Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

As I said before, I don't really disagree with the bonus and would agree to expanding it to Oscars but I'd like to see the experience levels of pilots drop universally by 20-25 points to both lessen the bloodiness of A2A and give pilot experience some meaning. What's the point of having pilot exp ratings if everyone is in the top 10 percentile?

As for the ability to learn not to dogfight and using diving and slashing attacks, is this best represented by removing the zero bonus or simply adjusting aircraft ratings? Dogfighting is represented by mnvr ratings. What would effectively mimic boom and zoom? Speed/durability/armour?

Man this is like rock/paper/scissors trying to sort this model out.

You said it! IRL, the Allies probably had a slight advantage once the obsolete aircraft were eliminated, but only because it's more difficult to FORCE a "turning contest" on an opponant than a "zoom and boom" type affair. Past the first 3 months, I'd say something like a 55-45 edge (maybe less, depending on a lot of other factors) to the Allies. But early on, everybody but Chenault seems to have been a victim of their own prejudices that "those funny little Mr Moto's in their coke bottle glasses" couldn't possibly be as good as I am---and their planes must also be inferior copies of Western designs. The learning curve was steep and costly, which is why I favor leaving in the "bonus" for 3 months. Some Allied Pilots certainly learned much faster, but new groups brought their own ignorance with them to the front. Overall, 3 months seems a fair cut-off point. Or maybe instead of giving the Japanese a "bonus", we should give all starting and arriving Allied air units a 30-day "stupidity" modifier (neg) while they learned the truth for themselves.

[mdiehl]

Mdiehl, yes, some (or many) americans, british knew that the Zero was a great plane... but I am basically talking about those who take the decisions. The british intelligence stated that the "japanese pilots were much more inferior than italian, german pilots"... and then Prince of Wales... Repulse... They were forced to open their eyes

That is an unjustifiable basis for the Zero bonus. 1) Japanese intel said the same thing about Allied pilots and Japanese intel was every bit as incorrect. 2) The UK did not send PoW and Repulse on a mission out of arrogance of Japanese airpower. They expected UK aircover to be in place for that mission. The Brits knew quite well about the vulnerability of capitol ships to aircraft, having done in the Italians at Taranto and Bismarck courtesy of one lowly stringbag.

It wasn't contempt for the Japanese that sent PoW and Repulse to their doom. It was poor planning. In that way much like the repeated efforts by the IJN to resupply Guadalcanal in late 1942.

[mdiehl]

You said it! IRL, the Allies probably had a slight advantage once the obsolete aircraft were eliminated, but only because it's more difficult to FORCE a "turning contest" on an opponant than a "zoom and boom" type affair. Past the first 3 months, I'd say something like a 55-45 edge (maybe less, depending on a lot of other factors) to the Allies.

There's no quantitative basis to support the existence of the "Zero bonus." The problem wasn't "trying to turn with the Zero/Oscar" which was something that any allied a/c of the day could win at if the IAS was above 290 mph. The problem was trying to turn with the Zero at low IAS. The Zero was only "more manueverable" in a short part of the Allie'd a/cs flight envelope.

Heck at 10,000 feet and IAS above 280, the P-39 was a much better plane.

I think part of the myth here stems from the fact that the primary polits who initially tried to out-turn the Zero were UK veterans of the BoB flying Hurricanes. This tactic (turning) was successfully employed against the Luftwaffe ME-109s.

But early on, everybody but Chenault seems to have been a victim of their own prejudices that "those funny little Mr Moto's in their coke bottle glasses" couldn't possibly be as good as I am---and their planes must also be inferior copies of Western designs.

The funny thing is that if you look at anything other than propaganda films you don't find allied pilots or intel offering that assessment. Not even in 1941. Instead you find lots of Allied pilots with no particular information about the Japanese at all, and Allied pilots (like Thach and Flatley) who in 1941 long before the US entered the war were already studying the problem of how to defeat a more maneuverable aircraft.

The learning curve was steep and costly, which is why I favor leaving in the "bonus" for 3 months.

I doubt that it was as costly as WitP and UV make it out to be. I suspect that the learning curve problem if correctly modeled would allow the IJN/IJA to sustain about a 1.4:1 kill ratio over all Allied army pilots for the first three months of the war. Vs USN naval pilots the assumption from 7 December 1941 should be parity.

Or maybe instead of giving the Japanese a "bonus", we should give all starting and arriving Allied air units a 30-day "stupidity" modifier (neg) while they learned the truth for themselves.

Sounds like the same thing as the Zero bonus with equal absence of justification and phrased in a way that insults the reputations of the allied pilots of the day.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Bradley, I agree with you, but do not forget that the japanese naval pilots had a great fighting experience (their american counterparts didn't): China. Yes, they were used in that theater.

[EDIT: "fighting experience" is very important. Just remember the american troops in North Africa after Torch. Very well armed but they were green [;)] ]

My statement was based on after war analysis. Navy F4F's shot down 1.1 zeros for every combat loss. It might have been 1.4 zero's for every combat loss, but I don't recall. That doesn't include bombers they shot down. So, after the war is over, and you look back at the whole thing, you can definitely say that US navy fighters were better than Japanese naval fighters. Training in China has nothing to do with the fact that the US gave better than they got in 42. After 42 is just got worse.

[TulliusDetritus]

Bradley, but you know that the analysis of the air losses is not easy. 20 pilots claim "I shot down that plane, not you...!"

I always thought the Zero was superior to Wildcats (pilots aside). I may be wrong though. We are not going to fight for that [:)]

[Sneer]

if we compare zero to f4f losses we should remember about radar advantages to allied cap which allowed to concentrate fighters in right place.... there are many small factors not counted in too

[mdiehl]

There are many small advantages that aren't covered it's true. BUt vis radar its worth noting that at Midway the F4Fs that got over IJN CarDiv1 still shot down more zeroes than they lost in F4Fs.

The zero bonus is the product of a mindset that writes off the instances of Allied superiority in e.1942 to contingent circumstances, but treats instances of Japanese superiority as evidence of innate superiority.

From a game design point of view since not all the little contingencies are accounted for you have to set the object and bias the code so that in general the object is met. In the case of WW2 if you want to simulate how the aircraft performed in general, then over the course of any given campaign where both combatants are "in decent supply" (whatever that means) and "tolerably well rested" (whatever that means), the F4Fs should do slightly better than the A6Ms in 1941 and through late 1942. Even at Midway Island the VMF pilots were greatly outnumberd, yet the F4Fs managed to kill more enemies than they lost.

[Bradley7735]

Well, Mdiehl can speak more intelligently on this than I can.

But, the data I'm quoting is not from pilot claims. It is actual losses on the US side and actual losses on the Japanese side. It's data from the 4 carrier battles in 42. Each side knew exactly how many fighters they lost from A2A action (ie not operational losses or losses to flak). When you look at the numbers, USN fighter pilots were just a bit better than IJN fighter pilots.

There's another, similar, analysis in regards to the Guadalcanal campaign, but each side was not operating with the same exact criteria of the other (ie, US was defending a poorly equipped base, and IJN was flying long distances and escorting bombers but from a well equipped base). I believe the USN pilots again gave better than they got, but the Marine pilots were just a shade worse (.9 kills for every loss). So, it's easy to explain the USN advantage if you choose to look at only certain criteria. Basically, it's not as black and white as the carrier fights.

It's easy to look at the data from the carrier fights. They are all small actions (relatively), good records have been kept, etc etc.

[ChezDaJez]

The idea of removing the Zero bonus and replacing it with reduced Allied pilot experience levels came about because of the fact that the Zero was not the only maneuverable Japanese aircraft at the start of the war, so it doesn't make sense that ONLY the Zero gets the bonus. I think the discussion actually was about the Oscar I.

One problem with reducing Allied experience is that it effects combat vs bombers as well as vs fighters, so it is perhaps too broad. But in my view the Zero bonus is too narrow. I also think that the bonus may apply for too long, but without eliminating it in the way I propose there is nothing that can be done about that.

Hi, Andrew.

I don't favor removing the Zero bonus in general becuase IMO opinion it reflects the "mental shock" experienced by the allies that Japan could field such a capable long-range fighter. And it wasn't just the maneuverability. Range was definitely a factor also. Historical accounts often relate the shock allied forces had at seeing the Zero appear in places it shouldn't have been able to reach by Allied thinking at the time. This is one reason why I don't support adding the Oscar but I probably wouldn't oppose it either.

Plus the bonus is gone by May 42 which is before Coral Sea. So by the time the major historical carrier battles were fought, the Zero was well known to the allies and while it was still highly respected, the "fear" factor had pretty much gone. Once the Allies figured out its weaknesses and developed the tactics to fight it, it became just another plane to be fought.

Trying to adjust experience levels would have huge game wide effects and last much longer than the Zero bonus does.

Decreasing Allied experience across the board would also affect some units that should be left alone. This would have to be done on a case by case basis. Brit pilots shouldn't have their experience levels decreased simply due to their experiences gained from over years of war. USN pilots were probably second only to Brit pilots at the start.

Going the opposite route and increasing Japanese experience would be devastating and would last far longer than the intended effects should.

One area I feel does need adjusting is the Japanese trained pilot pool. Where the designers came up with 20 IJAF and 10 IJN pilots a year, I'll never know. I assume it was for play balance as it doesn't even come close to keeping up with ops losses let alone combat losses nor reflect RL numbers.

IRL the IJA accepted about 2500 applicants a year into pilot training (pre-war). As the training was very intensive, only about 800-900 pilots actually completed the training. If you assume that about 2/3-3/4 of them were sent to combat units means that about 45-50 pilots a month should be available for assignment.

The IJN accepted approximately 1200 pilots a year for training of which about 400-450 completed it. Again assuming a maximum of 75% being assigned to a combat unit yields about 25-30 IJN pilots a month for assignment.

Now the training numbers flucutate depending upon what source you read (and there aren't that many that discuss IJ pilot training) but the above numbers represent an "average" of the sources I have.

Anyways, just my thoughts on the issues.

CHez

[Ron Saueracker]

Main reason I would advocate lowering experience across the board for everybody is it is needlessly too high. It is the difference between pilots...how high they are is immaterial aside from increasing the bloodiness of the air model, something which needs to be reduced. Again, WTF is the USAAF pilots at PH in the high 80-90s? Bollocks and completely cripples the system. Ben Afleck can't improve in combat because he is already the best pilot there ever was? Gordo Cooper mentality or what?

[ChezDaJez]

I could go with an across the board reduction as long as it is applied to both sides. But I definitely oppose reducing allied experience to offset the loss of the Zero bonus.

Keep the bonus. It's only in place for 4.75 months (12/7/41-4/30/42) anyways.

Chez

[mdiehl]

There is no basis for having a Zero basis even for "shock and awe" value. It was surprising to the Allies in out of the way places because it was there, not because it was feared, and its appearance did not deter people from trying to shoot it down.

As conceived above .. "it's affect in showing up where unanticipated" .. that is as direct an allusion to good basic operational planning, good logistics, and long range as any statement can be. For that reason doing away with the zero bonus completely is a great idea. The Japanese player should expect to have to set up operations properly.

The Japanese player should not expect to be able to go hunting Allied CVs in the eastern Pacific and count on the Zero bonus to incorrectly give him the edge in early war engagements.

There was a great deal of surprise all around. The Japanese were frequently surprised and demoralized by Allied efforts in unexpected places. This is not treated in the game as the basis for some inherent local modifier. The Doolittle Raid is not used to justify a "B-25 bonus" ... nor does the sudden alarming appearance of USN subs where unwanted trigger a random probabilty of Mogami ramming yet another IJN vessel.

[Demosthenes]

This is my first post, though I have been a player of UV and WitP for over a year.

Seeing how the subject of debate is only the CHS Mod and not the game itself is a little dissapointing, however - my two cents:

The Zero bonus is a poor idea at best, a representation of folklore. The Japanese successes in the first four to six months of the war were due mainly to superior preparation, logistics, and and weight of numbers, the game already models all of these facts.

There have been enough recent books writen to re-examine this stage of WWII and they bear out that in actual a2a combat allied planes and pilots managed a trade off of roughly one to one, the allies couldn't afford those losses in the early months and the Japanese could.

Books such as the 'Bloody Shambles' series clearly show that the majority of allied losses were either destroyed 'on the ground', taking off, or in air battles facing odds of up to 20 to 1. That does not suggest individual superiority of Japanese planes or pilots.

The true purpose of the Zero Bonus has already been expressed earlier in this thread many times. To paraphrase: "The allies are going to win anyway - let the Japanese have the Zero Bonus" that is to say - it's effect and it's supporters just want a game advantage for Japanese players before they get beat up.

For what it's worth (and that's not mutch) I say get rid of this bit of urban legend.

[rtrapasso]

This is my first post, though I have been a player of UV and WitP for over a year.

Welcome to the Forum!

[Tom Hunter]

One thing that strikes me about this arguement is that it is mostly discussing "did the Zero bonus exist in real life."

Once a person decides (correctly IMHO) that it did not exist in real life they suggest it should be removed from the game. Sometime they suggest that something else such as experience reduction, should replace it; sometimes they don't.

So far I have not seen a discussion of what will happen in the game if it is removed. But I will suggest that game impact is more important than historical accuracy.

If you take it out Japan is going to suffer more aircraft casualties, both fighters and the bombers they escort. This will slow the Japanese advance and restrict the amount of territory they are able to capture in the early war. Is that what you want to do? If it is then take away the zero bonus.

Changing pilot xp to make up for the Zero bonus will protect surface ships from LBA. This will produce some nice benefits for Japan in the first month or two of the war since they have more surface warships in the battle zone at the start of the game. Is that something you want to see happen? If so then cut the aircraft experience level.

It will also make invasion more difficult to oppose with LBA. Is more invasions good or bad?

Hopefully these two points show the inter-connectedness of the different components of the game and will cause some more helpful analysis of suggested changes. I would be very wary of making changes for reasons of historical accuracy or reasons of fun without thinking through what the effect will be on other aspects of the game.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

This is my first post, though I have been a player of UV and WitP for over a year.

Seeing how the subject of debate is only the CHS Mod and not the game itself is a little dissapointing, however - my two cents:

The Zero bonus is a poor idea at best, a representation of folklore. The Japanese successes in the first four to six months of the war were due mainly to superior preparation, logistics, and and weight of numbers, the game already models all of these facts.

There have been enough recent books writen to re-examine this stage of WWII and they bear out that in actual a2a combat allied planes and pilots managed a trade off of roughly one to one, the allies couldn't afford those losses in the early months and the Japanese could.

Books such as the 'Bloody Shambles' series clearly show that the majority of allied losses were either destroyed 'on the ground', taking off, or in air battles facing odds of up to 20 to 1. That does not suggest individual superiority of Japanese planes or pilots.

The true purpose of the Zero Bonus has already been expressed earlier in this thread many times. To paraphrase: "The allies are going to win anyway - let the Japanese have the Zero Bonus" that is to say - it's effect and it's supporters just want a game advantage for Japanese players before they get beat up.

For what it's worth (and that's not mutch) I say get rid of this bit of urban legend.

Hey, Kojak's co worker!

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

This is my first post, though I have been a player of UV and WitP for over a year.

Welcome to the Forum!

Thanks rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

One thing that strikes me about this arguement is that it is mostly discussing "did the Zero bonus exist in real life."

Once a person decides (correctly IMHO) that it did not exist in real life they suggest it should be removed from the game. Sometime they suggest that something else such as experience reduction, should replace it; sometimes they don't.

So far I have not seen a discussion of what will happen in the game if it is removed. But I will suggest that game impact is more important than historical accuracy.

If you take it out Japan is going to suffer more aircraft casualties, both fighters and the bombers they escort. This will slow the Japanese advance and restrict the amount of territory they are able to capture in the early war. Is that what you want to do? If it is then take away the zero bonus.

Changing pilot xp to make up for the Zero bonus will protect surface ships from LBA. This will produce some nice benefits for Japan in the first month or two of the war since they have more surface warships in the battle zone at the start of the game. Is that something you want to see happen? If so then cut the aircraft experience level.

It will also make invasion more difficult to oppose with LBA. Is more invasions good or bad?

Hopefully these two points show the inter-connectedness of the different components of the game and will cause some more helpful analysis of suggested changes. I would be very wary of making changes for reasons of historical accuracy or reasons of fun without thinking through what the effect will be on other aspects of the game.

Well, as you point out the Zero Bonus imapcts several facets of the game which obviously is the rational for including it in the first place.

Personally I have enough respect for the game engine that given all the other historical parameters the campaign will advance as it should without this bonus - so long as both players are compitant and both have average luck.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Hey, Kojak's co worker!

Who love's ya baby

[witpqs]

The US had extensive pilot training in place long before Dec 7, 1941. Dropping US pilot experience (relative to other nations) on the basis of 'no experience' is simlpy unrealistic and unjustified.

Dropping the experience of all nations to reduce A2A bloodiness is pure conjecture. No one knows if that will work.

Further, as noted by others it will simply be replaced by on-map 'training' regimes. Due to those opportunities being more available to the Japanese side in the game (on isolated Allied garrisons), this will have the same effect as an experience penalty on the Allies - especially US (because some training opportunities will be available to the UK in Burma and China). As noted already that is unrealistic and unjustified.

So, even if it works to initially reduce A2A bloodiness, dropping all nations pilot experience will unjustifiably change the balance of the game for the long run.

A quick comment about the AVG experience level. In the game pilot performance is called 'experience'. IRL a pilot could have loads of experience and be not so great, or a modest amount of experience and be pretty good. In the game "experience = performance". That's just the terminology. A comment was made about the AVG only having success because of Chennault's tactics. Pilots that perform well use good tactics. In WITP well performing pilots are modelled by having a high experience rating. The AVG did perform well, so those pilots have to have high experience ratings or else their performance won't get modelled. This is true even without a zero bonus, because mostly they faced planes that do not get the zero bonus in WITP.

If the zero bonus is applied to the Oscar, which the AVG did face a lot, then we have to consider increasng the AVG experience to keep pace.

[mc3744]

I'm a bit late, but here are my two cents.

The way I see it the Zero bonus should be extended to the other Japanese fighters, but the duration should be reduced.
By the end of March it should be over, maybe even by the end of February.

Allow Japan a shock start on all fronts. But the shock cannot last 6 months, that's way too long.

[j campbell]

I think there are some valid points all around.

Ron is correct -There does not seem to be much of a "Bell curve" distrubution when it comes to starting experience. If a pilot has 90 exp why are there no piolts with 0 experience? why not just go from 0-50 exp if we are starting at 50 and going to 99 exp. ?? This discussion has degenerated as Tom pointed out into a historical debate rather than whether or not the zero bonus should be left in. How can one truly say who had better pilots if they were matching up in different planes? I think you could only really say that if both sides flew identical planes or one side flew a clearly inferior aircraft and shot down numerous or even 1:1 of a superior aircrafts numbers given all else equal parameters that it had superior pilots-which is highly unlikely to every happen.

The key fact is that the japanese had been at war longer than the other combatants and therefore, most likely had more experinced pilots. However, i do believe that air to air losses for the IJA vs. soviets in the battles in Manchuko/ Soviet far East were about 1:1 according to recent analysis- ( i would have to relook up the article).

personally, I would leave the zero bonus in (although i agree with Mdiehl that there is no tangible basis-it gives the game the correct "feel" for the campaigns and expansion into the SRA that I think might be completely forfeited
with a possible game change like this)