Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Japan needs the Frank A to enter production to have a good chance versus the Jugs.

If you are using the air modded planes, then the Jack and George can do well too and perhaps even the KAI Tony.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Sounds like the influence of maneuver rating is a tad too low in WitP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I think it a speed difference of 70mph, but I also may be wrong.

quote:

OH, as for the SBD losses, you would think that one day I would learn the lesson to not use dive bombers in a ground war and you would be wrong. :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I think it a speed difference of 70mph, but I also may be wrong.

My notes are 70 ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There is no 50mph or 70 mph speed differential cut off threshold.  This thread is in serious danger of misrepresenting what theElf actually said 7.5 years ago and creating a dangerous AE myth.

1.  Above a 10 mph delta difference, the possibility of the slower aircraft failing one of the many checks affecting the maneuver rating.  The greater the delta the greater the odds of failing the check.

2.  The speed of point (1) above which is checked is not the maximum speed of the aircraft model.  Nor is it the cruise speed of the aircraft model. It is a speed which takes into account many other factors including the altitude at which the combat between the two aircraft occurs.  Even the climb rates are taken into account.  And no, all the relevant factors have never been revealed, nor will they, by the devs.

3.  In the event that this check is failed, the maneuver rating at that altitude band of the slower aircraft may be reduced at most to 50%.


There is a lot which can be done to combat the P-47.  Air combat is a very complex matrix with many important.  Neither maneuver, nor speed, nor altitude are the only significant factors influencing the outcome.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Fighting the Jugs with these planes try:

Put the Zeroes at 3K, 30/20 (CAP/Rest). Use only one squadron (they are bait).

Layer the Tonies and the Tojo starting at 6K and go up to 9K. Keep the Tonies on the lower end of the spectrum, and run all these groups at 40/20. Don't go above 9k.

All fighters to range 0.

The Zeroes will get butchered most times, but you will start to drop Jugs. With these frames I suspect your losses will be 3-1 or slightly less. Make sure you are using your very best fighters in the Tojo.

Make sure you have radar, radar, and more radar.

Do the math: you want fighters that are not 70mph slower; with CL cannons preferably; high maneuver; great pilots a2a and def; 200+ planes; great squadron leaders; radar; big airfields with plentiful supply and support on railroads; watch plane fatigue, pilot fatigue, morale.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you want Frank A, Tony d or better, George and Jack can provide cannons but keep them protected from the dive (especially the 2nd Jack I think is too slow). The bait squadron needs to have very high defense pilots or just use throw aways.

If the bombers come, even your fighters at 3K will fight them given enough radars...

No reason to play the high altitude game. After several encounters like this, you will see the Allies drop their sweeping altitude for a number of reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Fighting the Jugs with these planes try:

Put the Zeroes at 3K, 30/20 (CAP/Rest). Use only one squadron (they are bait).

Layer the Tonies and the Tojo starting at 6K and go up to 9K. Keep the Tonies on the lower end of the spectrum, and run all these groups at 40/20. Don't go above 9k.

All fighters to range 0.

The Zeroes will get butchered most times, but you will start to drop Jugs. With these frames I suspect your losses will be 3-1 or slightly less. Make sure you are using your very best fighters in the Tojo.

Make sure you have radar, radar, and more radar.

Do the math: you want fighters that are not 70mph slower; with CL cannons preferably; high maneuver; great pilots a2a and def; 200+ planes; great squadron leaders; radar; big airfields with plentiful supply and support on railroads; watch plane fatigue, pilot fatigue, morale.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you want Frank A, Tony d or better, George and Jack can provide cannons but keep them protected from the dive (especially the 2nd Jack I think is too slow). The bait squadron needs to have very high defense pilots or just use throw aways.

If the bombers come, even your fighters at 3K will fight them given enough radars...

No reason to play the high altitude game. After several encounters like this, you will see the Allies drop their sweeping altitude for a number of reasons.

To this I only say.... ew . I'm not saying that it isn't working/hasn't worked for you, just that I would not pick those particular altitudes or those particular CAP settings. I find your low altitude fetish interesting, but don't think it is the only or the best way - particularly with later planes that have the same maneuver ratings all the way up to 20k or even 30k: in essence you could pick anything within that range and don't need to stay down at 9k or 15k (although you may want to anticipate some climb if you intend to always remain below that top altitude for your desired maneuver rating). Or rather, I would submit that if 3K/6K/9K is working for you, why wouldn't 9/12/15 or 8/12/16 or something similar also work - and which are also better at defending against attacks that are not stratosweeps only?

When you set to 30% CAP and 20% Rest, can you say with certainty what those other 50% of the planes are doing? If you know you're going to take a sweep on that day, you should be setting to 80% CAP (and either 0% or 20% Rest, I don't think it matters in this case). If you're defending for "on any given day but I don't know which day", then maybe don't do the 80% for higher SR planes or if you notice pilots/planes becoming fatigued, etc...

Also, about even the Zeroes at 3K defending against bombers - sure, maybe, but they're at a distinct disadvantage as they first have to climb, which cuts into the time available to shoot at the bombers before they reach the base. Detection time vs. climb rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



To this I only say.... ew . I'm not saying that it isn't working/hasn't worked for you, just that I would not pick those particular altitudes or those particular CAP settings. I find your low altitude fetish interesting, but don't think it is the only or the best way - particularly with later planes that have the same maneuver ratings all the way up to 20k or even 30k: in essence you could pick anything within that range and don't need to stay down at 9k or 15k (although you may want to anticipate some climb if you intend to always remain below that top altitude for your desired maneuver rating). Or rather, I would submit that if 3K/6K/9K is working for you, why wouldn't 9/12/15 or 8/12/16 or something similar also work - and which are also better at defending against attacks that are not stratosweeps only?

Hi Lok! You raise one of the answers why a very low starting CAP works better...you need to account for the climb for the defenders and the descent for the attackers. I want the combat to take place as low as possible where Japanese manuvr ratings are greatest and Jugs and Lightnings aren't so strong. I got this idea from an old post from theElf & Lobaron talking about what goes into determining the altitude of the engagement upshot is a whole host of items go into which will never be released to us mere players. I take from that there is a formula, with some element of randomness, but that the lower you start the more likely the combat will be low too.

Now the sweepers don't always dive on the lowest altitude fighters, but they do fairly often. I suspect there is a whole host of things going on here from detection to weather to leaders to pilots.

Also, the greater the altitude delta, I have found better results. I have tried the other bands, I have even flown the bait CAP at 1K. The sweeps tend to not last as long, and I think there maybe more stress put on the enemy fighter plane and pilot (although that is mere supposition on my part).



When you set to 30% CAP and 20% Rest, can you say with certainty what those other 50% of the planes are doing? If you know you're going to take a sweep on that day, you should be setting to 80% CAP (and either 0% or 20% Rest, I don't think it matters in this case). If you're defending for "on any given day but I don't know which day", then maybe don't do the 80% for higher SR planes or if you notice pilots/planes becoming fatigued, etc...

I got the CAP settings after playing around a fair amount. I have tried other settings too, but for my situation (repeated waves of high altitude sweepers followed by bombers sometimes) the 30/20 and 40/20 with 0 range work well. Far better than a high percentage of say 80/20 or 100. Of course I can't say they are the best...the settings depend upon so many variables: bases, attack you are expecting, is this a trap or steady defense, amount of av support, planes involved,etc, etc.

Also, about even the Zeroes at 3K defending against bombers - sure, maybe, but they're at a distinct disadvantage as they first have to climb, which cuts into the time available to shoot at the bombers before they reach the base. Detection time vs. climb rate.

Heck, if you planes are set to 40K they are at a greater disadvantage trying to stop bombers at 10K.
[/quote]

My previous post would be the settings I would try to put a damper on the Jugs sweeps given a few assumptions: 1. I have plenty of decent pilots and fighters; 2. I have a large runway with adequate support and preferably on a railroad; 3. I need to fight; 4. I would need to experiment a little with the fighters and their settings because I am not too experienced with some of the frames, but that is what I would try first.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 3/4/2016 12:45:42 AM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I agree with most of what Loka is saying here, but 80% is a bit high to sustain over several days or to keep fighters around for later bombing strikes. I have used higher settings for groups, but usually try CAP 50-70/10 rest. Different groups might have different settings, like the low bait group set to a lower CAP % and one or two ace groups set to a higher %.

Depends a lot on what is there, what the opponent's tendencies are, but I think we're discussing large field protection with multiple groups, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There is no 50mph or 70 mph speed differential cut off threshold.  This thread is in serious danger of misrepresenting what theElf actually said 7.5 years ago and creating a dangerous AE myth.

1.  Above a 10 mph delta difference, the possibility of the slower aircraft failing one of the many checks affecting the maneuver rating.  The greater the delta the greater the odds of failing the check.

2.  The speed of point (1) above which is checked is not the maximum speed of the aircraft model.  Nor is it the cruise speed of the aircraft model. It is a speed which takes into account many other factors including the altitude at which the combat between the two aircraft occurs.  Even the climb rates are taken into account.  And no, all the relevant factors have never been revealed, nor will they, by the devs.

3.  In the event that this check is failed, the maneuver rating at that altitude band of the slower aircraft may be reduced at most to 50%.


There is a lot which can be done to combat the P-47.  Air combat is a very complex matrix with many important.  Neither maneuver, nor speed, nor altitude are the only significant factors influencing the outcome.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I agree with most of what Loka is saying here, but 80% is a bit high to sustain over several days or to keep fighters around for later bombing strikes. I have used higher settings for groups, but usually try CAP 50-70/10 rest. Different groups might have different settings, like the low bait group set to a lower CAP % and one or two ace groups set to a higher %.

Depends a lot on what is there, what the opponent's tendencies are, but I think we're discussing large field protection with multiple groups, right?

I've not found this to be a problem. I think what you're pointing at here is something like this hypothetical:

80% CAP on a 40-plane unit = 32 planes in the air assuming full complement. The group will attempt to put 80% in the air in both phases.

Morning phase - raids and possibly sweeps come in. 32 planes will meet them, and you might lose up to 32 planes. Afternoon phase comes around, with yet more raids and maybe even more sweeps. If you did lose 32 planes, you might only have 80% of 8 planes in the air - so only 6 or 7 planes. That could suck.

If you set to a lower percentage, like the 50 you mention, then it would be morning phase - 20 planes will attempt to meet the enemy. Even if you lose them all, that still leaves 20 planes in the group. In the afternoon, you'd have 10 planes available.


I still like my 80% ;). It's just more planes in the air. As the Allies where you don't care about supply burn, it just makes sense. I don't know that what I just put here is exactly how it works, but it's a good enough approximation and I do know that if you have unallocated planes (as in 50% CAP/20% rest = 30% unallocated) they definitely don't fly CAP at all. Whatever you set for CAP percentage, that's the largest number of planes from the group that will be in the air at once that day. FWIW, I never set any rest percentage to my CAP units. Whatever is unallocated is, by default, resting.

80% (or more) makes even more sense on CVs, which don't burn supplies or sorties for CAP missions.

This, of course, assumes Range 0. Finally, it's worth noting that I routinely leave training groups on 90%, range 0 CAP (low altitude obviously, like 5K because it's just 1 click to get there), for months on end as they train up their Experience. Pilot fatigue remains in the single digits through all that time. I honestly haven't checked plane fatigue because they're training groups, but on a macro level I don't notice ops losses at all. Since this is possible with training groups, it's certainly possible with frontline groups, although combat or setting them to higher altitudes will wear them out faster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I will look for a thread on the speed delta....

It took me a while to find it, but here is another reason I like low CAP versus Jugs.



I'm late to comment on this, but - and as a matter of fact, having worked on this part of the game - I can tell you without reservation that some WWII piston engine aircraft CAN and indeed DID make more horsepower and produce greater speeds at higher altitudes than at sea level.
I am not responsible for the final MVR Ratings in the game, the head of the Air Team was directly responsible for choosing those - though he did have a consistent methodology.

I therefore cannot state with certainty that some aircraft in the game have higher MVR ratings at high altitude than they do at Low Altitude (for reasons beyond this discussion), but there certainly ought to be.

For example, the maximum speed of the above mentioned P-47D is 333MPH @ 2,110 HP at sea level, increasing as altitude climbs to 390MPH @ 2335 HP at 15,000 feet; maxing speed to 435MPH @ 31,000 feet (though HP drops a bit). Look HERE for aircraft test and acceptance documents.


< Message edited by Big B -- 4/4/2013 11:26:55 PM >

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Thanks Big B!

Your post at the time made sense to me, but I inferred that these speed/altitude data points might have been included in the a2a modelling. You here seem to imply that it is not.

It is ok, to tell the truth, because what makes this game so enjoyable is the hidden complexity under the hood even if it is less complex than what I think or my assumptions are baseless. Did that make sense?