Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Now when you bump that up to Very High, yes there is only a 8 point manuevre diffence between the Zero and the Warhawk, but the Warhawk has manuever of 2! I've seen bricks with more manueverability.

Shark7, it could well be that you are right and my assumption is wrong.

But as far as I remember the maneuverability is only a modifier for the speed value, so the performance of an AC is calculated by something resembling speed+man=performance.
If this is correct (maybe one of the devs can help here) the relative performance of planes only depends on the manouverability delta of two planetypes and the ammount of manouverability is
not important by itself.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

combat reports are permanently FOW'd and will consistantly show less losses than actually occured. (even if you turn FOW off) You have to check the loss screen the turn after for the accurate result.

that´s what I´ve said three dozen times I guess. [;)] And even the loss list is FOWed but with some experience you get a good and more or less accurate picture on the losses.

ORIGINAL: dr.diplodocus

Conclusion: In that case it'd be better to send P-40s in at 5k where you loose less planes then send them in at 29k just so you can get 4 kills. The object in war is to loose less than your opponent not to get highest kill tally.Even if you lost 0 planes and shot down 1 at 5k, you'd still send them in at 29k, even if that meant loosing 60 planes and shooting down 60. but if you want to use your fighters just for the sole reason to get a 5:1 ratio, then nobody's stopping you.

Umm. The least planes were lost at 29k feet? They lost 1 a turn on average. At 5k feet they lost two and achieved less.

If the object is to lose as few fighters as possible there is the 'stand down' button.

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart
this was 4 different runs of a single turn, or 5 consecutive days of same settings? did you restart the game for each run, or load the save each time? i thought i read something about having to restart to get different RNG's for each run...also curious if CAP had radar assist

No radar. I changed the Thousand Mile War scenario and just restarted it each time, so it's lots of first turns of thousand mile war.

Some stratosweeps, restarting the game each time. Tallies taken from air losses alone (no ops) underneath each and so can assumed to be accurate.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Raid is overhead



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 117 minutes


P40s 2, Zeroes 1

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 26000 and 28000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 77 minutes



P40s 4, Zeroes 1

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 26000 and 28000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 77 minutes



P40s 4, Zeroes 1


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 26000 and 28000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 77 minutes



P40s 4, Zeroes 1

Someone suggested they'd lose less aircraft at 5000' (de Nile isn't just a river in Egypt you know [;)]), so lets try that out.

Same situation as above, again, I restarted the game for each test.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 28000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes



P40s 1, Zeroes 3


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 28000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes



P40s 1, Zeroes 3

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 28000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes



P40s 1, Zeroes 3


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 28000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 56 minutes



P40s 1, Zeroes 3

They all look very similar. However one of the stratosphere sweeps did give different results to the other three, so I'm inclined to think that there just isn't that much chance involved here - they are different runs, just you reliably get these results.

So the reliable result appears to be, if the P40s sweep at 29k feet they will lose one of their own and shoot down 3 or 4 Zeroes.

If they sweep at 5k feet they will lose three of their own and shoot down one Zero.

Incidentally there is radar on the defending side, just noticed it, as this is actually a 1943 scenario.

Kept on going for a bit as there are more P40s to send into the grinder, over subsequent days.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 17, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 32 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 25000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 97 minutes



(5000' sweep) P40s 1, Zeroes 7

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 18, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Raid is overhead



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 42 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 23000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes



(29,000' sweep) P40s 2, Zeroes 3


The P40s always do better up high. They take less casualties, they inflict more casualties.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Now when you bump that up to Very High, yes there is only a 8 point manuevre diffence between the Zero and the Warhawk, but the Warhawk has manuever of 2! I've seen bricks with more manueverability.

Shark7, it could well be that you are right and my assumption is wrong.

But as far as I remember the maneuverability is only a modifier for the speed value, so the performance of an AC is calculated by something resembling speed+man=performance.
If this is correct (maybe one of the devs can help here) the relative performance of planes only depends on the manouverability delta of two planetypes and the ammount of manouverability is
not important by itself.

Keeping in mind that early war Allied fighters did not have the turbo-chargers of the later P-47, P-51. That is where you see the turn around. They had more power, thus more speed and manuevre at higher altitudes. Japanese planes overcame the power issue by simply being light construction and not survivable...Zero turns great, just hope that no one sneezes in its general direction.

The Zero airframe was not weak, although it could wrinkle/crumple up at faster speeds. It was the duraluminum skin which saved weight and took a lot of the structural loads, but had no redundant systems or 'safety zone'. Thus it could take absolutely no punishment whatsoever

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

The Zero airframe was not weak, although it could wrinkle/crumple up at faster speeds. It was the duraluminum skin which saved weight and took a lot of the structural loads, but had no redundant systems or 'safety zone'. Thus it could take absolutely no punishment whatsoever

Not referring to the airframe structure. Talking about the lack of armour and lack of self sealing fuel tanks. The weight savings resulted in a plane that was awesome on the offense, but poor defensively.

you have it all wrong. here's what you posted

25k feet = 4 losses each
20k feet = 3 losses each
15k feet = 3 losses each
10k feet = 3 losses each
5k feet = 2 P40s lost, 3 Zeroes lost
100' = 8 P40s lost, 0 Zeroes lost

Clearly at 5k, loosing 2 P40s will always be better than loosing 4. Just like flying a plane will be better where the MVR is 20s and 30s insted of a number in the low in the low 10s. If you want to loose less fighters you be smart with them and use them where they can get more kills than they lost, not send them up to 20k where they loose 4 in the process of shooting down 4. A fighter on rest is a wasted fighter.

All the tests show is that you'd rather use planes in an gamey un-historical manner just to try to get the most kills, not play the game how its supposed to be played. Anyone can be gamey, its not hard. people knock on the AI saying, its predictable, but so are humans.

"Feel free to harp on altitude but is not the ONLY thing that matters. You clearly make this statement out of pure ignorance of the code. Not your fault, but let's be clear that you do not have a whit's knowledge of the inner workings of the game."

ORIGINAL: dr.diplodocus

"Feel free to harp on altitude but is not the ONLY thing that matters. You clearly make this statement out of pure ignorance of the code. Not your fault, but let's be clear that you do not have a whit's knowledge of the inner workings of the game."

You joined this forum one day before this thread started. To make comments like this to someone who has been here since the UV days makes me think you're either rude and ignorant, or a troll. I'm suspecting the latter, with tendencies to the former as well.

who the hell are you? Mr. High and Mighty? get off that horse before someone knocks you off.
before you think you know everything I've been a member of these forums since 1/25/08 this isnt my first sn. dbfw190
2, TheElf made that comment.
so make sure you know your shi* before you end up making youself look like a dumbass [:D]

ORIGINAL: dr.diplodocus

you have it all wrong. here's what you posted

25k feet = 4 losses each
20k feet = 3 losses each
15k feet = 3 losses each
10k feet = 3 losses each
5k feet = 2 P40s lost, 3 Zeroes lost
100' = 8 P40s lost, 0 Zeroes lost

Clearly at 5k, loosing 2 P40s will always be better than loosing 4. Just like flying a plane will be better where the MVR is 20s and 30s insted of a number in the low in the low 10s. If you want to loose less fighters you be smart with them and use them where they can get more kills than they lost, not send them up to 20k where they loose 4 in the process of shooting down 4. A fighter on rest is a wasted fighter.

All the tests show is that you'd rather use planes in an gamey un-historical manner just to try to get the most kills, not play the game how its supposed to be played. Anyone can be gamey, its not hard. people knock on the AI saying, its predictable, but so are humans.

"Feel free to harp on altitude but is not the ONLY thing that matters. You clearly make this statement out of pure ignorance of the code. Not your fault, but let's be clear that you do not have a whit's knowledge of the inner workings of the game."

I also posted four examples of P40s at 29k feet, and they got 4 to 1 each time.

I did

Sweep at 29k (4 to 1)
Sweep at 29k (4 to 1)
Sweep at 29k (4 to 1)
Sweep at 29k (4 to 1)
Sweep at 25k (4 each)
Sweep at 20k (3 each)
Sweep at 15k (3 each)
Sweep at 10k (3 each)
Sweep at 5k (3 to 2)
Sweep at 100' (0 to 8)

I did it that way because basically it's a binary thing, you're either above them or you aren't, which is what that shows. Those later tests show a bit more variation, but they still show that if you send your boys in at 5k feet they will be massacred, given a sweep at 5k ended up 7 to 1 against the P40s, while if you send them in at 29k feet they will do at worst 'OK'. I wouldn't advise sending them in at 5k feet or 25k feet, but 29k feet, the ceiling.

Actually a P40 is pretty crap as it has the lowest ceiling of the main combatants, so I'd probably not bother sweeping with P40s at all. I'd sit back and shoot down bombers via CAP, or I'd offer them up as sacrificial lambs for my bombers as escorts. I would keep them at low level because at 5k, 10k or 29k feet they'll be bounced anyway so they may as well be in the right altitude band so I can cadge whatever tiny modifier I can get out of it even though it's really spitting into the wind. Bombers are always vulnerable to CAP so using them defensively would likely be the most optimal use for them. Now I got P38s in my game it's always P38s sweeping at 39k feet and P40s get the escort and CAP duties. At the time the P40E was all I had it was 4E bombers and sometimes high flying Hurricanes doing the lions share of the offensive damage, not P40s.

As for gaminess, I'd rather that the above profile was not true, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. I am attempting to have what I see as a problem sorted. As you can tell from reading this thread its damn hard to even get people to admit there is a problem in the first place - that would include you apparently - and even now some hard facts are out people are blaming those who are pointing out this flaw rather than asking for it to be fixed, or even coming up with house rules to help.

There's no point using a P40E as it was historically used. If you keep them to 10k feet or below, unless your opponent is kind enough to do likewise with his Zeroes, you'll just be absolutely massacred, which also isn't historical incidentally.


And dont' worry Bradley, I'm usually the one flaming if anything, my skin is seared black with the burns of years of forum time, I'm totally immune to that sort of thing by now, and quite often I even deserve a good blast with the flamethrower. [;)]

ORIGINAL: dr.diplodocus
so make sure you know your shi* before you end up making youself look like a dumbass

Well you get 10 out of 10 for irony, I'll give you that. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

EUBanana the combat report files are not surprising.

You compare two airframes that can compete with each other on roughly equal terms, both planes still perform at high altitude,
you are using relatively equal numbers of opposing planes and do not use large enough numbers for effective split CAP.

The results are similar to what I would have expect them to. What is your conclusion from this that so differs from what I am describing?

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: dr.diplodocus
so make sure you know your shi* before you end up making youself look like a dumbass

Well you get 10 out of 10 for irony, I'll give you that. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Looks like green button time again. The quick easy solution to the troll problem. I personally wouldn't waste time arguing with him EUBanana.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

EUBanana the combat report files are not surprising.

You compare two airframes that can compete with each other on roughly equal terms, both planes still perform at high altitude,
you are using relatively equal numbers of opposing planes and do not use large enough numbers for effective split CAP.

The results are similar to what I would have expect them to. What is your conclusion from this that so differs from what I am describing?

My point is that being above the enemy is by far and away the most significant factor assuming you got two roughly comparable aircraft. I imagine with Buffaloes even with the bounce they'll be nailed (might be a fun test though, never assume ).

And really maneuver bands don't seem to have much of a discernable impact at all. I'm sure they are being considered somewhere in the code but it looks like that consideration is quite minor. Which is likely fair enough, speed wins, and altitude can be turned into speed, but it looks to me like altitude is just too much of a modifier, it's swamping everything else.

I bet you if I ran the tests with P40Ks instead you wouldn't see any real difference at high altitude even though the K's high altitude performance is out of all proportion to the E. Such is my experience of using P40Ks in game.

This is why you have stratosweeps. The most significant factor by far is altitude, therefore you fly as high as you can. It's a race to the top. There is no disadvantage in doing so, you can engage bombers at 5k feet quite easily with CAP at 35,000'. The idea of maneuver bands I think is really cool but it's lost in the noise - there's no reason to mess about finding altitude bands of maximum comparative advantage, it might have an effect but it just gets lost in the bigger modifier of being below the foe.

So the game is made less deep as a result - there is no consideration to make when setting fighter altitude. Set it to max, unless you are escorting. Also, it's ahistoric, though I'm less bothered about that to be honest than I am about all that data painstakingly entered with altitude bands being consigned to irrelevance, I'd rather it mattered.

i never said strato sweeps don't work, then only thing I've been saying is that stratosweeps are gamey.
If that makes me a troll, then so be it.. you're just like the person who stopped being my friend because I didnt agree with her that American soldiers are "cold, heartless, indiscriminate murders".

the number of posts has nothing to do with it... Not making tons of posts doesn't imply ignorance... I just don't spend all my time on a computer. so mike scholl when he lost his password was a troll because he had few posts?