Idea for figuring out Dogfight capability

[Blackhorse]

Starting in about August of '43, when the Japs put up large numbers of planes, then they got large numbers shot down. So if that is what the games shows, don't fix it 'cause it ain't broke.
T.

Since I'm not much of an airwar expert, I did some snooping of internet-accessable sources -- confirming Tomanbeg's statements that Hellcats were easily besting Zeros (and the IJN's presumably more experienced pilots) in 1943.

Therefore the the ratings for the allied fighters compared to the Zero seem to be about right. But Warpup's also right -- its not much of a game if the Japanese Air Force has to go into hiding starting in January, 1943.

The problem -- and potential solution -- may be in the aircraft availability dates. IRL, the Hellcat first saw combat in an (unopposed) raid on Marcus Island on August 31st. It's first major test in combat came in November. But in the game, Hellcats are available in quantity by February/March.

Once U.S. aircraft are introduced surpass the Zero, the Japanese have to wait until late 1944 to again produce fighters that can do battle with American planes. In the actual war, this "quality gap" lasted about 14 months (9/43-11/44). But in the game, this "quality gap" seems much worse -- 21 months (2/43-11/44). To improve historical accuracy, and improve game balance, maybe the aircraft introduction dates should be tweaked.

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by Warpup:
So, Tomanbeg, if what you are saying is right, there isn't any point in having a game of WW2 Pacific War that goes beyond mid-1943. Allies get hellcats and corsairs and thunderbolts, and we can just say "game over!" Uncommon Valor will be a fine game, but no need to make a game covering the full war playable by human players on each side, ... at least not unless there is a way to change the Japanese pilot training program and allow the Japanese to introduce their late war aircraft designs at least two and a half years early. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

---

Was I? What I was trying to get at was that In the game if the japs are getting waxed in '43, which you feel is historically inaccurate, it is not because the model is wrong. The model is proving out why the Japs didn't commit their air fleets until '44. So the model is not wrong. Remember Clauz the Kraut 'War is subordinate to politics(a paraphrase of his Maxim)' If you want to provide an opportunity for the Japs to win, it has to be done politicly. There was no way in hell the Japs could have won the Pacific War. At the best they could have stretched it out. So in order to provide the Japs a chance to win(in the game)there has to be an artifical deadline set up for the Americans. I think some folks are looking at the details so hard they can't see the picture. May be victory conditions based on History? A sliding scale starting in April '45 (when the SOB Roosevelt kicked off) and a mid point of Aug 12 or so. Remember, American production figures reflect mid '42 to mid '44 numbers. It took 6 months to get started and orders were being cancelled by Aug of '44. And the Japs were trying to sue for peace from about mid '43 on. They kept putting out feelers and kept getting ignored. I'd have to check Toland to get names and dates, but getting kicked off the 'canal led most of the military to see the light( the IJN was for all practicle purposes destroyed). They ones that wanted to keep fighting were the ones that were going to get hung for losing. If you are trying for an outright win, it is not possible in this universe. Maybe if you give the Japs f-15's and a few 688 boats. Which will alter the historical aspects somewhat.
T.(who suggests that if you doubt my numbers and dates you do a lttle research. The dates and numbers I used came from John Winton 'War in the Pacific' Mayflower books, 1978. I didn't use Morrison because he was deeper in the bookcase and a lot of trouble to pull out. It would not have made any difference).

[Tomanbeg]

Firpower is a critical part of Dogfighting. Holding a target in your sights for 2 seconds is a lot easier then holding it there for 3. And shouldn't there be a difference between firepower vs an airborne target and a ground target. Every round fired from a fighter in a strafing run hits the ground, sooner or later. This is NOT true when shooting at another aircraft. IMO an attack number for surface targets and a firepower number for air to air would be more accurate.
T.

[chanman]

Hmmm. IMO, the Japanese got hammered in 1943 on because of what they did and didn't do. They didn't get their air training program into "war" gear soon enough. Sakai in "Samurai!" pointed out that at many of the men washed out in training early on would have made superior pilots. One of Martin Caidin's co-authors of "Zero!" also went into detail about the problems of the training program. In addition, aside from the model 32, there was no technical advance made to the Zero since the beginning of the war. Additionally, the same co-author pointed out that the Japanese Navy did not rotate their pilots out for reassignment or R&R. Once they went into combat, they stayed until they died. PW can't show the effect on the training program that might have occured had the IJN implemented a rotation program like the USAAF did in 1943/44, but if a player rotates his airgroups and preserves them, he shouldn't be penalized by game mechanics. Now, if a player allows his highly experienced squadrons to be eaten up and then commits exp 40-50 groups in A6M2s against F4Us and F6Fs, he deserves to see his planes burn. Even as late as 1944/45, a Zero in the hands of an experienced pilot could give USN pilots a bad time. Sakai showed that over Iwo. There are other examples. Conserve those experienced pilots until the Shiden comes along and they should give the USN/USAAF a rough ride.

IMO.

Chanman

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by chanman:
Hmmm. IMO, the Japanese got hammered in 1943 on because of what they did and didn't do. They didn't get their air training program into "war" gear soon enough. Sakai in "Samurai!" pointed out that at many of the men washed out in training early on would have made superior pilots. One of Martin Caidin's co-authors of "Zero!" also went into detail about the problems of the training program. In addition, aside from the model 32, there was no technical advance made to the Zero since the beginning of the war. Additionally, the same co-author pointed out that the Japanese Navy did not rotate their pilots out for reassignment or R&R. Once they went into combat, they stayed until they died. PW can't show the effect on the training program that might have occured had the IJN implemented a rotation program like the USAAF did in 1943/44, but if a player rotates his airgroups and preserves them, he shouldn't be penalized by game mechanics. Now, if a player allows his highly experienced squadrons to be eaten up and then commits exp 40-50 groups in A6M2s against F4Us and F6Fs, he deserves to see his planes burn. Even as late as 1944/45, a Zero in the hands of an experienced pilot could give USN pilots a bad time. Sakai showed that over Iwo. There are other examples. Conserve those experienced pilots until the Shiden comes along and they should give the USN/USAAF a rough ride.

IMO.

Chanman

---

I agree, and more importantly, so did the Japs of that time. The IJN was playing for one last battle, where if everything went real good, they could Kill enough Americans to make us want to quit. Saddam tried that 45 years later and didn't have any better luck. Like Churchill said "What kind of people do they think we are"? I wonder where the Idea of Americans ending a war because of some casualities comes from? Even if Kurita had kept going at Samar and got into the Leyte troop anchorages, It would not have been enough to win the war. It might have actually shortned it, depending on what King thought about saving McArthur's butt. McArthur hit the Philipines on 20, October, with a force that was tasked for Yap(which was by passed). So Even if Kurita had cut off the 24th Army Corps, the US had plenty of options and troops. SHO 1 was a desperate gamble, which like most desperate gambles, didn't have a chance in hell. I think at that time the third Fleet had something like 14 fleet carriers and 11 escort carriers. It would launch sweeps of 1500+ fighters. This was at the end of '44. Production of Essex class carriers was stopped because there were enough. If the United States had needed more, the full order(I think it was 24 essex and 16 midways plus over 60 escort carriers) would have been ready by mid '46. And plenty of planes, with ETO veterns to fly them. The Japs never had a chance. If everything had gone right for them and wrong for us, then along about '54 the last jap would have been buried alive in his hole somewhere in Hokkido
T.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by chanman:
Even as late as 1944/45, a Zero in the hands of an experienced pilot could give USN pilots a bad time. Sakai showed that over Iwo. There are other examples. Conserve those experienced pilots until the Shiden comes along and they should give the USN/USAAF a rough ride. Chanman

---

Yes, they should. Unfortunately, in Pacwar, they can't. In Pacwar, experienced Zero pilots (90+) are routinely butchered by less experienced Americans in Hellcats, Thunderbolts and Lightnings starting in early 1943. As the song says, Thunderbolts and Lightning . . . very, very frightening . . . aahhh!(Bohemian Rhapsody)

What can be done about it? We've been discussing three options:
1. Do nothing. This assumes that the American planes in 1943 were that much better than the Zero, even in the hands of less-experienced pilots.
2. Make experience a more important factor in air-to-air combat. This is my preference. If the Japanese player allows his veteran air groups to attrite away as they did historically in the second half of 1942 (Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal) then the Allies can kick his butt in 1943. But, if the Japanese player can save his best squadrons, they have a chance to hold their own.
3. Increase the MNVR rating of the Zero, so experienced pilots can offer some resistance to American planes.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]</p>

[Major Tom]

Ok, here is why the Allies kick the Japanese around the Pacific in 1943.

Manuverability = F6F 26, F4U 26 A6M5 23
Cannon = F6F 12, F4U 12, A6M5 9
Durability = F6F 36, F4U 36, A6M5 14

The disparity between manoeverability and cannon ratings is not VERY high between the USN aircraft and the Japanese. HOWEVER look at durability. When an A6M5 attacks a F6F/F4U, there will be less casualties (low Cannon rate vs. an EXTREMELY high Durability rate), and when the F6F/F4U hits an A6M5 the Cannon rating is almost the same as the Durability rate! Ever notice that the B-17 is a good A6M killer, even in 1941 vs any Japanese Air Group? Well, it seems that durability has been under-rated, and manoeverability has been seen as all important.


These air stats have been changed around a lot from the original, by many people over the years. When you compare the ORIGINAL stats between the F6F, F4U and A6M5, there is a little less disparity...

Manuverability = F6F 23, F4U 22 A6M5 23 (US Decrease)
Cannon = F6F 12, F4U 12, A6M5 11 (Japanese Increase)
Durability = F6F 27, F4U 26, A6M5 18 (US Decrease, Japanese Increase)

According to the original Pac War stats, there is virtually no disparity between Manoverability, virtually none between Cannon, but still a large one between Durability (almost 50% more, instead of WELL OVER 50% more for the USN).

While I do not want to change Manoverability as drastically, as well as Cannon Rating, I think that changing durability might be possible. Having 36 Durability for the F4U and F6F is a little high, it is almost as high as the value given the the P-47 (which had a reputation for severely high durability), while the F6F and F4U were only known as having good durability.

The extremely high durability given to the F6F and F4U is probably the reason why the IJNAF gets slaughtered in 1943. Whenever an A6M5 group would battle with an F4U/F6F the aircraft have pretty much the same manoverability, so that they would both get in a lot of potnential cannon shots on eachother (experience aids in this, so in fact, the Japanese have more potential cannon shots than the USN, if the Japanese group is higher in experience) HOWEVER, when the Japanese aircraft hit a USN aircraft, its 9 Cannon cannot do much against the 36 durability, so fewer USN aircraft are hit. When the USN aircraft hit a Japanese A6M5, it may have fewer potential cannon hits, but more of them actually down/damage aircraft. The lower the durability, the better chance that a hit aircraft will also be destroyed instead of damaged. The Japanese exerpeince replacement level is also pretty horrible. For every 10 planes replaced in a group, the experience level drops 50% more than an Allied Group. This is why the Japanese cannot win an attrition war (as this simulates the poor training system of the Japanese).


What can we do?

1. Lower the durability of the F6F/F4U to more realistic levels. These aircraft were good, but not great when it comes to durability.

2. Cycle Japanese air groups more often then they did historically. When an airgroup starts to lose a lot of aircraft, remove it to the rear areas to train, and replace it with a group that has been training. The Japanese player is tempted to throw everything it has to the frontline, but keeping a large training reserve at the home Islands (even with good groups) can result in a higher level of good groups around when good aircraft arrives. Put a N1K group of equal experience against a F4U/F6F the Japanese have a better chance of surviving (even though the N1K only has a 26 durability, one more reason to change the F4U/F6F to more realistic rates, since the N1K was the equal of the F6F/F4U in every aspect).

[chanman]

This reply is not just a random set of responses. Well, ok, maybe it is.

First, the B17 capability as a Zero killer is IMO accurate. Caidin's co-author (who's name I can't remember and couldn't spell if I could) in "Zero" was pretty clear on the subject. He claimed that B17s and B24s ability to go pretty much wherever they wanted to despite interceptions was a big deal and altered Japanese planning. The major impact (illustrated quite well in PW I think) was that the IJN could not assume that they would be unobserved if they were within 800 miles of a heavy bomber squadron.

Second, I am in favor of Major Tom's proposal on the durability of the F6F and F4U. These birds couldn't be as tough as P47s, mainly due to weight restrictions as they were carrier birds.

Third, I have never been clear why the cannon rating of the A6M5 was reduced to 9. I understand that the early war cannons had issues with low muzzle velocity but I thought those issues were solved by the time the model 32 came out. I do agree with the low durability of the A6M5, until the late war fighters came out, the Japanese aircraft industry emphasized many things over durability. Just look at the Jill, Judy and G4M2 (Betty, but the later version).

Fourth, I am totally in agreement with Blackhorse's comment about upping the effect of experience. MT's advice about rotating airgroups is valid, I think, but if the USN machines are so much better rated than the IJN and JAAF machines, conserving those experienced pilots may have been a waste of time. The Japanese showed at the beginning of the war what fabulously trained aircrews could accomplish with decent equipment. I think the game should reflect that.

IMO

Chanman.

[Ranger-75]

You also need to remember that even wildcatsa were getting the best of Zeros by late 1942.

also, the Japanese NEVER got their pilot training program into "war gear".

I agree that if an IJN player can keep some groups at 90+ exp, then they should be able to hang on in A6M5s against a like number of F6Fs or F4Us, perhaps through modifying the durability of the USN planes, but NOT by lowering the experiene of American air groups.

On the other hand, if the USN can put up 2-3 times the number of fighters, then even the experienced IJN groups deserve to get waxed.

[Major Tom]

Through my research I have changed a few things regarding the F6F and the F4U.

Firstly, lowered both experience levels to 26.

Second, changed their arrival dates to match their actual historic arrival times.

F6F Turn 85 instead of turn 70 (15 turns later)
F4U Turn 45 instead of turn 68 (23 turns earlier)

The F4U arrived in many full VMF groups in the last few months of 1942. As the game went, it did not arrive until a few days before the F6F.

So, it is both good news and bad news for the Japanese. They do not have to worry about the F6F until much later (arrive at EXACTLY the same time as the A6M5) but take on the F4U a lot earlier. However, since the F4U cannot go on carriers, the USN carrier force is less 'potent'.


Indeed, the F4F was a capable fighter, and was probably the equal to the A6M2, but in a different way. It was not much faster, but was much more durable, and had greater firepower. When USN pilots learned how to fight with their F4F's, they were able to go 1 on 1 with Japanese pilots. However, they were never 'slaughtering' them.

[CynicAl]

Second, I am in favor of Major Tom's proposal on the durability of the F6F and F4U.

---

I disagree. The F6F and F4U were also very tough birds - famously so in the case of the F6F ("Grumman Ironworks", anyone?). They were similar in size and weight, and had similar armor plating, the same self-sealing fuel tanks, and used the same extremely tough, reliable engine as the P-47. There is considerable anecdotal evidence attesting to the toughness of the blue birds; on the other hand, we have... what?

These birds couldn't be as tough as P47s, mainly due to weight restrictions as they were carrier birds.

---

Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Late production TBMs weighed more than any P-47 ever built, and they operated from flattops just fine; postwar, the same CVs operated the still larger and heavier Skyraider without difficulty. Moreover, the requirement to operate from carriers - particularly the requirement to endure carrier landings at the end of every flight - is apt to make carrier birds tougher than their land-based counterparts. Granted that landing piston-engined birds aboard an axial-deck ship was a gentler proposition than landing high-performance jets aboard an angled-deck ship; but even then the best carrier landings closely resembled the worst landings on shore.

I tend to agree with Tomanbeg - if Japanese air had come out to fight in a big way in 1943, the Turkey Shoot would have begun in earnest in 1943. The Hellcats and Corsairs (and Thunderbolts and Lightnings, yes) really were that much better than the A6M. If even the humble Wildcat could hold its own against the Zero, as indeed it did, how much moreso the Wildcat's tougher, faster, more powerful successors?

One last thing: If I read Major Tom's post right, the intent now is to reduce the DUR ratings for the F4U and F6F to a level marginally better than the F4F and Spitfire, and actually below that of the P-51, F8F, and some of the late-war IJN types! Even if this stat needs to be reduced, which I'm still not convinced is the case, this is way too big a cut.

[aszilard]

My 2c. To be realistic, you have to make the combination of pilot experience and airplane capability a non-linear kind of relationship.

Trying to be clearer: rookie pilot X may be worse off in super plane A than he would be in old dud plane B, simply because A is more difficult to fly, and you need to be a better pilot to take advantage of A's advanced capabilities.

Conversly, ace pilot Y can get performance out of B, that X couldn't get out of any plane.

In addition, it's not just a matter of rookie vs veteran. It does seem that some pilots were "naturals", and could start getting kills straightaway, while others could fly for years without hitting anything, if they were lucky enough to survive.

So you don't want to have an algorithm which delivers something like: [Final effect] = [Plane stats] * [Pilot experience].

I don't know what the correct algorithm is, and it might be hard to get something which is adequate within the existing limits of PacWar, but you can set some boundaries:

- Pilot quality, up to a certain threshhold, should dominate over everything else.
- Pilot quality should be mainly innate, but should also show some increase with experience.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: aszilard ]</p>

[Major Tom]

Actually, I have been noticing that the original statistics for most aircraft and ships regarding durability was on the ball.

TBF Avengers were indeed heavier than most aircraft, but that means nothing. Carriers can handle heavy aircraft. Indeed they were heavy, but not nearly as heavy as the P-47 (which got about 1000 kg heavier empty weight).

Also, 26 durability is still VERY GOOD. Most aircraft will have around 20 durability, indeed, many bombers will not exceed 20. I think in the past few upgrades of OBC's over the past 10 years the durability for fighters was incorrectly increased, notably the Allied aircraft.

[Tomanbeg]

How about an objective way to get durability? So many points for self sealing tanks, so many for pilot armor, so many for a radial engine, etc. The F4U had gas tanks in the leading edge of the wings in some models. These were not self sealing. Armored(bullet resistant) windshields Turn out to be important on Spitfires and Hurricanes. Pilot protection would be the critical number. Once a pilots thorex has be pierced by a .50 round, the condition of the aircraft is no longer important.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Tomanbeg:
How about an objective way to get durability? . . .

---

Unfortunately, there's no such animal. "3 points for self-sealing tanks, 2 points for bulletproof glass," etc. are subjective estimates of how important these factors are. Just because I attach a number to something does not make it an 'objective' measurement.

I don't mean to jump on your case, T., Its just that I've seen a lot of grognards try to find ways to measure things via "objective formulas" -- and they too often forget that determining what goes into a formula, and how much weight to give each factor, are judgment calls that the designer has to make.

[CynicAl]

My point regarding the weight of the TBMs was that the weight restricitons of CV-basing could not be cited (as Chanman did) as a reason for lower durability of F4Us and F6Fs relative to P-47s. (I also have the TBM-3 as being just a bit heavier than a P-47D when both were empty, and quite a bit heavier when loaded.) And while I know that size and weight aren't everything, they aren't nothing, either - it's not coincidence that the lightweight early- to mid-war Japanese fighters were more fragile than their heavier US opponents.

Based on the statistics listed in the "Imminent Release of version 2.3" thread, the average DUR for Allied fighters would be 25.5 before adjusting the F4U and F6F as you propose. By that standard, 26 rates as JUST AVERAGE rather than VERY GOOD. With the proposed change, the average for Allied fighters is still 24.8 - again, a one-point difference from average is hardly enough to qualify as VERY GOOD. Indeed, even the famously fragile Japanese fighters have an average DUR of 21; and the overall average is 23.5 (23.9 before the proposed change) rather than 20. And of course, I'm really having a hard time believing you mean to assign the F4U and F6F a DUR rating BELOW that of the P-51, F8F, N1K2, and A7M. Or do you intend a wholesale rebalancing of ALL fighter DUR ratings? (You might consider doing just that; changing the F4U and F6F DUR ratings won't help the Zero pilots at all against USAAF P-38s and P-47s, so the IJNAF will still get its clock cleaned in 1943.)

[Kadste]

Great discussion so far!

I wanted to add my voice as I have worked on these ratings for many years for this game and many others.

In trying to compare the individual ratings of aircraft I think we must keep in mind that the ratings for Maneuver, Cannon and Durability is that all of these ratings are composite ratings. I do not know exactly how the original developers came up with their ratings, but when I try to calculate the figures that I use I break them down as follows:

Maneuver:
Wing loading, Horsepower to weight ratio, Absolute speed, Climbing/Diving ability

Cannon:
Number and size of weapon(s), Rate of fire of weapon(s), Type of aircraft sight, Stability of aircraft when firing.

Durability:
Size and weight of aircraft, Number of engines, Equipped with self-sealing gas tanks, Armor

You probably could use more, but these have served me well in the past. I have tried many formulas (lots of home grown ones) to try to determine ratings, but it is proven to be extremely hard. Lots of objective information is available to determine individual pieces, but in the end you have to add some subjectivity based on the game system you are using and history.

There are two things that we are missing from this discussion. The relationship of the ratings and the formula that the game uses.

We need to understand the relationship within the ratings in order to say that the A6M5 has a durability of 18 versus the F6F of 27. Unless we know just what the difference of 27 to 18 is in the game we will not be able to get ratings right. Does that this really mean that the F6F is one and one-half times more difficult to shoot down verses the A6M5?

We also have to understand the relationship between the ratings. Just what effect does the difference of a cannon of 12 or a cannon of 8 have on an A6M5 durability of 18. Does the cannon 12 have a 150% greater chance of shooting down the A6M5?

Also what is the formula that the game uses? Does it use one, or more than one, depending on circumstances? How does this formula use the ratings and how does it factor in experience? If we can see just what it is, we can compare the effect of all of the game influences including the experience rating of the unit. Until we know the formula, I think that it would be almost impossible to come up with realistic ratings. We may never agree on all of the ratings, but we would have a better chance to realistically reflect air combat in the Pacific war.

With the relationships and the formula known we could test the ratings on a spreadsheet to see the outcome of battles. Comparing the results with actual history would probably tell us if the ratings we use are valid.

I would be willing to work with any of you on these ratings to create better results. Also I am willing to share the ratings I came up with If anyone is interested.

[tiredoftryingnames]

I would be interested in seeing any ratings or formulas that you have to see other thought processes at work.

The problem with what's going on here is the ratings have to be made to work with what's already in the code for PACWAR. I'd like to know what is being done towards the newer Pacific War games being developed by Matrix Games. Ratings and formulas wise that is.

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by Blackhorse:


Unfortunately, there's no such animal. "3 points for self-sealing tanks, 2 points for bulletproof glass," etc. are subjective estimates of how important these factors are. Just because I attach a number to something does not make it an 'objective' measurement.

I don't mean to jump on your case, T., Its just that I've seen a lot of grognards try to find ways to measure things via "objective formulas" -- and they too often forget that determining what goes into a formula, and how much weight to give each factor, are judgment calls that the designer has to make.

---

No problem, I'm pretty much an out-of-the-box thinker and have been for several decdes. I'm used to it. There is nothing subjective about 2" of armor being better then 1/2 inch. Nor about selfsealing fuel tanks having less chance of bursting into flame then regular drums. As a former auditor I would like to point out that ANYTHING can be measured and compared. And of all the elements of dogfighting(ACM) that we are duscussing here, Durability is by far the easiest to measure. If it is looked at on an energy basis, (ie:how much energy does it take to pierce that 3/4" armor plate, vs how much energy is delivered by the attack on the armor) then the entire process can be reduced to a few physics formulas that are both well used and well known. Plus any problem can be resolved by reducing it into elements and resolving the elements. There are no insoluable problems, there are just people to stupid to understand the solution. And while there are quite a few variables involved with armor plate(as an example), it is not near as bad as having to model atmosphereic conditions (which has to be done to get an accurate turning radi)on various wing shape. While this HAS been Done, it is also very secret. I doubt if Lockeed would give up the formulas they have spent millions developing to help out some geeks refighting WW2.
T.(especially when the outcome will not be changed. WW2 was about production and logistics. The US could have and would have won the war with the P-40 and the F4f. We didn't because thats not the American Way.Besides all the Uberfighters were designed before 12-7-41. We danced with what we brung.)

[Warpup]

After watching a Japanese air collapse even with air groups of excellent experience, I came to believe what Major Tom said, the very high durability ratings of the US aircraft in version 2.2 was the heart of the problem. I say bring them back down.