The distortion of truth (and how this leads to games of lower quality)

[mdiehl]

Your comment really misses the whole issue. Failure to conquer the SRA isn't something that I demand of the game. Frankly, it's not something that I think the Allies can prevent, though the game should not make this such a cakewalk that resistence is futile. When I have played the defense of the SRA in other strategic games I tend to feel good as the Allies if I can escape with some of the more valuable equipment and pink the Japanese along the way.

Regardless of the use of an accurate model in which the A6M plane+pilot combination is not significantly better than the F4F [lane+pilot combination, the Japanese player will conquer the SRA if he uses all the manifest advantages that he has, rather than throwing them away.

1. Central position to the theater.
2. Interior lines.
3. Numerical superiority.
4. More and better developed bases.
5. General dearth of Allied radar at key land based installations.
6. A well conceived plan of action.

If the Japanese blows these advantage by doing something exceedingly stupid, like driving straight for the Australian coast, India, Ceylon, or Hawaii, he deserves to never conquer the SRA. But that'd be as apparently talentless, strategically speaking, as some of Tantrum's recent shenanigans in his PBEMs.

The exp vs plane issue is a done conversation.

[mogami]

Hi, I'm running the Coral Sea Scenario from WITP. It's only 15 turns long. (I'm testing the AI.)
On 4 May 1942 the Japanese AI lands troops at Buna. The operation is supported by the CV.
In WITP aircraft flying CAP can be directed up to 2 hexes from the hex they are assigned to fly CAP in. (You can also limit this to 1 hex or 0 hex)

The Allied CAP over Port Moresby was directed against the Japanese air strikes.

Results of Air Combat over Buna and Port Moresby 4 May 1942 (WITP)

Air to Air
A6M2x5
B5Nx5
D3Ax5
G4M1x1
P-39Dx2
P-40Ex4
Wirrawayx8

AA
D3Ax3

Ops
G4M1x1

P-40E sqdn had 3 kills
P-39D sqdn had 14 kills

(Note totals do not match unless the G4M1 lost to ops was credited to a P-39D)

CV strike on PM
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
D3A Val x 19
B5N Kate x 19

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
D3A Val x 7 destroyed
D3A Val x 13 damaged
B5N Kate x 7 destroyed
B5N Kate x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed

[Mike Scholl]

Your comment really misses the whole issue. Failure to conquer the SRA isn't something that I demand of the game. Frankly, it's not something that I think the Allies can prevent, though the game should not make this such a cakewalk that resistence is futile. When I have played the defense of the SRA in other strategic games I tend to feel good as the Allies if I can escape with some of the more valuable equipment and pink the Japanese along the way.

Regardless of the use of an accurate model in which the A6M plane+pilot combination is not significantly better than the F4F [lane+pilot combination, the Japanese player will conquer the SRA if he uses all the manifest advantages that he has, rather than throwing them away.

1. Central position to the theater.
2. Interior lines.
3. Numerical superiority.
4. More and better developed bases.
5. General dearth of Allied radar at key land based installations.
6. A well conceived plan of action.

If the Japanese blows these advantage by doing something exceedingly stupid, like driving straight for the Australian coast, India, Ceylon, or Hawaii, he deserves to never conquer the SRA. But that'd be as apparently talentless, strategically speaking, as some of Tantrum's recent shenanigans in his PBEMs.

The exp vs plane issue is a done conversation.

MDEIL Your facts are as usual pretty solid, though I would add in a:

7. The incredable range of the Zero as compared to other Fighter A/C of the time.

But at one place the arguement you are making falls flat. Just where, during the
opening Campaign to secure the SRA is this struggle between the F4F and the
A6M2 supposed to take place. They barely crossed paths before Coral Sea.
The Zero's "bested" Buffalos, WarHawks, Hurricanes, and other misc. fighter
planes in the SRA drive, but really didn't meet the US Navy in any of these
actions. I'll agree with you that the F4F's generally held their own in the carrier
duels and eventually in the Solomans; but these are all "second stage" Japanese
objectives. And by the time they did cross paths in significant numbers the US
Navy had gotten some experiance in raiding the Japanese Mandates while the
Japanese were wearing down their air groups racing around the Western Pacific
and the Indian Ocean. So pilot skill was less of an issue anyway.

I'm not going to jump into the who's right and who's wrong issue. Just wanted
to point out a couple of ommissions in your otherwise well-reasoned statement.

[mdiehl]

Yeah, the Zeke's range definitely plays into the thing. It allows the Japanese to use their many and well-developed airbases in Formosa, southern China, and French Indochina to deploy superior numbers well into the interior lines of the opponents. And as you've suggested, the opposition that they faced was not exactly using the best equipment in the Allied arsenal.

My point about Guadalcanal was EXACTLY that it was a secondary objective. It was well beyond the SRA. Guadalcanal was a real logistical stretch for Japan. Brunei was not. The geography of the SRA works in favor of the Japanese and against the Allies. Once you step beyond the SRA the geography works in favor of the Allies.

I think of the area as a big circle with Japan near the center, surrounded by other circles with the major powers at their centers. As long as the fight is over the SRA, the Allies are moving their equipment along a logistical shoestring and along the edge of a circle that Japan can control. Once Japan leaves the SRA and starts bumping into the other circles of control, Japan is the one with the logistical problems and overextended lines, and the Allies are the ones with central position, better logistics and superior numbers.

BY late war of course the Allies logistical problems are largely solved. In part because of gross productive disparity over Japan but also because the US as part of pre-war doctrine established fleet logistics at sea as a modus operandi. Something that the Japanese never boned up on before the war started.

[Tristanjohn]

Hmmmm, let's see... Long Island has a max aircraft capacity of 16. Marine VF groups are 24 max.

And...

[/indent]It wasn't a bug. You overloaded her offensive ops ability, that's why she wouldn't fly CAP... Try the RTFM approach. 10 pound of sausage does not fit the 5 pound bag.

Thanks, but I'm on top of that rule.

You and I both know it isn't at all difficult to find a Marine (or Navy in my experience) Wildcat squadron below 18 fighters after a number of turns versus those ever-so-able "Zeroes." Transfer one of these diminished fighter squadrons to the CVE and there should be no problem getting some CAP work out of her in theory (provided always that the FS in question doesn't get reinforced while on board to then put it over the ship's limit).

Does anyone know if that's rounded down? If rounded up then 18 would still fly, otherwise I make it 17.

I've flown such squadrons onto Long Island three times and sent her along as CAP escort for transport TFs. I believe those planes flew one time and sat dumb and stupid twice. One of the dumb-and-stupid times was the game versus Bill, the other two instances were versus my Spanish partner.

I was told by someone (or read it in the forum, can't recall) that Long Island arrives on the board already fleshed-out with planes in one scenario. If true, which scenario is it? I'd like to see how consistently those planes fly in that one.

It's somewhat academic now as I've read several other threads which detail strange doings with Long Island so now she's strictly a ferry for me when needed--and if Lunga's in the Allied hands there's really no need as the planes can transfer on their own from Gili Gili. All in all LI's a good candidate to go back to Pearl at some date in time.

[Tristanjohn]

If you need assistance in learning how to play the game, there are many of us who will help out. If you want to slam the game simply because you are unable or unwilling to take the help, that is your problem, do not make it ours.

By flaming Matrix/2by3 non-stop in their forums you seek to cause others to not spend money on their products. This is finacially damaging whether you see it so or not. As long as you persist in these rants, others will take the role of pointing out that everything you say is trash talk simply because the game is beyond your skills to play. It really is that simple.

It is funny how in the entire length of time that UV has been around with the thousands of folks playing it, only you can produce such stupid results. Your actions speak for themselves. There is no point discussing it further.

As you continue to post trash, we will continue to point out that your trash can only be accomplished by deliberately attempting to play wrong and/or being the worse UV player to ever grace the forum. As to which of the two you are, it really does not matter as long as the message is clearly heard that your statements are completely inaccurate.

Say what you will, no one really cares, and each and every post you make will have a correction posted by someone else pointing out your errors as to leave them unchecked gives other casual readers the chance to think that what you spout might be true. Not going to happen ...

Wonderful. You've ignored my points and refused to answer my questions all along. Your best retort is to tell me "You don't know anything" and "You're stupid." Not exactly what I'd call accelerated conversation, Frag.

[Mr.Frag]

Wonderful. You've ignored my points and refused to answer my questions all along. Your best retort is to tell me "You don't know anything" and "You're stupid."

Hmm, last I checked, everyone who pointed out you were wrong was either "stupid" or a "Nazi Fanboy". If and when you adjust your points and actually ask questions that are not based on your failure to read the manual or your attempts to cause the USA to take losses just because you want them to, we can discuss your questions.

In the nearly 1,400 posts I have made here, you sir are the only who got the "stupid" label. That should tell you something.

I have yet to see a "question" from you that did not insult everyone here first or imply the game was completely broken.

[denisonh]

Hmm, last I checked, everyone who pointed out you were wrong was either "stupid" or a "Nazi Fanboy". If and when you adjust your points and actually ask questions that are not based on your failure to read the manual or your attempts to cause the USA to take losses just because you want them to, we can discuss your questions.

In the nearly 1,400 posts I have made here, you sir are the only who got the "stupid" label. That should tell you something.

I have yet to see a "question" from you that did not insult everyone here first or imply the game was completely broken.

Hhmmmmm, maybe it is a right wing conspiracy out to get TJ?

[Mr.Frag]

Hhmmmmm, maybe it is a right wing conspiracy out to get TJ?

Can't be, we are all Nazi fanboys ... that would make it a LEFT wing conspiracy

[mogami]

Hi, I ran another scenario 14 and the allies did even better then normal. The Japanese never had a 2-1 in air to air and by the end of Oct were losing the fighter battle by 2-1 or more. Overall Japanese airloss was higher from the very start.
Now my question is: UV/WITP results, How wide a range of player actions should we use as valid examples? Should every Allied player always win the games no matter what?

[denisonh]

Hi, I ran another scenario 14 and the allies did even better then normal. The Japanese never had a 2-1 in air to air and by the end of Oct were losing the fighter battle by 2-1 or more. Overall Japanese airloss was higher from the very start.
Now my question is: UV/WITP results, How wide a range of player actions should we use as valid examples? Should every Allied player always win the games no matter what?

Well, idiots should lose regardless of side. A game of relatively high complexity should have an unlimited opportunity to f*ck up.

Combat is often won and lost on who screwed up worse more than not.

Hell, I can prove that point. Want to play a PBEM game of UV where I am trying to lose? (oops, already been done)

[pasternakski]

It all depends on how you define "win." A huge proportion of the VPs the Japanese get (and can usually hang onto) in UV are the allotment for Truk and Shortlands. This tends to keep them in games that, when you look at the map and all the Allied control markers in late '43, you would swear to be decisive losses for the Japanese. Thoughtful configuration of victory conditions should be part of any wargame, promoting play balance and rewarding players for having done better than their historical counterparts.

[pasternakski]

Well, idiots should lose regardless of side. A game of relatively high complexity should have an unlimited opportunity to f*ck up.

Combat is often won and lost on who screwed up worse more than not.

Hell, I can prove that point. Want to play a PBEM game of UV where I am trying to lose? (oops, already been done)

You mean I should blame myself for the P-38s I lost in the game where a P-39D squadron I had assigned to 100 foot altitude anti-shipping (barge shoot-'em-up) missions upgraded and I changed their orders to CAP without remembering to put them at a different altitude (they wound up flying CAP at 100 feet)? I dunno, man, accountability is not highly prized in our society these days. I should be allowed to blame the game system for not preventing me from being STUPID.

If you can shoot your mouth off, society demands that you be heard. And winning and losing are obsolete concepts. The important point is that you played the game - everybody's a winner and score should not be kept. Obviously, these forums are no exception to the rule.

[TIMJOT]

Your comment really misses the whole issue. Failure to conquer the SRA isn't something that I demand of the game. Frankly, it's not something that I think the Allies can prevent, though the game should not make this such a cakewalk that resistence is futile. When I have played the defense of the SRA in other strategic games I tend to feel good as the Allies if I can escape with some of the more valuable equipment and pink the Japanese along the way.

.

Mdiehl is absolutely correct, secureing the SRA should not be a cake walk. Frankly just matching the Japanese time table should be the best anyone could hope to do and that should be very hard. It took tremendous effort, impeccable timeing, and a little luck for the Japanese to accomplish what they did in the time they did it. If a player doesnt put the same amount of effort and into secureing the SRA then there should be good chance that the Allies can hold the Malaya Barrier. Many people do not seem to realize the holding the Malaya Barrier had been made a priority in early 42 and consequently a significant amount of resources were in the pipeline heading that way when the SRA fell.

[denisonh]

[snip]
And winning and losing are obsolete concepts.
[snip]

Except when it comes time for conducting war crimes tribunals

[denisonh]

Mdiehl is absolutely correct, secureing the SRA should not be a cake walk. Frankly just matching the Japanese time table should be the best anyone could hope to do and that should be very hard. It took tremendous effort, impeccable timeing, and a little luck for the Japanese to accomplish what they did in the time they did it. If a player doesnt put the same amount of effort and into secureing the SRA then there should be good chance that the Allies can hold the Malaya Barrier. Many people do not seem to realize the holding the Malaya Barrier had been made a priority in early 42 and consequently a significant amount of resources were in the pipeline heading that way when the SRA fell.

Good point.

This highlights the issue of the Allied player putting effort into the fight as well.

If the Allies vacate and give the ground, they should be faced with more difficult challenges, as Japan would be ahead of the timetable and able to do more.

[Chiteng]

Mdiehl is absolutely correct, secureing the SRA should not be a cake walk. Frankly just matching the Japanese time table should be the best anyone could hope to do and that should be very hard. It took tremendous effort, impeccable timeing, and a little luck for the Japanese to accomplish what they did in the time they did it. If a player doesnt put the same amount of effort and into secureing the SRA then there should be good chance that the Allies can hold the Malaya Barrier. Many people do not seem to realize the holding the Malaya Barrier had been made a priority in early 42 and consequently a significant amount of resources were in the pipeline heading that way when the SRA fell.

No one said 'cakewalk'. But if you cant do it, game is over.
Doesnt equate. My scenario appplies only in counter-point to the complaints
about the Zero. You see I dont take them seriously. Certainly NOT from someone that doesnt even own a copy of the game he is blasting.

The Zero alone will NOT conquer the SRA. So it wont be a cakewalk.

[mdiehl]

Chittles, you don't have a "scenario." H3ll, you don't even have a "counterpoint." All you have is a sequence of free-association type reactions to 'arguments' that no one has ever made.

[Chiteng]

Chittles, you don't have a "scenario." H3ll, you don't even have a "counterpoint." All you have is a sequence of free-association type reactions to 'arguments' that no one has ever made.

Ok YOU dont see a scenario. That is great. You still dont even own a copy
of the game you love to blast the model for. When you actually get a copy,
maybe I might listen to you. Wont hold my breath on that.

[mdiehl]

Just so that I understand: you dismiss historical commentary on the relative merits of the A6M+pilots vs F4Fs+pilots if the person making the comments does not own a copy of UV?