Mogami wrote:Hi, I have ran my test 10 times. (scen 14 is the same as scen 7 on turn 1. The only difference between these scenarios is #7 ends on Dec 31 42 and #14 runs to Dec 43) This is the test you say does not count even though it is exactly the same as TMJOT's test.
So far the IJN have not sank a single USN ship. I use 1 CV as LCAP over Lunga 1 CV flys CAP over the aircombat TF and 1 CV stays ready to escort any strikes.
If I drop the LCAP then the Japanese double or triple their results.
Try it yourself a few times.
Are we waiting for 1 test where the Japanese sink more then 1 transport so we can prove the UV model is broken?
In the past there have been posters who thought the Japanese were too powerfull. After examination it was learned they had the game settings set to hard. Make sure you use the normal (historic) setting.
(This also increases the effect of allied ac when you are playing Japan)
All of my complaints so far have been based on PBEM play, Mogami, and that's at least the second time I've told you that.
I ran a similar test a month or so ago playing head to head and found exactly the opposite result as you and TIMJOT now claim. That's curious, but so be it. (In that test I just used the startup for "Hard Road Ahead" and placed all Japanese bombers on standby until the USN TFs were in place. Bad weather then forced me to wait three additional turns until the Japanese could adequately spot these TFs and attack them. I don't have that AAR saved but the casualties were something like one AP sunk, several more hit by torpedoes, but as I recall the damage wasn't that severe, a couple more than once, and one DD took very heavy damage. One of those hits on APs might well have been on one of the AKs in the TF instead, but the general result was the same. Also, in the test fewer Bettys actually sortied than was the case historically, and with a smaller escort to boot.)
As I told you, so far my work with the provided editor in
UV has been unfruitful to the extent that I can't even get the Japanese planes based at Rabaul to sortie most of the time, and the only attacks they've launched have been port raids on Port Moresby. (That alone ought to clue someone in to the miserable state of the AI--does anyone know if Grigsby has bucked up the AI for this simulation with even modest scripts to handle this sort of stuff?--but I agree that's not the subject of our investigation here so I'll let that one ride.)
The largest, most worrying discrepency I've noted in the air model, however, isn't in these sorts of LBA but in clashes between CV TFs, where within my experience the Japanese have
always come out so far ahead it's hilarious. In these examples what really strikes me are the many fewer hits on Japanese CVs which might be expected by the USN dive-bombers. I also note that Japanese flak is more effective against USN planes than the other way around, which is another historical oddity. I cited, casually, the statistics from my PBEM play some time ago, probably in the parent thread. Indeed, the one time I sunk a Japanese carrier it was against z-e-r-o CAP (my opponent screwed up his settings) but after the damage done by Japanese flak and the abysmal hit-ratio of the dive-bombers the USN still recorded just two hits. (Those were on
Zuikaku, which later sank.)
I also advised you at the time that I'd be perfectly willing to give you the email address of my PBEM opponet so that you might verify my statements, get his side of the story, both re the PBEM encounter and his impressions of the
UV model. You have, so far, neglected to take me up on this offer.
All in all, in my PBEM play my carrier planes have only t-w-i-c-e recorded hits on enemy carriers in pretty much even fights, meanwhile I've watched my carrier forces outright slaughtered. The third time I got a hit on a Japanese flattop was from a P-39 strike off Rossel during an invasion by the IJN, this on a CVL.
Go read those again if you can't remember.
Mostly what I get from play experience is that Grigsby still has the air model skewed toward the Japanese in the early part of the game, which mirrors the game dynamics of
Pacific War to a T. Same same,
deju vu all over again and like that.
I appreciate your effort, Mogami, I really do.
As for the Japanese air model: all I've seen thus far in play tells me it's off by quite a bit. Same for the USN model, but in the other direction. But I'll tell you this. If and when I find evidence that this is not the case I'll be the first to say I was wrong, and I won't be bashful about it. And that is without a doubt more than you might expect from others around here.
I'll post an AAR from a test on this end when I can.
By the way, yesterday or the day before you made some snide remark about there not being any IJN vs. Allied naval surface actions before May 1942 to take a sample from. Of course you were dead wrong, and no, I'm not doing any more leg work for you people today.
Most of that same post, moreover, represented yet another
ad hominem argument on your part, Mogami. That's not considered acceptable behavior in educated circles of debate. It is, in fact,
anti-intellectual behavior. Why don't you do a search on
ad hominem and find out what this means in its many different (and objectionable) forms. Trust me, you'll be a better man for the exercise.
