Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The fatal flaw in not having a PBEM turn in my intray is that I start to play with editors [:D][:D]

Joe/ Mike thansk for clearing this up I had reached that conclusion myself on the back of my testing but its always nice to hear it straight from the top !!!!.

I did the same thing. When I first saw this thread I got concerned so I ran some tests to see for myself, Japanese had the same setup as Allies- Lvl 10 af, 100k supplies, 270 av support, 270 support, 1 airgroup per side, P-38j x 36 per side, leader for both groups used 75 for every skill, both airgroups exp 75, morale 80, bases Japanese Rockhampton, Allies Brisbane. There where other forces on the map but far away.
In my first series of test I ran without radar June 42 and June 44, whichever airgroup did the sweep usually won the day, cap was always set to 90% 10k and sweep to 10K. 2nd series With radar(CSP-1) the sweep got smashed, ergo there is no drop off.

Thanks. That is reassuring. IF they are right - this sort of result SHOULD be what you get.
Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Andy Mac »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

There is no "drop off thingy" in the code. But, you folks seem to be having a good time, so continue.

Bye...

Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: el cid again

OK- so riddle me this:

How did Nic get 20 run tests with such different results in identical situations in 1942 and 1944?

And how did someone else duplicate the result with 10 run tests?

Finally - why did Joe - with 12,000 turns experience (quoting) - have the wrong impression?
If radar did that - what a major impact it must have indeed!

Then there is this:

I ran a strike test in 1945 - this isn't air combat - but I found the JNAF and JAAF combat ineffective attacking a US force in the Kure Hex WITHOUT air cover. The entire Japanese forces scored one bomb hit on USS New Jersey - causing it no pain but one point in system damage. Virtually the entire force was wiped out by the gunnery air defenses of this force of warships - which was not small but not large either. Even if the air forces could penetrate fighter defenses - why have them if they cannot deliver any weapons? Granted this is not a bad description of the operational situation IRL in 1945 - that was because of horrible operational factors NOT present in my test. MY air forces were fresh - well trained - and wholly fueled - so they could fly in sufficient mass that IRL they would have achieved saturation. And I am an anti-air warfare guy - trained first of all on a ship using systems from that era.


Something is very strange here - if there is NO code - how did these tests happen? SOMETHING is going on.


I cannot explain Nick's results but I am content there is no hard coded issue.

Re the 2nd point Allied Flak is murderous now is this realistic I dont know I am not an expert in this field I would ask who owned Kure if it was an allied base you also have to contend with LCU flak. Also NJ on her own has got more flak than a 42 Carrier TF
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Ron Saueracker »

[:D] The sky is falling!
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by el cid again »

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.
Drongo
Posts: 1391
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Melb. Oztralia

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Drongo »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.
I have never seen any result like this in all the time I've been playing/testing stock WITP (and I have seen many WITP battles in '45). I also can't imagine (in a normal version) how the ships had enough AA ammo to down over a thousand aircraft in one engagement.

My guess would be that the result was related to some changes you must have made with your mod at the time.

Why not simply repeat the test with stock or a more current version of your own mod and see if there is any evidence to indicate the problem's still there.

Cheers
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.


That's a bit high (both in number of attackers and in number lost). Statistically, one of every two Japanese A/C that made it into "flak range" in 1944-45 was shot down (does not include Kamakazes, just A/C trying to make regular attacks)...., which would imply most of the rest being damaged and perhaps "driven off". But some "leakers" almost always got through to drop their ordnance (though with how much accuracy I don't have numbers)
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Drongo
ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.
I have never seen any result like this in all the time I've been playing/testing stock WITP (and I have seen many WITP battles in '45). I also can't imagine (in a normal version) how the ships had enough AA ammo to down over a thousand aircraft in one engagement.

My guess would be that the result was related to some changes you must have made with your mod at the time.

Why not simply repeat the test with stock or a more current version of your own mod and see if there is any evidence to indicate the problem's still there.

Cheers

Your assumptions are backwards: this test was run at a time there was no RHS mod to use. We were trying to add some planes to semi-carriers - and to understand if semi-carriers would work at all? We did this in stock scenario 15 with nothing special except changes of location of units to facilitate a maximum air attack on an unprotected task force.

One other detail you seem confused about: it was not a single engagement; it was a single DAY. I reported a number of raids - and each raid is properly called an engagement. There were both large and small raids - but about 8 should have penetrated any TF air defenses. Actually, about 4 did penetrate the defenses with trivial numbers of planes, but all but one failed to score any hits. These planes had normal expertise - they were not penalized as often happens late in the war by massive losses (it being a new game) or combat operations (it being their first operation).
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied Task Force ( a strong surface force ) was in a Japanese port - no friendly Flak except on the ships.
I wanted to know if seaplanes would attack from my modified seaplane carriers ? They attacked - but without effect.
I threw in the rest just because - to learn what there might be to learn. I was shocked they mainly all died.
There were about eight saturation level attacks that should have delivered bombs on several targets. But only one bomb hit total - and a loss of planes measured in four figures.


That's a bit high (both in number of attackers and in number lost). Statistically, one of every two Japanese A/C that made it into "flak range" in 1944-45 was shot down (does not include Kamakazes, just A/C trying to make regular attacks)...., which would imply most of the rest being damaged and perhaps "driven off". But some "leakers" almost always got through to drop their ordnance (though with how much accuracy I don't have numbers)

This is correct. One problem with the model is that the Japanese went over to streams of attackers - small attacks on a near continuous basis by one plane at a time - and it worked rather well. We cannot model that in this system as far as I can tell. Apparently a single attacker would not be treated like a major air attack - no CAP vector - often no call to GQ and manning the guns in a timely way.
Drongo
Posts: 1391
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Melb. Oztralia

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Drongo »

Your assumptions are backwards: this test was run at a time there was no RHS mod to use. We were trying to add some planes to semi-carriers - and to understand if semi-carriers would work at all? We did this in stock scenario 15 with nothing special except changes of location of units to facilitate a maximum air attack on an unprotected task force.
Then surely you could just take the stock '45 scenario, make some quick changes to replicate the conditions you witnessed and run it. That give you at least some indication whether the result you described is (still) possible in the stock game.
One other detail you seem confused about: it was not a single engagement; it was a single DAY. I reported a number of raids - and each raid is properly called an engagement. There were both large and small raids - but about 8 should have penetrated any TF air defenses. Actually, about 4 did penetrate the defenses with trivial numbers of planes, but all but one failed to score any hits. These planes had normal expertise - they were not penalized as often happens late in the war by massive losses (it being a new game) or combat operations (it being their first operation).

No confusion at all. I was simply calling it an engagement because the ships were engaged by aircraft. I know it occurred on one day and I assumed it involved multiple strikes over the course of the day.

It still begs the question how one TF of 25 ships could have had the AA ammo to shoot down over a thousand aircraft.

When you first made reference to this "one day" some months back, I was puzzled by it enough to run a series of "equivalent" tests using a '43 scenario game that had reached '45 against the Jap AI.

I sailed a USN surface action TF filled with the best AA ships I had on hand (BBs, CAs, etc) to a postion just off the Japanese coast. I then gathered up every bomber the Jap AI had left me around Japan (several hundred aircraft flown by mediocre pilots) and sent them against the USN TF. Result was about half a dozen ships sunk/crippled (and others damaged to various degrees) for the loss of about 20% of the bombers dest and about 30% damaged. The ships that survived the onslaught were out of ammo.

And yet you mention in what you saw, your 25 ship TF managed to down some "four figures" of aircraft over the course of one day (and without resupplying their ammo)?

Can you give a bit more detail on things like the number of planes involved?

Thanks
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
User avatar
bstarr
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: Texas, by God!

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by bstarr »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

Mike was answering a post after mine which totally misunderstood what I was saying. Mike said there was "No Japanese bonus" which is true. I said there was a modifier, but certainly not a bonus; it's a negative modifier. And I've run tests. Unless it was changed in the last patch, there is a negative modifier to the japanese after the fall of 43. The test I ran had everything identical - pilot skill, leadership, numbers, and even the planes (I altered the japanese planes to have the exact same stats as the P-40E, which is what the Allies were flying). When these two forces met after late '43 the allies always won, sometimes quite handily.

Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Andy Mac »

Bstarr were the radars identical if the allies had base force or carrier radar within 400 miles that would skew your test results in favour of the allies I ran similar tests to those you identified and where Radar was eliminated on both sides losses were even it was only when EITHER side had a radar advantage that victory was achieved.

If modders want to change something to improve Jap chances in the game as opposed to the simulation give them some ground based radar for their base forces in 43 it makes a HUGE difference to losses

Andy
AmiralLaurent
Posts: 3351
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:53 pm
Location: Near Paris, France

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by AmiralLaurent »

Question: is the effect rating of any rating a probability of the radar to affect the battle, or something else ?
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

Mike was answering a post after mine which totally misunderstood what I was saying. Mike said there was "No Japanese bonus" which is true. I said there was a modifier, but certainly not a bonus; it's a negative modifier. And I've run tests. Unless it was changed in the last patch, there is a negative modifier to the japanese after the fall of 43. The test I ran had everything identical - pilot skill, leadership, numbers, and even the planes (I altered the japanese planes to have the exact same stats as the P-40E, which is what the Allies were flying). When these two forces met after late '43 the allies always won, sometimes quite handily.

This - combined with Nic testing - implies there may be a problem. IF there is no problem, tests run in different years ought to produce similar results. Note Nic is an experienced air tester and he explicitly said radar was not a factor. He also didn't believe in the problem - he wanted me to be wrong - and would not have confirmed the problem for some emotional reason. I fear I must look at this in a test bed using 1.8 - and no radar even present in the area.
Nicholas Bell
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:21 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Nicholas Bell »

I'm redoing the tests and logging all the data involved to ensure it's valid and can be presented for examination. It's hard to argue with the Matrix programmers when they clearly state there is nothing in the code, nor do I doubt Andy and others who have performed their own tests.

So I am mostly doing this for myself to see what I did wrong or what else is out there which might be causing this effect (are the radar effects on bounce too much?). I would like to run the test 30 times for each year, and am double checking to ensure no radars or sound detectors are present. This will take some time to do and record.

el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by el cid again »

If you get different results - rather than similar ones - please also try to see if changing durability mitigates the
problem - as was suggested by the person who started the thread?
Nicholas Bell
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:21 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Nicholas Bell »

Bstarr were the radars identical if the allies had base force or carrier radar within 400 miles that would skew your test results in favour of the allies I ran similar tests to those you identified and where Radar was eliminated on both sides losses were even it was only when EITHER side had a radar advantage that victory was achieved.

Is it faulty logic to assume that if a radar was present in both a 1942 and 1944 test which were identical in everyway except the date, that the radar effects would be the same in both years?



Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Andy Mac »

Depends if the radar upgrades in mid turn I would think which is before air combat resolution I think.
 
But in principle I would not expect the results to be different in 42 to 44 with the same radar in both tests. So as long as SCR 270 radar for allies is present in 42 all other things being equal I would expect losses to have the same proportion as long as the radar in use in 44 is alos SCR 270.
 
However I have not explicitly tested this assumption in my testing as I focused on the 44 losses.
 
Andy
Nicholas Bell
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:21 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Nicholas Bell »

But in principle I would not expect the results to be different in 42 to 44 with the same radar in both tests. So as long as SCR 270 radar for allies is present in 42 all other things being equal I would expect losses to have the same proportion as long as the radar in use in 44 is alos SCR 270.

Right. But this is not what I am getting...again. At this point I have only run 10 samples of 1942 and 10 of 1944. There are some sound detectors and radars, but none are long enough range to affect offensive missions or interfere with other engagements. In each sample there are 9 air battles, so the sample is actually 90 per year.

Aggregate actual air to air (only) losses (from the intel screen not combat reports)
Allied 1942: 587
Allied 1944: 602

Japanese 1942: 676
Japanese 1944: 971

Very similar to the 20 x 9 sample I ran last week. Statistical aberration? Could be, I guess. Need to keep working away. Also need to total up the losses from the combat report - maybe there is a difference there, as the intel losses include crash landings and write-offs not shown in the combat report.

Granted this is only one of nine combats and it could be an abberation, but the increased losses in KI-61's in 1944 is pretty noticeable. In both years Wewak has Type 13 Radar. US raid originates in PM which has a sound detector (!). (is the program hard-coded to automatically treat sound detectors as the most powerful radar?)



Image
Attachments
Wewak.gif
Wewak.gif (52.22 KiB) Viewed 305 times
Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Andy Mac »

I am baffled I dont test escorted raids if all you have done between tests is change the date then I just dont know whats going on the only thing I can think of is there a hardcoded heavy bomber box modifier sometime in 43 ?
 
Nicholas could you re run the test as a sweep not an escorted raid to tell if its the heavies causing the distortion.
 
 
 
Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

Post by Andy Mac »

OK I retested sweep v CAP as per my earlier test and gave both Jap bases sound detetctors and us bases radar.

42 Tests

All  JAP
46  93
43  108
49  118
42  90
40  85

44 Tests

All  Jap
42  79
36  75
34  97
45  81
41  75

So pretty even the only thing I can think of is thats its got something to do with heavies as on pure fighter v fighter 42/44 makes no difference its radar difference that drive performance difference remember these were identical leaders in identical planes and pilots

Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”