Sweep vs Escorts

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I ment Defensive skill, which, according to The Elf is important surviving the bounce, not general Exp.

Don't know exactly, I assume it's about the same as the Exp. However, the Zero pilots are very good, the P40s less so.

Though I can find out exactly what tonight...

[Sardaukar]

I'll try to run some tests during weekend too, to see how much high Defensive skill helps vs. bounce.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Kinda interesting in it own right, as average pilots in an awful plane (maneuver rating 2 when they fight at 25k feet I think, no?) bouncing expert pilots in a good plane whip them.

The point is that there is no such thing as a manouver rating in reality. Its not a value for - insert random attribute like turnrate, rollrate,... here -.
The only reason why this values exists is to modify the speed value to resemble varying performance at different altitude depending on aircraft type.
So just because a plane has a rating of 2 @ high alt does not mean that it was a flying brick at this alt. It only means that there is a significant (but unrelated to any specific characteristic) overall
performance drop compared to lower altitudes.
(remember that the manouver-value is only a modifier for the speed value)

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Not sure what this test is supposed to show...Sweeping Zeroes from the sky below 10k' is a good idea?

It just shows that altitude is the priority. It's always best to be above the enemy, the maneuver bands are very much secondary.

This is getting monotonous. Altitude IS the primary advantage in A2A combat (or energy if you like that better). The alt bands are there to give planes a fighting chance who cannot
compete at altitude. That they still are in a position of disadvantage is historical and clear as glass to everybody who knows only a little bit about ACM.
That it is not the ONLY thing that counts is also easy to note and can be influenced.

If you fly a plane, which has a ceiling of 28k but performs much better at 15k, at 28k to defend against an opponent who can easily engage from 32k you are doing the wrong thing.

If you fly CAP against superiour numbers of superiour airframes then you are doing the wrong thing.

We have a highly abstracted but very well thought out simulation of reality here.

[Sardaukar]

Indeed.
 
I'll try to test how much Exp and Defensive skill helps against altitude advantage, when I have time. I hope that decent Defensive skill will have some noticeable impact.
 
 Energy is life, so to speak. And that comes in 2 forms also in fighter combat, kinetic and potential. First is speed, latter is altitude.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
We have a highly abstracted but very well thought out simulation of reality here.

True, but it's leading to 39,000' patrol altitudes being used as the norm. I also don't think I've ever heard of maximum ceiling being a critical statistic in warplane performance before, at least not until you had things like MiG-25s trying to fly higher than the SAMs could reach.

[LoBaron]

Sardaukar thanks, if the results are conclusive this will be interesting for sure!


EUBanana: Yes. Exactly. Being used as the norm. Usually against opponents who do not admit being outclassed, outnumbered, or don´t go lower to get into better performance envelopes. [8|]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
We have a highly abstracted but very well thought out simulation of reality here.

True, but it's leading to 39,000' patrol altitudes being used as the norm. I also don't think I've ever heard of maximum ceiling being a critical statistic in warplane performance before, at least not until you had things like MiG-25s trying to fly higher than the SAMs could reach.

There probably should be some type of penalty for operating at the max ceiling. Most missions fell between 15-20k feet for a reason. Pilots would require supplemental Oxygen to operate at those very high altitudes, so you are limited to Very High altitude flight time by size of Oxygen cylinder the plane carries.

Another point...what sense does it make for a P-40 that manuevres like a brick at very high to actually move up there to fight?

Final thought, if you get 'the bounce' doesn't that basically mean that you made a dive on the unsuspecting enemy. Past the initial bounce, air combat should take place at the altitude band of the defender or lower, and the stats for that altitude band used to resolve combat.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Sardaukar thanks, if the results are conclusive this will be interesting for sure!


EUBanana: Yes. Exactly. Being used as the norm. Usually against opponents who do not admit being outclassed, outnumbered, or don´t go lower to get into better performance envelopes. [8|]

could you please post every combat report of your upcoming PBEM please? You don´t have to comment it if you don´t like, I would just would like to see the results.

[LoBaron]

I won´t promise anything as playing a GC PBEM alone will be the upper limit because I don´t have so much sparetime, but I will try
to provide a series of creps from time to time if you like. We are planning to do an AAR anyway, my contribution in it will be low though...

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
EUBanana: Yes. Exactly. Being used as the norm. Usually against opponents who do not admit being outclassed, outnumbered, or don´t go lower to get into better performance envelopes. [8|]

Jesus H Christ. I did that test for a reason. [;)]

Going lower to get into a better performance envelope has an effect so negligible it's probably lost in the noise. To be honest I think it likely it does not have any measurable effect at all. If it did, you would see P40Ks displaying somewhat different performance to P40Es.

And what evidence do you have for this 'usually'? That is just an assumption, yet more faith based reasoning. Put up some tests to demonstrate the correctness of your opinions.

[LoBaron]

No. I don´t need to. Because the only reason for an attacker to go strato is if the defender out of a position of inferiority does the same
even if that does not benefit him.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

No. I don´t need to. Because the only reason for an attacker to go strato is if the defender out of a position of inferiority does the same
even if that does not benefit him.

There is no evidence that P40s perform better at 5000' than they do 29,000'. There is your faith that they do, versus my experience and tests that suggests that they do not.

At 29k feet they will be bounced by Oscars, but on the other hand they will always bounce any bomber escort of any bombers that plan on doing any damage. Given they apparently do not better at 5k feet, may as well leave them at ceiling.

Why so stubborn? I like proof. Stick up some proof and maybe I'll change my mind. [;)]

[Nikademus]

your spot on about the range factor.

[:)]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

No. I don´t need to. Because the only reason for an attacker to go strato is if the defender out of a position of inferiority does the same
even if that does not benefit him.

There is no evidence that P40s perform better at 5000' than they do 29,000'. There is your faith that they do, versus my experience and tests that suggests that they do not.

At 29k feet they will be bounced by Oscars, but on the other hand they will always bounce any bomber escort of any bombers that plan on doing any damage. Given they apparently do not better at 5k feet, may as well leave them at ceiling.

Why so stubborn? I like proof. Stick up some proof and maybe I'll change my mind. [;)]

The evidence that the P40 performs better at 5k than at 29k is in the plane detail window right where the numerical values next to
the altitude bands stand.

That the relative performance increase of the P40 is often completely negated by the fact, that the opponent you are always referring to, the Zero,
is also an high performer on low altitudes doesn´t say anything about the absolute performance of the P40 in the respective altitude bands.

That the dive increases casualties for the guy on the receiving end is a no brainer.

That going high even if you do not even stand a remote chance for getting the dive instead of setting the altitude with the best performance delta
for the concerned planetypes is not the best way to engage such situations is obvious.

That the complaining about strato sweeps starts mostly when sombody gets whacked around at 29k because he is facing planes that completely
outclass his available assets at this altitude but refuses to change his tactics or weight of force or pull back is something that I have noticed
quite a lot of times already.

When you get into a spinning wheel that makes you end up on the receiving end, because you strato CAP, so kill loads of the attackers escorts, so provoke the opponent
to sweep you into the ground (if he is able to) to prevent you from killing escorts from high up (which is an adaption to the situation you created) and then refuse
to again adapt to this new threat, stay up high, don´t change tactics, weight of force or pull back, I´d regard this as a logical consequence of your style of play.

What exactly was it you need evidence for? [;)]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
The evidence that the P40 performs better at 5k than at 29k is in the plane detail window right where the numerical values next to
the altitude bands stand.

I say those numbers are irrelevant. They do not measurably influence the outcome of combat, therefore they are irrelevant, except possibly in the very unusual situation where two adversaries are at exactly the same altitude.

That the complaining about strato sweeps starts mostly when sombody gets whacked around at 29k because he is facing planes that completely
outclass his available assets at this altitude but refuses to change his tactics or weight of force or pull back is something that I have noticed
quite a lot of times already.

Oh look, yet more veiled insults.

What exactly was it you need evidence for? [;)]

Because you just make assertions that are not backed up actual results. Apparently you'd rather just believe what you believe than run the risk of being found to be in error. I'm actually interested in the truth, ie what actually happens in the engine in different circumstances, not faith based assertions - especially when those faith based assertions run contrary to the evidence of my own eyes.

[Sardaukar]

Cannot we just get along...[:'(]
 
I think that with "relatively equal planes with relatively equal pilots", it's "no-brainer" (so to speak) that one with more altitude does have significant advantage.
 
What interests me is other factor that can lessen the impact. I hope to have time to test if Exp and Def skill have measurable effect to lessen the impact of altitude advantage. One other thing interests me too is using other a/c than typical Zero vs. P-40. For example, Oscar vs. F4U should have less success, altitude advantage or not etc.
 
Historically, when encountering superior a/c with altitude advantage, one usually refused to fight (unless surprised or out of other options). This was demonstrated by P-39 "fishing fleet" in Port Moresby (ordered to take off and "flee" until they could climb up). Similar effect was with second generation US fighters (P-38/F4U) vs. Rabaul Zeroes. So in this sense, game is very historical.
 
What I want to find out, if there is possibility to create situations like Guadalcanal, where it was possible for "inferior" F4F Wildcats to successfully fight Zeroes.  

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
The evidence that the P40 performs better at 5k than at 29k is in the plane detail window right where the numerical values next to
the altitude bands stand.

I say those numbers are irrelevant. They do not measurably influence the outcome of combat, therefore they are irrelevant, except possibly in the very unusual situation where two adversaries are at exactly the same altitude.

Yes, I noticed that you think that these numbers are irrelevant, this is basically the point where we disagree most.

That the complaining about strato sweeps starts mostly when sombody gets whacked around at 29k because he is facing planes that completely
outclass his available assets at this altitude but refuses to change his tactics or weight of force or pull back is something that I have noticed
quite a lot of times already.

Oh look, yet more veiled insults.

What exactly did you regard as insult? The whacked around thing, the "not change tactics" thing or the complaining thing?

What exactly was it you need evidence for? [;)]

Because you just make assertions that are not backed up actual results. Apparently you'd rather just believe what you believe than run the risk of being found to be in error. I'm actually interested in the truth, ie what actually happens in the engine in different circumstances, not faith based assertions - especially when those faith based assertions run contrary to the evidence of my own eyes.

[/quote]

I already wrote a couple of posts ago that I will surely admit that I am completely off with my analysis and experience up to now, should situations occur in my next PBEM
that contradict what I said.
Up to now, based on the games against AI I played plus the PBEMs I played, where I have been on the side with superiour assets as well as on the receiving end, taught me that
there are loads of things you can do to reduce the impact of stratosphere attacks, whether this is on tactical or operational level, until you reach a point where ne opposing
numerical advantage forces you to reconsider your line of defense anyway.

So I rate the chances quite low that I have to change my mind.

[LoBaron]

I think this should be possible. Rob Brennan did not have to use his Wildcats very often but except when heavily outnumbered performed well
enough. Against him my Zeke´s where mostly challenged by P40/39´s in stacked patrols and in general the result was quite even as long
as none of us was able to bring weight of numbers to bear.

[SuluSea]

I see nothing wrong at all with the sweep modelling, both sides benefit from the bonus.

Looking at it from the allied POV.

If you have plenty of CAP in your best airframes, in layers, with quality leaders, Air HQs, Bofors and/or other AAA, radar and your best TRAINED pilots you'll make any battle over your airspace more painful to the enemy than it is to you. The enemy will be losing pilots over your airspace and you'll be getting a good majority of your pilots shot down back at some point. Who was it that said "to defend everywhere is to defend nowhere?"

If I have any concerns it's at the height combat takes place, I'd like to see the maneveur bands change to lower levels and plane ceilings be noted but  combat ceilings be lowered to historical levels. All in all well done by the team on this, IMO.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
We have a highly abstracted but very well thought out simulation of reality here.

True, but it's leading to 39,000' patrol altitudes being used as the norm. I also don't think I've ever heard of maximum ceiling being a critical statistic in warplane performance before, at least not until you had things like MiG-25s trying to fly higher than the SAMs could reach.

There probably should be some type of penalty for operating at the max ceiling. Most missions fell between 15-20k feet for a reason. Pilots would require supplemental Oxygen to operate at those very high altitudes, so you are limited to Very High altitude flight time by size of Oxygen cylinder the plane carries.
flying above 10k' without oxygen or pressurization leads to bad things (see "Officer and a Gentleman" pressure chamber scene - "Ace of spades, ace of spades, ace of spades..."). the penalty should be that (depending on weather, ground terrain, sea state, etc) stratosweep should have significant trouble spotting planes below them. in this case, the radar directed CAP would have big advantage, i would think. if no radar, we see similar results to the Kiska test on this thread. the CAP simply didn't have time to respond since the warning was practically nil

Another point...what sense does it make for a P-40 that manuevres like a brick at very high to actually move up there to fight
he's not up there to fight...he's up there to get energy/altitude advantage...if he sees something below, he dives on them...if he encounters something at his altitude, he dives and runs like hell (not sure, but probably outdive and outrun a light Zero)...if he encounters something above him, he may be in trouble.

Final thought, if you get 'the bounce' doesn't that basically mean that you made a dive on the unsuspecting enemy. Past the initial bounce, air combat should take place at the altitude band of the defender or lower, and the stats for that altitude band used to resolve combat.
according to Elf in previous posts, "bounce" includes altitude advantages, but is not limited to it...IOW, it could be surprise or other factors that leads one side to get the "bounce" on another side. agree that it would make sense to continue the combat post-bounce at the defenders alt or lower...unless he climbs to get away!!! [X(]

edited for sloppy formatting...