Page 2 of 3
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:44 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
U.S. AA fire at Pearl Harbor is drastically reduced by the game if you have Dec 7 Surprise on. AA fire the next day should be a lot worse {for the IJN player}. And a reason for the IJN player to NOT hang around for a second day's attack on Pearl.
Its positively lethal Day 2 in JWE's Babes with his AA tweaks/fixes. Maybe a bit too much but one thing's for sure.....you won't want to 'hang around' and keep bombing the base if you want a KB left worth preserving. lol. reminded me of old NikMod flak back in the day [:D]
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:37 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
U.S. AA fire at Pearl Harbor is drastically reduced by the game if you have Dec 7 Surprise on. AA fire the next day should be a lot worse {for the IJN player}. And a reason for the IJN player to NOT hang around for a second day's attack on Pearl.
Its positively lethal Day 2 in JWE's Babes with his AA tweaks/fixes.
I love it when a plan comes together.[;)]
Maybe a bit too much
Bite your tongue, you Philistine.
but one thing's for sure.....you won't want to 'hang around' and keep bombing the base if you want a KB left worth preserving. lol. reminded me of old NikMod flak back in the day[:D]
And where do ya think the whole idea came from?[8D]
Yes, Flak on Dec 7 is governed by a code thing. Ain't ever gonna change. Flak number at a base is the number of guns, not their effectiveness. So if you got 10,000 AAMGs, I hope you also have some forts (bomb shelters) built.
As a (very) few of you have already figured out, Flak (like everything else) falls off with altitude (range). Guns work better within their effective envelope. But the trick is matching altitude envelopes between and among the AAA and Airplane algorithms. Not hard, just painstaking. Once the Airplane data got tweaked for AE, the stock AAA data didn't quite match with respect to the code, so there was a data redefinition in Babes to get it righteous.
If the Flak thing simply burns your bridges, I suggest you grab one of the "tweaked" Stock scenarios from the Babes site, and play that instead. They all have the AAA data tweaks.
Any changes to the executable code with respect to this will be violently vetoed, so don't even think of going there.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 9:44 pm
by spence
I always thought the Japanese attacked with around 350 planes and lost 29. Thats hardly 30% loses but what do I know
29 shot down outright in the attack but of the ones that returned to the carriers there were many that were simply pushed over the side after landing because they were beyond repair. Overall the effectiveness of the KB was seriously reduced by the reduction in airframes. Also affecting Nagumo's reasoning at the time would have been the knowledge that neither Judy (D4) nor Jill (B6) production goals were likely to be met (in any kind of way remotely resembling in time to matter for 1942or even for 1943 as it turned out) and one needs to wonder what kind of leader would throw away both irreplaceable pilots and nearly irreplaceable airframes. There are those who claim that the IJN had no problem with either Val or Kate production in 1942 but one really has to wonder why the IJN showed up for every carrier engagement in 1942 with reduced airgroups (compared to capacity) or why there were no torpedo bombers at all on Ryujo and Junyo when they supported the invasion of the Aleutians.
The effects of 1st turn surprise are overblown in so far as the damage inflicted on the Americans (about twice as many ships hit, damaged and sunk as in real life) is concerned and grossly understated in so far as damage to the attackers is concerned.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 9:57 pm
by Mac Linehan
ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
U.S. AA fire at Pearl Harbor is drastically reduced by the game if you have Dec 7 Surprise on. AA fire the next day should be a lot worse {for the IJN player}. And a reason for the IJN player to NOT hang around for a second day's attack on Pearl.
Its positively lethal Day 2 in JWE's Babes with his AA tweaks/fixes.
I love it when a plan comes together.[;)]
Maybe a bit too much
Bite your tongue, you Philistine.
but one thing's for sure.....you won't want to 'hang around' and keep bombing the base if you want a KB left worth preserving. lol. reminded me of old NikMod flak back in the day[:D]
And where do ya think the whole idea came from?[8D]
Yes, Flak on Dec 7 is governed by a code thing. Ain't ever gonna change. Flak number at a base is the number of guns, not their effectiveness. So if you got 10,000 AAMGs, I hope you also have some forts (bomb shelters) built.
As a (very) few of you have already figured out, Flak (like everything else) falls off with altitude (range). Guns work better within their effective envelope. But the trick is matching altitude envelopes between and among the AAA and Airplane algorithms. Not hard, just painstaking. Once the Airplane data got tweaked for AE, the stock AAA data didn't quite match with respect to the code, so there was a data redefinition in Babes to get it righteous.
If the Flak thing simply burns your bridges, I suggest you grab one of the "tweaked" Stock scenarios from the Babes site, and play that instead. They all have the AAA data tweaks.
Any changes to the executable code with respect to this will be violently vetoed, so don't even think of going there.
As an Naval AAA seaflak bunny, I
righteously approve the above message.
Mac
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:57 am
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
U.S. AA fire at Pearl Harbor is drastically reduced by the game if you have Dec 7 Surprise on. AA fire the next day should be a lot worse {for the IJN player}. And a reason for the IJN player to NOT hang around for a second day's attack on Pearl.
Its positively lethal Day 2 in JWE's Babes with his AA tweaks/fixes.
I love it when a plan comes together.[;)]
Maybe a bit too much
Bite your tongue, you Philistine.
but one thing's for sure.....you won't want to 'hang around' and keep bombing the base if you want a KB left worth preserving. lol. reminded me of old NikMod flak back in the day[:D]
And where do ya think the whole idea came from?[8D]
.
Its nice to be appreciated. [:)]
effective flak is always a nice thing.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:43 am
by CRations
ORIGINAL: spence
I always thought the Japanese attacked with around 350 planes and lost 29. Thats hardly 30% loses but what do I know
29 shot down outright in the attack but of the ones that returned to the carriers there were many that were simply pushed over the side after landing because they were beyond repair. Overall the effectiveness of the KB was seriously reduced by the reduction in airframes. Also affecting Nagumo's reasoning at the time would have been the knowledge that neither Judy (D4) nor Jill (B6) production goals were likely to be met (in any kind of way remotely resembling in time to matter for 1942or even for 1943 as it turned out) and one needs to wonder what kind of leader would throw away both irreplaceable pilots and nearly irreplaceable airframes. There are those who claim that the IJN had no problem with either Val or Kate production in 1942 but one really has to wonder why the IJN showed up for every carrier engagement in 1942 with reduced airgroups (compared to capacity) or why there were no torpedo bombers at all on Ryujo and Junyo when they supported the invasion of the Aleutians.
The effects of 1st turn surprise are overblown in so far as the damage inflicted on the Americans (about twice as many ships hit, damaged and sunk as in real life) is concerned and grossly understated in so far as damage to the attackers is concerned.
You realize there is a December 8th start scenario if you want the historical start - yes?
CR
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 2:36 am
by LoBaron
ORIGINAL: spence
The effects of 1st turn surprise are overblown in so far as the damage inflicted on the Americans (about twice as many ships hit, damaged and sunk as in real life) is concerned [...]
I could point you to several threads whining about the exact opposite...
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:26 am
by USSAmerica
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: spence
The effects of 1st turn surprise are overblown in so far as the damage inflicted on the Americans (about twice as many ships hit, damaged and sunk as in real life) is concerned [...]
I could point you to several threads whining about the exact opposite...
In my case, "several" would mean "almost every one I read about Dec 7th." [:D]
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:28 am
by Erkki
ORIGINAL: USS America
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: spence
The effects of 1st turn surprise are overblown in so far as the damage inflicted on the Americans (about twice as many ships hit, damaged and sunk as in real life) is concerned [...]
I could point you to several threads whining about the exact opposite...
In my case, "several" would mean "almost every one I read about Dec 7th." [:D]
See the first page of my AAR. [;)]
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:14 am
by castor troy
The last attack on PH on Dec 7th in my game against Cuttlefish saw 6 or 7 bombers lost over PH. With FOW on, this might have been even less as I am the Allied player and usually the kills are overclaimed. Babeslite campaign.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:09 pm
by decaro
ORIGINAL: JWE
Yes, Flak on Dec 7 is governed by a code thing. Ain't ever gonna change. Flak number at a base is the number of guns, not their effectiveness ...
What about light vs. heavy AA batteries, or is that only a matter of altitude.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:17 pm
by Nikademus
all AA, whether light or heavy, grey or blue has a max alt setting. Fly over it......the AA don't "fire" at the plane. Thats always been the case from stock days
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 4:29 pm
by geofflambert
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: spence
The effects of 1st turn surprise are overblown in so far as the damage inflicted on the Americans (about twice as many ships hit, damaged and sunk as in real life) is concerned [...]
I could point you to several threads whining about the exact opposite...
This must be an excellent subject since there are whiners on both sides of this issue. In my case (I hope vontiger is not reading this) I had (from my current PBEM) 5 BBs sunk and one with 97% fires that sank on the 8th.
The survivors were 400+ days out.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:11 pm
by spence
See the first page of my AAR.
I did. You damaged 25 ships or so which is 7 more than in real life. You shorted your raid on PH by about 100 B5Ns and apparently wasted some of your raid on the city of Honolulu. If it didn't turn out like the movie that's just too bad.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 8:01 pm
by Erkki
ORIGINAL: spence
---
How about not discussing the details of my AAR in public! [:-]
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 8:42 pm
by Wirraway_Ace
ORIGINAL: castor troy
The last attack on PH on Dec 7th in my game against Cuttlefish saw 6 or 7 bombers lost over PH. With FOW on, this might have been even less as I am the Allied player and usually the kills are overclaimed. Babeslite campaign.
One of the significant tactical choices the japanese player can make on the PH attack that greatly influences DB losses is whether to set them to an altitude to level bomb vs dive bomb. If I set my Vals to level bomb, I take very few losses, but obviously hit at a much lower rate. This was not their method of attack in RL.
Same with the Kates. Set them to level bombing altitude (versus glide bombing altitudes) and if they fail their check and carry a bomb, they will take very low losses. If carrying a torp, they will, of course drop within range of of every piece of AA.
Same with fighters. If you set a few datais to strafe as was historically done, you will take higher losses on average.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:05 pm
by spence
How about not discussing the details of my AAR in public!
Give me a break! You posted it publicly. I suspect that the intel value to your opponent of the raid which took place 17 pages ago is somewhat less than minimal. But maybe they just missed that raid and wondered why all those ships had smoking icons when they clicked on them. I suppose if you were playing an unconscious opponent.... Do you think that if they wake up and read my post they'll win the game? I'm so sorry.[8|]
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:16 pm
by geofflambert
ORIGINAL: spence
How about not discussing the details of my AAR in public!
Give me a break! You posted it publicly. I suspect that the intel value to your opponent of the raid which took place 17 pages ago is somewhat less than minimal. But maybe they just missed that raid and wondered why all those ships had smoking icons when they clicked on them. I suppose if you were playing an unconscious opponent.... Do you think that if they wake up and read my post they'll win the game? I'm so sorry.[8|]
Dude, everything posted is public, but prefaced so the opponent knows not to read it. I've been a frequent perpetrator of bad behavior, but listen to me, you're headed toward a bad place. Stop being so hostile to anyone and everyone.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:46 am
by spence
Dude, everything posted is public, but prefaced so the opponent knows not to read it. I've been a frequent perpetrator of bad behavior, but listen to me, you're headed toward a bad place. Stop being so hostile to anyone and everyone.
EXCEPT that those very details were posted as "proof" of how AAA at PH is such a terror to the JFBs so that the facts that:
1) He used less planes than historically
2) Attacked the city
3) Damaged more ships than historically
4) Suffered losses to AAA that were still less than historically
ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.
RE: Experience of AA units
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:16 am
by Erkki
ORIGINAL: spence
Dude, everything posted is public, but prefaced so the opponent knows not to read it. I've been a frequent perpetrator of bad behavior, but listen to me, you're headed toward a bad place. Stop being so hostile to anyone and everyone.
EXCEPT that those very details were posted as "proof" of how AAA at PH is such a terror to the JFBs so that the facts that:
1) He used less planes than historically
2) Attacked the city
3) Damaged more ships than historically
4) Suffered losses to AAA that were still less than historically
ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.
My "read the first page of my AAR" was an invitation for everyone possibly interested to read about an in-game PH attack that achieved less than the historical attack(and less than the attack tends to achieve to "most" Japanese players), despite the attack settings = air group orders being exactly the same, and Dec 7 surprise being on.
Any way, had you actually bothered to read the AAR you'd see that all 4 of your points are false(well, I dont exactly know how many ships were hit IRL, but if, in my game, all but the BBs were fixed within 2 months, did it and does it matter, at all?).
Feel free to discuss the attack and how it went in the AAR thread. Dont do it here. Thank you!
EDIT: By the way, when exactly did I say the AAA was a terror? Overpowered? Borked?