Not sure Nik and Chez are actually around to joust any more this evening ...
I'm still here. I wouldn't miss this for the world. Sorry, Brad and Andy, you'll have to wait for your turns.
Again, EARLY WAR results do not indicate that the Japanese could predictably deliver a tactical drubbing except in cases where they caught enemy fighters at a severe positional disadvantage -- landing, taking off, etc.
And did those early war results indicate that during this same period the Allies could predictably deliver a tactical drubbing except in cases where they caught the enmy fighters at a sever positional disadvantage -- landing, taking off, etc.
The problem is that the ONLY actions in which the Zeros fought F4Fs are ones from April onward. It is illogical to conclude that the fact that the only data is from April and onward implies that for the period in which there is no data one would expect something statistically different than from the period for which we have data.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can extrapolate data from a later period and apply it to early periods for which there is no data. Really, only a statistician would make that assumption when discussing real life issues. Isn't that kind of like saying that if I have $100 in my bank account yesterday and I had $100 in my account the day before yesterday, then I must have had $100 in my account last week?
Of course, this logic fails to account for the truely dismal performance of the US carriers with overwhelming numerical superiority against a surprised enemy flying A5M Claudes during the Marshal Islands raids in Feb 42. And the poor performance mounted by the Brits at Rangoon and Singapore. And surely Singapore hadn't run out of parts yet when her air force was decimated. How do you account for those performances?
Chez said:
Of course, mdiehl still hasn't purchased the game
Non sequitur, ad hominem.
Ad hominem and non-sequitar? It's not non-sequitar that you don't own the game, that you have played but a few months vs the AI on an earlier release? How is that not germane? How long ago did you actually play it? What version was it?
And how is that a personal attack? My god, TJ taught you well! Seems to me that it is about the same as you saying someone's car is crap because you drove an earlier model around the block once.
Through roughly May 1942. Turns enough to know that the model was consistently producing results that absurdly favored the Japanese and good enough to dismiss the model as critically flawed.
If it doesn't favor the Japanese with their numerical advantage early on (if nothing else were to apply), when should it? Oh, wait. I forgot. The Japanese never had an advantage in man or machine. They got all their advantages through surprise, guile and huge stockpiles of material. They really never needed the tip of the spear.
Another thought occurred to me as to why you have so much against the game. Could it be that the AI was whipping your butt? Tell me that's not so as everyone knows the AI isn't exactly challenging.
quote:
According to mdiehl that one point of maneuverability afforded by the Zero Bonus in April 42 must be the cause of everything that's wrong with the game. How can it not be otherwise?
Stick to representing your own opinions. You're not qualified to represent mine. According to mdiehl, whom I personally know, the Zero Bonus is a contributing factor to a broken air combat model. Mdiehl assures me that the existence of the Zero Bonus as a contributing factor does not preclude any inferences that there may be other flaws as well.
Must have touched a nerve... Just simply regurgitating what you have previously posted. You continuely bring up the Zero bonus as an example of what is wrong with the game so I ntaurally thought you felt that way. Sorry if I stepped on your toes.
What? I believe I said that the Oscar was inferior to most Allied planes and couldn't hold its own in a campaign unless the enemy was isolated from their supply lines. Since that is exactly what happned "in real life" you would seem to be arguing against yourself. The Zero was a better plane. Again, not a superior one. And its pilots not particularly superior to any Allied pilots.
Oh, now it's "couldn't hold its own in a campaign." Funny, outside of the AVG, it seems to have performed well enough... for an inferior aircraft.
How many Allied pilots flew from Saigon? From Pnom Penh? Tainan? Truk? Rabaul? prior to March 1942. The only decent Allied airbases that the Japanese *ever* operated from were Clark Field and Singapore. And these only after the campaigns were over. The Allied tenure at these bases is best characterized as one of logistical isolation. Japanese pilots did not face that sort of challenge until the New Guinea campaign began to heat up.
With the rapidity of the Japanese conquests, most of those airfields became tactically useless and they had to make do with captured airstrips with little ability to rapidly improve them beyond filling in bomb damage. Plus the Japanese put little effort into what overseas airfields they held prior to the war. The vast majority were grass strips with few major structures. You seem to give them a lot of undue credit in SE Asia considering that they had occupied them only a short time before the war started.
Read the account of the Japanese pilots who flew the missions against POW and Repulse. Their airbase was hardly modern. Saigon and its neighboring airfield, Thu Dau Moi were both grass strips prone to flooding in the monsoons. Truk's was coral. Vunakanau, the largest japanese airbase at Rabaul was originally built by the Aussies and it was grass also. The Japanese expanded it but never laid a prepared surface.
Regardless, the fact is that your opinions are not shared by any here. We know the flaws of the game more than you ever will. No one is saying that the game is perfect. Indeed it is far from perfect but Matrix and many volunteers have put a lot of time and effort into improving it. Many issues have been addressed through patches. That doesn't include the CHS, Nik and RHS mods that address many aspects of the game. Indeed, I'm finding CHS scenario 159 to be quite historically accurate. And I find the game very enjoyable as do many others. And that seems to be a peculiar purpose of yours... that of attempting to denigrate that which you so obviously despise. So tell me, to what purpose do you cast your negative opinions on a forum for a game you don't own, that you don't play and that you obviously can't stand? Or am I missing something?
Chez
