,

Sounds like you just used up one of your nine lives! :D

Good to see another Melbourne boy! Which part are you from?

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 7

I agree - 9/4/2002 6:08:30 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

I agree with topcat. Problem is naval air attacks convoys too much when it should be concentrating on targets that are likely to shoot back.

Is also annoying when 150+ level bombers launch from Port Moresby to pound Gili Gili's port to smithereens once and for all. When they fly in - they notice that there are 2 tfs of transports and 3 damaged carriers sitting around - all docked at the port (but not disbanded). 150 level bombers managed to score plenty of hits on the port, but none on the ships tied up to it???

Hopefully in WiTP there will be some sort of doctrinal control/override that allows me to issue a standing order that says: Ok, go and bomb Gili Gili's port. But if you happen to find some damaged Jap CV's sitting there, or the odd BB, sink that FIRST, then go attack the port. Just a simple list that allows the player to assign target priorities for air units (IE, the priorities should apply to EVERY squadron and plane, not just some).

Would be a way for me to tell my bombers "Sink the transports - their bombers and warships cant take P.M away from us, but their troops can!"

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 8

- 9/4/2002 6:29:44 PM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Luskan

not sure if it is the raid you tell about or not, but it sounds more like a planning thing then how the game should be set up, first off, you say you sent in a raid to finish off the Port once and for all, so it sounds like that was the main goal of the raid, not to break off and attack a target spotted as it was going in

if the ships were the main goal of the raid, why didn't you set the raid to naval attack 1st, Port 2nd

if they would of seen the ships, they would of attacked the ships, if not, they would bomb the Port

on the other hand, if you wanted to attack warships, you would be arming the bombers with a different type of bomb/fuse then you would if you were attacking a field or base

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 9

Hard Sarge - 9/4/2002 7:51:49 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

They were set to naval attack 1st, port 2nd.

I'm not sure about the fuse/warhead armament change - at this stage of the war I thought most US bombs were DOI (Detonation on Impact), but the bomber's target is determined before launch - since there was not a high enough detection level to launch against the ships in the port (they didn't even know they were there) they launched on the 2nd priority mission: hit the port.

I sent them to hit the port, and they discovered CVs. Common sense says "sink them - stuff the port".

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 10

- 9/4/2002 8:15:15 PM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Luskan
no, common sense does not say to disobey orders, when the raid was launched, the orders were to bomb the port, not go looking for something better (now I am sure, a few bright boys would of "missed the target" while following orders)

for the fuseing, you got delay action, armor pirceing (and to be honest, against most ships, HE is worthless, why do you think the IJN got caught with there planes on the flight deck at Midway, there were changeing from HE to AP weapons, so they could attack the US CV's)

for common sense, there were a few cases during the war, when attack groups from both sides flew past each other, the fighter pilots had fits, but there job was to protect the bombers, not to attack, the guys on CAP had that job

what makes it HARD, is later in the war (when you had better numbers) there was more leeway added to the orders

oh well, I think what I am pointing at, is your use of common sense for the raid, is more hindsight, after the raid, knowing that there were CV's there, they should of attacked them instead, but going in, they didn't know

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 11

- 9/4/2002 10:48:18 PM

BPRE

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline

Hi,

Another thing worth remembering when attacking a port is that the docked ships will try to leave as soon as they hear about an incoming raid. So in reality they could have been 10 miles outside the port. Isn't that really the main difference betwen being docked and being disbanded in port?

Regards
BPRE

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 12

- 9/5/2002 3:39:31 AM

Toro

Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline

A couple things we've seen floated by the Matrix staff

1. the "age" of the sighting report makes a big diff on whether that TF is attacked or not. Apparently, each sighting report is given a time-stamp, and the "older" the report, the less confident the AI commanders are in sending their a/c waves that way. Better to hit a more valid target than one not likely to be there anymore.

2. type of target -- warships are more prime targets, so attacking transports (as in the ones at PM?) may be less of a juicy target.

I've personally had transport TFs get nailed in ports, both PM and GG. I hate it when that happens, especially when supplies are running a bit tight...

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 13

Air Attacks - 9/5/2002 6:21:47 AM

SkyKingxyz

Posts: 1
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: San Antonio
Status: offline

Am I doing something wrong? Just got UV and it is terrific! That said, why can't I assign aircraft a naval task force as a target? We won Midway by sending out a strike force without a sighted target! I should be able to attack a TF my planes or a coastwatcher or sub has SIGHTED....
It's still a GREAT game!

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 14

- 9/5/2002 10:53:55 AM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HARD_SARGE
[B]
no, common sense does not say to disobey orders, when the raid was launched, the orders were to bomb the port, not go looking for something better (now I am sure, a few bright boys would of "missed the target" while following orders)
------------------------------------------

- Yes, but what I want to do is give them a standing order to abort their present mission if they find something better to drop bombs on (I don't care what kind of bombs they drop. 30 HE bomb hits on a CV is better than 0 bomb hits on a CV and according to the values I want to be able to set, can be better than 30 HE bombs dropped on a port).

Surely the raid commander could have got on the horn, radioed ET and home and said "Hi boss, I've found some CV's, should we drop bombs on them?"
No raid commander would have bothered because the answer would have been "Of course you F(*&ing idiot!"

This is not hindsight. It wouldn't be disobeying orders if I could post said standing order. your point that it wouldn't be as effective because of bomb loadouts/fuses is all true - but I should have the option of making it happen this way.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 15

- 9/5/2002 6:27:58 PM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Luskan
well also, think about the time period we are talking about, in this day and age, sure, we got great radios for calling back (heck, if the radio don't work, pick up the cell phone and call in)

but that was not the case back then

oh well, all I am saying is the mission went out to bomb the Port, and did so

I think the attack set up works well, maybe what would of been better would of been to have 2 or 3 squadrons set up for naval attack only, and the rest for naval attack/port attack

this way, no shipping seen, the port gets attacked, any shipping seen, you still got a chance of at least one group makeing the attack

(I think my point may be more based on what they could and would do then, and yours is what we can do and would do now)

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 16

True - 9/5/2002 8:06:56 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

Point taken.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 17

- 9/5/2002 10:02:17 PM

Badger

Posts: 29
Joined: 8/16/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

All good comments, thanks everybody for the enlightening discussion.

My original concern was that it seemed to me that the AI was placing a very low priority on attacking transport TF's. If I had my LBA assigned to primary Naval Attack and Secondary Ground/Port/Airfield attack, they always seemed to do the secondary mission before the primary mission. If I had my LBA assigned to primary Naval Attack secondary rest, they would always rest without attacking spotted Tansport TF's. I agree that the AI should place a much higher priority on Air Combat/Surface Combat/Bombardment TF's rather than Transport TF's, but the AI should also place a higher priority on Transport TF's rather than on secondary Ground/Port/Airfield attack missions. In my game against the AI, I have finally seen some attempts to attack Transport TF's (the AI has not sent any Combat TF's into range of my LBA), but unfortunately every time so far the Air Strike has failed to locate the target (which seems odd against a TF unloading supplies in port).

Capt Cliff's suggestion of putting LBA on 20% Naval Search resulted in a noticeable increase in Naval sightings. From reading the previous posts on this thread, it seems that the more and better sightings you can get the better chance you have of having a Naval Attack being launched.

_____________________________

Liberals believe that the further a political philosophy is from reality, the more morally pure it is.

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 18

Another thought - 9/5/2002 11:18:43 PM

NorthStar

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline

Something I've been thinking about for awhile (and posted a few times), but have never had confirmation on -- from anyone!

Some statements from Matrix staff seem to imply that not every base commander has access to all of the sighting reports at the same time. That is, if a Hudson from PM spots a TF, Air Groups based in Gili Gili might not have the information in time to launch a strike.

If this is ture (and it certainly seems logical enough to me that there be a delay in information transfer from base to base), it would explain this issue, and some similar ones. The player has more information available to him than the AI does (or at least is using for his decisions)!

In any event, if anyone has any ideas on this, I'd like to hear about them.

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 19

- 9/6/2002 10:46:24 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

My Jap air units at Rabaul love to attack transports. I just sank 5 trying to resupply Gili Gili. I have found that they can be too aggressive and often go into Port Morseby looking for TFs and get slaughtered by the CAP.

(in reply to Badger)

Post #: 20

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Naval Air Attacks against Transport TF's (or lack thereof)

Page: [1]