Is "Naval Search" way to effective?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Is "Naval Search" way to effective?


More and more I am inclined to believe so because the UV HEXes are huge (South
Pacific is _HUGE_).

Therefore almost 100% discovery rate that we have in our games is, IMHO,
unrealistic.

This is especially true regarding small TFs consisting of only, for example,
barges/LCV/LST ships. Those are small and slow ships that don't leave big wake
behind and no big smoke from their stacks.

Also, is UV using TF (and individual ship) size/speed when determining whether
discovery is made or not?


What do you think?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Raverdave]

Yeah it is funny that you should raise this, it was only the other weekend that some of us were talking about this very subject over a quite beer. And I have to agree......it seems way to easy to spot a TF. It is more often the exception that a TF slips past search assets than the rule.

Can anyone from Matrix explain the mechanics of the search within the programming?

[strollen]

I find in my PBEM games that in good weather about 3/4 of my TFs are spotted, this drops to roughly 1/2 turning bad weather.

A fair number of my TFs (especially small ones) actual complete there missions without being spotted eventhough they can be as close as 6 hexes to an anybase with patrol planes.

I'm not sure what accurates spotting rate is but UV seems a bit high but not dramatically.

[Luskan]

Not sure about ships operating search float planes, but I notice that whenever my carriers are near the enemy LBA I always have a CAP up, and they are always spotted.

It has happened 3 times (twice as USN, once as IJN) in various PBEM games that one of my carriers has been hit (but not the others) and drops out of formation with more than 50% flt and sys accumulated (so no flight ops).

In all three cases, the CVs still flying cap were still spotted every turn, but the damaged CVs, moving very slowly (Heavily damaged - so on fire and smoking for a time no doubt) always escape detection in subsequent turns after their flight decks are out. I would have thought that being slower, much closer to the area they were torpedoed, damaged and possible leaving a huge trail of smoke would make them more obvious, not less obvious, while the carriers that sailed on in a different direction at their usual fast speed should have been the ones undetected IMHOABO.

We're talking a range of 6-10 hexes from the enemy airbase, and each damaged ship taking 4 to 5 turns limping away without being discovered.

Now if only I had the guts to send my carrier strike force into battle without any CAP operating I might go undetected . . . .

[Sonny]

I've always thought spotting was too efficient. Rarely have I ever been surprised by a TF showing up unexpectedly or have lost track of one.

[NorthStar]

Seems to me that the other question that needs to be asked here is how do the level of assets used for search in the game compare to what was historically used.

I know that depending on the situation, I keep from 10% to 30% of every bomber squadron on Naval Search, not to mention all the PBY's and Float Planes on 100%. From a large base like PM, thats a lot of aircraft out looking. I wonder how that compares to the number of search planes used in RL.

Luskan, I think the reason damaged ships often escape detection also has to do with the fact that smaller TFs are harder to spot. I've had a fair amount of success smuggling supplies into Gili Gili and avoiding detection by using groups of two AKs on the run. It was only when carriers camped out a few hexes north east of Gili Gili that they were spotted and destroyed.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Sonny
I've always thought spotting was too efficient. Rarely have I ever been surprised by a TF showing up unexpectedly or have lost track of one.

Same. But we should consider the effect on the game IF spotting is reduced in effectiveness. I would add considerably to the LUCK element in deciding the outcome of key battles. Not a desirable thing, IMHO. The only way to AVOID that would be to add a new element of micromaagement to the game where by players plot the flight path of individual search planes. Not something I want to see in the game........

[XPav]

The spotting reports are goofy overall.

1) I've had submarines spotted as carriers. That's a wee bit of a stretch.

2) Its easy to tell when the spotting reports listing the ships in a TF are wrong -- because the ships are out of order.

If you see
CV CV CV CA CA CL
then it might be ok.

If you see
CV CA CL CV DD
Then you know that second CV has been misidentified.

3) due to the "one combat replay for everyone" feature, you know when your ships have been spotted, and what your enemy has reported.

1) and 2) can be fixed in UV fairly easily I believe.
3) can't be fixed without redoing the save system and make it more userfriendly.

[estaban]

I snuck a whole PM invasion force past air search, over 100 ships total. The allied player didn't see my TFs until they turned the corner at Gili Gili, and by then it was too late, because the next night I hit PM with two bombardment groups and closed down the airfield. I hit it with bombers from Rabaul and more bombardment groups, over the next few days and withing a game week, the Rising Sun was flying over PM, and I had wiped out about 150-200 Allied planes on the airfield!!

What I haven't seen yet is a carrier battle where one side misses the other sides' carriers and gets bushwacked, ala Midway.

[frank1970]

I had such a battle in a human - AI game:
I (Japan) sunk two US carriers and two CAs without receiving a single hit! I saw the TF coming for two turns and sent my carriers to their estimated distinction.
In the next turns my planes sunk the damaged ships, so only some DDs survived the battle.

[Long Lance]

Just leave everything concerning search planes as it is.
For example: Sometimes a Jap Invasion TF on Gili Gili is sighted, sometimes not.
If more midway-like Carrier-battles would occur, esp. in pbem-games, there would be lots of complains about it.
Overall, everything works quite well and is perhaps a little compromise between strict historic setting and playablilty.

Let the Matrix guys clear the more serious bugs and concentrate on WITP.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Several of you placed very good arugments on table and say that
all is OK as it is now...

But (there is always but)... I still think that you can't compare
big combat TFs (and their discovery issues) with what I initially
started this thread.

My problem is that small and slow TFs (barge/LCV/LST) are
discovered way to often. Those are _VERY_ small ships
that leave very small wake and no smoke from their stacks.

IMHO, the discovery of such TFs should be equal to finding
needle in haystack...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Shameless bump...


Can someone from Matrix/2By3 please comment on this?


Does UV game engine make any difference when detecting:

a)
TF consisting of barges

b)
TF consisting of larger ships (like APs)


Leo "Apollo11"

[mogami]

Greetings, How many search planes is the enemy using?
If a player (and I know I do) places a large number of airgroups/planes on search missions he should be more able to find TF's. The allies also have those coast watchers that spot Japanese TF's and let the air search know where to look.
I often am able to sneak Tf's around and as the Japanese i avoid coastal hexes when ever possible. In PBEM game with U-2 I had 4 USN CV 4 hexes from Port Moresby for a week with out their being spotted (they raised cain on one of his bombardment TF's that stayed at PM during the day)
I also transfer floatplanes from BB/CA/CL/AV/CS/ML to shore bases to augment my search and every TF at sea uses float planes for search/ASW. I build bases in chains and place at least 1 float plane on each for ASW (those 3hex Japanese floatplanes 5 hex USN float planes) and one for search/recon (I like the Alf as Japan they are usally on CL's)

[jcjordan]

In my experiences, it is waaay too effective. It seems to spot a newly formed TF going from Noema to Brisbane on a regular basis even though there are only a few a/c doing the search & I can place a PBY at GG or Buna & see any TF coming from Truk & be alerted well in advance. While what it reports being seen is random, just being able to see something that far in a rear area in a wide open expanse of sea with only a couple of a/c shouldn't happen. There will be no Midway type actions here or in WITP unless this gets looked into by Matrix.

[Nikademus]

I did some light experimentation on this myself, though not enough to really conclude one way or the other. I found so far in my current campaign that reducing signifigantly the search levels and the squadrons that did the searching has not "appeared" to have seriously impacted my detection of enemy movements.

I say "appeared" because given the AAR descriptions of some other players, I may very well have not seen all there was to see after all, and as Mogami pointed out, coastal hexes aid the Allied player signifigantly.

All I "do" know is that, short bombardment runs excepted....i've detected all the major surface forces so far in spite of the reduction.

Its just one campaign though.....so i'm still fence sitting for the most part.

[Apollo11]

Originally posted by Mogami
Greetings, How many search planes is the enemy using?
If a player (and I know I do) places a large number of airgroups/planes on search missions he should be more able to find TF's. The allies also have those coast watchers that spot Japanese TF's and let the air search know where to look.
I often am able to sneak Tf's around and as the Japanese i avoid coastal hexes when ever possible. In PBEM game with U-2 I had 4 USN CV 4 hexes from Port Moresby for a week with out their being spotted (they raised cain on one of his bombardment TF's that stayed at PM during the day)
I also transfer floatplanes from BB/CA/CL/AV/CS/ML to shore bases to augment my search and every TF at sea uses float planes for search/ASW. I build bases in chains and place at least 1 float plane on each for ASW (those 3hex Japanese floatplanes 5 hex USN float planes) and one for search/recon (I like the Alf as Japan they are usally on CL's)

Hi all,

In my particular game (i.e. the reason why I am objecting to this in first
place) I play PBEM scenario #19 as Japanese vs. Oleg (he frequently posts
here).

We are at move 75 in campaign.

I am holding Lae, Dobradura and Gilli Gilli while Oleg is holding Buna (just
some infantry units there - no air) and Port Moresby.

I am using my barges (sometime in TFs as small as 3 barges in it) to do
frog-leap supply of my bases there.


My problem is that Oleg sees each and every one of my barge TFs there.

He sees them in "Naval Search" and every move he sinks at least 1-2 without
even mounting air raid (i.e. his aircraft on "Naval Search" sees and attacks -
this is when you get message "ship hit !!!").

He also sinks 1-2-3-4 barges with regular air strikes (he attacking at 100ft
and even my LRCAP Zero air cover can't stop him).

This happens almost every day regardless of weather (being it "Clear",
"Rainy", "Overcast" or "Thunderstorms).


My problem is that although my barge route is close to Port Moresby the sheer
size of every HEX in UV (30x30 nm = 900 sq nm) is simply _HUGE_.

And we are talking about dozens and dozens of HEX-es to be covered here.

And barges are very small objects that doesn't leave wake and doesn't show
smoke from stacks.


IMHO, the "Naval Search" routine should depend on:

#1
Ship type and ship size (of ships that make up the TF).

#2
Number of ships in TF.

#3
Weather situation

#4
Number of sq nm covered by every squadron on "Naval Search" divided by number
of actual aircraft of that squadron that actually fly the mission.

#5
Distance of detected TF from "Naval Search" squadron's home base.

#6
Altitude set for "Naval Search".

#7
Experience, moral, fatigue of "Naval Search" squadron.


Can someone from Matrix/2By please comment on this whole issue?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Erik Rutins]

As far as I know, all of your points (1-7) are taken into consideration by the search algorithm. I have certainly noticed an effect from these as well. I find that if I keep TFs fairly small (5 ships or less) and if they contain smaller vessels and stay further than 8-10 hexes from enemy bases they are nearly impossible to spot. I also have snuck Carrier TFs quite close to enemy bases in bad weather.

Regards,

- Erik

[EricLarsen]

Apollo 11,
It's funny that the more I play UV the more I'm inclined to think naval search is way too effective. In reading about the battles of Coral Sea and others in the area each side had little really detailed knowledge of where the other side's ships were. I find that long-range naval search, I'm talking 20 to 30 hexes range, is way too effective as the other side usually sees almost every tf afloat. I know that when one side or the other has lots of ships out and about there are lots of naval sightings. I think that coastwatcher sightings are overstated as well. There's very little mystery here when there should be plenty of mystery and surprise. I don't know if it's just that players use recon assets far more aggressively than historically was done or what, but there's just too much naval sighting going on in the game. There seems little chance of emulating the Coral Sea battle where each side was searching for the other and taking quite a long time before running across each other. I also think there's way too much specific ship identification, especially the smaller ships. While I can see that the recon pilots could identify major warships, I doubt they could tell which transport they saw.
Eric Larsen

[mogami]

Greetings, I believe once a TF is spotted the game makes it very hard for it to disapear in the following turns. However TF's that are not operating close to major bases do not (in my games) get spotted as often. In current PBEM game with U2 I actually ran 2 minelayers to Cairns and laid mines and withdrew back to port (Gili Gili) without being detected (watch out Dan). Also in another PBEM game with Dan as stated before my 4 USN CV operated 4 hexes from Port Moresby (10 hexes from IJN CV TF's
(with at least 6 IJN CV) for at least a week with out detection. (I was spotting the IJN CV but could not close the range to strike-I was finally gave my position away by launching strikes on a Bombardment TF, then I was undiscovered by his search the following day. The day after that both sides spotted one another but could not launch due to weather and range 3 days after my strike at PM we had a carrier battle (at long range, favouring the IJN) I then attempted to move a transport TF to resupply and reinforce PM it was detected and severly damaged but at same time a surface TF moved to PM without detection and fought a surface battle there. The damaged ships from the carrier/transport battles formed a TF and moved south without detection (right through hex that several Japanese subs occupied (they were busy attacking other supply TF's. Given that for several weeks the area south of PM and over to Gili has been full of TF's from both sides a very large number of TF's have traversed that area with out detection (almost all of Dan's tranport TF's arrived off of Port Moresby without being seen.)
I have 4 12 plane PBY groups set to 100percent search (1 in each of Cooktown, Cairns,and 2 in Townsville. All ships at sea with floatplanes are searching and several level bomber groups are also preforming ASW/Search missions. Yet as stated many TF's are not being spotted. However once spotted they do not seem to become unspotted the following turns (unless they make a long distance move out of the area. (ships seem to vanish once north of Gili Gili slot)