quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius

Yeah, the Tony (and the ki-100) were good aircraft in real life but the game does not seem to agree with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Wasn't the Tony based off of the German Bf-109?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Wasn't the Tony based off of the German Bf-109?

Basically the Ki-61 was a combination of 2 aircraft, Bf-109s engine with the P-40e's durability, armor and dive capabilities. Basically they used a captured P-40e and attempted to make it a better offensive aircraft, however at the time the DB-601s engine was already obsolete being it came from a Bf-109e model and was underpowered, however japan had never had a liquid inline V engine before had, so it would have to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Wasn't the Tony based off of the German Bf-109?

Basically the Ki-61 was a combination of 2 aircraft, Bf-109s engine with the P-40e's durability, armor and dive capabilities. Basically they used a captured P-40e and attempted to make it a better offensive aircraft, however at the time the DB-601s engine was already obsolete being it came from a Bf-109e model and was underpowered, however japan had never had a liquid inline V engine before had, so it would have to do.

Not quite correct. The Tony was not based in anyway, shape or form on any version of the P-40. Kawasaki obtained the rights to the German DB-601 in 1939 and began development on the Ki-60 interceptor. This model failed to meet expectations. Most work on the Ki-60 had been suspended by late 1941 and was officially dropped in 1942. German engineers helped design the Ki-60 but not the Ki-61.

The Ki-61 Hein was developed as a light fighter to replace the Ki-43. Development began in late 1940 and the first prototype was delivered just days after Pearl Harbor. The first production aircraft rolled off the assembly line in August 1942. It was the first Japanese fighter to receive self-sealing gas tanks and armor. It initially received great acclaim due to its high speed and was found to outperform the Ki-43 model II, the Me-109E and captured P-40Es.

A series of unexplained crashes during testing and the tempermental Ha-40 engine delayed development but production still was authorized in Aug 1942 with full production coming in June 1943. The engine was the single biggest problem with the aircraft but the complicated hydraulic system also provided its share of woes. It was difficult to maintain in the field especially in tropical climates. The Japanese attempted to improve the performance of the Ha-40 engines with a redesign resulting in the Ha-140 that was a dismal failure.

When the Ha-40 and Ha-140 engine plant was destroyed by US bombers in 1944, the Japanese found itself with a 100 aircraft but no engines. Kawasaki was directed to redesign the plane to use the Mitsubishi Ha-115 engine that was available in large numbers. This aircraft became known as the Ki-100 and was fairly successful though the hydraulic system continued to be a source of problems.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Can anyone answer the original question? Why is the Tojo more maneuverable than the Tony?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

the first version of the Tojo was a better aircraft than the P-38H? In my PBEM, my P-38 are only E and F models but my "test" game has later versions available too and they do no better. Not really suprising anyway with nearly identical ratings (except that theyīre slightly faster and got more range). [&:]

In my particular case itīs not the problem that the Tojo got uber stats or something like that, itīs what is happening. Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you donīt have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

the first version of the Tojo was a better aircraft than the P-38H? In my PBEM, my P-38 are only E and F models but my "test" game has later versions available too and they do no better. Not really suprising anyway with nearly identical ratings (except that theyīre slightly faster and got more range). [&:]

In my particular case itīs not the problem that the Tojo got uber stats or something like that, itīs what is happening. Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you donīt have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

the first version of the Tojo was a better aircraft than the P-38H? In my PBEM, my P-38 are only E and F models but my "test" game has later versions available too and they do no better. Not really suprising anyway with nearly identical ratings (except that theyīre slightly faster and got more range). [&:]

In my particular case itīs not the problem that the Tojo got uber stats or something like that, itīs what is happening. Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you donīt have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

perhaps. Perhaps you just suck designing? [:'(]

A pity I have missed your AAR that does better. Glad I havenīt missed your comrades AARs that fail just as miserable when it comes down to "coordinate". lol. And the loops in "my" games are just the same as in other AARs too. The overall situation is ok in the end as four times minus makes two times a plus. So two big loops on one side are neutralized by four smaller loops on the other, making it an ok kill rate in the end (considering the timeframe youīre in and the circumstances).

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Even though the Tojo was smaller, its smaller wing area meant it had a higher wing loading than Tony which would argue that Tony should have been the better turner. However, the point made about combat flaps is interesting, but I dont know if Tony also had them.

The Tony did not have the butterfly flaps that the Ki-43 and Ki-44 did. The Ki-44 Tojo was developed to be a high altitude interceptor and maneuverability was not initially judged to be a high priority. Combat experience by the experimental group 47th Indendent Air Group in Indochina showed otherwise and butterfly flaps were fitted to subsequent production aircraft.

The Ki-44 had a much faster roll rate than the Ki-61 due to its nearly 3 meter shorter wingspan. This allowed it to enter turns faster and the butterfly flaps allowed it to maintain a tighter turn for much longer. The Ki-61, a much heavier aircraft, lost airspeed very rapidly in a turn. The Ki-44 could also easily outclimb the Ki-61 but could not keep up with it in a dive. The Ki-61 was faster in level flight than the Ki-44 when the Ha-40 engine ran well but in the real world, the Ki-61 was far slower.

Chez

Ahh...All I have to do is sit back and watch. Thanks Steve.

same as I do in my PBEM to watch Tojos achieving kill rates of 6-16:1 vs. P-40, P,39, Hurricane and P-38 when the single squadron kamikaze sweeps meet them on Cap. [:D] Must have been a great dogfighter. Or wait, was it expected to be an intercepter? Glad when I catch halve a dozen of them on leaking Cap though, then the kill ratio is reversed.

As far as the typical IJ fighter it was more of an interceptor than pure dogfighter like the A6M and Ki-43, HOWEVER, it was still a superior plane to the AC you list, except the later models of P-38. The butterfly flaps gave it an edge even though it was a High wingloaded AC, and the most Western of the Early to mid war IJ designs.

the first version of the Tojo was a better aircraft than the P-38H? In my PBEM, my P-38 are only E and F models but my "test" game has later versions available too and they do no better. Not really suprising anyway with nearly identical ratings (except that theyīre slightly faster and got more range). [&:]

In my particular case itīs not the problem that the Tojo got uber stats or something like that, itīs what is happening. Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you donīt have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

perhaps. Perhaps you just suck designing? [:'(]

A pity I have missed your AAR that does better. Glad I havenīt missed your comrades AARs that fail just as miserable when it comes down to "coordinate". lol. And the loops in "my" games are just the same as in other AARs too. The overall situation is ok in the end as four times minus makes two times a plus. So two big loops on one side are neutralized by four smaller loops on the other, making it an ok kill rate in the end (considering the timeframe youīre in and the circumstances).

Actually I am quite convinced that the only way you'll be satisfied is If we were to make this game fool-proof. Then you might be able to play it and have no complaints....

quote:

Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you donīt have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you donīt have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

I really haven't had much issue with sweeps except when the sweeping aircraft go in under the standing CAP. Then I'll see some higher loss rates. But I also don't try sweeping areas that have a high concentration of enemy fighters unless I am absolutely sure that my fighters have a good performance margin over them. For example, I will sweep a base guarded by a large number of Buffalos but I will not sweep a base that contains a large concentration of P-40Es.

I have had an occasional fragmentation of a sweep but not often as I tend to sweep with a maximum of 2 units and most of the time with only 1. Plus I make sure that all units are assigned to the same air HQ and that the air HQ is assigned to the same HQ as the base.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Can anyone answer the original question? Why is the Tojo more manouverable than the Tony?

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you donīt have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

I really haven't had much issue with sweeps except when the sweeping aircraft go in under the standing CAP. Then I'll see some higher loss rates. But I also don't try sweeping areas that have a high concentration of enemy fighters unless I am absolutely sure that my fighters have a good performance margin over them. For example, I will sweep a base guarded by a large number of Buffalos but I will not sweep a base that contains a large concentration of P-40Es.

I have had an occasional fragmentation of a sweep but not often as I tend to sweep with a maximum of 2 units and most of the time with only 1. Plus I make sure that all units are assigned to the same air HQ and that the air HQ is assigned to the same HQ as the base.

Chez

Chez, when youīre talking about Buffalos you seem to be still early in the game and you also say you usually sweep with one or a maximum of 2 units. Yeah, with one or two units, I get one or two sweeps. With 5 units, I get five sweeps (usually). What Iīm refusing to understand is why Iīm not able for example to launch 50 fighters from a level 9 airfield to fly together on a sweep three hexes range but see 3x16 ac going in alone (each squadron). Iīve got an endless long list of examples in my AAR of sweeps.

Having one unit on sweep meeting one unit on Cap and you will probably get reasonable results most of the time, no doubt on that. With 5 units on sweep coming in as 5 sweeps (each squadron alone) meeting 5 units on Cap... you donīt want to see the result, thatīs the 6-16:1 Iīm talking about...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Example: 5 squadrons on sweep (meeting all conditions but having all of them at the same HQ), 5 single squadron kamikaze sweeps, of which 4 usually get dived on and slaughtered with above mentioned rates (pilots 70 skill). Usually the other way around when I catch a couple of fighters leaking Cap. Works the other way around too though, when you see your squadrons going in alone on and on in 95%+ of the time you just ask for disasters. This usually only gets "visible" in the game later on as early on you donīt have a lot of material to throw at the enemy. Neither has the enemy so usually you see "some" aircraft on Cap vs. "some" aircraft on sweep. It gets really bloody when you got "a lot" of aircraft on Cap vs. "a lot" of aircraft on sweep (coming in one by one squadron).

I really haven't had much issue with sweeps except when the sweeping aircraft go in under the standing CAP. Then I'll see some higher loss rates. But I also don't try sweeping areas that have a high concentration of enemy fighters unless I am absolutely sure that my fighters have a good performance margin over them. For example, I will sweep a base guarded by a large number of Buffalos but I will not sweep a base that contains a large concentration of P-40Es.

I have had an occasional fragmentation of a sweep but not often as I tend to sweep with a maximum of 2 units and most of the time with only 1. Plus I make sure that all units are assigned to the same air HQ and that the air HQ is assigned to the same HQ as the base.

Chez

Chez, when youīre talking about Buffalos you seem to be still early in the game and you also say you usually sweep with one or a maximum of 2 units. Yeah, with one or two units, I get one or two sweeps. With 5 units, I get five sweeps (usually). What Iīm refusing to understand is why Iīm not able for example to launch 50 fighters from a level 9 airfield to fly together on a sweep three hexes range but see 3x16 ac going in alone (each squadron). Iīve got an endless long list of examples in my AAR of sweeps.

Having one unit on sweep meeting one unit on Cap and you will probably get reasonable results most of the time, no doubt on that. With 5 units on sweep coming in as 5 sweeps (each squadron alone) meeting 5 units on Cap... you donīt want to see the result, thatīs the 6-16:1 Iīm talking about...

I feel your pain castor, I don't see how meeting all the requirements needed (requirements are moral, supply, is there a HQ present, aircraft ready, good weather) and still on a fighter sweep I continue to get 1 squadron after another going to sweep on its own, vs the japanese having 8 squadrons fly a single 100 plane sweep.

However, this is my situation in DEI campaign where my average experience is 60-70, at Port Moresby my average experience is 75-83, with really high skill in sweep (whatever it is I can't recall but I trained on it for months) and at Moresby with all conditions met I can fly 10 squadrons together over a target, with only 1 or 2 squadrons that seem to fly solo, generally speaking the australian units don't fly with americans on sweep more then 80% of the time but always alone.

quote:

I feel your pain castor, I don't see how meeting all the requirements needed (requirements are moral, supply, is there a HQ present, aircraft ready, good weather) and still on a fighter sweep I continue to get 1 squadron after another going to sweep on its own, vs the japanese having 8 squadrons fly a single 100 plane sweep.

However, this is my situation in DEI campaign where my average experience is 60-70, at Port Moresby my average experience is 75-83, with really high skill in sweep (whatever it is I can't recall but I trained on it for months) and at Moresby with all conditions met I can fly 10 squadrons together over a target, with only 1 or 2 squadrons that seem to fly solo, generally speaking the australian units don't fly with americans on sweep more then 80% of the time but always alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Maybe you just suck at WITP....

What a language.
When being the lead developer of the Air model, you should chose your words carefully when talking to one of your customers.
I don't see anything that caster troy have said who Evan nearly legitimate this kind of behavior.

As you have been involved with the development of AE, you indirectly or directly represent Matrix Games, and for some reason I doubt that David, Marc or Erik approves of this kind of behavior from one of their workers or partners.