Reluctant Admiral Feedback

[John 3rd]

FatR--I'll get the new DDs added to the list and get everything changed as we've decided regarding the 1st Class DDs. When this is finished (probably tomorrow) you'll get the Mod and be able to get to work.

[John 3rd]

I was working my through the BB, BC, and CA Upgrades and had the thought hit me that what would the Japanese do with all these secondary guns we are switching out in favor of the 3.9" new AA guns.

Could we use them somewhere?

[anarchyintheuk]

Most likely the IJN would have split them amongst cd installations. The older admirals would have remembered the effect that Port Arthur's installations had during that campaign.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Most likely the IJN would have split them amongst cd installations. The older admirals would have remembered the effect that Port Arthur's installations had during that campaign.

You read my mind. Wonder if we could make some minor CD units that come into being in late-43 and early-44? Would make sense that the Japanese would use the older weapons...

[FatR]

Matsu-class destroyers still use those guns, so don't go too wild with assigning them to coast defense. I wouldn't mind to see some static CD units armed with them, arriving at key bases, like Rabaul, Singapore and Palembang, in 1943.

[FatR]

Well, about the results of the air test, there are a few obvious conslusions:

1)Shusei was designed by Allied sympathizers.
2)All fighters who rely on a single big gun fail. Logical, considering, that such guns mostly offer less than 100% increase in damage, at the cost of having their accuracy reduced by several times, but wanted to confirm it empirically. Some fail less hard than others and Ki-102b might be worth building, because fighter-bomber units won't accept better planes, but still, they are generally inferior to single-engined counterparts even before you consider that they are more expensive.
3)Late-war 30mm guns seem to offer fairly marginal improvement over 20mm guns, even against heavy bombers. The difference in number of frags between Shinden, that packs 4x30mm guns on the centerline and Jack, with 4x20mm in front, just isn't very big.
4)Speed and armament seem to figure significantly in ability to avoid losses from bombers' defensive fire. Compared again Jack to much faster and better armed Shinden, the latter actually had more edge in survivability, than it had in killing power, resulting in kill/loss ratio twice as good. Now durability, even when changed by small number, also seems to give large returns, but only with all things being equal. Ki-94-II and Ki-201 both have durability of 34, they both are survivability champions, but much faster Ki-201 has kill-to-loss ratio double that of Ki-94-II. Meanwhile, tough but slow Ki-102s suffered much worse pounding than any of them, Ki-93s, even tougher than Ki-102s, also took heavier per day losses, so it is obvious that durability alone does not determine losses against bombers.

A7M3-J great survival rate is still a bit of a mistery in the light of that. It's a bit tougher than most single engined-contestants (32 vs 30 on Frank, Jack, Shinden) but is not armed better than Shinden (scored less kills than it, too) and much slower. It is very possible that having cannons firing up allows an attacking fighter to use different calculations, that reduce its chance of getting hit by defensive fire.


I need more data, to form definite conclusions, beyond obvious points. Will need to tinker with the setup again, using different planes. A6M5c and N1K5-J might be worth placing into competition, as well as some fighters added or modified in RA.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Matsu-class destroyers still use those guns, so don't go too wild with assigning them to coast defense. I wouldn't mind to see some static CD units armed with them, arriving at key bases, like Rabaul, Singapore and Palembang, in 1943.

I had thought about the Matsu's and their use of the guns as well. Perhaps you hit the nail on the head...

Why not look at the addition of several small CD units at the following locations: Rabaul (43), Singapore (43), Palembang (43), and Saipan(early-44)? Would the Marianas (Tinian and Guam) be a logical site for anything additonal? These would not be overly large units since they would pack the 5" Guns but a welcome addition they would be.

Could put together some unit possibilities and Post them here for commentary.

[John 3rd]

FatR--I like the testing, analysis, and thinking so far. Keep us up on your progress there.

[darbycmcd]

I am surprised (not too much really) that no one commented on FatR's air test.

well taking stats from here
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

XXI BC lost 52 planes to enemy fighters..... in all combat operations (26,401 effective sorties about .2% loss rate to enemy fighters)
it shot down 756 enemy fighters

for a bomber to fighter exchange ratio of .069

this test shows for an average aggregate
116 lost bombers from 800 sorties (14.5% loss rate)
31.2 lost fighters
and exchange ratio of 3.72

does anyone else think this is a problem? the WORST fighter in the test is the closest to reality.
Are these the stock fighters or are they souped-up ones?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I am surprised (not too much really) that no one commented on FatR's air test.

well taking stats from here
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

XXI BC lost 52 planes to enemy fighters..... in all combat operations (26,401 effective sorties about .2% loss rate to enemy fighters)
it shot down 756 enemy fighters

for a bomber to fighter exchange ratio of .069

this test shows for an average aggregate
116 lost bombers from 800 sorties (14.5% loss rate)
31.2 lost fighters
and exchange ratio of 3.72

does anyone else think this is a problem? the WORST fighter in the test is the closest to reality.
Are these the stock fighters or are they souped-up ones?

Beware of bomber gunner claims...much better to use the claimed losses reported by the engaging fighters and compare to the losses reported by the bombing forces.

You may find that the bombers claimed 756 fighters when in fact they only got 200.

[darbycmcd]

ah, ok. pick a fraction you like and i think the point is the same.

[FatR]

200 is an very optimistic estimate. Heavy bomber gunners often overclaimed by a huge factor, in Europe an average was 10 claims per actual kill.

Anyway, darbymcd, what's your point supposed to be? That an ahistorical number of planes (including a whole bunch of advanced planes never mass-produced IRL), crewed by pilots of mostly ahistorical quality, meeting the type of raid that was generally considered too risky and costly IRL, at least until collapse of Japanese airforce by summer of 1945, can beat it back? Well... so? The game would have been broken if even almost 500 first-class fighters wouldn't have been able to incur unsustainable casualties on a daylight B-29 attack at medium altitude. Even within the limits of the test, where Japanese given a ton of cool toys through the editor, so I can see how they work, both the problem (unescorted 4Es are taking too many loses) and the solution (bomb at night, night interception hardly ever does anything to B-29, even with the most advanced fightes available, I didn't even bother to record the results, because they were practically nonexistent for all types) are exactly as in history.


To John: it is hard to predict where the Allies are going to attack in the game, as it was IRL (at least to predict in time for large scale preparations), so the best places to add extra CDs (which, with 127/40 DP guns will double as AAA units) are strategically important ports, like those already mentioned. And Saipan already has an infamously strong (in the game) CD unit. Better add one at Guam. And maybe at Bataan (early-1944).

[John 3rd]

The doubling as heavy AA is an added bonus that I thought about earlier. Cannot complain regarding that.

Concur with your thinking regarding Saipan. We'll do Guam (late-43) and perhaps Bataan. Need to actually get a grasp of home many weapons we are looking at.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I am surprised (not too much really) that no one commented on FatR's air test.

well taking stats from here
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

XXI BC lost 52 planes to enemy fighters..... in all combat operations (26,401 effective sorties about .2% loss rate to enemy fighters)
it shot down 756 enemy fighters

for a bomber to fighter exchange ratio of .069

this test shows for an average aggregate
116 lost bombers from 800 sorties (14.5% loss rate)
31.2 lost fighters
and exchange ratio of 3.72

does anyone else think this is a problem? the WORST fighter in the test is the closest to reality.
Are these the stock fighters or are they souped-up ones?

Beware of bomber gunner claims...much better to use the claimed losses reported by the engaging fighters and compare to the losses reported by the bombing forces.

You may find that the bombers claimed 756 fighters when in fact they only got 200.

And just in case it wasn't clear: The A2A combat report is also covered by the FoW.

[John 3rd]

Stanislav--regarding your A-t-A Experiment:

1. Do you intend to make changes within the RA Mod air production?
2. If so, what are your primary ideas?
3. Do we have any work for our resident aircraft art specialist--Red Lancer?

If possible (I'm at work [8|]) I'll get the DD taken care of today and put together a proposal for those small CD units we've spoken on...

[darbycmcd]

I think I made an unfair assumption that the test that FatR was doing was for the purpose of creating better interceptors for this mod. I think he was saying that was not the case, that this test was with data that would not likely appear in the game, so it may not matter. I didn't state my thinking very well about what I thought was happening. Basically, if you make interceptors that are (as these are) 50x better at shooting down allied heavy bombers than RL, and don't change at very least the production sched for the allies, I think it is a problem. I should have made that more explicit, sorry. I just wanted to show how much better these results were, to provide some data for game balance. If you have over 10% loss rate for the allies, it changes the complexion of the late war enormously. but i guess that was not the intent of the test anyway so i am sorry to FatR.

As far as the data, yeah we all know that kills are overreported. but these were the stats from the official afterwar report, so it is difficult to a priori dismiss them in the absence of specific information that they are spurious. so lets say 'use with caution'. and since really that is not the important stat anyway, it isn't worth too much thought.

FoW, this was a sandbox test as far as i know, and FatR is i believe not the kind of guy that would forget to look at both sides in a test....

so, i didn't mean to kick anyones favorite puppy, i was just pointing out that it is often easy to get a bit into the weeds with these things and forget to come up and see the big picture. if i was an allied player and spent 2 years playing and then found out that the japanese could basically attit down my B29s (remember i only get a total of 80 replacements / month through most of 45) i would be sort of .... unhappy with the historical basis of that design decision. that is all i am saying.

[John 3rd]

While I'm thinking about I wanted to Post a comment that perhaps we should look at engines within the Mod as well. Specifically:

1. Do we have enough in production at start?
2. Are there enough research plants running to facilitate later war production?

Air Minister Benoit raised these concerns to me a couple of days ago and thought I should put them out for consumption.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Stanislav--regarding your A-t-A Experiment:

1. Do you intend to make changes within the RA Mod air production?

Regarding Japanese production, I feel that the current picture is mostly fine but could use a few fixes and improvements to both production trees and planes, to make some of the currently gimped options more attractive to players. Regarding Allied side, I think Allies should get significantly more aircraft replacements in 1944-1946, reflecting realization of the greater challenge in Allied HQs, but these aircraf should primarily be second-class fighers (including older models remaining in production for longer times) and single/twin-engined bombers. Just to, you know, incentivise greater tactical variance than applying P-47/4E hammer.

I want to run a lot more tests (including flak tests) before formulating proposals, and with my job catching up to me, this might take a week or two more, because they are time-consuming and tedious.


EDIT: I also plan to read on every major Japanese plane type for which I can get a good book. So far I've found interesting game-relevent stuff on D3A (in Peter C. Smith's excellent book from Crowood aviation series) and Ki-84 (in one of those Polish/English publications) this way. Unfortunately, the time is still a problem, but more importantly, detailed books on Japanese planes are problematic to obtain (if they even exist for some types). Well, that's why knowing languages of both sides is so important to seriously study a history of a military conflict... thankfully we're just trying to improve an althistorical mod here, not write a book.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

While I'm thinking about I wanted to Post a comment that perhaps we should look at engines within the Mod as well. Specifically:

1. Do we have enough in production at start?
2. Are there enough research plants running to facilitate later war production?

Air Minister Benoit raised these concerns to me a couple of days ago and thought I should put them out for consumption.

Were there any changes to engine production yet? If no, of course Japan is short. Then again, stock is short on engines as well (Ha-32 - 60 production, 96 demand), just less so. I recommend improving the production to the level where there is still 20-30% shortage of Ha-32 at the start start (not counting any possible aircraft production expansions), and Ha-35 production only covers current needs.

Whether you mean engine research plants, or aircraft research plants, I don't see any real shortage. Currently I'm seriously accelerating 11 plane types in my Scen 70 game. A couple more have 1-2 facilities devoted to them. This cost a mountain of supply, of course (not as much as my far more ambitious research program in my Scen 2 game, though), but well, good things in life aren't free.

[FatR]

And to darbymcd: daylight B-29 bombing campaign against Home Islands - before serious effort to destroy Japanese aviation by carrier raids and land-bases fighter sweeps, and grounding of Japanese aviation, including the training program, by fuel shortages - had limited effect in real life (regardless of lolclaims). By my rough estimation, in AE it will be more costly (if Japanese aviation collapses earlier, the game will not last into 1945...), but more destructive. I'll try to take note of the damage B-29s can deal even against extreme concentration of interceptors in the next series of test. However, considering practical unstoppability of the night bombing option at the moment, I don't see how Allied players can have any ground to complain about efficiency of B-29s either way.

Also: all of the tested planes in the table I posted are from the stock.