A quick list of pro-USN bias.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Snigbert
I'd look forward to your apology, if I thought you were capable.

I have nothing to apologize for.

You are making this an issue, I am not. You are attacking ME,
I didnt attack you. In doing so you ignore the forum MODs stated request.

[mogami]

"The whole point is that LBA are over emphasized. The CV are supposed to be the fearsome weapons of destruction.
NOT 9 lousy B-17 operating from a dirt strip."


__________________



Hi, Here you are so wrong. No one in their right mind would prefer a CV over a land strip. CV are built to provide air where none can be provided via land base. In a duel of CV versus land the land will always win (It can't sink.) But after you build the monster airbase and the war moves on (the airbase provides the means for victory) It will become a rear area and of no use so another new airfield has to be secured. The CV cover the landing on the new base and are replaced in time by new LBA operating from the new field.

The Pacific war was an airwar. Control of the air decides who will win the naval and ground battles.

The CV allows you to project air power where otherwise it would be absent. They are not better. (How can they be? The aircraft are designed to fly off a ship not maximize the ability of aircraft to inflict damage.

PS 9 B-17 operating from a dirt stip in UV would carry extended range loads at normal range. (You need a size 4 af to fly level bombers without penalty)


The only reason LBA played what is viewed as so small a part in battles is both sides stayed out of the other sides range of LBA as much as possible. The USN was able to bring great numbers of aircraft against those Japanese bases targeted for attack (and conversion to US AF) Still Japanese LBA inflicted more damage then IJN CV based aircraft ever did. (And this during a period when the Japanese Airpower had been greatly degraded.)

[Snigbert]

I have nothing to apologize for.

I think that calling someone a liar when it is untrue qualifies.

You are making this an issue, I am not. You are attacking ME,

You brought the subject up. You called me a liar when I questioned your assertion. Do you understand the difference between attacking someone and trying to discuss a point of disagreement? I haven't insulted you, you've insulted me by calling me a liar. I thought resorting to insults was against the Chiteng code of conduct.


I didnt attack you. In doing so you ignore the forum MODs stated request.

See above..


Anyway, I'm going to exercise the ignore function since no apology is forthcoming and I dont have any interest in further conversation with someone who insults me in such a manner.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Snigbert
I have nothing to apologize for.

I think that calling someone a liar when it is untrue qualifies.

You are making this an issue, I am not. You are attacking ME,

You brought the subject up. You called me a liar when I questioned your assertion. Do you understand the difference between attacking someone and trying to discuss a point of disagreement? I haven't insulted you, you've insulted me by calling me a liar. I thought resorting to insults was against the Chiteng code of conduct.


I didnt attack you. In doing so you ignore the forum MODs stated request.

See above..


Anyway, I'm going to exercise the ignore function since no apology is forthcoming and I dont have any interest in further conversation with someone who insults me in such a manner.

***********************************************
All I've seen is one person complaining loudly and persistently, and ignore the historical facts presented that nullify his argument. I've been playing PBEM for quite some time and don't even bother putting B-17s on Naval Attack missions because they are so ineffective.
************************************************

The above is a cut and paste from where Snigbert started off
this little flame fest. It can ONLY be characterized as an attack.
It is also untrue. I have made no personal insults. What I have done refute the attack made upon me.
If there had been no attack, there would have been no need.

Snigbert tries to claim that supporting posts from other people
dont count, and thus he was not wrong. I am not willing to parse such games.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
"The whole point is that LBA are over emphasized. The CV are supposed to be the fearsome weapons of destruction.
NOT 9 lousy B-17 operating from a dirt strip."


__________________



Hi, Here you are so wrong. No one in their right mind would prefer a CV over a land strip. CV are built to provide air where none can be provided via land base. In a duel of CV versus land the land will always win (It can't sink.) But after you build the monster airbase and the war moves on (the airbase provides the means for victory) It will become a rear area and of no use so another new airfield has to be secured. The CV cover the landing on the new base and are replaced in time by new LBA operating from the new field.

The Pacific war was an airwar. Control of the air decides who will win the naval and ground battles.

The CV allows you to project air power where otherwise it would be absent. They are not better. (How can they be? The aircraft are designed to fly off a ship not maximize the ability of aircraft to inflict damage.

PS 9 B-17 operating from a dirt stip in UV would carry extended range loads at normal range. (You need a size 4 af to fly level bombers without penalty)


The only reason LBA played what is viewed as so small a part in battles is both sides stayed out of the other sides range of LBA as much as possible. The USN was able to bring great numbers of aircraft against those Japanese bases targeted for attack (and conversion to US AF) Still Japanese LBA inflicted more damage then IJN CV based aircraft ever did. (And this during a period when the Japanese Airpower had been greatly degraded.)

The only reason LBA played what is viewed as so small a part in battles is both sides stayed out of the other sides range of LBA as much as possible.
****************************************************
You dont know that Mogami. Your assuming that.
You cant read minds, and I cant either.

[CEDeaton]

In the words of the late Strother Martin...

"What we have here, is failure to communicate. Some men just can't be reached."

I highly recommend to all the 'Ignore' feature. I've found it does as excellent job of removing "whine stains".

I nailed this one on my first post. It doesn't take long to smell a turd. Richard Noggins will continue to fill the toilet until the moderator takes pity and spares us with a 'stinky forum mercy flush'. :rolleyes:

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by CraigDeaton
In the words of the late Strother Martin...

"What we have here, is failure to communicate. Some men just can't be reached."

I highly recommend to all the 'Ignore' feature. I've found it does as excellent job of removing "whine stains".

Not if you dont actually ignore =)

[mogami]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The only reason LBA played what is viewed as so small a part in battles is both sides stayed out of the other sides range of LBA as much as possible.
****************************************************
You dont know that Mogami. Your assuming that.
You cant read minds, and I cant either.

Hi, I can too read minds. If the Japanese were not afraid of LBA theu would have parked around Guadalcanal 24/7 (Like the USN did late in the war when they were not afraid of LBA (well the guys who made the plans were not afraid of LBA the Gunnersmates on all the ships being hit were afraid of LBA)

If your not worried about air attack you don't have to stay out of range during the day and run in at night. And then run away again. You just sit there the way the USN did.

Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.

Unless you stick to the historic after Midway scenarios all kinds of whacky things take place. (To avoid most weirdness play the scenario begining in Aug 42. It is the one that covers what actually went on down here)

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I can too read minds. If the Japanese were not afraid of LBA theu would have parked around Guadalcanal 24/7 (Like the USN did late in the war when they were not afraid of LBA (well the guys who made the plans were not afraid of LBA the Gunnersmates on all the ships being hit were afraid of LBA)

If your not worried about air attack you don't have to stay out of range during the day and run in at night. And then run away again. You just sit there the way the USN did.

Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.

Unless you stick to the historic after Midway scenarios all kinds of whacky things take place. (To avoid most weirdness play the scenario begining in Aug 42. It is the one that covers what actually went on down here)

I guess we differ about what LBA are. The danger with intials.
To me LBA dont mean tactical aircraft they mean Heavy Bombers.

Yes I am certain the IJN did fear the SBDs and TBF at CACTUS
They should have.

[mogami]

Hi, There are a lot of SBD and Torpedo groups not on CV in UV.
The Japanese have to stay outside SBD range pretty early in the game. In svcenario 19 I often send the 2 USN CV back to PH on turn 2 (for AA upgrade) but I keep the airgroups at Noumea. (Japanese like to sail right up to Noumea early in scen 19)
But just for my own interest. How do you think the B-25 and other medium bombers do in UV? You can't allow them to be based in range of your shipping. And even the CV have to respect them and keep out of range. (They don't score as many hits but you never know when they will )

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Chiteng

<snip>

I dont wish to see a game dominated by B-17 that never get shot down and can hit ships at sea.

It is obvious (to me) that a ship moving at 33 knots is harder
to hit than one moving at 5 knots. But is there anything
in the game engine that suggests that reality is part of the game?
Who knows? It isnt documented.

<snip>

Well this is documented and I can say, without any false modesty, that I
had asked for this with my "Remaining UV bugs/issues" thread:

"Current significant bugs in UV v2.20 (that I know of)..."

showthread.php?s=&threadid=30854

Matrix Games Uncommon Valor Updates Copyright 2003 All Rights Reserved
Uncommon Valor v2.30 Changes - Released 3/7/2003

11)
We have lowered level bomber accuracy against TFs, especially for pilots with
less than 70 experience against ships travelling at high speed. The impact of
pilot quality and ship speed on level bomber accuracy against TFs has been
enhanced. Even strong level bomber pilots against very slow targets will have
less chance to hit than before. This level bomber adjustment does not impact
level bombers using torpedoes.

This essentially means that moving ships at open sea are almost 99% safe from
LBA (Land Based Aircraft) of level bomber type.

The only vulnerability is when enemy TF is loading/unloading and is thus not
mobile. This is the only place where LBA level bombers can score hits.


Leo "Apollo11"

[madflava13]

We're almost at 3000 views and several hundred posts... Are we really going anywhere with this? I'm just curious. I read the interview with GG and Joel Billings -- kinda made me wonder where we're headed from here on out. This post really exemplifies the idea that we can agree and still find something to fight over.

I mean, the most complicated and most difficult-to-design game ever is close to release, and all we can come up with to talk about is the goddamn B-17? I mean what about IJN torps... Or IJN night tactics... Or what about the USN's tendency to disallow DE's to guard the frontline units?... I love the idea of the IJN sanctioning their subs to fight their own war, but what if they let them loose? And come on, you're telling me that the US's cockiness over Plan Orange didn't mean we got over-confidant?

I may have had a few too many beers - I hope you boys count on it -- but lets get serious here. No more personal gripes. No more BS complaints. Let's really focus on what happened, what could have happened and what we'd like to see happen.

That's where I think we count.

My cents....

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by Mogami

Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.

The USN did indeed bombard outside of invasion support fire. Munda and Vila were constantly bombarded at night . The fact that they were invaded months later has no bearing on the initial bombardments.

USN bombarded the crap out of everything. Aleutuians were oftern being bombarded, many of the early carrier raids were in conjunction with bombardments, Wake Island basically turned into a rear area "seasoning" exercise for Navy flyers and surface ship sailors.

Let's be careful to not give Chiteng any ammo, he can shoot his mouth off well enough without any!:D (Sorry, Chiteng, but you've asked for that.)

[Snigbert]

Of course the USN early on did not try to do what the IJN tried to do in the Solomons. We were not running up to enemy bases. We were sitting next to our own base. In UV the USN player is often found doing many things the US did not (or did not have to ) do. Like bombardment missions that are not directly in support of landings.

Of course you will always have things occur in a game like this that didn't happen historically, and historical things wont appear in the game. The main difference is, we are sitting safely behind a computer playing a game... and during the war the decisions were life or death. We have the luxury to experiment and see how different things would work out. During the war, trying new strategies and new ideas could cost lives.

[Mr.Frag]

This essentially means that moving ships at open sea are almost 99% safe from ...

That would be the case if the altitude control was removed completely from use.

While 2.30 really did an amazing job of fixing this glaring flaw, it only really fixed it at 6000 feet plus. The defect is still there at lower altitudes.

Personally, I would like to see the Alt control removed as all it does is cause problems. Planes should automatically be tasked with proper altitudes based on mission types with a variance range tossed in to make CAP not always a sure thing.

Skip bombing while being very effective was not an everyday thing, and it certainly didn't happen with armadas of 200+ LBA at a time. UV allows this silliness still. It's a minor gripe of mine (I play with house rules to sort it out), but I'd like to see it removed. Either that, or allow ME to control the formations of my Task Forces into a pure line ahead formation to absolutely minimize the target aspect, with ships automatically doing a flank speed turn as soon as the bombs are dropped directly at the dropping aircraft. This as always is one of those scale problems, not really an issue at the single squadron level, but embarrassing at a 200+ aircraft level.

[Snigbert]

(I play with house rules to sort it out)

This is the solution to elements of the game that you feel are gamey or unhistorical, but there is no reason why it couldn't be done...

For example, my heavy bomber missions are always flown at high altitude because that is how it was done most of the time. It isn't impossible for them to fly low level missions, it just isn't realistic so I dont do it.

[Mr.Frag]

Exactly Snig, but Chitty will not let go on the fact that it CAN be done ... We of the slightly less die-hard variety are happy to just toss in a PBEM rule of saying yep, you can do it once every 20 days or no alt control etc ...

I know where he is coming from, but his tactics to get his point across tend to pick fights instead of get people on his side of the issue. We all know what is gamy and what is not, no point beating it into the ground ... There is also no point in taking the oposite extreme and make it sound like it is not a problem at all which some folks want to do. I bet if he didn't try to swing people to the 100% extreme, he would have probably gotten everyone to agree with him that it is a tad silly and needs some form of a fix after WitP ships ...

[Snigbert]

I know where he is coming from, but his tactics to get his point across tend to pick fights instead of get people on his side of the issue. We all know what is gamy and what is not, no point beating it into the ground ... There is also no point in taking the oposite extreme and make it sound like it is not a problem at all which some folks want to do. I bet if he didn't try to swing people to the 100% extreme, he would have probably gotten everyone to agree with him that it is a tad silly and needs some form of a fix after WitP ships ...

His lack of tact has so far managed to create the opposite effect of what he desired, for what it's worth. Rather than getting the testers to give consideration to his argument by presenting them with some semblance of decorum he has stripped himself of any potential influence he might have had by selecting the tactic he did. I dont think I'll be seeing a thread on the development forum anytime soon addressing his 'improvement' suggestions.



Exactly Snig, but Chitty will not let go on the fact that it CAN be done ... We of the slightly less die-hard variety are happy to just toss in a PBEM rule of saying yep, you can do it once every 20 days or no alt control etc ...

We just have to accept that the game isn't going to be everything to everybody. They are trying **** hard to make the best possible game they can. We have to meet them part way and make an effort to enjoy the game for what it is. The developers have bent over backwards to listen to the community here on what should go into the game. They aren't going to be able to squeeze it all in and get the game published before 2010. So we have an editor, we can make house rules, etc...the tools are there to make it the game you want to play.

[CEDeaton]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Exactly Snig, but Chitty will not let go on the fact that it CAN be done ... We of the slightly less die-hard variety are happy to just toss in a PBEM rule of saying yep, you can do it once every 20 days or no alt control etc ...

I know where he is coming from, but his tactics to get his point across tend to pick fights instead of get people on his side of the issue. We all know what is gamy and what is not, no point beating it into the ground ... There is also no point in taking the oposite extreme and make it sound like it is not a problem at all which some folks want to do. I bet if he didn't try to swing people to the 100% extreme, he would have probably gotten everyone to agree with him that it is a tad silly and needs some form of a fix after WitP ships ...

I agree completely with the efficacy of "House Rules", but I still think just a bit too much is being made of this B-17 invulnerability issue.

We've all seen the pictures of the Forts that still came home with no tail to speak of, wings shot to hell, etc. There's no question it was a tough bird and only a fool would argue otherwise. Maybe it really was too tough for the comparatively lightly-armed Zekes (comparing to what the Germans were packing on many of their bomber-killing fighters - more and heavier cannons and machine guns, rockets), thus the Japanese lack of success in downing "The Fort". The German pilots, as a group, also got nearly daily practice at shooting at Forts, and like the saying goes, practice make perfect. Based on this, I tend to think that we might not be too far off the mark on Fort vulnerability to fighters.

On the lower-level bombing issue, I'm more inclined to be forgiving here as well. In Europe, bombers went in as low as they safely could given the flak expected over the flight path in order to get better bombing results. Sometimes it was still done without regard to the flak because the target value justified it and nobody wanted to have to hit the same target again anytime soon. Japanese flak wasn't in the same ballpark as the German flak. Compared to the 88mm and 128mm Flak guns, and the Command and Control that the German Flak divisions enjoyed, I've seen nothing that would suggest that the Japanese were even playing the same game. So, if a Pacific B-17 commander wants to go in low because Japanese flak is rather ineffective, that would have been a valid command decision, IMO.

This, however, raises an entirely different question. Is Japanese flak TOO ineffective in game terms at lower altitudes? Perhaps it is. I really don't feel qualified to judge that and don't know how anyone really could without a heck of a lot of research that is probably almost impossible to do 58 years after the war ended in the Pacific. I'm sure someone :rolleyes: out there will have all the answers though!

I'm really not trying to "stir the pot" here. Since the issue won't die, and multiple people seem to have come up with their own house rules, it's clear (to me anyway) that there may be some degree of validity that something is in fact a bit "broken". I'm just not convinced it's the Fort's vulnerability, so I'm trying to think rationally of what else it might be.

[mogami]

Hi, In a test of WITP I had a zero shoot down 2 B-17 in one mission.