USN air combat data from Office of Naval Intelligence

[Tristanjohn]

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.

I don't wish to beat a dead horse to death, Mike, but if you're right and nothing good's happening with regard to game development anyway then where's the loss?

Soooo . . . let me ask you this: what harm could my writing the truth do in the face of this forum's stark reality?

I'll rephrase that. What "damage" could my writing do in the face of such nitwits as B20?

Or Pasternaksi?

Or Mogami, for that matter? Let's just take the latter character as our working example here.

I wasn't in this forum a week before some imbecile suggested that I'd never become a "hero" like Mogami was in his eyes (I swear to God, Mike, I fielded just such a post and I am not misinterpreting the spirit its message an iota) should I continue to write critically of UV.

Now please, explain to me if you can what possible recourse, of rational nature, other than to simply fold one's tent and move on to happier rug-selling hunting grounds, might a roving Omar of my kind have at his poor disposal when treated to such lunacy?

And this isn't a shot at Mogami--I mean he isn't awful bright but that's on God and he does overall mean well and seems to be clever enough to at least figure out "winning strategies" in the game so I'd guess there's a use for him in the project somewhere--but rather a question of more encompassing concern regarding this froum as a whole.

I once called this place a zoo. Do you have a better descriptive term for what goes down here? It's certainly animal-like and not at all enlightened.

And does your suggestion to me to employ "better communication skills" imply that I'm supposed to wink at this behavior?

Should I pretend that the forum audience is adult of nature and actually paying attention to informed discussion when in fact I know that this is not the case?

Is that how you personally get through the day's endless routine of similar "forum" experience?

At no point on life's shifting sands are you willing to draw a line over which you will not allow an interloper to step? Or do not wish to tred yourself?

There just are no limits to what you will accept behavior-wise from humanity?

Or do you keep these limits, if they exist, secret to yourself, afraid to reveal them? And if so are these really limits then, I mean limits outside your imagination, limits you can truly live with, in respect of and out of accordance to?

The message I get here is that "unpleasantness" of a critical nature just isn't to be tolerated in public, and that it's not only okay to dumb down not just game software but human behavior in general to the lowest acceptable level but that this is something veritably demanded, and the people who spout this are not prepared to listen to counter-reason because that in and of itself would be considered a "critical unpleasantness" of this new social standard and so must be avoided at any and all cost, this to include the exclusion of the inherent right of any individual to think for himself as intelligently as his maker allows: that is to say, it comes to pass that "for the good of all" it is now required to think "pleasantly," and not to think "pleasantly" for oneself mind you but for the group and always at some lower more "pleasant" and "acceptable" level; meanwhile stupid behavior, because it is common behavior, is held to be not only quite "acceptable" but the "New and Improved!" desirable standard, no matter that this comes in the actual form of "vindictiveness."

That's the message I get.

But please tell me I'm mistaken. Cuz that ain't one happy message here, if you want to know, in fact it depresses me all over.

Here's another thought, Mike: you wrote above, essentially, that what I write causes vindictive response. You couldn't be more wrong. What I write doesn't "cause" anything at all. People cause things to happen, words do not. Words affect people in various way, but people are always responsible for their own actions. Any other take on that is utterly irresponsible.

[Mike Scholl]

Leave it to an Aussie to have a different view. What had he flown before?
Gladiators? Vildebeasts? The general thread of all the accounts I've read
begins with "This is a swell little airplane and I'm lucky to be flying it" through
a couple of tangles with the Japanese and comes out "it's suicide to fly a
Brewster against a Zero---whoever sent us up in them ought to be shot!"

I'm glad you have some idea about what is causing the consistantly high
losses on both sides. I mentioned before that the "self-preservation instinct"
didn't seem to be present in the programming during one-sided slaughters.
Looks like the "even" variety also feature comic book heroes on both sides.
Hopefully they will get it under control, or there will be an awful lot of empty
airfields on the WITP Map.

[Tristanjohn]

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.

With that, believe it or not, I agree. Mogami strikes me as a "good guy" and moreover has served his country, an item I pay handsome respect to, and so I'm convinced if we met outside the forum, and assuming he didn't tumble to who I actually was , then we'd likely get along all right.

As for getting one's points across: again, I write solely for Gary in this forum. "Getting my points across" to some of these people isn't part of my program. Now I love to discuss stuff of this nature with those who take the time to research their positions, and I'm always learning, if only from my own research in support of ideas I've put forth, so in that respect an open disccussion with any and all is always welcomed here. But by and large I'm concerned with Gary, not the forum.

[Tristanjohn]

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.

As will I.

Just as I never bought or
played PACIFIC WAR because the reviews revealed the sillyness you mentioned.

Pacific War still breaks my heart. If you happen to have access to a 5.25" drive I could send you the old beta of PW with 12-hour turns and you could see for yourself just how dekcuf up that project became due to Joel's insensible meddling. Then you'd cry, too.

But, as Mogami pointed out, I can always change this if I get to aggrivated at
the designer's choices.

It remains to be seen what will be changeable and not. Also, data isn't the only dynamic in play--if it were that easy I wouldn't be here as there'd exist no need.

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'".

Thanks. Best to you, too, always.

[Tristanjohn]

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.

An ignorant statement re Billings so mainly I'll let it pass.

As for my honesty: one personal trait I've always been accorded by even my most stringent detractors is that I write precisely what I mean regardless of consequence. And if you possessed an ounce of sense and smidgen-better reading ability you'd recognize that for yourself.

[mogami]

Hi, A view at sustained combat. 5xDaitai versus 7 USN/USMC groups After 7 days The Daitai are need of rest. The USN/USMC can still put up fresh groups


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

A6M2 Zero x 54

F4F-4 Wildcat x 31

4xF4F-4
3xA6M2


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/02/42

A6M2 Zero x 54

F4F-4 Wildcat x 36

3xF4F-4
2xA6M2

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/03/42 (US puts up another group)

A6M2 Zero x 53

F4F-4 Wildcat x 49

11xF4F-4
11xA6M2

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/04/42

A6M2 Zero x 50

F4F-4 Wildcat x 47

6xF4F-4
6xA6M2

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/05/42

A6M2 Zero x 50

F4F-4 Wildcat x 51

3xF4F-4
10xA6M2


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/06/42

A6M2 Zero x 48

F4F-4 Wildcat x 42

9xF4F-4
1xA6M2

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/07/42

A6M2 Zero x 39

F4F-4 Wildcat x 39

8xF4F-4
5xA6M2

[mdiehl]

Those cas. ratios seem to excessively favor the Japanese in comparison with real expectable results, independently of the number of aircraft engaged. There's definitely something wrong with Matrix model here. But without holding a whole bunch of things constant it's hard to say. If the EXP values were carried over in proportion to the distorted ones in GGPW, then it is almost a dead certainty that the IJN ones are too high.

Did I miss something in the Buffalo discussion? Wasn't the kill ratio about 2:1 favoring the Japanese? Sounds about right to me.

Tristanjohn, if you're speaking directly to Joel Billings or Grigsby and do not care whether or not the rest of us read your posts why not communicate with them directly?

[TIMJOT]

Leave it to an Aussie to have a different view. What had he flown before?
Gladiators? Vildebeasts? The general thread of all the accounts I've read
begins with "This is a swell little airplane and I'm lucky to be flying it" through
a couple of tangles with the Japanese and comes out "it's suicide to fly a
Brewster against a Zero---whoever sent us up in them ought to be shot!"

Exactly, my thoughts Mike, I believe the UK Buff pilots were flying Tigermoth bi-planes prior to getting there new Buffs and if he escaped Singapore their next plane was probably a Wirraway. So you would have to take the opinion with grain of salt. Although to be fair I have read other accounts; Pappy Boyington for example was of the opinion that the F2A was a hot a/c before modifications that added armour, amourment and SS tanks made it a dog. That being said in hindsite the Buffs might have been better off without the mods since their opponents were fighting without the luxury of armour and self sealing tanks anyway.

[mogami]

An ignorant statement re Billings so mainly I'll let it pass.

As for my honesty: one personal trait I've always been accorded by even my most stringent detractors is that I write precisely what I mean regardless of consequence. And if you possessed an ounce of sense and smidgen-better reading ability you'd recognize that for yourself.

"Try to simulate the Japanese response (in terms of air attacks) to the Guadacanal landing with anything like accuracy as a result. Just try. All I can do is shake my head when I see this stuff in play, then wonder what the test crew was doing with itself, or for that matter who made up that group and what sort of understanding of WWII history it collectively possessed."

Hi The second quote is from your very first post (well the first one I read)

If you recall, TMJOT and myself (and others) did set up the Aug 7th attacks and saw the historic results (well the Japanese lost the historic numbers the USN loss less)

You should know, (or should have found out before opening your mouth) That UV 2.30 reflects changes made by the customers. Not bug fixes mind you, changes to how the game worked. Added features, and changes to results that had been common for a number of months. So you should blame the customers not Joel or Gary or anyone else. (Gary did not do the changes.)
Whether they correctly reflect the war is another matter. They do produce what the players wanted. (And when used properly do produce good results)

As for your honesty I have came to the opinion that you did not acquire UV and then find problems with it. You acquired it to find problems with it. You have an ax to grind with persons connected to the games development. You should have been more forward with stating this fact.
I can just see PacWar running 12 hour turns on 1992 computers. Did hardware have anything to do with giving it a 'haircut'?

You latch on to any problem posted by someone else and then come on the forum to attack the designers, testers, and anything else. Often because you do not know what you are talking about you use improper play, known bugs, or you simply get it wrong. (The recon/no fly thing)

B-17 disbanding/Withdrawing, Recon, The Bettys being super weapons and then you send me the save and they are attacking damaged ships without CAP.

You try to frighten poster with other opinions much more then anyone else who has ever posted on these boards.

If you are not met with complete agreement you resort to "Education, Hygiene, sub human " And what far worse for me, you claim the board brings it on it's self. The above quote was before anyone posted a single disagreement with you. You showed up looking for a fight and have ever since expressed surprise people take exception to your methods. Not once have you ever posted anything but criticism. No suggested changes. (Not counting "start over")
And you still seem to fail to grasp the simple truth that both UV and WITP are games. What is with this Joan of Arc martyr complex? (You will lead us to victory over the evil designers if we only follow you without question)

[Mike Scholl]

The lower numbers involved do seem to bring the loss figures closer to reality.
But for a pure comparison of the aircraft as the game portrays them it would
be much more helpful if you ran 48 fresh aircraft on each side with pilot skills
at an average of 60. Run the same battle over and over, so fatigue, training,
and the like don't become a factor. Then we could get a clearer picture of how
the game's base potrayal of the aircraft involved shapes up. If everything else
is exacty equal, and the combat is at 10-15,000 feet, I would expect the Zero
to have a slight edge overall. But if you keep tossing in umpteen variables---
it's hard to tell what effect any of them is having on the overall result.

[mogami]

Hi, OK I'll make 4 new groups (2 IJN and 2 USN) equal exp and all that. Then I won't have pilots bleeding over into test from using their unit and changing exp.
(I don't think pilots with groups change exp just new pilots forming new groups)

60 exp. for all. (this will produce pilots rated from 51 to 69)

I'll run test 10 times. Edit post each time.

[TIMJOT]

Those cas. ratios seem to excessively favor the Japanese in comparison with real expectable results, independently of the number of aircraft engaged. There's definitely something wrong with Matrix model here. But without holding a whole bunch of things constant it's hard to say. If the EXP values were carried over in proportion to the distorted ones in GGPW, then it is almost a dead certainty that the IJN ones are too high.

Did I miss something in the Buffalo discussion? Wasn't the kill ratio about 2:1 favoring the Japanese? Sounds about right to me.

Tristanjohn, if you're speaking directly to Joel Billings or Grigsby and do not care whether or not the rest of us read your posts why not communicate with them directly?

Mdiehl

I agree the initial test with 100+ a/c for each side the numbers with excessively in favor of the Zeke, but the last test with roughly 50 a/c for each side looks to me that the ratio is close to 1:1, with the exception of 2 outlayers one each favoring the F4F and Zeke.

Regarding the Buffalo vs. Zeke at first glance it looked to me that the ratio was closer to 1:1. I may have been mistaken. I will take a closer look.

[TIMJOT]

The lower numbers involved do seem to bring the loss figures closer to reality.
But for a pure comparison of the aircraft as the game portrays them it would
be much more helpful if you ran 48 fresh aircraft on each side with pilot skills
at an average of 60. Run the same battle over and over, so fatigue, training,
and the like don't become a factor. Then we could get a clearer picture of how
the game's base potrayal of the aircraft involved shapes up. If everything else
is exacty equal, and the combat is at 10-15,000 feet, I would expect the Zero
to have a slight edge overall. But if you keep tossing in umpteen variables---
it's hard to tell what effect any of them is having on the overall result.

Yeah, I have noticed that the model (UV at least) doesnt handle unrealistic uber-furballs very well. Perhaps the problem isnt with the model, but rather there should be some sort of real world restrictions on the numbers of a/c that can engaged in a given encounter.

[mdiehl]

I guess they are pretty close. For some reason the two outliers followed by the near-outlier (8:5) stuck in my head.

I wonder whether this thing has a subroutine for recovering "shot down" pilots? The results from Mogami's tests look like about 1.3:1 favoring the Japanese (which would be acceptable ballpark range for 25th AF vs VMF pilots), but it would be appropriate if the US recovered some fraction of the downed pilots and that these are recovered with a hefty EXP gain.

Anyhow. The formula seems "close" in re VMF vs IJN. If we decide that these ratios seem about right that will tell Matrix about how much of an EXP increase needs to be given to the VF pilots to generate the 1.5:1 pro-USN results that an accurate model should generate for early 1942.

[mogami]

Hi, I will just keep running this test and posting results here. Because AC flying CAP are not all in the air when battle takes place the defender will be outnumbered Unless I add a group.

48xA6M2
31xF4F-4

5xF4F-4
3xA6M2


48xA6M2
36xF4F-4

3 to 3

Here I increased size of US groups to 36 ac each to even number of ac filying

48xA6M2
47xF4F-4

8xA6M2
6xF4F-4


48xA6M2
54xF4F-4

6xF4F-4
2xA6M2

[Tristanjohn]

"Try to simulate the Japanese response (in terms of air attacks) to the Guadacanal landing with anything like accuracy as a result. Just try. All I can do is shake my head when I see this stuff in play, then wonder what the test crew was doing with itself, or for that matter who made up that group and what sort of understanding of WWII history it collectively possessed."

Hi The second quote is from your very first post (well the first one I read)

If you recall, TMJOT and myself (and others) did set up the Aug 7th attacks and saw the historic results (well the Japanese lost the historic numbers the USN loss less)

You should know, (or should have found out before opening your mouth) That UV 2.30 reflects changes made by the customers. Not bug fixes mind you, changes to how the game worked. Added features, and changes to results that had been common for a number of months. So you should blame the customers not Joel or Gary or anyone else. (Gary did not do the changes.)
Whether they correctly reflect the war is another matter. They do produce what the players wanted. (And when used properly do produce good results)

As for your honesty I have came to the opinion that you did not acquire UV and then find problems with it. You acquired it to find problems with it. You have an ax to grind with persons connected to the games development. You should have been more forward with stating this fact.
I can just see PacWar running 12 hour turns on 1992 computers. Did hardware have anything to do with giving it a 'haircut'?

You latch on to any problem posted by someone else and then come on the forum to attack the designers, testers, and anything else. Often because you do not know what you are talking about you use improper play, known bugs, or you simply get it wrong. (The recon/no fly thing)

B-17 disbanding/Withdrawing, Recon, The Bettys being super weapons and then you send me the save and they are attacking damaged ships without CAP.

You try to frighten poster with other opinions much more then anyone else who has ever posted on these boards.

If you are not met with complete agreement you resort to "Education, Hygiene, sub human " And what far worse for me, you claim the board brings it on it's self. The above quote was before anyone posted a single disagreement with you. You showed up looking for a fight and have ever since expressed surprise people take exception to your methods. Not once have you ever posted anything but criticism. No suggested changes. (Not counting "start over")
And you still seem to fail to grasp the simple truth that both UV and WITP are games. What is with this Joan of Arc martyr complex? (You will lead us to victory over the evil designers if we only follow you without question)

You miss the point, Mogami. A model's accuracy isn't judged to be high if it achieves realistic results some of the time or even most of the time as far as that goes if it also produces aberrant results on a somewhat regular basis throughout play. And that's exactly what I've experienced from the UV model. So what if TIMJOT's test produced what you happen to feel is an acceptable casualty profile, or that your test didn't reveal anything unordinary either? If other players can come back more than a couple-three times and demonstrate where the model produces ridiculous results then by definition that model has a problem. And the case is, at least within my PBEM experience, that the UV model will produce these aberrant results with the air module under consideration always and only in favor of the Japanese, so it isn't merely a case a of the model misbehaving in an "innocent" manner but rather that it has been skewed by design to lean in just one direction.

And how could it be otherwise? Who on earth would expect a model with the sort of trumped-up plane-characteristic ratings for "Zeroes" that this one has, which moreover inflates Japanese pilot and leader ratings while discounting all Allied ratings in the same area, and even goes so far as to depict USN carrier air crews as coming on the board both fatigued and of relatively low morale to behave any differently? Of course the model will render results in favor of Japanese interests. It was designed to do so, and it doesn't matter if it sometimes gets it right or close to right but it does matter very much that all too often its results are radically out of line with historical reality.

From what I've seen so far from the AARs you've posted from WitP alpha tests you're conducting the same idiotic air model from UV is still hard at work generating similarly idiotic results with that new system. And it shall continue to do so until Gary decides to design it a whole lot differently.

As for these systems being merely "games": is that any reason they cannot be accurate games, that only grossly inaccurate games can be fun or might sell for profit downtown?

[Grouchy]

Hi, Mdiehl just post what test you want to see and I will set them up according to your parameters.


(anyone that has a test they would like to see ran can do the same.)

If it is not too much trouble I would like to see (because the results in UV really surprised me):

50 F4U-1 Corsair VS 50 A6M5 Zeke
Both Exp 60, same fatigue etc etc

Then same setup but Exp for the F4U-1 Corsair pilots set to 10-20 and Exp set to 95-99 for the A6M5 Zeke pilots.

TIA

[mdiehl]

In statistical parlance, it sounds like TJ's complaint is about the range of results produced, not the mean.

[Tristanjohn]

Tristanjohn, if you're speaking directly to Joel Billings or Grigsby and do not care whether or not the rest of us read your posts why not communicate with them directly?

For two reasons: 1) I write for Gary but I am nevertheless aware that the rest of the forum also has its input, for better or worse, and so the more exposure it has collectively to reasoned argument re the model the better one might expect that input to be; 2) I doubt Gary wants to converse with me and if he did he could very well write privately and say so, therefore I write this unhappy ongoing message to him through this forum.

Now you already knew that, Mdiehl, but instead chose to criticize my presence here for no better reason I presume than to vent your pique. Duly noted.

[mogami]

If it is not too much trouble I would like to see (because the results in UV really surprised me):

50 F4U-1 Corsair VS 50 A6M5 Zeke
Both Exp 60, same fatigue etc etc

Then same setup but Exp for the F4U-1 Corsair pilots set to 10-20 and Exp set to 95-99 for the A6M5 Zeke pilots.

TIA

Here is the both 60 test

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 48

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 53

21xA6M5 shot down
2xF4U-1 shot down

Here is 99exp IJN vrs 20exp USMC

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 54

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 54


14xA6M2 shot down (no damaged no op loss)
3xF4U-1 shot down (another 10 crashed and 6 are damaged)

A6M5 Zeke 34 Mvr 27 Dur 1 Arm 12 Gun
F4U-1 37 Mvr 31 Dur 1 Arm 18 Gun

I'd say the aircraft matter much more then pilots.