TheElf wrote:"The Wildcat was not suited for the fight at Guadalcanal. It had a bunch of weight in the back that we could have dispensed with very nicely. It was beefed up for carrier landings in the rear and we didn't need it. But there wasn't anything to be done in that regard. So because of this weight we'd work like hell to climb to 23,000-24,000 feet. At this altitude when you make a turn you lose 1,000 feet, and it's very easy to stall out. In theory the F4F had a higher service ceiling but not in practice. You'd look up and there see the Japs at 30,000 looking right down your gazoo. A real fun time. You couldn't get that bird much higher than 24,000: not you, not Jesus, nobody. The bird wouldn't go any higher." - Roger Haberman VMF-121, Guadalcanal. As quoted by Bergerud, Fire in the Sky
I think altitude SHOULD be factored into the resoultion of A/A combat. It is of PRIMARY concern to all pilots. Speed is life, and altitude relative to the enemy determines the speed with which you enter the fight. I hope the idea of AI Altitude selection has gone the way of the Dodo in WiTP.
I most certainly agree. Altitude needs to be in any air model which treats/examines/whatever combat at this/these
UV/WitP scale(s).
The trick is where in sequence as a modifier does it plug in and how best to implement it.
If you've followed this thread (or some other one--I can't keep track any longer) post by post you might recall a small reference I made to altitude, more or less in passing, with regard to
UV's errant modeling of the so-called "P-39 >10,000-feet altitude penalty" vis-a-vis the model's perception (again, most errant) of how the A6M (all variants) handles above 11,000 feet itself.
Do you recall?
Well, that's just one example of where altitude is not only handled "well" but handled "wongly well" as it were and while the modeling itself is pretty much backward and totally screwed up the
concept is worthwhile and I think if it were implemented correctly would add much to the combat model's feel--that is to say, ambiance.
Unfortunately, as are so many areas treated the Japanese bias kicked in during development, poor research was conducted in any event, and the unhappy case was that the model has grossly mistaken reality of that situation.
I mention this here for the reason you bothered to cite your anecdotal evidence above. I don't dispute this pilot's narrative but I point out, just for example, how easy it is to take just this sort of "evidence" out of its proper context and then run away with it not only no wiser than before but actually more confused than you started.
What this pilot didn't know (and might possibly never be able to appreciate) is that at 30,000 feet (if in fact any "Zero" ever flew that high, something I doubt) the Japanese planes in question were about as threatening as a pack of wounded doves. A Zero in almost any kind of "dive" was not threatening to begin with except as far as any
relative altitude advantage seems to confer or at least seems to
imply upon the attacker the inherent edge of being able (in theory at least) to get his sights on an opponent from an unopposed and possibly unsuspected angle.
But a "Zero" diving with effect from 30,000 feet? From that altitude (again, assuming those planes were that high in actuality) the "Zero" would be wobbling along in a wounded-like manner itself--it's inadequate prop just wouldn't bite into that thin air sufficiently to give it much power, its handling capabilities would be
greatly reduced and the plane was so light in weight and flimsily built to begin with that dives in any form were hardly its strength but rather a maneuver of certain weakness which I"m sure Japanese pilots resorted to mostly as Plan G or Plan H.
From that altitude those "Zeroes," no matter how threatening they might have appeared to American pilots in Wildcats at the time, were actually of very little threat to them at all, a fact learned and exploited later on by Marine and Navy pilots not just in Wildcats but even more so, of course, when the Corsair finally arrived in service. In fact, from that altitude those "Zeroes" would have been doing well to
float by those Wildcats much less "dive" and in any event those Wildcats could have, with relative ease, dived out of harm's way themselves at much greater speed then those "Zeroes" could have pursued with from behind.
I'm not saying Wildcat pilots
wanted an altitude disadvantage or that "Zeroes" on top didn't look like a threat. I am saying in this particular case, and always assuming the pilot in question has his facts straight, that those Wildcats weren't in much danger: and please witness that this pilot did indeed live to "tell this frightening tale."
This pilot you've quoted, while I'm sure he is in earnest, is also apparently a pilot who
survived that action, no minor detail I am quick to point out, as did, I further hasten to add, most pilots of Wildcats. (That is to say, while
most Japanese aviators of the war were killed, most Allied pilots
survived in spite of any number of anecdotal accounts almost idientical to the one you've cited today.
Again: relative altitude advantage was very much a Wildcat pilot's friend but an inverse relationship of the aircraft in question did not
at the altitude specified benefit the Japanese very much at all. In fact, for japanese pilots to be that high shows only that they were in actuality "caught out of position" and implies their flight leader wasn't very well versed with regard to proper handling of the "Zero" vis-a-vis the Wildcat, which leads us back to the issue of relative "training" and "experience" values assigned by the model: just for instance, the implication in this case might be drawn that these Japanese pilots had "learned" in China that their "Zeroes" were better off starting an action from 30,000 feet, and for all I know this would be a true statement--I haven't research the air war in China and have no clear idea of what happened there in this respect; regardless, what these Japanese pilots had apparently
not yet learned was that this sort of tactical approach in combat versus the American Wildcat was a mistake.
And so on with regard to the model.
I can easily imagine the development team running away like a pack of Mad Hatters with such a story and right away errantly modeling
WitP to reflect yet another bogus and phantom "Zero" altitude advantage, this time not at anything over 10,000 feet as it is now vis-a-vis the poor little P-39 but, say, anything over 25,000 feet versus the Wildcat.
Of course that would represent an irresponsiblle approach to modeling, but this model and the overall mentality of this forum's "voice" specializes in that.
I'm not sure if any of that's particulalrly clear and I've skipped through it fairly fast so perhaps you'll forgive me as I'm more or less just hanging around here on a Sunday morning sipping my first mug of java and waiting for the Packer game to start.
As this is my first post since your arrival TristanJohn, let me first say that I tend to agree with much of what you say in spirit. If we differ in opinion on a matter I hope that you'll still treat my opinion with the respect I feel it deserves.
Always, with this proviso: please do not resort to
ad hominem in any of its various despicable forms, or use of vulgarity, and please also do your best to treat me to informed opinion (i.e. responsibly researched), not just something you've picked out of the thin air for the reason it "sounds" good to you.
The
ad hominem and vulgarity I'll treat with all the respect it most certainly never deserves, the poorly-researched stuff I'll respond to according to how well you've treated me in a personal sense prior. (That is, if you're not a "bad guy" I won't scream at you for posting something "idiotic" though I might very well point out some error, if I can find one, and ask you to think about it some more. Of course, if you can poinht out similar flaws in my work then feel free to use the same approach with me.)
Sound fair?
The big thing, though, is that I expect a forum to be a place where people keep their minds
open and a place one might come to
without having to field a succession of childish and churlish remarks. Once that line is crossed I feel no compunction whatsoever ito respond in like manner, or for that matter worse still, action I am perfectly capable of, when I feel such treatment is warranted.
Even though you tend to throw hand grenades at people all over this forum, and generally berate people whom I respect, I still see the value in your information when based in fact, and your opinion when based...well in your opinion.
Well, thanks for the compliment but the bitter truth is that no matter how factual my cases or persuasive my style if in fact the audience stands mute, for whatever reason, then any and all work comitted to here must be of waste.
Mdiehl has made this point to me more than once and while I've resisted his plea in practice I do not disagree with his cool assessment philosophically--that is, in terms of real-world group dynamics and how these actually affect matters.
I very much do believe Mdiehl's approach to be useless as a practicable teaching method, though, even harmful, as in principle it encourages redundancy of faulty thought which wastes everyone's time at a minimum and potentially can cause complete breakdown, beyond repair, in the minds of the students. But we digress.
In general, and in "defense" of my approach on that score, for better or worse I just don't care what people in this forum think. My opinion is that this forum
as a collective is just hopeless. It's ruled in general by group think (and worse) and so the level of discourse must be, as life experience teaches, low. Aware of this coming in I did not enter the forum entertaining any hope of "convincing" the forum at large of anything. Instead, my purpose was to employ the forum's boards as mere
vehicles to reach Gary and the rest of the development team (which as I understand it is Matrix Games) more directly with my message.
I, as I think everyone else here, would really like to see WiTP be done right. There ARE issues with the A/A model, and not just as it occurs with F4F v. A6M combat, but Allied Medium bomber invulnerability, 2nd Gen Japanese designs v. 2nd Gen Allied designs, Large force raids etc.
Well of course. The entire model has been botched for going on some twenty years now or whatever it's actually been. This isn't Gary's first game on the subject.
If you happen to have the old
Pacific War manual handy thumb back to its database listings of aircraft combat values and flight characteristics and see for yourself that these very same misconstrued inter-relationships between Japanes and Allied planes that I've harped on for the past couple of months exist in that game, too.
None of this is new. It is all old. And I've mentioned that several times, I'm sure I have, but you see this forum doesn't want to address that reality, it only wants to keep everything around it happy and like some drunken club where "facts" and "reason" don't hold nearly as much value as does "strength of voice."
But again, I knew all this coming in and that's primarily why I don't give a hoot what "they" think. If I can manage to get Gary to throw me a bone or two (no matter the reason--it needn't be for the "right" reason) then fine, my time won't have been completely wasted. Should Gary choose not to listen to reason then my time will have been wasted but that's nothing new to me, either. But I'm willing to give it a shot.
Regarding Historical Accuracy, I think its important to remind everyone that this is a game, not a day for day, encounter for encounter recreation of WWII. If it were I'd skip the game and watch Victory at Sea, cuz I know how all my games would end! My point is, as has already been mentioned by Mogami in a previous thread, From turn 1 to the last turn you should not see the exact combat loss ratios that were experienced. Particularly if the players learn from the mistakes of the actual participants. If the Japanese player commands a resource surplus, then his training commands should not suffer from low flight time and excessively subpar replacement pilots. If said player also never fights the BO Midway and preserves his elite pilot cadre into 1944-45 when 2nd gen A/C such as George, Frank, and Tojo become available then the War in that paricular game should look much different, both statistically, and Strategically.
There's some validity in that, though only so much as I see it. Each side only had so much to work with and there's little good point entitling a game an "historical simulation" on the one hand only to then portray matters ingame in some other more fantastic way.
In any event,
UV was botched to such a degree that no reasonable case might be made that it "gets it mainly right" for the truth is it "gets it mainly wrong"" and doesn't even do that in a manner that
feels right most of the time.
To those of you who would reply with the expected "Axisfanboy" accusations, let me ask you this, because I don't think its been asked this directly. I'd really appreciate a response from everyone here. What is wrong with a Japanese player doing well, if he plays his game well?
Nothing at all.
If an intelligent, historically versed player avoids the classic Japanese mistakes, what is wrong with him having success? I'm talking about managing his resources, pilots, ships, Ground forces, supply and making infrormed tactical decisions that create ahistorical results. I he can't do that what is the point of this great venture?
Good point. Though the gigantic disparity between the two sides' war potentialities argues without possibility of appeal against a Japanese victory
per se. That's just the way it was (and thank you very much God).
But yes, extraordinarily intelligent play might serve to coax another year out of the position, say, for our inspired Japanese player. When I play the Japanese side in
PW that's exactly what I aim to do and consider that a victory of sorts when I'm successful--and I am usually not.
Don't get me wrong I do not want to play a game that is riddled with statistically incorrect data. But once we get the stats right, and they're proven to be right thru testing in a controlled fashion, the players should have the greatest impact on the results. All too often though I get the feeling that many of the strongly allied-based players don't want to see anything short of an exact recreation of the war, if not on an accelerated scale. If this game is played well it should look nothing like the real thing.
I'm sorry if you feel that might best reflect my position, and should it I would blame the signal/noise ratio in this forum zoo for that. Still, a careful and honest review of my writing should reveal something else.
Indeed, while most of the talk in the forum has revolved around the game's air-combat module the fact is Gary's system would benfit more greatly still were it revamped from the ground up. The naval module isn't any stronger than the air, the land-combat system is a joke, and what I consider to be the most important component of the whole ball of wax, the logistics model, doesn't even provide the player with a way to load and unload ships and planes in an intelligent manner.
Hello!
I mean tell me if you can what's
right?
What amazes me is that with all these problems, some of which strike me as irresolvable for all practical purpose, Gary's game system remains at bottom something loads of fun to mess around with. (Part of that's due to his genius as a game designer, though he isn't hurt by the fact there's nothing much out there in the genre for gamers to turn to as an alternative worth talking about.)
That ended up being longer than I expected.
No problem. If Matrix has one thing in utter abundance then this would seem to be virtual space.
P.S. My incredible wife just gave me my anniversary present(literally 15 min ago). Wondered if anyone out there had heard of it. Its Called "Genda's Blade: Japan's Squadron of Aces, 343 Kokutai" by Henry Sakaida & Koji Takaki, classic Publications. Its a beautiful book 205p. lots of pics and stats? Anyone interested? She ordered it out of the latest issue of Tailhook magazine.
Does this make me an Axis fanboy?
Probably not, Elf, but I intend to keep a sharp eye on you anyway.
Apropos your wife's gift to you I happened to leaf through James Bradley's
Fly Boys last night in a bookshop in Santa Cruz while browsing with my wife and almost bought it--but I've too much around here at the moment with pages marked for intended research on various subjects that I haven't time to get to, so I passed. Besides, I'm not sure I want to read a sad story just now (however "uplifting" it might be in the end).
