Search Arc Question

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!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Knyvet
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:54 pm

Search Arc Question

Post by Knyvet »

In the example below (heavy redaction incl. TF symbols because of running dog allied enemy intel), a unit of bettys is set with a % to naval attack and a % to search.

Issue: I do not want them to attack the TFs in port at Chittagong because of enemy CAP. The problem is that even though these TFs (i.e., in Chittagong) are outside the search arcs, the bettys will still attack the TFs and get wiped out by the base's CAP.

Failed Solution #1: Reduce the range of the bettys to less then the distance to Chittagong. Why fail? Because then the unit's search arcs are also reduced and thus their main mission, to interdict TFs coming to and from Chittagong from the west/northwest cannot be done - i.e., the arcs do not extend far enough north.

Failed Solution #2: Wait for the detection level at Chittagong to be reduced that way the bettys cannot attack what is never detected. Why fail? Because to reduce the DL in Chittagong I cannot fly any other mission at that target, including recon, sweeps and airfield/port bombing.

Failed Solution #3: Reduce the Betty's range to equal the max range of fighter escorts w/drop tanks that can protect the unit. Why fail? Cripples the main advantage of Bettys and Nells - their ability to search for and strike TFs on the open sea at long ranges.

In sum, how can I set the bettys to cover the ocean area to the west of Chittagong and at the same time prevent them from flying against TFs in Chittagong that are covered by heavy CAP? Can't I call the unit's commander and order him not to attack TFs in Chittagong?

Note that this is a geographic example of a problem that exists in numerous areas for the Jap fan boyz (trying to keep Nells/Bettys away from heavy CAP coverage over bases while still being able to cover sea areas for TFs that are beyond the heavy CAP covered bases).

As always, thanks for your consideration/response (not sure if the other forum is best given the topic, but this is more of a game mechanic question than a strategy question)



Image
Attachments
searchArcQ.jpg
searchArcQ.jpg (335.8 KiB) Viewed 88 times
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by crsutton »

Simply put, you can't.

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by witpqs »

Yeah, this is an issue for each side from time to time. The orders just don't get that specific. It would be great if you could order something like "Naval Attack, but not at Truk!". Just can't do it.
User avatar
Dan Nichols
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by Dan Nichols »

The best you can do is to run sweeps over Chittagong and try to kill the CAP.
I think that the two obligations you have are to be good at what you do and then to pass on your knowledge to a younger person
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by crsutton »

I tried using cautious commanders but they were just as suicidal.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
bjfagan
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:35 am
Location: Los Angeles

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by bjfagan »

Can't the game be programed/coded to have a simple AI squadron commander logic check... squadron attacking against a base hex, no escort available, possible cap at base since there are known figthters.... therefore no attack at that base. If there were escorts available to reach that base or unknown fighters at that base... then the attack would go through. This should be codeable into the game and realistic thought process for a squadron commander.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by LoBaron »

What I usually do is go for the compromise solution.

Set 1 group to max/high range and naval search.
Set a second group to reduced range (in your case 1 hex short of Chittagong)
and naval attack.

So you have search coverage but won´t run the risk of attacking.


I wondered as well if it is possible in theory to map naval attack to search arc
so that only attacks are launched for the squadron if the target overlaps with the
search settings. Probably difficult.
Image
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by spence »

Maybe you could base them at Port Blair instead...oh, oh; look at how Port Blair has disappeared from the map...if it's still held by the Allies then you are likely to have more problems than just suicidal Nettys.
I wondered as well if it is possible in theory to map naval attack to search arc
so that only attacks are launched for the squadron if the target overlaps with the
search settings. Probably difficult.

It sorta looks like that solution has been tried on the poster's map.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: spence
I wondered as well if it is possible in theory to map naval attack to search arc
so that only attacks are launched for the squadron if the target overlaps with the
search settings. Probably difficult.

It sorta looks like that solution has been tried on the poster's map.

I was referring to possible modifications on code side. Currently DL triggers an attack - independent
of search arc settings...
Image
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: spence
I wondered as well if it is possible in theory to map naval attack to search arc
so that only attacks are launched for the squadron if the target overlaps with the
search settings. Probably difficult.

It sorta looks like that solution has been tried on the poster's map.

I was referring to possible modifications on code side. Currently DL triggers an attack - independent
of search arc settings...

...so you are looking for the addition of "Attack Arcs" to the game. That would be nice, but I doubt that will happen at this point.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: spence


It sorta looks like that solution has been tried on the poster's map.

I was referring to possible modifications on code side. Currently DL triggers an attack - independent
of search arc settings...

...so you are looking for the addition of "Attack Arcs" to the game. That would be nice, but I doubt that will happen at this point.

Yes, something like that. And agree, probably won´t happen.
Image
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by spence »

And considering the real life inability of the Nettys to control the sea in the face of even moderate resistance it would be a shame if another IJ Player fantasy got hard-coded.
LeeChard
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:24 pm
Location: Michigan

RE: Search Arc Question

Post by LeeChard »

Maybe we should be able to give orders to each individual pilot, ie, you fly at this altitude to this hex and search, you load bombs and fly to that hex and bomb....... I guess that might be a bit much[:D][:D]
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”