RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (Full Version)

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

Message

veji1 -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 1:28:34 AM)
this is bad.... So the only difference between the two dates was date : same planes, exp, weapons, durability, etc ? If this is the case this is the most disturbing thing I have read about WITP...

Nicholas Bell -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 2:06:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: veji1 this is bad.... So the only difference between the two dates was date : same planes, exp, weapons, durability, etc ? Right, exactly the same, except the date. Be happy to email the scenario if anyone wants to try it themselves.

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 2:52:45 AM)
I am in the middle of doing one of my own but if your results are right then this is terrible No radar or ships anywhere nearby remember range of CPS 1 is 400 miles so any ship that has the upgrade will contaminate your test ?

Nicholas Bell -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 3:04:13 AM)
No radar or ships anywhere nearby remember range of CPS 1 is 400 miles so any ship that has the upgrade will contaminate your test ? All the ships are delayed out of the scenario. The ground radars are the same in both the 1942 and 1944 runs. If they are in range, then they are affecting both tests, best of my knowledge.

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 3:09:36 AM)
OK I ran a very simple test of my own Now this is a LOT less statistically significant than Nicholas's test as I dont have the patience !!! 10 Tests Location Japanese Base Koumac lvl 9 AF with Av Support 44 George Sqn Sweeping Nomou also lvl 9 AF Under Allied Control 44 P38G Sqn on 90% CAP over the base Leaders identical, no ships base forces or anything close to contaminate results XP 75 Moral 75 5 in 42 Casualties George P38G 3 9 6 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 21 37 Same Test in 44 0 7 4 6 5 9 3 4 4 7 16 33 Now I would need to expand the test and run it more times plus probably have P38's sweep Koumac same number of times as vice versa to check statistical significance but early indications are I dont see the issue. But again not enough test runs to be trully significant

bstarr -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 4:55:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac OK I ran a very simple test of my own Now this is a LOT less statistically significant than Nicholas's test as I dont have the patience !!! 10 Tests Location Japanese Base Koumac lvl 9 AF with Av Support 44 George Sqn Sweeping Nomou also lvl 9 AF Under Allied Control 44 P38G Sqn on 90% CAP over the base Leaders identical, no ships base forces or anything close to contaminate results XP 75 Moral 75 5 in 42 Casualties George P38G 3 9 6 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 21 37 Same Test in 44 0 7 4 6 5 9 3 4 4 7 16 33 Now I would need to expand the test and run it more times plus probably have P38's sweep Koumac same number of times as vice versa to check statistical significance but early indications are I dont see the issue. But again not enough test runs to be trully significant Thank you for running these tests for us. Can I make one suggestion? Back when I ran the tests I altered the planes as well so that both sides had identical planes. You may want to try this, since it would give a better idea of how much is modified and to what. You know, I wish like hell I had written down the results of my experiments. That's what I get for being so unorganized. bs

Nicholas Bell -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 5:31:04 AM)
I would be very happy if anyone would be willing to take a look at my test scenario and find some fault in the set up. I don't want this to be true! I was thinking I would disprove El Cid's assertion about the dropff (nothing personal Sid!! ) So drop me an email so I can send the file if you want to take a look. It takes about a 90 seconds to run and record one test. Can I make one suggestion? Back when I ran the tests I altered the planes as well so that both sides had identical planes. You may want to try this, since it would give a better idea of how much is modified and to what. That's a good suggestion Bstarr. I was thinking about doing that to experiment with how speed & manuever rating effect combat but didn't transfer the thought to this test. I will try and equalize everything. Any other ideas - please let me know. I'm busy this weekend but will run some more tests next week.

bstarr -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 7:32:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell I would be very happy if anyone would be willing to take a look at my test scenario and find some fault in the set up. I don't want this to be true! I was thinking I would disprove El Cid's assertion about the dropff (nothing personal Sid!! ) So drop me an email so I can send the file if you want to take a look. It takes about a 90 seconds to run and record one test. Can I make one suggestion? Back when I ran the tests I altered the planes as well so that both sides had identical planes. You may want to try this, since it would give a better idea of how much is modified and to what. That's a good suggestion Bstarr. I was thinking about doing that to experiment with how speed & manuever rating effect combat but didn't transfer the thought to this test. I will try and equalize everything. Any other ideas - please let me know. I'm busy this weekend but will run some more tests next week. I love to prove cid wrong as much as the next guy, but he's got you this time. That was exactly what I set out to do with my experiments (prove cid wrong, that it). However, the one thing that I did find out was that there definitely was a dropoff in Japanese Air-to-Air effectiveness after the fall of 43.

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 7:43:41 PM)
Bstarr I just redid the test for 44 and the results are very interesting. OK Situation 4 Bases in use Nomou - Koumac/ Nandi - Suva All bases given Lvl 9 AF and an aviation Regt no radars in range and both have 100k supplies (NO Air HQ in range either) On each pair of bases each side has 2 x 100 plan groups of F4U1 all sqns have the same leader with 75 air xp/ 75 aggrsssion/ xp is 75 for all sqns Each pair of bases is Caped by 1 sqn at 90% at 10000 feet and the other sweeps its opponents base at 10000 feet. The date is December 44 So exact mirror images Total losses Jap US 65 79 83 83 63 95 44 70 71 67 81 70 Now I would need to run it more times to make it statistically significant but in the abscence of any radar it appears that there is no anti Japanese code given that everything was equal in this test. If I get the patience I will run the same test with allied radar present

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 8:19:04 PM)
OK I re ran the test 5 more times this time with both allied bases having a pair of CPS - 1 Radars Everything else was the same Total losses Jap US 83 53 96 62 132 59 92 64 108 69

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 8:21:30 PM)
One big observation was the increase in US planes on CAP up from 50 - 60 on 90% CAP before radar to 70 - 90 with radar present.

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 8:23:45 PM)
This is the text file for the big 132 Jap loss which was the worst I observed in the with radar tests AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/07/44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAP SWEEP ON NOMOU Day Air attack on Noumea , at 68,113 Japanese aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 99 Allied aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 85 Japanese aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 45 destroyed, 3 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 29 destroyed, 4 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALLIED SWEEP ON KOUMAC Day Air attack on Koumac , at 67,111 Japanese aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 67 Allied aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 99 Japanese aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 34 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 4 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALLIED SWEEP ON NANDI Day Air attack on Nandi , at 85,114 Japanese aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 50 Allied aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 99 Japanese aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 26 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 4 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAP SWEEP ON SUVA Day Air attack on Suva , at 86,114 Japanese aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 90 Allied aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 72 Japanese aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 27 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 22 destroyed, 2 damaged --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

veji1 -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 8:23:51 PM)
this gets more and more complicated...

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 8:26:59 PM)
Not really I may not have convinced others but I have convinced myself that there is NO Japanese hard coded drop off what is happenening is that Allied Radar gets a LOT better that greatly improves CAP If you look at the non radar tests the Sweeps won every time easily after I put radar in the Sweeps are losing a lot more planes to the CAP albeit still winning

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 8:40:47 PM)
OK I just reversed the radars giving the Japanese CSP -1 radar and ran the test I only ran it twice Total losses Jap US 58 92 68 130 Test result for the big one AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/07/44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Noumea , at 68,113 Japanese aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 99 Allied aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 67 Japanese aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 8 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 27 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Koumac , at 67,111 Japanese aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 67 Allied aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 99 Japanese aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 21 destroyed, 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 41 destroyed, 4 damaged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Nandi , at 85,114 Japanese aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 84 Allied aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 99 Japanese aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 29 destroyed, 7 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 31 destroyed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Suva , at 86,114 Japanese aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 99 Allied aircraft F4U-1 Corsair x 50 Japanese aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 10 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4U-1 Corsair: 30 destroyed

pauk -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 9:00:13 PM)
hm... did i get it right - radar is actually helping not only in scrambling CAP figthers, it also helps in A2A combat?

jwilkerson -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 9:03:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk hm... did i get it right - radar is actually helping not only in scrambling CAP figthers, it also helps in A2A combat? Yes, Radar does help in a2a from the perspecctive of being one of the factors that determines who has the bounce. So if my group has radar, my DL against your group will be higher and my chances of getting the bounce will be higher. Not sure we can argue against the logic of that (like think about BoB).

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 9:17:51 PM)
Dont forget these examples are slightly exaggerated because only one side has radar. Normally both sides will have when defending at least not as good but probably enough to mitigate partyl the losses. I suspect the increased perfomance people see in Allied types in A2A IS tied to the improved radar the allies get in early 43 Andy

wdolson -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/9/2006 11:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk hm... did i get it right - radar is actually helping not only in scrambling CAP figthers, it also helps in A2A combat? It allows the defender to get into the most advantageous position. Most American fighters had a significant speed advantage on the Japanese. If they are vectored above and out of the sun, even experienced Japanese fighter pilots are going to have a tough time fighting them. If vastly inferior fighters without a speed advantage were vectored into the same position, the fight probably would not be so lopsided. Bill

Nicholas Bell -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 12:46:14 AM)
What needs to be done is eliminate all radars from the test scenarios. If the results between the same tests in 42 and 44 are then identical, we can safely assume that the radar is the root cause of the imbalance. This would be good! However, the test runs I did mostly did not have the influence of Allied radar, so....we'll see. Andy, if you are so inclined you may want eliminate the radars on your scenario. I'll be out of the net until Monday.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 12:48:01 AM)
quote: I suspect the increased perfomance people see in Allied types in A2A IS tied to the improved radar the allies get in early 43 Your test is illuminating, Andy. It appears that you are correct in that radar gives a significant advantage instead of a programmed Japanese drop-off. That I can live with. You say that it is the CPS-1 radar that provides the greatest advantage? Hmmmm..... I think I will have to send my spies out to steal the plans and develop it for Japan first! Waaahaaahhaaa..... Chez

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 12:54:52 AM)
Nicholas my initial test had no radars and losses were even with everything else being equal

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 12:56:54 AM)
Actually slightly favoured Japanese but it was within 10 on 6 tests It was quite stark when you put radar in for one side but not the others how losses spiralled for both sides when the Japanese had it Allied losses jumped to 130 in one test When I gave the allies the radar it was the same pattern. Andy

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 1:00:14 AM)
Chez I didnt test sound detectors or lesser radars or whether ship based radars would affect it or even waht happens when 1 side has a 60 mile radar and the others have a sound detector. I chose to use the CSP - 1 as its the best air search radar either side gets and with a 400 mile range I was sure it would work. The tests you could run go on for ever I have satisfied myself with a relativeley few tests it is possible I am seeing outliers but it seems pretty clear

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 1:10:02 AM)
OK - here is the test we need: Run 1942 for one set - we can use any test already run here; Run 1944 for the same set - but add one to durability of Japanese planes; Run 1944 for the same set - but use 41 for durability for all Japanese planes; Nic has shown that zero armament does not prevent air combat kills. They MIGHT have done something that makes changing durability have no impact. This test will tell us. There is a "knee" in the function at value 40 - to make heavy bombers hard to kill. RHS doesn't want to use that - so all durabilities are below 40 deliberately. But IF a value above 40 STILL has zero impact on losses - we will know this routine is not honest - but a branch to something wierd. Stock had to put in the "knee" because they didn't get planes rated right. We are trying to fix that and don't need a "knee" to show 4E bombers survive better. We also don't have to divide their maneuverability by twice the number of engines to get a reasonable value.

Andy Mac -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 2:49:05 AM)
CId I guess its late and I am slow but I dont see how changing the Dur by 1 will determine whether the Japanese have hard coded fall off in 43. For this kind of precise testing you would need to run the scenario a lot of times to get a reasonable sample and testing depth to be able to see a pattern. If someone else is willing to do it fine but I estimate to pick up something that small you would need to run both the baseline and the sensitivity at least 50 times (Minimum) Are we still testing the hard coded fall off presumption or have we moved on to something else I ask because I cannot really see how the test you want will help test the original proposition in this thread ? Andy

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 4:19:35 AM)
Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

SamCole -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 5:02:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D] Yes. I am more interested in how radar effects work.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 6:33:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac CId I guess its late and I am slow but I dont see how changing the Dur by 1 will determine whether the Japanese have hard coded fall off in 43. REPLY: That is already shown by two test series (one by Nic) - confirming an older test series I ran in 1.6. THIS is to find out if it helps FIX the problem.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff (9/10/2006 6:34:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Are we still testing the hard coded fall off presumption or have we moved on to something else I ask because I cannot really see how the test you want will help test the original proposition in this thread ? Andy This is something else: I consider the question answered by Nic's test. Now we are trying to fix the problem.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.484375