Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Flak effectiveness

 
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 >> Flak effectiveness Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Flak effectiveness - 3/7/2012 9:13:36 PM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 762
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by Blind Sniper -- 3/7/2012 9:15:04 PM >


_____________________________

Advanced Squad Leader; Grand Tactical Series; Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager; War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Post #: 1
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/7/2012 11:00:42 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2520
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 2
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/8/2012 12:15:35 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2994
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Well below you'll get all the tiny machine guns firing .

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 3
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/8/2012 8:04:10 AM   
Commander Cody


Posts: 878
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 4
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/8/2012 8:13:58 AM   
Jeremy105

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
Well below you'll get all the tiny machine guns firing

(in reply to Commander Cody)
Post #: 5
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/12/2012 7:30:53 PM   
foliveti


Posts: 364
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Stamford, CT
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Frank

(in reply to Jeremy105)
Post #: 6
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/12/2012 9:59:33 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7343
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online
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.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to foliveti)
Post #: 7
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/12/2012 10:24:45 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7173
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 1:27:06 AM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3678
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

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.





_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 9
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 3:13:53 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7173
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 10
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 3:51:19 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

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...

(in reply to foliveti)
Post #: 11
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 4:49:19 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1332
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: online
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?

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 12
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 11:43:56 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3752
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 13
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 12:52:42 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
No doubt here I think, allied flak needs a buff. Maybe a small one first and then see how it works.

_____________________________



(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 14
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 1:08:40 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8699
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 15
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 1:11:46 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8699
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 16
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 1:18:42 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8699
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 17
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 2:29:02 PM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 762
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
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...

_____________________________

Advanced Squad Leader; Grand Tactical Series; Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager; War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition


(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 18
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 2:30:51 PM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 762
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Advanced Squad Leader; Grand Tactical Series; Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager; War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition


(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 19
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 5:19:46 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1704
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
It's 28th January 1943. Japanese flak have shot down 35 planes. Tens of allied bombers are almost daily bombing bases with flak concentrations, flying at 10000 feet. But nothing, not even operational losses.

Stupid.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 20
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 6:07:23 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7173
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

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

Stupid.





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.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 21
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 6:09:55 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8699
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's 28th January 1943. Japanese flak have shot down 35 planes. 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.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/13/2012 6:10:33 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 22
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 7:16:07 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1704
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 23
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 8:50:54 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

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...

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 24
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 8:59:21 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8699
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 25
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 9:20:43 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1704
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 26
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 10:27:41 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by btbw -- 3/13/2012 10:30:35 PM >

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 27
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/13/2012 11:52:33 PM   
derp

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline

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...)

_____________________________

was kfsgo, managed to lock myself out of acct. oops.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 28
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 12:57:44 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7173
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

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.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 29
RE: Flak effectiveness - 3/14/2012 2:27:59 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
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)

< Message edited by btbw -- 3/14/2012 2:28:12 AM >

(in reply to derp)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Flak effectiveness Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.145