B17's Bombing Naval Targets Not Fair??

[Nikademus]

the Stock setup seems to be optimized for helping the AI as it goes along. For human players, expansion is faciliated by the generous R&D in place (for the AI) combined with small factory tactics such as changing over some dispersed (small) types to different airframes, then expanding the remaining small factory locations of the old airframe to make up the lost production.

In the -A version of my mod, i eliminated most of the RD, disconnected the free upgrade of factories for certain advanced airframes and closed the small factory loophole. All designed to limit the expansion ability, at least not without making sacrifices in the process.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

the Stock setup seems to be optimized for helping the AI as it goes along. For human players, expansion is faciliated by the generous R&D in place (for the AI) combined with small factory tactics such as changing over some dispersed (small) types to different airframes, then expanding the remaining small factory locations of the old airframe to make up the lost production.

In the -A version of my mod, i eliminated most of the RD, disconnected the free upgrade of factories for certain advanced airframes and closed the small factory loophole. All designed to limit the expansion ability, at least not without making sacrifices in the process.

Nik, I would be very interested in some specifics about what you have done. I have seen many comments similar to yours, especially about the R&D factories. Since CHS is primarily intended to be played PBEM I have similar views myself.

Andrew

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

This shot is of the aircraft types with the heaviest overall losses:

From what I have read, the ops losses were indeed much greater than combat losses, but I wonder how the designers got the computer to figure exactly who was going to suffer, and why?
Look at the over 60 Zeke (A6m2) ops losses.
Certain planes were notoriously bad on dirt strips, (like the Spitfire), and the Japanese had worse ground crew than the Allies as evidenced by the hordes of planes found on over-run strips that only lacked a part on a plane grounded at the same strip!
I will presume the "smaller" runways (1 and 2) would have a higher attrition rate, and lower supply level might add to the mix, but what other factors might be involved?

[Dili]

Maybe aircraft durability

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Maybe aircraft durability

That would certainly have to be a factor.
The F2a Buffalo was really poor at carrier duty because of its' weak undercarriage design, yet the ops looses for it (in the above example) do not indicate this was a "game" factor, if indeed the designers tried (or had time) to investigate such things??

[bradfordkay]

I think that the range of the mission or transfer has the most influence on OPs losses in WITP. Size of landing field and weather both seem to be important as well - the latter more so than the former.

I don't think that the designers included a special "Buffalo" factor in the game for ops losses, but I willing to believe that the durability rating is involved.

I think that my ops losses on Buffalos are low because they've been getting shot down too fast to wear out...

[treespider]

As promised here are the aircraft losses in my game with Spence through 9/10/1942...

[treespider]

And the next batch...

[treespider]

Needless to say the last day was not a very good day in the air war for Japan....

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


Nik, I would be very interested in some specifics about what you have done. I have seen many comments similar to yours, especially about the R&D factories. Since CHS is primarily intended to be played PBEM I have similar views myself.

Andrew

IIRC, starting R&D was reduced by 90% across the board. "Free" upgrades for existing factories via the upgrade routines were disconnected for certain key fighters (usually overbuilt). for example- Ki-43 to Ki-61. Changed the upgrade path from Ki-43 to 61 to 43 to 43. This way the large # of Oscar factories don't autoconvert. The player must build the 61 factories himself.

Finally, I consolidated all the little factories building the same plane types into a smaller # of larger factories. This was done because of clever tactic that allows one to expand a needed plane type without sacrificing an existing plane type. For example.....if you have 4 factory locations of B5N @ 5 points each (total 20 points), you can take two locations, change them to A6M2.....expand.....then make up for the "lost" production space by "expanding" one or more of the remaining B5N factory locations. It costs supply of course, but if available allows for minimal disruption of plane building. Best of both worlds. With factory locations consolidated....it becomes a harder choice....you can in some cases only do the change-expand trick by sacrificing most or even all of an existing plane type's production line. (which from what i've read was closer to the RL situation Japan faced.....(i.e. Build sufficient or near sufficient #'s of an existing airframe now or sacrifice production to dev-build a newer type)

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

the Stock setup seems to be optimized for helping the AI as it goes along. For human players, expansion is faciliated by the generous R&D in place (for the AI) combined with small factory tactics such as changing over some dispersed (small) types to different airframes, then expanding the remaining small factory locations of the old airframe to make up the lost production.

In the -A version of my mod, i eliminated most of the RD, disconnected the free upgrade of factories for certain advanced airframes and closed the small factory loophole. All designed to limit the expansion ability, at least not without making sacrifices in the process.

I agree with your analysis - that stock is set up to help the AI. Further - there is essentially no relation between historical plants and game plants except this: big plants exist in the right cities. But many small plants are missing altogether. I have added many small plants - and also reduced the size of big ones - finding the AI and players alike are prone to overproduce - resulting in a situation in which newer types are ignored altogether. Players who expand too much - or don't keep most of their plants idle or research set - will not produce / phase in new types very well. In this sense the problem is self limiting. I also find one must carefully consider aircraft upgrade settings at the plane (vice unit) level - or you will have unintended vast production set - or alternatively phase out a plane you still need to produce.
It is hard to get this right - or to know what right means? But in general, I have gone over to a standard where plant size is related to aircraft size: a plant fully developed can make 30 single engine planes (vice 80 in stock), 15 twin engine planes, or 7 four engine planes. [Not that a player cannot expand it - but that is the initial setting] An unused plant is set to 1 plane of a type not available for Japanese production - then AI ignores it and only a human can make something there - and that not right away (At some point code lets it be assigned a legal plane - but only a human can implement it).
Thus the former Hindustan Inductries (under a Chinese name) plant at Canton is set to make Hawks - which it really was - but it is not ever used by AI and only after some time has passed could you set it to produce a Ki-27 (or whatever).
There is a similar plant at Bangkok - which also really made Corsairs (1930s type) and Hawks - but was not making any when the war began.

[ChezDaJez]

From what I have read, the ops losses were indeed much greater than combat losses, but I wonder how the designers got the computer to figure exactly who was going to suffer, and why?
Look at the over 60 Zeke (A6m2) ops losses.
Certain planes were notoriously bad on dirt strips, (like the Spitfire), and the Japanese had worse ground crew than the Allies as evidenced by the hordes of planes found on over-run strips that only lacked a part on a plane grounded at the same strip!
I will presume the "smaller" runways (1 and 2) would have a higher attrition rate, and lower supply level might add to the mix, but what other factors might be involved?

and Dili said:

Maybe aircraft durability

Ops losses are not modeled on specific aircraft types but on durability. Plus an aircraft damaged in combat is more likely to suffer an ops loss. Throw in extended ranges and smaller airfileds as Brad said and you have the situation as in our game... that is the Japanese tend to suffer greater ops losses due to their lower durability and need to fly greater ranges while on the offensive.

While the trend is probably correct (meaning higher Japanese ops losses), I wish there was a way to make it more aircraft specific. Aircraft like the Zero and Oscar with their wide track gear and incredibly slow stall speeds should suffer fewer losses (all else being equal) than most other type aircraft.

Most narrow track gear aircraft like the Spitfire, Me-109, Buffalo, Wildcat and P-40 had notorious ground loop charactersitics but these aren't modeled. (The P-40 was actually a mid-track gear)

Personally, aircraft with narrow track gear and inline engines should suffer higher ops rates. Low experience, range, damage status and airfield size (or carrier based) should also be important factors.

The distinguishing characteristic between aircraft with high ops losses and ones with low ops losses almost always boiled down to the stall speed and stall characteristics of the aircraft and the skill of the pilot IRL. Take the early model Corsair. It suffered tremendous ops losses because of its landing gear design (even though it was wide track), high stall speed and total lack of notice until actually stalling. Plus I bet ramming that 2000hp engine to full throttle on a wave off over the ramp lead to many a watery grave.

I don't think durability was that big a factor IRL.

Chez

[el cid again]

Somewhere there is a posting by the lead Mike Wood ( programmer ) about ops losses. It is impressively complex - and there is also a penalty for being on the Japanese side. More engines gives you a better shot at returning home. And bases or subs or ships along the route give you a better chance of not losing the pilot if the plane is lost. Very elegant programming.

[ChezDaJez]

Elegant it may be, correct probably not. Elegance doesn't matter if the premise is faulty. G.I.G.O.

I agree multi-engine aircraft have a better chance of returning as do multi-piloted aircraft. But multi-engined aircraft also have a higher risk for crashing when one or more of those engines are out due to asymetrical power and lowered power to weight ratios. Throw in a low-experience pilot and weather and things get really dicey.

I can't tell you how many 3-engine landings I've been in with the P-3. Even had a 2-engine landing once. There's always that little extra pucker factor and you just pray that the pilots studied their NATOPS the night before. Thankfully, I had some very good pilots.

Chez

[Dili]

Chedajez i am sure you know there is durability rate in the game per airplane model so i dont think we are so bad in that, give a  point for this advantage take a point for that problem and an overall value can be made. I would have prefered that armor was an overall resistence value to hits and durability would have a been an operational and repair/turnaround/failed missions rate/planes with troublesome engines  only issue.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
...
I agree multi-engine aircraft have a better chance of returning as do multi-piloted aircraft. But multi-engined aircraft also have a higher risk for crashing when one or more of those engines are out ....

Chez

A higher risk than a single engine without it's engine? [:)]

Just joking with you Chez [:D]

Brian

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Elegant it may be, correct probably not. Elegance doesn't matter if the premise is faulty. G.I.G.O.

I agree multi-engine aircraft have a better chance of returning as do multi-piloted aircraft. But multi-engined aircraft also have a higher risk for crashing when one or more of those engines are out due to asymetrical power and lowered power to weight ratios. Throw in a low-experience pilot and weather and things get really dicey.

I can't tell you how many 3-engine landings I've been in with the P-3. Even had a 2-engine landing once. There's always that little extra pucker factor and you just pray that the pilots studied their NATOPS the night before. Thankfully, I had some very good pilots.

Chez

It is correct - statistically speaking. And in RHS we base durability in part on number of pilots - so you get that thrown in as well. We attempted a rational durability system and published it. Took a long time to work out.

The system is simple - but WITP does better than I would have believed possible for a simple system. {I program with much more complex ideas - and it takes forever to do = too much cost for a game company}

[treespider]

I did some reverse engineering of the durability before and came up with a reasonable facsimile of the numbers that Witp used at least for single engine planes...and it was purely based on the number of engines, the aircraft weight and size. The formula I came up with was

DUR = (# of Engines x5) + (Empty Weight in KG /200) + (SQRT Length in meters x 2) + (SQRT of wingspan in meters x2)


If you plug in the numbers you see the following values (I've include the stock values for comparison, I think I came pretty darn close):

Code: Select all

Model	My DUR		Stock
 A5M4	23		23
 B-17G	124		69
 F4U-4	40	F4U-1D	35
 A6M6c	26	A6M5	27
 P36C	27		28
 P-47N	44		36
 F4F-4	30		29
 P-40N	31		31
 

[ChezDaJez]

A higher risk than a single engine without it's engine?

Just joking with you Chez

Brian

Now stop that!!! [:-][:D]

That reminded of an old joke:

An airliner is flying along when suddenly the captain anounces, "Ladies and Gentleman, I am afraid we had a problem and will be shutting down #4 engine. We will be about 30 minutes late arriving."

A little while later, the captain again gets on the intercomm and says, "Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm sorry but we've had another problem and will be shutting down $3 engine. We will about 1 hour late arriving."

After a few more hours, the captain again announces another engine problem. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very sorry but we have had to shut down #2 engine. We will be 2 hours late arriving."

One passenger turns to the passenger next to him and says, "Damn, if we lose another we'll be up here all day!"

Chez