ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Air attacks, not sure. SCTF's will react though when the NavSearch 'illuminates' them.
The challenge you have for Nav Attack is that the AI is prioritizing missions, and a single ship TF with low detection can fail the test. So, you would need high DL which means overlapping NavSearch (including NIGHT NavSearch) to get multiple hits each day to drive up and maintain the DL. Barring weather and multiple TF's, I rarely don't see a Naval Attack when the DL is high.
Having said that, hitting lone targets, especially DD's is hard with LB. SCTF's OTOH are very effective if you have a CL or a CA in them....
"Use the right tool for the right job"
I feel you are trying to use the wrong tool here. You're thinking 2018 when you are playing 1941. No GPS, no exact coordinates, no air borne radar (until late game and even then finicky) … When the Brits were chasing raiders in the Atlantic, they didn't say "Leave it to the RAF". The RAF was a crucial part, but they absolutely sortied SCTF's and those SCTF's were the primary instrument for dealing with the raiders. I'm including the Bismark here, even though her demise was largely due to aircraft, those aircraft were part of a TF, they weren't land based ….
At the heart of my thoughts are less about which 'tool', but more about 'attitude'.
I don't recall a history of the Allied side sending in single ship kamakazi style attack ships to disrupt Japanese bases or supply lines.
Yes, the Germans did send single raiders out with disastrous results. Allied air units were instrumental in the sinking of the Bismark, a single ship raider.
Pacific war naval assets were assembled in fleet and squadron units and deployed as such. In emergency circumstances single ships would try to escape or skirt the conflict to rejoin and reform into larger units.
This is a game where there is no political or policy over site to the player other than HRs. If we want to deviate from what the programmers probably assumed was the 'standard practice' (ie SCTFs composed of more than 1 ship) and start a war of single ship raiders, what effect would that have on 'the game'?
And please to any haters out there (not you), I am not asking for a rule to allow the Japanese to do something the Allies are not. I have refrained from any single ship raider forces from the opening gun of this match and asked my opponent to do the same. His query to allow this test happened after the hectic expansion period and I have developed defensive lines so the detection of raiding parties are as about as optimal as can be with my present skill level. Now is a great time to test this problem.
Other exploits, in my opinion, are the Death Star, where the numbers just overwhelm the model and the game is reduced to a glorified version of the board game Risk. Another more grievous one is the fake amphibian assault with BBs/CAs/and a few ADPs loaded with just supplies where the model focuses it fire at the approaching supply points and not at the BBs busting your units up off shore.
The lack of imposing the chain of command is another historical exploit, but one widely conceded and forgiven. It would 'slow the game down too much' is the probable retort but also there is the real concern that to do it properly would depend upon trusting both sides to pay the PPs necessary to properly structure their LCUs withing the proper commands, all within the same limited theaters of operations. A lot of extra housekeeping which gets in the way of the rush to do battle.
Balancing fun vs realism is a not well defined zone of conflict between human opponents. The 'this is a game' folks see HRs in the worse case as a fussy unnecessary layer of law-fare or lack of talent by the player. In the more forgiving cases as 'not worth the argument' or 'takes too much time'. The 'this is a simulation' folks see game mechanics that deviate from the historic force structure as in the worse cases 'cheating' or in the more forgiving views that it 'benefiting' one side or the other.
Sorry I am rattling on...
To your point, yes I am learning to use multiple layers for defense. I think I do a fair job in the ASW side. I certainly put in the time and attention, but my opponent would have to speak about its effectiveness.
I think the SCTF reaction is a good case to make that limited number of raiders could be effectively countered by properly defensed positions and allowing one side or the other to explore the fringes of the battle field to find those less defended points to prod.
In the hands of a skilled human opponent, single ship TFs could stymie the short period of Japanese expansion. If the invasion bonus for the Japanese were open ended, then there would be less benefit of sacrificing kami-style a few Allied cruisers to salvage parts of the Marshalls or Solomons which can then be rolled up earlier than historically. That is a viable 'game' strategy but a very questionable one 'historically'.
Both players need to express what they want in a match before the first bomb falls on Pearl Harbor to ensure that the match will survive to a mutually satisfying conclusion.
The Commander's job is to orchestrate and direct the three major dimensions of combat - space, time and force. Shattered Sword, the Untold Story of the Battle of Midway
