Matrix Games Forums

Hi, In UV I expect my P-40's to achive at least a 1-1 kill/loss ratio
I expect my P-39's to do so as well. They do....sometimes.

It depends on scenario. I don't think you can compare scenario 17 with history or with results from Scenario 14.

In Scenario 14

Phase one
All the allies have to do is spend a little time resting and flying recon. (send all the groups below 80 morale back to Oz)(The CV groups can rest on their way to Lunga. since they only need fly for 1-2 days they can rest after they return to Noumea)

Decide after a few turns what you are going to target and from where.
Dispatch supply. You want to have 3-4x supply required before commencing bombing ops. If enemy is targeting a specifc base send AA groups there. Keep track of enemy numbers. Altitude of bombers.
Send enough fighter groups to get 2-1 or more (using 60 percent CAP per group) So if Japanese are sending 25 fighters for you to get 50 fighters on CAP you would need 3 fighter groups. (54 ac in air) Before setting up first battle also have 1-2 reserve groups at base. (Also long range CAP can be used at first to get 2-1 odd if needed. Over Lunga way build airfields on Tulagi and Irau can make it difficult for Japanese to stop your air. If enemy attacking Lunga LRCAP can be flown by Irau or Tulagi)

Use your best aircraft types for first engagements. (With 3 groups to engage I would have 1xP-39 at 10k 1xP-40 at 11k and 1xP-40 at15k)

If enemy AC coming from Rabaul. Move 2-3 B-17 groups to base in range (PM or Gili after Gili increased to size 4 airfield) Buna and it's neighbor are also usefull. ( remember idea is to bring mass to bear against enemy)

Hit the enemy fighter fields at night from 9k (send 2 groups per night and rotate the other)

Always have fresh groups on CAP. If a groups morale falls below 70 send it back to Oz and bring in a fresh group.

After first battle where you use 2-1 odds. If possible add another group for next battle (enemy may send more next time)(so for 2nd battle you put 72 ac in air. This may not be 2-1 but it will outnumber Japanese. Also their first group will not be sending full strike anymore)
(If Enemy stops attacking stand your CAP down. ) (Put up your weaker groups on 50 percent. You have some protection. And you'll see changes enemy makes. You might lose 1 air to air but then enemy will come back and get whacked when you put your "rested" first line groups back up.

No matter what scenario you are playing as the allies you have numerical advantage. Don't squander it away. Be very picky about when,where, and how you offer air to air combat.
Track the Japanese assets. Use your bombers against his airfields. (Do it at night 9k. No CAP and AA reduced. Don't worry about massive 100 aircraft strikes once a week make 12-18 AC strikes every night. (if you damage 1 Zero you've also knocked down that groups morale)

Combined weapons. The Bombers are just as important in defeating Japanese Zeros as wonder fighters are. If you feel you must bombard an enemy base with ships use fast ships for first runs. (send a few DD to see what mine situation is) Your recon should advise you to enemy surface TF's. (one of the first things the Allies must do is make sure no IJN TF stays within ALlied air range. This does not mean B-17/B-24 range. (However if they are in port........)

This process requires 30-90 days once allies have the airfields. In scenarios where Port Moresby can not be held the Allies can not begin the process before they retake it. (Unless the Japanese move to a base within range-Japanese Luganville is target practice for Allied Noumea/Efate Combo)

I don't think anything here is gamey.

(everything above also works as the Japanese. Only they don't have as many fighter groups and Betty bombers are not B-17's)

TIMJOT wrote:How is that dumb? You wrote what you wrote. Am I suppose to read your mind on what you really mean when you make such unqualified definitive statements? Write what you mean and maybe you will not get "dumb" responses. I gave no cause to be insulted.

You give plenty of cause. You're part of the problem just as much as Mogami. God happened to bless you with more to work with upstairs than him but instead of using this altruisitically, for the betterment of all, you choose to squander this gift and instead behave like the next kludge in line and just go with the flow.

You also continually digress into totally irrelevant areas for purposes only selfish when the sole point of these threads is plain: to discuss the problems with the 2by3 games.

Now that I think on it you're worse than Mogami. I can at least try to give him the benefit of the doubt (sometimes at least) as not being able to distinguish the difference. With you it's a different story altogether. Now isn't that so?

Buck it up!

While I've found the Japanese annoyingly capable on occasion as
well, and I'm damned if I can see why a 15-30 minute non-combat hop to an airfield or a carrier should "fatigue" anybody..., I would like to see
from you a list of what changes you think should be made to the system.

I don't mean general statements like the air system needs to be
"gutted" and replaced, but specifics of what you would like to see it
replaced by. Is fatigue accumulation too quick? Are the aircraft
charicteristics all wrong? Not enough attrition? Airfield damage too
high and too difficult to repair? What specifics about the system which
now exists do you want to see changed..., and how do you want to
change them? I'm not totally enamoured of the current system's
results either. But unless I can offer a better alternative I don't see
much point in "cursing the darkness". So "light some candles" for us if
you have some better ideas---but don't just "take potshots" at some-
thing you can't offer at least a different idea for. Let's see that list
of 25 problems with the current system, and your proposals to improve
on it.

(To the tune of My Way)

Just do it My Way

And now, development's end is near;
And so I face the beta testing.
My friend, I'll say it clear, (or not clear but often)
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.

I've seen your game
The truth to me is plain;
You've made a game, (not a simulation)
Just do it my way.

Regrets, I've had a few; (air combat over Lunga)
But then again, too few to mention.
(but I'll mention them all repeatedly
without exemption.)

I planned each charted course;
Each careful step along the byway,
But more, much more than this,
Just do it my way.

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
You'll do it my way.

I've loved, I've laughed and cried.
I've had my fill; my share of losing. (curse you Mogami)
And now, as tears subside,
I find it all so amusing. (look at all the unwashed monkeys)

To think I did all that;
And may I say - not in a shy way, (no that would be lying)
"No, oh no not me,
Just do it my way".

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows -
You'll do it my way!

mdiehl wrote:Man, I respect your argument but you are coming down pretty heavy on people. Mogami and Timjot are both reasonable folkss IMO, so I have found that when they seem not to understand what I'm saying it's usually that there's some logical connection that I forgot to include. And bangin' on heads may open minds (as with a rock), but is not necessarily conducive to convincing the opposition that you're on to something.

Sorry, Mdiehl, but these people deserve all they receive from me. My reception upon first joining this forum was to be treated to denial, then attacked and ridiculed by a pack of fools.

I've no idea where this Mogami character's coming from or what motivates him. He's all over the board with his nonsense and spreads general confusion in his wake. He is consumed with outright denial.

But it gets worse than Mogami. There's also a squeezed-brow type who 1) doesn't take the trouble to find out what he's talking about but 2) has no trouble whatsoever delivering himself to the opinion that I ought to be "punched" and 3) didn't blush when he told me he was just the guy to do it.

I'm being "heavy"? Gee, pardon me.

You want to be polite to this mob? Go for it. But I've got to tell you, you're spinning your wheels.

Me, I'm always polite to people who are always polite to me. But I call a spade a spade when it comes to my wargames (and lots of other stuff now that we're on it) and I'm not here to mince words or put happy faces on the issues with people who never bothered to get even the most rudimentary form of an education.

As for convincing others: I respect your plea for the logic and morality it implies but if you actually believe you can convince these forum people of anything substantive after two long years of this silliness than I've got to say you're in a dream world, Mdiehl. The game is broken for all intents and purposes and for the simple reason it is these people Matrix and 2by3 have chosen to surround themselves with during development.

Whether Gary or someone else is listneing is another matter. On that score you might be more successful, and I hope so. But the forum crowd is pretty much hopeless.

I choose to believe you see the same problems, stroke for stroke, as I do inside the game. I've read your posts going back some ways (not everything but enough to have a fairly good gist for who you are in important respects) and please correct me if I'm wrong but UV still stands broken with v2.30 and from all I can tell no great change is in store of WitP.

It's going to be the same cockeyed model at a different scale with a couple of features "tweaked."

TIMJOT is good people? TIMJOT intentionally brings up irrelevancies time after time, with me at least, for no better purpose than to sound off. And this is one of the best and brightest around here, potentially. Don't even get me going on the B20's and Snigberts and all that--I won that T-shirt the hard way fifteen years ago online. Thank you very much.

Mogami's good people? He could well be a sweetheart in private garb but around here he's the biggest problem Matrix has developmentally speaking and undoubtedly one of the primary reasons this project is so utterly fouled. A UV doesn't happen by accident. You have to work hard to get something that wrong.

The first time I talked with Mogami on these boards his response to me was, in effect: "I don't see any problems at all with the air system."

Now how do you square that with "good guy"? That's a capable person? Mogami might be a sweetheart but he's useless to the project for the reason he simply doesn't get it. Times two he doesn't get it. For others it's worse still.

Now I know you know better--your intellect is clearly high, you're responsible enough to do good research before stating something publicly, you are able to extrapolate sense from the research you do perform, and at last you've come to understand at base what I understand with regards to the dysfunctional state of the game system.

So, why do you say these things?

Get along with these people? I don't get along with people who resort to ad hominem argument. I don't get along with people who want wargames I have interest in to resemble Stratego. I don't get along with people who play wargames just so they can thump their hairy chests and brag each time they dream up another scheme to beat some schmuck who can't play these games as well as they do.

I just can't take this type of person seriously.

These people are the problem. And I'm tired of it. Now if they weren't so crude into the bargain I'd be with you on manners because that's how I was raised and educated. But they are crude, they are rude, and they are given to say anything that pops into their tiny minds as long as that sounds convenient to them at that time. The end result of this nonsense is a forum as I described: a zoo.

Maybe you get a kick out of posting here and having one debate after another on this or that. And then a year later being required to explain the same thing all over again. And again after that.

Well, you're free to do what you will. Be my guest.

For my part, I am only here to affect what and any possible good change that's possible to the game system, and if I am forced to cross swords with imbeciles as part of that trying process then so be it.

That doesn't bother me a whit. The message will still get out, for whatever that's worth--none of us can say how Gary reacts to this silliness, but at least the points have been made in open forum--and it will not be I who walks away psychologically bruised.

Do I want to hurt anyone? No. Never. But I give as I receive and take no prisoners.

You want to be "friends" with these people, go ahead. I choose my friends more carefully, but maybe that's just me.

Mike Scholl wrote:While I've found the Japanese annoyingly capable on occasion as
well, and I'm damned if I can see why a 15-30 minute non-combat hop to an airfield or a carrier should "fatigue" anybody..., I would like to see
from you a list of what changes you think should be made to the system.

I don't mean general statements like the air system needs to be
"gutted" and replaced, but specifics of what you would like to see it
replaced by. Is fatigue accumulation too quick? Are the aircraft
charicteristics all wrong? Not enough attrition? Airfield damage too
high and too difficult to repair? What specifics about the system which
now exists do you want to see changed..., and how do you want to
change them? I'm not totally enamoured of the current system's
results either. But unless I can offer a better alternative I don't see
much point in "cursing the darkness". So "light some candles" for us if
you have some better ideas---but don't just "take potshots" at some-
thing you can't offer at least a different idea for. Let's see that list
of 25 problems with the current system, and your proposals to improve
on it.

I've gone to the trouble of posting some preliminary ideas along these lines, Mike. If you'd care to take a look at what I've written to date, take notes, then get back to me with your thoughts on the subject I'd be more than willing to start a new thread and thrash it out with you there.

This thread's pretty much out of control and so it's best to move on.

P.S. I suggest, if you're serious, to start individual threads with hard categories such as "Land-based Air System," "Surface Naval Model," "Naval Air Model," "Land Assets in Attack," "Supply," "Bases," "Construction," "Submarine Warfare," "Fatigue," "Morale," "Wear and Tear" and so forth.

If we're lucky the thread will not be hijacked or confused immediately by some of the children around here, but I doubt it; I will, however, give it an honest chance if you will, Mike. Next move's yours.

I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal and mineral;
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical,
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted too with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o'news --
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
I'm very good at integral and differential calculus,
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous;
In short, in matters vegetable, animal and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's,
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox.
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolus.
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from the "Frogs" of Aristophanes.
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense "Pinafore."
Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform;
In short, in matters vegetable, animal and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin,"
When I can tell at sight a mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by commissariat,
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery;
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy,
You'll say a better Major-General has never sat-a-gee.

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still in matters vegetable, animal and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

I respect your plea for the logic and morality it implies but if you actually believe you can convince these forum people of anything substantive after two long years of this silliness than I've got to say you're in a dream world, Mdiehl.

Actually I've convinced a number of people in re the 'A6m and Japanese pilot superiority myth" thing. Just not necessarily the right people (the game designers) enough so that they would radically rewrite the game. I suppose you could take a poll and find out how many positions have been unmoved, slightly moved or really moved by the debate over a/c (which has occurred, by my count, at least 3 times.. it's like some sort of sunspot event that recurs with a periodicity of about 1 year.)

I keep fighting this fight because I recognize that the myth is so well entrenched and so universal that you have to walk a lot of people through the excercise of counting combats, engagements etc many times so that a critical mass of dissent exists to alter the way games get designed.

As for Mogami, all he's trying to tell you is that he's found ways in which the game produces the results that you want. That is not the same as asserting that you are playing it badly or that the game is a the best (or even a "good") simulation. Only that one can extract the desired results in a few examples. (And that of course may rely on a a dose of suboptimal Japanese play to produce the results that Mogami gets in his examples. Who can say based on the numbers of playtests that get reported here?)

Hi, Strange that both Mdiehl and myself have been at the Matrix forum for the same amount of time and we have never had a personality conflict or a ******* contest over WW2.

Just browsing today through my old posts. I found where I describe the period of Japanese success in WW2 as "The great allied material Shortage period" I've never in my life posted "The Zero was the best fighter of WW2" or "Japanese pilots were the best in the world"
I've always said they had success simply because A. They had surprise.
B. They had numbers C. Interiour lines.

I've even described UV as a mini war in the pacific because the Japanese in Scenario 17 and 19 have exactly the same things.


When your posted you question on air combat I did not say "I don't see a problem with air combat" (as you keep quoting me) I said "I don't get those results in my games." Then I went on to say how I used my units in UV. I acknowledged problems with players who acted differently. (B-17's being a prime example. I feel they produce bad results compared to history. So I do not employ them in manners that provide those results-I don't fly Naval attacks)
Then if I can quote you (with the same looseness with which you quote me) "Your a liar and an idiot, how can you not see anything so blantly clear" Our cheerful exchange continued from there. Then I asked if we could start anew. You said good idea and in the same post quoted an earlier item.

There are only 3 questions concerning UV/WITP

A. Is it as good as it can be. (It is acknowledged UV has changes needed. It has also already been pointed out these changes will be back fits from WITP. Since you have never seen WITP you make assumptions that it is exactly the same. No it looks like UV but it is not UV. Is everything your asking for included? No Not everything I've asked for is included (and for the same reasons. There are limits what the programmers can do)
Are they going to be as good as Matrix and 2by3 can make them. Yes. Of course. There were many patches for UV already and at least one more is coming. It will never be the perfect program for all people.

B. How accurate are they? They will never be as accurate as some people want. There is no clear consensus among anyone what the truth is. (The US Navy history taught US Naval Officers still maintains the Zero was the best fighter in the Pacific and the Japanese pilots were the best in the world) If WITP accepts one version of the truth, everyone that holds a contray version gets upset. So I think (this is just me talking not Matrix or 2by3) that given a choice they choose the option that provides the most game balance, produces historical results and can be implemented.

C. Are UV/WITP simulations or are they games? They are games

Quite so, Mogami. I never figured you for one of the mythologizers. As for what the USN presently teaches, I do believe it's because of a hyper-regard for SE Morison. When the wags at Annapolis start coldly analyzing the implications of the more recent works on the SOPAC and February-June CV campaigns they'll come around to a more accurate perception on this.

mdiehl wrote:Actually I've convinced a number of people in re the 'A6m and Japanese pilot superiority myth" thing. Just not necessarily the right people (the game designers) enough so that they would radically rewrite the game. I suppose you could take a poll and find out how many positions have been unmoved, slightly moved or really moved by the debate over a/c (which has occurred, by my count, at least 3 times.. it's like some sort of sunspot event that recurs with a periodicity of about 1 year.)
I keep fighting this fight because I recognize that the myth is so well entrenched and so universal that you have to walk a lot of people through the excercise of counting combats, engagements etc many times so that a critical mass of dissent exists to alter the way games get designed.

Well, you've spelled it out in BIG BLOCK LETTERS for two years running. I note your sources are good, for all I know you've even included links for these people to easily check online for themselves (heaven forbid they should be forced to open an actual book), yet still, after all this time, you claim to have reached but . . . a few?

Doesn't that tell you something? It tells me your audience is either literally stupid and/or simply doesn't wish to hear the message and so tunes it out.

As for Mogami, all he's trying to tell you is that he's found ways in which the game produces the results that you want. That is not the same as asserting that you are playing it badly or that the game is a the best (or even a "good") simulation. Only that one can extract the desired results in a few examples. (And that of course may rely on a a dose of suboptimal Japanese play to produce the results that Mogami gets in his examples. Who can say based on the numbers of playtests that get reported here?)

Mogami tries to tell me lots of stuff. Most of it's hogwash. He also is not above resort to ad hominem when that suits his purpose. When I have tried to get him to focus on a serious point he soon enough devolves into his "I can beat anyone at a game of UV no matter the scenario so what could be wrong with the model? go find out how to play the game competently before you criticize it" mode.

My position is unmoved. I do not have your patience, neither do I see your approach as enjoying the least chance of success with this crowd as a whole, and make no mistake, mdeihl, it is "this crowd" that game companies pander to when it comes to simulations--both war and sports, by the way.

I, for one, want more for my money. If there were a reasonable alternantive I'd buy that, but there is no reasonable alternative and so here I stand.

Mogami wrote:Strange that both Mdiehl and myself have been at the Matrix forum for the same amount of time and we have never had a personality conflict or a ******* contest over WW2.

Mdiehl, for whatever reason, chooses to exercise infinite patience with you people. Why I do not know but more power to him. My tihsllub filter is set at an entirely lower threshold than his. You need to do better with me.

As for the rest of it: you're just repeating yourself and still in denial as to what you've written along the way.

If in fact WitP comes out in better shape than UV then that's swell, but I won't believe that until I see it for myself, and to judge from the feedback I've received to date from members of the playtest team I'd say the possibility of this happy arrival is not imminent but remote.

We'll see about that, though, now won't we?

Hi, I should add I think, that I do not believe the Japanese were a bunch of chimps flying washing machines and all the allies had to do to defeat them was move an equal number of aircraft in their path.

Everyone knows the material differance between Japan and the USA.
Japane could not out build the USA. This resulted in as America expanded a good service with good pilots the Japanese response was to expand their "Excellent" service by adding less then good pilots.

It would be interesting to pit Bong in a Zero against Saki in a P-51 (or Adoph Galland in a Piper Cub against me in a Tomcat)
The Japanese as they expand create the problem of more area to cover. They have to dilute all units to create new ones. The USA and Allies just move to vital areas and build. As they grow they include another area. The two sides eventually clashed in the Solomon's.
Here the real Japanese problem was brittleness. They could not stand up to the period of combat. No matter how skilled a pilot might be once he is dead he is dead. Some of these men could not be replaced. (Since the replacement was himself often soon dead. American pilots when replaced has their spot filled by someone with at least as much training as the man they replaced. When whole groups met in combat (New American versus new Japanese) Then the results clearly proved which side was best able to fight a war rather then a series of campaigns against isolated targets. (I also think the same applies to Germany. Prior to 1941 Germany fought a series of campaign's she didn't go to war till she attacked the USSR. (without the period of quiet in between campaigns she was used to she lost her offensive abiltiy over time. The drain was more then the replacement system could provide)

So now we arrive at what I percive to be where the difference in opinion exists. I think the natural course of UV and WITP should produce this result. I don't believe in any modifier for Japan in the early period. I think the numbers and location of the battles will produce the results that gave birth the the Japanese myth. By the same token I do think that the Allies should have to use the same method to arrive at victory. (They were not supermen in super machines) What is overlooked is even Japanese success contributes to their eventual decline. (On that day where the combat over PM was 6 P-39 and 3 Zero all 3 Zero pilots were irreplacable. No offense meant to the P-39 Pilots but their replacement system will send a pilot much better equipped to fill the void.) As a result there will come a point when the majority of allied pilots are CLEARLY better then the majority of Japanese pilots still flying.

To others the debate has always been was it P-40 or P-38, Honestly I think it was TIME. The only kill/loss ratio Japan can endure is something-to nothing. They can't afford to lose anything. Anywhere. Anytime. Ratios only permit us to arrive at the when. After Japan lossess X number of aircraft they will be clearly inferiour. the ratio sets the day.
So it has to be acknowledged that ratio is important. However you must be sure and clear as to what factors make any ratio. Using a actual war ratio from the period after the Japanese were clearly inferoiur would be wrong. You have to establish the kill rates when Japan is at it's best. And then interpolate the increase (for allied point of view) as pilot quality declines. (I think a good thing from our point of view is that the Zero remained a constant. Had the Japanese switched aircraft as often as the allies it would be harder. But at least we can say. Against P-39/P-40/P-38 and always have that same Zero to measure against. (meaning 3 things are impacting results. new allied aircraft, lower Japanese pilot skill (we still have examples of Japanese aces to show what the highest quality Japanese pilot could do. Now we have to find what the "Average" Japanese pilot did) I do not think there was as wide a range between allied pilots as between Japanese pilots.

Am I making any sense?

Hi, So I guess this is where we hear "what about those 65s?"

Now I just pulled that number out of the air. I don't know what the average allied pilot rating is on Dec 7 1941 in WITP. Looking I see quite a few 90's Thats not the point.


Suppose there are 100 pilots in the Japanese airforce. And 100 pilots in the USAAF on Dec 7th.

Now rate the Japanese at 99 and the USAAF at 70.
Every day subtract one pilot from each force. Replace the Japanese pilot with a 50. replace the USAAF pilot with another 70. Every 90 days or so add another 100 USAAF pilots to their total (they expand at the same quality they fight)The Japanese can add 20 pilots to their total but these pilots must be all 20's
In 100 days the USAAF goes from minus 30 to plus 20.
Now not all Japanese pilots are 99's (I don't think they have more then 1 or 2 and the USAAF has at least that many 99's. (the starting avg rating for the bulk of the Japanese in UV/WITP is mid 70's)(This might be 5 points higher then bulk of allied pilots but I'm just guessing. There is a wide range on both sides)

On days where the Japanese lose more then one pilot replace 1 with a 50 and the other with a 40. If they lose 3 the third replacement is a 30.

This is a very simple model. (I have no clue about the UV/WITP model)

But this is what I mean when I say the war produced the results naturaly. The higher the loss the sooner the clear allied advantage. This was a real result seen in the war. It should be reflected in any game.

In my opinion UV/WITP are correct when they produce the cross over after the same amount of combat. Now this can become unbalanced by one side mishandling their air assets. But if everything followed the historic path then this point should arrive during the same period.
I don't think anyone can tell from only a few games of UV. And not from only a few games on one side only. (You can't monitor the other side)

Now in my experiance playing both sides I see a cross over at some point during every game.
It does not occur by accident or on a certain date. I cause it to happen by fighting the Japanese. My opponents do the same to me when I am Japanese and doing everything I can to avoid or postpone it.
(Some allied players quit before they get there.)

I think player style can have a large effect on this. I've played the allies many times. I can state for a fact that many of the players running the Japanese have wrecked their airforce complety on their own.
(I have a game in Feb 43 where allied op loss is 99 and Japanese op loss is 956)
I can only assume the reverse is possible. (My Japanese op loss is normally 1/4 to 1/3 what the allies lose in games where I am Japan)
Is this game model or game play?

Tristanjohn wrote:It tells me your audience is either literally stupid and/or simply doesn't wish to hear the message and so tunes it out.

Mdiehl doesn't have an audience here and, to the degree I understand him, doesn't want one. He expresses his well-considered opinions in thoughtfully composed posts and expects readers to form their reactions in kind. Most of us try to do so. Mdiehl is a well-respected member of these forums, and we would benefit from people like you not seizing on some perceived agreement with his opinions to further your juvenile bombasticism. We are not generally stupid here and resent your assertions that we are. If you want to gain a favorable hearing among informed, sincere folk, try not being such an overbearing pr1ck.

Mogami tries to tell me lots of stuff. Most of it's hogwash. He also is not above resort to ad hominem when that suits his purpose. When I have tried to get him to focus on a serious point he soon enough devolves into his "I can beat anyone at a game of UV no matter the scenario so what could be wrong with the model? go find out how to play the game competently before you criticize it" mode.

Mogami has been very patient under your barrage. His calm understanding of the game and friendly counsel about how to play it has been invaluable to many of us who seek "fun," not "self aggrandizement." Why would you attack him in the senseless manner you have when he is not the designer of the game or even an apologist for the designer, but rather, a friend to us all in his candor, his analysis, his sharing of experience, and his deferential camaraderie? Mogami asserts no special place as a player of UV or as a tester of WitP. He merely tries to pass along the lessons learned from his wealth of experience and the insights gained as a tester. He deserves your thanks, not your incessant criticism.

it is "this crowd" that game companies pander to when it comes to simulations.

Skrew you. Not one of the people on these forums is one of some "crowd" as you describe them. We are an eclectic group of people who share one interest - wargaming. One of the primary characteristics of wargamers is a vehement individuality. You have to respect that if you want to get along with any of them. You don't appear to be much of a respectful person. So saw away at the sad tunes of your negativity. We'll all go on and have "fun."

Mogami wrote:Hi, I should add I think, that I do not believe the Japanese were a bunch of chimps flying washing machines and all the allies had to do to defeat them was move an equal number of aircraft in their path.

Everyone knows the material differance between Japan and the USA. Japane could not out build the USA. This resulted in as America expanded a good service with good pilots the Japanese response was to expand their "Excellent" service by adding less then good pilots.

You never get off the dime. The model gets its feet tangled right out of the blocks by adopting an unsupported (and to judge from history errant) belief that all things Japanese military at the start of the war were superior. In fact a very good case might be made that the Japanese military was not only not superior but a collective with lots of inherent deficiencies which would become more apparent and bedevil them more severely as the war marched on.

Until the people who develop this game come to grips with this there is not the slightest hope the model will be subtantially corrected. A model based on false premise never works.

Hi, No not all things Japanese were superior. There is the "Nate"
Those things the Japanese called tanks, Bolt action rifles, gear not designed for the climate the troop was serving in. The idea that setting forrest fires in Washington State could influnece the conduct of the war.
Swords, A system rigid to the point of rigor mortis. Plans that would make Alekhine blush at their complexity, fish heads, Godzilla

But they did have those long lance torpedos, good mortars, a tendancy to remain where you put them (often to the last man) Ability to put things together from nothing, long range (look out where they have air superiorty) Team work, Godzilla, interiour lines. 6 months.

I think the 6 months gets over looked. It's why players take on the job of running the Japanese. Anyone can run the Allies. But for those 6 months you get to do what the allied player can not. (He has to slug his way forward.) For the first 6 months the Japanese player gets to play Naval Blitzkreig and its a lot of fun.

Mogami wrote:I think the 6 months gets over looked. It's why players take on the job of running the Japanese. Anyone can run the Allies. But for those 6 months you get to do what the allied player can not. (He has to slug his way forward.) For the first 6 months the Japanese player gets to play Naval Blitzkreig and its a lot of fun.

I believe you have that right at least.

Tristanjohn wrote:
Now that I think on it you're worse than Mogami. I can at least try to give him the benefit of the doubt (sometimes at least) as not being able to distinguish the difference. With you it's a different story altogether. Now isn't that so?

Listen, Tristanjohn I will say it again I am not picking on you, I have no agenda, my position has always been a simple one.

"I am not getting the kind of results you are reporting." PERIOD.

Specifically, I am consistently getting a combat loss ratio of 1:1 zero vs. F4F and P-40s. Its been my expirence that, Bettys and Nells pose little threat to properly (historically) protected TFs.

What more can I say? I can only go on my personal experience.

I am not sure why you are getting diametrically opposeing results. For my part, I am not gamming the system, I do not do anything particularly special other than follow some simple tenents.

What would be helpful IMHO, would be to ascertain why apparently some players are getting "historical" results while others are not. Then maybe some sort of consensus could be had.

[QUOTE=Mogami]Hi, No not all things Japanese were superior. There is the "Nate" Those things the Japanese called tanks, Bolt action rifles, [\QUOTE]

Actually those bolt action rifles were superior sniper weapons. Their long barrel dissapated muzzel flash, combined with smokeless powder made them almost impossible to detect.