WITP Game Play Notes from the Testers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

WITP Game Play Notes from the Testers

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 >> WITP Game Play Notes from the Testers

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

WITP Game Play Notes from the Testers - 6/21/2003 11:26:28 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

While a lot of work is yet to be done, several of the WITP scenarios are advanced enough for the Alpha testers to play as a form of "advanced bug detection". ;)

This includes both player vs AI and PBEM.

Since people might be interested, I thought I would create this thread for the testers to be able to post any stories/AARs/campaign reports from their testing.

It's primary purpose is not really to focus on the detailed game mechanics (much of which will be subject to change and the NDA) but rather to show what can occur in the current version of the game.

Posting may be both irregular and infrequent (or non-existant) depending on the testing schedule.

I'll let the other testers know.

Feel free to post any questions on game play but mass debates should be avoided (it makes you go blind).

Cheers.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

Post #: 1

- 6/22/2003 1:01:55 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

Well, I'll put up some general aspects of the planned production system, since Joel said it would be okay to discuss. Keep in mind that everything is subject to change.

Aircraft Production: Cities will have a certain number of aircraft factory points. Each day, if the resources are available, the factories will try to create aircraft (up to the number of factory points of aircraft per month). For the aircraft to be added to the replacement pool, an engine must be available for the specified type of aircraft and a heavy industry point for each aircraft being assembled.

However, the US doesn't need to have aircraft engines available, that aspect only applies to Japan who suffered a shortage.

Vehicle Production: Vehicle factories will produce vehicle points for each point of heavy industry available to 'feed' the vehicle factory on a turn. When a vehicle is sent to replace a vehicle in a ground unit, it will cost a vehicle point and a manpower point per point of load cost on the vehicle (a 10 load cost Type 95 will cost 10 vehicle points and 10 manpower points to be added to a unit)

Much of the production is based on heavy industry, so here is how heavy industry will work:

Heavy industry: For Heavy Industry in a specific city to operate on a turn, it must have more than enough resources and twice as much oil as there is heavy industry in the city. If this is met then each Heavy Industry point creates 5 supplies and 50 fuel points that are added to that base that turn. Also, an equivalent number of heavy industry points are added to a pool (which fuels aircraft production, vehicle production, armaments, etc).

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 2

- 6/22/2003 2:48:28 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Someone tell Gary that the it would have been better to use the
Bombing of the Reich system.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 3

- 6/22/2003 9:17:37 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

It will be good to read what the testers are upto and some abridged AARs. Bring it on!

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 4

As you wish - 6/22/2003 10:45:23 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I felt bad for asking Mogami to do my work for me, so i've taken some additional time to do some tests myself (in addition to assigned tests) This is a continuation of the exp tests via bombers vs fighters, only now applied to fighters only.

Conditions of test: A6M2 elite group, EXP 99, MOR 99

P-51D pilot wanna-b group, EXP 10, MOR 99

Leaders identical: overall skill 50, inspiration and agressiveness 70, air ability 50

Fighter sweep from Lae to PM. (nice short distance)

altitude 10,000 feet

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 46

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 10 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 1 destroyed

FO B.Morgan of 35th PG is credited with kill number 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 41

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 21 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 6 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 1 damaged

WO of is credited with kill number 0

A reminder: this is an alpha test....nothing official, everything subject to change, per Drongo's note....so please, no nukes.

I have some bomber vs fighter AAR's that might be of interest as well :)

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 5

Seems to need work - 6/22/2003 11:01:17 PM

Mike Scholl

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

You would think with experiance 10 the Americans would
lose one or two aircraft just flying. Results look far too heavily
based on aircraft type---hopefully 2by3 will work on this some more.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 6

- 6/23/2003 1:59:27 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]

However, the US doesn't need to have aircraft engines available, that aspect only applies to Japan who suffered a shortage.
[/B][/QUOTE]

So the Americans can build planes that don't require engines huh? I've always thought the stats of a P51 were impressive but now that I know it was a glider I'm even more impressed.

Seriously though, the same rules and systems should apply to both sides. Sure, the US would have more of almost everything but they should still play by the same rules. It might keep players from building all B17s if it cost them four times as many engines as building fighters.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 7

- 6/23/2003 2:23:53 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]So the Americans can build planes that don't require engines huh? I've always thought the stats of a P51 were impressive but now that I know it was a glider I'm even more impressed.

Seriously though, the same rules and systems should apply to both sides. Sure, the US would have more of almost everything but they should still play by the same rules. It might keep players from building all B17s if it cost them four times as many engines as building fighters.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

That's not what Snig is saying. He is merely pointing out that time was not wasted modeling US engine production because there was no shortage of aircraft engines. The Japanese, however, were constrained in their building efforts by such a shortage, so it had to be built into the game mechanics. Nobody is thereby discriminating against the Japanese as a people, a nation, or the economic force that made American sedans obsolete.

And I thought you were above playing the nonsensical "all the Allies have to do is build forty bazillion B-17s in order to win the game" game.

Drongo created this thread as a pipeline of information from the testers to us. Let's not try to turn it into the usual argumentative mess that defines the AOW forum. I am here to listen, ask, and learn, not comment, and will stop doing so with this post - no matter the provocation.

In any event, is similar consideration being given to the same engine shortage problem that curtailed Japanese production of small naval craft?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 8

- 6/23/2003 3:20:40 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by Pasternakski
[QUOTE]In any event, is similar consideration being given to the same engine shortage problem that curtailed Japanese production of small naval craft?[/QUOTE]

At the moment, no.

Shipbuilding in WITP is constrained by factors that reflect the general abilities of the two sides in that area rather than specific ones like engine production.

Posted by Yamamoto
[QUOTE]Seriously though, the same rules and systems should apply to both sides. Sure, the US would have more of almost everything but they should still play by the same rules. It might keep players from building all B17s if it cost them four times as many engines as building fighters.[/QUOTE]

There are already mechanisms in the game that will make such a B-17 strategy costly and not very effective.

Also, such an effort would primarily result in having a large number of B-17s in the pool rather than in the field as there is currently no mechanism to raise extra squadrons with extra crews to absorb the extra production. You are still (currently) limited by the historical number of US heavy bomber squadrons and their date of arrival in theatre.

As to imposing engine production on the Allies, it would only be fair if it meant something historically. Otherwise, it's a waste of effort for the Allied player.

However, nothings final. :p

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 9

- 6/23/2003 3:21:39 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]That's not what Snig is saying. He is merely pointing out that time was not wasted modeling US engine production because there was no shortage of aircraft engines. The Japanese, however, were constrained in their building efforts by such a shortage, so it had to be built into the game mechanics. Nobody is thereby discriminating against the Japanese as a people, a nation, or the economic force that made American sedans obsolete.

And I thought you were above playing the nonsensical "all the Allies have to do is build forty bazillion B-17s in order to win the game" game.

Drongo created this thread as a pipeline of information from the testers to us. Let's not try to turn it into the usual argumentative mess that defines the AOW forum. I am here to listen, ask, and learn, not comment, and will stop doing so with this post - no matter the provocation.

In any event, is similar consideration being given to the same engine shortage problem that curtailed Japanese production of small naval craft? [/B][/QUOTE]

So that means that Pasternaski gets to determine what the 'real' issues are? No I dont think so. Yamamoto has a valid point.

_____________________________

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 10

A trio of bomber vs fighter tests - 6/23/2003 3:39:04 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Here is a little varient of the test Mogami has done, only with some facets that i have been playing with. Reminder again this is not in any shape or form "official". Simply me being curious.

Players of UV are familar with the this drill :

Daylight raid
Unescorted
low altitude
heavily defended base.
Veteran to highly skilled defender pilots

Avg exp of attacker = 60 Morale=99 Fatigue <10
Avg exp of defender=80 Morale=99 Fatigue<10

attacker alt = 6000 feet (default computer alt)
defender alt= 10000 feet

no flak.

the above stats are unchanged thru the 3 tests. However i've changed one other facet for each test. Enjoy.

Test 1:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 48

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 48

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 4 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 19 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 10

Port hits 1
Port supply hits 3

Attacking Level Bombers:
37 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet
7 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet

***

Test 2:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 36

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 51

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 11 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 8 damaged

PO2 R.Hirata of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Port hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
24 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet

***

Test 3

FTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 48

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 41

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 8 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 15 damaged

PO2 S.Banno of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
24 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet

Three tests run again exactly the same, only change avg IJN defender exp =60

Test 1

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 48

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 45

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 6 damaged

Port hits 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
29 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet
16 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet

**

Test 2

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 48

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 51

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 6 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 6 damaged

PO2 W.Minowa of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 3

Port hits 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
35 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet
10 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet

Test 3:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 48

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 45

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell x 8 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 12 damaged

PO2 C.Ikeda of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
24 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet
14 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet

**********

Lets add some escorts to the test '3' varient:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 36

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 31
B-25C Mitchell x 51

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 6 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 2 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 2 damaged
B-25C Mitchell x 1 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell x 2 damaged

PO W.Greenwell of 75th RAAF Squadron is credited with kill number 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
29 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet
21 x B-25C Mitchell at 6000 feet

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 11

- 6/23/2003 4:02:05 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]So that means that Pasternaski gets to determine what the 'real' issues are? No I dont think so. Yamamoto has a valid point.[/B]

No, I think he was just pointing out that the idea of this thread is not to debate issues. If it turns into a giant argument thread then I think you will quickly see an end to testers posting development information.

_____________________________

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 12

- 6/23/2003 4:03:26 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]So that means that Pasternaski gets to determine what the 'real' issues are? No I dont think so. Yamamoto has a valid point.[/B]

No, I think he was just pointing out that the idea of this thread is not to debate issues. If it turns into a giant argument thread then I think you will quickly see an end to testers posting development information. [/B][/QUOTE]

The only one I see arguing, is Pasternaski. He just HAD
to challenge.

_____________________________

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 13

- 6/23/2003 4:20:30 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]In any event, is similar consideration being given to the same engine shortage problem that curtailed Japanese production of small naval craft?[/B]

As stated above, specific problems of ship building such as small engine shortages, steel shortages, etc will not be modelled specifically (it might turn into a game of dealing with the nightmares of the Japanese economy if you get into too many details)...
Each side is going to have naval and merchant shipyards in certain cities. There are also repair shipyards, which I will describe further on. Naval and Merchant shipyards create Naval and Merchant construction points, which costs a point from the heavy industry pool to create. For example, if you had a 20 point Merchant shipyard, you would create 20 Merchant construction points each day if you had 20 points in your heavy industry pool available. For a ship which is under construction to have it's availability date reduced by one day, you must have construction points equal to the ship's durability available to spend on that ship.
So, if you dont have the heavy industry points available, you wont be able to create the naval/merchant construction points to reduce the delay time on the ship availability...which reflects no work being done on the ship. Since heavy industry points availability is dependent on the flow of natural resources to your heavy industry locations, the lack of steel, oil, engine production etc is reflected in the shipbuilding in a non-specific manner.

Repair shipyards: Each day you add a number of repair points to a locations pool equivalent to the locations number of repair shipyards. You can only store 4 times the number of repair shipyards at a specific location's pool. These points can be used to either repair or upgrade a ship in that port. Once again, it costs the durability of the ship in repair points to reduce the time for repair/upgrade by 1 day.
I'm not sure yet how you will select which ship you want to repair, or how to prioritize the repair order, or how to specify what upgrades you want.

Ship refits (Japanese) - Chitose and Chiyoda may undergo conversion from CS to CVL, and Ise and Hyuga may go from BB to add a large contingent of float planes but remain BBs technically. If one of these ships enters port in Osaka after the specified upgrade date, they go into the reinforcement pipeline and can have naval construction points spent to speed up their production the same as any other ship in the pipeline.

[B]The only one I see arguing, is Pasternaski. He just HAD[/B]
[B]to challenge.[/B]

Okay.

_____________________________

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 14

- 6/23/2003 4:26:46 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 15

- 6/23/2003 4:33:01 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]yep :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Then I suggest you stop arguing. You make no impression upon me, that much is certain.

_____________________________

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 16

Hint - 6/23/2003 8:12:58 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Then I suggest you stop arguing. You make no impression upon me, that much is certain. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, Nikademus is a tester. Since Pasternaski made his post, you have made two posts protesting Pasternaski's post. Heres a hint.
the designers get feed back from testers. They read comments of posters. Protests concerning other non tester's posts only take up space and make thread load slower. Everyone stop worrying about what non designer/testers post. We have a private forum to post in. We are trying to keep you abreast of progress. We are not looking for debates or flame wars. Unless a post is constructive it does not belong here. (I'm getting tired of reading the same thing over and over) (Let it be)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 17

Same for all? - 6/23/2003 9:02:21 AM

Mike Scholl

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

Something that worries me is that they systems described for
production seem to be the same for both sides in many respects.
They weren't..., US Industry was MUCH more effecient than that
of the Japanese. Planes, ships, tanks, uniforms, it doesn't matter.
America built them bigger, better, faster, and in greater quanties
overall; by worker, by man hour, or by factory or however you
want to measure. A Japanese shipyard might build a modest
Maru in a year.., but Henry Kaiser could crank out a bigger one in
a month. And by airframe weight (a better measure of industrial
capacity) Ford's Willow Run plant almost outproduced all of Japan
in 1944 (Japan's best year) BY ITSELF!

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 18

Re: As you wish - 6/23/2003 10:30:02 AM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]
Conditions of test: A6M2 elite group, EXP 99, MOR 99

P-51D pilot wanna-b group, EXP 10, MOR 99

Leaders identical: overall skill 50, inspiration and agressiveness 70, air ability 50

Fighter sweep from Lae to PM. (nice short distance)

altitude 10,000 feet

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 46

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 10 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 1 destroyed

FO B.Morgan of 35th PG is credited with kill number 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 41

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 21 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 6 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 1 damaged

[/B][/QUOTE]

This is not meant to be a nuke - but the effect is going to be the same ;) No offense Nik - I appreciate your effort to do the tests and post the results!

The above results are appalling. If this is meant to be an indication of how much plane type counts vs how little pilot experience counts I will not purchase the game (and I can guarantee you that 90% of my long time PBEM opponents won't buy the game either). It is that simple.

In UV Zero pilots with exp 10 don't last 1 flight - in combat or not. Most of them die in training where the idea is to maximise their survival. A zero group with 99 exp should MURDER the green pilots, not the other way around. It probably wouldn't matter if the green pilots were flying F-15s - an experience dpilot would shoot at them, the green pilot would yank the stick, stomp on the rudder, go into a stall or a flat spin and slam into the ground AND DIE!!!!!!! There are even more ways to kill yourself flying an F15 than there are in a P51.

Basic things like not checking your six, misjudging power dives and hitting the ground, overshooting, plain getting lost and colliding with friendly aircraft when given the order to break ALL happen to green pilots. Look at the battle of britain - which were the pilots that bought it? Usually the green ones. Probably had higher exp than exp 10 too! Exp 10 can barely land the plane, so how can they manage the complicated hand eye co ordination/ deflection shooting and timing required to shoot down a highly manouvreable zero - much less fly themselves into a position that the zero is in their sights anyway? Exp 10 pilots shouldn't even be able to fly in formation.

I'm sure most people will agree what a completely bullshit result this is. I hope the formulas will be changed to balance them out - making pilot experience more important, or at least as important, as plane type.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 19

- 6/23/2003 10:32:47 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I concur

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 20

- 6/23/2003 11:09:44 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Well, but let's think about this for a minute. What continuum is being measured by pilot experience ratings? Zero is not "Mrs. O'Leary's cow," and 99 is not "God and his joystick."

I suggest that even zero experience represents a pilot with some rudimentary training (I agree, of course, that such a pilot does not belong in air-to-air combat against a competent enemy in a competently designed aircraft). Further, 99 experience, although as good as you can get in game terms, does not represent a perfection that was not achieved in real life. Nobody should be invincible, but, by the same token, those with adequate training, supported by superior doctrine, and flying superior aircraft, should prevail. I have no quarrel with the results depicted in Nik's test.

The design judgment seems to be that pilot experience is not so diverse as to warrant overriding of superior aircraft performance and tactical doctrine, two things the Allies excelled at not only toward the end of the war, but during the intermediate phases, as well. The kill ratios, if nothing else, are evidence of this.

I am hoping not to see another evisceration of Allied air superiority, which was marginal in 1942, but grew to total domination by 1945 (as was done in UV for the 1942-43 period), for play balance purposes. I say adjust the victory conditions and let history be played for history's sake in terms of air combat, and let the virtual war resemble the actual one in this regard.

My two cents worth is that the tests I have seen so far seem to come out about right.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 21

- 6/23/2003 12:28:29 PM

Dawy

Posts: 26
Joined: 7/8/2002
Status: offline

Judging by those reports I can only guess what the results would be if those Allied P-51 groups have 99 exp as well?

All 54 Zero's destroyed? :D

_____________________________

Coming second is nothing more than being the first loser...

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 22

- 6/23/2003 12:51:35 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dawy
[B]Judging by those reports I can only guess what the results would be if those Allied P-51 groups have 99 exp as well?

All 54 Zero's destroyed? :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, I think you've got a good point there, especially if I'm wrong about what "0" and "99" experience mean (and I sure don't know enough even to qualify at the "ignorant" level). I hope that the difference would be enough to be significant (say twice as many A6M2s shot down), but not so much as to make the P-51s "bulletproof."

All I can say is that P-51s with 99 experience pilots, zero fatigue, the right mission, and the right doctrine (altitude assignment, etc.) should be a heckuva combination.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 23

role reversal - 6/23/2003 12:54:53 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

---
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 79

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 29

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 18 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged

PO1 S. Kudo of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Zero exp = 10
P-39 exp=99

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 24

- 6/23/2003 1:22:41 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Nik,

Do you want to post the operational losses involved in flying a fighter sweep with exp 10 pilots?

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 25

Re: role reversal - 6/23/2003 4:47:54 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]---
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 79

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 29

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 18 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged

PO1 S. Kudo of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Zero exp = 10
P-39 exp=99 [/B][/QUOTE]

Ok, this makes me feel a little better, but I still think that a genius in a zero or a wildcat should murder an inexperienced pilot in a better plane.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 26

Re: Hint - 6/23/2003 4:57:32 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Nikademus is a tester. Since Pasternaski made his post, you have made two posts protesting Pasternaski's post. Heres a hint.
the designers get feed back from testers. They read comments of posters. Protests concerning other non tester's posts only take up space and make thread load slower. Everyone stop worrying about what non designer/testers post. We have a private forum to post in. We are trying to keep you abreast of progress. We are not looking for debates or flame wars. Unless a post is constructive it does not belong here. (I'm getting tired of reading the same thing over and over) (Let it be) [/B][/QUOTE]

Mogami allow me to explain. Pasternaski attacked on ongoing issue obliquley. I will brook no censure stated or implied.
I am ready willing and able to respond in kind to all attacks or
implied attacks. I am perfectly willing to respond to each one
ad infinitum. It would be better then to NOT make such attacks.
When you flame Pasternaski for starting it, I will know you are serious.

_____________________________

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 27

Re: Re: role reversal - 6/23/2003 6:27:43 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]Ok, this makes me feel a little better, but I still think that a genius in a zero or a wildcat should murder an inexperienced pilot in a better plane. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with this. I am far from comfortable with the results that Nik is posting at the moment..........what would the results be if the "current" UV engine was used?

Originally posted by Nikademus
---
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 79

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 29

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 18 destroyed:eek:
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged

PO1 S. Kudo of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Zero exp = 10
P-39 exp=99

I think that to make it a "balanced" test, both sides should have the same number of aircraft. But thanks for the interesting posts and tests Nik !:cool:

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 28

- 6/23/2003 7:42:52 PM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]The above results are appalling. If this is meant to be an indication of how much plane type counts vs how little pilot experience counts I will not purchase the game (and I can guarantee you that 90% of my long time PBEM opponents won't buy the game either). It is that simple.[/B]

The intent of this thread (which I missed but Nik did not) was to post notes from testing. If you would prefer waiting for the product to be released before there is any information released by the testers, you will be sure to only see results that make sense and are intended for the final product. If you look at Alpha notes, expect to see strange results.

[B]Something that worries me is that they systems described for production seem to be the same for both sides in many respects.[/B]

Actually some rules apply only to Japan, I hadn't specified which ones, for the most part.

_____________________________

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 29

- 6/23/2003 9:43:41 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

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

Do you want to post the operational losses involved in flying a fighter sweep with exp 10 pilots? [/B][/QUOTE]

None.

(in reply to Drongo)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> WITP Game Play Notes from the Testers

Page: [1] 2 next > >>