quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

Are you talking about flak or dirt? Cuz dirt can be spread out on 46mi hex when flak concentrate in places which need to defend from air attack)

quote:

ORIGINAL: derp
I appreciate the condescension, but it's still a very small number - given your average hex, with a port, a couple of airfields and some ground units to cover any flight against a particular target is only liable to encounter a fraction of them. I don't know what fraction fires in-game - perhaps it's most of them to compensate for the fact that there's no mechanism for firing at aircraft between their base and the target - but I would suspect it's not every single gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: derp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.

There is I think a tendency towards tunnel vision with regards to AA guns; people look at them and say "well, I only killed X aircraft today, they're obviously not doing anything at all" etc. Basically, there are two things that don't seem to be factored in a lot of the time:

- Effect of AA fire on bomber accuraccy - what's the odds a bomber hits what it's aiming at at a base with no AA guns v 50, or 200, or however many? Obviously the point at which it becomes a really significant factor is dependent on the size of the raid involved - but then that's a question of concentration that is completely situational. If you have a lot of guns, you can significantly hit the number of hits (so to speak).

- Effects of disruption on AA guns - remember that raids on airbases hit AA and base force units too; if the raids are large ones and the AA complement at the base isn't big enough to stand up to the number of hits involved they will get tired and disrupted and etc as the bombing progresses, which can take a few days to settle - days you won't have if bombing is persistent. I don't think many people look at those numbers too hard...they make a big difference.

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

OK, here is the Japanese 75mm AAA, nothing special, and nothing stands out about it. However, I can't remember if it was in WiTP or Pacific War (both by G. Grigsby), but IIRC in one (or possibly both) game Japanese flak had a modifier of 0.75. Not sure if that is still the case, one of the Dev Team might though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've done a little experiment and with 2 simple changes to each AAA gun and its gone from what it is stock to completely deadly, even for Japan. Of course it messes with the game balance so in the end, best to leave it be.

Tweaking stuff without knowing the formula is an exercise in guesswork at best. Personally I find allied flak to
be utter Anaemic on naval vessels. This is ofc just one opinion. If/When or even should this be addressed, I leave
to others.

TTFN.

Hence why I came up with it being better to leave it be. The two things I did was to increase the ceiling to the max listed for the guns, and also increased ammo capacity. The changes were very noticable, but had unintended consequences. Then again, never know till you try, right? If you are interested, you could try it yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.

True, but it still looks very much like flak has been seriously nerfed for both sides. I stated the case for the Allies earlier but Puhis has done a fine job of doing so for the Japanese side as well. We all know that the guys who made the DaBabes mods felt that it needed to be adjusted and so do many of us who continue to play stock.

My point is that I just wish the devs would come forward and state the facts so when those new to the game come to the forum seeking the conventional wisdom of the experienced players we can give them a definitive answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.

True, but it still looks very much like flak has been seriously nerfed for both sides. I stated the case for the Allies earlier but Puhis has done a fine job of doing so for the Japanese side as well. We all know that the guys who made the DaBabes mods felt that it needed to be adjusted and so do many of us who continue to play stock.

My point is that I just wish the devs would come forward and state the facts so when those new to the game come to the forum seeking the conventional wisdom of the experienced players we can give them a definitive answer.

I hate it to say, but I really suggest to ppl thinking about this issue the same as I do to just start any new game using one of the Babes versions. Not only does this handle flak but also ASW and subwarfare. Doesn't help anyone with an ongoing game, I know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hkbhsi
The following screenshot from my ongoing PBEM (scenario 1) shows you the high number of planes lost to flak. Note that most of those for the Allies are 4Es.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: derp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.

There is I think a tendency towards tunnel vision with regards to AA guns; people look at them and say "well, I only killed X aircraft today, they're obviously not doing anything at all" etc. Basically, there are two things that don't seem to be factored in a lot of the time:

- Effect of AA fire on bomber accuraccy - what's the odds a bomber hits what it's aiming at at a base with no AA guns v 50, or 200, or however many? Obviously the point at which it becomes a really significant factor is dependent on the size of the raid involved - but then that's a question of concentration that is completely situational. If you have a lot of guns, you can significantly hit the number of hits (so to speak).

- Effects of disruption on AA guns - remember that raids on airbases hit AA and base force units too; if the raids are large ones and the AA complement at the base isn't big enough to stand up to the number of hits involved they will get tired and disrupted and etc as the bombing progresses, which can take a few days to settle - days you won't have if bombing is persistent. I don't think many people look at those numbers too hard...they make a big difference.

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)

The fact remains: 14 months of war, and japanese flak have shot down just 35 allied planes. 25 of these are dive bombers, and I think land based flak have shot down just 5 or 6 planes. 14 months, 6 planes.

Historically it was dangerous job to attack major japanese air bases with numerous flak guns. In this game it's not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

Not 100% sure, but from what i noticed in the editor, the loadcost of 9999 indicates an item installed on ships, and the onces with normal loadcost are LCU-usable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Historically Allied medium bombers went in low, using suppression and refining their techniques and weapons as the war progressed. Japanese flak did get a fair number but the Allies got results this way. In the game, it does not pay to attack at low level as the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Better to stay at medium to high altititudes. Thus very few Japanese flak kills.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

Not 100% sure, but from what i noticed in the editor, the loadcost of 9999 indicates an item installed on ships, and the onces with normal loadcost are LCU-usable.

There is many 75 mm AA guns in database that are not used. I think correct japanese guns are named 75mm T88 AA gun and 88mm Type 99 AA gun. Those does have lousy stats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

OK, here is the Japanese 75mm AAA, nothing special, and nothing stands out about it. However, I can't remember if it was in WiTP or Pacific War (both by G. Grigsby), but IIRC in one (or possibly both) game Japanese flak had a modifier of 0.75. Not sure if that is still the case, one of the Dev Team might though.

This is the 75mm I was using, device #068. It has a start date of 12/1941 and an Effect of 13. The one you posted is a '9999' with an Effect of 15. I am no editor maven, so I'm not sure which one is 'better'.



[image]local://upfiles/31387/4EF39DA9483B4AB09DB26B87D11F4E30.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The effect difference would make a slight difference, but nothing overly noticeable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Allied flak has been seriously nerfed in the current AE. I have never seen anything even remotely resembling the historical 29 a/c shot down at Pearl Harbor to say nothing of the many a/c damaged beyond repair that the KB suffered in its surprise attack. But even worse is the enhancement of the historically terrible IJN AAA to where they routinely shoot down attacking Allied aircraft in significant numbers. At Midway, the best of the IJN flak shot down only 3 a/c out of well over 200 attacking a/c on June 4th and one of those 3 was one of their own fighters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The fact is that the flying cadre of the IJN's 1st Air Fleet, the implement by which they started the war at the run, was all but destroyed by the end of 1942.

One can credit either:
1)USN flak (prior to the introduction of the proximity fuze);
2)USN CAP while equipped with the less than sterling F4F

Neither option seems to appeal much to some but that is what happened in real life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

As I recall, according to Parshall and Tulley and other sources as well, very few of the IJN pilots lost at Midway went down with their ships. Most of 'em died in subsequent A2A combat at Eastern Solomons and the Btl of Santa Curz Islands. Japanese CV-based aviators took fearful losses in A2A combat when fighting USN CV-based pilots. And USN flak tore great gaping holes in their attack a.c. ranks beginning in August.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody


Well, some of the pilots went down with their ships on June 4, 1942, no?

Cheers,
CC