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

[witpqs]

Oleg - the Anti-Ron! [X(]

[:D][:D][:D]

[;)]

[ChezDaJez]

Had the IJN execued the Midway plan on 8 December 1941, and had the USN executed its defense in the same way with the same foreknowledge etc on 8 December 1941, the Japanese would have suffered the same severe beating.

So you're saying the outcome at Midway was preordained and could never be any different if the same forces and intelligence were used no matter what? So, in your view, luck has absolutely nothing to do with a battle's outcome.

Isn't that like saying if you took the same 2 football teams and replayed the game with the exact same plays with the exact same players, the outcome would always be the same.

I don't think you've thought that statement through.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Have you bought the game, and if you did, what is the furthest date you reached playing a) Allies and b) Japanese, in PBEM and/or vs AI?

You don't really expect him to answer that, do you, Oleg?[:D]

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Oleg pisses me off because he simply criticises peoples views and not the game.

Ron,

I have to agree with Oleg here. If mdiehl has never played the game, his credibility in discussing the faults of the game is certainly lacking. All he would have to go on is other people's complaints and perceptions.

People have a right to complain about things they perceive as faults in this game from having played it. I don't always care for the way you present your complaints, Ron but I most certainly respect them, right or wrong, because you've both tested and played this game. I have absolutely no respect for someone who bitches about the game when they have never played it.

Chez

[Hipper]

Lots of interesting points made here

given that the choice is to eliminate the zero bonus or to give it to the Oscar as well,

I'd eliminate it entirely, or give it to the nate [:D] so that historical use can be made of this plane

I would also look at allied experience levels at the start, I doubt all the historical pilots should start so High! Ive got an austrailian Buffalo squadron with 70+ experience in Singapore in 1941 nice to have but a bit generous. 55 seems more realistic.

cheers

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Oleg pisses me off because he simply criticises peoples views and not the game.

Ron,

I have to agree with Oleg here. If mdiehl has never played the game, his credibility in discussing the faults of the game is certainly lacking. All he would have to go on is other people's complaints and perceptions.

Chez

I expect that Ron was actually responding to a post Oleg made in a different thread:

BUT, here on WITP board we have no "Jans" we have abundance of guys like Ron, mdiehl, Tristan and tons of others who are continuously doing their best to *alienate* board members from the devs by their constant incessant whining etc. That's right - *alienate*.

I know for sure that what Ron wants is for this game to fulfill its promise, which it is tantalizingly close to doing, and yet at the same time is so disappointing. He has spent a great deal of his time trying to work towards that end. Some people might not like to read his posts, but if the submarine/ASW model has been improved recently, who can we thank but those posters who have kept the issue alive?

[rtrapasso]

I was referring to the later war period (responding to an earlier post).

Is your pilots' experience on a par with your opponents pilots' experience? A big difference there makes a huge difference in combat results. Try to manage your squadrons to get experience up before they get wiped out (easier to say than to do). When you begin getting better planes - Corsairs and P-38's - you will start to make serious headway. After his pilots' experience is down and your pilots' is up, even Wildcats do much better.

Mind you I am not claiming that the air simulation is perfect, just that this has nothing to do with the zero bonus. Different issue.

That's kinda my point: i think there might be something wrong with the modelling of the Wildcats vs. Zeros. Everybody marks this down to the Zero bonus, but i think the problem runs much deeper. But, the Zero bonus is an easy target...

In evaluating this: the problem is, i don't know the relative experience of my pilots vs. my opponents. They started out in the 80's for the USN, and 60's for the Marines, but of course have quickly plummetted with these horrible losses.

The Zeros are attacking at 6-7 hex range, in the rain, from carriers and bases, sometimes outnumbered and they still end up with these exchange rates (although when i outnumber them, i do somewhat better - that's when i get the 3-1 exchange rates).

I have managed to destroy 3500+ Japanese aircraft - almost in the air (into 3rd week in June 1942 - i think there are only about 150 or so destroyed "on ground"), so i would have thought he would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for pilots.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I was referring to the later war period (responding to an earlier post).

Is your pilots' experience on a par with your opponents pilots' experience? A big difference there makes a huge difference in combat results. Try to manage your squadrons to get experience up before they get wiped out (easier to say than to do). When you begin getting better planes - Corsairs and P-38's - you will start to make serious headway. After his pilots' experience is down and your pilots' is up, even Wildcats do much better.

Mind you I am not claiming that the air simulation is perfect, just that this has nothing to do with the zero bonus. Different issue.

That's kinda my point: i think there might be something wrong with the modelling of the Wildcats vs. Zeros. Everybody marks this down to the Zero bonus, but i think the problem runs much deeper. But, the Zero bonus is an easy target...

In evaluating this: the problem is, i don't know the relative experience of my pilots vs. my opponents. They started out in the 80's for the USN, and 60's for the Marines, but of course have quickly plummetted with these horrible losses.

The Zeros are attacking at 6-7 hex range, in the rain, from carriers and bases, sometimes outnumbered and they still end up with these exchange rates (although when i outnumber them, i do somewhat better - that's when i get the 3-1 exchange rates).

I have managed to destroy 3500+ Japanese aircraft - almost in the air (into 3rd week in June 1942 - i think there are only about 150 or so destroyed "on ground"), so i would have thought he would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for pilots.

rtrapasso, those are the same exchange rates I get in the game. And, I play the AI. I only gain the advantage in losses when a unit is decimated over time. The AI does not rotate or train air units. Eventually I will prevail because of this fact only. Vs a human, I assume my 3-1 losses would be kept through the duration.

Historically, the green, crappy, pre-war US pilots with no combat experience shot down a bit more than 1-1 Zero's piloted by the super japanese pilots who had that great combat experience fighting the Chinese. In the game, however, you are very lucky to get 3-1 losses when F4F's fight Zero's. Even vs the AI I don't get better than that. (until the AI has trashed a unit. Then I do well. I assume a Human knows to rotate those trashed units.)

And all you who say the Zero bonus is not that big of a deal, I say: I never ever ever ever seek to engage Japanese CV's with US CV's until the zero bonus is over. If, at the best of times I get 3-1 losses, then at the worst of times it's closer to 10-1. if you take 2 US CV's and take on 2 Japanese CV's then your average result will be 1 sunk and 1 damaged US CV and maybe 1 damaged Japanese CV. This is my average result when fighting the AI. Sure, 1 out of 10 times I will get lucky and not get hurt and manage to hurt the Japanese, but more often than not I take damage and don't hurt the enemy.

Mdiehl is correct when he says the look and feel of the game is wrong. I should not evade contact from 41 to late 43. I should seek combat on equal or better terms. I don't do that because the average result is negative for the allies. (that includes surface actions with ships as well.) I just don't seek any combat except with LBA. I still take 3-1 losses, but at least I'm not losing valuable ships.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Had the IJN execued the Midway plan on 8 December 1941, and had the USN executed its defense in the same way with the same foreknowledge etc on 8 December 1941, the Japanese would have suffered the same severe beating.

So you're saying the outcome at Midway was preordained and could never be any different if the same forces and intelligence were used no matter what? So, in your view, luck has absolutely nothing to do with a battle's outcome.

Isn't that like saying if you took the same 2 football teams and replayed the game with the exact same plays with the exact same players, the outcome would always be the same.

I don't think you've thought that statement through.

Chez

No, what Mdiehl is simply saying is that with the primary defensive tactics already worked out prior to PH, it follows that had Midway happened earlier - with everyone using the same plans - there is no logical reason to expect a different outcome because US pilots still don't "know" how to fight a Zero.

That is to say - the "Zero Bonus" or lack thereof was irrelevant to the outcome of the Battle of Midway.

You are certainly free to disagree with that point of view, but that does not mean that Mdiehl did not state his view absolutely clearly.

[mdiehl]

@Witpqs:

Your observation about the necessity to play the game in order to know it is flawed. Logically all that is required is to see the performance turned in by the game. This is the same principle that all intelligent consumers use when making a purchase -- from the circular saw that you buy at home despot through the V-22 Osprey that you don't buy in the DoD. You wouldn't buy a circular saw if it always broke within ten minutes of use, and if all circular saws suffered from the same propensity you'd demand that circular saw designers get a clue.

That said. I own and played (no longer play it) UV and played it several times through 1942, and watched the A2A model fail. I do not own but have played WitP through May 1942. I returned the game to the owner because the game is so flawed as to be unworthy of the effort to play it. You only need to play it for a couple hours really, and watch over the course of a short operational interval or campaign to see that the A2A combat system is badly flawed.

Now if there are people who are indeed foolish enough to claim that you can't know anything about a product without first (a) buying it, and (b) using it extensively, then I would love to sell you a RR flatcar full of used Chevrolet Cavaliers, because I figure you must be the easiest patsy for a lemon that ever walked the Earth.

[rtrapasso]

rtrapasso, those are the same exchange rates I get in the game. And, I play the AI. I only gain the advantage in losses when a unit is decimated over time. The AI does not rotate or train air units. Eventually I will prevail because of this fact only. Vs a human, I assume my 3-1 losses would be kept through the duration.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the A to A model doesn't work terribly well. Not only are the results of Zero vs. Wildcat broken, but also Oscar vs. most anything, and Corsair vs. anything (the latter from reading the forum, as i have no Corsairs yet). The first two are my experience with the standard game, but maybe some modders have gotten things to work better by tweaking the planes.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I was referring to the later war period (responding to an earlier post).

Is your pilots' experience on a par with your opponents pilots' experience? A big difference there makes a huge difference in combat results. Try to manage your squadrons to get experience up before they get wiped out (easier to say than to do). When you begin getting better planes - Corsairs and P-38's - you will start to make serious headway. After his pilots' experience is down and your pilots' is up, even Wildcats do much better.

Mind you I am not claiming that the air simulation is perfect, just that this has nothing to do with the zero bonus. Different issue.

That's kinda my point: i think there might be something wrong with the modelling of the Wildcats vs. Zeros. Everybody marks this down to the Zero bonus, but i think the problem runs much deeper. But, the Zero bonus is an easy target...

In evaluating this: the problem is, i don't know the relative experience of my pilots vs. my opponents. They started out in the 80's for the USN, and 60's for the Marines, but of course have quickly plummetted with these horrible losses.

The Zeros are attacking at 6-7 hex range, in the rain, from carriers and bases, sometimes outnumbered and they still end up with these exchange rates (although when i outnumber them, i do somewhat better - that's when i get the 3-1 exchange rates).

I have managed to destroy 3500+ Japanese aircraft - almost in the air (into 3rd week in June 1942 - i think there are only about 150 or so destroyed "on ground"), so i would have thought he would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for pilots.

rtrapasso, those are the same exchange rates I get in the game. And, I play the AI. I only gain the advantage in losses when a unit is decimated over time. The AI does not rotate or train air units. Eventually I will prevail because of this fact only. Vs a human, I assume my 3-1 losses would be kept through the duration.

Historically, the green, crappy, pre-war US pilots with no combat experience shot down a bit more than 1-1 Zero's piloted by the super japanese pilots who had that great combat experience fighting the Chinese. In the game, however, you are very lucky to get 3-1 losses when F4F's fight Zero's. Even vs the AI I don't get better than that. (until the AI has trashed a unit. Then I do well. I assume a Human knows to rotate those trashed units.)

And all you who say the Zero bonus is not that big of a deal, I say: I never ever ever ever seek to engage Japanese CV's with US CV's until the zero bonus is over. If, at the best of times I get 3-1 losses, then at the worst of times it's closer to 10-1. if you take 2 US CV's and take on 2 Japanese CV's then your average result will be 1 sunk and 1 damaged US CV and maybe 1 damaged Japanese CV. This is my average result when fighting the AI. Sure, 1 out of 10 times I will get lucky and not get hurt and manage to hurt the Japanese, but more often than not I take damage and don't hurt the enemy.

Mdiehl is correct when he says the look and feel of the game is wrong. I should not evade contact from 41 to late 43. I should seek combat on equal or better terms. I don't do that because the average result is negative for the allies. (that includes surface actions with ships as well.) I just don't seek any combat except with LBA. I still take 3-1 losses, but at least I'm not losing valuable ships.

Another fine point Bradley7735. The unreal exchange rates go far beyond the Zero Bonus.

So let me publicly acknowledge it here for all to read:
The other side of this debate may indeed be (right in a way). The Zero Bonus may well be the least of the questionable accuracies in the air combat model.

Edit: For anyone who is curiuos, I play against the AI. I have gotten several times to the end of 1942 (well, November anyway).

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

rtrapasso, those are the same exchange rates I get in the game. And, I play the AI. I only gain the advantage in losses when a unit is decimated over time. The AI does not rotate or train air units. Eventually I will prevail because of this fact only. Vs a human, I assume my 3-1 losses would be kept through the duration.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the A to A model doesn't work terribly well. Not only are the results of Zero vs. Wildcat broken, but also Oscar vs. most anything, and Corsair vs. anything (the latter from reading the forum, as i have no Corsairs yet). The first two are my experience with the standard game, but maybe some modders have gotten things to work better by tweaking the planes.

Perhaps we should all take a look at the Nik Mod

[rtrapasso]

So let me publicly acknowledge it here for all to read:
The other side of this debate may indeed be (right in a way). The Zero Bonus may well be the least of the questionable accuracies in the air combat model.

Right on, Demosthenes!!

I think people here are arguing about the Zero bonus so much because it is something obvious they can "fix" - but the problem is much deeper. "Fixing" the Zero bonus is treating the symptoms, not the disease.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

So let me publicly acknowledge it here for all to read:
The other side of this debate may indeed be (right in a way). The Zero Bonus may well be the least of the questionable accuracies in the air combat model.

Right on, Demosthenes!!

I think people here are arguing about the Zero bonus so much because it is something obvious they can "fix" - but the problem is much deeper. "Fixing" the Zero bonus is treating the symptoms, not the disease.

In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

[tsimmonds]

Mdiehl is correct when he says the look and feel of the game is wrong. I should not evade contact from 41 to late 43. I should seek combat on equal or better terms. I don't do that because the average result is negative for the allies. (that includes surface actions with ships as well.) I just don't seek any combat except with LBA. I still take 3-1 losses, but at least I'm not losing valuable ships.

This is exactly what I mean when I say the game is disappointing. Why is it like this? Uber-CAP. Strike unco-ordination. Too-easy logistics for land, sea, and air. Too much troop transport capacity for IJ. Too much 4E for Allies. Perhaps even The Zero Bonus. And, unfortunately, too much knowledge of history and certainty of future events (the timing and effectiveness of future ship upgrades, the timing and effectiveness of future aircraft types, to name just two) on the part of us players.

[mdiehl]

So you're saying the outcome at Midway was preordained and could never be any different if the same forces and intelligence were used no matter what? So, in your view, luck has absolutely nothing to do with a battle's outcome.

Isn't that like saying if you took the same 2 football teams and replayed the game with the exact same plays with the exact same players, the outcome would always be the same.

I don't think you've thought that statement through.

Actually, I have, many times, and more thoroughly than most of the people who post here. I posted a detailed analysis in this forum a year ago, and a summary analysis a few months back. I've been told by some that the analysis ought to be required reading. That's high compliments for something that just strikes me as a balanced appraisal that anyone could do. I've heard that much of my opinionating on the matter has been substantiated by the new book on Midway.

But here's the old argument for you.
1. The Japanese plan for the Midway attack used insufficient force to accomplish the job.

2. As a consequence 4 CVs had to accomplish three missions simultaneously. a) Suppress Midway as an operational airbase. b) provide cover for their own TF c) interdicte enemy vessels that might interfere with the Midway operation. Of these, only two can be accomplished simultaneously.

3. Since I wrote my initial analysis it has also been noted by others that Japanese turn-around time for arming and launching a strike was quite long, primarily as a consequence of Japanese CV operational doctrine, as compared with USN turn-around time. It was something that I did not know at the time, but it is another factor that weighs against the likelihood of an IJN win.

4. As to luck, my position in re Midway is essentially that if the US had not had such bad luck at Midway they'd have had no luck at all. To wit:
a) Tone #4 scout plane's late launch. Had she flown her scheduled recon route the US CVs would not have been observed at all.
b) The IJN TF's decision to turn north after the USN SBDs had been launched. This caused an entire squadron of SBDs and two of F4Fs to fail to find the Japanese fleet.
c) The consequent result that the TBDs arrived first. Had they arrived with fighter cover and SBDs it is likely that the Zeros would have been busy fighting (and losing slightly) against the F4Fs, and the SBDs and TBDs would have hit the Japanese fleet high and low simultaneously. The initial strike would likely have destroyed all four Japanese CVs.
d) The fortuitous arrival of a Japanese submarine to sink USS Yorktown, that would otherwise have lived to fight another day.

That's the short summary. There are a couple other observations worthy of mention that I have skipped for the sake of brevity. Mostly they attend to the dozen or so obvious cues that were available to Japanese intel that they might be walking into a trap -- which cues they summarily ignored. Each of these points may be expanded upon in detail and I have already done so in great detail once, and in lesser detail a second time, (and now in abstract form in this reply).

With respect to your analogy between two football teams. IMO the Japanese operational plan at Midway was deeply, deeply flawed. While the Japanese "Team" may have been "super bowl quality," their plan was something that forced the Japanese to turn in a performance tantamount to the "scab Patriots" during that NFL football players' strike. As a result you had an engagement that pitted a bunch of talented Japanese against a bunch of talented Americans in circumstances that diluted all the Japanese strengths in the engagement.

Finally there is the irony of the moment. The general strategic idea of using an island base to "Rope a Dope" the enemy CVs while your own CVs nailed them in the flank was a very good idea. Indeed, it was exactly that idea that motivated the Japanese to want Midway in the first place. Unfortunately for the IJN, the same idea had also occurred to Nimitz and Halsey and Spruance.

[Speedysteve]

Hash and re-hash. We've heard all of this before.

P.S. Has anyone been to the paradise of Rabaul recently. I've heard they do excellent Pina Colada's compared to the rat hole of Guadacanal.........[;)]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hash and re-hash. We've heard all of this before.

Maybe it has - i've read the forum for a long time, and people have always argued about the accuracies of the a-to-a model (as well as everything else). But, i guess until i felt the intense pain of being on the wrong side of the problem, i thought it was manageable. However, this (the Zero vs. Wildcat innacuracy) has put my entire campaign in jeopardy. Nothing like a little intense pain to get your attention.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hash and re-hash. We've heard all of this before.

Maybe it has - i've read the forum for a long time, and people have always argued about the accuracies of the a-to-a model (as well as everything else). But, i guess until i felt the intense pain of being on the wrong side of the problem, i thought it was manageable. However, this (the Zero vs. Wildcat innacuracy) has put my entire campaign in jeopardy. Nothing like a little intense pain to get your attention.

Yes this has been hashed over and rehashed before, but at over 4,000 hits obviously people are still interested in it because apparently nothing was ever satisfactorily settled. The attention this thread is drawing makes that fact self evident.