The Problem With Inaccurate Reports
Oct 8, 2023 4:55:28 GMT -6
davedave, ludovic, and 2 more like this
Post by Adseria on Oct 8, 2023 4:55:28 GMT -6
This is an issue that I've had with the game for a while, but I've never mentioned it before, and I've never seen anyone mention it, either.
In the game, there are a variety of different systems for giving the player information about the enemy force they're facing in battle. However, I think these systems need a lot of work. The problem is, they're too consistent.
Don't misunderstand me, and confuse "consistent" with "accurate." The reports in the game are very inaccurate, but they're consistently inaccurate. The problem with this is that, after you've played for a while, you realise how inaccurate they are and tend to ignore details. For instance, when I get a report, I never bother to look at the course/speed information, and I often disregard the composition information unless I have several reports of the same group.
The game also suffers from a (small) overabundance of reports. Historically, admirals often had to make decisions based on a single report from one ship/aircraft, with no way of knowing whether it was accurate. This led to situations like the sinking of Neosho and Sims at the Coral Sea. In a similar situation in-game, I know the report is almost certainly not correct. I also know that the same aircraft will probably give me additional reports in the next half-hour. Thus, I would probably wait to launch my aircraft until I had at least three or four reports of carriers. Since further reports would probably correct the earlier report of a carrier, that means I probably wouldn't launch the strike at all, and I'd know to launch it against the other contact (Yorktown and Lexington).
This is obviously not historically accurate. Historically, there was a decent chance of a report being accurate (with a higher chance in later years). In-game, reports are consistently inaccurate, and I know that, so I know not to put all my eggs in one basket, as it were, and wait until I have a more detailed overview (which I know won't take long) before committing. This should not be the case.
In the game, there are a variety of different systems for giving the player information about the enemy force they're facing in battle. However, I think these systems need a lot of work. The problem is, they're too consistent.
Don't misunderstand me, and confuse "consistent" with "accurate." The reports in the game are very inaccurate, but they're consistently inaccurate. The problem with this is that, after you've played for a while, you realise how inaccurate they are and tend to ignore details. For instance, when I get a report, I never bother to look at the course/speed information, and I often disregard the composition information unless I have several reports of the same group.
The game also suffers from a (small) overabundance of reports. Historically, admirals often had to make decisions based on a single report from one ship/aircraft, with no way of knowing whether it was accurate. This led to situations like the sinking of Neosho and Sims at the Coral Sea. In a similar situation in-game, I know the report is almost certainly not correct. I also know that the same aircraft will probably give me additional reports in the next half-hour. Thus, I would probably wait to launch my aircraft until I had at least three or four reports of carriers. Since further reports would probably correct the earlier report of a carrier, that means I probably wouldn't launch the strike at all, and I'd know to launch it against the other contact (Yorktown and Lexington).
This is obviously not historically accurate. Historically, there was a decent chance of a report being accurate (with a higher chance in later years). In-game, reports are consistently inaccurate, and I know that, so I know not to put all my eggs in one basket, as it were, and wait until I have a more detailed overview (which I know won't take long) before committing. This should not be the case.