Looking at A2A Combat numbers.

[thek3mu]

Wouldn't You ... ?

ksnip_20261105-105410.png (290.52 KiB) Viewed 160 times

oh boy, my head is spinning! thanks a bundle.

[Wiedrock]

Propagandakompanies are recruiting!

[MechFO]

Great investigation yet again.

It's all rather complex and a thing between realism and execution in a code I assume.
Like, I can say that the damage difference between a 20mm and 30mm shell is too little. There is a "US Army European Bombing Air Armaments Report" (of which I only know a few pictures), which indicates the 20mm destroying a bomber to 6% per hit while a 30mm is assumed to destroy a bomber to 25% per hit. So 25/6=4.167 times increase. Similar numbers are also reflected in the explosive fillers which increased from 18.7g to 85g. So 85/18.7=4.55 times the explosives. But the ingame values do not reflect this improvement, even when accounting for RoF it isn't even a x1.5 while it should likely be a x4 to x4.5. This is not to say the ingame numbers are "wrong" since I also do not know off a way to make these "facts" balanced in a code.

But as the damage figures show it may not be balanced to begin with.

Most authoritative work on the subject of aircraft guns is probably still from Tony Williams

https://quarryhs.co.uk/home/index/

His overview for WWII guns and fighters

https://web.archive.org/web/20220129130 ... effect.htm


RNG does play a huge role in outcomes since location/type of damage is so important.


FYI the ACC stat in the game is supposed to be derived from the real Rate of Fire. Back in 2022, most MG ACC numbers clustered around Rate of Fire/30.

The patches since then have changed this for many guns. I remapped everything yesterday, now it is much more disparate, so I'm not sure what is the basis now. Maybe a Muzzle Velocity component?

[MechFO]

Thank you for the research into this. Is it realistic to expect a fix in a future patch or is it deeper than that?

Cutting the excessive damage numbers at least in halve should work without changing the damage (so to have a ~600 max hit only be ~250 [....which is still exzessive tho^^...just less so]).
But if the Devs want to tackle/touch the balance or make the damage numbers more LARPy (as in "you do not make 200+ damage to planes with a max HP of 69") is another matter, since they at some point in the past must have decided to massively increase OPS/A2A losses compared to previous WitW levels for some reason.
So if they were to change the damage numbers while maintaining the balance you'd not even realize it without looking up the log files.

I am only rly focusing on the damage once engagements happen here, so the very last step of a long line of events. But there is also the whole other stuff before which changes balance, which may look something like (not a definitively proven/known listing!):
1. spotting→taking off
2. reaching combat location and interdicting (happens likely more frequent in WitE2)
3. deciding who engages whom (plane vs plane) - this is the step that ends usually with 90%+ 'engagement kill rate'
4. shooting, at which range(s) and how often at each
5. when hit, calculate damage for the individual "shot"
Now the question is if the change in balance is solely caused by the excessive damage under "5." which I am observing or by other factors in 1.-4. (or a mix).

The excessive damage IMO isn't a problem. Wing getting shot off, fuel tank burning etc.

The gun and durability values were taken wholesale form GG's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich. I suspect quite a bit of the air combat code was reused as well.

[Wiedrock]

Thank you for the research into this. Is it realistic to expect a fix in a future patch or is it deeper than that?

Cutting the excessive damage numbers at least in halve should work without changing the damage (so to have a ~600 max hit only be ~250 [....which is still exzessive tho^^...just less so]).
But if the Devs want to tackle/touch the balance or make the damage numbers more LARPy (as in "you do not make 200+ damage to planes with a max HP of 69") is another matter, since they at some point in the past must have decided to massively increase OPS/A2A losses compared to previous WitW levels for some reason.
So if they were to change the damage numbers while maintaining the balance you'd not even realize it without looking up the log files.

I am only rly focusing on the damage once engagements happen here, so the very last step of a long line of events. But there is also the whole other stuff before which changes balance, which may look something like (not a definitively proven/known listing!):
1. spotting→taking off
2. reaching combat location and interdicting (happens likely more frequent in WitE2)
3. deciding who engages whom (plane vs plane) - this is the step that ends usually with 90%+ 'engagement kill rate'
4. shooting, at which range(s) and how often at each
5. when hit, calculate damage for the individual "shot"
Now the question is if the change in balance is solely caused by the excessive damage under "5." which I am observing or by other factors in 1.-4. (or a mix).

The excessive damage IMO isn't a problem. Wing getting shot off, fuel tank burning etc.

The gun and durability values were taken wholesale form GG's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich. I suspect quite a bit of the air combat code was reused as well.

If there was this one "lucky crit" then this would be fine and just those crit planes would receive massive damage. But the average is so high per shot compared to Durability that you can call 70% of hits a crit.

Where I was comming from is from searching for the missing damaged planes. So I was looking into damage, since this is the basis for being damaged, so to speak.
But if the usual shot is a 70% oneshot and the usual engagement a 90%+ kill (since who shoots/hits one will likely hit several times more at same/other ranges with same/other guns) then there are not many planes to be damaged left after an aerial combat.
So the massive damage causes kill:damaged ratios not reflective of any real world operations.

Furthermore you have "mechanics/rules" that speak for the code being awesome in its complexity/LARP'ness (e.g. return fire/back&forth in A2A combat + more) but being of no relevance with 70% oneshots, 90% twoshots and such.

Additionally damage is the easiest quantifyiable thing we have. We can not see all steps in the logs.

Then you also have the damage exceeding 250 what the engine can't rly handle it appears as shown before (exceeding already with single shots).
And who knows what's the reason for things like the following *yey damaged planes*.

excessive damage.png (284.25 KiB) Viewed 71 times

Great investigation yet again.

It's all rather complex and a thing between realism and execution in a code I assume.
Like, I can say that the damage difference between a 20mm and 30mm shell is too little. There is a "US Army European Bombing Air Armaments Report" (of which I only know a few pictures), which indicates the 20mm destroying a bomber to 6% per hit while a 30mm is assumed to destroy a bomber to 25% per hit. So 25/6=4.167 times increase. Similar numbers are also reflected in the explosive fillers which increased from 18.7g to 85g. So 85/18.7=4.55 times the explosives. But the ingame values do not reflect this improvement, even when accounting for RoF it isn't even a x1.5 while it should likely be a x4 to x4.5. This is not to say the ingame numbers are "wrong" since I also do not know off a way to make these "facts" balanced in a code.

But as the damage figures show it may not be balanced to begin with.

Most authoritative work on the subject of aircraft guns is probably still from Tony Williams

https://quarryhs.co.uk/home/index/

His overview for WWII guns and fighters

https://web.archive.org/web/20220129130 ... effect.htm


RNG does play a huge role in outcomes since location/type of damage is so important.


FYI the ACC stat in the game is supposed to be derived from the real Rate of Fire. Back in 2022, most MG ACC numbers clustered around Rate of Fire/30.

The patches since then have changed this for many guns. I remapped everything yesterday, now it is much more disparate, so I'm not sure what is the basis now. Maybe a Muzzle Velocity component?

Thanks, I will look into the one with the many sites in the comming days. The other one I've also found which rly gives good analysis, this was where I found it: https://flying-guns.com/world-war-2-fig ... ctiveness/

I do not know anything about where the ingame numbers are comming from or what they are derived from.
You sure it was /30 and not /60 [per second]?
I don't think they themselves are reason for the difference between WitW and WitE2.
What the game is "missing" (as separate stats) is the Ammo/'Seconds of Continuous Fire', which probably explains some numbers being unexplainable by themselves.

I obv. did speadsheet the charts trying to make sense how damage figures may have been derived [failed]. Tried using the smallest (Rifle Caliber) as base.
It ignores armor, cut ratios simply "/2" for the sake. Maybe then some make sense ^^.

DPS and such.PNG (31.99 KiB) Viewed 71 times