Flak effectiveness

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's 28th January 1943. Japanese flak have shot down 35 planes. Tens of allied bombers are almost daily bombing bases with flak concentrations, flying at 10000 feet. But nothing, not even operational losses.

Stupid.

If you look at the devices in the editor you will understand why this happens. Even the bofors 40mm has only a ceiling of 9800 feet. You need large calibre DP guns for a defense in stock.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's 28th January 1943. Japanese flak have shot down 35 planes. Tens of allied bombers are almost daily bombing bases with flak concentrations, flying at 10000 feet. But nothing, not even operational losses.

Stupid.

What is the altitude max of Japanese flak?

Looking in the editor, very cursory look I add, I see only three pretty rare models which have a ceiling above 9000 feet. Look at the LCU types in the bases you're bombing and go to the editor to see what they have.

[Puhis]

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about Japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.

"Ceiling" or "effective ceiling"? And what about "Fire Control"? If the guns are just "bnging away into the blue" with no effective means of prediction (let alone radar) then the fire will be scary, but not very effective...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.

OK. I'm just getting familiar with the Japanese OOB. I looked, and there are a lot more 75s and 88s than I thought, although many of them are in restricted units.

I looked in the DB and the 75 has an Effect of 13, and the 88 is 20. The Bofors 40mm is also 20, so the 75 is relatively lousy. I don't know how "Effect" cranks through all the algorithms, but the difference is probably, but not necessarily always, linear. Probably there are time-of-day and some weather factors in the formulae too.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.

OK. I'm just getting familiar with the Japanese OOB. I looked, and there are a lot more 75s and 88s than I thought, although many of them are in restricted units.

I looked in the DB and the 75 has an Effect of 13, and the 88 is 20. The Bofors 40mm is also 20, so the 75 is relatively lousy. I don't know how "Effect" cranks through all the algorithms, but the difference is probably, but not necessarily always, linear. Probably there are time-of-day and some weather factors in the formulae too.

Yes, Japan have lot of AA battalions and regiments. Most of them have 75 mm guns, but some regiments have 88 mm. I don't even bother to move japanese AA companies with puny 20 mm guns.

At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Yes, Japan have lot of AA battalions and regiments. Most of them have 75 mm guns, but some regiments have 88 mm. I don't even bother to move japanese AA companies with puny 20 mm guns.

At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.

I think it because developers make one system error in calculation of area effect.
Bombs - 800kg GP have Effect 1788, accuracy 75, but for 250kg GP eff 551 and acc 26.
Same for flak - 12 cm eff 45 and acc 55, for 75mm eff 15 and acc 36.
Developers pronounce - larger weapon have more area of hitting. Yes it true. But why effect for flak so much different? Does plane dont take damage if splinter of from flak shell hit it? No plane take damage! Amount of damage proportional of CALIBER shell. Splinter from shell of 12cm and 75 mm dont have differences in 3 times. Even penetration of Frag shells counted as HALF OF CALIBER.
So damage from splinters depend from caliber and grow linear. Not 12cm/75mm = 45/15.
And we now coming to system error. Developers TWICELY raise 2 stats of area effect of weapon.
Effect - more caliber, much more damage. Even non-linear.
Accuracy - more caliber, more accuracy.
How it must be? If we raise accuracy for flak with raise caliber (it true cuz larger shell produce more splinters and can damage plane in more area, also bigger splinters save kill ability on some more range as result of weight on speed + lesser speed loss ) then we raise Effect as linear function. Also when we raise accuracy - we raise it non-linear.
So 12cm/75mm flak must have 24/15 eff and 35/26 acc. After that testing must correct those numbers for adequate gameplay.

[derp]

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.

There is I think a tendency towards tunnel vision with regards to AA guns; people look at them and say "well, I only killed X aircraft today, they're obviously not doing anything at all" etc. Basically, there are two things that don't seem to be factored in a lot of the time:

- Effect of AA fire on bomber accuraccy - what's the odds a bomber hits what it's aiming at at a base with no AA guns v 50, or 200, or however many? Obviously the point at which it becomes a really significant factor is dependent on the size of the raid involved - but then that's a question of concentration that is completely situational. If you have a lot of guns, you can significantly hit the number of hits (so to speak).

- Effects of disruption on AA guns - remember that raids on airbases hit AA and base force units too; if the raids are large ones and the AA complement at the base isn't big enough to stand up to the number of hits involved they will get tired and disrupted and etc as the bombing progresses, which can take a few days to settle - days you won't have if bombing is persistent. I don't think many people look at those numbers too hard...they make a big difference.

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Shark & Bull:

I'm not talking about 25 mm AA guns. Those are totally useless, no-one is flying level bombers low enough for low calibre AA guns.

I'm talking about japanese 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which have ceiling of 25000 feet and 31000 feet.

OK, here is the Japanese 75mm AAA, nothing special, and nothing stands out about it. However, I can't remember if it was in WiTP or Pacific War (both by G. Grigsby), but IIRC in one (or possibly both) game Japanese flak had a modifier of 0.75. Not sure if that is still the case, one of the Dev Team might though.

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: derp

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)

Are you talking about flak or dirt? Cuz dirt can be spread out on 46mi hex when flak concentrate in places which need to defend from air attack)

[derp]

ORIGINAL: btbw

Are you talking about flak or dirt? Cuz dirt can be spread out on 46mi hex when flak concentrate in places which need to defend from air attack)

I appreciate the condescension, but it's still a very small number - given your average hex, with a port, a couple of airfields and some ground units to cover any flight against a particular target is only liable to encounter a fraction of them. I don't know what fraction fires in-game - perhaps it's most of them to compensate for the fact that there's no mechanism for firing at aircraft between their base and the target - but I would suspect it's not every single gun.

[crsutton]

Japanese guns were not so hot and they basically used manual fire control. They did not shoot down much anyways. Allied flak is another story. I am OK with ground flak as the 90 mm gun works fine. As for naval, it has been said already that the 5 inch dual purpose will not work as a flak platform in stock. That is why Allied naval flak is tepid at best. What about the Japanese naval dual purpose guns? Anyone know if they work?

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: derp
I appreciate the condescension, but it's still a very small number - given your average hex, with a port, a couple of airfields and some ground units to cover any flight against a particular target is only liable to encounter a fraction of them. I don't know what fraction fires in-game - perhaps it's most of them to compensate for the fact that there's no mechanism for firing at aircraft between their base and the target - but I would suspect it's not every single gun.

I wonder how much number of flak ENOUGH for you?

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: derp

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.

There is I think a tendency towards tunnel vision with regards to AA guns; people look at them and say "well, I only killed X aircraft today, they're obviously not doing anything at all" etc. Basically, there are two things that don't seem to be factored in a lot of the time:

- Effect of AA fire on bomber accuraccy - what's the odds a bomber hits what it's aiming at at a base with no AA guns v 50, or 200, or however many? Obviously the point at which it becomes a really significant factor is dependent on the size of the raid involved - but then that's a question of concentration that is completely situational. If you have a lot of guns, you can significantly hit the number of hits (so to speak).

- Effects of disruption on AA guns - remember that raids on airbases hit AA and base force units too; if the raids are large ones and the AA complement at the base isn't big enough to stand up to the number of hits involved they will get tired and disrupted and etc as the bombing progresses, which can take a few days to settle - days you won't have if bombing is persistent. I don't think many people look at those numbers too hard...they make a big difference.

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)

The fact remains: 14 months of war, and japanese flak have shot down just 35 allied planes. 25 of these are dive bombers, and I think land based flak have shot down just 5 or 6 planes. 14 months, 6 planes.

Historically it was dangerous job to attack major japanese air bases with numerous flak guns. In this game it's not.

[Sardaukar]

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.

True, but it still looks very much like flak has been seriously nerfed for both sides. I stated the case for the Allies earlier but Puhis has done a fine job of doing so for the Japanese side as well. We all know that the guys who made the DaBabes mods felt that it needed to be adjusted and so do many of us who continue to play stock.

My point is that I just wish the devs would come forward and state the facts so when those new to the game come to the forum seeking the conventional wisdom of the experienced players we can give them a definitive answer.

[Puhis]

I think allied land based flak is OK, it is suicidal to fly japanese planes below 10k. Also, japanese shipborne flak is OK. Japanese heavy ships have 12,7 cm AA guns, and that gun have good stats. Some of the japanese destroyer's DP guns have too good stats (as a AA gun), historically some turret models didn't have true AA capapility like they have in game.

I think japanese land based flak and allied shipborne flak are too weak.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

OK, here is the Japanese 75mm AAA, nothing special, and nothing stands out about it. However, I can't remember if it was in WiTP or Pacific War (both by G. Grigsby), but IIRC in one (or possibly both) game Japanese flak had a modifier of 0.75. Not sure if that is still the case, one of the Dev Team might though.

This is the 75mm I was using, device #068. It has a start date of 12/1941 and an Effect of 13. The one you posted is a '9999' with an Effect of 15. I am no editor maven, so I'm not sure which one is 'better'.

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've done a little experiment and with 2 simple changes to each AAA gun and its gone from what it is stock to completely deadly, even for Japan. Of course it messes with the game balance so in the end, best to leave it be.

Tweaking stuff without knowing the formula is an exercise in guesswork at best. Personally I find allied flak to
be utter Anaemic on naval vessels. This is ofc just one opinion. If/When or even should this be addressed, I leave
to others.

TTFN.

Hence why I came up with it being better to leave it be. The two things I did was to increase the ceiling to the max listed for the guns, and also increased ammo capacity. The changes were very noticable, but had unintended consequences. Then again, never know till you try, right? If you are interested, you could try it yourself.

Sorry Shark, think I cam across a bit less sympathetic than I should. WE should experiment i agree and kudos for trying. was just stating the law of unintended consequences before we get a pile of single issue ideas don't look at the bigger picture.

Also wasn't aware of the 5inch gun issue. That does seem a bit odd its not DP(in game) ?? is there a reason why i wonder?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.

True, but it still looks very much like flak has been seriously nerfed for both sides. I stated the case for the Allies earlier but Puhis has done a fine job of doing so for the Japanese side as well. We all know that the guys who made the DaBabes mods felt that it needed to be adjusted and so do many of us who continue to play stock.

My point is that I just wish the devs would come forward and state the facts so when those new to the game come to the forum seeking the conventional wisdom of the experienced players we can give them a definitive answer.

I hate it to say, but I really suggest to ppl thinking about this issue the same as I do to just start any new game using one of the Babes versions. Not only does this handle flak but also ASW and subwarfare. Doesn't help anyone with an ongoing game, I know.