Zero a little stronger then it should be?

[The Juggernaut]

I was reading up on the Hellcat as I didn't know much about it, and ended up migrating over to reading about the A6M 'Zero' and read something interesting.

Comparing the Zero the the Wildcat, the Zero could take very little punishment, it had no armor, no self-sealing fuel tanks, and used every trick in the book to lighten the plane up so it could be as maneuverable as it was. In comparison, the Wildcat had armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, and could take punishment, I even read about a Japanese ace that reported he fired every round of his 7.7mm guns into a Wildcat and still didn't put the plane down.

In the game there is only a difference between the two by 1 hit point. To me it sounds like it should be a little more then that, maybe 2 or 3?

Did I miss something, or did they give the Zero 16 hit points to make the game more balanced?

[Pooh]

I agree. The wildcat ought to be the toughest of the 4 planes with miniatures and the Zero the weakest. In addition to armor it had a radial engine which could still run with entire cylinders shot away. Both the spitfire and the 109 with their magnificent liquid cooled engines will go down in a hurry if radiator or coolant line is hit.
However, I also feel they didn't give the zero its due in manouverability. At the slow speed especially, it ought to out turn any of the other 4.

Pooh

[Max von Clickenhoff]

I am with Pooh on this one. The Zero should out manouver any plane.

[check6]

and the ki-43 ought to outmaneuver the zero. The hurricane should also be tougher than the spit and 109. and the spit should be able to slightly outturn the me-109 (that ninja s-turn is nice, but it only goes so far)

things like this are what have lead me to leave the WWII stuff sitting in favor of the much better WWI system.

[Mac]

The Wildcat was slower.
To quote the old pilot axiom; Speed=Life.
The cat could take punishment but a few well placed shots and . . .
Read many of the general "consensus" stories of aircraft statistics, and performance and then reading the actual aircraft "in the real world of combat" and you find two very different things.
On Paper, The Detroit Lions are a very formidable football team. In actuality, on the field, they stink. :)

[Pooh]

Except that the wildcat held its own against the zero. In large part this was due to some innovative team tactics (Thatch weave amonst others) used by the USN. It was also because the wildcat was a difficult target to knock down while the zero, superior in every performance catagory went down quickly if you could get hits on it.

My take on it is that the zero ought to have even better peroformance than its given but fewer hit points. It should be the Fokker DR1 equivalent for WW2.
I won't argue with the list wildcat manouver deck but claim that the wildcat should have more hit points.

This is a game however. Maybe the problem is that there is much more data available for the WW2 aircraft so issues are raised for them that slide for the WW1 stuff.

Pooh

[richard m schwab]

Zero vs Hellcat that the question. They both have their strong points and weakness. In a one to one match, the Zero has the advantage. Two to one in the Hellcats favor and the Zero is in trouble.
On a different match up. The Hellcat had better have three to one against a Tony. It took four turns for a novice in a Ki-61 to drop a Hellcat. The Hellcat pilot also a novice, came back into the game and got nailed again. That time by a Zero after the Tony had already hit it in the same turn.
In the same game i flew an Oscar and got shot down twice. A P-40 and a P-39
double teamed me twice. The Oscar has no hitting power. I was making good passes and doing no damage, meanwhile i was being shredded.:mad:

It is all fun.

P.S. Don! My brother in law is a Tigers and Loins fan. He has grown accustomed great expectations, with no returns!
Rich

[Mac]

I am getting confused here, are we talking the Wildcat F4 or Hellcat F6?
The Wildcat was slower and had fewer guns than the Hellcat.
Remember too, the P-40 in the hands of a capable pilot could give the Zero a run for it's money. As the Hurricane vs the Bf109, You take what your plane can do and use it. The Zero was a magical plane until the Allies found that one in the Aleutians, then low and behold it was found we had some pretty good stuff to counter it.
I agree Pooh, good points.
Richard, that is why I like the Red Wings!;)

[csadn]

Comparing the Zero the the Wildcat, the Zero could take very little punishment, it had no armor, no self-sealing fuel tanks, and used every trick in the book to lighten the plane up so it could be as maneuverable as it was. In comparison, the Wildcat had armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, and could take punishment, I even read about a Japanese ace that reported he fired every round of his 7.7mm guns into a Wildcat and still didn't put the plane down.

I suppose one could make an optional rule where Zeros take additional damage from Fire criticals, and/or other criticals affect Zeros for more game phases; not sure what the increases would be, tho'.

[richard m schwab]

Don ! Forgive the Senior moment, I should have said Fm-2 Wildcat. Yes the skill
level of the early war IJN / IJA pilots gave them the edge. Most had real combat flying in China and more flying time in general.

I live in a professional sports dead zone. I am a 49`s:) fan on the wrong coast. I am forced to watch the Maryland Deadskins and root for whoever they play! I have boycotted MLB since their last strike, going on 30 years now, and i grew up in Cincinnati!

Rich

[Tallyho]

I think the main thing is, it's a game. It needs to be balanced with that in mind -- if it's not fun for both sides to play it won't be a very good game.

Lower the Hit Points of the Zero by too many and it becomes a one shot- one kill situation. Beef up the 'cats too much and then they become almost too tough to shoot down.

The Zero also had other advantages the game doesn't really simulate well (which is not all that surprising really, since it's a game and not a simulation). For example, the Zero had phenomenal range -- right from the beginning of the war. It would take the United States till the end of the war to develop a fighter that could fly bomber escort from England to Berlin and back, but that kind of flight was routine for a Zero from the start. But, that's not going to make a whole lot of difference in the game we play.

I would love to see the Zero as much more maneuverable -- better turning cards, climbing and diving rates, and whatnot. But I guess we have to do that in home- brew rules if we really want it. It doesn't really bother me that much though, on the whole I think it's not bad as it currently is.

[The Juggernaut]

I assumed it was a balancing factor for the game, at least they attempted making it accurate with giving the zero one less point.

I wish it was a point or two more, giving the zero 15 hit points and the wildcat 18 or 19, but make the zero a little more maneuverable, but I guess it all comes down to making a more balanced game. To me the WWII game seems more in line for the typical wargaming type crowd, where the game is more balanced in the numbers (both players have the same amount of planes) and not the scenarios (player A has 2 good planes and player B has 3-4 decent planes).

[Mac]

That is most likely the reason yes. But that is the great thing about the game, try other things, tweek it a bit. We do in our league and if it works, we use it, if not, no harm no foul, move along to the next one!
Adds to the fun to experiment and try new things.

[Pooh]

Tim,

I agree its a game, and my hat is off to Andrea for making such a nice one.

The range point is a good one. Actually, most of the american fighters also had good range although not as good as the zero. The European fighters tended to have the shortest range. I try to put this in my scenarios as giving longer ranged planes more fuel to burn.

Richard, I'm also a 49's fan; never really warmed up to the seahawks. I'm old enough to remember the Joe Montana/Steve Young days so it doesn't seem so bad.

Pooh

[check6]

why not have zeros treat smoke damage as fire damage to represent their wonderful tendency to catch fire. Also, you could allow Wildcats (and other planes with rugged radials) to ignore their first engine damage (have them announce that they have drawn their first engine damage, but keep the second secret as normal).

[Oberst Hajj]

I initially had these same thoughts bout the Zero. You guys are on the right track about the game balancing aspect, but I'm not sure you are seeing the big picture.

By analyzing quite a few of the WWI planes and their stats, and then looking into the handful of WWII planes that are out, two things started to show...

First, there are only 4 different speeds for the decks (so far at least). That means that each deck has to cover a pretty large range of planes that could possibly be released. I don't have my numbers or cards in front of me, but a real life speed advantage of 50mph (which was a lot!) gets lost in the cards as each deck has to cover 75mph (these numbers are just made up to illustrate my point!).

Second, because of the cost of making the game and keeping the retail prices at their target price, the number of different maneuver decks also has to be limited. This once again translates into one deck having to cover a few different aircraft.

This issue never really shows in WWI because the aircraft at the time were very similar in performance stats as well as ability to handle damage. WWII is an entirely different animal where the early planes would be more then hard pressed in the hands of an Ace to hold their own against a novice in a late war plane.

[Mac]

I agree Col., There is that line, sometimes very fine , sometimes very broad, between playability-historical accuracy. Early bf109's, and that includes many of the finest pilots the Luftwaffe had, complained of the lack of firepower they had, calling the guns door knockers. But to include that in the game may just disgust many a player or *shudder* turn them to Hurricane fanatics!!
I say again; Tweek Away and keep track of the results. Like Balloons in the WWI version. Tweeking and playing makes the game much more interesting and puts more of a personal stamp on it.

[richard m schwab]

As has been pointed out many times, WOW and DOW are fun playable games!
There are simulation games that go into great detail and are totally unplayable.
If shaving a damage point off the Zero makes the plane better give it a try. If
you want to try see what a machine gun armed Me-109 is like, lose the cannons. Enjoy yourselves , have fun!

Rich

[HardRock]

Always a struggle to have balance and real world capability in a game. I tend towards real world, I like my games to be more simulation than game. But I do enjoy games with balance, if they are done well and enjoyable.

I have friends that I would not try to get them to play some games as this would erupt their ulcers, or give them ulcers. DoW and the A&A series, DBA as examples.

Some games try to take themselves seriously, and that's pure tosh. They act like a simulation, but didn't do the work or research. Some players act like a game is a simulation, or thats how it worked in reality. :eek:

This is a good game, fun and enjoyable. There are simulations out there, play them if that fits what you want better. If you can add a little to a game to make it more fun for you, go ahead. Once you bought it, it's yours to play anyway you want.

There was a game made several years ago that the author warned against changing his carefully researched (biased) stats, because other players would think you were cheating.

Are you having fun? Then you are playing the right game.

[richard m schwab]

Henry!

You just described why i stopped gaming in the mid 90`s. DOW is the first
fun game i have played in years. I have gamed since 1969 and rivet counting was never for me. Give me something that moved and win, lose or draw was fun.
The last national convention i attended was in 1990. I was in a game that
everybody lost. Walking through booby traps in rice paddy`s is not fun gaming!

Rich

[Rollout]

Great discussion, gentlemen!

I picked up the Dawn of War game a couple years back and a buddy dropped it after being disappointed with the Zero. I didn't know any better one way or another except in a general sense that the Zero should handle better than the Wildcat, but that the latter should take more punishment.

Of course, we weren't doing anything with the game but trying it out. (No aces, skills, or missions then.) I regret I didn't spend more time with the game and we focused on WWI instead. (Which I also love.) But I appreciate the simplicity of the system and am willing to give up some detail points for fast and fun!

[Gallo Rojo]

Remember too, the P-40 in the hands of a capable pilot could give the Zero a run for it's money.

P-40 had only two advantages over the Zero: it could take more punishment, and had a faster diving speed. All skilled P-40 pilot could against a Zero was dive, shoot, and run away diving even deeper. That's what the AVG were doing (focusing on Bombers actually, rather than engaging Japanes escort fighters -- plus, their normal enemy was the Oscar, not the Zero).

About F4F Wildcat vs Zero, in historical terms, there was a no-brainer: the Zero wins. It was faster and more maneuvrable. I'm 100% with Poh on this one, the Zero should be the more maneuvrable plane in the 2 minis series. Why it is not? who knows! I guess that they wanted to make a more balanced bame (more playable too) so they make both planes look alike in the game (while the Zero was much better in real life)
and yes, as some others said, it should be weaker (maybe go down with just 12 shoots).

F6F Hellcat vs Zero was the other way around: the american plane was mutch better.

[csadn]

About F4F Wildcat vs Zero, in historical terms, there was a no-brainer: the Zero wins. It was faster and more maneuvrable. I'm 100% with Poh on this one, the Zero should be the more maneuvrable plane in the 2 minis series.

I'd have to look it up, but I recall the Zero had some rather nasty handling quirks which made its use by all but experienced hands difficult.

I do know its non-boosted engine made it rubbish at higher altitudes.

[Doug]

Whereas I have read with intrest the comment made by other player I have to agree with the comments made by Col. In my view it is only a game (thank God) and for me part of the fun is playing with what u have got! Though I must admit I will be using modification that Jared made.

[Gallo Rojo]

I'd have to look it up, but I recall the Zero had some rather nasty handling quirks which made its use by all but experienced hands difficult.

I'm not sure about handling quirks regarding the Zero... but the Sopwith Camel did have them and yet it is an excellent fighter in WoW.

Imperial Japanese Navy pilots from the beginning of the war were really well trained and in some cases had lots of actual combat experience from flying missions over China.



I do know its non-boosted engine made it rubbish at higher altitudes.

The Zero had two main advantages: it was very maneuverable and had an incredible autonomy (which make it excellent for long range missions, something crucial for the Pacific theater).

For our gaming purpose its agility is the only relevant factor.

But the zero was an agile plane only at low-moderate altitude, at high altitude become a clumsy fighter.


Anyway, the problem here seems to be a choice regarding playability.
I guess DoW designers wanted to give us with a sets of minis covering the early stages of WW2 and covering both Europe and the Pacific theaters.

For Europe, there is no trouble: early versions of the ME-109E and Spitfire MkII were about even.

Now, in the Pacific, there was a different story: in early stages of the war, the Zero was better than anything the allies had.
Later on, when the new generation of American fighters was introduced (F6F, F4U), the Zero was totally outclassed.

So I guess it's is really hard to make a balanced game in the Pacific.

As some other posters said, the reason why F4F Wildcat made a good stand against Zeros was due good tactics (such as Tach's S maneuver).

In historical terms the Zero was much better than the F4F.
I wish they had make it more historically accurate in the game.

[Foobs]

At high speeds the zero lost elevator and aeileron response, especially the latter which means you could outmaneuver it initially but once you bled speed (energy) you best be in a position to run (trade altitude for speed and skedaddle) because no matter what you are in if they still have cannon shells you are in trouble. The first zeroes (up to the A6M2) only had 60 cannon shells which isn't much but certainly enough to pop down a couple of Wildcats with a reasonable pilot. As for firing all the 7.7mm at a wildcat and it still flying this isn't really a surprise given that the early spits and hurri's had 8 of these roughly equivalient guns (later hurris had 12 before switching to 4x20mm cannon) and there are plenty of tales of the enemy fighter or bomber shrugging them off a lot of ammo thrown their way and heading for home. Later zekes traded up for these to 15mm (rougly .5 cals like in many US fighters) + 2x20mm cannon for much greater effect.

As for 2 wildcats v 1 zeke being more reasonable, as always it depends. This fight is fine as long as you start with energy and altitude. Without the energy you lose. Without the energy and altitude the zeke will quickly out climb you and pick you off one at a time at its choosing with the wildcats being able to do little except try to escape and cover each others back from the zeke boom and zooming them. As always though this depends on the pilots and training. This result is much more likely at the start of the war before attrition damaged the quality of japanese pilots.

Now to the P40 what does it have? Ruggedness, speed and the all important super sexiness. No point staying and fighting. Same tactics, boom and zoom if you have the alt or dash through and dive. If you are lucky the zero won't shoot at you because he will be too busy admiring how damned sexy the P40 is. Don't count on it too much though as the propaganda at the time credited the japanese with poor eyesight...

Fortunately the P40 could count on its speed and sexiness advantage right through the war.

[csadn]

At high speeds the zero lost elevator and aeileron response,

That sounds about right.


because no matter what you are in if they still have cannon shells you are in trouble. The first zeroes (up to the A6M2) only had 60 cannon shells which isn't much but certainly enough to pop down a couple of Wildcats with a reasonable pilot. As for firing all the 7.7mm at a wildcat and it still flying this isn't really a surprise given that the early spits and hurri's had 8 of these roughly equivalient guns (later hurris had 12 before switching to 4x20mm cannon) and there are plenty of tales of the enemy fighter or bomber shrugging them off a lot of ammo thrown their way and heading for home. Later zekes traded up for these to 15mm (rougly .5 cals like in many US fighters) + 2x20mm cannon for much greater effect.

I recall reading somewhere -- can't find the ref, dang it -- that cannon shells of the period were only really effective against non-agile targets (bombers, Russians... :) ); the shape of the cannon shell was "aerodynamically a brick", and in some cases would start tumbling after maybe 100 yards. The explosives in the shell would compensate a bit -- the cannon may only score 1-2 hits, but those 1-2 hits did a *lot* of damage. It wasn't until after the war that designers started making cannon shells in the same general shape as bullets (narrow nose, boat tail), and brought the range and accuracy up to where they made a proper substitute for the machine-gun. So, in some ways, the cannon-armed fighters are possibly a bit overpowered (considering at short range most of them can destroy an opponent in one shot...).

(I also have seen a pic of a F-86 in Korea using experimental explosive ammo for the 0.50 -- which tended to blow up in the breech.... :P )

[Foobs]

Actually the hispano 20mm cannon was the bomb. Sure the 30mm cannon that the krauts used was a brick but it came in at a time when the main target for them was a fortress or liberator.

I read a report somewhere on why the yanks didn't change to 20mm from their .50 cal and it was more a matter of expediancy and sticking with what they had. It was at a time when they were considering whether to move to .60 cal weapons or 20mm cannon in their next series of fighters. The ended up moving onto the 20mm over the .6 admitting that the explosive power in the 20mm cannon was the right choice.

Douglas Baders first experiences with cannons was that he flew into his normal range and fired watching the cannon shells streak past his target and so in frustration he flew a spitfire Va and stuck with 8 machine guns for a while. He later became a convert to the cannon though. (especially when a 20mm cut his plane in half later on - haha put that in for the poms out there that still think this arrogant bugger wasn't really shot down... ;) )

The 20mm cannons in the nose or the 109-F4 and on and the G-2 were fantastic for dealing with fighters. Super accurate for the time and with good range, though in part this is due to their being no requirements for convergance if you pack the guns in the nose.

I have also read that the cannons on some of the late German planes allowed them to open up from outside the range of the .50cals on the bombers though everything I have read on this is anecdotal and without anything concrete I am left suspecting that some late war German fighter pilots fired off all their ammo from a range they felt they could possibly get away with and then scooted off. Can't really blame them given the odds at that point in the war...

Canons really became the air to air weapon of choice imo from the SpitV, Hurri IIb, 109 E-3 onwards in the war. The 50cal did fine because of the quantity and because of a chance of the AP rounds getting through the pilot armour but nothing knocks a plane down quicker than an exploding shell. (except maybe a sexy P40 with it's .5cals, but that is a special case...)

That said I wasn't there and can only go off what I have read. Always happy to hear other people's thoughts!

[aricart]

I am new to wings of war and do not know all the house rules in the forum.

The limited difference between the zero and the wildcat really bothered me at first but I am working on some house rules to correct it.
the zero had an advantage turning becuase of its high horsepower for weight ratio compared to the Wildcat. therefore it could continue to perform a tight turn and hold its speed, the wildcat could not maintain its speed and would stall. therefore now when I play tight turns for most airplanes are extreme maneuvers and can not be played one next to the other except for the zero, and the Ki 43 in the original game.

On the other hand the zero had a very slow roll rate at high speed while the whildcat had a good roll rate. therefore the house rule I use is that the zero can not go from a stright turn directly to a tight turn, instead it must make first a shallow turn and then progress with the next card to a tight turn. the wildcat can go directly to a tight turn although it can not maintain it.

Third I also use a house rule that aircraft can not play a left turn card immidiately after a right turn card and vice versa. this as the airplane has to bank into the other direction.

So far I think this gives a better flavor of the fight between these two airplanes.

Alberto

[HardRock]

Actually there were a fair number of US 20mm armed airplanes. The P-51A had 4, last of the Allison engined mustangs. All P-38's had one, P-61 Black Widows had 4 and most of them dropped the .50cals they had in addition. Late war Tigercats and Bearcats had 4 20mm, and there were some Corsairs that had 4 20mm instead of .50cals.

Mostly it was ballistics, for the same bullet flight path, and good converged zones, And also probaly logistics. Which I assume was the reason for dropping .30cal mgs, that were mixed in with the .50cals.

It's been a long time, but I remember something about Japanese 20mm. They had no explosive warhead, only solid slugs. That would make better than a .50cal, but not as much as HE 20mm shell.

[Foobs]

Yeah I forgot about the F4U with 4x20mm. The P38 and P61 def had them but still the standard was the .50cal. Can't find anything after a quick search on the Japanese canon but I will certainly have a better look and a look in my books to see what I can find. I do know they had problems with material quality which may have something to do with their cannon shells being less effective.

Will certainly have a look to see what I can find.

Back to the original part of this thread though (sorry if this has gone OT!) I can't believe there is only one point difference in the A6M and F4F either.

[csadn]

Actually there were a fair number of US 20mm armed airplanes. The P-51A had 4, last of the Allison engined mustangs.

Um -- the -51A only had 20mms in British service; the US models used 0.50s.


All P-38's had one, P-61 Black Widows had 4 and most of them dropped the .50cals they had in addition.

None of these were designed as "proper" fighters; the -38 was originally meant as a high-altitude bomber-destroyer, while the -61 was meant to deal with night-intruders. The -38 being used extensively as a dogfighter was a result of the US's enemies treating air power as solely "flying artillery"; thus, the -38s had to become dogfighters, as their expected opponents never materialized.


Late war Tigercats and Bearcats had 4 20mm, and there were some Corsairs that had 4 20mm instead of .50cals.

No F7Fs or F8Fs served in WW2 (the -8Fs were still working up when Japan surrendered). The F4U cannon-users were either ground-attack, or night-fighters; not air-to-air. (A similar phenomenon occurred in Korea; the USAF was responsible for dogfighting, while the USNAF and USMCAF handled ground-attack, and dealing with "Bedcheck Charlie".)


Mostly it was ballistics, for the same bullet flight path, and good converged zones, And also probaly logistics. Which I assume was the reason for dropping .30cal mgs, that were mixed in with the .50cals.


It didn't help that 0.30s were notoriously ineffective (which leads me to wonder about the French 0.295-cal. MG... :P ).

As I understand it: The 20mm shells used at the start of WW2 were aerodynamically awful (this improved later, when the shells were made to look more like MG/rifle bullets); coupled to a low rate-of-fire, limited ammo capacity (between 7-10 sec. of fire at full-tilt; where the MGs got 20 sec.), and issues with mounting cannons in wings (the wings would flex, causing the ammo feeds to warp, and preventing the shells loading -- this was mainly a British issue; Germany used engine-mounts, or underwing gondolas), the cannon wasn't exactly as brilliant as everyone thought. That Germany accomplished as much as it did with them was more a result of the "mine shell" cannon round; a very thin shell around a bucketload of HE -- it may only hit once, but when it did....

[aikavaras]

Cannons are better than machineguns. It's simple mathematics. Their weight to power ratio is better. You can calculate how many kilograms of ammunition a weapon can launch per second and compare that to weapons weight. And cannons win this comparison hands down. That's why both sides put increasing amount of cannons to their fighters as war went on. Brits are a good example, early war Spits and Hurris didn't carry any cannons but later models did.

[HardRock]

I've seen photo's of F7F's with battle damage, 1945 in the Pacific. F8F's were in on one carrier moving up to the front when the Japs surrendered, close as you can get to combat without the shooting, but in service.

Still the point was US aircraft with 20mm.

[csadn]

Cannons are better than machineguns. It's simple mathematics. Their weight to power ratio is better. You can calculate how many kilograms of ammunition a weapon can launch per second and compare that to weapons weight. And cannons win this comparison hands down. That's why both sides put increasing amount of cannons to their fighters as war went on. Brits are a good example, early war Spits and Hurris didn't carry any cannons but later models did.

Um -- no. It's *not" simple mathematics; like I said, I need to find that reference on the aerodynamics of WW2 cannon shells. See also remarks about jamming of wing-mounted cannons on British acft. (19 Sqdn. particularly condemned the things). When cannons advanced to the level machine-guns had achieved, only then did it make sense to make them common (and with the advent of jets, wing-mounted guns became unnecessary, as there was no propeller to shoot around; so fuselage-mounts became de rigeur, which ended the whole flexing-of-wing-mounts issue anyway).

Oh, one other point: Muzzle velocities on the cannons were *much* lower (which shortened range), as was rate-of-fire; you'll note modern cannons have muzzle velocities and RoFs comparable to machine-guns (or worse; x-ref GAU-8...).

[csadn]

I've seen photo's of F7F's with battle damage, 1945 in the Pacific.

No -- you've seen pics of F7Fs damaged in Korea which have been misidentified as WW2. No F7Fs saw combat in WW2.

[aikavaras]

Um -- no. It's *not" simple mathematics; like I said, I need to find that reference on the aerodynamics of WW2 cannon shells.

I'd like to see that too.



Oh, one other point: Muzzle velocities on the cannons were *much* lower (which shortened range), as was rate-of-fire; you'll note modern cannons have muzzle velocities and RoFs comparable to machine-guns (or worse; x-ref GAU-8...).

I disagree. You can't make a generalization like that. Some cannons have good rof and/or muzzle velocity. And this is first time i hear someone say that cannon shells have worse aerodynamics.

Let's compare two weapons that were very commonly used together, mg-131 and mg-151/20. These weapons' muzzle velocity and rate of fire is very close to each other.

mg-131
Rate of fire: 900 round/min (15 per second)
Muzzle velocity: 750 m/s

Mg-151/20
Rate of fire: 750 rpm (12,5 per second)
Muzzle velocity: 805 m/s (M-Geschoss); 705 m/s (HE-T, AP)

[Gallo Rojo]

The zero had a very slow roll rate at high speed while the whildcat had a good roll rate. therefore the house rule I use is that the zero can not go from a stright turn directly to a tight turn, instead it must make first a shallow turn and then progress with the next card to a tight turn. the wildcat can go directly to a tight turn although it can not maintain it.

these sound like great house rules to me. Together with making the Zero survability weaker (being shoot down at 12 for example) and maybe making the F4F harder to shoot down (some house rules have been mentioned here about it) I think the game can become as historically accurate as I need.

Can you please describe what maneuver card you use for a "stright turn", a "tight turn" and a "shallow turn" please?

I'm guessing "stright turn" is a full speed turn and "tight turn" is a slow speed one... but I can't figure out what are you using as a "shallow turn"




Third I also use a house rule that aircraft can not play a left turn card immidiately after a right turn card and vice versa. this as the airplane has to bank into the other direction.



Canvas Eagle's rules do something like this, but not for all planes.

Do you think it could be implemented for some more maneuvrable planes but not for others? For example, here I'm guessing that Zero's better wing spam could give it the hability to zig-zaging while the F4F cannot?
(it's just an idea)

[HardRock]

No -- you've seen pics of F7Fs damaged in Korea which have been misidentified as WW2. No F7Fs saw combat in WW2.

"F7F-3Ps flew a few operations for the US Marine Corps towards the end of WWII."

This matches the photo's I've seen, battle damage during a recon sortie. South Pacific island, definitely not South Korea. Bouganville IIRC.

No fighters made it before the Japanese surrender, Okinawa.

[Black Bishop]

Cheers

Regarding the US choice of 50mm HMG over cannons, in addition to a very long US vs RAF debate about what weapon was more effective for air combat (some of which have already been covered by other posters) there are two more things to take into account:

first: the Americans considered that the main goal their fighters was to engage and shoot down other enemy fighters. Having that goal in mind a burst from 4 or 6 50mm Browning was all they needed.
Other nations considered that one important role for their fighters was to shoot down enemy bombers, in which case cannons come very in handy.
Related with this there was also the old sword vs. shield battle: American fighters never had to deal with heavily armored bombers (or very sturdy fighters for the same sake), as their enemies had to. So again, 50mm HMG were good enough to shoot down anything they will face.

Secondly: the debate here seems to be a two poles one: cannons vs machine-guns. Now, the Browning 50mm carried by most US fighters was not just a machine-gun, it was a heavy machine-gun -- and an excellent one. The Americans had that type of weapon, others nations didn't.
Zero's carried just two rifle caliber MG instead.

regards

[green dragon]

Just for purposes of the game, when a Zero gets hit, the controlling player rolls a D6. On a 1, boom, down in flames. We do this for the early Zeds, not later models with SSFTs.

Tally Ho!

[csadn]

first: the Americans considered that the main goal their fighters was to engage and shoot down other enemy fighters. Having that goal in mind a burst from 4 or 6 50mm Browning was all they needed.
Other nations considered that one important role for their fighters was to shoot down enemy bombers, in which case cannons come very in handy.
Related with this there was also the old sword vs. shield battle: American fighters never had to deal with heavily armored bombers (or very sturdy fighters for the same sake), as their enemies had to. So again, 50mm HMG were good enough to shoot down anything they will face.

Exactly -- the reason the P-38 carried a cannon was that it was designed as a high-altitude bomber-destroyer; the problem being: The only nations with large high-altitude bombers forces were all on the US's side....

Oh, and just to be nitpicky: It's a Browning 0.50-calibre, *not* a 50mm (50mm = approx. 2". :) )


Secondly: the debate here seems to be a two poles one: cannons vs machine-guns. Now, the Browning 50mm carried by most US fighters was not just a machine-gun, it was a heavy machine-gun -- and an excellent one. The Americans had that type of weapon, others nations didn't.
Zero's carried just two rifle caliber MG instead.

Not strictly correct -- the Japanese developed a 0.50-cal. (Ho-103, or "Type 1 12.7mm"), but mainly used it on single flexible mounts on bombers.

[crhkrebs]

Getting back to the alleged advantages of the Zero..............I think it all comes out even in the end. Yes, the Zero seems to be more robust than it should, but that is evened out by it's lack of maneuverability. I think the two factors cancel out and still give a good game. If you are playing early war, then bring a Japanese Ace into the mix to mimic their experience in the Chinese theatre. Also use the natural 1 roll on a D6 to emulate a "brew-up" as someone already mentioned. I think you'll find the game works out fine in the end. It's NOT a simulation! (God help us all if it was):)

[Bartman]

I haven't had the chance to even open my WWII DE set, but I have been reading over the forums to see what kinds of issues/thoughts folks have had on the WWII game in general.

This has been an interesting one to say the least (although the MG/Cannon discussion has been sort of bleh).

I have a lack of real technical knowledge of the aircraft of the period. I think I was aware that in general the Zero was for the most part a more maneuvorable plane, but I don't know that this would've registered at all in terms of the game mechanics if I hadn't read this thread.

I can't wait to get home and get a few games of this in.

[richard m schwab]

Bart!

The only way to get the true feel for a Zero is to play with the altitude rules! Early on they could out climb anything in the air. To appreciate the Zero also fly the KI-43. The Oscar was the IJA wonder plane at the start of war, it quickly fell behind as newer Allied planes came long!

Rich

[Bartman]

Thanks Rich!

I will definitely keep this in mind as we start to play this. We always use altitude rules so it sounds like this may be a plus based on what you say.

I just got through reading another thread where someone here made additional cards for the Zero and Spit with tighter slow speed turns (two for the Zero and one for the Spit), and dropped the Zero's damage rating to 12.

Do you think this is a necessary or a good thing to think about given your experience?

[richard m schwab]

Bart!

In 1941 and 1942 give any one who flies a Zero Ace status. The biggest factor in the Zero was it`s pilots, they had more training and in some cases years of combat in China! They were good, to counter any Zero you need a two to one enemy ratio!

Rich