Matrix Games Forums

Curious as to the general consensus relative to whether the allied fighters had an advantage at higher altitudes in the 1943+ time period ? Also, whether sweeping at high altitude is considered gamey since there is no allowance for the japanese player to effectively order CAP to ignore high altitude sweeps ?

I seem to be getting my hat handed to me as the Japanese over my bases and was wondering whether it was more than my poor choices/orders ...... ?

the air model is not right at all..

...it ignores that ac with high alt engines were really slow at low alt

(Mig-3, P-47, P-38, etc)

and the game engine prefers starting altitude versus pilot skill, and other ac attributes

.... i almost prefer a generic "dogfight" value like in PacWar

Let the flamewar begin! Actually this has been covered on many threads so as tempting as it is to say something like " whadya mean the P-38 was slow at low altitudes" I will just sit back and enjoy the show.[:D]

in the field of science, flamewar is called debate [:)]

P-47 speed chart (typical high altitude fighter)

Ki-61 speed chart (typical 1-stage supercharger, low altitude fighter)

P-47 were in big trouble below 15,000 feet

with 240kg/m2 you won't out maneouver anything, can't power dive at sea level

and they typically operated at low altitude in the ground support role, so this scenario was common

same was true for Ki-61 at high altitude however, but this is already represented in the game with the
1-stage engines Mvr penalty while the high altitude engines have no penalties

ORIGINAL: scout1

Curious as to the general consensus relative to whether the allied fighters had an advantage at higher altitudes in the 1943+ time period ? Also, whether sweeping at high altitude is considered gamey since there is no allowance for the japanese player to effectively order CAP to ignore high altitude sweeps ?

I seem to be getting my hat handed to me as the Japanese over my bases and was wondering whether it was more than my poor choices/orders ...... ?

No consensus, I´d rather say its a peaceful next-to-each-other. [;)]

There is a pretty high chance that you get your ass handed due to more diverse factors than altitude only, but I guess you are aware of that.

The P47 is easily the best fighter the Allies can muster late war, and I guess this is your current Nemesis. Our opponent does pretty well by combining
George as high altitude fighter and several other airframes (Jack for example) at lower altitudes. Layered CAP works well, except if outnumbered badly,
but he still probably loses more planes than us, and it is undoubted that, if we want to, we can achieve air superiority on bases within 4-5 hexes of our own
bases easily. Further out it is a bit more balanced.
Mike does a great job to decide when its enough and pull back, and sets the next CAP station a bit further away. Works good if we fall for it, which happens on
a regular basis.

Personally I think this reflects reality quite well, and in fact its pretty much payback for the first year when the same happens with swapped symptoms when
you want to effectively fight Oscars with Warhawks, but with regards to high alt sweep you might find opinions differ. I see many games using the best, or second best,
alt band as limit for sweeps, which is basically everything a good HR should be: easy to follow, with exactly the effects desired on a broad scale.

PS: looks like you got a Commander Stormwolf, might want to see a doctor...

To OP:

WITP AE is somethink like wikipedia or collectors edition of war books. It isnt a simulator. Maybe you could think about it as chess game or card game. You get pieces that you move around board with certain stats and to make game equal certain compromises must exist. Just example do you think that any national states would give supplies, resources for free within 24h anywhere to units that have lesser command structure then their hq hundred of miles away of different nation? Same is it with the CAP its just working on agreement. If you want to play simulator then air simulator is way to go but to expect the board game will have same quality as game that is based on real testing of aicrafts and orginal construction plans is not good.

Of course it should be pointed out that your charts shows that the P47 is faster than the KI 61 at all altitiudes. [8|]

game gives 427mph for thunderbolt at all altitudes.. when that is not right

and punishes Ki-61 at high alt with Mvr penalty

ideas:

a) give Mvr penalty to high alt aircraft at low alt (Mig-3, P-47, etc)

b) instead of different mvr at altitues, give different speeds

c) change the system altogether

WITP AE is somethink like wikipedia or collectors edition of war books. It isnt a simulator. Maybe you could think about it as chess game or card game

As it evolves, and is perfected it can become a serious academic tool

Just what I personally do, but...

I tend to keep my fighters in or close to the altitude band they are most maneuverable at. They seem to do a bit better, granted by late war there are so many other factors that lead to decimation of the IJAAF and IJNAF that you can't really number them.

Basic rule of thumb...Japanese fighters do not perform well at high altitude, most (if not all) of them lack super-chargers (which is what the P-47 has over them) and (in a simulation) would lose too much energy climbing that high. IJN and IJA fighters are manuevre fighters, better at turning dog-fights than high altitude slash and dash types of combat.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Just what I personally do, but...

I tend to keep my fighters in or close to the altitude band they are most maneuverable at. They seem to do a bit better, granted by late war there are so many other factors that lead to decimation of the IJAAF and IJNAF that you can't really number them.

Basic rule of thumb...Japanese fighters do not perform well at high altitude, most (if not all) of them lack super-chargers (which is what the P-47 has over them) and (in a simulation) would lose too much energy climbing that high. IJN and IJA fighters are manuevre fighters, better at turning dog-fights than high altitude slash and dash types of combat.

What P-47 has is turbo superchargers, most WW2 fighters, including Japanese, did have superchargers, though.

Having a turbo supercharger is not necessarily a good thing in air combat and it does increase cost and pilot work load. However it does give P-47 an exceptionally high altitude of best speed though, and good speed there, even if the top speed at low and medium altitudes isnt all that great.

Also agreed that witpae is an operational/strategic war simulator. Not air war simulator.

even if the top speed at low and medium altitudes isnt all that great.

Compared to what? CRSutton made the observation from which I refrained.

Mr Diehl, we are trying to dial historical things into the results of a game algorithm. A game which you do not play.

I don't care how much you think you know, it is not relevant to the game. A game of algorithms that some of us understand, but you do not.

Please go show off your superior knowledge on some history forum, somewhere. I would hate to shut down an interesting thread, but I will do it in a heartbeat. Go progesterone if you must, but go elsewhere to do it. Thank you.

JWE Troll,

This for you. ..l.,

Kindly take your martinet self to a land where Thought Crime is a recognized offense.

Thank you.

Having a turbo supercharger is not necessarily a good thing in air combat and it does increase cost and pilot work load.

Please help me understand the extra workload of a Turbocharger [&:] NOTE: http://www.moapilot.com/pdf/May01/May_mp01.pdf I am that David R Trinidad ...[;)]

turbos and multi-stage superchargers will allow the engine to maintain power
to high altitudes - where there is less air resistance, that is why the top speed is high at high altitudes

at low altitudes, the system is useless weight and drag, and decreases the top speed of an identical plane
that would be single-stage supercharged

at low altitudes, the system is useless weight and drag,

No it's not. That's why they have multistage turbochargers. At any altitude the device basically increases the rate at which you may burn fuel. In that way it increases the HP output of the engine. You need one more at high altitude, though, than you do at low altitude up to a point. But you're right about the effects of drag changing by alt.

(Plenty of automobiles have superchargers that basically do the same thing as a.c. supercharges, except they are designed for machines that all operate essentially at "low altitude.)

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Having a turbo supercharger is not necessarily a good thing in air combat and it does increase cost and pilot work load.

Please help me understand the extra workload of a Turbocharger [&:] NOTE: http://www.moapilot.com/pdf/May01/May_mp01.pdf I am that David R Trinidad ...[;)]

Hey. [:)] I dont like screenshot-crop-quoting mystic sources unlike some other people here, so here is the P-47N manual:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7968265/P47-Manual

Page 15 onwards for powerplant and how to operate it. As you can see, the pilot has an extra lever to move and an additional gauge to keep his eyes on, with some gauge reading restrictions to avoid damage and sudden power loss. A P-47 for example may not throttle back very quickly from high rpm, high manifold pressure high supercharger speed state. An enemy pilot knowing that could use it to help a tailing P-47 overshoot him, for example.

Compared to P-47 or P-38 planes like Bf 109 or especially Fw 190 are simple to fly machines with much lower pilot workload - just the stick, pedals, one lever(compared to P-47's 3 or the typical 2) and switch buttons in that lever for flaps and trim. Besides switching radio channels(and arming the weapons I think?), Fw 190 has HOTAS!

EDIT: I couldnt find a (more or less valid) source, but I believe that the turbo-supercharger operation was less automated in the earlier models, compared to the N. Those could have been trickier to fly in that regard.

edit2: fixed typos