B17 Losses too heavy

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Well, now, isn't that typical of how this project has gone? You decide to take feedback on a forum from people who mainly haven't a clue, who, in the balance of things, wish most of all to play a kind of PTO shooter, and then down the road use that as the excuse why the model doesn't behave properly. I love it. [:D]

posting derogatory comments about other posters who have provided feedback about the game wont hide the fact that you were 100% wrong in your comment about the developers not listening nor that they wern't aware that a fighter has only so much ammo.

I love it [:D] [8|]

Some things must be taken for granted, or at least should be in the course of a normal conversation. One of those things which must be taken for granted is that when I say the developers have not listened to feedback, what I mean to say and what ought to be clear is that they haven't listen to and/or responded to pertinent feedback by users who know what they're talking about. Most of the people in this forum do not know what they're talking about. And they never will. This is because most people (the world over, not just in the this forum) never bother to do their research, and some of these couldn't make heads or tails of it even if they did. They haven't the capacity for that sort of work. A kind of unpleasant truth, isn't it?

So, your feedback now (which is not hews here--I've heard this any number of times before from "the boys") is that the developers did listen . . . only it turns out they only bothered to listen to the "children" amongst us.

Any other wisdom you'd like to impart?

Like I say, none of this comes as news to me. Indeed, I clearly, forcefully and in some quarters no doubt painfully predicted precisely how the WitP project was likely to flow down the old GG road over three years ago. I told the forum in no uncertain terms that the development team was running the project like some neighborhood treehouse, that the team was riddled with obviously incompetent people and furthermore refused to listen to well-founded, reasoned and experienced feedback . . . from the general forum. True to form, instead of biting that bitter bullet the development team chose to continue to listen to people who do not know what they speak about, though they do happen to speak in round numbers.

After delivering that all-too unpopular message, and absorbing all sorts of abuse in the process, I departed these boards for a year and half--call it a sabbatical of sorts--and patiently waited to see just what shape WitP would actually arrive in. And now we can all see for ourselves, right? It's screwed up, from front to back it's screwed up, to the point where the "solution" today to problems, just for example, such as too many overly-effective B-17s on the map is to simply castratre that plane until it becomes veritable fodder for not only the super Zeros Gary's designed (and has always designed) into his game, but according to another poster a week or so ago float planes as well.

That's what I'd call "not getting it."

All I basically hear now is all I heard three years ago when I signed in and began to discuss Uncommon Valor. I hear, with absolute clarity, the same denial, doubletalk and disdain for common sense which passed for intelligent discourse then. That is what I hear.

The results ingame, of course, and in spite of the company line, speak for themselves. These bear, in all too many cases, no relation to history whatsoever--are totally preposterous in some (all too many) instances. Yet all you can say in defense is that it has to be that way . . . to keep the Nintendo crowd happy?

Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Doubt it, John. There is a pretty limited market for a game this detailed and intense on the Pacific War, and it's doubtfull there is another game company willing to put in the time and money so quickly on the heels of matrix. Best hope is if the code is made available and some of the "experts" who have commented on this forum are so frustrated they undertake it as a "labor of love". The true aggrivation of the game as it stands now is not how badly if falls down in some areas, but how close it comes to being outstanding in others. It's like a fantastic looking wedding cake..., but the baker mistook salt for sugar when mixing it. You see beauty, but when you take a bite you choke.

That's an excellent analogy, Mike. (I wish it were not.)

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

As a well known "Allied FanBoy" (I'm actually a "History FanBoy", but to the Japanese FanBoys that's the same thing), I would like to point out that I proposed a solution to the entire basing problem almost as soon as the game came out and I saw the sillyness the designers had chosen to use. My suggestion was to base capacity and servicing on the
size and mission type of the A/C. Basically a single engined fighter or attack plane would count as "1" against base size and support; a twin-engined bomber as "2"; and a four-engined bomber as "3". So a level one airbase with a support unit capible of handling
30 airpoints could handle 30 fighters, 20 medium bombers, or 10 heavys. A simple change that would have solved most of the problems and complaints.

I always liked this proposal (this one is old one dating back from good old UV days) but, IMHO, the 4-engine bombers should be counted as 4 (i.e. the base capacity regarding aircraft would simply mean the actual number of engines on planes)...

Nonetheless I seriously doubt we would ever seen changes this in WitP until Matrix/2By3 gives the code to community programmer in due time (as they promissed)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mike Scholl]

My choice of 1,2, and 3 (rather than 4) was based on the actual unit sizes and man hours needed to keep the A/C in business. Just counting engines doesn't tell the real story, it just penalizes the side with more 4-engined A/C. But even 4 would be a big imporvement on the screwed up mess the designers have given us.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko



*Because of incessant Allied fanboy whines that their B17s be made easier to supply, maintain and service than your garden variety lawnmover.*

So you get some, lose some, gotta live with that (on both sides).
O.

As a well known "Allied FanBoy" (I'm actually a "History FanBoy", but to the Japanese FanBoys that's the same thing), I would like to point out that I proposed a solution to the entire basing problem almost as soon as the game came out and I saw the sillyness the designers had chosen to use. My suggestion was to base capacity and servicing on the
size and mission type of the A/C. Basically a single engined fighter or attack plane would count as "1" against base size and support; a twin-engined bomber as "2"; and a four-engined bomber as "3". So a level one airbase with a support unit capible of handling
30 airpoints could handle 30 fighters, 20 medium bombers, or 10 heavys. A simple change that would have solved most of the problems and complaints.

Instead we have the designers mishmash of various base size limits---which then forced them to put wrong sized bases in many locations (Midway, for instance) so that places
that DID operate some heavy bombers could do so in the game (result being that the tiny islands of Midway Atoll can be made to operate 300 heavy bombers.) Don't blame the Fans---this was a designed screw-up. And those "massive raids" you complain about occur because the designers put too many B-17's in the OB.

I would like to see that too! It´s just ridicoulos to see a small island, which could hardly maintain 200 fighters, with 200 4E bombers on it. It´s just not the same! There should be differences and not just counting planes.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


Some things must be taken for granted, or at least should be in the course of a normal conversation. One of those things which must be taken for granted is that when I say the developers have not listened to feedback, what I mean to say and what ought to be clear is that they haven't listen to and/or responded to pertinent feedback by users who know what they're talking about. Most of the people in this forum do not know what they're talking about. And they never will. This is because most people (the world over, not just in the this forum) never bother to do their research, and some of these couldn't make heads or tails of it even if they did. They haven't the capacity for that sort of work. A kind of unpleasant truth, isn't it?

Nope. Its a bullshit excuse to cover up your incorrect statements. You said that the dev's gave no thought to ammo consumption. They did. You say they have not listened to feedback. They have. The only lame excuse you can come back with is a typically derogatory one....oh they listened to people who dont know anything.

So, your feedback now (which is not hews here--I've heard this any number of times before from "the boys") is that the developers did listen . . . only it turns out they only bothered to listen to the "children" amongst us.

Any other wisdom you'd like to impart?

Nope. Your doing a fun job of making yourself look like an a$$.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

My choice of 1,2, and 3 (rather than 4) was based on the actual unit sizes and man hours needed to keep the A/C in business. Just counting engines doesn't tell the real story, it just penalizes the side with more 4-engined A/C. But even 4 would be a big imporvement on the screwed up mess the designers have given us.

Mike, this is excellent idea (your #1).

Here is some another ideas (for slowing air operations). Everyone speaks about massive losses and massive air battles, so far we have some ideas how to avoid/limit such things.

IMHO, best and the easiest way is:

1. slower repair rate of the monsters (already proposed before)

2. Tweaking air morale of the groups. I'm bit suprised that (as i recall) nobody mentioned bfeore, but it is really funy to watch morale of my Daitai which lost 10-15 planes. Morale stays high (yes. it was in temperate base, but...).
So, lower moral - chances to fly offensive missions are lower. For defender, lower morale means they will be not so efficient.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


Some things must be taken for granted, or at least should be in the course of a normal conversation. One of those things which must be taken for granted is that when I say the developers have not listened to feedback, what I mean to say and what ought to be clear is that they haven't listen to and/or responded to pertinent feedback by users who know what they're talking about. Most of the people in this forum do not know what they're talking about. And they never will. This is because most people (the world over, not just in the this forum) never bother to do their research, and some of these couldn't make heads or tails of it even if they did. They haven't the capacity for that sort of work. A kind of unpleasant truth, isn't it?

Nope. Its a bullshit excuse to cover up your incorrect statements. You said that the dev's gave no thought to ammo consumption. They did. You say they have not listened to feedback. They have. The only lame excuse you can come back with is a typically derogatory one....oh they listened to people who dont know anything.

So, your feedback now (which is not hews here--I've heard this any number of times before from "the boys") is that the developers did listen . . . only it turns out they only bothered to listen to the "children" amongst us.

Any other wisdom you'd like to impart?

Nope. Your doing a fun job of making yourself look like an a$$.

First of all, there never was ammo in planes, though there certainly should have been. A "comment" about planes running out of ammo during the combat animation never constituted actual ammo in planes.

The point is that patently bad feedback was accepted and acted upon by the developers for no better reason than to pander to the lowest common denominator. In this specific case the hit was taken by the air-combat model.

As for making an ass of myself: what I do not try to do is falsely endear myself to the company. Too many around here are up to that. The end result of this schmoozing is a simulaltion which doesn't even work as billed, much less properly.

What Gary has always needed was feedback which encouraged him to make his games more accurate instead of less accurate. I argue that WitP would be not less fun to play were it modeled more historically but more fun to play yet. If that message arrives unhappily, so be it.

The company does listen to people who don't know what they're talking about. This is a truism, derogatory as it might be in other respects. Just for example (the list runs on and on), there is no good reason to have so many B-17s in the reinforcement schedule, there is no good reason to have downgraded other Allied bombers with regard to operational range, there is no good reason to make the Zero a kind of superweapon early in the war . . . other than the developers of this game either:

     1) had no wish to design a simulation which was faithful to history to start with

     or

     2) simply weren't up to the work

Take your pick.

Any number of more intelligent suggestions have been made over the past three years that I'm aware of to improve matters, and almost without exception these suggestions have been roundly ignored. Instead, we have been treated to new "features" that don't work because they could never wortk. Features which take the model in the wrong direction instead of the right direction, features which then require more tinkering afterward to fix yet more problems which arise as a direct result of these new features. Meanwhile, the core problem is never addressed. So, instead of not having too many B-17s to begin with, a rather straightforward OBB question, the company's solution is to downgrade the B-17's proficiency over target and durability vis-a-vis enemy fighters and AA fire, to have them swatted out of the air like so many flies. And better still, now the Japanese player can accumulate a few more VPs into the bargain, while everyone has a jolly-good time with this shooter-like process. Only thing is it doesn't make a whit of historical sense.

I'm sorry, Nik, but that's not what I'd call wonderful stuff.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

As a well known "Allied FanBoy" (I'm actually a "History FanBoy", but to the Japanese FanBoys that's the same thing), I would like to point out that I proposed a solution to the entire basing problem almost as soon as the game came out and I saw the sillyness the designers had chosen to use. My suggestion was to base capacity and servicing on the
size and mission type of the A/C. Basically a single engined fighter or attack plane would count as "1" against base size and support; a twin-engined bomber as "2"; and a four-engined bomber as "3". So a level one airbase with a support unit capible of handling
30 airpoints could handle 30 fighters, 20 medium bombers, or 10 heavys. A simple change that would have solved most of the problems and complaints.

I always liked this proposal (this one is old one dating back from good old UV days) but, IMHO, the 4-engine bombers should be counted as 4 (i.e. the base capacity regarding aircraft would simply mean the actual number of engines on planes)...

Nonetheless I seriously doubt we would ever seen changes this in WitP until Matrix/2By3 gives the code to community programmer in due time (as they promissed)...


Leo "Apollo11"

I tend to agree with that four-engine heavies should probably require 4 support points, and perhaps more still. This would require testing to be sure, though the direction Mike's suggestion wants to lead the model is correct.

One reason there wasn't much B-17 activity in 1942 was that there weren't that many B-17s in theater. Another crucial point was that there wasn't sufficient support for those B-17s which were available. Lack of spare parts alone kept many of the Forts on the ground for extended periods, plus the few B-17s which were around flew too many hours, and were also required for reconnaissance duty over and above combat missions. These few planes were simply overworked and finally stopped operating. By the middle of 1943, by which time a relative profusion of B-24s were available in the PTO, with much more comprehensive ground support available to upkeep them, the situation began to turn around, and the number of combat sorties rose dramatically as a result. The Allies always wished to bomb the Japanese to smithereens, but for some time they lacked the resources to effectively do so.

The game, of course, has this somewhat wrong. It's almost as if the people who designed this model had read nothing more definitive on the subject than a comic book. Certainly the game plays out like a cartoon at times.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: pauk

2. Tweaking air morale of the groups. I'm bit suprised that (as i recall) nobody mentioned bfeore, but it is really funy to watch morale of my Daitai which lost 10-15 planes. Morale stays high (yes. it was in temperate base, but...).
So, lower moral - chances to fly offensive missions are lower. For defender, lower morale means they will be not so efficient.

I've noticed a difference in 1.5 (with B-17 groups upgraded to B24D's). Morale drops much faster and fatigue seems to build up faster. Anyone else seen this?

[Lemurs!]

This is something i disagree with Pry about.
We are missing the point of this problem; the problem is not that the B17 is too weak. In fact, in general i would say the B17 is probably too hard to kill.

The actual problem we are seeing is that large air combats will multiply combat results to ridiculus proportions.
Adding durability to the B17 is not a solution.
If the devs will not fix this in the code, which i am guessing they will not, we would need to add to the durability of ALL aircraft.
Or virtually all. This problem is not limited to the B17, people just complain because they imagine B17s should never be shot down.

But, by adding to the durability of all aircraft we are going to make small scale fights (10 aircraft or fewer) bloodless, and we are going to make mid size fights almost bloodless.

A simple solution may jump out but we have to think through all of the ramifications first.

I agree, and have always agreed, with Mike Scholl on the 1,2,3 cost of aircraft. Remember a B17 weighed 13,000kg while a B26 weighed 10,000kg. Hardly twice as large so i think a three is plenty high enough for 4e bombers.

I also lobbied for atolls to have 1/2 capacity to non atolls.

Mike

[pry]

First of all how the heck did I get dragged into this...

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

This is something i disagree with Pry about.

Don't know how you can disagree with me on something I have NEVER made a single post as to whether I think the 17 is to easy or to hard to kill, My main and only ever POSTED public position on this subject is that there are too many of them period...

Historically it was considered a near world wonder just to get 50% of them airborne in the 1st place, that was only possible by standing them down for days and weeks before a major mission... The Tropics made large scale operations by heavy bombers a near impossible task...

My position is there is too many and they recover fatigue way way way to quickly but the Allied Fan Boys don't want to hear this kind of talk

[Lemurs!]

I am sorry Pry, i had thought you had said you wanted to increase the durability on B17s. I must have heard someone elses name.

Mike

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

This is something i disagree with Pry about.
We are missing the point of this problem; the problem is not that the B17 is too weak. In fact, in general i would say the B17 is probably too hard to kill.

The actual problem we are seeing is that large air combats will multiply combat results to ridiculus proportions.
Adding durability to the B17 is not a solution.
If the devs will not fix this in the code, which i am guessing they will not, we would need to add to the durability of ALL aircraft.
Or virtually all. This problem is not limited to the B17, people just complain because they imagine B17s should never be shot down.

But, by adding to the durability of all aircraft we are going to make small scale fights (10 aircraft or fewer) bloodless, and we are going to make mid size fights almost bloodless.

A simple solution may jump out but we have to think through all of the ramifications first.

I agree, and have always agreed, with Mike Scholl on the 1,2,3 cost of aircraft. Remember a B17 weighed 13,000kg while a B26 weighed 10,000kg. Hardly twice as large so i think a three is plenty high enough for 4e bombers.

I also lobbied for atolls to have 1/2 capacity to non atolls.

Mike

I agree there's no simple solution with regard to the editor. How could there be when the model is so wrong to begin with? It might be the case that the engine acts differently in large air battles as opposed to smaller air battles. If that's the case, the solution should be found in the code. If that's not the case, then we ought to find proportional losses in all air battles no matter the size. Logic dictates that it must be one way or the other.

The relative weight of an airplane has little to do with its maintenance. The primary factors involved are qualified service personnel, spare parts, and the time required to affect repair. It stands to reason that if a plane has four engines to service rather than one, then this plane will require more service personnel working on it and/or time for that service, plus more spare parts. It is strongly suggested that a 4-engine plane would require four times the amount of service, but this might be deceiving for the reason that all engines do not share the same service life. Also, some engine systems are more complicated and time-consuming to work on than others, etc. But just as a ballpark figure, the number of plane engines strikes me as good indicator to go by with regard to requisite service of the plane.

The Flying Fortress, and the spare parts to keep it flying, was somewhat rare in the Pacific theater because of the decision to make the European Theater of Operations the main show. I believe a better job could have been made of this with less squabbling back home, but the historical fact is the PTO received short shrift, especially early on. This ought to be modeled. It is not modeled.

B-17s should be well-nigh immune to the fire of Zeros, and Zeros should be quite susceptible to a B-17's defensive armament. B-17s fired .50s all around and .50s were not good for a Zero's health. That doesn't mean a Zero could not shoot down a B-17. It does mean this should not happen very often. It does not mean a B-17 should shoot down Zeros in droves. It does mean a B-17's defensive fire should be potentially lethal to enemy fighters which approach.

And that's another problem. The air-combat model has Japanese fighters flying up to these bombers as if it were some kind of Sunday lark. It was not a Sunday lark and Japanese pilots were not so stupid.

The majority of the heavy-bomber casualties came at the hands of AA fire and/or operational losses at the end of day. The damage sustained to cause these operational losses might be assumed to have come from a combination of AA ground fire and damage inflicted by enemy fighters, but the bottom line of the USAAF Bombing Survey says that only 40 heavies succumbed to enemy fighter combat in the entire war. That figure might be off by a bomber or two, but that would be it. These people are professional bean counters and like bean counters everywhere they endeavor to get their numbers right. Assuming they are right, or close to right, which I do assume, then the game model is very very wrong.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: pry
My position is there is too many and they recover fatigue way way way to quickly but the Allied Fan Boys don't want to hear this kind of talk

I'm an Allied Fan Boy and I want to hear it (in fact I agree entirely).

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Maximum Verbosity

First of all, there never was ammo in planes, though there certainly should have been. A "comment" about planes running out of ammo during the combat animation never constituted actual ammo in planes.

Incorrect. You stated that apparantly no thought was given to ammo limitations in the planes nor that the developers listen to feedback. Wrong on both counts. Of course specific ammo per plane was not tracked since the A2A routines are abstracted. Keep weaving.

The point is that patently bad feedback was accepted and acted upon by the developers for no better reason than to pander to the lowest common denominator. In this specific case the hit was taken by the air-combat model.

The point, was that you made two incorrect generalizations then tried to cover your error by saying that "oh well BAD feedback was given by people who dont know anything." Your free to hold on to that derogatory opinion. I expect no less of you.

As for making an ass of myself: what I do not try to do is falsely endear myself to the company. Too many around here are up to that. The end result of this schmoozing is a simulaltion which doesn't even work as billed, much less properly.

Translation: Anyone who disagrees with Tris Schuler's ongoing smeer campaign against Matrix is a company schmoozer and/or who does bad research.

What Gary has always needed was feedback which encouraged him to make his games more accurate instead of less accurate. I argue that WitP would be not less fun to play were it modeled more historically but more fun to play yet.

Keep arguing all you like, I dont agree. There has been alot of good feedback here.

If that message arrives unhappily, so be it.

It's interesting that many people are able to offer constructive critism without either continually taking potshots at Gary, Matrix, it's associates, or other posters who dont agree with them. Lemurs pegged you right on the money Schuler.

The company does listen to people who don't know what they're talking about. This is a truism,

No it's not a truism. Its an inference from you....stated for about the 100th time. [8|]

     
Take your pick.

I choose to suggest that you stop hijacking this thread, which is about B-17 losses, not another repeat episode of Tris Schuler preaches on how badly Matrix did everything.

[Tristanjohn]

Well, let's make this simple, Nik. I'll ask some plain questions, you may respond however you wish.

     1. Precisely which parts of the model have 2by3/Matrix made "right"?

     2. Exactly what thoughtful feedback has 2by3/Matrix acted on to improve the model?

     3. Why are there so many B-17s in the game?

     4. Why have B-17s been downgraded in performance?

     5. Why are Japanese fighters so effective versus B-17s?

     6. Why is the Zero rated so effectively in general?

     7. Why is the Zero specifically so effective versus Wildcats flown by Navy pilots?

Meanwhile, you can try and deal with my work on a personal basis and make all the references you want to what other people think of me. I couldn't care less. However that shakes out, it will hardly stop the complaints. This is because these complaints are based on real game issues from actual play by many users besides myself, not on whether anyone likes Tris. These complaints revolve around how the game behaves, not my writing style or opinion of Gary.

Got it?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Well, let's make this simple, Nik. I'll ask some plain questions, you may respond however you wish.

Didn't I just suggest that you stop hijacking this thread? I've said what i've had to say in regards to Joe's querry to those who are truely interested in this game, and gave rtrapasso the true story behind the Developer's actions during the UV days after you made two false generalizations, the fact of which you keep trying to divert me from with your verbose duck and weaving, ending with a rendition of '20 questions' song and dance.

However that shakes out, it will hardly stop the complaints.

I agree, it will hardly stop your complaints

These complaints revolve around how the game behaves, not my writing style or opinion of Gary.

Got it?

Got it....more BS from you. [8|]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I am sorry Pry, i had thought you had said you wanted to increase the durability on B17s. I must have heard someone elses name.

Mike

That was me Mike and yes, I have increased DUR for all planes, not just the B-17 in my private mod. I agree there is a danger of making the small fights too bloodless but so far, I'm not seeing this problem. Opposite in fact with the single engined planes...but i have an idea on how to address that without tampering further with the heavies which are right where i want them to be in terms of ruggedness.

[Lemurs!]

Aha, i think i got a very garbeled version of what was being modded.

So it is not weaking small plane fights too much?
If you don't mind my asking about how much were you going up?

I had a crazy idea a month ago to find the empty weight of every plane used in WW2 and extropolate durability from that but it did not work to terribly well.
My gun mod does seem to have helped the Ki27 and Ki43 though.

Sorry jumped to the wrong conclusion.
mike