Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
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  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 2:05:10 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2251
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
quote:

. It's the argument that's a loser


Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.

2.) We are on patch 1.8. Hardly the time to work on thing that have little actual effect on game play.

3.) The debate has surely reached the ears of the developers (goin on for 22 pages as it is) who if they agreed will have changed it.

4.) Therefore this debate has no purpose at least as far as construtively improving the game.

I think its a pretty tight argument.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 661
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 2:28:40 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

. It's the argument that's a loser


Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.


The argument from me is: the Zero bonus is a bad idea because it has no basis in fact.

Also, it has never been reasonably demonstrated exactly what effect the Zero Bonus has on play. It is still a phony artifact, however, no matter how that shakes out.

quote:

2.) We are on patch 1.8. Hardly the time to work on thing that have little actual effect on game play.


As it turns out your version is newer than mine, which is not all that surprising as I haven't played the game for six months. But the thing is, no matter what version someone uses the Zero Bonus is still a phony artifact which wouldn't take much in the way of effort to do away with.

quote:

3.) The debate has surely reached the ears of the developers (goin on for 22 pages as it is) who if they agreed will have changed it.


That much is probably correct.

quote:

4.) Therefore this debate has no purpose at least as far as construtively improving the game.


There have been any number of informative posts in this thread that could easily serve as the basis for improvement in the present game system. Apparently you missed those. But they're still up for perusal should you have interest.

quote:

I think its a pretty tight argument.


My estimation is it's all over the board, but what do I know?


_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 662
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 2:37:02 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3935
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: online
The only remaining purpose to this thread is challenge the burgeoning omnipotence of THE ALMIGHTY THREAD

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 663
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 2:39:21 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The only remaining purpose to this thread is challenge the burgeoning omnipotence of THE ALMIGHTY THREAD


Sounds like one to miss to me, kinda like anything out of Hollywood the past five years or so.


_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 664
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 2:52:01 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4161
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

. It's the argument that's a loser


Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.


The argument from me is: the Zero bonus is a bad idea because it has no basis in fact.

Also, it has never been reasonably demonstrated exactly what effect the Zero Bonus has on play. It is still a phony artifact, however, no matter how that shakes out.





Hi TJ,

Earlier in this thread I posted the results of 5 tests I ran to investigate the Zero Bonus, Each test wass arranged for a series of CAP vs Sweep air combats (pure fighter vs fighter) at as close to 1:1 odds as the game can be relied on to pruduce - for the purpose of compiling the results of alot of pure evenly balanced air combat (enough to get a reasonable sample) Turns out that about 8000 combat sorties gave a consistant 3:1 kill ratio favoring the Zero over the P40E and F4F4 (all squadrons had Default exp ratings - USAAF about 55, USMC 65, USN 75, IJN 75 -80) over each series of encounters - that is the total at the end of each of the 5 tests.

Anyhow the last test was without the ZB and the Japanese total of kills over us a/c remained the same - but the Zeros took about 16% - 17% higher losses, a drop in the kill rate from about 3:1 to about 2.5:1

So the ZB at full strength seems to save the Japanese player about 15% on his loss rate.

B


(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 665
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:04:08 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

. It's the argument that's a loser


Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.


The argument from me is: the Zero bonus is a bad idea because it has no basis in fact.

Also, it has never been reasonably demonstrated exactly what effect the Zero Bonus has on play. It is still a phony artifact, however, no matter how that shakes out.





Hi TJ,

Earlier in this thread I posted the results of 5 tests I ran to investigate the Zero Bonus, Each test wass arranged for a series of CAP vs Sweep air combats (pure fighter vs fighter) at as close to 1:1 odds as the game can be relied on to pruduce - for the purpose of compiling the results of alot of pure evenly balanced air combat (enough to get a reasonable sample) Turns out that about 8000 combat sorties gave a consistant 3:1 kill ratio favoring the Zero over the P40E and F4F4 (all squadrons had Default exp ratings - USAAF about 55, USMC 65, USN 75, IJN 75 -80) over each series of encounters - that is the total at the end of each of the 5 tests.

Anyhow the last test was without the ZB and the Japanese total of kills over us a/c remained the same - but the Zeros took about 16% - 17% higher losses, a drop in the kill rate from about 3:1 to about 2.5:1

So the ZB at full strength seems to save the Japanese player about 15% on his loss rate.

B




I read that, and thank you very much for going to the effort. But I'm still not confident that's where Gary pegged it. (Which is not a criticism of your test, just nagging doubt on my end.)

Let's say, though, for the sake of argument, that a 115% "defensive shield" is what Gary had in mind for the ZB. If so, then there right away we have a bogus 15% advantage for the Japanese player over the Allied player in Zero frays through May of 1942, a bonus which is not supported by fact.

If you get the inkling, you might try the Zero in an intercept role against various Allied bombers, with and without the ZB, and see how that plays out. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those results did not follow suit, but who knows?


_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 666
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:08:13 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2251
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
So great. 3.1 minus 2.5 is 0.6. 0.6 divided by 3.1 is 19.3. 19.3% deviation so we are within the 20% window that Mdiehl wants. Problem solved.

TristanJohn: I'm sure that you have to agree that there are issues in WITP far more important than this. If you could have three wishes to change WITP I sure hope you wouldn't waste one on the zero bonus.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 667
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:13:16 AM   
Black Mamba 1942


Posts: 510
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline
You guys shouldn't take these threads so personally.
Matrix isn't going to change the code anyway.

Put the Oscar's in the A6M5 slot for the CHS.
Wasn't that what AB was asking about anyway?

This way, down the road, we can have an OB vs ZB thread.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 668
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:16:45 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

So great. 3.1 minus 2.5 is 0.6. 0.6 divided by 3.1 is 19.3. 19.3% deviation so we are within the 20% window that Mdiehl wants. Problem solved.

TristanJohn: I'm sure that you have to agree that there are issues in WITP far more important than this. If you could have three wishes to change WITP I sure hope you wouldn't waste one on the zero bonus.


I only have one wish: that Gary return, gut the unhappy sow, and start over--in which case the Zero Bonus, along with everything else I've screamed at along the way, would be history.

    (oratleastthatshowitworksoutinmydream...headded)


_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 669
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:19:44 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2251
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

You guys shouldn't take these threads so personally.



Don't worry about me. I'm just having fun as my estemed opponent is at work instead of sending me turns.


quote:

I only have one wish: that Gary return, gut the unhappy sow


This does scare me a bit however.

< Message edited by moses -- 12/22/2005 3:20:52 AM >

(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)
Post #: 670
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:22:36 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

You guys shouldn't take these threads so personally.



Don't worry about me. I'm just having fun as my estemed opponent is at work instead of sending me turns.


quote:

I only have one wish: that Gary return, gut the unhappy sow


This does scare me a bit however.


Timing is everything, no?



_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 671
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:24:31 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2251
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Timing is everything, no?


Qua!!!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 672
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:27:11 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

Timing is everything, no?


Qua!!!


That sounds a little bit like my daughter eighteen years ago when something wasn't perfect.



_____________________________

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 673
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 3:33:13 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4161
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

. It's the argument that's a loser


Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.


The argument from me is: the Zero bonus is a bad idea because it has no basis in fact.

Also, it has never been reasonably demonstrated exactly what effect the Zero Bonus has on play. It is still a phony artifact, however, no matter how that shakes out.





Hi TJ,

Earlier in this thread I posted the results of 5 tests I ran to investigate the Zero Bonus, Each test wass arranged for a series of CAP vs Sweep air combats (pure fighter vs fighter) at as close to 1:1 odds as the game can be relied on to pruduce - for the purpose of compiling the results of alot of pure evenly balanced air combat (enough to get a reasonable sample) Turns out that about 8000 combat sorties gave a consistant 3:1 kill ratio favoring the Zero over the P40E and F4F4 (all squadrons had Default exp ratings - USAAF about 55, USMC 65, USN 75, IJN 75 -80) over each series of encounters - that is the total at the end of each of the 5 tests.

Anyhow the last test was without the ZB and the Japanese total of kills over us a/c remained the same - but the Zeros took about 16% - 17% higher losses, a drop in the kill rate from about 3:1 to about 2.5:1

So the ZB at full strength seems to save the Japanese player about 15% on his loss rate.

B




I read that, and thank you very much for going to the effort. But I'm still not confident that's where Gary pegged it. (Which is not a criticism of your test, just nagging doubt on my end.)

Let's say, though, for the sake of argument, that a 115% "defensive shield" is what Gary had in mind for the ZB. If so, then there right away we have a bogus 15% advantage for the Japanese player over the Allied player in Zero frays through May of 1942, a bonus which is not supported by fact.

If you get the inkling, you might try the Zero in an intercept role against various Allied bombers, with and without the ZB, and see how that plays out. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those results did not follow suit, but who knows?




TJ, Mdiehl, Ron, and others,

I'm not exactly happy with the ZB, But what impressed me, as I siad earlier, is after testing - the appearant effects of the ZB seems inconsequential compared to the effects of the advantage in exp level the Japanese enjoy.

I don't know if that is historically accurate or not (I suspect it's not - but I'll have to research that carefully).

But from the POV of an Allied player, I'd give them the ZB and extend it to the Oscar as well - and do it happily - in exchange for readjusting their starting exp ratings..

< Message edited by Big B -- 12/22/2005 5:36:55 AM >

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 674
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 4:08:25 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

But from the POV of an Allied player, I'd give them the ZB and extend it to the Oscar as well - and do it happily - in exchange for readjusting their starting exp ratings..


Sounds good to me. I am convinced by your tests that the bizarre ZB's effect is the lesser of the two weevils as Capn Jack would say.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 675
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 8:08:27 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8252
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I highly agree with Brian. The ZB has always struck me as ill-conceived, but everything that I have seen from AARs, tests performed by Brian and others (over the last 1.5 years), and my own experience with the game is that the Zero Bonus does not really make that big an effect.

What most allied players do in the game with their carriers is pretty much exactly what Admiral King and Nimitz demanded: refusing to expose the US carriers unless odds made exposure viable. This means that unless your intel is good, you're not taking a 2-3 US CV TF (Task Group) after the KB. The US carriers will not be able to stand up to the Kido Butai until long after the Zero Bonus has lapsed, so the worry about the bonus making it impossible to face the IJN carriers is moot.

I find it interesting that Lundstrom writes: "Worried about risking his precious aircraft carriers, King added that it might be better to keep the flattops in the rear and fight their air groups from the threatened shore basese." How many of us have used this tactic (at least until we realized the bugs were screwing with our airgroups once ashore) in our play in UV/WITP?



I think that one of the bigger problems is the mass air battle misrepresentation. It appears to me that fighters have unlimited ammunition in combat, thus the huge combats have far too much actual damage being dispensed. I liked the earlier post in this thread suggesting a "continue combat" die roll after each attack, with decreasing chance of said combat continuing per die roll. That's up to Keith, as I don't believe that it can be achieved through the editor.

I like the fact that the CHS folk are experimenting with adjustments to pilot experience levels. Even the most experienced Japanese pilots had no idea what combat against the allies would be like. Only the best pilots still alive after years of fighting in the game should have experience ratings in the nineties, IMO.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 12/22/2005 8:09:48 AM >


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 676
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 9:51:05 AM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2398
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
To al thou Heden in the "zero thread", the mighty "TEST THREAD" in the war room has overtaken thou in post counts. REPEND thou heden ways nou thou have seen the POWER of " THE THREAD" .

Join us, and thou will bath forever in the glory of THE THREAD............

hallelua..... PRAIS THE TREAD....

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 677
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 10:42:58 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12118
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
I've been out drinking....


Hey, to all the serious guuys out there...Merry Christmas.

To all the ass kissers out there....You got what you kissed.


Man....I'm hosed but what the hell. Rock on to the hard core players aand modders! I don't **** on anybody (unless they suck and need some serious self worth reinforcement). Love the CHS and thank GAWD for all the good guys. Screw some of you and love
the rest.!

21 beers in Canada...for those who suck as Yanks!

_____________________________





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

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 678
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 10:44:50 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12118
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline


Jusy so various twats know I'm pissed and can screw off.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 679
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 10:52:02 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12118
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Ohhhhh...Merry Cristams!

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 680
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 11:42:24 AM   
Honda


Posts: 952
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline
Well, well...merryXmas to you too then!¨
Now that The Thread has proven its glory, I can add some thaughts.
1. What a waste of my and everybody else's time this thread was. A pointless discussion on a topic residing on the margins of things to be solved.
2. Argument v. argument turned into ego v. ego thus making the thread increasingly poinless. Who knows a horse better - his illiterate peasant owner or philosopher who's expertize just happens to be the history of horses?
3. Give my Oscars! Put them in A6M3 slot! You know it makes sense
4. Give me my OscarIII
Sorry, but I just don' t have the strenght to continue with this...

_____________________________


AAR of my game vs Raver on my clan forum in croatian language (despite the language differences, no Ravers allowed)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 681
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 4:34:33 PM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 520
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

Well, well...merryXmas to you too then!¨
Now that The Thread has proven its glory, I can add some thaughts.
1. What a waste of my and everybody else's time this thread was. A pointless discussion on a topic residing on the margins of things to be solved.
2. Argument v. argument turned into ego v. ego thus making the thread increasingly poinless. Who knows a horse better - his illiterate peasant owner or philosopher who's expertize just happens to be the history of horses?
3. Give my Oscars! Put them in A6M3 slot! You know it makes sense
4. Give me my OscarIII
Sorry, but I just don' t have the strenght to continue with this...


A very Merry Christmas to all!

Honda, I would have to disagree you (and others) that this thread has been a pointless waste of time.
It finally shed some light on the actual effects of the ZB and has helped to form a body of opinion.
Look at the responses of some of the biggest critics of the ZB. They still don't particularly like it but on the other hand they see it as not the source of frustration it appeared to be. Why? Because of this thread and the posting of comparative effects has helped to shed light on this divisive issue (and the size of this thread shows how controversial this topic has been).
The question has never been "can the allies win with the ZB?" Rather it has always been "IS the ZB valid?" The "validity" has not been settled, but it's effect has been demonstrated as not as bad as anticipated - that alone has made this thread worth while.

Enquiry is a good thing.

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/22/2005 4:35:25 PM >

(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 682
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 4:54:52 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 678
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline
I don't think the thread has been pointless. There has been some very important information. Amongst all the other stuff

That is that Manoeuvre is PURELY DEFENSIVE. It does not help shooting down planes at all. Only in reducing the effect of 'hits' against the plane. This has important implications for the Zero Bonus and the Manoeuvre value of planes in general. In a single engagement the manoeuvre value does not effect the number of kills a Zero gets. It just makes more survive. Long term this means the zeros are going to preserve their elite pilots longer. But it clearly is NOT the reason why the US usually comes off worse in seemingly equal CV vs CV combats early in the war. It may mean that more zeros survive the encounters but it's NOT netting them more bomber and fighter kills in those engagements. That is not trivial knowledge.

Presumably the Manoeuvre 'defence' is based on the relative manoeuvre between the two planes but not necessarily. If it is an absolute value then increasing manoeuvre across the board would reduce combat bloodiness over all. Of course that is not the only problem with air combat as smaller engagements are not especially bloody but larger ones are.

Mdiehl has made his usual points. While I find a lot of his arguments convincing I don't think they did much here. This began as a practical thread. Should the Zero Bonus be removed in the CHS Mode? Big B did some very useful testing and many people added useful comments. But the naysayers from both sides could not resist hijacking the thread. CHS Mod just for allied Fanboys? Of little relevance even if correct. Weak and unrealistic Air model? We have all known this since the game was out. If the comments had been directed to how can we mask that by modding that would be relevant. Sadly that was not attempted or the aim of those posters

A big thank you to Big B and Andrew for their work and comments. Both being informative and courteous as usual. Lots of other good posts too. Shame on Oleg, TJ and Mdeihl Start your own threads for those kind of things. You will find many takers as you all raised reasonable and interesting questions. It's just that they not only added nothing to this one but stopped most of the good relevant points being discussed.

The excuse that if enough people see the light and moan something will change is fairly weak. Not in all cases but in this one. The developers have stated that they know there are serious issues with the Air Combat model with large numbers. But that they are NOT going to fix this. They would have to redo the whole air combat model and are not prepared to with a 'mature' product like WitP. This does not bode well for anyone wanting to get them to gut the system and redo it for any other real or imagined problems in the Air to Air model does it?

I still have hopes that they will address the large air combat. There is a simple fix that would not involve redoing the combat routines and reduce it hugely. It would get rid of the benefits of massing huge numbers of aircraft in one base and the Death Star phenomena. Both key problems in WitP that are not only not very realistic but make the play far more one dimentional and dull than necessary. Diminishing returns.

(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 683
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/22/2005 6:44:27 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Shame on Oleg, TJ and Mdeihl


Back at you with interest, troll. If you don't like the thread you don't have to participate.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Hoplosternum)
Post #: 684
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/24/2005 3:50:59 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline
I have wanted to say something on this thread for a while, I am staying at friends this weekend and have access for two days.

First, I think that the Zero Bonus is appropriate and if any thing it does not cover enough. I feel that it should be a fighter bonus and apply to all Japanese fighters. As to why, well here we go. At the start of the War in the Pacific the Allies were very dismissive of the Japanese abilities. The prevailing idea was that no country that was Asian could build an aircraft that would in any way compete with any Allied( or American ) aircraft. And if they did, then there was no way that one of those "little, near-sighted Japs" could actually be able to fly on good enough to shoot down one of ours. Everyone 'knew' that the Japanese were incapable of fighting in any meaningful manner. The only way they were able to do anything was through sneak attack and treachery.

In no way would I subscribe to the idea that our men were 'afraid' of the enemy. But there was a real racism in effect. The Allies were surprised by the abilities of both the men and machines that Japan fielded. Some people understood and knew that the Allies were in for a long hard fight but a surprising number of both grunts and leaders didn't.

I find it odd that someone above( TristenJohn? ) said something about the Zero Bonus not fitting into the 'mathamatical model' For one thing the 'mathamatical model' is not one line of code that returns a number but a long series of if-then-else checks. So one of those checks is the Zero bonus, it fits perfectly into the 'mathamatical model', and I think it fits just right. It allows the Japanese fighters to do a bit better( the effect is not great ) for the first 5 months, just like they did in real life. As the Allies gained experience they developed an awareness of just what Japanese fighter aircraft could and could not do. And as the Allies gained this awareness, the information spread throughout the air forces and tactics were developed to utilize the Allies aircraft strengths against the weaknesses of the Japanese aircraft.

One thing not brought up above is the idea that most fighter pilots are quite arrogant. This is just a part of what it takes, a fighter pilot has to believe that he is better that the other guy, it just goes with the territory. Unfortunatly, a lot of Allies pilots found out the hard way that they were probably about equal to the enemy and that their aircraft were not better in all cases.

BTW, this dismissive attitude by the Allies( top leadership, middle leadership, low leadership, and grunts alike) about an Asian countries abilities was not only about Japans aircraft, it extended to the Army and Navy. The Zero Bonus rule does not in anyway make a statement that the Allied aircraft were all ways inferior nor that the Allied pilots were inferior.



_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 685
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/24/2005 4:05:07 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 957
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
quote:

In no way would I subscribe to the idea that our men were 'afraid' of the enemy. But there was a real racism in effect. The Allies were surprised by the abilities of both the men and machines that Japan fielded. Some people understood and knew that the Allies were in for a long hard fight but a surprising number of both grunts and leaders didn't.


Well said Nomad. The Allies simply underestimate Japan and that one of the reasons for ZB.


_____________________________

Small Ship, Big War - the Voyages of the Hibiki
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1363103

Best AAR I've ever seen!!!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 686
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/24/2005 5:55:39 PM   
worr

 

Posts: 883
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 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?


Because some pilots were gifted before combat. Combat only unveilded those gifts.

Frankly, I find the experience ratings for allied pilots generally too low. A squadron really isn't effective until it gets above 70...so even a few pilots who are 80-90 don't effect this.





(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 687
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/24/2005 6:00:29 PM   
worr

 

Posts: 883
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline
I think you should keep the zero bonus.

What is illustrates to me is not the superiority of the zero, but the increase and outpacing of allied organization and domination of the war with regard to tactical strategy. The Imperial Japanese pilots never grew exponentially in tactics during the war....so the bonus represents really a substantial leap forward in allied organization than really any "zero bonus."

Worr, out

(in reply to j campbell)
Post #: 688
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/25/2005 2:58:20 AM   
Mogami


Posts: 12609
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I the the problem was more one along these lines.
1. Once the A6M2 is being flown by inexperianced pilots the Allied aircraft current in 1943 should shoot them down in droves (they do) however the 1942 Allied aircraft were shooting the A6M2 flown by experianced pilots down in droves. How to "fix" this.
a. Have 2 sets of stats for A6M2 (or allied aircraft)
b. Have a "bonus" that is time released.
Personally I've always felt the only reason Allied players don't shoot down A6M2 is because they throw their airgroups at them too fast. As Japan my A6M2 (and other aircraft) fly when they are rested and have high morale I ground them and rotate groups to keep fresh pilots flying missions. As Japan or Allies when I try to over use groups they
end up having a "bad mission" The Allies don't start the war kicking the crap out of the Japanese. I think having the AVG immune is wrong. (The AVG is a group that can have 72 fighters being immune to the bonus makes them the single most powerfull fighter group in the game I laugh at Allied players who don't rest it or split it up and send it to three different bases) The 72 plane AVG makes the base it is assigned to protect immune to Japanese bomber attack that have less then 150 A6M2 flying escort.

In any event the bonus is there because without it the Japanese can't maintain fighter control over the SRA past January. After it expires they can't maintain fighter control unless they have captured all the airfields in the area being contested which means they will lose control over China and Burma. (and slow pokes like me lose it in the South Pacific as well)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to worr)
Post #: 689
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/27/2005 5:14:13 PM   
Mogami


Posts: 12609
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Another example from actual PBEM game.
Jan 22 1943 total loss for war in air to air combat 425 Allied fighters 409 Japanese fighters. (it's a quiet game but proof there is no need for Allied player to suffer massive loss in air to air combat)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Mogami)
Post #: 690
Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   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? Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.230