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

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

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

Post by Andrew Brown »

Some people have suggested that it would be a good idea to get rid of the "Zero bonus", possibly replacing it with some other early war advantage to the Japanese aircraft. This could be done by switching the slot numbers of the A6M2 and A6M3 (slots 3 and 4) with, say the Zekes (slots 5 and 6), as the bonus is presumably hard coded to the aircraft slot numbers.

Now for some questions:
  • What is an appropriate substitute for the bonus? The idea I have seen, which sounds reasonable, is to reduce the experience level of Allied pilots. Or maybe just do nothing?
  • If the experience level of Allied pilots is reduced, how much should it be reduced by?
  • Is this a good idea, a bad idea, or you don't care?

I expect that the net result of these changes would be that the Japanese air advantage enjoyed by the zero would not be as large, and not last as long, but on the other hand it would apply to ALL Japanese aircraft, not the just the A6M2 and the A6M3.

Thoughts?
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
sacorsair
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:15 am
Location: san antonio texas
Contact:

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

Post by sacorsair »

Leave as is. The allies will win anyway. Japan needs every advantage they can get. if the is true CHS meaning historical go with the historical advantage.

Image
Attachments
128024922.jpg
128024922.jpg (4.22 KiB) Viewed 432 times
JAMES REX---Birthdays are like Boogers the more you have the harder it is to breath
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

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

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Experience is the key issue I'd guess. What are Army Air Corps pilots like Welch doing with 80-90+ experience on the eve of Pearl Harbor? This is a complete joke. Seeing as we can't go past 99 exp, why are RAF pilots (an organization at war for two years) so low and unproven Marine Corps guys so high? This PC crap has even entered the gaming world. The way I see it they may as well have given every pilot a 99 experience rating for passing flight school. Sucks. Game would be much better if pilots were rated no higher than 50 for experienced pilots, 60s for seasoned vets and the odd high rating for any historically gifted pilot prior to hostilites. Any further exp should be earned in game.

Enough with the banana republic like barrage of medals on every Tom, Dick and Harry's breast.[8|] So Welch is a 90+ pilot orior to PH? What was Marseille's rating? Or Gallands? Townsends? Johnson's? Beurling's?
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

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

Post by ChezDaJez »

Don't forget about the AVG, Ron. Why do they start the game so high? Many of them had never even flown a fighter before! Several came from level bombers, some from divebombers, others flew mail planes for crying out loud! Plus they didn't even engage in their first combat until 21 December 41.


Andrew,
As far as the Zero bonus goes, I say leave it to represent the intangibles of fear or at least the healthy respect it earned before they figured out how to fight it. If you do away with it you will need to severely downgrade allied experience, even the Brits as they didn't know how to fight it either. And the AVG should be heavily downgraded as their beginning experience level represents Chennault's tactics.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

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

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Don't forget about the AVG, Ron. Why do they start the game so high? Many of them had never even flown a fighter before! Several came from level bombers, some from divebombers, others flew mail planes for crying out loud! Plus they didn't even engage in their first combat until 21 December 41.


Andrew,
As far as the Zero bonus goes, I say leave it to represent the intangibles of fear or at least the healthy respect it earned before they figured out how to fight it. If you do away with it you will need to severely downgrade allied experience, even the Brits as they didn't know how to fight it either. And the AVG should be heavily downgraded as their beginning experience level represents Chennault's tactics.

Chez

Exactly! The Zero Bonus was more based on inexperience than overwhelming technical surperiority. Gut the starting experience levels of untried pilots across the board.

As for the AVG, Chez, you are so right in pointing this out. Why the hell are they so high? All pilots are way too high and I'd bet it is one of the reasons the A2A model is soooooooo whacked. Not everyone can be a Captain Kirk people!
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

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

Post by Sneer »

I like an idea of removing zero bonus together with significant downgrade of US pilots
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

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

Post by Yamato hugger »

The reason for the "Zero bonus" is the shock of having to adjust tried and true tactics to deal with a plane with unheard of maneuverability (for the time). The AVG was trained to not dogfight, but to slash and run. It took some time for the other groups to adopt simular tactics. That is why the rule is there, and personally I think its a good one.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

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

Post by witpqs »

Leave the bonus and experience as is. Yamato Hugger is right.

Plus, I can't sign on to the notion that no US pilots were any good prior to Dec 7, or that all British pilots were so much better. Training matters a lot. It has been pointed out on these boards that the IJN carrier pilots did not have extensive war experience, but were excellent pilots. And that US carrier pilots were quite good.

As far as British pilots, the UK was still pretty up against it and probably didn't have the luxury of training it's pilots to the standard it would like to before committing them to combat.

The AVG experience seems an efective way to counter the Zero bonus due to their tactics, as YH pointed out.

I know some folks don't like the zero bonus, but I think it adds to the flavor of things (in a good way).
User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

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

Post by Sneer »

British pilots had opportunity to fight Battle of Britain so had great amount of skilled pilots which enabled them after battle ended to train better then average pilots - I don't see it on US side
WITP time is after battle of Britain - relatively quiet period for UK air force - part of combat experienced pilots could go to India and other theaters
rockmedic109
Posts: 2414
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

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

Post by rockmedic109 »

FWIW, I say leave it as is. Gives the Japanese a bonus in the begining and, in a backwards sort of way, models the healthy respect for the plane that initially was the case after the first few encounters.

Not to hijack the thread, but would increasing the Japanese pilot pool better simulate later Japanese pilot shortages than a low number of replacements? Or is the Japanese running out of pilots in early 42 more a product of excessively bloody A2A combat/and or excessively quicker operations by players?
Rainerle
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:52 am
Location: Burghausen/Bavaria
Contact:

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

Post by Rainerle »

Hi,
actually I thinks it's a very good idea that this be done with the experience value. Like in real life let those that life through the first battles be the ones that gain the neccesary experience to combat the Zero on better terms.
Image
Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!
User avatar
Honda
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 5:15 pm
Location: Karlovac, Croatia

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

Post by Honda »

Oscar corner
It's clear that Oscar is a Zero like machine. The only difference is that Oscar is underarmed but more maneuverable (not that the game simulates it). So, Oscar should also be a beneficiary of the "Zero bonus".
My proposal:
If slots for A6M2 and 3 are hard coded with the bonus why not exchange slots between Oscar I and A6M3? It would give Oscar I the bonus which isn't important at all by the time A6M3 comes into action.
As simple as it gets.
P.S.
Poor Nate...
User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

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

Post by Sneer »

experiance diffrencies would do it better
User avatar
Black Mamba 1942
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:44 pm

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

Post by Black Mamba 1942 »

First post.[;)]

I like the idea of adding OscarI's.
Would like to see the bonus reduced to 3 or 4 months instead of 6.
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

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

Post by Andrew Brown »

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

First post.[;)]

I like the idea of adding OscarI's.
Would like to see the bonus reduced to 3 or 4 months instead of 6.

The idea of removing the Zero bonus and replacing it with reduced Allied pilot experience levels came about because of the fact that the Zero was not the only maneuverable Japanese aircraft at the start of the war, so it doesn't make sense that ONLY the Zero gets the bonus. I think the discussion actually was about the Oscar I.

One problem with reducing Allied experience is that it effects combat vs bombers as well as vs fighters, so it is perhaps too broad. But in my view the Zero bonus is too narrow. I also think that the bonus may apply for too long, but without eliminating it in the way I propose there is nothing that can be done about that.

Nor do I think that my proposal favours the Allies. In fact, we would have to be careful not to reduce the Allied experience levels too far in case the early part of the game became a Japanese turkey shoot.

If there are any further opinions I would love to hear them...

Andrew
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
captskillet
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:21 pm
Location: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers

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

Post by captskillet »

why are RAF pilots (an organization at war for two years) so low and unproven

I made a point about this last year Ron, British units that had been in Middle East or Europe fighting the Luftwaffe should as highly experienced if not higher. Come on, where did the Japanese earn all this experience..........fighting the (mostly) Chinese Air Force or dropping bombs on undefended cities [8|] [:D]! I agree, no pilot except maybe the aforementioned British units should start anywhere near the 80 level, afterall they were flying against a real airforce with real planes (BF-109)!
"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

Image
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

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

Post by Ron Saueracker »

I'd like to see every pilot in the data base dropped in experience by 20, not just Allied. Just for the sake of the A2A model.

I'm actually OK with the Zero bonus but if the AVGs ratings are high to reflect their tactics (or the USN ability to adapt quickly etc), then I think the ratings of Japanese flyers should go down as they really were more a bunch of loners ala WW1 who had no real "tactical doctrine".

Once again they overlook alot when it comes to Japan.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
BlackVoid
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 11:51 pm

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

Post by BlackVoid »

The experience is a good idea.
Reduce all pilots by 20, and then reduce the allies some more where needed. Most allied pilots should be around 40-50 xp, japanese 50-70. The Elite would be 70-80 for japanese and 60-70 for the allies. Then test if that is enough.
AmiralLaurent
Posts: 3351
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:53 pm
Location: Near Paris, France

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

Post by AmiralLaurent »

Has someone tested how experience affects A2A combat ? Just wondering if a battle between pilots with 50 exp on both sides is less bloddy than a battle with pilots with 80 exp on both sides ?

I would increase A6M2 Zero manoeuver by 1 or 2 points, and Oscar I by 3 or 4. And maybe Nates some points too.

As for the AVG, WITP is wrong in IMOO to consider them as an US unit. I will rather see it as a special "nation" with no pilot replacement and with a special P-40 variant having "unrealistic" combat speed and manoeuver to simulate AVG training. No monthly replacements for this plane but a stock, equal to the Chinese deliveries at the time. So AVG will probably disappear in spring 1942. Then add the 23rd FG to USAAF OOB. But very few AVG pilots remained in China in 1942.

For the experience levels of the RAF units, Far East was very low on the list of priorities to have modern AC or trained pilots. Remember that in spring 1942, RAF was dominated over Europe by the Fw190s. Reinforcements sent to Malta, for example, were mostly green, half of the pilots having never flown an operation before. And so on. "Bloddy Shambles" books also describe the fighting units in Malaya in Dec 1941 as very green.

As for "dive and zoom" tactics, the RAF waited for 1943 to adopt them over Burma, according to the last Shore's book.
Sonny
Posts: 2005
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 9:51 pm

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

Post by Sonny »

Get rid of Zero bonus
drop all Japanese pilots 10 points experience
drop all allied pilots 15 (or 20) points experience



Not sure if experience is more of a factor than aggressiveness in causing large air battles to be bloody.
Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”