x.7895 issues and 7.7896 uploading

[okami]

Just to throw in my 2 cents on the P38 issue. In CHS if I meet the P38 it all depends on the missions being flown. I have found that when flying escort against the P38 I take serious casualties regardless of the fighter I am using(A6m3a,Ki44,Ki61). But when I do sweep missions I can expect equal loses vs CAP. Also number of strike makes a big difference. We can get a general feel of how an aircraft will do by the numbers(Speed,Maneuver,durability) but until you test the plane in combat against it's contemperaries you really can't know how it will perform. Speed is more important than maneuverability in the game so don't underestimate the P38 because it does not have the maneuverability you think it should have. It is a knife fighter and a good one. Allied tactics emphized this form of combat and the P38 was one of the best a hit and run.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: okami

Just to throw in my 2 cents on the P38 issue. In CHS if I meet the P38 it all depends on the missions being flown. I have found that when flying escort against the P38 I take serious casualties regardless of the fighter I am using(A6m3a,Ki44,Ki61). But when I do sweep missions I can expect equal loses vs CAP. Also number of strike makes a big difference. We can get a general feel of how an aircraft will do by the numbers(Speed,Maneuver,durability) but until you test the plane in combat against it's contemperaries you really can't know how it will perform. Speed is more important than maneuverability in the game so don't underestimate the P38 because it does not have the maneuverability you think it should have. It is a knife fighter and a good one. Allied tactics emphized this form of combat and the P38 was one of the best a hit and run.

But doesn't tactics, such as was use by the P-38 and the Navy fighters with the Thatch Weave, have to be calculated through the use of adjusting the other attributes (as with the AVG P-40) in order to balance the fighters abilities? Or, is that a factor accounted for by pilot experience gain?

I'm sure glad we have others to try and figure these things out.

[witpqs]

Okami - I understand and agree there is more to the performance than that one rating. The issue I am concerned about is simply that the ratings be accurate per the airplane. Right now it's a big difference (for that one rating).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Some minor findings regarding ANZAC command (under 7.7895). In some cases of wrong nationality I believe it was set intentionally to simulate natives. Not sure if nationality has any relevance anyway...


UnitID Name Type Nationality Error
2585 AUST Perth Industry Coastal defense unit Dutch Nationality/Planning
2588 AA Whyalla Coastal defense unit New Zealand Nationality/Planning
3333 AA/RAAF Melbourne Coastal defense unit Australian Planning
2735 FF Tahiti Station Coastal defense unit French Planning
2646 NZA Det 9th Hvy CD Coastal defense unit New Zealand Planning
2602 NZA Tonga Def Force Coastal defense unit Philippines Nationality/Planning
2599 AA NGVR Infantry unit Philippines Nationality
2596 AA Papuan Infantry Infantry unit Philippines Nationality
2544 AA Christmas I Coastal defense unit Indian Nationality
2667 USMC Samoan Marine Infantry unit Philippines Nationality






Nationality has two effects - and sometimes is deliberately "wrong" in RHS - to get those effects:

some nationalities (Dutch and Philippines) won't regenerate when lost.
all nationalities have modifiers for land combat - and we use these to get the right modifier for colonial or militia type troops - or to reflect that the troops are indeed of that nationality in fact (whatever the flag may say)

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yeah - but not all - and note the dates. Fighting Oscars or Zeros in 1943 or 1944 is not exactly a fair fight. These are planes without armor.
The Oscar has no cannon at all and only two guns (possibly - probably - one of which is a .30 cal). Not very impressive competition.

We used to hunt Me-262s with propeller fighters - over their own airfield. Returning home out of gas, they were easy prey. He may have some of those sorts of things. Tired pilots out of ammo, unable to maneuver, flying low and slow - you swoop down behind em and clean up. What can they do? Not very much.

Air combat is not fair. And 9 in 10 kills are one sided in another sense: the target never knew it was a fight, never saw the attacker. P-38 can do very well - and in PTO did do very well - but it isn't going to look as good in a head to head strait up fight as IRL - because IRL you don't usually fight that way.

I know air combat is not fair Old Chap, but the point is the P-38 was a true fighter and not a fighter version of a bomber, which is where you have stuck it. The F and G models exposed it's limitations at certain heights in MTO/ETO combat, which allowed the big improvements in the J/L.

I see. Well- I started with CHS - no one pointed that out - and that is easily fixed. WITP fighter bombers are a wierd category of code - not good as fighters - and I agree with you. It requires no change in values - and it is in.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Anybody knows which hexes trigger the indo-china japanese militia in RHS (see manual chapter 8.8)?

I don't think it happens in any form of WITP. I have never been able to trigger it in stock, CHS, RHS, ever.
It would be certain hexes in CHS original map or stock map near the border of China - and I have filled them all - with no result.
These hexes are probably the same - or almost the same - in RHS - that part of the map has not moved much. But I see no
such events. Possibly they must occur after a certain date?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid, if someone else rejected hard test data (as presented in the scans of WWII test results documents) in favor of their own mathematical formula the way that you have been doing, you would cry foul. The combat results are corroborative, not mere anecdotes in a vacuum.

I try to understand the reports.

But it is like being a medical doctor. This is a very complex program - and it is hard to know what is going on. It takes focused tests to show what is going on - not wide open ones.

Since you have no specific example, I cannot comment specifically. Players have lots of ways to rig the reports - even without intention to do so. And lots of things impact what you seem to see. Sometimes reports are not even honest (code often "loses" data for example).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: okami

Just to throw in my 2 cents on the P38 issue. In CHS if I meet the P38 it all depends on the missions being flown. I have found that when flying escort against the P38 I take serious casualties regardless of the fighter I am using(A6m3a,Ki44,Ki61). But when I do sweep missions I can expect equal loses vs CAP. Also number of strike makes a big difference. We can get a general feel of how an aircraft will do by the numbers(Speed,Maneuver,durability) but until you test the plane in combat against it's contemperaries you really can't know how it will perform. Speed is more important than maneuverability in the game so don't underestimate the P38 because it does not have the maneuverability you think it should have. It is a knife fighter and a good one. Allied tactics emphized this form of combat and the P38 was one of the best a hit and run.

But doesn't tactics, such as was use by the P-38 and the Navy fighters with the Thatch Weave, have to be calculated through the use of adjusting the other attributes (as with the AVG P-40) in order to balance the fighters abilities? Or, is that a factor accounted for by pilot experience gain?

I'm sure glad we have others to try and figure these things out.

The P-38 does not depend on this in the same sense. If we went that way - we would have to think about the wierd "loose VIC" of the Japanese - and the "turning in maneuver" as well. [This permits a Japanese fighter to defeat even a superior aircraft - and it worked early in the war - and was adopted by the Army. Invented by a student - it was observed by Genda - who made the student do it while he followed him until he understood it. Genda was at that time a training officer - and head of the "blue angels of Japan" - the navy stunt team nicknamed the "flying circus" in honor of the von Richthoven WWI fighter pilots. He was famous - and what he taught - everyone listened to - in Japan.
This may even justify the "zero bonus" - which is applied to Claude and a6m2 in RHS - but should also be given to Oscar I and Nate. Normally we cannot consider tactics in WITP.

Note that P 38 will be reclassified - from now - as a fighter. A couple of other fighter bombers are so classified - including one Japanese one.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Okami - I understand and agree there is more to the performance than that one rating. The issue I am concerned about is simply that the ratings be accurate per the airplane. Right now it's a big difference (for that one rating).

There is also a big difference in other ratings - which favor the P-38 - so why not think about them in the package? It has great speed, greater range than almost anything, great ROC, and no single engine plane can compare for durability. The effect of ratings is approximately the product of them - and you could do worse than to multiply ALL the ratings to get an index of a fighter's worth.

But the part about being a fighter bomber is different: CODE makes this "worse than a fighter - worse than a bomber" - and it should not be used for a superb fighter - which also is allowed to bomb.

[el cid again]

Houston - we have a (ship production) problem - or two.

1) We cannot measure what is needed for warships - the code seems to "cheat" and use "extra points" again

2) I no longer believe we can measure non warships. These include surprising things - MSW seem to be merchant ships!
WITP was not designed for thousands of landing craft, minor vessels, and we have added these - in five figures.

Working on both - and I will get it - but maybe not today. Not working tomorrow. This will be addressed - even if I have to "cheat" and fool code.

One thing: merchant ships cost too much in CODE terms - 3 HI points - same as warships. So I can justify giving you "free" points - to make them cheaper. Wartime expansion will not be efficient - but that is fair too - if you dilute workers (Japan did with unskilled and with prisoners) efficiency goes down.) So one solution is to not buy all the points.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yeah - but not all - and note the dates. Fighting Oscars or Zeros in 1943 or 1944 is not exactly a fair fight. These are planes without armor.
The Oscar has no cannon at all and only two guns (possibly - probably - one of which is a .30 cal). Not very impressive competition.

We used to hunt Me-262s with propeller fighters - over their own airfield. Returning home out of gas, they were easy prey. He may have some of those sorts of things. Tired pilots out of ammo, unable to maneuver, flying low and slow - you swoop down behind em and clean up. What can they do? Not very much.

Air combat is not fair. And 9 in 10 kills are one sided in another sense: the target never knew it was a fight, never saw the attacker. P-38 can do very well - and in PTO did do very well - but it isn't going to look as good in a head to head strait up fight as IRL - because IRL you don't usually fight that way.

I know air combat is not fair Old Chap, but the point is the P-38 was a true fighter and not a fighter version of a bomber, which is where you have stuck it. The F and G models exposed it's limitations at certain heights in MTO/ETO combat, which allowed the big improvements in the J/L.

I see. Well- I started with CHS - no one pointed that out - and that is easily fixed. WITP fighter bombers are a wierd category of code - not good as fighters - and I agree with you. It requires no change in values - and it is in.

Hi Cid

Sorry, I feel I have confused you. My point is that you have treated it like a fighter developed from a bomber (such as the Mosquito), rather than a fighter developed as a fighter. The twin boom layout with a small pod for the pilot/weapons created a far more dynamic fighter than the long range fighters developed by other nations. It later developed into a superb fighter-bomber (as did most fighters when it was realised that they really were easier/better than specialist dive-bombers and close support aircraft). It is only misrepresented in RHS terms of manoeuvrability. This is an opinion only (shared by others, but as before there are more than a few who agree with you too). This is an old argument which you appear to have forgotten slightly and I had no wish to confuse you or add to your immense workload.

[el cid again]

I think you have a point never before considered - by anyone - stock - CHS - RHS - me. And this new argument also supports classifying all P--38 as fighters. You will have better air combat results if we do that - with the same numbers - it is how code works. Lets try it.

I do not agree P-38 maneuverability is misrepresented - and if it is we will modify it. I will give a boost for an exception. But our scheme shows superb maneiverability when the powered flaps were introduced. We modifiied the rating system until it showed up - and the ratio

16 / 17 / 23 shows it well.

What we cannot honestly ignore is that there is more than one aspect of maneuverability - which is misnamed - in WITP - and we should not give the plane what it does not have - which is equal maneuverability in all senses with the single engie types - just as we cannot give them the durability of a P-38. Otherwise we should just have "fighters" and make em all equal - sort of like RISK has "armies"

[el cid again]

7.7896 series in the upload to primary distribution process - packaging done

fingers crossed

[m10bob]

The P 38 took 10 miles to turn around at speed, and of course this was known prior to combat.Therefore, the plane would only be operated on its' known strengths,(unless the pilot panicked and tried to turn or dogfight.).This should NOT alter the plane being a "fighter", IMHO, and it should not be penalized for being capable of carrying bombs, on other missions.
Besides, if we started labelling all planes for there abilities of carrying bombs, EVERY A6M2 after mid 1942 would be a fighter bomber and this apparently would end its' lustrous dogfighting capability.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think you have a point never before considered - by anyone - stock - CHS - RHS - me. And this new argument also supports classifying all P--38 as fighters. You will have better air combat results if we do that - with the same numbers - it is how code works. Lets try it.

I do not agree P-38 maneuverability is misrepresented - and if it is we will modify it. I will give a boost for an exception. But our scheme shows superb maneiverability when the powered flaps were introduced. We modifiied the rating system until it showed up - and the ratio

16 / 17 / 23 shows it well.

What we cannot honestly ignore is that there is more than one aspect of maneuverability - which is misnamed - in WITP - and we should not give the plane what it does not have - which is equal maneuverability in all senses with the single engie types - just as we cannot give them the durability of a P-38. Otherwise we should just have "fighters" and make em all equal - sort of like RISK has "armies"

I may not have anything to do with the price of rice in China or maneuverability but here is a case for it's fighter ability durability and maneuverabilty or lack there of:


Major Thomas Buchanan McGuire Jr. (August 1, 1920–January 7, 1945) was the second highest scoring American ace during World War II, whose memory was preserved by the naming of McGuire Air Force Base in Burlington County, New Jersey.

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 First combat
1.2 Career
1.3 His last mission
2 Honors
3 See also
4 External links



[edit] Biography

Aviation Cadet Thomas B. McGuire.McGuire was born in Ridgewood, New Jersey, on August 1, 1920. He and his mother moved to Sebring, Florida in the late 1920s and McGuire graduated from Sebring High School in 1938. He enrolled at Georgia Tech and joined Beta Theta Pi but left after his third year to join the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1941, reporting to a contract flying school in Corsicana, Texas, as an aviation cadet. Later, he got his wings after finishing his flight training at Randolph Field, Texas.


[edit] First combat
During World War II, his first combat assignment was flying patrols over the Aleutian Islands and Alaska flying the P-39 Airacobra while assigned to the 54th Fighter Group. While scoring no aerial victories in the Aleutians, McGuire was able to hone his natural and instinctive gifts as a pilot. Returning to the United States in December 1942, he married Marilynn Giesler, a student at Incarnate Word College in San Antonio, Texas. In February 1943 he reported to Orange County Airport, California for transition training in the P-38 Lightning. In March 1943, he was sent to the South Pacific as a P-38 Lightning pilot with the 49th Fighter Group, Fifth Air Force.

Five months later, the 5th Air Force decided to create an entire group, the 475th Fighter Group, of P-38 fighters, at the behest of its commander, the legendary Lt Gen George Kenney. Because he was a natural leader and experienced pilot, McGuire was among those chosen to form the new group. He was assigned to the 431st Fighter Squadron. On August 18, 1943, McGuire was part of a group flying top cover for bombers striking at Wewak, New Guinea. Nearing their target, the fighters were attacked by Japanese aircraft. During the battle, McGuire shot down two Ki-43 "Oscars" and one Ki-61 "Tony." On the following day, near the same location, he downed two more Oscars. This established him as an air ace in two days, after undergoing a frustrating year of apprenticeship with no opportunities to engage the enemy.

McGuire's career nearly came to an end on 17 October 1943 when he scrambled from Dubodura, New Guinea to intercept approaching Japanese bombers being escorted by Zero fighters over Oro Bay, New Guinea. During the ensuing dogfight McGuire observed at least seven Japanese Zero fighters attacking a lone P-38 that was trailing smoke. Without hesitation McGuire dove into the seven enemy fighters and quickly shot down three. Unfortunately the remaining four Zeros were able to attack McGuire and severely damage his aircraft. With his controls shot out McGuire decided to bail out but as he exited the aircraft he found his parachute harness had snagged on something in the cockpit. From 12,000 ft to 5,000 ft McGuire struggled to free himself from the stricken fighter. Finally he was able to free himself and deploy his parachute only 1,000 ft from certain death. Fortunately he landed safely in the water and was rescued by a PT boat. He suffered a 7.7 mm bullet wound to his wrist and numerous other injuries including some broken ribs. He spent six weeks in the hospital before he returned to his unit. For his actions on this day he was awarded a Silver Star and a Purple Heart.


[edit] Career

Maj. Thomas B. McGuire Jr. with Richard I. Bong taken Nov. 15, 1944 in the Philippines.McGuire's skill at maneuvering the large twin-engined P-38 was legendary, and he eventually became one of the top scoring airmen in Air Force history. Had it not been for periodic illnesses and heavy administrative duties as Commander, 431st Fighter Squadron, McGuire would surely have become the United States’ leading ace. Charles Lindbergh bunked with him and flew as his wingman on a few highly unusual if unauthorized missions. Visitors recalled McGuire ordering Lindbergh around, telling him to run errands as though he were a servant. Lindbergh was sent home after a kill in the P-38 because the Army did not want to risk losing the famous pilot in a war he was not even supposed to be in[citation needed]. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, on the other hand, was supportive of Lindbergh's efforts and impressed with his innovations[1].McGuire even wrote a highly prized book on combat tactics for the entire 5th Air Force. On December 25-26 1944, McGuire reached the zenith of his career, downing at least seven Japanese fighter aircraft over two days over Luzon, Philippines. He was two victories away from Maj. Richard I. Bong, the USAAF’s all-time aerial victory leader. However, after cheating death many times on his way to 38 aerial victories, McGuire’s tremendous achievements soon came to a close.


[edit] His last mission
On January 7, 1945, McGuire was leading a group of four P-38s (he leading the flight, others being Major Jack Rittmayer (four victories), Captain Edwin Weaver (two victories) and Lieutenant Douglas Thropp (one victory), during a fighter sweep over northern Negros Island in the central Philippines. Their aim was to gain victories: McGuire desperately wanted to pass Major Richard Bong's score of 40 kills. After descending through cloud cover, McGuire’s flight orbited a Japanese airfield at Fabrica and then proceeded to a second Japanese airstrip at Manapla (also refered to as Carolina). As they approached Manapla they were confronted by a lone Ki-43 Hayabusa (“Oscar”), which immediately engaged McGuire's flight.

Flying in the number-three position, Lt. Doug Thropp observed the lone bogie trying to attack him in a head-on pass. Lt. Thropp instinctively broke hard left in an attempt to thwart the bogie's attack. The bogie turned with Thropp and fell into a trail position behind him while firing on him. Major Rittmayer, flying as Thropp's wingman, turned sharply towards the bogie and began firing on him. Meanwhile Major McGuire saw that the bogie was being engaged by Rittmayer and turned away from the dogfight to face an imminent threat to the flight from the opposite direction. Unfortunately for Major McGuire and his flight, the pilot of the lone Japanese aircraft, Warrant Officer Akira Sugimoto, was an instructor pilot with thousands of hours in that type of aircraft, broke away from Thropp and Rittmayer and reversed his turn to find McGuire and his wingman Ed Weaver directly in front of him. Sugimoto was easily able to catch up to McGuire and Weaver and attack them from behind.

As Sugimoto approached Weaver from behind, Weaver radioed that the bogie was now attacking him and cut to the inside of the turn to give Sugimoto a more difficult shot. McGuire, seeing that his wingman was being threatened, eased up on his turn rate in an effort to draw the bogie off of his wingman and onto himself. Sugimoto took the bait and switched his attack to McGuire. As Sugimoto approached from behind, Major McGuire attempted to thwart Sugimoto's attack by rapidly increasing his turn rate. Regretably this extremely dangerous maneuver, performed at only 300 feet above the ground, caused Major McGuire to stall his P-38, which then snap-rolled to an inverted position and then pitched down and crashed into the ground. He was killed on impact. At the start of the dogfight, McGuire had radioed everyone to keep their auxiliary fuel tanks, as they would be needed to reach their main objective later in the sweep. Many of McGuire's fellow P-38 pilots believe that this order, which was contrary to standard operating procedures, was the direct cause of McGuire's death.

After McGuire's crash Lt. Thropp caught up to Sugimoto and fired on him causing enough damage to his aircraft that he had to make a forced landing a few miles away from where McGuire crashed.

Less than a minute later, another Japanese aircraft, a Ki-84 Hayate (“Frank”) piloted by Technical Sergeant Mizunori Fukuda, appeared on the scene from the nearby airstrip at Manapla and attacked Major Jack Rittmayer in a head-on pass. Rittmayer's P-38 disintegrated from cannon shots and pitched down crashing into a river. Rittmayer was killed on impact. Captain Weaver observed Fukuda's attack on Rittmayer and fired at Fukuda severely damaging his aircraft. Fukuda later crash landed at Manapla where his Ki-84 was destroyed. Thropp's P-38 was slightly damaged in the action and trailed smoke from one engine. Eventually Weaver and Thropp returned to Dulag, Leyte.

McGuire's crash was witnessed by Filipinos, who immediately rushed to the scene and secured his remains so that they would not fall into the hands of the Japanese. In 1947, his remains were recovered by the US Army and returned to the United States. He was buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.

And then again there was Richard Bong:

"He gained a reputation for stunts such as "looping the loop" around the center span of the Golden Gate Bridge in his P-38, and waving to people in office buildings as he flew along Market Street, for which he was officially reprimanded by Maj. Gen. George Kenney, then commanding the Fourth Air Force."

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

7.7896 series in the upload to primary distribution process - packaging done

fingers crossed

Hi Sid,

Where can I find a list of changes between this version and the last one?

[el cid again]

All Level 7 scenarios now uploaded to primary distribution list. There are two messages saying RHSAIO. The first is really CAIO - and the second explains that - and is AIO.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

ORIGINAL: el cid again

7.7896 series in the upload to primary distribution process - packaging done

fingers crossed

Hi Sid,

Where can I find a list of changes between this version and the last one?

Mainly in this thread - more detail on some in the thread on ship construction and AA.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

ORIGINAL: el cid again

7.7896 series in the upload to primary distribution process - packaging done

fingers crossed

Hi Sid,

Where can I find a list of changes between this version and the last one?

Mainly in this thread - more detail on some in the thread on ship construction and AA.

Can I ask what the final solution is to ship production for Japan?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is also a big difference in other ratings - which favor the P-38 - so why not think about them in the package?

Because the test documents (found scanned on line by a member of this forum and posted here a few months ago) clearly show that the maneuverability ratings of the P-38 models should be much closer to the fighters it was tested against. The document specifically commented on maneuver characteristics, and specifically on comparative turning at at various altitudes.

Historically documented performance (in controlled tests) must trump reconstruction calculations. The calculations are good faith estimates. The documented test results are actual reality.

You can do what you want and I shall not argue this further, but I have seen no facts that change my opinion.