Suggested Submarine Aircraft House Rule (all mods)

[spence]

You can't see the forest because the trees get in the way.

The search system is borked but for 12 plane PBY or Mavis squadrons it gives an approxiamation of reality. At least for them one can imagine each plane flying only a 30 degree arc to the limit of its range so sightings made at the same time on opposite bearings can at least be imagined to be made by different aircraft.

The search system is exponentially borked with each decrease in squadron size. When you reach a size of one a/c (Glens come to mind) you essentially have believe that the Glen can be in all places within its search area at the same time, And the effect of it being able to be in all of those "theres" simultaneously is to give the Japanese a completely ahistorical and physically impossible capability. Glens gave the Japanese to take a "snapshot" of what was going on in one place at essentially one moment in time. They never gave the Japanese the capability to monitor all the goings on in wide areas of the enemy's rear.

(And just an aside: in 5 months of a PBEM with an estimated dozen Glens taking off and landing twice a day on the open sea in all weather conditions there has not been a single "fatal" (to the airplane) accident.)

[Dili]

Hmm if we make a big decrease in Glen durability the players might want to use it more sparsely.

[spence]

I've read before and I think someone tested and proved that a/c durability doesn't play a role in operations losses so I don't think that's the answer.

A better solution would be to permanently set all Glens and cruiser/BB seaplane contingents of less than 4 planes to Recon (0 % naval search). Would make an exception for Tone and Chikuma if that hard and fast rule impacted them. It was more or less their express purpose to provide search capability for the KB (although Midway proved that using only their assets was inadequate).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

You can't see the forest because the trees get in the way.

The search system is borked but for 12 plane PBY or Mavis squadrons it gives an approxiamation of reality. At least for them one can imagine each plane flying only a 30 degree arc to the limit of its range so sightings made at the same time on opposite bearings can at least be imagined to be made by different aircraft.

REPLY: Maybe so. But what about a Mavis flying from Akitsushima - which has only one? What about a floatplane from a cruiser? What about all those small recon detachments, afloat and ashore, that have less than 12 planes? [A normal recon squadron is not 12 planes - in fact] What about a unit with many damaged or lost aircraft? Borked it remains - and for all types. Don't just pick on my poor Glen. A Glen allows a true 360 degree search in the immediate hex - in a sense never possible from a submarine. Go up in a light plane to 500 feet and you will understand what I am talking about.

The search system is exponentially borked with each decrease in squadron size. When you reach a size of one a/c (Glens come to mind) you essentially have believe that the Glen can be in all places within its search area at the same time, And the effect of it being able to be in all of those "theres" simultaneously is to give the Japanese a completely ahistorical and physically impossible capability. Glens gave the Japanese to take a "snapshot" of what was going on in one place at essentially one moment in time. They never gave the Japanese the capability to monitor all the goings on in wide areas of the enemy's rear.

REPLY: Here we agree. And here I have an idea: the Glen IS effective IN its hex. It is pretty effective one hex out. Why not adopt the RHS rule for ship channels for everywhere: sub plane search is limited to 1 hex? And - why is a cruiser any better - if it has one plane? Maybe the rule should be "one hex per plane" is the max range of the search??? First glance - this sounds pretty good.

(And just an aside: in 5 months of a PBEM with an estimated dozen Glens taking off and landing twice a day on the open sea in all weather conditions there has not been a single "fatal" (to the airplane) accident.)

I run tests continuously. I see Glen losses - for the force - about 10% per month of flying. Not high enough - but not zero either. I might be able to fix that - got an idea to test - by modifying a data field.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Hmm if we make a big decrease in Glen durability the players might want to use it more sparsely.

Testing this - it was my thought as well. But note that this principle should not be limited to a single plane. At the moment we have doubled durability factors - we have the option to use a different K (constant). We also might use a differnt K for submarine floatplanes of all types.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

I've read before and I think someone tested and proved that a/c durability doesn't play a role in operations losses so I don't think that's the answer.

A better solution would be to permanently set all Glens and cruiser/BB seaplane contingents of less than 4 planes to Recon (0 % naval search). Would make an exception for Tone and Chikuma if that hard and fast rule impacted them. It was more or less their express purpose to provide search capability for the KB (although Midway proved that using only their assets was inadequate).

The first part is overstated: we figured out that durability does not play enough of a role - but it is a factor. Also - we figured out that we were all confused statistically: losses PER SORTEE are different than losses PER 1000 aircraft over a finite time. WITP operations loss rates were in the right range - but looking at per sortee data - we didn't understand that. They can be higher - but not a lot higher - and be realistic.

The second part is a good idea. I already modified it slightly - 1 hex per aircraft on board in the searching unit as a tentative first pass. This probably shoud also apply to ships and land bases of all types: you can fly RECON to 50 hexes - but not a naval search!!! If your unit has 12 planes, the search can go to 12 hexes.

[spence]

Mark this day in your calendar: I almost agree.

As a non-code workaround for the borking of naval searches by small air detachments it's pretty good. Doing a quick bit of math though the 1:1 ratio of # of a/c to search radius is far too generous. The probability of detection for the searches would be off the chart on the bottom end in real life. But a 2 a/c to 1 hex ratio (round down) for all detachments of less than 4 (treading lightly cause I forgot to look up what Chikuma and Tone carried) would be sort keep the Glens and the seaplanes from exceeding their real life capabilities too badly.

So you'd end up with:

1 a/c searches its own hex (that'd give you two assets to search with: sub and plane and IRL would result in a hi POD.

2-3 a/c search to a 1 hex radius (which would give a pretty good POD IRL)

4 a/c search to a 2 hex radius (but don't want to nerf the Chikuma/Tone so maybe make the next line 4+)

5+ to full radius (and oh well can't have everything with code changes for the RL PODs)

[el cid again]

So marked - and I do agree. At work I did the math in my head - and reached the SAME conclusion. I am with Spence - as he said - mark it down. I will recommend this - regardless of mod or scenario - it is a good concept. Except of course 1 plane can do 1 hex.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: spence

You can't see the forest because the trees get in the way.

The search system is borked but for 12 plane PBY or Mavis squadrons it gives an approxiamation of reality. At least for them one can imagine each plane flying only a 30 degree arc to the limit of its range so sightings made at the same time on opposite bearings can at least be imagined to be made by different aircraft.

The search system is exponentially borked with each decrease in squadron size. When you reach a size of one a/c (Glens come to mind) you essentially have believe that the Glen can be in all places within its search area at the same time, And the effect of it being able to be in all of those "theres" simultaneously is to give the Japanese a completely ahistorical and physically impossible capability. Glens gave the Japanese to take a "snapshot" of what was going on in one place at essentially one moment in time. They never gave the Japanese the capability to monitor all the goings on in wide areas of the enemy's rear.

(And just an aside: in 5 months of a PBEM with an estimated dozen Glens taking off and landing twice a day on the open sea in all weather conditions there has not been a single "fatal" (to the airplane) accident.)

That's the difference between patrolling (where your effectiveness is based on your search rate) and investigation of a locality (where your goal is to arrive unexpected when the objects of interest are out and about).

[Dili]

In principle i think one hex is too much of a hit. In a clear day that is just putting the plane in the air. Since i dont know how many sorties one plane squadron can make with game engine.

[spence]

In principle i think one hex is too much of a hit. In a clear day that is just putting the plane in the air

It does seem like a big hit. But the fact is that the Glen could only "complete" one half of a circular search to a distance of 1 hex from the sub over the course of an air phase. I put "complete" in quotations because a 60 mile track spacing for a visual search is way more than optimum but in effect that is what that one half of a search would entail.

[el cid again]

Not so - a Glen could make a one hex circular search in five hours or so. Further - the comment above is germane - in good conditions - a Glen OVER HER SUB can see one hex. And that is conservative - not optimistic. In ideal conditions visibility is about 1.5 hexes. But if she flies out 60 miles - putting her in the middle of an adjacent hex - then flies 6 legs of 60 miles at 60 degree angles - and returns to the sub - that is 480 miles. Doable at 104 mph with some wind loss in 5 hours - or twice per 12 hour turn. That puts the plane within 30 miles of every possible target in 7 hexes twice in 12 hours - or once if you prefer only one sortee. Either way - that is not overstating any capability.

[el cid again]

I think an oversimplified rule (made for playability sake) might read

divide the number of aircraft searching by 2

round any fraction of 0.5 up

that is the maximum range of the search.

[el cid again]

It appears this rule SIGNIFICANTLY changes game play. It can not be used vs AI - because AI won't do it - although Matrix could rewrite the search algorithm and take the need for it away.

This makes the game system work much better - makes running convoys into (say) Malaya more feasible - UNLESS the enemy commits NUMBERS of aircraft to search. [The POW/Renown op had major search assets committed - something players don't have to consider doing - although in a sense the bombers were also the searchers which I am not sure the game permits]

I like this concept and will advocate it for all human games I participate in.

I think it might also be combined with a weather rule: NO air ops by floatplanes when thunderstorms are forecast for example, and possibly other variations as well.