Air Combat Mod with test results

[el cid again]

The Oscars were given a huge advantage. They have 20 experience on the P-38, altitude and out number them by 51 to 38 against 18. I think the Mod shows very well in this test and the stock data shows it’s weakness.

I am not sure I want to fly an Oscar against a P-38!

Late in the war, a Japanese warrant officer engaged - without a wingman - an entire squadron of F6Fs (if I remember right). THEY ran for home AFTER he got EIGHT of them - at which point one would assume he had very little ammunition left. Numbers are not everything.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am not sure I want to fly an Oscar against a P-38!

Me ether.

I will run this test again evening out the variables and see what happens. I don't like the Oscars odds with ether the standard data set or the mod.

[Andrew Brown]

This is proving to be a very interesting series of tests.

[Gen.Hoepner]

Yes, very interesting. Your tests are showing another time how some late war fighters are overmodelled/undermodeled.
Same goes for Corsair against everything.
I'm playing Nik's Mod and i think his changes are making the A2A combat defenetly closer to reality
This mod sounds pretty good too!

Well done

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

Yes, very interesting. Your tests are showing another time how some late war fighters are overmodelled/undermodeled.
Same goes for Corsair against everything.
I'm playing Nik's Mod and i think his changes are making the A2A combat defenetly closer to reality
This mod sounds pretty good too!

Well done

I am begining to fear it might be a bit too bloodless. The battles I am running are on the large side. After I run the F4U test I will run some of the same tests again with half the planes. Testing will tell in the end.

I am pleased with the way the mod is toning down some of the lopsided matches.

[DFalcon]

The F4U-1 in the standard game gets some big numbers. More planes going down with later war planes.

Test Result #6

Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 33
Ki-49 Helen x 56

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 57

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 24 destroyed
Ki-49 Helen: 10 destroyed, 13 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 2 destroyed, 8 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
31 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 10000 feet
15 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 10000 feet

I ran this type of battle 10 times with the following settings;

Defenders
72 F4U-1 80% Cap
72 B25C targets

Attackers
36 A6M3a 10% Escort
72 Ki-49

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

F4U-1 2.1 / 3.4
A6M3a 18.1 / 8.4
Ki-49 9.6 / 6.1
Airbase hits 12.2 / 15.1

[DFalcon]

And this is with the F4U on the offencive

Test Result #7

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 57

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 33
B-25C Mitchell x 67

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 9 destroyed, 10 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 2 destroyed, 13 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
21 casualties reported

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 15

I ran this type of battle 10 times with the following settings;

Defenders
72 A6M3a I 80% Cap
72 Ki-49 targets

Attackers
36 F4U-1 10% Escort
72 B25C

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

A6M3a 13.9 / 7.5
F4U-1 0.6 / 4.2
B25C 1.3 / 2.4
Airbase hits 39.0 / 43.8

I might run some unescorted bombers next to see how the mod handles that before I try some smaller dogfights.

[Gen.Hoepner]

The Corsair is really ridiculous!
I do not have any "great data" to provide...but i've played online matches several times with the best sim out there ( pacific fighters) and there's no way the F4Us can have those ratios against higly experienced A6Ms...
Yes, the corsair is a better plane, but a ratio of 14 to 1?!?!?! I bet neither the Me109 obtained such ratios against the russian I-15 and I-16 in the first days of Barbarossa...and those ruski pilots were surely below of 65 exp...

Under these conditions the game gets almost unplayable from 1943...Japan just doesn't stand a chance, even if he has a very high experienced air force

[el cid again]

The Corsair is really ridiculous!
I do not have any "great data" to provide...but i've played online matches several times with the best sim out there ( pacific fighters) and there's no way the F4Us can have those ratios against higly experienced A6Ms...
Yes, the corsair is a better plane, but a ratio of 14 to 1?!?!?! I bet neither the Me109 obtained such ratios against the russian I-15 and I-16 in the first days of Barbarossa...and those ruski pilots were surely below of 65 exp...

I respectfully disagree. I think that the game model is quite correct: in 1945 an A6M is wholly outclassed and, in the hands of the pilots generally available, not likely to get on the scoreboard at all. A notable exception is Saburo Sakai. He went back up in 1945, with only one eye, and he needed a special plane because he lacked the feet for regular controls - and became an ace all over again (barely - 5 claimed victories). This is something akin to our Eddie Rickenbacker who forced his way back into air combat in WWII (because he had too much political clout) and, in spite of being overage, managed to become a successful combat pilot all over again. But in 1945 Japan was fielding mainly very green pilots, and in their hands A6Ms - or even much better planes - were meat for Corsairs. There is a serious question to this day - is the F4U or the P-51 the best propeller fighter plane of all time - in a technical sense? [The Me-109 has more kills, but it doesn't fare well against either in matches, real or simulated.] I have lots of other fighter planes I like - and might buy too in some circumstances - but I admit these are the Champions - and they are the only contenders for the world speed record - taking it away from each other regularly. I am not sure why it is controversial at all? I think Japan fielded fighters that WERE competative - see the Ki-84 - but the A6M? Not hardly - in 1945 (Sakai notwithstanding). If you simulate with a pilot pool that is not depleted, and especially if you can give Japan some better planes, you might have something to complain about. But to expect A6Ms to compete is unrealistic. Read the books or speeches by Sakai himself, who tells you why.

[el cid again]

Plain false. See my Ohka test thread. Clearly ordnance listed can be used against land targets. Further, clearly if the plane cannot lift the ordnance, it won't, even if it is listed as an option. IF you reduce payload to below the weight of a torpedo, you cannot lift it, and the AI won't.


This is not consistent with my tests.

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 7 destroyed
Vildebeest IV: 1 destroyed
Swordfish: 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 8

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
4 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
27 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
4 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
20 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
3 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
9 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
3 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
3 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
2 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
3 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
2 x G3M Nell ohka bombing
3 x G3M Nell ohka bombing

I have about five such attacks per turn in my test scenario - and I can repeat it with various aircraft using the Ohka. Clearly Ohka WILL attack land targets.

[jwilkerson]

Under these conditions the game gets almost unplayable from 1943...Japan just doesn't stand a chance, even if he has a very high experienced air force

My strategy in dealing with the Corsair is simple. Stay away from them. I've got 2 PBEMs in mid-to-late 1943 and I don't think I've ever fought a battle with them. THey spend their time in bombing mode taking out my weak and stupid garrisons, but my planes stay out of their range.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Plain false. See my Ohka test thread. Clearly ordnance listed can be used against land targets. Further, clearly if the plane cannot lift the ordnance, it won't, even if it is listed as an option. IF you reduce payload to below the weight of a torpedo, you cannot lift it, and the AI won't.


This is not consistent with my tests.

A misunderstanding, I do not doubt that Ohka will be used against ground targets. I have never tested them.

I have seen planes in tests use there standard payload even when there max load is below the load value of the weapon. Torpedos in the cases I saw.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

My strategy in dealing with the Corsair is simple. Stay away from them. I've got 2 PBEMs in mid-to-late 1943 and I don't think I've ever fought a battle with them. THey spend their time in bombing mode taking out my weak and stupid garrisons, but my planes stay out of their range.

It would be much more interesting if the player was inclined to fight once in a while, even if out matched.

After all didn't the F4U fight A6M3s from time to time and Hurricanes challenge A6M2s?

[el cid again]

A misunderstanding, I do not doubt that Ohka will be used against ground targets. I have never tested them.

I have seen planes in tests use there standard payload even when there max load is below the load value of the weapon. Torpedos in the cases I saw.

It may well be that the code depends on the data entry person to be more intelligent than this. I suspect the code is as simple as possible. It very likely takes standard load to a normal range and maximum load to a shorter range (I call it MaxLoadRange but who knows what they call it?).
In the simple code case, you just use the appropriate load for the appropriate range. You don't check to see if the dolt entering aircraft data said "it can carry a million tons to normal range but only a thousand tons to the maximum load range."

But examination of WITP plane data makes it clear that the normal weapons load is supposed to be what is listed in detail, and the maximum load has a separate field.

Another possibility is that the maximum load field is wrong in the cases you cite. A torpedo bomber SHOULD be able to lift its torpedo. If THAT weighs MORE than its max load, the field has the wrong value, pure and simple. But a Kate, for example (a change from UV), can carry an 800 kg bomb as its max load, or a somewhat lighter torpedo. The torpedo gets listed as standard load, but the max load field has the pound value for 800 kg. This is right.

[jwilkerson]

It would be much more interesting if the player was inclined to fight once in a while, even if out matched.

Fight yes - fight when out matched - not if I can help it !

Last fight major fight in both above referenced games was May 43 in general area of Arafua Sea - Allies were landing on Timor in one game - Kai Island in the other. I fought in both cases - kicked allies off Kai Island Twice ... killed 3 BB I think ... piles of Merchant men. In the other landing was at Lautern - killed 3 CVE and 2 BB and some merchies. But once result became inevitable - pulled back out of range again. So in these cases - let the Allies come forward and pin themselves in Amphib assault .. then bring LBA, Carries and Surface force into the area and counterattack. Do as much damage as possible - then withdraw once it starts to turn into attrition. Hit and run - no allied favoring attrition. No sitting around in range of Allied LBA getting pounded for no benefit.

Fight yes - fight when dis-advantaged - not if I can help it !

[DFalcon]

I can't agree with you more stratigically. Don't fight if you have nothing to gain.

My point was it would be more interesting if the question of winning or loosing was not as clear cut as it some times is when certain match ups are involved. It often becomes a case of almost never taking on the zero in the early going or a corsair when it arrives. Too little chance of gaining something and you are sure to pay a heavy price. They should have a clear and overwelming advantage, just not as much of one as they have now.

It is a matter of degrees, not changing the whole ball park. The game works rather well as a whole and a huge change is likely to do more harm than good.

[el cid again]

Fight yes - fight when out matched - not if I can help it !

In a gigantic mechanical WITP (not published) in Seattle decades ago (dozens of players) an Allied commander observed "Japan can win a war of great battles. We need to avoid them and force them into a war of attrition."

This appears to be historical US strategy. It was not very brilliant. Frontal attack at a predictable point - Japan NEVER failed to fortell the next point of a major offensive - is not brilliant. But it IS expensive. To do so at the end of a long line of supply is also not efficient. But it usually means you make progress and, at the end of the line, you win the war.
It is much better if the Allies can actually come up with a real strategy - but also much harder.

[el cid again]

It is a matter of degrees, not changing the whole ball park. The game works rather well as a whole and a huge change is likely to do more harm than good.

In many military senses, yes. But in some, the game is badly flawed. The heart of real ops is logistics, and for some reason the game does NOT restrict these anything close to historical levels. No real Kiddo Butai could hang out for a month between Hawaii and San Francisco - and sail back to Japan - and STILL not be out of fuel - but I did that!

[el cid again]

Can you run tests with your test bed when the aircraft are modified for knots vice mph, and correct ROC? I have sent you an aircraft database with knot conversions for all aircraft, and corrected altitude and ROC for all japanese planes plus F4F, F4U and B-17.

Note that examining data for these three allied planes I noted some strange errors - for example typically different models are given the same ROC and altitude - which is virtually never true. Cruising speeds often are the same, but these seemed to be proportional. [B-17, however, DOES seem to have two different cruising speeds - C/D are faster than later models by a significant amount when cruising]. Also some allied planes have NO data in the crew field - not zero but nothing.
Most have correct values - better than the Japanese data for crew size.

Eventually I want to test crew size to see if it impacts your model, but I didn't mess with it for now on the allied side - and it seems about right anyway. The Japanese planes all have the correct crew values - all japanese fields are corrected as that is what I was working on.

[DFalcon]

I should be able to do something this weekend with that data.