Ruminating about the Zero bonus...

[Berkut]

So, I was thinking about this, and refelcting on Fire in the Sky which I recently finished reading.

And I was thinking about the "Zero bonus", and the Zero itself, fighter doctrine, and aircraft design.

So bear with me, or not. I am going to ramble a bit, I think, but hopefully it will come back together at some point...

A point made in FITS is that the Japanese military, and especially the IJN pilots had a LOT of influence on the design of the Zero. Indeed, it is common to hear US pilots remark on how easy and pleasant it is to fly when they were given a chance. FITS makes the point that the development of the Zero actually suffered becasue the designers gave the pilots what they wanted, rather than what made a good weapon. In the abscence of information to the contrary (and China certianly was no great proving fround for figuring this stuff out), it seemed reasonable to design a fighter that fighter pilots liked to fly.

And what do fighter pilots like to fly? Nimble, fast, *fun* aircraft. Which the Zero was. But that is not what makes a fighter a good *weapon* - far from it in fact. A good weapon is one which combines lethality with durability and excellence at fighting the enemy on terms favorable to you.

Now, what make a fighter better than some other fighter? In a very simplistic, general sense, fighter A is better than fighter B if all other things being equal, fighter A has a better chance of shooting down Fighter B than the reverse. However, there is one caveat to this.

What if it is the case that Fighter A is MUCH better than fighter B, but only if both sides fight in a certain manner? Of course, I am referring to the "turning fight" that the Zero is so well known for. Now, we all know now that the Zero is a better turning aircraft than just about anything the US had early and mid-war. Hell, even the US knew that. It snot like this was a surprise.

The thing that I think amde the Zero so successful early on is that when it comes to doctrine, it was designed to fight well in what I would call a "natural" style of fighting. In the "simple" doctrine, you get into a fight, and if the bad guy turns away from you, you try to follow him. That is the "natural" reaction, absent training to the contrary. I hypothesize that if you took two identical pilots and placed one in a Zero and one in a Allied plane like a P-40 or F4F, all other things being equal and both pilots being untrained in any kind of "doctrine", the Zero pilot will win, because his plane is better at the obvious doctrine. The planes engage, someone turns, someoen follows, and the Zero wins that fight. The P-40 is better at high speed, slashing attacks, but that is not necessarily "intuitive".

Now, if both pilots have some experience and training, and know better how to recognize doctrine, style of fighting, and such, you could see a different result. While the dogfighting superioroty of the Zero makes it able to succeed in the turning fight, the turning fight is one that demands that the opponenet play along. You cannot force someone to engage in a turning fight if they do not want to - and eventually the Allies figured this out, and would simply refuse to engage. And those that did engage in that manner, died.

It is almost like we need another attribute of squadrons, or pilots, or maybe even leaders...their doctrinal ability. The ability to force the opponent to fight a battle on terms that accentuate your advantages and minimize your liabilities.

A Zero is a lot better than a P-40 in a turning fight, but a P-40 is equal or even better if it can avoid that kind of fight. If we assume that the turning dogfight is the "default" combat that tends to occur when relatively low doctrinal opponenets engage one another (or when high doctrinal Japanese engage lower doctrinal Allies), then early in the war the Japanese high doctrine leaders/pilots will do very well against the low doctrine Allies, *seperate* from their "experience"/skill attribute, which would simply describe how good they are at executing a doctrine in combat, even if it si the "wrong" doctrine.

As the war continues, Allied pilots/leaders become better at refusing the turning fight, and their aircraft become more able to compete in a turning fight even if they do get into one. Japanese leaders attrit, and are replaced by those who are not as adept at avoiding the Allied superior doctrine of the slash and pass, etc. So you end up with the result we expect (Zeroes being *generally* tough for the Allies, but not always if the Allies have leaders that understand how to fight them), while not making the "bonus" effect EVERY allied squadron, since it seems that some actually did quite well, even during the "bonus" time.

For anyone who hung in there through all that, thanks.

[worr]

I'm just finishing up reading the book. I find it stocked full of information, but very disjointed overall. I reads more like a gathering of post it notes.

But as for the Zero bonus....I think it is stil lOK in the game.

Worr, out

[Berkut]

Yeah, I would certianly agree worr. The book is well researched, well written, and poorly organized.

[medicff]

I agree as well that the zero bonus works well in the game becoming less and less of an issue. However, I assume from the "book" that you are saying the zero bonus should also be coded in as a 'random' whether it will affect a certain fight. But then does it 'randomly' affect squadrons or just battles? Too much to think about...just keep it like it is. My vote. [:D]

[Honda]

Still think the bonus should be kept and extended to Oscar via the slot change with A6M3.

[Sardaukar]

I agree with Honda. It works well in game, IMHO.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm generally OK with the bonus considering all the vagaries it is trying to simulate but I'd love to see pilot experience levels reduced across the board and make it difficult to attain the 90s level. I can't believe how high the levels are for pilots who have not even seen combat. If Welch is a 93, what should Hartmann's experience rating be?

[Sardaukar]

True that. Experience gain is way too high too. I don't think that all pilots in unit should get 99 after month of combat..or even after year of combat.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

So, I was thinking about this, and refelcting on Fire in the Sky which I recently finished reading.

And I was thinking about the "Zero bonus", and the Zero itself, fighter doctrine, and aircraft design.

So bear with me, or not. I am going to ramble a bit, I think, but hopefully it will come back together at some point...

A point made in FITS is that the Japanese military, and especially the IJN pilots had a LOT of influence on the design of the Zero. Indeed, it is common to hear US pilots remark on how easy and pleasant it is to fly when they were given a chance. FITS makes the point that the development of the Zero actually suffered becasue the designers gave the pilots what they wanted, rather than what made a good weapon. In the abscence of information to the contrary (and China certianly was no great proving fround for figuring this stuff out), it seemed reasonable to design a fighter that fighter pilots liked to fly.

And what do fighter pilots like to fly? Nimble, fast, *fun* aircraft. Which the Zero was. But that is not what makes a fighter a good *weapon* - far from it in fact. A good weapon is one which combines lethality with durability and excellence at fighting the enemy on terms favorable to you.

Now, what make a fighter better than some other fighter? In a very simplistic, general sense, fighter A is better than fighter B if all other things being equal, fighter A has a better chance of shooting down Fighter B than the reverse. However, there is one caveat to this.

What if it is the case that Fighter A is MUCH better than fighter B, but only if both sides fight in a certain manner? Of course, I am referring to the "turning fight" that the Zero is so well known for. Now, we all know now that the Zero is a better turning aircraft than just about anything the US had early and mid-war. Hell, even the US knew that. It snot like this was a surprise.

The thing that I think amde the Zero so successful early on is that when it comes to doctrine, it was designed to fight well in what I would call a "natural" style of fighting. In the "simple" doctrine, you get into a fight, and if the bad guy turns away from you, you try to follow him. That is the "natural" reaction, absent training to the contrary. I hypothesize that if you took two identical pilots and placed one in a Zero and one in a Allied plane like a P-40 or F4F, all other things being equal and both pilots being untrained in any kind of "doctrine", the Zero pilot will win, because his plane is better at the obvious doctrine. The planes engage, someone turns, someoen follows, and the Zero wins that fight. The P-40 is better at high speed, slashing attacks, but that is not necessarily "intuitive".

Now, if both pilots have some experience and training, and know better how to recognize doctrine, style of fighting, and such, you could see a different result. While the dogfighting superioroty of the Zero makes it able to succeed in the turning fight, the turning fight is one that demands that the opponenet play along. You cannot force someone to engage in a turning fight if they do not want to - and eventually the Allies figured this out, and would simply refuse to engage. And those that did engage in that manner, died.

It is almost like we need another attribute of squadrons, or pilots, or maybe even leaders...their doctrinal ability. The ability to force the opponent to fight a battle on terms that accentuate your advantages and minimize your liabilities.

A Zero is a lot better than a P-40 in a turning fight, but a P-40 is equal or even better if it can avoid that kind of fight. If we assume that the turning dogfight is the "default" combat that tends to occur when relatively low doctrinal opponenets engage one another (or when high doctrinal Japanese engage lower doctrinal Allies), then early in the war the Japanese high doctrine leaders/pilots will do very well against the low doctrine Allies, *seperate* from their "experience"/skill attribute, which would simply describe how good they are at executing a doctrine in combat, even if it si the "wrong" doctrine.

As the war continues, Allied pilots/leaders become better at refusing the turning fight, and their aircraft become more able to compete in a turning fight even if they do get into one. Japanese leaders attrit, and are replaced by those who are not as adept at avoiding the Allied superior doctrine of the slash and pass, etc. So you end up with the result we expect (Zeroes being *generally* tough for the Allies, but not always if the Allies have leaders that understand how to fight them), while not making the "bonus" effect EVERY allied squadron, since it seems that some actually did quite well, even during the "bonus" time.

For anyone who hung in there through all that, thanks.

A good analysis, but you left out one point about 'natural' instinct, and that is pilots go into combat at 'Full Military Power' and leave it there. They go to full power only because they can't go higher than that (physical impossibility).
At high speed a Zero looses it's sparkling maneuverability. So your analysis does not always hold up.

[Skyros]

One issue that has not been addressed concerning the Bonus and what it could represent is the fact that the Japanese pilots had been together for a very long time. This allowed them to develop an instinct as to what their wingman would or would not do. As time went on and attrition set in this "instinct" was lost as new pilots filled in the ranks. I can't remember which book this was in, I will look tonight. It could have been Sunburst. Been reading to much lately.

[Nikademus]

Sunburst (Peatte) and First Team vol I (Lundstrom)

The 3 plane Shotai element worked fine but was a more difficult formation to work vs. finger four. As long as the pilots were experienced, no issues....with newbies in the formation.....problems could occur.

[Skyros]

Thanks Nik, been reading so much pacific WWII since playing this game I tend to forget. Currently reading Samurai, Japan's War by Edwin Hoyt. Cant wait for Christmas when I get to read Shattered Sword.

[aletoledo]

a lot of books for me to pick up now.

from my small experience, the zero bonus helps but isn't the end all. so I think its working as it should historically. I agree with Ron Saueracker though and I think experience should be dropped about 20 points across the board.

[Tom Hunter]

Berkut,

Nice job summarizing many of the reason why I think the Zero bonus is appropriate in the game.

You also hit on something that I feel was missed in the design, which is the importance of doctrine. If I were re-designing the game I would put doctrine in and reduce the importance of experience.

I think that was an important miss in the thinking behind the game. Experience is a good idea, but doctrine is a better one.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

One issue that has not been addressed concerning the Bonus and what it could represent is the fact that the Japanese pilots had been together for a very long time. This allowed them to develop an instinct as to what their wingman would or would not do. As time went on and attrition set in this "instinct" was lost as new pilots filled in the ranks. I can't remember which book this was in, I will look tonight. It could have been Sunburst. Been reading to much lately.

This is already represented as increased exp over other nationalities. And, this implies that allied pilots didn't fly together for very long. And, by this theory, the Brits, Aussies, and Kiwi's should be gods in their planes as they actually fought vs (probably) the best fighter pilots in the world at the time (Germans). (not sure about the Aussies and Kiwis. I know the grunts had exp, maybe not their pilots?)

[Skyros]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

This is already represented as increased exp over other nationalities. And, this implies that allied pilots didn't fly together for very long. And, by this theory, the Brits, Aussies, and Kiwi's should be gods in their planes as they actually fought vs (probably) the best fighter pilots in the world at the time (Germans). (not sure about the Aussies and Kiwis. I know the grunts had exp, maybe not their pilots?)

I understand what you are saying Brad but the best of the best of the best were still in Britain guarding against the invasion that would never be launched. The brits starved the North African Front to maintain Fighter command.

The americans in PI were mostly green new units and I would not be surprised if the British, Aussie, Dutch and NZ were recently formed or organized. The Japanese squadrons had been together for years including combat against the Chinese, which despite their inexperience does count for something.

[Nikademus]

There were a sprinking of BoB veterans in the MAF at war's start in the Pacific but the majority of the pilots did not have combat experience.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

This is already represented as increased exp over other nationalities. And, this implies that allied pilots didn't fly together for very long. And, by this theory, the Brits, Aussies, and Kiwi's should be gods in their planes as they actually fought vs (probably) the best fighter pilots in the world at the time (Germans). (not sure about the Aussies and Kiwis. I know the grunts had exp, maybe not their pilots?)

I understand what you are saying Brad but the best of the best of the best were still in Britain guarding against the invasion that would never be launched. The brits starved the North African Front to maintain Fighter command.

The americans in PI were mostly green new units and I would not be surprised if the British, Aussie, Dutch and NZ were recently formed or organized. The Japanese squadrons had been together for years including combat against the Chinese, which despite their inexperience does count for something.

I can shoot a pig in a pen, but that doesn't mean I can shoot a deer running through the forest at 250 yards. I'd have to argue that fighting a vastly inferior opponent would make you less capable vs an equal opponent. You tend to learn bad habits.

And, what combat experience do the Japanese really have? Of the 2,000 pilots at the start of the war, how many were aces? did the Chinese actually have 10,000 planes shot down? How many ships did Japanese bombers actually sink prior to Pearl Harbor? How do you train to fight modern planes by fighting crap?

I don't know the numbers, but I would be very interested in seeing how many aircraft from both sides were lost in A2A between 12/7/41 and 4/30/42. Is it really 500 allied to 50 Japanese?

[John III]

This debate went is going on in the CHS thread on removing the Zero bonus. My vote is to:
1. Keep the bonus.
2. Move the Oscar to the A3 slot so it gets the bonus as well.
3. Lower experience cross-the-board.

[spence]

Agree for the most part with John III but think maybe durabilities of Japanese a/c may be a bit too high in general. Hard to imagine the G4M1 "Ronson" being anywhere close to the IL2m3 Sturmovik "Flying Tank" {Betty durability =36, Sturmovik =41}