planes & statistics

[zamli]

I do have a question,
Planes are rated and represented by the following statistics:
- manuvreability/dogfight
- cannon
- load
- range
- durability

now if we talk air-to-air combat - which are the most important?
what are the formulas to calculate the combat between planes?

Lets take an example:
.......................Manuvr/Df....Cannon......Durability
Ki-45 Toryu...........23..............9................29
Ki-44....................27..............8................22

which is better in direct combat and why? just don't put into equation anything except thsese indicated (i.e. no range/load)

thank you for explanations

[Capt. Harlock]

The manual doesn't give a formula for comparing the maneuver ratings of the planes involved in air-to-air combat, but I rather suspect that Gary Grigsby carried over the formulas from "War in the South Pacific". If so, maneuver rating is by far the most important factor for a fighter: it determines whether or not you get a hit against the enemy plane.

If you get a hit, then there is a formula given in the manual:
[font="Verdana"]In air-to-air combat when an attacking
aircraft scores a hit against a defending
aircraft, the defending aircraft is
damaged if Random(100)<67 and
Random(Defender Durability) is greater
than Random(AttackerCannon);
otherwise the defending aircraft is
destroyed.[/font]

In other words, there is a one-third chance that a hit will destroy the aircraft regardless of Cannon rating and Durability. If not, the aircraft tends to be only damaged, since typical Durability is at least double the typical Cannon rating.

To answer your question, the Ki-44 is the clear winner because of its superior maneuver rating. The Ki-45 has better firepower and durability, but has a much harder time getting the Ki-44 in its sights in the first place!

[zamli]

following this path what is the Japan answer for the Allied F4U Corsair with Maneuvreability of 29!!!

[Capt. Harlock]

There aren't any really good answers -- the Japanese didn't call the Corsair the "whistling death" for nothing. The J7M Shinden doesn't come on-line until mid-1945, alas. In the meantime, your best options are to oppose it with Ki-44's, with the most experienced pilots you can manage. Or, blow them up on the ground, as the Allies did to many of the Me-262's in Germany. Fast bombardment TF's using heavy cruisers and/or the Kongo-class battlewagons can work nicely.

[zamli]

I did a small analysis and came up with a plane-development/replacement plan for IJA Fifhters/Fighters-Bombers.

STAGE 1:
One starts with Ki-27 and Ki-43 which is superior

So for 42 weeks you have no choice but use Ki-43 as a base defender and as an escort for your bombers.
------------------------------------
STAGE 2:
Then (week 42) comes Ki-43-II with the same Manuvreability but higher range of 5 and although being FB it is a perfect escort for your bombers. At the same time (week 55) comes Ki-44 with very short range but very high Man. of 27 which makes a perfect choice for base defender.
------------------------------------
STAGE 3:
Ki-43-II is replaced at week 125 by Ki-84 as bomber escort
------------------------------------
STAGE 4:
Ki-84 and Ki-44 are replaced at week 170 by Ki-100

and thats it;
therefore I see no use for the following types: Ki-61, Ki-45 and Ki-83

*******************************************

For naval based fighter I see no use for J1N, J2M or N1K


Please correct me and indicate that I am wrong. I would really love to be wrong.

[Capt. Harlock]

Please correct me and indicate that I am wrong. I would really love to be wrong.

Your analysis is a good one -- but ONLY for fighter-to-fighter combat. From the beginning of the game, the US 4-engine bombers are a problem for the Japanese: maneuverability doesn't matter that much, because it's easy for the Japanese fighters to line up a shot at a B-17 or B-24. But there is a two-thirds chance that they will fail to destroy the bomber, and then the bomber shoots back with its own defensive armament. (I have been able to trade B-17's for Zeroes on an even basis.)

For this reason, you want the bases out of range of Allied fighter escort, but within 4-engine bomber range, to be defended by fighters with high firepower and durability. The Ki-45 becomes available earlier than any of the other "bomber-killers", so it's the one you want until the Ki-61 and so on come on-line.

One other important point: fighter-bombers have the advantage that they can project a bomber Zone of Control, or "AZOC". A squadron of fighter-bombers can cause a nearby Allied base to be isolated and out of supply, without firing a shot. This is a second area where the Ki-45 comes in very handy. Remember that it can be flown from a size 2 airfield, unlike the Nells, Betties, and other tac-bombers which need size 4 fields.

I personally would not replace the Ki-84 with the Ki-100. The Ki-84 is a fighter-bomber, and has almost identical combat power to the ki-100. Remember that it takes four turns of non-production for a factory to switch plane types. By that time, you may need all the fighters you can get of any type!

[zamli]

I do have further question considering this one.

First, I see no use for airfields with capacity less than 4. The problem is the airfield can support only the number of planes equal to sizex10 - in other words when you park 48-plane squad on a level 2 airfield, 28 of planes become damaged (you will be able to use only 20 as max per any action). When you next move that squad to another airfield you loose those damaged planes.

So, please tell me the purpose of destroying the number of aircrafts voluntarily, unless of course when you move this 20-plane squad back to say 5-level airfield, it builds back to the initial 48-plane squad over time?

Second - is the initial number of planes somehow hard-wired into a game? If so, do you have any list of suads, their TTA and number of planes there is supposed to be as max limit?

and one more - very important - what mechanisms determine whether a plane scores a hit against another? do you know how this procedure is hardwired into a game as a description is very limited at most...

thank you for answering this

[Skipjack]

I agree 4-factor airfields (or better) are preferred - but the 2 and 3 factor airfields can be useful.&nbsp; Consider Lagaspi - Japan will typically capture it on turn 1 and it's 3 factor airfield can immediately base Ki-32s, Ki-51s or B5Ns - together will some fighter cover this can get you the capability to strike ships escaping from the Phillipines.

I've also played games where a 2-factor base can be important - once I staged in 1 F4F squadon and 1 SBD squadron to Rennell Is (just after the engineers improved it to 2 factors) in time for them to participate in a carrier duel.&nbsp; Those few 1000 Lb bombs delivered after the CVs exhausted their AC attacking each other were critical - it meant KB left the area with a good deal of damage instead of getting off lightly.

Size - sending a 48+ size squadron would indeed be tough - but I usually can find a squadron of smaller size (perhaps because of combat or it starts small or it has been kept at smaller airfields) - I don't use a lot this way but a handleful of squadrons intended for 3 factor airfields can make a difference.

[Jonny_B]

I believe the dos game had music or sounds.
Does anybody know if this is still an option?

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: Jonny_B

I believe the dos game had music or sounds.
Does anybody know if this is still an option?

The original DOS game had music for the opening sequence only.

[Capt. Harlock]

Now a couple of questions for the Allied side. First, the Beaufighter is an almost unique asset: it can launch torpedoes at Japanese ships, which also means it can participate in ground attacks and naval attacks on the same turn. There is no need to assign it to "Naval Interdiction". But, it's hellaciously expensive. How "gamey" is it to assign one or more of the American factories to produce it? (There was no Canadian production as far as I'm aware.)

Second, should there be a limit on how many Commonwealth squadrons can convert to American planes? The use of the P-40 is quite historical, but when the P-47 comes on line it's awfully tempting to ditch the Hurricanes and Spitfire V's entirely.

[Randomizer]

Have yet to screw up the nerve to offer an easy PBEM target but closely follow what you guys do here and really enjoy the postings.&nbsp; Pacific War was always a favorite.&nbsp; So, if I recall there was a Beaufighter variant built in Australia, Mk XX or Mk XXI or something like that so if you cannot build there why not build in the States, (under licence of course).&nbsp; The RCAF used only a few so no Beaufighter production was done in Canada.
&nbsp;
Regards

[Skipjack_]

I agree the U.S. should be able to build any allied type with a license agreement in place, and ship the production to it's allies under lend-lease.   Why keep producing B-25s when you have 2000 in the pool?

It would also be nice to see the Vengeance dive bomber get into action - version 3 allows you to build it but only the USMC has squadrons that can use it. [:(] As I recall, several vengeance squadrons appeared in India in version 2, which would be historical. Of course, the Vengeance had range 3 in that version, instead of the current value of 5.

[JeffroK]

If you really want an alt-history approach, make changes like building the Beaufighter in the USA (The Aussie Beau was the XXI).

I find them a far better attack aircraft than the A20, plus they could fly in the Fighter missions.

Fitting teh RAF with the P47 isnt ahistorical, though only a % as they kept the Hurricane in service until almost the end.

[Capt. Harlock]

It would also be nice to see the Vengeance dive bomber get into action - version 3 allows you to build it but only the USMC has squadrons that can use it. As I recall, several vengeance squadrons appeared in India in version 2, which would be historical. Of course, the Vengeance had range 3 in that version, instead of the current value of 5.

The Vengeance can indeed be bad news for the Rising Sun, though it's helpful to have long-ranged fighters for escort. (The P-51B fits nicely.) I think there's a Commonwealth squadron which starts off flying torpedo bombers but gets the chance to upgrade to the Vengeance later on. Perhaps there should be a house rule that one or two USMC squadrons are allowed to use the Vengeance?

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: Skipjack_


It would also be nice to see the Vengeance dive bomber get into action - version 3 allows you to build it but only the USMC has squadrons that can use it. [:(] As I recall, several vengeance squadrons appeared in India in version 2, which would be historical. Of course, the Vengeance had range 3 in that version, instead of the current value of 5.

There has been a problem with what to do with the Vengeance from the first Grigsby version. It started out as a dive bomber, and thus modeled was a super aircraft in the game. In later versions Grigsby switched it to tac bomber, at which point it was, in the game, mostly useless.

Now Matrix has it as a dive bomber and its not just a super aircraft, but a super super aircraft. I'd think if it was any where near as good as currently modeled in the game, it would have gotten more historical use.

I seriously doubt that at 13,500 pounds loaded and with a 48 foot wingspan, it really flew like a dive bomber.

[Skipjack_]

ORIGINAL: bradk

Now Matrix has it as a dive bomber and its not just a super aircraft, but a super super aircraft. I'd think if it was any where near as good as currently modeled in the game, it would have gotten more historical use.

I agree, it is hard to believe an aircraft with the abilities the A-35 exhibits in 3.2 would not have been put to more use - in reality it was relegated to a trainer in Australia and front-line use only in India - a theater that typically got only the leftovers.

Although I think the range factor seems appropriate, based on what I've been able to find on the internet. The key for any dive-bomber is friendly fighter cover to keep enemy fighters off their back. Without that an excellent dive-bomber like the Stutka turned into a sitting duck.

[Capt. Harlock]

It started out as a dive bomber, and thus modeled was a super aircraft in the game. In later versions Grigsby switched it to tac bomber, at which point it was, in the game, mostly useless.

Now Matrix has it as a dive bomber and its not just a super aircraft, but a super super aircraft. I'd think if it was any where near as good as currently modeled in the game, it would have gotten more historical use.

I seriously doubt that at 13,500 pounds loaded and with a 48 foot wingspan, it really flew like a dive bomber.

Strange but true -- it really was a dive bomber. Its performance during the battles around Imphal and Kohima was impressive: it was the only bomber accurate enough to plant a bomb square onto the bridges the Japanese were using for supplies and reinforcements. The problem was that while the ground-pounders loved what it could do for them, the actual pilots much preferred fighter-bombers: the lack of escort at the long ranges the Vengeance could reach was keenly felt. (It also had complicated and pilot-unfriendly controls.)

Another important point is that it was never used in the anti-ship role. By the time it was in action, the IJN rarely ventured into the Indian Ocean. My guess is that's why Grigsby decide to make it a tac-bomber. What it could have done against shipping can never be known for certain, but you can be very sure it wasn't the only missed opportunity of WWII. (It would have been possible to have a USMC squadron of Corsairs flying over Guadalcanal by late November '42, for instance.)

[bradk]

I realize there is a high probability of erroneous data, but... my Janes 46 reprint gives this for weight, horsepower, and fuel capacity.

Vengeance 13,500 loaded, 1600 HP, 275 gallons
SBD3 9519 loaded, 1200 HP, 260 gallons
TBF 15536 loaded, 1700 HP, 330 gallons

Also interesting is that the Vengeance is listed as having a capacity of two 500 pound bombs carried internally... yet the game equips them with 1000 pound bombs at long range.  Two 500 pound bombs do not equal one 1000 pound bomb in an antiship role under the armor penetration formula.

As I said earlier, rating the Vengeance has been a problem from the beginning, and I think the problem is in figuring out which data to believe.  Performance data aside, given the age of the design, its size, its appearance (it really doesn't look capable for the era) and its designer (dive bombers can't be considered an area of expertice for Consolidated) I can't consider this to be a super aircraft whose capabilities were overlooked during the war.

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: Skipjack_

I agree the U.S. should be able to build any allied type with a license agreement in place, and ship the production to it's allies under lend-lease.   Why keep producing B-25s when you have 2000 in the pool?

Lots of reasons why historically the US would not want to build foreign designs, some reasonable, some not.

All depends on whether it is desired that the Allied player can impose common goals and 100% cooperaton to achieve them even when they may be adverse to the direct interests of individual allies and services.