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

[Honda]

Well, well...merryXmas to you too then![:D]¨
Now that The Thread has proven its glory, I can add some thaughts.
1. What a waste of my and everybody else's time this thread was. A pointless discussion on a topic residing on the margins of things to be solved.
2. Argument v. argument turned into ego v. ego thus making the thread increasingly poinless. Who knows a horse better - his illiterate peasant owner or philosopher who's expertize just happens to be the history of horses?
3. Give my Oscars! Put them in A6M3 slot! You know it makes sense[;)]
4. Give me my OscarIII
Sorry, but I just don' t have the strenght to continue with this...

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Honda

Well, well...merryXmas to you too then![:D]¨
Now that The Thread has proven its glory, I can add some thaughts.
1. What a waste of my and everybody else's time this thread was. A pointless discussion on a topic residing on the margins of things to be solved.
2. Argument v. argument turned into ego v. ego thus making the thread increasingly poinless. Who knows a horse better - his illiterate peasant owner or philosopher who's expertize just happens to be the history of horses?
3. Give my Oscars! Put them in A6M3 slot! You know it makes sense[;)]
4. Give me my OscarIII
Sorry, but I just don' t have the strenght to continue with this...

A very Merry Christmas to all!

Honda, I would have to disagree you (and others) that this thread has been a pointless waste of time.
It finally shed some light on the actual effects of the ZB and has helped to form a body of opinion.
Look at the responses of some of the biggest critics of the ZB. They still don't particularly like it but on the other hand they see it as not the source of frustration it appeared to be. Why? Because of this thread and the posting of comparative effects has helped to shed light on this divisive issue (and the size of this thread shows how controversial this topic has been).
The question has never been "can the allies win with the ZB?" Rather it has always been "IS the ZB valid?" The "validity" has not been settled, but it's effect has been demonstrated as not as bad as anticipated - that alone has made this thread worth while.

Enquiry is a good thing.[;)]

[Hoplosternum]

I don't think the thread has been pointless. There has been some very important information. Amongst all the other stuff [8|]

That is that Manoeuvre is PURELY DEFENSIVE. It does not help shooting down planes at all. Only in reducing the effect of 'hits' against the plane. This has important implications for the Zero Bonus and the Manoeuvre value of planes in general. In a single engagement the manoeuvre value does not effect the number of kills a Zero gets. It just makes more survive. Long term this means the zeros are going to preserve their elite pilots longer. But it clearly is NOT the reason why the US usually comes off worse in seemingly equal CV vs CV combats early in the war. It may mean that more zeros survive the encounters but it's NOT netting them more bomber and fighter kills in those engagements. That is not trivial knowledge.

Presumably the Manoeuvre 'defence' is based on the relative manoeuvre between the two planes but not necessarily. If it is an absolute value then increasing manoeuvre across the board would reduce combat bloodiness over all. Of course that is not the only problem with air combat as smaller engagements are not especially bloody but larger ones are.

Mdiehl has made his usual points. While I find a lot of his arguments convincing I don't think they did much here. This began as a practical thread. Should the Zero Bonus be removed in the CHS Mode? Big B did some very useful testing and many people added useful comments. But the naysayers from both sides could not resist hijacking the thread. CHS Mod just for allied Fanboys? Of little relevance even if correct. Weak and unrealistic Air model? We have all known this since the game was out. If the comments had been directed to how can we mask that by modding that would be relevant. Sadly that was not attempted or the aim of those posters [:(]

A big thank you to Big B and Andrew for their work and comments. Both being informative and courteous as usual. Lots of other good posts too. Shame on Oleg, TJ and Mdeihl [:'(] Start your own threads for those kind of things. You will find many takers as you all raised reasonable and interesting questions. It's just that they not only added nothing to this one but stopped most of the good relevant points being discussed.

The excuse that if enough people see the light and moan something will change is fairly weak. Not in all cases but in this one. The developers have stated that they know there are serious issues with the Air Combat model with large numbers. But that they are NOT going to fix this. They would have to redo the whole air combat model and are not prepared to with a 'mature' product like WitP. This does not bode well for anyone wanting to get them to gut the system and redo it for any other real or imagined problems in the Air to Air model does it?

I still have hopes that they will address the large air combat. There is a simple fix that would not involve redoing the combat routines and reduce it hugely. It would get rid of the benefits of massing huge numbers of aircraft in one base and the Death Star phenomena. Both key problems in WitP that are not only not very realistic but make the play far more one dimentional and dull than necessary. Diminishing returns.

[mdiehl]

Shame on Oleg, TJ and Mdeihl

Back at you with interest, troll. If you don't like the thread you don't have to participate.

[Nomad]

I have wanted to say something on this thread for a while, I am staying at friends this weekend and have access for two days. [:)]

First, I think that the Zero Bonus is appropriate and if any thing it does not cover enough. I feel that it should be a fighter bonus and apply to all Japanese fighters. As to why, well here we go. At the start of the War in the Pacific the Allies were very dismissive of the Japanese abilities. The prevailing idea was that no country that was Asian could build an aircraft that would in any way compete with any Allied( or American ) aircraft. And if they did, then there was no way that one of those "little, near-sighted Japs" could actually be able to fly on good enough to shoot down one of ours. Everyone 'knew' that the Japanese were incapable of fighting in any meaningful manner. The only way they were able to do anything was through sneak attack and treachery.

In no way would I subscribe to the idea that our men were 'afraid' of the enemy. But there was a real racism in effect. The Allies were surprised by the abilities of both the men and machines that Japan fielded. Some people understood and knew that the Allies were in for a long hard fight but a surprising number of both grunts and leaders didn't.

I find it odd that someone above( TristenJohn? ) said something about the Zero Bonus not fitting into the 'mathamatical model' For one thing the 'mathamatical model' is not one line of code that returns a number but a long series of if-then-else checks. So one of those checks is the Zero bonus, it fits perfectly into the 'mathamatical model', and I think it fits just right. It allows the Japanese fighters to do a bit better( the effect is not great ) for the first 5 months, just like they did in real life. As the Allies gained experience they developed an awareness of just what Japanese fighter aircraft could and could not do. And as the Allies gained this awareness, the information spread throughout the air forces and tactics were developed to utilize the Allies aircraft strengths against the weaknesses of the Japanese aircraft.

One thing not brought up above is the idea that most fighter pilots are quite arrogant. This is just a part of what it takes, a fighter pilot has to believe that he is better that the other guy, it just goes with the territory. Unfortunatly, a lot of Allies pilots found out the hard way that they were probably about equal to the enemy and that their aircraft were not better in all cases.

BTW, this dismissive attitude by the Allies( top leadership, middle leadership, low leadership, and grunts alike) about an Asian countries abilities was not only about Japans aircraft, it extended to the Army and Navy. The Zero Bonus rule does not in anyway make a statement that the Allied aircraft were all ways inferior nor that the Allied pilots were inferior.

[invernomuto]

In no way would I subscribe to the idea that our men were 'afraid' of the enemy. But there was a real racism in effect. The Allies were surprised by the abilities of both the men and machines that Japan fielded. Some people understood and knew that the Allies were in for a long hard fight but a surprising number of both grunts and leaders didn't.

Well said Nomad. The Allies simply underestimate Japan and that one of the reasons for ZB.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Experience is the key issue I'd guess. What are Army Air Corps pilots like Welch doing with 80-90+ experience on the eve of Pearl Harbor? This is a complete joke. Seeing as we can't go past 99 exp, why are RAF pilots (an organization at war for two years) so low and unproven Marine Corps guys so high?

Because some pilots were gifted before combat. Combat only unveilded those gifts.

Frankly, I find the experience ratings for allied pilots generally too low. A squadron really isn't effective until it gets above 70...so even a few pilots who are 80-90 don't effect this.

[worr]

I think you should keep the zero bonus.

What is illustrates to me is not the superiority of the zero, but the increase and outpacing of allied organization and domination of the war with regard to tactical strategy. The Imperial Japanese pilots never grew exponentially in tactics during the war....so the bonus represents really a substantial leap forward in allied organization than really any "zero bonus."

Worr, out

[mogami]

Hi, I the the problem was more one along these lines.
1. Once the A6M2 is being flown by inexperianced pilots the Allied aircraft current in 1943 should shoot them down in droves (they do) however the 1942 Allied aircraft were shooting the A6M2 flown by experianced pilots down in droves. How to "fix" this.
a. Have 2 sets of stats for A6M2 (or allied aircraft)
b. Have a "bonus" that is time released.
Personally I've always felt the only reason Allied players don't shoot down A6M2 is because they throw their airgroups at them too fast. As Japan my A6M2 (and other aircraft) fly when they are rested and have high morale I ground them and rotate groups to keep fresh pilots flying missions. As Japan or Allies when I try to over use groups they
end up having a "bad mission" The Allies don't start the war kicking the crap out of the Japanese. I think having the AVG immune is wrong. (The AVG is a group that can have 72 fighters being immune to the bonus makes them the single most powerfull fighter group in the game I laugh at Allied players who don't rest it or split it up and send it to three different bases) The 72 plane AVG makes the base it is assigned to protect immune to Japanese bomber attack that have less then 150 A6M2 flying escort.

In any event the bonus is there because without it the Japanese can't maintain fighter control over the SRA past January. After it expires they can't maintain fighter control unless they have captured all the airfields in the area being contested which means they will lose control over China and Burma. (and slow pokes like me lose it in the South Pacific as well)

[mogami]

Hi, Another example from actual PBEM game.
Jan 22 1943 total loss for war in air to air combat 425 Allied fighters 409 Japanese fighters. (it's a quiet game but proof there is no need for Allied player to suffer massive loss in air to air combat)

[mdiehl]

Well said Nomad. The Allies simply underestimate Japan and that one of the reasons for ZB.

It may be "well said" but it is not "well grounded in fact." If anything, the Japanese had an even greater contempt for their opponents (in particular for Americans) than the Allies had for the Japanese.

[Sardaukar]

I have not seen any massacre of Allied planes in general (even tho I play only against AI). Losses tend to be close to 1:1 during first 6 months generally with Zero bonus. Of course there are few lopsided battles, but it evens out quickly.

[mogami]

Hi, I have several PBEM where as Allies I am throwing everything at the Japanese right off (I mean without training, resting or managed leadership) just moving groups in range and sending them) They are being slaughtered.

[Brady]

I wounder what our K/D rato is in late 43.....

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Brady


I wounder what our K/D rato is in late 43.....

Hi, Page 19 post 559

[mdiehl]

As a matter of curiousity, based on what empirical facts from history, why do you think the Allies should have to "train up" units on the map in order for them to fight the Japanese more to, for example, a draw (a 1:1 attritional exchange)?

As far as the evidence presented so far goes, any, for example USN unit that was made available for operational deployment in 1941 or 1942 was as effective as any IJN unit available at any time during the war.

[mogami]

Hi, Mike if you don't like the game don't play it. Not every new Allied air unit arrives trained. (If you played you'd know that)

[mdiehl]

Not every new Allied air unit arrives trained. (If you played you'd know that)

Your reply does not address the question. (And yes, I've played the game. For a while anyhow. It's not a matter of "shut up if you don't play it." That dog won't hut. For me it's a matter of "Make noise until the job gets done right.")

I the US units are deemed untrained why are they available? It is not as though the USN or USAAF sent units they deemed untrained into battle.

If these are in the order of battle according to their historical schedule of availability, then why pretend that they are "untrained?" Where is the empirical historical evidence that suggests that the Allies should have to "train units on map" for some protracteed period in order to render them competent to face the Japanese?

WitP seems to repeat the same error as GGPW in this matter. Which (as you know) I played alot. So the sim gets tweaked with a dose of reality, why would I want to keep playing it? So far what I've seen is a game that is far more complicated that takes more time to play that puts the players in the same strategic driver's seats that they occupied in GGPW (and with the same silly errors of simulation, of history, and of logic).

[mogami]

Hi, Why did you assume when I said Allied players commit untrained airgroups that I was refering to USN or USAAF? Since you play the game you know these units start trained (in many cases higher then Japanese)

[moses]

Its standard historical practice to place newly formed units of all types (land, sea or air) in quiet theaters whenever possible to gain experience. It's not always possible but it is often desirable. Untrained should not be taken to mean that they cannot fly the planes. Simply that you have a lot of green pilots who could benifit from added flying time both to improve their individual skills and to foster team cohesion.