RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical

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 >> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 11:27:21 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

I think the AA with the latest patch/beta got better. Or the DBB mod. Here sorted for flak losses. This is a game vs. AI as you can easily see by the huge IJ losses and miniscule Allied losses (DBB, hard). Also of note many recons lost to AA seems the AI uses too low alt...I may post the screen from the PBM I play too later (Stock scen2)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/28/2019 11:28:44 PM >

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 31

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/29/2019 2:00:15 AM

spence

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

For any comparison between game results (Flak losses) and real WW2 results (Flak losses) it would seem Mods played on Hard or Very Hard (or whatever but not historical) or played past the time of Japan's actual surrender are irrelevant (I recognize that the AI is dumb and offers little competition once one has gotten used to it but only PBEMs and AI games played against a "historical AI" are going to be useful for comparing against the IMBIBLIO claim.

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 32

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 7/1/2019 1:03:41 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You need to play the game to completion to see that in-game losses not only rival, but exceed the historical:

I have played the game to completion, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your screen shot.

As of Dec 9th 1945 (over three months after the historical end of the war) you're showing 101,999 Japanese aircraft losses, including 3,458 to flak. The first number exceeds historical Japanese production, so the loss numbers must be inflated as well (which three more months of warfare would also imply). If we take 2,000 losses to USN flak as the actual figure, then that leaves well under 1,500 losses to every other source of flak - ALL land-based, RN, RAN, etc. That seems... unlikely.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 33

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 7/1/2019 1:14:51 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

Thanks to those who posted data - I'm seeing Japanese losses due to flak as no higher than 1/3 the losses in air-to-air (and sometimes well under a tenth), and the Allied loss ratio running from 1:4 down to negligible. That's matching my experience with the game.

Whereas the AAF data has their losses to flak as 2/3 of those to hostile aircraft.

Still looking for more historical data if anyone has any to share!

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 34