BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.

[oldman45]

You make my point bradfordkay, players will not want to be forced to play with historical restrictions. So I think the path should be look at how to change the service rating to effect available airframes. The US players can stack as many as they want in an AF with in game limits but 41/42 it should be hard to put a lot of planes in the air. We can also look at how much damage the bombers put out in air to air. But I would not change how much damage the fighters can do.

I know this is a hijack but the other issue that japanese players have is shutting down the AF. I think this is a code issue but I would allow small fields like you saw in the SW and South Pacific to be shut down easily, but also repaired easily. The real damage the US did to those fields was support and the destruction of the planes stationed there. Other than Rabaul, any time the US wanted to close a field it didn't take a lot of effort. The planes had no protection and the facilities were in the open. A discussion along those lines might be better.

[Nemo121]

No-one is talking about changing the amount of damage the fighters can do per pass vs bombers - rationalising their armament so what they actually fire more closely resembles what happened in real life? In a few isolated cases ( I think I did this for 3 fighters IIRC ), yes.

Anyways, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The necessary files should be available now so people can try it and see what they think of the various changes.

[bradfordkay]

oldman45... I feel that I play the game with historical possibilities in mind. I think that my opponent will agree.

But I feel that just because the allies didn't concentrate their forces doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to do so. Especially when you consider that the discussion being bandied about does nothing to similarly restrict my opponent. Keep in mind that IRL the Japanese ability to service their aircraft was nothing like that of the allies, and yet it seems that hordes of Japanese aircraft fly long range bombing missions day after day. Perhaps they are suffering from maintenance issues and my opponent has carefully husbanded his forces and concentrated them where he needs to. I have not had a complaint with that, but when I see people bandying about ideas that will further degrade my ability to perform any kind of offensive mission in this war (to this point) I find myself trying to inject at least an opposing viewpoint into the discussion.

You should open up the original WITP to see what a difference AE has made. Then we were talking about 150 4E bombers over a target every day (something I did not do), in several locations each day.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

ORIGINAL: LoBaron




Service rating could help but I think that it produces an ahistorical downtime of bombers. As you said it is high already.

Just thought of another solution: If this is doable with the code, why not make something similar as AF overstacking penalty for 4E´s for air support also?
If you need, for example, 3 air support for every heavy bomber instead of 1 this could severely reduce the potential strike size and also
better reflect the higher maintenance cost for the big planes.

This will not fly (so to speak). As I understand it, if you have 250 aviation support, you can fly unlimited number of planes from that airfield (subject to stacking and administrative limits). For the allies, that is extremely easy. (For the Japanese it is practically impossible [:D])

I thought there was only a fly-everything bonuscard for lvl 10 airfields. I wonder what the reason was for implementing no-limit AS when it reaches 250. [X(]
Why not simply get rid of that unlimited thing? Worst thing that can happen is you have to stand down a couple of squads if you got so much you don´t know what to do with it.
That might aditionally help convincing the player to distribute his forces.

lvl 9 airfields and there are no stacking limits anymore.

[vettim89]

When this thread was opened I knew it was going to be a hot one.

So far the only thing I 100% agree on is Nemo's ideas for altering the accuracy of 4E defensive guns. It not only seems rational but likely will tame the beast.

Nemo's other theories about durability, how the DB represents cannon armament, and loss rates need to be taken in context with the Armageddon Scenario he has designed. You need to familiarize yourself with this scenario before you react to some of the things being discussed here. It is a post-war enhanced Japan scenario. It starts on 1 September 1945 and extends until mid 1946. It is Downfall on steroids. That is very relevant because in this scenario you will see large numbers of the late war, cannon armed Japanese fighters against large formations of USAAF Heavies. While it is interesting to note how these type of interactions are dealt with by the game engine, it is unlikely you will see this in any other scenario.

Nemo, my only concern with the cannon reconfiguration would be that it might make these types more deadly vs. enemy fighters. Have you seen that in your testing?

[Nemo121]

Vettim,

Aye, it makes them more deadly vs fighters but less deadly vs bombers, on the whole ( except for the Jack where it just eliminates the absurdity of the plane having two cannons with 1 point of accuracy difference resulting in the plane only hitting with half its firepower every time ).

This is in keeping with the idea that in 1945 Japan would be facing many fighter sweeps and thus would require planes which could take on enemy fighters and bombers as opposed to planes whose armament pretty much meant they were only useful in the anti-bomber role ( the 30mm cannon has very poor accuracy for an anti-fighter role ).


As to the other changes... Well if they work here I'll add them into the war-long EA Grand Campaign. So far it works well and a lot of the issues which people are raising here simply don't arise in testing. Ki-43 IIs tend to rake the B17s with fire but really down very few ( just as was historically right ) but they lose far fewer of their number to enemy defensive fire ( which is also historically accurate - and better than in the unmodded game ). Things get better for the Japanese as their planes get armoured but then worsen as the Allies mount more hydraulic turrets ( again just as it should be IMO ).

Bottom line... Test it out and see. It can be D/led from my AAR and commenting after play will give both sides of the debate an actual factual foundation ( which can only be helpful ).

[vettim89]

For those saying we need to see ETO type results in AE as far as fighter vs bomber interactions, some points to consider

1. It is 11 AE hexes from Northampton to Schweinfurth (considered a long range mission in ETO)
2. In the ETO, the USAAF raids were picked up on German radar before they left the air space over England
3. The Luftwaffe had hundreds of aircraft specifically designed to take down the B-17/B-24
4. The Luftwaffe had a well developed GCI system interconnected with a huge radar system
5. All German planes had radios
6. German cities were protected by huge AAA units using the best high alt gun in the world - FLAK-88

Most wouldn't use AE's ground combat system to fight the war in Europe. Why would you expect the air combat system to work in ETO terms? There is a pretty good Matrix Game title called "Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich" for such questions to be answered.

Yes the game has distortions as any game does. Focusing on the distortions is looking at the trees when you should be looking at the forest. The game works as a whole even if some individual parts do not seem "historically" accurate

[Nemo121]

Changing how the fighters work to deal with the bombers

Aye, but I haven't done that... It does seem people aren't grasping what I've done... I'll explain it again just to be clear so everyone gets it.

1. Reduced defensive armament accuracy for bombers based on whether they were in hydraulic turrets, non-hydraulic turrets or just holding onto the gun and praying.

2. Consolidated some multi-line armaments into single-line armaments... This effects the Jack ( where it allows the Jack to fire 4 front-mounted cannons instead of only 2 at a target --- just as happened in real life and as many other Japanese fighters do ) and about 3 or 4 late-war ( 1945 and 1946 ) Japanese planes where I simply substituted in 20mm cannon for 30mm cannon at a 1.5 : 1 ratio. This could easily have happened in real life.

3. Changed the service rating of one B-17 model and of the Ki-264 variants.

That's it. None of this approximates what you keep insisting has been done. I'm confused.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

The suggestion that Japanese airframe production is overpowered has been asserted, but not evidenced. The only discussion i have seen seemed to show if anything Japanese airframes were being underproduced. The distribution is different but thats to be expected. Its also a red herring and irrelevant to whether the 4e bomber model works well. Allowing the Japanese control over airframe production but not the Allies is a game design decision.

I think the argument that bomber turrets should not be as accurate as fighter guns is a very good one, logical and in line with history. A careful tweak here could result in more historic results throughout the war and encourage more realistic use of the aircraft.

To your first point, airframe production numbers have been posted, but not broken out are trainers, artillery spotters, etc., which numbered in the thousands. But more importantly, and a point continually ignored by the "historical" wing of the forum, is that the airframes burn supply, not av gas, in the game, while historical ground crews' attempts to insert boiled rice into gas tanks was a perennial operational failure. Supply can be produced in the game through LI with no oil or fuel inputs. It can be hand-waved into existence, and then carried even by submarines to where the planes are. It is as ahistoric a mechanic as exists in the game, yet there is contstant willful ignoring of this fact. Japan's historic air forces weren't grounded due to lack of airframes; thousands were found at the surrender. They weren't grounded by lack of men; thousands of ill-trained "pilots" were found at the surrender. (Ill-trained due to lack of fuel to accumulate flight hours.) The air forces were gounded by lack of fuel. And this constraint is not present in the game. It is what allows the Japanese player to overwhelm the Allied air effort at every stage of the game. It is supremely ahistoric.

Is production a "red herring" as you asset? I argue not. It is fundamental to the issue and to game balance. At this point, 1.5 years into the game's lifespan, there are still numerious calls to micro-change some small, tactical area of the game and not enough atttention to the game's balance overall, which is the sum of all of those tactical trade-offs.

Many of them rest on the fundamental, inherited design decision to not give the Allies variable production. Unlike Nemo, I would argue that this, while a worthy goal, cannot be simply spliced onto the existing game without a massive unbalancing against the Japanese player's interests. The entire underlying economic model would need to be rethought. In particular, CONUS Resorces and Oil are infinite and untouchable by the Japanese player. In reality, strategic resources such as steel and aluminum were scarce and rationed in the US by war production boards. Current in-game granularity in the area of Resources is insufficient to restrain any Allied variable production effort and prevent them running amok in further ahistoric fashion.

Your second point masks Nemo's contention up-thread that he is referring to waist-gunners, not B-17 or other model's turrets. The tail gunner, ball gunner, or especially top gunner in a B-17 had a substantially stable platform to fire from and good visibility across his firing arc not possessed by the two waist gunners. Were they as accurate as a fighter's guns? I don't know; I haven't seen stats. But on a gun-for gun basis (2 barrels versus 4, 6, or 8 on a fighter), when gunner workload is factored in (the pilot has a lot more to be doing at the point of firing than the bomber gunner) I'm not so sure the fighter is superior.

[Nemo121]

Oldman,

As to what you think the discussion should be about... Fine, I can see the validity of your point BUT I clearly asked that this thread be limited to discussing how best to model the A2A interaction.

If you want to discuss how to model bomber downtime, decreasing the number of flights per month, aviation support etc etc then please feel free to do so... in another thread. Right now you are having an entirely different discussion than what this thread was set up to discuss.

I think your points have validity and I'd be happy to discuss them in another thread if you start it but, right now, they are preventing this thread from focussing on the issue I was seeking to brainstorm.



Mike,
As regards stopping the B17s... Well, sometimes the counter is to simply recognise that they can close any base they want but to make sure that even with closed bases you can achieve what you need. I don't think that we need to remove the ability of B17s to close bases... We just need to model them right ( including downtime between flights ). Right now, IMO, they can fly too often - but that goes for both sides, Japanese and Americans.

[vettim89]

Last post on this topic:

I think operational tempo is overstated in general in AE although it is better than it was in WiTP. I think logistics have a lot to do with that.

Every sortie of a B-24J should take up ten tons of supplies (fuel, bombs, and ammo). Does 1000 supply points disappear every time you run a 100 plane B-24 raid? I could be wrong but I don't think that happens in AE

One last thing, points for aircraft losses are already overstated. Right now twelve four engine bombers is equal to losing a large destroyer that represents considerable more investement in material, manpower, and time

[Nemo121]

Bullwinkle,

Well, the fighter had a far easier target also. They could choose how to make the attack and minimise lateral movement across their line of fire ( which was a real killer for accuracy ). B-17 gunners often had to fire on targets moving diagonally through their engagement envelope ( human brains are TERRIBLE at targetting things moving diagonally. We are great at things coming directly at us, ok with things going laterally but terrible at things coming diagonally in a single plane and even worse when things move diagonally in two planes ( as a fighter coming in from the left rear quarter of the plan in a diving attack ( 8 o'clock high ) ) would be doing.Throw in the fact that the gunner could also be moving laterally relative to the target's diagonality in three planes and it all combines to make certain types of firing solutions for certain approach MUCH more difficult to compute when you are the gunner than when you are the fighter.

For a whole variety of reasons many firing solutions for fighter planes attacking bombers were much easier than for the bomber crews firing back. One cannot say that the solution was equally difficult for both sides. It just doesn't work that way.


Of course for some approaches the bombers had easier firing solutions than the fighters but with relatively experienced and trained pilots the fighters were able to choose to come in along vectors which either minimised their exposure to fire or maximised the difficulty of the firing solution required of those aiming the defensive fire.


FOr the above reasons ( as well as issues of historical loss rates to bomber fire vs what we see in-game ) I think that a good case can be made for stating that a bomber crewman in a turret couldn't achieve the same accuracy as a fighter pilot using the same weapon closing in on him. That's an "on average, all other things being equal" statement though of course.

[PresterJohn001]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

The suggestion that Japanese airframe production is overpowered has been asserted, but not evidenced. The only discussion i have seen seemed to show if anything Japanese airframes were being underproduced. The distribution is different but thats to be expected. Its also a red herring and irrelevant to whether the 4e bomber model works well. Allowing the Japanese control over airframe production but not the Allies is a game design decision.

I think the argument that bomber turrets should not be as accurate as fighter guns is a very good one, logical and in line with history. A careful tweak here could result in more historic results throughout the war and encourage more realistic use of the aircraft.

To your first point, airframe production numbers have been posted, but not broken out are trainers, artillery spotters, etc., which numbered in the thousands. But more importantly, and a point continually ignored by the "historical" wing of the forum, is that the airframes burn supply, not av gas, in the game, while historical ground crews' attempts to insert boiled rice into gas tnaks was a perennial operational failure. Supply can be produced in the game through LI with no oil or fuel inputs. It can be hand-waved into existence, and then carried even by submarines to where the planes are. It is as ahistoric a mechanic as exists in the game, yet there is contstant willful ignoring of this fact. Japan's historic air forces weren't grounded due to lack of airframes; thousands were found at the surrender. They weren't grounded by lack of men; thousands of ill-trained "pilots" were found at the surrender. (Ill-trained due to lack of fuel to accumulate flight hours.) The air forces were gounded by lack of fuel. And this constraint is not present in the game. It is what allows the Japanese player to overwhelm the Allied air effort at every stage of the game. It is supremely ahistoric.

Is production a "red herring" as you asset? I argue not. It is fundamental to the issue and to game balance. At this point, 1.5 years into the game's lifespan, there are still numerious calls to micro-change some small, tactical area of the game and not enough atttention to the game's balance overall, which is the sum of all of those tactical trade-offs.

Many of them rest on the fundamental, inherited design decision to not give the Allies variable production. Unlike Nemo, I would argue that this, while a worthy goal, cannot be simply spliced onto the existing game without a massive unbalancing against the Japanese player's interests. The entire underlying economic model would need to be rethought. In particular, CONUS Resorces and Oil are infinite and untouchable by the Japanese player. In reality, strategic resources such as steel and aluminum were scarce and rationed in the US by war production boards. Current in-game granularity in the area of Resources is insufficient to restrain any Allied variable production effort and prevent them running amok in further ahistoric fashion.

Your second point masks Nemo's contention up-thread that he is referring to waist-gunners, not B-17 or other model's turrets. The tail gunner, ball gunner, or especially top gunner in a B-17 had a substantially stable platform to fire from and good visibility across his firing arc not possessed by the two waist gunners. Were they as accurate as a fighter's guns? I don't know; I haven't seen stats. But on a gun-for gun basis (2 barrels versus 4, 6, or 8 on a fighter), when gunner workload is factored in (the pilot has a lot more to be doing at the point of firing than the bomber gunner) I'm not so sure the fighter is superior.

So total airframe production is within historical bounds but distribution of builds is different then? Supply is an abstract, a neccessary one to make the game playable, its also produced more effeciently with HI which does use fuel i believe. Whilst i'm sure you are right that including avaiation fuel as another resource would make the game more "accurate" it again is irrelevant as its not going to happen and even if included Japanese players would just make sure enough was produced as it would be an obvious critical resource. It might not add anything to the game.

Discussing the accuracy of the production model does not impact the accuracy of the combat model. They are not directly related. Part of the point of a game like this is to allow ahistoric choices by both sides and then try to model what the outcome would be. In order to do that the combat model should resonably follow historic outcomes in historic situations, but also reasonably extrapolate to ahistoric situations

Ive never claimed great knowledge of technical aspects of ww2, i'm more of a gamer than a history buff.. that said i would be very suprised if a gunner turret was as accurate as a fighters guns. If they were i'm sure an air supremacy gunship would have been built an used. Theres a reason that bombers needed escorts and its not coming through in the current combat model for allied 4e bombers.

I do prefer the Japanese side to play, but i also prefer the more historic scenarios, number 1 or big babes

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Bullwinkle,

Well, the fighter had a far easier target also. They could choose how to make the attack and minimise lateral movement across their line of fire ( which was a real killer for accuracy ). B-17 gunners often had to fire on targets moving diagonally through their engagement envelope ( human brains are TERRIBLE at targetting things moving diagonally. We are great at things coming directly at us, ok with things going laterally but terrible at things coming diagonally in a single plane and even worse when things move diagonally in two planes ( as a fighter coming in from the left rear quarter of the plan in a diving attack ( 8 o'clock high ) ) would be doing.Throw in the fact that the gunner could also be moving laterally relative to the target's diagonality in three planes and it all combines to make certain types of firing solutions for certain approach MUCH more difficult to compute when you are the gunner than when you are the fighter.

For a whole variety of reasons many firing solutions for fighter planes attacking bombers were much easier than for the bomber crews firing back. One cannot say that the solution was equally difficult for both sides. It just doesn't work that way.


Of course for some approaches the bombers had easier firing solutions than the fighters but with relatively experienced and trained pilots the fighters were able to choose to come in along vectors which either minimised their exposure to fire or maximised the difficulty of the firing solution required of those aiming the defensive fire.


FOr the above reasons ( as well as issues of historical loss rates to bomber fire vs what we see in-game ) I think that a good case can be made for stating that a bomber crewman in a turret couldn't achieve the same accuracy as a fighter pilot using the same weapon closing in on him. That's an "on average, all other things being equal" statement though of course.

You make good points, especially about diagonal spatial reactions. However, to counter, I would add that the bomber(s) had an advantage of multiple brains working on target aquisition and "uncovering" guns (a primary co-pilot task on the intercom), as well as the fighter pilot not being able to restrict his risk to the one bomber he was targeting, but having to also risk fire from its mates. What might be a hard diagonal shot from the fighter's prey might be an easy shot from a bomber below or above or to the rear.

It's not an easily modeled problem.

As you've asked that the thread be restricted to a topic I'm not that concerned with, I'll bow out here.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

So total airframe production is within historical bounds but distribution of builds is different then? Supply is an abstract, a neccessary one to make the game playable, its also produced more effeciently with HI which does use fuel i believe. Whilst i'm sure you are right that including avaiation fuel as another resource would make the game more "accurate" it again is irrelevant as its not going to happen and even if included Japanese players would just make sure enough was produced as it would be an obvious critical resource. It might not add anything to the game.

As I'm trying to exit this thread and let those interested in Nemo's original discussion press onward, I'll only say this:

My recall of historic airframe total production posted here in recent months was that it was much higher than I'd thought (circa 39,000 from memory?), but that the model distribution was wildly different than that allowed by the game. Many more light, utility airframes, far fewer front-line, late-war fighters for example.

As to supply, I don't argue that the simplicity of the device in the design makes the game more playable, only that then demanding historic adherence goes out the window. Gasoline was a primary constraint on Japan's war effort. Petroleum need was in the top two reasons Japan went to war with the Allies in 1941. Despite having airframes and pilots, Japan could not conduct air operations we see in the game because of lack of fuel, and that lack is not there in the game design. HI does use fuel, but LI does not. The Home Islands can "make av gas" with no importation of oil or fuel. Even when every tanker and xAK is sunk, Japan can conduct an air offensive. This removes a (the?) primary USN strategic goal of economic destruciton from the game. While the USAAC sought bases from which to burn down Japanese cities, the USN sought to break the economy the old fashioned way, by naval blockade and raw material denial. It's a tactic Scipio the Elder would have understood. When total denial of petroleum still does not ground the enemy air force you are well into the realm of ahistoric outcomes. That this was done in the design for good and solid reasons of gameplay doesn't make it less true, and ignoring it while focusing on individual gun performance seems like the deck furniture on the Titanic all over again.

That said, I appreciate the consideration my points have recieved here, and I'll bow out of the thread so it can resume the course the OP wanted it to follow.

[oldman45]

Nemo, one reason I wanted to keep an open mind is because I was not exactly sure what you were going for. I see it now and it makes more sense in late war situations and perhaps it will work in early and mid war encounters. Thanks

[Nemo121]

Bullwinkle, Oldman,

I would strongly suggest that you guys start threads dealing with the particular focii you individually wish to deal with. I think they are both valid focii and I'd be happy to discuss them in those threads. This one was just sprawling too much for anything sensible to arise.

Thanks for the appreciation guys and I just wanted to be clear again I wasn't denigrating your inputs, just asking those issues to have their own threads.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ChezDaJez wrote:

"Brad has lost only 15 B-17s to air combat for the entire war despite near daily raids on my bases and shipping for the past few weeks. Ops losses account for 46 B-17s most likely due to lower their experience and higher fatigue from long range missions."

Chez' numbers are a little off... I have only lost 12 B17E's to A2A (though you can be sure that most of the 38 Ops losses were due to combat damage), but I've also lost 29 B17Ds to A2A combat (plus 10 more in Operational losses).

In Appendix B of Fortress against the Sun, Gene Salecker notes the fates of all PTO B-17's by serial number. While aspects of Saleckers work is seriously dodgy, I view him as broadly trustworthy on the US side of the fence.

Anyhu, Salecker notes a total of 22 B-17's all makes shot down throughout, 9 listed as MIA and 8 "fate unknowns".

That is a sizeable amount considering the small number of them available for missions in the Pacific until they were withdrawn. But for me that is not the main issue.

My main issues are two-fold.

The first is that I believe the accuracy of various defensive gun positions for all bombers, Japanese or allied should reflect the difficulty associated with that position. Using the B-17 as an example, the tail gunner should have a much higher accuracy than the waist or radio operator gunner. Top and belly turrets should fall somewhere in between.

The second is directly related to the B-17. When you compare the results that B-17s are able to achieve in the game to their RL achievements in the Paciifc, you will note a dramatic difference. Historically, the impact of the B-17 in the Pacific was negligible yet in the game, the impact can be significant. I know of no RL B-17 mission in the Pacific that amounted to anything more than a nuisance raid. Much of that had to do with weather and the fact that B-17 missions were generally above 25000 ft.

The problem is that I don't believe my losses to them to be excessive... yet. I would just like to have my fighters inflict more damage to them without greatly increasing their loss rate. Its a fine line to try to walk. How to fix it is a problem given that I believe that both the code and database numbers are responsible. Fixing one without the other may slew the results too far the other way.

I can live with it as is given that BradfordKay does try to remain within historical guidelines. Against another player, I may be screaming and hollering.

Chez

[Alpha77]

Just for the record, I am more in line with Bullwinkles approach here (maybe cause he is also atm an allied player vs. the AI like me).... and you cannot just seperate the issues as you wish. When the WHOLE picture is wrong (here, JAP has unrealistic high numbers of planes and no fuel shortages) then discussing the B17 gunnery is a bit nickpic. As soon we change the BIG picture to more realistic levels, we then can in a 2nd step also tone down the Allied 4E accuracy and numbers (which are not great btw. when you look up the B17 prod numbers!).

But at the current moment I am leaning more to leave the B17 thing (but yeah maybe rate down the acc of 1 or 2 of their MGs lower, agreed with that) as it is, cause:
a) Production is already pretty low (and allies get B17Gs in middle of 45, not a single plane before)
b) They require a big effort to operate (you need to build up quite much before you can use them, air support, airfield etc.)
c) in 42/early 43 at least the Allies can not bring up 4Es in huge numbers over the whole map, maybe in 2-3 spots. AND: The Jap can easily try to bring more planes to the front which have better chances to kill 4es. Maybe in reality the Japs dismissed the fight vs.allied bombers a bit (other then Germans) which cost them at least in 44 and 45 dearly, but at least in PBM the Jap can adapt (do producre more planes that can kill bombers instead dogfighters)
d) They have already 4 readiness status, compared to Jap bombers that have only 2. I think double the number of the japs shoud be ok ? Consider the Jap can send scores of Bettys (with no rest at all it seems??) over the whole map and sink your shipping with their (maybe a bit too dangerous+accurate) torps? Also those torp planes are rarely shot down by ship AA. But they should.

I know these points are not in context of the thread starter, but I wanted to point them out anyway.

And a disclaimer: I am not a so called allied fanboy, I am neutral with both sides.

[PresterJohn001]

Doesn't the (Japanese) AI get extra help with aircraft?