The distortion of truth (and how this leads to games of lower quality)

[BillBrown]

I played Tristanjohn in his first PBEM game. I was the owner of the
invincible IJN CVs. This is my recollections of that game. I have no
AARs to back up anything I say.

First, I advertised for a senario 19 game with 120% Japan and 100 % Allies.
Tristanjohn was the second person to answer. I could not agree on turn
times with the first. Note that this is important since I was accused
of 'jacking' the IJN percentages up at a later time.

About the 5th of May, 1942, the Allied CVs reacted against my IJN CV TF
while it was about 5 hexes out of Shortlands. Unfortunatly, I had my CAP
set for 10%( better than standdown). The result was predictable. I sank
both USN CVs and eventually lost one of mine. When I suggested that TJ 'let'
his CVs react, he said he didn't let anything happen.

I then started to take the area around Guadalcanal. To my surprise I found
units at Lunga and Russel Islands. I dispatched them. When I made a comment
that I really didn't think the Australians or MacArthur would let an
Australian Regiment be sent to some worthless place like Guadalcanal, he
responded that the Allies could do what they pleased.

As I built up my holdings in the Solomons( I had not made any large attempt
to take New Guinea), I noticed he had put units at Rennel, Rossel and Irau.
He was building airbases. I let him build them for awhile. Then the Long
Island showed up at Rennel Island with a Marine F4F squadron on board. I
quickly sank her with both land based and CV based units.

A few turns later a TF with two more CVs showed up at Rennel Island. I had
my 3 CV, 1 CVL taskforce just southeast of Munda at the time so they launched
and sank two more USN CVs. From the AAR that I remember, his TF was docked
at the time so air ops were cut by 50%.

My next move was to invade Rossel Island. I am not real experienced at UV
and suffered some losses doing this but he lost a lot more. Just after this
he surrendered and then wanted to play a senario 16 game.

Note that most of the mistakes that I saw him make were the usual mistakes that
we have all made in this game( except for Mogami I guess). But, every time
something went wrong, he complained that the model and/or game was completly
broken. I do agree that there are things that are not right and I think there
are some modeling errors, but I do not think the game is completly broken.

I also got, about every 3 or 4 turns, a long email that looked like the posts
you see here. When he sent one that severely criticised Mogami, I quite
playing that senario 16 game. It is not a very fun senario to play from the
Japanese side but he couldn't see that. Even in that game he complained that
my aircraft were overpowering. But since I had put some of my CV A6m2s at
Rabaul while I tried to fix some SYS damage, I had a lot of sweeps going
at the time. He claims that they all flew twice a day. I don't remember them
flying that much, or doing that much damage either.

I know Tristanjohn will slam me with one of his bombastic epitaths, but I
thought I would get this out into public view. One last note, I had to help
him a number of times to find things in the manual, things that I had found
without help. I do agree that a better job could have been done with the
manual, but the info is there, just not the best organization.

[mogami]

Hi, Thats sad. I've seen a few allied players go over to the offensive in May 1942. I think the general concenus now is that in scenario 17 the Allied player has to wait at least 87 days and then he can begin to move but only if he has won (or drawn) a CV battle. In scenario 19 it takes a little longer (The Japanese have several more divisions and many more airgroups)
So it is even possible to sometimes retain Port Moresby in scenario 17 but impossible to hold it in scenario 19 (unless the Japanese player is not interested in it) In Scenario 19 there is a very real danger the Japanese player will simply load everything into a super armada and head for Noumea.
Depending on reinforcment schedules the Japanese can be landing on Noumea before the HQ of the Americal Div has arrived. (The Japanese can capture Noumea if they can move 4 Rgts there soon enough)
To make matters worse they can capture any base they choose instead.
Luganville can be had for very little effort. Anyplace the Allies try to fight only make the other bases easier to take.
By abandoning PM Cooktown and Cairns he can put up a decent defense at Townsville and moderate efforts at Rockhampton and Brisbane.
Scenario 19 really has a lot of Japanese bias but that is why people play it.
It is the Japanese max effort in the South Pacific.

[BillBrown]

To me the saddest part is that he surrendered in mid June 1942. I had made enough mistakes that he still had a very good chance to win. I was contemplating packing a lot of troops up and invading either Nouema or Brisbane but probably would not have done it.

I kept telling him that senario 19 was not in any way historical. That the Japanese player had a lot of resources to use for the first 4 months or so. I also told him that his forces would grow both in quality and quantity. But he felt he had lost the game and I didn't even hold or threaten an auto-victory base.

I wanted to continue the game to see just how bad I was going to do and to learn more.

[Admiral DadMan]

...By abandoning PM Cooktown and Cairns he can put up a decent defense at Townsville and moderate efforts at Rockhampton and Brisbane.
Scenario 19 really has a lot of Japanese bias but that is why people play it.
It is the Japanese max effort in the South Pacific.

Mogami's "scorched earth" and "shorten your line" defense.

[BillBrown]

Wish it would work for me. I'm 0-3 as Allies in senario 19, 120/100. Can't seem to keep control of Nouema. But the next player is going to get a surprise.

[Tristanjohn]

I played Tristanjohn in his first PBEM game. I was the owner of the
invincible IJN CVs. This is my recollections of that game. I have no
AARs to back up anything I say.

First, I advertised for a senario 19 game with 120% Japan and 100 % Allies.
Tristanjohn was the second person to answer. I could not agree on turn
times with the first. Note that this is important since I was accused
of 'jacking' the IJN percentages up at a later time.

About the 5th of May, 1942, the Allied CVs reacted against my IJN CV TF
while it was about 5 hexes out of Shortlands. Unfortunatly, I had my CAP
set for 10%( better than standdown). The result was predictable. I sank
both USN CVs and eventually lost one of mine. When I suggested that TJ 'let'
his CVs react, he said he didn't let anything happen.

I then started to take the area around Guadalcanal. To my surprise I found
units at Lunga and Russel Islands. I dispatched them. When I made a comment
that I really didn't think the Australians or MacArthur would let an
Australian Regiment be sent to some worthless place like Guadalcanal, he
responded that the Allies could do what they pleased.

Let's see. We play a totally ahistoric scenario where the Japanese are given a whopping ahistorical initial advantage over the Allies in just about all possible all areas, and then your complaint as the Japanese player is that the Allied player is guilty of moving a lousy infantry regiment . . . ahistorically out of some nominal operations area?

Anyway, that move of the Allies into the lower Solomons was hardly as one-sided as you choose to paint it. The Japanese in fact lost a fully-loaded transport of troops and another of supply to an Allied TF which consisted of just 1 CL and 2 DDs and a couple of SCs! Why? Because the IJN TF was ordered to Lunga without escort!

It then required you to send yet more ships and men down there over the course of a month to retake Lunga, then another couple weeks or so to lever me inch by inch out of Tassafaronga, then all over again in the Russells . . . and like that.

None of which is pertinent to anything I'm doing here, but as long as you're in such a regressive mood I thought I'd at least set that record straight.

As I built up my holdings in the Solomons( I had not made any large attempt
to take New Guinea), I noticed he had put units at Rennel, Rossel and Irau.

Incorrect. You occupied Irau first. I didn't kick you out of there for a month or better.

He was building airbases. I let him build them for awhile. Then the Long
Island showed up at Rennel Island with a Marine F4F squadron on board. I
quickly sank her with both land based and CV based units.

Another UV system quirk. You sank the Long Island which refused to fly its CAP (a known bug I was told afterward by you, Bill, at which juncture I asked, "Care to fill me in re any other known bugs?") and unless I'm very much mistaken, Bill, you felt pretty good about that at the time. Hell, we discussed this in some detail through email and I directly asked you, "How could a game in version 2.30 still have an issue as blatently foolish and functionally critical as that?" and you answered, in so many words, "Matrix only responds to the loudest voices in the forum, though I think they're still working on this bug."

Please don't deny any of this, Bill. I have every email exchange, every turn's file and AAR from the game, so I'll be able to get it word for word if I'm pushed that far.

A few turns later a TF with two more CVs showed up at Rennel Island. I had
my 3 CV, 1 CVL taskforce just southeast of Munda at the time so they launched
and sank two more USN CVs. From the AAR that I remember, his TF was docked
at the time so air ops were cut by 50%.

Wrong again I'm afraid.

My "docked CV TF" was up at Irau later in the game after I kicked you out of there. You told me with another smirk afterward again of course that docked CV TFs only fly half of their air assets, that this wasn't in the manual but in one of the errata sheets for the later versions of the game. I asked you then why you hadn't told me this after that sorry affair with Long Island and you replied that it hadn't occurred to you as there were so many of these game anomolies floating around inside the game's system that it was hard to keep track of them all.

By that time I was convinced of that at least!

The CV TF action around "Rennell" was actually over in the Louisiades around Rossel and that was right at the bitter end of that game. That was when my land-based air failed to attack your invasion transports two turns in a row, only attacked them twice during the four turns they off-loaded, and then once attacked your CVL TF and got a "crippling" hit on one CVL, which you told me at the time had just barely pushed that ship over her critical-damage line and thus prevented her from conducting air operations.

At which juncture I'd seen enough to know that UV had little, if anything, to do with actual WWII fighting in the Southwest Pacific, was, in fact, more like Mdiehl's oh-so apt reference to "Planet Xenon."

My next move was to invade Rossel Island. I am not real experienced at UV
and suffered some losses doing this but he lost a lot more. Just after this
he surrendered and then wanted to play a senario 16 game.

Note that most of the mistakes that I saw him make were the usual mistakes that
we have all made in this game( except for Mogami I guess). But, every time
something went wrong, he complained that the model and/or game was completly
broken. I do agree that there are things that are not right and I think there
are some modeling errors, but I do not think the game is completly broken.

This is partly true, but what you've never been able to fully grasp the essential nature of the situation. The game model is broken in all areas as far as I can see to the extent that it is incapable of allowing players to move their assets in historic manners and receive historic results at the same time. Thus, players are forced to move their assets around in ahistoric manner to receive the results they're looking for. And even with these workarounds in force the pro-Japanese bias early in the game is there to see for anyone with the intelligence to come in out of the rain . . . and who is not in denial. Or willing to outright lie for the sake of remaining "popular" on these curious boards.

I also got, about every 3 or 4 turns, a long email that looked like the posts
you see here. When he sent one that severely criticised Mogami, I quite
playing that senario 16 game. It is not a very fun senario to play from the
Japanese side but he couldn't see that. Even in that game he complained that
my aircraft were overpowering. But since I had put some of my CV A6m2s at
Rabaul while I tried to fix some SYS damage, I had a lot of sweeps going
at the time. He claims that they all flew twice a day. I don't remember them
flying that much, or doing that much damage either.

As I recall it was you, Bill, who brought up Mogami in the conversation. And then you also called Chiteng a "nut" for the reason he disagreed with someone you thought was actually agreeing with Chiteng, or something like that. Now I don't usually talk about people out of school, but I admit I did respond to your references with my frank opinions, as is my wont.

All along you told me Matrix wouldn't listen to me on a bet, that any letter I sent them with my notes taken from play (I told you from the first I was taking copious notes and that my game was a test for me of the system and nothing more) would be used for "scratch paper"--your reference, not mine, though this far down the road I'm forced to agree with you.

I know Tristanjohn will slam me with one of his bombastic epitaths, but I
thought I would get this out into public view. One last note, I had to help
him a number of times to find things in the manual, things that I had found
without help. I do agree that a better job could have been done with the
manual, but the info is there, just not the best organization.

I'm going to "slam" you?

This forum is filled stinking full top to bottom with garbage that was written for no other purpose than to attack one person or another, this to include the use of profanity, ad hominem pleas and general ridicule, all of this used as if it were free, yet you're worried that I'm going to "slam" you?

I'd say you could stand a reality check, Bill.

This entire post you've composed amounts to your basic self-serving tabloid expose found on supermarket endcaps at checkout stations for $3.95 all over America, and it is just about as informative and "revealing."

The whole truth is you pretty much see what I see re UV, or did when we still corresponded, this to include the pro-Japanese bias, espcially with the air system and most regrettably even when the USN flies its best off CVs . . . only to be slaughtered by their IJN counterparts time after time after time. You've agreed this is so and you've told me that the forum, this forum in fact, is so chock full of people who scream loud and long for their pet wishes to be fulfilled, and that Matrix and 2by3 unfortunately listen to these people and gratify their wishes, which is why the game is so fouled up.

Those are your thoughts, Bill, or were your thoughts to me in email, in so many words. I don't make it up.

But now you're going to be "buddies' with these people you told me were the problem to begin with, and while you're at it take another cheap shot at poor TJ?

Why? Because I've the sand to write in public what you're afraid to? Because I've the temerity to write unpopular opinion where you feel too intimidated to do so for yourself?

Is it envy at work, Bill? Is that where your resentment stems from?

I believe you're the person who wrote in this forum how high his IQ score is. Wasn't that you, Bill? I'm sure I quoted you at the time so if it was you, Bill, it'll still be there for all to see.

Be that as it may, it isn't about IQ and never was but rather it is about everyday garden-variety common sense and one's willingness to address truth where and as one finds it. You apparently lack that latter ingredient of willingness, so whatever your raw IQ is you're nevertheless bound to be disabled to that extent.

A shame.

Of course you could work on that if you wanted to, Bill. (Another personal choice.)

[Tristanjohn]

TJ go read your history books and give it up. The game you want will not be built, and would not be any fun anyway, ie no one would buy it. You argue with people who know the games inside and out. You do not like to be proven wrong by game play. Learn the GAME, because that it what it is, a game or simulation if you please. Any game or simulation will never measure up to history, because as a human being with hindsight into history, why would you make the same mistakes as were made. If that is what you want then just read history books.
I may be new posting here, but I have been lurking for quite awhile. GG makes the best strategic games around and has for as long as I have played. His game, his design, his time, he can do whatever he wants. I and alot of other people will buy and play his games. That is your choice. Go read a book.

I agree. Gary does make the best games on the subject and especially at this scale. They're fun to play, couldn't fault him there.

His game designs are not, however, all that accurate when it comes to Japanese war potentialities; they are inaccurate in other ways as well, for example with regard to certain over-modeling of USN assets to begin the game, or, to put that another way, his present game system lacks any corresponding realistic model mechanic to simulate the USN's learning curve in surface actions versus the IJN, most particularliy night actions.

That's my main message, looked at in overview.

I've also taken time to point out some of worswt of the game system's tactical shortcomings, though to this date I've pretty much limited my time to discussion of the air system in that regard.

Now what is your complaint with me? Am I wasting your time? Do you say you don't want these games to be more accurate? What?

[madflava13]

This forum in my experience here -which has been a few years worth- is a collection of knowledgable people who have mutual respect for one another. This is actually only the second time I've ever seen people so actively flaming each other in the whole time I've been here. Compared to other forums I've been involved with, that is absolutely amazing.

For my two cents, I think you guys should all just drop this whole **** thing. Tristanjohn, you have made your views crystal clear to the designers and community regarding your negative experiences with the game system. If you don't feel the design team takes your advice to heart, you can always vote with your wallet and not purchase the next game. And I think the people who disagree with you have been adequately represented as well.

While I'm not usually one for the quashing of ideas, I think this thread should wither on the vine so to speak...

[Tristanjohn]

OMG!!!

You are insane! You freely admit to throwing a game for the purposes of proving you can't read a manual and somehow want to fault the game designer for your actions ???

You are twisting the facts, not the game. Quit it.

The USN broke their TF's down in specific formats for the purposes of command and control.

UV does not support this subdivision of Task Forces within a hex. It is a board game, not Harpoon II with vector based real time mathematics tracking each individual shell separately.

If you choose to ignore the manual and break your Task Forces up into a format the game does not support and try and use this as the whole basis for your claim to the game being flawed, you are completely off your rocker!

This is no longer about historical discussions, this is become your personal vendetta against a guy named Gary Grigsby.

You lack self-control, Frag. Learn to calm down. Your thinking will improve from that effort.

Don't write when you're angry, Should you, erase that copy, reformat your thoughts and begin over. Those first angry words are only good for "warming up."

Also, calling someone "insane!" is hardly helpful and not the least bit insightful to the issues before us. (It's also rather inaccurate insofar as "insanity" is more of a legal than psychological distinction.)

Your argument in rebuttal to me (getting around the obvious anger ) is primarily assumptive of nature, the assumption on your part being that Gary . . . cannot do better, could not design a better system whereby TFs in the game might conform more to the Task Force/Task Group breakdown of naval assets we found in the actual events?

And how do we know this to be true? Have you asked Gary? Has Gary told you he's thunk and thunk and thunk on this problem over the years and he just can't figure a better way of rationalizing TFs in the game?

If Gary could come up with a better more realistic TF scheme would you then be in favor of that?

[Tristanjohn]

This forum in my experience here -which has been a few years worth- is a collection of knowledgable people who have mutual respect for one another. This is actually only the second time I've ever seen people so actively flaming each other in the whole time I've been here. Compared to other forums I've been involved with, that is absolutely amazing.

For my two cents, I think you guys should all just drop this whole **** thing. Tristanjohn, you have made your views crystal clear to the designers and community regarding your negative experiences with the game system. If you don't feel the design team takes your advice to heart, you can always vote with your wallet and not purchase the next game. And I think the people who disagree with you have been adequately represented as well.

While I'm not usually one for the quashing of ideas, I think this thread should wither on the vine so to speak...

Well, I agree that this "recent unpleasantness" in the forum serves no good purpose, or at least no good purpose that I can see or imagine.

Trouble is there's two parts to your plea I don't agree with.

First, to shut down debate about an issue two parties feel strongly about would amount to censorship. Are you for censorship?

Second, I don't want to vote with my wallet and not buy Gary's game but instead vote with my wallet and buy Gary's game. I just want that game to come as good as possible.

[madflava13]

I'm certainly not for censorship as I made clear in my post. This argument is going nowhere however. Both sides are entrenched in their positions and neither side is convincing the other to come around.

No matter how intelligently the parties here try to couch their arguments, this thread has degenerated into immature squabbling.

Everyone else here understands where both sides are coming from. We got it, ok? Now everyone give it a rest.

[Admiral DadMan]

Another UV system quirk. You sank the Long Island which refused to fly its CAP (a known bug I was told afterward by you, Bill, at which juncture I asked, "Care to fill me in re any other known bugs?") and unless I'm very much mistaken, Bill, you felt pretty good about that at the time. Hell, we discussed this in some detail through email and I directly asked you, "How could a game in version 2.30 still have an issue as blatently foolish and functionally critical as that?" and you answered, in so many words, "Matrix only responds to the loudest voices in the forum, though I think they're still working on this bug."

Hmmmm, let's see... Long Island has a max aircraft capacity of 16. Marine VF groups are 24 max.

From The (1.0) Manual:[font=Myriad-Bold]

[left]18.5 Air Unit Supply[/left]
[font=Myriad-Roman][left]If the number of aircraft on board exceeds 110% of the ship’s capacity, only transfer missions can be flown. P[font=Myriad-Roman]lanes won’t make an emergency landing [font=Myriad-Roman]on another carrier in such a way as to cause it to exceed 110% of the carriers aircraft capacity.[/font][/font][/font][/font]

[/left]
[left]And...[/left]
[left]

From The (2.0) Manual: [/left]

[indent][left]17.5 Air Unit Supply[/left]
[font=Myriad-Roman][left]If the number of aircraft on board exceeds 110% of the ship’s capacity, only transfer missions can be flown. P[font=Myriad-Roman]lanes won’t make an emergency landing [font=Myriad-Roman]on another carrier in such a way as to cause it to exceed 110% of the carriers aircraft capacity.[/font][/font][/font]

[/left]
[/indent]It wasn't a bug. You overloaded her offensive ops ability, that's why she wouldn't fly CAP... Try the RTFM approach. 10 pound of sausage does not fit the 5 pound bag.

[HMSWarspite]

I am afraid that all this ( and all other) discussion with TJ has run its course. There was a period for a couple of weeks where TJ was actually listening and making points reasonably. The rest of the forum tried to engage with him, and understand his issues. That has now all ceased, and I suggest that we revert to some advice I offered a couple of months ago: if it walks like a troll, and talks like a troll, in all probability it is a frustrated adolescent (in mind if not in body), and we ought to stop feeding it.

Now (to crib a joke from another game entirely): what grass mod are you using? (a bonus of zero points to the first to place the quote! )

[ladner]

Think I'm out of fight. Must be my age. I'm all exhausted from swearing myself blue in the face as I watched the Red Sox manager send Pedro Martinez to the mound to start the bottom of the eighth. There's some cosmic rule that no Red Sox manager will play to win if the Sox have a lead in any of the last three innings and the game is an important game.

I'll be back in curmudgeon mode some day. In the meantime I'd rather just hang out for a while. Play a few wargames. Enjoy the autumn weather. Do some writing. Etc. etc.

Rubbing my hands in anticipation of my Tarawa defense, continuing tomorrow.

The shell shock has worn off to the point were I can actually talk about this. I was enraged during the eigth inning during the extra innings I literally had to hold my hands over my eyes, barely able to peek through the gaps in my fingers, then it happened. I spent the better part of Friday commiserating with my relatives up in New England...work was spent eating crow and paying off a bet I had with Yankees Fan...I know I should have known better...but I had already won our first wager when he said they would not make it past the A's.

Mogami....I may have to demand PBEM, granted you are more experienced than I, but the virtual battlefield seems the best place to avenge your "spare the world a Cubs Redsox WS"

You must be a yankees fan

To HMS Warspite the grass mod reference is Combat Mission Beyond Overlord, and a funny comment on your part see above for lack of smilies still


and lastly DUMP the GUMP!!!

[Mr.Frag]

You lack self-control, Frag. Learn to calm down. Your thinking will improve from that effort.

Don't write when you're angry, Should you, erase that copy, reformat your thoughts and begin over. Those first angry words are only good for "warming up."

Also, calling someone "insane!" is hardly helpful and not the least bit insightful to the issues before us. (It's also rather inaccurate insofar as "insanity" is more of a legal than psychological distinction.)

Your argument in rebuttal to me (getting around the obvious anger ) is primarily assumptive of nature, the assumption on your part being that Gary . . . cannot do better, could not design a better system whereby TFs in the game might conform more to the Task Force/Task Group breakdown of naval assets we found in the actual events?

And how do we know this to be true? Have you asked Gary? Has Gary told you he's thunk and thunk and thunk on this problem over the years and he just can't figure a better way of rationalizing TFs in the game?

If Gary could come up with a better more realistic TF scheme would you then be in favor of that?

Who's angry here?

You are simply either the worst player that ever existed in UV terms or deliberately trying to cause finacial damage to 2by3 and Matrix.

Mogami wants me to believe that it is the former. Based purely on the level of your posts, I find it difficult to agree and assume the latter.

This discussion is not about changes to the TF system in UV, it is about your inability to use what exists within the game and wander off on some flights of fancy that if you pretend that the game doesn't work that way the code will magically fix itself.

No anger, I am simply drawing a conclusion based on the evidence presented here by you. Instead of posting a "Hey, I'd like to see the TF rules changed so I can do this", you dream and play as if they are already changed.

Your actions speak for you louder then your words. Look up the word please. You will see a striking fit.

[Tristanjohn]

Who's angry here?

More than one person here writes as if he were angry. One can only judge from the tenor of the writing, of course, but the signs are bad.

You are simply either the worst player that ever existed in UV terms or deliberately trying to cause finacial damage to 2by3 and Matrix.

More assumptive reasoning at work and bad logic into the bargain.

I'm on record as giving Matrix high marks in all possible areas as a game company. If Matrix has been given responsibility to headman the playtest for 2by3 (I assume this to be the case, but I don't know it to be so) then I think I'm qualified to inform Matrix its method is questionable.

That would amount to my only gripe with Matrix, and only insofar as it must negatively impact the quality of a game I plan to buy from Matrix.

Now with that before you, why would deliver yourself to the absurd (on its face) statement that I would wish to harm Matrix financially? I can only imagine you wrote what you wrote in frustration and anger. That's best case. Worst case would be you lack the sense to realize anything better to write.

Which is it? Or does it lie somewhere in-between?

Mogami wants me to believe that it is the former. Based purely on the level of your posts, I find it difficult to agree and assume the latter.

Well that's a turn of the table. I've been called an idiot and the know-nothing author of idiocy. Now you tell me the "level" of my posts suggests I'm actually a clever s.o.b. who's here only to sabotage Matrix and 2by3. Is that the size of it?

This discussion is not about changes to the TF system in UV...

Part of the discussion (by implication) is just about that.

...it is about your inability to use what exists within the game...

I used as I always use the assets at hand to complete the mission assigned. Only when we use our ingame assets in an ahistorical manner should eyebrows be raised. That is one very important distinction, and one conveniently ignored by those who don't appreciate being cornered by good reason. (See my postscript below.)

...and wander off on some flights of fancy that if you pretend that the game doesn't work that way the code will magically fix itself.

You should rewrite that for clarity. I'll do what I can with what you actually wrote and its (seeming) implication.

Your complaint reads to me as if you don't like the test stipulation of not using one's assets in an ahistorical manner. Is that it?

If so, you couldn't be more mistaken. No test of this kind would promise useful results if these ingame assets were used in any manner other than an historical one.

That's so obvious I almost (almost, but not quite) feel foolish explaining it.

No anger, I am simply drawing a conclusion based on the evidence presented here by you. Instead of posting a "Hey, I'd like to see the TF rules changed so I can do this", you dream and play as if they are already changed.

You miss the obvious.

This test isn't just about the air system, though it should (according to my theory) certainly demonstrate how the air system's out of whack in certain respects; the test is about the entire model, for it is the interrelationship of comutually broken model components which leads to the overall saccharine play. The air system's weaknesses interact with the naval system's shortcomings which in turn fall occasionally into the black holes of the land-combat system and so on, all to bad end.

Remember my model theory? It's bad enough to have a negative value plugged in and it gets worse every time one of those mistaken values functions. And this theory holds throughout the whole of the model and not just for individual modifier values but for entire modules. Each and every time you try to make a "bad value" or "bad function" do some work it screws things up worse than they were before.

My purpose is to improve the model, and the only way to do that is find a useful method to judge the model's results against those of history, for history is our benchmark.

The test wanted to see if the model could give historical fighter-v-fighter kill ratios, yes? And so I stipulated before the test began twice mind you that I would be the Allied player for the reason I would be the most likely player to use his assets in historical fashion, that this would represent the best control we could hope to exercise from any given side of the board.

Rationale: if you want to get historical results from play employ historical means; if you want to test a model for its historicity then use it in an historical manner and judge its results accordingly in that historical light.

That's airtight logic, Frag. Yet you're telling me that I'm "insane" and out to "sabotage Matrix" and just here to make trouble in general. Isn't that your message?

Your actions speak for you louder then your words. Look up he word please. You will see a striking fit.

My "actions" were (during the brief test) in perfect accordance with my words beforehand. And my test logic is still airtight. Now if you can't figure that out, of if you're just too mean-spirited to want to, why not give it up and go back and be palsy-walsy with the boys in this forum (and there seem to be quite a few of these) who still haven't grasped (or outright refused to grasp) Mdiehl's very persuasive argument (which uses equally-airtight logic) that the "Zero" was not in fact, on balance, a better fighter aircraft than either the P-40 or the Wildcat.

If my message with re to the model is just too unhappy to endure then swallow your pride, get a grip and help me make the game to be something better. We'd both profit from that. Where you want to go at present with your denial and poor logic and all that is unprofitable to everyone involved, including the company called Matrix which you dream I'm out to get.

P.S. as for my "insane" use of the game's naval assets, that's the biggest irony of all, for you see that part of the test demonstrated that the model is able, at times, to get the naval aspects of war about right when the players do indeed use these assets in historical manners.

I guess the most obvious question would be "How could you miss that?" If I were Gary and Joel and reading this ongoing nonsense I'd be behind the screen yelling "Go back and look at the friggin' results again you dummies! Look how historical the results from that naval battle were!"

But no. You people would rather hurl insults and stay mired in your general denial rather than observe what's going on around you and learn anything useful. It's just the way you are, I guess.

[mogami]

"for the reason I would be the most likely player to use his assets in historical fashion"

[Mr.Frag]

If you need assistance in learning how to play the game, there are many of us who will help out. If you want to slam the game simply because you are unable or unwilling to take the help, that is your problem, do not make it ours.

By flaming Matrix/2by3 non-stop in their forums you seek to cause others to not spend money on their products. This is finacially damaging whether you see it so or not. As long as you persist in these rants, others will take the role of pointing out that everything you say is trash talk simply because the game is beyond your skills to play. It really is that simple.

It is funny how in the entire length of time that UV has been around with the thousands of folks playing it, only you can produce such stupid results. Your actions speak for themselves. There is no point discussing it further.

As you continue to post trash, we will continue to point out that your trash can only be accomplished by deliberately attempting to play wrong and/or being the worse UV player to ever grace the forum. As to which of the two you are, it really does not matter as long as the message is clearly heard that your statements are completely inaccurate.

Say what you will, no one really cares, and each and every post you make will have a correction posted by someone else pointing out your errors as to leave them unchecked gives other casual readers the chance to think that what you spout might be true. Not going to happen ...

[mogami]

"Look how historical the results from that naval battle were!"

Hi, Those were the same ships (minus 1 CA) (plus 3 DD) That won the First Naval Battle Of Guadalcanal. Are you saying they could not have defeated a SMALLER force?

[Chiteng]

Forced me into the main-stream? I feel obligated to say something extreme now.
The point of the game is to PLAY IT.

Lets assume that TJ and Mdiehl were correct in all respects about the Zero.
SO WHAT?

The classic Zero is only used for a short portion of the war.
During the conquest of the SRA. I feel that anything that facilitates that
conquest is GOOD. Even if it were mildly inaccurate. Which I dont agree it is.

Because faliure to conquer the SRA means the game is OVER.
That means it isnt gonna be played. IE its not fun, ie no buyers.
Except possibly Mdeihl and TJ. Who will no doubt then claim that we
all simply cant accept this totally accurate simulation (by their standards)

The point of the game is to PLAY IT. The B-17 issue in UV starts on turn #1
and never leaves. Apparently the B-17 isnt immune to attack in WITP.
I will wait on that judgement then.

The FACTS are that pilot quality is an unquantifiable abstraction.
It exists, it is there, and it does effect combat. It doesnt matter at all
if minimalists dont want to see it.