AA Guns ( Land units )

[Cavalry Corp]

Are they working properly?
How are they best used against the B17 etc
Are the heavy AA better at hitting at higher levels etc etc

Any tips welcome .

Michael

[castor troy]

In stock there´s a flak gap of heavy AA guns. They aren´t able to shoot at planes below 10000 -7000. That´s why 4E bombers like to go in at 6000. Less flak but far easier to hit something. Don´t count on flak in stock. Would be the same to count on op losses of your opponent...

[Feinder]

In stock there´s a flak gap of heavy AA guns. They aren´t able to shoot at planes below 10000 -7000. That´s why 4E bombers like to go in at 6000.

I thought that was a myth.

I fly -all- my level bombers at 6000', simply because it maximized accuracy, and no morale hit for being too low. I most certainly -have- taken flak losses to my level bombers (and again, they're always at 6000', so how can there be a gap?).

I certainly do *not* fly at 6k, to exploit any "flak gap" that I am aware of.

If there -is- a "flak gap" at 6k, I'd be interested in knowing (and proof thereof, again I *have* taken flak losses at 6k), and I will gladly move my bombers up so as to not exploit the situation. But that discussion has been around since release, and if there -is- a gap, I'd be very surprised that it wasn't corrected yet (altho, there are certainly still some long-lingering bugs).

Can a dev or somebody with access to code, actually confirm if there is some sort of flak gap? It would certainly be important to confirm.

-F-

[Nikademus]

heavy AA guns do have a minimum altitude as well as a max altitude. The "gap" referred to is not an altitude where no flak fires, but an altitude where only light/med will fire.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

In stock there´s a flak gap of heavy AA guns. They aren´t able to shoot at planes below 10000 -7000. That´s why 4E bombers like to go in at 6000.

I thought that was a myth.

I fly -all- my level bombers at 6000', simply because it maximized accuracy, and no morale hit for being too low. I most certainly -have- taken flak losses to my level bombers (and again, they're always at 6000', so how can there be a gap?).

I certainly do *not* fly at 6k, to exploit any "flak gap" that I am aware of.

If there -is- a "flak gap" at 6k, I'd be interested in knowing (and proof thereof, again I *have* taken flak losses at 6k), and I will gladly move my bombers up so as to not exploit the situation. But that discussion has been around since release, and if there -is- a gap, I'd be very surprised that it wasn't corrected yet (altho, there are certainly still some long-lingering bugs).

Can a dev or somebody with access to code, actually confirm if there is some sort of flak gap? It would certainly be important to confirm.

-F-

I never did a test but as a fact that the heavy flak doesn´t fire if you go in at 6000 feet someone might take fewer losses than attacking at 10.000. [8|]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

In stock there´s a flak gap of heavy AA guns. They aren´t able to shoot at planes below 10000 -7000. That´s why 4E bombers like to go in at 6000.

I thought that was a myth.

I fly -all- my level bombers at 6000', simply because it maximized accuracy, and no morale hit for being too low. I most certainly -have- taken flak losses to my level bombers (and again, they're always at 6000', so how can there be a gap?).

I certainly do *not* fly at 6k, to exploit any "flak gap" that I am aware of.

If there -is- a "flak gap" at 6k, I'd be interested in knowing (and proof thereof, again I *have* taken flak losses at 6k), and I will gladly move my bombers up so as to not exploit the situation. But that discussion has been around since release, and if there -is- a gap, I'd be very surprised that it wasn't corrected yet (altho, there are certainly still some long-lingering bugs).

Can a dev or somebody with access to code, actually confirm if there is some sort of flak gap? It would certainly be important to confirm.

-F-

I've seen the code. There is a gap. One problem is the "gap" is not entirely un-historical. What is most un-historical is player knowledge and exploitation of the gap (this topic has actually been discussed several times at great length, though it was probably a couple of years ago by now). And there are a lot of variables. It would be nice to make the gap more "fuzzy" to reduce exploitation.

[RUPD3658]

I have had some success with my 105 AA guns VS 4E bombers. Although they rarely shoot down more than the historical 2% of the raid when you are getting hit with 500-700 plane raids the losses add up for the Allies.

[Feinder]

I've seen the code. There is a gap.

I stand corrected.

The "gap" referred to is not an altitude where no flak fires, but an altitude where only light/med will fire.

Is that historical? I would have thought that you could set a fuse to whatever (minimum) altitude you wanted to. If there was historically a minimum altitude setting for heavy AAA, then then the flak gap would be realistic in a historical sense. But that's my question, if historically you could set the fuzes for any altitude for heavy AAA, why is there a gap in WitP?

If that really is the case, those that are "concerned" about the "flak gap" are certainly justified in their objections, and I will "correct" my altitude selection so as not to exploit the situation.

Given the high quality of support from Matrix, frankly, I've very surprised it has lingered for so long. Is that something that will be corrected "soon"?

-F-

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I've seen the code. There is a gap.

I stand corrected.

The "gap" referred to is not an altitude where no flak fires, but an altitude where only light/med will fire.

Is that historical? I would have thought that you could set a fuse to whatever (minimum) altitude you wanted to. If there was historically a minimum altitude setting for heavy AAA, then then the flak gap would be realistic in a historical sense. But that's my question, if historically you could set the fuzes for any altitude for heavy AAA, why is there a gap in WitP?

If that really is the case, those that are "concerned" about the "flak gap" are certainly justified in their objections, and I will "correct" my altitude selection so as not to exploit the situation.
-F-

A minimum altitude for heavy flak is historical, but not the way it's represented in the game. AA guns don't simply shut off at a certain set altitude. BTR has a better system of diminishing returns which is matched by increasing effectiveness of the light/med AA, so there's no sweet spot altitude where bombers en-mass can sit and bomb the crap out of everything 24/7.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I've seen the code. There is a gap.

I stand corrected.

The "gap" referred to is not an altitude where no flak fires, but an altitude where only light/med will fire.

Is that historical? I would have thought that you could set a fuse to whatever (minimum) altitude you wanted to. If there was historically a minimum altitude setting for heavy AAA, then then the flak gap would be realistic in a historical sense. But that's my question, if historically you could set the fuzes for any altitude for heavy AAA, why is there a gap in WitP?

If that really is the case, those that are "concerned" about the "flak gap" are certainly justified in their objections, and I will "correct" my altitude selection so as not to exploit the situation.

Given the high quality of support from Matrix, frankly, I've very surprised it has lingered for so long. Is that something that will be corrected "soon"?

-F-

When this came up a year or so ago (thread started by Apollo or something like that, I did quite a bit of study on the issue.

As to fuzes, well yes and no. Many fuzes had minimum settings, for example one second. But there were fuzes made which would set down to zero (better stand back when you fire those ones!). But, based on the looking I did, the real issue is not fuzes, the real issue is tracking for the larger pieces. As the alitutude gets lower, the larger pieces essentially have to switch to barrage fire and the game is making the (not unreasonable) assumption that we are not firing barrage fire. Barrage fire was used, but it was rare and the ammo consumption would be waaaaay up, if it was used.
One of LeMay's considerations in ordering the night attacks by the B-29s was his knowledge of and comparisons between German and Japanese AAA capabilities. This lead to a "belief" that the Japanese flak was optimized for higher level engagements and that his guys would be flying below the optimal range of the Japanese flak. But he was worried about it, until the event showed the low altitude night attacks did have low losses.
I think the Japanese did use barrage fire on occasion for the large low altitude raids, but giving the players a "barrage fire" button, might be a bit too much micro-management.
There are some random factors in the computations, but after playing 1000s of turns, I'd have to say the random factors don't seem to have much "leverage" .. so I'd rather see an increase in the "leverage" of the random factors, so that the "immune zone" isn't so clear. This could be justified by saying some barrage fire was being used, or by saying that some guns were farther away from the bombing target (and hence the planes) and so they could still fire at an effective "slant range".
I think NikMod addresses, by changing heavy AA ranges to be below the "trigger point" of the "gap" (25,000 feet) and then employing a house rule that you cannot fly above 25,000 feet. So there is a "work around".
But Japanese flak, as evidenced by the losses (or lack thereof) in the Tokyo raids, even towards the summer of 1945 when the B-29s started comming in higher, and even straddling 15,000 feet, the pressumed "optimal" altitude of the flak, seem to indicate the Japanese "flak gap" may have included all altitudes above about 1,500 feet [:)] ... and the current modeling seems to reflect that fairly well.
So any "correction" would not likely have a significant effect and hence, while "fuzzying up" the flak gap is on the list, It isn't in the top ten.

[Nikademus]

I think NikMod addresses, by changing heavy AA ranges to be below the "trigger point" of the "gap" (25,000 feet) and then employing a house rule that you cannot fly above 25,000 feet. So there is a "work around".

Yep...no gap in NM.

But Japanese flak, as evidenced by the losses (or lack thereof) in the Tokyo raids, even towards the summer of 1945 when the B-29s started comming in higher, and even straddling 15,000 feet, the pressumed "optimal" altitude of the flak, seem to indicate the Japanese "flak gap" may have included all altitudes above about 1,500 feet

Flak defense @ night usually were far more challenging as the Germans found out early on. Problem in WitP is that short of uber levels of fighters, an Allied (or Japan player) need not bother with night attacks for fear of flak concentrations

[Rob Brennan UK]

At the risk of not atually reading all of the above info . i did think and due to rons testing that the magic 6k was a myth. in game i use most ground attack and airfield at 11k and above and have very favorable (and realistic ish ) results . i.e not causing 300+ runway hits in one go so the parent fragment can at least escape and eventually take the pilots later on (game issue).

2E bombers i do fly at 6k and i have had several instances where they took nasty flak losses and had to fly higher ( albeit rarely) 4E at 6k i find gamy esp in vast numbers ( and i play allied)..ok 48 B17's will hurt but 300 mixed b17 and b24 will kill . unless its a major obstacle then use smaller numbers of 4E OR get closer and swamp the bugger with b25/26 and a-20s ..( which is fine )..

again its all about self limitation and not gaming the engine and i expect the same from my PBEM oponents . but thats a matter of personal choice

just my 2p

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

When this came up a year or so ago (thread started by Apollo or something like that, I did quite a bit of study on the issue.

The FLAK gap discovery is by Nik and I only posted threads about it to let know all players of it (because it was not known in wide audience)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

So any "correction" would not likely have a significant effect and hence, while "fuzzying up" the flak gap is on the list, It isn't in the top ten.

So what is the top ten? [:D]

[jwilkerson]

Oh things like "uber cap" and "LCU movement" ... etc. the usual issues most of us have ..

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Oh things like "uber cap"

[&o][&o][&o]

[VSWG]

I've added this thread the "Must Read List".

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

When this came up a year or so ago (thread started by Apollo or something like that, I did quite a bit of study on the issue.

Apollo's thread can be found here:

tm.asp?m=960298

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Here are my original threads:

#1 (2005)
"IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone in AA..."

tm.asp?m=960298&mpage=1


#2 (2006)
"Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming..."

tm.asp?m=1131500&mpage=1



Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Shameless resurrection of an old thread... [8D]


Question for our great WitP developers (I thank them again for all great hard work they made [&o][&o][&o]):


Joe, Don and Michael - are there any current plans to "fuzzy up" of the so-called "FLAK Gap" so that exploitation is avoided?


BTW, I know that so-called "FLAK Gap" can be interpreted as historical (just look at the threads I pointed out in my post above) but in vast majority of those low altitude mass attacks the USA bombers come at night and not a day.

The Japan's inability to target (i.e. lack of German like radar technology) at night is understandable but having huge bombers flying slow and low in bread daylight is something completely different and that's why I am constantly reminding community of very important so-called "FLAK Gap" problem...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Yamato hugger]

Coulda just said "bump"

[:D]