Pearl Harbor Flak

Pearl Harbor Flak (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

spence -> Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 9:09:54 PM)
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.)

JocMeister -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 9:32:05 PM)
Can flak actually shoot down planes in AE? [X(]

Rising-Sun -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 9:43:56 PM)
Look normal to me, it depend on your ground crew experiences and what kinda equipments they are using.

spence -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 9:56:14 PM)
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.

Dili -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 10:36:34 PM)
I agree, looks bad.

FDRLincoln -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 10:59:11 PM)
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.

spence -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 11:08:10 PM)
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.

SeethingErmine -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 11:13:16 PM)
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.

SuluSea -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 11:21:12 PM)
I'll attest flak at Pearl worked in the game I just started.

jetjockey -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 11:35:09 PM)
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...

spence -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 11:35:35 PM)
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.

spence -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 11:39:29 PM)
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.

msieving1 -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (2/29/2012 11:58:45 PM)
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.

denisonh -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 12:06:44 AM)
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.

spence -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 12:34:48 AM)
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.

denisonh -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 12:40:23 AM)
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.

tocaff -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 1:17:34 AM)
Do we have this is a borked call?

USSAmerica -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 2:21:20 AM)
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. [:D]

Dan Nichols -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 2:24:35 AM)
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

gradenko2k -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 2:26:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Can flak actually shoot down planes in AE? [X(] 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.

oldman45 -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 3:19:13 AM)
Actually I find it amazing when a Betty strike survives any torp run on a US warship.

CV 2 -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 4:33:19 AM)
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).

JocMeister -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 6:29:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000 quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Can flak actually shoot down planes in AE? [X(] 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 [:)]

CV 2 -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 6:55:00 AM)
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.

crsutton -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 2:46:37 PM)
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...[;)]

castor troy -> RE: Pearl Harbor Flak (3/1/2012 2:48:57 PM)
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.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.390869