Search - random or set arcs? (Full Version)

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



Message

DSwain -> Search - random or set arcs? (11/1/2020 1:24:31 PM)

Hello,

I've returned to the game after several years away. I've (re) printed the manual and I'm sifting here for all of the excellent advice that people share. I've been reading about naval search. I wanted to ask, what's the latest opinion on the efficacy of setting search arcs vs leaving it random and not setting arcs? I tend to set them myself but I'd love to alternate views.

Thanks




geofflambert -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/1/2020 2:27:30 PM)

If you set the arc from 0 to 350 it would be something like random. If you don't set the arcs they are commander discretion and that isn't random (or shouldn't be). Usually that is the most reliable way to spot something unexpected. Set the arcs if: 1) you don't have enough search planes available but you want to make sure and cover a certain area, 2) you want to prevent search planes from entering an area with heavy enemy CAP or 3) you have plenty of coverage from multiple bases but want to be sure to catch things in certain areas early in the a.m.
I think you're more likely to use arcs, and I am, for ASW work.



DSwain -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/1/2020 2:29:17 PM)

Thanks, geofflambert, that sounds like something to really think about.



Lowpe -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/1/2020 5:01:32 PM)

This is a real can of worms...both method work, as does a combination approach.

General notes:

naval search goes 360 degrees four range...and then the arc.

pay attention to the color of the arc...you want both morning and afternoon searches most times. Black.

If you transfer a squadron a fair distance, the long range search might only occur in the afternoon or not at all.

Night search with squadrons size four or greater. You want night naval search for a lot of reasons.

You want multiple planes covering the arcs … often times a search plane will return to base after the first detection.

Spotting ships at greater than 12 hexes is tough...coordinating long range naval strikes require high dl among other things.

Try not to base all your search from one location.



DSwain -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/1/2020 7:11:52 PM)

Many thanks Lowpe for all of that, much of it I hadn't come across/thought about previously.



GetAssista -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/1/2020 7:56:01 PM)

I generally don't care about short range search arcs (CVs, FPs) leaving them on full circle. Unless it is a static position where arcs would never change, like a coastal base with a significant land mass you should never search. But I always set up long range search arcs for the flying boats and long range bombers on naval search duty cause their job is early warning, and you usually have a good idea which direction is the most important, and where exactly you should increase your search coverage



DSwain -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/1/2020 8:39:00 PM)

Thanks GetAssista, that makes sense.



Moltrey -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/1/2020 11:51:45 PM)

I agree with GetAssista when it comes to Task Force search patterns. You have enough to worry about with everything else required for a well-executed turn. Personally, I feel like I would probably forget about a small handful of TFs that I had given specific search arcs to cover, then regretted it all later because I artificially "limited" the TF search pattern then promptly forgot it. Uggh, no thanks. Better to let them do their own thing and concentrate on my PBYs, etc. to get individual areas covered when possible.
I am pretty detail-oriented and obsessed, and even I don't want any more on my commander "plate" than absolutely necessary.[sm=00000002.gif]



rustysi -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/2/2020 1:13:12 AM)

Try doing a search for the topic. There're many threads on the subject.



PaxMondo -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/2/2020 9:28:04 AM)

Yeah, and a ton of conflicting info in all those discussions. Alfred wrote on it once as I recall, strongly suggest you find his thoughts on the matter.



DSwain -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/2/2020 4:41:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Try doing a search for the topic. There're many threads on the subject.


Thanks, that's why I posted the question here. I'd read various threads but it's difficult to know what might/might not have been amended with patches etc. As you rightly say, many threads! Thanks everyone for the responses.



GetAssista -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/2/2020 4:48:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Try doing a search for the topic. There're many threads on the subject.


Should this search be done randomly or in set arcs though?



BBfanboy -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/2/2020 7:27:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Try doing a search for the topic. There're many threads on the subject.


Should this search be done randomly or in set arcs though?

[:D]
There are proponents of both methods, but I suggest using the term "Australian Beauties" in your forum search ... [;)]



RangerJoe -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/2/2020 9:09:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Try doing a search for the topic. There're many threads on the subject.


Should this search be done randomly or in set arcs though?

[:D]
There are proponents of both methods, but I suggest using the term "Australian Beauties" in your forum search ... [;)]


+1



rustysi -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/3/2020 3:00:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Yeah, and a ton of conflicting info in all those discussions. Alfred wrote on it once as I recall, strongly suggest you find his thoughts on the matter.


Yes, find whatever Alfred may have posted on the topic. He is our guru.

TBH, my thoughts are to use the arcs when operating from land bases.



Alpha77 -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/3/2020 3:32:16 PM)

In 90% of cases I do not use arcs anymore - also I am a micromanager already in other aspects of the game. Ok, as IJ player one needs to be such to a degree. But fiddling with arcs is even too much for me and it is not confirmed they work as designed.

On ships I never use arcs.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/3/2020 4:30:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DSwain

Hello,

I've returned to the game after several years away. I've (re) printed the manual and I'm sifting here for all of the excellent advice that people share. I've been reading about naval search. I wanted to ask, what's the latest opinion on the efficacy of setting search arcs vs leaving it random and not setting arcs? I tend to set them myself but I'd love to alternate views.

Thanks




circa ten years ago I posted that the arcs (nice feature if you ask me) were not working. Well, I gave them a try some months ago and... they are still

NOT working.

It's really really simple, no need of complicated kafkaesque tests. Take the PH bomber and patrol squadrons and tell them to patrol x arcs until every angle is covered. They will hardly detect let's say subs.

Now take these very same bomber and patrol squadrons. Random arcs. The bomber squadrons => NavSearch = 10% [aka 1 plane] ASW = 10% [aka 1 plane] and hit end turn. Subs are detected en masse [;)]

Don't bother about this feature, it's *not* working. A lot of work for nothing.

The only doubt I have: maybe with random arcs the squadrons are detecting way too much [;)]



Moltrey -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/3/2020 5:28:17 PM)

So, just to be clear here TD, you are saying any air assets, whether ship or shore based are better off left w/o defined arcs for search and/or ASW missions?
Sure would save me a lot of time.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/3/2020 5:35:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

So, just to be clear here TD, you are saying any air assets, whether ship or shore based are better off left w/o defined arcs for search and/or ASW missions?
Sure would save me a lot of time.


Shore based, definitely. It's not a small difference between the two methods. It's literally like night and day [X(] Subs appear like mushrooms vs these clowns are not finding anything (after all the hard work, and I'm a micro management fanboy eh [:D])...



Moltrey -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/3/2020 6:39:06 PM)

Yeah, I wondered why I was not having much luck in finding subs, etc, other than my DD ASW task forces. Alright, you've converted me bro! Auto-arc it is.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/3/2020 6:48:28 PM)

You won't look back. And if you ever do... enemy subs will simply vanish *again* [sm=00000028.gif]



RangerJoe -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/3/2020 8:40:53 PM)

As long as you don't find the sub after they torpedo your aircraft carrier . . . [:(]



DSwain -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/4/2020 8:37:19 PM)

Thanks again everyone for your answers here. I've already started remove those search arcs!



GetAssista -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/5/2020 6:40:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
circa ten years ago I posted that the arcs (nice feature if you ask me) were not working. Well, I gave them a try some months ago and... they are still

NOT working.

It's really really simple, no need of complicated kafkaesque tests. Take the PH bomber and patrol squadrons and tell them to patrol x arcs until every angle is covered. They will hardly detect let's say subs.

Now take these very same bomber and patrol squadrons. Random arcs. The bomber squadrons => NavSearch = 10% [aka 1 plane] ASW = 10% [aka 1 plane] and hit end turn. Subs are detected en masse [;)]

Don't bother about this feature, it's *not* working. A lot of work for nothing.

The only doubt I have: maybe with random arcs the squadrons are detecting way too much [;)]


I tested it a bit.

You are right, NavSearch arcs are bugged and don't pick up what a 360 search picks up in the same situation. But only with respect to subs. Search arcs detect surface task forces just fine, and with dispersed 360 search the detection is worse, so WAD here.

Everyone should relax and keep doing what they were doing with long range search through arcs cause it's probably not the subs you are searching for.

Wrt the test its nothing kafkaesque btw :) Just fired up a head-2-head, set either arcs or 360 for Catalinas in Noumea and looked on the accumulated detection levels of Japanese TFs


[image]local://upfiles/32892/66431EC7F4804B30B8D793DD42AD0DF2.jpg[/image]



jdsrae -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/5/2020 6:55:13 AM)

This isn’t going to help resolve this at all, but I’m pretty sure i am spotting subs with Jakes that have search arcs set.
I get dozens of reports of sub contacts every day.
Maybe I would spot more if I turned the arcs off, but I don’t want to think about how many mouse clicks that would need.
I don’t set arcs on ships but I have set them for most shore based groups.



Moltrey -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/5/2020 8:08:25 PM)

Cool stuff GA, thanks for the test!

So, as long as I use no arcs with my ASW air groups, I should be better off. Check.
I was kind of doing this anyway, so with just a slight adjustment perhaps things will improve.

It was rather disconcerting that I was seeing more Sub vs. Sub interceptions than air ASW combat! Uggh.[sm=nono.gif]



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/5/2020 9:19:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moltrey
It was rather disconcerting that I was seeing more Sub vs. Sub interceptions than air ASW combat! Uggh.[sm=nono.gif]


You should see lots of attacks. The point here is that I said PH because I'm thinking about the first months of the war: we know there are lots of enemy subs around PH. It's also interesting because the pilots are necessarily *not* experienced. And yet somehow they find and attack a lot, as long as arcs are not used that is.

It's just an intuition but imo they are finding way too much subs. Now of course, how do we define "too much"? [sm=terms.gif]



BBfanboy -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/5/2020 10:10:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moltrey
It was rather disconcerting that I was seeing more Sub vs. Sub interceptions than air ASW combat! Uggh.[sm=nono.gif]


You should see lots of attacks. The point here is that I said PH because I'm thinking about the first months of the war: we know there are lots of enemy subs around PH. It's also interesting because the pilots are necessarily *not* experienced. And yet somehow they find and attack a lot, as long as arcs are not used that is.

It's just an intuition but imo they are finding way too much subs. Now of course, how do we define "too much"? [sm=terms.gif]

Some of the detection might be from the enemy changing the subs orders too much. I believe every time you give a TF orders, there is a chance of a signals intercept as they reply which would amount to a D/L hit. When a large TF or one with important ships in it leaves port, there is almost always a SigInt hit for the enemy from the volume of radio traffic to coordinate the ships leaving the anchorage and forming up nearby.



Moltrey -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/5/2020 10:56:38 PM)

Thanks for the input everyone. This kind of stuff is invaluable. If you guys haven't noticed, AndyMac is kicking around again and asking for feedback on his Scen1 & 2 AI changes over in the Scenario Topic.



RangerJoe -> RE: Search - random or set arcs? (11/6/2020 1:31:01 PM)

I think that I am going to fire up the game again after a few months off. I will try his new AI as well. Maybe try Allies as I am more familiar with that side on how to break the AI and have Japan surrender as soon as is possible.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8911133