|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 2, 2019 15:17:27 GMT -6
Don't we all...
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 2, 2019 15:56:37 GMT -6
In the above video, I can understand how cloudy conditions prevent planes from attacking. I can understand how cloudy conditions prevent planes from attacking. As I said before, I fully support weather to affect sight range of planes. Frankly, I cannot envision a scenario where visibility is good at the surface, yet prevents torpedo bombers from making an approach on target. (I.e., the only cases where I can imagine a cloud layer at the 100-200 foot level that would prevent torpedo bomber approaches would also prevent visibility of this range.) But I'm not an expert, so if that really is possible, I await enlightenment. Okay, so in RTW2 me might be dealing with 2 types of visibility. The one listed in the bottom right of your battle screen is your ship's sight range. That's affected by weather. Fog is just a cloud at low altitude for sake of argument and they go up from there. What your ship can 'see' is often different from what your planes can see which is the other type of visibility that's more esoteric in function. There's no AI logic in RTW2 that can distinguish from 'takeoff' altitude and 'cruising' altitude, although I may be mistaken, because there is a Max speed and a Cruise speed for aircraft and one is used for attack on ships, and the other is used for higher altitude cruising where you not only get smoother air, but better fuel economy. Dive bombers will begin at or below 10,000 feet while torp bombers drop low right above the water. So who can see what depending on altitude and could cover conditions? It's complicated where a ship may have next to zero visibility, but a few thousand feet up you're not looking thru all that haze and can see clearly the ships in the fog below. The bottom line is that there's no coding 'catch-all' in game for logic that we'd like to see and adding or taking away something could break it all. What I'd like to see happen is planes should be able to have a longer sight range than ships, of course weather will affect and that way they'd be more likely to engage nearby enemy ships. Also, the UI needs to have a 'Defend Division' targeting mechanism that allows planes to fly circles over a friendly division you choose that will engage any enemy ship that attacks that division. That'd be hugely useful and would nearly completely solve the issue of you sending your planes to empty ocean to have them just circle for the rest of the battle uselessly. Heres the bug report: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3791/planes-flying-location-engage-enemy
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Oct 2, 2019 16:09:16 GMT -6
tortugapower , I don't believe we were talking about a torpedo run, which of necessity was typically done at quite low altitude and could occur only after the ships had been sighted. We were discussing sighting ranges, a whole different ballgame. However you are absolutely correct that the same sighting conditions would apply to a TB making a torpedo run as would apply to the target ship itself. During their attack run torpedo bombers of necessity entered the same claustrophobic airspace as their targets. This means that battlefield conditions such as smoke could also impact the accuracy of their attacks. In fact, both the Japanese and the Americans had plans to equip some planes with smoke making apparatus so they could lay smoke between the torpedo bombers and the enemy ships with the intention of reducing the effectiveness of AA fire while the TBs made their runs. The first strike mission flown by Enterprise just after the start of the war (which found no enemy ships) included 6 SBDs equipped with this apparatus. I don't recall reading that aerial smoke was ever actually used but the concept certainly illustrates the intimacy of a torpedo bomber attack.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Oct 2, 2019 18:10:47 GMT -6
There are two separate issues under discussion in this thread, the intercept battle airstrike bug (see the bug report thread), and the aircraft sighting range discussion. We ought to separate them because one has nothing to do with the other.
At some point I would like to see some more sophistication in the aerial spotting mechanics, but I don't think that is the major issue relating to the topical problem. Strike aircraft need to follow more logical search patterns if no enemy is found at the specified location, and return after a reasonable time. It would be awesome to add some recall and redirect tech at some point, and add the spotting polish, but let's get the basics first.
|
|
ck07
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by ck07 on Jun 4, 2022 12:10:35 GMT -6
I've had this issue at the very launch of the game. I put a CVL on convoy protection or raiding, and got into a 1v1 duel against a CL. I spent my time launching aircraft at a CL just at visual range, and yet my bombers never attacked it. That was particularly stupid, because it was the middle of the Pacific. I'm telling my bombers: "you see that ship at the edge of the horizon from us? Go bomb it!" There's nothing else around, and yet they failed. Here is the start of the battle: youtu.be/oSmq6Y0ICWw?t=6417Here is sample stupidity: youtu.be/oSmq6Y0ICWw?t=6739Check the second timestamp there for the quick view (and scan forward as desired). The plane takes off with my carrier in visual range of the enemy. It flies to the side and doesn't engage. It might be nice to have a "engage this target" option, which works for both visual contacts and sighting reports (I want you to focus on the CV of this CV + BB group, or I want you to focus on the CL of this BB + CL group, for my own selfish reasons). I've seen equally bad in clear weather. Targets ~30 nm from two CVLs, ~due S and fleeing S. I launched airstrikes from both, targeting them ~12 nm further S beyond the enemy (allowing for spotting and launch time, a bit further might have been better, but that turned out not to matter). The strike from one CVL went there and attacked. The other strike flew away to the WNW, > 90 o off from the direction ordered and continued to meander around in that direction for their whole time aloft. I think this qualifies as a bug.
|
|
|
Post by sjpc302 on Jun 9, 2022 14:29:20 GMT -6
I would also add that the default spread of scouting aircraft is very often insufficient to spot an enemy. Throughout the battle, I find it necessary to send out extra floatplanes and the odd fighter to actually find the enemy and keep a fix on them.
In addition, the aircrafts lack of situational awareness and discretion in regards to targeting can be frustrating compared to historical attacks where targets are competently allocated and evenly attacked. Nothing is more frustrating than launching on the enemy CV's to find out after the battle your planes hit a transport with 12 torpedoes even though the CVs were 20nm away. I've seen some battles with over a dozen bomb hits and more that FORTY torpedo hits on a single enemy battleship because every plane ignored the rest of the battle line and went after a crippled ship. I know that crippled ships have been discussed before, but I don't think the Bismarck alone getting clobbered or the IJN mistaking the Yorktown for a different CV are the same as >100 aircraft dumping all of their ordnance into a sinking ship while 16" shells are flying both ways in a critical battle in sight of the sinking ship.
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Jun 13, 2022 15:19:37 GMT -6
One thing that makes me feel this might be partly due to a bug is that my surface ships almost never tell me that an enemy ship is "sinking" when it actually is. When it is stationary it almost always is marked as "light", "medium", or "heavy" damage. Almost the only time they are marked as "sinking" is when they are still quite clearly mobile, which might happen occasionally in real life, but not at the expense of never correctly identifying an actually sinking ship.
So if airplanes can make this same mistake, it might make them never correctly identify that a ship is sinking, causing them to attack more often than they would if the status they assumed a ship was in was sometimes "sinking" rather than always light, medium, or heavy damage.
|
|