RHS Zero range and midget thing questions

[bradfordkay]

Some day I want a spherical projection.

No map errors.



BEER!

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Not if you believe Sakai - and I do. HE said only a minority of pilots were up to it.

Well, 18 of the 24 operational A6M2s of the Tainan airgroup flew to Guadalcanal on 7 Aug 42. 16 returned, 2 were missing, probably shot down. That was Sakai's unit. So it seems like the MAJORITY of the Tainan airgroup was up to it. And they did it day after day. The Chitose, 1st and 2nd airgroups among others also routinely conducted missions from Rabaul beginning the 2nd of September. Even Zuikaku and Shokaku fliers pariticpated after their carriers were rendered hors' d combat. And carrier pilots certainly weren't trained in the art of long distance flying.

If you believe that only the best could attempt it, why then did newly arrived Japanese replacements routinely perform the missions to Guadalcanal all throughout the campaign? By November, there certainly weren't many of the original veterans left. So the idea that only the best attempted the flight is BS. The Japanese sent whoever they could lay their hands on.

Not to disparage Sakai because I respected the man greatly, but how would he know who flew the missions to Guadalcanal? He was wounded on 7 Aug and evacuated on 12 August to Japan where he spent months in the hospital. He didn't even fly again until late 44. He is either wrong or misquoted. The Japanese weren't exactly blabbing about how things were going to the people back home.

If you choose to ignore historical precedence, thats fine. But creating another wrong doesn't make it right. If the map is the source of the error, fix the map. Don't remove a historical capability, one that was amply demonstrated.

I don't know much about RHS other than it was supposed to reflect greater attention to historical accuracy. If this is a result of that "greater attention," I think I'll pass on this mod.

Chez

Interestingly, some of the claims made in "Samarai", the story of Sabaru Sakai have been refuted by the great man himself. It appears that Martin Caiden, the author, built up some of the stories himself.

In Caiden's book "Zero", one of the main (Navy) collaboraters is posted to Buka off Bouganville, this would imply that either some of the Zero's transferred there or used it as a refueling base (A tactic used in many operations over the SWPAC area).

Maybe the WITP tactic is to build up Buka and use fighters from there to escort the Betties.

The argument I would use to counter the claim that the Japanses player would'nt dare use his Betties to hit 'canal because of a lack of fighter escort is because the Zero would wipe the skies of the Allied Fighters, which didnt happen. Maybe 2 wrongs balancing out.

[DD696]

Hi,

So those game crippling bugs that exist in the database which could be easily fixed via an in-game editor should be allowed to cripple all games? Take a look at the AAR BUGWAR 2006....a simple editor would solve the problems.

I have observed in my observations of these Matrix forums over the past several years that the PBEM'ers are the most vocal group around. Think of all the copies of this game (and others) that have been sold. Now look at how a very small minority lead the attack against a simple tool that would solve such a great many problems. Yes, I know the PBEM'ers do not appear to trust anyone therefore no one should be able to edit a game in progress. If the PBEM'ers are such an untrustworthly group of people I certainly would not want to get involved in a game of such duration with them. If I cannot trust the person with whom I would set out to play a game of this scope, then I certainly would not do so.

So we are left with the small group of PBEM'ers who complain that having an in-game editor would cause so much cheating that the game would be unplayable. I really don't know how to break this news to you, but without the ability to correct database errors and the ability to correct the buggy situations that arise in the course of a game, then the game becomes an exercise in playing around and accepting the bugs and oddities that have crept in. But, that is what the Vocal Minority want.

I want the ability to be able to repair problems in the database when they occur. I don't want to be forced to continue a game that has become flawed, which could be easily repaired, but can't due to the Vocal Minority who cannot trust one another. Everytime someone has requested this feature the VM rise up in unison and rip him to shreds. So I have to say to you....don't ever complain about the bugs. The database errors could be repaired in-game and that would make War in the Pacific so much better....but, enjoy, you have what you want.

Now, rip me to shreds. Tell me how you do not trust those whom you play the game with. Better yet, tell them!

[ChezDaJez]

UNLESS you can ADMIT the truth - that the evidence of the eyewitness is what it is - you cannot deal with this issue properly.

I can't admit to a "truth" that is unsupported by anything more than a verbal exchange. I could say a lot of things about that I feel would be correct but wouldn't be supoorted by the FACTS. And the undisputable fact is that Sakai did not participate in the campaign after that first day. He would have little knowledge of operations afterwards. He spent the entire campaign convalescing back in Japan.

So his assertion is based upon what? Experience? He conducted ONE and only ONE mission of this type and nearly paid for it with his life. It may very well be they picked the best pilots to conduct that first mission. But did they pick the best combat pilots or did they pick those who excelled at extracting maiximum range from their aircraft. The two skills are not necessarily inclusive. And we know that experience levels were considerably less at the end than at the beginning yet they still flew them anyhow.

A spherical map projection would be great and solve many of the inaccuracies in the current map. But that is unlikely, even in WitP II.

An alternate method would be to assign lat/longs to every hex/city/base that is based on real world lat/longs and compute distances using great circle plotting. In this way, an aircraft with an operational radius of XXX miles can fly to any target within that range regardless of the actual number of hexes on WitP's current map. Locations of TFs and TCUs could be tracked the same way

As I have said on many occasions, I want as accurate a historical capability as is possible. Iam in favor of giving the aircraft (all of them) the range necessary to perform the missions they did IRL.

I've said my piece and will now leave it alone.

Chez

[el cid again]

I can't admit to a "truth" that is unsupported by anything more than a verbal exchange. I could say a lot of things about that I feel would be correct but wouldn't be supoorted by the FACTS. And the undisputable fact is that Sakai did not participate in the campaign after that first day. He would have little knowledge of operations afterwards. He spent the entire campaign convalescing back in Japan.

You are lost in the forest - and see nothing but trees! Look - your problem is not that you are wrong - it is that you have lost sight of what designers and modders and simulators do:

It is ironic that if we listened to you - and "nerved" the data for one plane - we would be guilty of the very charge you level against us (for not doing it)! WITP is a THEATER game. It is not a "Guadalcanal campaign game" where the range of one - and only one - plane matters. It is an accident of history Guadalcanal was a battle zone at all: not one of the three major navies present was there for the reason Lord Fisher identified it as a strategic site before WWI - and I bet you don't know why he did either. We need a game that is - on the average - correct for ALL planes in ALL locations. Messing with the range of ONE plane because of ONE location issue is NOT the way to get there. That is the most fundamental fact of all.

I won't disagree with you that Zeros flew to Guadalcanal from Rabaul. I also believe that the Oscar did. Where we disagree is about what justifies tampering with the numbers. I will not consider boosting (or reducing) the range of a single aircraft (as was done by CHS by the way - and it is in the notes for some - while in others it is based on a belief in things like "the Pete is long range" - something I find no basis to accept). I would rather redo the map projection to get the range right at the point you think is critical - and have ALL planes using right data. But you need to understand that getting the map right at point A forces it to be wrong at point B- the nature of the business. We must compromise somewhere - in map distances - or go to a spherical projection which will surely "look funny" even if it is right!