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

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

WitP also purports to be about WW2 in the PTO on Planet Earth and to put the players in something approximating the drivers' seats of their historical counterparts. Therefore:

1. Eliminate the Zero bonus entirely.
2. Increase average USN and USMC EXP by 5-10 points.
3. Tweak the combat model so that Japanese aircraft MVR are lower in the first combat round if the engagement does not start where the Japanese get the "bounce." This would have the proper simulation effect of giving the initial advantage to the Allies in a high-speed meeting engagement (in which circumstances most Allied a/c were more maneuverable than most Japanese a/c). Subsequent combat rounds could be presumed to burn energy, resulting in circumstances where the A6M could employ its superior low speed climb, acceleration, and turn rates, so the actual MVR of the Japanese planes could be used.

Greetings,

I have never consider CHS, but above mentioned suggestion makes me interested. This suggestions is more than welcomed and i agree with them 100%. Go ahed folks, make the changes.

I will download ASAP CHS and I volunteering for Beta tester - there is only one condition.

I will play against mdiehl and Demosthenes and wee will post "Beta CHS" AAR...

errr...actually i have two conditions: almost forget to mention that I will play Allies...


[:D]

[witpqs]

Sorry pauk, but number 3 can't be done in a scenario mod, only by a coding change.

[m10bob]

This thread has seen a helluva lot of good comments and ideas.
No lack of intense thinking and serious students of history on this forum !
Especially like the first two responses back on page one.
I wonder, does WITP have the ability to set experience by "years" (or other time-intervals), per nation, as can be done with Steel Panthers ?
I personally believe both Zekes and Oscars should have *some* kind of advantage for the first few months, (and I wonder if the advantage currently given is for the pilots alone, or is it tied to the plane itself ?)
Seems if the "exp" rating could be tied to time and nation, (ala SP), it would resolve a lot of these issues......
BTW, the only "real" argument ref the Oscar getting any advantage early in the war, keeps going back to its' only having 2 MG's.
This is not really a valid point against early Allied planes, as the Allies were mistakenly still trying to dogfight this rascal early on, and "one bullet is as good as two for lethality", (if the plane is maneuverable enough of a gun platform to put the MG's in the right place, at the right time, as the Oscar was able to do.)

[Mike Scholl]

Looks like Andrew will have plenty of opinions to choose from. Let's hope he picks a "winner". A WITP scenario where the Japanese can't match the historical expansion will be short and dull---but get it wrong the other way and it becomes an idiotic fantasy. I'll be keepin' my fingers crossed for you Andrew.

[BlackVoid]

Interesting debate.

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

As of air combat:
1. What is most important in an aerial battle is surprise. 80-90% of A2A kills were results of the victim not noticing that he is being shot at. This is a more important factor than anything else - and this is mostly related to experience (also to communication and radar - where allies have the advantage).

2. The second most important thing is pilot experience. Even in an inferior plane, a better pilot would win most of the time. Go play a flight sim if you do not believe me. Good flying can negate the enemies advantage, regardless of plane type.

3. Numbers matter!!!! If the enemy has a 3 to 1 advantage, chances are that you will be bounced by some that you do not even see. This is all wrong in WITP, better planes can fight effectively even when outnumbered (eg: Corsair, P-38, against Zero)

The japanese lost the aerial war due to inferior logistics, degradation of pilot experience and overall an inferiority in numbers in the long run. There were other factors as well, such as fighting over a far away base at Guadalcanal, allied radar and so on.

Not only are A2A fights too bloody in WITP, there are also uber-planes that outclass the opposition even with inferior pilot experience - this is all wrong. Differences between planes should be reduced - so experience can have a bigger impact.

It does not really matter if it is the XP or the bonus, but the japanese early on should be better. Before the allies learned how to negate the zero advantage, they were handicapped - this can be modelled with XP or a bonus, it does not matter.

And I do not think that the Zero advantage is urban legend. Allies were shocked at the performance and the skill of the pilots initially. And most disregarded intel as well, they could only learn at their own expense.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

Think you are being a bit unfair. OLEG is one of the great "Japanese Fan-Boys" out here, but his opinion isn't always valid. I know at least two of the regular contributers to the CHS group play nothing but the Japanese, and there views are input with everyone elses. Personally, I think of them as "History Fan-boys" who were just as quick to complain about the US getting far too many B-17's in WITP as the Japanese getting too many Toni's 6 months too early. You should really take the time to give CHS a fair examination before dismissing it. And if you have any "hard data" to back up complaints about the system, it will get a lot more sympathetic ear from that group.

Don't quite understand your "flak" complaint considering your stated viewpoint. Yes, Allied flak is horribly under-rated in the later stages of the war in WITP. But you seem to be more interested in the Japanese, which wasn't particularly good from the beginning to the end of the war. By 1944, when the US was putting radar gun directors on their quad 40mm mounts, the Japanese were still having an officer with a stick point targets for their triple 25's. No proximity fuses, no radar fire direction, they just never got much better than they started. Their 3.9"/100mm gun was an excellent weapon, but most of the other AAA guns in their inventory were barely adequate to inferior. So what's your problem with AAA?

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

Think you are being a bit unfair. OLEG is one of the great "Japanese Fan-Boys" out here, but his opinion isn't always valid. I know at least two of the regular contributers to the CHS group play nothing but the Japanese, and there views are input with everyone elses. Personally, I think of them as "History Fan-boys" who were just as quick to complain about the US getting far too many B-17's in WITP as the Japanese getting too many Toni's 6 months too early. You should really take the time to give CHS a fair examination before dismissing it. And if you have any "hard data" to back up complaints about the system, it will get a lot more sympathetic ear from that group.

Don't quite understand your "flak" complaint considering your stated viewpoint. Yes, Allied flak is horribly under-rated in the later stages of the war in WITP. But you seem to be more interested in the Japanese, which wasn't particularly good from the beginning to the end of the war. By 1944, when the US was putting radar gun directors on their quad 40mm mounts, the Japanese were still having an officer with a stick point targets for their triple 25's. No proximity fuses, no radar fire direction, they just never got much better than they started. Their 3.9"/100mm gun was an excellent weapon, but most of the other AAA guns in their inventory were barely adequate to inferior. So what's your problem with AAA?

Mike, stop trying to make sense!
All this rational talk makes my head hurt![:D]

Or it could've been those six Singapore Slings I drank last night.[;)]

[BlackVoid]

I think flak is underrated for both sides from the start, except naval AAA.

Flak was the number 1 danger for combat AC, in the game this is not the case against ground targets.
A major issue of mine with CHS is the lack of documentation on changes. And also the mod seems to concentrate on the minor issues (which ship had which gun and how many, etc.) and not the game breakers - at least this is my impression. A2A bloodiness is not adressed in CHS. Flak effectiveness is not adressed. Overrated 4E bomber effectiveness is not addressed either.

For me Nik's mod is a far better choice: fewer changes that you can quicly learn, but these changes concentrate on the important stuff.

As for me, I am happy to play either side, but I like a good, challenging game. I do not consider myself a japanese fanboy, I am PTO fanboy. Many allied fanboys forget that the whole result of the war was turned on MAJOR JAPANESE STRATEGIC BLUNDERS. Midway and Guadalcanal are the most prominent. Historical events, loss rates were a result of Japan screwing up on strategy and doctrine big time.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sorry pauk, but number 3 can't be done in a scenario mod, only by a coding change.

ok, i can live with #1 and #2 only [:D]. Any takers? Maybe you witpgs?

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

As of air combat:
1. What is most important in an aerial battle is surprise. 80-90% of A2A kills were results of the victim not noticing that he is being shot at. This is a more important factor than anything else - and this is mostly related to experience (also to communication and radar - where allies have the advantage).

2. The second most important thing is pilot experience. Even in an inferior plane, a better pilot would win most of the time. Go play a flight sim if you do not believe me. Good flying can negate the enemies advantage, regardless of plane type.

3. Numbers matter!!!! If the enemy has a 3 to 1 advantage, chances are that you will be bounced by some that you do not even see. This is all wrong in WITP, better planes can fight effectively even when outnumbered (eg: Corsair, P-38, against Zero)

The japanese lost the aerial war due to inferior logistics, degradation of pilot experience and overall an inferiority in numbers in the long run. There were other factors as well, such as fighting over a far away base at Guadalcanal, allied radar and so on.

Not only are A2A fights too bloody in WITP, there are also uber-planes that outclass the opposition even with inferior pilot experience - this is all wrong. Differences between planes should be reduced - so experience can have a bigger impact.

It does not really matter if it is the XP or the bonus, but the japanese early on should be better. Before the allies learned how to negate the zero advantage, they were handicapped - this can be modelled with XP or a bonus, it does not matter.

And I do not think that the Zero advantage is urban legend. Allies were shocked at the performance and the skill of the pilots initially. And most disregarded intel as well, they could only learn at their own expense.

BlackVoid, you have some good points, but I don't think anyone is suggeting that the Japanese shouldn't have an a2a advantage in the opening days of the war.

I believe what was at issue is the fact that - in the case of the Zero - withaverage exp already at 80+ , and superior numbers, compared to allied pilots (excluding USN) being average around 50 exp - that 30 point exp gap is sufficeint already and dosen't really require a bonus to give the Japanese their historical advantage...particularly as no other Japanese aircraft has a bonus in the early days....

Don't want to start this debate all over again however

my 2 cents

[spence]

"Although the flight training program was conducted without any major incident, since there had been a considerable turn-over in personnel, practically no one got beyond the point of basic training. Inexperienced fliers barely got to the point where they could make daytime landings on carriers."

"It was found that even some of the more seasoned fliers had lost some of their skill."

Actually the replacement fliers in KBs air groups were mostly senior petty officers culled from shore establishments who were integrated into their squadrons piecemeal over the preceding 6 months. 70+% of the IJN fliers at Midway were PH raid veterans. Nagumo's claims that the aviators lacked skill are specious attempts to save face, a trait not uncommon in the IJ Forces at the time.

Fact is, Nagumo hesistated launching his counterstrike against the American CV he had located in favor of launching a well coordinated, multiship strike in accordance with IJN Carrier Doctrine (mostly) and to better ascertain the USN position (secondarily). At the time the opportunity presented itself to launch "a come as you are" type attack his attack planes were partially equipped for attacking land targets and he was uncertain as to how many fighters were available for an escort (KB having already come under attack from Midway). By that time the American CVs had already put 130 attack planes in the air. KB was doomed baring incredible luck. The real luck at Midway was that the American attacks came in so piecemeal for so long.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: pauk
I will play against mdiehl

You can't. I think mdiehl publicly posted he didn't even BUY the friggen game ha posts so much about. He just knows everything about WITP from reading the forums. He is one incredibly smart and knowledgable guy (not).

Perhaps he bought it in the meantime....

O.

[Big B]

I did my own a2a test last night with the Zero Bonus very much 'on' from scen#2 Rising Sun.
Big B's "Battle of Manila, 07 DEC 41 to 01 JAN 42" .
Conditions: No air ops on Jan 1st, all air action takes place in December 41. That left 25 days available for operations, of which 9 days had no flying. So the total below was accumulated in 16 days of air combat.
Also, outside of Dec 7th, no sorties were flown - except those of the three Zero groups on Tainan vs. the combined P40 strength in the Philippines moved to Manila. I wanted to just test Air to Air Combat.
Further I had the P40's on maximum CAP (that is 90%) with a height advantage on all occasions, altitude ranging from 12,000 to 22,000 feet - mostly at 15,000 feet.
The Zeros were always on Sweep to Manila at an altitude of 10,000 feet.

The screen shot below shows the score board on January 1st, after the test.

I expected a Zero kill ratio of three or four to one, but 8 to one seems high to me...

(I had made nice JPEGs of each group at the end showing their condition, but they seem to large to upload and display[:(])

B

LATE EDIT: Even though the OP Losses for the Zeros stand at 9, all groups were at full strentgh (minus 1 pilot) at end, with a good experience gain.

[Treetop64]

Heh...

Keep it as it is and deal with it. Period.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

I think flak is underrated for both sides from the start, except naval AAA.

Flak was the number 1 danger for combat AC, in the game this is not the case against ground targets.
A major issue of mine with CHS is the lack of documentation on changes. And also the mod seems to concentrate on the minor issues (which ship had which gun and how many, etc.) and not the game breakers - at least this is my impression. A2A bloodiness is not adressed in CHS. Flak effectiveness is not adressed. Overrated 4E bomber effectiveness is not addressed either.

For me Nik's mod is a far better choice: fewer changes that you can quicly learn, but these changes concentrate on the important stuff.

As for me, I am happy to play either side, but I like a good, challenging game. I do not consider myself a japanese fanboy, I am PTO fanboy. Many allied fanboys forget that the whole result of the war was turned on MAJOR JAPANESE STRATEGIC BLUNDERS. Midway and Guadalcanal are the most prominent. Historical events, loss rates were a result of Japan screwing up on strategy and doctrine big time.

Whoa there partner................
I believe Commander Roquefort, et al, might have had more to do with that Midway victory, than "Japanese blunders".
As for the claim of CHS "undocumented changes", well, the issue of ALL of their changes have been posted and debated on these very forums by the CHS team(s), and the intended players, (or victims, as you might have unintentionally implied?).
I admit, I am a fan of all things CHS.............
Personally, I am a "history fan boy", and have never tried to have a slant one way or another.
If Allied proximity fuses were ever really represented in WITP, you would hear a howl for 1000 more monthly Japanese planes. This may have prevented *anybodies* version of WITP from accurately portraying the flak better, (with other abstractions in the game itself)!
I do feel the "Oscar" is vastly under-valued in the game, for its' initial successes.
CHS has been very considerate to continue to attempt any so-called improvements, but, (as in this very thread), have ALWAYS posted here to ask for both opinions AND documentation, (when needed).

The option to download and use CHS is (as always) up to the individual..........

[invernomuto]

Keep zero bonus.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sorry pauk, but number 3 can't be done in a scenario mod, only by a coding change.

ok, i can live with #1 and #2 only [:D]. Any takers? Maybe you witpgs?

No, because I think the zero bonus works fine (see my earlier posts in this thread). As for increasing USN and USMC expereience, I'm not sure it would be right or wrong. Seems to work okay as is, so I'm not concerned about it.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I wonder, does WITP have the ability to set experience by "years" (or other time-intervals), per nation, as can be done with Steel Panthers ?

Seems if the "exp" rating could be tied to time and nation, (ala SP), it would resolve a lot of these issues......

As far as I know, WITP already does this in two ways. First off, the air groups that arrive have pilots of certain experience to reflect history. Some squadrons come in with exprience in the 80's for example. Second, I believe the replacement pilot experience varies by year for some countries.

[Ron Saueracker]

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

Where does this propaganda start? I realise Oleg has a special hate on for the CHS but has he even looked at it?

Sure there is alot of OOB changes. Why is this an Allied Fanboy issue? Every nations OOB has been changed. Japan's no less than others and it is still being worked on by Joe W.

ASW model was drastically altered through the editor to help reduce the uber effectiveness of ASW ships. This was most severe on the IJN. Hello? Where is the Allied fanboy shit here. Worked as well as anything could given the sad model. And yes, armor was used on Subs Oleg, and it worked well (armor simply being an abstract rating). There were no ASW devices which could penetrate and not penetrate as some suggested would happen. All types did both.

As for addressing the major mechanics issues like A2A and flak, this was primarily an OOB/Art mod when it started, seeing as the OOB was severely inaccurate in the stock game, and there was a naive feeling that the issues like A2A would be fixed by the devs as it should have been since Alpha/Beta. Still waiting...[8|] Relying on modders to fix this in the editor is ludicrous and impossible. Talk to the devs.

It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone This really irks me. If these issues are so sad, why have they only been dealt with in a mod instead of being pushed for as necessary fixes? Oh yeah, there is no problem with A2A, flak etc.[8|]

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
No, because I think the zero bonus works fine (see my earlier posts in this thread). As for increasing USN and USMC expereience, I'm not sure it would be right or wrong. Seems to work okay as is, so I'm not concerned about it.

Hi, I know that, i was just joking, knowing that no one (from those who posted such (censured) ideas) will accept my proposition (challenge).

I'm just getting tired of periodical "spontaneously wroted threads" and their pro-Allied attitude...and all their nonsence...But to be honest i cant blame anyone except myself - i shouldn't take a look at this thread (the mod which I'm not going to play, anyway). Go ahead, creators of CHS can do everything to please certain people here....

Folks, is anyone here win the game as Allies[8|]? According to your posts Allied victory is myth (or urban legend).[:'(]

howgh!