A quick list of pro-USN bias.

A quick list of pro-USN bias. (Full Version)

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

Message

Chiteng -> A quick list of pro-USN bias. (5/28/2003 12:08:16 PM)
Invulnerable B-17 hitting ships(not restricted to ships in port) Ahistorical use of weapons platform for the M-10 Ahistorical use of Sub reprovisioning and maint. Lack of Jap mini-subs (they did exist, regardless of failures) Lack of ability to use IJN subs as flying boat tenders(yes they did that) Lack of 'torpedoe only' surface combat option for IJN ships (night or day doesnt matter) Total immpossibility of replicating actual battles like Tassafaronga (it cant happen) Exaggerated Supply loss from minor hits(dispersal anyone?) Ahistorical use of PBY for troop transport(favors the USN because they can replace the losses. The IJN cant) Unrealistic port anchorage(in reality there is a limit on how many ships can use a port)this favors the USN because they have alot of big ships. This is just a brief list before bed. I may add more when I am not so tired.

Raverdave -> Re: A quick list of pro-USN bias. (5/28/2003 12:22:12 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Invulnerable B-17 hitting ships(not restricted to ships in port) [/B][/QUOTE] Are you STILL flogging this dead horse? [B][QUOTE] Ahistorical use of weapons platform for the M-10 [/B][/QUOTE] In what way is the use ahistorical? [B][QUOTE] Ahistorical use of Sub reprovisioning and maint. [/B][/QUOTE] Could you expand on this one? [B][QUOTE] Lack of Jap mini-subs (they did exist, regardless of failures) Lack of ability to use IJN subs as flying boat tenders(yes they did that)[/B][/QUOTE] I agree to both of the above....but I wonder how the float plane tenders could be modelled. I wish that there were mini subs! [B][QUOTE] Lack of 'torpedoe only' surface combat option for IJN ships (night or day doesnt matter) Total immpossibility of replicating actual battles like Tassafaronga (it cant happen) Exaggerated Supply loss from minor hits(dispersal anyone?) [/B][/QUOTE] Have you got any figures on this one? [B][QUOTE] Ahistorical use of PBY for troop transport(favors the USN because they can replace the losses. The IJN cant) [/B][/QUOTE] This is the old argument "just because they didn't do it then". If a system be it ship or aircraft is [B]able[/B] to do it, then why not???????????????? The USN didnot run fast TFs using surface combat units...but why should that not allow you to do it in the game? The ships have the ability to do it...so why not? [B][QUOTE] Unrealistic port anchorage(in reality there is a limit on how many ships can use a port)this favors the USN because they have alot of big ships.[/B][/QUOTE] Hmmm....don't forget that the hex that they are in is 30 miles....you can fit A LOT in 30 miles

Chiteng -> (5/28/2003 12:30:31 PM)
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Chiteng Invulnerable B-17 hitting ships(not restricted to ships in port) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you STILL flogging this dead horse? ************************************************ Get used to it. If Mdeihl cant get his way by complaining, then get ready to hear complaints. ************************************************ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ahistorical use of weapons platform for the M-10 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In what way is the use ahistorical? ************************************************ In reality the boats were withdrawn. Players keep them around because they know the torpedoes on them work. In reality they would NOT know that. *********************************************** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ahistorical use of Sub reprovisioning and maint. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you expand on this one? *********************************************** Subs need specialized facilities or tenders. It isnt enough to just show up at any old port. *********************************************** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lack of Jap mini-subs (they did exist, regardless of failures) Lack of ability to use IJN subs as flying boat tenders(yes they did that) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree to both of the above....but I wonder how the float plane tenders could be modelled. I wish that there were mini subs! quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lack of 'torpedoe only' surface combat option for IJN ships (night or day doesnt matter) Total immpossibility of replicating actual battles like Tassafaronga (it cant happen) Exaggerated Supply loss from minor hits(dispersal anyone?) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have you got any figures on this one? ********************************************* What kind of figures? Matrix has addmitted that UNLESS the IJN surprises the USN TF, there is NO CHANCE of an all torp launch. NONE. As far as dispersal, that should be self evident. Read some accounts of Guadalcanal *********************************************** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ahistorical use of PBY for troop transport(favors the USN because they can replace the losses. The IJN cant) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the old argument "just because they didn't do it then". If a system be it ship or aircraft is able to do it, then why not???????????????? The USN didnot run fast TFs using surface combat units...but why should that not allow you to do it in the game? The ships have the ability to do it...so why not? *********************************************** None the less, it favors the USN because the USN can replace its losses. ************************************************ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unrealistic port anchorage(in reality there is a limit on how many ships can use a port)this favors the USN because they have alot of big ships. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm....don't forget that the hex that they are in is 30 miles....you can fit A LOT in 30 miles ************************************************* Sure, but they wont be at the ancorage. That is what matters.

Raverdave -> (5/28/2003 2:10:14 PM)
I have seen at the port of Newcastle (in NSW Australia) 24 bulk carriers swinging at anchor waiting to get in to the dock....but they are still in anchorage ...I have also seen what seems to be over one hundered ships waiting to dock at Singapore but they are still in anchorage. Do you count a ship not being "docked" as not being in port? Ships can and were serviced eventhough thew were not docked. The Sub issue is interesting, and the argument could also lead into things such as in port repairs on damaged ships etc. But seeing as mines are now limited to only being loaded in two ports (Brisbane should be inclued if you really want to be 100% historical), I don't see why this cannot also be done for subs...or have a special "port unit" for subs.....much like the Aviation units for planes....that way a player can "move" the home port for subs. [B][QUOTE]Get used to it. If Mdeihl cant get his way by complaining, then get ready to hear complaints. [/B][/QUOTE] Fat chance ;) .....you are yet to put forward a supported argument as to why the LRB should be changed.

Drongo -> Maybe you should be getting more sleep (5/28/2003 3:55:56 PM)
Posted by Chiteng [QUOTE]Get used to it. If Mdeihl cant get his way by complaining, then get ready to hear complaints.[/QUOTE] :confused: Can't or can? If you're saying he can, what exactly was it that he got his way on? If you're saying he can't, why would you then think it is an incentive to make complaints? [QUOTE]Ahistorical use of weapons platform for the M-10[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In what way is the use ahistorical?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In reality the boats were withdrawn. Players keep them around because they know the torpedoes on them work. In reality they would NOT know that.[/QUOTE] Was there a seperate complaint for both the M-10 tank destroyer and the S class submarine or was this a reference to the Mk 10 torpedo?

AmiralLaurent -> (5/28/2003 5:40:32 PM)
[QUOTE]Invulnerable B-17 hitting ships(not restricted to ships in port)[/QUOTE] Outside ports, the hit rate is bad enough to be historical. And B-17 sank historically a lot of ships in Rabaul, while having far less targets than in most UV games. If you seek compensation, Nell and Betty torpeding ships off Cairns is a pro-IJN bias. [QUOTE]Ahistorical use of weapons platform for the M-10[/QUOTE] First US sub skipper know that the M-14 was not working well, they just underestimated the problem. S-boats should take SYS damage far more than they do in UV because they were old. Also there should be no S-boat available for reinforcements in PH. I don't think any S-boat was sent to the aera after May 1942. [QUOTE]Ahistorical use of Sub reprovisioning and maint[/QUOTE] Agree with this one, as mines can be found only in some ports, subs will need specific facilities for torpedoes. Maybe only size 5 ports can resplenish them. But that is not a pro-US bia, as Allied would have more bases able to deal with submarines, and more ENG to expand others. [QUOTE]Lack of Jap mini-subs (they did exist, regardless of failures)[/QUOTE] Why not ? May be funny. [QUOTE]Lack of ability to use IJN subs as flying boat tenders(yes they did that)[/QUOTE] In fact, some of the I-boats had one plane aboard, as CL do, and use it for recon missions off Australia and Noumea. That will make a great difference in strategy in Japanese favor. [QUOTE]Lack of 'torpedoe only' surface combat option for IJN ships (night or day doesnt matter) Total immpossibility of replicating actual battles like Tassafaronga (it cant happen)[QUOTE] No comment. Should be open to both sides, even if IJN will be highly favored in torpedoes battles, as it was in WWII. [QUOTE]Exaggerated Supply loss from minor hits(dispersal anyone?)[/QUOTE] I guess you are talking of base bombings here. Agree with you, bombings are far too powerful on ground targets (port, airfield and supplies). And that is a huge pro-US bia. In 1943, Japan should be unable to supply well its forward base but these should not be crushed by bombings only. [QUOTE]Ahistorical use of PBY for troop transport(favors the USN because they can replace the losses. The IJN cant)[/QUOTE] This use of PBY is useful to the Allied player mainly in the first months of the game. At the same time, IJN can use DD for FT TF. If they lose some, they are others waiting in Japan to come in a few days. On the contrary USN has no DD to spare in 1942. I even sent some undamaged back to have my first BB sooner ! So risking DD on FT TF is not a bad idea. [QUOTE]Unrealistic port anchorage(in reality there is a limit on how many ships can use a port)this favors the USN because they have [/QUOTE] I agree, a port should be able to dock... don't know, maybe 5 ships per port point or something like that. Others should remain in rade. You can't build a rade, so if your port has not a buildable size of 3 or more (without the 3 points allowed up the limite) at the start, your ships not docked will never be protected of subs. I think such a change will be in Allied favor. They have less logistics problems, having for example C-47 to bring supplies. And they have better ASW, while the only good protection of IJN AP and AO against subs is a size 3 port. ............ Japan is favored in 1942 in most games (Midway didn't happen, deployment over 100%) to have an equilibrate game. In 1943 it is losing and should be. The Allied bombers ability to destroy any base with the troops based here, and the facts that ships gain tremendous night combat exp with only one fight (one of my DD meet at night a damaged MSW and sank it almost without return fire, night exp rises from 40 to 75 !!!) are clearly far too much in Allied favor. The other part of the games are equilibrated enough for me to enjoy it.

Raverdave -> (5/28/2003 5:51:50 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmiralLaurent [B] I agree, a port should be able to dock... don't know, maybe 5 ships per port point or something like that. Others should remain in rade. You can't build a rade, so if your port has not a buildable size of 3 or more (without the 3 points allowed up the limite) at the start, your ships not docked will never be protected of subs. [/B][/QUOTE] Why is it important to have a ship DOCKED? Ships were and still are bunkered without being docked as well as replenished. Why the need to dock them?

AmiralLaurent -> (5/28/2003 6:46:32 PM)
An undocked ship should not repair as quickly as a docked one. And she should unload/load far more slowly (maybe at beach rate, mabybe a little more). And she should not be fuelled by the port, only by a resplenishment TF in the same hex.

Chiteng -> (5/28/2003 6:46:56 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave [B]Why is it important to have a ship DOCKED? Ships were and still are bunkered without being docked as well as replenished. Why the need to dock them? [/B][/QUOTE] Have you ever read an account of Jutland? The only reason Sheer had even a small chance of success is because the Brits had LIMITED ANCORAGE. They were forced to split their fleet into three parts because they simply did NOT have enough room in the ports. Those big ships need ALOT of room to dock.

Chiteng -> Re: Maybe you should be getting more sleep (5/28/2003 6:47:57 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo [B]Posted by Chiteng :confused: Can't or can? If you're saying he can, what exactly was it that he got his way on? If you're saying he can't, why would you then think it is an incentive to make complaints? Was there a seperate complaint for both the M-10 tank destroyer and the S class submarine or was this a reference to the Mk 10 torpedo? [/B][/QUOTE] Yes it was a complaint about S boats and the Mk-10

Chiteng -> (5/28/2003 6:50:33 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave [B]I have seen at the port of Newcastle (in NSW Australia) 24 bulk carriers swinging at anchor waiting to get in to the dock....but they are still in anchorage ...I have also seen what seems to be over one hundered ships waiting to dock at Singapore but they are still in anchorage. Do you count a ship not being "docked" as not being in port? Ships can and were serviced eventhough thew were not docked. The Sub issue is interesting, and the argument could also lead into things such as in port repairs on damaged ships etc. But seeing as mines are now limited to only being loaded in two ports (Brisbane should be inclued if you really want to be 100% historical), I don't see why this cannot also be done for subs...or have a special "port unit" for subs.....much like the Aviation units for planes....that way a player can "move" the home port for subs. [B] Fat chance ;) .....you are yet to put forward a supported argument as to why the LRB should be changed. [/B][/QUOTE] Since you are choosing what you feel a 'supported' argument is, then for me to produce one is immpossible. Because no matter what I have to say, you choose to say it isnt enough =) The fact that they didnt us B-17 as primary anti-shipping weapons should speak for itself. The fact that B-17's DID get shot down should ALSO speak for itself.

Raverdave -> (5/28/2003 7:36:27 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Have you ever read an account of Jutland? The only reason Sheer had even a small chance of success is because the Brits had LIMITED ANCORAGE. They were forced to split their fleet into three parts because they simply did NOT have enough room in the ports. Those big ships need ALOT of room to dock. [/B][/QUOTE] Lack of dock space has little inpact on being able to resupply a ship! if anything it would slow the process down....but not prevent it! Infact the USN had a huge fleet of small support vessels that were and did service ships riding at anchor. The time of Jutland ships still used coal. I agree that being at anchor should have an effect on the speed of repairs.

Mr.Frag -> (5/28/2003 7:51:32 PM)
[QUOTE]The time of Jutland ships still used coal.[/QUOTE] The time of WW II, they still used boilers, coal was simply replaced with fuel oil as the substance burned to boil the water ;) As far as dropping ones anchor somewhere, there were plenty of places one could do so. There is an issue with how many ships can be serviced at once, but I believe they are handling that in WitP and will hopefully retro fit the system back into UV. One does not have to be in port to drop anchor. This again falls into the scale issues with UV, system is great in the early phases of the game when each side only has a handful of ships and units to move around the board. Once there are a few hundred, things tend to go too far into the extremes.

Raverdave -> (5/28/2003 8:02:50 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Since you are choosing what you feel a 'supported' argument is, then for me to produce one is immpossible. Because no matter what I have to say, you choose to say it isnt enough =) The fact that they didnt us B-17 as primary anti-shipping weapons should speak for itself. The fact that B-17's DID get shot down should ALSO speak for itself. [/B][/QUOTE] If you are asking the designers of the game to change only the B-17 and how it is modelled in the game, then simply using "one B-17 bomber hit a ship in a game that I was playing" is not going to cut it. You really need to support it with testing and a lot of it and then post the results.

Mr.Frag -> (5/28/2003 8:34:03 PM)
[QUOTE]If you are asking the designers of the game to change only the B-17 and how it is modelled in the game, then simply using "one B-17 bomber hit a ship in a game that I was playing" is not going to cut it.[/QUOTE] I'm not asking them to change ONLY the B-17, I am asking them to change all land based bombers to be more realistic. If you want test results to prove they are rediculous, I'm more then happy to mock up games in the editor to prove that point many times over. I think we are looking at five separate problems here that represent themselves as the one. (a) AA defenses are poorly modelled in relation to larger aircraft. (b) Effectiveness of larger aircraft is far too high. (c) Larger bombers do not divert when encountering heavy resistance (ie: save the plane and aircrew, you can always hit the target later) (d) ground troops do not have adequate defensive bonus against air attacks. (air alone can eliminate a base) (e) mass raids of aircraft including extremely high numbers of aircraft, beyond the command and control that existed in 1942/43. These all merge together into one Overpowered LBA statement yet are actually 5 separate issues. While attempting to make the game historical, UV includes every air grup there was, but this causes a problem because realistically they rotated in and out of the theater. Players are not subject to this reality which produces the scaling problem. We routinely fly Ploesti level raids on a daily basis yet the losses are not there producing the ability to repeat this pattern of abuse. If the AA was tuned up and the effects lessened and the ability to stage beyond 5 squadrons per base put in, the end result would be the players would have to rotate their forces around to be able to conduct Linebacker level plans which we take for granted now. The rate AA guns are disabled in the game means that after 3+ days, there are no more AA guns. Funny how even after YEARS of Iraq getting pounded by the USA with 1990+ technologies they STILL had stuff left to lob shots at planes in the no fly zone. Ground targets are just not that easy to kill. I really want this fixed as it leads down the path of the game requiring no skill, no planning, not much of anything... I have offered up a few ideas: SPS of base governs aircraft size (overbuilding does not help LBA) Altitude penalties at a severe level (Ploesti like results) Upgrading of Flak damage to realistic levels against slow flying low flying aircraft Double interceptions against large raids (bonus due to amount of radio chatter required) Maximum # of squadrons at a base All of these or variations of these would shift UV back in the hands of the Navy, which is where it should be. This is the pacific theater. It was the USN that won, not the USAF. The surrender was signed on a warship, not a warplane!

Nikademus -> (5/28/2003 9:20:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Have you ever read an account of Jutland? The only reason Sheer had even a small chance of success is because the Brits had LIMITED ANCORAGE. They were forced to split their fleet into three parts because they simply did NOT have enough room in the ports. Those big ships need ALOT of room to dock. [/B][/QUOTE] huh? The Brits primary base at Scapa had no dockyards facilities but plenty of space to anchor. The reason for the split was to cover possible incursions by the German fleet. The Dreadnoughts were concentrated at Scapa in distant blockade, the Battlecruisers at Rosyth to counter German bombardment raids, and the most modern Pre-Dreads deployed in the Channel fleet to cover their supply links to the continent and suplement the minefields. Not sure what the issue here is regarding docking as the game's repair system is abstracted. The only real benefit of "Docking" is that in a size 3+ port, they cannot be attacked by sub and that the TF can sortie faster than disbanded TF's "at anchor" quote: I guess you are talking of base bombings here. Agree with you, bombings are far too powerful on ground targets (port, airfield and supplies). And that is a huge pro-US bia. In 1943, Japan should be unable to supply well its forward base but these should not be crushed by bombings only. I dont consider this a USN bias.....but a problem of mathematics, exploitable by both sides....it only favors the US more because of the later war proliferation of bomber groups coupled with the loadout capacity of the heavy bombers (adding more problems to the mathamatics) In English, ;) what i mean is the game engines treat port hexes as too small an area making it virtually impossible to miss. Small #'s of bombers can cause consistant levels of moderate to heavy damage, regardless of flak/CAP levels in most cases. As raids get bigger, the problem becomes more and more obvious. medium to large sized raids (approaching 100 bombers) can simotaniously hit port installations, supply depots, airfields and airfield support and hit numerous anchored ships, all in one raid. Disruption and danger from flak except in the most high concentrations does not deter low altitude bombing (6000 feet or lower), a long standing problem, made worse by the fact that all those hits will quickly disable the guns making low alt runs all the more easy. Rabaul from what i've read, only got stronger as an AA base as the campaign continued, not worse.....and allied crews dreaded it being assigned as their mission Back to 'hits', Its as if all these listed assets are focused in a small area that is saturated from one end to the other in GP bombs. B-17's and 24's are the worst because of their loadouts.....the math does the rest. They cant miss. Too many "bombs" falling in too small a virtual area defined by the game engine. ...same issue exists with shore bombardment too. Supply hits are a bit of a quandry as well.....again because of mathamatics....the bigger the supply dump, the bigger the fixed % hit takes away supply. I'd like to see that replaced with a variable % to muddle things up a bit more. Ground casualties are too excessive and dont seem to take terrain and fort levels into account.

Yamamoto -> Re: A quick list of pro-USN bias. (5/28/2003 10:09:25 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Invulnerable B-17 hitting ships(not restricted to ships in port) [/B][/QUOTE] B-17s do seem too tough, however in my games they aren�t hitting ships anywhere near like they used to pre-2.30 [QUOTE][B] Ahistorical use of weapons platform for the M-10 [/B][/QUOTE] I have no problem with doing something ahistorical. It�s not the S boats that are too good. It�s the �50% that got applied to Japanese ASW a couple of patches ago. They should remove that penalty. Any deficiency in Japanese ASW should be based on weapon effectiveness and not on doctrine. Nowhere else in the game is one side penalized for bad doctrine. American pilots don�t suffer a penalty for bad air doctrine before learning maneuvers like the Thatch weave so the Japanese ASW shouldn�t suffer either. [QUOTE][B] Ahistorical use of Sub reprovisioning and maint. [/B][/QUOTE] Subs only get three shots because they have to fire an entire salvo at each target so I am glad they can refuel/rearm at any base. If they had to drive all the way back to Truk they would be useless. [QUOTE][B] Lack of Jap mini-subs (they did exist, regardless of failures) [/B][/QUOTE] They would be nice but I don�t miss them. Maybe they could work like PT boats; just spawn them from supply when you need them. [QUOTE][B] Lack of ability to use IJN subs as flying boat tenders(yes they did that) [/B][/QUOTE] I�d rather the subs had their own planes like they did in real life. [QUOTE][B] Lack of 'torpedoe only' surface combat option for IJN ships (night or day doesnt matter) [/B][/QUOTE] Other than a surprise first round, I don�t want an all torpedo option. Maybe I�m missing something but I�d rather fire all the weapons I have and not only a couple of them. What are you saving those guns for anyway? [QUOTE][B] Total immpossibility of replicating actual battles like Tassafaronga (it cant happen) [/B][/QUOTE] I�ve seen completely one-sided surface battles between equal forces so I think anything is possible. [QUOTE][B] Exaggerated Supply loss from minor hits(dispersal anyone?) [/B][/QUOTE] Since each hit takes off 10% you lose less supply when you have less. I think that adequately represents dispersal. [QUOTE][B] Ahistorical use of PBY for troop transport(favors the USN because they can replace the losses. The IJN cant) [/B][/QUOTE] Other than making my third turn capture of Gili Gili harder, I haven�t notice much benefit from this tactic. [QUOTE][B] Unrealistic port anchorage(in reality there is a limit on how many ships can use a port)this favors the USN because they have alot of big ships. [/B][/QUOTE] I don�t want stacking limits in this game. I left that behind with cardboard counters. Yamamoto

Chiteng -> Re: Re: A quick list of pro-USN bias. (5/28/2003 10:28:15 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B]B-17s do seem too tough, however in my games they aren�t hitting ships anywhere near like they used to pre-2.30 I have no problem with doing something ahistorical. It�s not the S boats that are too good. It�s the �50% that got applied to Japanese ASW a couple of patches ago. They should remove that penalty. Any deficiency in Japanese ASW should be based on weapon effectiveness and not on doctrine. Nowhere else in the game is one side penalized for bad doctrine. American pilots don�t suffer a penalty for bad air doctrine before learning maneuvers like the Thatch weave so the Japanese ASW shouldn�t suffer either. Subs only get three shots because they have to fire an entire salvo at each target so I am glad they can refuel/rearm at any base. If they had to drive all the way back to Truk they would be useless. They would be nice but I don�t miss them. Maybe they could work like PT boats; just spawn them from supply when you need them. I�d rather the subs had their own planes like they did in real life. Other than a surprise first round, I don�t want an all torpedo option. Maybe I�m missing something but I�d rather fire all the weapons I have and not only a couple of them. What are you saving those guns for anyway? I�ve seen completely one-sided surface battles between equal forces so I think anything is possible. Since each hit takes off 10% you lose less supply when you have less. I think that adequately represents dispersal. Other than making my third turn capture of Gili Gili harder, I haven�t notice much benefit from this tactic. I don�t want stacking limits in this game. I left that behind with cardboard counters. Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] So you exclude Tassafaronga. In game terms USN under Wright w 5 CA totally surprises IJN under Tanaka on a Fast Transport run. ONE IJN destroyer (the closest one) was taken under fire by all the USN ships. Because the other Jap ships DIDNT fire their guns the USN didnt see them. Radar did pick them up, but if no one is listening, it doesnt matter. Tanaka recovered and had his entire force launch two spreads of Torpedoes and LEAVE. The burning Jap destroyer sank. His other ships escaped w/o damage. Two USN CA sank and one got its bow blown off. That scenario is IMMPOSSIBLE with the currect game engine. IT CANT HAPPEN. But it did. Dont I wish that my outnumbered Jap destroyers would simply leave upon contact. After hosing the enemy of course.

Nikademus -> (5/28/2003 10:33:35 PM)
I have seen IJN TF's conduct suprise torps only/first attacks in the game....though oddly, they almost never score, at least in my games, perhaps i was just born under an unlucky star ;) What i find increasingly disturbing though.....is the IJN inability to outshoot USN warships irregardless of the EXP level gap. IJN night training wasn't all about firing torpedoes.

crsutton -> (5/28/2003 11:14:26 PM)
Your arguments about US bias are valid to some extent. Some more than other.There are many things that can be changed in the game. However, the main US advantage in the South Pacific is not modeled in the game. That is the superior intellegence that the US was getting via Ultra and excellent radio intercept and interpretation. Except for a few holes, they Allies pretty much had a good picture of what the Japanese were up to and where their ships and airplanes were headed. (No really, the poor bastards just did not have a chance.) As it is, the Japanese have a better picture of Allied intentions due to the longer range of the Japanese recon assets. Totally out of whack with reality and an obvious Japanese bias. Perhaps the designers left this out to make a better game of it. Who knows. For every American bias, I think I can point out a Japanese bias as well. My point is, the games plays pretty well. There are some tweaks I would like to see but I would rather Matrix put the time and improvements the next game and make it the polished product we all would like to see. I know they are reading these posts, and I know that only so much time can be giving to retrofitting this fine game. I think I will just give them the benefit of the doubt here.

panda124c -> Re: A quick list of pro-USN bias. (5/28/2003 11:43:42 PM)
[QUOTE]Lack of Jap mini-subs (they did exist, regardless of failures) [/B][/QUOTE] Can we include British mini-subs they have a better track record than the Jap mini-subs. :D [QUOTE] Ahistorical use of PBY for troop transport(favors the USN because they can replace the losses. The IJN cant) [/B][/QUOTE] Favors the USN???? Of course it favors the USN, the ability to replace losses faster and better is one of the major reasons we won the war. If this ability is taken away can we get PBY Night Torpedo Attacks to replace it?????? :D

madflava13 -> (5/28/2003 11:45:29 PM)
Chiteng, Your point about IJN subs/floatplanes is valid - I also would like to see them, but I think it was just a matter of what do you cut to be able to put out a product... Nice to have, but I don't see their absence as a game-killer. I do hope they're in WiTP though... As for sub resupply, I agree that torpedos weren't available at just any port, but your point about specialized refit needs is incorrect. Subs didn't need a lot of specialized equipment. In fact, all the services a decent sized port would have would be quite sufficient (excluding the torpedos, of course). I believe this inaccuracy is addressed with the addition of tenders in WiTP, they just didn't make the cut this round. As for PBY troop transport, well if you read Black Cat Raiders of WW2, you'll see there are a number of instances where either commandos were inserted or removed by PBY, or regular troops ferried around. So this is actually quite a historical usage of the PBY - remember, this was basically a utility aircraft with many possible (and historical) uses. Your point about B-17s being invulverable is moot I think. They were in fact quite invulnerable in the Pacific theater. Very few were lost by enemy action, the majority being lost through operational mishaps. This is correctly modeled. As for accuracy, hitting ships at anchor isn't beyond the realm of possibility, and this did happen occasionally in real life. Underway is a different story, but you are the only person I've noticed posting about hits "all the time" on TFs underway. I have never seen this in any game. As for the S-Boats not being withdrawn, well guess what? They weren't withdrawn from service in this theater until well into 1943 - midyear I believe (I'll double check that later though). So there's nothing "ahistorical" about their use in theater during UV. I'm with you on their withdrawal at some point in WiTP, but again, I don't think many will be left at that point for it to be much of an issue. IJN ASW is perhaps an issue... Although I'm not so sure. The Japanese used a weaker explosive charge in their depth charges until mid-1943 I believe, so they had a harder time knocking out subs. There was also the "setting them too shallow" issue, which is doctrinal and probably shouldn't be penalized... That one needs more study I think. My guess is that US losses in UV correlate to real-life losses though - at least my games seem that way. I'll have to check some more though...

NAVMAN -> (5/29/2003 8:06:10 AM)
Chiteng, Do you see any pro-Japanese biases in the game?

Chiteng -> (5/29/2003 8:29:31 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NAVMAN [B]Chiteng, Do you see any pro-Japanese biases in the game? [/B][/QUOTE] Inherent bias? very few. Doctrinal bias or absence of the same? Jap subs not being restricted to capital ships. But I would happily restrict my subs if it meant the B-17 was not used to attack ships.

Oleg Mastruko -> (5/29/2003 9:02:27 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B] But I would happily restrict my subs if it meant the B-17 was not used to attack ships. [/B][/QUOTE] Oh no you wouldn't... have you actually tried PBEM-ing as IJN with sub doctrine ON? IJN subs are completely useless that way. In one game (where my opponent gallantly choose to play with IJN sub doctrine ON) I see 3-4 IJN subs doing "blockade" of PM, and I happily drive my supply conwoys over them, completely trusting in their captain's "honor", and they are more than happy to comply. I imagine them waving to merchant marine sailors as they pass by, while they await Bad Motha BBs and "decisive battle" (that's not going to happen). One big happy family. In other game, I did a horrendous mistake of accepting to play as IJN under sub doctrine ON as my other opponent insisted on this, and it was a miserable experience: boats so powerful, just sitting there, until blown away by Marauders on ASW missions or SCs. Oh, they attacked and sank a DD once or twice, yipee. I'd gladly play you with those rules you suggest: sub doctrine ON, and with no B17s on Naval attack. You'd be handicapped MUCH more than I. BTW Chiteng, I think I was among the biggest "IJN is handicapped" whiners on these boards for a looong time. And now even I think you go too far, and kinda transforming into "IJN version of mdiehl" :cool: B17s work just fine in 2.30, IMO. As USN I lost 10-12 B17 and B24s trying to sink a crippled MSW within "standard" range against cunning opponent. In your list you included many things I wouldn't agree about, but omitted FEW handicaps I think are much more important (and more realistic): - No paras for IJN. Historically several SNLF units were trained, and USED as paras in WW2 (Dutch EI). IJN players could use some paras in the opening turns... - No engineering vehicles for IJN. They had at least some bulldozers, they were not that medieval in their eng. techniques. I could think of some more, just to please ya ;) but I still think you go too far with some complaints... Cheers, O.

Chiteng -> (5/29/2003 9:32:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B]Oh no you wouldn't... have you actually tried PBEM-ing as IJN with sub doctrine ON? IJN subs are completely useless that way. In one game (where my opponent gallantly choose to play with IJN sub doctrine ON) I see 3-4 IJN subs doing "blockade" of PM, and I happily drive my supply conwoys over them, completely trusting in their captain's "honor", and they are more than happy to comply. I imagine them waving to merchant marine sailors as they pass by, while they await Bad Motha BBs and "decisive battle" (that's not going to happen). One big happy family. In other game, I did a horrendous mistake of accepting to play as IJN under sub doctrine ON as my other opponent insisted on this, and it was a miserable experience: boats so powerful, just sitting there, until blown away by Marauders on ASW missions or SCs. Oh, they attacked and sank a DD once or twice, yipee. I'd gladly play you with those rules you suggest: sub doctrine ON, and with no B17s on Naval attack. You'd be handicapped MUCH more than I. BTW Chiteng, I think I was among the biggest "IJN is handicapped" whiners on these boards for a looong time. And now even I think you go too far, and kinda transforming into "IJN version of mdiehl" :cool: B17s work just fine in 2.30, IMO. As USN I lost 10-12 B17 and B24s trying to sink a crippled MSW within "standard" range against cunning opponent. In your list you included many things I wouldn't agree about, but omitted FEW handicaps I think are much more important (and more realistic): - No paras for IJN. Historically several SNLF units were trained, and USED as paras in WW2 (Dutch EI). IJN players could use some paras in the opening turns... - No engineering vehicles for IJN. They had at least some bulldozers, they were not that medieval in their eng. techniques. I could think of some more, just to please ya ;) but I still think you go too far with some complaints... Cheers, O. [/B][/QUOTE] The evidence suggest that only when you complain loudly, does Matrix hear you. I did forget the Paras I apologize. Also the bulldozers. Jap subs can do MORE than simply sit around. Restricting them to historical doctrine would NOT bother me at all. Because that is what they actually DID. It is very rare that I see IJN subs get hits on transports anyway. I dont agree about the B-17. Please do NOT compare me to Mdeihl. I am nothing like him. You merely insult us both.

Drongo -> (5/29/2003 1:00:22 PM)
Posted [QUOTE]The evidence suggest that only when you complain loudly, does Matrix hear you.[/QUOTE] When did it occur that one player on his own, by incessantly complaining about UV's injustices, got any part of the system changed? The Matrix staff do descend from their mighty heights from time to time, to look upon what concerns the mortals. I would expect that they can also tell the difference between one poster simply being loud and repetitive and a sizable number of posters having consensus on some undesirable factor of the game. You've brought up the topic, it's currently being discussed but why would you think that continuing to raise it at every opportunity is going to get you anything other than ignored in the long run?

Raverdave -> (5/29/2003 5:11:56 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo [B]Posted When did it occur that one player on his own, by incessantly complaining about UV's injustices, got any part of the system changed? The Matrix staff do descend from their mighty heights from time to time, to look upon what concerns the mortals. I would expect that they can also tell the difference between one poster simply being loud and repetitive and a sizable number of posters having consensus on some undesirable factor of the game. You've brought up the topic, it's currently being discussed but why would you think that continuing to raise it at every opportunity is going to get you anything other than ignored in the long run? [/B][/QUOTE] BEER !

Chiteng -> (5/29/2003 6:57:27 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo [B]Posted When did it occur that one player on his own, by incessantly complaining about UV's injustices, got any part of the system changed? The Matrix staff do descend from their mighty heights from time to time, to look upon what concerns the mortals. I would expect that they can also tell the difference between one poster simply being loud and repetitive and a sizable number of posters having consensus on some undesirable factor of the game. You've brought up the topic, it's currently being discussed but why would you think that continuing to raise it at every opportunity is going to get you anything other than ignored in the long run? [/B][/QUOTE] If no one agreed with me, you might have a point. That isnt the case however. Your assertion is invalid. Thus any point built upon it is ignored.

Sonny -> (5/29/2003 7:03:16 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B].................... - No paras for IJN. Historically several SNLF units were trained, and USED as paras in WW2 (Dutch EI). IJN players could use some paras in the opening turns... ................. [/B][/QUOTE] What good would they do? There are no Japanese air transports to drop them anywhere.;) :)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875