Matrix Games Forums

Hi,

I was wondering what the design decision was to remove the zero early war advantage that was included in the original WITP. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with the combat results of AE, but isn't there an argument to be made that a significant factor in the zero's early successes was the unconventional sharp turns employed by the japanese pilots, which totally surprised and confused allied pilots for the first few months of the war?

Also, does anyone have any loss figures for air battles in the first few months of the war? In my current PBEM game, A6M2 losses against the philippine US airforce were around 3-2 in favor of the Japanese for the first 10 days or so of the war, until I pulled those boys out. In the original WITP, the philippines airforce just got decimated in 1-2 days[:D]

I have similar experience included air war over Malaya (Buffalo) or Burma (Hurricane) ... Zero is still better, but not overwhelming like it really was ...

It seems in AE v WITP the zero advantage comes as pilot experience. Virtually all IJN, and most IJA squads are stocked with 70-80 exp pilots. That's huge against most of the Allied junk and rookie pilots.

Some units, like AVG, and some of the Philipene P-40 units have a collection of good pilots. One thing I've noticed is that the Oscar is much better, and closer to real war performance. In WITP it just got crushed against anything with 6 guns. The Nate still sucks.

A lot depends on who you're playing too. I've played only the AI, and I know it doesn't use the zeros as well as a human would. A human player will keep them at optimum altitude, or sweep high, and will make sure to use greater numbers, as was also the case in the war.

I am getting whacked enough by Zero and Oscar high level sweeps that I really can not tell that the zero bonus has been removed. 

I also noticed a significant improvement in the Oscar's performance; it wasn't actually that terrible a plane in the original WITP, the only problem with it was that its guns were so damn terrible that it couldn't shoot anything down, especially not the heavily armoured british fighters over burma...

As for Matto's comment: I too have the perception that the zero was fairly overwhelming in the early stages of the war (at least more than it seems to be now), but then again, having no concrete figures in front of me to back that feeling up, I don't really know. Someone with a deeper knowledge of military history might enlighten us on this subject. [&o]

ORIGINAL: foliveti

I am getting whacked enough by Zero and Oscar high level sweeps that I really can not tell that the zero bonus has been removed. 

That's the almighty DIVE, nothing to do with plane model. If you have the almighty on your side, P-40s or Hurricanes can get 30:1 kill ratio vs. elite zeros...

forgive me as this is slightly OT given the thread, but I have been trying to figure out what the advantage is to lower altitudes given that the dive will indeed cause lopsided results... what is to prevent players not simply putting all fighters at as high a CAP altitude as possible? Is it because low-altitude bombers will then be hard to reach? 

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

Hi,

I was wondering what the design decision was to remove the zero early war advantage that was included in the original WITP. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with the combat results of AE, but isn't there an argument to be made that a significant factor in the zero's early successes was the unconventional sharp turns employed by the japanese pilots, which totally surprised and confused allied pilots for the first few months of the war?

I believe the design decision to remove specific bonuses was due to the sense that many new models on both sides initially created confusion as to how best to deal with it in combat. The Zero and Oscar came as nasty surprises, but then so did the unusual characteristics of the P38 (altitude), F4U (speed) and P47 (speed and durability). Both sides had to continuously adapt their tactics to new enemy aircraft and changes to their own.

The A6M2 is a better plane than anything the Allies can fly against it until late 42 (though only slightly better than some models) and with the generally excellent IJN pilots, it will still clear the skies of Allied fighters in the Philippines and Malaya if used aggressively and in mass.

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

Also, does anyone have any loss figures for air battles in the first few months of the war? In my current PBEM game, A6M2 losses against the philippine US airforce were around 3-2 in favor of the Japanese for the first 10 days or so of the war, until I pulled those boys out. In the original WITP, the philippines airforce just got decimated in 1-2 days[:D]

Yup. During the SRA campaign, including raids into the Indian Ocean the A6M compiled a 4.6:1 ratio approximate against Allied fighters. (129 kills for 28 losses). The PI fighting estimate was 54 fighter kills by A6M in return for 13 losses. (4.2:1 ratio)

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

Hi,

I was wondering what the design decision was to remove the zero early war advantage that was included in the original WITP.

The 'Zero bonus' was a band-aid solution to the problem in stock of ahistorical performance by the plane during the start of the game. It was never popular among testers or devs. This unpopularity carried through in AE and was one of the first objectives. The desire was to replace this "artificial rule" with a more accurate air system that would do the job without the need for such fixes.

what is to prevent players not simply putting all fighters at as high a CAP altitude as possible?
an understanding of how the a2a model works.
the advantage of lower alts.
7.4.2
Once aircraft have closed for combat, the most important factors include pilot Air to Air &
Defensive skill, Aircraft maneuverability, speed, and altitude. If a plane has a significantly higher
maneuverability, the pilot will try to dogfight. If the plane has a significantly higher speed, the
pilot will try to make slashing attacks. Whether the pilot succeeds or not is primarily dependent
on his skill. A Higher Top Speed is not a trump, but it does affect or modify the way Maneuver
is used. When an Aircraft checks it’s “instantaneous” speed versus an opponent, it may be able
to reduce it’s opponents Maneuver by some factor up to one half depending on the severity of
the top speed delta. Higher EXP pilots will attempt to keep their speed up.
Where top speeds are similar the severity of this check is less, and Combat will depend more
on Maneuver values at the given altitude, Firepower, Durability, and pilot Air to Air Skill.

pg. 271
The messages that the group is intercepting means it has sufficient altitude and is
close enough to attack effectively. The message that LR CAP (long range CAP) is intercepting
means some CAP was approaching, while some returned to base and the group is engaging
with less effectiveness than if it were all together. The message that the group area CAP is
intercepting means that the CAP was spread out over a wide area and is engaging like LR CAP,
in a piecemeal fashion. They may also employ group tactics. This is what the group leader
is trying to do and may include bouncing, (that is, attacking from above or with surprise),
attacking head on in a slashing attack, maneuvering for a tail attack, or gaining the advantage
by attacking in a formation or engaging(that is, just trying to get his planes to shoot at the
enemy, however they can).

I think more than anything that the "dive" represents surprise. Besides as is true with history, most fighter pilots that are shot down didn't even know they were about to be shot down. Air combat is all about sneaking up on an opponent, killing them and then finding a new unsuspecting target and killing them also.
whomever is sighted first usually dies first.

trying to TnB ( turn and burn) with an opponent is a waste of time. Boom n' Zoom (diving and surprise) tactics are more useful

Just remember, that planes on escort behave really poor in AA combat. Use ZEROs at sweeps, and you will see much better results.

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

forgive me as this is slightly OT given the thread, but I have been trying to figure out what the advantage is to lower altitudes given that the dive will indeed cause lopsided results... what is to prevent players not simply putting all fighters at as high a CAP altitude as possible? Is it because low-altitude bombers will then be hard to reach? 

Because if the enemy still has higher ceiling than you, particularly coupled with superior climb, you're double screwed. Particularly if you have better MVR delta (in your favor) at low altitude, like most of the Japanese planes.

In fact, I prefer to put a single group as bait at low altitude, so it will draw the enemy down. Although simple sweeps by multiple groups sometimes work just as well, because planes seem to lose altitude in combat, so latecomers get a lot of free dives.

I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with the combat results of AE, but isn't there an argument to be made that a significant factor in the zero's early successes was the unconventional sharp turns employed by the japanese pilots, which totally surprised and confused allied pilots for the first few months of the war?

No. The Zero enjoyed no particular advantage owing to surprise, fear, or any other unsubstantiated claim. It did have one early advantage. Good prepositioning, superior numbers, and operating from well-supplied bases, against aircraft that were insufficiently numerous and at the end of a long logistical tail (and as such often broken down). That was a result of good operational planning on the Japanese part.

The Zero never enjoyed any advantage against F4F wildcats or P-40s. It turned in a poor record, losing about 1.8:1 zeroes per wildcat prior to the Guadalcanal campaign, and about 1.4 zeroes per wildcat during the Guadalcanal campaign. It suffered about the same loss ratio vs. P.40s over the same period.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with the combat results of AE, but isn't there an argument to be made that a significant factor in the zero's early successes was the unconventional sharp turns employed by the japanese pilots, which totally surprised and confused allied pilots for the first few months of the war?

No. The Zero enjoyed no particular advantage owing to surprise, fear, or any other unsubstantiated claim. It did have one early advantage. Good prepositioning, superior numbers, and operating from well-supplied bases, against aircraft that were insufficiently numerous and at the end of a long logistical tail (and as such often broken down). That was a result of good operational planning on the Japanese part.

The Zero never enjoyed any advantage against F4F wildcats or P-40s. It turned in a poor record, losing about 1.8:1 zeroes per wildcat prior to the Guadalcanal campaign, and about 1.4 zeroes per wildcat during the Guadalcanal campaign. It suffered about the same loss ratio vs. P.40s over the same period.

Lundstrom disagrees, and I'm more inclined to trust him, than you.

No, he doesn't. If you're walking away from Lundstrom thinking he said that the Japanese pilots were better, their planes were better, or USN pilots particularly in awe of the Zero, then you either didn't read what he wrote despite claimimg you did, or did not read in detail.

My loss ratios are from Lundstrom. The quotes that you need from USN pilots who viewed the Zero as a more maneuverable plane but basically vulnerable and not flown very expertly by Japanese pilots occur in multiple instances throughout the text of the two volumes.

You should reread them.

ORIGINAL: FatR
Lundstrom disagrees, and I'm more inclined to trust him, than you.

Hi FatR,

You might be interested in Gamble's new book on Rabaul which provided good detail on the initial skirmishes with No75 RAAF squadron flying the P-40. In the two month running battle mid 42 they suffered a 3.1:1 loss ratio in favor of the A6M.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

No, he doesn't. If you're walking away from Lundstrom thinking he said that the Japanese pilots were better, their planes were better, or USN pilots particularly in awe of the Zero, then you either didn't read what he wrote despite claimimg you did, or did not read in detail.

My loss ratios are from Lundstrom.

No. They aren't. See, for example, First Team (Guadalcanal Campaign) p. 529 (this part is available on Google Books for anyone who cares to make a quick check). Losses from 7 August to 15 November in Wildcat-on-Zero combat were 31:25 in favor of Zeros.

So in game terms, will it help if I set my CAP at extremely high altitude against the Zero and Oscar sweeps.  I have noticed that altitude helps with Hurricanes, but they have better maneuver at altitude than the P-40s.

setting for max altitude is a good bet, for both CAP and sweeping. Some players are moving away from this as a gamey tactic so depending on your house rules....you may want to discuss it first with your opponent.