Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

I have humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming...


Would you guys be so kind and explain to us the way AA works in WitP from programming standpoint but in "laic" words (i.e. no code)?


IMHO many current WitP problems/issues would, hopefully, be solved if we can be more accurate in simulating historical and realistic model of the AA!!!

For example all those problems, like the so called "Unstoppable 4E Bomber Menace even in 1942", would then be countered by player using AA in sufficient numbers at proper locations (right now this is not possible due to the way AA is implemented)!


BTW, I am speculation that every single AA weapon in WitP now has a chance to attack every single aircraft in combat phase (i.e. every aircraft that is above target area ) through:

- type of AA weapon, its accuracy and effect (and other variables)
- AA crew experience
- target aircraft altitude and speed and maneuverability
- target aircraft durability and amour
- target aircraft experience
- time of day (night / day)
- weather over target
- dice roll


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Kereguelen]

Simplest way to make AA more efficient in the game: Add more AA units to the game (for both sides as both sides are missing lots of AA assets) and give them historical TOE's. No tweaks, no code changes...

[Mike Scholl]

Might point out that the Germans seem to have had more medium and heavy AA guns than anyone else..., and they couldn't stop Allied "Heavies". TF58 could probably put up more flak than any city in the world, and they couldn't stop all the Kamikazes coming in. And a Kamikaze has to get a heck of a lot closer and is much more vulnerable than a 4-engined "heavy" at over 20,000 ft (almost 4 miles up)

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Simplest way to make AA more efficient in the game: Add more AA units to the game (for both sides as both sides are missing lots of AA assets) and give them historical TOE's. No tweaks, no code changes...

Even if you put all the AA units Japan has at one base you won´t hurt 4E bombers much attacking the base, even at low altitudes.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Might point out that the Germans seem to have had more medium and heavy AA guns than anyone else..., and they couldn't stop Allied "Heavies". TF58 could probably put up more flak than any city in the world, and they couldn't stop all the Kamikazes coming in. And a Kamikaze has to get a heck of a lot closer and is much more vulnerable than a 4-engined "heavy" at over 20,000 ft (almost 4 miles up)

I am for realism.

That means that in broad daylight at 10.000ft (or at 9.000ft or 8.000ft or 7.000ft or 6.000ft) heavy bombers should suffer from AA. Right now that is not the case (you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm and 75mm AA guns and get almost nothing against bombers at 10.000 ft - remember taht AA gap is not present here)...

At 20.000 (or above) they should be (just as it historically was) much much safer (but at teh cost of accuracy of course)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Demosthenes]

Has anyone demonstrated conclusively that Japanese AA in WitP is wrong and that there were no "gaps" in AA coverage in real life?

Has anyone demonstrated that the Japanese shot down more Allied level bombers ITRW with FLAK than WitP is capable of?

Or is this just a back door campaign against Allied 4E bombers?

If there really is a whole in WitP that never existed - fine, address it.

But as far as I can see so far - no such proof has been shown - other than there are gaps in Jap AA coverage in WitP...which may well be accurate.

Demo

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

I have humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming...


Would you guys be so kind and explain to us the way AA works in WitP from programming standpoint but in "laic" words (i.e. no code)?


IMHO many current WitP problems/issues would, hopefully, be solved if we can be more accurate in simulating historical and realistic model of the AA!!!

For example all those problems, like the so called "Unstoppable 4E Bomber Menace even in 1942", would then be countered by player using AA in sufficient numbers at proper locations (right now this is not possible due to the way AA is implemented)!


BTW, I am speculation that every single AA weapon in WitP now has a chance to attack every single aircraft in combat phase (i.e. every aircraft that is above target area ) through:

- type of AA weapon, its accuracy and effect (and other variables)
- AA crew experience
- target aircraft altitude and speed and maneuverability
- target aircraft durability and amour
- target aircraft experience
- time of day (night / day)
- weather over target
- dice roll


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

In general we cannot respond to most requests to look up things in the code. Why ? Well it takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. And time is something we need to manage carefully. Any time we spend "looking up answers" takes away directly from time we spend resolving real issues. And we, so far at least, believe we should prioritize our time towards fixing real issues, verus looking up answers to questions. But, since I'm a nice guy (he he) I decided to take a quick peek - everynow and then - we can get some useful information quickly (just not when we really need it !). So, I looked at one of the three low level flak firing routines and this is what I saw.


Factors Included in the algorithm:
max speed and/or cruising speed
altitude
plane type
flak
durability
# engines
mission
>5 die rolls
night or day


effects included:
damage, disruption, morale and shot down.

As to whether AA fire should be modified to reduce the "Unstoppable 4E Bomber Menace even in 1942" ... I doubt we would favor a-historical flak to stop a-historical B17s. Our leaning would be for both to have the historical capabilities. As it stands now AA fire is too predictable and being able to "peg" the altitude exactly can be exploited. But even if AA fire was 100% modeled correctly(including uncertainly about its capabilities), there would still be way too many B17s in the game. Hap would've had to have given up his desire to form a force capable of applying "Air Power" against the Germans in Europe. Something he could probably not have done and still have been Hap Arnold ! But we will look at ways of improving the game, that's part of why we are involved.

[Mike Scholl]

That means that in broad daylight at 10.000ft (or at 9.000ft or 8.000ft or 7.000ft or 6.000ft) heavy bombers should suffer from AA. Right now that is not the case (you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm and 75mm AA guns and get almost nothing against bombers at 10.000 ft - remember taht AA gap is not present here)...

Might be that part of the problem IS that "you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm" at a base---when Japan only had 70-odd of them in the entire war. But I certainly agree that as bombers come lower they should be subject to more damage from flak. Part of the problem is that the original game gave the Allies too many heavy bombers, and a number of modders have worked to correct that. But those who want to make Japanese flak deadly as an answer are barking up the wrong tree as well. It wasn't than numerous or that good. The main purpose of everybody's flak was to break up formations and disrupt the accuracy of an air attack. Shoot downs were just a bonus factor. Eventually in the war Allied flak became quite deadly (numerous, radar-directed, proximity fuses, etc) and forced the Japanese into Kamikaze tactics to achieve anything at all. Japanese flak never got close to that level.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Has anyone demonstrated conclusively that Japanese AA in WitP is wrong and that there were no "gaps" in AA coverage in real life?

Has anyone demonstrated that the Japanese shot down more Allied level bombers ITRW with FLAK than WitP is capable of?

Or is this just a back door campaign against Allied 4E bombers?

If there really is a whole in WitP that never existed - fine, address it.

But as far as I can see so far - no such proof has been shown - other than there are gaps in Jap AA coverage in WitP...which may well be accurate.

Why this all has to be viewed from "fan-boyism" side?

IMHO it is game problem/issue that affects both sides similarly (although Allied are somehow better off due to more smaller caliber automatic weapons in OOB that Japanese lack in our WitP database right now - don't know whether this is realistic or not since only OOB people can only answer that)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

That means that in broad daylight at 10.000ft (or at 9.000ft or 8.000ft or 7.000ft or 6.000ft) heavy bombers should suffer from AA. Right now that is not the case (you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm and 75mm AA guns and get almost nothing against bombers at 10.000 ft - remember taht AA gap is not present here)...

Might be that part of the problem IS that "you can, for example, place hundreads of 105mm" at a base---when Japan only had 70-odd of them in the entire war. But I certainly agree that as bombers come lower they should be subject to more damage from flak. Part of the problem is that the original game gave the Allies too many heavy bombers, and a number of modders have worked to correct that. But those who want to make Japanese flak deadly as an answer are barking up the wrong tree as well. It wasn't than numerous or that good. The main purpose of everybody's flak was to break up formations and disrupt the accuracy of an air attack. Shoot downs were just a bonus factor. Eventually in the war Allied flak became quite deadly (numerous, radar-directed, proximity fuses, etc) and forced the Japanese into Kamikaze tactics to achieve anything at all. Japanese flak never got close to that level.

I think it doesn't matter at all which gun you use (i.e. even if you erase all 105mm and leave just 75mm and put 88mm that are missing now)... the AA for both sides is simply very very "anemic" (to use words "Nik" used) for both sides...


Leo "Apollo11"

[bradfordkay]

So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"



By missing from the OOB, I don't mean missing from the database necessarily, but rather not given to either player in historic amounts.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

In general we cannot respond to most requests to look up things in the code. Why ? Well it takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. And time is something we need to manage carefully. Any time we spend "looking up answers" takes away directly from time we spend resolving real issues. And we, so far at least, believe we should prioritize our time towards fixing real issues, verus looking up answers to questions. But, since I'm a nice guy (he he) I decided to take a quick peek - everynow and then - we can get some useful information quickly (just not when we really need it !). So, I looked at one of the three low level flak firing routines and this is what I saw.


Factors Included in the algorithm:
max speed and/or cruising speed
altitude
plane type
flak
durability
# engines
mission
>5 die rolls
night or day


effects included:
damage, disruption, morale and shot down.

As to whether AA fire should be modified to reduce the "Unstoppable 4E Bomber Menace even in 1942" ... I doubt we would favor a-historical flak to stop a-historical B17s. Our leaning would be for both to have the historical capabilities. As it stands now AA fire is too predictable and being able to "peg" the altitude exactly can be exploited. But even if AA fire was 100% modeled correctly(including uncertainly about its capabilities), there would still be way too many B17s in the game. Hap would've had to have given up his desire to form a force capable of applying "Air Power" against the Germans in Europe. Something he could probably not have done and still have been Hap Arnold ! But we will look at ways of improving the game, that's part of why we are involved.

Thanks a lot Joe - really appreciated!


If you guys get some time (in due time of course) please take a look at current AA routines and, hopefully, decide to alter them if found lacking after careful consideration...

Also (if I recall correctly from one of old posts by "Mr. Frag" from Mike Wood) in WitP every bomb is counted individualy when dropped at target (and therefore aircraft that have more bombs in their bombload are thus favored much more by default). Possibly the overaccuracy / overdamage is due to that factor...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

H all,

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"

By missing from the OOB, I don't mean missing from the database necessarily, but rather not given to either player in historic amounts.

Possibly... or that heavier AA guns are just too weak... who knows...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Why this all has to be viewed from "fan-boyism" side?

Leo "Apollo11"

Well, simply because it appears that the only thing you seem campaign for is emasculation of Allied 4E bombers. At least that's what it seems to me. (Maybe I have missed other campaigns you have been on that neuter Japanese capabilities.)

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

the AA for both sides is simply very very "anemic" (to use words "Nik" used) for both sides...

Leo "Apollo11"

Again I ask - where is the historical data to prove your claim that "AA for both sides is anemic".

I have only seen such data provided in the past by Dereck, taken from USAF studies, that show that B-29 losses in WitP are way too "high" - I would like to see the data to the contray if it exists.

Demo

[juliet7bravo]

"So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"

In a word...YES

"By missing from the OOB, I don't mean missing from the database necessarily, but rather not given to either player in historic amounts"

In two words...YES and YES

Additionally, the IJA (I quit looking after that) is missing both AA unit types, and parts of units. The IJA AA Regiment is missing its organic AAMG Company and the Searchlight Battalion for example.

And for the next question; "Are the weapons stats accurate"

I doubt it.

My question;

Do the air defense units get any credit/benefits for their searchlights and sound detectors? For example, the (missing) Searchlight Battalion organic to an IJA AA regiment has 12 searchlights and 12 sound detectors.

For the not yet spoken question...no it's not fan-boyism. The IJA AA units just happened to be the first place I looked.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"

In a word...YES

Cool. Which one(s)?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Why this all has to be viewed from "fan-boyism" side?

Well, simply because it appears that the only thing you seem campaign for is emasculation of Allied 4E bombers. At least that's what it seems to me. (Maybe I have missed other campaigns you have been on that neuter Japanese capabilities.)

No... I am 100% impartial... always was and always will be...

You misied the "Torpedo bombers from land bases" thread? And adjecent Poll?

Over 3500 hits in original thread (most certainly one of the larges "serious" threads in recent time) and Poll that 150+ people took? [8D]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The AA for both sides is simply very very "anemic" (to use words "Nik" used) for both sides...

Again I ask - where is the historical data to prove your claim that "AA for both sides is anemic".

I have only seen such data provided in the past by Dereck, taken from USAF studies, that show that B-29 losses in WitP are way too "high" - I would like to see the data to the contray if it exists.

The "AA for both sides is anemic" is related to WitP (and UV if you wish) AA results for both sides in game.

Both me (in UV and WitP) and "Nik" conducted comprehensive AA tests. One of the results is so called "Nik Mod" of WitP you can download...


Leo "Apollo11"

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

So the real question is: "Are there small calibre AA guns that are missing from the OOB?"



By missing from the OOB, I don't mean missing from the database necessarily, but rather not given to either player in historic amounts.

Small calibre really doesn't help. The "light AA weapons" mostly stop being useful above about 3,000 feet. And unfortunately the "heavy AA" weapons mostly stop being useful below about 6,000 feet. Of course individual weapons vary outside these general guidelines. But there certainly were perceptions of a "flak gap" before and during the war. The Germans reportedly designed the 50mm AA weapons (pre-war) to close this "flak gap". Barrage fire by the heavier weapons could at least put metal into the gap. But barrage fire was officially discouraged in most flak organizations as it used horrendous amounts of ammunition and got very little objective return. One area where we can probably make some improvement though is in terms of having flak "throw off the accuracy" of the bombing attack. Most WWII flak organizations preferred to use "shoot downs" as their measure of success. This metric had the advantage of appearing to be most objective. However, post war studies of flak effectiveness (e.g. Westermann, E.B. "Flak - German Anti-aircraft Defenses 1914-1945") indicate that disrupting the accuracy of the attacking bombers was the primary effect. So by modeling this aspect, we may be able to make some improvement.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Small calibre really doesn't help. The "light AA weapons" mostly stop being useful above about 3,000 feet. And unfortunately the "heavy AA" weapons mostly stop being useful below about 6,000 feet. Of course individual weapons vary outside these general guidelines. But there certainly were perceptions of a "flak gap" before and during the war. The Germans reportedly designed the 50mm AA weapons (pre-war) to close this "flak gap". Barrage fire by the heavier weapons could at least put metal into the gap. But barrage fire was officially discouraged in most flak organizations as it used horrendous amounts of ammunition and got very little objective return.

Is this WitP (i.e. our game) fact or real life (i.e. WWII historical) fact?

If yes (WWII historically) - were WWII air commanders on both sides aware of it and did they use it in ETO (Europe) and PTO (Pacific)?

One area where we can probably make some improvement though is in terms of having flak "throw off the accuracy" of the bombing attack. Most WWII flak organizations preferred to use "shoot downs" as their measure of success. This metric had the advantage of appearing to be most objective. However, post war studies of flak effectiveness (e.g. Westermann, E.B. "Flak - German Anti-aircraft Defenses 1914-1945") indicate that disrupting the accuracy of the attacking bombers was the primary effect. So by modeling this aspect, we may be able to make some improvement.

Great idea - this is both realistic and historical - I am 100% for it if my voice counts!


Small shameless self-advertising: I suggested that (along with others) long long long ago - it must be burried deep in huge "Wish Thread"... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Why this all has to be viewed from "fan-boyism" side?

Well, simply because it appears that the only thing you seem campaign for is emasculation of Allied 4E bombers. At least that's what it seems to me. (Maybe I have missed other campaigns you have been on that neuter Japanese capabilities.)

No... I am 100% impartial... always was and always will be...

You misied the "Torpedo bombers from land bases" thread? And adjecent Poll?

Over 3500 hits in original thread (most certainly one of the larges "serious" threads in recent time) and Poll that 150+ people took? [8D]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The AA for both sides is simply very very "anemic" (to use words "Nik" used) for both sides...

Again I ask - where is the historical data to prove your claim that "AA for both sides is anemic".

I have only seen such data provided in the past by Dereck, taken from USAF studies, that show that B-29 losses in WitP are way too "high" - I would like to see the data to the contray if it exists.

The "AA for both sides is anemic" is related to WitP (and UV if you wish) AA results for both sides in game.

Both me (in UV and WitP) and "Nik" conducted comprehensive AA tests. One of the results is so called "Nik Mod" of WitP you can download...

Leo "Apollo11"

That is true - I did forget that you started the LB torpedo thread - my apologies. I guess I'm still sore over the nerfing down of the effects of B-29 raids since the changes you campaigned for were incorporated in a patch.

I know you tested (and Nik) what flak does in WitP, but where is the corollary data from WWII to compare it to? From what I have been seeing - FLAK damage in the Nik Mod is way too high.

Demo