Naval Attack Can't Select any Target!

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: Feltan
Read history. Finding and attacking a specific vessel on order is a fantasy of micromanagement.

Most certainly, but on the other hand not being able to exclude an enemy base or area, which is known to be heavily capped, save by reducing bomber range in all directions, seems a bit strange (to say the least).

Somehow, the presence of an enemy port with ships and a strong CAP over it, five hexes east, make it almost impossible for one's bombers to intercept anything further than four hexes away, to the West, North, or South. In other words, enemy bases acts as "range limiters" in all directions. I realize it cuts both ways, but it doesn't seem right. I really think arcs, or something similar (and not too precise, and subject to random factors), should be allowed for naval attacks.


Francois

[BattleMoose]

Its a hack that you can use. Deliberately don't naval search over the heavily capped base, then your bombers wont' strike at it and you can increase their naval attack range. Very obvious drawbacks, but its something that you can use.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose
Its a hack that you can use. Deliberately don't naval search over the heavily capped base, then your bombers wont' strike at it and you can increase their naval attack range. Very obvious drawbacks, but its something that you can use.

Unfortunately you will still detect TFs in the danger zone now and then. Coastal watchers, your own random passing TFs or subs with air search e.t.c. Given that entire circle of radius 4 is always searched, it can be pretty hard to make sure you not light up that particular base

[BattleMoose]

Yes, it has very obvious drawbacks. But I have done this in the past with success. Just another tool in the kit bag.

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: witpqs

You *never* select targets for naval attacks.

Best game design decision ever made

+1

Read history. Finding and attacking a specific vessel on order is a fantasy of micromanagement.

Regards,
Feltan

Bismarck wasn't, Ilustrious in Med? They are big ships i know.
But Ultra made specific targets for UK submarines and airplanes in Mediterranean. It included a search plane appear over the target for axis not to get suspicious.


But more than that it is not what we are talking about.
No one attacks a major enemy base without follwing specific orders.


When US commanders said to attack the Bismarck sea convoy the bombers didn't ended attacking something else in another very different direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... smarck_Sea

They or some of them could have messed up and attacked some other convoy nearby if existed but not going in another mission.

[robinsa]

I know Halsey never risked getting sent of to Manchura but your post reminded me of him and the battle of Leyte gulf. Here is a quote from wiki that I think sums it up pretty well.

"Searches by my carrier planes revealed the presence of the Northern carrier force on the afternoon of 24 October, which completed the picture of all enemy naval forces. As it seemed childish to me to guard statically San Bernardino Strait, I concentrated TF 38 during the night and steamed north to attack the Northern Force at dawn.

I believed that the Center Force had been so heavily damaged in the Sibuyan Sea that it could no longer be considered a serious menace to Seventh Fleet.["

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: Feltan
Read history. Finding and attacking a specific vessel on order is a fantasy of micromanagement.

Most certainly, but on the other hand not being able to exclude an enemy base or area, which is known to be heavily capped, save by reducing bomber range in all directions, seems a bit strange (to say the least).

Somehow, the presence of an enemy port with ships and a strong CAP over it, five hexes east, make it almost impossible for one's bombers to intercept anything further than four hexes away, to the West, North, or South. In other words, enemy bases acts as "range limiters" in all directions. I realize it cuts both ways, but it doesn't seem right. I really think arcs, or something similar (and not too precise, and subject to random factors), should be allowed for naval attacks.


Francois

You make good and fair points.

My point, perhaps stated a little to succinctly, was that in general there was no way a commander could order the specific target -- save, for instance, "attack the carriers" which the game engine already handles by default.

There are many, many examples of aircraft not finding the target; hitting another target claiming it to be a capital ship, and totally missing the target but reporting it sunk.

As the commander, you get to order a strike launched. What happens after that is up to your digital subordinates.

Not perfect -- as you point out there are frustrating examples that seem difficult to justify.

Regards,
Feltan

[geofflambert]

Everything has to be in the commander in the field's discretion. Those fine tuned instructions never happened historically. If you don't trust your commander to make the right call, replace him. In any sort of carrier action your search planes have to search (unless you've ordered an attack on a target that cannot move during the night (a base, port, airfield i.e.). Until you get the info back from your search planes you can't decide what the best course to take is. Nobody ever gave any orders like that. This isn't a game that's not fair, this is the best attempt I know of to mimic reality. Guess what, reality isn't fair. You're presented with situations and circumstances that you need to deal with. Do it. Otherwise look for someone to come out with a game or a mod of this one that has one hour turns so you can play ship captain on top of everything else you have to do.

[BattleMoose]

Having a level of self preservation for the naval bombing crews would be much nicer. Like them having the discretion to not attack heavily capped minor ships, in port or somewhere else. As it stands, a group of torpedo bombers will attack a single cargo ship that has a very strong cap and just die for nothing. This is a definitive flaw in the game.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Having a level of self preservation for the naval bombing crews would be much nicer. Like them having the discretion to not attack heavily capped minor ships, in port or somewhere else. As it stands, a group of torpedo bombers will attack a single cargo ship that has a very strong cap and just die for nothing. This is a definitive flaw in the game.

This is a definition of the kind of stuff that actually happened. Well, only partial.

I'm just asking, do you want to fly the planes yourself?

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Everything has to be in the commander in the field's discretion. Those fine tuned instructions never happened historically. If you don't trust your commander to make the right call, replace him. In any sort of carrier action your search planes have to search (unless you've ordered an attack on a target that cannot move during the night (a base, port, airfield i.e.). Until you get the info back from your search planes you can't decide what the best course to take is. Nobody ever gave any orders like that. This isn't a game that's not fair, this is the best attempt I know of to mimic reality. Guess what, reality isn't fair. You're presented with situations and circumstances that you need to deal with. Do it. Otherwise look for someone to come out with a game or a mod of this one that has one hour turns so you can play ship captain on top of everything else you have to do.

Tthe fine tuned instruction were made by US commanders and even more by British commanders with Ultra. The Bismark Sea attack was one clear case, the Yamamoto hit was another. When the case justified it was possible.

@robinsa
Halsey was a high level commander had latitude, he was an Admiral, not a German squadron commander - just to change the theatre - that is ordered to intercept ships in the North Sea route to Murmansk and ends up hitting ships in the Baltic...

When the Japanese were ordered to attack shipping around Guadalcanal the G4M1's didn't end up in Port Moresby. Yeah a mistake can happen and a squadron might go the incorrect route, but it is not something sistemic.

Limiting the operational area and sectors are very common even to prevent friendly fire.

The chance and randomness in the game it is one of its great assets, one that gives a special flavour that most other games miss, but in this issue it goes over the top in my opinion.

[geofflambert]

I'm not going to be able to agree with you. Intelligence seemed a lot more "iffy" than it might seem in the game. Nimitz didn't give Spruance tactical instructions. Nagumo was on his own. A fleet commander is expected to do his job and not keep requesting orders from above. Play the game. It's not a shoot 'em up. Do the appropriate preparations and send your fleets to sea. That, I believe, is what the game designers were shooting for. Other games might be fun and etc. but this one doesn't do that. Take this game for what it is and kwityerbiscuits. It won't be changed to suit everyone's idea of what it should be.

[BattleMoose]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I'm just asking, do you want to fly the planes yourself?

Come on, that's such a false dichotomy. There are a great number of potential options between, complete abstraction and personal control. I really like the aspect of the game that diverts so much randomness to the actual commanders in the game. I have come to appreciate it as one of this games greatest strengths. But this particular issue is so, obviously a flaw, its really hard to understand why you are arguing against it. If you gave a reason why we should expect such suicidal behaviour that might be an effective means of communication.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
This is a definition of the kind of stuff that actually happened. Well, only partial.

I flat out don't believe you. Outside of a very few isolated incidents (which I would be curious to learn about). The idea that real life pilots of bombers, unescorted, would attack very minor targets, within a very well known enemy anchorage, with strong air cap, is something that is so unbelievable to me, I would need specific real life examples.

[Encircled]

The question I would pose would be twofold really

First, is it a gamebreaker?

No

Second, its not chess, there are random events in the game, this is one of them.

[BattleMoose]

Only it isn't random. They will suicidally attack minor targets under strong cap, pretty much always.

[Encircled]

Only it isn't random. They will suicidally attack minor targets under strong cap, pretty much always.

So it is random then?

There are a lot of die rolls to be rolled, especially if there are more than one T/F to attack.

If its one T/f, under massive CAP and then thats the only one you can see, then of course its going to attack that (subject to random factors)

[BattleMoose]

If they can attack the target, they will. You may consider that random. I don't. But this is getting really semantic.

[Numdydar]

And if it is a CV fleet, they will attack no matter what. This is especially true for Japan. I've had entire AGs wiped out attacking fleets before. Some flying with no escorts at all [X(].

This is why you want to pay close attention to manually setting the attack range on AGs. If you don't want them to fly to a certain location set the range to less than the location. Problem solved [:)].

Of course make sure the CO is not a madman with an aggressiveness of 80+ [:)] Otherwise they could override the range you set anyway if the dice rolls go their way.

[sfatula]

Ok, I've listened to all the arguments here. My only comment, as a newbie of the game but not a newbie of the war history, is that I DO agree with geofflambert for the most part. However, the situation as it exists in Guadalcanal is way over the top and as far I I can tell, cannot be defended. I would like a single example of a Japanese AG attack intended for shipping around Guadalcanal instead going to PM (historically). I am not aware of any. Perhaps, a solution is naval attack arcs, BUT, maybe subject to some variance based on random die roll. i.e., you want to limit to 140-170 degrees, but, a die roll can increase that and maybe even often will to mimic some uncertainty. There *should* be uncertainty. This was a fact. But, not to the degree of PM vs Guad!

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: sfatula

Ok, I've listened to all the arguments here. My only comment, as a newbie of the game but not a newbie of the war history, is that I DO agree with geofflambert for the most part. However, the situation as it exists in Guadalcanal is way over the top and as far I I can tell, cannot be defended. I would like a single example of a Japanese AG attack intended for shipping around Guadalcanal instead going to PM (historically). I am not aware of any. Perhaps, a solution is naval attack arcs, BUT, maybe subject to some variance based on random die roll. i.e., you want to limit to 140-170 degrees, but, a die roll can increase that and maybe even often will to mimic some uncertainty. There *should* be uncertainty. This was a fact. But, not to the degree of PM vs Guad!

The point is that you do not get to order an anti-shipping attack against ANY specific target, so when you say "intended for shipping around Guadalcanal" that intent is in your mind only. The game engine does not know that and does not consider that.

I too would like some arcs for naval attack orders, but your criticism of the current design is off by one 'layer' (if you get my drift). There was no strike intended for shipping around Guadalcanal. The game engine made the assignment and its intent was for shipping around PM.

There are times when an air group goes for one target and finds another, but the targets are close together, maybe even always in the same hex.