28 AA Guns Causing Too Much Mayhem

[Rosencrantus]

Playing on patch 1.02.11.

Just playing around with some of my old SP saves and I've been noticed extremely high flak losses right at the end of a ground hex. Like right before the combat result is about to be calculated, bombers end up suffering extreme losses.

Funny thing is, is that the 41 aircraft - FLAK losses were only caused by 28 37mm flak guns. With other battles with high flak aircraft losses being caused by few aircraft guns in other attacks in the south.

As mentioned above this occurs right before the combat is resolved so am wondering if for some reason the planes are staying around in the area more than they should and are suffering more flak losses as a result.

This SP game was started a long time ago and is an earlier save of the same game that I posted in the "GS Escorts" thread. If you check the save I posted there the same problem occurs where I end up taking 40+ flak losses right before combats resolves.

This problem didn't happen when I tested combats starting a brand new GC 41.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/40dvfne0hvqhr ... e.sav?dl=0

P.S Apologies to the devs for the persistent nagging on the air war. I believe that this game is very close to a stable combat meta with the new artillery changes. I am hoping that once the final kinks with the air war are ironed out this game will shine as the best in-depth Eastern Front game out there [:)].

[Joel Billings]

This is probably WAD. Interesting that your losses for the game to date are not that far off from the historical losses at this point. There was a change several versions ago that changed the way the system decided what was a flak loss versus an op loss. Now, whenever a plane has had flak damage and it is judged to crash on returning, it is classified as a flak loss. So now you will be seeing more losses determined to be a flak loss and less as an op loss than used to be the case. Did you notice a change in the amount of total losses that were resulting from battles since that change was made, or is it more a matter of before there were more op losses and now there are more flak losses?

[Rosencrantus]

I would disagree in saying that this WAD. In the patches awhile ago, I have never seen a single combat resolve where I lost over 7+ planes in perfect weather with GS against units with weak flak, let alone 40+. As every single combat is resolving with me suffering so many bomber losses with little to no Soviet aircraft actually opposing me, just a single turn of using GS more ten times will result in me having to send my bomber fleets back to the reserve to retrain. In fact this makes people reluctant to use an important tool like GS on the enemy turn as they have no control on how often their opponent attacks and their entire bomber fleet will get depleted easily without a single enemy fighter in the sky. This is very different to how the air war was before.

I would say that air losses are in general just higher than before. The GC 41 game that I played up to Summer 42 was on the 1.00.04 and 1.00.12 patches. I would say the air war back in those patches were a lot more enjoyable. The pacing of the air war was a lot better; both me and the AI (110) were able to use our air forces extensively during 1941. But I definitely still had to let my air force take operational pauses to receive replacements, increase morale, and rest for a few turns after extensive usage. But in newer patches like 1.02.11, you can see below in my StB game against Tyronec that after just one turn of GS in clear weather against tank and mech corps with lvl 1 - 2 flak, I lost about 132 and 38 experienced (all 70+ exp and GS was only used in 3/4 of those battles) bomber aircraft just to flak and operational losses. I had to send my now 30 morale and 55-60 exp bombers back to the reserve after just one turn of flying in the most optimal situation they'll ever get; clear and uncontested skies as Tyronec didn't let his fighter aircraft try to fight my planes. I will literally lose the offensive component of the air war without my opponent ever using his air force. I can't even imagine how it'll be for Tyronec once he starts using GS with his less experienced crews though. Even the IL-2s with 2 armour will still take heavy flak losses as my FW 190F tactical bombers has 2 armour as well, are more experienced and still took very high flak losses.

From what I gather from all the AARs is that air losses are lower in general due to human players just using them less and perhaps you guys are trying to increase the amount of bomber losses per combat to bring the numbers closer to historical due to less air force usage. If that is the case I would significantly prefer to how the air war was before than it is now as before historical usage of the air force for both sides actually led to relatively historical numbers. I will say right now with a good amount of playtime before and after the air changes that with how little you can actually use your air force now, the air war currently feels very unrewarding and historically implausible.

Bomber and fighter aircraft also flew from the airbases inside the circle, so only lvl 2 airbases and very close to the target hexes.

For anyone reading this right now I would also like to hear your thoughts on the air war before and after the changes. We are definitely coming close to a nice stable combat model after the artillery changes and the air war is really the last part of the game that I have issues with.

P.S Just realised that my airbases are still suffering from that low exp air support crew bug where airbases were being filled with like 40 exp air support crews. I guess I have to re-fill the airbase with new crews after that bug was patched? Could explain why I find the flak losses on T1 of the GC 41 to much more bearable as all the airbases there are 70-75 exp. Though I'm not sure how air support exp affects flak losses and planes crashing on landing after coming back from a GS mission; I thought they were just for air base logistics and repairing damaged aircraft.

[KenchiSulla]

Hi Joel,

Please consider collecting info on missions flown vs losses sustained (with a focus on flak / ops).

The model as it is causes me to rest most of my airforce because of the losses sustained in one or two battles. It makes me switch off GS when I am not phasing as I know it will really, really wreck the service in a couple of months game time...

I do believe / feel that you are fairly close and it is a matter of adding one or two mechanisms to the game where you give more control to the player (range) and tuning combat and recovery (flak / ops losses)

If you scale up losses to make them look more historical players will use the asset less, possibly creating a loop (use down, loss rate per sortie up)

[xhoel]

Joel, I dont see how this is WAD and even if it is, I dont know what sources are being used to justify such results.

Operation Tidal Wave (the American bombing of Ploesti in 1943) came up against heavy Flak attack as well as German and Rumanian fighters and out of 177 bombers, 53 were lost in the raid for a 30% loss rate. It was considered one of the costliest raids of the war.

In the example above, 174 German bombers with a full escort lost 44 planes, 42 to AA, thats a 25% loss rate, for a single GS mission in the week. Not only is that not sustainable and unrealistic it also gives players the wrong incentives as both other posters already said: The Germans will stop using GS since the losses from it are impossible to sustain and the Soviets wont bother using their air force since they can already cause such heavy losses to the Germans without moving a finger.

In an ideal world the game system should encourage both players to use their air force as much as possible as they are a powerful force multiplier. The Soviets should contest the skies as much as possible in 1941, not rely on AA on steroids to do their biding.

PS: Unless those 28 AA guns are SAM missile sites, there is no chance in hell that they are getting those results.

[Rosencrantus]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

Joel, I dont see how this is WAD and even if it is, I dont know what sources are being used to justify such results.

Operation Tidal Wave (the American bombing of Ploesti in 1943) came up against heavy Flak attack as well as German and Rumanian fighters and out of 177 bombers, 53 were lost in the raid for a 30% loss rate. It was considered one of the costliest raids of the war.

In the example above, 174 German bombers with a full escort lost 44 planes, 42 to AA, thats a 25% loss rate, for a single GS mission in the week. Not only is that not sustainable and unrealistic it also gives players the wrong incentives as both other posters already said: The Germans will stop using GS since the losses from it are impossible to sustain and the Soviets wont bother using their air force since they can already cause such heavy losses to the Germans without moving a finger.

In an ideal world the game system should encourage both players to use their air force as much as possible as they are a powerful force multiplier. The Soviets should contest the skies as much as possible in 1941, not rely on AA on steroids to do their biding.

PS: Unless those 28 AA guns are SAM missile sites, there is no chance in hell that they are getting those results.

The way air force was modeled during the first few patches when the game was first released were exactly like that: If the Soviets didn't bother contesting the skies you'd get lots of GS for very low losses, giving incentive for both sides to commit aircraft in the air war. As I mentioned above most of this GC 41 was played on old patches and I used my air force extensively and pragmatically with operational pauses to rest and recover and managed to get loss numbers that are historically reasonable. Here it is for all air losses on T53, June 21, 1942. Keep in mind that I played on challenging against the AI.

Keep in mind that I am trying to be as unbiased as much as a I can, as I suspect in my StB game that as soon as Tyronec gets more control of the skies he'll be the one suffering from all these flak losses.

[AlbertN]

I do not made of it a secret that:

A) Operational / Flak losses are too high
B) Air to Air combat is bogus. From I153s obliterating Ju88 in early '41 (if caught unescorted) to entire 100% wipeout of Soviet Fighter / Bomber squadrons too.
C) Il2 and Li2 seem to hardly suffer losses from Flak in my experience. Other planes suffer loads.
D) Il2 are efficient - I assume out of sheer numbers, Luftwaffe is definitely not. The system needs a more qualitative imprint for the air bombing war and not sheerly quantitative.

Since Rosencratus asked for other folks opinion... that is mine. But as it is known the Air Patch must arrive I do not stress much on it.

Also I do agree 'historical losses' (for Air and Ground) cannot be good meters as players tune their play depending on the resources. Historical ground losses tend to be less because Soviets run instead of fighting and hold the ground? Precisely! -- Air losses will follow similar fate if 'Luftwaffe is useless but bombers eat tons of freight' and 'Logistics are castrating my advance' team up. One won't use bombers, park them in reserve or the like and thus ... oh, woah, no losses. Given, there is no air war or almost!

[Rosencrantus]

A) Flak losses are much more of a problem than operational losses, though I still think that operational losses can still be tuned down a just a little bit more for GS only.
B) For gameplay sake I think this is good enough for now. It can definitely be changed later but I've seen some air battles where neither side took 100% losses and there were survivors. Definitely do also see near 100% wipes a lot too though.
C) That's because those planes have armour 2 so they survive flak much better than most german planes which only have armour 1.
D) I don't use GA very often so I can't give a valid opinion. GA is also another issue in itself with how often they get intercepted.

I've usually always been able to keep my units supplied during Barbarossa, maintain a good advance and still have all my bombers on the map until winter. You just really need to squeeze as much supply in as you can and not overuse GS which can eat up a lot freight. Just maintaining planes in airbases don't consume much freight but all the ammo and fuel needed to be sent do.

[loki100]

A) an opinion that I personally don't share
B) I have seen complete destruction but its usually of bombers well over enemy territory, I've never seen the I153 issue you quote but then I manage to escort my bombers most of the time
C) well I've shot a lot of them down somehow:

D) LW is efficient, even in March 43 I'm winning the air war and delivering the sort of GS that wins battles - or inflicts heavy losses on the Soviets


The problem with the 'historical losses' metric is it assumes that players are trying to match historical usage.

Even in 1941, you should be able to separate off the supply demand for your bombers than for your front line formations. The tricky bit is ensuring supply for the shorter ranged fighters.

I've used the LW all this game apart from in the first winter when I reverted to keeping the fighters as a screen for the non-blizzard turns.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Rosencrantus

Keep in mind that I am trying to be as unbiased as much as a I can, as I suspect in my StB game that as soon as Tyronec gets more control of the skies he'll be the one suffering from all these flak losses.

In my VtB game (playing Germans), the Soviets are taking quite heavy losses from flak too. It seems a bit excessive and I do think it should be toned down.

[Zovs]

I am also noticing that Recon missions set at 17,000-20,000 are taking a lot of Flak.

[Joel Billings]

Can you compare your overall losses in this version of VtB to earlier versions? There really was a major change in the way losses are categorized, so it's important to get a sense of total losses. Op losses are likely down quite a bit from earlier losses. Can anyone compare their overall results of an earlier version to this one?

[Rosencrantus]

Overall losses are the same as before but that's because I now use GS significantly less than I did before. The actual loss per mission are substantially higher and if I were to run GS at the frequency of which I used to before, I would say losses are about 2-3x higher.

I am losing about 7-8 bombers per combat now and that is in clear weather and against units with lvl 0 - 1 flak. In previous patches with the exact same conditions I would only lose 0-3 bombers. If you look at my StB AAR when playing the game back on the 1.01.07 beta, I loss fewer planes per combat and that was during snowfall and blizzard.

Here for example, attacking a stack of 30,000 men with a flak level of 7 I lose 40+ planes to flak, while back on a previous patch with GS participating in a battle with 300,000 men probably with a comparable flak level or higher during snowfall I only lose 13 bomber planes.

If I were to commit GS to a battle this large in the newest patch, I would not be surprised if I saw the loss of 90+ planes just to flak...

[Rosencrantus]

Here's another example of when I attacked on the same turn but on a old patch.

As you can see 42 37 mm AA guns were not capable of downing 40+ bombers back then.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Can you compare your overall losses in this version of VtB to earlier versions? There really was a major change in the way losses are categorized, so it's important to get a sense of total losses. Op losses are likely down quite a bit from earlier losses. Can anyone compare their overall results of an earlier version to this one?

I cant, since this is my first time giving VtB a go. My issue comes from inspecting battles and seeing results that are a bit high.

If you feel that the general losses are ok then I would propose a change that is as follows: Increase the chance that a plane that took flak damage will make it safely to base but will have high damage. Damage that either will take longer than 1 turn to fix, or damage that will lead to the plane being written off during logistics. For now you can then leave flak strength at same level, but over time you can tone it down.

Picture it like this:

Situation 1: 40 planes go off to battle. Under current patch, 10 of those are shot down immediately, 30 make it back to base. Results: 10 losses, 30 make it.

Situation 2: 40 planes go off to battle. 3 are shot down immediately, 7 take some damage but make it back to base. Those 7 now go through repairs and write off procedure. 5 can be repaired but it will take 2 turns for all of them to do so, 2 are written off during logistics.
Results: 5 losses, 35 make it, but for the time being only 30 are available for more missions, until repairs are complete.

I feel like this would be a lot more realistic and a simpler way to tell players to slow down with their use of the air force.

[xhoel]

Before the patch:



After the patch:



Double the losses. These kind of results completely drain any fun that one could get from the air war. Also the Anti-Aircraft devices listed for the Soviets dont make a lot of sense? Apparently the Shermans from neighboring hexes are shooting at the Germans? All of them? From 10 miles away? Shooting at dive bombers flying at high speeds?

Not to mention the fact that the 282 tanks that are taking part in the battle should not be shooting at all since they are being engaged by 2 Elite SS Divisions from the front. How are the crews manning a 50 cal in the middle of tank on tank battle?

I think I will revert to 1.02.08 and play that till the air game is fixed.

[Jango32]

Has 'anti-aircraft' ever included rifles or tanks for the Axis throughout the patches? I've consistently seen Soviet rifles/machine guns/tanks/what-have-you fire at aircraft, but I don't think I've seen it for the Axis either in my games or on the forums.

[AlbertN]

Yes I've seen many times German rifle squadrons or machine guns or even tanks shooting at enemy bombers, in general there were Il2 present so I assume it's about the dive bombing business.

[Erik Rutins]

Are you all seeing a lot of variability in flak/ops loss results from battle to battle, or are you seeing high losses in every one?

[Rosencrantus]

For me I'm getting high flak losses for every combat my bombers are involved in, even when I am using GS against a really weak unit they are taking 3+ losses when the opponent basically has almost no AA.

I mean, if you use the save that I sent above, if you launch attacks you'll get 40+ flak losses per battle, even if there are just 20 AA guns firing against your bombers.

Even the notion of losing 40+ bombers to just 28 AA guns is absolutely absurd to me.