Airspeed influence in A2A

[MrKane]

Hi Good folks,

I am in process of tuning my own scenario (just to play AI). My target is to make game more playable and have more historical style of war and fight results, event if cost will be to have less historical airframes/devices stats. So, here is my problem. I am thinking of reduce airspeed influence in A2A to get little more pilots exp and mvr into play. Search of forum/manual have not provided me any useful information about game math or at least some more detailed info how airspeed really influence a2a. Can someone point me to topics about it or someone have some idea how to get to my target without changing current airspeed stats ? I did try play with mvr but it seems to me airspeed always win.

Thanks for all answers in advice.

[witpqs]

Except for a few that were cleared for release to us on the forum, the detailed forumlae used in the game are kept confidential and will not be given to us. In any event we can not change the game code. So, you can not decrease the importance of speed in A2A combat. But you could try to minimize its influence by reducing the speed differences between the various planes. That will have many effects, and you might not like the results. I think you would have to experiment a lot.

[PaxMondo]

+1

Speed was (is) a major factor in A2A. The Elf was the lead on the air team, currently deployed, and he knows his stuff.

So, you can adjust the data anyway you wish, but the model is the model.

[MrKane]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
+1

Speed was (is) a major factor in A2A. The Elf was the lead on the air team, currently deployed, and he knows his stuff.

So, you can adjust the data anyway you wish, but the model is the model.

I do agree with you that airspeed is/was major factor in A2A.
I just feel that in this game is little to important, I would like make pilot exp little important. Plane is just tool, guy with bigger hammer should not win fight every time just because his hammer is bigger or better. People are the ones who fight not airframes.

[PaxMondo]

Ah, ok. My testing shows pilot exp is a huge factor. Tojo's .vs. Hellcats it is very much about pilot exp and which role you are in. Sweep or escort or CAP?

[MrKane]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Ah, ok. My testing shows pilot exp is a huge factor. Tojo's .vs. Hellcats it is very much about pilot exp and which role you are in. Sweep or escort or CAP?

Yes I do agree again. But I am talking about k-84 vs 51 or p-47 when airspeed diff is > 40. I have tested it. Cap or sweep does not matter faster is always winner.

[PaxMondo]

10% speed differential is a lot though ... and historically the Bolts and Stangs did win most of the air battles if the numbers were at least equal. Ki-84 is going to need numbers on its side to hold up to either.

That's what most fighter jocks would tell you and that's what Ian setup. I defer to his expertise. He does it in real life. Pretty sure he know what he's talking about.

However, your mod, you can adjust as you see fit.

[Alfred]

Further to what PaxMondo is pointing out.

Tinkering with speed can have several, "unwanted", ill effects on other parameters.

1. If you reduce top speed you should also reduce cruise speed accordingly. This will impact on ETA potentially providing a boost to defensive air operations.

2. Reduce cruise speed will likely make getting coordinated air raids much harder as the escorting fighters will find it much harder to catch up with their bombers.

3. Max airspeed can reduce the enemy's manoeuvre rating. Play around too much and you will probably turn some third rate fighters into killer aircraft. Personally I can't see how the intended objective of more historical style of war and combat would be achieved by having a Nate dominating a Mustang.

4. The existing interrelationship between max speed and manoeuvre ratings already abstracts the different climbing rates experienced at differed heights. The risk runs of totally messing up with the existing climb rates.

Section 7.4.2 of the manual makes it quite clear that max speed does not trump the other attributes which the OP, without I dare say providing any evidence, claims are lacking in the game.

Bottom line is that I don't see how one can change the historical aircraft attributes and still expect to get historical play. But as PaxMondo has pointed out, one can do anything with one's own mod. Just don't expect that the results will be pretty. After all, the AE devs only spent quite a few man years to get right the relationships between the different variables. I doubt that the devs would view the game as being inadequately "playable" as it is.

Alfred

[Commander Stormwolf]

to fix with A2A with the editor

1) give all AC the same max altitude (30,000 feet will do)

that way the max alt sweep broken phenomenon can be mitigated

2) remove the max alt MVR penalties and change the MVR using a standard formula

recommend my one (60 - wingloading/5)

no need to mess with speed, speed was a primary factor in A2A performance
and even tough it may be considered broken by some (not by me) at least the values are historically correct and impartial

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Further to what PaxMondo is pointing out.

Tinkering with speed can have several, "unwanted", ill effects on other parameters.

Oh, very Yes. A lot of the following comments are more to help Alfred adapt his commentary. It is not criticism.

1. If you reduce top speed you should also reduce cruise speed accordingly. This will impact on ETA potentially providing a boost to defensive air operations.

Not really. Cruise speed is a Power/Altitude thingy. It’s not power-linear. It is what it is.

2. Reduce cruise speed will likely make getting coordinated air raids much harder as the escorting fighters will find it much harder to catch up with their bombers.

See 1. above. Doesn’t quite work that way. Can’t say how coordination works, but trying to impress IRL thingys onto a game abstraction will cause issues in the hypothalamus.

3. Max airspeed can reduce the enemy's manoeuvre rating. Play around too much and you will probably turn some third rate fighters into killer aircraft. Personally I can't see how the intended objective of more historical style of war and combat would be achieved by having a Nate dominating a Mustang.

Well, that’s the entire point, isn’t it?

4. The existing interrelationship between max speed and manoeuvre ratings already abstracts the different climbing rates experienced at differed heights. The risk runs of totally messing up with the existing climb rates.

Very true. That’s exactly what’s happening in the new Babes air stuff. A matrix of Speed, Climb, Maneuver at Alt, all built inside the game engine.

Section 7.4.2 of the manual makes it quite clear that max speed does not trump the other attributes which the OP, without I dare say providing any evidence, claims are lacking in the game.

Screw the little forum “game weenies”. You are right, they are wrong.

Bottom line is that I don't see how one can change the historical aircraft attributes and still expect to get historical play. But as PaxMondo has pointed out, one can do anything with one's own mod. Just don't expect that the results will be pretty. After all, the AE devs only spent quite a few man years to get right the relationships between the different variables. I doubt that the devs would view the game as being inadequately "playable" as it is.

You can get there from here. Trust me.

Alfred

[ed] The stuff that happens here is wayyyy beyond what the regular forumn talks about. So please be judicious. It's hard to tell a pre-teen he can't get what he wants.
Ciao. John

[Alfred]

Symon,

Fair enough.

I wasn't attempting to address the usual folk who inhabit this sub forum but the OP. Seems I might not have been clear enough on that point. I was basically just trying to point out to the OP that there was more in heaven and earth than in his horizon. That some technical means exist to effect some features does not invalidate my position as the knowledge of those technical means would be known to only a few, regular participants in this sub forum, none of whom are unaware of the law of unintended consequences.

Alfred

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
...that there was more in heaven and earth than in his horizon. ...

so nicely phrased .... dang I like reading you Alfred! [:)]

[MrKane]

Thanks for comments guys. I am always open to hear other opinions.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: MrKane


Yes I do agree again. But I am talking about k-84 vs 51 or p-47 when airspeed diff is > 40. I have tested it. Cap or sweep does not matter faster is always winner.

Well, if you are faster than your opponent, you can run away from him, but he can't run away from you. That's one hell of an "edge".

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: MrKane


Yes I do agree again. But I am talking about k-84 vs 51 or p-47 when airspeed diff is > 40. I have tested it. Cap or sweep does not matter faster is always winner.

Well, if you are faster than your opponent, you can run away from him, but he can't run away from you. That's one hell of an "edge".

+1

Speed allows you to control combat. You can either initiate or not. Your opponent has to react to your intentions. As stated, one heck of a big deal.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Ah, ok. My testing shows pilot exp is a huge factor.

This is my experience too. In this order:

Pilot EXP
Altitude
Speed.

Pretty much nothing else seems to make much of a difference. Nothing to back that up. Just my feeling of the game.

[sandman455]

To the original OP:

There is enough out there for you to make significant edits to the speed values. I'll admit you need to have some understanding of how aircraft performance varies with altitude and configuration. A P-47 in Pax River is nothing like one sitting on the line in Lunga. The support staff does not even compare. You will find that almost all the allied aircraft values use the Pax River or manufacturer's data while the poor Japanese didn't have Mitsubishi or Nakajima engineers hanging around the test facilities to produce similar showcase values.

I do suggest if you want to dig in - start with the numbers that Symon/JWE just published in another thread of this sub forum. It would be a superb starting point. Also I'll warn you straight up - you might stop playing the game altogether if you get too involved in this. There is no end to the trickle of data that will have you re-thinking your latest edits. There is no end to the tweaking.


I seriously hesitate to suggest this - seeing how it might alter your lifestyle. . . but . . .

Another source you might want to consider is the durability of the aircraft. Can't even fathom where this data is coming from since it doesn't seem to follow any useful parameters and consequently it looks highly subjective. One would think empty weight would be a nice starting point, but it doesn't even begin to explain some of the values in the stock database. You have 3000lb aircraft with retractable gear being more durable than fixed gear aircraft of a similar weight? You have high wing a/c being compared favorably with mid wing and low wing?? You have 2E's having less durability than a few 1E's!?? You have seaplanes being compared unfavorably with everything??? And you've got a M6A with 20% less than a Ka-1!?!?!?!? (My personal favorite!).

You might as well just start walking away or admit that the next few weeks of your modding will be filled with headaches as you try to adjust things to something more logical.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

---

2) remove the max alt MVR penalties and change the MVR using a standard formula

recommend my one (60 - wingloading/5)

no need to mess with speed, speed was a primary factor in A2A performance
and even tough it may be considered broken by some (not by me) at least the values are historically correct and impartial

Dont you think the rate of roll or acceleration is part of maneuverability? (If we consider it to be the ability to change both the direction and the length of an aircraft's velocity vector - IMHO and according to many WW2 pilots the rate of roll (and especially speed of course) are more important than the best or instantaneous rate of turn...) Fw 190 for one was considered highly maneuverable fighter despite having rather high wingloading.

Also it should be considered that the top speed and the relative top speeds of 2 compared aircraft varies by altitude. P-51 may be much faster than the Ki-84 on paper, but how useful really are the absolute top speed values when determining absolute or relative combat advantages or disadvantages? Sticking to the example pair of Ki-84 versus P-51, these 2 planes achieve their listed top speeds at different altitudes. At any other altitudes the achieved level top speeds as well as the gap between Ki-84 and the P-51 is different. IIRC at low altitudes(below 15 kft or so) the P-51's top speed advantage isnt all that great, and thus with equal numbers and pilots the combat losses should be nearer to 1:1 than at 26,000 ft where P-51's speed trumps Ki-84s advantages.

Whatever values you put in the game databases, you're still likely to get ahistorical/unrealistic/just plain wrong average combat results in many situations and combat altitudes. The game just isnt detailed enough.

[MrKane]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

---

2) remove the max alt MVR penalties and change the MVR using a standard formula

recommend my one (60 - wingloading/5)

no need to mess with speed, speed was a primary factor in A2A performance
and even tough it may be considered broken by some (not by me) at least the values are historically correct and impartial

Dont you think the rate of roll or acceleration is part of maneuverability? (If we consider it to be the ability to change both the direction and the length of an aircraft's velocity vector - IMHO and according to many WW2 pilots the rate of roll (and especially speed of course) are more important than the best or instantaneous rate of turn...) Fw 190 for one was considered highly maneuverable fighter despite having rather high wingloading.

Also it should be considered that the top speed and the relative top speeds of 2 compared aircraft varies by altitude. P-51 may be much faster than the Ki-84 on paper, but how useful really are the absolute top speed values when determining absolute or relative combat advantages or disadvantages? Sticking to the example pair of Ki-84 versus P-51, these 2 planes achieve their listed top speeds at different altitudes. At any other altitudes the achieved level top speeds as well as the gap between Ki-84 and the P-51 is different. IIRC at low altitudes(below 15 kft or so) the P-51's top speed advantage isnt all that great, and thus with equal numbers and pilots the combat losses should be nearer to 1:1 than at 26,000 ft where P-51's speed trumps Ki-84s advantages.

Whatever values you put in the game databases, you're still likely to get ahistorical/unrealistic/just plain wrong average combat results in many situations and combat altitudes. The game just isnt detailed enough.

+1

That exactly issue I am addressing in my mod.

[PaxMondo]

Be very interested in seeing your calcs and results when you get them. As others have stated, I believe that you will find getting non-conflicting data challenging. Who knows the accuracy or test conditions of any of the IJ data, regardless of the conflicts.

Good Luck!