P-47s: Hammer of God?

[Lowpe]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



To this I only say.... ew . I'm not saying that it isn't working/hasn't worked for you, just that I would not pick those particular altitudes or those particular CAP settings. I find your low altitude fetish interesting, but don't think it is the only or the best way - particularly with later planes that have the same maneuver ratings all the way up to 20k or even 30k: in essence you could pick anything within that range and don't need to stay down at 9k or 15k (although you may want to anticipate some climb if you intend to always remain below that top altitude for your desired maneuver rating). Or rather, I would submit that if 3K/6K/9K is working for you, why wouldn't 9/12/15 or 8/12/16 or something similar also work - and which are also better at defending against attacks that are not stratosweeps only?

Hi Lok! You raise one of the answers why a very low starting CAP works better...you need to account for the climb for the defenders and the descent for the attackers. I want the combat to take place as low as possible where Japanese manuvr ratings are greatest and Jugs and Lightnings aren't so strong. I got this idea from an old post from theElf & Lobaron talking about what goes into determining the altitude of the engagement upshot is a whole host of items go into which will never be released to us mere players. I take from that there is a formula, with some element of randomness, but that the lower you start the more likely the combat will be low too.

Now the sweepers don't always dive on the lowest altitude fighters, but they do fairly often. I suspect there is a whole host of things going on here from detection to weather to leaders to pilots.

Also, the greater the altitude delta, I have found better results. I have tried the other bands, I have even flown the bait CAP at 1K. The sweeps tend to not last as long, and I think there maybe more stress put on the enemy fighter plane and pilot (although that is mere supposition on my part).



When you set to 30% CAP and 20% Rest, can you say with certainty what those other 50% of the planes are doing? If you know you're going to take a sweep on that day, you should be setting to 80% CAP (and either 0% or 20% Rest, I don't think it matters in this case). If you're defending for "on any given day but I don't know which day", then maybe don't do the 80% for higher SR planes or if you notice pilots/planes becoming fatigued, etc...

I got the CAP settings after playing around a fair amount. I have tried other settings too, but for my situation (repeated waves of high altitude sweepers followed by bombers sometimes) the 30/20 and 40/20 with 0 range work well. Far better than a high percentage of say 80/20 or 100. Of course I can't say they are the best...the settings depend upon so many variables: bases, attack you are expecting, is this a trap or steady defense, amount of av support, planes involved,etc, etc.

Also, about even the Zeroes at 3K defending against bombers - sure, maybe, but they're at a distinct disadvantage as they first have to climb, which cuts into the time available to shoot at the bombers before they reach the base. Detection time vs. climb rate.

Heck, if you planes are set to 40K they are at a greater disadvantage trying to stop bombers at 10K.
[/quote]

My previous post would be the settings I would try to put a damper on the Jugs sweeps given a few assumptions: 1. I have plenty of decent pilots and fighters; 2. I have a large runway with adequate support and preferably on a railroad; 3. I need to fight; 4. I would need to experiment a little with the fighters and their settings because I am not too experienced with some of the frames, but that is what I would try first.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: obvert

I agree with most of what Loka is saying here, but 80% is a bit high to sustain over several days or to keep fighters around for later bombing strikes. I have used higher settings for groups, but usually try CAP 50-70/10 rest. Different groups might have different settings, like the low bait group set to a lower CAP % and one or two ace groups set to a higher %.

Depends a lot on what is there, what the opponent's tendencies are, but I think we're discussing large field protection with multiple groups, right?

I've not found this to be a problem. I think what you're pointing at here is something like this hypothetical:

80% CAP on a 40-plane unit = 32 planes in the air assuming full complement. The group will attempt to put 80% in the air in both phases.

Morning phase - raids and possibly sweeps come in. 32 planes will meet them, and you might lose up to 32 planes. Afternoon phase comes around, with yet more raids and maybe even more sweeps. If you did lose 32 planes, you might only have 80% of 8 planes in the air - so only 6 or 7 planes. That could suck.

If you set to a lower percentage, like the 50 you mention, then it would be morning phase - 20 planes will attempt to meet the enemy. Even if you lose them all, that still leaves 20 planes in the group. In the afternoon, you'd have 10 planes available.


I still like my 80% . It's just more planes in the air. As the Allies where you don't care about supply burn, it just makes sense. I don't know that what I just put here is exactly how it works, but it's a good enough approximation and I do know that if you have unallocated planes (as in 50% CAP/20% rest = 30% unallocated) they definitely don't fly CAP at all. Whatever you set for CAP percentage, that's the largest number of planes from the group that will be in the air at once that day. FWIW, I never set any rest percentage to my CAP units. Whatever is unallocated is, by default, resting.

80% (or more) makes even more sense on CVs, which don't burn supplies or sorties for CAP missions.

This, of course, assumes Range 0. Finally, it's worth noting that I routinely leave training groups on 90%, range 0 CAP (low altitude obviously, like 5K because it's just 1 click to get there), for months on end as they train up their Experience. Pilot fatigue remains in the single digits through all that time. I honestly haven't checked plane fatigue because they're training groups, but on a macro level I don't notice ops losses at all. Since this is possible with training groups, it's certainly possible with frontline groups, although combat or setting them to higher altitudes will wear them out faster.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There is no 50mph or 70 mph speed differential cut off threshold.  This thread is in serious danger of misrepresenting what theElf actually said 7.5 years ago and creating a dangerous AE myth.

1.  Above a 10 mph delta difference, the possibility of the slower aircraft failing one of the many checks affecting the maneuver rating.  The greater the delta the greater the odds of failing the check.

2.  The speed of point (1) above which is checked is not the maximum speed of the aircraft model.  Nor is it the cruise speed of the aircraft model. It is a speed which takes into account many other factors including the altitude at which the combat between the two aircraft occurs.  Even the climb rates are taken into account.  And no, all the relevant factors have never been revealed, nor will they, by the devs.

3.  In the event that this check is failed, the maneuver rating at that altitude band of the slower aircraft may be reduced at most to 50%.


There is a lot which can be done to combat the P-47.  Air combat is a very complex matrix with many important.  Neither maneuver, nor speed, nor altitude are the only significant factors influencing the outcome.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred, this makes much more sense to me in the context of this game, i.e., nothing is ever written in stone, other than variables.[:D] It also clears things up for me as I was unsure as to what was what in this matter as there have been various things stated on the forum.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: obvert

I agree with most of what Loka is saying here, but 80% is a bit high to sustain over several days or to keep fighters around for later bombing strikes. I have used higher settings for groups, but usually try CAP 50-70/10 rest. Different groups might have different settings, like the low bait group set to a lower CAP % and one or two ace groups set to a higher %.

Depends a lot on what is there, what the opponent's tendencies are, but I think we're discussing large field protection with multiple groups, right?

I've not found this to be a problem. I think what you're pointing at here is something like this hypothetical:

80% CAP on a 40-plane unit = 32 planes in the air assuming full complement. The group will attempt to put 80% in the air in both phases.

Morning phase - raids and possibly sweeps come in. 32 planes will meet them, and you might lose up to 32 planes. Afternoon phase comes around, with yet more raids and maybe even more sweeps. If you did lose 32 planes, you might only have 80% of 8 planes in the air - so only 6 or 7 planes. That could suck.

If you set to a lower percentage, like the 50 you mention, then it would be morning phase - 20 planes will attempt to meet the enemy. Even if you lose them all, that still leaves 20 planes in the group. In the afternoon, you'd have 10 planes available.


I still like my 80% . It's just more planes in the air. As the Allies where you don't care about supply burn, it just makes sense. I don't know that what I just put here is exactly how it works, but it's a good enough approximation and I do know that if you have unallocated planes (as in 50% CAP/20% rest = 30% unallocated) they definitely don't fly CAP at all. Whatever you set for CAP percentage, that's the largest number of planes from the group that will be in the air at once that day. FWIW, I never set any rest percentage to my CAP units. Whatever is unallocated is, by default, resting.

80% (or more) makes even more sense on CVs, which don't burn supplies or sorties for CAP missions.

This, of course, assumes Range 0. Finally, it's worth noting that I routinely leave training groups on 90%, range 0 CAP (low altitude obviously, like 5K because it's just 1 click to get there), for months on end as they train up their Experience. Pilot fatigue remains in the single digits through all that time. I honestly haven't checked plane fatigue because they're training groups, but on a macro level I don't notice ops losses at all. Since this is possible with training groups, it's certainly possible with frontline groups, although combat or setting them to higher altitudes will wear them out faster.

I tried the high percentage CAP, and against multiple waves found my CAP worn out very quickly. I then tried these settings and had much better performance against multiple waves.

On carriers where you expect a combat, I think the higher or even 100% works well although that is what I think from others AARs. I absolutely suck at carrier combat-- fair warning.[:D]

I have noticed the range 0 high cap% in backwaters to build experience works, but as Japan I try to save supplies and I don't normally do that.

[Alfred]

Hmn, until this thread came along, I cannot recall ever reading anyone putting forward this 50/70mph threshold.  And I usually retain a recollection of seeing a subject which I can then search the forum to refresh myself on the details.  Considering that it seems to be players who predominantly play Japan who are talking about this 50/70 mph threshold, it seems likely that this discussion has been had in Japanese AARs which I don't read.
 
I can see how, as a very rough rule of thumb, some credence may have been given in the past to a misrepresentation of what theElf wrote in mid 2008.  If you did have planes flying with a 70mph delta then there is a much higher possibility of the maximum 50% maneuver reduction ultimately occurring than if the delta is only 20%, certeris paribus.  But everything is not the same and it is impossible for a player to know the exact factors which are taken into account in the complex matrix.  For example, the example which theElf used in mid 2008 to explain air combat, (posting the special debug combat report which is only available to the devs), had a P-40B flying at 293 mph at the point of combat.  Clearly that speed is not the maximum speed of that aircraft model which was determined by all the factors (including altitude, number of aircraft, pilot experience, leader stats etc) which are not fully disclosed and most definitely not quantified in the algorithms.  In short under certain circumstances, an aircraft with a lower maximum speed (eg A2M) may end up with a faster speed at the point of combat with a P-40B and it is the latter's maneuver rating which is decreased within the range of 1-50%.
 
It is one thing for players to post about rough rules of thumb.  It makes it easier to understand the under the hood relationships.  But the danger is that someone then misunderstands the rule of thumb and then starts to present it as an accurate and comprehensive explanation of how the under the hood routines operate.  That is how AE myths develop and remain alive.  It is why I generally go back to "primary" sources and refresh my memory before posting answers.
 
Alfred

[Lowpe]

I will look for a thread on the speed delta....

It took me a while to find it, but here is another reason I like low CAP versus Jugs.



I'm late to comment on this, but - and as a matter of fact, having worked on this part of the game - I can tell you without reservation that some WWII piston engine aircraft CAN and indeed DID make more horsepower and produce greater speeds at higher altitudes than at sea level.
I am not responsible for the final MVR Ratings in the game, the head of the Air Team was directly responsible for choosing those - though he did have a consistent methodology.

I therefore cannot state with certainty that some aircraft in the game have higher MVR ratings at high altitude than they do at Low Altitude (for reasons beyond this discussion), but there certainly ought to be.

For example, the maximum speed of the above mentioned P-47D is 333MPH @ 2,110 HP at sea level, increasing as altitude climbs to 390MPH @ 2335 HP at 15,000 feet; maxing speed to 435MPH @ 31,000 feet (though HP drops a bit). Look HERE for aircraft test and acceptance documents.


< Message edited by Big B -- 4/4/2013 11:26:55 PM >

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I will look for a thread on the speed delta....

It took me a while to find it, but here is another reason I like low CAP versus Jugs.



I'm late to comment on this, but - and as a matter of fact, having worked on this part of the game - I can tell you without reservation that some WWII piston engine aircraft CAN and indeed DID make more horsepower and produce greater speeds at higher altitudes than at sea level.
I am not responsible for the final MVR Ratings in the game, the head of the Air Team was directly responsible for choosing those - though he did have a consistent methodology.

I therefore cannot state with certainty that some aircraft in the game have higher MVR ratings at high altitude than they do at Low Altitude (for reasons beyond this discussion), but there certainly ought to be.

For example, the maximum speed of the above mentioned P-47D is 333MPH @ 2,110 HP at sea level, increasing as altitude climbs to 390MPH @ 2335 HP at 15,000 feet; maxing speed to 435MPH @ 31,000 feet (though HP drops a bit). Look HERE for aircraft test and acceptance documents.


< Message edited by Big B -- 4/4/2013 11:26:55 PM >

Yeah... I remember that - I still stand by it, in fact I will amplify a bit by stating my opinion that all aircraft in the game have similar characteristics. When the leap to altitude bands (a leap from original WitP) was decided to be based on maneuver instead of speed - I was very disappointed. Maneuver is very nebulous - almost impossible to document...yet speed per altitude is generally readily available.
I always thought that was a big mistake in direction.
One commercial pilot I know (I worked for him for 20+ years, and we always talked about this subject) told me bluntly - " relative maneuver doesn't change by altitude - but speed and HP does"...
Anyway - that's one reason why I left the Air Team many years ago before AE was released, and concentrated on ship art.

Below are the kinds of data on speed and altitude I'm talking about ...

EDIT: and that's kind of the tip of the iceberg, because it doesn't address other factors such as roll-rate with speed, etc which was huge - and varied a lot in WWII aircraft...

[Lowpe]

Thanks Big B!

Your post at the time made sense to me, but I inferred that these speed/altitude data points might have been included in the a2a modelling. You here seem to imply that it is not.[&:]

It is ok, to tell the truth, because what makes this game so enjoyable is the hidden complexity under the hood even if it is less complex than what I think or my assumptions are baseless. Did that make sense?[:D]

[Miller]

How to combat the P47? Swarm them. At least three times as many planes on CAP as P47s sweeping. You will rarely get 1:1 but you can outproduce the P47 replacement rates with ease.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Thanks Big B!

Your post at the time made sense to me, but I inferred that these speed/altitude data points might have been included in the a2a modelling. You here seem to imply that it is not.[&:]

It is ok, to tell the truth, because what makes this game so enjoyable is the hidden complexity under the hood even if it is less complex than what I think or my assumptions are baseless. Did that make sense?[:D]

No they ARE all in the a2a modelling, I was just suggesting a different way to model it. [;)]

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Thanks Big B!

Your post at the time made sense to me, but I inferred that these speed/altitude data points might have been included in the a2a modelling. You here seem to imply that it is not.[&:]

It is ok, to tell the truth, because what makes this game so enjoyable is the hidden complexity under the hood even if it is less complex than what I think or my assumptions are baseless. Did that make sense?[:D]

No they ARE all in the a2a modelling, I was just suggesting a different way to model it. [;)]

Thanks so much for that confirmation![&o]

Very helpful!.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Thanks so much Alfred. I have often wondered about the 70mph rule...seems so fixed, simplistic and arbitrary in such a deep game. But Pax is usually so right.[:)]

I'm mostly wrong in that I'm simplifying as I'm tired of posting all the long details. Almost everyone is simply reading the combat reports thinking that tells them the air-2-air result.
Yes and no to that. Yes if you just want to know what happened in terms of how many ac are lost (with FOW); no if you think you can understand why. The best we can do as players is watch the combat video.
That gives you the most detail on the how and why the results occurred so that you can make adjustments. Some players do (like you). Others (most) don't and then just complain about their results. Sad. [:(] [:(]

As Alfred mentions, way back, 7 or 8 years ago during development, TheElf posted some combats with the development debugger turned on (we have no access to this, so don't ask) and gave some interpretive commentary on it. The A2A engine depth is far beyond even what you can see in the combat replay.
How deep? Essentially, every encounter is modeled in terms of instantaneous speed, direction, energy relative to ALL of the other aircraft in the encounter. Once an encounter is resolved, the next encounter is resolved. For a given combat of 50 ac combined, this is like +75 encounters. This, and some other threads, are where LoBaron, Alfred, and a couple of others have distilled what and how to achieve air combat supremacy. If you don't read and apply those, then don't complain when you have results that you don't like. If you think you know better, again good luck.

EDIT: If you want to see some AAR's in which things are done right, check out Lowpe or 1275psi. There are others, but those are two good examples. In his AAR against cantona, 1275psi even took time to lay out exactly how he sets up his air groups for success ... exactly as the experts named above state how to do it. Then watch his success unfold in his AAR .... some brilliant work. I wish cantona had been able to keep up his AAR and share his sub secrets .... he had some maddening successes.

[GetAssista]

Such an interesing thread, thank you all very much, I've learned a lot!

[panzer cat]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Fighting the Jugs with these planes try:

Put the Zeroes at 3K, 30/20 (CAP/Rest). Use only one squadron (they are bait).

Layer the Tonies and the Tojo starting at 6K and go up to 9K. Keep the Tonies on the lower end of the spectrum, and run all these groups at 40/20. Don't go above 9k.

All fighters to range 0.

The Zeroes will get butchered most times, but you will start to drop Jugs. With these frames I suspect your losses will be 3-1 or slightly less. Make sure you are using your very best fighters in the Tojo.

Make sure you have radar, radar, and more radar.

Do the math: you want fighters that are not 70mph slower; with CL cannons preferably; high maneuver; great pilots a2a and def; 200+ planes; great squadron leaders; radar; big airfields with plentiful supply and support on railroads; watch plane fatigue, pilot fatigue, morale.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you want Frank A, Tony d or better, George and Jack can provide cannons but keep them protected from the dive (especially the 2nd Jack I think is too slow). The bait squadron needs to have very high defense pilots or just use throw aways.

If the bombers come, even your fighters at 3K will fight them given enough radars...

No reason to play the high altitude game. After several encounters like this, you will see the Allies drop their sweeping altitude for a number of reasons.

I'm flying cap at a higher alt, 10-30k. 100-150 planes , big bases and plenty of radar. I'll drop to lower maneuver bands and add a few more squadrons as you've suggested and see how that works.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Fighting the Jugs with these planes try:

Put the Zeroes at 3K, 30/20 (CAP/Rest). Use only one squadron (they are bait).

Layer the Tonies and the Tojo starting at 6K and go up to 9K. Keep the Tonies on the lower end of the spectrum, and run all these groups at 40/20. Don't go above 9k.

All fighters to range 0.

The Zeroes will get butchered most times, but you will start to drop Jugs. With these frames I suspect your losses will be 3-1 or slightly less. Make sure you are using your very best fighters in the Tojo.

Make sure you have radar, radar, and more radar.

Do the math: you want fighters that are not 70mph slower; with CL cannons preferably; high maneuver; great pilots a2a and def; 200+ planes; great squadron leaders; radar; big airfields with plentiful supply and support on railroads; watch plane fatigue, pilot fatigue, morale.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you want Frank A, Tony d or better, George and Jack can provide cannons but keep them protected from the dive (especially the 2nd Jack I think is too slow). The bait squadron needs to have very high defense pilots or just use throw aways.

If the bombers come, even your fighters at 3K will fight them given enough radars...

No reason to play the high altitude game. After several encounters like this, you will see the Allies drop their sweeping altitude for a number of reasons.

[mind_messing]

My thoughts echo Lowpe's.

Your real goal should be to beat off Allied 4E strikes at your airbases, not shoot down the Jugs. There is absolutely no reason why you should play the high altitude game with the Jugs (at least not until the late-war wonder-fighters come along).

A bit of research goes a long way. Compare the main Japanese fighters with the Jug, pick altitudes to maximize the manoeuvre of Japanese plane or minimize the advantage of the Jug.

If the Allied player stacks the advantages behind the Jug (pilots, leaders and numbers) then it becomes a very formidable offensive weapon. It can be beat, though. Numbers, radar and a carefully layered CAP. Days where you'll get a positive KDR on the P-47 will be rare, but Japan can build more than the Allies get as replacements.

The ultimate goal should be to beat off the bomber strikes that will follow sweeps however.

[panzer cat]

I dropped my cap down to 8-10-16k. Zero, tojo and tony. Kill ratio 7 jugs for 30 fighters. Much improved[:)]

scott

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hmn, until this thread came along, I cannot recall ever reading anyone putting forward this 50/70mph threshold.  And I usually retain a recollection of seeing a subject which I can then search the forum to refresh myself on the details.  Considering that it seems to be players who predominantly play Japan who are talking about this 50/70 mph threshold, it seems likely that this discussion has been had in Japanese AARs which I don't read.

I can see how, as a very rough rule of thumb, some credence may have been given in the past to a misrepresentation of what theElf wrote in mid 2008.  If you did have planes flying with a 70mph delta then there is a much higher possibility of the maximum 50% maneuver reduction ultimately occurring than if the delta is only 20%, certeris paribus.  But everything is not the same and it is impossible for a player to know the exact factors which are taken into account in the complex matrix.  For example, the example which theElf used in mid 2008 to explain air combat, (posting the special debug combat report which is only available to the devs), had a P-40B flying at 293 mph at the point of combat.  Clearly that speed is not the maximum speed of that aircraft model which was determined by all the factors (including altitude, number of aircraft, pilot experience, leader stats etc) which are not fully disclosed and most definitely not quantified in the algorithms.  In short under certain circumstances, an aircraft with a lower maximum speed (eg A2M) may end up with a faster speed at the point of combat with a P-40B and it is the latter's maneuver rating which is decreased within the range of 1-50%.

It is one thing for players to post about rough rules of thumb.  It makes it easier to understand the under the hood relationships.  But the danger is that someone then misunderstands the rule of thumb and then starts to present it as an accurate and comprehensive explanation of how the under the hood routines operate.  That is how AE myths develop and remain alive.  It is why I generally go back to "primary" sources and refresh my memory before posting answers.

Alfred

Great post! [;)]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Big B

I love this graphic ... 70" Hg boost ...you have to build engines to appreciate how much this is ... production cars with turbos get to 15" Hg boost if they are lucky... if you build your own you might go to 25 - 30" boost, but it hard to do and keep the engine together for more than a few minutes.

But those Big A$$ radials back in the day, they could take a LOT of boost. 70" was the design and the mechanics would tweak this ... risky, but they did it. Blowing a motor wasn't much better outcome than getting shot down, but it was a little better ... at least you had a glide path ...

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Big B

I love this graphic ... 70" Hg boost ...you have to build engines to appreciate how much this is ... production cars with turbos get to 15" Hg boost if they are lucky... if you build your own you might go to 25 - 30" boost, but it hard to do and keep the engine together for more than a few minutes.

But those Big A$$ radials back in the day, they could take a LOT of boost. 70" was the design and the mechanics would tweak this ... risky, but they did it. Blowing a motor wasn't much better outcome than getting shot down, but it was a little better ... at least you had a glide path ...

OMG! - Are you an old-fashioned motor-head??!!

You understand the things I'm talking about??!!
(I raced every High HP bike and muscle car back in the day [70's]... it's gladdening to think some people still get it)