WITP Game Play Notes from the Testers

[pasternakski]

Well, but let's think about this for a minute. What continuum is being measured by pilot experience ratings? Zero is not "Mrs. O'Leary's cow," and 99 is not "God and his joystick."

I suggest that even zero experience represents a pilot with some rudimentary training (I agree, of course, that such a pilot does not belong in air-to-air combat against a competent enemy in a competently designed aircraft). Further, 99 experience, although as good as you can get in game terms, does not represent a perfection that was not achieved in real life. Nobody should be invincible, but, by the same token, those with adequate training, supported by superior doctrine, and flying superior aircraft, should prevail. I have no quarrel with the results depicted in Nik's test.

The design judgment seems to be that pilot experience is not so diverse as to warrant overriding of superior aircraft performance and tactical doctrine, two things the Allies excelled at not only toward the end of the war, but during the intermediate phases, as well. The kill ratios, if nothing else, are evidence of this.

I am hoping not to see another evisceration of Allied air superiority, which was marginal in 1942, but grew to total domination by 1945 (as was done in UV for the 1942-43 period), for play balance purposes. I say adjust the victory conditions and let history be played for history's sake in terms of air combat, and let the virtual war resemble the actual one in this regard.

My two cents worth is that the tests I have seen so far seem to come out about right.

[Dawy]

Judging by those reports I can only guess what the results would be if those Allied P-51 groups have 99 exp as well?

All 54 Zero's destroyed?

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Dawy
Judging by those reports I can only guess what the results would be if those Allied P-51 groups have 99 exp as well?

All 54 Zero's destroyed?

Well, I think you've got a good point there, especially if I'm wrong about what "0" and "99" experience mean (and I sure don't know enough even to qualify at the "ignorant" level). I hope that the difference would be enough to be significant (say twice as many A6M2s shot down), but not so much as to make the P-51s "bulletproof."

All I can say is that P-51s with 99 experience pilots, zero fatigue, the right mission, and the right doctrine (altitude assignment, etc.) should be a heckuva combination.

[Nikademus]

---
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 79

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 29

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 18 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged

PO1 S. Kudo of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Zero exp = 10
P-39 exp=99

[Drongo]

Nik,

Do you want to post the operational losses involved in flying a fighter sweep with exp 10 pilots?

[Luskan]

Originally posted by Nikademus
---
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 79

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 29

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 18 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged

PO1 S. Kudo of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Zero exp = 10
P-39 exp=99

Ok, this makes me feel a little better, but I still think that a genius in a zero or a wildcat should murder an inexperienced pilot in a better plane.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Nikademus is a tester. Since Pasternaski made his post, you have made two posts protesting Pasternaski's post. Heres a hint.
the designers get feed back from testers. They read comments of posters. Protests concerning other non tester's posts only take up space and make thread load slower. Everyone stop worrying about what non designer/testers post. We have a private forum to post in. We are trying to keep you abreast of progress. We are not looking for debates or flame wars. Unless a post is constructive it does not belong here. (I'm getting tired of reading the same thing over and over) (Let it be)

Mogami allow me to explain. Pasternaski attacked on ongoing issue obliquley. I will brook no censure stated or implied.
I am ready willing and able to respond in kind to all attacks or
implied attacks. I am perfectly willing to respond to each one
ad infinitum. It would be better then to NOT make such attacks.
When you flame Pasternaski for starting it, I will know you are serious.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Luskan
Ok, this makes me feel a little better, but I still think that a genius in a zero or a wildcat should murder an inexperienced pilot in a better plane.

I agree with this. I am far from comfortable with the results that Nik is posting at the moment..........what would the results be if the "current" UV engine was used?

Originally posted by Nikademus
---
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 79

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 29

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 18 destroyed:eek:
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged

PO1 S. Kudo of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Zero exp = 10
P-39 exp=99

I think that to make it a "balanced" test, both sides should have the same number of aircraft. But thanks for the interesting posts and tests Nik !

[Snigbert]

The above results are appalling. If this is meant to be an indication of how much plane type counts vs how little pilot experience counts I will not purchase the game (and I can guarantee you that 90% of my long time PBEM opponents won't buy the game either). It is that simple.

The intent of this thread (which I missed but Nik did not) was to post notes from testing. If you would prefer waiting for the product to be released before there is any information released by the testers, you will be sure to only see results that make sense and are intended for the final product. If you look at Alpha notes, expect to see strange results.



Something that worries me is that they systems described for production seem to be the same for both sides in many respects.

Actually some rules apply only to Japan, I hadn't specified which ones, for the most part.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Drongo
Nik,

Do you want to post the operational losses involved in flying a fighter sweep with exp 10 pilots?

None.

[Drongo]

Posted by Nik

None.

I was asking about operational losses not the number of coherent thoughts you have in a year.

However, I'll admit you're getting better and better at this concise post stuff.

No op losses, eh.

Now that's something worth investigating.

Cheers

[Nikademus]

air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 1

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Zip!

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 1 destroyed

WO Drongo of 5th RAAF squadron ground loops and is credited with wreck number 5

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by pasternakski
That's not what Snig is saying. He is merely pointing out that time was not wasted modeling US engine production because there was no shortage of aircraft engines.

OK, I just thought that if players had unlimited controls over production they might run into a shortage that didn't exist in history.

Nobody is thereby discriminating against the Japanese as a people, a nation, or the economic force that made American sedans obsolete..

I know.

And I thought you were above playing the nonsensical "all the Allies have to do is build forty bazillion B-17s in order to win the game" game.

I think I am but since some people raised the idea of an all B-17 air force I just thought a per engine production design would help to curtail such unrealism. Since it seems there are other limits on such an unrealistic strategy I am fine with dropping engine limits for the US. Also, I've nver posted anything about B-17s being too tough. I shoot them donw in my games all the time.

Drongo created this thread as a pipeline of information from the testers to us.

I appreciate that. It is always nice to be kept informed. It is natural though to expect people to "lobby" or "complain" about things it they think they have a chance of influencing them. This is a game that we will most likely be playing for 10+ years so even a small matter can be a point of contention.

I like the way most of the production and economic systems are shaping up based on what I've heard.

I'd still like, at least an optional setting, to be able to lay down new ships but I know many people want to stay 100% historical.

Yamamoto

[Drongo]

Posted by Yamamoto

I'd still like, at least an optional setting, to be able to lay down new ships but I know many people want to stay 100% historical.

I think that one would probably be on everyone's (secret) wish list.

[Drongo]

Posted Borasaurus

WO Drongo of 5th RAAF squqadron ground loops and is credited with wreck number 5

An accident investigation team later reported that WO Drongo had fallen asleep while returning from an unsuccessful intercept of a Japanese fighter sweep but were unable to explain why a perfectly healthy and well rested pilot, flying an undamaged and well maintained aircraft, would do this.

Lt Nikademus, who was on flight operations duty at the time, stated :

"It was amazing. There I was in the control tower watching him come in to land when I noticed his approach technique could do with improving. I'd just got on the radio and started explaining the principles of a perfect landing when WHAM, he just crashed."

[Mr.Frag]

Curious about the no USA engine thing. While engines may have been in great supply, superchargers were as rare as you can get, with the majority of them going towards high altitude bombers simply to get above the fighters and take less losses in Europe.

While I have no concerns about the low altitude planes that didn't require a supercharger, it would be extremely poor to see this not represented in performance aircraft. This is why so many aircraft had great low level performance that simply died above 10,000 feet.

Japan was in worse shape due to their poor facilities, but they BOTH suffered from the lack of rare metals to produce these items. It would seem wrong to not represent this major factor in aircraft production, almost more important a factor then production of the engines themselves.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Curious about the no USA engine thing. While engines may have been in great supply, superchargers were as rare as you can get, with the majority of them going towards high altitude bombers simply to get above the fighters and take less losses in Europe.

While I have no concerns about the low altitude planes that didn't require a supercharger, it would be extremely poor to see this not represented in performance aircraft. This is why so many aircraft had great low level performance that simply died above 10,000 feet.

Japan was in worse shape due to their poor facilities, but they BOTH suffered from the lack of rare metals to produce these items. It would seem wrong to not represent this major factor in aircraft production, almost more important a factor then production of the engines themselves.

Hm. Then maybe Yamamoto's right and Allied engine production (at least supercharger production) ought to be modelled. As I said before, I'm speculating from ignorance here. I defer to those who have more knowledge of the historical facts and just hope that it gets done right.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted Borasaurus


An accident investigation team later reported that WO Drongo had fallen asleep while returning from an unsuccessful intercept of a Japanese fighter sweep but were unable to explain why a perfectly healthy and well rested pilot, flying an undamaged and well maintained aircraft, would do this.

Lt Nikademus, who was on flight operations duty at the time, stated :

"Well no sir, initially i wasn't alarmed at the drunken weave WO Drongo was sketching across the landing pattern, after all he'd only gotten back to the barracks at around 4pm. I remember that specifically because i was woken up at that time by the sound of a very loud crash coming from the outside my window followed by some loudmouth slurring something at the pitch of his lungs. Sounded like "*()*! Yankssh...*)(*()@ Yanksh.....*)(*)&*(@# YANKSHHHH"

A few more of what sounded suspiciously like a foot locker slamming against walls followed this, then a more muffled 'thump' , then peace and quiet. I looked at my clock and the time showed 0400 hours.

Sure enough, as the air raid siren sounded this morning, i saw WO Drongo half running, half staggering to his waiting P-39, cursing up a blue streak too i might add. The weaving pattern he was making was very simlar to that displayed on landing. He almost missed intersecting with the P-39 during one particularily heavy weave to port, but the tail assembly broke his fall. He then climbed into the cockpit after only 4 tries and proceeded to taxi to the runway.....well taxi to the runway after a little detour through officer's country first but noone was hurt.

Yes....yes sir he did manage to take off though i'd really would have preffered if he'd had saved his bullets for the Japanese instead of those palm trees at the end of the runway.

[Drongo]

Posted by Mr. Frag

Curious about the no USA engine thing. While engines may have been in great supply, superchargers were as rare as you can get, with the majority of them going towards high altitude bombers simply to get above the fighters and take less losses in Europe.

As I understand it, there were limitations on availability but that was more about how quickly existing production capacity could be increased rather than the hitting of any production upper limit or some critical level of a strategic material stocks being exceeded.

Even with those limitations, there were a few qualifiers.
1) Availability limitations applied only to turbochargers and not (geared) superchargers (like in the P-51). IIRC, the P-38 and P-47 were the only US fighters equipped with turbochargers. All heavy bombers used them but I think all the mediums used superchargers.

2) Turbochargers were being produced in fairly small quantities in the USA in the late 30's before two events occured. Firstly, an advanced series of turbochargers were developed (like the General Electric 'B' series). Once the performance potential of aircraft equipped with these was realised, almost all the aircraft manufacturers wanted their new designs equipped with them. At the same time, the situation in Europe deteriorated, prompting the USA to embark on a rapid modernisation and expansion of the USAAC.

Together, these two factors created a potential demand for turbochargers that would not be immeadiately met from the existing suppliers without expansion of their capacity. The USAAC imposed a priority on the distribution which was (initially) heavily weighted towards their new wonder weapon, the turbocharged version of the B-17. Although the production of turbochargers always kept the manufacturers at their capacity limits, supply was sufficient to equip and maintain over 30,000 four engined bombers and over 20,000 of the USAAF's 2nd generation fighters from 1942 onwards. Not what I'd consider rare.

3) Unlike geared superchargers, turbochargers did require the use of the strategic materials like tungsten. However, the numbers of turbo superchargers produced in the USA didn't appear to be restricted by availability of strategic materials (unlike the situation in Germany and Japan). The USA did have have to be conservative with the use of the materials but the availability of the turbocharger was dictated more by production capacity then supply of strategic materials. General Electric (who produced almost all the turbochargers used in US aircraft) was running at full capacity for the duration of the war even when that capacity had been expanded several times. They probably would've looked forward to running out of tungsten. From what I've read, the historical production levels of 4 engined bombers would have to have been increased considerably before there was any chance of approaching the critical level for strategic materials.

Wartime aviation industry production problems are not tops on my fun reading list. If you or anyone else have any figures that can show what the theoretical maximums for monthly production (and causes) were, this is the forum to put it.

Or better still, get hold of some figures that show that the Japanese were actually up to their armpits in aero engines so that their engine requirement for a/c production can get dropped.

Then the whole issue will just go away and everyone will be at peace.

Make it up if you have to. :p

Cheers

[byron13]

Since production seems to be running somewhat similar to BTR with a chain of supply/capacity events that have to occur before a plane rolls out the factory, is there any display that shows where a bottleneck is? In other words, if my Mitsubishis aren't rolling out at the rate I think they are, is there an easy way for me to determine that the problem is a shortage of raw materials, heavy industry, oil, capacity, or whatever?