Common air combat frustraions

[CapAndGown]

1) Why won't my level bombers attack enemy task forces?
Does the enemy task force have carriers in it? Is there a carrier task force in the same hex? Level bombers are very hesitant to attack carriers without an escort. They will do so on occasion, but this is the exception and not the rule.
How far away is the enemy task force from your airbase? At distances of 10 hexes or more it becomes much less likely that bombers will launch an attack against a task force at sea. This is because in between the time the aircraft launch and the time they arrive in the task force's last reported position it is likely to have moved a good distance. As a result, an enemy bombardment task force that starts 11 hexes away from your airfield will likely be able to move in, bombard your airfield, and get out without being attacked.
A task force at an enemy port or unloading an invasion force, however, can be attacked at very long range. This is because the squadrons sent out to attack are traveling to a specific location where the enemy is known to be conducting operations and not simply steaming around at sea.
One should also keep in mind that even though the enemy task force may be reported to be in a certain hex, this is an abstraction due to the movement system that does not keep track of the hexes over which a task force has moved during the current phase. Only the task force's position at the end of the phase will be reported. Thus a task force that appears to be 11 hexes away may have actually been 14 hexes away from your airbase when it was spotted. Despite the detail of the simulation, one should be aware that some items are still abstracted through die rolls. Thus, a bomber squadron may fail a die roll on whether it will attack or not and this should be interpreted as a situation where the intelligence on the enemy task force was too old or too imprecise to act on.

2) Why weren't my bombers escorted?
Was this an attack against an airfield/port/ground troops? To ensure that your bombers are escorted, you should have fighters with adequate range based at the same base as the bombers, that they have a mission of escort assigned, and that their target is the same as the bombers. Simply setting them to escort without setting a target hex may result in disaster. Likewise, always set a target for your bombers. Also, check the fatigue and morale level of your fighters. They may not fly because they are too fatigued or have too low a morale. If you need to rest your fighters, then stand down the bombers as well. Following these rules will result in almost all your strikes being escorted, though occasionally screw ups will still occur. If a screw up does happen, don't get mad; instead, be grateful that you are playing an accurate simulation of war and not a game of chess!
Was this an attack against a carrier task force? (No one ever complains that their attack against a task force with no CAP was not escorted.) Unescorted strikes against enemy task forces is a fact of life. Intelligence on enemy task forces is imprecise at best and strikes will be launched long before this intelligence can be firmed up. In the process of launching strikes, fighters may become separated from the bombers. What you are most likely seeing is that the task force commander meant to escort a strike, but the fighters became separated from the bombers. Sometimes this happens during the process of launching, sometimes on the way to the target. Other times, strikes are formed up and a portion of the strike will become separated from the main strike. Just think how the commander of the TBD squadron at Midway felt when they attacked without fighter escort. Despite this lack of escort, the TBD's pressed home their attack. While this particular attack was a disaster, in the end it opened up a window for the TBD's to score. Read through the history of Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Coral Sea and Midway. Penny packet attacks, large strikes against low value targets, and unescorted strikes were a fact of life. A perfectly coordinated strike with plenty of escort actually happens in Uncommon Valor much more often than it did in real life. Again, keep in mind that you are playing a simulation of war and not a game of chess.

3) Why can't I set the target for a naval attack?
Matrix is considering implementing a priority system for War in the Pacific. That will not occur for quite some time, however. Even with a priority system, however, it will never be the case that you will be able to target a specific task force. Task forces are constantly on the move and new task forces may suddenly appear that you had not detected before. It would be impossible in the game, and in real life, to tell your squadrons ahead of time what they should attack the next day because of this constantly changing situation. You must rely on the intelligence gathered during the course of the day in order for you squadrons to make a strike. Even then this intelligence can be wrong or too late in arriving for it to be acted on correctly. A strike may be sent off against one target early on only to find out an hour or two later that a higher priority target has been uncovered. By this time the bombers are on their way and can't be diverted to the new target. Read through Morrison's account of the Battle of Eastern Solomons. Small groups of American bombers were making attacks against all kinds of targets because they were unable to locate the enemy carriers. Or reread his account of the battle of Coral Sea where a large Japanese strike went after an oiler and some DD's. All of these screw ups are simulated in the game through die rolls which determine which bombers will attack a certain target and whether they will be escorted. This aspect of the game is what makes it one of the most accurate simulations of this theater available. Perfectly coordinated strikes against precisely the target the player would have chosen would be about as accurate as a game of Risk. I am sure that Nagumo at Midway would have wanted the same level of control that a few players of Uncommon Valor are demanding. The goal of the game, however, is simulate the predicament he found himself in, and not to pretend that with a few changes to the code he would never suffer a disaster.

[Admiral Scott]

Planes have also attacked friendly ships. The battle to sink the Bismark comes to mind.

[mapr]

Originally posted by cap_and_gown


3) Why can't I set the target for a naval attack?
Matrix is considering implementing a priority system for War in the Pacific. That will not occur for quite some time, however. Even with a priority system, however, it will never be the case that you will be able to target a specific task force. Task forces are constantly on the move and new task forces may suddenly appear that you had not detected before.
.....
of this theater available. Perfectly coordinated strikes against precisely the target the player would have chosen would be about as accurate as a game of Risk. I am sure that Nagumo at Midway would have wanted the same level of control that players of Uncommon Valor are demanding. ....
.... In a recent poll on whether players should be able to prioritize their strikes, 50% of the respondents indicated they wanted no change at all.

Priorities:
Do you know if this consideration include prioritising by location? By ship types? By TF mission? Something else? Sound good anyway...

Risk:
-;) To me it seems that players also would like to have more feedback about what happened... Anyway I really haven't noticed that players would like to lose randomness. I think that prioritising would be good way to handle this and I'd love to see prioritising done by location and shiptypes... Would really give more options to work with.

Poll: I've missed the poll... When was it?

[crsutton]

It is important to remember that "both sides" were engaging in an entirely new type of warfare. Before 1942, there were no carrier vs carrier actions and very few large air engagements over water. They were shooting blind and had no reference points. That is why nothing ever really seemed to work as planned.

I know, some will point to the high experience level of Japanese pilots, but that experience was gained for the most part fighting over China-where Japanese pilots and commanders learned primarily the wrong lessions. (and paid dearly)

Such things as air to air, air to land, group coordination, proper search procedure and simple combat tactics were being learned and developed on the fly (pardon the pun). Simply put, both combatants were just not very good at it. That is why things don't ever seem to work as you want them to. And that is why Grigsby and company have come up with a real gem here.

Did you know that most Zero fighters in the South Pacific did not have radios? Yes, they were built to hold radios but the radios were so unreliable and technical support and spare parts virtually non-exsistant, that most pilots were flying without them. In fact many pilots had the radios removed to reduce weight.

It is hard to press how important this point is. American fighters held a tremendous tactical advantage due to this fact. Even crappy planes with average crews can gain the upper hand over better planes and expert pilots who can only communicate via signals. Think about the ramifications of group tactics without radio communication. Students of the eastern front know how Russian tanks were slaughtered by German tanks in 1942-43 because Russian tanks did not have radios.

Now visualize a escort of Zeros without decent radio communication botching a meeting with a flight of Bettys-then trying to find them. Are you starting to understand why your bombers go unescorted?

I got a few complaints but basically I love the game just the way it is.