Some testing with CHS and Firepower/range of aircraft weapons

[Sardaukar]

Just out of curiosity I modified CHS1.06 aircraft weapons so that I did cut all ranges to 1 and halved the firepower figure (rounded up mostly in borderline cases) Did also increase transport plae durability 50%..since I find these killing their pilots on milkruns with at least 1 per day per squadron..[:@]. Then I fired up a Campaign game against IJ AI (Hard difficulty). Playing with v.1.6.

Results have been quite interesting. In Jan 20 1942: A2A kills are 40-47 for Allied-IJA/IJN from start. IJN operational losses are close to 150 planes. Flak losses are 100+ too. Allies have almost 300 planes destroyed on ground..due to PH/Clark attacks..and few unfortunate evacuations left too late. So far haven't seen that level bombers would get too powerful. Air Combats usually end with quite few planes shot down, but several damaged. One funny detail is that Allies haven't been able to down a single A6M2 yet in A2A. This seems a fun modification to play..even though it's just "a crude hack".

[Sardaukar]

Some air combat reports:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/24/42

Day Air attack on Palembang , at 20,55

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 32
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 3
Ki-51 Sonia x 6
Ki-48-I Lily x 6
Ki-49 Helen x 3
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 damaged
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 2 destroyed

Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 8000 feet
3 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 14000 feet

**obviously 3 "throw-aways" don't do much against 10x Japanese..[:'(]***

Day Air attack on TF at 62,87

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 15

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 9
Hudson I x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 6 damaged
Hudson I: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Hudson I bombing at 10000 feet

***Claudes are not too hot either, not managing to stop Hudsons to bomb..nice work from Wirraways this time***

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24
G4M1 Betty x 41

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
15 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet

***AVG vs Zeros, interesting***

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/25/42

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
C5M Babs x 3
Ki-27 Nate x 19
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 19
Ki-21-II Sally x 15
Ki-49 Helen x 13
Ki-46-II Dinah x 7
Ki-15 Babs x 3

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-21-II Sally: 4 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
41 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 14000 feet
15 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 14000 feet
7 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 14000 feet

***This time bit more bloodier, no Zeros, AVG present***

Day Air attack on Akyab , at 30,28

Japanese aircraft
C5M Babs x 2
Ki-27 Nate x 6
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 10
Ki-21-II Sally x 24
Ki-46-II Dinah x 6
Ki-15 Babs x 2

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb x 6
P-40B Tomahawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 destroyed
Ki-21-II Sally: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 16000 feet
8 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 14000 feet
8 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 16000 feet

***Another against AVG & Hurricanes***

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 12
Ki-27 Nate x 15
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 6

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged


Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet

***And Mandalay again***

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
G4M1 Betty x 22

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged

Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 11000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 11000 feet

***And again***

Day Air attack on Akyab , at 30,28

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 9
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 20

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb x 6
P-40B Tomahawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 damaged

Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x G3M Nell bombing at 16000 feet
3 x G3M Nell bombing at 16000 feet

***CAP seems to work even with reduced values, bombers get very few hits***

It seems that while lowering range of weapons has very little effect on it's own and halving firepower has effect, together they seem to have quite drastic effect. I left the accuracy and penetration as they were.

[el cid again]

Reducing aircraft ranges all to 1 is remarkably similar to what I did for RHS. MOST weapons have a range of 1 - exceptions being 57mm guns (range 2), 75mm guns (range 3) and rockets (most range 2, but some 3 or 4) - virtually none of them available early in the war.

Reducing firepower is also similar - I cut .30 cals by 3 and .50 cals by 1/3 - so .30s are 1 point and .50s are 2 points. But my cannon are rather higher rated - the ratio is the square root of the weight - these are explosive shells (even the .30 non tracers) - and the damage decreases as the square root of distance from the point of explosion.

A difference is that I recalculated durability and maneuverability for all types by a consistent formula. The durability was deliberately greatly reduced in the hope of INCREASING operational attrition - and also AAA attrition. So far testing does not indicate excessive attrittion. I never believed that air transport attrition was excessive - and even reduced durability does not seem to make it excessive. I guess "excessive" is in the eye of the beholder: operating from rough fields I expect heavy laden planes on landing to have problems.

So far I like the air-air combat results. And I WISH I could reduce durability still more - I don't think attrition is yet high enough! For ALL types INCLUDING transports. Note if you run transports ONLY to major airfields attrition is less. Also FYI increasing bomber maxloads (something I generally did because it is correct data) will prevent them from operating at tiny airfields. Finally, useing heavy transports (not in pre RHS data sets) should REDUCE relative attrition - compared to twin engine types - because the heavies - while they don't carry a lot more - have much higher durability ratings (along with more range). You may decide you LIKE the 4 engine heavy transports if you want relatively less operational attrition. But ONLY if you operate them from serious airfields.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Some air combat reports:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/24/42

Day Air attack on Palembang , at 20,55

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 32
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 3
Ki-51 Sonia x 6
Ki-48-I Lily x 6
Ki-49 Helen x 3
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 damaged
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 2 destroyed

Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 8000 feet
3 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 14000 feet

**obviously 3 "throw-aways" don't do much against 10x Japanese..[:'(]***

Day Air attack on TF at 62,87

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 15

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 9
Hudson I x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 6 damaged
Hudson I: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Hudson I bombing at 10000 feet

***Claudes are not too hot either, not managing to stop Hudsons to bomb..nice work from Wirraways this time***

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24
G4M1 Betty x 41

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
15 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet

***AVG vs Zeros, interesting***

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/25/42

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
C5M Babs x 3
Ki-27 Nate x 19
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 19
Ki-21-II Sally x 15
Ki-49 Helen x 13
Ki-46-II Dinah x 7
Ki-15 Babs x 3

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-21-II Sally: 4 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
41 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 14000 feet
15 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 14000 feet
7 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 14000 feet

***This time bit more bloodier, no Zeros, AVG present***

Day Air attack on Akyab , at 30,28

Japanese aircraft
C5M Babs x 2
Ki-27 Nate x 6
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 10
Ki-21-II Sally x 24
Ki-46-II Dinah x 6
Ki-15 Babs x 2

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb x 6
P-40B Tomahawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 destroyed
Ki-21-II Sally: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 16000 feet
8 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 14000 feet
8 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 16000 feet

***Another against AVG & Hurricanes***

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 12
Ki-27 Nate x 15
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 6

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged


Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet

***And Mandalay again***

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
G4M1 Betty x 22

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged

Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 11000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 11000 feet

***And again***

Day Air attack on Akyab , at 30,28

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 9
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 20

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb x 6
P-40B Tomahawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 damaged

Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x G3M Nell bombing at 16000 feet
3 x G3M Nell bombing at 16000 feet

***CAP seems to work even with reduced values, bombers get very few hits***

It seems that while lowering range of weapons has very little effect on it's own and halving firepower has effect, together they seem to have quite drastic effect. I left the accuracy and penetration as they were.

Sardaukar.......These sure look like acceptable results !!!!!!

[Sardaukar]

This is score in late Feb 42. Air-to-air losses have been quite drastically reduced and there has been very few large air battles (100+ planes).

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Reducing aircraft ranges all to 1 is remarkably similar to what I did for RHS. MOST weapons have a range of 1 - exceptions being 57mm guns (range 2), 75mm guns (range 3) and rockets (most range 2, but some 3 or 4) - virtually none of them available early in the war.

Reducing firepower is also similar - I cut .30 cals by 3 and .50 cals by 1/3 - so .30s are 1 point and .50s are 2 points. But my cannon are rather higher rated - the ratio is the square root of the weight - these are explosive shells (even the .30 non tracers) - and the damage decreases as the square root of distance from the point of explosion.

A difference is that I recalculated durability and maneuverability for all types by a consistent formula. The durability was deliberately greatly reduced in the hope of INCREASING operational attrition - and also AAA attrition. So far testing does not indicate excessive attrittion. I never believed that air transport attrition was excessive - and even reduced durability does not seem to make it excessive. I guess "excessive" is in the eye of the beholder: operating from rough fields I expect heavy laden planes on landing to have problems.

So far I like the air-air combat results. And I WISH I could reduce durability still more - I don't think attrition is yet high enough! For ALL types INCLUDING transports. Note if you run transports ONLY to major airfields attrition is less. Also FYI increasing bomber maxloads (something I generally did because it is correct data) will prevent them from operating at tiny airfields. Finally, useing heavy transports (not in pre RHS data sets) should REDUCE relative attrition - compared to twin engine types - because the heavies - while they don't carry a lot more - have much higher durability ratings (along with more range). You may decide you LIKE the 4 engine heavy transports if you want relatively less operational attrition. But ONLY if you operate them from serious airfields.

I did some testing months ago by reducing aircraft weapons range alone (to 1). It didn't do anything noticeable when I did run few tests. Reducing both range and firepower seem to have more effect than just reducing firepower, though. Go figure. Or at least it seems so to me. I think that air-to-air weapons never had effective range than 1 (with exceptions you gave). That is especially true in combat between fighters. I didn't want to get in too "scientific" testing, just was curious how it'd work...thus the crude halving of the firepower. It was for ease to do. I agree that cannons should probably have bit higher FP. So far it works at least in A-to-A combat.

I'm bit concerned that heavy bombers would dominate the skies if firepower/durability ratios are adjusted, but so far haven't seen it.

My concern about transport planes comes from playing CHS 1.06 campaign where I had to have serious supply airlift from Darwin to Koepang and From Cairns (or was it Cooktown..don't remember just now) to Port Moresby. All airfields were max built...and both Dakotas and C-46 Commandoes seemed to suffer *at least* 1 pilot loss per day per 12-16 plane squadron. In week 12-plane squadron could be reduced to 2 pilots (it still flew all planes under 1.6 patch..go figure). I don't like it when my transport units suffer way bigger attrition than B-24s flying daily attack runs against Rabaul (which was very well defended by both flak and air units). This was against AI.
When I tried NikMod where durability had been increased, transport losses seemed to drop considerably. I don't know what routines game uses, but it seems that transports get the short stick in ops losses.

While I agree that ops losses are generally too low in game (design decision), I don't also like that transports suffer more than bombers who fly combat missions.

[el cid again]

While I agree that ops losses are generally too low in game (design decision), I don't also like that transports suffer more than bombers who fly combat missions.

This is a complex matter difficult to assess. It will take time to determine wether this is a function of routines or a complex interaction related to player habits/strategies. It may be subjective too - unless records are kept it may be an impression not based on fact. But it would surprise me if everything is perfectly in sync. The best we can hope for is a general ball park simulation - given no effort was made (or could have been made) to validate (as it would be, say, for DOD use). When significant changes are made, the first thing we need is a significant amount of data - canned tests will show some obvious issues - but only real play will show unexpected ones. IF there is a problem specifically related to one type of aircraft, we might be able to address it. But IF the problem is a function of the way players are using their airplanes - that is not an error in the code. Air transports generally differ from combat aircraft in that they land heavy and hard - military aircraft land having expended most of their payload - except for carrier planes that deliberately "controlled crash" into flight decks. The latter is hard on planes. Landing fully loaded is not quite that hard, but it is a LOT harder than landing empty, and it may be a special algorithm considers that. If so, your impression might be right but it is still not an error! [Only if the algorithm is wrong in a quantative sense would it be an error]. And what is the nature of the airfields being used? This may (at least should) matter - and practice seems to be that they look at it. Both airfield size and damage matter.

I am concerned that durability may not be used at all - or that it may not be a major determinant of damage of any sort. I expected to "calibrate" my durability data and then increase it 2x, 3x or even 4x times - but it now appears this is not a good idea - attrition remains very low. After a huge (more or less divide by 6) reduction, I am surprised. Joe pointed out that we may get different attrition rates for different things - operations - AAA - air combat - etc. And we may have to compromise in that case - not just go for one being right and the others way off. But it will take time to tell. And by the time we know, it may be possible that the code could be altered instead of we having to try to manipulate it at the data entry end. Hopefully. IF there is a problem.

[Sardaukar]

Did some more playing to check if larger air battles have weird results...seems that they are OK too...
Some results (played under 1.77Beta):

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 18
G4M1 Betty x 86
Ki-27 Nate x 32
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 38

Allied aircraft
Mohawk IV x 6
Hurricane IIb x 16
P-40E Warhawk x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged
Ki-27 Nate: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Mohawk IV: 2 destroyed
Hurricane IIb: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Runway hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet

----------------------------------------------------

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
G4M1 Betty x 97
Ki-27 Nate x 26
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 40

Allied aircraft
Mohawk IV x 6
Hurricane IIb x 17
P-40E Warhawk x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 13 damaged
Ki-27 Nate: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Mohawk IV: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
Hurricane IIb: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 4 damaged
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 23

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
12 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
5 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
5 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 11000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 11000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 11000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 19000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet

---------------------------------------------------------

Day Air attack on Mandalay , at 33,29

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
G4M1 Betty x 99
Ki-27 Nate x 28
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 44

Allied aircraft
Mohawk IV x 7
Hurricane IIb x 15
P-40E Warhawk x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 10 damaged
Ki-27 Nate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Mohawk IV: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
Hurricane IIb: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 5 destroyed
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
20 casualties reported

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 17

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 17000 feet
5 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
6 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 17000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 17000 feet
11 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 17000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 10000 feet

-----------------------------------------------------

Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 54,93

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24
G4M1 Betty x 8

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9
Spitfire Vb x 4
Kittyhawk I x 28
P-38F Lightning x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 9 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 damaged
Spitfire Vb: 2 damaged
Kittyhawk I: 5 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet

-------------------------------------------------------

[Sardaukar]

And score (7/7/42):

[Sneer]

i like results very much

[Sardaukar]

(I'm playing Allied, btw)

While number of Allied planes destroyed on field is high, it's partly because of very successful Dec 7 attacks and couple of airfield overruns. AI seems to be fond of doing 200+ plane airfield attacks against Mandalay, Akyab and Port Moresby too. They are very had to stop with fewer fighters than attacker has. But when odds are about equal, lot more attacks are stopped cold. Also, large air battles are not one-sided massacres even when enemy has serious advantage in numbers.

Also AI A2A, Flak and Ops losses seem to be in right proportion for me. I know Ops losses could be highre, but can live with this. Allied losses are obviously way less since I'm only flying short range ground and naval attacks, none against heavily defended targets. Plus all Soviet & USA/Canada based planes have been stood down.

I like these results, even tho it's just a crude hack with aircraft weapon firepower and range.

[el cid again]

Extended testing indicates that durability may be a factor after all - Japanese losses are consistently 3 times Allied operational losses - but that the entire operational attrition rate is AT LEAST ten times too low.

[Sardaukar]

Yes, durability seems to be important. But getting durability/firepower/range/penetration in synch with each other is going to be difficult...and then one has to figure out Flak and DP guns...[:(][8|]...not easy.

[el cid again]

Yes, durability seems to be important. But getting durability/firepower/range/penetration in synch with each other is going to be difficult...and then one has to figure out Flak and DP guns...

Yes it is. One has to do it together. Related to this is also getting FLAK ceilings and aircraft ceilings right. Do it wrong and AAA can never reach the planes - they just fly over them (as happened at Clark - but was not the rule later on). IF you get it right, it STILL happens at Clark - but not generally.