Matrix Games Forums

Apart from your stated desire to use 40 Bettys in the test (there were historically only about 24 at most), are you satisfied that the conditions of your test are a good gauge of the UV system throwing out unreasonable results?

So that anyone trying the test themselves don't have to make assumptions, could you specify
-the exact Allied TF composition used and TF leader.
-whether or not the TF was unloading when attacked.

Some of the above may have no impact on the result but it's best to be sure.

Thanks

Drongo wrote:Apart from your stated desire to use 40 Bettys in the test (there were historically only about 24 at most), are you satisfied that the conditions of your test are a good gauge of the UV system throwing out unreasonable results?

So that anyone trying the test themselves don't have to make assumptions, could you specify
-the exact Allied TF composition used and TF leader.
-whether or not the TF was unloading when attacked.

Some of the above may have no impact on the result but it's best to be sure.

Thanks

Admiral Yamada after the war admitted to the loss of 2 of 17 escorting Zeroes and corroborated eye-witness statements to the effect (this from Morison) "that only 9 of 26 torpedo-bombers were seen to pass through the transport formation--the Japanese admitted that 17 were shot down."

Following this main action another, smaller formation appeared but did no damage that I'm aware of.

I give "40" as a reasonable working number for purpose of this test. I figure if that many might be coaxed into the test battle than a reasonable "balance of action" might be attained for purposes of the test, given what I've seen and what I sense for the workings of this model. As you can see from my test (and ought to have seen and I am sure actually have seen many times during the course of your own play, whether you care to admit this or not) it is quite possible to get unrealistically high hit counts and attendant ship damage from Japanese torpedo-bombers even when no such high number of 40 or as you suggest merely "24 at the most" is employed.

As for the result being satisfactory: it is certainly not satisfactory. One or two or even three semi-controlled runs do not make for a "controlled" test in the first place due to the mandated intervention always of the perfectly horrid AI and would hardly constitute a good sample in any case given the sparse number of plays. Whether it's "meaningful" or not is quite impossible to say, but statistically speaking what's been done to date probably wouldn't impress a serious numbers cruncher, and I'm sympathetic to that.

In other words, more work needs to be done. A lot more.

I forget the leader I used this last time--he was the best I could find off the provided list. As a matter of fact I think his skill rating was 63, if that's any help. Until Matrix bothers to step forward to explain exactly how these ratings work and to what final effect it's useless to worry over that stuff, though.

In my editor-generated test (the one where Rabaul planes refused to attack anything at all other than PM) I used an edited Turner leader (maxed out).

The TF sailed empty.

Another hole in the system: "ports" (the greater areas around ports) need to be handled differently than all-sea hexes for purposes of the model taking "area" into consideration. For example, in port hexes individual TFs should be given the ability to lend at least part of their AA support to neighbor TFs in that port hex. The rule (I'm told put in the mollify some of the "gamers" on this board) re the halving of flight operations off CV TFs in coastal/port hexes is so ridiculous it hardly deserves serious commentary--this is a perfect example of how screwed up a project of this nature can get when the developers listen willy nilly to people who have little appreciation for the balance of the overall model dynamics, how detrimental even seemingly small changes such as this, no matter how well meaning they are in suggestion, can be to the simulation insofar as the normal result is that often more serious and difficult-to-correct problems are thus created. What is this restrictive CV rule supposed to simulate: some "theoretical" real-world restriction of CVs to fly more than half their complements when in port or coastal waters? Was it to accommodate the "gamers" who might like to park their super-CV TFs in ports as a means of making, say, Festung Rabaul more impregnable still?

Who dreams this stuff up? Why does anyone pay these people the least mind?

Whatever those reasons were or are, the unfortunate result is a model this far down the road which is dysfunctional in critical areas and somewhat schizophrenic in nature given so many subsystems within the larger model which barely converse with one another. On the whole what's left is a "simulation" riddled with confusion and inaccuracy. A lot of detail in this module here, almost no detail whatsoever in that module over there . . . but hey! let's just give it a minor tweak and see how it reacts to that! . . . well, given such direction and means it's little wonder UV doesn't properly simulate the dynamics of WWII warfare.

And meanwhile the most vociferous playtesters (and "loyal" apologists of the system) try to simply shout down anyone who dares to point this out.

Whatever.

Back to your question: no, my test isn't any more a true gauge of the problems I speak to re the air module as was TIMJOT's, or Mogami's before that. It's just one more attempt to get at the truth, an indication at least that unreasonable results can easily be obtained, and at that with somewhat fewer resources available to the Japanese in the actual event.

This happens all the time in play, especially when CV TFs meet. I read just yesterday (or earlier this morning) the post from a veteran of Pacific War who suggests that the accuracy of dive-bombers seems to be lower and that of torpedo-bombers higher in the UV model as opposed to what he remembers seeing in PW. And he might be right. If so, then his conclusion with re to UV could also have merit: that these changes account for the gross advantage IJN CV TFs all too often seem to enjoy in play over their USN counterparts. From my play experience with UV I can certainly say that Japanese torpedo-bombers are for sure and for certain too accurate, enjoying ridiculously high (ahistoric) hit rates, while it's been my impression that USN dive-bombers at least certainly do not get historic hits when they go in--I've related several times already my in-game experience in this regard, with, say, 30-some Dauntless dive-bombers getting past CAP and through the pumped-up IJN AA fire only to record z-e-r-o hits on IJN flattops. And this has happened to me more than once.

But apparently bringing this kind of "knowledge" to this board is nothing but a fool's errand for the reason the "kids" like the game they have now. Indeed, I just recently read someone somewhere who wrote "I don't care if it's historic I just want realistic results," or words to that effect.

When you deal with that kind of crowd, what more needs to be said?

(quote) Tristanjohn
------------------------------
Bad guess. (Logical, but not right in this case. If you want I'll mail you the files. Take a look at them yourself, run the test yourself. Something's not right in there.)
------------------------------


I am begining to think you have some sort of faulty disk or something. Do understand you correctly that you have your Bettys set to Naval Attack/ Rest yet they are flying off to PM to bomb the port with no ships in it? I can assure you this is not indicative of the game engine. I am guessing your editing is causing problems or you personal game copy has a bug of some sort. Do yourself a favor and use scen 7 or 14 for your testing. There are no ships at PM and the oob is historical in those scenerios. Useing scen 7 have never had any problem getting the Bettys to attack lunga.



(quote)
------------------------------
We don't know how much flak was put up. We do know that not every ship in the TF had clear line of sight (ship logs, sailor diaries, analysis of track charts and so on), it's certain only a few support ships ever had unfettered line of sight to the Japanese planes for the entire duration of the attack.
------------------------------


Line of site and direction of attack are irrevelant in game terms.



(quote)
--------------------------------
On the other hand, with the correct number of transports included we then at least have the correct number of targets--the Japanese were (as they ought to have been) after the transports. These ships were their primary objective, the support forces were of secondary importance.
--------------------------------



I disagree, the number of targets remain the same 25. The game engine does not prioritize transports over escorts. BTW it might be logical that the attack concentrated on the transports, it is apparent that many of the escorts were specifcally targeted. The only ships hit by ordinance were escorts. From accounts the Chicago and Vincence came under particular heavy attack. The Vincence narrorwly avoided two torps and barely missed being hit by a crashing betty ala the George T. Elliot.

Historically there were 19 escorts guarding 15 transports. Since we are limited to 25 ships I think to model the situation correctly we should keep the historic ratio which would roughly be 11 transports to 14 escorts. Agreed?




(quote)
--------------------------------
Gary doesn't actually have planes flying around in there, TIMJOT. Everything's just one large happy average and abstracted like crazy, with variables (and randomization hard at work on these) doing this and modifying that like you wouldn't believe . . . you get the idea I'm sure. So with more ships there's a larger chance (and with Gary I do mean chance) of one of those Japanese "planes" launching a "torpedo" that will "run true" and "hit" one of those "transports."
-------------------------------



Exactly Tristanjohn, Its an abstraction, thats why line of site of individual ships and attack directions of aircraft are irrevelent




(quote)
--------------------------
One thing about Gary's method of "combat" that always seems true in his games: small differences in just one variable tend to make a significant difference in the result.
--------------------------



If this is the case then why do you feel changeing the amount of AA is less significant that the number of Transports?



(quote)
--------------------------
Again, there's no way to know exactly. Case in point: Vincennes was steaming somewhat west (possibly northwest) of Jarvis when the latter was struck; Jarvis was generally west (or northwest) of Turner's transports.....
-------------------------



Actually Tristanjohn, according to DANFS the Vincence was excellent position, haveing a clear line of site on the attacking a/c. Even as Drongo pointed out useing its 8" battery to good effect by putting up walls of water that broke up many of the attack runs. Also according to DANFS, "Amphibians Attack"(Turner), and the official US Army history of the campaing (Miller) the rest of the fire support TF, The Astoria,Quincy Hull, Wilson, Dewey all participated in the defence that day.


I will post the revised test shortly.

Hi, Lets make a fresh start. Can you let us know what results you would consider acceptably accurate. I'm not looking for a fight I'm just curious. If you were designing the program when would you be satisfied with your model.
Must it always be 2 Zeros and 17 Betties? Would the same result need to be found on every machine every time? If not how do you decide when a result has went too far. (or not far enough depending on your point of view)
I've never been able to verbalize my position adequately. Basically I don't think the model should be as narrow as I perceive you want it to be. Why? Because the people playing the game will not be doing things the way their historic counter parts did.

For Example. Suppose on a date in 1942 10 Zeros fought 10 P-40
Suppose one side shot down 5 aircraft and lost none.
But also suppose the side that lost the 5 aircraft was wore out. The pilots were tired and aircraft needed repair.
Would an accurate model
Make that side always lose 5 aircraft or only lose 5 aircraft if the pilots were tired and aircraft needed repair?
What happens to a model when the users of the model do not conduct the war in the same manner as the people who produced the historic results that are used for data to produce the model. When building the model it also has to be able to produce results when the input has no historic example. ( Extrapolation)

You are testing the model using a historic example. You must have defined acceptable results and unacceptable results based strictly on comparison to your historic example. How would you decide the variance allowable for testing a non historic example? How does game scale impact what results are acceptable for the model? How should events such as the Betty that crashed into the GFE be modeled? (As a hit or should suicide be added to combat routine?)(Or should GFE survive unhurt because she was not struck by a torpedo?)

To try another approach. Should the models Boolean formulas have predetermined outputs or should every resolution be worked out as they occur.

In your Lunga test. What happens if the Japanese make the same type attack everyday for a week (always using a fresh group) and the Escorts and transports begin to run out of AA ammo?

Another question concerning the 8-9 Aug attacks but nothing to do with UV.
Does anyone know why these Betty aircraft had their bomb-bay doors removed before the attack? Is this always a low level tactic?

This is what I'm talking about. The results reflected below come from a PBEM game I've got going with a fellow who lives in Spain. The Scenario is #14 and I've just sent two very powerful bombardment TFs to Buka, met by a couple of equally powerful IJN Tfs as it turned out.

Just watch what the Japanese air elements in Buka, Rabaul (and one strike from Lae) are allowed to accomplish through the air phase of this turn. (And by the way, my ships, weren't all that damaged and in fact except for what looked to be one "separated" TF with apparently a CA, CL and DD in it" all my surface elements were six or seven hexes away from Buka returning to their home port of Lunga after the bombardment attack, so it isn't as if the Japanese were shooting up "crippoles" here. And pay witness to how many different attacks the program sends in, and from such great distances! Over and over and over again.

Fact is, neither side ever during World War II, to include the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor where the target ships were moored and the crews asleep or on leave, ever enjoyed such results.

I tell you you it is ridiculous. You'll tell me it's just "game." But then I already knew that, didn't I? And not a very "accurate" one at that.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/20/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Night Time Surface Combat, near Buka at 26,30

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Shell hits 1
CA Chikuma
CA Takao, Shell hits 1
CA Atago, Shell hits 1
CA Ashigara, Shell hits 1
CL Tama, Shell hits 2
CL Tenryu
DD Akitsuki
DD Akigumo
DD Yuzuki
DD Oite
DD Yunagi, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
CA Salt Lake City
CA Quincy, Shell hits 2, on fire
CA Australia, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Grayson
DD Aaron Ward
DD Laffey
DD Hughes
DD Helm, Shell hits 3
DD Mugford, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Stack, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Sterett
DD MacDonough
DMS Hopkins


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Buka at 26,30

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
CA Chikuma
CA Takao, Shell hits 2
CA Atago, Shell hits 2
CA Ashigara, Shell hits 2
CL Tama, Shell hits 1
CL Tenryu, Shell hits 1
DD Akitsuki
DD Akigumo, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Yuzuki
DD Oite, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Yunagi, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Shell hits 4, on fire
CA Chicago
CA Astoria, Shell hits 3, on fire
CL Leander, Shell hits 3, on fire
CLAA Atlanta, Shell hits 2, on fire
CLAA San Juan, Shell hits 1
DD Farenholt
DD Patterson, Shell hits 1
DD Dewey
DD Worden
DMS Hovey
DMS Zane, Shell hits 1


Note: At this juncture of the AAR I'll try to give the point of origin of these Japanese air attacks, note in bold face, the best I can from memory so you have some idea of the distance invovled. This, of course, does have direct bearing on the question. For what it's worth, thus far in play, when Japanese have bombarded one of my USN ports (this from several different PBEM games) and have limped away with "crippled" ships my air assets at that base and any others within range have delivered attacks on just two IJN hulls. The rest of the IJN hulls have been, for all intents and purposes, invidible to my planes. Now witness how the program interprets this scenario from the Japanese point of view:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby from Rabau, at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17

no losses


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga from Buka, at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 15

no losses


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Gili Gili from Rabaul at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
A6M3 Zero x 18
G3M Nell x 3
G4M1 Betty x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged

Allied Ships
SC 521, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SC 517, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SC 644

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Russell Islands from Buka at 35,39

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 34
G3M Nell x 15

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18
P-39D Airacobra x 19

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
G3M Nell x 5 destroyed
G3M Nell x 10 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged

2LT D. Hartley of VMF-224 is credited with kill number 2

CPT W. Brown of 80th FS bails out and is RESCUED

Allied Ships
DD Gwin
AK Bellatrix
AK Betelgeuse
AP Hunter Liggett

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
1 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Russell Islands from Buka at 35,39

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4
A6M3 Zero x 4
G4M1 Betty x 4

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 17
P-39D Airacobra x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 4 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 1 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged

CPT S. Nicolay of VMF-224 is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
DD Farragut, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Buka at 32,32

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 5 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Mugford, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Buka at 31,32

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 13 damaged

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Torpedo hits 7, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Buka at 31,32

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
A6M3 Zero x 15
D3A Val x 6
G4M1 Betty x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 1 destroyed
D3A Val x 4 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA Atlanta, on fire

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby from Rabul, at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15

no losses


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Russell Islands from Buka at 35,39

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
G3M Nell x 3
G4M1 Betty x 17

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 16
P-39D Airacobra x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 2 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 10 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged

2LT C. Bryan of VMF-224 is credited with kill number 3

Allied Ships
AP Heywood, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Gwin
AK Neleus, Torpedo hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Russell Islands from Buka at 35,39

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 15
G4M1 Betty x 16

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 15
P-39D Airacobra x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 1 destroyed
G3M Nell x 16 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Bellatrix, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Buchanan
AP Hunter Liggett
AK Alchiba, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Gwin
AK Asphalion

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Russell Islands from Rabaul at 35,39

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 3

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 15
P-39D Airacobra x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 2 destroyed
G3M Nell x 1 damaged


Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Buka at 17,43

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 12 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 4 damaged

Allied Ships
CL Honolulu
DD Cushing, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Buka at 32,32

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 19
A6M3 Zero x 37
D3A Val x 4

no losses

Allied Ships
DD Mugford, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Rabaul, near Russell Islands at 35,39

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 3

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 15
P-39D Airacobra x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 1 damaged



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Buka at 27,30

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 33
A6M3 Zero x 18
D3A Val x 27
G3M Nell x 3
G4M1 Betty x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 6 damaged
G3M Nell x 1 destroyed
G3M Nell x 2 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 6 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Astoria, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA San Juan, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
DD Farenholt, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Buka at 31,32

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 9 damaged

Allied Ships
CLAA Atlanta, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
0 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF from Buka at 30,32

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 5
G4M1 Betty x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Salt Lake City, on fire

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

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

Tristanjohn here is my revised test results.



AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/06/42

Weather: Overcast

Sub attack at 18,27

Japanese Ships
DD Asakaze

Allied Ships
SS Tuna


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 38,40

Port hits 3
Port supply hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
G4M1 Betty x 32

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 26

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 7 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 26 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 damaged

LTJG R. Griffin of VF-2 is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
CL Hobart, Torpedo hits 1
AP Barnett
CA Canberra, Torpedo hits 1
CA Chicago
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7
G4M1 Betty x 6

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed

PO2 S. Yamashita of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
CA Chicago
CL Hobart

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 38,40

Port hits 1
Port supply hits 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see the CAP, number of attacking planes and the resulting damaged caused appears to me to be as close as anyone could expect to the historical.

P.S.

I deference to you I still kept out the Vincence,Astoria,Quincy,Wilson,Dewey,Hull and of course the SanJuan,Monsen,Bucannon.

Mogami wrote:Hi, Lets make a fresh start.

Good idea. I'm all for that.

Can you let us know what results you would consider acceptably accurate.

Check out my latest AAR from PBEM play, received only about 30 minutes ago from my friend in Spain. (And I'll be happy to give you this person's email address privately just like last time so you can ascertain the veracity of this report if that is necessary.) That is what I consider to be a wholly ridiculous result for the reason nothing of the kind ever occurred dyuring the war, the nearest example perhaps being the slaughter of the Japanese supply convoy in the Bismarck Sea, but even that doesn't come close to this result and had very much different circumstances throughout.

You do know this, right?

I'm not looking for a fight I'm just curious.

I only fight when I have to. Otherwise I'm here only to get to the bottom of this mess. And a mess it surely is.

If you were designing the program when would you be satisfied with your model.

When it stopped giving stupid results like the onee I just posted from my PBEM game.

Must it always be 2 Zeros and 17 Betties? Would the same result need to be found on every machine every time? If not how do you decide when a result has went too far. (or not far enough depending on your point of view) I've never been able to verbalize my position adequately. Basically I don't think the model should be as narrow as I perceive you want it to be. Why? Because the people playing the game will not be doing things the way their historic counter parts did.

Reasonable is reasonable, or at leasst ought to be. Unfortunately too many people who are ignorant of how the actual history of World War II reads, and just as important, if not more importantly still why that history reads the way it does, are involved in this project and have guided it down paths which lead to the kind of results I just posted.

For Example. Suppose on a date in 1942 10 Zeros fought 10 P-40 Suppose one side shot down 5 aircraft and lost none. But also suppose the side that lost the 5 aircraft was wore out. The pilots were tired and aircraft needed repair. Would an accurate model Make that side always lose 5 aircraft or only lose 5 aircraft if the pilots were tired and aircraft needed repair? What happens to a model when the users of the model do not conduct the war in the same manner as the people who produced the historic results that are used for data to produce the model. When building the model it also has to be able to produce results when the input has no historic example. ( Extrapolation)

You keep mentioning this. The answer is simple enough. A good model won't allow users to abuse it to the degree you seem to think might be possible because a good model will present its mechanics in such a way that only "reasonably" intelligent moves will occur to its users. That's part of the answer. The other part is that even users do use ahistoric methods to try and resolve their half-baked happily the model will punish this sort of system mismanagement appropriately in teerms which might be reconciled historically by the informed.

At no juncture should a model of World War II action ever, by any stretch of the imagination, render the kind of results I just posted from my current PBEM game. That's just stupid, and this is precisely what I've seen from UV right out of the box.

Japanese air assets are treated to enormous advantages just in the forms of experience and morale ratings, and thir main fighter, the Zero, is either over-modelled or those same experience and morale ratings haold too much sway over the course of play. Take the reverse for the Allies and there you go.

Also, I sense (but cannot prove) that something else "holds the Allied air assets back" when it comes to these sorts of punitive strikes on shipping. Already stated, in my play experience similar IJN raiders after a bombardment mission seem to be "invisible" to USN air assets, but as you can readily see from the posted AAR they are not invisible to Japanese air assets, meanwhile those same Japanese air assets allowed to fly one mission after another, some at great distance, to pummel their USN targets without mercy to a degree of accuracy that is not historic but ahistoric.

That all miight make for a "fun game" to someone who doesn't know any better, but I do know better and I call it what it actually is: phoney and gamey as can be.

You are testing the model using a historic example. You must have defined acceptable results and unacceptable results based strictly on comparison to your historic example. How would you decide the variance allowable for testing a non historic example? How does game scale impact what results are acceptable for the model? How should events such as the Betty that crashed into the GFE be modeled? (As a hit or should suicide be added to combat routine?)(Or should GFE survive unhurt because she was not struck by a torpedo?)

Again, look at the results of my latest AAR from PBEM play and then come back to me with this drivel. Let's see, the rationasle might very well run, "Well, you shouldn't have sent those two bombardment fleets to Buka in the first place, you ought to have expected a nasty reception afterward from JApanese land-based planes" and on and on.

By the way, and for what it's worth all of those USN ships had been trained up in night combat to nothing less than a 47 (that for one sole DD) and most of them were in the 70s range, this from prior bombardment missions. They also enjoyed SG radar technology in the BB TF and SC radar gear was working for them on all platforms in the other TF.

None of which, however, begins to address the seminal problem: the Japanese air model is off to an alarming degree.

To try another approach. Should the models Booean formulas have predetermined outputs or should every resolution be worked out as they occur.

Probably the latter but I don't knolw as I haven't looked inside the model. Bottomline, though, is always the r-e-s-u-l-t. When the r-e-s-u-l-t is ca-ca then it's for sure the formulas don't work right.

You see that, too, right?

In your Lunga test. What happens if the Japanese make the same type attack everyday for a week (always using a fresh group) and the Escorts and transports begin to run out of AA ammo?

What would you expect. What is the point to these kinds of questions?

Do you, in fact, want to get this simulation even close to right, or are you here just to assk silly questions so that your "loyalty" to the project and to Matrix Games might never be doubted?

Another question concerning the 8-9 Aug attacks but nothing to do with UV. Does anyone know why these Betty aircraft had their bomb-bay doors removed before the attack? Is this always a low level tactic?

That's beyond me. Maybe one of the "Air Warriors" around here could answer it. Sounds interesting on its face.

Hi, Well thanks for not answering what I thought were straight forward questions and going back to the same old "stop asking silly questions to prove loyalty to matrix"
UV is a done deal. I don't care what Matrix does as far as patch. They can change whatever they feel they should. I'm interested in future models of combat.

Are you sure all those Betty bombers flew from Buka? (Buka begins scenario 14 a size 1 airfield. Shortlands begins also at size 1. It would seem to me to make more sense for the Japanese to build Shortland and base the bombers there. (You need a size 4 airfield for level bombers to operate normally) So yes I would like to see the replay.

Torpedo hits: Once 1 torpedo hits a ship, follow on attacks have a ship at reduced speed. (so chance for more hits increases. ) How does your PBEM result differ from Force 'Z'? When were USN BB exposed to Betty attack without CAP? How can you know what result would be. Are you suggesting USN players can go where they please because no USN BB was sunk at sea in WW2?

I did not ask about UV I asked about your model.

Lets begin again. Suppose I am a programmer with no knowledge of WW2 and over a beer you are explaining what you would like me to program.

How would I get the 2 Zero 17 Betty result. What would you want model to produce if 10x as many Japanese aircraft attacked?

I would really like numbers instead of rhetoric.
What should UV combat result produce for Aug 8th attack? exact or plus/minus limits

Thanks

TIMJOT wrote: Tristanjohn
------------------------------
Bad guess. (Logical, but not right in this case. If you want I'll mail you the files. Take a look at them yourself, run the test yourself. Something's not right in there.)
------------------------------

I am begining to think you have some sort of faulty disk or something. Do understand you correctly that you have your Bettys set to Naval Attack/ Rest yet they are flying off to PM to bomb the port with no ships in it? I can assure you this is not indicative of the game engine. I am guessing your editing is causing problems or you personal game copy has a bug of some sort. Do yourself a favor and use scen 7 or 14 for your testing. There are no ships at PM and the oob is historical in those scenerios. Useing scen 7 have never had any problem getting the Bettys to attack lunga.

That or the airfield. I forget now and it's a minor point given all that's wrong with this simulation. I've run across so many bugs, most of which I notice the company's aware of but either isn't inclined to fix or has tried to fix but says Gary can't.

That's the reality.

Sheeesh. I've seen USN subs use torpedo spreads on AGs! (how hard would it be to put a stop to that?) and then more incredible still score torpedo hits on these same AGs!

For your information that must be an impossibility save for the off chance one of those torpedoes porpoised into the side of one of those AGs, in which case, given the American torpedo state of the art it would be entirely more likely that the torpedo would either go right through both sides of that vessel or simply stick on the first suface--both examples can be found more than once in reading the history of these kinds of actions.

But nevertheless this kind of nonsense was somehow first programmed into the model and then allowed to stay.

As for the editing: Mike Wood tells me this is the same editor he uses, or used at one time, at his home for programming purpose (making scenarios I'd guess) and if it has bugs in it or not I'd have no way of knowing. Wouldn't surprise me, though.

------------------------------
We don't know how much flak was put up. We do know that not every ship in the TF had clear line of sight (ship logs, sailor diaries, analysis of track charts and so on), it's certain only a few support ships ever had unfettered line of sight to the Japanese planes for the entire duration of the attack.
------------------------------


Line of site and direction of attack are irrevelant in game terms.

I realize that. A pity, though. There's too much inconsequential detail in this game while important stuff is totally ignored.

-------------------------------
On the other hand, with the correct number of transports included we then at least have the correct number of targets--the Japanese were (as they ought to have been) after the transports. These ships were their primary objective, the support forces were of secondary importance.
--------------------------------

I disagree, the number of targets remain the same 25. The game engine does not prioritize transports over escorts. BTW it might be logical that the attack concentrated on the transports, it is apparent that many of the escorts were specifcally targeted. The only ships hit by ordinance were escorts. From accounts the Chicago and Vincence came under particular heavy attack. The Vincence narrorwly avoided two torps and barely missed being hit by a crashing betty ala the George T. Elliot.

Lots of ships in WWII "narrowly avoided" torpedoes. So what? That's probably the underlying thinking of Gary, both in PW as well as UV with regard to how he modelled the japanese. They were just unlucky" a few times.

That's not an especially intelligent way to go about modeling warfare.

Historically there were 19 escorts guarding 15 transports. Since we are limited to 25 ships I think to model the situation correctly we should keep the historic ratio which would roughly be 11 transports to 14 escorts. Agreed?

Not if this artificially pumps up Turner's defending AA fire.

If, in fact, the game model does not distinguish between warships and transports in this kind of situation (not at all surprised again) then that, too, represents a serious modeling error. As you state, the primary mission of the japanese pilots in actuality was to attack and damage as far as possible the transport shipping in the channel. That ought to be a no-brainer to anyone. Without the ability to reflect this sort ofasset management in the game there's an even smaller chance of conducting realistic and intelligent games.

--------------------------------
Gary doesn't actually have planes flying around in there, TIMJOT. Everything's just one large happy average and abstracted like crazy, with variables (and randomization hard at work on these) doing this and modifying that like you wouldn't believe . . . you get the idea I'm sure. So with more ships there's a larger chance (and with Gary I do mean chance) of one of those Japanese "planes" launching a "torpedo" that will "run true" and "hit" one of those "transports."
-------------------------------

Exactly Tristanjohn, Its an abstraction, thats why line of site of individual ships and attack directions of aircraft are irrevelent

Again, I realize this. Please try to read me for the import of my writing. Don't you think I understand the model doesn't take that sort of minutiae into consideration?

--------------------------
One thing about Gary's method of "combat" that always seems true in his games: small differences in just one variable tend to make a significant difference in the result.
--------------------------

If this is the case then why do you feel changeing the amount of AA is less significant that the number of Transports?

Because it's a an important variable to the defense.

Don't you think AA fire bends tortuously around this issue? I can't help it if Gary's model has silly TF-size limits (what's the point to that?) and doesn't accomodate realities such as other TFs in "port" hexes needing the ability to lend their AA fire (or a reasonable portion of it) to the defense of neighboring TFs. No one asked my opinion. They're too busy asking the opinions of others to whom these detals apparently aren't important or never occurred to begin with.

Indeed, I've read that Gary's (and/or Matrix is) mainly happy with the simulation given it portrays all this action "operationally" well enough.

Sounds great. Only thing is it doesn't from time time. Oh well, no system's perfect, right.

--------------------------
Again, there's no way to know exactly. Case in point: Vincennes was steaming somewhat west (possibly northwest) of Jarvis when the latter was struck; Jarvis was generally west (or northwest) of Turner's transports.....
-------------------------

Actually Tristanjohn, according to DANFS the Vincence was excellent position, haveing a clear line of site on the attacking a/c. Even as Drongo pointed out useing its 8" battery to good effect by putting up walls of water that broke up many of the attack runs. Also according to DANFS, "Amphibians Attack"(Turner), and the official US Army history of the campaing (Miller) the rest of the fire support TF, The Astoria,Quincy Hull, Wilson, Dewey all participated in the defence that day.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody participated but not everybody was able to bring their all their fire all at once on those Bettys. Plenty of fire was brought to bear, enough to decimate the attack and help prevent any more damage than was actually the case. What we don't know is exactly how the model works this AA--attack force--target ships interrelationship, so it's only conjecture on our part.

Look. None of this is getting us anywhere useful. Bottomline: the simulation gives, all too often, ahistoric results, and early in the game at least these results tend to favor the Japanese to a notorious extent. Ergo, to a degree I feel very uncomfortable with the model is off. And from what I'm told by people who have grown tired of trying to get this board to see this reality it's not going to do me any good raising a stink about it.

I try nevertheless.

I will post the revised test shortly.

Go for it!

Hi, Are you sure you are using version 2.30 (install 2.0 and add all post 2.00 Patch)
USN sub will not attack AG with torpedos (if they do so in 2.30 it is a bug) Of course this results in their making surface attacks which makes many USN players unhappy.

Hi, Does anyone think the daylight action had any impact on the result of the surface action that night?

Mogami wrote:Hi, Well thanks for not answering what I thought were straight forward questions and going back to the same old "stop asking silly questions to prove loyalty to matrix"
UV is a done deal. I don't care what Matrix does as far as patch. They can change whatever they feel they should. I'm interested in future models of combat.

That is my position in a nutshell. We see eye to eye on that. All I'm concerned with is how WitP turns out. Unhappily, you're on record as telling me you see no problems with UV at all. You remember that, right? And forgive me for saying so, but there is at least one other playtester around here who seems to share the same view and into the bargain isn't even polite about it (neither are you sometimes, come to think of it--people who resort to the constant use of ad hominem argumentative technique (and where is that other genius and system apologist who informs me it is not a "technique" but a "form" or whatever term he babbled of argument ) could hardly be depicted as "polite"), not to mention Mike Wood of Matrix who wrote to me in the forum that he thinks the model's pretty much solid, too, though big changes are in stroe for WitP. And so please forgive me for taking this next gigantic leap in logic . . . but I somehow have a difficult time reconciling all of the above with much hope that WitP, the project I'm setting my sights on here with all this testing and complaining and all that, stands a snowball's chance in hell of coming out a whole lot different than UV with regards to "accuracy."

It might at that, but not unless the developers begin to change their attitude, because the problems I address here are there for a reason, that reason being that the same developers happen to imagine that this represents a workable model of WWII action in the Pacific.

It does not. And examples from play to demonstrate its many and various shortcomings are not at all hard to find.

Getting around all that, Mogami, I still choose to believe you're a good guy at heart and don't mean to be rude to me. I choose to believe that in your frustration in having to deal with someone such as I, a man who does know what he's talking about, a man who does not back down and just shuffle away at the first sign of obstinance on the part of the company and its playtest crew but instead sticks to his "accuracy" guns, you've mistakenly resorted to one of two uses of sour debate technique and you (hopefully) regret having done so.

Is that the case?

Are you sure all those Betty bombers flew from Buka? (Buka begins scenario 14 a size 1 airfield. Shortlands begins also at size 1. It would seem to me to make more sense for the Japanese to build Shortland and base the bombers there. (You need a size 4 airfield for level bombers to operate normally) So yes I would like to see the replay.

This is stupid. Why not just ask me if I've doctored the files? Or better still and entirely more to the point (with all this great doubt weighing your ability to lend credence to anything I write with regard to AARs and whatnot in this forum) just ask me for the email address of my Spanish PBEM opponent and get the same saved files from him which I receied this morning shortly before posting the results in this forum?

Why not just do that and save all of us the pain from having to read through your otherwise pointless discourse?

I have his email address, so if you ewon't believe what I post simply say the word.,

Your move, Mogami.

But it's not gonna make any difference. Not really. Because no matter how many of these examples I bring to this forum some people are still going to be rude to me (and others with similar complaints and identical AAR "evidence") and mainly greet this very bad news with something along the line of "you must be seeing things" or "your disk must be defective" or "have your tried adjusting your monitor's vertical hold contol?" and like idicocies in response. That because, as I've noted, the a-t-t-i-t-u-d-e in this forum is not one terribly conducive to making any change whatsoever in this product, except insofar as that change might make a better "game." A better simulation is, apparently, a wet dream away from what this forum's agenda is about.

Torpedo hits: Once 1 torpedo hits a ship, follow on attacks have a ship at reduced speed. (so chance for more hits increases. ) How does your PBEM result differ from Force 'Z'? When were USN BB exposed to Betty attack without CAP? How can you know what result would be. Are you suggesting USN players can go where they please because no USN BB was sunk at sea in WW2?

I'm saying the number of attacks and hit frequency and distances involved (not only the attacks on the TF but all those thrown into Russell and Gili Gili) are not reflective of what a "good" simulation would offer its users. Top that off with the reality (not my opinion, mind you, but reality) that if positions were reversed no such type of successful retaliation would have been realized by the Allied side, at least not this early in the war. Maybe later, I don't know. But if that is the case then I'd be the first one to pounce on that and declare that, too, to be totally unrealistic.

For your information: ship speed is not necessarily reduced all that much as a result of one or even two torpedo hits. I know this because I've checked. In any event, most of the USN ships in the AAR I posted returned some seven hexes toward home, so their speed couldn't have been reduced to "cripple" status. That distance from Buka makes the round trip flight for the Japanese retaliatory flights some 200 hundred miles (not to mention the little detail of actually finding the ships) and as you can see multiple attacks were throw in . . . as well as the attacks on Russell with these very same planes.

I tell you it's beyond ludicrous, you come back with some fantastic rationalization for the program. I can only shake my head.

In any event. if you're of a mind to simply dismiss the kind of result I just posted with weak argument then there's no hope that WitP will ever amount to much.

That's a piity, but that's just exactly what the developers deserve and ought to have expected. The pity is gamers (some gasmers, others don't know the difference and don't care anyway) deserve better.

I did not ask about UV I asked about your model.

Lets begin again. Suppose I am a programmer with no knowledge of WW2 and over a beer you are explaining what you would like me to program.

How would I get the 2 Zero 17 Betty result. What would you want model to produce if 10x as many Japanese aircraft attacked?

I would really like numbers instead of rhetoric.
What should UV combat result produce for Aug 8th attack? exact or plus/minus limits

Thanks

I don't have a model. I have an idea that this model called Uncommon Valor is ca-ca. That's the only model I wish to discuss.

Tristanjohn, I think we are talking past each other. I am a little confused with some of your statements. On the one hand you say you understand that such minutia are irrelevent to the game engine, yet continually site individual ship location, line of site and direction of attack when proposeing the TF composition.

Being as I know you are well aware this is not a "Tactical" simulation put an operational simulation that models combat abstractly. IMHO,Whats relevent is that if you put the historical oob into a hex and attack it with the corresponding historical oob you the get close to the historical results a goodly amount of the time with the occasional chance of skewed results either way.

I got involved in this thread, way back when because your statement (paraphraseing) that it was impossible to duplicate anywhere near the historic results of the air attacks at Lunga on Aug 7,8th 1942. This had not been my playing expirence, but was curious what would happen if I tested the specific historical circumstances. So far on this specific point, the test I have run have yet to counter my personal playing expirence.

Of course that doesnt make my expirence anymore or less relevant than yours. We all have are own personal opinions on what is valid and is not valid. I have my own opinions on what the game does not get right. An over efficient "spotting" routine is one I share with you.
I am hopeing that this will be toned down signifcantly in WitP with perhaps a toggle switch to allow for UV level spotting capability to placate the players who would get frustrated or bored with a more historical spotting routine.

Mogami wrote:Hi, Does anyone think the daylight action had any impact on the result of the surface action that night?

Are you addressing the last AAR I posted?

TIMJOT wrote:Tristanjohn, I think we are talking past each other. I am a little confused with some of your statements. On the one hand you say you understand that such minutia are irrelevent to the game engine, yet continually site individual ship location, line of site and direction of attack when proposeing the TF composition.

As I recall most of that, if not all of it, was given by me en passant and only in reference to details from history you had raised. Your argument (I'm not going to bother going back and reading it--I suggest you do, though) went more or less: there must be reasons the Betty's attacked the way they did on 8 August 1942 instead of going for an "anvil'; you further delivered yourself to the oipinion that the water off Lunga Point might have been too shallow for torpedoes and that an attack from the south over Guadacanal had to be ruled out because the "air space" involved was too small.

You recall?

Otherwise I doubt I'd have ever raised any of those points. They are relevant (and I got them right) but only insofar as they bear on the limitation of the UV model as we find it today--they would also be relevant as far as they could possibly cast light on why the Japanese attack was conducted the way it was.

Being as I know you are well aware this is not a "Tactical" simulation put an operational simulation that models combat abstractly. IMHO,Whats relevent is that if you put the historical oob into a hex and attack it with the corresponding historical oob you the get close to the historical results a goodly amount of the time with the occasional chance of skewed results either way.

I got involved in this thread, way back when because your statement (paraphraseing) that it was impossible to duplicate anywhere near the historic results of the air attacks at Lunga on Aug 7,8th 1942. This had not been my playing expirence, but was curious what would happen if I tested the specific historical circumstances. So far on this specific point, the test I have run have yet to counter my personal playing expirence.

Of course that doesnt make my expirence any more or less relevant than yours. We all have are own personal opinions on what is valid and is not valid. I have my own opinions on what the game does not get right. An over efficient "spotting" routine is one I share with you.
I am hopeing that this will be toned down signifcantly in WitP with perhaps a toggle switch to allow for UV level spotting capability to placate the players who would get frustrated or bored with a more historical spotting routine.

Spotting isn't just defective but a terrible joke. And that walks hand in hand with the sometimes dysfunctional and otherwise wholly unworthy "weather system" we're treated to. As I noted to Mike Wood what's called for are weather fronts that move sort of like "screen-saver" semi-tranparent overlays across the map, behind which (or in front of, depending on orientation of either side in the game) reasonable sense might be made of planning, say, a week down the road.

What we have is useless.

I also pointed out to Mike that better information needs to be given on TF spottings and that this information needs to be accessible in a kind of CIC module where the players could intelligently study this data, with TF headings and speed included, with prior TF sighting data also available at a glance going back several days.

That would represent a logical appoach to this kind of simulation. Instead time and energy is wasted on rules changes such as the "CV TF air capabilities in port/coast hexes" rule to placate the "gamers" around here. That's sad.

Given today's computer systems (CPUs and graphics cards especially) I think something much better ought to be expected from our game developers. This kind of software is not bought by the general public (though it's true plenty of wargame-lite types are being catered to big time ) and no matter how many more dollars it takes to program it correctly (i.e., more realistically) this investment would be recouped simply by charging a few more dollars for the product. That goes double in relation to the absence of a decently-written and presented manual. The one we have is incredbly poorly written and organized and does not even begin to describe properly a number of important game functions. Examples from play are absent completely. And I can't tell you how many times the same useless words take up space and explain nothing at all under one heading after the next. I find it a pain to go to.

A "player guide" is provided, but as this is written by Jim Cobb I must believe he was given neither time nor money to do it right. Now I happen to know Cobb personaly and I have respect for his intellect, which is large, and his work and his diligence to projects of this type, so I don't speak idly. Better needs to be expected.

"We" buy this game. Mr. and Mrs. Smith in Nowhere, Iowa couldn't care less. As for that wargame-lite crowd: they'd be just as happy with an "accurate" simulation as with UV. Perhaps more so after they were educated as to just how accurate (and why it was accurate) that simulation was--this presumably to come from more experienced and more knowledgable users, from whom I would expect greater participation of boards of this kind if these titles were better rendered to begin with. But maybe I'm dreaming about that. I could be the only old fart left.

I agree, my opinion should not overawe yours, and I do not mean to be overbearing in my manner. But I've seen all this before, so many times I want to cry. I am tired of having my wargames dumbed-down to begin with and then sent to me not working correctly in the name of sales, or in the name of "developer vision" or for any other reason you could present to me.

Will any simulation ever be perfect? I doubt it, certainly not in my lifetime. But they can well be better built than UV. How do I know this? Because I've played a few along the way, that's how. My message is I want to play some more before I die.

As for results: sometimes they are "accurate" or "realistic" or call them what you will. The problem is all too often they are not. A simulation worth it's salt will not be right today and wrong tomorrow. That's the peformance of a very poor model. I would be willing to accept occasional (read: once in a blue moon) results that are off the wall. When it happens often I lose patience fast.

Hi, I thought we had begun anew but I guess not. I see you keep refering to my posts before we started over.
I'm trying to see the issues from your side but you refuse to help me out.

"This is stupid. Why not just ask me if I've doctored the files? Or better still and entirely more to the point (with all this great doubt weighing your ability to lend credence to anything I write with regard to AARs and whatnot in this forum) just ask me for the email address of my Spanish PBEM opponent and get the same saved files from him which I receied this morning shortly before posting the results in this forum?"

I could go back to your AAR post and point out where you said "to the best of my recollection" I was only asking "are you sure"
I did not intend "liar liar"
Sorry you interpeted it as such.


"Unhappily, you're on record as telling me you see no problems with UV at all. You remember that, right? And forgive me for saying so,"

I don't think I've ever stated that as you now interpet it. I think I'm on record as stating that UV performs as designed and results are plausable.
I still have no understanding what results you desire as you will never quantify them. Saying "present results are silly" does not help me bridge this gap. At one time I was under the impression you actually had your own model and were comparing results. (The reason I posted that battle for you, I wanted to compare and see what you produced)

It's one thing to say "your all wrong" and produce conflicting data and another to say "your all wrong" and then never state what would be right. I've been trying over and over to find out what would be right.

2 Zero 17 Betty. Historical
what would be right in your mind?


"For your information: ship speed is not necessarily reduced all that much as a result of one or even two torpedo hits. I know this because I've checked. In any event, most of the USN ships in the AAR I posted returned some seven hexes toward home, so their speed couldn't have been reduced to "cripple" status. That distance from Buka makes the round trip flight for the Japanese retaliatory flights some 200 hundred miles (not to mention the little detail of actually finding the ships) and as you can see multiple attacks were throw in . . . as well as the attacks on Russell with these very same planes. "

How do you check ship speed during attacks? When the first torpedo strikes and before the next aircraft attack is resolved. The ships speed reduces and this new data is used for the next aircraft attack. Not all attacks against a ship use the same data (unless the early ac miss)
If the first ac chance of hitting was 1/1000 and it still hit (being the 1000th such attack to resolve or the next 999 failing) Then the second AC hit chance would changed based on this first hit. (1/500 or whatever
since the second AC would have different exp/fat/morale) Do you see what I am trying to show? Ship speed when you look at it during your order phase will not always be ship speed during attack. (was any ship still on fire, still flooding?)

As far as multiple attacks, each bomber only flew 1 time per phase. There are 2 phases in a day. Calculate the time required to fly there and back twice. (400miles rearm 200miles (the second return trip having no bearing except operantional loss if arriving home after dark)) How many hours in a day in the Pacific? (I think a group could make two attacks using 4 hours for each with 2 hours to rearm in between. (Being set to Naval attack I give the AC credit for already being armed at daylight)(The second attack will use new data as the crews are now more fatigued then first strike. Morale effects depend of course on how the morning strike went)


"Are you addressing the last AAR I posted?"

No I am asking if anyone thinks the historic daylight action had any impact on the historic night battle.

Tristanjohn,

Just wanted to answer some of your direct questions.

(quote)
--------------------------------
Lots of ships in WWII "narrowly avoided" torpedoes. So what?
-------------------------------



So what? Well I was merely pointing out that not only Vincence contributed to the defence ( you stated you were unsure ) but it was in point of fact was in the thick of it. Second I was attempting to point out that according to accounts much of the attacks were in fact directed at the escorts not the Transports.




(quote)
-------------------------------
Not if this artificially pumps up Turner's defending AA fire.
-------------------------------


Not sure why that would be the case. From what I understand the TF AA model takes into account that not all guns can be brought to bare at the same time.



(quote)
---------------------------------
As you state, the primary mission of the japanese pilots in actuality was to attack and damage as far as possible the transport shipping in the channel. That ought to be a no-brainer to anyone. Without the ability to reflect this sort ofasset management in the game there's an even smaller chance of conducting realistic and intelligent games.
----------------------------------


Actually I didnt state that at all. I believe you did. Regardless the actual primary mission that day was attack the USN CVs. It was only when the scouts fail to locate them, that the attack was redirected (inflight) to attack the Lunga TF. This BTW this answers our question on why the hammer and anvil tactic was not employed at Lunga on the 8th. Again given accounts and the known Japanese pilots propensity to place priority on culling combat ships as per their training and strategic doctorine. It is not at all clear that the transports were the priority of the Japanses pilots that day. Although certainly they should have been.



(quote)
--------------------------
Because it's a an important variable to the defense.
--------------------------



Why? Sorry if I am slow, but could you be a bit more specific, I truely do not understand your reasonings



(quote)
---------------------------
Don't you think AA fire bends tortuously around this issue? I can't help it if Gary's model has silly TF-size limits (what's the point to that?) and doesn't accomodate realities such as other TFs in "port" hexes needing the ability to lend their AA fire (or a reasonable portion of it) to the defense of neighboring TFs. No one asked my opinion. They're too busy asking the opinions of others to whom these detals apparently aren't important or never occurred to begin with.
---------------------------



I believe One, it has something to do with diminishing returns regarding AA effectiveness. Two I am guessing its a programming issue. Regardless I do think that some TF limits is nessary otherwise you are going to have equally silly uber TFs ( 100 to 200+ ships)




(quote)
-------------------------------
Look. None of this is getting us anywhere useful. Bottomline: the simulation gives, all too often, ahistoric results, and early in the game at least these results tend to favor the Japanese to a notorious extent.
-------------------------------



Tristanjohn, Take this for what its is. A friendly hint. I believe you wouldnt get nearly as much opposition if your statements like above, were not so definitive in nature. A few caveats like "In my opinion" or "In my expirence" would go a long way. You seem to leave little room for other player's expirences or opinions. Many players are simply not consistently getting the results you are reporting. So when people ask you if you are playing on "historical" or if you are running 2.3 ect.... its because some of us are perplexed on how your stated expirences can be so diametrically opposed to our own.


Regards

Hi, I have posted several thousand turn results in my AAR. Going back to version 1.00 I think you will note where events were "silly" in my opinion I so noted them as such. I however never took bad results as a personal affront or used them to attack the designers. Many of my AAR results led to changes.
A bug is when the program gives results other then what the programmer/designer intended. To fix a bug
first you must have a save
second you must state how bug occured
third bug has to be duplicted (programmer cannot debug what he cannot duplicate
bugs should not be used as examples of how the program performs (you can have an opinion as to their remaining but once again they can't fix what they can't duplicate)

I do find it interesting when players do things with no historic precendent and then state the game produces unhistoric results.
Fast TF such as bombardment move 1 full phase after bombarding.
Slower TF's will remain inside enemy LBA. Japanese LBA has greater range then USA LBA (for the most part) Comparing the two is not fair.
When the IJN sends 24kt ships to do bombardment missions and Allied airfields with bombers set to Naval attack are in range the IJN TF's will be attacked. (If they close the target airfield during the night and no other field is in range then they will not be attacked.) This is also true for USN TF's

I read this thread with ever more incredulity. I was going to attempt to facilitate the discussion by summarising the views, and attempting to get buy in to a starting point for onward discussion. However, I have had to admit defeat. IMHO those of you that are attempting to argue with a couple of the individuals are wasting your time: either you do not share a common language, or the view of what the argument is about is somewhat diffuse.

I will content myself with one small contribution to a point (detatched from the main debate) that has come up a couple of times:

Tristanjohn wrote: .... The rule (I'm told put in the mollify some of the "gamers" on this board) re the halving of flight operations off CV TFs in coastal/port hexes is so ridiculous it hardly deserves serious commentary--this is a perfect example of how screwed up a project of this nature can get when the developers listen willy nilly to people who have little appreciation for the balance of the overall model dynamics, how detrimental even seemingly small changes such as this, no matter how well meaning they are in suggestion, can be to the simulation insofar as the normal result is that often more serious and difficult-to-correct problems are thus created. What is this restrictive CV rule supposed to simulate: some "theoretical" real-world restriction of CVs to fly more than half their complements when in port or coastal waters? Was it to accommodate the "gamers" who might like to park their super-CV TFs in ports as a means of making, say, Festung Rabaul more impregnable still?

Who dreams this stuff up? Why does anyone pay these people the least mind?

The protagonist here has, somewhat directly, implied that 2by3 haven't got a clue what they are doing, and have made inappropriate changes to the game model, without due consideration to the consequences - direct or otherwise.

What these effects might be are not made plain.

Some facts: (alright, to be honest, I wont call them facts, since I have no direct expertise, and references - call them observations)

CVs have to steam at relatively high speed when operating a/c, unless there is a high natural wind, to provide sufficient wind over deck to operate a/c. If there is that much wind, the sea state is unlikely to be conducive to a/c opns. When close to land, the proximity of that land tends to limit how far you can go without turning around. Flying opns are inhibited when turning, sailing the wrong way relative to any normal breeze etc. The net result is that CVs did not, on the whole, operate a/c when close to land. The certainly didn't operate a/c in port (usually flying them off to a land base before entering port, and collecting them on leaving). If they did operate, they would not achieve the flying rates that they might achieve under better conditions. In order to restrict the CVs in the game from operating near land, and to provide a stimulus to the players to keep them off shore, the halving rule was put in in one of the upgrades.

This rule is not a serious statement that aircraft carriers really operated half the a/c when within 15 miles or so of land, nor that deck operations suddenly go to half speed. IT IS A GAME MECHANIC to address a specific issue. I do not see what effect (dramatic or otherwise) it has on the game model elsewhere. As far as I can see, it does (for me) what is intended - I do not operate CVs close inshore.

I picked on this point a) because it's been annoying me, and b) because I am afraid it illustrates the problem with at least some of the arguments in this thread: unjustified claims, inadequately backed up, to support some case that I doubt even the main protagonists can state clearly.

Please do not bother to accuse me of Ad Hominem points, or any other fault of logic. I suggest you take a week off, write down you point on paper, assemble your FACTS, supported by test runs if necessary, and then start a new thread.

I do not know what this thread is achieving, it certainly wont change WiTP, UV, or even a single players mind. However, I fear I am wasting my time...

Hi, To pause a moment and reflect.
Persons who have been following UV from development to release through the patches know nothing new is being raised here.
The model has been looked at for a long time by a lot of people.
There was an period of "Open" Beta testing where anyone with a copy of UV could test and post results and opinions. Patch 2.30 was the result. Around this time it also became clear that the majority of Matrix followers desired work to proceed on WITP rather then continue with UV
(same resources being used for both) It was understood that as much as possible would be backfitted to UV after it was developed in WITP.

Every aspect of both have been argued in public (and private)
What is being adopted is a mix of what is possible and what is required.
Many many many things asked for in UV are today found in WITP.
I am not now and have never been a Matrix spokes person. Opinions expressed by me are solely my own. There is a question concerning what UV is supposed to be and what it actually is. I don't think it is perfect. I think it is playable. Enjoyable and reasonable. I don't think and have never claimed to think it is 100 percent perfect. It is however more then I ever expected. WITP is beyond belief. It too however will not please everyone in every aspect. It does do what is sets out to do.
Give a reasonable, enjoyable model of the Pacific War allowing great input from the players. There is no way to decide whether or not it produces 100 percent accurate results 100 percent of the time. It does allow the players to learn what to expect in any set of circumstance and to plan their actions accordingly. It is after all a game.
Someday some other WW2 in The Pacific game will come along and be better then UV/WITP. I expect however it will be sometime coming.
The only motive for starting such a task is love of subject. As such accuracy is of prime importance. Deciding what is accurate seems to be much more difficult.