AFB Request: Hellcat

[Erik Rutins]

As a side note, I was informed last night that I had a scenario open that wasn't entirely updated when I posted these screenshots, so some of the air data there also may be out of date compared to what will be in the final release version. That's what some of those asterisks were about, for example.

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I will wait and see, but this just looks wrong........sorry. Note I said "looks" wrong......but I have been looking at WITP since release, so am used to seeing late war allied fighters in the 30's mvr wise.

Why is there a exact double of the F4U-1D? I can see the different versions, but this a/c is exactly the same in the screen shot.

First it is obvious that AE is using a different computational scheme. As to the wrong, no not really. Assuming maneuvabiltyis mostly related to the turning battle, look at some numbers related to wing loading and power ratio. Wing loading is how many pounds of aircraft each sq ft of wing is holding up. Power ratio is how many pounds of aircraft each BHP is pushing around. All this numbers assume a CAP/Escort load

F4F: wing loading 26.5 lb/sq ft, power ratio 6.9 lb/BHP
F6F: wing loading 34.1 lb/sq ft, power ratio 5.7 lb/BHP
F4U: wing loading 38.3 lb/sq ft, power ratio 5.35 lb/BHP

A6M
Model 21: wing loading 22.0, power ratio 5.5 lb/BHP
Model 52: wing loading 26.23, power ratio 5.28

In simplest terms wingloading determines how much drag is induced in a turn and power ratio speaks to how well the aircrafts engine can overcome this drag. Contrary to popular belief, the Allied late war fighters could not stay in a sustained turning fight with their Japanese counterparts. AH. but air combat is in three dimensions not two. Here is where the Allied fighters had the advantage. Not only did they have higher top speeds but the had as odd as it seems a weight advantage. Weight (well mass really) is a very important factor in determining things like momentum and inertia. Fighter pilots call these phenomenae "energy". The USN planes (even the F4F) were better at building up and then ultimately using "energy".

One last thing. The F6F had a notorious poor roll rate at high speeds. This was not true of the F4U. This has to play into the Maneuver Rating too.

So, if I understand what The Elf said, AE ATA combat will give the USN flyboys a random chance to see if they can put their speed/energy advantage to use in combat. If they fail, it means our wily Japanese pilot has suckered the US pilot into a battle on his terms. If you have read Baa Baa Black Sheep, you will know this is exactly how Boyington got shot down - he ran out of speed and energy

This is essentially correct. There are several things at work in the code. lots of randomness, and things like EXP and LDR ratings, but what your surmise is part of the recipe.

For anyone who insists on knowing the formula behind various routines, trust me when I say it would ruin the experience for you to know the details. Just enjoy the "movie" and don't ask what happens in the end...until you watch it for yourself.

Elf.. my apologies. I guess when it comes to what you guys are doing, I make Sgt. Schultz look like a genius.. I should just sit back, not comment, and hope the Family Finance Chairperson says I can buy this thing when it comes out. (Any ideas when I should start preparing my sales campaign?? Hint, hint, wink wink.)

[Big B]

Actually the first unit to equip with F6F's was VF9 of the Essex
from http://www.ussessexcv9.org/Bravepages/VF9.html

"On its return from North Africa, VF-9 was slated to convert to the new F4Us in January 1943, but Vought hadn't produced enough to equip all the planned squadrons. So, Fighting Nine took delivery of the Grumman F6F-3 Hellcats that month, the first operational squadron to do so."

ORIGINAL: Big B

From:http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f6f_hellcat.html

"Grumman had to build a new facility, Plant Number 3, to produce the Hellcat. Obtaining the structural steel for the buildings was a challenge, met in part by the purchase of scrap from the Second Avenue El. Even before Plant Number 3 was finished, Hellcats began rolling off the production lines. Another Grumman test pilot, Selden "Connie" Converse took up a production F6F-3 for the first time on October 3, 1942. Grumman's Hellcat output picked up quickly: 12 planes in the last quarter of 1942, 128 in the first quarter of 1943, and then 130 in the month of April, 1943. Eventually they would be churning out 500 per month. The company built over 12,000 in three years."

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: TheElf



Thomas will have to answer #1. But I presume the date has to do with the date that the F6F became operational hence would lead the "on map" date to be a bit later than the actual production date. Remember the game doesn't simulate the introduction of a type, ie. the work up of the first squadron to "fleet" status. This might explain the discrepancy.

As our pointy eared friend says, we generally use the date when an a/c came into use with PTO operational units as the in-game arrival date rather than production dates. To my knowledge, the first such unit on the F6F was the second VF-3 reforming San Diego April '43.

[RevRick]

As our pointy eared friend says, we generally use the date when an a/c came into use with PTO operational units as the in-game arrival date rather than production dates. To my knowledge, the first such unit on the F6F was the second VF-3 reforming San Diego April '43.

Okay, when did Spock log on????

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

About 1,300 arrive aboard Sqns

I forgot to ask, but does this mean that the Allies do NOT draw aircraft from the pool for incoming squadrons?

Do the Japanease?

Thanks in advance.

Chad

No, and no.

ORIGINAL: Big B

Actually the first unit to equip with F6F's was VF9 of the Essex
from http://www.ussessexcv9.org/Bravepages/VF9.html

"On its return from North Africa, VF-9 was slated to convert to the new F4Us in January 1943, but Vought hadn't produced enough to equip all the planned squadrons. So, Fighting Nine took delivery of the Grumman F6F-3 Hellcats that month, the first operational squadron to do so."

What I was trying to say was that aircraft type arrival date = first in-game unit to operate type in the Pacific, the Pacific being defined as the area represented by the map excluding the "off-map" boxes like "Eastern US" etc. No doubt that VF-9 was the first combat unit to operate the F6.

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: timtom

No, and no.

Thanks Tim.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I should have posted a caveat before putting up those screenshots. However, as Elf, Terminus and Vettim89 have noted, you can _not_ read the Maneuver ratings in AE as you did in WITP. If we were still using the WITP air combat system, you'd be right and I can't blame you guys for the reaction given that you haven't played AE yet. In AE, maneuver is a starting point and other factors like speed, altitude, etc. are much more important. Air combat is really done right in AE and you will get realistic results with a F6F vs. a Zero compared to a F4F vs. a Zero.

I think if you simply posted a few test battles to show how things worked now, it'd do a lot to assuage any fears. Kind of like the 100 jeeps vs. a tiger test that was done for TOAW. I mean you guys did test this right?

Try 50 zeroes vs. 50 Hellcats. The zeroes (if things work right) should get eviscerated if all the ratings like morale and experience are equal. Any other result would stink of play balance nerfs...

Jim

[Howard Mitchell]

Thanks for the screenshots folks, it is appreciated. Couple of quick questions:
 
1. Do all aircraft of a set type have electronics, or do they have to be added per unit? So for the B5N2 above will they all have MAD when it becomes available?
2. The B5N2 is shown as having a crew number of 1. Does the crew number have any effect in the game, or is it just for information only?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I think if you simply posted a few test battles to show how things worked now, it'd do a lot to assuage any fears. Kind of like the 100 jeeps vs. a tiger test that was done for TOAW. I mean you guys did test this right?

Try 50 zeroes vs. 50 Hellcats. The zeroes (if things work right) should get eviscerated if all the ratings like morale and experience are equal. Any other result would stink of play balance nerfs...

So much trust here, Jim. [;)]

Yes, it was tested - there have been a bunch of sandbox tests to cover the entire war and the most likely matchups. If someone from the air team has time I'm sure they could post a few of them. Seriously though, the air combat was redesigned from the ground up. Maneuver doesn't mean what it used to mean, where it was the single most important number that combined a number of things which have now been split out for more realism.

Just like System damage on ships no longer means exactly the same thing.

Regards,

- Erik

[Dili]

The test should be made with Hellcat Vs Fiat Cr.42 the last of biplanes, then we can be sure nothing is broken [:D]

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Howard Mitchell

Thanks for the screenshots folks, it is appreciated. Couple of quick questions:

1. Do all aircraft of a set type have electronics, or do they have to be added per unit? So for the B5N2 above will they all have MAD when it becomes available?
2. The B5N2 is shown as having a crew number of 1. Does the crew number have any effect in the game, or is it just for information only?

1. If an aircraft has a particular device defined, the device will become active on the arrival [start] date of the device on all aircraft. Obviously not quite realistic, but is the hadn we're dealt ATM.

2. To be honest, it current has no function. The hope is that this factor will determine the number of replacement pilots drawn to crew an aircraft, however this is unlikely to make it before patch.

[Dili]

2. To be honest, it current has no function. The hope is that this factor will determine the number of replacement pilots drawn to crew an aircraft, however this is unlikely to make it before patch.

Very good idea. It will make bombers more expensive like it should. Right now everyone wants Bombers at expense of attack planes like Sonias and Ida's which are much cheaper.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


Try 50 zeroes vs. 50 Hellcats. The zeroes (if things work right) should get eviscerated if all the ratings like morale and experience are equal. Any other result would stink of play balance nerfs...

Jim

I'm not sure that assumption is correct, you'd have to quantify what the average Japanese pilot's experience during the Marianas Turkey Shoot etc to justify this. Unless there is a documented fight of equal foes (in terms of training, experience etc.) so that they were merely determining what plane is more capable in combat.

There is no doubt Hellcats were faster planes with armor, I just don't know if they'd win every match against equally skilled foes in different planes or even get the record they did in WWII. I still tend to consider much of the Hellcat's reputation to be a function of Japan's inability to train their pilots more than how great it was. It was a good plane but the opponents our US pilots faced gave much to be desired.

I'm not trying to start a whole new JFB vs AFB thread so I'll just say, it's hard to figure out what was better than what when a million other conditions existed in reality.

Anyhow, nice shots of the new plane list.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

... and the details.

This shows a Crew number:1, they had a crew of 3!

[bbbf]

One pilot, I would guess.
 
Larger bombers would have two pilots.

[Erik Rutins]

Yes, in theory that's the number of pilots.

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Dili

2. To be honest, it current has no function. The hope is that this factor will determine the number of replacement pilots drawn to crew an aircraft, however this is unlikely to make it before patch.

Very good idea. It will make bombers more expensive like it should. Right now everyone wants Bombers at expense of attack planes like Sonias and Ida's which are much cheaper.

Well, since AE is still pretty far away from release, hope they'll fix that, and the instructor/replacement system, so that we do not need (again), to restart campaign after a few months.... Take your time, guys, no need to rush [&o]

[spence]

I'm not sure that assumption is correct, you'd have to quantify what the average Japanese pilot's experience during the Marianas Turkey Shoot etc to justify this. Unless there is a documented fight of equal foes (in terms of training, experience etc.) so that they were merely determining what plane is more capable in combat.

There is no doubt Hellcats were faster planes with armor, I just don't know if they'd win every match against equally skilled foes in different planes or even get the record they did in WWII. I still tend to consider much of the Hellcat's reputation to be a function of Japan's inability to train their pilots more than how great it was. It was a good plane but the opponents our US pilots faced gave much to be desired.

I'm not trying to start a whole new JFB vs AFB thread so I'll just say, it's hard to figure out what was better than what when a million other conditions existed in reality.

Anyhow, nice shots of the new plane list.

By the Marianas the state of Japan's carrier air groups was pretty poor for sure. But weren't there some matches between more experienced Japanese air groups and Hellcats in late 1943 (near Rabaul) and early 1944 (at Truk) that pretty much used up those pilots that Japan did manage to train to replace their losses in 1942?

[CV Zuikaku]

The game can not recreate the shock that pilots suffer encountering new type of enemy aircraft... But there are examples when experienced japanese pilots met superior numbers of hellcats and survied (not only that, but sometimes they scored a kill). So, I don't think that Hellcats shoul'd just wipe eerything from the sky. We had that in stock. And we also had zeroes which coul'd do the same at the beginning of the war. Glad that things are different in AE [:)]

[Shark7]

Two things that stand out to me...

1. Why do we only give the allied code names on the planes. Obviously a JFB like me would prefer that Japanese planes be given Japanese names. No big deal but would certainly be nice.

2. Why do some of the planes have Japanese names and others don't? Examples: A6M2-21 SenBaku Then you have A6M2-21 'Zero' which is just the English translation of the Japanese name for it (Rei shiki Kanjo sentoki, Type 0 Carrier Fighter)...Allied codename was actually 'Zeke' for the A6M series IIRC.

Granted I don't expect any changes at this point in the game, nor should they be made. Just seems inconsistant to me. Was there a specific reason for this (I can understand using 'Zero', as most players easily identify it that way)?