Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

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

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

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

quote:

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".

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

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".

quote:

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,

quote:

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.

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

But maneuverability is not just a turn rate or radius,

quote:



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

quote:


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

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

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.

REPLY: Not so. In Vietnam - early days - the enemy preferred the MiG-17 - for its superiority in the "horizontal" - turn rate. Our first solution was to use the A-1 Skyraider - which both had guns (most our jets didn't) and the ability to turn better. We could not use diving tactics with most our planes - but the F-8s could - but it was not thought to be effective.

quote:



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.

REPLY: The first clause is exactly right - and while it should have been obvious to me - it was not. It is why Gary's algorithm is not that bad. ROC is giving us power loading - and power loading has a lot to do with maneuverability.

quote:


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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.

Incorrect. The P-39 is penalized maneuver points the higher it flies in WitP.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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"... Those disadvantage were adressed in Spitfire IX.

quote:

You may have missed this - there are two penalized slots - but we fixed this. Neither P-39 nor P-400 are penalized by code in RHS. We put planes in those slots that don't go high enough to get the penalty! We rate planes PURELY on their staticstics - and in our case that INCLUDES altitude penalties - but it is the SAME penalty for all planes - not a special one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Unless you can show how to use something, I am unable to use it.

quote:

The P-47 for example may have a tremendous roll rate but is this counterbalanced by the size of the target profile presented...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well it is germane since in discussing how to model something most authorities would agree that one must first decide on an ideal high-fidelity representation and then, unfortunately, pare back from there as computing power, research resources and source material availability dictate.

REPLY: OK - in principle I agree. However, in practice I want to use some part of the EXISTING data set to generate the maneuverability value. Anything - absolutely anything else - requires a massive amount of manpower in research. It is I admit worse for RHS - since we have more plane types - and so daunting. Worse, since I do plane research, and have a background in doing this professionally, I realize that to do this with respect to a sort of data NOT included in standard materials, is wholly impractical: we will be able to get this data for a number of more famous planes, but certainly not for rare ones and those that never became operational - and likely in between lots of cases where a plane simply does not have that information anywhere we can find it. I MIGHT be able to derive it - but in that case we are likely to end up right where we started: we are letting ROC and speed be the sources we derive from - and the equation 20% ROC and 80% speed seems to match remarkably well my models (where 42 data types are used). IF the data were both easy to get and apply - and is certainly better - I would love to have it. I am skeptical we can get all of it. I am skeptical we can calculate it in the other cases in a way everyone agrees is fair. And it looks a lot like the work involved would be massive (measured in man-months) for a marginal return (less than 5% improvement at a seat of the pants guess). This latter because checking a few cases of the crude model we use against sophisticated models shows amazing similarities in the ratio of values for a composite maneuverability rating. We have something that is a lot better than you think. Check it out.

So, is roll rate important? Absolutely, it was a key component in why the DR I and Sopwith Camel were such effective dogfighters and why the FW-190, when flown by an expert pilot, could out-perform many Allied types. The reason being that roll rate did play one of the main parts in determining how quickly the plane could TRANSITION between specific tactics ( left turn, 180 degree barrel roll, split S etc) and, as such, allowed expert pilots to transition through OODA loops more quickly than their opponents thus gaining a decisive temporal advantage in the OODA loop.

REPLY: I do not disagree in principle. I am not sure it matters. We do not have roll rate data for a single type in the present data set. I know of no single source to get roll rate data to a uniform standard. In fact I know of no combination of sources that is likely to produce this data for even a majority of planes in the set. I suspect there is no way to get it for every last type: I will give you 100:1 odds we must estimate it for at least some planes and 10:1 odds we have to estimate it for a major fraction (quite likely a majority) of planes of interest. Please address this in a way that says: I have scholarly data on virtually all these planes that needs no research whatever - and I will jump on your bandwagon.

QUALIFIER: roll rate matters not a whit in many tactical situations - so we need to come up with a way to figure what portion of the time it matters - how to weight the data? I am skeptical we can create a consensus on the relative import of speed, ROC, roll rate, turn rate, dive rate, etc - but I am willing to join and adopt any such consensus - and to participate in a process to find it - which this might be the start of.

E.g. if your opponent is relying on you to take the same time as him to enact the counter to his manoeuvre but you can actually transition into that manoeuvre 1 - 2 seconds quicker than he has allowed for then you've just gained those 1 to 2 seconds to put yourself in a better position at the end of the manoeuvre either to take a shot or to just startle your opponent and force him into a manoeuvre which you can transition into even more quickly ( thus continually shaping his reactions and forcing each of them to end up with him in a poorer and poorer position until such time as you get into a killing position).

Even in that slowest moving of intellectual pursuits one can see the OODA loop in action so anything which gives an advantage in the OODA loop ( as roll rate does) will give advantage in air combat.


Obviously though if it is not possible to either research or calculate roll rate then it cannot be used. OTOH my understanding of it is that it can be calculated by taking into account engine torque, wing loading and control surface area as what you are essentially measuring is how quickly torque and air hitting the control surfaces can "flip" an object weighing x kilos etc etc through y degrees. Of course researching the necessary calculations etc and figuring out how to combine them into such a broad term as "manoeuverability" is probably impossible. It is a pity that fighters which give an OODA advantage ( such as many of the Japanese light fighters) don't have this represented... although, to be fair, some unexpected US heavy fighters would also benefit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

You may have missed this - there are two penalized slots - but we fixed this. Neither P-39 nor P-400 are penalized by code in RHS. We put planes in those slots that don't go high enough to get the penalty! We rate planes PURELY on their staticstics - and in our case that INCLUDES altitude penalties - but it is the SAME penalty for all planes - not a special one.

You complain that the game engine won't allow you to model aircraft performance at various altitudes and then you remove what little performance penalty was incorporated. In effect you are saying that the P-39/400 will now perform as well at 20000 feet as it does at 5000 feet. Go figure.

REPLY: MANY planes in the game had performance issues at various altitudes. We discussed this and a consensus formed about how to address it. It was agreed that it was wrong to penalize these two particular planes in this way.
We do model the altitude issue for them - in a different way. See the discussion of "operating altitude." In effect these planes won't be able to reach as high as other fighters do - and in fact not even as great a fraction of their service ceiling as fighters with turbosupercharged engines or jet engines. It is a simple solution - but one we can apply to all planes directly proportional to their data and in a uniform way. I don't know why you think it is right to penalize a P-39 but not a Jake, for example? We came up with a system that covers all types of planes - and gives relative disadvantages and advantages on a uniform basis - and then just made the special code irrelevant. In general this is much better design practice.

Just like the nerfing of the A6M2's range so that it can no longer fly one of its most important (and historical) missions of the war, that of escorting Bettys from Rabaul to Guadalcanal.

REPLY: Excuse me? What is this about? We did NOT "nerf" (that is a word?) the range of the A6M2. It is EXACTLY the same as it was in CHS. Further - and note this carefully - I did this work under CHS supervision - and when asked to increase the range of the A6M2 - I found the difference was just 3 minutes of flight time each way - or 9 minutes total for a ferry range flight. I recommended to my supervisor we allow it - and was soundly opposed - on the basis that if we could "nerf" numbers in favor of one plane we would have to do it for many planes. The resultant decision - which RHS has simply honored after it came to exist - was that we would NOT "nerf" data - even if it was very close.

You are confusing a map issue with a range issue. The map is distorted. The range data is right. All planes suffer or benefit according to the specific points the map has a specific error in - and these errors are as great as 50% at some points - and often 20%. You can always look at some "historical mission" and find some case where the map is not right - and then get upset with "the plane cannot fly its historical mission." But don't think it is right to modify the range data - you would end up with planes flying too far most of the time. Why give a Zero a range advantage and not every other plane? By the same fraction of course.

Frankly I hope to fix this - and am working on it too - by fixing the map - going over to a spherical projection system. I want a real fix - not a pretend one. It is not right to make the range of one plane more - and it is also not right to make the average range for all planes more. It would be better to run all planes at 5 or 10 % less than max - because no sane person flies to 100% of range - and those that do lose the plane sometimes. [I DO let players do this in my games - when I can design in the wind and make you lose the plane when you would].

Another reason to not use RHS. No thanks.

Chez