Matrix/2By... please listen... current AI "Naval Attack" is completely broken... :-(

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Ahh... what can I say... I am (well this can't be said otherwise)
angry/******/sad/disappointed...


The "Naval Attack" AI routine is completely broken and we really really do
need some kind of user settings to control it.

This is especially true for Japanese player who must handle long long range
Betty and Nell bombers...


Explanation (yes - yet another sad AAR)

This is Scen #19 and I play as Japanese player. I have Lunge (and all islands
there) together with Port Moresby (and whole New Guinea).

I have Lunge maximally developed, in perfect condition, less than maximum
aircraft in base, plenty of air support and best Air HQ present.

My worthy opponent Oleg Mastruko sailed transport to Gavigamana (many AKs and
few DDs). I waited for this and wanted to strike with full force and unleash
all of my might (until now I carefully conserved my forces).

I have (my opponent already knows what I have so no big secrets here) 8 fully
rested Betty squadrons in Lunga (90+ Experience, 90+ Morale, 5 Fatigue)
together with 6 fully rested fighter squadrons of A6M2/A6M3 (90+ Experience,
90+ Morale, 10 Fatigue).


But instead of massive strike on nearest enemy transport force I got two
separate strikes (see below)...


Out of my 8 Betty squadrons just 3 squadrons flew while 5 others did not do
anything (no change in their fatigue - I keep statistics on paper).

In 1st day phase two squadron flew in each attack and in 2nd day phase third
squadron flew (but attack didn't happen because they were "Unable to Find
Target" in Noumea - luckily for me).

All my fighter squadrons flew and participated in support of second attack on
Gavigamana.


Why oh why my stupid Betty pilots choose to attack ships in Noumea harbour so
far away to strike just two stupid SC ships?

Why oh why my stupid Betty pilots choose to send just one squadron against
Gavigamana (instead all 8)?

Why oh why my other squadrons didn't participate?


The Gavigama attack was well escorted (120+ of my escort fighters) and all 8
Betty squadrons should have attacked Gavigama and Gavigama alone.

This was the closest target.

This was the juiciest target.


Arghhhhhhhh... ((


Also please note that I had 3:1 advantage in fighters over Gavigamana and
still the results are much 1:1 (actual day looses are 9 A6M2, 6 A6M3 and 6
Betty against 10 P-400 and 8 F-4F).

My opponent had fighters in Gavigamana and flew LRCAP so not of his fighters
were from attacked base).


To many questions and no proper/logical answer... ((


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 10/10/42

Weather: Overcast

Air attack on TF, near Noumea at 52,67

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 15

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 5 damaged


Allied Ships
SC 521, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SC 518, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air attack on TF, near Gavigamana at 51,47

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 79
A6M3 Zero x 37
G4M1 Betty x 6

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 28
P-400 Airacobra x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 6 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 damaged
P-400 Airacobra x 12 destroyed
P-400 Airacobra x 2 damaged

1LT H.Ferguson of VMF-212 is credited with kill number 3

LCDR L.Kondo of F1/253rd Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED

Allied Ships
DD Hull, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Crater, Torpedo hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One other Betty squadron tried to bomb Nouema harbour in 2nd day phase but
they were "Unable to Find Target" (luckily for me).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Please note that I already wrote about this several times:


Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack"

showthread.php?s=&threadid=30931



If arcs are to complicate to implement then, _PLEASE_, just give us the option
to reduce range of our bombers.


I am sorry but the current system is totally flawed... ((



Leo "Apollo11"

[Yamamoto]

The ability to set a maximum range for each air groups' missions would be an almost perfect solution. Perhaps that can be added.

I also don't like my G4Ms flying long range misions but for me it is because of the high opperational losses they (and their A6M escorts) will encur.

Yamamoto

[U2]

Apollo,

I'll take up your concerns in my next report. If you wish to write me with more details or include saves from what you explained please do so. Otherwise I'll use some of your comments here if you feel they explain your point and argument.

You know where to reach me if you wish to do so:)

Cheers
Dan

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by U2
Apollo,

I'll take up your concerns in my next report. If you wish to write me with more details or include saves from what you explained please do so. Otherwise I'll use some of your comments here if you feel they explain your point and argument.

You know where to reach me if you wish to do so:)

Cheers
Dan

Dan, first of all thanks for quick replay and offer.

As for save files I really don't think they can help Matrix/2By3 since people
here reported similar stuff since day 1 of UV.


I am 100% sure that the AI routine for "Naval Attack" just can't handle the
volume of targets and it simply gets confused.


IMHO, this is where problem lies since no AI routine can be as clever as human...


In this PBEM I wrote AAR from my worthy opponent had at least 30+ various TFs
in range in almost all mayor ports on those islands (Noumea, Efate Port Vila,
Luganville, Wunpuko, Gavigamana) and I saw them all (composition and location)
since I have very good search squadrons.

This is because he can't have his ships anchored (my 8 Betty squadrons would
obliterate it at night using "Port Attack").


Therefore can you, please, relay what I originally wrote to Matrix/2By3 and add that
the only solutions is either:


#1
Ability for user to select arcs with range and area selection for each air
squadron.

Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack"

showthread.php?s=&threadid=30931


#2
Ability for user to select maximum range for each air squadron.


While #1 would be great and final solution it would also mean (I presume) big
complication to implement.

The #2 is, on other hand, mush easier to do (again I presume) and it would
almost fix the problem...


Leo "Apollo11"

[U2]

Originally posted by Apollo11

Therefore can you, please, relay what I originally wrote to Matrix/2By3 and add that
the only solutions is either:

Sure will:)

[Oleg Mastruko]

Leo is very emotional whenever he loses a single ship or couple of aircraft, and IMHO, although is expert or nearly an expert player of all war strategies, always thinks that he's getting the worst of luck, while others may not necesarily agree It bothered me at first but I learned to see this as additional bonus when playing him

He has every right to complain, no problems as far as I am concerned...

I have always known that using Bettys is one BIG gamble: you may get "Force Z" effect, or you may get "Lotsa Dead Bettys" (LDB) effect. Sadly (for IJN) I noticed that LDB effect occurs much more oftenly, and have stopped using Bettys for Naval attacks almost completely in my games as IJN. Port, airfield attacks - OK; search - OK, but Naval attacks - never.

Too much of the Samurai spirit + shitty aircraft = lotsa dead IJN pilots.

I am under impression that this is kinda realistic. Although attack on Noumea in the example above certainly was extremely stupid decision, and irritating for the player (I agree). Leo, you was lucky not to get the LDB effect there

BTW fighter vs fighter battle. My fighters didn't fly LRCAP: only a part of them flew LRCAP (from a base just one hex away). Others flew "simple" CAP. IJN escorting fighters were pretty far from their bases so must have been tired.

O.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
Leo is very emotional whenever he loses a single ship or couple of
aircraft, and IMHO, although is expert or nearly an expert player of all war
strategies, always thinks that he's getting the worst of luck, while others
may not necesarily agree It bothered me at first but I learned to see this
as additional bonus when playing him

Ahh... not that emotional...

Actually I was laughing when I was watching "Combat Replay" and saw the
disaster I described in first message of this thread (i.e. I kinda expected this
to happen).

Sometimes something can really make you mad...

He has every right to complain, no problems as far as I am concerned...

I have always known that using Bettys is one BIG gamble: you may get "Force Z"
effect, or you may get "Lotsa Dead Bettys" (LDB) effect. Sadly (for IJN) I
noticed that LDB effect occurs much more oftenly, and have stopped using
Bettys for Naval attacks almost completely in my games as IJN. Port, airfield
attacks - OK; search - OK, but Naval attacks - never.

Too much of the Samurai spirit + shitty aircraft = lotsa dead IJN pilots.

Believe it or not this is exactly what I was doing (since they were stationed
at Lungs this is the 2nd time in many many months that they got "Naval Attack"
order).

Their super long range and stupid "Samurai spirit" is recipe for disaster for
every Japanese PBEM player...

I am under impression that this is kinda realistic. Although attack on Noumea
in the example above certainly was extremely stupid decision, and irritating
for the player (I agree). Leo, you was lucky not to get the LDB effect there

I know that they (Betty/Nell) were historically "flying coffins" and "torches"
but what we need is just the way to limit their range.

If that is done - only then they can become useful tools of war in our
PBEMs...

BTW fighter vs fighter battle. My fighters didn't fly LRCAP: only a part of
them flew LRCAP (from a base just one hex away). Others flew "simple" CAP. IJN
escorting fighters were pretty far from their bases so must have been tired.

True... but still they were rested when they took off and I still had 3:1
advantage in numbers.

Though I would live with the fighter vs. fighter and bomber looses if only
whole contingent of my Betty's would have flown (i.e. 8 of them = 200+
bombers).

They should have obliterated your transport TF and not one ship should have
survived (this is why I was sparing them and this is what their mission was -
to kill near by enemy ships in "Transport TFs"...


Argh...


Leo "Apollo11"

[denisonh]

There have been some pretty vicious threads on this very subject.

But it does seem thet there needs to be some better methods for player input for naval targetting (in the form of priority/criteria/guidance perhaps).

[pasternakski]

Just out of curiosity, Leo:

-What was the weather?
-What was the supply and support situation at Lunga?
-What size was Lunga airfield?
-Did you have an air force HQ there?
-What kind of naval search arrangements did you have in place?

I fully agree with you that there's a problem here, I just want to get as much of the picture as possible.

And thanks for your dedicated pursuit of this issue over the months.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Just out of curiosity, Leo:

-What was the weather?
-What was the supply and support situation at Lunga?
-What size was Lunga airfield?
-Did you have an air force HQ there?
-What kind of naval search arrangements did you have in place?

I fully agree with you that there's a problem here, I just want to get as much of the picture as possible.

And thanks for your dedicated pursuit of this issue over the months.

EXCELLENT questions (especially re Air HQ - because there's vicious punishment for level bombers flying out of Air HQ range in UV).

Hmmmm... Tell us everything, Leo. Morale of the Daitais, supply situation, names of the commanders, their rank, home towns, pet names, sexual deviations... Now you got to tell us *everything*

USN HQ in Efate listens

List infantry units too!

Oh, and don't forget to disclose the fortification level at Lungga! It's extremely important for 2by3 guys to know this in order to find this nasty bug! You want this thing solved don't you?

Oleg

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by pasternakski
Just out of curiosity, Leo:

-What was the weather?
-What was the supply and support situation at Lunga?
-What size was Lunga airfield?
-Did you have an air force HQ there?
-What kind of naval search arrangements did you have in place?

I fully agree with you that there's a problem here, I just want to get as much of the picture as possible.

And thanks for your dedicated pursuit of this issue over the months.

Although I wrote many of this in original message in this thread I will recapitulate:


Weather was "Overcast" but there was no "No Fly" icon on either Lunga nor
Gavigamana in both phases of air activity during day.

Supply and Support is in excellent condition (10x more than Lunga requires)
and support is 200+ points higher than required. Air support is also many
points higher than required 250.

Base size is maximum for all aspects (port/airfield/fort) and thus the air
base size is 9.

The number of aircraft in base is less than 450 (9x50=450).

Air HQ is present and it is best and biggest Air HQ Japan forces have.

As for "Naval Search" each squadron of my Betty bombers had 10% dedicated for
search and there were additional assets (many Nell and Mavis squadrons) doing
exclusive "Naval Search" all the time (just ask my opponent - our "Combat
Replay" with TFs discovered is very very very long every turn).


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
EXCELLENT questions (especially re Air HQ - because there's vicious punishment for level bombers flying out of Air HQ range in UV).

Hmmmm... Tell us everything, Leo. Morale of the Daitais, supply situation, names of the commanders, their rank, home towns, pet names, sexual deviations... Now you got to tell us *everything*

USN HQ in Efate listens

List infantry units too!

Oh, and don't forget to disclose the fortification level at Lungga! It's extremely important for 2by3 guys to know this in order to find this nasty bug! You want this thing solved don't you?

Oleg

Oleg we played so many games (UV and others) over the years that you already
know how I think...

Lunga, as one of the mayor bases I have, is thus adequately equipped (just as
I know your mayor bases are).

As for infantry (and other) units... well... you will come one day and see for
yourself...


Leo "Apollo11"

[U2]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Just out of curiosity, Leo:

-What was the weather?
-What was the supply and support situation at Lunga?
-What size was Lunga airfield?
-Did you have an air force HQ there?
-What kind of naval search arrangements did you have in place?

I fully agree with you that there's a problem here, I just want to get as much of the picture as possible.

And thanks for your dedicated pursuit of this issue over the months.

Good questions and that is the exact reason I requested a save eventhough I don't question Apollo's wargaming abilities;)

Anyho I liked the idea about being able to set bomber hex range and as I said I'll include your thoughts.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Apollo11
Hi all,



Although I wrote many of this in original message in this thread I will recapitulate:


Weather was "Overcast" but there was no "No Fly" icon on either Lunga nor
Gavigamana in both phases of air activity during day.

Supply and Support is in excellent condition (10x more than Lunga requires)
and support is 200+ points higher than required. Air support is also many
points higher than required 250.

Base size is maximum for all aspects (port/airfield/fort) and thus the air
base size is 9.

The number of aircraft in base is less than 450 (9x50=450).

Air HQ is present and it is best and biggest Air HQ Japan forces have.

As for "Naval Search" each squadron of my Betty bombers had 10% dedicated for
search and there were additional assets (many Nell and Mavis squadrons) doing
exclusive "Naval Search" all the time (just ask my opponent - our "Combat
Replay" with TFs discovered is very very very long every turn).


Leo "Apollo11"

Thanks, Leo, I'll try to read before I ask in the future. All things considered, I think you got the short end of the stick.

[Drongo]

Posted by Apollo11

My worthy opponent Oleg Mastruko sailed transport to Gavigamana (many AKs and
few DDs). I waited for this and wanted to strike with full force and unleash
all of my might (until now I carefully conserved my forces).

Leo,
I've run into the same problem that you have on numerous occasions while operating IJN LBA out of Lunga. You have my sympathy.

I don't disagree that there is a problem with the way long range bombers select locations in which to deliver naval attacks and would hope this gets reconsidered again by 2x3/Matrix.

In the meantime though....
Were you anticipating that Oleg's TF was heading for Gavigamana?

I've found that I can minimise the amount of stupid naval attacks that go on by using recon missions on all the port locations which I expect the target TF to be in that day.

Using your situation as an example, the recon missions would have been directed at Kourouratopo and Gavigamana for that day (these 2 locations are so close together that either could be a possible destination). This method is about the only one I know that can reliably ensure that a LBA strike force has sufficient target info to over-ride it's tendency to swan off toward rear area bases like Noumea and instead hit TFs in nearer ports.

If I'm really confident, I'll sometimes risk dropping all long-range naval search in the area for the day to avoid distracting the Nells/Bettys from their task of focusing on a TF that I expect to be in one of the port I'm reconing.

This does not mean that the game mechanics should not be improved in this area but use of recon missions can at least minimise the degree of stupid missions currently in the game.

Did your result occur in spite of attempts at recon (unfortunately, it's not fool-proof)?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Apollo11


Leo,
I've run into the same problem that you have on numerous occasions while operating IJN LBA out of Lunga. You have my sympathy.

I don't disagree that there is a problem with the way long range bombers select locations in which to deliver naval attacks and would hope this gets reconsidered again by 2x3/Matrix.

In the meantime though....
Were you anticipating that Oleg's TF was heading for Gavigamana?

I've found that I can minimise the amount of stupid naval attacks that go on by using recon missions on all the port locations which I expect the target TF to be in that day.

Using your situation as an example, the recon missions would have been directed at Kourouratopo and Gavigamana for that day (these 2 locations are so close together that either could be a possible destination). This method is about the only one I know that can reliably ensure that a LBA strike force has sufficient target info to over-ride it's tendency to swan off toward rear area bases like Noumea and instead hit TFs in nearer ports.

If I'm really confident, I'll sometimes risk dropping all long-range naval search in the area for the day to avoid distracting the Nells/Bettys from their task of focusing on a TF that I expect to be in one of the port I'm reconing.

This does not mean that the game mechanics should not be improved in this area but use of recon missions can at least minimise the degree of stupid missions currently in the game.

Did your result occur in spite of attempts at recon (unfortunately, it's not fool-proof)?

I didn't know of your method but my Recon planes did fly to Kourouratopo and
Gavigamana that day and day before (my Dinah and Irving Recon squadrons).

It didn't help at all... ((


And yes I anticipated this move since I saw his Transport TF at sea 3 days
before...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Drongo]

Well, that was my best shot.

That is unless you want to try the dropping of the very long range naval search missions for the day you expect them to arrive in port. It's the only way I know of that stops the the spotting of ships in unneeded locations like Noumea. Mind you, it's embarressing when you forget to put them back up the day after. :p

Good Luck

[Mr.Frag]

As I understand the mechanics:

Detection Level is reset to 0 at the start of the phase.

Search aircraft fly, spotted groups have their DL cranked up based on results. The more search aircraft spotting the target, the higher the DL will get cranked up.

Mission planner then kicks in and looks for targets to expend planes on. Logically, the higher the DL's for respective target, the better the planner is able to target allocate realistically.

This issue seems to be that smaller TF's get higher DL's because more planes spot the ships (each individual plane raises DL). More planes per target I would guess, which in turn results in the mission planner shifting towards attacking small TF's with higher DL's instead of nailing the big juicy target that is right next door due to a lower DL.

This sound like a possible explanation for what we are seeing?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
As I understand the mechanics:

Detection Level is reset to 0 at the start of the phase.

Search aircraft fly, spotted groups have their DL cranked up based on results. The more search aircraft spotting the target, the higher the DL will get cranked up.

Mission planner then kicks in and looks for targets to expend planes on. Logically, the higher the DL's for respective target, the better the planner is able to target allocate realistically.

This issue seems to be that smaller TF's get higher DL's because more planes spot the ships (each individual plane raises DL). More planes per target I would guess, which in turn results in the mission planner shifting towards attacking small TF's with higher DL's instead of nailing the big juicy target that is right next door due to a lower DL.

This sound like a possible explanation for what we are seeing?

This is very very interesting...


Also if there are many TFs (and in the PBEM I got this there were
30+ TFs - some in ports - some at sea) the routine must be totally
confused...


Leo "Apollo11"

[John Lansford]

I sent three US carriers (Hornet, Wasp and Saratoga) up north of the Shortlands to raid the Japanese supply convoys that were going there. I knew that over 30 ships were in the harbor or nearby thanks to coastwatchers, patrol planes and submarine reports.

The carrier aviators, however, sent penny packets of Avenger torpedo bombers into the harbor hex, with no escort, and either turned back or were shot down. This happened for two days straight, in both day phases, effectively wrecking all three carrier torpedo bomber squadrons.

The dive bomber squadrons either did not fly, or attacked smaller task forces still in the open sea. They didn't have fighter escort either.

Morale is high (over 80). Fatigue for the attack squadrons was very low (less than 20). The fighters had fatigue of around 40, but they didn't send any escorts at all!

Plus, even though I expected heavy attacks from both Rabaul (I know there's at least one squadron of Betty and Nell bombers each there) and the Shortlands (lots of Val DB's there), I have only had one serious attack against my carriers so far in this game (just started under v2.30, scenario 19). Enterprise is back in Noumea fixing a 22 system damage, but the others have not been attacked at all.

This is very different from the older versions, where carriers could expect to see constant attacks from land bases whenever they were in range.