Matrix Games Forums

New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Search Arc Question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Search Arc Question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Search Arc Question - 2/12/2012 9:19:20 PM   
Knyvet


Posts: 134
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
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)






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Knyvet -- 2/12/2012 9:26:09 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/12/2012 9:30:42 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7183
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online
Simply put, you can't.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Knyvet)
Post #: 2
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/12/2012 10:00:39 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14803
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 3
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/12/2012 10:03:44 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
The best you can do is to run sweeps over Chittagong and try to kill the CAP.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 4
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/13/2012 5:21:58 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7183
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online
I tried using cautious commanders but they were just as suicidal.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 5
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/13/2012 8:07:05 AM   
bjfagan

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 7/8/2004
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/13/2012 8:20:47 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Knyvet)
Post #: 7
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/14/2012 11:33:53 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
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.

quote:

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.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 8
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/14/2012 12:06:19 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
quote:

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...

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 9
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/14/2012 1:39:31 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14803
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
quote:

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.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 10
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/14/2012 3:55:55 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
quote:

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.


Yes, something like that. And agree, probably won´t happen.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 11
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/15/2012 2:14:37 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Knyvet)
Post #: 12
RE: Search Arc Question - 2/15/2012 6:40:09 PM   
Ranger5355

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline
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

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Search Arc Question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125