The distortion of truth (and how this leads to games of lower quality)

[mogami]

OK I'll help Do you want me to be Japan and send you a turn? We were going to test a game before the last update.

No movement on Dec 7? (or is between friendly bases ok) We will have to stand down all the airgroups.

[Nikademus]

Your the better planner, you should be Allied. But we'd also need to to modify the scenerio somewhat too, and correct some of the morale ratings of the airgroups, otherwise even on Dec 8th they wont fly. (the scn is not fully complete yet folks)

I'll fiddle with it and send the turn to you.

ok?

[mogami]

Hi, OK you start a Japanese thread that all the allied helpers have to stay out of and I'll start the allied thread that all the Jap Fan Boys have to stay out of.

Anyone caught posting in both threads will be called names and have their screen name spelled wrong.

All I'll do is implement instructions from the Allied Command.

[Nikademus]

it would prob be easier if you just mod your game vs me sending you megabytes worth of files, correct the philippine based airgroups morale ratings, give em 99, that will ensure they fly.

restrictions:

i will cancel all auto movement to phil islands, but not to other locations (call it a dec 7 declaration on UK with a US declaration of war on Dec 8, airgroups all grounded save for attacks on UK posessions.

no US movement on Dec 7th (war declared on the 8th)

do we really need two threads?

[mogami]

Hi, when you edit a scenario there are 4-5 files to send. Both players need to use the same data or the game will crash. No we don't need two threads we can fit all the insults into one but then I will be able to see your plans in advance. I'll modify scenario 1 and send you the files. (So you have to wait before making turn 1 unless you do the mods and send me the files. )

[Nikademus]

i have the files.

I'll send them

[Chiteng]

These are all conclusory statements without support. I have often seen Japanese surface forces decisively win night engagements by launching a devastating Long Lance attack and escaping without damage. I suggest that you have merely not played enough or played on sophisticated enough a level that the Japanese night surface combat advantages that are built into the game system become visible to you.

Mike_B20 is right on it like fur on a weasel.

"Minimalism is when know events or combat parameters are ignored, in the pursuit of a statistical model."

Where did this nonsense definition come from? "Minimalist art" is representation of the artist's vision through sparse brush strokes. I know of no other credited use of the term or any similar one. Please explain.

Why would you? Since when do you pay attention?
'Minimalism' as 'I' am using it here, was defined by me several posts back.
'I' made it up, and 'I' use the word. I didnt say anything about 'art'

I already stated that I am not really interested in the UV kludge.
You telling me I should be, doesnt cut it.

[Tristanjohn]

Matter of fact, I'm waiting for him to post anything at all that has anything even remotely to do with UV and/or WitP.

Where do you live? On Mdiehl's Planet Xenon? Do you receive a special Planet Xenon digested edition of this forum's doings?

The complaint all along, if you didn't know, and only to bring you up to speed, has been that I have too many complaints with the system, that my too many complaints with the system are unrealistic for the reason that Gary couldn't possibly be expected to model such intricate detail and like that.

For your information my first complaint with the system encompassed the UV air module in general and was then focused immediately on 1) the inability of USN carrier TFs to reasonably compete with IJN CVs due to the crazy (broken) model, and 2) the way the "Zero" is, all these years down the road, still portrayed as a fighter aircraft inherently superior to American fighter aircraft of the period through the fall of 1942 as covered by UV, this to include both the P-40 and Wildcat. And you could throw in the superior ratings the Japanese also get initially for pilots and leaders, the corresponding inferior ratings conversely assigned to Allied figher units, most especially USN and Marine figher squadrons, at least to an extent and insofar as these modifiers are, as far as they function, part and parcel of the broken model.

That's for openers. Since then I've fairly lost track of my complaints, though I'm sure if you're willing to pay for the extra postage Matrix would work out a deal with your local Internet distributor on Xenon to ensure in the future you receive the "total forum package,"

Anyone who throws a game to invent some evidence to point out something yet cannot even explain what they are trying to point out, you really have to wonder.

Threw a game? I remember resigning in light of the hopeless stream of personal insults, tactical drivel and strategic babble that veritably crowded out any and all attempt at intelligent discussion about and analysis of the Scenario #14 test in the thread I bothered to start. That's what I remember. It could be your Xenon Digest didn't convey that full picture to you.

If and when TJ puts forward even a single facet of the game that is poorly modelled or simply even doesn't work well, I'll let it go.

I believe that. Sure. When pigs fly.

[Mr.Frag]

Living here on planet "earth" actually but nevermind that ...

Your complaints focuses in on the P-40 and the F4F against the A6M as I read it and separately on CV vs CV battles.

Anything else you would like to add to this list?

Does it apply to specific scenarios, ie: you can sucker P-40/F4F with sweep missions, or they perform poorly as escorts or as cap or is it just an all around "these plane suck compared to the A6M" ?

As for your CV issues, in what numbers are we talking about? 2v2, 2v3, 3v6, 6v12 etc? What ranges? What weather conditions?

What I have been trying to get across to you that the details make for fixes. No details makes for a "whine". If you really do want WitP to be better (with retro fixes back into UV), you need to offer up credible results.

If you can clearly explain the results you are seeing, one of two things will happen:

(a) others will point out that your results are not what they are seeing and offer up possible reasons to explain why the results are different. (you learn how to do things better, called strategy)

or

(b) it gets seen and agreed to as an issue to be corrected.

Either way, it is a win-win situation. You just have to keep in mind that we can't see your computer screen or your results so you need to provide the details behind them.

You need to understand that EVERYONE wants a better game here, while we all don't agree on what better is, we all agree that we want it. Details are the only way as everyone will always have their own opinions as to whats right and wrong. Without the details, everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

[Tristanjohn]

Living here on planet "earth" actually but nevermind that ...

Your complaints focuses in on the P-40 and the F4F against the A6M as I read it and separately on CV vs CV battles.

Anything else you would like to add to this list?

Does it apply to specific scenarios, ie: you can sucker P-40/F4F with sweep missions, or they perform poorly as escorts or as cap or is it just an all around "these plane suck compared to the A6M" ?

As for your CV issues, in what numbers are we talking about? 2v2, 2v3, 3v6, 6v12 etc? What ranges? What weather conditions?

What I have been trying to get across to you that the details make for fixes. No details makes for a "whine". If you really do want WitP to be better (with retro fixes back into UV), you need to offer up credible results.

If you can clearly explain the results you are seeing, one of two things will happen:

(a) others will point out that your results are not what they are seeing and offer up possible reasons to explain why the results are different. (you learn how to do things better, called strategy)

or

(b) it gets seen and agreed to as an issue to be corrected.

Either way, it is a win-win situation. You just have to keep in mind that we can't see your computer screen or your results so you need to provide the details behind them.

You need to understand that EVERYONE wants a better game here, while we all don't agree on what better is, we all agree that we want it. Details are the only way as everyone will always have their own opinions as to whats right and wrong. Without the details, everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

Good response. Couldn't fault it. Thank you.

I have offered details. They've been summarily dismissed with a wave of the collective hand at times, and when that did not suffice these complaints of mine were simply ignored, or bludgeoned to a sorry death through the use of ridicule amidst the deafening sound of "majority rules" mentality.

But not to worry. More talk re super"Zeroes" and impossible CV TF matchups with the balance always in favor of the IJN has once again reared its ugly head over in the UV forum in at least a couple of separate threads, so I invite you to inspect these missives for more "evidence" that people other than myself see this very same stuff in the game. Indeed, there is more than one person over there who not only acknowledges the disparity between "Zeroes" and P-40s/Wildcats but who insists that this condition is after all only as it ought to be in a perfect gaming world.

[mogami]

Hi, Yes but so far the two independant testers using Scenario 14 have not posted results supporting this contention. While Dan Oskar has not progressed far enough into his test to know so far the A6M2/3 have not achived any notable success and the allies lead with 10 kills to 8. The other test has progressed quite far and once again the allies are winning. I won't mention my test where the Japanese have a 20 aircraft lead but are behind almost 2-1 in total loss and have lost more fighters. As of this post there have been no posts by persons conducting the test that have the Japanese demonstrating your contention of superioity to the degree where claims the model is broken can be supported. Thus far no test results even have the Japanese in the lead in the airbattle. Aircraft damaged in combat that crash on the return flight are listed as Op loss. If you ignore these totals then you can claim a slight edge to the Japanese. If you include them then the reverse is true but with a larger edge to the allies.

[Mr.Frag]

But not to worry. More talk re super"Zeroes" and impossible CV TF matchups with the balance always in favor of the IJN has once again reared its ugly head over in the UV forum in at least a couple of separate threads, so I invite you to inspect these missives for more "evidence" that people other than myself see this very same stuff in the game. Indeed, there is more than one person over there who not only acknowledges the disparity between "Zeroes" and P-40s/Wildcats but who insists that this condition is after all only as it ought to be in a perfect gaming world.

Thats part of the problem, at the very same time, another thread is being run with aircraft losses being posted by multiple players for scenario 14. It is showing a rough 1:1 rate of losses.

When two different groups run the very same code and produce opposite results it is (a) a misunderstanding of how to use or (b) a bug.

This is why it becomes so critical to clearly identify the results.

I get (as I have posted with supporting results) 3:1 ratios with non-CV land based F4F against land based A6M's when employed at a base with radar. (ie: employed in a manner to maximize their achievements against Japan)

I have not tested the P-40, but I will to see what results I get.

I am sure you will agree that 3:1 ratios for F4F vs A6M (given Japan's lack of pilots) will result in no air force in short order.

As use of air assets (fatigue, radar, weather, role, etc) can vary results from a < 1:3 F4F:A6M to a > 3:1 F4F:A6M ratio (looking at all reports across the board), the only real issue that comes out of this becomes this:

Is this level of variance too extreme for Air combat? Having read lots and lots of pilot stuff (being a pilot), one thing becomes quite clear. Skill while playing a role was no more important then luck. All you can do as the player is tilt the odds by providing the best modifiers possible. Luck STILL plays a large role.

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

As far as impossible CV matchups, I am not even going to discuss that aspect as I have beaten it to death through multiple patches. No one wins a CV war in 1942. The USA wins ALL CV wars in 1943. This is pretty much historically what happened. If you remove Midway from the mix and leave Japan with all those extra CV's and pilots, you will obviously get results that drastically differ from history. The game engine has difficulties with dealing with what I would call rediculous CV vs CV battles (ie: Japan 10+, USA 6+).

The only counter to this is massive grouping as players will be players and group things together ... perhaps a rule needs to be introduced that allows a maximum of 2-3 CV's per hex to force players to break them up into smaller numbers and get more realistic results. It is not a function of Japan superpilots at work, it is a function of extremes breaking through the model (a bug).

There really is no historical information available to tell us what would actually result in a meeting of 600+ planes within a couple of Hexes so you really can not fault the model here.

If you apply simple logic here: Japan's split in forces is more balanced then the US which should pull the US apart from a CAP standpoint (even numbers of torp/dive).

Torp hits are generally (not always) more likely to cause a ship to sink as they tend to happen at the waterline. If you want to watch this in action, put together two equal sized TF's and ground the CAP on both sides and see who swims home.

A more dramatic effect that most folks seem to not give any credit to: USA CV's are generally larger resulting in a higher chance of being targeted by more aircraft for an equal sized force of aircraft. Loss of a USA CV equals multiple Japan CV's as far as impact due to the large difference in air wing sizes. This aspect is somewhat negated by the USA's AA advantage, but during the early turns prior to AA upgrades, this effect is very pronounced.

The CAP fatigue reduction in WitP that will be retrofitted into UV does have a remarkable effect on outcomes. In UV, most folks will be running with 60% CAP (30%+ fatigue when the battle starts).

[mogami]

Hi, Only matrix/2by3 know how many people have played UV. I guess it is at least 100. No matter how the program preformed if 100 people were asked to give their impression of results there would be a percentage that said it was crap and a percentage that said it worked beyond their wildest dreams.

What would be important is how many thought it worked within reason.

There are players who post their disgust at UV. In the last 18 months there have been at least 18 disgruntled players. A few of them discovered what they were doing wrong and changed their minds and a few of them just quit and posted the fact. Compared to the number of "I like this game" posters the number of disgruntled posters does not support the UV failure mode offered.

It's not perfect. It has it's faults and these are being worked on.
The majority of posters think the UV model produces realistic results. (most of the time) To be sure we want it to be all the time.

I've still never had a game as the allies where I was not firmly in the lead in destroying enemy aircraft compared to my loss rates. I've even had to suffer the disasters those IJN Super CV TF's can hand out. In these terrible battles the USN does lose more ac when the CV sink. (But in the air to air portion the USN usally shoots down over 100 IJN AC while losing 80 USN ac shot down in air to air. AA claims another 50-100 IJN AC and OPs 20-50 so while the IJN can destroy 4 USN CV they lose almost the equal number of AC. ) And yes I agree the single greatest problem in UV is turns where 600 ac from one side engage 400 or more on the other. This will need to be resolved in order for WITP to function. The USN is going to have to face hundreds of Japanese LBA while flying a large CAP. (That still allowed Japanese bombers to score hits)
If the Super CAP remains as is the Japanese can surrender as soon as the USN makes a Super CV TF for it's self in 1943.

[mdiehl]

There are a couple of fixes that I can think of. Make the coordination of multiple CV or multiple land-base strikes that involve single engined bombers more difficult, and more difficult still beyond that for CVs and land bases that lack radar. (Radar definitely improved CAP vectoring.)

When you look at formations where hundreds of a/c were coordinated to arrive en masse you usually have to look to strategic bombers. Those guys lost an hour of air time every mission just "forming up" and for big missions close to 2 hours. We're talking here about missions on the order of a couple hundred planes.

I think there should be some sort of cohesion factor that limits the effectiveness of large caps, of defensive fire from groups of strike aircraft, and of the effectiveness of escorts, when large groups of aircraft are used. There should also be requisite range reductions to aircraft (subtract a number of miles equal to one hour at cruising speed). When cohesion is reduced, simply "abort" some large proportion of the fighters and exclude them entirely from the combat.

The old AH game Flat Top had a rule like this to which the programmers can turn for inspiration about range effects. I threw in the cohesion thing because I don't know how the model handles defensive fire from bomber groups. I was thinking of the 2nd Schweinfurt mission when the 98th (?) BG(Heavy) arrived strung out all over the sky and was virtually annihilated.

[Mike Scholl]

Hi, OK Mike Hang on I'll post the OOB here.

Corrigidor Fort 55 exp 55 mor
54x155mm CD gun
36x75mm gun
81xsupport

4th USMC Rgt 80 exp 80 mor
(16)83xUSMC Rifle Sqd
(6)34xUSMC Eng Sqd
(3)15x81mm Mortar
(3)15x37mm AT gun
(2)10x75mm Pack Howitzer
(1)8xEngineer
(29)147xsupport

194th USA Tank Bn 55 exp 60 mor (192nd Tank Bn same)AV=39
(24)30xM3 Stuart Light Tanks
(5)7xM3Halftrack
(26)33xMotorized support


31st USA RCT 70 exp 70 mor AV=96
(30)91xUSA Rifle Sqd
(2)7xUSA Eng Sqd
(4)14x81mm Mortar
(1)3x4.2 Mortar
(4)14x37mm AT gun
(6)18x75mm How
(1)5xeng
(45)135xsupport

PA division ratings by assault value (4th USMC Rgt AV=114)(exp/mor between 30 -45)
11thx95 21stx115, 31stx118 41stx95 51stx97 61stx55 71stx55 81stx54 91stx58
101stx45

45th RCT (PS) exp 60 mor 60 AV=51
57th RCT (PS) exp 55 mor 60 AV=45
26th Cav Rgt (PS) exp 60 mor 60 AV=32


14th Army
48th Div Exp 90 Mor 90
65th Bde Exp 50 Mor 55
16th Div Exp 70 Mor 75 AV=465
21st Div Exp 60 Mor 60 AV=486
4th Div Exp 60 Mor 55 AV=473

Entire PI defense force around 1200 AV when it's all together and supplied so you can see it would be a mistake for less then 2 IJA divisions to move into that hex. And the allies can still leave forces to prepare other hexes. There are 2-3 Field Arty units as well. (14th Army around 2500 AV ) To capture a base you need 2-1 (and 0 fort)

Might be that the reason for the Japanese having the troubles you have exper-
ianced in the Philippines is that the US/Philippines forces have been over-rated
by the designers. A simple example would be the "4th Marine Regt". These
"China Marines" were solid, long-service troops---but their were only a batallion
of them actually in China and brought to the Philippines. About 750 Officers and Men actually made the trip to the P.I., where they served as the garrison of
Corregidore. The game gives them:

83xUSMC Rifle Squads
34xUSMC Eng. Squads
15x81mm mortars
15x37mm AT Guns
10x75mm Guns
08xEngineers
147xsupport

....in the figures you provided. Now the 147 Support troops sound about right
for a unit that's been serving "on it's own" in China---but that only leaves 600
men for everything else. Even if the "squads" were somewhat short-handed and
had only 10 men each; you only have 600 of the 1170 shown in "squads"---and
no one to operate any of the support weapons.

As for the Army, on 30 November, 1941 it's total Regular Strength stood at
31,095; including 2,504 Officers, 16,643 US enlisted men, and 11,957 "Scouts".
In the "Philippine Division" were 10,561 total (532 Officers, 1803 US Enlisted,
and 8,222 "Scouts"). It's three infantry Regiments (31st US, and 45th and 57th
Philippine Scouts) were at about 2/3rds TO&E for a standard American WWII
Infantry Regiment. The two Field Artillery Regiments had only 3 batallions
between them (2 of 75's, and one of 2.95 Mtn. Howitzers).

The 26th Cavalry numbered 842, with all but a portion of the officers being
"Scouts". Good troops, but again more a batallion than a Regiment. The two
Tank Batallions were close to full strength and TO&E, one numbering 588 men
and the other 410. And the 200th AA Regt. (Coast Artillery--New Mexico N.G.)
had 1809 men.

The rest of the US Regulars in the P.I. were in the Coast Artillery manning
the fortifications (5,225 men), in the Army Air Corps (5,609 men) and in Service
Detachments (4268 men). You have a solid "cadre" of US Regulars on hand,
but hardly enough to go out "hunting" a full Division of Japanese with any real
hope of success.

The Army of the Philippines themselves was another story, being in a total
state of "flux" at this time. To form the initial 10 "Divisions" of the Militia Army, the one Regular Division had been decimated for cadres of Officers and NCO's and training. The "Militia Divisions" had a TO&E which only called for 7500 men,
or about a Japanese "Brigade". The 1st regiment had been called up for about
24 weeks, the 2nd Regiment for 8-10 weeks, and the 3rd were supposed to be
reporting for induction between December 1st and 15th. Equipment was short,
and the average "trained" member had fired less than a half dozen rounds.
There were a lot of language difficulties, and some of the officers had been
appointed for "political" reasons. There was nothing wrong with the basic
manpower (the Scouts proved that) but as units these were still pretty much
in the "armed mob" stage. In a "set defense" they could provide some value,
and they would learn quickly under the pressure of war---but they certainly
couldn't be considered of much offensive value.

Basically the Game seems to over-rate US/Philippino Capabilities. Defensivly
they could give a reasonably good account of themselves, but the majority
lacked the training, cohesion, and equipment for offensive action. A good
example would be the "Battle of the Points" at Bataan itself. The Japanese managed to fling three small forces ashore behind American lines, and despite being totally cut of from supply or support, they held on for weeks until enough
regulars could be rounded up to systematically destroy them. This doesn't
sound like a force that could "crush" a Japanese Division. Hold it off and give
it a "bloody nose", yes. Conduct a "fighting retreat" with skill against an over-
eager and not well led Japanese Army? Well it proved that capability. But assult and crush a large Japanese Unit? That sounds like a MacArthur pipe-
dream again.

[mogami]

Hi, Was that 31k regulars and 75k milita?

I'm not in disagreement that 14th Army can take PI. I just want to make it plain that the standard PacWar war plan of landing the 48th Divison and 65th Bde in the north and 1 Division in the south and having them meet in the middle before moving to Bataan will not work. The PI troops in WITP will require the entire 14th Army. (In PacWar it was quite common to see 2 divisions of 14th Army never land because they were used in operations elsewhere. Whatever the scheme the Japanese player at the moment felt the need for troops for the 14th Army was the first place they were removed from.)

[Mike Scholl]

Hi, Was that 31k regulars and 75k milita?

75,000 was the goal for the first 10 Militia Divisions when completed. If you
figure 31,000 US-recruited Regulars (US Troops and Philippine Scouts directly
in US service), then the rest, the Army of the Philippines, got to about 110,000
by the end of December with the induction of the para-military Philippine Con-
stabulary, the recall of "regulars" who had "mustered out" pre-war, and the
continuing influx of militia. About 140,000 total troops of greatly varying
training, equipment, leadership, and morale by the end of December when the
numbers started dwindling again with the circumstances.