Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Aircraft statistics

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Aircraft statistics Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Aircraft statistics - 1/5/2001 2:56:00 AM   
Sander

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/26/2000
From: heemskerk
Status: offline
Hello, I've compared aircraft-stats with historical information from books and from http://canopus.lpi.msk.su/~watson Check out this site, i really like the japanese names like: * Ki-49 Donryu * Ki-67 Hiryu * Ki-46 Kai * J2M Raiden * N1K2-Shiden Kai * Ki-84 Hayate etc (just funny) In my opinion there should be some serious re-editing of aircraft stats. Remember that a fighter with machineguns has no serious heavy bomber or antishipping capabilities. That's the difference with fighters with cannons.

_____________________________

Post #: 1
- 1/5/2001 6:09:00 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I agree that the fighter stats (among other things)need revision across the board. Not sure though what you mean by MGs being not too effective against bombers. Even a rifle caliber .303 could be effective against a bomber if there were enough of them, as the Hurricane demonstrated against twin engined MEs and HEs in 1940. And in most Japanese aircraft, bombers included, the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks made a/c very vulnerable to rifle caliber rounds when AP-Incindiary rounds were in the attacking plane's ammo mix. Then of course the US .50 was highly effective, not only against all aircraft but against light surface ships as well, despite the absence of an exploding shell. It had the range, velocity and weight to easily penetrate the armor on any a/c or the steel on any unarmored vessel or light tank. Certainly it was a much better weapon than the cannon installed on Japanese a/c, or the 37mm on the Airacobra. My solution to the egregiously flawed a/c stats was to assume that the F4F is 1 MVR worse than the A6M2 and the P40 1 MVR better and adjust OBC41 (using the editor) all late war US a/c, and the Spitfire variants, upward from there. The highest rated fighter in my revised stats is the P51 with an MVR of 30. The rest: F4U 28, F6F 26, F8 27, P38 25/27 (F/J), Spitfire VIII and MVR of 27. I judged these changes to be appropriate *relative to the A6M2 stats presented by the game designers* so they are not based on any formula. With these changes I have found that with the decent durability numbers on US a/c, the US bomber casualty rates are in the ballpark and can be left as-is. With the US fighter MVR numbers upgraded as suggested, Japanese Nells and Betties that lack escort are dead meat, and appropriately so. My other solution was to change all at-start USN pilots to EXP 80, all USMC pilots to EXP 70, and all USAF pilots to 60. UK pilots in India and Malaysia receive EXP upgrades across the board to 70 (on the grounds that these units were more likely to have experienced pilots transferred from the ETO or to have been more thoroughly indoctrinated about lessons learned during the Battle of Britain. With these changes I get Japanese victory ratios in 1942 that more closely approximate reality. The IJN can still still send waves of fighters against well supplied, heavily defended bases, but they lose about 1.4:1 (bombers and fighters vs. allied ftrs) when they attempt it, and about 1:1 when you just compare the fighter losses. The revision more accurately simulates the general lack of hitting power and speed of most Japanese a/c while still giving them a decent compensating advantage in EXP. I have found that with the modifications, Japanese A6M2s, Oscars, &c are easily able to overwhelm an isolated airbase like Clark, despite the presence of P40s, inflicting about 2.5:1 losses against allied pilots by dint of numerical superiority and the low initial Allied HQ preparation ratings. The Pearl Harbor raid using the historic opening move is just as devastating and the IJN losses do not change substantially. On the other hand, with my changes you no longer see 40 Oscars flying into Kunming and waxing 15-20 P40s without taking a loss.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 2
- 1/5/2001 6:37:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
I will take a look at changing around the experience ratings for some of the early Allied aircraft. I don't think that the Malaya pilots had any other experience. The fighter pilots were primarily New Zealand, with the Blenheim and Vildebeest pilots being stationed in the region as early as 1939. The RAF fighter groups that come in later were primarily those destined for the Middle East/North Africa. I am unsure about their active histories, as, some were freshly created (don't know if pilots were new or old!). In the last OBC41, I drastically changed around the cannon ratings for all Aircraft using Ken Kellog's in depth research, with most Japanese aircraft losing a bunch of Cannon ratings, and most Allied ones retaining or increasing theirs. Cannon ratings determine the amount of kills you will get. Manuverability, along with experience, determines your ability to actually use your cannon ratings on your enemy. Durability is the ability to survive a hit from cannons. At least, this is my understanding of the complicated action of A/C!! I will take a look at what happens if I do modify the manuverability, or, you could send that file over to me so I can take a look . Thanks a lot for the work guys!

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 3
- 1/5/2001 7:18:00 AM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
Please be carful when considering a changing alied aircraft performance upward. A good apponenet can put up quite a fight in 42 without these changes. I think the current stats in the current release are quite fair. Historically it was quite a while before the allies were able to achieve 1:1 odds. Seth

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 4
- 1/5/2001 7:19:00 AM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
RonStewart Matrix New Recruit posted September 04, 2000 08:34 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maj. Tom, I am greatful for the quick response! Yes the data of which I speak is related to OOB and aircraft data and for one aircraft, straight out omission! Permit me to whine. If I may: 1.) In the game: The Ki-45 is made available and even flown by several units in 1941. This is wholely unhistoric. The first unit to receive them was the 5th Senai in August 1942 located in Chiba,(Near Tokyo) Japan). Others being the 21st in October 1942 while in Burma, and the 16th Sentai in November in 1942 while in China. 2.) The Ki-61, 84, and 100 are totally misrepresented in the stats charts. (See #3 for more on the Ki-100.) Evaluations conducted on these aircraft back in the US during the war and after revealed: The Ki-61 was not truely bested until the arrival of the P-51 in the Pacific and it was on par with the F6F. The Ki-84 could handle all but the best Allied aircraft possibly the F8F (which unfortunately never saw combat)) and then only when outnumbered. But just the same could outrun and turn the P-51D and 47. 3.) The Ki-100 (HOLD ME BACK!) is flat out omitted from the OOB. Yet saw greater production than the Ki-102 which is included in the OOB. Not just that, it was possibly the best Japanese fighter aircraft of the war! (with the possible exception of the A7M which looked like a P-47 with the manueverability of the F4U) It was flown by inexperienced pilots with 100 or fewer hours experience. These green Japanese pilots fought them to a draw. Occassionaly Japanese pilots bested far more experienced American aces. In the hands of an ace........ Need I say more. If you wish for my sources I'll be happy to give you them. I wont go into the Ki-109 (Ki-67 conversion) and A7M (which was far better than the old A6M airframe, no matter which installment!) What am I getting at? If you want to add some real flavor, give the Japanese player at the very least access to the aircraft the Japanese flew and dont handicap him with antiquated cookbottle glasses and spam can skins biases of generations gone by. All I want to see is the truth as I've read it, as recorded by Western publishers. (I can't read Japanese, YET!) Stew. :}

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 5
- 1/5/2001 11:49:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
Yeah, I remember that post, most of it has been already covered I really don't think that many mainstream Allied aircraft (ie P-40E, Hurricane II, etc) will experience manuverability upgrades, or Japanese planes experiencing manuverability downgrades. I am thinking about re-adjusting experience rates. While playtesting, the Japanese managed to achieve all of their goals, but, the US tend to be slow on making a comeback. One thing that I changed was to have all USN CV's and CVL's appear with a full compliment of aircraft (ie. 24 Fighters, 36 Dive and 15 Torpedo). This will give them a bit more experience and thrown right into combat. My experience of the USN was that airgroups were trained well before the ships were finished, so they shouldn't have to build up their compliment of aircraft. I might even do such a thing with the IJN carriers, as, many of their airgroups were transferred from Land Based Groups already in existence. Some RAF groups transferred from the Middle East and North Africa will have fairly good experience, but, not enough to easily gain air superiority. Historicall, the RAF only gained air superiority when the Spitfire entered the scene. In between then, nobody had it. Airgroups in existence (barring Dutch, Chinese, Burma and Malaya Air Groups) will have a set experience of 60. The RAF in the Pacific in 1941 was filled with commonwealth troops, not given the stringent training of frontline squadrons, and the Dutch Air Force was very new and inexperienced in anything other than colonial policing. Increasing the experience of the USN Carrier Air Groups is also a possibility. They should be at minimum 75. With the present changes to cannon rates the number of Japanese kills have drastically decreased, with the number of allied kills slightly increasing. I think that modifying the experience levels slightly will give the Allies a better chance in wearing down the Japanese air forces by late 1942.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 6
- 1/5/2001 11:55:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
I, and virtually everyone else love the original Japanese names, however, they neglected to name all of their aircraft Some people put all Japanese named planes in their original state, with the rest retaining the American nicknames. This doesn't look as interesting to me, and the other alternative is to leave the unnamed planes blank (ie. "Ki-27 Nate" as just the "Ki-27"). I toyed with putting the manufacturer's name afterward (ie. A5M Mitsubishi), but, that results in many planes having the same name. The Allied nicknames are familiar, easy for us (mostly westerners!) to read. How many of us will know that the Hien is the Tony?

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 7
- 1/7/2001 12:54:00 AM   
Sander

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/26/2000
From: heemskerk
Status: offline
I doubt that mg fire is as effective as cannonfire against heavy bombers (germans and japanese didn't have any, maybe that's why they developed interceptors with cannons instead of mg?) Anyway, i rated fire as follows: 7mm or .303 = 1 point 13mm or .50 = 2 points 20mm cannon = 4 points 30mm cannon = 8 points I guess it will take a weapons expert and a veteran pilot to determine the true values. And anyway, i am neither.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 8
- 1/7/2001 6:33:00 AM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
I believe A6M2 zeros had a 7mm and a couple of 20mm canons. Seth

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 9
- 1/7/2001 12:07:00 PM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
Actually, I have a MUCH more complicated way of measuring Cannon ratings for aircraft It goes down to each individual MARK of weaponry, and only a few are fixed at 'rounded' numbers. For example... Type 89 7.7mm - Cannon Rating = 0.48 Type 98 7.7mm - Cannon Rating = 0.88 Browning .30 M2 - Cannon Rating = 0.63 Browning .303 - Cannon Rating = 0.66 Browning .50 M2 - Cannon Rating = 2.00 Browning .50 M3 - Cannon Rating = 3.20 etc... Each weapon is based off of shell size, rate of fire, and special quality (ie. proneness to jam). So, the Hurricane IIB, which had 12x Browning .303 Machine guns has a point rating of... 12 x 0.66 = 7.92 rounded up = 8 Therefore, the cannon rating for the Hurricane IIB is 8. It may be a little more complicated than stating... MMG = 1 HMG = 2 20mm = 4 30mm = 6 37mm = 8 But it more accurately represents the national difference in armaments. (PS. All of the hard work in figuring out all this stuff is thanks to Ken Kellog!) [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited January 07, 2001).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 10
- 1/7/2001 11:47:00 PM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
I aM PLAYING THE NEW ob AND zero cannons are rated at 7. You guys sure make it hard on a guy. I am getting the feeling that I am killing the same planes over and over again. What are the odds that if I get a kill or damage on a Warhawk that his plane is actualy destroyed and not back up next turn? Seth

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 11
- 1/9/2001 12:51:00 PM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 12
- 1/10/2001 5:39:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
That was the main problem. Japanese planes didn't have the firepower needed to guarantee kills.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 13
- 1/12/2001 12:52:00 AM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
I have an alternate explantion for the playtesters innabilty to achieve goals as americans. The people who tend to choose japan are beter! Anyway thats my theory. Does on playtester play both sides in multiple games? Seth

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 14
- 1/12/2001 12:54:00 AM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
Also if japan had exploited their initial success appropriately (aggressively). They should have done beter than historical. It is not my fault that the japs were wankers at the strategic level. I should not have to be. Seth

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 15
- 1/12/2001 12:56:00 AM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
Tom great reply. I think I outlined the problem. So does anybody know the odds of damaged VS destroy for zero "kills" vs p40?

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 16
- 2/6/2001 11:17:00 AM   
sethwrkr

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/8/2000
Status: offline
.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 17
- 2/9/2001 3:34:00 AM   
chanman

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Westminster, Colorado, U.S.A.
Status: offline
Hi Sethworker, I don't have an answer for you, just some comments. Robert Scott ("God is My Copilot") commented somewhere about the Japanese cannons jamming. Their firepower didn't impress him too much if I recall. On the other hand, when they worked, a skilled pilot could be very effective with them as demonstrated by Saburo Sakai ("Samurai") when he destroyed a P39 with fewer than 10 cannon shells I believe.

_____________________________

"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"

(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 18
- 2/9/2001 3:45:00 AM   
chanman

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Westminster, Colorado, U.S.A.
Status: offline
Hello Major Tom, you stated above in this topic that carriers should arrive with their full complement of aircraft. Does that include the Essex and Independence class carriers? Also, I just received a Bogue (well, actually two) carrier with no airgroup. Was this supposed to happen? On another topic, I am not sure of some of the a/c stat adjustments on the allied side. I can agree with the P36 and P40 stats, but everything I have read says that the P39 and Buffalo were pretty helpless against the Zero. Not only were these planes less agile than the Zero, but in the case of the Buffalo slower and the P39 at altitude above 15000 is a target (no supercharger). The changes to the cannon ratings seem fine, its just some of the MAN ratings I have questions about.

_____________________________

"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"

(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 19
- 2/10/2001 9:29:00 AM   
grumbler

 

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline
Chanman, Some of the allied CVE groups arrive with no airgroups due to the limits on the number of squadrons available in the game. Personally, I use the editer to consolidate the Japanese CVEs into a single group and use the leftover slots for the allied CVEs, but personal tastes may vary (the Japanese used their CVEs mostly for training, so you could eliminate them from the game entirely and have little impact on history, IMO). Aircraft stat numbers can certainly be argued. That's what the editor is for!

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 20
- 2/10/2001 10:54:00 AM   
chanman

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Westminster, Colorado, U.S.A.
Status: offline
Hi Grumbler, thanks for the reply. So, my Bogues are showing up with no air groups because I have been so successful protecting my early carriers? Oh, well. As for using the editor, currently I am unable to as my version of Excel is too old (95 or 7.0) to load the .xls file. I agree that the aircraft ratings are definitely arguable. They are certainly playable. In a "more perfect" world, I would have liked to have seen the MAN ratings split into Initiative and Agility. Initiative comparisons (heavily modified by aircrew experience) would dictate who would attack first (or at all) while agility would be used to modify the attack. Bombers that win the initiative would get a "free pass" at the target. Also, each aircraft could be rated at three altitude "bands": LO (<10000'), ME, and HI (>20000'). This would have allowed certain elements to come to light, such as the inability of the P39 to intercept the G4M Betty at HI altitude. Separating the firepower into offensive and defensive, which would change the way both the A20 and Beaufighter would have to be played. I know that this will never happen in PW, I just hope that some additional granularity of aircraft performance like the ideas above make it into WitP or the UV title. Until then......

_____________________________

"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"

(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 21
- 2/11/2001 6:39:00 AM   
grumbler

 

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline
I like all of these idea. I also hope aircraft charactoristics are more sophisticated in the new games. With modern processing power, it should still be as fast as PacWar was on my 386!

_____________________________


(in reply to Sander)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Aircraft statistics Page: [1]
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

0.168