RHS AAA

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

I got different results from my test than you is why I persist. You are NOT always right and you rarely admit it when you are occasionally wrong. I love your work and I think you are the most driven and dedicated guy I have ever come across. I have no idea how you manage to fit sleep into the equation because you are always available to field these queries AND do the work of ten men on this mod. I really want everyone to be tempted to make use of this fantastic mod that you have produced. Even having been burned by it three times now, I am going back in for a fourth attempt. Hopefully we'll get a good long term game going and will be able to feed back results to you. You are right on the effectiveness of AAA and that I and others got too used to stock heights. It maybe that in a long term game you are proved right on the DB/TB/FB pilots having as good a chance of survival as IRL. I am open minded and willing to change my viewpoint. Often when you explain your reasoning it does make a lot of sense, but you do not always listen and you do not always explain. Thank you for taking the time to run a few tests. Please could you try to keep an open mind regarding the possibility that as AAA has become more effective and durability has dropped by a range of one third to two thirds depending on the aircraft, there maybe a problem here?
Edit - Sorry Sid I should have made it clear that my experience is of the first two weeks of EOS only (we have always been forced to restart after that so far...).

Well - that was my impression - so I ran tests at game start. I poted the results above (partial - therei were more attacks - but PH and Clark were in the posted portions - and that was my standard - because we have such good data for them we know what history says).

I ran a separate test for carriers at sea - turning Halsey's Enterprise TG into a 5 carrier task force - and ordering it into an ideal attack position north of Oahu. Dumb AI does not let KB attack it - but this TF - outnumbered in carriers and in the air - launched round after round of atir stikes - and faced half the fighters of six carriers. Still - every strike penetrated, every strike hit capital ships- and fighters combined with AAA were not up to the challenge - never mind the attackers were F4F3 TBD and SBD 3 - Buffalos and other obsolescent creatures. It is clear - attacks on PH, KB and Clark on the first day of the war do not involve excessive losses for either side.

You seem only to have taken regard of elements of my post. What about the bits now highlighted in red?

OK - durability was worked on extensively in the distant past - two or three times. We deliberately set out to decrease it across the board - because it was too high - and it is part of why RHS killed "uber CAP" - aside from why we were able to (very slightly and not enough) increase attrition of he operational sort. I guess we do "consider" this in the most formal sense - we found it was needed - we set out to do it - and we did it deliberately. Then we calibrated it for history - and we found our program had undershot the target - which is good (you can always multiply a value) - so we revised the standard using a K (constant) of 2. There are other issues here - at one time durability had a "knee" in the code - and we needed to stay below it. [Matrix eventually fixed that] The other major goal was to get RELATIVE durability between plane types and sub types correct: we had some serious problems in the data as we found it. By using a consistent definition, we have addressed that effectively. We obtained a consensus on the board and I have not seen any challenge to this for a long time. It is difficult to even come up with a theory explaining what might justify a change for one type of plane (or two)? I do not care what the relative change was in game terms - we threw out the old data - which was clearly not done to any standard - in favor of standardized data. If we mess with that we will make things wrong relatively speaking. Any proper change must be in one of two forms:


1) Preferred: across the board - a different K for example - applied to all types. Here the only clear indicator is that durability should decrease - to increase operational attrition more. And any other reason to increase K would make attrition more incorrect - so as a modder (whose art is compromise) one would have to consider that a negative impact of any such increase - and at least limit it.

2) Exceptional: planes with a special structure. Sturmavik and Stirling are cases where we did this - although the latter was removed when it turned out not to be in theater. This is not similar to "all torpedo planes" but is model specific.

At the time we devoted man months to recalculating durability and evaluating it, a major concern was the possible impact on AAA. It was found that AA reform was also required and should be simultaneously implemented. While most AA was wholly absent, or defeated by things like no ceiling or no detection devices, the AA that worked was horribly overstated: too much ceiling being the main cause - and sometimes rediculous values in a field like accuracy or effect. So in that sense we did include this concern with the change in durability, and we did measure it. I am not finding any big changes now.

The one big thing that has changed - I asked the board and got an opinion to do it - was the addition of very heavy and super heavy AA guns. It is possible these have too much impact - as their values of effect and accuracy are not calculated for AA at all. I don't know if effect is even used for AAA? [Range is not - turns out - just ceiling] And that is the other change - when I was told range was not a factor - I stopped limiting the range for DP guns - they get surface range now - because that is the only use of gun range.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Flak

KATES


VALS


So here's the story. These are from two seperate games (two of the three restarts we've done). Flak is killing TBs DBs and I assume will kill FBs when they drop down to 2k for their attack runs (if I read the manual correctly).

The 1st image (KATES) was w/Suprise on on our 2nd game. Kates went after shipping and Vals went after the airbase. They started @ 15k (I normally run my vals/kates @ 9k in CHS).

The 2nd image (VALS) was with suprise off with Vals set for Port Atk and Kates set at Naval Atk/Port Atk in our third game. These also came in @ 15k.

It looks to me like AAA is going to be a death sentence for TB, DB, and FB. They have to go thru flak twice. And that last time @ 2k is probably the main killer. From what I can tell, having Suprise on or off doesn't make any difference in the flak losses but it does make a difference in how many allied aircraft can sortie on the 1st turn.

I just wanted to toss out a little visual data to show that GoodBoyLaddie is not tryint to blow smoke up anyone's tail pipe.

I think the AAA is too strong - but I'm not the one doing the mod. I don't think the air losses resemble anything like what was experienced in WW II.

This is intended as feed back from a player - please don't read into this any negative criticism.

Thanks Mike. I had no illustrations from our tests.

This sort of data is indeed alarming on its face.

But it is not useful in a technical sense. It is only an aggregate total of losses - and we have no understanding of what was done.
Real tests are controlled - and involve specific knowledge of what is on both sides for a specific fight - see my posts above.
These may well be historical loss rates - how many planes were sent on how many sortees agains what? We lack the data to have any sense of it?

I DO expect players not used to AA that is deadly low down to be shocked - that was the intent of the changes. See Freeman Dyson in Weapons and Hope (he was Bomber Command's statistical analyst during the war). The MISSION of AAA is to drive your planes higher - and make them bomb with less accuracy. It is a victory (the way we count in air defense) every time you miss that you would have hit. It is a bigger victory every attack you do not mount out that you would otherwise have mounted had there been no opposition. These were big deals in WWII - and the way this game was - you could pretty much ignore AA and go where you wished and not take horrible losses. Real operations never were that way - except when there was indeed no AA at all. I have NOT YET made AA quite as effective as it should be - but various issues require compromise in what we do. Each field is used several ways - and it upsets the way things work to fail to consider all the impacts (which I think was one of your points). My point is that AA does not seem to be too strong when you look at a real attack and compare it to a real attack. You cannot use overall game statistics to do that.

All your data really shows is that in your games there is not much effective fighter oppostion. The relative amount of AAA losses may only be function of number of sortees, amount of AAA, and lack of enemy fighters in numbers of effective types.

In order to show too much AA losses, you need to show a report with number of attackers - and either use the game defined oppostion - of tell us what it was? At the moment I am unable to show this in a test - and I am a test guy. Even where I expect to see too many losses I am not seeing them.

I am much more worried about Japanese ship construction. But I will keep looking for indications some aspect of AA is too strong.

Hint: try attacks with ships with big DP guns - and attacks without - to see if these guns are too big a factor?

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again



I am much more worried about Japanese ship construction. But I will keep looking for indications some aspect of AA is too strong.

Hint: try attacks with ships with big DP guns - and attacks without - to see if these guns are too big a factor?

I think your "Hint" statement has hit the nail on the head. I find acceptable loses, where acceptable=historical, in aircraft when I attack PH but do not attack the ships in port. When I attack the ships in port, my loses are 2-4xhistorical. They are never under, which should happen in any statistical test of a model.

[witpqs]

Sid,

You said and asked:

This sort of data is indeed alarming on its face.

But it is not useful in a technical sense. It is only an aggregate total of losses - and we have no understanding of what was done.
Real tests are controlled - and involve specific knowledge of what is on both sides for a specific fight - see my posts above.
These may well be historical loss rates - how many planes were sent on how many sortees agains what? We lack the data to have any sense of it?

Most of your questions were very specifically answered here in his text:

So here's the story. These are from two seperate games (two of the three restarts we've done). Flak is killing TBs DBs and I assume will kill FBs when they drop down to 2k for their attack runs (if I read the manual correctly).

The 1st image (KATES) was w/Suprise on on our 2nd game. Kates went after shipping and Vals went after the airbase. They started @ 15k (I normally run my vals/kates @ 9k in CHS).

The 2nd image (VALS) was with suprise off with Vals set for Port Atk and Kates set at Naval Atk/Port Atk in our third game. These also came in @ 15k.

As for your question about what is on the other side, they were running RHS EOS, and this was two runs of the Pearl Harbor attack, with no changes made to the US initial disposition at Pearl Harbor.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again



I am much more worried about Japanese ship construction. But I will keep looking for indications some aspect of AA is too strong.

Hint: try attacks with ships with big DP guns - and attacks without - to see if these guns are too big a factor?

I think your "Hint" statement has hit the nail on the head. I find acceptable loses, where acceptable=historical, in aircraft when I attack PH but do not attack the ships in port. When I attack the ships in port, my loses are 2-4xhistorical. They are never under, which should happen in any statistical test of a model.

There is a technical problem with your theory: NOT ONE of the ships at PH has a super heavy (or even very heavy) AA gun - so it cannot be the explanation. Sorry.

Guns which are able to shoot planes are listed as DP guns (or AA guns - but those are never large). Only Japan has BB shells of this sort.
RN has 8 inch DP guns. French and Dutch ships have 5 inch DP guns. But there are NO US guns of this sort on any ship - or ashore.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

You said and asked:

This sort of data is indeed alarming on its face.

But it is not useful in a technical sense. It is only an aggregate total of losses - and we have no understanding of what was done.
Real tests are controlled - and involve specific knowledge of what is on both sides for a specific fight - see my posts above.
These may well be historical loss rates - how many planes were sent on how many sortees agains what? We lack the data to have any sense of it?

Most of your questions were very specifically answered here in his text:

So here's the story. These are from two seperate games (two of the three restarts we've done). Flak is killing TBs DBs and I assume will kill FBs when they drop down to 2k for their attack runs (if I read the manual correctly).

The 1st image (KATES) was w/Suprise on on our 2nd game. Kates went after shipping and Vals went after the airbase. They started @ 15k (I normally run my vals/kates @ 9k in CHS).

The 2nd image (VALS) was with suprise off with Vals set for Port Atk and Kates set at Naval Atk/Port Atk in our third game. These also came in @ 15k.

As for your question about what is on the other side, they were running RHS EOS, and this was two runs of the Pearl Harbor attack, with no changes made to the US initial disposition at Pearl Harbor.

OK - fundamental issue

wrong scenario

to "calibrate" RHS you MUST use CVO or BBO family scenarios

EOS is different - although curiously it is only different for Japan in AA terms - so Kates and Vals will take greater losses only in the few cases where obsolete fighters are not present in EOS at start

Something is different. I never show losses like you do - and I mainly test in EOS or even EEO. Note that EOS gives you fewer Kates and Vals at start - because you have to make room for recon planes on the carriers. I usually run my air groups for weeks before I find a problem - and it is normal to have ALL squadrons functional after day one attacks.

Somehow you are doing something very different than I do. Even wholly unmodified tests (I run them for economic reasons) don't yield this sort of result.

[Buck Beach]

I am getting the old gut feeling that starting a new game at this point would be premature and ill advised.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again



I am much more worried about Japanese ship construction. But I will keep looking for indications some aspect of AA is too strong.

Hint: try attacks with ships with big DP guns - and attacks without - to see if these guns are too big a factor?

I think your "Hint" statement has hit the nail on the head. I find acceptable loses, where acceptable=historical, in aircraft when I attack PH but do not attack the ships in port. When I attack the ships in port, my loses are 2-4xhistorical. They are never under, which should happen in any statistical test of a model.

There is a technical problem with your theory: NOT ONE of the ships at PH has a super heavy (or even very heavy) AA gun - so it cannot be the explanation. Sorry.

Guns which are able to shoot planes are listed as DP guns (or AA guns - but those are never large). Only Japan has BB shells of this sort.
RN has 8 inch DP guns. French and Dutch ships have 5 inch DP guns. But there are NO US guns of this sort on any ship - or ashore.

Ok point taken. But if the DP guns which are present use their accuracy value from their anti-ship stats against aircraft, then possibly all DP guns have to high an accuracy and that could be the reason why I am seeing such a wide variation between airfield attack and port attack. Just food for thought.

[el cid again]

It is for CVO if you want riverboats.

Otherwise my concern is ship production - which may not be working as well as I want it to.

I do not think there is an AA issue - and if there is - it will ONLY be related to Japanese 8 inch 14 inch and 18 inch guns.

AA and total air losses remain modest in RHS - are below history if one includes attritions (AE will fix that apparently)
and the sense they are too high only occurs if a player manages to run in without regard for it. We ONCE had too high losses at PH -
but no more. I was alarmed by the charge ALLIED planes could not hurt KB - but it turns out even the worst Allied planes can (except maybe TBD - and maybe SBC - but they really should be questionable).

I have found ways to help AI in AIO / CAIO re plane orders - sometimes - but only CVO needs reworking at this point. And anyone who can live with CVO at all is unlikely to need minor river ships not present in any other mod anyway. Landing craft can be created and used in the rivers - and can even exit the interior rivers with the new files. We are issuing the installer switcher now.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is for CVO if you want riverboats.

Otherwise my concern is ship production - which may not be working as well as I want it to.

I do not think there is an AA issue - and if there is - it will ONLY be related to Japanese 8 inch 14 inch and 18 inch guns.

AA and total air losses remain modest in RHS - are below history if one includes attritions (AE will fix that apparently)
and the sense they are too high only occurs if a player manages to run in without regard for it. We ONCE had too high losses at PH -
but no more. I was alarmed by the charge ALLIED planes could not hurt KB - but it turns out even the worst Allied planes can (except maybe TBD - and maybe SBC - but they really should be questionable).

I have found ways to help AI in AIO / CAIO re plane orders - sometimes - but only CVO needs reworking at this point. And anyone who can live with CVO at all is unlikely to need minor river ships not present in any other mod anyway. Landing craft can be created and used in the rivers - and can even exit the interior rivers with the new files. We are issuing the installer switcher now.

Nope, I don't need the riverboats.

[el cid again]

AA is still open - I am not sure it has any problems


but I just figured out ship production for warships - so there will be an update

working on ship production for non-warships

be back in 5 hours

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is for CVO if you want riverboats.

Otherwise my concern is ship production - which may not be working as well as I want it to.

I do not think there is an AA issue - and if there is - it will ONLY be related to Japanese 8 inch 14 inch and 18 inch guns.

AA and total air losses remain modest in RHS - are below history if one includes attritions (AE will fix that apparently)
and the sense they are too high only occurs if a player manages to run in without regard for it. We ONCE had too high losses at PH -
but no more. I was alarmed by the charge ALLIED planes could not hurt KB - but it turns out even the worst Allied planes can (except maybe TBD - and maybe SBC - but they really should be questionable).I have found ways to help AI in AIO / CAIO re plane orders - sometimes - but only CVO needs reworking at this point. And anyone who can live with CVO at all is unlikely to need minor river ships not present in any other mod anyway. Landing craft can be created and used in the rivers - and can even exit the interior rivers with the new files. We are issuing the installer switcher now.

In reply to the quoted portion you seem to have misunderstood my point. Our test showed that the initial experienced pilots would get through and hit the target, but that losses were so severe (75% for me in our test) there is no way that an Allied air group would be able to repeat the feat. Even if the launching CV survived the return match it would take months to replenish/retrain an air group to a similar standard. The Japanese player in EOS is not hamstrung by such poor replacements so is able to get back in combat sooner. If the losses Mike has had to suffer against my ordinary AAA is anything to go by, the Allies will lose entire squadrons tackling Jap ships, especially later in the scenario when your El Cid Super AAA upgrades take effect. If, as you say, it is only EOS and EEO that have this enhanced Jap AAA to contend with, then you are right and it is the DP main batteries that throw up the odd results in CVO/BBO. The enhanced Jap AAA in EOS and EEO should only be faced if AFBs have a new and fully functioning Masochism Chip installed...

What did Nemo do differently in Empires Ablaze or does the Super AAA exist there too?

[el cid again]

Comment One:

This may be good simulation. SBC pilots felt they would only be able to deliver ordanance at maximum range, with minimal chance of a hit,
and that any squadron attempting this would be decimated and unable to "repeat the feat." TBD pilots found in fact they could not deliver ordnance at all - the hard way.


Comment Two:

The slightly better planes - early SBD and similar dive bombers - probably could deliver ordannce as we show - and if facing major fighter opposition - with only F4F-3s and Buffalos for escort in inadequate numbers - high attrition should be expected.
If you watch the combat animations, indications are that the AA losses - the topic here - were not excessive even so - and it is the fighters in combination with AA that renders the Allied air squadrons combat ineffective in some (but not all) cases. Every historian I know thinks it was a good thing Halsey never found KB, and even giving him more carriers does not change the awful aircraft or skill levels of his pilots ("I suppose they can see the target" is a verbatum quote of Halsey himself re Enterprise air group a few days before PH - they were not scoring hits when NOT under fire).

Comment Three: As far as I know Empire's Ablaze uses the same AAA. And without complaints.

Comment Four: Allied carrier groups have no business seeking battle early in WWII except on targets which they can handle - I love to sink tankers for example. Allied air squadrons - USN and USMC in particular - IRL put MUCH focus on training up green pilots in COMBAT units BEFORE committing to combat - and this process lasted a long time. [Marines even mid war often issued FIGHTER squadrons FLOAT OBSERVATION planes so the pilots would NOT attempt air combat - but could practice formation flying, navigation and other things - sometimes in hostile areas - and gain valuable experience before being issued - say - Corsairs]. If we have a similar situation in RHS - something we did not try for - I am not upset about it. The Allies need to wait at least for F4F-4s before attempting air combat, should never engage major targets with SBDs (ASW or attacks on lightly defended land targets or merchant ships is acceptable), and should wait to assemble multiple carrier task groups (I think four is minimum and three is absolute minimum) before seeking battle - and that with TWO carrier enemy opposition. If you face KB as a whole - likely in games - you are foolish not to wait for Essex - so you have six carriers - and you must NOT have lost any of the three Yorktowns or two Saratogas - or messed up their air groups either. By then KB may well number eight carriers - but if so it will be slower - and if not - it is still slower than you are - and has fewer aircraft. You should be marginally better. UNLESS you do that, you are not likely to do well - and this is far closer to right than wrong.

Comment Five: There are indeed problems with WITP pilot training and experience matters. There are too few things under our control and too many dictated by hard code. If you think the Allies have problems, try playing Japan - which hard code automatically degrades even if in your fictional world it should not do so - and which has impossible numbers issues - compounded by lack of armor on planes and higher attrition rates - killing off your pilots. My focus was on the early war - because if we get that wrong we have no way to know what might happen mid war - and because hard code is going to cut experience in half over certain numbers (for Japan). Japan must win a short war early - that is "the short victorious war" concept - and if you take that from them - they have nada - by their own standards - they know it - and (as in the Panay Incident) will not go to war. IF I had more control over these matters there would be somewhat different settings - in particular I would like to be able to set things by date and not be forced to make changes by hard code. On the other hand, training is too effective and works too fast. So train your air crews, and that includes even your old ones - make them even better. IRL a naval battle is hard to arrange - it requies luck and intelligence and time to move tankers into position - and the sort of things we see in many games would never be attempted. Notice that IRL USN attempted raids which were surprise attacks vs lightly defended islets - and later it sent out carriers in forces of two or three - and would have made those larger if it could have done. This vs enemy opposition that NEVER was six carriers - but two to four big ones. In a game world - where concentration of force is almost certain to occur by Japan - if you close in 1941 or early 1942 - you should expect decimated air groups (but you WILL hurt the enemy - so it is an option) - and this is not a "problem" - it is IMHO very realistic. I am glad to hear it is working this well - and I see nothing to fix.

[m10bob]

"The slightly better planes - early SBD and similar dive bombers - probably could deliver ordannce as we show - "


Info only..The SBD 3 was terrible(accuracy wise) because most of its' battles took place in the south Pacific where diving from height in a true 70 degree dive caused the bombsight to fog up, blinding the pilot.
(This did not effect the Midway battle due to its' more northern locale.

The SBD 5 had a heated bombsight and SBD3's had a field expedient upgrade kit (which was not always installed)..The bombsight heater took care of the problem.

Before the arrival of the heater, the SBD 3's stopped making those steep dives and began using more like 45 degree dives so the difference in changing height would not have such a profound effect on the sights.

(For this reason, it has been suggested the SBD 3 planes in AE be made "fighter bombers" instead of pure dive bombers, negating the DB bonus, and allowing the SBD 3's to partake in a historical role of low altitude CAP against enemy torpedo bombers..)
While I thought this idea,(from a veteran forum member) was a good idea, my support of his idea, (and maybe my ties with RHS) may have put the death knell to the idea.[:D]

[okami]

Ok I looked at the editor and picked three Destroyers which were built in 1939. The classes are Kagero, Sims and J Class. I found that it is the main guns which will cause most of the AA casualties.
Kagero- Slot 010 5in/50 3YT AA Gun- Accuracy85 Ceiling32000 Slot 069 25mm Type 96 AA Gun- Accuracy10 Ceiling12000
Sims- Slot055 5in/38 mk12 DP Gun- Accuracy170 Ceiling37200 Slot 076 20mm Oerikon AA Gun- Accuracy26 Ceiling7000
J Class Slot 034 4.7in/45 3&11 YT Gun- Accuracy100 Ceiling0 Slot 073 40mm 2pdr AA Gun- Accuracy13 Ceiling13000

If accuracy is used in ship to ship combat then the values for the Sims are way to high. Japanese gunnery was superior to Allied gunnery early in the war ude to better training in all weather and night conditions. Also due to the low accuracy to the dedicated AA guns of all three ships, it is the Main guns that will do the most damage to air attacks. But not for the J Class as she has a ceiling of 0. It is the values given to US DP type guns that gives an ahistorical AA kill ratio at PH. As trends will do, if the first attack of the war. Under the best of conditions, still gives a higher amount of casualties then the entire game will also give a greater amount of casualties than was historical. If accuracy has nothing to do with AA fire and it is derived from the effect number instead then my arguement i not valid. Still US gunnery accuracy is way to high vs Japanese to the start of the war.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

"The slightly better planes - early SBD and similar dive bombers - probably could deliver ordannce as we show - "


Info only..The SBD 3 was terrible(accuracy wise) because most of its' battles took place in the south Pacific where diving from height in a true 70 degree dive caused the bombsight to fog up, blinding the pilot.
(This did not effect the Midway battle due to its' more northern locale.

The SBD 5 had a heated bombsight and SBD3's had a field expedient upgrade kit (which was not always installed)..The bombsight heater took care of the problem.

Before the arrival of the heater, the SBD 3's stopped making those steep dives and began using more like 45 degree dives so the difference in changing height would not have such a profound effect on the sights.

(For this reason, it has been suggested the SBD 3 planes in AE be made "fighter bombers" instead of pure dive bombers, negating the DB bonus, and allowing the SBD 3's to partake in a historical role of low altitude CAP against enemy torpedo bombers..)
While I thought this idea,(from a veteran forum member) was a good idea, my support of his idea, (and maybe my ties with RHS) may have put the death knell to the idea.[:D]

Since bombing at less than a 70 degree angle is not less accurate - and indeed is preferred for technical reasons in the post war era - I am not convinced it is a major defect. Dive bombing worked - in the sense of causing bomb accuracy to increase over horizontal bombing. But it was not understood for many years that you did not need the steep angle to achieve it. Glide bombing is just as accurate - and has some other advantages - and dive bombing as such became complely unused long before the era of precision munitions.

[el cid again]

First of all, accuracy is one of the rare things openly defined by Matrix. We have a standard, and that standard is one of the few consistently applied (before RHS anyway). The standard is rate of fire times 10 for medium and large guns.

Second, and in common with many fields used in WITP, accuracy is misleadingly named - it isn't accuracy (as the definition shows) but rate of fire.

Third, in ROF terms, the long 50 of a Kagero is indeed slower than the 5 inch 38 - so the standard is fairly applied.

Fourth, if RHS were to address this issue properly, it would take until AE is released, because we would have to figure out a formula to define true accuracy and apply it to many thousands of ships in hundreds of classes in 22 scenarios (or at least 10 scenarios in Level 7). It is shocking how well WITP works given is simplistic system - but it is indeed simplistic.

For AA purposes, it is good the long 50 has a lower accuracy - as a long 50 is not a good AA gun - while a 5 inch 38 or 25 are good. So is a Japanese 5 in 40 - as it should.

[el cid again]

Additional comment from several levels above post re US carrier air group losses if attacking KB:


Japan cannot lose the KB ships and still have a mobile offensive force. The US will get all those Essex class carriers -
with air groups - and if they don't face KB - they will rule. If KB survives, it will barely be able to compete with US carriers later
in the war - and that even if they are divided into multiple carrier forces (as is likely due to the exterior lines and many area
the Allies are concerned with). In this context, fighting KB early - even at the cost of air groups - is strategically sound policy for
the Allies. It ends Japan's offensive except where it can use land bases - prematurely - and the war will go into a transition period
until the Allies are ready for their offensives.

[Nemo121]

As re: Empires Ablaze... Ueber-FlAK doesn't seem to be as much of a problem in Empires Ablaze. There have been some days of very heavy losses when IJN planes went in against heavily defended ports defended by masses of AAA but in the main ships at sea kill a few attackers (more TBs than DBs ) but in our only CV vs CV battle total losses to fighter losses AND FlAK were well less than 25% per side ( and CAP accounted for quite a few of those kills ).
 
The one caveat is the new class of IJN CLAAs and the CVAs which have been specifically designed to kill torpedo-bombers. They are less effective against dive-bombers but against torpedo-bombers the IJN CLAAs and CVAs really will wreak havoc. I have seen loss rates of up to 33% when single-engined torpedo bombers go in against them. Then again, if you go in against a specialised torpedo-bomber killer in a torpedo-bomber you had better expect to be mauled.