I am a noobie (at WITP, but not UV), so if my questions seems impertinent, please accept my apologies in advance.[&o]
These questions pertain to the increased power of AA in the mods.
A. How much of the increase is based on historical results vs the
desire for a more balanced gameplay?
B. On the AA issue, what has been user feedback?
I remember from UV AA being relatively anemic (accept against divebombers..They seemed to feel the pain...Actually it seems SBDs felt it more than vals (vs land based AA)). But how much of that do you think is valid (limp AA)....Japanese AA (from what I have read) seems rather limp compared to German AA (I would not like to have to run a gauntlent of 200 88s on a nightly basis)..
Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
The change is based more on the historical impact of AA vs. outright losses though that factors in too. AA in WWII did not provide a 'shield' anymore than CAP did but if in enough quantity and with the right types, it would at least force an attacker into a more respectful or cautious stance when attacking bases. In regards to WitP, the standard tactic is to attack an airbase at around 6000 feet. (below that, there are morale penalties) Because AA is so ineffective, medium and heavy bombers can do this with virtual impunity, maximizing their effect on the base for minimal loss and damage. This is one of the root causes of why 'pace' in the game is so fast. The only way to counter this tactic is too mass protecting fighters off the base and drive off the enemy either right on the spot (the turn of the initial attack or very shortly thereafter via serious attrition) Should the bombers get through in sufficient state and numbers to bomb the base effectively. its pretty much over. Your only option is to pull out your airforce out of the range of the heavies (in particular) or in some cases the mediums. To cite a historical example...the Japanese did not attack Lunga at 6000 feet daily. That would have been foolish. Instead they attacked at high altitude to both protect them from AA as well as from enemy fighters. Same thing at Clark field....the inital attack went in around 23-25,000 feet. During the weeks long subjugation of Rabaul...the base was described as a "flak city" and the mission was the most detested of all those assigned to the pilots. Again, losses were not outright bloody, but damage and impact on the pilots was signifigant. (morale)
Bergerud (Fire in the Sky) stated that AA's impact on the pacific war is greatly understated. Part of the reason for this is because losses were not so spectacular as to draw alot of attention. However in terms of damage, disruption and injury (+ the psychological impact on those who have to fly through it) its effect was substantial where it was encountered in serious numbers. As recent as Shattered Sword this was further highlighted. The Japanese attack on midway suffered grave damage from the AA that was placed there. outright losses were not severe (by WitP "standards") but the damage to the attackers was substantial (IIRC...about 21% of the attacking force suffered damage ranging from minor to severe in addition to losses) The comments from the Japanese pilots spoke of amazement. never before had they encountered such a resistance before. It left a profound impression on them to say the least.
On losses - I did calibrate the change with BTR using tests conducted using similar type AA weapons and conducting typical "WitP" style low altitude attacks on well defended airbases using that wargam, so this was not a "shot in the dark" type change.
Is the change 'perfect'?
no. As with most changes made to a complex wargame of this nature, there are compromises and abstractions + you have to factor in the built in variability of the game. For one thing one cannot 'tune' the impact of flak on one side's forces without impacting the other's to some degree. This is caused by the high degree of difference between the design doctrines (1st gen Japanese aircraft were less durable and unarmored....Allied aircraft were more durable and armored) There were also some unforseen impacts made by other aspects of the game that were revealed by playtesting. The biggest was the creation of "flak cities" in the SRA and the PI in early 42 causing the Japanese to be stymied in their offensive to one degree or another. The reason for this was because of the supply system combined with the unique heavy stacking caused by the retreat of mass #'s of ENG and AA units located there. The supply system, being necessarily abstracted has an equally abstracted replacement system. If there's adequate supply you can "spend it" to replace destroyed devices whether they be tanks, planes or AA guns. Units that started the game with disablements could thus both 'repair' the disabled device and also replace losses or fill out TO@E's at game start by spending supply. result - 'flak cities' at places like Manila/Bataan or Singapore.
The issue of Japan's "happy time" in the SRA being too severely degraded was addressed by specific adjustments in 5.0 (there were also some adjustments to flak in general toning it down a bit + a couple of major errors corrected that made a couple AA devices far too powerful)
Feedback: Mostly positive so far from those who have played the mod. Players are forced to plan raids with more thought and choose their targets with care. There is now a reason to do night raids. CAP is no longer on it's own when defending a base agains a mass assault. AA and CAP can "partner" now and defend a base prolonging a defense or an offensive or even thwarting one. Pace is thus slowed. Japan probably suffers in terms of outright losses a little more than i'd like to see because of the fragile nature of their 1st gen bombers, however Allied bomber losses seem spot on, that is when attacking the target at a respectable altitude. The ability for 1st generation Japanese "heavy" bombers to attack hard land targets was a reality anyway...they were designed for speed and long range to attack enemy warships. Japanse army bombers are an exception and they did move more quickly to improve the defensive aspects of their bombers. (you can still try a 6000 foot attack.....but be prepared for major damage, losses and also loss of morale)
Morale now plays a bigger role in the game for air units. A B-17 unit for example that makes a low/med alt attack and only suffers 1-2 losses may not seem like much, but if it's morale goes from 99 to 30. Then the next attack can be more easily driven off by CAP working in partnership with the AA. (unless rotation is used) The amount of damaged bombers returning to base is also substantially increased when attacking well defended bases at unsafe heights....further slowing operational pace. Target base is thus saved from what i've termed "Airkrieg" "Airkrieg" simply means you destroy a base, usually in 1 turn by 1 attack, (sometimes it takes 2 turns or maybe 3) After the base is "destroyed' (60-100% damage) just rinse and repeat....24/7 using the same airgroups every day. attack attack attack. Your enemy will never be able to use the base again. (This has been happening to me in an old 2.0 mod game that is now at 7/43.....for over a year my outer airbases have been empty despite having a fully intact airforce....because every day....40-90 heavy or medium bombers run in at 6000-9000 feet and hit the base for maximum damage...any AA i placed there was useless) A frustrating and not very historical feeling experience. I had one airbase defended by 200 fighters. It staved off 'airkrieg' until the day came when sufficient escorts were available to let in 50+ heavies. they hit the base....battle over in one day. One single day....one single attack. Port Morosby was no more. No war of attrition....just airkrieg. Very frustrating. (Fort 9's.....big airbase (multple airfields...facilities etc etc.....good AA) Same thing everywhere in my game. Burma.....Timor....Port Morosby....Lunga and Munda. All empty because the bases are indefensible. Once my opponent establishes a level 4 airbase closer to my perimeter....same process....my airforce will have to immediately retreat regardless of it's state of being. (This PBEM was a major lesson for me and spurred me to attempt to address AA..which i'd been unhappy with since buying UV many years ago)
Weaknesses: Fighter bombers and dive bombers are hard coded to attack at 2000 feet. This does create a nerfing effect on these device types. There are however work arounds. TB's used in level mode attacking at high alt can get sufficient hits to cause damage with acceptible losses (again, this is against heavily defended targets....not every base can be heavily protected) Another work around is coordinated attack. a surface bombardment can heavily disrupt base units and AA units. If they have high disruption their ability to defend against air attack is severely compromised. an air attack conducted on the same turn of a bombardment can get devestating results.
I accepted this weakness in the change in the end because the primary device used to attack land bases are level bombers (2E and 4E) not dive bombers or fighter bombers. Level bombers being the primary tool of destroying bases are thus the primary component that makes air "uber" in both UV and WitP. Therefore its a lesser of two evils. (a far lesser of two evils IMO) Besides which as mentioned, there are workarounds for the tactical aircraft devices. What about straffing? The Japanese were very fond of 'strafing' tactics and they used them to great effect in China and the SRA. However AA in these regions was weak and poorly organized and this lulled them into a false sense of security regarding the tactic...a sense that was quickly dispensed with once they tried it at a well defended and organzed base such as Lunga. Allied straffing will suffer but they have aircraft types that can do it far better than Zeros at least.
A final weakness is that a house rule limiting max alt to 25k is required. This is because i had to lower ceilings to eliminate the problem of the min altitude rule for heavy flak. Not much of a weakness.....in stock, there is little to no need to attack above 9000 feet anyway.
The Japanese AA vs German AA argument to me has always been a bit of a red herring and misses the point of the change as it relates to the WitP engine. Yes, German AA was superior. Howver this superiority invariably gets jumbled up into discussions regarding the entirty of the German air defense network system which was a highly evolved animal. Yes....the Japanese never had anything close to it. They didn't have the resources for it. They also didn't have the need for it. (until late 44/early 45 when the home islands became strategic targets by which point the war was already over) You don't need a sophisticated air defense network capable of covering half a country when the target is a single big base in the middle of the jungle. Radar is an exception of course and is an important early warning tool, but once the bombers are sighted....you start shooting. The US flyers at Rabaul were impressed enough with the AA there in 43. The Japanese were depressingly impressed with even the modest AA gathered at Midway in 42. SBD's in the mod preform much better against AA than Vals....particuarily in the air (vs enemy fighters) and against enemy ship AA. (there's a difference now that is noticable) TBF's....even more so vs Kates. Against land targets....better but still there will be a nerfing if attacking a strong base because of the 2000 feet hardcoding. Use the tactical workarounds suggested....or don't use dive bombers against high flak value targets. save em for warship/merchant targets. Let the LB's do the slogging in the trenches. Allied LB's are well suited to fighting a grinding war of attrition on land. In the game, Allied AA devices are mostly better than their Japanese equivilents of the same type so the quality aspect of Japanese AA has been preserved in relation to the Allied side.
The ultimate purpose of this change, like the others (A2A for example) was to encourage and in some cases force players to conduct themselves more realistically when planning their operations....both strategic as well as operational. Not being able to Airkrieg at low altitude even a big powerful airbase in 1-2 turns (and not suffer heavy damage in return) can be a big hinderence to the "octopus" strategy. It slows down Japanaese pace.....it slows down Allied pace once they gain the initiative. Some don't agree....but most of those people have never played the mod. They quote textbooks. I have many of the same textbooks. I'm not a nut (no comments from SPAM the man Termite now... [:'(] ) I know about AA and minimum/maximum altitudes and 'optimal altitudes' based on weapon type. Those that have played the mod almost if not unanimously approve of the change. (I should point out again....yet again...that i did not substantially change sea based AA....because it's dynamic relationship within the game engine to aircraft attack is substantially different from land AA and it's relationship to air attack)
Not perfect....but better That was the goal of the change. I believe i achieved it. I play it exclusively for my own games. I made the mod available publically because i felt others might feel the same. In the end its up to the user to make their own judgements.
Sorry for the novel. Give the mod a try. You might like it....you might not. Its free though. [;)] (and no, your question was hardly impertinent.....i welcome questions and feedback on the mod. Feedback is helpful for improving it!)
Bergerud (Fire in the Sky) stated that AA's impact on the pacific war is greatly understated. Part of the reason for this is because losses were not so spectacular as to draw alot of attention. However in terms of damage, disruption and injury (+ the psychological impact on those who have to fly through it) its effect was substantial where it was encountered in serious numbers. As recent as Shattered Sword this was further highlighted. The Japanese attack on midway suffered grave damage from the AA that was placed there. outright losses were not severe (by WitP "standards") but the damage to the attackers was substantial (IIRC...about 21% of the attacking force suffered damage ranging from minor to severe in addition to losses) The comments from the Japanese pilots spoke of amazement. never before had they encountered such a resistance before. It left a profound impression on them to say the least.
On losses - I did calibrate the change with BTR using tests conducted using similar type AA weapons and conducting typical "WitP" style low altitude attacks on well defended airbases using that wargam, so this was not a "shot in the dark" type change.
Is the change 'perfect'?
no. As with most changes made to a complex wargame of this nature, there are compromises and abstractions + you have to factor in the built in variability of the game. For one thing one cannot 'tune' the impact of flak on one side's forces without impacting the other's to some degree. This is caused by the high degree of difference between the design doctrines (1st gen Japanese aircraft were less durable and unarmored....Allied aircraft were more durable and armored) There were also some unforseen impacts made by other aspects of the game that were revealed by playtesting. The biggest was the creation of "flak cities" in the SRA and the PI in early 42 causing the Japanese to be stymied in their offensive to one degree or another. The reason for this was because of the supply system combined with the unique heavy stacking caused by the retreat of mass #'s of ENG and AA units located there. The supply system, being necessarily abstracted has an equally abstracted replacement system. If there's adequate supply you can "spend it" to replace destroyed devices whether they be tanks, planes or AA guns. Units that started the game with disablements could thus both 'repair' the disabled device and also replace losses or fill out TO@E's at game start by spending supply. result - 'flak cities' at places like Manila/Bataan or Singapore.
The issue of Japan's "happy time" in the SRA being too severely degraded was addressed by specific adjustments in 5.0 (there were also some adjustments to flak in general toning it down a bit + a couple of major errors corrected that made a couple AA devices far too powerful)
Feedback: Mostly positive so far from those who have played the mod. Players are forced to plan raids with more thought and choose their targets with care. There is now a reason to do night raids. CAP is no longer on it's own when defending a base agains a mass assault. AA and CAP can "partner" now and defend a base prolonging a defense or an offensive or even thwarting one. Pace is thus slowed. Japan probably suffers in terms of outright losses a little more than i'd like to see because of the fragile nature of their 1st gen bombers, however Allied bomber losses seem spot on, that is when attacking the target at a respectable altitude. The ability for 1st generation Japanese "heavy" bombers to attack hard land targets was a reality anyway...they were designed for speed and long range to attack enemy warships. Japanse army bombers are an exception and they did move more quickly to improve the defensive aspects of their bombers. (you can still try a 6000 foot attack.....but be prepared for major damage, losses and also loss of morale)
Morale now plays a bigger role in the game for air units. A B-17 unit for example that makes a low/med alt attack and only suffers 1-2 losses may not seem like much, but if it's morale goes from 99 to 30. Then the next attack can be more easily driven off by CAP working in partnership with the AA. (unless rotation is used) The amount of damaged bombers returning to base is also substantially increased when attacking well defended bases at unsafe heights....further slowing operational pace. Target base is thus saved from what i've termed "Airkrieg" "Airkrieg" simply means you destroy a base, usually in 1 turn by 1 attack, (sometimes it takes 2 turns or maybe 3) After the base is "destroyed' (60-100% damage) just rinse and repeat....24/7 using the same airgroups every day. attack attack attack. Your enemy will never be able to use the base again. (This has been happening to me in an old 2.0 mod game that is now at 7/43.....for over a year my outer airbases have been empty despite having a fully intact airforce....because every day....40-90 heavy or medium bombers run in at 6000-9000 feet and hit the base for maximum damage...any AA i placed there was useless) A frustrating and not very historical feeling experience. I had one airbase defended by 200 fighters. It staved off 'airkrieg' until the day came when sufficient escorts were available to let in 50+ heavies. they hit the base....battle over in one day. One single day....one single attack. Port Morosby was no more. No war of attrition....just airkrieg. Very frustrating. (Fort 9's.....big airbase (multple airfields...facilities etc etc.....good AA) Same thing everywhere in my game. Burma.....Timor....Port Morosby....Lunga and Munda. All empty because the bases are indefensible. Once my opponent establishes a level 4 airbase closer to my perimeter....same process....my airforce will have to immediately retreat regardless of it's state of being. (This PBEM was a major lesson for me and spurred me to attempt to address AA..which i'd been unhappy with since buying UV many years ago)
Weaknesses: Fighter bombers and dive bombers are hard coded to attack at 2000 feet. This does create a nerfing effect on these device types. There are however work arounds. TB's used in level mode attacking at high alt can get sufficient hits to cause damage with acceptible losses (again, this is against heavily defended targets....not every base can be heavily protected) Another work around is coordinated attack. a surface bombardment can heavily disrupt base units and AA units. If they have high disruption their ability to defend against air attack is severely compromised. an air attack conducted on the same turn of a bombardment can get devestating results.
I accepted this weakness in the change in the end because the primary device used to attack land bases are level bombers (2E and 4E) not dive bombers or fighter bombers. Level bombers being the primary tool of destroying bases are thus the primary component that makes air "uber" in both UV and WitP. Therefore its a lesser of two evils. (a far lesser of two evils IMO) Besides which as mentioned, there are workarounds for the tactical aircraft devices. What about straffing? The Japanese were very fond of 'strafing' tactics and they used them to great effect in China and the SRA. However AA in these regions was weak and poorly organized and this lulled them into a false sense of security regarding the tactic...a sense that was quickly dispensed with once they tried it at a well defended and organzed base such as Lunga. Allied straffing will suffer but they have aircraft types that can do it far better than Zeros at least.
A final weakness is that a house rule limiting max alt to 25k is required. This is because i had to lower ceilings to eliminate the problem of the min altitude rule for heavy flak. Not much of a weakness.....in stock, there is little to no need to attack above 9000 feet anyway.
The Japanese AA vs German AA argument to me has always been a bit of a red herring and misses the point of the change as it relates to the WitP engine. Yes, German AA was superior. Howver this superiority invariably gets jumbled up into discussions regarding the entirty of the German air defense network system which was a highly evolved animal. Yes....the Japanese never had anything close to it. They didn't have the resources for it. They also didn't have the need for it. (until late 44/early 45 when the home islands became strategic targets by which point the war was already over) You don't need a sophisticated air defense network capable of covering half a country when the target is a single big base in the middle of the jungle. Radar is an exception of course and is an important early warning tool, but once the bombers are sighted....you start shooting. The US flyers at Rabaul were impressed enough with the AA there in 43. The Japanese were depressingly impressed with even the modest AA gathered at Midway in 42. SBD's in the mod preform much better against AA than Vals....particuarily in the air (vs enemy fighters) and against enemy ship AA. (there's a difference now that is noticable) TBF's....even more so vs Kates. Against land targets....better but still there will be a nerfing if attacking a strong base because of the 2000 feet hardcoding. Use the tactical workarounds suggested....or don't use dive bombers against high flak value targets. save em for warship/merchant targets. Let the LB's do the slogging in the trenches. Allied LB's are well suited to fighting a grinding war of attrition on land. In the game, Allied AA devices are mostly better than their Japanese equivilents of the same type so the quality aspect of Japanese AA has been preserved in relation to the Allied side.
The ultimate purpose of this change, like the others (A2A for example) was to encourage and in some cases force players to conduct themselves more realistically when planning their operations....both strategic as well as operational. Not being able to Airkrieg at low altitude even a big powerful airbase in 1-2 turns (and not suffer heavy damage in return) can be a big hinderence to the "octopus" strategy. It slows down Japanaese pace.....it slows down Allied pace once they gain the initiative. Some don't agree....but most of those people have never played the mod. They quote textbooks. I have many of the same textbooks. I'm not a nut (no comments from SPAM the man Termite now... [:'(] ) I know about AA and minimum/maximum altitudes and 'optimal altitudes' based on weapon type. Those that have played the mod almost if not unanimously approve of the change. (I should point out again....yet again...that i did not substantially change sea based AA....because it's dynamic relationship within the game engine to aircraft attack is substantially different from land AA and it's relationship to air attack)
Not perfect....but better That was the goal of the change. I believe i achieved it. I play it exclusively for my own games. I made the mod available publically because i felt others might feel the same. In the end its up to the user to make their own judgements.
Sorry for the novel. Give the mod a try. You might like it....you might not. Its free though. [;)] (and no, your question was hardly impertinent.....i welcome questions and feedback on the mod. Feedback is helpful for improving it!)
-
Mike Solli
- Posts: 16328
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
Maybe a little more detail next time Nik?[:D]
Created by the amazing Dixie
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
are you on the list?
If not....you are now.
[:D]
If not....you are now.
[:D]
-
Mike Solli
- Posts: 16328
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
Ya made my day Nik.[:D] I've been sitting here at work for 7 hours now (3 to go) all alone waiting for the phone to ring (it hasn't done so which is a good thing). I've been waiting for a turn all day and haven't gotten one (which is a bad thing). With no one here on weekends, I can bring my laptop (which is sitting here collecting dust). My opponents had better watch out. They're in trouble when they bother to send me a turn.[:D]
By the way, I was on your list then backed up Matrix when someone was whining about something, so you took me off. Guess I've been a good boy for awhile. Couldn't last though.[:D]
By the way, I was on your list then backed up Matrix when someone was whining about something, so you took me off. Guess I've been a good boy for awhile. Couldn't last though.[:D]
Created by the amazing Dixie
-
Przemcio231
- Posts: 1901
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
- Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
Well Nik i proposed to Willie the Following House Rule on the number of AA units on a hex... first rule no AA units outside bases exept when moveing them from Base to base... as i think those AA units were static especialy for base defence so now my FB and DB can attack enemy in the open. as for Base stacking limit we use the number in bracket and this is the max nr of AA unit in that base[;)] like Lunga is 0(4) at the beggining of the game and the max nr of AA units there is 4[:D]
Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
Wow!!!
Thanks for that amazing reply![&o]
Next time, a novel will not be necessary, I will trust that you have
thought out the issues rather well!
I guess one can say that question has been answered.[:)]
Thanks for that amazing reply![&o]
Next time, a novel will not be necessary, I will trust that you have
thought out the issues rather well!
I guess one can say that question has been answered.[:)]
To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
ORIGINAL: Przemcio231
Well Nik i proposed to Willie the Following House Rule on the number of AA units on a hex... first rule no AA units outside bases exept when moveing them from Base to base... as i think those AA units were static especialy for base defence so now my FB and DB can attack enemy in the open. as for Base stacking limit we use the number in bracket and this is the max nr of AA unit in that base[;)] like Lunga is 0(4) at the beggining of the game and the max nr of AA units there is 4[:D]
Thats good. The AA modification is powerful and as such can be taken advantage of in similar vein to some issues brought up in BTR. Thats why i wrote straight out in the FAQ that players should discuss any limits they want to place on heavy flak deployment. Some may want one. Others may not but as long as it's discussed as with many other game issues, it shouldn't become a future sore point.
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
My dear Nikademus:
Superb explanation, absolutely superb. You tackled the issue with depth, reason and experience.
From what I've seen, stock AA is truly 'anemic'. I'm hoping the game's developers are taking this issue into consideration for the next upgrade, at the very least the morale issues you presented.
By the way, the really wonderful work you've done with your mod has me seriously reconsidering purchasing WiTP. Well done.
Sincerely,
Odox
Superb explanation, absolutely superb. You tackled the issue with depth, reason and experience.
From what I've seen, stock AA is truly 'anemic'. I'm hoping the game's developers are taking this issue into consideration for the next upgrade, at the very least the morale issues you presented.
By the way, the really wonderful work you've done with your mod has me seriously reconsidering purchasing WiTP. Well done.
Sincerely,
Odox
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
Nikademus,
Thanks for your excellent modification of WITP. It has definitely enhanced my enjoyment of the game. Your mod support is also above and beyond the call. I look forward to any updates/improvements that fallow 1.8.
Thanks for your excellent modification of WITP. It has definitely enhanced my enjoyment of the game. Your mod support is also above and beyond the call. I look forward to any updates/improvements that fallow 1.8.
-
castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: Question for Nik on Mod AA effects
Nik´s mod is definetely good work which has improved the game!! 