This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
So I am playing July of 42 and I am trying to figure out which of three scenarios is happening to me. My opponent is either the best player ever,knows my password or glichy A.I
For six months now it doesn't appear that no matter how much I stagger or skew my TF paths I have been open ocean intercepted on almost every single task force.
As an example I offer the following
I could go back more but this task force left Koepang undetected
I have had this type of occurrence happening over and over for months. At one point I tried changing my password and the occurences went away for a week or two but now have returned.
It seems that my opponent is especially adept and skilled at anticipating almost everything. Am I paranoid or can players really be that good?
How far does your naval search coverage go? Does he have any ships (BB, CA, AKE, AD, etc.) disbanded at the dot hex NE of Darwin (you should recon that hex)? Also, have you considered posting some DBs or TBs at Wyndham? Have you had your cargo TF follow a surface action group?
Can you press "Z" to show your search arcs and take another screen shot of the area north of OZ?
There are lots of reasons search aircraft do a poor job, some of which are within your control.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
I think there is one element missing. Im not as concerned about not seeing him. What my concern is is that my TF's never show any kind of detected rating from 1-10. IMO he has no clue Im even there. And even if fog of war is in play and the detection was low (1) would you send a TF that large to investigate deep in Japanese territory? That's why I think theres a bug in the patch
Don't forget intel. He may be getting VERY lucky with what he's getting. I've been playing the Japanese side also, and don't even bother to check intel cause I know there's nothing of value there. But, the Allies get all kinds of bits and pieces; maybe enough for him to guess your coming moves.
What others have said about search and recon is also important.
Another important factor is where is your naval air search coverage.
If he was coming form a great distance moving full speed for two turns his ships would have shown smoke from the minor system and engine damage that would have accrued.
Also he couldn't possibly be more than 9 -10 hexes out form the target after the fight and you should be able to pounce on him with anti-shipping air.
How much search and naval strike capability do you have covering the area?
If he came from the dot base identified by Zuluhour he would make it back to the base in one turn, but would not automatically disband, even if set to do so, until the end of the turn, so air search should spot him there before disbanding.
For me, the biggest mystery isn't where is he coming form, it's why are you not spotting him on his egress route.
I don't think that has been revealed yet Hans. I would have set the ambush up this way. Form the TF at the
dot base. Pick a new base, I cant see the whole map but lets say somewhere west. Set to intercept, I keep my settings
somewhat secret. Set TF to full speed and use way points.
*The short answer here for me is a lesson to be learned. Friendly dot bases are not just necessarily empty. Recon
is as important to naval operations as naval search. This instance (without seeing more of the map) was down right
brass balls as it would not be difficult to pin that nice Allied surface group against the coast and maul it.
* Another thought, and it has happened to me. No naval search even needed for this scenario. I can guess the
allied player here was waiting on a landing to spring this trap but was late to the party as it looks like they
may have unloaded most or all of the ground units. It is a special moment when you catch them inbound.
It may be a result of his signals intelligence. Disbanding ships at dot bases, without any LCUs in the hex and near enemy territory, is a very high-risk tactic. If the dot base automatically changes, those ships will be scuttled.
Apbarog did a very good job of intercepting several of my unescorted TFs earlier in our game with ships lurking in gaps in my patrol zones or at dot bases. In almost every case where I was a little careless, he extracted a toll. I think at least once was the result of his signals intelligence and another was a masterful job of plotting the course of my TF based on a DL 2 sighting of the TF from 2 days earlier. He was also flying some float planes out of a dot base in the Solomons that gave him some DLs on a few other TFs.
What I did was set a trap by sending a single construction unit down the Solomon chain, and then moved KB and a heavy CA TF up to ambush any SCTF that tried to ambush my construction unit.
The best advice that I can give you is when you plot a destination for your major transport and amphibious groups leaving a port, plot a destination that is an open-water hex in the general direction of where you want the TF to go. Then modify the TFs destination as it nears its target to the correct hex. This will add some confusion to allied signal intelligence and make it less reliable.
He may be getting good SIGINT ("X unit is on xAK heading for Wyndham", etc.).
He may be getting good or lucky reactions from his SCTFs. If you are running Tracker (and you should be), check what the Max DL is of your TFs on those other turns. If it is not listed as 0/0, and is instead listed as something like 0/4 or 0/6... his surface forces know "something" is there, but not what and not exactly where (which is what a DL of 1+/xx would mean). I've had surface forces react to TFs that aren't actually spotted on my map many times. Likewise, I've had amphibious/transport TFs flee from surface threats that aren't actually spotted on my map as well - the TF "knows" something is there and is reacting appropriately.
OK, so I thought about this for a while. First I have to say that its your fault (to a rather large degree) if you have no air search over your TF's path. If you do have adequate air search then it could be that your opponent is 'playing the code' so to speak. What I mean by that is that he's 'hiding' that fleet of his at a dot base. My guess, if that is what he's doing, it would be at Truscott, which is just NNW of Wyndham, and right in your path of travel.
Listen, I get it, you 'hide' a seaplane carrier at a dot base with a few patrol A/C. However you can't hide the Yamato behind a palm tree!!!![8|] So come on guys, knock it off.[:(] If I hide an entire fleet (and fifteen ships is a 'fleet') at a 'sand spit' that makes me Houdini.[:-] Again though without search A/C its the opposing players' fault.
So ask your opponent if that is what he's doing and if so ask him to stop 'hiding' such large forces in plane sight. I mean really a force that size should be spotted at any base that has air over it. Disbanded in 'port' or not. That's what I mean by 'playing the code'.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
This could be a huge discussion. I to have thought long and hard on the subject. I would reiterate that recon plays
a large operational role most players I see neglect. I am prepared to argue what naval search can and cannot
achieve in and of itself. I will not argue that large task forces which would have to seek anchorage in deep water
would be the subject to prying eyes to far greater degree than destroyer divisions and cripples which may seek
to beach themselves under any available cover. But I will argue that naval search aircraft will not needlessly loiter
nor deviate from their search arcs to search atolls and islands at their discretion. I can also state with a degree of
certainty that the tactic, even with PTs, PC, and small destroyer divisions is not fool proof. I have lost more ships
than I have sunk by trying to base ships near to ports to avoid getting Pearl Harbored. I know when I am on the prowl
with the fleet carriers, particularly from late '42 onwards I have recon a/c poking around and I have something on
port attack. There are more dimensions to AE than meets the eye.
** I will book mark this to return in a couple of hundred turns as well to detail how I run with the fleet carriers. I
am not successful all the time but I have had unexpected turn of events. When I got a chance to play DEI conquest
scenario and tool around with KB in the early war I noticed it was too easy to ignore the allied OOB and fall into
complacency.The game will allow the carriers in many instances to simply move out of the way and hammer
any interlopers.
** Last note for now. I do agree that hiding large assets could get really gamey, but it is up to you as the player to
to alleviate this by using your brain. I look to ambush (Don't read this Francois, LOL) the enemy using this tactic
for some easy kills when I do amphibious assaults. And in case you are reading this Francois, I do not use this with
large surface groups or carriers (at all with CVs, I got burned wholesale my first game trying to hide a couple of
Essex class in the Gilberts, losing both for no gain.) Damn, I don't want to say this here, but I feel I must. You have
a lot of patrol craft, use them. Hey, I just thought of something. Can a submarine do bombardments? It should be
able to.....hmmmm
You really haven't given us enough information to make an informed decision.
Zuluhour is most likely correct except flank speed isn't needed,mission speed will suffice with an aggressive commander and good search the day the fleet sorties...
