Bob Campaign Statistics

[pcelt]

First I would like to thank bdg most sincerely for all the magnificent improvements and advances in quality up to and including 2.12.
My one bugbear when playing the Campaign are what still appears to me to be mystifying and inconsistent figures from combat result displays.
I was observing from the RAF side a period of air battle in the Convoy phase between 4 RAF squadrons with first an ME109 group which was followed by the arrival of a 30 strong Stuka group. During the first phase the RAF Chart showed 3 victories and the LW Hostiles display showed 3 losses----------fine-----------but then the Stukas arrived and the LW Hostiles Display soon showed in addition 8 Stuka losses, but the 4 RAF Squadrons involved still only indicated the 3 victories earlier gained v the ME109s. And this display remained so until the day ended. The RAF Chart never indicated anywhere the 8 extra victories achieved against the Stukas.
I really feel reluctant to raise this criticism in the light of such great advances and general improvements in the sim---but being confronted with simultaneous battle stat results on 2 charts one RAF and one LW which are internally inconsistent does raise some reservations and some reduction in the immersiveness factor re the Campaign.
Is this an area which is being analysed by bdg ?
Many thanks

[tipsypo]

I wonder are enemy losses due to anti-air and pilot errors (crashing into ground) included amoung both?

[Trumper]

There has been a huge amount of work put into this by the BDG and i think they will be interested to hear this.Hopefully any issue can be worked on in the future

[TigerMoth]

I do know that there is a much-closer-to-reality system of claim vs. actual kills/losses operating behind the scenes in 2.12. You will definitely see a difference between the early combat reports during the day and the posted 'actual' reports at the beginning of the next day. I believe this is to create the inconsistency of intel/reporting because of the 'fog of war' that was prevalent during these times.

My impression with the phenomenon you are referencing is that it is the same 'fog' showing up from each viewpoint. IE: immediate battle reports from LW are one thing, from RAF are another thing. I do believe it all gets sorted out after a days worth of intel where reports can be verified or discarded.

- John

[pcelt]

Thanks guys for all these insights and interpretations.
I too wondered that LW losses not claimed on RAF chart might be accounted for by crashes or naval gunfire--but discounted this because it seemed unlikely to me that all stuka losses would be accounted for by crashes or naval gunfire with 4 RAF squadrons achieving no strikes at all.
Equally I discounted the "fog of war" or "propaganda" explanation as in the case described and in others I have recently seen it has been the LW Hostiles Battle Chart which has recorded LW losses not claimed by the RAF (propaganda-type explanation would suggest the reverse effect)
I am drawn to a more straight-forward recording gliche explanation. As in the examples I have seen today the lack of statistical match- up has always related to a situation where a second LW group has arrived later and though the second groups losses are recorded on the Hostiles LW chart the corresponding victories do not appear on the RAF chart. A similar effect seems to occur when an LW group "splits" into 2 groups on contact and though both of the LW groups losses are recorded on the Hostiles LW chart the RAF Squadrons Chart seems to record only the victories v the first group.
So in summary where a battle is clearly fought between 2 consistent groups the recorded results tally on RAF and LW charts----but where the LW group is later replaced by another later arriving group or where the LW group splits into 2 groups there seems to be a book-keeping problem where the HostilesLW chart records ALL results but the RAF Squadrons list seems not to record the effects related to the second LWgroup encountered
I must confess this is a very tentative observation based on observation of a few days of conflict in the "Convoy" phase with V.2.12 which is, from so many viewpts, extremely impressive. So if I am missing something obvious or am making a glaring error or misunderstanding please straighten out my thinking............

[stickman]

For v2.12 the Kills and Damaged tallies for aircraft have been improved, but not absolutely perfected.

For any coder trying to perfect the Reports is like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill.. only to see it roll back down again. AAHHH!!!

Randy the Campaign coder and two testers put in about five months working on the elusive "perfect" Reports.
I read most all of their reports whilst doing my other projects.

Bottom line result for v2.12 combat Reports is this:
1. The Review menu is much improved and the only one to be trusted true. Thanks Randy.
2. The Diary menus are still a mess. Not to be trusted. Randy had some foul words to say about the Diary code, and the guys that originally made it.
3. Likewise, the tallies seen in the Mission menu are not to be trusted.

In the past some BDG guys have tried to explain away the crappy inaccurate Reports with "the fog of war" reasoning. I never bought that thinking then.
and I do not now.
After reading Randy's code changing reports of what he found and changed for the Reports,
the fog was previously made by Rowan, bad and confusing code.
Randy mentioned a section of the code that he could not even access or manipulate!

So.. the Reports are still inaccurate, except in the Review menu, which Randy did fix up OK, and a hell of a lot better,
not from or for the Fog Of War, but from a Fog Of Bad Original Coding.

I love Randy's Reports changes. They are much better than we had in v2.11.

[pcelt]

Stickman--Many thanks for your clarification of the current situation re the mission tallies which I find totally acceptable and fully understandable.
As a recent installer of 2.12---may I again express my appreciation for all the massive advances bdg has fostered in both the practical realism and playability of the sim but also in so vividly portraying the total atmosphere and environment of Britain in 1940.
I was born in 1935 in England and lived throughout the Battle of Britain and the subsequent blitz and I find the whole sim so evocative in all aspects that I have continued to return to it repeatedly throughout the last decade. And it has continuously and massively improved with each bdg version and never disappointed.
Again huge thanks to all involved.............