Naval search
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Naval search
Quiet China scenario
05/02/1943
Allies vs computer
Any tips on making naval search more effective both from ships and land based.
Have read the stuff on forum which seems to be from the old version.
I have had task forces pop up 1 to 2 hexes from land based airfields with FP’s and FB’s set to search and ASW.
Thanks
05/02/1943
Allies vs computer
Any tips on making naval search more effective both from ships and land based.
Have read the stuff on forum which seems to be from the old version.
I have had task forces pop up 1 to 2 hexes from land based airfields with FP’s and FB’s set to search and ASW.
Thanks
Re: Naval search
That scenario has not been updated.DKF12 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 3:40 pm Quiet China scenario
05/02/1943
Allies vs computer
Any tips on making naval search more effective both from ships and land based.
Have read the stuff on forum which seems to be from the old version.
I have had task forces pop up 1 to 2 hexes from land based airfields with FP’s and FB’s set to search and ASW.
Thanks
The best way to search is not to set search arcs. Also search at night if you pilots have trained enough not to be scared of the dark.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child
-
- Posts: 7251
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
Re: Naval search
Three very important points pop up during test under 26b
1. The minimum effect size is three for an all round search.
2. Search ranges are wrong. The actual search range is always one less than that set (A bug?). (E.g. Set to 10 it only search out to 9).
3. A max range of 10 seems to be the point where long range searches start to become nearly pointless but this does depand on ac type. Emilies etc have a huge range so search further but rarely at max range. Remember searhes are carried out via arcs so the further out you are the larger the arc area will be.
4. Search arcs are less effective than an all round search. I know not why unless it has something to do with point one above.
Search Requires: Height (5-6K), range and a patrol level to be set. There is no target but a search area is optional using search Arcs. Search Arcs are in 10° steps.
Overall the smaller the search area the greater the chance of spotting something. This can be done in three ways:
1. The minimum effect size is three for an all round search.
2. Search ranges are wrong. The actual search range is always one less than that set (A bug?). (E.g. Set to 10 it only search out to 9).
3. A max range of 10 seems to be the point where long range searches start to become nearly pointless but this does depand on ac type. Emilies etc have a huge range so search further but rarely at max range. Remember searhes are carried out via arcs so the further out you are the larger the arc area will be.
4. Search arcs are less effective than an all round search. I know not why unless it has something to do with point one above.
Search Requires: Height (5-6K), range and a patrol level to be set. There is no target but a search area is optional using search Arcs. Search Arcs are in 10° steps.
Overall the smaller the search area the greater the chance of spotting something. This can be done in three ways:
- Reducing the range: The further a search flies from it’s base the least likely it will find anything. The manual specifies 300 miles (7-8 hexes) but I work with 400 (10 hexes) (10.0). On the other hand, searches within 5 hexes are much more likely to succeed.
- Reducing the search ‘Arc’.
- Increasing the number of search aircraft.
Re: Naval search
Not sure what you mean in Point 2. When I set a search range and arc, then use the Z button to display the arc, the distance in hexes is almost always greater than the range set. This is because the "Range" setting is in hexes, which are counted in an irregular pattern (unless the arc is exactly on center with one of the six hex sides) so the hex count is inefficient for arcs that cross hex rows and diagonals.
The computer seems to be using an actual nautical miles figure (setting 10 being 400 NM) and then applying that 'cross-country' to achieve a greater distance by hex count (the arc only crosses part of some hexes). This is in the 1126a version of the game, so I am wondering if you were using the 1127Beta version to get the one hex less result?
The computer seems to be using an actual nautical miles figure (setting 10 being 400 NM) and then applying that 'cross-country' to achieve a greater distance by hex count (the arc only crosses part of some hexes). This is in the 1126a version of the game, so I am wondering if you were using the 1127Beta version to get the one hex less result?
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
-
- Posts: 7251
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
Re: Naval search
Yes it was 26b I said so in the post.
Over an extended period of time I must have carried out well over 50 tests. Range rings and arcs are not a problem I only use them as a guide anyway, it's finding that is. No matter what range I set no TF was ever found by that search group at that range or greater. As I said it's a small bug and well might be different in other versions. Note that this does not apply to ASW, just search.
Over an extended period of time I must have carried out well over 50 tests. Range rings and arcs are not a problem I only use them as a guide anyway, it's finding that is. No matter what range I set no TF was ever found by that search group at that range or greater. As I said it's a small bug and well might be different in other versions. Note that this does not apply to ASW, just search.
Re: Naval search
I believe I read somewhere on the forum that it's to do with how seach functions when no arc is set.Chris21wen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:53 am 4. Search arcs are less effective than an all round search. I know not why unless it has something to do with point one above.
So, when an arc is set, each 10 degree slice of the arc gets an aircraft assigned to it until all slices have an aircraft assigned. If there are more aircraft than slices, then an extra aircraft will be assigned to each 10 degree slice until all searching a/c are assigned. If there are fewer aircraft than slices, I believe that they are still assigned sequentially until you run out of a/c. In other words, arc slices have aircraft assigned sequentially, not randomly. These aricraft search with no penalties to their die rolls.
When no arc is set, you would assume that the game just selects a couple of arcs randomly to search. This apparently isn't the case. Instead, every aircraft flying that day searches every arc slice with a penalty to its die rolls. What this means practically is that instead of rolling one die to add DL to a TF, you end up rolling a lot of die with worse modifiers. You can see this demonstrated by when a unit set to NSearch observes a CV TF and loses more aircraft than should be searching that arc if you would expect if it was just one or two a/c per arc.
If you've played any tabletop war games, you're likely to know that a lot of poor quality die rolls are often better than few high quality ones. This is because when you start throwing more die the results will tend more to the average.
In short, unless you know exactly where a TF is and want to raise DL on it, or have a big air unit covering a small choke point (ie: japanese ASW operating off of Taiwan, ASW air covering ports), you're probably best leaving arcs off.
Re: Naval search
I was informed that Naval Search and presumably ASW Search do not search over land. For some strange reason . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child
-
- Posts: 7251
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
Re: Naval search
That would be good if it happened but this is the first I've heard of it and it is incorrect. Pilots fly missions and gain fatigue etc and planes gain fatigue when searches set over land, arcs or not. Try sending a Cat 5a (it is has wheels) to Boise and fly searches.
-
- Posts: 7251
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
Re: Naval search
What you said is quite possibly true but I haven't seen the code so unless someone who has confirms it, it's speculation.ABG wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 12:36 amI believe I read somewhere on the forum that it's to do with how seach functions when no arc is set.Chris21wen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:53 am 4. Search arcs are less effective than an all round search. I know not why unless it has something to do with point one above.
.....
If you've played any tabletop war games, you're likely to know that a lot of poor quality die rolls are often better than few high quality ones. This is because when you start throwing more die the results will tend more to the average.
Re: Naval search
So here is the link. Korvar posted it. What's interesting is that 2 submissions below, Alfred clarifies, but does NOT contradict Korvar's assertion.Chris21wen wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 6:52 amWhat you said is quite possibly true but I haven't seen the code so unless someone who has confirms it, it's speculation.ABG wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 12:36 amI believe I read somewhere on the forum that it's to do with how seach functions when no arc is set.Chris21wen wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:53 am 4. Search arcs are less effective than an all round search. I know not why unless it has something to do with point one above.
.....
If you've played any tabletop war games, you're likely to know that a lot of poor quality die rolls are often better than few high quality ones. This is because when you start throwing more die the results will tend more to the average.
Now Korvar hasn't been around for +5 years now, and I don't remember him as a dev but he may have been, and in any case he was respected. And Alfred was nothing if not meticulous.
Also note that Korvar doesn't say that the default is better, he states: "...in practice they are often more effective than you'd think...".
This agrees with my many years of playing, the default search will definitely pickup things that go missing in the fixed search pattern. How? Remember that NO search is perfect. If a ship slips inside your ARC (due to weather amoung a host of other things), your directed search will NEVER find it because you have told it to NEVER look there. The default will look everywhere. So, for example; you set 180 degree directed arc searches as the IJ from Wake and Miri looking EAST, if a ship slips through to the west you will never see it and it does happen. So, I also keep a stack on default to find leakers, and they do. ALL THE TIME. I'm not talk about missing a 100 ship Amphib force, never had that. But 1-2 ships? Finds them all the time, and the AI likes to send those type of TFs out on convoy hunts. Maybe this is what Korvar was referring to? Don't know for sure and can't ask him ....
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9#p4293079
Pax