Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Cancelling the Tony Program

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Cancelling the Tony Program Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 10:19:35 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Thirded.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 91
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 10:37:00 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Altitude IS the MOST important factor on the WWII air combat battlefield. Just like the high ground is the most important facet of position on the Ground battlefield. "I have the high ground" is a statement of positional superiority that Negates, Nullifies, diminishes, or reduces the combatant's other advantages, whether they be numerical, qualitative, morale, leadership. It Challenges the low ground to overcome it. It is a fact of combat.



Ever been shot at?

Check out Defence of Duffer's Drift.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 92
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 10:40:27 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		When TheElf speaks about air combat, you should keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard, Herwin. He knows more about this subject than you know about anything.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 93
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 10:42:13 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Yes from what I heard he has been shot at.

Fourthed.



_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 94
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 11:01:33 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Defence of Duffer's Drift.



It's public domain (originally US Government published) and available free here (and other palces):

http://books.google.com/books?id=dKhJAAAAIAAJ&dq=the+defense+of+duffer's+drift&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=0D46TLCULoS4sQOL-uBR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=the%20defense%20of%20duffer's%20drift&f=false


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 95
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/11/2010 11:18:58 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Thanks much!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

It is unrealistic to fly at 30k'+ all the time. But that is the fault of the player. Would you like me to remove that decision process from you? Unfortunately the detractors for behaving this way are not reflected in the game. what are they?

1. pilots found it uncomfortable to fly for long periods of time at high altitude. It was fatiguing.



Although I can't be certain, I have gotten the sense from my PBM that fatigue and perhaps morale loss accumulate faster with higher altitude settings. Not real data but there might be some effect coded.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 96
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 12:04:42 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

When TheElf speaks about air combat, you should keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard, Herwin. He knows more about this subject than you know about anything.


Would you mind laying off the ad hominem attacks? I wasn't challenging TheElf on his discussion of air combat, although I disagree on a number of points, particularly the question of long distance target acquisition. I can refer you to Erwin, H., Wilson, W., and C. F. Moss, 2001, "A computational sensorimotor model of bat echolocation." Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 110 (2):1176-1187, Aug. 2001, and Erwin, H. R., 2004, "Algorithms for Sonar Tracking in Biomimetic Robotics," presented at RASC-04, November 2004. I suspect you might not credit the relevance of that work to fighter combat, but I used aerodynamic models derived from my professional military work to understand the processes by which bats control their flight to capture targets. Bats use energy tactics, but they can viff, so the best analog turned out to be the Harrier. Interestingly, one of my colleagues had been the USMC Harrier project manager.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 97
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 12:14:44 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Yes from what I heard he has been shot at.

Fourthed.




And I've been shot at, too, although I was only eleven at the time, and I was desperately keeping down behind cover. I had infantry training later, and learned the details of terrain matter a lot. High ground is desirable, but it doesn't dominate the way that was suggested. In fact, key terrain is more important, and key terrain is rarely high ground.

To summarise my point: details matter in tactics--don't generalise until you understand the specifics.

< Message edited by herwin -- 7/12/2010 12:19:13 AM >

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 98
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 12:38:59 AM   
PresterJohn001


Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline 		Problem is i'm a Japanese player in 1942 and the P40 Lightnings kill whatever i put up, because they can go higher. Combine it with the 4E invincible nuclear bomber ;) and i can't concentrate fighters enough to overcome the very long lasting one round advantage of the dive.

btw i spend many great hours enjoying this fine game.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 99
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 3:49:48 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

When TheElf speaks about air combat, you should keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard, Herwin. He knows more about this subject than you know about anything.


Would you mind laying off the ad hominem attacks? I wasn't challenging TheElf on his discussion of air combat, although I disagree on a number of points, particularly the question of long distance target acquisition. I can refer you to Erwin, H., Wilson, W., and C. F. Moss, 2001, "A computational sensorimotor model of bat echolocation." Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 110 (2):1176-1187, Aug. 2001, and Erwin, H. R., 2004, "Algorithms for Sonar Tracking in Biomimetic Robotics," presented at RASC-04, November 2004. I suspect you might not credit the relevance of that work to fighter combat, but I used aerodynamic models derived from my professional military work to understand the processes by which bats control their flight to capture targets. Bats use energy tactics, but they can viff, so the best analog turned out to be the Harrier. Interestingly, one of my colleagues had been the USMC Harrier project manager.

My last flight in the Superhornet was a dedicated 1 v 1 against a British Harrier RN Pilot flying the AV-8B. I clubbed him like a baby seal. I don't know what the H3LL a Viff is but I can tell you that 2 General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans and unlimited alpha don't give a flying F... about it...when we came in to land I lead him in to the break and I landed while he entertained the friends and family that gathered. The hovering thing is pretty cool I guess...if you're into that.

< Message edited by TheElf -- 7/12/2010 3:54:39 AM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 100
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 3:54:36 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Problem is i'm a Japanese player in 1942 and the P40 Lightnings kill whatever i put up, because they can go higher. Combine it with the 4E invincible nuclear bomber ;) and i can't concentrate fighters enough to overcome the very long lasting one round advantage of the dive.

btw i spend many great hours enjoying this fine game.

The key to the early war for the Japanese is to overwhelm the weaker allied positions with Numbers. You MUST concentrate your force at Key points and whittle them down over time. But it isn't JUST about shooting them down, you HAVE to hit each target AF with EVERYTHING you can muster. This includes light Army cooperation units and of course the ubiquitous Netty's. reduce his AFs ability to produce sorties, destroy them on the ground, AND shoot them down in the air. Rest your units, watch the weather, and set realistic goals and op tempo for your operation. Every sortie has to count.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 101
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 6:29:25 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		Tis true that a 1 on 1 between an F18D and a Harrier ground attack aircraft does demonstrate the advantage of superior positioning - though I am not so sure about the glories of twin F414's versus a single Pegasus (which plane does have the better power to weight ratio). But there are some problems with matching modern experience with what goes on in an AE fight. First the combat patters differ markedly - most WW2 fighter on fighter engagements involved few aircraft (with the obvious exception of the BoB August-September 40 and the BoG in April etc 44) while just about every AI fight involves very substantial numbers - I for one rarely sortie with less than 50 F on planned missions. This of course tended to mitigate the advantages of better aircraft and pilots - factors most significant in 1v1 or 2v2 dogfights. Second the most effective WW2 'operational' fighter tactics involved 'stepping' at various altitudes - even when the fighters involved were identical ie some outside their best altitude bands. Third, and of course the issue of visibility which was far more varied within a combat area than can be modelled by any game.

With these reservations I concur with theElf's summation of air combat factors. Though, from my own area of expertise, I do disagree with his assumption that 'high ground' is THE key in land warfare. It was for short periods of time and history (the best example being the trench period of WW1) but the input of air observation - from balloons to satellites - has much reduced its significance, while sigint technology and artillery innovations have minimised its advantage.

And lest absurdist issues be raised - I have been bombed (by Germans) and shot at (by unidentified citizens of obscure Middle East countries)!

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 102
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 7:03:15 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		- Thrust to weight the Superbug wins hands down. Thats an F/A 18 E though...

- A dogfight is a dogfight. The Elf did not talk about shooting AMRAAMS from 30nm. Theres a saying about 1v1 A2A: Altitude, energy, ideas; You need at least two of em. Hasn´t changed a notch from WWI.
That less people where aware of that back then did not make it less true. Manfred von Richthofen was "only" an above average pilot. He scored because he knew what counts and this was in many instances altitude
combined with the element of suprize.

- Numbers impact every combat situation, high ground impacts every combat situation (for a short time in history? Wonder what you´ve read) It impacted every battle from the club wielding stoneage over
the Roman empire to the Napoleonic wars, to WWII, to Vietnam. Ground, Air, doesn´t matter. The guys on top can rain stuff on you, to prevent them you have to leave or remove them from their superiour position.
It gets even more important in A2A because there the windows of oportunity are much smaller.
Combining services (grunts and airforce) easily lets you see that high ground is Air in that respect.

- Stepping altitudes as you call it is also valid tactic in this game. Also whether you sortie with 50 fighters, 100, or 10 is entirely up to you and depends on what you need to accomplish. Wonder what your point is here?

None of your points are reservations to what TheElf said.

And to not leave it out: People who have been shot at tend to think that its an advantage to have been shot at, which I doubt, but that may be due to the fact that I have not been shot at and
am reluctant to share that experience...


_____________________________


(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 103
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 7:53:58 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

When TheElf speaks about air combat, you should keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard, Herwin. He knows more about this subject than you know about anything.


Would you mind laying off the ad hominem attacks? I wasn't challenging TheElf on his discussion of air combat, although I disagree on a number of points, particularly the question of long distance target acquisition. I can refer you to Erwin, H., Wilson, W., and C. F. Moss, 2001, "A computational sensorimotor model of bat echolocation." Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 110 (2):1176-1187, Aug. 2001, and Erwin, H. R., 2004, "Algorithms for Sonar Tracking in Biomimetic Robotics," presented at RASC-04, November 2004. I suspect you might not credit the relevance of that work to fighter combat, but I used aerodynamic models derived from my professional military work to understand the processes by which bats control their flight to capture targets. Bats use energy tactics, but they can viff, so the best analog turned out to be the Harrier. Interestingly, one of my colleagues had been the USMC Harrier project manager.

My last flight in the Superhornet was a dedicated 1 v 1 against a British Harrier RN Pilot flying the AV-8B. I clubbed him like a baby seal. I don't know what the H3LL a Viff is but I can tell you that 2 General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans and unlimited alpha don't give a flying F... about it...when we came in to land I lead him in to the break and I landed while he entertained the friends and family that gathered. The hovering thing is pretty cool I guess...if you're into that.


Viff is "vector in forward flight". Don't try to dogfight with a Harrier. They can fly backwards.

OK, now that I've got your attention, I have several issues with your analysis:

1. Long range visual target detection and identification is hard. There were a number of OR studies of this in WWII, and the detection probabilities were very unexpectedly low. Identifying aircraft silhouetted against the sky when out of audible range turned out to be a very hard sensory task.

2. Long range visual target detection and identification in clutter is a lot harder than that. These people didn't have radar. Bats have to use specialised CW waveforms for this task. Too much altitude, and you were looking down at aircraft in serious ground clutter. (I get paid to study this problem for the auditory system.)

3. We're talking about 1940s aircraft--their terminal velocity in a dive wasn't that fast. Dive bombers used a 5000 foot dive (plus or minus). A three mile dive was overkill--a waste of energy.

4. You lose most of your manoeuvrability and control at high speed--these aircraft had muscle-powered controls. I did an interesting study of bats trying to capture moths using dives. The moths have to time their dive to the side out of the bat's flight path very carefully. Too soon and they gained too much velocity, couldn't manoeuvre, and the bat would chase them down. Too late and they were dinner. P = mva. In a fast dive with fixed power, you don't have very much acceleration capability.

The details were different from modern air combat, and they matter to the tactics.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 104
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 8:11:42 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

When TheElf speaks about air combat, you should keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard, Herwin. He knows more about this subject than you know about anything.


Would you mind laying off the ad hominem attacks? I wasn't challenging TheElf on his discussion of air combat, although I disagree on a number of points, particularly the question of long distance target acquisition. I can refer you to Erwin, H., Wilson, W., and C. F. Moss, 2001, "A computational sensorimotor model of bat echolocation." Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 110 (2):1176-1187, Aug. 2001, and Erwin, H. R., 2004, "Algorithms for Sonar Tracking in Biomimetic Robotics," presented at RASC-04, November 2004. I suspect you might not credit the relevance of that work to fighter combat, but I used aerodynamic models derived from my professional military work to understand the processes by which bats control their flight to capture targets. Bats use energy tactics, but they can viff, so the best analog turned out to be the Harrier. Interestingly, one of my colleagues had been the USMC Harrier project manager.

My last flight in the Superhornet was a dedicated 1 v 1 against a British Harrier RN Pilot flying the AV-8B. I clubbed him like a baby seal. I don't know what the H3LL a Viff is but I can tell you that 2 General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans and unlimited alpha don't give a flying F... about it...when we came in to land I lead him in to the break and I landed while he entertained the friends and family that gathered. The hovering thing is pretty cool I guess...if you're into that.


Viff is "vector in forward flight". Don't try to dogfight with a Harrier. They can fly backwards.

OK, now that I've got your attention, I have several issues with your analysis:

1. Long range visual target detection and identification is hard. There were a number of OR studies of this in WWII, and the detection probabilities were very unexpectedly low. Identifying aircraft silhouetted against the sky when out of audible range turned out to be a very hard sensory task.

2. Long range visual target detection and identification in clutter is a lot harder than that. These people didn't have radar. Bats have to use specialised CW waveforms for this task. Too much altitude, and you were looking down at aircraft in serious ground clutter. (I get paid to study this problem for the auditory system.)

3. We're talking about 1940s aircraft--their terminal velocity in a dive wasn't that fast. Dive bombers used a 5000 foot dive (plus or minus). A three mile dive was overkill--a waste of energy.

4. You lose most of your manoeuvrability and control at high speed--these aircraft had muscle-powered controls. I did an interesting study of bats trying to capture moths using dives. The moths have to time their dive to the side out of the bat's flight path very carefully. Too soon and they gained too much velocity, couldn't manoeuvre, and the bat would chase them down. Too late and they were dinner. P = mva. In a fast dive with fixed power, you don't have very much acceleration capability.

The details were different from modern air combat, and they matter to the tactics.


Too late. Already did it. Did I mention I clubbed him like a baby seal? Thanks for the tip though.

Bats and moths, literally, have nothing to do with WWII air combat. Not sure what your point is, but it is a bit amusing...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 105
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 8:21:06 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Problem is i'm a Japanese player in 1942 and the P40 Lightnings kill whatever i put up, because they can go higher. Combine it with the 4E invincible nuclear bomber ;) and i can't concentrate fighters enough to overcome the very long lasting one round advantage of the dive.

btw i spend many great hours enjoying this fine game.


I agree that the altitude thing should be toned down IMHO, even after reading the Elf's comments - sure, it is an advantage, but such a drastic advantage?

However, in the P38s defence, they were not just P38s, that squadron was a flying circus effectively with the very best pilots I could scrape up across the map concentrated there. It was a combination of multiple aces and P38s that meant ass was kicked. My other P38 squadrons seem to be considerably less dangerous. I think the reason that one was so good is because of the multiplicative effect of very high skill + good plane.

_____________________________


(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 106
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 8:48:27 AM   
guctony


Posts: 669
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline 		I think for alttude issue one other factor should Be put in to consideration. That is Wing man issue. If I am not wrong smallest unit is a 2 plane unit. which can be 3 or 4 unit. When they go for altitude attack still one of the plane should stick to His lead wingman which should divide attack strength to half.

In dogfighting it is a different issue wingman still keeps his lead safe but in dogfight action he has his equal share of targets going for his lead.

I always feel that the missing factor in AE is Wingman organisation. Which could lower the loss ration of hi-exp Pilots.

_____________________________

"Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder."
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken."
"After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Mustafa Kemal

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 107
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 8:57:20 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		From what I noticed this is (a bit abstracted but noticeable) implemented. You can see it sometimes when a fighter is attacked and directly afterwards engaged
by another fighter.

The game calculates down to groups, elements and wings. You don´t benefit much from your wingman that got another fighter on his 6 though...

_____________________________


(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 108
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 9:13:59 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

When TheElf speaks about air combat, you should keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard, Herwin. He knows more about this subject than you know about anything.


Would you mind laying off the ad hominem attacks? I wasn't challenging TheElf on his discussion of air combat, although I disagree on a number of points, particularly the question of long distance target acquisition. I can refer you to Erwin, H., Wilson, W., and C. F. Moss, 2001, "A computational sensorimotor model of bat echolocation." Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 110 (2):1176-1187, Aug. 2001, and Erwin, H. R., 2004, "Algorithms for Sonar Tracking in Biomimetic Robotics," presented at RASC-04, November 2004. I suspect you might not credit the relevance of that work to fighter combat, but I used aerodynamic models derived from my professional military work to understand the processes by which bats control their flight to capture targets. Bats use energy tactics, but they can viff, so the best analog turned out to be the Harrier. Interestingly, one of my colleagues had been the USMC Harrier project manager.

My last flight in the Superhornet was a dedicated 1 v 1 against a British Harrier RN Pilot flying the AV-8B. I clubbed him like a baby seal. I don't know what the H3LL a Viff is but I can tell you that 2 General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans and unlimited alpha don't give a flying F... about it...when we came in to land I lead him in to the break and I landed while he entertained the friends and family that gathered. The hovering thing is pretty cool I guess...if you're into that.


Viff is "vector in forward flight". Don't try to dogfight with a Harrier. They can fly backwards.

OK, now that I've got your attention, I have several issues with your analysis:

1. Long range visual target detection and identification is hard. There were a number of OR studies of this in WWII, and the detection probabilities were very unexpectedly low. Identifying aircraft silhouetted against the sky when out of audible range turned out to be a very hard sensory task.

2. Long range visual target detection and identification in clutter is a lot harder than that. These people didn't have radar. Bats have to use specialised CW waveforms for this task. Too much altitude, and you were looking down at aircraft in serious ground clutter. (I get paid to study this problem for the auditory system.)

3. We're talking about 1940s aircraft--their terminal velocity in a dive wasn't that fast. Dive bombers used a 5000 foot dive (plus or minus). A three mile dive was overkill--a waste of energy.

4. You lose most of your manoeuvrability and control at high speed--these aircraft had muscle-powered controls. I did an interesting study of bats trying to capture moths using dives. The moths have to time their dive to the side out of the bat's flight path very carefully. Too soon and they gained too much velocity, couldn't manoeuvre, and the bat would chase them down. Too late and they were dinner. P = mva. In a fast dive with fixed power, you don't have very much acceleration capability.

The details were different from modern air combat, and they matter to the tactics.


Too late. Already did it. Did I mention I clubbed him like a baby seal? Thanks for the tip though.

Bats and moths, literally, have nothing to do with WWII air combat. Not sure what your point is, but it is a bit amusing...


The major difference between WWII and modern combat aircraft is the propulsion system. Propellor engines generate power; jets generate thrust (force). P=mva; F =ma. The bat and moth systems are power-limited--the analysis is similar to that for WWII aircraft, except for the viffing--and that led me to base my aerodynamic modelling on von Mises (1959) Theory of Flight and the flapping flight models in Rayner, J. M. V. (1979). A new approach to animal flight mechanics. Journal of Experimental Biology, 80, 17-54. and Rayner, J. M. V. (1987). The mechanics of flapping flight in bats. In M. B. Fenton, P. Racey & J. M. V. Rayner (Eds.), Recent advances in the study of bats (pp. 23-42): Cambridge University Press. I also made extensive use of USAF and USN sources analysing WWII fighter combat. Bats don't behave like missiles; they're little fighter pilots.

I'm interested in your comments about visual target detection. The detection in clutter problem is very intractable and seems to be the rate limiting step in models of air combat campaigns. That makes too great an altitude a dubious advantage.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 109
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 9:39:49 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		What the source of your power is is irrelevant, as it comes down to the same implications on A2A, whether that is jets or propellers does not matter except
except for ammounts of energy involved and available.

The issue most planes have are metal surfaces. From top down the sunlight reflects on those surfaces and through the relative position change of the
aircraft there is a very high chance that a reflected beam is caught in the eye of a pilot even if he is not looking for a target.
This, and eyes trained to discern moving objects from stationary ones gives a trained pilot a high chance to spot a plane from VERY far away.

Bats have exactly nothing to do with energy fighting. They move in a limited envelope where the speed/energy delta is neglectable and hunt prey which
is so "underpowered" compared to their own ressources that altitude/energy can be neglected. If you really want to pick an animal that compares at least remotely to
something resembling that situation you should choose a hawk or a falcon. They use similar techniques.

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 110
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 11:42:48 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

What the source of your power is is irrelevant, as it comes down to the same implications on A2A, whether that is jets or propellers does not matter except
except for ammounts of energy involved and available.

The issue most planes have are metal surfaces. From top down the sunlight reflects on those surfaces and through the relative position change of the
aircraft there is a very high chance that a reflected beam is caught in the eye of a pilot even if he is not looking for a target.
This, and eyes trained to discern moving objects from stationary ones gives a trained pilot a high chance to spot a plane from VERY far away.

Bats have exactly nothing to do with energy fighting. They move in a limited envelope where the speed/energy delta is neglectable and hunt prey which
is so "underpowered" compared to their own ressources that altitude/energy can be neglected. If you really want to pick an animal that compares at least remotely to
something resembling that situation you should choose a hawk or a falcon. They use similar techniques.


Actually the difference between power-limited and thrust-limited powerplants is very relevant. The force a power-limited system can generate (lift and thrust to overcome gravity and drag) is inversely proportional to the velocity. The force a thrust-limited system can generate is essentially constant, and it runs into less energy limits. P=mva, while F=ma. So dE/dt = P for WWII aircraft, and dE/dt = Fv for jets.

You're talking about glint. The most important glint signal in WWII was canopy glint, so it depended a lot on the shape and reflectivity of the canopy and the sun/target/aircraft geometry. Glint also varies statistically a great deal and is only available if the target is sunlit. Generally speaking, the detectability threshold for an un-camouflaged WWII aircraft was an optical cross sectional area of about a square milliradian. At 20000 feet relative altitude, that's about 20x20 feet. Add in camouflage, and it starts to get a bit difficult.

The bats I worked with--E. fuscus--are generalist aerial hawkers, not the little bats you're thinking of. Their usual capture profile is a dive through the target. Like hawks and falcons, they use energy tactics. The scale is somewhat different, but there is more overlap than you think--greater noctules (50g) hunt small birds (15-20g) flying at night during migration.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 111
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 12:07:24 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		Being an ex-RAF pilot and having flown quite a few planes that saw service in the Pacific theatre, as well as engaging in a few mock-dogfight combats with similarly-interested flyboys, I can tell you that whilst altitude and speed are important, possibly more so in 42/43 than 44, they are not absolutely everything. Generally though with a few exceptions Allied planes were faster (in other words you can control the dogfight as the faster guy can always leave if things get bad whilst the slower guy can't) and also again Allied planes could out-dive most IJ planes (although often I grant you they needed a lot of air-room to put the nose down)
Firepower counts for an awful lot (and ability to absorb it!), which could explain why early Allied pilots fighting Oscars often came back home with lots of bullet holes and a bad attitude - but they came back...
Also of prime importantce is training, tactics and formations - the USN in particular excelled at this, devising tactics to defeat and kill Zeros and good all-round formation flying where pilots supported each other and fought/observed as one entire unit whilst I seem to recall IJN formation flying was never particularly good and seemed ot get worse as the war wore on - there were lots of reports of IJ formations appearing more as 'loose gaggles' from the end of 43 onwards, although this could be down to lack of training (ie avgas) or general inexperience.
Which reminds me of one other thing - observation and visibility in general. In order to dogfight and defeat your enemy you actually have to be able to see him. I've sat in both Zero and Oscar (ground-testing the latter) and I was impressed by the big roomy cockpits and bubble-canopy. Plenty of space to look, perfect 360 above and around and also room to physically twist around and look behind you (and I'm a big 6'6" guy), compare this to the cramped Me109 which I felt I had been shoehorned into and it was almost imposisble to even turn my head at times...

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 112
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 1:18:13 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		I am well aware of the different propulsion physics. Noone denies that a jet runs into less and other limitations than a prop
driven plane.
This does in no way change the fact that basic A2A combat heavily depends on velocity/energy/altitude differentials. That
modern planes operate in different performance envelopes is completely obvious and of no relevance here.

Re: glint. Possible, my experience is limited on that topic so I´ll leave it as that.

Didn´t know about E.Fuscus but I still have quite a hard time to figure out what this has
to do with ACM.

_____________________________


(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 113
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 1:39:29 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		just for the sake of getting a funny explanation, two engagements from my latest PBEM turn. First engagement, the Oscars had the dive exclusively, only at the very end the dive ended. Result of today´s sending in 190 Allied fighters vs 45 Japanse were 25 Allied shot down A2A with another 11 lost to ops (write offs or crashes) for taking down 3 Tojos on escort. The 20 Tojos on escort managed for a repeated time to keep 100+ Allied fighters from even reaching the bombers. Now the nice thing (if you can find one as the Allied) was the second engagement saw the Allied having the dive which at least meant they wouldn´t be shred by diving Tojos. 5 Tojos were shot down by Lightnings at another target. All pilots are skill 70 as usual. 190 Allied fighters vs 45 Japanese, 36 vs 2 kill rate. Thank god the Tojos were on escort and not on sweep at 38000ft without the bombers. And thank god the Oscars ran out of ammo at some point.

Now with all the hurrey about realism and "I´ve been shot at, you are a plum" what´s the explanation for 25 Oscars taking on nearly 190 Allied fighters, taking down more than 20 of them for no loss. The only thing I could make out was the 38750ft they were coming in to dive and dive and dive and dive on every single Allied squadron that showed up one after another. Where I can employ fighters being able to fly higher, I can easily achieve air superiority, unfortunetely, in Burma the Japanese still are unbeatable due to the fact that Oscars and Tojos can fly higher than anything I could field. And no, having my fighters at 10000ft would not make it better, as I´m far ahead that stage of trying it.

But hey, like the air team leader said, it´s only a short phase of having the dive. Mhmmmm, pre Cap flak thread... Fire up the game and play it extensively is the only suggestion I could give. Nobody is really arguing about real life, what is stated surely makes sense in real life. But in the game, sorry... all those people actually playing the game and stating about the dive sure got tomatoes on their eyes.


Morning Air attack on 2/2 AIF Pioneer Battalion, at 54,51

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 46 NM, estimated altitude 38,750 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 25



Allied aircraft
Beaufighter VIc x 16
Hurricane IIa Trop x 10
Hurricane IIb Trop x 18
Hurricane IIc Trop x 10
Kittyhawk I x 10
P-39D Airacobra x 63
P-40E Warhawk x 12
P-40K Warhawk x 27
F4F-4 Wildcat x 11


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIa Trop: 1 destroyed
Kittyhawk I: 4 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40K Warhawk: 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 destroyed



CAP engaged:
VMF-121 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 11 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28300
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
No.14 Sqn RCAF with Kittyhawk I (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 10 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30600
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
No.17 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIa Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 10 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35100
Raid is overhead
No.27 Sqn RAF with Beaufighter VIc (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26500
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes
No.34 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (10 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 35600
Raid is overhead
No.67 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28300
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
No.146 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 10 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28300
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes
No.177 Sqn RAF with Beaufighter VIc (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 11 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 26500
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 16 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Raid is overhead
51st FG/16th FS with P-39D Airacobra (17 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
17 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Raid is overhead
51st FG/26th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 11 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
8th FG/35th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 16 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
347th FG/67th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 17 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes
70th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 12 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
23rd FG/75th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 13 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 2/2 AIF Pioneer Battalion, at 54,51

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 21
Ki-21-IIb Sally x 24
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 21
Ki-48-IIa Lily x 20
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 21



Allied aircraft
Beaufighter VIc x 14
Hurricane IIa Trop x 7
Hurricane IIb Trop x 13
Hurricane IIc Trop x 10
P-39D Airacobra x 55
P-40E Warhawk x 6
P-40K Warhawk x 22
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 5 damaged
Ki-21-IIb Sally: 5 damaged
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 destroyed
Ki-48-IIa Lily: 6 damaged
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter VIc: 1 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra: 4 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
149 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled


Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
21 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
20 x Ki-48-IIa Lily bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
24 x Ki-21-IIb Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VMF-121 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28300 , scrambling fighters to 28300.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 86 minutes
No.17 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIa Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35100 , scrambling fighters to 35100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 65 minutes
No.27 Sqn RAF with Beaufighter VIc (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 26500
Raid is overhead
No.34 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (10 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 35600
Raid is overhead
No.67 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 28300 , scrambling fighters to 28300.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
8 planes vectored on to bombers
No.146 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIb Trop (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 28300
Raid is overhead
No.177 Sqn RAF with Beaufighter VIc (11 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 26500
Raid is overhead
343rd FG/11th FS with P-40K Warhawk (12 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
12 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Raid is overhead
51st FG/16th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
13 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32100 , scrambling fighters to 32100.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes
51st FG/26th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes
8th FG/35th FS with P-39D Airacobra (12 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
12 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Raid is overhead
347th FG/67th FS with P-39D Airacobra (17 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
17 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Raid is overhead
70th FS with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 192 minutes
23rd FG/75th FS with P-39D Airacobra (13 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
13 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32100
Raid is overhead






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 114
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 2:18:39 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		I have to concur with castor troy. I see incessant diving all the time, from my P38s, from his Oscars. It happens more often than not. It seems to take priority over role (sweep vs escort vs CAP, all is subordinate to altitude) or any other consideration, though firepower and durability seem to have a major and obvious impact as well.

I am honestly puzzled why people are not seeing it. Maybe because people are being gentlemanly and not doing stratosweeps. For some people who don't like house rules though, like myself, this is the way it is turn after turn. It isn't a JFB vs AFB thing, both sides have their high fliers and their low fliers. The sainted Zero actually suffers from this more than most a/c I think for what it's worth.

Seems to me there's a certain amount of shooting the messenger going on, and a lot of being bogged down in reality which is a common feature of this forum. Reality is fine, but we're talking about what happens in the game.

If you want to talk reality, maybe some gurus out there could tell me why in the Pacific Theatre planes did not routinely fly at 35-38,000' like they do in game. There is presumably some reason for this which is not modelled in the game. What is that/those reason(s).

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 115
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 2:32:59 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Didn´t know about E.Fuscus but I still have quite a hard time to figure out what this has
to do with ACM.


Fair enough. I had to figure out wtf they were doing. I already knew energy was the key resource managed by a fighter pilot, so I analysed the bat target system from that perspective. It all worked out very nicely--the bat was using a high yo-yo to trade speed for height. At the top it would flip into a position facing the target and leading the target motion, and then it would dive through, using a buzz cry to track the position of dinner. I suspect the perception is much like a tunnel of rings--the bat simply tries to stay in the centre. In terms of tracking accuracy, the bat out-performs a Kalman filter--I'd love to understand how they do that.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 116
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 2:39:17 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

If you want to talk reality, maybe some gurus out there could tell me why in the Pacific Theatre planes did not routinely fly at 35-38,000' like they do in game. There is presumably some reason for this which is not modelled in the game. What is that/those reason(s).


Mostly for the factors Elf mentioned on the last page.

Fuel, fatigue, the difficulty of navigation and finding targets, the increased fuel burn and the difficulty of controlling a WW2 aircraft at extreme altitudes. Not many aircraft of that era were pressurised and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lack of oxy charging equipment etc at the forward bases in the Pacific.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 117
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 2:58:42 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Fuel, fatigue, the difficulty of navigation and finding targets, the increased fuel burn and the difficulty of controlling a WW2 aircraft at extreme altitudes. Not many aircraft of that era were pressurised and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lack of oxy charging equipment etc at the forward bases in the Pacific.


And does the game not model this? Increased fatigue at high altitude? Increased supply usage for a/c over 30k feet perhaps.

The 'difficulty of controlling a WW2 aircraft at extreme altitudes' definitely does not seem to be significantly modelled, as you have a/c with terrible maneuver ratings - like P40Es at 29,000' - still able to kick ass and take names. Likewise you have aircraft that actually can maneuver and apparently dont - I think every Allied AAR out there that gets to late 42 makes noises about how to their surprise the P40K, which if you look at the stats should be a big improvement at very high altitude over the E, is basically indistinguishable from the E.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 118
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 3:10:29 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Didn´t know about E.Fuscus but I still have quite a hard time to figure out what this has
to do with ACM.


Fair enough. I had to figure out wtf they were doing. I already knew energy was the key resource managed by a fighter pilot, so I analysed the bat target system from that perspective. It all worked out very nicely--the bat was using a high yo-yo to trade speed for height. At the top it would flip into a position facing the target and leading the target motion, and then it would dive through, using a buzz cry to track the position of dinner. I suspect the perception is much like a tunnel of rings--the bat simply tries to stay in the centre. In terms of tracking accuracy, the bat out-performs a Kalman filter--I'd love to understand how they do that.


Thats amazing. I was always fascinated by the way natural selection handles these issues.

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 119
RE: Cancelling the Tony Program - 7/12/2010 3:23:29 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Fuel, fatigue, the difficulty of navigation and finding targets, the increased fuel burn and the difficulty of controlling a WW2 aircraft at extreme altitudes. Not many aircraft of that era were pressurised and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lack of oxy charging equipment etc at the forward bases in the Pacific.


And does the game not model this? Increased fatigue at high altitude? Increased supply usage for a/c over 30k feet perhaps.

The 'difficulty of controlling a WW2 aircraft at extreme altitudes' definitely does not seem to be significantly modelled, as you have a/c with terrible maneuver ratings - like P40Es at 29,000' - still able to kick ass and take names. Likewise you have aircraft that actually can maneuver and apparently dont - I think every Allied AAR out there that gets to late 42 makes noises about how to their surprise the P40K, which if you look at the stats should be a big improvement at very high altitude over the E, is basically indistinguishable from the E.



the P40K gets better stats, except a higher ceiling... bust, the K won´t bring you much further.

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Cancelling the Tony Program Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.656