The CAP Thread

[timtom]

Is that a "Zero v Warhawk" tussle I see coming up?

[rominet]

4 new series of tests.
All on Guadalcanal scenario.
I haven't see anything strange concerning dogfights in this scenario contrary to Coral Sea scenario.

Very surprising results compared with my last post.

All jap sweep are taking place at 10000, the US fighters are also making CAP at 10000, same altitude.


The results are given as following:

A6M2's altitude(manuever at this altitude)/P-40E altitude(manuever at aggressor altitude)

A6M2's losses by air combat(operational losses) and at the end, the total losses by air combat (total operational losses) and total losses
P-40E's losses by air combat(operational losses) and at the end, the total losses by air combat (total operational losses) and total losses



Serie 11:

This time, the 2 leader have exactly the same skills, all at 60.

10000(33)/10000(16)

A6M2: 00(0)/03(3)/00(0)/05(1)/03(4)/03(2)/01(0)/03(1)/02(0)/01(2)/02(0)/02(3)/01(0)/02(1)/0(0) = 28(17) = 45
P-40E:11(2)/02(0)/04(1)/01(3)/07(2)/01(1)/10(5)/11(1)/07(1)/06(3)/06(4)/08(1)/05(5)/11(5)/8(2) = 98(36) = 134

Incredible. There is no relationship with previous tests, especially the serie 2 i recall here:

Serie 2:

The jap player increases its altitude to 10000.
P-40E remain at 10000.

10000(33)/10000(16)

A6M2:7/5/9/4/9/7 = 41
P-40E:4/2/4/4/2/1 = 17

At this moment, the only explanation i had is the leader.


Serie 12:

So, i decide to give to the 2 leader exactly the same skills than before.





10000(33)/10000(16)

A6M2: 05(3)/01(0)/02(0)/04(2)/02(2)/02(0)/01(2)/05(1)/02(0)/00(2)/05(1)/02(0)/02(3)/02(2)/01(1) = 36(20) = 56
P-40E:01(2)/03(3)/03(2)/09(1)/08(2)/08(1)/09(5)/10(1)/09(1)/07(2)/04(1)/05(3)/07(0)/03(5)/12(2) = 98(31) = 129
[X(] [X(]

Today, the Zero are incredibly good. [&:]



Serie 13:

This time, all leader skills at 60 except the Air skill of US leader at 70.

10000(33)/10000(16)

A6M2: 04(3)/03(0)/03(3)/04(2)/02(1)/03(1)/01(0)/03(1)/04(5)/00(2)/06(3)/00(0)/03(0)/03(1)/03(1) = 42(23) = 65
P-40E:06(2)/09(4)/05(2)/05(0)/09(4)/05(2)/16(2)/09(3)/12(1)/08(4)/04(3)/03(1)/06(5)/04(0)/07(2) = 108(35) = 143



Serie 14:

Once again with US leader air skill at 80.

10000(33)/10000(16)

A6M2: 01(0)/03(0)/04(2)/01(1)/04(1)/02(1)/05(2)/02(0)/02(1)/02(0)/05(2)/01(1)/03(1)/03(0)/01(2) = 39(14) = 53
P-40E:05(4)/04(1)/06(2)/08(3)/10(3)/05(3)/05(4)/06(5)/04(1)/05(2)/03(2)/04(2)/06(3)/07(4)/06(0) =
84(39) = 123

Not so convincing.


As a conclusion, this time the Zero performed very well at the same altitude with P-40E, whatever leader skills are.

Good for AE but it seems thousand of tests should be done for each combinaison to have a better idea of real performance of planes.


Are dogfight results depending on astrological signs? [:D]

[Tazo]

 
Very nice and instructive to make so many tests Rominet. Thanks!
 
My experience after 2 campaigns of Guadacanal (1rst stopped after 2 months, second at that stage right now) was that I had the feeling that
dogfights were producing too many damaged results and very few kills. Too few. But it is not easy at all for the US carrier bombers to go through
a CAP of zeros, they need an escort of at least the same number of cats - and larger is recommanded - or can be badly turned back. I had to
wait several clashes before at least one escaped the CAP and survive the impressive AA fire. But whenever the jap CAP is running low in number of
zero the US raids do score quite well. What is also striking is the improved degree of realism with respect to the damaged planes, the days to
repair them, so the air wing can no more operate very long in front line, I appreciate this very much. Conversely the trouble with US CAP is that
whenever even a few Kate go through the US CV are in danger, due to their very good efficiency. Usually the zero escort prevent the cats attacking
the bombers purely and simply. BUt I dind'nt play with high altitudes, in bad weater I thought it was very risky ! A limitation of the actually used a
ltitude should occur when many clouds are there... The CAP needs a vector but also to see something outside the cokpit. Generally speaking the
dynamics of the new air combat process looks very realistic, especially the progressive arrival of nearby squadrons of interceptors, I like it.
 
So for me the new Air combat system looks nice and is very immersive (but FOW and all other factors have to be taken into account, that is what
your tests are doing precisely)   EXCEPT   that dogfigthing don't produce enough KILLS. Have seen 18 vs 25 with 3 kills in sweep... not enough, just
play a good tactical simulation : when you're following your target you never stop before shooting it down, and either you're still flying and fighting
either you're almost shot down. Returns due to damage or gun jam is less common (it is nice that this is taken into account!) than kills in pure
dogfighting, including the CAP vs escort. This may be the only weak point compared to WitP and can be easily improved whenever many tests lead
to some well identified 'under-shooting' problem.
 
Please continue this thread, it is important to have these precise data more than overall feelings on the "system" like mine (not looking deeply
on the actual performances of planes). I will try some tests too in Guadalcanal since apparently the AE routine is not altered here. Maybe by using
the editor to make equal some variables like exp, skill and fatigue then only make the altitude vary to estimate the killing probabilities of cats and zeros.
 
TZ

[Tazo]

Rominet, I just read your last series, if it is with 27 vs 27 you're then roughly speaking at a 10% loss in the air dogfight (not operational) for zeros
and 25% for P40. Sounds good in expectation and moreover with few variance. Perfect. But this is not my experience with carrier CAP... certainly
because the carrier CAP procedure is more sensitive to astrological signs like... weather, radar, coordination, and the experience/skills are not the
same in the scenario. A 27 CAP vs 27 escort won't let many shots on the bombers anyway, and even no kill quite often (I'll do test next week-end).
 
TZ

[EUBanana]

Looks like the Zero is getting 2:5 to 1 in favour in Guadalcanal no matter what on average... which I really don't think is very historical for late 1942.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Looks like the Zero is getting 2:5 to 1 in favour in Guadalcanal no matter what on average... which I really don't think is very historical for late 1942.

EU,
In a game should ALL results ALWAYS be historical, no matter what? [8|]

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Looks like the Zero is getting 2:5 to 1 in favour in Guadalcanal no matter what on average... which I really don't think is very historical for late 1942.

EU,
In a game should ALL results ALWAYS be historical, no matter what? [8|]

No, I don't think so. However, it is really the benchmark against which we evaluate "realistic" results. I assume that there is a variation that is expected. When that variation becomes the statistical norm, something is amiss.

Regards,
Feltan

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: rominet

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I'd like to see the air skill of the pilots in question.

Not the experience level.

Please check the pilot screen for the unit.

Thanks.[;)]

The jap one


the US one

Thanks...

Pretty average air, def and exp for both sides.

Neither are that spectacular.

Wonder how that compares to the smaller scenarios?

I'm a campaign scenario person myself.[:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Thanks for all tests Olivier! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mynok]

astrological signs like... weather, radar, coordination

lol....not sure what Taurus and Virgo have to do with weather and radar, but that's hilarious! [:D][:D]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: TheElf
In a game should ALL results ALWAYS be historical, no matter what? [8|]

They should at least emulate history if you're going to tie the allied hands with such skimpy replacement pools as they have right now. Historically the allies enjoyed a 4 - 1 or better kill ratio in their favor in air to air combats in 1942. That's why so few airframes were needed in the Pacific historically.

If you flip the kill ratios to this 2.5 - 1 in Japan's favor we see here, but keep replacement pools a-historically low like they are now, you weaken the allied air arm far too much to even come close to allowing them their historical capabilities.

I'm not saying strict adherence to history is needed, just historical capabilities need to be present. So if the allies are going to end up losing 8-10 times as many air frames as they actually did historically, then production pools need to make up the difference. Otherwise you'll end up with a lot of empty squadrons and no hope of ever filling them out.

Jim

[Tazo]

 
So far after three times "two months of dogfights in the Gaudalcanal campaign" playing the US I observed a long trend killing ratio
in favor of the zeros ranging from 1.25:1 to 1.5:1 depending on the intensity of the carrier strikes and aggression level on PM. The
more big wildcat escorts have been encountered the less the ratio was. The point is that zeros are slightly less likely to take kills by
short range shots due to their maneuver factor and usually score a few kills even if outnumbered, a typical result is 2 kills versus 1
in small size encounters. This seems initially a very few difference at the tactical and daily level but after 60 days of fight the zero
factor is clearly revealed by the overall scoring, small extra kill after small ectra kill, depending on the intensity but in favor to the
zeros, not outstanding but real. Each time the level bomber killed by zeros were about 40, and the navy bombers depend on the less
predictable carrier encounters/coordination, ranging from 100 to 150 (then AA combined to operational losses add comparable score!).
 
So after intense tests (and many turns replayed many times to observe a good stability of outcomes given the same orders/circumstances)
I'm very happy with the new air system. I initialy had the feeling that the dynamic of interception and dogfights was very realistic but
lead to maybe too few kills in air to air. Indeed there are so many fights at the monthly scale that squadrons can suffer a lot and the zeros
provide quite a constantly better initial killing ratio. However they can not always escort Betties so the latter suffer far more than US LB and
can be massively destroyed when badly catched by CAPs, but a few zeros are sufficient to divert quite a number of figthers, always killing
one of them. The air to air killing is inflicting to both sides more than 50% of A/C losses, the AA is mainly responsible to keeping down for
many days damaged bombers that can never operate at full squadron size and need some turn over or long repair times.
 
The system looks very realistic to me. Players have to make crucial choices in engaging forces - emphasis on sweep or escort, constant raids
or few masive ones... depending on these oprerational choices the killing ratio can slightly vary, but reproducing 60 days with two given strategies
leads to very similar ratios. I'm now testing the Guadalcanal scenario with japs to experience again everything with now different weak points (jap
are short in both naval and air escorts, but good in CAPs). Possibly in november-december with four intact jap carriers the ratio can become
more impressive, I don't know. Air superiority is not given to any side but the one that takes it after sinking one or two carriers may keep it a long
time and subsequently provide well escorted raids fooling the land based CAPs and increasing a bit the long trend (fighter vs fighter) killing ratio.
Keeping his own experienced pilots alive and sending them on greens is also a non neglictable factor making the outcome of first carrier clashes
somehow decisive in case of heavy losses of one side. Exactly as IRL, the model is very good, and DO provide a realistic initial zero vs others ratio,
at least under typical mid term circumstances. And the mid-term is what I wanted to test play playing Gudal intensively (6 at least before moving
to GC in order to feel comfortable at the operational level and plan accurate needs and TF/bases organization).
 
TZ

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Looks like the Zero is getting 2:5 to 1 in favour in Guadalcanal no matter what on average... which I really don't think is very historical for late 1942.

EU,
In a game should ALL results ALWAYS be historical, no matter what? [8|]

No.

But when the Zero is already performing better than it did, it does mean that I am highly sceptical about people wanting it to be even better.

Well, I lie, not better than they did, really. It feels about right to me.

[Erik Rutins]

It's interesting that in the last week here I've read at least three other threads that insist zeros are useless and can't get good kill ratios, at the same time I'm seeing the reverse reported here. I think that the real answer is that it's both too early and we have too few results to really judge. Pre-release, with the testing we did things seemed "about right" so I'm guessing that if things do lean a bit one way or the other they're probably closer to even than you may think.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It's interesting that in the last week here I've read at least three other threads that insist zeros are useless and can't get good kill ratios, at the same time I'm seeing the reverse reported here. I think that the real answer is that it's both too early and we have too few results to really judge. Pre-release, with the testing we did things seemed "about right" so I'm guessing that if things do lean a bit one way or the other they're probably closer to even than you may think.

For example, in my 8Dec campaign, IJN CV CAP has worked very well against my land-based air strikes in April 42. I had force of Wellingtons, Hudsons and Swordfishes escorted by Hurricanes to attack multi-carrier TF near Colombo. None of the Swordfishes and half of other bombers never came back...and no hits. CAP did outnumber my escort almost 2:1, but still I think CAP did quite bloody well. I was especially surprised that they managed to decimate quite sturdy Wellingtons so badly.

So, there is lots of differing results, which is how it should be. [8D]