RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem

RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> Tech Support

Message

PeteJC -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/18/2021 2:04:29 PM)
I have done a test to see how many bombers are lost due to flak and OPS. I left out fighters as their losses do not seem that severe or have changed much since the new patch. I have also left out H2H losses as they seem normal. I did the test on turn 2 of a game that had its original set-up done in the .08 patch, but I saved it at the end of turn 1 so I believe it should "read" as an original .11 patch but I am guessing so someone correct me if I am wrong. My GS doctrine was set at 16K feet/40 PctFly/100MisPct/100EscPct. I randomly did 34 attacks (all with GS) along the entire front. In a nutshell 4,088 bombers flew and 351 never came back (8.6%). The losses were 50/50 between flak (4.5%) & OPS (4%). The numbers changed very little after I took out the two best & worst results. So does a 4.5% loss rate due to flak and a 4% loss rate due to operations seem reasonable. Seems a bit high to me but I honestly don't know. Does anyone have the historical numbers? The specific attack #s are below: GS at 16K feet and 40% Readiness Turn 2 of German GC of total bombers of total losses #Bmbr Flak OPS Total Total % Flak % OPS % Flak % OPS % 35 3 1 4 11.4% 8.6% 2.9% 75% 25% 27 7 0 7 25.9% 25.9% 0.0% 100% 0% 87 0 1 1 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0% 100% 217 12 6 18 8.3% 5.5% 2.8% 67% 33% 94 0 13 13 13.8% 0.0% 13.8% 0% 100% 28 0 4 4 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0% 100% 25 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - - 98 2 3 5 5.1% 2.0% 3.1% 40% 60% 150 4 10 14 9.3% 2.7% 6.7% 29% 71% 83 5 0 5 6.0% 6.0% 0.0% 100% 0% 214 33 6 39 18.2% 15.4% 2.8% 85% 15% 94 0 3 3 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% 0% 100% 19 0 1 1 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 0% 100% 102 6 4 10 9.8% 5.9% 3.9% 60% 40% 69 11 2 13 18.8% 15.9% 2.9% 85% 15% 142 11 4 15 10.6% 7.7% 2.8% 73% 27% 58 11 2 13 22.4% 19.0% 3.4% 85% 15% 172 4 7 11 6.4% 2.3% 4.1% 36% 64% 205 8 2 10 4.9% 3.9% 1.0% 80% 20% 238 1 6 7 2.9% 0.4% 2.5% 14% 86% 134 0 4 4 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0% 100% 185 6 5 11 5.9% 3.2% 2.7% 55% 45% 376 18 21 39 10.4% 4.8% 5.6% 46% 54% 164 9 7 16 9.8% 5.5% 4.3% 56% 44% 259 3 23 26 10.0% 1.2% 8.9% 12% 88% 90 0 7 7 7.8% 0.0% 7.8% 0% 100% 102 0 1 1 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0% 100% 20 9 0 9 45.0% 45.0% 0.0% 100% 0% 164 9 7 16 9.8% 5.5% 4.3% 56% 44% 145 2 1 3 2.1% 1.4% 0.7% 67% 33% 132 12 9 21 15.9% 9.1% 6.8% 57% 43% 55 0 1 1 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0% 100% 28 0 3 3 10.7% 0.0% 10.7% 0% 100% 77 0 1 1 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0% 100% 4088 186 165 351 8.6% 4.5% 4.0% 53% 47% 3402 140 143 283 8.3% 4.1% 4.2% 49% 51% Taking out the 2 worst (red) and 2 best (green) results.

PeteJC -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/18/2021 2:08:46 PM)
sorry for the crappy formatting. I cannot seem to copy this over as a picture.

DeletedUser44 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/18/2021 8:36:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 A) an opinion that I personally don't share B) I have seen complete destruction but its usually of bombers well over enemy territory, I've never seen the I153 issue you quote but then I manage to escort my bombers most of the time C) well I've shot a lot of them down somehow: [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/2411/U3yOPU.jpg[/image] D) LW is efficient, even in March 43 I'm winning the air war and delivering the sort of GS that wins battles - or inflicts heavy losses on the Soviets [image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8932/Jyk06v.jpg[/image] The problem with the 'historical losses' metric is it assumes that players are trying to match historical usage. Even in 1941, you should be able to separate off the supply demand for your bombers than for your front line formations. The tricky bit is ensuring supply for the shorter ranged fighters. I've used the LW all this game apart from in the first winter when I reverted to keeping the fighters as a screen for the non-blizzard turns. grr.... you should know better. Losses from what turn? What game version(s) were played? I highly doubt it was the same game version throughout. If was it, then it was going to be v1.0.old.crap. Throwing up loss screens without context is meaningless & irrelevant. Even then, it hasn't been using the most recent version that the issues are being reported against now. Even the AC loss accounting has changed(FLAK vs OPS). So your AC data is even more out-of-wack compared with what players are currently seeing and are concerned about. And I am quite confident there have been, literally, 1000's of micro-changes to the code-base that have not been disclosed or reported. Your old AARs and game data is just that - old.

DeletedUser44 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/18/2021 9:02:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeteJC I have done a test to see how many bombers are lost due to flak and OPS. I left out fighters as their losses do not seem that severe or have changed much since the new patch. I have also left out H2H losses as they seem normal. I did the test on turn 2 of a game that had its original set-up done in the .08 patch, but I saved it at the end of turn 1 so I believe it should "read" as an original .11 patch but I am guessing so someone correct me if I am wrong. My GS doctrine was set at 16K feet/40 PctFly/100MisPct/100EscPct. I randomly did 34 attacks (all with GS) along the entire front. In a nutshell 4,088 bombers flew and 351 never came back (8.6%). The losses were 50/50 between flak (4.5%) & OPS (4%). The numbers changed very little after I took out the two best & worst results. So does a 4.5% loss rate due to flak and a 4% loss rate due to operations seem reasonable. Seems a bit high to me but I honestly don't know. Does anyone have the historical numbers? The specific attack #s are below: GS at 16K feet and 40% Readiness Turn 2 of German GC of total bombers of total losses #Bmbr Flak OPS Total Total % Flak % OPS % Flak % OPS % 35 3 1 4 11.4% 8.6% 2.9% 75% 25% 27 7 0 7 25.9% 25.9% 0.0% 100% 0% 87 0 1 1 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0% 100% 217 12 6 18 8.3% 5.5% 2.8% 67% 33% 94 0 13 13 13.8% 0.0% 13.8% 0% 100% 28 0 4 4 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0% 100% 25 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - - 98 2 3 5 5.1% 2.0% 3.1% 40% 60% 150 4 10 14 9.3% 2.7% 6.7% 29% 71% 83 5 0 5 6.0% 6.0% 0.0% 100% 0% 214 33 6 39 18.2% 15.4% 2.8% 85% 15% 94 0 3 3 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% 0% 100% 19 0 1 1 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 0% 100% 102 6 4 10 9.8% 5.9% 3.9% 60% 40% 69 11 2 13 18.8% 15.9% 2.9% 85% 15% 142 11 4 15 10.6% 7.7% 2.8% 73% 27% 58 11 2 13 22.4% 19.0% 3.4% 85% 15% 172 4 7 11 6.4% 2.3% 4.1% 36% 64% 205 8 2 10 4.9% 3.9% 1.0% 80% 20% 238 1 6 7 2.9% 0.4% 2.5% 14% 86% 134 0 4 4 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0% 100% 185 6 5 11 5.9% 3.2% 2.7% 55% 45% 376 18 21 39 10.4% 4.8% 5.6% 46% 54% 164 9 7 16 9.8% 5.5% 4.3% 56% 44% 259 3 23 26 10.0% 1.2% 8.9% 12% 88% 90 0 7 7 7.8% 0.0% 7.8% 0% 100% 102 0 1 1 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0% 100% 20 9 0 9 45.0% 45.0% 0.0% 100% 0% 164 9 7 16 9.8% 5.5% 4.3% 56% 44% 145 2 1 3 2.1% 1.4% 0.7% 67% 33% 132 12 9 21 15.9% 9.1% 6.8% 57% 43% 55 0 1 1 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0% 100% 28 0 3 3 10.7% 0.0% 10.7% 0% 100% 77 0 1 1 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0% 100% 4088 186 165 351 8.6% 4.5% 4.0% 53% 47% 3402 140 143 283 8.3% 4.1% 4.2% 49% 51% Taking out the 2 worst (red) and 2 best (green) results. 4% OPS loss rate is exceptionally reasonable. 4.5% Flak loss rate is acceptable. Suggestion(s) ------------- I would lose the last 2 columns of your data. I can easily get that from eye-balling the previous 2 columns (which is more difficult now). Qualifying how your percentages were calculated would save others from having to go in and reverse-engineer it. You still need to disclose how you calculated the last row, listing the totals percentages. (this can be done in a variety of ways, each skewing the results differently) -------------- 13% has been cited as the historical OPS losses on the Eastern Front through 1941. But it was calculated as: Total OPS AC losses/Total AC losses(from all sources) So, it cannot be used as a benchmark in this case. Whatever historical benchmarks that do exists are almost certainly going to be based on "Sorties", which we do not really have in WiTE2. [&:]

loki100 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/18/2021 9:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sauron_II ... And I am quite confident there have been, literally, 1000's of micro-changes to the code-base that have not been disclosed or reported. Your old AARs and game data is just that - old. och forgive me for reporting on MP games that run to mid-43, clearly of no value at all in the meantime despite all the patches I still have a high morale, high exp LW that I manage to get a lot out of turn after turn

jubjub -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/18/2021 11:56:35 PM)
quote: Double the losses. These kind of results completely drain any fun that one could get from the air war. Also the Anti-Aircraft devices listed for the Soviets dont make a lot of sense? Apparently the Shermans from neighboring hexes are shooting at the Germans? All of them? From 10 miles away? Shooting at dive bombers flying at high speeds? I made a bug report about this issue a while back. I thought they had fixed it.

jubjub -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 1:04:10 AM)
quote: Just playing around with some of my old SP saves and I've been noticed extremely high flak losses right at the end of a ground hex. Like right before the combat result is about to be calculated, bombers end up suffering extreme losses. These are planes that crash on landing because of flak damage, and that's why they show up at the end of the combat. These losses used to be ops losses, but they were reclassified a few patches ago. I've found them to be pretty excessive as well.

Rosencrantus -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 1:14:44 AM)
Yeah that's what I thought, though what initially threw me off was me not expecting those flak losses to jump 30-40+ at the end, which is a bit crazy.

DeletedUser44 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 2:41:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rosencrantus Yeah that's what I thought, though what initially threw me off was me not expecting those flak losses to jump 30-40+ at the end, which is a bit crazy. The change in the loss accounting has thrown everyone for a loop. Right now, it is hard to determine if losses are excessive or WAD. I strongly feel that better .csv logging is desperately needed to unravel this.

Hardradi -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 2:42:31 AM)
I did some testing yesterday based on older versions of the game compared to the current version. This testing showed that Ops losses have reduced about 29% while flak losses have increased by 200%. Even running small 12 bomber attacks on weak Soviet forces have about a 12% loss ratio usually around 50% ops and 50% flak. Same ratio as PeteJC mentioned.

DeletedUser44 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 2:54:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hardradi I did some testing yesterday based on older versions of the game compared to the current version. This testing showed that Ops losses have reduced about 29% while flak losses have increased by 200%. Even running small 12 bomber attacks on weak Soviet forces have about a 12% loss ratio usually around 50% ops and 50% flak. Same ratio as PeteJC mentioned. This may be true and accurate; however, just so you guys know, Germany has gotten by (in the game) with very modest bomber losses as compared to historical numbers. I personally noticed it a couple of months back. Our bomber losses has been trivial up until now. That definitely spoiled us. What I am concerned/confused about is if suddenly turning up FLAK losses is the correct way to address it.

DeletedUser44 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 3:09:44 AM)
And seeing stuff like this pisses me off as well... It isn't that I took 9 FLAK losses that is so irritating, it is that they were isolated and only had 16 AA guns. Those are some of the best FLAK gunners in human history!!! [image]local://upfiles/80384/680C272F5AB94C4089F576F9036FD599.jpg[/image]

DeletedUser44 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 3:21:12 AM)
And this is annoying... Why in the world is WiTE2 even using MaxCeiling? Especially when the "Effective" Ceiling for the 37mm 61-k AA Gun has been cited at 9,842 ft. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/37_mm_automatic_air_defense_gun_M1939_(61-K) grr.... and the associated CSV file is comical in the way it doesn't log crap detail of FLAK losses... So, everyone is off running personal simulations trying to figure out what the hell is going on, while Matrix is keeping all their cards close to their chest... [image]local://upfiles/80384/8CB3EEA8B2ED44DCBAD75218759507EB.jpg[/image]

DeletedUser44 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 4:35:52 AM)
In comparison to the Soviets, the German Luftwaffe has complete imbeciles as their FLAK Gunners. Close to 40 LW FLAK guns and not a single kill? Following is CSV log related to this combat: NOTE - even the following SB-2s damaged by FLAK do not show up as FLAK damaged in any of the Combat Tabs... Are they ultimately converted to OPS losses? quote: 71,4,SB-2 damaged by FLAK 71,4,SB-2 damaged by FLAK 71,4,SB-2 damaged by FLAK 71,4,SB-2 damaged by FLAK 71,4,SB-2 damaged by FLAK 71,4,SB-2 damaged by FLAK 71,4,SB-2 damaged by FLAK 71,3,12 x SB-2 bombing 31st Infantry Division 71,4,50mm GrW 36 Mortar destroyed by 100kg GPHE Bomb 71,6,Support disrupted by 100kg GPHE Bomb (air) 71,4,Rifle Squad 40 damaged by 100kg GPHE Bomb 71,6,Rifle Squad 40 disrupted by 100kg GPHE Bomb 71,3,12 x SB-2 bombing 31st Infantry Division 71,4,Rifle Squad 40 destroyed by 100kg GPHE Bomb 71,4,Rifle Squad 40 destroyed by 100kg GPHE Bomb 71,6,Pioneer Squad 39 disrupted by 100kg GPHE Bomb (air) 71,3,12 x SB-2 bombing 31st Infantry Division 71,3,7 x SB-2 bombing 31st Infantry Division 71,6,Support disrupted by 100kg GPHE Bomb (air) 71,6,Rifle Squad 40 disrupted by 100kg GPHE Bomb (air) In comparison, this was the CSV section from the Soviet Ace Gunners: quote: 67,4,Bf 109E-7 damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Bf 109F-2 damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK 67,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK In comparison, the Luftwaffe is staffed by a bunch of Bozos. [&:] [image]local://upfiles/80384/6C0195D48D5F4B7D9675945699657982.jpg[/image]

Stamb -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 8:59:50 AM)
Sauron_II Thanks for a testing. Soviet AA are just insane.

Dreamslayer -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 9:09:15 AM)
Could it be depends of that unit in defence/attack state? Like AA weapons gain extreme bonus if they are defending against enemy air-strike.

jubjub -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 1:24:51 PM)
There is a defensive bonus and/or an offensive penalty for flak. Also, Germans 20mm flak is pretty useless compared to 37mm. 88�s are very strong, and shred level bombers on defense.

DeletedUser44 -> RE: 28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem (12/19/2021 1:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jubjub There is a defensive bonus and/or an offensive penalty for flak. Also, Germans 20mm flak is pretty useless compared to 37mm. 88�s are very strong, and shred level bombers on defense. historically, the quad 20mm AA Flak were very good. But nobody knows for sure what is going on until Matrix gets around to updating their log file contents... I am guessing some undocumented attack/defense penalties are indeed occurring. Do you have anything to support this?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375