Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes?

Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

charon -> Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/14/2009 11:06:52 PM)
Lecture of the forums for WITP and AE has been a long time pleasure for me, even after I quit playing WITP. I can't wait to get AE on my harddisk, really impressive effort by all folks envolved!!! [&o] But now something from a test AAR made me give up my observer role here, and has kind of made me reluctant to jump for a pbem as jap player: quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Treespider's Japanese Player Tip #2 Don't advance your limited air search assets too far south, leaving a wide open gap into your supply lanes for an American carrier to drive into. eof quote Wouldnt have been bad if air search worked. I had over lapping air cover from Japan right down to Fiji (based on aircraft ranges) but seemingly air search doesnt work (by Bradys testing, I was going to test that when he posted) beyond 10 to 12 hexes. And naval combat doesnt "spot" enemy ships for airplanes either (although subs do - go figure). The Jap player only has 34 H6Ks they can deploy outside Japan (and 21 more there). Doesnt leave a lot of room for rear area searches which frankly I have a problem with. I feel this is a serious shortcoming in the game. The Nell has a range of 17 hexes, the Betty a range of 21. It is 33 hexes from Saipan to Tokyo. I had a 36 plane Betty group at Tokyo on 30% search and a 27 (24 actual) Nell group at Saipan also at 30% search. Failed to sight enemy carrier force that is launching strikes at merchies in between them and failed to sight a surface force 12 hexes out that engaged in surface combat twice. You are entitled to your opinion that thats the way it should work. And you would be right. I am entitled to my opinion that that is flawed, and I would be right as well. My opinion is its flawed. As for pushing "limited air search assets too far south", I had a line of H6Ks from Lae, to Munda, to Tarawa with Nells at Saipan and Wake and Bettys at Tokyo. Sailing the Yorktown just out of Zero range off Japan inviting strikes to chew up bombers in Jan 42 may be a tactic you see no problem with, and frankly I dont either. But when these forces do all this crap, with all these search forces in the area, and I dont spot a thing, THAT I have a problem with. I also have a problem with your surface combat force reacting to my ships when you dont have any ammo left on them. At least twice this happened. Again, I see a problem with this. Mow frankly I wouldnt have mentioned this at all, but since you brought it up, I thought I would set the record straight. _____________________________ sharp-eyed bug hunting beta teseter (sic) for WitP:AE source: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2164009&mpage=2&key= Is this limitation of effective air search to 12 hexes working as intended, on the bug list or is there no such limitation at all? Seems to me that jap players are in for a rough time defending their perimeter if their air search capacity has such short legs.

viberpol -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/14/2009 11:15:47 PM)
Well, I've got an impression that even in WITP the bigger range, the lower possibility to spot an enemy TF. I've been playing WITP for 5 years now and I rarely get any info of so distant threat. I suppose the AE is no different in this matter, maybe even better reflecting the problem of spotting sth with the ocean so wide (12 hexes x 60 miles = 720 miles, how many square miles?).

treespider -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/14/2009 11:37:47 PM)
Wonder what the weather was in the potential search hexes when the TF weren't spotted? At the start of the turn the CV TF was in Thunderstorms...and the Surface TF in Overcast. Wonder what the search pattern was for the 9-10 Betties and the 6-7 Nells? Yammy doesn't trust the Search Arcs so probably had a 360 degree search pattern. Wonder what the Nav Search Exp was for either air group? May not be as high as planes dedicated to Nav Search on a daily basis...

Buck Beach -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 2:12:27 AM)
I posted this in the other thread but it seemed more appropriate here: As an Allied AI player in WITP I was always frustrated that anything floating of mine was always spotted by the Japanese searches whereas the Japanese were able to sneak ships through my searches for some nasty surprises. If the search engine is not broken, I will be happy to see that searches do sometimes fail to pick up everything moving within the aircraft's range.

vettim89 -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 4:02:35 AM)
Posted this in the other thread. Reposting it here This may be a case of geometry getting you. I don't know for sure because I have no inside information to the search code. This is what I mean though. Lets say you have a base that you feel needs 360 degree coverage around to gurad against both surface and submerged threats. Each plane flying a search can cover roughly a 120 nm arc (or piece of the full radius). The reason for this is that the Mk 1 Optical sensor can see about 30 nm in good weather conditions. If the visibility is not ideal, than our aerial observers will be able to cover an even narrower arc but lets assume good to ideal conditions for this example. Our HK4M or PBY flies the outbound leg with eyes looking left and right (or port and starboard if you prefer). They are able to search a 60 nm wide swath doing this. The plane turns at maximum range and runs 60 nm across the top of the arc. Then on the inbound leg they search another 60 nm swath that just touches the one they just searched while running out. The problem comes in when you start looking farther out it takes a lot more planes. Some examples: To search out to 360 nm (9 AE hexes) your circle is 2261 nm around meaning you need 19 a/c to accomplish full coverage To search out to 480 nm (12 AE hexes) your circle is 3016 nm around meaning you need 25 a/c to accomplish full coverage To search out to 600 nm (15 AE hexes) your circle is 3770 nm around meaning you need 31 a/c to accomplish full coverage Keep in mind that 600 nm means at least ten hours in the air which is going to wear on both man and machine. Even the 12 hex range search would require a full 27 plane group that stays at near 100% availability all the tme and where fatigue doesn't build up. So more than likely you are gonna need at least 36 planes to keep this search up and even then you are gonna grind your planes and pilots to dust. I don't think 600 nm searches were done in full 360 search patterns very often by either side because of the cost in men and materials. BTW, you go much further than 600 nm and you will run out of daylight figuring your average patrol plane cruises at 120 knots and with twelve hours of daylight to work with on average (less in northern/southern latitudes during the winter), max range would be about 690 nm with no time to loiter over a contact or prosecute a sub. Just my 0.02 worth

Yamato hugger -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 4:12:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Wonder what the weather was in the potential search hexes when the TF weren't spotted? At the start of the turn the CV TF was in Thunderstorms...and the Surface TF in Overcast. Wonder what the search pattern was for the 9-10 Betties and the 6-7 Nells? Yammy doesn't trust the Search Arcs so probably had a 360 degree search pattern. Wonder what the Nav Search Exp was for either air group? May not be as high as planes dedicated to Nav Search on a daily basis... Well you should know, you saw the report and you saw the report on the devs forum, but here it is again: DAYTIME SURFACE COMBATS IN PARTLY CLOUDY CONDITIONS shouldnt that make someone say "Hey, maybe we better haveone go take a look?". Dont have a clue why you would out right lie about this Forest, but here it is. And since the allied force was actually spotted by the Jap force, why doesnt it appear on the map, and why wasnt an airstrike sent? Edit: And why did the allied force continue to react to the Jap force when the allied force is out of ammo? Another problem I have with the game. Day Time Surface Combat, near Chichi-jima at 115,79, Range 24,000 Yards Japanese Ships PB Tama Maru #5 PB Chokai Maru PB Kyo Maru #6 PB Kyo Maru #7 PB Shonon Maru #11 PB Takuna Maru #6 PB Takuna Maru #7 TK Akatuki Maru TK Toa Maru xAK Terushima Maru Allied Ships CA Houston CL Mauritius CL Boise DD Scout Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 30,000 yards Range closes to 23,000 yards... Range closes to 20,000 yards... Range increases to 24,000 yards... Range closes to 21,000 yards... Range increases to 22,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 22,000 yards CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 22,000 yards Both TF attempt to withdraw! Range increases to 26,000 yards... Both Task Forces evade combat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Chichi-jima at 116,80, Range 30,000 Yards Japanese Ships PB Tama Maru #5 PB Chokai Maru PB Kyo Maru #6 PB Kyo Maru #7 PB Shonon Maru #11 PB Takuna Maru #6 PB Takuna Maru #7 TK Akatuki Maru TK Toa Maru xAK Terushima Maru Allied Ships CA Houston CL Mauritius CL Boise DD Scout Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 30,000 yards Range closes to 29,000 yards... CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 29,000 yards Allied TF attempts to evade combat Range increases to 30,000 yards... Both Task Forces evade combat

Don Bowen -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 4:37:25 AM)
Just for the record, these two TFs are not reacting - they are proceeding along the same path. No idea why but they are moving from hex to hex together and are continually being presented with and refusing opportunities for combat.

Yamato hugger -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 6:49:28 AM)
My TF was moving towards the south from Japan to Truk. His had moved into the area from the PI. It is heading east (towards Pearl). If both TFs moved (withdrew) to the same hex after the first combat, I see THIS as a problem also, but the allied TF did NOT move on its own from the first battle hex to the south west, not if it was heading towards Pearl which it certainly appears to be move towards.. The first battle was fought west of Iwo, this is where the allied TF ran out of ammo (on the 24th). 2 days later it encounters the other TF not on a direct line to Pearl, not on a direct line east. If he plotted an offset point 1 hex lower than where he was then that would be possible, but frankly I am convinced it reacted to my movement. 2 days and 3 surface combats within air search range of several Jap air units and no sightings. Actually the allied force fought 1 or 2 battles before this one in the same area a day earlier as well so really its 4 or 5 surface engagements in a 3 day period. I have a problem with it. Not saying everyone should, but I do. If the allies withdrew from the combat, logic says they should either move east (the direction of their home base) or west (the direction they came from). The Japs should be going north or south depending. If the allies are moving southwest (same as the withdrawing Japs) then either the withdraw routine is broken, or the allies are reacting to it in which case the react routine is broken. Either way, something is broken and should be fixed. I posted example after example in the battles off Borneo about the withdrawl routine, so this is nothing new. Edit: And the allies consistently shoot better than that Japs, especially at night. They must have very high night training because I have never even seen the Japs break even in anything close to an even fight. Night Time Surface Combat, near Iwo-jima at 100,78, Range 24,000 Yards Japanese Ships xAKL Hinode Maru, Shell hits 8, and is sunk xAKL Kennichi Maru, Shell hits 12, and is sunk xAKL Konsan Maru, Shell hits 6, and is sunk xAKL Shinmei Maru, Shell hits 3, heavy fires xAKL Shingetsu Maru, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Tokiwasan Maru, Shell hits 6, and is sunk xAKL Rozan Maru, Shell hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Eiwa Maru, Shell hits 12, and is sunk xAKL Sakae Maru, Shell hits 9, and is sunk xAKL Junpo Maru, Shell hits 6, and is sunk PB Kinsyo Maru #4, Shell hits 11, and is sunk Allied Ships CA Houston CL Mauritius CL Boise DD Scout Reduced sighting due to 50% moonlight Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 50% moonlight: 3,000 yards Range closes to 28,000 yards... Range closes to 26,000 yards... Range closes to 24,000 yards... CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 24,000 yards xAKL Rozan Maru collides with xAKL Tokiwasan Maru at 100 , 78 CL Boise engages xAKL Junpo Maru at 24,000 yards Range closes to 23,000 yards CL Boise engages PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 23,000 yards CL Boise engages PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 23,000 yards CL Mauritius engages PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 23,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Rozan Maru at 23,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Tokiwasan Maru at 23,000 yards Range closes to 20,000 yards CA Houston engages PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 20,000 yards CL Boise engages PB Kinsyo Maru #4 at 20,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Hinode Maru at 20,000 yards Range closes to 19,000 yards PB Kinsyo Maru #4 sunk by CA Houston at 19,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Rozan Maru at 19,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Hinode Maru at 19,000 yards Range closes to 17,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Sakae Maru at 17,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Eiwa Maru at 17,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Kennichi Maru at 17,000 yards Range closes to 15,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Junpo Maru at 15,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Eiwa Maru at 15,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Kennichi Maru at 15,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Hinode Maru at 15,000 yards Range closes to 12,000 yards xAKL Junpo Maru sunk by CA Houston at 12,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Eiwa Maru at 12,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Konsan Maru at 12,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Kennichi Maru at 12,000 yards Range closes to 11,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Eiwa Maru at 11,000 yards xAKL Eiwa Maru sunk by CL Boise at 11,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Shingetsu Maru at 11,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Shinmei Maru at 11,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Sakae Maru at 8,000 yards DD Scout engages xAKL Konsan Maru at 8,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Konsan Maru at 8,000 yards xAKL Hinode Maru sunk by CL Mauritius at 8,000 yards Range closes to 7,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Sakae Maru at 7,000 yards CA Houston engages xAKL Rozan Maru at 7,000 yards xAKL Sakae Maru sunk by CL Mauritius at 7,000 yards DD Scout engages xAKL Shinmei Maru at 7,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Shinmei Maru at 7,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Konsan Maru at 7,000 yards Riker, K.I. orders Allied TF to disengage CA Houston engages xAKL Rozan Maru at 7,000 yards xAKL Tokiwasan Maru sunk by CL Boise at 7,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Rozan Maru at 7,000 yards xAKL Konsan Maru sunk by CL Mauritius at 7,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Kennichi Maru at 7,000 yards Range increases to 11,000 yards xAKL Kennichi Maru sunk by CL Mauritius at 11,000 yards Range increases to 14,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Shingetsu Maru at 14,000 yards Range increases to 17,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Rozan Maru at 17,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Shingetsu Maru at 17,000 yards CL Mauritius engages xAKL Shingetsu Maru at 17,000 yards Range increases to 21,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Rozan Maru at 21,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Shingetsu Maru at 21,000 yards Range increases to 25,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Rozan Maru at 25,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Shingetsu Maru at 25,000 yards CL Boise engages xAKL Shinmei Maru at 25,000 yards Task forces break off... [image]local://upfiles/14252/B18B7CC25E714B999C6B41F9C7A24BBE.jpg[/image]

Jim D Burns -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 6:55:48 AM)
Posted this in the other thread before finding this one, so reposting here. quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger And no sighting report at all by ships or planes. I think you may be suffering from being spoiled by the unrealistic searches that occurred in WitP, and your expectations are too high. Think about Midway and the difficulty hundreds of US strike planes at ranges far closer than 12 AE hexes had in finding a huge Japanese fleet whose heading and target was known to the allies as an example. US patrol planes had spotted and loitered around the fleet for hours, yet just the short window of time between the last patrol plane sightings and the allied air attack almost prevented the US planes from even finding the Japanese fleet. If it's that hard to find a previously spotted huge fleet with dozens and dozens of zeroes flying in the air above it, imagine how much harder it would be to find a much smaller fleet 2 or 3 times as far away with an unknown heading and destination that hadn't even been sighted at all yet. While I agree a contact report should be generated in the hex that was attacked, I do not agree that a sighting report (that results in a fleet being detected and exposed to attack for the rest of the turn) would have to be generated just because an attack was made by the fleet, if that fleet had not been previously detected. All those search aircraft you mentioned would have already been in the air on their search routes. At best they could probably direct one or two planes to head to the contact hex, but that's only if they were in a good position (outward leg of pattern) with enough fuel left to get there. And without an indication of where the attacking fleet actually was, they would need dozens of search planes to cover all of the possible ocean the fleet could be sitting on. Which leads to the final hurdle. How can you possibly simulate this in AE? I think the only real solution is to leave it up to normal search attempts to find the fleet. But I do agree surface fleets should generate sighting reports just like subs do for spotted fleets in their own hex. Jim

Yamato hugger -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 6:58:06 AM)
double post

Yamato hugger -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 7:12:23 AM)
Damnit, hit quoate again instead of edit.

charon -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 8:29:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Posted this in the other thread before finding this one, so reposting here. quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger And no sighting report at all by ships or planes. I think you may be suffering from being spoiled by the unrealistic searches that occurred in WitP, and your expectations are too high. Think about Midway and the difficulty hundreds of US strike planes at ranges far closer than 12 AE hexes had in finding a huge Japanese fleet whose heading and target was known to the allies as an example. US patrol planes had spotted and loitered around the fleet for hours, yet just the short window of time between the last patrol plane sightings and the allied air attack almost prevented the US planes from even finding the Japanese fleet. If it's that hard to find a previously spotted huge fleet with dozens and dozens of zeroes flying in the air above it, imagine how much harder it would be to find a much smaller fleet 2 or 3 times as far away with an unknown heading and destination that hadn't even been sighted at all yet. While I agree a contact report should be generated in the hex that was attacked, I do not agree that a sighting report (that results in a fleet being detected and exposed to attack for the rest of the turn) would have to be generated just because an attack was made by the fleet, if that fleet had not been previously detected. All those search aircraft you mentioned would have already been in the air on their search routes. At best they could probably direct one or two planes to head to the contact hex, but that's only if they were in a good position (outward leg of pattern) with enough fuel left to get there. And without an indication of where the attacking fleet actually was, they would need dozens of search planes to cover all of the possible ocean the fleet could be sitting on. Which leads to the final hurdle. How can you possibly simulate this in AE? I think the only real solution is to leave it up to normal search attempts to find the fleet. But I do agree surface fleets should generate sighting reports just like subs do for spotted fleets in their own hex. Jim Exactly because reactions to sightings during turn execution (sending additional planes out to get info on a newly sighted TF, and these "reaction planes" taking off with full tanks would have enough loitering and follow capacity) are not possible, there should not be such a downgrade to air search effectiveness. Allied carriers camping 13 hexes outside any jap base without fearing detection does not feel right to me. Mavis, Betty & co. have clearly better ranges than that. In AE it seems even more important than in WITP to be able to protect your cargo shipping capacity, and this is kind of difficult if allied raiders can stay 13 hexes outside the jap homeland in invisible mode.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 8:51:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: charon Exactly because reactions to sightings during turn execution (sending additional planes out to get info on a newly sighted TF, and these "reaction planes" taking off with full tanks would have enough loitering and follow capacity) are not possible, there should not be such a downgrade to air search effectiveness. Allied carriers camping 13 hexes outside any jap base without fearing detection does not feel right to me. Mavis, Betty & co. have clearly better ranges than that. In AE it seems even more important than in WITP to be able to protect your cargo shipping capacity, and this is kind of difficult if allied raiders can stay 13 hexes outside the jap homeland in invisible mode. But historically most fleets were not sighted until within a few hundred miles of a base. As Vettim89 pointed out, the further out your search pattern goes, the longer that top 90 degree leg has to be for small squadrons, and the more area of ocean that doesn't get looked at, especially in cloudy or hazy conditions. If you can't fly 30, 40, 50 or more planes every day, there really was no point in flying those long range searches (and they didn't), because you wouldn't actually be looking at a very large percentage of the ocean that far out due to the size of the fan at the top leg. But narrowing the total search arc flown by the squadron meant fewer planes could cover 100% of a specific swath of ocean, which apparently can be done in AE now, but YH apparently refuses to use it and flies those 360 degree arc patterns which means he should have had very poor search performance, so I see nothing wrong with his search results, or lack of results. Now if there is in fact a range cap on searches that is hard coded into the game, I agree that needs to be removed for the narrow arc patterns. But those very long range searches still need to be pretty much ineffectual unless you are flying a very tight search arc over a small area of the ocean. So your 13 hex example is fine as far as I'm concerned for regular searches because routine missions usually didn't fly more than a few hundred miles from base, but once an attack is made, the player setting a narrow pattern over the suspected zone of attack should be able to see that far out due to his concentration of planes over that area (i.e. he is ordering longer than usual range missions). From what I've read, YH hasn't tested any of this, so he really can't say one way or another if/how it works. I'm sure it will be tested heavily once it's released by those interested in finding out how the new search arcs actually work. Jim

charon -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 9:46:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger .... Wouldnt have been bad if air search worked. I had over lapping air cover from Japan right down to Fiji (based on aircraft ranges) but seemingly air search doesnt work by Bradys testing, I was going to test that when he posted) beyond 10 to 12 hexes. And naval combat doesnt "spot" enemy ships for airplanes either (although subs do - go figure). .... quote: .... From what I've read, YH hasn't tested any of this, so he really can't say one way or another if/how it works. I'm sure it will be tested heavily once it's released by those interested in finding out how the new search arcs actually work. I haven't found Bradys testing, so maybe my fears are unfounded. But I'm still inclined to think that there may be fire when an experienced test player sees smoke. I'd be happy to get more info on the management and effectiveness of search arcs. I really hope we do get a normal chance of detection at normal plane range (not an artificially reduced hard-coded range limitation) when reducing search arcs in relation to the number of available planes. Basically this is yet another thread which might be cut short by releasing the full manual for download for registered members, while waiting for AE to be released. [;)]

Erik Rutins -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 2:15:13 PM)
Keep in mind that YH is just one player/tester. The team has many others. As I said elsewhere, some things are improved from WITP, others are the same. Everyone has their own pet peeves or design gripes and we're already working on the list for the first update. There's no question that AE v1.00 is ready for release. There's also no question that, like WITP v1.00, it will have some bugs that we didn't find and some design or balance issues that need addressing which will become apparent once it reaches a larger audience. Making mountains out of molehills is a lot easier when all you have to go by is our comments rather than playing the game yourselves. WITP and AE both have variable results which mean that one example does not a rule make. AE does not have the same limit on search range that WITP did. In AE, it's based on the cruise speed of the search plane and how far it can go in a reasonable amount of time for the search phase before it would have to turn around. Regards, - Erik

SuluSea -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 2:38:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Edit: And the allies consistently shoot better than that Japs, especially at night. They must have very high night training because I have never even seen the Japs break even in anything close to an even fight. Night Time Surface Combat, near Iwo-jima at 100,78, Range 24,000 Yards Is this true for surface warfare vessels as well? I have no concerns with USN gunners outperforming the weapons/gunners on AKs as shown. Obviously the naval searches/spotting in WITP are on the high side , going off what I can see the searches look more realistic in AE, although I must admit the free gold copy I was sent from matrix must have gotten lost on the mail so I haven't taken it for a spin yet. ..Joking[:D]

Sardaukar -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 2:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins AE does not have the same limit on search range that WITP did. In AE, it's based on the cruise speed of the search plane and how far it can go in a reasonable amount of time for the search phase before it would have to turn around. Regards, - Erik Hear, hear!

charon -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 3:01:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins AE does not have the same limit on search range that WITP did. In AE, it's based on the cruise speed of the search plane and how far it can go in a reasonable amount of time for the search phase before it would have to turn around. Regards, - Erik Thank you for the info, excellent news. [:)] Now what's the status of the countdown for the download of the manual for members and AE itself? [8D]

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 3:47:42 PM)
The restrictions for search distance in WitP were probably a response to the satelite coverage that Emilys enjoyed in UV. One squadron at Rabaul and one at the Shortlands would blanket the area from Townsville to Noumea.

treespider -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 7:08:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Wonder what the weather was in the potential search hexes when the TF weren't spotted? At the start of the turn the CV TF was in Thunderstorms...and the Surface TF in Overcast. Well you should know, you saw the report and you saw the report on the devs forum, but here it is again: DAYTIME SURFACE COMBATS IN PARTLY CLOUDY CONDITIONS shouldnt that make someone say "Hey, maybe we better haveone go take a look?". Dont have a clue why you would out right lie about this Forest, but here it is. And I am not lying (and I highly resent the accusation) FOR YOU INFORMATION I reloaded the turn and upon my mouse over of the TFs in question those were the weather conditions reported -Overcast and Thunderstorms. So short of having the programmers look at the game as it executed and seeing what the weather conditions were in the TFs hex at the time your search aircraft could have detected them ... all we really know is that at the time of the combats in question the weather in that hex was Partly Cloudy.

Tophat1815 -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 9:42:46 PM)
We'll have alot more data to go on in two or three weeks as dozens of games go through this time period. So lets wait and see shall we.

spence -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/15/2009 10:17:53 PM)
quote: AE does not have the same limit on search range that WITP did. In AE, it's based on the cruise speed of the search plane and how far it can go in a reasonable amount of time for the search phase before it would have to turn around. I hope this applies to the Glen who's search patterns in WitP are only possible if the aircraft is able to dabble in quantum mechanics

Yamato hugger -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/16/2009 12:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider And I am not lying (and I highly resent the accusation) FOR YOU INFORMATION I reloaded the turn and upon my mouse over of the TFs in question those were the weather conditions reported -Overcast and Thunderstorms. You saw the combat report with the "DAYTIME SURFACE COMBATS IN PARTLY CLOUDY CONDITIONS" in the report. If you missed that, which would certainly be easy enough to do, then you certainly should have seen my post in the devs forum pointing out the fact that it was a surface combat in partly cloudy conditions and no sighting report. Then you post here saying you were under overcast when you have no excuse to not know the battle was fought in partly cloudy. In fact you stated in your first sentence: "Wonder what the weather was in the potential search hexes when the TF weren't spotted?". You had no excuse to NOT know. You certainly had the means to answer your own question. I call that an intentional lie. Made intentionally to down play a problem with the game. In other words to deceive the players. You can take offense if you wish, but its the truth. I wont lie to the players and people on this forum. I will say what I think are good things about the game (and I have stated time and again that there are many of them and in many many cases I have pointed these out) and I will state what I feel are problems with it (and any game company that wont admit that their game has problems is a problem in and of itself). I think you lying to try to discredit my observations and down play a serious weakness in the game is reprehensible. And yes, I consider a TF engaging in combat - DAYTIME combat - well within search range of friendly aircraft and not be spotted to be a serious weakness. One that should immediately be corrected. Subs spot enemy TFs but TFs that engage in surface combat dont? Why not? Because "thats not how it was in stock"? Stock is wrong, and should itself be corrected if that is truly the case. I cant begin to count the number of times I have heard that "it works like stock" party line in this testing process and I turned around and PROVED it WASNT like stock, and then got bitched at for doing it or rather the way I did it, so forgive me if I dont take a coders word for it when I hear that line either. I have heard it one too many times, and proved it wrong one too many times. Carriers that launch strikes in stock are spotted, period. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldnt. Carriers that launch strikes within air search range, indeed in this case within 75% of a search aircrafts range should automatically be spotted, IMHO. What possible justification any dev could come up with for this to not be the case I cant fathom. I consider these to be serious issues. Issues that to me, combined with a number of other things, make the game as it is unplayable in a 2 player game, to ME. Note I said "as it is" and "to ME", I am not saying that it cant be corrected, and I am not saying everyone should feel as I do. This is my opinion. As Erik says, I am 1 tester with 1 opinion. I admit that, I have never done otherwise. I have always stated that it is MY opinion. I have never once said that people should take my word for things - blindly follow me off into the fog. I have time and again said that your opinion means just as much as mine does and no one is right or wrong. But, make no mistake, I said you lied about this and you did. And no outrage you can express about me saying so will change that fact. Not everyone has the same tastes in what they like and dislike. People that dont like to micro-manage stuff (like narrowing your search arc to 30 degrees to spot a surface group just off your coast) some people (like me) think things like that are kinda beneath what a supreme commander should have to do. Or manage routine ship maintenance as another example. Other people will LOVE this. Its a matter of taste. And without HONEST input to the players they cant make an HONEST determination of if this game is right for them. If you want to lie to them, be my guest, but I will call you on it every time. I dont care who you are.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/16/2009 12:49:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger <snip offensive rant> Isn't that last post a violation of TOS for this site? If not it should be. It's obvious Treespider wasn't as tuned in to the minutiae of YH's apparent personal problem with the new detail in air search routines, and I don't believe for a second he lied at all. [Edited offensive comment.] Jim

Buck Beach -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/16/2009 1:57:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger <snip offensive rant> Isn't that last post a violation of TOS for this site? If not it should be. It's obvious Treespider wasn't as tuned in to the minutiae of YH's apparent personal problem with the new detail in air search routines, and I don't believe for a second he lied at all. Were I Treespider, I'd be looking to ...... {edited per request - JCW} Jim I sort of think your feelings about "........." is rather offensive for a game thread[:-] {edited at Buck Beach's request - JCW} I have enjoyed reading your posts however, they are informative.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/16/2009 2:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach I sort of think your feelings about "----------" is rather offensive for a game thread[:-] Agreed, I've edited it out. Jim

Kull -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/16/2009 2:59:47 AM)
As a former mod-team leader, let me respectfully suggest that inter-team disagreements should NEVER be posted in the public forums. Keep it behind the curtain. And for what it's worth, that same experience has shown that 99% of the time, this kind of thing is the result of a misunderstanding, and not ill intent by either party.

jwilkerson -> RE: Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes? (7/16/2009 3:18:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger quote: ORIGINAL: treespider And I am not lying I said you lied about this and you did. I will call you on it every time. I dont care who you are. This is a totally unacceptable exchange - and violates forum policy - I have escalated to the administrators for ajudication.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875