re: Drongo (Full Version)

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



Message


Chiteng -> re: Drongo (11/25/2002 10:20:41 AM)

Hehehe no Drongo I am not a pro-IJN fanboy. Multiple Savo
would be just as offensive.

I see the possible results as an emmense bell-curve.
What this argument is all about is where is the midpoint(average)

Mogami feels that the midpoint is in the right place NOW.
However that is a statistical argument.

But like I said:

If the IJN has 4BB 4CA and 8DD vs 1CA 3CL 4DD

It is NOT totally unreasonable to assume the IJN will win.
Yet with THIS game engine, I have seen them LOSE, and very badly indeed.

I have seen MANY lopsided results from the game engine.
My point is that they ALL favor the USN. THAT does offend me.




mogami -> Lopsided (11/25/2002 10:53:04 AM)

Hi, And we continue to ignore the lopsided IJN victories I have posted from AAR's (not tests-PBEM games)

Several battles IJN sinks USN BB for free (not one IJN ship sank-or hurt)

IJN CA's defeat USN CA's
IJN DD's defeat USN CA's

What I do keep hearing is

"It has not happened for me yet, So the game is wrong"

I keep saying what you want is possible, but not likely since players are not going to send those TF's against each other, but
if they do then at some point, in one of the games the IJN will crush the USN. It can not and should not be programed to happen JUST BECAUSE IT DID. If we do that then every thing that did not happen MUST NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE IT NEVER DID.

I think UV strike a nice balance. I accept it, you don't. Fine. I have no problem with your not accepting it. I have a problem with your expecting everyone else to reject it.




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/25/2002 11:02:20 AM)

I have seen MANY lopsided results from the game engine.
My point is that they ALL favor the USN. THAT does offend me.
****************************************************

Did you read that Mogami? Are you saying that you WILL accept
the argument if I post the many lopsided results that favor the
USN? Because you see Mogami, that is something I CAN do, quite easily. No one but you and Eric dispute it however. I am sure EVERYONE has seen battles where the USN simply CRUSHES
the IJN in a gunnery duel.

They just have not seen a battle totaly decided by torpedoes
before the first gun is fired. That they have not seen. And THAT
Mogami is why your argument is specious.

The word 'possible' isnt an excuse for 'never'




denisonh -> (11/25/2002 11:11:00 AM)

I am playing 5 PBEM games as the USN and have not seen a "crushing" USN victory when I was outnumbered or outgunned (except when Sonny sent an IJN DD with 23 sys damage against 7 PT boats and it got sunk).

I have seen the combat results for the USN show no ships hit, yet I end up with all my cruisers 25+ sys damage when I check during my planning turn.

I know I have never crushed an IJN TF with a BB when I didn't have one.

So I not sure about this overwhelming US adavantage that seems to be the major topic. I know I don't see the lethal results that Chiteng refers to, but do not believe that it is that bad of an advantage for the USN. My opinion is that the surface combat piece may not be lethal enough to replicate surface engagments properly.




Pawlock -> Re: re: Mogami (11/25/2002 11:29:15 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I have seen MANY lopsided results from the game engine.
My point is that they ALL favor the USN. THAT does offend me.
****************************************************

Did you read that Mogami? Are you saying that you WILL accept
the argument if I post the many lopsided results that favor the
USN? Because you see Mogami, that is something I CAN do, quite easily. No one but you and Eric dispute it however. I am sure EVERYONE has seen battles where the USN simply CRUSHES
the IJN in a gunnery duel.

They just have not seen a battle totaly decided by torpedoes
before the first gun is fired. That they have not seen. And THAT
Mogami is why your argument is specious.

The word 'possible' isnt an excuse for 'never' [/B][/QUOTE]

I was gonna try stay outta this one, because its been done to death and most people have accepted that Matrix are looking into some sort of fix that nmay perhaps favour the IJN. While I dont agree with this I prepared to accept it and give it a go.

Also it is not just Mogami and Eric that dispute it, I also do, in fact I can say exactly the reverse to what your saying. I have yet to play the USN and win a decisive victory. I have had a few draws, but mainly I have had my *** handed to me.

To be honest Chiteng, I really dont ever think you are gonna get the game you expect and demand!!




Chiteng -> re: Pawlock (11/25/2002 11:33:09 AM)

Heh the tyranny of Democracy. I agree it IS unlikely that any
simulations will ever be 'perfect' as far as my opinion of it.

All I can do is state my objections and reasoning. It is very hard
to make a purist happy.




mogami -> Oh well (11/25/2002 11:51:46 AM)

Hi, This cracks me up. I have been posting AAR's form the day this game was released. (and from both sides) If I post nothing but IJN victory and you post nothing but USN victory between the two of us will make a good case for UV being OK. No one said the IJN victories would be Chiteng (or Sadly Mogami) Only that they will occur in a campaign about as often as they did in the war.

I am currently playing 5 scenario 19's as allies. All the games began within 24 hours of each other. All have made approx the same number of turns (early June now) But the five games are as differant as can be

In 1 game IJN has caputured PM Cooktown and Cairns
In another game IJN has landed on L'ville (ignoring PM)
In yet another I have repulsed 3 differant attempts on PM
In another I lost a CV (Lex) to 2 bomb hits
In the last it is as quiet as can be (IJN player is happy to just keep sending TF's to Lunga)

Not one recreates history so I guess in your book they are all wrong.
You are not a purist. The game is not material for purists.
There is too much that is allowed to wander from history.
Scen 15 17 19 would never be played

I don't know what the proper word would be. But purist I am sure is not correct. Where is your purity?

"I never get the result the IJN got on such and such a date" "the game is flawed"

I think you want to play "Warship" UV has surface battles but it is not about surface battles. UV has carrier battles but it is not about carrier battles. It is about resource managment.




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/25/2002 12:16:11 PM)

Well Mogami there are several fallisies(sp?) that you promote.

****************************************************
Only they they will occur in a campaign about as often as they did in the war.
****************************************************
OK if that is true, then where is my at least ONE totally lopsided
victory where I escape after crushing the enemy?

I understand your objections Mogami, I wish you would try to understand mine.

If you evaluate the game engine AS A GAME, then we see some serious flaws.

First and foremost: The USN player CAN shut out Jap airstrikes
PERIOD. If you mass 6 CV in one hex with maximum cap
there is NO airstrike (except possibly a totally coordinated
land based airstrike that used EVERY asset in ONE strike)
That will penetrate the CAP + Flak. That means the USN player
does NOT have to take any risk. PERIOD. If he bases Land based
fighter units on his CV he does even better.

The Jap subs have been nerfed, the Jap ASW has been nerfed.
The game is oriented to the player that is able to minimize
organizational confusion. That means - no malaria - lots of support
- big bases - and LOTS of supply.
Hmm, guess what that means? What side does that favor?

The latest patch shows me that Bombing PM with 36 bombers and 115 fighters on escort with ZERO fatigue and CLEAR weather
opposed by 21 enemy fighters of various types will at BEST
give me 1:1 losses.

Erik says to use Lae. To USE lae would mean bringing my ships
into LBA range w/o adequete Air cover(ie cant be hurt by enemy)
That means I will lose ships JUST to supply the base. let alone
USE it.

So right now the GAME is, the Japs have no edge in any way.
The only way they can hurt the enemy is IF he moves some asset
accidently into air range w/o his own air support.




mogami -> Lae (11/25/2002 12:25:34 PM)

Well Jeez I supply Lae all the time (with PM allied) and don't lose a ship, in fact I don't even get attacked. (LBA flying outside escort range will seldom fly if target covered by CAP)
the exception being the heavy bombers that to start with seldom send more then 3 planes in any attack

LBA bombers prior to making strike compare number of bombers to number of escorts to number of enemy CAP and make check.
If failed they abort mission. It is more common for abort then fly. This check is along with check for HQ (missing for a long time except Japanese ) Leader, Morale, Fatigue. Each of these checks reduce number of aircraft by 25% so fail all 4 no planes fly. The escort check simply aborts mission no matter how many bombers would have flown (but few bombers means fewer escorts required to fly mission if other checks passed)
Also Fast transport can safely supply Lae


If and when the USN can mass 6 CV into one hex the IJN is screwed (and i don't have a problem with this, the poor allied player has to face these monster TF's sooner and longer. If Allied player has achived this ability he has already won some where without it.

I don't think UV gives the Allies an auto victory. I will conceed that other then granting unlimited supply and fuel to the Japanese the game does not grant the super quality to the Japanese many players take for granted. Myself I feel no extra burden playing the Japanese. I'm usally too busy feeling sorry for the poor allied player.




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/25/2002 12:44:21 PM)

If and when the USN can mass 6 CV into one hex the IJN is screwed (and i don't have a problem with this, the poor allied player has to face these monster TF's sooner and longer. If Allied player has achived this ability he has already won some where without it.
****************************************************
I would argue that he simply has not lost. You have time
to take it all back. You dont need PM to win. Its just easier if
you have it.

In fact I dont see a reason to 'need' anything except SWpac
to win. Just find some islands build lots of big useless bases
and you win.

My point was Mogami, the Jap player CANT shut out the Allied
players Airstrikes, and the Allied player CAN.




BK6583 -> IJN LBA (11/25/2002 7:57:44 PM)

"The latest patch shows me that Bombing PM with 36 bombers and 115 fighters on escort with ZERO fatigue and CLEAR weather
opposed by 21 enemy fighters of various types will at BEST
give me 1:1 losses. "

Are we talking about the same game? I had [mistakenly it turns out] close to 120 P39's and P40's at PM - all well rested with plenty of support and supplies. I was feeling pretty good until my opponent hit me with about 140 Zeros and about 50 bombers. Most of my fighters flew up to meet this strike. I never knew what hit me! Must have lost close to 50 planes as opposed to about 6 (yes, count 'em, SIX) Zeros destroyed. PM's airbase is hopelessly damaged so my fighters seem basically doomed to total destruction. As for Lae, certainly if I had based my two engine bombers at PM I might in retrospect have been able to perhaps bomb its airfield, but now I'm glad I didn't - I hadn't realized how helpless you be rendered when you airbase is bombed into the stone age.




mogami -> Re: re: Mogami (11/25/2002 9:21:37 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]If and when the USN can mass 6 CV into one hex the IJN is screwed (and i don't have a problem with this, the poor allied player has to face these monster TF's sooner and longer. If Allied player has achived this ability he has already won some where without it.
****************************************************
I would argue that he simply has not lost. You have time
to take it all back. You dont need PM to win. Its just easier if
you have it.

In fact I dont see a reason to 'need' anything except SWpac
to win. Just find some islands build lots of big useless bases
and you win.

My point was Mogami, the Jap player CANT shut out the Allied
players Airstrikes, and the Allied player CAN. [/B][/QUOTE]


If the allies just build large useless bases the Japanese have plenty of rear Islands to do the same.

The allies can not shut out Japanese airstrikes. The Japanese player just has to use a little sense. If you send a daylight raid to a target and it gets hurt by allied CAP what is next thing to do?
(piling alot of airgroups into one base is a good way to lose alot of airgroups)




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/25/2002 11:53:16 PM)

Dont be absurd. Trying to outbuild the allies is an exercise in futility. Especially if you 'rotate' depleted formations back to Truk.
The entire game depends on the EIGHT construction units the
Japs get. Wasting them trying to outbuild the Seebees is insane.

My answer to 'what do we do now' is 'dont attack it with airstrikes'

I assume your hinting at night airstrikes or some such nonsence.
The results are too varied. It isnt dependable.




Pawlock -> Re: re: Mogami (11/26/2002 12:18:59 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]
I assume your hinting at night airstrikes or some such nonsence.
The results are too varied. It isnt dependable. [/B][/QUOTE]

You really hav'nt got the gist of this game or what its about have you? If your after a game that produces accurate hitorical results consistantly your wasting your time here.

I'll think you'll find in Real life War as well as game nothing is guarenteed, yes you can tip the odds in your favour by knowledge and experience but alas no guarentees. There are plenty of games out there where such odds are fixed and you know if A attacks B then A will win every time because it is better, but this is UV and the designers programmed the game for the kind of uncertainty and unpredictability within reason of course.

Perhaps I sound harsh, well maybe , but you keep harping on about this and that everything must but either Black OR White in your opinion there can be no middle ground. Again unfortunatly for you UV works on a shades of grey, and fortuantly for the likes of me I enjoy that aspect.

Enjoy the game and accept it for what it is, not what it is'nt.




Admiral DadMan -> (11/26/2002 12:23:47 AM)

It's just too bad that UV didn't have [I]Lexington[/I] and [I]Saratoga[/I] keep their 4 pairs of 8" guns and take those puppies into battle...

Alas, [I]Lexington[/I] took hers to the bottom of the Coral Sea, and [I]Saratoga[/I] donated hers as shore batteries to Pearl Harbor in Jan 42.

What does this have to do with this discussion? Not much, I just wanted a non-sequitor...




Chiteng -> re: Pawlock (11/26/2002 12:31:37 AM)

No I think I will voice my opinion as often as I like.

Your assumptions as to my motives are no more than assumptions. You cannot read my mind.

Mogami tries to present himself as the 'Grand Strategist' of the board. The man with all the good answers.

All 'I' see are 'HIS' answers. To assume there are no other answers, plays right into his hands.

I have quoted him repeatedly to prove my point,

If they game doesnt simulate reality, then it is simply a GAME.
No better than Checkers.

You can be as harsh as you like. It will not effect me in any way.




mdiehl -> chiten (11/26/2002 12:42:07 AM)

[QUOTE]Heh the tyranny of Democracy. I agree it IS unlikely that any simulations will ever be 'perfect' as far as my opinion of it.

All I can do is state my objections and reasoning. It is very hard
to make a purist happy.[/QUOTE]

A purist at bs anyhow. You say the system is broke because it hasn't generated any lopsided victories, but you're not interested in the causes. All you want is a protracted unrealistic happy time interval to favor one side, without regard to history.

If the USN player doesn't duplicate the circumstances of Savo (extreme fatigue from essentially 2 *days* at action stations, combined with mission creep guarding two landing locations at the same time while also providing fire supprt, combined with an inaccurate scouting report, combined with the absence of other scouting info [under normal circumstances an afternoon search would have found the IJN TF]) led to Savo. The absence of each of these reduces the probability that IJN will attempt a Savo like encounter (about 2 in 12, counting T'frnga, for 1942), and the absence of all of them should deterministically prevent the result that Chiten craves.




Pawlock -> If you seek reality then perhaps... (11/26/2002 1:12:02 AM)

this is what you really need:

http://www.navyjobs.com/join_now.jsp


Cant get more real than that !!!


[QUOTE]Your assumptions as to my motives are no more than assumptions. You cannot read my mind. [/QUOTE]

My assumptions are based on what you've written before, unless you care to deny what you have written I will make assumptions based on this.

[QUOTE]I have quoted him repeatedly to prove my point, [/QUOTE]

How does constantly repeating someone prove your point?

[QUOTE]If they game doesnt simulate reality, then it is simply a GAME. [/QUOTE]

See above link, but glad you brought it up though because damm I though it was real life .




Chiteng -> Typical of the ACTUAL AAR (11/26/2002 1:42:09 AM)

Below is an example of what is actually typical for a night action.
The Jap commander was Tanaka. The allied player had no edge,
and yet there is no doubt at all that he won. The Mutsu accomplished nothing. The Takao sank the next day.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/19/42

Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 3
CA Takao, Shell hits 16, on fire, heavy damage
CA Atago, Shell hits 2
CA Chokai, Shell hits 5
CA Aoba, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 4
CA Kako, Shell hits 2
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 4
DD Yugumo, Shell hits 6, on fire
DD Urakaze
DD Tanikaze, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Oshio, Shell hits 1
DD Michishio, Shell hits 2
DD Arashio, Shell hits 2

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 6
CA Pensacola
CA San Francisco
CA Australia
CL Leander, Shell hits 1
DD Wilkes, Shell hits 1
DD Monssen
DD Hughes
DD Mustin, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD O'Brien
DD Walke, Shell hits 1
DD Craven
DD Cummings
DD Farragut, Shell hits 1
DD Monaghan, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage




mdiehl -> (11/26/2002 1:46:30 AM)

As a matter of curiousity, how often has UV generated a *daylight* surface action?

It almost never happened in PW, even though many of these historically occurred in the Malay barrier/Indonesian barrier area, and late in the war, and were entirely *possible* around the Solomons or near Port Moresby.

By the way, I see nothing wrong with the AAR sample that Chiteng just posted. Its within the range of historical results.




Chiteng -> re: Mdiehl/Pawlock (11/26/2002 1:52:44 AM)

Well you two may be satisfied with playing a enhanced game of checkers, but you are not the designers, and I suspect they attempted more than that.

I do not ask for a determined result. I ask for a simulation of reality. For example: You could kludge the first fight, that would be the MOST simple solution.

You continued attempts to disparage clearly show your bias.
I do not for example tell YOU to shut up and go away.
Your lack of courtesy does you little credit.

The 'facts' are that early unpreparedness COULD be simulated,
and indeed IS simulated is several games. Just not this one.




Chiteng -> re: Mdiehl (11/26/2002 1:55:08 AM)

By the way, I see nothing wrong with the AAR sample that Chiteng just posted. Its within the range of historical results.
****************************************************
At least what Mdiehl accepts as what HE expects historical results to be. Yes Mdiehl, I am certain that you DONT find anything wrong
with that battle. The statement speaks for itself.




mogami -> changes to UV (11/26/2002 2:01:07 AM)

Hi, As already noted the next patch has changes for surface combat. If the IJN suprises the USN every IJN ship fires torpedos before any shooting starts. I did not see if the above combat report was an IJN suprise or not. Had the IJN TF been spotted during the day? (Having Mutsu in TF meant the TF speed was 25k (If Mutsu at 100 percent) This means it could not use the run in undetected as well as a 30k TF could have.
Also missing are the range combat began, moved to and ended at.
The IJN did fire torpedos (and score hits)

Not a very good battle for IJN but aside from UV just being broke what other factors could have produced the result.

Tanaka is a good leader who was in commnad of USN TF?
could IJN damage control versus USN damage control be also contributing to result?




Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/26/2002 2:07:56 AM)

Hi, As already noted the next patch has changes for surface combat. If the IJN suprises the USN every IJN ship fires torpedos before any shooting starts.
****************************************************
How hard is it to achieve surprise?


****************************************************
I did not see if the above combat report was an IJN suprise or not.
****************************************************
I dont know, I dont watch the battles takes too much time.

****************************************************
Had the IJN TF been spotted during the day? (Having Mutsu in TF meant the TF speed was 25k (If Mutsu at 100 percent) This means it could not use the run in undetected as well as a 30k TF could have.
****************************************************
I am sure it was spotted, it left from Shortlands. However
the USN force was ALSO spotted, clearly visible on multiple
recon reports.


****************************************************
Also missing are the range combat began, moved to and ended at.
The IJN did fire torpedos (and score hits)

Not a very good battle for IJN but aside from UV just being broke what other factors could have produced the result.

Tanaka is a good leader who was in commnad of USN TF?
could IJN damage control versus USN damage control be also contributing to result?
****************************************************
Truthfully I dont know, I assume it was Lee, but that is a guess.
In most of my battles vs the Computer the Computer uses Lee.

I can only pay better attention next time =)
But as I said, the result is typical for what I see with night battles.
So it wont be hard to replicate.




Sonny -> (11/26/2002 2:24:05 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]..............

(except when Sonny sent an IJN DD with 23 sys damage against 7 PT boats and it got sunk).

.................... [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey, what you didn't mention was that there were no reported hits on any of the PT boats - and that of the 31 hits on the DD approx.25-29 of them came from ONE boat!.

But I found out how to fight thoses PT boats 'cause the next turn one of my barges got one!:D




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625