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

Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/21/2005 11:55:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

An interview with Saburo Sakai

http://www.warbirdforum.com/sakai.htm

On the Zero
During the war, I was convinced the Zero Model 21 was the best fighter plane anywhere. It was always number one with me. Then a few years ago, at Champlin, I had the chance to fly in a Mustang and take the controls for a while. What an incredible plane! It could do anything the Zero could, and many things the Zero can't, like a high-speed, spiraling dive. In the Zero, the stick would be too heavy to control the plane at those speeds. The Mustang's number one with me now, and I'm afraid the Zero's number two!



More from that site about the Zero's maneuverability:

On the Zero's maneuverability
Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."



Skyros -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/21/2005 11:56:41 PM)

I like that part plus what he had to say about Genda and the George.



moses -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/21/2005 11:56:52 PM)

quote:

No, the geniuses at the New York Times are covering that angle.



Really which side are they on????



Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:00:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

I like that part plus what he had to say about Genda and the George.


You mean "it (the George) was a piece of crap made by a third rate manufacturere" That part?[;)]



Don Bowen -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:01:12 AM)


I've just read "Shattered Sword" by Parshall and Tully. I highly recommend this book to all. In addition, the reading of it has convinced me:

1. The Zero bonus should be removed.
2. The Allied Damage Control Bonus should be retained.
3. The allied Multi-carrier Strike Coordination Penalty should be retained.




Skyros -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:03:01 AM)

Yeah that part.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

I like that part plus what he had to say about Genda and the George.


You mean "it (the George) was a piece of crap made by a third rate manufacturere" That part?[;)]




jwilkerson -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:09:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

WITP is not conjecture - WITP is not a mathematical system nor any part of one - it is a computer wargame - different beast entirely !


It is a computer wargame. It is also a mathematical (or more precisely, an arithmetic one linked by mathematical logical rules) system. There are determinative if then statements that link quantified variables in arithmetic ways to derive a new data state from a prior data state. Basically just a very complex arithmetical model.

It's also a conjecture. The equations that link variables to produce new iterated states of the data are mathematical equations each of which posits, conjecturally, a relationship between the variables and thereby data in the variables. By offering this complex arithmetical model as a WW2 PTO strategy game, the designer further conjectures that the model that he has offered bears some sort of consistent and systematic relationship with an underlying dynamic that accurately represents the relationships between "those things and people encompassed by World War 2 in the Pacific Theater."

The point of these sorts of discussions is to assess the degree to which the conjectured mathematical relationships represent a reasonable model of the real world phenomenon.


I think you got your Math degree from a different school than I did [:D]

Discussing WITP in terms of pure mathematics is non-sense per my training .. so instead I would steer us towards the realm of "applied mathematics" where there is some "machinery" that can help us.

If ( and many would disagree with this ) we assume for the sake of discussion, that WITP was intended to be a simulation ( and this may be what you are driving at ) then we could discuss two aspects. One of these aspects is .. have we implemented the simulation technically correctly ( such as if we intended to have A+B=C in the simulation ... does it ) and the other aspect is whether it models what we intended it to model.

I make simulations as a part of my job - and I can certainly say that we know our simulations ( our models ) are not 100% accurate - if they were - they would not be models. We can always name a factor we are not considering - hence we always know our models are not 100% complete and hence not 100% accurate. So why do we use them ? Economics. We have three levels of "investigative tools" to bring to the table. "Analysis", "Simulation" and "Empirical Observation" ... each of these tools requires a different level of investment of time and money ... and each has its place in the "tool kit". Analysis is often used to determine what tool to use next ... simulation is used mostly for "What if" .. but anything that we would present to a customer as a solution .. must be tested on a real tool ( in my case a semi-conductor manufacturing "tool" ) .. but performing all tests on a real tool for all what if analysis would be far to expensive in terms of time and resources, hence simulation is used ( and where appropriate the even cheaper analysis tool.

So, back from digression ( just want to make sure my use of the term "simulation" is understood ) ... "simulation" is a mathematical model ... which ( in our case ) attempts to model something in the real world. The "purpose" of the model has much to do with whether it may be judged to be successful or not successful. There are no absolutely correct models ( absolute implies 100% .. not possible ). The purpose of WITP ( if it were a simulation ) is to provide entertainment to its players. Its purpose is not to provide the USN with a training tool. Its purpose is to provide its owners and creators with some piece of their livelihood and in exchange for the selling price, to provide entertainment to the customers. If it is a simulation, it is to provide this entertainment by providing us with some type of simulation of WITP ( 1941-1945 ) ... but again its success is not measured in absolute terms .. but instead in terms of its purpose.

Given the "niche" market for a product like WITP ( after all it has no Orcs or Spacemen ) and given the level of activity on this forum - and sales indicated by that level of activity. WITP has been unexpectedly successful - at its purpose. Can it be improved as a simulation ? Absolutely all simulations can be improved. However, there becomes a point at which the value of improving the simulation is less than the benefit to be gained from improving it. In my world - we have a "quick and dirty" analyzer for our tool. It can be set up in minutes and run in seconds ... I can answer questions over the phone with it .. but it is far from as accurate as our more detailed "simulation" model .. which takes hours to set up .. and dozens of minutes to run ... but each tool is used in the proper place for that tool.

If the purpose of these discussions is to assess the "gaps" between WITP and the real world - attention also needs to be paid to the purpose for which WITP is and will be used. And priorities set accordingly. Again, we cannot close to the gap to zero - no one could afford that.



mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:18:19 AM)

quote:

Conjectures, underlying dynamics, cartesion propositions, ad hominem, etc. Shouldn't these guys all be out winning the fight on terror or something.


That would require an administration that gives credence to informed expertise qua dogma in policy formulation.

quote:

I think you got your Math degree from a different school than I did


Probabilistically speaking that'd seem likely. [;)]

quote:

Discussing WITP in terms of pure mathematics is non-sense per my training .. so instead I would steer us towards the realm of "applied mathematics" where there is some "machinery" that can help us


I agree. But then no one has suggested that it is "pure mathematics." Only that it is a model. You can substitute "simulation" if you like and as you have and that's fine. The rest that you wrote I generally agree. Mostly. WitP does advertise itself as a simulation of WW2. By that stated standard it is a bad model. If its only purpose was to generate revenue without regard to value as a sim, it might well be successful.



moses -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:28:25 AM)

quote:

By that stated standard it is a bad model.


Clearly this is unscientific. For one thing the word "bad" is not long enough.

But more importantly Jwilkerson has just brilliently explained (and no sarcasm here) that no simulation is 100% accurate. Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly. I think it only means that you don't like it which if so OK just say that.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:29:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

No, the geniuses at the New York Times are covering that angle.



Really which side are they on????


Theirs.




Tristanjohn -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:30:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


I've just read "Shattered Sword" by Parshall and Tully. I highly recommend this book to all. In addition, the reading of it has convinced me:

1. The Zero bonus should be removed.
2. The Allied Damage Control Bonus should be retained.
3. The allied Multi-carrier Strike Coordination Penalty should be retained.




Well, two out of three ain't bad.




John 3rd -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:34:53 AM)

That would be a VERY KIND way to describe the New York Times...



spence -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:37:32 AM)

The Thread approaches...



moses -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:41:51 AM)

I'll never understand this WOT. But Mdiehl says we need to get Qua Dogma and he writes really long posts (Mdiehl not Qua Dogma.) I didn't even know the Spanish were on a side.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:43:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

By that stated standard it is a bad model.


Clearly this is unscientific. For one thing the word "bad" is not long enough.

But more importantly Jwilkerson has just brilliently explained (and no sarcasm here) that no simulation is 100% accurate. Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly. I think it only means that you don't like it which if so OK just say that.


What mdiehl was conversationally getting at is that the WitP model doesn't simulate WWII in the PTO convincingly. If that represents a "good deal" to most of the people on this board, then all's well and good for them, and by that yardstick Gary's game could be termed a "success" in that quarter. However, an accurate (even reasonably accurate) simulation of WWII in the Pacific it is certainly not. Objectively speaking, always.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:45:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That would be a VERY KIND way to describe the New York Times...


Actually it's utter bullshit, but I figure tit-for-tat is fair play when it comes to those people.




moses -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 12:55:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

By that stated standard it is a bad model.


Clearly this is unscientific. For one thing the word "bad" is not long enough.

But more importantly Jwilkerson has just brilliently explained (and no sarcasm here) that no simulation is 100% accurate. Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly. I think it only means that you don't like it which if so OK just say that.


What mdiehl was conversationally getting at is that the WitP model doesn't simulate WWII in the PTO convincingly. If that represents a "good deal" to most of the people on this board, then all's well and good for them, and by that yardstick Gary's game could be termed a "success" in that quarter. However, an accurate (even reasonably accurate) simulation of WWII in the Pacific it is certainly not. Objectively speaking, always.


Yardstick!!!? Well hell there's you're problem. Not even El Cid would use a yardstick to measure this thing. Maybe a protractor after a few bears but a yardstick!!

Seriously 'convincingly', 'Good deal' 'accurate', you know at the end of many long posts with a lot of big words when you really look at it theres just people making a subjective call.



mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:04:02 AM)

quote:

Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly.


For me it means the combat model produces outcomes empirically within 20% of historical standard. As it presently stands the A2A combat model does not get within a factor of 2 (best case) to 4 (worst case) in early 1942. If ya bought a car with a promised useful life of ten years ye'd be irritated if it only lasted 2-4 years (just to give you an idea of what is meant by "factor of 2-4" since you seem to have a problem understanding other commonly used terms like "bad" and "qua").



spence -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:04:37 AM)

I'm not sure that I would even approach a bear with a protractor...or a yardstick for that matter.



spence -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:05:15 AM)

I certainly wouldn't approach multiple bears with a protractor.



mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:12:57 AM)

Nor spend protracted amounts of time with bears. [;)] Could you bear protracting a bear? It may barely be possible.[:'(]



moses -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:14:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I certainly wouldn't approach multiple bears with a protractor.


Sorry I meant beers. I hope Mogami's not watching.



moses -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:28:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly.


For me it means the combat model produces outcomes empirically within 20% of historical standard. As it presently stands the A2A combat model does not get within a factor of 2 (best case) to 4 (worst case) in early 1942. If ya bought a car with a promised useful life of ten years ye'd be irritated if it only lasted 2-4 years (just to give you an idea of what is meant by "factor of 2-4" since you seem to have a problem understanding other commonly used terms like "bad" and "qua").


20% of historical standard. I don't know if thats bad or qua. Are we talking kill ratios between specific aircraft under a certain condition. So it should be 3-1 but comes out 3.6-1? This seems like a pretty tight standard. Do you even have anything close to controled data with a lot of events. Something like 100 kills over an american base where the zero flew in from 200 miles away. (70 zero's 30 F4f's for example) Now if you have 5 or 6 data sets like this you could test each set with and without this and see which matched up better. But I suspect you'd get something like with zero bonus matched set 3 and 4 w/o bonus it matched 1,5,6. 2 was the same either way.

You could spend a lot of time on this. But fortunately most people are killing the zero's fine.

And theres other things that are way more then 20% off that we could talk about.

The game data that people have produced do not seem to support the idea that there is a serious problem here.

How about turning some of that analytical ability to the flaws in large air combats. Now there may be a real issue.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:34:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I certainly wouldn't approach multiple bears with a protractor.


Sorry I meant beers. I hope Mogami's not watching.


Nowadays, I'd be forced to approach multiple beers with a game face. Unless it was hot outside. And maybe if Russ nudged me some.





spence -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:37:44 AM)

I think the biggest problem with large air combats is the utterly ficticious notion that the IJN or IJA were at anytime during their existence capable of effectively managing a large number of fighters simultaneously in defense of anything.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:40:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly.


For me it means the combat model produces outcomes empirically within 20% of historical standard. As it presently stands the A2A combat model does not get within a factor of 2 (best case) to 4 (worst case) in early 1942. If ya bought a car with a promised useful life of ten years ye'd be irritated if it only lasted 2-4 years (just to give you an idea of what is meant by "factor of 2-4" since you seem to have a problem understanding other commonly used terms like "bad" and "qua").


20% of historical standard. I don't know if thats bad or qua. Are we talking kill ratios between specific aircraft under a certain condition. So it should be 3-1 but comes out 3.6-1? This seems like a pretty tight standard. Do you even have anything close to controled data with a lot of events. Something like 100 kills over an american base where the zero flew in from 200 miles away. (70 zero's 30 F4f's for example) Now if you have 5 or 6 data sets like this you could test each set with and without this and see which matched up better. But I suspect you'd get something like with zero bonus matched set 3 and 4 w/o bonus it matched 1,5,6. 2 was the same either way.

You could spend a lot of time on this. But fortunately most people are killing the zero's fine.

And theres other things that are way more then 20% off that we could talk about.

The game data that people have produced do not seem to support the idea that there is a serious problem here.

How about turning some of that analytical ability to the flaws in large air combats. Now there may be a real issue.



This is like Christians at Lions. Of course it's none of my business, but if I were you I'd give it up before I fell any further hopelessly behind.



moses -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:42:38 AM)

There ya go. The large air combats are something worth arguing about.

The first time I actually got far enough into a game for the stupid zero bonus to expire I was excited about it. But then nothing. It makes no difference that you can notice while playing. I know there some little effect but who cares.

The large air combats though. You mass all your force for the climactic great fantastic battle of the war. With excitment you marshall your forces to crush the enemy. Then you spring your trap.......Ubercap ooooppps.

Theres something you notice.



moses -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:49:26 AM)

quote:

This is like Christians at Lions. Of course it's none of my business, but if I were you I'd give it up before I fell any further hopelessly behind.


The Cristians would get eaten. The worst that can happen here is someone will write a very long post with lots of big words and lots of quotes. The implication will be that they are smart and I am not.

I'm not too worried about those who will spend hours arguing about an issue that doesn't matter in a game they don't like. At least argue about a major issue in a game you don't like. Or a little issue in a game you love.[8D]



Tristanjohn -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:50:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I think the biggest problem with large air combats is the utterly ficticious notion that the IJN or IJA were at anytime during their existence capable of effectively managing a large number of fighters simultaneously in defense of anything.


Well, they had a fair and goodly amount of fighters stacked at Rabaul, though these as often as not just didn't want to play in '43. And you could cite the Home Island defense, I'd guess, where the Super Forts were engaged somewhat sternly.

Considered as a whole, the air-combat model is off a lot more than 20% pretty much in all phases of play, and it doesn't seem to matter much where on the game timeline one chooses to take his samples. I've never gotten as far as 1943, but it is abundantly clear from any number of AARs that have proceeded that far that all matters air do not get appreciably better over time.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/22/2005 1:55:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

This is like Christians at Lions. Of course it's none of my business, but if I were you I'd give it up before I fell any further hopelessly behind.


The Cristians would get eaten. The worst that can happen here is someone will write a very long post with lots of big words and lots of quotes. The implication will be that they are smart and I am not.


I don't question your native intelligence. It's the argument that's a loser.

quote:

I'm not too worried about those who will spend hours arguing about an issue that doesn't matter in a game they don't like. At least argue about a major issue in a game you don't like. Or a little issue in a game you love.[8D]


Well, in my case you can forget the "love" aspect of play. And I've already posted scads of long and short and medium and well-done and whatever posts on this game system's worst problems to the point to where I can truthfully say that I already have that proverbial T-shirt.




Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125