Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AA seems worthless

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> RE: AA seems worthless Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/13/2014 3:38:10 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
Well, arguably, pre-digital industrialized societies were too complex for a shut down by ONE achilles heel. What made the downfall happen was the systemic overload of the Nazi system: The ground war on three fronts, the air war against the Luftwaffe (pilots fuel, planes) and against the industrial system (oil industry, transportation including mining the Rhine, weapons, power grid, etc.).

Transportation was important for resource allocation. It became so even more when parts of the war industry had to disperse b/c of the bombing. Segment building procedures for, say U-Boat building helped to avoid losses first but in the end all those parts had to be assembled at one location.

As for moral bombing: If anything it brought the population and the regime even closer together, not that those were vastly ( or please _________ insert your preferred adverb) different entities. But it also disrupted city and production life for a short time (more so with the oil and electronic industry, less so with heavy industry and weapon production) and handicapped transportation.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 31
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/13/2014 4:02:12 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5765
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
So does the "manpower" target selection correspond to Harris's bombing policy? I'd like to experiment with focusing on something else, like Oil and Fuel, even if that costs me some VPs.

Back to the original topic: here are some numbers from my completed 12-turn "Breakout and Pursuit" scenario vs the German AI. Flak losses were my worst losses! But I didn't use the Shift-O key to avoid flak until the very end, when (ironically) my flak losses were the worst! I'm not sure these figures address the OP's main point, as this was not the grand campaign, but they might be useful to the devs as they fine-tune things. They don't seem far out of whack to me:

Flak losses: 811
Operational: 757
Air to air: 489

_____________________________


(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 32
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/13/2014 5:19:52 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
AA is good to put along rail supply, depots.
Great used with infantry in ground defensive role, as in WitE.

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/13/2014 8:05:24 PM >

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 33
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/13/2014 10:10:45 PM   
aspqrz02

 

Posts: 1016
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
Also, something I suspect that WitW does not, and probably cannot represent is the effect of cumulative damage.

The various oil targets, synthetic oil plants and refineries had to be run at close to full capacity 24/7 365 starting in 1939 ... there was no spare capacity (and additional capacity couldn't really be built unless the Germans built, for example, fewer AA guns ... which would have been ... counterproductive ... considering) ... so the ongoing allied bombing raids, while they never destroyed or shut down these plants completely, did cause cumulative damage that made them more and more vulnerable.

At the beginning, for example, a near miss within, say, 50 meters or so would spring welds etc. that would then have to be repaired ... a trivial delay in relative terms. But, as the years passed, and damage piled on damage, ever further away 'near misses' could cause the same sort of damage. Since allied bombing accuracy was never enough to actually hit the target directly with enough bombs to destroy it, this increasing vulnerability to ever more distant near misses made the reduction of capacity and temporary shutdowns or all or part of the plant's capacity ever more easy to achieve.

Yes, the 'big' or 'key' target strategy was a failure in a sense, but the cumulative damage and the forced diversion of resources from potentially more productive defensive or offensive production had a huge unseen impact that is only starting to be understood in the last 20-30 years.

YMMV.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 34
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/13/2014 10:37:22 PM   
jzardos


Posts: 630
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline
So I guess no axis flak can hit over 27k ft? Seems like allies have a 'win' button for bombing. Just set alt > 25k and you'll never get loses? looks like still can do decent damage too .. <sigh>

This is silly :(






Attachment (1)

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 35
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/13/2014 10:41:51 PM   
jzardos


Posts: 630
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline
Well think I need to wait for a patch, just saw some more WA bombing and it's really disappointing this wasn't found and fixed in play testing. How could this be missed? At alt 27k ft is how WA player can get 'gamey' easy win in bomb war. Sorry to expose this for other axis players for which it will be used on, but you can wait for patch now too.


WA just knock out 40 hvy industry for no loses .. hmm that seems odd .






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jzardos -- 12/13/2014 11:43:26 PM >

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 36
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/13/2014 10:45:40 PM   
jzardos


Posts: 630
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline
Here's the view that shows the +100% damage .. for those that missed it.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to jzardos)
Post #: 37
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 2:36:34 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 5324
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
I fly 8th USAAF City Bombing missions at 28,000 ft and have flak losses. Do you have FOW on? If so, then you are getting 'fogged' results. The Allied player, for example, typically gets reports of "100% Damage" inflicted on almost every mission - but I know that is not so. I have had several games where the Allies are getting -4 VP/turn for UBoat targets and yet every form of report accessible to the Allies say that every UBoat factory has 100% damage.

(in reply to jzardos)
Post #: 38
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 3:28:15 AM   
jzardos


Posts: 630
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I fly 8th USAAF City Bombing missions at 28,000 ft and have flak losses. Do you have FOW on? If so, then you are getting 'fogged' results. The Allied player, for example, typically gets reports of "100% Damage" inflicted on almost every mission - but I know that is not so. I have had several games where the Allies are getting -4 VP/turn for UBoat targets and yet every form of report accessible to the Allies say that every UBoat factory has 100% damage.



Umm, what you just said makes absolutely no sense and possibly contradicts your theory at it's core.

Here's the facts for those that are slower to understand what is going on here:

- I'm playing as axis (if the screen shot didn't already make it obvious)
- FoW would NOT tell me 100% damage to my factories if not 100%, once again I'm axis
- FoW also would not tell me 0 western allied planes shot down if it was 10. My guess is it might inflate # and tell me 10 shot down when only maybe 5 were. Once again I'm axis and only allies would know true #'s shot down.

Either way it's crap and something is wrong here. My thought that it's gone dark with WitW peeps is they know it's an issue and are trying to fix it before they have to talk about it again. Which is fine by me. Fix it please!

< Message edited by jzardos -- 12/14/2014 4:30:00 AM >

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 39
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 3:31:09 AM   
Gorforlin

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 2/22/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I fly 8th USAAF City Bombing missions at 28,000 ft and have flak losses. Do you have FOW on? If so, then you are getting 'fogged' results. The Allied player, for example, typically gets reports of "100% Damage" inflicted on almost every mission - but I know that is not so. I have had several games where the Allies are getting -4 VP/turn for UBoat targets and yet every form of report accessible to the Allies say that every UBoat factory has 100% damage.



This is the same in WitE.

You have to write down the totals on say turn 11, then when you get turn 12 take turn 12 and minus turn 11 and that's the "real" total of that ever you are tracking.

If I add up the mission report it is always why more then the turn by turn totals aka WitE FOW.

This is the same system basicly ( but much improved over all)so you need to track the results same way or turn off FOW. Kinda why it has that silly name fog of war.

Is the AA system perfect? noper, but its dam good and I am 100% sure it will get tweaked and improved as 2by3 always does.


< Message edited by Gorforlin -- 12/14/2014 4:32:19 AM >

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 40
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 6:10:30 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

- FoW also would not tell me 0 western allied planes shot down if it was 10. My guess is it might inflate # and tell me 10 shot down when only maybe 5 were. Once again I'm axis and only allies would know true #'s shot down.

Why doesn't this make sense? The Luftwaffe significantly underestimated the planes its pilots shot down for example because it had a very restrictive system of recognising plane kills (either multi-witness confirmation, or a wreckage).

(in reply to jzardos)
Post #: 41
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 9:03:30 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
As far as I know the developers are now aware of flak inaccuracy above 20k (losses start to drop sharply above 20k already). Also, bombing accuracy seems to be to "spot on" but this might have something to do with flak inefficiency (Pavel would know)..

This is now exposed and I am sure this will be addressed in the patch. Cut the developers some slack if you will.... Developing a monster game like this is never easy..

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 42
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 1:01:02 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
Its trying to put fate into a test tube of historical outcomes.

I don't know.. is there same side FOW damage reporting?

Are you this anti-lucky every week?

doesn't have to be a complete devastation of target.
On a rainy day in August 1943 the 8th USAAF bombed Essen and inflicted heavy damage to heavy industry by knocking out "component Z" stopping all production until it was replaced. Rest of factory untouched.

On my current turn as German the Allies took good flak losses every where except in the rain where the losses were lower.
Ive noticed rain favoring the aircraft, makes sense.

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/14/2014 2:57:10 PM >

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 43
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 1:34:06 PM   
Gorforlin

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 2/22/2012
Status: offline
Data is what is important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Flak was the single biggest source of aircraft loss for me -- slight worse than operational losses, and twice as deadly as air-to-air. Interesting.

Flak losses peaked in week 9, when I made my last big push east, and right after I rebased aircraft west of Paris. I wonder whether they were flying over more unit-based flak than in prior turns, when they mostly had to contend with city-based flak. Or it may just have been that week 9 was my last all-out push in the air, before the weather turned bad.





http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3759416

< Message edited by Gorforlin -- 12/14/2014 2:35:13 PM >

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 44
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 1:52:47 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
That doesn't tell anything without more info about, for example, altitude and amount of sorties..

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Gorforlin)
Post #: 45
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 1:59:00 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5765
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
That's a graph from my AAR, and I posted numbers there if you'd like to see more detail. (The link in the same post points to my AAR.) The numbers indicate that flak was my single highest source of air losses. The graph displayed reflects the number of sorties: they dropped off in the last two turns because the weather turned bad and I stood down my aircraft.

As for altitude, I used the altitudes assigned by default, so 30,000 for recon, etc. I could dig out the save and post sorties numbers too, if you think that would be helpful.

_____________________________


(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 46
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 2:25:25 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5765
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
OK, I loaded up the game and dug out more numbers. This was "Breakout and Pursuit," not the grand campaign, so it doesn't reflect any strategic bombing. I don't think I ever adjusted any air mission's altitude; I used the defaults. This was from the last day, when I wasn't flying much because of rain, so zero sorties in some categories. Also, I'm not sure why one recon mission was at 30,000 feet and the other at 15,000 feet; again, I was just using whatever default altitude the computer generated when I made a new Air Directive. You can see altitudes on this screen:




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grotius -- 12/14/2014 3:27:34 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 47
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 2:30:11 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5765
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
And here were my total sorties. Again, for reference, flak was my biggest category of loss; my numbers were:

Flak losses: 811
Operational: 757
Air to air: 489

Now, maybe this is because most of my missions were below 20,000 feet? I did run plenty of recon at 30,000 feet, though. In my current campaign game, I'm running plenty above 20,000, so I'll watch the numbers and see if high-altitude flak is unduly weak. (So far, I seem to be suffering all too many flak losses even at that altitude, but we'll see.)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Grotius -- 12/14/2014 3:33:10 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 48
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 2:30:53 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
From what I've seen Flak is very effective at 15.000 feet and below, fairly effective between 15.000 and 20.000 feet and about worthless above 20.000 feet.. In other words, In tactical scenarios you will not see any issues with losses AFAIK..

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 49
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 2:34:55 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5765
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
OK, I'll keep an eye on my high-altitude losses in my current campaign game. Seeing plenty of high-altitude flak losses so far, but it's only turn 3, and I did some early strategic bombing runs against heavily-defended cities.

_____________________________


(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 50
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 2:38:52 PM   
Gorforlin

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 2/22/2012
Status: offline
Good stuff

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 51
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 3:01:29 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
I believe most flak guns have more/less effective ranges and it's modeled in the game.

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/14/2014 4:08:15 PM >

(in reply to Gorforlin)
Post #: 52
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 3:19:42 PM   
Jajusha


Posts: 217
Joined: 12/21/2010
Status: offline
Only the US airforce is able to fly at an altitude of 27000 (b17, b24), i tested this in the air campaign scenario.

The result shows: 3 flak casualties over the 4 turns.(around 200 operational, 320 from air combat). The end result of the scenario was a draw, but as for the premise of the OP, yes, flak is virtualy none if you fly at 27000




More info:
Number os sorties turn 1 - 3500
Number os sorties turn 2 - 4400
Number os sorties turn 3 - 12000
Number os sorties turn 4 - 5000

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jajusha -- 12/14/2014 4:24:25 PM >

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 53
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 4:24:57 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6778
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
I don't have the game yet. Is this like Garuy Grigsby's bombing the Reich?
What is the effecive ceiling for the 88mm/18, 88m/41 and 105mm flak cannons?
And is the 128mm flak cannon modeled?

According to what I have, the 88/18 tops out at about 25,900 ft which would make bombers at 27,000 feet immune.
The 88/41 had a much higher ceiling at 37,100 ft
The 105mm flak was 37,400 ft
The 128mm flak was 48,500 ft

In the screen shots I see I just see a 'generic' 88mm gun. If this is the 88mm/18 only then that could be the issue if the other guns are not in the weapons database.

< Message edited by Fallschirmjager -- 12/14/2014 5:25:31 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jajusha)
Post #: 54
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 5:04:24 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4300
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
105mm and 128mm are in the game as are the Flak Towers.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I don't have the game yet. Is this like Garuy Grigsby's bombing the Reich?
What is the effecive ceiling for the 88mm/18, 88m/41 and 105mm flak cannons?
And is the 128mm flak cannon modeled?

According to what I have, the 88/18 tops out at about 25,900 ft which would make bombers at 27,000 feet immune.
The 88/41 had a much higher ceiling at 37,100 ft
The 105mm flak was 37,400 ft
The 128mm flak was 48,500 ft

In the screen shots I see I just see a 'generic' 88mm gun. If this is the 88mm/18 only then that could be the issue if the other guns are not in the weapons database.



_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 55
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 5:24:17 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6778
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

105mm and 128mm are in the game as are the Flak Towers.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I don't have the game yet. Is this like Garuy Grigsby's bombing the Reich?
What is the effecive ceiling for the 88mm/18, 88m/41 and 105mm flak cannons?
And is the 128mm flak cannon modeled?

According to what I have, the 88/18 tops out at about 25,900 ft which would make bombers at 27,000 feet immune.
The 88/41 had a much higher ceiling at 37,100 ft
The 105mm flak was 37,400 ft
The 128mm flak was 48,500 ft

In the screen shots I see I just see a 'generic' 88mm gun. If this is the 88mm/18 only then that could be the issue if the other guns are not in the weapons database.




What is the in game ceiling of the 88mm gun? Could that be why 27,000 seems to be the magic alltitude?
The 105mm and 128mm guns were built in small numbers and really only found on very high priority targets.


_____________________________


(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 56
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 5:56:15 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
I'm fine with reduced FLAK losses at 27000 feet but bombing accuracy and thus effect should suffer for it...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 57
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 6:29:59 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
In Sept. 1944 Luftflotte Reich had only 41x 88/41 Flak. In Febr. 45 there were only 287 Flak 88/41 altogether.

Flak efficiency is complex. B/c it depended on radar, electronic (counter)measures, flak target radar (Schießgeräte), flak synchronizing electronics for up to 32 batteries (Kommandogeräte für Großbatterien), actual German fuze technology. etc. From 1943 onwards Germany lagged behind in electronic warfare.
Already in 1943 the German Flak had 3 problems:
1. US day bombers and British night time Mosquitos could fly above Flak's effective ceiling.
2. Flak blindness b/c of Chaff, even in daytime: 8th AF started with H2X blind bombing on cloudy days.
3. Decreasing personell and personell quality.

Das Deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg, Vol 7. p. 207, p. 282-3

< Message edited by wosung -- 12/14/2014 7:30:44 PM >

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 58
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 6:52:26 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15630
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

What is the in game ceiling of the 88mm gun?


Effective ceiling 26K (max 36K).

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 59
RE: AA seems worthless - 12/14/2014 7:41:38 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6778
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
From my completely uneducated guess. It would seem that flak needs a slight increase in lethality above 25,000 feet while bombers flying at that altitude need their effectiveness greatly reduced. Clear weather at that altitude should be more miss than hit and flying in cloudy weather or worse should be almost completely worthless until very late in the war and radar guided pathfinders are available.

I am mostly going off Bombing the Reich which had a pretty good air warfare engine.

_____________________________


(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> RE: AA seems worthless Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.168