Explain air-to-air combat to me

[rezaf]

Here's something I have a hard time understanding - maybe I'm just "doing it wrong" like I initially did with using torpedos or naval combat in general, but I wasn't able to figure it out on my own.
So maybe someone else can explain.

I'm talking about air to air combat. It doesn't feel right at all.
Keeping the generally low-lethality combat of the game in mind, it makes sense that fighter/fighter combat "amongst equals" comes with relatively few losses, depending on the situation (and the particulars are already something I don't really understand) I might get a 3+/x prediction, but usually it's more like 1+/x. Fair enough.

However, when I encounter unescorted torpedo bombers, slow and sluggish craft, burdened by a high payload, not built with air-to-air combat in mind at all ... I also normally get a crappy 1+/x prediction. With the same diminishing returns when attacking with more than a single fighter. And I can't help to wonder ... wtf?!?
Encountering such weak, unescorted prey should paint a broad smile on the face of my fighter pilots, yet they're struggling to do ANY damage whatsoever. Successive attacks might fail to cause even a single loss.
I'm currently playing the Midway scenario of the Japanese campaign, and I'm going to have to restart it because I can't protect my carriers for sh*t. I intercept the allied torpedo bombers long before they reach my fleet, but fighters maybe grind them down to 7 or 6 base strength. I swarm them with cruisers and their offensive AA, but this almost never does ANY damage (as opposed to allied AA, which seems to at least cost me one STR point every other time). I surround my Carriers with destroyers, whose defensive AA actually sometimes does a point or two of damage ... but only after the fact - meaning after the bombers drop their torpedos, which seem not even to be connected to the fighter's base STR, so they can do 4 damage in one hit even if the bomber squadron had only 4 STR left to begin with. Heck, I even park fighters in the skies above my carriers, but the dive bombers "push them away" and bomb regardless.
I can literally see the pilots of those divebombers looking over to my guys with a facial expression like this:


Now, please explain the way in which I'm approaching this wrongly - thank you very much in advance.
_____
rezaf

[Rood]

[...]after the bombers drop their torpedos, which seem not even to be connected to the fighter's base STR, so they can do 4 damage in one hit even if the bomber squadron had only 4 STR left to begin with. [...]

I noticed this as well, but at the time I just thought I got a "lucky" hit.

[gunnergoz]

American aircraft of the era were more durably built than most Japanese ones and could (and did) take a lot of damage and still keep flying. Grumman, builders of the F4F, F6F, TBF, was known as "the Grumman Iron Works" because their planes held together so well in combat. Japanese aircraft did not usually even have self-sealing fuel tanks, which were standard on almost all US combat aircraft and this added to the relative vulnerability of Japanese aircraft of that era. Later Japanese designs corrected some of these flaws, but not all and certainly not in time for Midway. That's my two bits, FWIW.

[Longasc]

I don't think you are approaching this wrongly.

Your fighters are underperforming (why?) and you are expecting too much.

I also have the diminishing returns problem when attacking Kates and Vals with multiple fighters. But I take out 3-4 for loss of none to 1 fighter, even 2-3 with only a 6 STR Wildcat with half a star of experience.
This still gives a bomber attacked by 2 Fighter squadrons 2-3 turns to get away. And that seems very much intended this way.

I think I figured out what's up. You are playing the Japanese maybe?
You are fighting with Zeros against American bombers and fighters. Might be the Zero's maneuverability and effectivity is not modeled as well as the ruggedness of the American planes. There are lots of reports of badly damaged Avengers and Wildcats and later Hellcats reports of making it home with two Zeros on their tail and so on.

Till Midway I find Wildcat and Zero very similar in performance vs each other with the Wildcat being better at taking out larger planes. Later on the Zero historically fell back compared to Hellcat and Lightning.
But I kinda agree, "1" damage vs a Torpedo Bomber, even if it is an iron ass whatever Avenger or so, is not appropriate. Even if this kinda asymmetrical balancing to make up for the deadly long lance torpedos that every Japanese ship shoots at me. They even hit Destroyers with them, brr!!!

I speculate the issue is with Zeros underperfoming at damaging American bombers. Crap shoot on my part, only played the US side so far.

[Qwer28]

But kill ratio early zero vs wildcat was 7:1. Wildcat and hellcat had bad engine, was slow and die most of time. And tactical bombers was just fly targets without fighters. I try shootingstar again early zero and that is not so mutch better. I think planes have bad stats.

[Longasc]

But kill ratio early zero vs wildcat was 7:1. Wildcat and hellcat had bad engine, was slow and die most of time. And tactical bombers was just fly targets without fighters. I try shootingstar again early zero and that is not so mutch better. I think planes have bad stats.

Edit: Sorry Qwer28, got a little agitated! No offense intended at all!

http://www.chuckhawks.com/1v1_zero_wildcat.htm
http://acepilots.com/planes/f4f_wildcat.html

Including a description how an Ace pilot didn't have enough ammo to give a Wildcat the rest. It just kept on flying.
It's worth reading that the Zero was indeed superior and feared yet this still didn't result in extremely one-sided engagements.

10,939 Zeros were built according to Wikipedia.
7,885 Wildcats, 12,275 Hellcats.
10,037 P38 Lightnings

7:1? Seems they stopped doing so quite early on. You can also read various battles from Coral Sea to Midway to Guadalcanal etc. etc. and check plane losses on Wikipedia or elsewhere and you rather find higher Japanese losses and not 7:1 Zero kill rates.
Now let's ignore that there were other fighters on both sides, seems the "7:1" ratio was very early only during the initial superiority in the early phase of the war. Just don't spin yet another "katana cuts through tanks and european swords in half" myth here for the Zero. And how to model 1 Zero shoot down 7 Wildcats ingame? Doesn't work out either.

I think the air attack of our ingame Zero against American dive and torpedo bombers as 1+ results are not good enough. The US Wildcat can do a 3:0 on Japanese Kates and Vals.

[gunnergoz]

One more thing to consider is that this game abstracts air combat - well actually, all combat - and is in no way a simulator of one-on-one combat engagements, be they on land, sea or air. The units are not even defined. It is intended to look and feel line WW2 in the Pacific and most of the time it succeeds at this, but sometimes we see through the smoke and mirrors and go "WTF? - that never happened in real life." Game design is compromise and in actual practice the mathematics of programming and play balance can cause a distressing disconnect like the OP reports.

While I like to think that I know something about history and I can use that to justify the outcome of certain game events, it does not guarantee that I can explain away every outcome in this or any other game, at least in historical terms. So, overall, as a grognard/military history buff, I've learned to take PG/PC style games (including OB:P) with a big grain of salt. They have to abstract and minimize a lot of things in an effort to stay simple, yet fun and playable. Furthermore, game balancing is as much art as it is science, a very dynamic process, and not everyone agrees with the results.

But don't let that stop you from reporting what seem to be bogus outcomes, because the developers do seem to listen to the posts here!

[rezaf]

I'm not sure citing historical combat effectiveness figures of planes are the way to go - this is a game and highly abstracted.

Anyway, I wasn't complaining about fighter<->fighter performance but fighter<->torpedo bomber performance.
I'm not at my gaming rig, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about Devastators or Avengers.
Individual statistics be damned, if I stop a single flight of torpedo bombers early and have 4 wings of fighters on standby, shouldn't I be able to stop them from sinking my precious carrier?
_____
rezaf

[adherbal]

A couple of notes on air combat:

- Overal damage delt by both attack and defender decreases if the defender has very low strength. This represents that they are scattered all around the airspace, trying to avoid combat while the superior numbers of the attacker are limited - only so many aircraft can chase a single target without endangering eachother. It's also a mechanic to allow badly damaged a better chance to escape back home it also encourages spreading your fighter attacks against multiple targets rather than "spamming" them one by one with every fighter you have.

- The way we balanced US vs Japanaese aircraft is the US have higher defense but lower attack, the japanese higher attack but lower defense. A wildcat and zero in 1 on 1 are balanced to be roughly equal. However if you play the tutorial missions you have US planes vs US planes so low attack VS high defense which causes lower casualties in general.

- If you do not have enough airfield or carrier supply output your aircraft lose efficiency. This is indicates by the colour of the fuel and strength numbers. Carriers taking damage also produce less air supply, so the more damage your carriers take the weaker your aircraft performance gets.

If none of these mechanics explain the low combat odds you are seeing, please provide a screenshot and/or savegame of the exact situation. I'm sure the balancing can still be improved so more data and examples are always welcome.

[rezaf]

Thanks for the explanations adherbal.

Overal damage delt by both attack and defender decreases if the defender has very low strength.

Such a mechanic is traditionally problematic in a single player game where AI weaknesses are offset by giving the AI player excessive amounts of troops, though.
Like I wrote in my first impressions thread, I'm generally fond of the less-lethal approach to combat in OOB, but in it's current implementation, aircover is almost totally useless.
I'd still be fine with this when it comes to equals (fighter<->fighter), but when I have to dread every incoming torpedo bomber DESPITE having strong fighter cover and a ton of cruiser AA, something isn't right imo.

If a torpedo bomber approaches and I have NO air cover at all, it'll drop it's torpedo and do its 2-4 damage to my carrier.
If a torpedo bomber approaches and I have four wings of fighters engage him, concentrate AA fire from four cruisers and surround my carrier with four destroyers, what happens?
The first fighter will reduce the bomber to str 6 or thereabout. With a little luck, the second might reduce it by a further one or two points. The last two waves are highly likely to have no effect.
The effect of cruiser AA is neglible, you always get a 0 combat prediction and only with a great deal of good fortune will you do any damage, even to a full flight.
So, after I did everything humanly possible to prepare myself, I'm still dealing with a torpedo bomber of 4-5 STR. It will fly right up to my carrier and drop it's torpedo, and do the same 2-4 damage to my carrier.
And with the combat model as you described it, chances are the bomber will be able to escape and repair back to full strength. I might be able to finish it if I can concentrate on the task, but god forbid another bomber comes in during that time. Or, much more likely, five.

If you do not have enough airfield or carrier supply output your aircraft lose efficiency.

Well, since I have no means of effectively protect my carriers, I wonder why you don't immediately realize this is the peak of a merciless downward spiral...

If none of these mechanics explain the low combat odds you are seeing, please provide a screenshot and/or savegame of the exact situation. I'm sure the balancing can still be improved so more data and examples are always welcome.

I'll restart the scenario next time I play and see how it goes.
_____
rezaf

[adherbal]

I've ran a quick test in the editor, F4F4 Wildcats VS B5N Torpedo Bombers

1 attack = 6 strength remaining
2 attacks = 3 strength remaining
3 attacks = 1 strength remaining
4 attacks = TP destroyed

A damaged TP bomber should definitely do less damage. I'll run a quick test on that as well.

[rezaf]

I've ran a quick test in the editor, F4F4 Wildcats VS B5N Torpedo Bombers

Thanks for expending the effort - but just to clarify again, in my scenario we have Zeros vs. allied torpedo bombers, not the other way around.
_____
rezaf

[adherbal]

Torpedo bomber test results:

10 strength = 5 damage
6 strength = 4 damage
4 strength = 3 damage
2 strength = 2 damage

So even a very crippled TP bomber does still deal a fair amount of damage. This is by design however, there are reports of single bombers getting through to score a torpedo hit and causing massive damage to carriers.

The idea is that you catch incoming bombers as soon as possible. CAP fighters should be positioned well ahead of your carrier force. If you try to defend on top of your carriers then there will always be some enemies slipping through.

Ideally you place your DDs ahead as an early warning screen, fighters nearby to intercept whatever is spotted, cruisers & battleships between the DD screen and the carriers to fire AA batteries at anything the fighters fail to destroy immediately. Sailing your carriers up/down/backward away from enemy bomber formations can also buy you a vital extra turn.

EDIT: Just read your comment about using Zeros. I'll repeat my tests with these.

[adherbal]

Results using Zeros is identical to the Wildcats. If you see different results, please provide information. I'm not claiming there aren't any bugs or imbalances remaining but these quick tests are providing the intended resultd.

[rezaf]

So even a very crippled TP bomber does still deal a fair amount of damage. This is by design however, there are reports of single bombers getting through to score a torpedo hit and causing massive damage to carriers.

I can see the reasoning - IIRC Pacific General even had "critical hits" that would basically one-shot your vessels. However ...

The idea is that you catch incoming bombers as soon as possible. CAP fighters should be positioned well ahead of your carrier force. If you try to defend on top of your carriers then there will always be some enemies slipping through.

The mechanic that allows bomber to just push aside any defending fighters and bomb anyway adds insult to injury, imo.
As I wrote earlier, I was/am playing the Midway scenario, and I scouted WELL ahead with flying boats. I saw the incoming forces way early, at least three turns before they could get to my carriers. One turn later, I was at their throats with at least three fighter wings. I positioned my cruisers to intercept and surrounded my (3, iirc) carriers with a flood of destroyers.
Even the very first torpedo bomber, which was alone and unescorted, I was unable to stop from inflicting 3 or 4 damage to one of my carriers. On short notice, five or six more arrive - what are you supposed to do?
_____
rezaf

[adherbal]

How many fighters do you have? You get 2 auxiliary Wildcats so mixed with your gilberts/coral sea purchases and possibly the Pearl Harbor P40 (you have a airfield so you can use land-based aircraft) you should have 4-5 fighter aircraft available.

Also, make sure you place your cruisers AHEAD of the carriers. DD's provide support fire for nearby ships but CAs and BBs do not. Instead they have an offensive AA ability to target aircraft directly during their own turn. If you position them among your carriers however that ability can't be used until the enemy has already reached and attacked your carriers.

A ball of cruisers should be able to deal 2-3 damage to an enemy aircraft as it passes over, so spread out your fighter attacks wisely and move the cruiser screen up and down to intercept any 1-2 strength bombers that do get through. This way you don't have to "waste" a fighter attack on these. Note however that the further you move with a CA/BB the lower the AA ability damage output. So the better you can estimate the route of the incoming enemy aircraft the more effective the AA barrage will be (since you won't need to move much to be in AA firing range).

[Erik2]

There is some contradicting advice her.
Normally you would keep you DDs in the outer ring protecting the heavies and the carriers. This was standard US procedure against naval attacks.
So DDs near the carrier and heavies around this group is an entirely different placement.

Personally, I was never a fan of battleships and cruisers moving around to hunt down air targets.
It is ok to have the AA function available before moving, I would add defensive fire similar to the destroyers to compensate and keep to the historical doctrine.

[rezaf]

How many fighters do you have? You get 2 auxiliary Wildcats so mixed with your gilberts/coral sea purchases and possibly the Pearl Harbor P40 (you have a airfield so you can use land-based aircraft) you should have 4-5 fighter aircraft available.

Do I have to remind you again that I'm playing Japan?

Also, make sure you place your cruisers AHEAD of the carriers. DD's provide support fire for nearby ships but CAs and BBs do not. Instead they have an offensive AA ability to target aircraft directly during their own turn. If you position them among your carriers however that ability can't be used until the enemy has already reached and attacked your carriers.

I know this and described my tactics in the posts above in depth.

Carriers WAY back, surrounded by DDs.
Cruisers ~1 turn ahead for completely useless concentrated AA fire
Some more DDs ahead.
Fighters on standby somewhere in this area.
Floatplanes FAR ahead, scouting.

A ball of cruisers should be able to deal 2-3 damage to an enemy aircraft as it passes over, so spread out your fighter attacks wisely and move the cruiser screen up and down to intercept any 1-2 strength bombers that do get through.

Err ... no. I think I downed a total of 3 STR points combined with all my cruisers in the 6 or so missions up to and including Midway.

This way you don't have to "waste" a fighter attack on these. Note however that the further you move with a CA/BB the lower the AA ability damage output. So the better you can estimate the route of the incoming enemy aircraft the more effective the AA barrage will be (since you won't need to move much to be in AA firing range).

Maybe I'm just a terrible player, but this doesn't work for me AT ALL. Anticipating AI moves is, if at all, only possible for me in hindsight - i.e. if I've played the scenario before and know what is to come. Moving doesn't reduce efficiency, it makes a useless thing even more useless, imo.

Keeping the non-lethal nature of combat completely intact, my armchair design solution would be for each attack to reduce combat effectiveness until a bomber spends a turn to regroup or something. So if you attack a flight of bombers three times in a row, it'd be too disorganized to maintain a coordinated attack.
But I can see that it's probably too late for such changes...
_____
rezaf

[adherbal]

Ah yes, when hearing Midway I instantly think about the US scenario. My bad. The Japanese version is very different indeed, with the instant US attack waves.

Considering the historical outcome (all Japanese carriers lost) in this scenario you are certainly expected to take carrier damage, or even lose some. Place your core carriers futher south so the auxiliary ones take the bulk of the damage.

Basically you have to weather the storm here. The US attack will run out of fuel/strength and then it is your turn to strike back. Repair your zeros before attacking however to deal with the defending Wildcats.

As a precaution, you may also want to launch your TP and dive bombers during the US attack to prevent them from taking damaged while parked on the carriers.

Your main task is to take midway, after which the US fleet retires IIRC. So it's not even necessary to destroy their carriers. Either way, it's supposed to feel like a very bloody battle, not one where you sweep the US carrier airforce out of the skies.

[Longasc]

So what now...

Seems everything is working fine and as intended. The results are even 100% identical for both sides.