Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Elladan

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Thanks for your efforts Sulu, really good to have some in-game tests to compare different models. Just one comment here - as I have mentioned elsewhere, it would be really good for the accuracy of your results if you could test bigger battles, say 200-250 airframes on each side (you can define as many as 255 a/c per airgroup in the editor). 2-3 of such, restarting the game before each to reset the random seed, would give you rock solid results with minimal effort.
One more thing, could you define the labels you use in your results reports (e.g. serviceable etc)? I'm a little bit confused at the moment

Hi Elladan, thanks for the comments. I saw you mentioned it before but it would require too much accounting for me and am not positive the results would be any more concrete than what we've seen. I'm playing AE and also reformatting my R&D plan to go along with this.

Would actually mean less work than what you do now as you only need to update 2 fields in the editor, at the same time as you change the aircraft model. And then you save on turns run which take much more time.
As to the validity of the results - one of the most important things in statistics is the size of the sample. In your case you use only a handful of planes on each side, so there will be only a dozen or two air combat routine iterations made. Now if you increase numbers you suddenly start getting results based on hundreds of combats calculated. That's enough for them to converge to the mean greatly, thus giving you very precise and accurate result. Something you can then use as a benchmark to compare different things with each other. A very important thing trust me, you wouldn't like to base your whole R&D strategy on a results that you find a year into the game were just a lucky roll and the frame you spend so much time and supply on is actually a crap, would you? [;)]

Sorry, I didn't take in you meant 2-3 turns. [;)] I'll run the 10x with the smaller units then expand and run 2 turns with the larger ones and we'll see what happens.

ORIGINAL: String

I'd love to see results comparing the Frank vs. Tojo

We'll field certain airframes against each other (as discussed in another thread?).[:)][;)]

ORIGINAL: Puhis



I presume in your tests detection range and time is quite short?

Here's a typical combat report throughout.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 07, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 11th Air Fleet, at 84,65 (Takao)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 8 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 36



Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 15


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
76 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Aircraft Attacking:
15 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 7000 feet (90th BG/321st BS / Fifth USAAF)
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
101st Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (12 airborne, 24 on standby, 0 scrambling)
12 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: Puhis



I presume in your tests detection range and time is quite short?

Here's a typical combat report throughout.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 07, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 11th Air Fleet, at 84,65 (Takao)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 8 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Yeah, there's no point trying 200 vs 200 plane tests... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: Puhis



I presume in your tests detection range and time is quite short?

Here's a typical combat report throughout.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 07, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 11th Air Fleet, at 84,65 (Takao)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 8 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Yeah, there's no point trying 200 vs 200 plane tests... [:D]

Well yes, that makes the whole situation kind of irrelevant. [:)]

So huh I'm looking for opinions.

Is R&D better spent on Ki-44 IIb or on N1K1 Georges?  I'm in June 1942 and i'm starting to need defensive fighters to ward off and shoot down 4E... i'm now producing a good amo unt of 44IIa's (and some older Oscars for long range escort...) ... but i've just switched some R&D to Goerges...but seems to me that the 3 service rating of the George will be a problem compared tp the Tojos' 1 service rating...

opinions welcomed

also, should i be sopending production on Nicks, or should i switch them to Tojos or something else in the fighter department?

ORIGINAL: frankycee

So huh I'm looking for opinions.

Is R&D better spent on Ki-44 IIb or on N1K1 Georges?  I'm in June 1942 and i'm starting to need defensive fighters to ward off and shoot down 4E... i'm now producing a good amo unt of 44IIa's (and some older Oscars for long range escort...) ... but i've just switched some R&D to Goerges...but seems to me that the 3 service rating of the George will be a problem compared tp the Tojos' 1 service rating...

opinions welcomed

also, should i be sopending production on Nicks, or should i switch them to Tojos or something else in the fighter department?

Well, I'd say spend the research on the Tojo IIb. Not because it's that great a fighter, but so that you can get to the "c" model that much sooner and 'roll' the research over. It will be more difficult to get the IIc in a timely manner if you don't do this.

Hi Guys, again unexpected time to perform these tests.[:)]

Setup was the very same as before but I changed the base from Manila to Naga. In the editor I gave Naga a size 7 airfield with 15,000 supply and also moved forces from Manila to Naga.

To Refresh.

The setup is a unit of 20 B-24D's attack Takao at 7,000 ft on a 16 hex run from Naga. Leaders of the 2 opposing air units have identical stats and will stay that way thoughout. [:)] Waiting at Takao is the 101st Sentai of Ki-44'swith 36 planes at 100% CAP/ 10,000 ft. Both units were flying from level 7 airfields.


Ki-44-IIa results- 
111 serviceable 
43 damaged 
13 write offs 
33 air to air kills


Ki-44-IIa casualties 
4 damaged
6 write offs 
4 air to air losses

Ki-44-IIb results- 
104 serviceable 
50 damaged 
19 write offs 
27 air to air kills

Ki-44-IIb casualties 
5 damaged 
10 write offs 
3 air to air losses

Here are the totals between the two for the 20 runs-

Ki-44-IIa results-
189 serviceable
95 damaged
37 write offs
79 air to air kills

Ki-44-IIa casualties
15 damaged
12 write offs
6 air to air losses

Ki-44-IIb results-
190 serviceable
104 damaged
39 write offs
67 air to air kills

Ki-44-IIb casualties
14 damaged
16 write offs
12 air to air losses



I can't speak for everyone and I understand the testing window is on the small side but for me the results show that the Ki-44-IIa is not a step down from the Ki-44-IIb. I'd argue if engaged in combat the additional 2 in maneuver rating plus the 7.7mm centerline with the 12.7mm on the wings would be more effective against fighters. When only considering this production line, I believe it's the better overall choice against bombers and fighters until the Ki-44-IIc comes along.

Really a thought for a different thread but  I have plans to research it but only to the point of moving it up enough where I can get the IIc model  *ASAP.  (* I only believe in researching the next model in the upgrade path, then moving on and not using repaired research from earlier airframes to skip models.)

Air to air losses were down for the IIb this run but overall losses were still a tick higher than the IIa as you see 13 to 10.

Someone earlier asked what "serviceable" meant, it's planes in operating condition the following day.

I'd really like to move on to the Ki-61 line.

Any thoughts or ideas are welcome. [:)]

Wouldn't it be useful to check their performance against escorted raids and separately against sweeps? And definitely, comparison with Ki-61 and perhaps some later Ki-43 models would be welcome as well.

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Wouldn't it be useful to check their performance against escorted raids and separately against sweeps? And definitely, comparison with Ki-61 and perhaps some later Ki-43 models would be welcome as well.

With variables such as pilot training , leaders, morale, and other influences on combat I'm afraid that may not help much. Really the same could be said for testing against unescorted bombers but I'm trying to seek out what weapons are working better than others for the most part.

However, If I have enough time I'd like to do some fighter on fighter at some point.

Hey SuluSea,

Enjoying the ongoing tests. If you had a spare moment, do you think you could run the Ki-44 IIc tests? I'm very interested to see if our guesses about efficacy hold any water compared to the Ki-44 IIa. Of course, we're just moochers of your time and effort ([;)]), but whatever hard testing you can provide would be much appreciated.

These tests are indeed very interesting, thanks for the effort, truly appreciated [:)]

Andre, I had considered doing the IIc at longer distance. Since it's showed itself to be the best of the line it's a good idea to take another run. If anything to make sure the numbers aren't out of line.

from the first test-

Ki-44-IIc results-
78 serviceable
31 damaged
21 write offs
70 air to air kills

Ki-44-IIc casualties
7 damaged
7 write offs
9 air to air losses

and the current-

Ki-44-IIc results-
77 serviceable 
42 damaged 
18 write offs 
63 air to air kills

Ki-44-IIc casualties 
2 damaged 
3 write offs 
5 air to air losses

From the second tests it looks like serviceable stayed relatively the same, but it looks like some kills and write offs that were lacking went into the damaged dept.. On a good note casualties are down to the IIc.



Here are the totals between the three for the 20 runs-

Ki-44-IIa results-
189 serviceable
95 damaged
37 write offs
79 air to air kills

Ki-44-IIa casualties
15 damaged
12 write offs
6 air to air losses

Ki-44-IIb results-
190 serviceable
104 damaged
39 write offs
67 air to air kills

Ki-44-IIb casualties
14 damaged
16 write offs
12 air to air losses

Ki-44-IIc results-
155 serviceable
73 damaged
39 write offs
133 air to air kills

Ki-44-IIc casualties
9 damaged
10 write offs
14 air to air losses





I found something interesting I'm going to test over the next few days. I'll post the details later. The better half is on her way home from work. [;)][:)]

Wow! The Ki-44 IIc has real killer potential! Almost double the IIa or IIb, really. My top estimate for 10 tests was 60 a2a kills. Your tests indicated even greater efficacy @ 66.5 / 10 tests.

Again, thanks for the tests. If we meet up, I'm buyin you a beer, mate. [&o]

ETA: Interesting...the Takao-based fighters did ****-all. The Naga-based fighters cut 'em a new corn chute. Almost every time...[&:]

Thanks! This is great info. Makes me want to try to run some tests as well!

Thanks Very Much for the support guys and gals!!![:)][:)][:)][:)]

It is interesting, that IIb have worse results, that IIa, but better, than I model, despite latters having identical armament. It seems even small speed difference have impact.
On the other side, low gun accurancy seems to have serious impact (40mm), but high (doubling for centerline) not that much.

Now, the main problem should be:
what should be 40mm gun statistics, to make IIb model clearly better, than IIa, but still worse, than IIc?