Range settings for Japanese patrol planes

[niceguy2005]

With the Mavis and Emily having such extraordinary range in this game do you find them actually more effective if you limit there search range? I mean can 9 Emilies actually effectively search a 24 hex radius? I'm considering limiting their range to 12 hexes to boost coverage. What are your thoughts?

[stuman]

I agree with you only when I am playing the Allies [:)]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

With the Mavis and Emily having such extraordinary range in this game do you find them actually more effective if you limit there search range? I mean can 9 Emilies actually effectively search a 24 hex radius? I'm considering limiting their range to 12 hexes to boost coverage. What are your thoughts?

Believe it or not I often use them for recon missions. The range is just too good, so I set for recon with 50% naval search. If Nimitz takes a walk in the garden I know because of recon flights from Midway. [:D]

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Believe it or not I often use them for recon missions. The range is just too good, so I set for recon with 50% naval search. If Nimitz takes a walk in the garden I know because of recon flights from Midway. [:D]

Shark, I slipped Repulse and Company in under a setup like that, and you didn’t see me coming. Also if I hit you in CenPac I won’t recon you first, because reconing first is sort-of like knocking on the door before I break it down. [:D]

[tocaff]

Wouldn't you consider recons of other spots in the area to hide your true target?  Also don't you recon without plans of attack?  These tactics mask your true intentions.

I set my Emily and Mavis sqds to the normal range for patrols and will go beyond that for recons.  I have to admit that nothing is set in stone though and I will and do extended patrols at times.

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Wouldn't you consider recons of other spots in the area to hide your true target?  Also don't you recon without plans of attack?  These tactics mask your true intentions.

Yes I do recon at any opportunity, but its only 02-42 so if I start heavily reconing his Cenpac perimeter bases he’s going to get a bit twitchy. My Subs and the asigint reports are going to give me a pretty good idea of what is there anyway… probably smoke and mirrors methinks.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Believe it or not I often use them for recon missions. The range is just too good, so I set for recon with 50% naval search. If Nimitz takes a walk in the garden I know because of recon flights from Midway. [:D]

Shark, I slipped Repulse and Company in under a setup like that, and you didn’t see me coming. Also if I hit you in CenPac I won’t recon you first, because reconing first is sort-of like knocking on the door before I break it down. [:D]

True, but there were several other squadrons operating under full 100% Naval search in that area as well. For that matter there were two search squadrons based at Kendari that never caught sight of Repulse on the way in or out. I just had bad rolls or you had good ones. Only the one flight was on recon.

No way I'd set all my search assets to recon, that would just be silly. But it is nice being able to see what you are gathering up at PH, etc when I suspect something is up. If I see massed troops at Noumea for example, I know you are probably getting ready for the solomons campaign. Recon is my version of SigInt.

And it was a great move on your part, taking that kind of risk. Besides, there is always misdirection (since your SigInt let's you know when my flag officers sip sake). [:D]

Edit: Apparantly I haven't had enough coffee this morning, with all those errors.

[niceguy2005]

So anyway...[:'(]

Back to the original question, does anyone know the mechanics of the search.  Would one get better results by reducing range?

[Yamato hugger]

Ive never experienced it, so I dont bother anymore. Altitude matters, but near as I can tell, range doesnt.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Ive never experienced it, so I dont bother anymore. Altitude matters, but near as I can tell, range doesnt.

Best I can tell the only tow things that matter are altitude and pure luck. Not much of an answer I know.

[Feinder]

if I start heavily reconing his Cenpac perimeter bases he’s going to get a bit twitchy.

And what's the problem with making your opponent a bit twitchy...?

[;)]

-F-

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

if I start heavily reconing his Cenpac perimeter bases he’s going to get a bit twitchy.

And what's the problem with making your opponent a bit twitchy...?

[;)]

-F-

If you cause him to move assets from an area you really plan to attack to defend the 'twitchy' area, isn't that mission accomplished? [;)]

[Mynok]

I use Emily/Mavis groups at full range in conjunction with Jakes and Alfs at full range. It gives excellent coverage. Stay at 6000' feet though.

[String]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

So anyway...[:'(]

Back to the original question, does anyone know the mechanics of the search.  Would one get better results by reducing range?

it was discussed and tested and it was found that reducing range gives no noticeable improvement. Only reduce range if you want to stop them overflying an enemy base with a heavy cap presence. They will suffer losses to those.

[DivePac88]

Yes, and also in some testing that I have done; I found that overlapping your naval search assets can have some benefit. One other thing I have come to believe that the lower the better, and I run my naval search at 2000, or 3000 feet.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

So anyway...[:'(]

Back to the original question, does anyone know the mechanics of the search.  Would one get better results by reducing range?

it was discussed and tested and it was found that reducing range gives no noticeable improvement. Only reduce range if you want to stop them overflying an enemy base with a heavy cap presence. They will suffer losses to those.

Thanks everyone for the answers...at full range they will stay.

[Charles2222]

I suppose there could be some arguement, whether the game accomodates this or not I doubt it, to setting a shorter search, but being up a shorter time as well. IOW, if you're patroling out to 200 miles, and are told to do so for 3 hours, you will spend much less fuel than if you get the same orders but doing so at a much greater distance. The results achieved from searching at 200 miles should improve in that more immediate area, as opposed to the concentration being further out, but in these two scenarios one thing is clear, and that is the shorter patrol is also using much less fuel. I can't recall if WITP awards less supply/fuel expended for shorter flights, especially as far as patrols are concerned (flights to bomb cities, for example, may get into costing less supply/fuel). What's more, I would think since it's a generic search, and is only limited to the range you give them, then they are always up the same amount of time, whatever that may be.

Anyone have a firm grasp of how fuel/supply is spent for flight, particularly for patrols?