Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Your criticisms seem to have more to do with the ratings of IJ vs Allied aircraft than with the air combat system. You give me the feeling that the war should have lasted only about six months. I wonder why they stretched it out? [;)]

To sell more tickets, maybe?

Sorry, Diehl, but with your reputation around here, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Col Neel Kearby, an American P 47 ace was shot down by an Oscar.....
The P 47 was known for it's ruggedness, and the Oscar is known for only having two machine guns.
Aces should be expected to have an advantage.
All the same....it's possible, and did happen.


http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/11_kearby.html

ORIGINAL: Terminus
You'll just have to take our word for it when we tell you that A2A combat has been toned down to far more realistic levels.

Coming from someone who declared that realistic AAA loss percentages were ridiculous and demanded proof, this is less than comforting. I believe air to air has been toned down, but I question the *realistic* aspect of your claim. From what I gather from your less than pleasant posting style, it’s your own subjective opinion rather than actual facts that you base most of your historical claims on.

Though I assume/hope there are more rational heads than yours actually in charge of the project.

Jim

Radio announcer, 1934: "And from out of nowhere comes a jab from the left, and connects, but the champ swirls on his feet, weighing his options."
(Really....from out of nowhere?)

'your nest poking skills are good young warrior' [:'(]

Considering that Mr. Burns still hasn't shown me any evidence for his claims, that basing the performance of Allied AA on a single data point (Yorktown's shooting at Midway) is completely nonsensical, and that the poster he's leaping to defend has a very poor track record with historical fact, his post doesn't exactly fill me with remorse.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Considering that Mr. Burns still hasn't shown me any evidence for his claims, that basing the performance of Allied AA on a single data point (Yorktown's shooting at Midway) is completely nonsensical, and that the poster he's leaping to defend has a very poor track record with historical fact, his post doesn't exactly fill me with remorse.

not that there has ever been something that would have filled you with remorse...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Considering that Mr. Burns still hasn't shown me any evidence for his claims, that basing the performance of Allied AA on a single data point (Yorktown's shooting at Midway) is completely nonsensical, and that the poster he's leaping to defend has a very poor track record with historical fact, his post doesn't exactly fill me with remorse.

Um hello, earth to Terminus. I posted numbers for both the Coral Sea and Santa Cruz battles. Both easily fell within the 30%-60% of attacking bombers killed by flak estimate. Ignoring this fact and trying to post here that I only referenced the Midway example is simply dishonest.

I don’t care what historical CV engagement you choose, flak losses will easily be in the 30%-60% range for Japan’s strike planes, and much higher later in the war. Allied strike planes probably fell in a range of about 20%-40%, but even their flak losses were much higher than what we see in game. If you want to refute that then why don’t you prove it with historical facts instead of simply proclaiming you somehow know better?

Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Um hello, earth to Terminus. I posted numbers for both the Coral Sea and Santa Cruz battles. Both easily fell within the 30%-60% of attacking bombers killed by flak estimate. Ignoring this fact and trying to post here that I only referenced the Midway example is simply dishonest.

I don’t care what historical CV engagement you choose, flak losses will easily be in the 30%-60% range for Japan’s strike planes, and much higher later in the war. Allied strike planes probably fell in a range of about 20%-40%, but even their flak losses were much higher than what we see in game. If you want to refute that then why don’t you prove it with historical facts instead of simply proclaiming you somehow know better?

Jim

Jim,

When I read the information you offered there was a lot of 'assume this' and 'assume that' - way more than I was willing to assume.

You just might be correct in your assertions, but the information you presented was not evidence, let alone convincing.

I enjoy reading your attachment.

Thanks.

All the same....it's possible, and did happen.

Exactly. No one has claimed that a Ki-43 pilot could not with luck and skill wind up in the right place in the right time to claim a better plane flown by a better pilot. In war, stuff happens. That said, one would expect a sustained combat loss ratio in a campaign featuring "average" allied pilots in, say, P-47s, 38s, F4Us, F6Fs, and so forth, fighting super experienced Japanese pilots in Ki-43s, A6Ms, etc, to substantially favor the allied pilots.

Sorry, Diehl, but with your reputation around here, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Dream on Terminus. I'll stake my rep against yours any time. You're a 1 trick pony whose only act is to demand data and logic to hang it on, and then a few months after you've had some absurd claim indisputably refuted, pretend that the whole discussion never happened before.

I posted a similar sentiment in the AAR....I appreciate the passion about what's exactly right and what isn't, but in the end, I for one don't really think it matters as much as the Game. We will never get AE absolutely perfect, and one of the main reasons is that it's clearly so difficult to agree on what the facts are.

In the end this is a GAME, and as long as it's a good, clean, competitive game, that's good enough for me. Historical accuracy is a goal, but we will never completely arrive at that goal, nor should we kill ourselves trying. We could spend the next 10 years developing AE to get it "perfect", or we can play it sometime this year, and I bet it will be "mostly right", and moddable for any changes.

Look, I agree it is a game. At the same time it's a Historical Consim. That means it needs to have central tendencies that are historically quite plausible. To the degree they're not, it remains a game, but less a consim and certainly less historical.

On 7 Dec 1941. The Japanese had a fantastic initial operational plan, well pre-positioned assets and logistics, and kept a high operational tempo. The Allies had an operational plan that involved two years of preparation before it could be ready to defend against a Japanese attack. As a consequence, the Allies had weak assets that were poorly prepositioned and at the far end of a logistical pipeline that could not be sustained. It could not be sustained because the Japanese plan pinched off the pipeline in many places faster than the Allies could react. Much like the German invasion of France in 1940, or of Russia in 1941.

There's no doubt that the Japanese had well trained pilots and *some* good tactical assets (and many absolutely miserably bad tactical assets). But the mantra that every Japanese combat unit was proportionally better at its job than every allied unit, at least through May 1942, is simply incorrect. People who've read ALOT about air combat and naval combat in the PTO, know damned well that from Dec 1941 through the end of 1942, "pilot experience" and "ship crew experience" had far less to do in determining the outcome of battles than did operational plans, logistics, fatigue, logistics, massive firepower, logistics, logistics, logistics, just plain rugged construction, and logistics.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Jim,

When I read the information you offered there was a lot of 'assume this' and 'assume that' - way more than I was willing to assume.

You just might be correct in your assertions, but the information you presented was not evidence, let alone convincing.

I posted an observation based on my knowledge of historical fact and was ridiculed and told my statement was ridiculous. He then arrogantly demanded proof implying his knowledge of historical fact was somehow superior to the observation I had made (without offering any proof himself). I was able to more than back up what I said by simply looking at results from Midway, Coral Sea and Santa Cruz.

I am 100% confident any carrier battle fought will have similarly high AAA casualties, because it was a FACT of the war when planes were required to get to within 3,000 feet or closer to ships they were decimated by flak. Both torpedo planes and dive bombers routinely released weapons at ranges far closer than 3,000 feet, so they got hammered every time.

WitP fails to model this. Some/many don’t want it to model it because it would rip through their high experience pilots (again an historical reality), and it would also prevent the tactic of standing off shore and pounding targets over and over. Most carriers withdrew after one or two major air strikes because they had very few strike airframes left.

That’s a big part of the reason why the US started using replenishment CVEs, it allowed carriers to remain on station in active battle areas longer than a day or two.

Late war flak is also a big part of the reason Japan switched to Kamikaze’s. It was almost a guarantee by then that any aircraft leaving on a strike would be lost. Their pilots were supposed to achieve a higher hit percentage if they simply resigned themselves to die and concentrated 100% of their attention on hitting the target, instead of worrying about trying to survive the attack run.

Now I again stress, the only counter-point he has offered is an insult and his own subjective opinion. The fact you choose to believe this over the factual numbers I posted seems a bit odd. You can easily verify my numbers yourself if you think they’re wrong.

Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Jim,

When I read the information you offered there was a lot of 'assume this' and 'assume that' - way more than I was willing to assume.

You just might be correct in your assertions, but the information you presented was not evidence, let alone convincing.

...because it was a FACT of the war when planes were required to get to within 3,000 feet or closer to ships they were decimated by flak.
Jim

Jim, not to be a stickler, but by definition Decimation has never resulted in more than 10% losses...[;)]

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Jim, not to be a stickler, but by definition Decimation has never resulted in more than 10% losses...[;)]

Touché. [:D]

Jim,

I am not believing anyone's insults, nor am I condoning any.

I saw the exchange. I then saw the information you presented, and it simply has too many assumptions in it. You were very open about where data ended and assumption began (as you should have been and much to your credit). In my judgment that information is too speculative to regard as evidence. Your conclusions might be correct, but there is too little data to conclude that.

Obviously I am speaking for my own conclusions, and you clearly disagree.

[:)]

These are all beta examples being given out to the WITP forum.
Flak is still being looked into, among other things on the priority list.
Updating the game on a weekly basis, a step at a time.
To make sure the changes don't interfere with mechanics already in place.[;)]

These previews were being made to the forum members to let them know that AE is still moving along, and to show them it's direction.
Plus to get you to salivate a little.[:D]

No one is receiving any compensation for their involvement in this project.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hours have been freely given by this crew to expand the WITP concept.
It is the same engine, but it is not the same.[;)]

When you do get this game to play for yourselves, your eyes are going to pop out and your jaw will hit the keyboard.
Those who have spouses might warn them to have 911 on speed dial.
In case you require immediate medical attention.[:D]

I pray, PRAY this will be the game you say it is Halsey. The excitement is thick enough to cut with a spoon.
And as was said they are TRYING as HARD as they CAN. In the long run the ability to mod this game will in
time help smooth out the bumps and truly make it worth what has been put into it in blood, sweat and tears. Especially tears of joy when and not if it comes out. 

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Plus to get you to salivate a little.[:D]