Matrix Games Forums

Hell 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 & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

OT How close did those B17s get at Midway

 
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 >> OT How close did those B17s get at Midway Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
OT How close did those B17s get at Midway - 12/9/2005 10:27:48 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Here is a Japanese intel estimate and aar of the battle of Midway that include near the end a diagram of attacks on Japanese ships near the end. Look at the pattern bombing attacks from "bombers" (aka level bombers, the log distinguishes between bombers, torp bombers, and dive bombers). Some of those bomb clusters must be B17 attacks.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/special/midway.htm

_____________________________

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 #: 121
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 10:31:19 PM   
rtrapasso


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

There's no disputing that the IJN aerial torpedo was better than the USN one.


This was true at the beginning of the war. By the end of the war, the USN had what has been called the best and most reliable aerial torpedo of the war. They also used the same torp on PTs (the debugged aerial torpedo).

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 122
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 10:37:25 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

This was true at the beginning of the war. By the end of the war, the USN had what has been called the best and most reliable aerial torpedo of the war. They also used the same torp on PTs (the debugged aerial torpedo).


Yeah. Sorry I wasn't clear about the matter. I was speaking for the context of the early war in which things like "superior Japanese" XYZ are presumed to warrant special treatment in the sim.

_____________________________

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 rtrapasso)
Post #: 123
RE: OT How close did those B17s get at Midway - 12/9/2005 10:45:27 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14759
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/special/midway.htm


A few interesting snippets regarding training before the operation:

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

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

"During the middle part of May, mock torpedo attacks were carried out, with judges from the Yokosuka Air Group acting as referees. The records during these tests were so disappointing that some were moved to comment that it was almost a mystery how men with such poor ability could have obtained such brilliant results as they had in the Coral Sea."


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 124
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 10:51:41 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Yes--Those 70 planes were lost--mainly to Anti-Aircraft Fire--USS South Dakota--YES??!! Feindeer's observation is dead-on.

I think we shall have to agree on disagreeing. I do not buy many of your points as you mine.

Do not play CHS and consider WitP a GAME and not real history. The argument we have had is over the war itself and not the game. I love debates like this but WitP is a fantastic game. It can NEVER achieve the true results from history. As Ron and Adm Dadman state, the problems are there (uber CAP for instance and having TOO leathal of A2A) but as far as anything else ever done, this is as good as it gets.

It can be tweaked and tweaked but nothing will ever make it perfect. I greatly appreciate the modders who have done so much to improve the map, come up with CHS, plane/ship art and numerous other changes. Does it improve the GAME--probably yes--but nothing will ever be perfect.

Leave the bonus, drop XP levels in appropriate areas, and shift Oscar to A3 spot.

My .02! Got to get to class.
John

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 125
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 10:57:23 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
WitP also purports to be about WW2 in the PTO on Planet Earth and to put the players in something approximating the drivers' seats of their historical counterparts. Therefore:

1. Eliminate the Zero bonus entirely.
2. Increase average USN and USMC EXP by 5-10 points.
3. Tweak the combat model so that Japanese aircraft MVR are lower in the first combat round if the engagement does not start where the Japanese get the "bounce." This would have the proper simulation effect of giving the initial advantage to the Allies in a high-speed meeting engagement (in which circumstances most Allied a/c were more maneuverable than most Japanese a/c). Subsequent combat rounds could be presumed to burn energy, resulting in circumstances where the A6M could employ its superior low speed climb, acceleration, and turn rates, so the actual MVR of the Japanese planes could be used.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/9/2005 10:58:20 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 John 3rd)
Post #: 126
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 10:59:15 PM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 520
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline
Yes, this has been fun to debate. I don't currently play CHS either, just stock scen 16 or my own minor mod.

The real point for me has been simply this - It's too late to do anything about the Zero Bonus in WitP, so this is as close as I can get to influencing that decision (and I will probably want to give CHS a try in the future).

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 127
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/9/2005 11:01:03 PM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

WitP also purports to be about WW2 in the PTO on Planet Earth and to put the players in something approximating the drivers' seats of their historical counterparts. Therefore:

1. Eliminate the Zero bonus entirely.
2. Increase average USN and USMC EXP by 5-10 points.
3. Tweak the combat model so that Japanese aircraft MVR are lower in the first combat round if the engagement does not start where the
Japanese get the "bounce." This would have the proper simulation effect of giving the initial advantage to the Allies in a high-speed meeting engagement (in which circumstances most Allied a/c were more maneuverable than most Japanese a/c). Subsequent combat rounds could be presumed to burn energy, resulting in circumstances where the A6M could employ its superior low speed climb, acceleration, and turn rates, so the actual MVR of the Japanese planes could be used.


Hmm, interesting thought on air combat - might make everyone happy

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 128
RE: OT How close did those B17s get at Midway - 12/9/2005 11:02:56 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2206
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
Interesting debate most of which I am going to stay out of.

One thing John 3rd said that caught my eye on the previous page: "don't mistake experience for doctrine."

Though I think this is a wise thing to say WitP actually does just that.

Allied forces got better during the war partly because of experience but mostly because they improved doctrine. There is an XP effect in WitP but no doctrine effect, the closest thing we get to improving doctrine is experience.

So unfortunately we kind of have to mistake experience for doctrine, at least in this context.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 129
RE: OT How close did those B17s get at Midway - 12/9/2005 11:14:12 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 13994
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Tom,

I think you can include doctrine in the experience factor, to some extent. Many of the Allied reinforcement air units enter the game with increased experience over time. (I don't have the manual in front of me currently, so I can't give details.) Much of this increase is increased training, but that training includes changes in doctrine learned at the expense of the early-war pilots.

Edit: Duh, I just restated what you wrote. I'm going to get another cup of coffee.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 130
RE: OT How close did those B17s get at Midway - 12/9/2005 11:22:34 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4137
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline
I don't understand, what happens now...is it over?

I was just getting another bag of popcorn

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 131
RE: OT How close did those B17s get at Midway - 12/9/2005 11:35:17 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I would prefer a beer after gathering this batch of papers!

One of the things I love in this Forum is the experience and wide-range of backgrounds that people bring to the table. Passionate debate is a lot of fun to watch and participate in!

Tom and Mike are right as to increasing experience on the Allied side reflecting training and doctrine shifts. Decreasing Japanese experience simply reflects the poor state of pilot training.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 132
RE: OT How close did those B17s get at Midway - 12/10/2005 12:43:26 AM   
Honda


Posts: 952
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline
In the beggining there was the Zero bonus
As time passed it got lower and GG saw it was good
Then there was the A2A model
Some called it crappy and rightfully so
It was too bloody and ubercappy
As time passed Allies got better and better
It was the doctrine and numbers
But some said WitP didn't simulate it
IT DOES!!!
Speed is the winner over maneuverabilty 4 times out of 5!!! You don't need doctrine for that, it's already in the game. Zero bonus only aleviates that in first few months. A2A model already considers every pilot in the game using Allied tactics!
Who wins this:

plane spd mvr exp

Plane1 380 30 60
Plane2 320 37 60

I think we all know...
And that's the story of WitP. You have Jap planes with good mvr and Allied with superior speed. To add to the "doctrine" effect, superior speed gives you superior mvr.


< Message edited by Honda -- 12/10/2005 12:44:27 AM >


_____________________________


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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 133
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 1:02:07 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14759
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Yes--Those 70 planes were lost--mainly to Anti-Aircraft Fire--USS South Dakota--YES??!!



South Dakota claimed 24 IIRC. Those claims have been questioned. See Battleship at War, Ivan Musicant.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 134
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 1:43:12 AM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 520
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline
My final thought on The Zero Bonus,

To be fair and accurate there should never have been a Zero bonus, however there probably should have been an Airfield Attack Bonus from Dec 41, to maybe Feb - Apr 42.

This bonus should have been applied to all allied airfields (outside of China) that were unequipped with radar (almost all of them I suppose).
Furthermore this should have applied to ALL attacking Japanese aircraft, and for fighters they would get an automatic bounce, while perhaps the allies would need a die roll to see what portion of their CAP got off the ground.

I know this is not the case and is therefore a bit of pointless wishful thinking - but I feel it would have much better represented what happened and why.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 135
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 2:38:13 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I forgot to add the point mentioned earlier that the replacement pool should be increased to more reasonable amounts. I believe the proposal was:

IJ Army Pilots 40/Month
IJ Navy Pilots 25/Month

That seems slightly more reasonable to me.




This is funny. THe designers originally wanted NO trained pilots for the Japanese - all training was going to have to be "on the map". Someone said "oh lets be nice and give them some" and prevailed (probably to make the AI work, actually).


And that is why we have to micromanage this... Why in the hell have they not proposed a training system with something like the choose for Japan to have each month:
_ 10 pilots at 70 exp
_ 20 pilots of 60 exp
_ 40 pilots at 50 exp
_ 80 pilots at 40 exp
and so on...

Probably because we can train on the map... I don't like it also. Units set on training 90% win 2-4 exp per month (that is for Japanese starting at 35-40), while those ordered to bombard some starving troops will win more each week ! Actually training is more efficient to learn than operations. The RAF in the late war even opened schools for pilots having allready done a full turn of operations. As one said "Before I though I was a good shot and probably hit nothing at all, than I knew I was bad but learned to hit anyway."

If all you had to do was to set your unit as training X% in a Japanese base and they will 5-10 exp a month (below 50) and then 3-5 above 50, and then 1-2 above 70 (I believe than in the current model training above 60 on the map is impossible), that will just be "fire and forget". As for operations I will only give pilots a chance to gain experience if they are the target, not the shooters. So no more full units at 90+ exp.

Back to the Zero bonus, here is the result of the battles over Java in February 1942. The losses shown are the real ones, claims were far above them. Note the number of Zeroes involved, the Tainan Kokutai and 3rd Kokutai were used here, in WITP they will have 117 Zeroes... I have also only listed the losses in the air, Zeroes destroyed tens of aircraft on the ground by strafing without loss to AA (in fact, one was lost to AA but it was while strafing an arounred car on Borneo and it is not shown there). Also the long-range Zeroes were able to shot down a number of Allied bombers, floatplanes and transports over Java. Both these features are unavailable in WITP as AA is much too effective against strafing fighters, that are themselves way too much ineffective, and sweep or raids will only meet CAP and nothing else.

2/Feb/42 : 17 Zeroes sent : no loss, 1 B-18 shot down over Soerabaja
3/Feb/42 : 44 Zeroes sent : 4 losses, 6 CW-21B, 5 Hawks, 2 B-17, 2 Catalinas, 1 P-40 and 1 trainer shot down over Java
5/Feb/42: 47 Zeroes sent : no loss, 5 P-40E, 2 Hawks, 2 Catalina, 1 CW-21, 1 trainer shot down
8/feb/42: 13 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 B-17 shot down
9/Feb/42: 13 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 Brewsters, 2 Glenn Martins shot down
18/feb/42: 23 Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 C-XIW shot down
19/feb/42: 23 Zeroes sent: 1 loss, 7 P-40E shot down
20/Feb/42: 6 Zeroes on CAP: no loss, 3 P-40E shot down
21/Feb/42: 19 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 P-40E shot down
23/Feb/42: 9 Zeroes sent: no loss, no claim (battle vs P-40)
24/Feb/42: 2 Zeroes on CAP shot down 1 Catalina, 1 Zero lost to return fire. 9 Zeroes sent: no loss, no claim (battle vs P-40)
25/Feb/42: 11 Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 P-40E and 1 Catalina shot down
27/Feb/42: 15 Zeroes sent: 1 loss (unclear cause, but no CAP met), 1 Empire and 1 Catalina shot down
28/Feb/42: a dozen Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 Brewster shot down

So if we count the A2A battles between fighters, the score is 36 Allied fighters lost against 5 Zeroes lost against them in one month (and 3 Zeroes lost to other causes). WITP is producing this kind of ratio in this period... but it will produce it in one day probably...

The Darwin raid: 36 Zeroes sent: 1 loss, 7 P-40E and 1 Catalina shot

My source above is Shore's "Bloody Shambles, vol 2". The only action involving US CV described in the serie is the aborted raid vs Rabaul in February 1942 and the only air battle between Wildcats and unescorted IJNAF bombers. So no RL numbers for CV battles in my bookshelves..

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 136
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 3:32:51 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4137
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I forgot to add the point mentioned earlier that the replacement pool should be increased to more reasonable amounts. I believe the proposal was:

IJ Army Pilots 40/Month
IJ Navy Pilots 25/Month

That seems slightly more reasonable to me.




This is funny. THe designers originally wanted NO trained pilots for the Japanese - all training was going to have to be "on the map". Someone said "oh lets be nice and give them some" and prevailed (probably to make the AI work, actually).


And that is why we have to micromanage this... Why in the hell have they not proposed a training system with something like the choose for Japan to have each month:
_ 10 pilots at 70 exp
_ 20 pilots of 60 exp
_ 40 pilots at 50 exp
_ 80 pilots at 40 exp
and so on...

Probably because we can train on the map... I don't like it also. Units set on training 90% win 2-4 exp per month (that is for Japanese starting at 35-40), while those ordered to bombard some starving troops will win more each week ! Actually training is more efficient to learn than operations. The RAF in the late war even opened schools for pilots having allready done a full turn of operations. As one said "Before I though I was a good shot and probably hit nothing at all, than I knew I was bad but learned to hit anyway."

If all you had to do was to set your unit as training X% in a Japanese base and they will 5-10 exp a month (below 50) and then 3-5 above 50, and then 1-2 above 70 (I believe than in the current model training above 60 on the map is impossible), that will just be "fire and forget". As for operations I will only give pilots a chance to gain experience if they are the target, not the shooters. So no more full units at 90+ exp.

Back to the Zero bonus, here is the result of the battles over Java in February 1942. The losses shown are the real ones, claims were far above them. Note the number of Zeroes involved, the Tainan Kokutai and 3rd Kokutai were used here, in WITP they will have 117 Zeroes... I have also only listed the losses in the air, Zeroes destroyed tens of aircraft on the ground by strafing without loss to AA (in fact, one was lost to AA but it was while strafing an arounred car on Borneo and it is not shown there). Also the long-range Zeroes were able to shot down a number of Allied bombers, floatplanes and transports over Java. Both these features are unavailable in WITP as AA is much too effective against strafing fighters, that are themselves way too much ineffective, and sweep or raids will only meet CAP and nothing else.

2/Feb/42 : 17 Zeroes sent : no loss, 1 B-18 shot down over Soerabaja
3/Feb/42 : 44 Zeroes sent : 4 losses, 6 CW-21B, 5 Hawks, 2 B-17, 2 Catalinas, 1 P-40 and 1 trainer shot down over Java
5/Feb/42: 47 Zeroes sent : no loss, 5 P-40E, 2 Hawks, 2 Catalina, 1 CW-21, 1 trainer shot down
8/feb/42: 13 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 B-17 shot down
9/Feb/42: 13 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 Brewsters, 2 Glenn Martins shot down
18/feb/42: 23 Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 C-XIW shot down
19/feb/42: 23 Zeroes sent: 1 loss, 7 P-40E shot down
20/Feb/42: 6 Zeroes on CAP: no loss, 3 P-40E shot down
21/Feb/42: 19 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 P-40E shot down
23/Feb/42: 9 Zeroes sent: no loss, no claim (battle vs P-40)
24/Feb/42: 2 Zeroes on CAP shot down 1 Catalina, 1 Zero lost to return fire. 9 Zeroes sent: no loss, no claim (battle vs P-40)
25/Feb/42: 11 Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 P-40E and 1 Catalina shot down
27/Feb/42: 15 Zeroes sent: 1 loss (unclear cause, but no CAP met), 1 Empire and 1 Catalina shot down
28/Feb/42: a dozen Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 Brewster shot down

So if we count the A2A battles between fighters, the score is 36 Allied fighters lost against 5 Zeroes lost against them in one month (and 3 Zeroes lost to other causes). WITP is producing this kind of ratio in this period... but it will produce it in one day probably...

The Darwin raid: 36 Zeroes sent: 1 loss, 7 P-40E and 1 Catalina shot

My source above is Shore's "Bloody Shambles, vol 2". The only action involving US CV described in the serie is the aborted raid vs Rabaul in February 1942 and the only air battle between Wildcats and unescorted IJNAF bombers. So no RL numbers for CV battles in my bookshelves..


I don't have Shore's book. Does it give the amonut of opposition and circumstance of the encounters? Such as - 44 Zeroes attacked 54 P40s circling above them on CAP - loses no Zeros and 7 P40s...? etc?

B

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 137
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 3:54:57 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

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).


Sorry, but you are wrong. There were two Naval Air Divisions supportting the push to the Indies. One from Formosa, the other from Indo-China. Army planes didn't have the range. And they were active until the fall of the DEI. The "front" where there were only IJA aircraft was BURMA. Malaya, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies all saw Zero's in action.

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 138
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 4:29:44 AM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Sorry, but you are wrong. There were two Naval Air Divisions supportting the push to the Indies. One from Formosa, the other from Indo-China. Army planes didn't have the range. And they were active until the fall of the DEI. The "front" where there were only IJA aircraft was BURMA. Malaya, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies all saw Zero's in action.


I stand corrected and freely admit my error. My thoughts were primarily on the CBI area and the Philippines, and the fact that the main Japanese carrier strike force did not play a large roll in overruning the DEI...that is to say they did not sit down there for months providing close air support for the campaign.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 139
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 6:35:42 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
I stand corrected and freely admit my error. My thoughts were primarily on the CBI area and the Philippines, and the fact that the main Japanese carrier strike force did not play a large roll in overruning the DEI...that is to say they did not sit down there for months providing close air support for the campaign.


Fair enough. We all make mistakes sometime, but few on this forum seem ready to admit them. You have my respect as one of them.

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 140
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 10:05:48 AM   
pauk


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

WitP also purports to be about WW2 in the PTO on Planet Earth and to put the players in something approximating the drivers' seats of their historical counterparts. Therefore:

1. Eliminate the Zero bonus entirely.
2. Increase average USN and USMC EXP by 5-10 points.
3. Tweak the combat model so that Japanese aircraft MVR are lower in the first combat round if the engagement does not start where the Japanese get the "bounce." This would have the proper simulation effect of giving the initial advantage to the Allies in a high-speed meeting engagement (in which circumstances most Allied a/c were more maneuverable than most Japanese a/c). Subsequent combat rounds could be presumed to burn energy, resulting in circumstances where the A6M could employ its superior low speed climb, acceleration, and turn rates, so the actual MVR of the Japanese planes could be used.


Greetings,

I have never consider CHS, but above mentioned suggestion makes me interested. This suggestions is more than welcomed and i agree with them 100%. Go ahed folks, make the changes.

I will download ASAP CHS and I volunteering for Beta tester - there is only one condition.

I will play against mdiehl and Demosthenes and wee will post "Beta CHS" AAR...

errr...actually i have two conditions: almost forget to mention that I will play Allies...




_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 141
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 11:00:43 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14759
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Sorry pauk, but number 3 can't be done in a scenario mod, only by a coding change.

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 142
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 1:17:43 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 7148
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
This thread has seen a helluva lot of good comments and ideas.
No lack of intense thinking and serious students of history on this forum !
Especially like the first two responses back on page one.
I wonder, does WITP have the ability to set experience by "years" (or other time-intervals), per nation, as can be done with Steel Panthers ?
I personally believe both Zekes and Oscars should have *some* kind of advantage for the first few months, (and I wonder if the advantage currently given is for the pilots alone, or is it tied to the plane itself ?)
Seems if the "exp" rating could be tied to time and nation, (ala SP), it would resolve a lot of these issues......
BTW, the only "real" argument ref the Oscar getting any advantage early in the war, keeps going back to its' only having 2 MG's.
This is not really a valid point against early Allied planes, as the Allies were mistakenly still trying to dogfight this rascal early on, and "one bullet is as good as two for lethality", (if the plane is maneuverable enough of a gun platform to put the MG's in the right place, at the right time, as the Oscar was able to do.)

_____________________________




(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 143
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 1:45:06 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Looks like Andrew will have plenty of opinions to choose from. Let's hope he picks a "winner". A WITP scenario where the Japanese can't match the historical expansion will be short and dull---but get it wrong the other way and it becomes an idiotic fantasy. I'll be keepin' my fingers crossed for you Andrew.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 144
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 2:09:19 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline
Interesting debate.

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

As of air combat:
1. What is most important in an aerial battle is surprise. 80-90% of A2A kills were results of the victim not noticing that he is being shot at. This is a more important factor than anything else - and this is mostly related to experience (also to communication and radar - where allies have the advantage).

2. The second most important thing is pilot experience. Even in an inferior plane, a better pilot would win most of the time. Go play a flight sim if you do not believe me. Good flying can negate the enemies advantage, regardless of plane type.

3. Numbers matter!!!! If the enemy has a 3 to 1 advantage, chances are that you will be bounced by some that you do not even see. This is all wrong in WITP, better planes can fight effectively even when outnumbered (eg: Corsair, P-38, against Zero)

The japanese lost the aerial war due to inferior logistics, degradation of pilot experience and overall an inferiority in numbers in the long run. There were other factors as well, such as fighting over a far away base at Guadalcanal, allied radar and so on.

Not only are A2A fights too bloody in WITP, there are also uber-planes that outclass the opposition even with inferior pilot experience - this is all wrong. Differences between planes should be reduced - so experience can have a bigger impact.

It does not really matter if it is the XP or the bonus, but the japanese early on should be better. Before the allies learned how to negate the zero advantage, they were handicapped - this can be modelled with XP or a bonus, it does not matter.

And I do not think that the Zero advantage is urban legend. Allies were shocked at the performance and the skill of the pilots initially. And most disregarded intel as well, they could only learn at their own expense.

< Message edited by BlackVoid -- 12/10/2005 2:15:48 PM >


_____________________________


For Liberty! website

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 145
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 2:37:57 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

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


Think you are being a bit unfair. OLEG is one of the great "Japanese Fan-Boys" out here, but his opinion isn't always valid. I know at least two of the regular contributers to the CHS group play nothing but the Japanese, and there views are input with everyone elses. Personally, I think of them as "History Fan-boys" who were just as quick to complain about the US getting far too many B-17's in WITP as the Japanese getting too many Toni's 6 months too early. You should really take the time to give CHS a fair examination before dismissing it. And if you have any "hard data" to back up complaints about the system, it will get a lot more sympathetic ear from that group.

Don't quite understand your "flak" complaint considering your stated viewpoint. Yes, Allied flak is horribly under-rated in the later stages of the war in WITP. But you seem to be more interested in the Japanese, which wasn't particularly good from the beginning to the end of the war. By 1944, when the US was putting radar gun directors on their quad 40mm mounts, the Japanese were still having an officer with a stick point targets for their triple 25's. No proximity fuses, no radar fire direction, they just never got much better than they started. Their 3.9"/100mm gun was an excellent weapon, but most of the other AAA guns in their inventory were barely adequate to inferior. So what's your problem with AAA?

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 146
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 2:43:57 PM   
Black Mamba 1942


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

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


Think you are being a bit unfair. OLEG is one of the great "Japanese Fan-Boys" out here, but his opinion isn't always valid. I know at least two of the regular contributers to the CHS group play nothing but the Japanese, and there views are input with everyone elses. Personally, I think of them as "History Fan-boys" who were just as quick to complain about the US getting far too many B-17's in WITP as the Japanese getting too many Toni's 6 months too early. You should really take the time to give CHS a fair examination before dismissing it. And if you have any "hard data" to back up complaints about the system, it will get a lot more sympathetic ear from that group.

Don't quite understand your "flak" complaint considering your stated viewpoint. Yes, Allied flak is horribly under-rated in the later stages of the war in WITP. But you seem to be more interested in the Japanese, which wasn't particularly good from the beginning to the end of the war. By 1944, when the US was putting radar gun directors on their quad 40mm mounts, the Japanese were still having an officer with a stick point targets for their triple 25's. No proximity fuses, no radar fire direction, they just never got much better than they started. Their 3.9"/100mm gun was an excellent weapon, but most of the other AAA guns in their inventory were barely adequate to inferior. So what's your problem with AAA?


Mike, stop trying to make sense!
All this rational talk makes my head hurt!

Or it could've been those six Singapore Slings I drank last night.


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 147
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 2:53:31 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline
I think flak is underrated for both sides from the start, except naval AAA.

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

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

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

< Message edited by BlackVoid -- 12/10/2005 3:03:45 PM >


_____________________________


For Liberty! website

(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)
Post #: 148
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 3:35:11 PM   
pauk


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

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


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


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 149
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/10/2005 5:22:37 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4137
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

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

As of air combat:
1. What is most important in an aerial battle is surprise. 80-90% of A2A kills were results of the victim not noticing that he is being shot at. This is a more important factor than anything else - and this is mostly related to experience (also to communication and radar - where allies have the advantage).

2. The second most important thing is pilot experience. Even in an inferior plane, a better pilot would win most of the time. Go play a flight sim if you do not believe me. Good flying can negate the enemies advantage, regardless of plane type.

3. Numbers matter!!!! If the enemy has a 3 to 1 advantage, chances are that you will be bounced by some that you do not even see. This is all wrong in WITP, better planes can fight effectively even when outnumbered (eg: Corsair, P-38, against Zero)

The japanese lost the aerial war due to inferior logistics, degradation of pilot experience and overall an inferiority in numbers in the long run. There were other factors as well, such as fighting over a far away base at Guadalcanal, allied radar and so on.

Not only are A2A fights too bloody in WITP, there are also uber-planes that outclass the opposition even with inferior pilot experience - this is all wrong. Differences between planes should be reduced - so experience can have a bigger impact.

It does not really matter if it is the XP or the bonus, but the japanese early on should be better. Before the allies learned how to negate the zero advantage, they were handicapped - this can be modelled with XP or a bonus, it does not matter.

And I do not think that the Zero advantage is urban legend. Allies were shocked at the performance and the skill of the pilots initially. And most disregarded intel as well, they could only learn at their own expense.


BlackVoid, you have some good points, but I don't think anyone is suggeting that the Japanese shouldn't have an a2a advantage in the opening days of the war.

I believe what was at issue is the fact that - in the case of the Zero - withaverage exp already at 80+ , and superior numbers, compared to allied pilots (excluding USN) being average around 50 exp - that 30 point exp gap is sufficeint already and dosen't really require a bonus to give the Japanese their historical advantage...particularly as no other Japanese aircraft has a bonus in the early days....

Don't want to start this debate all over again however

my 2 cents

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> OT How close did those B17s get at Midway Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.117