USN air combat data from Office of Naval Intelligence

[Tristanjohn]

In statistical parlance, it sounds like TJ's complaint is about the range of results produced, not the mean.

Exactly so, with the qualifier that a reasonable sway in either direction with regard to extreme results must be accepted; however, my PBEM experience has given entirely too many "slaughters" away to the Japanese side to be considered acceptable.

I read in this forum within the past month or so a playtester tell me that in his opinion for an operational-level wargame this sort of sway too and fro (and please always remember it's only "to and fro" for the Japanese, while for the poor Allies always less luck) was quite reasonable.

I disagree.

In fact, the very oppoosite ought to hold true, that with a game of this relatively small (operational) scale results from FvF engagements ought to almost without exception mirror/ape/mimic/payhomageto the historical 1:1 (let's not quibble with decimal points) ratio we find from serious study of the period between "Zeroes" and Wildcats, just for example.

But you see, Mdiel, as always "they" just don't get it, instead deliver "themselves" to any old statement they please which happens to pop momentarily into "their" heads as long as it sounds convenient enough for "their" purpose. Whatever "that" might be--I haven't figured it out yet, though Mogami seems to be personally bent this afternoon on "inaccuracy at all costs" if I understand him correctly.

[mogami]

"Mogami seems to be personally bent this afternoon on "inaccuracy at all costs" if I understand him correctly."

Yes TJ that is why I post test results. That is why I do tests according to request. That is why I post the results exactly as they occur.
Because I am working to insure the Japanese bias remains in force. And that WITP air results are always out of whack.



Nitwit

[Tristanjohn]

Here is the both 60 test

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 48

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 53

21xA6M5 shot down
2xF4U-1 shot down

Here is 99exp IJN vrs 20exp USMC

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 54

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 54


14xA6M2 shot down (no damaged no op loss)
3xF4U-1 shot down (another 10 crashed and 6 are damaged)

A6M5 Zeke 34 Mvr 27 Dur 1 Arm 12 Gun
F4U-1 37 Mvr 31 Dur 1 Arm 18 Gun

Run that test another 10 times, then vary it with regard to number of combatants on both sides, up and down, then go through this procedure yet again, this time gradually increasing the number of Japanese aircraft in relation to American, then reverse that, etc.

See if anything unusal (in terms of a pattern) emerges.

I know that sounds like loads of work--it is! But it's necessary. Without large samples taken under close control of test conditions these results don't mean much.

[Tristanjohn]

"Mogami seems to be personally bent this afternoon on "inaccuracy at all costs" if I understand him correctly."

Yes TJ that is why I post test results. That is why I do tests according to request. That is why I post the results exactly as they occur.
Because I am working to insure the Japanese bias remains in force. And that WITP air results are always out of whack.



Nitwit

I give you more credit than that, Mogami. My comment that you object to was made en passant and wouldn't have appeared in the first place if you hadn't written silliness. Restrain yourself from silly comments and you'll never have a problem with me.

[mogami]

I guess they are pretty close. For some reason the two outliers followed by the near-outlier (8:5) stuck in my head.

I wonder whether this thing has a subroutine for recovering "shot down" pilots? The results from Mogami's tests look like about 1.3:1 favoring the Japanese (which would be acceptable ballpark range for 25th AF vs VMF pilots), but it would be appropriate if the US recovered some fraction of the downed pilots and that these are recovered with a hefty EXP gain.

Anyhow. The formula seems "close" in re VMF vs IJN. If we decide that these ratios seem about right that will tell Matrix about how much of an EXP increase needs to be given to the VF pilots to generate the 1.5:1 pro-USN results that an accurate model should generate for early 1942.

Hi, I'll start tracking pilots as well as Aircraft. You do see message "so and so shot down and returned or captured" with the captured being Japanese and returned being Allied.

All 60 pilots (avg)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54

Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 42

7xA6M2 (7 pilots missing next turn)
2xP-40E (2 pilots missing)


Mission reversed (P-40E flying sweep)


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Tassafaronga , at 66,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 40

Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 48

8xP-40E shot down -8 pilots
2xA6M2 shot down -2 pilots

[mdiehl]

Mdiehl, but instead chose to criticize my presence here

Not your presence here, TJ, just your rhetoric. I don't see the vast Billings-Grigsby-Mogami conspiracy here. To be sure, GGPW was all fubar, but it really seems to me like some substantive changes have been incorporated. Mogami seems on the whole to get relatively reasonable results except when the a/c totals are horridly skewed. There might be something wrong with the game overall if the Japanese can base 150 Zekes ANYWHERE in the SoPac, but that's different form the a-a combat model.

Think maybe the numbers game needs to take into account the reduced range that comes with greater numbers of a/c launched. Old Flat Top (AH) used to accomplish that quite well. If 150 Zekes are launched on sweep and they are all seriously to participate in combat, their range should be shortened by 200 miles and there should still be a decent chance that the formation would lose aircraft to navigational error, straggling, etc and thus be broken up into smaller waves that a cap of 30 F4Fs could fend off or defeat in detail.

But as to the a-a combat results, I'm not sure there's any huge problem based on Mogami's results.

The last Corsair result was odd. Exp 20 pilots clobbering exp 99 pilots. I take it that EXP substantially affects operational losses. I wonder what EXP 20 means. If that means 400 hours of air time the result seems fine because, above a certain level of airtime, the importance of a pilot's experience should be overridden by the use of a far superior machine. But if EXP 20 means "I just transitioned from 100 hours in a T6 to an F4U because we were desperate" then I'd expect more F4Us to have been scragged.

[mogami]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42 Japanese sweep

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54

Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 29 (I can not get CAP to fly the same number of AC every time)

4xA6M2 -4 pilots
3xP-40E -3 pilots

I'm going to add a bomber group to see what escort missions do


I'd like to know what exp means as well. If trained pilots for both IJN and USN are 60 but IJN pilots finished training with 700 hours and USN pilots in 1941/42 only had 350 then USN gets credit for a lot better training. But still what would a 20 be? 116 hours?

Still it appears exp has more to do with op loss then combat where aircraft type is much more important. (and Japanese AC do not outclass Allied AC early when compared to how much they are outclassed later.)

[Armorer]

HI Mogami,

Try setting up a sweep for both sides, from bases equidistant to the target - preferably fairly short ranged, 1 or 2 hexes. This should eliminate the problem with the CAP not engagin with equal numbers, while also reducing or eliminating the fatigue accrual disadvantage the Japanese pilots are probably suffering from in their sweeps. I believe, although am not positive, that sweeps flown to the same target should result in air-to-air.

Regards,
Randy

[Mike Scholl]

Here is the both 60 test

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 48

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 53

21xA6M5 shot down
2xF4U-1 shot down

Here is 99exp IJN vrs 20exp USMC

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 54

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 54


14xA6M2 shot down (no damaged no op loss)
3xF4U-1 shot down (another 10 crashed and 6 are damaged)

A6M5 Zeke 34 Mvr 27 Dur 1 Arm 12 Gun
F4U-1 37 Mvr 31 Dur 1 Arm 18 Gun

I'd say the aircraft matter much more then pilots.

It would seem from your examples that the aircraft matter WAY TOO MUCH---
to the point of making other factors a non-factor. The second results are
about what I'd expect from the first circumstances (except for the 10 crashed
on landings) for a GOOD AMERICAN RESULT. On a bad day they might come
out equal. The second has very inexperianced pilots piling up a hefty kill ratio
against extreamly experianced veterans. The result is garbage..., there is no
other way to put it. That much of a skill differential might not guarantee the
Japanese a great result (if the Americans spotted them coming they could
simply open the throttles and run away)---but in an actual "furball" that edge
in experiance should virtually assure a favorable score for the zeros. A 20 skill
can't represent anything more than ability to get in the air and maybe keep
formation. A 99 is the cream of the crop, guys who can make their aircraft
turn cartwheels, and who've mastered all the tricks. They'll get 100+% out of
their aircraft's capabilities. The 20-skill guy will be doing well to get half. If
"Pilot Skill" is going to be in the game, it's got to mean something. The figures
you're putting out aren't encouraging at all in that regard.

[Tristanjohn]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42 Japanese sweep

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54

Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 29 (I can not get CAP to fly the same number of AC every time)

4xA6M2 -4 pilots
3xP-40E -3 pilots

I'm going to add a bomber group to see what escort missions do


I'd like to know what exp means as well. If trained pilots for both IJN and USN are 60 but IJN pilots finished training with 700 hours and USN pilots in 1941/42 only had 350 then USN gets credit for a lot better training. But still what would a 20 be? 116 hours?

Still it appears exp has more to do with op loss then combat where aircraft type is much more important. (and Japanese AC do not outclass Allied AC early when compared to how much they are outclassed later.)

If I were in your shoes, Mogami, as a playtester I'd ask Gary what his forumlas are, examine those and then go from there. Without these formulas (as I've explained twice previously) this work is bound to be hit or miss by nature as you've no sure notion where and how the various rating modifiers (plane, pilot, leaders, weather, airbase level, etc.) are plugged in, could at best be inefficiently completed, and most probably no one will in any event know exactly which results obtained represent something bad or good with respect to what the model is actually attempting to produce. In other words everything and everyone will remain confused.

The formulas themselves are likely not all that much different from what Gary's used before and ought to be no state secret. So just ask him. He might break down. If he does (as he should) it'll save time and energy all around.

[mogami]

Hi, I agree the results were not very encouraging.

I also think the experiance ratings used need a top and bottom. I think a highly trained pilot (one of those 1100+ hours guys) should be a 75-85. (since you can not train to above 60 these ratings reflect combat flying) A trained pilot
a 60 and untrained pilot a 40-50. With only a few exceptional pilots allowed in the 90's
(no pilot should be able to fly below 40)(Japanese pilots used at 40 or below would be minus 3-4 from each rating)

To further effect missions. Untained pilots would be minus 2 from the aircraft Mvr/Dur/Gun rating with trained pilots no change and the 75-85 plus 1 and the exceptional pilots plus 2

Example A6M2 35-22-12 (Mvr/Dur/Gun)

Untrained pilot 33-20-10
Trained 35-22-12
Veteran 36-23-13
Ace 37-24-14

Also I would do an across the board change of starting ratings.
IJN 60-75 (avg exp for group set to 66)
USN 60-75 (avg exp for group set to 66)
USAAF 60
IJA 60
replacement pilot Avg Exp 50 (for all pilots just have different amounts )
Then all replacement pilots would need some on map training.
Since Japanese amounts would be lower they would be only country to ever have to use untrained pilots.

Change AC ratings for F4F to same Mvr as A6M2 (because they were used differently the pilot skill would matter more)

We can adjust this as needed.

[Tristanjohn]

Not your presence here, TJ, just your rhetoric. I don't see the vast Billings-Grigsby-Mogami conspiracy here. To be sure, GGPW was all fubar, but it really seems to me like some substantive changes have been incorporated.

Your word of choice is "conspiracy" while mine would be more like "process." In my mind it is the process of game development which hasn't changed much from PW, or rather if it has then this process has been degraded to a lower level still. Of course I don't know what influence Joel has these days over Gary's product, but that influence was very bad news ten years ago without a doubt.

As far as that goes I believe Gary would do much better on his own, though I don't know that to be true and also recognize that such a course would be much more difficult if not outright impossible for him to accomplish.

Mogami doesn't figure into this either way except insofar as he represents this new breed of playtester which isn't about to complain about anything but just dutifully test, like the "loyal" worker he often claims to be (and with blindfolders on at that), whatever version of product is sent his way. While there is something to be said for this sort of slavishness once a game goes beta there is no excuse whatsoever for a member of a development team of any capacity to not give voice to informed opinion of said product under development when that product is in alpha and thus still subject to redesign. If it's the case said member of the development team harbors no such informed opinion then he ought not be a member of development to start with, but if he does possess such opinion then I say he has an actual obligation to the author to share this opinion.

"Loyalty" might well be defined different ways, and helping someone to improve his product works for me in that sense.

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, I agree the results were not very encouraging.

I also think the experiance ratings used need a top and bottom. I think a highly trained pilot (one of those 1100+ hours guys) should be a 75-85. (since you can not train to above 60 these ratings reflect combat flying) A trained pilot
a 60 and untrained pilot a 40-50. With only a few exceptional pilots allowed in the 90's
(no pilot should be able to fly below 40)(Japanese pilots used at 40 or below would be minus 3-4 from each rating)

To further effect missions. Untained pilots would be minus 2 from the aircraft Mvr/Dur/Gun rating with trained pilots no change and the 75-85 plus 1 and the exceptional pilots plus 2

Example A6M2 35-22-12 (Mvr/Dur/Gun)

Untrained pilot 33-20-10
Trained 35-22-12
Veteran 36-23-13
Ace 37-24-14

Also I would do an across the board change of starting ratings.
IJN 60-75 (avg exp for group set to 66)
USN 60-75 (avg exp for group set to 66)
USAAF 60
IJA 60
replacement pilot Avg Exp 50 (for all pilots just have different amounts )
Then all replacement pilots would need some on map training.
Since Japanese amounts would be lower they would be only country to ever have to use untrained pilots.

Change AC ratings for F4F to same Mvr as A6M2 (because they were used differently the pilot skill would matter more)

We can adjust this as needed.

Not bad thinking there at all. Maybe. But you won't know (none of us will know) until you've examined Gary's formulas to see exactly how all the modifiers plug in. It's guesswork until then.

Anyway, you're on the right track conceptually at least. I only wish Gary were, too--or if he is then break down and give you those formulas.

[mogami]

"Mogami doesn't figure into this either way except insofar as he represents this new breed of playtester which isn't about to complain about anything but just dutifully test, like the "loyal" worker he often claims to be (and with blindfolders on at that), whatever version of product is sent his way. While there is something to be said for this sort of slavishness once a game goes beta there is no excuse whatsoever for a member of a development team of any capacity to not give voice to informed opinion of said product under development when that product is in alpha and thus still subject to redesign. If it's the case said member of the development team harbors no such informed opinion then he ought not be a member of development to start with, but if he does possess such opinion then I say he has an actual obligation to the author to share this opinion.

"Loyalty" might well be defined different ways, and helping someone to improve his product works for me in that sense."

Hi, I do wish you would stop this nonsense. First you do not know what I say in the private forum. Second I would never complain on the public forum about a product still under development. For at least the tenth time. I am not developing the game I'm testing it. I test what the developer does. It is not my job/intent to highjack the project. When I can not longer test what they want tested to see if it works the way they want it to work I'll quit. So shut up about things you know nothing about. There is a reason for the private forum. The people who decide what does and what does not get worked on do read the public forum. After I've said my piece in the private forum concerning any aspect of the game and get a response (whether or not it is what I suggested) I shut up say "Aye Aye" and go to work.

UV results. I know you have a hard time getting good results.
Scenario 17 PBEM 3-18-43
Allied-Japanese
Air to Air 478-401
DOG 136-162
AA 154-363
Ops 268-880
Total 1036-1806

CV sunk Yorktown, Zuikaku, Hiryu, Soryu

A6M2x336
A6M3x110
Ki-43-Ibx51
Ki-61 KAIcx6
Total fighters 502

F4F-3x0
F4F-4x163 (SOPAC's main fighter)
P-400x20
P-39Dx124 (SWPAC's main fighter)
P-40Ex51 (both USA and RAAF)
P-38Gx27
Total fighters 384

[Grouchy]

Mogami,

Thanks for the exp tests.

Around 30% of those 20 exp pilots don't know how to land, but still shoot down 26% of the enemy planes all being flied by top aces (consider 95+ exp top aces). Doubt those 20 exp pilots ever mastered the skill of (deflection) shooting, high yoyo's etc etc.
I can continue to type here, but Mike Scholl, you and others basically said it already, and it would be basically the same message again.

Anyway, would like to see some more infuence from the "EXP" parameter in air combat in WITP.

[Daniel Oskar]

Pilot experience does not seem to make much of an impact on Mogami's testing thus far. In my experience a novice pilot tends to think and fly in two dimensions, ignoring the vertical. The experienced pilot has learned to exploit the vertical and this factor allows him to trounce the novices.

To illustrate, say we have a Joe foss type in his F4F mixing it up with a brand new Zero pilot. Joe rolls in on the zero's six and what happens? Our intrepid Japanese birdman, who thinks in 2 dimensions, reefs his airplane into a wicked level high g turn to escape. Old Joe sees the turn pitches up, rolls the other way, pulls through, and catches him halfway through his turn, all in an airplane that has no hope in matching the zero's turn rate or radius. A novice F4F pilot might follow the zero's turn (hope he can swim), or dive and disengage. That is the difference experience makes. In addition, the experienced pilot will pass on his skill to his squadron mates, increasing their efficiency.

As far as operational losses, experience matters a whole lot. The late war fighters were pretty hot. Imagine a young pilot in a corsair getting low and a little slow on final. He cracks on the power to go around that big Pratt & Whitney torque rolls him right into the deck.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

I am posting tthe following for informative purposes.

This is how the air-to-air combat system is coded and functions. The most important factors are squadron leader skills, pilot/crew skill, maximum speed. cruise speed, climb rate, maneuver, durability, radio, armor and gun factor. I cannot easily post the equations, as there are hundreds of them. Many of these variables combine in each equation. The most important effect of each variable is listed, below.
______________________________________________________________

MANUEVER

The maneuver variable is a combination of acceleration in level flight, turn rate and roll rate. It is most important in fighter versus fighter dog fighting. Pilots in aircraft with significantly maneuver will try to make the fight a maneuvering contest. If they succeed, they will a greater chance to fire at the rear of the enemy fighter or fire without being fired at. If they succeed or no will be strongly influenced by the relative maneuver, squadron commander skills, pilot skills and aircraft advantage.

Maneuver: A6M2 - 35, P-40 - 31, F2A - 29, F4F - 32. As can be seen, the Zero has he advantage in maneuver. The F4F is also a fairly spry aircraft.
______________________________________________________________

MAXIMUM SPEED

The maximum speed variable is how fast the aircraft can travel in level flight. It is most important in fighter versus fighter dog fighting and fighter versus bomber combat, as well. Pilots with a significant maximum speed will try to avoid dog fights and make slashing attacks against enemy aircraft. In the case of fighters attacking bombers, the fighters will be able to make more attacks against slower bombers. In the case of fighters versus fighter combat, a very fast fighter may fire deflection as it passes an enemy fighter, go head to head or fly past one fighter to attack another from the rear. If they succeed or no will be strongly influenced by the relative speed, squadron commander skills, pilot skills and aircraft advantage.

Maximum Speed: A6M2 - 332, P-40 - 362, F2A - 321, F4F - 320. As can be seen, the P-40 has the advantage in maximum speed. This allows the P-40 dive through the formation at high speed.
______________________________________________________________

CRUISE SPEED

A higher cruise speed will allow the aircraft to get to the target in a shorter time. In the case of attacks versus shipping, the chance of locating the ships is increased. In all cases, fatigue is less than with a slower aircraft.

Cruise Speed: A6M2 - 207, P-40 - 275, F2A - 161, F4F - 155. As can be seen, the P-40 has the advantage in cruising speed.
______________________________________________________________

CLIMB RATE

The climb rate is very important in determining how many combat air-patrol aircraft are able to engage and if they engage enemy aircraft from above or below. A high climb rate will increase the chances of the fighter engaging the bomber from the best angle. Diving on the enemy bomber or climbing towards it, depending on the pilot skill and gun locations on the bomber. All other factors equal, it is usually better to dive on the bombers, as the fighter speed will be greater. Against enemy fighters, a higher climb rate allows the fighter to more easily escape from an enemy fighter who is behind him, forcing the enemy fighter to use deflection fire. A high climb rate makes for a better interceptor.

Climb Rates: A6M2 - 2640, P-40 - 2083, F2A - 2200, F4F - 1950. As can be seen, the Zero has the advantage in climb rate.
______________________________________________________________

DURABILITY:

The durability factor is the toughness the plane. An aircraft with a higher durability can sustain more damage before being shot down, can fight better when damaged and can land with more damage. Some bombers with an extremely high durability, when combined with a very high gun factor, may discourage brittle enemy aircraft without self sealing fuel tanks and a limited gun factor with from attacking. So, against the B-24, a Nate or A2M6 might only make one or two passes and fire at a greater range, before retiring. A George, on the other hand might press the attack.

Durability: A6M2 - 22, P-40 - 29, F2A - 28, F4F - 29. As can be seen, the Zero has a significant disadvantage in durability and combined with a zero armor, no self-sealing fuel tank, this aircraft must use the high maneuver rate to avoid getting hit.
______________________________________________________________

GUN FACTOR

The gun factor is the relative firepower of the aircraft. In the case of aircraft with guns that fire other than directly forward, such as bombers, it is the aggregate firepower. So, a dive bomber might be able to fire at an aircraft above and to the rear. Each weapon is fired separately and therefore the firepower factor is never used in combat. But indicates a greater chance to damage enemy aircraft, or when strafing, units or ships.

Gun Factor: A6M2 - 12, P-40 - 18, F2A - 12, F4F - 18. As can be seen, the A6M2 and F2A have a smaller gun factor. Should you look at the actual weapons on the aircraft, you will see that limited ammunition, short range or inaccurate weapons will hinder the aircrafts ability to shoot down enemy aircraft.
______________________________________________________________

RADIO

Many Japanese aircraft lack radios. The lack of a radio makes it harder to intercept incoming attacks with sufficient aircraft, which reduces a squadrons CAP ability.
______________________________________________________________

LEADER SKILLS

Most calculations include the leaders skills. He can make his pilots/crews use better combat tactics, better coordinate attacks and defenses, increase repair rates for aircraft, increase morale and decrease pilot/crew/ground crew/aircraft fatigue. It is a good thing to make sure the leader is highly skilled.
______________________________________________________________

PILOT/CREW SKILL

All calculations include the pilot/crew skill factor. It is important.
______________________________________________________________

FATIGUE

The fatigue variable is a calculated and accumulative assessment of the pilot/crew, ground crew and aircraft physical condition. It is used in most combat and many non-combat calculations. Flying a lot of missions will increase fatigue and make the group less effective.
______________________________________________________________

MORALE

The group morale factor is a calculated and accumulative assessment of the pilot/crew and ground crew general fitness. It also includes group Intel and mission preparation time, as lead time is needed to fly missions, some longer than others.
______________________________________________________________

ADVANTAGE

Not a variable, but a calculated value, the aircraft with the advantage has a greater chance to implement the tactic the pilot would choose. It increases the chances of the pilot to bouncing an enemy aircraft and increases the chances for aircraft to evade.
______________________________________________________________

Hope this information Helps You to undersand the what is going on, beneath the hood.

Bye...

Michael Wood

[mogami]

Well then, there it is.

[Tristanjohn]

MORALE

The group morale factor is a calculated and accumulative assessment of the pilot/crew and ground crew general fitness. It also includes group Intel and mission preparation time, as lead time is needed to fly missions, some longer than others.
______________________________________________________________

ADVANTAGE

Not a variable, but a calculated value, the aircraft with the advantage has a greater chance to implement the tactic the pilot would choose. It increases the chances of the pilot to bouncing an enemy aircraft and increases the chances for aircraft to evade.
______________________________________________________________
Michael Wood

I take ADVANTAGE to be something determined randomly, possibly with modifiers such as LEADERS, RADAR, etc True?

I can't puzzle out MORALE with regard to "group intel" (is this from recon flown?) and "mission preparation time" (is this the mechanic we've heard of slated for WitP?).

[Tristanjohn]

Well then, there it is.

That isn't "it." We still don't have working formulas, have no idea if all these values are weighted "equally" or even for that matter what a "29" means except as it appears to be on its face comparatively larger than a "27." Which values are used exactly when? Mike has implied a heirarchy of considerational value when taking these various categories of aircraft ratings into account: how hierarchal, what's the spread in terms of actual in-game effects between, say, a plane's MANEUVER rating and its DURABILITY? It is "better" to have a higher-maneuvering plane than one that's more durable? If so, why? And how does that all break down in terms of the bottom-line: kill totals?

We are, in fact, still groping pretty much in the dark, though at least now we've been told there is a flashlight out there to be found . . . somewhere.

Wow, I like this game already.

Are we having fun yet?