FLak: BTR is way too effective

FLak: BTR is way too effective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich

Message

Rusty1961 -> FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/20/2010 12:28:39 AM)
Just my opinion/observation. I don't bother hitting airfields any more as I'll always lose more planes than I'll kill. Hitting airfields with fighters and FBs isn't prodcutive. It's very frustrating.

invernomuto -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/20/2010 9:32:31 AM)
I agree. In BTR, sending FBs in bombing mission or fighters in sweep mission against an A/F with AA was suicidal. I found BoB more balanced. Bye

Erkki -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/20/2010 11:32:37 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7uWhp_aMZg Probably the game just doesnt take into account, that there are trees, buildings, hills etc and low-flying aircraft will be obscured by them. The lower they fly the less time a single flak gun has to shoot them, after it has turned to the target, and the required deflection to hit is greater. The problems in finding the target and lining up for the bombing run early enough seem to be in the game already, as nap of the earth strikes miss very often, even if the target was nearly unprotected.

wernerpruckner -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/20/2010 8:10:35 PM)
recce, recce and more recce. If your opponent puts his FlaK onto A/Fs he is not putting it elsewhere....... Sweep only crowded or overcrowded A/Fs....anything with less than a Gruppe on it isn´t worth sweeping! Use patrol points instead of sweeps if you are sure that he will cross your path. BTW - BoB and BtR are now using the same game engine [;)]

Rusty1961 -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/20/2010 9:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swift recce, recce and more recce. If your opponent puts his FlaK onto A/Fs he is not putting it elsewhere....... Sweep only crowded or overcrowded A/Fs....anything with less than a Gruppe on it isn´t worth sweeping! Use patrol points instead of sweeps if you are sure that he will cross your path. BTW - BoB and BtR are now using the same game engine [;)] It isn't just FS. Bombing fields from 10K to 15K isn't worth it either. Flak is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy to effective.

Rusty1961 -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/20/2010 9:11:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swift recce, recce and more recce. If your opponent puts his FlaK onto A/Fs he is not putting it elsewhere....... Sweep only crowded or overcrowded A/Fs....anything with less than a Gruppe on it isn´t worth sweeping! Use patrol points instead of sweeps if you are sure that he will cross your path. BTW - BoB and BtR are now using the same game engine [;)] Also, opponents have this nasty habit of putting their planes on fields with tons of light-AA. Thus no point in attacking fields.

Rusty1961 -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/20/2010 10:00:02 PM)
In the old USAAF game one could attack Flak guns specifically. THis game needs that command.

Dobey455 -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/21/2010 6:10:47 AM)
Might be bad luck or lack of recce or something in the way your sweeps go in, but in most of my games I get about 1/3 or more of my total kills from strafing, and unless I run into a flak trap (through lack of recon or outright impatience) I would rarely loose more than 1 or 2 planes in each sweep. Bombing an airfield, weather by bomber or fighter-bomber rarely costs more than a single A/C over the target, but there a usually several damaged ones that don't always make it back. Try making your sweeps\attacks only with sturdy A/C like the Typhoon or P-47. Spits and Mustangs are too fragile unless you are sure there is not too much AA. Don't use multiple squadrons or waves, after the first attack the flak is alerted and will be more effective. Set your patrol point (if sweeping) back towards home base so that after the attack your planes start egressing rather than cirling the airfield.

Erkki -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/21/2010 12:48:38 PM)
~100 Typhoons at 1000ft to Villacoublay airfield. Airfield had 100 machine guns, 100 20mm and 20mm quad guns, 60 37mm guns and 5 heavy guns. 44 were shot down on their way in, 2 more on their way out, Fw 190s got 2 more and 3 later crashed. The airfield was operated by a single Staffeln, all of it being airborne. [:D] EDIT: see the youtube vid above. [;)]

Hard Sarge -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/21/2010 1:29:47 PM)
yea but, that is your fault, poor play, results in poor results each follow up unit is going to have a worse chance vs the AA, those MG's have a bonus at that Alt, plus 20 Guads and 37s are murder at low level, don't blame the game for doing something a real commander would never of done I agree with some of what you said, but you also missed the main point, a low level, quick attack could get in and get out, before the guns could get into action, pick targets, a large raid, or planes that came back, tended to get shot up (a very Large rule, was only make one pass, more then one, and you had a good chance of being dead) now that is different then a large planned sweep, where different squadrons would be tasked to attack the flak, while the others would have high cover and attack duties, and most of them, would make a pass, and then get into high cover, and the next would take the attack over, when it worked right, the gun crews didn't get to the guns in time, and then while under attack, stayed away from the guns, while the field was worked over, but in the long run, those were few and far between remember, the US lost very few Aces to air to air combat, most of there Aces were lost on sweeps there are reasons why the VIIIth FC was told that a ground kill would count the same as a air kill, most people didn't want to do it, it was dangerous, most times, much more then air combat was and most of your large kill numbers came later in the war

Nikademus -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/21/2010 4:45:30 PM)
I'd rather have overeffective flak (not that i think it is in the game thus far), vs. undereffective flak. Long standing WitP problem. Led to the perenial 6000 foot attack syndrome regardless of target defensive strength. Lord knows i didn't get enough of Soft Sarge's bombers when he was hitting my volkswagon bug plants in our last game at just below 20k. Wish i'd had some SA-2's. [:D]

Ikazuchi0585 -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/22/2010 5:26:41 PM)
In RL, even if those 100 Typhoons wouldn't have been seen, they most definately would have been heard. The best bet would have been to go in at tree top level, but even then, it'd still be suicidal. At 1000ft, most shells would be at your altitude in about a second.

Erkki -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/22/2010 6:32:44 PM)
At 1000ft, the distance between the flak gun and its target is 1000ft only when the targeted aircraft is directly above the gun. At 360kmph(!), which is pretty slow, and aircraft travels 100m or something like 102 yards every second. Add to that, that you dont know exactly where the target is coming from, and estimating its speed, flight direction and required lead is a nightmare - even if the lead was right for some time, the projectile dispersion and gun's rate of fire make hitting the target a nightmare. But this only for a single gun, 300 guns protecting a target getting attacked by 100 aircraft do not get to fire at all the aircraft, or HIT 2/3 of 100 Typhoons, let alone down 40+% them. By the way, why doesnt the flak fire at those aircraft that attack landing planes? Day or night, its the same thing. Those attackers dont even have to dive to the deck to do that, 20,000ft seems to work as well or almost as well..

Rob Brennan UK -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/22/2010 7:10:34 PM)
quote: By the way, why doesnt the flak fire at those aircraft that attack landing planes? Day or night, its the same thing. Those attackers dont even have to dive to the deck to do that, 20,000ft seems to work as well or almost as well.. good point .. they shoot at my own planes enough times [;)]

Ikazuchi0585 -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/22/2010 8:38:56 PM)
You're still not factoring in sound. Its not like you have dummies manning AA guns. These planes aren't traveling the speed of sound either. You'll hear the planes and be able to tell a general direction before the planes actually arrive. Knowing a general direction, all you then have to do is put up a wall of flak. The more guns you have, the less precise you have to be. especially when you have 120 20mm and 37mm guns. Slant Range; a target doesn't only have to be 1000ft vertically from the target. No AA gunner starts firing at a target when its directly above them. "300 guns protecting a target getting attacked by 100 aircraft do not get to fire at all the aircraft, or HIT 2/3 of 100 Typhoons, let alone down 40+% them" why can't they hit 2/3 of the target? just because you say so? A shell doesnt have to completely destroy an a/c to bring it down. "By the way, why doesnt the flak fire at those aircraft that attack landing planes? Day or night, its the same thing. Those attackers dont even have to dive to the deck to do that, 20,000ft seems to work as well or almost as well.. " ask the devs, I didnt program the game. I'm just saying that flying well within the effective range of 300+ guns is suicidal.

Richard III -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/22/2010 9:24:30 PM)
In his book " The Big Show" Pierre Clostermann recounts the results of an attack in 1943 by Hurricane FB`s his Spit Sq. was escorting, on a V-1 site in France. It was defended by 37mm and 20mm Flak. 11 of the attacking Hurricanes were shot down and one made it back with a badly wounded pilot to crash on the airfield. In the late war, a 4 plane section of his Tempest Wing went in to attack a truck convoy in Holland, 3 were shot down by Flak concealed along the road. This occurred more often then not. Having said all that, the losses from flak in the Game is probably based on % numbers, so 10 AC attacking a flak defended position take 20% or 2 AC losses and 100 AC attacking the same flak position take 20% or 20 AC losses. That`s not the best CRT system. If the attacker gets a bad die roll ( 40% losses ) then you see these crippling losses some people are getting. It`s shouldn`t work that way. That`s always been the problem in the game I think. quote: "300 guns protecting a target getting attacked by 100 aircraft do not get to fire at all the aircraft, or HIT 2/3 of 100 Typhoons, let alone down 40+% them" why can't they hit 2/3 of the target? just because you say so? A shell doesnt have to completely destroy an a/c to bring it down.

CarnageINC -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/23/2010 1:35:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Richard III In his book " The Big Show" Pierre Clostermann recounts the results of an attack in 1943 by Hurricane FB`s his Spit Sq. was escorting, on a V-1 site in France. It was defended by 37mm and 20mm Flak. 11 of the attacking Hurricanes were shot down and one made it back with a badly wounded pilot to crash on the airfield. In the late war, a 4 plane section of his Tempest Wing went in to attack a truck convoy in Holland, 3 were shot down by Flak concealed along the road. This occurred more often then not. Having said all that, the losses from flak in the Game is probably based on % numbers, so 10 AC attacking a flak defended position take 20% or 2 AC losses and 100 AC attacking the same flak position take 20% or 20 AC losses. That`s not the best CRT system. If the attacker gets a bad die roll ( 40% losses ) then you see these crippling losses some people are getting. It`s shouldn`t work that way. That`s always been the problem in the game I think. quote: "300 guns protecting a target getting attacked by 100 aircraft do not get to fire at all the aircraft, or HIT 2/3 of 100 Typhoons, let alone down 40+% them" why can't they hit 2/3 of the target? just because you say so? A shell doesnt have to completely destroy an a/c to bring it down. I think that this is more accurate picture of AA, I think the the AA in the game is way underpowered IMO the lower you go.

K.Pooley -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/23/2010 1:35:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Richard III Having said all that, the losses from flak in the Game is probably based on % numbers, so 10 AC attacking a flak defended position take 20% or 2 AC losses and 100 AC attacking the same flak position take 20% or 20 AC losses. That`s not the best CRT system. If the attacker gets a bad die roll ( 40% losses ) then you see these crippling losses some people are getting. It`s shouldn`t work that way. That`s always been the problem in the game I think. That's interesting, where did you find those details of how the system works. I can't remember having come across them in the manual. Kevin

Richard III -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/23/2010 3:35:53 AM)
Not in the manual that I saw, that`s just my feeling about how the Flak CRT works, based on the results we see and Gary`s previous game designs. I`d like to think there`s modifiers in there too, but it seems pretty much straightforward die rolling by the AI. Perhaps I`m wrong. I`d love to hear the Devs opinion/views on this. quote: ORIGINAL: Richard III Having said all that, the losses from flak in the Game is probably based on % numbers, so 10 AC attacking a flak defended position take 20% or 2 AC losses and 100 AC attacking the same flak position take 20% or 20 AC losses. That`s not the best CRT system. If the attacker gets a bad die roll ( 40% losses ) then you see these crippling losses some people are getting. It`s shouldn`t work that way. That`s always been the problem in the game I think. That's interesting, where did you find those details of how the system works. I can't remember having come across them in the manual. Kevin

harley -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/23/2010 8:40:18 AM)
GG's routine is largely in tact. I reviewed it line by line, and couldn't make it better. It obeys the laws of gravity & physics. It obeys the theory/law of diminishing returns. It supports cone-fire It supports alert states Big Guns can't attack low altitudes Accuracy diminishes with altitude and distance It disrupts formations, making A2A defense more difficult. That's off the top of my head...

bigmilt -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/23/2010 11:52:45 PM)
I think one of the problems is that all the guns are manned all the time. Which in real life never happens. Especially on a low level a/f raid. The guys at the air field always hear planes comming and going. Plus those gun crews at the air fields were most likely pulling double duty with being on the gun crew part as a secondary function. The heavy flak guns did have dedicated crews but they had plenty of warning that a heavy bomber raid was comming and could get ready.

Peter Fisla -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/24/2010 1:59:02 AM)
German AAs were more effective and shut down more allied planes than Luftwaffe fighters...that's a fact. I red a book(Fighting the Bombers - Luftwaffe Struggle against The Allied Bomber Offensive) where Galland mentions that Fighters should have concentrated on Allied fighters and let the AA do the work on Allied bombers. And pretty much that's what I do...for the most part.

Nikademus -> RE: FLak: BTR is way too effective (6/24/2010 4:55:00 PM)
1345 BC aircraft downed by flak at night vs. 2278 shot down by night fighters. 5400 USAAF aircraft downed by flak vs. 4300 shot down by Allied fighters. breakdown of flak losses by org: 1798 - VIII AF 2076 - MAAF (med allied air forces) 2415 - IX and XII AF Overall German flak accounted for roughly 50% of of American 4E losses during the war. Figures for aircraft damaged by flak are far higher - 54,539. Unfortunately flak's overall effect tends to get tunnel visioned into losses. the "hidden" effects of flak were just as important if not more so, including planes damaged by flak that resulted in later kills for fighters. Fighter and AA defenses were both needed for a viable defense. (figures from Westermann "Flak: German Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1914 - 1945)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640625