Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?

[Heeward]

Should a "Zero" bonus be retained? Should it apply to all Japanese fighters for the same short period?

I believe the "Zero" bonus represents the development of improved Allied tactics and doctrine. Or is it modeled in a quantum increase in allied air-to-air combat experience at six months or so?

I think we can all agree that A6M2 ruled the sky for up to and through the conquest of JAVA.

[JeffroK]

NO,
 
This advantage should be shown by the higher skill/experience levels of the starting IJN & IJAAF pilots.
 
Afterall, many of the Ki43 Hayabusha pilots were as skilled and achieved less publicity through the woeful firepiwer of their aircraft AND the inclination for the Allied pilots and press to call all japanese radil engined fighters a "Zeke/Zero"

[Big B]

As an old Zero Bonus hater - I would actually be inclined to include a form of it.

Personally, I had problems with the ZB as it was included in original WitP.

But for what it's worth (not much), I would include the 'bonus' to the KI-27, Ki-43, A5M4, and A6M2 against any (meaning ..each individually) Allied fighter unit - until each fought one of the above for a couple of combats, (Americans and Dutch lasting for a window of perhaps 2 or 3 months for each unit's combats - until they actually got into a couple fights), perhaps 6 months vs the RAF.

Let me explain; Reading many sources, it seems that the USAAFFE and Dutch got the message after a VERY few combats per squadron - and the word got out quickly. It seems the RAF (not RAAF) was a bit too doctrinal to take advantage of new combat tips for a while in S.E.Asia (meaning - the pilots learned as fast as anyone else, but the desk-jockeys seem to have over-ridden them when possible).

I don't think you can find evidence of any Allied Fighter unit clinging to 'dog-fighting' Japanese fighters after a couple of weeks combat with the Japanese... except the British in Burma awaiting Spitfire fighters. If I am correct, the Brit's in Burma even clung on to flying 'Vics' for much longer than anywhere else.

SO I would say a MVR bonus in early 1942 would be good for all Japanese fighter units - until their Allied opposition gets a couple combats under their belts (NOT a declining 6-month bonus).

[JeffroK]

Big B,
 
Would this be better portrayed by giving Allied Fighters a penalty until they "See the elephant" a few times.
 
 

[Lanconic]

Yes. And it should be expanded to effect ALL Japanese Fighters, but AVG should NOT
be effected.

For the simple reason that...

The Japanese DID conquer the SRA relatively quickly. It was NOT a protracted struggle.

W/O the Zero Bonus, you will see the Dutch for example hole up in Java with express intent
to attrit. That is exactly what they didnt do.

Same with Singapore and India.

The Allied player has perfect hindsight if you dont use the Zero Bonus.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Big B
As an old Zero Bonus hater - I would actually be inclined to include a form of it.

As an old Zero Bonus thread hater - I would point out that the so called "Zero Bonus" (in stock) actually has a negligible effect on air to air combat and hence a negligible effect on the game. And to be honest, I don't even know if it is still in AE or not. Brian probably knows.

[Kull]

Why wouldn't this be solved by simply dropping the Allied Pilot experience levels? The real life "zero bonus" was entirely based on allied pilots (other than AVG, of course) not knowing how to handle their planes so as to counteract the strengths of the zero. If most of the Allied pilots have air-to-air experience in the 30's and 40's, that will surely translate to poor performance, at least until the survivors and replacements gain the necessary experience. And the new AE air combat model will prevent the Allied player from solving his untrained pilot problem through use of bombing missions. The only way to get his pilots up to snuff will be via air-to-air battles with the Japanese. A difficult, unpleasant, and time-consuming task. Welcome to early 1942.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Big B
As an old Zero Bonus hater - I would actually be inclined to include a form of it.

As an old Zero Bonus thread hater - I would point out that the so called "Zero Bonus" (in stock) actually has a negligible effect on air to air combat and hence a negligible effect on the game. And to be honest, I don't even know if it is still in AE or not. Brian probably knows.

AS far as I understand - the dreaded ZB is not in AE, it has been replaced by the new MVR rating system.

ORIGINAL: Kull

Why wouldn't this be solved by simply dropping the Allied Pilot experience levels? The real life "zero bonus" was entirely based on allied pilots (other than AVG, of course) not knowing how to handle their planes so as to counteract the strengths of the zero. If most of the Allied pilots have air-to-air experience in the 30's and 40's, that will surely translate to poor performance, at least until the survivors and replacements gain the necessary experience. And the new AE air combat model will prevent the Allied player from solving his untrained pilot problem through use of bombing missions. The only way to get his pilots up to snuff will be via air-to-air battles with the Japanese. A difficult, unpleasant, and time-consuming task. Welcome to early 1942.

If it were up to me (and it's not) I would not choose to further devalue Allied pilot experience.
Allied pilots were not at all bad - just behind a small learning curve vs their new opponents aircraft peculiarities.

All fighter pilots are an aggressive & self confident bunch, but dissimilar aircraft virtues must be learned. That is why - if it were my decision, I would represent that lesson by a couple actual combats to demonstrate that aircraft A and B have different virtues...rather than making Allied pilots novices. After all, the Japanese didn't understand the flight characteristics of, say - P-40s until they fought them and flight tested captured models from the DEI.

I just thought that experience in dissimilar combat aircraft ought to be a quick "hands-on" lesson, rather than a long lasting experience differential.

[Kull]

From Post #35 in the AE Air War Thread:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: treespider

I ass-u-me the Zero bonus is a thing of the past....

Yes, our new MVR ratings at different altitudes have allowed us to officially delete this pesky little forum-favorite.

[JeffroK]

From Lanconic
W/O the Zero Bonus, you will see the Dutch for example hole up in Java with express intent
to attrit. That is exactly what they didnt do.

Same with Singapore and India.

The Allied player has perfect hindsight if you dont use the Zero Bonus
 
I believe that the worst japanses fighters are capable of clearing out the DEI Air Forces, the Zero without the ZB is supreme in this region, there must be other reasons for the Dutch holding out.
 
The japanese has the best chance to use hindsight in early months, they know where to hit and exactly what is available to defend. It balances out later

[m10bob]

IMHO with the AE tactical advancements of using individual aircraft capability AND pilot training/experience, the Japanese planes/pilots will still stand on their own, as superior initially.
However, in that Chennaults' flyers were the ONLY allied flyers to avoid dogfighting the Japanese from day one, maybe they might have increased experience levels?
This is not limited to the AVG, as Chennault had been the head of the CAF before the AVG ever arrived.
The CAF had experienced atrocious lessons since the mid to late thirties under various foreign advisers, and had their butts handed to them till Chennaults arrival.
Chennault himself was a maverick whose tactical ideas were totally contrary to accepted practices, both in America, and abroad, but the Chinese were willing to listen to anybody who would try to help them, (as evinced by their purchase of so many different types of planes from Russia, Italy, Germany, America, etc.
Just a thought.

http://cwlam2000hk.sinaman.com/index.htm


http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/Geor ... _japan.htm


http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v2/v2n2/china30s.html


http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-jap ... ources.htm


I make these comments and offer these links for the sake of future modders, because I have confidence in the plans the AE team has already presented, and am sure they are well past these ideas in the production phase of AE...

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From Lanconic
W/O the Zero Bonus, you will see the Dutch for example hole up in Java with express intent
to attrit. That is exactly what they didnt do.

Same with Singapore and India.

The Allied player has perfect hindsight if you dont use the Zero Bonus

I believe that the worst japanses fighters are capable of clearing out the DEI Air Forces, the Zero without the ZB is supreme in this region, there must be other reasons for the Dutch holding out.

The japanese has the best chance to use hindsight in early months, they know where to hit and exactly what is available to defend. It balances out later

Well I have done exatly that, and sank Akagi to boot.
All with SOLEY Dutch aircraft.
So it can be done.

[pad152]

Let's wait to see the new air combat model in action before asking for changes! From what I've ben able to read so far it's sounds like air combat is more realistic.
 

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Let's wait to see the new air combat model in action before asking for changes! From what I've ben able to read so far it's sounds like air combat is more realistic.

I am assuming you read the thread header?

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

ORIGINAL: pad152

Let's wait to see the new air combat model in action before asking for changes! From what I've benn able to read so far it's sounds like air combat is more realistic.

I am assuming you read the thread header?

Yes I can read, it looks like the new air combat model doesn't need it and like everyone else, want to see it in action![;)]

[mdiehl]

I think we can all agree that A6M2 ruled the sky for up to and through the conquest of JAVA.

Yes, but it had nothing to do with the relative experience or training of Allied or Japanese pilots and only a little to do with the Zero's maneuvering capability. Early war Japanese successes were largely a consequence of very good pre-positioning of Japanese assets, very good initial logistics, a very good operational plan, a high operational tempo, and the Zero's range (and propensity to show up in unexpected places), poor allied logistics, and the tendency for Allied planes to try to scramble in the face of sudden raids and thus be shot down whilst taking off or landing.

The instant the Japanese hit allied defenders who were in logistically well-prepared positions that could be resupplied the Allies tended to beat Zeros.

[Desertmole]

I, for one, would say no. Don't retain it just let the merits of the Japanese veterans stand on their own.  The so-called Zero bonus did not stand true against USN pilots at least.  During the time from Pearl Harbor to the Battle of Midway, the USN lost 10 F4Fs and the Marines lost 4 to enemy fighters.  During the same period the Japanese lost 14 Zeros and 3 Claudes.  No Zero advantage there.  Source: Lundstrom's The First Team.

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think we can all agree that A6M2 ruled the sky for up to and through the conquest of JAVA.

Yes, but it had nothing to do with the relative experience or training of Allied or Japanese pilots and only a little to do with the Zero's maneuvering capability. Early war Japanese successes were largely a consequence of very good pre-positioning of Japanese assets, very good initial logistics, a very good operational plan, a high operational tempo, and the Zero's range (and propensity to show up in unexpected places), poor allied logistics, and the tendency for Allied planes to try to scramble in the face of sudden raids and thus be shot down whilst taking off or landing.

The instant the Japanese hit allied defenders who were in logistically well-prepared positions that could be resupplied the Allies tended to beat Zeros.

Tell me, Have you ever actually played WitP?
I suspect not.
And if you have not, how can you be so judgmental about a game you have never even played?

[mdiehl]

Tell me, Have you ever actually played WitP?

Yes. Not only that, I have played UV, and also the progenitor GGPW, the latter most extensively.

I suspect not.

That's an example of why intuition serves most people poorly.

And if you have not, how can you be so judgmental about a game you have never even played?

Setting aside the last five words (as these don't apply to me specifically), ANYONE can be judgemental about WitP in the same way that anyone can be judgemental about an automobile. Read enough of others' experiences and you can know where the central tendencies lie.

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Tell me, Have you ever actually played WitP?

Yes. Not only that, I have played UV, and also the progenitor GGPW, the latter most extensively.

I suspect not.

That's an example of why intuition serves most people poorly.

And if you have not, how can you be so judgmental about a game you have never even played?

Setting aside the last five words (as these don't apply to me specifically), ANYONE can be judgemental about WitP in the same way that anyone can be judgemental about an automobile. Read enough of others' experiences and you can know where the central tendencies lie.

Well one would not know that from your posts.

The game as is:

I have seen a three CV taskforce suffer an 800 plane strike from Rabual, and no CV
was ever hit. That event was in 42, and with exp 80+ pilots.

I have seen the Dutch completely hold out in Java, with the help of four USA air groups.

I have seen Singapore and Bataan hold out into the end of 43, simply because the Japanese ran out of supply.

Your suggestions would result in even more nerfing of Japan. Which is why I asked.