Flak

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Flak

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 East Series >> Flak

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Flak - 5/14/2020 1:52:19 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

I do realize that flak has undergone some radical changes over many versions. Flak started as nerfed then became as deadly as modern laser directed AA platforms (that was bad), and now is nerfed again ..

Here is a thought .. if a side (Soviet or German) invests in some degree of AA there should be some escalation of results that is either lineal, inverse logarithmic, inverse exponential ... but right now investing anti-aircraft SU's to defend targets has little effect on results. I might propose an increase in not kills but damaged platforms and missed targets. Right now airfield bombing and ground bombing is not deterred by flak "nests" and it has a detrimental effect on the game as a whole.

Maybe tinker with this problem when fixing the problem with reserve activation causing unescorted bombing missions and random complete destruction of the attacking bomber force ..

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

Post #: 1

RE: Flak - 5/14/2020 2:26:06 PM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

+1. I think it should do more to make enemy planes less effective but not shoot down tons of enemy planes. Essentially if you try to bomb somewhere that has lots of AA then many of the bombers shouldn't get through and be deterred lessening the result of the bombing run.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2

RE: Flak - 5/14/2020 5:22:20 PM

eskuche

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline

What cases have you run into that suggest they are not effective? In my Soviet game I can very, very clearly see the effects of AA SU's attached to german units. Motor and tanks are nigh untouchable with bombs, and I only get 50-200 kills per 14 regiments bombing mission on units on clear/light forest with no AA and no forts.

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 3

RE: Flak - 5/14/2020 11:38:43 PM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

In the actual real war that happened they used to say the best thing to stop a tank was another tank, or to stop a plane was another plane. Fighters shooting down other planes was the key number everyone wanted to know. Anti- something weapons were less effective. Flak was more an aerial area denial weapon - it made enemy planes divert course when they met it.

Now I know this can be argued about and there are special places where this inverted. But the general principle should be that and it would mean flak should be about disrupting planes on their final mission while enemy fighters do most of the actual killing.

There was a great thread started by @Dinglir about how the early air war left the Soviet air force overpowered. I did not agree but nevertheless this led to the great nerfing of the Soviet air force (national morale/experience etc.) Then the complaint was the Soviet air force was too underpowered, but the answer was to buff the flak instead. Each patch leads to more and newer complications. Perhaps the right answer if the thought was the old changes had gone too far would have been simply to undo them a bit rather than make new ones.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 5/14/2020 11:54:03 PM >

_____________________________

Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT

(in reply to eskuche)

Post #: 4

RE: Flak - 5/15/2020 12:14:40 AM

eskuche

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline

I actually just (listened to ) read https://www.amazon.com/Red-Star-Against-Swastika-Eastern-ebook/dp/B00THHTRHO
From what I gathered FlaK was relatively predictable once firing and even full hits did not bring down planes that often vs. Bf109's. Of course the book was from the point of view of an IL-2...

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 5

RE: Flak - 5/15/2020 5:42:06 AM

56ajax

Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

In the actual real war that happened they used to say the best thing to stop a tank was another tank, or to stop a plane was another plane. Fighters shooting down other planes was the key number everyone wanted to know. Anti- something weapons were less effective. Flak was more an aerial area denial weapon - it made enemy planes divert course when they met it.

Now I know this can be argued about and there are special places where this inverted. But the general principle should be that and it would mean flak should be about disrupting planes on their final mission while enemy fighters do most of the actual killing.

There was a great thread started by @Dinglir about how the early air war left the Soviet air force overpowered. I did not agree but nevertheless this led to the great nerfing of the Soviet air force (national morale/experience etc.) Then the complaint was the Soviet air force was too underpowered, but the answer was to buff the flak instead. Each patch leads to more and newer complications. Perhaps the right answer if the thought was the old changes had gone too far would have been simply to undo them a bit rather than make new ones.

Hiya Tele,

Agree on flak, all about disruption and less about shooting down. Flak causes bombers to have engine trouble, or get lost or miss the target by 50k; (and as an aside what goes up must come down; I've often wondered how many casualties were caused by flk following the laws of gravity).

Tank vs Tank, well, it depends...attacking you need tanks, defending you need anti tank guns....as In PZ 3's meet enemy opposition and call up Pz4s to blast them out; enemy tanks attack and Pzs withdraw through prepared ATG positions; enemy tanks get absolutely spanked by ATGs; Pz3's advance....repeat.....

_____________________________

Molotov : This we did not deserve.

Foch : This is not peace. This is a 20 year armistice.

C'est la guerre a�rienne

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 6

RE: Flak - 5/15/2020 6:28:13 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

Well we might have a special case in 2x3. Us Germans have let the Soviet air force build both in numbers and morale. So maybe the game logic is to allow 55+ morale to be able to penetrate 100's of flak tubes protecting an airfield. Somehow I suspect now that the morale influences this ability too much ....

I hope Morvel takes a gander at this ... because the unintended consequence will be that numbers of aircraft exceeding a morale threshold will be invincible without any "rochambeau" counter in any degree.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to 56ajax)

Post #: 7

RE: Flak - 5/15/2020 8:03:53 PM

eskuche

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline

Is this threshold a known value or are you stating an example? I think the fact that Axis has really low interception now means that the only realistic soviet losses are going to be during ground support or airfield bombing, both of which can be mitigated if not completely prevented.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 8

RE: Flak - 5/15/2020 8:52:51 PM

joelmar

Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline

It's really hard to assess flak turn arounds and deflection effect on defense since we can't visualize defensive battles at level 6-7, so the only indicators for flak we have is from battle reports which only tells about numbers involved, but no results. Ok, we know the kill results, but that doesn't tell anything about result vs involvement. How many bombers get to the target and what is their kill ratio? no idea.

For German interception, I think it should definitely be higher, even if only for the sake of giving choices in air tactics and strategy. And the risk of enemy reserve activation means it's a big hazard to the LW everytime there's a ground battle, or you must disable ground support to make sure you don't get a black eye. Doesn't make sense to me.

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to eskuche)

Post #: 9

RE: Flak - 5/16/2020 1:27:44 PM

BrianG

Posts: 4653
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline

flak kia are much much lower. even before patch .05 which did not change things. at least as to what tally's up in the report.

Either flak should be notched up a notch or maybe the reporting of kia's is not perfect.

(in reply to joelmar)

Post #: 10

RE: Flak - 5/16/2020 2:40:37 PM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianG
maybe the reporting of kia's is not perfect.

Lots and lots https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4472786

When 2 fighters fly an escort and 4 of them get destroyed you do have to wonder.

As I understand it from Morvael when you see a battle report, the air losses may be of the previous battle or the previous battle added in.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 5/16/2020 2:43:49 PM >

_____________________________

Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT

(in reply to BrianG)

Post #: 11