Combat Summary stats...hmmmm

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
geozero
Posts: 1816
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Contact:

Combat Summary stats...hmmmm

Post by geozero »

Okay, somewhere else on the forum I read that sometimes the Combat Summary reports more enemy kills than actual planes that attacked...

but...

Batan Island is defended by 512 US troops and 3 guns, but after attacked on Turn 1 screen reports 970 US troops killed and 4 guns destroyed.

I know that the intel on the ENEMY might be wrong, but how can we be THAT OFF on friendly units? There were almost twice as many troops reported killed than there were on the island????

Sir, that's deriliction of duty in my book, Chester Nimitz YOU'RE FIRED![X(]

EDITED: I meant Batan Is. not Wake...
JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.
User avatar
Cmdrcain
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
Contact:

RE: Combat Summary stats...hmmmm

Post by Cmdrcain »

ORIGINAL: geozero

Okay, somewhere else on the forum I read that sometimes the Combat Summary reports more enemy kills than actual planes that attacked...

but...

Wake Island is defended by 512 US troops and 3 guns, but after attacked on Turn 1 screen reports 970 US troops killed and 4 guns destroyed.

I know that the intel on the ENEMY might be wrong, but how can we be THAT OFF on friendly units? There were almost twice as many troops reported killed than there were on the island????

Sir, that's deriliction of duty in my book, Chester Nimitz YOU'RE FIRED![X(]


Actually, friendly info I believe was at times reported wrongly, or as it gets handled the info gets changed in the saying, you can't tell me every intel on own forces is always accurate during battle times even in Real life..
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Image
Battlestar Pegasus
User avatar
geozero
Posts: 1816
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Combat Summary stats...hmmmm

Post by geozero »

Actually, friendly info I believe was at times reported wrongly, or as it gets handled the info gets changed in the saying, you can't tell me every intel on own forces is always accurate during battle times even in Real life..

Should be pretty good, imagine requisitioning supplies, paying the troops, etc.

Usually friendly intel might be slightly off with exagerrated gains/victories or even losses. But knowing how many troops you START with should be a lot better than showing 512 troops and losing 970????
JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.
User avatar
von Murrin
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 10:00 am
Location: That from which there is no escape.

RE: Combat Summary stats...hmmmm

Post by von Murrin »

Remember combat/non-combat troops. I don't remember what Batan has, but it could be a BF with some combat troops?

Otherwise it's due to misreporting and FOW. I had one instance where 41 Sonias were killed and 26 damaged over Singapore. (Happy day, if I had any confidence in it's truth.) Sure enough, when I checked the Intel reports, it showed about 12 beaten dead and who knows how many kneecapped. 4:1 is worse than 2:1. You can get some wacked out results with FOW.[:D]
I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!
User avatar
geozero
Posts: 1816
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Combat Summary stats...hmmmm

Post by geozero »

You can get some wacked out results with FOW.

Agreed!
JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”