Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: obvert

I know planes in real life have incredibly different performance at different altitude bands, but I thought all of those things were actually abstracted into the maneuver bands in game, and that a large positive differential in speed has the potential to reduce a negative differential in maneuver. Plus the dive being a big plus factor.

I specifically asked a developer about the speed curve for planes and he mentioned it is in the game, and felt that it should have been given more weight in the combat routines because it was available and measurable.

How do you measure maneuverability?

Roll rate was a huge factor in fighter maneuverability performance in the war, although not the only factor. Others can get into more details than I can. Pax, Alfred and LoBaron could definitely add here.

Not sure if this is what you're asking?

Here is a roll-rate chart showing many airframes.

[Lowpe]

That is neat...does it correlate with the game at all?

Not being a pilot, or aeronautical engineer, pretty lost here to tell the truth.[:D]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

That is neat...does it correlate with the game at all?

Not being a pilot, or aeronautical engineer, pretty lost here to tell the truth.[:D]

As far as I know the maneuver band numbers for each airframe in game are derived from the complex data ragarding aircraft performance. It seems there are a lot of different ideas of what makes the "best" fighter, and of course it all depends on how it is used/flown against it's opponents (and what those are, how they are flown, etc).

This is from a thread on maneuverability and seems somewhat credible as a list of what factors can be measured.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]As was pointed out by several posters, the term "maneuverability" is
very open ended. I spend a lot of my time working on evaluating flying
qualities and performance as an aero engineer, albeit on modern FBW
fighters, but of course the basic physics didn't change.

I guess you could define maneuverability as the ability to quickly
change from one state to another. Roll rate and roll acceleration
would therefore influence how quickly you can change from one bank
angle to another. Pitch rate influences how quickly you can change
from one load factor to another, etc. Similarly turn rate influences
how quickly you can change heading. There are several maneuverability
parameters that influence the usefulness of a fighter in combat.

To name just a few:

Initial roll acceleration
Maximum roll rate (these two are not the same)
Maximum pitch rate
Maximum load factor
Best instantaneous turn rate
Best sustained turn rate
Acceleration performance
Best climb rate
etc.

Many of these blurr the boundaries between "maneuverability" and
"performance".[/font]

[LoBaron]

Obvert, many thanks for the testing effort and for sharing the data with us. Your approach is very sound, although I would like to remind you that the number of data points per test scenario are probably below a threshold that would be required for geniuine statistics.

ORIGINAL: obvert
Maybe layering is not an advantage after all. Maybe it's all altitude?

The effectiveness of layered CAP is quite dependent on the usual suspects (type of airframe, pilot quality, group leader, number of a/c involved on both sides, etc.). Also, layered CAP also serves different purposes.

One is to counter high altitude sweep missions in qualitatively or quantitatively adverse situations.

Another one is to spread the risk. Usually the attacker holds the initiative, so as a defender you often do not know in advance what types of air threats you will have to counter. CAP layers enable you to deal with multiple attack types and varying numbers better than single layer defenses - but again, the added benefit varies with a lot of additional factors.

Do not forget that as a tester you have control over both setups and receive accurate information about the results for both sides. This is no PBEM situation.

ORIGINAL: obvert
Many of these blurr the boundaries between "maneuverability" and
"performance".

Exactly. In game this is what mvr band values represent. The list of items in your quote is quite complete.

Be aware that there is a slight difference between mvr value and alt band mvr value.

Basic mvr rating takes less factors into account than mvr band rating. This is due to the fact that the former describes one data point of several (the others are top speed and climb rating), the latter represents a modifier for all three variables.

For mvr value you might want to add stall behaviour to the list, for mvr band value you might want to add altitude related top speed variations.


Anyways, great testing, keep it coming! I would like at some point to link this thread to the coordination guide to add the empirical data to the theoretical framework, pending your approval.

[Alfred]

For maneuverability, a lot can be gleaned from Symon's posts in this thread:
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3405381&mpage=1&key=maneuverability&#3407043
 
where he explained how he adjusted aircraft stats for DaBabes.
 
Alfred

[PaxMondo]

some light reading on the topic ... working on attachment ...

[Admiral DadMan]

so, when this research project is completed, will there be a paper published?

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
One is to counter high altitude sweep missions in qualitatively or quantitatively adverse situations.

I wanted to thank you for your past posts on this. I believe Alfred and Pax Mondo both referred me to your posts, plus the sticky, and it has really made a difference in my games.

Both in being competitive, but also in a richer understanding of how deep this game is.

Many thanks.[&o]

Lowpe

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Obvert, many thanks for the testing effort and for sharing the data with us. Your approach is very sound, although I would like to remind you that the number of data points per test scenario are probably below a threshold that would be required for geniuine statistics.

Thanks LoBaron for your support, and I completely appreciate the point that these don't quite measure up to final objective analysis as yet. I'm still feeling it out, and next plan to test the test a bit, mainly to see how many runs it might take to really make sure the set is enough. If I run another 10 on the low CAP high SWEEP layers and get +/- 5 losses for each side, that to me would indicate that 10 is good. If it's much more variable, and not in that kind of range the second time around, then I need to really work! [:)]

Another thing I'm concerned about is weather. I can change it or leave it (almost always) the same by running the same turn over and over (using one slight variable to create randomness), but I'm not sure which is most useful. The game does have weather variability, but I'm not sure if certain weather would skew results one direction or another?

If you have any suggestions there I'd welcome your thoughts.

ORIGINAL: obvert
Maybe layering is not an advantage after all. Maybe it's all altitude?

The effectiveness of layered CAP is quite dependent on the usual suspects (type of airframe, pilot quality, group leader, number of a/c involved on both sides, etc.). Also, layered CAP also serves different purposes.

One is to counter high altitude sweep missions in qualitatively or quantitatively adverse situations.

Another one is to spread the risk. Usually the attacker holds the initiative, so as a defender you often do not know in advance what types of air threats you will have to counter. CAP layers enable you to deal with multiple attack types and varying numbers better than single layer defenses - but again, the added benefit varies with a lot of additional factors.

Do not forget that as a tester you have control over both setups and receive accurate information about the results for both sides. This is no PBEM situation.

Yes. This is what I've always thought and thought I'd experienced. These last few one-offs, not tests really, just a series of explorative experiments, got me thinking. I've also noticed that when I did run a large strike against the layered CAP in the same setup, but with more groups, the effectiveness of low CAP changed. I'd also tweaked which airframes were at each band, so it seems that made a BIG difference. Now I've got more to consider! [;)]

ORIGINAL: obvert
Many of these blurr the boundaries between "maneuverability" and
"performance".

Exactly. In game this is what mvr band values represent. The list of items in your quote is quite complete.

Be aware that there is a slight difference between mvr value and alt band mvr value.

Basic mvr rating takes less factors into account than mvr band rating. This is due to the fact that the former describes one data point of several (the others are top speed and climb rating), the latter represents a modifier for all three variables.

For mvr value you might want to add stall behaviour to the list, for mvr band value you might want to add altitude related top speed variations.


Anyways, great testing, keep it coming! I would like at some point to link this thread to the coordination guide to add the empirical data to the theoretical framework, pending your approval.

Link away if you think it's useful. At some point there may be some revelations, conclusions or theories reached, but for now it's all feeling it out and so hopefully others can provide insight, ideas, suggestions and critique.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

so, when this research project is completed, will there be a paper published?

Yes. Right here. Published in this thread. You've just written part of it! [:D]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

For maneuverability, a lot can be gleaned from Symon's posts in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3405381&mpage=1&key=maneuverability&#3407043

where he explained how he adjusted aircraft stats for DaBabes.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred. There is a lot there!!!

[Lokasenna]

You need more n.

About the scrambling. It looks like the "first" group (i.e., the top one in the list) is always doing the scrambling? That still suggests to me that it's a numbers check. Try setting one enormous unit (say, 200?) to 50% CAP and see if they scramble ever.

Did the 80% CAP units not scramble? I also noted that the 2 results where the P-47D2's got trounced were in combats where they were massively outnumbered at the start, prior to scrambled planes (the first one in your big string of posts, and then the 80% CAP with Georges).

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You need more n.

About the scrambling. It looks like the "first" group (i.e., the top one in the list) is always doing the scrambling? That still suggests to me that it's a numbers check. Try setting one enormous unit (say, 200?) to 50% CAP and see if they scramble ever.

Did the 80% CAP units not scramble? I also noted that the 2 results where the P-47D2's got trounced were in combats where they were massively outnumbered at the start, prior to scrambled planes (the first one in your big string of posts, and then the 80% CAP with Georges).

For these yes, more n.

These were really just to experiment on what might be happening, and of course the unexpected results that some of the single CAP groups did so well makes me curious. Even when the CAP only held a 32-24 advantage they still did very well. I fear these kinds of results when I play the Allies so I'd like to get to the bottom of what's happening. One single N1K1 George group at 7k, flying 363mph, shouldn't beat up P-47s, no matter if they are slightly outnumbered.

I mixed around the groups flying to see why that first group was scrambling, and that again will require more runs. I couldn't see a reason why that group when only one group scrambled.

The 80% CAP did scramble fighters late in Experiment 1, to intercept the last sweepers. I didn't see those groups scramble on first sweeps though. The 70% CAP did scramble. I think it's just numbers, and if I sent 4 sweeping groups, then the 80% CAP would also scramble.

The P-47 were beat up the worst against the 70% CAP groups that scrambled. So a lot up, then more added in to low CAP 9probably with plenty of time to arrive en masse). They also suffered i nnearly every test though, including the 50% CAP 50% rest. The goal of that setting would be to keep a section of planes in ready state to meet bombers later, although now I know they'll all scramble anyway!! So maybe it's really a setting now to ensure a scramble occurs and all planes get into the air.

Some of my best results in tests and game came with a 50% CAP no rest. I see why a bit more now, although it always confused me why those would be better than 60-80% CAP, which I've also tried.

I also want to do some tests on LR CAP and how it works when scrambled. I often use 70-80% LR CAP 20-30% rest on those thinking some at least will get rest. Now I think maybe 50% LR CAP is better and allow the commander to assess strength of raid for scrambling it all. But I'll have to test that! [;)]

[Yaab]

Uhm, are you actually watching the combat animations? I am curious at what altitude the combat really takes place if you have defenders at 3-10k feet and attackers at 43k feet.

[Encircled]

Don't send me any turns for a while, I'm experimenting! [:)]

Great read by the way and fascinating!

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Uhm, are you actually watching the combat animations? I am curious at what altitude the combat really takes place if you have defenders at 3-10k feet and attackers at 43k feet.

Nope. I'm not. For some reason in H to H I can't get them to turn on?? Is this normal? Been meaning to ask but haven't found it absolutely necessary to watch yet, and to be honest can get a lot more figured out quickly if I don't watch.

Maybe I'll create a false PBEM to myself and do H to H that way for a bit, thus getting animations. I do want to watch a few, but not all. It matters of course, and I could learn some of that stuff, but by tweaking the test I can also "see" a lot of what is happening.

Earlier I also restricted the airframes to 10k max, and this showed slightly different results. I can do this on any of these settings too in order to check if they're staying down ( and what effect that would have) vs rising to meet sweeps.

[Lowpe]

Nope, I have played my son head to head, and have the combat replays work, we both watched them after the Allied turn entered. Very enjoyable.[:)]

It maybe you need to have them turned on prior to creating the game and F8 doesn't work once set at game start.

I just discovered F8 works in PBEM, I don't believe that was the case in prior patches/versions. At least I can toggle them on/of as the Japanese during the replay. Not sure about the Allied side.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Nope, I have played my son head to head, and have the combat replays work, we both watched them after the Allied turn entered. Very enjoyable.[:)]

It maybe you need to have them turned on prior to creating the game and F8 doesn't work once set at game start.

I just discovered F8 works in PBEM, I don't believe that was the case in prior patches/versions. At least I can toggle them on/of as the Japanese during the replay. Not sure about the Allied side.

Okay. I tried before I opened the scenario. I go through it again since I know I need to see some soon.

For this part it's been good to blow through a lot of turns and get some questions going, and now it'll be about getting deeper into them. Trouble is, there area lot of questions!

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: obvert

I mixed around the groups flying to see why that first group was scrambling, and that again will require more runs. I couldn't see a reason why that group when only one group scrambled.

The 80% CAP did scramble fighters late in Experiment 1, to intercept the last sweepers. I didn't see those groups scramble on first sweeps though. The 70% CAP did scramble. I think it's just numbers, and if I sent 4 sweeping groups, then the 80% CAP would also scramble.

I was trying to suggest that perhaps only the first group scrambled because it's a check against numbers, and once that group has scrambled planes then the numbers check is being "passed" such that there is no more scrambling.

I think you should take your "failed sweep" results and change the Allied pilots to 80 XP and see what happens, mainly because only on just a couple of occasions over hundreds of sweeps have I had poor or even negative results with P-47D2's, P-47D25's, or P-51D's except for sometimes the first group of 25 (of which 22 will arrive together...) sweeping into a CAP of 100+. I suspect because of pilot quality.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Trouble is, there area lot of questions!

[:)]

Its not like you have a game currently.

I am convinced that in this game it isn't just about who carries the biggest stick, but who reads and understands the devices and uses them better/appropriately.

I have been known to be very wrong![:D][:D]