Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Well, I still get a buck a box for my popcorn here, though I must say your artwork is looking "pointedly" better these days, with a new-and-improved "revealing" quality about it. Perhaps I should revisit my own tastes along those tawdry lines.
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Mog if you're reading this where's my turn?
Bill, just sent you the turn.... [8D]
Way to go guys, lets sabotage this useless thread and turn it into "where's my PBEM turn?" thread.
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Whether mdiehl plays the game or not has absolutely no bearing on his statistical analysis and judgment of the model's results as these have been represented to him. But even there, his contention is often limited along the line of, "If the model has Zeros shooting down Wildcats at a rate of 2:1 then it's broken."
What 2:1? Selective observation and bad use of stats data, AGAIN Tristan (nothing new but hey).
ORIGINAL: moses
The game is not a research project.
Lets assume that it is absolutely correct that the zero bonus has no historical basis. It still does not follow that it should be changed. Here's why.
This is a strategic level game. It is of more importance that the game has accuracy at the strategic level then at the tactical level.
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Edit: Having read the latest part of this thread, I hope that anyone wishing to participate in this thread can minimise name calling and concentrate on the topic at hand (yes I know, wishful thinking...)
)
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Edit: Having read the latest part of this thread, I hope that anyone wishing to participate in this thread can minimise name calling and concentrate on the topic at hand (yes I know, wishful thinking...)
Topic is way out of hand already for some time. Now, as thread-starter, just have a look at two screenshots I posted recently, and see if I, as player, would have any reason NOT to laugh when someone proposes removing Zero bonus?
I rest my case.
(Though I still keep the option of posting funny smiley to TJ and MD posts.
O.
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Topic is way out of hand already for some time. Now, as thread-starter, just have a look at two screenshots I posted recently, and see if I, as player, would have any reason NOT to laugh when someone proposes removing Zero bonus?
I rest my case.
(Though I still keep the option of posting funny smiley to TJ and MD posts.
O.
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
Sometimes it's good to be new because I can see things freshly.
There is obviously a history of animosity here between 'teams' that is interesting.
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
Clearly many have no problem with the game as is - and they are therefore lucky in the sense that they are quite satisfied with what they have. The fact thome some have no complaints does not however invalidate any criticism from others as to certain specifics of the game. If that were the case no changes would ever have been made at any time.
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
Sometimes it's good to be new because I can see things freshly.
There is obviously a history of animosity here between 'teams' that is interesting.
OOOOhhHHHHH !!! You're really new around here are you??!? [:D]
I am... how do you call replacement players who sit on the bench during the basketball game? (Perhaps you just call them replacement players LOL [:D])
Mogami, Nikademus, Mr. Frag and to lesser extent pry (all of them beta testers) went thru endless discussions with these two. And I mean endless. This thread is still in its infancy compared to some older threads. Ron would sometimes step in on "complain, rant & whine" team (CRW). Brady the IJN fanboy would step in on various teams at various times, or would play solo vs everyone [:D]
Personally I usually kept aside, but fully agreeing with Mog and other betas, and admiring their will to explain the obvious. Seeing those guys decided not to participate in this thread (smart decision that) I decided to step in recently, but mostly just as childish jester, as it's quite obvious that any thread longer than two pages already degenerated into chaos.
If you want to have fun reading the old, perfectly useless rants, this is the search criteria you need to use: names: Tristan, mdiehl, Mogami, Ron, Nikademus, Mr. Frag, Brady (oh, how can we forget Brady, the IJN hero [:D]); topics: Zero bonus, IJN bombardment, 4E bombers, supply, ASW, did I miss anything? LOL Have fun but please don't ask any questions [:D]
O.
The reasons Zeroes are so high on the loss table are many. It is the backbone of IJ's fighter corps. It is made of pastry. Primarily however it is a long range aircraft and as such ops losses and damage leading to loss are way up there.ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
Clearly many have no problem with the game as is - and they are therefore lucky in the sense that they are quite satisfied with what they have. The fact thome some have no complaints does not however invalidate any criticism from others as to certain specifics of the game. If that were the case no changes would ever have been made at any time.
In almost every game I have ever played or observed, Zero leads the table of aircraft losses already by the time it's bonus is spent. And it gets downhill from there. Perhaps you can find a game or two where some other aircraft is on the top of the list by April or May (Oscar or P-40, maybe Sally) but those games are rare, and Zero is never below #3 on loss table, and *always* above F4F (unless something extraordinary happened say Allied player lost 3 F4F units with his CVs or transporting them on AKs).
Removing the smallish, insignificant bonus this poor, vulnerable, but historically important aircraft has, and that has been added for the sake of historical chrome, would simply be very very wrong decision. Discussing it on 18 pages I find nothing short of laughable.
O.
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Removing the smallish, insignificant bonus this poor, vulnerable, but historically important aircraft has, and that has been added for the sake of historical chrome, would simply be very very wrong decision. Discussing it on 18 pages I find nothing short of laughable.
O.
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
Well be that as it may, it seems to me this is not 18 pages of discussing the pros and cons of the ZB, it looks more like alot of laundry being aired[;)].
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Removing the smallish, insignificant bonus this poor, vulnerable, but historically important aircraft has, and that has been added for the sake of historical chrome, would simply be very very wrong decision. Discussing it on 18 pages I find nothing short of laughable.
O.
Well be that as it may, it seems to me this is not 18 pages of discussing the pros and cons of the ZB, it looks more like alot of laundry being aired[;)].
ORIGINAL: TheElf
You couldn't be more right Demos. 90% of threads on this forum are just that. The same actors playing out the same script on the same stage...like some bad 3rd rate thespian group doing a remake of Hair on a $100 budget and a can of Aquanet.
It usually starts with someone interested in real feedback or a noob who's missed the last 10 iterations of the particular matrix(flavor) of the day, and asks an "innocent" question. First someone replies with a quick yea/nea then sources are cited, and then you can practically here the collective "thud" of large reference books slamming down on 100 different computer desks, then the buzz of pages being hurriedly flipped to the correct page where the golden passage is highlighted & double underlined from previous iterations of the matrix.
And so...it goes on...and on...and....[>:]
First of all, were it only the Zero Bonus that Gary "didn't get right" there wouldn't be much argument from me. But the entire game is riddled with similarly slanted logic to the point where it is a complete disappointment to me. I can't tell you many posts I've devoted to specific historical documentation to point out one obvious flaw after another, and the net result has been to be ignored by Matrix. If you want to see something utterly silly, just read through one or two of the extended threads which have dealt with topics such as the ludicrous state ASW arrived in, or the equally silly shake-and-bake ship bombardments.
As for whatever "knowledge" Gary and his assembled team had or had not: that cuts no ice, an argument flimsy on its face. The project was required to know what it was doing and not rely on half-baked opinion from readers of popular historical fictions who were on board gratis. What's that? They didn't know better?
If they didn't know before they have absolutely no reason not to know now, because we've forced it down their unwilling throats. And you tell me what the result of that has been.
Morison's work is readily available in any decent library, and to be blunt about it, I'd have little confidence in the knowlefge of anyone in this business who didn't own a copy for himself.
Were I to teach this class, I'd give no allowance to anyone who didn't bother. Would you? "Oh, you didn't read that guy? Well, then we can't mark you down on that, now can we?"
Finally, I'm afraid I don't have twenty years left to wait on the next guy to come along and do better than Gary has done with WitP, a detail which no doubt contributes to my ill humor
Andrew,ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
That is true, but there is no reason to suppose that strategic and tactical accuracy are mutually exclusive. If both the strategic and tactical flavour of air-to-air combat in the game can be achieved using aircraft and pilot settings (not to mention all of the other factors that affect it), without the need to resort to artificial bonuses, then so much the better as far as I am concerned.
