Some thoughts on manually created searches

[jwsmith26]

There seems to be an impression that it is very difficult to send out a manually created search. I find it quite easy to set up a squadron for recon missions and then manually create my own search pattern. You simply 'ready' a group of single plane recon missions. Once readied, you can send out each plane on its own recon mission. Setting up searches manually has a number of advantages that I'll discuss below.

The readying process goes fairly quickly because, once set, the strike attributes are sticky. You only have to set the strike size to '1' once. the same is true for the mission type and bomb load. So you simply set up a strike as 'Recon', with a strength of one plane, and a light bomb load. Those parameters remain in place as you ready as many individual planes as you need. Setting separate target locations for each plane that you launch allows you to custom tailor the distance, density and breadth of your search.

I've included two videos to illustrate the process. The first video shows me setting up a squadron of 8 dive bombers for use in a manual search. The second video shows me assigning 6 of those planes to execute a search pattern that I create. (In this case I am sending out a backup search to keep an eye on a carrier force I recently discovered 100 nm away, and to make sure there are no neighboring enemy forces.) Setting up the manual search took about 30 seconds while assigning the search pattern and launching the search took about a minute. It is hardly the onerous process that it has been made out to be.

Video showing the process of setting up a search group:
Direct link to the video:  i.imgur.com/ftIy9Ah.mp4




Video showing the process of setting a pattern and launching a search group:
Direct link to the video: i.imgur.com/gmz2rvf.mp4



By setting up a search in this way you can use any plane type you want. If I am going to be searching an area that I suspect or know contains enemy carriers I'll use fighters for the search pattern to lessen the chance that the searching plane will be shot down by the enemy CAP. I haven't done this yet but it would also be possible to send out a pair of planes on each search vector as a single strike to make them even tougher. If I have several squadrons, I'll pick the squadron equipped with the least effective models or weapons for use in the recon role. Many planes seem to be orphaned from their squadron by the game system and find themselves stranded as single plane sections for extended periods. A recon mission provides an effective way to use these orphaned planes. There is no requirement that all of the planes sent out on manual recon missions be part of the same squadron or even have the same role.

Because you are setting the search path for each plane you can avoid uselessly executing searches over large stretches of land, which often happens when using the standard search pattern. You can easily set up your own two-phase search pattern by staggering your launches.

The manual method will allow you to set the search density. A change introduced in v1.10 has pushed starting forces further apart, sometimes well over 100 nm apart; in fact, I've seen several battles start with carriers around 200 nm apart. The density of planes used by the default search pattern appears to be insufficient to reliably detect enemy forces at distances greater than around 100 nm. The search sectors appear to become too large at that distance. By manually setting the search pattern it is quite easy to double or even triple the density of planes searching the suspected area.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the manual search method is that there is no restriction on when or how often a search can be sent.

A downside to the manual search process compared to the automated system is the time required for the deck crew to set up a strike at the beginning of a battle. The automated process assumes the search planes are already readied and spotted. They start taking off on turn one. Setting up a manual search means the planes must be readied and spotted just like any other strike. Scout floatplanes ready and launch faster than carrier search planes, giving them a slight speed of preparation advantage in a manual search process (though they soon loose any speed advantage over carrier planes when in flight).

This method works for the player and I suppose could be considered to be a cheat because the AI will have to continue to use the standard search pattern when conducting at sea searches. This puts the AI at a substantial disadvantage if it does not discover the player's forces with its single initial search. The player and AI alike will continue to be limited to a single search per day from land bases. (Historically most bases and carrier groups in WW2 sent out two searches per day, one at dawn and another at around midday. It would be nice to incorporate that additional daily search into the automated search procedures. That was the pattern until night aerial patrols became available through a combination of new technology and extensive training, but that's another subject.)

I don't find the process of using a manual search difficult or time consuming. Hopefully we will get a few improvements to the automated search system, but in the meantime setting up manual searches will be a useful, possibly critical, tool given the greater distances now separating starting forces when carriers are involved. 

[akosjaccik]

"I don't find the process of using a manual search difficult or time consuming."

While I do not find it difficult or time consuming compared to the overall gameplay, I'd argue it is more complicated/convoluted than it needs to be, given that the "draw an arc" solution is already present in the game. By setting the plane count for the given arc, a simple division could mean that the player can still manually set the search pattern's density.

But even with that said, I find the manual search method statisfactory, given that I understand that marrying the arc-method with the standard strike panel would require a who-knows amount of work. What I would however certainly like to see in the future is a drawn vector (maybe even with the currently applicable visibility as a zone around the vector?) for the orders as long as the "strike window" is open. In the video you have a good enough reference point and a good idea of the search waypoints' locations with the coastline present, but once the player has to deal with this on the open ocean especially at long ranges, it becomes unwieldy.

[brygun]

Related suggestion you can show support for is showing the last air target

nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3879/show-last-air-position-target?page=1&scrollTo=60300

This would make it possible to see when plotting manual recon where you just send a group. As you work around the circle you can space them out more evenly.

As for myself I am very active in using manual searches. Here are some of my why and how, some will duplicate thus support the original poster.

1) Auto search uses torpedo planes
As I am often ahead of the curve on deploying air craft carriers the enemy is often without or weak in attack planes. Thus I can freely use fighters for recon keeping the strike package together.
Later on the with enemy CAP and AA it still favors a combined large strike to push hits through. At this point I am assigning 2-4 fighters per 10-20 strike squadron. This being to tie up enemy CAP during the attack runs.

2) Different distances
Manual lets you set out different distances. I can send out planes at 100-150 nm and another batch at 60 km. The closer one is more about making sure I dont accidentally blunder into an enemy battle line that comes in at an angle.

3) Fighters in single or pairs
Like the OP I use fighters in single or pairs for recon. The ability of them to fight a bit helps, I feel, in getting through CAP to spot things.

4) Attack search of divebombers and fighters
This is done after the initial recon flights have given a general position of the enemy. Remember the enemy is moving and can change direction. A full attack committed at long range can end up wasting the whole strike if the enemy didn't move as you guessed.
When I am getting a better fix and around 50-100 nm from the enemy my next wave is an attack search. You could also call this a "recon in force". It consists of dive bombers (~8-10) as they can better survive enemy AA to cause initial damage. A pair of fighters (~2) provides protection. I can muster 2 or 3 of these per full 100 plane carrier. In placement they are setup like search planes with each team a few miles from the next. The result is that a few will encounter the enemy and a few may return without attacking.
Once the attack is happening you can click no the messages of the attack and the map moves to exact position. This is where all torpedo planes and their fighter escorts are sent. This has a high success rate in delivering concentrated attacks on the enemy.

5) Late game the enemy CV and BB are in different groups
In the later game the enemy can, just like you do, have their CV and BB forces in different groups. They move differently. CV must keep turning into the wind while the BB go onto their objective. The ranges and directions will diverge. Thus using manual search you can do long range searches favoring upwind for the CV and shorter range along the path for the BB.
This can be used to decide which group to attack. Generally I favor attacking the CV as the long term strategy will leave their BB vulnerable in the next battle. Recon planes can be sent up to keep an eye out to see if the enemy BB has turned to attempt to intercept you.

6) Watching ports for fleeing ships
Manually you can send plane(s) toward the enemy ports. They can watch for retreating damaged ships to be picked off by planes or high speed ships.

[brygun]

Oh, I should also add...

7) BARCAP
Using fighters for a mid range recon search ~50-60 nm might act as a Barrier Combat Air Patrol (BARCAP). Not 100% sure on this. Might need them on "escort" rather than "recon" missions. In modern usage this is spread of fighters to intercept the oncoming enemy strike. As well as a warning it might force them to release their ordnance when going defensive.

[dorn]

jwsmith26

RTW2 right now is much better condition relating to UI compared to version 1.00 however UI is still weak point of RTW2.

I am aware of this process you describe for air search but I do not use it except 1-3 aicrafts to get me fresh information about enemy forces.

I think there can be quite improvement using processes that are already part of RTW2.

I will use black color for processes already presented in RTW2 and blue color for new processes or additions.

1. Player input: selecting squadrons, selecting number of airplanes and choosing mission "recon"

2. Game process: readying airplanes with "recon"

3. Game process: information to player, airplanes are "ready" - note this is not nessesary but improve situation by large margin and it should be not only for this but for all aicrafts on player ships under control (or at least as setttings)

4. Player input: openning air search window

5. Player input: selecting circle of air search and range of air search

6. Player input: there can be 2 options how to do it

        option A: select of number of aicrafts for airsearch pattern selected in 5 (maximum is limited by number of ready aicrafts on recon mission)

        option B: select degrees between 2 airplanes (minimum is limited by number of ready aicrafts on recon mission)

6. Game process: updating drawing of circle showing airplanes courses

8. Player input: confirmation of airsearch

9. Game process: launch of airplanes relating to point 6

There is certainly not the most effective UI but I choose this one as being based on something which is already present in RTW2 and which needs minimum new processes in game. This allows several improvements:

1. better control of air search (player do not need to remeber where he clicks with previous aicrafts to make search which is more important as land is further away)

2. player input is much shorter (setting one squadron together, setting search pattern, confirmation)

Conclusion:

I do not think this is something urgent at actual status of RTW2 however when RTW2 gets into same shape as RTW1 this will be certainly quite an improvement.

[jwsmith26]

Your are correct, dorn . The various process improvements you have mentioned have been suggested, but there is only so much Fredrik can do at one time. My description of the manual process was not meant to suggest that this is the final solution or the best solution, but rather a solution that works currently in the game to circumvent the lack of an afternoon (or anytime) automated search process. Currently this is the only way you can conduct searches other than the first automated search. My intent was to explain the process to those unfamiliar with it. Obviously an expansion of the automated search system would be preferable but at the moment this is what we have.  

[brygun]

Oct 25, 2019 11:25:57 GMT -6 jwsmith26 said:

My intent was to explain the process to those unfamiliar with it.

That seemed apparent. You were posting a tutorial for players. That generally means the new players as old timers probably already know about it but sometimes these tutorials add to their skills.

[brygun]

Well Dizzy is in the post mocking mind set. Speaks poorly of him.

[williammiller]

Since we are not "mincing words" here dizzy , I will be blunt:

I have grown weary of your continued tone and demeanor, and your only slightly hidden attempts to belittle other members and our staff here.

You are this >< close to taking a mandatory 72 hour break from the forums, and a much longer break if you decide to try to escalate.

Test me.

[brygun]

Oct 25, 2019 18:44:49 GMT -6 williammiller said:

Since we are not "mincing words" here dizzy , I will be blunt:

I have grown weary of your continued tone and demeanor, and your only slightly hidden attempts to belittle other members and our staff here.

You are this >< close to taking a mandatory 72 hour break from the forums, and a much longer break if you decide to try to escalate.

Test me.

Thanks williammiller for intervening. I was debating over night to use the report function for deliberate mocking gif response to one of mine (and this before the text followup). Glad to see you were monitoring anyway. Please consider deleting the posts with the mocking gifs that appear a few times in this thread. I can't see new users coming to view the tutorial by a member of the NWS Team benefiting from them.

[williammiller]

I have deleted @dizzys posts in this thread that crossed the line.