A quick list of pro-USN bias.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Paratrooper
...because you can't have an eighteen page long thread without once mentioning the Bismarck. :p

I'll give him this.....at least he spelled it correctly :p

[Tristanjohn]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The difference between the B-17 in the game and reality is that the B-17 in REALITY did get shot down. Not mysteriously fall apart during flight. Not get lost on the way home, but get damaged enough that the plane could no longer fly. It happened
to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. THAT is the reality Snigbert, you simply chose to ignore it. Just like you choose to ignore the other posters that complaining about LBA as well. I wonder what the total B-17 lost to enemy action is. Anyone have a source?

As for a source, try here (this site is the the most convenient "supermarket" I've found for collective statistics of USAAF operations in WWII--if anyone has something better please let me know):

• http://tinyurl.com/kiod

You'll notice that B-17s aren't listed separately, there's just a catchall category of heavy bombers, but a glance will show you that the percentage lost in combat to either Enemy Aircraft (40), Anti-aircraft (24) and Other Causes (33) was not especially high considering the total sorties flown durning the entire war.

• http://tinyurl.com/kjc8

I find it interesting that for all of the period running from June through December 1942 only 2 heavy bombers were lost to enemy aircraft, with 4 "operational" losses. In all of 1943 23 heavy bombers were casualties (17-1-5). Losses peaked in 1944 at 38 (14-9-15), "tailing off" to 30 in the last year of the war (7-14-9), though of course this included less than eight months of warfare, so in fact losses kept climbing throughout the conflict.

These numbers don't surprise me a whole lot. As the number of USAAF bomber squadrons in the Pacific increased the number of sorties they flew went up as well, with casualties following suit. Still, our heavy bomber squadrons in the Pacific didn't encounter anywhere near the stiff resistance they met over Germany, where losses of planes and crews were orders of magnitude higher.

Be that as it may, there is no sense denying American heavy bombers were mainly well conceived and sturdily constructed. These were not perfect delivery plaltforms, but until the B-29 came along the B-17 and B-24 were the best heavy bombers in the world.

Chiteng, for what it's worth I happen to agree with you that the B-17 is given too much prowess with regard to hitting enemy shipping (assuming these missions are conducted against TFs in transit). The IJN (or at least some of their naval commanders) came to practically ignore small groups of level bombers overhead for they reason they knew from experience there was small likelihood of these planes hitting anything.

A couple of points should be kept in mind:

1. Many of the incidents we speak to involved small groups of level bombers, at times just one or two planes on patrol, not the mass raids all too often depicted by the UV system
2. "Hits" in UV terms might want to depict what in reality were near misses that sometimes caused a lot of damage to thin-skinned vessels[/list=1]
   Keep in mind this sword of "unfairness" cuts both ways. On the Japanese side of the board, just for instance, Bettys and Nells are allowed to wreck havoc on Allied TFs, and it doesn't matter if these ships are on the high seas or anchored in some port. In a fantastically distorted pastiche of WWII history this game allows Nells and Bettys to slaughter any shipping they find at a rate that can only be termed laughable. If you want to know, my experience has been that hyped-up Japanese prowess in the air module far and away overshadows any advantage the Allies might enjoy with regard to the accuracy of level bombers vis-a-vis IJN shipping. (That doesn't make any of these errors, right, mind you.)
   
   Try to simulate the Japanese response (in terms of air attacks) to the Guadacanal landing with anything like accuracy as a result. Just try. All I can do is shake my head when I see this stuff in play, then wonder what the test crew was doing with itself, or for that matter who made up that group and what sort of understanding of WWII history it collectively possessed.
   

   As for performing to your satisfaction, when I get a public apology
   I will consider it. Until then....

   I don't take sides as a rule in personal exchanges, Chiteng, and I have no particular ax to grind on the issue of B-17 effectiveness in the game. At times it does strike me as off, but there is so much "off" throughout the width and breadth of UV that for me at least it's hard to know where to start with my criticism.
   
   Thing is, you do sound a bit sensitive, and exhibit regretable reluctance to accept verifiable sources. (For that matter, why not do your own research? And should you bother, let me add that the best way to go about that kind of project is to search for data that contradicts your position coming in . . . that is, if you're looking for truth.)
   
   I don't a finger at you, but at the same time I don't get the impression you're as eager to see the UV system as a whole corrected as much as ato ensure a couple of your personal pet peeves get attention. Try to be more altrustic.
   
   Look. These forums are dominated by middlebrow types. The result is one thread after another that otherwise might have contributed something useful to the further development of UV gets hijacked. Now that's the nature of people and so should be expected. But I put this to you: why not use your intellectual gifts to rise above the common noise? Instead of harping just on the B-17 issue why not tackle the flaws of this system . . . as a whole?

[Tristanjohn]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I can too read minds. If the Japanese were not afraid of LBA theu would have parked around Guadalcanal 24/7 (Like the USN did late in the war when they were not afraid of LBA (well the guys who made the plans were not afraid of LBA the Gunnersmates on all the ships being hit were afraid of LBA)

If your not worried about air attack you don't have to stay out of range during the day and run in at night. And then run away again. You just sit there the way the USN did.

Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.

That last bit about the USN not bombarding bases is in error (after the 'Canal was taken and consolidated), but otherwise your points are solid.

Unless you stick to the historic after Midway scenarios all kinds of whacky things take place. (To avoid most weirdness play the scenario begining in Aug 42. It is the one that covers what actually went on down here)

If you refer to "Hard Road Ahead" I agree heartedly that it is the most realistic scenario I've played to date. The "no Midway" scenarios are ridiculous with so much naval power for the IJN packed into such a tiny geographical area, all under the premise, presumably, that no other war was going on elsewhere. In general these scenarios only make the problems inherent to UV all the more obvious. Apparently, many gamers find these wild-and-woolly slugfests to be great fun, especially with the Japanese side early on from what I gather. I, for one, do not, but that's another issue (namely, that if there weren't such gamers out there companies would have to work harder to get these types of simulations historically more accurate to begin with--or face disappointing sales).

[Tristanjohn]

Originally posted by Snigbert
His lack of tact has so far managed to create the opposite effect of what he desired, for what it's worth. Rather than getting the testers to give consideration to his argument by presenting them with some semblance of decorum he has stripped himself of any potential influence he might have had by selecting the tactic he did. I dont think I'll be seeing a thread on the development forum anytime soon addressing his 'improvement' suggestions.

I certainly hope your attitude doesn't reflect the collective thinking within the WitP playtest group, an assemblage which ought to be focused on just one task: helping to make the game as good as it possibly can.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Tristanjohn
Instead of harping just on the B-17 issue why not tackle the flaws of this system . . . as a whole?

Because I know from experience with other designs that there is no hope whatever of a major re-design of the combat model.

As for Betty Nell and B-24, they can be shot down.
So the problem IS irksome YES, but it is also possible to
minimize it 'ingame'. Not so the B-17.

I HAVE done my own research on the War in the Pacific.
But it means little to people who use a web-browser as a
primary source. These people here 'pretend' to know who
Toland, Hara, Morrison are, but somehow I doubt they have actually read them.

I have.

[Tristanjohn]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Because I know from experience with other designs that there is no hope whatever of a major re-design of the combat model.

You're undoubtedly right insofar as UV itself is concerned, though there's hope the designers will get it closer to "right" with WitP in mind.

As for Betty Nell and B-24, they can be shot down.
So the problem IS irksome YES, but it is also possible to
minimize it 'ingame'. Not so the B-17.

Well, I've seen my B-17s take loads of damage along the way, Chiteng, and just as someone else observed it's all I can do to keep a couple groups operational at all, and this only after disbanding one into another after a few weeks of attrition.

I HAVE done my own research on the War in the Pacific.
But it means little to people who use a web-browser as a
primary source. These people here 'pretend' to know who
Toland, Hara, Morrison are, but somehow I doubt they have actually read them.

I don't know about that but I suspect you're right in some cases. Others who frequent these boards seem to be more thoughtful, though. There's plenty off good commentary here, it's just that the signal-to-noise ratio is always so high.

By the way, "Morrison" is spelled Morison, as in Samuel Eliot. (Not picking on you there, I just hate to see a person's name spelled wrong, especially that guy--he was too good of a scholar.)

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Tristanjohn
Keep in mind this sword of "unfairness" cuts both ways. On the Japanese side of the board, just for instance, Bettys and Nells are allowed to wreck havoc on Allied TFs, and it doesn't matter if these ships are on the high seas or anchored in some port. In a fantastically distorted pastiche of WWII history this game allows Nells and Bettys to slaughter any shipping they find at a rate that can only be termed laughable. If you want to know, my experience has been that hyped-up Japanese prowess in the air module far and away overshadows any advantage the Allies might enjoy with regard to the accuracy of level bombers vis-a-vis IJN shipping. (That doesn't make any of these errors, right, mind you.)

Hi,

I agree that Nells and Bettys can be deadly early in the game, but I find they are generally toast once allied AA upgrades kick in and or if there is any CAP protecting the TF. I find that Nells and Bettys will almost always break off Torp attacks if there is CAP. Unless there is overwelming number of escorts. When you say slaughtered shipping do you mean unescorted un-CAP transport TFs or are you refering to surface combat TFs. Are you finding Nells and Bettys holding up against 40mm and 20mm AA? Because I certainly don't find this to be the case.

I do however, think Nells and Bettys should suffer severe penalties for port attacks. Most ports (not all) covered in UV are realistically too small for effective multi-engine torp bomber attacks. I think if each port hex not only modeled functional size but actual geographic size and there were corrosponding penalties you would see the over use of this tactic greatly diminished. I think frequency tends to exagerate preceived effectiveness.

[pasternakski]

"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Just like our pal Voltaire to arrogate to himself the ability to judge which beliefs ought to be tolerated and which ought to bring excoriation of the believer. Who's the monster now?

I've always had a distaste for French philosophers, all the way from the self-important Rousseau to the self-aggrandizing Sartre. Voltaire was amusing sometimes, but hardly someone I would condescend to quoting in my signature line.

Besides, the women are flat chested and skinny lipped.

Consider this an expression of my pro-USN bias.

[mogami]

"These people here 'pretend' to know who
Toland, Hara, Morrison are, but somehow I doubt they have actually read them."

Hi, It's been a few years since I read Toland. I've lost my copies of his books. On what page does he discuss B-17 hit probabilities versus TF? I admit I do not hold him in the esteem I did when I first read him. When he wrote US Naval Intel in Wash DC knew the IJN CV were heading for PH as early as Dec 3rd I began to waver in my trust. (He heard it from a Dutch officer who the USN just let in Naval Intel whenever he wanted and showed him where the Japanese were)
I read the entire Morison history while serving onboard USN FFG-22 (FFG-13 was the SE Morison in the same Desron)
But I don't remember anything that would reveal a problem in UV.
Being some what eccentric I go by the results of PBEM.
I have seen a few reports of problems
"Massive groups of B-17" to me is a question of perception.
If the US player hordes every B-17 and then unleashes them all at once he can have 120 in one strike. (In mid 1943 120 B-17's over Germany would be considered a nusance raid)
I have reported allied players have used this tactic against me and I did not like it. I also don't like USN submarines, USMC divisions, USN AA, USN ASW (I don't like those mean people, they won't let me go where I want to go)
I'm sure I feel about the same as the Japanese did. (game must be right)
No really I think it is too much detail being given to players.
Operational Level would be "You sent 15 ships to Lunga, enemy bombers sank 1 and damaged 3" (thats all) But since UV/WITP has the little show of aircraft and ships people get bent up by triva (lots of games just use "airpoints" ) I figure so what if one air attack shows a B-17 scoring a hit. I also watched 10 in a row where SBD, B-25, Hudson, TBF all missed. But Operationaly the 1 ship sunk 3 damaged is plausable.
I'm not excusing the program. I'm just pointing out that dispite 18 months of playing UV I've only seen a few events that caused me to roll my eyes (and they were bugs that have since been addressed)
It's all a matter of perception. When I'm the Japanese I feel the Allies are too powerfull. When I'm the Allies I wonder how on earth I can hold on with the limited amount of crap I get versus the IJN steamroller.

[Tristanjohn]

Originally posted by TIMJOT
Hi,

I agree that Nells and Bettys can be deadly early in the game, but I find they are generally toast once allied AA upgrades kick in and or if there is any CAP protecting the TF. I find that Nells and Bettys will almost always break off Torp attacks if there is CAP. Unless there is overwelming number of escorts. When you say slaughtered shipping do you mean unescorted un-CAP transport TFs or are you refering to surface combat TFs. Are you finding Nells and Bettys holding up against 40mm and 20mm AA? Because I certainly don't find this to be the case.

I do however, think Nells and Bettys should suffer severe penalties for port attacks. Most ports (not all) covered in UV are realistically too small for effective multi-engine torp bomber attacks. I think if each port hex not only modeled functional size but actual geographic size and there were corrosponding penalties you would see the over use of this tactic greatly diminished. I think frequency tends to exagerate preceived effectiveness.

Effectiveness of Japanese level bombers varies within my play experience, but even when the results are "modest" by this system's standards they're still too effective to reflect historical results; when they hit the upper limits of UV possibility then "laughable" rears its head.

I keep hearing this refrain of "Yeah, they're a bit too effective early on . . but just wait until Allied flak gears up," or words to that effect. And I'm moved to ask: so what? The point is they're too effective (make that way too effective) to begin the game, and when Allied flak does "gear up" all I'd predict is that this new USN flak prowess would only drop Japanese air power down somewhere closer to what it ought to have been at the start. How does that "correct" anything? Meanwhile, Japanese flak begins the game too effective, subtracting from the USN side of the equation. Not good.

My point's simple enough: Japanese air power in this game is off to a degree that hints at either 1) outright bias on the part of the designers (to make a better, more playable game?), 2) a certain misappreciation of this particular history and/or 3) inability on the part of the development team to get it right (assuming historical awareness on anyone's part to begin with).

As for port hexes: exactly what do you mean when you say "port"? Do you mean Brisbane's harbor, or the roads off Lunga Point that served as Guadacanal's "port" during this campaign?

I haven't bothered to mention this because I cringe when I do so, but if Brisbane is a 9-level port in the UV scale of things then I'd venture to say Noumea would represent something on the order of .1 (that's POINT-ONE for anyone with bad eyesight) in the months of, say, June through August of 1942, Using Brisbane as our benchmark again, at its height Nomea could never have been considered more than a 1-level port. Am I the only one around here to realize that, is it old hat? (I ask because I haven't seen it mentioned, though I admit to not having read one-tenth of a percent of this board's material.)

Anyway, if you're talking about the Lunga Points in the game then in some cases you'd be correct, TIMJOT (in that there wouldn't be a whole lot of room bombers to conduct torpedo runs--that, or reefs, sandbars, foul water in general would stand in the way), in others no. It would just depend on the site in question. We might talk about this more deeply if you want. This game could stand a thorough map study--I've nitpicks in that area, too.

By the way, Bettys could drop their torpedo loads from a pretty good height. This wasn't their established doctrine, but the ability was there. (Not in shoal water, of course.)

Getting back to AA and CAP affecting Bettys and Nells: USN flak was already a fairly sophisticated weapons system (speaking on the whole) by the time autumn of 1942 rolled around. As the Navy adopted CIC doctrine, proximity fuzes, radar fire control, better tactical skill manneuvering its TFs with flak protection in mind, plus the addition of more and more AA platforms on its ships, the Japanese not only dropped like flies but began to shy away from this murderous fire in round numbers. (For that matter, study how adroitly Admiral Turner negated Betty attempts to strike his transports off Lunga Point right after the landing, and this without hardly any flak at all and only a few Wildcats overhead as CAP.)

I'm sorry, but this system simply wasn't given enough thought coming in. I suspect that too much has been borrowed for the combat routines of this game's ancestors while not enough new programming was undertaken with an eye to correct the obvious flaws from those earlier titles. (I don't know that, it's just my feeling based on what I've seen of UV and what I know of Grigsby's prior work in this area.)

Thanks for chipping in, TIMJOT. Always a pleasure.

[Angel]

I don't know a lot about planes, weapons, etc... but I'm a specialist of teleportation. I the game reinforcements teleportation occurs in Truk, Brisbane and Noumea. Nothing to say about Bribane and Truk, they are rearbases. But Noumea is nearly a frontbase and these reinforcements make it almost impossible to take.This is ,IMHO, a major pro USN bias.

I think that ,if IJN controls Lunganville, the reinforcements for Noumea should be delayed and rerouted to Brisbane or something like that, .The fall of Noumea would then greatly reduce or at least delay reinforcements from PH in Brisbane.
In this case AutoVictory rules would be useless: the game wouldn't be so desequilibrated in 1943.

In the game Noumea can't be isolated from PH and this is a proUSN bias.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by pasternakski
"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Just like our pal Voltaire to arrogate to himself the ability to judge which beliefs ought to be tolerated and which ought to bring excoriation of the believer. Who's the monster now?

I've always had a distaste for French philosophers, all the way from the self-important Rousseau to the self-aggrandizing Sartre. Voltaire was amusing sometimes, but hardly someone I would condescend to quoting in my signature line.

Besides, the women are flat chested and skinny lipped.

Consider this an expression of my pro-USN bias.

Voltaire loved picking fights Pasternaski. Not all of which he would win.

[mogami]

Hi, I wish people would stop using the phrase "historical results"
Of course the results won't be historical. No one plays the game historically. How many of these south pacific airfields had 400 bombers stationed on them? How often did troop laden transports sit in range of these 400 bombers?
Betties and Nell's proved they could sink warships at sea. (BB,BC,CA were all sunk at sea by Betty) I can imagine the excitement that would have occurred at a Japanese airfield with several hundred Betties/Nells when 25+ allied transports came into range without CAP. How many transports do you think the Japanese would have sunk?
Stop blaming the game and start accepting the responsibility for the screwy results.
Every time I do exactly what occurred historically I get pretty much the exact historical result. (This means the game works)
It was not the Beta testers fault. (Back in Beta testing I recall a long heated debate whether Japan could even capture Luganville.
Everyone was much more modest in their operations. (patch and time have turned UV into a 60 day race. I'm certain if one side or the other had had the knowledge of the future the way every UV player has events would have been vastly different.

In WITP the style of play used in UV will lead to some interesting situations. Ignore the defense of any base within enemy recon and see what occurs. Ignore the West Coast USA or the Home Islands. It's clear to me from reading AAR and playing PBEM that people do not worry so much about disaster as they crave some wonder trick victory.
There is a wide spread perception that the Japanese had overwhelming power in 1941-42. Not so. If the Allies had their material massed they would overwhelm any local Japanese.
The Japanese are concentrated and the allies dispersed.
If the Japanese ignore the defense of the Central Pacific and send the IJN elsewhere. In WITP expect allied capture of Japanese bases early and often. I'm sure this will trigger howls of WITP being incorrect. The sad truth is both sides will have to commit a large amount of their resources to defending areas that will never see an enemy. But if you leave these bases unguarded you will invite what was historically impossible/impractical.

I don't think the games can or should restrict players to only historical behaviour. I feel it is unfair and unreasonable to critize the program results when your not following history to begin with.

Everytime I duplicate a historcal event in testing. (send the type and number of aircraft against the correct target) I get "historical" results.
Wheres the beef?

What do you suppose would be the outcome of any simulation of the battle of Antietam that did not impose "historical" restrictions on the use of the Army of Potomac? Would you expect the ANV do last past noon on Sept 17th 1862?
Would the result be historical? Was this outcome possible? Would the simulation therefore be flawed? (or would it be a very good case for making it in the first place to prove or disprove the notion that McClellan could and should have destroyed Lee then and there.) He certainly had knowledge of Lee's dispositions and intentions for weeks prior to the battle. In UV with this same knowledge aggressive players "exploit" the system to achieve "ahistorical" results. It does not mean the system is flawed. In fact it justifies it. It forces the players into acting "ahistorically" from the start. Since both sides know "what/where/when" they can't react in the historical manner.

[Nikademus]

Logic has no place here Mogami.....I think it went bye bye somewhere around page 15

Far easier to simply blame Matrix and the beta testers for promoting "laughable" results. :rolleyes:

[Tristanjohn]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I wish people would stop using the phrase "historical results"

Have it your way, then. This game system renders consistently unreasonable results, results which cannot be found from any reading of the WWII history in question.

How's that? (Says the same thing, of course. )

Of course the results won't be historical. No one plays the game historically. How many of these south pacific airfields had 400 bombers stationed on them? How often did troop laden transports sit in range of these 400 bombers?

I don't know about that. I try to play the game historically, indeed, my concern is that the system fights against this sort of realistic play, instead rewards ahistoric methods.

Good point re airfields, which gets back to the problem at hand, namely that the system mechanics were not well conceived to model this history. Case: why should it be possible to operate x-hundred aircraft from a 3- or 4-level level"strip" at, say, Mieta? There's a reason the Japanese gave up in their attempts to build there. (Why they ever started makes one wonder about their higher command's competence to manage warfare of this scale in such a setting.) In UV, however, such a venture UV is a snap. Just dedicate the time of engineers and the supplies requisite and presto! there's an airfield at Mieta and now, if we stuff enough base support in there, this field can fly as many planes (and at level 4 of any kind without penalty) as one wishes. It doesn't matter to the system that the Mieta site was wholly unsuitable to even the establishment of a short fighter strip, much less an "airfield" capable of launching heavy or even medium bombers.

Dumb.

Betties and Nell's proved they could sink warships at sea. (BB,BC,CA were all sunk at sea by Betty) I can imagine the excitement that would have occurred at a Japanese airfield with several hundred Betties/Nells when 25+ allied transports came into range without CAP. How many transports do you think the Japanese would have sunk?

Well, off Lunga Point on the 7th of August 1942, under similar circumstances, the Japanese sunk precisely . . . zero.

Briefly: two separate Japanese attacks went in with a total of 43 bombers and 18 Zeroes participating. CAP was provided by Enterprise and Saratoga. In all, the Japanese probably lost 14 of the dive-bombers and two of the 18 "Zekes" (this according to Rear Admiral Yamada, 25th Air Flotilla, after the war--USN claims at the time, based on AAR from the American pilots, were higher at the time). The Japanese did register a hit on destroyer Mugford which killed 22 men but caused only slight damage to the vessel.

The next day, on the 8th, Yamada sent in torpedo bombers with another fighter escort. Of 26 bombers noted in the Japanese attack formation only nine were seen to pass through Admiral Turner's task force of transports, then steaming at 13.5 knots out in Nggela Channel and responding to orders for simultaneous turns. The only torpedo hit was recorded on destroyer Jarvis. Another Betty which had been hit badly was steered by its pilot into transport George F. Elliott. The latter became a burning hulk (Morison cites a green crew jumping ship and poor damage control as the culprits).

It's difficult to test this scenario with the UV system for the reason the model for "spotting" is too far out of whack. In reality, Yamada's pilots never could find Admiral Fletcher's CV TF, while in the game it's always spotted. Or at least when I've tried to simulate this battle it's always been spotted. I suppose if I ran the test a thousand times eventually the Japanese planes would leave these ships alone and go after the ships off Lunga Point instead.

So what I did was to put similar CAP strength in Wildcats at Henderson Field and let these fighter groups provide CAP. The result? The Japanese dive-bombers consistently recorded multiple hits on both warships and transports in a simulation of the attack on 7 August, and the Betty's sent in on the 8th scored multilple hits on both warships and transports on the 8th. Time after time, without fail.

I haven't bothered to keep records of these tests so I have no combat reports to show you. But the tests aren't difficult to edit and can be run fast enough.

By the way, in this campaign Japanese air groups headed south down the Slot were reported all the time by coastwatchers, thus affording the USN time to prepare off Guadacanal. On the 8th this early warning afforded Turner 80 minutes lead time, which he put to good use getting steam up so his ships could get out into the relative safety of the channel. This, too, is not modelled by the UV system. Yet another shortcoming, and one which tips the balance yet again in favor of Japanese air power.

Stop blaming the game and start accepting the responsibility for the screwy results. Every time I do exactly what occurred historically I get pretty much the exact historical result. (This means the game works)

Now you're teating yourself to a giddy session of denial. This game system does not give reasonable/historical results in all too many situations for a very simple reason: the game mechanics will not allow for this eventuality.

Please, let's keep this discussion serious. I want to make the follow-on title WitP better, not see the same old mistakes repeated once more.

It was not the Beta testers fault. (Back in Beta testing I recall a long heated debate whether Japan could even capture Luganville. Everyone was much more modest in their operations. (patch and time have turned UV into a 60 day race. I'm certain if one side or the other had had the knowledge of the future the way every UV player has events would have been vastly different.

"Patch and time," eh? That sounds to me as if the game system wasn't tested thoroughly enough out the door. For what it might be worth, beta groups are supposed to find these holes in the system. The purpose of beta testers (in large part) is to try and break the game system.

Ergo: the testing of UV, if not exactly "bad" was certainly insufficient. I don't mean to slam you or anyone else here, Mogami, but the result speaks for itself.

As for the patches, I wasn't around then and have little idea what shape UV arrived in and what was called for patch-wise, but as I noted earlier in another thread, a player I know has told me the old "squeaky wheel" started making its squeaky-wheel sounds and pretty soon those patches began to flow.

All I know is that as it stands, UV is incapable of closely modelling this page of history, and that is an issue inherent to the system--it has nothing whatsoever about how I play it.

As for the scenarios and some of the incredible results I hear about: part of that has to do with the system mechanics (how could it not?), and part of it's just the fantastic nature of the scenarios themselves. Please tell me if you can what could be the possible allure to playing a scenario where the Japanese are given the potential to amass some 200% of their actual (historical) naval assets in an area as tiny (and isolated) as the South Pacific? Where do these ships come from? How is it that they have become available? Is there no war on anywhere else in the Pacific Ocean? What's going on?

In WITP the style of play used in UV will lead to some interesting situations. Ignore the defense of any base within enemy recon and see what occurs. Ignore the West Coast USA or the Home Islands. It's clear to me from reading AAR and playing PBEM that people do not worry so much about disaster as they crave some wonder trick victory.

No doubt there's a lot of that in there. But the context of the greater war will only help WitP so much. The actual system is still off in worrying areas (assuming critical changes have not been made from UV, which is what I read into your remarks), other mechanics which might prove helpful have not (as fart as I know) been installed.

There is a wide spread perception that the Japanese had overwhelming power in 1941-42. Not so.

Then why was Japanese air power modelled in UV to simulate substantial ascendancy over its Allied counterpart? Were the Japanese pilots more experienced? Many of them were, at the start--but American pilots caught on fast. Was Japanese equipment that much better? In fact, on balance it wasn't as good in a lot of critical ways. Were Japanese air tactics superior? Not after the first few encounters they weren't. Soon enough we had their number and the loss rate of the "bad guys" spiked upward in a hurry.

Problem is, I don't see any of this modelled correctly, either. Exeprience ratings coming in are arbitrary and I'd guess, like with Girgsby's games in general, they have a lot to do with the problem. I note that experience ratings don't seem to change very fast for Allied pilots. These must have changed one whole helluva lot in reality because those very same pilots started to knock down enemy aircraft at a 2-1 clip shortly after first meeting the Japanese, and this with the same old obsolete equipment.

Has any of this been changed?

If the Allies had their material massed they would overwhelm any local Japanese. The Japanese are concentrated and the allies dispersed. If the Japanese ignore the defense of the Central Pacific and send the IJN elsewhere. In WITP expect allied capture of Japanese bases early and often. I'm sure this will trigger howls of WITP being incorrect. The sad truth is both sides will have to commit a large amount of their resources to defending areas that will never see an enemy. But if you leave these bases unguarded you will invite what was historically impossible/impractical.

We'll see about that. Sounds good, as far as it goes.

I don't think the games can or should restrict players to only historical behaviour. I feel it is unfair and unreasonable to critize the program results when your not following history to begin with.

Again, I'm not sure you get it. This system (speaking about UV) is off because of its design flaws. Ahistorical strategies wedded to fantastic scenarios aggravates that problem but is not itself the cause.

Everytime I duplicate a historcal event in testing. (send the type and number of aircraft against the correct target) I get "historical" results. Wheres the beef?

The beef here is that isn't the case with UV. If something in this regard has been changed with WitP fine, I'm all for good change.

What do you suppose would be the outcome of any simulation of the battle of Antietam that did not impose "historical" restrictions on the use of the Army of Potomac? Would you expect the ANV do last past noon on Sept 17th 1862? Would the result be historical? Was this outcome possible? Would the simulation therefore be flawed? (or would it be a very good case for making it in the first place to prove or disprove the notion that McClellan could and should have destroyed Lee then and there.) He certainly had knowledge of Lee's dispositions and intentions for weeks prior to the battle. In UV with this same knowledge aggressive players "exploit" the system to achieve "ahistorical" results. It does not mean the system is flawed. In fact it justifies it. It forces the players into acting "ahistorically" from the start. Since both sides know "what/where/when" they can't react in the historical manner.

You're off on a different tangent. The discussion here is about UV system mechanics, not player strategy. Sure, these wargames offer too much knowledge in the form of hindsight in all too many respects for anyone to expect identical results with history. All well and good. But that doesn't begin to address specific problems with the game before us, rather is a topic for another (and interesting) discussion of how best to go about simulating warfare in general.

Let me say this: from what I've read from the testers my impression is this group is not critical enough by half. The game system is fun to play around with. Grigsby's games always are in my experience--call that bias, perhaps, on my part, plus my interest in this history. But make no mistake. Giant strides are necessary if this system ever hopes to become a realistic model of the period.

Thanks for adding your input, Mogami.

[Tristanjohn]

Originally posted by Nikademus
Logic has no place here Mogami.....I think it went bye bye somewhere around page 15

Far easier to simply blame Matrix and the beta testers for promoting "laughable" results. :rolleyes:

It is inflammatory replies just like this one by you which lead these threads down the sorry paths they all too often follow.

Here's a suggestion: if you have nothing pertinent (and hopefully constructive) to contribute to a conversation, why not say nothing at all? At least then you wouldn't detract from the proceeding.

[mogami]

Hi Tristanjohn. Many people do not agree with your basic notion of UV being flawed. I love the game and system and do not have the problems you seem to.
I don't see any "super" weapons for any side.
I do see alot of people with preconcived notions having a hard time.
None of the results are unreasonable. Much of the strategy and tactics and operational plans used by players are highly unresonable.
In WITP the Japanese player will be able to send as much as he wants to the South Pacific. It will be up to the Allied player to exploit this. In UV the simple method I use is to sink as many IJN ships as I can. The more the Japanese get the more I can turn into victory points.

Go back and read all the beta pre-release threads before offering an opinion of testing. UV reflects a vast amount of non tester input. The patch history is not one of fixing the game but one of adding features requested by this board.

Just to insure we all know the rules. A size 4 airfield can operate 200 AC without penalty. 400 requires a size 8 airfield.
The USA could and did build airfields on impossible locations.
Go look at the strip on French Frigate Shoals.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Tristanjohn
It is inflammatory replies just like this one by you which lead these threads down the sorry paths they all too often follow.

Here's a suggestion: if you have nothing pertinent (and hopefully constructive) to contribute to a conversation, why not say nothing at all? At least then you wouldn't detract from the proceeding.

Here's another suggestion: Instead of making continual cracks at Matrix and it's testers, and at the game itself, lets see you offer some serious test data that supports your theories that the game engine is flawed.

While your at it, research the history of the patches before you make comments about faults in the testing iand how well the game was designed as released.

Thats my interpretation of "inflammatory"

[mogami]

Hi, PS I was not a prerelease tester. Prior to release the non tester matrix board users were begging for UV to be released even while still in Alpha. Matrix did not give in and release UV early. UV 2.30 is a result of post release requests. For every "fix" of 1.0 there were 5-10 totally new features (new features often produce new problems) 1.0 played well and UV could have stayed there and still been the best release on the subject. 2.30 is awesome. WITP is a whole new animal. It will be easy for UV players to learn but they will quickly learn it is not the same.
(I think WITP Alpha plays well)
But I don't think any of the wars produced between two humans will replicate WW2 in the Pacific. (aside from place names)
WITP continues to expand to reflect non tester input.

[Tristanjohn]

Originally posted by Mogami
None of the results are unreasonable.

Well, let's see. In a PBEM recently I watched my opponent's air assets from Rabaul fly three separate missions in one turn: two naval attacks on Gili Gili, then an airfield attack on Port Moresby. At the time he had one squadron of Zeroes and two of bombers in Rabaul, and all three squadrons participated in each of the above-cited attacks.

Now if that doesn't strike you as unreasonable then I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of that term.

Why write such silly stuff as "None of the results are unreasonable"? And why would it be meaningful to say that "many" players disagree with me, that for them everything's hunky-dory? Isn't it just possible that some, or even all, of these players are simply ignorant of the difference? Or simply aren't bothered that much by the inaccuracies and unreasonable results you claim don't exist (to any degree whatsoever) to begin with?

If just one person steps forward and clearly illustrates a flaw in the system, should this person's opinion be disregarded for the reason he stands alone? Must one share some "majority" of opinion before his views gain credence with this board?

I fail to see wisdom in your logic, Mogami. (I'm trying, but it ain't easy. )