Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Given the huge player time investment, setting search arcs should provide a meaningful benefit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I abandoned search arcs about 90 game turns ago. I find the results just as good with no search arc set and you can cover more territory. Your tests seem to back this up. I would think some more testing is called for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Run the tests with enemy TFs bit closer to base. I seem to recall, that you rarely spot anything more than 12 hexes away or so. This may significantly change the results. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Run the tests with enemy TFs bit closer to base. I seem to recall, that you rarely spot anything more than 12 hexes away or so. This may significantly change the results. 

Good idea, will do that. How far would you suggest? 10 hexes?

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

I've always been diligent about trying to set search arcs. They seem like a neat feature, and appeal to my micromanagement side. However, after reading the thread about search arcs, I decided the run a test.

Conditions: Coral Sea scenario, all Japanese a/c stood down except 27xNell in Rabaul set to search 30% (8 a/c total searching), 6000 ft, 14 hexes. Experience/search skill around mid-50s.

The Nells are looking for the 4 US TFs, all 14 hexes from Rabaul (see picture). They are the default ones from Coral Sea scenario. The TFs are relatively small; 2 have a CV and a few CAs/DDs each; 2 have an AO and DD (or maybe ~two AO each + DD(s)). Anyway, somewhat hard targets to spot.

Comparison of 3 cases, 7 samples each:
1. 7 samples of Nells with no search arcs set (0-360).
2. 7 samples of Nells set to search "optimal" search arc, covering exactly the 40 degrees the US TFs are aligned along at 14 hexes. This is about as good a search as you could do if you knew exactly where the enemy was (apart from sending more planes!).
3. 7 samples of Nells set to *opposite* search arcs (looking north in exactly the wrong direction, around 340-020 deg).

Results (number of TFs spoted per sample):
No search arcs: (1/1/1/2/1/2/0) (mean = 1.14 TFs spotted)
"Optimal" search arc: (0/2/1/1/1/2/0) (mean = 1 TF spotted)
Wrong (opposite) search arc: (0/0/1/0/0/0/0) (mean = 0.14 TF spotted)

I ran two 2 sample t-tests in SYSTAT to compare cases (1. & 2.), and (1. & 3.)

No search arcs (1) vs. Optimal search arc (2). p = 0.73. (no significance)
Optimal search arc vs. wrong search arc. p < 0.006 (quite significant difference).

Discussion:
I don't claim this covers all cases, and there are confounding effects like weather which I didn't examine. Maybe in some cases you do get better results by setting the right search arcs (longer/shorter search distance/altitude/larger TFs, etc.). And although the mean is slightly lower, I certainly can't claim that setting the right search arc is better or worse than setting none at all. But I do think this demonstrates that setting the *wrong* search arc is worse than setting the right one OR setting none at all. So in this type of situation you probably aren't much worse off setting no search arc than setting the right one. Which, of course, you can't perfectly predict.

Conclusion: On average (assuming the enemy sometimes comes from directions you don't set as arcs), you will find him more often *under similar conditions to this test*, if you don't set arcs. I think I'm going to take off all my search arcs.

quote:


Here is how I think it works:

#1
Every pilot in every squadron assigned for air search ("Naval Search" or "ASW") that passes all pre-flight checks (enough pilots, enough aircraft, leader check, percentage of aircraft assigned to mission, weather etc.) individually flies the "spiral" (i.e. concentric circles with increased range) up to the range user selected (halved in case of ASW).

#2
The "spiral" (i.e. concentric circles with increased range) covers every single HEX (in range) and then checks are made in every such HEX for discovery and countermeasures (enemy CAP, AA etc.).

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

I've always been diligent about trying to set search arcs. They seem like a neat feature, and appeal to my micromanagement side. However, after reading the thread about search arcs, I decided the run a test.

Conditions: Coral Sea scenario, all Japanese a/c stood down except 27xNell in Rabaul set to search 30% (8 a/c total searching), 6000 ft, 14 hexes. Experience/search skill around mid-50s.

The Nells are looking for the 4 US TFs, all 14 hexes from Rabaul (see picture). They are the default ones from Coral Sea scenario. The TFs are relatively small; 2 have a CV and a few CAs/DDs each; 2 have an AO and DD (or maybe ~two AO each + DD(s)). Anyway, somewhat hard targets to spot.

Comparison of 3 cases, 7 samples each:
1. 7 samples of Nells with no search arcs set (0-360).
2. 7 samples of Nells set to search "optimal" search arc, covering exactly the 40 degrees the US TFs are aligned along at 14 hexes. This is about as good a search as you could do if you knew exactly where the enemy was (apart from sending more planes!).
3. 7 samples of Nells set to *opposite* search arcs (looking north in exactly the wrong direction, around 340-020 deg).

Results (number of TFs spoted per sample):
No search arcs: (1/1/1/2/1/2/0) (mean = 1.14 TFs spotted)
"Optimal" search arc: (0/2/1/1/1/2/0) (mean = 1 TF spotted)
Wrong (opposite) search arc: (0/0/1/0/0/0/0) (mean = 0.14 TF spotted)

I ran two 2 sample t-tests in SYSTAT to compare cases (1. & 2.), and (1. & 3.)

No search arcs (1) vs. Optimal search arc (2). p = 0.73. (no significance)
Optimal search arc vs. wrong search arc. p < 0.006 (quite significant difference).

Discussion:
I don't claim this covers all cases, and there are confounding effects like weather which I didn't examine. Maybe in some cases you do get better results by setting the right search arcs (longer/shorter search distance/altitude/larger TFs, etc.). And although the mean is slightly lower, I certainly can't claim that setting the right search arc is better or worse than setting none at all. But I do think this demonstrates that setting the *wrong* search arc is worse than setting the right one OR setting none at all. So in this type of situation you probably aren't much worse off setting no search arc than setting the right one. Which, of course, you can't perfectly predict.

Conclusion: On average (assuming the enemy sometimes comes from directions you don't set as arcs), you will find him more often *under similar conditions to this test*, if you don't set arcs. I think I'm going to take off all my search arcs.

Very nice test - thanks!


BTW, I did some extensive research in UV and WitP regarding search but didn't have time to do it in WitP-AE...


Anyway here are my old threads (please click on links below):

10/16/2005 Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted!

11/21/2005 Leo's air ASW Search TEST WitP v1.795...


In those I discovered that in "Search" every airplane is actually flying each HEX it covers and that in each HEX the crew has a chance of discovery (depending on various other variables like altitude, weather, skill etc.)...

quote:


Here is how I think it works:

#1
Every pilot in every squadron assigned for air search ("Naval Search" or "ASW") that passes all pre-flight checks (enough pilots, enough aircraft, leader check, percentage of aircraft assigned to mission, weather etc.) individually flies the "spiral" (i.e. concentric circles with increased range) up to the range user selected (halved in case of ASW).

#2
The "spiral" (i.e. concentric circles with increased range) covers every single HEX (in range) and then checks are made in every such HEX for discovery and countermeasures (enemy CAP, AA etc.).

What worries me now is that even with opposite search (i.e. searching nortn in your test) there were some discoveries. If the routine works similarly as it used to work in WitP then only the northern HEXes and not at all in the south... hmmm...


BTW, did you stand down all other assets that can do the search?



Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

he did:

Conditions: Coral Sea scenario, all Japanese a/c stood down except 27xNell in Rabaul set to search 30% (8 a/c total searching), 6000 ft, 14 hexes. Experience/search skill around mid-50s.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


What worries me now is that even with opposite search (i.e. searching nortn in your test) there were some discoveries. If the routine works similarly as it used to work in WitP then only the northern HEXes and not at all in the south... hmmm...


BTW, did you stand down all other assets that can do the search?



Leo "Apollo11"

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

Well I guess this simplifies naval search setup heh. I wonder if it also effects asw.

Though I think we'll still want to setup search arcs for areas where we want to keep our search planes from overflying heavily defended bases. (I have a search plane hub near singapore in singakawan??. one group searching a zone right up to singapore to the northwest and another group flying farther north into the sea east of singapore. singapore has a heavy fighter defense I don't want to overfly)

I'm kinda disappointed to be honest. I like micromanaging search arcs. I like to press the Z key and see all the pretty search zones show up heh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

After seeing plausible comments from many other players to this effect months ago, I discontinued setting search arcs in my game with Miller. At that point, we were well into 1944 in our game. For my game with Q-Ball, I haven't set an arc of any kind - search or ASW. As best I can tell my results are absolutely fine. Conclusion: I'm very glad to do away with the micromanaging hassle of setting arcs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ade670

1. IF I am on a coastal hex with 50% of the search arc on land and 50% search arc at sea - eg Townsville, will the AI automatically dismiss the 50% land element when plotting naval or asw search arcs.
I have always presumed that the routine would still plot both search arcs over the land mass hence the requirement to use the manual search arcs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Given the huge player time investment, setting search arcs should provide a meaningful benefit.