Page 2 of 2
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:19 am
by oldman45
Actually I find it amazing when a Betty strike survives any torp run on a US warship.
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:33 am
by CV 2
Dont know why you bother posting the combat report. Unless you are playing with FoW off, it is meaningless. Look at the intell screen and see how many planes were lost on the day. That is more accurate (but still not 100%). The combat report is often (always?) WAY off actual losses. That being said, yes "stock" AEs AA is a joke. Just quit a game in Nov 43 (I as Japs had over 40k points to about 17k for the allies - I was very close to an auto-win) because the allied player started flying 4e bombers at 1000 ft. Even over Rangoon (which had a dozen base forces and another dozen AA units) he got away with only damaged aircraft (and not many of them either).
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:29 am
by JocMeister
ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Can flak actually shoot down planes in AE? [X(]
I laughed at this, and then I loaded up DaBigBabes' Guadalcanal scenario and watched as the CLAAs damaged an entire squadron of Betty's and even shot down two, with no successful torpedo launches. I'm just about sold on DaBabes for my next playthrough attempt.
I´m going to give DBB vs the AI or something and see how it handles flak. I´m currently reading Samuel Morisons books on the pacific and atleast according to him flak shot down more planes then a few per month
In his books Allied ship flak shot down a huge amount of Jap A/C. Havn´t seen that in AE! Nor in any of the AARs I´m reading. Especially one episode etched in my memory. I think it was in the "Rising sun" book. In early 42 the Houston was attacked by a good number of aircraft outside of Java. Houston put up such an amount of AA fire that the the attacking aircraft was unable to attack at all. Pilots feared AA for a reason I think
Both land an ship AA seems a lot more ineffective then it really was. But then again I´m no expert [:)]
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:54 am
by CV 2
Someone had posted here some months back something that showed aircraft losses in the USSBS and it showed more aircraft lost to AA than to air to air combat (in the PTO).
Should say allied aircraft. Not aircraft of all nations.
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:46 pm
by crsutton
You might have a case. That is a pretty severe result. I don't think there is much argument here that flak can be a bit anemic in the game.
However, citing one or two example is not going to give you much support. I would suggest running that first turn 15-20 times and then post your results. That would then provide the basis for a good discussion on the subject.
Not that it has not been discussed to death already...[;)]
RE: Pearl Harbor Flak
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:48 pm
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: CV 2
Someone had posted here some months back something that showed aircraft losses in the USSBS and it showed more aircraft lost to AA than to air to air combat (in the PTO).
Should say allied aircraft. Not aircraft of all nations.
I originally posted those stats and have just posted a link to them recently.