Opinions on naval search wanted

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by Possum
Also, I generaly assign my naval interdiction forces a low level of naval search, about 20%, it seems to help them make up their minds to attack any passing ships.

I've always done so. I've figured that the communications lag is a lot less if from the same squadron (or base, at least). Seems to work fairly well, overall.

[motaman]

i like the way search was done in the GNB series.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by motaman
i like the way search was done in the GNB series.

Originally posted by loader6
I personally like the idea of arcs. I just don't feel confident that my planes are going where I want them to. I've been surprised a few times from areas where I'd have my search planes looking if I could tell them. In addition, I'm not big on the altitude thing either. I like the idea of a low/medium/high altitude setting.

I agree with you guys. The GNB system wasn't bad - the search sectors of each plane (the 'legs') were fixed, but you could select the number of planes, the distance between the individual search sectors (determining the 'density' of the search and the size of the search arc - beware of gaps!) and - most important - the direction of the search effort (which sometimes was a bit arkward to position correctly, IMO).
IIRC the system in Carrier Strike did let you assign the number of planes for a search mission and then showed a search arc in the size the assigned planes could cover effectively, giving you the option to position the arc on the map according to your notion before giving the order to actually launch the search planes.

I would like to see sth like this in UV or WITP, to enable me to concentrate my search efforts in areas I deem important - like the slot. At least some kind of display showing the areas that have been searched would be nice.

Btw, I second Lukosan on the 'over-information issue'. Seperate combat replays for each side would really improve the FOW.

LST

[The Gnome]

I'm glad I found this post, I was thinking of starting a new thread on it. Anyway, I too think search is much too abstracted and much too powerful.

I have taken to the practice of never setting any percentage of my attack planes to searching and only half of my patrol aircraft to dedicated search. The only times I've been surprised is when I was negligent in looking through the TFs I've spotted.

Also, I agree that searches *seem* to be completed unaffected by weather.

[Pawlock]

Originally posted by The Gnome
I'm glad I found this post, I was thinking of starting a new thread on it. Anyway, I too think search is much too abstracted and much too powerful.

I have taken to the practice of never setting any percentage of my attack planes to searching and only half of my patrol aircraft to dedicated search. The only times I've been surprised is when I was negligent in looking through the TFs I've spotted.

Also, I agree that searches *seem* to be completed unaffected by weather.

Just remember that just because you see something once doesent mean you have good intell on target. This is where many go wrong I feel, they spot something once and think , Hey why did'nt they target the say CV instead of the transports.

What Im saying is, bottom line the more times you spot something the more you raise its detection level, which in turn increases your chances of initiating attacks against and doing more damage.

From my experiences I get greater success when I have more planes on search than if not , and that includes leaving most bombers to 20 percent search.

[denisonh]

Search is much more effective when you have overlapping search. I found that if you only one sqn searching an area within normal range, you can miss things. (I am big on searching and recon)

Missed an enemy bombardment TF completely. And that will limit the range at which surface TFs nearby can react, so he got in among transports with my surface TF several squares away inactive (aggressive Admiral set to react, but if surprised, it doesn't help).

Yea it may be powerful, but it ain't perfect.

[wobbly]

From memory of the manual here, I believe weather only has an impact on offensive missions - yes here it is:

"Offensive missions can be aborted after all preparations have been made, but prior to take off, due to weather...
"
Search does not qualify as an offensive mission so they are flown.

This IS from the initial version of the manual so may have been changed; doesn't feel like that in the game though.

My 2 cents: I make my CV groups very spartan in size in order to utilise a chance that I may be undetected. From my own experiences I find that the target of an incoming strike is generally the CV's anyway (extra ships don't make extra targets), the extra firepower in AAA just isn't worth the chance of getting away an undetected strike. This is more suited to a early US use of their CV's: am I detected? No; get in, strike if able, get the hell out again.

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by eMonticello
Agreed (re: search effectiveness degrading with range) ... although we don't know if it is modeled this way already.

I agree as well. From what I've experienced in the game, I am under the impression that this is not currently modeled. Search planes from Rabaul seem to spot Allied ships south of Gili Gil far too frequently ... just about as frequently, in fact, as search planes from Enterprise can spot enemy carriers at 50 km distance.

If distance isn't a factor, I believe this is the primary problem with the current naval search system. Or if distance from the search plane's origin IS being factored in when determining the chance for a successful search, I believe the current degree of this effect is far too slight.

- David