Air Combat Mod with test results

[DFalcon]

Hello,

It has been suggested that air combat in the game is too deadly. Planes are lost quickly and airbases closed in only a few raids. Many battles are lopsided when superior aircraft are involved.

I gave some thought to how the data base could be modified to address these issues and read most of the threads and ideas posted on the boards. I began to tinker with the editor and test the changes I made to the data base. I wanted to make a change that was simple and to have the effect subtle, as I think the game over all works very well and did not want the changes to teeter things over the edge.

I think I have a working modification that addresses the above issues. I am going to be doing extensive test on it now. I wanted to share my ideas and the tests with others playing the game.

The details of my modifications are as follows;

I reduced the firepower of all air to air cannons by 25%. I did this by reducing the effect rating by one point. Where this reduced the firepower by more than 25% accuracy was increased proportionally to compensate.

I softened the differences in speed and maneuverability between fighter aircraft. A median point of 340mph and 33mvr was chosen and the difference from this median was halved. Speed was always rounded up. Maneuver was rounded up if the value was above the median and down if it was below.

The standard payload of level bombers was reduced by 25%. Fractions were always rounded up.

These simple changes seem so far to produce the effect I was looking for in my preliminary test and will start running more comprehensive tests and will post the results here.

To conduct these tests I have created a custom scenario in the Solomons with two Japanese airbases at Rabaul and Lea and two US airbases at Port Moresby and Torokina. I placed base forces and aviation support at the bases leveled the experience and leaders for all of them.

I have placed a group of fighters and a group of bombers at each base. The experience and leaders have all been set to the same values for all the air groups.

I will set up battles between the opposing airbases and run them five times each with the modified data and the stock data. This will give me ten results for each match up.

I will start with a classic match up, the A6M2 on CAP vs. attacking Dauntless escorted by F4F-4. I will post results when they are complete.

I welcome your comments and suggestions.

[DFalcon]

Test Result #1

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 57

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 33
SBD Dauntless x 57

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 7 destroyed, 3 damaged
D3A Val: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed, 3 damaged
SBD Dauntless: 8 destroyed, 22 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 14

I ran this type of battle 10 times with the following settings;

Defenders
72 A6M2 80% Cap
72 D3A targets

Attackers
36 F4F-4 10% Escort
72 Dauntless

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

A6M2 4.1 / 5.8
F4F 9.4 / 5.5
Dauntless 6.9 / 5.5
Airbase hits 15.6 / 18.4

The F4F does much better in the mod, I was surprised by how much. For the second test I will put the F4F on defense.

[DFalcon]

Test Result #2

Day Air attack on Torokina , at 63,92

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 32
D3A Val x 57

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 42

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
D3A Val: 9 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed, 9 damaged
SBD Dauntless: 2 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
72 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 11

I ran this type of battle 10 times with the following settings;

Defenders
72 F4F 80% Cap
72 Dauntless targets

Attackers
36 A6M 10% Escort
72 D3A

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

F4F 9.5 / 7.5
A6M2 5.0 / 4.9
D3A 6.4 / 6.1
Airbase hits 21.4 / 19.7

Tomorrow I will run somthing lopsided like Buffalo vs A6M2

[JeffroK]

DF,

Maybe a reason for the F4F doing better is that you adjusted the Zeke because it had 2 x 20mm but not the F4F because it had 6 (or 4) .50cal,

[Sardaukar]

By the way, you could also test with reduced weapon accuracy. I've planned to do that for some time, but haven't had time so far.

[el cid again]

It has been suggested that air combat in the game is too deadly. Planes are lost quickly and airbases closed in only a few raids.

Why is that a problem? A base COULD BE closed in a few raids - or even in a single raid - IF you hit it hard enough and accurately enough.

I have seen data indicating that very large air combats may be producing too many air to air kills. I have never seen any data indicating a base is too hard to close. In fact, the reverse, I find it hard to KEEP a base closed IF it has engineers and supply.

[el cid again]

The standard payload of level bombers was reduced by 25%. Fractions were always rounded up.

This is a bad concept in principle. It imposes two requirements on everyone involved - forever - in designing planes -

a) they must know and understand this change
b) they must do still another calculation.

Better by far to take something that is a strait data input from reality and preserve it. Of course, ideally, we could modify what code does with that data. In this case, we can't do that. So it becomes possible we might want to manipulate the data in this way. But it should be a LAST resort, not a first pass.

[el cid again]

Most of your ideas seem UNRELATED to your stated goal - that is they affect AIR TO AIR combat, not AIR TO GROUND combat. In fact, REDUCING figher effectiveness may INCREASE the ease of shutting down bases - since fighters can DEFEND bases!

The idea of reducing bomb load is a problem - because bomb load (and other weapons loads) are dirctly related to range. Are you going to reduce torpedo and missile values too? And did you consider that reducing the load will mean a plane CANNOT carry a special weapon it REALLY CAN carry? Did you consider that the RELATIVE range penalty for carrying bombs to torpedoes (other devices) will shift, and incorrectly so?

Now if you wish to reduce ACCURACY for BOMBS, that is a different thing. But note you will impact NAVAL as well as LAND combat when you do so. Are you SURE you want to do that in a NAVAL game where careful work went into getting quite good results in naval bomb strikes?

IF you really want to reduce AIR TO AIR fighter values - honor the manual and rerate planes in knots vice mph. Then run your tests.

[jmscho]

There are fundamental problems with the way WitP deals with air combat and air attacks that no amount of tweaking will resolve. I believe the unrealistic results stem from:

* CAP being able to intercept every raid thrown at a target, with no detriment for dealing with multiple raids, or distance to target hex.
* Bomber and escort aircraft squadrons being able to combine irrespective of launching base location or command structure.
* Target bases being treated as a single airfield when they could be many. Using the WitP game scale a single hex would represent SE England in the Battle of Britain with Germany having several for parts of Europe. Although Germany could send large raids totalling many hundreds of aircraft, they could not all be intercepted by every fighter available. Nor could a few day’s raids put every airfield out of action. I believe this point is equally applicable to the shore bombardment effect on airfields.

John

[Sardaukar]

It's tricky and difficult to balance the air-to-air combat so that air-to-ground combat doesn't get too effective. It's relative easy to change weapons, durability etc. to reduce air losses, but difficult to judge if it gets too easy to bomb places, ships and units to pieces with impunity.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

DF,

Maybe a reason for the F4F doing better is that you adjusted the Zeke because it had 2 x 20mm but not the F4F because it had 6 (or 4) .50cal,

All guns were reduced. The 20mm went from 4-22 to 3-22, the 50 cal from 3-29 to 2-33.

The way I did the reduction was to to multiply the effect by the accuracy, then reduce by 25% and divide by the new lowered effect.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

By the way, you could also test with reduced weapon accuracy. I've planned to do that for some time, but haven't had time so far.

If this Mod does not test out well I may try that solution.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It has been suggested that air combat in the game is too deadly. Planes are lost quickly and airbases closed in only a few raids.

Why is that a problem? A base COULD BE closed in a few raids - or even in a single raid - IF you hit it hard enough and accurately enough.

I have seen data indicating that very large air combats may be producing too many air to air kills. I have never seen any data indicating a base is too hard to close. In fact, the reverse, I find it hard to KEEP a base closed IF it has engineers and supply.

I agree this is not a major issue. A reason for this adjustment also has to do with some early testing I did. With reduced firepower more bombers were getting to drop bombs and I wanted to off set this some what.

Early tests indicated the change was slight, testing will tell.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The standard payload of level bombers was reduced by 25%. Fractions were always rounded up.

This is a bad concept in principle. It imposes two requirements on everyone involved - forever - in designing planes -

a) they must know and understand this change
b) they must do still another calculation.

Better by far to take something that is a strait data input from reality and preserve it. Of course, ideally, we could modify what code does with that data. In this case, we can't do that. So it becomes possible we might want to manipulate the data in this way. But it should be a LAST resort, not a first pass.

If I could change the code I would. I do not even know what the code factors in outside of my observations. I can work with the data and if the results are good how I got them does not bother me too much.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The idea of reducing bomb load is a problem - because bomb load (and other weapons loads) are dirctly related to range. Are you going to reduce torpedo and missile values too? And did you consider that reducing the load will mean a plane CANNOT carry a special weapon it REALLY CAN carry? Did you consider that the RELATIVE range penalty for carrying bombs to torpedoes (other devices) will shift, and incorrectly so?

My early test showed that reducing the load value had no effect on the number of hits scored on a base. It also showed it had no effect on what ordinance an aircraft would carry. I suspect it is only used when flying extended range, but I have not tested this. Because I saw no results and it was tied to so many other aspects, like what base could support heavy bombers and extended range load out, I did not change this value. Too mant interactions not enough information.

In my testing I discoverd changing the standard pay load had a small effect. Hopefully enough to counter the problem you addressed of more bombers making it on target.

I would also like to stress that the changes I made initially showed very small differences in initial testing. The effect was subtle and this is what I was looking for. That is why I started doing more in depth testing.

I was excited enough to share the information.

[Sardaukar]

Ordnance listed is used only against ships. Payload is used against land targets, be it installations or units, IIRC.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: jmscho

There are fundamental problems with the way WitP deals with air combat and air attacks that no amount of tweaking will resolve. I believe the unrealistic results stem from:

* CAP being able to intercept every raid thrown at a target, with no detriment for dealing with multiple raids, or distance to target hex.
* Bomber and escort aircraft squadrons being able to combine irrespective of launching base location or command structure.
* Target bases being treated as a single airfield when they could be many. Using the WitP game scale a single hex would represent SE England in the Battle of Britain with Germany having several for parts of Europe. Although Germany could send large raids totalling many hundreds of aircraft, they could not all be intercepted by every fighter available. Nor could a few day’s raids put every airfield out of action. I believe this point is equally applicable to the shore bombardment effect on airfields.

John

Nothing is perfect and this game is no exception. I still think it is great. I just thought a tweek would be nice and wondered if I could make one that made a small change with out breaking the thing.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

It's tricky and difficult to balance the air-to-air combat so that air-to-ground combat doesn't get too effective. It's relative easy to change weapons, durability etc. to reduce air losses, but difficult to judge if it gets too easy to bomb places, ships and units to pieces with impunity.

Yep, but that is why I wanted to test.

BTW, I can send any one interested the Mod and the test scenarios if they are interested.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Ordnance listed is used only against ships. Payload is used against land targets, be it installations or units, IIRC.

That is what I thought. In my tests it did not work out that way. The only time I was able to notice an effect on the number of hits was when I reduced the standard payload. To get a noticable and consistent change I had to reduce a B-17 from 12 boms down to 1.

Part of the issue is the wide variety of results the combat system will generate from near identical match ups. Given this spread of results I am concerned that 10 test will not be a very accurate test of any particular match up. But after doing 8 or 10 such match ups and getting 80-100 test battles I can see what the trend is.

[Sardaukar]

You mean you did reduce the "Max load" number and it didn't reduce the hits ?