Allied fighters suck (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

DicedT -> Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:11:31 AM)

It's October '42, and I have a gaggle of P-38, P-40 and Hurricane squadrons in Burma. They are being shot out of the sky by Oscars, Tojos and a few Zeroes. I've tried flying at high altitudes. I've tried flying everyone at high altitude. I've tried flying the P-38s and Hurricane IICs at 30,000 feet, and the P-40s and Hurricane IIBs at 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Same results. The P-38s bounce the Oscars, and then the Oscars get on the tail of the P-38s and shoot them down. I won't even describe what happens to P-39s.

I know the P-38 wasn't a wonder plane, but it should have some capability to fight Oscars. This concerns me a lot because the Allies do not receive many advanced fighter aircraft until 1944. Until then, the older aircraft - plus P-38s and Spitfires - are all they have. Looking at the aircraft data, Japanese aircraft are always more maneuverable, which seems to be the only factor in the WITP air combat model. Which makes me wonder how the Allied air forces managed to win in real life.

One thing I have noticed is that Allied fighters die like flies when flying offensive fighter sweeps or bomber escort. They don't do quite as badly when flying CAP. Yet even on CAP, P-38s, P-40s and Hurricanes can only bounce bounce Oscars once before the Oscars get on their tail. The WITP air combat model doesn't seem to factor in dive-and-zoom tactics by heavier, faster Allied fighters.

I love playing WITP, but there is something badly wrong with the air combat system.



witpqs -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:22:33 AM)

Speed is a huge factor.

Also, the pilots' relative experience ratings.



DicedT -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:33:33 AM)

I realize that Japanese pilots are more experienced at the beginning of the war, but I gave P-38s to the most experienced American squadrons, with experience in the 60s. Some of the Hurricane squadrons have major combat skills, and they're still getting blasted out of the skies. Not all the time. Sometimes Allied fighters shoot down an equal number of Japanese fighters, but on the whole the Allies are coming out on the losing side in late '42. Given skimpy Allied fighter production, this concerns me a lot.

One question I have is with drop tanks. In one huge Allied bomber strike in Burma, the escorting Allied fighters used drop tanks. I lost something like 36 Hurricanes, plus several P-38s and P-40s, versus maybe 6 Oscars. I wonder if there's a problem with drop tank modeling.



PaxMondo -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:54:29 AM)

Why are you concerned?  Think about it from the USN pilots perspective: 1942 even into 1943 was a VERY scary time.  This is exactly why the USN was so timid and careful (in general) until 1944 ... they didn't have enough planes and their losses were higher than they were willing to accept.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 2:58:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Speed is a huge factor. Yes it is..., and any Oscar that attempted to get on the tail of a diving P-38 would rip it's own wings right off!

Also, the pilots' relative experience ratings. Japanese pilots are way over-rated because of their skill in dog-fighting. As soon as the Allies stopped trying to play the dogfight game, the Japanese lost their experience edge (being the greatest acrobat in the world doesn't help a bit when your faster opponent turns the contest into a 100-yard dash!).




DivePac88 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 3:04:31 AM)

Hi DicedT, what are your tactics, are you using Fighter sweeps to suppress his airfields before the Bombing raids. If you are tying your Fighters just as Bomber escorts, your casualties are going to be higher than sweeping. My tactics dictate that I will sweep the target airfields with dedicated Fighter units for up to a Week before the Bombers go in. The advantage of this method (which was USAAF Doctrine) is that the enemy's fighter force is already fatigued when it faces a fresh Fighter escort.



khyberbill -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 3:09:24 AM)

I have cleared the skies in Burma with the Hurricanes against Zeros and Tojos and in Northern Oz against mainly Tojos with the P38. It took about six months in each place and I started in earnest about 6/42. This is in two separate PBEM's. I would expect it to take less time against the AI.



DicedT -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 3:15:00 AM)

I'm curious how Khyberbill managed to clear the Burmese skies with Hurricanes. I haven't been able to do this in my PBEM, and I flown both fighter sweeps and bomber escorts.

It's the P-38s that seem almost totally helpless. I'm flying them at high altitude, which seems historical. Should I fly fly them lower? The Oscars will still be more maneuverable. I'm curious what the P-38 has in WITP that gives it an edge over an Oscar. From what I've seen, a P-38 bounce from high altitude, on Oscars escorting Sallies, quickly turns into a dogfight that the Lightnings can't win.



Canoerebel -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 3:59:16 AM)

I've been on the short end of the stick as the Allied player with fighters.  Particulary in Burma where massed stacks of P-38s, P-40s, and Hurricanes have performed poorly.  There are so many zillion factors that could enter into the equation that I won't pretend to have a clue as to what the source or sources of the problem might be.  Chief among my suspicions is that I'm not very good at employing my fighters.

I really don't know how folks get away with the Allied fighters sweeping tactic, though.  Allied fighters have such short legs and tend (in my experience) to get chewed up in fights against massed Japanese fighters (I'm facing Oscars and Tojos).  If I send in big fighter sweeps, I come out on the short end.  Then, I have few if any escorts left to accompany the bombers, which get chewed alive too.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:06:55 AM)

Thats why I believe that a Midway type battle for the allies is impossiable in this game.....A lot of things are ahistorical.



PaxMondo -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:09:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Thats why I believe that a Midway type battle for the allies is impossiable in this game.....A lot of things are ahistorical.

Or, as many would say, Midway was an atypical outcome that wouldn't be replicated in a 1000 attempts.

War has a lot of those. Ask Mao and Chiang Kai Sheck.



Halsey -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:53:12 AM)

Here's the best 38 Sqdrn in the Air Force.



[image]local://upfiles/10836/85AD2C6658F04CF9AF72749290EE64E3.jpg[/image]



Halsey -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 4:54:28 AM)

Nurture, timing, experience.

It all takes a little time.



stuman -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 5:51:31 AM)

quote:

Chief among my suspicions is that I'm not very good at employing my fighters.


Well at least for you it is just a suspicion. With me it is a certainty.



1275psi -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 8:43:52 AM)

Well, I am playing japan , and in my PBEM in Burma -Allies are kicking butt, may 42

I think i will mention the elephant here in the corner of this discussion.
My opponent is very, very good......................

(and some of us are very, very bad....................)



Chris21wen -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 9:14:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Thats why I believe that a Midway type battle for the allies is impossiable in this game.....A lot of things are ahistorical.

Or, as many would say, Midway was an atypical outcome that wouldn't be replicated in a 1000 attempts.

War has a lot of those. Ask Mao and Chiang Kai Sheck.


Much greater odds in my mind.



moose1999 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 9:21:33 AM)

I had my troubles against the Japanese in Burma too.
But I overcame them and now dominate the skies.
I stationed a couple of P-38 and P-40K squadrons there and drew all the Hurricane squadrons I could find to the area.
I even drained Ceylon dry - leaving only one Hurricane squadron there.

I then used a very defensive strategy.
High-altitude CAP, concentrating my forces so to avoid having one or two Hurricane squadrons going up against an escort of 80+ Japanese fighters.
The concentrated, high-altitude CAP turned out to be so effective that I made a house-rule that limited CAP altitude to 25.000 feet, so not to ruin the gameplay.

I had 2-3 months of very heavy fighting in the air and I did take some losses, especially in the beginning and expecially from low-experience squadrons, but as my squadrons rose in experience and the enemy started showing up in smaller numbers because of his much higher losses, I eventually gained air supremacy in Burma.
The Oscar squadrons were the toughest nuts to crack, but I don't think I lost more than a handful of planes to any other plane-type.

When the Oscar IIb (the first armored version) showed up in early 43, I started having some tough fights again with some fights ending with roughly equal losses.
But through aggressive sweeping with my P-38s and P-40Ks I soon took control again.

Overall, I saw no glaring faults with the air combat model when fighting in Burma.
I had it tough in the beginning, as I expected, but after reorganizing, getting better planes and trying out different tactics, I was able to challenge the Japanese and after heavy fighting finally came out on top.

So with the air war in Burma I got exactly what I always hope for in a wargame:
A very challenging and enjoyable playing expereince - with me ending up as the winner...!




Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 10:40:51 AM)

Some workmen always blame their tools, some choose to engage in a period of self-reflection, reading and asking questions of those who seem to achieve better outcomes with their tools and then, lo and behold, find that suddenly their tools aren't quite so blunt and uni-dimensional as once believed.


From what I've seen from my testing the A2A combat model is a major improvement. I would like to see some particular changes which I think would allow a greater modelling of combat realities and doctrinal changes than can be currently modelled given the experience, speed, manoeuvre-centric model but, overall, its a big improvement.



Puhis -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 10:42:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Thats why I believe that a Midway type battle for the allies is impossiable in this game.....A lot of things are ahistorical.


I think it is possible. But I don't think any japanese player is stupid enough not to use proper searc arcs, for example. At least my KB always sail with CS-type ship...

Players do ahistorical decisions, that leads to ahistorical results. Maybe it's just me, but I think most of the "ahistorical" moaning is just silly.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 11:04:31 AM)

My fighters in Akyab and on bases in India have done quite well vs. the AI in 1942, and most squadrons have 75% aces or better as of late December. Even one RNZAF guy had 20 kills in a Buffalo before conversion to Kittyhwak 1A. It helped that the AI threw Betties, Lilies and other bombers unescorted at me in the beginning and allowed my pilots to get some pretty good experience. Now my Hurris and Kittyhawks/P-40s take down Oscars at a ratio better than 8:1. Against a human I'm sure I wouldn't do nearly as well.

Anyway, my point is that the fighters aren't by themselves the reason for lousy results. Also, I usually run CAP at different layers depending on the aircraft, but always between 10,000 and 20,000 feet. Also, I don't see the need to do much airfield bombing as they come to me and do very little damage to my airfields, ports or TFs.



LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 11:07:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

It's October '42, and I have a gaggle of P-38, P-40 and Hurricane squadrons in Burma. They are being shot out of the sky by Oscars, Tojos and a few Zeroes. I've tried flying at high altitudes. I've tried flying everyone at high altitude. I've tried flying the P-38s and Hurricane IICs at 30,000 feet, and the P-40s and Hurricane IIBs at 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Same results. The P-38s bounce the Oscars, and then the Oscars get on the tail of the P-38s and shoot them down. I won't even describe what happens to P-39s.

I know the P-38 wasn't a wonder plane, but it should have some capability to fight Oscars. This concerns me a lot because the Allies do not receive many advanced fighter aircraft until 1944. Until then, the older aircraft - plus P-38s and Spitfires - are all they have. Looking at the aircraft data, Japanese aircraft are always more maneuverable, which seems to be the only factor in the WITP air combat model. Which makes me wonder how the Allied air forces managed to win in real life.

One thing I have noticed is that Allied fighters die like flies when flying offensive fighter sweeps or bomber escort. They don't do quite as badly when flying CAP. Yet even on CAP, P-38s, P-40s and Hurricanes can only bounce bounce Oscars once before the Oscars get on their tail. The WITP air combat model doesn't seem to factor in dive-and-zoom tactics by heavier, faster Allied fighters.

I love playing WITP, but there is something badly wrong with the air combat system.


DicedT, the reason why your fighters get shot out of the sky is NOT because allied fighters suck as you put it but probably because you are using them in the wrong way/enviroment.

True, the P38 is not uber as it was in stock WitP but this is correct to historical.
Dive and Zoom tactics do work, but you have to calculate many other factors.

- Its a numbers game. Putting up a couple of P38īs against higher numbers of high experience Oscars/Zeroes/Tojos is dangerous, even in sweeps.
As long as the experience of allied pilots lower than the Japanese you will be happy to reach 1:2 kills.

- There are a couple of good tactics against high alt bounces: As an example, Rob, my PBEM opponent set a nice trap for my sweeping P38īs by combining high and lowlevel
CAP. He used the lowflyers to draw my bounces (Zeroes, and the suffered) and set high alt Oscar patrols to attack the bouncing Lightnings. While it was not clearly onesided
the tactic worked nicely, lots of damaged twintails. [:D]
When, afterwards, my close escorting P40īs arrived @ 6k they were ripped to pieces by the surviving CAP. Thats not bad allied planes, thats what is called a good counter.

- High experience pilots are able to draw lower exp pilots into their preffered style of A2A combat. Not forever, but they do. What you often see is Lightnings diving on a low flyer,
getting a kill or not depending on several factors and they try to pull away. They guy that makes a cool day hot for the P38 driver usually is a second Japanese fighter
who successfully initiates a turnfight.

- Range to target: the farther away the more your AC hurt.

And then you have, fatigue, morale, squad leader, weather,...

Donīt say A2A is bogged if you are not 100% sure you did take this all into account. [;)]

Theres no perfect tactic. Dont think that using P38īs is the solution to a well thoughtout defense. They are great planes and im sure Rob can confirm this (im trying to make them a
pita as much as possible) and they get home with more damage than any other fighter aircraft in the respective timeframe but if you need air superiority you have to beat your opponent with
numbers and well thought out tactics. If you donīt have one and are at least on par with the other you wonīt get anywhere.






Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 11:16:04 AM)

quote:

 if you need air superiority you have to beat your opponent with numbers and well thought out tactics


I think that this is correct as far as it goes but I believe that you are forgetting about the mental aspect of things. Sometimes you can get superiority at a point by playing the mental side of the game well enough to convince the opponent that a fight will onyl result in massive casualties to no benefit and thus force them to decline the fight - thus gaining aerial superiority without fighting.



LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 11:23:36 AM)

Nemo121, good one.

But thats also what Iīd call a well thought out tactic. And if you canīt back it up with numbers then you will have a hard time
convincing your oponent that "resistance is futile". [;)]
(except if he got some other important reasons not to engage)



khyberbill -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 12:05:58 PM)

quote:

hats why I believe that a Midway type battle for the allies is impossiable in this game.....A lot of things are ahistorical.

The US was very lucky at Midway. And sometimes in this game. I recall playing the old Avalon Hill board game for Midway and the US lost every single time. That is the only Avalon Hill board game that I tossed.



khyberbill -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 12:23:34 PM)

quote:

I'm curious how Khyberbill managed to clear the Burmese skies with Hurricanes. I haven't been able to do this in my PBEM, and I flown both fighter sweeps and bomber escorts.


I never try to contest Japan in the air until I am sure that I have numerical fighter superiority with the exception that I do try to sneak in an ambush now and then. I continuously pound the Rangoon (typical location of fighters) airfield with heavy bombers at night from 10k. While losses of planes destroyed on the ground is usually low, it does add up over time. Japan does not have any good night fighters this early in the war. In fact, I have a few B-17 aces and most of the planes they shot down were Tojos and Zeros at night. By the time the monsoon clears in late 42, I switch to escorted day light raids and 100 B17/24/25 and Wellies over Rangoon airfield can do a lot of damage in a few days. I dont use the lighter British bombers, they just die to easily.

I would like to say I sweep before an air raid, but my sweeps always seem to come in after the bombers, even though they are located closer to the target. I think the Murphy's law of AE is that bombers come in first, followed by escorts, then sweeps. This is especially true if the bombers home field is located the furthest from the target. I have gotten so used to this that it doesn't even frustrate me anymore, and I am especially pleased when it works the way it is planned.



Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 12:48:18 PM)

LoBaron,
Not a tactic... It would have to operate on the strategic level really.

quote:

And if you canīt back it up with numbers then you will have a hard time convincing your oponent that "resistance is futile". [;)]


Hmm, the greater the number the less skill is needed to convince an opponent that resistance is futile. If you have 1000 excellent fighters vs 50 of his then convincing him resistance is futile needs NO skill on your part. If you have 10 to his 50 then it requires great skill.

I don't think that the presence of numbers is necessary to convince someone to decline battle. I do think that the presence of numbers removes the need for any skill on the player's part... and that's the way a lot of people here play.... They utterly outmass their opponent and then congratulate themselves on their "skill" in forcing him from the skies.

Whether it was "skill" that did that is very much open to question.



HansBolter -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 1:05:34 PM)

What all those who defend game designs that give huge advantages to the almighty "experienced" Japanese pilots seem to overlook time and time again is the simple equation that if the Japanese lost all those skilled pilots leading to the demise of Japan, it was those very same "underrated by every dev" inexperinced Allied pilots who shot down these same seemingly invincible Japanese "experienced" pilots.

If the experienced Allied pilots didn't come along until the Japanese had nothing but inexperienced pilots left than it couldn't have been anyone else but the inexperienced Allied pilots who shot down the experienced Japanese pilots. Not quite as invincible as the myth would seem to portray them to have been.

Any game that cannot model the experienced pilots being vanquished by the inexperienced pilots fails as a proper model.



HMSWarspite -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 1:12:37 PM)

I cant remember if sqd kills counter is subject to FOW, but your 68th FG has 425 kills so far... against 143 losses (if I can add). Dont seem to be doing too badly...



LoBaron -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 1:13:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

LoBaron,
Not a tactic... It would have to operate on the strategic level really.

quote:

And if you canīt back it up with numbers then you will have a hard time convincing your oponent that "resistance is futile". [;)]


Hmm, the greater the number the less skill is needed to convince an opponent that resistance is futile. If you have 1000 excellent fighters vs 50 of his then convincing him resistance is futile needs NO skill on your part. If you have 10 to his 50 then it requires great skill.

I don't think that the presence of numbers is necessary to convince someone to decline battle. I do think that the presence of numbers removes the need for any skill on the player's part... and that's the way a lot of people here play.... They utterly outmass their opponent and then congratulate themselves on their "skill" in forcing him from the skies.

Whether it was "skill" that did that is very much open to question.



The OP was referring to an issue with tactical situation, not a strategic one. If you involve strategic layers, naturally you are right,
but that is out of scope at least as the OP is concerned.



Nemo121 -> RE: Allied fighters suck (12/19/2009 1:26:42 PM)

The strategic layer, operational and tactical layers don't exist in isolation from eachother... To attempt to examine one without taking into account the others is highly flawed especially if you are choosing to ignore higher layers which are superior and to which the lower layers should be suborned. The tactical is the least important layer with the least impact on the outcome of a game like AE ( something people often lose sight of ).

But, of course, if the OP (and others ) wish to have a discussion which such proscribed limits that it is a useless discussion then by all means go ahead.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875