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

Berkut -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 4:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown 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 His test conditions stated two hexes away. Could you run this test with the bomber squadrons stood down in the hopes of getting pure air-air fights?

rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 4:31:46 PM)
quote: 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. 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. OK - as far as losses go - we are engaged in a desperate struggle over Noumea. I am shovelling in fighters as fast as i can. These are the AIR TO AIR losses. The ACTUAL losses are higher - especially on my side, as the KB can sit off the coast and pound Noumea with relative impunity, although a fair part of the air strikes are coming from Luganville. I have noticed that the air losses in this game exceed anything i've seen posted anywhere else (but then again, i don't read every AAR). I did have Zeros vs. A6Ms in one or two other situations, (i.e. over PH on Dec 7 - Operation Infield), and it would be harder to get at those numbers. However, maybe i will since the Zeros came off (relatively) golden and the Wildcats got massacred in those instances also. It just was a lot easier to come up with this info as a threw in the Wildcats in a fairly isolated timeframe. Again, looking at the AARs doesn't help that much, as you can't tell who is shooting down who. For example (this is one of my better exchanges in the last few weeks - from yesterdays AAR, but the totals are included in the figures i gave above): Day Air attack on TF, near Noumea at 68,113 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 14 A6M3 Zero x 38 G3M Nell x 18 G4M1 Betty x 58 Ki-49 Helen x 13 Allied aircraft Fulmar x 6 F4F-4 Wildcat x 23 Hurricane II x 1 Spitfire Vb x 1 Kittyhawk I x 24 P-36A Mohawk x 11 P-39D Airacobra x 18 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged A6M3 Zero: 17 destroyed, 2 damaged G3M Nell: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged G4M1 Betty: 5 destroyed, 6 damaged Ki-49 Helen: 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses Fulmar: 3 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed, 7 damaged Spitfire Vb: 1 damaged Kittyhawk I: 15 destroyed P-36A Mohawk: 6 destroyed P-39D Airacobra: 10 destroyed ------ 52 Zeros vs. 84 Allied fighters, the Zeros escorting bombers, engaged over the Allied base with radar. 21 Zeros lost, 42 Allied fighters lost. Looking at these results, it's impossible to tell who shot down whom. These results are actually far better than the things i've seen in the past couple of weeks, and i suspect it is because in the past 2 days he has thrown partially trained A6M3s into the fray (which have gotten shot down seemingly much easier). The only way you can guess who is shooting down whom is to carefully watch the combat replay animations, and even then it is difficult as it doesn't always indicate which aircraft type is firing at the destroyed aircraft (it should, but i can't see it). Also no way to pause the action (although i guess i could slow it way down). But even at "normal" speed looking at the replay took 20+ minutes. Actually, in this latest engagement the Wildcats did better - again because of the A6M3 victories. As far as the 1:1 ratio "GOLD STANDARD UNDER OPTIMAL CONDITIONS" - maybe i am disremembering, but the 1 to 1 ratio was about the WORST ratio the USN had against the Zero with the Wildcat (in fairly large battles), and these engagements were not under "optimal" conditions (i.e. - some of them were over the IJN fleet). The overall ratio was somewhat better. Even so, essentially ALL my engagements have taken place over my base at Noumea, with radar assistance, while the Zeros are escorting bombers from 3 to 8 hexes (iirc), so they (the Zeros) should be at a marked DISADVANTAGE. EDIT: There seems to be some confusion about my claims, so i will quote my original position: quote: 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. RE-EDIT: The snippet i posted was from my latest AAR, which was the only one i had available at the time i wrote the message.

Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 4:33:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez 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. Running a test like this is a step in the right direction, however, this highlights the problem with going by ARRs. The number of aircraft shot down and damaged is not attributable strictly to fighter vs fighter combat, All those hundreds of TB and DB invilved surley added to those totals - and if they didn't something else is definately wrong. The only sure solution is to run a great many of controlled tests strictly fighter vs fighter to get a range of results to compare and they have to be apples to apples to mean anything - same numbers, same fatigue, etc.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 4:50:12 PM)
Interesting test. I can see immediately that A2A fighter losses are 4:1 favoring the zero. And, US bomber losses are 5 times as many as Japanese (A2A). Hmmmm.... I can see that the Wildcat is such a great fighter now. The US, despite having almost 30% more aircraft can barely eek out a tactical draw. (I wouldn't call it a draw, though, as the US airgroups were all decimated and the Japanese ones came out relatively good. Not great, but certainly not decimated)

Sonny -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:05:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown 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 Quite an undertaking. But if you could, try reducing the aggressiveness of the leaders (maybe instead of the experience). No hard data here but it seems to me that in large battles the aggressiveness just keeps the battle going. It has been said that a unit attacks all the enemy units ( not sure if this is correct because I do not watch the a2a closely enough). If it is the case then increasing the number of units increases the number of combats geometrically (or is it exponentially)? My theory/guess is that aggressiveness is checked for each of these attacks. By lowering the aggressiveness many of the combats would not take place. If this holds true then the experience could stay the same for everyone. By lowering the experience a set amount, say 20, you increase the relative advantage of the higher rated pilots - if the experience numbers are use multiplicatively - which is not a certainty. Sound like a lot of gibberish? May be. But it is something to consider.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:26:05 PM)
quote: 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. The Japanese CVs were static in the hex they fought in. The US CVs moved up from PH. It was an interesting test as I thought the IJN CVs would be able to deal out far more damage than they received. Obviously not the case in this particular run. Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:29:19 PM)
quote: Try it with a six CV KB vs 5 USN CV TFs. The results will be much different unfortunately. The Allies can't get 5 CVs together and in range of KB until after the Zero bonus is gone (unless KB goes to Eastpac). Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:38:58 PM)
quote: The US, despite having almost 30% more aircraft can barely eek out a tactical draw. (I wouldn't call it a draw, though, as the US airgroups were all decimated and the Japanese ones came out relatively good. Not great, but certainly not decimated) What you didn't see, especially in the second test is that two IJN air groups ditched at sea due to CV damage. Some of the Allied aircraft managed to make PH. Regardless, with the Allied capability of replacing their air groups with trained pilots and the Japanese unable to due so then who do you think ends up in a better position after the battle? This test proved to me that 3 US CVs can go head to head with a similar number of IJN CVs at the height of the Zero bonus and dish out severe punishment. The results of the first test actually come pretty close to what happened at the Coral Sea IRL. Yorktown, BTW, had only 4 F4Fs left after that battle. Both CV groups had their airwings decimated. Same at Midway. Chez

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:41:12 PM)
quote: 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 No. Because the USN vs IJN engagements were relatively "pure" engagements in 1942 and those combats resulted in attrition ratios that favored the USN. I see that Chez has tested and note that the results from his two combats are 38:10 and 43: or roughly four to one in favor of the IJN. That's just flat out wrong. It ought to be about 1.2:1 favoring the USN although I could live with 1:1 as a decent approximation. The overall kill ratio is, I note, 59:15 (fav Japan) and 59:11 (fav Japan) about 4.5:1to5:1. And that result is totally absurd. In ftf multitype encounters (just taking totals shot down in A2A) the US kill ratio, even throwing in the first two months of the Guadalcanal campaign (which was the IJN's "best moment" A2A wise) was about 2.2:1 favoring the US. (Because of a variety of considerations, including the vulnerability of the A6M to defensive fire from SBDs, and the fact that F4Fs basically fought the A6Ms to a draw while at the same time wreaking havoc on Japanese single-engined bombers). So there is, at least if Chez's numbers are common, empirical proof that the A2A model is broken. IMO. And I think they are common. The AARs support something like that as did my trial use of WitP and my use of UV. quote: The US, despite having almost 30% more aircraft can barely eek out a tactical draw. That's my assessment too. And the 4:1 kill ratio favoring Japan in A2A is absolutely a flatly egregiously wrong result by historical standards.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:45:52 PM)
You are putting situational criteria in this test. What if the test happened near Wake on Dec 8th (Japanese occupied already). Then Japan wouldn't lose airgroups to ditching and the US would. Maybe there's a port nearby that Japan can use to save any damaged CV, likewise the US damaged ones are in danger of sinking before they make port. I view this factor as a null issue in your test. Tests should be done with identical factors. Either both sides near LBA support or not near LBA support. Both sides EXP the same. Same number of aircraft. 4 or 5 to 1 exchange rates in aircraft lost is not my idea of a draw or victory, especially when the losing side had advantage in numbers.

jwilkerson -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: Try it with a six CV KB vs 5 USN CV TFs. The results will be much different unfortunately. The Allies can't get 5 CVs together and in range of KB until after the Zero bonus is gone (unless KB goes to Eastpac). Chez Then try 4 USN CV versus 3 IJN CV and 3 IJN CVL ... assumption being the US will probably not engage full death star ( 6 CV and 3 CVL ) but instead would engage elsewhere on the map if deathstar appeaers. However if KB is split ( 3 CV east and 3 CV west ) and baby KB joins half of the split ... perhaps US CV would enage ... this is probably the outter boundary of conditions under which US would engage ( in the game ). But put US CV in single carrier TF ... and put IJN CV in 2-3 carrier TFs ... if I am running US I would never engage except in single carrier TF ( have to avoid the strike penalty - and want to do defensive split ) ... but what Ron is trying to get to is the "Uber Cap" effect of 70+ zeros over KB which your test avoided ... it is the Uber CAP effect that generates to wild result. Also maybe put CAP on 70% for both sides to increase likely hood of Uber CAP effects.

rtrapasso -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 5:48:51 PM)
From another thread: quote: I am writing in my diary that, in the event of my demise due to choking on food or drink while at the computer, you be investigated for involvement in some way and if found culpable, that you be sued for my wrongful death with the proceeds going to the following charities: the IWDAEWRFS (Idiots Who Drink And Eat While Reading Funny Sht), WiTP Widow's Fund and ZBWGAFFF! (Zero Bonus, Who Gives A Flying Fck Fund!). The latter goes to reader's who suffer eyestrain trying to read all of the posts in those neverending threads which never resolve anything and resemble monkeys throwing feces at each other by the time they end. I guess i am one of the monkeys at this point. I don't think anything i can post (even with doing additional hours of research) is going to change anyone's opinion. So, before i start to ACTUALLY start throwing feces, i am will watch the discussion without further comment.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 6:03:18 PM)
/throws feces [:D]

Demosthenes -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 6:16:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl I see that Chez has tested and note that the results from his two combats are 38:10 and 43: or roughly four to one in favor of the IJN. That's just flat out wrong. It ought to be about 1.2:1 favoring the USN although I could live with 1:1 as a decent approximation. The overall kill ratio is, I note, 59:15 (fav Japan) and 59:11 (fav Japan) about 4.5:1to5:1. And that result is totally absurd. the 4:1 kill ratio favoring Japan in A2A is absolutely a flatly egregiously wrong result by historical standards. Well noted Mdiehl, I will also add that the above result dovetails nicely with Big B's test results of air combat over Manila Dec 1941 he posted: 88 to 11, 46 to 142, and 34 to 133. All of which were pure fighter vs fighter, and fit into the overwhelming Japanese kill ratio pattern that Chez's own posted test shows. It may not be much the effect of Zero Bonus at work, but something is definately consistantly skewed in their favor.

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/15/2005 6:20:42 PM)
quote: and resemble monkeys throwing feces at each other by the time they end. [8\|] That was a predictable response though. If one does not like the possibility that a consensus may build in favor of an opposing point of view one may always trash the conversation and pretend it does not matter. I wonder if that's what the person you quoted was trying to accomplish.

doktorblood -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 2:47:10 AM)
I couldn't stand it any more .... so I made a real test ... F4F-4 vs A6m2. Identical level 6 bases with 100,000 supply on islands 4 hexes apart.. no flak units present. One size 36 group of each ...60 exp 99 moral with identical leaders ...60 leadership, 60 inspiration, 60 air skill and 70 aggressiveness. These are fabricated groups so as not to draw any historical pilots. 200 replacement pilots in each pool ...both rated at 60. Running a Home and Away series. Each group takes turns running sweep mission on each others base with one turn in between to rest and draw replacement pilots. Visitors run sweep 30% cap ..Home team on escort 70% cap. Preliminary result so far with no Zero bonus ... After 3 raids each way (6 combats) score is 12 Wildcats lost ... 14 Zero lost .. all AtA, no operational losses. I found it interesting that Wildcat has only had to draw 6 aircrew to make good their 12 losses and Zero had to draw 11 aircrew to make good their 14 losses. I'm going to adjust my method a bit to continue. I gave each base a air HQ and the Allied HQ leader (Kenny .. 5thAF) is much better than the Jap HQ leader. I am going to remove these HQs before further testing ...it may be skewing the result a bit.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 3:18:07 AM)
quote: I found it interesting that Wildcat has only had to draw 6 aircrew to make good their 12 losses and Zero had to draw 11 aircrew to make good their 14 losses. I think that's a direct reflection of the differences in durability and armor ratings and fits well with the historical record. US pilots had reasonable chance of surviving air combat, Zero pilots did not. Chez

Big B -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 4:13:34 AM)
Here are the combat results of (I lost count) 45 to 48 squadron vs squadron actions in Dec 1941. Aircraft involved were equal, 6x (27 aircraft) Daitai of A6M2 vs 3x (27 aircraft) squadrons of F4F4 (2x USN and 1x USMC) and 3x (27 aircraft) squadrons of P40E (all USAAF). Each operated out of it's own base on Luzon with 300 av support and 55,000 supply. Method was to have 1 unit sweep an 1 enemy unit so as to result in 6 equal air combats per turn. I quckly changed from alternating CAP and Sweep to all US Sweep because the superior IJNAF exp resulted in unequal encounters - the US would not get enough a/c up for CAP and consequently find itself outnumbered by 2 to 1. I put 6 level 6 airfields on Luzon for the Japanese and likewise for the US forces - so all combat ranges were short (1 to 4 hexes). The dates will show that in the entire month only 8 days were used for ops so everyone was reasonbly fresh with time off between missions. All units were DEFAULT exp ratings and Morale. Totals at the end were as follows: 62 A6M2 destroyed air to air, against 104 F4F Wildcats and 76 P40E - Total 180 US aircraft. See below: ------------------------------------------------------ AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/08/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Naga , at 44,54 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 9 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Bataan , at 42,51 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 27 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 9 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lingayen , at 44,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lingayen , at 44,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 7 destroyed, 2 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Vigan , at 44,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Tuguegarao , at 46,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 destroyed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/10/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Legaspi , at 44,55 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 27 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lingayen , at 44,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Vigan , at 44,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Laoag , at 45,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 6 destroyed, 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Aparri , at 46,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 12 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 24 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Tuguegarao , at 46,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 33 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 20 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 11 destroyed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/12/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Bataan , at 42,51 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 27 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 12 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on San Marcelino , at 43,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 27 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 15 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 9 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lamon Bay , at 44,52 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 27 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 13 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 24 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 9 No Japanese losses No Allied losses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/19/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Naga , at 44,54 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 5 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Vigan , at 44,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 38 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Laoag , at 45,49 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 No Allied losses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Aparri , at 46,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 9 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 3 No Japanese losses No Allied losses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Tuguegarao , at 46,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lingayen , at 44,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/23/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Naga , at 44,54 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 10 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lingayen , at 44,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Vigan , at 44,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 13 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Laoag , at 45,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 24 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 6 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/26/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Naga , at 44,54 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 19 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Vigan , at 44,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 33 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 11 destroyed, 2 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Laoag , at 45,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 10 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 26 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Tuguegarao , at 46,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lingayen , at 44,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 17 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/28/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Naga , at 44,54 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 17 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lingayen , at 44,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 28 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 6 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 9 destroyed, 2 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Vigan , at 44,49 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 17 No Allied losses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Laoag , at 45,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 23 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Aparri , at 46,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Tuguegarao , at 46,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 5 destroyed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/31/41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Naga , at 44,54 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 23 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Lingayen , at 44,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 36 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 24 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 15 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Vigan , at 44,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 32 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 21 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Laoag , at 45,49 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 3 No Allied losses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Aparri , at 46,49 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 24 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 27 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed, 3 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Tuguegarao , at 46,50 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 13 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 27 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 1 damaged ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ Gentlemen, overall these losses are too high on the US side for clean fighter vs. fighter action (no bushwacks on take offs or landings, or facing odds of 10 to 1 or higher). Zero Bonus? Probably no much effect here. Exp (over)Ratings? I think so.... Big B [image]local://upfiles/16855/503D95763C524C46AE4699F539269BBA.jpg[/image]

Big B -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 4:26:11 AM)
results [image]local://upfiles/16855/354EBADE02EA43FBA568B089B5870DE5.jpg[/image]

m10bob -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 7:09:36 AM)
Dereck and Ron have got me to thinking about a game I played many moons ago with aircraft miniatures. There was a rule book for fighting models clipped to dowel rods and different formulaes were employed to simulate each value of aircraft, such as firepower, wingloading, power to weight ratio, etc. The numbers were pretty valid (as far as their results), because they were based on known aerodynamics of the "prototype". Since the rule book could not give the breakdown for every plane on earth, the formula was given in the book, (for those players who wished to take the time to use rare/unusual planes, (like the Buffalo). As I recall,the durability and armor could be figured roughly by adding the width to the length and dividing by number of engines,(to compensate for the heaviest factors). Thus, a single engine plane like the P 47 had a real armor advantage over an I 16 (for instance). I don't remember the name of the rule book, its' been maybe 25 yrs, but the power to weight was figured similarly, and could give the amount of speed a plane loses in a sustained turn, over time. Wingloading was width and depth of the wing combined and divided by the HP of the engine(s).Types of wing were not considered, since "it was just a game" and the rulebook author was trying to keep it simple. (Ergo, no compensation for Davis wing, etc.) Instead of a "Zero bonus", I think Ron has a very sound idea, of re-visiting the experience levels of the pilots themselves.

Herrbear -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 7:29:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Dereck and Ron have got me to thinking about a game I played many moons ago with aircraft miniatures. There was a rule book for fighting models clipped to dowel rods and different formulaes were employed to simulate each value of aircraft, such as firepower, wingloading, power to weight ratio, etc. The numbers were pretty valid (as far as their results), because they were based on known aerodynamics of the "prototype". Since the rule book could not give the breakdown for every plane on earth, the formula was given in the book, (for those players who wished to take the time to use rare/unusual planes, (like the Buffalo). As I recall,the durability and armor could be figured roughly by adding the width to the length and dividing by number of engines,(to compensate for the heaviest factors). Thus, a single engine plane like the P 47 had a real armor advantage over an I 16 (for instance). I don't remember the name of the rule book, its' been maybe 25 yrs, but the power to weight was figured similarly, and could give the amount of speed a plane loses in a sustained turn, over time. Wingloading was width and depth of the wing combined and divided by the HP of the engine(s).Types of wing were not considered, since "it was just a game" and the rulebook author was trying to keep it simple. (Ergo, no compensation for Davis wing, etc.) Instead of a "Zero bonus", I think Ron has a very sound idea, of re-visiting the experience levels of the pilots themselves. I believe the game you are talking about is called "Mustangs and Messerschmitts".

m10bob -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 7:42:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Dereck and Ron have got me to thinking about a game I played many moons ago with aircraft miniatures. There was a rule book for fighting models clipped to dowel rods and different formulaes were employed to simulate each value of aircraft, such as firepower, wingloading, power to weight ratio, etc. The numbers were pretty valid (as far as their results), because they were based on known aerodynamics of the "prototype". Since the rule book could not give the breakdown for every plane on earth, the formula was given in the book, (for those players who wished to take the time to use rare/unusual planes, (like the Buffalo). As I recall,the durability and armor could be figured roughly by adding the width to the length and dividing by number of engines,(to compensate for the heaviest factors). Thus, a single engine plane like the P 47 had a real armor advantage over an I 16 (for instance). I don't remember the name of the rule book, its' been maybe 25 yrs, but the power to weight was figured similarly, and could give the amount of speed a plane loses in a sustained turn, over time. Wingloading was width and depth of the wing combined and divided by the HP of the engine(s).Types of wing were not considered, since "it was just a game" and the rulebook author was trying to keep it simple. (Ergo, no compensation for Davis wing, etc.) Instead of a "Zero bonus", I think Ron has a very sound idea, of re-visiting the experience levels of the pilots themselves. I believe the game you are talking about is called "Mustangs and Messerschmitts". NO, but thanks anyway......................... Some of the games' parameters were viable because they were developed using actual aerodynamics.

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 5:57:04 PM)
quote: Zero Bonus? Probably no much effect here. Exp (over)Ratings? I think so.... Thanks for the tests. That was IMO a very pure test of the core results of the game design. Certainly the Zero bonus was a contributing factor, but there are alot of things that could be changed perhaps EXP for example to bring the results into the right ballpark at least. I wonder how the durability affects all this? I've noticed that in A2A not enough Japanese aircraft of any type are lost in a mixed combat. If one left the Zero bonus the same and the EXP the same and halved the durability of all unarmored/non-self-sealing tank a/c would the results feel more like RL?

Honda -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 7:42:29 PM)
Zero is already a match-box - as it's suppose to be and as it really was. In an A2A engagement Zero almost never gets damaged, it's always destroyed. When they do get damaged it's only when fighting early war allied fighters, and then again, not too often. You should check it out. When intercepting heavies, you really get to see how pathetic they get. The best way to deal with Zeros in early war is to fly as much heavies you can get your hands on into a Zero CAP and watch the massacre. Nothing kills Zero aces like a B-17. So belive me, if Zero durability got reduced even more, there wouldn't be any point in playing the game. I think that's obvious to EVERYONE. Again, I'm not here talking about raising the Zero durability but not lowering it. Obviously...

Big B -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 7:47:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: Zero Bonus? Probably no much effect here. Exp (over)Ratings? I think so.... Thanks for the tests. That was IMO a very pure test of the core results of the game design. Certainly the Zero bonus was a contributing factor, but there are alot of things that could be changed perhaps EXP for example to bring the results into the right ballpark at least. I wonder how the durability affects all this? I've noticed that in A2A not enough Japanese aircraft of any type are lost in a mixed combat. If one left the Zero bonus the same and the EXP the same and halved the durability of all unarmored/non-self-sealing tank a/c would the results feel more like RL? Thanks, I would like to state that I did everything I could to keep the test even, such as raising the USMC sqdn from the random rating of 53 the computer gave them - up to 65, I also fired one P40 sqdn leader shortly in to the game as he was only a 43/43 and was bringing his unit down, so I replaced him with a 'hot shot' leader and things improved dramatically for that sqdn. In short - I was not trying to make it easy for the Japanese just to make the zero bonus look bad. Had I not increased a/c replacements for the P40E and F4F4 from 20 to 150 each, and had I intended to show just how much the Zeros could stomp them and finish them off - I can assure you I could easily have gotten twice the kill rate by just letting attrition eat the Americans up so badly they would have always been seriously outnumbered, as I recall that's how I got an 8 to 1 kill rate on my first test - so I never repeated that again (even though in a real game you will destroy units like I did in test #1). But that was not my purpose or intent, I merely wanted to see what the game engine will spit out given a little time. I suppose I could run it all over again without the bonus to see what - if any - difference it makes. B

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 8:29:57 PM)
quote: When intercepting heavies, you really get to see how pathetic they get. The best way to deal with Zeros in early war is to fly as much heavies you can get your hands on into a Zero CAP and watch the massacre. Nothing kills Zero aces like a B-17. That is not so far fetchhed. A6M2s had a hell of a time with B17s and eventually conceded that it was generally unwise to go near one. Heck, even in New Guinea air campaigns you read Sakai's account and read between the lines you see that there were places the Zeke dared not go. The iron dog pilots learned not to climb to 20,000 feet to engage Zekes, and that is (rightly) a negative observation on the qualities of the P-39. On the other hand, Sakai lamented that the P-39s refused after the first couple of fights to come up to the A6Ms altitude and play... which is a frank admission that the A6Ms were also unwilling to descend to the P-39s altitude and play. That was because at less than 12,000 feet, the P-39 was hells' bells on the A6M, the P-39 being MUCH faster, and more maneuverable, and better armed, and better armored.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 9:11:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: When intercepting heavies, you really get to see how pathetic they get. The best way to deal with Zeros in early war is to fly as much heavies you can get your hands on into a Zero CAP and watch the massacre. Nothing kills Zero aces like a B-17. That is not so far fetchhed. A6M2s had a hell of a time with B17s and eventually conceded that it was generally unwise to go near one. Heck, even in New Guinea air campaigns you read Sakai's account and read between the lines you see that there were places the Zeke dared not go. The iron dog pilots learned not to climb to 20,000 feet to engage Zekes, and that is (rightly) a negative observation on the qualities of the P-39. On the other hand, Sakai lamented that the P-39s refused after the first couple of fights to come up to the A6Ms altitude and play... which is a frank admission that the A6Ms were also unwilling to descend to the P-39s altitude and play. That was because at less than 12,000 feet, the P-39 was hells' bells on the A6M, the P-39 being MUCH faster, and more maneuverable, and better armed, and better armored. This is one of the glaring problems with the model. It relies too much on concepts from previous releases, either theirs or other. Funny how the P-39 and P-400 are the only planes with such negative baggage in this game. Oh,and the Zero Bonus of course.[:)] If one is going to highlight pros and cons of an aircraft, all aircraft should then be judged, not just a few.

el cid again -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 10:02:33 PM)
quote: Leave the bonus and experience as is. Yamato Hugger is right. I concur. Having said that, I appear to have done just that - unintentionally - if you theory about it being slot defined is true! The Zero bonus is a combination of things - technical and tactical. The Zero was really a pioneer in some respects (cannon for example - although Thailand had a tiny number of planes earlier). It leads the world in range performance. It is more maneuverable than typical planes at the time of its introduction. Its pilots had an AVERAGE of 5000 flight hours experience - combat experience at that. And Cdr Genda had identified a special tactical concept which was taught widely - even adopted by the Army. Really the Ki-43 shoud ALSO have the Zero bonus as well - it is even MORE maneuverable - it has combat experienced pilots - and the Army had adopted Gendas tactical method. Eventually the bonus goes away - and this is correct. Japan failed to evolve - and its enemies did evolve - so it really went away. Also the experience level of pilots dropped drastically due to the effects of attrition and slow training rates. Now to RESTORE the Zero Bonus!!!

mdiehl -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 10:24:00 PM)
quote: The Zero bonus is a combination of things - technical and tactical. None of which have yet been identified as being intrinsically something other than a property of the aircraft itself (mvr, range) that is already modeled in the game through other mechanisms. quote: The Zero was really a pioneer in some respects (cannon for example - although Thailand had a tiny number of planes earlier). Uh, no. The Zero's cannon was inferior to comparable A2A aircraft cannon used by the US and the Allies and the Euroaxis. The first really meaty A2A cannon was the 37mm used on the iron dog in 1939 -- which was designed initially to be a bomber killer. The ME109 was the first operational a/c to go into mass production with a 20mm. quote: It leads the world in range performance. Generally, no. Specifically in 1942, yes. But only because it obtained such range by sacrificing all armor protection. The A6M2 was the logical extremis of the principles underlying WW1 fighter design. In short, it was (despite some early successes it experienced owing primarily to good operational planning and superior numbers), a "war too late." quote: It is more maneuverable than typical planes at the time of its introduction. That is incorrect. It was only more maneuverable at lower airspeeds. And maneuverability can be measured in many ways. Most Allied a/c had faster roll rates than the Zero, which is important for initiating a turn. At speeds in excess of about 280 mph the Zero was less maneuverable, in every respect, than even the F4F wildcat or the P-39 airacobra. quote: Its pilots had an AVERAGE of 5000 flight hours experience - combat experience at that. That is incorrect. Its pilots had an average of about 700 hours of experience, of which typically less than 50 hours was combat experience in missions that might encounter enemy aircraft. quote: And Cdr Genda had identified a special tactical concept which was taught widely - even adopted by the Army. Which was what, exactly? The flawed 3-plane section? The lack of intensive training in deflection shooting? The general poor coordination of aircraft once combat was initiated? Frankly, Allied training emphasized better doctrine even before the war began.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions? (12/16/2005 10:33:04 PM)
Oh boy. mdiehl vs elcid. Guy who didn't even buy the game vs. elcid. Notorious Allied fanboi and one of the most obnoxious posters on WITP board vs. one of the most knowledgable guys on all things Japanese and Chinese. <grabs popcorn> Don't disappoint us guys. [sm=sterb029.gif]

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828125