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

[mdiehl]

Maybe because all along I've maintained that the results of A2A combat seem broken vis a vis F4F vs A6M encounters. At least by historical standards as the basis of comparison, my experiences (limited though they are... I *stopped* playing the game because after a bit of trial I saw that the game recapitulates the same assumptions as GGPW), AARs reported here, and now controlled tests as well.

In any case why would anyone assume that any Allied air unit is "untrained" if it is made available according to a historical deployment schedule?

[mdiehl]

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.

Where is the empirical basis for assuming that Allied pilots of any kind should be incapable of fighting their contemporary 1942 Japanese opponents to a draw?

Vis the USN and USMC the data do not support any supposition that "on map training was needed to increase the felgercarb and the circumflux of USN and USMC pilots in order to render them sufficiently EXPerienced to engage the enemy with the prospect of inflicting equal or greater losses on the enemy."

Vis the Army pilots we have a record of engagements in which superior numbers of Japanese planes often attacked airfields in surprise raids that shot up lots of aircraft in landing patterns, lifting off, or on the airfield. In how many historical face to face engagements from, say, Dec 1941-March 1942, did the Army pilots come out as net losers when the combat started from a tactical position of neutrality (where neither side surprised the other or had substantial positional advantage)?

As far as I can tell the only historical circumstances in which Allied pilots were consistently BEATEN was when they (a) flew poor aircraft like the F2A, or (b) were veteran BoB pilots flying hurricanes using tactics (the turning engagement) that were successfully used against German pilots (in Me109s) that were not suitable for use against A6Ms flown by Japanese. The latter not because the Japanese were superior pilots, but rather because the Hurricane (which could out-turn an ME109 at all airspeeds) could not out-turn an A6M2 at low to moderate airspeeds.

From a "extend lesson of history to logical hypothesis" pov one possible lesson there is that lots of combat experience may well be counterproductive if it causes you to persist in employing a tactic that does not work against a new foe.

[moses]

Vis, felgercarb, circumflux. Are these really words??

Where is the empirical basis for assuming that Allied pilots of any kind should be incapable of fighting their contemporary 1942 Japanese opponents to a draw?

Never said this but unless you contend that we won every engagement then you have you're proof.

I simply stated what every professional soldier knows. Whenever you put a new unit together it takes some time to gel. Sure you can train the individual troops throw them together into a unit and they will fight. Its been done. Its not the optimal solution.

Better is to have the unit operate for a time as a unit.

I hear a lot about empirical data and suprisingly I know that big word. Never see much of the data from you. Only demands that we provide it to demonstrate the obvious.

[moses]

In how many historical face to face engagements from, say, Dec 1941-March 1942, did the Army pilots come out as net losers when the combat started from a tactical position of neutrality (where neither side surprised the other or had substantial positional advantage)?

Come now. From a logician like you this is totally unacceptable.

Wait for it----It a tautaulogy. (did I spell that right?) i.e. by definition if you have a tactical position of neutrality you should of course have a draw. If I give you a counterexample then you just say it wasn't a neutral position. How do you define a neutral posion?? It's one that leads to a draw.

[mdiehl]

I hear a lot about empirical data and suprisingly I know that big word. Never see much of the data from you. Only demands that we provide it to demonstrate the obvious.

Not trying to one up you with empiricism as a word. I've provided the data vis a vis the USN and USMC. Which as I have noted is my most important issue since flawed assumptions about the relative merits of the early F4F+pilot and A6M+pilot put the Allied player in a circumstance that does neither "look" nor "feel" like that of the historical USN.

That which you claim to be "obvious" is flat out contradicted by the data at least insofar as Japanese vs USN/USMC pilots go. For most people, it would be a sufficient warning that such an "obvious" truth should be demonstrated factually incorrect in one suite of data as to make them wonder whether or not "the obvious" truth is not also wholly wrong in most or all of the other data as well.

Never said this but unless you contend that we won every engagement then you have you're proof.

That is a strange conclusion. You seem to imply that if Allied pilots did not win every face to face encounter with Zeros then a Zero bonus is justified. If that is correct, it logically implies that if Japanese pilots did not win every face to face encounter with Allied pilots then an "Allied bonus" is also justified. In short, your claim seems to imply a logical trivial state indicative of nothing.

I simply stated what every professional soldier knows. Whenever you put a new unit together it takes some time to gel. Sure you can train the individual troops throw them together into a unit and they will fight. Its been done. Its not the optimal solution.

What makes you think that the Allied units represented by the order of battle had insufficient "time to gel?" That claim seems to be supported by faith alone.

[mdiehl]

Wait for it----It a tautaulogy. (did I spell that right?) i.e. by definition if you have a tactical position of neutrality you should of course have a draw. If I give you a counterexample then you just say it wasn't a neutral position. How do you define a neutral posion?? It's one that leads to a draw.

My argument was not a tautology. Your argument is, however, a straw man argument. It rests upon the supposition that if you use a trivial definition of "neutrality," and if you can cleverly substitute your definition for mine, then you can get to a trivial conclusion.

Positional neutrality means that the aircraft approach each other in circumstances that do not immediately predispose the outcome in favor of one side or the other. For example, if a raid arrives over an enemy airfield and finds the enemy aircraft in their landing pattern, the arriving air raid can be said to have "positional advantage." Likewise if they find the enemy aircraft on the ground, or taking off, or for some other reason are in a circumstance of favor (undetected for example) then they have a positional advantage.

In contrast, two aircraft are in a "neutral" position if they are both aware of each other, both at cruising speed or greater, and neither of them starts out in close proximity to their opponent's six.

Initiation of combat from positional neutrality does not mandate equal outcome. In such circustances, the qualities of the aircraft and the pilots flying them could be expected to weight in heavily in the ouctome. In many cases, a low-skilled pilot in a great aircraft can be routinely expected to best a high-skilled pilot in a poor aircraft.

Vis a vis A6Ms and F4Fs in WW2, the plane+pilot combinations of each were essentially equals until November 1942. Thereafter, the US plane+pilot combination was demonstrably superior.

[moses]

Sorry, you used the words "tactical position of neutrality". Now you shift to "positional neutrality". These are two different things which I'm sure you well know. You can't change you're definitions at will and then accuse me of a straw man argument.

I'd be interested to know how many engagements actually occured from 'Pure' positional neutrality as you define it. Probably not many.

Sorry I'm not going to dig up data to support the reality that military professionals would prefer not to engage green troops until they have operated as a group for some time. It's simply too obvious a fact to spend time on. Please I have a fair bit of military experience but ask anyone else if you don't believe me. Sending newly formed units into battle is a bad thing. Unavoidable in some cases but bad.

[mdiehl]

Sorry, you used the words "tactical position of neutrality". Now you shift to "positional neutrality".

If I watched every word I said I'd never say anything. For me the two phrases convey semantic identity. They are the same thing.

I'd be interested to know how many engagements actually occured from 'Pure' positional neutrality as you define it. Probably not many.

Perhaps so. We do, howevwe, know that under the circumstances that routinely occurred in 1942, the USN fighters consistently won, the USMC fighters fought to a draw (or minor loss) against the Zero but a significant win (about 2.5:1 total a/c losses) against the Japanese. If we assume that engagements began with varying degrees of positional advantage (which is true in the case of Guadalcanal) then you can treat the early USN vs IJN CV engagements as one sort of campaign that the Allied fighters won by every measure. You can treat the Guadalcanal campaign August-November 1942 as a campaign that the USMC lost (very slightly) vs the Zeros but substantially won overall (total aircraft destroyed).

Neither of these campaigns can be construed as logically indicative of Japanese superiority in any way.

Sorry I'm not going to dig up data to support the reality that military professionals would prefer not to engage green troops until they have operated as a group for some time.

That would not be the data you were asked to "dig up." You were asked to provide empirical support for your contention that the "Zero bonus" is logically presumable (in a game that purports to be in part a simulation) on the basis of historical fact.

You seem to claim that a "Zero bonus should exist" essentially because (as I understand your argument) the Japanese units (a) trained together, (b) trained for a long time, or (c) had prior combat experience. (Use of "or" presupposes that all may be simultaneously correct.)

I in rebuttal note that (a) Allied pilots trained together and were deemed ready for deployment (b) trained alot (perhaps not as much as Zero pilots but there is compelling evidence that USN and USMC pilots were in many ways *better* trained than their Japanese counterparts, and (c) the USN/USMC pilots had little substantial combat experience. (If you decide to weigh heavily towards case "c" as a justification of the Zero bonus, then you should logically be in support of a substantial "RAF bonus.")

Please I have a fair bit of military experience but ask anyone else if you don't believe me. Sending newly formed units into battle is a bad thing. Unavoidable in some cases but bad.

Your military experience is pretty much irrelevent as far as I am concerned since it has no bearing on evaluating whether or not Allied air units in early 1942 were "newly formed" enough to warrant giving Japanese units a hard-coded 15% advantage.

Empirical data from the real war fought by real people in real planes suggests strongly otherwise.

[mogami]

Hi, We need to back up just a bit here. As I explained in prior posts the "Zero bonus" is not based on any historical Japanese advantage. It is an in game mechanism that permits the Japanese to gain air superioity for the period required for them to complete conquest of SRA.
There were several options.
1. Have rating for Japanese aircraft and pilots for first six months and then ratings for period after.
2 Have a short term effect (the bonus)

The Japanese were failing to attain air control versus historic Allied opposition (The training levels of the Allies were not considered to be the problem. I'm mean no thought was given to lowering them to attain desired results)

But it must be kept in mind that this "bonus" was designed for games using historic Japanese OOB not games where Japanese are able to rapidly upgrade the A5M groups to A6M2 and transfer all the IJN Home Defense groups out of Japan or upgrade Nate to Oscar

When the Japanese employ greater then historic numbers, using better aircraft, and have the bonus in effect.....[X(]

But even in these cases how the Allies fight has a great impact on the results.

[mdiehl]

The Japanese were failing to attain air control versus historic Allied opposition (The training levels of the Allies were not considered to be the problem. I'm mean no thought was given to lowering them to attain desired results)

Well, as an alternative, you could (a) kill the zb entirely, and (b) substantially ratchet down Allied aviation support in the SRA. It was after all an area with lines of supply that from an Allied pov varied from shoestring to nonexistent.

Yeah I know. Wouldacoulda.

What does this thing cost to purchase these days?

[spence]

Think it's on sale for the coupla days still.

[mdiehl]

If one orders CD Rom version does one have to download the post-production patches or are the DCs created up to the current patch level. Download purchase or downloading substantial patches is not an option for me.

[spence]

I bought the CD just before patch 1.4 and the CD was updated to 1.3 ATT. Don't know what you'd get now as far as updates are concerned. Last official patch was 1.6 I think.

[moses]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

If I watched every word I said I'd never say anything.

Now there's a thought.[>:][>:][>:]

[mdiehl]

Now there's a thought. [>:][>:]

[:'(]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

If one orders CD Rom version does one have to download the post-production patches or are the DCs created up to the current patch level. Download purchase or downloading substantial patches is not an option for me.

There is no purchasing of additional patches. To date all patches are free. You do however, have to download them ( I suspect anyway ).

The patches you would need to download are:

1.3 comprehensive
1.4
1.5
1.6

Then you will be officially up to date. If you want to test the latest beta patch, then you can downlaod that as well 1.7.9.5

The patches are all about 10-11 MEGs ( small ) except the comprehensive 1.3 patch it is arond 75 Meg ...

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, We need to back up just a bit here. As I explained in prior posts the "Zero bonus" is not based on any historical Japanese advantage. It is an in game mechanism that permits the Japanese to gain air superioity for the period required for them to complete conquest of SRA.
There were several options.
1. Have rating for Japanese aircraft and pilots for first six months and then ratings for period after.
2 Have a short term effect (the bonus)

The Japanese were failing to attain air control versus historic Allied opposition (The training levels of the Allies were not considered to be the problem. I'm mean no thought was given to lowering them to attain desired results)

That sounds like a broken model pre-publication to me, where, as you write "no thought was given" to amending its demonstrably inadequate dynamics . . . other than to willy-nilly fudge some phony bonus for the bad guys.

Your rationalization ignores the fact that this bonus affects play well outside of the SRA. It also ignores the fact that the game model comes replete with other questionable design choices which ultimately favor the Japanese side one way or the other (to an extent which I think not coincidentally runs tellingly parallel to your own published list of house rules) and which cannot stand close scrutiny in the critical light of actual events. In point of fact, this model is so badly skewed away from history and in favor of most things Japanese early on that even you admit no sober Allied player has any business contemplating any countermove to Japan's opening strategy along anything even approximating historical lines, most especially with regard to deployment of his carrier assets; indeed, you have gone so far as to strongly suggest that the most proper strategy for the Allied player of Gary's game is, in your view, to "hunker down for a year or so" and "consolidate his position" before even dreaming of, say, a straight-up carrier-versus-carrier encounter, which doesn't taste much like a timely Coral Sea to me.

But it must be kept in mind that this "bonus" was designed for games using historic Japanese OOB not games where Japanese are able to rapidly upgrade the A5M groups to A6M2 and transfer all the IJN Home Defense groups out of Japan or upgrade Nate to Oscar

I've forgotten all the questions regarding the historical Japanese OOB, but if you look at the work in that area accomplished thus far by CHS it's clear I am not alone in thinking these errors are not few and minor. And I know for sure, based on my own extensive research with regard to the air model specifically, and play experience in general, that Gary's modeling of Allied aircraft alone was one seriously flawed exercise indeed.

So I must ask, Russ, where do you get this notion that if people only played with what was actually published by Matrix then the simulation would somehow "shine" in any respect? Is that to imply that everything was thought to be hunky-dory behind closed doors? Has the various multitude of well-documented game problems been invented somehow "out here" by "us" after the game hit the street? Is it the case that "we" simply and still have not come to know how to play this game "right"?

When the Japanese employ greater then historic numbers, using better aircraft, and have the bonus in effect.....[X(]

When that happens, which is more than merely often (due solely to the manner in which the game was designed) then yes, the result is hardly recognizable to history.

But even in these cases how the Allies fight has a great impact on the results.

It is apparent to me that according to Gary's understanding of history the Allies cowered in abject fear on land, in the sea and through the air for the first full year of the war. There is little "give and take" or "level playing field" about the game's play, from what I can see, until at least 1943, unless the Japanese player manages to grossly bungle and utterly fritter away all of the opportunity which the game system offers on a salver.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

If one orders CD Rom version does one have to download the post-production patches or are the DCs created up to the current patch level. Download purchase or downloading substantial patches is not an option for me.

I'd suppose the company would snail-mail the current patches to you, either as policy or upon request. If not, I'd be happy to do same. Let me know.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

If one orders CD Rom version does one have to download the post-production patches or are the DCs created up to the current patch level. Download purchase or downloading substantial patches is not an option for me.

I'd suppose the company would snail-mail the current patches to you, either as policy or upon request. If not, I'd be happy to do same. Let me know.

I bought the CD version, as I recall once you buy it you can immediately download it also.
When the CD comes it IS NOT current with the latest patch and you must go download them and install them - but you can do all that the same day you buy it.

B

[Redd]

I bought my copy about 5 or 6 months ago and it came with 1.5 installed. Haven't bothered to upgrade to 1.6 yet. I don't like patching either. I always end up with a corrupted file or something [:@]. Although I did just get DSL so maybe I should try it out now......