Air Combat Mod with test results

[Sardaukar]

Maybe make the accuracy for some planes like Nate higher while dropping the firepower ?

[Sardaukar]

BTW, I think Nik did that in his mod to compensate the effects for Ki-27 etc. He added accuracy to centerline MGs like nose-mounted MGs in Ki-27.

[DFalcon]

Test #14

I continued with the Oscar I vs bombers this time the Hudson I. Although losses were lower in the Mod I do not think they are unacceptable. I tracked damaged Hudsons as well and the numbers were virtually the same per dog fight; standard was 9.8 and the Mod was 10.2. I will run the B-17 vs the Oscar next.

Day Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 42

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 72

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 4 destroyed, 15 damaged
D3A Val: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 3 destroyed, 14 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
28 casualties reported

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 14

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

Defenders
72 Ki-43-Ib 80% Cap

Attackers
72 Hudson I

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

Ki-43-Ib 0.5 / 0.0
Hudson I 7.0 / 4.3
Airbase hits 28.6 / 18.0

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

BTW, I think Nik did that in his mod to compensate the effects for Ki-27 etc. He added accuracy to centerline MGs like nose-mounted MGs in Ki-27.

Do you know how much he adjusted it and did it have a good effect?

[DFalcon]

Test #15

Oscar I vs B17E. Things turned out pretty much as you would expect. Damaged B17s per dogfight was the same for both standard and the Mod at 17.8 per dog fight. The B-17s scored lots of base hits in both but less in the mod.

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 42

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 72

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 9 destroyed, 20 damaged
D3A Val: 12 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 21 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
90 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 91

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

Defenders
72 Ki-43-Ib 80% Cap

Attackers
72 B-17E

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

Ki-43-Ib 3.1 / 1.5
B-17E 1.0 / 0.1
Airbase hits 77.2 / 59.0

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

Do you know how much he adjusted it and did it have a good effect?

Donno right now, but it's mentioned in readme of his mod. You can d/l it from Spooky's and check the database.

[Sardaukar]

Any further testing done, DFalcon ?? Or are you as busy with Xmas as I am...[:D] I prefer New Years Eve anytime...[8D]

[DFalcon]

Yes, my apologies. It is not Xmas but preparations for a trip.

I will get some B-17 test done before I go, but it will be January before I get back at it seriously. I was going to post this with the next results, but your question makes it much easier. [:)]

[DFalcon]

Test #16

The Japs favourite Tony vs B17E. The B-17 can still be hurt by the higher firepower Tony. Losses are down in the Mod, but not alarmingly. Damaged planes is again about the same, 14.1 per battle with standard data, 15.2 with the Mod data. The Mod recorded more hits on the airfields but this was due to 2 missions being turned back using standard data.

Perhaps having the Nate and Oscar unable to threaten the high durability 4E bombers is not such a bad side effect if the more modern fighters still can.

Day Air attack on Lae , at 54,87

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 57

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 61

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 3 destroyed, 17 damaged
D3A Val: 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 9 destroyed, 21 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
80 casualties reported

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 30

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

Defenders
72 KAIc 80% Cap

Attackers
72 B-17E

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

KAIc 1.5 / 0.7
B-17E 8.0 / 6.5
Airbase hits 40.7 / 42.6

[Sardaukar]

Looks very good so far !! What do you think about increasing accuracy of MG-only armed planes (Nik-mod style) to make them to have at least some success against heavy bombers..meaning turning back planes by damaging them ? Or is that needed ?

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Looks very good so far !! What do you think about increasing accuracy of MG-only armed planes (Nik-mod style) to make them to have at least some success against heavy bombers..meaning turning back planes by damaging them ? Or is that needed ?

That is a good question. I am liking the results so far, but it is hard for me to be objective.

The Oscar and Nate were able to bring down Hudsons and Blienhems and the Wirraway was able to down the Ki-49. The Oscar had problems downing the B17 and B25. This is not really that bad a result. I think more testing needs to be run with the Nate, Oscar, Buffalo etc. but looking back on the data the Mod is looking good to me.

Another reason I am reluctant to make modifications to just one weapon type instead of across the board changes is avoid balance issues. The goal of the mod is to prolong air supremicy battles by reducing casualties and making the effect of being out classed technology wise less decisive. If I can do this with generic modifications to all the data with out targeting specific weapons or platforms I can avoid introducing a bias and make the Mod more acceptable to all camps. Also if the Mod does work it would be easier to apply the same changes to other Mods.

I am a believer in simple solutions. If the solution starts getting more complicated, then maybe it is not the solution after all.

[Sardaukar]

Well, Oscar should have problems downing B17 and B25 etc...[:)]. Buffalos are fine since they have more of those large caliber MGs and so not that big issue.

I agree that simple solutions are usually best. Only problem I can foresee is that heavy bombers might start to dominate the game and IJ would have very big problem defending bases against air raids.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Only problem I can foresee is that heavy bombers might start to dominate the game and IJ would have very big problem defending bases against air raids.

The heavy bombers may require a different solution. My hope is that the reduced bomb loads would help address this issue. It does have an effect, is it enough is the question.

I think the heavy bombers, like the rapid base grabing by the Japanese in the early game is something that should be player controled or house ruled. I am not sure a Mod alone can fix these issues as they are as much a matter of player approach as anything else.

[el cid again]

I agree that simple solutions are usually best. Only problem I can foresee is that heavy bombers might start to dominate the game and IJ would have very big problem defending bases against air raids.

In Uncommon Valor we used to say that "the best fighter plane is the B-17" ! Players would send them just to beat up CAP.

[el cid again]

The heavy bombers may require a different solution. My hope is that the reduced bomb loads would help address this issue. It does have an effect, is it enough is the question.

That is a really really bad idea. Not because it might not work, but because it is bad data - an inherantly wrong way to deal with software - in particular in a historical game. You are misrepresenting the truth to anyone who looks at the plane data - and thus teaching falsehoods.

It is one thing to mess with the accuracy of a weapon - or anything like that - hidden from view and completely a function of assumptions in the first place. It is quite another to mess with visible data, and data which inherantly should be verifiable from reference books. This is the wrong solution to a problem - however well intentioned.

I have problems with errors in WITP - both factual errors and modeling errors - as everyone knows. I favor MAJOR changes to fix them and I refuse to play until the severe ones are fixed. But introducing MORE factual errors is not really a move in the right direction.

[Andrew Brown]

I still like the look of these tests. I don't think I will push for the introduction of these mods into the current CHS update, as they should be tested more thoroughly first, and I don't think there is an agreement to do so, but I plan on adding them to a CHS "experimental" variant, along with the ideas I posted in the thread about eliminating the Zero bonus. I then hope to playtest the changes in PBEM.

I would like to ask a favour - is it possible to run another test in relation to a current "hot topic" - air to air tests between Zeroes (A6M2, A6M3) and Wildcats (F4F-3, F4F-4)?

Thanks,
Andrew

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I would like to ask a favour - is it possible to run another test in relation to a current "hot topic" - air to air tests between Zeroes (A6M2, A6M3) and Wildcats (F4F-3, F4F-4)?

Thanks,
Andrew

Test #1 and #2 were A6M2 vs the F4F-4. Also test #11 and #12 the uber cap test was this match up. I was happy with the results as it made it a pretty even fight, at least more even that the stock data. I would like to run more test with this match up as it really is the heart of the conflict for me.

I will be away until January 9th and will pick up the testing then. I am pleased with how things are looking with this Mod, but more testing will tell.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: DFalcon
Test #1 and #2 were A6M2 vs the F4F-4. Also test #11 and #12 the uber cap test was this match up. I was happy with the results as it made it a pretty even fight, at least more even that the stock data. I would like to run more test with this match up as it really is the heart of the conflict for me.

That will teach me not to review the thread before posting!

Did the Zero bonus apply to those tests? It would be interesting to see test with and without the bonus.

Andrew

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


[Did the Zero bonus apply to those tests? It would be interesting to see test with and without the bonus.

Andrew

I advanced the date past the bonus date in my test bed so the Zero bonus should not apply in any of teh tests. I wanted as clean a test of the modifications as I could get.

See you in three weeks.

[Sardaukar]

Eh..why Zero bonus *has* to be removed ?? Against AI IJ in current (1.06) version AI cannot even capture Hongkong... All improvements seem to go only to Allied side..and while I exlusively play Allied vs. AI I'm not comfortable to weaken IJ even more. If Zero bonus is removed, CHS will be PBEM-only... And that's pity because it does have good potential even against AI.