Regarding some historical discussions (rants) here...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Just a few points from me regarding some historical postings (or better say rants) here...


BTW, I might be relative UV "newbee" but I am wargamer with 15+ years of
computer wargame experience and many more years of reading history books.


Almost in all historical rants here one idea/opinions always sticks out:

Japan lost the war (as we all know) and therefore all that Japan ever produced
for the war was inferior.

This includes all equipement and all tactics and all strategy.


Well... this is extremely bad and dangerous assumption...

The war in the Pacific wasn't some kick-*** few weeks campaign. It was war of
attrition with terrible and bloody battles. War lasted for almost 5 years, for
God's sake, and would last more and kill so many more people if the atomic
bombs weren't dropped.

This fact alone negates all simplified "answers" and "opinions".


Nobody was "born clever".

Both sides had their pre-war ideas but they all learned the hard way (i.e. in
war and through bloody battles) that war is something different.

Since we all know how war ended - we also know who adopted better but this
doesn't mean that the loosing side (i.e. Japan) only had some bunch of idiots
in charge and that Japan's fighting man were only ready to die.


And lastly, have any of the ranters here ever read the history books with the
other point of view?

Have any of them ever read integral "Samurai" book by Saburo Sakai (did you
know that US release was initially printed stripped down of some details that
might offend US public)?

He was a real man and in his book he wrote about real pilots and real planes
of exactly the same period of time and same place as this UV game takes place
(South Pacific 1942).

Sakai and his fellow pilots were not ignorant fools flying sub-class planes -
they were experts flying first class aircraft.


So please... next time when someone wants to rant that in UV the F-4F should
kill more Zeros even when outnumbered 10:1 please think hard about history
first as a whole and never try to generalize general statistics into single
battles...


IMHO, the 2by3 and Matrix did _GREAT_ job with "Uncommon Valor" and modeled
things almost as best as possible (yes there are some bugs but, I am sure,
they will all be fixed sooner or later).

Thanks again 2by3 and Matrix!


Leo "Apollo11"

[U2]

Hi

Smashing post!:)

[DSandberg]

I guess I haven't noticed more than a few people complaining that the Japanese are portrayed by the game as overly capable, and those few folks I wrote off as non-grognards whose knowledge of WWII comes entirely from John Wayne movies. For example, my biggest complaint with the game to date was with the overstated effectiveness of U.S. B-17s versus IJN task forces (which has since been fixed, of course).

But if there really is a contingent of people here who feel the U.S. should be kicking the IJN's behinds all over the map from May '42 onward (perhaps I've just been missing their posts), then I agree with you. I think the game as it is comes quite close to accurately reflecting the real capabilities of and challenges to both sides during the campaigns in the South Pacific in '42-'43. In fact I love playing as the U.S. side in these campaigns, as it really makes me feel like I've overcome the odds and accomplished something on those rare occasions when an IJN fleet carrier is listing and on fire, while my air combat TF is retiring mostly unhurt.

- David

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Apollo11
Hi all,

It was war of
attrition with terrible and bloody battles. War lasted for almost 5 years, for
God's sake,

Leo "Apollo11"

/nitpick

December 7, 1941 to September, 1945 is less than 4 years.

/nitpick

[Don Bowen]

Originally posted by Apollo11
Hi all,

Just a few points from me regarding some historical postings (or better say rants) here...


BTW, I might be relative UV "newbee" but I am wargamer with 15+ years of
computer wargame experience and many more years of reading history books.


Almost in all historical rants here one idea/opinions always sticks out:

Japan lost the war (as we all know) and therefore all that Japan ever produced
for the war was inferior.

This includes all equipement and all tactics and all strategy.


Well... this is extremely bad and dangerous assumption...

The war in the Pacific wasn't some kick-*** few weeks campaign. It was war of
attrition with terrible and bloody battles. War lasted for almost 5 years, for
God's sake, and would last more and kill so many more people if the atomic
bombs weren't dropped.

This fact alone negates all simplified "answers" and "opinions".


Nobody was "born clever".

Both sides had their pre-war ideas but they all learned the hard way (i.e. in
war and through bloody battles) that war is something different.

Since we all know how war ended - we also know who adopted better but this
doesn't mean that the loosing side (i.e. Japan) only had some bunch of idiots
in charge and that Japan's fighting man were only ready to die.


And lastly, have any of the ranters here ever read the history books with the
other point of view?

Have any of them ever read integral "Samurai" book by Saburo Sakai (did you
know that US release was initially printed stripped down of some details that
might offend US public)?

He was a real man and in his book he wrote about real pilots and real planes
of exactly the same period of time and same place as this UV game takes place
(South Pacific 1942).

Sakai and his fellow pilots were not ignorant fools flying sub-class planes -
they were experts flying first class aircraft.


So please... next time when someone wants to rant that in UV the F-4F should
kill more Zeros even when outnumbered 10:1 please think hard about history
first as a whole and never try to generalize general statistics into single
battles...


IMHO, the 2by3 and Matrix did _GREAT_ job with "Uncommon Valor" and modeled
things almost as best as possible (yes there are some bugs but, I am sure,
they will all be fixed sooner or later).

Thanks again 2by3 and Matrix!


Leo "Apollo11"

I know I should not do this, but I can not resist:

I don’t understand what is going on with the posts on this subject. No one ever said that any force should “kick ***” when outnumbered 10 to 1. What I, and a few others, am trying to say is this:

The combat history of World War II shows that Wildcats and Zeros fought to a draw. In real circumstances, like one carrier squadron to one carrier squadron, neither side acquired dominance over the other. Period. In Uncommon Valor, Zeros routinely “outfight” Wildcats in virtually all circumstances. Ain’t right.

And no one, that I have read, has made any disparaging remarks about Zeros or their pilots. The Zero was an excellent aircraft and the pilots were experienced and brave men. Same is true for the F4Fs.

The two aircraft were designed to different criteria. Zeros were light and maneuverable and excellent dogfighters. Wildcats were strong and durable and could take punishment and still accomplish their mission. In air-to-air combat the strengths of the F4F matched up well against the Zero. The primary strength of the Zero also exposed it’s primary weakness. A Wildcat could take maybe 15 seconds of fire from a Zero but the lightly built Zero could not stand 2-seconds fire from a Wildcat (see Lundstrom). Tactics like the “Thatch Weave” (in use by Mid 1942) prevented the Zero from sitting “on the tail” of a Wildcat and exposed them to heavy fire if they tried.

Anyone interested should read:
The First Team by John Lundstrom (ISBN 0-87021-189-7)
The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign by John Lundstrom (ISBN 1-55750-526-8)
Bloody Shambles – Volume 1 by Christopher Shores, Brian Cull, & Yasuho Izawa (ISBN 0-948817-50-X)
Bloody Shambles – Volume 2 by Shores, Cull, Izawa (ISBN 0-948817-67-4)

All of these are detailed and scholarly works that give complete detail of air-to-air combat during the first year of WWII in the Pacific.

Lastly, I believe the game should accurately reflect the historical strengths and weaknesses and also the usual results. Historical loss rates were almost always in the range of 1:1 to 2:3 (both ways) and I would expect Uncommon Valor to usually return loss rates of 1:1 to 2:3 – with occasional results outside this range. The game should not routinely return loss rates significantly different from reality.

Finally, I also think that Uncommon Valor is a great game. It models most activities very well and the OOB research is absolutely excellent. I bought Carrier Strike, PacWar, Uncommon Valor and will buy War In the Pacific. All (so far) are great games and I am happy to have them. I disagree with details here and there and appreciate this forum as a way to discuss them.

Don Bowen

[doomonyou]

I fail to see what the problem with saying that the game overemphasizes the zero's capability in straight up fights against f4fs. I have never really gotten a sense of american chauvenism from these boards. where the histories show superiority, I hear no arguments. I have heard no one say Long lance torpedoes are too effective or that its unfair that the Japanese have these F#$%@#$ unstoppable battle ships that run riot around pounding bases for fun, take five 500 pound bomb hits and walking away (It would have taken the whole 8th airforce to sink the Yamamoto with gp 500's). I haven't heard anyone claim that Japanese Carriers weren't as dangerous as they were in this game.

I also haven't heard anyone say that in a situation where 100 zeros meet 15 f4f's that nothing bad should happen to the outnumbered group. But I have myself noticed that in straight up fights against the f4f zeros seem to fair EXTREMELY well. it is apparently not the case historically. so what's wrong with fixing that? Why does it bother anyone at all?

If someone makes a completely historical statement on a board, such as in a straight fight not involving externalities or unusually cirumstances f4f's and zeros matched up basically 1:1 so be it.

If somebody said that Japan lost the war because they were woefully underresourced and that unlike britain they had no patron on which to rely to get them critical materials which they were already running quite short of in 1943 does that offend people?

I don't understand how one goes about arguing with historical facts like that zero's never bested f4fs as they did say the p39 in open even combat. I don't think it makes anyone a fanboy of anyside to point out the facts.

SHERMAN'S SUCKED, GOD DAMM USELESS TIN CANS WE SHOULD HAVE JUST MADE T34/85's under License and slapped chrysler engines in them.

Now you can't be sure..am I really a ranter or an axis fan boy...Or secretly a soviet sympathizer...or the dreaded Axis Fanboy Ranter with Soviet Tendencies???

[Wilhammer]

"Japan lost the war (as we all know) and therefore all that Japan ever produced for the war was inferior."

No one EVER said that on this board.

Fact is, No History, no wargames.

[brisd]

Outstanding post Apollo11, most of what you wrote could have come from my mouth. This game, for all its minor past and current faults, is a superb accomplishment esp. concerning the combat sequences and OOB. I put the nitpickers and RAH RAH USA! types on IGNORE as their posts are irritating and discussions with them quickly turn into flame fests. Of course all are entitled to their opinions as we are all entitled to ignore/diss them. Welcome to the UV community and happy hunting!

[Matt Erickson]

I wonder if witp will model the us code-breaking intelligence...think how much harder it iwould have been had they not.

[U2]

Originally posted by Matt Erickson
I wonder if witp will model the us code-breaking intelligence...think how much harder it iwould have been had they not.

Well I dont know but I'm just asuming it must be in the game. I hope there is an option to turn it off too:) I dont think playing as the USN will be that much harder without it. Maybe I'm wrong since I dont know just how good Gary will make it or how it will work in the game.

Dan

[msaario]

Originally posted by doomonyou
I don't understand how one goes about arguing with historical facts like that zero's never bested f4fs as they did say the p39 in open even combat. I don't think it makes anyone a fanboy of anyside to point out the facts.

A fact or an opinion?

Perhaps it's more due to pilot training..?? (Yeap, I'm at it again.) Perhaps the US pilots flying the P39 were less experienced than the high-flying navy pilots? Weren't the navy F4F pilots the best US pilots of the time? So, shouldn't the better pilot have a higher chance of surviving and scoring? Plane makes a difference, but in the end, it's the pilot...

I'll get flamed for this once again, but what the heck, that's how I see it.

--Mikko

[mdiehl]

Msaario.

If you can find information on USAAF, RAAF, and RAAF combat losses and vs. what kind of planes for the interval prior to, say, June 1942, and the circumstances of their use, you'd fill in a big blank. Well, for me anyhow... . My **impression** of USAAF results is that they were quite variable in the early going, and mostly on the losing side (but then, that *used* to be what people thought about F4Fs and their pilots). And then, of course, the P39 was a very nice looking, totally inadequate a/c when fighting any first-line fighter. The P400 was worse -- a P39, except often with the O2 bottle missing, with a heck of a cannon -- when it didn't jam.

Don Bowen. Outstanding post, right on, and nice concise list of germane, well-researched references. Bravo man.

I bought and played PacWar extensively. A classic *game.* A mediocre simulation. I will probably buy WitP.

[RUPD3658]

Good point Apollo 11, although I agree that I haven't seen anyone complain that the Japs have an unfair advantage.

For those of you who are not history buffs concider this. The US won the battle of Midway (and in effect the war) because we caught the Jap carriers with their planes rearming. This was because they had just sighted the US fleet and were changing their bombs from HE to attack Midway to AP to attack the fleet.

The CA Tone's catapult was malfunctioning and didn't launch on time. Guess what it's assigned area of patrol was; where the US fleet was! If it launched on time the Japs would have had the first strike and the war would have been a lot longer and bloodier. In addition the strike mission that caught the carriers rearming initially couldn't find the Jap fleet. They followed a Jap DD that had just delt with a US sub and was now heading at full steam to rejoin the carriers. If it took longer to deal with the sub or was sunk by the sub, or didn't take a direct route to catch up, who knows what the battle would have turned out.

I read a book called "What IF?" which was a collection of short papers written by various historians (John Keegan is the only one that comes to mind) and they had a section on Midway. He said that the US Naval Academy has done simulations of Midway several hundred times and never came out with the historical result. Even with SIGINT info we were still outnumbered 4 CVs to 2 1/2 (the Yorktown was basically duct taped together). We got all the breaks. At Pearl Harbour the Japs got all the breaks. Lady Luck has no allegiance.


I think Apollo 11's main point goes beyond this game. Just becasue we won in the past doesn't mean we will always win. We got lucky on several occasions. If we allow ourselves as a nation to believe that we will always win because we always have, or worse yet because "God is on our side" and we are destined to win, we will be caught off gaurd and get our heads handed to us one day. Remeber last year when terrorism coundn't happen here because "This is America"? If you take things for granted someone else will take you for a fool. I saw the smoke from the WTC on 9/11 and several of my fellow officers went to help. To this day I regret not having a uniform with me so that I could have gone too. We said "Never again" after Pearl Harbour. Let's hope we mean it this time...

[pasternakski]

Don Bowen, you make sense and talk sensibly. I agree with your finely crafted post wholeheartedly.

Catch this cat's act, people. This is how discussion is done.

A salute!

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Like was said above, the major shortcomings of Japanese aircraft was not training, speed, or manoverability, or climbing rates or dive rates but DURABILITY and FIREPOWER. In order to shoot down a F4F, P-40 or P-39 an A6M or Ki-43 has to get in a lot of hits because they are fairly poorly armed and their opponent is very durable. To shoot down a US fighter requires a lot of skill as they would probably not down the aircraft on the 1st run (especially with the Ki-43). However, once a US fighter gets its sites on a Japanese plane their opponent is usually toast after one burst.

It is sort of like the analogy of cops and robbers. (US = cops, Japanese = robbers, not litterally...). The US could be fooled by robbers countless times, yet still keep in operation, but once the robbers are caught by the cops just once, game over. Robbers can be much better then the cops, but just one slip up, and they are done. Cops can screw up a few times and still not necessarily have consequences.

A US pilot can afford to be hit a few times by a Japanese pilot and escape in fairly good condition, while a Japanese pilot gets hit once and their war is done.

This might be why the kill/loss ratios were the way that they were historically (not brilliant tactics or aircraft handling but the fact that US pilots can survive more hits then Japanese pilots).

The one thing that I beleive is wrong about aircraft statistics in UV (from what I have seen) is that some of the IJAAF and IJNAF aircrarft have too high durability. This might be why Allied losses are too high.


Going back to the old Pacific War game, which was stated (in an earlier thread) to have problems in aircraft ratings, the aircraft losses stated in the screens are extremely deceptive. It may look like the US are losing more aircraft then the Japanese in late 1942, early 1943, however, if you were to actually check aircraft groups (Japanese and Allied) afterward you will notice that most of the Allied planes deemed as DESTROYED are actually damaged, while virtually all Japanese planes deemed as DESTROYED are destroyed. Even in 1942 kill rates probably favour the Allies but is hidden when damaged and destroyed aircraft are combined into one number.

For example:

40 Ki-43 vs. 40 P-40 (equal experience)

6 Ki-43 Listed as Destroyed
14 P-40 Listed as Destroyed

However, chances are that 6 Ki-43 were destroyed, and only 1 or 2 P-40 were destroyed (9-8 damaged). This is because Ki-43 Dogfight is higher (this determines the hit value for cannon), but their cannon rating is only 4 (Compared to 24 durability for P-40).

To determine wether or not an aircraft hit is damaged the following formula is applied

If Random(100)<67 and Random Defender Durability is greater then Random Attacker Cannon it is damaged, otherwize it is destroyed.

So the chances for an allied aircraft to survive an attack of a Japanese aircraft is very good (High Durability vs. Low Cannon), and the survivability of Japanese aircraft is poor (Low Durability vs. High Cannon). In most cases, US Durability is greater then Japanese Cannon rates, but most US Cannon rates are close to Japanese Durability, and sometimes surpass them.

Before something is deemed historically innaccurate, giving the wrong results, you should really check to see if the results you are looking at in the game are the REAL results. The problem and reasons that I see might be the cause for decreased Japanese losses is that durability is too high.

[ltoot]

I have on my desk an aluminum matchbox cover.

On the top there is a scenic etching of jungle and ocean with the inscription Port Moresby 1942-1943. The side has a single word ZERO etched into it. The back Says T.G. Brown 374TH Service Squadron. Dad told me it was made from the cowling of a Zero. It is unbeliveably light.

In early 1942 dad said for his money and most of the guys he flew with the Japanese were winning the war. There was a fighter group from Rabaul called "The Cherry Blossom Outfit" because they had bright red spinners on their Zeros. The allied fighter groups were told not to engage them unless they had the drop on them. The B-25 guys were told to go the other way.

When the Japanese came over the Owen Stanley Mountains they were dropping morter rounds on dad's strip and he and four other fellows were burning the B-25s that couldn't fly out. Meanwhile the Australian infantry was landing in C-47s and heading up the trail for immediate contact with the Japanese. Dad said he was certain the Japanese were winning.

Slowly the tide turned. ANZAC trops clawed back up the Kokoda trail. Bismark Sea, Buna, Milne Bay. Fewer 100 plane Japanese air raids. P-38s and P-47s trickled in. Beaufighters showed up. The tactic of skip bombing ships and para-frag bombing for airfields were developed. B-25s and A-20s were modified into lethal straffers. Spare parts begin to come from crates instead of damaged airplanes.

I have pictures of brown, very skinny guys, with cut off shorts, boots, no shirts, at least a weeks growth of beard, and no insignia of rank anywhere. Dad said these were his B-25 crew. For that year 1942-43 those guys and a lot of other people stood toe to toe and beat the hell out of each other. They didn't know who was winning. They were just hanging on. In the end a lot of sons and fathers and brothers did return home to New Zeland or Australia, America or Japan.

The Japanese were winning in early 1942 by 1943 the allies had the upper hand. UV is a great simulation. If you do it right you can watch that amazing time of battle unfold. Kudos to the designers.

One more thing. The next time you boot up UV, give a moment to all those brown skinny guys, on both sides. They rate it.

[wmtiz]

Originally posted by ltoot
....One more thing. The next time you boot up UV, give a moment to all those brown skinny guys, on both sides. They rate it.

ltoot;
Very well spoken. Give a moment, remember and never forget. Hats off to you!

William

[Luskan]

"Fact is, No History, no wargames." - posted by Wilhammer

Sci Fi and Fantasy make up more of the wargames/ strategy/ simulation/ or 1st-person-shooter computer game market than "historical" ones don't they?

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Originally posted by Luskan
"Fact is, No History, no wargames." - posted by Wilhammer

Sci Fi and Fantasy make up more of the wargames/ strategy/ simulation/ or 1st-person-shooter computer game market than "historical" ones don't they?

Actually, the definition of a Wargame requires it to be based off some sort of historical event (possibly something in the near future as well). There is no such thing as a Sci-Fi Wargame, as it is an antithesis. Something comparable to a Sci-fi Wargame would be a Sci-fi strategy game. Wargames pit you into the role of a military commander in a historic battle or theatre of war.

History is an intringent component in a Wargame.

Historical Wargames make up about 80-90% of all classified Wargames (the other 10-20% are just barely related to history).

[Luskan]

Learn something every day!
Not sure about your figures though - I was just guessing at the number of games I could see on Gamespot, or at EBGames site, or just the last time I walked into EBGames local shop (not since long before UV).