Flak effectiveness (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


Blind Sniper -> Flak effectiveness (3/7/2012 9:13:36 PM)

Hello guys,

quick question for the expert players out there about flak effectiveness.

I'm playing the scenario 1 as Allied (started after the lastest patch) and we have played 19 turns so far, the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack has been devastating, all BBs hit (4 torpedoes each one at least) and 100+ aircraft destroyed, opponent's losses: 3 aircrafts destroyed and 9 damaged.
I thought it was the first turn, a lot of malus involved and simply I have been very unlucky, fair go ahead.

Now after 19 days where Japanese aircrafts bombard my bases continuously the losses for flak are only 9!!!
Rarely I see the aircraft name highlighted in yellow or red during the combat replay and almost all his attacks come from 10000ft. There is the FOW but it seems too low anyway...

What is your experience about flak effectiveness?




pompack -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/7/2012 11:00:42 PM)

Allied flak is only so-so but I find the Japanese flak to be very punishing. A couple of raids by mediums suffer enough losses that I have to rest 2-5 days for replacements to catch up. I have raised the raid altitude to 10k-11-k; it's much worse lower.




Dili -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/8/2012 12:15:35 AM)

Well below you'll get all the tiny machine guns firing .




Commander Cody -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/8/2012 8:04:10 AM)

You can search using "flak" as the keyword and probably find 20 threads on this topic. However, the consensus among a lot of players is that Allied flak (not sure about IJN) is less effective in the game than it was in real life. That's been my experience as well. The DaBabes scenario mods apparently handle flak in such a way that will get you more realistic results.

Cheers,
CC




Jeremy105 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/8/2012 8:13:58 AM)

Well below you'll get all the tiny machine guns firing[image]http://www.hergoods.info/avatar2.jpg[/image]




foliveti -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/12/2012 7:30:53 PM)

I also just started a new game scenario 1 and was appalled by the lack of Japanese losses on PH raid. It was three planes. The Flak is pretty bad.




crsutton -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/12/2012 9:59:33 PM)

Allied flak may be a little weak but don't forget that in the first few months of the war it was not very good in general. Old weapons, old ammo, and lots of green troops. Don't expect too much from it in 1942 either naval or land. It may be a bit underpowered but it does get better with time-as it should.




Shark7 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/12/2012 10:24:45 PM)

I've done a little experiment and with 2 simple changes to each AAA gun and its gone from what it is stock to completely deadly, even for Japan. Of course it messes with the game balance so in the end, best to leave it be.




Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 1:27:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've done a little experiment and with 2 simple changes to each AAA gun and its gone from what it is stock to completely deadly, even for Japan. Of course it messes with the game balance so in the end, best to leave it be.



Tweaking stuff without knowing the formula is an exercise in guesswork at best. Personally I find allied flak to
be utter Anaemic on naval vessels. This is ofc just one opinion. If/When or even should this be addressed, I leave
to others.

TTFN.







Shark7 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 3:13:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've done a little experiment and with 2 simple changes to each AAA gun and its gone from what it is stock to completely deadly, even for Japan. Of course it messes with the game balance so in the end, best to leave it be.



Tweaking stuff without knowing the formula is an exercise in guesswork at best. Personally I find allied flak to
be utter Anaemic on naval vessels. This is ofc just one opinion. If/When or even should this be addressed, I leave
to others.

TTFN.






Hence why I came up with it being better to leave it be. The two things I did was to increase the ceiling to the max listed for the guns, and also increased ammo capacity. The changes were very noticable, but had unintended consequences. Then again, never know till you try, right? If you are interested, you could try it yourself.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 3:51:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: foliveti

I also just started a new game scenario 1 and was appalled by the lack of Japanese losses on PH raid. It was three planes. The Flak is pretty bad.


quote:

Allied flak may be a little weak but don't forget that in the first few months of the war it was not very good in general. Old weapons, old ammo, and lots of green troops. Don't expect too much from it in 1942 either naval or land. It may be a bit underpowered but it does get better with time-as it should.


In dozens of starts I have never ONCE seen Japanese air losses even begin to approach the historical 29 aircrews and 40 A/C. A "little weak" doesn't come close to the situation...




jmalter -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 4:49:19 AM)

i agree w/ crsutton - allied troops at start are generally weak in morale, exp, & TOE. often they're not gonna have as much effect on 7.12.41 as they will after 3 months training/replacing/upgrading.

also i'll mention that flak often causes lots of 'damage' results, of which a certain %age will end up as ops losses or write-offs. these results won't show as kills in the flak column, can you use Tracker to check on IJN CV plane ops losses?

i wonder if the Dec. 8th start-date scenarios accurately reflect the IJN plane losses, as well as using the historical USN ship losses at PH.

lately i've been playing DBB_B vs. the IJ AI, i gather that DBB has alterations that increase flak effectiveness. IJ ops losses have been really high, & i see lots of damages when IJ bombers attack. thing is, lots of these damages occur when IJ raids an un-occupied Allied base! 30 IJA bombers will raid an empty base in the DEI, hitting oil and refineries (har-har sez i, it's down to you to repair them once you conquer the hex), and as many as 8 bombers will be damaged.

of those 8, mebbe 1 or 2 are likely to wipe out on landing or be written off. but what is causing the damage? does the DBB alteration give an 'inherent' flak ability to production centers?




HansBolter -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 11:43:56 AM)

Seems strange how long this has been debated and documented by players with almost no nod whatsoever from the devs.

If they chose to castrate Allied AA as a play balance item to make playing Japan more attractive to those who would otherwise not be inclined to play the historically losing side then I truly do wish they would at least come forward and acknowledge it.




Gräfin Zeppelin -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 12:52:42 PM)

No doubt here I think, allied flak needs a buff. Maybe a small one first and then see how it works.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 1:08:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

of those 8, mebbe 1 or 2 are likely to wipe out on landing or be written off. but what is causing the damage?


I blame palm fronds.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 1:11:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

In dozens of starts I have never ONCE seen Japanese air losses even begin to approach the historical 29 aircrews and 40 A/C. A "little weak" doesn't come close to the situation...


OTOH I've never seen US aircraft losses on the ground come close to historical either (200+.) Usualy in the 30-40 range, maybe. Also, in my current game, total ground LCU losses at PH were five (5) squads. So, I don't complain about the other direction.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 1:18:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Seems strange how long this has been debated and documented by players with almost no nod whatsoever from the devs.

If they chose to castrate Allied AA as a play balance item to make playing Japan more attractive to those who would otherwise not be inclined to play the historically losing side then I truly do wish they would at least come forward and acknowledge it.


This has been addressed in DaBabes and spoken of with great frequency. The biggest change as I understand it was making the USN's 5-in DP gun truly dual-purpose. In stock it is NOT dual-purpose. michaelm modified or opened the exec file to the DaBabes team to make code hooks available so the game can execute different paths with this device depending on whether it's firing AA or anti-ship. This is a big change; the 5-in gun was the core foundation of TF AA protection, particularly after mid-war.

Alfred posted a long, well-reasoned and argued post several days ago about the future of the game development-wise. There are no plans right now, so far as has been announced, to backward integrate the DaBabes changes to AA and ASW to stock scenarios. That's a Matrix/Slitherine decision, and since it's not free I personally doubt it'll happen. If you want much better AA, play the DaBabes family of scenarios, currently under expansion with a Guadalcanal version.




Blind Sniper -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 2:29:02 PM)

Thanks for the feedbacks, now the situation is more clear and I can live with this.

Anyhow I still have some perplexity about first turn, Japanese attack is too effective, with 100+ aircrafts destroyed and 40 ships hit/sunk a second day attack would have meaning no more BBs, CAs, CLs and maybe DDs alive...




Blind Sniper -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 2:30:51 PM)

quote:

That's a Matrix/Slitherine decision, and since it's not free I personally doubt it'll happen. If you want much better AA, play the DaBabes family of scenarios, currently under expansion with a Guadalcanal version.


Thanks for the info, my next game will be this one.




Puhis -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 5:19:46 PM)

It's 28th January 1943. Japanese flak have shot down 35 planes. [sm=bow.gif] Tens of allied bombers are almost daily bombing bases with flak concentrations, flying at 10000 feet. But nothing, not even operational losses.

Stupid.

[image]local://upfiles/30598/03593D69819A474CA36E5B0085E7A108.jpg[/image]




Shark7 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 6:07:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's 28th January 1943. Japanese flak have shot down 35 planes. [sm=bow.gif] Tens of allied bombers are almost daily bombing bases with flak concentrations, flying at 10000 feet. But nothing, not even operational losses.

Stupid.

[image]local://upfiles/30598/03593D69819A474CA36E5B0085E7A108.jpg[/image]


If you look at the devices in the editor you will understand why this happens. Even the bofors 40mm has only a ceiling of 9800 feet. You need large calibre DP guns for a defense in stock.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 6:09:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's 28th January 1943. Japanese flak have shot down 35 planes. [sm=bow.gif] Tens of allied bombers are almost daily bombing bases with flak concentrations, flying at 10000 feet. But nothing, not even operational losses.

Stupid.



What is the altitude max of Japanese flak?

Looking in the editor, very cursory look I add, I see only three pretty rare models which have a ceiling above 9000 feet. Look at the LCU types in the bases you're bombing and go to the editor to see what they have.




Puhis -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 7:16:07 PM)

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 8:50:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about Japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.



"Ceiling" or "effective ceiling"? And what about "Fire Control"? If the guns are just "bnging away into the blue" with no effective means of prediction (let alone radar) then the fire will be scary, but not very effective...




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 8:59:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.


OK. I'm just getting familiar with the Japanese OOB. I looked, and there are a lot more 75s and 88s than I thought, although many of them are in restricted units.

I looked in the DB and the 75 has an Effect of 13, and the 88 is 20. The Bofors 40mm is also 20, so the 75 is relatively lousy. I don't know how "Effect" cranks through all the algorithms, but the difference is probably, but not necessarily always, linear. Probably there are time-of-day and some weather factors in the formulae too.




Puhis -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 9:20:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.


OK. I'm just getting familiar with the Japanese OOB. I looked, and there are a lot more 75s and 88s than I thought, although many of them are in restricted units.

I looked in the DB and the 75 has an Effect of 13, and the 88 is 20. The Bofors 40mm is also 20, so the 75 is relatively lousy. I don't know how "Effect" cranks through all the algorithms, but the difference is probably, but not necessarily always, linear. Probably there are time-of-day and some weather factors in the formulae too.


Yes, Japan have lot of AA battalions and regiments. Most of them have 75 mm guns, but some regiments have 88 mm. I don't even bother to move japanese AA companies with puny 20 mm guns.

At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.




btbw -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 10:27:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Yes, Japan have lot of AA battalions and regiments. Most of them have 75 mm guns, but some regiments have 88 mm. I don't even bother to move japanese AA companies with puny 20 mm guns.

At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.

I think it because developers make one system error in calculation of area effect.
Bombs - 800kg GP have Effect 1788, accuracy 75, but for 250kg GP eff 551 and acc 26.
Same for flak - 12 cm eff 45 and acc 55, for 75mm eff 15 and acc 36.
Developers pronounce - larger weapon have more area of hitting. Yes it true. But why effect for flak so much different? Does plane dont take damage if splinter of from flak shell hit it? No plane take damage! Amount of damage proportional of CALIBER shell. Splinter from shell of 12cm and 75 mm dont have differences in 3 times. Even penetration of Frag shells counted as HALF OF CALIBER.
So damage from splinters depend from caliber and grow linear. Not 12cm/75mm = 45/15.
And we now coming to system error. Developers TWICELY raise 2 stats of area effect of weapon.
Effect - more caliber, much more damage. Even non-linear.
Accuracy - more caliber, more accuracy.
How it must be? If we raise accuracy for flak with raise caliber (it true cuz larger shell produce more splinters and can damage plane in more area, also bigger splinters save kill ability on some more range as result of weight on speed + lesser speed loss ) then we raise Effect as linear function. Also when we raise accuracy - we raise it non-linear.
So 12cm/75mm flak must have 24/15 eff and 35/26 acc. After that testing must correct those numbers for adequate gameplay.




derp -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/13/2012 11:52:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.


There is I think a tendency towards tunnel vision with regards to AA guns; people look at them and say "well, I only killed X aircraft today, they're obviously not doing anything at all" etc. Basically, there are two things that don't seem to be factored in a lot of the time:

- Effect of AA fire on bomber accuraccy - what's the odds a bomber hits what it's aiming at at a base with no AA guns v 50, or 200, or however many? Obviously the point at which it becomes a really significant factor is dependent on the size of the raid involved - but then that's a question of concentration that is completely situational. If you have a lot of guns, you can significantly hit the number of hits (so to speak).

- Effects of disruption on AA guns - remember that raids on airbases hit AA and base force units too; if the raids are large ones and the AA complement at the base isn't big enough to stand up to the number of hits involved they will get tired and disrupted and etc as the bombing progresses, which can take a few days to settle - days you won't have if bombing is persistent. I don't think many people look at those numbers too hard...they make a big difference.

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)




Shark7 -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/14/2012 12:57:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.


OK, here is the Japanese 75mm AAA, nothing special, and nothing stands out about it. However, I can't remember if it was in WiTP or Pacific War (both by G. Grigsby), but IIRC in one (or possibly both) game Japanese flak had a modifier of 0.75. Not sure if that is still the case, one of the Dev Team might though.

[image]local://upfiles/25927/8641F482439344B493F24E422E1B00B1.jpg[/image]




btbw -> RE: Flak effectiveness (3/14/2012 2:27:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: derp

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)

Are you talking about flak or dirt? Cuz dirt can be spread out on 46mi hex when flak concentrate in places which need to defend from air attack)




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125