Naval Attack Can't Select any Target!

[sfatula]

Ok, newbie, so, playing a PBEM game, Guadalcanal. I have Betties at Rabaul, and, want to target a naval unit I see 11 hexes away. The base has over 10,000 supplies, near the beginning of the game. It's does not have an exclamation mark anywhere. I see a spotted allied task force, I believe it's a damaged ship based on last turn. I can set Zeroes ti escort to the target, but, when I select Naval Attack, the place where you would select a target dims and says "Cannot Select Target". I've never seen that, which is not surprising since it's only my third game, and 2 of those were Coral Sea! Patrol levels are all 0, doesn't matter. Have lots of Torpedos, changing to bomb doesn't help. Lots of pilots, lots of aircraft. Nothing on the group screen looks odd.

What would cause me to not be able to select the target I see on the map? Why would the target box be dimmed? If I select another mission type like Port Attack, it lets me select a target if that is a hint.

[witpqs]

You *never* select targets for naval attacks. It is up to the game engine.

[sfatula]

Well, that unfortunately says how newbie I am! Geez, I figured out (I think) the pilot training all that, and, can't get target selection apparently. [:(]

[crsutton]

It gives you too much control. If the AI has a good detection level it will usually attack the most valuable TF. Carriers for one. But not always.

[Yaab]

Sfatula, no matter what you do in this scenario, your bombers will eventually react into the Port Moresby CAP. It is a given.

[sfatula]

Not anything! If you naval attack, and, set secondary mode to rest, why would it run into PM cap? I guess maybe if a TF was there.

[Yaab]

If a TF is there, yes. Highest detection is achieved on TFs in ports, and most ports should have CAP.

Some food for thought:
tm.asp?m=3595346

[geofflambert]

Just to be clear, you can select ground targets such as ports and airfields with carrier based aircraft. If you select a port for attack you may get some hits on ships that are disbanded there, just like PH. Ships in drydock may be hit as well.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

You *never* select targets for naval attacks.

Best game design decision ever made

[Yaab]

But if your orders are to attack any Allied TF in a narrow arc overflying Milne Bay and you disregard the orders, attack a TF in Port Moresby, lose 10 aircraft to CAP, score no hits, get back to Rabaul, do you get demoted/court-marshalled/executed for your insubordination? No, everything is hunky-dory again, your leadership/inspiration/air/exp levels are unaffected, you do not get sent to Manchuria to train Idas in recon for the next five years. I guess every bomber leader is Tojo's cousin in WITP:AE.

Did real life naval attack in WWII was also this arbitrary? A free-roaming sweep of the oceans?

[GetAssista]

It's not like you made an independent decision as a daitai commander to fly to PM. You got an order from you Air HQ to intercept observed TF in hope that you would get lucky. Nothing to be punished by Manchuria for.

[Yaab]

The HQ knew about heavy CAP over Port Moresby and gave you the specific orders not to overfly Port Moresby. Why did you fly to Port Moresby?

[Numdydar]

Because they were told to by someone at a higher rank. Or their SQ CO saw something and wanted a promotion/easy target/etc. That's the way RL worked for both sides. It does not matter if the pilots thought the decision was stupid or not ( and God knows 1,000s were), if you were told to go, you went no matter what your personal thoughts were. Or you could spend your days in a prison somewhere breaking rocks [:(] So why should the game not reflect this reality?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

But if your orders are to attack any Allied TF in a narrow arc overflying Milne Bay

Just to be clear, you also *cannot* confine any missions except Naval Search and ASW to arcs.

and you disregard the orders, attack a TF in Port Moresby, lose 10 aircraft to CAP, score no hits, get back to Rabaul, do you get demoted/court-marshalled/executed for your insubordination? No, everything is hunky-dory again, your leadership/inspiration/air/exp levels are unaffected, you do not get sent to Manchuria to train Idas in recon for the next five years. I guess every bomber leader is Tojo's cousin in WITP:AE.

Did real life naval attack in WWII was also this arbitrary? A free-roaming sweep of the oceans?

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Did real life naval attack in WWII was also this arbitrary? A free-roaming sweep of the oceans?

IIRC the KB at the Battle of Midway searched in every direction except for the one that was delayed and counted for the most.
I have never restricted carrier/BB/cruiser searches except sometimes the range. I'll have to try to remember to consider it.

[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

[Dili]

I totally disagree while i think there should be some randomness.

In IRL if the search says some ships are into Port Moresby and other target in middle of ocean in IRL the commander accesses the espective target values and enemy defence levels.
Unfortunately the player AI doesn't do that, just jump into the better detected target and imolates the player planes against a well made CAP.

The RAF didn't attacked Taranto unless was it was a prepared operation. Otherwise the Blenheim's, Wellingtons and Beauforts will try to bomb it every time they took up the skies since they had the range.

Also the RAF had rules to only spend a torpedo in a targets size 2000t obviously for a plane commander 1000t could look like 2000t but it was a rule to prevent torpedo spending agaisnt low valuable targets.
Here we have the player AI imolate a squadron of torpedos bombers against a PT TF outside an harbor.

Instead should happend is more failed missions - nothing found etc...
The current system has too much randomness and things that wouldn't happened IRL.

[pelthunter]

There should be some opportunity to prioritize.

Like "attack destroyers only" or "attack cargo ships only" or "ignore battleships" and so on.

Especially late war when flak is murder, focusing on cargo TFs and cargo ships would be viable strategy.

[Encircled]

"From now on, flying your plane with 1940s instrumentation, probably tired, 100% adrenalin filled, probably a bit disorientated by flying over the sea, you will get shot on return to base if you attack the enemy that our recon has established might be a cargo T/f and guess what, its actually moving. No excuses!"

[PaxMondo]

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

+2

Particularly the early war up to maybe mid-45. At that point, USN had developed some formative tactics with regards to on site targeting, etc. Still infancy, but some concepts were evolving.