Unit values Ki-43

[MTTODD]

The Ki-43 has only a attack V small air of 6, which is less than both the Warhawk and zero.

From what I have read, it had excellent manoeuvrability and was a great dogfighter.

I know it had no armour or self-sealing tanks, which I guess is the reason the defence V air is so low(5).

But think it should at least be on a par with the warhawk v small air.

[Texican]

Yep, there are always some discrepancies in the combat values in these types of games, I have noticed. P47 is one example, too. That was an extremely tough plane with 8 .50 cal machine guns, yet in-game it's defense is equal to that of the Mustang, when the latter had an inline engine. Radial engines (like the P47's) are much tougher to take out of action than planes with inline engines. And firepower-wise, the Mustang had either 6 to 8 of the .50 cal guns, so there is no way it should do more than match the firepower of the P47. All the Mustang should have in advantage would be a "dogfighter" classification and it stays in the air longer. But it should have not better numbers, especially defensive.

But, some of the charm of these games is how designers interpret things differently, so I put in my two cents, then sort of let it be.

[MTTODD]

Yes that does not seem correct either. I know the developers put out a lot of effort into producing these great games, so I am always surprised when the unit values seem to
not be as accurate as they should be.

As a matter of interest what are the air values for the Ki-84 ? Everything I have read about that plane, says it was one of the best fighters of WW2, so hopefully that is reflected
in its unit values!

[Zipuli]

Excellent manoeuvrability does not fix the lack of firepower. Or lack of any armour (defence). I think it's quie OK in Pacific.

[MTTODD]

As I said the lack of armour is why it gets a low air defence value.

But it's excellent manoeuvrability should be reflected in the small air attack value. Just like it is for the zero.

[Texican]

Not sure how it is, but I think the following would work:

Firepower is Air Attack Value
Armor (self-sealing tanks, radial engines, etc...) is Air Defense Value
Maneuverability is reflected in Dogfighting (basically, getting the first shot off)
Experience boosts maneuverability.

That would work and make sense, IMO.

[MTTODD]

Yes that seems to make sense.

I assume that air attack v Large air would favour planes with cannons.

And that there are different levels of dogfighting to represent different levels of ability.

Maybe the developers could confirm this, as it is not specified in the manual.

[MTTODD]

Hi,

Would really appreciate any developer answering my question regarding how the air combat model works.

With details on what the various air defence/attack values represent.

I cannot see it in the manual!

Many thanks.

[Lukas]

"large air attack" is mostly based on the aircraft's firepower as well as its high altitude performance. A lot of Japanese engines struggled in high altitude so just having a lot of cannons doesn't necessarily make a good bomber killer.

The Ki-43 is actually very lightly armed (2 MGs IIRC, while the Zero has an additional 2 20mm cannons) which is why it has a fairly low combat rating. It was very manoeuvrable like the Zero but I think it's succes was as least in part related to inexperienced adversaries.

In general we gave Japanese "dogfighter" aircraft a higher attack rating but a lower defense rating, while the sturdier US aircraft have higher defense but lower attack ratings. The early Zero's are balanced to be roughly equal to the Wildcats, were one excells in attack and the other in defense.

[MTTODD]

Hi,

Thanks for getting back, I appreciate that you have been very busy.

But just to clarify the dogfighter specialisation attribute, are their different levels of ability for each plane (Would be best) or is it a generic value for US or Japanese planes ?

Many thanks.

[zakblood]

generic values regarding strength, so all planes of same type and strength have same values, unless a exp number comes into play, or leadership value

[MTTODD]

So if a plane has the dogfighting attribute it's the same value for every plane ?

Would of been better if their were different levels of dogfighting ability.

[Lukas]

You mean the dogfighter trait? That doesn't actualy do anything but was an attempt to make it more instantly clear what a fighter aircraft is designed for without having to study the statistics in detail. Dogfighters would be best against small aircraft while interceptors are best against large aircraft. It turned out to be quite difficult to put these labels on each fighter type though, since they are not all so clearly distinguished.

[MTTODD]

OK thanks, I did not realised it was just for informational purposes.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: Texican

Yep, there are always some discrepancies in the combat values in these types of games, I have noticed. P47 is one example, too. That was an extremely tough plane with 8 .50 cal machine guns, yet in-game it's defense is equal to that of the Mustang, when the latter had an inline engine. Radial engines (like the P47's) are much tougher to take out of action than planes with inline engines. And firepower-wise, the Mustang had either 6 to 8 of the .50 cal guns, so there is no way it should do more than match the firepower of the P47. All the Mustang should have in advantage would be a "dogfighter" classification and it stays in the air longer. But it should have not better numbers, especially defensive.

But, some of the charm of these games is how designers interpret things differently, so I put in my two cents, then sort of let it be.

The P-51B had 4x .50 the later D-model carried an extra pair.

You are right that it difficult to "stat" fighters for wargames.
The Thunderbolt with its strong construction, high power radial engine and heavy hitting 8x .50 was arguably the superior fighter except for range (D-model) and agility.

Agility is less important if you have the initiative, high ceiling combined with fast diving speed and hitting power is more effective when dealing with enemy fighters. Also the late M-model had the range.

But basically if you want figures, early Mustangs should only have half the firepower compared to any P-47.

Wargames seldom go into detail when it comes to a/c
OOBP is a fun game, but it would be easy to pick it apart on a/c details and history.

[MTTODD]

Wargames seldom go into detail when it comes to a/c
OOBP is a fun game, but it would be easy to pick it apart on a/c details and history.

Seems a shame that when so much effort goes into producing a great game, that the unit historical values could be wrong.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: MTTODD

Wargames seldom go into detail when it comes to a/c
OOBP is a fun game, but it would be easy to pick it apart on a/c details and history.

Seems a shame that when so much effort goes into producing a great game, that the unit historical values could be wrong.

IMHO it boils down to two things
a. war game designer are generally more knowledgable and interested in the war on land
b. aerial warfare is very different to warfare on land or even at sea (and below the surface)

Doctrine, technology, communication, initiative, reliability, psychology all come into play in a different way.

Now does it really matter what sub model of Ki 43 we are dealing with - what engine, what extra armament, what extra armor it may have?
As already clearly stated by de developer it does not.

The abstract level of modeling leaves no room for subtle differences between types (nor many other elements of (air)combat).

All OOBP fighting is abstract and I can live with that, it is what makes this kind of game easy and fun to play.

War games are about aggregates, not about what a single man or machine can accomplish.
However that leaves no room for that single dive bomber that drops a bomb on a carrier at exactly the most inconvenient moment at the best possible spot.
That's not something you can easily put in an aggregate - well you can have a "critical hit" percentage, where a single hit delivers massive or even critical damage.

I am starting to ramble, it has been a while since I discussed this sort of thing and I am getting carried away

[MTTODD]

I agree that at this level, things get abstracted.

But the game should represent as many things right as it can, so a Thunderbolt should have more firepower than a mustang etc.

Not expecting perfection, just as close as it can get.

Many thanks.