Heretical idea???

Heretical idea??? (Full Version)

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

Message

Greenhough222 -> Heretical idea??? (7/17/2007 2:30:27 PM)
I'm thinking of modding the game slightly...and would appreciate some opinions having read through most of the threads over the last couple of years the one major point that crops up repeatedly, is to maintain historical/realistic accuracy especially with the A2A model and aircraft attributes. This does make perfect sense to me but even the most resolute japanese fanboy will have to admit that from mid 43 if japan has not won, it is slaughter for the japanese airforces no matter how many aircraft you can produce they are not going to achieve anything apart from slow down the attack. mostly down to so few trained pilots. So my plan is to do a what if scenario probably the May 42 or Aug 42 game with an increased japaese training program. Non-historical I know but not impossible. My thoughs are to match japans trained pilots per month with the total of the US trainied pilots giving the allies the extras of british,aus, NZ etc How would this affect the game play.... I'm looking for something more challenging in post 42 that just Japan defend - allies attck. Which got me thinking further, with the editor is end date of the game hard coded or can you extend it by just increasing the number of turns in the scenario editor. (If the allied advance is to be more difficult with a better japanese airforce then the game should be longer) And finally (and this may well offend the grognards) making the air camapign more player skill/planning important by editing the aircraft of both sides to balance them out. ie; A6M2 Zero = P40 series/P39 series A6M5 Zero = Corsair Reppu = P51 totally non-historical I know, and it would need at lot more thinking about that my examples above but mat make for a more challenging game on both sides. You would probably have to ignore victory points and set house rules on what constitutes a win etc. Some feedback and ideas would be appreciated

m10bob -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/17/2007 2:54:30 PM)
Good idea for "what if" scenerios..With the editor you might even consider "increasing" gunnery attributes or durability of the planes to reflect improvements. What if the war had not started for another 6 months?..Maybe Allied production could be hindered with the newer ships,planes by a few months?.. Any "what if" is going to deviate from history so can't really critisize the effort if folks go into it with their eyes open, can they?

Dili -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/17/2007 5:14:10 PM)
That's not my cup of tea the level of artificial playing field you are seeking. You could manage a better training and other solutions but A6M5=Corsair is defying physics, impossible without a reengining or maybe a new plane. IMO it would be more "realistic" to imagine that IJN was aware of Zero limitations and invested fully in its replacement and then you get the new plane earlier (Reppu?) and you could downgrade this alpha version slighty since it cames earlier.

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/17/2007 8:01:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greenhough222 I'm thinking of modding the game slightly...and would appreciate some opinions having read through most of the threads over the last couple of years the one major point that crops up repeatedly, is to maintain historical/realistic accuracy especially with the A2A model and aircraft attributes. This does make perfect sense to me but even the most resolute japanese fanboy will have to admit that from mid 43 if japan has not won, it is slaughter for the japanese airforces no matter how many aircraft you can produce they are not going to achieve anything apart from slow down the attack. mostly down to so few trained pilots. Some feedback and ideas would be appreciated I may or may not qualify as a JFB, but this is pretty must technical (no disrespect intended) nonsense - presumably based on an ignorance of the aircraft technology available to the Japanese and to the Axis. The latter because by the later period of the war German/Japanese technical cooperation increased, and included exotic aircraft, engines, radars and weapons. For a sense of this in literature, see Rene Francillons Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. For a sense of this in the game, see the types you are unfamiliar with in the game listings. Some JFBs love to play 1945 games just so they can get these planes and eat up the Allies. The Japanese did suffer from a number of economic and technical disadvantages. Their aviation industry had to make due with smaller power plants - until exactly the period you state - at which time bigger power plants began to come on stream. This process never ended. The Japanese had a 5000 hp powerplant - a dual 2500 hp engine - in design when the war ended. No less than six of these monsters would have powered a (note the word joint) joint Army-Navy bomber under development by Nakajima. Wether or not this was wise is related to a different issue: plant capacity and basic availability of duraluminum - which also were relative disadvantages: the plane itself - armed with many 20mm powered turrets - would have been quite effective. Given Axis concepts, this was surely intended as a neusance raider - not as a heavy bomber in the sense of US big boys - and it might have been a good investment in terms of tieing up relatively large enemy assets to limit its operations (since defensive assets must be literally everywhere to cope with such a threat it would be the most efficient such threat possible in the era). What went wrong for Japan was, in the first instance, poor management. See the difference of permitting both services to operate many common planes (in RHSEOS) for an example. The same thing occurs below the level we usually consider - in things like shipping. Running ships in three different systems (Civil, Army, Navy), on one way missions (not two way cargos) for individual services (not joint cargos) is not smart. Running them without any sembelence of escort is not wise. This is not due to failure to develop technology or plan for escorts - both were done in the 1930s and continued through the war period. These were failures of management. The same goes for failure to share plane technology - to adopt common standards - to share radar technology - the list is very long indeed. But these things all were to some extent historically addressed - by the later war period. The idea things had to be hopeless at the very time they might have become otherwise is not on target. [To be specific, if you want to own the skies mid war, focus on Ki-44 production vice Ki-41 production or even Ki-61 production. Later you get the Ki-44 III, and after that the list is so full of rich choices it won't be easy to decide what you want. But build em - and protect the plants that build em - and get resources and oil into stockpiles in Japan so you can get the HI points you need to build em. Whatever that may require.] Other things went wrong for Japan - things that might not apply in the game world. Operational things (ever heard of the Battle of Midway? Ever try to duplicate it in simulation? However elaborate - you probably cannot. US Naval War College has tried every year since the war - and failed. The US always loses.) Japan also suffered from strategic bombing in a sense that no other nation ever did - bombing that was immoral and illegal by our standards. [Small scale bombing of Rotterdam was enough to earn German pilots war crimes trials by us] It may be that players will not engage in this sort of warfare in a game situation - I for one do not - and others have posted similar concepts. The vision of strategic bombing as "a separate path to victory" was essentially a religious-type mantra of a number of air forces, ours in particular. We killed more civilians by our own admission using this method than we did soldiers (we admit 800,000 in the last 10 months of the war, while we estimate 600,000 soldiers of Japan in ten years of warfare, counting China) - NOT including atomic bombings - which add 200,000 more. We claimed that bombing civilians was illegal and wrong - yet we also said the nature of Japanese industry made that a useful thing to do (many tiny shops, even in homes). It is a matter of debate - but the Navy and Army view is generally that the same cost/manpower/material invested in operational use of bombers is more productive. Diversion of USAAF to minelaying for some months (when technical problems got in the way of bombing anyway) indicates the Army and Navy view may be correct: USSBS - dominated by USAAF officers - concluded the mine campaign and the submarine campaign (which benefits from long range recon) alone would have forced actual surrender with no atomic bombings and no invasion - by 1 November 1945. There is no reason to impose the historical, amoral strategy on the Americans - it was not universally accepted at the time and should not be so now. Yet a different strategy - however effective on land and naval operations - might not gut the plants that make the planes or engines for them. As modders we need to set up a range of possibilities and then let the game engine (and player strategies and tactics) determine what happens. I carefully craft things so the Japanese have the option to invest in better aircraft in greater proportion - and so did the game designer (when he gave Japan control of production and including some exotic types). This is the best path. IRL Japan defeated itself - it literally doomed itself - militarily, politically, economically, morally - in every sense. The challenge was very great - but it is indeed possible for Japan to have set up and then defended an autarky so effectively we accepted it rather than continue to prosecute the war. When the war began the JNAF is the largest naval air force in the world, and possibly its most experienced. Visionary JNAF pilots proposed a training scheme that might have helped it compete better than it did in the trained manpower sense. [Their proposal was adopted - too late - mid war] I - at least - can deny what you say no one can. Not necessairily - and not something we should think about imposing. The root proposal being wrong, the solution is unrelated to it anyway. Japan DID increase the pilot training rates - and we cannot do that in a long game (because it is fixed). When I imposed a realistic SUB fraction of the START of war pilot numbers - I ran into a firestorm of opposition that - for game mechanics reasons - it is very bad. [SUB fraction because we do not have multiple pilot planes, we have no staff pilots or training pilots, and we do not feed all the aircraft/unit types of real life - I use 80%.] People think Japan can produce far too many "good" planes with far too many "good" pilots mid war now - so this idea will only make it more the case. I have little sympathy for those critics - since they seem to go to the church of "if it happened that way IRL it must happen that way in the game" - one I totally disagree with. If the game is controlled by players I am unwilling to force them to be eternally stupid in their policies. If it is controlled by AI I think it is so weak it needs any help we can give it. If you cannot beat intelligent players or stupid AI - you are not any good to begin with - don't blame the mod. But that said, I am not sure we should not increase the trained pilot rates - and IF we do a mid war mod - it IS a good idea - after all!!! Probably. But making the planes = to the Allies - it wholly destroys the game as a simulation - and turns it into some sort of Risk - where pieces are identical. Just call em "fighter planes" or "interceptors" and "escort fighters" and "fighter bombers" without names - unless they are really modeling something specific. And by no means ever think about considering Japan has similar production capacity. Japan has inherant advantages I didn't list: interior lines, political support by the vast majority (who hate colonialism) in Asia, vast distances to the centers of enemy power, wholly adequate supplies of every resource (unlike us, who, for example, have no good source of Tin except Peru, no good source of Antimony except New Caledonia, and the navy list is 66 lines long - the way they STILL teach it in USN basic training). Let Japan win due to good strategy and management - or lose without it. Its army was always (even in 1945) bigger than ours. It didn't fight an army type war - what if it did?

Dili -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/17/2007 9:30:27 PM)
quote: Japan also suffered from strategic bombing in a sense that no other nation ever did - bombing that was immoral and illegal by our standards. Total USAAF bombs dropped by theatre Europe: 1275983 short tons Asia: 234546 short tons quote: The vision of strategic bombing as "a separate path to victory" was essentially a religious-type mantra of a number of air forces, ours in particular. Douhetian concepts went into all Air Forces. But not much in USAAF, only when feedback from bombing missions came from German bombing where almost 90& of bombs fell out of target they realised nothing they could do when an hit in a factory burned 2,3-4 house quarters . Since bombing mini-blitz, V1,V2 were falling in London i am not surprised. In FM manuals there is a chapter: it is called "Retaliation", it says succintly: To change the illegal combat behaviour of enemy, illegal combat behaviour can be employed sometimes . That can only be made with superior authorisation (Officer level). It is the threat of retaliation that made no one use chemical weapons in WW2 or in part the whole cold war not turn hot. I didnt saw many persons protest NATO threat war crimes on Warsaw Pact cities if communists did the same.

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/17/2007 10:33:54 PM)
Suffering is a function of casualties - not bombs dropped. And the technology of the bombs changed. Apart from atomic bombs - which I suppose you might admit are more destructive ton for ton than TNT - jellied gasoline bombing became the norm for creating firebombing raids the like of which occurred only twice in ETO: Hamburg and Dresden - and the first of those was accidental insofar as they didn't know it would cause a firestorm. I was also very kind about casualties. Probably 800,000 civilians died in just two days in Tokyo in April 1945. While I have seen estimates as low as 80,000 officially - and one travel book says it was 40,000 - this is certainly whitewashing. I met a US demographer in Tokyo in 1968 doing a records search on the problem. Primary records were all destroyed - little survived that could burn. But one form of records did survive: neighboring police prefictures were able to record populations of refugees. By comparing the population of Tokyo before the raid (which lasted two days) - it was 3.2 millions - and the population after the raid - it was 1.2 million - with the number of people that showed up in neighboring areas - it was 1 million - the demographer arrived at a rough value of 1 million. He figured probable errors in record keeping during the chaotic period accounted for as many as 20% - giving him 800,000. He used statistical methods to vary that (with increasingly unlikely possibilities) by plus and minus 500,000 - leaving not less than 300,000 - with a chance it was that low less than 2% - to 1.3 million - with an equally low chance. The 800,000 is dead center - at about 62%. We don't often face this sort of thing directly: we admit killing that many in firebombings - but only total - for the whole period of the firebombing campaign - not in a single raid. Like it or not, think it is justified or not (and every Japanese historical and military comment I ever read said literally "war is war"), that is the nature of the campaign. Nothing like that ever happened anywhere else. FM 27-10 is very clear on the matter of retaliation: it may NEVER be used on innocent parties, including explicitly civilians or prisoners (although in the case of Japan is was ALLIED prisoners who were being killed in firebimbing raids, including Americans) and it is quite clear about the consequences to an "officer" who does not honor the standard. What was said above was meant to apply to something like use of CW weapons vs tanks (Japan tried 2 or 3 times). They stopped partily because it wasn't working well - and partly because they feared retailiation in kind on MILITARY units. And that would be legal.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/17/2007 10:36:27 PM)
quote: Diversion of USAAF to minelaying for some months (when technical problems got in the way of bombing anyway) indicates the Army and Navy view may be correct: USSBS - dominated by USAAF officers - concluded the mine campaign and the submarine campaign (which benefits from long range recon) alone would have forced actual surrender with no atomic bombings and no invasion - by 1 November 1945. Two points need to be made: first, the subs and mines are essentially siege tactics, forcing surrender through mass starvation. There is good reason to think the death toll would have been far higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Second, whether the Japanese would have surrendered by November 1945 is not clear. The refusal to surrender, even after appalling suffering, of Leningrad is instructive -- the Japanese were, if anything, more fanatical. That said, I also disagree with the idea of equalizing aircraft types. And especially, do not make the P-39 equal to the A6M2! (Early arrival of Spitfires if you absolutely must.)

Terminus -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/17/2007 10:40:44 PM)
It's very hard to come up with a Japanese aircraft, much less a Japanese fighter, that was equivalent to the P-39. Maybe the Mavis...

Dili -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 12:16:45 AM)
Many Japanese were in Mountains and not Cities, statistics at that time it's very dificult to arrive to a certain number by population lists. Noneless due to japanese bahviour against civilian population was a case of payback time, of course with very diferent scale. You are right i checked and forbids civilians which in essence defeats much of its propose since in actual warfare civilians are a rewarding target, since USA in XX century never had to fight in his borders. Of course when we get on upper level the whole Nuclear MAD is based on that, even the variations of Flexible Response. It is a very sad subject.

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 12:45:08 AM)
In general, submarine warfare and mine warfare do not lead to mass starvation. That said, they probably do in the case of Japan, with less than 2% tillable land. Japan wanted to keep Korea and Formosa in 1945 - to feed the country - and we pretty much were willing to let the population reduce by starvation - until Cold War politics intervened there was indeed starvation in Japan under our administration (Saburo Sakai lost his wife to starvation as late as 1948). Dealing with Americans c 1945 it didn't matter much how they killed you - if you were Japanese they might burn you or starve you - but not many tears were shed about it. There is, however, a theoretical, moral and legal difference between firebombing (and atomic bombing of cities vice the original concept of bombing a naval base distant from Japan) and waging warfare directly on military units and forces and their operational bases as such. Civilians can - theoretically - move from place to place - and wether they choose to do so - or are even permitted to do so by an enemy government - are not our moral or legal problems. What we do with our bombers is. Submarines and mines directed at cutting lines of communication for resources and oil are legitimate instrumentalities of modern warfare (unless you have problems with the pre WWII rules of naval warfare - something we violated on the first day of operations according to Admiral Nimitz testifying at Nuremberg FOR a German admiral - but the Germans didn't). For most of the war Japanese air and mine barriers effectively prevented operations in the Sea of Japan - and traffic between Japan and the mainland remained relatively safe for a long time. We never did succeed in preventing regular traffic between Japan and Korea near Tsushima - and we likely never tried - due to the imposing defenses in place. Someone determined to leave Japan who was not actually in military service probably could have done so. In any case, if Japan approaches economic collapse there must be problems of starvation. I am much less concerned with the mal administration of the Imperial regime than our mal administration after the war (where my aunt served as a school teacher). Wartime starvation is their problem - peacetime starvation imposed by us is our problem. Just as firebombing is - if you think civilians have any rights at all. Maybe we are all just pawns in the Great Game? Targeting a city to destroy it is clearly "wanton" destruction in the meaning of the Hague and Geneva Conventions - and FM 27-10. Gen LeMay was explicit: he intended to "burn out every square mile of Japanese urban area" - and nearly did - stopped only by the suspension of operations when the war ended. When I completed US military police training - the only reason I didn't arrest US bomber commanders as war criminals - there being no statute of limitations on war crimes - is that we had granted a general amnisty for PTO war crimes. Amnisty is amnisty and it would be wrong to raise the issue after the enemy was no longer subject to charges. [Note we STILL arrest and try ETO war criminals]

m10bob -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 1:03:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus It's very hard to come up with a Japanese fighter, much less a Japanese aircraft that was equivalent to the P-39. Maybe the Mavis... LMAO[:D]

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 6:26:58 AM)
Not really. Depends on what you want. The P-39 was a marginally effective fighter with heavy cannon armament which was quite useful in specialized situations. The Japanese have a number of these - mainly in the Ki-45 to Ki-102 series (with several steps along the way) - as well as the Ki-44 - which probably was a lot better investment than the P-39 - and a lot more generally useful. Instead of a single heavy cannon - it carried four lighter cannon - a deadly combination with almost exactly the same range but far more destructive power.

herwin -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 11:13:22 AM)
Duplicating Midway? Actually, it can be done (professionally), but it involves getting the operational timing, movement, and search models right. I've seen an analysis. The American forces had a reconnaissance advantage, which allowed the USN TFs to lurk behind Midway. We had to time our deck-load strikes (DLSs) to hit before the Japanese could get their DLSs on the way against us. That meant the time our DLSs departed had to be a couple of hours before the time theirs could depart. On the other hand, they had to find our carriers first, and that gave us those couple of hours.

TheElf -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 1:31:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: Greenhough222 I'm thinking of modding the game slightly...and would appreciate some opinions having read through most of the threads over the last couple of years the one major point that crops up repeatedly, is to maintain historical/realistic accuracy especially with the A2A model and aircraft attributes. This does make perfect sense to me but even the most resolute japanese fanboy will have to admit that from mid 43 if japan has not won, it is slaughter for the japanese airforces no matter how many aircraft you can produce they are not going to achieve anything apart from slow down the attack. mostly down to so few trained pilots. Some feedback and ideas would be appreciated I may or may not qualify as a JFB, but this is pretty must technical (no disrespect intended) nonsense - presumably based on an ignorance of the aircraft technology available to the Japanese and to the Axis. Cid, The guy said as much about his own idea for a mod in his original post. Yet you have to weigh in and crush his idea in a public forum. Perhaps you ought to look more at your own house before criticizing another�s. [8\|]

Terminus -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 4:12:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf Perhaps you ought to look more at your own house before criticizing another�s. [8\|] But it is not the way of his people![;)][:D]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 5:44:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greenhough222 I'm thinking of modding the game slightly...and would appreciate some opinions... My plan is to do a what if scenario probably the May 42 or Aug 42 game with an increased japaese training program. Non-historical I know but not impossible. My thoughs are to match japans trained pilots per month with the total of the US trainied pilots giving the allies the extras of british,aus, NZ etc To do this with any sort of nod to historical reality, you would have to decrease the number of A/C and units available to the Japanese at the start of your scenario. More pilot training would require more training aircraft (both beginning and advanced trainers) and more qualified instructors --- both of which would reduce the availability of combat units at the front. You shouldn't be able to get "something" for "nothing".

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 8:48:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf Perhaps you ought to look more at your own house before criticizing another�s. [8\|] But it is not the way of his people![;)][:D] Surely not. Ever fought Americans in the field? Crush em by sheer weight of firepower - usually artillery/naval artillery and bombs. On the other hand, I never take criticism personally - which isn't supposed to happen on the Forum anyway. I was commenting on the idea as such - and as always I meant it to be constructive. I always say why it is a bad idea - or in one of the cases above - why the motive was wrong but the idea was actually a good one anyway. Just as if a criticism of an idea I have comes with sound reasoning I am likely to adopt it (or adopt it in modified form or adopt it in some scenarios). The point of the Forum IS criticism in the positive sense - or so I believe. My first commanding officer made me join a military-professional association because he said "your seemingly harsh criticism is always intended constructively - and while criticism of policy by active duty service members is normally illegal - it is not illegal if meant constructively. Joining the association grants you de facto immunity from being considered critical in the sense of tearing down the Navy or the armed forces as a whole, or individuals individually." Note that under fire (real or the kind one gets on the Forum with words) I never get upset and always respond diplomatically, although some of the critics have yet to adopt that standard.

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/18/2007 8:53:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Greenhough222 I'm thinking of modding the game slightly...and would appreciate some opinions... My plan is to do a what if scenario probably the May 42 or Aug 42 game with an increased japaese training program. Non-historical I know but not impossible. My thoughs are to match japans trained pilots per month with the total of the US trainied pilots giving the allies the extras of british,aus, NZ etc To do this with any sort of nod to historical reality, you would have to decrease the number of A/C and units available to the Japanese at the start of your scenario. More pilot training would require more training aircraft (both beginning and advanced trainers) and more qualified instructors --- both of which would reduce the availability of combat units at the front. You shouldn't be able to get "something" for "nothing". Well said - but possibly backwards for JNAF. The idea presented above is generally valid. But JNAF had too much training - and reducing the training period would actually significantly increase the number of well trained pilots. In RHS we did just this in EOS - we cut training time by half - and double the output of the program (approximately). What I didn't do was increase the number of planes at all - because for one thing trainers are not directly modeled. JAAF would indeed have to increase pilots on instructor duty - and then add more trainers - and unless older line planes could serve - that would indeed mean less engines and aluminum for line production.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 12:40:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Well said - but possibly backwards for JNAF. The idea presented above is generally valid. But JNAF had too much training - and reducing the training period would actually significantly increase the number of well trained pilots. In RHS we did just this in EOS - we cut training time by half - and double the output of the program (approximately). What I didn't do was increase the number of planes at all - because for one thing trainers are not directly modeled. JAAF would indeed have to increase pilots on instructor duty - and then add more trainers - and unless older line planes could serve - that would indeed mean less engines and aluminum for line production. Would agree with you completely if you'd said "the JNAF had too much worthless training". Much of the Navy's program was dedicated to rather non-sensical pastimes like memorizing the Emperor Mejei's (sic) instructions to the troops in 48 hours, and other rituals more reminicent of a Fraternity "hazing" than pilot training. And you really should cut the number of A/C in RHS. It's true they aren't modeled in the game..., but Pilot Arrival is --- and if you have more pilots arriving then they must have had more trainers --- and more of one type of A/C means less of others.

Bombur -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 4:18:39 AM)
-Equalizing Zeroes and Corsairs is probably not a good idea, but to decrease the differences between fighters could work. A Corsair is better than a Zero, but maybe kill rate could be around 3:1 instead of 10-20:1. Same thing for Zeroes vs early allied fighters or P-40 vs Oscars. Nik did a good job in achieving this. I�m making an experience with NM v5.3. I halved all the mvr and max speed values for all aircraft. The result was a considerable decrease in A2A lethality and a relative equalization of fighters. Playtesting however, is stalled due to lack of time and human opponents.....

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 6:58:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Well said - but possibly backwards for JNAF. The idea presented above is generally valid. But JNAF had too much training - and reducing the training period would actually significantly increase the number of well trained pilots. In RHS we did just this in EOS - we cut training time by half - and double the output of the program (approximately). What I didn't do was increase the number of planes at all - because for one thing trainers are not directly modeled. JAAF would indeed have to increase pilots on instructor duty - and then add more trainers - and unless older line planes could serve - that would indeed mean less engines and aluminum for line production. Would agree with you completely if you'd said "the JNAF had too much worthless training". Much of the Navy's program was dedicated to rather non-sensical pastimes like memorizing the Emperor Mejei's (sic) instructions to the troops in 48 hours, and other rituals more reminicent of a Fraternity "hazing" than pilot training. And you really should cut the number of A/C in RHS. It's true they aren't modeled in the game..., but Pilot Arrival is --- and if you have more pilots arriving then they must have had more trainers --- and more of one type of A/C means less of others. Actually I didn't mean to imply the training was worthless. At least one of the things they teach which was never part of any other training program I teach to this day - and it matters - even in the electronic age. Their training was simply too demanding. A JNAF pilot could jump from a plane unfit to land - probably useful on rare occasions - but the training to do that would expel the pilot if he even sprained an ankle! To lose a superb pilot for that is nonsense - and that is but one of dozens of similar policies. No other air force in the world trained pilots to jump without parachutes - and it didn't proove to be a big disadvantage. One could cut out the training - or at least not expel those who did it successfully but not perfectly. The training program - except for the normal flight school at the beginning - always involved trainers - or in later stages older line aircraft assigned to training duties. Reducing training time directly affects the number of trainers tied up with the training - and not being tied up they become available for other students. The program was measured in years. Even after completion you were not regarded as fit for operations until after two years as sort of an apprentice in a second line unit. Such a concept might have merit in peacetime, but not in wartime.

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 7:01:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bombur -Equalizing Zeroes and Corsairs is probably not a good idea, but to decrease the differences between fighters could work. A Corsair is better than a Zero, but maybe kill rate could be around 3:1 instead of 10-20:1. Same thing for Zeroes vs early allied fighters or P-40 vs Oscars. Nik did a good job in achieving this. I�m making an experience with NM v5.3. I halved all the mvr and max speed values for all aircraft. The result was a considerable decrease in A2A lethality and a relative equalization of fighters. Playtesting however, is stalled due to lack of time and human opponents..... Only a few people have reported on this, but those who compared Nikmod and RHS say that we have tamed air air combat even more than he did. We did so on a theoretical foundation - while Nik did so on a result oriented foundation. But it may be that the problem has been addressed - if it was a problem at all. Anyway - one could check it out by running AI vs AI tests.

Nikademus -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 7:34:39 AM)
Nik designed his mod based on his own theoretical foundation coupled with his knowlege of the game's mechanics and his understanding of the history behind the combat being simulated. Some like it. Others don't. Some like parts of it....while not liking other aspects. Its available in different flavors and all are welcome to try or dispense with it as they see fit.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 7:54:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Actually I didn't mean to imply the training was worthless. At least one of the things they teach which was never part of any other training program I teach to this day - and it matters - even in the electronic age. Their training was simply too demanding. A JNAF pilot could jump from a plane unfit to land - probably useful on rare occasions - but the training to do that would expel the pilot if he even sprained an ankle! To lose a superb pilot for that is nonsense - and that is but one of dozens of similar policies. No other air force in the world trained pilots to jump without parachutes - and it didn't proove to be a big disadvantage. One could cut out the training - or at least not expel those who did it successfully but not perfectly. The training program - except for the normal flight school at the beginning - always involved trainers - or in later stages older line aircraft assigned to training duties. Reducing training time directly affects the number of trainers tied up with the training - and not being tied up they become available for other students. The program was measured in years. Even after completion you were not regarded as fit for operations until after two years as sort of an apprentice in a second line unit. Such a concept might have merit in peacetime, but not in wartime. No..., worthless was my description for much of the ground school nonsense the IJN subjected their pilot trainees to. However, if you reduce the air training time, that's a different story. Then you reduce the "training level" the pilots arrive at. So you only save A/C if you reduce pilot quality..., which doesn't seem like a good idea. Thus you need more trainer aircraft to train more acceptable pilot replacements. The Japanese trained a total of 5,000 pilots in 1942, and 5400 in 1943. Taking this up to US levels would have required a massive increase in facilities, A/C, and instructors --- and as I said earlier, it shouldn't be possible for Japan to get "something for nothing". I don't think we're in dissagreement; just looking at the same coin from opposite sides.

herwin -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 11:06:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bombur -Equalizing Zeroes and Corsairs is probably not a good idea, but to decrease the differences between fighters could work. A Corsair is better than a Zero, but maybe kill rate could be around 3:1 instead of 10-20:1. Same thing for Zeroes vs early allied fighters or P-40 vs Oscars. Nik did a good job in achieving this. I�m making an experience with NM v5.3. I halved all the mvr and max speed values for all aircraft. The result was a considerable decrease in A2A lethality and a relative equalization of fighters. Playtesting however, is stalled due to lack of time and human opponents..... 3-1 would be just about right for equal pilots (F4U versus A6M5).

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 7:05:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Nik designed his mod based on his own theoretical foundation coupled with his knowlege of the game's mechanics and his understanding of the history behind the combat being simulated. Some like it. Others don't. Some like parts of it....while not liking other aspects. Its available in different flavors and all are welcome to try or dispense with it as they see fit. Sehr interissieren. My impression that Nik used result oriented design was based on his comments posted in the Forum. As I recall (and memory is dim) he responded to my comments saying that result oriented data entry was in his view superior to a theoretical approach. I believe some of this was his comments on my proposals that we design ratings for firepower, maneuverability and/or durability on a theoretical foundation - firepower in particular. I used a wholly different approach, reducing the range of weapons as much as the model allows, giving half the firepower to a .30 as a .50 (so a British plane with 8 .30 cal = exactly a US plane with 4 .50 cal) - and giving cannon more range and punch in proportion to shell weight and effective range in each case. I drew some criticism from him for that concept. This - and a system for rating durability and another for rating maneuverability - was intended to not only reduce overall lethality in air combat (and increase vulnerability to AAA fire) - but at the same time to make RELATIVE differences between planes more correct. It worked - and you probably will not get a 20:1 kill ratio of zero vs corsair - as a result.

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 7:13:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Actually I didn't mean to imply the training was worthless. At least one of the things they teach which was never part of any other training program I teach to this day - and it matters - even in the electronic age. Their training was simply too demanding. A JNAF pilot could jump from a plane unfit to land - probably useful on rare occasions - but the training to do that would expel the pilot if he even sprained an ankle! To lose a superb pilot for that is nonsense - and that is but one of dozens of similar policies. No other air force in the world trained pilots to jump without parachutes - and it didn't proove to be a big disadvantage. One could cut out the training - or at least not expel those who did it successfully but not perfectly. The training program - except for the normal flight school at the beginning - always involved trainers - or in later stages older line aircraft assigned to training duties. Reducing training time directly affects the number of trainers tied up with the training - and not being tied up they become available for other students. The program was measured in years. Even after completion you were not regarded as fit for operations until after two years as sort of an apprentice in a second line unit. Such a concept might have merit in peacetime, but not in wartime. No..., worthless was my description for much of the ground school nonsense the IJN subjected their pilot trainees to. However, if you reduce the air training time, that's a different story. Then you reduce the "training level" the pilots arrive at. So you only save A/C if you reduce pilot quality..., which doesn't seem like a good idea. Thus you need more trainer aircraft to train more acceptable pilot replacements. The Japanese trained a total of 5,000 pilots in 1942, and 5400 in 1943. Taking this up to US levels would have required a massive increase in facilities, A/C, and instructors --- and as I said earlier, it shouldn't be possible for Japan to get "something for nothing". I don't think we're in dissagreement; just looking at the same coin from opposite sides. I agree - we are not in disagreement after all. I did reduce the air training time - took years to work it out on spreadsheets for a more elaborate game in which you get all trainers and training units. And yes, if you reduce the training time - you also should reduce the output skill level. In fact - one Forum member thought that reducing skill levels generally would help reduce air combat lethality - and tests show he was right. So RHS does not use the stock/CHS scale - but a new one. Unfortunately, it does not permit us to change it over time - or rather it forces it to change over time in certain respects in a hard coded way - and not in other respects. For critical design reasons, I use start of war values (since - if you cannot simulate the initial ops, you have zero chance of getting the war simulated - and also the code does reduce many pilots for Japan). What we can do is rate new units at different levels - and we did a lot of that. I must strongly underline how much we DO agree that "Japan should not get something for nothing." And while I maintain that Japan might be able to produce fine planes from 1943, that should not require rating A6M2s as the same as Corsairs. Let em build the good planes they designed. But whatever they get - cost in whatever sense should be a consideration. I am not into play balance- PTO was not inherantly balanced! The great balancing factor is geography - Japan has inherant geographic advantages.

jwilkerson -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/19/2007 7:18:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Nik designed his mod based on his own theoretical foundation coupled with his knowlege of the game's mechanics and his understanding of the history behind the combat being simulated. Some like it. Others don't. Some like parts of it....while not liking other aspects. Its available in different flavors and all are welcome to try or dispense with it as they see fit. Sehr interissieren. My impression that Nik used result oriented design was based on his comments posted in the Forum. As I recall (and memory is dim) he responded to my comments saying that result oriented data entry was in his view superior to a theoretical approach. I believe some of this was his comments on my proposals that we design ratings for firepower, maneuverability and/or durability on a theoretical foundation - firepower in particular. I used a wholly different approach, reducing the range of weapons as much as the model allows, giving half the firepower to a .30 as a .50 (so a British plane with 8 .30 cal = exactly a US plane with 4 .50 cal) - and giving cannon more range and punch in proportion to shell weight and effective range in each case. I drew some criticism from him for that concept. This - and a system for rating durability and another for rating maneuverability - was intended to not only reduce overall lethality in air combat (and increase vulnerability to AAA fire) - but at the same time to make RELATIVE differences between planes more correct. It worked - and you probably will not get a 20:1 kill ratio of zero vs corsair - as a result. "Theoretical" versus "Results Oriented" ... one is "Push System" ... one is "Pull System" .. neither inherently better .. both have pros and cons .. and both have same constraint of having to live within the existing engine and both have same primary tool ... that of changing the data. One day we may try to tweak the engine to reduce the amount of data manipulation required by either "push" or "pull" designers!!! Time will tell!

Bombur -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/20/2007 2:43:55 AM)
quote: Only a few people have reported on this, but those who compared Nikmod and RHS say that we have tamed air air combat even more than he did. We did so on a theoretical foundation - while Nik did so on a result oriented foundation. But it may be that the problem has been addressed - if it was a problem at all. Anyway - one could check it out by running AI vs AI tests. -My preliminary tests with RHS (unfortunately my opponent gave up...) suggested that A2A combat is bloodier than Nik mod v5.x and much bloodier than v9.x, at least when gun armed planes are involved. Zeroes are lethal in RHS, and they suffered very few losses in the hands of P-40�s, however, this is result of very limited playtest.

el cid again -> RE: Heretical idea??? (7/20/2007 6:33:39 AM)
The general result of testing, and playtester reports, is that fighters are much less likely to wipe out attacking aircraft, and "there almost always are a few penetrators." Even as late as 1945 this was the case with radar and F6F CAP - penetration was a regular event. Fighter vs fighter combat is now greatly variable - and substantially under player control. American fighters will do better if you have them supported by flights on high CAP - as IRL. If nothing else works, penetrate right on the deck: almost none will be lost (to enemy fighters anyway - AAA is a different subject). In strait up air combat at medium altitude, a P-40 has no business tangling with a Zero - and that also is well modeled. On the other hand, the reverse is true of a Zero vs an F6F or a Corsair - but it won't be 20:1 reversed.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.65625