How to get the best out of Allied Fighters?

[mark24]

Hi all,

I've seen some fairly explosive threads where one side claims there is a Japanese bias in the game. I've noticed I'm having some serious problems getting parity with zero's with F4F-4's. The Zero's seem to down about twice as many F4F's as they take losses.

It occurred to me that any fog of war errors should increase the reported kills, rather than reduce them, probably making the situation worse.

What am I doing wrong?

Mark

[Peter Weir]

Hi all,

I've seen some fairly explosive threads where one side claims there is a Japanese bias in the game. I've noticed I'm having some serious problems getting parity with zero's with F4F-4's. The Zero's seem to down about twice as many F4F's as they take losses.

It occurred to me that any fog of war errors should increase the reported kills, rather than reduce them, probably making the situation worse.

What am I doing wrong?

Mark

I don't know what youre doing wrong but if you find out tell me quicxk as i have the same problem with my allied fighter planes!

The threads you mention do get explosive as you say and i'm begining to think somethings wrong in the state of
denmark as they saying goes. the best arguments given against the Zero being supposed to be superior seem to be given the lest credit and many users deny the lopsded killscores from their games even though you andi at least see them for ourselves.

I'm no expert about this stuff tho I enjoy WWII history and the games a load of fun to play but really, the zero tears me up something horrible when ever I meet it with the best planes i Have and that doesnt wash with what I think I do know about thisa stuff.

If you find something out let me know first!

[CapAndGown]

The two most important items seem to be 1) height advantage and 2) fatigue. If you can attack from 2000 or 3000 feet higher with well rested pilots, then you can win with F4F's.

Pilot skill is also a large factor. The initial contingent of jap pilots are very highly skilled. Therefore, you are going to take sump lumps until you can kill off this initial contingent. Fortunately, though, this is a battle you can win. You plane replacements are high and your newbie pilots are better than the jap newbie pilots.

Also, I don't know under what conditions you are seeing such poor results. In CV vs CV battles I have seen F4F's do just fine with about and even exchange ratio. The times I have seen them do less well is when they attack a jap held base where my opponent is just flying CAP so that his pilots are better rested.

I believe the program actually tallies up fatigue accumulated on the trip to the target before resolving air combat. Thus, if I am right, planes that fly longer distances are at a disadvantage as far as fatigue is concerned than planes that are just flying CAP over a base.

[mogami]

Hi, No one claims the Japanese cannot get higher kill ratios then the Allies.
The debate in question is "Japanese bias" being built into the game.

It is not automatic that allied fighters will get 1-1 kill ratios against A6M2 (or other Japanese ac) It has been proven over and over that it is not also automatic for the Japanese to get more then 1-1 in the early going and they always get worse as time goes by.

I can't say why your F4F's do poorly. I'd have to watch the whole game and see more then I get from your posts to know why.

Things you can do to improve your results include resting your groups up before entering combat. Make sure you are not out numbered. Have radar.
Be a size 4 airfield with plenty of supply.

P-39/400 should be kept as CAP for bases that are in range of enemy bombers but beyond the escort range.

The combat reports inflate damage but you can always see the true result the next turn on the intel page. It lists ac lost and tells you the cause.

The Japanese in the non-historic scenarios (17 and 19 among others) get many more airgroups then in the historic scenarios. As a result they can make strikes with far better escort then historic. So you have to meet them with more then historic. Nothing can predict the outcome of any single air to air combat. So the best advice I can give is be as ready as possible and once the air battles begin do what you can to keep your units in shape and introduce fresh groups when needed and pull out tired groups. Hit the enemy airfields with bombers.

If there is a general trend over a period of time that still favors the Japanese and it is not a result of numbers or other easy to define causes I'd be interested in seeing the files. It is not built in for the Japanese to win air to air combat. It is also not built in for the Allies to win air to air combat. It is supposed to depend on the actual conditions of each air battle. The Allies being stronger will tend to be able to outlast the Japanese. This is history not the program. If your playing the AI check the difficulty setting. If you place it on hard then the AI chews you up no matter what side you play.

[Christof]

One reason for your planes doing poorly is:
You're playing the AI on HARD setting.

The computer opponent enjoys an advantage and will kill even your P38's that arrive a little later easily.

[Peter Weir]

One reason for your planes doing poorly is:
You're playing the AI on HARD setting.

The computer opponent enjoys an advantage and will kill even your P38's that arrive a little later easily.

Ccan't speak for the others but my gamis PBEM and my planers don't do squat against the Japs. I rest them when I can and only use them when I need them. No ships to protect then basically they rest, task forces comes in up they go! No matter what tho the Japanese fighters win out and sometimes really big, more or lessa s the guy who started this said. I cant recall even a score about equal. We never win.

I've read elsewhere comments that this has to do with how plyers play but theres only so much to do in the game with control of units. Seems to me the game's doing most of the work so the player error reson doesn't doit forme.
I apppreciate the feedback but my feeling is something's not right somewhere. what I dont know the game I'm playing is over twom monthsin now and I've seen no improvement worth mentionng in my fighter planes and pilots.

Mogami, yoiu say there's no Jap bias and I believe you belkive this or wouldnt say this, but just from readin gthat ongoing battle you guys have going over in the witp area it's certain the zero is modelled to be a better plane all aroundthan wildcats. So unels I'm missinng something important in the aegument I dont get that either. How can a plane be modelled better and then everyone expercts it not to do better? What logic is that? Mogami not attacking you here Ijust want to know what's going on with my planes--they don't do well versus zeros EVER it seems. If and when it comes out evn for my planes I figure I did ok that day. That cant be right now. Right? Am I going crazy?

[CapAndGown]

it's certain the zero is modelled to be a better plane all aroundthan wildcats

IMO, the Zero was a better plane than the F4F. Why do you think Thatch invented special tactics to deal with it? Why did the allies need second generation planes if their first generation was more than enough to do the job?

You can read any source you want to and they will all agree that one of the major problems with the JNAF in the campaign over NG and the Solomons was the range from Rabaul to targets such as PM and Lunga. The jap pilots had no margin for error because of this extreme range.

Yes the Zero was a tinderbox. But this didn't mean it couldn't outperform an F4F. What the allies did to compensate, however, was to develop tactics, such as the finger four, that were better than jap tactics. The japs only developed the finger four formation in 1944 and even then they were still likely to go mano-a-mano.

This development in allied tactics, I believe, is factored into the experience level of the pilots.

And quite frankly, I find all this bitching about Zero versus Wildcat stuff silly. Only people who play just the first 6 months of the campaign, and then only as the allies, could possibly believe there is any bias towards the japs. You have obviously not seen Corsairs or Lightnings tear into a formation of Zeros yet. Talk about bias! The japs are lucky to score any hits against Corsairs. And even against Lightnings they are doing extremely well to even come out even with their best pilots (who last for about 2 sorties before being killed).

[PzB74]

And quite frankly, I find all this bitching about Zero versus Wildcat stuff silly. Only people who play just the first 6 months of the campaign, and then only as the allies, could possibly believe there is any bias towards the japs. You have obviously not seen Corsairs or Lightnings tear into a formation of Zeros yet. Talk about bias! The japs are lucky to score any hits against Corsairs. And even against Lightnings they are doing extremely well to even come out even with their best pilots (who last for about 2 sorties before being killed).

I totally agree with you Cap, playing the whole game is importand to get a good understanding of the game. The Zero got potential to bitch around with first generation US fighters - but it's not unusual that Wildcats and Warhawks manage 1-1 odds and better.

In the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire was regarded as a better aircraft than the Me-109, and the advantage of radar guidance and fighting over home soil didn't make it any easier for the Germans. There were modifiers though, the brittons swore to their 'V' formation and this made the pilots more concerned about not crashing into their wingmen than looking for the enemy. The Germans used 'schwarm' and 'rotte' tactics - flexible formations that enabled their pilots to regularily gain the upper hand in battle.

Here's link on tactics:
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/b ... ctics.html

So the aircraft alone doesn't make the difference, a lot of modifiers have to be taken into the equation. I think UV does a very good job at simulating this, and while there might be room for improvements, it's not a concern of mine.

I've played UV for quite some time now, but I'm not as experienced as some of the 'oldtimers' on this forum - so I usually read their comments and try out their advice. If some of you feel that your results are bad after only a few weeks or months of game play, don't despair! This is quite normal and UV got a long learning curve, so stick to it - read the excellent AAR's and FAQ's - and slowly you'll gain the proficiency needed to first outplay the AI and then your opponents in pbem games

I'll promise you that the Zero will not seem like an invincible 'wunderweapon' when you get this far!

[LargeSlowTarget]

I was just going to comment that finger-four and Schwarm are the same and that you meant 'V' - but you edited faster than I could nit-pick...

[Peter Weir]

but as Iunderstand the argument wagedover in the witp sectiuon there is no conclsusive proof the Zero was better than the wildcat or even the P40. Are we supposed to just accept that the Zero was better?

I hear whatyou guys say about experience factoring in for the Allies asa the game progresses but what I don't get is this advantage the zerro has at the start. Also my PBEM game is well intoOCtober and headed for Novemember so its not like my pilots are new. Just dead after always losing to the Zeros!

To be frank i've read a lot the past few weeks ij an effortto learn as much as I could about the game and Idont' like what I see. I mean I like the game a lot. What I don't like is the wya these forums breakdown into camps of interest. I'm no expert on this stuff tho I have taken the time to buy a few books and start my education for real. Meanwhile those Zeros are much better than anything I can throw at them and that isn't what I've read so far inj the books I've bought.

Don't want to be a bother and I guess I'm not goin gto convince anyone who thinks this plane or that weas better for whatever resaons they believe. Think I'll join in tho over in the witp threads becausefrom what I can see form the argumennts there atleast this is a front line itme of interest!.

Thx for your feedback guys.

[mogami]

Hi, Peter I don't know what to tell you. I don't always get the same results in the same scenario agaisnt the same opponent.

I've now played scenario 19 as Allies over 30 times. I've lost 3 of them.
In the very worst (for allies) case I had lost almost 2-1 in aircraft shot down in air to air but even then the Japanese had lost more aircraft total. This up to Dec 1942. After that the ratio in air to air improved and finished the game in favour of allied side at over 2-1 (and Japanese lost almost 3x as many aircraft total)

In another game of the exact same scenario I shot down 2-1 in air to air right from the start. By end of game Japan had lost 5x as many ac.

You still have results on any one day that might favor the enemy but often before 1943 I find I am winning the air to air. May-June-July 42 often favor the Japanese unless I am careful about how I set up air combats. I don't let the Japanese draw my P-39/400's into combat. They sit back and protect bases from unescorted Betty/Nell attacks. These makes these groups very good when they convert to P-38. 2 Sqdns of 36 F4F almost always do well for me. The landbased sqdns with only 24 AC need to have 3 deployed together and require a radar at the base to prevent them from becoming too fatigued. But even with radar they sometimes get trounced.

Have you tried changing your altitudes? When you are escorting bombers place 1 group 2k above your high bomber group and another fighter group 2k above this.
On CAP place low group at 12k and high group at 14 or 15k

[mark24]

Hi Mogami,

In another game of the exact same scenario I shot down 2-1 in air to air right from the start.

Why?

I found placing different groups at different altitudes effective. But even after moving my FOUR sqdns of 24 F4F-4's back to Lunga, fully rested with 99 morale, they would still get trounced taking double losses, this being the rule rather than the exception, with the reverse NEVER being true. That was in roughly equal fights, numerically speaking.

I started running out of F4F airframes long ago.

Mark

[mogami]

Hi, Mark is this a PBEM game? Which scenario?
Next turn copy the total airloss for game
Air to Air
Destroyed on field
Flak
Ops

Prehaps we can get a few totals from other PBEM games. Get a total for each scenario by period.

I'll total up my scenario 19s (My active games) I have 1 scenario 17 (Allied)
3 Scenario 19 (Allied) 1 Scenario 19 (Japanese)

Each new poster can copy paste the previous post and up date with their totals.
We need pre-P38 period and post P-38 period.

So anyone with an active PBEM game post your totals. (Just make sure only one player posts results from each game)

[Peter Weir]

It isnt always in favor of zeros but usually so. So,metimes these plamnes arrive alone on sweeps and when they do they beat up the P40's and wildcats pretty bad, when escorting bombers the Jap planesseem to be more vulnerable. I also notice that the Japanese can fly sweeps a long ways and I wonder where the fatiguuekicksin for them--my flyboys get tired from just one escort mission of bombers, tho this is normally on naval strikes as were not close enough to Jap bases to escrot bombers to
rabaul and the like.

I checked for altitude and I've changed this accordingto what ive read in posts--thx for your work there, Mogami, it's been a help. Bbut changing altitude doesnt do it either.

Inside the game there 's a summary of losses and such and I notice the Japanese have flown many more air missions with fewer operational losses. I wonder about that as well as they have to fly a long ways to bomb PM or Gili
gili, tho it could be the fow at work--haven't I read someplace that the fow only works witrh the action reports and that after a turn or two the summaries for losses give good totals?

Thx for your help.

[bilbow]

Here's some air losses from a late game (August 43) PBEM 15. For the last several months the allied air have been eating zeroes for lunch. Air to air engagements have been typically 8-10 to 1 for tha allies, and other Jap types fare no better. BTW I'm the allies in this one.


Air to Air Allied 1066, Jap 1667
Dest on field Allied 31, Jap 552
Flak Allies 553, Jap 407
Ops Allies 907, Jap 1081

The destroyed on fireld number is largely due to airfield attacks by allied heavies.

[Veer]

And quite frankly, I find all this bitching about Zero versus Wildcat stuff silly. Only people who play just the first 6 months of the campaign, and then only as the allies, could possibly believe there is any bias towards the japs. You have obviously not seen Corsairs or Lightnings tear into a formation of Zeros yet. Talk about bias!

I recently read Franks account of the Gudacanal battle. Going by air losses, less Zeros were lost than allied fighters in the campiagn, though pilot losses were less severe on the allied side. It was the loss of Betties and Vals which hurt the Japs more than the Zeros.

[pasternakski]

I recently read Franks account of the Gudacanal battle. Going by air losses, less Zeros were lost than allied fighters in the campiagn, though pilot losses were less severe on the allied side. It was the loss of Betties and Vals which hurt the Japs more than the Zeros.

I think this is right, and other accounts I have seen seem to be more or less in agreement. Even the "Allied fanboy" historians grudgingly acknowledge how tough it was to take on the A6M in all its permutations when flown by experienced, fanatical (okay, "dedicated") pilots.

The problem you confront in UV is that the "history" there is often quite different from the "real" history. For example, I was playing a sc. 19 PBEM game not long ago with a relative newbie. I had blasted four of his IJN fleet carriers into oblivion and was feeling quite smug in my Mogami-like triumph when I came to realize that most of those A6Ms (and several of the B5Ns and D3As) had survived the battle and were now swarming like bees around Rabaul and Shortland, complementing Betty, Nellie, and the rest. It was a hairy eight months (into March 1943) before I could get them thinned out enough to risk any kind of serious counteroffensive beyond retaking Gili-Gili and Lunga (and that was tough enough).

Thank the lord (or whoever) for giving us B-17s and B-24s is all I can say... and let us give grateful thanks for our blessed P-40s, eventual P-38s, and belated F4Us... Cursed be he who visited the P-39, P-400, and Wirraway plague on righteous Allied humanity.

[bilbow]

Another set of air stats. PBEM 17 late in the game, end of August 43. Japs get chewed up badly on almost every encounter. I'm the Japs in this one, but am almost 5K ahead in points and will hopefully win. Still have lots of planes but experience of most groups in the 50s, no more than low 60s.

Allied jap
Air to air 1066 1667
Dest on field 395 276
Flak 419 498
Operational 1046 1786

The allied detroyed-on-field is mostly from whacking carriers early in the game. A large part of the Jap operational losses are from training the newbies.

Once the corsairs arrive in quantity, the Japs simply aren't competitive.

Now here's a snapshot from the same game in September 1942, a year earlier:

Allied Jap
Air to air 264 169
Dest on field 266 50
Flak 84 133
Operational 180 127

Notice that here the ratio for air-to-air and operational losses was almost opposite, with the Japs superior in both categories.

[Peter Weir]

Thx billbow. I've read where the Allies can expect better results later on the in thegme, but what sabout 1942? Thats where I am and the zeroes do much better than what you reoprot for later on in 1943. I've followed the arguments about fighters as close as possible, gone back and read a zillion notes on it. Geez dont you guys ever sleep! The argument mdeihl makes sounds like sense to me, and if it is sense then I dont get the results i've seen. When I saw this other guys post with about the same complaint I thought to myself Maybe I'm not crazy,t's the game instead. Have a feeling it is.

Appreciate your help again billbow.

[pasternakski]

When playing the Allies, I also see results that leave me grinding my teeth and muttering under my breath, but they don't seem to be quite as bad as what you are experiencing, Peter.

I keep trying to find the "magic formula" that will improve the performance of P-40s and F4Fs against A6M2s and A6M3s, but there are so many things that go into air combat resolution that it's hard to get a grip on it.

The air-to-air losses in PBEM sc. 17 games I've played recently against competent IJN opponents (3 games total) are usually about even in the early going, but this includes all aircraft, not just fighters. The ratio of A6M losses to F4F/P-40 losses through October '42 almost always runs about .75:1. In my most recent game, as of October 31, the Japanese have lost 264 A6M2s and 83 A6M3s (347 total), while the Allies have lost 331 F4F-3s and -4s and 91 Warhawks and Kittyhawks (422 total). If you add in P-39 and P-400 losses (although I try to put these in roles where they seldom if ever confront Zeroes), the ratio is even worse.

My approach has been to grin and bear it. I am 2-0 in those games, and look forward to winning the third, as well.

First, you have the aircraft characteristics. The differences in the numbers are not great (for example, F4Fs have a durability of 27, while the A6M2 is at 22. The maneuverability ratings are even closer, with the Zero getting the better of it by 3 or 4 points). These little differences seem to count for a lot, and I am not sure how (or if) the rest of the aircraft performance data (climb rate, etc.) factor in. Then you've got the pilot, represented by "experience." As we all know, Japanese Zero pilots are, in the aggregate, more "experienced" than Allied fighter jockeys at the beginning of the war, and this advantage erodes, then reverses, as the war wears on (provided that the Allies have not suffered enormous losses that cause their aircraft to be flown by less experienced pilots). Add in "morale," "fatigue," "altitude," "presence or absence of HQ," and all the things I have forgotten to mention (writing this off the top of my head), and coming to hard conclusions about how it all works is about like trying to pour a bushel of peas into a peck sack.

I also agree with much of what Mdiehl has so ably said, and others (who shall remain nameless) have also made good points about how this or that aspect of Allied fighter prowess should be improved. I try to remember, however, that the UV "reality" is not the real world of 1942. It is a simulation game, which means that it will always be imperfect. I play the game for the sake of the game and offer my little helpful comments here in the spirit that only little changes can be made without running the risk of breaking the entire game. A twist or a tweak here and there is fine with me as long as the engine puts me into a decent replica of the campaign I want to fight as a computer gamer.

One last thing (sorry that this has become so laborious). The numbers that have been tossed around concerning "real life" performance of these pilots and aircraft are taken from only a handful of encounters and those quoting these figures almost never take into account the circumstances in which the fighting took place (and some of these were extremely odd). To say that something or other is incorrectly modelled based on such meager evidence is placing too much weight on too little substance, in my estimation. We UVers are out there whacking away at each other on a daily basis, quite unlike what happened historically.

So relax and "game on, Garth."