Matrix Games Forums

High experience levels should have little effect on a/a combat attrition vs B29s unless the units are flying high altitude, rugged, *heavily armed* interceptors, like the Tony. And then, there should be other constraints. The Tony and its ilk were marginal for the job, being roughly comparable in speed, maneuverability, durability and firepower, to a late ME 109 or the P40N. The difference between the ME109/P40Ns and the Tony though was that the latter was notoriously unreliable, with more than 75% rejection rate on factory roll out and thereafter extremely hinky and unreliable in-line engines (a badly mfd knock off of the ME109 in-line), and too few field techs in the ground support staff to keep them flying in significant numbers. A6M2s flown by EXP rates of 100% should fall in droves when attacking B-29s. The planes could barely reach the altitude of 29s and could barely maneuver at said altitudes and could barely overtake 29s at any altitude. When they got within 1000 yards they were subject to concentrated FP from a fire control officer using an analog computer that could accurately focus 8-12 .50 cal on a target with up to 40 degree deflection at 1000 yards.... well out of range of the attacking interceptor's guns. I spoke with a B-29 fco about 8 months ago. He flew 18 missions against the Japanese. He regretted going to night incendiary raids because it brought the 29s down to flak range. He said that on several occasions his unit knocked out Japanese interceptors "At ranges that would have stunned B17 and B24 crews." Those were his words. In terms of aircraft durability, comfort, payload, and defensive firepower, the B-29 was the most effective strategic bomber and the first really modern bomber. His complaint was that when jet-stream-altitude bombing was ineffective they did not fly at more conventional high altitudes.

I anticipate some wag saying "well, why then don't we still us 'em?" Answer: SAMs, AAMs, and supersonic interceptors totally changed the equation.

The huge problem with the GGPW simulation is that EXP ratings for ACUs are erroneous from the get go, and they overwhelm basic considerations of air worthiness and hitting power. Part of the problem is the assumption that a pilot well trained in aerobatics (which is what Japanese pilot doctrine and aircraft design specs emphasized) is necessarily better than a pilot well trained in hit & run tactics (which is what US doctrine emphasized beginning in late 1940 emphasized). Throw in the fact that 1 in 3 Japanese radios worked, that their loose 3-plane section formation was hopelessly antiquated (they did not abandon the loose Vic until 1944), and that Japanese section discipline broke down rapidly in combat (owing partly to the lack of radios and also to the doctrine of heroic indivdiualism), and you should have rough parity in effectiveness in 1942 between Allied and Japanese fighter acus.

The second huge problem is that a/c MVR seems to have been calculated based solely on turning radius at speeds lower than 350 m/h and altitudes lower than 18,000 feet (in other words, only for conditions that favor the Japanese.. particularly the A6M), and otherwise ignores a/c emergency speed, dive rate, roll rate, high-speed turning radius (the lowly P40E had a tighter turning radius than all makes of the A6M at speeds in excess of 370 m/h, and all makes of the P40 had higher roll rates, thereby allowing them to change directions more rapidly than all makes of the A6M, at all speeds and at all altitudes). Indeed, most US fighters had greater roll rates than most Japanese fighters (the P38 being an exception, owing to its size and the inertia that one had to overcome to roll a craft with outboard engines).

The results is a badly flawed a/a combat simulator. Before I thought it was just a P40 vs. Zeke problem, but I've had similar one-sided Japanese victories with Nates flown by EXP 80 pilots vs. Spitfire VIIIs flown by EXP 74 pilots. Comparable numbers of a/c engaged. Losses of 8 or 9 Spits per Zeke. It happens regularly. That is just wrong.

So before folks get carried away with a whole suite of tinkerings to make Japanese a/c more effective, maybe you all should go back to the drawing board and figure out how air combat really worked. For GGPW v2.2 the change is as simple as downgrading most of the Japanese land based acu EXP ratings from the get go to about 65%, and increasing the MVR ratings of most Allied a/c (leave the sbd/tbd/tac/strat bombers, the P39s, the F4Fs, the Hurricanes, the F2s, the P36s and P35s where they are) by a couple of points.

For WitP, junk the extant a/a combat equation and build in one that accounts for a/c speed, altitude, roll rate, section cohesion etc. This should not be so difficult to do. For surface combat you already have an algorithm for range. It should not be too hard to make an algorithm for altitude. And if WitP really will focus detail down to the individual pilot level then it must assuredly attempt to do a better job at modeling the a/c that the pilots fly.

Best to all.

Originally posted by Major Tom:
Regarding the USN sub war...

It sounds good, Tom. Thanks for the work you guys are putting into this!

Originally posted by mdiehl:
For WitP, junk the extant a/a combat equation and build in one that accounts for a/c speed, altitude, roll rate, section cohesion etc. This should not be so difficult to do. For surface combat you already have an algorithm for range. It should not be too hard to make an algorithm for altitude. And if WitP really will focus detail down to the individual pilot level then it must assuredly attempt to do a better job at modeling the a/c that the pilots fly.

Best to all.

Nice post mdiehl, good read. I too wonder what the air-to-air combat routine in WitP is going to be like.

The problem is, is how is the IJAAF and IJNAF supposed to gain air superiority in 1941 and early 1942, if their planese are not better in any category, and their pilots not much better either. Already, the IJNAF and IJAAF lose their top edge by the end of 1942, and with the inclusion of better planes, like the F6F, P-51, P-47, F4F and Spitfire, the difference between these and the older planes will not be as profound, unless of course we increase the manuverability of these planes as well.

The new OBC's have revised Cannon rates, using a neat list provided by, Ken Kellog, with early Japanese planes haveing severely reduced Cannon rates. They tend to shoot down less Allied aircraft, regardless of experience or manuverability. Not everything is based on manuverability.

I have had P-40's of low experience cut through A6M2's of high experience (because of Cannon and durability rates). Try pitting a B-17 against a A6M2. The Ki-27 Nates now have only have a rating of 1 for Cannon. They don't shoot down much, other than unescorted bombers.

I totally agree that the PacWar way on a/a combat is way too abstract. The way we should best see its accuracy is not though individual battles, but, the ability for the game to end up with the same historical result. I have playtested the Patch, computer vs. computer, and the result is always inevitable. The Japanese will start to crumble if the USN player is at all aggressive in late 1942.

Quite so, Major Tom.

Yet my personal experience vs. the AI and vs. 1 live opponent has been that IJNAF/IJAF units tend on a routine basis to do much too well against Allied ftrs in early 1942. I agree that using B17s against the early war IJN/IJA bases with fighters allows some of them to be shot down and it *does* give the Allies a strategy for doing *some* damage. But using the B17s as, uh, fighter soaks (in effect, doing in GGPW what early USAAF interceptors generally *can't* do) over-taxes my ability to suspend disbelief.

I guess I've suffered through several-too-many Betty/Zeke raids launched against Port Moresby from Kavieng or Rabaul and seen too many "40 defending aircraft destroyed" (when these are P40s with EXPs of 70 or so) vs. "attacker losses: 1 fighter 2 bombers" to believe that the system works very well. And the problem for me that the system creates is that it allows the IJNAF to cover the movements of the IJN in ways that make Allied resistence a futile proposition against a human player. (The AI, on the other hand, can be counted on to fail to develop thoughtful strategic and tactical responses to unusual situations ... frankly in a very realistic Japanese-like way.)

Unfortunately for GGPW I can't offer a "balanced" solution in terms of game victory conditions. Doubtless making the changes that I suggest will make the game historically a better simulation (well, IMO though I'm certain there are some who disagree) and undoubtedly unbalances the game in favor of the Allies at the end of it all. I can think of dozens of decent ideas, but all require some recoding, & you all should not have to do that since your working on this gratis.

I suppose another way to achieve a desirable result from my end of things is to cut the Zeke's range down a bit. Rabaul to Moresby is a bit of a stretch anyhow.

Ideally, the Japanese player should never be able to *assume* the ability to gain air superiority in 1941 or 1942. If the IJN player's plan is to simply repeatedly raid one well-supplied Allied base from one well-supplied Japanese base or TF, that should be a rapidly self-defeating strategy.

To gain and sustain air superiority the Japanese player should have to work for it in ways that the real Japanese did. These include: 1) successful surprise attacks from carrier TFs or multiple land based airbases on strategically important targets (thereby gaining short term quantitiative advantage), 2) followed up by rapid naval and army advances that result in the isolation of those same Allied bases (making it difficult to replace losses, obtain equipment & supplies, &c), and 3) subsequent pounding of those same bases from multiple Japanese bases until there are no defenders left to oppose them.

With the revised cannon ratings, you will see less Allied mid war (ie. Port Moresby vs. Rabul) losses to IJN planes. I playtested the game, computer vs. computer, and the IJNAF got slaughtered in a sustained campaign against the USAAF and USMC in the South Pacific and New Guinea. They still had some good groups left, but, those were permanently left out of the conflict to guard Truk or the Marianas.

The problem was, was that the revised OBC's gave Japanese planes too high Cannon scores, and these are what are used to determine enemy kills. The A6M2 now has a rating of 7 vs. the original 10. Allied planes generally remained with the same cannon rating, with some planes actually gaining an increase in rating.

Actually, the range for the A6M is accurate. They were able to fly from Kendari to Darwin, Rabul to Port Moresby, and so on. That was their primary attribute along with manuverability. However, their cannon rating and durability are both very low (7 Cannon, 8 Durability). The Ki-43 has also been reworked, it now has 2 cannon and 8 durability. For comparison, the P-40E has 12 Cannon and 23 Durability.

Whatever side the AI is on there is a bias. It is the only way in which to make the game tough in a human vs. AI game. This game is almost 10 years old, and there are severe limitations to the intelligence of the AI. This form of 'cheating' compensates for it. However, have you ever lost a game vs. the AI?

Sounds like the revised cannon ratings will do the job.

IIRC most Zekes lacked the range for the Rabaul-Henderson or Rabaul-Moresby trip. The ones that made the trip had enlarged wing tank spaces and external fuel tanks, but the latter were never available in sufficient quantities to outfit an entire ftr group. Even then, the trip was at the limit of their range, with the usual unfortunate consequences for a/c with non-catastrophic damage.

I hope this doesnt skew the game making it absolutley impossible to play the japanese.

Remember the Japanese did not allocate enough air or escorts to protect suppy. I I do this I would expect beter results. If I get hammered playing the japenes no matter what I do, why play?


Seth

No, but, using the correct air cover and placing it at the correct bases.

For the Japanese, although it might not be 100% historic, I usually place most of my IJN recon groups in the Sumatra-Tokyo corridor (ie. the sea-route from Japan to Palembang). With all of these Mavis and Emily bombers out there, subs will be spotted quicker, and attacked more often. Once a sub group is spotted, I am pretty sure that its number of contacts will drastically drop. I usually put the Ki-46 Groups in the Central and South Pacific as recon, as, they do not have any bomb capacity and don't take part in subhunting, but make excellent TF spotters.

The addition of the E13 Jake groups will also aid in ASW.

In the latest version of the game, the USN does not start inflicting major casualties on the Japanese merchant fleet until they have bases within reasonable range (mid-late 1943). Before then, all losses (barring losses against enemy surface and air combat) can easily be made up through reinforcements.

You can't actually stop this from happening, but, if you don't allow the US to gain bases near this area, and/or you allocate sufficient Patrol aircraft to keep the US subs on the move you can lessen the effects.

Try not to lose your MCS's early in the game on risky adventures against enemy ships and LBA. Keep a good number of H6K and H8K recon groups in the supply regions. Move all Sub Chasers, Momi and Otori DE's to the Home Islands and have them act as routine convoy escorts. Save your old DD's (Kamikaze, Mutsuki, etc.) as fast transports for Tokyo Express runs.

You should also limit the number of IJN fleet units in operation. If you routinely have the entire fleet out supporting every operation you will eat up a lot of fuel. If you only use your new and fast ships, then operations will be over faster, and you will use less ships, thereby less fuel. Save your weaker/slower ships (Yamato BB, Fuso BB, Junyo CV, all CVE's, Tenryu CL, Katori CL, Yubari CL, Hatsuhari DD, etc...) for the 'critical' battles of 1944, if the game is not over by 1942.

Leave units that are being built up at the Home Islands (ie. if they are just created with 20 Squads and 4 Artillery). This will decrease the need to resupply outpost bases where these units would be built up. The same thing goes with airgroups. Build and train them at the Home Islands. When they have reached an appropriate level of experience, send them off to the front. Don't have them build up at far off bases. This just means that TF's have to be sent out to replace the supply used up to build the airgroup.

Also, the less far bases that need supply, the less MCS that have to be used to supply them (therefore less fuel will be used).

Don't be on the offensive on every front. This burns up supply and PP.

Think of every option you can to conserve your resources.

Also, if you notice that the USN has positioned subs predominantly in one region, make purpose built TF's to go around that area to supply bases. For example, if the slot from Sumatra to Tokyo is chalk full of Subs, then just start a TF at Palembang, load it with fuel/oil and send it to Kendari, then Iwo Jima, then Tokyo, avoiding the entire region. It may require a lot of effort, but, with no losses it really pays off.