Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The question is this: to what extent is getting into firing position a function of speed and to what extent to things other than speed?

quote:

Well, this is the $64,000 question. It depends on tactics - dogfighting versus slashing attacks.

The way I understand real life in WWII is this, provided you use the appropriate tactics. If speed is similar and you have an advantage in maneuverability, you win (statistically, and all else being equal). If you have a speed advantage, you 1) survive even if at a maneuver disadvantage, 2) win if maneuver is good enough compared to opposition, 3) get some hits/kills if maneuver isn't good enough compared to opposision.

Note that the above includes anybody getting some kills and suffering some kills whether superior of inferior in any category. It just outlines the statistical edge.

As for how best to do it under the current code, I guess testing the proposed data is the best way to know. Look at results under controlled conditions and see what they look like.

quote:

does the combat model account for the different tactics (DF vs. Slash) used by different sides?

quote:

First, how are the maneuverablility ratings used in the game? Are they used for attack or defence? I seem to recall a previous discussion that the ratings were for how difficult the plane is to hit? The key offensive in the air-to-air routine was speed?

quote:

Second, although I understand the need for testing the new values, how might have it been possible that the games designers got this all of this so terribly wrong? Is a limited mathematical equation sufficient when there are other quantifiable factors such as roll rate, turning radius, and accelleration also have key roles?

quote:

I find it interesting that the best USAAF fighter in the Pacific in terms of total numbers of enemy aircraft shot down was the P-38 with, if I am correct,had a loss ratio greater that 10-1. If so, then there has to be other factors than climb rate, number of engines, and max speed that effects the maneuverability rating? Thus it could have been that these factors were incorporated into the quantifying the rating and that this rating is not depended solely upon the data inherent in the game model.

quote:

There are some real anomolies

Ki-83 Only 4 prototypes made, twin engined in the style of the Tigercat or Hornet. But rates 14 which is worse than many bombers
Ki-45 rates as 11

I think your formula is tough on twin engined fighters, as above and for P-38 & Mosquito.

The D3A2 Val and A5M Claude rate at 17 & 19. Both had reputation of great manouverbility.

Does the manouerability rating actually mean "Combat Ability"?

quote:

A potential problem is this. WITP has some anti-cheat features built in. One is designed to prevent the IJ player from just rerunning a turn until he obtains acceptable results. It basically stores a random seed earlier, so if you rerun the turn you get the same results. Can a test be designed to work around this feature so that randomness is obtained in each iteration of a test?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Examination of the database for aircraft indicated two patterns were used:
Neglecting the divisor, these were either

Speed/10

or

Speed/10 + ROC/500.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

First, how are the maneuverablility ratings used in the game? Are they used for attack or defence? I seem to recall a previous discussion that the ratings were for how difficult the plane is to hit? The key offensive in the air-to-air routine was speed?

Previous discussion was based on conjecture - reasonable conjecture - but conjecture nonetheless. We no longer are working with conjecture: the code ignores speed in the direct sense. It is focused on using maneuverability. Now we don't actually have the algorithm - the decision to release such things has not been made. But it is very likely that the way it works (aside from modifiers of various kinds) is to look at the maneuverability rating of both planes in a single impulse of air-air combat. And the way to do that well is to subtract the defender's maneuverability from the attackers - producing a differential. The differential becomes, in some sense, the probability the attacker reaches a position from which it may shoot. IF it does, probably BOTH planes can shoot - IF the defender has guns that bear in the situation - and IN THAT CASE then "accuracy" is used (we know it is really "hit probability" and it is the square root of ROF - which for this purpose is a reasonable concept). So the sequence is something like this:

Do you reach firing position (roll on differential of maneuverability, with many modifiers)?

IF YES, Do you hit (roll on accuracy, with modifiers)?
ALSO IF YES, AND IF defender has guns that bear in this situation, roll for his shot.

IF YES, what effect does your hit have (roll on effect, with modifiers, including armor as one of them).
SAME for any defender hit.

quote:

Sid, regarding air to air rockets - WITP does not have air to air ammo limits. Apparently it was taken out of the model in UV. Can air to air rockets be made to work realistically with unlmited ammo?

quote:

The following rate of climb data is provided for the P-38. Source is the "Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model P-38.

P-38H Standard Day 54"Hg/3000rpm to 20,000'

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Examination of the database for aircraft indicated two patterns were used:
Neglecting the divisor, these were either

Speed/10

or

Speed/10 + ROC/500.

I doubt it.

quote:

El Cid where are you getting this from? The only tests I have seen are not supporting this view at all. The Zero bonus (which boosts Zero manouverability) was shown to have NO impact on the number of kills the Zeros scored, but did reduce their casualties.

This suggests very strongly that the manouver values (perhaps relative manouver values and perhaps not) act as a saving throw / avoid damage or hit chance when a plane is attacked and do not help at all with attacking.

From my own experience of the game and the general feeling on the boards I believe that speed and pilot experience seem to be the chief determinants of attack success (with firepower vs durability / armour then seeing if you get a damage or a kill). You appear to now be doubleing up the speed advantage by making it a chief determinant of manouverability. I am sure it is important anyway from the stats. Fast, late war planes tend to have good manouver values. If this is your intention fine, but I am not sure why exactly you want to do this.

When you say it is very likely it works like.... that all sounds very plausible. But the testing done in the zero bonus thread does not support you at all. Manouver was shown to have no impact at all on kills (in a single air combat - obviously preserving good pilots longer has a long term boost). Why do you believe your ideas in this case to be correct? Have the developers said something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I wonder why? When a max speed = 350 and the maneuverability = 35, I see a formula max speed / 10

why don't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

.. by simply reinstating the code that was written to do it (it is almost certainly still there - just remarked out or branched around). This takes no programming talent at all - and we probably will get it done fairly soon.

... get the data right and we will fix the code presently. Probably sooner than you expect.

quote:



What I did with rockets was define them as a single shot weapon! This is done by the accuracy setting - no other weapon has a setting of 1 - but all air-air rockets do. Accuracy is really square root of ROF - and sq root of 1 = 1 - so this is the correct value.

quote:

That certainly is possible, but not probable.

There are aircraft that have a max speed over 400 and do not have a maneuverability of 40 plus.

quote:

It sounds like you know somthing the rest of us would like to know. Are you talking?

quote:

I take it this will make the rockets single shot per plane fired at, but that it will still be able to fire at multiple planes if so engaged in combat (one after another, the way the model works

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

If you have a solution to this problem short of code changes, I am all ears too. For example, you might propose "put rockets on bombers, but not on fighters, until we fix the ammo problem."

quote:

I suppose it's also possible that the code will only see rockets as an air to surface weapon (I do not know how you defined them - like a gun or like a bomb? - so I don't even know if this is actually a possibility).