EOS AAA (copied from mail)

[el cid again]

Hello Cid

I am sorry to bother you. I know how busy you are. My friend and I are considering EOS. I am Allies but had a look at the Jap set up to see what I'd be up against. I was horrified to see AAA values of 4000 to 6000 on some BBs and tfs toting 25000 AAA points while the USN have stock levels. Is this correct? If yes, may I ask how it is possible to justify such a difference, please? Even an Iowa was top heavy at 1710 AAA points...

Many thanks and very best regards

Carl

[el cid again]

First of all, I don't know exactly what you are looking at? It must be a player display of some sort which does a totaling of AAA resources on a ship. The totals are not something I know about or am concerned with. It is not part of how I work. And - in general - indexes of that sort are very crude. They do not take into consideration things like range or altitude of the weapons themselves - and with a ship like this - vast numbers will be light weapons that have no meaning if the attack stands off out of range or passes overhead above the effective ceiling of the weapons. Which was the point - of course: light weapons were supposed to make it expensive to come in too close.

Second, in theory anyway (and apparently for real in AE), much of the AAA power of as ship cannot bear on all targets. Thus the ship total is somewhat meaningless (or should be) - because what happens is that a target on the stern is only engaged by astern firing weapons. I always assumed that fore and aft weapons would combine with those of one side vs a side target - but what I read in AE threads implies that this - they way it should be - may not be the way it was done. Even so, I knew it would be done that way some day, and I knew that the "facing" of the weapons implied Matrix always intended to do it that way. So - here again - a ship total should be regarded more as a theoretical thing than as something that will be (or should be) used. Note there are thousands of cases where what bears is a single gun, or a single mounting of two or three guns. The system was well concieved - at least - and I only hope it executes the data properly. If it does not, I hope a patch one day will make it so.

Third, this is inside my particular area of technical training and experience: naval anti air warfare. Add to that I am a gun guy: I advocated guns or anti-missile work five years before the first combat kill of a missile by a gun (IDF achieved many such in 1973 using O.M. 76mm Compact guns). I understand how to rate guns in the AAA application - and I understood immediately there were some problems with what appeared in stock. In fact, guns USED TO BE too powerful, still are in any non RHS based system, and were reformed for RHS so they would NOT be too powerful. [What we did was two fold: we reduced both range and ceiling to effective values. This has unfortunate results when DP guns must engage surface targets - they cannot shoot at all at their real surface range - because I was unwilling to compromise letting them shoot too far at planes. The net effect was a dramatic reduction in the effective defended volume of airspace for all AA weapons. But I did compromise this slightly: you should not be able to use max range and max ceiling at the same time - the shell won't get there. I permit that - so the surface range is not unduely reduced.]

My work is done at a microscopic level: I work out each gun mounting separately - get its range, altitude, effect, facing, etc right - and the totals in some abstract report are not of the slightest concern to me. They are what they are. Since the total value is never used (or should never be used) anyway - it is an abstract indicator which should not be taken too seriously. And - for one side at least - the total number of mounts is one factor in the value and cost of the ship (for the other there is no cost but there is still value in victory points). The totals matter far more for cost and value than they do for tactical impact: to know that you need to know many things - and only some of the weapons will then bear (probably).

In this case I suspect that what you might be seeing is a statistical impact of several factors about late war ships. First of all - you are looking at EOS - a scenario in which the Japanese do not alway arm the ships as was historically done. While I am a stickler for history and technical fact, I don't see any reason that real Japanese weapons could not have been used properly - by my lights (or sometimes by real plans not implemented - there are many cases I took real Japanese plans and let you have them)? So while IRL all ships experienced dramatic growth in AAA mountings - in particular by mounting many more 25 mm tubes - in EOS that was not the primary mechanism adopted. Second only to aircraft changes, the AAA changes of EOS are the most dramatic change I have implemented. [Since AAA was the PRIMARY cause of loss of US aircraft due to enemy action, increasing that has significant operational meaning.] What I did - accross the board - limited only by industrial capacity - is listed below:

1) The most significant decision was to mass produce a pair of 1938 AAA designs in lieu of similar 3, 4, 4.7 and most 5 inch AAA weapons. All new ships - and land units not fitted out from weapons stocks - use one or both of these weapons - and most important older ships retrofit to use them: these are

a) the 3.9 inch/65 (100 mm) gun - designed for AAA cruisers - used on AAA destroyers - and on many shore sites

b) the 3 inch/ 60 (76 mm) gun - designed for ships - but only actually fitted to one type of CL (and Ibuki) - and used in a single shore unit (8 pieces).

These weapons used the most modern fire control system of IJN - complete with directors, fire control computers, and a proper AAA fire direction center - it was a single system but it used different cams were used so the solution would fit the caliber being controlled. In my view to continue to produce obsolescent weapons was a poor choice - and in spite of the fact that ending their production REDUCES the total number of AA tubes made - in EOS family I paid that price: from August 1941 in EOS and AIO, and from mid 1939 in EEO.

Note these were the most effective AAA weapons of their caliber of the war - only after the war did a similar enhanced 3 inch 50 enter US service - and we never did do a high performance 4 inch - but the French have done since then. ANY number of these weapons will - because of their high rate of fire, high ceiling and long range - make a ship more defended - certainly better than the same ship with any other weapons. Note that it was planned to do later Yamato class ships with such weapons.

2) The Bofors 40 mm was captured at Singapore. It was put into production in Japan. Japanese engineers dinked around for two years "improving" the gun - but so little it has no great operational significance. Many ordnance experts have opined that they should have just done a strait up copy - sooner. I do that in EOS family. While these guns DID enter IJN service (in 1945) - I permit them to start phasing in much sooner. Since the Japanese never did design a quad mount - I don't let them have one. They are always in singles or pairs. Since the Japanese were poor - I also never let them put as many mounts on a big ship as we would have done. In general, you will find a triple 25 mm replaced by a twin 40 mm - and a twin 25 mm replaced by a single 40 mm. Also, in general, you will find fewer supplimental 25 mm singles on the ship - usually something like 4 per sector.

Note that Japan has a pre war Vickers 40 mm in service. Both imported and copied. But the Bofors has about twice the effect rating - so using these weapons in numbers should have a significant impact on any statistical indes.

3) I added the AAA rockets. Or rather I modified them. I think they existed in stock and CHS as a non-working device.
I decided to make them a form of AA gun - and in fact they were mounted on a triple 25 mm mounting without guns. They had a very short range - actually two of them - but I only gave them one - which happens to be in between the two real ones - and has the virtue of being possible in our system. That range is 1 - as low as it can go. The ceiling is 3000 feet (which corresponds exactly to 1000 yards). These two factors conspire to render them useless against many attackers. And the accuracy is also only 5 - so the chances of hitting a plane that does come close enough is very low. But any index that totals tubes and effect is going to yield gigantic values. Yet another limitation is that they have almost no ammunition (2 shots I think). These weapons were only used in numbers on carriers - but they might appear in other ships in EOS family (I don't remember). Any ship with such weapons is going to look powerful reading raw effect totals - far more so than is justified in any useful sense. [Similarly, airplanes with rockets will have gigantic ratings- but the rate of fire is so low the chances of a hit are not large at all]

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

First of all, I don't know exactly what you are looking at? It must be a player display of some sort which does a totaling of AAA resources on a ship. The totals are not something I know about or am concerned with. It is not part of how I work. And - in general - indexes of that sort are very crude. They do not take into consideration things like range or altitude of the weapons themselves - and with a ship like this - vast numbers will be light weapons that have no meaning if the attack stands off out of range or passes overhead above the effective ceiling of the weapons. Which was the point - of course: light weapons were supposed to make it expensive to come in too close. I am quoting the AAA figures that are on ship and tf screens in game. It does not answer the relative difference query.

Second, in theory anyway (and apparently for real in AE), much of the AAA power of as ship cannot bear on all targets. Thus the ship total is somewhat meaningless (or should be) - because what happens is that a target on the stern is only engaged by astern firing weapons. I always assumed that fore and aft weapons would combine with those of one side vs a side target - but what I read in AE threads implies that this - they way it should be - may not be the way it was done. Even so, I knew it would be done that way some day, and I knew that the "facing" of the weapons implied Matrix always intended to do it that way. So - here again - a ship total should be regarded more as a theoretical thing than as something that will be (or should be) used. Note there are thousands of cases where what bears is a single gun, or a single mounting of two or three guns. The system was well concieved - at least - and I only hope it executes the data properly. If it does not, I hope a patch one day will make it so. I shall look forward to AE fixing this, but it does not help with the massive imbalance in EOS.

Third, this is inside my particular area of technical training and experience: naval anti air warfare. Add to that I am a gun guy: I advocated guns or anti-missile work five years before the first combat kill of a missile by a gun (IDF achieved many such in 1973 using O.M. 76mm Compact guns). I understand how to rate guns in the AAA application - and I understood immediately there were some problems with what appeared in stock. In fact, guns USED TO BE too powerful, still are in any non RHS based system, and were reformed for RHS so they would NOT be too powerful. [What we did was two fold: we reduced both range and ceiling to effective values. This has unfortunate results when DP guns must engage surface targets - they cannot shoot at all at their real surface range - because I was unwilling to compromise letting them shoot too far at planes. The net effect was a dramatic reduction in the effective defended volume of airspace for all AA weapons. But I did compromise this slightly: you should not be able to use max range and max ceiling at the same time - the shell won't get there. I permit that - so the surface range is not unduely reduced.]

My work is done at a microscopic level: I work out each gun mounting separately - get its range, altitude, effect, facing, etc right - and the totals in some abstract report are not of the slightest concern to me. They are what they are. Since the total value is never used (or should never be used) anyway - it is an abstract indicator which should not be taken too seriously. And - for one side at least - the total number of mounts is one factor in the value and cost of the ship (for the other there is no cost but there is still value in victory points). The totals matter far more for cost and value than they do for tactical impact: to know that you need to know many things - and only some of the weapons will then bear (probably).

In this case I suspect that what you might be seeing is a statistical impact of several factors about late war ships. First of all - you are looking at EOS - a scenario in which the Japanese do not alway arm the ships as was historically done. While I am a stickler for history and technical fact, I don't see any reason that real Japanese weapons could not have been used properly - by my lights (or sometimes by real plans not implemented - there are many cases I took real Japanese plans and let you have them)? So while IRL all ships experienced dramatic growth in AAA mountings - in particular by mounting many more 25 mm tubes - in EOS that was not the primary mechanism adopted. Second only to aircraft changes, the AAA changes of EOS are the most dramatic change I have implemented. [Since AAA was the PRIMARY cause of loss of US aircraft due to enemy action, increasing that has significant operational meaning.] What I did - accross the board - limited only by industrial capacity - is listed below:

1) The most significant decision was to mass produce a pair of 1938 AAA designs in lieu of similar 3, 4, 4.7 and most 5 inch AAA weapons. All new ships - and land units not fitted out from weapons stocks - use one or both of these weapons - and most important older ships retrofit to use them: these are

a) the 3.9 inch/65 (100 mm) gun - designed for AAA cruisers - used on AAA destroyers - and on many shore sites

b) the 3 inch/ 60 (76 mm) gun - designed for ships - but only actually fitted to one type of CL (and Ibuki) - and used in a single shore unit (8 pieces).

These weapons used the most modern fire control system of IJN - complete with directors, fire control computers, and a proper AAA fire direction center - it was a single system but it used different cams were used so the solution would fit the caliber being controlled. In my view to continue to produce obsolescent weapons was a poor choice - and in spite of the fact that ending their production REDUCES the total number of AA tubes made - in EOS family I paid that price: from August 1941 in EOS and AIO, and from mid 1939 in EEO.

Note these were the most effective AAA weapons of their caliber of the war - only after the war did a similar enhanced 3 inch 50 enter US service - and we never did do a high performance 4 inch - but the French have done since then. ANY number of these weapons will - because of their high rate of fire, high ceiling and long range - make a ship more defended - certainly better than the same ship with any other weapons. Note that it was planned to do later Yamato class ships with such weapons.

2) The Bofors 40 mm was captured at Singapore. It was put into production in Japan. Japanese engineers dinked around for two years "improving" the gun - but so little it has no great operational significance. Many ordnance experts have opined that they should have just done a strait up copy - sooner. I do that in EOS family. While these guns DID enter IJN service (in 1945) - I permit them to start phasing in much sooner. Since the Japanese never did design a quad mount - I don't let them have one. They are always in singles or pairs. Since the Japanese were poor - I also never let them put as many mounts on a big ship as we would have done. In general, you will find a triple 25 mm replaced by a twin 40 mm - and a twin 25 mm replaced by a single 40 mm. Also, in general, you will find fewer supplimental 25 mm singles on the ship - usually something like 4 per sector.

Note that Japan has a pre war Vickers 40 mm in service. Both imported and copied. But the Bofors has about twice the effect rating - so using these weapons in numbers should have a significant impact on any statistical indes.

3) I added the AAA rockets. Or rather I modified them. I think they existed in stock and CHS as a non-working device.
I decided to make them a form of AA gun - and in fact they were mounted on a triple 25 mm mounting without guns. They had a very short range - actually two of them - but I only gave them one - which happens to be in between the two real ones - and has the virtue of being possible in our system. That range is 1 - as low as it can go. The ceiling is 3000 feet (which corresponds exactly to 1000 yards). These two factors conspire to render them useless against many attackers. And the accuracy is also only 5 - so the chances of hitting a plane that does come close enough is very low. But any index that totals tubes and effect is going to yield gigantic values. Yet another limitation is that they have almost no ammunition (2 shots I think). These weapons were only used in numbers on carriers - but they might appear in other ships in EOS family (I don't remember). Any ship with such weapons is going to look powerful reading raw effect totals - far more so than is justified in any useful sense. [Similarly, airplanes with rockets will have gigantic ratings- but the rate of fire is so low the chances of a hit are not large at all] Thanks very much for all the in depth info. If anyone has played EOS into 1943 I''d be very interested to know if the upgraded allied AAA produces AAA values in the range present on the Jap BBs and CAs at start. The massive difference in starting values and the fourfold (at least) increase on the Jap side seems to indicate that the new Jap weapons are considerably overvalued. I am more than happy for the Japanese player to get new and better and more toys, but a tf with an AAA value of 25000 on day 1 of the war is invulnerable to air attack and with those values will always remain so. As a guide to a non player, in my 1943 games I am lucky to get a tf with an AAA value over 5000, and that is with all vessels sprouting more 5 inch, 3 inch, 40mm and 20mm AA guns. The very low experience levels of allied replacements in this mod mean that with this uberflak, no allied Naval Attack squadron will ever be able to hit anything even if they were ever lucky enough to get through. It is only Japanese vessels upgraded with your new weapons that are effected. Older unmodified Jap vessels have stock AAA values. This imbalance is so extreme that it effectively makes the mod useless. I love playing JFB mods. I want my opponents to have offensive potential for as long as possible so they get maximum enjoyment out of the massive amount of time they invest in our games. With this imbalance the mod has lost all it's attractriveness. My opponent has been similarly put off. These new weapons are four times as effective as similar allied weapons so surely something must be wrong?

I just re-read the above. It is just this one aspect of EOS I have issue with. My statement about the "mod" could have been taken to mean RHS, which is not the case. It's great and I am looking at the other scenarios instead. I love the level 7 map and am very keen to get a game going using it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: el cid again

First of all, I don't know exactly what you are looking at? It must be a player display of some sort which does a totaling of AAA resources on a ship. The totals are not something I know about or am concerned with. It is not part of how I work. And - in general - indexes of that sort are very crude. They do not take into consideration things like range or altitude of the weapons themselves - and with a ship like this - vast numbers will be light weapons that have no meaning if the attack stands off out of range or passes overhead above the effective ceiling of the weapons. Which was the point - of course: light weapons were supposed to make it expensive to come in too close. I am quoting the AAA figures that are on ship and tf screens in game. It does not answer the relative difference query.

REPLY: The total is what the total is. It is the sum of the values worked out in detail for each separate mounting. I am not responsible for relative differences with some other system: I didn't take it into consideration and we should not care about such differences either. Further - the raw total - I don't know what it is but likely it is a summing of effect values - is a very crude indicator and not particularly meaningful in any case.

Second, in theory anyway (and apparently for real in AE), much of the AAA power of as ship cannot bear on all targets. Thus the ship total is somewhat meaningless (or should be) - because what happens is that a target on the stern is only engaged by astern firing weapons. I always assumed that fore and aft weapons would combine with those of one side vs a side target - but what I read in AE threads implies that this - they way it should be - may not be the way it was done. Even so, I knew it would be done that way some day, and I knew that the "facing" of the weapons implied Matrix always intended to do it that way. So - here again - a ship total should be regarded more as a theoretical thing than as something that will be (or should be) used. Note there are thousands of cases where what bears is a single gun, or a single mounting of two or three guns. The system was well concieved - at least - and I only hope it executes the data properly. If it does not, I hope a patch one day will make it so. I shall look forward to AE fixing this, but it does not help with the massive imbalance in EOS.

REPLY: I am not sure how it is done? The existence of facing in the data set indicates it should be used - and I always assumed it was used. If it is not - it can be rationalized: the plane passes overhead - so the guns that failed to bear on the inbound leg now bear on the outbound leg. Further - most AAA in the total you worry about is light - and light AAA is a "revenge weapon" - it hits the target AFTER it has released ordnance - so whatever damage it does is too late to save the ship. We can further rationalize that whatever the system it is equal for both sides. I don't understand this as an imbalance at all - and I note that in testing virtually any air strike running in on an Iowa is in deep trouble. But by the time Iowa's were operational - that is about right. I was responsible for protecting USS New Jersey from anti-shipping missiles in 1968: her captain said "don't worry if you fail to stop them all: we have all those secondary guns, and I am confident we can hit a non-jinking target wvery time - do what you can and let the ships guns handle what is left over." [In the event there was never a penetrator to AAA range]

Third, this is inside my particular area of technical training and experience: naval anti air warfare. Add to that I am a gun guy: I advocated guns or anti-missile work five years before the first combat kill of a missile by a gun (IDF achieved many such in 1973 using O.M. 76mm Compact guns). I understand how to rate guns in the AAA application - and I understood immediately there were some problems with what appeared in stock. In fact, guns USED TO BE too powerful, still are in any non RHS based system, and were reformed for RHS so they would NOT be too powerful. [What we did was two fold: we reduced both range and ceiling to effective values. This has unfortunate results when DP guns must engage surface targets - they cannot shoot at all at their real surface range - because I was unwilling to compromise letting them shoot too far at planes. The net effect was a dramatic reduction in the effective defended volume of airspace for all AA weapons. But I did compromise this slightly: you should not be able to use max range and max ceiling at the same time - the shell won't get there. I permit that - so the surface range is not unduely reduced.]

My work is done at a microscopic level: I work out each gun mounting separately - get its range, altitude, effect, facing, etc right - and the totals in some abstract report are not of the slightest concern to me. They are what they are. Since the total value is never used (or should never be used) anyway - it is an abstract indicator which should not be taken too seriously. And - for one side at least - the total number of mounts is one factor in the value and cost of the ship (for the other there is no cost but there is still value in victory points). The totals matter far more for cost and value than they do for tactical impact: to know that you need to know many things - and only some of the weapons will then bear (probably).

In this case I suspect that what you might be seeing is a statistical impact of several factors about late war ships. First of all - you are looking at EOS - a scenario in which the Japanese do not alway arm the ships as was historically done. While I am a stickler for history and technical fact, I don't see any reason that real Japanese weapons could not have been used properly - by my lights (or sometimes by real plans not implemented - there are many cases I took real Japanese plans and let you have them)? So while IRL all ships experienced dramatic growth in AAA mountings - in particular by mounting many more 25 mm tubes - in EOS that was not the primary mechanism adopted. Second only to aircraft changes, the AAA changes of EOS are the most dramatic change I have implemented. [Since AAA was the PRIMARY cause of loss of US aircraft due to enemy action, increasing that has significant operational meaning.] What I did - accross the board - limited only by industrial capacity - is listed below:

1) The most significant decision was to mass produce a pair of 1938 AAA designs in lieu of similar 3, 4, 4.7 and most 5 inch AAA weapons. All new ships - and land units not fitted out from weapons stocks - use one or both of these weapons - and most important older ships retrofit to use them: these are

a) the 3.9 inch/65 (100 mm) gun - designed for AAA cruisers - used on AAA destroyers - and on many shore sites

b) the 3 inch/ 60 (76 mm) gun - designed for ships - but only actually fitted to one type of CL (and Ibuki) - and used in a single shore unit (8 pieces).

These weapons used the most modern fire control system of IJN - complete with directors, fire control computers, and a proper AAA fire direction center - it was a single system but it used different cams were used so the solution would fit the caliber being controlled. In my view to continue to produce obsolescent weapons was a poor choice - and in spite of the fact that ending their production REDUCES the total number of AA tubes made - in EOS family I paid that price: from August 1941 in EOS and AIO, and from mid 1939 in EEO.

Note these were the most effective AAA weapons of their caliber of the war - only after the war did a similar enhanced 3 inch 50 enter US service - and we never did do a high performance 4 inch - but the French have done since then. ANY number of these weapons will - because of their high rate of fire, high ceiling and long range - make a ship more defended - certainly better than the same ship with any other weapons. Note that it was planned to do later Yamato class ships with such weapons.

2) The Bofors 40 mm was captured at Singapore. It was put into production in Japan. Japanese engineers dinked around for two years "improving" the gun - but so little it has no great operational significance. Many ordnance experts have opined that they should have just done a strait up copy - sooner. I do that in EOS family. While these guns DID enter IJN service (in 1945) - I permit them to start phasing in much sooner. Since the Japanese never did design a quad mount - I don't let them have one. They are always in singles or pairs. Since the Japanese were poor - I also never let them put as many mounts on a big ship as we would have done. In general, you will find a triple 25 mm replaced by a twin 40 mm - and a twin 25 mm replaced by a single 40 mm. Also, in general, you will find fewer supplimental 25 mm singles on the ship - usually something like 4 per sector.

Note that Japan has a pre war Vickers 40 mm in service. Both imported and copied. But the Bofors has about twice the effect rating - so using these weapons in numbers should have a significant impact on any statistical indes.

3) I added the AAA rockets. Or rather I modified them. I think they existed in stock and CHS as a non-working device.
I decided to make them a form of AA gun - and in fact they were mounted on a triple 25 mm mounting without guns. They had a very short range - actually two of them - but I only gave them one - which happens to be in between the two real ones - and has the virtue of being possible in our system. That range is 1 - as low as it can go. The ceiling is 3000 feet (which corresponds exactly to 1000 yards). These two factors conspire to render them useless against many attackers. And the accuracy is also only 5 - so the chances of hitting a plane that does come close enough is very low. But any index that totals tubes and effect is going to yield gigantic values. Yet another limitation is that they have almost no ammunition (2 shots I think). These weapons were only used in numbers on carriers - but they might appear in other ships in EOS family (I don't remember). Any ship with such weapons is going to look powerful reading raw effect totals - far more so than is justified in any useful sense. [Similarly, airplanes with rockets will have gigantic ratings- but the rate of fire is so low the chances of a hit are not large at all] Thanks very much for all the in depth info. If anyone has played EOS into 1943 I''d be very interested to know if the upgraded allied AAA produces AAA values in the range present on the Jap BBs and CAs at start. The massive difference in starting values and the fourfold (at least) increase on the Jap side seems to indicate that the new Jap weapons are considerably overvalued. I am more than happy for the Japanese player to get new and better and more toys, but a tf with an AAA value of 25000 on day 1 of the war is invulnerable to air attack and with those values will always remain so. As a guide to a non player, in my 1943 games I am lucky to get a tf with an AAA value over 5000, and that is with all vessels sprouting more 5 inch, 3 inch, 40mm and 20mm AA guns. The very low experience levels of allied replacements in this mod mean that with this uberflak, no allied Naval Attack squadron will ever be able to hit anything even if they were ever lucky enough to get through. It is only Japanese vessels upgraded with your new weapons that are effected. Older unmodified Jap vessels have stock AAA values. This imbalance is so extreme that it effectively makes the mod useless. I love playing JFB mods. I want my opponents to have offensive potential for as long as possible so they get maximum enjoyment out of the massive amount of time they invest in our games. With this imbalance the mod has lost all it's attractriveness. My opponent has been similarly put off. These new weapons are four times as effective as similar allied weapons so surely something must be wrong?

I just re-read the above. It is just this one aspect of EOS I have issue with. My statement about the "mod" could have been taken to mean RHS, which is not the case. It's great and I am looking at the other scenarios instead. I love the level 7 map and am very keen to get a game going using it.

EOS is not for everyone. But while AAA will be significantly enhanced in EOS family scenarios (what is the point of a "Japan enhansed scenario" if everything remains the same???) - it is still the same devices. All you have in CVO or BBO families is the same devices rated by the same reports - only there are fewer mounted - or lesser quality mountings - in a number of cases (likely the ones you will look at: the big ships). The difference between RHS scenarios is most of all in the ships - and the changed ships are most of all the high value ships. I fear you will still find the totals high - for whatever screen you are looking at is doing totals - and - wether or not the AAA is divided by sector - it certainly is not used vs targets that never come in range or never fly low enough. Totals are not what matters most of the time.

The RHS philosophy is "power to the players" mainly in the form of "choices for the players." You are supposed to pick the scenario you like most. I myself think the MOST historical is BBO - because it is the way things were most likely to work out. You usually get what you planned to buy - and only radical changes early in the war resulted in a CVO like situation. If the war ran many times in parallel universes, many of them would look more like BBO (probably). It is not normal to be able to "design your own weapons" or ships. I actually got to do a little of that in Viet Nam - but mostly we were stuck with what we had already. One of our best ideas - the Vulcan Phalanx - was deliberately designed around off the shelf components as far as possible. The gun was in service on F-4s. It was a "war emergency" design. For later use we wanted a 30 mm that did not exist. The system took 11 years to field. In that time the 30mm was built - for the A-10 (it is called the GAU-8). Yet we STILL have ONLY fielded 20 mm "war emergency" weapons - for Viet Nam! Mostly - anything you design is too late for this war.

In a manual game with a judge in the center - I almost always have to play judge - I roll dice to see if you get this - and other dice to see how long it takes - when you order something. It is not cast in stone. But in this game system we don't have too much ability to vary things - except by scenario choice. But there is a "variable reinforcements" option.

FYI one of the important reasons for EOS was to try to help AI - giving it a stronger hand to play. Ultimately it was not possible to do this properly in EOS itself - so we did a variation called AIO which cut out things AI cannot cope with (interior rivers, active Russians, and any Soviet sub early in the war). Another (but related) reason was play balance. Never high on my personal list, many players prefer a more "fair" game in which both sides have a "good chance" for success. WITP is inherantly unbalanced in favor of the Allies. Finally - and this does have my interest - the Japan Enhansed Scenario (once only a dream described to me by Joe as a "maybe someday someone will do this") permits one to look at what Japan could have done if it had been more professionally competent. [It is far easier to lose a war than to win it. The USA has found this to be the case in spite of its size.] Japan really did this in some of its previous wars - the Russo-Japanese War ("the short victorious war") being the best case. There it took on an enemy ten times more powerful - an enemy with far more experience with modern weapons - and it did so with a plan - including even an exit strategy (one that won Teddy Roosevelt a Nobel Peace Prize).

[goodboyladdie]

Hi Sid

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I too like Japan enhanced scenarios and can see the logic behind every change except for this one. The Japanese AAA being more advanced than the allies through good planning is one thing. That would give the Japanese Iowa style AAA (total value circa 2000) near the start of the war and the allies playing catch up (which they would do more quickly than allowed for here). They still would not be able to fit much more than that on already top heavy vessels. What we have here is AEGIS class values of 4000 to 6000 on day one of the war while the Allies are stuck in the 1930s with AAA values around 250 and the same or similar devices only taking AAA values up to between 1000 and 2000 when the Allies upgrade (much) later in the war. It might not be the most accurate way of measuring, but the relevant differences are obvious. I am all for the Japs having a better chance to win, but this means that it is impossible to get at the Japanese major units unless a sub is very lucky, because Allied air is never going to do it. The much improved Jap ASW (not complaining) makes that a more remote possibility. Japanese air assets can however get through. Do DP weapons with the same enhancements mean that surface warfare is similarly skewed?

Very best regards

Carl

[goodboyladdie]

I just loaded RAO and found that the Japanese Battleships have AEGIS on day 1 there too. Have I not loaded everything I need to?

[TulliusDetritus]

**arrives from another thread**

Glup, Carl... A lot of technical stuff here. I don't think I am the right person, sorry. This is the kind of thread I read. I do not post: I let experts do that and I merely read & learn from them though. In fact, you seem to know much more than me on this issue. Sorry if I couldn't help you.

[goodboyladdie]

Hi Tullius

Thanks for looking in. How far have the RHS games you have played gone?

[TulliusDetritus]

Hello again, Carl. Well, first of all I am a "weird" player. I play H2H. I started on july (this year) a CVO game. Now I am in may 1942. From my experience, El Cid Again did not lie: so far his air to air and AA models are quite good. I am quite happy with the game.

[goodboyladdie]

That's good news. Thanks very much. Do any allied planes ever get through those big AAA numbers on the major surface vessels? In CVO what are the allied replacements like? I really want to give this mod a go, but the big unexplained AAA differential would wind me up every time I battered another squadron to death against it...

[TulliusDetritus]

Carl, in RHS air model there are not massacres (AA and air to air). In fact, CAP will not shot down a lot of enemy bombers (if escorted at least). Maybe you want to retort: "well, if most of the bombers are spared by CAP the ships are dead meat, aren't they?". No, the bombers won't massacre the ships. No uber CAP, no uber masssacres in RHS so far, this is my own experience. Maybe the other players' experience is different, I don't know.

As for allied replacements, there are a lot. But when you start the experience is low (on the 40s...). I like it though. Just like in real world, the American air forces needed time. Just think about this: on april there were American air groups in Australia. According to their commanders, these units were not ready at all (pilots, materiel, logistical support). Same thing in may, I guess. And the war had started 4 months before. This low experience may be good (in my opinion) if you want to simulate a historical game. It all depends on your taste.

[VSWG]

For the record, the ship's AA value in the ship screen is calculated by adding the weapon effect values of all AA guns and DP Guns, divided by 2.

[el cid again]

The Allied replacement levels are about 50% higher in EOS - and 100% in EEO - unless the type was 100% in theater already - typically.

RHS set out to reduce uber CAP, and uber bombing. I don't think AAA is effective enough - but I think it was too powerful in terms of reach (altitude and range) - so it is both more and less effective - for both sides. But relatively speaking the US has far better AAA - whatever the screens seem to say. USN has bofors almost from the start of the game, and quickly gets quads in service. USN has fine 5 inch AA guns - while ashore you get 90 mm and 105 mm. Ultimately the USN gets a high performance 5 inch 51 better than even the best Japanese guns.

[bradfordkay]

GBL... It appears that you and Tullius are talking about two different RHS scenarios. You are asking about the EOS scenario, in which Japan gets some serious upgrades. Tullius is talking about the CVO scenario, which is the one closest to the original WITP.

I am with you in showing concern that the IJN is starting the scenario with AAA values far exceeding anything that comparable US ships will receive before the end of the war. I had been considering starting the RHS EOS scenario against a Japanese AI while waiting for the AE to be released, but I think that I'll pass on this one. Sid... does the AIO scenario share this AAA upgrade?

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Hello again, Carl. Well, first of all I am a "weird" player. I play H2H. I started on july (this year) a CVO game. Now I am in may 1942. From my experience, El Cid Again did not lie: so far his air to air and AA models are quite good. I am quite happy with the game.

I would love to play H2H someday but not sure I could see it through. Do you leave anything up to the computer (so many things to do for each side and so little time-I'm 65)? What do you do to turn a blind eye to each sides moves, plans and strategy? Would be appreciate any other type of information (eg first turn, etc) you may want to share.

Are you really in Antartica?

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Allied replacement levels are about 50% higher in EOS - and 100% in EEO - unless the type was 100% in theater already - typically.

RHS set out to reduce uber CAP, and uber bombing. I don't think AAA is effective enough - but I think it was too powerful in terms of reach (altitude and range) - so it is both more and less effective - for both sides. But relatively speaking the US has far better AAA - whatever the screens seem to say. USN has bofors almost from the start of the game, and quickly gets quads in service. USN has fine 5 inch AA guns - while ashore you get 90 mm and 105 mm. Ultimately the USN gets a high performance 5 inch 51 better than even the best Japanese guns.

It is interesting that you use the term "relatively speaking" when the figures seem to prove the opposite. When do the US ships get these "better" guns? Are the effect ratings of like weapons similar? What about RN/CW vessels with similar weapons? For all the information you have provided you still do not seem to have answered as to how these Japanese devices are so much better than similar allied devices or how the Allies are supposed to play when their planes have no chance of penetrating this magically enhanced AAA screen. I have read many of your previous posts with great interest and you have often used mathematics to prove your suppositions to be correct. What possible formula could justify this massive difference in effect between like weapons? Please do not take this as a personal criticism. This is a wonderful mod and you and the RHS team have done a fantastic job. The time and effort you have put in is staggering and I can't wait to play, BUT these figures seem to have no logical basis or explanation.

[el cid again]

Without seeing the code - or reverse engineering the display to the point of knowing what the source of the data being displayed is - it is not possible to answer difinitively in a technically accurate way.

Generally speaking, the real value of AAA should be a function of several factors:

the most critical one being "can the AAA even reach the target at all?"

ALL guns of shorter range and/or ceiling than the actual target do not count for this particular attack.

Generally speaking, the smaller AAA guns have higher values in terms of accuracy - so IF accuracy is part of the function - then it follows you will see values with light AAA dominating - whereas IRL and in game terms (probably) - most attacks will not involve some or even all of them.

Another factor is the efficiency of the larger guns:

Older Japanese guns are less highly rated in all respects than similar Allied guns: even a French 75 is better than an IJA 75 mm Type 88. So in the strictly historical scenarios, where old Japanese Naval 3 inch and Army Type 88s, and similar low value weapons, predominate. Add to that there are usually fewer guns on a Japanese ship - particularly if not a destroyer - and even if it is a destroyer not late in the war. [A Japanese destroyer typically has something like 2 x HMG or 2 x 25 mm - or else 4 - total - when the war begins] But the newer guns - which only selectively appear historically - are mass produced in EOS and even before the war in EEO - shift the advantage to the Japanese. These new guns are very efficient - and so ratings should go up. Even so - the number of tubes per ship remains low by Allied standards.

Another thing that I did was to show short guns. And I have re-rated the 5 inch 25 as a short gun (short guns typically are in the 20 caliber range - vice 40 to 60 for long guns). Since the 5 inch 25 was popular on many major US ships - de rating this weapon may have hurt things relatively. It should be done - and if you are uncomfortable with it I am sorry. But we should not over rate a Japanese short gun on some merchie - nor an Allied short gun - on anything. These guns were designed for rapid ROF - but limited energy - hense limited range and modest ceilings. [Also they are cheap and do not tend to overload the ship]

FYI in test games - early in the war the Japanese will lose 4 to 5 times as many aircraft to Allied AAA as the Allies lose to Japanese AAA. That is a function of three things: less well protected Japanese aircraft, the relative value of AAA, and the relative number of attacks pressing the AAA. Later in the war it tends to become more even, partly as the sheer number of Allied sortees grows, partly as Japanese AAA formations grow in number, and partly as the sheer number of Japanese sortees tends not to grow - and usually declines sharply at some point. Eventually the Allied AAA losses approach those of the Japanese - more so in EOS family than CVO/BBO families. This seems about right. USAAF took far more casualties to AAA than to fighter action, and it also avoided certain targets defended by very high performance AAA. [The IJA 6 inch AAA battery defending the Imperial Palace was able to fire only once: US bombers never came in range of it again. The IJA 8 inch AAA battery in Singapore may have had a similar fate: I don't know how many times it engaged, but US bombers were ordered to avoid the area after a certain date.] What this means is that PLAYERS have CONTROL of their AAA losses: you decide what targets to hit, and also you decide what altitude to go in at - and finally you decide how many planes to send. [ AAA for ships anyway is ammunition limited - send enough planes the AAA stops shooting at you ]

Another factor is that RHS has non-AAA guns reported as if they are AAA guns. This just got worse: barrage balloons will show on these reports now - yet if you go in at standard altitude (6000 feet) they will never hurt you. And you must get within 1,000 yards - or they won't hurt you either. Before now, we had AAA rockets - and rocket fighters - that report as wierd AAA guns. And now - in the later marks - we also have very heavy guns showing as AAA. The British have this on CAs - the Dutch on CLs (and 6 inch on a French BB) - but the US on NO major ships at all (although Worcester class CLAA would so show if they were in the game). These reports are including 18 inch guns for Yamato - but not 16 inch guns for Iowa. But note these weapons are severely limited in several respects - ROF (accuracy) most of all - and also generally in altitude. The Forum was given a choice - I had NOT included very heavy AAA - and they wanted it in - so it is in. I think it is more correct than not being in. But it probably makes your report look quiet different than in stock. [But while I did put in the Army 6 inch AAA, I never found a device slot for the 8 inch - the Japanese 8 inch is NOT in as a land AAA gun so no simulating Singapore. We just found the battery about a year or so ago in dense foliage in a park - very nice single mountings - look like about 1980 design in shape.]


On reflection, I think - if you look at CA and BB type vessels, you may be seeing the effect of the main battery on the AAA report screen. Don't take it too seriously: there is no indication in testing these guns work very well. I see no noticable increase in losses after that change. But ALL Japanese CA and BB get these ratings, and NO US BB or CA do (French BB gets secondary 6 inch AAA, RN CA get 8 inch AAA, Dutch CL get 6 inch AAA). When this was examined not long ago - there is a thread on it - I found that the effect ratings for big guns were low - and the bigger the gun the lower - so there was no need to do anything but figure out altitude. I used values worked out by someone else - mainly - Dili I think.

[goodboyladdie]

Hi Sid

Thanks for the reply. The inclusion of the main battery is something that my opponent and I thought might be the issue. We just set up a 2 v 2 CV battle in our "taster" game. I have only seen the screenshot my opponent sent so far but he has damage to 2 BBs and 2 CVs I think, so at least some planes got through. I am just going in to assess losses to my best units to achieve this...

Could you post details of the different devices for comparison please? I understand if you do not have the time to find the relevant files as from all of the updates going on I can see you are really busy. What further upgrades do the Japs get. Will I pee my pants even more when I am facing AAA values of 10000 per ship come 1943?

Very best regards

Carl

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Without seeing the code - or reverse engineering the display to the point of knowing what the source of the data being displayed is - it is not possible to answer difinitively in a technically accurate way.

ORIGINAL: VSWG

For the record, the ship's AA value in the ship screen is calculated by adding the weapon effect values of all AA and DP Guns, divided by 2.

[goodboyladdie]

Each of my CV tfs had about 2000 AAA. Mike's tf (containing 2 CVs and 2 BBs) had about 12000 AAA. My bombers that got through to attack took 75% losses, while his took about 25% losses. If I get away (extremely doubtful for the Big E) my units will rebuild with replacements with an average of 40 experience (I got two in the low 30s on my CV in San Diego), so there is no way the rebuilt units would hit anything if they get through the CAP. His will get replacements at 75 I believe. It seems the bigger AAA numbers do count...

It seems that the Allies have to try to attrite the Japs in this mod, but are royally screwed if they do! My 2E LBA attacking at 6000 ft is suffering big losses and hitting nothing when tackling BBs and CAs with the big numbers too...