Matrix Games Forums

I am wondering if the reports of coastwatchers in OP Reports improve over time as the coastwatchers gain experience? It seems that so many of the reports are clearly incorrect. Also, if a report mentions the specific name of a ship being in a particular port is that report actually more accurate or is it likely to be just as bad as others?
Wex

Did you ever think that the ship may have moved?

Of course the ships may be moving. I know that. I am only asking about the report at the time it is given.

At the time, probably yes but the computer can move ships during the turn.

Understood. Do specific coastwatchers improve over time in the game?
Wex

I have no idea. I did not know that there are specif coast watchers.

Me, I would rather look at certain beaches . . . [;)]

The rule book says there were coastwatchers in coastal hexes so I would imagine that a report from a coastwatcher that mentions a specific port rather that "ships moving" would be in position to actually see the port. Just my opinion. Maybe I am way off.
Wex

To WEXF, In my experience, the Coast Watcher reports are less reliable than air search or sub contacts results. You can do as I have, and test this by replaying a turn, and adding an air search or ship/sub to that location. See what turns up. I get more Coastwatcher reports than there are ships in the area. I also tend to ignore reports from aircraft about nebulous things spotted in the water, if they are within my air search arcs & they do not appear as those red icons for ships or subs. When there is a red icon, yes there is a ship. Subs are harder to find, and can be within your ASW patrol areas and still not show up. Again, you can test this out by replaying turns with various search tweaking. Same thing goes for reports of signal traffic coming from some specific (none land) hex. Do pay attention to your Ops reports about your ships spotting enemy air. That is reliable info. Some Japanese subs have float planes (Glens) up looking for targets. If you see reports that you have ships spotting enemy air off the West Coast or around Pearl Harbor, then there are subs around, for sure.

I have run 30 day trials in the Guadalcanal scenario, playing both sides, with all ships on both sides remaining in port [testing supply reduction and consumption by air bombardment]. With no ships at sea, there were frequent Coastwatcher reports daily.
--
Finished a Guadalcanal pbem game as USN. Attempts to launch air and ship TF attacks vs IJN nearby reported by Coastwatcher only resulted in combat if the iJN ships were at port. Otherwise long gone by the next day

ORIGINAL: WEXF

I am wondering if the reports of coastwatchers in OP Reports improve over time as the coastwatchers gain experience? It seems that so many of the reports are clearly incorrect. Also, if a report mentions the specific name of a ship being in a particular port is that report actually more accurate or is it likely to be just as bad as others?
Wex

There are no coastwatcher units in the game to gain experience.

A named ship means a higher detection level applied.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: WEXF

The rule book says there were coastwatchers in coastal hexes so I would imagine that a report from a coastwatcher that mentions a specific port rather that "ships moving" would be in position to actually see the port. Just my opinion. Maybe I am way off.
Wex

You are way off.

Alfred

Good to know. I don't mind finding out that I have the wrong idea of how something works. My goal is to get better at the game. I have to ask questions and decide on the value of the answers. Thanks for these. I appreciate it.
Wex

To WEXF, If you are playing against the computer, then you have access to the enemy's reports in the Game's 'SAVE' folder. These are text files. You could also test from the Japanese side (the Allies have more Coastwatchers). Review an Allied Operations Report, and compare it to your (Japanese) dispositions.

Take it with a grain of salt, but my advice is to never trust the coastwatchers.

Many (most?) of the people here have more experience with the allied side, but I the game has quickly taught me that they are otrageously inaccurate.

In February '44, for example, I have had the CVL Mizuho basically everywhere on the map. One turn it has been seen both at Karachi AND at Cape Gloucester.

In general, the coastwatchers screw up so much that I no longer trust them and directly skip that part of the OpsReport. This is mostly due to the fact that I have constant reports form ports and areas that are under my constant NavS and there is nothing. The opponent basically confirmed he has suspended the naval traffic there a while ago.


Again, I am an inexperienced allied player but I'm fairly sure of what I am seeing.

I played head to head for a long time so that I could see what was actually happening when I did things or read things and compare. Of all the reports in the game the Coastwatcher ones were least reliable. The only time they seemed to be reasonably accurate was when they named a ship class or ship name. Those suggest a higher detection level, as Alfred stated.

I wonder what the rationale was to making the coastwatchers so unreliable? From what I read they were just the opposite. Mind you they were Aussies....maybe they left them there with Bundaburg rum??!!

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

I wonder what the rationale was to making the coastwatchers so unreliable? From what I read they were just the opposite. Mind you they were Aussies....maybe they left them there with Bundaburg rum??!!

Per "Father Goose", their overseers buried the booze and would only tell them where to find a bottle when they called in a good sighting,

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

I wonder what the rationale was to making the coastwatchers so unreliable? From what I read they were just the opposite. Mind you they were Aussies....maybe they left them there with Bundaburg rum??!!

Per "Father Goose", their overseers buried the booze and would only tell them where to find a bottle when they called in a good sighting,

+1

Father Goose is one of my favorites. First saw it at a Drive-In movie theater.