|
Nikademus -> (11/7/2002 2:28:16 PM)
|
I posted my most recent stats on the Pilot rotation thread after yet another implication that the air model of UV was "crappy"
It was ignored by those who seem to feel that the model is flawed, even if they've never played it. sigh :rolleyes:
approx losses as of 12/1/42 (from earliest start in 5/42)
A6M2 : 644
A6M3 : 202
F4F3 : 1
F4F4 : 337
P40E : 50
G4M : 251
B25 : 31
B26 : 35
As I clarified, my FOW option was on, and these stats are presented to both the IJN and USN player. Further, the losses do include planes that went down with their carriers. Since the AI in my game made no serious bid for New Gineau, and did not have major air assets on Lunga when i stampeded in, there were few losses of IJN planes as a result of taken bases. So even factoring in ground/ship losses, operational and accidental losses and such, its still quite clear that the vaunted "kill ratio" is hardly out of wack after 7 months of fighting. Obviously if the AI had not been playing i feel the losses would have been either more 1:1 or slightly in favor of the Allies since most combats occured over Allied bases and as all know, Japanese dur is lower and they have no armor.
As in my last campaign....my scrappy RAAF P-40's fighting over PM fared the best, fighting defensively over their base. Losses were higher in the last game because i made a concerted effort....this time out the AI made a decent effort at first but then just seemed to say "hell with it" and focused on the Solomons chain with only semi-frequent visitations from Rabaul.
I see nothing "majorly" wrong with the combat model. I was concerned over the DUR ratings of the A6M and G4M and G3M as they do seem a bit high, especially the bombers (B25 and 26 have ratings of 42 and 44)....but after examing these latest figures i'm more of the mind that Gary knew what he was doing, more specifically I re-evaluated my opinion on how important the "armor" factor of the plane is and comparing it to the weapons stats of the principle fighters in the game. Examinations of active A6M land groups show a marked decrease in EXP and of the bombers......heck, the AI only had one G4M group in operation, and it (I believe) was a reinforcement group with a strength of 20 planes.
I did not employ any radical strategies.....no "gamie" stuff i.e., changing the default loadouts of carriers (ala Ye Old Stuff a carrier with VF's trick) and of course the AI follows it's script which while constrained and unimaginative is often more historical since only humans come up with such devious plots :) I will plead guilty to stuffing the hell out of Port Morosby though which may be a little unrealistic but what can i say? I knew the AI wasn't going to bother Austrailia and my engineers had been busy ;)
As such, I'm far more concerned with other equally important aspects of the game model.....primarily the ship damage model (which needs additional Hit Locations to prevent the classic, few (penetrating) hits high damage/sunk syndrome), the effects of FIRE on ships and of course, an old saga of mine......proper penetration ratings of GP/HE bombs and how those bombs cause damage to ships even when they do legitimately penetrate. As often related right now they behave like torpedoes more than bombs.
My only major concern for the air model is that it seems impossible to damage grounded air assets even at bases with no early warning system (i.e. "Radar", or coast watchers etc) This is especially important for later era scenerios when heavy USN Carrier assets come-a-callin.
EXP has indeed been reduced in importance (ironic given all the fuss over it), My RAAF groups had a small but definate EXP defecit when they started, this proved insufficient to save the attacking IJN planes from the effects of morale and fatique from their long journeys too and from Rabaul, much less the low DUR and lack of armor on their planes. When combined with the low hitting power of the 7.7 (pen of 1) most of my P-40's survived vs being shot down. When they were shot down.....many times the pilot bailed and lived thus helping preserve EXP to the point where it actually, slowly but painfully went up. Operational accidents robbed me of a few good men......probably more than combat, but thats how it was back then.
Heh, never forget the time i put the Hiryu's air groups on "training" then forgot about them for two weeks. EXP went down 10 points for each airgroup because of operational losses and new green pilots coming in to replace the high qualities that were killed. That was the last time i ever used that feature other than as a standdown tool ;) There has been a concern that EXP is too easily driven up by bombing easy targets. This is true to an extent but in actuality it does take far more than a few missions to bump EXP once it gets past 50.....and fighters get the least benefit from this trick....(fighter bombers are an exception of course.....but early in the game only the P-39 is "officially" rated as a fighter bomber. The P-40, F4F, and A6M while they are rated for a bomb load are labelled as "Fighters" and as such cannot have bombing runs assigned to them (they can "sweep" though) "escorting" the bombers gives little in terms of EXP increases unless actual aerial combat occurs.
Actually forget A6M's and F4F's.....the plane i'm wondering about is the C47. For some strange reason i can supply bases far in excess of it's rated endurance in the game. I was supplying Lae from Cookstown with no problem!
|
|
|
|
