Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index

Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Intelligence improvement

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message


Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,091
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Tue 31 Jul - 10:03 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

My first thought
Do not hesitate to react and add ideas

Ships show only
  • Class. Also could be sometimes mistaken by scouts or during an air attack (a CA being reported as a BB for instance)
  • Burning 
  • Listing
  • Speed 
  • Destroyed turrets
  • Planes on deck ?
  • For TF at level 4, show the ships but possible confusion on the type.
  • Rough estimate of claim hits, life loss during battle, To be confirmed and updated by scouts. Often overestimated (up to 100%?)
  • Critical damage such as life loss (structural damage) could be also faked
  • The battle animations will only show the claimed hits and its effects. So it is possible to claim a sunk CV while it remains afloat in reality
  • After the battle, update the Task Force counter to reflect the claims. If all CV are believed to be sunk, then do not display them anymore 

  • do not show air units lost by lack or fuel, airbase hit or bad landing conditions
  • Battle reports based on claims only 
  • Damage confirmation ?

  • Based of damage claim not by the reality until confirmation is received 
  • Aircraft losses based only on claims. No way to confirm
  • Correct at the end of game

  • Use a king of intelligence system : ex L1 Large/Medium/Small or 10 air units , L2 Rough number of fighters and bombers, L3 better precision plus aircraft by types
  • Chance to increase at each new detection. 
  • Before the battle the number go to L3
  • During the battle, the number of survivors, damaged and destroyed is also approximated 
  • The exact number of CAP is also approximative (total and type of fighter)
  • Only gather intelligence on an attacked TF is there is at least one surviving air unit

At the end of the game, 
  • disclose everything on map, VP, damage report of ships
  • possibility to inspect enemy airbases 
  • The logs won’t be updated, they will still depict claims

Back to top

PostPosted: Tue 31 Jul - 10:03 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top


Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat 4 Aug - 14:51 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

Hi Cyril,
Still working during summer holidays... Cool
It sounds fine.
Actually i will have some comments but i will do it when i will be back home. Wink

Back to top


Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Fri 10 Aug - 16:11 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

OK, so here are some comments.

Regarding ships, i fully agree about giving information about class of ships plus speed and information about damages like burning or listing or losing oil seeds in the water maybe... OK also for information about planes on decks. Of course, all these information are subject to possible mistake, especially regarding the class of ships.
I am against the idea of giving information about destroyed turrets, i think this is too much precise information. The same for critical (structural) damage.
I think information should be given about claimed hits and information about ships smoking, burning, listing, or stopped (crippled) in the water; to be confirmed by scouts since the information could be wrong.
Very nice idea to update the TF counters in accordance with the claimed results.
Regarding hits claims, i think we can go up to 150% overestimation. Typically near misses may be counted as hits and they were a lot of it.
One idea: i think overestimation should be tied to the numbers of aircraft surviving the attack: the more the survivors, the more the witnesses, the better the information (not 100% precise of course); conversely, the less the survivors the poorer the information. And, as you propose, if there is no survivor to the attack (the lasts being shot down by AA fire after the attack), no information at all should be given to attacking side (except if there are some escorting fighters and if some of them get back but it should be very poor information).

Regarding logs, i fully agree with the proposition. I think we can admit getting (and displaying) additional battle information coming from scouts.

Regarding airstrike, i again fully agree with all the propositions. Overclaiming should be quite high from 100% to some 300 or even 400% (to be tested). We know that, in some cases, pilots claimed more destroyed enemy planes than there actually were initially. This is valid for both sides but especially for the Japanese side whose pilots were very optimistic.
As a rule of thumb, i would increase overclaiming by respect to the number of planes engaged.

OK for VP: display should be made according to claims and updated at the end of the game.
Too bad not updating the log, it could be fun to show (and analyze) discrepancies between reality and claims but i guess it would difficult to program.

Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé

PostPosted: Today at 21:39 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  

Index | Administration Panel | Create own nforum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group