Allied fighters suck

[BigBlueFleet]

 
 
I believe allied fighters are modelled just fine but agree with many the overall flight model needs to be improved in future versions of the game WITP2 and so on, which I'm sure it will.
 
In PBEM my allied planes held their own, against the AI they will devastate the Japanese air arm even in december of '41.
 
Case in point my 6 units that saw the most action to date it's December 27, 1941.
 

 
 
52 to 10 kill ratio with only 5 pilots lost for these Warhawks, I'll take that any day of the week.
 
 

 
 
Another Rangoon air unit 17 to 3 kill ratio for these Buff jocks and none KIA.
 

 
 
 
 
 
Another Rangoon unit with 9 to 6 kill ratio with no KIAs.
 
 
At Singapore I'm able to use my massed AAA and antiquated Buffalos to inflict more losses to the fliers of the empire.
 
 

 
 
 
16 to 4 kill ratio with none KIA , again I'll take it.
 
 

 
 
Another Singapore unit with 24-5 kill ratio and no KIAs.
 
 
 

 
 26 to 7 with 1 KIA.
 
 
Against a PBEM player using sweeps these numbers wouldn't be possible and the allied player would have to be even more defensive but certain allied planes can hold up against unarmored Japanese planes even if they are of much lower experience.
 
The allied player will get his sweepers soon enough in the form of P-38s and Hurricane 2bs  and will own any air space within reach given time.
 
 

[Sheytan]

Agreed, that type of attitude is uncalled for. Further, it lends nothing to the efforts of the player base of invest thier time and energy into helping Matrix find and fix flaws in a otherwise remarkable game.

One could as easily conclude the "head in the sand" attitude is in fact a detriment to identifying and fixing problems that in FACT do exist in the game as opposed to helping Matrix find and fix said problems.

At any rate the game needs work, and will need work which like WITP will likely never end. As long as AE is around there will be patches, tweeks, etc. Lets not delude ourselves into assuming this will not be the case.

ORIGINAL: DicedT

Amazing that we've had two big patches to fix major flaws like artillery Death Stars and pilot experience. But any suggestion that the air combat model might be flawed brings on innuendo that the player must be at fault.

For the first time, I understand the meaning of "fanboy".

[Nemo121]

LoBaron,
 
The saving grace for the engine in terms of E fighters is the "over-valuation" ( as it is often presented in this forum ) of the importance of speed. I think that's how the model tries to take account of E fighters. It isn't as good as it could be obviously but there you go.
 
I think that it works partially because E fighters have such heavy firepower that a lot of the time their single pass nets a kill and they don't get drawn into the turning fight.
 
It would be nice to see them flowchart it so that there were different doctrines and an interplay between them as that would be more realistic but that would require some work and I'm concered about the Not Invented Here Syndrome.

[Nemo121]

Sheytan,
 
As with most things in life the extremes of the spectrum are usually deleterious and mutually inflammatory.  The viewpoint that "the whole model is borked because I can't do x or y" is as wrong and destructive as the viewpoint that "WiTP is great and we shouldn't criticise the volunteers".
 
Criticising constructively and offering alternatives is usually the way to go. But that achieves very little if the team isn't open to receiving said input.
 
As Baron Dewar once said, "Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open."

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

LoBaron,

The saving grace for the engine in terms of E fighters is the "over-valuation" ( as it is often presented in this forum ) of the importance of speed. I think that's how the model tries to take account of E fighters. It isn't as good as it could be obviously but there you go.

I think that it works partially because E fighters have such heavy firepower that a lot of the time their single pass nets a kill and they don't get drawn into the turning fight.

It would be nice to see them flowchart it so that there were different doctrines and an interplay between them as that would be more realistic but that would require some work and I'm concered about the Not Invented Here Syndrome.

I think youre right. The problem is that the current A2A model abstracts many aspects of combat.
There are simply too few input parameters available to make an air combat simulation out of it.

Probably the whole system needs to be developed from scrach in a possible follow-up of WitP to emulate any finer aspects of air combat and to reduce some results that are off scope.
While this is something to note, the devs pulled as much out of the current calculation model as was possible (without denying that some tweaks still could improve it).

[KenchiSulla]

Is it me or are people expecting to much from a game at times? Tweaks, yeah ofcourse. Do tweaks.

Just think about the millions of factors that go into any combat situation, aerial, naval or landborne. A computer simulation will never be REALLY able to capture the reality of the "organised chaos" that is combat.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

LoBaron,

The saving grace for the engine in terms of E fighters is the "over-valuation" ( as it is often presented in this forum ) of the importance of speed. I think that's how the model tries to take account of E fighters. It isn't as good as it could be obviously but there you go.

I think that it works partially because E fighters have such heavy firepower that a lot of the time their single pass nets a kill and they don't get drawn into the turning fight.

It would be nice to see them flowchart it so that there were different doctrines and an interplay between them as that would be more realistic but that would require some work and I'm concered about the Not Invented Here Syndrome.

I think youre right. The problem is that the current A2A model abstracts many aspects of combat.
There are simply too few input parameters available to make an air combat simulation out of it.

Probably the whole system needs to be developed from scrach in a possible follow-up of WitP to emulate any finer aspects of air combat and to reduce some results that are off scope.
While this is something to note, the devs pulled as much out of the current calculation model as was possible (without denying that some tweaks still could improve it).

In AE there is also a component of feasability vs. time/energy invested vs. deadline. All the things that have been noted above as severely lacking have already been noted, vetted, and omitted on other more private forums over the past 4 years. What you have in your hands now is the compromised result.

In fact AE is nothing more than an archaic coded (see Grigsby) enigma, which has been opened up and operated on by several talented brain surgeons. That we have a playable, and as some would say even a quite fun a well improved version of WitP is to me, no small miracle.

As to the openness of the design team I would point out that:

1. There is only so much time a day
2. None of us do this for a living (ie. we have careers unrelated to WitP)
3. most is not all the ideas from this forum have been thought of before (there have been some exceptions)

Nemo, you are absolutely right ion your assessment of the factors absent from the A2A model. As point of fact I purchased 12 o clock High BTR, back in 1999 and played continuously through about 2004. I have yet to dive into the latest upgrade due to my position in this community. Though I did spend a few months in 2006 as part of the BTR dev team. I well remember the doctrinal settings GG used for fighters using direct attack or bounce tactics and wanted to implement a more invloved and dynamic set of doctrinal options for AE. Unfortunately #s 1 & 2 plus a few I didn't list (conflicting time demands on coders) meant I had to take what I could get.

Perhaps in the future I can implement my dream of a doctrinal tool, such as a CAG for each CV Air Group that controls, departure types (deferred etc.) and engagement priorities....

until then...

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

You need both for a good game, no need to point anyones nose to the obvious.

With the discourse here the obvious appears to be exceedingly non-obvious to many.... [8D]

[:D]

[Nemo121]

The Elf,

Absolutely understand your position. In game development you have to prioritise or else you end up with a "Road to Moscow" vaporware project.  I do wonder, however, if it mightn't be possible to, at minimal coding cost/time, move the model a bit more towards taking into account these important factors.

The current model is a massive improvement over the previous A2A model, and congratulations for that, but I just think that it might be possible to swing it a bit more at minimal cost. What I'm thinking of could be described as follows:

A. 3 Toggles. Toggle A toggles Energy vs Turn doctrine, Toggle B toggles Escort / Bomber targetting, Toggle C ( an only Japanese toggle ) turns on "Encourage Aerial Ramming / Discourage Aerial Ramming"

Basically if the E vs T toggle is set to E then the plane will always attempt to attack from above with a single firing pass before extending away either horizontally or vertically. If T is selected then the plane will always attempt to engage in turning dogfights ( premium on its manoeuvrability )

Escort/Bomber targetting - would allow you to set planes to try to avoid enemy escorts and target enemy bombers or set them to target the escorts. Bombers, for this purpose, would be level, dive, torpedo or fighter-bombers.

Ramming is self-explanatory.


It would require some A2A coding but the guts of the current model could be left entirely intact. The only difference really would be adding in a slightly different engagement profile for E fighters. In the pre-engagement phase they would climb to altitude and take a risk of being spotted. When diving they could either bounce the enemy flight ( already in-game ), attack them but without the element of surprise albeit in a favourable position OR be spotted far enough out that the defenders turn into them and there's a head-on pass.

The firing pass is unchanged but once the firing pass is made the E fighters would decide to extend either vertically or horizontally. A check would be made of the relative climbs of the E fighter and the defending fighter ( if the E fighter decides to climb out ) or of the E fighter and defending fighter's speeds if the E fighter tries to run away in the horizontal. Throw in a little randomiser for pilot error and poor decision-making and whether or not an E fighter gets attacked in the post-firing pass phase will depend more on the real characteristics it depended on than it currently does --- currrently it depends on relative manoeuvre which is the one thing it really didn't depend on unless the E fighter chose not to extend away.


This would give an interplay of some powerful new factors for A2A combat in which planes would realistically seek to make use of their most effective characteristics and would win or lose based on those characteristics, luck and whether or not their pilot got suckered into the wrong type of fight.


At present twin-engined fighters etc get reamed cause all fighters which go up into the air to intercept a raid seem drawn like moths to the flame of the enemy escorts. Having that toggle to prioritise what they intercepted by choice ( although obviously they often wouldn't be given that choice in real life ) would help improve the face validity of those types of fights also and introduce some tactical complexity.


As to how the doctrine would be applied. A simple database of each plane model broken down by 6 month timeframes would work.
E.g. a plane which might be a great E fighter for anti-fighter ops in 1941 might be EEN ( Energy, vs Escorts, No ramming ) and then by 1943 would be relatively slower than the Allied planes and become an TEN ( Turning fight, vs escorts no ramming ) before becoming an EBR ( Energy, vs bombers, ramming encouraged ) plane in 1944.


That would allow realistic changes in role over time and make the AI seem reactive ---- which players then over-intuit to think that the AI is responding to them as opposed to a fixed algorithm which gets it to check a database and compare what the database says to the date [:D]. Instead of realising that players tend to go "Wow, when I started fielding more P38s which shredded the Zeros the AI started using Franks against the P38s and sending the Zeroes in against the bombers. This AI rocks." [8D]


Obviously this would require some coding but since this approach should be able to leave all of the current code in whilst only adding a couple of new parallel branches to the A2A flowchart it shouldn't be as much work as something which requires much deeper integration into the code. Basically you only change what happens before and after the firing pass to determine whether or not planes get in and out cleanly. As I said the benefits which could accrue from face validity, immersion and apparent reactivity would justify the effort IMO.


I've been on your side of this fence quite a few times in the past myself so I'll say this. My post is intended to be constructive and if you say that there just isn't the time to deal with the sort of minimal tinkering solution I outline above then that's fine. You have to draw the line somewhere. I do think though that with so many of the changes I see being made having such a small impact on gameplay I think that the argument for investing the time and effort into something which would significantly improve the veracity AND ( importantly to the yahoos on the forum whom I know have complained so vociferously... often with little justification ) face validity of the A2A model would be time well spent.


Bottom line though:
1. Thanks for the open and honest contribution. I for one greatly appreciate it.
2. If you say the resources/time isn't there then that's good enough for me. Maybe not for others but I doubt those others have been on the same side of the line as you or I in the past .


P.s. Go, play and enjoy the hols and time with your family ( if you are not deployed obviously ).

[Knavey]

Elf...

Take some time off and play the game. And have a Merry Christmas while you are at it.

Thanks for the hotfix prior to our holidays.

[pad152]

In AE pilot experience is king, not aircraft types (within reason) Oscars and Nates are still not going be shooting down many B-17's even with ace pilots.

With all the pilot training and management in patch II, I'm surprised anyone (Allies or Japanese) can't get good experienced pilots. In Japan I have several fighter groups set to training sweep 70% in six to eight weeks I've got good pilots that I slowly send to the reserve pool and get replacements from the replacement pool! I then use the reserve pool to fill out my front line air groups.  I then send a few Aces to the training pool, I try to keep between 5 to 10 for both army and navy in training command.

Playing allies you can do the same thing with all those restricted air groups on the west coast. 

It's a hard lesson to learn but, don't send air groups in to combat until the pilots are ready (60 to 65 exp min for fighter pilots). You can get away with less for bomber groups if their are some nice soft targets for them to practice on!

Pilot management has now become a game within a game. He who better manages their pilots, wins!

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Elf...

Take some time off and play the game. And have a Merry Christmas while you are at it.

Thanks for the hotfix prior to our holidays.

Good thought Knavey, I second that !

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: pad152

In AE pilot experience is king, not aircraft types (within reason) Oscars and Nates are still not going be shooting down many B-17's even with ace pilots.

With all the pilot training and management in patch II, I'm surprised anyone (Allies or Japanese) can't get good experienced pilots. In Japan I have several fighter groups set to training sweep 70% in six to eight weeks I've got good pilots that I slowly send to the reserve pool and get replacements from the replacement pool! I then use the reserve pool to fill out my front line air groups.  I then send a few Aces to the training pool, I try to keep between 5 to 10 for both army and navy in training command.

Playing allies you can do the same thing with all those restricted air groups on the west coast. 

It's a hard lesson to learn but, don't send air groups in to combat until the pilots are ready (60 to 65 exp min for fighter pilots). You can get away with less for bomber groups if their are some nice soft targets for them to practice on!

Pilot management has now become a game within a game. He who better manages their pilots, wins!

This is how I am doing things. Not only do you need pilots in your front line squadrons with high experience/skill, but you need many, many replacement pilots available with 60+ experience/skill levels. That is how you keep the pressure on, as pilots are lost you replace them with pilots that are also well trained. I try to have 2 trained replacements for each front line pilot available.

[JohnDillworth]

I believe allied fighters are modelled just fine

I agree fighters are modeled just fine. Could someone post a screen cap of an allied 4 engine bomber squadron with an experience level over 65? 2 engine bomber squadron in 1943?
Seems way too hard to train allied bombers to a useful level. I kind of remember b-25's ruling the world in the SW pacific in 1943 but I have never had a unit above the mid 50's so they can't hit a thing. Liberators are worse than useless for anything but recon. 4 engine bombers can't even suppress an airfield or port until late 44. Just no way to give them any experience.

[Xxzard]

I must say that:
a) I don't think allied fighters all suck terribly. For one, although manuverability is lower, armament is generally higher, as is durability. Against enemy bombers, they are almost all quite deadly. So, given the low variety of Japanese planes compared to Allied ones, you know pretty well the range at which you need to worry about fighter cover. So basically, Japanese bombers will get killed outside of fighter escort/sweep range, and Allied bombers, especially 4 engined models, will almost always get through, and I have even seen them shoot down Japanese fighters. The loss rate of Japanese bombers when unescorted, and sometimes escorted is so severe that no human player would ever send them in without making a big effort to clear Allied fighters. Does the Allied player have to do that? No.

b) Experience is so, so important. In a game vs the AI, my Allied pilots in the PM area are shooting down Japanese fighter planes at a minimal loss rate. P-40's, Kittyhawks, even P-39 are scoring positive kill ratios against zeros and oscars. Even on sweeps! Why? because the Japanese air force expended their good pilots against my PM air defenses earlier on. So now my pilots are qualitatively equal or superior to their opponents, and even P-39's are shooting down oscars and zeros. Stay on the defensive until you have some decent pilots, then get after the opponent. Oh, and of course, once you are to 1943 and 44, your planes will be so ridiculously superior to the Japanese opponents that it won't even be close to fair.

[xj900uk]

Up until end of '42 Allied fighters will suck.  Anyone who tries to engage the Zero (or the Oscar) in a low-speed turning duel will loose.  Period.  Joe Voss of the Cactus Airforce summed it up perfectly in his memoirs :  'If you fight a Zero with a Wildcat 1:1 you are outnumbered'.  F4F Wildcat,  Buffallo, P49, P39 & P26/P36 + the dutch types just could not compete, even the British Hurricanne's couldn't do very well against them.  Also until the end of '42 the Japanes pilots were, on the whole,  better & more experienced.
However after the Allies captured a Zero intact at the Aleutians and had a chance to evaluate it, they realised its strengths and weaknesses and tried to develop tactics and manuevouers that would prove effective against it and then train fighter pilots accordingly.  Funnily enough these tactics were identical to what Clare Chennault had come up with in mid-41 whilst commanding the AVC in China,  yet were curiously ignored by the folks back home until it was too late. Also they developed the Hellcat which was especially designed to beat it in combat, and loaded up guns with incendiary ammunition knowing that the Zero was so lightly armoured it woudl blow or crumple up if hit

[John Lansford]

I'm assuming that when I see a "named" enemy pilot engage one of my fighters, that I'm looking at a veteran.  If this is so, there's a lone veteran Zero pilot at Tulagi that is harassing the fire out of my fighter squadrons.  He's part of a remnant that flew there from a damaged CV, and he's the sole survivor; only one Zero ever comes up to challenge my planes now and he's always the pilot.  Even though I control Lunga one hex away and have three squadrons of P-40's and P-38's there, he has so far managed to avoid being killed and tends to shoot someone down every time I fly a bombing raid there.
 
Over Chittigong the situation is different.  The AI sends 80+ Oscars, Zeros and Tonys over that airbase to escort a small handful of Lilys, and my Hurricane/P-40 squadrons are getting tired.  They don't lose but a plane or two each day and inflict more damage on their attackers, but 80+ fighters has a superiority all by itself even before you consider the pilot skill.  I've got 4 squadrons of fighters there and am seriously considering pulling them back and leave Chittigong to the bombers for a while; they're well dug in and have lots of AA units so the bombing doesn't hurt them at all.

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


- There are a couple of good tactics against high alt bounces: As an example, Rob, my PBEM opponent set a nice trap for my sweeping P38´s by combining high and lowlevel
CAP. He used the lowflyers to draw my bounces (Zeroes, and the suffered) and set high alt Oscar patrols to attack the bouncing Lightnings. While it was not clearly onesided
the tactic worked nicely, lots of damaged twintails. [:D]
When, afterwards, my close escorting P40´s arrived @ 6k they were ripped to pieces by the surviving CAP. Thats not bad allied planes, thats what is called a good counter.

Cool. I wondered if that would work, although I would have been inclined to put the inferior plane at low altitude and the superior one on the top.

[LoBaron]

Cannot check but I think the altitude performance of the oscar is a bit better.

Could have worked with the Zeros and a bounce with 20mm could have been be more devastating
but on the other hand he put the more survivable fighter in the dangerous position and the high alt
performance plane up to make the bounce.

Tbh the alt we were fighting was probably too high for the Zero. With the Oscars he had better chances to
be above my P38´s.

[canuck64]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Cannot check but I think the altitude performance of the oscar is a bit better.

Could have worked with the Zeros and a bounce with 20mm could have been be more devastating
but on the other hand he put the more survivable fighter in the dangerous position and the high alt
performance plane up to make the bounce.

Tbh the alt we were fighting was probably too high for the Zero. With the Oscars he had better chances to
be above my P38´s.

I'll add my experience to multiple-level cap using Zeroes 15k, Oscars at 20k and Rufie's [:D]at 10k....

I shellacked the P-38's that were in escort on bombing runs up in ATTU...
This is just good tactical management. Prior turn to my layering in CAP I had the standard bombing run coming at me with Liberators at about 20k, my Zeroes alone at 15k were not really effective.....because my opponent had run in a lowlevel bombing run as well with Kittyhawks....-more food for thought.
The 'Hawks got beat on pretty hard, but the bombing runs were very effective....

It split my CAP well, Zeroes running high and low..... much less effective. I shouldn't be surprised if weather doesn't effect your cost/benefit as well.

Prediction: the US player has got to run sweeps ALONE for awhile to wear down any cap. I find the 2E and 4E bombers are almost impossible to knock down as Japanese player, no matter what. But damaging them, sometimes severely so, accomplishes much.
and the altitude-management side of things is to some degree logical. I don't know if it has to be distinguished SO much by plane capabilities alone, but also by pilot quality and making sure SOME presence is felt at layered altitudes....

makes sense to me.

Other items of note: LR CAP is more exhausting on airframes and pilots than obviously CAP in the hex needed...

Inspiration of my air groups' leaders is hugely impactive on my fighting line morale. Sucks-I thought merely grabbing commanders with good air stats was enough but your cap flying is based on morale checks of both the leader AND the group I believe.....

lots under the hood to look at. [:'(]