The tojo as uber.....

[crsutton]

Wow, I did not even realize that my thread had been moved.

Well, Ark has only run a few tests and we really need to go further into the game.

First let my say that there is only a little historical basis to go on here. The tojo fighter actually only fought the P 40 for a brief time in Burma. I believe it was the 23rd squadron that faced tojos before they upgraded to mustangs. From what I have seen the Allied pilots were intially surprised by the tojo fighter because it was a plane that countered the standard tactics for fighting Japanese fighters. That is, the tojo could fight in the verticle (boom and zoom) vs the P 40 and gave the Allied pilots a good fight. However it was the other defects of the tojo that don't show up on paper so much that made it only about equal to the P 40. That is, poor handling, easy to stall and spin, weaker armament and lack of armor. Frankly, I stand by what I say. It was not a very popular plane and was eventually phased out of production. However, our game works on a simpler plain and looks at maneuverabilty, and speed as the most important factors. In that respect, in game terms the tojo is better and seems to dominate the P-40. Historically, it probably was no more than an equal match for the P 40.

However, our battle was only a single event and we have not had too many tojo vs allied fighter fights to really form a conclusion. As Ark says he had superior pilots but mine were still pretty good. I have good leaders as well but I moved my fighters before the fight so perhas the little fatigue they had (average 7). It will just need to be tested more. Right now, I suspect that the tojo is superior and I will come back and report when we have had more fights. And, Ark tells me he is making about 200 tojos a month in July of 42, (cursed damn scenario #2 [:D]), so with my own pitiful fighter replacement rate I will be fighting at a disadvantage for a little while longer. So be it.

In addtion, I don't think many would argue againt my statement that high altitude sweep is too deadly and kind of whacks out air combat. We have all seen enough of that. Perhaps a HR that limits sweeping and CAP fighters to their best perfomance altitude will suffice. However that might create problems for those defending against players who like to fly bombers way up high. So who knows.

In my own opinion, I would like to say that altitude advantage and "bounce" are two different things entirely. Bounce means surprise and yes I agree, altitude sometimes gave the bounce. However with a separation of 15,000 feet, and good situational awareness from the lower flying aircraft, then there would not have been much of chance of a bounce. The early zero fighter had a top diving speed of less than 400 MPH, Oscar may have been less. Any higher speed and the zero tended to shed its wings. Early model Tojos seemed to have a top diving speed of about 460 MPH. All three Japanese figherts suffered from serious control problems at high speed. A P40 could dive away and quickly be diving at 500 MPH and still had excellent control at high speeds-especially roll. There were other factors as well. Usually, there were clouds to escape into, or haze, so a 10,000 foot advantage may not have been much of an advangtage at all. In fact, in actual combat for a Japanese aircraft, a 1000 to 2000 foot height advantage might have been better for the bounce opportunity.


Anyways, I think it is important for the game to be tweaked so that players are rewarded for using their aircraft at the proper altitudes. For 1st generation fighters, it should be not more than 20,000 feet. As an example, the P40 had a max service ceiling of about 29,000 ft. Well, that happens to be about the same height as Mount Everest. Think of the impact of flying a early war fighter at that height. First, it would be near impossible to control, I don't think any fighter of that generation was pressurized, cold and fatigue would be extreme, oxygen equipment would have to be excellent, and formation flying would be virtually impossible as the slightest tweak in your stick would cause a quick elevation drop of thousands of feet due to the thin air. These fighters just were not meant to fly or fight that high.

Perhaps a solution is to just limit all aircraft to a realistic combat ceiling and not even have max service ceilings in the game. Only the finest (test pilots) ever flew that high anyways.

[TheElf]

To answer the OP question. The reason the Tojo seems uber is that it has a better armaments than all early war IJ Fighters except perhaps the Zero, and even that is debatable depending on how you feel about the Zeke's 20mm, and it flies like and American design, that is to say it is more and energy fighter than a Turner like the Zeke and Oscar, yet it retains better MVR than the typical US P-40 due to it's unique butterfly flap design. So it really is a well rounded fighter, particularly as the code views it. It's top speed and better than Average MVR values are helpful in the code. And it was no slouch IRL.

It was not produced in greater numbers for some of the usual reasons, too much tinkering, a failing industrial complex, in that it could not support mass producing ALL the designs that were out there, and if memory serves, it was overcoming a stigma amongst pilots that said it was difficult to fly, lacked the MVR of the Zeke and Oscar, and tended to kill inexperienced pilots. Those who got to know the AC and it's strengths loved it, but they were too few and far between. Besides other designs were coming that would eat the Shoki's lunch (Ki-84) and the political will was not behind it...

Given a choice as a pilot, between the Shoki, Oscar, Zeke, and even the early Tony I would lean toward the Ki-44 Shoki.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: crsutton



In my own opinion, I would like to say that altitude advantage and "bounce" are two different things entirely. Bounce means surprise and yes I agree, altitude sometimes gave the bounce. However with a separation of 15,000 feet, and good situational awareness from the lower flying aircraft, then there would not have been much of chance of a bounce. The early zero fighter had a top diving speed of less than 400 MPH, Oscar may have been less. Any higher speed and the zero tended to shed its wings. Early model Tojos seemed to have a top diving speed of about 460 MPH. All three Japanese figherts suffered from serious control problems at high speed. A P40 could dive away and quickly be diving at 500 MPH and still had excellent control at high speeds-especially roll. There were other factors as well. Usually, there were clouds to escape into, or haze, so a 10,000 foot advantage may not have been much of an advangtage at all. In fact, in actual combat for a Japanese aircraft, a 1000 to 2000 foot height advantage might have been better for the bounce opportunity.

I mostly agree with the above Para, save for the bolded part. The P-40 did Not have excellent control above 400mph in a dive. It took a full boot of rudder to overcome the torque and made gunnery difficult. I would say it had better control, and better roll rates than contemporary IJ designs, but by no means "excellent"....

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: che200

Nice Avatar Elf

thanks, made it myself...

[chesmart]

A warrior and an artist.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You are correct Mike, but your beef is with the Old code. This did not change in AE.

So the answer is "We knew it was wrong..., but did nothing about it because it's always been wrong."? OK, I'll shut up. But that's a rather discouraging answer...

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You are correct Mike, but your beef is with the Old code. This did not change in AE.

So the answer is "We knew it was wrong..., but did nothing about it because it's always been wrong."? OK, I'll shut up. But that's a rather discouraging answer...

Seems a bit presumptuous on your part, Mike, that this is the reason the code was not changed. Do you have any idea what amount of work might have been involved in changing this code? Walk a mile in their shoes....then shoot off your mouth on a topic you really don't know anything about. You don't have to like it. [8|]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You are correct Mike, but your beef is with the Old code. This did not change in AE.

So the answer is "We knew it was wrong..., but did nothing about it because it's always been wrong."? OK, I'll shut up. But that's a rather discouraging answer...

Seems a bit presumptuous on your part, Mike, that this is the reason the code was not changed. Do you have any idea what amount of work might have been involved in changing this code? Walk a mile in their shoes....then shoot off your mouth on a topic you really don't know anything about. You don't have to like it. [8|]

That's all right USS America, I am quite used to Mike's pointing out flaws without offering any constructive solutions...

And as along standing Beta tester and member of the AE team the fact that this issue wasn't addressed prior to release is as much his fault as it was anyone else's. Fortunately, now that the development phase is over Mike still has the public forum with which he can throw spears at the designers while the community gets to sit back and watch....

[USSAmerica]

Then, green button it is.  [:)]

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: USS America
Walk a mile in their shoes....then shoot off your mouth on a topic you really don't know anything about. You don't have to like it. [8|]

I've walked several miles right along with the rest of the team during a year and a half of beta testing. And apparently I do know something about the subject as even the Elf said I was correct about the way the programming dealt with this situation. And you are right..., I don't have to like it. But I have the God-given to be "disappointed" that it seems nothing can or will be done about it..., and that the best reason we have for it is "it's always been that way". It's a "disappointing" answer..., even if it's true.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: TheElf
I am going to Florida....

Well then, it must be true that one plus one is greater than two!!! [:D]

Does that mean you'll buy my airline ticket? [;)]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1




So the answer is "We knew it was wrong..., but did nothing about it because it's always been wrong."? OK, I'll shut up. But that's a rather discouraging answer...

Seems a bit presumptuous on your part, Mike, that this is the reason the code was not changed. Do you have any idea what amount of work might have been involved in changing this code? Walk a mile in their shoes....then shoot off your mouth on a topic you really don't know anything about. You don't have to like it. [8|]

That's all right USS America, I am quite used to Mike's pointing out flaws without offering any constructive solutions...

And as along standing Beta tester and member of the AE team the fact that this issue wasn't addressed prior to release is as much his fault as it was anyone else's. Fortunately, now that the development phase is over Mike still has the public forum with which he can throw spears at the designers while the community gets to sit back and watch....

The thing is, most of this is based off one or two instances, if it happens every time then it is an issue. And as I posted earlier in the thread, any Early War Japanese advantage completely evaporates in 1943-1944...the shoe goes on the other foot, so to speak. I think a lot of the complaints are much to do about nothing.

[Big B]

Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Bounce implies surprise. Use your imagination as to how many different ways you can surprise your opponent, and it doesn't have to be with an altitude or energy advantage. There are varying degrees of bounces.

That said, Having an altitude advantage does increase the likelihood of a bounce occurring, as the most favorable potion to achieve a bounce is from above and unobserved.

Altitude advantage is a separate bonus that essentially modifies MVR values for at least the first round of combat and in some cases more, depending on Pilot EXP and several rolls. This advantage can be prolonged or fumbled, but in cases where it works in concert with a BOUNCE it can be extremely deadly. This concept is not unprecedented in history.

Believe I said that, Elf. But if "bounce" implies "surprise", and the side gaining the "bounce" is at a higher altitude, shouldn't they be coming down to take advantage of the "surprise". It still makes no sense for the side being "surprised" to have to climb to meet the attacker when they don't know the attacker is there (they're being surprised, right?).

If you spot the enemy, and he doesn't see you, you close in to take advantage of it don't you? If he's above you, you try to come up from below and behind to keep him from spotting you until you are in position to attack; and if you are above him you try to put yourself between your target and the sun and dive on him. When the side with the altitude advantage starts the combat, shouldn't it take place at the altitude of the defender? Why should he get the advantage of having the combat take place at his chosen altitude instead of that of the A/C he's attacking by diving on them? [&:]

[ChickenOfTheSea]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Big B

Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?
[quote]

I have had occasions when I had fighters designated to escort bombers to a certain location. When the fighters show up, but the bombers don't, the raid is described as a sweep in the report. My guess is that the same code that intercepts bombers is handling sweeps, but I certainly have no direct knowledge.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Big B
Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote it but they probably forgot! (this was present in original WITP and probably UV before that - hecque maybe even original BOB before that!)

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Big B
Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote it but they probably forgot! (this was present in original WITP and probably UV before that - hecque maybe even original BOB before that!)

Perhaps there needs to be a RNG roll in there to determine if the CAP goes up or not then? Make it so there is a 50/50 chance of climbing or not?

If the roll fails and they don't climb and the attacker doesn't dive, then you simply give a message of CAP unable to intercept, or Attacker unable to locate targets, etc.

[Big B]

Going all the way back to the original BoB? - I wonder if the original intent was simulate a 'bouncing' attacker regaining height? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the intent would have been.

Perhaps it could be put on the patch list to have air combat take place at the defender's altitude?

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Big B
Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote it but they probably forgot! (this was present in original WITP and probably UV before that - hecque maybe even original BOB before that!)

[vonTirpitz]

If I were to hazard a guess it would be so that your CAP could intercept bombers (big or small) at altitudes above them. In those cases the aggressor wouldn't drop altitude so it would be up to the CAP to increase there own.

Just a supposition on my part.

ORIGINAL: Big B

Going all the way back to the original BoB? - I wonder if the original intent was simulate a 'bouncing' attacker regaining height? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the intent would have been.

Perhaps it could be put on the patch list to have air combat take place at the defender's altitude?

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Big B
Is there a reason why the code moves the defender "up" to the attackers' altitude?

You'd have to ask whoever wrote it but they probably forgot! (this was present in original WITP and probably UV before that - hecque maybe even original BOB before that!)

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

If I were to hazard a guess it would be so that your CAP could intercept bombers (big or small) at altitudes above them. In those cases the aggressor wouldn't drop altitude so it would be up to the CAP to increase there own.

A sensible guess..., and if the CAP were getting "the bounce" (surprising the "sweep") it would also make sense. Oddness arises when the CAP climbs to meet an incoming "sweep" that has "the bounce". How can it know to climb up there if it's being "surprised" and doesn't know the enemy is coming?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

If I were to hazard a guess it would be so that your CAP could intercept bombers (big or small) at altitudes above them. In those cases the aggressor wouldn't drop altitude so it would be up to the CAP to increase there own.

A sensible guess..., and if the CAP were getting "the bounce" (surprising the "sweep") it would also make sense. Oddness arises when the CAP climbs to meet an incoming "sweep" that has "the bounce". How can it know to climb up there if it's being "surprised" and doesn't know the enemy is coming?

because like much of the combat resolution in this engine an awful lot gets abstracted...