RHS Fighter Utilities (Fighter Ratings Revised)

[el cid again]

With a revised rating scheme:

First, there was a problem in the algorithm measuring armament;

here we show the result of that algorithm for users as well as use it;

Second, we defined the range for CAP and ESCORT more rationally:

if a fighter has a normal range of 3 hexes its CAP rating should = its air combat rating;

if a fighter has an extended range of 4 hexes, its ESCORT rating should = its air combat rating;

to the extent either rating is greater or less, it reflects a difference in the normal or extended range
compared to 3 or 4: CAP and ESCORT ratings then show the "force multiplier effect" of range (or not)
for each case;

Third, we defined the value of a Fighter Bomber in terms of ability to deliver 250 kg of bombs at normal
range: IF a fighter can deliver such a load at its normal range, its FB rating will = its air combat rating;

to the extent the FB rating is greater or less than this, the rating show the "force multiplier effect" of
more payload (or not), for each case;

Fourth, using such a standardized rating system means that the composite value gains more meaning;

Fifth, we adjusted the display of Cost/Effectiveness (composite fighter value divided by HI points) to show tenths - so all aircraft are now rated.

Using these scale, there is no case where an aircraft is rated as zero - unless it has no bombs whatever - where it will get a zero FB rating.

[el cid again]

Air Combat CAP Escort FtrBmr Combined Cost/Eff Designation
32 32 32 65 43 12 A7M2
19 19 19 38 25 7 A6M8
21 21 21 21 21 6 A6M7
14 23 21 19 21 6 A6M5
12 15 15 7 12 3 A6M3
10 13 14 6 11 3 A6M2-N
11 30 31 14 25 7 A6M2
2 2 3 0 2 0 A5M4
2 1 1 0 1 0 F1M2
18 30 32 14 25 7 J2M2
43 57 53 27 46 13 J7W1
13 17 16 4 13 3 N1K1
30 59 59 118 79 22 N1K1-Jb
2 2 2 1 2 1 Ki-27
6 6 8 1 5 1 Ki-43 I
13 38 38 38 38 11 Ki-43 II
14 18 17 15 17 5 Ki-44 II
29 29 29 23 27 8 Ki-44 III
9 19 19 38 25 5 Ki-45a
10 20 20 41 27 5 Ki-45b
13 13 13 0 9 2 Ki-61 I
22 37 33 74 48 13 Ki-61 II
36 109 109 44 87 16 Ki-83
32 65 65 129 86 24 Ki-84
22 43 43 86 57 16 Ki-100
20 34 35 67 45 8 Ki-102b

[el cid again]

Air Combat CAP Escort FtrBmr Combined Cost/Eff Designation
32 32 32 65 43 11.9 A7M2
21 21 21 21 21 5.8 A6M7
19 25 28 50 34 9.6 A7M1
10 13 14 6 11 3.1 A6M2-N
11 30 31 14 25 6.9 A6M2 / Ki-65 II
8 8 10 2 7 1.9 A5M4 / Ki-33
2 1 1 0 1 0.1 F1M2
17 28 29 13 24 6.6 J2M2
43 57 53 27 46 12.7 J7W1
16 11 12 11 11 3.1 Me-109T / A9M1
13 17 16 4 13 3.5 N1K1
30 59 59 118 79 21.9 N1K1-Jb
2 2 2 1 2 0.5 Ki-27 / A5N2
6 6 8 1 5 1.4 Ki-43 I
13 38 38 38 38 10.6 Ki-43 II
14 18 17 15 17 4.7 Ki-44 II / A7N2
29 29 29 23 27 7.6 Ki-44 III / A7N3
9 19 19 38 25 4.6 Ki-45a
25 50 50 101 67 12.4 Ki-45 II
20 20 20 0 13 3.6 Ki-61 I
40 54 50 107 70 13.0 Ki-64
60 179 179 72 143 26.5 Ki-83 / J9M1
32 65 65 129 86 23.9 Ki-84
34 57 60 114 77 14.3 Ki-102b

[el cid again]

Note 3: A6M2 and A5M4 get the "Zero bonus".
Note 4: The value of rockets is not evaluated in ratings. They may work in both air v air and air v ground combat.
Note 5: Cost / Effectiveness is in terms of combined value / HI points.

[el cid again]

Note the Pete (F1M2) is almost worthless - EDIT but no longer rated as 0 for every function - and only a 2 in air combat.
This is close to right - it was effective only in peculiar circumstances where there was not much competition - and
it was not really a fighter at all - but an observation plane which got pressed into fighter and fighter bomber roles -
so rated by RHS only so it can perform them.

The Claude (A5M4) is NOT the same in the two listings because it has different armament. In EOS family,
a Claude variant with 20 mm is the combat production model. (IRL it was the test bed for the A6M2 using
these same weapons). Note it does not make much difference.

Ratings are mainly in game terms and not quite the same as we would use for real evaluation. Thus,
all one engine planes cost 36 HI points, and all two engine planes cost 54 HI points, when it would be better
if the cost was Empty Equipped Weight/ 1000 pounds plus engine power / 1000 hp (and possibly also
adding gun armament costs).

[el cid again]

Air Combat CAP Escort FtrBmr Combined Cost/Eff Designation
10 10 10 2 7 2.0 AVG P-40B
10 14 13 5 11 3.0 Corsair I
19 26 24 94 48 13.4 Corsair III/IV
10 6 7 2 5 1.5 CW-21
14 29 29 52 37 6.8 Beaufighter Mx X
16 32 32 4 23 6.3 Boomerang II
6 8 8 3 6 1.8 Brewster 339D
5 4 4 0 3 0.7 Brewster F2A
10 13 12 5 10 2.7 F2A-3
4 4 4 2 3 0.9 F4F-3
3 3 3 1 3 0.7 F4F-3S
7 12 12 4 9 2.6 F4F-4/FM-1
10 14 13 5 11 3.0 F4U-1/AU1
10 13 13 24 17 4.7 F4U-1D/AU1D
11 15 14 28 19 5.3 F4U-4
12 16 15 29 20 5.5 F6F-5
9 16 16 29 20 3.7 F8F-1
20 33 30 119 61 16.8 Firefly I
22 37 39 34 36 10.1 FM-2
8 8 8 1 6 1.6 Fulmar
2 1 2 1 1 0.4 Hawk 75
27 18 20 33 24 6.5 Hellcat II
12 8 9 7 8 2.2 Hurricane IIb
22 22 27 20 23 6.3 Hurricane IIc
22 22 27 39 29 8.1 Hurricane IV
25 8 13 0 7 1.9 I-16 Type 24
13 13 13 5 10 2.7 Kittyhawk I
20 40 40 36 39 10.8 Kittyhawk III
15 15 15 2 11 2.9 La-5FN
26 9 13 7 9 2.6 La-7
5 3 4 1 3 0.8 Lagg-3
9 12 12 4 9 2.6 Martlet II/III
15 15 15 14 15 4.2 Martlet V
8 8 8 7 8 2.1 MiG-3
6 4 4 3 4 1.0 Mohawk IV
15 34 33 62 43 7.9 Mosquito FB.VI
8 19 18 34 24 6.6 Mustang IV
1 0 1 0 0 0.1 P-26A
3 3 3 4 3 0.9 P-35A
3 3 3 2 3 0.8 P-36A
14 32 31 117 60 11.2 P-38G
16 49 49 179 93 17.1 P-38J
20 66 70 241 126 23.3 P-38L
17 23 22 11 19 5.2 P-39D
23 15 17 14 16 4.3 P-39Q
10 10 10 2 7 2.0 P-40B
17 17 17 6 14 3.8 P-40E
23 31 35 28 31 8.6 P-40N
7 14 14 5 11 3.2 P-43A
23 31 35 28 31 8.6 P-47D
38 63 66 115 81 22.6 P-47N
12 16 15 28 19 5.4 P-51A
15 41 42 74 52 14.5 P-51B
24 73 73 132 92 25.7 P-51D
27 36 34 98 56 15.5 P-63A
20 13 15 0 9 1.7 P-80
12 12 12 6 10 2.8 P-400
4 2 3 1 2 0.6 ROC I-153c
2 1 1 0 1 0.2 ROC I-16 Type 4
7 14 14 5 11 3.2 ROC P-43
9 9 9 0 6 1.6 ROC P-66
20 13 15 5 11 3.0 Seafire I/II
20 13 15 12 13 3.7 Seafire III/XV
9 12 12 11 12 3.2 Sea Hurricane
26 34 38 31 34 9.6 Spitfire VB
28 46 41 83 57 15.8 Spitfire VIII
29 39 36 70 48 13.4 Spitfire XIVE
32 65 65 59 63 17.4 Tempest V
30 81 84 222 129 35.8 Thunderbold II
1 1 1 1 1 0.3 Whirraway CA-1
10 7 8 5 7 1.8 Yak-1
10 6 7 0 5 1.3 Yak-3
7 9 9 7 9 2.4 Yak-9D

[el cid again]

This is a similar MS Excel spreadsheet to the Japanese Fighter Utilities, but it is combined, so
that all fighters appear on the sheet, regardless of wether or not they are in the scenario. The database
and art are common to all RHS scenarios, but some scenarios do not use some of these fighters:
for example CVO and EOS family scenarios do not have the F4F-3S Wild Catfish. Several obsolete
aircraft are not used in EEO.

The bombload is given in kg - because some Allied aircraft use kg rated bombs - and so the ratings will be the same as for Japanese aircraft. Similarly, cost effectiveness assumes Allied aircraft had a production cost equal to the Japanese production system (in the game they are free) - again for comparison sake.

The ratings are very interesting - and the Thunderbolt, P-47, P-51, and P-38 are all very highly rated (as is Tempest).
Only the Ki-83 is competative with these aircraft on the other side - which is interesting since it was pretty competative.
The P-39 and P-63 Airacobra and Kingcobra also rate very high - but these aircraft always look more wonderful on paper than they
turned out to be in practice. One wonders if they might not have been truly great had they been used more using tactics specifically
adapted to them? Regardless, that they show up highly rated (due to the 37mm gun) is a sign the rating system is fairly good,
even if using the crude data of the RHS modification of the WITP system. The same sort of thing drives the Ki-83 ratings very high -
a pair of 57 mm guns as part of the armament.

The least cost effective Allied fighter is the P-26A - no great surprise there.

The highest combined rating for Allied fighter aircraft are the Thunderbolt II and P-38L - which is very interesting. Only the P-38J and P-51D come close to a rating of 100 (never mind over 100 like these two) otherwise - also interesting. P-38 and P-51 fans take note.

It is only an accident that the F1M2 Pete gets rated as 1 for CAP and ESCT - but a nice one. That becomes the unit of measurement.
The comparable Allied aircraft is the Whirraway - also not really a fighter - but an adaptation of a trainer pressed into fighter roles. It has just enough of a bombload to rate a 1 for FB rating as well.

[Nemesis III]

Hi Cid, Thank you for the utilities sheet. I have noticed upon reviewing the EOS fighter utility sheet that for some Japanese aircrafts range seems to be different than in actual scenarios. For example, the A7M2 (Reppu) range in RHSEEO7.78972 scenario is (5,1,1) where as in the EOS family fighter performance utility sheet it is (13,4,3) (Ferry, Extended, Normal). This would affect the aircraft performance rating calculation, wouldn’t it?
The same apply to some Japanese bombers when comparing range between the same scenario and the latest EOS Japanese bombers performance utility sheet. For example, Ju-88A4 (17,5,4) Vs. (30,10,7).
Should I try to update the data of the utility sheet or the scenario?
Again thanks for the great effort.

[el cid again]

I checked EEO - the Ju-88 starts the game - and it indeed reports 30 - 10 - 7 hexes.

I know how to do ranges in my head - cruise speed times endurance divided by 3600 always gives you extended (drop any fractions).
Divide by 3 for extended range, and by 4 for cruise speed.

IF you are not seeing this - you have the wrong files or corrupted files.

I see the right range at source.