Servere Issues - Aircraft Preformance?

[Dili]

Where is the evidence that Bias exists? If that existed why there was need for Zero Bonus? That depends on weight the game gives to all variables starting with speed.

[wdolson]

In the above example, the P-39s would have to climb to engage the bombers.  The Zeros would have a high likelihood of getting the "bounce" and be able to dictate combat terms.  The P-39s would be operating in a battle of maneuver at high altitude and would probably lose in a big way.

The code determines the altitude of the combat based on a number of factors.  The unit at higher altitude has a better chance for getting the bounce.  Units with the bounce can fight the battle more on their terms.  Other factors such as experience, leadership, and aircraft characteristics also affect who gets the bounce.  Where ever the combat is determined to happen, the maneuver numbers for that altitude are used.

Bill

[mdiehl]

The Zeros would have a high likelihood of getting the "bounce" and be able to dictate combat terms.

The likelihood of "bounce" should not be determined by altitude. It should initially be determined by the amount of warning of an airstrike and the defending a.c. types' climb rates. The whole "you set the altitude of the combat" process is idiotic, because it doesn't model anything real from the command and control side, and it doesn't model anything real from the "who can seize the initiative" side.

After initial combat it should be pretty much a mixed bag. Faster types should tend to outfight slower types, although short chains of pilots shooting each other down should occur and inflict losses on both sides.

And in all cases the initial bounce it should be rather rare.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The Zeros would have a high likelihood of getting the "bounce" and be able to dictate combat terms.

The likelihood of "bounce" should not be determined by altitude. It should be determined by the amount of warning of an airstrike and the defending a.c. types' climb rates. The whole "you set the altitude of the combat" process is idiotic, because it doesn't model anything real from the command and control side, and it doesn't model anything real from the "who can seize the initiative" side.

This is a pretty narrow criteria for defining bounce. And you are assuming there is some kind of C&C when in this period and Theater there often was none. What would your suggestion be if there were no C&C (Radar)?

You set the altitude of your CAP. That is no different that RL. You plan a raid at Altitude X. Same thing.

That is how a player determines how his Raids and CAP will behave. This is no different that RL. What happens after that is dependent on a myriad of factors, not the least of which is Radar (read C&C). In the absence of radar it comes down to what altitude you've ordered your CAP to fly, many variables and luck. If you are higher you have an advantage.

This is not the same as setting the altitude of "Combat". This statement is clearly made in the absence of any knowledge of how the code works.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

P-39D
---19--------------19---------------14-----------------11-------------------8

A6M2-21
---33--------------33---------------27-----------------21-------------------10

From this you can see that the P-39 begins to suffer above 15k'. It's critical altitude falling at 15k.

Likewise the A6M2 retains it's performance up to 15k' but carries a significant maneuverability advantage overall so the decline is more severe over the range of altitude bands. When these two A/C meet it will be most advantageous to the P-39 if it is at <15k'. This is how we eliminated the Zero bonus and P-39 Penalty.

Hi - quick question - but based on the above, isn't the ideal altitude for the P-39 above 30,000? Since at very high altitude the delta between MVR ratings is only 2, whereas at <15K, the delta is 14.

I guess, what is better - higher MVR period, or maximizing(if you are better)/minimizing (if you are worse) the MVR delta between you and your enemy?

To answer your question, you are mathematically correct when you consider these numbers alone. However given equal starting circumstances, Altitude, and numbers, the P-39 is still at a MVR disadvantage. Throw in Pilot EXP and even more so.

That being said the numbers I quoted are wrong. Apologies.

P-39D
19-17-13-9-5

Timtom pointed out my error.

So to take your example a combat at 30k would have the P-39D a 2 to 1 underdog. One thing that has not been mentioned is that when combat is joined there is a bit of jockeying for position. Rate of Climb being a crucial factor. Anyone wanna guess who wins that race? Airspeed is also looked at with EXP modifying a random or "instantaneous" speed check. this speed check then modifies MVR up to as much a halving the the MVR of the slower plane depending on Speed Delta.

All these things create variety. Which is one of the things we needed. And Altitude is ultimately important as an advantage, after all the checks, can lead to a bounce which adds to MVR. Despite what the Right honorable gentleman from the Steakhouse suggests.

So and Iron Dog with 5k of altitude over a Zero can be a potent attacker...

[Dili]

Does superior climb ability can offset altitude diference if it isnt much?

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
The likelihood of "bounce" should not be determined by altitude. It should initially be determined by the amount of warning of an airstrike and the defending a.c. types' climb rates. The whole "you set the altitude of the combat" process is idiotic, because it doesn't model anything real from the command and control side, and it doesn't model anything real from the "who can seize the initiative" side.

After initial combat it should be pretty much a mixed bag. Faster types should tend to outfight slower types, although short chains of pilots shooting each other down should occur and inflict losses on both sides.

And in all cases the initial bounce it should be rather rare.

I recall reading somewhere that the majority of WW II shoot downs were not in dog fights. Most fighter to fighter encounters were settled by one party sneaking up on the other party and shooting them down before they knew what was happening. Most combatants adopted the finger four formation for fighters because they could watch each other's tails, if everyone was doing their job and looking around. With inexperienced pilots who could barely fly, they weren't looking around much and became easy targets.

As far as the details of the air to air design, I defer to the professional fighter pilot on the team. I consider myself a fairly knowledgable amateur (and I was an Aeronautical Engineering major for a while before switching to Electronic Engineering), but I have never been in a real dog fight, even a mock one such as they do at the Top Gun school. Nor have I ever been at the controls of a real fighter.

Bill

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'd like to see AE eliminate the "Zero bonus" entirely and bump all Allied exp levels 20 points across the board. As it stands, it already vastly exaggerates the quality of Japanese aviation.

So when is the last time you played?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TheElf

In AE the critical altitude is modelled as the altitude where MVR begins to decline. Previous posters are correct in the sense that the are Multiple bands where MVR is measured during Air Combat. Here are some examples:

The bands...
Low 0-10/Med 10-15/M.High 15-20 / High 20-30 / V. High 30k' +

P-39D
---19--------------19---------------14-----------------11-------------------8

A6M2-21
---33--------------33---------------27-----------------21-------------------10

From this you can see that the P-39 begins to suffer above 15k'. It's critical altitude falling at 15k.

Likewise the A6M2 retains it's performance up to 15k' but carries a significant maneuverability advantage overall so the decline is more severe over the range of altitude bands. When these two A/C meet it will be most advantageous to the P-39 if it is at <15k'. This is how we eliminated the Zero bonus and P-39 Penalty.

Some other examples:

N1K2-J
---30--------------30---------------30-----------------25-------------------20

P-47D-25 Thunderbolt, Republic
---15--------------15---------------15-----------------15-------------------15

Supermarine Spitfire Mk VIII
---33--------------33---------------33-----------------27-------------------21

Fantastic (I remember when I and several oher argued the need for this 5 years ago in UV time)!!! [&o][&o][&o]


BTW, are those settings also playing role in other forumulas beside A2A (i.e. what I mean is if those number are used in calculations for avoiding FLAK for example)?

Thanks in advance for answering!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'd like to see AE eliminate the "Zero bonus" entirely and bump all Allied exp levels 20 points across the board. As it stands, it already vastly exaggerates the quality of Japanese aviation.

So when is the last time you played?

Can I answer instead for him (becase we all here KNOW the answer)?


Leo "Apollo11"

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Does superior climb ability can offset altitude diference if it isnt much?

Yes.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'd like to see AE eliminate the "Zero bonus" entirely and bump all Allied exp levels 20 points across the board. As it stands, it already vastly exaggerates the quality of Japanese aviation.

So when is the last time you played?

Ironic question? I thought mdiehl has never played the game! [&:] Don´t want to have this comment sound offense in any way.

[mdiehl]

@ Trolls:

The last time I played WitP was about (IIRC) 4 years ago.

@ Elf & Spider:

As I recall, many shoot downs were pilots distracted by attacking other a.c. There were a few classic "bounces" but it was more often the case that a pilot shooting at a bomber or another fighter was downed by the fighter's wingman, or a loosely escorting unobserved escort. There are plenty of examples of same throughout the "Bloody Shambles' V1 and V2, and of course plenty more in Lundstrom's two volumes.

Interestingly, when the Japanese tried to decoy the defenders at cactus with bomber feints and then went in with just fighters (the nearest thing in the real world to a Japanese "fighter sweep") they were usually beaten by the F4Fs. In my view, mission complexity, and a pilot's fixation with mission objective ... must get those bombers at any cost ... makes pilots vulnerable.

As to how one implements combat when Radar was not available, in my view the attacker has a clear advantage in such circumstances. The Japanese sustained the initiative in SE Asia because by dint of long range they could suddenly appear over Allied bases unanticipated. This often resulted in the destruction of Allied a.c. lifting off or landing -- in effect a real "bounce." It's rather clear that most of the Allied a.c shot down "trying to dogfight with zeros" were already in a low energy state when the Zeros arrived, usually because they were lifting off to meet the incoming raid, ambushed when landing, or as at Coral Sea, when one section of F4Fs went into combat at low power settings because of a desire to conserve fuel. Likewise, the USN's Buna raid, and several of the cross-Owen Stanley USAAF P-39 strikes, were very successful because the Japanese lacked radar, and numerous Zeroes were destroyed trying to lift off to intercept P-39s.

@ Others:

As to the dynamics of CAP and whether or not it should be assumed that a bunch of P39s at 15K feet would attempt to engage zeroes at 24K feet, thus rendering them conveniently vulnerable for a Japanese player, the reality does not support that model. In several raids on Moresby and at Guadalcanal, Japanese F4Fs complained bitterly that the P-39s would not attemp to climb to engage the Zeros from a vulnerable position. I think they described the Americans as fearful, but I note that the Japanese pilots were too fearful of the P-39s to descend to the P-39s' preferred combat altitude. In my view, since the game bothers with all of this hyper-micro-management, a defending a.c. set on CAP should stick to its assigned altitude.

[mdiehl]

I thought mdiehl has never played the game!

That'd be incorrect. In any case the question is irrelevent.

[FeurerKrieg]

In my view, since the game bothers with all of this hyper-micro-management, a defending a.c. set on CAP should stick to its assigned altitude.

Yes, when facing an incoming sweep. But if there are bombers coming, those fighters better go after the bombers - regardless of the altitude of the bomber. And that may indeed take them into an altitude band where they are more vulnerable.

Which, is great I think, because it adds another variable to bombing runs. It is no longer - 6K and take flak, or 20k and get less hits. Now it is that, PLUS - the defending CAP I EXPECT is such and such aircraft - my escorts are such and such - therefore, the ideal altitude for my bombers is XXX.

[Dili]

"Which, is great I think, because it adds another variable to bombing runs. It is no longer - 6K and take flak, or 20k and get less hits. Now it is that, PLUS - the defending CAP I EXPECT is such and such aircraft - my escorts are such and such - therefore, the ideal altitude for my bombers is XXX."

Usually i have read the bombers go at altitude they want and the reason is a mix of economical reasons and bombing sight needs.

I have been reading Mediterranean combat and without distant pre-warning there is no time at all to intercept enemy bombers. I hope that new weaker values about airplane efficiency will make that possible and that it will be impossible to have CAP 24hours over 24hours(daytime obviously) every day of a week for only a squadron(12 planes), that would tire pilots and planes fast and could only be mantained for a short period, and of course the available working aircraft is much less in that circunstances.

[mdiehl]

But if there are bombers coming, those fighters better go after the bombers - regardless of the altitude of the bomber. And that may indeed take them into an altitude band where they are more vulnerable.

I disagree for precisely the reasons you mention. It should not be possible for an attacking player to game the system to maximize the losses of enemy fighters under the presumption that the enemy fighters will do that which is most convenient for the escorts that you send.

Japanese bombing accuracy from high altitude was poor. It was substantially worse than Allied high altitude bombing accuracy (which, with B-17s during the daylight, combined "barely tolerable" accuracy with quantity to consistently achieve moderate results). Therefore, if a Japanese player can assume that my P-39s will always rise to their worst altitude to engage bombers that, if properly modeled, will cause little damage, just to be eaten by the already vastly overrated Zero+pilot combination, it will be a flawed system.

In the real war, P-39s OFTEN refused to attempt to climb to the altitude of 19-20K to engage Zero-escorted-bombers precisely because there was no point. IN those circumstances the Zeros likewise refused to descend to the altitude of the P-39s. Neither side in these engagements deviated from their "best practice." The bombers bombed, and most often the most telling strategic effect was adverse to the Japanese logistics guys who needed to replace the expended bombs and spent fuel.

Japanese light bombers were brilliant tactical bombers. From sea level to about 12,000 feet they could be a real problem. If as an Allied player I decide I'd rather not have P-39s engage Zeroes at 20,000 feet, that choice should be MINE to make, not the Japanese player's choice to dictate.

[m10bob]

"In the real war, P-39s OFTEN refused to attempt to climb to the altitude of 19-20K to engage Zero-escorted-bombers precisely because there was no point. IN those circumstances the Zeros likewise refused to descend to the altitude of the P-39s. Neither side in these engagements deviated from their "best practice."


Not true..The P 39's failed to climb higher because in the Solomons they did not have sufficient time to climb to those heights,(even after they got RADAR because the plane was not a good climber), and some of the planes did not have oxygen,(even the ones with provision for the tanks.)In that clime, oxygen was needed between 12 and 15k, depending on various factors.
The Japanese fighter pilots certainly did descend when they were able to, because being warrior samurai Bushido thought it better to kill fellow warriors than to protect friendly bombers.

The American F4F's would always try to gain an altitude advantage because the F4F had a maneuverability edge on the A6m2 at height, provided the F4F could maintain it's speed and height advantage.(Did you know that?).

It was customary (and doctrine) for Japanese to start a bombing offensive from high altitude, till they were certain of the AA capabilities, therefore it was initially all the harder for a coastwatcher to give enough warning of an inbound flight.
Any recollection of allied fighters attacking from an inferior height are for this reason, and not one of intent.

An advantage of height is ALWAYS preferred because height is the first thing lost with EVERY turn, and speed is the next,(which also causes a loss of....height.)

IIRC, ELF is a pilot. He certainly has more time in the air rhan I, and I believe he has enough flight time to better evaluate the capabilities of planes performances, (based on aerodynamics and kinetic physics), than I( a lowly J-3 jockey) might have, but even the most basic understanding of aviation principles understands this last point.

Getting the height advantage has been a favoured element of dogfighting doctrine since Oswald Boelke, Albert Ball, Lanoe Hawker, et.al......

The term "diving out of the sun" can seldom be interpreted as anything but a reference to some height advantage.

MDiehl, I appreciate some of the things you bring to the forum, however, as Dirty Harry sez: "A man should know his limitations", and as you have been told in past, aviation skills or the knowledge thereof seem to be one of yours.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


...it will be a flawed system.

[:D]

The sky is blue....[8|][;)]

[pad152]

It almost sounds like us WITP players will be at a disadvantage playing AE because of all of the new stuff to get your head around, I can just hear it now, it looks like WITP but doesn't play like WITP, so it must be broken! [8|]

I hope the manual explains all of these things! [;)]


I'll bet the first post after AE's release will be about the results of the first air battle, can someone explain these results! [:D]