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

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yeah, bombing dots is a problem.

Bombing dot bases is not the issue. Airfield and Port missions seem only to yield up to a certain level of experience rating. However, Ground Attack missions will take a squadron right into the mid 90's (given enough time - actually 96 is the highest I've seen). That's why I say that Japan and to a lesser extent UK have opportunity for that kind of on-map 'training'. Japan isolates lots of Allied ground forces in the early going.

USA lacks the chance to carry out these kind of training missions until later in the war. Lowering pilot quality all around, even worse lowering USA pilot quiality even more than lowering other nations, would be a huge change with consequences lasting well beyond the first few months of the game.

[ChezDaJez]

In way you have cut to the point of the matter, the flyers facing the Japanese in the first months of the war were - The British, The Dutch, The AVG, and USAFFE.

These pilots fought almost 'exclusively against Oscar KI 43 I's and Nate KI 27's.

The Dutch and USAAFE faced the Zero almost exclusively. China, Burma and Malaya were the proud recipients of the Oscar's attention. basically, where the Japanese Army was, the Oscar was. Were the IJN was, so was the Zero.

Chez

[Yamato hugger]

From what Ive read about the early war period, any fighter that had a meatball on the side was a "Zero" to allied pilots (especially Oscars). Much the same as any shell lobbed at allied troops in Europe was an "88".

[Andrew Brown]

So some like the Zero bonus and some don't. Having read all of the posts I am still leaning towards recommending that it be removed and replaced with some sort of experience adjustment. I have now seen some opinions that reduced experience will be overcome quickly, at least quicker than the Zero bonus, and other opinions saying that its effects would be more far reaching, at least for the Allies.

There is already a fairly large disparity between the experience of the Allied and Japanese pilots, with the exception of USN and AVG pilots, so any widening of that gap would have to be modest.

In the end, I think the only way to be sure how such a change would affect the game would be to try it and see. As to whether this gets added to CHS - not sure. I need to find out what some of the other CHS contributors think...

Andrew

[doktorblood]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think all the bonuses should be dropped, and all USN pilots be started at comparable EXP levels to the Japanese naval pilots. That would better capture the look and feel of ww2 from both sides for the first six months. Nagumo was unwilling to hang around to launch a second STRIKE on Pearl Harbor because in part USN CV were locus unknown. Had even ONE USN CV shown up at the right/wrong (point of view) moment you might have four Japanese carriers sunk on 8 December. Japan never conceived of going back to PH later in force because they knew the balance of land based airpower against them ALONE was enough to neuter Kido Butai if not destroy any Japanese CV TF outright.

From the USN side the early war was about watching for opportunities to hit the Japanese where they were vulnerable. Initially this meant avoiding Nagumo's forces because most of the time the US CVs were outnumbered 4:1, 2:1. In contrast, "4:3 with a USN land base" (Midway) seemed like an attractive invitation to the USN to "come out and play."

In WitP the Allied player is NUTS to take 4:3 odds of CVs favoring Japan unless the US player also has a complex of airbases that rival the Hawaiian Islands in direct support. In short, the "look and feel" element is wrong. IRL Halsey "looked and felt like there were circumstances where he was game to challenge the cream of the Japanese navy." In WitP the look and feel is "I better wait until odds insurmountably favor the Allies before I attempt to oppose." That's just wrong.

Guess What? USN CV groups already do start out at experience comparable to Jap carrier groups. A tad lower than Jap CVs 1-4 but a tad higher than Shokaku, Zuikaku and a lot higher than Jap CVLs.

The Zero bonus does make the the KB practically bulletproof in the first 2 or 3 months and should probably be done away with and the airplane data adjusted properly instead.

I don't like the idea of reducing Allied experience further. Overall, Jap air power already has a significant experience advantage. I do think that Jap experience levels erode too quickly though and replacements should be bumped up a bit.

[vonSchnitter]

Well,

dunno, but my understanding is, that the Zero Bonus is a more or less crude „vehicle“ to cover a number of factors in an air war, not accounted for by the game engine. Call it a „generalization“ or a „simplification“.

Anyway. For the first 6 to 12 months the Japanese are on the offensive, while the allies are either defending or retreating. And fighting a defensive air war is quite a different animal than being on the attack.
In general, the defender has a much bigger problem than the attacker. (Even though a basic understanding of how to use bombers in a attack is essential as well – disregarding the need for fighter escort – like the AAF and to some extend the RAF did – does not help).
Looking at the „Battle of Britain“ reveals (imho), that it was not the quality of the airplanes nor the bravery and skill of the „few“ which won it for the RAF. It was a - for the time - very modern and highly integrated fighter control system including radar, the observer corps and a elaborated radio system, which enabled the ground commanders to direct the fighters to the raids and give them a chance to attack out of a favourable position.

Where these ground control systems existed in the Pacific, a defensive could be successful (like the AVG) or would fail completely – like in the PI or PH for that matter. That is to say, while Chennault managed to organize a – rudimentary – oberserver and ground control system giving his pilots a chance to be „there“ at the right time and the right place, the Philipines and most other places had non of it.
Later on the Japanese faced the same problem – and as soon as the allies had the fighters to escort the bomber strikes (plus better aircraft and better trained pilots) the Japanes got very much disadvantaged,

That is to say: In a defensive air war it is much more a tactical and/or doctrinal issue than a technical or training one.

To underline my point: There is an early 1942 AAF manual on aircraft recognition (War Department Basic Field Manual, FM 30-38, Military Intelligence. Identification of Japanese Aircraft, March 16, 1942. ) with an almost blank page for the „Zero“ (wich wasnt called that way). What the manual tells is , that the Japanese pilots characteristically used the Zero as a „boom and zoom“ fighter, i.e. using an altitude/speed advantage against the allied aircraft trying to intercept. Which in the light of the above says more about a tactical situation, than the performance characteristics of the AC.

In this light the „Zero Bonus“ makes some sense as far as land combats go. And should probaly include the Oscar or even Nates and Claudes. Unless something else can be devised to „factor in“ on the offensive/defensive problem. Like presense or absense of Air Hqs and things like that ?

While I think, the „Zero Bonus“ does make some sense within the game as it is now for the „land combat“, I am not sure about carrier based air combat – or land based AC attacking a carrier TF for that matter.

As far as relative experience levels go, lets not forget that the AAF was just gearing up for a very rapid expansion at the outbreak of war and had any amount of problems getting pilots and planes. Many of the AAF pilots going to the Pacific where green as grass just out of training with very limited (if any) flying hours on the combat types. And a good number had never had any shooting training till they joined their squadrons.

As to relative performance of allied planes versus the Zero: Yes there was some flight testing done with captured Zeros, either in the „field“ and by NACA. The interesting part of the NACA report was, that only the P-39 finished all the tests (while for instance the P-40 developed mechanical trouble) – and the test concluded, that the P-39 could combat the Zero successfully, given the right circumstances. Trouble was, the pilots flying the bird did for the most part not believe in it and used to be more concerned with some of the stability and stall charactersitics of this plane.
Someone in this thread has quoted the numbers these tests indicate as best suited to take on the Zero. A close look at them reveals, that the aircraft types would need a very early warning to get to the indicated altitudes and airspeeds. Which in a way underlines my argument.

Unless a more „detailed“ implementation of offensive/defensive air combat can be found and implemented, I would rather like to keep the „Zero Bonus“, extend it to the other Japanese fighters and to compensate for the overall effect by reducing the experience/morale levels of the Japanese second line air units (like the units in Japan itself) to much lower levels – probably levels slightly higher than those „Training“ Chuties (SP?).

Just my 2c.
Cheers

[spence]

Here's my 2 cents.

The Zero bonus should be fleeting. It should extend to other IJN/IJA fighters as well.
It should also apply to the AVG and USN carrier based fighters. It would be a +3 to the manuever rating of the a/c involved (there might be . It ought to work like this:
For each A2A battle which occurs, there ought to be a check for applicability. The probability of it applying on Dec 7 1941 would be 99%. The next day the probability would be 98...the day after that 97%...and so on until the probability reaches 0% on the 100th day.

In A2A combat involving the AVG/US carrier fighters the applicability check would be made by both sides representing the use of experimental tactics that do (or do not work) in any given combat. It would be a matter of luck in such combat situations whether just one or both sides get the bonus.

All pilot experience levels of all pilots of all types of a/c should be lowered 10 pts or so. The IJN had better aerial torpedos and better torpedo planes (initially) but practicing torpedo drops against a weaving target surrounded by 10 ships belching fire directed at one's person was not part of any pilot training program in the IJN. IMHO bombing/torpedo attacks against ships are too accurate as well. For the initial attack on PH there maybe ought to be a "bombing bonus" for the IJN representing the fact that the US ships were not initially at Condition Zebra (modified) and their AA batteries were not manned. BTW the IJN had no similar system of prioritizing compartment access to use during combat which contributed to many of their damage control failures throughout the war.

I recognize that the only way any of this could come to pass would be through re-coding but what the heck. It felt good to say (type) it.[;)]

[Marten]

and my 2 cents (a bit OT)
every newly introduced plane should have its ratings lowered for a period of month or two. this will show the need to train and adjust pilots to the different flight characteristics of the new plane.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Marten

and my 2 cents (a bit OT)
every newly introduced plane should have its ratings lowered for a period of month or two. this will show the need to train and adjust pilots to the different flight characteristics of the new plane.

Actually, this is sort of modelled. They do it by not having ANY of the particular aircraft available for some months after it is introduced - thus lowering its stats to zero in every category (at least for the Allies). Witness the P-38 - available in real life before the war. Not available in regular game until October 1942 (although CHS does correct this somewhat). Other aircraft i've looked at also seem to have this feature. I haven't studied the Japanese situation, but it is not analagous since the Japanese player has research that can affect arrival times.

[mdiehl]

I've heard some wtf? ideas here but none strikes me as less well supported than the idea that the "Zero Bonus" imagined as it is should extend to Nates and Claudes.

The Claudes had a horrible combat record against first line opposition. It was the one plane in the Japanese naval arsenal that could make the Brewster Buffalo look like a great fighter. Claudes were only used successfully by the IJN against Russian biplanes (Polikaprov I-15s) flown by Italian-trained Chinese pilots in 1937. Top speed (with enough time to ramp that whopping 640 HP engine up to full bore) was 270 mph.

The Nates were scarcely better. Fixed-landing-gear underpowered Zekes. Think "Val" and you've got something close to the performance characteristics of the Nate. Any F4F, P-39, P-36, P-40, Hurricane or Spit could routinely eat the Nate's lunch. And did.

The loaded Ki-27 weighed 85% of the loaded weight of a P-36 but despite that was 30 mph slower, armed with two rifle caliber popguns, and could be outmaneuvered by most allied a/c at almost any airpseed owing to the high drage induced by its fixed landing gear.

There should be no zero bonus on the grounds of "having the initiative" unless you will extend an "Allied bonus" to all Allied aircraft starting in June 1942. This of course would be absurd because in any game "the initiative" is a post-hoc assessment of which player is controlling the game (which in theory ought to be anyone).

[mdiehl]

. I do think that Jap experience levels erode too quickly though and replacements should be bumped up a bit.

.

IMO Allied replacement experience for USN and USMC should be bumped up by a full ten points across the board, and USAAF and RAF, RAAF army pilots bumped a full ten points after 31 Dec 1942.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

...

As to relative performance of allied planes versus the Zero: Yes there was some flight testing done with captured Zeros, either in the „field“ and by NACA. The interesting part of the NACA report was, that only the P-39 finished all the tests (while for instance the P-40 developed mechanical trouble) – and the test concluded, that the P-39 could combat the Zero successfully, given the right circumstances. Trouble was, the pilots flying the bird did for the most part not believe in it and used to be more concerned with some of the stability and stall charactersitics of this plane.
Someone in this thread has quoted the numbers these tests indicate as best suited to take on the Zero. A close look at them reveals, that the aircraft types would need a very early warning to get to the indicated altitudes and airspeeds. Which in a way underlines my argument.

Unless a more „detailed“ implementation of offensive/defensive air combat can be found and implemented, I would rather like to keep the „Zero Bonus“, extend it to the other Japanese fighters and to compensate for the overall effect by reducing the experience/morale levels of the Japanese second line air units (like the units in Japan itself) to much lower levels – probably levels slightly higher than those „Training“ Chuties (SP?).

Just my 2c.
Cheers

Actually those tests you indicated (which are often quoted for obvious reasons) :
1) Prove that the P39 was a vastly better performer than the Zero in speed, acceleration and climb - below 14,000 feet and especially below 10,000 feet. Above that altitude the Zero held a distinct edge.
2) Only the P40F developed engine trouble and couldn't be tested - all other allied aircraft were fine when tested. (Wildcat, P38, etc)
3) The Zero's advantage in maneuverability was in all cases below 250 mph, which is bare cruising speed for P39's and P40's - so the time it would take them to get to an airspeed above the best speed range for the Zero would be negligible unless caught taking off/landing or just plain bounced (all of which are advantageous for any aircraft).

Now the P39 already has an altitude penalty in the game - The Only Plane in the game to have one - fine, but somehow they forgot to give the P-39 a good MVR rating below it's 10,000' penalty - why should it suffer even more?

Also, as ErikShilling (AVG pilot) points out, those tests with the Aleutian Zero were made with the Zero carrying no armament - a bit of an unrealistic weight advantage for the tests, so if that's the case the performance of the Zero in THAT test should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt.

Lastly, if the Zero Bonus is just a game device for the 'Early Japanese Offensive' it's a poor one because most of that air activity was done by other aircraft, and should be represented some other way if you believe the game engine cannot produce historic results (I trust the game engine).

Personally I kind of hate these 'game devices' to give 'flavor' to a game, it reminds me of 'Aryan' Hill board games that went for flavor over facts and statistics.

[John 3rd]

A lot of this discussion has been infuriating to read. American CVs were able to stand up to the Japanese at Coral Sea/Midway due to their hit-and-attacks in Jan-April where their pilots gained VALUABLE experience! That is whay helped them stand-up and do a better job. They had months to gain routine and/or combat experience before meeting up with the KB's elements.

My .02 would be this:

1. Lower XP rating across-the-board like what Ron suggests.
2. Keep the bonus for A6M2 and change out A3 slot for Oscar.
3. Shorten bonus from six months down to Dec-April 1st. Think of it as paralleling the Invasion Bonus.

[John 3rd]

I forgot to add the point mentioned earlier that the replacement pool should be increased to more reasonable amounts. I believe the proposal was:

IJ Army Pilots 40/Month
IJ Navy Pilots 25/Month

That seems slightly more reasonable to me.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

A lot of this discussion has been infuriating to read. American CVs were able to stand up to the Japanese at Coral Sea/Midway due to their hit-and-attacks in Jan-April where their pilots gained VALUABLE experience! That is whay helped them stand-up and do a better job. They had months to gain routine and/or combat experience before meeting up with the KB's elements.

My .02 would be this:

1. Lower XP rating across-the-board like what Ron suggests.
2. Keep the bonus for A6M2 and change out A3 slot for Oscar.
3. Shorten bonus from six months down to Dec-April 1st. Think of it as paralleling the Invasion Bonus.

So you're saying that between 4 US carriers and maybe 3 small raids before Coral sea that the US green aviators were able to train up to be on par with the excelent pre-war aviators who have for 5 months (PH, Darwin, Java sea, Indian Ocean, etc etc etc) been roaming the sea sinking dozens of ships and engaging hundreds of enemy planes? (ie, historically Japan was racking up exp faster than USN in early 42)

That doesn't make sense. Historically, USN aviators were at least equal to their Japanese counterparts. In the game they are no where near equal.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

A lot of this discussion has been infuriating to read. American CVs were able to stand up to the Japanese at Coral Sea/Midway due to their hit-and-attacks in Jan-April where their pilots gained VALUABLE experience! That is whay helped them stand-up and do a better job. They had months to gain routine and/or combat experience before meeting up with the KB's elements.

My .02 would be this:

1. Lower XP rating across-the-board like what Ron suggests.
2. Keep the bonus for A6M2 and change out A3 slot for Oscar.
3. Shorten bonus from six months down to Dec-April 1st. Think of it as paralleling the Invasion Bonus.

A purely technical note:
1) The bonus can't be changed - it's hard coded. The Bonus can only be swapped between planes or eradicated.

2) If it's an across the board Invasion Bonus now, when do the Allies get their Invasion Bonus for being on an unstoppable offensive?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I forgot to add the point mentioned earlier that the replacement pool should be increased to more reasonable amounts. I believe the proposal was:

IJ Army Pilots 40/Month
IJ Navy Pilots 25/Month

That seems slightly more reasonable to me.

This is funny. THe designers originally wanted NO trained pilots for the Japanese - all training was going to have to be "on the map". Someone said "oh lets be nice and give them some" and prevailed (probably to make the AI work, actually).

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

A lot of this discussion has been infuriating to read. American CVs were able to stand up to the Japanese at Coral Sea/Midway due to their hit-and-attacks in Jan-April where their pilots gained VALUABLE experience! That is whay helped them stand-up and do a better job. They had months to gain routine and/or combat experience before meeting up with the KB's elements.

My .02 would be this:

1. Lower XP rating across-the-board like what Ron suggests.
2. Keep the bonus for A6M2 and change out A3 slot for Oscar.
3. Shorten bonus from six months down to Dec-April 1st. Think of it as paralleling the Invasion Bonus.

A purely technical note:
1) The bonus can't be changed - it's hard coded. The Bonus can only be swapped between planes or eradicated.

2) If it's an across the board Invasion Bonus now, when do the Allies get their Invasion Bonus for being on an unstoppable offensive?

LST's have the best invasion bonus of all ships. Japan doesn't have them, so the US gets the advantage. And, only the US has Amphib Force HQ's, which give another invasion bonus. Add these two together and you get the same bonus Japan gets for 110 days. As a fanboy of historical accuracy, I do believe this is working very well.

(in CHS, there are a few japanese LST's, but not many and much smaller than their US counterparts)

[John 3rd]

Bradley--That is not what I meant in a complete manner. I think the American pilots on the fleet CVs were the best trained within the American forces; however, they were no where near the equal of the Japanese in thos early months. It took months of them flying BORING CAP, search, and ASW missions to increase their skills and then the small tastes of TRUE combat helped them to raise them even more.

I have not played the Allies in WitP yet. I am not sure where these pilots start with their starting scores. No doubt, they were the best that the Americans had. What do they start with for their initial stats?

[mdiehl]

however, they were no where near the equal of the Japanese in thos early months. It took months of them flying BORING CAP, search, and ASW missions to increase their skills and then the small tastes of TRUE combat helped them to raise them even more.

Nothing in your claim is correct. USN pilots trained extensively in aerial combat war games. Especially valable were the Army-Navy games where the F4Fs were engaged with P-40s and P-36s... aircraft whose inherent capabilities relative to the F4F rather nicely approximated the relationship between the F4F and the A6M. USN pilots were, well before the start of the war, better trained in dive bombing (it was the USN primary mode of attack, and dive bombing was INVENTED by the USN and copied by the Japanese and the Luftwaffe), better trained in deflection shooting, and flew a superior tactical formation than that of the Japanese IJN pilots.

There is absolutely no basis in fact for the claim that USN pilots were, on 7 December 1941, inferior in quality to any Japanese pilots.

In the very first engagement between an F4F unit and an IJN A6M unit, an unblooded squadron of USMC shot down more enemy aircraft than they lost. In that battle, 7 F4F pilots who had never flown ANY combat missions or CAP missions engaged a superior number of A6Ms, downing (by best estimates) three A6Ms while losing only ONE F4F to a Zeke.

That was Japan's best trained, most experienced A6M pilots fighting a rookie group of USMC pilots.

Your claim that American naval aviators were in any way inferior to Japanese ones at any point in the early war is not substantiated by the facts.