RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 1:46:49 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

So, out of curiosity sake.
You think CHS leans more toward the Japanese?
Is it because of more available shipping?
Or, because of VP garnishing by destroying the myriad of "fixed" Allied LCU's.

What's your opinion Helpless?

I do not think it is leaned to any side. WITP is not the game you can judge before you reach at least 1943

.. I'm just in summer 1942 in one game.

The reasons I found that it is harder to play Allies in CHS than in stock mainly are
- replacement rates for Allies planes. In 1942 it is very low.
- all this new allied shipping been intoroduced by CHS gives just easy targets for Japanese.
- allies supplies reduction keeps you at least to follow it

There might be quite a few other reasons. I have a feeling that CHS guys had much more sources about Allied OOB, and they brought that close to "witp-reality"

. I know that there gonna be some changes to Japanese OBB as well. Let's see...

Keep going guys...

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)

Post #: 451

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 1:56:39 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
How about that little tidbit I already posted here (and that was ignored by nearly everyone).

CHS reduced Zero range from 11 to 10 hexes, so now A6M2 can't reach Guadalcanal from Rabaul - something that was possible historically, and something that I personally find *very* important in my games. So either the map guy (you) got something wrong, or the air guy (Lemurs or whoever) got something wrong.

As another poster already pointed out (saving me from doing the search) the change to the A6M2 range was discussed and the reasons were given. Lemurs was responsible for the aircraft data at the time. I know that his range value for the Zero was very controversial, and there was some discussion as to whether the trips from Rabaul to Lunga were the exception or the rule, as far as range of the A6M2 is concerned. I never participated in that debate as I am no expert on WW2 Aircraft.

All the Japanese aircraft data in CHS is being reviewed currently, so this may even change. So here is your chance - if you have substantive data on A6M2 performance in the field, apart from Rabalu-Lunga which has already been discussed and is on the record, by all means provide it. It might be best to start a new thread though.

Do you have any other specific concerns about CHS Oleg? You seem to be convinved that it is seriously unbalanced for some reason.

Andrew

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 452

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 1:57:38 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Just as I thought - Lemurs the Self Proclaimed Supreme Airforce Dictator arbitrarily decided to change this and that, and his changes went unchallenged (how do you challenge God? LOL) except for SubChaser, while he was still here. SC should have better spent his time redoing the maps, doing something that would last

BTW reading the above discussion I see SC was right, period.

I'd love to play you in CHS as Allies, and wipe the floor with your bonus-boosted Zeros, but I'd need nicer map to do that

Oleg,

Even I might tend to agree with SC and you on range question (and some other questions as well

), it smells as a personal relations here, which are, IMHO, better to be avoided...

I have a hope you will get use to the most beutifull AB map in chs

. Just wish to have someone "wipe the floor", otherwise I'm struglling more to convience my opponent to keep playing.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 453

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 2:01:10 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

I have a hope you will get use to the most beutifull AB map in chs . Just wish to have someone "wipe the floor", otherwise I'm struglling more to convience my opponent to keep playing.

No disrespect to AB, but I just can't stand to look at his map for any extended period of time. I was really hoping that SC would make his graphical map mod for AB map, regardless of my general opinion on CHS (hey there are other mods for AB map too).

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 454

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 2:05:36 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless
I have a feeling that CHS guys had much more sources about Allied OOB, and they brought that close to "witp-reality" . I know that there gonna be some changes to Japanese OBB as well. Let's see...

I think you are right - the people who first got together to create CHS did have more sources, and more interest, on the Allied side and the Allies got a lot of attention to improve the data. That is also why for a long time now we have been calling for more help with the Japanese side, even thought the Japanese were already revised quite a bit. More work is now being done on the Japanese OOB/TO&E data, and it will be interesting to see what effect it has on the way the scenario plays.

As always, playtesting will be a valuable guide.

Andrew

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 455

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 2:19:24 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
As another poster already pointed out (saving me from doing the search) the change to the A6M2 range was discussed and the reasons were given. Lemurs was responsible for the aircraft data at the time. I know that his range value for the Zero was very controversial, and there was some discussion as to whether the trips from Rabaul to Lunga were the exception or the rule, as far as range of the A6M2 is concerned. I never participated in that debate as I am no expert on WW2 Aircraft.

LOL "discussed", "reasons", "controversial" - nice politically correct speech but do we read the same thread Andrew? I don't see anything "controversial" at all behind the above link, I see SubChaser offering the arguments (well known to any student of Pac war anyway), and Lemurs replying basically "it will be like this cause I say so!". Ain't no "discussion" there to see...

What about the rest of you CHS guys? Will you all hide behind this decision or do something about it?

Oh yes, of course you'll do something about it... you will *remove* the friggen Zero bonus on top of removing one hex from Zero's range LOL

quote:

Do you have any other specific concerns about CHS Oleg? You seem to be convinved that it is seriously unbalanced for some reason.

I could dig more stuff, but I don't want to turn into mdiehls evil twin brother

Problem is after seeing the threads like this and SC vs Lemurs "discussion" (LOL) above, the way you all but ignore one set of issues, while blowing another set of issues way *WAY* out of proportion... you guys lose credibility in my eyes, generally speaking, your agenda shows, and I am not much interested in spending hours to dig specific issues that might or might not be there, only to be told they were "discussed" (sic!) before.

What about super-Corsairs even with rookie pilots? What about piss poor flak? What about flying coffin totally useless Oscars and Nates? What about air combat being too bloody in general? etc etc. How many people you have on Jap OOB side of your team? Name some names.

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 456

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 2:25:41 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

What about flying coffin totally useless Oscars and Nates?

Actually they do score in CHS much better than in stock...

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 457

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 2:26:21 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
So why was it done anyway?

I don't know...

This is what I've been saying all along. We can discuss Zero bonus but only as part of the "whole package". If you come here to discuss removing Zero bonus in the name of "historical accuracy", after you lost your credibility *reducing* Zero range, making it *uncapable* of doing one of the most important and best known hisotrical missions, then you deserve to be laughed at and called "Allied fanboi" (which is what I did ).

(I am not using "you" as you, I am using it to show my point )

So there goes CHS goodwill and "historical accuracy" mumbo jumbo out of the window right there, showing what appears to be their true agenda... 15 pages of mdiehl's propaganda before anyone even mentioned the fact CHS already cheated Zero of it's range?!

mdiehl how come you don't comment on something as glaringly obvious as this? In the name of "historical accuracy"?

BTW I am no big fan of Zero bonus myself, not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread. But then again I am no big fan of great many other things that are much more problematic.

Also, most importantly, history or no history once you start playing the game I think you have to be **REALLY bad** as Allied player to even care about ZB, let alone to come here whining begging for it to be removed. Zero was an operational surprise to Allies, developers felt it needed to be modelled and so they did. Period. Overall effect in the grand scheme of things is *negligible*, barely worth being mentioned in the manual.

If Zero bonus wasn't mentioned in the manual we would never even notice it's there.

O.

Well I am not happy with the ZB, I haven't changed my mind about it's legitimacy per say - but after getting around to testing it the way I did - I will now agree that if it were not mentioned in the manual you would probably never know it's there. Shame on them for causing all that consternation

As a card carrying member of the UAFWC

I am not even convinced that the whole exp rating system with it's many side effects is all that great either...

However, I have also made comments in the past like: 'as much as I have problems with the early Allies, I also have problems with the the hard coded handicaps the late war Japanese are faced with'. It's as if it's pre-ordained Japan's situation must deteriorate no matter how well things have gone for them.

I haven't played Japan - but seeing that their pilot replacement experience is doomed to fall no matter how much oil and raw materials the Japanese player can get to Japan seems to me also unjustified on historical grounds. As I have understood it - the main historical reason Japan had a quality drop in replacement pilots was that fuel shortages in Japan forced the reduction in avaiation fuel allocated for training programs - hence fewer flying hours, hence less well trained replacement pilots. There was also the issue of instructors because they did not rotate their pilots out of combat - granted. But I think the lack of fuel for training was far more critical.

To have the game do that automatically (lower pilot quality) regardless of how well the Japanese player managed his resources seemed to me an unwarranted handicap. I have always thought that replacement pilot quality should be tied to the Japanese economy.

So maybe I'm an Underdog Fanboy? Could be, because the only interest in playing Japan for me is to try to do better than they did from 1944 on. On the other hand, maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 458

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 2:30:41 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

What about flying coffin totally useless Oscars and Nates?

Actually they do score in CHS much better than in stock...

Oh man, we just gave CHS guys something to work on for the next release!

Reduce the numbers on them flying Godzillas fer chistssake....

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 459

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 2:47:29 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

LOL

Is this CHS where you get inspiration for your "deal" mods in GGWAW?

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 460

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 3:44:29 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
LOL "discussed", "reasons", "controversial" - nice politically correct speech but do we read the same thread Andrew? I don't see anything "controversial" at all behind the above link, I see SubChaser offering the arguments (well known to any student of Pac war anyway), and Lemurs replying basically "it will be like this cause I say so!". Ain't no "discussion" there to see...

By controversial I mean that different people have different points of view on the subject, it is important to many people, and that it frequently comes up in discussion about CHS.

I read the thread and I didn't see any comment by Lemurs that "it will be like this cause I say so!". I did see some discussion, especially between jwilkerson and Subchaser about long range missions. It was that discussion, as well as the comments by Lemurs, where he did provide his reasoning, that I was referring to.

quote:

What about the rest of you CHS guys? Will you all hide behind this decision or do something about it?

Why do you believe that the "CHS guys" are hiding? I don't mind anyone putting forward their opinions, whether they are involved with CHS or not. It is up to them if they want to, however.

quote:

Oh yes, of course you'll do something about it... you will *remove* the friggen Zero bonus on top of removing one hex from Zero's range LOL

No such decision - removing the Zero bonus - has been made, as I have mentioned already in this thread. I made the original post to make a proposal and provoke a discussion , something which I have been a lot more "successful" that I could have guessed!

Also, again as stated in my first posts on this thread, my intention was to restore any advantages that the Zero deserves, and is being provided by the bonus, by other means. I get the impression from your comments that you believe that the intention was to remove a Japanese advantage, rather than represent it in a different way. Is that right or have I misunderstood some of your comments?

So to reiterate, the original questions were: *is* the bonus deserved? and can it be represented in other ways? The material that some have provided from game results and playtesting have been very useful. It has been an interesting discussion, at least.

quote:

Problem is after seeing the threads like this and SC vs Lemurs "discussion" (LOL) above, the way you all but ignore one set of issues, while blowing another set of issues way *WAY* out of proportion... you guys lose credibility in my eyes, generally speaking, your agenda shows, and I am not much interested in spending hours to dig specific issues that might or might not be there, only to be told they were "discussed" (sic!) before.

I guess this is where I have trouble understanding you - what "agenda" are you referring to?

Also, what set of issues are we ignoring, or not willing to discuss? As I mentioned, I, at least, are happy to discuss any problems with the scenario. Yes, even the range of the A6M2.

I will point out, however, that I don't have a lot of free time to dedicate to discussions such as these. That does not mean that I am unwilling to discuss anything though.

quote:

What about super-Corsairs even with rookie pilots?

My understanding is that "super-Corsairs" is not a CHS specific problem. Even so, again as I have already mentioned elsewhere, I am hoping to experiment with changes to the air-to-air data, as Nik and Dfalcon, have already done, with the intention that things such as "super" Corsairs can be dealt with, among other things.

Also, are you aware that Lemurs already reduced the maximum speed of the Corsair in CHS? Max speed is considered to be a large factor in air-to-air combat, so that could very well impact how the Corsair performs in CHS vs stock. I can't verify that, though, as I have never got that far in a CHS game (too busy modding).

quote:

What about piss poor flak?

Flak has had some attention. It should be part of the Japanese OOB/TO&E changes, and I have done some work on missing British flak units. Like everything else, there is plenty more to do, of course. I don't necessarily agree with Nik's changes that make flak more powerful, however. If it is definitely the case that flak is "piss poor" and does need to be modified (over and above getting the OOBs and TO&Es right), then it should be looked at though.

Again, if you have some thoughts on what the problems are with flak and how they could be corrected, by all means put them forward. The more input the better.

quote:

What about flying coffin totally useless Oscars and Nates?

General change to the air-to-air combat would also hopefully help here. What I am hoping to do is reduce the differences between aircraft so that the superior ones (e.g. Corsairs) are not all powerful, and the inferior ones are not entirely useless. The trick is how best to do that.

quote:

What about air combat being too bloody in general?

Indeed. I hope the air-to-air changes will adress this.

In fact, my thinking about the Zero bonus, and my decision to make a new thread on the subject, was prompted because I have been thinking about air-to-air combat, in general, for a while now.

The changes I am thinking about will not be put into the next CHS update, because they have not been tested enough. I plan on making a test scenario, based on CHS but with a number of experimental changes, such as air-to-air changes (and yes, the removal/replacement of the Zero bonus), and playtest it to see how it performs.

quote:

etc etc.

If you have any other concerns please let me know.

quote:

How many people you have on Jap OOB side of your team? Name some names.

Of the 4-5 people currently putting in the most effort to CHS (and there are others helping out), three are working on the Japanese OOBs and TO&E: jwilkerson, Kerelguen and El Sid.

This reply is longer that I originally had in mind, but I am trying to understand why you have such a problem with CHS, Oleg. If there are balance issues with the scenario then of course they should be looked at. Finally. feel free to correct anything I have said that is wrong, or make other comments. It might be a while before I get around to replying, though. I am not interested in slanging matches or criticism for the sake of it. I am interested in discussing genuine problems with the scenario.

Andrew

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 461

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 5:00:04 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Hey Oleg! Agenda man! Seriously, you are blaming CHS for fundamental problems with the game. Don't blame the good guys for crap your heroes publish or mod and whatever and then say all is well. You really need to practice what you spew. I do (did).

Anyway, AB did the map mod and thank gawd for it, same goes for Don Bowen. Don't like it, piss of and enjoy the BS version of reality you tend to like.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/19/2005 5:02:03 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 462

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 5:07:59 AM

Cpt Sherwood

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline

There sure seems to be a lot of rancor towards the CHS people. I thouht they were trying to use the editor to try and make corrections to a bad OOB and some bad designs of the game engine. I should also say that the CHS mod is purely a user mod, if you don't like the way it is done then don't use it. Make your own mod if it is so bad. ( Please note that I am in no way part of the CHS mod )

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 463

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 5:12:45 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

There sure seems to be a lot of rancor towards the CHS people. I thouht they were trying to use the editor to try and make corrections to a bad OOB and some bad designs of the game engine. I should also say that the CHS mod is purely a user mod, if you don't like the way it is done then don't use it. Make your own mod if it is so bad. ( Please note that I am in no way part of the CHS mod )

No worries. CHS is not a beta boy mod so it is evil. Seriously, the nat sayers are really showing their true colours here.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)

Post #: 464

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 5:36:33 AM

Cpt Sherwood

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

There sure seems to be a lot of rancor towards the CHS people. I thouht they were trying to use the editor to try and make corrections to a bad OOB and some bad designs of the game engine. I should also say that the CHS mod is purely a user mod, if you don't like the way it is done then don't use it. Make your own mod if it is so bad. ( Please note that I am in no way part of the CHS mod )

No worries. CHS is not a beta boy mod so it is evil. Seriously, the nat sayers are really showing their true colours here.

Does that mean that the Nik mod is evil?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 465

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 5:39:10 AM

MkXIV

Posts: 343
Joined: 6/4/2005
From: North Georgia
Status: offline

Well to answer the original question; No, no one has any opinion on the matter!

_____________________________

F4U Corsair; When you Absolutely, Positively need to kill every freaking Zero in a 40 mile hex....

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 466

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 6:51:39 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MkXIV

Well to answer the original question; No, no one has any opinion on the matter!

Oh. OK....

(in reply to MkXIV)

Post #: 467

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 7:10:04 AM

Cmdrcain

Posts: 1161
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

first six months. Nagumo was unwilling to hang around to launch a second STRIKE on Pearl Harbor because in part USN CV were locus unknown. Had even

A minor correction....

He refused to send in a THIRD strike/Wave.

The Japanese sent in 2 strikes/waves but he chickened out on the third that would have hit the oilfarms, docks etc...

As to the Carriers (US) If they had been located he likely would have seeked them out to sink em

But simoly did not want to have surprise on them instead of their surprising the Americans.

_____________________________

Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!

Battlestar Pegasus

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 468

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 11:09:57 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

If you land in the category of Allied doctrine was fully matured and entrenched, with an excellent understanding of the limitations of the A6M2 on 12/7/41, then by all means take the result achieved 9 months later and remove the Zero bonus.

This makes no sense to me.

The Japanese never developed a doctrine for dealing with superior allied aircraft nor boom and zoom tactics once the F6F came on-line. The resistence from changing from the 3-plane vic to a different organization lasted into late 1943, and even by war's end most Japanese aircraft could not keep up with their Allied opposites, and most Japanese pilots continued to rely on the turning engagement dogfight in the hope that the Allies would play that game --- despite evidence that the Japanese were losing badly and that Allied pilots weren't generall going for turning engagements any more.

And yet there is no late war "Allied bonus." Instead it is assumed to be a characteristic of the planes and (to a lesser extent, because late war allied EXPs aren't great enough IMO) pilot EXP, as to why Allied a/c are more successful in the late war.

So if you're gonna keep the Zero Bonus heck maybe it should be extended. As follows:

May-June 1942: -1
July-August 1942: -2
September-October 1942: -3
November-December 1942: -4
Thereafter: -5.

Statistic's may be on your side MDIEHL, but I don't think this one will fly with "the troops". I favor the "bonus" technique because it's a simple and easily controllable method to give the Japanese a bit of an "edge" in the first 2-3 months to get the game rolling, then goes away. Trying to do it any other way calls for juggling factors in the unit makeups, which can come back to "haunt" the situation later. It just seems to me that the way this game is programmed too many changes cause totally unexpected problems. The "bonus" basically "works" within the structure, so I say cut it to 3 months, extend it to Oscars, and don't open any new cans of worms.

I'm not saying your analysis is wrong. Just that overall I'd rather see other problems delt with. Like the idiotic aircraft replacement rates. Historically, the Japanese built 6700 combat aircraft in 1942. In the game they will have over 10,000 even if they don't mess with their production. It's not just B-17's that are screwed up.

I don't get that at all, Mike. Where I come from, when you find a problem you fix it. End of story. It isn't about "bent egos" or "happy Japanese players" or whatever one cares to imagine. At least it oughtn't to be. If Matrix can't or simply doesn't want to address that intelligently then that's on Matrix, not the players who find errors and offer solutions.

The concept of a "bonus" in a mathematical model is ludicrous on its face. If the model enjoyed reasonable currency to begin with such an advantage would not be necessary. And if the model were errant to that extent (which is certainly the case all over the place with WitP) then the logical course would be to amend the model's math dynamics until the results fell more into line with history, not dream up some across-the-board "bonus" that is not justified by known data.

In principle the Zero Bonus is a bad idea. Make that a very bad idea.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 469

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 3:53:59 PM

BlackVoid

Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline

May-June 1942: -1
July-August 1942: -2
September-October 1942: -3
November-December 1942: -4
Thereafter: -5.

Mega LOL. What about the Sherman bonus against the Tiger??? We all know the Sherman is a better tank.

_____________________________

For Liberty! website

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 470

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 3:59:26 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

No worries. CHS is not a beta boy mod so it is evil. Seriously, the nat sayers are really showing their true colours here.

Does that mean that the Nik mod is evil?

Nik IS beta boy.

Therefore his mod is good by automatism.

Oleg (Beta Boy Bitch)

_____________________________

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)

Post #: 471

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 4:02:49 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

To answer AB's original question...I like Zero bonus and would like it to be extended to Oscar too. IMHO, it cannot be modelled by other means (plane stats/exp levels for example). For gameplay "balance" I'd like to keep it (and even extend).

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 472

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 4:03:56 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Mega LOL. What about the Sherman bonus against the Tiger??? We all know the Sherman is a better tank.

Japanese have Tigers in CHS???

Well nothing would surprise me anymore....

_____________________________

(in reply to BlackVoid)

Post #: 473

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 4:26:03 PM

BlackVoid

Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline

No, but mdiehl is infamous for this argument on the CM boards.

mdiehl: allies won the war, they were so much better in everything. there is no point in these wargames for you, they all inaccurately improve on axis equipment. And on top we all know they never had a chance. I suggest you go and take some other hobby...

_____________________________

For Liberty! website

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 474

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 5:47:57 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

May-June 1942: -1
July-August 1942: -2
September-October 1942: -3
November-December 1942: -4
Thereafter: -5.

Mega LOL. What about the Sherman bonus against the Tiger??? We all know the Sherman is a better tank.

As I recall he was arguing that 'the better tank' was dependant on what you wanted to use it for.

(in reply to BlackVoid)

Post #: 475

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 5:49:09 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

Hi Tris,

I'm glad to see you back on the forum. I was wondering where you had disappeared to.

Merry Christmas,

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 476

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 6:05:45 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

A few observations:
1. The A6M2 had sufficient range to fly from Rabaul to Guadalcanal and engage in a substantial air combat over Guadalcanal. "10-30 minutes spare fuel" is the number I recall, with the variation depending on the Zero's airspeed in flight and maintenance issues. Since your average combat from an individual pilot's POV lasted something like (IIRC) 2-5 minutes during WW2 (before they were dead, bailing out, out of the combat area, or out of targets) the historical fact is that the A6M2 could make the trip and fight a battle (and did). So any version, CHS or not, should allow the Zero the range to make the flight.

2. Honda says:

quote:

With all due respect, what is you point? You decided not to play the game. You however wish to improve it but it's only improvement from your point of view. Not from mine. And I know it's CHS and not stock scenario but I also downloaded and thaught about playing it. I fear what the game would look like if you had your way with it. So, just to go back up a little because I really am interested in what is the point of all this. We're here to improve the game but you aren't so why? Maybe for the discussions? I don't know...

We disagree as to whether or not my suggestions would improve the game. Your claim that I am not here to improve the game is incorrect. Why do I make these suggestions? WitP has some core game mechanics that I find quite interesting, and its potential as a WW2 sim/game for PBEM is very great. But not (IMO) as long as the model has goosed the system to substantially favor the Japanese through 1942. That the Japanese succeeded for 6 months IRL had nothing to do with abstract bs like "here's a Zero bonus" instead it had to do with excellent preparation, interior lines, strategic (and often tactical) initiative, poor allied logistics in most areas where the early war was engaged, and poor early disposition of Allied assets. While the latter is in part a condition of the at-start war, the Allied player can (and should) work to alter it. The former is a consideration of Japanese player skill, and the Japanese player should have to work hard at it.

In its current formulation, WitP offers more or less identical strategic problems as Gary Grigsby's Pacific War. It has the same errors (overrated Japanese a2a capability, allied rebuttal to Japanese fighters in the form of 4E bombers), same strategic gaffes (egregiously overestimated Japanese logistical capability, overestimated Allied logistical capability through March 1942, undue rewards to the Japanese "blitz everywhere" strategy, inherent foolhardiness in challenging IJN CVs with an equal number of USN CVs at any time in 1942 unless the Japanese player spends a while dulling his sword by pounding away at land bases with CV based Zeros). So while there are some novel characteristics to WitP, it is from a strategic game pov, basically just GGPW all over again.

Now, if my suggestions are used to improve CHS and they work, then there is a decent chance they will be used to revise the core game (WitP). And that would be an outstanding thing. If that happened, WitP would stand a chance of rising above standards already set by GGPW and a number of board-wargames.

3. Japanese replacements:
In 1944 the growing fuel shortage reduced Japanese pilot training. Prior to that a big contributor to the problem was that the Japanese air services continued to insist on absurd standards for pilot qualifications. A bit like the early Mercury testing. A suite of physical challenges, some of which legitimately excluded people who (with ear problems, sinus problems, vision problems etc) who were not pilot qualified but MANY of which served merely to unnecessarily wash out otherwise-qualified pilots.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/19/2005 6:14:02 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 477

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 6:09:29 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

There sure seems to be a lot of rancor towards the CHS people. I thouht they were trying to use the editor to try and make corrections to a bad OOB and some bad designs of the game engine. I should also say that the CHS mod is purely a user mod, if you don't like the way it is done then don't use it. Make your own mod if it is so bad. ( Please note that I am in no way part of the CHS mod )

No worries. CHS is not a beta boy mod so it is evil. Seriously, the nat sayers are really showing their true colours here.

Does that mean that the Nik mod is evil?

No, not at all!

LOL Man my grammar stinks. I was saying that I am beginning to feel that the CHS is getting treated like the retarded red headed step child by a few individuals because it is not a beta designed mod. Nik has not even looked at it as he has stated and Pry went off and did his own scenario because of the shipping OOB issues which the overabundance of suppy and shipping in the game created. Instead of fixing the logistical and withdrawal aspects of the game to allow the more accurate OOB, why not leave out or rip out 50% of the shipping to addrress the supply problem as pry did. Two wrongs to make a right so to speak.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/19/2005 6:31:29 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)

Post #: 478

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 6:23:21 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

A few observations:

3. Japanese replacements:
In 1944 the growing fuel shortage reduced Japanese pilot training. Prior to that a big contributor to the problem was that the Japanese air services continued to insist on absurd standards for pilot qualifications. A bit like the early Mercury testing. A suite of physical challenges, some of which legitimately excluded people who (with ear problems, sinus problems, vision problems etc) who were not pilot qualified but MANY of which served merely to unnecessarily wash out otherwise-qualified pilots.

Hi Mdiehl,

Would you therefore think that Japanese replacement pilot quality would be more realistic if it were tied to fuel reserves or something along those lines - rather than the current model?

B

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 479

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/19/2005 6:39:32 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

The problem is that I find them neither informative nor sound.

The sentiment is directed back at you with interest.

quote:

He seldom, if ever, provides the source of his information when asked.

I have offered in this thread the source for said data. To repeat:

Frank, Richard
1990 Guadalcanal. Random House, New York, NY.

Lundstrom, John B.
1994 The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD.

1990 The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD.

The detailed analysis of losses has been posted by me several times, and verified independently by others in these fora a couple times. I used to piss off Tristanjohn alot with my observations about the A6M vs F4F data and when he finally got mad enough to do the analysis himself he was shocked. At some point he even came back and noted that the data were as I have represented them. I suppose he's no longer around here much because at some point, having one's integrity challenged yet again by people who seem motivated to end the discussion by the use of ad hominem invective (IIRC, Chez, that was YOU), does in fact deter people from engaging.

OTOH I am encouraged because five years ago I was about the only person who thought that GGPW A2A model got the balance wrong. It is heartening to see that despite the noise from the naysayers, there many now who think I am correct.

By the way, I never started out assuming that the USN should win FTF engagements in the early war. I had read Zero Pilot as a kid, and Incredible Victory, and so forth, all of which made early USN success look like "a lucky break" or whatever. For me the watershed moment was reading Richard Frank's book and then looking at the index data. That exercise demonstrated to my satisfaction that most PTO strategy games err to a certain extent in favor of the Japanese in the early war. Then I read Lundstrom's two books where to the best degree that anyone can the data are broken down pilot by pilot. Empirically, the F4F+pilot was the equal of the Zero+pilot in the very first encounters (and this was substantially before anything like the beam defense was regularly used). Empirically GGPW and WitP do not produce results that accord with something I think is a historical expectation. Therefore, WHATEVER you decide to mess with (EXP, A2A combat model, Zero bonus) there's no escaping that if you want the game to function well in representing the look and feel of early WW2 PTO, SOMETHING needs to be changed.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/19/2005 6:52:10 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 480

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?