RHS Allied Aircraft Thread: A Radical Proposal (at end)

[Dili]

When I asked what it was - I was told to investigate speed first of all. It turned out to be a mixed bag

 
Okay explained still think speed is overvalued, see below. Now just wanted to know more about it.
 

Somehow I have failed to follow your meaning here  

 
My meaning is that F104 would have been an outstanding fighter in RHS if we overvalue speed.
 

IF you have a good model, you should NOT need to have "external bonuses" - your algorithm should explain in numbers why this plane is better than that one with respect to whatever the function is

 
So how to handle a good diving speed like in Thunderbolt?
 
This is a comparative example of 2 real planes w/ same number engines:
 
Speed:          430 Vs 467 Km/h
Power:          2520CV Vs 3000CV
Wing Loading: 174kg/sqm Vs 219kg/sqm
Climb :            13min Vs 14min to 5000m
 
One of them was a crappy Torpedo bomber because bad maneuverability. 
 

He is OK. He moved and suffered a computer total breakdown. He has started to come back up.

 
Good
 
 
m10bob

If it is a known factor that it is suicide to try to turn with a Zero, then turning is no longer a "strength of my P 39, but speed and diving become primary strengths for my particular plane. If "turning" is not something I plan to value before I go into combat,(since I won't be doing any during my attack), why should I be concerned how my plane will "turn with a Zero"? 

 
Yes because the P-39 pilot would not always be able to choose the interception.
Also boom and zoom techniques make for a less atrittional air combat since the melee is much more extended and escaping combat is easier.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone knows how WITP how handles  bonus for defense and attack, escort?
 

[el cid again]

Sir Bob:

I do not mean to imply that opinions are not something which should be expressed. Nor that I am as opinionated to an extreme degree - wether it be good or bad I am guilty of the charge. Also - if the thread has been resurrected and hijacked to a different purpose then I created it for,

a) I am guilty of going along with that
b) the original purpose was long served and the thread was available for changing topic somewhat
c) You DID say you were interested in planes for a personal mod - and I only want to help you figure out what you really want (e.g. see the patrol plane item above) for your mod (and anyone else modding anything)

I regard the discussion as useful in several senses - and it has led to a tentative change in RHS - where I am strongly considering giving the Zero bonus to the Oscar I. It is good to educate our users about the details of the model - stock, CHS, RHS and others (notably Nikmod) being all germane to the air combat situation. And we might learn how to make that model better - even if we have already done that (as is the view of some).

So whatever my opinion about your opinion on a particular point, I regarded your opinion as worthy of reading, thinking about, and in bounds. At no time have you been uncivil - and I do not wish to be regarded as uncivil myself. Instead, I value what has happened here - and wish that to be clear. This even includes a rather sharp disagreement with another person at the moment. [Why we disagree is not yet clear to me? But it is perfectly possible either one of us may learn something - and I value that too - and more if it is me who learns something.]

I do not understand how maneuverability in a bomber does not matter "as a fighter." In a famous case, Adm Nimitz ordered ALL Allied patrol planes (which is to say, mainly 2 engine PBYs) to "avoid approaching" Japanese Mavis 4 engine flying boats - because these had taken to "playing figher plane" and pursuing and attacking planes they encountered. Surely a 4 engine flying boat is not a fighter - but that does not mean it might not act as one. [In a later era the British introduced air to air weapons on gigantic patrol planes in 1981 - radical - virtually unprecedented - but effective - and it now is being copied in several nations].

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

When I asked what it was - I was told to investigate speed first of all. It turned out to be a mixed bag

Okay explained still think speed is overvalued, see below. Now just wanted to know more about it.

REPLY: It may be so. I think a revised air combat routine would be a great investment, even if we were to keep exactly the same data fields. IF it were combined with PUBLISHED definitions for the fields - we could either input data properly or we could modify it with a technical grasp of what that was doing.

Somehow I have failed to follow your meaning here  

My meaning is that F104 would have been an outstanding fighter in RHS if we overvalue speed.


REPLY: Thanks. I did indeed miss the point - and you did clarify it well here.

IF you have a good model, you should NOT need to have "external bonuses" - your algorithm should explain in numbers why this plane is better than that one with respect to whatever the function is

So how to handle a good diving speed like in Thunderbolt?

REPLY: Ideally - if we could start with a clean slate - dive speed would be a field of its own. In the present case I have not thought of a good answer - but my first pass brainstorming guess would be we add it in as a factor to the maneuverability function. Just as horizontal and vertical maneuverability are factors, and wing loading and power loading are factors, and ROC is a factor, so could dive speed. But I would want to check to insure we do not already have it in some other form (ie - is it directly proportional to something else in the function now?).


This is a comparative example of 2 real planes w/ same number engines:

Speed:          430 Vs 467 Km/h
Power:          2520CV Vs 3000CV
Wing Loading: 174kg/sqm Vs 219kg/sqm
Climb :            13min Vs 14min to 5000m

One of them was a crappy Torpedo bomber because bad maneuverability. 

REPLY: What is the maneuverability rating comparison of each in our system?

He is OK. He moved and suffered a computer total breakdown. He has started to come back up.

Good


[
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone knows how WITP how handles  bonus for defense and attack, escort?

[Dili]

Mvr 6 and 5 but Mifune might have used different data. This are Trimotore SIAI-79 and SIAI-84. The SIAI-84 was supposed to replace SIAI-79. Instead in 1943 the -79 was still being used as torpedo bomber and -84 being retired from that mission. In this case wing loading was the issue the plane was just too stable.

[el cid again]

This does not seem like an excessive difference - nor does it seem identical. Does the wrong plane have the higher value in your view?

[el cid again]

All we know (aside from a few specific statements and things we can measure in tests - which is confusing due to multiple possibilities) is that the routines are complex, branched, and contain many factors and die rolls. We have had moments of revelation and those tend to show the system is more sophisticated (perhaps far more is justified) than anyone had suspected: see Mike Wood on pilot rescue at sea for example.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sir Bob:

I do not mean to imply that opinions are not something which should be expressed. Nor that I am as opinionated to an extreme degree - wether it be good or bad I am guilty of the charge. Also - if the thread has been resurrected and hijacked to a different purpose then I created it for,

a) I am guilty of going along with that
b) the original purpose was long served and the thread was available for changing topic somewhat
c) You DID say you were interested in planes for a personal mod - and I only want to help you figure out what you really want (e.g. see the patrol plane item above) for your mod (and anyone else modding anything)

I regard the discussion as useful in several senses - and it has led to a tentative change in RHS - where I am strongly considering giving the Zero bonus to the Oscar I. It is good to educate our users about the details of the model - stock, CHS, RHS and others (notably Nikmod) being all germane to the air combat situation. And we might learn how to make that model better - even if we have already done that (as is the view of some).

So whatever my opinion about your opinion on a particular point, I regarded your opinion as worthy of reading, thinking about, and in bounds. At no time have you been uncivil - and I do not wish to be regarded as uncivil myself. Instead, I value what has happened here - and wish that to be clear. This even includes a rather sharp disagreement with another person at the moment. [Why we disagree is not yet clear to me? But it is perfectly possible either one of us may learn something - and I value that too - and more if it is me who learns something.]

I do not understand how maneuverability in a bomber does not matter "as a fighter." In a famous case, Adm Nimitz ordered ALL Allied patrol planes (which is to say, mainly 2 engine PBYs) to "avoid approaching" Japanese Mavis 4 engine flying boats - because these had taken to "playing figher plane" and pursuing and attacking planes they encountered. Surely a 4 engine flying boat is not a fighter - but that does not mean it might not act as one. [In a later era the British introduced air to air weapons on gigantic patrol planes in 1981 - radical - virtually unprecedented - but effective - and it now is being copied in several nations].

I have no need to be uncivil to you Sid, our line of thinking acyually runs pretty close on all matters WITP related.
I sometimes subscribe to the belief that playing "Devils' advocate" can provoke thought and bring fresh air into an otherwise stale environment.
My mission has been accomplished, (and I feel no need to amplify what it was).
I wasted none of the forums time, and as stated, may have provoked some serious thought.

As for calling me "Sir Bob", I take great pride that my direct ancestors threw off the yoke of those who addressed themselves by the title of a "lucky parentage", and have been equally proud to find friends worldwide on my own accomplishments, (which did include a couple of those "titled gentry"..)[:D]

[el cid again]

I also am somewhat unhappy with the ancient system of nobility - although I did get along well with Queen Elizabeth (the Second if you must ask - I am not old enough to have known the other one - in spite of what some people - notably my daughter - might tell you). But I use the term "sir" in the sense it has been converted to in modern English - not meaning nobility - but the general honorific applied to all men (an American convention perhaps). My name is Cornish, and my people were brutally surpressed in 917 a.d. - including loss of language, religeon, and political power. I don't think there is a lot of glory in the history of the fudal system - in any culture.

[Dili]

This does not seem like an excessive difference - nor does it seem identical. Does the wrong plane have the higher value in your view?

5 and 6 is identical in my opinion. Historically meant an ability to perform a mission or not.
No the older is the best one with 6 and that is right.

[josephw]

I am very interested in the Bat, or how to go about creating accurate stats for the game.

[el cid again]

We can model the Bat. I have created two German and one Japanese cruise missile successfully (not all are in use at this time).

Better statistics require better data. One suggestion made on the board is Combat Aircraft of World War II by Bill Gunston. Got my copy yesterday - and it is indeed great for our purposes - as it lists almost all of the planes we care about - to an almost consistent standard.

[josephw]

I hate to bother you all but for some complicated reasons (like I'm playing at work for one) it's hard for me download things, could you post, or direct me to, the game stats for some of the flying bombs and or cruise missiles you've all done.

Thanks

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: josephw

I hate to bother you all but for some complicated reasons (like I'm playing at work for one) it's hard for me download things, could you post, or direct me to, the game stats for some of the flying bombs and or cruise missiles you've all done.

Thanks

In any and all RHS device files you will find:

Device 145: (US) 5 inch Free Flight unguided rocket
Device 176: (UK/US) 3 inch No 1 unguided rocket
Device 177: (Japanese) Type 5 unguided rocket
Device 197: Ohka Missile (from stock and all other mods, this is a hard coded slot, and it will never allow a normal
number of attacks to fly using it: only one unit will fly with a very small number of planes)
Device 247: (German) HS-393A1 missile
Device 248: (Japanese) Uji (biological) bomb
Device 249: (Japanese) IGo-1B missile

Slot 249 used to contain the Fritz X and older files may still have it there. This was replaced by the IGo-1B when we changed EOS from Me-264 to G5N4 bombers. [The G5N3 is a G5N1 with bigger engines and pure bombs; the G5N2-L is a G5N1 converted to transport duty - with inadequate engines for a bomer - and is strictly historical; The G5N4 is a G5N3 modified as a HS-293 carrier with still larger engines] The IGo-1b is carried by Ki-102 fighter bombers - as IRL - but unlike in any other form of WITP. Note that G5N bombers are NOT present in ANY "strictly historical" RHS scenario - but the devices are still present. Only EOS (and its AI clone AIO) have the G5N bombers or the Fritz X missile. But the IGo-1b is present in all scenarios - because it is strictly historical - although it did not see operational status. The G5N bomber - a modified DC-4E transport aircraft - was a serious effort to make a bomber in Japan - but it ultimately failed - because politics prevented allocation of sufficiently powerful engines to the project. The FW-200 Condor was a similar effort for the IJN done in Germany - a transport modified into a bomber - and it was completed - but it was not able to reach Japan - and jigs never did get there. Also - it is not as good a bomber as the G5N would have been. We once rationalized how a similar German program could have been done for the Me-264 - and it is a much better bomber in statistical terms - and it was available early (and not funded in Germany - so available for foreign funding) - because it was DESIGNED as a bomber (unlike G5N or FW-200). But Nemo found that it (realistically) cost too much to operate in the numbers he wanted - and indeed it would have done so: Germany only planned to make 60 of them (plus prototypes) - and they were to be neusance raiders - not serious bomber offensive bombers. [That is pretty wise: the countermeasurs would then cost many times what the bombers did - a strategic advantage] But we ultimately felt this plane was not as plausable (even for EOS) as a home grown one would be. But the range of the G5N is nothing like the Me-264 - indeed only certain dedicated recon variants of the B-24 and the B-29/32 are comparable in RHS. Late in the war you can get the G8N - and it is a fine bomber - sort of a "Japanese B-17" - but many players wanted a 4 engine bomber option sooner (although only players of EOS/AIO get the option). There is yet another option in EOS - the G7 - which was cancelled in favor of the G8 design - appears - as a torpedo carrier. It is a superb twin engine bomber - fast, well armed and protected - with a devistating offensive punch for its size.