Jap pilots are surperhuman!

[pry]

The basic thing that seems to get overlooked here is that the default CAP percentages (60%) is set too high in UV; this is what skews the results not the model.

The numbers of fighters held back for CAP duties typically never exceeded 40%, normally 25-30% with the rest used for strike duty. The AI will use what it is given and it is being given too much. These Uber-CV taskforces will not be so lethal if CAP is reduced to historical levels…Even with their better rated pilots when a reasonable realistic historical CAP of 30%-40% is used they will not be so superhuman…

On the morning of December 7, 1941, the Japanese held back 50 of their 130 fighters for CAP, 50/130 = 38%
On the morning of May 8, 1942, the Lexington and Yorktown put up a rotating CAP of 6 planes each out of 42 carried 12/42 = 28%

I guess I could look up more numbers to help prove my point beyond any reasonable doubt, but off the top of my head I do not remember any action during the whole war with a CAP over 50% of available fighter aircraft.

After Coral Sea, US carrier air groups were increased to 36 fighters, because lessons learned were that carriers could not put up enough CAP and properly escort strikes at the same time. Add into this the fact cautious commanders like Fletcher always held back a "reserve" reducing the numbers available for CAP or strike missions. They were raised yet again to 42 fighters later in the war based on lessons learned.

The default CAP settings (60%) for both sides are a-historical and thus the results obtained are a-historical. (A Snigbert-ism)
The obverse (A TJ-ism) is that your strike packages get chewed up because they are not getting the historical fighter support and also going up against higher than historical CAP.

The 2 feed off each other, the often criticized air-combat is providing the results based on what it has to work with.

New players always start out too aggressive when playing as the Allies and always take much higher than historical losses, the fact that the Japanese AI is putting up to much CAP increases these losses and giving the wrong impression of a Japanese bias. (I thought so myself until I learned better) Drop the default CAP to 30%-40% and players will see much more historical outcomes and a lot less frustration. In short, you will not need to "Game" the system if the CAP percentages are set correctly.

[barnacle bob]

After reading several post I think I may have made a mistake. Usually the AI is pretty stupid so I edited Scenario 19. The ships Japan laid down in the ‘20’s were completed as sister ships to Kaga and Akagi. The Shinano (spelling) is being completed as a battleship (with improved AA). The few ships lost to accidents before the war are present.

Then I started the game. It’s been a tough battle. The Coral Sea battle was almost duplicated. Both Lexington and Yorktown took hits. Lexington was almost lost but is being repaired. Sholo is in Davy Jones locker.

It is August and the first of my modifications will be showing up. I’m scared.

While Yorktown and Lexington were being repaired an enemy air attack found my cruisers south of PM and crippled them. Then a battleship force shelled PM (two nights in a row). Then 6 carriers attacked PM. It wasn’t pretty.

Buna and Lae are my but I can’t do anything with them. I also have an airfield (level 3 and building) at Santa Cruz. As soon as get some aircraft I’ll establish a base at San Cristobal. Next stop Guadacanal.

Ruffels I know what you are talking about. The first game I played I ran into 6 carriers I had 4. The results were similar to yours. Then the game crashed.

Pasternakski and Damien Thorn I think I will try your advice to take on those supper carrier TFs. Although I don’t have many army fighters left. I did use my carriers as bait and shot down a large number of Bettys and Nells. Then I retreated before the super CV TF showed up.

[mdiehl]

Interesting read. I hope it points the Matrix guys into an air combat model that dampens the "massed aircraft" effect. IMO CAP limits should be 15% in 1942. The US did not begin substantially increasing CAPs (and numbers of fighters as proportion of a/c type) on CVs until 1943. Japan never increased CAP sizes. Also illustrates the qualitative difference between USN radios and Japanese ones.

The way I read this, USN CAPS in 1942 should be about 50% more effective at interception than Japanese, and the lead should increase from 1943 onward until it reaches an order of magnitude of difference.

On the morning of December 7, 1941, the Japanese held back 50 of their 130 fighters for CAP, 50/130 = 38%

They kept 50 fighters on their CVs. Typically 2/3 or more of the Japanese CAP reserve was unavailable (moving into position, leaving station, on the deck, or refueling). As the excerpt observed, Kido Butai had exactly 9 a/c flying CAP during the PH strike. If Enterprise or Yorktown had showed up with their own attack, the Japanese would have been screwed. No radar, and crappy radios so there's a very very good chance that an inbound strike would not even have met the 9 fighters posted as CAP.

[CapAndGown]

I guess I could look up more numbers to help prove my point beyond any reasonable doubt, but off the top of my head I do not remember any action during the whole war with a CAP over 50% of available fighter aircraft.

Are you just talking about the japs or including the USN in your statement as well? Because the U.S. had something like 100% CAP Eastern Solomons.

[SeaWolF K]

Maybe a better model would be to have the CAP percentage represent the number of fighters reserved for CAP duties. CAP aircraft in reality have to rotate due to fuel, Pilot Fatigue, etc, so only about 33% would be on station at a given time, the rest would be on the ground. Now, with enough radar notice of an incoming raid a commander can launch more fighters and not recover fighters already in the air to allow more fighters to meet the raid (ie scramble). However, this then causes a period of time right after the raid where the CAP is reduced below 33% as the aircraft would need to be refueled and rearmed.

[pasternakski]

Pasternakski and Damien Thorn I think I will try your advice to take on those supper carrier TFs. Although I don’t have many army fighters left. I did use my carriers as bait and shot down a large number of Bettys and Nells. Then I retreated before the super CV TF showed up.

Yep. The USN philosophy early on (barring a major blunder by the Japanese commander that opens up a golden opportunity, like, for example, spending several days launching airstrikes against land installations - particularly in bad weather - while your CVs are steaming full tilt up from Noumea with air groups lashed down to the decks, the pilots reading comic books and eating good chow) has to be "chipping away." If you can damage a carrier or two (even the CVLs) enough that return to Tokyo for repair is necessary while not suffering damage to your own CVs, you have wedged open a crack that can be the dawn of victory (gee, I love that kind of nonsense talk).

Blessed be he whose submarine tanks an enemy carrier or whose LBA drops one down the funnel.

[mogami]

Hi, I think one of my brightest moments in UV was the turn where 2 S-boats each put a torpedo into a Japanese CV. Followed closely by the turn my PBY hit 2 IJN CV in a single night attack.
(The danger of sitting super CV TF's 1 hex from Noumea for many days. )

The next turn the Super TF was retiring away from Noumea and my transports laden with troops from SWPAC were able to land and 3 days later over 50k Japanese troops died.

[pry]

Are you just talking about the japs or including the USN in your statement as well? Because the U.S. had something like 100% CAP Eastern Solomons.

Cap_and_gown, you are right of course and this did happen, you picked the one example that is as atypical of a carrier battle as you can get during the Pacific war, Eastern Solomon's is the exception not the rule.

What I was trying to say was "normally" both sides sent attacks against each other escorted by fighters with about 1/3rd of the available fighters held back for task force defense. To simplify say out of 36 fighters 10-15 would have been held back from any attack for fleet defense. Of these 3 -6 would be on CAP duty with the rest sitting on the deck fueled and ready to launch. (Modern day Plus +5 or +15)

Typically CAP was historically at somewhere around 1/3 rd of available fighter strength, In certain instances if advance warning is provided then additional fighters were put up providing they were aboard at the time. If an escorted strike is already outbound then your stuck with what you have on hand and pray between them and you AA you survive. No one and I mean the Japanese or the US kept 60% up all the time, which is what the AI is doing in UV, day in and day out and the air combat results gets skewed because of it leading a new player to think there is a game bias.

In the Eastern Solomon's, Fletcher was so sure he had been spotted he withheld all his fighters and stacked extra CAP above his carriers with more fighters sitting on the decks with full tanks and warm engines. By sending his attack against Ryujo, Shokaku and Zuikaku without fighter escort he was able to put up 54 fighters when the Japanese arrived over Saratoga and Enterprise. If he had escorted his strike against the Japanese carriers then he would have only had around 20-25 fighters to defend himself with.

I had already said Fletcher was cautious and was known to hold back a reserve, after losing Lexington at Coral Sea and Yorktown at Midway in this case his reserve bordered on paranoia , he held back all of his fighters, 14 SBD and 12 TBD's. This is far from normal CAP operations during 42-43

[TheElf]

Interesting read. I hope it points the Matrix guys into an air combat model that dampens the "massed aircraft" effect. IMO CAP limits should be 15% in 1942. The US did not begin substantially increasing CAPs (and numbers of fighters as proportion of a/c type) on CVs until 1943. Japan never increased CAP sizes. Also illustrates the qualitative difference between USN radios and Japanese ones.

Mdiehl,
Are you talking about Hard coding all CV Airgroups to 15% max CAP level? Why would you want to do that? That would mean a reduced level of control for the player. What makes this game great, and will make WiTP Even better, is the flexibility offered to the player. If we start handcuffing every aspect of the game to make it follow the normal timeline and outcome of the War what fun will that be?
Why not just make it a "House Rule", and try to get someone to play a "As historically accurate as we can make it" game. Might be interesting, if not morbid and predicatable from the Japanese perspective.

v/r
Elf

PS. Has anyone ever thought to make a list of "House Rules" that might better simulate a more historically accurate game?

[von Murrin]

You can't replicate "used" CAP anyway, as setting the CAP% to 30 or less just means that 70% or more escort the strikes. It is, however, an interesting tactical trade-off, as you'll likely hammer the opposing TF as well as lose your own.

[11Bravo]

Hi, I am playing scenerio 19 as allied so I read this and related threads with pleasure.

I got very lucky in an early carrier battle in August '42. I had Enterprise and another carrier holed up in Townsville while the the Japs had 6 CV's in 3 task forces waiting outside. They never attacked PM or Cooktown, Cairns, or Townsville. PM was a bombed out wreck at the time and I had good CAP at the other bases. They may have been blocking resupply of PM or just protecting GG while they added more troops. Anyway, the sat there for a week and then 2 of the task forces withdrew, leaving the third one there. I pounced with fresh aircrews and got off the first strikes. The withdrawing CV's launched some very long rang attacks which scored hits, but their two closer CV's got creamed. After the battle, I limped back to Townsend with two crippled burning CV hulls, but their two CV's went down.

Enterprise sat in townsville at 98 system damage for a month before it dropped to 94. I then "towed" it to Noumea and then Pearl Harbor. It will be available in about a year. The other CV went back to Pearl also.

I considered this a great victory, especially for summer of '42.

[BlackVoid]

To All who complain about Jap pilot bias.

First, please go and read some history. In a lot of fighter battles in 42 the US planes got decimated by the Japs.
However, the Japanese suffered horrible attrition, because they were attacking Lunga from Rabaul. Their top pilots, slowly and steadily decreased in number.
Eg:
Sakai was shot down by a Dauntless rear gunner.
Nishizawa was shot down on board a transport plane.

I am reading the book Guadalcanal by Richard B. Frank. He compares kill ratios to actual loss reports on both sides. It turns out that both sides reported 2 or 3 times as many kills as were actually made. So if you read kill reports by any side, when there are no comparable loss result from the other side, divide those kills by 3.

If the japanese player conserves his good pilots and not throw them away, he should have the upper hand for a long time. I read here on the forum (and AARs) that even these elite pilots mean nothing against Corsairs and Hellcats. If that is the case, I believe that is wrong. It is the man and not the machine, experience should weigh in more heavily if the planes are comparable.

(If you read the above mentioned book, you will see that the invasion of Guadalcanal was a gamble from the allies. Japan only lost that battle because they followed a totally flawed strategy and made enormous blunders. They failed to build an advanced airbase in time. They committed their forces peacemeal. They won a big surface battle - Savo - and failed to go after the transports after it. )

[UncleBuck]

I have been seeing some amazing things from the Japanese pilots. I played far to long last night but throughout the night, Japanese strikes would come down from Rabul to Gili-Gili. 8 A6M2's and 6 Bettys, versus 45 to 50 F6F-4's with experience in the 70's + and all with Morale in the 90's and fatigue in the teens. The Zeros even outnumbered 5 to 1 were consistently taking no losses while I would lose 5 to 8 Fighters per run. I was able to scare away the Betties a few times but generaly they would get through and get torpedoes in the water.

I am all for a fair fight but Quantity should Have a Quality of it's own. If it is 2 or maybe even 3 to one odds I can see some loopsided engagements. When it gets to 4 to 1 and above it should be Ugly, Very ugly for the one with the few.

UB

[Damien Thorn]

I have been seeing some amazing things from the Japanese pilots. I played far to long last night but throughout the night, Japanese strikes would come down from Rabul to Gili-Gili. 8 A6M2's and 6 Bettys, versus 45 to 50 F6F-4's with experience in the 70's + and all with Morale in the 90's and fatigue in the teens. The Zeros even outnumbered 5 to 1 were consistently taking no losses while I would lose 5 to 8 Fighters per run. I was able to scare away the Betties a few times but generaly they would get through and get torpedoes in the water.
UB

Can I have some of those A6M2 pilots? Mine don't perform nearly as well. lol. Also, did you mean F6F's or F4F's? I've never heard anyone on this board report the zero doing well against the F6F's.

I also agree with the previous poster about how badly A6M's (all types) do against the F4U Coursairs, no matter what the Japanese pilots' experience. It's like, "Why bothing trying to keep them alive when experience won't matter at all in the latter half of '43"? Experience should be the biggest factor in air to air battles. It may not be truely historical but it is the most playable and the most fun. Everyone likes seeing their pilots go up in experience and then it would actually mean something when you lose an experienced one - as it should. As it is now, it's kind of like playing a computer role-playing game where everytime your character goes up a level they add a level on to all the mosters as well. The end result is that level wouldn't have any effect.

[UncleBuck]

I am sorry, I am referring to F4F's.

UB

[Nomad]

UncleBuck, by any chance are you playing on 'hard' setting? It makes a lot of difference. The AI will eat your lunch for a long time, maybe the entire game.

[BlackVoid]

Yes, xp and quantity both should matter more.
This is the HISTORICAL way.

If Japan could have thrown some top squadrons against the F6F or Corsair it would have been about equal I think (given equal numbers), largely depending on luck - who can surprise the other.

Saburo Sakai in his book complains, that there were just too many enemy planes, so they suffered some losses.
Right now in 42 the Zeros is invincible and in 43 the US planes are invincible - not very historical.

Outnumbered, any aircraft type should suffer. It is just not right, that even outnumbered the zeros escape unscathed.

Given about equal aircrafts (F4F - Zero), the pilots with more XP should prevail, but not totally dominate. Wildcats have scored kills against zeros even when engaged in equal numbers.

Total domination is only OK if one side has totally inferior types, eg: P-39 vs. the Zero above 10000 ft.

[UncleBuck]

I will have to check what setting I am on. It may be hard, I am a glutton for punishment. I am just amazed that so few can do so much damage. Another example was as I was invading Slamua I had been pounding the base with Bombers and BB's, it was a wreck. Well one flight of Bombers gets there and there are 3 A6M2's. I had 47 F4F's and 12 P-38G's flying out of Pt. Moresby. I lost 1 P-38 G and 6 F4F's. I did shoot down 2 of the Zeros but give me a break. I would be interested to see if that JP squadron ,that didn't get out in time ,was actually JV44 or KG 26 on loan.

UB

[HMSWarspite]

Yes, xp and quantity both should matter more.
This is the HISTORICAL way.

If Japan could have thrown some top squadrons against the F6F or Corsair it would have been about equal I think (given equal numbers), largely depending on luck - who can surprise the other.

Saburo Sakai in his book complains, that there were just too many enemy planes, so they suffered some losses.
Right now in 42 the Zeros is invincible and in 43 the US planes are invincible - not very historical.

Outnumbered, any aircraft type should suffer. It is just not right, that even outnumbered the zeros escape unscathed.

Given about equal aircrafts (F4F - Zero), the pilots with more XP should prevail, but not totally dominate. Wildcats have scored kills against zeros even when engaged in equal numbers.

Total domination is only OK if one side has totally inferior types, eg: P-39 vs. the Zero above 10000 ft.

I wonder sometimes if I have got a different game! The Zero is NOT invincible in 1942. Due to the Jn bias threads I have been tracking air losses through my latest game with the AI. I have only played to 7th Sept, in scen 14, but my results up to the end of August are (vs AI, Historical everything, including no bonus to AI, I am Allied)

total losses (US:Jn) 112:175, consisting of 66a-a, 11 on field, 5 flak, 30 operational for US, and 63, 19, 28, 65 for Japan.
The losses by type are
US: 32 F4F-4 (Lunga: intense fighting every resupply).
31 P39D (The PM raids have caused quite a few losses!)
12 F4F-3
9 P40E
7 SBD (mostly Marine, on ground at Lunga - moved them in prematurely, and had to pull them out again!)
6 B17 (mostly ops, after damage on raids)
6 Seagull
rest lots of 1's

Japan: 61 A6M2 (thats right, 61, although lots are operational losses, flying back from PM or Lunga after being damaged)
46 Betty (as above)
14 A6M3
12 Jake
11 Val
10 Kate
7 Mavis (caught on ground at Tulagi)
4 Nell, rest 2 or less

Now, only one thing about this game so far is unusual - there has been no CV to Cv action. The Vals and Kates were lost to flak attacking surface forces, but each time we might have had a CV fight, one of us (me or the AI has withdrawn a day early).

If you view all ships as VERY vulnerable, and don't risk them except when you must, with CAP, don't fight battles you dont need, and advance slowly and methodically, the Jn air power is manageable, believe me. If, on the other hand, you go giving targets to the Bettys, they will sink you! The only think you should be doing when you haven't got air superiority is hiding!

I will look in my save, and see my total a-a kills by the squadrons.

[Mr.Frag]

The only think you should be doing when you haven't got air superiority is hiding!

Excellent Advice!!!

Too many people start right out of the gate playing the Americans far to aggressively and wonder why they get their butts kicked. The Americans DID get their butts kicked historically, why people expect to do any different I'll never understand. By November 42, the game is over if you have not thrown away your forces in the first few months.