Slitherine

quote:

There's no disputing that the IJN aerial torpedo was better than the USN one.

quote:

This was true at the beginning of the war. By the end of the war, the USN had what has been called the best and most reliable aerial torpedo of the war. They also used the same torp on PTs (the debugged aerial torpedo).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/special/midway.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

WitP also purports to be about WW2 in the PTO on Planet Earth and to put the players in something approximating the drivers' seats of their historical counterparts. Therefore:

1. Eliminate the Zero bonus entirely.
2. Increase average USN and USMC EXP by 5-10 points.
3. Tweak the combat model so that Japanese aircraft MVR are lower in the first combat round if the engagement does not start where the
Japanese get the "bounce." This would have the proper simulation effect of giving the initial advantage to the Allies in a high-speed meeting engagement (in which circumstances most Allied a/c were more maneuverable than most Japanese a/c). Subsequent combat rounds could be presumed to burn energy, resulting in circumstances where the A6M could employ its superior low speed climb, acceleration, and turn rates, so the actual MVR of the Japanese planes could be used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Yes--Those 70 planes were lost--mainly to Anti-Aircraft Fire--USS South Dakota--YES??!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I forgot to add the point mentioned earlier that the replacement pool should be increased to more reasonable amounts. I believe the proposal was:

IJ Army Pilots 40/Month
IJ Navy Pilots 25/Month

That seems slightly more reasonable to me.

This is funny. THe designers originally wanted NO trained pilots for the Japanese - all training was going to have to be "on the map". Someone said "oh lets be nice and give them some" and prevailed (probably to make the AI work, actually).

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I forgot to add the point mentioned earlier that the replacement pool should be increased to more reasonable amounts. I believe the proposal was:

IJ Army Pilots 40/Month
IJ Navy Pilots 25/Month

That seems slightly more reasonable to me.

This is funny. THe designers originally wanted NO trained pilots for the Japanese - all training was going to have to be "on the map". Someone said "oh lets be nice and give them some" and prevailed (probably to make the AI work, actually).

And that is why we have to micromanage this... Why in the hell have they not proposed a training system with something like the choose for Japan to have each month:
_ 10 pilots at 70 exp
_ 20 pilots of 60 exp
_ 40 pilots at 50 exp
_ 80 pilots at 40 exp
and so on...

Probably because we can train on the map... I don't like it also. Units set on training 90% win 2-4 exp per month (that is for Japanese starting at 35-40), while those ordered to bombard some starving troops will win more each week ! Actually training is more efficient to learn than operations. The RAF in the late war even opened schools for pilots having allready done a full turn of operations. As one said "Before I though I was a good shot and probably hit nothing at all, than I knew I was bad but learned to hit anyway."

If all you had to do was to set your unit as training X% in a Japanese base and they will 5-10 exp a month (below 50) and then 3-5 above 50, and then 1-2 above 70 (I believe than in the current model training above 60 on the map is impossible), that will just be "fire and forget". As for operations I will only give pilots a chance to gain experience if they are the target, not the shooters. So no more full units at 90+ exp.

Back to the Zero bonus, here is the result of the battles over Java in February 1942. The losses shown are the real ones, claims were far above them. Note the number of Zeroes involved, the Tainan Kokutai and 3rd Kokutai were used here, in WITP they will have 117 Zeroes... I have also only listed the losses in the air, Zeroes destroyed tens of aircraft on the ground by strafing without loss to AA (in fact, one was lost to AA but it was while strafing an arounred car on Borneo and it is not shown there). Also the long-range Zeroes were able to shot down a number of Allied bombers, floatplanes and transports over Java. Both these features are unavailable in WITP as AA is much too effective against strafing fighters, that are themselves way too much ineffective, and sweep or raids will only meet CAP and nothing else.

2/Feb/42 : 17 Zeroes sent : no loss, 1 B-18 shot down over Soerabaja
3/Feb/42 : 44 Zeroes sent : 4 losses, 6 CW-21B, 5 Hawks, 2 B-17, 2 Catalinas, 1 P-40 and 1 trainer shot down over Java
5/Feb/42: 47 Zeroes sent : no loss, 5 P-40E, 2 Hawks, 2 Catalina, 1 CW-21, 1 trainer shot down
8/feb/42: 13 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 B-17 shot down
9/Feb/42: 13 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 Brewsters, 2 Glenn Martins shot down
18/feb/42: 23 Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 C-XIW shot down
19/feb/42: 23 Zeroes sent: 1 loss, 7 P-40E shot down
20/Feb/42: 6 Zeroes on CAP: no loss, 3 P-40E shot down
21/Feb/42: 19 Zeroes sent: no loss, 2 P-40E shot down
23/Feb/42: 9 Zeroes sent: no loss, no claim (battle vs P-40)
24/Feb/42: 2 Zeroes on CAP shot down 1 Catalina, 1 Zero lost to return fire. 9 Zeroes sent: no loss, no claim (battle vs P-40)
25/Feb/42: 11 Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 P-40E and 1 Catalina shot down
27/Feb/42: 15 Zeroes sent: 1 loss (unclear cause, but no CAP met), 1 Empire and 1 Catalina shot down
28/Feb/42: a dozen Zeroes sent: no loss, 1 Brewster shot down

So if we count the A2A battles between fighters, the score is 36 Allied fighters lost against 5 Zeroes lost against them in one month (and 3 Zeroes lost to other causes). WITP is producing this kind of ratio in this period... but it will produce it in one day probably...

The Darwin raid: 36 Zeroes sent: 1 loss, 7 P-40E and 1 Catalina shot

My source above is Shore's "Bloody Shambles, vol 2". The only action involving US CV described in the serie is the aborted raid vs Rabaul in February 1942 and the only air battle between Wildcats and unescorted IJNAF bombers. So no RL numbers for CV battles in my bookshelves..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

MDIEHL One point. All of your observations on Allied Pilots/Planes seems to be based on the US Navy Experiance---but the US Navy had very little involvement in the first 3 months of the war. The point of view that matters is that of the RAF, the RAAF, the Dutch, and the USAAFE. You may very well be right regarding the experiance levels and tactics of the USN's Pilots..., but they weren't the ones fighting in SE Asia. I'm accused on this forum of being an "Allied Fan-Boy", but I can still see justification for some sort of Japanese "bonus" in the opening phases of the campaign. That it's effects can be made more accurate I wouldn't argue with you, but the "shock" of the Japanese actually being competant is also well documented.

In way you have cut to the point of the matter, the flyers facing the Japanese in the first months of the war were - The British, The Dutch, The AVG, and USAFFE.

These pilots fought almost 'exclusively against Oscar KI 43 I's and Nate KI 27's.

Their experience was based on the astonishing fact that the Japanese actually could build a a decent aircraft - and worse yet, fly compitently.

Now, throw in the fact that allied pilots were:
A) almost always outnumbered
B) all too often attacked on the ground or just taking off and therefore at extreme disadvantage (look at the last series of Middle Eastern Wars)
C) almost always lacking the most rudimentary early warning system

It is no wonder that the allies were shocked that theses 'little yellow men' could fight well.
Those were the circumstances of the Zero Myth of invincibility. Note that in reality almost no A6M aircraft were involved in these affairs at all.

THAT is why a Zero Bonus is as absurd as it is unhistorical. And I forgot to mention again that recent scholarship has shown again that allied pilots (including the much belittled Brewster Buffalo pilots) still managed to exrtract about a 1 to 1 kill ratio with their Japanese opponents.

Now on what basis is the 'Zero Bonus' warranted?

Unless of course it's simply a way to let the Japanese player win cheaply in the first six months of the war. (fine also - but not satisfying to players looking for the ultimate simulation of the Pacific War).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Sorry, but you are wrong. There were two Naval Air Divisions supportting the push to the Indies. One from Formosa, the other from Indo-China. Army planes didn't have the range. And they were active until the fall of the DEI. The "front" where there were only IJA aircraft was BURMA. Malaya, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies all saw Zero's in action.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes
I stand corrected and freely admit my error. My thoughts were primarily on the CBI area and the Philippines, and the fact that the main Japanese carrier strike force did not play a large roll in overruning the DEI...that is to say they did not sit down there for months providing close air support for the campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

WitP also purports to be about WW2 in the PTO on Planet Earth and to put the players in something approximating the drivers' seats of their historical counterparts. Therefore:

1. Eliminate the Zero bonus entirely.
2. Increase average USN and USMC EXP by 5-10 points.
3. Tweak the combat model so that Japanese aircraft MVR are lower in the first combat round if the engagement does not start where the Japanese get the "bounce." This would have the proper simulation effect of giving the initial advantage to the Allies in a high-speed meeting engagement (in which circumstances most Allied a/c were more maneuverable than most Japanese a/c). Subsequent combat rounds could be presumed to burn energy, resulting in circumstances where the A6M could employ its superior low speed climb, acceleration, and turn rates, so the actual MVR of the Japanese planes could be used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

Think you are being a bit unfair. OLEG is one of the great "Japanese Fan-Boys" out here, but his opinion isn't always valid. I know at least two of the regular contributers to the CHS group play nothing but the Japanese, and there views are input with everyone elses. Personally, I think of them as "History Fan-boys" who were just as quick to complain about the US getting far too many B-17's in WITP as the Japanese getting too many Toni's 6 months too early. You should really take the time to give CHS a fair examination before dismissing it. And if you have any "hard data" to back up complaints about the system, it will get a lot more sympathetic ear from that group.

Don't quite understand your "flak" complaint considering your stated viewpoint. Yes, Allied flak is horribly under-rated in the later stages of the war in WITP. But you seem to be more interested in the Japanese, which wasn't particularly good from the beginning to the end of the war. By 1944, when the US was putting radar gun directors on their quad 40mm mounts, the Japanese were still having an officer with a stick point targets for their triple 25's. No proximity fuses, no radar fire direction, they just never got much better than they started. Their 3.9"/100mm gun was an excellent weapon, but most of the other AAA guns in their inventory were barely adequate to inferior. So what's your problem with AAA?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sorry pauk, but number 3 can't be done in a scenario mod, only by a coding change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Interesting debate.

First, I must agree on CHS with Oleg. It is an Allied fanboy mod, that leaves the MORE IMPORTANT issues alone, and goes into detail on allied equipment and OOB. Flak is not adjusted, air combat not adjusted, etc....
I would only play CHS, if an equal number of japanese modders worked on it.

As of air combat:
1. What is most important in an aerial battle is surprise. 80-90% of A2A kills were results of the victim not noticing that he is being shot at. This is a more important factor than anything else - and this is mostly related to experience (also to communication and radar - where allies have the advantage).

2. The second most important thing is pilot experience. Even in an inferior plane, a better pilot would win most of the time. Go play a flight sim if you do not believe me. Good flying can negate the enemies advantage, regardless of plane type.

3. Numbers matter!!!! If the enemy has a 3 to 1 advantage, chances are that you will be bounced by some that you do not even see. This is all wrong in WITP, better planes can fight effectively even when outnumbered (eg: Corsair, P-38, against Zero)

The japanese lost the aerial war due to inferior logistics, degradation of pilot experience and overall an inferiority in numbers in the long run. There were other factors as well, such as fighting over a far away base at Guadalcanal, allied radar and so on.

Not only are A2A fights too bloody in WITP, there are also uber-planes that outclass the opposition even with inferior pilot experience - this is all wrong. Differences between planes should be reduced - so experience can have a bigger impact.

It does not really matter if it is the XP or the bonus, but the japanese early on should be better. Before the allies learned how to negate the zero advantage, they were handicapped - this can be modelled with XP or a bonus, it does not matter.

And I do not think that the Zero advantage is urban legend. Allies were shocked at the performance and the skill of the pilots initially. And most disregarded intel as well, they could only learn at their own expense.