Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Dereck and Ron have got me to thinking about a game I played many moons ago with aircraft miniatures.
There was a rule book for fighting models clipped to dowel rods and different formulaes were employed to simulate each value of aircraft, such as firepower, wingloading, power to weight ratio, etc.
The numbers were pretty valid (as far as their results), because they were based on known aerodynamics of the "prototype".
Since the rule book could not give the breakdown for every plane on earth, the formula was given in the book, (for those players who wished to take the time to use rare/unusual planes, (like the Buffalo).
As I recall,the durability and armor could be figured roughly by adding the width to the length and dividing by number of engines,(to compensate for the heaviest factors).
Thus, a single engine plane like the P 47 had a real armor advantage over an I 16 (for instance).
I don't remember the name of the rule book, its' been maybe 25 yrs, but the power to weight was figured similarly, and could give the amount of speed a plane loses in a sustained turn, over time.
Wingloading was width and depth of the wing combined and divided by the HP of the engine(s).Types of wing were not considered, since "it was just a game" and the rulebook author was trying to keep it simple. (Ergo, no compensation for Davis wing, etc.)
Instead of a "Zero bonus", I think Ron has a very sound idea, of re-visiting the experience levels of the pilots themselves.

I believe the game you are talking about is called "Mustangs and Messerschmitts".

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Dereck and Ron have got me to thinking about a game I played many moons ago with aircraft miniatures.
There was a rule book for fighting models clipped to dowel rods and different formulaes were employed to simulate each value of aircraft, such as firepower, wingloading, power to weight ratio, etc.
The numbers were pretty valid (as far as their results), because they were based on known aerodynamics of the "prototype".
Since the rule book could not give the breakdown for every plane on earth, the formula was given in the book, (for those players who wished to take the time to use rare/unusual planes, (like the Buffalo).
As I recall,the durability and armor could be figured roughly by adding the width to the length and dividing by number of engines,(to compensate for the heaviest factors).
Thus, a single engine plane like the P 47 had a real armor advantage over an I 16 (for instance).
I don't remember the name of the rule book, its' been maybe 25 yrs, but the power to weight was figured similarly, and could give the amount of speed a plane loses in a sustained turn, over time.
Wingloading was width and depth of the wing combined and divided by the HP of the engine(s).Types of wing were not considered, since "it was just a game" and the rulebook author was trying to keep it simple. (Ergo, no compensation for Davis wing, etc.)
Instead of a "Zero bonus", I think Ron has a very sound idea, of re-visiting the experience levels of the pilots themselves.

I believe the game you are talking about is called "Mustangs and Messerschmitts".

NO, but thanks anyway.........................
Some of the games' parameters were viable because they were developed using actual aerodynamics.

[mdiehl]

Zero Bonus? Probably no much effect here. Exp (over)Ratings? I think so....

Thanks for the tests. That was IMO a very pure test of the core results of the game design. Certainly the Zero bonus was a contributing factor, but there are alot of things that could be changed perhaps EXP for example to bring the results into the right ballpark at least.

I wonder how the durability affects all this? I've noticed that in A2A not enough Japanese aircraft of any type are lost in a mixed combat. If one left the Zero bonus the same and the EXP the same and halved the durability of all unarmored/non-self-sealing tank a/c would the results feel more like RL?

[Honda]

Zero is already a match-box - as it's suppose to be and as it really was. In an A2A engagement Zero almost never gets damaged, it's always destroyed. When they do get damaged it's only when fighting early war allied fighters, and then again, not too often. You should check it out.
When intercepting heavies, you really get to see how pathetic they get. The best way to deal with Zeros in early war is to fly as much heavies you can get your hands on into a Zero CAP and watch the massacre. Nothing kills Zero aces like a B-17. So belive me, if Zero durability got reduced even more, there wouldn't be any point in playing the game. I think that's obvious to EVERYONE.
Again, I'm not here talking about raising the Zero durability but not lowering it. Obviously...

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Zero Bonus? Probably no much effect here. Exp (over)Ratings? I think so....

Thanks for the tests. That was IMO a very pure test of the core results of the game design. Certainly the Zero bonus was a contributing factor, but there are alot of things that could be changed perhaps EXP for example to bring the results into the right ballpark at least.

I wonder how the durability affects all this? I've noticed that in A2A not enough Japanese aircraft of any type are lost in a mixed combat. If one left the Zero bonus the same and the EXP the same and halved the durability of all unarmored/non-self-sealing tank a/c would the results feel more like RL?

Thanks,
I would like to state that I did everything I could to keep the test even, such as raising the USMC sqdn from the random rating of 53 the computer gave them - up to 65, I also fired one P40 sqdn leader shortly in to the game as he was only a 43/43 and was bringing his unit down, so I replaced him with a 'hot shot' leader and things improved dramatically for that sqdn. In short - I was not trying to make it easy for the Japanese just to make the zero bonus look bad.

Had I not increased a/c replacements for the P40E and F4F4 from 20 to 150 each, and had I intended to show just how much the Zeros could stomp them and finish them off - I can assure you I could easily have gotten twice the kill rate by just letting attrition eat the Americans up so badly they would have always been seriously outnumbered, as I recall that's how I got an 8 to 1 kill rate on my first test - so I never repeated that again (even though in a real game you will destroy units like I did in test #1).

But that was not my purpose or intent, I merely wanted to see what the game engine will spit out given a little time.

I suppose I could run it all over again without the bonus to see what - if any - difference it makes.

B

[mdiehl]

When intercepting heavies, you really get to see how pathetic they get. The best way to deal with Zeros in early war is to fly as much heavies you can get your hands on into a Zero CAP and watch the massacre. Nothing kills Zero aces like a B-17.

That is not so far fetchhed. A6M2s had a hell of a time with B17s and eventually conceded that it was generally unwise to go near one.

Heck, even in New Guinea air campaigns you read Sakai's account and read between the lines you see that there were places the Zeke dared not go. The iron dog pilots learned not to climb to 20,000 feet to engage Zekes, and that is (rightly) a negative observation on the qualities of the P-39. On the other hand, Sakai lamented that the P-39s refused after the first couple of fights to come up to the A6Ms altitude and play... which is a frank admission that the A6Ms were also unwilling to descend to the P-39s altitude and play.

That was because at less than 12,000 feet, the P-39 was hells' bells on the A6M, the P-39 being MUCH faster, and more maneuverable, and better armed, and better armored.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

When intercepting heavies, you really get to see how pathetic they get. The best way to deal with Zeros in early war is to fly as much heavies you can get your hands on into a Zero CAP and watch the massacre. Nothing kills Zero aces like a B-17.

That is not so far fetchhed. A6M2s had a hell of a time with B17s and eventually conceded that it was generally unwise to go near one.

Heck, even in New Guinea air campaigns you read Sakai's account and read between the lines you see that there were places the Zeke dared not go. The iron dog pilots learned not to climb to 20,000 feet to engage Zekes, and that is (rightly) a negative observation on the qualities of the P-39. On the other hand, Sakai lamented that the P-39s refused after the first couple of fights to come up to the A6Ms altitude and play... which is a frank admission that the A6Ms were also unwilling to descend to the P-39s altitude and play.

That was because at less than 12,000 feet, the P-39 was hells' bells on the A6M, the P-39 being MUCH faster, and more maneuverable, and better armed, and better armored.

This is one of the glaring problems with the model. It relies too much on concepts from previous releases, either theirs or other. Funny how the P-39 and P-400 are the only planes with such negative baggage in this game. Oh,and the Zero Bonus of course.[:)] If one is going to highlight pros and cons of an aircraft, all aircraft should then be judged, not just a few.

[el cid again]

Leave the bonus and experience as is. Yamato Hugger is right.

I concur. Having said that, I appear to have done just that - unintentionally - if you theory about it being slot defined is true!

The Zero bonus is a combination of things - technical and tactical. The Zero was really a pioneer in some respects (cannon for example - although Thailand had a tiny number of planes earlier). It leads the world in range performance. It is more maneuverable than typical planes at the time of its introduction. Its pilots had an AVERAGE of 5000 flight hours experience - combat experience at that. And Cdr Genda had identified a special tactical concept which was taught widely - even adopted by the Army. Really the Ki-43 shoud ALSO have the Zero bonus as well - it is even MORE maneuverable - it has combat experienced pilots - and the Army had adopted Gendas tactical method. Eventually the bonus goes away - and this is correct. Japan failed to evolve - and its enemies did evolve - so it really went away. Also the experience level of pilots dropped drastically due to the effects of attrition and slow training rates.

Now to RESTORE the Zero Bonus!!!

[mdiehl]

The Zero bonus is a combination of things - technical and tactical.

None of which have yet been identified as being intrinsically something other than a property of the aircraft itself (mvr, range) that is already modeled in the game through other mechanisms.

The Zero was really a pioneer in some respects (cannon for example - although Thailand had a tiny number of planes earlier).

Uh, no. The Zero's cannon was inferior to comparable A2A aircraft cannon used by the US and the Allies and the Euroaxis. The first really meaty A2A cannon was the 37mm used on the iron dog in 1939 -- which was designed initially to be a bomber killer. The ME109 was the first operational a/c to go into mass production with a 20mm.

It leads the world in range performance.

Generally, no. Specifically in 1942, yes. But only because it obtained such range by sacrificing all armor protection. The A6M2 was the logical extremis of the principles underlying WW1 fighter design. In short, it was (despite some early successes it experienced owing primarily to good operational planning and superior numbers), a "war too late."

It is more maneuverable than typical planes at the time of its introduction.

That is incorrect. It was only more maneuverable at lower airspeeds. And maneuverability can be measured in many ways. Most Allied a/c had faster roll rates than the Zero, which is important for initiating a turn. At speeds in excess of about 280 mph the Zero was less maneuverable, in every respect, than even the F4F wildcat or the P-39 airacobra.

Its pilots had an AVERAGE of 5000 flight hours experience - combat experience at that.

That is incorrect. Its pilots had an average of about 700 hours of experience, of which typically less than 50 hours was combat experience in missions that might encounter enemy aircraft.

And Cdr Genda had identified a special tactical concept which was taught widely - even adopted by the Army.

Which was what, exactly? The flawed 3-plane section? The lack of intensive training in deflection shooting? The general poor coordination of aircraft once combat was initiated? Frankly, Allied training emphasized better doctrine even before the war began.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Oh boy. mdiehl vs elcid. Guy who didn't even buy the game vs. elcid. Notorious Allied fanboi and one of the most obnoxious posters on WITP board vs. one of the most knowledgable guys on all things Japanese and Chinese.

<grabs popcorn>

Don't disappoint us guys.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Oh boy. mdiehl vs elcid. Guy who didn't even buy the game vs. elcid. Notorious Allied fanboi and one of the most obnoxious posters on WITP board vs. one of the most knowledgable guys on all things Japanese and Chinese.

<grabs popcorn>

Don't disappoint us guys.

I guess I should offer el cid my avatar ... he might need it !! [;)]

Also, I guess Andrew got his question answered ... surprise, surprise ... a few people DID have opinions about this topic !!! [:D]

[Big B]

So I ran the same test as before - the same 6 Daitai vs the same 6 American Sqdns, this time starting on June 1st 1942 - No Zero Bonus.
The only thing else different in this test was that the Japanese default pilot quality dropped from an average of 81 or 82 previously to an average start of 75 (range was 70 to 80).

Results without the zero bonus in effect: 78 Zeros destroyed a2a vs 189 F4F4s and P40Es.

Looks like a slight drop in kill ratios from a solid 3 to 1 previously to about 2.5 to 1 favoring the Zero.

So that appears to be the Zero Bonus - they destroy about the same number of good allied fighters either way, but take about 16% to 17% more losses without the Bonus.

From the way I look at it, 16% losses more or less taken by the Zeros is almost inconsequential compared to the fact that the game engine (as of the last official patch - 1.62# ?) kills good allied fighters at 2.5 to 3:1 rate overall, even in June 1942.

I don't know the exact loss rate for P40s and F4Fs due to fighter combat in 1942, that will be the next step to investigate.

Regardless - that kind of kill rate seems awfully high to me.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I guess I should offer el cid my avatar ... he might need it !! [;)]

Who's the guy on your avatar? (Perhaps I should recognise it myself but picture is too small, I wouldn't recognise it if it was sculpture depicting, say, my brother [:D])

O.

[mdiehl]

So that appears to be the Zero Bonus - they destroy about the same number of good allied fighters either way, but take about 16% to 17% more losses without the Bonus.

OK. As I understand your findings so far, with the Zero bonus on it is 3:1 in favor of the A6M and without it the ratio is about 2.5:1 in favor of the A6M.

That seems to indicate that:
1. Eliminating the Zero bonus would bring the A2A model closer to RL.
2. It would not be sufficient to fix the A2A model. I think Rtrapasso was probably correct in noting that the Zero bonus is only part of the problem.

[ChezDaJez]

Hi, Big B,

So that appears to be the Zero Bonus - they destroy about the same number of good allied fighters either way, but take about 16% to 17% more losses without the Bonus.

How sure are you that it was the bonus that accounted for the difference and not the decrease in experience? Or a combination of the two?

Regardless - that kind of kill rate seems awfully high to me.

I don't necessarily think it's too high given that this is a sterile test and not reflective of actual operations where fatigue will play a role. You have to remember that for all of 1942 the overall kill ratio between the Wildcat and the Zero was something like 1.2:1 and that includes the Guadalcanal campaign where the Zero was at a severe disadvantage due to the range involved, a fully alerted enemy and having to provide close escort to the bombers. At least during the Philippine campaign the Zeros were allowed to sweep ahead of the bombers.

I would assume a test involving a squadron of Wildcats on CAP at Lunga Pt in Oct 42 will have about a 2:1 kill ratio over a Daitai of Zeros flying down from Rabaul, especially when conducted day after day.

I'm in the process of analyzing a major CV battle that my opponent and I just had in our PBEM. 3 IJN carriers battled a minimum of 2 Brit carriers, 2 fleet CVs and a CVE near Macassar in Sep 42. My Zeros were very experienced (avg of 85) but they were shot down by F4F-3s and Fulmars at a rate of about 1.6:1. I'm tallying the number of fighters involved now. I'll post this once I have the numbers computed.

Chez

[mdiehl]

You have to remember that for all of 1942 the overall kill ratio between the Wildcat and the Zero was something like 1.2:1 and that includes the Guadalcanal campaign where the Zero was at a severe disadvantage due to the range involved, a fully alerted enemy and having to provide close escort to the bombers.

The problem is that none of these were a particular or consistent disadvantage for the Zeroes. For example, escorting bombers was an advantage in most cases because it did not change the Zero pilots' mission one iota. With or without the bombers, the Zeroes' job was to down Allied fighters. Having the bombers in company often allowed the Zeroes to get at Allied fighters while their attention was diverted to attacking a bomber. The presence of Japanese bombers made the Allied pilots' job more complicated, not the Japanese pilots. This is particularly supported by the observation that when the Japanese tried "fighter sweep" raids the F4Fs did consistently better than when the Japanese tried mixed Betty and Zero raids. The Allied defenders' best day (for downing Zeroes) occurred on just such an occasion.

Second is that the "advanced warning" system often simply did not work. The consequence was that Japanese planes on several occasions achieved tactical surprise. At best, the "advanced warning" system made tactical surprise less frequent. When the Allied pilots had very good warning, they had just enough time to get their aircraft into the air and climb to a position to engage the Zeroes on equal terms. There are very few instances of Guadalcanal pilots achieving tactical surprise, and usually when it happened it was because the Japanes tried to get fancy with a simultaneous high-level and low-level strike (with the low level element getting bounced by the US defenders).

Finally, the Allied pilots were operating under a severe disadvantage of their own. Lack of sleep owing to nearby infantry combat, intermittent shelling from IJA guns, Japanese infiltrators, night harassment air raids, and several extremely severe shore bombardments. The Allied pilots were also operating at the end of a logistical shoestring with inadequate supplies of spare parts, and at times flying F4Fs that (from fatigue and need for tune up and new parts) were deemed "unfit for service."

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I guess I should offer el cid my avatar ... he might need it !! [;)]

Who's the guy on your avatar? (Perhaps I should recognise it myself but picture is too small, I wouldn't recognise it if it was sculpture depicting, say, my brother [:D])

O.

Oh .. that would be "Rodrio Diaz" !!!

( but question is - does anyone know who HE is ? )

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Hi, Big B,

So that appears to be the Zero Bonus - they destroy about the same number of good allied fighters either way, but take about 16% to 17% more losses without the Bonus.

How sure are you that it was the bonus that accounted for the difference and not the decrease in experience? Or a combination of the two?

There is no way to know for sure if the drop in piolot exp from 81 to 75 didn't play a part in that, I was wondering the same thing when I saw their exp drop also. Personally, I think it must have had some small effect - but since the amount of kills achieved remained at about the same level (and the Allied Pilots stayed tye same) I don't think that exp drop accounted for much of that 16% - 17%.

Regardless - that kind of kill rate seems awfully high to me.

I don't necessarily think it's too high given that this is a sterile test and not reflective of actual operations where fatigue will play a role. You have to remember that for all of 1942 the overall kill ratio between the Wildcat and the Zero was something like 1.2:1 and that includes the Guadalcanal campaign where the Zero was at a severe disadvantage due to the range involved, a fully alerted enemy and having to provide close escort to the bombers. At least during the Philippine campaign the Zeros were allowed to sweep ahead of the bombers.

I would assume a test involving a squadron of Wildcats on CAP at Lunga Pt in Oct 42 will have about a 2:1 kill ratio over a Daitai of Zeros flying down from Rabaul, especially when conducted day after day.

I'm in the process of analyzing a major CV battle that my opponent and I just had in our PBEM. 3 IJN carriers battled a minimum of 2 Brit carriers, 2 fleet CVs and a CVE near Macassar in Sep 42. My Zeros were very experienced (avg of 85) but they were shot down by F4F-3s and Fulmars at a rate of about 1.6:1. I'm tallying the number of fighters involved now. I'll post this once I have the numbers computed.

Chez

Well, I think it's way too high, that is - I THINK - it's way to high, I don't know that for an absolute fact, which is why I said it's time to research what really happened.

Of the 3x F4F4 Sqdns, two were USN that had default exp of 75, the other was USMC that in this test had default exp of 65. As it turned out - none of those three F4F sqdns could not handle the 75 exp Zero sqdns as the tally at the end showed...in fact in both tests with these planes I was a little surprised to see the F4F4 get more roughly handled than the P40Es considering the pilot quality of about 75 for Navy vs mostly 55 for Army.

When I get more energy (my back is killing me right now) I might try again with Rabaul and the 'Canal. But I purposely didn't want any side issues like fatigue in these, which is why I put everyone close. In the first three tests I did the Japanese flew from Tainan to Manila day after day but the results were the same...about 3 to 1 for the Zero.

One last thought - for all those wanting to share the Zero Bonus with the KI43, be my guest to try, but don't expect any dramatic changes.

B

[rtrapasso]

Oh .. that would be "Rodrio Diaz" !!!

( but question is - does anyone know who HE is ? )

yeah - your avatar guy (whose secret identity you've already revealed... both here and in prior posts. but i am pledged to secrecy.[:'(])

[pauk]

well, it seems that everyone here like to test. So, i did my own tests too (in the past).

Now, can you tell me, especially persons who DON'T own the game, does it seems right?

ORIGINAL: pauk

I'm testing frank vs corsair right now (different exp level).

So far i done with frank vs kittyhawk. I was little bit suprised because frank is supposed to be better plane. Both missions were performed ad 20.000 ft (Frank and Kittyhawk)

#1. sweep mission over the San Jose.

12 franks (leader had something about 80/90 ratings/best suited for air transport)- overall exp 64.

vs

12 kittyhawks (leader 64/74; best for the bomber sq. leader) - overall exp 68.

#1a 2 frank destroyed; 1 Kittyhawk destroyed
#1b 3 frank destroyed; Kitty no loses

#2. Sweep mission over SJ

32 frank (same leader); exp 60 and something vs 12 Kittyhawks (same leader, exp level of the group 68)

#2a 4 franks destroyed; 3 kittyhawks destroyed

It's funny how this thread started. Original poster said that he is interested " get rid of the "Zero bonus", possibly replacing it with some other early war advantage to the Japanese aircraft."... then Allied rant begun and claims that they have 8:1 losses vs Zero. Then i offered ac losses screen from my pbem (A2A loses weren't even 3:1). After that original poster said he is interested only in Dutch vs Zero fighers and PBEM losses doesn't help... and so on....

You can back to your little discussion now, and please don't pay attention for above posted tests. They doesn't prove that this game is made for Japs fanboys and it certainly doesn't deserve to even comment...