Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
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  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/8/2005 11:00:59 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

Sorry, but reducing experiance will do nothing because on map training is too easy and to rewarding for anyone to remove his squadrons from training before they're in their 80s. So if 40-50 would be trained pilots and 60-70 experts how could you explain the mass production of aces with 90+?
It would be a good idea if it didn't get unbalanced by the game. If on map training wouldn't yield such results then exp reduction would make sence.
And give my my Oscar bonus!!!


Yeah, bombing dots is a problem. Yet another house rule. I suppose it would be pointless to do this as Allies because after what, 100 missions or something they are removed/rotated out of game. Japan pilots are not but a house rule vs dots does the trick.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 61
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/8/2005 11:04:49 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I think all the bonuses should be dropped, and all USN pilots be started at comparable EXP levels to the Japanese naval pilots. That would better capture the look and feel of ww2 from both sides for the first six months. Nagumo was unwilling to hang around to launch a second STRIKE on Pearl Harbor because in part USN CV were locus unknown. Had even ONE USN CV shown up at the right/wrong (point of view) moment you might have four Japanese carriers sunk on 8 December. Japan never conceived of going back to PH later in force because they knew the balance of land based airpower against them ALONE was enough to neuter Kido Butai if not destroy any Japanese CV TF outright.

From the USN side the early war was about watching for opportunities to hit the Japanese where they were vulnerable. Initially this meant avoiding Nagumo's forces because most of the time the US CVs were outnumbered 4:1, 2:1. In contrast, "4:3 with a USN land base" (Midway) seemed like an attractive invitation to the USN to "come out and play."

In WitP the Allied player is NUTS to take 4:3 odds of CVs favoring Japan unless the US player also has a complex of airbases that rival the Hawaiian Islands in direct support. In short, the "look and feel" element is wrong. IRL Halsey "looked and felt like there were circumstances where he was game to challenge the cream of the Japanese navy." In WitP the look and feel is "I better wait until odds insurmountably favor the Allies before I attempt to oppose." That's just wrong.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/8/2005 11:05:08 PM >


_____________________________

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 j campbell)
Post #: 62
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/8/2005 11:06:00 PM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 520
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline
Was the Zero Bonus with WitP from it's conception? or was there a debate about it like this when the game first came out/nearing completion?


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 63
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/8/2005 11:09:07 PM   
Black Mamba 1942


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mc3744

I'm a bit late, but here are my two cents.

The way I see it the Zero bonus should be extended to the other Japanese fighters, but the duration should be reduced.
By the end of March it should be over, maybe even by the end of February.

Allow Japan a shock start on all fronts. But the shock cannot last 6 months, that's way too long.


I concur mc3744.

I've "ghosted" this forum for awhile now.

Those who say this is Allied Fanboy hooya is nonsense.
If anything, GG's design of "his" interpretation of 1942 in the Pacific, has the Allies incompetence hardcoded into the game. Adding an extra bonus in for the Japanese only makes it more outrageous.

Adding Oscar's and reducing the time is a fair tradeoff.

Hey, but what do I know?
I'm a rookie compared to the experienced grognards on this forum.


(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 64
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/8/2005 11:09:32 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Was the Zero Bonus with WitP from it's conception? or was there a debate about it like this when the game first came out/nearing completion?




Like other stuff this bonus came from older game designs. For some reason old game designs seem to have made quite an impression on Gary G.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 65
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/8/2005 11:09:59 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2206
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
It has been in from the start.

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 66
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/8/2005 11:11:04 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

Had even ONE USN CV shown up at the right/wrong (point of view) moment you might have four Japanese carriers sunk on 8 December. Japan never conceived of going back to PH later in force because they knew the balance of land based airpower against them ALONE was enough to neuter Kido Butai if not destroy any Japanese CV TF outright.

mdiehl


What? Are you saying the Japanese were aware that their CAP was nowhere near UBER!

_____________________________





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 #: 67
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/8/2005 11:52:25 PM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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...


Is this true, the slot for the A6M3 also is eligible for the Zero bonus?

(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 68
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 12:05:47 AM   
j campbell


Posts: 283
Joined: 1/20/2001
From: Grosse Pointe, MI
Status: offline
Ron,
If i recall correctly- American CAP is just as UBER. Thankfully though, there are still hardcore wargamer programmers s left so that we can have our niche products-WiTP is not exactly Halo 2 if you know what I mean. The product is not perfect but it s the best game covering the war from 1941-1945 that i have played. We need to test out this exp diff and see hwo the game would play out. perhaps it would have the same effect as the zero bonus.

Some of those old wargames are still better than the ones they produce today- Eastfront from Columbia games circa 1990 is still the best East Front wargame there is-although L2 design does a fantastic job with its remakes- Streets of Stalingrad for example.




_____________________________

"the willow branch but bends beneath the snow"

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 69
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 12:12:25 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14775
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Adding Oscar's and reducing the time is a fair tradeoff.



The duration is in the code and can only be changed in a patch. There are 2 slots in the database hard-coded to get the bonus, and the bonus lasts 5 months (+5,+4,+3,+2,+1).

The only changes the modders can make to zero bonus is to move plane models between slots, thereby changing which planes get the bonus: 2 models, 1 model, or none (if both hard-coded slots are left empty).

(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)
Post #: 70
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 12:15:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: j campbell

Ron,
If i recall correctly- American CAP is just as UBER. Thankfully though, there are still hardcore wargamer programmers s left so that we can have our niche products-WiTP is not exactly Halo 2 if you know what I mean. The product is not perfect but it s the best game covering the war from 1941-1945 that i have played. We need to test out this exp diff and see hwo the game would play out. perhaps it would have the same effect as the zero bonus.

Some of those old wargames are still better than the ones they produce today- Eastfront from Columbia games circa 1990 is still the best East Front wargame there is-although L2 design does a fantastic job with its remakes- Streets of Stalingrad for example.





Any CAP is uber in WITP due to questionable design mechanics. Japanese CAP is more so because they did not have fighter direction like the Allies did (yet do not get penalized). The Japanese also benefit from unwarranted abilities to launch coordinated strikes vs naval targets while the Allies don't. Nobody should have this ability in my opinion yet Japan does.

The comment about old game designs was made to point out that many design features and assumptions are based on previous designer assumptions and bias. Old game designs have a nasty habit of being used as historical fact despite being inaccurate and/or incomplete.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to j campbell)
Post #: 71
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 12:49:33 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Is this true, the slot for the A6M3 also is eligible for the Zero bonus?


IIRC, the bonus is gone(or nearly so) by the time the A6M3 is available so for all intents and purposes, it doens't benefit from it (and shouldn't).

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

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 72
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 4:44:08 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

You said it! IRL, the Allies probably had a slight advantage once the obsolete aircraft were eliminated, but only because it's more difficult to FORCE a "turning contest" on an opponant than a "zoom and boom" type affair. Past the first 3 months, I'd say something like a 55-45 edge (maybe less, depending on a lot of other factors) to the Allies.


There's no quantitative basis to support the existence of the "Zero bonus." The problem wasn't "trying to turn with the Zero/Oscar" which was something that any allied a/c of the day could win at if the IAS was above 290 mph. The problem was trying to turn with the Zero at low IAS. The Zero was only "more manueverable" in a short part of the Allie'd a/cs flight envelope.

Heck at 10,000 feet and IAS above 280, the P-39 was a much better plane.

I think part of the myth here stems from the fact that the primary polits who initially tried to out-turn the Zero were UK veterans of the BoB flying Hurricanes. This tactic (turning) was successfully employed against the Luftwaffe ME-109s.

quote:

But early on, everybody but Chenault seems to have been a victim of their own prejudices that "those funny little Mr Moto's in their coke bottle glasses" couldn't possibly be as good as I am---and their planes must also be inferior copies of Western designs.


The funny thing is that if you look at anything other than propaganda films you don't find allied pilots or intel offering that assessment. Not even in 1941. Instead you find lots of Allied pilots with no particular information about the Japanese at all, and Allied pilots (like Thach and Flatley) who in 1941 long before the US entered the war were already studying the problem of how to defeat a more maneuverable aircraft.

quote:

The learning curve was steep and costly, which is why I favor leaving in the "bonus" for 3 months.


I doubt that it was as costly as WitP and UV make it out to be. I suspect that the learning curve problem if correctly modeled would allow the IJN/IJA to sustain about a 1.4:1 kill ratio over all Allied army pilots for the first three months of the war. Vs USN naval pilots the assumption from 7 December 1941 should be parity.

quote:

Or maybe instead of giving the Japanese a "bonus", we should give all starting and arriving Allied air units a 30-day "stupidity" modifier (neg) while they learned the truth for themselves.


Sounds like the same thing as the Zero bonus with equal absence of justification and phrased in a way that insults the reputations of the allied pilots of the day.



MDIEHL One point. All of your observations on Allied Pilots/Planes seems to be based on the US Navy Experiance---but the US Navy had very little involvement in the first 3 months of the war. The point of view that matters is that of the RAF, the RAAF, the Dutch, and the USAAFE. You may very well be right regarding the experiance levels and tactics of the USN's Pilots..., but they weren't the ones fighting in SE Asia. I'm accused on this forum of being an "Allied Fan-Boy", but I can still see justification for some sort of Japanese "bonus" in the opening phases of the campaign. That it's effects can be made more accurate I wouldn't argue with you, but the "shock" of the Japanese actually being competant is also well documented.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 73
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 5:13:35 AM   
Demosthenes


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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

MDIEHL One point. All of your observations on Allied Pilots/Planes seems to be based on the US Navy Experiance---but the US Navy had very little involvement in the first 3 months of the war. The point of view that matters is that of the RAF, the RAAF, the Dutch, and the USAAFE. You may very well be right regarding the experiance levels and tactics of the USN's Pilots..., but they weren't the ones fighting in SE Asia. I'm accused on this forum of being an "Allied Fan-Boy", but I can still see justification for some sort of Japanese "bonus" in the opening phases of the campaign. That it's effects can be made more accurate I wouldn't argue with you, but the "shock" of the Japanese actually being competant is also well documented.


In way you have cut to the point of the matter, the flyers facing the Japanese in the first months of the war were - The British, The Dutch, The AVG, and USAFFE.

These pilots fought almost 'exclusively against Oscar KI 43 I's and Nate KI 27's.

Their experience was based on the astonishing fact that the Japanese actually could build a a decent aircraft - and worse yet, fly compitently.

Now, throw in the fact that allied pilots were:
A) almost always outnumbered
B) all too often attacked on the ground or just taking off and therefore at extreme disadvantage (look at the last series of Middle Eastern Wars)
C) almost always lacking the most rudimentary early warning system

It is no wonder that the allies were shocked that theses 'little yellow men' could fight well.
Those were the circumstances of the Zero Myth of invincibility. Note that in reality almost no A6M aircraft were involved in these affairs at all.

THAT is why a Zero Bonus is as absurd as it is unhistorical. And I forgot to mention again that recent scholarship has shown again that allied pilots (including the much belittled Brewster Buffalo pilots) still managed to exrtract about a 1 to 1 kill ratio with their Japanese opponents.

Now on what basis is the 'Zero Bonus' warranted?

Unless of course it's simply a way to let the Japanese player win cheaply in the first six months of the war. (fine also - but not satisfying to players looking for the ultimate simulation of the Pacific War).

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/9/2005 5:14:27 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 74
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 5:21:01 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

Now on what basis is the 'Zero Bonus' warranted?

Unless of course it's simply a way to let the Japanese player win cheaply in the first six months of the war. (fine also - but not satisfying to players looking for the ultimate simulation of the Pacific War).

Demosthenes


Well now. Lookee here. We have another fraternity brother! Welcome to the House of Grog.



_____________________________





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

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 75
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 5:25:19 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6566
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
In way you have cut to the point of the matter


Great post (although one who does not mix metaphors tends to cut to the "heart," and "get" to the point, of the matter).

"Since ... it is our fortune to be still debating a point on which they have often spoken before, I can safely claim your indulgence. ... For if in the past their advice had been sound, there would be no need for deliberation today."

_____________________________

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 Demosthenes)
Post #: 76
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 5:27:05 AM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

Now on what basis is the 'Zero Bonus' warranted?

Unless of course it's simply a way to let the Japanese player win cheaply in the first six months of the war. (fine also - but not satisfying to players looking for the ultimate simulation of the Pacific War).

Demosthenes


Well now. Lookee here. We have another fraternity brother! Welcome to the House of Grog.




Um, thank you brother Ron

Also one other point I would like to make since no one else has...
The Japanse Air Force never exactly 'cleared the skys of allied air forces' so much as the Japanese Army took the airbases that the allies operated out of.
That is why in the campaigns in SE Asia allied air retreated. Allied air never relinquished the air battle.


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 77
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 6:11:12 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

MDIEHL One point. All of your observations on Allied Pilots/Planes seems to be based on the US Navy Experiance---but the US Navy had very little involvement in the first 3 months of the war.


If the simulation posited that the RAF/RAAF/USAAFFE pilots suffered a kind of excessive willingness to engage in turning combats with A6Ms I'd (1) wonder about the veracity of the assumption, and (b) probably not object if the effect was both weak and brief.

WitPs problem is that IJN pilots are credited with being both more experienced and having a "special death ray" (in the zero bonus) that under no circumstances is warranted historically.

So were there a "special death ray" bonus it should not apply to engagements between any IJN pilots and USN pilots. Moreover, USN pilots should have the same EXP levels on average than the IJN ones, because EXP abstracts air time, experience, and also doctrine, tactics, and training in important skills like deflection shooting.

I'd doubt the validity of the Zero bonus even against army pilots though, because so much of the "edge" gleaned in the Burma/Malaya/Borneo theater seems a product of factors like the initial japanese logistical advantage, lack of allied preparation, replacement parts &c.

Don't get me wrong. Allied pilots were impressed with the Zeke. But they weren't particularly in fear of it. And after Pearl Harbor no one doubted their ability to do the job.

quote:

I'm accused on this forum of being an "Allied Fan-Boy", but I can still see justification for some sort of Japanese "bonus" in the opening phases of the campaign. That it's effects can be made more accurate I wouldn't argue with you, but the "shock" of the Japanese actually being competant is also well documented.


Outside of Malaya I don't see in histories that are really detailed all the shock that is supposed to be attributed to the allies. In Indonesia one P-40 group was winning, until they were bounced in their landing pattern. I read that action a while ago. Wish I could recall the source. And then... no more P-40s for Indonesia. Its hard to get a P-40 to last long without spare parts. So if you're flying a crate that needs repair you're already in a bad position. Much worse to be in a beater and in your landing circle when the Zekes arrive. Which they could do, without warning, easily enough because the Zekes could strike a long ways and because in most of the MBI theater radar was nonexistent.

In most of the other brief skirmishes culminating in the last retreat to Australia you see the Allies in shock of Japanese logistical preparation and the suddeness of their advance everywhere. But not in shock or awe of Japanese pilots. Instead you see a bunch of Allied fighters trying to slow the Japanese advance even when at times it had overtaken them, with front lines so fluid that Allied logistics went from shoestring to nonexistent in many places overnight.

In short it had less to do with Japanese pilots or Allied fear or shock or awe than it did good Japanese operational planning, good logistics, and the success of bliztkrieg war (keeping the Allies reeling so that they could not organize a defense until they'd fallen back to Australia in the south and Burma in the northwest).

_____________________________

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 Demosthenes)
Post #: 78
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 6:18:06 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
And lets be clear about the shock of discovery encountered by the Japanese as well. Their stereotype assumed that all American pilots would be out of shape and talentless because in thier view the American character was more suited to dancing and hollywood movies than to martial ability. Propaganda will do that to you.

Japanese pilots were in awe of the b17 and the shock of discovering what the tail gunner could do to a Zeke or Oscar pressing close engagement was the last thought that entered the minds of some of Sakai's early war comrades at arms.

Sabai himself learned the hard way that SBDs <> TBDs.

And all the Japanese pilots had alot to learn about deflection shooting from USN pilots. One common error of a Japanese pilot was to overtake a wildcat, make a shooting run, score a couple of hits, and then execute the start of a pull through to chandelle while in range of the Wildcat's guns. The idea was that the radical nature of the maneuver and high angle of deflection meant that the zeke pilot was safe. That too was often the last thought that entered a Zero pilot's mind. USMC and USN pilots were the best trained deflection shooters in the PTO.

_____________________________

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 mdiehl)
Post #: 79
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 6:46:24 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4137
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline
Aahhh the Zero Bonus again, too bad we're just debating CHS.

Isn't that thing ever going away? (sorry guys, I'm not a fan of it)

Oh well, continue discussing - I have my popcorn, this is fun reading

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 80
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 8:35:58 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14775
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yeah, bombing dots is a problem.


Bombing dot bases is not the issue. Airfield and Port missions seem only to yield up to a certain level of experience rating. However, Ground Attack missions will take a squadron right into the mid 90's (given enough time - actually 96 is the highest I've seen). That's why I say that Japan and to a lesser extent UK have opportunity for that kind of on-map 'training'. Japan isolates lots of Allied ground forces in the early going.

USA lacks the chance to carry out these kind of training missions until later in the war. Lowering pilot quality all around, even worse lowering USA pilot quiality even more than lowering other nations, would be a huge change with consequences lasting well beyond the first few months of the game.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 81
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 8:53:01 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

In way you have cut to the point of the matter, the flyers facing the Japanese in the first months of the war were - The British, The Dutch, The AVG, and USAFFE.

These pilots fought almost 'exclusively against Oscar KI 43 I's and Nate KI 27's.


The Dutch and USAAFE faced the Zero almost exclusively. China, Burma and Malaya were the proud recipients of the Oscar's attention. basically, where the Japanese Army was, the Oscar was. Were the IJN was, so was the Zero.

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

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 82
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 12:18:16 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
From what Ive read about the early war period, any fighter that had a meatball on the side was a "Zero" to allied pilots (especially Oscars). Much the same as any shell lobbed at allied troops in Europe was an "88".

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 83
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 12:42:32 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
So some like the Zero bonus and some don't. Having read all of the posts I am still leaning towards recommending that it be removed and replaced with some sort of experience adjustment. I have now seen some opinions that reduced experience will be overcome quickly, at least quicker than the Zero bonus, and other opinions saying that its effects would be more far reaching, at least for the Allies.

There is already a fairly large disparity between the experience of the Allied and Japanese pilots, with the exception of USN and AVG pilots, so any widening of that gap would have to be modest.

In the end, I think the only way to be sure how such a change would affect the game would be to try it and see. As to whether this gets added to CHS - not sure. I need to find out what some of the other CHS contributors think...

Andrew

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 84
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 12:55:47 PM   
doktorblood


Posts: 647
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think all the bonuses should be dropped, and all USN pilots be started at comparable EXP levels to the Japanese naval pilots. That would better capture the look and feel of ww2 from both sides for the first six months. Nagumo was unwilling to hang around to launch a second STRIKE on Pearl Harbor because in part USN CV were locus unknown. Had even ONE USN CV shown up at the right/wrong (point of view) moment you might have four Japanese carriers sunk on 8 December. Japan never conceived of going back to PH later in force because they knew the balance of land based airpower against them ALONE was enough to neuter Kido Butai if not destroy any Japanese CV TF outright.

From the USN side the early war was about watching for opportunities to hit the Japanese where they were vulnerable. Initially this meant avoiding Nagumo's forces because most of the time the US CVs were outnumbered 4:1, 2:1. In contrast, "4:3 with a USN land base" (Midway) seemed like an attractive invitation to the USN to "come out and play."

In WitP the Allied player is NUTS to take 4:3 odds of CVs favoring Japan unless the US player also has a complex of airbases that rival the Hawaiian Islands in direct support. In short, the "look and feel" element is wrong. IRL Halsey "looked and felt like there were circumstances where he was game to challenge the cream of the Japanese navy." In WitP the look and feel is "I better wait until odds insurmountably favor the Allies before I attempt to oppose." That's just wrong.



Guess What? USN CV groups already do start out at experience comparable to Jap carrier groups. A tad lower than Jap CVs 1-4 but a tad higher than Shokaku, Zuikaku and a lot higher than Jap CVLs.

The Zero bonus does make the the KB practically bulletproof in the first 2 or 3 months and should probably be done away with and the airplane data adjusted properly instead.

I don't like the idea of reducing Allied experience further. Overall, Jap air power already has a significant experience advantage. I do think that Jap experience levels erode too quickly though and replacements should be bumped up a bit.





_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 85
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 1:50:48 PM   
vonSchnitter


Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline
Well,

dunno, but my understanding is, that the Zero Bonus is a more or less crude „vehicle“ to cover a number of factors in an air war, not accounted for by the game engine. Call it a „generalization“ or a „simplification“.

Anyway. For the first 6 to 12 months the Japanese are on the offensive, while the allies are either defending or retreating. And fighting a defensive air war is quite a different animal than being on the attack.
In general, the defender has a much bigger problem than the attacker. (Even though a basic understanding of how to use bombers in a attack is essential as well – disregarding the need for fighter escort – like the AAF and to some extend the RAF did – does not help).
Looking at the „Battle of Britain“ reveals (imho), that it was not the quality of the airplanes nor the bravery and skill of the „few“ which won it for the RAF. It was a - for the time - very modern and highly integrated fighter control system including radar, the observer corps and a elaborated radio system, which enabled the ground commanders to direct the fighters to the raids and give them a chance to attack out of a favourable position.

Where these ground control systems existed in the Pacific, a defensive could be successful (like the AVG) or would fail completely – like in the PI or PH for that matter. That is to say, while Chennault managed to organize a – rudimentary – oberserver and ground control system giving his pilots a chance to be „there“ at the right time and the right place, the Philipines and most other places had non of it.
Later on the Japanese faced the same problem – and as soon as the allies had the fighters to escort the bomber strikes (plus better aircraft and better trained pilots) the Japanes got very much disadvantaged,

That is to say: In a defensive air war it is much more a tactical and/or doctrinal issue than a technical or training one.

To underline my point: There is an early 1942 AAF manual on aircraft recognition (War Department Basic Field Manual, FM 30-38, Military Intelligence. Identification of Japanese Aircraft, March 16, 1942. ) with an almost blank page for the „Zero“ (wich wasnt called that way). What the manual tells is , that the Japanese pilots characteristically used the Zero as a „boom and zoom“ fighter, i.e. using an altitude/speed advantage against the allied aircraft trying to intercept. Which in the light of the above says more about a tactical situation, than the performance characteristics of the AC.

In this light the „Zero Bonus“ makes some sense as far as land combats go. And should probaly include the Oscar or even Nates and Claudes. Unless something else can be devised to „factor in“ on the offensive/defensive problem. Like presense or absense of Air Hqs and things like that ?

While I think, the „Zero Bonus“ does make some sense within the game as it is now for the „land combat“, I am not sure about carrier based air combat – or land based AC attacking a carrier TF for that matter.

As far as relative experience levels go, lets not forget that the AAF was just gearing up for a very rapid expansion at the outbreak of war and had any amount of problems getting pilots and planes. Many of the AAF pilots going to the Pacific where green as grass just out of training with very limited (if any) flying hours on the combat types. And a good number had never had any shooting training till they joined their squadrons.

As to relative performance of allied planes versus the Zero: Yes there was some flight testing done with captured Zeros, either in the „field“ and by NACA. The interesting part of the NACA report was, that only the P-39 finished all the tests (while for instance the P-40 developed mechanical trouble) – and the test concluded, that the P-39 could combat the Zero successfully, given the right circumstances. Trouble was, the pilots flying the bird did for the most part not believe in it and used to be more concerned with some of the stability and stall charactersitics of this plane.
Someone in this thread has quoted the numbers these tests indicate as best suited to take on the Zero. A close look at them reveals, that the aircraft types would need a very early warning to get to the indicated altitudes and airspeeds. Which in a way underlines my argument.

Unless a more „detailed“ implementation of offensive/defensive air combat can be found and implemented, I would rather like to keep the „Zero Bonus“, extend it to the other Japanese fighters and to compensate for the overall effect by reducing the experience/morale levels of the Japanese second line air units (like the units in Japan itself) to much lower levels – probably levels slightly higher than those „Training“ Chuties (SP?).

Just my 2c.
Cheers





_____________________________



Remember that the first law of motion is to look where you're going. A man with a stiff neck has no place in an airplane.
Technical Manual No. 1-210, Elementary Flying, War Department, Washington,

(in reply to doktorblood)
Post #: 86
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 1:54:32 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3915
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
Here's my 2 cents.

The Zero bonus should be fleeting. It should extend to other IJN/IJA fighters as well.
It should also apply to the AVG and USN carrier based fighters. It would be a +3 to the manuever rating of the a/c involved (there might be . It ought to work like this:
For each A2A battle which occurs, there ought to be a check for applicability. The probability of it applying on Dec 7 1941 would be 99%. The next day the probability would be 98...the day after that 97%...and so on until the probability reaches 0% on the 100th day.

In A2A combat involving the AVG/US carrier fighters the applicability check would be made by both sides representing the use of experimental tactics that do (or do not work) in any given combat. It would be a matter of luck in such combat situations whether just one or both sides get the bonus.

All pilot experience levels of all pilots of all types of a/c should be lowered 10 pts or so. The IJN had better aerial torpedos and better torpedo planes (initially) but practicing torpedo drops against a weaving target surrounded by 10 ships belching fire directed at one's person was not part of any pilot training program in the IJN. IMHO bombing/torpedo attacks against ships are too accurate as well. For the initial attack on PH there maybe ought to be a "bombing bonus" for the IJN representing the fact that the US ships were not initially at Condition Zebra (modified) and their AA batteries were not manned. BTW the IJN had no similar system of prioritizing compartment access to use during combat which contributed to many of their damage control failures throughout the war.

I recognize that the only way any of this could come to pass would be through re-coding but what the heck. It felt good to say (type) it.

(in reply to doktorblood)
Post #: 87
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 3:23:49 PM   
Marten


Posts: 336
Joined: 12/14/2004
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline
and my 2 cents (a bit OT)
every newly introduced plane should have its ratings lowered for a period of month or two. this will show the need to train and adjust pilots to the different flight characteristics of the new plane.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 88
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 4:02:01 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22525
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marten

and my 2 cents (a bit OT)
every newly introduced plane should have its ratings lowered for a period of month or two. this will show the need to train and adjust pilots to the different flight characteristics of the new plane.


Actually, this is sort of modelled. They do it by not having ANY of the particular aircraft available for some months after it is introduced - thus lowering its stats to zero in every category (at least for the Allies). Witness the P-38 - available in real life before the war. Not available in regular game until October 1942 (although CHS does correct this somewhat). Other aircraft i've looked at also seem to have this feature. I haven't studied the Japanese situation, but it is not analagous since the Japanese player has research that can affect arrival times.

(in reply to Marten)
Post #: 89
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 6:05:52 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I've heard some wtf? ideas here but none strikes me as less well supported than the idea that the "Zero Bonus" imagined as it is should extend to Nates and Claudes.

The Claudes had a horrible combat record against first line opposition. It was the one plane in the Japanese naval arsenal that could make the Brewster Buffalo look like a great fighter. Claudes were only used successfully by the IJN against Russian biplanes (Polikaprov I-15s) flown by Italian-trained Chinese pilots in 1937. Top speed (with enough time to ramp that whopping 640 HP engine up to full bore) was 270 mph.

The Nates were scarcely better. Fixed-landing-gear underpowered Zekes. Think "Val" and you've got something close to the performance characteristics of the Nate. Any F4F, P-39, P-36, P-40, Hurricane or Spit could routinely eat the Nate's lunch. And did.

The loaded Ki-27 weighed 85% of the loaded weight of a P-36 but despite that was 30 mph slower, armed with two rifle caliber popguns, and could be outmaneuvered by most allied a/c at almost any airpseed owing to the high drage induced by its fixed landing gear.

There should be no zero bonus on the grounds of "having the initiative" unless you will extend an "Allied bonus" to all Allied aircraft starting in June 1942. This of course would be absurd because in any game "the initiative" is a post-hoc assessment of which player is controlling the game (which in theory ought to be anyone).



< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/9/2005 6:11:57 PM >


_____________________________

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 Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.148