Air Combat Mod with test results

[Ron Saueracker]

Is this mod being tested something like Nik's mod (are they similar)? If so, how about some large engagements (or did I miss something)? I would really like to see Nik's mod tested with a large battle, seeing as large battle f-ups by the uber CAP model is both the reason for the mod in the first place and might be stalling any official code fix regarding whacked CAP model. Are there any out there? I have not seen any.[&:]

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Is this mod being tested something like Nik's mod (are they similar)? If so, how about some large engagements (or did I miss something)?

The mod is similar to Niks and inspired by it. I think the speed modification is identical and I applied a mvr mod in the same way. (see earlier post for what I did) The difference is in how we approached lowering lethality. Nik adjusted durability and I went for firepower. Additioanlly this mod only deals with aircombat, Nik has modded more aspects i.e. antiaircraft, subs, pilot pools, etc.

I plan on running both larger battles and smaller battles and see how the mod handles both. I am resonable sure it needs some tweeking and testing will tell me where. As an aside many people seem interested in what these test show in regard to the combat system, myself included, so I'll test all sorts of stuff.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm interested in the A2A aspects. A big battle would be a treat just to see if the A2A mod holds up in the large air battles the uber CAP model has caused. Thanks for your efforts.[:)]

[DFalcon]

Test Result #8

I wanted to see how the mod behaved with unescorted raids to see if the reduced firepower would make bombers invulnerable. I will run a number of different match ups starting with the B-17E vs the A6M2.

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 42

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 63

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed, 20 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed, 24 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
55 casualties reported

Airbase hits 11
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 28

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

Defenders
72 A6M2 80% Cap
72 Ki-49 targets

Attackers
72 B-17E

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

A6M2 4.4 / 1.2
B-17E-1 4.6 / 2.0
Airbase hits 53.8 / 41.0

[DFalcon]

Test Result #9

Battle of the titans, the Blenheim IV vs the Ki-27.

ay Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 57

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 64

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 3 destroyed, 30 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 23

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

Defenders
72 Ki-27 80% Cap
72 Ki-49 targets

Attackers
72 Blenheim IV

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

Ki-27 0.4 / 0.0
Blenheim IV 4.8 / 2.9
Airbase hits 9.1 / 19.2

[DFalcon]

Test Result #10

Here is the Ki-49 vs the Wirraway

Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 63

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 57

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 2 destroyed, 30 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wirraway: 10 damaged

Airbase hits 1

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

Defenders
72 Wirraway 80% Cap
72 Blenheim IV targets

Attackers
72 Ki-49

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

Wirraway 0.2 / 0.0
Ki-49 1.5 / 1.6
Airbase hits 11.0 / 14.6

[DFalcon]

Test Result #11

This is an “Uber CAP” test. At the bottom I will list the number of times out of 10 that bombers carried on and bombed the target. The actual number of planes on CAP varied from 149-220 with the normal number of planes intercepting the attack at 169. 80% of 360 is 288. It appears the mod helps mitigate the Uber CAP. I will run an Allied Uber CAP next.

Day Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 216

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 49
SBD Dauntless x 116

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 12 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 24 destroyed, 1 damaged
SBD Dauntless: 15 destroyed, 15 damaged

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

Defenders
180 A6M2 80% Cap
180 A6M2 80% Cap

Attackers
54 F4F-4 10% Escort
144 Dauntless

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

A6M2 11.1 / 12.5
F4F 36.1 / 29.8
Dauntless 21.8 / 20.0
Airbase hits 4.3 / 12.2
Raids getting through 2 of 10 / 6 of 10

[DFalcon]

Test Result #12

This is the inverse of the previous uber CAP test with the F4F flying hordes of CAP and the Japs trying to break through. I really like the way the mod is working in all of these tests. Planes get through the uber CAP more. Also with the standard data the A6M2 gets 1 to 1 kills even when out numbered 3 and 4 to 1. The Mod has the zero loosing when it faces these odds. Just seems right.

Day Air attack on Torokina , at 63,92

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 51
D3A Val x 114

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 141

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 27 destroyed
D3A Val: 26 destroyed, 17 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 35 destroyed, 40 damaged


Allied ground losses:
65 casualties reported

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 20

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

Defenders
180 F4F-4 80% Cap
180 F4F-4 80% Cap

Attackers
54 A6M2 10% Escort
144 D3A

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

F4F-4 28.8 / 19.2
A6M2 31.3 / 33.2
D3A 20.1 / 18.6
Airbase hits 4.9 / 11.0
Raids getting through 3 of 10 / 5 of 10

[Sardaukar]

Airbase hits seem to more than double. That may cause problems with 2/4-engined bombers shutting down airfields too easily.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Airbase hits seem to more than double. That may cause problems with 2/4-engined bombers shutting down airfields too easily.

The last two test where hits doubled was due mostly to more raids getting though the uber CAP. If you look at the hits per raid getting through the numbers are closer, 21.5 to 20.3 and 16.3 to 20.2.

The only other dramatic increase was with the Blenheim vs the Ki-27, and this is a concern of mine. Does the reduction in firepower make the low fire power platforms anemic, particularly when facing high durability bombers. That is why I will be running a series of tests on unescorted bomber raids.

The losses were very close on the test with the Ki-27, so perhaps there is an anomaly with that test. More testing will tell. It maybe that an adjustment up on air to air cannons is needed to get the thing tweeked right, but I want to test it out first so I have a basis of comparison.

Is there any particular test you would like to see?

BTW how do you like the way the Mod handles some of the over matches like the F4U and A6 vs early allied fighters?

[Sardaukar]

Well, overall it looks promising so far. Only concern I can think just now is same as yours.

[DFalcon]

Test Result #13

Test #13 looks unlucky for the Mod. Oscars vs B25s and it keeps looking like the low fire power platforms can not down bombers. I will run some Buffalos against some Sallys next. If the tend continues it will be time to rethink the gun adjustments.

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 42

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 53

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 5 destroyed, 17 damaged
D3A Val: 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell: 22 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
82 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 25

Aircraft Attacking:
40 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
13 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet

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

Defenders
72 Ki-43-Ib 80% Cap

Attackers
72 B-25C

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

Ki-43-Ib 1.6 / 0.2
B-25C 5.5 / 2.0
Airbase hits 33.5 / 37.2

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

Test Result #13

Test #13 looks unlucky for the Mod. Oscars vs B25s and it keeps looking like the low fire power platforms can not down bombers. I will run some Buffalos against some Sallys next. If the tend continues it will be time to rethink the gun adjustments.

Is this necessarily so bad? How hard would it be for an aircraft such as the Oscar to down a B-25?

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Is this necessarily so bad? How hard would it be for an aircraft such as the Oscar to down a B-25?

Good point. Perhaps I will switch the focus of the test for a bit. I could run the Oscar, Nate etc. through some more test vs other bombers and fighters. See how much the Mod has effected low fire power planes. Then I could focus on high durability bombers like B-25s and B-17s vs a range of fighters.

If these results only show in extremes like the Oscar vs B-25 it might be acceptalbe. What do you think?

[Sardaukar]

You could also check if changing weapon accuracies remedies that.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

You could also check if changing weapon accuracies remedies that.

Agreed. I like your idea about accuracy. If it does turn out that the adjustment to effect is not working this is what I will try. Keep the effect as it is in the standard data and drop accuracy by 25% instead. another option would be to keep the modified effect and tweek accuracy up. I am leaning more toward your idea though. Even if it does not turn out to be the magic bullet it will tell us more about how the model works.

Andrew's observation is good and it is too early to abandon the initial idea.

Thank you both for the input.

[Andrew Brown]

One reason I would prefer to lower effectiveness rather than accuracy, is that it will HOPEFULLY lead to more damaged aircraft, and so help to reduce the number of aircraft available for operations.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

One reason I would prefer to lower effectiveness rather than accuracy, is that it will HOPEFULLY lead to more damaged aircraft, and so help to reduce the number of aircraft available for operations.

I have not been monitoring damaged aircraft, but my impression is that this is what is happening. It is tougher to isolate this as antiaircraft gets in on the action.

[el cid again]

I have not been monitoring damaged aircraft, but my impression is that this is what is happening. It is tougher to isolate this as antiaircraft gets in on the action.

Why not be scientific and take AA out of the equation?

Two ways:

1) have no AA guns, or redefine AA devices with zero ceiling or some other zero field.

2) fly above the cieling of the AA you have as defined. Then it can't be hitting you.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Why not be scientific and take AA out of the equation?

I could run Sweep vs CAP. I do not think AA will fire on the Sweep mission. Does that sound right?