Sweep vs Escorts

[Sardaukar]

I'll test that today, if I have time. [8D]

[LoBaron]

Treespider in my test with split CAP (a few posts above) the combined losses P38 vs. Zero were 6 vs. 7.

I used 3 defending CAP groups though (a divided daitai) with the Zekes stacked at 10, 14 and 20k, the Lightnings sweeped at 39k.
Usually I get similar results from increasing the separation (for example 5k and 20k), my reasoning is that the
advantage of the increased altitude separation is negated or reversed by the fact the a very high sweeper will have
a high chance of spotting the topmost group first. This would mean that the closer the alt separation of the defending groups,
the higher the chance that a lower group is bounced and not the top cover.

My test is as inconclusive as EUBanana´s because I did take nothing else into account. It was just done because he wanted to see some proof
and on this level of reasoning it suffices because he posts the reports in a similar way.

Sardaukar very interesting tests. Up to now you come to the results I hoped you would.

What I assume is, that as long as you give the defender every possible advantage, (such as CAP in separated alt bands)
the dive and the sweep is just another bonus that can be negated by other factors, but combined with other facts can be brutal if the defender
cannot counter.

The bonus could be (in no particular order):

numbers
dive
split cap
airframe types (and a mix of different airframes)
experience
air skill
defensive skill
radar
alt band selection
sweep bonus
detection range
weather
fatigue
morale
commander air skill (?)
commander aggression
commander leadership (?)
HQ

Any combination of those can be used to get an advantage on tactical level.


EUBanana: the main reason your combat results look so lopsided is because either you use alt settings that benefit the higher group most (both strato even if it would be better
for the defender to go low because he cannot compete high), and in case you go low don´t use split CAP.
I don´t expect that suddently Zekes could shoot P38 from the sky in droves but they stand a chance if you use them right and have other bonuses on your side
(like exp and A2A in our P38 example).



Edit: added a few factors I missed first.

[Sardaukar]

Indeed.

From my small test I draw conclusion that altitude advantage is big advantage, as it should be. It is not as big factor, though, that it cannot be offset/negated to extent by other factors. I used Rufes vs. P-40Es, because they are quite comparable in ability. Zeroes would give more advantage to Japanese, I think.

So, if you have worse a/c, worse exp/skills and have altitude disadvantage, you are going to get mauled. No doubt about that. And that's how it should be, so try not to fight fights where you are in that position.

Having equal plane and equal exp/skills and altitude disadvantage gives the edge to opposition again. But not as much.

Having either better plane and/or exp/skills even when in altitude disadvantage, one can put up a good fight. In my case P-40Es started to get favourable kill-ratio vs. Rufes when exp/skills were raised over opposition exp/skills even when in altitude disadvantage (32810 ft vs P-40E 15000). So those factors have BIG impact in fight.

I think that having better fighter and higher exp/skill will make "defensive fight" even easier. But altitude advantage is big factor and it should be. It's not the only  thing that decides the fight, though. That is decided by combination of factors.

[Sardaukar]

Got quite interesting results in my next test, which would indicate that Split CAP works.

I had 2 US P-40E units (av exp. 58) set to 50% CAP at altitudes of 20 000 and 10 000. Sweepers were again Rufes at 32810. Note, US had radar in all these tests. Fighters engaged were approx. same as with one unit 100% CAP in previous tests.

IJN/US losses (A2A+Ops)

1+1 1+1
1+0 4+3
2+1 0+1
4+0 0+0
1+2 2+0

This would indicate that "multi-altitude" CAP indeed works. As one can see from results, it's not a sure thing, but apparently other factors than altitude get more influential in this case compared to "straightforward fights" like in my test no. 1.

This all would indicate that we should read The Elf more...and then actually try to understand what he says, even when not ourselves fighter pilots.

[Sardaukar]

I tried to keep the variation of factors in minimum in this small sample of tests (for example advanced weather effects off), since I agree with LoBaron that all of those and probably more are calculated in A2A engine. But even when trying that, variations of factors are so wide, that I cannot vouch that something similar in these tests works for others. In other words, "your mileage may vary" [:D]

For example, if I changed those Rufes to Zeroes, I'd also insert lot of new MVR, Speed, Gun value, Durability and Climb Rate variables into test and results might get totally different. And I am not going to do every airframe vs. every airframe with every combination tests...life is short and I am not Apollo11 (in tribute to his tests in WitP). [8D]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
My test is as inconclusive as EUBanana´s because I did take nothing else into account.

Huh?

The way you test that is to fix all variables and just modify one - altitude. Which is what I did.

So it is very conclusive. Same pilots, same planes, same date, same island, even mostly the same weather, the only varying factor in each case is the altitude.

My main interest is looking at how much altitude bands impact results. My conclusion, and it looks rock solid to me, is that they don't, at all.

[Sardaukar]

So my tests are ignored? [:'(]

Tests should be run with FOW OFF, ADVANCED WEATHER EFFECT OFF and getting their results from Intelligence screen Aircraft losses. Otherwise they are null and void. [8D]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
My test is as inconclusive as EUBanana´s because I did take nothing else into account.

Huh?

The way you test that is to fix all variables and just modify one - altitude. Which is what I did.

So it is very conclusive. Same pilots, same planes, same date, same island, even mostly the same weather, the only varying factor in each case is the altitude.

My main interest is looking at how much altitude bands impact results. My conclusion, and it looks rock solid to me, is that they don't, at all.

Inconclusive because you neglect all other factors that influence the results except altitude.
That is basically the same I did and as you can see with my low flying Zekes I nearly got 1-1 results against the same P38s you lost big time.

Sardaukar made a very good test setup and even counted in where the limits of this testing system are and so this system can be
used for more than just basic conclusions without overstretching the capabilities of the test system.
So his tests are more reliable than what we did, but naturally he also spend more time than we did (or at least than I did).
Only thing I did was throw together a random split cap against a Lightning sweep at high alt without much detailed planning or comparision, still I hurt the Lightnings.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

So my tests are ignored? [:'(]

Tests should be run with FOW OFF, ADVANCED WEATHER EFFECT OFF and getting their results from Intelligence screen Aircraft losses. Otherwise they are null and void. [8D]

Your tests are not the same. Multiple squadrons is just going to confuse the issue.

My tests are as I said, one squadron vs one squadron, absolutely no other factors - no split CAP, no nothing. I'm not interested in what split CAP does, if anything. I'm interested if maneuverability bands do anything. Your tests are not going to show that, and if they did, it'd be too bound up in all the other factors you have included.

The P40K and the Zero are good ones to test because they have a drastic alteration in their performance at altitude. There are no other random factors in that stuff besides maneuverability, and the results to me look basically identical.

Conclusion : if maneuverability does anything it's so subtle as to be hard to spot.

[LoBaron]

So basically you want to show that a low performer is dead meat against an enemy pilot who dives on him?

Whats the news? If dead pilots could talk this would be confirmed by both sides of the fight.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

So my tests are ignored? [:'(]

Tests should be run with FOW OFF, ADVANCED WEATHER EFFECT OFF and getting their results from Intelligence screen Aircraft losses. Otherwise they are null and void. [8D]

Your tests are not the same. Multiple squadrons is just going to confuse the issue.

My tests are as I said, one squadron vs one squadron, absolutely no other factors - no split CAP, no nothing. I'm not interested in what split CAP does, if anything. I'm interested if maneuverability bands do anything. Your tests are not going to show that, and if they did, it'd be too bound up in all the other factors you have included.

The P40K and the Zero are good ones to test because they have a drastic alteration in their performance at altitude. There are no other random factors in that stuff besides maneuverability, and the results to me look basically identical.

Conclusion : if maneuverability does anything it's so subtle as to be hard to spot.

Your post confirms that you didn't even look at my tests.

[LoBaron]

I think he did, but I think he also tries to prove something that is not worth proving.

What Sardaukar showed, and this is basically what I tried to explain all the time is that high altitude does have an impact, as it does in real life.
Its just not the "god feature" you are making of it.

There are ways to counter it and there are multiple factors that influence A2A. Ignoring them you do this at your own peril.

[Sardaukar]

As I said in previous posts, putting incomparable a/c against each other will result different outcomes.

Planes matter, a lot. Every account I have read about Pacific Air War says so. It is in game. Live with it, because it is historical.

What I wanted to say with my small test is that Altitude advantage is a killer IF certain other factors are also for sweeper.  My tests show that if those factors are not there, altitude advantage is not very hot stuff. Note that in my tests, IJ pilots remained un-edited with same exp. air & def.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

So basically you want to show that a low performer is dead meat against an enemy pilot who dives on him?

Whats the news? If dead pilots could talk this would be confirmed by both sides of the fight.

You were the one saying you wouldn't put everything at maximum altitude because you would try to operate in an altitude band which gives you maximum comparative advantage. The P40K vs Zero test proves that even with quite large maneuverability differentials due to altitude there is no discernable impact on the outcome.

So, as I said right at the very beginning, I would just ignore maneuver bands, because they don't do anything, or if they do, it is so minor that you will never notice.

The huge impact altitude has and the negligible impact decent maneuverability has is pushing all the combat up into the stratosphere, as high as every frame can go. The sole reason to fly low atm is bombing accuracy.

Split CAP, well, thats an even more complex system and so it's even harder to determine what is going on. However, given the fact that altitude is so huge a modifier, I wouldn't be surprised if the situation is...

Sweep at 35k feet
CAP A at 20k feet
CAP B at 10k feet

Sweepers dive on CAP B, are now at 10k feet, get the bounce
CAP A dives on sweepers as they are now below CAP A, get the bounce

You can make an argument that says split CAP works, but it's difficult to unravel why it works because you have so many factors. Given the base case of 1 squadron vs 1 squadron and what seems to happen, I would assume that the split CAP thing is all about altitude as well.

Incidentally you didn't get stratosweeps in WITP. The altitude advantage was clearly not as crushing as it is in AE. You also didn't get stratosweeps IRL, so clearly something is wrong.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Your post confirms that you didn't even look at my tests.

Got quite interesting results in my next test, which would indicate that Split CAP works.

I had 2 US P-40E units (av exp. 58) set to 50% CAP at altitudes of 20 000 and 10 000. Sweepers were again Rufes at 32810. Note, US had radar in all these tests. Fighters engaged were approx. same as with one unit 100% CAP in previous tests.


You got 2 squadrons on CAP. Now you got 3 actors all interacting with one another, a far more complex system than 2. You're not testing maneuverability in isolation at this point, there's all sorts that could be going on.

[LoBaron]

EUBanana I have a proposal.

Read from where this discussion started, reconsider what you are trying to prove.

If it is that a plane down low is at disadvantage then please note that there was noone
in this thread who ever doubted it. I said it myself several times and everybody else with
basic knowledge about aircraft and the physics involved confirmed.

So theres nothing to discuss because this is how it was in the war and is in the game.


On the other hand if it is, like you said in your post #92 that altitude is a "God stat", which implies that there is no defense against the high alt sweep whatsoever
which can put what happens back into a realistic context again, then please reread the last two pages, mainly the tests performed by Sardaukar, the 5 minute combat that
I set up, and what our conclusions on that topic are.

If you still think afterwards that we are wrong with our conclusions be aware that this results in nothing
else as limiting yourself in your capabilities where it is not neccesary.

If you leave out or neglect important aspects in a discussion it can happen that it leads you to wrong or circular conclusions
that benefit neither yourself nor anybody else.
I know this myself and it happens to me also (see posts 125 and 126 in this thread for example). [;)]


As it is I think there is not much left to discuss with the exception defending ones ego.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
On the other hand if it is, like you said in your post #92 that altitude is a "God stat", which implies that there is no defense against the high alt sweep whatsoever
which can put what happens back into a realistic context again, then please reread the last two pages, mainly the tests performed by Sardaukar, the 5 minute combat that
I set up, and what our conclusions on that topic are.

Out of all the things directly and tactically influenced, it is a god stat, yes.

I do not expect Zeroes to be able to beat P38s even if out of kindness they fly lower than Zeroes.

I do not expect newbies to be able to defeat aces if they fly below the enemy.

And neither of those factors will influence what altitude you decide to place your squadrons at. It does not matter if you have aces. It does not matter if you have newbies. It does not matter if you have P38s, P40Ks, Zeroes or Oscars or probably even Buffaloes. You will place them at maximum altitude to gain optimal results. There is no reason to place them anywhere else. Those optimal results will likely still be bad results if they are Buffaloes crewed my monkeys against Zeroes crewed by aces, but they will be as good as you can get.

There likely is an exception with split CAP, in which case you might want a low level squadron as bait to try and draw high fliers down. That is still showing though, or could still be showing (it is hard to interpret a complex system like that with all sorts of variables) that the only reason to play with altitude settings is to be above the enemy.

And maneuverability bands do nothing. They do nothing. I think the P40K test proves that beyond all doubt.

[LoBaron]

Uh hu. [>:]

With exactly this point of view you run out of ideas the moment the opponent has an arframe that can go higher than your own.
I fight such airframes with success on a regular basis (also depending on if my opponent doesn´t pull another trick out of his sleeve except altitude naturally if its PBEM).
And I don´t use altitude.

Anyway, this topic is losing momentum don´t you think?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: 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...

posting the combat reports without any comment shouldn´t take longer than 20 secs, perhaps you can find time to do that. copy, paste...

[EUBanana]

This one isn't actually a test but it just happened in my pbem. it just kinda proves to me that there's reason to put single squadrons on anything but their ceiling altitude.

Night Air attack on Lunga , at 114,138

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 7
G4M1 Betty x 13


Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Ic x 5


Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter Ic: 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground



Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb
6 x G3M3 Nell bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.30 Sqn RAAF with Beaufighter Ic (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 1 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 26500 , scrambling fighters to 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 57 minutes

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes



We got 5 Beaufighters at 26,500'. We got an incoming raid at 6000'. It's night time. It's very cloudy. There's radar on the ground but there's only 7 minutes warning, and their altitude estimate is out by 6000'. And the Beaufighters manage to still engage and still shoot down two opponents.

I mean, how? How on earth? I put it to you that that is almost an impossibility. Some people seem to think you can fly under CAP. We can have arguments about glint and things, and I have some sympathy for the reasons presented as to why flying under CAP is not an option. But at night, in clouds, with almost no warning, and with a 20,000' altitude difference.

This happens every night, btw, so it's not just luck.

The Beaus may as well stay at their ceiling altitude. Why not?