Air losses against no air GS dat Flak

[Stamb]

1.02.11

Game vs German AI. Road to Leningrad.

Altitude 9000 for bombers, 15000 for escort.

2nd turn.

[panzer51]

So 7 AA guns knocked out 16 planes?

[Stamb]

Yep. Isolated and probably with low TOE as it was turn 2.

[panzer51]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Yep. Isolated and probably with low TOE as it was turn 2.

That's insane efficiency

[Stamb]

I was not playing from a release but there are some youtube GC on version 1.0 and looks like there air war is working much better. Even transport planes are intercepted!

[ShaggyHiK]

Are you guys kidding me?
Of course, the losses from anti-aircraft guns have increased. Previously, an aircraft damaged in a raid by anti-aircraft guns was considered an operational loss if it crashed while landing. But now such an aircraft is counted as shot down by anti-aircraft guns.

You need to compare the total losses. If you previously lost 10 aircraft, 2 from anti-aircraft guns and 8 operational, and now you are losing 10 aircraft and 6 anti-aircraft guns and 4 operational losses.
This does not mean that anti-aircraft guns have become more effective.

[Rosencrantus]

Did you even look at the first photo in this post or the photos in the tech support thread about it? Flak losses shouldn't even approach those numbers even accounting for the fact that flak losses are now counted properly.

Save for a few situations like at the very beginning of the GC 41 the overall losses per GS mission is substantially higher than before for both axis and soviets.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: Rosencrantus
Did you even look at the first photo in this post or the photos in the tech support thread about it? Flak losses shouldn't even approach those numbers even accounting for the fact that flak losses are now counted properly.

Save for a few situations like at the very beginning of the GC 41 the overall losses per GS mission is substantially higher than before for both axis and soviets.

It's very difficult for me to say where the truth is. In any case, Aviation has high losses and higher production, at least 41-42 years of production, in general, this is very similar to reality, in my opinion. However, I personally question how these losses are achieved.
Of course, I do not agree with the loss of 16 aircraft from 7 anti-aircraft guns, on the other hand, and completely exclude the theoretical possibility that Soviet anti-aircraft gunners could, under certain circumstances, shoot well, I would not.

German players use their aircraft badly, that's a fact. I have not yet seen German players waging an air war after the first move.
I admit that such losses are due to poor player settings.

[Rosencrantus]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

ORIGINAL: Rosencrantus
Did you even look at the first photo in this post or the photos in the tech support thread about it? Flak losses shouldn't even approach those numbers even accounting for the fact that flak losses are now counted properly.

Save for a few situations like at the very beginning of the GC 41 the overall losses per GS mission is substantially higher than before for both axis and soviets.

German players use their aircraft badly, that's a fact. I have not yet seen German players waging an air war after the first move.
I admit that such losses are due to poor player settings.

That's because there isn't much to do after T1 aside from recon GS and the very rare GA. Have you ever even extensively played the other side in this game?

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

You need to compare the total losses.

No you dont. You only need to see what effects certain elements have. If 5 AA guns are downing 15+ planes in a WW2 setting, you are as far away from reality as it gets. These are not Ground to Air missiles but manually operated AA guns basically shooting at what they can see.

I dont know why you would defend this change. From what I have seen the Soviets take huge flak losses too which is also not realistic.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

German players use their aircraft badly, that's a fact. I have not yet seen German players waging an air war after the first move.
I admit that such losses are due to poor player settings.

Again, you are talking about something you have little clue about. The air war that happens after T1 is GS and interception with occasional use of NP. GA when you are on the offensive is of little use and so is strategic bombing. Stick to talking about things you know about instead of acting like an authority on how German players play.

The losses are due to insanely high flak that has superhuman accuracy. Has nothing to do with players skill.

[Rosencrantus]

+1

[ShaggyHiK]

1. I don't think that games against AI can be revealing. AI is too dumb for air warfare. Flies too low, uses bad power outfit, flies without cover. Etc. I insist on testing human versus human situations. It is not advisable to play against someone, you can be on both sides at once and create conditional game situations for both sides. What do I do at my leisure.

2. I believe that the overall level of losses remains the same as at 01.09. About 5-10% of the number of sorties was lost and it remains.

3. Changes affected the fact that losses from OPS turned into losses from anti-aircraft guns. If earlier there were 10% of the total losses of 2% anti-aircraft guns 8% of the OPS, now it is close to 5% -5% with some error.
Personally, my observations.

4. If anti-aircraft guns were effective, then they were like that for a long time, but for some reason the topic was created after a cosmetic update, which did not directly affect the effectiveness of anti-aircraft weapons.

5. Under certain conditions, surface-to-air missiles are not needed to achieve good air defense results, a slow aircraft such as the Ju-88, He-111 and even more so the Ju-87, IL-2, I-153, U-2 at an altitude of 9000 feet or 2700 meters. Ideal target for medium anti-aircraft guns 20-37-40mm

[ShaggyHiK]

I am also not completely sure about the clear display of the results of the battle in the aviation component. I observed situations when I lost, for example, 45 aircraft, although in battle there were 0.
This also applies to anti-aircraft armament, I have suspicions that the display of 7 anti-aircraft guns in battle turned out to be correct.
In addition, you do not take into account the situation that the planes could fly from the congested airfield of the first level. That negatively affected the results of aircraft landing.

[ShaggyHiK]

I do not want to say that there are no problems in the principle, I just want to note that most screenshots do not stand up to criticism.

It is really easy to ditch aviation, but to apply it grammatically requires some understanding and knowledge.
Not everyone knows how to do this, and for the German side, I generally see only passive player, I suggest those who actively play for the German side try to bomb Soviet airfields after the first move, not on the entire front, but locally when you can create superiority. Potential railway stations. Many of you bomb Kharkov for 2-3 moves? When the USSR does not have aviation there?

The results of such battles will be more important than a lonely screenshot where 7 anti-aircraft guns shoot down 16 planes.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK


In addition, you do not take into account the situation that the planes could fly from the congested airfield of the first level.

How exactly did you determine that this was not taken into account?

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

I do not want to say that there are no problems in the principle, I just want to note that most screenshots do not stand up to criticism.

I have yet to see a single point you have made that would disprove anything that was said in this thread.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

Not everyone knows how to do this, and for the German side, I generally see only passive player, I suggest those who actively play for the German side try to bomb Soviet airfields after the first move, not on the entire front, but locally when you can create superiority. Potential railway stations.

Again, you are proving that you have 0 idea what you are talking about. Airfields and railways are not bombed because the returns from such missions are basically 0, so it makes no sense to do that. So you suggesting that it is bad play to not do such missions only shows that you lack an understanding about how the air war works.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
The results of such battles will be more important than a lonely screenshot where 7 anti-aircraft guns shoot down 16 planes.

The results of such battles have nothing to do with overpowered flak and will add nothing to the discussion. You are grasping at straws and it shows.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

5. Under certain conditions, surface-to-air missiles are not needed to achieve good air defense results, a slow aircraft such as the Ju-88, He-111 and ...

The Ju-88 was a very fast aircraft, literally designated Schnellbomber. Please make better arguments.

[panzer51]

altitude of 9000 feet or 2700 meters. Ideal target for medium anti-aircraft guns 20-

Lol, effective ceiling for a 20mm gun was basically below 3,000 feet, with good optics between 5,500-6,000 feet.

[PeteJC]

I looked around a bit on the internet to find some credible #s on Luftwaffe Russian front operational losses and flak losses. Did not have any real success. Does anyone know of a credible source? While I find losing on average 8-9% of my bombers to flak & operations per mission I must admit I have no idea if it is historically accurate. My main concern with this game is that it keeps its high level of historic accuracy. If 8-9% losses are accurate then I am fine with it. I will just use my bombers less often. Just want the game to realistic.

[PeteJC]

Sorry Sauron_II. I just noticed you gave some feedback on this in the Tech forum thread. Seems that the 8-9% flak & ops loss ratio is reasonable. I am fine with that. I agree on your other comment the German bombers had it too soft before anyway. I will just be more judicious on my GS attacks.

If someone does have a good source or reference though, please share. The internet is all over the place.

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: PeteJC

Sorry Sauron_II. I just noticed you gave some feedback on this in the Tech forum thread. Seems that the 8-9% flak & ops loss ratio is reasonable. I am fine with that. I agree on your other comment the German bombers had it too soft before anyway. I will just be more judicious on my GS attacks.

If someone does have a good source or reference though, please share. The internet is all over the place.

I still have concerns that have not been addressed.

see - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5114287

It isn't the FLAK losses that are so concerning by themselves, it is the ludicrously minimal amount of FLAK needed to achieve those AC kills.

This just stinks of Matrix arbitrarily dialing up FLAK losses across all missions, indiscriminately and irrespective of the weapon systems involved.

[king171717]

ORIGINAL: PeteJC

Sorry Sauron_II. I just noticed you gave some feedback on this in the Tech forum thread. Seems that the 8-9% flak & ops loss ratio is reasonable. I am fine with that. I agree on your other comment the German bombers had it too soft before anyway. I will just be more judicious on my GS attacks.

If someone does have a good source or reference though, please share. The internet is all over the place.

Well on average now when I GS on a attack I lose around 30-40 bombers with around 180-200, so thats over 20 percent. It makes it so you cant use air at all unless for one or two attack u very much need it. Then in which u lose a ton of bombers. This doesnt help gameplay as all your bombers do is sit in airfields. Also its unhistorical.

Here is my last attack. I could take these loses if it was A2A but just to flak like this.