crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002 From: Maryland Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crsutton quote:
ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote:
ORIGINAL: crsutton I agree to a point with you. Yours is a valid argument for game balance but not for historical accuracy. Japanese zeros and pilots were at a disadvantage to american aircraft and pilots from about August 1942 on. The reasons are varied, better tactics, better built planes, more reliable planes, better supports service, better flow of supplies, better mechanics, more spare parts, and most important planes with radios vs planes without radios. (sort of like fighting partially blinded) I agree that overall, it all works out and I think the Allies have as good a chance or better of winning the big campaings, so I am not complaining too much. As I said, there are ways around the disparity. However, historically there is no basis for the zero to be so superior to the P40 or wildcat as it is in the game. It just did not happen. I think the biggest issue here is that we don't know what's inside UV game engine (i.e. so-called "black box")... We simply don't know what matters most in air-to-air combat: - numbers? - leader? - altitude advantage? - speed? - rate of climb? - numbers? - pilot morale? - pilot experience? - pilot (and aircraft) fatigue? What we do know is that UV designers created few Japanese CV (and two land ones) Zero squadrons with most excellent pilots that have higher EXP (experience) than USN CV pilots. We also know that Japanese pilot situation quickly deteriorates - needed and unneeded (i.e. excess) pilot replacements quickly "water down" this high EXP Zero squadrons. So... it all balances out eventually (or if you prefer - Allies have distinctive pilot advantage in just few months of gameplay when Japanese start getting en-mass needed and unneeded pilots in EXP range of 15-25... The only question, IMHO, worth discussing is if the initial EXP advantage of few Zero squadrons historically warranted. Again, IMHO, I strongly believe that is correct since the Japanese did bloody their pilots years before the war against allies started (and in combat all training is almost irrelevant until you really feel the first combat and bloody the men)... Leo "Apollo11" Ignore that last one. Well, yes... and we all have to remember that our favorite scenarios, #17 and #19 give the Japanese a much better pool of pilots so it is hard to make historical comparasions based on them. As I said before my only real complaint it the massive number of air casualties (to both sides) that occur in large air battles. They are out of proportion what really did happen in large battles. For some reason, small battles work much better. I think this is just a coding problem where an adjustment needs to be made.
_____________________________
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar. Sigismund of Luxemburg
|