Sample Air Ratings

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

a white rabbit,

Are you saying that airplanes work better as helicopters?

He's refering to reconaissance aircraft.

[vahauser]

golden delicious,
 
Ah.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: vahauser

a white rabbit,

Are you saying that airplanes work better as helicopters?

He's refering to reconaissance aircraft.

Dunno if the approach would pan out anyway. I suspect it would mean that you could gain perfect intelligence on any one sector you wished to gain it on. Hard to imagine Market Garden going ahead under this system.

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: 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..

So you are saying to just bio-ed a helo, give it appropriate stats, and call it "Piper cub" or "Storch" or whatever.

If so that might be better than what I tried earlier. Especially considering that these little guys can land damn near anywhere, thus no airfield required.

As it was with my experiment, extra airfields were not needed. I could fly the unit (helo recon unit with 3 B-24s) and stop where I pleased as long as it was not on a known enemy controlled hex, turn around, all over the place. Return to airfield and "disembark" to end the mission. It was pretty silly, even made the helo sound. The range of this thing was extreme, and oddly it did not reveal all enemy it was adjacent to.

My biggest concern is how it will get treated by enemy AA and AS mission.

As far as gaining a clearer intel picture, that's what I am shooting for. The map is large enough that this air asset can really only affect a very small area and there will only be one of these units for a short period of time (event withdraw several turns after its arrival). But, rather than give an abstract and rather random intel picture of the battlefield as the theater recon seems to, the player can "concentrate" on the area he needs/wants to.

This might be stretching some of the features/capabilities but it would be interesting to see how well it could work.

[cesteman]

Awsome list. Keep up the good work. I'd like to see a file sharing area where people can download equipment files other users want to share. Cheers.
 

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: 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.

On the other hand, most were probably used primarily for reconnaissance. So one winds back at only a handful appearing in roles that would make them visible as units in OPART.

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.

Should. On the other hand, one also has to look ahead. The mutterings from the Gods suggest that the flak problem has been acknowledged and will be addressed. You may be modifying your database into obsolescence.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Should. On the other hand, one also has to look ahead. The mutterings from the Gods suggest that the flak problem has been acknowledged and will be addressed. You may be modifying your database into obsolescence.

Colin,

You raise an interesting concern. However, if my ratings are rendered obsolete due to an occurance in the future, then I will still have the spreadsheets used to create this database and I'll be able to make the appropriate adjustments.

As of today, however, my air-ratings spreadsheet is doing what I want it to do. I'm comfortable with my air-combat ratings for now. I think they are accurate (well, as accurate as they can be given the inherent flaws with an aggregate-total rating) to within a point or two. As always, the big problem is with the ranges.

As of today, right this moment, my estimate of the range is as follows:
1) Determine the "standard" combat range in kilometers when carrying a "standard" load.
2) Use the USAAF World-War-Two doctrine of establishing operational radius as 3/8 of the "standard" combat range.

Example. TOAW III sets the range of the late-war B-17 as 2080. This is way wrong. It's wrong because 2080 is the standard combat range in miles, not kilometers. At least TOAW got the 2080 part mostly right (well, it's close enough to use in this example). EDIT2: I've noticed that TOAW makes this mistake a lot (for instance, the range of the B-29 is also listed in miles, not kilometers, and the range provided is for the early B-29s in 1944 and not the B-29s in 1945). Anyway, first I have to convert that to kilometers. 3347. Okay, easy enough. Next, take 3/8 of 3347. 1255. There you go. 1255 kilometers will take the late-war B-17s from England to targets pretty much anywhere within Germany. This is historically accurate.

Of course there is a big problem with this. What about when you want to fly short range combat missions with maximum bomb loads, like they did when carpet bombing during Cobra, or when you want to fly extended range bombing missions with a smaller (but still marginally useful) bomb load, like they did during the "shuttle-bombing" missions they flew to and from the USSR? Well, you can't. TOAW only allows me to provide a single "general-purpose" range.

Anyway, you can expect the late-war B-17s to have a range (actually, operational combat radius) in my database of around 1255 kilometers (it might be a little more or less because I like to cross-check my range data with several sources, but 1255 seems close for now).

EDIT1: As an historical aside, the shuttle-bombing missions began in June 1944 and ended later that year. The really interesting thing about the shuttle-bombing missions, in terms of TOAW, is that USAAF P-38 and P-51 fighters had enough range to escort the bombers the whole way (they took off from England, escorted the bombers to their targets, and then continued to escort the bombers all the way to their bases in Russia). I have no clue as to how I can represent this in TOAW. But one thing is clear, the P-38s and P-51s could fly a long way.

[Szilard]

Do really want so many types to be low-level aircraft? AFAIK, the only effect this has is to make them (more?) vulnerable to light flak.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: Szilard

Do really want so many types to be low-level aircraft? AFAIK, the only effect this has is to make them (more?) vulnerable to light flak.

Szilard,

The altitude ratings (high or low) for aircraft I've provided are historical. The standard TOAW III database uses a much broader altitude spectrum than I do. I'm focusing only on WW2 and I don't have to worry about 21st Century aircraft flying at 60,000+ altitudes.

Historically, very few WW2 aircraft could fly as high as 40,000 feet (a very few specialized recon aircraft could get to 50,000 feet). I used the "traditional" WW2 cutoff between High and Low as 20,000 feet. 20,000 feet is the "traditional" cutoff between high and low because that is where most supercharged engines kicked in for high-altitude performance.

Aircraft that didn't have high-altitude superchargers operated best below 20,000 feet (the FW-190A is a perfect example of this). But aircraft that had effective high-altitude superchargers (like the B-17 and the P-47 and the Me 109) could operate well at altitudes over 20,000 feet. Indeed, the P-47 was not nearly as effective below 20,000 feet as it was above 20,000 feet (and throughout 1944-45, Me 109s often flew top cover for FW-190s).

So, I used 20,000 feet as the cutoff between high and low due to actual historical reasons. Most antiaircraft guns in WW2 were not very effective above 20,000 feet. Only the heavy AA guns were capable of engaging aircraft above 20,000 feet. The historical fact is that most air activity during WW2 happened below 20,000 feet (mainly because most WW2 aircraft weren't well equipped to operate above 20,000 feet).

Hence, those aircraft that actually operated effectively above 20,000 feet (because they were specifically designed to do so) got a High rating. All the others (the majority) got Low ratings.

There is no denying that this makes most aircraft vulnerable to AA fire. This is also historically accurate. However, since my air ratings are larger than standard TOAW III air ratings, then all AA fire should be less effective overall using my WW2 database compared to standard TOAW III antiaircraft fire.

P.S. Compared to standard TOAW III air ratings, I think standard TOAW III air ratings actually have more Low rated aircraft than my WW2 database ratings. This means I've actually increased the number of High-rated aircraft in my WW2 database compared to standard TOAW III.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: wolflars




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.




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..

So you are saying to just bio-ed a helo, give it appropriate stats, and call it "Piper cub" or "Storch" or whatever.

If so that might be better than what I tried earlier. Especially considering that these little guys can land damn near anywhere, thus no airfield required.

As it was with my experiment, extra airfields were not needed. I could fly the unit (helo recon unit with 3 B-24s) and stop where I pleased as long as it was not on a known enemy controlled hex, turn around, all over the place. Return to airfield and "disembark" to end the mission. It was pretty silly, even made the helo sound. The range of this thing was extreme, and oddly it did not reveal all enemy it was adjacent to.

My biggest concern is how it will get treated by enemy AA and AS mission.

As far as gaining a clearer intel picture, that's what I am shooting for. The map is large enough that this air asset can really only affect a very small area and there will only be one of these units for a short period of time (event withdraw several turns after its arrival). But, rather than give an abstract and rather random intel picture of the battlefield as the theater recon seems to, the player can "concentrate" on the area he needs/wants to.

This might be stretching some of the features/capabilities but it would be interesting to see how well it could work.

..basically yes, BioEd a helio. I tried using a suitable airplane, Ben might have seen that Dinant varient, and it just didn't work, they have to have airfields where as a helio doesn't, they fly in straight lines and a helio can go round in circles repeatedly over the same group of hexes if you want etc.

..the helio option, if made weak enough, is a walkover to shoot down, it's values want to be worse than one of the early WW1 planes, maybe a bit better for a Lysander type. The recon value is linked to number in a unit.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

ORIGINAL: Szilard

Do really want so many types to be low-level aircraft? AFAIK, the only effect this has is to make them (more?) vulnerable to light flak.

Szilard,

The altitude ratings (high or low) for aircraft I've provided are historical. The standard TOAW III database uses a much broader altitude spectrum than I do. I'm focusing only on WW2 and I don't have to worry about 21st Century aircraft flying at 60,000+ altitudes.

Historically, very few WW2 aircraft could fly as high as 40,000 feet (a very few specialized recon aircraft could get to 50,000 feet). I used the "traditional" WW2 cutoff between High and Low as 20,000 feet. 20,000 feet is the "traditional" cutoff between high and low because that is where most supercharged engines kicked in for high-altitude performance.

Aircraft that didn't have high-altitude superchargers operated best below 20,000 feet (the FW-190A is a perfect example of this). But aircraft that had effective high-altitude superchargers (like the B-17 and the P-47 and the Me 109) could operate well at altitudes over 20,000 feet. Indeed, the P-47 was not nearly as effective below 20,000 feet as it was above 20,000 feet (and throughout 1944-45, Me 109s often flew top cover for FW-190s).

So, I used 20,000 feet as the cutoff between high and low due to actual historical reasons. Most antiaircraft guns in WW2 were not very effective above 20,000 feet. Only the heavy AA guns were capable of engaging aircraft above 20,000 feet. The historical fact is that most air activity during WW2 happened below 20,000 feet (mainly because most WW2 aircraft weren't well equipped to operate above 20,000 feet).

Hence, those aircraft that actually operated effectively above 20,000 feet (because they were specifically designed to do so) got a High rating. All the others (the majority) got Low ratings.

There is no denying that this makes most aircraft vulnerable to AA fire. This is also historically accurate. However, since my air ratings are larger than standard TOAW III air ratings, then all AA fire should be less effective overall using my WW2 database compared to standard TOAW III antiaircraft fire.

P.S. Compared to standard TOAW III air ratings, I think standard TOAW III air ratings actually have more Low rated aircraft than my WW2 database ratings. This means I've actually increased the number of High-rated aircraft in my WW2 database compared to standard TOAW III.

I always assumed the high/low altitude thing had nothing to do with the aircraft's abilities at air combat but at what height it bombed from. A B-17 is high altitude and a Typhoon is low altitude because the B-17 bombs from 10,000 feet and the Typhoon from 200 -- not because one can fly higher than the other.

[ColinWright]

The range thing is also an interesting problem. It seems okay for fighters on air superiority -- as you get out towards their maximum range a smaller and smaller proportion of them show up.

For example, in the opening turns of Seelowe it really behooves the Germans to draw Fighter Command down into a nice dogfight over Kent. Doesn't matter what's bombed -- the point is to have the action happen at an average distance of fifteen hexes from the German bases and thirty hexes from the British bases. Then 742 Bf-109's show up and have their way with 93 Hurricanes and 52 Spitfires.

Where the system falls down is with direct combat support. One reason Stukas were so effective, for example, was that they were often based ten minutes' flying time from the battle: they could respond quickly and easily put in five sorties a day in support. This is something one doesn't get at all in TOAW.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I always assumed the high/low altitude thing had nothing to do with the aircraft's abilities at air combat but at what height it bombed from. A B-17 is high altitude and a Typhoon is low altitude because the B-17 bombs from 10,000 feet and the Typhoon from 200 -- not because one can fly higher than the other.

Colin,

Both air combat and bombing altitude must be considered when determining high/low ratings.

Your concept is sound, but your numbers are a bit off. The common bombing altitude for B-17s was between 24,000 and 28,000 feet, B-24s were a little lower and B-29s were higher (the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was dropped from 32,000 feet).

The 20,000-foot cutoff works realistically (in historical terms) for determining which WW2 aircraft get High and which aircraft get Low ratings.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The range thing is also an interesting problem. It seems okay for fighters on air superiority -- as you get out towards their maximum range a smaller and smaller proportion of them show up.

For example, in the opening turns of Seelowe it really behooves the Germans to draw Fighter Command down into a nice dogfight over Kent. Doesn't matter what's bombed -- the point is to have the action happen at an average distance of fifteen hexes from the German bases and thirty hexes from the British bases. Then 742 Bf-109's show up and have their way with 93 Hurricanes and 52 Spitfires.

Where the system falls down is with direct combat support. One reason Stukas were so effective, for example, was that they were often based ten minutes' flying time from the battle: they could respond quickly and easily put in five sorties a day in support. This is something one doesn't get at all in TOAW.

Colin,

What my WW2 database will provide is an historically realistic set of operational radii for WW2 aircraft. All I can do is provide the best ratings I can. It is up to the scenario designers to figure out how to best employ those ratings.

You are correct that forward air bases were advantageous operationally. Scenario designers must solve this problem to the best of their ability. Also, air-unit Proficiency Levels have a lot to do with how many sorties an air unit can fly during a turn, right?

[ColinWright]

As far as I know, the high/low rating has nothing to do with how air combat is resolved; only with what types of flak can shoot at the plane when it is used for close support or whatever. If that's so, then the operational ceiling of the aircraft is irrelevant -- what matters is how it was employed in combat.

In other words, while the Short Stirling -- as I recall -- had a rather low operational ceiling, it would definitely be a high altitude bomber.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The range thing is also an interesting problem. It seems okay for fighters on air superiority -- as you get out towards their maximum range a smaller and smaller proportion of them show up.

For example, in the opening turns of Seelowe it really behooves the Germans to draw Fighter Command down into a nice dogfight over Kent. Doesn't matter what's bombed -- the point is to have the action happen at an average distance of fifteen hexes from the German bases and thirty hexes from the British bases. Then 742 Bf-109's show up and have their way with 93 Hurricanes and 52 Spitfires.

Where the system falls down is with direct combat support. One reason Stukas were so effective, for example, was that they were often based ten minutes' flying time from the battle: they could respond quickly and easily put in five sorties a day in support. This is something one doesn't get at all in TOAW.

Colin,

What my WW2 database will provide is an historically realistic set of operational radii for WW2 aircraft. All I can do is provide the best ratings I can. It is up to the scenario designers to figure out how to best employ those ratings.

You are correct that forward air bases were advantageous operationally. Scenario designers must solve this problem to the best of their ability. Also, air-unit Proficiency Levels have a lot to do with how many sorties an air unit can fly during a turn, right?

No...I don't think air unit proficiencies would affect how many times you can use a given air unit in a turn -- except insofar as the rating might be involved in some quality check to see if the unit goes into reorganization.

[vahauser]

Colin,
 
I think you are correct regarding Proficiency affecting air sorties.  It might be Readiness that determines whether a unit goes into reorganization, right?  And don't air ranges steadily decrease as the % of the turn is used up?  Doesn't that mean that air units at forward bases will get to fly more missions than those far away?  I don't know.
 
Anyway, if I provide historically realistic operational ranges, then at least scenario designers will have a fighting chance to design historically reasonable scenarios.  I don't know what else I can do given that I can only provide a single range rating for each aircraft.
 
Regarding the high/low altitude issue.  The current TOAW III database is all over the place with its high/low ratings.  At least my altitude ratings are consistent based on solid historical data (even if they are out of calibration with current TOAW today, then I can recalibrate tomorrow as needed).  Now, you might be correct and high/low is only a concern for AA fire.  If you are correct, then all I need to do is to discover what TOAW considers light AA to be.  Is light AA all AA weaponry 50mm and below?  Something else?  Anyway, once I determine what TOAW considers to be light AA and heavy AA, then I can determine the ceiling for light AA fire.  And once I do that, then I can determine how best to re-calibrate the aircraft for high/low ratings.
 
As of now, my priority is to rate the ranges first (ranges are a real pain to do and take a lot of time), and then do any necessary re-calibrating of high/low ratings.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I think you are correct regarding Proficiency affecting air sorties.  It might be Readiness that determines whether a unit goes into reorganization, right?

Most likely unit quality, which is (2*proficiency + readiness + supply)/4.

And don't air ranges steadily decrease as the % of the turn is used up?

Not in my experience. If anything, the longer-ranged (and further back) aircraft make more strikes because they're in range of more targets.

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Regarding the high/low altitude issue.  The current TOAW III database is all over the place with its high/low ratings.  At least my altitude ratings are consistent based on solid historical data (even if they are out of calibration with current TOAW today, then I can recalibrate tomorrow as needed).  Now, you might be correct and high/low is only a concern for AA fire.  If you are correct, then all I need to do is to discover what TOAW considers light AA to be.  Is light AA all AA weaponry 50mm and below?  Something else?  Anyway, once I determine what TOAW considers to be light AA and heavy AA, then I can determine the ceiling for light AA fire.  And once I do that, then I can determine how best to re-calibrate the aircraft for high/low ratings.

Light AA = AA equipment with neither the "High Altitude" nor the "High/Low Altitude" flag set. You can see this in the equipment description in the in-game editor, where such equipment will be described as "Low Altitude", and of course you can change the flags in BioEd (on page P5).

[vahauser]

Okay.  I checked the BioEd and currently TOAW III considers every AA weapon smaller than 75mm to be low-altitude and every AA weapon 75mm and larger to be high-altitude.  The largest AA weapon in the BioEd smaller than 75mm is a listing for a Soviet 57mm gun.  However, I can't find reliable performance data for that gun. 
 
The good news is that I found a reference to the French 57mm AA gun (the model 1951) that was mounted on the Jean Bart.  That weapon has a listed AA performance of 18,040 feet.  Therefore, the current TOAW III database defines "low-altitude" as anything below at least 18,040 feet.  But since the weakest 75mm AA gun I can find (the Japanese Type 11, first produced in 1922) has an AA altitude of 21,800 feet, then clearly the cutoff between what TOAW III considers high and low altitude occurs somwhere between 18,040 feet and 21,800 feet. 
 
My estimate of 20,000 feet (based on other historical considerations) looks pretty good to me as a reasonable cutoff between high and low altitude based on what TOAW III defines as high and low altitude.