Opinions on naval search wanted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

Nikademus -> Opinions on naval search wanted (9/14/2002 2:39:36 AM)

looking for opinions on the current search engine. I believe this issue was brought up once before but dont recall exactly. Now that i have more turns under my belt i'm beginning to wonder on this issue myself.

it "appears" often that even with minimal search forces that TF's never seem to be able to "slip in under the radar" for want of a better word. Notice the heavy emphasis on the word "appears" as i am in no shape way or form convinced that there is a problem here hence no critisisms on the part of UV. I'm just curious as to other opinions and would also like to know from Matrix's POV if the search engine factors in aspects (such as weather) as well as total numbers of searchers on whether a TF might go unspotted during a turn.

Having gotten far into my second full length campaign (after four restarts) i've just noticed that search reports on both sides never seem to fail to fully inform either side when the other is at sea.



Apollo11 -> Re: Opinions on naval search wanted (9/14/2002 5:40:28 AM)

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]looking for opinions on the current search engine. I believe this issue was brought up once before but dont recall exactly. Now that i have more turns under my belt i'm beginning to wonder on this issue myself.

it "appears" often that even with minimal search forces that TF's never seem to be able to "slip in under the radar" for want of a better word. Notice the heavy emphasis on the word "appears" as i am in no shape way or form convinced that there is a problem here hence no critisisms on the part of UV. I'm just curious as to other opinions and would also like to know from Matrix's POV if the search engine factors in aspects (such as weather) as well as total numbers of searchers on whether a TF might go unspotted during a turn.

Having gotten far into my second full length campaign (after four restarts) i've just noticed that search reports on both sides never seem to fail to fully inform either side when the other is at sea. [/B][/QUOTE]

Darn... you must have read my mind... :-)

I was just to post something similar and I see this...


The "Naval Search" in UV was always something I wanted to ask
here. I am interested in experiences of experts regarding:

#1
The search pattern in UV is circle (i.e. full 360 deg coverage).

Does this mean what it implies (i.e. that whole circle is search area)?

#2
Does the number of planes in squadron play a role in successful search (i.e.
does same area covered with larger/smaller amount of recon planes give
better/worse results)?

#3
Is weather playing any role in "Naval Search"


And last (but not least), if only we could have user definable arcs (i.e. pie
shapes) instead of full circles for search patters... ahhh... I am still
dreaming...


Leo "Apollo11"



XPav -> (9/14/2002 6:17:29 AM)

Remember Task Force 1942 and I think Pacific Air War 1942? You'd select the squadron, pick the number of aircraft on search, and based off of that, you'd get an arc which you could drag around.



siRkid -> (9/14/2002 7:14:55 AM)

I have been surprised a few times in the games I've played. In one game I have been moving some ships to an area (spies) undetected for several turns now. I think it would be too much effort to select your own search zones, however I would support an option to do it manually or let the computer do it for you.

Rick



Raverdave -> (9/14/2002 7:29:48 AM)

I also have been caught out in a few of my PBEM......IJN CV TFs turning up out of thin air, and VERY close to my units that were set on 100% Naval search. But this has been the exception rather than the rule.



jive1 -> (9/14/2002 7:43:37 AM)

With only a few search aircraft up I never get the feeling that I
miss much enemy movement. So far I have not been surprised to find the enemy on my doorstep. I remember playing Carriers at War and searching seemed the most important part of the game.
Finding that enemy TF a few hours before they found you was so
important and also nail bitingly tense.

The fact that we are playing daily turns rather then hourly may have something to do with this - but it feels that as long as you have a couple of aircraft up you won't miss much.

Maybe 12 PBY's searching hundreds of square miles of ocean are
too effective at the moment?

I don't like the idea of specifing search arcs however - I think that belongs to a tactical level game.



Oleg Mastruko -> (9/14/2002 8:05:19 AM)

As for specifying arcs I'm with jive on that - I'm not interested in this, as I believe it belongs to tactical games. Same as specifying altitude of aircraft in UV which I find redundant and unnecessary in a game at this level. Hell, if I can't order a squadron to fly (if they decide they are not willing) why would selecting altitude be my business? Let the squadron commander decide for himself, according to his mission, if he is so "smart" :)

I pay attention to searching and patrolling as the next guy, but have been surprised more than once, and yes - I believe weather is modelled into search (harder to spot in rain), but I don't have any hard evidence for that, just my personal impression.

Number of planes on patrol also counts of course...

O.



XPav -> (9/14/2002 8:43:59 AM)

Agreed Oleg. Now, maybe a "low level attack" or "normal attack" would make sense, but this whole altititude in 1000s of feet thing seems out of place.



RevRick -> I don't know... (9/14/2002 9:06:23 AM)

I'm playing the AI in SC. 14 right now and have a squad of Cats and a squad of SBD's at Lunga and another squad of Cats at Tulagi - all flying naval search - and twice the IJN has snuck up within 150 miles and the first thing I knew about their presence was a CV launched air attack. Don't think Naval search is working for beans right now! You'd think 24 cats would find SOMETHING out there!

On the other hand they always let me know when the big boys get ready for a Tokyo Express by gathering one hex out of Shortlands - fat lot of good that usually does.

Also - how is it that two squadrons of B-26's at 11K feet do four times the port damage 63 Forts do at 21K - on a clear day - consistently - do I have a cross-eyed bombadier or what? That guy couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle! Too bad we don't have a "promote to counting bears on Adak" button!



Drongo -> (9/14/2002 6:09:14 PM)

I've had one experience (against the AI) where my IJN CV TF was unspotted until it launched in the afternoon (2nd round of searches). The weather was clear. Only time it happened in good weather (from memory).

In my experience, normally only bad weather will stop you being spotted (although I think the manual said that having a smaller TF helps).

I would be in favour of a little more variability in search success than what is the present norm (although, if you're hit by an airstrike in the morning from an unspotted TF, you should know its location for the afternoon (your strike would still have to "find" it).



ADavidB -> Re: Opinions on naval search wanted (9/14/2002 6:42:55 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]looking for opinions on the current search engine. I believe this issue was brought up once before but dont recall exactly. Now that i have more turns under my belt i'm beginning to wonder on this issue myself.

it "appears" often that even with minimal search forces that TF's never seem to be able to "slip in under the radar" for want of a better word. Notice the heavy emphasis on the word "appears" as i am in no shape way or form convinced that there is a problem here hence no critisisms on the part of UV. I'm just curious as to other opinions and would also like to know from Matrix's POV if the search engine factors in aspects (such as weather) as well as total numbers of searchers on whether a TF might go unspotted during a turn.

Having gotten far into my second full length campaign (after four restarts) i've just noticed that search reports on both sides never seem to fail to fully inform either side when the other is at sea. [/B][/QUOTE]


Hmmm - I'm pretty certain that I don't get to see all of the enemy TF's, even when I optimize my search aircraft, and I also use the variability in search effectiveness to my advantage all the time, particularly with my surface TFs. I'll park a surface TF in a particular location while waiting for an opportunity, and more often than not, it won't be spotted the first day it's there. Then, if it does get spotted, I just move it 3 or 4 hexes and it won't usually get spotted again the next day. I have a "feeling" that AC TF's get spotted more readily, but I wouldn't swear to it since I use the same tactic with them.

Dave Baranyi



Luskan -> (9/14/2002 7:58:48 PM)

I think that search if probably a little too powerfully modelled - it should be less effective the further you go (ie, the patterns get larger the further from origin you go - is that how aircraft do a search?). On the other hand, one of my carriers (I won't say which) limped at about 68 sys for 5 days in enemy carrier and lba range, with only a bruised DD for escort - and didn't get spotted (and got away).

Also - searching is much more effective if the enemy doesn't know he's been found - which I would think happens more than not. As it stands now, as soon as I do spot his ships - he watches the combat replay and knows that I've seen them and is waiting for my reaction etc. This is nuts.

The over information in the combat replay is really shocking.
"TF 208 retreats from enemy carriers" - well, if my opponent didn't know tf208 was there (how could he, his CVs were north of Nevea, the tf was just out of Noumea!) he does now, and he knows it is a transport group that has gone back to Noumea. A little inferring on his part about what my objective was (in our game it is brutally obvious where I need those troops - and it is only the end of June, so the guesswork on what troops and ships they are isn't that hard to do) and he is ready for my counterstroke with his counter counter stroke! :mad:

All that information that he shouldn't know. Just like "TF is must unload" and "South Dakota hits a type 88 mine in Noumea harbour" - all stuff that need to be taken out before WITP.

Perhaps the answer is not to remove this info from the replay (it does need to be presented somehow) but to have seperate combat replays generated for each side (which would allow for much greater FOW effect, greater presentation of information you should know about in pBEM like air transport missions, etc. etc.).
This would probably be difficult to incorporate (not too code-literate, not sure) but to have the .dat file arrive via email, and then when UV loads it, it generates the combat replay file there and then etc.).

Should also make name ID much more difficult. IE. My bombers find a CV and try to drop some bombs. In PBEM there is no chance that my pilots mis-identify the CV Zuikaku as another CV say, because the japanese player also watches the replay etc.

Sorry about the rant - will go and take my pills ;)



loader6 -> (9/14/2002 8:18:47 PM)

I personally like the idea of arcs. I just don't feel confident that my planes are going where I want them to. I've been surprised a few times from areas where I'd have my search planes looking if I could tell them. In addition, I'm not big on the altitude thing either. I like the idea of a low/medium/high altitude setting



Admiral_Arctic -> (9/14/2002 9:13:44 PM)

Maybe the hexsides of the hexes could change colour for the areas that were reported "searched." It would be handy to know searched squares without using another button - but even a button that ghosted over searched hexes would be better than worrying. Or would this information be below the level of command. Only the base commander would watch this info- not the area commander.



denisonh -> Detection by Search Planes (9/14/2002 11:43:20 PM)

One point that has been brought up is not knowing you were detected.

This is not entirely true. A search plane can be spotted and you would therefore know you were spotted (Like when Halsey "let" himself get spotted the week prior to the battle of Midway.)

This would be particularly true in clear weather.

It would seem to me, the worse the weather gets, the less likely you are to spot the spotter so to speak.

Just a thought.



eMonticello -> (9/15/2002 12:19:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]I think that search if probably a little too powerfully modelled - it should be less effective the further you go ...[/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed... although we don't know if it is modeled this way already.
[QUOTE][B]
On the other hand, one of my carriers ... limped [home in enemy]range ... and didn't get spotted.
[/B][/QUOTE]
This makes sense, since it was a small TF and the probability of detection was lower.
[QUOTE][B]
Also - searching is much more effective if the enemy doesn't know he's been found - which I would think happens more than not. As it stands now, as soon as I do spot his ships - he watches the combat replay and knows that I've seen them and is waiting for my reaction etc. This is nuts.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Once the TF is spotted, search planes will often shadow the enemy and provide updated information periodically. So, the odds of the search plane being spotted is high. However, I would agree that there should be a degree of probability that the search plane should not be detected based on weather, size of task force, radar, etc.
[QUOTE][B]
The over information in the combat replay is really shocking.
[stuff about transports retreating from carriers, the enemy making an inference on the transport's destination, then preparing a welcome party as well as other messages][/B][/QUOTE]
You might say that this information simulates radio traffic analysis. Since you can create task forces on the fly or change a task force's destination willy-nilly, then this would compensate for the lack of intelligence channels that are not in the game.



Nikademus -> (9/16/2002 10:48:46 PM)

a good crop of responses. Thanks guys. For me, my incentive to ask was my own tweaking and positioning of my search elements, in particular mixing recon missions with search, which reduced the overall # of planes devoted to routine naval search, sometimes by as much as half.

Yet it seemed to have no noticable impact on my level of discovery. I wonder how 'low' i can go before TF's start slipping under the radar so to speak? :)



NorthStar -> Search Cancellations (9/16/2002 11:21:59 PM)

The one thing I've noticed is I don't think that search aircraft are ever grounded due to weather.

It's hard to tell for sure, since the game gives you no idication of where the spotting plane launched from (unless you have limited numbers of that type, and know where it is from). However, IIRC, there have been occasions where all bases in an area have been socked in, and there are still searches being carried out.

It seems that since the search phase occurs before the attack phase, missions are scrubbed AFTER the search planes have been launched and reported in.

Not that I'm looking for more weather related problems, but it seems that if strikes can't launch, search planes shouldn't be able to either (at lease some of the time, since the search planes obviously launch much earlier in the day).

Come to think of it, this might actually reduce weather related frustration. If my search planes are grounded, at least I wouldn't KNOW there was a perfect target hanging around which I missed my chance to attack. ;)



loader6 -> (9/17/2002 11:55:08 PM)

Just wanted to let you know I have had it where I've found enemy TF's and they didn't know I found them in PBEM. Or at least I believe this happened. Sometimes once I start my turn I will notice there is an enemy TF on screen that wasn't shown during the combat replay and I think this means I found it and my opponent doesn't know it.



Possum -> (9/18/2002 6:38:49 AM)

Hello All
I no longer use Naval Search as a Dedicated mission.
All of my Patrol and Floatplanes now perform ASW missions.
and they still do an excellent job of reporting in the locations of any ships they happen to spot.
Also, I generaly assign my naval interdiction forces a low level of naval search, about 20%, it seems to help them make up their minds to attack any passing ships.



Supervisor -> (9/18/2002 7:27:34 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Possum
[B]Also, I generaly assign my naval interdiction forces a low level of naval search, about 20%, it seems to help them make up their minds to attack any passing ships. [/B][/QUOTE]I've always done so. I've figured that the communications lag is a lot less if from the same squadron (or base, at least). Seems to work fairly well, overall.



motaman -> (9/18/2002 12:39:13 PM)

i like the way search was done in the GNB series.



LargeSlowTarget -> (9/19/2002 8:02:17 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by motaman
[B]i like the way search was done in the GNB series. [/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by loader6
[B]I personally like the idea of arcs. I just don't feel confident that my planes are going where I want them to. I've been surprised a few times from areas where I'd have my search planes looking if I could tell them. In addition, I'm not big on the altitude thing either. I like the idea of a low/medium/high altitude setting. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with you guys. The GNB system wasn't bad - the search sectors of each plane (the 'legs') were fixed, but you could select the number of planes, the distance between the individual search sectors (determining the 'density' of the search and the size of the search arc - beware of gaps!) and - most important - the direction of the search effort (which sometimes was a bit arkward to position correctly, IMO).
IIRC the system in Carrier Strike did let you assign the number of planes for a search mission and then showed a search arc in the size the assigned planes could cover effectively, giving you the option to position the arc on the map according to your notion before giving the order to actually launch the search planes.

I would like to see sth like this in UV or WITP, to enable me to concentrate my search efforts in areas I deem important - like the slot. At least some kind of display showing the areas that have been searched would be nice.

Btw, I second Lukosan on the 'over-information issue'. Seperate combat replays for each side would really improve the FOW.

LST



The Gnome -> (12/17/2002 10:35:10 PM)

I'm glad I found this post, I was thinking of starting a new thread on it. Anyway, I too think search is much too abstracted and much too powerful.

I have taken to the practice of never setting any percentage of my attack planes to searching and only half of my patrol aircraft to dedicated search. The only times I've been surprised is when I was negligent in looking through the TFs I've spotted.

Also, I agree that searches *seem* to be completed unaffected by weather.



Pawlock -> (12/18/2002 1:53:46 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Gnome
[B]I'm glad I found this post, I was thinking of starting a new thread on it. Anyway, I too think search is much too abstracted and much too powerful.

I have taken to the practice of never setting any percentage of my attack planes to searching and only half of my patrol aircraft to dedicated search. The only times I've been surprised is when I was negligent in looking through the TFs I've spotted.

Also, I agree that searches *seem* to be completed unaffected by weather. [/B][/QUOTE]

Just remember that just because you see something once doesent mean you have good intell on target. This is where many go wrong I feel, they spot something once and think , Hey why did'nt they target the say CV instead of the transports.

What Im saying is, bottom line the more times you spot something the more you raise its detection level, which in turn increases your chances of initiating attacks against and doing more damage.

From my experiences I get greater success when I have more planes on search than if not , and that includes leaving most bombers to 20 percent search.



denisonh -> Overlapping search (12/18/2002 4:31:16 AM)

Search is much more effective when you have overlapping search. I found that if you only one sqn searching an area within normal range, you can miss things. (I am big on searching and recon)

Missed an enemy bombardment TF completely. And that will limit the range at which surface TFs nearby can react, so he got in among transports with my surface TF several squares away inactive (aggressive Admiral set to react, but if surprised, it doesn't help).

Yea it may be powerful, but it ain't perfect.



wobbly -> (12/18/2002 6:03:30 AM)

From memory of the manual here, I believe weather only has an impact on offensive missions - yes here it is:

"Offensive missions can be aborted after all preparations have been made, but prior to take off, due to weather...
"
Search does not qualify as an offensive mission so they are flown.

This IS from the initial version of the manual so may have been changed; doesn't feel like that in the game though.

My 2 cents: I make my CV groups very spartan in size in order to utilise a chance that I may be undetected. From my own experiences I find that the target of an incoming strike is generally the CV's anyway (extra ships don't make extra targets), the extra firepower in AAA just isn't worth the chance of getting away an undetected strike. This is more suited to a early US use of their CV's: am I detected? No; get in, strike if able, get the hell out again.



DSandberg -> (12/18/2002 7:12:09 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by eMonticello
[B]Agreed (re: search effectiveness degrading with range) ... although we don't know if it is modeled this way already. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree as well. From what I've experienced in the game, I am under the impression that this is not currently modeled. Search planes from Rabaul seem to spot Allied ships south of Gili Gil far too frequently ... just about as frequently, in fact, as search planes from Enterprise can spot enemy carriers at 50 km distance.

If distance isn't a factor, I believe this is the primary problem with the current naval search system. Or if distance from the search plane's origin IS being factored in when determining the chance for a successful search, I believe the current degree of this effect is far too slight.

- David



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125