Air combat vs report

[Sieppo]

Example: action movie shows two planes as destroyed. Report shows one. Which one is lying ?

[Shellshock]

The post-combat report is more accurate than the heat of combat report.

[JocMeister]

Are you sure about that? I always thought it was the other way around?

[Lokasenna]

I'm pretty sure the actual replay is much more accurate than the combat report. The combat report seems to include a heavier degree of FOW, while the replay is accurate to within a plane or two. In my experience.

Maybe it's that way by design to reward people who actually have the patience to watch the animations.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Maybe it's that way by design to reward people who actually have the patience to watch the animations.

Combat porn? Two carriers, a battleship and numerous cruisers and destroyers.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I'm pretty sure the actual replay is much more accurate than the combat report. The combat report seems to include a heavier degree of FOW, while the replay is accurate to within a plane or two. In my experience.

Maybe it's that way by design to reward people who actually have the patience to watch the animations.

Hmm. I always figured it was the other way around as my reports always seem less optimistic than my animations.

But I won't complain if I'm shooting down more bombers than I thought. [:D]

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Are you sure about that? I always thought it was the other way around?

I also thought like this..

[Sardaukar]

Fog of War.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Fog of War.

+1

The replay can provide good details on performance and how your CAP is working, but in terms of actual results .... at least on the IJ side I can tell you they both have a lot of FOW. I discount allied losses by 30% to get more accurate. Whereas my losses are usually understated a bit ...

[Thayne]

Observing my own combat reports, I can count on one finger the number of times when the losses shown in the combat display didn't match the number I actually lost . . . and I consider the losses the enemy suffers to be just as accurate. Given such a sturdy track record, I was quite taken aback that one time when the losses that I had thought I had taken in an air battle turned out to be one greater than the losses I actually took.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Thayne

Observing my own combat reports, I can count on one finger the number of times when the losses shown in the combat display didn't match the number I actually lost . . . and I consider the losses the enemy suffers to be just as accurate. Given such a sturdy track record, I was quite taken aback that one time when the losses that I had thought I had taken in an air battle turned out to be one greater than the losses I actually took.

I sincerely hope you have more than one finger. [:'(]

[PaxMondo]

Either counts different than me, or has a lot better luck. I know my luck is quite poor ... I used mine all up when I found Mrs. Pax and I'm really good with it. [;)]

<refer to my Dorniers post earlier today to see my typical luck ...>

[Jorge_Stanbury]

In my experiences, the combat replay is almost always very close to reality --> this for air-to-air

for ship-vs-ship or air-vs-ship: I would say I trust it completely

[tigercub]

i did think that the combat was what was going on...and the report had the FOW.

so this is news to me if they both have FOW.

Tigercub

[geofflambert]

You'll sometimes notice that the wrong enemy ship(s) may be cited in the report (this goes for the ships sunk screen too), the replay is always correct.

[tigercub]

i use to count kills in air to air dog fights and see who got credited with the kill this made me think replay was good but not the report.

Tigercub

[rev rico]

Here is an interesting difference between the two in my recent PBEM RA game.

First, the Japanese Combat Report reads:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Cairns at 93,139
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid detected at 59 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 87
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3
A-24 Banshee x 2
B-17D Fortress x 13
P-40E Warhawk x 42
SB2U-3 Vindicator x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 1 damaged
A-24 Banshee: 1 destroyed
B-17D Fortress: 6 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 8 destroyed
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CVL Zuiho, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires
CVL Shoho, Bomb hits 1
CV Junyo
CVL Ryujo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CVE Hosho, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires

==============================================================
Now, this is what the Allied player saw on his Combat Replay

Morning Air attack on TF, near Cairns at 93,139 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 55 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 76
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3
A-24 Banshee x 14
B-17D Fortress x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 12
SB2U-3 Vindicator x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 2 destroyed
A-24 Banshee: 6 destroyed, 1 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 7 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Zuiho, Bomb hits 1
CVE Hosho

[&:] BIG TIME FOW

[Sieppo]

Wow [:D]

[PaxMondo]

Rev Rick,

Typical FOW. Great example. Thanks for sharing that one. No matter how many times you tell new players about FOW, they have to see something like that to really get the idea.

Ditto VP's ... my current game is telling me for allied ship losses:
51 ships
512 VP

but the allied side has actually lost:
102 ships
2095 VP


and it gets better; if I open up the sunk ship lists, 11 of the ships on my list are not sunk, they are just badly damaged.

Just saying, if you are playing a 'numbers' game tallying up what you have destroyed against what the other side gets you want to be just a "wee" careful with your assumption of what was destroyed.

[Czert]

ORIGINAL: rev rico

Here is an interesting difference between the two in my recent PBEM RA game.

First, the Japanese Combat Report reads:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Cairns at 93,139
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid detected at 59 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 87
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3
A-24 Banshee x 2
B-17D Fortress x 13
P-40E Warhawk x 42
SB2U-3 Vindicator x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 1 damaged
A-24 Banshee: 1 destroyed
B-17D Fortress: 6 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 8 destroyed
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CVL Zuiho, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires
CVL Shoho, Bomb hits 1
CV Junyo
CVL Ryujo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CVE Hosho, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires

==============================================================
Now, this is what the Allied player saw on his Combat Replay

Morning Air attack on TF, near Cairns at 93,139 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 55 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 76
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3
A-24 Banshee x 14
B-17D Fortress x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 12
SB2U-3 Vindicator x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 2 destroyed
A-24 Banshee: 6 destroyed, 1 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed
SB2U-3 Vindicator: 7 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Zuiho, Bomb hits 1
CVE Hosho

[&:] BIG TIME FOW

I asume that causalties for own side are allways 100% acurate , so just hope for best for enemy side.