Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

[tsimmonds]

I would be in favor of doing away with the Zero bonus, but only if this would end all the whining. As this would be unlikely, I cannot support it.[;)]

[Big B]

Here is the result of the second test I ran. It was an interesting one and requires a little explanation.

The conditions were similar to the first test, three sqdns of A6M2s at Tainan giving a total of 63 Zeros (27 + 27 +9) against the three available P 40 units on Luzon, but this time I filled out all P40 units to full strength before the test so there were 120 P40s (72 + 24 + 24), in addition I added RADAR to Manila to ensure full opportunity for CAP to intercept, and there was NO bombing of air bases on DEC 7th, (I wanted to give every advantage I could to the P40s to see the best that could be expected during the Bonus period). Otherwise conditions were the same - Japanese on sweep alt 10,000, P40s on (sweep) 90% CAP alt 15,000.

This one was much bloodier for both sides, though by JAN 1st (date doesn't appear on the picture below) all three Zero units were again at full strength (again minus 1 pilot, 62 pilots present), the AAF ended with 4 P40E & 11 P40B out of the original 120.
Final kills were 46 Zeros lost air to air, 142 P40s lost air to air. However keep in mind that this time the Zeros were essentially outnumbered 2 to 1, facing RADAR warning, under the CAP altitude, and flaying a long way every day.

The bad luck for the Zeros occurred on two days Dec 11th and Dec16th. On Dec 11, 15 P40s were lost but they got 7 A6M2s (very good day for the P40s), then on the 16th they traded 8 for 8. So 15 of the Zeros losses came in 2 days, the other 20 days of air combat accounted for 31 Zeros.

The interesting part (to me) was that in both days of high losses (15 Zeros) all the casualties were absorbed by the same unit, as well as the bulk of the rest of the 31 losses for December, in fact this unit started out with 82 exp and finished with 59 exp, despite having acquired more than 50 kills. It appears to me that once a unit has a bad day it will not come back up in experience for quite a long while and becomes subject to frequent losses as the exp level drops past 70.

I will run more and simpler tests in the future

[Note: in the picture below, the Hudsons that appear were destroyed on the ground in Malaya and have no relevance here.]

Edited for late night typos

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Anyone able to help with testing along these lines?

Andrew

Greetings, why not ask people who are playing first few months of campaign to post A2A losses? I think this is a good idea, better than testing - let's see how really look in the game.

Here is mine, if helps.

I'm very careful with my pilots, always tried to achive numerical supperiority. Good leaders are in charge in every group if it is possible. So yes, i can consider myself as a Airforce fanboy. Those who played with me can confirm this (so i'm not a bad player when we talking about Air combat). And my opponent is very skilled.

From screen you can see that actually losses are not near 8-1, not even close. Of course, not that all of my Zeros shot down by enemy fighters (enemy bombers can claim some), but this is what you will get in the game.

To be honest, i easily crushed his AVG because every time i had numerical advantage...

[:)]



EDIT: it is a stock game...

[doktorblood]

I haven't looked at CHS for quite some time, but didn't your airplane guy already reduce the Zero advantage by gimping the Zero itself ....along with most of the rest of the Jap planes?

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



CHS did this as well.

Pry's mod is much more extensive in this regard.

How's that?

I've tried Pry's scenarios, and I like them.
It's the quanity of AK's that blows the shipping capability out of proportion.
Cut each sides quanity by 50% across the board for AK's.
The supply issue is "null and void", if you only have limited shipping available to move things.

Don't worry about the Zero bonus, this issue is more important in determining the pace of the game.[;)]

[Honda]

ORIGINAL: Big B
The interesting part (to me) was that in both days of high losses (15 Zeros) all the casualties were absorbed by the same unit, as well as the bulk of the rest of the 31 losses for December, in fact this unit started out with 82 exp and finished with 59 exp, despite having acquired more than 50 kills. It appears to me that once a unit has a bad day it will not come back up in experience for quite a long while and becomes subject to frequent losses as the exp level drops past 70.

Let me guess, the unit you're talking about was the first one in the stack?[8|]
It's like ground combat. Top of the stack takes most casulties but in A2A at least, it dishes out most punishment.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Pry's mod is much more extensive in this regard.

How's that?

I've tried Pry's scenarios, and I like them.
It's the quanity of AK's that blows the shipping capability out of proportion.
Cut each sides quanity by 50% across the board for AK's.
The supply issue is "null and void", if you only have limited shipping available to move things.

Don't worry about the Zero bonus, this issue is more important in determining the pace of the game.[;)]

Yeah, the CHS guys and PRY were debating how much to reduce their capacities. I think Pry went for 50% but I think CHS did too. (Might be going down a bit more I think, total reduction being 60% thereabouts due also to load tonnage variances). Unfortunately it's not just capacities which are the problem (due to no civilian load needs) but supply being produced at resource bases. Why ship in supply when it pops up magically for free?

The CHS guys also opted to include the ships missing from the OOB and try to get the problems with the logistics side of things either fixed officially or through some editor juggling. PRY was aginst all the extra historical shipping and opted for the stock OOB which is missing at least half the shipping...perhaps being part of the in crowd he knew nothing would be done about supply/resource generation etc so he left the OOB gutted in an effort to try and make the model work somehow, fixing an inaccuracy with an inaccuracy so to speak. Works (sort of) but I would rather have had them fix the problem directly rather than add to the ommissions by ignoring a few million tons of shipping.

I thought PRY's scenario 16 was the best of the official scenarios as well.

[BlackVoid]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

I haven't looked at CHS for quite some time, but didn't your airplane guy already reduce the Zero advantage by gimping the Zero itself ....along with most of the rest of the Jap planes?

It is impossible to know as the documentation for CHS changes is practically non-existent.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

I haven't looked at CHS for quite some time, but didn't your airplane guy already reduce the Zero advantage by gimping the Zero itself ....along with most of the rest of the Jap planes?

It is impossible to know as the documentation for CHS changes is practically non-existent.

Basically they are OOB changes, and massive amounts of them. They are so universal that listing all the changes is a huge task. Just approach it this way. What did you do when you first started playing WITP? Was there a huge OOB list? No. Treat the CHS as a new game...essentially it is OOB wise.

The main things that need documentation are any device or aircraft modifications.

[Black Mamba 1942]

Good point.
I was thinking of fixes without changing the codes.[;)]

If you don't have the AK's to move those "bonus" supplies, they really don't do much good.
So with less AK's it leaves a choice. Move supplies, move resources, or move troops.
As it stands now, players can do all three at the same time. Hence, rapid expansion.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Good point.
I was thinking of fixes without changing the codes.[;)]

If you don't have the AK's to move those "bonus" supplies, they really don't do much good.
So with less AK's it leaves a choice. Move supplies, move resources, or move troops.
As it stands now, players can do all three at the same time. Hence, rapid expansion.

If you don't have the AK's to move those "bonus" supplies, they really don't do much good.

I can't agree entirely. If you don't have to move the supplies because they show up automatically just about everywhere, one does not need shipping. This means the shipping is available for invasions , and these invasions often occur with resource bases as the target. Take one base and you have an instant munitions factory! Look at Malaya. Historically supply was a major handicap for the Japanese. In WITP they basically only need to bring a few boxed lunches because of all the supply not only there on GT1 but which is daily being manufactured at resource centres.

All that missing shipping are untouchable VPs too.

[Black Mamba 1942]

Then you are an optomist Ron![:D]

I have no faith that Matrix will do anymore code changes.
Except maybe to fix what they already boogered up.[;)]

Besides, most of those extra AK's just end up being parked in port anyway.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Then you are an optomist Ron![:D]

I have no faith that Matrix will do anymore code changes.
Except maybe to fix what they already boogered up.[;)]

Besides, most of those extra AK's just end up being parked in port anyway.

Well, a simple code change to seperate supply from resources is the only one really needed regarding this. Modders can fix the rest. El Cid thinks he can fix it without a change but it is requiring alot more work than a simple change like seperating supply from resource would be.

Besides, most of those extra AK's just end up being parked in port anyway.

Precisely my point. Don't need AKs when the design has removed the need for merchant shipping, sub campaigns....[8|]

[BlackVoid]

ORIGINAL: m10bob


Whoa there partner................
I believe Commander Roquefort, et al, might have had more to do with that Midway victory, than "Japanese blunders".

Japan planned 3 invasions at the same time and divided its forces. If this is not a major error on strategy, then I do not know what is.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'd like to see a summary of issues people have. Japanese fanboys on perceived Allied design favouritism. Allied fanboys on perceived Japanese favouritism. Neutral players who just have objective perceptions.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Honda

ORIGINAL: Big B
The interesting part (to me) was that in both days of high losses (15 Zeros) all the casualties were absorbed by the same unit, as well as the bulk of the rest of the 31 losses for December, in fact this unit started out with 82 exp and finished with 59 exp, despite having acquired more than 50 kills. It appears to me that once a unit has a bad day it will not come back up in experience for quite a long while and becomes subject to frequent losses as the exp level drops past 70.

Let me guess, the unit you're talking about was the first one in the stack?[8|]
It's like ground combat. Top of the stack takes most casulties but in A2A at least, it dishes out most punishment.

Yes indeed it was Honda, unit pictured below

[Oznoyng]

Knowing about the speed of the Zero, and formulating, propogating, and training tactics to defeat it, are two different things. A few quotes from Cmdr John Thach:

On the Zero:
"In the spring of 1941, we received an intelligence report of great significance. This report came out of China and described a new Japanese fighter, the Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero, that had performance far superior to anything we had, including the F4F Wildcats we were flying at the time."

On the two-plane section:
"Actually, by this time the idea was catching on and ComAirBAtFor adopted it in July 1941. VF-2 on the Lexington was doing it to also, and so were some others. They were flying two-plane sections but they had not adopted the weaving tactics."

As late as October 1942, the Thatch weave was still not the definative tactic in use by the USN. Thach attirbutes the following communication to Jimmy Flatley "Late in October 1942, he sent a personal message to me saying the four-plane division is the only thing that will work, and "I'm calling it the Thach weave, for your information. Six planes won't work. The two extra ones get lost."

What I find interesting about the quotes from Thach are:

1. It took almost 18 months for doctrine to develop AND PROPOGATE in response to the Zero's abilities. From Thach's statements, he clearly felt that the Thach weave was still being adopted and experimented with in late 42. People arguing that "they knew about the Zero" and the fact that a unit or two "knew how to fight it" means every unit in the Allied OOB did is just wrong.
2. Thach and others recognized and admittted the superiority of the Zero. Not until the flight test performance of the Zero was known as a result of the captured one in the Aleutians was the flight performance envelope to engage the Zero truly "known". Even then, the report would take time to circulate and effect tactics. The suggestion that the Allies had the blueprints and technical specs to defeat the Zero on a universal basis on 12/7/41 is not true.

Isolated pockets of capability existed at war's start, yes. That did not equate to a "well-entrenched and utilized doctrine" overnight. From my reading, I would actually lengthen the Zero bonus, not shorten it.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Pry's mod is much more extensive in this regard.

How's that?

I've tried Pry's scenarios, and I like them.
It's the quanity of AK's that blows the shipping capability out of proportion.
Cut each sides quanity by 50% across the board for AK's.
The supply issue is "null and void", if you only have limited shipping available to move things.

Don't worry about the Zero bonus, this issue is more important in determining the pace of the game.[;)]

The only problem with this "revisionism" is that the Americans DID have that many cargo ships. They also were on average twice the capacity of Japanese cargo ships which averaged between 2,500-3,500 tons. The Americans also had the ability as early as early 1942 to load and unload cargo vessels twice as fast as the Japanese even in combat zones.

The problem isn't with the amount of ships or the amount of supply but with people's STYLES of play. You conduct blitzes all across the Pacific because you don't have the same state of mind as real commanders (on ALL sides) did during the war and in which they were CAUTIOUS. You don't wait to build up bases, supplies, intelligence, etc because you know what's out there already and don't have the same level of concern over your cyber-ships, cyber-soldiers, cyber-airmen and cyber-sailors as the real life commanders. If you screw up it's just a game but if they screwed up the results would be devestating.

I'm playing the AI and I'm playing pretty conservatively much like the real life commanders. I build up my logistics, my bases and gather my troops as well as repair ships and things haven't gone too fast. The only thing I did a-historically was to invade Iwo Jima in November 1944 to have a fighter base close to Japan since night bombing wasn't doing squat.

You're trying to change the game -- and at the same time say it's for historical sake (hypocracy) -- when the real problem are the play styles used.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker




How's that?

I've tried Pry's scenarios, and I like them.
It's the quanity of AK's that blows the shipping capability out of proportion.
Cut each sides quanity by 50% across the board for AK's.
The supply issue is "null and void", if you only have limited shipping available to move things.

Don't worry about the Zero bonus, this issue is more important in determining the pace of the game.[;)]

The only problem with this "revisionism" is that the Americans DID have that many cargo ships. They also were on average twice the capacity of Japanese cargo ships which averaged between 2,500-3,500 tons. The Americans also had the ability as early as early 1942 to load and unload cargo vessels twice as fast as the Japanese even in combat zones.

The problem isn't with the amount of ships or the amount of supply but with people's STYLES of play. You conduct blitzes all across the Pacific because you don't have the same state of mind as real commanders (on ALL sides) did during the war and in which they were CAUTIOUS. You don't wait to build up bases, supplies, intelligence, etc because you know what's out there already and don't have the same level of concern over your cyber-ships, cyber-soldiers, cyber-airmen and cyber-sailors as the real life commanders. If you screw up it's just a game but if they screwed up the results would be devestating.

I'm playing the AI and I'm playing pretty conservatively much like the real life commanders. I build up my logistics, my bases and gather my troops as well as repair ships and things haven't gone too fast. The only thing I did a-historically was to invade Iwo Jima in November 1944 to have a fighter base close to Japan since night bombing wasn't doing squat.

You're trying to change the game -- and at the same time say it's for historical sake (hypocracy) -- when the real problem are the play styles used.

Excellent observation Dereck.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



CHS did this as well.

Pry's mod is much more extensive in this regard.

How's that?

Comparing the two, pry's mod cuts shipping capacity more, especially AP's. I think the AP's might be cut too much.