Matrix Games Forums

GUys, two things you have to take into account when looking at losses.

(a) When during the war it happened

and

(b) Types of planes involved

and

(c) Skill levels of pilots involved

You can not take 1 factor in isolation and come up with a kill ratio.

Late war totals have well trained, well rested, well fed Allied pilots flying in excellent aircraft with good intel against poorly trained, unfed, tired Japanese pilots flying obsolete aircraft with generally no intel/radar.

You should be surprised that the Allied kill ratios are as low as they were, but to be fair, there just were not enough Japanese available to shoot down by that time. The deck was so stacked it was embarrassing.

Now, in our game, we can improve on a couple of the factors Japan will be facing by taking better care of our pilots and ensuring they have good intel, which should offset the ratio somewhat. It will not change it dramatically, but it will result in adjusting a 20:1 ratio down to perhaps a 10:1 ratio.

At 150 a month F4U's being produced, even at a 10:1 ratio, thats 1,500 Japan aircraft going away a month.

Add to that the 144 F6F's being produced a month, and another 144 F6F (night fighers).

Add to that the 200 P-40N's being produced a month.

Japan does not produce aircraft ever in these kinds of numbers, the game starts with 671 aircraft production factory points. This can be expanded slightly assuming you can keep them running (they gotta be fed to produce).

As you can see, the USA is spitting out more 3rd generation fighters alone (not including all the OTHER aircraft) then Japan makes total.

I am not looking forward to Japan in '44 against a human player. I doubt I'll even have an aircraft to fly for you to shoot down [:(]

In the hands of an experienced pilot who knew how to dogfight, the zero was a superior plane in early war.

Define "superior." More Zeros (flown by highly experience Kido Butai pilots) were lost to F4Fs than F4Fs were lost to Zeros through June 1942 in direct aerial combat between USN F4Fs and IJN A6Ms. I'd say that makes the early war F4F+pilot (when flown by VF groups) equal to or better than the A6M+pilot (when flown by IJN CV-based groups).

Same is true for the Ki.27 and the Ki.43 (Although they were missing punch regarding the guns). The japanese pilots didn't care about armor or speed, willing to trade that for agility.

Incorrect. Japanese pilots cared alot about armor, speed, and radios. The strategic demands of Japanese war production, and Japanese aerial combat theorists, however, made movement away from the A6M design extremely difficult. It did some things very well, including being cheap to manufacture.

By the way, the Zero was not very maneuverable at high speed. Since you're new to the forums I'll treat you to the same basic facts that others have heard before. At speeds in excess of 250 mph, the F4F (and P39, and P40) could out-roll a Zeke. At speeds in excess of 320 mph, the F4F and P40 could out turn a Zeke. All three could out-dive a Zeke.

Now the early wartype like P-400, P-40 and the like had a problem. They couldn't dogfight the japanese and couldn't outclimb them. The P-40 could outrun them though, esspecially when diving (P-400, P-39, oh, well..., purple heart is waiting for you).

True on climb rates. That's what gave the Zeke a compelling advantage after sustained combat. If you stayed in a combat in, say, a P40, if you entered the combat at high speed, you could probably turn with and flame the first Zeke you came up behind. But if you stayed around for a second one you'd lose so much energy that you'd lose your maneuverability advantage. The trick was knowing when to dive out and leave the are. Better still, just plow through the Zekes at high speed, open the distance, climb, regain speed, and come through for another pass (assuming you can find the fight).

So, what was to do. Thach (or so), pilot on one of the US-carriers, came up with the thach-weave (or "Beam Defense Position).

The beam defense was invented prior to the start of the war.

This is what the P-38 was an expert for. It could outclimb the zero.

Not at low speed it couldn't. You seem to not understand that the performance envelopes of aircraft varied. The P40, P38, and most later models could outclimb the Zero if you start with an airspeed of 250 mph or at an altitude of 14000 feet. There are many, err, postures in which the Zeke was less agile and a slower climber than a P40. But to get to the favorable window for P40s you have to increase speed and altitude. This general rule holds for the entire war, really.

By using this tactic, air superiority was gained over New Guinea in 1943. The F4U was able to outrun every japanese mid-war plane it faced. It was even 50 mph faster than the Hellcat. The F6f outperformed the zero in EVERY WAY. It was better armed. better armored, more durable, faster, more maneuverable... And, it was easy to fly. Even a beginner had a realistic chance of getting back even when faced with unfavorable odds. This situation changed only in late 1944, when the Ki.84 and N1K1-J became available (although there were never enough to go around).

The Ki-84 was a match for the F6F. It was no match for the F4U. The N1K1-J would have been a competitive airplane... if the quality had not been so poor and the structural problems so great.

By the way, lets not forget the Allies captured a Zero after the attack on Dutch Harbor during the Midway Operation. It was tested, its weaknesses were found out about, and tactics were developed to overcome this plane.

That is largely incorrect. An airplane was found. The tactics, however, were invented the previous year, and most of the design decisions that affected the rest of the war had already been made. The captured Zero basically only confirmed to US designers and pilots that the direction that the US was taking (faster a/c with higher output motors and boom n zoom tactics) was the best direction to take.

I agree, however, that 8:1 Zeros destroyed per F4U is ballpark correct. Heck, it might even be LOW.

One further point that might help lift your spirits. The early war USN carrier squadrons (fighter and bomber) are now on par in experience with their Japanese counterparts. IIRC, this reflects the high quality of those pre-war units.

That is an outstanding modification!

Actually, you just repeated my points one on one, but that is ok. I guess that the importance i put into speed becomes clear if you read my posting. Actually I know that the zero wasn't very maneuverable at high speed. Just didn't find it worth mentioning.
but since you always want to have the last word anyhow...
[&o][&o][&o][:D]

fact is
the allies denied to the japanese the one advantge the zero, Ki.27 and Ki.43 had. superior dogfighting capability at low speed (and if you get involved into a dogfight you start to loose speed). Using hit and run tactics was the key. Using this tactic effectively , speed was the key. So what if the Zero could outclimb the P-38 at low speed. You wouldn't go into a fight with low speed while sitting in a P-38 anyhow! What for? to give the japs a fair fight? Of course you go in with high speed, hit and flame a zero, use your superior climbing capability AT HIGH SPEED to gain altitude again, turning back into Combat AT HIGH SPEED and so on. You just couldn't do that with a P-40, because it couldn't climb as fast as a P-38 AT HIGH SPEED, meaning that you normally didn't have time for the second pass. Therefore they raided once, and then dived out of combat (Which they could do faster then the zero, at ANY SPEED)

Lets be careful here, we are getting a tad silly about the realities of life as an escort pilot ...

You didn't always have the luxury of being high and fast when stuck protecting your charge. The same holds true for CAP, you were not always at altitude with speed when the bad guy showed up. More often then not you were in a max climb attitude, low and slow.

You guys need to look at little more realistically at flight and stop tossing round performance numbers. If everyone used performance numbers, no air combat would even occur because each group would be flying at their perfect altitude and speed and refuse to come to the other guys perfect altitude and speed. [:D]

ORIGINAL: pauk



To CynicAl (and proposal to Matrix,2by3team): I have no doubt that you found valuable source so i suggest game developers - use this mathematic formula for code - and we will have no trouble with un-historic results. Each Corsair should be allowed to shoot down exactly 11.3 japanese planes no less, no more


To pasternakski: With all respect i must replied that we agreed on only one isue: i'm also tired of this.
It seems that you read my post but not understood me (Ok, it is my fault because my english is not my mother tongue, sorry for that ). Im not talking of sacrifing historic results, im not expecting victory as Japanese... but, isnt guite unlogical that (if someone manage to keep Japanese aces alive in late 1943) average allied pilots produce turkey shoot of them? (in Marians, Japanese pilots were unexperienced)... Im not suggesting that aces will be invincible, only that experience will play reasonable role in air fights. I have nothing against lets say ratio 15:1,20:1 if Jap unexp. (exp 15-50) engage corsair veteran sqrdn (70,80,90)..... (also, crack aussie sqrdn on P-39 should not be slaughtered by green Zero Datai)

I agreed that we need historical game, but also think only the first WiTP PBEM will be close-as-can-be-close to the realitiy (if you understand what i meant - real war in Pacific happend only once).
Also, i don't see a reason why players shouldn't have LIMITED influence on production and some strategic solutions (because it will lead to unhistoric results[&:])? By that i mean: In real war Japanese didn't pay attention to the ASW untill its become to late. I will try in WiTP (right from begining) to do some work in ASW with japanese weak ASW weapons, and i hoped with better results than historic. So, I don't see a problem...


And the last but not the least: DRONGO, your answers and clarifications were just i wanted to know! I'm satisfied with actual solution[&o] (completly)
Greetings

I understood what You meant and I think that it is correct. If Japanese player forms from his surviving experienced pilots a crack squadron, losses should be lower than average run of the mill Japanese flyer. It's stupid if experience don't count. Then we don't need pilot pool in this game. There are fixed loss ratios from start to end. Only production matters. Then it is historical.

It doesn't matter a worth of a penny on whole war situation or even locally much if Japanese have couple top notch squadrons in late 1943. Recruits are bad and slowly like in real thing most of the aces will be shot down. But if it is denied to try improve those stupid things what Japanese did then the game must do some things allied player also. For example there must be assured that Allied surface fleets do not get too big victories in early war because that would be unhistorical. Or Japanese will loose every surface battle after 1943 because Japanese victory would be unhistorical. Or Singapore must SURRENDER very soon, if not that is not historical result. Or Tommy McGuire must not die against lone Zero because there were 4 p-38's and date was Jan. 7th 1945. Unhistorical result if 4 P-38's meet lone Zero 1945. It must be sure that unhistorical thing like that never happens.

This is very dull forum. Most of it is whining or asking minor gadgets included into the game.

Pertsajakilu

Just didn't find it worth mentioning. but since you always want to have the last word anyhow...

Please accept my apologies for being pedantic, then. It is an important enough distinction, in my opinion, to differentiate between the optimal flight characteristics of aircraft to raise the issue every time a person says "the Zero was superior" or "the Zero was more maneuverable." They are such vague, meaningless generalizations that they contain no useful information. Many people who read such claims without being aware of the footnotes that should accompany such claims will walk away thinking that "the Zero was superior" might imply that in a game the Zero should beat the F4F in most early war engagements. They'd be wrong, but apparently you knew all that.

You guys need to look at little more realistically at flight and stop tossing round performance numbers.

I think that you have misunderstood the content of the posts. Understanding that performance varies with speed an altitude is the most realistic approach. Nothing learned in coming to grips with those realities, in lieu of the blanket charge that the A6M was either superior or more maneuverable, obviates consideration of the constraints of mission objectives. They are separate issues.

When you look at the Cactus air force, for example, you see that the overall loss ratios favored Japanese A6Ms vs F4Fs, but overall loss ratios favored the US in general. This is because F4Fs intercepting escorted Betties tended to shoot down Betties rather than A6Ms, while the A6Ms were shooting down F4Fs. When you look at the missions where Japan attempted fighter sweeps, the F4Fs performed as equals or superiors to the A6Ms overall.

When you look at the Cactus air force, for example, you see that the overall loss ratios favored Japanese A6Ms vs F4Fs, but overall loss ratios favored the US in general. This is because F4Fs intercepting escorted Betties tended to shoot down Betties rather than A6Ms, while the A6Ms were shooting down F4Fs. When you look at the missions where Japan attempted fighter sweeps, the F4Fs performed as equals or superiors to the A6Ms overall.

That is exactly my point mdiehl, one can not gloss over the ratio for the entire war without looking at the context of the missions. A plane flying escort was likely to get a kill against a cap aircraft because it was their only target while a cap aircraft was far more likely to get a kill against a bomber because it was their job. While the cap may get to kill some escort should the chance present itself, it's job was to prevent the bombers from getting to their target, even at the loss of itself.

When looking at late war numbers when the ratios went through the roof, the roles were reversed and large numbers of fighters were available for fighter vs fighter combat causing the ratios to shift dramatically. Fighters exist to protect or kill bombers. That is their primary task. Japan absolutely sucked in this role due to their weak weapons for the most part. This made them even easier to shoot down.

The war starts with Japan in their element, playing turning games, protecting their bombers. The war ends with Japan completely out of their element, trying to shoot down bombers which by design most of their aircraft were hopeless at.

The turning point is some time in 1942. Kill ratios mean nothing when taken out of context.

That is exactly my point mdiehl, one can not gloss over the ratio for the entire war without looking at the context of the missions. A plane flying escort was likely to get a kill against a cap aircraft because it was their only target while a cap aircraft was far more likely to get a kill against a bomber because it was their job. While the cap may get to kill some escort should the chance present itself, it's job was to prevent the bombers from getting to their target, even at the loss of itself.

Hopefully, the mission being flown affecting results will get into the air combat model. It may be to difficult to do correctly given the level of abstraction needed by the game though.

peace then. I guess Mr.Frag has a good point there.[:)]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

use disbanding airgroups on a regular basis. This way you will be able to mix up aces with the replacements, reaching a better average. That is at least what i am doing in UV.

Is this actually bringing up the skill level of the rookie pilots or just the overall average
of the airgroup because of the presence of a couple of high level aces averaging
out the airgroup overall. ( two pilots 85 experience 34 pilots 40+- experience )


Wouldn't sending skilled pilots ( aces ) back into the pool or to the rear bases to mix with
the rookies bring up there individual pilot skill level some as the aces would be training
them with actual combat experience and combat scenarios . (two pilots 85 experience 34 pilots 50+- experience )
I wonder if this coded into the game somehow to reflect training programs and to penalize players who don't manage thier assets to there fullest capability.