ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
Okay, this is getting stupid.
Tristan, I did not feel i 'blew you off' about Wildcats. In fact i feel we discussed things and Don and I fixed a problem that I had let slip in.
The only very slight problem i might have had was your insistance on more models of Wildcats when i have more models of Wildcats than any other aircraft in the game already.
I have no more slots. CHS can do nothing about that.
If this is something you are unhappy about write a letter to Gary.
Please go back and read my thoughts on this in the AAR thread. I dismissed the "Martlet" issue as not really affecting CHS, happily acknowledged your limitation re carrier slots, though I did think your response re the use of these planes on British carriers was a "blow off" insofar as you responded to me re your sources (actually failed to provide me with any at all) while ignoring mine, but that's ancient history. It was, however, and for whatever it's worth, bad form on your part and dubious research method to boot.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: It was not a blow off. I have no slots. You seem not to understand this. I am glad you have a different opinion; that is great but don't start telling people i blew you off because i didn't follow your idea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It was not a propitious start.
Re Wildcats: all I said is that an excellent case could be made that this was the most "important" (influential?) fighter plane the Allies possessed in the Pacific, and a good case might be made that it was the most important for either side in the Pacific, possibly most influential single fighter of the entire war, European or Pacific theater. (The other fighter might be the Me-109, take your pick.) Ergo, why not treat its various iterations, which were different in terms of performance, as closely as possible? Certainly include another Wildcat before you put in anything like an exotic Japanese plane with a production run of 50, say. (And no, I don't know if you have any of those. I just use that as a for-instance. That was not an insult.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: You do not even know how the editor works and yet you give advice that if people do not take they are belittling you.
American aircraft cannot go in Japanese slots. Also, i am dealing with a game system that abstracts many ideas into numbers. Why add another version of an aircraft with identical numbers (in the game)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, my problem with your post on this thread which started all of this mess is that you attacked, yes attacked, Don for no reason. There has been a good deal of discussion about pilots pools in private between the members of this mod.
First of all I did not "attack" Don. Second of all private discussion serves small use in a public project. You want good feedback, you want the best feedback? Then open these discussions up and get as much useful feedback as possible. That only stands to reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: Yes, you did attack Don. Several other members have emailed me about this and i am wasting my time in Crete talking to you rather than getting something useful accomplished.
Feedback is great; whining that we do not listen to you enough is not feedback.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This mod is not an official product of Matrix.
We are not required to listen to anyone who is not a member of the mod team.
Well, I wouldn't know what a mod-team "member" is or isn't. Nobody bothered to issue me a "card" when I volunteered my time to help Ron test the alpha CHS scenario. Neither did anyone bother to give me a card (or card me) when I took the time to give you feedback on fighters or Andrew feedback on his map or the project as a whole feedback on this, that or the other.
So what are talking about? What is a CHS "member"?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: The members are Don, Ron, Joe, Subchaser, Elf(Ian), Tanker, Andrew, and myself. Bstarr, Iron Duke, Kerguelen and probably some others who i am forgetting are a great help to us
and maybe members.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In many ways i enjoy your posts because you look at many problems differently than many people on this board.
But, when time came to start this mod you did not join us and frankly, i would not have wanted you to as you can not put problems that we can not change out of your head. We can only work with the editor, and now the map. Nothing else.
Nothing. Cannot change the database. Cannot change the AtA combat model.
Whatever that could mean. Frankly, I get the feeling you write with emotion, Mike. Not good for this kind of work. And a lot of ego as well. Equally not good. You respond heatedly, not rationally, all too often.
As for problems which cannot be solved and my feedback to date: please list one, I repeat only
one time I've asked this mod-team (of which I do not appear to be or have ever been a member) to do something which was "impossible."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: I respond with emotion because you use emotion (insults, whines, etc). It is as simple as that. People whom i respect such as Don or Andrew or others i do not respond that way to.
I often am an emotional person, i am sorry that offends your dignity.
Do you know what the internet did for the world? It allowed everyone a voice. Whether they deserve a voice or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My feeling is that anyone who is not a member of our mod team can post their ideas and corrections but other than that they have no say into what goes into this.
I see, that old "membership" hurdle again.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: What is your problem now? Were you kicked out of cubscouts as a kid? I do not understand this problem.
I am under no obligation to allow anyone else to work on "my" mod. Conversely, no one in the universe is under any duress to play "my" mod.
We at the CHS, and myself with my origional mod, understand the value of focus. We are trying not to get bogged down in things that have very little effect on the war. This is why the decision makers are a limited group of focused people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If all you can do is attack people because you did not have 'your say' than you are just wasting our time.
"All" I can do is "attack" people? You mean the way I "attack" Frag, and for all I know by your definition, everyone else on the general board? Poor people there. Or the way I "attack" you? The way I "attack" Andrew? Anyone I've missed?
And that's "all" I do? I never post articles of interest? I never raise intelligent counterpoints? I never get anyone to think harder than they'd bothered to before?
Well, if your answer is "yes" to any one of those questions then you've missed the boat. If you answer is "no" to those questions then why would you write what you've just written?
You did not join the team because it seems you like to sit outside and complain about the people who are doing something.
Again, I was not informed until now and by you that 1) "membership" was required or 2) how to go about getting over that hurdle were it required.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements are that you have grown up into an adult that can handle a conversation without it turning into a personal trial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers.
Okay, with the way the pilot system is set up nothing, i repeat nothing, will be accurate as this system is artificial.
If i had a wish it would be for the pilot system to be just a pool that you draw out of, but the longer you leave pilots there the better they get, within reason.
But if wishs were fishs we would all be casting nets.
Many people list a very small number for Japanese navy pilots graduated per year. Unfortunately, that number is usually wrong. Japan doubled navy training in 1940 and added half again in '41. Half again in 42 and tripled in 43. I cannot represent this in game.
I'm sorry to say this, Mike, but you continue to make statements which are cockeyed. What you've written above is a perfect example.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: So, you are saying what? That Japan never increased pilot training before or during the war? That is the only factual statement i made and you are saying that it is 'cockeyed'?
Thanks for letting me know that Japan, in fact, never increased pilot training.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter a hoot in hell what the Japanese did re "starting" or "enhancing" pilot-training programs as the war rolled along. It only matters what the result of these programs was. Same same for the Allies, of course.
The result for the Japanese was dismal as it turned out. And the documentation for that is spread far and wide throughout relevant World War II histories. But you seem to ignore that simple truth, for whatever reason, and just post what is apparently more convenient for you to post, and for you to believe. Furthermore, you offer this up as if it were something accepted and widely known, as opposed to being the rather marginalized "truth" that it actually is. I mean, even Japanese sources have it the other way around, at least the few reliable ones we have to go to and I'm familiar with, and which have been cited by the most respected authors on this period. But your sources, whatever they are, say something different, so that's the way it now has to be?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: I am not even sure what you are babbling about here other than your next personal attack. Thats Trist.
The 'Result' is 'dismal'. Well thank you, how do i represent dismal in the game?
Again, i feel many historical authors are not very good researchers or historians. The only fact or number i mentioned above is 435 hours. Again, curiosly enough, it is the same for the US navy pilots at that ime. Was this your example of dismal?
You are that kind of 'historian'; you distill 4 years of change and ideas, thoughts and proposals down to one word; dismal.
I will make all Japanese pilots 5 training just for you because they were 'dismal'.
You just completely went off on me, attacked my credibility, my integrity, and my intelligence because i said that in '43 the Japanese navy trained their pilots for 435 hours.
Um, okay. Did i say that Japanese pilot training program was the best in the world? Did i say that i deny that Japanese pilots were lacking in numbers and training as the war went on?
Did I say that the Japanese were gods on Earth and only the US phasers were able to defeat Japan?
No, i said that in '43 Japanese navy pilots were still receiving 435 hours of training.
I do not need to provide a source to you, as i am working on this mod. You, on the other hand, if you wished to dispute the 435 number, you could provide a source or two that counters it.
Not a source that says Japan was 'dismal' however.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so.
Regardless of all that, you seem content to ignore another fact: in the game new Japanese air units come completely outfitted with "trained" pilots. In other words, those training programs which you want to cite are already at work. And if you don't like the training levels the game provides it would be an easy matter to change these to something more "appropriate." But you see, with the pilot "pool" working every month in the game the Japanese are then afforded a
surplus of trained pilots. So now it turns out . . . what? That the Japanese not only didn't have a
shortage of trained pilots, which I happen to believe they did for the simple and good reason that the best (i.e., most responsible) sources I can find say they did, but that the Japanese actually had
more trained pilots than they needed? And for carrier ops, too?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: Again, with absolutely no basis in fact you are putting words in my mouth.
I have tested this game extensively since it came out. Every change i make is after extensive testing. And much research and soul searching.
What I noticed is that in the game the Japanese carrier air groups by April '42 were close to 1/3rd conscripts and i was launching fewer, and safer raids then Japan historically launched. Japan did suffer a serious shortage of carrier pilots, but they were able to keep their carrier air groups at 80-95% capacity of trained pilots until late october 42.
Believe it or not i added up every pilot Japan receives in air units through the game, through the pilot pool, and as named pilots. I felt the pool could increase by 5 a month and be 'more correct'.
Oh, and Japan does not receive a full groups worth of pilots every time a reinforcement group show up. Most groups will show up very low in aircraft strength and thus with very few pilots.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't the foggiest notion what the actual respective pilot ratings for the Japanese and Allies ought to be in game terms. That would depend wholly on how the formulas are written with those values in mind, and I haven't seen those formulas, though I've asked for them. And then tests would need to be run to see if the results in the game came out "feeling" about right. And like that.
But the pilot pool itself is an aberation. And a bad one at that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: So, you are admitting you have no clue what they should be rated, but my method is wrong automatically? Whats up with that?
Who spit in your bean curd?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I believe we all carry fallacies about many things in our life. One is Japanese pilot quality and numbers. In 1943 US navy pilots and Japanese navy pilots received exactly the same (435 hours) training. Not what you would expect is it? The problem is, if you read the manual, is that Japanese pilot training numbers falls to quickly in this game. In 43 Japanese is well below US numbers.
All i can do in an artificiial system is guess to the best of my abilities. I feel the Allies should get a 5 point training bonus to their pilots for sending back many experienced instructors. Not that Japan did not do this, because they DID, but because the allies did this more. I feel a 5 point penalty to Japanese training pilots due to individualism, lack of team spirit.
In this game however, Japanese navy pilots in '43 get a 60 rating while US Navy pilots get a 75. I believe through my study that this rating should be closer to 75-65. Not much, but there.
Again, my feeling is that when there are no pilots in the pool the first 'free' pilot drawn should be 5 points or so below the trained rate. Then, every additional pilot should be a bit lower. As it stands there are two groups; the fully trained and the half trained. Nothing in between.
I counted how many free pilots Japan gains AFTER the first turn from the pilot list and fully trained pilots per year and the number is low to what actually fully graduated. My feeling is that 15 is closer to the late 42 early 43 number.
The army numbers, Pry might be 'more correct' on; they graduated more than twice as many pilots as the navy did thus 35 might be closer then 30.
Hope this helps people create helpfull commentary.
Whatever. I never disputed your right to "feel" one thing or another. But to state that you know better than legitmate authorities on this subject is something I cannot and will not accept. And why any other thinking person would is far beyond my grasp. Your thesis simply doesn't hold water. Neither does it stand the test of historical use, actions and results by the Japanese in World War II. It is, in a word, ca-ca.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: Did i say at some point that William Green is a dick head or something? I don't remember writing that. I have never said i know more than legitimate authorities in this thread and all i did was question a fallacy that i have seen creep into some peoples thoughts.
"Your thesis simply doesn't hold water. Neither does it stand the test of historical use, actions and results by the Japanese in World War II. It is, in a word, ca-ca."
I am so amused by that. My Thesis. I like that. I add 5 pilots a month to the trained pool and it is now my thesis and it doesn't hold water. So 10 pilots a month (an abstraction by Gary, you admit) does hold water but the 'historical record' does not support 15 pilots a month added to an abstract game system.
You are really digging your hole deep with your attempt to sound intelligent by using 'historical' and 'thesis' all in one paragraph but you create these sentences that make absolutely no sense.
I am sorry if my thesis disturbed the gravity of your meditations with William Green. I won't do it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I'd suggest you back up (which I somehow don't believe you'll do, but one never knows) and re-read each and every one of Mogami's posts in the two threads I referenced above. And then, if any "meaningful" change is to be made in CHS with re to pilots, I'd suggest this be done in some special versus-human-opponents-only scenario where all pilot training, except that which is implied in the game by the new pilot arrivals in already-constituted air units, be handled by the players themselves and where we wouldn't need to cater to the AI--which is really why we have pilot pools of any kind to begin with.
The rest, re pilots at least, is nothing but conjecture.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: Thank you for your suggestion, it is duely noted but it does not follow the direction of the CHS at the present time.
Thank you for your submission.
Also, your suposition that the pilot pools are just there for the AI is just that, a supposition.
Oh, and another personal attack on me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another thought I have on the game and people and life in general.
I listen when Russ (Mogami) Neer speaks about the game. This is because I know he knows more than me about it. I'm not sure he has a better feeling for it than I have, but he's logged many more hours. Plus, he strikes me as not only a conscientious man but also a man who is extremely focused on whatever he takes interest in. On top of that he comes across as a man who is able to exercise patience, and to leave his emotions and ego off to the side when he discusses the game system. To Russ it might as well be an abstract problem in mathematics for all the emotion he displays.
Where Russ and I part company is at the juncture of his seeming reluctance (or inability, I can't tell for sure) to look at some of the game's features strictly from the historical point of view, and then judge the game accordingly as to its "accuracy" regardless of where these chips fall. He does often give the impression of someone who is somewhat a "company man" who cannot quite divorce himself completely from the "company line" which apparently clouds his reason. A perfect example would be the ASW model, which for whatever reason he simply can't or won't address objectively and so cannot see that's it terribly out of whack. Because of this "company" tendency of his I've been arguing with Russ on and off for three years now and counting about any number of game-related issues, both with
UV and
WitP. But I do listen to him nevertheless, even while he ploughs obediently down whatever company row he's working on that day. Again, this is because in terms of the game's nuts and bolts he happens to know more than I do. Which means I can learn from him.
Now there's a useful object lesson in those two paragraphs, if you can find it.
I wish you well.
