Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Air losses against no air GS dat Flak

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> Air losses against no air GS dat Flak Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 2:20:19 AM   
king171717


Posts: 294
Joined: 5/14/2016
Status: offline 		I think this is the highest Air Combat losses I sustain as the Germans on GS. Ouch!!




Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 2:22:08 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline 		Looks GREAT!!! Everyone knows that the Soviets are most powerful :-)

(in reply to king171717)
Post #: 2
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 2:26:20 AM   
Rosencrantus

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 1/9/2021
From: Canada
Status: offline 		holy smokes and I thought I had it rough

(in reply to king171717)
Post #: 3
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 3:14:49 AM   
Dreamslayer

 

Posts: 452
Joined: 10/31/2015
From: St.Petersburg
Status: offline 		Looks like its a bug. Because you can't see on the screenshot Soviet AA elements.
There is 171st PVO AA rgt (up to 96 medium AA guns and 12 light AA guns) locatated in Orel right from 1st turn and Rifle division should have some AA too.
But even with this absolutely nonsense TOE of AA rgt such air losses looks wrong.
I dont understand why is it so difficult to fix TOE of Soviet PVO units. Its not only abnormally rise AA abilities but also drains AA guns from the pool to these units. So it leads to another one fiction and at the end we get "snowball effect".

(in reply to Rosencrantus)
Post #: 4
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 4:01:24 AM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline 		It's not difficult for them to fix.

You just have to fuss long enough for them to finally do it.

(in reply to Dreamslayer)
Post #: 5
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 6:12:13 AM   
Dreamslayer

 

Posts: 452
Joined: 10/31/2015
From: St.Petersburg
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

It's not difficult for them to fix.

Sure, they have time to made changes like in the last patch (see data and scenario changes), even "New Yugoslavian and Bulgarian leaders added for future expansion scenario" but no attention to this AA chaos in Soviet OOB.
quote:

You just have to fuss long enough for them to finally do it.

You probably kidding. Since 2018 is long enough?
Maybe we need to organize the solidarity march?

(in reply to DeletedUser44)
Post #: 6
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 6:56:45 AM   
Hardradi


Posts: 571
Joined: 2/9/2011
Status: offline 		Whats the altitude and can you show us the Soviet AA guns?

(in reply to Dreamslayer)
Post #: 7
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 8:30:15 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

It's not difficult for them to fix.

Sure, they have time to made changes like in the last patch (see data and scenario changes), even "New Yugoslavian and Bulgarian leaders added for future expansion scenario" but no attention to this AA chaos in Soviet OOB.
quote:

You just have to fuss long enough for them to finally do it.

You probably kidding. Since 2018 is long enough?
Maybe we need to organize the solidarity march?


or maybe its acknowledged but as ever needs a bit of work to understand why and ensure a proposed fix doesn't cause problems elsewhere?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The case shown of VtoB of before and after the patch just shows the randomness of the losses because there was absolutely no change between 1.02.08 and 1.02.11 versions when it comes to air losses.

Now the fact that we can't load current saves with versions before 1.02.06 makes it harder to run side by sides as the last changes to losses were made in 1.02.06. I did take a very old save from 1.01.09 and launched an attack and then tried it with 1.02.11. I ran the battle 3 times each and the total overall losses were quite a bit higher with the later version. It was complicated by the fact that I always got more aircraft in the earlier version flying ground support (for no reason that I can think of), but the loss per a/c flying was much higher. 3 is not a large sample size but it's something, and at least the a/c flying were all level bombers (tac bombers take more flak due to bombing at lower altitudes). We are looking at the losses but there are some things that are difficult to unravel. We'll likely have some changes after the holidays, but I can't say yet what those might be. If someone has a good test save with some battles from 1.01.09 that show a difference in 1.02.11, it could help. Thanks.



_____________________________


(in reply to Dreamslayer)
Post #: 8
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 8:56:37 AM   
Stamb

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hardradi

Whats the altitude and can you show us the Soviet AA guns?

For dive bombers altitude will not make a difference once they are over 5k or 8k. During an attack they will dive and be close to an enemy.

For the topic starter there is just one thing to say.
F

(in reply to Hardradi)
Post #: 9
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 9:14:40 AM   
Dreamslayer

 

Posts: 452
Joined: 10/31/2015
From: St.Petersburg
Status: offline 		Does fort level increase AA effectiveness?

(in reply to Stamb)
Post #: 10
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 9:22:11 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		no, possibly CPP may give a small bonus - not sure about that but it does help artillery.

its wrong/too high and acknowledged as such, so the issue is how to solve since there has been nothing directly done to increase AA effectiveness it may well be an unintended side effect of fussing around with the artillery routines - or it maybe something else

_____________________________


(in reply to Dreamslayer)
Post #: 11
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 2:22:29 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		Kamikaze!

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to king171717)
Post #: 12
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 2:40:55 PM   
panzer51

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 9/16/2021
Status: offline
quote:

its wrong/too high and acknowledged as such, so the issue is how to solve since there has been nothing directly done to increase AA effectiveness it may well be an unintended side effect of fussing around with the artillery routines - or it maybe something else

Well, you can start by setting AA guns effective ceiling properly and not some imaginary number.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 13
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 3:03:14 PM   
Yogol

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

no, possibly CPP may give a small bonus - not sure about that but it does help artillery.

its wrong/too high and acknowledged as such, so the issue is how to solve since there has been nothing directly done to increase AA effectiveness it may well be an unintended side effect of fussing around with the artillery routines - or it maybe something else



Maybe they now shoot every 100 meters, like artillery does.

Regardless, I'll keep all my bombers in reserve for now!

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 14
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 4:34:36 PM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hardradi

Whats the altitude and can you show us the Soviet AA guns?


Ditto this.

I tend to push altitudes on my missions, even though manual states the GS drops down to 1000 ft when conducting the close air support. (However, the Combat Display shows the altitude as set according to the AD mission)

I also am a little suspect of the arbitrary 1000 ft. Even the Stukas commonly dropped their bombs at 3000 ft.

Historically, there was a lot of variation in bombing altitudes, depending on the aircraft, level of enemy flak, bombing sight capabilities, and target.

(in reply to Hardradi)
Post #: 15
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 4:36:10 PM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogol


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

no, possibly CPP may give a small bonus - not sure about that but it does help artillery.

its wrong/too high and acknowledged as such, so the issue is how to solve since there has been nothing directly done to increase AA effectiveness it may well be an unintended side effect of fussing around with the artillery routines - or it maybe something else



Maybe they now shoot every 100 meters, like artillery does.

Regardless, I'll keep all my bombers in reserve for now!



This should be in the csv combat log I believe, as far as the actual details of the AA fire.

(in reply to Yogol)
Post #: 16
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 5:09:57 PM   
PeteJC

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2021
Status: offline 		I am playing around with a T2 GC as Axis player verses AI on the current 02.11 patch. On average 10% of bombers are lost per GS attack/mission from flak & Operations. Flak on average is 6% and ground about 4%. It does vary but for the most part I am seeing these averages. This is much higher than what I have seen in my previous games with earlier patches, and I am not altering my play in anyway.

Pretty tough to take. Basically, have to use GS very sparingly if not at all. I am thinking of going back to 2.09 version otherwise no GS which makes the air war portion as Axis pretty pointless.

(in reply to Yogol)
Post #: 17
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 5:51:32 PM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline 		I posted my 4-turn air losses using latest version (just prior to the hot-fix).

Cannot say I am seeing anything that out-of-wack yet, except maybe OPS.

My GS is using altitude of 16k ft rather than the default of 9k (not that I know this is the issue or not).

I just grabbed the following from a log file at random:

quote:

94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK
94,4,He 111H-3 damaged by FLAK
94,4,He 111H-3 damaged by FLAK
94,4,He 111H-3 damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R Destroyed by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 87B-R damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK
94,4,He 111H-3 damaged by FLAK
94,4,He 111H-3 damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK
94,4,He 111H-3 damaged by FLAK
94,4,Ju 88A damaged by FLAK


When viewed in this context, it makes me uncomfortable.

I really wish they logged the wpn system doing the dmg (instead of 'FLAK', seriously?)

Also, since these were just 'damaged', not entirely sure if 'damaged' even shows up in the AC losses or not.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to PeteJC)
Post #: 18
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 5:59:48 PM   
PeteJC

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2021
Status: offline 		Your losses are negligible. Did you run just 1 sortie? What fixed this?

(in reply to DeletedUser44)
Post #: 19
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 6:03:38 PM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline 		Don't look at the current turn numbers. no telling how many sorties were flown at that point.

But just the total (far right column).

This was for turns 1-4.

195 Total Flak losses. And I flew a bunch during the 1st 4 turns.

(in reply to PeteJC)
Post #: 20
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 6:11:42 PM   
PeteJC

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2021
Status: offline 		Halfway thru T2 I have 200 flak losses. I certainly would be happy with your results. Again, I may not be playing ideally but have not changed my game play and the flak and operational results are much higher than before.

(in reply to DeletedUser44)
Post #: 21
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 6:16:22 PM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline 		I didn't think my numbers where that bad either.

The only thing of any significance I could think of was the altitude settings.

Other than that, I am not doing anything special.

(in reply to PeteJC)
Post #: 22
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 6:40:14 PM   
PeteJC

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2021
Status: offline 		OK just to be clear as I do not want to confuse your comments and others (I also have been going through the other posts about this topic).

So, you were finding that your flak results were excessive and then after you increased to altitude of 16,000, they became much more reasonable (your T4 results posted above)?

I will do a test between the 9,000 default and 16,000 altitude tonight.

(in reply to DeletedUser44)
Post #: 23
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 6:50:35 PM   
PeteJC

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2021
Status: offline 		Apologies Sauron_II. I just caught that you were on 16,000 originally and it was not a change from 9K to 16K. So ignore my question.

I will still do a test tonight. On a separate note, my operations losses are brutal. That may be on me though so I will hunt around the manual and posts on tips to minimize OPS losses.

(in reply to PeteJC)
Post #: 24
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 6:55:06 PM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeteJC

OK just to be clear as I do not want to confuse your comments and others (I also have been going through the other posts about this topic).

So, you were finding that your flak results were excessive and then after you increased to altitude of 16,000, they became much more reasonable (your T4 results posted above)?

I will do a test between the 9,000 default and 16,000 altitude tonight.


I adopted flying at higher altitudes about a week or two ago.

It began with Recon missions.

Then I noticed that the initial GS missions are set up using 15k altitude (instead of 9k). So I started doing something similar.

I've really noticed a difference in recon losses (way down now).

Was unsure about GS missions though. The jury is still out, but it is something you may want to give a try and test out yourself.

(in reply to PeteJC)
Post #: 25
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 7:02:34 PM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeteJC

Apologies Sauron_II. I just caught that you were on 16,000 originally and it was not a change from 9K to 16K. So ignore my question.

I will still do a test tonight. On a separate note, my operations losses are brutal. That may be on me though so I will hunt around the manual and posts on tips to minimize OPS losses.


Another modification I made, which may be applicable to the OPS losses, i changed the minimum amount to fly GS missions from 20% to 30%. (Pct Fly = Air Group Ready AC Percentage)

I have an unverified theory, but it is somewhat centered on the AI letting you fly your aircraft into the dirt if you want.

So once my AC starts taking losses, I really want them to stop flying. (now they are starting to accrue penalties, fatigue, travelled(%), etc...) Bumping the Pct Fly seems to help with that. (I probably should bump it to 40%, really...)



< Message edited by Sauron_II -- 12/17/2021 7:04:28 PM >

(in reply to PeteJC)
Post #: 26
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 7:17:45 PM   
PeteJC

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2021
Status: offline 		Great tip. I will try out the 40% as well with the test.

(in reply to DeletedUser44)
Post #: 27
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 11:12:46 PM   
Hardradi


Posts: 571
Joined: 2/9/2011
Status: offline 		.

< Message edited by Hardradi -- 12/18/2021 2:44:42 AM >

(in reply to PeteJC)
Post #: 28
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 11:25:56 PM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline 		Is this 1st turn losses? I don't think you stated, so just assuming.

If so, the Soviet losses of 5k+ on 1st turn are min-maxed to an extreme degree.

There is noway I would do that to a real PVP opponent, and not feel like I totally abused the system.

(in reply to Hardradi)
Post #: 29
RE: Air losses against no air GS dat Flak - 12/17/2021 11:57:56 PM   
Hardradi


Posts: 571
Joined: 2/9/2011
Status: offline 		.


< Message edited by Hardradi -- 12/18/2021 2:45:06 AM >

(in reply to Hardradi)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> Air losses against no air GS dat Flak Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.594