|
Alikchi posted:
Source seems to be this: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=400722&start=20 Seems like the detection malus for 360 degree search is too small, or the automatic 4-hex search is used for all hexes in plane range or something. Or the malus is just applied to detection level, meaning you get more hits, but lower DLs on the hits, we can't be sure when the test criteria was "The detected TF reported seeing a plane" and not the actual DLs the spotting side got. If the "better" search just results in a lot of detection level 1 hits, they will be reset to DL 0 on the next 12-hour pulse, so effectively not very useful and may not even be visible (I'm not sure if the order phase takes place within a 12-hour pulse or between them, that is if the reduction of DLs happen between last turns day pulse and the orders phase or during turn resolution just before the night pulse.). "Interesting, but needs more testing" would be my verdict.
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2024 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Alikchi posted:
But Tokyo Bay fortress IS at Yokohama/Yokosuka, because that is where Tokyo Bay starts. It's at the mouth of the bay.  quote:Yes. I think I'll slowly start 360-ifying my coverage where it makes sense. I need to shuffle my PBYs around anyways. An AVD is en route to Nauru - that'll be a good central position for a squadron. I'll post this in the other thread too, but wow... I ran some tests and I'll never set another search arc again. I modded the Coral Sea scenario to test, for manageability. (E: tested on beta 1123) I tested with three japanese TFs stationary in different hexes, but all at range 9 from Port Moresby. The TFs ranged from 6 ships at 25k tons, 16 ships at 61k tons and a carrier TF at 10 ships and 91k tons. (TFs 4, 7 and 1 in the scenario) All three were within a 60 degree arc.  The search squadron was VP-11 out of Port Moresby, flying PBY-4s, with 55-70 NavS-skill and ~70 exp.  I ran the test for a total of 40 turns, so 120 potential detections (3 TFs x 40 turns). 10 turns each at 30% search with arc (single pass) and 60% search with arc (double pass), and then 10 turns each at 30% and 60% search and no arc. Range 10 for every test.  Detections and spottings were pretty much equal between arc and no arc, going up with the number of planes flown. At 30% search I spotted the TFs about 60% of the time, at 60% search about 80% of the time. But! The no arc planes got double(!) the detection levels. 10/10 detections were common in the no arc group, and 5/5 more common in the arc group (I never got more than 9/9 in the arc group, and that only once). From 0/0 unspotted to DL 12/10 on the first day of 60% search, no arc...   Weather didn't seem to matter much if at all for search, I got 10/10s in thunderstorms and 1/4s and total misses in clear sky. So setting search arcs seems to be actively harmful even if you KNOW the enemy is at that bearing, to say nothing of the chance of the enemy being outside the arc. It's of course possible the effect changes with increasing range, I think I'll run some more tests at max betty range just in case. Other trivia: - If a TF reported being seen in the OPS log, is was always visible to the enemy on the map next turn. The flavor text (snooped, followed, shadowed, sighted, detected etc.) did not seem to matter. - If a TF reported being seen by a specific plane model (PBY-4 Catalina) it was always the correct plane, but when they reported generics like Float Plane, Patrol, Recon or LevelBomber, it was almost never correct (but they at least never mistook the Catalinas for carrier planes).  - The "TF Spotted" mouseover text the japanese got was NOT always correct, that is, they were commonly spotted even when "TF Spotted" was missing, but never unspotted if it was present. - The OPS log of the observing (allied) side was garbage, and never generated a message for actually observed TFs. This has to be another bug. The only exception was when they reported seeing a specific ship or ship class, the positions of those were correct. But that happened once in those 40 turns and 85 observations. None of the other 84 were visible in the Allied OPS log, ONLY on-screen during the turn resolution and on the map in the next orders phase. Every single "PBY-4 from VP-11 reports X japanese ships at Y, Z heading foo, speed bar" was random bullshit like you get even when no enemy is present.  When I think of the collective player-hours spent painstakingly setting search arcs through the years... 
Caconym fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
MeatloafCat posted:Thank you for doing that testing. I tend to leave my CVs on 360 search out of laziness, so maybe that's why they always seem to do ok with spotting. I wonder if ASW would have the same issues? Anecdotally yes, I previously used the same modded scenario to test ASW vs NavS missions for sub spotting, since the manual states NavS will occasionally spot subs. (TL;DR: almost never, NavS is NOT a poor mans ASW) So there's 10 japanese subs stationed around PM as well in my setup, and I set some squadrons to ASW no arc and they regularly spot all 10. Haven't run a dedicated arc vs no arc for that though. It's a bit annoying to test ASW, as the editor doesn't let you customize pilot skills directly, only XP. So you can add pilots with high XP, and they'll get good skills in the skills associated with the plane types of their squadron. But Patrols only get good NavS skills, and no plane type seems to inherently grant good ASW skills, so they all suck with ~30-ish ASW skill. Even with 5 squadrons of Catalinas and Mitchells set to 100% ASW I have never seen an actual bomb hit on a sub in these tests. Lots of detections and attacks and "SS reported HIT" messages, but no actual damage to the subs. I assume this is a pilot skill issue as subs really do get hit occasionally in "real" games, but it makes stuff like altitude effects on ASW effectiveness very hard to test. I'd need to train up good ASW skills within the test scenario, and I can't be assed to do that. I also confirmed that ASW TFs will never react to subs spotted by planes. I don't think they can, as sub detection levels are reset each phase, so a sub TF will always have a DL of 0 during the naval reaction phase. Maximum DL is only halved, but actual DL is set to 0. Something will have to spot the sub before the ASW TF can react, but the naval reaction phase comes before the air phase, so... Subs get a chance to attack before the reaction phase, and this will add to the DL of the sub, so I assume that an ASW TF can react IFF a sub makes an attack within its reaction range during the same 12 hour pulse. Subs also get an attack chance during the movement phase, and once again at the end of the naval phase, but only the first attack chance will enable an ASW reaction. Haven't tested that though. (Subs won't react eighter, this was added in one of the patches, as they kept reacting into port minefields when patrolling outside)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 11:49
|
|
|
I... ah, found something else... Naval search (and ASW) range is bugged. It stops at range - 1. Search at range 9 will never find a TF at range 9, only at 8 or closer. Same for ASW, if you want to search to range 2 you need to set range 6, not 4. (ASW ranges are halved, rounded down). I tested with odd ranges like 3 and 5 as well, in case the subtraction happened before the halving but to no effect (so the actual range is range - 1 for NavS and (range/2)-1 for ASW). Naval strikes themselves will fly to the full range set. This has rather serious implications for naval strike squadrons set to some percentage search, you have to set them to 1 range more than you want to strike at, with the implication that if something else spots an enemy at that range your strike will fly there, maybe with extended loadouts or without escorts...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 12:19
|
|
|
Plek posted:I mean, it worked pretty well. But yeah I can see having house rule that keeps you from rolling a 1000lb bomb into the side of a boat as good balance and a sanity check. I guess. The game doesn't support changing loadouts over time, so the way they get around this is that bombers fly with half load on low naval (1000 feet) and strafe/skip (100 feet) missions. There are dedicated attack bombers that get their full loadout, mainly later model B25s and A-20s. But fresh pilots don't get lowNav skills, so to really shine you have to do some on-map pilot training (extremely tedious). Fighter pilots also don't get much lowNav/lowGrd, and yes, those are separate skills with zero transfer value. To prevent skip bombing fighters early War, most early war fighters don't get bomb loads to speak of at all, but late war models fling 1000lbers left and right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:
gently caress yes. There's some fuckery with ASW as well, regarding what types of ships will react to a spotted sub or not, but I've not tracked it down exactly yet. It's not class, it's not speed, it's not manouverability, it's not tonnage, it's not durability, it's not leader skill or ship xp or detection levels, but some loving parameter determines if ships in an ASW TF will react or not. Most DDs will react. I haven't found any other ship class that will, not even DEs or PFs. But if I copy a DD in the editor and call it a PF it will react. But japanese Momi DDs won't react. I thought it might be a hidden database field not visible in the editor, but when I took a DD-class that reacts and recreated it from scratch instead of copying it, it did still react. Changing it to the same devices and properties as a PF (but keeping the class as a DD) made it not react any more. Annoying. Make hunter-killer ASW TFs only from good DDs, and make the other classes do escort I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 10:12
|
|