RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 5:23:10 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

"Although the flight training program was conducted without any major incident, since there had been a considerable turn-over in personnel, practically no one got beyond the point of basic training. Inexperienced fliers barely got to the point where they could make daytime landings on carriers."

"It was found that even some of the more seasoned fliers had lost some of their skill."

Actually the replacement fliers in KBs air groups were mostly senior petty officers culled from shore establishments who were integrated into their squadrons piecemeal over the preceding 6 months. 70+% of the IJN fliers at Midway were PH raid veterans. Nagumo's claims that the aviators lacked skill are specious attempts to save face, a trait not uncommon in the IJ Forces at the time.

Fact is, Nagumo hesistated launching his counterstrike against the American CV he had located in favor of launching a well coordinated, multiship strike in accordance with IJN Carrier Doctrine (mostly) and to better ascertain the USN position (secondarily). At the time the opportunity presented itself to launch "a come as you are" type attack his attack planes were partially equipped for attacking land targets and he was uncertain as to how many fighters were available for an escort (KB having already come under attack from Midway). By that time the American CVs had already put 130 attack planes in the air. KB was doomed baring incredible luck. The real luck at Midway was that the American attacks came in so piecemeal for so long.

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 151

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 6:23:17 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk
I will play against mdiehl

You can't. I think mdiehl publicly posted he didn't even BUY the friggen game ha posts so much about. He just knows everything about WITP from reading the forums. He is one incredibly smart and knowledgable guy (not).

Perhaps he bought it in the meantime....

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 152

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 6:39:51 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

I did my own a2a test last night with the Zero Bonus very much 'on' from scen#2 Rising Sun.
Big B's "Battle of Manila, 07 DEC 41 to 01 JAN 42" .
Conditions: No air ops on Jan 1st, all air action takes place in December 41. That left 25 days available for operations, of which 9 days had no flying. So the total below was accumulated in 16 days of air combat.
Also, outside of Dec 7th, no sorties were flown - except those of the three Zero groups on Tainan vs. the combined P40 strength in the Philippines moved to Manila. I wanted to just test Air to Air Combat.
Further I had the P40's on maximum CAP (that is 90%) with a height advantage on all occasions, altitude ranging from 12,000 to 22,000 feet - mostly at 15,000 feet.
The Zeros were always on Sweep to Manila at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

The screen shot below shows the score board on January 1st, after the test.

I expected a Zero kill ratio of three or four to one, but 8 to one seems high to me...

(I had made nice JPEGs of each group at the end showing their condition, but they seem to large to upload and display

)

B

LATE EDIT: Even though the OP Losses for the Zeros stand at 9, all groups were at full strentgh (minus 1 pilot) at end, with a good experience gain.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Big B -- 12/10/2005 7:46:52 PM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 153

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 7:49:33 PM

Treetop64

Posts: 926
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline

Heh...

Keep it as it is and deal with it. Period.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 154

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 8:33:21 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

I think flak is underrated for both sides from the start, except naval AAA.

Flak was the number 1 danger for combat AC, in the game this is not the case against ground targets.
A major issue of mine with CHS is the lack of documentation on changes. And also the mod seems to concentrate on the minor issues (which ship had which gun and how many, etc.) and not the game breakers - at least this is my impression. A2A bloodiness is not adressed in CHS. Flak effectiveness is not adressed. Overrated 4E bomber effectiveness is not addressed either.

For me Nik's mod is a far better choice: fewer changes that you can quicly learn, but these changes concentrate on the important stuff.

As for me, I am happy to play either side, but I like a good, challenging game. I do not consider myself a japanese fanboy, I am PTO fanboy. Many allied fanboys forget that the whole result of the war was turned on MAJOR JAPANESE STRATEGIC BLUNDERS. Midway and Guadalcanal are the most prominent. Historical events, loss rates were a result of Japan screwing up on strategy and doctrine big time.

Whoa there partner................
I believe Commander Roquefort, et al, might have had more to do with that Midway victory, than "Japanese blunders".
As for the claim of CHS "undocumented changes", well, the issue of ALL of their changes have been posted and debated on these very forums by the CHS team(s), and the intended players, (or victims, as you might have unintentionally implied?).
I admit, I am a fan of all things CHS.............
Personally, I am a "history fan boy", and have never tried to have a slant one way or another.
If Allied proximity fuses were ever really represented in WITP, you would hear a howl for 1000 more monthly Japanese planes. This may have prevented *anybodies* version of WITP from accurately portraying the flak better, (with other abstractions in the game itself)!
I do feel the "Oscar" is vastly under-valued in the game, for its' initial successes.
CHS has been very considerate to continue to attempt any so-called improvements, but, (as in this very thread), have ALWAYS posted here to ask for both opinions AND documentation, (when needed).

The option to download and use CHS is (as always) up to the individual..........

< Message edited by m10bob -- 12/10/2005 9:03:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BlackVoid)

Post #: 155

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 8:49:41 PM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

Keep zero bonus.

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 156

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 10:05:27 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sorry pauk, but number 3 can't be done in a scenario mod, only by a coding change.

ok, i can live with #1 and #2 only . Any takers? Maybe you witpgs?

No, because I think the zero bonus works fine (see my earlier posts in this thread). As for increasing USN and USMC expereience, I'm not sure it would be right or wrong. Seems to work okay as is, so I'm not concerned about it.

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 157

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 10:14:59 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I wonder, does WITP have the ability to set experience by "years" (or other time-intervals), per nation, as can be done with Steel Panthers ?

Seems if the "exp" rating could be tied to time and nation, (ala SP), it would resolve a lot of these issues......

As far as I know, WITP already does this in two ways. First off, the air groups that arrive have pilots of certain experience to reflect history. Some squadrons come in with exprience in the 80's for example. Second, I believe the replacement pilot experience varies by year for some countries.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 158

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 10:42:48 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

Where does this propaganda start? I realise Oleg has a special hate on for the CHS but has he even looked at it?

Sure there is alot of OOB changes. Why is this an Allied Fanboy issue? Every nations OOB has been changed. Japan's no less than others and it is still being worked on by Joe W.

ASW model was drastically altered through the editor to help reduce the uber effectiveness of ASW ships. This was most severe on the IJN. Hello? Where is the Allied fanboy **** here. Worked as well as anything could given the sad model. And yes, armor was used on Subs Oleg, and it worked well (armor simply being an abstract rating). There were no ASW devices which could penetrate and not penetrate as some suggested would happen. All types did both.

As for addressing the major mechanics issues like A2A and flak, this was primarily an OOB/Art mod when it started, seeing as the OOB was severely inaccurate in the stock game, and there was a naive feeling that the issues like A2A would be fixed by the devs as it should have been since Alpha/Beta. Still waiting...

Relying on modders to fix this in the editor is ludicrous and impossible. Talk to the devs.

It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone This really irks me. If these issues are so sad, why have they only been dealt with in a mod instead of being pushed for as necessary fixes? Oh yeah, there is no problem with A2A, flak etc.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/10/2005 10:46:09 PM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 159

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 11:26:04 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
No, because I think the zero bonus works fine (see my earlier posts in this thread). As for increasing USN and USMC expereience, I'm not sure it would be right or wrong. Seems to work okay as is, so I'm not concerned about it.

Hi, I know that, i was just joking, knowing that no one (from those who posted such (censured) ideas) will accept my proposition (challenge).

I'm just getting tired of periodical "spontaneously wroted threads" and their pro-Allied attitude...and all their nonsence...But to be honest i cant blame anyone except myself - i shouldn't take a look at this thread (the mod which I'm not going to play, anyway). Go ahead, creators of CHS can do everything to please certain people here....

Folks, is anyone here win the game as Allies

? According to your posts Allied victory is myth (or urban legend).

howgh!

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 160

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 11:59:57 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
No, because I think the zero bonus works fine (see my earlier posts in this thread). As for increasing USN and USMC expereience, I'm not sure it would be right or wrong. Seems to work okay as is, so I'm not concerned about it.

Hi, I know that, i was just joking, knowing that no one (from those who posted such (censured) ideas) will accept my proposition (challenge).

I'm just getting tired of periodical "spontaneously wroted threads" and their pro-Allied attitude...and all their nonsence...But to be honest i cant blame anyone except myself - i shouldn't take a look at this thread (the mod which I'm not going to play, anyway). Go ahead, creators of CHS can do everything to please certain people here....

Folks, is anyone here win the game as Allies? According to your posts Allied victory is myth (or urban legend).

howgh!

Challange? Censured ideas? Hmm

You are quite correct. Big B, go sit on your test, if anything it proves that the Zero Bonus isn't near strong enough.

By all means, keep the Zero Bonus - the Japanese are totally incapable of doing anything without it, that much is clear. And after all, we all know the focus of 'War in the Pacific' is to keep it fun for the Japanese player.

Don't worry about the most interesting part of the war, the first four to five months, it is all about 'winning' you see, never mind anything else. Oh by the way can anyone find out exactly what the Bonus was up to in Feb 1942?

Sorry to have upset the sensative among you.

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 161

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 2:34:21 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

I guess I'm an Allied Fanboy. I haven't played the IJN yet except for a couple of turns in scen 2 vs the AI.
But I think the Zero Bonus is conceptually a good thing for the game (for historical effect) and it probably ought to extend to the Oscar as well.
I don't like how it is implemented though. If as the designers seem to intend the Allies are trying to devise tactics to deal with the Zero then some of the experiments ought to succeed. For general application by all Allied fighters such successful experiments would depend on incorporation into training so there'd be a delay in general application.

But there ought to be a "die roll" for every single A2A combat which determines whether or not the Zero/Oscar bonus will be applied for that combat. The probability would decrease over time. Argueably I'd vote that the USN/USMC fighters and the AVG be either "immune" or get their own "die roll" to see if they get the same (or maybe slightly smaller) bonus AS WELL. The two bonuses would fade away together over some period at least several months long. I think the IJN Player needs a little anxiety in their life - even in the "happy time". This would do it.

RECODING REQUIRED BUT they did it for ASW and other issues players thought important.

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 162

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 2:40:28 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

RECODING REQUIRED BUT they did it for ASW and other issues players thought important

Do you have any idea what it took to achieve even this ASW change.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 163

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 3:24:07 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

Hi, I know that, i was just joking, knowing that no one (from those who posted such (censured) ideas) will accept my proposition (challenge).

Sorry - I totally missed the joke. It's just that you are always so serious!

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 164

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 3:26:04 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

Think you are being a bit unfair. OLEG is one of the great "Japanese Fan-Boys" out here, but his opinion isn't always valid.

I am not a Japanese fanboy, no way, if I appear to be, it's just because there are so many absolutely positively *rabid* Allied fanboys on this board, who are also incredibly vocal (even if some of them do not even own the game, or have never played IJN turn one by their own addmission etc.).

Someone has to stand up to them, and not allow them to simply flood the board with their posts and neverending whines. That's all.

And BlackVoid is absolutely right... CHS usually avoid touching things that matter, and simply add more and more and MORE Allied stuff to the OOB. This does not apply to every guy in CHS team, nor to everything they do, but it's their usual modus operandi.

BTW, my first sentence in this thread was that I would be the first to vote for Zero bonus to be removed, personally I don't like it, but serious, balanced and reasonable discussion needs to be held about all aspects of the game, or the mod, or whatever.

Removing the Zero bonus, as part of overall Allied wet dream mod that is CHS, just makes this funny unbalanced, filled-to-the-brim-with-crazy-ideas mod even more laughable. As I said, the only thing that amazes me is that CHS guys didn't get to removing Zero bonus earlier

Let me just remind you, CHS already took 1 hex range from Zero in CHS - after they remove the Zero bonus next step will be to make it non CV capable I guess

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 165

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 3:48:05 AM

Black Mamba 1942

Posts: 510
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline

I like your idea of "randomizing" the Zero bonus. Good thinking.

As a player more concerned with the meteoric pace of this game.

I would like to see both sides AK availability and capacity reduced by at least 50%.
The reduction would be considered a form of organic transport for the civilian economies.
Without the preponderous amount of AK's available, players would have to be more selective with their shipping needs.
This could be modded for the CHS. No need to tinker with the code to fix this.

It's the massive amount of AK's available that allows the rapid expansion for both sides.

I consider this more important than the Zero bonus. The bonus goes away, AK's just keep stacking up.

< Message edited by Black Mamba 1942 -- 12/11/2005 3:57:27 AM >

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 166

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 4:22:20 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I like your idea of "randomizing" the Zero bonus. Good thinking.

As a player more concerned with the meteoric pace of this game.

I would like to see both sides AK availability and capacity reduced by at least 50%.
The reduction would be considered a form of organic transport for the civilian economies.
Without the preponderous amount of AK's available, players would have to be more selective with their shipping needs.
This could be modded for the CHS. No need to tinker with the code to fix this.

It's the massive amount of AK's available that allows the rapid expansion for both sides.
I consider this more important than the Zero bonus. The bonus goes away, AK's just keep stacking up.

I chopped the AK capacities by 80% in a game I'm playing with irrelevant. Coupled with increasing the load costs of devices, this has REALLY slowed everything down.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)

Post #: 167

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 4:32:05 AM

bilbow

Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

As a player more concerned with the meteoric pace of this game.

I would like to see both sides AK availability and capacity reduced by at least 50%.
The reduction would be considered a form of organic transport for the civilian economies.
Without the preponderous amount of AK's available, players would have to be more selective with their shipping needs.
This could be modded for the CHS. No need to tinker with the code to fix this.

It's the massive amount of AK's available that allows the rapid expansion for both sides.
I consider this more important than the Zero bonus. The bonus goes away, AK's just keep stacking up.

I am playing Drex using Pry's mod where he did reduce by 50% all the APs, and AKs by varying amounts. It really does slow down the game. I'm in late April 42 and am just now finishing up my SRA campaign. In Burma, Mandalay just fell a couple of days ago. The game has a much better feel to it. It's especially hard to keep the pace up with the halved APs. I highly recommend this mod for a more reasonably paced game.

_____________________________

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill

(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)

Post #: 168

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 5:17:01 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

I have but one serious but honest question for the many supporters of the Zero Bonus .

In all honesty, if it (the bonus) is of little consequence, why does it have such passionate defenders and refuters? The question consistantly draws more posts and 'hits' or reads than about anything else - and over a very short time span.

If the Zero Bonus really is inconsequential, why does it generate such interest and passion when ever it comes up? It sure seems a universal 'hot button'.

Not trying to be a wise guy here.

(in reply to bilbow)

Post #: 169

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 5:22:47 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I did my own a2a test last night with the Zero Bonus very much 'on' from scen#2 Rising Sun.
Big B's "Battle of Manila, 07 DEC 41 to 01 JAN 42" .
Conditions: No air ops on Jan 1st, all air action takes place in December 41. That left 25 days available for operations, of which 9 days had no flying. So the total below was accumulated in 16 days of air combat.
Also, outside of Dec 7th, no sorties were flown - except those of the three Zero groups on Tainan vs. the combined P40 strength in the Philippines moved to Manila. I wanted to just test Air to Air Combat.
Further I had the P40's on maximum CAP (that is 90%) with a height advantage on all occasions, altitude ranging from 12,000 to 22,000 feet - mostly at 15,000 feet.
The Zeros were always on Sweep to Manila at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

The screen shot below shows the score board on January 1st, after the test.

I expected a Zero kill ratio of three or four to one, but 8 to one seems high to me...

Thanks for the testing Big B. That is exactly what is needed to help understand how the Zero bonus affects the game. Further tests would be needed to see whether, and how, the bonus could be removed and still provide equivalent results.

From the real life data that was posted earlier, from air-to-air battles in the DEI - "So if we count the A2A battles between fighters, the score is 36 Allied fighters lost against 5 Zeroes lost against them in one month " - 8 to 1 air-to-air losses in the Zero's favour sounds about right. So if the Zero bonus was removed, the experience of Allied (Commonwealth, Dutch, USAAF) pilots would have to be reduced by an amount that would result in the same loss ratios. Now the big questions - how large a reduction would be needed to give that result? And how long would it take for the Allied air units to overcome this initial disadvantage, compared to the 5 months for the Zero Bonus to disappear?

Anyone able to help with testing along these lines?

Andrew

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 170

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 5:41:19 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bilbow

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

As a player more concerned with the meteoric pace of this game.

I would like to see both sides AK availability and capacity reduced by at least 50%.
The reduction would be considered a form of organic transport for the civilian economies.
Without the preponderous amount of AK's available, players would have to be more selective with their shipping needs.
This could be modded for the CHS. No need to tinker with the code to fix this.

It's the massive amount of AK's available that allows the rapid expansion for both sides.
I consider this more important than the Zero bonus. The bonus goes away, AK's just keep stacking up.

I am playing Drex using Pry's mod where he did reduce by 50% all the APs, and AKs by varying amounts. It really does slow down the game. I'm in late April 42 and am just now finishing up my SRA campaign. In Burma, Mandalay just fell a couple of days ago. The game has a much better feel to it. It's especially hard to keep the pace up with the halved APs. I highly recommend this mod for a more reasonably paced game.

CHS did this as well.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to bilbow)

Post #: 171

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 5:48:27 AM

Lt. Calley

Posts: 80
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I did my own a2a test last night with the Zero Bonus very much 'on' from scen#2 Rising Sun.
Big B's "Battle of Manila, 07 DEC 41 to 01 JAN 42" .
Conditions: No air ops on Jan 1st, all air action takes place in December 41. That left 25 days available for operations, of which 9 days had no flying. So the total below was accumulated in 16 days of air combat.
Also, outside of Dec 7th, no sorties were flown - except those of the three Zero groups on Tainan vs. the combined P40 strength in the Philippines moved to Manila. I wanted to just test Air to Air Combat.
Further I had the P40's on maximum CAP (that is 90%) with a height advantage on all occasions, altitude ranging from 12,000 to 22,000 feet - mostly at 15,000 feet.
The Zeros were always on Sweep to Manila at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

The screen shot below shows the score board on January 1st, after the test.

I expected a Zero kill ratio of three or four to one, but 8 to one seems high to me...

(I had made nice JPEGs of each group at the end showing their condition, but they seem to large to upload and display)

It's possible that the version used might seriously affect the results of a test like this. In my PBEM (1.60) as Allies, I received the following results for an air strike by part of KB over Singapore (December), defended by AVG and some Buffalo I on CAP:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singapore at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 58
D3A Val x 4

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 11
P-40B Tomahawk x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 9 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40B Tomahawk: 25 destroyed

Allied Ships
AP Manoora

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I then decided to rerun the combat replay using version 1.795 beta, and the results would have been a lot worse for me:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Singapore at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 47
D3A Val x 16
B5N Kate x 24

Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 8
P-40B Tomahawk x 40

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 7 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 32 destroyed

Allied Ships
MSW Toowoomba, Bomb hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Maryborough, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
4 x B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
4 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
4 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
4 x D3A Val bombing at 2000 feet
4 x B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
4 x B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
4 x B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
4 x B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
4 x B5N Kate bombing at 9000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe it was due completely to luck and there is no change in the combat model between 1.60 and 1.795. The different results could be explained by the new submarine combat model which changes the die rolls used for combat. Come to think of it, the attack on AVG happened near the end of the combat day and maybe the program "ran out" of "normal" die rolls because of the many more die rolls needed for sub combat in 1.795. However, from now on each time I have a major air combat I'll be sure to compare the results to see if I consistently do worse in 1.795 than in 1.60.

Incidentally, I had 66 ready AVG aircraft on 90% cap, don't remember now if Singapore has radar.

EDIT: I also switched the commander of AVG to Hickey, I think his air-to-air skill is 69 and he has high inspiration and aggressiveness. Also, another reason why I may have done much worse the second time is if the Japs got an outnumbering bonus from having the additional bombers which appeared in the 2nd combat counted in their force, even though no air-to-air vs. bombers actually took place.

< Message edited by Lt. Calley -- 12/11/2005 6:09:40 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 172

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 5:57:45 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I did my own a2a test last night with the Zero Bonus very much 'on' from scen#2 Rising Sun.
Big B's "Battle of Manila, 07 DEC 41 to 01 JAN 42" .
Conditions: No air ops on Jan 1st, all air action takes place in December 41. That left 25 days available for operations, of which 9 days had no flying. So the total below was accumulated in 16 days of air combat.
Also, outside of Dec 7th, no sorties were flown - except those of the three Zero groups on Tainan vs. the combined P40 strength in the Philippines moved to Manila. I wanted to just test Air to Air Combat.
Further I had the P40's on maximum CAP (that is 90%) with a height advantage on all occasions, altitude ranging from 12,000 to 22,000 feet - mostly at 15,000 feet.
The Zeros were always on Sweep to Manila at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

The screen shot below shows the score board on January 1st, after the test.

I expected a Zero kill ratio of three or four to one, but 8 to one seems high to me...

Thanks for the testing Big B. That is exactly what is needed to help understand how the Zero bonus affects the game. Further tests would be needed to see whether, and how, the bonus could be removed and still provide equivalent results.

From the real life data that was posted earlier, from air-to-air battles in the DEI - "So if we count the A2A battles between fighters, the score is 36 Allied fighters lost against 5 Zeroes lost against them in one month " - 8 to 1 air-to-air losses in the Zero's favour sounds about right. So if the Zero bonus was removed, the experience of Allied (Commonwealth, Dutch, USAAF) pilots would have to be reduced by an amount that would result in the same loss ratios. Now the big questions - how large a reduction would be needed to give that result? And how long would it take for the Allied air units to overcome this initial disadvantage, compared to the 5 months for the Zero Bonus to disappear?

Anyone able to help with testing along these lines?

Andrew

No Andy, 8:1 is too high. The Zero's are at extended range sweeping Manilla, the P-40's are on CAP over their own base. In other words, the P-40's are in the best tactical position, the Zero's are at a big dissadvantage having to nurse fuel for the trip back. If they are scoring at 8 to 1 under these circumstances, the results are horribly skewed. Remember, the Japs got air superiority over the PI on the first day of the war by catching most of the FEAAF on the ground. After that they had a numerical edge in most circumstances. If you give them an 8:1 edge in the circumstances cited above, the game will be badly skewed for an awfully long time. As little as 2:1 losses would still be huge in those circumstances.

I think you are playing with fire this way..., a "bonus" is much more controllable and needs far less of the testing you don't have the time or manpower to accomplish.

_____________________________

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 173

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 5:58:51 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I did my own a2a test last night with the Zero Bonus very much 'on' from scen#2 Rising Sun.
Big B's "Battle of Manila, 07 DEC 41 to 01 JAN 42" .
Conditions: No air ops on Jan 1st, all air action takes place in December 41. That left 25 days available for operations, of which 9 days had no flying. So the total below was accumulated in 16 days of air combat.
Also, outside of Dec 7th, no sorties were flown - except those of the three Zero groups on Tainan vs. the combined P40 strength in the Philippines moved to Manila. I wanted to just test Air to Air Combat.
Further I had the P40's on maximum CAP (that is 90%) with a height advantage on all occasions, altitude ranging from 12,000 to 22,000 feet - mostly at 15,000 feet.
The Zeros were always on Sweep to Manila at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

The screen shot below shows the score board on January 1st, after the test.

I expected a Zero kill ratio of three or four to one, but 8 to one seems high to me...

Thanks for the testing Big B. That is exactly what is needed to help understand how the Zero bonus affects the game. Further tests would be needed to see whether, and how, the bonus could be removed and still provide equivalent results.

From the real life data that was posted earlier, from air-to-air battles in the DEI - "So if we count the A2A battles between fighters, the score is 36 Allied fighters lost against 5 Zeroes lost against them in one month " - 8 to 1 air-to-air losses in the Zero's favour sounds about right. So if the Zero bonus was removed, the experience of Allied (Commonwealth, Dutch, USAAF) pilots would have to be reduced by an amount that would result in the same loss ratios. Now the big questions - how large a reduction would be needed to give that result? And how long would it take for the Allied air units to overcome this initial disadvantage, compared to the 5 months for the Zero Bonus to disappear?

Anyone able to help with testing along these lines?

Andrew

Thanks Andrew,
I am going to do more testing myself - in fact I have begun afresh doing a cleaner test - I plan to do several with and without the Bonus to compare. I will post them if you wish.

One quick note about my results with those posted from Shore's Book regarding the DEI in Feb'42.

Mine were all a2a cap vs sweep with the Allies always assigned altitude advantage (though of course they have to climb to get there) so its a controlled situation 'of sorts' with the Japanese usually always enjoying a 2 to 1 numerical advantage. If I send all 63 Zeros, 63 fly the mission over 90% of the time, whereas if I assign CAP to 90% (the max) I usually get about 50% of the planes up, which is why I found the Japanese always outnumbering by about 2to 1.

Anyway the reason I bring this up is - even though I asked Admiral Laurent, he gave no context to the results posted for Feb'42, therefore we don't know the odds and circumstance of each fight - so until we know the situation of each of those encounters the numbers by themselves give us very little reliable information to understand and forcast probabilities...do you follow me? Therefore we don't know what that 36 to 5 is telling us - they could have been caught outnumbered 4 to 1 and taking off for all we know, or bounced while landing. We really need a context to be able to interpret the raw data.

Anyway I am doing more testing...
B

< Message edited by Big B -- 12/11/2005 5:59:55 AM >

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 174

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 6:15:36 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

this has REALLY slowed everything down

Except for the rate at which I'm pulling out my hair.

Actually, halving the AK/APs has not slowed things down as much as has doubling the load cost of most squads/devices. I think this may have been the proverbial bridge too far.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 175

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 6:19:44 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bilbow

I am playing Drex using Pry's mod where he did reduce by 50% all the APs, and AKs by varying amounts.

CHS did this as well.

Pry's mod is much more extensive in this regard.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 176

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 6:20:26 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

this has REALLY slowed everything down

Except for the rate at which I'm pulling out my hair.

Actually, halving the AK/APs has not slowed things down as much as has doubling the load cost of most squads/devices. I think this may have been the proverbial bridge too far.

Yeah, may have been a little over zealous but at least we KNOW now.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 177

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 6:20:54 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bilbow

I am playing Drex using Pry's mod where he did reduce by 50% all the APs, and AKs by varying amounts.

CHS did this as well.

Pry's mod is much more extensive in this regard.

How's that?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 178

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 6:24:12 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bilbow

I am playing Drex using Pry's mod where he did reduce by 50% all the APs, and AKs by varying amounts.

CHS did this as well.

Pry's mod is much more extensive in this regard.

I love Pry's mod.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 179

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/11/2005 6:26:50 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

So if the Zero bonus was removed, the experience of Allied (Commonwealth, Dutch, USAAF) pilots would have to be reduced by an amount that would result in the same loss ratios. Now the big questions - how large a reduction would be needed to give that result? And how long would it take for the Allied air units to overcome this initial disadvantage, compared to the 5 months for the Zero Bonus to disappear?

Andrew

I still disagree with reducing Allied experience. It's already a bunch lower than the Japanese for the most part. Reducing it further means the Allies stay behind the curve for much longer than realistic because they lack the in-game (on-map) training opportunities that the Japanese have.

Okay, I've said my piece.

Can you be more specific about which experience you are considering reducing?
- Units on-map at start.
- Replacement pilots.
- Units that arrive as replacements.
- etc.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 180

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?