Combat Summary oddity and playback?

[latosusi]

Maybe some of the Zero's were destroyed on runway?

[MadDawg]

I thought of that but they were on LR CAP

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: MadDawg

Okay, interesting....I never realised that, hehe.

Btw guys, Ive just done some testing in your tutorial scenario Frag and by comparing the combat movie to the 'aircraft losses' report in the turn part of the game, it seems that the movie playback might actually be close to 100% accurate? I only did about 4-5 test, but each time the amount of plans I counted as killed was the same as the report. If so this kinda makes sense as you actually watch the battle with real kills and then see a combat summary with pilot error....thought I would mention it

Dawg

I suspected they were the same as well, but Frag is telling us it's not accurate. So when it states whatever happened to an a/c in dogfight isn't accurate, but 'your' side goes with those figures. The other side will report inaccurately as well, but the figures are probably different to reflect their viewpoint.

[Mr.Frag]

They are wrong to both sides. Picture a 3rd person watching and taking notes ... They make lots of mistakes [:D]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

They are wrong to both sides. Picture a 3rd person watching and taking notes ... They make lots of mistakes [:D]

Hmm, I thought I said that.

[Arnir]

So, is there a display (Or is it the combat reports you can look at the next turn) that tell you *your* correct losses. I would assume that units should know their own losses. Enemy losses were almost always exagerated, so I wouldn't worry about or expect accuracy on that one.

[MadDawg]

Okay, this doesnt make sense to me and to be honest it feels like something isnt working properly. [:)]

Currently sub attacks and naval attacks 'Combat Summary' show an accurate account of what was actually seen in the 'combat animation', yet with aircraft we are being given *two* different accounts of the battle in both the combat animation and combat summary? This kinda sounds whacky to me as it is not consistant. Why give two different sets of 'Fog of War'ed' errornous results for air combat...just give us the one as that is much easier to keep track of. Currently this makes the Combat Summary worthless as usually it is exagerrate *way* more than the actual combat animation which seems to be closer to the actual battle results.

Also note in the manual it states the below...

"Each time a plane is damaged or destroyed, it is added to the total report on the Combat Summary. Thus, one plane can be damaged 4 times and then destroyed and it was cause a report of 4 planes damaged and 1 plane destroyed."

This sounds like the Combat Summary should indeed be a representation of the actual combat taking place in the animation as results as said to be added up (from the animation) for the combat summary? Im pretty sure that UV was pretty close to this too.

Not trying to be a pain, but it just kinda feels broke at the moment [:)]. As someone mentioned in the support forum, the Combat Summary is showing some VERY whacky results at times.

Dawg


PS : arnir, I dont believe there is any way to get your actual losses for a particular dog fight as both players see the same turn playback and thus FOW needs to be applied to both sides. The best you can do is to count the planes in a squadron before and after the turn or in smaller battles try and keep track via the aircraft losses panel.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Arnir

So, is there a display (Or is it the combat reports you can look at the next turn) that tell you *your* correct losses. I would assume that units should know their own losses. Enemy losses were almost always exagerated, so I wouldn't worry about or expect accuracy on that one.

I don't know, but it sounds as though they're inaccurate throughout. The only catch, and we would probably want such a catch, is that 'somewhere' the numbers have to be correct. It would be logical that sooner or later 'your' losses/gains would be accurate, but not those of the enemy.

[Castelnau]

Hi all,

I have been a long time lurker but Witp has brought me out of the woodwork. Great game! The scope is mind boggoling.... Anyway, I have to say that I have also observed the same results that MadDawg has mentioned. This to me also "feels" like a bug because I always thought that you would be *accurately* told your own losses. Just throwing in my 2 cents worth.....

[MadDawg]

I do beleive the aircraft losses report that you can access during your actual orders is accurate guys, but is only shows totals for the entire day. At least this gives you an indicator of air losses each day though

My main concern is that the Combat Animation and Combat Summery of that animation dont show the same results...yet they do for surface and sub combat. This kinda makes me think something is a little whacky here as even the manual indicates they should relate.

Dawg

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, the battle reports are "a" problem.

Sure, you allways should get foggy results (even the own losses are not clear until AFTER the battle ended (air war) or even later on (sea war.... burning ship sinks 1 week later, etc...)

But i remember PacWar... here we had the chance to see any battle if we toggled the map - so we have the chance to run the battle and look later to it (without interruption of the actual battle reports). Cause in the large campagins it is about 5 minutes each turn to look (if i make 0.1 seconds delay, no combat animation, no report). I use a 2,8 GHz P4, 1 GB Ram, 160 GB Harddisk (with 10 Gig Space full), a ATI 9800 Pro @XT, a brandnew (3 Month) old computer, actual patches for everything. Sure, it is a laaaaaaaaaaaaarge game with a lot things. I also have no problem with it. But i would love to look at the Reports like i did in PACWar (so i see the battles on the map)

By the way, is there any chance for a Zoom-key ? This 1024x768er Resolution is quite large at my 18", so smaller hex (and more infos on the screen) would be fine (but okay, not everybod use it). The alternative would be 1280x1024er resolution...

another strange thing is the missing "next TF/AIR/BASE" button... i mean, in PACWAR it existed... i missed it in UV (maybe it exist but i am stupid ? or i am stupid but the button is still missing [:D])...

this could help to speed up the turns (oh, i speak about the onscreen thing, you are on a base data and jump to the next base.)
The same with an "set all planes in this hex/base" thing... also, what is the difference ? i mean, does exist more then one base in a hex ? just asking...

But the game is fantastic... every night untill 2 am. I am very tired... my wife is a little bit frustrated... yeah. But i love to kick some enemies a$$es... [:)]

[Charles2222]

If you toy around with the interface a bit more you may find what you're looking for. I can tab to the next base for example, but I hadn't seen a need to tabbing to the next airfield, but it may be there nonetheless.

[Capitaine]

At this scale of conflict simulation, what's the point of so much "double" FOW? It's not like there's anything anyone can do or not do based on the disinformation. If the animated air battles are essentially meaningless (yes, I've seen myself my own 0 planes still being attacked and destroyed long after they reached 0), why should we waste our time watching this? Since the friendly AI determines local attack decisions, this degree of FOW seems misplaced.

Just my opinion, but someone please explain why having this FOW in this instance is soooo material to the game? [&:]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

At this scale of conflict simulation, what's the point of so much "double" FOW? It's not like there's anything anyone can do or not do based on the disinformation. If the animated air battles are essentially meaningless (yes, I've seen myself my own 0 planes still being attacked and destroyed long after they reached 0), why should we waste our time watching this? Since the friendly AI determines local attack decisions, this degree of FOW seems misplaced.

Just my opinion, but someone please explain why having this FOW in this instance is soooo material to the game? [&:]

Yeah, I think I get what you mean. I mean if it says zero and there's still some flying about, then obviously it isn't zero. Maybe when one of those zeroes attack (pun intended) it should at least go back up to one plane? But, then again, maybe the fact it's attacking is only known to me and not to my men (sounds like Back to the Future or something[8|].

[Capitaine]

Yeah, Charles, I'm not saying the double FOW is not realistic, I'm merely talking about materiality. What is the game purpose for this? It may be true in RL, but if it doesn't really impact game decision-making, why not just let us observe actual air combat performance? At least it would be interesting to note the actual effectiveness of the battle.

If the game were more tactical, where players made the strike target, refueling, rearming, etc... decisions of the carriers, it would be arguably material to those decisions.

OTOH, maybe the immateriality is not consequential anyway? Perhaps it's a matter of "why not just make it 'realistic' by placing you in that radio room hearing the innacurate reports?"

Still, if someone can tell me what material advantage they think they'd gain from accurate battle animations/combat summaries, I'd love to know! [&:] [:)]