How to get the best out of Allied Fighters?

[Peter Weir]

In all my games I see the plane-pilot-ratio becoming unglued in many squadrons, regardless which side I play. It's worst with patrol squadrons, there are 40-50 pilots for 9-12 planes

Re Zero vs. Wildcat - I'm an Axis-fanboy by birth :p , nevertheless I think the durab and the air-air combat needs tweaking in favor for the Allies. Even considering the armor rating, I think the current values do not adequately represent the effects of six .50 cals hitting Japanese paper-planes or two 7.7 mm and two slow-firing/low-velocity 20mm guns hitting the products of the 'Grumman Iron Works'. Just for example, after much experimenting in good ol' PacWar the values for cannons/durab have been set 8/10 for the Zero and 12/24 for the Wildcat, and it seems to work.
Tweaking the air combat model is tricky. I think the common consent is that in a fight between one Zero and one Wildcat the Zero had a distinct advantage, but that two Wildcats using proper teamwork tactics were worth much more than just two Wildcats fighting on their own - with the Thach Weave they were at least able to mutually protect their six, thus surviving to fight another day and maybe even bagging a Zero in the process. How to translate better tactis into the air-combat-model I don't know, but I would like to read in the combat resolution something like "F4F section employing Thach Weave - F4F evades/Zero breaks off attack/ is damaged/ is destroyed".

Hey LST! You're the first guy i've read who admits to fanboy status and then turns around and calls the zero a super airplance. Good for you and you'll probably make Chitengs top 100 objectivity list! Does no one have an answer for why the pilots go way up with suqadrons? Also, for about the tirhd time is withdrawal a way to cure this or is there no known way to get it right eventually?

[mogami]

Hi, Pete.
Reread LST's post. He does not call the Zero a super airplane. He is an axis fan boy because he was born in a country that belonged to the axis in WW2. He thinks the ratings are too close But the lack of armor on the Zero is not mentioned. He does not claim the Zero kill ratios are too high. (I think he says the AI beats up on him no matter what side he plays) Thats not proof of a super weapon.

I'd be happy to see you run a test of scenario 14 as allies and post your results in the thread for test results. So far only people that are able to get good results with allies have posted and we really need to see these super Zeros in action.

In all TJ's posts he has only posted results from a few days battles. He has never posted total loss over any extended period. OP loss does include aircraft damaged in combat and can not be ignored totally. The Japanese have to fly a long way to combat so Zeros lost per turn also should count to some degree. (Although I have never yet seen Zeros get a 2-1 kill ratio over a 2 week period.) In all my PBEM or tests the air to air ratio is always 1-1 or close to that and when op loss is figured in the Japanese are losing by 2-1 or more. Let us know if you see a different result.

[Peter Weir]

So you mean run a test againt the computer and post the results as the Allies? Sure I could do that.



What about sqadrons with all the extra pilots Mogami?

[mogami]

Hi, Sure you can test that as well. I've already posted that as Allies I like the extra pilots in fighter groups. (I'd not like them so much in patrol groups) Bomber groups I don't know if the group had heavy loss it would be a way of getting it back into combat sooner but I'd rather not have a lot of pilots tied down in bomber groups.

I think the best method would be find a group with 1 damaged ac. Transfer the group to a new base. And then withdraw the partial unit. (do not disband, disbanded pilots stay on map. Pilots that are withdrawn stay with their group but since a partial group does not reform the pilots should return to pool.)
I really can't say. I've not had this problem yet. I'd be interested in learning exactly what causes it. (do the pilots just keep coming?)

But extra pilots in a fighter sqdn is a huge advantage. As you lose ac/pilots you only need a new AC since you already have a trained pilot. I have several groups with around 30 pilots now and they are all trained and waiting to get into combat.

[Mike_B20]

Extra pilots in bomber squadrons is a huge disadvantage.
Unlike fighter squads, where the most experienced pilots sortie unless tired, the program sends the least experienced bomber pilots out on bomb runs.
When those newbie pilots with below 50 skill show up in my B17 squads it means high losses unless I spend the time to train the newbie up...but then another newbie shows up while I'm doing that.
It's a vicious circle.

[mogami]

Hi Mike, So the pilots just start coming in for no reason and then continue.
I've started 5 test games to try to see when this begins.

[LargeSlowTarget]

The fanboy-remark was tongue-in-cheek, of course - I thought the :p would make that clear. Although born in Germany, I have American ancestry and thus I'm torn between being an Axis or an Allies fanboy - I hope it evens out in the end .

Admittedly I should have been more prudent in my remark regarding the armor/durab of the A6M because I'm not too informed on the impact of the armor rating or lack thereof on the air combat model - it just struck me that the durab ratings of the Zero and the Wildcat are that close. I've seen this apparently misconceived 'ruggedness' of the Zero as a possible explanation for my difficulties in air-to-air combat in 1942 - the other reason being the apparent non-consideration of evolving new tactics on the Allied side.
Don't get me wrong - I can't complain about the kill ratio in the long run, as P-38s and F4Us usually tip the balance in favor oth the Allies, as it should be. But in the pre-Lightning/Corsair era I have difficulties in keeping my F4F/P-40 squadrons in shape, despite built-up bases full of supplies, support and radar sets. The AI is indeed beating me up on a tactical scale in air-to-air comat in this period (I usually manage to beat the AI strategically in the long run) and the only way I have found to keep my fighter losses down is by resorting to artificial tactics - i.e. only flying CAP if a transport TF is inbound. Having to do this I see as an indication that there is a problem with the Zero vs. F4F/P-40 air-to-air combat and therefore I've hinted that there should be some tweaking in favor of the Allies. All this is totally subjective personal opinion...

[mogami]

Hi, Another poster noticed that the Betty and P-47 have almost the same duribilty and then went on a rampage. The Betty has no armor and I've never seen P-47's shot down at the rate Bettys get shot down. So I think the armor has a major impact.

What scenario gives you problems? Can you post total air loss for the game to date? You are playing PBEM or AI with normal settings? (With the hard setting try playing the Japanese against the AI and watch the Iron Dog tear you apart)

[LargeSlowTarget]

Scen. 16 vs. AI at normal settings - have to look up the numbers next time I fire up the game.

Major impact of armor is fine but isn't Betty/P-47 losses comparing apples/oranges in regards to other factors like mnvr, weapons, mission etc.?

[mogami]

Hi, Exactly. But other people have focused on one set of numbers compared to another aircraft. The Zero duribility looks close to F4F but then when you figure in it's lack of armor and the high gun rating of allied ac you can see it the effect is too make A6m2 much easier to shoot down. In my opinion the P-47 is being given a very good rating if it is the same as a twin engine bomber and had armor as well on top of that. (The other point of view was the P-47 was being short changed because we all know how easy the Betty is to shoot down. But in application I think the system works quite well because the Betty remains easy to shoot down but the P-47 is quite difficult to shoot down.)

I cannot stress enough that besides the actual air to air ratios you need to count in op loss. Even when my F4F's only achive a 1-1 air to air ratio the allies are getting a 2-1 or greater total ac lost ratio because the A6M2's crash flying home.

[HMSWarspite]

Hi, here is an interesting (though unscientific) little highlight. I started 2 scen 14 as Allied, historical reinf, no AI bonus. Running them simultaneously, with equivalent orders (close as possible allowing for details like which P39 sqd got decimated that turn!), by turn 11 I had the following:
game 1 losses (Allies:Jn) 25:53 (17-3-0-5 vs 25-0-14-14) highlights: 9 Nell, 25 Betty, 18 Zero vs 8 F4F, 15 39D 1x40E flying accident!). In this game US CV LORCAP could do no wrong! No Betty's got through to ships at Lunga!

Game 2 :20:24 (11-2-0-7 vs 2-0-17-5), 6 Nell, 11 Betty, 5 Zero, 11x39D, 4F4F. In this game, LORCAP was hopeless, 2 AP sunk, 1 CLAA, and 1 DD limping home, other minor damage.

Interesting, huh (or if at first you don't suceed....). I think it does show the high degree of variabilty. So do not judge too much from one days raids.

Unfortunately I cannot run game 1 on - I overwrote it with game 2 by mistake!

[pasternakski]

I've already posted that as Allies I like the extra pilots in fighter groups. (I'd not like them so much in patrol groups).

Check out this bad boy from February 21, 1943:

[Admiral DadMan]

Ok, so do we have an E.T.A. on the patch for this, or what?

[mogami]

Check out this bad boy from February 21, 1943:

Hi, So when you move a patrol group that is under size in ac (or normal size) to the same base as that one and wait for the group with the extra pilots to have a damaged ac. And then move the group leaving the 1 damaged ac. Do the excess pilots stay behind? Then if you disband (not withdraw) the 1 damaged ac group into the other group are the excess pilots removed for the map?

[frank1970]

Check out this bad boy from February 21, 1943:

Don´t know what you complain about. This unit could fly 200% Naval search and would not have any fatigue aftwewards!

[CapAndGown]

Check out this bad boy from February 21, 1943:

What I want to know is who they shot down and how!

[tabpub]

Hi, So when you move a patrol group that is under size in ac (or normal size) to the same base as that one and wait for the group with the extra pilots to have a damaged ac. And then move the group leaving the 1 damaged ac. Do the excess pilots stay behind? Then if you disband (not withdraw) the 1 damaged ac group into the other group are the excess pilots removed for the map?

It seems that everytime I try this, all I get is a damaged plane with 1 pilot and 8 Mavi with 24 pilots arguing about who is the best pilot.
In addition, I have just seen this one. We are playing 2 day turns. When I left this unit, it had 27 planes/30 pilots. Evidently, during the interval, the high command felt the need to send another 15 pilots down to Rabaul. And the quality levels..ugh. In this campaign, I have had slight losses. There are like 200+ A6M2's sitting in the pool. I have only lost around 70 of them. This is in Dec 42 in scenario 16. I am at a loss on what to do. At this rate, my "success" will destroy me.

[LargeSlowTarget]

What scenario gives you problems? Can you post total air loss for the game to date? You are playing PBEM or AI with normal settings? (With the hard setting try playing the Japanese against the AI and watch the Iron Dog tear you apart)

Scen 16. vs. Jap AI normal settings, date Oct 6, 42..

Losses Allies : Japanese
Air-to-Air - 173 :188
Dest. on field - 8 : 55
Flak - 121 : 114
Ops losses - 178 : 180

Losses by type (fighters only):
A6M2: 164
A6M3: 33
F4F4: 128
P-40 Shittyhawk: 25
P-39 (US): 25
P-40 Warhawk: 16
P-400: 7
P-39 (Aussie): 3
F4F3: 3

I've sunk Junyo and wiped out Shokaku's air group (ship survived, air groups on board with no planes in it) and bombarded Lunga air base prior to invasion, all this accounts for many A6M. Fighter losses from all causes are quite balanced overall, but data is not differentiated enough for definite conclusions on air-to-air combat.
Problem remains that these figures have been achieved with artificial tactics: First I tried to station one F4F4-squadron at Lunga on 50% CAP and had the other units resting at Noumea, in order to have fresh pilots for rotation. Well, the first squadron at Lunga was mauled badly in a single attack - outnumbered by Zeros and taking substantial losses, morale dropped below 50 and fatigue went up, so I rotated the unit. The new units suffered the same fate, and so on - within a week, all four Marine squadrons had been through the Zero treatment and were back at Noumea, recovering slowly. So next time I concentrated all four F4F4 squadrons at Lunga and flew 30% CAP. Well, despite combined efforts, two or three days of battle would exhaust the pilots to the point of needing rotation - but there were no fresh units to replace. So finally I resorted to what I call artifical tactics to get the best out of my fighters - flying CAP only if a transport TF is unloading at Lunga, followed by at least two weeks of R&R at Noumea before the squadrons are in shape again for next resupply run. In the meantime, the Japanese are allowed to bomb Lunga at will...