Minimalists (and their intention to restrict goals and progress)

[Mike Scholl]

I don't agree.

To be of any use overall, that "I don't agree..." has to be followed by a well-
reasoned "..and here's why." And the "why" can't be based on someone's
heritage, parentage, or personal habits. If a point is really silly, you might
say so, but you better back it up with why it's silly.

There would be a lot more accomplished in these forums without the "flaming".
For one thing, the guys at 2by3 might be more willing to read and consider the
points made if they weren't buried in a mountain of drivel and name-calling.
Wading through some of these has to be a "drudge task" assigned to whomever
"lost the coin flip" that week.

[pasternakski]

To be of any use overall, that "I don't agree..." has to be followed by a well-
reasoned "..and here's why." And the "why" can't be based on someone's
heritage, parentage, or personal habits. If a point is really silly, you might
say so, but you better back it up with why it's silly.

There would be a lot more accomplished in these forums without the "flaming".
For one thing, the guys at 2by3 might be more willing to read and consider the
points made if they weren't buried in a mountain of drivel and name-calling.
Wading through some of these has to be a "drudge task" assigned to whomever
"lost the coin flip" that week.

"If people would limit their responce to 'I dont agree' instead of what you see here, then we would have FAR fewer arguments."

[Luskan]

There seems almost no acceptance for real criticism in some arewas and the best example would be the Zero and wildcat problem. Or maybe I should say theres acceptance of criticism as along as it never quite leads to a resolutin of th eproblem, so I guess its more like you can criticze but were not going to actually change it because we don't agree with you. My problem with that is becominf large as mdeihl has made a great case with not much progress that I can see in terms of the whole forum. Im not sure it's better with witp or not but really the attitude in here is not real warm towards a lot of change.

You are wrong - and here is why.

Matrix are MOST receptive, MOST eager to help/please and support their gaming community. UV came out and then about 20 patches appeared on a fast, regular basis that addressed concerns from the forums. Implementing changes from suggestions and opinions in the forums was about the only thing these patches did. They weren't there to fix up many bugs, or imrpove stability. They were almost entirely created from requests from the forums.

The WITP creation process is the same. Everything that is said in the forums is taken on board, considered and discussed (however if an issue raised by 1 person 500 times, it has less weight than 1 person posting it once). It is also not a generally good idea to get on your pulpit, start howling curses and quoting ill begotten scripture and trying to exorcise the issues you have out of the game like they were demons. This generally offends the people that you want to convince.

I'm not saying I've got any real power to do any more than suggest changes like anyone else on the forums, however from a personal point of view I lost my objectivity with regard some posters ages ago. If they were dumb enough to attack me personally in an attempt to get a point across, then they can have no further input with e - and that is one tester who is (understandably) completely unresponsive and disinterested in their opinion - whatever that may be.

Getting what you want isn't about proving how right you are by convoluted rubbish. It is about being diplomatic, backing your argument up with evidence, making an argument THAT HAS COMMUNAL SUPPORT (I'm tempted to repeat those four words a few times but notice my excellent self control) and putting your case forward in a friendly, concise manner.

In fact, if you've been paying attention to the forums lately, you'll notice that there was a recent attempt by an altruistic tester to understand and help one poor forumite who can't seem to express his argument very well. It didn't turn out so well.

I've been a tester for about 3 months now I'd guess, and already the list of things that have been suggested in the forums, taken on board by developers or testers, discussed, and added to the to do before shipping list is just huge. I've spun out 2.5 AARs and already they've generated dozens of changes - lots of OOB changes (ships, CDs, land units) to dozens of completely reasonable criticisms from the intelligent people that post in them. The whole point of doing those AARs was to use the resources and brains of the people reading them (and then steal their suggestions and make myself look really smart in the development forum!! ).

Sorry about the rant, but your opinion of these forums is just so opposite to mine I had to spell it all out.

Wonder if that makes me a Maximalist or a minimalist? If this was a musical argument and the terms were relative is it like asking whether you are Beethoven or Philip Glass? Because I know the answer to that one!

[Peter Weir]

Getting what you want isn't about proving how right you are by convoluted rubbish. It is about being diplomatic, backing your argument up with evidence, making an argument THAT HAS COMMUNAL SUPPORT (I'm tempted to repeat those four words a few times but notice my excellent self control) and putting your case forward in a friendly, concise manner.

I'd agree except when you get to the communal part fora good argument carries its own weight in a devate despite how many other s agree or not with it. Seems to me if the weight of acceptance hangs on how many actually want to see a change than all the changes would only be by a commitee process. Majority rules hardly sounds fine but hardlyever gets at the nub of isuses.

In fact, if you've been paying attention to the forums lately, you'll notice that there was a recent attempt by an altruistic tester to understand and help one poor forumite who can't seem to express his argument very well. It didn't turn out so well.

Not sure here but if you mean the mogami-Tj test then I'd disagree as it seemed to break down real fast in a lot of disturbing noise and a lot of that came from Mogami himself. Sorry but I saw that as a circus show not a test and TJ likely did the corrt thing to walk away. .What I hear is us and them all over the place but no special interest to acutally listne to points raised.

I've been a tester for about 3 months now I'd guess, and already the list of things that have been suggested in the forums, taken on board by developers or testers, discussed, and added to the to do before shipping list is just huge. I've spun out 2.5 AARs and already they've generated dozens of changes - lots of OOB changes (ships, CDs, land units) to dozens of completely reasonable criticisms from the intelligent people that post in them. The whole point of doing those AARs was to use the resources and brains of the people reading them (and then steal their suggestions and make myself look really smart in the development forum!! ).

Sorry about the rant, but your opinion of these forums is just so opposite to mine I had to spell it all out.

My opinionn is opposite as you say probably becuase I'm not geting into the personalitties of the posts but only want to see the best game. I want to knopw what everyone thinks not just those who agree with the majority and can get along with the gourp in terms of how to think and act. I hear a lot of personality in your post and as CHIteng says thats often a key to knowing whether or not a person has any intentionn to be objective. Tobe honest I dont hear much objectivity in your voice I'm also sorry you feel you have to rant just becuase my opinion is so differnt, as I feel no such need and my opinion is as you say very different from yours. Different strokes I guess.

[Peter Weir]

Chiteng I'm gald you're here as you can get your points across better than I can. Ive noticed you never get into this other stuff and good for you all the way. I guess we can't agreee on the Zero issue as I find it a bit strong in the game and happen to think mdiehl has a great case but again thats no reason for all the rest of it. Keep firing away!:)

[mogami]

Hi, Pete I disagree with you on several points.
First the Mogami-TJ test. I kept the Japanese response to landing on Lunga completly historic. I sent the exact same ships on the exact same missions. I was even carefull to fly the Rabaul bombers prior to the Lunga landing to reflect their activity towards PM. I opened a thread to post the results and comments.

TJ, did not use the USN forces in their historic manner, Posted results from other games that had no bearing on the test, (he started another thread)
And the whole time stated the reason he had to be the allies was because he was the only player who could use the Allies in their historic manner.


And then you keep posting that the forum disregards Mdiehl and his ideas. I think in fact it is you that are disregarding his posts. For some time now he has been posting that UV does in fact produce reasonable results.

Do you fail to get reasonable results? Please post some of your unreasonable results. Include scenario and difficulty settings.

So far in response to my request every poster has been able to achive higher air to air ratios against the Japanese. (The Japanese are losing every reponse) No poster has yet posted results that have the Japanese in the lead.

There are not as many prople claiming these unreasonable results as you suggest. And none of them have yet been willing to prove it in a test where another person runs the allied side. I'm suprised you have no problem with TJ wanting to be the allied side and prove a Japanese advantage. It should be so simple to see the person claiming the Japanese advantage should be the one to manifest it against an unbeliever. All you have to do is look at what TJ had defending his transports to see he does not know his history or something was rotten in Denmark.

(He claimed to be depending on a reaction from Tulagi. I ask you a simple question. Was the USN TF involved in the first Naval Battle of Guadalcanal a reaction from Tulagi? (History or BS)

I do not post to discount TJ because I like UV/WITP. I post because I have made over 5500 Turns in UV and my results do not concur with his claims.
Call me stubborn but I prefer to go with what I see. In over 50 PBEM games I have only seen the Japanese rack up a better then 2-1 kill ratio 1 time. And that was a game I used the P-39D in air to air for a extended period. (The Japanese had slightly better then 2-1 in Air to air but still were behind in total air loss after 6 months. (This means before the P-38)

For the past 18 months a 10 turn day would be considered by me to be a light day of UV. My normal rate of turns is 8-15 turns per game with 8 or more games always in play. I have a few games that are 1 turn a day but the majority of my games finish a month or more per actual week. I do not base my opinion on 2 pbem or 4 pbem. I place it on well over 50 complete PBEM games. I play the Allied side in in the majority. (I might have been Japan in 10 total games so far) I think I know better the TJ the results I've seen. And I've never seen the Super Zero. (It has had super days, but then I've had super days with P-39D but I don't claim it as a super fighter)

[Peter Weir]

Well TJ hasn't posted for a couple days so I'll wait for that and see. I meant your comments at times were very personal magami. All the squash you like a bug stuff andf the like can not be typifeid as objective going into a test. I thinkTJ made the point that puting surface ships into TF's was not historical but a way to get aorund the system limitations. The Zero results have not exactly been solved. The argument seems to be that after awhile the Zero doesn't have the same advantageand the results even out but thats not the same thing to say it isn't modeled too good to begin with. Mediehl has wtitten that he thinks results posted form witp tests look better but I haven't read anything from him to say he thinks complaints about uv are not right. There are people who post that results from uv with the zero are kinda off.

You know this whole thing has gotten to where its just abig personal vendeta against anyonee who continues to argue about flaws to the game and I don't get it because its obviosu any game will have such mistakes in it. if they can be corrected then it's better for everyone involved why fight against that? I've read more than one good argument just shouted down and many times its TJs argument and its always the same posters who do the shouting with the same arguments that do not go directly to the core of the issue but argue around it and get personal besides. Its pretty obvious to someone like me whos not part of the personal side of it Mogami.

But I'll do that test with the same scenario as you asked me over int he uv area and post the results here if you want. Do you want the test to be a cerain llength or what? How about a month or two is that enough? And what about all those extra pilots I'm collecting?

[Mr.Frag]

Mogami, little point discussing this one. We know there is no problem between the A6M and F4F/P40. Testing has proven that conclusively, and not just testing by UV experts.

One has to accept the facts that a small percentage of people who play will simply not be very good and this will produce extreme results. They will come to the forums and whine about their results. When challenged, they will take it personally because it shows that they happen to not be very good when everyone else gets better results and they will get nasty about it.

Move on ... nothing to see here ...

[mogami]

Hi, Pete you read the "squash you like a bug" out of context. I said in reply to the Japanese being super advantaged that I would run the allies and squash him like a bug. Meaning I didn't belive in the Zero Betty Nell myth and dispite their supposed advantage would take the Allies and squash the Japanese like bugs. I didn't say I would do it as the Japanese.
You seem to be missing the point. I don't admit to any Japanese advantage. So the people that claim it exists should be more then willing to use it against me. None of you (I include you , since you have posted the same things many times now without ever posting anything in support) has ever been willing to run the Japanese and prove these claims. I could hardly deny they exist if after 2 months of scenario 14 with me as allies the Zero had shotdown 200 Allied fighters while losing 100 or less. I'd also have to as allies conduct operations to capture Japanese held bases. I could hardly avoid air to air combat. (or the list of USN ships sunk by Betty/Nell attack would prove the point there)
Since I contend I can not only protect my ships while conducting offensive operations and win the air battle agaisnt the Japanese why would anyone consider it a valid test to have anyone else run the USN? That is what TJ did and called it a test. I submit. That since I am the one who claims the allies do not suffer from the early bias built into UV that I am the one who should run them to prove it. How can anyone claiming a Japanese advantage turn around and run the Allies to prove it? (In a solo test it would be very easy for them to run the Japanese and not have to worry about me running the allies but he does not do that. Instead he runs the allies and then posts bad results. I run the allies and post good results. I've never doubted that TJ achived his bad results. My contention has always been that it is TJ that produces these results not a built in game bias. My proof has been and remains the fact that no one but TJ gets such bad results at such a steady rate.

In short. I do not disagree with TJ. I believe he gets bad results. But unlike him I do not attribute his bad results to the game.

How about sending a first turn scenario 14 to Mogami99@aol.com then you can test with me.

[Mr.Frag]

I think TJ made the point that puting surface ships into TF's was not historical but a way to get aorund the system limitations.

Not correct, he simply made a mistake and has attempted to blame it on the system. There is no system limitation in regards to TF control.

The argument seems to be that after awhile the Zero doesn't have the same advantage and the results even out but thats not the same thing to say it isn't modeled too good to begin with.

Not correct, the discussion has been from a few folks who don't seem to understand how to use aircraft. The results never even out, the Zero is always at a handicap from turn 1 until the end of the game. Against Allied air employed properly, the Allies will never fall below a 3:1 kill ratio.

Mediehl has wtitten that he thinks results posted form witp tests look better but I haven't read anything from him to say he thinks complaints about uv are not right.

Mdiehl has simply been critiquing results posted by others as that was his only visibility. He has never stated that there is a problem. You are putting words in his mouth. You are taking the fact that the WitP posts are being posted by folks who actually know how to play the game and comparing them to UV figures from folks who don't. Hardly accurate.

There are people who post that results from uv with the zero are kinda off.

For every person who posts this, there has been roughly 40 people who counter post that this person is nuts. Funny how the complaints are always coming from people who (a) can not back up their posts with results and (b) have lost scenarios which are unloosable as the Allies having even a remote bit of skill.

Peter, you are committing the cardinal sin here yourself, reading something and presuming it means something or that it is accurate yet not actually posting any results of your own that back it up.

[Chiteng]

Not correct, he simply made a mistake and has attempted to blame it on the system. There is no system limitation in regards to TF control.


Not correct, the discussion has been from a few folks who don't seem to understand how to use aircraft. The results never even out, the Zero is always at a handicap from turn 1 until the end of the game. Against Allied air employed properly, the Allies will never fall below a 3:1 kill ratio.


Mdiehl has simply been critiquing results posted by others as that was his only visibility. He has never stated that there is a problem. You are putting words in his mouth. You are taking the fact that the WitP posts are being posted by folks who actually know how to play the game and comparing them to UV figures from folks who don't. Hardly accurate.


For every person who posts this, there has been roughly 40 people who counter post that this person is nuts. Funny how the complaints are always coming from people who (a) can not back up their posts with results and (b) have lost scenarios which are unloosable as the Allies having even a remote bit of skill.

Peter, you are committing the cardinal sin here yourself, reading something and presuming it means something or that it is accurate yet not actually posting any results of your own that back it up.

Hard to do if your not a tester isnt it?

[Mr.Frag]

[font=Arial]Nothing stopping you from firing up UV and proving what you state with actual reports and losses Chiteng. You know that, you have done that. Anyone who owns the game is free to start up a head to head game and move forces together to test results. I am surprised more people don't invest the time to do so. It also happens to be a valuable learning tool for testing out your plans and what to expect.[/font]

[font=Arial]As far at your personal complaint about the B-17's in UV, they do seem to go down in WitP a tad more often, but as it is still a long ways from being balanced and tuned, the results don't mean much right now.[/font]

[Mike_B20]

I'm of the opinion now that the best use for B17's in UV is scouting and the occasional mission en-masse to close an airfield.
I've tried sustained night ops against ports to work on supply levels at enemy bases but the operational losses are astronomical and the results pathetic.

[Chiteng]

I'm of the opinion now that the best use for B17's in UV is scouting and the occasional mission en-masse to close an airfield.
I've tried sustained night ops against ports to work on supply levels at enemy bases but the operational losses are astronomical and the results pathetic.

I have nothing against the B-17 model in UV EXCEPT the anti-shipping model
and its corallary invulnerability.

Searching and Strategic Bombing are perfectly legit.

[mdiehl]

Could you expound on the port-attack B17 results. B17s should have very low operational loss rates, even when damaged, flying night missions, or using low-experience crews. B-17 crews had a task specific navigator and flew in groups whereby getting lost was very rare. Long-mission fatigue was somewhat reduced on B17s as compared with single engined models because there was room enough to move about, and a co-pilot. They were also trained in night operations from the get-go, and were rather effective at sinking parked ships in port. A few water-hits close aboard to JoeAverage Maru was usually enough to cause substantial flooding and engine damage.

Any US B17 unit should not be strongly penalized in re operational losses for night raids.

[Mike_B20]

I agree with you Mdiehl regarding how B17's should be modelled, but they aren't in UV in my experience.
Apparently a while back, some UV users were very vocal regarding the effectiveness of B17's generally and Matrix penalized the B17's operational durability to balance the game...at least that is my understanding.
I commonly see operational losses of 10-20% in UV B17 missions.

Currently the program constantly reinforces B17's squads with very low skilled pilots.
UV then sends these guys out on bombing missions.
There is a difference between the way pilots are chosen for missions between bombing and fighter squadrons for some reason. Fighter squads choose best pilots, bomber squads seem to send least skilled pilots a lot of the time. Maybe this is a contributing factor th the operational losses.

I've read something of how B17's were used early in the conflict and the operational losses were high, however this was more the result of using them in circumstances where they did not enjoy a lot of support and at bases close to the Japanese.
From what I've read about number of B17's in theatre I believe there are too many B17's in UV. Some squadrons were withdrawn from the theatre but this is not modelled in UV.

Generally, I think B17's need looking at by Matrix, like a lot of other things in the game. It must be a nightmare juggling all the factors and finding the right balance to achieve a reasonable simulation and at the same time create a balanced game.

[Luskan]

Well Peter, objectivity only goes so far (as maybe this forum proves). The outstanding issues that are approached correctly and politely, are generally the ones that have lots of forum support - so they are generally the ones that get fixed. How is this unusual?

If you want to keep your posts personality-less in order to try and get your point across, you are going to be about as effective as a wet mop. As for your point re: no specific interest about any points raised - that test was a circus. I agree completely - for the reasons Frag posted.


Now as ahistorical as this is: I don't have a problem when I see my 200+ b17s and liberators (who had an ASW role - that is almost the same sort of bombing technique as anti shipping?) taking off from Nevea and at 6000, finding 25 IJN aps unloading over the beach at Irau - and then dropping a huge tonnage of bombs to get a few hits, especially as usually 1 ship gets pounded under while the rest either take no hits or the odd scratch - and it is even more aceptable when I check my bomber squadrons to see that since it is 11/43, and they've been on ops without ever running into serious CAP or flak for 13 months, they have average experience of above 75 in all squadrons.

However, Chiteng, you'll be glad to hear that as far as WITP is concerned I have come around to your way of thinking with the B17 - and am discussing it with a few other testers (no tweaking will be done until we're out of alpha however so no news yet) but my problem is the 3 b17s taking off from supply less manila and smacking a transport on the way to invade Luzon - or worse, a transports loading troops on Formosa under 20+CAP. This has happened more than a few times if you check the AAR between Raver and I, and even more in the first few games I tried.

I don't care how tough the b17 is, if there are only 3 of them, they are low, slow, inexperienced, flying over a major IJ airbase on a bombing run and they are bounced by 20 zeroes . . . well 2 zeroes damaged and 2 b17s damaged doesn't sit right with me.

[Mike Scholl]

I don't care how tough the b17 is, if there are only 3 of them, they are low, slow, inexperienced, flying over a major IJ airbase on a bombing run and they are bounced by 20 zeroes . . . well 2 zeroes damaged and 2 b17s damaged doesn't sit right with me.

Not sure they often flew over MAJOR Japanese airbases in the early months of
the war, but they made a number of "attacks" on Japanese Shipping trying to
land troops and supplies in various places that had CAP flying. The results
you quote don't look that unbelievable if from the Japanese Report. Their
fighter pilots speak almost with awe at the time about the difficulties of shoot-
ing down a B-17 "for credit". But the American records show that a lot of the
"damaged" bombers that were able to fly away also "pulled a Colin Kelly" and
were unable to land on return. So actually what your result may mean is that
one B-17 crashed, one made it back, but was unflyable for several days, and
one was left available for the next mission.

[Mr.Frag]

Mike? 10-20% Operational losses???

Thats 1-2 planes for every flight of 10. 30 odd days in a month, thats 30-60 planes a month! You don't get that many B-17's!

I think you are in denial

Btw: there are separate pools for the various groups, the big problem you start with in UV is a mass shortage of aircraft. Planes flood in stripping the pool at record rates and the skill slips down the tubes fairly quickly. This may be why you are seeing it more in B-17's ... with the slower aircraft rate, the pilot pool has been raped and pillaged by the B-25/26/PBY/P-39/etc.

Just another reason to pull back and heal up instead of going on the offensive at the start of the game. Once you dump your pilot pool into the crapper, you screw up a lot of air units and it takes months to get them back to where they started the game at...

[Mike Scholl]

Mike? 10-20% Operational losses???

Thats 1-2 planes for every flight of 10. 30 odd days in a month, thats 30-60 planes a month! You don't get that many B-17's!

I think you are in denial [img]

I was actually commenting on a very specific "quote" that I listed in my post.
Though given some of the "wild" efforts and usages B-17's were put to in the
early months or WWII (until say April 1942) 10% operational losses don't seem
extreme at all. Flying them half-way around the world to operate out of 2nd
class bases with minimal ground support to try to make up for our initial unpre-
paredness was asking for high operational loss rates. Those early Squadrons
were basically the only thing we could get rapidly to the SRA---and they wound
up being "sacrificed" to their own pre-war hype and our need to "show the flag".
A lot of the crews DID make it out..., but not many of the aircraft.