What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
Crest has been shown to be an effective decay-preventive dentifrice that can be of considerable value when used as directed in a conscientiously applied program of oral hygiene and regular professional care.Tristanjohn wrote:implied a heirarchy of considerational value.
Are we having fun yet?
It certainly doesn't begin to explain some of the oddities you've beenMogami wrote:Well then, there it is.
Exactly so. Raw values for various plane and pilot ratings taken in isolation and outside of known relational context do not mean a thing--or, should you prefer, they could mean anything at all! And that's just when taking the ratings themselves into consideration. How these values relate to one another in combination (where the formula plugs them in), how they might further be modified at times (RANDOM? Radar? Weather? Intel?? Prep time???), these and other (implied) variables make it anyone's guess. In general "blindfold" testing of the sort Mogami's conducting is a fruitless exercise and hopeless in this case with an eye to analysis of a given plane's flight characteristics. On the other hand, gross results from these tests to date do point, at times, to a problem of one kind or another within the air-module's flight-combat sequence of dynamics with re to calculation. (The order in which Gary's formulas combine plane/pilot/leader/et. al. values might be flawed with respect to those inter-relational values, thus giving unacceptable "kill scores" at times. It's either that or the scale of relative values itself is cockeyed, in which case any order of sequence of combination would render unaccepable results.)mdiehl wrote:I still want to know why the Zeke is rated as more maneuverable than the P40 or what effects the relative differences in MVR have on the result. I also want to know what goes into the durability rating. Since the Zeke's cannon could not penetrate the seat-armor on any armored US aircraft, the relative value of the Zekes durability seems too high (or the Allied a/c too low). The durability ratings seem most heavily influenced by the presence or absence of an engine.
I take this to be a separate point philosophically, and I'm afraid you know the answer as well as I.mdiehl wrote:I still want to know why the Zeke is rated as more maneuverable than the P40 or what effects the relative differences in MVR have on the result. I also want to know what goes into the durability rating. Since the Zeke's cannon could not penetrate the seat-armor on any armored US aircraft, the relative value of the Zekes durability seems too high (or the Allied a/c too low). The durability ratings seem most heavily influenced by the presence or absence of an engine.
), and, while there apparently are some dilligent playtesters on the WitP project to write their own "long letters" to Gary (from what I've read in the forum only one or two or three, but that's better than none) there are, most regretably, a veritable pack of other playtesters who've been chosen for God knows what reason who cannot apparently write a simple declarative sentence much less a detailed analysis and in any event too many of these people are reluctant to listen to those who are critical of nature and can write well, use good data and extrapolate sense from it all, and this regarding even the most obvious flaws in the model, the flaws everyone ought to be able to see. Plus, I've a cloudy impression there's an unhealthy "Gee, I'm so glad to be here!" spirit at work as well, and don't even get me going on the "Let's mount that map on the wall! Hey, who's got my grease pencil?" set. Well, that's as thickheaded as anything I've read to date. Until this post you ran a clear second to Kid for the Mr. Boffo "unclear on the concept" award, but with this effort you've just reserved your entry into the finals competition.Mogami wrote:Hi, Rest your sphincters boys, the program is in Alpha stage. Reading some of these posts is like listening to spectators watching a crew dig a basement complaining about the roof leaking.
Requests for formulas? (What you got a slide rule that predicts air to air combat?)
The important thing is fighters fly CAP and bombers fly to targets. Ground units consume supply produced by heavy industry converting resource and oil. It's all still under construction and I'm amazed people jump to conclusions and condemn what they can't see. I blame myself for posting test results. from now on I'll just limit what I say because I don't want all the knotted panties on my conscience.
I think this is the one area of discussion where ANECDOTES from pilots actually have some value for the game design. Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky includes one such example of a group of garden-variety P38 drivers who tag-teamed on an Oscar over New Guinea. Although the P-38s essentially made passing runs at an Oscar on a string, the Oscar pilot was good enough to thwart the P38s attacks. All of them. And escape.If the inexperienced pilot is in a totally superior a/c, he might be almost immune to attack, but conversely, the expert on the other side should be able to evade the attack as well. In summary, aces beat newbies, unless the newby is in a totally dominant a/c, in which case combat tends to inconclusive (rather than equal losses in any number.
Except that doing it that way would be incorrect, at least iuntil late 1943. In an early war engagement you'd have 4 vs 3 or 2 vs 3 (Allies vs Japanese) because the Japanese used three plane sections long after it was apparent that it was a tactically inferior formation. After the first combat round you'd break it down, I think, into surviving Allied two-plane sections vs. a random subset of the surviving Japanese a/c, since the Japanese were pretty notorius about rapidly losing cohesion in combat.Split the combat into sections of 4 planes vs 4(if equal numbers) or 2 if seriously outnumbered, and evaluate the combat.
Let's see, I choose (and oh I so often wonder why) to be hypercritical of a wargame system that doesn't blush when it rates both models of the "Betty" with a durability rating identical to the P-47, and the most incisive dream to pop into your head is that I must be having a "relapse"?HMSWarspite wrote:A couple of random thoughts:
TJ, you were doing much better, and I almost found myself taking your input seriously. Then you had a relapse.
So now if you disagree with TJ, you are suddenly an Axis apologist?Tristanjohn wrote:What the document illustrates statisically, among other things, is that the "Zero" had no advantage whatsoever over the Wildcat or in fact over any fighter flown by USN or Marine pilots based on kill ratios. The UV model begs to differ but produces not a whit of statistical evidence to support its argument.
The document also points out just how sketchy Japanese records tend to be, especially when it comes to combat losses, to include all of that country's military services--which is why a closer breakdown of the cause of all enemy air losses cannot be accounted for.
Again, Japanese statistical records cannot be relied upon as a sole source.
As for the F6F: it was all-around superior to anything the Japanese built, though not as good on balance as the P-51. Had Japan met these models with something other than a bankrupt pilot cadre and pool it is not clear the final kill ratio would have stood significantly different (i.e., more favorable to the Japanese) at the end.
I've got to tell you that this forum is just chock full of Axis apologists. And why I couldn't say. The Axis leadership was not made up of beautiful human beings but rather monsters, the Axis war aims were themselves, in a word, monstrous.
What is this fascination with all things Axis, from where does this need come to develop fantastic rationalizations in order to excuse anything resembling an Axis shortcoming?
Frankly, I don't get it.
A group of P-38 pilots engage a Oscar flown by hot shot, witness his actions and then return to base to immeadiately come up with tactics which will, of course, bring an immeadiate improvement in not just their own counter-measures but also those of the entire allied airforce (except the poor old wirraway pilots) and will begin having an impact in the very next engagement with any Oscar by any Allied fighter pilot (except those in wirraways). (take breath).mdiehl wrote:I think this is the one area of discussion where ANECDOTES from pilots actually have some value for the game design. Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky includes one such example of a group of garden-variety P38 drivers who tag-teamed on an Oscar over New Guinea. Although the P-38s essentially made passing runs at an Oscar on a string, the Oscar pilot was good enough to thwart the P38s attacks. All of them. And escape.
One problem with the GGPW and apparently the UV one is that the viral learning effect is not modeled. One such encounter makes the next Oscar pilot, however experienced, unlikely to survive an encounter with the P-38 pilots who had that experience. It likewise makes the next Oscar pilot engaged by any Allied pilot (assuming they're not in a slow crate like a Wirraway) somewhat less likely to survive, although his odds would not be as bad as if one of those P38 drivers caught him.
Mdiehl,Except that doing it that way would be incorrect, at least iuntil late 1943. In an early war engagement you'd have 4 vs 3 or 2 vs 3 (Allies vs Japanese) because the Japanese used three plane sections long after it was apparent that it was a tactically inferior formation. After the first combat round you'd break it down, I think, into surviving Allied two-plane sections vs. a random subset of the surviving Japanese a/c, since the Japanese were pretty notorius about rapidly losing cohesion in combat.
One could do something like an EXP check on the Allies to see whether or not the Allied sections lost cohesion enough to fly in mutually supporting ways, and simply assume that the Japanese aircraft were fighting solo, since that would reflect the training and doctrine of the two sides. For Allied a/c in pairs or quads, reduce the mvr of all Japanese a/c attacking that section (because mutual support is going to substantially negate any advantage gained by maneuvering around to an Allied a/c's 6 position).