Naval Attack

baldbrother · Post by **baldbrother** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:11 am

Why are all units given Naval attack orders under computer control? Why can't I specify what TF,or part of, to attack

dpstafford · Post by **dpstafford** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:29 am

ORIGINAL: baldbrother

Why are all units given Naval attack orders under computer control? Why can't I specify what TF,or part of, to attack

Because, unlike other targets, they move.

Sardaukar · Post by **Sardaukar** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:12 am

I'd love to have switch/option to choose priority TF target for my bombers though. I hate when they fly against distant combat TF when Amphibious TF is landing division right next to their base...[:-][:'(]

m10bob · Post by **m10bob** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:01 pm

Ever since WITP was released, this feature has been asked for.
"CARRIER STRIKE" by Mr Grigsby allowed the player to send his planes against a particular sighting, and not finding it, an option was given to "loiter" for another look, or to move to another sighting, (or return home).
Some folks have tried to explain "ship ID problems" are why planes cannot be delegated, but carrier pilots sure as hell know what carriers look like,IT's WHERE THEY LIVE, so of course they should know a carrier from cruiser,etc.
Yeah, I too would love the ability to delegate my strikes, if not by distance,or threat, by TF type..[:(]

YankeeAirRat · Post by **YankeeAirRat** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:23 pm

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Ever since WITP was released, this feature has been asked for.
"CARRIER STRIKE" by Mr Grigsby allowed the player to send his planes against a particular sighting, and not finding it, an option was given to "loiter" for another look, or to move to another sighting, (or return home).
Some folks have tried to explain "ship ID problems" are why planes cannot be delegated, but carrier pilots sure as hell know what carriers look like,IT's WHERE THEY LIVE, so of course they should know a carrier from cruiser,etc.
Yeah, I too would love the ability to delegate my strikes, if not by distance,or threat, by TF type..[:(]

All bomber/scout pilots and gunners were trained in ship and aircraft observation. But at certain angles, and distances it is very hard to tell what something it beyond that it makes a very large wake. For example,

ID the type of ship.

This is a picture from the mid-70's of an F-8 Crusader with a Soviet Bear bomber over the USS Orskiany at approximately 15k feet in the air. This was shot from the wingman of the F-8 with a standard 35mm Single Lens Reflex camera.

Try this one, try and ID this Ship by at least type.

Same situation as above but from a different angle. This time it is dead ahead of the USS Orskiany.

Here is another test for you. Count all the Carriers tied up at the piers here at this US Naval Base. THis was shot via a RF-8G from 20k as a direct overhead shot.

Link to the high-res version:http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/1987/Navy/DN-SN-87-08973.JPEG

Correct Answer is two. The other one flight deck ship is a then brand-new Tarawa class LHA.

Trying to observe a fleet, Dead reckon your postion, and keep from being observed is a pain the buttocks. On top of that trying to correctly ID types and numbers can be a pain the buttocks as well. Once you are spotted, well then that just increases the pucker factor ten-fold. Even cooler is to try and observe and report on blobs that are low on the horizion in a mild fog or haze.

Panther Bait · Post by **Panther Bait** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:12 pm

Yankee Air Rat,
 
Add to that the natural tendency for most people to exaggerate or over-estimate, particularly in high stress situations.  For example maybe, a naval search mission in contested waters when you think their might be enemy about.  Suddenly, oilers become carriers, cruisers become battleships, etc.
 
 

bradfordkay · Post by **bradfordkay** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:20 pm

"Some folks have tried to explain "ship ID problems" are why planes cannot be delegated, but carrier pilots sure as hell know what carriers look like,IT's WHERE THEY LIVE, so of course they should know a carrier from cruiser,etc."

Then why did the Japanese carrier bombers attack the fleet oiler Neosho at Coral Sea when they were sent after our carriers?

BTW, Y.A.R., I can at least ID that naval base as Norfolk...[8D]

TheElf · Post by **TheElf** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:36 pm

Mis-Identification and incorrect or exagerrated estimates of total enemy force can be complex. Even more so due to poor weather, misinterpreted/missed reports due to poor radio/telegraph reception, poor search doctrine, or even the poor execution of good Search Doctrine.

One only has to look at the Coral Sea where the Tanker Neosho was launched upon to realize that before a strike lead can decide for himself that the target is worth attacking (ie a CV TF vice Tanker or Battelship) there is a whole series of assessments and decisions to launch a strike in the first place. All of these prerequisites have to be met correctly BEFORE a strike lead gets to make his decision. And THAT is assuming that he finds the intended contact at all.

If you have a CV Air Group that fails to attack an enemy CV TF within range of targeting and you instead target the nearby Amphibious group then you are a victim of this ABSTRACTED breakdown in the process somewhere between the predawn launch of search planes and the the Strike lead finding the target. It may very well be that the Strike Lead realizes he has not made contact with the CV TF, but is at the end of his loiter time and CANNOT afford to continue looking for the preferred target, accepts taht someone before him made an error, and settles for any target he can hit rather than schlepping his bombs back home without doing any damage to the enemy.

The sooner people understand, that even if this issue were addressed officially in the future nothing would likely change, the better.

At least I hope not.

TheElf · Post by **TheElf** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:47 pm

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Yeah, I too would love the ability to delegate my strikes, if not by distance,or threat, by TF type..[:(]

I bet Yamamoto said the same thing on the morning of 7 JUN 1942....[;)]

AdmNelson · Post by **AdmNelson** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:51 pm

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Mis-Identification and incorrect or exagerrated estimates of total enemy force can be complex. Even more so due to poor weather, misinterpreted/missed reports due to poor radio/telegraph reception, poor search doctrine, or even the poor execution of good Search Doctrine.

If you have a CV Air Group that fails to attack an enemy CV TF within range of targeting and you instead target the nearby Amphibious group then you are a victim of this ABSTRACTED breakdown in the process somewhere between the predawn launch of search planes and the the Strike lead finding the target. It may very well be that the Strike Lead realizes he has not made contact with the CV TF, but is at the end of his loiter time and CANNOT afford to continue looking for the preferred target, accepts taht someone before him made an error, and settles for any target he can hit rather than schlepping his bombs back home without doing any damage to the enemy.

My question on this would having different range for yoursearch aircraft make a difference?

YankeeAirRat · Post by **YankeeAirRat** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:03 am

Having a different range for your Search aircraft would not make a difference. It has been discussed here plenty of times that the only way to get a successful strike against a carrier group is to have high moral, plenty of fighters to defend the strike package, and some other random factor.
I also think that one of the reasons that Naval Attack in WITP and UV are hard to happen against high value assets is that the strike group really needs to know where the enemy task force is. Something more then the random sighting by a PBY/H6K/SBD/D4Y. I think, that it might be coded that two or three different sightings of the group in the same hex needs to occur before a strike can be launched.
The biggest change that I wish could occur is the player could define search pattern from an airbase or a surface group. That way you could concentrate your searches in the expected area from which the enemy could come from. I have known a few games way back in the DOS era that allowed you to do that.

Admiral DadMan · Post by **Admiral DadMan** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:54 am

ORIGINAL: baldbrother

Why are all units given Naval attack orders under computer control? Why can't I specify what TF,or part of, to attack

Because...

you can't...

Zeke · Post by **Zeke** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:27 pm

Compared to naval strike, I hope we can have more control and success rate of surface interception...

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:44 pm

ORIGINAL: Zeke

Compared to naval strike, I hope we can have more control and success rate of surface interception...

[:D] [:D] [:D]

A jokester?

tsimmonds · Post by **tsimmonds** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:14 pm

ORIGINAL: Zeke

Compared to naval strike, I hope we can have more control and success rate of surface interception...

Yes, you have complete and total control over your surface interceptions. All you have to do is to pick the exact hex your enemy will end the phase in, and you will get your interception. No interference from the software whatsoever.

[:D][:'(][;)]

Zeke · Post by **Zeke** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:30 pm

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: Zeke

Compared to naval strike, I hope we can have more control and success rate of surface interception...
Yes, you have complete and total control over your surface interceptions. All you have to do is to pick the exact hex your enemy will end the phase in, and you will get your interception. No interference from the software whatsoever.

[:D][:'(][;)]

Just too difficult to get a successful interception with my beloved raider ship [:D]

FAdmiral · Post by **FAdmiral** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:41 am

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat
The biggest change that I wish could occur is the player could define search pattern from an airbase or a surface group. That way you could concentrate your searches in the expected area from which the enemy could come from. I have known a few games way back in the DOS era that allowed you to do that.

I have thought about this feature too. 12 search planes given a 360 degree circle
to search. Only 180 deg. actually needs to be searched and you KNOW where
that is. I do remember somewhat a game in the past with the ability to specify
a degree pattern for the planes to search in. Don't recall the name of it....

JIM

bradfordkay · Post by **bradfordkay** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:41 am

Carriers At War allowed you to choose which sectors your aircraft would search. It was a choice of N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW. Each airbase (or carrier) that had search aircraft up would have a choice of which secotrs its aircraft would search. Is that the one you remember?

YankeeAirRat · Post by **YankeeAirRat** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:00 pm

I remember Carrier Strike by SSI would allow you to define the search size. However, it use to limit the size base on the number fo search aircraft you readied from your ships. So for example during Coral Sea and you only ready 8 total SBD's from both Yorktown and Lady Lex, then you only got a wedge about 45 degrees in size. The most that you could do for the shore bases was just define the number of search aircraft from the units there and where your wedge was supposed to be placed.

Naval Attack

Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack

RE: Naval Attack