Can friendly CAP over your base disable enemy "Naval Search" there?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Can friendly CAP over your base disable enemy "Naval Search" there?


More and more I see that enemy "Naval Search" aircraft can detect your ships
(and even detect their name/type) in the most heavily defended bases (HEX-es)
where several squadrons of friendly CAP fighters are flying non-stop?

Also, from time to time, enemy aircraft on "Naval Search" actually even attack
ships in HEX where your heavily defended base is despite your friendly CAP
over it (i.e. you get that "ship hit !!!" info).

Please note that enemy is flying "Naval Search" at the end of his range
(example: he is flying from Porm Moresby over Kawieng)


How can this be?

Is this realistic at all?


Leo "Apollo11"

[tanjman]

Apollo11,

When I look at the intelligence screen and select the aircraft losses (were it lists losses by aircraft type) and compare it to the intelligence screen's list by cause and do some math. I've seen PBY, Mavis, Emiliy & Float Plane losses that can only be attribitted to Air-to-Air combat. So I think CAP works but no CAP can be 100% effective. Because of this you can get an occasional naval patrol plane that does a so called 'sneak' attack.

So I my humble opion it is realistic

[Toro]

Remember: one a/c is much harder to spot than 50, or 100. I think it realistic, too (IMHO).

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Sorry guys but I still think this is serious bug...


Why?


Imagine following scenario:

You have MSW ship (single ship in TF) 1 HEX in front of Rabaul (you know that
shallow water HEX there). That TF is covered with LRCAP from Rabaul with 27
Zero fighters (rested, excellent morale and high experience).

And then enemy Hudson comes from Port Moresby (thus almost on edge of his
range) on "Naval Search". Hudson sights MSW. Hudson identifies MSW. Hudson
attacks MSW ("MS hit !!!" message). MSW sinks.

How can this be realistic I ask?


And now imagine something else (slightly different scenario):

Let's say that one single Hudson was on "Naval Attack" and that everything
else was the same. Can you imagine the same outcome as above or something
completely different (like 27 Zero fighters eating single Hudson alive)?


So... I still think this is serious bug...

IMHO, the "Naval Search" aircraft shouldn't be able to sight/identify/attack
ships if they are in port and/or defended by CAP/LRCAP.


Matrix/2By3 can you please comment on this?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Ron Saueracker]

Read a few books like "The First Team" and you will see a whole whack of instances of recon planes succeeding at their job, even when detected. Just because there are planes on cap does not mean this is an absolute.

Complete strikes were poorly intercepted on both sides throughout the war. I don't see a whole lot wrong with scouting except perhaps a lack of course, speed, and time of/age of sighting info.

[Apollo11]

HI all,

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Read a few books like "The First Team" and you will see a whole whack of instances of recon planes succeeding at their job, even when detected. Just because there are planes on cap does not mean this is an absolute.

Complete strikes were poorly intercepted on both sides throughout the war. I don't see a whole lot wrong with scouting except perhaps a lack of course, speed, and time of/age of sighting info.

This is all OK...

But (there is always but) please look at the example I gave:

How can we have such discrepancy in results if 1 enemy bomber
is on "Naval Search" or if that same 1 enemy bomber is on "Naval
Search" (and you have friendly LRCAP in both cases protecting your
TF)?

IMHO, this clearly shows that something is not entirely correct in UV
game engine regarding this...


Leo "Apollo11"

[panda124c]

Originally posted by Apollo11
HI all,



This is all OK...

But (there is always but) please look at the example I gave:

How can we have such discrepancy in results if 1 enemy bomber
is on "Naval Search" or if that same 1 enemy bomber is on "Naval
Search" (and you have friendly LRCAP in both cases protecting your
TF)?

IMHO, this clearly shows that something is not entirely correct in UV
game engine regarding this...


Leo "Apollo11"

Ah you have been located by the SUPER Hudson.

Seriously, the number of instances where a single recon planes has shadowed a TF for hours are numours. PBY's following TF's for hours while playing hide and seek with the CAP, the same for the Mavis although the american advantage in radar offset the advantage of hiding in clouds. If you read about American carrier operations you will find many references where part of the CAP was sent off to investigate a bogie which turned out to be a Emly or Mavis. The Japanese not having the advantage of radar had to rely on visual sighting and wide ranging A/C patrols to spot an enemy A/C not as efficient as radar.

As for the Hudson, it is too good at what it does.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by pbear

Ah you have been located by the SUPER Hudson.

<snip>

As for the Hudson, it is too good at what it does.

Not just located...

Every single turn (no matter what the weather was) the enemy
Hudsons on "Naval Search" would sight/identify/attack (i.e. you
get that "ship hit !!!!" message) at least 2 of my barges and
1-2 other ships (MSW/AP/APD).

This happened regardless of the fact that I had LRCAP over
those TFs (some LRCAPs were just 1 HEX away from home base
thus I had at least 27 excellent Zeroes on mission and still
nothing helped).

Why single Hudson on "Naval Search" can sight/identify/attack
with impunity even against LRCAP over and over again and this same
result would never happen when that same single Hudson would be on
plain "Naval Attack" mission (in that case LRCAP would kill it
instantly).

Still nobody answered that....


IMHO this is clearly a bug and needs to be fixed.


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

You may also notice that search planes get shot down on a semi-regular basis. The rather lucky Hudson messing with you will eventaully run out of luck.

Bye...

Michael Wood

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Mike Wood
Hello...

You may also notice that search planes get shot down on a semi-regular basis. The rather lucky Hudson messing with you will eventaully run out of luck.

Bye...

Michael Wood

Those "rather lucky" Hudsons have average experience of 96
(I was told by my opponent). They build it because of regular
kills (like I said several sight/identigy/attack/kill per move).

Killing one of them every few turns doesn't help at all...


Leo "Apollo11"

[popejoy1]

Hi!

Is your situation aggravating? Absolutely, but I don't think it's ahistorical.

It seems to me the "LRCAP" represents the full mobilization of a fighter squadron to provide continuous CAP over a base/TF, with a lesser ability to provide CAP at a distance (sort of a "rapid response" reaction by those elements currently airborne, or local patrol elements).

If that's so, then from the perspective of the computer squadron commander, his primary mission is to guard his base/TF, and only secondarily to provide assistance to friendly forces in the vicinity. He probably has most of his planes within 10-15 miles of the base, either on "ready alert" (if he has radar) or cycling into and out of the air (without radar), with a few planes being serviced or maintained, so I would think a real-life commander would have a lot of explaining to do if he sent what planes he had out to attack a single plane (which may be a decoy) only to have his base or TF get whacked.

In the case of a fighter director controller without radar, all they can do is vector fighters to aircraft they can see. In this case, against a lone aircraft that's maybe 30 miles away, possibly obscured by clouds and haze - the forecast may be "clear", but there's too much humidity in the SoPac for the entire region to be cloud and haze free. Even seeing a modern jetliner at that distance isn't easy.

In the case of a fighter director controller with radar, he can vector the fighters to the right general vicinity, but to actually engage the enemy they have to be able to see it and get close enough to shoot, so even if the FDC has radar he can't guide them in for a kill - with exceptions like radar-equipped night fighters.

Given my understanding, I think there are several plausible historical explanations for your problem:

1. The reconnaissance crews are experts - they monitor the target as ordered, but will conduct a quick "raid" on the convoy if it looks like they can get away with it. Since they're highly experienced pilots attacking slow-moving barges, the odds are much better than if they were less experienced pilots attacking a carrier TF.

2. The recon bombers don't have to hover over the TF; they can shadow it by getting a course/speed reading every couple of hours (it won't move that far in that time), so they can keep at some distance, getting glimpses every so often to ensure they're still keeping tabs on it. This may also go a ways towards historically explaining how you can get spotting reports on TFs in the same hex as a base with LRCAP.

3. The Japanese fighter director controller may not have that much initiative; even if he does, his primary mission is to guard his post (base/TF), so a single bomber attacking a convoy may not interest him very much. If a fighter pilot spots an enemy at that distance, he may be directed to stay where he is rather than engage on a goose chase.

4. The AG crews probably aren't the Emperor's finest, so their warnings may not be timely. The convoy may not be reporting when it's under attack quickly enough to vector or scramble fighters to defend it - the Hudson flies over, drop a few bombs, and heads out again. If the fighters do arrive in time, the expert Hudson pilots are quick to head into or behind local cloud formations. Since the convoy is no longer under attack, and the primary objective still needs to be defended, the fighters leave, and the Hudson goes back to shadowing the TF.

5. Each turn represents 12 hours - maybe your fighters are usually doing a splendid job keeping the recon bomber off, but every so often the bomber gets through.

6. Only if everything works out (fighters on hand; recon bomber successfully sighted and engaged) do you get a kill.

Just my $0.02

Paul

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Apollo11
Hi all,
Those "rather lucky" Hudsons have average experience of 96
(I was told by my opponent). They build it because of regular
kills (like I said several sight/identigy/attack/kill per move).

Methinks you're just a bad loser

I see nothing wrong with patrol aircraft nor with Hudsons. If the highest experience pilots went to, say, Marauder unit then you'll be complaining about performance of Marauders.

I can't remember one single detail from our game that went into my favor that didn't make you start another "complaining thread". As I see here - everyone who posted in this thread basically said to you "it's OK to me, so grin and bear it", yet you never give up. Take it like a man

O.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Not to become too embroiled in this, you might try running a few recon missions, finding the base from which the Hudsons are flying and then launching some major, low level, night bombing missions against that airfield. Knock them out on the ground or chase them away or at least cause a few to prang on the damaged runway.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko


Methinks you're just a bad loser

I see nothing wrong with patrol aircraft nor with Hudsons. If the highest experience pilots went to, say, Marauder unit then you'll be complaining about performance of Marauders.

I can't remember one single detail from our game that went into my favor that didn't make you start another "complaining thread". As I see here - everyone who posted in this thread basically said to you "it's OK to me, so grin and bear it", yet you never give up. Take it like a man

O.

I am not a "bad looser"... you know this very well... you disappointed me Oleg...

All I am doing here (same like anyone else) is to help Matrix/2By3 by finding
all possible problems and to have them fixed. That's all.

I don't think that it is OK that single "Hudson" can survive against LRCAP when
on "Naval Search" and successfully do sight/identify/attack/sink and, at same
time, this single Hudson on "Naval Attack" would die immediately.

This discrepancy "smells" like a bug to me.


Leo "Apollo11"

[XPav]

I would agree with Apollo.

Patrol Bombers should, of course, be able to hit small ships lacking air cover.

However, the problem is that "Naval Search" doesn't really count as a mission. For example, if the weather at PM is bad, and I'm pretty sure missions are going to get canceled, I can just put every single bomber there on 100% Naval Search at 100ft, and I will blow the crap out of every single transport TF in range despite the fact that the air missions at PM are canceled due to weather.

Heck, it might work better than Naval Attack, because Naval Attack missions at 100 ft always seem to concentrate on one helpless barge. (Hey guys! I see a piece of driftwood! Get the bombs ready!).

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by XPav
Patrol Bombers should, of course, be able to hit small ships lacking air cover.

However, the problem is that "Naval Search" doesn't really count as a mission. For example, if the weather at PM is bad, and I'm pretty sure missions are going to get canceled, I can just put every single bomber there on 100% Naval Search at 100ft, and I will blow the crap out of every single transport TF in range despite the fact that the air missions at PM are canceled due to weather.

Heck, it might work better than Naval Attack, because Naval Attack missions at 100 ft always seem to concentrate on one helpless barge. (Hey guys! I see a piece of driftwood! Get the bombs ready!).

I may be wrong here but I believe patrol DOES count "like a mission" in that it may be aborted because of weather. I noticed less pilots flying missions in bad weather regardless of their unit being on 100% search. So it is my belief that weather affects patrol missions, too.

As for your remark that it "might work better than naval attack" - that's exactly the point here. I believe it does work better than naval attack for SOME squadrons, and also that it should work better than naval attack, especially for high experience pilots - so from my point of view this is OK. For high experience squadrons flying long-range planes (Hudsons) - putting them on 100% partrol rather than 100% naval strike is, and should be, much better. Do you think this is ahistorical? I would not say so...

Someone posted here link to something like a "war diary" for airforce in SWPAC theatre, and their "diary" has like gazzilion of enrties to the tune of "single B24 in patrol attacks Japanese shipping off the coast of NG, sinking a barge" etc. Anyone has this URL handy?

O.

[Pawlock]

I think you guys seem to be missing one very important point with regards to most of what has been said in regards to sightings/attacks. Detection levels, once anything has been sighted significantly its " Max detection Level" will also rise. This MDL is something that does not go away every turn but decays at a lot slower rate than normal detection, hence making it easier to spot on subsequent turns if still in the vicinity.

Its much akin to painting a "big red sign" on Tf saying here I am. Hence every turn planes on Naval search go out they already have a good idea of what to look for and where ,again sighting them ,increasing MDL even more. the only way to rid yourself of this is to hide outta range for a while or disband in a nearby port, but if you do need to go into range of Naval searches ,when already been spotted ,well its a risk you take.

As for LRCAP being able to intercept, well first off we all know at any one time only a certain amount of planes are gonna be in the air and lets face it ,if think the Oceans a vast place , well airspace is even bigger as you are dealing with height and distance to be able to perhaps spot 1 lone plane !!

One other thing slightly off point , Naval Searches in regards to weather are also grounded as well as any other air missions flown from a base with bad weather. Unless Im missing something.

[strollen]

Apollo read the Battle of Bismark Sea. The ill fated convoy was kept under practically continuous surviallence by PBY and bombers. The convoy was also under almost continuous LR-CAP from Rabual and Gasmata (sp)

The only time the convoy escaped detection was when the Japanese Admiral cleverly under cover darkness had the whole TF fire Flak at the PBY and drove it out of range and then made a 90 degree course correction. Never the less convoy was spotted within about 24 hours.

The situation you describe with a stationary TF conducting minesweeping operations would easily be spotting every turn.
You have what a dozen planes up at anyone time looking for a patrol plane in an 800 square mile area vs. an experience patrol pilot who is using the clouds and the sun to observe the TF.

My understanding is that flying patrol was not considered a particularly hazardous duty? Why do you think it was?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Pawlock
I think you guys seem to be missing one very important point with regards to most of what has been said in regards to sightings/attacks. Detection levels, once anything has been sighted significantly its " Max detection Level" will also rise. This MDL is something that does not go away every turn but decays at a lot slower rate than normal detection, hence making it easier to spot on subsequent turns if still in the vicinity.

Its much akin to painting a "big red sign" on Tf saying here I am. Hence every turn planes on Naval search go out they already have a good idea of what to look for and where ,again sighting them ,increasing MDL even more. the only way to rid yourself of this is to hide outta range for a while or disband in a nearby port, but if you do need to go into range of Naval searches ,when already been spotted ,well its a risk you take.

Thsi is very interesting and might give some answers!

As for LRCAP being able to intercept, well first off we all know at any one time only a certain amount of planes are gonna be in the air and lets face it ,if think the Oceans a vast place , well airspace is even bigger as you are dealing with height and distance to be able to perhaps spot 1 lone plane !!

The problem is that LRCAP even 1 HEX from home base can't
protect TF from "Naval Search" sight/identify/attack/sink.

This same LRCAP doesn't have any problem of stopping
"Naval Attack" of same type attacker.

This discrepancy is what bothers me and, IMHO, it "smells"
like a bug/oversight.

One other thing slightly off point , Naval Searches in regards to weather are also grounded as well as any other air missions flown from a base with bad weather. Unless Im missing something.

This needs to be tested. XPav noticed that in his message
above.


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by XPav
I would agree with Apollo.

Patrol Bombers should, of course, be able to hit small ships lacking air cover.

However, the problem is that "Naval Search" doesn't really count as a mission. For example, if the weather at PM is bad, and I'm pretty sure missions are going to get canceled, I can just put every single bomber there on 100% Naval Search at 100ft, and I will blow the crap out of every single transport TF in range despite the fact that the air missions at PM are canceled due to weather.

Heck, it might work better than Naval Attack, because Naval Attack missions at 100 ft always seem to concentrate on one helpless barge. (Hey guys! I see a piece of driftwood! Get the bombs ready!).

XPav this is very interesting observation...

I will test it in H2H.


Leo "Apollo11"