unrealistic air combat...

[borner]

So there itis? Sorry my friend, I still dis-agree. Yes, the US attempted night ops, and had some success with these in a strike at Truk. However, most of these planes flew from US Enterprise, with radar equiped Avengers, after Enterprise had been withdrawn for months of practice. Can anyone show me an example where a night strike hit one target at sea, let alone against a whole TF.
 

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: borner

So there itis? Sorry my friend, I still dis-agree. Yes, the US attempted night ops, and had some success with these in a strike at Truk. However, most of these planes flew from US Enterprise, with radar equiped Avengers, after Enterprise had been withdrawn for months of practice. Can anyone show me an example where a night strike hit one target at sea, let alone against a whole TF.

Ike has once again demonstrated his penchant for ignoring the facts and focusing on a miniscule aspect of some one else's comments in a lame and transparent effort to prove his point. Get used to it Borner.

Sure, Joel came right out and admitted they wanted to portray night operations, ie...washing machine charlie. He also admitted they didn't really put much effort into considering the manner in which an open ended, uncontrolled implmentation could be expolited by a mercenary individual with no common sense and a lack of concern for historical accuracy. Read between the lines. He is saying in so many words, " we know we goofed on this but it's too late to fix it".

So there it is.

[tocaff]

So it would be fair to say at this point in time the following:

UV is a game and as such historical can be bent in the what if of gaming.

Night CV ops should be allowed in UV, while at the same time ops loses should be high while accuracy of the attacks should be low.

[Ike99]

Ike has once again demonstrated his penchant for ignoring the facts and focusing on a miniscule aspect of some one else's comments in a lame and transparent effort to prove his point. Get used to it Borner.

And you have the habit of putting words in peoples mouths.

Joel did not say...

"we know we goofed on this but it's too late to fix it"

...or anything of the sort.

The lines your reading between don´t exist.

He also admitted they didn't really put much effort into considering the manner in which an open ended, uncontrolled implmentation could be expolited by a mercenary individual with no common sense and a lack of concern for historical accuracy.

Here again, he said nothing of the sort but said...

I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development.

So that´s what you got and I wouldn´t expect him to reply anymore as he has better things to do than debate with a troll.

[bigbaba]

he said, that they tried to minimize the effectiveness of bight carrier attacks.

but they were not very successfull on it and thats why he may use this topic to make it better in carrier force.

british 4E bombers (with much better navigation systems then japanese single engine planes) had a typical hit rate of at most 15-20% of their bombs in a 5 Km radius around the target  (huge german cities) in 1942.

tiny japanese carrier planes have a hit rate of 33% on a small target at night and can do this with so little OP loses, that they can repeat the same attack just 3-4 nights later again and again and again...

i agree with todd. night attacks from carriers should be possible, but with much higher Op loses and lower effectiveness on target. i hope thats the case in carrier force.

[Ike99]

he said, that they tried to minimize the effectiveness of bight carrier attacks.

but they were not very successfull on it and thats why he may use this topic to make it better in carrier force.

british 4E bombers (with much better navigation systems then japanese single engine planes) had a typical hit rate of at most 15-20% of their bombs in a 5 Km radius around the target (huge german cities) in 1942.

tiny japanese carrier planes have a hit rate of 33% on a small target at night and can do this with so little OP loses, that they can repeat the same attack just 3-4 nights later again and again and again...

i agree with todd. night attacks from carriers should be possible, but with much higher Op loses and lower effectiveness on target. i hope thats the case in carrier force.

That´s fair enough.

So then Mike Wood and Justin Prince should say something about the topic and give us an idea of how they´re handling the Night Carrier Operations issue, and perhaps night bombing accuracy in general. What they´re planning.

But...

he said, that they tried to minimize the effectiveness of bight carrier attacks. but they were not very successfull on it

Joel said...

I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign.

No where did Joel say they were not successful at getting the night bombing accuracy or OPS losses to where they felt they felt they should be.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

he said, that they tried to minimize the effectiveness of bight carrier attacks.

but they were not very successfull on it and thats why he may use this topic to make it better in carrier force.

What's this??? An admission that they "goofed" and since it's too late to fix it in UV they are looking to CF to fix it????

So much for the lines I was reading between not even being there!

Ike it was kind of you to post the portrait of yourself.

[Ike99]

What's this??? An admission that they "goofed" and since it's too late to fix it in UV they are looking to CF to fix it????

No it is not an admission they ¨goofed¨, if it was he would have said they tried, but couldn´t do it, or failed, or it didn´t work out, etc. etc.

Take it just as he said it, Him and Gary worked on trying to minimize night bombing effectiveness. That doesn´t mean, ¨Troll fill in the blank and presume they did not succeed in getting the results where they felt they wanted them to be.¨


Once again you add, take away and presume things that you don´t know in order to troll the thread.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

if it was he would have said they tried, but couldn´t do it, or failed, or it didn´t work out, etc. etc.

So tell us now Ike, what, exactly does "but they were not very successful at it" mean to you?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

So it would be fair to say at this point in time the following:

UV is a game and as such historical can be bent in the what if of gaming.

Night CV ops should be allowed in UV, while at the same time ops loses should be high while accuracy of the attacks should be low.

Absolutely, and thanks for that.

As the final word on the subject, I think Joel's statement, "At this point, the game is what it is" pretty much sums it up.

On to Carrier Force. Hi-ho.

[SuluSea]

Ten pages and still no one has posted a shred of evidence that the IJN carried out a successful night carrier operation. Not that there was any doubt in the first place.
 
Whether or not 2 by 3 allows this tactic as it stands in Carrier Force will not change the fact that it wasn't possible to launch an air group, bomb a target , then land in the dark on a pitching carrier without extreme losses.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Ten pages and still no one has posted a shred of evidence that the IJN carried out a successful night carrier operation. Not that there was any doubt in the first place.

For people in a historical game you'd think this would be possible.

[Ike99]

So tell us now Ike, what, exactly does "but they were not very successful at it" mean to you?

Well let´s see here, this is Joel´s entire post...

I received two emails pointing me toward this thread and asking for an official 2by3 position on the issue of night ops. First, having skimmed only some of this thread, I'd like to ask that everyone take a deep breath and back off from personal insults. We are talking about a game here which should be an enjoyable thing to discuss.

As for the issue, I have to start by saying that this game was mostly designed over 5 years ago and Gary and I have little recollection of how or why we did things the way we did. I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations, although he remembers we worked on trying to minimize their effectiveness during development. Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign. That's about all we can say about it. Mike Wood took over patching the game several years ago and I see that the last patch was about 18 months ago. As far as I know that was the last patch planned. We are not in a position to be able to patch the game, and even if we were we wouldn't know what Mike has done. Mike would have to answer as to whether this issue was ever impacted by a patch change. At this point the game is what it is. Since Mike is working on the detailed carrier combat version of UV with Justin Prince, I'll email them about this thread. Perhaps since they are closer to UV at this point then Gary or I, they'll have something to say about it.

So tell us now Ike, what, exactly does "but they were not very successful at it" mean to you?

I don´t see where Joel said ANYTHING about not being succesful. I do know that night OPS losses for night missions are higher than with daylight missions. I also know bombing accuracy is lower in nighttime missions than in daylight missions. So obviously they did try, and DID minimize their effectivness and usefullness compared to daylight missions.

Did they get get it where they wanted it? They are 20+ year wargame programmers...what do you think?

And Joel clearly stated...

I spoke with Gary and he said that he did intend for there to be night operations...Night operations were possible, and did happen during the campaign.

So that obviously contradicts what you and many others have been saying here.

[pasternakski]

Ike, fer chrissake, can't you just let it go? I mean, the horse has been shot, thumped, beaten, ground, breaded, fried, fricasseed, whipped, honked, tailored, whacked, beaten some more, pureed, shredded, pounded, mortar-and-pestled, nuked, decontaminated, disembowelled, shellacked, torpedoed, and beaten some more.

I don't see a single person here disputing your contention that night carrier air operations were possible, and sometimes attempted, in the Pacific theater in WWII. What they are saying, impliedly if not directly, is that such operations were not anyone's preferred mode of launching airstrikes from their carriers, and the primary reason was that severe operations losses were feared in exchange for lack of effective results. UV allows night carrier air operations almost off-handedly, and however they are represented by that game, Matrix has given you an exact pronouncement of what the prospects for change are: none.

Due to your efforts, I am sure that the design team for Carrier Force (and probably WitP-AE, as well) will take a close look at how they want this modelled in the new games. I trust their judgment.

How about you?

[Nomad]

I think this is needed.

[tocaff]

[borner]

what did the poor horse do to deserve all this anyway??[X(]

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: borner

what did the poor horse do to deserve all this anyway??[X(]

He died? [:(][8|][:)]

[Ike99]

Due to your efforts, I am sure that the design team for Carrier Force (and probably WitP-AE, as well) will take a close look at how they want this modelled in the new games.

Now you´re getting the idea pasternakski. [;)]

[mdiehl]

Due to your efforts, I am sure that the design team for Carrier Force (and probably WitP-AE, as well) will take a close look at how they want this modelled in the new games.

[:D]