Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming...

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming... Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP progra... - 5/13/2006 4:53:16 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23424
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

I have humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming...


Would you guys be so kind and explain to us the way AA works in WitP from programming standpoint but in "laic" words (i.e. no code)?


IMHO many current WitP problems/issues would, hopefully, be solved if we can be more accurate in simulating historical and realistic model of the AA!!!

For example all those problems, like the so called "Unstoppable 4E Bomber Menace even in 1942", would then be countered by player using AA in sufficient numbers at proper locations (right now this is not possible due to the way AA is implemented)!


BTW, I am speculation that every single AA weapon in WitP now has a chance to attack every single aircraft in combat phase (i.e. every aircraft that is above target area ) through:

- type of AA weapon, its accuracy and effect (and other variables)
- AA crew experience
- target aircraft altitude and speed and maneuverability
- target aircraft durability and amour
- target aircraft experience
- time of day (night / day)
- weather over target
- dice roll


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"


_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Post #: 1
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 5:33:49 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1827
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
Simplest way to make AA more efficient in the game: Add more AA units to the game (for both sides as both sides are missing lots of AA assets) and give them historical TOE's. No tweaks, no code changes...


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 2
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 5:48:04 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Might point out that the Germans seem to have had more medium and heavy AA guns than anyone else..., and they couldn't stop Allied "Heavies". TF58 could probably put up more flak than any city in the world, and they couldn't stop all the Kamikazes coming in. And a Kamikaze has to get a heck of a lot closer and is much more vulnerable than a 4-engined "heavy" at over 20,000 ft (almost 4 miles up)

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 3
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 5:49:35 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12838
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Simplest way to make AA more efficient in the game: Add more AA units to the game (for both sides as both sides are missing lots of AA assets) and give them historical TOE's. No tweaks, no code changes...




Even if you put all the AA units Japan has at one base you won´t hurt 4E bombers much attacking the base, even at low altitudes.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 4
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 5:51:52 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23424
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Might point out that the Germans seem to have had more medium and heavy AA guns than anyone else..., and they couldn't stop Allied "Heavies". TF58 could probably put up more flak than any city in the world, and they couldn't stop all the Kamikazes coming in. And a Kamikaze has to get a heck of a lot closer and is much more vulnerable than a 4-engined "heavy" at over 20,000 ft (almost 4 miles up)


I am for realism.

That means that in broad daylight at 10.000ft (or at 9.000ft or 8.000ft or 7.000ft or 6.000ft) heavy bombers should suffer from AA. Right now that is not the case (you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm and 75mm AA guns and get almost nothing against bombers at 10.000 ft - remember taht AA gap is not present here)...

At 20.000 (or above) they should be (just as it historically was) much much safer (but at teh cost of accuracy of course)!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 5
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 6:04:08 PM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline
Has anyone demonstrated conclusively that Japanese AA in WitP is wrong and that there were no "gaps" in AA coverage in real life?

Has anyone demonstrated that the Japanese shot down more Allied level bombers ITRW with FLAK than WitP is capable of?

Or is this just a back door campaign against Allied 4E bombers?

If there really is a whole in WitP that never existed - fine, address it.

But as far as I can see so far - no such proof has been shown - other than there are gaps in Jap AA coverage in WitP...which may well be accurate.

Demo


_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 6
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 6:28:07 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10406
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

I have humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming...


Would you guys be so kind and explain to us the way AA works in WitP from programming standpoint but in "laic" words (i.e. no code)?


IMHO many current WitP problems/issues would, hopefully, be solved if we can be more accurate in simulating historical and realistic model of the AA!!!

For example all those problems, like the so called "Unstoppable 4E Bomber Menace even in 1942", would then be countered by player using AA in sufficient numbers at proper locations (right now this is not possible due to the way AA is implemented)!


BTW, I am speculation that every single AA weapon in WitP now has a chance to attack every single aircraft in combat phase (i.e. every aircraft that is above target area ) through:

- type of AA weapon, its accuracy and effect (and other variables)
- AA crew experience
- target aircraft altitude and speed and maneuverability
- target aircraft durability and amour
- target aircraft experience
- time of day (night / day)
- weather over target
- dice roll


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"



In general we cannot respond to most requests to look up things in the code. Why ? Well it takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. And time is something we need to manage carefully. Any time we spend "looking up answers" takes away directly from time we spend resolving real issues. And we, so far at least, believe we should prioritize our time towards fixing real issues, verus looking up answers to questions. But, since I'm a nice guy (he he) I decided to take a quick peek - everynow and then - we can get some useful information quickly (just not when we really need it !). So, I looked at one of the three low level flak firing routines and this is what I saw.


Factors Included in the algorithm:
max speed and/or cruising speed
altitude
plane type
flak
durability
# engines
mission
>5 die rolls
night or day


effects included:
damage, disruption, morale and shot down.

As to whether AA fire should be modified to reduce the "Unstoppable 4E Bomber Menace even in 1942" ... I doubt we would favor a-historical flak to stop a-historical B17s. Our leaning would be for both to have the historical capabilities. As it stands now AA fire is too predictable and being able to "peg" the altitude exactly can be exploited. But even if AA fire was 100% modeled correctly(including uncertainly about its capabilities), there would still be way too many B17s in the game. Hap would've had to have given up his desire to form a force capable of applying "Air Power" against the Germans in Europe. Something he could probably not have done and still have been Hap Arnold ! But we will look at ways of improving the game, that's part of why we are involved.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 7
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 6:30:01 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

That means that in broad daylight at 10.000ft (or at 9.000ft or 8.000ft or 7.000ft or 6.000ft) heavy bombers should suffer from AA. Right now that is not the case (you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm and 75mm AA guns and get almost nothing against bombers at 10.000 ft - remember taht AA gap is not present here)...


Might be that part of the problem IS that "you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm" at a base---when Japan only had 70-odd of them in the entire war. But I certainly agree that as bombers come lower they should be subject to more damage from flak. Part of the problem is that the original game gave the Allies too many heavy bombers, and a number of modders have worked to correct that. But those who want to make Japanese flak deadly as an answer are barking up the wrong tree as well. It wasn't than numerous or that good. The main purpose of everybody's flak was to break up formations and disrupt the accuracy of an air attack. Shoot downs were just a bonus factor. Eventually in the war Allied flak became quite deadly (numerous, radar-directed, proximity fuses, etc) and forced the Japanese into Kamikaze tactics to achieve anything at all. Japanese flak never got close to that level.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 8
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 6:51:56 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23424
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Has anyone demonstrated conclusively that Japanese AA in WitP is wrong and that there were no "gaps" in AA coverage in real life?

Has anyone demonstrated that the Japanese shot down more Allied level bombers ITRW with FLAK than WitP is capable of?

Or is this just a back door campaign against Allied 4E bombers?

If there really is a whole in WitP that never existed - fine, address it.

But as far as I can see so far - no such proof has been shown - other than there are gaps in Jap AA coverage in WitP...which may well be accurate.


Why this all has to be viewed from "fan-boyism" side?

IMHO it is game problem/issue that affects both sides similarly (although Allied are somehow better off due to more smaller caliber automatic weapons in OOB that Japanese lack in our WitP database right now - don't know whether this is realistic or not since only OOB people can only answer that)...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 9
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 6:53:53 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23424
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

That means that in broad daylight at 10.000ft (or at 9.000ft or 8.000ft or 7.000ft or 6.000ft) heavy bombers should suffer from AA. Right now that is not the case (you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm and 75mm AA guns and get almost nothing against bombers at 10.000 ft - remember taht AA gap is not present here)...


Might be that part of the problem IS that "you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm" at a base---when Japan only had 70-odd of them in the entire war. But I certainly agree that as bombers come lower they should be subject to more damage from flak. Part of the problem is that the original game gave the Allies too many heavy bombers, and a number of modders have worked to correct that. But those who want to make Japanese flak deadly as an answer are barking up the wrong tree as well. It wasn't than numerous or that good. The main purpose of everybody's flak was to break up formations and disrupt the accuracy of an air attack. Shoot downs were just a bonus factor. Eventually in the war Allied flak became quite deadly (numerous, radar-directed, proximity fuses, etc) and forced the Japanese into Kamikaze tactics to achieve anything at all. Japanese flak never got close to that level.


I think it doesn't matter at all which gun you use (i.e. even if you erase all 105mm and leave just 75mm and put 88mm that are missing now)... the AA for both sides is simply very very "anemic" (to use words "Nik" used) for both sides...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 10
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 6:54:16 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8647
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"



By missing from the OOB, I don't mean missing from the database necessarily, but rather not given to either player in historic amounts.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 11
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:00:11 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23424
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

In general we cannot respond to most requests to look up things in the code. Why ? Well it takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. And time is something we need to manage carefully. Any time we spend "looking up answers" takes away directly from time we spend resolving real issues. And we, so far at least, believe we should prioritize our time towards fixing real issues, verus looking up answers to questions. But, since I'm a nice guy (he he) I decided to take a quick peek - everynow and then - we can get some useful information quickly (just not when we really need it !). So, I looked at one of the three low level flak firing routines and this is what I saw.


Factors Included in the algorithm:
max speed and/or cruising speed
altitude
plane type
flak
durability
# engines
mission
>5 die rolls
night or day


effects included:
damage, disruption, morale and shot down.

As to whether AA fire should be modified to reduce the "Unstoppable 4E Bomber Menace even in 1942" ... I doubt we would favor a-historical flak to stop a-historical B17s. Our leaning would be for both to have the historical capabilities. As it stands now AA fire is too predictable and being able to "peg" the altitude exactly can be exploited. But even if AA fire was 100% modeled correctly(including uncertainly about its capabilities), there would still be way too many B17s in the game. Hap would've had to have given up his desire to form a force capable of applying "Air Power" against the Germans in Europe. Something he could probably not have done and still have been Hap Arnold ! But we will look at ways of improving the game, that's part of why we are involved.


Thanks a lot Joe - really appreciated!


If you guys get some time (in due time of course) please take a look at current AA routines and, hopefully, decide to alter them if found lacking after careful consideration...

Also (if I recall correctly from one of old posts by "Mr. Frag" from Mike Wood) in WitP every bomb is counted individualy when dropped at target (and therefore aircraft that have more bombs in their bombload are thus favored much more by default). Possibly the overaccuracy / overdamage is due to that factor...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 12
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:01:24 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23424
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
H all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"

By missing from the OOB, I don't mean missing from the database necessarily, but rather not given to either player in historic amounts.


Possibly... or that heavier AA guns are just too weak... who knows...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 13
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:04:51 PM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Why this all has to be viewed from "fan-boyism" side?

Leo "Apollo11"

Well, simply because it appears that the only thing you seem campaign for is emasculation of Allied 4E bombers. At least that's what it seems to me. (Maybe I have missed other campaigns you have been on that neuter Japanese capabilities.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

the AA for both sides is simply very very "anemic" (to use words "Nik" used) for both sides...

Leo "Apollo11"


Again I ask - where is the historical data to prove your claim that "AA for both sides is anemic".

I have only seen such data provided in the past by Dereck, taken from USAF studies, that show that B-29 losses in WitP are way too "high" - I would like to see the data to the contray if it exists.

Demo

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 14
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:06:29 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
"So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"

In a word...YES

"By missing from the OOB, I don't mean missing from the database necessarily, but rather not given to either player in historic amounts"

In two words...YES and YES

Additionally, the IJA (I quit looking after that) is missing both AA unit types, and parts of units. The IJA AA Regiment is missing its organic AAMG Company and the Searchlight Battalion for example.

And for the next question; "Are the weapons stats accurate"

I doubt it.

My question;

Do the air defense units get any credit/benefits for their searchlights and sound detectors? For example, the (missing) Searchlight Battalion organic to an IJA AA regiment has 12 searchlights and 12 sound detectors.

For the not yet spoken question...no it's not fan-boyism. The IJA AA units just happened to be the first place I looked.



< Message edited by juliet7bravo -- 5/13/2006 7:20:47 PM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 15
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:08:42 PM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"

In a word...YES


Cool. Which one(s)?

_____________________________


(in reply to juliet7bravo)
Post #: 16
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:14:30 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23424
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Why this all has to be viewed from "fan-boyism" side?

Well, simply because it appears that the only thing you seem campaign for is emasculation of Allied 4E bombers. At least that's what it seems to me. (Maybe I have missed other campaigns you have been on that neuter Japanese capabilities.)


No... I am 100% impartial... always was and always will be...

You misied the "Torpedo bombers from land bases" thread? And adjecent Poll?

Over 3500 hits in original thread (most certainly one of the larges "serious" threads in recent time) and Poll that 150+ people took?


quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The AA for both sides is simply very very "anemic" (to use words "Nik" used) for both sides...


Again I ask - where is the historical data to prove your claim that "AA for both sides is anemic".

I have only seen such data provided in the past by Dereck, taken from USAF studies, that show that B-29 losses in WitP are way too "high" - I would like to see the data to the contray if it exists.


The "AA for both sides is anemic" is related to WitP (and UV if you wish) AA results for both sides in game.

Both me (in UV and WitP) and "Nik" conducted comprehensive AA tests. One of the results is so called "Nik Mod" of WitP you can download...


Leo "Apollo11"



_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 17
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:15:16 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10406
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"



By missing from the OOB, I don't mean missing from the database necessarily, but rather not given to either player in historic amounts.


Small calibre really doesn't help. The "light AA weapons" mostly stop being useful above about 3,000 feet. And unfortunately the "heavy AA" weapons mostly stop being useful below about 6,000 feet. Of course individual weapons vary outside these general guidelines. But there certainly were perceptions of a "flak gap" before and during the war. The Germans reportedly designed the 50mm AA weapons (pre-war) to close this "flak gap". Barrage fire by the heavier weapons could at least put metal into the gap. But barrage fire was officially discouraged in most flak organizations as it used horrendous amounts of ammunition and got very little objective return. One area where we can probably make some improvement though is in terms of having flak "throw off the accuracy" of the bombing attack. Most WWII flak organizations preferred to use "shoot downs" as their measure of success. This metric had the advantage of appearing to be most objective. However, post war studies of flak effectiveness (e.g. Westermann, E.B. "Flak - German Anti-aircraft Defenses 1914-1945") indicate that disrupting the accuracy of the attacking bombers was the primary effect. So by modeling this aspect, we may be able to make some improvement.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 18
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:24:01 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23424
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Small calibre really doesn't help. The "light AA weapons" mostly stop being useful above about 3,000 feet. And unfortunately the "heavy AA" weapons mostly stop being useful below about 6,000 feet. Of course individual weapons vary outside these general guidelines. But there certainly were perceptions of a "flak gap" before and during the war. The Germans reportedly designed the 50mm AA weapons (pre-war) to close this "flak gap". Barrage fire by the heavier weapons could at least put metal into the gap. But barrage fire was officially discouraged in most flak organizations as it used horrendous amounts of ammunition and got very little objective return.


Is this WitP (i.e. our game) fact or real life (i.e. WWII historical) fact?

If yes (WWII historically) - were WWII air commanders on both sides aware of it and did they use it in ETO (Europe) and PTO (Pacific)?


quote:


One area where we can probably make some improvement though is in terms of having flak "throw off the accuracy" of the bombing attack. Most WWII flak organizations preferred to use "shoot downs" as their measure of success. This metric had the advantage of appearing to be most objective. However, post war studies of flak effectiveness (e.g. Westermann, E.B. "Flak - German Anti-aircraft Defenses 1914-1945") indicate that disrupting the accuracy of the attacking bombers was the primary effect. So by modeling this aspect, we may be able to make some improvement.


Great idea - this is both realistic and historical - I am 100% for it if my voice counts!


Small shameless self-advertising: I suggested that (along with others) long long long ago - it must be burried deep in huge "Wish Thread"...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 19
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/13/2006 7:34:45 PM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Why this all has to be viewed from "fan-boyism" side?

Well, simply because it appears that the only thing you seem campaign for is emasculation of Allied 4E bombers. At least that's what it seems to me. (Maybe I have missed other campaigns you have been on that neuter Japanese capabilities.)


No... I am 100% impartial... always was and always will be...

You misied the "Torpedo bombers from land bases" thread? And adjecent Poll?

Over 3500 hits in original thread (most certainly one of the larges "serious" threads in recent time) and Poll that 150+ people took?


quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The AA for both sides is simply very very "anemic" (to use words "Nik" used) for both sides...


Again I ask - where is the historical data to prove your claim that "AA for both sides is anemic".

I have only seen such data provided in the past by Dereck, taken from USAF studies, that show that B-29 losses in WitP are way too "high" - I would like to see the data to the contray if it exists.


The "AA for both sides is anemic" is related to WitP (and UV if you wish) AA results for both sides in game.

Both me (in UV and WitP) and "Nik" conducted comprehensive AA tests. One of the results is so called "Nik Mod" of WitP you can download...

Leo "Apollo11"



That is true - I did forget that you started the LB torpedo thread - my apologies. I guess I'm still sore over the nerfing down of the effects of B-29 raids since the changes you campaigned for were incorporated in a patch.

I know you tested (and Nik) what flak does in WitP, but where is the corollary data from WWII to compare it to? From what I have been seeing - FLAK damage in the Nik Mod is way too high.

Demo

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 5/13/2006 8:17:35 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 20
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/14/2006 8:30:01 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8647
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Joe, by "small calibre" I was referring to the 25-40mm AA, not the lighter machine guns. Were those also ineffectual above 6000 feet?

EDIT: it appears by your comment about the German 50mm guns are attesting to the fact that the 25mm were not effective at higher altitude.

People have pointed out that some are missing from the AA units, but I wonder if they were also missing from the table of organization in real life as well. Many units served in the theatre without it's full allocation of equipment. This is not to say that I don't believe that they should get them, I am wondering if they were left out for a reason (such as not available to those units even though they were authorized).

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 5/14/2006 8:31:54 AM >


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Demosthenes)
Post #: 21
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/14/2006 5:34:29 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10406
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Joe, by "small calibre" I was referring to the 25-40mm AA, not the lighter machine guns. Were those also ineffectual above 6000 feet?

Ah, ok, in general I would use "small calibre" to refer more to the sub-20mm AA heavy machine guns and then the terms light AA, medium AA and heavy AA to refer to the "AA guns".

First, the Japanese landbased 40mm AA gun does not show in most sources and one in which it does show indicates that the inscription on an example captured by the Allies reads "Vickers-Armgtrongs 1931" and this source thus guesses that the weapon may have first been captured by the Japanese (perhaps from the British). So we should probably discount the 40mm weapon in general landbased Japanese service until someone can so up with production informtion, if any exists.

As to the 25mm weapon this, of course, was a naval weapon, designed and built for use at sea. There is evidence however, that "later in the war" some of these weapons were used ashore. And BTW I am assuming we are talking about landbased flak in this thread. The seabased flak uses completely different code etc. So again, I am assuming we are talking about strickly land based flak here. The range of the Japanese 25mm weapon is given as being just short of that of the German 37mm weapon (flak18/36) ... for those light/medium guns that I do have maximum and "effective" air engagement ranges, the effective range is usually given as 40% of the maximum. Also note that most light and medium guns, in either Japanese or German service fired not under director control. But all this boils down to an effective verticle range for the 25mm of 5,600 feet. Of course, how many 25mm weapons should be introduced to the naval base forces in the game and on what date ? Those questions would require more looking.

quote:


EDIT: it appears by your comment about the German 50mm guns are attesting to the fact that the 25mm were not effective at higher altitude.

The German 50mm flak41 had an effective verticle range of 18,374 feet versus the 37mm flak18/36 effective verticle range of 6,562, so a considerable "extention" into the ranges covered by the "heavy" flak weapons.


quote:


People have pointed out that some are missing from the AA units, but I wonder if they were also missing from the table of organization in real life as well. Many units served in the theatre without it's full allocation of equipment. This is not to say that I don't believe that they should get them, I am wondering if they were left out for a reason (such as not available to those units even though they were authorized).


If the Japanese spent a lot of time updating their printed TO&E's during the war, I haven't seen much evidence of it, especially for naval "support" units like flak and shipping companies. The triple digit IJN baseforces we have in the game, seem to be an amalgamation of real world units which include independent naval flak companies (of which there were a total of about 200 in existence during the full war), naval guard/defense forces (of which there were about 120 - though in the game we seem to get them twice, both in the 3-digit base forces and separately) and shipping units, which included shore based warehousing units, port based loading and unloading units (including lightering as well as crane operation) and port construction units. Apparently the designers decided to make our lives a little bit simplier by amalgamating these various units into the 3-digit naval base forces. This area could probably use a fresh look and maybe one of the modder communities will do so. But within the current stock OB, the place to add in any 25mm guns that you'd like to add, would be in the named baseforces or in the 3-digit baseforces as the naval flak units appear to be already combined into those units.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 22
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/14/2006 8:07:40 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
xxx

< Message edited by juliet7bravo -- 9/18/2007 3:06:57 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 23
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/14/2006 9:27:11 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10406
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Joe...

"So we should probably discount the 40mm weapon in general landbased Japanese service until someone can so up with production informtion, if any exists."

These were Vickers Pom-Pom type guns bought in the interwar years for IJN use and later replaced shipboard by 25mm mounts. They were then fairly widely used as AA/AT guns on Pacific bases, with examples still existing today. 500+ used. Can find pics if you really need to be convinced.



I have pics just not production data (nor acquisition data) though I do have data showing 1925 Vickers mounts on some IJN cruisers.

quote:


The 25mm was an extremely common weapon ashore and was used in land mounts right from the start. You'll still stumble over them all over the pacific.

Representative examples from USSBS interrogations;

MILLE
Q. How many and what kind of AA guns did you have on MILLE?
A. 8x12.7 cm AA guns, about 12-25 MM machine guns, about 12x20 mm, about 30x13 mm, and more than 100x7.7 machine guns.

Munda
Q. How many anti-aircraft guns did you have there?
A. 18x75mm, 50x25mm, 20x40mm, single and twin mounts. A large number of the machine guns which gave better results against dive-bombers.





Quote from Munda doesn't seem to peg these weapons having been their pre-war, he this spelled MILLE or is this MILI or are they the same place ?

quote:


The IJA AA units in-game are shorted all their 20mm AA guns, part of their 13mm MGs, and all their "small caliber" AAMGs. I don't know about the other IJA units, but suspect they're missing organic weapons as well. Note that most of these units were over-strength in light/small caliber AA guns later on. These are TO&E units and should not be confused with the Base Forces. Some additional IJA AA unit types should be added into the OOB like the Independent AA units.

"The triple digit IJN baseforces we have in the game, seem to be an amalgamation of real world units which include independent naval flak companies (of which there were a total of about 200 in existence during the full war), naval guard/defense forces (of which there were about 120 - though in the game we seem to get them twice, both in the 3-digit base forces and separately) and shipping units, which included shore based warehousing units, port based loading and unloading units (including lightering as well as crane operation) and port construction units."

The Base Forces are a mess, and could be done MUCH better. IRL were a hodge-podge of IJA and IJN units/detachments so no actual TO&E. These Base Forces should NOT be mixed arbitrarily with IJA/IJN line combat units or the second line guard/defense forces. Could also be commanded by either the IJA/IJN depending on circumstances and location. One thing that should be done is the construction/labor units and aviation support units are taken out and listed separate...this would make the Japanese players life easier and more historically flexible. Alot of these small "base Forces" were actually just guard/defense forces with some junior officer in charge. Maybe with some limited aviation support to service AC transiting through.

"But within the current stock OB, the place to add in any 25mm guns that you'd like to add, would be in the named baseforces or in the 3-digit baseforces as the naval flak units appear to be already combined into those units."

The AA set up at Japanese bases was generally FUBAR. Almost all these bits and pieces of units had some organic light AA capabilitity that should be included. This also effects their CD capabilities too BTW. But dedicated AA units or detachments. should be separated out.

In general, it appears the Japanese are getting shorted alot of light/small caliber AA capability...given that when supplied with ammo their light AA was reasonably effective at deterring low-level attack (60% of US AC losses to flak) I think this could be significant.

"could probably use a fresh look and maybe one of the modder communities"


quote:


I'd be willing to work on the Japanese OOB's and infantry weapons, or at least parts of it, if it was going to be used. BUT...you guys would have to decide where you wanted to go code-wise with it, as that would determine how to break the units apart and structure them.


Let's take this last aspect offline.




_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to juliet7bravo)
Post #: 24
RE: Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP pr... - 5/14/2006 10:27:17 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
xxx

< Message edited by juliet7bravo -- 9/18/2007 3:07:52 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming... Page: [1]
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

0.168