Empires Ablaze Scenario Feedback

[Nemo121]

Hi all well as I'm about to release a new version of Empires Ablaze ( and the first version which I think should be balanced enough for general play ) I thought I'd start a thread where feedback, questions and suggestions for improvement could be made... I doubt there will be much traffic as this mod won't appeal to most but I think there's a benefit to having that feedback concentrated in one place. This is that place.


Most recent changes:
1. Reduction of Avenger monthly replacement rates from 142 to under 100.
2. Increased P-40E, Kittyhawk I and SBD rates by 20 to 22 each ( basically re-allocating historical production from Avengers to rarer and more useful planes ).
3. Delayed entry of Ki-109, Me-264 Angel, Me-264 Behemoth and G-9 Marlina by 3 to 6 months each.
4. Increased P-51 XP production rate from 15 to 30 - this plane comes available September 1942.
5. Delayed entry of Yamato and Musashi CVAs by 3 months each ( so, Spring 42 and Summer 42 as opposed to December 41 and Spring 42 )

[Captain Cruft]

Where can I download the existing version please?

[GaryChildress]

My question as well. Where is the download available? This looks interesting.

[Captain Cruft]

I think this is it.

http://www.akdreemer.com/ahs/kelly/intro.html

[Nemo121]

Hi, yes that is the link to the old version of the files. Unfortunately the update has been delayed after I accidentally wrote over the latest version of the mod when I was doing my final pre-release run-through of data *[8|] [8|] [8|].
 
I have stuff on till Wednesday and will then finish updating the data fields to the previous standard. It should be out by the end of the week. In the meantime the link above will give you a good idea as to what the updated version will look like. The vast majority of changes are simply tweaks to the play balance.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hi, yes that is the link to the old version of the files. Unfortunately the update has been delayed after I accidentally wrote over the latest version of the mod when I was doing my final pre-release run-through of data *[8|] [8|] [8|].

I have stuff on till Wednesday and will then finish updating the data fields to the previous standard. It should be out by the end of the week. In the meantime the link above will give you a good idea as to what the updated version will look like. The vast majority of changes are simply tweaks to the play balance.

Doh! I know how that feels. [:(]

[Khanti]

Hi Nemo.
I liked the idea of play balance during 44-45, so I'm interested in this mod.
Just a short question: did you manage to upload new tweaked version of your mod?

[ny59giants]

Another question would be making the changes to the P38s that Cid did in response to poor performance issues.
 
A few early Allied bombers that could have either 1000lb AP or torpedoes as standard loads would add a little flavor. [:D]

[Mifune]

Good luck Nemo, it will be good to see how your scenario evolves.

[Nemo121]

Hanti, nope, no offers of upload space anywhere - which is a pity.
 
ny59, after testing the P-38 in my current game ( and then testing it extensively outside of that ) I find that the P-38, technically speaking, sucks more than the suckiest black hole ever. It is abysmal.
 
So, I'm currently working on V1.1 while I wait for someone to offer space to host the mod. V 1.1 is going to feature tweaks to twin-engined fighter + fighter-bombers to make them function as they should. I'd be more than happy to discuss this with others as I'm no expert on plane performances except to know when a performance in-game seems utterly wrong compared to history. The problem with the performance really seems to fall in the Mvr category. I've experimented and giving twin-engineds a manoeuvre modifier of x +1.6 seems to yield relatively reasonable results. e.g. the P-38G becomes a plane with 26 Mvr vs 16 and the P-38L becomes a plane with 32 Mvr vs the current 20. Plugging these values in in-game the P-38G tends to get kills in dogfights but find it somewhat difficult to shake the better 2nd generation IJN and IJA fighters when they get on its tail. This jibes well with what I've read about the P-38s in combat ( generally speaking ).
 
It also has the effect of making Ki-45s much more viable in the fighter-bomber role and turns the Ki-93 into a real threat to Allied fighters ( which it would have been ).
 
I am MORE than happy to discuss this with others though as I'm not the fount of all knowledge on aerodynamics and am interested in getting the plane ad ship performances closer to historical accuracy etc ( whilst allowing strategic divergence )... FWIW I've read the "discussions" on P-38s on this forum although most of the time that consisted of one side just talking past the other side and wasn't really a give and take IMO.
 
 
Allied planes with 1000lbers and torpedoes from the start.... Well, I think I'm developing a soft spot for the B-19. For some reason when it has extremely highly experienced crews it seems to fly with 1000lbers right from the start of the war. In one of my tests when the raid on Hawaii failed to launch a B-19 on managed to put a 1000lber right through the armoured flight deck of Zuikaku. Ruined my whole day [:D]. You don't get many of them but they do pretty well when you do have them.
 
B-26As. Carry bombs and torpedoes. In my game so far they've already sunk 2 IJN BBs in a single day and they've savaged many smaller ships ( DDs, PCs, APs, AKs etc ). Once their experience gets up into the 70s those B-26s hit hard. You also get a high enough monthly replacement rate that you can afford to use them i combat without too much fear.

[el cid again]

Mifune can post it to the RHS site - he has the password to do that.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hanti, nope, no offers of upload space anywhere - which is a pity.

ny59, after testing the P-38 in my current game ( and then testing it extensively outside of that ) I find that the P-38, technically speaking, sucks more than the suckiest black hole ever. It is abysmal.

So, I'm currently working on V1.1 while I wait for someone to offer space to host the mod. V 1.1 is going to feature tweaks to twin-engined fighter + fighter-bombers to make them function as they should. I'd be more than happy to discuss this with others as I'm no expert on plane performances except to know when a performance in-game seems utterly wrong compared to history. The problem with the performance really seems to fall in the Mvr category. I've experimented and giving twin-engineds a manoeuvre modifier of x +1.6 seems to yield relatively reasonable results. e.g. the P-38G becomes a plane with 26 Mvr vs 16 and the P-38L becomes a plane with 32 Mvr vs the current 20. Plugging these values in in-game the P-38G tends to get kills in dogfights but find it somewhat difficult to shake the better 2nd generation IJN and IJA fighters when they get on its tail. This jibes well with what I've read about the P-38s in combat ( generally speaking ).

Those figures look like good starts for the P-38 (G=26 and L=32). If you are keeping the J model in your mod then it belongs between the G and L models. The J was the first model with the powered control surfaces, so it belongs a bit closer to the L than to the G. Given G=26 and L=32, suggest J=30. The powered controls were a big boost in starting a turn, which is where the early model P-38's fell behind in head to head testing vs single engine fighters (P-40, P-47, P-51) - it held pretty well with them in turns after the slow start. These were the comments on the (previously posted) test documents with the P-38F or G (I forget) versus the P-47C, P-51B, and P-40 (forget which model).

Regarding other twin-engined fighters: The formula that was used seemed to do a good job overall, certainly for single-engine planes. It seems to me that there is a little more to aerodynamics than just the factors input to that formula - various shapes in various places make a big difference. This means that even though the formula did a good job, the door is always open for aircraft of designs that perform outside of the formula's predictions. Given the evidence available it is clear that the P-38 was one such plane. How many others were there? I simply do not know.

In general, while it is true that having two engines mounted on the wings requires more torque to roll than with one engine mounted centerline, there is a mitigating factor for many (or perhaps all) twin-engine fighters. On single engine fighters most of the weapons are wing mounted (I know some are not). In twin-engine fighters all weapons are centerline. In other words, when you go from a SE to a TE fighter, you double the engine weight and move it out to the wings, but you also take the weapon weight and move it in from the wings. Moving the weapon weight inward is a mitigating factor versus moving the (increased) engine weight outward.

Did the formula account for this? If not, then that is one justification for all TE fighters to get at least a small boost.

Aside from those two considerations (1-designs outside the capabilities of the formula, 2-weapons moving inward), I do not know if the modifiers for other Two-engine and four-engine planes is too severe or not.

It also has the effect of making Ki-45s much more viable in the fighter-bomber role and turns the Ki-93 into a real threat to Allied fighters ( which it would have been ).

I do not know about those particular airplanes so I must withhold comment.

[el cid again]

This is a complex subject - and we probably beat it to death within the limits WITP permits -

but - to start at the end -

Yes - there is a separate "nose .50" gun - not an RHS invention but inherited from CHS - which is the same bullet weight but greater accuracy (meaning ROF in WITP talk) - and the P-38 - having 4 of those - gets more boost than any other fighter (but not more than some amazing US bombers - which have as many as a dozen such weapons).

The above discussion confused torque and turning with angular momentum as the issue with a twin engine fighter. Indeed - a twin engine fighter need NOT have the problem - and RHS now has one of these - I think it is called Ki-62 - a plane with two CENTERLINE engines does not have the problem (neither would Pfiel - although it has a radically different centerline solution). But when the MASS of the engines is NOT on the centerline - you have a problem with conservation of angular momentum which no amount of aerodynamics or powered flaps can address: it is one reason a four engine plane is a dog at dogfighting (pun intended).

What WITP designers did - I suspect - was create a code creature called "fighter bomber"

then they classified 2 engine planes in two different ways

1) Bombers or transports were all divided by 2 - as in RHS

2) Fighters were NOT divided by 2 - but got classified as "fighter bombers" which could never be as good as fighters.

We went for a more consistent system - and we divide all 2 engine planes by 2 - but in the case of P-38 we classify it as a fighter -
and then we boost it for its nearly unique flap system. IF you boost for flaps - be sure to give the boost to the Ki-43 - both I and II -
both of which planes were grossly underrated - and not because armament or durability or range were wrong - but because maneuverability was way wrong. This plane was a technical surprise - and if the numbers do not show that somehow - it won't simulate properly.

It may be there was a different function in the original system: all 4 engine planes divide by 8 - while we use only divide by 4 - which we call "divide by number of engines" - but why the divide by eight has never been clear to me? The original system was a rough thing - and it is indeed hard to get a simple system to do well for all sorts of different aircraft. But the problem here is structural - we lack the kinds of maneuverability factors we need to do a good job - and it will never be right in every possible sense. It is simply impossible to show the relative advantages and disadvantages in a single number: P-38 had an admitted maneuverabilty problem - tactics had to take that into consideration - and if the right tactics were used it was actually better - while if not it was actually worse - than whatever composite value "should be" adopted. The same thing applies to many planes - which are not equal in vertical and horizontal nor at all altitudes nor at ROC - and indeed ROC is not the same at all altitudes - absoutely or relatively. Here we are afoul of a oversimplified system - and we cannot fix it beyond making things reasonable compromises - which must in my view include the flaws of P-38 - not ony virtues.

[Nemo121]

Cid,
 
What precisely are the differences between fighters and fighter-bombers according to the WITP code... Not in real life ( we all know that ) but in the code as thats what we're tryig to work with. Personally while I think roll rate definitely should be accounted for in the code ( particularly initial roll rate as that was one of the areas in which the FW-190 ruled supreme and we all know what a difference initial roll rate made there... same thing with the F-86/MiG thing in Korea ) I'm more interested now in just what the reason was for dividing by number of engines. If the formula gives a twin-engined plane a Mvr of 32 then why go dividing that by 2? At this rate the Ki-51 Sonia can outmanoeuvre the P-38 which is a bit silly.

[Mifune]

To answer part of this problem, in an effort to standardize by using formulas. We used what factors were readily available in reference books. Remember that the "manuever rating" is something of a misnomer to begin with.

[Historiker]

I still have some hundreds MB webspave with traffic flatrate left as well.
If needed, just ask...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The above discussion confused torque and turning with angular momentum as the issue with a twin engine fighter.

Torque is force applied in rotation. Angular momentum is momentum in rotation. Torque is applied to overcome angular momentum to make the plane roll. When an aircraft is made to roll, the control surfaces convert some of the force of the oncoming air into torque, which rolls the aircraft because it changes the angular momentum.

I did not go into it, but since you mention it in your post - larger control surfaces will generate more torque which will change the angular momentum more quickly. If the formula did not account for that, it could be one of the design issues that causes the performance of certain aircraft to lie outside of the formula results. BTW, control surfaces farther away from the centerline also generate proportionally more torque than those closer to the centerline, so even exactly where each surface is matters. Those details are way outside of my knowledge of these aircraft.

There was no confusion between torque and angular momentum in my post, nor do I assert it is "the issue" with a twin engine fighter.

Regarding engine torque, the P-38's two engines rotated their propellers in opposite directions, thereby canceling each others torque so there was no bias when rolling one way or the other. I presume that many twin engine fighters were designed that way.

Regarding the weapons, I addressed only placement and it's effect on angular momentum. Accuracy for centerline weapons should be higher as you say. The last time I looked at RHS, the P-38 had the exact same device for .50 cal machine guns as did those fighters with wing-mounted weapons. Obviously one or the other was wrong, or you ran out of devices. Similar considerations apply for the 20mm cannon - it should be a device with higher accuracy that that for wing-mounted 20mm cannon. I do not know what the weapons set is in Empires Ablaze so I had not commented.

[witpqs]

Nemo,

If you look in the AE Air thread you will find that they responded to my query about Fighter versus Fighter-Bomber to the effect that there is no difference when the FB is being used as a fighter. There is only a difference in how the FB behaves when it is carrying bombs. In other words, changing a plane from a FB to an F does not improve its air-to-air performance.

[witpqs]

Here is a photograph of the P-38 Lightning together with the prototype F-35 Lightning. Notice how small is the cockpit of the P-38. I've seen comments that it was among the most cramped of WWII fighter cockpits. Note too that the wingspan exceeds that of the modern/future jet fighter. Maybe some of these things contribute to the performance that it did achieve.



BTW, I realize that Sid wants a consistent formula and methodology. In my view the objective is an accurate portrayal of the various aircrafts' capabilities. Using a formula to get close, then making any fine adjustments warranted by historical information seems sensible and practical.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Cid,

What precisely are the differences between fighters and fighter-bombers according to the WITP code... Not in real life ( we all know that ) but in the code as thats what we're tryig to work with. Personally while I think roll rate definitely should be accounted for in the code ( particularly initial roll rate as that was one of the areas in which the FW-190 ruled supreme and we all know what a difference initial roll rate made there... same thing with the F-86/MiG thing in Korea ) I'm more interested now in just what the reason was for dividing by number of engines. If the formula gives a twin-engined plane a Mvr of 32 then why go dividing that by 2? At this rate the Ki-51 Sonia can outmanoeuvre the P-38 which is a bit silly.

Not so silly - for it could.

The focus of air combat discussion on "maneuverabilty: by gamers (I am a simulator - a different breed entirely) is more silly:

it only matters in a tiny minority of cases. Worse - the factor named that in WITP is NOT maneuverabilty at all - and this leads to

almost hopeless confusion - because we are using the word - so people imagine it means - well "agility" - the ability to roll being

one example of several forms of that.

The game wanted the air combat routine to be very simple - here I mean the sub routine that says' "when plane A makes a firing pass at plane B, what is the chance it achieves firing position?"

this routine did NOT want to look at speed - cruising or maximum

it did NOT want to look at ROC

and yet it was felt SOMETHING had to be done about the relative ability of the two planes - attacker and target - to "change position in the sky"

A senior programmer (who was NOT there when this was designed - in the 1980s apparently - for another game) guesses that the original
"maneuverabilty" was PURELY speed. Some of the data works out that way - it is just speed / 10 - and that is the ONLY thing that is then considered.

I found other data suggested that it might be a composite value - speed / 10 plus ROC / something I forget - and it was marginally stronger - and anyway better - so we went with that approach - and then added other things to it - careful NOT to change the fact that SPEED is the dominant component of this wierd form of "maneuverabilty."

ROC is different at different altitudes - in a radical way. ROC is essentially zero at absolute cieling, it is 100 feet per minute (that is the definition for all aircraft) at service cieling - and it is usually maximum at take off (sometimes it increases for a while, then decreases). IF we use ROC at full altitude - it will be a non factor - so instead we use initial ROC - where it shows a clear advantage to good climbers. But it is not true that the plane really has that ROC at all altitudes. Nor is theoretical ROC what matters in a real fight - your energy state and altitude can be used to actually permit you to do things quite differently - and it simply must be beyond our analysis - but in my world (of air combat simulation) - we normally figure out exactly where the plane is in the sky - and all aspects of how it is moving.

Roll is one of those - and it is NOT a factor at ALL in WITP - CHS - RHS or any other system I know of. We ultimately did figure out that it is related to some things - one of them is wing loading- and we did put wing loading and power loading in as minority factors - to boost the better performing aircraft relative to the poor ones.

Number of engines is one of the few things we did NOT invent - just "reformed" - if to make it consistent is a reform. The orignal WITP system DID divide 2 engine planes by 2 (but was inconsistent - it ignored 2 engine fighters - even if it was the very same airframe - one as bomber - one as fighter). It also divided 4 engine planes by 8 - apparently in order to insure they were stable targelts almost impossible to hit. But I noticed this was close to a consistent factor - the number of engines - and as an experienced builder of algorithms I played with it - and the factor works better than the seat of the pants original system - at least in general. The reason it works is that it neatly accounts for the issue of conservation of angular momentum - which at several points a PhD explained to us - as also have I attempted to explain. Nothing you can do can more than mitigate the basic problem this represents: any attempt to NOT divide by 2 is far more flawed than a system that does so - inj the context of this particular admittedly simplified system. In lay English- if the mass of the aircraft is predominantly on the centerline - rolling the plane is far more practical - while if it is spread over a great distance - the "moment" for the heavy masses becomes a problem. One multiplies the mass times its distance from the centerline to find the moment.

Now with a single engine plane that has NO contra rotating props - the torque of a rotary engine tends to help it roll one way - but not the other. That is not a problem with reverse spin props on a P-38, or props that are contrarotating - as a Ki-62 - which perfectly balance the tendency of one engine on the centerline to want to spin the plane.

And Ki-51 is in important respects more "maneuverable" than a P-38 - just not in all respects. Our results mask good features with bad ones - because they are composit values. This MUST be the case where one value shows lots of things. The more factors we add to the forumula - the worse the composite effect becomes. And the P-38 case is an extreme one - because while it is superb in some ways - it is not in all way - and can never be with respect to some of the things we consider - such as conservation of angular momentum. That does not make it wrong to include it - and is why it was done in the game for 2 engine "target" planes (bombers, transports, everyting but fighters)>

Must go - will explain the other part later.