Naval air attack in just a sector?

[PaxMondo]

So, this is something that has been in place since day 1 and it hasn't been changed and it clearly won't be changed. There are a number of ways to adapt, CT and LoBaron have given several.

My suspicion is that Gary initially, and the air team subsequently, left it like this for one very good reason. The air model has a huge abstraction in it; namely that flights cannot be interdicted by intervening bases. It is assumed that they can find a path to go around. In the ETO, this simply would not be realistic. In the PTO, meh, most of the time it isn't a terrible abstraction in most places. China/India would be potentially major exceptions.

However, once you make this abstraction (and they did), then they intentionally made long range air strikes against mobile targets (TF's) highly random. For these to work, you have to keep "eyes" on them, you have poor reference points (water kinda looks like water most everywhere), and avoiding intervening CAP becomes problematic. So, they said "Good". Its hard to do and it should be. There's a lot of risk involved, and there should be. Leaders will balk, choose a closer target, and they do.

I'm not saying I entirely agree, but I can see how they would have gotten to where we are. And it is a case of "where we are". This isn't a bug, this is WAD. So don't think about a "fix" because the devs will not agree that there is a problem. It is a feature of the game.

EDIT: I do need to add that I can also see why Gary made this abstraction: it greatly simplifies the code. Having to deal with intervening bases for a game scale like this would just be a horrendous coding nightmare. You'd have to setup some form of DL for flights, determine at what point a base would launch to intercept, how many launches they could do; turns would take 2 - 5x as long to run in the early game. In the end game? You might be hours on a turn with all the AC involved.

[Yaab]

Well, it works somewhat against the Japanese AI. On December 8, 1941 I usually create ASW/AM TFs at Singapore and Manila. After a turn or two, the DL on those TF is so great (usually 10/10) that Nells and Betties react to them and get eaten by my CAP. Now that I know more about the Naval Attack routine, I think am going to disband those TFs to stop this onslaught. Japs at start have excellent navy bomber pilots and killing them this way seems gamey. My TFs were created for a reason (minesweeping, fending off subs etc.), but I could as well create some generic bait TFs (empty xAKLs etc.) to sit under the CAP umbrella and waiting for those poor Jap bombers to show up. The pilot loss really cripples the AI in the long run.

[Dili]

My suspicion is that Gary initially, and the air team subsequently, left it like this for one very good reason.

It doesn't make sense. It is typical for commands have a sector for what they have responsibility.
Japanese attacked shipping around in Guadalcanal and naval bombers didn't went to Port Moresby just because an army recon plane saw a TF entering port when the big navy fight was around Solomons. With current setup naval bombers cannot be based on Rabaul to bomb Guadalcanal waters like they did, there is high risk they got instead to Port Moresby.

This is just an example. This asks for a sector fight for an Air HQ which is typical in war. Since Air Flotillas don't have sectors this ask for them to be established at squadron level.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Dili

My suspicion is that Gary initially, and the air team subsequently, left it like this for one very good reason.

It doesn't make sense. It is typical for commands have a sector for what they have responsibility.
Japanese attacked shipping around in Guadalcanal and naval bombers didn't went to Port Moresby just because an army recon plane saw a TF entering port when the big navy fight was around Solomons. With current setup naval bombers cannot be based on Rabaul to bomb Guadalcanal waters like they did, there is high risk they got instead to Port Moresby.

This is just an example. This asks for a sector fight for an Air HQ which is typical in war. Since Air Flotillas don't have sectors this ask for them to be established at squadron level.

Dili,

Not suggesting it mimics reality which is where you are going. I'm just saying this has been discussed at length many times over the years and has been labeled WAD. You've been here long enough to know what that means. I offered my opinion as to why, just an opinion though. I could easily be miles off base, but it really doesn't matter. The bottom line here is that the devs have called this WAD and there "ain't no more designing" being done. [;)]

[Dili]

Sure, no problem.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

This whole set-up somewhat nullifies the advantages of range enjoyed by Betties and Nells.

Imagine a 22 hex axis called SOUTH:

0 hex: Japanese base 1 with Betties set to Naval Attack, range 22 hexes. It is the only base Japs have
7 hex: Allied base A with CAP
25 hex: Allied base B with CAP, from which ships move supply/fuel/troops to base A


Because TFs between hexes 7-25 are constantly moving, it is hard to keep DL on them and find them during attack. Any TF unloading at base A will produce high DL and will get attacked 90% of the time.

Basically, all the Allies need to do is to make sure Japs cannot perform air attacks from bases perpendicular to axis SOUTH, and they are guaranteed the Betties will react to TFs in base A. With correct approach lines, the TFs at sea will be immune from naval attacks by Japanese land base bombers from base 1.

This is nonsense and any newbies reading this should just disregard it.

Alfred

[Yaab]

I do not think it is nonsense.

Let's say Japs' only base is Rabaul. Allies are at Shortlands with CAP and lots of TFs unloading. Those TFs sail with supply in a straight line from Vanua Lava to Shortlands. How do you attack them between Shortlands and Vanua Lava with Japanese medium bombers flying from Rabaul set on Naval Attack without reacting to TFs in Shortlands which are static and have higher DLs?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I do not think it is nonsense.

The example is given as an indication that TFs in base hexes are more likely to be attacked. It is not.

The triggers involved here are much simpler, and are related to range. The further away a TF is located from the base of origin of the search, the more difficult it is to increase the DL. The lower the DL and the further away the TF is located from the base of origin of the strike, the lower the chances it will get attacked.


Edit: For a list of target priorization variables independent of weather/DL refer to the manual 7.2.1.7.1 AUTOMATIC TARGET SELECTION FOR AIR UNITS LACKING A SET TARGET.

[Yaab]

Coming back to my example, it seems the only way to "jump" behind the screen of CAP at Shortlands is to put the whole medium bomber unit on Naval Search in a narrow search arc and hope for "a ship is reported HIT" messages. There will be still bomber pilot attrition due to the Allied CAP, but not as catastrophic as 20 Betties on Naval Attack reacting unescorted into 10 Warhawks CAP-ping Shortlands and its TFs.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Target selection should take into consideration the target setting of the Air HQ in the chain of command. For example, if 21st Air Flottila at Rabaul has target set to
Guadalcanal, planes belonging to that HQ should have much higher probability to attack TFs around Guadalcanal than TFs at PM or elsewhere. But that is requiring coding so we need to bribe michaelm...

[LoBaron]

I doubt to would be possible to implement anything remotely similar to what you are proposing without completely recoding the naval attack algorithm. This is way beyond the limits of bribary. [;)]

[LargeSlowTarget]

Since a bearded lady from Austria has won the ESC, anything is possible! [;)]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Since a bearded lady from Austria has won the ESC, anything is possible! [;)]

I did consider to migrate to Germany after this specific event.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Oh, it is not that bad - compared to the other bearded Austrian who made headlines (and migrated to Germany)

[LoBaron]

HEY! Is it our fault that you seem to be irresistibly drawn towards bizarre Austrian bearded men?

[LargeSlowTarget]

We must add DJ Ötzi to the list. Yes, it is strange - glad I left the country already...

[Yaab]

The problem is still there. The AI reacted to an AM TF in Singapore and lost 20 medium bombers for no gain. The AM TF detection level reached 10/10 in just one day.

The only quick fix I can think of is to disband such TFs EACH turn and recreate them again, so the detection level drops to 0.

[KenchiSulla]

The AI will always have its limits...

If I was the Japanese player trying to close supply / reinforcement to a base I would:
A - Establish air superiority by using fighters, bombardment TFs and airbase attack runs until allied player could not keep CAP up
B - Bomb Port/Airbase until supply runs out while keeping transport and amphibious TFs away using naval air, submarines and surface ships

Do, or do not close a base... commit! There is no "try" in WitP AE. "Trying" will not work.... If you have to "try" it is probably a better idea to prevent the enemy from closing your bases down...

[Dili]

Same happens with PT's, worse they attacks PT's with torpedoes.

[Yaab]

It seems there is no check for medium bombers for sufficient escort and CAP at destination when Naval Attack is set for the bombers. 20 unescorted Netties press their attack against 35 Buffaloes on CAP at Singapore and get slaughtered. Are the checks only performed when attack destination is a base or a CV TF?