Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

This is great work but I sure hope someone address the 5" DP guns. I believe they are the backbone of the AA defense for the Allies and they increase in value the later in the war the game goes. Right now they are pretty useless, even in 45. Essentially the game discounts proximity fuses and radar directed fire. Bot of which got progressively better and more numerous. Definitely on the of the biggest remaining flaws in an other wise excellent game.

Radar fire control and proximity fuze are supposedly hard-coded, they should start to have more effect in 1944. IIRC, they went to have later date for proximity fuze than in WitP, since it was widespread only in 1944 onwards.

But this is just from memory based on forum tidbits, those in-the-know can of course englighten us more. [8D]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Thanks - heck, I remember that as f as in f(x).

me too but thought it would be just a "European - American thing" [:D]

I haven't done a controlled experiment but I have played 2 games into 1945 and have read most AAR's and I would say they are not working. Japanese and Allied Task forces have about the same amount of AAA kills through 1945 (check the "shattered vow" AAR), this is just wrong. Additionally, no one has brough an Allied Task Force close to the Home Islands in 1945 without suffering devastating losses. Some of this is probably the anemic 20 & 40mm stuff but stacking a TF with high AA value BB's and CLAA has no effect.

Well, if a lot of IJNAF and IJAAF bombers, torpedo-bombers and dive-bombers as well as kamis can blow through the CAP wouldn't one expect a lot of casualties?

High casualty rates aren't proof of poor modelling in and of themselves... If the CAP isn't there than 200 attackers should butcher the Allied shipping.

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I haven't done a controlled experiment but I have played 2 games into 1945 and have read most AAR's and I would say they are not working. Japanese and Allied Task forces have about the same amount of AAA kills through 1945 (check the "shattered vow" AAR), this is just wrong. Additionally, no one has brough an Allied Task Force close to the Home Islands in 1945 without suffering devastating losses. Some of this is probably the anemic 20 & 40mm stuff but stacking a TF with high AA value BB's and CLAA has no effect.

I think AdmSpruance has done exactly that in 1944 multiple times and continuously in his AAR against StoneAge. Of course he has been able to protect his Tfs with massive CAP too.

I think AdmSpruance has done exactly that in 1944 multiple times and continuously in his AAR against StoneAge. Of course he has been able to protect his Tfs with massive CAP too.

Thanks, another AAR to read![:)] Ah, this project plan wasn't really going anywhere today anyway. Reading it now

I think AdmSpruance has done exactly that in 1944 multiple times and continuously in his AAR against StoneAge. Of course he has been able to protect his Tfs with massive CAP too.

Looks like StoneAge has nothing left at this stage of the game. his strikes are coming in as dozens of planes vs hundreds of interceptors. I've attached a screen print of Japanese air loses. Signle engine losses against flak are very small. A couple of dozen for the war. Look at Val's and Kates. These were probablely against carriers. Perhaps some of the ops losses were flak hits that made it back but these numbers look low for the Japanese against flak.

4% flak losses?

Not many will make it through CAP AdmSpruance is able to project over his CV TFs. But yes, IMHO in stock scenarios, AAA is too ineffective. Thus the change in DaBabes. 

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I haven't done a controlled experiment but I have played 2 games into 1945 and have read most AAR's and I would say they are not working. Japanese and Allied Task forces have about the same amount of AAA kills through 1945 (check the "shattered vow" AAR),

I don't remember much data on AAA kills being posted in that AAR. In my own naval battles experience, Allied AA shoots down 2-3 times more planes than Japanese. In 1942.

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
this is just wrong. Additionally, no one has brough an Allied Task Force close to the Home Islands in 1945 without suffering devastating losses.

This is completely not true. Well, unless you, for some bizarre reason, do not count bringing Allied carriers to Home Islands before 1945 (and then nuking everything that floats or builds at will). Oh well, Spruance AAR is already mentioned. On that note, it is only the second current AAR to get so far in the war (without Japan surrendering earlier, that is).

Post like this is the main reason I'm extremely vary of the impending AAA fix. A lot of people seem to have a bizarre notion, that Allied AAA should be able to deal with big, well-coordinated strikes (as opposed to scattered groups of leakers, with which it almost always dealt in RL, and with which it successfully deals already in AE, in my experience), and, while AAA can use a bit of boost, if the developers have decided to accomodate that crowd, it will actively worsen the game both in regards to historical accuracy and to players' input being meaningful.

Post like this is the main reason I'm extremely vary of the impending AAA fix. A lot of people seem to have a bizarre notion, that Allied AAA should be able to deal with big, well-coordinated strikes

as in real life, maybe they can deal with the large strike, maybe not. I my experience a series of large strikes ALWAYS get through. Doesn't matter if the CAP is in the hundreds, and the AA ratings of the ships in the task force is through the roof, the strikes always get through and that is just as unrealistic as the strikes never getting through. I could be wrong here but 4% loss to AA seems low. I will look but if anybody has any data as to the % of aircraft lost to flak please post.

Well the thing with FlAK losses is that there is an opportunity effect.

If I send 1,000 planes against a CV TF and meet a 4,000 fighter CAP and all of my planes get shot down before they reach an enemy ship I would have 0% FlAK losses. Does that mean the FlAK is useless? No, it just means that the base statistics don't provide an accurate level of FlAK effectiveness.

You have to look at FlAK effectiveness as being a measure of how many planes it destroys as a proportion of those which make it into FlAK range. For all we know he may have lost 500 planes to FlAK and had 600 planes exposed to it. That would make FlAK 84% lethal vs enemy planes. If on the other hand he lost 500 planes out of 5,000 exposed to it then that's 10% lethal which isn't nearly so good. The losses don't give us enough info.

I, personally, am seeing roughly 40% single-engined kami losses to FlAK in Armaggedon testing of the kamis which make it into FlAK range. I think that's a pretty good figure personally. In my reading of kami literature I am finding about 1/3rd of kamis which reached the ships got downed by FlAK, about 1/3rd crashed ( probably somewhat damaged by the FLAK ) and just under 1/3rd actually got hits on shipping.

About 8 months ago I did run a small flak test using Guadalcanal scenario. 2 CV vs. 2 CV (and escorts), no CAP at all.

summa summarum: After 10 rounds allied flak losses were 154/1312 = 11,7 %
Japanese losses were 210/1016 = 20,7 %

Kates were over 3 times vulnerable to flak than Avengers.

I don't see big problem here. It would be interesting to run same kind of test using Marianas scenario.

Armaggedon

What's Armaggedon?
thanks

I don't know how you must to play to lose only 4% to flak.

Flak losses inflicted on Japanese in my Allied PBEM (ended in October of 1942): 505 out of 3205. Admittedly, that was one of JuanG's mods, with beefier naval AAA.
Flak losses in my own Japanese PBEM (June of 1942, no carrier battles so far): 246 out of 2851.

Armaggedon is my nickname for my EA-style mini-mod for AndyMac's Downfall scenario.

No changes to FlAK from the base stock game... I'm seeing about 1/3rd of single-engined kamis which get into flak range getting downed by FlAK ( which seems right to me ). Twin-engined bombers do much,much better, as you'd expect. |One thing I should mention is that those 33% or so losses are to single-engined fighter-bombers with armour. I would expect Kates and Vals and Judys to suffer even more horrendously... which seems fair to me.


I think the 4% FlAK result speaks more to the effectiveness of the Allied CAP than the ineffectiveness of Allied FlAK.

Given all the bizarre, utter crap being spewed on various forums, DaBabes information will no longer be posted on any of these forums. Babes players can continue to recieve info privately, in the usual fashion.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Given all the bizarre, utter crap being spewed on various forums, DaBabes information will no longer be posted on any of these forums. Babes players can continue to recieve info privately, in the usual fashion.

Very sorry to read this. Although not currently playing DaBabes (need to finish current stock game first) I regularly popped in to keep abreast of developments.

As a potential "retail customer" is it possible to "receive info privately, in the usual fashion" what ever that actually entails.[:)]

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: JWE

Given all the bizarre, utter crap being spewed on various forums, DaBabes information will no longer be posted on any of these forums. Babes players can continue to recieve info privately, in the usual fashion.

Very sorry to read this. Although not currently playing DaBabes (need to finish current stock game first) I regularly popped in to keep abreast of developments.

As a potential "retail customer" is it possible to "receive info privately, in the usual fashion" what ever that actually entails.[:)]

Alfred

Ditto here, please...[&o]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Given all the bizarre, utter crap being spewed on various forums, DaBabes information will no longer be posted on any of these forums. Babes players can continue to recieve info privately, in the usual fashion.

Sorry to hear this as well. I've almost reached 43 in my first Da Babes game and would be interested in receiving any updates in the future, if at all possible.