Do you bother setting your TFs' float-planes to specific search arcs?

[fflaguna]

Does anybody bother setting float-planes in TFs like Surface Combat to cover specific arcs on Naval Search, so that there isn't undue overlap and missing coverage? It's tough because each of the wings typically hold no more than one or two float-planes or so. Does anybody have any techniques they use for this? Or does everyone just ignore this level of micromanaging?

[vonTirpitz]

Pick a quadrant you would expect the enemy to be in and set what air assets you have to 40-60% and set about 10-20 degrees of search arc per expected plane to fly. Unless you are suicidally sending your task force way beyond your LBA then you should be able to get relatively good coverage. Keep and eye on intel reports and take a guess where the enemy might be. Keep your planes onboard until you want think you should be searching in order to keep op losses down.

May not be the best method and I am sure everyone here who plays has their one strategy but it is worthwhile to keep an eye on your arcs.

If my TF has no more than a couple of planes then I may just relegate them to recon duties only.

Also, don't forget your search planes can drop a bomb or two and get lucky. [;)]

[aprezto]

I usually only set them up to look in one quadrant. Usually I have about 4 cruisers and that is enough to cover 80 degrees if they are set to 50% search. If the cruisers are part of a SCTF then the arc will be pointing in the direction of travel. If the cruisers are part of an Air Combat TF then they point in the direction the TF has come from (behind it) in case the carriers pass a potential target.
 
Yes this is micromanagement hell.

[CapAndGown]

Mostly, I don't think it really matters. It is, I believe, mostly chrome. For my CV TFs I drag along a CS and set the search arcs (because it is easy to just set two squadrons of 10 or 12 planes each and cover almost 360 degrees). But, you know, I doubt it would make a difference if I just set them to random.

[jb123]

My dauntlesses don't seem to miss much when set to twenty % search at random. I usually set a few squadrons of floats on SCTFs to search the direction I assume the enemy to be.

[topeverest]

For float planes in a large surface convoy, i never bother, and I can't say it has ever been a factor out the search radius of said planes. I do this for patrol planes and larger carrier based searches all the time.

[Q-Ball]

I don't bother, but I do make sure I have a bunch of planes on search. The CS units are very good for this purpose if you are playing the Japanese. As the USN, unfortunately you have to use DBs.

[spence]

I don't bother, but I do make sure I have a bunch of planes on search. The CS units are very good for this purpose if you are playing the Japanese. As the USN, unfortunately you have to use DBs.

_____________________________

For the USN using dive bombers was battle doctrine as using float planes was for the Japanese. It is curious that the KB did not sail around with the CS ships actually in the CVTF. HIJMS Tone and Chikuma carried extra seaplanes but the complement of same on a CS seemingly would have insured enough planes for an adequate search AND rapid transmission (this part; comms delay actually may have figured in the Midway debacle anyways though) by visual means of any sightings. The CS ships had a top speed as good as Kaga or Akagi (IIRC one of them couldn't make 30 kts). Maybe this is a case where the IJN found out they really couldn't keep up or something so they left them out...I really don't know but I doubt it's entirely a case where Japanese WitP Players are the only one's who ever recognized the possibilities of these ships.

[Q-Ball]

It could be they were left out of KB because they were a tad slow, although same speed as Kaga. Maybe it was felt they reduced tactical flexibility.

If there was one at Midway, it would have come in handy........

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: fflaguna

Does anybody bother setting float-planes in TFs like Surface Combat to cover specific arcs on Naval Search, so that there isn't undue overlap and missing coverage? It's tough because each of the wings typically hold no more than one or two float-planes or so. Does anybody have any techniques they use for this? Or does everyone just ignore this level of micromanaging?

no....i have enough to do without that chore.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: fflaguna

Does anybody bother setting float-planes in TFs like Surface Combat to cover specific arcs on Naval Search, so that there isn't undue overlap and missing coverage? It's tough because each of the wings typically hold no more than one or two float-planes or so. Does anybody have any techniques they use for this? Or does everyone just ignore this level of micromanaging?

For me, it's all about the range. Dauntlesses can search out to 8 whereas Seagulls & Devastators can only see to 5. Accordingly, the former do searches above and in front of the TF (a different arc for of each of the two squadrons) while the floatplanes and torpedo jocks are restricted to undefined ASW.

[Ron Saueracker]

I think it is more an issue of game vs reality. In WITP a CS can perform miracles, like Glen equipped subs. IRL, their performancw was complete "scata" (see greek word for s--t). Howcome AFBs can't use SBD's as anti-torp CAP as was done IRL yet Glenn equipped subs operate their POS match sticks and gum FPs like resiliant CV aircraft?

[Ron Saueracker]

Again, it is a game and nothing is perfect but when it seems a "ref" needs to call an issue, the JFB side usually wins by default.

[tacfire]

In AE Float Planes are not that reliable for search missions.  They don't fly half the time due to bad weather.  Aircraft from CVs are more reliable during bad weather.  At least this is my experience with the game so far.  Having said that, I still set my float plane search arcs for my main Surface Combat Groups (with BBs and CAs).  But my CV Task Forces rely on carrier aircraft for search.  I dont bother to set patrols for transports and amphibious TFs - They usually get escorted by another group with CV or BB that have their patrols set anyways.

[Halsey]

Land based, yes...

Ship based, no...

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

It could be they were left out of KB because they were a tad slow, although same speed as Kaga. Maybe it was felt they reduced tactical flexibility.

If there was one at Midway, it would have come in handy........

There were two at Midway with the invasion force, but they were carrying midget-submarines. I don't think that the Japanese had worked-out a tactical operating doctrine for them yet. Don't think the Japanese ever considered operating them with Carriers, as they were built to provide air-support to fast amphibious forces.

[Shark7]

As far as the CS go, I tend to send the faster two with the carrier striking forces for the extra naval search assets. The slower one gets to go on its own where ever I feel extra eyes in the sky would be useful.

[Chickenboy]

Yes, it's annoying micromanagement, but I do set my respective ships' recon float planes individually.

Usually, I'll put my CS Jakes (8 normal range) out in 'front' of the movement of my CVTF. Easy to get a good 'fan' in front of where I'm going that way with minimal micromanagement. The other planes patrol the flanks and rear of the CVTF direction.

If I need to beef up ASW patrols, I'll put a DB squadron from my CVTF on ASW with a fan forward of my direction.

[Reverberate]

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Land based, yes...
Ship based, no...

This seems to be the best way to go.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Again, it is a game and nothing is perfect but when it seems a "ref" needs to call an issue, the JFB side usually wins by default.

Probably not the right thread for this segue, but I suspect what you are seeing is a series of individual "fudges" that together are necessary in order for a "normal" game of AE to last 3+ years (i.e. reach 1945). I think we can all agree that the AE team did a great job modeling all the detail levels of the game. As just one example, all the device components of every unit's TOE are right down to a gnats ass - really a prodigious accomplishment all by itself. But then they had to make it all work together in the context of a game - one which includes an AI - and that's where things get dicey.

There's scarcely a person on the forum who isn't fully aware that Japan vs. Allies was a mismatch from the get-go. Given the production-level realities for each side, it's literally just a matter of time until the Allies win. And that's the key. In the game, most of the inefficiencies burdening each side can be done away with. The Japanese player can choose a course of action without having to worry about IJN-IJA rivalries or pleasing a particular aircraft manufacturer or dealing with a politically powerful general or any of a thousand other real life concerns. On the Allied side, the Army-Navy (MacArthur-King) dynamic doesn't exist, to say nothing of having to worry about Germany, or post-war colonial issues, or appeasing the interests of different Allies. So with all the real life chaos out of the way and with the huge benefit of hindsight (i.e. each player knows which strategies were the true war-winners), all that's left is one production system versus the other.

And that means the Allies win in a 2-year walkover, everything else being equal. I don't have any data to back up this assertion, but it just seems to make sense. In real life, the Allies had both quantity AND quality, so if they also had the single minded laser focus and historical knowledge of a 2010 game player, well, really, how DO you make a game of things? But what's nice is that whatever "JFB bonuses" there may be, all are pretty small and don't significantly alter the real life dynamic (and where they do, such as uber artillery, the team addresses the issue). Bottom line, this game is just a ton of fun, and people should spend less time poking at the minor discrepancies. If you look at the Mona Lisa with a microscope, it probably looks like crap. But stand back and take her all in, and...well....masterpiece!