How to treat combat animations and combat report as a source of information

[LoBaron]

Concerning my recent post about gathering information on a combat situation
from CR/CA I think it may me a good idea to explain this a bit more detailed.

Both (so also the combat animations) are subject to FOW.
This means nothig what you see is 100% reliable information when it comes to
the enemy assets.
This means when you see an single enemy plane shot down, a single torpedo striking a target or
a single bomb smacking right into the center of the flight deck - treat it with a grain of salt.
This is NOT what happens. This is what the excited pilot, gunner or some sailor with binoculars
TELLS you happens. Men in complex combat situations tend to misinterprete just about everything
around them, even when they are not green anymore. And if they do, the do it usually in favour
of their own side.

Heres my personal view on how to treat what you see:

What the combat animations represent:

The combat animations are a mixture of data which is witnessed "live". Frantic "I got one!!" calls
from fighter pilots, 3 different divebomber crews reporting the same bomb hit a carrier, all believing
it was "their" bomb because they dropped nearly at the same time, a sub crew mistaking an underwater
explosion for a hit although the torpedoe went off early...

Imagine the combat animations as a bunch of very excited people telling you what is happening,
and watch it like this way. Many things really do happen, the tendency which way the battle turns,
and sometimes why, is usually obvious. But single actions can be true or not.

What the combat report represents:

The combat report is a collection of after action reports by the unit commanders. They were exposed
to the same situations you watched right before, or of not, had to base their report on men who were.

This means that the reference to your own forces is usually drop dead accurate. Noone wants a court
martial for faking a report - although this happened often enough. So you can rely on any hint about
what you units did.
For everything which is reported on actions and results of the enemy forces the same FOW rules apply
as for the combat animations. They are wrong. Not completely wrong but at least inaccurate.
And they are inaccurate in favour of your own forces. Damage nearly always looks worse than it is and
people reporting the same action from different angles can often be misinterpreted as witnessing different
actions.


The best source of information is combining as many sources as you can.

There are certain ways to improve and crosscheck what you have seen. Combining the combat animations with
the combat report is a good start.
When loading the turn you can add to this worthwile information: Individual pilot kills (they are more accurate
because usually had to wait for 3rd party confirmation - in game terms I think they are the most accurate
number you will get), sighting/sigint reports, unit stats (fatigue, morale, experience gain), and finally
often your opponents actions on the next turn [;)].

[inqistor]

I have never tested it, but I would say that, if you see that ship is sunk in combat report, you can safely assume, that it was really sunk (although report can actually identify wrong ships, anyway something WAS sunk).

Also I am not sure, but Combat Report seems actually identical for both sides. Surely your loses tends to be bigger, than reported in Combat Report. If you see only few your planes destroyed on ground (or not a all), daily loses summary will surely be bigger.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I have never tested it, but I would say that, if you see that ship is sunk in combat report, you can safely assume, that it was really sunk (although report can actually identify wrong ships, anyway something WAS sunk).

Also I am not sure, but Combat Report seems actually identical for both sides. Surely your loses tends to be bigger, than reported in Combat Report. If you see only few your planes destroyed on ground (or not a all), daily loses summary will surely be bigger.

Yes on sunk ships the report is accurate. This happens mainly with ships whose destruction is
obvious anyway. Heavy damage usually also is correct but there the spectrum of what is reported
as heavy damage is quite broad (except when adding heavy fires to the equation).

On CR being identical for both sides thats news to me. Did you make comparisions?
Sinc the own plane losses are accurate and there is always a discrepancy between shot down enemy planes in the CR as compared to the CA and both
numbers are inaccurate I wonder how this could be possible.

[LoBaron]

inquisitor, I just rechecked on a CR and I may stand corrected. It is entirely possible that concerning loss numbers the own losses are subject to
the same FOW as the enemy losses, so its entirely possible that the CR is identical for both sides.

[Canoerebel]

I've been under the impression that the combat animation is accurate, at least for aerial battles.  When there's a critical dogfight, I'll watch the replay and actually count the number of "destroyed" aircraft.  This seems to tally closely to the numbers reported on the loss screen on the game file and to be much more accurate than the losses reported on the combat report.

[LoBaron]

I think this topic is very interesting, as here you get a feel for how to interprete what you see and draw conclusions on your opponents condition.

Canorebel, if you say your experience is the combat animations are more or less consistent with the loss statistics in the game file, what is your opinion
on many reports I heard over the years (and think I noticed too) that - when comparing both sides - the loss statistics concerning enemy planes are exaggerated up to about
33 - 50%? Do you agree or do you see this different?

Because if the above is true then the exaggeration in kills already begins with the combat animation.

[Canoerebel]

I find that the animation shows more kills than the combat report lists.  My gut feeling is that the animation is more accurate than the combat report.  Part of this is based upon some comments/analysis that Nemo did awhile back, perhaps in his AAR vs. One-Eyed-Jacks, where (IIRC) he noted his belief that the animation is accurate.  I wouldn't stake my life on any of this, mind you, but I've found no reason to doubt the accuracy of the animations.

[HansBolter]

Whenever I choose to skip a combat animation I usually cringe a little when I see the combat report becuase I now have less info to go on.

While I appreciate that there is heavy FOW in the animations, I usually tend to accept that the stupendous results that don't show up in the reports actually happened. I'm talking about the AMMO STORAGE EXPLOSIONS and FUEL STORAGE EXPLOSIONS. I would like to think that those are such stupendous events that the reporting of them isn't just the exaggerations of an overly excited combatant.

The other info loss of not watching the animations is not having a clue what size shell or bomb made the hit. There is a huge difference between 12 .50 cal hits and 12 14" hits.

For these reasons alone, I usually chose to watch most naval and air vs. naval combat animations.

[crsutton]

My question is do the losses on the intel screen, just like actuall ship losses, gradually over time become more accurate? This is if my intell screen tells me that I have shot down 19,000 Japanese planes over the course of two years, is that an accurate reading or just an accumulation of my own pilots dreams over the months? Likewise when I look at the total number zeros that I have shot down in two years on the air replacment screen. It that just a cumulation of inaccurate combat reports or does it come closer to real numbers just like the sunk ship screen does over time. Simply asked, have I shot down the 1,000 tojos that I think I have during the course of the war or is it closer to 600-700?

[offenseman]

Unfortunately I cannot add actual data, however, many game months ago we (Rob, you, and I) had a big air battle that appeared to be a real killer for the Japanese medium bomber force. It appeared that upwards of 70+ bombers had been lost and both Rob and you mentioned it in post turn emails.  I actually responded that I was surprised by your opinions of the results and that losses had been light (under 12-15).  The losses must have appeared real bad from your side because you guys said you didn't believe what I had to say.  

Because of that and a few other conversations we have had about other battles (mainly ships), I became convinced that there had to be some differences in the CR and maybe in the anims. 

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

My question is do the losses on the intel screen, just like actuall ship losses, gradually over time become more accurate? This is if my intell screen tells me that I have shot down 19,000 Japanese planes over the course of two years, is that an accurate reading or just an accumulation of my own pilots dreams over the months? Likewise when I look at the total number zeros that I have shot down in two years on the air replacment screen. It that just a cumulation of inaccurate combat reports or does it come closer to real numbers just like the sunk ship screen does over time. Simply asked, have I shot down the 1,000 tojos that I think I have during the course of the war or is it closer to 600-700?

Great question! I wonder that too.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

My question is do the losses on the intel screen, just like actuall ship losses, gradually over time become more accurate? This is if my intell screen tells me that I have shot down 19,000 Japanese planes over the course of two years, is that an accurate reading or just an accumulation of my own pilots dreams over the months? Likewise when I look at the total number zeros that I have shot down in two years on the air replacment screen. It that just a cumulation of inaccurate combat reports or does it come closer to real numbers just like the sunk ship screen does over time. Simply asked, have I shot down the 1,000 tojos that I think I have during the course of the war or is it closer to 600-700?

Isn't it better to ask your opponent Ross?
My intel shows 18140 planes lost
1570 of them are Tojos.

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: offenseman

Unfortunately I cannot add actual data, however, many game months ago we (Rob, you, and I) had a big air battle that appeared to be a real killer for the Japanese medium bomber force. It appeared that upwards of 70+ bombers had been lost and both Rob and you mentioned it in post turn emails.  I actually responded that I was surprised by your opinions of the results and that losses had been light (under 12-15).  The losses must have appeared real bad from your side because you guys said you didn't believe what I had to say.  

Because of that and a few other conversations we have had about other battles (mainly ships), I became convinced that there had to be some differences in the CR and maybe in the anims. 

You referring to the allied Blenhiem slaughter of the early Burma air war ?

If so then allied losses were horrific , 2 entire sqdns were destroyed down to the last plane over 2 days and iirc 2 more Sqds had pitiful numbers left afterwards. Reason why I never came back with them was pilot losses 1-1 (ish) on bombers lost so even though I could replace the mediums bombers at that time I had pitifully few bomber crews trained. So I sent the sqdns back to safety as training groups with 1-2 planes each to churn out new pilots for ground attack,recon.search,ASW and naval attack. In hindsight I should have done this first and not wasted the good crews until we had decent planes for them.


Tough lesson learnt, but I do like that about this game , its a never ending learning process.

[AW1Steve]

Combat animations lie! [:D] My favorite showed an I boat torpedoing Nautilas (with 3 fish!!!). That sub was in dry dock , 6,000 miles away. I lost no sub that day, sufferded no attacks of any kind. Lost no subs (of any kind). For that matter , I had no ships attacked that day. It was made up of whole cloth![:D]


Obviously the game was channeling what I call "The Sake factor!".[:D]

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I find that the animation shows more kills than the combat report lists.  My gut feeling is that the animation is more accurate than the combat report.  Part of this is based upon some comments/analysis that Nemo did awhile back, perhaps in his AAR vs. One-Eyed-Jacks, where (IIRC) he noted his belief that the animation is accurate.  I wouldn't stake my life on any of this, mind you, but I've found no reason to doubt the accuracy of the animations.

I believe the combat animation to be reasonably correct as well, at least for air battles. It is almost invariably spot on or very close when compared to the actual losses suffered by my squadrons and also very close to the kills attributed to the different pilots.

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

ORIGINAL: offenseman

Unfortunately I cannot add actual data, however, many game months ago we (Rob, you, and I) had a big air battle that appeared to be a real killer for the Japanese medium bomber force. It appeared that upwards of 70+ bombers had been lost and both Rob and you mentioned it in post turn emails.  I actually responded that I was surprised by your opinions of the results and that losses had been light (under 12-15).  The losses must have appeared real bad from your side because you guys said you didn't believe what I had to say.  

Because of that and a few other conversations we have had about other battles (mainly ships), I became convinced that there had to be some differences in the CR and maybe in the anims. 

You referring to the allied Blenhiem slaughter of the early Burma air war ?

If so then allied losses were horrific , 2 entire sqdns were destroyed down to the last plane over 2 days and iirc 2 more Sqds had pitiful numbers left afterwards. Reason why I never came back with them was pilot losses 1-1 (ish) on bombers lost so even though I could replace the mediums bombers at that time I had pitifully few bomber crews trained. So I sent the sqdns back to safety as training groups with 1-2 planes each to churn out new pilots for ground attack,recon.search,ASW and naval attack. In hindsight I should have done this first and not wasted the good crews until we had decent planes for them.


Tough lesson learnt, but I do like that about this game , its a never ending learning process.

Nope, I am referring to when it appeared I had lost 70+ Sallys and had not.

[Mynok]

The combat reports should be identical for both sides....and most likely full of FOW for both sides. Ships reported sunk are NOT necessarily so. I have proof from the Thread 2x2 where the POW was sunk several times. [:D]

If the combatreport.txt isn't identical, you have a sync problem.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: crsutton

My question is do the losses on the intel screen, just like actuall ship losses, gradually over time become more accurate? This is if my intell screen tells me that I have shot down 19,000 Japanese planes over the course of two years, is that an accurate reading or just an accumulation of my own pilots dreams over the months? Likewise when I look at the total number zeros that I have shot down in two years on the air replacment screen. It that just a cumulation of inaccurate combat reports or does it come closer to real numbers just like the sunk ship screen does over time. Simply asked, have I shot down the 1,000 tojos that I think I have during the course of the war or is it closer to 600-700?

Isn't it better to ask your opponent Ross?
My intel shows 18140 planes lost
1570 of them are Tojos.

Well that means that over time, both the main intel screen and the total kills for a particular type on the aircraft replacement screen are close to accurate, because that is pretty much what I am seeing from my side. Thus negating FOW at bit....

BTW Ark, You have only shot down 17 heavy bombers in two years of war. Sorry for that but the intel screen is just all wrong there.... I actually have so many in my pools that I have been selling the surplus on e-bay. [;)]

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: crsutton

My question is do the losses on the intel screen, just like actuall ship losses, gradually over time become more accurate? This is if my intell screen tells me that I have shot down 19,000 Japanese planes over the course of two years, is that an accurate reading or just an accumulation of my own pilots dreams over the months? Likewise when I look at the total number zeros that I have shot down in two years on the air replacment screen. It that just a cumulation of inaccurate combat reports or does it come closer to real numbers just like the sunk ship screen does over time. Simply asked, have I shot down the 1,000 tojos that I think I have during the course of the war or is it closer to 600-700?

Isn't it better to ask your opponent Ross?
My intel shows 18140 planes lost
1570 of them are Tojos.

Well that means that over time, both the main intel screen and the total kills for a particular type on the aircraft replacement screen are close to accurate, because that is pretty much what I am seeing from my side. Thus negating FOW at bit....

BTW Ark, You have only shot down 17 heavy bombers in two years of war. Sorry for that but the intel screen is just all wrong there.... I actually have so many in my pools that I have been selling the surplus on e-bay. [;)]

Well... on a second thought I have some doubts if my intel is correct as far as my own looses are concerned... [&:]

I produced 1709 Ki-44s model "a".
Intel shows 1578 lost.
It can't be correct as I have 245 in the pool and 211 in active daitais.
If we sum up the losses and available planes it gives the hypothetical number of 2034 planes.
I wonder why the difference 1709 vs 2034 if the Japanese squadrons arrive (mostly) without planes or with 1-2 plane.

[LoBaron]

I can confirm the discussion Rob and mike were having on the great sally turkey shootout
which obviousely never happened.
It looked like Mike lost about 60-70 bombers, the combat animations certainly looked like this.
True losses seem to not even come close to this number.

Also there were already a couple of reported torpedo hits on warships on different occasions
(also shown in combat animations) where the targeted ship was not even dented, so I assume
the hit was FOW.

To me it seems like the impact of FOW could be highly variable, maybe depending on a couple of dice rolls?
This could explain the different points of view on this topic - and also leads to numbers getting closer
to actual losses over time as extreme results get averaged out.