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

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, These are results from PBEM game Sept 1943. Notice Allied fighters are not doing that bad.
1700 Allied fighters lost in A2A compared to 3200 Japanese fighters lost in A2A

These are not test results but actual WITP human versus human results.

Obviously people have no problem in their campaigns vs people, I can only atest to what it produced for me.

The conclusion I came to was that the ZB didn't matter much - Pilot Exp was EVERYTHING - which no doubt explains why the game produced different loss rates for default pilot values vs what people can achieve playing a long campaign - PILOT EXPERIENCE.

The only other question I have not seen satisfactorily answered is "What really happened in the first few months of 1942?" vs "what the game produces with Allied vs Japanese exp ratings at that stage of the game".

That requires historical research....

[mogami]

Hi, I think you assigned the Allied groups too low experiance. The USN fighter groups are all over 60 at start with many pilots in 80's and 90's. Even the Dutch have time to train to the 55 level. There is only a very short very location specific period when the Japanese have a large edge in experiance and then only if the IJN groups are employed. Many Allied units have higher starting experiance compared to IJA groups.

[jwilkerson]

Ditto - PBEM results from stock PBEM July 1943 ... significantly less bloody war on our part ...
Allied A2A fighter losses = about 1600
Japanese A2A fighter losses = about 1300

[Big B]

When i ran this test however, it was June 1942 - no ZB.
IJN units exp was 75
USN F4F units exp was 75

air battles were with equal numbers, and the F4Fs fared particularly poorly for equal exp with the Zeros (both at 75)

ORIGINAL: Big B

So I ran the same test as before - the same 6 Daitai vs the same 6 American Sqdns, this time starting on June 1st 1942 - No Zero Bonus.
The only thing else different in this test was that the Japanese default pilot quality dropped from an average of 81 or 82 previously to an average start of 75 (range was 70 to 80).

Results without the zero bonus in effect: 78 Zeros destroyed a2a vs 189 F4F4s and P40Es.

Looks like a slight drop in kill ratios from a solid 3 to 1 previously to about 2.5 to 1 favoring the Zero.

So that appears to be the Zero Bonus - they destroy about the same number of good allied fighters either way, but take about 16% to 17% more losses without the Bonus.

From the way I look at it, 16% losses more or less taken by the Zeros is almost inconsequential compared to the fact that the game engine (as of the last official patch - 1.62# ?) kills good allied fighters at 2.5 to 3:1 rate overall, even in June 1942.

I don't know the exact loss rate for P40s and F4Fs due to fighter combat in 1942, that will be the next step to investigate.

Regardless - that kind of kill rate seems awfully high to me.

[mogami]

Hi, In another game Oct 42
1044 Allied fighters shot down in A2A versus 331 Japanese fighters.
Of these 582 are P-40/F4F and of course they account for the majority of Japanese fighters lost.

[Berkut]

I am beginning to suspect that this is much ado about nothing.

What is the problem that needs fixing here?

[tabpub]

2 days from the end of '42 here.
Heaviest fighting was in the Burma area, as you can see by the accompanying table.
Though, pilot loss was not so bad, as most of the engagements were on our side of the fence; needed a lot of rotation of units though to keep up the fight effectively.
On the other fronts, the need to recover North Australia in mid '42 and the fact that the PNG/Solomons has been enemy held since early '42 have limited the friction points for the US/ANZAC forces, so there has been little opportunity for them to fight over the last 6 months. 1943 should be a wing-ding of a year, though.

As to the 'Zero Bonus'; it's a general non-factor. In this and the other 3x3 game I am in, no one is winning/losing due to it. In fact, I believe that it hurts the IJ somewhat...I know, heresy!....it's just that it seems to encourage them to overuse these planes, mainly to their detriment. Look at the ops losses and such; they are losing almost as many in that category as in a2a, mainly due to reckless (IMO) usage.
Now, as another example from the other game (3x3 F&L AAR) is a recent fight over PM.
IJAAF had been bombing PM mercilessly from Lae; they let up for 2 days due to weather and 2 squadrons of Kitty I's slipped in to contest the air again:

04/25/42
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91
Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 14
A6M2 Zero x 19
A6M3 Zero x 8
Ki-21 Sally x 38
Ki-49 Helen x 15
Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 21
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-N Rufe: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 5 destroyed, 4 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 2 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk I: 6 destroyed, 3 damaged
Allied ground losses:
21 casualties reported
Runway hits 6
Port hits 1
Port supply hits 1
Aircraft Attacking:
All Ki-21 Sally bombing at 10000 feet

ZB still in slight effect now, these were new squadrons with little fighting experience (in low-mid 60's), had just transferred into PM taking 12 fatigue up into the air with them and outnumbered 21 to 41.
They did lose the 6 indicated and post day confirmation was 4 Zeros, 4 Rufes, 2 Helens and 2 Sallies to a2a combat (flak got the other 3 Sallies). The Japanese player(s) would have to post what the experience/fatigue levels for their planes were. Fatigue on their part should be less, as they hadn't flown a mission for 2 days.

My experience from the game.
"Don't fear the Zero Bonus" <sung to the tune of BOC's "Don't fear the Reaper">.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Big B

When i ran this test however, it was June 1942 - no ZB.
IJN units exp was 75
USN F4F units exp was 75

air battles were with equal numbers, and the F4Fs fared particularly poorly for equal exp with the Zeros (both at 75)

ORIGINAL: Big B

So I ran the same test as before - the same 6 Daitai vs the same 6 American Sqdns, this time starting on June 1st 1942 - No Zero Bonus.
The only thing else different in this test was that the Japanese default pilot quality dropped from an average of 81 or 82 previously to an average start of 75 (range was 70 to 80).

Results without the zero bonus in effect: 78 Zeros destroyed a2a vs 189 F4F4s and P40Es.

Looks like a slight drop in kill ratios from a solid 3 to 1 previously to about 2.5 to 1 favoring the Zero.

So that appears to be the Zero Bonus - they destroy about the same number of good allied fighters either way, but take about 16% to 17% more losses without the Bonus.

From the way I look at it, 16% losses more or less taken by the Zeros is almost inconsequential compared to the fact that the game engine (as of the last official patch - 1.62# ?) kills good allied fighters at 2.5 to 3:1 rate overall, even in June 1942.

I don't know the exact loss rate for P40s and F4Fs due to fighter combat in 1942, that will be the next step to investigate.

Regardless - that kind of kill rate seems awfully high to me.

Hi, Why does Japan show almost twice as many sorties flown?

[mdiehl]

What is the problem that needs fixing here?

Varied. At the least a broken A2A model that substantially favors A6Ms over F4Fs in the early part of the war. I am swayed by the observation that the ZB only accounts for about 15% of the error, so "fix something else" (instead or in addition) seems warranted.

I believe that it hurts the IJ somewhat...I know, heresy

Not "heresy," just illogical. It's an (antihistorical, unjustified) advantage regardless of whether or not the Japanese player squanders it somehow.

[Big B]

The Zero bonus is in my opinion now "much ado about nothing"

What I do think is wrong is a general 3 to 1 loss rate in a2a combat early in the war "WHEN THE NUMBERS ARE EQUAL OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ALLIES"

I do not believe that accurately reflects what happened under those circumstances.

I will repeat, I want to investigate what really happened.

I suspect that I will find that the Japanese early air victories had everything to do with superior numbers and surprise over airfields - not superior pilots per say when engaged on equal numeric terms.

If my assumption is accurate - then Japanese pilots start with too much exp. If my assumption is inaccurate and the Japanese enjoyed no such superior numbers, then everything is fine.

[mogami]

Hi, Mike in early part of war F4F have near to the same experiance as IJN A6M2 (better then many of the starting CV/CVL Daitai but inferiour only to Hiryu/Soryu/Kaga and Akagi if not equal to these)
However starting USN CV have Buffalo in 1 case and in all cases max size is 27 so USN can only put up 81 fighters in early battles versus over 200 Japanese.

If USN waits for group size to increase to 36 and keeps all 6 CV together USN has 210 fighters (5xCV at 36 plus Wasp at 30) All these pilots will be trained. The IJN if they keep groups at full strength will have 20 percent untrained pilots. This is June/July 42 time frame.

Prior to then there is little area for USN/USMC groups to engage in combat unless Japanese are operating in Central Pacific beyond historic limits.

USN CV operating against Japanese land based groups have to be carefull not to bite off too much but if they conduct good recon and are not out numbered they are able to both protect their TF and escort strikes and keep a postive kill ratio. (Makes no sense to attack where your over whelmed)

Many of the P-40/F4F killed in A2A in WITP are flying as bombers.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Big B

The Zero bonus is in my opinion now "much ado about nothing"

What I do think is wrong is a general 3 to 1 loss rate in a2a combat early in the war "WHEN THE NUMBERS ARE EQUAL OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ALLIES"

I do not believe that accurately reflects what happened under those circumstances.

I will repeat, I want to investigate what really happened.

I suspect that I will find that the Japanese early air victories had everything to do with superior numbers and surprise over airfields - not superior pilots per say when engaged on equal numeric terms.

If my assumption is accurate - then Japanese pilots start with too much exp. If my assumption is inaccurate and the Japanese enjoyed no such superior numbers, then everything is fine.

Hi, I think all the pilots are over rated. I think a 70 should be a really great pilot with 40-50 your normal pre combat but trained pilot.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Big B

What I do think is wrong is a general 3 to 1 loss rate in a2a combat early in the war "WHEN THE NUMBERS ARE EQUAL OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ALLIES"

I do not believe that accurately reflects what happened under those circumstances.

I am waiting for some data that suggests that

1. The Japanese typically enjoy a 3:1 loss ratio is WitP when all things are otherwise equal, and
2. What the "correct" loss ratio ought to be for this time frame.

So far, I have seen very little data on either of these issues.

[jwilkerson]

Hi, I think all the pilots are over rated. I think a 70 should be a really great pilot with 40-50 your normal pre combat but trained pilot.

But if either side can get airbases within 0-1 hexes of enemy troops - then one can "train up" fighter units ( by flying the ground strike mission ) pretty quickly into the 80s and even 90s ... (1-2 months .. if whether is good and you can fly everyday then closer to 1 month) ... the 0-1 hex range is important because otherwise you accumulate fatigue and moral lowering and have to stop flying to avoid losses. But in good whether area with 0-1 hex range, you can fly everyday with no losses and train up very quickly.

This whole "training" thing seems invalid to me. My primary focus each game turn is deciding which squadrons can fly training missions and which must stand down ) as I don't have many 1 hex range situations ) ... training up to 80-90 for fighters should probably only be possible with a2a type missions .. not "ground strike" missions ... better training system would require overhaul .. and may not happen .. but current system "rules" the game and seems strange.

But I agree - I would like to see it very hard to get anyone beyond 70 ... oh and the other "trick" is for bombers to carry cargo from one end of their runway to the other end of their runway .. this can train them up to high 70s pretty quickly ... and 80s is do-able ( 2-3 months ).

[kkoovvoo]

A6M vs F4F or P40:

One of the problem I think outbalances the model in favour of Zero is how the game handles damage to the aircrafts.

Fact that zero has durability 22 and armor 0 and P40 and F4F have durabilty 29 and armor 1 is ok.

But do you see any difference in toughness in combat?

When zero is hit by F4F or P40, it is almost always destroyed. When F4F or P40 is hit by zero they are almost always destroyed. These fighters are very rarely damaged when fighting mutually. Hitting enemy plane results in its destruction in 95 % of cases.

Higher durability and armor of US fighters apparently doesnt make proper difference in the game.

[mogami]

Hi, well there you go. I know all about this I have opponents who refuse to capture isolated bases just so they can fly easy bombing missions. Each turn 200 aircraft bomb.
If were going to start including exploits and gamey play were never going to be able to understand the model.

every single game system ever invented produces players who find ways around the system.

[doktorblood]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's not "statistically trivial" IMO. IN face to face encounters between the F4F and the A6M the F4F consistently won or achieved a draw. These include Coral Sea, Midway VMF, Midway USN, and 4 months of consistent air combat over Guadalcanal. The only clear cut victory was at Wake in Dec 1941. In light of the VMF F4Fs victory at Midway, I'd say that Wake and Midway VMF come out as a wash.

I've covered in some detail reasons why the USN did quite well. Better training at deflection shooting and better tactical doctrine being a big part of that. My suggestion all along has been that the flaws in the A2A model affects the game strategically because it makes risking Allied CVs against comparable numbers of Japanese CVs a very inadvisable idea. That is why I have suggested that part of the deal is to eliminate the Zero bonus.

You are supporting your claims by citing historical actions that are all outside of the Zero bonus time period. Not germane to the zero bonus question. A favourite trick of yours, it would seem. Inadmissible .... You have my ruling.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's not "statistically trivial" IMO. IN face to face encounters between the F4F and the A6M the F4F consistently won or achieved a draw. These include Coral Sea, Midway VMF, Midway USN, and 4 months of consistent air combat over Guadalcanal. The only clear cut victory was at Wake in Dec 1941. In light of the VMF F4Fs victory at Midway, I'd say that Wake and Midway VMF come out as a wash.

I've covered in some detail reasons why the USN did quite well. Better training at deflection shooting and better tactical doctrine being a big part of that. My suggestion all along has been that the flaws in the A2A model affects the game strategically because it makes risking Allied CVs against comparable numbers of Japanese CVs a very inadvisable idea. That is why I have suggested that part of the deal is to eliminate the Zero bonus.

You are supporting your claims by citing historical actions that are all outside of the Zero bonus time period. Not germane to the zero bonus question. A favourite trick of yours, it would seem. Inadmissible .... You have my ruling.

Mdiehl has said many times that there are no historical conflicts between A6M and F4F that are within the WITP ZB time frame (the one exception is Wake, but only 3 or 4 F4F vs Hiryu and Soryu isn't a good example). He has also said that if initial engagements show F4F hold their own or do better than A6M, then how can you justify ZB early in the war? There is no data early in the war to justify ZB vs F4F. The only data that is relevant is the data Mdiehl is quoting, although it is outside of the date range of the ZB.

Do all of us a favor and find data, similar to Mdiel's, that justify the existence of the ZB. He has already provided all the data he can that shows the ZB is un-historical, at least vs F4F.

[mdiehl]

You are supporting your claims by citing historical actions that are all outside of the Zero bonus time period. Not germane to the zero bonus question.

Definitely germane for several reasons.
1. They're the only data available.
2. Favoring a Zero bonus against the F4F is not supported by any data of any kind and is therefore illogical.
3. For reasons given on several occasions Zero pilot training and doctrine was inferior to USN pilot training and doctrine before the war even began.

Now, you may correctly note that these engagements occurred after April. It does not follow that the absence of evidence for the period prior to May justifies the existence of the Zero bonus. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but at the same time absence of evidence is not evidence of presence, logically speaking. Absence of evidence means you really don't have information.

You are left with:
1. Evidence that flatly contradicts the notion of Zero+pliot superiority over Wildcat+pilot on or after May 1942.
2. No evidence for period prior to same.
3. Anecdotal evidence that explains why, when the A6M and F4F finally met in combat, the F4Fs fared as well or better than the Zeros.

Given 1-3, to conclude "Therefore a Zero bonus prior to May 1942" is exceedingly illogical.

A favourite trick of yours, it would seem.

Ad hominem, non sequitur.

Inadmissible .... You have my ruling.

As with most such peremptory "rulings," it carries no weight with me.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Big B

When i ran this test however, it was June 1942 - no ZB.
IJN units exp was 75
USN F4F units exp was 75

air battles were with equal numbers, and the F4Fs fared particularly poorly for equal exp with the Zeros (both at 75)

ORIGINAL: Big B

So I ran the same test as before - the same 6 Daitai vs the same 6 American Sqdns, this time starting on June 1st 1942 - No Zero Bonus.
The only thing else different in this test was that the Japanese default pilot quality dropped from an average of 81 or 82 previously to an average start of 75 (range was 70 to 80).

Results without the zero bonus in effect: 78 Zeros destroyed a2a vs 189 F4F4s and P40Es.

Looks like a slight drop in kill ratios from a solid 3 to 1 previously to about 2.5 to 1 favoring the Zero.

So that appears to be the Zero Bonus - they destroy about the same number of good allied fighters either way, but take about 16% to 17% more losses without the Bonus.

From the way I look at it, 16% losses more or less taken by the Zeros is almost inconsequential compared to the fact that the game engine (as of the last official patch - 1.62# ?) kills good allied fighters at 2.5 to 3:1 rate overall, even in June 1942.

I don't know the exact loss rate for P40s and F4Fs due to fighter combat in 1942, that will be the next step to investigate.

Regardless - that kind of kill rate seems awfully high to me.

Hi, Why does Japan show almost twice as many sorties flown?

Good question - and here's the answer:

I had twelve equal squadrons of fighters, (27 a/c per sqd) 6 US and 6 Japanese.
The idea being to create "equal 1 on 1" encounters to see what would result. I hade intended to alternate Sweep and CAP between sides.

However, the US having in most cases only 55 exp would usually not get more than 12 a/c up on CAP (on a 90% CAP setting) to face 27 incoming Zeros thus setting up a 2 to 1 fight in the Zeros favor - something I was trying hard to avoid.

So the Japanese side was switched to permanent CAP for the test since they would always reliably get at least 18 a/c up on CAP to fight the incomming 20 to 27 US aircraft on sweep.

Since CAP flies in two phases per day (am and pm) the Japanese were getting twice the Sortie rate but the same amount of contacts with the enemy.