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: unrealistic air combat...

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: unrealistic air combat... Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 2:31:05 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

If the operations officer for the 5th flotilla, Captain Yamaoka described 2/3rds of the Japanese carrier pilots as highly trained in night carrier operations in 1942 then how would a person come to the conclusion that night operations from carriers are ¨far fetched¨ in both mindset and doctrinal thinking? They would not have trained anyone in night operations if what you say is true.


I don't think his claim is correct, or else what he means by "night operations" and "extensively trained" are being misunderstood by yourself. American aviators intensively trained at night launching and night landing in the expectation that they might need to do either in the accomplishment of a dawn or evening attack, and they extensively trained at it starting in 1932. That does not mean that they could have hit anything at night. The complete absence of any such attack by either American or Japanese aviators prior to 1944, at which time only American aviators did it, is compelling enough evidence to me to suggest that the Japanese had no capability to hit *any* target of any kind accurately at night in the time frame covered by UV.

If I ever find substantive corroborating evidence to the contrary I will let you know. But at the moment one Japanese captain's subjective statement is filed with other "interesting but who knows what it means" assertions of the "And We'd Have Gotten Away With It Were It Not For You Meddling Kids" postscript kind.



Do you want ALL night Air combat made "gamey"?

( That last bit sounds insulting, do please desist. )


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 151
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 2:34:54 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII?

I don't. I say, "Forget it."


READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases!
Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 152
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 2:38:52 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike994
If I had over 300 planes hitting PM airfield and scored 100 hits, that´s 33% approx. More or less the 27% airfield hit percentage I posted in the screen shot. It´s the same % roughly. Total hit number by itself doesn´t mean much without the number of attacking aircraft.4


...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right.



So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"?



(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 153
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 3:10:19 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB
READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases!
Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?


Maybe you should STOP SHOUTING AND READ MY POST. All I implied was that this is so minor that it deserves no further attention. Ban? Who said anything about banning?

Just looking for some reasonableness here, Cochise.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 154
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 3:33:38 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB
READ THE POSTS. We are talking Night Carrier OPS against Bases!
Are you saying you would ban them from WITP?


Maybe you should STOP SHOUTING AND READ MY POST. All I implied was that this is so minor that it deserves no further attention. Ban? Who said anything about banning?

Just looking for some reasonableness here, Cochise.


Now you are just playing with words, and rather badly at that.

quote:

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII?

I don't. I say, "Forget it."



I don't think I misunderstood anything written here. You may have course not expressed yourself very well though.
Only the "forget it" implies as you suggest, but given what it follows it is wide open to mis-interpretation.
Whilst my "banning" may have been an overstatement, you certainly appear to be against the use of Carrier Night OPS.
As for the READ THE POSTS, you refered to Ships, we are refering to planes. I was applying normal emphasis where appropriate. Shouting involves using a far larger font size, not caps. If you think otherwise it was rude of you to return the compliment.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 155
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 4:09:42 AM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB


So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"?



No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game.

In a human v human game the players should not do it given the lousy implementation and in a human vs AI it is too easy to exploit.

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 156
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 4:47:56 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

Now you are just playing with words, and rather badly at that.


Oh, goody. Criticism from a refugee engineer from the Tower of Babel.

Tell you what. I apologize for anything I said that prompted you to climb onto my case. Let's forget it, let bygones be bygones, and go back to playing furry little snuggle bunnies.

I just think that "energetic" and vituperative assertions about night bombing effectiveness in WWII Pacific theater is a waste of time here.

We still need a good game covering strategy and operations in the Pacific. For me, UV and WitP, while well-intentioned, didn't satisfy. CF and WitP AE may - I hope.

They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing.

G'nite, DEB. I love you. I promise not to bomb you in your sleep.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 157
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 6:41:20 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

...and again the UK got a hit rate of less than 5% so apparently the Japs are 6x better at doing something than the brits yet really never did it. Hmmmm......maybe not right.

No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game.


I think you´re not comprehending the altitude factor. Stratgeic bombing was done for the most part between 20-30,000+ feet in Europe.

Post a picture of what 20,000+ feet looks like and compare it to my 3,000 feet picture. Huge difference.

quote:

I think your scale is way off. Guadacanal at the end of '42 had close to 200 aircraft, and the airbase (not just the actual landing strip but aircraft revetments, control towers, etc.) was far bigger than your white box.


Certainly you are correct. Probably closer to 3-4-or even 5 times that box. I was just trying to give a practical example that hitting such a huge area at such a low altitude is not even close to impossible. ILCK didn´t get it. A good British example of when they went low altitude their accuracy went up would be the dam busters mission.

quote:

Do you really want a game in which night carrier operations against enemy ships can be effective and possibly decisive in WWII? I don't. I say, "Forget it."


I don´t think anyone wants that pasternakaski. I don´t think there is much danger in that happening in UV.




------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/09/42

Weather: Clear

Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8

Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 54
TBD Devastator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 8 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 58 damaged
TBD Devastator x 4 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 20 damaged

Japanese Ships

CA Furutaka
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 8
CA Kako
CA Myoko
CA Haguro
-------------------------





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ike99 -- 6/24/2008 6:45:59 PM >

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 158
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 8:12:03 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing.


IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke.

< Message edited by Ike99 -- 6/24/2008 8:14:28 PM >

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 159
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 10:42:32 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke.

I mostly agree with this. The very nature of the game (units have to be in the same hex in order to fight each other) dictates some odd mechanics, yet there is a lot of nonsense in there.

I am particularly fond of the idea that it takes you weeks to move one hex, but you can retreat one hex in a matter of a few hours. It almost makes you want to attack your own troops to get them moving.

But, what you wanna do (as the guy in the coroner's office asked Eddington in "In Harm's Way)? I'd like to hear some fresh ideas (and Ike, you seem pretty fresh). Maybe a new thread directed at Carrier Force development would be good (we're kinda off topic here)...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 160
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 10:45:27 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

But at night you would have to find it first, that's the hard part, assuming the field is blacked-out. I imagine a full moon would make a difference.


Assuming Japanese pilots knew how to use a map, compass and clock I think they could find it.

Screen shots from IL2 Pacific Fighters. I think I can mention that here because Matrix sells an expansion for it.







Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 161
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 10:46:40 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline 		.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 162
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 10:55:44 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		My, my. So you fly a two-legged course from Buna (assuming that you found Buna in the first place), then pick up an unlit coast at night to follow "right into Port Moresby." Once there, you go out in search of what it is you want to bomb, then, after tossing some ordnance into the night sky, you sit back, relax, and figure out how in the heck you are going to get home.

Mission accomplished. War won. Sounds like the whole thing might take longer than playing a full campaign scenario of WitP. Hope you've got enough fuel and that the harsh South Pacific conditions haven't deteriorated the maintenance condition of your aircraft so far that all this extra time in the air causes one or more of your engines to go "urk, urk."

I would hate to see the fruit of Tojo's loins (oops, pardon me, a man from an unstable democracy) wind up eaten by Papua cannibals.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 163
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/24/2008 11:08:47 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

My, my. So you fly a two-legged course from Buna (assuming that you found Buna in the first place), then pick up an unlit coast at night to follow "right into Port Moresby." Once there, you go out in search of what it is you want to bomb, then, after tossing some ordnance into the night sky, you sit back, relax, and figure out how in the heck you are going to get home.


Ehhh, not exactly. Getting home would be the simple matter of using the same process.

Dead reckoning (DR) is the process of estimating one's current position based upon a previously determined position, or fix, and advancing that position based upon known speed, elapsed time, and course.

quote:

Mission accomplished. War won. Sounds like the whole thing might take longer than playing a full campaign scenario of WitP. Hope you've got enough fuel and that the harsh South Pacific conditions haven't deteriorated the maintenance condition of your aircraft so far that all this extra time in the air causes one or more of your engines to go "urk, urk."


Mindless rant.

quote:

I would hate to see the fruit of Tojo's loins (oops, pardon me, a man from an unstable democracy) wind up eaten by Papua cannibals.


Thanks.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 164
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 1:55:46 AM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

They've got a lot higher mountains to climb than night bombing.


IMHO the most unrealistic part to UV is something no one ever talks about, the ground combat and how it works. It´s a joke.


Land combat would be more of a joke if the results were not such an incomprehensible mess that it is hard to even figure out what has actually happened - although UCV takes a major step towards transparency over the old Pacific War

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 165
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 2:03:06 AM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I think you´re not comprehending the altitude factor. Stratgeic bombing was done for the most part between 20-30,000+ feet in Europe.

Post a picture of what 20,000+ feet looks like and compare it to my 3,000 feet picture. Huge difference.


Night bombers tended to fly much lower than the daylight raiders at 7k-17k. Still obviously not 3000 feet but not as huge a gap as you'd like. They were also attacking much larger targets/target groups. An industrial complex or rail yard is sizeably larger than the airbases at PM would have been and it is,. of course, worth mentioning that airbases at PM, or GG or Buna were not single strip affairs but dude to the terrain dispersed fields built where ever the terrain allowed it so you don't get huge aerodromes to smack around....and of course the last factor is that this is ALL they did so they should have been as good as you could get at it.

While you joke about go X miles and turn left the simple fact is that is all the Brits had to do as well and they couldn't hit diddly or squat until they made their aiming point an entire city and not just some part of it.

33% is a silly figure for night bombing and if any airforce could have done 33% hit rate they'd never have flown in daylight since the US daylight accuracy was only about 20% for the war.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 166
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 2:39:45 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Ehhh, not exactly. Getting home would be the simple matter of using the same process.

How? Fly southwest until you come to that magical point on the coast from which you can retrace your steps to Buna, thence to your base of origin? This is all very silly, Ike.

By the way, I am not mindless, and I do not rant. Occasionally, I like to inject a little fun into these discussions (which are most frequently pointless and fruitless). I cannot be an apologist for those slow of wit and devoid of humor.

Thanks to you, too.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 167
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 3:49:11 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

How? Fly southwest until you come to that magical point on the coast from which you can retrace your steps to Buna, thence to your base of origin? This is all very silly

While you joke about go X miles and turn left...


Joke? Silly? Magical points?

What do you think Charles Lindbergh navigated with in 1927 from New York to Paris?

A GPS system?

Finding Port Moresby no doubt was easy for the Japanese at night. It sits right on the coast.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 168
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 4:06:34 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
What do you think Charles Lindbergh navigated with in 1927 from New York to Paris?

Lindbergh stated afterward that he was hopelessly lost (merely heading in the direction he prayed was one that would bring him to something recognizable as Europe) and was lucky to make landfall where he could recover his bearings and make a decent attempt at finding Paris.

That coast to which you refer is, as you should be able to note from the map you supply, difficult enough to follow in the daylight while merely reading your post, let alone at night in real life. I suggest you at least realize the difficulty involved in finding the airfields as targets, several kilometers from the coast, let alone the pilot's ability to go through all this, make a bombing run, then retrace his course to get back along the circuitous route you suggest.

Do you have any evidence that your "creative" mission routing technique was actually followed by Japanese bomber missions?

All I can say, being a pilot myself, is that, if you have to navigate by dead reckoning, you might as well reckon yourself dead.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 169
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 4:24:35 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Lindbergh stated afterward that he was hopelessly lost (merely heading in the direction he prayed was one that would bring him to something recognizable as Europe) and was lucky to make landfall where he could recover his bearings and make a decent attempt at finding Paris.


Charles Lindberg crossed the entire Atlantic with no landmarks using dead rekoning. Very easy how a single degree would throw off ones navigation by 100´s of miles. Not so here.

Even if you are 1 or 2 degrees off in this case, and this could make one miss Port Moresby coming from Rabaul in the dark...the clock and 180 degree turn south, find the coast line, follow it north would correct it. That´s why I put that 180 turn in there as a safety just incase I was a degree or 2 off.

quote:

That coast to which you refer is, as you should be able to note from the map you supply, difficult enough to follow in the daylight while merely reading your post, let alone at night in real life.


I don´t know what kind of pilot couldn´t follow a coastline in daylight. Certainly none I know. I wouldn´t call such a person a pilot actually.

What kind of person can´t look down from a full moon and not tell if he was over land or water for that matter.



< Message edited by Ike99 -- 6/25/2008 4:27:24 AM >

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 170
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 6:54:22 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
I don´t know what kind of pilot couldn´t follow a coastline in daylight. Certainly none I know. I wouldn´t call such a person a pilot actually.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 171
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 5:12:23 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

Wow!  I knew those penguins would manage to get themselves in trouble.  Now those dolphins are at risk!  I wonder what Mr. Limpet has to say about this new turn the war effort has taken?

Trying to get from point A to point B in daylight over an ocean where there are no geographical reference points navigating by compass and time is and was an inexact method of navigation.  So if there are tailwinds, headwinds or crosswinds do you think things could get a little hairy?  What if the winds shift over the flight of hundreds of miles?  Hmmmm, imagine trying to find a CV at night that's not lit up and is moving.  At the briefing they said we'll be here, but maybe 3 hours later they traveled a couple of knots faster.  Trouble...........

Anyway back to the bombing of the South Pole.  Thankfully Santa Claus lives at the North Pole or millions of kids would really be POed at the Japanese.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 172
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 7:35:11 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Well, I'm done poking fun at Ike, and I apologize if any of my nonsense went too far and offended.

I just couldn't get beyond the realization (self-induced, of course) that this whole discussion was silly and getting sillier.

As Radar O'Reilly said to Frank Burns after he made fun of Radar for sleeping with a Teddy bear, "I'm hoping to do better, sir."

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 173
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/25/2008 7:39:37 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

Ehhh, not exactly. Getting home would be the simple matter of using the same process.


Flying at night is not remotely easily done by dead reckoning. Minore things like air pressure changes, windspeed changes, and cross winds required pilots, prior to Loran, to have lots of visual waypoints for missions beyond around 200 miles, because every course change could be GUARANTEED to be accompanied by some sort of wind direction/strength or air-pressure induced error.

The USN used radio to allow returning pilots to fix the locations of their CVs. The RAF used same for navigational guidance for night bombers. Other allied night patrol craft used radio beacon homing and celestial navigation.

Single seat aircraft were, absent strong radio navigation, almost hopelessly at risk trying to navigate at night during WW2.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/25/2008 7:40:32 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 DEB)
Post #: 174
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/26/2008 5:01:27 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

... I wonder what Mr. Limpet has to say about this new turn the war effort has taken?


Das Limpet was in the ETO, not PTO, just see below:

Henry Limpet: Well, with the war in Europe and new weapons being invented all the time, why, what if men were actually foolish enough to destroy themselves completely? Then, you see, the fish in the ocean would develop into a new race of men, and, well, this time they might turn out better, you see?

And who could forget this famous query?
Bessie Limpet: Henry, am I the widow of a man or the wife of a fish?
Henry Limpet: Well, let's be logical, Bessie. You can't very well keep me in the bathtub, can you?

No, she can't.



_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 175
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/26/2008 4:52:49 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		I apologize to nobody for jesting on the forum as it's all meant in fun and not nastily.  This forum is, after all, for our free exchange of ideas and enjoyment.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 176
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/26/2008 6:36:15 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

I apologize to nobody for jesting on the forum as it's all meant in fun and not nastily.  This forum is, after all, for our free exchange of ideas and enjoyment.

Just trying to be conciliatory is all, Todd. A long time ago, I posted that it seemed strange to me that people here took things so seriously and got all whipped up over stuff - I mean, it's a forum about GAMES - duh! Nexr thing you know, I'm a "troll" and a "jerk."

Since, I've tried to keep it light and, as you put it, confine my remarks to "fun," unless the subject calls for serious discussion, but I still try to be polite and respectful.

It's tough sometimes, though. There are some eyeballs that just beg for the "sharp stick" treatment.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 177
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/26/2008 7:02:22 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		I agree, but our thin skinned members need to grow up and learn to laugh, sometimes even at themselves.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 178
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/27/2008 12:00:55 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ILCK


quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB


So you want to make ALL night Air combat "gamey"?



No, if it exists it should ideally be made to reflect the reality of the capabilities of the forces in '42-'43. That capability is much less effective than Ike has discussed - a 33% hit rate is absurd and indefensible in a "historical" game.

In a human v human game the players should not do it given the lousy implementation and in a human vs AI it is too easy to exploit.



But as the game stands, considering your comments; you evidently do!

(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 179
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 6/27/2008 12:11:05 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: pasternakski


quote:


Oh, goody. Criticism from a refugee engineer from the Tower of Babel.

Tell you what. I apologize for anything I said that prompted you to climb onto my case. Let's forget it, let bygones be bygones, and go back to playing furry little snuggle bunnies.


Snide remarks this time, before and after the "apology". Not accepted!!


quote:

I just think that "energetic" and vituperative assertions about night bombing effectiveness in WWII Pacific theater is a waste of time here.


That's possible. It's also an insult to all those who have participated.

quote:


G'nite, DEB. I love you. I promise not to bomb you in your sleep.


If you ever had the opportunity, I'd get my Strike in first!


< Message edited by DEB -- 6/27/2008 12:52:13 AM >

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: unrealistic air combat... Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.922