Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Are you using a "bug" as an example of game play? (I think your saying single airgroups performed different types of missions in a single turn. Naval attack followed by Airfield attack.
Did your opponenet concur this occured? (or are you guessing?)
I'm not here to guess. I'm here to discuss the system.
Yes, my opponent is aware of this. If you'd like I'll give you his email address offline and you may query him yourself.
What I wrote should be plain enough: three sqadrons in Rabaul (one fighter, two bomber) flew
three separate mission in one turn, first to Gili Gili (two separate naval attacks there), then finally to Port Moresby (airfield attack). The mileage involved is something over 3,000 miles
without factoring in time over target, not to mention the time invloved back at Rabaul refueling, reloading ordnance and all that. I make it the equivalent of some 3,500 (if not more) air miles on machines and crews, plus the time invloved.
I call that fantastic.
1 Airgroup can attack multiple naval targets (with less then full strength on any one target-27 Betties could in theroy attack 27 different TF's in one phase with 1 Betty each. However the group set to port attack should never attack a TF (unless you have a percentage assigned to search an the single patrol ac attacks a spotted TF) I've never witnessed or heard of this bug before.
I'm not at all sure it's a bug. Those groups all flew at full strength. If pushed I could probably produce the game's combat report which would at list the number of planes in each attack. What that file wouldn't do is demonstrate how many squadrons happened to be stationed at Rabaul at the time and what their settings were.
Also, these files can be easily edited, so they hardly constitute "proof" of anything.
I admit I was using the "Silent Majority" since I've read more positive reviews/AAR/comments then I am willing to accept "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"
What's so outrageous about that statement of mine? First of all it was only a possibility that I suggested in opposition to your position, and secondly a close reading of these boards shows that everyone around here is not necessarily of sound mind.
Also, do you suppose all these gamers have the same grasp of history? I say (know) that they do not--it's apparent from their comments that they do not.
(I think if UV produced unreasonable results there would be more then the half dozen or so hardcore anti UV posters)
That's your bias kicking in again. I've stated that I haven't read one-tenth of a percent of the boards here, yet I could easily point to more than a "half dozen" users who see what I do, or stuff real close to it.
And what makes users of this game all of a sudden "hardcore anti UV posters"? Does anyone with the brains to see a problem and the ability to articvulate that problem clearly on these boards in good English at that automatically get labelled as a "troublemaker" around here?
I thought I was
paying customer. I suspect that I have a lot more experience in playtests than you do, and I know for sure that I've been playing wargames of all kinds longer than most of the people who frequent there forums.
I'm interested in all notions of reasonable versus unreasonable
If so you've a funny way of showing it.
Actually, Mogami, from reading your posts here and there I don't believe you intend to be mean with your statements--you strike me as a good egg. Perhaps you just can't see the fine line between "loyalty" to a game you love and still being able to "call a spade a spade" when it comes to concrete criticism of that same product. In other words, to me there is no contradiction (looking at it logically) to admit that on the one hand I happen to enjoy all of Gary Grigsby's games, then turning right around and finding fault with these same games
as historical simulations.
I'm inclined to believe the 2 Betty groups in your example were set to different missions. 1 made the naval attacks and the other the airfield attack. (There are 2 air phases in each turn. Naval strikes can occur in both but bombers will only make 1 attack versus land targets (could be in first or second airphase but not in both) Fighters are assinged escort duty as stikes launch. (1 fighter group can escort multiple strikes with portion of group)
I'm just telling you what I saw. In the scenario we played the Japanese only have three air groups to use in the very beginning of the game. All three participated in those three attacks on two different bases. Those are the facts.
Your example is interesting do you have a save game file?(always keep the save file. No change can be implemented without save game files of bugs that can be reproduced.)
I might. I'll look now.
