initiative + naval search + altitude (Full Version)

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



Message

marcosortega -> initiative + naval search + altitude (12/17/2002 3:09:03 PM)

Hi,
Please, can anyone explain what happens when two air naval task forces meet?
Who strikes first? Does it matters who strikes first?

What is the difference between naval search mission (you end up attacking if you find something) and naval attack (you only attack but do not search???). Is then always better naval search mission?

Please, could anyone explain the main issues and concepts attached to :
a)the black circle
b)the red circle
c)the green circle
d)the white circle

What altitudes should I use when attacking?

Thanks a lot!! Sorry for so many questions but I have just started playing!!



Feinder -> (12/17/2002 9:16:25 PM)

Hi,
Please, can anyone explain what happens when two air naval task forces meet?
Who strikes first? Does it matters who strikes first?
There are alot of factors here. What %age of planes are searching can determing who spots who FIRST. Yes it matters who spots who first. While you often do get simultanius strikes, it -IS- possible to get a "Midway style" result if your TF hits the other guy before he even gets any planes up 9but this is VERY rare). Spotting FIRST is important, just ask my brother about our PBEM game. The aggressiveness of you TF commander can determine if he chooses to press towards an enemy TF and/or launch and/or run away.

What is the difference between naval search mission (you end up attacking if you find something) and naval attack (you only attack but do not search???). Is then always better naval search mission?

Primarily "Naval Search" means that the rest of your guys (if not set to 100%) are sitting at the O-club. So if your mission is search at 50%, 50% of you planes are looking for ships, the other 50% are in the O-club. You MIGHT get the one guy that spotted the ship(s) to attack them, however, the attacks from Naval Search are random at best. Frankly, I've only maybe seen something attack once or twice, if at all, from a search mission. Don't PLAN on any attacking going on if the primary mission is search.
Primarily "Naval Attack" means that everyone not searching is going to attack. So if your mission is attack with 50% search. Half your squadron is looking for ships, and when they find them, the other 50% will bomb them.

Please, could anyone explain the main issues and concepts attached to :
a)the black circle
"Normal" range of your aircraft.

b)the red circle
"Extended" range of your aircraft.

c)the green circle
Distance your TF can move at "Normal" cruising speed in 1 day.

d)the white circle
Distance your TF can move at "Full" speed in 1 day.

What altitudes should I use when attacking?
CAP doesn't matter the altituded. Your fighters will climb/dive to any threat. This alititude is for when you're bombing AFs and Ports. The higher up you are, the less AAA can hit you, fewer fighters will reach you (they have to climb to meet you), and the less accurate your bombers are. Generally, if a target has little or no AAA, and no CAP, you might as well bomb them from the tree tops. The rest is up to you. Lower mean more casualties. Make a few runs at 1000'. If the casuaties are too high, move em up to 6000'.

Thanks a lot!! Sorry for so many questions but I have just started playing!!
You're welcome, and good luck!



CapAndGown -> (12/17/2002 10:10:45 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Feinder
Please, can anyone explain what happens when two air naval task forces meet?
Who strikes first? Does it matters who strikes first?
There are alot of factors here. What %age of planes are searching can determing who spots who FIRST. Yes it matters who spots who first. While you often do get simultanius strikes, it -IS- possible to get a "Midway style" result if your TF hits the other guy before he even gets any planes up. Spotting FIRST is important, just ask my brother about our PBEM game. The aggressiveness of you TF commander can determine if he chooses to press towards an enemy TF and/or launch and/or run away.[/quote]

Strikes are almost always simultaneous, with the US strike being resolved first. I have yet to see one side get off a strike without the other side responding.

[Quote]
c)the green circle
Distance your TF can move at "Normal" cruising speed in 1 day.

d)the white circle
Distance your TF can move at "Full" speed in 1 day.
[/B][/QUOTE]

No, these are the distance they can move in 12 hours. Very important distinction here. So if your TF has a cruising radius of 5, then it can move 10 hexes in one day.



The Gnome -> (12/17/2002 10:16:17 PM)

Ditto what cap_and_gown said. I have never seen an unanswered strike in any game I've played ever. That is under all versions of the game I've played.

In fact I've never not spotted enemy units at sea. The only time I seem to have trouble landing airstrikes on enemy task forces is when they are small CL/DD supply runs and are sitting at a port unloading. For some reason I can almost never land an airstrike on them.



Feinder -> (12/17/2002 10:34:40 PM)

"distance you can move in 12 hours" : Well that WOULD be an important distinction!

Gnome, don't take this a smart-a$$ed, but "How would you know if you HADN'T spotted a TF or not?" Smaller TFs are ALOT harder to spot. Just last week (game time), I "smuggled" an AV and it's two PG escorts into PM, right under the nose of my brotherss IJN 3-carrier TF (within 4 hexes of his of TF). His TF was stationed just north of that atoll east of Gili-Gili. My AV TF sailed 2 hexes South of that atoll right into PM (from Noumea). Granted, it was an accident, I didn't INTEND for them to get that close. But my my PBYs from PM had continuous contact with his carriers, and he (seems) to have never spotted me. He was flying fighter-cover over Gili-Gili, but I'm sure his Kates and Vals were just itching for a target. They would have made short work of my little AV TF had they spotted me.

Actually, the PBEM game that my brother and I are playing, I -did- manage to hit his his carriers first. There were no weather reports saying that he couldn't launch. But basically, my planes (as US) hit him (quite hard). He didn't respond, and then I hit him again, and THEN he responded.

We were certainly BOTH surprised that he didn't respond to my first attack. However, I was getting spotting messages about him and such just prior to the battle, and there were no messages about him spotting ME. So by all appearances, I got the first strike in and surprised him. I managed to damage one of his carriers, and badly maul another. For the second strike of the day tho, it appears that the damage to his carriers was in effect beacuse his his reply strike was inidicated only planes from 1 carrier.

Lemme see if I can dig out the combat.txt file and/or the replay file for you.
-F-



The Gnome -> (12/17/2002 10:38:14 PM)

I don't doubt that it happens, I've heard others report it as well. But I think the frequency that it happens needs to be increased. I think it may tie in with the fact that naval search may be too effective.



Feinder -> (12/17/2002 10:55:29 PM)

Here's the replay at least...

The PLAN was to attack the cluster of transports around Guadalcanal (hense very few escorts with my bombers, most of my fighters were on CAP, because I was expecting a land-based response). But his CV TF showed up, and the fun really started!

(lemme see if this works, I've never attached a file before in a post)

-F-



NorthStar -> (12/18/2002 12:11:06 AM)

Feinder,

Actually, CAP altitude does matter, to a point. CAP stationed above an incoming strike gets at least some benefit from attacking with the altitude advantage. However, if the CAP is too far above the strike, it can slip in underneath them (and it may take a while for them to catch it). Similarly P-39s and P-400s have poor performance about 10,000 feet.

If CAP is below the strike, they will climb to intercept, but now they do not have any altitude advantage (the strike's escort fighters may), and if they have to climb to far (based on their climb rate) they may intercept late or not at all!

Realistically thought, you can generally get OK results leaving all the altitudes at default. You may get better resulst with good altitude selection though, assuming that you guess your opponents settings right.

Gnome,

I've seen statements like you made a few times (by others as well), but I'm curious. In RL, how many times were there unanswered strikes in a Carrier battle? It seems to me that since strike flight times are usually significant, the odds of a TF remaining undetected long enough to detect its opponent, launch a full strike, and have that strike hit home are quite slim.



The Gnome -> (12/18/2002 12:21:10 AM)

Northstar:

Good question, without doing research I know of only one: Midway. I've been playing pretty consistently since release and haven't seen this happen yet. So while I don't know what the actual occurance rate should be set to by the designers, I do think the current rate is too low.

It isn't like this scenario hasn't happened historically, so I'd like to see it happen in the game at a rate that reasonably matches history. Maybe some intrepid researcher (or someone with more offhand knowledge than myself) has some insight into the frequency of this.



denisonh -> (12/18/2002 4:52:20 AM)

And Midway is a bad example to base effectiveness of search on.

As the USN had excellent intelligence on the timing and location of the move against Midway, the focused a large amount of search assets at a relatively small area. Combine this with late launch of the critical scout plane, and there you go.

Yes it can happen, but not that often, especially if you have a large number of search asstes out. Yes, there is a trade off with striking power and search, but that is a choice for the player to make.



The Gnome -> (12/18/2002 5:16:57 AM)

[QUOTE] And Midway is a bad example to base effectiveness of search on.[/QUOTE]
My use of Midway was not an argument on the effectiveness of searches; rather, it was an historical example of one fleet being able to launch an unanswered strike on an enemy carrier TF. I mentioned searches as a possible reason the game engine so infrequently generated this type of outcome.


[QUOTE] As the USN had excellent intelligence on the timing and location of the move against Midway, the focused a large amount of search assets at a relatively small area. Combine this with late launch of the critical scout plane, and there you go.[/QUOTE]
I agree entirely, I wish this type of situation could be generated in the game more often – which was the point I was trying to get across. Sometimes I write from work and don’t put as much thought into a post as I’d like, so clarity suffers.



denisonh -> Post Midway Intel (12/18/2002 5:26:39 AM)

Problem is after Midway, the IJN changed their codes, and did not repeat the mistake of putting fleet directives in the communications.

Combined with the number of bases the IJN had in the South Pacific and the local command structure, there was not alot of "tactical" intel available to generate the Midway style scenario in the South Pacific.

So I think a Midway style event is much more unlikely in this theater, unless a player neglects naval search. Then it should happen to him!



Karrick -> unanswered strike happened to me... (12/18/2002 6:58:29 AM)

I was playing sc-17 as the Japanese. I had a 2 carrier task force supporting the resupply of lunga when the AI lanched a strike against me from a location just south of lunga that had not been spotted during the recon phase. The US task force just appeared during the air combat phase when the strike lines were drawn on the map. Both my carriers were damaged to the extent that all air operations stopped and no counter strike was launched and the surviving CAP was diverted to lunga. This was the 2.11 version of the game. I have played many games before but this the first time I saw an unanswerd strike. Needless to say, this was the beginning of very bad week for the me and the japanese...my resupply transport task force got nailed, my surface combat group got mauled. Both carriers were sunk on the following day by follow up strikes. :mad: ....up to that point I was kicking butt as the japanese....again the AI surprised me...I have to admitt...what an amazing game.

KarricK



denisonh -> (12/18/2002 7:02:37 AM)

Curious as to what you had on naval search? What, where, how many, altitude, % search, exp.

I find in the early part of the game while the exp levels for search are lower, it happens. As they get more experienced, the search becomes more effective.



marcosortega -> (12/18/2002 3:49:18 PM)

Thanks for comments! They have been very useful!
Do you know how many times my planes can attack in the same day?
Are they supposed to attack always twice (in the morning and evening)?
The main reason i ask that is because I was expecting my CV planes to attack the target twice (morning and afternoon) but they only attacked once!



The Gnome -> (12/18/2002 9:58:17 PM)

[QUOTE]Problem is after Midway, the IJN changed their codes, and did not repeat the mistake of putting fleet directives in the communications.[/QUOTE]

Right, I think the US achieved tactical surprise [I]without[/I] use of sigint. They achieved it by dumb luck - the IJN recon assets, through various breakdowns on their part, failed to spot the US TFs.

The IJN had sufficient search assets, and the presence of the US CVs was not entirely unexpected. They just flat failed to spot them.

[QUOTE]So I think a Midway style event is much more unlikely in this theater, unless a player neglects naval search. Then it should happen to him![/QUOTE]

I think we're saying the same thing, I'd just like the frequency of the event looked into. After the number of games I've played I think it should have happened at least once.



Ron Saueracker -> search (12/18/2002 10:12:15 PM)

I don't know how many times a base of mine was bombarded and my patrol TF failed to intercept the Bombardment TF. Why? The BB TF was not spotted. Happens alot.

Only thing I'd like to see is course and speed added to spotting reports.



Feinder -> (12/18/2002 11:47:21 PM)

"I don't know how many times a base of mine was bombarded and my patrol TF failed to intercept the Bombardment TF. Why? The BB TF was not spotted. Happens alot.

Only thing I'd like to see is course and speed added to spotting reports."


Yes, I find bombardment TFs, and fast-supply TFs to be very annoying. The trick is, they sit on the edge of their "full speed" range during the day, then sprint in at night, do their job, and leave by morning. That means spotting them with LB air is more difficult (farther range). You can't bomb what you can't see. And as far as surface TFs go you can "park" (patrol, no retire) your surface TF at the target of the bombardment TF and they SHOULD engage it when they come in at night. Also, I accidently sent a bombardment TF into one of my opponents bases, at the same time that he was running in a fast-supply TF. The bombardment TF engaged the fast-supply TF (much to the dismay of the fast-supply TF).

Course and speed would be nice for spotting reports. In fact, a separte report, like the Combat.Txt file, that details the sightings would be useful. I'm anal enough that I'd plot those things over time to see what what was brewing.

-F-



NorthStar -> Number of strikes per day (12/19/2002 12:15:17 AM)

Aircraft will generally fly two strikes per day (morning and afternoon).

However, there are some times when the will only fly one strike:

- If range to target is long, the morning strike may return to base too late to launch for an afternoon strike (i.e., they won't be able to return to base until after dark).
- Obviously, if there is not target detected in the morning phase, no attack will be launched. Subsequently, a target may be picked up and attacked in the afternoon phase (or vice versa).
- I THINK certain mission types are only flow once per day, and I THINK Ground Attack is one of them. You'd have to check the manual for that one.



Feinder -> (12/19/2002 1:26:39 AM)

Lots of other stuff also contributes to whether you strike lauches or not...

Fatigue (a biggie).
Moral (another biggie).

What happened to me in a prior game, my TFs were happily bombing an enemy base. On about day 2, my brother sent CV TF to make things interesting. My crews were tired from 2 days of round-the-clock bombing. His weren't. He got 2 strikes from his fresh crews, I only got one.

My own rule of thumb at this point (and seems to work well), is to take a squadron "off the line" if Moral is less than 50, or Fatigue is more than 30 (I usually take them off-line with a fatigue of more than 25, but 25 is soft-cap up to 30).

-F-



DSandberg -> Re: search (12/19/2002 3:14:58 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Only thing I'd like to see is course and speed added to spotting reports. [/B][/QUOTE]

This would be nice. Course information does not actually exist in the game I imagine, but I suppose it could be "fudged" by comparing the current hex location to the hex location 12 hours prior. But there would also have to be a very significant degree of randomness built into both to reflect the historical unreliability of such reports. Course estimates could be thrown off by specific maneuvers a task force might be engaged in at the time of the sighting (or simply by errors on the part of the spotting plane), and speed is really hard to judge from the air, at a great distance and without any fixed points of reference.

David



denisonh -> (12/19/2002 3:30:36 AM)

Accurate course predictions were only possible if shadowed for a while, since most TFs varied thier courses and sometimes speeds to throw submarines off.

That can result in the kind of reporting inaccuracies that DSandberg is referencing.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25