AAA change in beta patch?

[Nemo121]

I'm just wondering if there was a AAA tweak in the beta patch.

I ask because in the first turn after the patch ( from a small sample of only 4 or 5 attacks during the turn ) I had 33 Oscars get through Allied CAP to dive onto Allied ships and had 28 of them shot down by FlAK. That is a roughly 85% kill rate by FlAK which is many times higher than I was normally seeing and far in excess of what I think was historically acheived.


Then over Japan 14 B-29s were shot down over the exact same target where, the day before, only 2 were shot down. The previous altitude was 8,000 feet or so while today's altitude was 20,000 feet. But the FlAK etc is the exact same. At lower altitude they'd have been exposed to far more guns ( 40mm etc ) and so would have suffered far more intense FlAK.

It is a small sample size but it does leave me a bit concerned at the possibility of a AAA change/bug being introduced.



Also, I've never seen the message. "X makes a head-on attack and forces B-29 out of formation." before. Is that a new addition?

[hunchback77]

I noticed the same thing when I tried a turn with the beta patch Nemo. My B5N2's on a port Strike at 10,000 ft took severe flak losses. I noticed it right away on the Daily air loses screen. I went back to the regular patch and ran a similar turn and the flak loses were about 30% less overall for all aircraft and the B5N2's didn't have near as much flak loses. Needless to say I will be running my turns with the regular patch for now and using the Beta Patch to only try out the new features.

[michaelm75au]

There were some 'tweaks' in so far as fixing a couple of 'complex IF statements', cutting back on almost all ships in port being a "flak barge".

The additional message was something that was being experimented on, and should have been a future enhancement.

If possible, can you supply me a set of saves and the combat report for the turn where the flak loss was exceptionally high.

[Nemo121]

Sure thing, will do once I get home...

Same password as before...

The B29 raids on Osaka seem to suffer heavy casualties as do the two Oscar kami strikes coming out of Formosa. I think 33 out of 38 got through CAP and 28 of those were shot down by FlAK including almost all the planes heading for even APs or AKs.

[Nemo121]

Just out of curiosity I ran the exact same turn under the old exe ( pre-beta )

Out of the Oscars which sortied then 29 got through to attack the exact same TF. NONE were downed by FlAK ( compared to 28 out of 33 downed by FlAK under the beta ) and they got 6 hits ( vs no hits under the beta ).

I know it is a small sample size but when the difference is so large I think there's a good chance it is significant... ( FWIW the B29 losses to FlAK ( over the exact same city ) were 1/3rd of their number under the beta --- down to 5 from 14... It is the exact same turn. )

[Nemo121]

1EyedJacks has run tests using the beta compared to the ordinary version of the game and is finding at least double FlAK losses under the Beta.


I've done some more extensive testing and am finding the following:

A. 2 to 3 times the loss rate amongst B-29s flying against the same target at the same altitude when using the Beta.

B. 3 to 4 times more losses for the less durable twin-engined bombers when flying against a given target.

C. 5 to 7 times the loss rate for fighter-bombers, dive-bombers and single-engined torpedo bombers when flying against a given target in the Beta vs the non-patched version.


I postulate that we are seeing a great deal more hits occuring with each hit experiencing no increase in lethality. The greater number of hits translates into far more kills in single-engined than twin-engined because single-engined tend to be less durable than twin-engined and so tend to just be destroyed rather than accruing multiple hits which just damage then ( as occurs with twin-engined and especially four-engined bombers ).


Basically though kamikazes, dive-bombers and torpedo-bomber attacks vs shipping are now relatively ineffective. I pity anyone who has a CV battle with the beta. The howls ought to shake the heavens themselves [:D]


With that said, bugs do occur and this is why its a beta.With something as complex as AE unanticipated consequences are to be expected.

[ADB123]

Bless you folks who test the Beta for the rest of us... [&o] [;)]

[Cavalry Corp]

I have noticed much higher AA loses than expected in my GDL scn... Is this AA issue fixed ( or an ongoing problem ) as I am about to start a campaign as Japs - I do not want high casualties at PH .
please advise- someone

Cav

[Nemo121]

My understanding is that it isn't fixed in the current beta.

I ran a test turn under the current beta and the problem was still as I described above.

Personally, if it remains, I won't be upgrading to the patch when it comes out but I would be confident this will be fixed.

[sspahr]

I have to say I'm not seeing any change at all in the flak effectiveness in the beta. Have you sent a save to michaelm? Which scenario are you playing?

[Nemo121]

Well I've run multiple turns using the beta and the normal exe and was finding the trend for double to triple four-engined losses and up to 7 times greater single-engined losses.

Yes I've sent a save to michaelm. He did state that some code relating to AAA had been changed so it certainly seems possible this was an issue.


I've run the exact same turn with the exact same attacks under both versions of the executable and found 3 to 4 times ( overall ) the FlAK losses under the beta for the EXACT same attacks. I ran one turn 6 times and that ratio held over all 6 replays so it wasn't a statistical fluke.

One of my opponents has tested as well and found his bombers dying in far larger numbers from FlAK also.... which is why he asked to revert back to the non-Beta executable.


Attack a major FlAK nest and run the turn under each executable. You'll see differences, particularly for single or twin-engined bombers.

[PaxMondo]

I'm also seeing much higher flak losses on both sides after the patch.  Not saying good or bad, but noticeably different.  It certainly has changed the altitudes that we are fighting at!  [;)]