ORIGINAL: mdiehl
A few observations:
1. The A6M2 had sufficient range to fly from Rabaul to Guadalcanal and engage in a substantial air combat over Guadalcanal. "10-30 minutes spare fuel" is the number I recall, with the variation depending on the Zero's airspeed in flight and maintenance issues. Since your average combat from an individual pilot's POV lasted something like (IIRC) 2-5 minutes during WW2 (before they were dead, bailing out, out of the combat area, or out of targets) the historical fact is that the A6M2 could make the trip and fight a battle (and did). So any version, CHS or not, should allow the Zero the range to make the flight.
Morison gave around fifteen minutes TOT for Zeros flying down the Slot (this would be within the context of combat--you could extend that for strictly escort duty). I can't remember what Lundstrom cited in this regard, but it must have been similar or I'd have caught the discrepancy when I did my research on the campaign. I could easily look that up should it become an issue again (which I doubt--I'd only go that trouble if someone's mod hung in the balance), but as I see it this point is old and tired.
One good result of all that arguing years ago over in the
UV forum was that it prompted me to do a search for copies of the out-of-print Lundstrom books, both of which I discovered (and new copies, no less!) in a bookshop called Hyland's in Melbourne. Expensive, yes, but these are indispensable resource works on the subject. At that time I also borrowed San Jose State University's copy of Frank's
Guadalcanal--not as good a read, in my opinion, though it, too, offers loads of detail, most especially for the land part of that campaign. Lundstrom and Frank shared much of the same primary data for all I could tell, and basically arrived at an identical conclusion with re to air-to-air combat tallies--this coinciding very closely with Morison's own bottom line, I might add.
One extremely important factor you failed to cite above would be . . . ammunition, a detail of combat ignored by Gary and which leads directly to the bloodbaths we experience constantly within the game's cockeyed air-to-air model, especially with regard to the incredible modeling of CAP--wave after wave after wave of CAP, all these aircraft presumably rearming themselves "on the fly."
2. Honda says:
With all due respect, what is you point? You decided not to play the game. You however wish to improve it but it's only improvement from your point of view. Not from mine. And I know it's CHS and not stock scenario but I also downloaded and thaught about playing it. I fear what the game would look like if you had your way with it. So, just to go back up a little because I really am interested in what is the point of all this. We're here to improve the game but you aren't so why? Maybe for the discussions? I don't know...
We disagree as to whether or not my suggestions would improve the game. Your claim that I am not here to improve the game is incorrect. Why do I make these suggestions? WitP has some core game mechanics that I find quite interesting, and its potential as a WW2 sim/game for PBEM is very great. But not (IMO) as long as the model has goosed the system to substantially favor the Japanese through 1942. That the Japanese succeeded for 6 months IRL had nothing to do with abstract bs like "here's a Zero bonus" instead it had to do with excellent preparation, interior lines, strategic (and often tactical) initiative, poor allied logistics in most areas where the early war was engaged, and poor early disposition of Allied assets. While the latter is in part a condition of the at-start war, the Allied player can (and should) work to alter it. The former is a consideration of Japanese player skill, and the Japanese player should have to work hard at it.
True, but this would require a much more sophisticated model. Plus, there are and will always be gamers of the fanboy mentality who, for whatever reason, Gary feels justified in catering to. Why he feels so justified I do not know, as it ought to be apparent that a more accurate simulation would sell just as many copies, if not more copies still, as the version extant.
In any event, we got what we got. Should you ever play a game or two you'll experience firsthand how hopelessly screwed-up the stock version is.
In its current formulation, WitP offers more or less identical strategic problems as Gary Grigsby's Pacific War. It has the same errors (overrated Japanese a2a capability, allied rebuttal to Japanese fighters in the form of 4E bombers), same strategic gaffes (egregiously overestimated Japanese logistical capability, overestimated Allied logistical capability through March 1942, undue rewards to the Japanese "blitz everywhere" strategy, inherent foolhardiness in challenging IJN CVs with an equal number of USN CVs at any time in 1942 unless the Japanese player spends a while dulling his sword by pounding away at land bases with CV based Zeros). So while there are some novel characteristics to WitP, it is from a strategic game pov, basically just GGPW all over again.
Now, if my suggestions are used to improve CHS and they work, then there is a decent chance they will be used to revise the core game (WitP). And that would be an outstanding thing. If that happened, WitP would stand a chance of rising above standards already set by GGPW and a number of board-wargames.
I see none of that happening on the Matrix side, but one is, as always, free to live and hope.
