Matrix Games Forums

TIMJOT wrote:Limited in that I do not believe they could have employed the anvil and hammer tactic at lunga roads. With the Guadacanal land mass directly south the Bettys were pretty much limited the north attack approach.

I'm not sure about that, not at all. Guadacanal does lie directly south, but there's plenty of air space there.

Here's the deal: the anvil has to be planned ahead of time and the timing must be perfect for it to work to its greatest effect. This could be practised easily in the old simulation Action Stations! (did you ever play with that one?), but again, timing is everything: the target ship has to be literally trapped by this crossfire of incoming torpedo weaponry, with no place to escape.

At Guadacanal it's pretty clear no thought was given to this prior to the attack. (Yes, it's true, the Japanese did make mistakes--in fact lots of them, which is one explanation for why they performed so poorly on occasion. Another would be because the USN performed so well!) Had it been there might have been scads of ships sinking.

If not so many Bettys had been shot down by flak.

And there's the rub. Even this early in the war the USN put up deadly flak, and they hadn't really gotten the full drift of it yet.

Also (and this is just conjecture on my part) it's possible that based on the results from the previous day's air battle the Japanese supposed they'd be flying into a buzzsaw of CAP with no time to set up an anvil, thus went for the sneak route around Florida, then directly up the channel for what they probably thought would be a routine torpedo run.

Keep in mind, to date the IJN hadn't met a real navy in opposition during the war. The USN had arrived in organized form off Guadacanal (this was the largest amphibious operation to date) and were prepared to give as good as they got. This wasn't Pearl Harbor, it was a turkey shoot and the Japanese were going to be the turkeys.

So it's possible the Japanese simply underestimated their opponent that day. Perhaps they thought what had happened on the 7th was an aberration, and that the next day things would get back to "normal."

Who knows?

For sure they must have been upset (and surprised!) to see those ships steering a parallel coruse to their run. Apparently no one explained that possibility to them in training.

I agree Turner personally played a pivotal role. So why would you expect this to reflected regularly in the game. Not all commanders are going to be as talented or prepared.

Of course all commanders aren't the same. The USN had a great many problems to iron out, and these cost them dearly the very next night, just for example. But iron them out they did, and on balance I'd guess it's to fair to say that while mid-level command was about even, at the higher levels ours was better than theirs.

As for Turner not being present in the mix: that's on the developers, not me. And even were he on the board as he's supposed to be his ratings are so low it makes you wonder what history the designers have been reading all these years. And even if Turner's ratings were fairly high there is, to my knowledge, no system mechanic extant to reflect the sort of critical difference he made on that day--neither do I begin to suppose this was considered, even in passing, during development. (Why should it have been? The rest of the model is equally lacking in these "details.")

You make my case for me, TIMJOT. Why do you do so?

I would not expect Lunga 8-9/42 results to be repeated at every Betty/Nell vs TF encounter anymore than I would expect a Tassffronga at every night IJN DDs vs USN CA,CL,DD ecounter.

I have no argument with you there, TIMJOT. Though I will say that so far I haven't seen anything convincing from the model with regards to night actions. It's almost as if a die were being rolled inside the simulation (I'm sure of that) and if it comes up a bad number for the Japanese then all of a sudden they're screwed. They were screwed after awhile, but that was because the Americans learned exceptionally fast (at least some Americans did), and could make good their early losses. I just don't get the feeling that this side of the model is right, either. In fact, the Japanese were not only better schooled but infinitely better schooled, and not just in night tactics but a lot of other things naval. The USN at this juncture of the war was almost incomprehensively incompetent. The history of Salvo Island and the reasons why it happened reads like some impossible black comedy with Steve Martin in the demented role of one of the USN's stupid cruiser captains. I shudder to think of it.

(I need to catch my breath. )

Be that as it may, as I noted to Mogami USN ships train up awful fast after just one bombardment mission. The Americans learned fast, but not that fast--it doesn't jive with my reading, does it jive with yours?

Tristanjohn, the UV system isn't perfect...there are many people posting on the bug forum about ahistorical results and problems with the game.
The trouble is, everyone seems to have different ideas about whether UV is a game or an historical simulation and what some people consider bugs, the designers may well consider a game balancing factor.
In the final analysis I believe Gary Grigsby is a game designer.
Given the choice between historical accuracy and fun, I'd wager Gary would opt for fun every time.

I really feel you need to play UV a bit more before posting an exhaustive critical analysis.
Some of the things you criticize about UV are not true, eg the total early dominance by IJN carriers.
In virtually all my PBEM's, playing as allies I've managed to sink or seriously damage Zuikaku, Shokaku and Shoho early for little loss.

Betties can be a pain in the butt to the allies. They also suffer incredible casualties.
If anything, Betties are much too fragile in the current system, as the IJN player has the choice of standing them down or watching them fly unescorted to their doom, usually at the hands of allied CAP at Cairns.

Betties can be a pain in the butt to the allies. They also suffer incredible casualties. If anything, Betties are much too fragile in the current system, as the IJN player has the choice of standing them down or watching them fly unescorted to their doom, usually at the hands of allied CAP at Cairns.

I see that's been added to the WitP wish list (limits on attack radius). I sure hope it makes it, because I agree those unescorted Betty forays are hard to take seriously. (The Japanese did stage some long-distance nuisance raids, but the only thing they ever killed was a cow one time )

As for whether UV is a game or a simulation: I think it's both, and I also think that if the simulation side of it were improved it would become better for everyone involved on both accounts.

The logic of your argument is this: there ought to be some inherent "fun" quality imbued in a "simulation" which afterall really "isn't" to the extent that it then it then might become more of a "game" which is, by "definition," more "fun" to play than a mere "simulation."

That's what's known as a convoluted argument, by the way, and not an especially good one at that.

Hey, I didn't design the game so don't blame me for convoluted arguments (or convoluted design decisions )

I think the exaggerated hits both fatigue and morale take in UV are an example of a design decision to improve the fun of the game at the expense of historical accuracy.
To me, morale and fatigue are abstractions of the general combat effectiveness of a unit and they are both critical to success.
They are elements that the player has direct control over.

The game is definitely more fun messing with squads, standing them down, controlling CAP percentages etc.
If morale and fatigue were more modestly modelled, there would be no need to monitor squads regularly and we would be mere spectators to the unfolding air drama.

I think the stinky Allied CVs are much too strong! Allies are much overpowered! Bias oh, ugly, oh I lost 4 Japanese CV for 1 US one in a battle I was 5+1 carrier against 3 Allied carriers! System is flawed! ...

TJ, I have made the exactly opposit experience than you. Japanese planes suck, and the payload is too low, divebombers don´t damage anything, and when they really should hit something, the bomb doesn´t inflict any real damage.

I think as long as both sides are not really pleased the game is ok.

IMHO you want something totally different than most other players here. You want the exact copy of the exact history timeline, you want to replay the past. Most here want to play a game, which slips along the reality but does not have exactly so.

Mike_B20 wrote:Hey, I didn't design the game so don't blame me for convoluted arguments (or convoluted design decisions )

Okay, I won't "blame" you any more or accuse "you" of making silly arguments of "convolution."

I think the exaggerated hits both fatigue and morale take in UV are an example of a design decision to improve the fun of the game at the expense of historical accuracy.

Could be. If so, that's awful dumb.

To me, morale and fatigue are abstractions of the general combat effectiveness of a unit and they are both critical to success. They are elements that the player has direct control over.

Players do exercise control over these factors, but unfortunately as it stands these factors ultimately exercise even more control over the players, thus in large measure directing the course of play. That's dumb on dumb.

The game is definitely more fun messing with squads, standing them down, controlling CAP percentages etc.
If morale and fatigue were more modestly modelled, there would be no need to monitor squads regularly and we would be mere spectators to the unfolding air drama.

If that's your take you're welcome to it. There's plenty of interest to model from World War II besides squads and squadrons and fatigue and morale levels. I don't say those things are unimportant or even somehow less important, but just a thin slice of the greater historical pie. For myself, I'd rather have that whole pie to eat.

Tristanjohn, you should probably play a different game or design your own.
Throwing hissy fits on the UV forum has been tried before by many other outraged gamers with limited effect on the designers (as far as I know).

A well balanced 'highbrow' such as yourself should have better things to do with his time, no?

Mike_B20 wrote:Tristanjohn, you should probably play a different game or design your own.
Throwing hissy fits on the UV forum has been tried before by many other outraged gamers with limited effect on the designers (as far as I know).

A well balanced 'highbrow' such as yourself should have better things to do with his time, no?

My thoughts were just running along a similar line, though I believe there are one or two more points to cover. And thanks for the compliment. I am a highbrow. Where does your hat reside?

Letting one's feelings get in the way of whatever sense he's born with isn't known to be fruitful. If I were you I'd try to be less emotional when I read something I didn't cotton to. If someone's opinion bothers me I simply blow it off, That, or I marshal a reasonable argument against that person's position . . . if I feel it's worth the effort.

On the other hand, a man could also resort to insult. Choice is yours.

Whatever you decide to do, I think I'll continue to lobby for better detail in WitP. I'm well aware there's little hope of having UV retrofitted, but then I've always looked on it as nothing more than an appetizer to the main course anyway. When the big dog is released I doubt anyone will hear much more from UV one way or the other.

Tristanjohn wrote: Now you backtrack.

Who said anyone wanted to dumb-down the model? The model needs to be bucked up. That's been my assertion from the first.

In a sense, though, you're right. This game has been dumbed-down, only the result wasn't to take anything away from the Japanese but to imbue in this side relative abilities it did not historically possess early in the game.

Not back-tracking, responding.

You didn't use the term, I did. You've previously stated several times that you feel that the Japanese air arm has been given an inflated ability beyond your interpretation of their historical abilities.

I was just pointing out that while coastwatcher warnings and TF leaders could have more of an impact on TF survivability, I saw no justification to directly reduce the inherent Japanese ability in the game. I understand now that you agree.

Tristanjohn wrote: I have a question. Where does this propensity for "fan boys" come from anyway? Don't you people desire a better simulation? You're unlikely to get one being wishy-washy all the time.

I say wake up! Quite squabbling amongst yourselves over "gamey" issues and work to get the model mechanically right to begin with, or at least very much better than it is. Then, perhaps, those "gamey" issues wouldn't crop up so often. (In a perfect simulation they would not. Think about that for awhile.)

"Fan-boys"??? How rude.

Thanks for the wake up call but it just may well be that most players are not completely ignorant of history, are aware of what a 100% accurate sim would be like (no such animal) but still choose to appreciate a game with UVs balance of simulation/stimulation.

I agree that every opportunity to further increase the historical feel of the game should be taken but not if it means throwing away UVs existing "game" strengths.

That certainly seems to be the current approach to WitP development (and a lot will be retro-fitted to UV) so there may be hope for you yet, assuming Grigsby admires Morison of course.

Keep the faith.

Tristanjohn,

OK I ran the test again, this time without the Tuligi invasion force and escorts (includeig the SanJuan)




AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/08/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Air attack on Gili Gili , at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 6

no losses

Airbase hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
6 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 38,36


Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 59
TBF Avenger x 24


no losses

Japanese Ships
CA Kinugasa, Bomb hits 12, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 38,36


Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 28


no losses


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
G4M1 Betty x 15

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 3 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 13 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged

Allied Ships
AP President Hayes
DMS Zane
AP Zeilin, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Ellet


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 35

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 38,36


Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 88
TBF Avenger x 23


no losses

Japanese Ships
CA Kinugasa, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 3 destroyed


ENS R.Ward of VF-71 is credited with kill number 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
0 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, very historical results. This has been pretty much my experience with the game vis a vis Betty/Nells against shipping. Their effectiveness is pretty much nullified if TFs are properly (historically) protected.

Next I will attempt test the outcomes when by playing a-historically.

Tristanjohn,

Now, look what happens when I fail to properly (historically) protect my invasion TF at Lunga.



AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/08/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Air attack on Gili Gili , at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 12

no losses

Airbase hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
12 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 18,27

Japanese Ships
TK Toho Maru

Allied Ships
SS Drum


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
G4M1 Betty x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 15 damaged

Allied Ships
AP Crescent City, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
APD Little, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
APD Colhoun, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 58

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
G4M1 Betty x 5

no losses

Allied Ships
APD Colhoun, on fire, heavy damage
APD McKean

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bettys score 3 times as many hits. Now did the game fail or did I fail?

Tristanjohn wrote: From what I gather many players approach this game as just that, a game. I, on the other hand, approach it as a simulation. So, while it's possible to get very good at playing the game and win a lot of games and . . . you know, become the top Tanaka wannabe on the Matrix boards . . . that doesn't mean that this game is an accurate simulation of its subject.

Man this is NEVER going to end....

Simple undisputed fact, UV is a war-game... No matter how much some folks wish it to be otherwise.

UV was designed as a war-game and is sold as a WAR-GAME. To say or imply anything else is wrong and uninformed.

Never once have I seen a setting anywhere in this game for "Sherman, set the Wayback Machine for May 1942... Yes Mr. Peabody"

(Just to remind folks what a game is)
Game: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement, a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win

Many well respected folks here have gone out of their way to try to explain that this is only a game.

I mean no disrespect to anyone but why go to all the trouble to try to turn UV into something it was never intended to be. If you want a totally historically accurate WWII Pacific Simulation I am afraid you are going to have to go out and design one because none exist at this point in time anywhere.

UV is a game and a darn good one in fact about the best I have ever played; yes there are a few outstanding issues to be addressed to make it an even better game. Like it or not a true Pacific war simulation it will never be. I also sincerely doubt that I or anyone here will ever have access to the massive computer needed to run a 100% absolutely accurate Simulation of the Pacific war. A war-game that is "Close Enough" and runs on my computer works just fine with me...

Tristanjohn wrote:I'm not sure about that, not at all. Guadacanal does lie directly south, but there's plenty of air space there.

I have to disagree with you here. I do not believe there was enough distance between the landing force and shoreline to make a inland attack run practicable. The water is too shallow and the distance is too short. According to "Kaigun" Evans&Pettie the hammer and anvil tactic was standard operating proceedure and something the IJN torp pilots trained at rigorously. It would require a decision ahead of time, but no special planning other than the attack approach and point of division. The fact that it wasnt employed, I am inclined to believe there had to be a good reason for it. Be it escorts vs CAP considerations or geography. Anyway I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, but perhaps we can at least agree that had they been able to set up a crossfire that they may have had better results.

Regards

TIMJOT wrote:Tristanjohn,

Now, look what happens when I fail to properly (historically) protect my invasion TF at Lunga.

-----------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
G4M1 Betty x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 15 damaged

Allied Ships
AP Crescent City, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
APD Little, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
APD Colhoun, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 58

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

-----------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
G4M1 Betty x 5

no losses

Allied Ships
APD Colhoun, on fire, heavy damage
APD McKean

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

-------------------------------

The Bettys score 3 times as many hits. Now did the game fail or did I fail?

I don't know, TIMJOT. This second test certainly reflects more of the result I got when I ran the test, more what I normally see in the game. Only one Betty destroyed, 15 damaged with six torpedo hits.

Exactly what ships did you give Turner? Colhoun and Little (plus Gregory and McKean) transported 1st Raider Battalion to Tulagi, yet you have them in the game's Lunga hex. Crescent City was there, along with Alhena from Transdiv D. Then there was Transdiv A (American Legion, Bellatrix, Fuller), Transdiv B (Barnett, the unfortunate George F. Elliott, Libra and McCawley, Rear Admiral Turner's flag ship), and Transdiv C (Alchiba, Betelgeuse, Fomalhaut and Hunter Liggett).

The escort (technically) for Group X-RAY consisted of HMAS CAs Australia, Canberra, Hobart and USN CA Chicago plus DDs (Desron 4) Jarvis, Mugford, Patterson, Ralph Talbot, Selfridge and (Desdiv 7) Bagley, Blue, Helm, Henley.

Fire Support Group L also seemed to be on the Guadacanal side when the Japanese attack went in as we know Vincennes was close to Jarvis when the latter took her torpedo, so also throw in (provisionally) CAs Quincy and Astoria plus Dewey, Ellet, Hull and Wilson serving as destroyer screen.

There are also several minesweepers chugging around. Somewhere.

There might very well exist a detailed track chart for the entire greater landing area available for downloading someplace. All I have here at home is what Morison gives for the action just off Lunga Point. I haven't bothered to do a search for anything better. You might care to.

It's probably the case that the ships Tulagi and Gavutu side came out into the main channel as well, but I don't know that, and how far they might have come out is unclear as well. Assuming they did it's a fair bet that collective AA didn't come to much more than what we'd have in game terms playing with TFs in individual hexes.

It's my understanding that AA in the game does not become collective within a hex, though, so you'd need to place Crutchley's escort and perhaps part of the fire support group in with the transports. I make that at least 26 ships, so drop a DD or two in order to incorporate Vincennes into that mix. That would help boost USN AA somewhat. We want to be fair, always. (I think, all factors considered, this represents more effective AA than actually existed--remember, those Bettys came in low, as in 20-feet-off-the-water low, and many of the guns wanting to train on them were blocked by friendly ship silouhettes.)

When I ran this test awhile back I played head to head so I could control the orders and check both sides for damage, etc. I suppose you're doing the same, right?

Hi, This is what UV produces in Scen 14. I ran the Japanese the way I would in PBEM and the Allies the same.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/07/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 38,40

Port hits 4
Port supply hits 5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24
G3M Nell x 10

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 46

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
G3M Nell x 7 destroyed
G3M Nell x 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 damaged

Allied Ships
AP President Jackson, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
APD Little


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 20

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
2 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Lunga

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 7561 troops, 70 guns, 12 vehicles

Defending force 1891 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 20 to 1 (fort level 1)

Allied forces CAPTURE Lunga base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 88

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 25
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15xBetty failed to locate target. I ignored Tulagi in order to carry more engineer to Lunga (I'll take Tulagi with another force once transports return.)

That's interesting, Mogami, and I appreciate the effort. But it's the long way round the barn. The further your test parameters come down from actual events then the results must be of less value to compare the model's ability to mirror history.

Why not set it up with historical OOBs and repeat the test several times, say, 10? That'd be of much greater help. If enough players pitched in using the same methodology we could examine aggregate results--a much stronger sample.

Hi, OK you have my e-mail send me the historical list of Japanese and American pilots with their experiance, morale, and fatigue and I'll get right to it. I don't think UV has wind direction and speed and I'm not sure how I change weather from what the program decides it will be.
Sea state is also missing.
There is a great difficulty testing tatical results in an operational game.
(UV only cares about operational results)
The only true test of accuracy is to run full scenarios and compare these results.

So far I have UV: 1 transport damaged by air attack on Aug 7th
History: 1 transport damaged by air attack on Aug 7th


Everyone who reads this. Please go load scen 14 H2H and run game.
Have USN land on Lunga on Aug 7th. Report results of Japanese air attacks.

When testing remember before you run test 2 to completly reload program. The random seed numbers are generated on turn 1 so in order to get a new set you need to completly restart.

TIMJOT wrote:I have to disagree with you here. I do not believe there was enough distance between the landing force and shoreline to make a inland attack run practicable. The water is too shallow and the distance is too short. According to "Kaigun" Evans&Pettie the hammer and anvil tactic was standard operating proceedure and something the IJN torp pilots trained at rigorously. It would require a decision ahead of time, but no special planning other than the attack approach and point of division. The fact that it wasnt employed, I am inclined to believe there had to be a good reason for it. Be it escorts vs CAP considerations or geography. Anyway I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, but perhaps we can at least agree that had they been able to set up a crossfire that they may have had better results.

Regards

I'm not sure what the depth of Sealark Channel is in all areas, but one map shows a fathom line starting at 100, and the channel is undoubtedly much deeper toward its center. I have another chart that indicates soundings of 283 and 245 fathoms in the general area of the battle, which was Ironbottom Sound. Now a fathom is six feet, so we're talking very deep water with respect to the needs of torpedoes.

My guess is the ocean bed sheers off rapidly from Guadacanal, this just based on my general knowledge of the waters in this area, but I could be wrong. No matter, the water we speak to for purposes of this study is . . . deep.

As for air space: planes coming in south to north over the hills of Guadacanal would enjoy a good 25 or 30 miles of sight lines in all directions!

TIMJOT, please.

Re why the Japanese decided not to use an anvil attack we don't know, but I'd guess (we've touched on this already) it had something to do with what went down on 7 August. A likely scenario at Japanese headquarters at Rabaul might have run:

"Say, we got chopped bad today. That American CAP's a sonofabitch! If we split our bombers tomorrow for an anvil run our escorts might be unable to cover both wings. Maybe we should just go in straight, in one large group, and give our Zeroes a fighting chance."

Or something similar.

Mogami wrote:Hi, OK you have my e-mail send me the historical list of Japanese and American pilots with their experiance, morale, and fatigue and I'll get right to it. I don't think UV has wind direction and speed and I'm not sure how I change weather from what the program decides it will be.

Mogami, go up the thread a few posts. In a reply to TIMJOT I've listed the USN assets available. I've indicated that all of these ships, except for the transports, of course, should not be used with respect to their AA fire for the reason noted there. It might be that the UV system will account for this somewhat insofar as TFs of over 15 ships are supposed to suffer some sort of penalty (unspecified as far as I know--and if that's been published somewhere please direct me), but what I don't know is if this "penalty" would include a decrease in the TF's AA fire.

Anyway, you'll need to lump the escorts and any fire support vessels you thought should be included in with the transports so as to make AA fire a collective defensive shield. (Do I have that game rule right, that only AA fire from a discrete TF defends against an air attack in a given hex? Avtually, I can't recall reading that in the rules but one of PBEM opponents told me that's the way it is.)

Sea state is also missing.

Since when did "sea state" become a consideration of UV? If the game starts considering Beaufort Scales and whatnot we're all in trouble anyway.

If it's of interest to you the conditions were calm.

There is a great difficulty testing tatical results in an operational game. (UV only cares about operational results) The only true test of accuracy is to run full scenarios and compare these results.

I'm sure that Grigsby is only concerned with the bottom line at end of game with regard to model "accuracy," and that's one of my largest complaints!

I do not agree that this simulation should be incapable of producing more or less hisotrical results from one battle to the next, given circumspect test criteria which yield a large enough aggregate sample of results to analyze. To put that another way, should the simulation prove incapable of achieving this then by definition the model is not "accurate" to that degree.

Everyone who reads this. Please go load scen 14 H2H and run game. Have USN land on Lunga on Aug 7th. Report results of Japanese air attacks.

When testing remember before you run test 2 to completly reload program. The random seed numbers are generated on turn 1 so in order to get a new set you need to completly restart.

Best to hold off on that until we arrive at a consensus of what the test scenario should look like. At that juncture the same scenario file could be downloaded by all testers (I doubt many would volunteer) and the identical test run by everyone. Otherwise, the results would be quite meaningless.

Geeezzz!!! Tristanjohn, its a 30 mile hex for crisakes. I didnt know I had to account for the exact locations of each individual ship.

For the record. The first test I simply sent all the individual TFs ( GD Transport TF, Tuligi Transport TF, Covering TF, GD fire supp. TF and Tuligi Fire supp.TF ) to Lunga. I did not combine any of them.

The second test I withdrew the Tuligi TF ( 4 APs and 4 APDs ) and the Tuligi Fire Supp. TF ( 1 CLAA, 2 DDs ). I apologize for not withdrawing the exact named historical ships, but felt that the correct number and type was all that mattered. Again the remaining Lunga TFs remained seperate.

The third test ( THE ONE THE IJN DID WELL ) I gave Turner nothing. I just sent his transports and a few DMS's to Lunga without CAP. I did this just to test the results of a poorly planned invasion and how that effected the efficiency of the IJN bombers.

BTW, since you can not target specific TFs in UV, playing head to head does not solve the problem of the AI attacking the Tuligi force instead of the Lunga. Hence the reason I withdrew the Tuligi force. It was just an expedient way to save time.

Regards