Aircraft comments
Aircraft comments
1. Land based Army bombers from both sides will not attack ships in range, with exceptions. None of the IJA tac-bombers will attack naval targets; and the B-25, B-26, Hudson will not attack naval targets. Most everyone knows about the B-25 skip bombing transports and the occasional DD. 2. The allies get a +2 training gain for air groups with experience below 55. This should not apply to the Dutch, Indian, P.I., or Chinese. These nationalities simply didn't have the advanced training establishments of the Western powers. 3. Breaking out the Australian Kittyhawks from the American P-40s renders the Australians very fragile as far as replacing losses is concerned. The same can be said for the Buffalos. 4. Very minor point; Airacobra vs aircobra?
More comments... 1.The range increases for the Hurricane IIb and Wildcat to "3" are very optimistic. The original "2" was better; and even then it was optimistic considering the ability to extend to "3" on certain missions. 2. The very busy transport aircraft... I've experienced the single transport group that the Americans receive at the beginning of the war fly six to eight transport missions in a single week when based in the South Pacific. Somehow this needs to be recoded to make transport aircraft operate like combat aircraft. The player would indicate the "air target" for the originating base as the desired target; then the available transport aircraft would deliver tonnage based upon capacity and range. Alternatively, transport A/C would only fly missions to bases listed as the originating HQ's target. 3. Related to aircraft.... The HMS Hermes will not replentish A/C. Experienced the Hermes being reduced to 5 A/C in mid-42 due to losses; then unable to manually replentish TF with A/C. 4. A/C factory problems... Manually changed factory production in India from Fulmars to Sea Hurricanes in mid-42; next turn the computer reset production to the Fulmars
Regarding the Hurricane IIB, it used drop tanks in South East Asia which increased its operation range.
Set any Land Based aircraft (ie. USAAF, IJAAF, RAF) you want to attack ships on NI. They won't do this otherwize (unlike USN, USMCAF, IJNAF).
The reason we separated the Kittyhawk II's and Buffalo I's was solely on the fact that the Allies to America weren't directly able to get aircraft from the American pool of reserves. They had to rely on planes sent over to them.
Tansporting supplies and Combat missions are DRASTICALLY different. You can do a transport mission a day without too much stress on the Crew, but, not with a Combat crew. So, you can do more transporting of supplies than combat missions.
We have the P-39 named the Airacobra, which is what it is called. (It might have been a change from our release version, but, at least now it is called the Airacobra).
If you want to have the factories building the aircraft you decide, then choose HUMAN FACTORY CONTROL. You can find out the key in the manuel provided (since I forgot what it was!)
The rest of your stuff is direct programming issues. Unfortunately we won't have time to correct these, as the Matrix team is now working on War in the Pacific.
Jeremy
Set any Land Based aircraft (ie. USAAF, IJAAF, RAF) you want to attack ships on NI. They won't do this otherwize (unlike USN, USMCAF, IJNAF).
The reason we separated the Kittyhawk II's and Buffalo I's was solely on the fact that the Allies to America weren't directly able to get aircraft from the American pool of reserves. They had to rely on planes sent over to them.
Tansporting supplies and Combat missions are DRASTICALLY different. You can do a transport mission a day without too much stress on the Crew, but, not with a Combat crew. So, you can do more transporting of supplies than combat missions.
We have the P-39 named the Airacobra, which is what it is called. (It might have been a change from our release version, but, at least now it is called the Airacobra).
If you want to have the factories building the aircraft you decide, then choose HUMAN FACTORY CONTROL. You can find out the key in the manuel provided (since I forgot what it was!)
The rest of your stuff is direct programming issues. Unfortunately we won't have time to correct these, as the Matrix team is now working on War in the Pacific.
Jeremy
In regards to factory control and A/C mission assignments... 1) The manual on pages 21 and 49 discusses changing A/C production from one type to another by mouse clicking; but doesn't specify computer vs human control of factories. The War in Russia manual on pages 24-25 discusses human vs computer control; "Shift/F" in order to toggle. "Shift/F" has no appearent effect in PacWar. The only qualification that the PacWar manual states for manually changing factory production was a one week "downtime". In the previous version of PacWar, factory production could be manually altered without the program changing it back. The program would still upgrade production of factories when improved types of A/C appeared; P-38F to P-38J etc. 2)I haven't yet seen USAAF tac-bombers; B-25 etc., assigned to the Naval Interdiction mission actually fly against naval targets. If anyone has assigned their land based Army bombers to the NI mission and actually seen them fly vs naval targets, please let me know. The bombers that I have experienced that will not fly against naval targets are: the IJA tac-bombers including the single engine type- Sonja,Mary; the U.S. built tac-bombers that include the B-25,26 and A-20,26. The Beaufort in the current version of PacWar will engage ships, without requiring a NI mission designation. In the previous version, the Beaufort and Beaufighter would engage naval targets without a NI designation. I haven't progressed far enough in the current version to see Beaufighters yet. In the previous version, which I have literally hundreds of hours and at least 20 complete "wars" completed, even the B-25s assigned to the Marine VMB units would never attack naval targets, even if given a NI assignment. I reluctantly changed these groups to Beaufighters, and they attacked naval targets magnificently, using U.S. weapons. I've only progressed to late '42 in the current version, but I suspect that the restriction for tac-bombers to attack naval targets isn't the group affiliation; IJN vs IJA etc., but rather the A/C type. Beauforts will engage naval targets when assigned the Day mission regardless of the Groups' affiliation; be it RAF, RAAF or even USAAF. But a B-25 equipped group will not engage naval targets. If anyone has different experiences, please post them. If you don't have the program reverting your factory changes, please post your experiences and methods in this thread.
The Hurricanes used in SE Asia had the universal wing with drop tanks, so the increase in range is probably justified. I'm muh less convinced about the F4F though.
And while we're on the subject, the Fulmar really needs its range increased. One of the few things the Fulmar had going for it was range (a 5 hour endurance on internal fuel) plus a back seater to do the navigating. It really needs a range of 3 or 4. Same goes for the Firefly.
And while we're on the subject, the Fulmar really needs its range increased. One of the few things the Fulmar had going for it was range (a 5 hour endurance on internal fuel) plus a back seater to do the navigating. It really needs a range of 3 or 4. Same goes for the Firefly.
>>In regards to factory control and A/C mission assignments... 1) The manual on pages 21 and 49 discusses changing A/C production from one type to another by mouse clicking; but doesn't specify computer vs human control of factories. The War in Russia manual on pages 24-25 discusses human vs computer control; "Shift/F" in order to toggle. "Shift/F" has no appearent effect in PacWar. The only qualification that the PacWar manual states for manually changing factory production was a one week "downtime". In the previous version of PacWar, factory production could be manually altered without the program changing it back. The program would still upgrade production of factories when improved types of A/C appeared; P-38F to P-38J etc.<<
After engaging in some semi-random key pressing, I have discovered that the magic combination for human factory control is..... (drum roll) "Alt-N". However, when you toggle this, your factories don't seem to automatically upgrade when a new model comes along.
After engaging in some semi-random key pressing, I have discovered that the magic combination for human factory control is..... (drum roll) "Alt-N". However, when you toggle this, your factories don't seem to automatically upgrade when a new model comes along.
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
Hi Ricohet
I haven't yet seen USAAF tac-bombers; B-25 etc., assigned to the Naval Interdiction mission actually fly against naval targets. If anyone has assigned their land based Army bombers to the NI mission and actually seen them fly vs naval targets, please let me know.
in the PACWAR games and in the new Version, I have seen it work all the time, in my new game, I am around 8-43 and I see the B-25/B-26 attack JP shipping all the time, I turn them on to NI and they attack
in my game, i just took the Singapore area, and I set up 4 25 groups there and the AI is trying to take the area back, the 38's have attacked with cannons (oh joy)and the b-25's have attacked with 500 pounders, they get closer and my dive bombers go to work (can't spell that name of the top of my head, the V one)
in fact it was the b-25's that sank 3 out of 4 CS's that came in to land and turn the fleet back before I could get some troops in place
I see it work all the time, I gambled and seen that it looked like Rabaul was weakly defended and had weaken his airforce in the area, took shortlands, moved 3 B26's in and that V dive bomber, set them on NI and targeted the port of rabaul, they hammered the port (some 400 to 500 ships in there at the time) got my troops in and took the base, the next turn, moved 4 b25's in, with 2 F4u and 2 p38's and targeted Kavang with NI b25's, took about 3 turns useing them and a carrier strike, to drive the ships out of there (LOL have sank over 100 PC's so far in the game, all them transports and they target the PC's oh well)
it works for me
HARD_Sarge
------------------
Semper Fi
I haven't yet seen USAAF tac-bombers; B-25 etc., assigned to the Naval Interdiction mission actually fly against naval targets. If anyone has assigned their land based Army bombers to the NI mission and actually seen them fly vs naval targets, please let me know.
in the PACWAR games and in the new Version, I have seen it work all the time, in my new game, I am around 8-43 and I see the B-25/B-26 attack JP shipping all the time, I turn them on to NI and they attack
in my game, i just took the Singapore area, and I set up 4 25 groups there and the AI is trying to take the area back, the 38's have attacked with cannons (oh joy)and the b-25's have attacked with 500 pounders, they get closer and my dive bombers go to work (can't spell that name of the top of my head, the V one)
in fact it was the b-25's that sank 3 out of 4 CS's that came in to land and turn the fleet back before I could get some troops in place
I see it work all the time, I gambled and seen that it looked like Rabaul was weakly defended and had weaken his airforce in the area, took shortlands, moved 3 B26's in and that V dive bomber, set them on NI and targeted the port of rabaul, they hammered the port (some 400 to 500 ships in there at the time) got my troops in and took the base, the next turn, moved 4 b25's in, with 2 F4u and 2 p38's and targeted Kavang with NI b25's, took about 3 turns useing them and a carrier strike, to drive the ships out of there (LOL have sank over 100 PC's so far in the game, all them transports and they target the PC's oh well)
it works for me
HARD_Sarge
------------------
Semper Fi
The "Alt-N" does indeed work, thanks. The tac-bombers will attack naval targets when given the NI mission.
In my current game (10/4/42), the IJN decided to make a run for Port Moresby; with Rabaul completely improved and New Guinea held up to Lae. Two carrier TF at Milne Bay sitting in reserve. The previous two months of game time saw a tremendous attrition battle in the air, with the allies finally gaining the upper hand. A/C losses about 150-200 a week for 8 weeks. Air Groups were being rotated in as fast as possible. The trump card was when the oversized P-40 group from Pearl was brought in mid Sept. It's experience was in the mid-80s and the entire 129 A/C were brought in intact. The air attacks melted away, and routine supply convoys started getting in. Anyway, the carrier TFs reacted and got their pound of flesh, and the IJN TFs were left scattered in the Solomon Sea. So, for the next game week, I redeployed every B-25, A-20 and Hudson equipped Group to Milne Bay and Lae to give the retreating TFs a going away party; after changing mission profile to NI.
The air attacks did include the tac-bombers, and the B-25s even dropped the occasional 2000lb at 100 mi range.
The AI is doing a good job of redeploying IJN A/C Groups to the "point of maximum effort", and IJA Groups are filling in the East Indies rather well after the Allies are expelled from this region. The exception to this is that the Kate and Val equipped groups are not being moved from Tokyo. This places too much "strain" on the IJN tac-bomber groups; not to mention wasting a valuable resource.
For some reason routine supply will not reach Rangoon, as mentioned in another string, and the IJA cannot sustain itself in Burma as a result. In my current game, the British have just recaptured Rangoon solely with overland attacks from Mandalay (10/4/42).
By rotating the Chinese AF groups out to Dacca to train, their average experience levels are now in the mid 80s!!!, making them the most proficient aircrew in the Pacific. They are now clearing Chinese airspace at a very favorable exchange rate.
Thank you to those who reponded to my post!
In my current game (10/4/42), the IJN decided to make a run for Port Moresby; with Rabaul completely improved and New Guinea held up to Lae. Two carrier TF at Milne Bay sitting in reserve. The previous two months of game time saw a tremendous attrition battle in the air, with the allies finally gaining the upper hand. A/C losses about 150-200 a week for 8 weeks. Air Groups were being rotated in as fast as possible. The trump card was when the oversized P-40 group from Pearl was brought in mid Sept. It's experience was in the mid-80s and the entire 129 A/C were brought in intact. The air attacks melted away, and routine supply convoys started getting in. Anyway, the carrier TFs reacted and got their pound of flesh, and the IJN TFs were left scattered in the Solomon Sea. So, for the next game week, I redeployed every B-25, A-20 and Hudson equipped Group to Milne Bay and Lae to give the retreating TFs a going away party; after changing mission profile to NI.
The air attacks did include the tac-bombers, and the B-25s even dropped the occasional 2000lb at 100 mi range.
The AI is doing a good job of redeploying IJN A/C Groups to the "point of maximum effort", and IJA Groups are filling in the East Indies rather well after the Allies are expelled from this region. The exception to this is that the Kate and Val equipped groups are not being moved from Tokyo. This places too much "strain" on the IJN tac-bomber groups; not to mention wasting a valuable resource.
For some reason routine supply will not reach Rangoon, as mentioned in another string, and the IJA cannot sustain itself in Burma as a result. In my current game, the British have just recaptured Rangoon solely with overland attacks from Mandalay (10/4/42).
By rotating the Chinese AF groups out to Dacca to train, their average experience levels are now in the mid 80s!!!, making them the most proficient aircrew in the Pacific. They are now clearing Chinese airspace at a very favorable exchange rate.
Thank you to those who reponded to my post!
Some additional aircraft stuff...in v2.1
The 343rd Fighter Group is classified in the game as USMC; its equipped with P-40Es.
I'm in Jan '43 of v2.1, do any of the P-40E factories convert to P-40N??
Oscar II with a range of 6!!!!I sincerely hope this is changed back to 3 in the coming patch. The Oscar II added self sealing tanks and some armoring, so should basically have the same range as the 'I'; with some increase for tanks. As it stands, the Oscar II is superior to the basic Zero in every category except firepower.
Wildcat... Everything I've checked on since opening this thread supports changing back the range to 2. For the carrier based groups, the time spent in the landing patterns, and the need for reserve fuel in case the carrier unexpectedly changed position, diminished operational range. When striking land targets, with small numbers, the Wildcat would max out at 300 mi radius.
B-17/24... The B-17 is commonly stating as having a maximum bombing range between 800 and 900 miles. It could fly about a hundred miles further out on a patrol mission, as was common in the Pacific, but sacfificed bombload for additional fuel. The B-24 could extend it's max bomb range to about 950 mi, with an extremely small bomb load. Therefore... the B-17 should have a base range of 6 and the B-24 of 7. This would allow bombing missions out to 9 and 10 for each , respectively.
The 343rd Fighter Group is classified in the game as USMC; its equipped with P-40Es.
I'm in Jan '43 of v2.1, do any of the P-40E factories convert to P-40N??
Oscar II with a range of 6!!!!I sincerely hope this is changed back to 3 in the coming patch. The Oscar II added self sealing tanks and some armoring, so should basically have the same range as the 'I'; with some increase for tanks. As it stands, the Oscar II is superior to the basic Zero in every category except firepower.
Wildcat... Everything I've checked on since opening this thread supports changing back the range to 2. For the carrier based groups, the time spent in the landing patterns, and the need for reserve fuel in case the carrier unexpectedly changed position, diminished operational range. When striking land targets, with small numbers, the Wildcat would max out at 300 mi radius.
B-17/24... The B-17 is commonly stating as having a maximum bombing range between 800 and 900 miles. It could fly about a hundred miles further out on a patrol mission, as was common in the Pacific, but sacfificed bombload for additional fuel. The B-24 could extend it's max bomb range to about 950 mi, with an extremely small bomb load. Therefore... the B-17 should have a base range of 6 and the B-24 of 7. This would allow bombing missions out to 9 and 10 for each , respectively.
>>Some additional aircraft stuff...in v2.1<<
Further to this, the range of the Fulmar needs to be increased. These aircraft had remarkable range for carrier aircraft. They had a internal fuel endurance of no less than five hours and a backseater making their navigation far more accurate. They had twice the endurance of a Sea Hurricane and the RN found they had a significantly greater range than the Wildcat/Martlet they used. I would therefore bump up their range to 4.
Further to this, the range of the Fulmar needs to be increased. These aircraft had remarkable range for carrier aircraft. They had a internal fuel endurance of no less than five hours and a backseater making their navigation far more accurate. They had twice the endurance of a Sea Hurricane and the RN found they had a significantly greater range than the Wildcat/Martlet they used. I would therefore bump up their range to 4.
On the Aircraft questions: The original game had the Wildcat set at 2 and the SBD set at 3. This usually had unhappy results in that the Zeros would always slaughter the unescorted SBD`s in any Carrier vs Carrier battles so you couldn`t pull off a "Midway".
( I know the SBD`s had greater range )
Since in a Game of this scope there is no fractional hexs, i.e 1 1/4 ,1 1/2 etc, you cannot fine tune the ranges.
Perhaps if "Carrier Strike " gets intergrated into Pac War many of folks concerns for high accuracy will be met.
When you also consider the Map & Base locations are very abstract strange results will occur down the road if you fiddle too much with the Air Units ranges and loadouts.
I guess I`m saying much of what people want can be done by them, with the editors, especially Bears, no offense people, why not do it yourself.
PS: Hey, is that Hard_Sarge from the BTR forums ?
[This message has been edited by Blackjack (edited October 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Blackjack (edited October 18, 2000).]
( I know the SBD`s had greater range )
Since in a Game of this scope there is no fractional hexs, i.e 1 1/4 ,1 1/2 etc, you cannot fine tune the ranges.
Perhaps if "Carrier Strike " gets intergrated into Pac War many of folks concerns for high accuracy will be met.
When you also consider the Map & Base locations are very abstract strange results will occur down the road if you fiddle too much with the Air Units ranges and loadouts.
I guess I`m saying much of what people want can be done by them, with the editors, especially Bears, no offense people, why not do it yourself.
PS: Hey, is that Hard_Sarge from the BTR forums ?
[This message has been edited by Blackjack (edited October 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Blackjack (edited October 18, 2000).]
Regarding TacAir and Shipping: I used A-20's with the Marine Bomber groups - set them on NI, and the things launched a TORPEDO attack on an IJN task force. I almost fell out of my chair. Tried it a couple of times with USAAF groups with same result. I don't know if this was an abberation of that game because the opportunity has not show itself again recently. (I don't get a chance to play much).
God Bless:
Rev. Rick.
------------------
tincanman
God Bless:
Rev. Rick.
------------------
tincanman
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
The A-20's and Marauders set to NI will carry Torps on short/medium range strikes, which is why I don`t like to upgrade all the Groups when the B-25's are available. Both can be real ship killers if their experience is high enough in the short range fighting in the Solomon Islands in 42-43.Originally posted by RevRick:
Regarding TacAir and Shipping: I used A-20's with the Marine Bomber groups - set them on NI, and the things launched a TORPEDO attack on an IJN task force. I almost fell out of my chair. Tried it a couple of times with USAAF groups with same result. I don't know if this was an abberation of that game because the opportunity has not show itself again recently. (I don't get a chance to play much).
God Bless:
Rev. Rick.
The AC range/loadout game code has always done a pretty good job IMHO. ( except for some super Betty's once in awhile
I'd like to see the air combat experience rating system changed from a continuous ranking (1-100) to a mere categorical one. As it stands in V1.0, 1.2, and 2.0 IJN air flotillas in Rabaul can overwhelm any fighter defense mounted for Port Moresby... to the point where 40 P40s with an Exp rating in the 60s get slaughtered in droves by Zekes from Rabaul with Exp in the 90s. The kill ratio is overwhelming, with the Warhawks losing 20-40 planes per combat and the Zekes losing one or two. Historically the Japanese lost many a/c to attrition and vs. F4Fs and P40s usually did not manage even a 1:1 kill ratio (except when surprise was achieved and large quantities of a/c were destroyed on the ground).
The result in all versions of the game so far is that the J player can confidentaly assail any position at will without having to worry about attrition. In contrast, the A player finds that resistence is useless, and the best a-a combat strategy is to never station fighters at an airbase within range of IJN pilots flying zekes, because the ONLY outcome will be allied a/c losses. Instead teh best defense is to offer no defense until 6 months of additional training have passed. (What does that represent, 400 additional hours of combat training?)
The problem seems to be that experience as it is currently factored in the game overwhelms technological superiority. P40s were much faster than Zekes and could engage and disengage almost at will. If a P40 pilot flew according to the strengths of his plane, in most circumstances he'd achieve favorable results, regardless of the ability of the enemy pilots. In the case of P40s, the pilots either knew to fly the planes using hit & run attacks or they did not. Those who flew them that way tended to down enemy a/c and tended to avoid the same.
Proposed solutions:
1) Make speed a greater consideration in air-to-air combat than it currently seems to be. At the moment, the A6M2 is rated almost as high as the P51 and the F4U, which is wholly absurd. It seems like maneuverability was the only factor considered in assessing the "dogfighting" ability of different types of a/c. Taken to its absurd extreme, using this kind of logic the A6M2 is better than a modern F-16.
and
2.) Make experience a qualitative score. none, some, adequate, expert. All USMC/USN aviators should start expert and all USAAF/RAAF/RNZAF/RAF should start as adequate.
The result in all versions of the game so far is that the J player can confidentaly assail any position at will without having to worry about attrition. In contrast, the A player finds that resistence is useless, and the best a-a combat strategy is to never station fighters at an airbase within range of IJN pilots flying zekes, because the ONLY outcome will be allied a/c losses. Instead teh best defense is to offer no defense until 6 months of additional training have passed. (What does that represent, 400 additional hours of combat training?)
The problem seems to be that experience as it is currently factored in the game overwhelms technological superiority. P40s were much faster than Zekes and could engage and disengage almost at will. If a P40 pilot flew according to the strengths of his plane, in most circumstances he'd achieve favorable results, regardless of the ability of the enemy pilots. In the case of P40s, the pilots either knew to fly the planes using hit & run attacks or they did not. Those who flew them that way tended to down enemy a/c and tended to avoid the same.
Proposed solutions:
1) Make speed a greater consideration in air-to-air combat than it currently seems to be. At the moment, the A6M2 is rated almost as high as the P51 and the F4U, which is wholly absurd. It seems like maneuverability was the only factor considered in assessing the "dogfighting" ability of different types of a/c. Taken to its absurd extreme, using this kind of logic the A6M2 is better than a modern F-16.
and
2.) Make experience a qualitative score. none, some, adequate, expert. All USMC/USN aviators should start expert and all USAAF/RAAF/RNZAF/RAF should start as adequate.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
The problems that are illustrated in the last post are due primarily to the fact that the Japanese side acts first in all air combats. The software cycles through all Japanese bases initiating air attacks, then the allied side. This results in the allies being disrupted, and unable to mount any significant attacks themselves.
Ideally, the software would give a 'priority' rating to each base; based upon air leader rating and agressiveness, and modified by the average experience level of the air groups stationed at that base. Then the software would initiate combats with the highest priority base first, sequencing through lower 'priority' bases until all combats for that round are completed. A random element could be introduced to account for the ever present uncertainity. This would help balance out some of the inherent advantage that the Japanese side gets from sequencing first. I doubt this could be implemented without major changes to the code.
One of the major issues concerning IJN experience ratings early in the game is the extremely high quality of the air arm. I recall that the entire IJN air arm had only 1500 pilots in 12/41, and was producing only a little over a hundred air crews a year in '41. Each of these pilots had 700 hours of training before being considered trained. So the Japanese air unit experience ratings should be between 80 and 95 in 12/41.
But, the ability to replace eliminated air crew should be greatly limited. The IJN did ramp up its pilot production numbers, but the quality fell off dramatically. The allies should be going up against IJNAF units in late '42 with experience levels slightly less than their own. By early '43, the allies would have a clearly distinguishable advantage and by late '43 the Japanese aircraft would be an inconvience to allied aircrew. I have seen allied air groups with experience levels in the 80s, in late 42 and early 43 in the game still exchanging at 1:1. This is due primarily to the fact of the Japanese sequencing first in each combat round, therefore getting the advantage of engaging the allies piecemeal.
The allied aircrew in the Pacific in 12/41 was often just months out of flight school, with the exception of USN CV aircrews. This was due to the rapid expansion of US armed forces which started in mid 40. The US aircrew received about 300 hours of flying hours. I equate 10 hours of training flight time as representing 1 experience point.
Corsair production... Corasir production needs to start at about 25 aircraft a week. By July/August '43 all USMC fighter groups were equipped with the Corsair. The production numbers could grow to the low 30s by the end of the war. I don't have specific monthly production numbers yet, but if I get the time I'll forward them.
Range ratings... All of the aircraft in the V2.0+ have experienced 'hyperrangeosis', for the lack of a better term. It seems that a determination of base range has been made by dividing maximum ferry range by 3. This wildly overstates the combat ranges possible. This applies even to the vaunted Zero. The maximum ferry range for the early model was slightly over 1600 miles, not the 2100 mi some believe. At the current 6 rating, it can ferry 2400 miles. Everything I've read, and all of my calculations based upon fuel consumption in a combat zone would indicate a 600 mi combat radius.
The Zero carried a little over 200 gallons with drop tank. At 160mph cruising speed, consumption would be about 26 gal/hr. This would allow 195 gallons for travel, 20 gallons for combat and a reserve of about 10 gallons. In combat with full power, the Zero would comsume at a rate of about 105 gph, for a maximum speed of 315 to 325 mph. This would give 10 minutes of combat speed, and 20 minutes of reserve fuel for landing pattern, wind changes in flight, navigational errors etc. The Zero could cruise at 140mph at 17gph, but in a combat zone, this would be suicidal, no pun intended. The base range for the Zero should be 4!!, giving a combat radius of 600mi and ferry range of 1600 mi. I'm not going to hold by breath for this to be changed.
Zero's 10 'Cannon' rating... PacWar rates .30s at 1, .50s at 2, 20mm at 4, and the current version rates the P-39s 37mm at 11!!. Most other simulations rate a 20mm at 50% greater effectiveness than a .50 cal. Other strings have mentioned that the ROF for the Zeros cannon was low, 300 rpm I believe, and low muzzle velocity. Possibly... the firepower rating for the Zero should be reduced to 8. The P-38 should receive an advantage for having all of its guns on the centerline. I don't have an idea how to account for this accurately.
[This message has been edited by Ricochet (edited October 22, 2000).]
Ideally, the software would give a 'priority' rating to each base; based upon air leader rating and agressiveness, and modified by the average experience level of the air groups stationed at that base. Then the software would initiate combats with the highest priority base first, sequencing through lower 'priority' bases until all combats for that round are completed. A random element could be introduced to account for the ever present uncertainity. This would help balance out some of the inherent advantage that the Japanese side gets from sequencing first. I doubt this could be implemented without major changes to the code.
One of the major issues concerning IJN experience ratings early in the game is the extremely high quality of the air arm. I recall that the entire IJN air arm had only 1500 pilots in 12/41, and was producing only a little over a hundred air crews a year in '41. Each of these pilots had 700 hours of training before being considered trained. So the Japanese air unit experience ratings should be between 80 and 95 in 12/41.
But, the ability to replace eliminated air crew should be greatly limited. The IJN did ramp up its pilot production numbers, but the quality fell off dramatically. The allies should be going up against IJNAF units in late '42 with experience levels slightly less than their own. By early '43, the allies would have a clearly distinguishable advantage and by late '43 the Japanese aircraft would be an inconvience to allied aircrew. I have seen allied air groups with experience levels in the 80s, in late 42 and early 43 in the game still exchanging at 1:1. This is due primarily to the fact of the Japanese sequencing first in each combat round, therefore getting the advantage of engaging the allies piecemeal.
The allied aircrew in the Pacific in 12/41 was often just months out of flight school, with the exception of USN CV aircrews. This was due to the rapid expansion of US armed forces which started in mid 40. The US aircrew received about 300 hours of flying hours. I equate 10 hours of training flight time as representing 1 experience point.
Corsair production... Corasir production needs to start at about 25 aircraft a week. By July/August '43 all USMC fighter groups were equipped with the Corsair. The production numbers could grow to the low 30s by the end of the war. I don't have specific monthly production numbers yet, but if I get the time I'll forward them.
Range ratings... All of the aircraft in the V2.0+ have experienced 'hyperrangeosis', for the lack of a better term. It seems that a determination of base range has been made by dividing maximum ferry range by 3. This wildly overstates the combat ranges possible. This applies even to the vaunted Zero. The maximum ferry range for the early model was slightly over 1600 miles, not the 2100 mi some believe. At the current 6 rating, it can ferry 2400 miles. Everything I've read, and all of my calculations based upon fuel consumption in a combat zone would indicate a 600 mi combat radius.
The Zero carried a little over 200 gallons with drop tank. At 160mph cruising speed, consumption would be about 26 gal/hr. This would allow 195 gallons for travel, 20 gallons for combat and a reserve of about 10 gallons. In combat with full power, the Zero would comsume at a rate of about 105 gph, for a maximum speed of 315 to 325 mph. This would give 10 minutes of combat speed, and 20 minutes of reserve fuel for landing pattern, wind changes in flight, navigational errors etc. The Zero could cruise at 140mph at 17gph, but in a combat zone, this would be suicidal, no pun intended. The base range for the Zero should be 4!!, giving a combat radius of 600mi and ferry range of 1600 mi. I'm not going to hold by breath for this to be changed.
Zero's 10 'Cannon' rating... PacWar rates .30s at 1, .50s at 2, 20mm at 4, and the current version rates the P-39s 37mm at 11!!. Most other simulations rate a 20mm at 50% greater effectiveness than a .50 cal. Other strings have mentioned that the ROF for the Zeros cannon was low, 300 rpm I believe, and low muzzle velocity. Possibly... the firepower rating for the Zero should be reduced to 8. The P-38 should receive an advantage for having all of its guns on the centerline. I don't have an idea how to account for this accurately.
[This message has been edited by Ricochet (edited October 22, 2000).]
-
Nightcrawler
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Newark, NJ
I'll take Ricochet, mdiehl and sulup's word for it when it comes to whether the abilities of Zeros and Oscars would have to be downgraded to make them historically accurate, but my big question there is what effect would that have on play balance in the game? Kicking butt with your Zeros early in the war is one of the best weapons you have available to you as the Japanese. It seems to me that if their abilities were downgraded to the extent that you were taking 1 to 1 losses, you would also have to rework the scoring system to give the Japanese a chance to win.
Yeah, changing the scoring system would be fair. All in all I prefer simulations where the assumptions are as right as can be and the victory conditions are set accordingly, rather than dumping historical accuracy in favor of "giving the Axis a chance."
I don't know that I agree with the equation 1 hour = 1 exp rating. OK maybe that's the way the game is set up, but there are in reality definite plateaus in training where further training does not bring about a great increase in ability. I'm not sure that being a great gymnast or being able to hold your breath underwater, or flying hours of simulations against fellow Zekes (or the crummy Chinese Polikarpovs from 1937-1941) really prepares a pilot for combat with first rate aircraft flown by adequately trained pilots. When you look at historical data from Coral Sea, and the Solomons campiagn you see top-notch IJN pilots (both land-based and carrier based)suffering heavy attrition against both USAAF and USN/USMC air groups. 'Though it is true that some of the a-a combat in the Solomons occurred at extreme range for the Zero (and some did not, occuring as much as 80 mile up the slot), the Coral Sea battle was fought at close range and the Zekes still took a pounding. Conventional Mythology holds that the Zeke was a better plane than the F4F and that IJN pilots were better pilots. The data contradict that myth.
I don't know that I agree with the equation 1 hour = 1 exp rating. OK maybe that's the way the game is set up, but there are in reality definite plateaus in training where further training does not bring about a great increase in ability. I'm not sure that being a great gymnast or being able to hold your breath underwater, or flying hours of simulations against fellow Zekes (or the crummy Chinese Polikarpovs from 1937-1941) really prepares a pilot for combat with first rate aircraft flown by adequately trained pilots. When you look at historical data from Coral Sea, and the Solomons campiagn you see top-notch IJN pilots (both land-based and carrier based)suffering heavy attrition against both USAAF and USN/USMC air groups. 'Though it is true that some of the a-a combat in the Solomons occurred at extreme range for the Zero (and some did not, occuring as much as 80 mile up the slot), the Coral Sea battle was fought at close range and the Zekes still took a pounding. Conventional Mythology holds that the Zeke was a better plane than the F4F and that IJN pilots were better pilots. The data contradict that myth.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
I'm writing in reply to mdiehl's comments on the P-40 vs Zeke (zero) speed ratios....
P-40 Hawk series was only faster than the Zeke IN A DIVE. Claire Chennault literally "wrote the book" on P-40 warfare and his advice to pilots was NEVER dogfight a zero - ALWAYS attack with a height advantage... - DIVE thru Bomber formations to break them up and keep it on the deck til clear... you will live to fight another day that way...
With the zeroes ability to climb and outturn the P-40 (signifigantly lighter airframe) The only advantages the AVG and early fighter pilots had was to follow these steps or become a statistic... I love the P-40 but it really wasnt a dogfighting plane- it was designed for ground support missions... Ironically the Pursuit airplane the AAF forces tried to introduce pre WWII was the P-39 Airacobra, an AWFUL dogfighting plane, but a surprisingly good ground support fighter. The Brewster Buffalo and the P-39 export versions were almost scorned by the other countries- BUT used because they had nothing better to offer. <VBG> Anyway until the P-38, Corsair and eventually the P-51D (rolls royce engine model) came out there WASNT anything that could fly (or dogfight) equally with the zeke/zero/claude... I know the argument about the F4F, but folks Jimmy Thatch didnt invent the Thatch Weave to keep his pilots alive because the F4F was a superior fighter, he did it to keep the maximum number of pilots alive until something better came along- he KNEW the F4F had its limitations and what to do to maximize its potentials.
Sorry if I sound like a know it all, I've spent the last 20 years reading about everything I could find on the Pacific War and there hasnt been anything I've read about the P-40 outfighting the Zeke/Zero/Claudes- but they WERE good at hit-n-runs on bombers formations with the appropriate conditions....<g>
Jim
P-40 Hawk series was only faster than the Zeke IN A DIVE. Claire Chennault literally "wrote the book" on P-40 warfare and his advice to pilots was NEVER dogfight a zero - ALWAYS attack with a height advantage... - DIVE thru Bomber formations to break them up and keep it on the deck til clear... you will live to fight another day that way...
With the zeroes ability to climb and outturn the P-40 (signifigantly lighter airframe) The only advantages the AVG and early fighter pilots had was to follow these steps or become a statistic... I love the P-40 but it really wasnt a dogfighting plane- it was designed for ground support missions... Ironically the Pursuit airplane the AAF forces tried to introduce pre WWII was the P-39 Airacobra, an AWFUL dogfighting plane, but a surprisingly good ground support fighter. The Brewster Buffalo and the P-39 export versions were almost scorned by the other countries- BUT used because they had nothing better to offer. <VBG> Anyway until the P-38, Corsair and eventually the P-51D (rolls royce engine model) came out there WASNT anything that could fly (or dogfight) equally with the zeke/zero/claude... I know the argument about the F4F, but folks Jimmy Thatch didnt invent the Thatch Weave to keep his pilots alive because the F4F was a superior fighter, he did it to keep the maximum number of pilots alive until something better came along- he KNEW the F4F had its limitations and what to do to maximize its potentials.
Sorry if I sound like a know it all, I've spent the last 20 years reading about everything I could find on the Pacific War and there hasnt been anything I've read about the P-40 outfighting the Zeke/Zero/Claudes- but they WERE good at hit-n-runs on bombers formations with the appropriate conditions....<g>
Jim