re: Real Data (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message


Chiteng -> re: Real Data (11/15/2002 1:58:04 AM)

First, I never trusted the 12% figure. I can tell you that out of at least 30 games I have NEVER see the Japs escape with 3 minor
hits on one CA after sinking by torpedoe fire 4 CA and blowing the bow off 1 CA.

If that cant happen, then you are saying that historical results cannot be achieved.




mdiehl -> nik (11/15/2002 2:17:18 AM)

[QUOTE]2) If decapped the Shell will be ineffective. This is incorrect.[/QUOTE]

You are, as usual, wrong, and you have, as usual, fabricated a straw man and attributed it to me. I made no assumption that decapping a shell renders it "ineffective." If you knew what you were talking about at all, or had actually read the guns and armor page, you'd know that decapping a shell pretty much prevents it from penetrating the inner armor layer and tends to lead to higher rates of low-order detonation.

[QUOTE]This shell may very well have been an HE shell. [/QUOTE]

Ina desperate attempt to salvage an unsustainable opinion, Nik introduces the completely speculative qualifier that the IJN may have fired HE.

[QUOTE]Considering SoDak's incapacitated state at that time it was a miracle that none of the 40 torps launched at her struck. Prove positive that one can quote "statistics" till their blue in the face. You never quite know what can go down when the shooting starts.[/QUOTE]

There are some common measures of central tendency: mean, mode, median. The mean has variation: just because a given value of X is the mean, one can still expect values that differ from X probabilistically. As it happens, *zero* hits was one of the more common tallies for IJN surface engagements in 1942. It's completely within the range of prediction based on statistics. It may seem stunningly wierd, improbable and unpredictable to you, but it is quite normal, not very wierd (only somewhat unlikely) to me.

Yeah, once the shooting starts many things can happen. Most of these aren't modeled by UV, including the deterministic things that made Savo go especially wrong for the USN. So if you're gonna model night combat probabilistically, you either try to include all the oddities of initial conditions or you write of the spectacular in favor of the general central tendencies.




mogami -> Historical results (11/15/2002 2:17:42 AM)

Greetings, Historical results? What are these exactly. We have posted examples of battles where IJN fired at least 30 long lance torpedoes with zero hits. This happens. We have posted examples of IJN scoring more then one hit with only a few ships firing torpedos. What are we debating. If 10 IJN ships fire 10 torpedos each they still might all miss. If one IJN ship fires 10 torpedoes they might get 3 or more hits (I've seen both)
In actual battles IJN fired 30+ torpedos on more then one occasion without scoring a hit. Tanaka's TF might have scored more in a shorter period (or total) then all other engagements combined. Should that become the norm? or the exception.

In battles via PBEM against Erik R. A very compentant player I had battles where IJN (me) scored multiple torpedo hits on multiple targets. (and by doing secured draws in battles where USN gun fire was tearing me apart untill torpedos hits)

I acknowledge these battles are not the norm (the norm to me seems to be a few ships from each side fire and then both sides run away)




mdiehl -> chit (11/15/2002 2:25:13 AM)

[QUOTE]If that can't happen, then you are saying that historical results cannot be achieved.[/QUOTE]

Can it happen that IJN CBs may be loaded with HE as at *1st* Guadalcanal, or does UV assume that against an enemy surface vessel, AP is fired? Does it assume that the correct choice is made based on target size/aspect? (For example, Hiei gunners would likely prefer HE against a DD or other unarmored vessel. The near misses are in that event more devastating). Does UV allow for Japanese ships to ram each other in combat?

Many things "can't" happen in a sim. While you may feel a crushing urge to see the improbable, IMO the most important objective is to get the central tendencies correct. If the spectacularly improbable (which are almost always based on pretty strange contingent circumstances) is to be modeled, then one probably ought to model the details that lead to odd contingencies. I think a "Savo" engine or whatever would be great if it attributed the cause to the right source (Allied fatigue, mission-multitasking, multiple friendly TFs operating in local circumstances w/o adequate knowledge of each other's patrol plans defending multiple landing points). If the IJN *really* invaded Port Moresby, it is quite possible that one would see a reverse Savo.




Chiteng -> re: Mogami and whoever (11/15/2002 2:33:42 AM)

Historical results I would define as within at least 80% of
a historical battle be at LEAST possible.

I have seen many results that simulate Empress Augusta Bay
I have seen NONE that simulate Tass or Savo.

Yes I have seen posted games that 'appear' to show Japanese
clear winners, 'IN A GAME SENCE'.

Eric has claimed but not posted that he has had results that simulate Savo.

I can ONLY speak for ME, Mogami. I have NEVER seen it, unless
you count airstrikes. I saw 4 BB 4CA and 8 DD(Fubuki)
Get chewed up by 1 CA 1CL and 4 DD(Australian)

But the upshot is that while playing the game, the USN player
has no fear at all of say 8 DD operating alone at night. In fact
it is an opportunity to him to sink them.

That ISNT how the war was fought. The USN had an almost pathological aversion to casualties and would fight ONLY in extremise. At Leyte Gulf it became obvious that there WOULD
be a BB action. Also at Iwo Jima. In BOTH cases Lee reminded
Halsey and Nimitz that he is no way was eager to go head to head with a Jap BB.




mogami -> Chiteng (11/15/2002 2:38:41 AM)

Hi, OK you post tha over and over without actually saying what the problem is. Player post battle results over and over. Not too far up this thread is allied TF being pounded by IJN without doing any damage in return. I suppose the problem there is the IJN did not score any torpedo hits. (prehaps the TF commander was happy with the gunfire plot solutions and felt torpedos would not be needed. prehaps they all missed, I did not see the replay just the combat report.)




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/15/2002 2:45:12 AM)

Again, as I have stated before, its a question of sequencing.

Possibly better stated is how one side or another handles what we call surprise.

At Savo we argue that the Japs achieved surprise
At Tass we argue that they WERE surprised.

At Savo there were 5? float planes with lots of flares
all over the USN. I would argue that THIS specific aspect
was critical to the outcome. The Japs knew exactly where the enemy was.

At Tass, I dont recall any accounts of Tanaka being illuminated.
I do recall that one DD was pounded with the first salvo.




Diealtekoenig -> (11/15/2002 2:55:53 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pawlock
[B]IJN seemed to have got off rather lucky in that example, out gunned in combat ships by 3 -1 ,plus the USN half of those were Ca's. I really cant see anything to complain about in that action, if anything, count yourself fortunate.

Heres another extract from one of my Pbem games :

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

(snip)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

(snip)

The thing I note (again) in all his stats is NO torpedo hits.

The stats and quoting aside:

a) The IJN are not getting torpedo hits in night actions
b) because of a) they are not able to contest the waters off Lunga at night

Something needs a fix here (unless you just want to play USN and claim you are brilliant because you can pound the IJN with land based air while they have no way to hurt you).




mdiehl -> (11/15/2002 3:10:26 AM)

[QUOTE]That ISNT how the war was fought. The USN had an almost pathological aversion to casualties and would fight ONLY in extremise. [/QUOTE]

What simplistic nonsense.




Pawlock -> (11/15/2002 3:13:20 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diealtekoenig
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Pawlock
[B]IJN seemed to have got off rather lucky in that example, out gunned in combat ships by 3 -1 ,plus the USN half of those were Ca's. I really cant see anything to complain about in that action, if anything, count yourself fortunate.

Heres another extract from one of my Pbem games :

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

(snip)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

(snip)

The thing I note (again) in all his stats is NO torpedo hits.

The stats and quoting aside:

a) The IJN are not getting torpedo hits in night actions
b) because of a) they are not able to contest the waters off Lunga at night

Something needs a fix here (unless you just want to play USN and claim you are brilliant because you can pound the IJN with land based air while they have no way to hurt you). [/B][/QUOTE]

Stats are there to see, convincing IJN victory (no problems for me as USN there). So what you guys want? in that case you would have rather they fired there torpedoes and perhaps missed and in return the USN starts to get hits to the IJN ? So you as the IJN would not be happy with that result?

I think now people are using the torpedoes as a lever to justify night actions that dont always go IJN way. If it was'nt torpedoes , you would think of something else.
I remember at the start of this debate, someone saying no big ships were targeted by the IJN. Again I produced stats to show this is not always the case.
Maybe I am biased towards the USN ,only because I have yet to win a decisive victory surface engament yet in Pbem . Im not complaining though, the IJN have got me feared. I know my time will come and when it does I will relish it.




Nikademus -> Re: nik (11/15/2002 3:38:51 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]

You are, as usual, wrong, and you have, as usual, fabricated a straw man and attributed it to me. I made no assumption that decapping a shell renders it "ineffective." If you knew what you were talking about at all, or had actually read the guns and armor page, you'd know that decapping a shell pretty much prevents it from penetrating the inner armor layer and tends to lead to higher rates of low-order detonation.



I notice you use your "Straw man" statement whenever you make a faulty statement and get called on it. You will recall your own words;

****
"All right, now I have *no* idea to whom you are responding. I made no statements about Kirishima or Washington or any other particular BB recently. FWIW, Kirishima's main batteries could not penetrate Washington's (or her sister, South Dakota, the one whose power failed) belt or citidel armor with an intact explosive charge (see the Guns and Armor page linkable via [url]www.combinedfleet.com[/url]). The keyword you want there is "decapitation" (which is what happens to any IJN shell other than the 18" fired at close range). In contrast, there was no range or armor-area on Kirishima at which the Washington or SoDak's 16" would *not* penetrate with an intact explosive charge."

****

It takes more than reading one article on a website and calling it incorrectly "Decapitization" to understand the dynamics of heavy shells. Decapping of a shell theoretically reduces an AP shell's penetration but it does not negate it. We are not talking gravity bombs but multi ton projectiles traveling at greater than the speed of sound. Further, the hull skin theory of the SoDak class is unproven, and tests (at simulated BB range, not 9700 yards) revealed that even the elaborate Italian design did not always keep shells out at ranges it was expected.


quote:


Ina desperate attempt to salvage an unsustainable opinion, Nik introduces the completely speculative qualifier that the IJN may have fired HE.


There is nothing desperate about quoting a source, in this case US battleships of WWII by William H., Jr. Garzke which documents each hit. I also base my opinions on the pereformance of a 14 inch shell on tabulated penetration figures in multiple sources. At 9700 yards armor around 20 inches could be punched through by an AP shell of those general characteristics. Washington and SoDak were designed to resist such massive shells at ranges around 22,000 yards.

As usual you attempt to reshape a discussion to make it look like the person debating against you is "desperate" and formulating unsustainable opinions. You are the one who claims Washington and/or SoDak would be immune at 9700 yards. Provide your sources. Explain your answer.

Until you do, i stand by my statements

Washington's armor belt would not decap a shell before being struck because it was externally mounted and therefor the shell would impact *it* first

SoDak's 12.2 inch belt @ 9700 yards would be very unlikely to withstand a point blank shot by a 14 inch shell. It was never designed to in the first place. Note that withstand includes the kinetic destruction of the armor plate itself being blown into large chunks and hurled into the interior of the ship.




Chiteng -> re: Kirishima (11/15/2002 4:00:14 AM)

It is worth noting that Kirishima and her sisters were almost
35 years old having been designed for WWI.

The Battlecrusier design of which it was based being discredited
after Jutland and even more after The Hood.

The ONLY thing these 4 BC had going for them was speed.

It is a little white lie to paint them as anything even approaching
the class of the Washington.

The only true BB confrontation was the Yamashiro, which wasnt
in very good shape when it actually got in range.




Chiteng -> re: Mdiehl (11/15/2002 4:08:48 AM)

What simplistic axis fanboy nonsense.
*************************************************

Really? Did anyone notice how quick Fletcher de-camped
to re-fuel at Guadalcanal?

Sure they were more than willing to fight an AIR WAR.
But they feared the big guns. Who knows, maybe they were
correct to do so.

Tell me Mdiehl are you saying that Lee didnt send those
messages? Have you read Morrison?

Its one thing to work the Yamato over with 350+ planes.
Something else again to actually risk getting hit by an 18.1 inch
shell.




mogami -> Very interesting (11/15/2002 4:37:46 AM)

Hi, You know all this is interesting but I can not see where it leads. There are two camps with opposing views on the same subject. To me that indicates the program is doing an OK job.
One side thinks the IJN torpedos/night fighting needs increased.
I have seen no convincing evidence and really dispite my posts I have no bias. If I thought (and this is many hours of playing the IJN in PBEM ) the Japanese were being shortchanged I would not refrain from hollering about it. I still think the player who feel there is a problem are expecting too much from the IJN. The battles of Nov 13 and 14 1942 have 24 hours in between and totally differant outcomes. Both are historical. Once again I point out the player in UV knowing of these battles assign better leaders. and compose differant TF's. No matter how the program resolves battles one camp will be here protesting.

The IJN before Sept 42 in equal force battles with equal leaders does not as a rule in UV get soundly whipped. They may not achive great results but they hold their own. Historicaly speaking how late are you looking for these IJN victories? UV allows the IJN to win battles well past the period they actually did so.




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/15/2002 4:43:09 AM)

You can make that claim Mogami, but I still have seen no
result even close to the real battles. If you are saying that they
are of such a low order of probability that they cant happen,
my answer is, they DID happen.

The latter war efforts were usually sided with good intell and recon favoring the USN.

But not all of course. Leyte Gulf being a case in point.




mogami -> which real battles? (11/15/2002 4:48:12 AM)

Hi, Chiteng which real battles have you not seen occur in UV? I will dig through AAR and find posts from ver 1.00 till now. Just post ships per side and away i'll go. (I have seen both sides win/lose equal size battles. I have seen both sides win/lose outnumbered battles)




Nikademus -> Re: re: Kirishima (11/15/2002 5:53:15 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]It is worth noting that Kirishima and her sisters were almost
35 years old having been designed for WWI.

The Battlecrusier design of which it was based being discredited
after Jutland and even more after The Hood.

The ONLY thing these 4 BC had going for them was speed.

It is a little white lie to paint them as anything even approaching
the class of the Washington.

The only true BB confrontation was the Yamashiro, which wasnt
in very good shape when it actually got in range. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Chiteng

Noone, certainly not myself was suggesting that under normal circumstances that the upgraded Kongo class approached 'any' modern battleship class of WWII in overall capability. What i 'was' pointing out though was that in a close range knife fight (night battle), all battleship armor schemes are for the most part negated as they are typically designed to resist their opposite numbers at far greater ranges. "Normal" circumstances i would define as a day-battle conducted at between 18,000 and 25,000 yards. A commander familiar with his ship would prefer to fight it within the close center of his ship's immunity zone and Washington, for example was rated and designed to resist 14 inch shellfire at ranges of approx 22-28,000 yards.

The Kongo's, despite their heavily augmented armor decks, retained their battlecruiser origins and do not compare armor wise to either modern USN class of battleship, never suggested otherwise. However at 9700 yards, questions of armor thickness become mostly irrelevant as both side's main batteries would be able to peirce each other's heavy armor. It comes down to who gets the jump on who first and how much they can pummel the other (and where the hits land)

Reference any authoritive source. WWII combat for battleships at less than 10,000 yards is point blank range. Then reference penetration tables for the various 14 and 16 inch rifles sported by these beasties.




Chiteng -> re: Nik (11/15/2002 7:56:39 AM)

Oh I agree, its just that after they sank Kirishima suddenly
Kirishima became a BB overnight. USN vanity.




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/15/2002 7:57:51 AM)

First, I never trusted the 12% figure. I can tell you that out of at least 30 games I have NEVER see the Japs escape with 3 minor
hits on one CA after sinking by torpedoe fire 4 CA and blowing the bow off 1 CA.

If that cant happen, then you are saying that historical results cannot be achieved.

***************************************************

That is a historical outcome that I have never seen.




DoomedMantis -> (11/15/2002 8:18:14 AM)

I'd love to see the 12%, in fact I'd even be happy if the bastards launched




mogami -> Re: re: Mogami (11/15/2002 9:38:18 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]First, I never trusted the 12% figure. I can tell you that out of at least 30 games I have NEVER see the Japs escape with 3 minor
hits on one CA after sinking by torpedoe fire 4 CA and blowing the bow off 1 CA.

If that cant happen, then you are saying that historical results cannot be achieved.

***************************************************

That is a historical outcome that I have never seen. [/B][/QUOTE]


Hi, I am afraid you miss the point. And aim complaints at something that is not there. This game is not "1st battle of Guadalcanal" It is an Operational game covering many months of battles. I understand the desire to see certain results but to produce one such battle by design would needs produce more and that would be more ahistorical then to leave it out by design.
The game will over time produce the correct amount of damage.
Looking to produce (or reproduce) a set amount of damage if certain forces meet is more "micro management" then checking airgroups attack altitudes. That such a result cannot happen
I do not admit. I have had 6 IJN DD defeat a USN cruiser force. (Check AAR Mogami-Erik R a battle at Tulagi) But UV will not reproduce any historical battle verbatim. It is not meant to. I think when the game was being developed the battle resolution was added for public consumption. The original was to just produce a combat report after two opposing fleets had met. (without reporting type of hits) This would have been more in keeping with the scale of the game but not as popular with the players.
Now we get to watch the battle but I think people are taking the formations and ship firing too much as actual events. And trying to over analyze the results. It required many unreplicatable factors to produce the unique battles in the South Pacific 42-43.
There is no system to reproduce the strange events that sometimes have produced history. The game is not about surface or carrier battles although their outcomes have a major impact on the game. The battles are the result of operational ideas. This is not a tactical game. UV would work (with less complaints) If all the player knew was ("Night Surface Action Lunga" and the next day he could view his Task Force.

Airbattles could simply report "Air raid Port Moresby" and the player checked airgroups and base damage. How much detail can the designer provide before players start picking it apart?
I do not think the Japanese player must resign hisself to defeat in UV. The multitude of scenarios allows much more advantage to the Japanese. I am looking forward to WITP( which if you check the WITP forum you will note entered testing today). (I want to see what must be done to provide a scenario 17 like ship avaibilty, fuel and supply.) However it is a game of unit/asset management. Not combat. The scale is too large. (A 15 minute realtime surface battle would take hours to resolve.) The microscope is the wrong instrument to look at UV with.




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/15/2002 10:03:05 AM)

I understand you just fine, I just dont agree. After playing the game at least 30 times, I can state flatly, that I have NEVER
seen the Japs skate free with 3 minor hits after sinking 4 CA
and blowing the bow off Chicago.
I HAVE seen lopsided gunnery battles but the winner has NEVER
been the IJN. It has always been the Allies.

Ok so your telling me, that such a result as Savo is not a reasonable expectation. My answer is - Why?

I am not talking about delibretly siding one battle, I am asking why history will be ignored.

If the game cannot re-create historical outcomes, something is wrong. Just like a Mavis hitting a ship with 4 Torps. The Mavis
didnt carry 4 torps(or at least I dont have any data saying it did)

I want the USN player to fear engaging the IJN at night, at least for the first three months of the game!




mogami -> IJN wins (11/15/2002 10:22:51 AM)

Hi, from this thread, looks pretty Scott free to me.


Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Ariake
DD Akebono
DD Sazanami, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 6, on fire
CA Australia, Shell hits 4
CL Hobart, Shell hits 1
DD Monaghan, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
DD Alwin

OK so it's not 4 CA sunk and one crippled but its an A$$ whipping all the same. I personally am afraid to engage the IJN even up the first 3 months of the game. In fact I never do (unless by accident I do go looking for easy prey)

But I will back out of this disscussion. I can not provide the answers you seek and I do not have the same questions.




CapAndGown -> (11/15/2002 10:27:46 AM)

Chiteng,

I am on your side, but I think there is something you need to consider about a repetition of Savo in this game: US damage control improved after that battle such that the same amount of damage would no longer gaurantee that a ship sunk. IIRC, the CA's at Savo were not even in a fully water tight condition. In UV, on the other hand, US damage control is a constant throughout. So one should not expect to see a Savo. But a Tassaforonga might be expected.

Mogami,

You may believe that the sequencing of the animation has no relevance to the outcome, and that players should just pay attention to the combat report and ignore the details of how that combat was actually resolved. So maybe you don't watch the animations. But if you did, you would see that the IJN is simply not firing their LLs as often as one would expect. Instead, they are engaging in gun duels just as if they were the USN.

Like it or not, the designers chose to implement battle resolution in a manner where we could watch how it plays out. We therefore have every right to critisize the way this is implemented when we see something we disagree with. If the combat resolution shows the IJN not launching LLs, and we believe they should, then we are going to say "wait a minute." We are talking about the game as it is (one with combat animations), not the game you want it to be (one with just AARs).

Doomed Mantis:

I think you and Timjot are on the right track: Let's see the IJN launch their LL's on a more consistent basis. I doubt anything more is needed to get the results we are expecting. Hit or miss, it would be nice to see them used. ;)




Chiteng -> re: to all (11/15/2002 10:41:07 AM)

It isnt that I am an IJN fanatic, At Savo you had Treaty CA
going up against first generation Jap HCA.

They were surprised, in addition since they WERE treaty CA
the biggest single reason they burned was all that **** stupid
paint the navy used to give the wall and floors that nice shiny
grey finish. It was pretty, and it burned quite well. Also all that
enameled panelling in the ward rooms, and the chiefs room.

Its like this, I went in with the editor I gave ALL Jap
BB an admiral with 99 in all stats, I gave them the best radar
the japs have, maybe I should have given them SG, except
now we are into fantasy. And I went ahead and engaged.

I still didnt win a clear-cut victory. Ok Savo is a singular event
but Tass really wasnt. Something weird happened at Tass.

The Japs get caught flatfooted, decks loaded with supply canisters, they are NOT ready for a fight, and still they recovered
and sank Northampton (another Treaty CA)

I am saying that after dodging allied planes, managing to refuel
managing to avoid subs I finally get 4BB 4CA and 8DD to Lunga
at night, and a scratch force of light ships pounds the snot out of me. That simply isnt credible. The reality is that once the commander of the USN realized he was up against large caliber
capital ships he would have RUN...and be praised for doing so.




mogami -> Nostragami (11/15/2002 11:59:41 AM)

Greetings, I like to play the Japanese in PBEM (although currently I have many more as allied)
The people wanting to see the "torpedos in the water" message don't just want every ship to fire torpedos. They also want those torpedos to hit. So the hit rate will no doubt be jacked up.
Then those players that like the allied side will refuse night surface battles. The Noumea "huddle" will become the common stratagey. The allies will refrain from going to Lunga till after they have fought and won the carrier battles. Because they will need enough ships to absorb the torpedo damage they will wait till they have a large number. Then we will really see historical battles. Several 15 ship TF's per side.
When your IJN TF fires 30+ torpedos without hits the battles will be as they are now only the USN will be bringing more ships (so IJN will get clobbered more) When torpedos do hit IJN will win first battle and then be clobbered by the second TF.

Of course I also want the correct results from naval combat. I am not too unhappy with them at present (I don't care how IJN wins as long as they win) I have always noticed a decline in results as time went on and tried to bring USN to battle as soon as possible.
It is historic for IJN to win the early encounters. But in game USN does not set up TF's in same manner as was done. This to me is reason for unhistoric results (not lack of torpedo hits).

The Japanese player in offense is trying to bombard airfields versus USN TF's trying to prevent. Historically there were not many USN ships on hand, UV players will not go on "shoestring" producing these monster battles. As some point there will be a thread decrying the new improved torpedo results.




Chiteng -> re: mogami (11/15/2002 12:32:30 PM)

Not true, you can easily duplicate the TF configurations
But it wont matter. The Japs wont fight a second round for some reason which is what the actually did at Savo.
It was two different battle. But w/o torp hits, you wont sink anything above DD.




CapAndGown -> Re: Nostragami (11/15/2002 12:49:31 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]

But in game USN does not set up TF's in same manner as was done. This to me is reason for unhistoric results (not lack of torpedo hits).
[/B][/QUOTE]

Could you elaborate on this? I am not sure I understand what you are seeing. Don't most people go in with a TF of CAs and DDs?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]
The Japanese player in offense is trying to bombard airfields versus USN TF's trying to prevent. Historically there were not many USN ships on hand, UV players will not go on "shoestring" producing these monster battles. [/B][/QUOTE]

Again, I am not clear what you mean here. Certainly, try to bombard airfields (Henderson) is historic. I am most unclear about what you mean by "shoestring" and monster battles. Do you mean the USN has too many ships in the early part of the game?




Drongo -> (11/15/2002 3:00:37 PM)

Mates,

It's sad that being forced into defending our discussions on Japanese night performances (and possible solutions) would seem to have us come across as a bunch of Nipophiles. It's especially annoying for me as I have little respect for them due to what the bastards did to our POW's (and others) in WWII.

I've been watching and participating in these "IJN not good enough" threads for a while and I've never noticed anything extreme in what is requested. All we're seeing here is the result of people's frustrations that their view of what happened historically is not being recreated in the game.

I wont give you their view but I will state what I was disappointed with.

When I first got this game, my POV (from reading historical accounts) was that the IJN had an edge at night until the USN got their act together. My expectation of UV was that the IJN would have a narrow window of opportunity where it could be expected to win more battles than it lost. And that, when the opportunity arose, the Long Lance could turn those victories into major ones. I also expected that window to be firmly closed as the allies increase their night capability (I'll use this to mean exp, tactics, training, command, radar use and equipment).

My disappointment comes from the fact that the IJN (in my opinion) does not get that window of opportunity but the improvement in the allies' night capability does occur. That translates to (at best) early parity at night followed by later allied superiority. The allied superiority does not mean no IJN victories will occur. It simply means that the allies will win more than they lose (as they should).

To me, it doesn't matter that UV uses an abstract combat model (with a u-beaut little battle display to give you something to watch). It doesn't matter that only a few determining combat factors are stipulated and that you could just as easily read the AAR for the same effect. Or that both sides will make full use of ship characteristics, leaders, etc to put their best foot forward. As far as I'm concerned, if Matrix claims that the UV combat engine will give the IJN an early edge at night, then thats what I expect it to do when players fight under its game conditions and use correct game tactics. In my opinion it doesn't. And that comes from playing both sides in UV.

The early IJN advantage should not mean winning every battle, always getting high torp hit rates, always crossing the "T", etc. It should just mean being able to enter battles early in scenarios with the confidence that (all things being equal) you have a demonstrably better than average chance of winning. And that fact, combined with the Long Lance, should allow you to reasonably expect the occasional, decisively one sided, torpedo driven success like Savo or Tass (whether the game models the exact conditions or not). I'd call it making hay while the (rising) sun shines.

The perceived lack of early IJN advantage in UV is just my opinion and I dont expect to convince anyone else of it purely on that basis. That was why I ran over a 100 test battles to establish some sort of statistical reality (if thats possible). I haven't finished and nothing is conclusive yet. In the end, Matrix and 2x3 have the final say and my opinion and testing will probably have no impact. But there's no doubt they're aware of what my opinion is.:p

In the meantime, please dont give up on the idea that we may actually be open minded, caring, sharing and unbiased players whose agenda is simply misunderstood (group hug followed by sooky music). ****, I think the E's are kicking in early.

Cheers




Pawlock -> (11/15/2002 7:04:45 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Mates,

It's sad that being forced into defending our discussions on Japanese night performances (and possible solutions) would seem to have us come across as a bunch of Nipophiles. It's especially annoying for me as I have little respect for them due to what the bastards did to our POW's (and others) in WWII.

I've been watching and participating in these "IJN not good enough" threads for a while and I've never noticed anything extreme in what is requested. All we're seeing here is the result of people's frustrations that their view of what happened historically is not being recreated in the game.

I wont give you their view but I will state what I was disappointed with.

When I first got this game, my POV (from reading historical accounts) was that the IJN had an edge at night until the USN got their act together. My expectation of UV was that the IJN would have a narrow window of opportunity where it could be expected to win more battles than it lost. And that, when the opportunity arose, the Long Lance could turn those victories into major ones. I also expected that window to be firmly closed as the allies increase their night capability (I'll use this to mean exp, tactics, training, command, radar use and equipment).

My disappointment comes from the fact that the IJN (in my opinion) does not get that window of opportunity but the improvement in the allies' night capability does occur. That translates to (at best) early parity at night followed by later allied superiority. The allied superiority does not mean no IJN victories will occur. It simply means that the allies will win more than they lose (as they should).

Cheers [/B][/QUOTE]

I respect your opinions, and others about the IJN, but that is not to say I must agree with them. I can only comment on my own personnal experiences with the game (perhaps Im just a sh*t player), but my experiences certainly give the IJN a clear advantage early on. Not being a grognard I cant comment on how the battles are conducted, all I can comment on is results, and if we are all honest here this is the REAL FACTOR being debated here.

If as you say, your being forced to defend your standpoint its only because people like myself are happy with the system as is and dont want to see it changed. Again if everything you and others said went unchallenged (we all Know MATRIX/2BY3 do listen) then Matrix would look at this and think hey, something must be wrong because no one is challenging it, perhaps they have a point, and to appease you they do alter the mechanics.

This is something you want, but for me I dont.

Peace :-)




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125