RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

witpqs -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 8:30:50 AM)

Oleg - the Anti-Ron! [X(]

[:D][:D][:D]

[;)]



ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 11:24:43 AM)

quote:

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


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

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

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

Chez



ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 11:27:48 AM)

quote:

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


You don't really expect him to answer that, do you, Oleg?[:D]

Chez



ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 11:53:11 AM)

quote:

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


Ron,

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

People have a right to complain about things they perceive as faults in this game from having played it. I don't always care for the way you present your complaints, Ron but I most certainly respect them, right or wrong, because you've both tested and played this game. I have absolutely no respect for someone who bitches about the game when they have never played it.

Chez




Hipper -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 3:39:42 PM)

Lots of interesting points made here

given that the choice is to eliminate the zero bonus or to give it to the Oscar as well,

I'd eliminate it entirely, or give it to the nate [:D] so that historical use can be made of this plane

I would also look at allied experience levels at the start, I doubt all the historical pilots should start so High! Ive got an austrailian Buffalo squadron with 70+ experience in Singapore in 1941 nice to have but a bit generous. 55 seems more realistic.

cheers







tsimmonds -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 3:53:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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


Ron,

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

Chez

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

quote:

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


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



rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 4:11:18 PM)

quote:

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



Bradley7735 -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 5:28:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 5:32:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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


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

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

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

Chez


No, what Mdiehl is simply saying is that with the primary defensive tactics already worked out prior to PH, it follows that had Midway happened earlier - with everyone using the same plans - there is no logical reason to expect a different outcome because US pilots still don't "know" how to fight a Zero.

That is to say - the "Zero Bonus" or lack thereof was irrelevant to the outcome of the Battle of Midway.

You are certainly free to disagree with that point of view, but that does not mean that Mdiehl did not state his view absolutely clearly.



mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 5:46:22 PM)

@Witpqs:

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

That said. I own and played (no longer play it) UV and played it several times through 1942, and watched the A2A model fail. I do not own but have played WitP through May 1942. I returned the game to the owner because the game is so flawed as to be unworthy of the effort to play it. You only need to play it for a couple hours really, and watch over the course of a short operational interval or campaign to see that the A2A combat system is badly flawed.

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




rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 5:53:46 PM)

quote:

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


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



Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 5:55:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



Another fine point Bradley7735. The unreal exchange rates go far beyond the Zero Bonus.

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

Edit: For anyone who is curiuos, I play against the AI. I have gotten several times to the end of 1942 (well, November anyway).



Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 5:58:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

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


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


Perhaps we should all take a look at the Nik Mod



rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 5:58:51 PM)

quote:

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


Right on, Demosthenes!!

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



dereck -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 6:03:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

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


Right on, Demosthenes!!

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


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



tsimmonds -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 6:06:44 PM)

quote:

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


This is exactly what I mean when I say the game is disappointing. Why is it like this? Uber-CAP. Strike unco-ordination. Too-easy logistics for land, sea, and air. Too much troop transport capacity for IJ. Too much 4E for Allies. Perhaps even The Zero Bonus. And, unfortunately, too much knowledge of history and certainty of future events (the timing and effectiveness of future ship upgrades, the timing and effectiveness of future aircraft types, to name just two) on the part of us players.



mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 6:07:50 PM)

quote:

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

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

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


Actually, I have, many times, and more thoroughly than most of the people who post here. I posted a detailed analysis in this forum a year ago, and a summary analysis a few months back. I've been told by some that the analysis ought to be required reading. That's high compliments for something that just strikes me as a balanced appraisal that anyone could do. I've heard that much of my opinionating on the matter has been substantiated by the new book on Midway.

But here's the old argument for you.
1. The Japanese plan for the Midway attack used insufficient force to accomplish the job.

2. As a consequence 4 CVs had to accomplish three missions simultaneously. a) Suppress Midway as an operational airbase. b) provide cover for their own TF c) interdicte enemy vessels that might interfere with the Midway operation. Of these, only two can be accomplished simultaneously.

3. Since I wrote my initial analysis it has also been noted by others that Japanese turn-around time for arming and launching a strike was quite long, primarily as a consequence of Japanese CV operational doctrine, as compared with USN turn-around time. It was something that I did not know at the time, but it is another factor that weighs against the likelihood of an IJN win.

4. As to luck, my position in re Midway is essentially that if the US had not had such bad luck at Midway they'd have had no luck at all. To wit:
a) Tone #4 scout plane's late launch. Had she flown her scheduled recon route the US CVs would not have been observed at all.
b) The IJN TF's decision to turn north after the USN SBDs had been launched. This caused an entire squadron of SBDs and two of F4Fs to fail to find the Japanese fleet.
c) The consequent result that the TBDs arrived first. Had they arrived with fighter cover and SBDs it is likely that the Zeros would have been busy fighting (and losing slightly) against the F4Fs, and the SBDs and TBDs would have hit the Japanese fleet high and low simultaneously. The initial strike would likely have destroyed all four Japanese CVs.
d) The fortuitous arrival of a Japanese submarine to sink USS Yorktown, that would otherwise have lived to fight another day.

That's the short summary. There are a couple other observations worthy of mention that I have skipped for the sake of brevity. Mostly they attend to the dozen or so obvious cues that were available to Japanese intel that they might be walking into a trap -- which cues they summarily ignored. Each of these points may be expanded upon in detail and I have already done so in great detail once, and in lesser detail a second time, (and now in abstract form in this reply).

With respect to your analogy between two football teams. IMO the Japanese operational plan at Midway was deeply, deeply flawed. While the Japanese "Team" may have been "super bowl quality," their plan was something that forced the Japanese to turn in a performance tantamount to the "scab Patriots" during that NFL football players' strike. As a result you had an engagement that pitted a bunch of talented Japanese against a bunch of talented Americans in circumstances that diluted all the Japanese strengths in the engagement.

Finally there is the irony of the moment. The general strategic idea of using an island base to "Rope a Dope" the enemy CVs while your own CVs nailed them in the flank was a very good idea. Indeed, it was exactly that idea that motivated the Japanese to want Midway in the first place. Unfortunately for the IJN, the same idea had also occurred to Nimitz and Halsey and Spruance.



Speedysteve -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 6:52:22 PM)

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

P.S. Has anyone been to the paradise of Rabaul recently. I've heard they do excellent Pina Colada's compared to the rat hole of Guadacanal.........[;)]



rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 7:01:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

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




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




Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 7:24:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

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




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




Yes this has been hashed over and rehashed before, but at over 4,000 hits obviously people are still interested in it because apparently nothing was ever satisfactorily settled. The attention this thread is drawing makes that fact self evident.



demonterico -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 7:42:33 PM)

Yeah, this morning I saw its up to 11 pages so I figured I'd better go back to it to see what was going on.

[X(] WOW!!!



Honda -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 7:54:19 PM)

Away nuncle!
Till you still have your wits
It is not too late [:D]



witpqs -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 9:26:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

@Witpqs:

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

...

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


You figure?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

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

Oleg


Looks like you'll be keeping those Chevies.

Playing this game is very different than hearing reports about it because of the inter-related aspects of the game. Those evaluating the V-22 have much better data to go on than the reports in this forum, so that analogy fails. As does the circular saw issue. The game works, just not the way we might like (make it better!). Oleg does have a point.

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



witpqs -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 9:30:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

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


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

What kind of results are you getting with this change?



Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 9:44:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

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


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

What kind of results are you getting with this change?


I think you miss-read what he said

quote:



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




mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 9:56:30 PM)

quote:

You figure?


[:D] My bad. Had you targeted when it should have been "Target Chez" (who signed up for the abuse by pitching in with Oleg). I hope the 5" rounds didn't damage anything IMPORTANT. [;)]

And yeah. I'll pitch the Cavaliers in Croatia. I'm sure there's at least ONE Croatian who thinks you can't know anything about a product unless you own it.

quote:

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


Leaving aside the fact that yer irritated that I mistargeted you for the rebuttal (sorry), what's "gutter" about "patsy?" Compared to being alleged a "dunken allied fanboy" I was being nice. So, your attempt at correcting my form of speech is rejected.

And no, Oleg does NOT have a valid point. His only purpose was to derail the discussion by trying to undermine the argument by attacking the opposition rather than the argument. It's called "ad hominem speech." And I'll be as snarky as I please to be in rebutting it when it happens.

I'm not the first, and not the onliest by a long shot who thinks the Zero Bonus is (a) inappropriate, (b) part of a suite of errors contributing to a broken A2A model, and (c) contributes to a poor "look and feel" to the early war portion of the game. So there is obviously a great deal of substantial independent research to back me up in this matter. Indeed, we all know quite a lot now about the WitP A2A model, by what it produces. So the comparison with the V-22 and the Chevrolet Cavalier and broken circular saws is simultaneously appropriate, well-supported, and cogently reasoned.

quote:

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


What sort of experience did A6M2 pilots have fighting F4F pilots that makes you think that Japanese pilots had "the technique" for dealing with F4Fs prior to April 1942 or December 1941? If your claim is that "A Zero bonus is justified because no Wildcat pilot fought a Zero through March 1942" then by equally valid logic a "Wildcat Bonus is justified because no Zero pilot fought an F4F priort to March 1942."

The Wildcat had many characteristics that surprised and shocked Japanese A6M pilots, and that caused many Japanese pilots to DIE because they were not familiar with the enemy plane. One of these was the firepower of 6x.50cal. Another was the Wildcat's superior roll rate. A third was the much greater degree of training in deflection shooting (as a matter of doctrine from 1938 onward) of USN pilots. That is one reason why a common cause of death for an elite, highly trained, combat veteran in an A6M2 was to pull up into a vertical climb too close in front of an F4F. That little maneuver probably killed more veteran Japanese pilots in 1942 than being bounced by an undetected enemy plane.

If "unfamiliarity with the Zeke" is valid grounds for a "Zero bonus," then "unfamiliarity with any Allied aircraft" is valid grounds for a favorable F4F bonus, or P-39 bonus, or even a Brewster Buffalo bonus for that matter, that favors the allied pilots.

In re 1941 and diffusion of knowledge:

You seem not to understand the difference between the "Beam defense" and "mutual support doctrine." The mutual support doctrine was in place from the late 1930s. The "Beam defense" (aka "Thach Weave") was one particular tactic that was specifically to be used when F4Fs were in an inferior tactical position. The beam defense was invented in 1941. It was something that Thach and Flatley (and by the way, O'Hare as well) had worked on and communicated with other members of the squadrons. By the time of Midway battle in 1942, new pilots had rotated in and out of the squadrons, such that Thach had to describe it (in combat no less) to two new wingmen.

The beam defense was not the only "mutual support play" in the Allied playbook. Therefore, whether or not the "beam defense" was widely known is completely irrelevent. American USN/USMC pilots were very well positioned, by doctrine in mutual defense and in training at deflection shooting, to counter the A6M from the get go. So there is no a priori reason to assume that the Zero must have been a particular problem for F4F drivers.

There is also no data that indicate that the Zero was a particular problem for F4F drivers for the interval in question. All DATA show is that the F4F and pilot was slightly more effective than the A6M and pilot through November 1942, and substantially more effective thereafter. Such data as actually exist specifically contradict all claims about the appropriateness of the Zero bonus in a ww2 combat sim of any kind.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 10:25:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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


Ron,

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

Chez

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

quote:

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


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


Thanks Tony...came home from a party last night and fired one off from the hip. That little gem from Oleg did annoy me just a little.[:D]



Oznoyng -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 11:23:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

My first thought when I started writing about all this was that whoever had gotten the 3 to 1 or 6 to 1 ratios with Zeros was getting lucky, because my impressions were that the planes seemed pretty evenly matched in my experience. So, I went back and looked for encounters between F4F-4's and A6M2's in my PBEM. I only found one so far:

Results from PBEM game, battle occurred on 19 August 1942:

Day Air attack on TF at 53,101

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54
G4M1 Betty x 68

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 10 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 12 destroyed, 44 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 17 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Idaho, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
BB Colorado, Torpedo hits 3, on fire
BB Oklahoma
CA Australia, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA Quincy
BB Arizona, Torpedo hits 2

The actual losses were 17 F4F to 13 A6M2 (11 A2A and 2 Ops) plus 4 Betty lost A2A (12 losses were due to flak). I do not see the much exclaimed over 3-to-1 Zero to F4F-4 ratio, let alone a 6-to-1 ratio. The ratio in the encounter above was roughly 1.3-to-1. Not the 1-to-1.2 quoted from Guadalcanal, but certainly in the ballpark, and probably accurate given my numerical advantage.

In this battle, my Zeros were fighting at range 6 against F4F-4's flying LR CAP from a hex away. I was up against VF-2 and VF-3 (which had not been attritted at all so probably 85 experience) and the Zeros in question were from Daitai with average experience around 74 (80/73/69). So I had a 2.7 to 1 numerical advantage in fighters while my opponent likely had a 11 point experience advantage. Not only did his fighters manage to trade 1 to 1.31, they downed 4 Betties. I would say that the fight conditions were to my advantage, and the results showed, but not in a 6-to-1 loss ratio, but in a 1.3-to-1.

Personally, I see nothing out of whack so far. I really want to see some in game results from F4F vs A6M2 battles, *with all the vital stats on each side reported*. I am curious where these 3-to-1 and 6-to-1 ratios are coming from.



rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/14/2005 11:31:15 PM)

quote:

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


There is a common saying in my profession about this: "One case is no case".

At this point, i've had dozens of encounters, and i am quoting the usual range of exchange. Were there instances where they did better than 3 to 1? - yes. Are there instances where they did worse than 6 to 1? Yes.

Other players have noticed similar exchange rates, and so i think i am in the right ballpark.

i don't think that you can base the overall exchange rate of Zeros to Wildcats on one encounter.



dereck -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 12:26:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

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


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

What kind of results are you getting with this change?


To be honest I never kept track and I'm in February 1945 and I can literally put up 1000 carrier planes and shootdown anything that comes my way right now.

They may have changed it in later releases but the database I've been working my scenario off was the 1.21 version and the difference between a Zero and F4F in durability was within 5 points I think.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875