Air combat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Air combat

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Air combat

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Air combat - 9/2/2003 3:53:37 AM

decourcy

Posts: 65
Joined: 12/17/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline

Hi all,

I have been thinking about this subject for years and UV was just a spur for me to think and experiment more.
I feel both pure manuever aircraft like the Zero and pure speed, dive aircraft had their problems. Many gamers on this site either love the zero (the designers, uhhhmmm.) or feel that speed dive attacks are the wave of the future and the ultimate air-to-air tactic. I think that both conclusions are flawed and based on misleading data.

The end of the war, '43-'45, showed allied fighters slaughtering axis fighters with their speed, dives, fire power and durability. That is all fine and dandy but... in Europe the Axis were hamstrung by two things; the useless Me109 and high commands decision to ignore fighters and only attack the bombers. Plus they were outnumbered. Oh, and their pilot program had been stripped in '39, '40, '42 and '43. The Germans did not get many good pilots from their training program after '42. You think that might have had some effect on the fighters results? Bad data does not give good conclusions without research.

Now, Japan. Hmmm... No pilot program, Island bases with 90 Zeroes with a top speed of 336 Mph. attacked by 600 carrier planes led by 200 Hellcats that are superior in almost every way. You think those results are skewed as well?

The point of all of this rambling is the Zero which is being fought over
on the UV board. My feeling is that the Zero is rather overrated in game terms. I think one solution could be giving the A6M2 a base manuever rating of 33 but give all A6M2 squadrons a +2 Maneuver in December '41 and a +1 maneuver between January 1st '42 and say July 1st '42. This can show the limited training program of the Allies pre-war and the surprise of the Japanese having much more modern aircraft than anyone in the west, including Janes, suspected.

This form of modifier has been used in many games both board and computer. It could get rid of the allied problem of not being able to defend Port Moresby with P40's and P39's. I feel that the ratings in UV are just a touch too hard on the allies early in thegame. I do not want mass change but at the moment the Zero is more effective than I believe is accurate from my observation in playing UV.

Questions? comments? fish?

Michael

_____________________________

Tae Kwon Leep is the Wine of Purity
not the Vinegar of Hostility.

Post #: 1

modifiers - 9/2/2003 4:53:00 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi,
Modifiers? Would this be the same as having on map units go from one level of effectiveness to being less effective soley as a result of the date? If any unit/weapon is under-rated or over rated then the rating need to be changed. Every unit should have the rating it brought into the area. (Well trained fighter groups should have higher ratings. I don't like the notion of National modifiers based on time period.
In UV/WITP a player can wreck a good airgroup (It only takes 1 really bad mission) It takes quite a while to produce an elite unit.
A Japanese Zero group (landbased) has 27 AC (max)
Suppose the 27 pilots are
Top 10 Above 90
Next 10 Above 80 below 90
Last 7 Below 80

As long as combat does not kill pilots from top group faster then middle group pilots climb (and are replaced from bottom) The groups performance remains stable (keeping other combat factors the same:distance, fatigue, morale)

If however the bottom group grows while the top and middle shrink then the group loses effectivness. (If many groups suffer same process it is accelerated by poorer quality replacement pilots.)

I think players would be happier if they actually saw their pilot pool.
(ratings and numbers of pilots)

I don't think calendar ratings (even if based on historic time periods)
are good because they negate the players handling of his units.
The calendar effect is already part of the game (Arrival of new enemy aircraft types)

UV/WITP uses a 0-99 pilot rating. It does not matter much what rating we give a pilot. As long as the enemy pilots are rated the same.

I realize the Japanese early carrier pilots get ratings in many cases over 90. The Allied pilots in the SRA are always given lower ratings. (I don't know what would result if we made these pilots 90 as well and only relied on the differing aircraft for results.
If the real ratings were Japanese 70 and Allies 70 at wars start. And the Zero was the better aircraft. Would they still not win the early airbattles. Then as Allied airgroups changed to better aircraft and came in greater numbers without any fiddling the Japanese would begin to lose.
If however we make all Zero pilots 90 and all USN pilots 70 then even the newer aircraft will have less impact. (The high rated Japanese pilots will need to be attrited out first) This is the model many people use and believe in. I'm more in favour of keeping some pilots in 90's for each side but having the majority of pilots in the 65-75 range. (any pilot that had been flying in the military for several years should be at least a 65)
Training programs for replacement pilots will need to reflect not only what was done but what impact they will have if players suffer lower loss (and less demand) or higher loss (and more demand)
If pilots (from any nation) are over rated just to produce the early period victories then that is incorrect. I don't think it is hard to correctly enter the data and produce the correct results. All this being said, it will only hold up in game practice if both players stick to the historic use. (Fight with the same units and in the same manner)
Once one side deviates (avoids the combat where his side suffered the defeat) Then you can not longer have an acurate picture. (Is is wrong for the Allied player to withdraw his Buffalo Groups and wait for better aircraft before engaging? Then the Japanese pilots do not gain from the early battles. The Allied pilots are still the prewar trained pilots. And they have better aircraft. If a modifier is used to insure their defeat it would not be (IMO) a good thing.

(Thanks)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to decourcy)

Post #: 2

- 9/2/2003 7:51:42 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

[QUOTE=decourcy]The point of all of this rambling is the Zero which is being fought over on the UV board. My feeling is that the Zero is rather overrated in game terms. I think one solution could be giving the A6M2 a base manuever rating of 33 but give all A6M2 squadrons a +2 Maneuver in December '41 and a +1 maneuver between January 1st '42 and say July 1st '42. This can show the limited training program of the Allies pre-war and the surprise of the Japanese having much more modern aircraft than anyone in the west, including Janes, suspected.[/QUOTE]

This won't help you at all but...

I would actually agree with you to a certain extent but I don't think a date-based modifier would be appropriate. Once the Allies started to work out the A6Ms weaknesses, its effectiveness did drop considerably. However, not everyone worked it out at the same time. Some could somewhat cope with the A6M right from the start while others were still having trouble into '43.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to decourcy)

Post #: 3