Hordes of Tonys

[Nikademus]

I'd wanted to see the op loss coding tweaked but regrettably that was not feasible. As it stands right now the losses need to be somewhat toned down as is because the loss always takes the pilot with it. Were there a decent chance for pilot survival, there'd be no issue. As Bergerud pointed out in the SoPac campaign, there were usually more pilots available than planes. Between the climate, primitive conditions and said op losses, it was, if anything harder on the machines than it was on the organics.

Range and weather currently do impact op losses as does fatigue (LR-CAP in particular will increase op losses) however its not consistant by type/nation and is often puzzling. B-17's i've found for example, even when attacking at extended range rarely suffer op losses, even when shot up full of holes. thats another sore point......i'd like to see op losses better tied in to aircraft damage though one 'could' consider some of the "A2A" rated losses as op losses after the attack. (Given that Japan and the US had different definitions for "op losses" the path becomes grey the more you go down it)

it actually may already work that way. I've noticed that often actual A2A results will be higher than the combat animations indicated, sometimes it shows all 'damages', no losses but then on the next turn the report will show 1-2 as "A2A" losses. I consider those "op losses" in a way by interpreting it as the plane having crashed after the attack while returning, or being a "write off" on returning to the base.

[jwilkerson]

Attrition for the Japanese ( the 30,000 number ) would of course include trainers which aren't represented in the game. So somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000 of the 30,000 would likely be trainers. But that still leaves a lot of non-trainers.

As to the US certainly overall attrition was very high - but most of those could be argued to be lost "in the states" and just never given to the players .. but losses in theater should certainly be higher .. as well.

I think in the game - in general the Japanese op loss rate seems to be about double the allies - all other things being equal. When my allied opponents increase their transfers ( of 4EB and fighters ) greatly .. then the operational losses seem to be about even. But those are things we can't control. In the game, the main things the japanese player can do to reduce op losses is slow down the transfer times and distances. Wait for fatigue to be zero and do more shorter hops. I do this and it works well to reduce losses.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'd wanted to see the op loss coding tweaked but regrettably that was not feasible. As it stands right now the losses need to be somewhat toned down as is because the loss always takes the pilot with it. Were there a decent chance for pilot survival, there'd be no issue.

100% (maybe 110%) agree with this.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: pauk
IJN RATE: 10 exp pilots, IJA 20 exp pilots/monthly

Allied Pilots total: Hundreds a month. Too bad no planes for them to fly.

I'd much rather have 1000 planes with 30 exp pilots (soon to be 60's in a month or two) than 5000 pilots and hardly an air frame to be seen.

Balance in all things though. Just increase all the air frames armor rating by a factor of 3 or something perhaps that would slow down the destruction to a more reasonably historic level?

Don’t get me wrong, Japan should dominate the air game in 1942 I agree. But having dozens of allied air groups sitting on rear area bases for months just to rebuild. And then they only last one or two days on the front line and then months of rebuilding again is NOT historical. Nor is it fun, it needs to be tweaked and perhaps the Japanese pilot pools need to be reduced in experience levels (just 5 or 10 points above the allies) but increased in numbers.

Jim

greetings

Jim, i read your and Tom Hunter later posts. I found them very interesting and valid (in most points). But, there is one problem. We shouldn't look into a specific segment of air combat alone. The problem is more complex. What i mean by that?

If you change just one segment, for example, allied replacement rate, the whole situation is changed. Before several months i post it that air2air combat are too bloody, and we agree here. But i'm not sure that bigger replacement rate is the answer. Why.

It is, correct me if i'm wrong, solution for "too bloody A2A combat", instead of tweakenig A2A combat. But this, IMO leads to the other factors that need to be "fixed":

#1. reducing 4E effiency (doesn't matter in wich way - slower repair rate, more VP awarded for shoted down 4E bomber)

#2. "fixing" AA fire (we have excellent thread about it started by Apollo11)

#3. "fixing" training program. IMO, it is too slow, and that's why players trains his crew in "combat training program". Me too (my self-house rule is bombing only occupied base or units, not empty AF)....

on the other hand, if you tweak A2A combat (i'm bet it is not going to happend any more) then this solution also leads to the another issue, like:


Tweaking A2A combat means nothing if you don't tweak effiency of torp. bombers (Nell/Betty and Beaufort as well). I already saw when 4 Beau puts torps in the CVL, and already saw that 15 or 20 Nells get through more than solid CV CAP and put torpedo into american CV....

I'm sorry for longish post and bad english, but i hope that you get a pretty clear picture... in short, "fixing A2A combat model in whatever way simply causing more things needed to be "fixed".... and i'm not talking only about A2A combat...if is A2A changed, then ground combat, naval combat, logistic should be changed for balanced play....

and it not going to happend....

(sorry for interupting debute)

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: pauk
We shouldn't look into a specific segment of air combat alone. The problem is more complex.

I agree completely, but with no possible code changes likely, we have to come up with ways to "modify" the high losses ourselves. That leaves editing things or house rules. I thought perhaps simply giving everyone enough extra air frames to feed the monster and keep groups in the front line bases for weeks or months instead of the few days they are there now might be the simplest solution for a workaround. Not perfect, but better than what we have now I think.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
An interesting discussion and comparison any way you choose to look at it.

Agreed. With a good 8 hours of sleep, I looked at the numbers again and figured out why our numbers were so close. You’ve got another months worth of production on map, so that's an extra 400 front line fighters or so. Take away about 200 for losses and our differences are now approaching 300 air frames (200 plus the 77). This is more in line with what I expected, was too tired to figure it out last night. [>:][>:][>:]

Since each air frame usually logs 2 sorties a day, you can see how 600 fewer sorties a day adds up quick on the tally. Not to mention fewer bombers flying as well.

Jim

[ChezDaJez]

I'd wanted to see the op loss coding tweaked but regrettably that was not feasible. As it stands right now the losses need to be somewhat toned down as is because the loss always takes the pilot with it. Were there a decent chance for pilot survival, there'd be no issue. As Bergerud pointed out in the SoPac campaign, there were usually more pilots available than planes. Between the climate, primitive conditions and said op losses, it was, if anything harder on the machines than it was on the organics.

Range and weather currently do impact op losses as does fatigue (LR-CAP in particular will increase op losses) however its not consistant by type/nation and is often puzzling. B-17's i've found for example, even when attacking at extended range rarely suffer op losses, even when shot up full of holes. thats another sore point......i'd like to see op losses better tied in to aircraft damage though one 'could' consider some of the "A2A" rated losses as op losses after the attack. (Given that Japan and the US had different definitions for "op losses" the path becomes grey the more you go down it)

Hi Nik,

I wish you had been successful in getting it changed. In my mind, inexperience, fatigue and aircraft damage should be the prime governing factors regarding ops losses followed by airfield size, aircraft type, aircraft mission and weather. As range generates fatigue, it shouldn't need to be directly considered.

Oh, well. It is what it is.

Chez

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'd wanted to see the op loss coding tweaked but regrettably that was not feasible. As it stands right now the losses need to be somewhat toned down as is because the loss always takes the pilot with it. Were there a decent chance for pilot survival, there'd be no issue. As Bergerud pointed out in the SoPac campaign, there were usually more pilots available than planes. Between the climate, primitive conditions and said op losses, it was, if anything harder on the machines than it was on the organics.

Range and weather currently do impact op losses as does fatigue (LR-CAP in particular will increase op losses) however its not consistant by type/nation and is often puzzling. B-17's i've found for example, even when attacking at extended range rarely suffer op losses, even when shot up full of holes. thats another sore point......i'd like to see op losses better tied in to aircraft damage though one 'could' consider some of the "A2A" rated losses as op losses after the attack. (Given that Japan and the US had different definitions for "op losses" the path becomes grey the more you go down it)

it actually may already work that way. I've noticed that often actual A2A results will be higher than the combat animations indicated, sometimes it shows all 'damages', no losses but then on the next turn the report will show 1-2 as "A2A" losses. I consider those "op losses" in a way by interpreting it as the plane having crashed after the attack while returning, or being a "write off" on returning to the base.

What's causing the discrepancy between Japanese and Allied operational losses? Is op loss somehow tied to aircraft durability ratings? (these are most always higher for the Allies than the Japanese)

[Nikademus]

I've long suspected DUR might be a factor. It may be. The formula was posted a long time ago. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Charles2222]

Considering the earlier statement made about the Zero landing gear (and how many have bothered to compare all the given landing gears of an entire theatre to see which should have higher durab. for handling, though I know it involves more than just landing to make up durab.), in comparison to the P40's, she automatically gets less durability because she has no armor (as though the two go hand-in-hand), and then to top it off the less weight of having no armor makes it somehow a more difficult lander too. Seems the armor and durability are tied together, whereas there should be some sort of separation. Wouldn't most bi-planes have any easier time landing than the more modern WWII planes? I'll bet the Mosquitoes somehow got real high durability ratings in BTR.

Just as a general rule, though there really isn't a seperate landing component to durability, or to durability in flight for that matter, it seems to me the heavier the plane, and often the faster the plane, the more difficult it should be to land. Of course superior landing gear could offset a lot of that.

And one last thing and I inferred this with the talk of bi-planes earlier, but wouldn't fixed carriage planes usually have better landing gear? They don't have to rely on a mechanism to lower them, which might fail. OTOH perhaps fixed carriage planes suffer more damage due to AA fire?

[Ddog]

#3. "fixing" training program. IMO, it is too slow, and that's why players trains his crew in "combat training program". Me too (my self-house rule is bombing only occupied base or units, not empty AF)....

I've seen the issue of training pilots by having them bomb targets with little or no defenses. IMHO it should be allowed and accepted. The Americans did actually use Wake as a training ground for new bomber crews at the expense of 90 or so Civilian Engineers. If you were in a war and there was an old enemy base nearby that had been deserted, wouldn't it be a good idea to send flight crews over to hone their skills? If people want to make a big deal about items in the game being "historical", then this should be an accepted practice.

My opinion for what it's worth. [:'(]

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: pauk
We shouldn't look into a specific segment of air combat alone. The problem is more complex.

I agree completely, but with no possible code changes likely, we have to come up with ways to "modify" the high losses ourselves. That leaves editing things or house rules. I thought perhaps simply giving everyone enough extra air frames to feed the monster and keep groups in the front line bases for weeks or months instead of the few days they are there now might be the simplest solution for a workaround. Not perfect, but better than what we have now I think.

Jim

IMO, that leads to the unbalanced air combat as i tried to explain in my previous post. I don't know, maybe solution extra air frames for the Allies + more VP awarded for B17 (or, just come it to my mind - extra pilot cost for 4E bombers (2 pilots drained from the pool for one 4E bomber) can satisfy both sides. One sided solution is not good choice.

Personally, i wote for tweaked morale for fighter groups, but again, i'm not completly sure that this will fix all problems.

[Nikademus]

Hey Charles,

In real life, no the Zero would not be a more difficult lander. Bergerud specifically cites the gentle/forgiving attributes of light aircraft such as the Zero as being a big factor in the smaller Japanese operational losses during the 1st half of the war (assuming a decent airfield.....the primitive airfield at Buka was a graveyard for Japanese fighter planes attempting to land due to poor conditions)

In addition to be heavier, he cited Allied op loss spikes in fact to their increased DUR as it was more likely for an American plane to be shot up and damaged vs. outright destroyed so combined with heavy weight and possible battle damage....the chance for an op loss at a airfield was higher. The Wildcat specifically was vulnerable given it's narrow undercarriage coupled with the fact that it was designed to operate off flight decks, not dirt airfields.

B-26 is probably the best example. Game wise, its impressive and statistically it was...superior to the B-25. So why didn't it surplant the B-25. Like you said....it had a high landing speed and was difficult to fly and didn't suffer fools (or newbies of which the Pacific was full of as more men and material poured into the region) The B-25 was more reliable, easier to maintain but most of all it was docile and forgiving to fly. It became the medium bomber of choice. Such things though are not really specifically modeled by this game so given the option, players would op to build B-26's over B-25's.

Armor and DUR are not exactly tied together but they work in conjunction. Admitedly armor value has always puzzled me a bit. I do know that it's impact is very subtle to the point where isolated from any other changes, your not really going to notice much, if any difference between a value of 0-2.

[ChezDaJez]

Considering the earlier statement made about the Zero landing gear (and how many have bothered to compare all the given landing gears of an entire theatre to see which should have higher durab. for handling, though I know it involves more than just landing to make up durab.), in comparison to the P40's, she automatically gets less durability because she has no armor (as though the two go hand-in-hand), and then to top it off the less weight of having no armor makes it somehow a more difficult lander too.

The Zero landing gear is an example. Generally speaking, an aircraft (any nationality) with wide track landing gear handled better on the ground and was less prone to ground looping. Compare the the ground handling characteristics of the ME-109 to the FW-190 or the Hurricane to the Spitfire. The same with the P-40 (a notoriously poor plane on the ground). Compare it to the P-47. Planes with narrow track gear should have higher ops loss rates. Once in the air though, the stu=yle of gear doesn't matter.

As far as landing weight goes, a lighter plane has a much greater advantage due to its ability to maintain airspeed better. Heavier planes required far more throttle jockeying to maintain an approach airspeed and were much more prone to stalling out on the approach if the airspeed got too low. A plane landing needs 2 attributes during landing: acceleration and maneuverablility. In regards to the Zero, its low speed handling qualities were outstanding. Every evaluation by TAIC praised its low speed and landing characteristics. You won't find anyone praising a P-40 that way!

Durab and armor are tied together for determining combat losses but what does that have to do with ops losses? Two totally separate issues here.

And yes fixed gear is normally stronger than gear that retracts however gear is only as strong as the structure it is attached to. Fixed gear has too many performance penalties to be truely useful in modern combat aircraft.

Chez

[Charles2222]

Fine guys, but it sounds like to me since you guys are in basic agreement, that either the game doesn't model ops losses by type of airplane at all, or for some reason the prejudice against IJ products being junk influences people to rate even the Zero as having very little durability. Does the manual ever mention that ops losses are tied to durability? Did not someone alledge, perhaps wrongly, that the IJ aircraft are taking much greater ops losses? It seems based on what you were saying, should you take a very loose treatment of it, say, based on years, that Ij should have very few ops losses in the first year, while gradually increasing thereafter (even though I suppose the Zero is available throughout, it' just that armor aided planes were much more prominent then).

Earlier I mentioned the Mosquito, and of course I've talked about bi-planes, etc. If in fact you're finding Mosquitos with very high durability and yet very little for another armorless plane the famous Zero, isn't that suggesting some national prejudice or ignorance creeping into objectivity? There is one major thing we have failed to put forward, however, and it's not the only thing forgotten probably when it comes to ops losses, and that is engine dependability. Now maybe this area is pretty much an unknown turf, especially when taking on the entire Pacfic's ensemble of planes, but then something more general, like whether the plane was armored, or heavy, or manueverable you would think could be at least generally applied. I'm just thinking that the durability was the primary factor, and that, largely deduced from whether it was armored or not, was all that went into consdieration for determining ops losses.

Another thing that is probably prejudicing the Zeroes for example is the lack of a seal-sealing fuel tank, but while that plays a role in dogfighting, would it really matter for non-combat such as ops losses?

[rtrapasso]

Another thing that is probably prejudicing the Zeroes for example is the lack of a seal-sealing fuel tank, but while that plays a role in dogfighting, would it really matter for non-combat such as ops losses?

Yes - you might ask the pilots of the Concorde about that.[:(]

I suspect gas tanks that leaked a bit might have played a role in losses on long range missions, not to mention a marginal tank leaking and starting a fire during flight or on landing.

[Feinder]

Forgive me for not reading the whole discussion on Ops losses. But it has been my "close observation" (never formally tested, but I have paid close attention), that ops losses are simply a roll vs. fatigue. Fatigue is very linear. 1.5 points per hex travelled. When you fly any mission or transfer, each pilot rolls vs. his fatigue. The higher the fatigue, the higher the chance of ops loss. 33 fatigue doesn't necessarily mean a 33% chance of ops loss, but it does mean a higher chance of ops loss (I don't know the exact formula).

Again, I can't see the code, but did someone substantiate durability affecting ops losses? Bombers (with higher durability), tend to have higher ops losses. But the cause is the fact that they fly longer missions and rack up more fatigue (again 1.5 per hex).

Again, this is observational. I haven't formally tested it.

-F-

[Nikademus]

I did a search, and while i found a mound of novels that i've written over the past two years on the private forum, I didn't find the thread that laid out the formula. I am pretty sure though that DUR does factor in as well as fatigue, distance to target and airfield size.

[ChezDaJez]

I suspect gas tanks that leaked a bit might have played a role in losses on long range missions, not to mention a marginal tank leaking and starting a fire during flight or on landing.

The chances of a fire on landing or takeoff were pretty rare if there was no battle damage.

IMO, ops losses should relate to any loss not induced, directly or indirectly, by combat. A plane that is leaking fuel due to battle damage should be considered a combat loss, not an ops loss. I don't know exactly what counts as an ops loss in the game so its hard to say how the game comes up with the figure. Does it count a plane that crashes on landing after being damaged in combat as an ops loss or a combat loss? Or a plane that crashes on takeoff for a combat mission? Does it even attempt to model that? I don't know.

Durability, armor and most other aircraft attributes shouldn't be applied to ops losses as these losses typically represented getting lost, hitting mountains, crashing on take off or landing, anything not directly or indirectly related to combat damage. I can think of 4 broad categories right off the bat that should be considered ops losses: pilot error, maintenance error, mechanical defect and weather.

Chez

[rtrapasso]

Does it count a plane that crashes on landing after being damaged in combat as an ops loss or a combat loss? Or a plane that crashes on takeoff for a combat mission? Does it even attempt to model that? I don't know.

There was a long discussion on this in a previous thread some months back. IIRC, how op losses were calculated depended on the country, but, i think for both the Allies and WITP, it was considered that planes crashing or otherwise being totalled on return with battle damage were considered OP losses. Specifically i do recall that if a plane was damaged in battle, then stripped for parts until it was "totalled", it was considered an OP loss. I think mechanical problems developing on the way back in addition to battle damage were also counted as operational (i.e. - bursting into flames on landing...)

Now, i do not agree with how this is calculated, but that was what was stated as the method of determination/calculation. (Personally, i would count something like the cases above as part battle, part operational, but nobody asked me, and i guess that would be too complex.)