Am creating new balanced MP scenarios

[the_iron_duke]

Here are the aircraft stats comparing the standard file and the GCUR by individual aircraft:

[the_iron_duke]

There are a number of individual tweaks to aircraft, but I would say these are the global changes deducter applied to aircraft in the GCUR:

- reduced German ammo (for gameplay reasons)

- reduced German fuel. His lower stats are better and more balanced for multiplayer use.

- increased Ground Defense for fighters. This is probably the most significant change, making fighters a lot less susceptible to A.A. fire. It also makes their Ground Defense higher than tactical bombers. This is realistic and is a positive change, creating better balance for multiplayer.

- increased Ground Defense for strategic bombers. Again, makes them a bit less susceptible to A.A. fire.

- Air Defense has gone up for a lot of units, making them take less damage in air-to-air combat. This is also a positive change, for me.

If anyone else feels able to contribute to air and vehicle stat improvements then feel free to do so, as they are not my forte.

[the_iron_duke]

Accepting that all German ammo levels should be boosted, these are my thoughts on each aircraft:

Bf 109G

I like the GCUR stats.

Fw 190A

I like the GCUR stats, very much. No longer an uber-unit in these scenarios.

Me 410A

Basically, as a fighter-bomber it has become more fighter than bomber in the GCUR. Someone else will know which is more realistic, but it's not me.

Fw 190F

Has become better at air-to-air combat in the GCUR and better at bombing hard things than soft things.

Ju 88A

Has become a better bomber in the GCUR, but more vulnerable in the air.

He 111H2

Has become a little bit better a bomber (of soft things) in the GCUR, and I think this unit needed this boost to make it still relevant in these later-war scenarios.

British fighters:

I like the GCUR stats.

Mosquito:

Has changed stats quite a lot. I'll have to test it to understand it better.

Typhoon:

Is improved in GCUR, and I like that.

Halifax Mk.III:

Doesn't exist in GCUR, but its global changes could be applied to the unit easily enough, I guess.

Lancaster Mk.III:

Doesn't exist in GCUR, but the Mk.I does, and it's improved. Not sure on this one.

All Soviet aircraft:

I like the GCUR changes from what I understand of them.

I'll have to test and compare the aircraft in the coming days to know better the changes of the GCUR.

[ThvN]

Well, I do know a lot about armoured vehicles and such... Planes much less, although I'm slowly working on an alternative system more suited to my needs, so I've gathered some info on those as well. About the Soviet planes, some models' stats do not make sense because the designations are used wrongly? I mentioned the Yak-9 earlier, and here the Il-2 is a good example, the 'M3' is a Western designation, and the date of introduction and stats do not add up... I'll see if I can think of some ideas for those problems.

Lancaster Mk I is technically the same as a Mk III, the difference was the engines were made in the USA. Late model Halifax was cheaper than Lancaster but carried slightly smaller bombload (15%?). Overall performance very similar.

BTW, about the infantry, I think you can safely give more elite 'base' troops a slightly higher INI, such as commandos and paratroopers. They rely on shock and surprise, so giving them a higher INI might make them better in tactics that they were historically used for, and also represent their greater marksmanship/training.

Blending the tank stats could give strange results. Remember that deducter tuned them to give historical outcomes in the GC's so he has to fudge some stats, like me. He also used standardized values for vehicles that carried the same gun, tweaking for later-war ammo improvements sometimes.

I'll have a look, thanks for making those nice tables, makes it a lot easier to compare. I notice the low CD for some tanks (Panther, T-34), and I already commented a while back on the fuel issues. Some are really low.

I noticed that low fuel and ammo can have a big impact on multiplayer, because humans are so much better at actually exploiting these. And refueling every two turns on large maps can really cripple some units, which worries me, and it is not just the fact that these units will lose much of their potential effectiveness by being out of the fight to resupply very frequently. You either leave them behind or you have to halt half an army to keep them supported, and this might unbalance some maps.

[ThvN]

OK... the quick synopsis after a good look at the stats: Some tank stats could use some tweaks as well.

Overall, I would use the stock ammo figures (not GCUR) and the stock AD, the GCUR stats are very low. For the rest, most GCUR stats are better, but the costs are all over the place. Some tanks are a bit strange in both systems, IS-1 and early IS-2 used the same hull and had similar armour. So they should have similar GD, move, fuel etc.

BTW, the IS-2 carried just 28 rounds, which would give it 3 ammo in my system, but I usually use 4 as a minimum, as it might be too vulnerable too 'gamey' depleting attacks. The IS-2 is way too good, I'll have to review some stats to see if I can come up with something better (esp. GD is way too high, try 22-23?)

The T-34-85 and the Sherman Firefly have to be the most difficult to model here.

In reality, their advantages could only be exploited in situations where they could operate with numerical superiority, one-on-one they'd often still come off worse unless the crew was good. The T-34-85 is hard to model, but the Fireflies are even trickier. They did not operate in seperate detachments, but were employed as 'snipers' to take out troublesome opponents while the 'normal' tanks distracted them, allowing the Firefly to take up a good position to use its better gun.

So by modeling these as a separate unit, their stats must be boosted (and nerfed at the same time) to give them 'historical' performance, or they should come with a warning label how they should be used ('mass attack only, no dueling'). I'm actually thinking about adding them to the AT class, as they are more similar to the M10/Achilles than actual tanks.

[the_iron_duke]

Here are the tank initiative values in order:

14 - Tiger II
12 - Panther G, IS-2
11 - Tiger I, Firefly (GCUR), T-34-85 (Std), IS-1 (Std)
10 - Firefly (Std), T-34-85 (GCUR), IS-1 (GCUR)
9 - Panzer IVH/J, KV-1C (Std)
8 - Cromwell VII, Sherman, Churchill VII (GCUR), KV-1C (GCUR)
7 - Churchill VII (Std), Crocodile

On the Firefly: technically, it probably shouldn't be included - it should just be Shermans.

Originally, they were necessary in game terms with the stock equipment file, as the Cromwell and Sherman were too weak. Plus, it was nice to have three different tank units in the British Armoured Division with different roles.

So the the choices for the British Armoured Division are: one Cromwell and two Shermans; or one Cromwell, one Sherman, one Firefly. Bearing in mind the Cromwell and Sherman could both do with a boost in the Hard Attack department, will have to check that the British tank complement of the British Armoured Division doesn't get too powerful in relation to the Panzer Division. They have 50% more divisional tanks and so have three tank units compared to a Panzer Division's two.

Best to try and model the units as they historically are and then test them and make a decision then.

EDIT: Since the tank destroyer of the British Armoured Division - the Achilles - is more powerful than the Germans' StuG IIIG, that lends more weight to the idea of dropping the Firefly.

[Tarrak]

Imho the IS-2 is way to high on the list there. It used separated cartridge and case system and the shells for such a big caliber guns it used was quite heavy and difficult to handle which resulted in a very low rate of fire. Additionally due to the slow flying shell and it's ballistic curve it was very difficult to use at long ranges.

I personally would model the RoF of the tanks as initiative within PC and not about the included RoF parameter for two reasons. First changing the RoF in game is very tricky as it got huge side effects and second as the UI does not display the RoF at all it's very intransparent for the user.

[McGuba]

I like the GCUR changes from what I understand of them.

Regarding the aircraft stats changes, me too, in most cases.

Me 410A

Basically, as a fighter-bomber it has become more fighter than bomber in the GCUR. Someone else will know which is more realistic, but it's not me.

Fw 190F

Has become better at air-to-air combat in the GCUR and better at bombing hard things than soft things.

Looking at its stats it seems that the Me-410 should be better against bombers (higher AA, lower AD) and indeed it was used as bomber destroyer, but when unescorted it was easy pray to the fighters. It was also an adequate ground attack "fast bomber".

The Fw-190 is not neccessarily better at air combat, but due to its higher AD it should suffer fewer losses against fighters. It was mainly used as ground attack plane so I think it is ok. Basically I like these changes.

Ju 88A

Has become a better bomber in the GCUR, but more vulnerable in the air.

He 111H2

Has become a little bit better a bomber (of soft things) in the GCUR, and I think this unit needed this boost to make it still relevant in these later-war scenarios.

These are one of those few changes I do not agree with. While the He-111 became obsolete by the end of the war and production stopped in 1944, the Ju-88 remained in production until the end of the war indicating that it had to be superior and not inferior. The Ju-88 was also faster by about 100 km/h. In general, the Ju-88 was probably the finest and most produced (more than 15.000 built) German medim bomber. While the later types such as Ju-188, He-177 etc. were even better by their time German air superiority was lost and focus went to fighter production. In my view, Ju-88 should definetely be less vulnerable to air attacks than He-111. GCUR pricing is also odd a bit: Ju-88 is more vulnerable, still more expensive.

So I would just leave the original stats for these, with higher price and lower naval attack.

Lancaster Mk.III:

Doesn't exist in GCUR, but the Mk.I does, and it's improved. Not sure on this one.

This is the "Dam buster" version, the one used to destroy the Ruhr valley dams and to damage battleship Tirpitz, so I think it is ok with the higher NA. Maybe a bit too high as deducter did not give higher than 8 NA to any aircraft. Maybe reduce to NA 10.

I mentioned the Yak-9 earlier, and here the Il-2 is a good example, the 'M3' is a Western designation, and the date of introduction and stats do not add up... I'll see if I can think of some ideas for those problems.

A good reference to use is the flight simulator game "Il-2 Sturmovik", I guess. I think there should be 3 main versions in the game, not two. First, there should be a single-seat version in 1941, which should be very vulnerable to air attacks. In mod I gave it AA -2 and AD 17.

This should be replaced by the two seat version with rear gunner, available from Oct-Nov 1942 with better stats like AA -6 AD 20. This can be designated as Il -2M, for simplicity, as in Soviet system it was simply called "Il-2 two seat" and the real Il-2"M" version with new guns became available from earl 1943. (There is some inconsistency between the designation of the different types and the different factories produced it with different configuration to make things worse.)

And then there was the "Il-2 with NS-37", first used during Kursk, equipped with the deadly 37mm guns, this is the one known as Il-2 3M or M3 in western sources. (Again, some contradiction between the different sources in designation.) This one should have higher HA somewhere in the 11-13 range, like the Ju-87G, which had a similar weapon (I gave it HA 12).

BTW, the IS-2 carried just 28 rounds, which would give it 3 ammo in my system, but I usually use 4 as a minimum, as it might be too vulnerable too 'gamey' depleting attacks. The IS-2 is way too good, I'll have to review some stats to see if I can come up with something better (esp. GD is way too high, try 22-23?)

Yeah, I have the same opinion. I few pages earlier I posted a table with the GD values for tanks which is based on the maximum thickness of armour in most cases. I think the IS-2 was given a bit too high GD for gameplay reason, so that the Soviets can have a good enough tank as well, even though it is not so accurate.

[the_iron_duke]

Thanks for the input, guys.

I'll test the initiative boost for quality infantry and see how it affects things.

Fuel levels should probably should be accurate. If a Tiger II needs to refuel after a couple of turns then it should. These tanks are so powerful, it would probably not be a bad thing for gameplay. I also wouldn't worry about them getting left behind since the scenarios feature infantry divisions with slow movement.

With the GCUR, a Bf 109G loses out 21% vs 26% against a Lavochkin La-5FN - is this accurate?

Generally, the armies will have one better fighter than the rest. So the Germans will have one Fw 190A, the rest being Bf 109Gs, while the Soviets will have La-5s and Yak-9Ds with their special fighter being a Yak-3 (the La-7 is probably a bit too powerful to use). These proportions are historically accurate.

For the British, the Tempest might be too powerful to use, so the fighters will probably be Spitfire Mk.IXs and Mk.XIVs. Could use the different SE_Spitfire_Mk.I graphic for the XIVs which has "invasion stripes": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_stripes

The Me 410A is functioning as a good anti-bomber unit with the GCUR. Against a strategic bomber Fw 190Fs score -1,-2, Bf 109s -1,-3 and the Me 410A -1,-4..

[McGuba]

With the GCUR, a Bf 109G loses out 21% vs 26% against a Lavochkin La-5FN - is this accurate?

I think yeah, more or less. La-5FN is said to be on par with the German fighters, while the next La-7 was said to be better than most piston engine German fighters. However, historically there were many different subtypes of the Bf-109G, ranging from G-2 to G-14 with very different characteristics and this is not represented in either of the e-files. So it could be better than an early 109G, but worse than a late G-10 or G-14 version. The "Gustav" was in production from 1942 to the end of the war (the K model was produced in smaller numbers) during which time a number of improvements were made. For example, the G-10 had a built in 30 mm cannon instead of the 20 mm one of the earlier types and had a better engine.

So I think it would be a good idea to have two Bf-109G in the game, an early and a late model.

In GCUR La-5FN has IN 10, AA 17, AD 19, and bebro gave it slightly lower stats in his Red Army campaign (Inferno): IN 10, AA 16, AD 18. I think both are acceptable to a degree. Anyway it was fine plane, and not only by Soviet standards.

Could use the different SE_Spitfire_Mk.I graphic for the XIVs which has "invasion stripes"

Or you could use bebro's much superior aircraft icons for all planes... He made seven (!) different Spitfire icons, among others...

[the_iron_duke]

Maybe for the aircraft, it would be best to begin with the fighters. I think we can probably leave out the British Tempest and Soviet La-7.



Using the GCUR stats, I would rate the aircraft in the following order, based purely on fighter vs fighter combat.

1) Yak-3
2) Fw 190A
3) Spitfire XIV
4) Spitfire IX
5) La-5FN
6) Bf 109G, Yak-9D

How would you rate them historically?

I'll have a look at the bebro graphics.

[the_iron_duke]

Here's a list of the fighters in the GCUR with the stats relevant to air-air combat. I have added A.A. and A.D. to make a combined score and sorted them by that score.



It would appear that A.A. is more valuable than A.D., as an La-5N has the same combined A.A. + A.D. score as a Yak-9D and has the same initiative but performs worse against a Bf 109G.

Bf 109G vs Yak-9D = 21% vs 22%
Bf 109G vs La-5FN = 22% vs 26%

I'm still not quite sure how initiative works as cutting an initiative point from an La-5 has no effect on its performance versus a Bf 109G.

A Bf 109G has the lowest A.A. score and the lowest combined A.A. + A.D. score.

[McGuba]

Using the GCUR stats, I would rate the aircraft in the following order, based purely on fighter vs fighter combat.

1) Yak-3
2) Fw 190A
3) Spitfire XIV
4) Spitfire IX
5) La-5FN
6) Bf 109G, Yak-9D

How would you rate them historically?

I would say this is one possible ranking order which I tend to accept. Later types are obviously better then earlier ones, so Spit Mark XIV. should be better than Mark IX, likewise Yak-3 better than Yak-9D. However, there was/is no such official top list to the best of my knowlegde. And I do not think it is possible to create one as it would only lead to endless debates. These were all fine planes in their own time IMO, with different characteristics at different altitudes which is not modelled in PzC. Comparing them to each other on purely a kill-to-loss ratio would also be misleading as tactics, pilot training and experience had a huge impact on those figures. E.g. late war Bf-109G/K performed much worse against enemy fighters than the Bf-109F earlier, mainly because of the inadequate pilot training and that they were usually outnumbered. If you browse the net you will probably find thousands of debates on which was better or "the best" of all. One such interesting debate can be read here regarding the P-47 / P-51:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... ain/31094/

and another here regarding Yak vs German fighters:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=126619

There are many aspects in this debate, but because of the similar performance of these top fighters, what really decided the outcome of the airwar in the end was the numbers and the pilot training.

A Bf 109G has the lowest A.A. score and the lowest combined A.A. + A.D. score.

Like I wrote earlier, historically the Bf-109G used in 1942 was not the same as in 1944/45. So, on a strictly historical view it might be pointless to compare it to the Yak-3 or Spit XIV as a Bf.109G2 or G4 produced in 1942 would not even meet them as by the introduction of those newer planes our early "Gustav", even if it survived two years of fighting, would had flown all of its hours and would be written off.

However, if you stick to the Bf-109G currently present in the PzC e-file, yes, the one became available in 1942 (presumable G2 or G4) is inferior to all the other (later) types of this list.

[ThvN]

Fighter planes: I've been looking at ranges of various aircraft, and looked through my notes.

Of these planes, Yak-9D has the best range by far, but that was because it was a long-range development of the basic Yak-9, and performed worse in combat because of the extra fuel tanks. So the fuel stats could use some work, maybe. Some rough range figures in km, on internal fuel only (some planes could carry drop tanks):

Bf109G : 560
La-5FN : 600
Yak-3 : 650
Spit IX : 700
Spit XIV: 740
FW190 : 800
Yak-9 : 850
Yak-9D: 1300

My rating, based on medium altitude dogfighting between equal pilots, and a profound lack of knowledge:

1) Yak-3, Spit XIV
2) La-5FN, Spit IX
3) FW 190A
4) Bf 109G
5) Yak-9
6) Yak-9D

Some thoughts and notes: it mostly depends on altitude and pilot skill. A Bf 109 could 'beat' the FW 190 on higher altitudes, and if a La-5FN used anti-FW tactics vs. a Bf109 he would be in trouble, and vice versa. Spitfire IX was a rushed (but succesful) interim model to counter the FW 190. Yak-3 was a small, lightweight fighter derived from the Yak-1, and was produced next to Yak-9, which was based on Yak-7. So there are two distinct Yakovlev 'families' of fighters.

I'm still not quite sure how initiative works as cutting an initiative point from an La-5 has no effect on its performance versus a Bf 109G

It should matter in average loss ratios, a higher INI will give a better chance of preventing return fire. The attack/defense hit percentage will be the same, but the plane with lower INI will have to suffer some hits first, but the remaining, unsuppressed part of the unit will still hit at the same odds. There might be less planes firing back (less hit rolls = on average less kills), but the chance for a single hit remains the same. It's like throwing dice, if you throw less dice your chance for each die to roll a six is still the same. I hope I make sense.

EDIT: Oh, and +1 for Tarrak and McGuba, they make very good points.

[the_iron_duke]

Those range statistics might give fuel levels something like this:

Bf109G : 41
La-5FN : 43
Yak-3 : 47
Spit IX : 51
Spit XIV: 54
FW190 : 59
Yak-9: 62
Yak-9D: 95

By the way, do you know the production numbers of other Yak-9s versus Yak-9Ds?

I'm still not quite sure how initiative works as cutting an initiative point from an La-5 has no effect on its performance versus a Bf 109G

It should matter in average loss ratios, a higher INI will give a better chance of preventing return fire. The attack/defense hit percentage will be the same, but the plane with lower INI will have to suffer some hits first, but the remaining, unsuppressed part of the unit will still hit at the same odds. There might be less planes firing back (less hit rolls = on average less kills), but the chance for a single hit remains the same. It's like throwing dice, if you throw less dice your chance for each die to roll a six is still the same. I hope I make sense.

There is no change in the combat odds in a combat between a Bf 109G (Initiative 10) and an La-5, whether the La-5 has 9 or 10 initiative. They both have an unsuppressed strength of 10 despite there being an initiative difference of 1. Which is why I still don't understand it fully.

[ThvN]

Those range statistics might give fuel levels something like this:

Those look like nice figures.

By the way, do you know the production numbers of other Yak-9s versus Yak-9Ds?

Difficult, as changes were phased in during production, but not at the same time at each factory. Most variants weren't even officialy standardized (see McGuba's explanation of the Il-2 versions). So I have no idea wether the following numbers for the most common versions are reliable:

Yak-9 - 459 (?) (introduced late 1942)

Yak-9T - 2748 (march 1943 - june 1945, bigger 37mm gun in nose to take out bombers, also effective vs. ground targets. from 1944 also as 'TD' model with more fuel as per Yak-9D and later on also as UT when based on Yak-9U)

Yak-9D - 3068 (march 1943 - may 1944, basic Yak-9 with more fuel tanks, in 1944 performance was somewhat improved)

Yak-9M - 4239 (early 1944, improved Yak-9D with cockpit moved backwards, similar flying performance but better balanced and equipped)

Yak-9U - 3900, but this includes post-war production, only comment was that the 'majority' was build during the war (slowly introduced during april 1944, available in numbers from october 1944, improved Yak-9M)

[the_iron_duke]

Was wondering whether to keep it as a Yak-9D or make it some other Yak-9.

The fighter stats could be improved to try and get them more in line with your ranking system. Anyone else want to have a go at putting them in order...?

On initiative again, could you explain how this happens?

- a two initiative point advantage causes 2 suppressed
- a one initiative advantage causes 0 or 2 suppressed (La-7 has one initiative over a Bf 109G and suppresses 2; I reduced La-5 initiative by one in a test and there was no suppression while dogfighting a Bf 109G).

If keeping with a Yak-9D might have to reduce its stats a little since it has such good range.

Any thoughts on initiative adjustments to the fighters?

[the_iron_duke]

Here's a few short interesting comments on the Fw 190 vs Bf 109: http://worldwartwozone.com/forums/index ... vs-bf-109/

It would be interesting to try and use initiative (and A.A. and A.D.) to better model these things and give each plane a bit more character, so a better fighter might not just have 1 more INI, AA and AD.

From what I understand, the Fw 190A and Bf 109G were a lot closer in performance than they are in the game. Anyone have any thoughts on comparing the two aircraft: their strengths and weaknesses? Was one more intended to take on other fighters or were they equally general-purpose against bombers and fighters?

EDIT: Found another interesting thread - lots of good quotes on the first page. 13 page thread so am still working through it: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviati ... 32158.html

I'm wondering whether Bf 109 should have higher initiative and Fw 190 lower? Bf 109 should have weaker A.A. than Fw 190.

[McGuba]

In the end I have decided to make 3 subtypes to the Bf-109G to resolve the inconsistencies with its performance compared to other late war aircraft. My reasons:

- Subtypes are not at all uncommon in the standard e-file or GCUR. Just look at the Yak-9D / Yak-9U of the standard e-file, or the La-5 / La-5FN of GCUR. Bebro went as far as to add 3 subtypes to some fighters in his Inferno Red Army campaign: La-5 / La-5F / La-5FN and Yak-9 / Yak-9D /Yak-9U.

- The Bf-109G was by far the most produced version of the Bf-109, remaining in production from 1942 to the end of the war as not all the factories could move to the K version.

- During its long production time a number of important changes were made, significantly improving its performance.


So here is my rough list:

Bf-109G-2: IN 10, AA 15, AD 20, available from: 5.7.1942, same as the "Bf-109G" of GCUR. In total about 3.000 G-1, G-2 and G-4 were produced.

Bf-109G-6: IN 10, AA 16, AD 20, available from: 5.4.1943, with a pair of much more effective 13 mm machine guns, replacing the 7.9 mm ones. Some were used as bomber destroyers equipped with air-to-air rockets. A small number of G-6 had 30 mm cannon instead of the 20 mm one. However, slightly slower. (+1 AA for all these) Total production: more than 12.000.

Bf-109G-14: IN 12, AA 17, AD 21, available from: 1.7.1944. had an improved engine, with water injection which boosted its performance for short periods of time. Had a new canopy greatly increasing the pilot's field of view. A large number of G-14 and G-10 were equipped with a 30 mm cannon instead of the earlier 20 mm one .(+2 IN, +1 AA +1 AD for all these). In total about 8.000 G-14 and G-10 were made (confusingly enough, the G-14 preceeded the G-10 in production)

From what I understand, the Fw 190A and Bf 109G were a lot closer in performance than they are in the game.

Having more subtypes to the Bf-109G would solve this. The late G-14 with these stats is almost as good as the Fw-190A of GCUR. Might be made even better slightly? Do not forget, by that time the Fw-190D is available as well. So, maybe, the Fw-190A could have lower AD like 19-20 while retaining its high AA (making it IN 11, AA 18, AD 19). It would also make it less "über" fighter at the time of its introducion. And closer to the current GCUR stats of the Spit IX (IN 10, AA 17, AD 20), which is generallay regarded as having similar, if not better performance. I think it would make sense.

I'm wondering whether Bf 109 should have higher initiative and Fw 190 lower?

dunno

Bf 109 should have weaker A.A. than Fw 190.

If we speak about early Bf-109G, surely. But, I think a Bf-109 equipped with a single 30 mm cannon would have roughly the same AA capability as an Fw-190 equipped with a pair of 20 mm guns.

[the_iron_duke]

Those revised stats for the Bf 109G and fw 190A look good (I was testing the Bf-109G-6). It gives them an interesting dynamic in that the Bf 109G is lighter and the Fw 190 heavier, so the latter inflicts more damage but also receives more damage. Here are the combat test results against Spitfires:

Bf 109G-6 vs Spitfire IX: 22% vs 26%
Bf 109G-6 vs Spitfire XIV: (22% x 0.8 =) 17.6% vs 26%
Fw 190A vs Spitfire IX: 31% vs (31% x 0.9 =) 27.9%
Fw 190A vs Spitfire XIV: (31% x 0.9 =) 27.9% vs 31%

How do those results look? Are the Spitfire XIV's results too strong against a Bf 109G-6?

Initiative again. Here are some combat test results of initiative differences in air combat and the resulting suppression taking place.

10 v 11 = -1
10 v 11 = -2
10 v 12 = -2
10 v 12 = -3

I was thinking that suppression was decided by initiative alone. I noticed, however, that the greater suppression levels were occurring with stronger aircraft (e.g. La-7), with the same initiative differences. So it must also be taking into consideration A.A. (and possibly A.D.) as part of the suppression calculation. The suppression values also change with unit strength. So two full-strength units with different initiative at may not show any suppression in combat, but if their strengths were different they would.