Naval air attack decisions

[fulcrum28]

I was playing the coral sea battle scenario with Japanese side for tsting the game and getting familiar with it. My first game was smooth but the second was a bit chaotic because of the "commander decisions" of Japanese carriers. The Japanese commander was keeping lanching valuable attacks against American TFs coposed by CL,and DD. This does not only loose planes but also reveals the position of the kidoubutai.

I wonder if it would ot be possible to have full control of when and when not to launch an air strike to minimize risks and maximize profits.

[henhute6]

We are dreaming of that, but I guess it needs different game. Try old Carrier Strike. Maybe some day we have them all together.

[fulcrum28]

I hope there could be a solution for this. the game without this problem seems perferct.

[Puhis]

It's not a problem. That's the way it should be. IRL planes attacked "wrong" targets, like battle of Coral Sea when japanese launch big strike vs. one oiler and destroyer.

Using adequate naval search will help finding best targets.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's not a problem. That's the way it should be. IRL planes attacked "wrong" targets, like battle of Coral Sea when japanese launch big strike vs. one oiler and destroyer.

Using adequate naval search will help finding best targets.

+1

[koniu]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's not a problem. That's the way it should be. IRL planes attacked "wrong" targets, like battle of Coral Sea when japanese launch big strike vs. one oiler and destroyer.

Using adequate naval search will help finding best targets.

+1

Having good DL on enemy TFs is critical. If Your bombers/serch planes detect all enemy forces at high DL they will almost always chose big fat critical targets like CV or BB.
Many players forget about that.
Especially in PBEM games where training CV pilots is important. Not training naval search skill will end with major defeat in battle.

[crsutton]

No, it will never change. Many have asked but this was not the purpose of the designers.

There are those who hate the randomness and unpredictability of the game and want to micro manage every event and wish that every order that they make is executed to perfection.

However, it is my belief and contention that once this becomes possible the game will grow tedious and predictable-and as a result not very interesting.

I just think of all the computer game that I have bought over the years, quickly mastered and then got rid of. Has yet to happen with this one.

[Dili]

Precisely. It is historical to waste forces.
And the recon from patrols was often wrong. Mistaking between cruisers and battleships, destroyers and cruisers were abound, some even saw carriers when none was around.

[Cpt Sherwood]

And don't forget coding/decoding errors.

[jcjordan]

What I hate is that numerous times when units are set to naval attack they'll attack a worthless target due to cap over main target (all other things being equal) ie sdrn cdr to his commander sorry sir we can't attack that IJN CV that's launching a/c to attack us as there's a fighter on cap so let's attack this useless target at extreme range that's less dangerous to us. That is ahistroical as we know they'd go after the CV not the worthless/less dangerous target. To me there are way too many die rolls involved in a unit trying to do something that it ends up doing nothing

[DivePac88]

Your gripe is easily solved, as you are obviously playing the wrong game type. AE is an operational level wargame, and what you need is a tactical level game such as 'Carriers At War'.

[Zigurat666]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's not a problem. That's the way it should be. IRL planes attacked "wrong" targets, like battle of Coral Sea when japanese launch big strike vs. one oiler and destroyer.

Using adequate naval search will help finding best targets.

+1

-1

Have had too many instances where valid valuble targets are spotted and closer than those attacked. I recently had a series of Nells and Betties attack PT's no less at a greater distance when AK TF's were much closer and spotted and out of range of CAP.
Had this happened in real life I dont believe the group commanders would have been around long...

[Puhis]

While I admit that sometimes Netties have almost pervert desire to attack PT-boats, I believe it's still a detection level problem. Usually PT are at base hex, and therefore get better detection than ships at sea (because of both naval search and recon, and the fact that detection level of bases decrease slower than DL of TFs). One solution would be reduce the range so that Netties do not reach the base hex.

And I've never seen carrier planes attacking PT-boats.

[gradenko2k]

Another way to look at this issue is that even if you had total control of the air strikes, that still doesn't necessarily guarantee that you as the player will select the correct target, if the game will only report information based on your Detection Level.

That is, suppose WITP, during the combat resolution, throws up a pop-up with a list of all targets in range of your carrier TF, and asks the player to select which target to hit. If your DL is low, you might have two TFs reported as both containing carriers in them. You select the first one, and off go your Vals and Kates. Later, the combat animation shows you planes hitting the Neosho ...