New ideas on A2A in the next patch

[Ursa MAior]

I dont want to heat the flames up, besides I buried the hatchet with Demosthenes, so all I want to say, that in an ideal A2A model pilot exp would play the highest role.

Both the Zero and the Me-109 -although clearly outclassed by the standards of 1943-44-, were a formidable opponent in the hands of an experienced pilot. Check all internet sites with warplanes infos. Probably it is true for P-39 and Hurricane too. All I want to say is that exp should be at least 70% of the combat score, whiloe max 30 should be allocated to plane qualities. Even today the imprtance of human resources is way too much overlooked. Using a weapon system to the maximum of its capabilities is HIGHLY (only?) dependent on the skill of its user (see Joachim Marseille, who and only who found a way to break a defensice circle). Or Saburo Sakais famous shooting down of Corsairs, even if only half of it is true.

To sum it up in the next patch -say 1.9- I would change the following in A2a.

1. Exp gaining would be much slower for pilots (say 1.5 point after 10 missions).
2. While determining air combat results (I mean actual combat not climbing and stuff) I would up or downgrade the results according to the difference in the experience level. It was not unknown for experten to shoot down 5+ planes in one mission in the East front, so if the difference is high, so should be the difference in losses).
3. Of course it would mean a general downgrading of all pilots exp level in the game. If say Bong, or McGuire and Sakai are aound 99 there should be not too many above 90.

And one more thing. Basically the US supremacy in pilot skills (starting 43 something mdiehl will corret me) was beause of the 'recalled' aces. So any allied pilot should be recalled after say 30+ missions or 20 air vicotries

Suggestions?

Oh one more thing. In my recent PBEM fortifiactions (and airfileds) are growing from nothing all over the map. IMHO supplies should be used to build these (if so than to a much bigger extent).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

I dont want to heat the flames up, besides I buried the hatchet with Demosthenes, so all I want to say, that in an ideal A2A model pilot exp would play the highest role.

Both the Zero and the Me-109 -although clearly outclassed by the standards of 1943-44-, were a formidable opponent in the hands of an experienced pilot. Check all internet sites with warplanes infos. Probably it is true for P-39 and Hurricane too. All I want to say is that exp should be at least 70% of the combat score, whiloe max 30 should be allocated to plane qualities. Even today the imprtance of human resources is way too much overlooked. Using a weapon system to the maximum of its capabilities is HIGHLY (only?) dependent on the skill of its user (see Joachim Marseille, who and only who found a way to break a defensice circle). Or Saburo Sakais famous shooting down of Corsairs, even if only half of it is true.

Just remember that the various factors were *multiplicative* in their effects. Assuming they are additive is inconsistent with the statistics and unrealistically simplifying. (See Morse and Kimball, Methods of Operations Research, Peninsula Publishing, 1951, p 45-46) If your combat score is based on a logarithmic scale, and produces an exchange rate, you can talk about "70% of the combat score", but if you assume linearity, you'll get bad A2A results.

To sum it up in the next patch -say 1.9- I would change the following in A2a.

1. Exp gaining would be much slower for pilots (say 1.5 point after 10 missions).

Experience was gained mostly in the first six combats. Talent couldn't be learned.

2. While determining air combat results (I mean actual combat not climbing and stuff) I would up or downgrade the results according to the difference in the experience level.
It was not unknown for experten to shoot down 5+ planes in one mission in the East front, so if the difference is high, so should be the difference in losses).

Exchange rate effects were multiplicative, on both sides.

3. Of course it would mean a general downgrading of all pilots exp level in the game. If say Bong, or McGuire and Sakai are aound 99 there should be not too many above 90.

And one more thing. Basically the US supremacy in pilot skills (starting 43 something mdiehl will corret me) was beause of the 'recalled' aces. So any allied pilot should be recalled after say 30+ missions or 20 air vicotries

Actually it was because of the aces in instructor roles.

Suggestions?

Oh one more thing. In my recent PBEM fortifiactions (and airfileds) are growing from nothing all over the map. IMHO supplies should be used to build these (if so than to a much bigger extent).

[Ursa MAior]

I am neither a mathematican nor a native speaker so please forgive me for 'me badd englishhh.' [:D]

Experience was gained mostly in the first six combats. Talent couldn't be learned.

According to this and the curent learning curve in WitP, all pilots in this TO were genius.

Yes I meant aces as instructors.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

I am neither a mathematican nor a native speaker so please forgive me for 'me badd englishhh.' [:D]

Experience was gained mostly in the first six combats. Talent couldn't be learned.

According to this and the curent learning curve in WitP, all pilots in this TO were genius.

Yes I meant aces as instructors.

Not quite, Skill is made up of two points, learned abilities and natural talent.

Some people just naturally think in 3 dimensions and can picture ACM in their head and do very well even with minimal training. (these are the only ones who should ever exceed 75%)

Others have to be taught and while becoming skilled, never equal the level of those with that natural level. (these folks should cap out at 75% and never get any better)

The problem is determining which type each pilot is and capping them within the game based on type.

Effectively, a new routine would need to be added with a new data type. This routine would only get called once, the first time the pilot was actually used and a low percentage of them would get the "natural" flag, the rest would fail and be capped at the 75% level forever.

Now, to be fair to each side, the Yanks probably need a cap at the 80% level from 1943 onwards to simulate the fact that they had far greater resources dedicated to producing trained pilots so their maximum non-natural skill would be a bit higher.

[Ron Saueracker]

Why not just lower skill drastically accross the board and make it much more difficult to improve outside of specific combat success? Just starting a scenario and looking at the pilots it seems obvious to me that the concept of crack and elite pilots as a numerical value are too bloody high. It is the difference between pilot skill levels that matter when determining whether a pilot is average or elite, not the value. Not much point in having everybody at 99 exp.

I'd go as far as dropping everything by at least 25-30%. Trained pilots could be viewed as 30 exp rating, not 55...etc.

[Sardaukar]

I agree with Ron.

And at least achieving 90 exp should only be possible to 10 % of pilots, not all. Random exp ceiling maybe ?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I agree with Ron.

And at least achieving 90 exp should only be possible to 10 % of pilots, not all. Random exp ceiling maybe ?

This can be that "natuaral ability" factor Frag has advocated in the past.

[kkoovvoo]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
And at least achieving 90 exp should only be possible to 10 % of pilots, not all. Random exp ceiling maybe ?

I second this. The ceiling could be randomly chosen in range of exp 50- exp 99.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'd love to see something like this done in a patch so we can test just how effective experiece really is in the grand schemeof things. Maybe just simply gutting the experience will increase the ops losses (too low according to just about the entire community) and reduce A2A and airborne weapon over effectiveness.

Must be the easiest of the suggesstions to implement.

[kkoovvoo]

Yes, when you have groups with average experience engaged in combat, the losses are very reasonable. But when crack units meet, the fight doesnt end until one of the groups is annihilated.

[Feinder]

FYI, I believe that exp currently -is- the major factor in determining A2A victories.

That being said, I will glady second the need for maintenance on the for the A2A model, esp for large engagments. I don't know why the current one gives such lop-sided (and often unpredictable) results. I'd say the reference to "multiplicative" is likely and important thing to key in on.

-F-

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Feinder

FYI, I believe that exp currently -is- the major factor in determining A2A victories.

I don't thibnk so... as far as I can remember someone tested long long long time ago:

24x 10 EXP Corsair pilots vs. 27x 90 EXP Zero pilots

The results awere as always (Zero slaughterhouse)...


BTW, I would love that EXP plays more role as well (and that EXP is lower as Ron suggested)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
3. Of course it would mean a general downgrading of all pilots exp level in the game. If say Bong, or McGuire and Sakai are aound 99 there should be not too many above 90.

To sum it up can we say that we, the not-so-silent members of the community, suggest the general downgrading of pilots exp, while incrasing the importance of exp in A2A combat resolution?

[AmiralLaurent]

The number one problem in WITP A2A model is that every fighter unit will attack every enemy fighter unit, then every remaining intercepting unit will attack every enemy bomber unit. Not the way it was working in real life....

Also we saw huge raids mixing Swordfishes to P-38 flying together at long range with no problems. They should arrive mostly in smaller raids.

Same thing for raids with hundred of bombers of the same type (ie B-17) concentration should take time, so for each 50 bombers range should be reduced by one. Also there should be a check to see if the concentration fails or not.

As for the CV, every CV raid/battle saw the CVs of both sides launch several waves. The reason is simple, a CV carried more AC that she could launch in one group. This concept of "deck load" is ignored by the game. It seems to me that usually a CV was able to launch about 40-50% of its load in one raid (the other AC being used for CAP and patrol)

Of course every of the points above is reducing the size of raid, but the CAP efficiency should be greatly reduced. I read an interesting figure yesterday. On D-Day, the RAF fighters units covering the invasion force flew 1567 sorties (only couting LRCAP over the fleet and beaches). That was to only have 72 AC on CAP at any time (ie 5% of the total of sorties), ie 36 over British beaches and 36 over US ones. They were able to intercept the dusk raid by the Ju88 of I./ZG 1 but the well-known strafing pass by two pilots of JG 26 or far-less-known rocket and strafing attacks by JG 2/26 later in the afternoon were not intercepted.

It seems to me that of the fighters allowed to CAP, a maximum 30% should be on CAP above their base/ship at any moment, 30 other % may have a chance to scramble if the raid is reported incoming and the other 40% will be refueling, rearming, under repair, returning home with few fuel, etc...
Again the 30% above is consistent with every account I have read of Pacific battles, where CAP over US or Japanese CV was listed as being 6-8 fighters per CV rather than 25-30...

Then for the A2A model, here is an algorithm for an escorted raid:
1) escorting fighters will be divided in groups of 4 or less fighters
2) depending of their agressivity, number relative to the escort, speed difference vs their escort, each of these group will be considered as close escort or "sweep"
3) the defending fighters are also divided in groups of 4 or less fighters
4) depending of the radar warning, speed of the incoming raid, state of the ship/runway, a number of fighters may be scrambled. They are also divied into groups of 4 or less fighters.

So we have "sweep" and "escort" fighter groups on the attacking side, "CAP" and "scramble" groups on the defending side

The first phase of the battle saw each "sweep" trying to engage enemy fighters.
1) first they have a chance to attack a scramble group. If they manage to engage one, a CAP group will try to engage them and so cover the scramble group. In this case the battle will then be fought between the CAP and sweep group on even terms, if not the "scramble" group will be attacked with a strong disadvantage.
2) if a "sweep" group hadn't been engaged yet, it will try to engage a CAP group

The next phase, see the "CAP" and "scramble" groups that have not yet been engaged trying to engage enemy bombers
1) each unengaged "CAP" group will try to engage an enemy bomber unit. If they manage to engage one, an escort group will try to engage them and so protect the bombers. If they succeed, the battle is fought between fighters, if not the defending fighters have a go against the bombers.
2) then each unengaged "CAP" group will try to engage enemy escorts.
3) then each unengaged "scramble" group will try to engage the bombers on the same way, but with less success chances and more chance for the escort to stop them.
4) then each unengaged "scramble" group will try to engage enemy escorts.
5) each unengaged escort group may try to engage an enemy fighter group, depending of their agressivity, in this case they will become "sweep" groups.

At the end of the phase, scramble groups become CAP groups. Each damaged AC may become a group alone, or be covered by a wingman. Each engaged group will have a chance to have no more ammunitions, fuel and will try to leave the battle area. If it didn't succeed (depending of their speed relative to enemy speed, damage and cloud cover), it will be a easier target the next turn.

If the bombers are especially slow, and depending of the radar warning and cloud cover, this phase may be repeated, allowing more attacks and more defending fighters to be scrambled (but the overall total should only by 30% or scrambles)

Then there is the bombing attack, as it is now.

And then I would like a pursuit phase. Each remaining "sweep" fighter will become an escort and each defending fighter will have a chance to attack.

For a sweep mission, there will only be the sweep phase of the fight, with a phase on the approach, a phase replacing the bombing and a pursuit phase.

It may seem complicated, but it is an easy algorithm to put in place. Of course, the success chance and formula should be worked on to achieve historical results... Each aircraft may have a chance to engage 1-3 enemy formations (or 1-3 times the same), with something as 25-50% each turn to engage one. Then depending of the experience of both attacker and target, performance of Ac and previous damage, a given pilot may fire at and down several AC in the same phase.

[Feinder]

A very well thought out post AL.

It seems to me that of the fighters allowed to CAP, a maximum 30% should be on CAP above their base/ship at any moment, 30 other % may have a chance to scramble if the raid is reported incoming and the other 40% will be refueling, rearming, under repair, returning home with few fuel, etc...
Again the 30% above is consistent with every account I have read of Pacific battles, where CAP over US or Japanese CV was listed as being 6-8 fighters per CV rather than 25-30...

I think a tweak on this would be that...

A CV could assign 50% CAP, but only 30% - 40% of the 36 would actually be likely to intercept at a given time. As in, with 36 fighters, only 18 will alloted to CAP (50%). However, only 11 (say 30%) would likey to incercept, because the other 7 would be either ship-board refueling/rearming, or a patrol zone too far away, or too low on fuel to effectively intercept anyway.

???

-F-

[el cid again]

I dont want to heat the flames up, besides I buried the hatchet with Demosthenes, so all I want to say, that in an ideal A2A model pilot exp would play the highest role.

A deciple of "the pilot can always screw up the best of planes"
and "I don't care what we fly - I will win"

nevertheless I think this is quite false. The plane matters a good deal.
The mission matters a good deal.

And lump them ALL together - in ALL eras - for ALL combats -

90% of everything is surprise! Get surprise - you win - both offensively and defensively. Doesn't matter how "good" your pilot is when he never saw the enemy...

[el cid again]

Probably it is true for P-39 and Hurricane too. All I want to say is that exp should be at least 70% of the combat score, whiloe max 30 should be allocated to plane qualities.

IF you restrict the discussion to the rare (10%) case of BOTH SIDES KNOW they are in air combat

this is utter nonsense - and that is the good news. In the normal (90%) case - the guy with surprise wins - period.

The pilot quality (assuming above the level of "we can actually maintain formation and land the machine) matters a great deal - but not as much as the plane qualities. Nothing is going to save Eddie Rickenbacker (a medal of honor winner in both world wars) if he goes against a real fighter in a Glen.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Why not just lower skill drastically accross the board and make it much more difficult to improve outside of specific combat success? Just starting a scenario and looking at the pilots it seems obvious to me that the concept of crack and elite pilots as a numerical value are too bloody high. It is the difference between pilot skill levels that matter when determining whether a pilot is average or elite, not the value. Not much point in having everybody at 99 exp.

I'd go as far as dropping everything by at least 25-30%. Trained pilots could be viewed as 30 exp rating, not 55...etc.

An interesting idea. I'd be interested in hearing everyone's opinion as to how this would affect A2A combat overall. Seems there are several who think this would pay dividends. So...What say you?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Why not just lower skill drastically accross the board and make it much more difficult to improve outside of specific combat success? Just starting a scenario and looking at the pilots it seems obvious to me that the concept of crack and elite pilots as a numerical value are too bloody high. It is the difference between pilot skill levels that matter when determining whether a pilot is average or elite, not the value. Not much point in having everybody at 99 exp.

I'd go as far as dropping everything by at least 25-30%. Trained pilots could be viewed as 30 exp rating, not 55...etc.

An interesting idea. I'd be interested in hearing everyone's opinion as to how this would affect A2A combat overall. Seems there are several who think this would pay dividends. So...What say you?

And an old idea... Apparently everybody is so smart code needs to be changed. Why not just do what a few of us ask and try the reduction and see what happens?

Point is, nobody wants to see me right again.[:'(]

...hic...

[Feinder]

Still, the pilot with more exp is less likely to be surprised, because his head is more likely to be in perma-swivel mode and less likely to be caught with target fixation etc...

(* shrug *)

-F-