Matrix Games Forums

Pauk, I have no hard feelings over the matter.[8D]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

And to correct you, I don't think mdiehl bought the game, played it for, like, couple weeks, experimented playing the grand campaign till say 43, and then returned it because he was disappointed by what he saw. I think he *never* bought it at the first place (I may be wrong here though), which makes his participation on this board truely hilariously funny when you think about it.

You're right - his post said he 'borrowed' it from a friend and later 'returned' it to same.

Andrew,

I played a bunch on Subchaser's map before trying your map. I liked Subchaser's map better than the stock map. I like your map better than Subchaser's map. Yours is easier on the eyes after a couple of hours compared to his. Please stay with your own color scheme, etc.

[:)]

And to correct you, I don't think mdiehl bought the game, played it for, like, couple weeks, experimented playing the grand campaign till say 43,

He said he played until May 42. I would like to assume the Japanese AI cleaned his clock!

Chez

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

PS: CHS is all about trying to achieve as accurate a historical balance as is reasonably possible, given the limitations of the game engine and the time of the volunteer contributors. It is also very much a work in progress, as stated in the CHS documentation. The success of the scenario depends on contributions and feedback from interested players. Some seem to claim that CHS is an "Alled fanboy" mod; they are free to call it what they like, but if anyone has a genuine complaint or issue with the scenario, please let us know, along with the reasons for the complaint, and it will be looked at. If you think the scenario is unbalanced in the favour of the Allies, let us know why you think so.

How about that little tidbit I already posted here (and that was ignored by nearly everyone).

CHS reduced Zero range from 11 to 10 hexes, so now A6M2 can't reach Guadalcanal from Rabaul - something that was possible historically, and something that I personally find *very* important in my games. So either the map guy (you) got something wrong, or the air guy (Lemurs or whoever) got something wrong.

It's not much, and it's not war winning issue either way, but it goes a long way in showing the general attitude of "mod makers", if they choose to deliberately tweak one piece of equipment so as to make it uncapable of conducting one of most important historical missions for given piece of equipment (I hope I don't have to quote mountain of source material detailing Rabaul-Lunga A6M2 missions).

O.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

PS: CHS is all about trying to achieve as accurate a historical balance as is reasonably possible, given the limitations of the game engine and the time of the volunteer contributors. It is also very much a work in progress, as stated in the CHS documentation. The success of the scenario depends on contributions and feedback from interested players. Some seem to claim that CHS is an "Alled fanboy" mod; they are free to call it what they like, but if anyone has a genuine complaint or issue with the scenario, please let us know, along with the reasons for the complaint, and it will be looked at. If you think the scenario is unbalanced in the favour of the Allies, let us know why you think so.

How about that little tidbit I already posted here (and that was ignored by nearly everyone).

CHS reduced Zero range from 11 to 10 hexes, so now A6M2 can't reach Guadalcanal from Rabaul - something that was possible historically, and something that I personally find *very* important in my games. So either the map guy (you) got something wrong, or the air guy (Lemurs or whoever) got something wrong.

It's not much, and it's not war winning issue either way, but it goes a long way in showing the general attitude of "mod makers", if they choose to deliberately tweak one piece of equipment so as to make it uncapable of conducting one of most important historical missions for given piece of equipment (I hope I don't have to quote mountain of source material detailing Rabaul-Lunga A6M2 missions).

O.

I have never played the CHS Mod.

As a crusader against the Zero Bonus in the name of what I think is historical accuracy - I would have to agree that that range reduction is very important to game play and would be very hard to explain away. And in an historical campaign could very well turn out to be a game breaker

Accuracy has to go both ways.

So why was it done anyway?

ORIGINAL: Big B
So why was it done anyway?

I don't know...

This is what I've been saying all along. We can discuss Zero bonus but only as part of the "whole package". If you come here to discuss removing Zero bonus in the name of "historical accuracy", after you lost your credibility *reducing* Zero range, making it *uncapable* of doing one of the most important and best known hisotrical missions, then you deserve to be laughed at and called "Allied fanboi" (which is what I did [;)]).

(I am not using "you" as you, I am using it to show my point [:D])

So there goes CHS goodwill and "historical accuracy" mumbo jumbo out of the window right there, showing what appears to be their true agenda... 15 pages of mdiehl's propaganda before anyone even mentioned the fact CHS already cheated Zero of it's range?!

mdiehl how come you don't comment on something as glaringly obvious as this? In the name of "historical accuracy"?

BTW I am no big fan of Zero bonus myself, not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread. But then again I am no big fan of great many other things that are much more problematic.

Also, most importantly, history or no history once you start playing the game I think you have to be **REALLY bad** as Allied player to even care about ZB, let alone to come here whining begging for it to be removed. Zero was an operational surprise to Allies, developers felt it needed to be modelled and so they did. Period. Overall effect in the grand scheme of things is *negligible*, barely worth being mentioned in the manual.

If Zero bonus wasn't mentioned in the manual we would never even notice it's there.

O.

here is a thread describing the reasons for Zero range reduction - tm.asp?m=899141&mpage=1&key=zero%2Crange

I think CHS guys can comment it more...


I persoanlly don't feel it to be AFB mod. I have played both sides and think that comparing to stock it is much harder to play allies in CHS. May be this is the reason in PBEM I play only CHS and only Jap side [:)]

So, out of curiosity sake.
You think CHS leans more toward the Japanese?
Is it because of more available shipping?
Or, because of VP garnishing by destroying the myriad of "fixed" Allied LCU's.

What's your opinion Helpless?

ORIGINAL: Helpless

here is a thread describing the reasons for Zero range reduction - tm.asp?m=899141&mpage=1&key=zero%2Crange

Just as I thought - Lemurs the Self Proclaimed Supreme Airforce Dictator arbitrarily decided to change this and that, and his changes went unchallenged (how do you challenge God? LOL) except for SubChaser, while he was still here. SC should have better spent his time redoing the maps, doing something that would last [:D]

BTW reading the above discussion I see SC was right, period.

I persoanlly don't feel it to be AFB mod. I have played both sides and think that comparing to stock it is much harder to play allies in CHS. May be this is the reason in PBEM I play only CHS and only Jap side [:)]

I'd love to play you in CHS as Allies, and wipe the floor with your bonus-boosted Zeros, but I'd need nicer map to do that [;)]

O.

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

So, out of curiosity sake.
You think CHS leans more toward the Japanese?
Is it because of more available shipping?
Or, because of VP garnishing by destroying the myriad of "fixed" Allied LCU's.

What's your opinion Helpless?

I do not think it is leaned to any side. WITP is not the game you can judge before you reach at least 1943 [:D].. I'm just in summer 1942 in one game.

The reasons I found that it is harder to play Allies in CHS than in stock mainly are
- replacement rates for Allies planes. In 1942 it is very low.
- all this new allied shipping been intoroduced by CHS gives just easy targets for Japanese.
- allies supplies reduction keeps you at least to follow it [:)]

There might be quite a few other reasons. I have a feeling that CHS guys had much more sources about Allied OOB, and they brought that close to "witp-reality" [:)] . I know that there gonna be some changes to Japanese OBB as well. Let's see...

Keep going guys...

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
How about that little tidbit I already posted here (and that was ignored by nearly everyone).

CHS reduced Zero range from 11 to 10 hexes, so now A6M2 can't reach Guadalcanal from Rabaul - something that was possible historically, and something that I personally find *very* important in my games. So either the map guy (you) got something wrong, or the air guy (Lemurs or whoever) got something wrong.

As another poster already pointed out (saving me from doing the search) the change to the A6M2 range was discussed and the reasons were given. Lemurs was responsible for the aircraft data at the time. I know that his range value for the Zero was very controversial, and there was some discussion as to whether the trips from Rabaul to Lunga were the exception or the rule, as far as range of the A6M2 is concerned. I never participated in that debate as I am no expert on WW2 Aircraft.

All the Japanese aircraft data in CHS is being reviewed currently, so this may even change. So here is your chance - if you have substantive data on A6M2 performance in the field, apart from Rabalu-Lunga which has already been discussed and is on the record, by all means provide it. It might be best to start a new thread though.

Do you have any other specific concerns about CHS Oleg? You seem to be convinved that it is seriously unbalanced for some reason.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Just as I thought - Lemurs the Self Proclaimed Supreme Airforce Dictator arbitrarily decided to change this and that, and his changes went unchallenged (how do you challenge God? LOL) except for SubChaser, while he was still here. SC should have better spent his time redoing the maps, doing something that would last [:D]

BTW reading the above discussion I see SC was right, period.


I'd love to play you in CHS as Allies, and wipe the floor with your bonus-boosted Zeros, but I'd need nicer map to do that [;)]

Oleg,

Even I might tend to agree with SC and you on range question (and some other questions as well [:)]), it smells as a personal relations here, which are, IMHO, better to be avoided... [;)]

I have a hope you will get use to the most beutifull AB map in chs [:D]. Just wish to have someone "wipe the floor", otherwise I'm struglling more to convience my opponent to keep playing.

ORIGINAL: Helpless

I have a hope you will get use to the most beutifull AB map in chs [:D]. Just wish to have someone "wipe the floor", otherwise I'm struglling more to convience my opponent to keep playing.

No disrespect to AB, but I just can't stand to look at his map for any extended period of time. I was really hoping that SC would make his graphical map mod for AB map, regardless of my general opinion on CHS (hey there are other mods for AB map too).

O.

ORIGINAL: Helpless
I have a feeling that CHS guys had much more sources about Allied OOB, and they brought that close to "witp-reality" [:)] . I know that there gonna be some changes to Japanese OBB as well. Let's see...

I think you are right - the people who first got together to create CHS did have more sources, and more interest, on the Allied side and the Allies got a lot of attention to improve the data. That is also why for a long time now we have been calling for more help with the Japanese side, even thought the Japanese were already revised quite a bit. More work is now being done on the Japanese OOB/TO&E data, and it will be interesting to see what effect it has on the way the scenario plays.

As always, playtesting will be a valuable guide.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
As another poster already pointed out (saving me from doing the search) the change to the A6M2 range was discussed and the reasons were given. Lemurs was responsible for the aircraft data at the time. I know that his range value for the Zero was very controversial, and there was some discussion as to whether the trips from Rabaul to Lunga were the exception or the rule, as far as range of the A6M2 is concerned. I never participated in that debate as I am no expert on WW2 Aircraft.

LOL "discussed", "reasons", "controversial" - nice politically correct speech but do we read the same thread Andrew? I don't see anything "controversial" at all behind the above link, I see SubChaser offering the arguments (well known to any student of Pac war anyway), and Lemurs replying basically "it will be like this cause I say so!". Ain't no "discussion" there to see...

What about the rest of you CHS guys? Will you all hide behind this decision or do something about it?

Oh yes, of course you'll do something about it... you will *remove* the friggen Zero bonus on top of removing one hex from Zero's range LOL [:-]

Do you have any other specific concerns about CHS Oleg? You seem to be convinved that it is seriously unbalanced for some reason.

I could dig more stuff, but I don't want to turn into mdiehls evil twin brother [:D]

Problem is after seeing the threads like this and SC vs Lemurs "discussion" (LOL) above, the way you all but ignore one set of issues, while blowing another set of issues way *WAY* out of proportion... you guys lose credibility in my eyes, generally speaking, your agenda shows, and I am not much interested in spending hours to dig specific issues that might or might not be there, only to be told they were "discussed" (sic!) before.

What about super-Corsairs even with rookie pilots? What about piss poor flak? What about flying coffin totally useless Oscars and Nates? What about air combat being too bloody in general? etc etc. How many people you have on Jap OOB side of your team? Name some names.

O.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

What about flying coffin totally useless Oscars and Nates?

Actually they do score in CHS much better than in stock... [;)]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Big B
So why was it done anyway?

I don't know...

This is what I've been saying all along. We can discuss Zero bonus but only as part of the "whole package". If you come here to discuss removing Zero bonus in the name of "historical accuracy", after you lost your credibility *reducing* Zero range, making it *uncapable* of doing one of the most important and best known hisotrical missions, then you deserve to be laughed at and called "Allied fanboi" (which is what I did [;)]).

(I am not using "you" as you, I am using it to show my point [:D])

So there goes CHS goodwill and "historical accuracy" mumbo jumbo out of the window right there, showing what appears to be their true agenda... 15 pages of mdiehl's propaganda before anyone even mentioned the fact CHS already cheated Zero of it's range?!

mdiehl how come you don't comment on something as glaringly obvious as this? In the name of "historical accuracy"?

BTW I am no big fan of Zero bonus myself, not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread. But then again I am no big fan of great many other things that are much more problematic.

Also, most importantly, history or no history once you start playing the game I think you have to be **REALLY bad** as Allied player to even care about ZB, let alone to come here whining begging for it to be removed. Zero was an operational surprise to Allies, developers felt it needed to be modelled and so they did. Period. Overall effect in the grand scheme of things is *negligible*, barely worth being mentioned in the manual.

If Zero bonus wasn't mentioned in the manual we would never even notice it's there.

O.

Well I am not happy with the ZB, I haven't changed my mind about it's legitimacy per say - but after getting around to testing it the way I did - I will now agree that if it were not mentioned in the manual you would probably never know it's there. Shame on them for causing all that consternation[:-]

As a card carrying member of the UAFWC[;)] I am not even convinced that the whole exp rating system with it's many side effects is all that great either...

However, I have also made comments in the past like: 'as much as I have problems with the early Allies, I also have problems with the the hard coded handicaps the late war Japanese are faced with'. It's as if it's pre-ordained Japan's situation must deteriorate no matter how well things have gone for them.

I haven't played Japan - but seeing that their pilot replacement experience is doomed to fall no matter how much oil and raw materials the Japanese player can get to Japan seems to me also unjustified on historical grounds. As I have understood it - the main historical reason Japan had a quality drop in replacement pilots was that fuel shortages in Japan forced the reduction in avaiation fuel allocated for training programs - hence fewer flying hours, hence less well trained replacement pilots. There was also the issue of instructors because they did not rotate their pilots out of combat - granted. But I think the lack of fuel for training was far more critical.

To have the game do that automatically (lower pilot quality) regardless of how well the Japanese player managed his resources seemed to me an unwarranted handicap. I have always thought that replacement pilot quality should be tied to the Japanese economy.

So maybe I'm an Underdog Fanboy? Could be, because the only interest in playing Japan for me is to try to do better than they did from 1944 on. On the other hand, maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment.[8|]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

What about flying coffin totally useless Oscars and Nates?

Actually they do score in CHS much better than in stock... [;)]

Oh man, we just gave CHS guys something to work on for the next release!

Reduce the numbers on them flying Godzillas fer chistssake.... [:D]

O.

LOL [:D]

Is this CHS where you get inspiration for your "deal" mods in GGWAW? [;)]


[:)]