Pro-USN Bias (cont'd)

[mogami]

Hi, I think my test was a valid test and I think it showed UV does just fine. Historically 1 transport was damaged. In the test 1 transport was damaged.
Now I don't think the designers nor the people who play UV want only
"historical" results to be possible (meaning I don't think the model is set up so that 1 and only 1 transport is hit. It has to be possible for all the bombers to hit. and none of the bombers to hit. (with the possible all hits being extremly rare)
To say that only "historical" results are valid misses the one of the points of making and playing the game. Of course you should not expect large deviations all the time.
Why? I hear you ask, because the examples of actions or events matching history are remote. The players simply will not do them. However when they do occur I'd expect the results to be close to historicl most of the time. This seems to be where we have be parting company. Since I feel the UV results are close enough. And it seems you don't.

I've seen examples of these arguments once before.
From 1997-2001 I was in a computer baseball league using FPS-96.
If you ran a season via the computer running all the teams the BA's and ERA's were pretty close to historical. (HR were always down 40 HR seemed upper limit in 20+ full seasons 48 HR was most ever hit)
However if a human ran any team the full season, this teams stats (esp pitching) would exceed the historical. Pitchers who in real life were 5-11 with era over 5 if controled by human would win 20 games with era below 4. (Because the human manger would figure out not to throw 0-2 change up or relieve him after 75 pitches)
All the designers could do was use the stats. Once the human players began altering the conditions that generated these stats the model fails.
(or prehaps not, there have been many pitchers who after they left a team( got a new manager) improved their stats)

All the UV designers can do is model aircraft range, load.
Then they decide at what levels a pilot has to be to score a hit and the amount of damage types of weapon do.

To be totally honest. After all this debate I am still not sure just what it is UV is doing wrong.

Not to say it could not be improved. I think UV still has at least one more patch coming some time in the future. But I think this patch will once again be one of new features not old bug fixes. (But of course any bugs ID'd will be fixed if possible as well) I only mean the motivation for the patch will be enhancement not repair (major change)
Don't quote me on this it's just my opinion. I think many of WITP new features might someday find their way back.
many WITP features deal with items that are not important (don't exist) in UV. I also think some work on the data base and OB will result from WITP.

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, I think my test was a valid test and I think it showed UV does just fine. Historically 1 transport was damaged. In the test 1 transport was damaged.

Now I don't think the designers nor the people who play UV want only "historical" results to be possible (meaning I don't think the model is set up so that 1 and only 1 transport is hit. It has to be possible for all the bombers to hit. and none of the bombers to hit. (with the possible all hits being extremly rare) To say that only "historical" results are valid misses the one of the points of making and playing the game. Of course you should not expect large deviations all the time.

Your approach to this is so simplistic I don't know what to say.

It's as if you wanted to sit down and play a game of baseball with dice where boxcars was a homerun, double duces or threes singles and all that. Meanwhile, you'd sit there and tell me that a "simulation" like Diamond Mind Baseball was too complicated to be "fun."

Whatever.

Your test demonstrates little, if anything. Set it up as I suggested and run lots of tests. Or, wait until I complete my test scenario--it's in the works. I'll mail that you for testing. Or just blow it off. Nothing we say back and forth here and now is likely to change anything with UV.

By my contention is still as valid as ever: it may be a good game but an accurate simulation it is not.

I have interest to discusss where and why the model falls down, with an eye to possibly affecting the future development of WitP. If that doesn't jazz you, Mogami, fine. I don't insist.

Tris

[Tristanjohn]

Geeezzz!!! Tristanjohn, its a 30 mile hex for crisakes. I didnt know I had to account for the exact locations of each individual ship.

What has that to do with the price of pickles in Australia? Just lump what you feel is representative in a single hex and let the Japanese attack that force. What could be simpler?

For the record. The first test I simply sent all the individual TFs ( GD Transport TF, Tuligi Transport TF, Covering TF, GD fire supp. TF and Tuligi Fire supp.TF ) to Lunga. I did not combine any of them.

The second test I withdrew the Tuligi TF ( 4 APs and 4 APDs ) and the Tuligi Fire Supp. TF ( 1 CLAA, 2 DDs ). I apologize for not withdrawing the exact named historical ships, but felt that the correct number and type was all that mattered. Again the remaining Lunga TFs remained seperate.

The third test ( THE ONE THE IJN DID WELL ) I gave Turner nothing. I just sent his transports and a few DMS's to Lunga without CAP. I did this just to test the results of a poorly planned invasion and how that effected the efficiency of the IJN bombers.

I understand. No problem.

BTW, since you can not target specific TFs in UV, playing head to head does not solve the problem of the AI attacking the Tuligi force instead of the Lunga. Hence the reason I withdrew the Tuligi force. It was just an expedient way to save time.

Very good.

In my test scenario I'll rig it historically, and if you want I'll redo it so no Tulagi force is present. I've also rated Turner much higher and I'll run tests with and without him in command of the TF, just on the off chance that that might cause meaningful difference. (For all I know it could--haven't really looked at that closely yet.)

I'll do the heavy lifting, TIMJOT, you just play it out at your leisure. Then we can go over the results if and when we please. Does that strike you as reasonable?

[TIMJOT]

Best to hold off on that until we arrive at a consensus of what the test scenario should look like. At that juncture the same scenario file could be downloaded by all testers (I doubt many would volunteer) and the identical test run by everyone. Otherwise, the results would be quite meaningless.

I will volunteer. How about this for the set up.

Transports and MSWs in a single TF, Cover force (3 CAs, 1 CL, 9 DDs ) in a single TF, Fire support force (3 CAs, 4 DDs? ) in a single TF.

Send them all to Lunga, and provide LRCAP from no more than a single CV fighter group for each turn. The fighter group should be low fatigued, and good to high morale

The CV TFs to be stationed 3 hexes due south of Guadacanal.


Any changes or suggestions you feel appropriate Tristanjohn?

[mogami]

Hi, I never said a baseball simulation was not fun. I only pointed out that if you managed the players and teams different then how they were managed while they were earning their ratings they produced new stats that often were no where near what they actually did. I still felt the games were both fun and acurate. (I often have power hitters set to connect. At end of year their HR production is down but their BA is up and K lower) I'm a platoon player so I have players whose BA are not what they actually had. And I use my BullPen alot differnet then how it was used. (I only try for SP to go 6. I have 5 relief pitchers 2 for 7th 2 for 8th and 1 for 9th. A 11th pitcher is used in games where starter leaves early or when the closer is not required) My team ERA is usally a run lower then "Historic" Does this mean the program is bad?

[TIMJOT]

Hi, I think my test was a valid test and I think it showed UV does just fine. Historically 1 transport was damaged. In the test 1 transport was damaged.

Hi Mogami

Just wanted to let you know that I ran a similar test several times useing scenerio 7 and got very similar results. The only time I got unhistorical skewed results favoring Japan was when I unhistorically sent the transport TF to lunga unescorted and without CAP. This pretty much mimicks my experience playing the game well. If I play smart I get historical results if I play dumb I get dumb results. I have not expirenced any pro-IJN bias in regards to UV 2.3 air combat model. Nells and Bettys CAN be deadly against unescorted no-CAP TFs, but are generally the ineffective flying cigars against good AA and/or CAP.

[mogami]

Hi, I am not a Japanese "fanboy" my screen name comes from a cat I had back in the late 70's given to me by a friend who was a Aussie Navy "fanboy" (his cat was named Perth and the Mogami cat used to always beat it up)

When my nephew asked me about the Japanese in WW2 and could they have won the war I had him set up the chess board. I told him the Japanese were the white pieces and they had the advantage of the first move. The black pieces however had their own advantage. Whenever they lost a piece it was placed back on the board in it's starting square.
White can still win the game but the longer it lasts the less likely. (Since the black player can simply accept all trades)
The white player is therefore almost forced to try for a draw (by repeating the position 3 times) But even this outcome is very remote.
The first move in chess is the second largest advantage in sports (The serve in tennis is the largest)(white wins 53 percent of grandmaster chess games with over half the remaining 47 percent being drawn)
The Japanese surprise entrance into WW2 lead to their occupying more of the earths surface faster then anyone had ever done before (They also lost more of the earths surface faster then anyone had ever done before)
I play any side in any game with equal enthusiasm. However for me the question of what Japan does after they secure the SRA is one of the most interesting. (right up there with "what if Napoleon handles the Prussians differently before Waterloo")

For your testing I think you need to put the ships into large TF's. In the event although they had different TF names in UV terms the transports and covering ships were 1 TF (In the pictures I have the Japanese Betty bombers are seen along with USN transports DD and CA ) But in UV the Japanese will attack 1 TF at a time.
(and AA does not spread to other TF's)
The UV AA penalty is only applied to ships over the 25 ship limit. It still results in a gain for the TF only not the full value of ship
(25 ships TF with 1000 AA points Add DD with 100 AA points TF now has value of 1050 rather then 1100 (numbers are abstracts not true UV values in this example)

Set the test up with the editor and send me the files. I'll run it as many times as you like.

[Tristanjohn]

I will volunteer. How about this for the set up.

Transports and MSWs in a single TF, Cover force (3 CAs, 1 CL, 9 DDs ) in a single TF, Fire support force (3 CAs, 4 DDs? ) in a single TF.

Send them all to Lunga, and provide LRCAP from no more than a single CV fighter group for each turn. The fighter group should be low fatigued, and good to high morale

The CV TFs to be stationed 3 hexes due south of Guadacanal.

Any changes or suggestions you feel appropriate Tristanjohn?

To be fair (accurate) what I had in mind was to take all the transports and combine them with support forces so that this one unified "super" TF had enough AA fire to represent the actual battle. In other words, I don't want the test to be shy of AA defensive fire that actually existed on the day.

Trouble is, it isn't easy to know which ships contributed to the wall of AA put up by the USN on 8 Augsut 1942 (due to the "screening" issue I've mentioned).

I think it'll be fair to put whatever support ships are available up to a total TF limit of, say, 20--but if you feel it's more realistic, flesh it out to the system's ceiling of 25. (I wish we knew what the AA "penalty" would be in this case. I'd guess around 25% or thereabouts--that sounds plausible.)

Don't waste space on MSWs and the like. They're next to useless in AA defense. (I've included all that detail in my test scenario, but then I tend to be on the anal side. )

As for CAP: try it and see. I forget what the stock carrier fighter squadrons for the USN look like now. I think one comes in at around 90, and another mid-80s, then the third high 70's. Doesn't matter, If it doesn't feel right we can change this in transit. For all I know after a large test I'll be proven in error, in which case no changes to the stock ratings will be necessary or desired. We'll see when the time comes.

The CV TF groups were stationed on the other side of Guadacanal, so it'll be necessary to position this TF an extra hex away due to the phony-baloney player-requested (I'm told) rule regarding coast/post hexes halving CV potentiality. (Why that rule was tucked in I'll never understand. It's this sort of junk, thrown in willy nilly in response to players who abuse the system in the first place by not approaching simulations with an historical mindset that leads to even more problems down the road for serious players. This happens all the time and is the one best reason not to listen . . . to people like me.)

Anyway, don't place the carriers any farther away than necessary, Keep the CAP as strong as possible--as I don't want the Japanese to have an excuse afterward.

Okay?

Meanwhile, I'll try to complete my scenario by the end of this coming weekend. I plan to work the next three days in a row so my time's somewhat limited for awhile.

[Veer]

[/b]

Tell you all about how I've been playing (in a formal sense) wargames for some 44 years,

since 1959?

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, I am not a Japanese "fanboy" my screen name comes from a cat I had back in the late 70's given to me by a friend who was a Aussie Navy "fanboy" (his cat was named Perth and the Mogami cat used to always beat it up)

For your testing I think you need to put the ships into large TF's. In the event although they had different TF names in UV terms the transports and covering ships were 1 TF (In the pictures I have the Japanese Betty bombers are seen along with USN transports DD and CA ) But in UV the Japanese will attack 1 TF at a time. (and AA does not spread to other TF's) The UV AA penalty is only applied to ships over the 25 ship limit. It still results in a gain for the TF only not the full value of ship
(25 ships TF with 1000 AA points Add DD with 100 AA points TF now has value of 1050 rather then 1100 (numbers are abstracts not true UV values in this example)

Set the test up with the editor and send me the files. I'll run it as many times as you like.

I'm way ahead of you--please read my replies to TIMJOT. I'll get you the mock up ASAP. Probably won't be until this weekend or early next week.

Okay?

Thanks for your help, Mogami.

As for "fan boys": I don't know who is and who is not. I know they exist, I know they mean well, and I know they're the bane of good product everywhere. That's all I have to say on that.

And I still think you're a good guy, especially deep down at heart.

[USSMaine]

since 1959?

Didn't Tactics II come out around then ? I thought Eric Dott started The Avalon Hill Game Company in that time frame..........

[Tristanjohn]

since 1959?

Yes, in a sense. (Actually, I began playing before that. My first war game that I can clearly recall was held on my bedroom floor of our old house at 517 Franklin Street in Wausau, Wisconsin on Christmas Day in 1952. I was roughly three and a half at the time.)

How about you?

[Tristanjohn]

Didn't Tactics II come out around then ? I thought Eric Dott started The Avalon Hill Game Company in that time frame..........

You're mistaken on both counts.

In the industry there is (was--I think there still is and should be) an award given annually to the most outstanding wargame. This award is named after Charles S. Roberts.

You can read about that here: http://tinyurl.com/lbwp

Keep your powder dry!

[Tristanjohn]

When my nephew asked me about the Japanese in WW2 and could they have won the war I had him set up the chess board. I told him the Japanese were the white pieces and they had the advantage of the first move. The black pieces however had their own advantage. Whenever they lost a piece it was placed back on the board in it's starting square.

White can still win the game but the longer it lasts the less likely. (Since the black player can simply accept all trades) The white player is therefore almost forced to try for a draw (by repeating the position 3 times) But even this outcome is very remote.

The first move in chess is the second largest advantage in sports (The serve in tennis is the largest)(white wins 53 percent of grandmaster chess games with over half the remaining 47 percent being drawn)

You're wrong. There are other and larger advantages in sport. Just for example: pitcher over the hitter in baseball.

As for the Japanese: they never stood a snowball's chance in hell of winning. A more interesting discussion might started with regard to Gemany's chances, though not much more interesting I'm afraid.

The Japanese surprise entrance into WW2 lead to their occupying more of the earths surface faster then anyone had ever done before (They also lost more of the earths surface faster then anyone had ever done before)

Surprise? Well, I guess I know what you mean but all in all that hardly qualifies as a "surprise entry."

At one time Napoleon held that record, by the way.

I play any side in any game with equal enthusiasm. However for me the question of what Japan does after they secure the SRA is one of the most interesting. (right up there with "what if Napoleon handles the Prussians differently before Waterloo")

If the simulation (game) is "accurate" I wish you well as the Japanese for it won't matter which way you wiggle in the long run. (If you wiggle awfully wrong at the start there may not even be a long run. )

As for taking sides: for some reason I'm able to play Germany in wargames and rationalize this role, but I cannot stand to be the Japanese for long. It's much too distasteful for me.

I might understand your interest from the strategic, or even grand tactical view, to walk in the footsteps on Yamamoto as it were, but not for long. Too many good young Americans died for no very good reason in the Pacific.

On the other hand, I love to play American Civil War games, and there never was a more senseless conflict in many respects than that one, so go figure. (Wargames must be emotional things. )

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, I never said a baseball simulation was not fun. I only pointed out that if you managed the players and teams different then how they were managed while they were earning their ratings they produced new stats that often were no where near what they actually did. I still felt the games were both fun and acurate. (I often have power hitters set to connect. At end of year their HR production is down but their BA is up and K lower) I'm a platoon player so I have players whose BA are not what they actually had. And I use my BullPen alot differnet then how it was used. (I only try for SP to go 6. I have 5 relief pitchers 2 for 7th 2 for 8th and 1 for 9th. A 11th pitcher is used in games where starter leaves early or when the closer is not required) My team ERA is usally a run lower then "Historic" Does this mean the program is bad?

I've no clue. Which baseball simulation do you favor?

[Damien Thorn]

As for the Japanese: they never stood a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

I totally disagree with that statement. It reeks with the revisionist history of someone who thinks history started with the US being a superpower. Sure, the US could out produce Japan but it takes more than just production to win a war. You have to win battles as well while keeping national will from disintegrating. The US outproduced Vietnam, won every single battle and still lost the war. Imperial Japan was a hell of a lot tougher than Vietnam ever was. If the Japanese attack hadn't been undeclared then the US resolve would not have been nearly as high and the US would have probably caved in long before the Tarawa landings.

As for taking sides: for some reason I'm able to play Germany in wargames and rationalize this role, but I cannot stand to be the Japanese for long. It's much too distasteful for me.

Why? Is it a racist thing? Most of my friends feel the same way. I guess that's why I am the one who ends up playing the Japanese side all of the time. Actually, in most war games I am happy to play any side except the Americans. The only time I will play the Americans is in a post WW2 scenario against the Soviets.

On the other hand, I love to play American Civil War games, and there never was a more senseless conflict in many respects than that one, so go figure. (Wargames must be emotional things. )

Well, that's good... as long as you play the good guys. You're not a d@mn Yankee are you?

[HMSWarspite]

At one time Napoleon held that record, by the way.

Which record? Conquering territory - Napoleon was quite slow - look at Alexander. As for losing territory, he was slow at that, he took 2 years to lose his empire, which was not that large in global terms. Look at Persia under Darius (ok I cheated - that's Alexander again!) But also look at Carthage, lost most of N Africa after Zama. Byzantium, lost most of the east and N Africa between c670 and 700. But the champions pre Japan are (I think) the Incas - lost the entire empire in one go.

[mogami]

Hi, While I agree hitting a baseball thrown by a major league pitcher is the hardest thing in sports the pitching advantage can not compare with the serve in tennis or the first move in chess. Both of these are "winning" advantages. The server or White in Chess wins the majority of games. Both teams in baseball have pitchers and both teams get the same number of outs. There is no "winning" advantage inherent in pitching. (It's up to the players to prove who the better pitchers are.
In tennis and chess the advantage always goes to the possessor of the serve or the white pieces)

[Veer]

How about you?

My first computer wargame was some DOS based 'Sun Tzus Art of War' or some such thing back in 1990?. Don't remember much about it except that it had three main types - knights, barbarians and archers. Quite a lot of fun though.
Never played board wargames - unless you count Risk and Diplomacy.

[TIMJOT]

I totally disagree with that statement. It reeks with the revisionist history of someone who thinks history started with the US being a superpower. Sure, the US could out produce Japan but it takes more than just production to win a war. You have to win battles as well while keeping national will from disintegrating. The US outproduced Vietnam, won every single battle and still lost the war. Imperial Japan was a hell of a lot tougher than Vietnam ever was. If the Japanese attack hadn't been undeclared then the US resolve would not have been nearly as high and the US would have probably caved in long before the Tarawa landings.

Damien,

You dont really believe that do you? Japan had no chance "WINNING" a war with the US declared or undeclared.

They might have had a very SLIM chance of some sort of an armistice or negotiated peace "IF" say they did not attack the US at all and the US was forced into declareing war on them to prop up the Brit and Dutch empires. Then MAYBE after some successive bloody defeats, you MIGHT very well get half the US population wondering why their sons were dieing to save some pompous imperialist rubber plantation owners half way accross the world in some God forsaken country most of them never heard of before.

I think it more likely those defeats would have the effect of unifying the nation in a quest for retribution though.