Matrix Games Forums

I've been reading a bunch of books lately on the US Carrier ops in the Pacific, and it seems to me that on an almost daily (or nightly later on in the war) basis US CV CAP shot down snoopers when the carriers were near Japanese bases. Often these were Mavis' or Betties trying to locate the carriers or sneak in to attack. While I know there isn't a "night time snooper attack" function in WiTP (at least I don't think there is), I think there should be some means of shooting down the recon units. I don't know how difficult to code this would be, but it would make for a much more realistic game.

Maybe some formula based on the % CAP set, with a modifier for radar (if available) to determine the likelihood that the CAP intercepts the intruder? Taking it a step further, there could be a check to see the snooper's EXP level to see if the sighting report gets out anyways...

Again, I'm no programmer. But I do know in UV that you're virtually certain to be detected by naval searches if you're in range. I think weather and CAP shootdowns in real life played a much bigger role and increased fog of war more than we give credit in these games. Thoughts?

What is REALLY needed is a more accurate sub-routine for naval search. In UV, naval search seems to cover the area out to the maximum range of the searching A/C in a 360 degree circle, with little regard to how many planes would be needed to do this. Four or five Mavis's at Rabaul can scout virtually the whole map Utterly rediculous! This is really something I hope WITP will address and correct.

Mike Scholl wrote:What is REALLY needed is a more accurate sub-routine for naval search. In UV, naval search seems to cover the area out to the maximum range of the searching A/C in a 360 degree circle, with little regard to how many planes would be needed to do this. Four or five Mavis's at Rabaul can scout virtually the whole map Utterly rediculous! This is really something I hope WITP will address and correct.

I agree. Even worse is the ability of those half-dozen Emilys based at Truk to find every Allied TF all the way between there and Brisbane and Noumea.

That would also solve the problem. In a perfect world we'd have both these ideas in place. Setting up sectors for air search would be a very nice feature... Plus a crafty opponent could sneak in behind those sectors.

You know, I hate to keep going back to War in the South Pacific and all the things I liked about it (like the weather system), but remember how you had to set your naval searches by quadrant and the range of the search was limited by the type of aircraft conducting it? GEEZ, I thought that was XLNT! (I'm just talking this way because I'm trying to attract younger women, but the point remains the same).

Hi, IN UV scout and patrol planes are shot down by both CAP and AA. (Don't you watch the turns? ) IN WITP I had a Dutch Patrol plane that shot down a A5M when it spotted the Ryujo. Later it shot down a Ki-27 when it reconned Kuching.

Spotting in UV is pretty good. But Bosun managed to bring the entire IJN all the way to Brisbane without me seeing it. Well I spotted it when it was 2 hexes east of Rockhampton.
In my current game with Dadman I hid 2 CV at sea for several weeks before getting them close enough to his CV for me to switch to "react" to get a battle.
You have to use a little logic. If you've had 4 CV in a port for several weeks and everyday enemy recon over flies the base and then you set to sea on a clear day flying CAP and search missions and SURPRISE an enemy patrol plane spots your TF.
I never leave ships in ports the enemy is flying recon to everyday. I put into port in bad weather and I leave port in bad weather. I plot a hex several days away that is off the normal path for movement. Then depending on whether or not the TF has been spotted I weave my way toward my objective. I abort bombardment/Fast transport missions that have been spotted.

The routine keeps a pretty good track of a TF once it spots it. But it is not as automatic to find it in the first place as many people suppose. One thing that does happen is Patrol groups get really good the longer the game lasts if they are taken care of. (By 1 Jan 43 my patrol groups are usally in the 80's)

Many the time where the first I knew an enemy TF was in the neighborhood was when one of their floatplanes or CV type scout spotted my TF. Of course then I increased search and spotted them next turn. (If I did not run away)
Also comes in handy for assigning LBA missions if a Jake or Val did a recon on your base. In UV there are few bases that would require a 360 search pattern.
Even a TF at sea can leave some of the areas to friendly LBA search. Most of the TF's discovered in UV are right smack in the middle of any cone a player would assign. Get outside these cones and TF's are not spotted as often. (Very difficult to do for much of the game. But who ever holds Lunga has a very narrow search arc in order to cover most of the approaches the enemy will use.)

Mogami, I'm not surprised enemy tf's can sneak up on you in UV when playing allies, as you don't use your long range bombers for naval search.
I'm amazed you can spot anything much if you rely on Catalinas...there are so few of them.
I think this may prove the case that Naval Search is too effective in UV if an allied player can rely on a few squadrons of Catalinas to patrol the entire UV battelfield.

I agree with Mike Scholl and pasternaksi that a problem exists in naval search effectiveness in UV.

There is not a problem with the effectiveness of short and medium range or maybe even long range aircraft IMO but there is definitely a problem with extremely long range aircraft.
Those Jap floatplanes can spot everything.
If the Japanese player is serious about scouting the allied player cannot move anything without being spotted.

Well you've obviously never played me or Raver

Mogami, Luskan, et al....
I've certainly seen enemy searchers shot down or damaged by CAP/flak... I was just thinking that it didn't happen as often as in real life. Also, I know that you can certainly lose a TF in the middle of the Coral Sea, I've also done that myself, but again, I still feel naval search is a little bit too effective. There's too many variables in real life (sudden squalls, radio malfunctions, etc) to have naval searches be this good. I know its an impossibility to model all of that in UV/WiTP, but I'd like to see a dumbing down of the naval search routine, plus an increased ability to intercept the snoopers added. Assigning search sectors would also be very nice - I agree UV might not really need that because of the nature of the geography, but in WiTP, with so many possible approaches (esp. in the Central Pacific), I could see it adding a lot to gameplay.

As a caveat, I know WiTP probably has bigger fish to fry right now as far as changes go. I just think these would be "nice-to-have" features at some point. I certainly don't think either of these games are flawed and will buy WiTP immediately regardless...

Mike_B20 wrote: I agree with Mike Scholl and pasternaksi that a problem exists in naval search effectiveness in UV.

Have to agree spotting is waaaaaay too effective in UV and I hope it can be toned down in WitP. I really dont see how anyone can say otherwise. Only on very rare occasions am I even remotely surprised by an unexpected TF. Part of the problem might be that IMHO search planes on 100% naval search do not accumulate fatigue fast enough. It seems to me PBYs, Emilys, ect... can go a long time without ill effects. Maybe the map size in WitP will alleviate this somewhat, but then again from the AARs I have seen it doesnt look like many TFs are going unsighted

"If the Japanese player is serious about scouting the allied player cannot move anything without being spotted"

Hi, Do you mean if the Japanese player rather then using his 36 float planes adds in another 120 Betty/Nells? AT what point should spotting be achived?
How many bombers would it take to cover the UV map from PM/Gili/Shortlands/Lunga? From Townsville/Rockhampton/Wunpuko/Luganville?

Is it hard to look at the bases and decide where to allot the search planes?

Assuming you are going to fly search from Port Moresby/Gili/Shortlands/Lunga
and you place 1 Mavis-Emily group at each base. Then you add a 27 Plane Betty group. set them to 60 percent search each base now has 5 Mavis and 16 Betty conducting search. (84 ac) flying every single turn. This is a huge investment of resource.

(As the Allies it's true I often only have 36 search ac out on any turn. (5x12ac groups=60acx60 percent=36 ac fly per turn)
I use B-17/B-24 for recon missions but rarely for search because I am not really concerned with spotting Japanese TF's beyond my medium bomber range. (I use the lower range twin engine bombers for ASW and search)

What I'm saying is if a player puts this extra effort into search missions then he gets two results. First he sees more of the allied TF's. Second his op loss go way up. In one PBEM game I noticed the Japanese had lost over 75 Betty bombers in 3 months and had never made any attacks.

It might be prudent to reduce the default search of the AI from 100% to either 50 or 60%. This might produce a more acceptable search ratio for players. I've been able to produce both sides of the argument here.

Does seem at times that naval search is extremely efficient but as Mogami related, those spottings are 95% of the time in either well traveled or the most likely areas to be traveled. In PBEM i have been able to 'disapear' into the depths where few ships rarely go. In one notable game myself and my opponent 'both' attempted this at the same time and the first we knew of the other was when our carrier groups all but bumped into each other (range of 2-3 hexes!)

I have noticed very high op losses in search planes when playing against the AI, so it would look like the default setting favors increased "eyes in the skies" at the cost of aircraft and crews. The lower default search would both produce a more realistic result and help the AI preserve it's search assets.

It is true that an increase in planes allocated to search increases the operational losses to a point that the Japanese plaer cannot maintain indefinitely, I notice in one of my sc 17 PPBEM's just such an operational loss by my Japanese opponent.
Also, on a few occasions in this game I have managed to "lose" my CV taskforce by disbanding it at Brisbane and then sending them out in a storm.
On the two occasions I managed this I was able to sail from Brisbane all the way up past Koumac without being spotted (even though my opponent was spotting everything else on map) and surprised his CV's.
It seems that if a tf can get to sea unspotted it is a lot harder to pick up.


However, in that PBEM game my opponent has not known the location of my CV's for a total of about 14 days in 6 months of game time.

Since his operational losses are kicking in my opponents searches are only now (start 43) losing their thoroughness.

What's really out of whack are the numbers of A/C needed. Let us say for an
example that Rabaul wants to conduct a 90 degree search to the South and
East out to 600 miles. If they allocate 20 A/C to this, those planes will be 45
miles apart when they reach their search limits. Now if they all turn right for
22 1/2 miles and then head back to Rabaul, they will have a moderate chance
of spotting anything in that 90 degree arc. No guarantee, as at even 400 miles
"out" the planes were over 30 miles apart and could miss a lot depending on the
weather and cloud conditions. And anything "missed" on the way out could
easily have moved to a previously searched arc by the time the planes came
back. And they only had each "piece of Ocean" under survalience for a short
time..., to do it right, a second 20 A/C would fly the same arcs 5 hours behind
the first. Now at 300 miles out, the odds are much better of seeing something,
as the A/C are much closer together going both ways.

If the UV system is to continue in use for WITP, then it at least needs a
number of "spotting modifiers" worked in. DISTANCE to the potential "spot" is a
BIG one, as is the NUMBER of A/C assigned. WEATHER is another that can
totally screw up spotting. In reality, "Naval Search" ought to be limited to
something between 5-600 miles maximum to be effective at all. The real ad-
vantage of a "long-legged" plane in search was not the distance that could be
searched, but the ability IF something was "spotted" to linger with it and broad-
cast continuous updates on it's progress. As it now stands, the "naval search"
sub-routine is pretty much a joke.