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
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,147
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 



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



VP
  • 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



Airstrikes
  • 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
Publicité






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

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 415

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
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 415

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
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 51
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Sat 18 Aug - 21:15 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

There is little I can disagree with jp on his post.


(For first strike) this 
The Admiral wanted to know where the fleet carriers were, how many, and in what direction they were travelling.
Just that, perhaps if the CV was operational ie deck damage


As posted earlier, WHO does the sighting is most important.
Army bomber pilots and army single seaters, on both sides, appear to be the worst, 
followed by naval single seaters, and the best - naval recon eg Mavis and Catalina.


As important, but not yet factored in, was the quality and experience of the crews.
If we ever have a campaign, then is this is a major issue


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,147
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sat 18 Aug - 21:47 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

Actually the 3.1 will introduce some differences regarding scouting ability
For instance SBD, PBY, B5N, H6K... are good scouts
Others are half efficient


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 415

PostPosted: Sat 18 Aug - 22:50 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Actually the 3.1 will introduce some differences regarding scouting ability
For instance SBD, PBY, B5N, H6K... are good scouts
Others are half efficient


Very nice idea Okay
Especially USAAF B17s crews were quite bad at identifying ships.
Some of them just bombed Allied cruisers during the battle of Coral Sea.
Fortunately, they were as bad at bombing ships than at identifying them...


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 415

PostPosted: Sat 18 Aug - 23:01 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

SBD wrote:
As important, but not yet factored in, was the quality and experience of the crews.
If we ever have a campaign, then is this is a major issue


Fully agree with this.
Actually i think this is something that could even be added within the frame of tiimeline limited battles like we currently have in the game.
The idea would be to introduce "designated" units (VF-2, Tainan Kokutai etc.) in the game and we know that some of them were elite units while others were not, some of them were very experienced while others were green. This could be nice and add some "chrome" to the game.
But i don't think this is a top priority for BR...


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 734

PostPosted: Sun 26 Aug - 19:30 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

All of the above adds toward realisim. However in reporting ship damage I think it should be general, Light, Moderate or Heavy. Fire, Oil and Listing (for large ships)  


As for turrets it might be easier to see on BBs but not on smaller ship. It requires scouts to hang around and fly lower for such details. I simply don’t know what type of detailed reports scouts gave. 


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 700

PostPosted: Tue 28 Aug - 18:06 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

Comments are in blue

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 

Destroyed turrets? Hard unless very close.
I dunno but I think structural damage is hard to determine from outside, however, when the waterline is getting real low, one will know there is a belly full of water.


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

All good

VP
  • 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

All good

Airstrikes
  • 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

IIRC, there was always a chance that the CAP and the bombers miss entirely each other......
And even with air radar, there is no way to get the exact number of attackers in a group.  It is always an approximation even when they arrive...

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

I have been asking for the first point for the whole time


Also, take away the extra time thing.  I dunno others, but I don't use this one.


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 700

PostPosted: Tue 28 Aug - 18:15 (2018)    Post subject: Intelligence improvement Reply with quote

When it comes to "human factor" in wargaming, in general it is always trouble.  Man, I have gone through too much such arguments (e.g. Wittman should be one-shot-one-kill in his Tiger tank) back in the Combat Missions days. Sometimes, such abstract data is very hard to be incorporated into a game: should VF-3 be considered of "veteran" skill level in Midway? What about Val groups on Akagi?  It is a neverending argument and I don't see how this helps in the current game model. My $0.2

Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 14:11 (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