Slitherine

quote:

Had the IJN execued the Midway plan on 8 December 1941, and had the USN executed its defense in the same way with the same foreknowledge etc on 8 December 1941, the Japanese would have suffered the same severe beating.

quote:

Have you bought the game, and if you did, what is the furthest date you reached playing a) Allies and b) Japanese, in PBEM and/or vs AI?

quote:

Oleg pisses me off because he simply criticises peoples views and not the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Oleg pisses me off because he simply criticises peoples views and not the game.

Ron,

I have to agree with Oleg here. If mdiehl has never played the game, his credibility in discussing the faults of the game is certainly lacking. All he would have to go on is other people's complaints and perceptions.

Chez

quote:

BUT, here on WITP board we have no "Jans" we have abundance of guys like Ron, mdiehl, Tristan and tons of others who are continuously doing their best to *alienate* board members from the devs by their constant incessant whining etc. That's right - *alienate*.

quote:

I was referring to the later war period (responding to an earlier post).

Is your pilots' experience on a par with your opponents pilots' experience? A big difference there makes a huge difference in combat results. Try to manage your squadrons to get experience up before they get wiped out (easier to say than to do). When you begin getting better planes - Corsairs and P-38's - you will start to make serious headway. After his pilots' experience is down and your pilots' is up, even Wildcats do much better.

Mind you I am not claiming that the air simulation is perfect, just that this has nothing to do with the zero bonus. Different issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

I was referring to the later war period (responding to an earlier post).

Is your pilots' experience on a par with your opponents pilots' experience? A big difference there makes a huge difference in combat results. Try to manage your squadrons to get experience up before they get wiped out (easier to say than to do). When you begin getting better planes - Corsairs and P-38's - you will start to make serious headway. After his pilots' experience is down and your pilots' is up, even Wildcats do much better.

Mind you I am not claiming that the air simulation is perfect, just that this has nothing to do with the zero bonus. Different issue.

That's kinda my point: i think there might be something wrong with the modelling of the Wildcats vs. Zeros. Everybody marks this down to the Zero bonus, but i think the problem runs much deeper. But, the Zero bonus is an easy target...

In evaluating this: the problem is, i don't know the relative experience of my pilots vs. my opponents. They started out in the 80's for the USN, and 60's for the Marines, but of course have quickly plummetted with these horrible losses.

The Zeros are attacking at 6-7 hex range, in the rain, from carriers and bases, sometimes outnumbered and they still end up with these exchange rates (although when i outnumber them, i do somewhat better - that's when i get the 3-1 exchange rates).

I have managed to destroy 3500+ Japanese aircraft - almost in the air (into 3rd week in June 1942 - i think there are only about 150 or so destroyed "on ground"), so i would have thought he would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for pilots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Had the IJN execued the Midway plan on 8 December 1941, and had the USN executed its defense in the same way with the same foreknowledge etc on 8 December 1941, the Japanese would have suffered the same severe beating.

So you're saying the outcome at Midway was preordained and could never be any different if the same forces and intelligence were used no matter what? So, in your view, luck has absolutely nothing to do with a battle's outcome.

Isn't that like saying if you took the same 2 football teams and replayed the game with the exact same plays with the exact same players, the outcome would always be the same.

I don't think you've thought that statement through.

Chez

quote:

rtrapasso, those are the same exchange rates I get in the game. And, I play the AI. I only gain the advantage in losses when a unit is decimated over time. The AI does not rotate or train air units. Eventually I will prevail because of this fact only. Vs a human, I assume my 3-1 losses would be kept through the duration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

I was referring to the later war period (responding to an earlier post).

Is your pilots' experience on a par with your opponents pilots' experience? A big difference there makes a huge difference in combat results. Try to manage your squadrons to get experience up before they get wiped out (easier to say than to do). When you begin getting better planes - Corsairs and P-38's - you will start to make serious headway. After his pilots' experience is down and your pilots' is up, even Wildcats do much better.

Mind you I am not claiming that the air simulation is perfect, just that this has nothing to do with the zero bonus. Different issue.

That's kinda my point: i think there might be something wrong with the modelling of the Wildcats vs. Zeros. Everybody marks this down to the Zero bonus, but i think the problem runs much deeper. But, the Zero bonus is an easy target...

In evaluating this: the problem is, i don't know the relative experience of my pilots vs. my opponents. They started out in the 80's for the USN, and 60's for the Marines, but of course have quickly plummetted with these horrible losses.

The Zeros are attacking at 6-7 hex range, in the rain, from carriers and bases, sometimes outnumbered and they still end up with these exchange rates (although when i outnumber them, i do somewhat better - that's when i get the 3-1 exchange rates).

I have managed to destroy 3500+ Japanese aircraft - almost in the air (into 3rd week in June 1942 - i think there are only about 150 or so destroyed "on ground"), so i would have thought he would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for pilots.

rtrapasso, those are the same exchange rates I get in the game. And, I play the AI. I only gain the advantage in losses when a unit is decimated over time. The AI does not rotate or train air units. Eventually I will prevail because of this fact only. Vs a human, I assume my 3-1 losses would be kept through the duration.

Historically, the green, crappy, pre-war US pilots with no combat experience shot down a bit more than 1-1 Zero's piloted by the super japanese pilots who had that great combat experience fighting the Chinese. In the game, however, you are very lucky to get 3-1 losses when F4F's fight Zero's. Even vs the AI I don't get better than that. (until the AI has trashed a unit. Then I do well. I assume a Human knows to rotate those trashed units.)

And all you who say the Zero bonus is not that big of a deal, I say: I never ever ever ever seek to engage Japanese CV's with US CV's until the zero bonus is over. If, at the best of times I get 3-1 losses, then at the worst of times it's closer to 10-1. if you take 2 US CV's and take on 2 Japanese CV's then your average result will be 1 sunk and 1 damaged US CV and maybe 1 damaged Japanese CV. This is my average result when fighting the AI. Sure, 1 out of 10 times I will get lucky and not get hurt and manage to hurt the Japanese, but more often than not I take damage and don't hurt the enemy.

Mdiehl is correct when he says the look and feel of the game is wrong. I should not evade contact from 41 to late 43. I should seek combat on equal or better terms. I don't do that because the average result is negative for the allies. (that includes surface actions with ships as well.) I just don't seek any combat except with LBA. I still take 3-1 losses, but at least I'm not losing valuable ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

rtrapasso, those are the same exchange rates I get in the game. And, I play the AI. I only gain the advantage in losses when a unit is decimated over time. The AI does not rotate or train air units. Eventually I will prevail because of this fact only. Vs a human, I assume my 3-1 losses would be kept through the duration.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the A to A model doesn't work terribly well. Not only are the results of Zero vs. Wildcat broken, but also Oscar vs. most anything, and Corsair vs. anything (the latter from reading the forum, as i have no Corsairs yet). The first two are my experience with the standard game, but maybe some modders have gotten things to work better by tweaking the planes.

quote:

So let me publicly acknowledge it here for all to read:
The other side of this debate may indeed be (right in a way). The Zero Bonus may well be the least of the questionable accuracies in the air combat model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

So let me publicly acknowledge it here for all to read:
The other side of this debate may indeed be (right in a way). The Zero Bonus may well be the least of the questionable accuracies in the air combat model.

Right on, Demosthenes!!

I think people here are arguing about the Zero bonus so much because it is something obvious they can "fix" - but the problem is much deeper. "Fixing" the Zero bonus is treating the symptoms, not the disease.

quote:

Mdiehl is correct when he says the look and feel of the game is wrong. I should not evade contact from 41 to late 43. I should seek combat on equal or better terms. I don't do that because the average result is negative for the allies. (that includes surface actions with ships as well.) I just don't seek any combat except with LBA. I still take 3-1 losses, but at least I'm not losing valuable ships.

quote:

So you're saying the outcome at Midway was preordained and could never be any different if the same forces and intelligence were used no matter what? So, in your view, luck has absolutely nothing to do with a battle's outcome.

Isn't that like saying if you took the same 2 football teams and replayed the game with the exact same plays with the exact same players, the outcome would always be the same.

I don't think you've thought that statement through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hash and re-hash. We've heard all of this before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hash and re-hash. We've heard all of this before.

Maybe it has - i've read the forum for a long time, and people have always argued about the accuracies of the a-to-a model (as well as everything else). But, i guess until i felt the intense pain of being on the wrong side of the problem, i thought it was manageable. However, this (the Zero vs. Wildcat innacuracy) has put my entire campaign in jeopardy. Nothing like a little intense pain to get your attention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

@Witpqs:

Your observation about the necessity to play the game in order to know it is flawed. Logically all that is required is to see the performance turned in by the game. This is the same principle that all intelligent consumers use when making a purchase -- from the circular saw that you buy at home despot through the V-22 Osprey that you don't buy in the DoD. You wouldn't buy a circular saw if it always broke within ten minutes of use, and if all circular saws suffered from the same propensity you'd demand that circular saw designers get a clue.

...

Now if there are people who are indeed foolish enough to claim that you can't know anything about a product without first (a) buying it, and (b) using it extensively, then I would love to sell you a RR flatcar full of used Chevrolet Cavaliers, because I figure you must be the easiest patsy for a lemon that ever walked the Earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Have you bought the game, and if you did, what is the furthest date you reached playing a) Allies and b) Japanese, in PBEM and/or vs AI?

Oleg

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

This seems like a potentially huge point. A Zero - more lightly built and without self-sealing fuel tanks - has (about) the same durability as a Wildcat?

What kind of results are you getting with this change?

quote:



In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

quote:

You figure?

quote:

You can go into the gutter with name-calling (you have - "patsy").

quote:

It's clear that you put much effort into researching and analyzing some fo the points you comment on. I have serious reservations about the quality of some of your conclusions - your analysis. When I have commented I have expressed my disagreement, not called you names. For example, discovery of a technique in summer of 1941 does not demonstrate the technique was in place in the air arms in December of 1941. I did not call you a 'patsy' - or anything else - for concluding that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Oleg pisses me off because he simply criticises peoples views and not the game.

Ron,

I have to agree with Oleg here. If mdiehl has never played the game, his credibility in discussing the faults of the game is certainly lacking. All he would have to go on is other people's complaints and perceptions.

Chez

I expect that Ron was actually responding to a post Oleg made in a different thread:

quote:

BUT, here on WITP board we have no "Jans" we have abundance of guys like Ron, mdiehl, Tristan and tons of others who are continuously doing their best to *alienate* board members from the devs by their constant incessant whining etc. That's right - *alienate*.

I know for sure that what Ron wants is for this game to fulfill its promise, which it is tantalizingly close to doing, and yet at the same time is so disappointing. He has spent a great deal of his time trying to work towards that end. Some people might not like to read his posts, but if the submarine/ASW model has been improved recently, who can we thank but those posters who have kept the issue alive?

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

I was referring to the later war period (responding to an earlier post).

Is your pilots' experience on a par with your opponents pilots' experience? A big difference there makes a huge difference in combat results. Try to manage your squadrons to get experience up before they get wiped out (easier to say than to do). When you begin getting better planes - Corsairs and P-38's - you will start to make serious headway. After his pilots' experience is down and your pilots' is up, even Wildcats do much better.

Mind you I am not claiming that the air simulation is perfect, just that this has nothing to do with the zero bonus. Different issue.

That's kinda my point: i think there might be something wrong with the modelling of the Wildcats vs. Zeros. Everybody marks this down to the Zero bonus, but i think the problem runs much deeper. But, the Zero bonus is an easy target...

In evaluating this: the problem is, i don't know the relative experience of my pilots vs. my opponents. They started out in the 80's for the USN, and 60's for the Marines, but of course have quickly plummetted with these horrible losses.

The Zeros are attacking at 6-7 hex range, in the rain, from carriers and bases, sometimes outnumbered and they still end up with these exchange rates (although when i outnumber them, i do somewhat better - that's when i get the 3-1 exchange rates).

I have managed to destroy 3500+ Japanese aircraft - almost in the air (into 3rd week in June 1942 - i think there are only about 150 or so destroyed "on ground"), so i would have thought he would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for pilots.

quote:

So, I went back and looked for encounters between F4F-4's and A6M2's in my PBEM. I only found one so far:

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

This seems like a potentially huge point. A Zero - more lightly built and without self-sealing fuel tanks - has (about) the same durability as a Wildcat?

What kind of results are you getting with this change?