Matrix Games Forums

What Daniel Oskar said.

Drongo - Sorry. I did keep the notes. They were folded up in my copy of Frank. Then my dad, a history teacher with special interest in WW2, visited, read the booke, and did not notice that the notes fell on the floor. Then my son (2) thought they'd look better if they were, well, smaller and more dispersed. Not quite "the dog ate my homework" but pretty close.

So, yes, just Frank and Lundstrom. The numbers in Frank don't correspond to the numbers in Lundstrom perfectly. My original number crunching with Frank's numbers yielded the gross results of about 1:1 F4Fs v A6Ms but I was unable to reliably account for losses of fighters in ground attack or A6Ms waxxed by P39/400s. So I redid the whole thing using Frank's "The 1st Team at Guadalcanal" and treated his remarks on about p16 about the combat loss ratios at Coral Sea and Midway as a free pass not to have to do up the numbers from "The First Team" (the volume that covers only the VF groups). At Cactus, If I remember right, the ratio favored the Japanese in the area of 1.2-1.5:1 but without two big outliers more like 1.1-1.3:1. The total including the p16 proxy for CS-Midway brought the ratio to about 1:1. If you get different numbers post them in detail of course. I never thought I'd be trying to recall it all from memory two years after I figured the case was closed.

TIMJOT wrote:Tristanjohn,

I believe Mdiehl was refering to Mogami's current WitP Alpha aircombat AAR. Hence his statement that the debate may be moot. Unless you are currently playing with Alpha WitP, I do not see the relevance of your posted AAR, within the context of discussing the current WitP aircombat model. Have you had a chance to looked at Mogami's reports?

Good point, TIMJOT. Now please allow me to explain my reasoning as to why AAR posts from UV still strike me as something pertinent to this forum's business.

In the main I've received a steady stream of denial in both this forum and the one devoted to UV with regard to the kinds of results (AARs) most other players of this system experience in PBEM games. After a short while I decided this contradictory feedback could be accounted for only two ways: the reporters either were treating me to sheer nincompoopery or were lying through their teeth. My opinion on this has not changed.

Rationale

There exists a strong element in this forum, within the wargame community at large and throughout life's walks in general which is both stupid of nature and selfish of purpose. This collective is obstructionist and given to anti-intellectual design. If that reads like some crazy horror plot out of Ayn Rand, fine. But that's where it's at.

My purpose here is only to get the game straight, and no matter about the details--for me, this many years down the road, this good end justifies any means. So I don't care if I offend these evil people--they are most certainly evil in my mind--and should others of different stamp and perusasion take collateral offense, as is usually the case and for the reason they're in denial about the very existance of this "evil knot" I speak to, or for the naive reason they believe that just covering their eyes amounts to dealing with "them" or, worst, just don't care and can't be bothered and will kick and scream and try to hurt you if forced to bother, then I say screw them, too.

I'm tired all over from my computer wargames coming to me year after year 1) dumbed down and 2) for all intents and purposes butchered because "well-meaning" know-littles and the Sega set and the "evil knot" and anyone else who lacks reasonably-useable capacity and good intention got their sticky special-interest fingers on the product during development.

Not that I can by my lonesome do much about this, but at least my intention is to try on the theory that once in awhile the altruistic squeaky wheel is greased--not for the reason anyone's worried it might fall off and get lost, mind you, but because they're tired of its uncompromising noise.

But I have to admit, this WitP project has me worried BIG TIME. I knew it would be an uphill battle coming in just glancing at the UV manual--bad bad news always when a manual amounts to gibberish, and the UV is about as bad as I've seen. Within a week of play I'd spotted countless outright errors re ratings and such, and gross inconsistencies within the model's mechanical workings--one function actually working against the next, or a function depicting only part of one combat issue while no corresponding function existied to model the entire "combat truth," etc.; soon I was busy filling a new spiral notebook with my thoughts and impressions on these errors, copious notes on outright omissions and outlines as to how best correct the worst of the blatently-errant modeling of all things World War II in the Pacific in general--and with regard to the latter most especially as it concerned the air module.

Then I arrived here at the Matrix board and was welcomed by the "You're a newbie and we like it this way so just shut up or else" committee. Well, that fazed me not as I expected those people to meet me immediately at the front door--I think of them, when I think of them at all, as our hobby's "red caps." I do admit that when I discovered exactly who's been testing UV/WitP my hope for ultimate improvement sustained a blow, and when the head playtester delivered himself to the incredibly stupid opinion a couple weeks ago (I believe this was on the "Spotting" thread, but whatever) that a swell idea for WitP would be to provide players large maps to mount on their walls at home and mark up with grease pencils in lieu of the game itself providing reasonable sub-displays for the dissemination and analysis of proper and useful spotting information . . . then I knew the worse had come to the worst, that the virtual asylum was being run afterall by the crazy inmates.

Now I can't force a change to any of that. But I can point out the more obvious flaws in the simulation and try to explain why these are flaws (in fact with a significant portion of the market this effort of illustration represents an impossibility, due either to simple disinterest in that level of detailed model study and appraisal or a lack of raw intelligence and/or learning capacity to digest the message) and offer, wherever possible, suggestions as to how one might best improve these broken or otherwise dysfunctional parts of the model-- though all the while I realize fully I must do all this meanwhile the project's principles still resist as strongly as ever any notion whatsoever that the model at base stands in need of fundamental redesign in the first place: always this crowd is in deep denial re the basics.

Make no mistake: this is precisely the initial attitude any direct talk of meaningful change to the simulation in the Matrix forums is greeted with and treated to back at Game Development Central.

Now that's straight, intelligent and based on my 54+ years of life experience, close to the street always, half a century of which has been spent playing and deeply examining these kinds of games, with a full quarter century dilligently devoted to developing, testing and writing professionally about the game systems which go to make up our greater (board and computer) wargame community.

What really gets me about this project WitP (I couldn't care less about UV except as it allows me to "preview" what the former title is likely to look like when completed) is that Gary is as good as it gets.

I will repeat that in slightly different form: Gary Grigsby is the best designer of computer-based wargames ever, and is furthermore, in my considered opinion, one of if not the best designers of recreational software of any brand or stripe since this hobby began twenty-some years ago.

Gary is also the most experienced wargame designer on earth (he and Joel run back to the cradle of commerical computer wargames) and was blessed by God with a tremendous talent for coming up with enjoyable systems for guys like you and I to mess around with in our free time. I doubt there's a computer wargamer anywhere who has not played and enjoyed a Gary Grigsby game. These things are simply the best in the genre (for fun value) and he's designed so many different kinds and types of them as to appeal to virtually the entire potential market, in one manner, shape or form somewhere sometime some way over the years.

If I could fault him it would only be with regard to the historical efficacy of his game sytems, and as I see it Gary only lacks a serious market which demands from him that more attention be paid to the many various details which comprise his simulated games to improve in this area.

[NOTE: Save your collective breath. Yes, I realize that no game will ever be perfect; no, I do not accept this universal truth as a rationale for the state I find UV in.]

There are still people in this forum, TIMJOT, lots of them, more than you could shake a stick at, who will argue to the brink of their graves that there exists no pro-Japanese bias in the UV game system to begin with. In fact, some of these people are so hopelessly unconscious that they will spin right round and then tell anyone with interest that they like the pro-Japanese bias that's actually at the core of the model, this for the reason that it tends to "balance play" for them and make the simulation more "enjoyable" for them, all the while they remain ignorant of the realization that they're only contradicting their own denial on that same subject coming in.

These people of course are hopeless and that's one element I speak to. But I also speak to the "well-measning" set of wargamers of average intelligence who for whatever reason just don't wish to be bothered and will simply "tune out" any negative message as they define that which unpleasantly demands of them to think critically and more unpleasant still actually act proactively on these matters with the purpose to make the game better. This group, the majority always, would much rather sit in pleasant silence and let others rule the scene and thus effectively decide (badly always) what kind of shape these wargames are eventually to be published in.

That, TIMJOT, is why I continue to harp on matters re UV. I harp because I know the same people who were not qualified to get UV right or even close to right (and up to v2.30 at that) are the same people assigned to somehow get WitP right, and that just ain't gonna happen in anyone's lifetime. These people simply don't know what they're doing. Some of these people mean well, others most certainly do not mean well, but regardless of attitudes and agendas and how the stars are aligned in the collective sense this group does not understand the work well enough to get it straight even should the group want to--and I don't stand close to being convinced even of that.

The end result of that horrible mix must be yet another historical wargame "failure" by my lights, though always I realize it will arrive as a "fun game to play" because it's by Gary.

But one more time: I'm tired out all over of that formula. I don't want any more "fun games to play," what I do want this time is a fun game to play which is historically accurate as well, or as historically accurate as Gary is capable to render it.

So sorry, but when I hear that my feedback from UV is passe somehow I know better. Each and every mistake in UV is subject to being carried over into WitP, and even when I hear from Mogami all about how the fatigue has been changed and there are no more double-sweep missions allowed I intuitively cringe before the all-too-ready suspicion that while these mechanics might well indeed have been "changed" there is no guarantee at all they've been corrected. Because the two are not the same.

That's all.

Watch out for those rakes TJ

Couldn't help it...TJ kinda reminds me of Sideshow Bob :p

Mike_B20 wrote:Watch out for those rakes TJ

Couldn't help it...TJ kinda reminds me of Sideshow Bob :p

Hey B20, you ever have something uninflammatory to say to this guy? His post mighjt not appeal to everyone but it sure is written well and I can understand in part anyhow where hes coming from when talks about quality of product--a lost value in the open market these days where i live.

How about if you tone your writing down b20 and write something useful yourself?

Thx.

Boy do I reccognize the feelings you express. I'm 55, and cut my teeth on
the original Gettysburg. And I've moaned for years about the lack of historical
accuracy in games. But I've also seen Board games that have been "grognard-
ified" enough to be close to accurate---and they are almost impossible to play
or find opponants for. Computer games seemed the ideal "cure" for this, as the
programming could take on the time-consuming and paper-intensive accounting
tasks, and let the players handle the tactics and strategy. But to gain a big
enough market share to be economically viable, they also have to cater to the
"Fanboy/Shooter" market to some extent. Annoying, but if we want the games
at all, it has to be delt with.

One of the biggest reasons I suggested that WITP needed to be TWO games
in another thread was so the 'Base" game could be as historically accurate as
possible for US..., and a "What If" set of scenarios could be built on top of that
system giving the Japanese more and better "toys" to play with to keep those
who want a "balanced" game happy. Of course, I got shredded over the issue
of "limited programming time" and "you can re-design the scenarios yourself".
But I got shredded politely, and without being called the anti-christ or having
my mother's morals called into account. I find a number of your basic points to
have merit---but in your frustration the whole thing has too often degenerated
into "my Dad (or favorite author) can lick your Dad (or reference work); and
even to "Your Mama swims out to meet troopships..." Now when people see
your posts, half of them skip over and the other half trot out their insult
references. You're NOT getting through to these people with your arguments;
they're being lost in the verbage.

You also seem to have some truely abysmal luck as the Allies. I've had some
bad times playing them in UV (does the phrase "If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have
no luck at all" sound familiar?), but nothing as consistantly bad as you describe.
There may be something as yet unidentified about the way you are testing/
playing that is contributing to this. Of course, I happen to believe that the
Japanese should have a bit of an edge in the first 6 months or so to reflect
the suprise value they achieved. Most Westerners had a very prejudiced view
of them before the war, Those who bothered to think about their air forces at
all generally viewed them as a bunch of funny-looking little squirts in Coke-bottle
glasses flying obsolete knock-offs of Western-designed aircraft---probably made
of paper-machet. Three months after the war started, they were 8 feet tall,
and probably Germans flying German designed airplanes (Still got that racist
edge). Six months into the war reality started bubbling to the top of the pot.
They were well-trained Japanese aircrews flying home-grown designs with some
remarkable features (particularly in range and manueverability)---but they were
NOT supermen, and the aircraft had weaknesses that could be exploited. They
were good, but so were we. And we could design tactics to deal with their
strengths and maximize their weaknesses. As it turned out, they couldn't
produce aircraft or pilots fast enough to deal with us and our new tactics and
by the end of 1942 the handwriting was already on the wall. But for the game
to "feel" right, the Allied player has to get a taste of "8 feet tall" sometime in
the early going. On the basis of history, maybe this shouldn't apply to the US
Carrier pilots, who did fairly well in stand-up fights like Coral Sea and were
lucky as well as good at Midway. But regardless of statistics, the Allied player
needs a shock and a scare in the beginning to catch the "spirit" of the time.

Mostly what this FORUM needs is a calm response to incendiary posts.
Those who substitute insult for inquiry generally reveal themselves in short
order and get ignored by the majority. By "wading into the fray" with them,
you lesson the effect of the points you want to make. Validity is lost in
verbage..., AND NOBODY WINS!

"In the main I've received a steady stream of denial in both this forum and the one devoted to UV with regard to the kinds of results (AARs) most other players of this system experience in PBEM games. After a short while I decided this contradictory feedback could be accounted for only two ways: the reporters either were treating me to sheer nincompoopery or were lying through their teeth. My opinion on this has not changed."

Hi, Would it not be both silly and a waste of time for anyone to deny results if they WERE WHAT MOST PLAYERS EXPERIENCED? If the majority of UV players thought the game a complete silly bias waste of time we would not need your voice crying out in the wilderness about it. I've went back over all the posts in the "US Bias" and "US Bias Cont" threads. In your very first post (somewhere around page 18) (before anyone had directed a post at you) You bashed the play testers.
We had several exchanges before I became a target. (I had the gall to state "I don't get those results" I didn't say you were not getting them, only that I did not get them. I said I didn't have a problem with the game and I liked it. At the time I thought you didn't know how to play and were asking for help. I swear I would never have replied had I known of your Holy Mission to save UV/WITP. You have to admit the Matrix boards are more active then the Breakaway Waterloo boards were. Did they ever fix that game to your liking?
If you do not accept the fact the basic engine already exists then you might as well part company. Because it is not going to be done away with.
Now I share your concern for history. But you must face the reality that where history remains in dispute the designers will "balance" things. This might be a pro Japanese bias (because any thing that balances the war will in the end favour the Japanese. )

The pilot ratings reflect what the designer believes to be the historical fact.
I think the general tone of your posts have somewhat cooled the interest of the programmers. (I know I began eager to exchange ideas and have since discarded that notion, you don't want to exchange ideas because you think you are the keeper of the holy flame of truth and do not need a second opinion.

You really should have entered the conversation after winning as both sides. People don't assume your a whinner if your talking about making it harder to win rather then crying cause you lost a ship or some airplanes.

I thought you were a cry baby at first but I long ago realized your a crusader without a cause. This is not WWW.EXACTHISTORYSIMULATION.COM This site has 'Games' as part of it's name.

I am beginning to find that even the most hardcore defender of Allied skill accepts 1-1 ratios as being what the early encounters should produce (in as much as these early encounters can be reproduced.) In the old UV thread we did the test you asked and you still refused to accept the results (even when they were 100 percent match to historical)

Drop the charade please. You are not concerned with the future of war-gaming or the accuracy of UV/WITP. You just like the forum conflict. Anyone who cares can go read you posting the exact same things on other boards 2-3 years ago. (They even comment how you never have anything good to say back in May 2001) Your tendancy to mis-report things, use bugs to illustrate faults with engine. Throw your units into exposed positions and then say "that never happened in history" And even report the program working as intended as bugs (The no fly complaint where I had to stop my normal testing to check your reporting missions being flown into no fly zones only to find they were recon missions and manual says weather only effects offensive missions) (so you had not even read the manual or updates but critise them as well) All demonstrate you have no interest in improving anything. I can tell......You never ask "How does it work?" But always "It is broken, stupid worthless" You use words like "suspect" "imagine" "guess" and "based on other games by Gary" You say you like the games, that they are fun, but Gary can do better. (With only a little extra effort) Go learn code and come back and explain little extra effort in program this size. Better yet to prove you are sincere just buy WITP for $2,000,000 (or what ever they decide)and make Gary do it just the way you want. You take the risk. You make the desisions. You say what gets in and what stays out. You do all the testing.

There is a word. 'Constructive' When you are trying to get another human being to modify their actions it is best to offer them a 'constructive' alternative.
Please make all the suggestions you want. Go back and read all your posts and then repeat that you have been constructive. A person does not have to use bad words to be rude. They do not have to be crude. I think it is easy to see that you made statments concerning the actions and motives of other people here before anyone ever addressed a post at you.

Peter Weir wrote:Hey B20, you ever have something uninflammatory to say to this guy? His post mighjt not appeal to everyone but it sure is written well and I can understand in part anyhow where hes coming from when talks about quality of product--a lost value in the open market these days where i live.

How about if you tone your writing down b20 and write something useful yourself?

Thx.

What are you...the sole member of the TJ Fan Club and Protection Society?
Congrats TJ...looks like you've successfully tagged, roped and corralled at least one of the smelly, unwashed into your TJ Freerange Animal Sanctuary.

Peter how about you quit acting like TJ's big sister and provide something useful yourself?
My gripe with TJ has nothing to do with TJ's writing style (which is generally pretty good) but more to do with his generally long suffering and superior air...and the accompanying ignorance.
Writing well does not give one the right to be an arrogant twat.

Well said

I still say TJ is very much like a notorious space-sim designer who will remain nameless ..........

Exactly what I was trying to get across to him in post 105---though I haven't
your experiance in one on one debate with TJ. He's reached the point where
even when he has a valad point, no one wants to hear it. And has never
been willing to offer a workable alternative.

You and I have gone a round or two (and will probably do so again), but neither
found it necessary to ridicule the other (even when you were completely wrong)
People can disagree strongly, and probably always will. But to learn to be
civilized about it has taken most of mankind's existance---and we ain't there
yet.

Mike Scholl wrote:Boy do I reccognize the feelings you express. I'm 55, and cut my teeth on
the original Gettysburg. And I've moaned for years about the lack of historical
accuracy in games. But I've also seen Board games that have been "grognard-
ified" enough to be close to accurate---and they are almost impossible to play
or find opponants for. Computer games seemed the ideal "cure" for this, as the
programming could take on the time-consuming and paper-intensive accounting
tasks, and let the players handle the tactics and strategy. But to gain a big
enough market share to be economically viable, they also have to cater to the
"Fanboy/Shooter" market to some extent. Annoying, but if we want the games
at all, it has to be delt with.

One of the biggest reasons I suggested that WITP needed to be TWO games
in another thread was so the 'Base" game could be as historically accurate as
possible for US..., and a "What If" set of scenarios could be built on top of that
system giving the Japanese more and better "toys" to play with to keep those
who want a "balanced" game happy. Of course, I got shredded over the issue
of "limited programming time" and "you can re-design the scenarios yourself".
But I got shredded politely, and without being called the anti-christ or having
my mother's morals called into account. I find a number of your basic points to
have merit---but in your frustration the whole thing has too often degenerated
into "my Dad (or favorite author) can lick your Dad (or reference work); and
even to "Your Mama swims out to meet troopships..." Now when people see
your posts, half of them skip over and the other half trot out their insult
references. You're NOT getting through to these people with your arguments;
they're being lost in the verbage.

You also seem to have some truely abysmal luck as the Allies. I've had some
bad times playing them in UV (does the phrase "If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have
no luck at all" sound familiar?), but nothing as consistantly bad as you describe.
There may be something as yet unidentified about the way you are testing/
playing that is contributing to this. Of course, I happen to believe that the
Japanese should have a bit of an edge in the first 6 months or so to reflect
the suprise value they achieved. Most Westerners had a very prejudiced view
of them before the war, Those who bothered to think about their air forces at
all generally viewed them as a bunch of funny-looking little squirts in Coke-bottle
glasses flying obsolete knock-offs of Western-designed aircraft---probably made
of paper-machet. Three months after the war started, they were 8 feet tall,
and probably Germans flying German designed airplanes (Still got that racist
edge). Six months into the war reality started bubbling to the top of the pot.
They were well-trained Japanese aircrews flying home-grown designs with some
remarkable features (particularly in range and manueverability)---but they were
NOT supermen, and the aircraft had weaknesses that could be exploited. They
were good, but so were we. And we could design tactics to deal with their
strengths and maximize their weaknesses. As it turned out, they couldn't
produce aircraft or pilots fast enough to deal with us and our new tactics and
by the end of 1942 the handwriting was already on the wall. But for the game
to "feel" right, the Allied player has to get a taste of "8 feet tall" sometime in
the early going. On the basis of history, maybe this shouldn't apply to the US
Carrier pilots, who did fairly well in stand-up fights like Coral Sea and were
lucky as well as good at Midway. But regardless of statistics, the Allied player
needs a shock and a scare in the beginning to catch the "spirit" of the time.

Mostly what this FORUM needs is a calm response to incendiary posts.
Those who substitute insult for inquiry generally reveal themselves in short
order and get ignored by the majority. By "wading into the fray" with them,
you lesson the effect of the points you want to make. Validity is lost in
verbage..., AND NOBODY WINS!

My first response (Has anyone else noticed how funky and twitchy this forum software is at times? For instance, at the moment I can't use my DEL key and the only way to erase a character or go back a space is to use the BACKSPACE key. And no it's not my keyboard or computer or DSL connection because I've tested this on other forums where everything works correctly. Bad luck indeed! ) was to cut you off short, but that would not not be fair considering the time and thought you put into your reply, Mike. So I guess I'll try another tack.

Re "no luck at all" I not only am old enough to remember the saying I'm old enough to remember the song!

Part of this perception you might have, though, is based on the fact that I only bother to report the system's worst anomolies (most extreme results) and skip over results which strike me as reasonable--I'll hold off in that regard if I feel it's just an aberrant result or two, but after I've seen numerous "occasional aberrations" then I know it's the model that's misbehaving in an unacceptable fashion.

With regard to the air module, what I also have noted (and I find this to be significant) is that at no time early in the game (call that anywhere on the time line prior to 1943) based on my five partial PBEM experiences to date have I seen these same extreme aberrational results in favor of the Allies--these only seem to crop up in favor of the Japanese.

Sorry, but I know exactly what I'm talking about in this instance. The system is dead wrong and it's dead wrong for the sole reason Gary designed it to be dead wrong, just like every other "Pacific" he's written without exception.

I read your article (it was good enough to call that in my estimation) about the dualistically-natured game and I agree this would amount to a reasonable approach. In fact it's been done before successfully. The reply you were treated to amounted to no more than a brushoff. My only criticism of your effort is that you did not choose to follow this up with hard questions as to why you were being brushed off. Afterall, your point was well taken, there was nothing caustic in your manner or approach, and you are overmore a paying customer on this board.

Yet they didn't even bother to give you lip service. I invite you to think about that.

As for my approach, which certainly is direct and more than a little confrontational if and when I'm met with that sort of attitude by others: I learned a long time ago that pleasantly mouthing "yassur" to these people doesn't get it done. I've tried every way I know to write "persuasively" but it never bears fruit, I've even tried lurking in threads of this kind on various company boards (indeed, I did just that for the best part of two years here, off and on, waiting for something of interest to happen) and keeping my big mouth shut, not wishing to "rock the boat," I've donated my time as a playtester going back years, I've writen for a number of industry publications along the way on a number of topics, to include game reviews (and admittedly got paid for this work--nothing volunteer about that but at least I kept my hand in and what I wrote was meant to be constructive, made sense on balance and was authored for the good of the hobby as a whole, not some personal agenda I held), all of which effort has been, effectively and this many moons down the old crusade trail . . . a huge waste of my time.

Why?

I'll tell you why.

Because "well-meaning" people just like you, Mike, who know better and are actually equipped to articulate their concerns, refuse to stand up at the end of the day and do what is necessary to do: demand something better. Instead, I hear "But it's necessary economically speaking to dumb this stuff down for the idiots."

That's no more than a pathetic echo of what Joel Billings has spoon-fed this unthinking hobby and marketplace since I can remember and is precisely why Fighting Steel came DOA, precisely why Gary's original design concept for Pacific War (yes, my children, PW was first intended to be what WitP is threatening to become only Joel told Gary it just wouldn't fly--I mean who in his right mind would play it?) was given a haircut, is precisely why a decade later you and those like you are being brushed off in such a cavalier manner . . . and has quite a bit to do with why you people take it: because "you" refuse to stand up.

For myself, I know better. I know that black is not white, I know that up is not down, I know that in is not out. I also know that "the idiots" will indeed buy WitP even though it might come accurately rendered, for you see "the idiots" don't know the difference to start with and in any event "the idiots" have no other gaming choice. And so "the idiots" will buy it. Or would buy it if it were only made available, but of course unless "you" people stand up for once in your lives and demand that sort of quality product it won't be made available.

That's why.

For the rest of it, and for whatever it's worth, Mike, I didn't write what I've written to offend you, but I'm just not any good at slapping happy faces on sour truth. You seem like good people and should we ever meet up I'd be happy to buy the first beer. But I'm not here to affect happy and convenient gaming compromise; I'm here to get Gary to make his game better, not worse.

:rolleyes:

I have previously sworn that I would never, under any circumstances, use the *rolleyes* doodad but OMG, at this juncture it is thoroughly appropriate.

For God's sake guys, this is a G A M E.

The way Mike and TJ are writing, you'd think the future of mankind was at stake.
Christ, after the last thesis by TJ, it was all I could do to stop myself bursting into tears.

Thank you for taking the time to provide a reasoned explanation for your
posting style. I still think it counter-productive, but I can full well reccognize
the territory it's coming from. I've thought of other players as "the idiots" and
worse from time to time..., and we have a few posters on this site I think of
as "Axis Fanboys" in their enthusiasm to believe in various misconceptions. But
I just don't see expressing those feelings in print as productive. They produce
unreasoned vindictive for the most part, and generally end up with the loss of
the entire point of the discussion. Either they will get it or they won't---but
I think YELLING generally contributes to the latter.

And I'm fully aware that MOGAMI "brushed me off" in my request---but as
his posts are gererally informative and seldom vindictive, I put it down to the
fact that I hadn't gotten my point across clearly. I'm egotistical enough to
believe that if I can actually explain clearly the point I'm trying to make that
others will just naturally accept the "wonderfulness of me and my suggestion."
Can't say it works all (or even most) of the time, but I can always bring the
subject up again in a different post or thread and try again because the
subject hasn't become associated in anyone's mind with a bunch of hurtful
insults.

So I'll continue to bring up problems (or what I percieve as problems) in my
way and leave the verbal battles to you. "Go get 'em" if you must---and I'll
continue to try to be one of the bastards who "wears 'em down". I will buy
WITP because I like the scale of the attempt. Just as I never bought or
played PACIFIC WAR because the reviews revealed the sillyness you mentioned.
But, as Mogami pointed out, I can always change this if I get to aggrivated at
the designer's choices. UV is almost playable thanks to continued griping, and
may actually make it when the WITP upgrades are retrofitted. Will it ever be
perfect? NO. Will WITP? NO. Will Life? NO. But we gotta keep tryin', cause
the alternative is worse. And I wish you "happy battlin'".

Hi, I'm sorry if I brushed you off. I lose track of all the issues I am trying to keep up with. All requests made by players go onto the "feature wish list"
Then if they can be added (programmers call) they get dealt with as time permits. I am not the one who decides what does and what does not get included. Everything asked for gets put on list.

(maybe someday we can get Kid to post the full wish list)

I don't think John...I mean TristanJohn has been fully honest as to his motives for appearing on the Matrix boards. His latest rant against Joel Billings provides a little insight.

Mogami wrote:Hi, I'm sorry if I brushed you off. I lose track of all the issues I am trying to keep up with. All requests made by players go onto the "feature wish list"
Then if they can be added (programmers call) they get dealt with as time permits. I am not the one who decides what does and what does not get included. Everything asked for gets put on list.

(maybe someday we can get Kid to post the full wish list)

I don't think John...I mean TristanJohn has been fully honest as to his motives for appearing on the Matrix boards. His latest rant against Joel Billings provides a little insight.

I understood your reasoning and response in the "brush-off" incident---palyers
tend to want everything, and want it now. You were telling me that there is
only so much that 2by3 can work on and still get the game out before we all
die of old age---and you were offering me "an olive branch" in the form of a
design-your-own feature. I was trying to make the point that there seem to
be two audiences for the product, and offer up what I felt was the easiest
solution for 2by3 to produce a product that would appeal to both. I was
obviously failing to make this point, so I dropped it (at the time). And here it
is again. Hopefully I at least got a "seed" planted, and Joel and the gang will
talk it over with the rest of the "I wants". I hope KID will publish the "wish list"
sometime too. It would be nice to see what's under consideration...

If I may interject. Can we please stop all this useless re-hashing, tit for tat, ad-nauseum?

Below are Mogami's posted aircombat test results for the first month of the war. Isnt this what we should be discussing? Does anyone find anything seriously wrong with the results so far? Personally, other than perhaps the pace of ops and a few minor OOB descrepencies, I find the results very encourageing.

1/6/42
-------
Air to Air 61-57
DOG 266-0
AA 62-46
Ops 147-74

Aircraft lost in Air to Air by type

A5M4x1
A6M2x14
D3Ax1
B5Nx1
G4M1x3
Ki-27x9
Ki-43-Ibx1
Ki-48x7
Ki-15x1
G3Mx18
Ki-21x1

Swordfishx5
Wirrawayx1
Hawk75Ax2
CW-21B Demonx3
Brewster 339Dx9
Buffalo-Ix3
Blenhiem-Ix1
Blenheim-IVx5
Martin 139x8
Hudsen-Ix5
P-26Ax1
P-36Ax4
P-40Bx13
P-40Ex1

ONE This thread has wandered way off the track, and I appologise for my part
in that, and...

TWO Mogami's figures do give cause for encouragement that the system can
produce viable results.

Thanks for pulling on the reins....

mdiehl wrote:I see nothing to question about your findings based on what I know. That all seems roughly consistent with the things that I've read and with my overall impression of the circumstances in which the P40 and A6M were engaged for the first half year of the war. I'd be interested in the breakdowns of your loss ratios by theater if you can do that.
.

Mdiehl,

I apologize for the delay. Unfortunately I too misplaced much of my notes, but here is a brief overview.

Air to air combat results P-40 vs Zeke in first 3 months of war.

Philipines
---------

(Dec 8, 41)

9 P-40s to 3 Zekes

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

(Dec 10, 41)

11 P-40s to 5 Zekes

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

Total = 20 P-40s lost vs. 8 Zekes

(results do not include Zekes that failed to make it back safely to Formosa or P-40s that made it back to base but were write-offs.)

After the Dec 10th organized interception was ceased and for all practical purposes head to head encounters between P-40s and Zekes.
-----------------------------------


Java is much more difficult to discern, particularly attributeing Zeke losses, but P-40 losses though are fairly definitive.


Java
------

16 P-40s loss in air to air vs. Zeke out of a total of 38 deployed.

17th Pursuit Provisional (records) claimed 18 Zekes
F1 Tinian records ( the only unit operateing Zekes over Java) 10 Zekes lost in ALL combat over Java. Three of which were positively confirmed destroyed by AA over Surabaya on Feb 20, 1942.


Australia (Darwin)
-------

Darwin as I know you are familiar with, is well documented.

9 P-40s lost vs 2 Zekes



Regards

Early on in this thread there was some dispute as to the performance of the F4F vs the A6M2. Well after much digging I have pulled together some detailed performance data, the forum can decide which aircraft they prefer. Enjoy.

Max Level Speed:
A6M2: 282mph@SL 331mpg@14,930'
F4F-4: 274mph@SL 320mph@18,800'

Best rate of climb:
A6M2: 3150fpm
F4F-4: 1950fpm

Power/wt ratio:
A6M2: 5.7lb/hp
F4F-4: 6.5lb/hp

Wing Loading:
A6M2: 22lb/sqft
F4F-4: 29.9lb/sqft

Sustained Turn rate in deg/sec:
1000' 10000' 15000'
A6M2 27 22 20
F4F-4 21 20 17

Initial Turn rate in deg/sec:
1000' 10000' 15000'
A6M2 40 35 31
F4F-4 33 31 28

Best turn Radius:
initial sustained sustained turning airspeed
A6M2 291' 339' 110mph
F4F-4 369' 519' 125mph

Roll Rate in deg/sec:
150mph 200mph 250mph 300mph 350mph
A6M2 73 61 52 24 17
F4F-4 61 67 72 64 49

I was unable to get hard numbers on the following parameters, but can give an edge to one of the two aircraft:

VNo (never exceed speed): advantage wildcat
Pitch Rate: advantage zero
Climb Angle: advantage zero

mdiehl wrote: Drongo - Sorry. I did keep the notes. They were folded up in my copy of Frank. Then my dad, a history teacher with special interest in WW2, visited, read the booke, and did not notice that the notes fell on the floor. Then my son (2) thought they'd look better if they were, well, smaller and more dispersed. Not quite "the dog ate my homework" but pretty close.

So, yes, just Frank and Lundstrom. The numbers in Frank don't correspond to the numbers in Lundstrom perfectly. My original number crunching with Frank's numbers yielded the gross results of about 1:1 F4Fs v A6Ms but I was unable to reliably account for losses of fighters in ground attack or A6Ms waxxed by P39/400s. So I redid the whole thing using Frank's "The 1st Team at Guadalcanal" and treated his remarks on about p16 about the combat loss ratios at Coral Sea and Midway as a free pass not to have to do up the numbers from "The First Team" (the volume that covers only the VF groups). At Cactus, If I remember right, the ratio favored the Japanese in the area of 1.2-1.5:1 but without two big outliers more like 1.1-1.3:1. The total including the p16 proxy for CS-Midway brought the ratio to about 1:1. If you get different numbers post them in detail of course. I never thought I'd be trying to recall it all from memory two years after I figured the case was closed.

Thanks.

I'd already noted that Frank and Lundstrom had some discrepancies.

IMO, I don't think it's totally appropriate to rely solely on these 2 sources if the intention is to go beyond the "shot down in combat" and on to the area of total fighter v fighter "kills" relating from air to air (shot down, crashed on return from combat damage and written off from combat damage). Neither author set out to definitively cover losses of that nature. We are just lucky that they give the detail that they do.

For relevance to the experience question, my intention was to focus on the period of Aug-Sept '42 when the Tainan airgroup was the main opponent for the F4F's around Guadalcanal. The relevance will come from seeing just what an acknowledged group of "high experience" pilots did achieve/not achieve.

The supplemental info needed for this exercise will (hopefully) come from contact with groups specialising in WWII records and archaeology. I'll also try some of my contacts with the Australian War Memorial.

By the time I've got the info, this thread will probably be dead and buried but I'm fairly sure another (similar) one will be raging at that point.

Cheers