Setting air search arcs vs not setting them

[Timotheus]

OK, I have not set search arcs for my naval search and ASW air assets.

They SEEM to work OK - enemy task forces are discovered in a 360 degree radius, to the limit of the set air range, regardless of the number of planes doing the searching!

When I tried to set search arcs, they can usually cover a very limited area of the ocean.


Simply put, I am getting better results not setting air search arcs than when I do set them.

What is your experience?

Dev response?

Alfred, chime in?

[kbfchicago]

there is a forum post on this...it convinced me to leave the way of the arc and go 360. I seldom go back unless significant landmass is involved. Go 360. don't look back...

Happy gaming,

Kevin

[Lawless1]

I use both,, arcs if I'm trying to intercept a TF and I have an idea of the TF relative bearing

All other times 360, unless lot of land mass would be in search. This mostly along WC or AU.

IIRC with or without set arc the ac will conduct 360 search out to four hex if range is greater than 4

[InfiniteMonkey]

My experience matches your own. I do not use arcs. However, plenty will chime in here saying they work fine and they use them all the time.

I started out by setting arcs for EVERYTHING on the theory that focused arcs would mean better rates of detection. I discovered that good sized TF's at long range (like Force Z on day 1) were completely missed over 80% of the time with everything using search arcs. As soon as I re-ran the turn with 1 single Netty group in Saigon on 360 search (no arcs), I was about 90% detection on Force Z. The ONLY thing I changed was removing arcs from the Netty group. I posted, and was told basically that they worked, and it was my imagination/randomness.

I then worked up a test scenario where I moved a base force and some patrol assets to Marcus Island (24 x E13A1 Jake squadron iirc), then surrounded it at 6 hexes with single ship Allied TF's with a single AK (same AK in every TF). I then ran a variety of tests using arcs and 360 - and got close to the same results. I did not do a ton of testing with this - I only noted that arcs DID seem to work at range 6.

My current working theory/experience is that 360 search is more effective at long ranges. I do not recall seeing significant differences closer in. I have to admit though that my testing on this was limited. After making all those TF's in the editor, I re-played the turn with various settings, but did not keep careful track of results. One day, I will probably test more, but for now, I just leave all my Naval search at 360 degrees of search.

Honestly, the 360 degree search is way too good for the number of planes you have to commit to it.

[geofflambert]

I sometimes use arcs for ASW patrols when I know exactly where I expect to find enemy subs and wish for there to be a minimum of one morning sweep and one afternoon sweep (but hopefully more than that) in that zone.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

My experience matches your own. I do not use arcs. However, plenty will chime in here saying they work fine and they use them all the time.

I started out by setting arcs for EVERYTHING on the theory that focused arcs would mean better rates of detection. I discovered that good sized TF's at long range (like Force Z on day 1) were completely missed over 80% of the time with everything using search arcs. As soon as I re-ran the turn with 1 single Netty group in Saigon on 360 search (no arcs), I was about 90% detection on Force Z. The ONLY thing I changed was removing arcs from the Netty group. I posted, and was told basically that they worked, and it was my imagination/randomness.

I then worked up a test scenario where I moved a base force and some patrol assets to Marcus Island (24 x E13A1 Jake squadron iirc), then surrounded it at 6 hexes with single ship Allied TF's with a single AK (same AK in every TF). I then ran a variety of tests using arcs and 360 - and got close to the same results. I did not do a ton of testing with this - I only noted that arcs DID seem to work at range 6.

My current working theory/experience is that 360 search is more effective at long ranges. I do not recall seeing significant differences closer in. I have to admit though that my testing on this was limited. After making all those TF's in the editor, I re-played the turn with various settings, but did not keep careful track of results. One day, I will probably test more, but for now, I just leave all my Naval search at 360 degrees of search.

Honestly, the 360 degree search is way too good for the number of planes you have to commit to it.

According to the literature, assigning a group to begin 0 and end 0 on the search arcs will make the arcs "random." In my experience, these "random" search arcs are not random. Instead they tend to concentrate in the direction of the nearest enemy base or the nearest spotted enemy TF.

The best reason to use "non-random" search arcs is to prevent spotting TFs. In your example of the Nells and Betties at Saigon, let us say that the allies have placed AVG and a couple AKLs at Tavoy in order to create a Cap trap (a very good tactic, BTW). As the Japanese player, I am wise to your allied Cap-trapping ways, and I want those Nells and Betties to attack TFs in and around Singapore, but not around Tavoy. In this case, I would use search arcs to prevent my search planes from spotting that TF at Tavoy so that my Nells and Betties set to naval attack, range 15, would not fly into your fiendishly devised allied Cap trap.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

My experience matches your own. I do not use arcs. However, plenty will chime in here saying they work fine and they use them all the time.

I started out by setting arcs for EVERYTHING on the theory that focused arcs would mean better rates of detection. I discovered that good sized TF's at long range (like Force Z on day 1) were completely missed over 80% of the time with everything using search arcs. As soon as I re-ran the turn with 1 single Netty group in Saigon on 360 search (no arcs), I was about 90% detection on Force Z. The ONLY thing I changed was removing arcs from the Netty group. I posted, and was told basically that they worked, and it was my imagination/randomness.

I then worked up a test scenario where I moved a base force and some patrol assets to Marcus Island (24 x E13A1 Jake squadron iirc), then surrounded it at 6 hexes with single ship Allied TF's with a single AK (same AK in every TF). I then ran a variety of tests using arcs and 360 - and got close to the same results. I did not do a ton of testing with this - I only noted that arcs DID seem to work at range 6.

My current working theory/experience is that 360 search is more effective at long ranges. I do not recall seeing significant differences closer in. I have to admit though that my testing on this was limited. After making all those TF's in the editor, I re-played the turn with various settings, but did not keep careful track of results. One day, I will probably test more, but for now, I just leave all my Naval search at 360 degrees of search.

Honestly, the 360 degree search is way too good for the number of planes you have to commit to it.

According to the literature, assigning a group to begin 0 and end 0 on the search arcs will make the arcs "random." In my experience, these "random" search arcs are not random. Instead they tend to concentrate in the direction of the nearest enemy base or the nearest spotted enemy TF.

The best reason to use "non-random" search arcs is to prevent spotting TFs. In your example of the Nells and Betties at Saigon, let us say that the allies have placed AVG and a couple AKLs at Tavoy in order to create a Cap trap (a very good tactic, BTW). As the Japanese player, I am wise to your allied Cap-trapping ways, and I want those Nells and Betties to attack TFs in and around Singapore, but not around Tavoy. In this case, I would use search arcs to prevent my search planes from spotting that TF at Tavoy so that my Nells and Betties set to naval attack, range 15, would not fly into your fiendishly devised allied Cap trap.

You can also choke back the range on your bombers to avoid the cap trap. For instance, Port Moresby is usually a really good place for the Allied player to create a cap trap for the IJN players bombers in Rabaul. However, if you set the Nell/Betty max range to 10, you avoid any attacks on Port Moresby, but can still engage stuff at Milne Bay.

Choking back the range also works when defending against amphibious assaults. Set your range to no more than 2 hexes (1 if you really just want to hurt the amphibious task force) and you can usually avoid your bombers attacking heavily defended carrier groups and instead hitting the softer transports in the invasion hex, being that most players will use carriers to support an invasion, but rarely put them closer than 2-3 hexes from the actual attack sight. My logic behind it is, carriers cannot capture land bases, troops can.

As for Timotheus original question, I use both also. And like others it really depends on vicinity of large land masses, known choke points (around Takao for example), or wanting to avoid cap traps and still be able to strike at stuff further out from Rabaul for example.

[Lokasenna]

Arcs work, but there are some quirks you need to know about to use them effectively. Without going into detail, the best things to do are:

* Use arcs when a large landmass is present (e.g., ASW duty out of Palembang - no need to fly over land)

* Use arcs when trying not to detect (and therefore strike at) TFs under heavy CAP

* Don't use arcs when using shorter range planes and at an island (e.g., Jakes at Iwo-Jima). With a sufficient group size, you can get 360' coverage.

It's important to know that each plane on search in each phase will only cover a 10' arc. If you don't set them, these will be entirely random. Also note that at range 1, 6 arcs are within each of the hexes in the first ring... in the second ring of 12, there are 3 arcs in each hex. At 3 hexes distance, there are 18 arcs so 2 arcs per hex. And so forth... Conversely, this means that out at long ranges, you will not be getting full coverage within that 10' arc. Nothing you can do about that.

ORIGINAL: Shark7
most players will use carriers to support an invasion, but rarely put them closer than 2-3 hexes from the actual attack sight. My logic behind it is, carriers cannot capture land bases, troops can.

Mmmm, VPs to harvest. I like the way this tastes in the score screen. If you're invading, don't do this. If you're being invaded, hope that your opponent does this.

[geofflambert]

CVEs are for that duty. CVs win or lose carrier battles. Using CVs to support amphibious invasions is extremely hazardous to begin with. Can't stay long. I'm with Fletcher on that.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

CVEs are for that duty. CVs win or lose carrier battles. Using CVs to support amphibious invasions is extremely hazardous to begin with. Can't stay long. I'm with Fletcher on that.

You will need both against a proper defense.

If you don't... it's divide and conquer, only your opponent doesn't have to do the dividing part because you already did it for him.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

CVEs are for that duty. CVs win or lose carrier battles. Using CVs to support amphibious invasions is extremely hazardous to begin with. Can't stay long. I'm with Fletcher on that.

I think most AFBs would be pretty happy to see a large amphibious TF moving toward an airfield with only Hosho and Taiyo for fighter cover.

[rustysi]

I play as Japan and use them most of, if not all of the time. From what I've read here they are supposed to work, and I've not experienced anything to the contrary.

[CaptBeefheart]

I like 360 myself. My last game I didn't even bother avoiding continental landmasses. Very anecdotally and unscientifically, setting arcs does not seem to be worth the clicks.

Cheers,
CC

[crsutton]

I use both depending on the situation. I do not set arcs for aircraft searching from carriers. All bombers on a carrier are set at 10% search with no arcs. I can remember ever not spotting an enemy TF and getting surprised. Except in bad weather that is. If I can spare it, one avenger squadron using drop tanks set at %80 search at max range really helps out. I am starting to use some night searching too as Canoerebel has made a good case for that raising DLs for the next day's combat.

[Amoral]

I like to set them, because it lets me visually inspect the map for gaps in my search coverage. Random arcs don't show at all.

I don't like to post my anecdotes, because I think confirmation bias fucks with our memories.

[rustysi]

I do not set arcs for aircraft searching from carriers.

Yeah, I would not attempt this either.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
My experience matches your own. I do not use arcs. However, plenty will chime in here saying they work fine and they use them all the time [+ analysis that really matters]

Again, excellent stuff [&o] I gave up using them loooong time ago too.