Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

12doze12 -> Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 11:47:36 AM)

During turn resolution, many sighting reports are generated but not all of them result in an enemy TF being visually displayed on the map. From what I could find, people suggest this is due to the game automatically filtering out sighting reports that are likely false.

- Does this mean that all sighting reports that are filtered out are guaranteed to be false and it's pointless to look at them or is there a margin of error where the report may actually be true even if not displayed on the map?

- Do sighting reports sometimes report friendly TFs as Enemy TFs? Sometimes my Naval Search airgroups report large enemy TFs in places I'm sure there aren't but my TFs may have passed through, are they incorrectly identifying my TF as an enemy? In these cases the sighting reports seem to always be correctly filtered out.



Ian R -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 12:05:20 PM)

Over time, you will develop a visceral sensation for which reports you should react to, and which you can ignore.

Remember that any TF showing on map is likely the position it occupied at dusk they day before.



RangerJoe -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 12:42:55 PM)

Yes, your reports are not always correct and your own TFs may be reported as enemy TF. You staff will sort through those as the turn goes along and those reports should be in a different colour.



BBfanboy -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 3:56:04 PM)

I'm not sure what kind of sightings you are referring to. RJ is referring to Coastwatcher sightings and SIGINT which are notoriously unreliable. Other sightings during the turn may be valid but the TFs have moved.

Positioning of TF icons on the map depends on Detection Level. The higher the DL, the more accurate the report will be on the location and composition of the enemy TF. But keep in mind that the DL is set to 0 at the end of each phase (half day segment). But there is a Median DL value kept by the game engine that can come into play if there is any subsequent interaction with the enemy to raise the DL above what it would be from a single contact. The MDL can last a day to several days and I believe the more days in sequence you get a good DL on an enemy TF, the higher the MDL will be and the longer it will last before fading away.

Note that some patrol aircraft like PBYs have a SIGINT capacity from their on-board devices so even if they don't actually spot the enemy visually, they may increase the DL through local SIGINT.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 4:12:02 PM)

"Note that some patrol aircraft like PBYs have a SIGINT capacity from their on-board devices so even if they don't actually spot the enemy visually, they may increase the DL through local SIGINT."

Is that hard coded or from radar and Camera as devices on the planes?



12doze12 -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 5:14:23 PM)

quote:

I'm not sure what kind of sightings you are referring to. RJ is referring to Coastwatcher sightings and SIGINT which are notoriously unreliable. Other sightings during the turn may be valid but the TFs have moved.


I'm referring to sighting reports from Operation Reports such as from a Naval Search.

For example in this case my Naval Search reported something but this sighting did not result in the map displaying an Allied TF in the hex or nearby. I assume that this means my staff automatically deduced that this sighting was of my own TFs in the area:

[image]https://i.imgur.com/1ko6NgW.png[/image]

In this other example, the sighting seems to be correct, the map displays an enemy TF in the area, albeit some distance away but that's likely just because the spotting was early in the turn:

[image]https://i.imgur.com/pyiub2A.png[/image]

My main question is if there is ever valuable information in the sighting reports from Operational Reports or if my staff will automatically discard sighting reports they know are 100% false.



rustysi -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 6:48:58 PM)

This is not a game where you should look for 'absolutes', positive or negative.

It has been designed that nothing is 100%, at least as much as possible.



BBfanboy -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 9:09:52 PM)

Early in the game both sides suffer from low experience pilots. They will often misidentify their own ships as enemy or a pod of porpoises as a fleet of enemy ships. They get more accurate as they build NavS skills.

Edit: Early in the game I look at both SIGINT and Ops report sightings to see if there is any correlation to give it credence. There are also momementary contacts between TFs during the turn that do not develop into a sighting report or combat. They show as a brief mention in the box at the lower left of the turn screen - basically shadows passing in the night. Weather may play a part in keeping these ships from clearly spotting each other.



BBfanboy -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 9:12:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cavalry Corp

"Note that some patrol aircraft like PBYs have a SIGINT capacity from their on-board devices so even if they don't actually spot the enemy visually, they may increase the DL through local SIGINT."

Is that hard coded or from radar and Camera as devices on the planes?

I don't recall if it was a feature in the Radar or something hard coded to mark upgraded radios that can measure and find the direction of electronic emissions.



RangerJoe -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 10:06:20 PM)

I was referring to the on-screen messages when the turn is being played and you watch. You will see reports of "enemy TFs" which are actually yours. Those may be in a different colour so they are easier to spot.



HansBolter -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (7/27/2021 11:19:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I was referring to the on-screen messages when the turn is being played and you watch. You will see reports of "enemy TFs" which are actually yours. Those may be in a different colour so they are easier to spot.



Light Blue is usually the sign of a Red Herring report, but not always.

As mentioned above, nothing is ever 100%.



drum_taps -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/2/2021 3:49:41 PM)

This has been an interesting thread for me. Does this inaccuracy extend to combat reports? Some of the enemy strength reports in combat seem to be wildly overestimated. I just did my invasion of Guadalcanal and my battle reports are telling me I am facing 23,000 troops, but they sure don't seem to be fighting like 23,000.



RangerJoe -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/2/2021 5:20:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: drum_taps

This has been an interesting thread for me. Does this inaccuracy extend to combat reports? Some of the enemy strength reports in combat seem to be wildly overestimated. I just did my invasion of Guadalcanal and my battle reports are telling me I am facing 23,000 troops, but they sure don't seem to be fighting like 23,000.


It is called Fog Of War or FOW. You can turn it off.



drum_taps -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/2/2021 5:44:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: drum_taps

This has been an interesting thread for me. Does this inaccuracy extend to combat reports? Some of the enemy strength reports in combat seem to be wildly overestimated. I just did my invasion of Guadalcanal and my battle reports are telling me I am facing 23,000 troops, but they sure don't seem to be fighting like 23,000.


It is called Fog Of War or FOW. You can turn it off.

Why would I want to do that?[:)]



RangerJoe -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/2/2021 5:53:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: drum_taps


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: drum_taps

This has been an interesting thread for me. Does this inaccuracy extend to combat reports? Some of the enemy strength reports in combat seem to be wildly overestimated. I just did my invasion of Guadalcanal and my battle reports are telling me I am facing 23,000 troops, but they sure don't seem to be fighting like 23,000.


It is called Fog Of War or FOW. You can turn it off.

Why would I want to do that?[:)]


If you are learning the game, if you want accuracy in the reports, then turn it off. I will be enlightening to see the effects. The computer will not might if you are playing against the AI.



drum_taps -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/2/2021 7:03:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




If you are learning the game, if you want accuracy in the reports, then turn it off. I will be enlightening to see the effects. The computer will not might if you are playing against the AI.

I think I understand what you are talking about. The fog of war is effecting my play in a good way. According to combat reports I am outnumbered personnel wise 3-1, but they have been doing deliberate attacks at like 1-99 odds and losing 1200+ reported casualties. I on the other hand have low casualties if any per their attack. But, because of the high troop counts the reports give me I have been afraid to do anything more than a bombardment. I have not wanted to get chewed up like them in an attack. The last Japanese attack on me resulted in a complete failure with them going to cover. I do not possess the airfield and my CV task force will have to go back to port in a turn or two reload. For this reason next turn I have ordered a deliberate attack. I need that airfield!

That said I will keep my current save for later and once Guadalcanal is secured I will go back and look at the difference between FOG and actual. I'm going to to feeling like a chump if it ends up I was only facing a Korean construction battation[&:]



RangerJoe -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/2/2021 7:24:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: drum_taps


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




If you are learning the game, if you want accuracy in the reports, then turn it off. I will be enlightening to see the effects. The computer will not might if you are playing against the AI.

I think I understand what you are talking about. The fog of war is effecting my play in a good way. According to combat reports I am outnumbered personnel wise 3-1, but they have been doing deliberate attacks at like 1-99 odds and losing 1200+ reported casualties. I on the other hand have low casualties if any per their attack. But, because of the high troop counts the reports give me I have been afraid to do anything more than a bombardment. I have not wanted to get chewed up like them in an attack. The last Japanese attack on me resulted in a complete failure with them going to cover. I do not possess the airfield and my CV task force will have to go back to port in a turn or two reload. For this reason next turn I have ordered a deliberate attack. I need that airfield!

That said I will keep my current save for later and once Guadalcanal is secured I will go back and look at the difference between FOG and actual. I'm going to to feeling like a chump if it ends up I was only facing a Korean construction battation[&:]


You ca always switch sides and take a look. But the AI is probably only attacking with part of the forces there and may be low on supplies so its combat effectiveness is reduced. One way to check without changing anything is to see how your bombardments are doing in terms of disabled devices and destroyed devices. The more destroyed than disabled, it is probable that the units are in pretty tough shape. Also, any counter fire will cause you damage, has that also dropped? If so, little to no supplies.



Alfred -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/2/2021 9:40:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: drum_taps


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




If you are learning the game, if you want accuracy in the reports, then turn it off. I will be enlightening to see the effects. The computer will not might if you are playing against the AI.

I think I understand what you are talking about. The fog of war is effecting my play in a good way. According to combat reports I am outnumbered personnel wise 3-1, but they have been doing deliberate attacks at like 1-99 odds and losing 1200+ reported casualties. I on the other hand have low casualties if any per their attack. But, because of the high troop counts the reports give me I have been afraid to do anything more than a bombardment. I have not wanted to get chewed up like them in an attack. The last Japanese attack on me resulted in a complete failure with them going to cover. I do not possess the airfield and my CV task force will have to go back to port in a turn or two reload. For this reason next turn I have ordered a deliberate attack. I need that airfield!

That said I will keep my current save for later and once Guadalcanal is secured I will go back and look at the difference between FOG and actual. I'm going to to feeling like a chump if it ends up I was only facing a Korean construction battation[&:]


FOW is not the issue here. The issue here is that you re making the common mistake of misinterpreting the figures.

1. You do not have 23,000 bayonets against you. What you have is an enemy whose total Load Cost is 23,000.

2. Similarly, you re not inflicting 1200+ enemy casualties. The troop casualty figures again represent the total enemy Load Cost of all destroyed and disabled devices. Both sides can suffer the exact same number and type of device losses/disabled but because of the different Load Cost to the devices, one side can come out with a "higher" casualty troop figure.

3. The only casualty figures worth noting is the separate number of destroyed and disabled devices, with by far the greater weight being attached to the destroyed figure.

4. The troop value shown at the top of the Combat Report does not indicate all participated in combat. You have to watch the combat animation to see which enemy units are fighting today's battle.

5. It is the unadjusted enemy Assault Value (and subsequently the adjusted Assault Value) which is important. Never the displayed troop number.

6. When only the enemy troop numbers are disclosed, the rough rule of thumb is to divide that number by 30 to get an approximation of the unadjusted enemy Assault Value.

Alfred



Kull -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/3/2021 3:30:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

6. When only the enemy troop numbers are disclosed, the rough rule of thumb is to divide that number by 30 to get an approximation of the unadjusted enemy Assault Value.

Alfred


And that is why Recon missions are so important. One mission will give you an estimate of the enemy's force. How accurate? Who knows. However, five missions (or more) will provide a range of values, and somewhere between the high and low is what you will *probably* be facing. But always prepare for the high number...and then some.



drum_taps -> RE: Sighting Reports and Incorrect Intel (8/4/2021 2:32:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

6. When only the enemy troop numbers are disclosed, the rough rule of thumb is to divide that number by 30 to get an approximation of the unadjusted enemy Assault Value.

Alfred


And that is why Recon missions are so important. One mission will give you an estimate of the enemy's force. How accurate? Who knows. However, five missions (or more) will provide a range of values, and somewhere between the high and low is what you will *probably* be facing. But always prepare for the high number...and then some.

Last night I played well into the night, only to wake up to find my internet. The cool thing about WIP AI is I was able to play without an internet connection. My internet only came on a half hour ago. After reading your post I dug into the manual and found an explanation. Adding your comments and literally playing a month game time in two days and reading combat reports I think I got a better grip. I see that something being destroyed is much worse than disabled.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.15625