Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Honda

Sorry, but reducing experiance will do nothing because on map training is too easy and to rewarding for anyone to remove his squadrons from training before they're in their 80s. So if 40-50 would be trained pilots and 60-70 experts how could you explain the mass production of aces with 90+?
It would be a good idea if it didn't get unbalanced by the game. If on map training wouldn't yield such results then exp reduction would make sence.
And give my my Oscar bonus!!![;)]

Yeah, bombing dots is a problem. Yet another house rule. I suppose it would be pointless to do this as Allies because after what, 100 missions or something they are removed/rotated out of game. Japan pilots are not but a house rule vs dots does the trick.

[mdiehl]

I think all the bonuses should be dropped, and all USN pilots be started at comparable EXP levels to the Japanese naval pilots. That would better capture the look and feel of ww2 from both sides for the first six months. Nagumo was unwilling to hang around to launch a second STRIKE on Pearl Harbor because in part USN CV were locus unknown. Had even ONE USN CV shown up at the right/wrong (point of view) moment you might have four Japanese carriers sunk on 8 December. Japan never conceived of going back to PH later in force because they knew the balance of land based airpower against them ALONE was enough to neuter Kido Butai if not destroy any Japanese CV TF outright.

From the USN side the early war was about watching for opportunities to hit the Japanese where they were vulnerable. Initially this meant avoiding Nagumo's forces because most of the time the US CVs were outnumbered 4:1, 2:1. In contrast, "4:3 with a USN land base" (Midway) seemed like an attractive invitation to the USN to "come out and play."

In WitP the Allied player is NUTS to take 4:3 odds of CVs favoring Japan unless the US player also has a complex of airbases that rival the Hawaiian Islands in direct support. In short, the "look and feel" element is wrong. IRL Halsey "looked and felt like there were circumstances where he was game to challenge the cream of the Japanese navy." In WitP the look and feel is "I better wait until odds insurmountably favor the Allies before I attempt to oppose." That's just wrong.

[Demosthenes]

Was the Zero Bonus with WitP from it's conception? or was there a debate about it like this when the game first came out/nearing completion?

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: mc3744

I'm a bit late, but here are my two cents.

The way I see it the Zero bonus should be extended to the other Japanese fighters, but the duration should be reduced.
By the end of March it should be over, maybe even by the end of February.

Allow Japan a shock start on all fronts. But the shock cannot last 6 months, that's way too long.

I concur mc3744.[;)]

I've "ghosted" this forum for awhile now.[;)]

Those who say this is Allied Fanboy hooya is nonsense.
If anything, GG's design of "his" interpretation of 1942 in the Pacific, has the Allies incompetence hardcoded into the game. Adding an extra bonus in for the Japanese only makes it more outrageous.

Adding Oscar's and reducing the time is a fair tradeoff.

Hey, but what do I know?
I'm a rookie compared to the experienced grognards on this forum.[:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Was the Zero Bonus with WitP from it's conception? or was there a debate about it like this when the game first came out/nearing completion?

Like other stuff this bonus came from older game designs. For some reason old game designs seem to have made quite an impression on Gary G.

[Tom Hunter]

It has been in from the start.

[Ron Saueracker]

Had even ONE USN CV shown up at the right/wrong (point of view) moment you might have four Japanese carriers sunk on 8 December. Japan never conceived of going back to PH later in force because they knew the balance of land based airpower against them ALONE was enough to neuter Kido Butai if not destroy any Japanese CV TF outright.

mdiehl

What? Are you saying the Japanese were aware that their CAP was nowhere near UBER![8D]

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Honda

Oscar corner
It's clear that Oscar is a Zero like machine. The only difference is that Oscar is underarmed but more maneuverable (not that the game simulates it). So, Oscar should also be a beneficiary of the "Zero bonus".
My proposal:
If slots for A6M2 and 3 are hard coded with the bonus why not exchange slots between Oscar I and A6M3? It would give Oscar I the bonus which isn't important at all by the time A6M3 comes into action.
As simple as it gets.
P.S.
Poor Nate...

Is this true, the slot for the A6M3 also is eligible for the Zero bonus?

[j campbell]

Ron,
If i recall correctly- American CAP is just as UBER. Thankfully though, there are still hardcore wargamer programmers s left so that we can have our niche products-WiTP is not exactly Halo 2 if you know what I mean. The product is not perfect but it s the best game covering the war from 1941-1945 that i have played. We need to test out this exp diff and see hwo the game would play out. perhaps it would have the same effect as the zero bonus.

Some of those old wargames are still better than the ones they produce today- Eastfront from Columbia games circa 1990 is still the best East Front wargame there is-although L2 design does a fantastic job with its remakes- Streets of Stalingrad for example.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Adding Oscar's and reducing the time is a fair tradeoff.

The duration is in the code and can only be changed in a patch. There are 2 slots in the database hard-coded to get the bonus, and the bonus lasts 5 months (+5,+4,+3,+2,+1).

The only changes the modders can make to zero bonus is to move plane models between slots, thereby changing which planes get the bonus: 2 models, 1 model, or none (if both hard-coded slots are left empty).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: j campbell

Ron,
If i recall correctly- American CAP is just as UBER. Thankfully though, there are still hardcore wargamer programmers s left so that we can have our niche products-WiTP is not exactly Halo 2 if you know what I mean. The product is not perfect but it s the best game covering the war from 1941-1945 that i have played. We need to test out this exp diff and see hwo the game would play out. perhaps it would have the same effect as the zero bonus.

Some of those old wargames are still better than the ones they produce today- Eastfront from Columbia games circa 1990 is still the best East Front wargame there is-although L2 design does a fantastic job with its remakes- Streets of Stalingrad for example.

Any CAP is uber in WITP due to questionable design mechanics. Japanese CAP is more so because they did not have fighter direction like the Allies did (yet do not get penalized). The Japanese also benefit from unwarranted abilities to launch coordinated strikes vs naval targets while the Allies don't. Nobody should have this ability in my opinion yet Japan does.

The comment about old game designs was made to point out that many design features and assumptions are based on previous designer assumptions and bias. Old game designs have a nasty habit of being used as historical fact despite being inaccurate and/or incomplete.

[ChezDaJez]

Is this true, the slot for the A6M3 also is eligible for the Zero bonus?

IIRC, the bonus is gone(or nearly so) by the time the A6M3 is available so for all intents and purposes, it doens't benefit from it (and shouldn't).

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

You said it! IRL, the Allies probably had a slight advantage once the obsolete aircraft were eliminated, but only because it's more difficult to FORCE a "turning contest" on an opponant than a "zoom and boom" type affair. Past the first 3 months, I'd say something like a 55-45 edge (maybe less, depending on a lot of other factors) to the Allies.

There's no quantitative basis to support the existence of the "Zero bonus." The problem wasn't "trying to turn with the Zero/Oscar" which was something that any allied a/c of the day could win at if the IAS was above 290 mph. The problem was trying to turn with the Zero at low IAS. The Zero was only "more manueverable" in a short part of the Allie'd a/cs flight envelope.

Heck at 10,000 feet and IAS above 280, the P-39 was a much better plane.

I think part of the myth here stems from the fact that the primary polits who initially tried to out-turn the Zero were UK veterans of the BoB flying Hurricanes. This tactic (turning) was successfully employed against the Luftwaffe ME-109s.

But early on, everybody but Chenault seems to have been a victim of their own prejudices that "those funny little Mr Moto's in their coke bottle glasses" couldn't possibly be as good as I am---and their planes must also be inferior copies of Western designs.

The funny thing is that if you look at anything other than propaganda films you don't find allied pilots or intel offering that assessment. Not even in 1941. Instead you find lots of Allied pilots with no particular information about the Japanese at all, and Allied pilots (like Thach and Flatley) who in 1941 long before the US entered the war were already studying the problem of how to defeat a more maneuverable aircraft.

The learning curve was steep and costly, which is why I favor leaving in the "bonus" for 3 months.

I doubt that it was as costly as WitP and UV make it out to be. I suspect that the learning curve problem if correctly modeled would allow the IJN/IJA to sustain about a 1.4:1 kill ratio over all Allied army pilots for the first three months of the war. Vs USN naval pilots the assumption from 7 December 1941 should be parity.

Or maybe instead of giving the Japanese a "bonus", we should give all starting and arriving Allied air units a 30-day "stupidity" modifier (neg) while they learned the truth for themselves.

Sounds like the same thing as the Zero bonus with equal absence of justification and phrased in a way that insults the reputations of the allied pilots of the day.

MDIEHL One point. All of your observations on Allied Pilots/Planes seems to be based on the US Navy Experiance---but the US Navy had very little involvement in the first 3 months of the war. The point of view that matters is that of the RAF, the RAAF, the Dutch, and the USAAFE. You may very well be right regarding the experiance levels and tactics of the USN's Pilots..., but they weren't the ones fighting in SE Asia. I'm accused on this forum of being an "Allied Fan-Boy", but I can still see justification for some sort of Japanese "bonus" in the opening phases of the campaign. That it's effects can be made more accurate I wouldn't argue with you, but the "shock" of the Japanese actually being competant is also well documented.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

MDIEHL One point. All of your observations on Allied Pilots/Planes seems to be based on the US Navy Experiance---but the US Navy had very little involvement in the first 3 months of the war. The point of view that matters is that of the RAF, the RAAF, the Dutch, and the USAAFE. You may very well be right regarding the experiance levels and tactics of the USN's Pilots..., but they weren't the ones fighting in SE Asia. I'm accused on this forum of being an "Allied Fan-Boy", but I can still see justification for some sort of Japanese "bonus" in the opening phases of the campaign. That it's effects can be made more accurate I wouldn't argue with you, but the "shock" of the Japanese actually being competant is also well documented.

In way you have cut to the point of the matter, the flyers facing the Japanese in the first months of the war were - The British, The Dutch, The AVG, and USAFFE.

These pilots fought almost 'exclusively against Oscar KI 43 I's and Nate KI 27's.

Their experience was based on the astonishing fact that the Japanese actually could build a a decent aircraft - and worse yet, fly compitently.

Now, throw in the fact that allied pilots were:
A) almost always outnumbered
B) all too often attacked on the ground or just taking off and therefore at extreme disadvantage (look at the last series of Middle Eastern Wars)
C) almost always lacking the most rudimentary early warning system

It is no wonder that the allies were shocked that theses 'little yellow men' could fight well.
Those were the circumstances of the Zero Myth of invincibility. Note that in reality almost no A6M aircraft were involved in these affairs at all.

THAT is why a Zero Bonus is as absurd as it is unhistorical. And I forgot to mention again that recent scholarship has shown again that allied pilots (including the much belittled Brewster Buffalo pilots) still managed to exrtract about a 1 to 1 kill ratio with their Japanese opponents.

Now on what basis is the 'Zero Bonus' warranted?

Unless of course it's simply a way to let the Japanese player win cheaply in the first six months of the war. (fine also - but not satisfying to players looking for the ultimate simulation of the Pacific War).

[Ron Saueracker]

Now on what basis is the 'Zero Bonus' warranted?

Unless of course it's simply a way to let the Japanese player win cheaply in the first six months of the war. (fine also - but not satisfying to players looking for the ultimate simulation of the Pacific War).

Demosthenes

Well now. Lookee here. We have another fraternity brother! Welcome to the House of Grog.[8D]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
In way you have cut to the point of the matter

Great post (although one who does not mix metaphors tends to cut to the "heart," and "get" to the point, of the matter).

"Since ... it is our fortune to be still debating a point on which they have often spoken before, I can safely claim your indulgence. ... For if in the past their advice had been sound, there would be no need for deliberation today."

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Now on what basis is the 'Zero Bonus' warranted?

Unless of course it's simply a way to let the Japanese player win cheaply in the first six months of the war. (fine also - but not satisfying to players looking for the ultimate simulation of the Pacific War).

Demosthenes

Well now. Lookee here. We have another fraternity brother! Welcome to the House of Grog.[8D]

Um, thank you brother Ron[8D]

Also one other point I would like to make since no one else has...
The Japanse Air Force never exactly 'cleared the skys of allied air forces' so much as the Japanese Army took the airbases that the allies operated out of.
That is why in the campaigns in SE Asia allied air retreated. Allied air never relinquished the air battle.

[mdiehl]

MDIEHL One point. All of your observations on Allied Pilots/Planes seems to be based on the US Navy Experiance---but the US Navy had very little involvement in the first 3 months of the war.

If the simulation posited that the RAF/RAAF/USAAFFE pilots suffered a kind of excessive willingness to engage in turning combats with A6Ms I'd (1) wonder about the veracity of the assumption, and (b) probably not object if the effect was both weak and brief.

WitPs problem is that IJN pilots are credited with being both more experienced and having a "special death ray" (in the zero bonus) that under no circumstances is warranted historically.

So were there a "special death ray" bonus it should not apply to engagements between any IJN pilots and USN pilots. Moreover, USN pilots should have the same EXP levels on average than the IJN ones, because EXP abstracts air time, experience, and also doctrine, tactics, and training in important skills like deflection shooting.

I'd doubt the validity of the Zero bonus even against army pilots though, because so much of the "edge" gleaned in the Burma/Malaya/Borneo theater seems a product of factors like the initial japanese logistical advantage, lack of allied preparation, replacement parts &c.

Don't get me wrong. Allied pilots were impressed with the Zeke. But they weren't particularly in fear of it. And after Pearl Harbor no one doubted their ability to do the job.

I'm accused on this forum of being an "Allied Fan-Boy", but I can still see justification for some sort of Japanese "bonus" in the opening phases of the campaign. That it's effects can be made more accurate I wouldn't argue with you, but the "shock" of the Japanese actually being competant is also well documented.

Outside of Malaya I don't see in histories that are really detailed all the shock that is supposed to be attributed to the allies. In Indonesia one P-40 group was winning, until they were bounced in their landing pattern. I read that action a while ago. Wish I could recall the source. And then... no more P-40s for Indonesia. Its hard to get a P-40 to last long without spare parts. So if you're flying a crate that needs repair you're already in a bad position. Much worse to be in a beater and in your landing circle when the Zekes arrive. Which they could do, without warning, easily enough because the Zekes could strike a long ways and because in most of the MBI theater radar was nonexistent.

In most of the other brief skirmishes culminating in the last retreat to Australia you see the Allies in shock of Japanese logistical preparation and the suddeness of their advance everywhere. But not in shock or awe of Japanese pilots. Instead you see a bunch of Allied fighters trying to slow the Japanese advance even when at times it had overtaken them, with front lines so fluid that Allied logistics went from shoestring to nonexistent in many places overnight.

In short it had less to do with Japanese pilots or Allied fear or shock or awe than it did good Japanese operational planning, good logistics, and the success of bliztkrieg war (keeping the Allies reeling so that they could not organize a defense until they'd fallen back to Australia in the south and Burma in the northwest).

[mdiehl]

And lets be clear about the shock of discovery encountered by the Japanese as well. Their stereotype assumed that all American pilots would be out of shape and talentless because in thier view the American character was more suited to dancing and hollywood movies than to martial ability. Propaganda will do that to you.

Japanese pilots were in awe of the b17 and the shock of discovering what the tail gunner could do to a Zeke or Oscar pressing close engagement was the last thought that entered the minds of some of Sakai's early war comrades at arms.

Sabai himself learned the hard way that SBDs <> TBDs.

And all the Japanese pilots had alot to learn about deflection shooting from USN pilots. One common error of a Japanese pilot was to overtake a wildcat, make a shooting run, score a couple of hits, and then execute the start of a pull through to chandelle while in range of the Wildcat's guns. The idea was that the radical nature of the maneuver and high angle of deflection meant that the zeke pilot was safe. That too was often the last thought that entered a Zero pilot's mind. USMC and USN pilots were the best trained deflection shooters in the PTO.

[Big B]

Aahhh the Zero Bonus again, too bad we're just debating CHS.

Isn't that thing ever going away? (sorry guys, I'm not a fan of it)

Oh well, continue discussing - I have my popcorn, this is fun reading[:)]