B17 Losses too heavy

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Tristan,

Yes, I'd like to run your example scenario/save here for my own tests. Please e-mail it to me at erikr@matrixgames.com. Thanks.

Before we get another pile-up on Matrix/2by3 here, I'd like to point out what seems to me to be obvious, but apparently may not be for some. For any sufficiently complex design, given enough time, you can find a place where it fails to be accurate. I don't know of any complex computer wargame that passes this test and many that are much simpler fail even more spectacularly.

As a player, my view on this is that the results are out of whack, but they reinforce one key lesson which is that bombers should not fly into CAP without escort. For smaller raids, the game seems to work fine. I'll be testing to see if it works fine when Tonys are not involved too. Ultimately though, while the losses should be lower for the bombers, the point ends up the same. In an actual game, with ongoing use, chances are the bomber and fighter morale and fatigue would not be as high. When both sides are at max morale and minimum fatigue, engagements tend to be more bloody.

Anyway, please forward the test save/scenario and I'll have a go at it. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik, glad you showed up.

I'm about to take a shower, though, and have to head downtown. After my appointment I'll be glad to send the two turns to you with the passwords and you can fiddle with it on your own. In fact I just replied to timtom I think it was regarding my intention to do the same, as I originally intended to run the test by decreasing the numbers of heavies in logical steps in the hope of finding a happier "threshold" (if indeed, one exists).

As far as flying heavies without escort: this was SOP in both theaters until the Mustang arrived (well, the Allies could and did use fighters for the close-in work over France) and you can easily verify the kill ratios for yourself, year by year, as published by the USAAF Bombing Survey. Enough said on that, I think.

As for fatigue: I intentionally recuperated the heavies so that everything good went in their favor. Unfortunately, Tom had half of them with orders to fly when their morale and fatigue was in the 40s and 50s, which I felt would be unfair to the model with regards to this test--skewing the results in favor of the Japanese, setting the bombers up for a pratfall as it were because of this poor condition. I also spent PPs to give these American heavy-bomber squadrons the best leaders I could find, as well as the best Air HQ leader I could find. Again, I did all this with the clear intention to be as fair as possible to the model. As you can see, the result still came out badly.

It's not easy to get the fatigue of the fighters up much higher than 10 or so no matter how long one places them on LRCAP, but if you're willing to take the time maybe you can coax it up to 15 or 20 or thereabouts. As it happens, in the game I've "retrieved" Port Moreseby for the Allies. It had been isolated and reduced, with all of its facilities wrecked, but I simply shipped another couple hundred engineers over there with another hundred engineer vehicles, plus I gave it decent supply to work with, something Port Moresby always needs and should never be without (players beware), and so now it's a proper fortress. You'll see! [:)]

So, you do have ready means to "wear down" those Japanese fighters by simply opposing with sweeps the Allied fighters present at Port Moresby. If you want, I could do that as well. Keep in mind, though, that the fairest test is the one I've already presented, with both sides pretty much in prime operating condition. That tends to strip away variables outside the bounds of the plane/leader specs themselves. Agreed?

Whether fatigue and morale prove to make that much of a difference I couldn't say at the moment, but my gut feeling is that these factors will not make much of difference unless you reduce the condition of those Japanese fighters to near exhaustion. But a test will tell us that definitely.

Anyway, I appreciate your interest as a player. I'll get that stuff off to you ASAP.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

But it was the USAAF doctrine to attack enemy bases with unescorted bombers. The only reason 169 4-engined bombers didn't attack a single target was that there wasn't 169 ready to go in one mission in 1942. But the B17 still flew to Rabaul without escorts but in smaller numbers but they didn't get bounced by 138 Jap fighters either. Surely the smaller missions with lower numbers of planes would be more vulernable than 169? The Jap air defence wouldn't say,"Well there's only 18 bombers coming in today- we'll only send up 20 planes of our own." I'm sure some of the Japanese might have read Clausiwitiz. And surely Rabaul would have been the heaviestly defended base they could reach in 1942.

Sure the theory of mutual defence being provided by heavily armed bomber formations didn't live up to expectations, but even on their worst days in Europe where they did find heavily defended enemy skies the B17s weren't wholly massarced in the way they are in WitP. Also the battles against the Luftwaffe were over hundreds of miles- being tracked by radar- and pursued by hundreds of German planes to and from the target. While in the Pacific most of the fighting would have been in sight of the bases in 1942.

I understand that the RAF BC flew at night because it could meet the losses it's leaders dread might happen in a daylight campaign. And the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain even with escorted/semi-escorted raids versus Fighter Command. But even on their worst day in the BoB the Germans lost only 78 planes and that was against hundreds of Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The air war was one of long attrition- it didn't end with a Waterloo.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

But it was the USAAF doctrine to attack enemy bases with unescorted bombers. The only reason 169 4-engined bombers didn't attack a single target was that there wasn't 169 ready to go in one mission in 1942. But the B17 still flew to Rabaul without escorts but in smaller numbers but they didn't get bounced by 138 Jap fighters either. Surely the smaller missions with lower numbers of planes would be more vulernable than 169? The Jap air defence wouldn't say,"Well there's only 18 bombers coming in today- we'll only send up 20 planes of our own." I'm sure some of the Japanese might have read Clausiwitiz. And surely Rabaul would have been the heaviestly defended base they could reach in 1942.

Sure the theory of mutual defence being provided by heavily armed bomber formations didn't live up to expectations, but even on their worst days in Europe where they did find heavily defended enemy skies the B17s weren't wholly massarced in the way they are in WitP. Also the battles against the Luftwaffe were over hundreds of miles- being tracked by radar- and pursued by hundreds of German planes to and from the target. While in the Pacific most of the fighting would have been in sight of the bases in 1942.

I understand that the RAF BC flew at night because it could meet the losses it's leaders dread might happen in a daylight campaign. And the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain even with escorted/semi-escorted raids versus Fighter Command. But even on their worst day in the BoB the Germans lost only 78 planes and that was against hundreds of Spitfires and Hurricanes.

The air war was one of long attrition- it didn't end with a Waterloo.

I already know this. That's what SOP means--Standard Operating Procedure. It's Frag who keeps insisting on some alternate reality.

As for German losses in the BoB: they didn't really have very good fighter escort as the Me 109s didn't have enough time over target. Besides, the German bombers used were not "heavy" in the same sense as were B-17s and B-24s. Not even close.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
My God, how much more obvious could it be that this air model doesn't work because it wasn't designed properly? You can argue against reality all you want, but you'll only continue to fool those who aren't capable to see the light of day for themselves. And what accomplishment could there be in that? Wouldn't you rather keep more sophisticated company?

This, by the way, is exactly what I would like to see less of on this forum. Can you explain to me how this advances your argument?

Regards,

- Erik

Erik, I would much prefer to keep these discussions on a saner, more polite note. But Frag continues to offer specious argument each and every time the accuracy of the model is brought into question. I suggest you talk with him privately in an effort to "clean" this forum up. Left to my own devices I rarely write "emotionally." I will, however, respond back in kind.

By the way, you mentioned before the inherent error factor any model this complicated should be allowed. Taken to the extreme case, I don't necessarily agree with you. If you mean like the "super Jeeps" we were treated to about seven years ago or whenever it was in Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War then these types of errors can and should be corrected as far as possible.

As for Gary's air model in particular, it's wrong from the get-go: the game has poorly modeled airplanes arriving too early and there are too many of them too easily based and supplied and supported and maintained and flown. And then when they do get up in the air for combat we are further treated to ridiculous loss ratios, with not even so obvious a factor as altitude taken into consideration when it comes to plane performance, with the sad result that we have Zeros and Tonys and whatnot up around six miles throwing punches like . . . John L. Sullivan.

That is not acceptable.

Everything in the game runs too fast and is too bloody in general, but especially the air model needs work, and I've said this since my first post on the UV forum--on that much I've been consistent, something even my harshest critics would have to allow.

Now none of the above is what you could call a description of some isolated or indemic "flaw" we all should wink at when it comes to our wargames, but rather it is a tale of a wargame system gone mad for the reason it was designed indifferently, if not to say outright poorly, from the start. The only possible result of any similar scenario would be unhappy. No one makes a silk purse from a sow's ear.

This forum's full of people eager to tell you exactly what you wish to hear.

     "The game's simply wonderful."

Or, what did we just hear from Treespider?

     "I don't see anything wrong with fighters knocking down heavies in droves."

Or something very similar.

These people are a dime a dozen. They don't know what they're talking about and they never will. If that's who want to rub elbows with go for it. If that's who who wish to enlist to help you design these games, be my guest.

You want my help? I'm always here. But if you want my help then we need to get serious, because I'm a serious wargamer, not a wannabe playtester or forum sycophant.

Denying up front that these problems exist is worse than useless, to try and toss these kinds of results off as "bad dice rolls" can and will only bring yet more criticism down on the company's product. And not just from me but from other experienced wargamers as well. That much ought to be clear. But as always, do it your own way. It's your game, not mine, right? Afterall, I only paid cash for it.

And now I really must run. I'm behind schedule and my wife is yelling for me. See ya later. [:)]

[Burzmali]

Frag, let me guess, A2A combat involves a Target Acquistion check that allows a figther to attack a 2nd (or 3rd, etc) bomber?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Before we get another pile-up on Matrix/2by3 here, I'd like to point out what seems to me to be obvious, but apparently may not be for some. For any sufficiently complex design, given enough time, you can find a place where it fails to be accurate. I don't know of any complex computer wargame that passes this test and many that are much simpler fail even more spectacularly.

As a player, my view on this is that the results are out of whack, but they reinforce one key lesson which is that bombers should not fly into CAP without escort. For smaller raids, the game seems to work fine. I'll be testing to see if it works fine when Tonys are not involved too. Ultimately though, while the losses should be lower for the bombers, the point ends up the same. In an actual game, with ongoing use, chances are the bomber and fighter morale and fatigue would not be as high. When both sides are at max morale and minimum fatigue, engagements tend to be more bloody.

- Erik

Eric. Thank you for the admission that the game CAN be wrong and MAY need adjustment. It is much more usefull and satisfying to read than a bunch of nonsense claiming "everything's perfect".

OBVIOUSLY the results achieved in the example that started this thread ARE wrong. 51 of 69 B-17's shot down in Air-to-air combat by 72 Japanese fighters (who lost only 8) at over 30,000 feet. If there were ANY truth to such results, then the far more capable Luftwaffe, with hundreds of miles to intercept in along the course of bomber raids, would have wiped out the Eight Air Force every time it stuck it's nose over Europe in 1943. We know that this didn't happen..., "massive Losses" were one-in-three (on two occasions) and not five-of-seven. And German losses were significantly higher as well (not half as high as "claimed" --- in that case the Luftwaffee would have been wiped out --- but significantly higher that the eight out of 72 shown). So I hope your "look" into the situation will give us a more rational model.

[ChezDaJez]

The thing is, I realize that anyone who could seriously write that the A6M2 Model 21 was "faster" than the Wildcat (there were many Wildcats) and could "dive" with the Wildcat, that the Zero was more "maneuverable" than the Wildcat (these people never heard of rolls, I guess, or performance at various air speeds and altitudes--perhaps we should chip in and buy them a ticket to Air Warrior) either doesn't know his subject (i.e. is just repeating what he read somewhere) or he is

Yeah, I guess you and your sources are right...again. I mean, what would the people who tested the Zero found in the Aleutians know about its performance or superiority over American fighters. Their findings, vis a vis, the Zero vs F4F-4 can't have any relevance. It doesn't agree with your train of thought.

You tend to confuse roll rate with turn rate. Roll rate is simply the ability to rotate around an aircraft's longitudinal axis. That it can be accomplished in straight and level flight should tell you it has little relation to how fast an aircraft can sustain a turn. It does play a part in how fast an aircraft can begin a maneuver but not how it can sustain it. Think of it this way. Roll rate is somewhat analgous to oversteer in a car in a turn. Oversteer allows a car to enter a turn quicker but has no bearing on how many g's the car can sustain in a turn. Turn rate is the degree to which an aircraft can change compass heading. This attribute is a critical component of aircombat maneuvering especially when airspeeds tend to drop as combat progresses due to the heavy maneuvering required to kill or avoid being killed. That the Boom and Zoom could negate this aspect of maneuvering is not disputed. Most US aircraft needed to BnZ in order to achieve a kill. Most fighter pilots will tell you that the retention of energy is extremely important in a dogfight. The aircraft that can retain more energy than its opponent normally dictates the terms of the fight. Energy, in simplistic terms, is the ability of an aircraft to convert speed and altitude into aircraft position, either to kill or avoid being killed. Heavy aircraft are at a distinct disadvantage to lighter aircraft as they bleed off airspeed more rapidly in a climb or turn but can build energy faster during a dive hence the use of Boom and Zoom when opposing Japanese aircraft. It was the only way that they could retain energy.

Quoted from "Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85, December 1942"

12. Zero vs F4F-4:

The Zero is superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 feet and is superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes are equal in level speed. In dive, the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero’s engine cuts out in pushovers. There is no comparison between the turning circles of the two airplanes due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero is basically dependent on mutual support, internal protection and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius is limited by structural or physiological effects of acceleration (assuming that the allowable acceleration on the F4F-4 is greater than that for the Zer. However advantage should be taken where possible of the superiority of the F4F-4 in pushovers and rolls at high speed, or any combination of the two.

Overall, they found it to be superior in maneuverability to all US fighters then engaged in combat. The Zero could outturn the F4F-4, outclimb it and stay with it in a dive. Only above 300kts did the F4F-4 begin to gain an advantage in combat maneuvering. The Spitfire suffered from the same type cutout in pushovers where negative g forces interrupted the flow of the fuel in the carburetor. The fix was to roll into a dive.

EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF
ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND GROUP
Eglin Field, Florida


1. Conclusions:

The Zero fighter, because of its low wing loading, has superior maneuverability to all our present service type aircraft.

It is necessary to maintain a speed over three-hundred (300) miles per hours inducated to successfully combat this airplane.

In developing tactics against the Zero, cognizance should be taken of two facts:

1. Slow roll rate of the Zero at high speeds.

2. Inability of the Zero engine to continue operating under negative acceleration.

The engine performance of the Zero is superior to the present service type engine without turbo superchargers. This superiority is recognizable in the fact that maximum manifold pressure can be maintained from sea level to sixteen-thousand (16,000) feet.

Obviously, these experts' opinion's disagree substantially with your opinion. Maybe Jimmy Thatch's opinion will carry more weight. Quoted from "Fire in the Sky: The AIr War in the South Pacific."

In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots ...
The deficiency not only prevents our fighter [the F4F] from properly carrying out its mission but it has had an alarming effect on the morale of the fighter pilots in the Fleet at this time and on those who are going to be sent to the Fleet.

Hardly an endorsement of the great attributes of the F4F-4. The most significant characteristics of the F4F-4 in combat (as with most US aircraft of the time) was its durability and firepower.

Chez

[Erik Rutins]

A few comments, a bit of stream of consciousness, I'll write more after I've looked over what Tristan sends me.

It seems to me that a fair amount of the friction that occurs here is a result of two different perspectives. For simplicity, I'll call one "history" and one "game". There is a great deal of intersection between the two but when one gets to these "corner cases", they tend to diverge wildly. The difference is that people in the "game" group are mainly here to have fun and play a great historical game, even if occasional results are off. People in the "history" group find their enjoyment spoiled by even one ahistorical result. One different between these perspectives is, I think, a certain tolerance for what's acceptable in the pursuit of fun - another difference is historical knowledge that makes these issues easier to spot for some than others.

Ultimately, this is a game. It's a game about history and it covers the entire War in the Pacific. The designers, testers and volunteers have done a great job getting it to release and improving it since then. A glance through the readme file on the changes from v1.00 to the present indicates a great many adjustments made to allow for more historical play. From the get go, this game has taught many, many wargamers some truths about the War in the Pacific from a historical viewpoint that were not widespread in the community before. Sure, some folks have spent most of their lives accumulating knowledge on this part of the war, but many have not and have learned a lot in the process while having a great wargaming experience.

With that said, the game will never be perfect. I firmly believe that we could work on this for another three years and not have it perfect, simply because of the aforementioned complexity of both the design and the code for this type of simulation. Two steps forward, one step back is often how things go when a change is made with the best intentions.

Since the first release, this game has succeeded both in being fun and in being historical, but not in being perfect. If you want to play out a historical War in the Pacific, it's possible here as in no other simulation. If you want to go off the rails, that's also possible and can lead to fun or problems depending on what happens. I don't think anyone believes that it's perfect or that it never does anything wrong. I think that what happens is that some of the volunteers have gained a very good understanding of the game system and how it works over time. For people in the "game" group, explaining the game mechanics is a great answer. For people in the "history" group, it's not sufficient.

Add on to that the fact that we're basically a year after release here. You know us and 2by3 and the dedication that is put into each release. At least, I think you do, though a few comments a day on this forum make me wonder if that effort is actually put in perspective. We could very easily have gotten to say v1.21 and said everything's fine, enjoy, thank you. That would have been as much support as most companies ever give their titles. We have now, a year later, reached the point where through experience we have realized that continuing major changes are not our goal. Fixing bugs and critical issues is - but again these have a different definition depending on which group you are in. To some degree, we are trying to make both groups happy which may well prove to be impossible.

Honestly, tooting our horn is not what I prefer to do but when I feel that some tunnel vision may be at work, I have to try to put things in perspective. This is a game that can very easily create tunnel vision - entire plans can hinge on one carrier battle, which might hinge on forgetting to take a squadron off naval search orders. I can understand it, I've done it, I've been frustrated by it, but I love this game for it or in spite of it, depending on the situation.

The fact that a lot of people are having fun and enjoying the game despite the fact that some parts of the model are off from expected historical results is because it's still fun and it is still relatively balanced and the overall results are historical (when played at somewhat less than the rushed pace that most players strive for). Most of the lessons this game teaches are correct and in many cases wrong or overlooked in other games. Most of the problems with the combat model are only a real issue in somewhat unusual situations or ones in which the many variables that players often don't pay as much attention to create a "whammy" that is surprising at the top level results view.

Sometimes these situations can be justified by a more detailed look, sometimes they can't. Separating one kind of report from another can be very difficult work since any complaint often results in a bunch of "yeah, me too" posts that again may or may not be because of player mistakes. We have to go through all posts and ask questions to make sure tests are actually valid before we can begin to separate which are the ones highlighting actual problems and which are not. This takes time and as I said before would not be possible without the volunteers that have spent countless hours of their lives helping with internal testing and community work since this game was launched.

I would like to ask everyone for a bit more cool and a bit more forbearance when it comes to the design team and the volunteers. Until you have filled those shoes, you may not realize how things can look.

Anyway, more later, if you read this far thanks and apologies for the somewhat disjointed thoughts.

Regards,

- Erik

[ChezDaJez]

Listen. The Tony was fundamentally a modified license-built Messerschmitt Bf 109E--indeed, it was mistaken for such by the Allies when first encountered over Papua New Guinea. (A mere glance at its profile should verify this much.) The engine that powered it was the Daimler-Benz fuel injected, supercharged DB 601A which developed 1,175 hp (at 2,400 rpm). Now this was a very good powerplant for its time, but even so it was late-1939 technology and only gave the 109E a top speed of 354 mph (at 12,480 feet) and a best climb rate of 2,990 ft/min up to 13,000 feet. Keep in mind the 109E weighed in at around 5,600 pounds (7,500 pounds loaded) and its endurance was just a shade over an hour of flight time. The Tony, with a considerably larger wing (about 40 square feet larger) weighed in at going on 5,798 pounds (some 7,700 pounds loaded) for the Ki-61 series and over that by the time the Ki-100 arrived. Also keep in mind that the power figures given are for take-off and emergency power up around 16,000 feet, and was only available to the Messerschmitt using 96-octane C3 fuel, something the Japanese did not have. At 25,000 feet the power output for the DB 601A engine dropped to 850 hp. What the power figure would have been with, say, 87-octane fuel or something like that is anyone's guess. I have no hard data for that kind of study--and believe me I've looked for it all over.

Listen. It was not a licensed built Me-109. Saying that is like saying the P-51 was a licensed built Spitfire because they used the same engine! How much clearer can that be? The Tony had some passing visual similarities with the Me-109 but that was it. Structurally, they are two completely different aircraft. The wingform is totally dissimilar with different dihedral and chord, the landing gear is wide vs narrow on the Me-109, the cockpit glass and layout bear no resemblance and the tailplane isn't even close. Look beneath the skin and the differences are even more apparant. The ribbing and stringers in the fuselage are typical Japanese construction as are the wingspars. The engine, obviously was a Japanese copy of the Daimler engine but was poorly constructed.

Quoted from: "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene J. Francillon

The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien ("Swallow") fighter represented a major departure for Japanese aircraft design in World War II. While other Japanese fighters were designed with air-cooled radials and were optimized for maneuverability, the Ki-61 used a liquid-cooled in-line engine and was designed for speed and power.

In fact, the Ki-61 was so different from other Japanese fighters that when the type was first encountered in combat over New Guinea in June 1943, the Allies thought it wasn't a Japanese design at all. At first they believed it was a copy of the German Messerschmitt Me-109, then suspected it was a copy of the Italian Macchi C.202 Foglore or similar Italian fighter. For this reason they gave it the code-name "Antonio", or "Tony", though by the summer of 1943 the Allies had realized the Ki-61 was in fact a Japanese design.

The Hien proved initially successful in combat against American fighters. As the war in the Pacific ground on, however, the Ki-61 found itself increasingly outclassed, but it soldiered on until the end of hostilities.

As you tend to discredit most author's works on WWII aircraft, exactly what source(s) do you use? How about the names of the books and authors that have information you trust?


Chez

[Halsey]

Get your pen and paper ready.
I'm extremely curious to see what the kill ratio is for the Zero and the Tony.
I'm willing to bet that it's the Zeroes getting the most kills, and not the Tonys.[;)]

[timtom]

Thanks for taking the time to write such a lenghty and considered response. I can certainly understand how you and your colleagues must on occasion feel frustrated and more than once muttered something on the lines of "ungrateful b*st*rds". I do believe that most of us appreciate the herculian effort gone into not only putting this game together, but also the extensive support subsequently given it. Indeed I believe that much of the criticism voiced on this board ultimately springs from the very excellence of the game. WitP sets a very high benchmark and hence expectations are similarly high. It is no coincidence that WitP is subject to more criticism than, say, Axis & Allies.

However I must take exception with the idea that WitP is a solid template for the uninitiated to learn about the Pacific war. For my own part, WitP and UV have certainly brought me back to the books on the subject. I can now place Balikpapan on the map without hesitation, discuss the importance of Truk as a naval base in a more informed way, name every carrier in the IJN's arsenal, and much more. Yet the uninformed could be left with several grave misconceptions about WWII in the Pacific. Fx - and this in an entirely arbitrary order - one might think that:

- Japan had a better than even chance of conquering the Pacific USSR, China, and India.
- Logistics weren't a serious restraint on operations in general and on the Japanese in particular.
- Japan laboured under no particular resource restraints.
- 100+ bomber raids were common.
- 100+ furballs were common, resulting in heavy casualties.
- The Betty was a deadly torpedo platform.
- Heavy bombers suffered heavy casualties when faced with Japanese fighters.
- Ground AAA was ineffective, seaborne AAA very effective.
- The Zero and its pilots were much superior to their Allied opponents in 1942.
- Land combat wasn't particularly deadly for the attacker. Defenders, however, often gave up after scant resistance.
- Large scale, multi-division combat was common.
- IJN ASW was better than adequate.
- Naval bombardment by battleship was a common phenomenon, and devastatingly so.

Others can be added, I'm sure, and exception can be taken to some, or all, of the above. There are of course multiple reasons why results in the game differ from history, many of which have more to do with playstyle than game mechanics - though one might then ask why those mechanics allow such playstyle. Aware that it's never been 2by3's ambition to create a game - if such a thing was possible - only Tristanjohn, Mike Scholl and possibly myself would care to play, I'm afraid it is my opinion that WitP gets the little things right, but the more important big picture less right.

[ChezDaJez]

Erik,

I totally agree with your comments. This is a game that attempts to model a WWII theater of operations. It will never be perfect until war becomes perfectly predictable. Trying to covert 0's and 1's into a detailed, highly realistic, completely historical recreation that reflects all of war's variability is nearly impossible and I highly doubt the programmer who can do that has been born yet.

The game is not perfect but it is a game and an enjoyable one at that. Perfect, no. Fun, yes. It has its quirks and bugs but Matrix has put in a lot of effort into making the game better and I, for one, am grateful. I would personally find it very demotivating if I were working on this game and my best efforts were continually met with ridicule and abuse because the game doesn't match someone's view of reality.

The way I see it, player's are of 2 camps. Those that are willing to trade off some historical accuracy for the sake of playability and those who want the opposite. These are the same "historical" players who see nothing wrong with ahistorical play and get upset when the game produces ahistorical results because of it.

Take this current discussion for example. Many of these "historical" players see nothing wrong with massing 100 B-17s in one location for offensive operations. They get intercepted by a mass of Japanese fighters and many bombers are lost. Do the combat losses appear to be ahistorical? Yes! But so is the play. Its very difficult to extrapolate data from smaller combat actions to larger ones and achieve realistic results. Its just too variable. This not a slam on those players. Players are free to play the game the way they see fit. But, as has been mentioned many, many times before; ahistorical play begets ahistorical results. I would suggest that, if historical results are important, limit the play to a more historical level.

However, there is also a vocal peanut gallery that claim the game is totally inaccurate and is broken as a result. They tend to forget that this is a strategic simulation, not a tactical one so there are going to be abstractions. Some work well, some need tweaking and others do need rewriting. But, even under the best of circumstances, they will never totally reflect history 100% of the time because people can't agree on what that historical reality should be. People have different opinions of what constitutes historical reality. Doesn't mean they are wrong just as it doesn't mean they are right. Indeed, just trying to get the majority to agree on any particular result is like trying to get a controversial bill passed in Congress.

Play the game, accept the fact that it has limitations and enjoy it.

Chez

[Burzmali]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

snip

It seems to me that a fair amount of the friction that occurs here is a result of two different perspectives. For simplicity, I'll call one "history" and one "game". There is a great deal of intersection between the two but when one gets to these "corner cases", they tend to diverge wildly. The difference is that people in the "game" group are mainly here to have fun and play a great historical game, even if occasional results are off. People in the "history" group find their enjoyment spoiled by even one ahistorical result. One different between these perspectives is, I think, a certain tolerance for what's acceptable in the pursuit of fun - another difference is historical knowledge that makes these issues easier to spot for some than others.

Or, from another view, the people want a "game" get angry when the program fails to follow any logical set of rules (published or otherwise) and the people who want a "simulation" get miffed when things happen that A.) should not have been possible or B.) would (and did) have different results.

By the way, if you are unaware, this has been debated about before in a more general form as the "Gamist, Simulationist or Narrativist" argument.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ultimately, this is a game. It's a game about history and it covers the entire War in the Pacific. The designers, testers and volunteers have done a great job getting it to release and improving it since then. A glance through the readme file on the changes from v1.00 to the present indicates a great many adjustments made to allow for more historical play.

See history isn't what half the people here are complaining about. Some of us would like to have a nice clean engine that has clear inputs and outputs, history aside. Honestly, if the designers had spent half the time they did on the OOB on the engine, players would have been more than happy to fill in the cracks.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

snip sales pitch

With that said, the game will never be perfect. I firmly believe that we could work on this for another three years and not have it perfect, simply because of the aforementioned complexity of both the design and the code for this type of simulation. Two steps forward, one step back is often how things go when a change is made with the best intentions.

The problem I have is that nothing I have ever seen on this forum has lead me to believe that the code is so massively complex that only an act of divine intervention can fix it. Realistically, this "game" is a complex system of simple programs. Look at air combat, sure it is a complex subject, but is code form? Are you saying that randomly determining, with some bias, which planes fall out of the air is so complex that 3 years wouldn't be enough time to fix it? I'll accept that getting everything to stay in balance is tricky, but honestly.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Snip a whole bunch more

Anyway, more later, if you read this far thanks and apologies for the somewhat disjointed thoughts.

Regards,

- Erik

No problem, disjointed thoughts are much easier to tear apart piecemeal [;)]

[treespider]

This forum's full of people eager to tell you exactly what you wish to hear.

"The game's simply wonderful."

Or, what did we just hear from Treespider?

"I don't see anything wrong with fighters knocking down heavies in droves."

Or something very similar.

These people are a dime a dozen. They don't know what they're talking about and they never will. If that's who want to rub elbows with go for it. If that's who who wish to enlist to help you design these games, be my guest.

When in the Pacific War were 105 B-17's ever engaged by 78 fighters? I'm not arguing the game is perfect. My problem with the game is the operational losses are not adequately reflected enabling players to field uber formations which were ahistorical. For that matter did the Germans ever counter an Allied raid with over 100 fighters. At the end of 1944 the Germans only had 370 assigned to the defense of the Reich and another 425 in assigned to the Western front. I've been trying to check my sources for the number of German fighters used to actually counter individual raids but haven't been successful. I did find an example somewhat emulating the Gili results from the game. On February 25, 1944 15th Air Force near Stuttgart, Augsburg, Furth and Regensburg. "Out of 116 bombers, supported by 96 fighters, the Germans shot down 41 four-engine aircraft." Source: The Luftwaffe 1933-45 by Williamson Murray, p. 242. I would agree that if the combat took place at 32000 feet that would not be accurate.

I suppose when you find or develop the perfect system you'll be kind enough to let us all know....

[jwilkerson]

Erik ( and all ).

Frag has several times asked us to produce RL examples of 100+ B17s attacking effective Japanese fighter opposition.

The closest we can come to this from what I recall are the following.

1. Europe - Most major raids in Europe prior to Early 1944 were unescorted and went in against fighter opposition that I hope we can all agree was better on its worst day, than the Japanese opposition was on its best. Example mentioned early in this thread ( by Tris ) was Schweinfurt in OCT '43.

Indeed, on 17 August 1943 the Allies sent 230 B-17s to bomb Schweinfurt. This formation was opposed by some 300 German fighters. Only 184 of the Forts actually arrived over the target, and of these 36 never returned. That's a loss rate of just 19.5% yet it was considered catastrophic at the time.

The worst foray over Schweinfurt in terms of American casualties suffered came on the "Black Thursday," 14 October 1943. On that day the 8th Air Force committed 291 B-17s to a similar mission over that Bavarian industrial city. Of those, 229 actually bombed the target, with 60 planes being shot down. That came to an even more catastrophic loss rate of 26%, totally unacceptable, or for that matter sustainable, even for the USAAF with all its resources.

Now one might argue because Europe raids were in Europe and not in the Pacific that comparison with them is thus irrelevant - however, the German fighter defense was unarguably ( I submit ) better than the Japanese and hence if the game results are more favorable to the fighters than the RL german defenses against large unescorted raids, then I would submit that the comparison is meaningful.

2. The Balikpapan raids in late 1944. Now these were by B24 not B17 ... but the first two ( of 5 ) raids were unescorted ( if I remember correctly ) and in game terms flown at 22 hex range ! My books are all packed up and I'm in the process of moving - so I can't give you the details - but I would ask anyone reading this who does have them to please post the totals of B24s flying on thhe first 2 Balikpapan missions and the numbers of Japanese fightere which engaged them ( from Celebes and Borneo ) and the results. One might argue that B24s are not B17 and thus this comparision is irrelevant. However, I'd argue that in game terms B24 is close enough to B17 for results to be meaning ful.

I apologize for not being able to produce the numbers for the Balilpapan raids myself right now - but RL is intervening in my process !!!

[treespider]

Balikpapan

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9204386

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Balikpapan

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9204386

Thanks for the interesting and enlightening article. It's too bad that the game doesn't simulate that particular war....[;)]

Dave Baranyi

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: treespider

Balikpapan

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9204386

Thanks for the interesting and enlightening article. It's too bad that the game doesn't simulate that particular war....[;)]

Dave Baranyi

Yeah...now I wanna know when I can fly my Emily's and Pete's on CAP?

[ADavidB]

Yeah...now I wanna know when I can fly my Emily's and Pete's on CAP?

That's sort of like that article that someone posted a link to a while back about the Japanese recon planes being "jumped" by B-17s. Our fathers/grandfathers were very resourceful in how they conducted WW II...[;)]

Dave Baranyi

[Lemurs!]

This was from Timtom.

I would like to comment on some of this

- Japan had a better than even chance of conquering the Pacific USSR, China, and India.

This has not been true since 1.3. I suspect most Allied players having China conquered were not running the defense very well.
India, with max commitment, probably could have been conquered.
General Slim certainly thought so and i do not disagree.

- Logistics weren't a serious restraint on operations in general and on the Japanese in particular.
- Japan laboured under no particular resource restraints.

There are not enough resources in the home islands to run the needed industry; i see this as a restraint. Sink the merchant ships and you will see Japan slow down.

- 100+ bomber raids were common.
- 100+ furballs were common, resulting in heavy casualties.
- The Betty was a deadly torpedo platform.

In what way was the Betty not a deadly torpedo platform? Are you saying that it was inaccurate? The plane will work against an Allied opponent that puts ships without CAP within the Betties range.It will not work against fighters. It will only work for a short while even against unescorted targets because they will fall like flys to even light AAA.
What is wrong with this? Seems like it matchs history to me.

- Heavy bombers suffered heavy casualties when faced with Japanese fighters.

See, this is a waste of time BS statement. What you are saying is that the Japanese frittered away their fighters, never concentrated against the main threat until it was too late.
So a Japanese opponent is supposed to act like a fool when they play against you? If a Japanese player manages to gather 100 Ki44s (which were quite succesfull against every bomber but the Superfort) and you attack the base with unescorted bombers, well, you are toast. And rightly so.

I do agree that LARGE fights are too bloody. But this has nothing to do with bombers, B17s, so called Japanese bias or anything else.
It is an error in the combat system.

- Ground AAA was ineffective, seaborne AAA very effective.

Count the guns. The Japanese navy mounted more guns then the Germans used to defend the Ruhr in '43.

- The Zero and its pilots were much superior to their Allied opponents in 1942.

Okay, this has to be the most nonsensical statement you have made.
Yes, they were superior to their opponents.

- Land combat wasn't particularly deadly for the attacker. Defenders, however, often gave up after scant resistance.

I am unsure where you have seen this. My experience has been the opposite. Attacker takes 7000 casualties and defender loses 312 men.

- Large scale, multi-division combat was common.

It was common. Within days of the war starting this was happening in Malaya, Burma, Phillipnes etc.
In the Fall it was occuring in New Guinea, on Guadalcanal etc.

- IJN ASW was better than adequate.

IJN ASW contrary to popular belief did sink American subs. In fact i have done some basic tracking in AARs and quite often the Allied sub loss is less than historical even though, presumably, the Japanese player is paying attention to ASW.
Do you know where the Japanese naval crews went to train for ASW?
To the British ASW schools.

- Naval bombardment by battleship was a common phenomenon, and devastatingly so.

It was devestating, but the game does see it happen to often.
Part of the problem is that the game does not model gun barrels.
Heavy gun barrels wore out quickly and were difficult and expensive to replace.
I am sure Matrix will model gun barrels in the next edition.

On ETO bomber raids, first the Schweinfurt raids were not unescorted, they were unescorted over the end of their flight.

If you would like to see the results of a truely unescorted bomber flight look at the Ploesti raids.
What were the results on that? 80% total losses?

Mike