Small flak test (and flak only)

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Small flak test (and flak only)

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Small flak test (and flak only)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Small flak test (and flak only) - 5/2/2010 9:14:59 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

I used Guadalcanal scenario to run small flak test. Both sides have TFs of 2CV, 3CA and 7DD.
No fighters at all, just bombers and flak. Task force distance 2 hexes.

1st battle

Japan AM attack: 54 vals and 36 kates. Losses were 12 vals (22%) and 8 kates (22%)
Allied AM: 72 DBs and 30 TBs. Losses were 9 dive bombers (13 %) and 3 torpedo planes (8 %)

Both japanese carriers sunk, and one US carrier badly damaged.

Allied PM attack: 25 DBs and 9 TB. 4 DBs were lost, none TBs. So allied total losses were 14 DBs (14 %) and 3 TB (3 %)

2nd battle
I loaded the game again, moved TFs a bit and run the turn again. This time very easy for torpedo bombers.

Japan AM attack: 54 vals + 36 kates. None of the kates were lost, but 11 vals was shot down (20 %)
Allied PM attack: 72 DBs + 30 TBs. Again, 0 TB was lost, and only 6 DBs (8 %)

Both allied carriers and one japanese carrier badly damaged. So there was only japanese PM attack of 12 vals and 12 kates. This time losses were 2 vals and 1 kate.

-------
So far it seems that allied flak is getting 2:1 kill ratio. Also most of the japanese planes were damaged next day. But I'm going to continue this test tomorrow...

< Message edited by Puhis -- 5/3/2010 5:33:12 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Small flak test - 5/2/2010 9:36:40 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

I assume all the losses you note were to flak? No CAP?

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 2

RE: Small flak test - 5/2/2010 9:37:49 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I assume all the losses you note were to flak? No CAP?

All fighters set to training/rest. So no CAP or escorts.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 3

RE: Small flak test - 5/2/2010 9:57:20 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I assume all the losses you note were to flak? No CAP?

All fighters set to training/rest. So no CAP or escorts.

excellent. No run this scenario 100 times and report....

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 4

RE: Small flak test - 5/2/2010 9:59:01 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

oh, and it would be helpful to know the AAA rating of each TF.

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 5

RE: Small flak test - 5/2/2010 9:59:02 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1871
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

2 test isn't statistically significant of course, but a strong indication that allied AA is indeed stronger.

Some factors that may be interesting to control for though.
- Pilot exp/skill
- Ship exp

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 6

RE: Small flak test - 5/2/2010 10:04:39 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 14058
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Interesting...one very substantial USN victory and one significant IJN victory.

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 7

RE: Small flak test - 5/3/2010 5:32:05 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

OK, six rounds now. Both TFs have almost equal AA valua (Allied 4100, Japan 4226). No CAP, all losses are flak losses. All DBs are set to 13000 ft, and TBs to 8000 ft.

Dive bombers are more vulnerable to flak on both sides. USN mean DB losses are 12 % (56/468), while mean Val losses are 16 % (58/361). Round number 5 was very bad for the USN, 12 Dauntlesses was lost while IJN lost only 2 Vals (then again japanese PM strike lost 5/25 Vals). Maybe weather was main factor here, japanese planes came trough heavy rain? Then again, round 6 was good for USN, only 3 DBs and 2 TBs was lost, while IJN lost 12 vals and 7 kates.

So far Avenger losses have been very low, only 5,5 % (11/201). Kate losses are 11 % (25/228).

Other observations: Without CAP, pretty much every time all carriers and some of cruisers are badly damaged or sunk during AM phase. PM strikes are rare and usually there's only handful of planes. Also every turn allied or japanese destroyer is lost too.

I'm going to do this test 10 times. Then I'm going to add better AA escorts. In theory US BB and CLAA should boost US TF's flak.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 8

RE: Small flak test - 5/3/2010 8:23:36 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 3845
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Thanks for those tests Puhis!

Great work.

US TBs are Avengers I guess? (Durable sob�s...)

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 9

RE: Small flak test - 5/3/2010 11:21:17 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

Problem is, there have been some indication that Data is different in Guadalcanal scen (made by Nikademus). I'd suggest trying this in Coral Sea scenario or in Grand Campaign scen.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 10

RE: Small flak test - 5/3/2010 2:24:28 PM

Jaroen

Posts: 148
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Amsterdam
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

OK, six rounds now. Both TFs have almost equal AA valua (Allied 4100, Japan 4226). No CAP, all losses are flak losses. All DBs are set to 13000 ft, and TBs to 8000 ft.

Dive bombers are more vulnerable to flak on both sides. USN mean DB losses are 12 % (56/468), while mean Val losses are 16 % (58/361). Round number 5 was very bad for the USN, 12 Dauntlesses was lost while IJN lost only 2 Vals (then again japanese PM strike lost 5/25 Vals). Maybe weather was main factor here, japanese planes came trough heavy rain? Then again, round 6 was good for USN, only 3 DBs and 2 TBs was lost, while IJN lost 12 vals and 7 kates.

So far Avenger losses have been very low, only 5,5 % (11/201). Kate losses are 11 % (25/228).

Other observations: Without CAP, pretty much every time all carriers and some of cruisers are badly damaged or sunk during AM phase. PM strikes are rare and usually there's only handful of planes. Also every turn allied or japanese destroyer is lost too.

I'm going to do this test 10 times. Then I'm going to add better AA escorts. In theory US BB and CLAA should boost US TF's flak.

Thanks for your great work Puhis!

Can you tell us if you did see any "pre-CAP" flak? I can't tell from your reporting.
Your results are much more congruent with my expectations and experience with WitP (AE). For this reason I somehow wonder if pre-CAP flak is in action. Would be very good to know if it is present or not . . .

Thanks again!

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 11

RE: Small flak test - 5/3/2010 3:00:31 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1871
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

OK, six rounds now. Both TFs have almost equal AA valua (Allied 4100, Japan 4226). No CAP, all losses are flak losses. All DBs are set to 13000 ft, and TBs to 8000 ft.

Dive bombers are more vulnerable to flak on both sides. USN mean DB losses are 12 % (56/468), while mean Val losses are 16 % (58/361). Round number 5 was very bad for the USN, 12 Dauntlesses was lost while IJN lost only 2 Vals (then again japanese PM strike lost 5/25 Vals). Maybe weather was main factor here, japanese planes came trough heavy rain? Then again, round 6 was good for USN, only 3 DBs and 2 TBs was lost, while IJN lost 12 vals and 7 kates.

So far Avenger losses have been very low, only 5,5 % (11/201). Kate losses are 11 % (25/228).

Other observations: Without CAP, pretty much every time all carriers and some of cruisers are badly damaged or sunk during AM phase. PM strikes are rare and usually there's only handful of planes. Also every turn allied or japanese destroyer is lost too.

I'm going to do this test 10 times. Then I'm going to add better AA escorts. In theory US BB and CLAA should boost US TF's flak.

Thanks for your great work Puhis!

Can you tell us if you did see any "pre-CAP" flak? I can't tell from your reporting.
Your results are much more congruent with my expectations and experience with WitP (AE). For this reason I somehow wonder if pre-CAP flak is in action. Would be very good to know if it is present or not . . .

Thanks again!

He's testing with bombers only, so there is no CAP at all. (Very sensible to take CAP out of the equation if you're interested in the effects of Flak.)

(in reply to Jaroen)

Post #: 12

RE: Small flak test - 5/3/2010 5:43:14 PM

Jaroen

Posts: 148
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Amsterdam
Status: offline

@Smeulders: Well, to be honest I wasn't sure if not flying cap (but having the possibility to) stopped pre-cap flak. Since we know that pre-cap flak is related to failing early warning it might have been present even without a cap phase. I know that'd be strange but it could have been part of the game engine if that would only check for a cap capability and not for an actual cap flying.

Assuming there's no pre-cap flak involved with this test by Puhis I understand we are seeing a test of the one pure single AAA phase which we know from old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have an issue with that single AAA phase right?

But this Guadalcanal scenario is perhaps an easy way to generate a similar test for pre-cap flak by using the same fleets and some cap flying!? I'll see if I can work something out. The results from Puhis are great for comparison . . .

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 13

RE: Small flak test - 5/3/2010 6:11:42 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

After 10 rounds results seem to be pretty much the same as after round 6. (No pre-flak CAP BTW)
Every round all planes attacked, that is 72 Dauntlesses and 30 Avenger, and 54 Vals and 36 Kates. Oviously oocasional PM strike had much less planes.

Total dive bomber losses: USN 11,8 % (93/768), Japan 16,0 % (97/606). So USN have an advantage, but not so much. Worst allied loss was 14 DBs, and best 3 DBs. Worst Val loss was 13 planes, and best only 2 (but one PM attack japanese lost 6 vals out of 17, that's 35 %).

Total torpedo bomber losses: USN 4,4 % (14/321), Japan 13,0 % (46/355). There's a 3:1 difference. Worst japanese kate loss was 8 planes. I thought TBs would be more vulnerable to flak than DBs, but not in this case.

Maybe there was japanese advantage. IJN have their best AA ships (2 Shokaku class CV, 2 Tone class CA), while USN had only 2 CVs but not BB and CLAA which have good AA value. I have to run more thests then...

< Message edited by Puhis -- 5/3/2010 6:14:45 PM >

(in reply to Jaroen)

Post #: 14

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 12:10:48 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

After 10 rounds results seem to be pretty much the same as after round 6. (No pre-flak CAP BTW)
Every round all planes attacked, that is 72 Dauntlesses and 30 Avenger, and 54 Vals and 36 Kates. Oviously oocasional PM strike had much less planes.

Total dive bomber losses: USN 11,8 % (93/768), Japan 16,0 % (97/606). So USN have an advantage, but not so much. Worst allied loss was 14 DBs, and best 3 DBs. Worst Val loss was 13 planes, and best only 2 (but one PM attack japanese lost 6 vals out of 17, that's 35 %).

Total torpedo bomber losses: USN 4,4 % (14/321), Japan 13,0 % (46/355). There's a 3:1 difference. Worst japanese kate loss was 8 planes. I thought TBs would be more vulnerable to flak than DBs, but not in this case.

Maybe there was japanese advantage. IJN have their best AA ships (2 Shokaku class CV, 2 Tone class CA), while USN had only 2 CVs but not BB and CLAA which have good AA value. I have to run more thests then...

It's worth adding in CAP, because Japan will have 3 rounds of FLAK instead of 2. My numbers gave IJN a good advantage over US in regards to flak losses, until 43 when they evened out.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 15

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 12:34:49 AM

Smeulders

Posts: 1871
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

After 10 rounds results seem to be pretty much the same as after round 6. (No pre-flak CAP BTW)
Every round all planes attacked, that is 72 Dauntlesses and 30 Avenger, and 54 Vals and 36 Kates. Oviously oocasional PM strike had much less planes.

Total dive bomber losses: USN 11,8 % (93/768), Japan 16,0 % (97/606). So USN have an advantage, but not so much. Worst allied loss was 14 DBs, and best 3 DBs. Worst Val loss was 13 planes, and best only 2 (but one PM attack japanese lost 6 vals out of 17, that's 35 %).

Total torpedo bomber losses: USN 4,4 % (14/321), Japan 13,0 % (46/355). There's a 3:1 difference. Worst japanese kate loss was 8 planes. I thought TBs would be more vulnerable to flak than DBs, but not in this case.

Maybe there was japanese advantage. IJN have their best AA ships (2 Shokaku class CV, 2 Tone class CA), while USN had only 2 CVs but not BB and CLAA which have good AA value. I have to run more thests then...

It's worth adding in CAP, because Japan will have 3 rounds of FLAK instead of 2. My numbers gave IJN a good advantage over US in regards to flak losses, until 43 when they evened out.

A strong assumption you're making, it's possible and likely that this 'extra' round of Flak is present here too, just not visible as all Flak phases are rolled into the same animation, not broken up by the CAP animation. On the other hand, an extra round of Flak might explain the extra Flak losses for the Americans you seem to be experiencing in your tests

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 16

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 12:41:41 AM

Ryvan

Posts: 165
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

After 10 rounds results seem to be pretty much the same as after round 6. (No pre-flak CAP BTW)
Every round all planes attacked, that is 72 Dauntlesses and 30 Avenger, and 54 Vals and 36 Kates. Oviously oocasional PM strike had much less planes.

Total dive bomber losses: USN 11,8 % (93/768), Japan 16,0 % (97/606). So USN have an advantage, but not so much. Worst allied loss was 14 DBs, and best 3 DBs. Worst Val loss was 13 planes, and best only 2 (but one PM attack japanese lost 6 vals out of 17, that's 35 %).

Total torpedo bomber losses: USN 4,4 % (14/321), Japan 13,0 % (46/355). There's a 3:1 difference. Worst japanese kate loss was 8 planes. I thought TBs would be more vulnerable to flak than DBs, but not in this case.

Maybe there was japanese advantage. IJN have their best AA ships (2 Shokaku class CV, 2 Tone class CA), while USN had only 2 CVs but not BB and CLAA which have good AA value. I have to run more thests then...

It's worth adding in CAP, because Japan will have 3 rounds of FLAK instead of 2. My numbers gave IJN a good advantage over US in regards to flak losses, until 43 when they evened out.

A strong assumption you're making, it's possible and likely that this 'extra' round of Flak is present here too, just not visible as all Flak phases are rolled into the same animation, not broken up by the CAP animation. On the other hand, an extra round of Flak might explain the extra Flak losses for the Americans you seem to be experiencing in your tests

I think the next logical step would be to add a minimal Japanese CAP vs a maximum Allied Escort, (so the Japanese CAP doesn't hit the bombers but PCF will fire,) and see what the results are. If the Allies start taking significantly more Flak losses to the bombers we'll know we have a problem.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 17

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 12:44:52 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

My tests had the exact same number of DB and TB on each side. Kate's are the least durable of the planes. So, having more of them in the test will skew the results to IJN. Vals are rather durable (only 3 less than SBD's) compared to the TB (7 differance). although, with so many variables, I'm not sure what is the best plane ratio.

I'm not sure you can have a pre-CAP flak phase if you don't have any CAP. I know I don't see it when bombing surface, transport, etc task forces. Having the 3 flak phases makes a huge difference (from the testing I did.)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 18

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 8:30:58 AM

Smeulders

Posts: 1871
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

My tests had the exact same number of DB and TB on each side. Kate's are the least durable of the planes. So, having more of them in the test will skew the results to IJN. Vals are rather durable (only 3 less than SBD's) compared to the TB (7 differance). although, with so many variables, I'm not sure what is the best plane ratio.

I'm not sure you can have a pre-CAP flak phase if you don't have any CAP. I know I don't see it when bombing surface, transport, etc task forces. Having the 3 flak phases makes a huge difference (from the testing I did.)

But are you actually sure there is an extra Flak phase ? It's very much possible that it is like this.

1) With CAP
Flak phase 1 - CAP - Flak phase 2, in which flak phase 1 is the Pre-Cap Flak
2) Without Flak
Flak phase 1 - Flak phase 2, in one animation.

Ryvan suggestion is good though, get a CAP up so that the Pre-CAP Flak gets a chance to kick in, but small enough that they can't actually get any damage done to the strike so they don't screw the damage/destroyed numbers up.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 19

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 9:04:52 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

Puhis:

And again, have you checked that for example AA gun data in Guadalcanal scenario matches with data in other scenarios? I was led to believe, that Nikademus (scen designer) had made some adjustments compared to "stock scens" in this one (he is after all, designer of WitP Nik-mod, with heavy durability and flak adjustments). If this is true, your test is relevant only for Guadalcanal scenario and not for any other scenario like Grand Campaign.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 20

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 2:45:59 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Puhis:

And again, have you checked that for example AA gun data in Guadalcanal scenario matches with data in other scenarios? I was led to believe, that Nikademus (scen designer) had made some adjustments compared to "stock scens" in this one (he is after all, designer of WitP Nik-mod, with heavy durability and flak adjustments). If this is true, your test is relevant only for Guadalcanal scenario and not for any other scenario like Grand Campaign.

As far as I can tell, AA gun stats and plane durability are the same in Guadalcanal scenario and Grand Campaing. If somebody have other knowledge, let me know.

Only difference I noticed was that some ships (mayby just carriers?) have about 50 % more AA ammo.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 21

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 3:10:11 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

Great! I just wanted to be sure.

I knew there was some adjustments, that AA ammunition increase is definitely a good thing.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 22

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 3:58:42 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25218
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Puhis:

And again, have you checked that for example AA gun data in Guadalcanal scenario matches with data in other scenarios? I was led to believe, that Nikademus (scen designer) had made some adjustments compared to "stock scens" in this one (he is after all, designer of WitP Nik-mod, with heavy durability and flak adjustments). If this is true, your test is relevant only for Guadalcanal scenario and not for any other scenario like Grand Campaign.

For the upteemth time....Scn4 is not "modded" to alter combat results.

yet.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 23

RE: Small flak test - 5/4/2010 4:00:12 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Puhis:

And again, have you checked that for example AA gun data in Guadalcanal scenario matches with data in other scenarios? I was led to believe, that Nikademus (scen designer) had made some adjustments compared to "stock scens" in this one (he is after all, designer of WitP Nik-mod, with heavy durability and flak adjustments). If this is true, your test is relevant only for Guadalcanal scenario and not for any other scenario like Grand Campaign.

For the upteemth time....Scn4 is not "modded" to alter combat results.

yet.

OK, I take your word for it!

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 24

RE: Small flak test - 5/5/2010 5:12:29 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

New test, 10 combat rounds. No CAP, just flak.

This time USN have 2 CV (Saratoga, Enterprise), 1 BB (North Carolina) CLAA, 2 CA and 6 DD, TF's AA value: 5716
IJN 2 CV (Shokaku class), BB (Hiei), 3 CA and 6 DD, TF's AA value: 4367

Carrier's best protection seem to be battleship. But it's not the flak boost, but both sides BBs are bomber magnets. So this time PM strikes were not that rare.

Average losses of AM strike were:
US DBs: 11,2/72 (15,5 %). Highest loss was 15 planes, lowest 7.
US TBs: 2/30 (6,7 %). Highest loss was 5 planes, lowest 1.

IJN DBs: 12/54 (22 %). Highest loss was 23 planes, lowest 4.
IJN TBs: 6/36 (17%). Highest loss was 7 planes, lowest 2.

Total losses (AM+PM) were:
US DBs: 125/822 (15,2 %)
US TBs: 29/490 (5,9 %)

IJN DBs: 132/592 (22,3 %)
IJN TBs: 78/424 (18,4 %)

So boosting US TF with CLAA+BB does seem to help. When we look at the US DB losses, there wasn't much difference between rounds. IJN Val losses varied greatly from 4 to 23, I really don't know why. Avenger is still bullet proof plane. Maybe Avenger losses (or TB losses in general) are bit too low and Dauntless losses bit too high. Most of the rounds US flak was quite good, but then there's a few turns when japanese losses were very low, maybe just bad dice roll. Any thoughts?

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 25

RE: Small flak test - 5/5/2010 7:24:41 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

This would indicate that normal flak works as it should be. Now we'd need to see if pre-CAP flak is as bad with CAP as I think. Tests with CAP & Escort next, please.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 26

RE: Small flak test - 5/5/2010 9:19:24 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

This would indicate that normal flak works as it should be. Now we'd need to see if pre-CAP flak is as bad with CAP as I think. Tests with CAP & Escort next, please.�

This is a good question. I did run one test turn, with 10 % CAP. Same TFs as previously. Obviously pre-CAP flak + flak is more difficult to test. I still try to figure out what is the best way to do it.

Here are results of one turn (and just one). Allied didn't have pre-flak cap. Japanese flak losses (AM and PM) were 25/64 Vals (39 %) and 14/45 Kates (31 %).

Allied flak losses after A2A were 17/83 DBs (20 %) and 5/42 TBs (12 %). But before that, pre-Cap flak was quite intense. During AM pre-cap flak allied lost 5/72 DBs and 3/30 TBs, and during PM 1/21 DBs and 0 TBs.

But like I said, this was just one turn. But I think this is definitely worth testing. Too bad at the moment I don't have time to do it...

< Message edited by Puhis -- 5/5/2010 9:22:56 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 27

RE: Small flak test - 5/5/2010 9:22:29 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1871
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

Jaroen did find a good way to test it, by reducing the effect of all aircraft guns to 0. This way there could be a CAP, but it couldn't damage or destroy any bombers to skew the results.

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 28