Air search ineffective beyond 12 hexes?

[Tophat1815]

We'll have alot more data to go on in two or three weeks as dozens of games go through this time period. So lets wait and see shall we.

[spence]

AE does not have the same limit on search range that WITP did. In AE, it's based on the cruise speed of the search plane and how far it can go in a reasonable amount of time for the search phase before it would have to turn around.

I hope this applies to the Glen who's search patterns in WitP are only possible if the aircraft is able to dabble in quantum mechanics

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: treespider

And I am not lying (and I highly resent the accusation) FOR YOU INFORMATION I reloaded the turn and upon my mouse over of the TFs in question those were the weather conditions reported -Overcast and Thunderstorms.

You saw the combat report with the "DAYTIME SURFACE COMBATS IN PARTLY CLOUDY CONDITIONS" in the report. If you missed that, which would certainly be easy enough to do, then you certainly should have seen my post in the devs forum pointing out the fact that it was a surface combat in partly cloudy conditions and no sighting report. Then you post here saying you were under overcast when you have no excuse to not know the battle was fought in partly cloudy. In fact you stated in your first sentence: "Wonder what the weather was in the potential search hexes when the TF weren't spotted?". You had no excuse to NOT know.

You certainly had the means to answer your own question. I call that an intentional lie. Made intentionally to down play a problem with the game. In other words to deceive the players. You can take offense if you wish, but its the truth. I wont lie to the players and people on this forum. I will say what I think are good things about the game (and I have stated time and again that there are many of them and in many many cases I have pointed these out) and I will state what I feel are problems with it (and any game company that wont admit that their game has problems is a problem in and of itself). I think you lying to try to discredit my observations and down play a serious weakness in the game is reprehensible. And yes, I consider a TF engaging in combat - DAYTIME combat - well within search range of friendly aircraft and not be spotted to be a serious weakness. One that should immediately be corrected. Subs spot enemy TFs but TFs that engage in surface combat dont?

Why not? Because "thats not how it was in stock"? Stock is wrong, and should itself be corrected if that is truly the case. I cant begin to count the number of times I have heard that "it works like stock" party line in this testing process and I turned around and PROVED it WASNT like stock, and then got bitched at for doing it or rather the way I did it, so forgive me if I dont take a coders word for it when I hear that line either. I have heard it one too many times, and proved it wrong one too many times.

Carriers that launch strikes in stock are spotted, period. Maybe they should be, maybe they shouldnt. Carriers that launch strikes within air search range, indeed in this case within 75% of a search aircrafts range should automatically be spotted, IMHO. What possible justification any dev could come up with for this to not be the case I cant fathom.

I consider these to be serious issues. Issues that to me, combined with a number of other things, make the game as it is unplayable in a 2 player game, to ME. Note I said "as it is" and "to ME", I am not saying that it cant be corrected, and I am not saying everyone should feel as I do. This is my opinion. As Erik says, I am 1 tester with 1 opinion. I admit that, I have never done otherwise. I have always stated that it is MY opinion. I have never once said that people should take my word for things - blindly follow me off into the fog. I have time and again said that your opinion means just as much as mine does and no one is right or wrong.

But, make no mistake, I said you lied about this and you did. And no outrage you can express about me saying so will change that fact. Not everyone has the same tastes in what they like and dislike. People that dont like to micro-manage stuff (like narrowing your search arc to 30 degrees to spot a surface group just off your coast) some people (like me) think things like that are kinda beneath what a supreme commander should have to do. Or manage routine ship maintenance as another example. Other people will LOVE this. Its a matter of taste. And without HONEST input to the players they cant make an HONEST determination of if this game is right for them. If you want to lie to them, be my guest, but I will call you on it every time. I dont care who you are.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
<snip offensive rant>

Isn't that last post a violation of TOS for this site? If not it should be.

It's obvious Treespider wasn't as tuned in to the minutiae of YH's apparent personal problem with the new detail in air search routines, and I don't believe for a second he lied at all. [Edited offensive comment.]

Jim

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
<snip offensive rant>

Isn't that last post a violation of TOS for this site? If not it should be.

It's obvious Treespider wasn't as tuned in to the minutiae of YH's apparent personal problem with the new detail in air search routines, and I don't believe for a second he lied at all. Were I Treespider, I'd be looking to ...... {edited per request - JCW}

Jim

I sort of think your feelings about "........." is rather offensive for a game thread[:-] {edited at Buck Beach's request - JCW}

I have enjoyed reading your posts however, they are informative.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I sort of think your feelings about "----------" is rather offensive for a game thread[:-]

Agreed, I've edited it out.

Jim

[Kull]

As a former mod-team leader, let me respectfully suggest that inter-team disagreements should NEVER be posted in the public forums. Keep it behind the curtain. And for what it's worth,&nbsp;that same experience has shown&nbsp;that 99% of the time, this kind of thing is the result of a&nbsp;misunderstanding, and not ill intent by either party.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: treespider

And I am not lying

I said you lied about this and you did.

I will call you on it every time. I dont care who you are.

This is a totally unacceptable exchange - and violates forum policy - I have escalated to the administrators for ajudication.