Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Setting air search arcs vs not setting them

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Setting air search arcs vs not setting them Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/29/2017 9:31:12 PM   
Timotheus

 

Posts: 481
Joined: 12/13/2013
Status: offline
OK, I have not set search arcs for my naval search and ASW air assets.

They SEEM to work OK - enemy task forces are discovered in a 360 degree radius, to the limit of the set air range, regardless of the number of planes doing the searching!

When I tried to set search arcs, they can usually cover a very limited area of the ocean.


Simply put, I am getting better results not setting air search arcs than when I do set them.

What is your experience?

Dev response?

Alfred, chime in?

_____________________________

NEWBIE GUIDE Distant Worlds Universe
http://tinyurl.com/k3frrle

War in the Pacific Poradnik po Polsku
http://tinyurl.com/nxd4cesh

INSTALL WITPAE on modern PC
https://tinyurl.com/l5kr6rl
Post #: 1
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/29/2017 9:43:02 PM   
kbfchicago


Posts: 359
Joined: 10/17/2009
From: NC, USA
Status: offline
there is a forum post on this...it convinced me to leave the way of the arc and go 360. I seldom go back unless significant landmass is involved. Go 360. don't look back...

Happy gaming,

Kevin


(in reply to Timotheus)
Post #: 2
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/29/2017 10:34:07 PM   
Lawless1


Posts: 316
Joined: 9/6/2015
From: Maryland but now living in SC
Status: offline
I use both,, arcs if I'm trying to intercept a TF and I have an idea of the TF relative bearing

All other times 360, unless lot of land mass would be in search. This mostly along WC or AU.

IIRC with or without set arc the ac will conduct 360 search out to four hex if range is greater than 4


_____________________________

Two types of ships, targets and submarines
Death from below

(in reply to kbfchicago)
Post #: 3
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/29/2017 10:48:17 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
My experience matches your own. I do not use arcs. However, plenty will chime in here saying they work fine and they use them all the time.

I started out by setting arcs for EVERYTHING on the theory that focused arcs would mean better rates of detection. I discovered that good sized TF's at long range (like Force Z on day 1) were completely missed over 80% of the time with everything using search arcs. As soon as I re-ran the turn with 1 single Netty group in Saigon on 360 search (no arcs), I was about 90% detection on Force Z. The ONLY thing I changed was removing arcs from the Netty group. I posted, and was told basically that they worked, and it was my imagination/randomness.

I then worked up a test scenario where I moved a base force and some patrol assets to Marcus Island (24 x E13A1 Jake squadron iirc), then surrounded it at 6 hexes with single ship Allied TF's with a single AK (same AK in every TF). I then ran a variety of tests using arcs and 360 - and got close to the same results. I did not do a ton of testing with this - I only noted that arcs DID seem to work at range 6.

My current working theory/experience is that 360 search is more effective at long ranges. I do not recall seeing significant differences closer in. I have to admit though that my testing on this was limited. After making all those TF's in the editor, I re-played the turn with various settings, but did not keep careful track of results. One day, I will probably test more, but for now, I just leave all my Naval search at 360 degrees of search.

Honestly, the 360 degree search is way too good for the number of planes you have to commit to it.

(in reply to kbfchicago)
Post #: 4
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/29/2017 11:06:40 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
I sometimes use arcs for ASW patrols when I know exactly where I expect to find enemy subs and wish for there to be a minimum of one morning sweep and one afternoon sweep (but hopefully more than that) in that zone.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 5
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/29/2017 11:08:41 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

My experience matches your own. I do not use arcs. However, plenty will chime in here saying they work fine and they use them all the time.

I started out by setting arcs for EVERYTHING on the theory that focused arcs would mean better rates of detection. I discovered that good sized TF's at long range (like Force Z on day 1) were completely missed over 80% of the time with everything using search arcs. As soon as I re-ran the turn with 1 single Netty group in Saigon on 360 search (no arcs), I was about 90% detection on Force Z. The ONLY thing I changed was removing arcs from the Netty group. I posted, and was told basically that they worked, and it was my imagination/randomness.

I then worked up a test scenario where I moved a base force and some patrol assets to Marcus Island (24 x E13A1 Jake squadron iirc), then surrounded it at 6 hexes with single ship Allied TF's with a single AK (same AK in every TF). I then ran a variety of tests using arcs and 360 - and got close to the same results. I did not do a ton of testing with this - I only noted that arcs DID seem to work at range 6.

My current working theory/experience is that 360 search is more effective at long ranges. I do not recall seeing significant differences closer in. I have to admit though that my testing on this was limited. After making all those TF's in the editor, I re-played the turn with various settings, but did not keep careful track of results. One day, I will probably test more, but for now, I just leave all my Naval search at 360 degrees of search.

Honestly, the 360 degree search is way too good for the number of planes you have to commit to it.



According to the literature, assigning a group to begin 0 and end 0 on the search arcs will make the arcs "random." In my experience, these "random" search arcs are not random. Instead they tend to concentrate in the direction of the nearest enemy base or the nearest spotted enemy TF.

The best reason to use "non-random" search arcs is to prevent spotting TFs. In your example of the Nells and Betties at Saigon, let us say that the allies have placed AVG and a couple AKLs at Tavoy in order to create a Cap trap (a very good tactic, BTW). As the Japanese player, I am wise to your allied Cap-trapping ways, and I want those Nells and Betties to attack TFs in and around Singapore, but not around Tavoy. In this case, I would use search arcs to prevent my search planes from spotting that TF at Tavoy so that my Nells and Betties set to naval attack, range 15, would not fly into your fiendishly devised allied Cap trap.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 6
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/29/2017 11:59:27 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

My experience matches your own. I do not use arcs. However, plenty will chime in here saying they work fine and they use them all the time.

I started out by setting arcs for EVERYTHING on the theory that focused arcs would mean better rates of detection. I discovered that good sized TF's at long range (like Force Z on day 1) were completely missed over 80% of the time with everything using search arcs. As soon as I re-ran the turn with 1 single Netty group in Saigon on 360 search (no arcs), I was about 90% detection on Force Z. The ONLY thing I changed was removing arcs from the Netty group. I posted, and was told basically that they worked, and it was my imagination/randomness.

I then worked up a test scenario where I moved a base force and some patrol assets to Marcus Island (24 x E13A1 Jake squadron iirc), then surrounded it at 6 hexes with single ship Allied TF's with a single AK (same AK in every TF). I then ran a variety of tests using arcs and 360 - and got close to the same results. I did not do a ton of testing with this - I only noted that arcs DID seem to work at range 6.

My current working theory/experience is that 360 search is more effective at long ranges. I do not recall seeing significant differences closer in. I have to admit though that my testing on this was limited. After making all those TF's in the editor, I re-played the turn with various settings, but did not keep careful track of results. One day, I will probably test more, but for now, I just leave all my Naval search at 360 degrees of search.

Honestly, the 360 degree search is way too good for the number of planes you have to commit to it.



According to the literature, assigning a group to begin 0 and end 0 on the search arcs will make the arcs "random." In my experience, these "random" search arcs are not random. Instead they tend to concentrate in the direction of the nearest enemy base or the nearest spotted enemy TF.

The best reason to use "non-random" search arcs is to prevent spotting TFs. In your example of the Nells and Betties at Saigon, let us say that the allies have placed AVG and a couple AKLs at Tavoy in order to create a Cap trap (a very good tactic, BTW). As the Japanese player, I am wise to your allied Cap-trapping ways, and I want those Nells and Betties to attack TFs in and around Singapore, but not around Tavoy. In this case, I would use search arcs to prevent my search planes from spotting that TF at Tavoy so that my Nells and Betties set to naval attack, range 15, would not fly into your fiendishly devised allied Cap trap.


You can also choke back the range on your bombers to avoid the cap trap. For instance, Port Moresby is usually a really good place for the Allied player to create a cap trap for the IJN players bombers in Rabaul. However, if you set the Nell/Betty max range to 10, you avoid any attacks on Port Moresby, but can still engage stuff at Milne Bay.

Choking back the range also works when defending against amphibious assaults. Set your range to no more than 2 hexes (1 if you really just want to hurt the amphibious task force) and you can usually avoid your bombers attacking heavily defended carrier groups and instead hitting the softer transports in the invasion hex, being that most players will use carriers to support an invasion, but rarely put them closer than 2-3 hexes from the actual attack sight. My logic behind it is, carriers cannot capture land bases, troops can.

As for Timotheus original question, I use both also. And like others it really depends on vicinity of large land masses, known choke points (around Takao for example), or wanting to avoid cap traps and still be able to strike at stuff further out from Rabaul for example.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 7
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/30/2017 1:38:13 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Arcs work, but there are some quirks you need to know about to use them effectively. Without going into detail, the best things to do are:

* Use arcs when a large landmass is present (e.g., ASW duty out of Palembang - no need to fly over land)

* Use arcs when trying not to detect (and therefore strike at) TFs under heavy CAP

* Don't use arcs when using shorter range planes and at an island (e.g., Jakes at Iwo-Jima). With a sufficient group size, you can get 360' coverage.

It's important to know that each plane on search in each phase will only cover a 10' arc. If you don't set them, these will be entirely random. Also note that at range 1, 6 arcs are within each of the hexes in the first ring... in the second ring of 12, there are 3 arcs in each hex. At 3 hexes distance, there are 18 arcs so 2 arcs per hex. And so forth... Conversely, this means that out at long ranges, you will not be getting full coverage within that 10' arc. Nothing you can do about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
most players will use carriers to support an invasion, but rarely put them closer than 2-3 hexes from the actual attack sight. My logic behind it is, carriers cannot capture land bases, troops can.



Mmmm, VPs to harvest. I like the way this tastes in the score screen. If you're invading, don't do this. If you're being invaded, hope that your opponent does this.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 8
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/30/2017 2:25:28 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
CVEs are for that duty. CVs win or lose carrier battles. Using CVs to support amphibious invasions is extremely hazardous to begin with. Can't stay long. I'm with Fletcher on that.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 9
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/30/2017 5:35:57 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

CVEs are for that duty. CVs win or lose carrier battles. Using CVs to support amphibious invasions is extremely hazardous to begin with. Can't stay long. I'm with Fletcher on that.


You will need both against a proper defense.

If you don't... it's divide and conquer, only your opponent doesn't have to do the dividing part because you already did it for him.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 10
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/30/2017 8:16:01 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

CVEs are for that duty. CVs win or lose carrier battles. Using CVs to support amphibious invasions is extremely hazardous to begin with. Can't stay long. I'm with Fletcher on that.



I think most AFBs would be pretty happy to see a large amphibious TF moving toward an airfield with only Hosho and Taiyo for fighter cover.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 11
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/31/2017 1:23:46 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
I play as Japan and use them most of, if not all of the time. From what I've read here they are supposed to work, and I've not experienced anything to the contrary.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 12
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/31/2017 3:35:23 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
I like 360 myself. My last game I didn't even bother avoiding continental landmasses. Very anecdotally and unscientifically, setting arcs does not seem to be worth the clicks.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 13
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/31/2017 6:49:36 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I use both depending on the situation. I do not set arcs for aircraft searching from carriers. All bombers on a carrier are set at 10% search with no arcs. I can remember ever not spotting an enemy TF and getting surprised. Except in bad weather that is. If I can spare it, one avenger squadron using drop tanks set at %80 search at max range really helps out. I am starting to use some night searching too as Canoerebel has made a good case for that raising DLs for the next day's combat.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 14
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 5/31/2017 9:59:20 PM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline
I like to set them, because it lets me visually inspect the map for gaps in my search coverage. Random arcs don't show at all.

I don't like to post my anecdotes, because I think confirmation bias ****s with our memories.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 6/1/2017 9:10:23 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I do not set arcs for aircraft searching from carriers.


Yeah, I would not attempt this either.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 16
RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them - 6/7/2017 7:29:55 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
My experience matches your own. I do not use arcs. However, plenty will chime in here saying they work fine and they use them all the time [+ analysis that really matters]


Again, excellent stuff I gave up using them loooong time ago too.


_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Setting air search arcs vs not setting them 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

5.250