(Full Version)

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

Message

Chiteng -> (8/1/2003 4:10:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT [B]Thrashman my research agrees with your observations and assessments. I would add that although B-17s did not score numerous hits on ships in single attacks they did score single hits on ships on numerous occassions. These attacks were generally made between 7000 and 12,000 ft and rarely consisted more 9 to 12 B-17s at a time. Which would put Chitengs AAR squarely within the historical reality. Regarding CAP, I have found no historical examples of a B-17 attack ever being turned back by CAP, disrupted yes, with losses yes, but most of these losses were as you stated damaged bombers that crashed on the return trip or on landing. IMHO, 9 B-17s getting thru 50 zeros covering a 30 mile area, scoring 1 hit on a single Maru, does not constitute an Uber weapon, even if it happens at least once every game, as Chiteng contends. Regards [/B][/QUOTE] It was two hits on one maru.

Ron Saueracker -> Mr. Logic! (8/1/2003 4:37:48 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]It was two hits on one maru. [/B][/QUOTE] One, two, who gives a $hit? You have made your point to the factor of adnauseum. Leave it be. What you are attempting and succeeding at is simply annoying to everybody concerned. Bet you would not try this crap in a bar! ;) You remind me of the character Mr. Logic in VIZ Magazine, a monthly publication of English loo humour. Blaablaablaaaaa...he just won't give up on what he is spewing on about. He also gets the pi$$ kicked out of him in each installment. :D ...oooops! This thread will never end now.:cool:

Chiteng -> Re: Mr. Logic! (8/1/2003 5:01:20 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker [B]One, two, who gives a $hit? You have made your point to the factor of adnauseum. Leave it be. What you are attempting and succeeding at is simply annoying to everybody concerned. Bet you would not try this crap in a bar! ;) You remind me of the character Mr. Logic in VIZ Magazine, a monthly publication of English loo humour. Blaablaablaaaaa...he just won't give up on what he is spewing on about. He also gets the pi$$ kicked out of him in each installment. :D ...oooops! This thread will never end now.:cool: [/B][/QUOTE] This isnt a bar. Also assault is a crime =) This isnt AoW so I will refrain from further comment. But I will point out you violated this forums rules.

Ron Saueracker -> Re: Re: Mr. Logic! (8/1/2003 5:20:14 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]This isnt a bar. Also assault is a crime =) This isnt AoW so I will refrain from further comment. But I will point out you violated this forums rules. [/B][/QUOTE] Depends on how one interprets the data, I guess.:) I was just describing the comic and it's theme.

Mr.Frag -> (8/1/2003 5:59:58 AM)
You know you have crossed the line when you manage to get someone from Canada to react to you :D We are such lovable peaceful people, commonly referred to as sheep who historically have only ever resorted to political uprising when the Government has tampered with the tax rates on cigarettes and beer :D The closest this country comes to assassination is a cream pie in the face, even then, it was a TASTY cream pie, freshly baked from one of our 500,000 donut shops located on every single street corner. One will note that the Government is still in fear of taxing donuts, so they are still cheap! :D You know you have entered the USA when you can drive for 5 minutes without passing a donut shop. Thats why they are so hostile, low blood sugar, makes everyone grumpy :p

Ron Saueracker -> (8/1/2003 6:19:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag [B]You know you have crossed the line when you manage to get someone from Canada to react to you :D We are such lovable peaceful people, commonly referred to as sheep who historically have only ever resorted to political uprising when the Government has tampered with the tax rates on cigarettes and beer :D The closest this country comes to assassination is a cream pie in the face, even then, it was a TASTY cream pie, freshly baked from one of our 500,000 donut shops located on every single street corner. One will note that the Government is still in fear of taxing donuts, so they are still cheap! :D You know you have entered the USA when you can drive for 5 minutes without passing a donut shop. Thats why they are so hostile, low blood sugar, makes everyone grumpy :p [/B][/QUOTE] :D I'm feeling a bit better, I guess.

Mr.Frag -> (8/1/2003 6:25:56 AM)
[QUOTE]I'm feeling a bit better, I guess.[/QUOTE] Head down to Tim's and have some bit's ;)

pasternakski -> (8/1/2003 6:28:46 AM)
Hmph. And all this time, I thought it was the lager, eh.

mogami -> Doughnuts (8/1/2003 6:37:39 AM)
Hi, I've said many times doughnuts and beer make you smart.

TIMJOT -> (8/1/2003 9:12:59 AM)
(quote)__________________ "It was two hits on one Maru" ________________________ Chiteng, This is the AAR I was refering to, It indicates just one hit. Is there another one that you are refering to? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 21,28 Japanese aircraft A6M2-N Rufe x 13 A6M2 Zero x 44 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 9 no losses Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged Japanese Ships AP Hakusan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire AP Arizona Maru AP Nichibi Maru Japanese ground losses: Men lost 26 Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-17E Fortress at 7000 feet 2 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet

Mr.Frag -> (8/1/2003 9:49:10 AM)
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/08/42 Weather: Thunderstorms Air attack on TF at 21,71 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 21 Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress x 7 damaged Japanese Ships DD Oite DD Uzuki CL Tenryu AP Akibasan Maru CL Tatsuta AP Mito Maru Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 1 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet Bad weather :D AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/09/42 Weather: Partly Cloudy Air attack on TF at 21,71 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 18 Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress x 5 damaged Japanese Ships DD Mochizuki CL Yubari, Bomb hits 1, on fire (sys 48, Flt 21, Fires 15) CL Tenryu DD Oite Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 21,71 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 6 no losses Japanese Ships AP Mito Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire (Sys 40, Flt 15, Fires 13) AP Daifuku Maru Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good Weather :D AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/10/42 Weather: Clear Air attack on TF at 21,71 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 9 Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress x 5 damaged Japanese Ships CL Tenryu, Bomb hits 1, on fire (Sys 35, Flt 30, Fires 11) AP Marsue Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage (Sys 99, Flt 23, Fires 44) AP Daifuku Maru, Bomb hits 1 (sys 7, Flt 7, Fires 6) Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-17E Fortress at 100 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 100 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 feet! Ouch! :eek: Takes all of ten minutes to drive some ships from Rabaul to Rockhampton to test this out, don't know why people want to continue to argue about facts non-stop. PS: No B-17's were harmed during the course of this three days of bombing. All made it back to base even though being damaged. ;)

Chiteng -> (8/1/2003 9:55:32 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag [B]Takes all of ten minutes to drive some ships from Rabaul to Rockhampton to test this out, don't know why people want to continue to argue about facts non-stop. PS: No B-17's were harmed during the course of this three days of bombing. All made it back to base even though being damaged. ;) [/B][/QUOTE] I was making a different point. I will not be bullied into performing to someone elses standards. I knew the problem existed. It still exists. The question should have always been...how do you fix it. Limiting attacks to high xp groups isnt a solution. That merely delays the onset of the attacks.

Mr.Frag -> (8/1/2003 10:43:17 AM)
I have posted about 14 different methods of fixing UV's Air Farse issues over the past few months. I have also accepted the fact that nothing is going to change until after WitP ships as the folks who would make the changes are rather busy at the moment. Whatever improvements are done in WitP should migrate back to UV and possibly solutions mentioned in passing here that were thought to be good ideas where passed on by the WitP beta testers for incorporation into WitP hence coming back into UV after the fact. If UV gets fixed, great, if not, so what? It is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Yes it shares data from historical sources for it's units and maps, but that is where reality ends. Deal with the reality that it is only a game. no point loosing sleep over it. Go get yourself a copy of Airborne Assault and try something different for a bit. It's a great change of pace from over'UV'ing :D

Thrashman -> (8/2/2003 12:12:40 AM)
No. 216 December 11, 1942 South Pacific. 1. An Army "Flying Fortress" on a reconnaissance flight over the island of New Georgia was attacked recently by 15 "Zero" fighters. The "Fortress" returned to its base after shooting down 5 of the enemy fighters. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/comms/index.html Sounds like an uber weapon to me. No. 230 December 26, 1942 South Pacific (all dates are east longitude). 1. On December 25th a flight of Army "Flying Fortresses" from the airfield at Guadalcanal bombed enemy shipping in the harbor of Rabaul on the island of New Britain. Three direct hits were scored on a large transport (or cargo ship) and several near hits fell close to three small cargo ships. A force of enemy fighters took off but did not attack our bombers. South Pacific (all dates are east longitude). 2. On January 7th: (a) During the morning a force of "Flying Fortress" heavy bombers (Boeing B-17) bombed enemy areas on the island of Bougainville. Twelve Japanese "Zero" fighters attacked the "Fortresses". Two "Zeros" were shot down. No U. S. planes were lost. (b) A force of "Marauder" medium bombers (Martin B-26) with "Airacobra" (Bell P-39) escort attacked enemy installations at Rekata Bay on Santa Isabel Island. Fires were started and two enemy float-type planes were damaged. Two U. S. planes were shot down by enemy antiaircraft fire. 4. On February 1st: (a) During the morning, a force of dive bombers and Avenger torpedo planes (Grumman TBF) with Wildcat (Grumman F4F) escort, bombed the enemy-held area at Munda. Two dive bombers failed to return. (b) During the morning, a force of Flying Fortresses, with Warhawk (Curtiss P-40) and Lightning (Lockheed P-38) escort bombed a large Japanese cargo ship off Shortland Island. Three direct hits were scored. All U. S. planes returned, although three of the fighters had suffered damage from antiaircraft fire. (c) A second wave of Flying Fortresses, which had been dispatched to attack shipping in the Buin-Shortland area, was attacked by 20 enemy Zeros. Three of our planes are missing and a fourth returned badly damaged. (d) U. S. ground forces on Guadalcanal continued to advance slowly toward the west. Sorry to keep posting in here...These communiques are very informative in reference to the B-17 actions in the sowpac!

Chiteng -> (8/2/2003 12:40:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thrashman [QUOTE] Bombing static targets isnt in dispute here. Also your not listing when a B-17 IS shot down.

Thrashman -> (8/2/2003 12:52:24 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Thrashman [QUOTE] Bombing static targets isnt in dispute here. Also your not listing when a B-17 IS shot down. [/B][/QUOTE] The last lines I posted were the first I had [B]seen[/B] that were from direct intercepts from Zero's. I'm just posting information, I certainly am not arguing anything.

BillBrown -> (8/2/2003 7:52:50 AM)
This thread wont be as entertaining if you people post facts!

mogami -> Aug 1943 (8/2/2003 8:25:06 AM)
In Europe on the 17th 361 B-17s cross the coast and bomb Sweinfurt. The Germans send 280 fighters. Each German aircraft that is able flies as many missions as it can. The bombers are under attack for over 4 hours. Except for while bombing when they are under AA fire. They also take heavy AA fire coming and going over the coast. 60 B-17 are shot down. 162 are damaged. There is nothing like this in UV (where aircombat only takes place over targets and interceptions only occur once.) While the Aug 17 loses were staggering they also show how tough this plane was. (In UV terms it would be like their getting hit over and over by CAP of 200+ AC) (The B-17s lost 24 aircraft on the way to the target. (5 to AA)They lost another 36 on the way home (but of course of these 36 many had been damaged on the way in) There is no combat after bombing in UV. Prehaps for these reasons fighters should be enhanced (to make up for intercepts and multi attacks)

Mr.Frag -> (8/2/2003 8:39:17 AM)
[QUOTE]Perhaps for these reasons fighters should be enhanced (to make up for intercepts and multi attacks)[/QUOTE] Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 48 Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 48 7 B-17's crashed on landing from damage (none shot down) vs 4 A6M's shot down. The problem is with the pilot skills routines, not the planes themselves. These pilots all had the max skill levels on both sides. I would look into the skill check roll penalties in the combat routines, as if you cap everyones skill, the problem goes completely away with reasonable which will keep everyone happy. If you go down that path Mogami, you need to get the cap fatigue fixed first.

Paratrooper -> what am I doing here (8/5/2003 11:33:37 PM)
...because you can't have an eighteen page long thread without once mentioning the Bismarck. :p

Nikademus -> Re: what am I doing here (8/5/2003 11:58:37 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paratrooper [B]...because you can't have an eighteen page long thread without once mentioning the Bismarck. :p [/B][/QUOTE] I'll give him this.....at least he spelled it correctly :p

Tristanjohn -> (8/20/2003 5:02:55 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]The difference between the B-17 in the game and reality is that the B-17 in REALITY did get shot down. Not mysteriously fall apart during flight. Not get lost on the way home, but get damaged enough that the plane could no longer fly. It happened to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for fighter escorts. THAT is the reality Snigbert, you simply chose to ignore it. Just like you choose to ignore the other posters that complaining about LBA as well. I wonder what the total B-17 lost to enemy action is. Anyone have a source? As for a source, try here (this site is the the most convenient "supermarket" I've found for collective statistics of USAAF operations in WWII--if anyone has something better please let me know): [list] http://tinyurl.com/kiod [/list] You'll notice that B-17s aren't listed separately, there's just a catchall category of heavy bombers, but a glance will show you that the percentage lost in combat to either Enemy Aircraft (40), Anti-aircraft (24) and Other Causes (33) was not especially high considering the total sorties flown durning the entire war. [list] http://tinyurl.com/kjc8 [/list] I find it interesting that for all of the period running from June through December 1942 only 2 heavy bombers were lost to enemy aircraft, with 4 "operational" losses. In all of 1943 23 heavy bombers were casualties (17-1-5). Losses peaked in 1944 at 38 (14-9-15), "tailing off" to 30 in the last year of the war (7-14-9), though of course this included less than eight months of warfare, so in fact losses kept climbing throughout the conflict. These numbers don't surprise me a whole lot. As the number of USAAF bomber squadrons in the Pacific increased the number of sorties they flew went up as well, with casualties following suit. Still, our heavy bomber squadrons in the Pacific didn't encounter anywhere near the stiff resistance they met over Germany, where losses of planes and crews were orders of magnitude higher. Be that as it may, there is no sense denying American heavy bombers were mainly well conceived and sturdily constructed. These were not perfect delivery plaltforms, but until the B-29 came along the B-17 and B-24 were the best heavy bombers in the world. Chiteng, for what it's worth I happen to agree with you that the B-17 is given too much prowess with regard to hitting enemy shipping (assuming these missions are conducted against TFs in transit). The IJN (or at least some of their naval commanders) came to practically ignore small groups of level bombers overhead for they reason they knew from experience there was small likelihood of these planes hitting anything. A couple of points should be kept in mind:[list=1] Many of the incidents we speak to involved small groups of level bombers, at times just one or two planes on patrol, not the mass raids all too often depicted by the UV system "Hits" in UV terms might want to depict what in reality were near misses that sometimes caused a lot of damage to thin-skinned vessels[/list=1] Keep in mind this sword of "unfairness" cuts both ways. On the Japanese side of the board, just for instance, Bettys and Nells are allowed to wreck havoc on Allied TFs, and it doesn't matter if these ships are on the high seas or anchored in some port. In a fantastically distorted pastiche of WWII history this game allows Nells and Bettys to slaughter any shipping they find at a rate that can only be termed laughable. If you want to know, my experience has been that hyped-up Japanese prowess in the air module far and away overshadows any advantage the Allies might enjoy with regard to the accuracy of level bombers vis-a-vis IJN shipping. (That doesn't make any of these errors, right, mind you.) Try to simulate the Japanese response (in terms of air attacks) to the Guadacanal landing with anything like accuracy as a result. Just try. All I can do is shake my head when I see this stuff in play, then wonder what the test crew was doing with itself, or for that matter who made up that group and what sort of understanding of WWII history it collectively possessed. quote: As for performing to your satisfaction, when I get a public apology I will consider it. Until then.... [/B][/QUOTE] I don't take sides as a rule in personal exchanges, Chiteng, and I have no particular ax to grind on the issue of B-17 effectiveness in the game. At times it does strike me as off, but there is so much "off" throughout the width and breadth of UV that for me at least it's hard to know where to start with my criticism. :) Thing is, you do sound a bit sensitive, and exhibit regretable reluctance to accept verifiable sources. (For that matter, why not do your own research? And should you bother, let me add that the best way to go about that kind of project is to search for data that contradicts your position coming in . . . that is, if you're looking for truth.) I don't a finger at you, but at the same time I don't get the impression you're as eager to see the UV system as a whole corrected as much as ato ensure a couple of your personal pet peeves get attention. Try to be more altrustic. Look. These forums are dominated by middlebrow types. The result is one thread after another that otherwise might have contributed something useful to the further development of UV gets hijacked. Now that's the nature of people and so should be expected. But I put this to you: why not use your intellectual gifts to rise above the common noise? Instead of harping just on the B-17 issue why not tackle the flaws of this system . . . as a whole?

Tristanjohn -> Re: Mogami the mind reader (8/20/2003 7:04:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, I can too read minds. If the Japanese were not afraid of LBA theu would have parked around Guadalcanal 24/7 (Like the USN did late in the war when they were not afraid of LBA (well the guys who made the plans were not afraid of LBA the Gunnersmates on all the ships being hit were afraid of LBA) If your not worried about air attack you don't have to stay out of range during the day and run in at night. And then run away again. You just sit there the way the USN did. Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings. That last bit about the USN not bombarding bases is in error (after the 'Canal was taken and consolidated), but otherwise your points are solid. quote: Unless you stick to the historic after Midway scenarios all kinds of whacky things take place. (To avoid most weirdness play the scenario begining in Aug 42. It is the one that covers what actually went on down here) [/B][/QUOTE] If you refer to "Hard Road Ahead" I agree heartedly that it is the most realistic scenario I've played to date. The "no Midway" scenarios are ridiculous with so much naval power for the IJN packed into such a tiny geographical area, all under the premise, presumably, that no other war was going on elsewhere. In general these scenarios only make the problems inherent to UV all the more obvious. Apparently, many gamers find these wild-and-woolly slugfests to be great fun, especially with the Japanese side early on from what I gather. I, for one, do not, but that's another issue (namely, that if there weren't such gamers out there companies would have to work harder to get these types of simulations historically more accurate to begin with--or face disappointing sales).

Tristanjohn -> (8/20/2003 7:19:21 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert [B]His lack of tact has so far managed to create the opposite effect of what he desired, for what it's worth. Rather than getting the testers to give consideration to his argument by presenting them with some semblance of decorum he has stripped himself of any potential influence he might have had by selecting the tactic he did. I dont think I'll be seeing a thread on the development forum anytime soon addressing his 'improvement' suggestions.[/quote] I certainly hope your attitude doesn't reflect the collective thinking within the WitP playtest group, an assemblage which ought to be focused on just one task: helping to make the game as good as it possibly can.

Chiteng -> (8/20/2003 8:48:20 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tristanjohn [B] Instead of harping just on the B-17 issue why not tackle the flaws of this system . . . as a whole? [/B][/QUOTE] Because I know from experience with other designs that there is no hope whatever of a major re-design of the combat model. As for Betty Nell and B-24, they can be shot down. So the problem IS irksome YES, but it is also possible to minimize it 'ingame'. Not so the B-17. I HAVE done my own research on the War in the Pacific. But it means little to people who use a web-browser as a primary source. These people here 'pretend' to know who Toland, Hara, Morrison are, but somehow I doubt they have actually read them. I have.

Tristanjohn -> (8/20/2003 9:00:29 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Because I know from experience with other designs that there is no hope whatever of a major re-design of the combat model. You're undoubtedly right insofar as UV itself is concerned, though there's hope the designers will get it closer to "right" with WitP in mind. quote: As for Betty Nell and B-24, they can be shot down. So the problem IS irksome YES, but it is also possible to minimize it 'ingame'. Not so the B-17. Well, I've seen my B-17s take loads of damage along the way, Chiteng, and just as someone else observed it's all I can do to keep a couple groups operational at all, and this only after disbanding one into another after a few weeks of attrition. quote: I HAVE done my own research on the War in the Pacific. But it means little to people who use a web-browser as a primary source. These people here 'pretend' to know who Toland, Hara, Morrison are, but somehow I doubt they have actually read them. I don't know about that but I suspect you're right in some cases. Others who frequent these boards seem to be more thoughtful, though. There's plenty off good commentary here, it's just that the signal-to-noise ratio is always so high. By the way, "Morrison" is spelled Morison, as in Samuel Eliot. (Not picking on you there, I just hate to see a person's name spelled wrong, especially that guy--he was too good of a scholar.)

TIMJOT -> (8/20/2003 9:41:28 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tristanjohn [B]Keep in mind this sword of "unfairness" cuts both ways. On the Japanese side of the board, just for instance, Bettys and Nells are allowed to wreck havoc on Allied TFs, and it doesn't matter if these ships are on the high seas or anchored in some port. In a fantastically distorted pastiche of WWII history this game allows Nells and Bettys to slaughter any shipping they find at a rate that can only be termed laughable. If you want to know, my experience has been that hyped-up Japanese prowess in the air module far and away overshadows any advantage the Allies might enjoy with regard to the accuracy of level bombers vis-a-vis IJN shipping. (That doesn't make any of these errors, right, mind you.) [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, I agree that Nells and Bettys can be deadly early in the game, but I find they are generally toast once allied AA upgrades kick in and or if there is any CAP protecting the TF. I find that Nells and Bettys will almost always break off Torp attacks if there is CAP. Unless there is overwelming number of escorts. When you say slaughtered shipping do you mean unescorted un-CAP transport TFs or are you refering to surface combat TFs. Are you finding Nells and Bettys holding up against 40mm and 20mm AA? Because I certainly don't find this to be the case. I do however, think Nells and Bettys should suffer severe penalties for port attacks. Most ports (not all) covered in UV are realistically too small for effective multi-engine torp bomber attacks. I think if each port hex not only modeled functional size but actual geographic size and there were corrosponding penalties you would see the over use of this tactic greatly diminished. I think frequency tends to exagerate preceived effectiveness.

pasternakski -> (8/20/2003 10:18:41 AM)
"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."-Voltaire Just like our pal Voltaire to arrogate to himself the ability to judge which beliefs ought to be tolerated and which ought to bring excoriation of the believer. Who's the monster now? I've always had a distaste for French philosophers, all the way from the self-important Rousseau to the self-aggrandizing Sartre. Voltaire was amusing sometimes, but hardly someone I would condescend to quoting in my signature line. Besides, the women are flat chested and skinny lipped. Consider this an expression of my pro-USN bias.

mogami -> Research (8/20/2003 11:11:13 AM)
"These people here 'pretend' to know who Toland, Hara, Morrison are, but somehow I doubt they have actually read them." Hi, It's been a few years since I read Toland. I've lost my copies of his books. On what page does he discuss B-17 hit probabilities versus TF? I admit I do not hold him in the esteem I did when I first read him. When he wrote US Naval Intel in Wash DC knew the IJN CV were heading for PH as early as Dec 3rd I began to waver in my trust. (He heard it from a Dutch officer who the USN just let in Naval Intel whenever he wanted and showed him where the Japanese were) I read the entire Morison history while serving onboard USN FFG-22 (FFG-13 was the SE Morison in the same Desron) But I don't remember anything that would reveal a problem in UV. Being some what eccentric I go by the results of PBEM. I have seen a few reports of problems "Massive groups of B-17" to me is a question of perception. If the US player hordes every B-17 and then unleashes them all at once he can have 120 in one strike. (In mid 1943 120 B-17's over Germany would be considered a nusance raid) I have reported allied players have used this tactic against me and I did not like it. I also don't like USN submarines, USMC divisions, USN AA, USN ASW (I don't like those mean people, they won't let me go where I want to go) I'm sure I feel about the same as the Japanese did. (game must be right) No really I think it is too much detail being given to players. Operational Level would be "You sent 15 ships to Lunga, enemy bombers sank 1 and damaged 3" (thats all) But since UV/WITP has the little show of aircraft and ships people get bent up by triva (lots of games just use "airpoints" ) I figure so what if one air attack shows a B-17 scoring a hit. I also watched 10 in a row where SBD, B-25, Hudson, TBF all missed. But Operationaly the 1 ship sunk 3 damaged is plausable. I'm not excusing the program. I'm just pointing out that dispite 18 months of playing UV I've only seen a few events that caused me to roll my eyes (and they were bugs that have since been addressed) It's all a matter of perception. When I'm the Japanese I feel the Allies are too powerfull. When I'm the Allies I wonder how on earth I can hold on with the limited amount of crap I get versus the IJN steamroller.

Tristanjohn -> (8/20/2003 12:07:31 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT [B]Hi, I agree that Nells and Bettys can be deadly early in the game, but I find they are generally toast once allied AA upgrades kick in and or if there is any CAP protecting the TF. I find that Nells and Bettys will almost always break off Torp attacks if there is CAP. Unless there is overwelming number of escorts. When you say slaughtered shipping do you mean unescorted un-CAP transport TFs or are you refering to surface combat TFs. Are you finding Nells and Bettys holding up against 40mm and 20mm AA? Because I certainly don't find this to be the case. I do however, think Nells and Bettys should suffer severe penalties for port attacks. Most ports (not all) covered in UV are realistically too small for effective multi-engine torp bomber attacks. I think if each port hex not only modeled functional size but actual geographic size and there were corrosponding penalties you would see the over use of this tactic greatly diminished. I think frequency tends to exagerate preceived effectiveness. [/B][/QUOTE] Effectiveness of Japanese level bombers varies within my play experience, but even when the results are "modest" by this system's standards they're still too effective to reflect historical results; when they hit the upper limits of UV possibility then "laughable" rears its head. I keep hearing this refrain of "Yeah, they're a bit too effective early on . . but just wait until Allied flak gears up," or words to that effect. And I'm moved to ask: so what? The point is they're too effective (make that way too effective) to begin the game, and when Allied flak does "gear up" all I'd predict is that this new USN flak prowess would only drop Japanese air power down somewhere closer to what it ought to have been at the start. How does that "correct" anything? Meanwhile, Japanese flak begins the game too effective, subtracting from the USN side of the equation. Not good. My point's simple enough: Japanese air power in this game is off to a degree that hints at either 1) outright bias on the part of the designers (to make a better, more playable game?), 2) a certain misappreciation of this particular history and/or 3) inability on the part of the development team to get it right (assuming historical awareness on anyone's part to begin with). As for port hexes: exactly what do you mean when you say "port"? Do you mean Brisbane's harbor, or the roads off Lunga Point that served as Guadacanal's "port" during this campaign? I haven't bothered to mention this because I cringe when I do so, but if Brisbane is a 9-level port in the UV scale of things then I'd venture to say Noumea would represent something on the order of .1 (that's POINT-ONE for anyone with bad eyesight) in the months of, say, June through August of 1942, Using Brisbane as our benchmark again, at its height Nomea could never have been considered more than a 1-level port. Am I the only one around here to realize that, is it old hat? (I ask because I haven't seen it mentioned, though I admit to not having read one-tenth of a percent of this board's material.) Anyway, if you're talking about the Lunga Points in the game then in some cases you'd be correct, TIMJOT (in that there wouldn't be a whole lot of room bombers to conduct torpedo runs--that, or reefs, sandbars, foul water in general would stand in the way), in others no. It would just depend on the site in question. We might talk about this more deeply if you want. This game could stand a thorough map study--I've nitpicks in that area, too. :) By the way, Bettys could drop their torpedo loads from a pretty good height. This wasn't their established doctrine, but the ability was there. (Not in shoal water, of course.) Getting back to AA and CAP affecting Bettys and Nells: USN flak was already a fairly sophisticated weapons system (speaking on the whole) by the time autumn of 1942 rolled around. As the Navy adopted CIC doctrine, proximity fuzes, radar fire control, better tactical skill manneuvering its TFs with flak protection in mind, plus the addition of more and more AA platforms on its ships, the Japanese not only dropped like flies but began to shy away from this murderous fire in round numbers. (For that matter, study how adroitly Admiral Turner negated Betty attempts to strike his transports off Lunga Point right after the landing, and this without hardly any flak at all and only a few Wildcats overhead as CAP.) I'm sorry, but this system simply wasn't given enough thought coming in. I suspect that too much has been borrowed for the combat routines of this game's ancestors while not enough new programming was undertaken with an eye to correct the obvious flaws from those earlier titles. (I don't know that, it's just my feeling based on what I've seen of UV and what I know of Grigsby's prior work in this area.) Thanks for chipping in, TIMJOT. Always a pleasure.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875