Air combat testing

[zuikaku]

Hi!
Is there any possibility that some of results of air combats could be posted.
I'm especially interested in results of:
untrained Zekes vs. experienced Corsairs
Untrained Corsairs vs. experienced Zekes
experienced Corsairs vs. experienced Zekes

I hope this test woul'd show that experience matters far more than in WITP, where
experience ment very ,very little...
This testing is also important to boost morale of japanese fanboys, and give us some hope that
Corsair is no longer X-wing [:-]

[rockmedic109]

Actually, I hope such testing does not get published.  Knowing too much of what is under the hood could kill the game {admittedly this game has so much under the hood it is unlikely to get killed}.  And I think the wouldbe and wannabe commanders should learn as our counterparts did....trial and error.  And I expect that Experience plays the major part of the A2A routine.
 
Imho, the only thing to test {results shown would be nice but not needed} is whether planes fall out of the sky at astronomical rates when more than 100 planes show up on a side.  And from what I read, it has.

[cantona2]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Actually, I hope such testing does not get published.  Knowing too much of what is under the hood could kill the game {admittedly this game has so much under the hood it is unlikely to get killed}.  And I think the wouldbe and wannabe commanders should learn as our counterparts did....trial and error.  And I expect that Experience plays the major part of the A2A routine.

Imho, the only thing to test {results shown would be nice but not needed} is whether planes fall out of the sky at astronomical rates when more than 100 planes show up on a side.  And from what I read, it has.

adds to the fun of the game, gives you a sense of what it must have been like. Minus the heartache of loss of life ofcourse

[zuikaku]

Actually, in old WITP Saburo Sakai woul'd die first time he spotted F6F
And he actually on one occasion flew into formation of F6Fs near Iwo Jima leading formation of rookie pilots, and they all managed to return home safely. On other ocasion he flew into the CAP of Corsairs, shot down one, and after an hour of fierce battle escaped the others. I think that experience shoul'd be far more important than aircraft specs. Expert pilots in Hayabusas shoul'd be able to nail the average pilots flying P-47s.
IMHO experience over 90 shoul'd drastically effect the performance of pilot in combat, but it shoul'd be much harder than now for pilots to gain experience points when already over 80...
Just my thoughts...

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Actually, I hope such testing does not get published. Knowing too much of what is under the hood could kill the game {admittedly this game has so much under the hood it is unlikely to get killed}. And I think the wouldbe and wannabe commanders should learn as our counterparts did....trial and error. And I expect that Experience plays the major part of the A2A routine.

Imho, the only thing to test {results shown would be nice but not needed} is whether planes fall out of the sky at astronomical rates when more than 100 planes show up on a side. And from what I read, it has.

It has been, and is still being, extensively tested. However, unless TheElf decides to do another AAR-type thread, don't expect to see any test results published. You'll just have to take our word for it when we tell you that A2A combat has been toned down to far more realistic levels.

[zuikaku]

We want to believe [:D]
i really don't like Zero invulnerability early in the war as much allied super Corsairs late in the war.
Hope that experience is now important...

[mdiehl]

Actually, in old WITP Saburo Sakai woul'd die first time he spotted F6F

A hypothetical that seems perfectly realistic to me, since Sakai would probably have mistaken an F6F for an F4F and had his axx chewed off before he figured out the error.

I think that experience shoul'd be far more important than aircraft specs. Expert pilots in Hayabusas shoul'd be able to nail the average pilots flying P-47s.

I think that as a central tendency, a fresh out of advanced training P-47 driver should regularly beat superveterenoid Hayabusa drivers. An experienced pilot in an inferior plane is going to tend to lose to an adequately trained pilot in a vastly superior plane.

[zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Actually, in old WITP Saburo Sakai woul'd die first time he spotted F6F

A hypothetical that seems perfectly realistic to me, since Sakai would probably have mistaken an F6F for an F4F and had his axx chewed off before he figured out the error.

I think that experience shoul'd be far more important than aircraft specs. Expert pilots in Hayabusas shoul'd be able to nail the average pilots flying P-47s.

I think that as a central tendency, a fresh out of advanced training P-47 driver should regularly beat superveterenoid Hayabusa drivers. An experienced pilot in an inferior plane is going to tend to lose to an adequately trained pilot in a vastly superior plane.

Maybe. But not all the time. BTW Hayabusa was not such a bad plane as lot's of you think.
experienced hayabusa pilots managed to down late war allied fighters.
The more advanced plane only helps pilot- it dosn'd give him more brains or experience or skill.
And i highly doubdt that average trained P-47 pilots coul'd achieve 20-1 kill ratio against experts flying Hayabusas (which happened regularly in
old air combat model). Expert pilot knows exactly what are the strengths and weaknesess of their aircraft.
Average trained US pilots managed to shot down advanced Me-262s flown by both experten and undertrained pilots...
Aircraft matters, but the pilots are their's brains...

[Terminus]

Diehl is not the best person to debate Japanese aircraft with. The Ki-43 could, and did, hold its own against aircraft supposedly its superior, and this is well known to the AE team. I repeat, take our word for it.

[mdiehl]

Diehl is not the best person to debate Japanese aircraft with. The Ki-43 could, and did, hold its own against aircraft supposedly its superior, and this is well known to the AE team. I repeat, take our word for it

I may not be the best person to debate about it, because my knowledge of it is vastly greater than most. The Ki-43 did not repeat did NOT "hold it's own" against any contemporary a.c. (apart from the first few months of the war, largely for reasons having to do with things other than the a.c. and the pilots flying them), much less advanced late war a.c. Anyone who is "aware" of something otherwise has no evidence to support their claim of any kind at all. The Ki-43 did shoot down a.c. At no point was it a very capable performer, and by 1943 it was strategically useless other than as a suicide plane.

Maybe. But not all the time. BTW Hayabusa was not such a bad plane as lot's of you think.

Yes it was. Its only forte was long range and a propensity, through March 1942, to show up at a considerable distance from it's base, over targets that were operating at the tail end of a logistical shoestring such that the supposedly "first line" Allied a.c. against which it fought were often deteriorated from extended use.

experienced hayabusa pilots managed to down late war allied fighters.

That is true. But there was no central tendency of Ki-43 drivers, even experienced ones, WINNING against "average" late war allied pilots. Instead it was substantially, indeed GENERALLY, the case that "average" late war allied pilots with advanced a.c. usually defeated Ki-43s flown by anyone.

The more advanced plane only helps pilot- it dosn'd give him more brains or experience or skill.

True to both. But good training makes a huge difference. That is, after all, the principle of current USN and USAF training. Mid-late WW2 Allied pilot training, especially US pilot training, was simply outstanding. While it is true that late war Japanese pilots were undertrained, and that this contributed to their horrid combat losses, it is also true that mid-late war US pilots were exceptionally well trained and capable of going against anyone's ace of aces.

And i highly doubdt that average trained P-47 pilots coul'd achieve 20-1 kill ratio against experts flying Hayabusas (which happened regularly in old air combat model). Expert pilot knows exactly what are the strengths and weaknesess of their aircraft.

Adequately trained pilots also know the strengths and weaknesses of their a.c. There comes a point where "more experience" doesn't give you an edge against outstanding training, in which event the better plane (absent being taken by surprise) will control the fight.

Average trained US pilots managed to shot down advanced Me-262s flown by both experten and undertrained pilots...

True that. And the point is that great training makes up for lack of expertise, although I will also note that the ME-262 is the most overrated a.c. of WW2. It had lousy acceleration, lousy air time, and extremely poor low speed handling characteristics. In many ways the late war picture for Germany in the ETO was similar to the early war picture for the Allies in the Malay barrier area -- enemy could project airpower in superior numbers at times and places of enemy's convenience such that no forward air base was ever safe from sudden attack during daylight hours. That condition, far more than any other factor, was the primary contributor to Japan's early successes with the Ki-43. That's not a knock on Japanese pilots, and it is attributable to Japan's very good operational plan, high tempo of ops, and preposition logistics and planes. Those were the only circumstances in which the Ki-43 was going to look good, and it's temporal window of adequacy was extremely brief.

[mdiehl]

The Ki-43 could, and did, hold its own against aircraft supposedly its superior, and this is well known to the AE team. I repeat, take our word for it.

Yes, I note that most of the raional heads on the Design Team have walked off. I wonder whether or not the box art will feature an image of someone who looks suspiciously like Toshiro Mifune standing on the bridge of Yamato in one corner, and in the other corner a character who looks rather like Homer Simpson superimposed on an American flag and an image of a burning US carrier?

[romanovich]

On matters related to warfare, there is hardly any unbiased research. Since many of the sources many people posting to this board will rely on will have originated in the english-speaking realm, I would venture to say that it is not necessarily the objective truth as to what really happened in the Pacific in those fateful years.
 
Even if research doesn't have any obvious and intentional biases (such as those brought on by propaganda needs, which would btw sound suspiciously like that quote I read above: "mid-late war US pilots were exceptionally well trained and capable of going against anyone's ace of aces"), there will be some bias simply by certain sensitivities of the researchers, their unique perspectives, their available sources - and resources.
 
I venture to say that anything published by Western researchers has to tread a careful line of not being too critical of the efforts of the Allied side. Not that that is even a conscious decision: given the valiant effort of the Allied men and women in uniform, I think it is only human nature to look upon them in a much less of a harsh spot light than that turned on the loosing side. Winners' bias is evident.
 
My point: it's exhausting to read these arguments about who was better etc, and who is right in claiming to know. No one can know. I don't think the Allied forces in OOB and capabilities get a "raw" deal given the Western perspective to this game.
 
This is a strategy GAME. It's meant to provide a relatively even gaming experience, where wits rule the outcome, not a patronizing know-it-all attitude about presumed historical "truths". I don't understand what the point is to model a game where the Allied player should win any confrontation from the outset because of its absolute superiority. Model that in the editor - and have fun finding someone to play against...
 
P.S. How's that AI coming?

[Terminus]

Being worked on.

[1275psi]

Quote

may not be the best person to debate about it, because my knowledge of it is vastly greater than most


[8|][8|][8|]
About sums it up, doesn't it[;)]

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I wonder whether or not the box art will feature an image of someone who looks suspiciously like Toshiro Mifune standing on the bridge of Yamato in one corner, and in the other corner a character who looks rather like Homer Simpson superimposed on an American flag and an image of a burning US carrier?

I must be slow or something, because this obscure references confuses me. What's it mean?

[Terminus]

It means, in terms as polite as I can possibly make them, that Diehl (in his own little world as always) believes that AE will be unfairly slanted in favour of the Japanese. You can safely ignore every single post he makes on this and any other subject.

[mdiehl]

It means, in terms as polite as I can possibly make them, that Diehl (in his own little world as always) believes that AE will be unfairly slanted in favour of the Japanese. You can safely ignore every single post he makes on this and any other subject

Well, sparky, I've simply got alot more cred on the matter than you by any measure when it comes to knowing what happened. Yeah, people can "safely" ignore me because you're still associated with AE design. From that, alone, one could be confident that design errors of the air combat system are likely to be carried forward into AE, never mind your absurd assertion that the Ki-43 was a war winning design.

[witpqs]

Your criticisms seem to have more to do with the ratings of IJ vs Allied aircraft than with the air combat system. You give me the feeling that the war should have lasted only about six months. I wonder why they stretched it out? [;)]

[hosho]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Diehl is not the best person to debate Japanese aircraft with. The Ki-43 could, and did, hold its own against aircraft supposedly its superior, and this is well known to the AE team. I repeat, take our word for it

I may not be the best person to debate about it, because my knowledge of it is vastly greater than most. The Ki-43 did not repeat did NOT "hold it's own" against any contemporary a.c. (apart from the first few months of the war, largely for reasons having to do with things other than the a.c. and the pilots flying them), much less advanced late war a.c. Anyone who is "aware" of something otherwise has no evidence to support their claim of any kind at all. The Ki-43 did shoot down a.c. At no point was it a very capable performer, and by 1943 it was strategically useless other than as a suicide plane.



Hi Guys,

may I offer something in this debate.
As I can see someone if full of "knowledge" so may I get an answer for this question.
DO YOU KNOW WHO IS SATOSHI ANABUKI? COULD YOU, THE GREAT MIND OF THIS FORUMS, PLEASE TELL US HOW SATOSHI ANABUKI SHOOT DOWN 3 LIBERADORS AND 2 OF THEIR LIGHTNING ESCORTS ON THE 26TH OF JANUARY 1943 WHILE FLYING KI-43 ?[X(][X(][X(]

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE OH YOU "GREAT MIND"? I am listening mdiehl.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: hosho

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Diehl is not the best person to debate Japanese aircraft with. The Ki-43 could, and did, hold its own against aircraft supposedly its superior, and this is well known to the AE team. I repeat, take our word for it

I may not be the best person to debate about it, because my knowledge of it is vastly greater than most. The Ki-43 did not repeat did NOT "hold it's own" against any contemporary a.c. (apart from the first few months of the war, largely for reasons having to do with things other than the a.c. and the pilots flying them), much less advanced late war a.c. Anyone who is "aware" of something otherwise has no evidence to support their claim of any kind at all. The Ki-43 did shoot down a.c. At no point was it a very capable performer, and by 1943 it was strategically useless other than as a suicide plane.



Hi Guys,

may I offer something in this debate.
As I can see someone if full of "knowledge" so may I get an answer for this question.
DO YOU KNOW WHO IS SATOSHI ANABUKI? COULD YOU, THE GREAT MIND OF THIS FORUMS, PLEASE TELL US HOW SATOSHI ANABUKI SHOOT DOWN 3 LIBERADORS AND 2 OF THEIR LIGHTNING ESCORTS ON THE 26TH OF JANUARY 1943 WHILE FLYING KI-43 ?[X(][X(][X(]

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE OH YOU "GREAT MIND"? I am listening mdiehl.

Hosho,
I love to debate Mdeihl as much as the next guy, but Anabuki is a bad example to use...