Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I've just read "Shattered Sword" by Parshall and Tully. I highly recommend this book to all. In addition, the reading of it has convinced me:
1. The Zero bonus should be removed.
2. The Allied Damage Control Bonus should be retained.
3. The allied Multi-carrier Strike Coordination Penalty should be retained.
ORIGINAL: moses
By that stated standard it is a bad model.
Clearly this is unscientific. For one thing the word "bad" is not long enough.
But more importantly Jwilkerson has just brilliently explained (and no sarcasm here) that no simulation is 100% accurate. Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly. I think it only means that you don't like it which if so OK just say that.
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
That would be a VERY KIND way to describe the New York Times...
Yardstick!!!? Well hell there's you're problem. Not even El Cid would use a yardstick to measure this thing. Maybe a protractor after a few bears but a yardstick!!ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: moses
By that stated standard it is a bad model.
Clearly this is unscientific. For one thing the word "bad" is not long enough.
But more importantly Jwilkerson has just brilliently explained (and no sarcasm here) that no simulation is 100% accurate. Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly. I think it only means that you don't like it which if so OK just say that.
What mdiehl was conversationally getting at is that the WitP model doesn't simulate WWII in the PTO convincingly. If that represents a "good deal" to most of the people on this board, then all's well and good for them, and by that yardstick Gary's game could be termed a "success" in that quarter. However, an accurate (even reasonably accurate) simulation of WWII in the Pacific it is certainly not. Objectively speaking, always.
Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly.
ORIGINAL: spence
I certainly wouldn't approach multiple bears with a protractor.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly.
For me it means the combat model produces outcomes empirically within 20% of historical standard. As it presently stands the A2A combat model does not get within a factor of 2 (best case) to 4 (worst case) in early 1942. If ya bought a car with a promised useful life of ten years ye'd be irritated if it only lasted 2-4 years (just to give you an idea of what is meant by "factor of 2-4" since you seem to have a problem understanding other commonly used terms like "bad" and "qua").
ORIGINAL: moses
ORIGINAL: spence
I certainly wouldn't approach multiple bears with a protractor.
Sorry I meant beers. I hope Mogami's not watching.
ORIGINAL: moses
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Therefore to just say its "bad" doesn't really say much. What does that mean exactly.
For me it means the combat model produces outcomes empirically within 20% of historical standard. As it presently stands the A2A combat model does not get within a factor of 2 (best case) to 4 (worst case) in early 1942. If ya bought a car with a promised useful life of ten years ye'd be irritated if it only lasted 2-4 years (just to give you an idea of what is meant by "factor of 2-4" since you seem to have a problem understanding other commonly used terms like "bad" and "qua").
20% of historical standard. I don't know if thats bad or qua. Are we talking kill ratios between specific aircraft under a certain condition. So it should be 3-1 but comes out 3.6-1? This seems like a pretty tight standard. Do you even have anything close to controled data with a lot of events. Something like 100 kills over an american base where the zero flew in from 200 miles away. (70 zero's 30 F4f's for example) Now if you have 5 or 6 data sets like this you could test each set with and without this and see which matched up better. But I suspect you'd get something like with zero bonus matched set 3 and 4 w/o bonus it matched 1,5,6. 2 was the same either way.
You could spend a lot of time on this. But fortunately most people are killing the zero's fine.
And theres other things that are way more then 20% off that we could talk about.
The game data that people have produced do not seem to support the idea that there is a serious problem here.
How about turning some of that analytical ability to the flaws in large air combats. Now there may be a real issue.
This is like Christians at Lions. Of course it's none of my business, but if I were you I'd give it up before I fell any further hopelessly behind.
ORIGINAL: spence
I think the biggest problem with large air combats is the utterly ficticious notion that the IJN or IJA were at anytime during their existence capable of effectively managing a large number of fighters simultaneously in defense of anything.
ORIGINAL: moses
This is like Christians at Lions. Of course it's none of my business, but if I were you I'd give it up before I fell any further hopelessly behind.
The Cristians would get eaten. The worst that can happen here is someone will write a very long post with lots of big words and lots of quotes. The implication will be that they are smart and I am not.
I'm not too worried about those who will spend hours arguing about an issue that doesn't matter in a game they don't like. At least argue about a major issue in a game you don't like. Or a little issue in a game you love.[8D]
