Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 1:28:34 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		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...

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 61
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 2:06:32 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 62
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 2:52:45 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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 ?

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 63
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 3:04:13 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 64
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 3:09:36 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 65
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 4:55:04 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
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


_____________________________



(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 66
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 5:31:04 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 67
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 7:32:43 AM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________



(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 68
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 7:43:41 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to bstarr)
Post #: 69
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 8:19:04 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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   

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 70
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 8:21:30 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 71
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 8:23:45 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 9/9/2006 8:25:07 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 72
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 8:23:51 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		this gets more and more complicated...

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 73
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 8:26:59 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 74
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 8:40:47 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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
 

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 75
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 9:00:13 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		hm... did i get it right - radar is actually helping not only in scrambling CAP figthers, it also helps in A2A combat?

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 76
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 9:03:36 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
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).



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 77
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 9:17:51 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 78
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/9/2006 11:50:46 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 79
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 12:46:14 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 80
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 12:48:01 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 81
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 12:54:52 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Nicholas my initial test had no radars and losses were even with everything else being equal

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 82
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 12:56:54 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 83
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 1:00:14 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 84
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 1:10:02 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 85
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 2:49:05 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 86
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 4:19:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 87
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 5:02:17 AM   
SamCole

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 7/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?


Yes. I am more interested in how radar effects work.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 88
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 6:33:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 89
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/10/2006 6:34:12 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953