Matrix Games Forums

Mike_B20 wrote:Chiteng, if you read the entire thread you will see Tristanjohn is arguing that the IJN has been given an ahistorical edge in UV...among other things.

How would that disprove my assertion?

Chiteng wrote:How would that disprove my assertion?

I just thought it was funny

Mike_B20 wrote:I just thought it was funny

Well I simply think it is true =)

Chiteng wrote:Sadly TJ from what I have seen in this forum, the majority of the respondants fight any suggestion that there should be any change in UV.
Even when shown AAR that clearly and unambiguosly show a bias, it makes no impression.

They want a game, that gives the USN a ahistorical edge, and at the same time handicaps the IJN. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.

Hi, What Mike_B20 thinks is funny that the two posters with the most extreme opinions on the UV model are both agreed that the majority of posters don't see the need for any radical change. (I think everyone has little changes they would like to see in UV or at least WITP)

So now we have The USN too Powerfull camp allied with the IJN too powerfull camp in agreeing the majority of people don't know squat.
Well one of you has to be wrong, or both of you might be wrong, but neither of you has convinced a majority one way or the other.

To be fair, I must admit I don't believe the majority is always right. I tend to begin looking closely when a single person holds on to an unpopular opinion.


"Even when shown AAR that clearly and unambiguosly show a bias, it makes no impression."

I really like this one. It implies a lot. If anything were posted that was both clear and unambigous and still the opinions did not alter I would suspect some kind of plot, Or outright pigheadness. But if both opposing sides claim the same thing then they disprove the statement.

Both sides can not be posting clear and unambigous proofs of their positions. The fact that two opposing sides exist is more proof that the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

Mogami wrote:Hi, What Mike_B20 thinks is funny that the two posters with the most extreme opinions on the UV model are both agreed that the majority of posters don't see the need for any radical change. (I think everyone has little changes they would like to see in UV or at least WITP)

So now we have The USN too Powerfull camp allied with the IJN too powerfull camp in agreeing the majority of people don't know squat.
Well one of you has to be wrong, or both of you might be wrong, but neither of you has convinced a majority one way or the other.

To be fair, I must admit I don't believe the majority is always right. I tend to begin looking closely when a single person holds on to an unpopular opinion.


"Even when shown AAR that clearly and unambiguosly show a bias, it makes no impression."

I really like this one. It implies a lot. If anything were posted that was both clear and unambigous and still the opinions did not alter I would suspect some kind of plot, Or outright pigheadness. But if both opposing sides claim the same thing then they disprove the statement.

Both sides can not be posting clear and unambigous proofs of their positions. The fact that two opposing sides exist is more proof that the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

Its already been done Mogami. Both my AAR and others. You didnt comment as I recall.
Did you miss it?

Hi, No Chiteng I've never seen any AAR that was clear and convincing that B-17's are over modeled. As I responded to your posts back then UV players are allowed to use units in "other then historical" manners and this produced the results you dislike. When the B-17 are used normally they produce normal results.
It is only in their normal use that they can be measured. When you play solo you will have nothing to complain about. When you play another human you have to first settle how much freedom you will both exercise.
If you don't like the way another human plays you don't have to play them. (Or you can just continue pitching public fits)
If a system had the capability to be employed in a manner other then the way it was employed then it has to be allowed. How effective or not it would be will always be a subject to debate and in the end the players have to give in to the designers.

I also disagree with TJ's assessment of Japanese aircombat being over enhanced. (Clearly you do as well)
Along with other things I do not agree with is his assessment that the primary duty of a tester is breaking the system.
When a person agrees to be a tester he is becoming the defacto designer in regard to assessing whether or not the program performs according to it's intended design. Breaking the program is only a method
of testing. The most important thing is letting the designers know if their ideas are working. Not the ideas of the tester or the general public.
The tester makes his tests and posts results. He comments on feel and playability. Exploits and such. The designer can see the results. If the designer is satisfied then it is not proper for a tester to keep insisting on changes. The tester is not an independent operator. He is only a checker. The designer gets to decide what ideas he can and will try to implement. The designer does not have to justify his product to the tester but the tester does have to justify his work to the designer.
Testers have to try to make the program produce undesired results. They also have to test whether or not the program produces the desired results. (You have to test both correct and incorrect styles of play)
The primary duty of a tester is to try to understand what the designer wants his work to do. Once the designer is happy, the tester has done his job. The tester has to be honest. The tester cannot try to take over the project. The tester has no rights to the project. If the tester cannot be loyal to the project and always attempt to help the designers realize "their" idea he has no place on the team.

Testing is like proofreading a novel. You can correct the spelling or grammar but if you try to touch the plot you've crossed over the line.
Of course testers make many suggestions, and comments and ideas how to meet the overall goal. But in the end the primary purpose of a tester is to prove to the designer his product works they way the designer wants it to. Breaking the system only lets the designer know he has not finished. If all a tester can do is break the system he is less then a tester who can also show how the system can be ran to meet the desired performance. (designers can use this knowledge just as much)

If I was asked what the primary requirements for a tester were I would offer
Patience, Lack of ego, and loyalty

Chiteng wrote:Sadly TJ from what I have seen in this forum, the majority of the respondants fight any suggestion that there should be any change in UV.
Even when shown AAR that clearly and unambiguosly show a bias, it makes no impression.

They want a game, that gives the USN a ahistorical edge, and at the same time handicaps the IJN. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.

The game's model is off in many areas, Chiteng. It is not a clear-cut case that the Japanese are heavily favored or the Allies.

To paint quickly at the moment with a very broad brush, in game terms the Japanese have been made somewhat stronger, on balance, than they actually were during the war, especially in the air module at the start of the game. But the Allies have been given false props as well, most clearly with naval surface combat in mind, where it is quite possible (assuming a lucky role of the dice or a die or whatever Gary's using in there to determine the outcomes) to see an Allied SC TF beat the pants off its IJN counterpart in May of 1942 (apparently due to the early-warning bonus of radar) in a night action, which is of course an enormous stretch. Should anyone from Matrix bother to address this complaint in response the issue would almost assuredly be pooh-poohed away with a reference to the "operational nature of the wargame we've advertised to sell," with very little if any time at all wasted on discussion as to why, nevertheless, this still represents a gross distortion of reality of naval combat during that period in question. In detail, you might hear something to the effect that, "Well, Savo Island's just one battle afterall, and that's an awful small sample to work with, so it isn't so easy to say that if you fought that battle out a hundred times the Japanese would emerge victorious 99 or 100 times." Or some such drivel.

So, what gamers are essentially left with is a game that's fairly fun to play which has been afforded a WWII backdrop of action in the Pacific, not a simulation of war that would stand a whole lot of scrutiny.

As for the resistance of people to listen to this sort of criticism: this is an old story, it's the same the world over and has been since I was born. Some simply don't understand, others don't wish to soil their hands, a few are home-boy types who hang around these kinds of boards looking to saddle up to the people who design this software and like that. As you grow older you'll find less and less new under the sun, and of course none of the above would even begin to qualify.

Look. True simulations are so rare I can't tell you. The last true (i.e. serious) simulation of naval surface warfare I played was Action Stations! by Alan Zimm, a retired USN officer. I'd also give a nod of sorts to Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic as its model was, in some areas, superior even to what Zimm had been able to create.

Of course the latter title, an SSI game. was developed with the mass market in mind, but the designers got quite a bit right with the underlying models, especially ship flotation, even so and deserve appropriate credit. Zimm's simulation was the real McKoy. It was written many years ago and actually used by the Navy as a wargame tool at one juncture, then the author spiffed it up a bit (if you could term a CGA interface "spiffing" something up ), found a distributor and offered it to the public. This model mostly suffered from the limitations of the period in which it was born (i.e., relatively crude home computers) and so was dedeviled with 3-minute turns, a real shame that. Zimm had plans to redesign the simulation but nothing eventually came of that, for whatever reason, which is an even bigger shame.

Anyway, AS would represent a serious naval simulation, the stuff Grigsby does by and large is just game software. Very good game software as a rule, as his game's are usually loads of fun to play, but games nevertheless, not serious simulations. I've always maintained that his market wouldn't shrink an inch if he bothered to put a more serious face on his products, as have other more serious-minded hobbyists over the years, but as group (and a small one at that) we've mainly be ignored.

I have hope that in what's left of the development (alpha) stage of WitP some much-needed change to the underlying models (basically what you see in UV) will be affected but I don't know. You can see in part who's playtesting the product and what attitudes these people bring to the table, so right away there's not much upward pressure within the team to "get it right" but just for "more features" which in and of themselves are probably as much of the underlying problem as anything else. You see a general rule for modeling is that the more variables you add then less model stability ensues. But that won't be the deciding issue with Matrix if I understand them correctly, and I think I do. They're looking to maximize sales, to design a game that appeals to the broadest possible audience. Well, "accuracy" and "broadest possible' have never been known to run in tandem when it comes to simulations.

We'll see. At the least WitP should be an improvement over Pacific War, a project with tremendous promise that was then dumbed down by SSI so many years ago. Did you know that that title, too, at one early juncture, was run with 12-hour turns? You can see what was left after it got its haircut, but I've some hope WitP will correct the worst of that butchery and leave us with an improved product to play on balance.

For the rest, it's like the man says: if you don't like what 2by3 and Matrix do then go learn C++ and design your own wargame. Such is life.

As far as your specific complaint with regard to B-17s goes: I have not seen this problem within play, but then I've only had the game in my hands since v2.30. For all I know the game used to be out of balance in this regard at an earlier stage, though that wouldn't explain why you're still complaining, now would it?

For your information: more enemy fighter aircraft of all kinds were shot down during World War II by B-17s than any other weapons platform, this considering all theaters. I don't happen to know off the cuff what the B-17 score was in the Pacific against Zeroes, but I'd be very much surprised if Zeroes stood up better to the terrific punishment Flying Forts dished out than did Messerschmidts in Europe. In fact, I'd bet anything up to but not including my life that they did not.

Mogami wrote:To be fair, I must admit I don't believe the majority is always right. I tend to begin looking closely when a single person holds on to an unpopular opinion.

That, my friend, is wisdom. Of course it only goes so far, and you have to analyze each situation on its own merits, but the sad truth is that down through history majorities have been found to be mistaken a worrying percentage of the time.

By the way, you've misstated my position: on balance I believe the Japanese have been given too much power, especially early in the war, but the Allies in UV have also been bucked up in critical areas. The model on the whole is off to a considerable degree. I don't argue against Japanese concerns any more than I do so for Allied concerns, I rather argue against innacurracies wherever and as I find them, no matter how these manifest themselves.

At bottom I only want a serious simulation.

Mogami wrote:Along with other things I do not agree with is his assessment that the primary duty of a tester is breaking the system.
When a person agrees to be a tester he is becoming the defacto designer in regard to assessing whether or not the program performs according to it's intended design. Breaking the program is only a method of testing. The most important thing is letting the designers know if their ideas are working. Not the ideas of the tester or the general public.

Sorry, but you mistake your work. A tester's first and morst important function is to find problems with the software. It's not to tell Gary what "great game" he's working on, or to tell Matrix how wise they were to align themselves with this stellar designer. Gary already knows that he designs great games. His sales over the years are testament to this fact. Matrix, too, already knows that its wedding to Gary's star was a smart move. That's why they made it.

Meanwhile, testers are supposed to break product, supposerd to bring as much bad news back as possible.

A case might be made that Gary and Matrix would be wise to sorround themselves with testers who have a "game" mindset insofar as these products are fundamentally aimed at that sort of market, but even so, in that case they only run the risk of finding fewer flaws in the system. Witness yourself. All this time down the road and you stiill hadn't run across the B-17 super-group/disbanding problem, indeed, refuse to admit that this even represents a problem in the first place.

But that's old news for "gamers." Which is why they don't make the best playtesters in some respects. They're too busy "enjoying" the product as opposed to "trying to break it," and so this stuff inevitably slips through.

Years ago I worked with David Landrey, a good programmer and an old SSI hand, who taught me a lot about testing game product. And you know what? The first thing he told me to do was "Break it if you can."

Hi, Both UV and WITP are games.
How can a simulation covering surface battles in May 1942 be designed?
Where is the data? Would the designer have to use examples from prior to May 1942 and after May 1942. (I can find no examples of surface combat between the USN and IJN in May 1942)

How does Aug 9th 1942 battle impact battles in Nov 42? What model is used for actions that never occured. What is Oi's hit rate when firing torpedos? What impact would there be if commanders for all TF's on Aug 9th were changed? How do you prove it? Is it reasonable for anyone to claim they know? Or are we forced to always be satisified with "it might have been" Combat is mutally exclusive. One historical example can not
"Prove" what never took place.

How can any outcome be proven? Game or Simulation call it whichever you prefer the final product will only be a reflection of it's creators perceptions.

Given historical events can not be changed. Any program should produce historical outcomes. The more often an specific outcome was produced in history the more often it should be reproduced in Simulation.
Even Action Station (which you seem to have apporved of) produced unhistorical results. The most common way I played that game was by playing each battle twice. Once from each side. I won most of the battles. I rarely saw the same battle repeat verbatium the historical or even the previous simulation.

You take far too many liberties with your assumptions. You should take more time and read everything posted here as far back as you can.
The design team (not the testers) Have posted UV and WITP are not being created for the market. They are being created for the DESIGNERS.
That a market exists is gravy. It allows them to work on the project rather then sell used cars or work in other jobs while doing WITP in their spare time.
WITP/UV can not be all incompassing or knowing. They will reflect what the designers believe and what the programmers can manage.
The "inhouse" debates remain "inhouse" I won't go into them except to say once again "Your guessing" and "you guessed wrong"

UV/WITP will never be what you expect if you expect too much. Listen to what the designers say it supposed to be.

As Popeye used to say "I am what I am, and thats all that I am"


"All this time down the road and you stiill hadn't run across the B-17 super-group/disbanding problem, indeed, refuse to admit that this even represents a problem in the first place."

There is no problem. The program does what it is designed to do. If a player tries to break the system "form a super group" he finds it does not work. (he produces 1 normal group and the rest in the pool) This is not a bug. I'd love to see you report to the designers

Mogami wrote:There is no problem. The program does what it is designed to do. If a player tries to break the system "form a super group" he finds it does not work. (he produces 1 normal group and the rest in the pool) This is not a bug. I'd love to see you report to the designers

There are two problems, Magimi. It's not properly documented, and it is (in my opinion) not a good dyanmic to begin with (I define that as a dynamic which doesn't do anything to enhance the simulation, or "game" for that matter).

As for your "community" and all that: I'm not here to win friends. Virtual friendships on the internet are something I can easily do without. I'm just pointing out that this model is not accurate in the tiny hope that if enough pressure is applied in that direction perhaps (just perhaps) a better product will emerge with WitP. If that upsets anyone I couldn't care less. I'm not here to anger anyone, I don't try to insult anyone, but I expect intelligent feedback to my remarks. Yours so far has been all over the place. Some of it's intelligent, and that's fine, some of it's stupid and that's not so fine. It only confuses the issue. In the main I view you as part of the overall problem but a good guy at heart, and what should you care about that either way? I don't hire and fire at Matrix. You're safe.

Gotta go to work, talk to you later.

Hi all,

Tristanjohn wrote: <snip>

For your information: more enemy fighter aircraft of all kinds were shot down during World War II by B-17s than any other weapons platform, this considering all theaters. I don't happen to know off the cuff what the B-17 score was in the Pacific against Zeroes, but I'd be very much surprised if Zeroes stood up better to the terrific punishment Flying Forts dished out than did Messerschmidts in Europe. In fact, I'd bet anything up to but not including my life that they did not.

<snip>

Can you please say where did you get this info from?


Leo "Apollo11"

Tristanjohn wrote:I believe the Japanese have been given too much power, especially early in the war, but the Allies in UV have also been bucked up in critical areas. The model on the whole is off to a considerable degree. I don't argue against Japanese concerns any more than I do so for Allied concerns, I rather argue against innacurracies wherever and as I find them, no matter how these manifest themselves.

At bottom I only want a serious simulation.

You're an even worse stater of bald, unsupported conclusions than Chiteng.

Where were you when the literally hundreds of game-system interrogatory experiments were being run by dozens of posters and testers in order to improve the performance of the UV model? As the Duke said to Ricky Nelson in "Rio Bravo," "You had your chance to get in, but you didn't want any. So now stay out of the way, 'cause we don't need ya."

Tristanjohn,

For what its worth I started from scratch and ran another test. This time I combined the Covering TF (Chicago,Austrailia,Canberra,Hobart and 9 DDs) into the Transport TF. minus a couple of transports to satisfy the 25 ship limit. Put Wilkinson in command, who IMO is a suitable substitute for Turner.

CAP was provided by the 3 USN CVs 2 hexes south of GD. As per your instructions I maximized the CAP.

The fire support TF ( 3 CAs and DDs ) remained seperate in the Lunga hex.

I set all the IJN Bettys and Vals on Naval Attack and all the longranged Zeros to escort.

Here are the results.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/06/42

Weather: Overcast

Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 38,40

Port hits 3
Port supply hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
G4M1 Betty x 29

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 72

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 10 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 21 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 12 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged

CDR Y. Kozono of F1/Tainan Daitai is KILLED

Allied Ships
AP Barnett
AP Crescent City
AP McCawley
DMS Southard
DD Bagley
CA Canberra

Attacking Level Bombers:
0 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
0 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 38,40

Port supply hits 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, but I just do not see what you are complaining about. This is the 5th time I have run various versions of this test and have yet to see anything that indicates any bias in IJN LBA aircombat model. Admittedly I have been running these test on my Dell, it may have a pro-USN bias. Maybe to be fair I should run it on my Toshiba next time.

Seriously though, personally I think max CAP is a bit unrealistic, so to be fair the next time run the test I intend to use a single fighter group on CAP per turn.

Tristanjohn wrote:)

Except of course that the single most accurate simulation of Gettysburg
in existance is Gettysburg the Turning Point by one G. Grigsby.

It is accurate, far more accurate that Sid Meir's for example.
So we can infer that G. Grigsby CAN make an accurate simulation,
when he desires. Nato 85 is another example.

So why not WitP? I suspect that it is a difference in people who try and influence the design, rather than the programmer himself.

TIMJOT wrote:Tristanjohn,

Here are the results.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/06/42

Weather: Overcast

Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 38,40

Port hits 3
Port supply hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
G4M1 Betty x 29

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 72

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 10 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 21 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 12 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged

CDR Y. Kozono of F1/Tainan Daitai is KILLED

Allied Ships
AP Barnett
AP Crescent City
AP McCawley
DMS Southard
DD Bagley
CA Canberra

Attacking Level Bombers:
0 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
0 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 38,40

Port supply hits 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

An excellent example of why I dont worry about Betty's being able to do things that they didnt do in reality. Because you CAN shoot the Betty down. Quite easily.

Tristanjohn wrote:There are two problems, Magimi. It's not properly documented, and it is (in my opinion) not a good dyanmic to begin with (I define that as a dynamic which doesn't do anything to enhance the simulation, or "game" for that matter).

As for your "community" and all that: I'm not here to win friends. Virtual friendships on the internet are something I can easily do without. I'm just pointing out that this model is not accurate in the tiny hope that if enough pressure is applied in that direction perhaps (just perhaps) a better product will emerge with WitP. If that upsets anyone I couldn't care less. I'm not here to anger anyone, I don't try to insult anyone, but I expect intelligent feedback to my remarks. Yours so far has been all over the place. Some of it's intelligent, and that's fine, some of it's stupid and that's not so fine. It only confuses the issue. In the main I view you as part of the overall problem but a good guy at heart, and what should you care about that either way? I don't hire and fire at Matrix. You're safe.

Gotta go to work, talk to you later.

Good luck with that =)
I am afraid that if Mogami opposes it, it doesnt happen.
If he supports it, it does happen.
He is like the filter on a cigarette.
Why this is, I dont know.

Mogami wrote:Hi, No Chiteng I've never seen any AAR that was clear and convincing that B-17's are over modeled.

So we can infer that you missed the posts of left nutter?

Chiteng wrote:Good luck with that =)
I am afraid that if Mogami opposes it, it doesnt happen.
If he supports it, it does happen.
He is like the filter on a cigarette.
Why this is, I dont know.

Hi, You must fight this tendency toward exaggeration. No one asks me what does or doesn't get into a product. The majority of my own ideas do not get in. Other persons ideas I like do not get in and ones I don't like do.
I don't believe I'm right as often as I think I am and I don't believe I'm wrong as often as other people think I am.
I think what gets included are things that
A. The designers agree with
B The programmers say can be done
C. Enough need is created (when enough people say something is needed and how it can be done and how it will impact the program.)

But unfortunately I have no more vote then you do in general or of any tester in private.

Concerning B-17's in Europe. Take the 100BG as an example. composed of 4 sqd it flew 306 missions over Germany (8630 sortie for an avg of 28.2 ac per mission (or 7ac per sqd per mission) The group lost 177 aircraft.
.57 per mission. This group is famous for it's heavy loss

Chiteng wrote:Except of course that the single most accurate simulation of Gettysburg
in existance is Gettysburg the Turning Point by one G. Grigsby.

It is accurate, far more accurate that Sid Meir's for example.
So we can infer that G. Grigsby CAN make an accurate simulation,
when he desires. Nato 85 is another example.

So why not WitP? I suspect that it is a difference in people who try and influence the design, rather than the programmer himself.

Hi, Are you sure GG did Gettysburg the turning point? I recall that game very well. I think the same designer that did Battles of Napoleon did GTP.
GG did a lot of WW2 land combat games back then (All of them grew over time and produced other titles) Kampgruppe is the grand daddy of Steel Panthers. Warship Carrier Strike Guadalcanal Campaign all led into PacWar and then UV/WITP. The very first game I bought for pc (C-64) was Tigers in the Snow. I seem to recall (beery memory) buying Gettysburg without even reading the box because it was done by the same group. (Not company they were all SSI but there was a team designing games for SSI back then) But in any case I'm thinking BON and GTP are the same designer. (Also Rebel Charge at Chickamagua and Shiloh and Antietam)

I can think of many games that came out ahead of their time. (because of slow internet and slow computers)
I think Colonial Conquest would net a fortune if revamped for online multiplayer games (and it's a simple game, but very suited to internet play)