Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Micah Goodman
I never said I wanted the thread to die you are the one that continues to bring it up not me. So yes, you were name calling.




Well again you show that this whole argument is not an exercise in changing the game but an exercise in you venting your spleen. You do not care to influence anyone. You get a larger thrill out of wasting bandwidth. Your definition of an argument to any valid concern is so what? I don’t care, facts? I don’t need no stinking facts! By not “yielding” to constructive criticisms you are show that you have no real desire to “fix” the problem. And most, even those that agree with you on this issue, I think will take what you have to say on this or any other issue with a huge grain of salt.

No that is all YOU venting YOUR spleen.
I have given facts. They were of course ignored, but none the less
I did give them. I didnt ask for critisisms nor am I being paid to take them, therefore I am NOT gratefull to recieve them.
I think judging from the number of responces that a great many people have become aware of my opinion on this topic.
Therefore, we can conclude that information WAS exchanged.
Regardless of your historonics.

If Matrix and the testers refuse to address the topic, it isnt because I didnt try and make them aware of it.
Since 'I' know the problem is valid, then if they refuse to address
it, at some point in the future, the game will either 'break' OR
the issue will be re-addressed. At that time, I will not fail to
point out that I tried to address it at a more appropriate phase.

If a playtester refuses to examine an issue, simply because they
dont like the demeanor of the presentation, then that removes
them from the 'objective' and places them in the 'non-objective' camp. I see no need to respect such testers.

I ask again, what facts? And where did you give them?

Originally posted by Chiteng
No that is all YOU venting YOUR spleen.
I have given facts. They were of course ignored, but none the less
I did give them. I didnt ask for critisisms nor am I being paid to take them, therefore I am NOT gratefull to recieve them.
I think judging from the number of responces that a great many people have become aware of my opinion on this topic.
Therefore, we can conclude that information WAS exchanged.

You can conclude all you want but that doesn’t make it true.

For some unknown reason when I have tried to help you with your argument you have become abrasive and argumentative.

Originally posted by Chiteng
If a playtester refuses to examine an issue, simply because they
dont like the demeanor of the presentation, then that removes
them from the 'objective' and places them in the 'non-objective' camp. I see no need to respect such testers.

So if you are rude an insulting in they way you deal with people they should say thank you, sir may I have another? As far as I know most play testers are not paid. Why would anyone other than a masochist take anything that you have to say with your arrogant and condescending tone to heart? There is nothing wrong with being arrogant as long as you can back up what you say with fact. So far you have not done so. Nor, has to my knowledge, anyone else claimed that you have. So if you don’t like being called to task for what you assert as a problem on a message board then back it up with FACTS! Not “I” know there is a problem and sense there has been much gnashing of teeth on this subject that must make it true. That proves nothing.

You may be correct in your assumption that the B-17 is in fact flawed so why don’t you show us this vast tome of information you have collected and made available? Is it top secret? Does the Department of Homeland security have to clear its release? You have YET AGAIN refused to answer this question. Taking you at your word you have shown the information to the correct people at Matrix. Why not share it? I say again I will support your call for a revision of current B-17 characteristics IF you can prove it. What is wrong with that?

So far you have not done so. Nor, has to my knowledge, anyone else claimed that you have. So if you don’t like being called to task for what you assert as a problem on a message board then back it up with FACTS! Not “I” know there is a problem and sense there has been much gnashing of teeth on this subject that must make it true. That proves nothing.
*************************************
Because the word 'facts' apparently mean different things to different people. I site Morrison and I am told he is dated.
I site Hara(Captain Hara IJN) I am told either they never heard
of him or they dont care what he has to say.
No I am NOT ging to indulge in some open-ended evidence war.
This is not a debate, it is an electronic forum.
My level of interest on the topic is finite. If Matrix publishes
a flawed product, I will certainly do my best to break it.
You people are not students and I am not being paid tuition.
Thus I have no obligation, other than AS A WARGAMER I want to see a good game.


**********************************************
You may be correct in your assumption that the B-17 is in fact flawed so why don’t you show us this vast tome of information you have collected and made available? Is it top secret? Does the Department of Homeland security have to clear its release? You have YET AGAIN refused to answer this question. Taking you at your word you have shown the information to the correct people at Matrix. Why not share it? I say again I will support your call for a revision of current B-17 characteristics IF you can prove it. What is wrong with that?
*********************************************
Proof is subjective, there are people on this forum that would rather go to hell than admit I was correct on an issue.
It is all a question of 'INTERPETATION'
From my point of view the historical record speaks for itself.
B-17 did get shot down. END OF STORY.
B-17 also got shot down by ZERO's
I posted an AAR showing an interception of 9 B-17 by 57 Zero
No B-17 were lost AND they did NOT abort. They went in and got hits on a moving taskforce.
How much more absurd does it need to be?

Originally posted by Chiteng
I posted an AAR showing an interception of 9 B-17 by 57 Zero
No B-17 were lost AND they did NOT abort. They went in and got hits on a moving taskforce.
How much more absurd does it need to be?

Finally, wounded pride aside we get to the issue. That case does seem absurd. Was there an escort for the B-17’s? Was this a PBEM game or were you playing the computer? Were the Japanese formations experienced or green? How about the B-17’s? How often have you had something like this happen? I would assume that you were using the 2.3 patch?

I have also noticed that bombers rarely shoot down attacking fighters as well. (For either side) Because I do not have access to figures of EA claimed by bombers I cannot say definitively how out of whack the game is compared to reality but I know bombers in the South Pacific shot down some EA’s.

Guys, this was going under quickly... We all stopped responding...
I don't know who resurrected it after it had been dead for over a week, but let's not let it get any farther...

MODS - Can someone please lock this baby up tight?

Yeah, it would be great if this were locked.

Originally posted by Micah Goodman
Finally, wounded pride aside we get to the issue. That case does seem absurd. Was there an escort for the B-17’s? Was this a PBEM game or were you playing the computer? Were the Japanese formations experienced or green? How about the B-17’s? How often have you had something like this happen? I would assume that you were using the 2.3 patch?

I have also noticed that bombers rarely shoot down attacking fighters as well. (For either side) Because I do not have access to figures of EA claimed by bombers I cannot say definitively how out of whack the game is compared to reality but I know bombers in the South Pacific shot down some EA’s.

No there was NO escort they were bombing at EXTREME range from Cooktown. One would think they barely had fuel to make it there and back. The Target was the Rabual hex, but the TF
was NOT docked no refueling it was in transit to Buna I think.


It has happened at least once in every game I have played.

Originally posted by Chiteng
No there was NO escort they were bombing at EXTREME range from Cooktown. One would think they barely had fuel to make it there and back. The Target was the Rabual hex, but the TF
was NOT docked no refueling it was in transit to Buna I think.


It has happened at least once in every game I have played.

Hi, The problem believe it or not might not have been Zeros not shooting down B-17's.
It seems CAP over bases does not actually engage aircraft attacking TF's in the same hex.

(Both groups appear in the window like normal combat but they don't actually shoot at one another.)

You need to assign LCAP to cover TF's/ The exception being Carrier airgroups. They consider their TF as their base and protect it.

In WITP (using the same combat engine as UV 2.3) I have Zeros shooting down B-17. I think I already mentioned I had one Zero shoot down 2 in the same day.

Were these Zeros normal CAP or assigned to TF protection (In which case I'm still scratching my head since this does not happen to me)

(The CAP versus LRCAP also explains why unescorted aircraft sometimes attack targets where you think you have CAP. I'm sure this is a bug not a feature)

This thread is out of control.

I have to agree with Micah for the most part. You have expressed it better than I could have for the most part.

But I think it is simply ludicrous that Chiteng is basin his critisism of the "uber B-17" on ONE data point.

To evaluate a combat model based on multiple probabilistic components on one data point is ridiculous.

The inherent problem in combat modeling is the lack of adequate numbers of instances to build reliable and accurate probablisitic model that adequatley represents combat.

ONE data point hardly represents "truth" and irrefutable evidence to support the assertion that the B-17 is the "uber weapon".

It is like building a lottery model. If I won the lottery with a chance of success approaching zero, adn accurate model would not neccessarily have me winning it most of the time.

The fact is that we can run this model and tabulate results than far exceed the number of actual occurences.

How do you reconcile this?

Combat modeling that simply "churns out" "historical results" is not only innacurate and imprecise, it is boring as well.

Given that criteria, the Japanese should lose every time (historical), regardless of what the players do (boring).

I would like to see a more substanitive approach to addressing the probabilistic models that generate the combat results before concluding that it is "broke".

Originally posted by denisonh
Much ad hoc assumptions deleted

".

No Denisoh That is YOUR assumption that I am basing
my criticism on what YOU call one data point.
I have never stated that. In fact I just stated I see
a similar incident at least once a game.

Your attempts to manufacture reasons to ignore the issue
may work for 'YOU' but the issue will still be there.

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, The problem believe it or not might not have been Zeros not shooting down B-17's.
It seems CAP over bases does not actually engage aircraft attacking TF's in the same hex.

(Both groups appear in the window like normal combat but they don't actually shoot at one another.)

You need to assign LCAP to cover TF's/ The exception being Carrier airgroups. They consider their TF as their base and protect it.

In WITP (using the same combat engine as UV 2.3) I have Zeros shooting down B-17. I think I already mentioned I had one Zero shoot down 2 in the same day.

Were these Zeros normal CAP or assigned to TF protection (In which case I'm still scratching my head since this does not happen to me)

(The CAP versus LRCAP also explains why unescorted aircraft sometimes attack targets where you think you have CAP. I'm sure this is a bug not a feature)

The CAP in the AAR were damaged by the B-17.
If you are saying that CAP can be damaged and yet B-17 cant be damaged there is a problem.
In addition the CAP did not come from the airbase.
It came from Kido Butai at 60%
I had been expecting a cheap shot B-17 strike, and sure enough it came.

Originally posted by Chiteng
No Denisoh That is YOUR assumption that I am basing
my criticism on what YOU call one data point.
I have never stated that. In fact I just stated I see
a similar incident at least once a game.

Your attempts to manufacture reasons to ignore the issue
may work for 'YOU' but the issue will still be there.

Well, You have only presented ONE data point.

I manufacture nothing, but simply observe that you have provided one data point and a ton of conjencture.

Feel free to eloborate, but spare me the bull$hit.

Originally posted by denisonh
Well, You have only presented ONE data point.

I manufacture nothing, but simply observe that you have provided one data point and a ton of conjencture.

Feel free to eloborate, but spare me the bull$hit.

And if I present more AAR that substanciate the point?
I can hear it now:

'What level of difficulty are you using?'
'That is immpossible you had to fabricate those results'

The one thing I WONT hear is 'Gee I guess you were right'

Then there will be demands for saved games etc etc
No Denisoh, There is a simpler way. Wait for the release of the product, and watch it get panned for having invincible B-17's
Which is exactly what will happen.

But you will be able to comfort yourself that you didnt listen
to Chiteng =)

Originally posted by Chiteng
And if I present more AAR that substanciate the point?
I can hear it now:

'What level of difficulty are you using?'
'That is immpossible you had to fabricate those results'

The one thing I WONT hear is 'Gee I guess you were right'

Then there will be demands for saved games etc etc
No Denisoh, There is a simpler way. Wait for the release of the product, and watch it get panned for having invincible B-17's
Which is exactly what will happen.

But you will be able to comfort yourself that you didnt listen
to Chiteng =)

Talk about "AD HOC Assumptions........."

As it stands you are a majority of one making the broad based claim of the "uber B-17", and you have not presented anything more than one example.

Your arguements would be more more convincing if you presented a series of examples framed against historical occurences. Of course, that is much more difficult....

But then you might garner support, from myself and others. Make the case.

Until then, it is simply bull$hit.

Originally posted by denisonh
Talk about "AD HOC Assumptions........."

As it stands you are a majority of one making the broad based claim of the "uber B-17", and you have not presented anything more than one example.

Your arguements would be more more convincing if you presented a series of examples framed against historical occurences. Of course, that is much more difficult....

But then you might garner support, from myself and others. Make the case.

Until then, it is simply bull$hit.

No it isnt =)
I do not stand alone on the issue, however much you wish I did =)

Doing some research and found this info. First link is total losses of planes both within continental US and abroad for the army air force. Interesting in 1942 heavy bombers losses were only 412 according to this info. In 1943 it jumps alot.

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwr ... f/t099.pdf

Second link is self explanitory...

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwr ... f/t100.pdf

After looking at this, the question is should both far east and pacific be added to give us a starting point.????

Here are the arrival rates from the US to all theaters.

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwr ... f/t098.pdf


Lets all do the math here. Do we see these types of losses in our specific theater of war? I am not supporting either side of this debate, but would like to get to the bottom of the issue. I am going to look at the data in my games to get my losses on the B-17 for a certain period of time and then average it over the course of a year...particularly 1942... to see if the data coincides with history. My initial guess is that it will be close, but that is a guess. I feel that the more realistic problem here is that these planes are not being used as they were historically either by a human or the AI. I have not read many documents about large formations of B-17's attacking Japanese bases until later in the war, and have not read anything about low level bombing by B-17's. Most everything I see is 10,000 ft. and up.

I've lost 38 B-17 planes since the scenario began and it's now 10/6/42 in Scenario 16. I have not taken them below 10,000 feet.

That is a little over 12 planes per month. One whole Sqn. And I fly them only with high morale.

I agree with Chiteng in that no the zeros just don't shoot many down but they do damage them along with the damage from flak and that causes many to crash on landing etc. And everything I have read about these things from history, in the Pacific, is that is how many of them went down. Would that fall under operational loss? I guess if it touches down on the runway still flying then it's operational.

My conclusion is that as far as my exp. with these B-17's, the game is pretty close. But someone flying the things in at 6000 feet on naval attack and scoring hits on numorous ships simply didn't happen historicaly.

The zero didn't shoot down too many B-17's throughout the war. Let alone in the early years.

It should be added, that the total # of planes seen in the CAP will not necessarily be the actual # of planes that attack a bomber formation....particularily if the attacked base has no early warning system in place (radar/coastwatchers etc)

Originally posted by Thrashman

My conclusion is that as far as my exp. with these B-17's, the game is pretty close. But someone flying the things in at 6000 feet on naval attack and scoring hits on numorous ships simply didn't happen historicaly.

The zero didn't shoot down too many B-17's throughout the war. Let alone in the early years.

Thrashman my research agrees with your observations and assessments. I would add that although B-17s did not score numerous hits on ships in single attacks they did score single hits on ships on numerous occassions. These attacks were generally made between 7000 and 12,000 ft and rarely consisted more 9 to 12 B-17s at a time. Which would put Chitengs AAR squarely within the historical reality.

Regarding CAP, I have found no historical examples of a B-17 attack ever being turned back by CAP, disrupted yes, with losses yes, but most of these losses were as you stated damaged bombers that crashed on the return trip or on landing.

IMHO, 9 B-17s getting thru 50 zeros covering a 30 mile area, scoring 1 hit on a single Maru, does not constitute an Uber weapon, even if it happens at least once every game, as Chiteng contends.

Regards