RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (Full Version)

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



Message

el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/15/2006 12:00:10 PM)

Wikipedia is a book?

A wiki is a group - anyone can put in anything. Wikipedia is just the biggest wiki of all time. It is a most dangerous source and never to be trusted unless you validate what you read. And I have no data on the roll rate of a Zero - not even though I have half a dozen books dedicated to it - including one on the first we ever got to examine - complete with the technical report done on it. While I do not doubt we can get roll data for some Zero - there is one at Tillimook we might test if need be - the problem remains: we need a consistent and scholarly source for ALL planes, or failing that, a way to calculate it from data in the standard sources which is sound and can be shown to work. I do not believe there is any single consistent source of this data - the ideal case - nor even a combination of sources - the fall back case. And I would love to be pointed at such materials. I pretty much have the standard materials related to aircraft - more than a major library does - and I am not aware of where to find this data. But a wiki? Not only will you not find this data for most planes in it, you cannot know if the data is any good without finding it in a better place. If you could do that - just use the better place and be done with it.



el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/15/2006 12:03:31 PM)

Yes Herrbear

You got power loading right as far as calculating it goes

it is total weight / total power

But no, lower power loading is not more maneuverable. Rather more power = more maneuverable. The real dogs of the air have horrible power to weight ratings.

You may be mixing this up with wing loading. Lower wing loading is better for maneuverability.



herwin -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 12:18:10 PM)

OK, here's a formula:

The log2(exchange rate) = -0.86*log2(wing loading) + 0.53*log2(power loading) + 0.28*(maximum speed)/10 +
0.38*log2(initial rate of climb) + 0.5*(number of combats survived up to eight) + C.

I didn't include roll rate in the 1976 analysis, although you could roll out of a combat with a Zero. Try this: figure out the resulting ratings for a F4F and an A6M2, and then estimate the coefficient that when multiplied by the log2(roll rate at 200-250 knots) equalises the two. I suspect it will be on the order of +0.5.

By the way, C is an arbitrary constant.



el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 2:21:13 PM)

Regretfully, we can't use a formula with "number of combats survived"
(or "number of combats" of any sort) because we must enter a single value for the airframe - regardless of the experiene of the pilot! Pilot experience is a different function - and IS present in WITP - but not in the maneuverability rating of the airframe.

I have begun to see that the issue of roll overcoming angular momentum is a justification for the formula we presently use. To the extent that roll rate matters, multi-engine planes don't do it. Our formula gives them credit for their speed and ROC - but penalizes them for (in effect) poor roll rates - by making the penalty inversely proportional to the number of engines.

Now the formula Herwin proposes above is very interesting - but attributes far too little of the rating to speed. The WITP code may originally have expected purely speed for maneuverability (one programmer guessed that was the case - and some of the data supports the theory in the form of speed/10). It appears later to have included ROC - and possibly other factors (in particular double wings on biplanes).
Now speed and ROC really do matter a lot - so much that the Japanese insistence on extreme "maneuverability" in the sense we usually think of it was not as important as faster and fater climbing planes - at least eventually (when we figured out a thing or two). To the extent we modify our rating in favor of planes with less wing loading (etc), we are going to make things like Ki-27 and A5M4 (and Zero) look better. And we are going to make F3Fs and F4Fs and many P-xx planes look worse. I am not sure this is really the intent the critics of the rating system have in mind. Worse, we may find P-38 fares worse as well.

Running the numbers a variety of different ways produces this remarkable conclusion: one can do a lot of math to come to very similar results with what we have right now. I DO think that biplanes are not well represented in the RHS formula - and wing loading will help address that - but I suspect that power loading is more or less going to be very similar (relatively speaking) to ROC values. So increasing the non-speed part of the function is likely to benefit biplanes to a degree, and all fighters vs dogs (in terms of ROC and power loading). That may be exactly what we want to do - for relative to true bombers and transports - P-38 (and other 2E fighters) are going to look better. But they really are not going to look better relative to Zeros and other 1E planes - and in fact worse compared to a Pete - which I fear may be both accurate and unpopular.
P-38s could not really dog fight with Zeros very well - and were much better advised to dive on them from above - gaining still more speed in the dive - and not attempting to continue the fight after the firing pass.
Zeros in particular were not very good at diving, had no armor to protect against hits, making any guns (and guns in numbers on US planes) always effective. If something went wrong, the P-38 had armor - and the Zero's only rapid fire guns were .30 cals - which the armor often could stop. It may be a problem in the WITP air model is that players cannot specify any sort of tactics (other than altitude). This forces a P-38 into an extended combat it may not be wise to engage in. On the other hand, given its armor - and ability to go home after losing an engine on occasion - it may be that extended combats actually hurt Zeros even more? Testing will tell.

Oh - for testing - run the test bed through turn one BEFORE saving it for test use. That way you get a common seed for all tests. A new seed is generated on turn 1 - but the Japanese "player" always starts with the same seed on every turn after turn 1. [That is, in any particular game, the seed is handed on from turn to turn, and you can restart a turn and get the same results because the same turn will always start with the same seed]. This way, test results are not affected by different random number seeds. [There are enough variables to worry about without that to confuse things]



herwin -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 2:45:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Regretfully, we can't use a formula with "number of combats survived"

Then ignore it.
quote:


(or "number of combats" of any sort) because we must enter a single value for the airframe - regardless of the experiene of the pilot! Pilot experience is a different function - and IS present in WITP - but not in the maneuverability rating of the airframe.

I have begun to see that the issue of roll overcoming angular momentum is a justification for the formula we presently use. To the extent that roll rate matters, multi-engine planes don't do it. Our formula gives them credit for their speed and ROC - but penalizes them for (in effect) poor roll rates - by making the penalty inversely proportional to the number of engines.

Now the formula Herwin proposes above is very interesting - but attributes far too little of the rating to speed. The WITP code may originally have expected purely speed for maneuverability (one programmer guessed that was the case - and some of the data supports the theory in the form of speed/10). It appears later to have included ROC - and possibly other factors (in particular double wings on biplanes).

Actually, the value of speed is quite high in the formula. You get +1 for about a 30 knot increment, and you can't get a lot of increments for the other elements.
quote:


Now speed and ROC really do matter a lot - so much that the Japanese insistence on extreme "maneuverability" in the sense we usually think of it was not as important as faster and fater climbing planes - at least eventually (when we figured out a thing or two). To the extent we modify our rating in favor of planes with less wing loading (etc), we are going to make things like Ki-27 and A5M4 (and Zero) look better. And we are going to make F3Fs and F4Fs and many P-xx planes look worse. I am not sure this is really the intent the critics of the rating system have in mind. Worse, we may find P-38 fares worse as well.

Running the numbers a variety of different ways produces this remarkable conclusion: one can do a lot of math to come to very similar results with what we have right now. I DO think that biplanes are not well represented in the RHS formula - and wing loading will help address that - but I suspect that power loading is more or less going to be very similar (relatively speaking) to ROC values. So increasing the non-speed part of the function is likely to benefit biplanes to a degree, and all fighters vs dogs (in terms of ROC and power loading). That may be exactly what we want to do - for relative to true bombers and transports - P-38 (and other 2E fighters) are going to look better. But they really are not going to look better relative to Zeros and other 1E planes - and in fact worse compared to a Pete - which I fear may be both accurate and unpopular.
P-38s could not really dog fight with Zeros very well - and were much better advised to dive on them from above - gaining still more speed in the dive - and not attempting to continue the fight after the firing pass.
Zeros in particular were not very good at diving, had no armor to protect against hits, making any guns (and guns in numbers on US planes) always effective. If something went wrong, the P-38 had armor - and the Zero's only rapid fire guns were .30 cals - which the armor often could stop. It may be a problem in the WITP air model is that players cannot specify any sort of tactics (other than altitude). This forces a P-38 into an extended combat it may not be wise to engage in. On the other hand, given its armor - and ability to go home after losing an engine on occasion - it may be that extended combats actually hurt Zeros even more? Testing will tell.

Oh - for testing - run the test bed through turn one BEFORE saving it for test use. That way you get a common seed for all tests. A new seed is generated on turn 1 - but the Japanese "player" always starts with the same seed on every turn after turn 1. [That is, in any particular game, the seed is handed on from turn to turn, and you can restart a turn and get the same results because the same turn will always start with the same seed]. This way, test results are not affected by different random number seeds. [There are enough variables to worry about without that to confuse things]



el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 3:05:11 PM)

I will play with it.



Mike Scholl -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 3:09:46 PM)

Some "ramdom thoughts" from a non-aironautical engineer.

SPEED Seems to be the biggest determining factor of wether or not there will even be combat. The side with a significant advantage in speed (or altitude, which can be "traded" for speed) gets to choose IF there will be combat, and under what set of perameters it will take place.

MANUEVERABILITY Roll rate, climb rate, turn rate, wing loading, and all this other "nifty stuff" comes into play once combat is actually joined and helps determine who gets a shot at who and when and how often. But the faster and higher side determines which of these factors will be the most useful when it initiates the combat. Less of a "factor" when dealing with bomber formations, because they aren't trying to manuever anyway, but trying to bring enough of the 3rd factor into play to discourage/destroy the attacker.

FIREPOWER How much "effect" can you put "on target" and how quickly? Obviously more is generally better, until it's weight begins to effect the Manueverability and Speed factors, because a shorter "burst" is more likely to inflict damage.

DURABILITY How much "punishment" can the airframe absorb "on average"? Obviously, a single bullet to the head of the pilot will bring down most A/C, unless they have larger crews and a co-pilot ready to take the controls. But for a "formula" to work, we have to achieve an "average amount of damage recieved" consensus concerning each airframe's vulnerability. The amount at which it "might still survive"; or "might have gone down already" are relatively equal. Armor, structural strength, radial engines, and other things effect this, as well as sheer size.

(PILOT SKILL is the "kicker" and can equalize a number of the factors above. Fortunately for this discussion it's a different formula.)

So all that is necessary is to juggle the four factors above into a usable set of formulas. Go to it! (Does make it obvious why the Japanese were generally "hurting" through much of the war. The allied A/C were generally faster, so they could choose attacks that utilized their own particular advantages in "manueverability". In Firepower they were at least equal or better in most cases, and in Durability almost always superior. When Japanese pilot skill began to deteriorate, while Allied improved, they were really caught between "a rock and a hard place". No wonder Kamikaze tactics appealed to them - by 1944-45 any mission they flew had a "suicidal" factor to it, so you might as well "go for the gusto" and do it officially.)




Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 7:55:32 PM)

Mike, you're random thoughts are spot on.  El Cid & Herwin, your desire to mathematically calculate manueverability values is commendable.

Hate to be pessimistic, but it's all meaningless in game terms because the air combat formula is broken, nerfed, borked or what ever you want to call.  No matter how good the data is, it's going to spit out junk.  It's just a numbers game - who's got more planes - with the differentials between manueverability and speed, etc modifying this. 

Please try setting the all the aircraft values to 0 and see what happens.  Then set them all to 10.  Then try speed at 0 and manueverbility at 30.  Ensure all pilots are set at the same experience level (99).

Understand better how the engine works (or doesn't) first, then consider how to standardize the values, is what I am saying.  I've wasted too many hours playing with the values attempting to find some basis to work from for at least somewhat historical results.  What you do with your time is of course your business, but I hate to see you spend so much effort on something which will have so little results.



Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 8:25:24 PM)

Oh let me add this for your consideration of how hopeless this is:  Aircraft do not need weapons to shoot each other down.  Remove all devices from aircraft and casualties are just as bad as ever.  Try it yourself if you don't believe me.



Mike Scholl -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 8:31:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Oh let me add this for your consideration of how hopeless this is:  Aircraft do not need weapons to shoot each other down.  Remove all devices from aircraft and casualties are just as bad as ever.  Try it yourself if you don't believe me.



WOW! Talk about DEPRESSING.... And you've tested this?



el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 8:34:48 PM)

There is some light at the end of the tunnel Nic:

My assignment was "get the data right and (we) will get the code right."
The data was so badly "nerfed" that it would poison the best code - and prevent a good routine from being validated or calibrated. It really must go in this order. There are a number of fundamental code reforms in progress at this moment. The easiest of these should be dealing with the ammunition issue: since the routine was written with ammo limits, it is not hard to but it back in. The more difficult - one that officially requires "a complete rewrite of the routine" - is the numbers problem. Right now code is only written to address 50 planes on a side (a reason that RHS refuses to give any single unit more than 48 planes - although there is another reason as well - and this will not change much after the routine is fixed). Over 50 planes there is a sort of "repeat loop" process - and that process has serious defects.

That said, I know a professional game developer who thinks the UV/WITP air combat model is "the best ever done" for formation plane combat. IF the data is better it does produce plausable air combat results. One example of this is the matter of weapon range: by grossly overstating the range - and the relative range - of air to air weapons - the data grossly distorted air combat results (never mind what code said). Planes with mg could be shot at almost with impunity - but NOT in RHS - where ranges are generally equal. It is clear that the posting last year that WITP would not be supported any more is out of date - and a decision to make it better has been made - and now officially confirmed by more than one update. I can say as well that player and modder feedback is also being examined, and no item is rated as more in need of reform than the air combat routine - except maybe the land combat routine.

Finally, allow me to point out that numbers DO matter - and matter more than you seem to think. Whatever a routine does, it will in the end turn out to be a "numbers game" - both in the sense we are using data numbers and random numbers - and in the sense that the side with larger numbers has for that reason alone an inherant advantage (in general).




el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 8:42:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Oh let me add this for your consideration of how hopeless this is:  Aircraft do not need weapons to shoot each other down.  Remove all devices from aircraft and casualties are just as bad as ever.  Try it yourself if you don't believe me.



Try not to be so pessimistic: this happens to be true IRL! Not only in fiction (where a heavy plane is used to take down Air Force One deliberately), but in WWII - the Germans and Japanese called these "ram attack tactics." More germane - the way the model works weapons data is used as modifiers ASSUMING that the data is rational - and not many computer models work well when you plug in all zeros. I - and our resident academic no doubt - have our own air combat models - but they were surely not intended for zero everything data sets. Mine originally used human "computers" (usually me as judge in the middle of two teams) and I assumed humans had some sense (as well as no desire to crunch numbers for nothing). Now I use conditional statements to decide if the routine is involked? This is the easiest of problems to address - and I have utter confidence in a number of Matrix programmers to be able to make it better. Total pessimism is in itself not realistic.



Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 8:43:46 PM)

WOW! Talk about DEPRESSING.... And you've tested this?

Yes, the die rolls for losses must be initially based on plane type.
Here is a test game I've setup just for aircombat - ignore the dates and locations, I've attempted to match something historical.

These are the results with NO DEVICES, SPEED SET TO ZERO (just for kickers)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/07/43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Tokyo [Honshu] , at 66,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 40
J2M2 Jack x 17

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 238

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 24 damaged
J2M2 Jack: 12 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 56 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Nagoya [Honshu] , at 64,42

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61-II Tony x 97

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 141

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61-II Tony: 18 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 25 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon [Burma] , at 29,33

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-I Oscar x 38
Ki-21-II Sally x 59

Allied aircraft
Buffalo/F2A x 14
Hurricane I x 26

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-I Oscar: 16 damaged
Ki-21-II Sally: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane I: 2 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Majuro [Nanyo] , at 84,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44IIa Tojo x 42

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 108

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44IIa Tojo: 20 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 21 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Buka [Solomons] , at 64,93

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 36
Ki-61-I Tony x 18

Allied aircraft
B-25J Mitchell x 47
P-40E Warhawk x 59

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61-I Tony: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell: 3 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Shortlands [SOL] , at 64,96

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 21

Allied aircraft
B-26A Marauder x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-26A Marauder: 4 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Lunga [Solomons] , at 67,101

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 88
G4M1 Betty x 50

Allied aircraft
F4F-4/FM-1 Wildcat x 62

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zeke: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on IJA 39th Division, at 47,34

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 36
N1K1-J George x 18

Allied aircraft
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair x 45
SBD-3 Dauntless x 26
TBF/TBM-1 Avenger x 16

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair: 1 destroyed, 14 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 13 damaged
TBF/TBM-1 Avenger: 1 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on IJA 14th 15cm Heavy Field Artillery Regiment, at 48,37

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 22
Ki-43-II Oscar x 18

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 39

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 18 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on IJA 20th Mixed Brigade, at 48,37

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 22
Ki-43-II Oscar x 18

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 10 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on IJA 35th Division, at 51,32

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 30

Allied aircraft
Mosquito FB.VI x 11
Spitfire VIII x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Mosquito FB.VI: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged
Spitfire VIII: 2 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on ROC 38th Corps, at 45,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 21
Ki-51 Sonia x 23
Ki-21-II Sally x 13

Allied aircraft
Hurricane I x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-51 Sonia: 5 damaged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on ROC 14th Corps, at 43,32

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 27
N1K1-J George x 27
P1Y1 Frances x 31

Allied aircraft
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair x 45

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 2 destroyed, 11 damaged
N1K1-J George: 10 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 damaged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on ROC 92nd Corps, at 49,31

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 48
Ki-48-I Lily x 16
Ki-21-II Sally x 31

Allied aircraft
Mosquito FB.VI x 3
Spitfire VIII x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-II Oscar: 4 damaged
Ki-48-I Lily: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Spitfire VIII: 1 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Pp Army 91st Division, at 43,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 34
G3M2 Nell x 35
G4M1 Betty x 18

Allied aircraft
P-36A Mohawk x 7
P-40B Tomahawk x 14
P-40E Warhawk x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zeke: 1 damaged
G3M2 Nell: 5 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged





el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 8:53:42 PM)

Mike: There is one other factor that outweighs all you wrote: surprise.
Surprise conveys the initiative - and is 90% successful in air combat situations both for offense and defense - regardless of airframe statistics.
In fact, achieving surprise is slightly easier for a large aircraft than for a small one - for the one thing a large airplane theoretically has is more eyes searching the sky. Detecting the enemy first means that you can elect to engage or not - and if you elect to engage you can usually elect to do so from an angle that will not be detected. In fact, most losers in air combat NEVER saw their attacker. In which case, their ability to maneuver to evade never mattered a whit. A variation on this is the impact of spotting training: IJN invented a way to spot planes "invisible" to normal humans - and I successfully used that way to spot incoming missiles and even shells normally "invisible" to normal humans. [Having just trained this, it was truly magnificent to watch USS New Jersey, first firing practice off San Clemente - then firing for real off the DMZ - we being her protection from ASCM attacks. My spotters and I were amazed we could see individual shells - something not often reported by real world observers in naval combats - not at impact - but at launch - when they are the fastest. In that case it was very easy - she only fired one tube at a time at a very low ROF - and these are positively huge shells - so I came to regard it as very good practice for spotting missiles of similar size - but nothing like as much speed. We came to regard missile spotting as "easy" - for the same reason a Zero pilot would see his opponent at ranges most Americans regard as "impossible."] This is probably not in the designed air combat routine - but we already can put it in if we can figure out what field is critical to determining initiative in air combat?



el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 9:00:28 PM)

Nic: I think you may be right - that initial rolls may be based on plane type. And I think that is clever. It probably skews the results in the right direction. It is not a bad way to create a simple model at all. Done diligently it could even produce a set of results that could be validated.
I am not confident Matrix ever does validation - or even executes much of anything beyond art with due diligence - for mainly bugetary reasons - but good code done by professionals in the most demanding sense REQUIRES MORE TIME in perfection than it does to initially right anyway.
If you don't spend the vast majority of time in modifying the original code - and the routine is more than a couple of lines - it is probably pretty awful - no matter what your approach was. Matrix is now doing what needs to be done to make the code better. What more can you ask for?



Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 9:19:48 PM)

El Cid-

Again, the point I am attempting to make is that all the fine-tuning of manueverability is relativily pointless because the impact is so small in the overall outcome.  Unfortunately I really think you need to think more "results orientated" than theoretical until the air combat model is fixed - if ever.  After all the goal is somewhat historical air combat casualties within the game - in our lifetime, right? [:)]

And while '0' maybe not be a valid number from a programming perspective, it doesn't crash the program.  Planes without guns should not be able to shoot down other aircraft.   It does illustrate how you cannot count on the game engine being too logical.  Well, at least eliminating the bomb devices stops the planes from bombing!




Mike Scholl -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/16/2006 10:20:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Mike: There is one other factor that outweighs all you wrote: surprise.
Surprise conveys the initiative - and is 90% successful in air combat situations both for offense and defense - regardless of airframe statistics.
In fact, achieving surprise is slightly easier for a large aircraft than for a small one - for the one thing a large airplane theoretically has is more eyes searching the sky. Detecting the enemy first means that you can elect to engage or not - and if you elect to engage you can usually elect to do so from an angle that will not be detected. In fact, most losers in air combat NEVER saw their attacker. In which case, their ability to maneuver to evade never mattered a whit. A variation on this is the impact of spotting training: IJN invented a way to spot planes "invisible" to normal humans - and I successfully used that way to spot incoming missiles and even shells normally "invisible" to normal humans. [Having just trained this, it was truly magnificent to watch USS New Jersey, first firing practice off San Clemente - then firing for real off the DMZ - we being her protection from ASCM attacks. My spotters and I were amazed we could see individual shells - something not often reported by real world observers in naval combats - not at impact - but at launch - when they are the fastest. In that case it was very easy - she only fired one tube at a time at a very low ROF - and these are positively huge shells - so I came to regard it as very good practice for spotting missiles of similar size - but nothing like as much speed. We came to regard missile spotting as "easy" - for the same reason a Zero pilot would see his opponent at ranges most Americans regard as "impossible."] This is probably not in the designed air combat routine - but we already can put it in if we can figure out what field is critical to determining initiative in air combat?


True..., SUPRISE (when it can be achieved) is a serious factor. But I think it's more of a perameter in the individual situation of each combat than a part of any overall "basic formula". And it only really "works" when the "victim" fails to spot you until the gunfire begins. Eric Hartman, the most successfull fighter pilot ever, said he was certain that almost half his "kills" had never seen him coming at all. All we can say for sure in a general "formula" is that in a certain percentage of cases, the side that spots the other first will have some chance of "improving" it's position for the fight to come, or aborting it's mission (which is a win for the other side anyway). It can only be put into a formula when it is consistant and mechanical, as the US Navy's "Fighter-Direction System" eventually became during the war in being able to "vector" an appropriate number of defenders into an advantageous position for intercept.



el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 6:26:06 AM)

We don't disagree (Mike) - I just was qualifying your remarks. Surprise is not part of maneuverability ratings - if it is present it is in other parts of the code - possibly in the pilot rating - and in the code that decides IF there is an air combat at all? I think Hartman had a clue too.



el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 6:26:52 AM)

Nick - I do think in terms of results. That is what "calibration" means - comparing routine results with real ones - and adjusting until the range is right.



Drongo -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 6:32:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell
Oh let me add this for your consideration of how hopeless this is: Aircraft do not need weapons to shoot each other down. Remove all devices from aircraft and casualties are just as bad as ever. Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

I found a "funnie" with air combat routine some time back. If an aircraft has its durability set to 0, it can be shot down by unarmed aircraft in combat. It was also noted that this result (when it occured) resulted in the immediate destruction of the attacked aircraft, never a damaging of it.

However, any nominal value above 0 will stop this occurring and since all WITP aircraft would be expected to have a durability value greater than 0, I thought it was an interesting but otherwise unimportant observation.

Otherwise, unarmed aircraft appeared unable to shoot down or inflict damage on other aircraft. By unarmed, I'm referring to both the aircraft types that never had armament in the stock game (ie most recon types) and armed aircraft like fighters that I then modified to remove all gun and bomb devices.

During my tests, I found that fighters stripped of their armaments (but otherwise unmodified) still reported "attacking" enemy aircraft at various ranges but no hits were ever achieved (unless the enemy aircraft had durability 0).

quote:


Yes, the die rolls for losses must be initially based on plane type.
Here is a test game I've setup just for aircombat - ignore the dates and locations, I've attempted to match something historical.

These are the results with NO DEVICES, SPEED SET TO ZERO (just for kickers)...................

In similar tests, I could not achieve your results, so I'm obviously wondering what you did differently.

Were your only changes to these aircraft to completely clear the armament devices for each aircraft type (both for the d/base aircraft entry and air group entry) and to set the max speed to 0 for the d/base aircraft entry (I'll assume cruise speed was untouched)?

Were all aircraft involved (both attackers and defenders) unarmed and with a max speed of 0?

Some of those aircraft used in the test don't appear to have stock names, so were you using aircraft with different characteristics from stock?

Is it correct to assume no reported damage to attacking aircraft came from the ground target?

Thanks.





el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 12:05:59 PM)

I have seen odd things in air combat. But never an unarmed plane shooting down another - either. And I have now run hundreds of tests - well over a thousand days - and the number of sortees must be in six figures.



Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 4:21:07 PM)

Here is another run. This is using RHS aircraft. All devices removed from both aircraft and units.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/07/43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Tokyo [Honshu] , at 66,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 40
J2M2 Jack x 17

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 273

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 3 destroyed, 24 damaged
J2M2 Jack: 3 destroyed, 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 26 destroyed, 37 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
5 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
5 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
1 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
1 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Nagoya [Honshu] , at 64,42

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61-II Tony x 85

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 134

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61-II Tony: 3 destroyed, 15 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 12 destroyed, 7 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
5 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
1 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 25000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon [Burma] , at 29,33

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-I Oscar x 38
Ki-21-II Sally x 43

Allied aircraft
Buffalo/F2A x 9
Hurricane I x 22

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-I Oscar: 11 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-21-II Sally: 7 destroyed, 3 damaged


Aircraft Attacking:
16 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 20000 feet
2 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 15000 feet
12 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 20000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 20000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Majuro [Nanyo] , at 84,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44IIa Tojo x 42

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 93

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44IIa Tojo: 22 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 10 destroyed, 17 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
4 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
6 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
8 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
6 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
8 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
6 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
2 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
2 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
2 x B-24J Liberator bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Jaluit [Nanyo] , at 82,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 18

Allied aircraft
B-17E/F Fortress x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E/F Fortress: 4 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17E/F Fortress bombing at 15000 feet
9 x B-17E/F Fortress bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-17E/F Fortress bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-17E/F Fortress bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Nauru Island [GLB] , at 77,95

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 27

Allied aircraft
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair x 30

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 8 destroyed, 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair: 4 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Buka [Solomons] , at 64,93

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 36
Ki-61-I Tony x 18

Allied aircraft
B-25J Mitchell x 46
P-40E Warhawk x 54

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61-I Tony: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 8 destroyed, 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-25J Mitchell bombing at 5000 feet
18 x B-25J Mitchell bombing at 5000 feet
3 x B-25J Mitchell bombing at 5000 feet
8 x B-25J Mitchell bombing at 5000 feet
4 x B-25J Mitchell bombing at 5000 feet
3 x B-25J Mitchell bombing at 5000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Shortlands [SOL] , at 64,96

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 21

Allied aircraft
B-26A Marauder x 27

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-26A Marauder: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-26A Marauder bombing at 15000 feet
4 x B-26A Marauder bombing at 15000 feet
6 x B-26A Marauder bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-26A Marauder bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-26A Marauder bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-26A Marauder bombing at 15000 feet
2 x B-26A Marauder bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Lunga [Solomons] , at 67,101

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 88
G4M1 Betty x 53

Allied aircraft
F4F-4/FM-1 Wildcat x 62

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zeke: 8 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4/FM-1 Wildcat: 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
20 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
5 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on IJA 39th Division, at 47,34

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 36
N1K1-J George x 18

Allied aircraft
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair x 45
SBD-3 Dauntless x 26
TBF/TBM-1 Avenger x 16

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair: 13 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 5 destroyed, 4 damaged
TBF/TBM-1 Avenger: 2 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
14 x TBF/TBM-1 Avenger bombing at 10000 feet
9 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on IJA 35th Division, at 51,32

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 30

Allied aircraft
Mosquito FB.VI x 11
Spitfire VIII x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Mosquito FB.VI: 1 destroyed
Spitfire VIII: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x Mosquito FB.VI bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on JNAF 301st Engineer Aviation Battalion, at 36,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84 Frank x 36

Allied aircraft
B-25J Mitchell x 18
P-47D Thunderbolt x 26
P-51D Mustang x 39

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
P-47D Thunderbolt: 4 destroyed
P-51D Mustang: 4 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-25J Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
9 x B-25J Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on ROC 38th Corps, at 45,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 21
Ki-51 Sonia x 23
Ki-21-II Sally x 18

Allied aircraft
Hurricane I x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-II Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged


Aircraft Attacking:
18 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 20000 feet
22 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on ROC 14th Corps, at 43,32

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 54
N1K1-J George x 27
P1Y1 Frances x 36

Allied aircraft
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair x 45

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 34 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 7 destroyed, 1 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 2 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair: 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
17 x P1Y1 Frances bombing at 15000 feet
17 x P1Y1 Frances bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Pp Army 91st Division, at 43,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zeke x 32
G3M2 Nell x 19
G4M1 Betty x 9

Allied aircraft
P-36A Mohawk x 7
P-40B Tomahawk x 14
P-40E Warhawk x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zeke: 1 destroyed
G3M2 Nell: 2 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged


Aircraft Attacking:
19 x G3M2 Nell bombing at 15000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Shanghai [E China] at 52,39

Japanese Ships
CA Iwate

Allied Ships
PG Wake, Shell hits 5, and is sunk




Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 4:22:42 PM)

Unarmed

[image]local://upfiles/20401/458049070E384E9F9858BC0B00F297A1.jpg[/image]



Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 4:23:09 PM)

Unarmed



Sardaukar -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 4:23:52 PM)

Only flak losses ?



Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 4:24:03 PM)

Unarmed



Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 4:25:01 PM)

Only a few Flak losses



Nicholas Bell -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 4:26:19 PM)

Unarmed B-29s



Sardaukar -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 4:33:34 PM)

Very weird ! [X(]



el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (8/17/2006 5:42:40 PM)

This does not seem to jive with running in a real scenario. It must be some sort of test bed. If I can see the test bed I might be able to find what the issue is?

I still assert that zero field values are outside the design range of any routine, and should not be expected to produce rational results. It is an easy case to avoid too - code wise. Just if around any such values. But why would they bother with nonsensical code like that? There will never be a fighter or bomber with zero field values. I am not upset with Matrix or code for these results - at least not yet. It is impossible to do analysis of this sort out of context (that is, without seeing the code) and be safe in criticism. Literally impossible - because there are too many possibilities. In court we would lose - if somehow this was an issue - if we wanted to proove the code is "wrong." It is not a design case, and lots of things might be happening we just don't understand. Starting with Nic's guess that the values are type related at root. That is a reasonable way to organize such a routine - and no one is going to code a fighter or bomber on the assumption any rational player is going to mod it to no weapons.

Nic is hijacking this thread - and is NOT contributing to developing a better formula or criteria to define maneuverability. I object. He is, in fact, trying to say "don't bother - it cannot be worth the effort." Explicitly so. Well - he is twice wrong: it does matter - and it is something I have been asked to do; and he is wrong to interfere with the process on principle even if it didn't matter.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125