Jump to content


Photo

Air search report accuracy


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 William Betts

William Betts

    Private

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 01 June 2009 - 11:26 AM

In using the search accuracy chart I want to make sure my assumtions are correct.1. The "number" of ships is rolled once and the + or - if any should be determined by random2. "Type" roll should be made for each ship in the TF seperately. When + or - is rolled the result is determined randomly (die roll) as per the "type shift" chart below the chart.3. If fewer ships are sighted than are actually in TF choose ships sighted randomly.4. If more ships are reported than are in the TF how do you decide on identification of the extra ships reported?Thanks, Bill

#2 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 03 June 2009 - 03:42 AM

The rules (2.6.2 Sighting Reports and 4.5.4 Air Search, bullet 3, Spotting Probability) seem to state only one die (D12) is made on the Report Accuracy table. It is then up to the referee (or possibly the guy being searched) to provide a report withing the parameters specified as far as numbers, types, and possibly classes.Of course if you don't have a referee, it seems a little odd the player being searched knowing how accurate of a sighting report you have received...I did up a spreadsheet to implement the GQ3 report system, and did some of the things you suggest, like randomizing the number reported within the parameters of the range specified in the table. I interpreted if there were really 2 "type X" ships, but the result happened to be -2, then the report does not claim any "type X" ships - they just missed them.I admit one of the things I don't like about the system is the idea of on a roll of 1-4, Navy/Marine aircraft report (accurately) the class of the spotted ships. This means if you're given a spotting report that says "2 Mogami class CAs" instead of just "2 CAs", you know it's 100% accurate.

#3 William Betts

William Betts

    Private

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 11:05 AM

Thanks for the reply,I think the thought is, if a search aircraft can get close enough to identify the class of a ship then there will be no errors. That does bring up a point though. If indeed each ship should be rolled for seperately when it comes to type then all or none would have to be by class. So in that case once you have determined that class will not be reported then all individual ship rolls that achieve a "class" report would just be by type. Of course maybe I'm just missing something obvious here. An official ruling would be nice.B) As far as having a GM for a carrier engagement, with the internet it should be easy and I would volunteer. I am currently working on a campaign that would use the Flat Top map on vassal for strategic movement and GQ for all operational and tactical battles so I would love two people to try out a carrier engagement to see if I am on the right track.Cheers,Bill

#4 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 912 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 07:43 PM

That does bring up a point though. If indeed each ship should be rolled for seperately when it comes to type then all or none would have to be by class. So in that case once you have determined that class will not be reported then all individual ship rolls that achieve a "class" report would just be by type.

Actually, you (or the ref) make only 1 roll to determine the sighting report accurancy. The specifics are then left to ref to determine (hey, the ref has to have some fun!).

#5 William Betts

William Betts

    Private

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 09 June 2009 - 03:07 PM

Thanks,One roll it is. I still like the idea of a random report, so you could still roll for each ship within the initial sighting result including a chance that the ship will be properly reported. For example:a +/- 1 on the type column would have a 33% chance each of +1,-1 or actual for each ship.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users