Aircraft 'Manuever'

[Rommel3]

As i know, game editor 'Manuever' represent turn fighting ability. A6M2 Zero was very high Manuever aircraft even though rack of armor, speed(later war)
But in the game editor A2M6's Manuever is only 33.

A2M2 has better Manuever than later models. Because later models sacrifice it's manuever for armor, durability. But in the game editor A6M2 get only 33 when later model(A6M5 ..) get better 'Manuever' 34.

It confuse me

[Drongo]

I have no idea whether you are using the "stock" game or one of the modded versions but the manuever rating of the A6M2 is rated as 35 in the standard game, not 33.

[Rommel3]

I'm playing CHS MOD. But in the 'stock' game also later models have better Manuever like 36.

[rockmedic109]

Does it also represent the ability to maneuver in the vertical?

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

I'm playing CHS MOD. But in the 'stock' game also later models have better Manuever like 36.

I'll only comment on stock -

If you want a simplistic guess for an answer, the A6M3 and A6M3a (both of which have manuever 36 in stock) had superior power loading ratings to the A6M2, as well as a 2 speed supercharger compared to the single speed one of the A6M2.

The A6M3 and A6M3a were considered only slightly less manueverable than the A6M2 at low altitudes but considerably better in manuever at medium altitudes. So its possible the game ratings reflect a form of "average" manueverability across the various altitude bands.

After the A6M3/3a series, the weight escalation continued without any corresponding engine power increase until the A6M8. That may be why the A6M5 is rated as the least manueverable of the Zero family.

Otherwise, your guess is as good as mine.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

As i know, game editor 'Manuever' represent turn fighting ability. A6M2 Zero was very high Manuever aircraft even though rack of armor, speed(later war)
But in the game editor A2M6's Manuever is only 33.

A2M2 has better Manuever than later models. Because later models sacrifice it's manuever for armor, durability. But in the game editor A6M2 get only 33 when later model(A6M5 ..) get better 'Manuever' 34.

It confuse me

In stock the A6M2 has a speed of 33x mph and a maneuverability of 33.
It was suggested by a Matrix programmer that maneuverability was probably related to speed - and in this case I got the idea it was 10% of speed. A number of other cases in stock also show 10% of speed. Other planes seem to add to this 10% figure a fraction of the rate of climb - usually ROC/500. RHS tried this function and settled on 5% of speed plus ROC/500 - in effect doubling the proportion of maneuverability related to ROC vice just speed. RHS does NOT use the mixed system of stock and CHS - where some planes get a maneuverability purely based on speed - other planes a composite value - the latter system is used in all cases.

Since RHS wanted to reduce air combat lethality, we wanted to reduce the maneuverabilty rating. Particularly after Joel Billings informed us that maneuverabilty was the PRIMARY variable used in tactical air combat code. So the fact a Zero has a much lower maneuverabilty rating in RHS was considered good. Since ALL planes are similarly reduced - and use a consistent definition - we feel we got a better relative result.

[Rommel3]

el cid again / What about turn fighting ability?

[el cid again]

First of all - we didn't design the system.

Second of all - I originally reacted as you are. I use much more complex models. But I did a study - and found ROC is indeed a fine indicator of maneuverability. It is related to wing loading, power loading, and so it turns out to the ability to maneuver in the turning sense - much more than I expected. I am toying with the idea of using this system in all eras with all planes - it is so easy to calculate the values. I need more tests - but so far I think it is remarkably good for a "simple" solution.

Third - we might do something more. Since maneuerability is a major factor - I am told he PRIMARY factor - in WITP air combat code - basing maneuverability on any objective criteria might work well. There is a problem though: if the data we base it on is not already in the data set, we need to look up that data for EVERY SINGLE PLANE!!! This is a big deal - and many times values like turning rates are NOT in reference books. In fact, usually they are not. So how do we do this? I saw no easy way to answer that question. IF it gets answered - and in particular if you come up with a way to figure out the data for ALL planes - even those that never flew - I will be inclined to revise maneuverability to a more comprehensive model.

[Rommel3]

Then Japanese player will get Air to Air cambat penalty. Because  Japanese main planes like zero, hayabusha was turn fighting fighters.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

Then Japanese player will get Air to Air cambat penalty. Because Japanese main planes like zero, hayabusha was turn fighting fighters.

Yes..which got them into trouble when opponent chose not to get into turning fight and used "zoom & boom" aka "energy fighting" with faster planes with better rate of climb. Manouverability in game is not only the ability to "turn & burn" aka tight slow turning ability but it's combination of lot of things. For example Corsair could never turn with Hayabusa, but was still way superior plane in air combat if used "as designed".

[Rommel3]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Yes..which got them into trouble when opponent chose not to get into turning fight and used "zoom & boom" aka "energy fighting" with faster planes with better rate of climb. Manouverability in game is not only the ability to "turn & burn" aka tight slow turning ability but it's combination of lot of things. For example Corsair could never turn with Hayabusa, but was still way superior plane in air combat if used "as designed".

It is true against Later allied planes. But against early war allied planes They will not have turn fighting adventage, exept zero(zero bonus).

and even later war allied fighters if they doing escort mission, ther Zoom & boom tactics restricted a bit. As i know Zoom & boom means leave ther posision (to protect bombers) a little while.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

It is true against Later allied planes. But against early war allied planes They do not have turn fighting adventage, exept zero(zero bonus).

and even later war allied fighters if they doing escort mission, ther Zoom & boom tactics restricted a bit. As i know Zoom & boom means leave ther posision (to protect bombers) a little while.

Actually it was found out that "close escort" (staying close to bombers) doesn't work at all. Luftwaffe found it true in Battle of Britain and USAAF when bombing Germany. Fighters were too restricted in that role, so they were placed further away so they could better "bounce" the attacking fighters and it worked way better. Same as German "Frei Jagd" in 1940 worked better too.

Even earlier war Allied planes were more than match to Japanese when having speed advantage. P-40s, for example could do Zoom & Boom just fine unless caught from above by Zeros. AVG that fought in China used Z&B with very good success against Nates and orcars that could out-turn P-40 very easily.

[Rommel3]

It is sure P40 can use speed adventage. But at the same time Zero can use turn fighting adventage.

What i'm saying is ignoring trun fighting totally like el cid's plan  is not wise idea. It is No doubt turn fighting was a important part in WW2 Air to Air tactics.

And Manual say,

Once aircraft have closed for combat, the most important factors include maneuverability and speed. 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.

[RevRick]

But maneuverability is not just a turn rate or radius, it's also roll rate, dive speed and a host of other things. Just taking climb rate and top speed into account does not work. I just read some USAAC reports about the P-39D which were copies of the RAF reports that showed the P-39 more maneuverable at low altitude than the Spitfire. But, at higher altitudes, it lost power so much that it was easily surpassed by the Spitfires speed. Which leads to the propensity for the game to have AI bombers attack at 10K feet. At that altitude, the P-39D ought to chew up bombing raids and give the A6Ms a tussle as well. Maybe we ought to have Deck/Low/Medium/High altitude Maneuverabilty ratings and attack settings. Maneuverability ratings based more on turn rate, role rate, and critical altitude as well as speed and climb rates.
Deck (torpedo/strafing/skip bombing) 100-1000 feet
Low (ground/fighter bomber/dive bomber attacks) 1000-5000
Medium 6000-16000
High 17000 and up.
or some such. Maybe CAP could not intercept more than two levels lower or one level higher, which would lead most people to set CAP medium, which was where most of it was anyway

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

Then Japanese player will get Air to Air cambat penalty. Because  Japanese main planes like zero, hayabusha was turn fighting fighters.

Actually, you misunderstood what we have done. You have it exactly backwards: by increasing the proportion of maneuverability derived from ROC (doubling that proportion) we gave a relative advantage to any plane that is better at turning. You seem to have disregarded my report that investigation shows that ROC is a GOOD representative of turn rates - but it is surprisingly so. Now this will benefit the Japanese more than the Allies - but it also benefits all planes of the right sort. A biplane - for example - has a better ROC than it "should" for its speed - and it will be better off - even if it is Allied.

Now if we made a more complex maneuverability value (which I do not think will happen because it would take a vast amount of work to obtain the data - and endless argument because the data is not really available in a MAJORITY of cases) it MIGHT go even farther in this direction. But not by very much. It would shift the relative values of planes by a point or two - and it might result in better statistics to a degree - but it would not be a really big change. I will do it if the data is forthcoming - but it really is not going to matter very much - because Grigsby's model is better than it seems like it should be. It really is in the ball park. We can tweek it too - as I did. Right now I am engaged in long term data gathering - which I will use to "calibrate" the algorithms.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

Then Japanese player will get Air to Air cambat penalty. Because Japanese main planes like zero, hayabusha was turn fighting fighters.

Yes..which got them into trouble when opponent chose not to get into turning fight and used "zoom & boom" aka "energy fighting" with faster planes with better rate of climb. Manouverability in game is not only the ability to "turn & burn" aka tight slow turning ability but it's combination of lot of things. For example Corsair could never turn with Hayabusa, but was still way superior plane in air combat if used "as designed".

This is a good point. Further, the "turning in maneuver" - which works against even aircraft of SUPERIOR performance - became academic when the US shifted its tactics. I like the Zero bonus because it has a sunset clause. It combines the impacts of maneuerability (which properly should also apply to other Japanese fighters) with the special maneuver (also used even by the JAAF) - and it says they don't last forever - which is true.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

It is sure P40 can use speed adventage. But at the same time Zero can use turn fighting adventage.

What i'm saying is ignoring trun fighting totally like el cid's plan  is not wise idea. It is No doubt turn fighting was a important part in WW2 Air to Air tactics.

And Manual say,

Once aircraft have closed for combat, the most important factors include maneuverability and speed. 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.

First of all, I object to being identified as the designer - I am not. This is not my system. I am a modder working INSIDE the design. It is not "el cid's plan" to ignore turning.

Second, I have not heard a single constructive idea about how to GET turning data - and without it any proposal to use it is worthless. UNLESS we can get turning data on all planes - even those that never flew - to a consistent standard - we cannot use it. Even if we want it. And I have said I will use it if we could get it. Because I like it.

Third, I have reported that the model seems to work much better than one would expect - because it does. I don't like being disbelieved. Take some data for different planes where you DO have turning data - and compare it to the ROC data - and see there is a general relationship.

Fourth, IF we had turning data, HOW could we use it and NOT distort the game? That is, what proportion of maneuverability should be related to it? Turning is NOT the be all end all of air combat - and if we made it so - we would unduely penalize good planes - and on both sides. We have limited options - what is a good compromise for the weight of this data? I bet - in the end - it is not going to be much.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

But maneuverability is not just a turn rate or radius, it's also roll rate, dive speed and a host of other things. Just taking climb rate and top speed into account does not work. I just read some USAAC reports about the P-39D which were copies of the RAF reports that showed the P-39 more maneuverable at low altitude than the Spitfire. But, at higher altitudes, it lost power so much that it was easily surpassed by the Spitfires speed. Which leads to the propensity for the game to have AI bombers attack at 10K feet. At that altitude, the P-39D ought to chew up bombing raids and give the A6Ms a tussle as well. Maybe we ought to have Deck/Low/Medium/High altitude Maneuverabilty ratings and attack settings. Maneuverability ratings based more on turn rate, role rate, and critical altitude as well as speed and climb rates.
Deck (torpedo/strafing/skip bombing) 100-1000 feet
Low (ground/fighter bomber/dive bomber attacks) 1000-5000
Medium 6000-16000
High 17000 and up.
or some such. Maybe CAP could not intercept more than two levels lower or one level higher, which would lead most people to set CAP medium, which was where most of it was anyway

Rev - I will stipulate that in some sense this is true. But it also is worthless to us in WITP.

We do not have the option of different maneuverability at different altitude for the same plane. We do not have the option of selecting tactics either. We need some reasonable compromises - averages if you will - or we just have nothing at all.

I also believe you are not listening - or looking at the data. I am trying to say that the model is MUCH BETTER than you think it is. Look at it hard - with a calculator. Make any assumptions you want and APPLY them. Your results will be remarkably similar. I find that I can plug in WWI triplanes and modern jets - and get acceptable results 5/6 of the time.

Finally - some good news for P-38s. I have found a code trick. Rate it as a "fighter" instead of as a "fighter bomber." You will like it.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

But maneuverability is not just a turn rate or radius,

The point is that maximum sustained turn rate is at a slow speed. Note that a turn is accelerated movement. Power = mav, so you need low m or v to get high a. A plane flying that slow may be hard to shoot down, but was also a sitting duck against diving attacks. I studied this in some detail in bats versus bugs. Bugs have quick reaction times and high turn rates, but lack the power to get out of the way if being tail-chased in a dive.

it's also roll rate, dive speed and a host of other things.

Climb rate is almost purely power loading, since altitude is potential energy. Top speed is power loading versus drag, here speed is kinetic energy and you want a high wing loading, since a low wing loading generates a lot of drag. Roll rate is rotational inertia--how compact the airframe is and whether the engine is in-line or rotary. Dive speed is drag and, to some extent, power loading, since it involves the conversion of altitude to speed. I designed a fighter game about 20 years ago, and the primary factor that the player had to manage was energy.

Just taking climb rate and top speed into account does not work. I just read some USAAC reports about the P-39D which were copies of the RAF reports that showed the P-39 more maneuverable at low altitude than the Spitfire. But, at higher altitudes, it lost power so much that it was easily surpassed by the Spitfires speed. Which leads to the propensity for the game to have AI bombers attack at 10K feet. At that altitude, the P-39D ought to chew up bombing raids and give the A6Ms a tussle as well. Maybe we ought to have Deck/Low/Medium/High altitude Maneuverabilty ratings and attack settings. Maneuverability ratings based more on turn rate, role rate, and critical altitude as well as speed and climb rates.
Deck (torpedo/strafing/skip bombing) 100-1000 feet
Low (ground/fighter bomber/dive bomber attacks) 1000-5000
Medium 6000-16000
High 17000 and up.
or some such. Maybe CAP could not intercept more than two levels lower or one level higher, which would lead most people to set CAP medium, which was where most of it was anyway

[Sardaukar]

One point to clarify with "maneuverability" (as others have already done) is for example combats that Spitfire Vs had with Fw-190As. While former was a lot better turning fighter, Fw-190 had way better roll-rate. For similar period aircraft, that and other characteristics made Fw-190 superior in combat versus Spitfire V..which pilots called "clipped, cropped and clapped"..[:D]. Those disadvantage were adressed in Spitfire IX.