Sample Air Ratings

[vahauser]

Here is a sample list of 206 air ratings I'm working on for my WW2 equipment database.

The first rating is Attack Rating and the second rating is Defense Rating.

The 'H' stands for High Altitude and the 'L' stands for Low Altitude.


FW-190A1 20 25 L
FW-190A4 22 26 L
FW-190A7 23 25 L
FW-190F3 16 23 L
FW-190G3 15 24 L
FW-190D9 25 30 H
Me-109D1 14 14 H
Me-109E1 16 15 H
Me-109E7 17 16 H
Me-109F4 18 19 H
Me-109G2 19 18 H
Me-109G6 20 20 H
Me-109G10 22 22 H
Me-109K4 24 25 H
Me-163B 33 41 H
Me 262A 31 39 H
A5M4 11 13 L
A6M2 16 18 L
A6M3 18 20 L
A6M5 19 22 L
A6M6 20 22 L
N1K1 20 22 L
N1K2 21 23 L
P-51B 24 26 H
P-51D 25 28 H
Spitfire 1 14 16 L
Spitfire 2B 16 17 L
Spitfire 5B 19 20 L
Spitfire 9 21 22 H
Spitfire 16 22 23 L
Spitfire 14 25 29 H
Beaufighter 10 11 11 L
Beaufighter 1F 13 13 L
Blenheim 4F 8 10 L
CR.32 8 9 L
CR.32bis 8 9 L
CR.42 12 14 L
CR.42AS 12 13 L
CW-21B 12 14 L
D.520 14 13 L
F2A-3 13 12 L
F4F-3 16 18 L
F4F-4 15 16 L
F4U-1 22 26 L
F4U-4 25 31 L
F6F-3 20 24 L
F6F-5 21 25 L
FM-2 16 20 L
FW-190A1 20 25 L
Gladiator 10 11 L
Hawk 75 10 10 L
Hawk 75A 12 13 L
Hurricane 1 (E) 11 13 L
Hurricane 1 (L) 12 14 L
Hurricane 2B 15 16 L
I-153 11 13 L
I-15B 8 10 L
I-15bis 9 10 L
I-16/10 12 12 L
I-16/24 14 13 L
J2M2 19 19 L
J2M3 20 20 L
Ju-88C6 13 15 L
Ju-88G6 17 17 L
Ki-100-I 19 19 L
Ki-27a 11 14 L
Ki-43-I 15 19 L
Ki-43-II 16 19 L
Ki-44-I 17 19 L
Ki-44-II 20 22 L
Ki-45KAI 15 16 L
Ki-61-I 18 18 L
Ki-61KAI 17 18 L
Ki-84-I 21 25 L
LA-5FN 19 18 L
La-7 21 21 L
LaGG-3 15 12 L
MC.200 13 17 L
MC.202b 18 20 L
MC.205b 21 25 H
Me-110C 15 15 L
Me-110F 17 17 L
Me-110G 17 17 L
Me-110G 17 15 L
Meteor 1 23 24 H
Meteor 4 32 42 H
MiG-3 16 13 H
Mosquito 19 18 19 L
Mosquito 2 18 18 L
Mosquito 30 23 25 H
Mosquito 6 19 19 L
MS.406 11 10 L
P-26A 9 11 L
P-35 11 10 L
P-38F 20 21 H
P-38J 23 28 H
P-38L 25 29 H
P-39D 16 13 L
P-40C 16 15 L
P-40E 17 16 L
P-40F 18 18 L
P-40N 19 18 L
P-43A 16 15 L
P-47C 22 25 H
P-47D (E) 23 27 H
P-47D (L) 24 28 H
P-47M 26 33 H
P-47N 26 32 H
P-51A 19 17 L
P-51H 27 32 H
P-61B 19 19 L
P-80A 30 43 H
Po 631 9 11 L
Sea Hurricane 2C 16 16 L
Ta-152H 26 31 H
Tempest 5 23 26 L
Tempest II 25 28 L
Typhoon 1B 21 22 L
Yak-1 (E) 16 15 L
Yak-1 (L) 17 16 L
Yak-1M 18 17 L
Yak-3 20 20 L
Yak-3U 23 25 L
Yak-7B 18 17 L
Yak-9 19 20 L
Yak-9D 17 16 L
Yak-9DD 16 15 L
Yak-9U 22 23 L
A-20B/C 5 18 L
A-20G 7 18 L
A-20H 9 18 L
A-20J/K 8 18 L
A-26 14 23 L
A-29 7 13 L
B-17C/D 9 20 H
B-17E 12 21 H
B-17F 12 22 H
B-17G 13 24 H
B-24D 13 20 H
B-24G/H 13 22 H
B-24J/M 14 23 H
B-25A 5 14 L
B-25B 8 14 L
B-25D 8 14 L
B-25G 11 15 L
B-25H 11 15 L
B-26A 7 16 L
B-26B 11 16 L
B-26F/G 11 17 L
B-29 17 27 H
B-29A 18 29 H
B-29N 11 30 H
Ba-65 4 6 L
G4M1 5 11 L
G4M2 8 13 L
G4M3 10 15 L
Blenheim 1 3 11 L
Blenheim 4 5 13 L
BR.20M 4 13 L
Do-17Z 5 11 L
Do-217E 7 17 L
H8K2 8 18 L
FW-200C 5 15 L
Halifax 3 9 19 L
Hampden 1 5 11 L
He-111B 4 11 L
He-111E 4 12 L
He-111H 7 16 L
He-177A 10 21 L
IL-4 4 13 L
IL-2m3 7 15 L
B6N 5 10 L
Ju-87A 3 6 L
Ju-87B 4 7 L
Ju-87D 5 8 L
Ju-87G 5 8 L
Ju-88A1 4 17 L
Ju-88A4 7 18 L
D4Y 5 13 L
B5N 4 5 L
Lancaster 1 9 21 L
LeO.451 5 16 L
Ki-48-II 7 12 L
Ki-32 4 5 L
H6K 5 13 L
Mosquito 16 0 17 H
G3M2 4 9 L
G3M3 5 10 L
PBY-5 3 12 L
Pe-2 7 15 L
PO-2 1 2 L
Ki-21-I 4 12 L
Ki-21-II 6 13 L
SB2C 7 11 L
SBD 5 9 L
SM.79-II 4 15 L
Stirling 3 8 17 L
Sunderland 5 4 17 L
Swordfish 1 2 4 L
TBD 3 6 L
TBF 6 10 L
D3Y 4 6 L
Wellington 8 6 13 L
Whitley 5 6 13 L
Z.506B 4 13 L

[ColinWright]

Where's the Hs-123? It should have a very high attack and be virtually indestructible (many of the few still flying in 1939 soldiered on into 1943)? Inquiries were even made about putting it back into production -- but all the jigs had been destroyed.



Peculiarly effective against horse-drawn transport -- something about the sound the engine made. Sadly, no way to get that particular effect in OPART.

[vahauser]

Colin,
 
The sample ratings weren't a complete list.  Just wanted to give folks a feel for where my ratings are.  Lots of aircraft still to be rated. 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Where's the Hs-123? It should have a very high attack and be virtually indestructible (many of the few still flying in 1939 soldiered on into 1943)?

Well, only one squadron was in first-line units in 1939. The rest were taken out of training units.

[vahauser]

I still have to add a lot of aircraft.  I wanted to keep the WW2 aircraft down to around 250 equipment slots.  As of now I'm looking at closer to 350+ weapon slots.  Some cuts will eventually have to be made, but I don't mind adding more to my spreadsheet.  That's not a problem.  The problem will be finding room for all of them in the equipment database.

EDIT: The good news is that I don't have to add all the transport and glider aircraft since that is handled by TOAW for the players by using air-transport capacity.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

EDIT: The good news is that I don't have to add all the transport and glider aircraft since that is handled by TOAW for the players by using air-transport capacity.

That's actually bad news, we could really use some transports that could fly in supplies to specified areas.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Where's the Hs-123? It should have a very high attack and be virtually indestructible (many of the few still flying in 1939 soldiered on into 1943)?

Well, only one squadron was in first-line units in 1939. The rest were taken out of training units.

Well -- make the type nuclear capable or something. The effect needs to be modeled in some way.

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: vahauser

EDIT: The good news is that I don't have to add all the transport and glider aircraft since that is handled by TOAW for the players by using air-transport capacity.

That's actually bad news, we could really use some transports that could fly in supplies to specified areas.

Funny that you posted this because I was going to post something similar...would be nice to have some transport aircraft that could be subject to airfield attack etc...

And since some of the resident experts seem to be monitoring this thread, got a 2 quick questions for you:

1) He 115 stats, any advice?

2) Any way to handle aircraft that were primarily used for air recon? I am thinking along the lines of the variety of seaplanes used in the North Atlantic.

plus I seem to recall something about Hs 123s being used quite a bit at night for H&I missions, or I am thinking of something else? Anyone confirm that?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: vahauser

EDIT: The good news is that I don't have to add all the transport and glider aircraft since that is handled by TOAW for the players by using air-transport capacity.

That's actually bad news, we could really use some transports that could fly in supplies to specified areas.

Funny that you posted this because I was going to post something similar...would be nice to have some transport aircraft that could be subject to airfield attack etc...

Yeah. Actual Ju-52's would be nice. However, the engine would need to be changed to allow them to function meaningfully in scenarios. They'd need to actually lift troops/supplies and actually get shot down/destroyed on the ground. Particularly destroyed on the ground. The Germans liked to perform hairy airlifts that sometimes worked but always resulted in piles of destroyed and damaged Ju-52's: see some of the aerial shots of the airstrip at Maleme, for example.

And since some of the resident experts seem to be monitoring this thread, got a 2 quick questions for you:

1) He 115 stats, any advice?

It was actually pretty fast for a float plane -- over 200 mph, as I recall. Lessee what I gave it...

AT 0. AP 1. Combat radius 1333 km. AA 2. Defense 4. Low-altitude. Anti-shipping capable.

2) Any way to handle aircraft that were primarily used for air recon? I am thinking along the lines of the variety of seaplanes used in the North Atlantic.

Pretty hard to simulate their role directly -- basically part of your recon rating.

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


AT 0. AP 1. Combat radius 1333 km. AA 2. Defense 4. Low-altitude. Anti-shipping capable.

Thanks Colin.

Did you use He 115s in any of your scenarios?

Also, for wishing in one hand...I wish my He 115s could lay mines. Sigh.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Pretty hard to simulate their role directly -- basically part of your recon rating.

Let me run this by you then:

I am simply trying to give one player a recon advantage that he can "concentrate" on a given area.

I would prefer to use aircraft for this purpose since the scenario would call for it.

So, what about putting a couple of aircraft in a Helo Recon Unit. As far as I can tell it still requires an airfield and is subject to AA and air superiority. It cannot attack or support ground units in any manner. But nor can it be subject to airfield attack. Any side effects that I should know about? I think what I don't know for sure is how it is treated by an enemy intercepting air unit. The test I ran produced pretty high losses on the attacker side, while the recon came out pretty clean. Furthermore, it is taking a pounding from AA (especially from a naval unit).

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


AT 0. AP 1. Combat radius 1333 km. AA 2. Defense 4. Low-altitude. Anti-shipping capable.

Thanks Colin.

Did you use He 115s in any of your scenarios?

Also, for wishing in one hand...I wish my He 115s could lay mines. Sigh.

Yeah. They're in Seelowe. KuFlGr.606 or something. Maybe fifteen aircraft. A minor unit.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Pretty hard to simulate their role directly -- basically part of your recon rating.

Let me run this by you then:

I am simply trying to give one player a recon advantage that he can "concentrate" on a given area.

I would prefer to use aircraft for this purpose since the scenario would call for it.

So, what about putting a couple of aircraft in a Helo Recon Unit. As far as I can tell it still requires an airfield and is subject to AA and air superiority. It cannot attack or support ground units in any manner. But nor can it be subject to airfield attack. Any side effects that I should know about? I think what I don't know for sure is how it is treated by an enemy intercepting air unit. The test I ran produced pretty high losses on the attacker side, while the recon came out pretty clean. Furthermore, it is taking a pounding from AA (especially from a naval unit).

Could work. Dunno 'bout dat Helicopter stuff. My interest starts to fade after 1945.

[vahauser]

Okay.  I just added the He-115 to my spreadsheet.  There were only 138 of all variants of the He-115 produced so this makes it a minor aircraft.  But I realize that even a few aircraft can be very important in certain battles, like Norway 1940.
 
He-115B1, air attack = 2, air defense = 10
He-115C1, air attack = 3, air defense = 11
 

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Okay.  I just added the He-115 to my spreadsheet.  There were only 138 of all variants of the He-115 produced so this makes it a minor aircraft.  But I realize that even a few aircraft can be very important in certain battles, like Norway 1940.

He-115B1, air attack = 2, air defense = 10
He-115C1, air attack = 3, air defense = 11

ORIGINAL: vahauser

only 138 of all variants of the He-115

138? I'm looking at data that says 141 He 115E produced in 1943 alone (production having been resumed after stopping in 1941). Do I have bad data? Or perhaps the E variant was used for something else?

As for minor...I say hah...she is a beautiful bird. LOL.

I remember seeing some game or another saying something about Sicily being a "holy grail" of game design. Not in my eyes. It is my opinion that if you can successfully do justice to Norway you have truly accomplished a feat. Looks simple but is quite complex in the details. Little bit of everything.


Pretty high numbers for Defense...any reason?

[vahauser]

Colin,
 
You raised the thorniest issue involved with rating air units.  The main reason I stopped playing TOAW years ago was because many (most?) of the air ranges were inaccurate and I couldn't fix them.  But now we finally have the BioEd and I can play TOAW again.
 
I'm not saying that rating combat ranges for aircraft is easy.  Far from it.  I've been rating wargame units for many years (ground, naval, and air) and I believe that producing consistent historically realistic combat ranges for aircraft is the single most difficult rating to produce in all of wargame design/development. 
 
Let's talk about the He-115C1.
 
It could carry a maximum of 1470kg of ordnance (usually mines or a torpedo).  Or it could carry extra fuel.  It could not do both.  Its range carrying maximum fuel is 3,300km and its range carrying maximum ordnance is 2,100km.  Based on USAAF operational doctrines, 3/8 of an aircraft's range is considered to be its operational (or combat) radius.  This means that the operational radius of the He-115C1 would be around 790km carrying full ordnance.
 
But that is only the beginning of the problem.  What about when the He-115C1 is not carrying full ordnance in order to fly an extended-range mission?  Or what about when the He-115C1 is intended to rebase and is not carrying any ordnance at all?  Or what about "standard" ordnance instead of "full" ordnance, what is its operational radius then? 
 
For example, the B-17G in 1944/45 could carry a maximum bomb load of over 17,000lbs for a short distance at low altitude, but its "standard" bomb load was 4,000-5,000lbs at high altitude over a much longer distance.
 
When faced with a problem that has no complete solution, and when faced with having to provide a single aggregate rating to cover a wide variety of situations, rating air ranges becomes more of an art than a science.
 
One of the reasons I haven't posted sample air ranges yet is because I was hoping somebody like you would come along and describe the way TOAW uses its range data field in the BioEd. 
Are ranges entered in kilometers or miles? 
Are there "hidden" uses that the game engine applies to ranges? 

[vahauser]

wolflars,

Please forgive me.  I was looking at the wrong line on my notes.  Around 400 He-115s of all variants were produced between 1937 and 1944.  Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

EDIT: Yes, all my air ratings are intended to be somewhere between 2 and 3 times what you are used to seeing for WW2 aircraft in TOAW.

The main reason is because I wanted greater granularity across the air-rating spectrum to provide a wider variety of air-unit ratings. Since I am only interested in WW2, I am not restricted to a narrower spectrum of air ratings (currently TOAW has to squeeze WW2 ratings in between WW1 and the 21st Century, my ratings are not burdened with those restrictions).

The second reason is that I've read threads on this forum that indicates that antiaircraft fire from ground and naval units was too effective. My aircraft ratings should help fix that problem.

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Could work. Dunno 'bout dat Helicopter stuff. My interest starts to fade after 1945.

Well, there are no actual helos in it, just the icon. Maybe I'll take a look at some of Boonierats stuff, perhaps he has done it.

Yeah, me too, 1945 is roughly the cutoff.

Now, on to more important things Colin, what are you doing responding to my non-sense questions (thanks by the way) when you have more pressing business. Get back over to that thread and respond to IronDuke! TOAW honor is at stake. Besides, you guys are all very entertaining. I'm making popcorn and planning to re-read the entire thread. Seriously, it's like War and Peace over there! Christ, it's like having homework. Last week you guys had me up all night reading Naval Gunnery manuals and just about the entire Royal Navy's report on the Hood/PoW/Bismarck fiasco.

Hexside Thunderdome!!
hexes v. hex...two go in, one comes out....

the winner gets my $50: will it be TOAW IV or CA? Considering how much I have already spent on TOAW in the past I suppose I am already somewhat committed...or should be committed. Sigh, who am I kidding? I already know I will buy both...the real question is: Will they actually be released before I find something better to occupy my time...like knitting, or kite flying, or building a 1:1 scale model of a He 115....................

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Could work. Dunno 'bout dat Helicopter stuff. My interest starts to fade after 1945.

Well, there are no actual helos in it, just the icon. Maybe I'll take a look at some of Boonierats stuff, perhaps he has done it.

Yeah, me too, 1945 is roughly the cutoff.

Now, on to more important things Colin, what are you doing responding to my non-sense questions (thanks by the way) when you have more pressing business. Get back over to that thread and respond to IronDuke!

Last time I looked Iron Duke had just thrown up the longest post I'd ever seen. Can't compete with that -- besides, 'Curtis LeMay' seems to be keeping him thoroughly occupied.

I think I'll just wait until they're both exhausted and then go back over and declare victory.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Could work. Dunno 'bout dat Helicopter stuff. My interest starts to fade after 1945.

Well, there are no actual helos in it, just the icon. Maybe I'll take a look at some of Boonierats stuff, perhaps he has done it...

Now you've got me interested. One could just put in a different icon -- then see what helicopters can actually do.

Have to look into this -- we might be able to postpone Seelowe into 2008 after all.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


AT 0. AP 1. Combat radius 1333 km. AA 2. Defense 4. Low-altitude. Anti-shipping capable.

Thanks Colin.

Did you use He 115s in any of your scenarios?

Also, for wishing in one hand...I wish my He 115s could lay mines. Sigh.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Pretty hard to simulate their role directly -- basically part of your recon rating.

Let me run this by you then:

I am simply trying to give one player a recon advantage that he can "concentrate" on a given area.

I would prefer to use aircraft for this purpose since the scenario would call for it.

So, what about putting a couple of aircraft in a Helo Recon Unit. As far as I can tell it still requires an airfield and is subject to AA and air superiority. It cannot attack or support ground units in any manner. But nor can it be subject to airfield attack. Any side effects that I should know about? I think what I don't know for sure is how it is treated by an enemy intercepting air unit. The test I ran produced pretty high losses on the attacker side, while the recon came out pretty clean. Furthermore, it is taking a pounding from AA (especially from a naval unit).

..the problem with any aircraft is they need an airfield, and only fly in straight lines. You can plaster airfields round the edge of the map and they can fly between them, but it's clumsy..

..the best solution is still a helio with the correct range and the recon flag ticked but if you want it to overfly enemy hexes it needs active defender ticked too..

[vahauser]

a white rabbit,
 
Are you saying that airplanes work better as helicopters?