|
Shark7 -> RE: Setting air search arcs vs not setting them (5/29/2017 11:59:27 PM)
|
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.
|
|
|
|
