Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Pearl Harbor 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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Pearl Harbor Flak Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 9:09:54 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Shortly after the newest patch (Feb 2012) came out somebody or other was complaining about the results they were obtaining with their (IJN) attack(s) at Pearl Harbor.

I sorta took their complaints with a grain of salt since other responders seemed to be indicating that they had had fairly satisfactory results.

But with the results that I have seen at Pearl Harbor in a PBEM game I just started I have to wonder if a programer inadvertently dropped a comma or an ampersand into the program which causes Pearl Harbor flak units, base forces and all ships in the harbor to load their guns with blanks on a more or less permanent basis.

I only bring it up because the flak at Pearl Harbor has not shot down a single Val or Kate over the course of 2 turns. On Dec 7th with Surprise ON I have less of a problem with this result (well actually I chock it up as another sop to the JFB crowd) since flak did at least seem to claim a couple of strafing Zeros. But for Dec 8th where there is no surprise and the raid has to fight its way through a substantial CAP the same result seems (frankly) unbelievably odd and so far afield from any conceivable historical reality as to make me think that some kind of insect is at "play".

(The complete lack of flak casualties to the KB's bomber force is confirmed by the Intel Screen for the two turns. Also I noted that during the Combat Animation not one single bomber "flashed" red to indicate it had been shot down or "yellow" to indicate it had suffered damage.)

< Message edited by spence -- 2/29/2012 9:11:06 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 9:32:05 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Can flak actually shoot down planes in AE?

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 2
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 9:43:56 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
Look normal to me, it depend on your ground crew experiences and what kinda equipments they are using.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 9:56:14 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Look normal to me, it depend on your ground crew experiences and what kinda equipments they are using.



Clearly you have no knowledge of history or anything approximating reality.

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 4
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 10:36:34 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
I agree, looks bad.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 5
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 10:59:11 PM   
FDRLincoln


Posts: 744
Joined: 11/22/2004
From: Lawrence, KS
Status: offline
For what is is worth, I lost six A6M2, six Vals, and two Kates to Pearl Harbor flak in my recent PBEM.

On the other hand, I've been able to bomb Singapore with Bettys and Nells at fairly low altitudes (6 to 10 thousand feet) taking just a few losses.

_____________________________

Fear God and Dread Nought

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 6
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 11:08:10 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
I am speaking about NOT ONE SINGLE Val or Kate being shot down or even damaged (144 Kates attacked on Dec 7th and 144 Kates attacked on Dec 8th). I am suggesting that since a couple of Zeroes WHICH WERE STRAFING were hit perhaps some random character or other (I have virtually no understanding of the mechanics of programming more current than 1980) is either invalidating all US flak AT Pearl Harbor or maybe limiting its effective range to 100 ft.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 7
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 11:13:16 PM   
SeethingErmine


Posts: 34
Joined: 1/2/2010
Status: offline
If you like flak you may want to try out the Babes mods.  Last time I started up a BabesLite game I left the Zeros on 100 ft sweep at PH, and lost a good dozen (~30%) to flak (day 1).  Naval strikes on ships at sea can be a lot more painful too, saw a couple cargo ships shoot down 4 Nells on approach one time.

Edit: Take a look at caster troy's latest AAR for combat reports showing the difference. He shot down 7 strikecraft outright at PH on day 1.

< Message edited by SeethingErmine -- 2/29/2012 11:17:21 PM >

(in reply to FDRLincoln)
Post #: 8
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 11:21:12 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
 I'll attest flak at Pearl worked in the game I just started.

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 9
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 11:35:09 PM   
jetjockey


Posts: 256
Joined: 11/23/2009
Status: offline
Dec 7th,

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 72 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     A6M2 Zero x 68
     B5N2 Kate x 144
     D3A1 Val x 126



Allied aircraft
     no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
     A6M2 Zero: 4 damaged
     A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed by flak
     B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged
     D3A1 Val: 3 damaged
     D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
     PBY-5 Catalina: 154 damaged
     PBY-5 Catalina: 8 destroyed on ground
     B-17D Fortress: 44 damaged
     B-17D Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground
     B-17E Fortress: 17 damaged
     B-18A Bolo: 48 damaged
     B-18A Bolo: 2 destroyed on ground
     P-40B Warhawk: 66 damaged
     P-40B Warhawk: 9 destroyed on ground
     SBD-1 Dauntless: 33 damaged...

Dec 8th,

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 85 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     A6M2 Zero x 65
     B5N2 Kate x 90
     D3A1 Val x 87



Allied aircraft
     no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
     D3A1 Val: 6 damaged
     D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
     OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
     BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk...

Seems about right...

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 10
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 11:35:35 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
IN REAL LIFE the Japanese Navy lost 29 aircraft shot down during the Pearl Harbor Raid. Further they had an equal or greater number make it back to the carriers which were so shot up that they were pushed over the side after they landed.

The losses I have seen in every AE start regardless of patch (up to now) seem to be about 15 aircraft of all types shot down OR damaged. They have in the past included both Vals and Kates in one or another category above. In this game, the combined total of both Vals and Kates shot down or damaged in raids on both Dec 7th and Dec 8th is ZERO. The only planes shot down are Zeros which are STRAFING (at altitude 100 ft). That anomaly points to a bug...if not then the only interpretation possible is that the game is being so adulterated in favor of Imperial Japan that it is throwing away even a pretense of having a connection to what really happened.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 11
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 11:39:29 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Dec 7th,

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 72 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126



Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged
D3A1 Val: 3 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 154 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 8 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 44 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 17 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 48 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 2 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 66 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 9 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 33 damaged...

Dec 8th,

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 85 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 65
B5N2 Kate x 90
D3A1 Val x 87



Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A1 Val: 6 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk...

Seems about right...


That seems as weird as the results I experienced. If this is an actual result then the program allows way too many standard deviations from the mean.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 12
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 2/29/2012 11:58:45 PM   
msieving1


Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

That seems as weird as the results I experienced. If this is an actual result then the program allows way too many standard deviations from the mean.


The chances of extreme results is definitely too high. That seems to be a problem with most games.

Of course, results like this ...

PBY-5 Catalina: 154 damaged

... make me believe there's a fair amount of FOW in the report.


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 13
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 12:06:44 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
Any good model of combat will have a wide range of outcomes to incorporate chaos.

Put it in the context of 30 outcomes ofrm the model given the same conditions and we can anayze the model.

One outcome is just that, one outcome, and any "analysis" is really veiled ranting.
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Dec 7th,

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 72 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126



Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged
D3A1 Val: 3 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 154 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 8 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 44 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 17 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 48 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 2 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 66 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 9 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 33 damaged...

Dec 8th,

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 85 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 65
B5N2 Kate x 90
D3A1 Val x 87



Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A1 Val: 6 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk...

Seems about right...


That seems as weird as the results I experienced. If this is an actual result then the program allows way too many standard deviations from the mean.



_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 14
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 12:34:48 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
If the results were entirely random perhaps you have a point. However the assumption that American flak wasn't aimed or that every flak gunner out of thousands over the course of 2 days was entirely both blind and incompetent is a bit of a stretch.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 15
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 12:40:23 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
Agree about the 2 days in a row. Having two outcomes from one "tail" in a row should be extremely unlikely (something less than a 1 in 2500 chance)
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

If the results were entirely random perhaps you have a point. However the assumption that American flak wasn't aimed or that every flak gunner out of thousands over the course of 2 days was entirely both blind and incompetent is a bit of a stretch.



_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 16
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 1:17:34 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Do we have this is a borked call?

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 17
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 2:21:20 AM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
I'll offer this example from the Scen 1 game I just started with Historiker using 1108r9:

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 108 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 90
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 135



Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 4 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 2 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

It is only one more sample, but I did manage to hit a few Jap planes on the first day. I would say it's not completely broken.

I'll also have to call NO on "borked" status.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 18
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 2:24:35 AM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
This is from a DBB 28B historical start.

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 114 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 37 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126



Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 7 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 4 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 2 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 9 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 39 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 3 destroyed on ground
PBY-5 Catalina: 109 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 12 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 29 damaged
SBD-1 Dauntless: 5 destroyed on ground
O-47A: 6 damaged
O-47A: 2 destroyed on ground
R3D-2: 1 damaged
R3D-2: 1 destroyed on ground
C-33: 3 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 10 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 7 damaged
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 36 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 5 destroyed on ground
P-36A Mohawk: 18 damaged
P-36A Mohawk: 4 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 22 damaged
A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 41 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 9 destroyed on ground
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
AV Curtiss, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Raleigh, Torpedo hits 1
DM Montgomery
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 10, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 1
PT-25, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
DM Sicard, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
BB California, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AV Tangier, Bomb hits 1
CM Oglala
AV Wright, Torpedo hits 1
CL St. Louis, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AVD Hulbert, Bomb hits 1
YO-43, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
PT-26, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DD Dewey, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Ralph Talbot, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DD Dale, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AD Dobbin, Bomb hits 1
CA New Orleans, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Jarvis, Bomb hits 1
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
DD Conyngham, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AD Rigel, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
DD Tucker, Bomb hits 1


Allied ground losses:
56 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Repair Shipyard hits 2
Airbase hits 36
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 108

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x A6M2 Zero bombing from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
25 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
10 x A6M2 Zero bombing from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
18 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
18 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 45cm Type 91 Torp
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
14 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
11 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
15th PG/45th PS with P-36A Mohawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead

Training flight from 15th PG/45th PS has been caught up in attack


(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 19
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 2:26:00 AM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Can flak actually shoot down planes in AE?

I laughed at this, and then I loaded up DaBigBabes' Guadalcanal scenario and watched as the CLAAs damaged an entire squadron of Betty's and even shot down two, with no successful torpedo launches. I'm just about sold on DaBabes for my next playthrough attempt.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 20
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 3:19:13 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Actually I find it amazing when a Betty strike survives any torp run on a US warship.

_____________________________


(in reply to gradenko2k)
Post #: 21
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 4:33:19 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
Dont know why you bother posting the combat report. Unless you are playing with FoW off, it is meaningless. Look at the intell screen and see how many planes were lost on the day. That is more accurate (but still not 100%). The combat report is often (always?) WAY off actual losses. That being said, yes "stock" AEs AA is a joke. Just quit a game in Nov 43 (I as Japs had over 40k points to about 17k for the allies - I was very close to an auto-win) because the allied player started flying 4e bombers at 1000 ft. Even over Rangoon (which had a dozen base forces and another dozen AA units) he got away with only damaged aircraft (and not many of them either).

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 22
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 6:29:47 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Can flak actually shoot down planes in AE?

I laughed at this, and then I loaded up DaBigBabes' Guadalcanal scenario and watched as the CLAAs damaged an entire squadron of Betty's and even shot down two, with no successful torpedo launches. I'm just about sold on DaBabes for my next playthrough attempt.


I´m going to give DBB vs the AI or something and see how it handles flak. I´m currently reading Samuel Morisons books on the pacific and atleast according to him flak shot down more planes then a few per month :)

In his books Allied ship flak shot down a huge amount of Jap A/C. Havn´t seen that in AE! Nor in any of the AARs I´m reading. Especially one episode etched in my memory. I think it was in the "Rising sun" book. In early 42 the Houston was attacked by a good number of aircraft outside of Java. Houston put up such an amount of AA fire that the the attacking aircraft was unable to attack at all. Pilots feared AA for a reason I think :)

Both land an ship AA seems a lot more ineffective then it really was. But then again I´m no expert




(in reply to gradenko2k)
Post #: 23
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 6:55:00 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
Someone had posted here some months back something that showed aircraft losses in the USSBS and it showed more aircraft lost to AA than to air to air combat (in the PTO).

Should say allied aircraft. Not aircraft of all nations.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 24
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 2:46:37 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
You might have a case. That is a pretty severe result. I don't think there is much argument here that flak can be a bit anemic in the game.

However, citing one or two example is not going to give you much support. I would suggest running that first turn 15-20 times and then post your results. That would then provide the basis for a good discussion on the subject.

Not that it has not been discussed to death already...

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 25
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak - 3/1/2012 2:48:57 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Someone had posted here some months back something that showed aircraft losses in the USSBS and it showed more aircraft lost to AA than to air to air combat (in the PTO).

Should say allied aircraft. Not aircraft of all nations.



I originally posted those stats and have just posted a link to them recently.

_____________________________


(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Pearl Harbor Flak 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

1.734