Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

[moses]

. It's the argument that's a loser

Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.

2.) We are on patch 1.8. Hardly the time to work on thing that have little actual effect on game play.

3.) The debate has surely reached the ears of the developers (goin on for 22 pages as it is) who if they agreed will have changed it.

4.) Therefore this debate has no purpose at least as far as construtively improving the game.

I think its a pretty tight argument.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: moses

. It's the argument that's a loser

Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.

The argument from me is: the Zero bonus is a bad idea because it has no basis in fact.

Also, it has never been reasonably demonstrated exactly what effect the Zero Bonus has on play. It is still a phony artifact, however, no matter how that shakes out.

2.) We are on patch 1.8. Hardly the time to work on thing that have little actual effect on game play.

As it turns out your version is newer than mine, which is not all that surprising as I haven't played the game for six months. But the thing is, no matter what version someone uses the Zero Bonus is still a phony artifact which wouldn't take much in the way of effort to do away with.

3.) The debate has surely reached the ears of the developers (goin on for 22 pages as it is) who if they agreed will have changed it.

That much is probably correct.

4.) Therefore this debate has no purpose at least as far as construtively improving the game.

There have been any number of informative posts in this thread that could easily serve as the basis for improvement in the present game system. Apparently you missed those. But they're still up for perusal should you have interest.

I think its a pretty tight argument.

My estimation is it's all over the board, but what do I know?

[spence]

The only remaining purpose to this thread is challenge the burgeoning omnipotence of THE ALMIGHTY THREAD

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: spence

The only remaining purpose to this thread is challenge the burgeoning omnipotence of THE ALMIGHTY THREAD

Sounds like one to miss to me, kinda like anything out of Hollywood the past five years or so.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: moses

. It's the argument that's a loser

Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.

The argument from me is: the Zero bonus is a bad idea because it has no basis in fact.

Also, it has never been reasonably demonstrated exactly what effect the Zero Bonus has on play. It is still a phony artifact, however, no matter how that shakes out.

Hi TJ,

Earlier in this thread I posted the results of 5 tests I ran to investigate the Zero Bonus, Each test wass arranged for a series of CAP vs Sweep air combats (pure fighter vs fighter) at as close to 1:1 odds as the game can be relied on to pruduce - for the purpose of compiling the results of alot of pure evenly balanced air combat (enough to get a reasonable sample) Turns out that about 8000 combat sorties gave a consistant 3:1 kill ratio favoring the Zero over the P40E and F4F4 (all squadrons had Default exp ratings - USAAF about 55, USMC 65, USN 75, IJN 75 -80) over each series of encounters - that is the total at the end of each of the 5 tests.

Anyhow the last test was without the ZB and the Japanese total of kills over us a/c remained the same - but the Zeros took about 16% - 17% higher losses, a drop in the kill rate from about 3:1 to about 2.5:1

So the ZB at full strength seems to save the Japanese player about 15% on his loss rate.

B

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: moses



Well here's the argument.

1.) The zero bonus has a very minor effect on actual play. As documented by many who have posted their loss results.

The argument from me is: the Zero bonus is a bad idea because it has no basis in fact.

Also, it has never been reasonably demonstrated exactly what effect the Zero Bonus has on play. It is still a phony artifact, however, no matter how that shakes out.

Hi TJ,

Earlier in this thread I posted the results of 5 tests I ran to investigate the Zero Bonus, Each test wass arranged for a series of CAP vs Sweep air combats (pure fighter vs fighter) at as close to 1:1 odds as the game can be relied on to pruduce - for the purpose of compiling the results of alot of pure evenly balanced air combat (enough to get a reasonable sample) Turns out that about 8000 combat sorties gave a consistant 3:1 kill ratio favoring the Zero over the P40E and F4F4 (all squadrons had Default exp ratings - USAAF about 55, USMC 65, USN 75, IJN 75 -80) over each series of encounters - that is the total at the end of each of the 5 tests.

Anyhow the last test was without the ZB and the Japanese total of kills over us a/c remained the same - but the Zeros took about 16% - 17% higher losses, a drop in the kill rate from about 3:1 to about 2.5:1

So the ZB at full strength seems to save the Japanese player about 15% on his loss rate.

B

I read that, and thank you very much for going to the effort. But I'm still not confident that's where Gary pegged it. (Which is not a criticism of your test, just nagging doubt on my end.)

Let's say, though, for the sake of argument, that a 115% "defensive shield" is what Gary had in mind for the ZB. If so, then there right away we have a bogus 15% advantage for the Japanese player over the Allied player in Zero frays through May of 1942, a bonus which is not supported by fact.

If you get the inkling, you might try the Zero in an intercept role against various Allied bombers, with and without the ZB, and see how that plays out. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those results did not follow suit, but who knows?

[moses]

So great. 3.1 minus 2.5 is 0.6. 0.6 divided by 3.1 is 19.3. 19.3% deviation so we are within the 20% window that Mdiehl wants. Problem solved.

TristanJohn: I'm sure that you have to agree that there are issues in WITP far more important than this. If you could have three wishes to change WITP I sure hope you wouldn't waste one on the zero bonus.

[Black Mamba 1942]

You guys shouldn't take these threads so personally.[;)]
Matrix isn't going to change the code anyway.[:D]

Put the Oscar's in the A6M5 slot for the CHS.
Wasn't that what AB was asking about anyway?[:D]

This way, down the road, we can have an OB vs ZB thread.[:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: moses

So great. 3.1 minus 2.5 is 0.6. 0.6 divided by 3.1 is 19.3. 19.3% deviation so we are within the 20% window that Mdiehl wants. Problem solved.

TristanJohn: I'm sure that you have to agree that there are issues in WITP far more important than this. If you could have three wishes to change WITP I sure hope you wouldn't waste one on the zero bonus.

I only have one wish: that Gary return, gut the unhappy sow, and start over--in which case the Zero Bonus, along with everything else I've screamed at along the way, would be history.

     (oratleastthatshowitworksoutinmydream...headded)

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

You guys shouldn't take these threads so personally.[;)]

Don't worry about me. I'm just having fun as my estemed opponent is at work instead of sending me turns.

[:)]

I only have one wish: that Gary return, gut the unhappy sow

This does scare me a bit however.[:D][:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: moses

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

You guys shouldn't take these threads so personally.[;)]

Don't worry about me. I'm just having fun as my estemed opponent is at work instead of sending me turns.

[:)]

I only have one wish: that Gary return, gut the unhappy sow

This does scare me a bit however.[:D][:D]

Timing is everything, no?

[moses]

Timing is everything, no?

Qua!!!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: moses

Timing is everything, no?

Qua!!!

That sounds a little bit like my daughter eighteen years ago when something wasn't perfect.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn




The argument from me is: the Zero bonus is a bad idea because it has no basis in fact.

Also, it has never been reasonably demonstrated exactly what effect the Zero Bonus has on play. It is still a phony artifact, however, no matter how that shakes out.

Hi TJ,

Earlier in this thread I posted the results of 5 tests I ran to investigate the Zero Bonus, Each test wass arranged for a series of CAP vs Sweep air combats (pure fighter vs fighter) at as close to 1:1 odds as the game can be relied on to pruduce - for the purpose of compiling the results of alot of pure evenly balanced air combat (enough to get a reasonable sample) Turns out that about 8000 combat sorties gave a consistant 3:1 kill ratio favoring the Zero over the P40E and F4F4 (all squadrons had Default exp ratings - USAAF about 55, USMC 65, USN 75, IJN 75 -80) over each series of encounters - that is the total at the end of each of the 5 tests.

Anyhow the last test was without the ZB and the Japanese total of kills over us a/c remained the same - but the Zeros took about 16% - 17% higher losses, a drop in the kill rate from about 3:1 to about 2.5:1

So the ZB at full strength seems to save the Japanese player about 15% on his loss rate.

B

I read that, and thank you very much for going to the effort. But I'm still not confident that's where Gary pegged it. (Which is not a criticism of your test, just nagging doubt on my end.)

Let's say, though, for the sake of argument, that a 115% "defensive shield" is what Gary had in mind for the ZB. If so, then there right away we have a bogus 15% advantage for the Japanese player over the Allied player in Zero frays through May of 1942, a bonus which is not supported by fact.

If you get the inkling, you might try the Zero in an intercept role against various Allied bombers, with and without the ZB, and see how that plays out. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those results did not follow suit, but who knows?

TJ, Mdiehl, Ron, and others,

I'm not exactly happy with the ZB, But what impressed me, as I siad earlier, is after testing - the appearant effects of the ZB seems inconsequential compared to the effects of the advantage in exp level the Japanese enjoy.

I don't know if that is historically accurate or not (I suspect it's not - but I'll have to research that carefully).

But from the POV of an Allied player, I'd give them the ZB and extend it to the Oscar as well - and do it happily - in exchange for readjusting their starting exp ratings..[;)]

[mdiehl]

But from the POV of an Allied player, I'd give them the ZB and extend it to the Oscar as well - and do it happily - in exchange for readjusting their starting exp ratings..

Sounds good to me. I am convinced by your tests that the bizarre ZB's effect is the lesser of the two weevils as Capn Jack would say.

[bradfordkay]

I highly agree with Brian. The ZB has always struck me as ill-conceived, but everything that I have seen from AARs, tests performed by Brian and others (over the last 1.5 years), and my own experience with the game is that the Zero Bonus does not really make that big an effect.

What most allied players do in the game with their carriers is pretty much exactly what Admiral King and Nimitz demanded: refusing to expose the US carriers unless odds made exposure viable. This means that unless your intel is good, you're not taking a 2-3 US CV TF (Task Group) after the KB. The US carriers will not be able to stand up to the Kido Butai until long after the Zero Bonus has lapsed, so the worry about the bonus making it impossible to face the IJN carriers is moot.

I find it interesting that Lundstrom writes: "Worried about risking his precious aircraft carriers, King added that it might be better to keep the flattops in the rear and fight their air groups from the threatened shore basese." How many of us have used this tactic (at least until we realized the bugs were screwing with our airgroups once ashore) in our play in UV/WITP?



I think that one of the bigger problems is the mass air battle misrepresentation. It appears to me that fighters have unlimited ammunition in combat, thus the huge combats have far too much actual damage being dispensed. I liked the earlier post in this thread suggesting a "continue combat" die roll after each attack, with decreasing chance of said combat continuing per die roll. That's up to Keith, as I don't believe that it can be achieved through the editor.

I like the fact that the CHS folk are experimenting with adjustments to pilot experience levels. Even the most experienced Japanese pilots had no idea what combat against the allies would be like. Only the best pilots still alive after years of fighting in the game should have experience ratings in the nineties, IMO.

[wild_Willie2]

To al thou Heden in the "zero thread", the mighty "TEST THREAD" in the war room has overtaken thou in post counts. REPEND thou heden ways nou thou have seen the POWER of " THE THREAD" .

Join us, and thou will bath forever in the glory of THE THREAD............

hallelua..... PRAIS THE TREAD.... [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Ron Saueracker]

I've been out drinking....


Hey, to all the serious guuys out there...Merry Christmas.[;)]

To all the ass kissers out there....You got what you kissed.[&o]


Man....I'm hosed but what the hell. Rock on to the hard core players aand modders! I don't shit on anybody (unless they suck and need some serious self worth reinforcement). Love the CHS and thank GAWD for all the good guys. Screw some of you and love
the rest.!

21 beers in Canada...for those who suck as Yanks![;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

Jusy so various twats know I'm pissed and can screw off.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

Ohhhhh...Merry Cristams![:)]