Search Arcs (Full Version)

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



Message

Steve Sv -> Search Arcs (2/6/2012 4:12:53 AM)

In my PBEM game I have been spending a good bit of time setting up my search arcs, but I am now wondering if that is simply a waste of time. The reason that I raise this question is that on several occasions my planes have made pointless attacks against a port that contains numerous HDML, PT, MGB and ML TFs. In one case they even wasted precious torpedoes against these targets and another flew into heavy cap. My planes made these attacks despite the fact that I was very careful to exclude the port in question from all search arcs that I employ and I had no planes flying search anywhere that should have searched the port in question. In the latest turn my planes attacked these targets despite the fact that there was a spotted TF inside its search arc containing a legitimate target.

I am wondering what gives. I don't want to waste any more time setting up these search arcs if they are pointless. Also, it appears to be a very useful tactic to set up these low-value TFs for the purpose of deflecting enemy air strikes away from legitimate targets. Is there any way to prevent my planes from flying such missions?

Thanks for any insights that anyone can provide as it has been very frustrating to spend time carefully setting up search arcs only to have my planes fly these pointless missions.



JeffroK -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 4:30:01 AM)

I would be surprised that aircraft on Nav Search would make too many attacks, yes you see them but fairly rare.

Have you put your Sqns on Nav Attack but allocated a % to Search??
This would see the % doing nav Search in the arc you set but the rest of the unit doing Nav Attack on a 360deg arc.
If correct you need to set the balance of the sqn on Rest (And you might as well put the whole Sqn on Nav Search)

Just 1 possibility of 1000's.



Steve Sv -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 4:42:40 AM)

Jeff,

Yes, I have put a percentage of the Sqd on search and the rest on naval attack. It would be pointless to put the rest of the Sqd on rest as the whole reason for the search is to get the planes to attack targets they find within that search arc.

I am thinking that the reason the low-value targets get spotted at all and later attacked is that I have been running bombing missions against the AF at the port hex in question. Maybe I can get by if I don't fly the bombing missions on which I think it likely that a high-value naval target will appear, but I am hoping that there is a more elegant solution to this dilemma.



adek670 -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 10:11:26 AM)

I stopped using search arcs all together - never seen the benefits

You do highlight an aspect of the game that allows gamey playing - small tfs that are used by players to deflect air strikes away from high value targets

Wouldn't it be great to have a filter on naval strike that would either limit to minimum number of ships or ship type

This would allow for better target selection - perhaps more realism

Just a thought



Roger Neilson II -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 11:42:38 AM)

My own view on this issue is as follows....

Naval Attack is entirely random so I never expect my attacks to follow any sort of logic. If my opponent only puts one TF in my attack reach then they may be attacked, but don't even bank on that.

Naval search is pretty reasonable, and sometimes they will drop a tiddly little bomb on something they find.

The two are entirely separate things.

I do think there's an element of truth in this anyway, having read recently a few things where the naval search spotted something nasty, but the time delay, routing and general snafus that went on back then meant by the time it got to anyone who wanted to mess with the target it was no longer there. Search works far better on things that don't move around, or do so at walking pace.......



derhexer -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 5:26:04 PM)

quote:

I stopped using search arcs all together - never seen the benefits

You do highlight an aspect of the game that allows gamey playing - small tfs that are used by players to deflect air strikes away from high value targets

Wouldn't it be great to have a filter on naval strike that would either limit to minimum number of ships or ship type

This would allow for better target selection - perhaps more realism

Just a thought


Reaper makes two good points.
1. If you are launching airstrikes, you can't designate a target for Naval attacks the way you can with Airfield, Ground or Port attacks. So, I've had situations where I know an enemy air combat TF is close by, I've set up my air strike, set search arcs over the known site of the enemy, and still had that strike wander off and attack some freighters or minelayers.

I'd like to designate a target hex for naval attacks, or a priority such as
attack carriers or attack transports. The air strike could also search the six adjacent hexes.

2. When I'm in the vicinity of an enemy air combat TF, I've created small TFs of 1 or 2 destroyers and had them sail parallel to the TF I want to protect in between my TF and the suspected enemy air TF. The small TFs sometimes draw air strikes.

Is that gaming the game? I suspect so. It would make my life more interesting if the enemy could designate a hex site to launch an attack on.



JeffroK -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 9:03:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve Sv

Jeff,

Yes, I have put a percentage of the Sqd on search and the rest on naval attack. It would be pointless to put the rest of the Sqd on rest as the whole reason for the search is to get the planes to attack targets they find within that search arc.

I am thinking that the reason the low-value targets get spotted at all and later attacked is that I have been running bombing missions against the AF at the port hex in question. Maybe I can get by if I don't fly the bombing missions on which I think it likely that a high-value naval target will appear, but I am hoping that there is a more elegant solution to this dilemma.

Therefore the game is working, just not as you would like it.
Others have commented that it would be nice to set Attack Arcs to avoid the attacks you have had, dont know if its possible, might create more dissapointments as TF sneak up from directions you dont cover. Might make things exiting!
I think, in game, you need to split your Nav Search from your Nav Attack and limit them by range, cant think of any other tactics.



EUBanana -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 9:36:17 PM)

You might have detected the target by any number of means aside from naval search. SigInt actually seems to cause detections, coastwatchers can operate in surprising places, etc. If its detected there may be an airstrike.

Also the drawing of the naval search arcs may not be hex-perfect on the map, I think the drawn arcs are more of a guideline than a rule potentially.

The only surefire reliable way of selecting naval targets is 1) don't fly, or 2) fiddle with the range setting so the base is not in range. Less than ideal I know, but the way it is unfortunately.

The search arcs do appear to work. I use them now and they definitely spot things. Whether its more effective than just random arcs I dont know, but only a little while ago I spotted a 4 DD ASW TF with Catalinas at 19 or 20 or hexes range - it was traversing a heavily searched area of ocean. That seemed pretty effective to me, you normally dont see squat that far out and it was a reasonable DF even, so I think saturating the area with floatplanes did appear, anecdotally, to work.



Gridley380 -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 10:09:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: derhexer

2. When I'm in the vicinity of an enemy air combat TF, I've created small TFs of 1 or 2 destroyers and had them sail parallel to the TF I want to protect in between my TF and the suspected enemy air TF. The small TFs sometimes draw air strikes.

Is that gaming the game? I suspect so. It would make my life more interesting if the enemy could designate a hex site to launch an attack on.



At most very slightly gamey, as the USN did this late in the war: radar picket DDs, which eventually got some other light ships attached to provide AA support; these drew FAR more than their share of attacks.

As for target selection being suboptimal... it may be annoying, but there are plenty of historical examples. Remember that while aerial surface-search radar did exist, most detection and all identifications were made with the Mark I eyeball. Novices, in particular, frequently reported xAKs as being BBs and vice-versa; and once you decide to attack the 'carrier group' which turns out to be an oiler and a pair of tin cans human nature makes it unlikely you will abort and keep looking.

I'll admit I'd like the option of assigning a priority zone of some kind, but the current system seems to produce reasonable results. It certainly isn't broken, which from what I've read and seen USN radar-directed gunfire IS.



EUBanana -> RE: Search Arcs (2/6/2012 10:48:07 PM)

The thing that annoys me most about target selection is when Allied LBA, which is usually armed with nothing more than 500lb bombs, unloads everything they got onto the lone BB sent in as a bomb magnet along with a convoy.

Sometimes day after day, the Allied level bombers bounce bombs off the BB armour while the 20 Marus peacefully unload unmolested.

Now that is poor target selection.



Dili -> RE: Search Arcs (2/7/2012 12:49:22 AM)

The issue is that the BB should have been heavily damaged with so so many 500lb bombs. Plus you'll get a PR coup: "Enemy battleship in fire."



Steve Sv -> RE: Search Arcs (2/7/2012 2:30:38 AM)

Thanks for the comments guys. I'll probably continue to use search arcs though not as much as I have done so far, and see if I can discern how effective they are.



Chickenboy -> RE: Search Arcs (2/7/2012 2:33:32 AM)

Steve,

Search arcs per se are inoperable in the game, as far as I know. This was demonstrated early in the official builds-I'm not aware of any official fixes, but don't know about any of the official or unofficial betas.



witpqs -> RE: Search Arcs (2/7/2012 2:38:44 AM)

Let me clear this up. In the latest Official Version (1106i) search arcs do not work properly.

In the Beta versions past a certain point (many months ago) they work just fine and the interface to control them was also improved.

This certainly includes the 'official Beta' that was (or is?) posted.



Empire101 -> RE: Search Arcs (2/7/2012 2:39:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Steve,

Search arcs per se are inoperable in the game, as far as I know. This was demonstrated early in the official builds-I'm not aware of any official fixes, but don't know about any of the official or unofficial betas.


I thought the latest official beta had rectified this problem?



witpqs -> RE: Search Arcs (2/7/2012 4:52:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Steve,

Search arcs per se are inoperable in the game, as far as I know. This was demonstrated early in the official builds-I'm not aware of any official fixes, but don't know about any of the official or unofficial betas.


I thought the latest official beta had rectified this problem?



I just answered that. BTW, the latest 'official Beta' is still a Beta and is not the 'latest official release'.



denisonh -> RE: Search Arcs (2/7/2012 6:37:40 AM)

Second witpqs, they work in the latest beta. I use them in the r9 beta and they seem to be working as designed
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Steve,

Search arcs per se are inoperable in the game, as far as I know. This was demonstrated early in the official builds-I'm not aware of any official fixes, but don't know about any of the official or unofficial betas.


I thought the latest official beta had rectified this problem?



I just answered that. BTW, the latest 'official Beta' is still a Beta and is not the 'latest official release'.




Steve Sv -> RE: Search Arcs (2/7/2012 7:04:44 PM)

To summarize:

As I understand it, since we are running Beta 1108r9, the search arcs are working as designed. The reason my Nells attacked the harbor defense TF outside its search arc and the search arcs of all other air groups instead of a spotted TF inside its search arc is that the harbor defense TF was spotted in some other way, possibly by coast watchers or by the pilots that bombed the AF at which the harbor defense TF was located and the air-group commander judged that to be a better target.

Perhaps I should demote the group commander. I see that his aggression rating is only 36, which is lower than all but two of the possible replacements. I don't understand much about how leaders affect the performance of the units that they command.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25