RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (Full Version)

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

Message

Oznoyng -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 12:54:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: So, I went back and looked for encounters between F4F-4's and A6M2's in my PBEM. I only found one so far: There is a common saying in my profession about this: "One case is no case". At this point, i've had dozens of encounters, and i am quoting the usual range of exchange. Were there instances where they did better than 3 to 1 - yes? Are there instances where they did worse than 6 to 1? Yes. Other players have noticed similar exchange rates, and so i think i am in the right ballpark. i don't think that you can base the overall exchange rate of Zeros to Wildcats on one encounter. Trying to recall results from memory is useless, because you remember the bad ones and forget all the other results that were mediocre or good. I am using a real result. Just because the "impressions" of more than one person matches doesn't make them right, it just makes them equally delusional. On a whim, I went to the AAR section and did searches for F4F vs A6M2 battles. I only got to page 17 in this one, and there is plenty of data to suggest your 3 to 1 ratio is a myth. If you choose to disagree, then post real AAR information. Note that the AAR appears to be pre-FoW change, so numbers are usually off, but at least off relatively equally. From http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=679803&mpage=4&key= Day Air attack on TF at 105,100 Ouch! Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 12 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 28 SBD Dauntless x 68 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged SBD Dauntless: 5 destroyed, 14 damaged Zeros outnumbered 2.33 to 1 shoot down 4 for a loss of 5. Not 6 to 1, 1 to 1.25. Day Air attack on TF at 105,100 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 6 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 SBD Dauntless x 17 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed SBD Dauntless: 4 damaged Zeros with a 1.5 to 1 advantage shoot down 2 to 0. Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97 - here comes the counterstrike! Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 21 G3M Nell x 18 G4M1 Betty x 13 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 11 destroyed G3M Nell: 6 destroyed, 7 damaged - 4 lost G4M1 Betty: 11 destroyed, 5 damaged - 6 lost Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 24 destroyed, 1 damaged - 11 Wildcats were shot down! Despite being outnumbered 1.5 to 1, the much-maligned and whined about F4F shoots down A6M2's at a 1 to 2 ratios - oh and takes an additional 1.3 to 1 in bombers with them. Not even 3 to 1 here. Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 20 G3M Nell x 12 G4M1 Betty x 31 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 11 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed G3M Nell: 5 destroyed, 5 damaged G4M1 Betty: 11 destroyed, 19 damaged - flak is deadly! Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 20 destroyed, 4 damaged - only good result in the air today, the carrier borne CAP is mauled! Whoa, F4F's outnumbered 2 to 1 only manage to take out 3 zeros at a cost of 20 of their own. There is that 6 to 1 margin. Let's see how many other times we see it, shall we? Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 12 G4M1 Betty x 5 - I've also overlooked one small Daitai of Betties, and they take of from Rabaul Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 10 destroyed - the fatigued Zeros performs badly against the carrier Wildcats today G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged Gosh, F4F's are pathetic. Fourteen F4F intercepted 12 zeros and only shot down 10 zeros for the loss of 2 Wildcats. Not 6 to 1, but 1 to 5... Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 31 G3M Nell x 19 G4M1 Betty x 33 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 16 destroyed G3M Nell: 2 destroyed G4M1 Betty: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 16 destroyed, 3 damaged Again, the F4F sucks. outnumbered 31 to 18, They manage to down an equal number of zeros. Yep, definately...uh.. 1 to 1. Day Air attack on Jamshedpur , at 28,22 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 62 Ki-21 Sally x 39 Ki-48 Lily x 44 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 16 P-40E Warhawk x 16 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 46 destroyed, 1 damaged - 17 were lost in A2A combat Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged Ki-48 Lily: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses - 17 Allied ac lost in A2A combat F4F-4 Wildcat: 26 destroyed, 11 damaged P-40E Warhawk: 19 destroyed, 7 damaged Sixty-two zeros encounter 32 mixed P-40's and F4F-4's. With almost 2 to 1 odds, the Zeros manage an amazing kill ratio against F4F's of 29 to 1. er nope, sorry that is in the minds of the Allied fan boys. It is actually 46 to.... 45. Roughly 1 to 1. Yep, that nasty Zero is overrated, it is. Day Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 G4M1 Betty x 18 Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 32 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 Japanese aircraft losses G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 10 damaged - 1 Betty lost to flak Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed - the Oscars actually behaved pretty well! Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 12 destroyed, 4 damaged - 5 were shot down I call foul, that completely useless A6M2, when enjoying anything less than 20 to 1 odds, should be shot down with no losses by the valiant USN/USMC pilots. They only had 3 to 1 odds here, (admittedly they 32 oscars to help, but those MG's on the Oscars are too ineffective to even scratch the paint, so we can't ever consider those!) and got that nasty 6 to 1 ratio everyone is whining about! Day Air attack on TF, near Madioen at 21,64 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 33 G4M1 Betty x 6 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged G4M1 Betty: 6 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 21 destroyed, 2 damaged Outnumbered 33 to 14, the F4F still achieved a 1 to 2.2 loss rate. No 6 to 1 here again... Day Air attack on TF at 18,58 - this is the BIG thing! We launch from Palembang against the combined Allied might. Both UK and US cv's... Japanese aircraft - a fine mix of fighters and bombers take off A6M2 Zero x 48 A6M3 Zero x 21 G3M Nell x 27 G4M1 Betty x 22 Allied aircraft - this is the elite of Allied carrier aviators in mid 42! Fulmar x 2 F4F-4 Wildcat x 48 Japanese aircraft losses - losses are grievous A6M2 Zero: 38 destroyed, 1 damaged A6M3 Zero: 16 destroyed G3M Nell: 4 destroyed, 30 damaged - but the bombers get through G4M1 Betty: 10 destroyed, 19 damaged Allied aircraft losses - we shoot down many Allied fighters, but the Wildcats got claws! Fulmar: 12 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 58 destroyed, 8 damaged Again outnumbered, this time 69 to 48, the loss rate only barely favors the Zero, 58 to 54. Barely more than 1 to 1. Day Air attack on TF at 18,58 Japanese aircraft - this small strike got fended off A6M2 Zero x 6 A6M3 Zero x 3 G3M Nell x 8 Allied aircraft Fulmar x 4 F4F-4 Wildcat x 36 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 6 destroyed A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed G3M Nell: 5 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed, 1 damaged I cry foul! The Zeros were outnumbered 36 to 9, but shot down at 1 to 1 odds. Still looking for that average of 3 to 1 or 6 to 1, btw. Day Air attack on TF at 18,58 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 21 A6M3 Zero x 13 G4M1 Betty x 4 Allied aircraft Fulmar x 10 F4F-4 Wildcat x 12 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged G4M1 Betty: 5 destroyed Allied aircraft losses Fulmar: 6 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 11 destroyed, 1 damaged Thirty four zeros against 12 wildcats and 10 fulmars. The Zero got 17 to 5. Oh my gosh, our first 3 to 1 result! Day Air attack on TF at 18,58 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 2 A6M3 Zero x 2 G3M Nell x 3 G4M1 Betty x 3 Allied aircraft Fulmar x 5 F4F-4 Wildcat x 8 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell: 2 destroyed G4M1 Betty: 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses Fulmar: 5 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed Ah, another one that exceeds 6 to 1. Four Zeros shot down 2 F4F's for the loss of none. The Zero is now offically INFINATELY better than the F4F in WitP and needs to be reduced in power! Day Air attack on TF, near Tjilitjap at 19,62 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 22 A6M3 Zero x 8 G3M Nell x 6 G4M1 Betty x 12 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 P-40E Warhawk x 34 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 22 destroyed A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed G3M Nell: 4 destroyed G4M1 Betty: 4 destroyed, 6 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed P-40E Warhawk: 40 destroyed, 4 damaged With a 43 to 30 advantage in numbers, the dastardly zero shot down 48 for the loss of 24, a 2 to 1 ratio. Still not 3 to 1, boys. Day Air attack on TF at 15,60 Japanese aircraft - this is the force based in Batavia A6M3 Zero x 25 Ki-30 Ann x 17 Allied aircraft - ouch F4F-4 Wildcat x 56 Japanese aircraft losses - the new A6M3s were savaged by the heavy CAP A6M3 Zero: 42 destroyed Ki-30 Ann: 33 destroyed, 7 damaged Allied aircraft losses - a few Anns get through and plan a 100kg bomb into the Hornet. Didn't penetrate the flight deck F4F-4 Wildcat: 9 destroyed, 3 damaged Geez, 56 to 25 advantage and the Zero still managed to lose at 4 to 1 odds. I mean what is an Allied fan boy to do when the Amazing F4F achieves 4.5 to 1 odds against the Zero, and not just any zero, but an A6M3! Day Air attack on TF, near Tjilitjap at 19,62 Japanese aircraft - I've now ordered my bombers to stay away from Tjilitjap. Don't want to wrestle with Allied LBA A6M2 Zero x 20 A6M3 Zero x 15 G3M Nell x 11 G4M1 Betty x 14 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 P-40E Warhawk x 28 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 22 destroyed A6M3 Zero: 5 destroyed G3M Nell: 2 destroyed G4M1 Betty: 4 destroyed, 8 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged P-40E Warhawk: 29 destroyed 35 to 37 and the losses are roughly 1 to 1. Sorry, getting tired of coming up with sarcastic, snide remarks. Day Air attack on TF, near Tjilitjap at 19,62 Japanese aircraft - this raid was turned back. Morale is low and fatigue high. Need a few days R&R A6M2 Zero x 7 A6M3 Zero x 4 G4M1 Betty x 3 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 7 P-40E Warhawk x 16 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 7 destroyed A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed I stopped cutting and pasting here. 11 to 23 and Zero lost 9 to 0 Allied. The F4F is infinately better than the Zero, and needs to be adjusted downward... Now, a rough total of all of the above (when another plane, like the Oscar/Fulmar/P-40 was involved, I counted it as a F4F or A6M, that did not happen enough imo to skew the results greatly and in fact causes me to overstate the Zero's abilities below): roughly 464 Zeros combined fought roughly 421 F4F's for a numerical advantage to the Zero of 1.1 to 1. roughly 271 Zeros were shot down to 334 F4F's for a kill ratio of.......1.25 to 1 in favor of the Zero. Now, if you want to persist in saying that the F4F gets shot down 3 to 1, bring out some real evidence.

Big B -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:19:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oznoyng roughly 464 Zeros combined fought roughly 421 F4F's for a numerical advantage to the Zero of 1.1 to 1. roughly 271 Zeros were shot down to 334 F4F's for a kill ratio of.......1.25 to 1 in favor of the Zero. Now, if you want to persist in saying that the F4F gets shot down 3 to 1, bring out some real evidence. I am puzzled by many posted losses above exceding the aircraft type involved, Are these a selection of ARRs? If so I'm confused. Anyway the best thing to do is to test under controlled conditions.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:19:51 AM)
quote: That's the short summary. There are a couple other observations worthy of mention that I have skipped for the sake of brevity. Mostly they attend to the dozen or so obvious cues that were available to Japanese intel that they might be walking into a trap -- which cues they summarily ignored. Each of these points may be expanded upon in detail and I have already done so in great detail once, and in lesser detail a second time, (and now in abstract form in this reply). mdiehl, I don't disagree with many of your assertions concerning Midway. The Japanese plan was deeply flawed in many ways. Still if it had been properly implemented it did have a chance for success. Much of the failure at Midway can be laid at Nagumo's feet. He was too cautious at PH and he was too cautious at Midway. His vacillation concerning the arming/rearming of his aircraft sealed their fate more than any other action taken by them. IMO, they should have launched everything they had with whatever ordnance was loaded for a strike against the US fleet. Most of my disagreement with you comes from your application of your version of history to the game. It's obvious to me that you feel the US fleet should be able to take on the Japanese fleet from the day one. That premise is simply your unfounded opinion. If the US fleet was so capable early in the war, why then did they not seek an engagement with the Japanese carriers? Why did they only commit hit and run raids in those areas where they knew the Japanese carriers weren't? And why then did they only commit the carriers in response to a Japanese move on Port Moreseby? The truth is they were sorely lacking in experience and did not realistically expect to win a battle against the Japanese carriers, even at 1:1 carrier odds. They were only willing to risk the carriers when they had to. Once they did commit them at Coral Sea, the results were still less than impressive. By your contention, this battle should have resulted in a major US tactical victory yet ut ended as a minor Japanese tactical victory and strategic defeat. You stated earlier that US pilots were highly skilled in divebombing and as they greatly ountnumbered the Japanese (70-42) in divebomber strength at Coral Sea, they should have done more damage. Yet, except for Shoho, their divebombing was unbelievably poor. As far as air losses go, they were nearly equal for both sides. The Japanese lost 77 aircraft (55.4% of the force) and the US lost 66 aircraft (49%) from all causes (air-air, AA fire, ops, and losses from ship sinkings). The best picture of US air losses comes from reading the Lexington's and Yorktown's after action reports. Their claims of Japanese fighter losses greatly exceed the number that was actually present. Now let's look at Midway. Hiryu was the only Japanese CV to actually engage the US carriers. She launched 2 attacks; the first consisted of 6 Zeros and 18 Vals. They encountered a CAP of 18 Wildcats. 3 Zeros and 10 Vals were shot down by fighters before reaching the target yet the Vals were still able to hit Yorktown with 3 bombs and had 2 very near misses. The second attack saw 20 Wildcats on CAP intercept Hiryu's 6 Zeros and 10 Kates. Many were shot down yet 5 Kates managed to launch their torps with 2 hitting Yorktown. Now extrapolate those results into what might have been had Nagumo immediately launched every plane he had against the US carriers. I dare say that all US carriers would have been heavily damaged, if not sunk. You tend to confuse training as being the same as experience. It is not. Training is not the same as experience. Training can help instill an instinctual response to a given tactical situation but experience will help determine which course of action is the correct one based on previous observations. Experience makes a much more effective pilot than does training. The reverse is seldom true. Loook at it this way: Who would you rather have in the cockpit of your next commercial flight? The pilot fresh out of airline flight school or the pilot who has a few thousand hours in type under his belt? If you look at both the US Navy and Army fighter training command doctrines, you will find that they indeed continued to emphasize classic dogfight style engagements until late 1942. Only after Koga's Zero was examined and the use of combat experienced pilots as instructors, did they decrease the emphasis on turning with the enemy. It is highly illogical to assume that US training commands would throw out all the lessons learned to date about fighter tactics from the European war on the basis of Chennault's observations or Thatch's ruminations. If you have ever been associated with a military training command, you would know that people basically have to die before the powers that be start to take notice. Most US fighters pilots arrived at their replacement units with around 200 hours of primary and advanced flight training. In the replacement units, they were trained in the type aircraft they could expect to fly in combat. This training normally consisted of 50-75 hours of tactical formation and combat training. Gunnery training consisted of about 5 hours in aerial gunnery, 3 hours of which were spent shooting at targets on the ground or sea. Deflection gunnery did not receive any emphasis until 1943. It's interesting to note that US carrier pilots were only required to perform 5 takeoffs and landings before being declared "carrier trained." I have a copy of the Naval Aviation Flight Cirriculum published in October 1941 that lists in detail the required courses and training regimens for pilots. I also have a partial copy of the Naval Reserve Aviation Candidate Training manual published in 1944. Unfortunately the part that I have primarily covers the ground training aspects but is still quite useful. One last thought. Why is it that nearly every pilot who flew the Wildcat in combat against the Zero stated that the Wildcat was markedly inferior to the Zero and why is it that only the historians who never flew any aircraft in combat who reject their experiences? Could it be that a historical statistical analysis doesn't always present the clearest picture? Chez

rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:20:27 AM)
quote: Now, if you want to persist in saying that the F4F gets shot down 3 to 1, bring out some real evidence. Q: are you playing a standard game, or a mod? My remarks are restricted to standard WITP. In my circumstances, it would be hard to do a breakdown like you have done as i am having mixed engagements of Zeros vs. Fulmars, P-40s, P-36s, Hurricanes, Wildcats, and Spitfires. The only way to see the actual results is to watch the combat replay. Yes, i understand there is fog of war involved here. But the combat results anyone posts are subject to that. However, i do have copies of some "pure" Zero vs. Wildcat engagements, (i think) - i'll try to dig them out. There is not "memory" involved here (as you claim), i.e., i am not looking back on stuff and thinking, "Gosh, there seems to be about a 3 to 1 loss." Rather, i noticed that something peculiar was going on from the start, and so started keeping track. I will also point out that i am not the only one who has noticed this. My Wildcats DO shoot down a lot of planes - but they are not Zeros. They are bombers. I suppose i can also post my Intel screen - but that would be All Zeros shot down in air-to-air, not just by Wildcats. Strangely, i find that Hurricanes do well relatively well against the Zeros, generally much better than Wildcats - (at least Hurri vs. Zero in Burma). I have no idea if that just an anomaly, or if this is a general phenomenon. Also, notice i am not saying there is JUST a problem with Zero vs. Wildcat. I think there are also serious problems with Oscar vs. most relatively modern Allied planes, as well as the Corsair vs. most Japanese planes (reverse problems - the Oscar loses too much, the Corsair doesn't lose enough).

rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:22:14 AM)
quote: Anyway the best thing to do is to test under controlled conditions. I think that would be the best way to sort this out. We can quote AARs back and forth forever and not settle anything.

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:22:49 AM)
1:1 is where it ought to be within .2 or thereabouts. I notice that you (Oznoyng) omitted such critical information as dates of encounters (was the ZB "on"? was it 1944 with low exp IJN pilots?) contexts (was anyone fatigued?) and consequences of defeat (did anyone lose a CV because the reasonable expectation of about 1:1 instead resulted in a 1 sided slaughter that made CVs vulnerable to attack?) Here's a question: Would you risk, as an Allied player, a 2 USN CV vs 2 IJN CV engagement in January 1942 in "neutral waters" with both sides operating rested aircrews, expecting that the result would be a "tactical draw" approximately? If not, then the game does not capture the look and feel of the strategic position of the two combatants in early 1942.

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:34:18 AM)
quote: mdiehl, I don't disagree with many of your assertions concerning Midway. The Japanese plan was deeply flawed in many ways. Still if it had been properly implemented it did have a chance for success. Thanks for that. quote: Much of the failure at Midway can be laid at Nagumo's feet. He was too cautious at PH and he was too cautious at Midway. His vacillation concerning the arming/rearming of his aircraft sealed their fate more than any other action taken by them. IMO, they should have launched everything they had with whatever ordnance was loaded for a strike against the US fleet. Ya know I just think it's fashionable to "blame Nagumo." It's already been demonstrated (recently, not by me, maybe quoting that Midway book) that Nagumo could not have gotten off an effective strike, given his CAP situation, regardless of "vacillating." But IMO the changing and contradictory info that he was given would have likely resulted in the same command confusion in any navy at the time. Anyone could have been in charge of Kido Butai that day and had the same result. quote: That premise is simply your unfounded opinion. If the US fleet was so capable early in the war, why then did they not seek an engagement with the Japanese carriers? Why did they only commit hit and run raids in those areas where they knew the Japanese carriers weren't? And why then did they only commit the carriers in response to a Japanese move on Port Moreseby? Well, EVERY opinion then qualifies as an "unfounded opinion." Look, in e. 1942 the USN was not engaged in a strategy of "avoiding Japanese CVs" as many seem to think. It's just that the USN wasn't going to sail through 1000 miles of Japanese held waters, past Japanese forward recon bases at Kwajalein or Wake, just for a shot at CDiv1 sitting in, for example, Truk, or Marcus. That would have been as dumb an idea as, for example, an IJN CV follow-up raid on Pearl Harbor, or San Diego, in early 1942. In point of fact the USN was willing to risk a possible confrontation with IJN carriers in April in the Doolittle Raid. The only thing that made the idea tenable was that a strike on IJN homeland would not require the USN CVs to come withing effective range of Japanese LBA. That and the possibility of IJN CVs would have been too great a risk. And as you note the USN was willing to counter the Port Moresby move. It wasn't because in April, Halsey had determined that "It was safe to oppose the IJN because the Zero Bonus was low," it was because (a) intel indicated that the balance of forces would be roughly equal in CV based aircraft, and (b) because it was decided that the Allies should not easily suffer the loss of Port Moresby. Had the Japanese tried operation MO in January 1942 I expect that the CV battle would have turned out substantially the same, and possibly that the IJN surface fleet could have continued to move on Port Moresby and carry out the assault. Heck, sometimes I wonder why they did not? Were they worried that there was yet another US CV in the area? And where was CDiv1 all this time? Had they been out playing at Midway, or Johnson, there would I think have been a big CV battle in January 1942. But they weren't in the eastern Pacific looking to run down the US CVs or bag forward bases. They were in IIRC refit and resupply, then raiding Darwin, and some of them off to the Indian Ocean. There was no opportunity for the USN to take on the Japanese CVs even if they were willing to take foolish risks to do so until the Japanese launched the MO operation.

Big B -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:39:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: Anyway the best thing to do is to test under controlled conditions. I think that would be the best way to sort this out. We can quote AARs back and forth forever and not settle anything. Well I'm attempting to find the requirements to run a test scenario so I may run a couple of hundred tests with Zeros against P-40s and F4Fs - with and without the Zero Bonus, I may also take a look at the effect of experience levels, what the heck.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:52:02 AM)
Chez, the US did not have enough carriers until 5/42 to engage (on equal terms) the Japanese carriers. The US wanted to engage the Japanese carriers on equal terms (hence CS and Midway). The US, via code breaking, knew approximately where and how many carriers the japanese were operating all through early 42. the US did not, in fact, avoid fighting because they thought their aviators were inferior. They just didn't want to fight at 3 to 1 odds in total numbers of carriers. I can't quote the books I've read this in, as I've forgotten. But, it's a pretty consistent theme in all of them. I know I read a book on code breaking that spelled this doctrine out pretty well. The US fought at Coral sea because they could oppose, for the first time, with an equal force. I'm a firm believer that the allied player should be able to seek combat in early 42 and expect to win half the time when opposed by an equal force, lose mostly when opposed by a superior force and win mostly when opposed by an inferior force. The game does not do that (IMO), and 9 out of 10 times if I engage AI controlled forces in early 42, I will have my ass handed to me. Maybe I just suck as a player, but that's what I get. Only when I have 36 fighters, TBF's and no zero bonus will I even attempt to fight on even terms. And, preferably when the AI carriers have hit land bases hard, and lost a few planes. As mhdiel puts it, "that is not the look and feel of the historic war". I agree with rtrapasso on the testing thing. AAR's don't tell you enough. someone needs to test equal forces with the exact same stats for pilots and leaders, fatigue and exp. Test it twice (once with Zero's on offense and once with F4F's on offense). Only then will you get the results worth looking at. Oh yeah, test it 4 times. Once in 12/41 and once in 5/42, both sides on offense. I bet you see 10 to 1 losses in 12/41. and 3 to 1 in 5/42.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 2:13:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 I agree with rtrapasso on the testing thing. AAR's don't tell you enough. someone needs to test equal forces with the exact same stats for pilots and leaders, fatigue and exp. Test it twice (once with Zero's on offense and once with F4F's on offense). Only then will you get the results worth looking at. Oh yeah, test it 4 times. Once in 12/41 and once in 5/42, both sides on offense. I bet you see 10 to 1 losses in 12/41. and 3 to 1 in 5/42. Yes, tests such as those would be very interesting. AAR results are useful, as long as the circumstances are known. Also, the number of aircraft destroyed by flak needs to be taken into account when reviewing AAR results. I regret not being able to help with any potential testing, as I am busy with CHS and map work (a new version of my map will be released soon, in conjunction with the next update to CHS). I would also like to see results from tests done with CHS, as the aircraft stats in CHS are different from the stock scenarios. Because this is such a controversial topic, I now plan on doing the following: NOT suggesting that the Zero bonus be removed from CHS. Then, after the next CHS version is released, use it as a base for an experimental scenario, which will include the removal of the Zero bonus, probable reductions in Allied (or maybe also including the Japanese) pilot experience levels, and mods to the aircraft ratings (a la Nik and DFalcon) to try to reduce the bloodiness of air-to-air combat. I then hope to play a PBEM game with that scenario to see how it plays. Andrew

spence -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 2:48:25 AM)
Someone somewhere in this thread mentioned durability of aircraft - the thread is just getting too long to search now. The A6M2 - Dur 22 The F4F3/4 - Dur 29 So the durabilities seem ok to me. But I went a little further in the database. The G4M1 Betty has a durability of 36. The Sturmovik IL2m3 has a durability of 41. So the Betty, so lovingly referred to by its crews as "The Ronson" (a popular cigarette lighter) is only moderately less durable than the "Flying Tank". HMMMMMMM!?!

ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 3:17:26 AM)
quote: Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario Not howling in protest but how do you figure that the Zero is rated equally in the game to the US fighters durability wise? In the game the Zero durability is rated at 22. The F4F and P-40 are rated at 29 plus armor. The Hellcat and Corsair are rated at 32 with armor. These ratings give the Allied fighters considerable benefit. That's why you tend to see more allied fighters damaged than destroyed and the opposite for the Zero. At least its that way in my games. To put that in perspective the only Japanese planes rated with lower durability are the B4Y Jean, Ki-36 Ida and the D1A Susie. The closest Allied fighter durability wise is the Brewster 339D rated at 26. Only the Sea Gladiator, Swordfish and Wildebest IV are rated lower on the allied side. It's your scenario and cutting the Zero's durability in half is your call but I wouldn't call it historical. The Zero's vulnerability wasn't so much its lightweight structure as it was its flammability (which of course quickly led to structural failure). I personally think that if the Japanese had added self-sealing tanks, they probably would have cut their losses considerably. The structure of the Zero was quite suited to high G turns but it was diving that caused the most problems. The thinness of the aluminum skin on the wings caused it to wrinkle when diving above 350mph. At around 375mph, the skin often peeled resulting in failure of the wing structure. There is no doubt that it could not withstand the concentrated fire of several .50 cal MGs, but then again few fighters could. (This statement in no way is meant to infer that the Zero was as strongly built as Allied fighters) Chez

Honda -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 3:33:44 AM)
Hellooooooooooo!!! There's also a little thing called armor. The value of this armor contraption in Il-2 is 2 and in Betty it is O, zilch, nothing as in non-existant. Don't think the difference is so small...That dive-bombers (ground support planes) are under-rated I will not argue but don't tell me my favourite match-box is an almost equal to Il-2 in durability[>:] Ozyong, nice post. Funny, plenty of info. Some context may be lacking, but it's not so much the dates as operational info which, I know, is no longer accessable. And mdiehl, do you really expect to see a A6M2 v F4F confrontation in '44[8\|] Chez, also a nice post. Don't let it be disregarded because you don't have 20 quoted sources and bunch of numbers. Group hug.[:)] I would also like to use this moment to propose that we find a girlfriend or something similar (e.g. hobby) for mdiehl since it seems he has way to much spare time on his hands[:D] As a counter-proposal I am ready to buy this great Cheavy everybody is talking about. seeing I drive a Citroen, the maintainance cost can't go up[X(]

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 3:44:28 AM)
The Zero's problems were fourfold. 1. Flammability owing to absence of self sealing tanks. 2. Lack of armor protection for the pilot. 3. Lightweight structure. There are accounts of wings being torn off without obvious fire or explosions. There was at least one collision between a P-40 and an A6M3. Vis relative endurance the A6 was destroyed (wing came off) but the P-40 returned to base and landed successfully minus 3 feet of outboard wing. 4. Heavier than rifle caliber MGs on some of the enemy. Yeah I know this is in the "damage model" but gok if the damage model is accurate. For ex the Zeke could take a 30cal hit (even an incendiary hit) in a wing tank without catching fire if the tank was substantially with fuel. But a bigger hit (like a 20mm or .50 cal) was all she wrote. In contrast, German, American, UK and Italian single-engined a/c were all designed to survive at least a limited number of 20mm hits. The .50cal was particularly hell on Japanese planes because it did not matter whether or not the wing tank on the Zeke was full of fuel. It didn't matter whether the .50cal hit was a tracer round. For comparison purposes you can consider that the .303 MG round used by Japanese and UK aircraft had about 1500 ftlbs of energy at roughly 200m (the real lethal zone on a WW2 a/c). In contrast the BMG had about 9000 foot pounds at same range. Hydrostatic pressure from a .50 would often simply burst the Zeke's wing tank, which would in turn lead to critical failure of the wing. Fire would naturally ensue often as an immediate consequence. Look at some of those USN WW2 gun camera footage reels some time. Often on a Zeke the first thing you'll sometimes see is a big white fog and the wing starting to fold in half. That's the wing tank popping and the overpressure busting the major wing spars. That happens because ONE BMG 700 grain ball round imparted the same energy to the target that the target would experience if you dropped a loaded Studebaker truck on it from a height of one foot.

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 3:49:32 AM)
quote: And mdiehl, do you really expect to see a A6M2 v F4F confrontation in '44 Why not? In 1944 the USN was flying FM2s from CVEs, and the IJN still had A6M2s-M5s in their arsenal. The FM2 is just a GM built F4F with a more powerful engine, 4 MGs (instead of six) and a tall rudder. As for girlfriends. Hey, I'm married, so I don't lose as much time looking as the rest of you do. [:D] quote: seeing I drive a Citroen, the maintainance cost can't go up Difficult as it may be to believe, if you owned a Cavalier, you might wish you had the Citroen.

demonterico -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 4:09:11 AM)
Hey Honda, I've got a Yugo for sale.[:)]

Honda -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 4:33:41 AM)
lol, there's even a new and improved Yugo on sale. I's called Tempo, probably for the obvious lack of the same. However, for more info on Yugo, you'll have to turn to my easterly neighbours. There's few of them on the boards, but I haven't noticed any of them following this thread. Also, in your spare time, visit the War Room and share with us your experiances with The Thread. You're input is wellcome and The Thread is generous. Again, mdiehl... FM2 isn't F4F. Yes, it's not from the Grumman factory, yes it is essentialy F4F but it's designaton is FM2. And WitP, as we all know, cares for designations very much. I was takli9ng about the game and there is no way F4F and A6M2 meet on the front lines in '44. In the game. The game that gathered us all here today. Don't forget The Thread![:-]

rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:27:35 AM)
quote: The Thread! [&o][&o][&o]All bow down before The Thread!!!!

Oznoyng -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:35:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl 1:1 is where it ought to be within .2 or thereabouts. And that is where it is. The combats listed came between 3 February 1942 and 29 June 1942 (based upon AAR information). So many of these combats occurred while the Zero bonus was in effect, though not at full strength. quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl I notice that you (Oznoyng) omitted such critical information as dates of encounters (was the ZB "on"? was it 1944 with low exp IJN pilots?) contexts (was anyone fatigued?) and consequences of defeat (did anyone lose a CV because the reasonable expectation of about 1:1 instead resulted in a 1 sided slaughter that made CVs vulnerable to attack?) Just for the record, my omission was part of a long-laid, sinister plot to keep the Zero bonus for the Jap fan boys. [:D] Not really. I was curious. I thought you guys were nuts, because I had never seen consistent 6 to 1 loss ratios, or even 3 to 1. So, I went and looked at the AAR section. I pulled out combats involving A6M2's and F4F's. I even noted in my first post where they came from, and it was not my AAR. In a line, all by itself, I posted the link to the AAR I took it from. Here it is again: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=679803&mpage=4&key= quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Here's a question: Would you risk, as an Allied player, a 2 USN CV vs 2 IJN CV engagement in January 1942 in "neutral waters" with both sides operating rested aircrews, expecting that the result would be a "tactical draw" approximately? If not, then the game does not capture the look and feel of the strategic position of the two combatants in early 1942. Yes. A Draw for the US is a win. The problem is, I know that in Jan 42, I am at a 6CV 2 CVL to 3 CV/1 CVL numerical advantage. If I positively identified 4 CV's and 2 CVL's far away, and I had 2 CV of my own? Yeah, I'd take you on in neutral territory. Still, even if I would not, the Zero bonus is not the whole picture, or even most of the picture. As long as the kill ratios are appropriate, and I think they are given my own experience and the AAR I looked at, my choice has less to do with the flavor of the game and more to do with what I know in retrospect that neither side did in early 1942. I know that if I wait, a possible win will become an almost certain win. I know with increased AA, fixed torpedos, larger fighter groups, and more carriers, I will be hard pressed to lose after late 42. On the other hand, I know that in early 42 I will be throwing the dice. I might win, I might not. You see, I know the Allies will win, I can be as patient as I need to be. So, I engage in combat as the Allies when I know I will kick ass and take names. You win or lose by VP, and as the Allies, if you haven't lost, you've won. Part of the problem with the victory conditions in WitP is that it allows the Allies to turn turtle with few consequences. The Zero bonus has less to do with it than other factors. The primary problem in the game is that the OOB, tech advancements, etc. are known by all players, and that means they make choices they would not have made historically. I do not engage with Nates at all or Oscars very much. I wait for the Tojo and Tony to appear. I preserve my pilots because I know they are my most critical resource. The USN waits for 36 fighters that arrive on a certain date. The Allied player uses his Mk 14 armed subs for transports and minelayers until the torps are fixed. The list goes on and on. Quite simply the "Feel" you have comes from knowing what might come. Our counterparts in 1942 did not have those luxuries. Having some of those advances triggered by events would be different. Say, the Mk 14 cannot be fixed until 100 torpedoes have been expended. The current Allied use of Mk 14 subs would change a bit. Instead, the trigger is reaching a particular date and all the Allies have to do is reach it. Finally, the AAR was not mine, therefore I can give you no information about individual combats. The one combat I had info on, I gave the info. It seemed to me to be a reasonable result given the conditions. Looking at the AAR, a 4 month period of the war, towards the end of the Zero bonus shows a loss ratio in line with your historical statistics. There were certainly a few occurences in which A6M2's inflicted 3, 5, or 6 to 1 losses on F4F's, but they were balanced by 4 to 1 and 5 to 1 losses by the A6M in other battles.

Oznoyng -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:54:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Anyway the best thing to do is to test under controlled conditions. I am dubious about what controlled tests can tell us that AAR's cannot. If you show me an AAR where the kill ratio achieved by the IJN over 20 combats and months of game time is greater than 2 to 1, then the situation warrants looking at. On the other hand, it will not automatically be a case for the Zero being overpowered. It took me a half hour to put together the combats you saw. All I did was search on the page for F4F and cut and paste. After doing that on the first 17 pages of a 51 page AAR, I decided I had enough combats to look at - and the results as far as ratio were fine. Probably too bloody, but the kill ratio was not 6 to 1 or even 3 to 1. It was 1.25 to 1, and I felt that was probably about right given the time period covered. One question is, if the kill ratio is 1.25 to 1 in that game, why isn't it in yours, and indeed, what is it in yours? You say between 3 to 1 and 6 to 1. That in itself tells me you have not calculated it. It means you guessed. That sounds like an attack, and I suppose in some ways it is. However, if you in fact knew, you would be quoting me an exact kill ratio like 3.7 to 1, not a wide range between 3 and 6 to 1. I can easily believe that you have seen battles where the Zeros shot down opposing F4F's at 6 to 1 odds. On the other hand, there are probably situations where they were shot down at 6 to 1. In the AAR snippets I posted above, A6M's shot down opponents at 3 to 1 and 6 to 1 ratios in a few engagements. On the other hand, they were shot down themselves at a 4 to 1 ratio and 5 to 1 ratio in other engagements. On average, the kill ratio over the 4 month period was 1.25 to 1.

Oznoyng -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 6:10:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown Yes, tests such as those would be very interesting. AAR results are useful, as long as the circumstances are known. Also, the number of aircraft destroyed by flak needs to be taken into account when reviewing AAR results. I regret not being able to help with any potential testing, as I am busy with CHS and map work (a new version of my map will be released soon, in conjunction with the next update to CHS). AAR's are fine. Analyze the first 20 combats involving both A6M2's and F4F-4's (discard the 12/7 PH attack) for a dozen AAR's. You won't nail down an exact number, but you will come pretty lose. If the number is consistently above 2 to 1, then there may be a problem. Play styles will affect the loss rates, so high and low values probably need to be looked at to see what factors might have contributed to the rates. Controlled tests sound good, but they do not mimic history either. In many ways, you could end up with worse results. Take a test case where equal numbers of Zeros attacking F4F's at range one and a base with no radar. Equal skills, equal leaders. Guess what? That situation did not hold for WW2. The kill ratio in WW2, and even in the Guadalcanal campaign was affected by little things like radar, spotters, weather, distance to target, supply, etc. The anitseptic environment of a "controlled" test may leave you with a set of values that produces ahistoric loss ratios. Take the wars in the AAR section and analyze them. You will get better results.

dereck -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 6:15:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario Not howling in protest but how do you figure that the Zero is rated equally in the game to the US fighters durability wise? In the game the Zero durability is rated at 22. The F4F and P-40 are rated at 29 plus armor. The Hellcat and Corsair are rated at 32 with armor. These ratings give the Allied fighters considerable benefit. That's why you tend to see more allied fighters damaged than destroyed and the opposite for the Zero. At least its that way in my games. To put that in perspective the only Japanese planes rated with lower durability are the B4Y Jean, Ki-36 Ida and the D1A Susie. The closest Allied fighter durability wise is the Brewster 339D rated at 26. Only the Sea Gladiator, Swordfish and Wildebest IV are rated lower on the allied side. It's your scenario and cutting the Zero's durability in half is your call but I wouldn't call it historical. The Zero's vulnerability wasn't so much its lightweight structure as it was its flammability (which of course quickly led to structural failure). I personally think that if the Japanese had added self-sealing tanks, they probably would have cut their losses considerably. The structure of the Zero was quite suited to high G turns but it was diving that caused the most problems. The thinness of the aluminum skin on the wings caused it to wrinkle when diving above 350mph. At around 375mph, the skin often peeled resulting in failure of the wing structure. There is no doubt that it could not withstand the concentrated fire of several .50 cal MGs, but then again few fighters could. (This statement in no way is meant to infer that the Zero was as strongly built as Allied fighters) Chez Your right it is and I do think it's more historical than what it is in the stock scenario. American planes were designed to also take damage but even one good shot by a Brewster Buffalo was more than enough to take a zero down.

rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 6:45:00 AM)
As for taking the kill ratios from AARs: are they from standard games or are they from modified games? You don't know - you just took them wholesale from various AARs. And the results can vary drastically due to modifications As for the 3:1 to 6:1 ratios - those came from various different encounters i had. The circumstances varied wildly from encounter to encounter (i.e. outnumbered or not, escorting bombers or not - both of which i have found to modify results. Outnumbered planes fight at a disadvantage, as do planes escorting bombers - at least in my experience.) Anyway - here are my totals. All attacks (iirc) were Zeros accompanying bombers in this case (June 1-23 1942) - for air to air: total Allied Fighters lost 681 total Zeros lost 314. So, the total ratio is 2.2 to 1. The most common Allied fighter shot down was the Wildcat. As i said, these are mixed results from different situations - and include Burma results where the Hurri's did much better (for reasons not immediately clear to me.) Of course, these results could be affected by various situations - including morale, experience, etc. I have no way (right now) of knowing how good the enemy pilots i am facing are. I am only quoting my own results - your mileage may vary. Overall, i think the F4Fs are being shot down at around 3+ to 1 by the Zeros, although i COULD be wrong. I really don't feel like spending many hours trying to tease out the exact ratio. As i said, at times the results were better than 3 to 1 and at times worse than 6:1. This is in MY game only, and i make no claims for other person's experience. I had brought it up to see what other's experiences are. However, like it or not, i think the only way to resolve this is to actually test it, and i really don't understand your aversion to doing this.

Big B -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 6:53:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso However, like it or not, i think the only way to resolve this is to actually test it, and i really don't understand your aversion to doing this. Fear not rtrapasso - the heat is off for now since Andrew chose not to touch the bonus for this release - and under the circumstances I think that was probably the best choice. That gives us plenty of time to work out testing for the Zero Bonus and see just exactly what it adds and then decide on it. I say 'the best choice for now' only because - as much as I would like to see it go (and I do think it's logically an absurdurdity since it's the ONLY aircraft in the game that has such a bonus) before operating on the patient we should study anatomy - we must test get results to compare and go where that leads us. EDIT: And don't forget that in the meantime we must make a concerted effort to see and quantify exactly what happened historically in in the first six months of the war's air combat (preferably even longer) so we have an accurate mark to measure by, otherwise it's pointless.

rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 7:17:23 AM)
quote: Fear not rtrapasso - the heat is off for now since Andrew chose not to touch the bonus for this release - and under the circumstances I think that was probably the best choice. I really didn't care much one way or the other about the Zero bonus. I can see the arguments from both sides and they both have merit. However, i still would like to see testing of the Zero vs. Wildcat. If it shows the ratio comes out to about 1:1, then i'll know its something i'm doing wrong in my use of Wildcats (which is very possible). If it comes out something far different - then we'll know something else. If possible, this testing should also be extended to include Oscars (vs. other Allied AC) and Corsairs (vs. various IJ aircraft). The results should be applied to future modifications of the game so that they are at least vaguely historical. As far as radar, etc. affecting the outcomes - well, can't radar be tested also? IIRC, many of the a-to-a encounters with Wildcats vs. Zeros took place away from areas of Allied radar control (i.e. - over enemy TFs), but still never really dipped below 1:1 (from verified results using records from both sides.) As far as the Wildcat being inferior to the Zero - this may well be true. But Allied doctrine and training might have negated much of this advantage. The 3 unit formations of IJN aircraft fell apart soon after maneuvering started. Overall, Japanese fighter formations were described as "swarms of flies" and the Japanese realized quite quickly that while they stood a good chance with US fighters one on one, they were really badly overmatched vs. formations of US fighters and stood little chance (at least according to Lundstrom). i don't think this is reflected in the game by use of speed stats, etc. I think there should be some sort of modifier put in to reflect these factors so that the results come out to be at least something in the historical ballpark. I am not a modder (yet) so i don't know where these should be put in - i.e. - whether to tweak maneuver, durability, experience, or what. I'll leave this to the expert modders.

Oznoyng -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 7:50:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso As for taking the kill ratios from AARs: are they from standard games or are they from modified games? You don't know - you just took them wholesale from various AARs. And the results can vary drastically due to modifications I took all quoted engagements from a single AAR and linked the AAR in question (one of PzB's). I used the sampling method of "the first one from the top that actually shows combat results instead of some other kind of summary." They were not "various AAR's", it was one AAR and I already specified time period involved. I took every engagement I could find which pitted A6M2/3's against F4F's. I did not leave any out (at least not intentionally). Go look at page 1 (link in posts above are to page 4, first occurrance of F4F vs A6M combat). The inital post will tell you setup information for the PBEM. To answer your specific question though, it was a stock Scen 15 game. quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso As for the 3:1 to 6:1 ratios - those came from various different encounters i had. The circumstances varied wildly from encounter to encounter (i.e. outnumbered or not, escorting bombers or not - both of which i have found to modify results. Outnumbered planes fight at a disadvantage, as do planes escorting bombers - at least in my experience.) Okay, so we are not talking about a kill ratio for a multi month period, we were talking about individual engagements. Without all the battle snippets cut out, hard to say. quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Anyway - here are my totals. All attacks (iirc) were Zeros accompanying bombers in this case (June 1-23 1942) - for air to air: total Allied Fighters lost 681 total Zeros lost 314. So, the total ratio is 2.2 to 1. The most common Allied fighter shot down was the Wildcat. As i said, these are mixed results from different situations - and include Burma results where the Hurri's did much better (for reasons not immediately clear to me.) My first comment is partly a question. Did you lose 681 fighters in one month? He lost 314 Zeros in a single month? I'm in September 42 and I've lost a tad over 400 Zeros, total. If that is your monthly total, all I can say is you have one bloody ass game. [X(] Still, the kill ratio is 2.2 to 1. Not 3 to 1, nor 6 to 1. Yes, I have no doubt in some engagements you got killed 6 to 1, I also fully expect you got a few where you did better than 1 to 1. It is human nature to remember the "out of whack results" and especially to remember bad news over good. In remembering things the way we do, it is easy for perceptions to get out of whack. I'd be really curious to see snippets from your combat reports. quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Of course, these results could be affected by various situations - including morale, experience, etc. I have no way (right now) of knowing how good the enemy pilots i am facing are. Yup, not only could, but probably did. One thing I noticed is that the time period is from a single month, what was goin on in that month? quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso I am only quoting my own results - your mileage may vary. Overall, i think the F4Fs are being shot down at around 3+ to 1 by the Zeros, although i COULD be wrong. I really don't feel like spending many hours trying to tease out the exact ratio. As i said, at times the results were better than 3 to 1 and at times worse than 6:1. This is in MY game only, and i make no claims for other person's experience. I had brought it up to see what other's experiences are. Got it. Unfortunately, when you say 3 to 1 and 6 to 1 without actually calculating it, you could be wrong. Someone else does the same thing, sees some combats where they got the short end for some reason (odds, fatigue, etc.) and they agree with you. Now people are walking around going, "My F4F's are being shot down 6 to 1!" and everyone's panties are in a twist. All hell breaks loose, and suddenly we are talking about eliminating the Zero bonus when it may not be justified. I do not know. As I said before, I haven't seen it in my own game, but yours is definately different. I do not think you need to look at replays, but by cutting out snippets where A6M2's and F4F's were involved, you can get a decent picture of what is going on. If you still have em, please post em. I'm curious. quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso However, like it or not, i think the only way to resolve this is to actually test it, and i really don't understand your aversion to doing this. Well, as to that there are two issues: First, I'm lazy, so from a directly personal perspective, I have an aversion to the work involved in testing. :P Second, our litmus test for validity is centering on roughly 1 to 1 trade for F4F's. Now, we go out and try to get 1 to 1, but then we need to ask under what circumstances? My suspicion, and mdiehl can maybe shed some light on this, is that a fair number of the combats involved radar, unequal numbers, radios, and other inequalities on a fairly regular basis. I would also guess that some of those were consistently on the US side. So now we go in and test in a situation which "tunes" the A6M2 and F4F but uses an unbiased environment. So we end up with a Zero that can get 1 to 1 in this perfect environment, but the environment in the game is less hospitable and the Zero, instead of getting 1 to 1, gets 1 to 4. As an example, we've both noticed that escorts tend to get hurt more than sweeps or CAP. If the test environment skews towards more escort than sweeps/CAP, we end up with skewed settings. Actual games represent "real conditions" and I think it best to tune to that, not to some "controlled" test which may not reflect situations typical in the game (or typical historically).

tabpub -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 8:50:08 AM)
I think that escorting fighters really get hamstrung when they engage the cap; personally, I am starting to think that all they are good for is taking the "edge" off the cap to make more strikers go in than would otherwise. Kind of like the blocking wedge of a kickoff return. Anyone ever have the idea to set a carrier fighter squad to sweep and see if they would engage enemy cap, preferably before the strike? Would be ballsy in the middle of a PBM, though I suppose an early war test would work. Might have to look it over; if you don't hear from me, it either works or I didn't do it, as I can get lazy...[>:]

ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 10:31:27 AM)
quote: I agree with rtrapasso on the testing thing. AAR's don't tell you enough. someone needs to test equal forces with the exact same stats for pilots and leaders, fatigue and exp. Test it twice (once with Zero's on offense and once with F4F's on offense). Only then will you get the results worth looking at. Oh yeah, test it 4 times. Once in 12/41 and once in 5/42, both sides on offense. I bet you see 10 to 1 losses in 12/41. and 3 to 1 in 5/42. I ran 2 quick tests in Dec 41 of a 3 on 3 US vs IJN CV engagement north of PH. The results may surprise you. (I'll take your bet) So what really happens when 3 US carrier engage 3 IJN carriers at the height of the Zero Bonus. Read on and find out. Stock Scenario 15, v1.6, date 28-29 Dec 41. KB is located at 115,63 at contains Soryu, Zuikaku and Shokaku plus escorts. The US fleet is located at 114,64 and contains Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga plus escorts. Distance is 120 miles (2 hexes). Air Group status as follows: (number in parentheses is experience level) IJN Fleet (1 VF, 1 VB, 1 VT) Zuikaku: 21 Zeroes (80), 24 Vals (79), 24 Kates (80) Shokaku: 21 Zeroes (82), 24 Vals (80), 24 Kates (78) Soryu: 21 Zeroes (89), 21 Vals (87), 21 Kates (86) TOTALS: 63 Zeros, 69 Vals, 69 Kates US Fleet (1 VF, 1 VS, 1 VB, VT) Enterprise: 27 F4F-4s (75), 36 SBDs (81.5), 15 TBDs (81) Lexington: 27 F4F-3s (72), 36 SBDs (84), 12 TBDs (80) Saratoga: 21 F4F-3s (81), 36 SBDs (83.5), 12 TBDs (80) TOTALS: 75 F4Fs, 108 SBDs, 39 TBDs Fighters were set to Escort with 50% CAP. Japanese Kates set to 10% naval search, US Dauntlesses set to 10% naval search. All missions set to 10,000 feet. The test assumes a worst case scenario in regards to the full Zero bonus in effect and an 8 point difference in experience over the US. Attack aircraft have comparable experience levels. Test Number 1 AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/28/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 115,63 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 29 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 13 SBD Dauntless x 33 TBD Devastator x 12 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 5 destroyed SBD Dauntless: 9 destroyed, 15 damaged TBD Devastator: 2 destroyed, 8 damaged Japanese Ships BB Kirishima CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage CA Chikuma CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 1, on fire CV Soryu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 115,63 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 21 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 8 SBD Dauntless x 34 TBD Devastator x 12 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 3 destroyed, 2 damaged SBD Dauntless: 5 destroyed, 24 damaged TBD Devastator: 5 destroyed, 2 damaged Japanese Ships CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 1, on fire BB Kirishima CV Soryu CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 115,63 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 22 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 F4F-4 Wildcat x 13 SBD Dauntless x 34 TBD Devastator x 15 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged SBD Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 17 damaged TBD Devastator: 3 destroyed, 6 damaged Japanese Ships CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 2, on fire BB Kirishima CV Soryu, Bomb hits 1 CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 114,64 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 21 D3A Val x 45 B5N Kate x 62 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 23 F4F-4 Wildcat x 13 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed D3A Val: 7 destroyed, 17 damaged B5N Kate: 13 destroyed, 36 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 15 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied Ships CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 7, on fire, heavy damage CA Northampton CV Enterprise CL Raleigh, Torpedo hits 1, on fire CV Lexington CA Astoria CA Salt Lake City -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 114,64 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 11 D3A Val x 24 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 F4F-4 Wildcat x 8 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val: 14 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 5 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed Allied Ships CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 2 Test 1 Summary: Aircraft Lost (Type/ Air-Air / Flak) Zero / 10 / 0 Val / 2 / 7 Kate / 0 / 14 F4F-3 / 29 / 0 F4F-4 / 14 / 0 SBD / 9 / 10 TBD / 7 / 4 Ship Damage Levels: (Sys / Flot / Fire) Soryu / 13 / 0 / 0 Zuikaku / 36 / 9 / 28 Shokaku / 87 / 48 / 49 Enterprise / 4 / 0 / 0 Lexington / 0 / 0 / 0 Saratoga / Sunk Of the five air battles, 3 of them had the Zero outnumbering the Wildcat by at least 1.5:1, one was at 1:1, the other had the Wildcat outnumbering the Zero by at least 1.5:1. It�s interesting to note that the majority of Wildcat losses came when they had parity with or outnumbered the Zero. Of secondary note, is that neither side succeeded in blunting the effectiveness of the air strikes. I US carrier sunk and 2 undamaged as opposed to 1 IJN carrier heavily damaged, 1 moderately damaged and one minor damage. Had this battle actually been fought during a PBEM, I would have judged it a tactical defeat for the US but also a minor strategic victory for them. Should the Zuikaku sink (which is quite likely given the fire and flood levels), the battle becomes a major tactical and strategic victory for the US. Test Number 2 AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/29/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 115,63 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 30 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 11 SBD Dauntless x 34 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged SBD Dauntless: 13 destroyed, 8 damaged Japanese Ships CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 1 CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 2, on fire BB Kirishima, Bomb hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 115,63 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 25 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 SBD Dauntless x 34 TBD Devastator x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed SBD Dauntless: 4 destroyed, 16 damaged TBD Devastator: 8 destroyed, 11 damaged Japanese Ships CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 2, on fire CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage BB Kirishima, Torpedo hits 1 CV Soryu, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 115,63 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 13 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 6 SBD Dauntless x 34 TBD Devastator x 12 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged SBD Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 11 damaged TBD Devastator: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged Japanese Ships CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage CV Zuikaku, on fire BB Kirishima, Bomb hits 2, on fire CV Soryu, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 114,64 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 22 D3A Val x 45 B5N Kate x 41 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 23 F4F-4 Wildcat x 13 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed D3A Val: 4 destroyed, 25 damaged B5N Kate: 9 destroyed, 23 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 17 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed Allied Ships CL Detroit CV Lexington, Bomb hits 1, on fire CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 5, on fire CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CA Chester CA Northampton CA Salt Lake City -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 114,64 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 11 D3A Val x 24 B5N Kate x 22 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val: 3 destroyed, 15 damaged B5N Kate: 2 destroyed, 18 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat: 4 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied Ships CV Saratoga, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CV Lexington, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire CV Enterprise, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Test 2 Summary: Aircraft Lost (Type/ Air-Air / Flak) Zero / 10 / 0 Val / 2 / 5 Kate / 3 / 10 F4F-3 / 26 / 0 F4F-4 / 12 / 0 SBD / 13 / 7 TBD / 8 / 4 Ship Damage Levels: (Sys / Flot / Fire) Soryu / 94 / 54 / 49 Zuikaku / 50 / 26 / 23 Shokaku / 78 / 59 / 49 Enterprise / Sunk Lexington / 48 / 19 / 13 Saratoga / 59 / 68 / 49 Of the five air battles, 4 of them had the Zero outnumbering the Wildcat by at least 1.5:1, the other had the Wildcat outnumbering the Zero by at least 1.5:1. It�s interesting to note that the majority of Wildcat losses came when they outnumbered the Zero. Once again, neither side succeeded in blunting the effectiveness of the air strikes. One US carrier sunk and two heavily damaged. One of these will probably sink soon. The IJN had 3 carriers heavily damaged of which two IJN carriers will probably sink. Had this battle actually been fought during a PBEM, I would have judged it a minor tactical victory for the US but also a minor strategic victory for them. Assuming worst case scenario and the US has lost 2 CVs along with Japanese, the battle then becomes a major tactical and strategic victory for the US. Japan simply cannot afford to have any fleet carriers sunk or laid up for long periods in the yards. She needs them at sea otherwise she will be unable to defend two fronts simultaneously. Not all Wildcats and Zeros were shot down by opposing fighters but even assuming they were, they results can be attributed more to the 8 point experience difference the Zeros (83.6-75.6) had over the Wildcats than the Zero bonus IMO. I would venture to say that any Allied player should be willing to accept these results as they are disastrous for the Japanese. The Allied carriers will respawn, the Japanese don�t. quote: mdiehl said: Would you risk, as an Allied player, a 2 USN CV vs 2 IJN CV engagement in January 1942 in "neutral waters" with both sides operating rested aircrews, expecting that the result would be a "tactical draw" approximately? If not, then the game does not capture the look and feel of the strategic position of the two combatants in early 1942. Based on my limited test? Absolutely. Oh, and just because the US risked an engagement with the Japanese CVs during the Doolittle Raid doesn't mean they wanted one. It was simply a risky hit and run raid, nothing more.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 11:00:20 AM)
Try it with a six CV KB vs 5 USN CV TFs. The results will be much different unfortunately.[:(]

Andrew Brown -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 1:34:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez I ran 2 quick tests in Dec 41 of a 3 on 3 US vs IJN CV engagement north of PH. The results may surprise you. (I'll take your bet) Very interesting test, and it provides another data point, but I do have a question: Did the two forces start the test two hexes from each other, or did they move towards each other from further away as in a real game? The Japanese have a longer reach and that could make a big difference. Andrew

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625