The Zero Bonus

[el cid again]

Which aircraft should have this?

The basic (stock/CHS) option is A6M2 and A6M3.

The RHS option is A6M2 and A5M4.

Another option might be A6M2 and Ki-43 I (that is, Oscar if you don't speak designations)

Still another (IF you are willing to not use 2 rare Japanese plane slots - count me out of that) is NO plane gets it.

Discussion on another thread has me wondering if we made the best choice? The A5M4 was indeed effective in expert hands early in the war, but there are few in line units, and they last only a brief period (at least in player managed games) - while the Oscar is available in more units to start and rapidly expanding. It is hard to tell in the game that the Oscar "was almost as great a technical surprise as the Zero." Further - the view it was inherantly superior is not as correct (IMHO) as the view it was temporairily superior - which the zero bonus (which sunsets) would give it. Opinion sought.

We are wrapping up all levels of RHS - and development will shift to (a) seasonal maps; (b) different scenarios; or (c)
a completely different project (a modern war on this system - or perhaps another system - in this area of the world). But the last step (if ever art is done) will be an aircraft review for the Allies. Anyway - this is the time to consider any changes before we leave this stuff behind.

[bradfordkay]

If you're going to expand the bonus, it should be given to the Oscar, IMO. There were many early war victories by Oscars that the allies thought were Zeros.

[el cid again]

Let me be perfectly clear about this: I was precise above: we cannot "expand" the bonus. It is hard coded in two and only two slots. We get to choose what two planes have it - period.

[ChezDaJez]

I would favor the A6M2 and Ki-43 Oscar. Both were modern aircraft whose appearance and performance came as quite an unpleasant surprise to the Allies. At the time of their appearance, allied air forces, and the Japanese and Germans for that matter, taught air combat maneuvering with emphasis on the horizontal plane. The Oscar and the Zero were clearly able to outmaneuver their allied opponents in the horizontal plane during the early stages and both were also fast enough to often force many opponents to deal with it as many often could not just run. Plus the Zero had the range to show up where it wasn't expected. It was several months before the Allies (excepting Chennault, of course) developed tactics to counter the maneuvering ability of both aircraft. As those tactics evolved and better aircraft became available, the design flaws of the Japanese aircraft became clearly evident. Hence the disappearing Zero bonus.

The A5M4 and the Nate, while very good aircraft for their time, were already obsolete and their performance known to the allies through its years of use in China. While very maneuverable, they were slow. The Claude was highly unlikely to instill the same type of apprehension as the Zero or Oscar. Most allied fighters were faster than the Claude and with its sptted gear and open cockpit, it just didn't inspire the same level of dread as did the Zero.

Chez

[bradfordkay]

Cid, changing the Zero bonus away from the A6M3 is an expansion as the A6M3 barely gets into the game before the Zero bonus expires. Thus switching the bonus slot away from the A6M3 is increasing the number of aircraft which will receive this bonus during the time period it exists. I am still in favour of giving it to the Oscar.

[m10bob]

Please see link:

http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/


Of course, I favor the Ki 43 having this "bonus"..[8D]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Cid, changing the Zero bonus away from the A6M3 is an expansion as the A6M3 barely gets into the game before the Zero bonus expires. Thus switching the bonus slot away from the A6M3 is increasing the number of aircraft which will receive this bonus during the time period it exists. I am still in favour of giving it to the Oscar.

OK - I understand - "expansion" meant the number of machines available to a player.

[el cid again]

I forgot something.

How much I love hard code!

We cannot exchange the A5M4 for the Ki-43 I

UNLESS we want to make the Claude a non-carrier plane
AND the Oscar a carrier plane!

Why they didn't do things with soft control is a mystery beyond my kin - but they didn't - and I forgot that TWO DIFFERENT things apply to both "zero bonus" slots. So the RHS solution - both being carrier planes - may be the best compromise - except for a mod in which the Claude is not used perhaps - and the Oscar is restricted for use to something wierd like an Army carrier (which it did not operate from, but could have - given that a Ki-44 could).

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I forgot something.

How much I love hard code!

We cannot exchange the A5M4 for the Ki-43 I

UNLESS we want to make the Claude a non-carrier plane
AND the Oscar a carrier plane!

Why they didn't do things with soft control is a mystery beyond my kin - but they didn't - and I forgot that TWO DIFFERENT things apply to both "zero bonus" slots. So the RHS solution - both being carrier planes - may be the best compromise - except for a mod in which the Claude is not used perhaps - and the Oscar is restricted for use to something wierd like an Army carrier (which it did not operate from, but could have - given that a Ki-44 could).

So the bonus has to be a carrier plane??...NUTS!

[bradfordkay]

Go back to A6M3 then, as the Clause has no reason to get the Zero bonus... again, just M(not so)HO.

[el cid again]

The Claude has as good a reason as any zero model. Its pilots were great, and many of the greatest became aces on it (see Saburo Sakai for example). The Navy doctrine - the turning in maneuver and the ultra loose triple plane element - was identical. Indeed, both were developed on Claudes, not on zeros. And the A6M3 is not in the game long enough to benefit from the zero bonus. Indeed, it is not even in EOS and not an option in that scenario in the first place. The A6M3 is so close in performance to the A6M2 as not to be worth one point of anything beneficial - but it has less range. In game terms it makes no sense to buy it at all. That is my technical opinion - it is a waste of the bonus if assigned to A6M3 - and that isn't even possible in scenarios which do not have it. Something must have it - or we must lose a plane type - no other option.

[bbbf]

Do you need the Claudes to be carrier capable?
 
AS I recall, if you have them on the ship at scenario start, they will work.
 
I can't see many players actually putting Claudes onto any new carriers than what they start on. only away.
 
Let the Oscar be a carrier plane, it's a simple house rule to not have it fly from a carrier- and it doesn't have any advantages over the Zero anyway, so the only reason you would do that is low Zero pools.
 
Not a big issue - I would rather have Oscars with the bonus for 6 months than Claudes for a month or so until I replace them or send them to a backwater.
 

[el cid again]

Good thinking. The "penalty" for being "carrier qualified" but not "carrier capable" is negligable. Few Claude units on actual carriers will be that way even two weeks into the game. And no Oscars will be assigned carriers at all - nor can carrier units upgrade to them (because they are not associated with the right service) in most cases. Maybe we can do this - and I am a test guy - so we can find out.

[ChezDaJez]

The Claude has as good a reason as any zero model. Its pilots were great, and many of the greatest became aces on it (see Saburo Sakai for example). The Navy doctrine - the turning in maneuver and the ultra loose triple plane element - was identical. Indeed, both were developed on Claudes, not on zeros. And the A6M3 is not in the game long enough to benefit from the zero bonus. Indeed, it is not even in EOS and not an option in that scenario in the first place. The A6M3 is so close in performance to the A6M2 as not to be worth one point of anything beneficial - but it has less range. In game terms it makes no sense to buy it at all. That is my technical opinion - it is a waste of the bonus if assigned to A6M3 - and that isn't even possible in scenarios which do not have it. Something must have it - or we must lose a plane type - no other option.

I agree that the A6M3 should not get the bonus. By the time of its arrival, the Zero was well known to the allies for what it could do.

As to the A5M4, I don't believe it should get the Zero bonus either. The bonus reflects mre than the capability of an aircraft and experience of its pilot, it also reflects the surprise that the Japanese could field such a modern carrier aircraft.

I also don't believe that the Ki-43 should get it either. While it was a newer aircraft than the Zero, it primarily fought in SE Asia and China where its main opponents were the Chinese, Brits and AVG. The Chinese pilots are inexperienced enough to where they'll get killed with or without an Oscar bonus, the Avg is immune to the Zero bonus and the Brits flying in Buffalos don't need any further help in being shot down. Plus its limited armament did not provide enough firepower to ensure downing an opponent in one pass.

My opinion would be then to leave the second Zero bonus slot open and just let the A6M2 have it. That way there is no potential for abuse (Oscars on carriers).

Chez

[el cid again]

This isn't an option:

Japan has only 75 aircraft slots - and Axis powers had too many aircraft types - not too few. We cannot not use both slots in my view.

Further - my agony is that we cannot have MORE zero bonus slots. While A6M3, A5M4 and Oscar should have it - so should the Ki-27.

The view that somehow the older planes don't qualify misunderstands what the situation was in the air. We didn't understand the tactical situation - and indeed the older planes were even MORE maneuverable - rather than less - than the Zero itself. The Oscar (one I mean here) was also "nearly as great a technical surprise as the Zero" - because it ALSO had speed - and we could not easily refuse to engage it. For that reason it is (in my view) a stronger candidate if we have only two slots. But IF we give it to only two planes we are NOT properly simulating the problem IRL - which obtained regardless of which of the four fighters the enemy fielded was actually present. The "turning in maneuver" is well described in English in Japanese Fighter Aces and Naval Figher Units - so take a look at it - not just technically - but operationally. This is something that was actually invented on the A5M - in a school - observed by Genda (in the hands of a student) - who told the student to do it while he followed to understand it - and then taught - not just to JNAF but also to JAAF. [Genda was at that time an instructor in a fighter school, and this was some years before the war from our point of view began]

While I do not doubt that Matrix invented the zero bonus as its name implies - and then assigned it to two kinds of zero - with the intent of giving that aircraft a special advantage, the real life situation was the advantage was not limited to that one aircraft. It does not matter how famous the Zero is - or the Oscar is not - it only matters that we model things as correctly as possible. And if "the Oscar is not almost as much a technical surprise as the zero" we have not got it right.

[spence]

What? No one bringing up the Thach Weave et alia...(haven't had a good go round in quite a bit). I've always pretty much thought that the Bonus was overrated and lasts way too long and for the most part was a contrivance in the design to make sure that the Japanese AI can compete with a human long enough to at least have a chance of taking the SRA. It may also preserve a few pilots for later in the game by lessening A2A losses amongst the elite a bit.

The Zero was a fine plane and certainly its performance in A2A was an unpleasant surprise to Allied fliers. But then again the whole war was something of an unpleasant surprise and the circumstances that Allied fliers found themselves fighting under during the period of the Bonus basically dictated that they would be at a disadvantage almost all the time (mostly obsolescent aircraft, no early warning, no spares, retreating to unfamiliar airfields with no infrastructure all the time). The initial experience differential between the Japanese and the Allied fighter pilots is pretty substantial (and it applies to all aircraft types) and seems an completely adequate mechanism for depicting the "shock and awe" factor of the Zero initial period of "dominance".

[el cid again]

But this list (which is well done) is incomplete and significantly so:

a) It omits problems in attitudes (one reason for the obsolete gear was just about everyone in positions of power in all the governments believed the obsolete was good enough to deal with the potential of a Japanese enemy). Aside from too little of too poor a quality, there is the psychology: if you "know" Japanese are "lousy pilots" when they turn out not to be - and not to fly junk - they often become "supermen" - and discouragement is a big deal in air combat. Not a few career officers believed we should not even attempt to defend Hawaii - but should fall back to the West Coast - extend the enemy LOC while we built up to come back. Those problems in attitude sunset because once ways are found to address the problems, confidence can be restored. And we no longer have to send junk.

b) It omits the problems in doctrine. The Japanese VIC was not like everyone else's vic - it was "nearly as good as the schwarm" (or loose duce) - because it was so loose and because pilots were permitted to be flexable. [It almost is the same idea but with fewer planes - and it does not divide into pairs]. The turning in maneuver worked even when we had significantly better performance. And dealing with it was not that easy a thing. Indeed, not all aircraft could use the same tactical solution as might work for a different type. The doctrine thing clearly turns around - and is the primary justification for the zero bonus.

Like it (and I do) or not (spence does not) we have it. The question is not wether or not we get it. The question is what two planes should have it? We don't write code. We just use it.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: spence

What? No one bringing up the Thach Weave et alia...(haven't had a good go round in quite a bit). I've always pretty much thought that the Bonus was overrated and lasts way too long and for the most part was a contrivance in the design to make sure that the Japanese AI can compete with a human long enough to at least have a chance of taking the SRA. It may also preserve a few pilots for later in the game by lessening A2A losses amongst the elite a bit.

The Zero was a fine plane and certainly its performance in A2A was an unpleasant surprise to Allied fliers. But then again the whole war was something of an unpleasant surprise and the circumstances that Allied fliers found themselves fighting under during the period of the Bonus basically dictated that they would be at a disadvantage almost all the time (mostly obsolescent aircraft, no early warning, no spares, retreating to unfamiliar airfields with no infrastructure all the time). The initial experience differential between the Japanese and the Allied fighter pilots is pretty substantial (and it applies to all aircraft types) and seems an completely adequate mechanism for depicting the "shock and awe" factor of the Zero initial period of "dominance".

In the editor, is it possible to increase the experience level of fresh pilots coming into the game?
I ask, because if so, the TIME pilots enter might reflect the TIME better tactics were used, (like the Thach weave)..
Just a thought...

[el cid again]

It is the other way around: in the scenario editor we can affect the STARTING pilots experience levels - but the LATER pilots come in based on a table which is published - but not under our control.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But this list (which is well done) is incomplete and significantly so:

a) It omits problems in attitudes (one reason for the obsolete gear was just about everyone in positions of power in all the governments believed the obsolete was good enough to deal with the potential of a Japanese enemy). Aside from too little of too poor a quality, there is the psychology: if you "know" Japanese are "lousy pilots" when they turn out not to be - and not to fly junk - they often become "supermen" - and discouragement is a big deal in air combat. Not a few career officers believed we should not even attempt to defend Hawaii - but should fall back to the West Coast - extend the enemy LOC while we built up to come back. Those problems in attitude sunset because once ways are found to address the problems, confidence can be restored. And we no longer have to send junk.

b) It omits the problems in doctrine. The Japanese VIC was not like everyone else's vic - it was "nearly as good as the schwarm" (or loose duce) - because it was so loose and because pilots were permitted to be flexable. [It almost is the same idea but with fewer planes - and it does not divide into pairs]. The turning in maneuver worked even when we had significantly better performance. And dealing with it was not that easy a thing. Indeed, not all aircraft could use the same tactical solution as might work for a different type. The doctrine thing clearly turns around - and is the primary justification for the zero bonus.

Like it (and I do) or not (spence does not) we have it. The question is not wether or not we get it. The question is what two planes should have it? We don't write code. We just use it.

While at work, I thought of how to make myself wrong here. Now I don't intend to go this way - but there are more options. I remembered my Aristotle - it is a logical fallacy there are only two options. What other options do we have?

First - we could give the zero bonus to a wholly unorthodox plane. Here (and only in RHS) I would suggest the F1M Pete.
Only in RHS because only in RHS is it a fighter plane. It was able to do remarkably well early - and of course not late - so it is a way to give a boost to a low performing plane that otherwise does not get its proper credit - and not use a true fighter if you don't want to.

Second - we could give the zero bonus to a plane that cannot use it at all - like we did the altitude penalty of P-39 and P-400. It should be carrier planes. But if the plane type we pick does not enter the game until AFTER the bonus is expired, the code would then be moot and never be used. Anyone who does not like the bonus can get rid of it de facto by this means - almost the same as deleting the code.