Matrix Games Forums

Lack of Jap mini-subs (they did exist, regardless of failures)
[/B]

Can we include British mini-subs they have a better track record than the Jap mini-subs.

Ahistorical use of PBY for troop transport(favors the USN because they can replace the losses. The IJN cant)

[/B]

Favors the USN???? Of course it favors the USN, the ability to replace losses faster and better is one of the major reasons we won the war.

If this ability is taken away can we get PBY Night Torpedo Attacks to replace it??????

Chiteng,
Your point about IJN subs/floatplanes is valid - I also would like to see them, but I think it was just a matter of what do you cut to be able to put out a product... Nice to have, but I don't see their absence as a game-killer. I do hope they're in WiTP though...

As for sub resupply, I agree that torpedos weren't available at just any port, but your point about specialized refit needs is incorrect. Subs didn't need a lot of specialized equipment. In fact, all the services a decent sized port would have would be quite sufficient (excluding the torpedos, of course). I believe this inaccuracy is addressed with the addition of tenders in WiTP, they just didn't make the cut this round.

As for PBY troop transport, well if you read Black Cat Raiders of WW2, you'll see there are a number of instances where either commandos were inserted or removed by PBY, or regular troops ferried around. So this is actually quite a historical usage of the PBY - remember, this was basically a utility aircraft with many possible (and historical) uses.

Your point about B-17s being invulverable is moot I think. They were in fact quite invulnerable in the Pacific theater. Very few were lost by enemy action, the majority being lost through operational mishaps. This is correctly modeled. As for accuracy, hitting ships at anchor isn't beyond the realm of possibility, and this did happen occasionally in real life. Underway is a different story, but you are the only person I've noticed posting about hits "all the time" on TFs underway. I have never seen this in any game.

As for the S-Boats not being withdrawn, well guess what? They weren't withdrawn from service in this theater until well into 1943 - midyear I believe (I'll double check that later though). So there's nothing "ahistorical" about their use in theater during UV. I'm with you on their withdrawal at some point in WiTP, but again, I don't think many will be left at that point for it to be much of an issue.

IJN ASW is perhaps an issue... Although I'm not so sure. The Japanese used a weaker explosive charge in their depth charges until mid-1943 I believe, so they had a harder time knocking out subs. There was also the "setting them too shallow" issue, which is doctrinal and probably shouldn't be penalized... That one needs more study I think. My guess is that US losses in UV correlate to real-life losses though - at least my games seem that way. I'll have to check some more though...

Chiteng,
Do you see any pro-Japanese biases in the game?

Originally posted by NAVMAN
Chiteng,
Do you see any pro-Japanese biases in the game?

Inherent bias? very few.
Doctrinal bias or absence of the same? Jap subs not being restricted to capital ships.

But I would happily restrict my subs if it meant the B-17 was
not used to attack ships.

Originally posted by Chiteng

But I would happily restrict my subs if it meant the B-17 was
not used to attack ships.

Oh no you wouldn't... have you actually tried PBEM-ing as IJN with sub doctrine ON? IJN subs are completely useless that way.

In one game (where my opponent gallantly choose to play with IJN sub doctrine ON) I see 3-4 IJN subs doing "blockade" of PM, and I happily drive my supply conwoys over them, completely trusting in their captain's "honor", and they are more than happy to comply. I imagine them waving to merchant marine sailors as they pass by, while they await Bad Motha BBs and "decisive battle" (that's not going to happen). One big happy family.

In other game, I did a horrendous mistake of accepting to play as IJN under sub doctrine ON as my other opponent insisted on this, and it was a miserable experience: boats so powerful, just sitting there, until blown away by Marauders on ASW missions or SCs. Oh, they attacked and sank a DD once or twice, yipee.

I'd gladly play you with those rules you suggest: sub doctrine ON, and with no B17s on Naval attack. You'd be handicapped MUCH more than I.

BTW Chiteng, I think I was among the biggest "IJN is handicapped" whiners on these boards for a looong time. And now even I think you go too far, and kinda transforming into "IJN version of mdiehl"

B17s work just fine in 2.30, IMO. As USN I lost 10-12 B17 and B24s trying to sink a crippled MSW within "standard" range against cunning opponent.

In your list you included many things I wouldn't agree about, but omitted FEW handicaps I think are much more important (and more realistic):

- No paras for IJN. Historically several SNLF units were trained, and USED as paras in WW2 (Dutch EI). IJN players could use some paras in the opening turns...

- No engineering vehicles for IJN. They had at least some bulldozers, they were not *that* medieval in their eng. techniques.

I could think of some more, just to please ya but I still think you go too far with some complaints...

Cheers,

O.

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
Oh no you wouldn't... have you actually tried PBEM-ing as IJN with sub doctrine ON? IJN subs are completely useless that way.

In one game (where my opponent gallantly choose to play with IJN sub doctrine ON) I see 3-4 IJN subs doing "blockade" of PM, and I happily drive my supply conwoys over them, completely trusting in their captain's "honor", and they are more than happy to comply. I imagine them waving to merchant marine sailors as they pass by, while they await Bad Motha BBs and "decisive battle" (that's not going to happen). One big happy family.

In other game, I did a horrendous mistake of accepting to play as IJN under sub doctrine ON as my other opponent insisted on this, and it was a miserable experience: boats so powerful, just sitting there, until blown away by Marauders on ASW missions or SCs. Oh, they attacked and sank a DD once or twice, yipee.

I'd gladly play you with those rules you suggest: sub doctrine ON, and with no B17s on Naval attack. You'd be handicapped MUCH more than I.

BTW Chiteng, I think I was among the biggest "IJN is handicapped" whiners on these boards for a looong time. And now even I think you go too far, and kinda transforming into "IJN version of mdiehl"

B17s work just fine in 2.30, IMO. As USN I lost 10-12 B17 and B24s trying to sink a crippled MSW within "standard" range against cunning opponent.

In your list you included many things I wouldn't agree about, but omitted FEW handicaps I think are much more important (and more realistic):

- No paras for IJN. Historically several SNLF units were trained, and USED as paras in WW2 (Dutch EI). IJN players could use some paras in the opening turns...

- No engineering vehicles for IJN. They had at least some bulldozers, they were not *that* medieval in their eng. techniques.

I could think of some more, just to please ya but I still think you go too far with some complaints...

Cheers,

O.

The evidence suggest that only when you complain loudly, does Matrix hear you.

I did forget the Paras I apologize.
Also the bulldozers.

Jap subs can do MORE than simply sit around.
Restricting them to historical doctrine would NOT bother me
at all. Because that is what they actually DID.
It is very rare that I see IJN subs get hits on transports anyway.

I dont agree about the B-17.

Please do NOT compare me to Mdeihl. I am nothing like him.
You merely insult us both.

Posted

The evidence suggest that only when you complain loudly, does Matrix hear you.

When did it occur that one player on his own, by incessantly complaining about UV's injustices, got any part of the system changed?

The Matrix staff do descend from their mighty heights from time to time, to look upon what concerns the mortals. I would expect that they can also tell the difference between one poster simply being loud and repetitive and a sizable number of posters having consensus on some undesirable factor of the game.

You've brought up the topic, it's currently being discussed but why would you think that continuing to raise it at every opportunity is going to get you anything other than ignored in the long run?

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted


When did it occur that one player on his own, by incessantly complaining about UV's injustices, got any part of the system changed?

The Matrix staff do descend from their mighty heights from time to time, to look upon what concerns the mortals. I would expect that they can also tell the difference between one poster simply being loud and repetitive and a sizable number of posters having consensus on some undesirable factor of the game.

You've brought up the topic, it's currently being discussed but why would you think that continuing to raise it at every opportunity is going to get you anything other than ignored in the long run?

BEER !

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted


When did it occur that one player on his own, by incessantly complaining about UV's injustices, got any part of the system changed?

The Matrix staff do descend from their mighty heights from time to time, to look upon what concerns the mortals. I would expect that they can also tell the difference between one poster simply being loud and repetitive and a sizable number of posters having consensus on some undesirable factor of the game.

You've brought up the topic, it's currently being discussed but why would you think that continuing to raise it at every opportunity is going to get you anything other than ignored in the long run?

If no one agreed with me, you might have a point. That isnt the case however. Your assertion is invalid. Thus any point built upon it is ignored.

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
....................

- No paras for IJN. Historically several SNLF units were trained, and USED as paras in WW2 (Dutch EI). IJN players could use some paras in the opening turns...

.................

What good would they do? There are no Japanese air transports to drop them anywhere.

Posted by Chiteng

If no one agreed with me, you might have a point.

So by that acknowledgement, there might be a chance that we won't be seeing any more posts citing 9 B17s getting a single bomb hit on an undocked Transport TF as a valid reason to call UV unrealistic?

Beer!

Yes! Beer!

Preferably a Kegger

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Chiteng


So by that acknowledgement, there might be a chance that we won't be seeing any more posts citing 9 B17s getting a single bomb hit on an undocked Transport TF as a valid reason to call UV unrealistic?

If you are asking if I will drop the point, the answer is NO.

Several people DO agree with me Drongo.

Sadly for your case. I do not stand alone.

Ok, we all get it. You don't like how B-17s vs. ships is modeled in UV. You'd like that changed in WiTP and possibly patched into UV. Some other people agree with you. Some do not. No one here is changing anyone's minds, but we are hijacking an awful lot of threads in the process...

I say let it go for now, since we're getting nowhere.

On that note, I'm off to have a cheesesteak and a beer.

What you want is a level playing field Chiteng with two evenly matched opponents.

Matrix have bent over backwards to nerf the allies effectiveness as much as possible to create a fairly even fight.
An example of this is the totally early dominance of the zero...it didn't happen historically.
The Japs lost 2 aircraft for every allied plane early in the war and lost 12 aircraft for every allied plane later.

If the true capabilities of allied weapons was used there wouldn't be a game. It would be a one-sided slaughter.
Just be glad those B17's aren't shooting down scores of zero's as happened historically.

Originally posted by madflava13
Ok, we all get it. You don't like how B-17s vs. ships is modeled in UV. You'd like that changed in WiTP and possibly patched into UV. Some other people agree with you. Some do not. No one here is changing anyone's minds, but we are hijacking an awful lot of threads in the process...

I say let it go for now, since we're getting nowhere.

On that note, I'm off to have a cheesesteak and a beer.

I might do that if people stopped attacking me =)

Posted by Chiteng

Sadly for your case. I do not stand alone.

Now I'm curious. I haven't worked my way through every single post but......

who exactly is the silly bastard(s) that has gone and agreed with you that 9 B-17s getting one bomb hit on an undocked Transport TF was completely unrealistic, thereby giving you justification to continue to bring it up?

Originally posted by Mike_B20
What you want is a level playing field Chiteng with two evenly matched opponents.

Matrix have bent over backwards to nerf the allies effectiveness as much as possible to create a fairly even fight.
An example of this is the totally early dominance of the zero...it didn't happen historically.
The Japs lost 2 aircraft for every allied plane early in the war and lost 12 aircraft for every allied plane later.

If the true capabilities of allied weapons was used there wouldn't be a game. It would be a one-sided slaughter.
Just be glad those B17's aren't shooting down scores of zero's as happened historically.

Really? Show me any air battle where that happened.
I would really like to hear about a battle where nine B-17
shot down 57 enemy planes AND still bombed the target.

Please by all means enlighten me =)

Saying things like 'The Japs lost 2-1' is meaningless.
ANY source can be questioned. Who claims that?
What were the causes?

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Chiteng


Now I'm curious. I haven't worked my way through every single post but......

who exactly is the silly bastard(s) that has gone and agreed with you that 9 B-17s getting one bomb hit on an undocked Transport TF was completely unrealistic, thereby giving you justification to continue to bring it up?

That is only the example. It ISNT my argument.
I suggest you read every post, or you take me at my word.