AE Player tips - Allied

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've just spent about 10 hours working on an Allied first turn - how have I been spending my time?

01 - Form convoys - mostly merchant ship convoys. Sending forward area merchant ships back to primary supply source ports - to be in position to move supply forward. Longer range xAK are heading to Capetown, where much of the supply on the "Brit Side" of the map will enter. Tankers are heading to Abadan. Many xAK and xAP in Australian/NZ are headed to America, though long range (13K+) xAK will head to Capetown. Forward ships will try to load up with fuel or supply in many areas to pull in farther back. More supply is needed in the PI and Malaya, so a few ships will start to bring supply to these areas. A lot of small convoy's will load up on the West Coast bring supply and fuel forward to the Islands between Pearl Harbor and Australia. Also the 41st ID will prepare to move to Noumea. To supply this move some additional xAP are head to the Tacoma/Seattle ports.

02 - Groom the Land Units. I want about 90% of my land units to go into "rest" mode. This will enable them to recover their morale in 1-2 months. One item high on my list for patch one is a global button to enable setting ALL LCU to rest mode. At least with my playing style, have this capability once at the start of the game, would save a lot of time. But for now, I have to turn them off by stack of from the LCU master list. Also nine cities in China and India are undergarrisoned, so I need to react to those. A few critical engineering projects need to be started and combat units repositioned for anticipated activities in China, Burma and India.

03 - Ships - Colorado and Warspite need to enter the ship yards at Seattle to remove damage. Damaged ships at Pearl also need to compete for shipyard space there. Removing minor floatation damage (pumping them out) takes precedence - and the space is limited - so priorities need to be set.

04 - Turning off the repair of various resource, light industry, etc. centers mostly in China to prevent evaporation of supply.

05 - Adjustment of LCU in the PI to prepare the defenses.

I'm probably 1-2 hours away from being done with the Allied first turn - so I would guess 12 hours total. I think as I get more used to it I can do it faster. A global ability to put LCU in rest mode might save 1 hour - so I'll be advocating for that!

OK, when you are done. Save the first turn before executing and send it to me. Bingo! I just saved myself 12 hours that I can use to watch fine summer reruns on Fox. Also, don't forget to send me the password. Don't worry I won't tell anybody what it is.


Seriously, I think it would be a good idea for some of the top players to save their favorite first turn set ups and put them up on say, Spooky's site with a generic password. It would be an excellent learning reference for new players or lazy players (such as me) could tweak them to suit their needs.

Sort of like using the standard "Queens Gambit" opening but for AE.

[jjax]

Sounds like a good idea..unless they are scared they are giving away their opening strategies.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: treespider

Just thought I'd start a thread for some generalized player tips - this is for potential Allied players....

1. In the beginning - If you form a TRANSPORT TF on the US West Coast, DO NOT direct them to any ports other than Pearl, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or Auckland. Use AMPHIB TF to transport Base Forces and units with Naval Support to the lesser ports first. The AMPHIB TF is not nearly as efficient as the TRANSPORT TF in terms of amount carried but the unload time at smaller ports is significantly higher.

More to follow later....

Hey, who's gonna deliver important player tips for Jap Fanboys? [:D]
You don't want the Allied Fanboys have the upper hand, do you?

No need to. The situation is hopeless anyways. [X(]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Only 1 Tree hasnt been looking at a recent build the China tactic is no longer workable because most of the small Chinese Armies have a reduced TOE so they respawn with moderate strengh I think I missed one Chinese Corps but the rest wont gain strength if destroyed so na na naa na na [:D][:D]

Good because I will likely be playing as Japan my first game...although for my China mod I may revert it back....

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: treespider

Just thought I'd start a thread for some generalized player tips - this is for potential Allied players....

1. In the beginning - If you form a TRANSPORT TF on the US West Coast, DO NOT direct them to any ports other than Pearl, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or Auckland. Use AMPHIB TF to transport Base Forces and units with Naval Support to the lesser ports first. The AMPHIB TF is not nearly as efficient as the TRANSPORT TF in terms of amount carried but the unload time at smaller ports is significantly higher.

More to follow later....

Hey, who's gonna deliver important player tips for Jap Fanboys? [:D]
You don't want the Allied Fanboys have the upper hand, do you?

No need to. The situation is hopeless anyways. [X(]

I'm gonna show you it's not true! [:D]
Just give me a chance.
I say: release the dogs of war, gimmie AE! [;)]

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: treespider

Treespider's Japanese Player Tip #2

Don't advance your limited air search assets too far south, leaving a wide open gap into your supply lanes for an American carrier to drive into.

Wouldnt have been bad if air search worked. I had over lapping air cover from Japan right down to Fiji (based on aircraft ranges) but seemingly air search doesnt work (by Bradys testing, I was going to test that when he posted) beyond 10 to 12 hexes. And naval combat doesnt "spot" enemy ships for airplanes either (although subs do - go figure).

The Jap player only has 34 H6Ks they can deploy outside Japan (and 21 more there). Doesnt leave a lot of room for rear area searches which frankly I have a problem with. I feel this is a serious shortcoming in the game.

The Nell has a range of 17 hexes, the Betty a range of 21. It is 33 hexes from Saipan to Tokyo. I had a 36 plane Betty group at Tokyo on 30% search and a 27 (24 actual) Nell group at Saipan also at 30% search. Failed to sight enemy carrier force that is launching strikes at merchies in between them and failed to sight a surface force 12 hexes out that engaged in surface combat twice. You are entitled to your opinion that thats the way it should work. And you would be right. I am entitled to my opinion that that is flawed, and I would be right as well. My opinion is its flawed.

As for pushing "limited air search assets too far south", I had a line of H6Ks from Lae, to Munda, to Tarawa with Nells at Saipan and Wake and Bettys at Tokyo. Sailing the Yorktown just out of Zero range off Japan inviting strikes to chew up bombers in Jan 42 may be a tactic you see no problem with, and frankly I dont either. But when these forces do all this crap, with all these search forces in the area, and I dont spot a thing, THAT I have a problem with.

I also have a problem with your surface combat force reacting to my ships when you dont have any ammo left on them. At least twice this happened. Again, I see a problem with this. Mow frankly I wouldnt have mentioned this at all, but since you brought it up, I thought I would set the record straight.

...but I must say that when the experienced beta tester suggests some flaws at this (final) level of AE development, when there is an official gold candidate announced and we all climb the walls in anticipation.. it's... somehow disturbing

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: viberpol
...but I must say that when the experienced beta tester suggests some flaws at this (final) level of AE development, when there is an official gold candidate announced and we all climb the walls in anticipation.. it's... somehow disturbing

Keep in mind that while many things in AE are improved, some are the same as in WITP. Also, this will be AE v1.00 and we're already putting together our list for the first update. Everyone has their own list of design gripes or pet peeves and there will undoubtedly be some bugs we haven't found as there were in WITP v1.00. And contrary to what YH said, we are not yet Gold. There is one more build to finish and then test to confirm Gold.

Regards,

- Erik

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: treespider

Treespider's Japanese Player Tip #2

Don't advance your limited air search assets too far south, leaving a wide open gap into your supply lanes for an American carrier to drive into.

Wouldnt have been bad if air search worked. I had over lapping air cover from Japan right down to Fiji (based on aircraft ranges) but seemingly air search doesnt work (by Bradys testing, I was going to test that when he posted) beyond 10 to 12 hexes. And naval combat doesnt "spot" enemy ships for airplanes either (although subs do - go figure).

As an Allied AI player in WITP I was always frustrated that anything floating of mine was always spotted by the Japanese searches whereas the Japanese were able to sneak ships through my searches for some nasty surprises. If the search engine is not broken, I will be happy to see that searches do sometimes fail to pick up everything moving within the aircraft's range.

[wdolson]

In AE, the Japanese can expand a bit beyond where they did historically.  In play testing, we've seen invasions at Darwin and the Japanese taking some South Pacific islands.  Port Morseby has fallen in many play tests. 

These were realistic possibilities for the Japanese.  It never was possible for the Japanese to take India.  They had some hopes for a revolt that would force the British to give up on India and retreat, but military conquest was never a possibility.  If they weren't at war in China, there may have been some outside chance, but it was unlikely.  Moving supplies by land through Burma to support enough troops to invade India was not possible.  Moving supplies by ships along the coast would have been hazardess because the RAF would have been doing everything in its powers to stop them.  A couple of highly experienced Beaufort squadrons were moved to the Far East to be used just for that possibility.

Conquering Australia would also have been impossible in the real world.  They may have managed a toe hold in the NW, but the continent is too large and too easy to defend.  Especially against a naval power with a relatively small army that has many commitments elsewhere.

There are still plenty of possible strategies for the Japanese player to try and the Allied player has a much tighter logistical challenge in the first year of the war.  There will be some necessity to rob Peter to pay Paul. 

The result is a much more realistic game.  I find it much more enjoyable than the original.  The strategies you need are different, but there still are plenty of options and lots of decisions to make and the results can be even more surprises than you got with the original game.

Bill

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

As an Allied AI player in WITP I was always frustrated that anything floating of mine was always spotted by the Japanese searches whereas the Japanese were able to sneak ships through my searches for some nasty surprises. If the search engine is not broken, I will be happy to see that searches do sometimes fail to pick up everything moving within the aircraft's range.

Based on tests that were done long long ago by I believe Apollo, the search engine has always been geared to only work out to 10 to 12 or so hexes regardless of the range of the search aircraft. In WitP this translates to 600 to 720 miles. Now admittedly I havent thoroughly tested this aspect of AE but it appears that this same 10 to 12 hex limitation is still in place, which means a 460-550 mile range (8-9 hexes in WitP) which means there are huge holes that cant be covered in the eastern pacific (by both sides). And putting picket ships out there wont do anything other than be a target. I had a merchie convoy engage the Yorktown group in a night surface engagement and that too failed to "sight" the carrier so the only effect that pickets will do is let you know they got sunk by airplanes and the general direction the strike came from. Putting AVs or CSs out there wont do a lot of good either as their range isnt any better than the SBDs or Vals that would spot them meaning you would be tossing them away also. I suppose the Jap player could put a wall of Glen boats out there, but what of the allies? One of my tricks in WitP is to drive the Hiyo and Junyo around behind Pearl when I know there are no enemy carriers in the area to disrupt things but in WitP, seemingly carriers that launch are spotted (for a turn anyways) so the other player knows where they are at least, in AE they are not.

AE also has a setting to narrow the search arc which I have read increases the chance to sight something in this arc (no explanation on how much of an increase) again something I was intending to test but since the "code freeze" (meaning no more changes - which to me is GOLD) I didnt see a need since if found to actually be a problem, it wouldnt be changed before release anyways so seemed pointless to me to pursuit it.

Dont get me wrong, there are a lot of really good things about AE. I think as a 1 player game people will find it superior in almost every facet to WitP. However. In my opinion it has problems in a 2 player mode. These problems will likely be corrected in patches but personally I dont play 1 player games. WitP will not be replaced by AE on my computer. At least not yet. Others will disagree. Thats their right. This is just my insight to it. That is MY right.

Some things havent had a chance to be tested simply because of how long it takes to play the game like production for example. Sure it has been tested in an AI v AI mode but long term effects in a player v player mode havent, and really CANT be done, so problems might arise from this as well. Those that have been around a while will remember a lot of game killing problems when WitP first came out. Patches that forced restarts of games that were needed to fix serious issues. Dont be surprised if they also pop up here. And frankly I think everyone expects that and wont be seriously outraged by it if it occurs.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: treespider

Treespider's Japanese Player Tip #2

Don't advance your limited air search assets too far south, leaving a wide open gap into your supply lanes for an American carrier to drive into.

Wouldnt have been bad if air search worked. I had over lapping air cover from Japan right down to Fiji (based on aircraft ranges) but seemingly air search doesnt work (by Bradys testing, I was going to test that when he posted) beyond 10 to 12 hexes. And naval combat doesnt "spot" enemy ships for airplanes either (although subs do - go figure).

The Jap player only has 34 H6Ks they can deploy outside Japan (and 21 more there). Doesnt leave a lot of room for rear area searches which frankly I have a problem with. I feel this is a serious shortcoming in the game.

The Nell has a range of 17 hexes, the Betty a range of 21. It is 33 hexes from Saipan to Tokyo. I had a 36 plane Betty group at Tokyo on 30% search and a 27 (24 actual) Nell group at Saipan also at 30% search. Failed to sight enemy carrier force that is launching strikes at merchies in between them and failed to sight a surface force 12 hexes out that engaged in surface combat twice. You are entitled to your opinion that thats the way it should work. And you would be right. I am entitled to my opinion that that is flawed, and I would be right as well. My opinion is its flawed.

As for pushing "limited air search assets too far south", I had a line of H6Ks from Lae, to Munda, to Tarawa with Nells at Saipan and Wake and Bettys at Tokyo. Sailing the Yorktown just out of Zero range off Japan inviting strikes to chew up bombers in Jan 42 may be a tactic you see no problem with, and frankly I dont either. But when these forces do all this crap, with all these search forces in the area, and I dont spot a thing, THAT I have a problem with.

I also have a problem with your surface combat force reacting to my ships when you dont have any ammo left on them. At least twice this happened. Again, I see a problem with this. Mow frankly I wouldnt have mentioned this at all, but since you brought it up, I thought I would set the record straight.

This may be a case of geometry getting you. I don't know for sure because I have no inside information to the search code.

This is what I mean though. Lets say you have a base that you feel needs 360 degree coverage around to gurad against both surface and submerged threats. Each plane flying a search can cover roughly a 120 nm arc (or piece of the full radius). The reason for this is that the Mk 1 Optical sensor can see about 30 nm in good weather conditions. If the visibility is not ideal, than our aerial observers will be able to cover an even narrower arc but lets assume good to ideal conditions for this example. Our HK4M or PBY flies the outbound leg with eyes looking left and right (or port and starboard if you prefer). They are able to search a 60 nm wide swath doing this. The plane turns at maximum range and runs 60 nm across the top of the arc. Then on the inbound leg they search another 60 nm swath that just touches the one they just searched while running out. The problem comes in when you start looking farther out it takes a lot more planes. Some examples:

To search out to 360 nm (9 AE hexes) your circle is 2261 nm around meaning you need 19 a/c to accomplish full coverage
To search out to 480 nm (12 AE hexes) your circle is 3016 nm around meaning you need 25 a/c to accomplish full coverage
To search out to 600 nm (15 AE hexes) your circle is 3770 nm around meaning you need 31 a/c to accomplish full coverage

Keep in mind that 600 nm means at least ten hours in the air which is going to wear on both man and machine. Even the 12 hex range search would require a full 27 plane group that stays at near 100% availability all the tme and where fatigue doesn't build up. So more than likely you are gonna need at least 36 planes to keep this search up and even then you are gonna grind your planes and pilots to dust. I don't think 600 nm searches were done in full 360 search patterns very often by either side because of the cost in men and materials. BTW, you go much further than 600 nm and you will run out of daylight figuring your average patrol plane cruises at 120 knots and with twelve hours of daylight to work with on average (less in northern/southern latitudes during the winter), max range would be about 690 nm with no time to loiter over a contact or prosecute a sub.

Just my 0.02 worth

[Yamato hugger]

The point isnt the distance from the base and a fan of planes (to me).

The point is a contact report: air attack on a friendly base or ships from carriers, surface ships attacking. Things that someone would say "hey, maybe we should send a plane out to see whats going on" issues. Well within a search range (the surface contacts were 12 hexes away from a Nell group with 8 planes on search and a range of 17 hexes. And no sighting report at all by ships or planes.

Thats what I have a problem with.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
And no sighting report at all by ships or planes.

I think you may be suffering from being spoiled by the unrealistic searches that occurred in WitP, and your expectations are too high. Think about Midway and the difficulty hundreds of US strike planes at ranges far closer than 12 AE hexes had in finding a huge Japanese fleet whose heading and target was known to the allies as an example.

US patrol planes had spotted and loitered around the fleet for hours, yet just the short window of time between the last patrol plane sightings and the allied air attack almost prevented the US planes from even finding the Japanese fleet.

If it's that hard to find a previously spotted huge fleet with dozens and dozens of zeroes flying in the air above it, imagine how much harder it would be to find a much smaller fleet 2 or 3 times as far away with an unknown heading and destination that hadn't even been sighted at all yet.

While I agree a contact report should be generated in the hex that was attacked, I do not agree that a sighting report (that results in a fleet being detected and exposed to attack for the rest of the turn) would have to be generated just because an attack was made by the fleet, if that fleet had not been previously detected.

All those search aircraft you mentioned would have already been in the air on their search routes. At best they could probably direct one or two planes to head to the contact hex, but that's only if they were in a good position (outward leg of pattern) with enough fuel left to get there.

And without an indication of where the attacking fleet actually was, they would need dozens of search planes to cover all of the possible ocean the fleet could be sitting on. Which leads to the final hurdle. How can you possibly simulate this in AE?

I think the only real solution is to leave it up to normal search attempts to find the fleet. But I do agree surface fleets should generate sighting reports just like subs do for spotted fleets in their own hex.

Jim

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
And no sighting report at all by ships or planes.

I think you may be suffering from being spoiled by the unrealistic searches that occurred in WitP, and your expectations are too high. Think about Midway and the difficulty hundreds of US strike planes at ranges far closer than 12 AE hexes had in finding a huge Japanese fleet whose heading and target was known to the allies as an example.

US patrol planes had spotted and loitered around the fleet for hours, yet just the short window of time between the last patrol plane sightings and the allied air attack almost prevented the US planes from even finding the Japanese fleet.

If it's that hard to find a previously spotted huge fleet with dozens and dozens of zeroes flying in the air above it, imagine how much harder it would be to find a much smaller fleet 2 or 3 times as far away with an unknown heading and destination that hadn't even been sighted at all yet.

While I agree a contact report should be generated in the hex that was attacked, I do not agree that a sighting report (that results in a fleet being detected and exposed to attack for the rest of the turn) would have to be generated just because an attack was made by the fleet, if that fleet had not been previously detected.

All those search aircraft you mentioned would have already been in the air on their search routes. At best they could probably direct one or two planes to head to the contact hex, but that's only if they were in a good position (outward leg of pattern) with enough fuel left to get there.

And without an indication of where the attacking fleet actually was, they would need dozens of search planes to cover all of the possible ocean the fleet could be sitting on. Which leads to the final hurdle. How can you possibly simulate this in AE?

I think the only real solution is to leave it up to normal search attempts to find the fleet. But I do agree surface fleets should generate sighting reports just like subs do for spotted fleets in their own hex.

Jim

IMHO the Midway example is very relevant, and if a plane has a range of 18 hexes, on search it is not going out 18 hexes as it will be flying 18 hexes of a grid.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Based on tests that were done long long ago by I believe Apollo, the search engine has always been geared to only work out to 10 to 12 or so hexes regardless of the range of the search aircraft. In WitP this translates to 600 to 720 miles. Now admittedly I havent thoroughly tested this aspect of AE but it appears that this same 10 to 12 hex limitation is still in place, which means a 460-550 mile range (8-9 hexes in WitP) which means there are huge holes that cant be covered in the eastern pacific (by both sides). And putting picket ships out there wont do anything other than be a target. I had a merchie convoy engage the Yorktown group in a night surface engagement and that too failed to "sight" the carrier so the only effect that pickets will do is let you know they got sunk by airplanes and the general direction the strike came from. Putting AVs or CSs out there wont do a lot of good either as their range isnt any better than the SBDs or Vals that would spot them meaning you would be tossing them away also. I suppose the Jap player could put a wall of Glen boats out there, but what of the allies? One of my tricks in WitP is to drive the Hiyo and Junyo around behind Pearl when I know there are no enemy carriers in the area to disrupt things but in WitP, seemingly carriers that launch are spotted (for a turn anyways) so the other player knows where they are at least, in AE they are not.

AE also has a setting to narrow the search arc which I have read increases the chance to sight something in this arc (no explanation on how much of an increase) again something I was intending to test but since the "code freeze" (meaning no more changes - which to me is GOLD) I didnt see a need since if found to actually be a problem, it wouldnt be changed before release anyways so seemed pointless to me to pursuit it.

Dont get me wrong, there are a lot of really good things about AE. I think as a 1 player game people will find it superior in almost every facet to WitP. However. In my opinion it has problems in a 2 player mode. These problems will likely be corrected in patches but personally I dont play 1 player games. WitP will not be replaced by AE on my computer. At least not yet. Others will disagree. Thats their right. This is just my insight to it. That is MY right.

Some things havent had a chance to be tested simply because of how long it takes to play the game like production for example. Sure it has been tested in an AI v AI mode but long term effects in a player v player mode havent, and really CANT be done, so problems might arise from this as well. Those that have been around a while will remember a lot of game killing problems when WitP first came out. Patches that forced restarts of games that were needed to fix serious issues. Dont be surprised if they also pop up here. And frankly I think everyone expects that and wont be seriously outraged by it if it occurs.

Good news guys - thanks for all hard work on WitP-AE! [:)][&o][&o][&o]


BTW, I will make my ASW search tests with WitP-AE as soon as I get the AE (and I will be getting it ASAP)... [:D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[John Lansford]

I've got over 400 planes on Eniwetok, including over 250 2 and 4 engine bombers and a squadron of Catalinas on 90% naval search.  The bombers all devote 10% or more of their strength to naval search as well.  Despite all this, I routinely do not pick up incoming convoys heading for Kwajalein from Saipan until the TF is within 8 hexes of Eniwetok.  The Cats and 4E bombers are all flying search patterns to the limits of their range but I never get contact reports until the TF's are much closer in.
 
I've also got over 200 planes on Ponape and the same thing happens with TF's headed from Truk to Kwajalein; I don't spot them until they're within 6-7 hexes.  I agree that a single squadron of LR Patrol planes is unlikely to spot anything at extreme range, but I'm saturating these areas with searches and they're still sneaking in a lot closer than I'd like.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

As an Allied AI player in WITP I was always frustrated that anything floating of mine was always spotted by the Japanese searches whereas the Japanese were able to sneak ships through my searches for some nasty surprises. If the search engine is not broken, I will be happy to see that searches do sometimes fail to pick up everything moving within the aircraft's range.

Based on tests that were done long long ago by I believe Apollo, the search engine has always been geared to only work out to 10 to 12 or so hexes regardless of the range of the search aircraft. In WitP this translates to 600 to 720 miles. Now admittedly I havent thoroughly tested this aspect of AE but it appears that this same 10 to 12 hex limitation is still in place, which means a 460-550 mile range (8-9 hexes in WitP) which means there are huge holes that cant be covered in the eastern pacific (by both sides). And putting picket ships out there wont do anything other than be a target. I had a merchie convoy engage the Yorktown group in a night surface engagement and that too failed to "sight" the carrier so the only effect that pickets will do is let you know they got sunk by airplanes and the general direction the strike came from. Putting AVs or CSs out there wont do a lot of good either as their range isnt any better than the SBDs or Vals that would spot them meaning you would be tossing them away also. I suppose the Jap player could put a wall of Glen boats out there, but what of the allies? One of my tricks in WitP is to drive the Hiyo and Junyo around behind Pearl when I know there are no enemy carriers in the area to disrupt things but in WitP, seemingly carriers that launch are spotted (for a turn anyways) so the other player knows where they are at least, in AE they are not.

AE also has a setting to narrow the search arc which I have read increases the chance to sight something in this arc (no explanation on how much of an increase) again something I was intending to test but since the "code freeze" (meaning no more changes - which to me is GOLD) I didnt see a need since if found to actually be a problem, it wouldnt be changed before release anyways so seemed pointless to me to pursuit it.

Dont get me wrong, there are a lot of really good things about AE. I think as a 1 player game people will find it superior in almost every facet to WitP. However. In my opinion it has problems in a 2 player mode. These problems will likely be corrected in patches but personally I dont play 1 player games. WitP will not be replaced by AE on my computer. At least not yet. Others will disagree. Thats their right. This is just my insight to it. That is MY right.

Some things havent had a chance to be tested simply because of how long it takes to play the game like production for example. Sure it has been tested in an AI v AI mode but long term effects in a player v player mode havent, and really CANT be done, so problems might arise from this as well. Those that have been around a while will remember a lot of game killing problems when WitP first came out. Patches that forced restarts of games that were needed to fix serious issues. Dont be surprised if they also pop up here. And frankly I think everyone expects that and wont be seriously outraged by it if it occurs.

Thanks for your insight.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: vettim89

This may be a case of geometry getting you. I don't know for sure because I have no inside information to the search code.

This is what I mean though. Lets say you have a base that you feel needs 360 degree coverage around to gurad against both surface and submerged threats. Each plane flying a search can cover roughly a 120 nm arc (or piece of the full radius). The reason for this is that the Mk 1 Optical sensor can see about 30 nm in good weather conditions. If the visibility is not ideal, than our aerial observers will be able to cover an even narrower arc but lets assume good to ideal conditions for this example. Our HK4M or PBY flies the outbound leg with eyes looking left and right (or port and starboard if you prefer). They are able to search a 60 nm wide swath doing this. The plane turns at maximum range and runs 60 nm across the top of the arc. Then on the inbound leg they search another 60 nm swath that just touches the one they just searched while running out. The problem comes in when you start looking farther out it takes a lot more planes. Some examples:

To search out to 360 nm (9 AE hexes) your circle is 2261 nm around meaning you need 19 a/c to accomplish full coverage
To search out to 480 nm (12 AE hexes) your circle is 3016 nm around meaning you need 25 a/c to accomplish full coverage
To search out to 600 nm (15 AE hexes) your circle is 3770 nm around meaning you need 31 a/c to accomplish full coverage

Keep in mind that 600 nm means at least ten hours in the air which is going to wear on both man and machine. Even the 12 hex range search would require a full 27 plane group that stays at near 100% availability all the tme and where fatigue doesn't build up. So more than likely you are gonna need at least 36 planes to keep this search up and even then you are gonna grind your planes and pilots to dust. I don't think 600 nm searches were done in full 360 search patterns very often by either side because of the cost in men and materials. BTW, you go much further than 600 nm and you will run out of daylight figuring your average patrol plane cruises at 120 knots and with twelve hours of daylight to work with on average (less in northern/southern latitudes during the winter), max range would be about 690 nm with no time to loiter over a contact or prosecute a sub.

Just my 0.02 worth

Tim this is excellent analysis but, unfortunately, the search in WitP (and most probably in WitP-AE) is big approximation...

Here are my threads from many years ago (2005 - oh my [X(] is it really that long time ago) when I extensively tested this:


tm.asp?m=967245
tm.asp?m=993313
tm.asp?m=1586330
tm.asp?m=1586983


This was my colclusion:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The more I think about my "spiral" search theory (i.e. concentric circles with increased range) I think it is correct assumption...


Here is how I think it works:

#1
Every pilot in every squadron assigned for air search ("Naval Search" or "ASW") that passes all pre-flight checks (enough pilots, enough aircraft, leader check, percentage of aircraft assigned to mission, weather etc.) individually flies the "spiral" (i.e. concentric circles with increased range) up to the range user selected (halved in case of ASW).

#2
The "spiral" (i.e. concentric circles with increased range) covers every single HEX (in range) and then checks are made in every such HEX for discovery and countermeasures (enemy CAP, AA etc.).

The only difference in WitP-AE (with search arcs [:)][&o]) would be that planes would be flying limited areas (instead of full 360 deg "spiral") when such search is selected instead of full 360 deg circle coverage.


PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS ALL MY SPECULATION AND ASSUMPTION - I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF HOW WITP OR WITP-AE WORKS IN CODE - I ONLY EXTENSIVELY TESTED WITP AND BASED ON MY FINDINGS I MADE MY SPECULATION AND ASSUMPTION!



Leo "Apollo11"

[charon]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

...

Tim this is excellent analysis but, unfortunately, the search in WitP (and most probably in WitP-AE) is big approximation...

Here are my threads from many years ago (2005 - oh my [X(] is it really that long time ago) when I extensively tested this:

....

I'm just as impatient as all of you guys, I do have to remind myself to be patient for a few more days, countdown is running. Those of us without AE on our harddrives just don't have a solid basis for speculation. Let's work on our own data when we have access.

I just hope the manual will be released for download very soon, to give those of us - and I include myself - cursed with a skyhigh anticipation level and a leaking patience tank a new focus. Feed the beast, let us prepare to jump into action, and instead of moaning ridden threads you'll see the first AAR's pop up in no time. [;)]

[Sardaukar]

What Erik said in other topic:

Keep in mind that YH is just one player/tester. The team has many others. As I said elsewhere, some things are improved from WITP, others are the same. Everyone has their own pet peeves or design gripes and we're already working on the list for the first update. There's no question that AE v1.00 is ready for release. There's also no question that, like WITP v1.00, it will have some bugs that we didn't find and some design or balance issues that need addressing which will become apparent once it reaches a larger audience. Making mountains out of molehills is a lot easier when all you have to go by is our comments rather than playing the game yourselves. WITP and AE both have variable results which mean that one example does not a rule make.

AE does not have the same limit on search range that WITP did. In AE, it's based on the cruise speed of the search plane and how far it can go in a reasonable amount of time for the search phase before it would have to turn around.

Regards,

- Erik

Wait for the bloody game..and then make the bloody conclusions. Assume makes ass out of me and you. [:D]