Realistic Results: what are these things, what aren't they?

[Zeta16]

Can we get back to talking about the game! If there are so many problems, why do you keep spending your time bitching and just move on to another game or company. Us normal people out here think you have a personal problem with GG. It's a game not life, maybe it is time to give up.

[Mike_B20]

For those who don't know ad hominem is latin and means 'against the man'.
What I find hilarious is that the person that abuses this form of argument the most is Tristanjohn and yet he is constantly accusing others of this very thing.
He apparently finds it amusing and supposes that noone gets it but himself.
This abuse of his in regard to the ad hominem argument, coupled with his astonishing ignorance of things WW2 South Pacific and UV, convinces me he is nothing but a troll .

[Tristanjohn]

Could the two of you be talking about two, similar, but different things here?

Coastal Defense Guns were by defination large guns implaced mainly to fire at ships supporting a possible landing.

Coastal Defense Units were units designed to defend a beach area. They would have had infantry, mortars, machine guns, and light artillery.

It seems to me that Mogami is talking about the Coastal Defense Unit and TristanJohn is talking about Coastal Defense Guns.

I've no clear idea what Mogami is talking about. As for me, my posts on the subject only address the effectiveness of CD units in UV thus far within my play experience.

To judge from my sole experience with Japanese CD units in the game they're too effective by an order of magnitude at least, probably more like several.

As for the idea to include warships in one's transport TFs to fire back: first of all that doesn't directly address the actual problem so it couldn't possibly represent a "solutiuon"; in any event this approach would not work given each side's limited assets and the artificial restriction the game places on the number of total ships allowed in a TF, not to mention the penalty imposed on TFs with more than 15 ships; finally, this "workaround" would force players to employ ahisitorical means to overcome yet another ahistorical game mechanic--and how could that make good sense?

This is what I mean by simulation "balance," or in this case imbalance. It's very easy to throw everything else out of kilter when just one "feature" is added without thinking it completely through beforehand. The result of such thoughtless programming method is player unhappiness and a model that's worse off for the effort.

[Tristanjohn]

Can we get back to talking about the game! If there are so many problems, why do you keep spending your time bitching and just move on to another game or company. Us normal people out here think you have a personal problem with GG. It's a game not life, maybe it is time to give up.

I am talking about "the game." If you don't like what I say, why not just tune it out?

As for something personal against Gary: I respect his work a lot. But he's the only guy around making this kind of software so I'd like it to be as good as possible. At the moment it isn't more than halfway to that good goal.

You sound like someone who simply doesn't want to be "bothered."

[mogami]

Hi, I was under the impression that you were once a playtester for PacWar. (Or at least a GG game) If so you should know making comments about "another" model have no effect. The designer is working on "his" model.
Testing is not about "Wow! That's a really neat feature, Gary!"
Testing is "Feature works as intended, or feature does not work as intended"

Critical feedback is very important. Bogus feedback is worthless.
When you discuss spotting you come with,
"What we really need is a whole new routine, that shows day by day the track of spotted TF's It's just plain silly to expect players to keep track of this themselves."

You report subs firing at barges. If so it is a bug not a feature.
You reported planes flying into weather no fly zones. (But failed to mention it was only recon)

The point here is while you are trying to convince the designer of his bad work you display you don't know how to use the present systems.
Do you see the problem? "I lose on average 15 SC per month" and then you go on to criticize the system. Only a rock would lose more then 1-2 SC per month. Only a moron would try to chase IJN subs with crews below 55 exp. The plain run of the mill idiot learns to spot enemy subs with aircraft and include a few good DD's in groups sent to kill it, rather then sending a host of inexperienced SC. (The SC do learn. The manual explains how to train and why you don't and then report what everyone else here already knows will happen) UV ends before the most effective Allied ASW units arrive in theater. (The DE notably USS England DE-635)
Most players think the IJN subs get the short end of the UV stick (based on actual number of IJN subs sank during UV time frames)

You might have some valid points or good ideas the problem is you obscure them with a lot of hooey.

Don't worry about my ad hominem comments. I think it amusing (or two-faced) coming from you. But I'll be plain. I think you are a blow hard.
I think you are a pretentious arrogant bag of hot air. I don't think you are the foremost authority on anything discussed in any forum at Matrix.

You hide behind "I'm the noble soul fighting all odds purely to improve war games for posterity don't hate me because I'm a genius"

[Tristanjohn]

By the way, those of you into chess can follow the URL below for a live event:

[indent]http://tinyurl.com/o2mv
[/indent]
On September 20, 2003 at 3 PM, GM Susan Polgar (winner of 4 World Championships and 6 Olympic Medals) will face GM Alex Stripunsky (2001 US Open Co-Champion) in a 2-game USCF Quick Rated Chess Exhibition. The time control of this match will be G/10 with 3 second increments.

On September 21, 2003 at 9 AM, GM Susan Polgar (winner of 4 World Championships and 6 Olympic Medals) will face GM Boris Gulko (winner of multiple USSR, USA and US Open Championships) ) in a 2-game USCF Quick Rated Chess Exhibition. The time control of the match will be G/15 with no increment.

[HMSWarspite]

Mogami, et al. I thoroughly support your attempts to correct this guy's numerous um...misconceptions shall I call them? However it is now more than ever plain to me that he is a) completely misguided, with a not very clear idea of what he is trying to achieve, or b) a Mark 9, gold plated, proximity fused, heat seaking TROLL (with discarding sabot).

He has not once (to my knowledge, although I will confess to not having read every word of all of these threads), produced anything other than rather poor rhetoric to make his cases. He appears to show very little grasp of the difference between an ineffective weapon, and an effective one that had limited opportunity to be effective. He attacks the entire system seemingly indescriminately without logic or improved ideas, and yet he also is still playing PBEM apparently. He is also rather prone to personal attacks (yes, I know this is one!) without justification, and yet (as was pointed out earlier) is the first to accuse anyone else of doing it).

The final straw for me, when discussing his favorite games,was that his No1 was GNBNA - a lovely concept, and quite well executed, but with several glaring faults that make it almost unplayable for me. And he then tries to point out issues with UV.

There are undoubtably issues with UV, and I have gone on record expressing concerns about WitP, but we serve no purpose discussing things in these threads. How about we stop feeding the troll everyone?

[IronDuke_slith]

The Japanese CD units were ineffective in real life for the reason they didn't hit anything. Whether that was due to bad ammo or bad sights or bad gunners is immaterial to a model of this scale. The bottom line is Japanese CD was not particularly effective in WWII no matter how you "model" it detailwise.

=====================================================

How can it be immaterial? If, as seems to be the case on some occasions, Japanese CD units chose not to fire on the transports but to wait until the landing craft were in the water and shoot at them instead, then they were ineffective against the transports because they never actually took aim at them. Please clarify: Are you saying that the game should not allow Japanese CD units the chance to shoot at transports because they didn't always bother historically?

That was a tactical choice on their part. Isn't the point of these simulations that we choose different strategies and employ weapons systems slightly differently in order to see if we can do better than our historical counterparts. We know CD units could contain sufficient calibre weapons to penetrate the armour of ships offshore, and we know those ships were often sitting ducks (whether they were shot at or not)
because they were in confined spaces, side on to open up all their armament, and moving at low speeds because of the volume of traffic. If something is possible the simulation has to try and re-create it.

Finally, they have to shoot at the transports because the landing craft are outside the detail level of this game. If allowing Japanese CD units to engage transports is a pro-Japanese bias, then isn't not simulating the most vulnerable part of the amphibious assault, actually a pro US bias. When you have one bias per side, everything cancels itself out, and you're no worse off.

You may have a few smoking transports, but you do have more Marines ashore ready to take the objective, which is what the Transports were put in harms way for in the first place.

[pry]

[Sarcasm Mode On]
Your Traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination - Next stop, the Perfect WITP War Simulation Zone

Press Release: Matrix Games, March 15 4005

Imagine if you will a war game simulation perfect in every way, detail down to bird droppings on the deck and smashed bugs on your fighters wind shield every grain of sand modeled in exacting historical detail. Imagine no more because Matrix Games is pleased to announce that after 2000 years in development WITP is ready to ship.

Watch in awe as your desktop computer makes zillions of calculations every millisecond factoring in the movement of every air molecule to "simulate" in absolute historical conditions the movement of your F4F as you fly CAP over iron bottom sound on August 8 1942.

And now with our copyrighted "You Are There" (YAT) technology you will actually be transported into the cockpit of that F4F (*) so it will not just feel like you are there, you will actually really be there on the stick flying the Thach weave battling Zeros as they try to sink your invasion fleet below in a kill (**) or be killed fight to determine the fate of the Allies and that of the free world.

Gary Grigsby, Joel Billings and the gang at Matrix Games and their successor generations have spent the last 2,000+ years writing the most advanced code ever designed for a war simulation. The "YAT" routines are absolutely perfect down to the burning itch of the Marine in a foxhole with hemroids. Never before has such a detailed simulation before been made available to the public. Every nut every bolt, every mosquito and rain drop are simulated in exacting detail. The Water Transit Function (WTF) is a thing of beauty as you watch dolphins (See Encyclopedia Galaxia, Extinct Species since 2854) play in your bow wake as you sail your fleet into Iron Bottom Sound and you guessed it with "YAT" technology your hands are on the wheel.

Never again will anyone have to resort to high dollar vocabulary (***) words when describing perceived flaws this new simulation because it is grade A perfect.

Warfare Simulations Magazine calls WITP "A Grognard's Wet Dream" This is the last game you will ever own and gives it's highest rating, 5 count them 5 Whoop-De-Do's and the coveted and never before attained by any simulation, the TJ seal of approval.

Release date April 1 4005, on 1,847 DMD (Digital Media Disks) for the amazing low price of only $1,250,000,000.00 (US) be sure to ask about Matrix's free shipping to off world colonies. As a special offer each copy will be personally autographed by Gary Grigsby LXXXIII and Joel Billings LXXXIII

*Player is required to have at least 300 hours of actual type flight training for "You Are There" technology to function correctly (User assumes all risk).
**All deaths are final.
*** Miriam Webster dictionary sold separately.
[Sarcasm Mode Off]

[mogami]

Does it have a demo?

[Mike_B20]

Excellent Pry !

Hey, it might happen one day
Entertainment in the future will be awesome (unless mankind is plunged into another dark age:()

[pasternakski]

unless mankind is plunged into another dark age

It hasn't been already?

Let's join Warspite before this TJ jihad kills any chance of renaissance.

I'm playing what I've got and trusting in people I have trusted.

I am not about to start a conversation with Jack Nicholson on, "Jack, you had a pretty good notion of Randall Patrick McMurphy, but you screwed up in the execution. For example, when interacting with the Danny DeVito character, you should have done a better job of vocal inflection. I have no idea what you should have said or how you should have said it, but I am telling you that you screwed up. How do I know? Because I said so."

[Tristanjohn]

How can it be immaterial? If, as seems to be the case on some occasions, Japanese CD units chose not to fire on the transports but to wait until the landing craft were in the water and shoot at them instead, then they were ineffective against the transports because they never actually took aim at them. Please clarify: Are you saying that the game should not allow Japanese CD units the chance to shoot at transports because they didn't always bother historically?

The Japanese shot at lots of stuff throughout the war with land-based rifles. They didn't hit much. The "why" of this fact is immateiral at this scale of modeling, though if anyone could come up with the specific why's and wherefor's of this bad markmanship I'd be more than happy to listen.

But for the purpose of this model all we need concern ourselves with is the hisitorical fact: CDs weren't particularly effective and at no time in the war did any such defense prove effective against an amphibious invasion.

The UV model has CDs behaving very effectively. This is a mistake because it does not reflect historical reality. Plus. The model does not allow any ready means to shoot back at CDs. At least not efficiently.

Well, we know in real life ships being fired on could fire back, no problem. So this is yet another mistake wedded to the first mistake and combined these two mistakes cause even greater model distortion.

That is why I say this CD business is a double whammy: two mistakes with the same "feature."

Per my example on model theory written a few days ago, if we assign a bad value of, say, .9 (this would be .1 off of our model ideal value of 1.0) to each of these mistaken features we are forced into a function of .9 * .9 and are bound to end up worse than we started.

We began with a bad feature of .9 value for CD units and added another bad feature (inability of transport TFs to return fire) of equal value and when those combine within the game system we're taken in the opposite direction from where we wish to go: always to an ideal model value of 1.0.

The result of the above bad function is .81 which is .09 worse (further away) than our starting value of .9 was from the ideal model value.

See what I mean?

This is always the case with all models. Every premise a model is based on must be true or the model will suffer. When you combine bad premises the model suffers more and faster yet.

And so on.

Including CDs in the game was probably a bad idea to start. If the developers just have to include CDs then the effectiveness of these assets must be diminished and a new TF-organization scheme devised whereby naval assets can reasonably defend themselves. Currently only CD units may play the CD game.

Is that clearer?

[IronDuke_slith]

Pry,

A couple of questions about this new game:

What are the CD units like?

How good is the F4F when compared to the A6M?

How good are B-17s against ships when attacking from 6000 ft and above?

How quickly can Allied Bombers close Japanese air bases?

I'd love to know what they finally decided.

Regards....

[Tristanjohn]

That was a tactical choice on their part. Isn't the point of these simulations that we choose different strategies and employ weapons systems slightly differently in order to see if we can do better than our historical counterparts.

Sure. If those weapon systems are modelled corrrectly to begin with. In this case CD was not modelled correctly but incorrectly.

We know CD units could contain sufficient calibre weapons to penetrate the armour of ships offshore, and we know those ships were often sitting ducks (whether they were shot at or not) because they were in confined spaces, side on to open up all their armament, and moving at low speeds because of the volume of traffic. If something is possible the simulation has to try and re-create it.

Well, by your reasoning we ought to just allow "Zeroes" to run rampant through the skies until the advent of the Tomcat.

Say, I might be on to something good.

Back to reality: the answer is no.

We don't want to change history with historical simulations, we do want to model history as closely as possible with historical simulations. When we go in the other direction we're talking something more like fantasy games, RPG and like that.

[Tristanjohn]

Finally, they have to shoot at the transports because the landing craft are outside the detail level of this game. If allowing Japanese CD units to engage transports is a pro-Japanese bias, then isn't not simulating the most vulnerable part of the amphibious assault, actually a pro US bias. When you have one bias per side, everything cancels itself out, and you're no worse off.

You may have a few smoking transports, but you do have more Marines ashore ready to take the objective, which is what the Transports were put in harms way for in the first place.

The Japanese did shoot at REALLY BIG SHIP TARGETS during the war and mostly they missed even so.

I'm not saying CD should be completely impotent, I'm saying CD as modelled in UV is hogwash, actually double hogwash as I've endeavored to point out several times. If you can't see it I guess you just can't see it. Me, I can see it no problem.

[mogami]

Hi, Except for the first go at Wake no CD unit ever stoped an invasion.
The most effective CD's were the ones that prevented any landing from even being thought of. (Singapore, Manila)
Japanese CD did not stop the invasion in the UV example. They damaged some ships. Why? because of player choice. (He chose not to include a counter btry ship in transport TF's.
(The manual points out for transport TF's the over 15 ship limit is not really important. Better to have a few effective ships and be over the limit then a herd of unescorted AP. )

I don't have the record of every ship hit by a Japanese coast gun.
I do know that Wahoo was possibly hit by shorefire before being attacked by ships and aircraft.
I know for certain the the USN CA Pensacola was hit by at least 6 rounds from shore Bty off Iwo Jima. And the DD Terry was also hit there. (A day later)
So Japanese coastal guns were firing for at least 2 days at Iwo on ships at sea. (The USN transports were kept out of range)

Taskgroups. UV/WITP do not model this concept well (It is one of the most discussed issues. A USN Taskforce was in reality a collection of what we call TF's. Because of this the taskgroup assigned counter bty fire has to be placed with (in the same TF) as the taskgroup assinged to make the landings. This is not a major leap for me. I assign the ships for a task. It would be nice if they had their own group but they don't. So being slow of wit I place them where they will do the job I am assigning them. I don't give a hoot about a few AP now being reduced in AA power. I also assign escort ships directly when I am not going up against CD. I put them there because my Taskgroup for escort works better. (If a sub attacks my transport TF my escorts look for it, another TF does not). Sending a few bombardment groups to hit the target in advance also help. But Tarawa was pounded by Naval gunfire and air attack and little damage was done to the Japanese. (who came out after these attacks and fired on the landings. They did not target the large ships but they did inflict serious damage on the landing troops.)

I can't find examples for ineffective coast defense except for attacks against bases that did not have it.

[Tristanjohn]

Taskgroups. UV/WITP do not model this concept well (It is one of the most discussed issues. A USN Taskforce was in reality a collection of what we call TF's. Because of this the taskgroup assigned counter bty fire has to be placed with (in the same TF) as the taskgroup assinged to make the landings. This is not a major leap for me. I assign the ships for a task. It would be nice if they had their own group but they don't. So being slow of wit I place them where they will do the job I am assigning them. I don't give a hoot about a few AP now being reduced in AA power.

I was with you until then.

You read the AAR. Get real or get serious or get something useful, Mogami. Please.

I also assign escort ships directly when I am not going up against CD. I put them there because my Taskgroup for escort works better. (If a sub attacks my transport TF my escorts look for it, another TF does not).

DDs look for and might hunt subs. But DDs are every much as vulnerable to CD fire as transports and so useless for that purpose.

So. The USN player (you know, he's the guy launching all those invasions, the Japanese don't do much of that in the game--in other words what we're talking about here is yet another obstacle to Allied success, no hindrance to the Japanese whatsoever--another huge surprise, that ) must be forced to dilute his meager surface-force assets (CAs and CLs) in order to counteract the bogus effects of CD and the bad TF modelling?

Sounds wonderful to me. A perfectly historic model. Can't beat it.

Sending a few bombardment groups to hit the target in advance also help.

It doesn't help one whit. Or at least it didn't help me as both my bombardment TFs hit precisely n-o-t-h-i-n-g. One of my ships bombarding was hit by those CDs, though.

But Tarawa was pounded by Naval gunfire and air attack and little damage was done to the Japanese. (who came out after these attacks and fired on the landings. They did not target the large ships but they did inflict serious damage on the landing troops.)

I can't find examples for ineffective coast defense except for attacks against bases that did not have it.

More gibberish.

[mogami]

"You read the AAR. Get real or get serious or get something useful, Mogami. Please"

Where in that AAR do you see anything usefull concerning CD units?

[mogami]

Hi, To be historicaly correct. In UV/WITP a player wanting to send 2 CV out to engage a Japanese force would have (in UV terms)
2 TF with 1 CV each
2-4 TF with 2-3 CA Each
2-6 TF with 2-4 DD Each

Because each CV is a Task group
each CV task group gets a crusier task group
and each CV or Crusier task group gets a DD taskgroup.

Or you can place the 12-22 ships in a single UV/WITP task force.

In a carrier battle all the combined task groups function. If a sub is contacted the escort taskgroups function, in a surface battle the escorts fight while the carriers run. The UV/WITP TF model works fine.

For landings you need to do the same.

Each ground unit has a transport task group
each taskgroup has naval gunfire support
each task group has ASW/AA escorts.

place them all in the same TF and they work fine. Place them apart and they don't work. This is the model. It may not be perfect but the other model (the accurate one) would also have it's share of problems.

Its not lumping all the ships into a single TF that is a problem. It's the size limit. Players see the 15 ship penalty and are afraid to place more then 15 ships into a TF. Forget the penalty. (It a minor deal. The TF will still have AA/ASW. ) Place the ships you need to preform your mission into the TF. Make more then 1 transport TF. (I have a TF for every ground unit. Each TF has it's own support and escort.