RHS AAA

[el cid again]

Well - I focus (more or less of necessity) on Japanese production (there not being any Allied production in the same sense). I found lots of reasons planes don't produce for Japan - and assumed many of those applied to the Allies. I also DID listen (unfortunately - it cost a lot of work) that "radar should be in slot 10" whenever possible - converted most of it to that slot - and ultimately had to convert it back (doing all the work again in reverse). I noticed vast piles of Allied aircraft in tests - too many ever to use - and it was hard to believe that there was a big problem. But it turns out about 22 types of planes with radar in slot 10 never produced - and I am sorry about that.

AAA is wholly different in character. I think a lot of what is complained about is subjective - and based on expectations set by this game in particular (where guns had no ceilings, no warning devices, devices that failed 90% of the time if present, grossly inadequate numbers of guns, etc). I understand AAA - I heard a complaint about it - and I corrected it - at least crudely. It may be we need to do more - but we need a more comprehensive test base to do so. After 380 tests I can say that - overall - AAA is NOT effective enough - at least vs computer opponents. Partly that is just due to a lack of numbers. Having just added barrage balloons and AA brigades and divisions, it may be I have addressed that now. We need to find out? But on the whole I am trying to make AAA more effective - rather than less - because it is not yet effective enough. I have many units with multiple warning devices - many more AA units - many more guns per unit - all in an effort to get there.

I do not regard a problem on the first day of the war as nearly as critical as a lack of effect for the whole war. We can disable more guns at PH if need be - but they will repair up in a few days - even if we do that.

The suggestion accuracy is too high due to day one data is backwards: I think it may not yet be high enough. And until midwar AAA losses approach the right values - I will be considering increasing it until they do approach the right range. On the other hand, if you think it is too high, and I think it is too low, maybe it is pretty close to right? A symptom of getting it right is a division of opinion over "is it to high or too low"?

The problem at PH is unique: although the enemy had to close the target(s) - ideal for AA defense -

land based AA guns could not fire during the first attack due to a lack of ammunition (lockers were locked and there was no way to get the shells)

and I have no way to simulate that - and still let it shoot in the second attack

also the effect of surprise and confusion is impossible to simulate

we shot down FRIENDLY planes - if you want an indicator of confusion - and yet a slow Glen photographed the place twice - before and after - and never got shot at!

What can I do to make AA gunners incompetent and confused - yet still able to be effective later?

[Buck Beach]

This has nothing to do with the RHS AAA issue.  First I want to add my thanks Sid for everything you have brought to the game. 

Keeping with Aaron Neville's song "Tell it like it is", I do agree with what witpqs says about your shooting at the messenger when we have issues needing to be surfaced.  I have noted that, on several occasions over the last two years.  My experience is that eventually, if I am dogmatic,  I am able to get you to acknowledge there at least maybe something of worth in one of my observations.  A good thing is that I am becoming much more familiar with the the period's history and workings of the game and I do thank you also for that.

Please continue to provide your expertise to the hobby of this game and accept my comments in a manner in which I feel they are given.  I am not pilling on.

[m10bob]

Regarding PH, I wonder if there is a way to *competely* prevent AAA?
While this is not historical, I question the accuracy of the ground gunners when that first raid took place.
The Japanese certainly got in the first shot(not counting the sinking of the sub), and surly it took time to arm and man the guns.
IIRC church services were still being conducted on some of the ships' decks.

I know the work that was done (by you and a few others) to research the true capabilities of nearly every AA type weapon, (which stock had failed to represent in anything near historic values.)
Too, if folks realized how fragile aircraft really are, they might better understand why AAA is important to ground defense.
Stock used AA pretty much as "window dressing", and little else.
Too, Sid also was the first to put the correct altitude on ANY of the AA guns.
Sadly, a lot of his research was the impetus behind many of the changes implemented in AE, and he is enjoying none of the credit.
So be it.
I must agree, Sid does have a habit of "killing the messenger", and it has happened to me several times , but persistence backed with facts has drawn corrections to the mod.
Sid is somewhat of a scientist and has yet to yield to either "feelings of correctness", nor numbers of "adversaries", but he will yield to cut and dried calculus and/or examples, (game or historical) which can be reproduced in his "lab"..
Sid has created the Frankenstein monster with his interpretation of AAA by giving them a more historical representation in game, and we (now) civilians don't like losing our planes.
Well, nobody did, but those are the risks.

BTW, some other folks also got much heat for increasing their AAA, but at least Sid (with forum help) did it based on a known, historical, and verifiable quantum..........[8D]

On this issue, I will agree that perhaps the element of surprise at PH is not sufficient enough, and this leads me back to my original question.
Can the PH AAA guns be entirely negated on the initial attack?

[Mac Linehan]

Hi, Sid,

Would it be possible for you to list the ceilings of RHS AAA devices? Keep up the good work.

AAA forever....

Mac
GMG USN 1971-1981 >Grin<
USMC 1982-1992

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Regarding PH, I wonder if there is a way to *competely* prevent AAA?
While this is not historical, I question the accuracy of the ground gunners when that first raid took place.
The Japanese certainly got in the first shot(not counting the sinking of the sub), and surly it took time to arm and man the guns.
IIRC church services were still being conducted on some of the ships' decks.

REPLY: It is different on a ship: you normally get to action stations in 5 minutes or less - as an SOP - and most men are right there. Not that some guys (like me) won't be ashore in church (singing in my case - I was always a choirboy) - the number is 0 to 2 per ship - not many. But land based AA was very different - in a peacetime regime it was a long way from barracks to firing position. And even in places where the "wrong" guys went there - or the "right" guys showed up - the lockers were locked - unlike a ship - where ammunition is not locked up at all.

YES - we can completely disable the AAA - but if we do it on ships - it means a ship sent to sea cannot shoot its AA - surely wrong - and a ship in port cannot either - generally wrong. On land it means that no guns will shoot in the second raid - also wrong. The compromise is to disable half the guns - and I did that in many cases (the big forts) I think.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Sadly, a lot of his research was the impetus behind many of the changes implemented in AE, and he is enjoying none of the credit.

This is so true and a crying shame. Without naming names, some are very cliquish, extremely rude and are ingrates.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

Hi, Sid,

Would it be possible for you to list the ceilings of RHS AAA devices? Keep up the good work.

AAA forever....

Mac
GMG USN 1971-1981 >Grin<
USMC 1982-1992

They are listed in the devices themselves - see any WITP editor under devices.

RHS conventions include:

.30 cals always 2000 feet

.50 cals always 4000 feet

25 mm to 40 mm typically in the 9000 to 13000 feet range

ceilings not always set by ballistics - sometimes by fuses or tracer

much variation in heavy AAA ceilings

[Mac Linehan]

Sid -

v6 WITP editor has been extracted into the WITP folder - I can't seem to figure out how to access the editor (no icon present?) Double clicking on v6 application only installs it. I know that I am missing something here; not sure what. Thanks for the help.

Mac

[goodboyladdie]

I agree with the above posts. Sid is a legend. The amount of his life he devotes to this mod is staggering and humbling. I do not believe he gets full credit for his innovations. My opponent and I are really frustrated by having to do three restarts in a very short space of time. We really want to play this mod. Sid has done a lot of research. I was wondering if he could inform us what sort of casualties should be expected for those poor squadrons that have to venture below AAA ceilings, such as Torpedo and Dive Bombers? What were the historical casualty rates and how do they compare with what we see in this mod? I experienced loss rates of 75% to AAA attacking a KB element when Mike and I did a 2 CV on 2 CV test battle. I am more than happy that Sid is right and I did get too used to stock default altitudes, but I wonder how IRL any pilot ever flew these types of Naval Attack missions if such losses were the norm?

More worrying than any other issue is the revelation in one of Sid's recent posts that he spent his own money to get some code written. May I make a contribution, please Sid? It seems to be very unfair for you to bear financial burdens as well as all the hard work you put in.

[el cid again]

I will review PH AAA again

and we may have a problem with very heavy AA guns - which we have added since I calibrated AAA

these are BB and cruiser type guns with DP ability

[el cid again]

I do not work Sunday and Monday - and we will try to make a version that is satisfactory from all points of view - with luck in a few hours = but I am working for the next 4 hours.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

I agree with the above posts. Sid is a legend. The amount of his life he devotes to this mod is staggering and humbling. I do not believe he gets full credit for his innovations. My opponent and I are really frustrated by having to do three restarts in a very short space of time. We really want to play this mod. Sid has done a lot of research. I was wondering if he could inform us what sort of casualties should be expected for those poor squadrons that have to venture below AAA ceilings, such as Torpedo and Dive Bombers? What were the historical casualty rates and how do they compare with what we see in this mod? .

It depends ]

in CVO or BBO expect historical losses

in EOS family - these are ships modded as I would built them - with all my technical knowledge - limited only by what could have been done -
and the Japanese will hurt you badly with the superb guns (they didn't build enough of).

It is not nice to face very efficient AAA suites.

[goodboyladdie]

Hi Sid

No wonder they are a bit on the Uber side. If an AAW expert from the 21st century went back to Japan in 1936 and redesigned all their AAA for a war five years hence they would turn up with the WW2 equivalent of Death Rays...[:D]

I obviously need EOS-lite...

Very best regards

Carl

[goodboyladdie]

Just another quick question Sid...

I am wondering if the problem is not that AAA is too effective, but that aircraft durability is not high enough? The potentially over high casualty rates could be coming from the fact that aircraft that would have been damaged in real life are being destroyed in mod. Would a tweak upwards of durability with a proportionate tweak of related A2A values be worth a test?

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
...

I obviously need EOS-lite...
...

Thats maybe the point. You played EOS whereas Okami and myself were playing CVO. While the PH strike losses are too high in CVO as well I guess they are compared to EOS overall lighter due to less (efficient) AA. Nut still heavier as with CHS/stock. At least thats my feeling.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Just another quick question Sid...

I am wondering if the problem is not that AAA is too effective, but that aircraft durability is not high enough? The potentially over high casualty rates could be coming from the fact that aircraft that would have been damaged in real life are being destroyed in mod. Would a tweak upwards of durability with a proportionate tweak of related A2A values be worth a test?

This *might* be a good answer, but higher durability also means longer down-time to fix damaged units.[:(]

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Just another quick question Sid...

I am wondering if the problem is not that AAA is too effective, but that aircraft durability is not high enough? The potentially over high casualty rates could be coming from the fact that aircraft that would have been damaged in real life are being destroyed in mod. Would a tweak upwards of durability with a proportionate tweak of related A2A values be worth a test?

This *might* be a good answer, but higher durability also means longer down-time to fix damaged units.[:(]

But surely that is better than the loss of precious experienced pilots that would probably have survived?

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Just another quick question Sid...

I am wondering if the problem is not that AAA is too effective, but that aircraft durability is not high enough? The potentially over high casualty rates could be coming from the fact that aircraft that would have been damaged in real life are being destroyed in mod. Would a tweak upwards of durability with a proportionate tweak of related A2A values be worth a test?

This *might* be a good answer, but higher durability also means longer down-time to fix damaged units.[:(]

But surely that is better than the loss of precious experienced pilots that would probably have survived?

I agree![:D]
This opens another can 'o worms, too bad the original designer linked durability to repair time, and not just a measure of survivability.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Hi Sid

No wonder they are a bit on the Uber side. If an AAW expert from the 21st century went back to Japan in 1936 and redesigned all their AAA for a war five years hence they would turn up with the WW2 equivalent of Death Rays...[:D]

I obviously need EOS-lite...

Very best regards

Carl

It is a bit of a no brainer not to build hopelessly obsolescent 3 inch AA when you have a superb 3 inch AA - same tooling - same steel -
but entirely different performance. Yet only one battery of 4 served ashore - at Maizuru - and only Agano class CL had them afloat.
This a 1938 design too.

It used the same fire control system as the 100 mm guns of the AA destroyers - different cams - and it was better than most of the systems in the world - also a 1938 design.

About 114 of the 100 mm served ashore - eventually - too late. But they could have been built since 1939 - in leiu of most other weapons - and certainly could have used existing 100 mm tooling.

I don't do things that are radical - but I have no politics to fight either.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Just another quick question Sid...

I am wondering if the problem is not that AAA is too effective, but that aircraft durability is not high enough? The potentially over high casualty rates could be coming from the fact that aircraft that would have been damaged in real life are being destroyed in mod. Would a tweak upwards of durability with a proportionate tweak of related A2A values be worth a test?

This is a difficult technical matter. We had to devise a durability system - no proper one was defined - and then "calibrate" it

and we did decide to apply a K (constant) of 2 to the basic algorithm because durability needed to be higher

Durability affects several things - one of them attrition - and we want it low so operational attrition is not too low - as it was - and to some degree remains

It is critical in air combat as well as AA combat

The right value is a compromise - as it is used in more than one way

But I think it is in the correct range - and with respect to attrition - maybe it should be lower - vice higher