goodbye heavy bomber force, your AAA defenders have deserted you

[Sheytan]

Seems to be the case based of the number of MB nailed.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Was the base over stacked?  If a base is over stacked, there are not enough dispersal areas for planes and bombing raids will destroy a lot of aircraft.

There are a lot of factors in AA effectiveness.  The skill level of the AA units is going to count.  Length of warning is another.  I would expect a little better result from 200 AA pieces, but there is also the luck of the roll.

Bill

[Sheytan]

LOL!!!!!!!!! Jo is funny...too bad if you feel that way. Everyone is entitled to a opinion here yes? Take a pill or whatever. JO IS DER FUNNYZ
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:'(][:'(][:'(][:'(][:)][:)][:)][8D][8D][8D][:D][:D][:D] I hope you get upset by this btw. Which means you really need to take those pills. And yes... the engine still has issues :} JO IS DER FUNNY!

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

It wasn't directed at you BUT there are people ( who posted to the thread ) who routinely blame everything on the game engine and continuously shout throughout the forum that it must be broken etc etc ( from sweeps to the performance of FlAK to the performance of ASW etc ) and, yeah, I find that annoying after the nth time when it is clear that others who put the time and effort into proper force mixes ARE able to get reasonable results from their forces in-game.

Since my comment doesn't apply to you I wouldn't take it personally if I were you but, as ever, humans are strange creatures and often insist on taking personally that which isn't. Its your choice, I wouldn't dream of impinging on your right to take something personally which isn't. Personally though I hope you accept it wasn't aimed at you and move on... but when push comes to shove its up to you.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The purpose of flak is to protect the assets being defended, not to shoot down aircraft. The RN learned this after initially getting it wrong--they found that putting 4" AA under local control on merchies did little to kill attacking aircraft, but increased the survivability of the ship by a factor of about 2.5x, which was the important thing in the end.

unfortunetely my AA doesn´t defend my assets either...[:D] but that´s not the problem as I don´t care about these bombings anyway, just like I don´t care about artillery or flak as it´s just using up shipping space.

[John Lansford]

Nemo,
 
The IJA air attacks are much heavier on Akyab and Chittagong than I've ever heard of IRL.  We're talking a dozen or more bombers escorted by 5-6 dozen fighters, coming in 3-4 waves each day.  I've withdrawn all my fighter squadrons from the area because they just don't make any difference to these armadas.  I had every fighter squadron in the theater at those two bases, and the fighter escorts wore them down to the point I was getting only 1-2 planes in the air, if that.  That's why I brought in so much AAA; I figured if my fighters couldn't stop these attacks, at least I'd make them pay from ground based AA fire.

[crsutton]

I just finish one year of game time in my campaign vs Ark. As the Japanese side  he has lost about 4,000 aircraft with about 600 lost to flak. Most  have been killed by land based flak. I  have lost maybe 50-60 aircraft to flak. He is agressive and uses his bombers a lot to disrupt me and support operations, so I am shooting down a decent number. I tend to use my flak in groups at the base most likely to be attacked-sometimes four or five at a base. I might shoot down 2 or 3 bombers outright with another 20 damaged in the course of an 80 plane raid, with some of those damaged lost on the return trip and showing up as OP losses. So I am not unhappy with my Allied land based flak. It is not so much the kills as a heavily defended base will disrupt the attack and severly lessen my damage and losses. I am OK with how it works.
 
My complaint is with Allied Naval Flak which is not very good. I  have upgraded all ships to 40mm bofors and still my flak is anemic. My opponent's flax is anemic too as to be expected, but "just" as good as mine which should not be. Allied naval flak is way to weak. I think more Japanese planes were lost to flak than CAP in the war. This should be the case.
 
I will say that so far land base flak has been tough on both or our dive bombers. This is the way it should be. And, flak hardlly ever shoots down fighters. Unless the fighters are bombing themselves.

[Nemo121]

Castor Troy,

Last time my opponent raided that base with 30 bombers he lost 16 of them to FlAK. I had no fighters in the air since I didn't need them. In addition to this the 14 remaining bombers were so disrupted they really didn't get many hits. Just to be clear... This is in a perfectly vanilla Scenario 2 game. No changes to the database whatsoever.

I enclose a picture below which shows over 250 IJN bombers and strike craft destroyed by FlAK. In reality though this is a low-ball number since the main effect of the massive FlAK losses inflicted has been that the IJNAF and IJAAF simply haven't mounted any bomber raids against the defended bases for the past month. So, in reality the FlAK has achieved its strategic goal of creating bases almost entirely safe from enemy bomber attack. That's the real victory from using FlAK properly.


When I look at your numbers and compare them to mine what jumps out at me is that FlAK has accounted for only 7% of all losses in your game. In my game it has accounted for 13% of all losses. Since the two games are vanilla and, in both games Allied FlAK losses are very low ( due to the strategic situation ) you have to ask yourself why, since the game data is the exact same I am inflicting almost 100% more losses on the enemy than you. It cannot be the game code, since both games are vanilla, and my opponent flies at the same height as yours, sometimes higher ( he usually flies between 11,000 and 14,000 feet ).

Also, if you look at the actual Japanese losses and look at the number caused by FlAK you can see that by the time his bomber raids ended ( late February 1942 ) he had suffered 1/4 of his losses to FlAK. In March he has sent nothing into my FlAK traps ( a great victory in and of itself ) yet, still, 1/6th of his total plane loss has been due to FlAK, even if you disregard some massive ops losses which were flak-damaged planes crashing on the way home.

Bottom line though, since the games are the precise same and the data is precisely the same I believe the difference in effectiveness between 7% and 13% FlAK kills lies in the deployment of those units.


As to your attempts to mount personal attacks - Please feel free to torpedo your own position by doing so in future.



Sheytan,
Usually I make a point of replying to all posters constructively or, at least, to acknowledge their post. Occasionally however someone posts something which is truly beneath notice. In those situations no meaningful response is warranted.

[Nemo121]

John, if you'd like I'd be happy to send you a turn file from my game so you can check out what I'm talking about when I talk about FlAK traps and FlAK deployment.

I'm certain my dispositions aren't optimal yet but I do think they are getting reasonable results and thus might form a basis for you and I to discuss them on my AAR where some useful lessons might come to light for both of us and others. I don't think this thread is the place for a constructive discussion to bloom.

[castor troy]

These are the losses to flak in my game. Below that screen there aren´t really many Japanese ac left that would count as downed by flak. Together with the ones below that screen, flak has accounted for about 550 losses (op losses due to flak unknown). What strikes me in this screen is the 44 flak losses of the DinahII because in the screen posted earlier (dating March 43) the DinahII shows up with 83 flak losses. [&:] FOW I guess?

So with nearly 5400 Japanese aircraft destroyed in total the losses to flak were nearly 10% (about 100 ac lost to ship based flak). Doesn´t sound a lot to me. Now it´s unknown how many are lost to ops due to flak damage, but would that be true in real life too? Rating lost to flak, lost to ops is probably not always easy. Now I would surely rate my opponent as a smart guy, he never attacks in 40mm or 20mm range but he would also not attack a target if flak would chew him up at 11000ft. He would either go up higher or probably stop the attacks (if they are meaningless like those he flew against my bases with 200 3.7 inch flak guns). He didn´t stop them, because there was no reason to. As can be seen, the Allied suffered more or less no losses to flak in 14 months of war.

And my guess to it was, you sure could attack a target defended by 200 3.7 inch flak guns (and hundreds smaller ones not able to reach you) in real life, but not at 11000ft or for sure not get away with a 1,5-2% loss rate at that height.

Haven´t counted them through (should have done a tracker screenshot) but I would guess that 55% of the Japanese ac were lost A2A, 45% to ops and 10% to flak. Weren´t nearly as many ac lost to flak as were lost to fighters in real life?

edit: I stand corrected, I didn´t expect you to have a stock game going.

[Sheytan]

Amusing. I will reply to you however. People have noted your holier then thou attitude. I simply made light of that. You do indeed have a thin skin. Frankly I always look at these discussions in the context of a game, and all games are imperfect simulations. You however seem to feel otherwise, although I respect differing opinions, I do not consider yours in any way superior to anyone elses, nor do I consider your irritation regarding discussions of imperfections regarding the game to be the final word in any matter related to the game. Having said that it is a interesting discussion.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Castor Troy,

Last time my opponent raided that base with 30 bombers he lost 16 of them to FlAK. I had no fighters in the air since I didn't need them. In addition to this the 14 remaining bombers were so disrupted they really didn't get many hits. Just to be clear... This is in a perfectly vanilla Scenario 2 game. No changes to the database whatsoever.

I enclose a picture below which shows over 250 IJN bombers and strike craft destroyed by FlAK. In reality though this is a low-ball number since the main effect of the massive FlAK losses inflicted has been that the IJNAF and IJAAF simply haven't mounted any bomber raids against the defended bases for the past month. So, in reality the FlAK has achieved its strategic goal of creating bases almost entirely safe from enemy bomber attack. That's the real victory from using FlAK properly.


When I look at your numbers and compare them to mine what jumps out at me is that FlAK has accounted for only 7% of all losses in your game. In my game it has accounted for 13% of all losses. Since the two games are vanilla and, in both games Allied FlAK losses are very low ( due to the strategic situation ) you have to ask yourself why, since the game data is the exact same I am inflicting almost 100% more losses on the enemy than you. It cannot be the game code, since both games are vanilla, and my opponent flies at the same height as yours, sometimes higher ( he usually flies between 11,000 and 14,000 feet ).

Also, if you look at the actual Japanese losses and look at the number caused by FlAK you can see that by the time his bomber raids ended ( late February 1942 ) he had suffered 1/4 of his losses to FlAK. In March he has sent nothing into my FlAK traps ( a great victory in and of itself ) yet, still, 1/6th of his total plane loss has been due to FlAK, even if you disregard some massive ops losses which were flak-damaged planes crashing on the way home.

Bottom line though, since the games are the precise same and the data is precisely the same I believe the difference in effectiveness between 7% and 13% FlAK kills lies in the deployment of those units.


As to your attempts to mount personal attacks - Please feel free to torpedo your own position by doing so in future.



Sheytan,
Usually I make a point of replying to all posters constructively or, at least, to acknowledge their post. Occasionally however someone posts something which is truly beneath notice. In those situations no meaningful response is warranted.

[Nemo121]

Sheytan,
Again you view as personal things with aren't. No-one's opinion is innately more valuable than any other due the one person's supposed superiority or whatever. On the other hand for the purposes of examining a game engine people who focus on evidence-based discussion as opposed to engaging in non-evidence based declarations of "its utterly broken" ( or "it has no flaws whatsoever, who are you to criticise the Creators" ) DO make a more useful contribution to the discussion.

So, do I value contributions from people who use an evidence base more than those who merely use conjecture and hyperbole to support their arguments? Yes. Is that equivalent to being "holier than thou"? No, that's simply a recognition of the value of the scientific method when applied to rational discussion and a recognition that some people habitually use the scientific method and some don't. Will I apologise for valuing useful contributions more than less ueseful contributions? No.

I find it strange that you would seek to twist something so logical and universally accepted in any technical field into some sort of proof of personal animus. Again though, I can only control my own input. If people choose to misinterpret it for their own purposes then that lies within their purview.

In terms of perception to quote a certain German philosopher who had some good insight into humans, "We see things not as they are but as WE are..." Indeed that could also be extended to include..." or as we wish them to be."


P.s. You misrepresent / misinterpret my post re: irritation. I amn't irritated by discussion of game flaws. Hell my irritation with game flaws led me to create a mod which, while it is often viewed as primarily a fantasist "give the IJN everything they want" mod is, actually, if you talk to people who played it a lot more subtle and, primarily, an economic and logistics mod once you look beneath the surface... In any case my irritation is not with a discussion of game flaws ( that's necessary and helpful ) but with the fact that the benefit of such discussions is reduced when people mistake personal bias and hyperbole as being useful contributions. Evidence-based contributions are useful, statements of "how things should be because I'm doing badly in my game in this area" or "I'm losing too much / the enemy are losing too little" ( not thinking of anyone in particular when I say this, just generalising on a trend in certain discussions ) aren't useful when it comes to looking into how to improve the game engine.

Am I irritated when posters who have the ability to make meaningful evidence-based posts which would really help progress the discussion and fix real issues instead chose to make posts without an evidentiary basis? Yes. Is that the same as what you accused me of? No.

Should it matter to people that I'm irritated by non-evidentiary posts? No, my personal feelings shouldn't matter greatly to others. Should it matter to others that REAL issues which have REAL solutions are not going to be solved because the quality of evidence-based discussion required to generate change in these areas is NOT occurring? Yes, since that leads to a poorer game in the future.


Am I perfectly fine with being disliked because of what I actually say and stand for? Absolutely, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Do I get irritated by being misrepresented and being told I'm saying things I amn't? Yes. Is that a perfectly normal, human reaction? I think so. I hope you'd be irritated at being misrepresented also.

Do I think any of this will matter to you? Probably not as I expect you are quite invested in your erroneous viewpoint but one should always hope for the best so I'm giving it a try.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

These are the losses to flak in my game. Below that screen there aren´t really many Japanese ac left that would count as downed by flak. Together with the ones below that screen, flak has accounted for about 550 losses (op losses due to flak unknown). What strikes me in this screen is the 44 flak losses of the DinahII because in the screen posted earlier (dating March 43) the DinahII shows up with 83 flak losses. [&:] FOW I guess?

So with nearly 5400 Japanese aircraft destroyed in total the losses to flak were nearly 10% (about 100 ac lost to ship based flak). Doesn´t sound a lot to me. Now it´s unknown how many are lost to ops due to flak damage, but would that be true in real life too? Rating lost to flak, lost to ops is probably not always easy. Now I would surely rate my opponent as a smart guy, he never attacks in 40mm or 20mm range but he would also not attack a target if flak would chew him up at 11000ft. He would either go up higher or probably stop the attacks (if they are meaningless like those he flew against my bases with 200 3.7 inch flak guns). He didn´t stop them, because there was no reason to. As can be seen, the Allied suffered more or less no losses to flak in 14 months of war.

And my guess to it was, you sure could attack a target defended by 200 3.7 inch flak guns (and hundreds smaller ones not able to reach you) in real life, but not at 11000ft or for sure not get away with a 1,5-2% loss rate at that height.

Haven´t counted them through (should have done a tracker screenshot) but I would guess that 55% of the Japanese ac were lost A2A, 45% to ops and 10% to flak. Weren´t nearly as many ac lost to flak as were lost to fighters in real life?

edit: I stand corrected, I didn´t expect you to have a stock game going.

CT, my observations are that for every Japanese bomber I shoot down on a raid there are about 2 operational losses as well. From watching op losses over the course of my game, I would venture that of these two op losses per one plane actually shot down, only one one would be an op loss caused by flak damage. That is OP losses seem to be about double than the norm when the bombers hits a heavily defended flak base vs a milk run. There can be no hard evidence to prove this but it is a feel I get as I usually pay close attention to losses and OP losses after every raid. So, I would then venture that actual losses to flak are about double (fow excepted) the number listed as there is most likely one op loss to flak for every one shot down. It is a crude estimation and does not apply to every raid but overall.

So, I would say that up to this point in my campaign, about 20% of my actual kills are due to flak. Mostly land based flak as my naval flak just does not hit anything.

Yesterday, Ark got a flight of seven kate leakers through my CAP of over 100 wildcats with no opposition. [&:] I shot down one and damaged three. Three kates bombed at 5000 feet and four bombed at 2000. Now these planese came in level over a carrier TF with numerous fast BBs, CLAAs and did not take get slaughtered....[:@] and placed two 250 kg hits on my carriers [X(] Now of course, I realize that this could be a "one off" but it sure made Ark a happy camper..