RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

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: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

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: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/21/2005 9:59:11 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Please ... make it stop!

You can always stop reading it

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 241

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/21/2005 10:06:56 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Well, just wanted to point out that I am pleased with the basic game, even if it is not (and probably was not meant to be) completely hyper-accurate. Bugs are bugs, and need to be squashed, but the game, generally speaking, does what I expected of it rather well.

Some players will disagree, and that's fine. They may feel that they were mislead by the game description. But I read the same description, and I came away with a different preconception. *shrugs*

I look at it like a TV commercial. Do you really think that a Kit Kat bar is going to make you so happy in the tummy that you will dance through the streets? I do not. And remarkably, few lawsuits, if any, are won based on that clearly false result of eating one as shown.

I appreciate the efforts of the CHS team, and I have that scenerio loaded up and in progress right now (as a player vs AI game). I understand the desire for as much accuracy as possible, given the limits of the game engine, and the limited availability of 60+ year old historical records. This caters to the playerbase that likes to see (or understand) if they "can do better", or to get a feel for the historical decisions and why they were made. I belong to this kind of playerbase. Good job guys!

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 242

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/21/2005 10:11:58 PM

doktorblood

Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Please ... make it stop!

You can always stop reading it

I can't stop looking. Kind of like how I always have to look at my neighbor's hideous dog.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 243

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/21/2005 10:15:10 PM

mdiehl

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

quote:

I look at it like a TV commercial. Do you really think that a Kit Kat bar is going to make you so happy in the tummy that you will dance through the streets? I do not. And remarkably, few lawsuits, if any, are won based on that clearly false result of eating one as shown.

No, but if the commercial describes a candy bar with chocolate, peanuts, caramel and nouget you don't pop it into your mouth expecting "to have your cheeks pierced."

If you get the Allies in a WW2 Pac Game you expect in 1941-1942 to be able to oppose a like (or even slightly greater) number of enemy CVs with your own CVs and have a roughly equal chance of winning the engagement (all other things being equal).

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 10/21/2005 10:17:01 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 mlees)

Post #: 244

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/21/2005 10:17:36 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
Do you really think that a Kit Kat bar is going to make you so happy in the tummy that you will dance through the streets?

That's what they do to me. Mmmmm.... gimmie a break...... gimmie a break. break me off a piece of that kit kat bar!!!

Oh yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post. Great game. CHS makes it better. But it was still great to begin with. It'll get better still.

bc

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 245

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/21/2005 10:34:01 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Please point out where it says anything about simulating anything. Read the introduction in the manual. Tell me where to look to see where it says "simulation".

Actually, iirc, some of their early advertising copy DID say simulation. They made a semi-big deal about how it had been purchased by some army (NZ?) for simulation/training purposes. Stuff like this is why i originally purchased WITP - and thought it was a serious sim.

I don't remember if it was "official" Matrix advertisements, or if they just provided links that said stuff like that. Even now, there are official links to reviews that make the claim "Much more than just a game, War in the Pacific is a powerful simulation of theater warfare in the Pacific during World War Two."

They have since (apparently) changed their advertising copy, and i've changed my mind about what it is...

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 246

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 1:38:11 AM

testarossa

Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

What's the difference between simulation, stimulation, and ejaculation?

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 247

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 1:40:59 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Trying to get this thread locked down?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to testarossa)

Post #: 248

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 1:45:11 AM

testarossa

Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Trying to get this thread locked down?

Well, game simulates something (war in the pacific), while stimulating something (our brain and/or ego). And after that we all come (oops i meant post) here.

< Message edited by testarossa -- 10/22/2005 1:47:44 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 249

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 1:46:03 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to testarossa)

Post #: 250

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 2:01:10 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

They made a semi-big deal about how it had been purchased by some army (NZ?) for simulation/training purposes.

IIRC it was UV that was bought by the Aussie Army.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 251

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 2:35:39 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

You are correct AB.

It was UV.

_____________________________

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 252

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 5:41:33 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The following is cut from WitP offical site:

quote:

� War in the Pacific: The Struggle Against Japan 1941-1945� � is a completely new strategy game, based on the award winning �Uncommon Valor� game engine. The scale is 60 miles per hex and losses are individual vehicles, aircraft, guns and squads. Since half the planet Earth is covered by the titanic Pacific struggle, the game is massive in scope, covering thousands of ships tens of thousands of aircraft. Virtually every ship, air group and battalion sized or larger troop formation is covered in exacting detail. Massive, yet simple to play, as the computer tracks all the factors and the interface allows the player to concern himself with only the degree of detail he prefers. Phases are one day, composed of two 12-hour impulses. A turn is composed of 1 to 7 phases, at the player�s discretion. He may also choose continuous play and may interrupt that by pressing a key.

War in the Pacific has detail never before achieved in a game of this scale before.

Please point out where it says anything about simulating anything. Read the introduction in the manual. Tell me where to look to see where it says "simulation". Read the cover of the manual: "GAME MANUAL".

Mike, it is a GAME!!!! It will NEVER be anything other than a GAME!!! It was never ment to be anything else! I dont know where you get the mis-guided notion that it is or ever will be anything else.

I give up, Hugger..., you are right! It's a GAME! In spite of "massive in scope, covering thousands of ships tens of thousands of aircraft. Virtually every ship, air group and battalion sized or larger troop formation is covered in exacting detail"; it is really just "CANDYLAND" writ large. Happy?

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 253

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 7:24:12 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"If you get the Allies in a WW2 Pac Game you expect in 1941-1942 to be able to oppose a like (or even slightly greater) number of enemy CVs with your own CVs and have a roughly equal chance of winning the engagement (all other things being equal)."

I've managed to find out that in WITP I do have just such a chance. I've lost some CV battles and won some, just as I would expect to. I've had to be careful because in '41-42 there is rarely a chance for the US carriers to meet a relatively equal number of Japanese carriers (considering the tendency for the KB to stick together, but with patience I have been able to pounce when the KB is split up for multiple operations. This is just as I would expect in any simulation of the Pacific theatre.

I'm not saying that WITP doesn't have warts, but it's still my favorite GAME, which I want to behave in a semi-historical manner. This is why I am playing the CHS...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 254

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 4:32:36 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

You are correct AB.
It was UV.

Similar claims were made for WITP.

I already owned UV, and discovered WITP advertising and the "simulation purchased by xxx military". Silly me, being impressed by this advertising copy purchased it partly on the basis. (BTW, if i thought it was like UV, i would not have purchased it, since i couldn't get UV to work on my computer for more than a couple of minutes without crashing.)

Of course, the claim could have been just that - a claim. I have no way of verifying it, and perhaps the UV purchase claim got slopped over into WITP copy. However, i thought i also found in one of the WITP reviews that WITP had been purchased by Aus or NZ military. I'll see if i can find it later...

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 10/22/2005 5:21:13 PM >

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 255

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 5:36:34 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
If you get the Allies in a WW2 Pac Game you expect in 1941-1942 to be able to oppose a like (or even slightly greater) number of enemy CVs with your own CVs and have a roughly equal chance of winning the engagement (all other things being equal).

But exactly this seems to be the case in WITP when smaller carrier forces are involved. In all carrier engagements involving 2 vs. 2 carriers I've had in own PBEM in the first half of 1942, the results were 1-2 carriers lost for both sides.

It only becomes problematic when large numbers of fighters flying CAP are involved, that is when KB acts together as the death-star. The game engine still seems (while some improvements were made in patches) to be unable, to adequately handle air combats where large numbers of planes are involved. Works, of course, for both sides: Just throw all you have on your enemy and overhelm him with numbers.

And I still don't understand the reason behind the carrier strike coordination rules. Don't understand why in WITP the Japanese (using flags and not having enough radios for their planes) have less problems with strike coordination than the Allies. Because of their successful strikes against ports like PH and Darwin? Not really related to carrier battles, it seems. IMHO it would be a much better game if the same penalties would apply for both sides, enforcing the use of smaller carrier TF's as it was historically done in WW2 (even at Midway the Japanese carriers were grouped in two TF's).

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 256

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 5:40:09 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

It's always been my understanding that the Japanese gradually lose their coordination of CV strikes as the war progresses, while the Allies gain theirs.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 257

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 5:51:20 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's always been my understanding that the Japanese gradually lose their coordination of CV strikes as the war progresses, while the Allies gain theirs.

Hi,

yes, but I don't understand why the Japanese should have less problems with coordination than the Allies. There seems not to be any historical justification for this. Coordination should improve for both sides due to technological progress (fighter control centres, radio equipment etc.). But even in 1944, the Allies did not use 6 CV TF's regulary (if they did this at all).

K

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 258

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 6:09:11 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

Pilot training

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 259

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/22/2005 6:23:55 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: worr

Pilot training

Even IJN pilots were not trained for such large strikes against naval targets as we see them sometimes in the game, at least did they never show this in carrier battles (their quality is already included in the game, XP and Zero bonus).

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 260

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/23/2005 12:15:10 AM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

I think that is the point. Their lack of quality is included in the game not only for XP and Zero bonus, but lack of coordination in large strikes.

Mind you this is an educated guess, but I think it makes sense. Lower ability means less coordination as the war goes on. Formation flying isn't easy for a new pilot....and coordinated flying in large groups takes some experience.

Worr, out

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 261

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/23/2005 8:25:39 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
(even at Midway the Japanese carriers were grouped in two TF's).

No, they were in 1 TF. They had 2 carrier divisions (one under Nagumo, and one under Yamaguchi), but they were in the same TF. There were CVLs in a 2nd TF, but they never got into the battle.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 262

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/23/2005 2:54:07 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's always been my understanding that the Japanese gradually lose their coordination of CV strikes as the war progresses, while the Allies gain theirs.

Hi,
yes, but I don't understand why the Japanese should have less problems with coordination than the Allies. There seems not to be any historical justification for this. Coordination should improve for both sides due to technological progress (fighter control centres, radio equipment etc.). But even in 1944, the Allies did not use 6 CV TF's regulary (if they did this at all).
K

For the US by 1944 the standard "Carrier sub-group" (ie. TF 58.2) had 4 CV/CVL's and their AAA screening vessels. TF 38 or TF 58 would have several of these sub-groups (for a while, the British Pacific Fleet was TF 58.7). At the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Japanese adopted a similar set up, with three CV/CVL sub-groups. And their "coordination" during "The Marianna's Turkey Shoot" was rather poor, with successive waves of "targets" arriving all day. US coordination (thanks to radar and FDC's) made certain that each wave was met by a suitable set of "greeter's.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 263

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/24/2005 3:52:53 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

And I still don't understand the reason behind the carrier strike coordination rules. Don't understand why in WITP the Japanese (using flags and not having enough radios for their planes) have less problems with strike coordination than the Allies. Because of their successful strikes against ports like PH and Darwin? Not really related to carrier battles, it seems. IMHO it would be a much better game if the same penalties would apply for both sides, enforcing the use of smaller carrier TF's as it was historically done in WW2 (even at Midway the Japanese carriers were grouped in two TF's).

Here, here!!

I think the rule originated in comparing apples to oranges: that is, IJN carriers operating in a SINGLE TF were better coordinated (early in the war) than USN carriers operating in SEPARATE TFs.

I think the rule would be more accurate if you gained coordination in strikes when operating your CVs in the same TF, no matter what side was doing it. Of course, the chance that ALL your CVs could get sunk in one devastating attack (a la Midway) is increased, along with coordination of airstrikes. It would be a trade off.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 264

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/30/2005 2:54:06 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Oops sorry forgot op security

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 10/30/2005 3:10:35 PM >

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 265

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/30/2005 3:07:41 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

Andy, please edit...those files are now secret...MC could be reading...

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 266

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/30/2005 3:09:10 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

and then again.....problems with Japan are pilots, not planes. Those planes aren't of any use if flown by 25/30 experience pilots

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)

Post #: 267

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/30/2005 3:12:31 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I agree but a 25 - 30 xp pilot is better than a 90 pilot sitting on the ground without a ride !!!!

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)

Post #: 268

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/30/2005 3:18:03 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

John Ellis gives the following fighter production stats for 1942

Japan: 2935
USA: 10769
UK: 9849

Andy I agree with the poster above, you should not quote his game by name. You could post these figures under a headline that says "figures from one AAR" rather than naming the game. He should also edit his posts out, you will notice I do not use his name in this post or identify the game in any way.

In 1943 the figures were:
Japan: 7147
USA: 23988
UK: 10727

It does appear that Japan is producing at a 1943 rate in 1942. As I have mentioned before I think that is fine, but don't call it historical.

The CHS game appears to give the Allies about 18% of their total production in the first year of the war.

Though I agree that pilots are a critical feature for game win/loss I don't think they are relevant if the discussion is about the historical accuracy of production. If we were discussin play balance that would be different.

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)

Post #: 269

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/30/2005 3:30:34 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

Yes, ok, but you do know that if you want an accurate historical game you would have to change the whole game.
Starting from the code...

I think, talking about games, balance is more important than historical accurance.

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 270

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?