Mogami wrote:" I doubt anyone around here has caught on to UV faster than I have."
Hi, I don't know. I seem to recall thrashing the USN so fast Matrix wanted to know what setting I was using.(normal) (I did not lose a CV sunk for quite a number of games) I captured PM in my first game. (back then I only thought the Japanese had to do this, I was not sure they could do it) Like I said, the only question I had was how to use barges and it was explained in the manual.
Gee, and I just got through giving myself a pat on the back for how carefully I write, too.
Well, in fact I
have covered this but you'd need to go back quite a few posts, and possibly not in this thread but its parent, to find the passage where I stated that I don't approach this kind of recreational software as a
game but rather a
simulation. In order that you do not misunderstand me a third time, I'll try to make that even clearer still: to me,
UV is not a game but a
simulation of a slice of World War II warfare in the Pacific c.1942-43. It is because of this peculair mindset that I was "able" to "discover" that "problem" with "B-17s" which you recently indicated that for no one else, as far as you know, has "ever come up."
Well, it "came up" with me because my mindset is "historical" and because "groups" of 40-some bombers was just what the doctor ordered as far as my "historical" counterparts were concerned and with that in "mind" I just naturally went ahead and tried it to see how much more effective that sort of apppoach might be for bombing the bejesus out of Rabaul as opposed to the penny-packet squadron mentality the player is treated to stock out of the old package.
Indeed, this is the reason (I've no doubt) why I "discovered" so fast what I consider to be this model's seminal error, namely, the ridiculously-enhanced Japanese air model. It only took me as long as it requires for opposing CV TFs to close in the Coral Sea in Scenario 19 to "discover" that the early-war Japanese air model in
UV makes no more sense than did the Japanese early-war air model in
Pacific War, which is to say not very much sense at all insofar as neither one of them reflects the history they want to simulate but are in fact gamey as all get out--and apparently more popular today than ever!
Translated: my view is that if I can't do something I could have historically then the simulation must be compromised to that degree. I realize that in any game certain conventions have to be followed and not every last detail is likely to be covered, but in general, and for the purpose of this discussion, if one is not able to sit down with a war simulation and pretty much operate as captains down through history operated and with pretty much similar results then that simulation is ca-ca with capital C's.
So while you might very well be the top surogate Yamamoto on this historically-impoverished board of otherwise confused "gamers" I assure you that from what I've read to date I likely know a helluva lot more about "simulations" and simulation theory than you'll ever know or even
want to know, and to make richer still I'm without a shadow of a doubt a far more useful playtester into the bargain.
I can say this with confidence, Mogami, because if there is one attitude a playtester might bring to his employer which could have any enduring value it would be the sincere desire (and real capability) to
break the freaking model he has been handed to test. And to be frank, by your own admission you're not even trying. All you want to do is "win" the "game" inside of that little box and have an "enjoyable" experience while you're at it.
If that were not the case then you and the rest of the playtesters and development staff and Gary himself would have tumbled to the B-17 problem a long time ago and filled in that little black hole. And while all of you were at it you might even have properly documented this case in the "manual" I don't find awful useful on top of that.
Say, as long as we're on the subject of testing models, do you happen to know if anyone's brought up the subject of staging flights through intermediate airfields? I ask because that's just one of the details that would be necessary at this scale to "simulate" the kind of war that was in actuality waged in the Pacific. What, are the Allies supposed to take a gazillion little islands with 0 airfield potential and engineer all of these former red dots into 1-level fighter strips so as to be able to reach Rabaul with sufficient escorts for its bombers? SPeaking of which, what about the short-legged light and medium bombers? Where are they supposed to fly from? Are we required to invade the Green Islands before we tackle Rabaul? Or is that practically already covered by the rule whereby it's perfectly feasible to turn sites like Mieta (in its particular case and in actuality situated on the slippery slope of an active volcano
) into a virtual O'Hare Field overnight and then just . . . go for it?
Be that as it may, congratulations on thumping the USN so quickly in your first bout. Though in lieu of my now clearly-stated mindset I'm sure you'll appreciate that I'd be even more impressed had I been told you'd unearthed a way for the USN to "thrash" the Japanese while playing the "game" with a wee bit more realistic "mindset."
But there I go again, asking for the moon.
P.S. I'll have to look at the rest of your post and see if I can make some sense of that. Meanwhile, have you any idea re the problem I noted getting that test scenario up using the editor?
)
