Slitherine

quote:

I think the player should be rewarded for providing the numbers, tactical advantage and experience and not have it trumped when he does. Wether that is more realistic or not I will let others debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

It suddenly occured to me- if you want to duplicate the above air battle that rtrapasso quoted - put the P-38s on strafe or air base attack - not fighter sweep.
It may well change the results...

B

Wether it recreates the said battle or not it certainly shows us somthing about the combat system. Numbers, tactical advantage and experience mean very little (almost nothing) measured against the performance. At least with the standard data.

I think the player should be rewarded for providing the numbers, tactical advantage and experience and not have it next to meaningless. Wether that is more realistic or not I will let others debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

The Zulus had the numbers, tactical advantage and experience at Roarke's Drift. These things are not always everything; doctrine and technology are also very important, perhaps more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
By authoritative I don't mean Japanese "official kills" credited to Japanese pilots.

quote:

The Zulus had the numbers, tactical advantage and experience at Roarke's Drift. These things are not always everything; doctrine and technology are also very important, perhaps more

quote:

official kills" were Allied "invention"

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

The Zulus had the numbers, tactical advantage and experience at Roarke's Drift. These things are not always everything; doctrine and technology are also very important, perhaps more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

So, it's simple...
Give OscarII mvr 36/37 and a bit more speed (to equal A6M3)
Introduce OscarIII in mid '44

quote:

So, it's simple...
Give OscarII mvr 36/37 and a bit more speed (to equal A6M3)
Introduce OscarIII in mid '44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Not that that's going to happen, of course. But a great discussion for a rainy day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Not that that's going to happen, of course. But a great discussion for a rainy day.

Couldn't the Zero bonus be removed by moving the aircraft to a different slot in the database?

quote:

That's why you need to look at Allied unit records to find out who was lost when and where and then look at Japanese unit records (to the extent that they exist) for same, and THEN look at the pilot AARs to see if you can place enemies in proximity at the time aircraft were destroyed.... as John Lundstrom did in his First Team duo.

P.S. Yes Allied pilots had motives (monetary) for claiming kills. I suspect that is one of the reasons why Allied in-theater assessments improved as the war went along (at least it's my impression that they did so... certainly the analysis showed a healthy degree of skepticism). Sometimes the government *is* skeptical as to where the money goes. Likewise the Japanese pilots had motive to exaggerate their successes... in part as an effort at morale boosting (which is why IMO late war Japanese accounts wind up even worse than early war accounts) and in part to give honor to Japanese pilots that died in battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

quote:

So, it's simple...
Give OscarII mvr 36/37 and a bit more speed (to equal A6M3)
Introduce OscarIII in mid '44

Increase at least Ki-43-II durability and armor rating (simple armor protection was provided for the pilot and self-sealing tanks were installed in the wings) and give it the same mvr of Oscar I. There are no evidence of Ki-43-II being less manouvrable than Ki-43-I. Bombload of Ki-43-II should be revised also (it could carry a 250 kg bomb).
Moreover, 43/11 as aval. date for Ki-43-IIa does not seem correct according to my sources.

Bye

quote:

Few IJAAF unit records exist and many of those were "reconstructed" from memory by the participants and cannot be relied on. Most were destroyed along with the unit they pertained to during the general retreat from New Guinea. Japanese forces did not record individual kills in the same fashion as US forces. Kills were ascribed to the unit, not the individial pilot. It is extremely difficult to determine how many kills individual Japanese pilots actually attained.

quote:

Some Japanese pilots did maintain a record of these kills but they were never officially recognized as valid.

quote:

There is really no such thing as an official USAAF pilot AAR. Crews debriefed with intelligence officers at the end of a flight and and the Intel O's compiled these individual debriefs into an official mission report.

quote:

Lundstrom, Bergstrom and others have attempted to break down losses but for the most part their tallies are simply best guesses based on the available evidence, especially in regard to Japanese losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Few IJAAF unit records exist and many of those were "reconstructed" from memory by the participants and cannot be relied on. Most were destroyed along with the unit they pertained to during the general retreat from New Guinea. Japanese forces did not record individual kills in the same fashion as US forces. Kills were ascribed to the unit, not the individial pilot. It is extremely difficult to determine how many kills individual Japanese pilots actually attained.

You've completely misunderstood what I am saying. I'm saying that if you want to know how many Japanese planes were lost you have to look to a Japanese source (or at least that is where your best data will be found if there IS any data). If you want to know how many Allied planes were shot down you can't look at ANY Japanese source at all, because their post combat assessments are ludicrous. The fact that kills were awarded to units rather than pilots is not germane to my point. It doesn't matter to whom the Japanese credited the kills, becauase the assessment itself is not reliable.

You can count on a Japanese source to know how many Japanese pilots or aircraft were lost. Although many records do not exist, to the extent that one can interview pilots you can get a sense of "well, we lost so and so and whatsisname" but even that its a very difficult task because many units had such high casualty rates you can't count on any remaining survivors en masse to recall all those who were killed or just disappeared.

You can count on an Allied source to know how many Allied pilots or aircraft were lost. But not necessarily to know how many Japanese aircraft were lost (but I think you'd be pretty close if over the course of a campaign you divided all the Allied post battle assessment "victories" by three).

quote:

Some Japanese pilots did maintain a record of these kills but they were never officially recognized as valid.

I hope now things are clearer. It doesn't matter what Sakai or any other pilot remembers doing. The tallies of Allied a/c destroyed aren't credible.

quote:

There is really no such thing as an official USAAF pilot AAR. Crews debriefed with intelligence officers at the end of a flight and and the Intel O's compiled these individual debriefs into an official mission report.

A debriefing is basically a verbal AAR.

quote:

Lundstrom, Bergstrom and others have attempted to break down losses but for the most part their tallies are simply best guesses based on the available evidence, especially in regard to Japanese losses.

Well, using the word "guess" for their assessments of USN/USMC/USAAF losses is misleading. They are estimates and I'd bet they are damned accurate estimates at that. As you say, for Japanese losses you do the best you can, but these estimates are difficult to index to reality primarily because Japanese records are so spotty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

I would agree that the time of the Oscar is certainly beginning to draw to an end, but Nik's sources seem to indicate that they were still formidable, or to be even more diplomatic...not the push over that they are in our beloved game.

2. The A6M2 was the primary opponent for US forces throughout 1942, especially early on. This was the plane that took everyone by surprise. By the time of Midway, however, it had lost much of its mystique and by fall 42, its failings were well known to US pilots.

Not in my PBEM it isn't. And that is the point. Why do we always have to argue against history when history never repeats itself in WitP? The Oscar DID take the allies by suprise, so much so that they thought that it was a Type 0 fighter until mid-42' after a focused intelligence and aircraft recognition campaign had been conducted.

Other than its gun package the Oscar performs as well if not better than the zero. So in essence a slighty(very slightly) lesser aircraft, the Zero, benefits from this early war bonus. Why is that? Just because IRL the Oscar didn't encounter USAAC units? That makes no sense.

If the concern is that the Oscar will become some kind of P-40 killer because it has the Zero bonus, go take a look at the AAR Nik is running right now with all these changes we are debating. Or look at how the ZERO performs in the game right now. They aren't invincible.

I think the gun package problem will take care of itself. Particularly with his across the board 50% durability increase.