Matrix Games Forums

Space 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!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
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  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 10:43:58 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3932
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
Well it was in point of fact the simultaneous actions of 3 particular persons. They ALL survived and it took thinking/acting as one to do it. They were reacting according to doctrine/training which may have been unwritten but which had inculcated itself into the way they fought "instinctively".

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 241
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 10:55:23 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
Hmmm, I think that is pretty specualtive, and suggests that others would have reacted the same way.

Maybe...but I kinda doubt it. I don't think there is anything that suggests that this was pre-planned or inevitable. Indeed, the attention given to the incident suggests otherwise.

Certainly the Thach Weave was only possible under the team oriented focus that already existed, but that doesn't mean that the team focus was a sufficient condition to the development of this tactic.

Certainly that team focus existed prior to this action, and yet the tactic was NOT developed...

I think it is dangerous to minimize the effect that individual actions can make in the long term. Sometimes people just get lucky and stumble on something great. And sometimes people make their own luck.

I've seen this engagement described as almost an "accident" - that Thach wingman turned away from an attacker, Thach followed, his wingman turned back, and the Zero turned with him, right into Thach's guns. Not planned, *not* requiring coordination at all, just a fortunate manuever that Thach recognized could be repeated.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 242
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 11:02:35 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3427
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

All other things being equal "about 4:1" works for me in re IJN vs early USAAf (through roughly March 1942). It doesn't work for USN/USMC, because regardless of whatever theoretical importance you attach to such thinly supported claims as "arrogance about Japanese pilot quality" "fear of teh Zero" or whatever, USN/USMC pilots achieved a sustained 1:1 (slighly inferior USMC vs IJN but superior USN vs IJN) kill ratio. So if there IS a "zero bonus" it should not be used at all when the attacker or attacked is a USN/USMC aircraft.


What you are forgetting is that, apart from Wake Island, the F-4F saw little combat against the Zero until Coral Sea. If you apply this time line to the game, the Zero bonus has already disappeared. Wake wasn't a good test as the USN had only 4 operational Wildcats, the rest having been destroyed on the ground previously by bombers. These 4 were badly outnumbered and quickly dispatched by Zeros for no losses of their own.

Many don't realize that the Zero bonus is a decreasing bonus:
5- Dec 41
4- Jan 42
3- Feb 42
2- Mar 42
1- Apr 42

The bonus in Mar and Apr is barely consequential. Most knowledgeable allied players simply wait for it to run out. By then the Zero units have probably sustained substantial losses and untrained replacement pilots have drastically lowered the experience levels of these units. Even just replacing 7 pilots with inexperienced ones in a 27-pilot unit will drop that unit's experience level from an 80 to a 68.

The result is that the Zero units are now equal to or less than the experience levels of USN pilots and its only going to get worse as the IJN pilot replacement factor of 10 per month is not sufficient to even match ops losses, let alone combat losses.

Remarks added:

On a different note: The Thatch Weave or beam defense was just that. A defensive tactic designed to allow the F4F to survive when at a tactical disadvantage. Thatch was one of the few USN pilots who heard of the reports coming out of China about a new Japanese fighter in mid-41. The tactic iteself wasn't new as it had been evaluated and disgarded in the late 30's. However, Thatch recognized the defensive potential it had against the Zero and worked on it using matchsticks during the Spring of 42. He was finally able to implement it during the Battle of Midway where he found that it allowed his pilots to protect each other while still geting in their own shots. It quickly fell into disuse during the Guadalcanal Campaign as the Wildcats were able to gain a height advantage against incoming raids by virtue of radar.

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 12/12/2005 11:14:51 PM >


_____________________________

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 mdiehl)
Post #: 243
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 11:06:27 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
Sorry to point it but critisizing the bonus examples with examples of the Midway battle (no more bonus in WITP) seems irrelevant to me.

The P-40E battles above the PI and DEI seem more appropriate. And the loss ratio is too high in favor of the Zero, but that is the bloody WITP engine. The kill ratio of Nates vs Allied fighters is much more unhistorical IMOO. Or the fact that the IJAAF Oscars are useless, and almost all Japanese don't use them on the frontline (replacing them with Zeroes, that are far more numerous than in RL for some reason on the front, and using Zeroes where the Navy never went, like over Burma, because they don't have any choice).

In RL life, losses in A2A were inferior than in WITP and the chances of an intercepting fighter to reach a bomber were higher (basically because often the escort reacted after the bombers were attacked by CAP, and not before). So any more or less crappy fighter may have a good day, or at least hold its place, while it can't in WITP (except that bombers are far much suicide-prone in WITP than in RL. Yes, sometimes unescorted bombers met enemy fighters but they usually turned back and tried to escape).


(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 244
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 11:14:25 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4158
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

All other things being equal "about 4:1" works for me in re IJN vs early USAAf (through roughly March 1942). It doesn't work for USN/USMC, because regardless of whatever theoretical importance you attach to such thinly supported claims as "arrogance about Japanese pilot quality" "fear of teh Zero" or whatever, USN/USMC pilots achieved a sustained 1:1 (slighly inferior USMC vs IJN but superior USN vs IJN) kill ratio. So if there IS a "zero bonus" it should not be used at all when the attacker or attacked is a USN/USMC aircraft.


What you are forgetting is that, apart from Wake Island, the F-4F saw little combat against the Zero until Coral Sea. If you apply this time line to the game, the Zero bonus has already disappeared. Wake wasn't a good test as the USN had only 4 operational Wildcats, the rest having been destroyed on the ground previously by bombers. These 4 were badly outnumbered and quickly dispatched by Zeros for no losses of their own.

Many don't realize that the Zero bonus is a decreasing bonus:
5- Dec 41
4- Jan 42
3- Feb 42
2- Mar 42
1- Apr 42

The bonus in Mar and Apr is barely consequential. Most knowledgeable allied players simply wait for it to run out. By then the Zero units have probably sustained substantial losses and untrained replacement pilots have drastically lowered the experience levels of these units. Even just replacing 7 pilots with inexperienced ones in a 27-pilot unit will drop that unit's experience level from an 80 to a 68.

The result is that the Zero units are now equal to or less than the experience levels of USN pilots and its only going to get worse as the IJN pilot replacement factor of 10 per month is not sufficient to even match ops losses, let alone combat losses.

Chez


I think EVERYONE is losing sight of the main point.

Until we have available a recognizable accounting of air combat in a format that can be cross checked for details - ALONG with a lot of data about what the game does now - What do we have to debate for Pete's sakes?

We need historical AND game produced DATA to compare....then you can all argue over just how worried allied fighter pilots became when they found out that the enemy was flying Zeros instead of Oscars for today's mission!

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 245
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 11:44:02 PM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 817
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

No it had not "switched". It was switching.


What are we talking about here? You seemed to assert that the 4 plane section did not develop until after USN pilots encountered the Zeke. If that's what you mean then you're wrong. Doctrine was a 4-plane section prior to 7 Dec 1941. Thach and Flatley's use of a six plane section was an experiment to see whether or not "more makes better" in re the beam defense.

quote:

The assertion I keep seeing is, "the Allied airforces knew how to fight the zero, so the zero bonus is bogus".


Fine but that is not the assertion that is being made. The assertion made is that whatever you think vis aircraft, pilots, training, and doctrine, the fact remains that historically AT NO POINT IN THE WAR did the A6M achieve kill ratios against the F4F that you see in WitP. One factor that contributes to this antihistorical outcome is the "Zero bonus."

The fact remains that in other respects USN pilots knew about mutual support and all were practicing it by the time that the IJN got at any of them. They were not all using the beam defense but the beam defense isn't the only support tactic. It never was. Heck it was only specifically designed as a countermove to be used by F4Fs who found themselves at a positional disadvantage.

I never claimed it was the only support tactic. I also supplied (in my original post) that two plane sections were accepted as doctrine on a command level in July of 41. I was only making the point that a tactic develops somewhere (typically in a single unit) is validated and then propogated to other units. It takes time. You do not go from "Gee, how about if we did this?" to everyone using the tactic in a day. Another quote from Thach in reference to a pilot "Macomber","Of course! He had never practiced the weave. He was one of the VF-42 pilots based aboard Yorktown during the Coral Sea battle, and he had tangled with some Zeros then." As late as June of 42, a basic manuever that is part of the arsenal of doctrine that allowed Wildcats to achieve good results against Zeros was not yet in place in some carrier groups. The Zero bonus in my mind simulates the pace at which doctrines where formulated and propogated to Allied units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Name one battle in WW2 in which the USN did not use it. Just because Thach did not mention it specifically does not give you license to assume it was not used. The USN revised its formation in late 1941 primarily in response to more than a year of studies of UK pilots in the Battle of Britain. The USN was responding to new doctrinal information long before the USN was officially "at war."

The problem is, before Coral Sea there isn't much historically to analyze (as you note later). We can extrapolate that the USN will perform identically on 12/7/41 as it does months later, but I don't think that is fair, both because I do not believe the doctrinal changes were entrenched by 12/7/41 and because refinements were still being made on the doctrine. Our problem is that we are trying to figure out what would happen if the two forces had met in combat earlier. The fact that they didn't gives us no basis for comparison. I think a middle ground is already established, in that USN carrier groups are very experienced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

The four plane section advantage you claim was not enjoyed in late 41 and early 42.


That is not correct.

A point we will just have to disagree with, I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
And yet units not trained in the Thach Weave (which was a specific maneuver for a specific circumstance) flew mutual support. That is the point here. In a more general sense if you wanted to model how information about combatting ZEROS specifically got around you might look to a virus transmission model. Probably by August 1942 every Allied pilot had a general idea of "no no's" when faced with a zero.

Yet you are trying to argue that pilots engaging Zeros in January 42 would perform identally to pilots in August 42. I simply do not follow your logic. On one hand you admit that pilots have a general idea of no-no's by August 42, yet you complain about a bonus meant to simulate the fact that the "no-no's" are not known. A bonus that moreover ends three months prior to the date you specify...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
These guys did not just wake up on Guadalcanal and say "Jeez I think I'll rewrite doctrine t'day. Anyone want to join me? Sure Joe..." They had been substantially trained in mutual support all along.

I can't envision that happening, but I can definately envision pilots sitting around in a ready room trying to talk out how to defeat an opposing aircraft with superior capabilites. Aside from that, I already agreed that some portions of a mutual defense doctrine were in place, just not all of them and not in every squadron in the Navy or Marine Corps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Again, you seem to think the "Thach Weave" was the only tool in the box for fighting the Zero, and that the "Thach Weave" was the only form of mutual support. You keep saying things that suggest that you believe that if a unit had not been trained in the execution of the Thach Weave then it had no knowledge of how to fight Zeroes. If you mean anything remotely like that, then you are wholly, completely, and manifestly misinformed.

I already noted that Thach weave and mutual defense were not synonymous. I don't know what more I can say here. The Thach weave was an important tactic in mutual defense doctrine. It was not the only one, but it was an important one. Suggesting that Mutual Defense with the Thach weave achieves the same result as Mutual defense without it is wholly, completely, and manifestly misinformed. The Zero bonus as is starts at +5 in December and declines one per month until it goes away in May. This represents the gradual accumulation of the "no-no's" previously mentioned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Its a good movement. The problem is that things attributed to the abstract "Zero bonus" may well be simply the consequence of lots of preparation and good logistics on Japan's part vs. shoestring logistics and inadequate preparation (lousy airfields, no reserves of spare parts, suddenness of Japanese attack) on the Allies' part. And against the USN Japan never achieved remotely the results routinely turned in by Zeroes in WitP.

WHOA, a point of potential agreement for us! The Zero may indeed overperform. I already noted that. My concern is that the basis for the "overperformance" argument by F4F proponents is that the doctrine was in place to shore up the F4F's shortcomings. I believe that is questionable in the period from December to May, and possibly later, though your kill ratio information from Guadalcanal tends to make me think May is probably a good time for it to disappear. On the other hand, if historical situations are gamed out in WitP and the Zero is found to consistently and significantly overperform, something is wrong with the model or the data on the plane. We have nothing to go on until Coral Sea, so we are left guessing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I advocate eliminating the Zero bonus in general because no one can make a substantive historical case that it should exist. The Zero trounced the F2A3 in Burma -- a match up that pits a plane that was superior in EVERY way (the A6M) against an inferior one --- and that relationship is correctly modeled in the planes' respective maneuverability and airspeed ratings.

There were few categories in which the F4F outperformed the Zero. Thach and others describe it as superior and that was the state of mind they entered into combat with. Not until the Aleutians Zero was tested were the performance characteristics of the plane known and it's weaknesses (do not go below 300, negative-G manuevers causing engine stalls, etc.) known.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Despite that, people like you seem to think that this mismatch has something to do with something intangible generally involving "fear of the zero" or "arrogance and lack of intel briefs" or some other unsupported, wierd claim.

Find *once* in any of my statements were I make any claim about "fear of the zero" or "arrogance and lack of intel briefs". The basis of my analysis is the statements of aviators that encountered the Zero before Guadalcanal and the flight test document from the Aleutians Zero. In my view, the Zero appeared to be superior and that it took time to identify tactics that would allow Allied pilots to defeat them on a regular basis. The discovery of the Aleutians Zero and the refinement of mutual support tactics like the Thach weave were instrumental in eliminating the advantage the Zero enjoyed early war. I also tend to believe that Japanese pilots were more experienced than US pilots - not perhaps in hours, but in combat experience. Combined with early Allied logistical disadvantages, the situation led to the early successes for the Japanese. I think there *is* an element of underestimation of their opponent in very early battles, but I think that is entirely handled by the 1st turn suprise rules. I doubt very many Allied pilots underestimated the Japanese after PH and the inital days of the war and would not use it as a justification for a five month bonus to the Zero.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Likewise when you look to Indonesia and northern Australia you find lots of P-40s shot down in landing formations or when taking off. Again, that has nothing to do with something abstract and godly about Japanese pilots or their planes. It is completely a consequence of immediate tactical positional advantage -- a characteristic t hat is alread modeled in the game.

I never said they were godly, but the Zero was superior to the F4F, and not just in my mind. It took some time before the faults of the plane were known and customarily exploited. Until then, it was a powerful foe and won it's more than it's fair share of engagements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Even at Midway, the VMF pilots who had never been in combat, never seen a Zero, and never been trained in the beam defense shot down more A6Ms than they lost. That observation, along with an unfavorable kill ratio for the A6M facing F4F VF pilots, and a slightly favorable ratio at Guadalcanal (with an overall ratio of about 1.2:1 favoring the US) undermines any claim that the "Zero bonus" has any historical merit.

I think your position goes too far, because I have serious doubts that we can postulate performances at Guadalcanal in August 42 would be identical to performances in December of 41. I think to a large degree that USN capabilities are already modeled in the form of the average 85 experience ratings of VF-2, VF-3, and VF-6 on 12/7/41.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
You continue to fail to understand the difference between doctrine and the Thach Weave. Until you understand what these two concepts mean and how they differ, you will continue to (a) be incorrect, and (b) misunderstand my arguments here as well as the others.

No, actually, I don't. I understand that the Thach weave is part of a group of tactics we can call mutual support tactics. I do however believe that results achieved in August of 1942 should not be used to extrapolate performance 8 months prior. Doctrine was evolving, training levels were lower, and the capabilites of the Zero were far less known. As late as Coral Sea, the after action report by the CAG indicated a need for USN pilots to maintain closer formations (and also indicated an IJN tendency to stick together better).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
So were one to abstract that as a "rule" for a game and ignore context (logistics, supply, combat fatigue on Guadalcanal from shore bombardments, and other factors) then a "simple model to express the relationship between an A6M + pilot vs an F4F + pilot" would be "treat them as identical in all respects." That model would give you approximately historical results, all other things being equal.

Only if you agree that the doctrine levels were as advanced 8 months prior, which I simply do not agree with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
While we're about it, if it is invalid to include data from November 1942 onward then there should be no Zero bonus. Since no A6M ever fought an F4F prior to the Coral Sea engagement (where the Zekes lost that confrontation plane-wise) then it is no more appropriate to claim that the Zero bonus is justified in the absence of data any more than it is appropriate to use data from a point "after which teh Zero bonus expires" to argue against the Zero bonus.

I would agree that by August of 42, losses of F4F's in a straight up fight should approximate 1 to 1, assuming degradation of IJN pilot quality. My opinion is that the ratio would not be that good in the first few months of the war. Since as you say there is no historical basis for drawing a conclusion, we have to guess. If you land in the category of Allied doctrine was fully matured and entrenched, with an excellent understanding of the limitations of the A6M2 on 12/7/41, then by all means take the result achieved 9 months later and remove the Zero bonus.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 246
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 11:47:50 PM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 817
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
I think EVERYONE is losing sight of the main point.

Until we have available a recognizable accounting of air combat in a format that can be cross checked for details - ALONG with a lot of data about what the game does now - What do we have to debate for Pete's sakes?

We need historical AND game produced DATA to compare....then you can all argue over just how worried allied fighter pilots became when they found out that the enemy was flying Zeros instead of Oscars for today's mission!


A very good point.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 247
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 11:50:03 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12114
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Even I'm getting bored.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 248
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/12/2005 11:53:23 PM   
Demosthenes


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Even I'm getting bored.



Well folks, 248 posts and over 3200 hits,
I guess enquiring minds want to know.

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/12/2005 11:58:53 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 249
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 12:07:00 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

If you land in the category of Allied doctrine was fully matured and entrenched, with an excellent understanding of the limitations of the A6M2 on 12/7/41, then by all means take the result achieved 9 months later and remove the Zero bonus.


This makes no sense to me.

The Japanese never developed a doctrine for dealing with superior allied aircraft nor boom and zoom tactics once the F6F came on-line. The resistence from changing from the 3-plane vic to a different organization lasted into late 1943, and even by war's end most Japanese aircraft could not keep up with their Allied opposites, and most Japanese pilots continued to rely on the turning engagement dogfight in the hope that the Allies would play that game --- despite evidence that the Japanese were losing badly and that Allied pilots weren't generall going for turning engagements any more.

And yet there is no late war "Allied bonus." Instead it is assumed to be a characteristic of the planes and (to a lesser extent, because late war allied EXPs aren't great enough IMO) pilot EXP, as to why Allied a/c are more successful in the late war.

So if you're gonna keep the Zero Bonus heck maybe it should be extended. As follows:

May-June 1942: -1
July-August 1942: -2
September-October 1942: -3
November-December 1942: -4
Thereafter: -5.

_____________________________

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 #: 250
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 5:42:26 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

If you land in the category of Allied doctrine was fully matured and entrenched, with an excellent understanding of the limitations of the A6M2 on 12/7/41, then by all means take the result achieved 9 months later and remove the Zero bonus.


This makes no sense to me.

The Japanese never developed a doctrine for dealing with superior allied aircraft nor boom and zoom tactics once the F6F came on-line. The resistence from changing from the 3-plane vic to a different organization lasted into late 1943, and even by war's end most Japanese aircraft could not keep up with their Allied opposites, and most Japanese pilots continued to rely on the turning engagement dogfight in the hope that the Allies would play that game --- despite evidence that the Japanese were losing badly and that Allied pilots weren't generall going for turning engagements any more.

And yet there is no late war "Allied bonus." Instead it is assumed to be a characteristic of the planes and (to a lesser extent, because late war allied EXPs aren't great enough IMO) pilot EXP, as to why Allied a/c are more successful in the late war.

So if you're gonna keep the Zero Bonus heck maybe it should be extended. As follows:

May-June 1942: -1
July-August 1942: -2
September-October 1942: -3
November-December 1942: -4
Thereafter: -5.



Statistic's may be on your side MDIEHL, but I don't think this one will fly with "the troops". I favor the "bonus" technique because it's a simple and easily controllable method to give the Japanese a bit of an "edge" in the first 2-3 months to get the game rolling, then goes away. Trying to do it any other way calls for juggling factors in the unit makeups, which can come back to "haunt" the situation later. It just seems to me that the way this game is programmed too many changes cause totally unexpected problems. The "bonus" basically "works" within the structure, so I say cut it to 3 months, extend it to Oscars, and don't open any new cans of worms.

I'm not saying your analysis is wrong. Just that overall I'd rather see other problems delt with. Like the idiotic aircraft replacement rates. Historically, the Japanese built 6700 combat aircraft in 1942. In the game they will have over 10,000 even if they don't mess with their production. It's not just B-17's that are screwed up.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 251
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 5:57:50 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 7164
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

BUT BUT BUT Halsey! You're a pessimist! You are religiously criticizing WitP! We could go on forever debating whether P-39s should have been called P-thirtycrimes!


As far as your comments that there is something wrong with this game, you have no business saying anything of the kind. The "Oleg Mastruko" principle says that a savior from an as-yet-unidentified foreign land will come along and make everything right. He will have a gun that turns all critics into solid ice. We will call him "Freezus."



LMFAO
I believe that "unknown foreign land" may be....Croatia ??

_____________________________




(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 252
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 6:12:26 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 7164
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

Then you have not been reading. The movement afoot is to eliminate the zero bonus. Read the title of the post



Oznoyng, - IF - the bonus gets changed - it would only effect CHS.

I got that. The question is, should it be? I do not know, honestly, but the postings I've read all seem to come down on the side of AVG and Thach knew, so everybody did and the bonus is bogus. The bonus may overstate the zero's capabilities. My conern is that we are also overstating the degree to which doctrine had evolved and propogated in the Allied forces by the start of the war, and the progress that was made month by month.



Can't really use the AVG here as a real measure of "technology-sharing", as the U.S. War Department did not really want to hear (or believe) ANYTHING that came from the AVG OR Chennault !!
Chennault was especially considered a maverick, (loose cannon), and the pilots he *was able to recruit from active military units* were considered likewise, in one way or another.
Mostly anybody who has served has seen "eight-balls" transferred out or "allowed to transferred out", just to get rid of them..(Boyington comes to mind, and he was not popular in the AVG either.)
This is not to say they were not excellent pilots, time has shown us some of them were, but the War Department (Pentagon now) has always had a thing about "labelling" people.
(Col. Hackworth is a recent victim of this, as was Glover Johns in WW2, and Frank Luke in WW1.)
BTW, Chennault had been in China warning the U.S. about Japanese planes and tactics for maybe 2 years before Pearl, (as the head of the CAF), but the War Department was not interested, thank you............

Here, read between the lines
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/clchenna.htm

http://www.warbirdforum.com/clc.htm


< Message edited by m10bob -- 12/13/2005 6:36:43 AM >


_____________________________




(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 253
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 12:11:09 PM   
Honda


Posts: 952
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline
Last time I talked to AN American (US citizen, not a Canadian, eh) I told him Croatia should invade Phillipines. He told me there's no way we could acomplish that 'cause the US would stop us from doing it.
He was dead serious.
I got a great story.

Oh, BTW just couldn't miss the continued diminishing Zero bonus rant by mdiehl...
THE GAME ALREADY FAVOURS THE SPEED AND CONSIDERS IT THE PRIME CHARACTERISTIC IN A DOGFIGHT WHICH IS HISTORICLY ACCURATE!!!
Cheers

_____________________________


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

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 254
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 4:57:56 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
This response isn't directed to Honda in particular, but all of you who think Mdiehl is nuts.

He's the only one who is producing actual facts to back up his opinion. I haven't seen anyone who thinks the Zero bonus is valid produce some actual facts on the matter. It's just things like "allied pilots thought Japanese pilots wore glasses and looked like monkeys". or "Japan needs all the help they can get". (neither of which are valid responses to a statistical analysis) In fact, Mdiehl is the only one to produce one fact that the zero bonus is valid, although only vs British Hurricane pilots. Vs other planes, the zero's characteristics and pilot experience are already enough to get 20-1 odds (buffaloes, etc). And, vs good allied planes (P-40, F4F, etc) the zero should fare at about 1-1 odds. (but starting exp will give zero's the advantage)

Can anyone produce a historical fact that back's up the game's Zero bonus? (sorry if I've missed a post that does actually support the zero bonus. I haven't read all 9 pages)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 255
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 5:03:00 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12114
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Seriously, I'd favour simply reducing experience levels across the board as they are so high we may as well just have no way of differentiating at all. If guys like Welch at PH are 93 (my ass) what would Hartmann's rating be? Or Galland? Moelders? Marseille?

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 256
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 5:10:42 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Seriously, I'd favour simply reducing experience levels across the board as they are so high we may as well just have no way of differentiating at all. If guys like Welch at PH are 93 (my ass) what would Hartmann's rating be? Or Galland? Moelders? Marseille?



Those guys would be solid 95's!!!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 257
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 5:26:33 PM   
Demosthenes


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

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

This response isn't directed to Honda in particular, but all of you who think Mdiehl is nuts.

He's the only one who is producing actual facts to back up his opinion. I haven't seen anyone who thinks the Zero bonus is valid produce some actual facts on the matter. It's just things like "allied pilots thought Japanese pilots wore glasses and looked like monkeys". or "Japan needs all the help they can get". (neither of which are valid responses to a statistical analysis) In fact, Mdiehl is the only one to produce one fact that the zero bonus is valid, although only vs British Hurricane pilots. Vs other planes, the zero's characteristics and pilot experience are already enough to get 20-1 odds (buffaloes, etc). And, vs good allied planes (P-40, F4F, etc) the zero should fare at about 1-1 odds. (but starting exp will give zero's the advantage)

Can anyone produce a historical fact that back's up the game's Zero bonus? (sorry if I've missed a post that does actually support the zero bonus. I haven't read all 9 pages)


Bradley7735,

Your point is well taken. No one has that statistical analysis. Which is why Big B posted that such historical documentation needs to be produced before proceeding.

So far all we have is plenty of opinion (mine included) by both sides of the debate, based on what people have read. But nowhere, except some raw data posted by Admiral Laurent, is there the detailed info needed to back up the Zero Bonus as historically accurate (or inaccurate).

Mdiehl takes verbal attacks from quite a number who don't like what he has to say - but Mdiehl does offer the best factual postings I've seen.

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/13/2005 11:19:47 PM >

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 258
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 5:32:16 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
There is one general point that needs to be cleared up. The beam defense (aka Thach Weave) was invented by Thach and Flatley in summer 1941. It was not invented "on the spot" at Midway in June 1942. The wingmen were not trained in the particular maneuver, so it had to be "improvised on the spot" with the originator of the tactic (Thach) describing it to his wingmen (who had never flown the maneuver in practice much less in combat). I think it speaks volumes for the doctrine that the wingmen easily understood it to be part of their mutual support indoctrination. It also speaks volumes for the simplicity of the tactic that one could introduce it in "field conditions" and employ it straight away.

@Mike Scholl

quote:

Statistic's may be on your side MDIEHL, but I don't think this one will fly with "the troops". I favor the "bonus" technique because it's a simple and easily controllable method to give the Japanese a bit of an "edge" in the first 2-3 months to get the game rolling, then goes away. Trying to do it any other way calls for juggling factors in the unit makeups, which can come back to "haunt" the situation later. It just seems to me that the way this game is programmed too many changes cause totally unexpected problems. The "bonus" basically "works" within the structure, so I say cut it to 3 months, extend it to Oscars, and don't open any new cans of worms.


I do not think it works. First, the results excessively favor the A6Ms. Second, read AAR after AAR and you see that the USN players refuse combat consistently. This does not capture the look and feel of either the USN or IJN point of view of early 1942. The IJN was not unafraid of USN CVs. What they wanted was to bring the USN CVs into a set-piece engagement where the deck would be stacked in favor of Japan. That is after all WHY they went for Midway in the first place. The idea was to force the USN to engage a superior Japanese force while Midway Island served as the recon bulwark of the Japanese plan. (Ironic that the general idea was sound it's just that the US used the IJN plan against the Japanese.)

Likewise the USN did not fear the Japanese CVs. They just weren't willing to walk into a combat that was on grossly unequal terms.

In WitP the Allies *can't* challenge the Japanese CVs through April 1942 unless the Japanese player is a damned fool and spends several days blunting his sword against, for example, Hawaii. Both players know this. As a result the Japanese player can with impunity attempt operations that the real Japanese would not have attempted (like a move on Johnston Island, or Luganville). The "strategic picture" or "strategic flavor" or "look and feel" of the early strategic situation is all wrong and it grossly favors the Japanese.

For that reason it's not even desirable for me to play the Japanese. It's not "ww2-like." It's "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away."

quote:

Like the idiotic aircraft replacement rates. Historically, the Japanese built 6700 combat aircraft in 1942. In the game they will have over 10,000 even if they don't mess with their production. It's not just B-17's that are screwed up.


These are problems too. Why settle for having just one egregious error fixed? And by the way I agree that the 4e bombers are cattywumpus in 1942 vs Japanese ships. But then, I view the current gamey use of the 4es to blunt the Japanese edge as an appropriate and necessary response to the imbalance cause by the inappropriate Zero bonus and the excess of Japanese logistical capacity.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/13/2005 5:39:18 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 rtrapasso)
Post #: 259
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 6:24:56 PM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


I do not think it works. First, the results excessively favor the A6Ms. Second, read AAR after AAR and you see that the USN players refuse combat consistently. This does not capture the look and feel of either the USN or IJN point of view of early 1942. The IJN was not unafraid of USN CVs. What they wanted was to bring the USN CVs into a set-piece engagement where the deck would be stacked in favor of Japan. That is after all WHY they went for Midway in the first place. The idea was to force the USN to engage a superior Japanese force while Midway Island served as the recon bulwark of the Japanese plan. (Ironic that the general idea was sound it's just that the US used the IJN plan against the Japanese.)

Likewise the USN did not fear the Japanese CVs. They just weren't willing to walk into a combat that was on grossly unequal terms.

In WitP the Allies *can't* challenge the Japanese CVs through April 1942 unless the Japanese player is a damned fool and spends several days blunting his sword against, for example, Hawaii. Both players know this. As a result the Japanese player can with impunity attempt operations that the real Japanese would not have attempted (like a move on Johnston Island, or Luganville). The "strategic picture" or "strategic flavor" or "look and feel" of the early strategic situation is all wrong and it grossly favors the Japanese.

For that reason it's not even desirable for me to play the Japanese. It's not "ww2-like." It's "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away."



I think that is a terrfific summation of what (to me) is wrong with the way things currently stand.
Beside having no in depth statistical data to warrant the Zero Bonus, the effect is that the Japanese player now has no reason to be careful or cautious at all, which leads to grossly unrealistic play (between two human opponents).

Given that, and Japanese over supply of available sea-lift capability (and I know that was only done so the AI could work well), it leads to game play like - as Halsey put it - Age of Empires: War in the Pacific.




(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 260
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 6:38:36 PM   
pauk


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

Last time I talked to AN American (US citizen, not a Canadian, eh) I told him Croatia should invade Phillipines. He told me there's no way we could acomplish that 'cause the US would stop us from doing it.
He was dead serious.
I got a great story.




I know what you mean, Snake, and I agree with you.

_____________________________


(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 261
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 6:38:47 PM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Seriously, I'd favour simply reducing experience levels across the board as they are so high we may as well just have no way of differentiating at all. If guys like Welch at PH are 93 (my ass) what would Hartmann's rating be? Or Galland? Moelders? Marseille?


I would think that an across the board readjustment of exp level would be an excellent idea (leaving out historical pilots) so the mean average would be around 55 and let them all gain experience through the game. Someone ought to experiment with this.


This is not a shot fired across your bow Ron, but to me guys like Welch (on all sides) being a 93 I don't have a particular problem with - only because these 'few' showed special talent or ability, which is why we know Welch's and Moelders' and Sakai's names over the 200,000(+) nameless airmen.
I believe studies have shown that a grossly disproportionate amount of kills were made by the top 3 to 5% of pilots (something on the order of 40-5-% of all kills?). So for all these characters I view their EXP to read as "Talent"

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 262
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 6:39:41 PM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

Last time I talked to AN American (US citizen, not a Canadian, eh) I told him Croatia should invade Phillipines. He told me there's no way we could acomplish that 'cause the US would stop us from doing it.
He was dead serious.
I got a great story.




I know what you mean, Snake, and I agree with you.


What can I say Pauk, some Americans are real idiots...

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 263
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 6:41:43 PM   
pauk


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

What can I say Pauk, some Americans are real idiots...



please, let's keep it polite.

_____________________________


(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 264
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 6:46:01 PM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

What can I say Pauk, some Americans are real idiots...



please, let's keep it polite.

I am being polite, any guy who would take the Croatia invades the Philippines idea that deadly serious is a 'putz', as in - no sense of humor

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 265
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 7:20:20 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2396
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Given that, and Japanese over supply of available sea-lift capability (and I know that was only done so the AI could work well), it leads to game play like - as Halsey put it - Age of Empires: War in the Pacific.



So it's not a good idea to half the Japanese AK/TK class capacities in a game against the Japanese AI?

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 266
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 7:30:48 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12114
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Seriously, I'd favour simply reducing experience levels across the board as they are so high we may as well just have no way of differentiating at all. If guys like Welch at PH are 93 (my ass) what would Hartmann's rating be? Or Galland? Moelders? Marseille?


I would think that an across the board readjustment of exp level would be an excellent idea (leaving out historical pilots) so the mean average would be around 55 and let them all gain experience through the game. Someone ought to experiment with this.


This is not a shot fired across your bow Ron, but to me guys like Welch (on all sides) being a 93 I don't have a particular problem with - only because these 'few' showed special talent or ability, which is why we know Welch's and Moelders' and Sakai's names over the 200,000(+) nameless airmen.
I believe studies have shown that a grossly disproportionate amount of kills were made by the top 3 to 5% of pilots (something on the order of 40-5-% of all kills?). So for all these characters I view their EXP to read as "Talent"


What did Welch do after PH? Seriously, so he shot down a couple bombers at PH they get Ben Afleck and the little **** to play him (loosely Welch )and the other guy. This get's him a 90+. Well, I fart around with flight sims...guess I'm at least in the 50s.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html

Ooooh. Wow. He is maybe a 50-60.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/13/2005 7:43:18 PM >


_____________________________





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 #: 267
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 7:53:13 PM   
Demosthenes


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What did Welch do after PH? Seriously, so he shot down a couple bombers at PH they get Ben Afleck and the little **** to play him (loosely Welch )and the other guy. This get's him a 90+. Well, I fart around with flight sims...guess I'm at least in the 50s.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html

Ooooh. Wow. He is maybe a 50-60.\


Well, he did shoot down 16 planes which by US standards (because of rotations) wasn't too bad, and had other memerable achievements - like beating Yeager in breaking the sound barrier, appearantly shot down Mig 15s in Korea (as many as 6 according to his children). I think he achieved far more than just being another pilot.

EDIT: after looking at the list of all aces from WWI and WWII I would definately rate the man a 93. That list is damn small compared to the hundreds of thousands of pilots who flew...
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/aces.html

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/13/2005 8:08:44 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 268
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 8:07:54 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12114
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What did Welch do after PH? Seriously, so he shot down a couple bombers at PH they get Ben Afleck and the little **** to play him (loosely Welch )and the other guy. This get's him a 90+. Well, I fart around with flight sims...guess I'm at least in the 50s.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html

Ooooh. Wow. He is maybe a 50-60.\


Well, he did shoot down 16 planes which by US standards (because of rotations) wasn't too bad, and had other memerable achievements - like beating Yeager in breaking the sound barrier, appearantly shot down Mig 15s in Korea (as many as 6 according to his children). I think he achieved far more than just being another pilot.

EDIT: after looking at the list of all aces from WWI and WWII I would definately rate the man a 93. That list is damn small compared to the hundreds of thousands of pilots who flew...


So let him "earn" the rating. He has not done **** yet.


_____________________________





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 #: 269
RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opini... - 12/13/2005 8:11:04 PM   
Demosthenes


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What did Welch do after PH? Seriously, so he shot down a couple bombers at PH they get Ben Afleck and the little **** to play him (loosely Welch )and the other guy. This get's him a 90+. Well, I fart around with flight sims...guess I'm at least in the 50s.

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html

Ooooh. Wow. He is maybe a 50-60.\


Well, he did shoot down 16 planes which by US standards (because of rotations) wasn't too bad, and had other memerable achievements - like beating Yeager in breaking the sound barrier, appearantly shot down Mig 15s in Korea (as many as 6 according to his children). I think he achieved far more than just being another pilot.

EDIT: after looking at the list of all aces from WWI and WWII I would definately rate the man a 93. That list is damn small compared to the hundreds of thousands of pilots who flew...


So let him "earn" the rating. He has not done **** yet.


Ron,
Think for a minute - none of those pilots have earned anything yet. The war is just starting!

Unless your point was do away with all historical pilots, that's a different matter.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

0.137