Anti-air

[dead2571]

Is it me or does it seem like the AI gets a huge buff in anti-air damage? They can attack the middle of my huge cruiser fleet with 4 planes and only lose 2 or 3,I attack 3 transports with no escorts with my torpedo bombers and lose 5 of 12? Against transports?

[boris.glevrk]

Guys, I just had an interesting test.

20 Kates against 2 Farragut 2 Cleveland in Campaign, 11 shot down, none of the Clevelands sunk

Entirely same criteria, but in custom battle, 4 shot down, both Clevelands sunk.

Therefore, for those of you who feels that the AA guns are suddenly stronger, perhaps you should consider the possibility of a corrupt campaign save. It is obviously wrong when the same battle gives different outcomes in campagn/custom battle.

[dangiesey]

Originally posted by dead2571:

On a completely separate note,they should make the yamato's main guns dual purpose as in real life there was a type of anti-air shell made for them (even if it was completely garbage) called san shiki or something like that.

The Japanese developed the Type 3 Sankaiden Anti-Aircraft shell for several different large calibers. The 18'' variant was 2,998 lbs and was filled with 900 incendiary tubes. The idea was to create a dense barrage that attacking aircraft would have to fly through.

I'm no expert on the topic, but I think the problem with the concept was similar to the problems that most nations encountered when trying to use heavier guns in an AA role -- the relatively slow train and elevation rate of main battery turrets combined with the increased difficulty of loading at high angles of elevation made it difficult to deliver effective fire. The Japanese had some heavy cruiser guns that had a high degree of elevation and were intended to have AA capability, and the British experimented with the same concepts with some of their 6'' and 8'' guns.

All in all, these types of efforts probably aren't as "garbage" as the ill-fated British "Unrotated Projectile" launchers -- IF one were somehow able to put a large caliber shell reasonably close to target, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be a serious threat to an attacking aircraft. The problem, unfortunately, is doing that against a plane that's, uh, moving.

[dead2571]

Originally posted by dangiesey:

Originally posted by dead2571:

On a completely separate note,they should make the yamato's main guns dual purpose as in real life there was a type of anti-air shell made for them (even if it was completely garbage) called san shiki or something like that.

The Japanese developed the Type 3 Sankaiden Anti-Aircraft shell for several different large calibers. The 18'' variant was 2,998 lbs and was filled with 900 incendiary tubes. The idea was to create a dense barrage that attacking aircraft would have to fly through.

I'm no expert on the topic, but I think the problem with the concept was similar to the problems that most nations encountered when trying to use heavier guns in an AA role -- the relatively slow train and elevation rate of main battery turrets combined with the increased difficulty of loading at high angles of elevation made it difficult to deliver effective fire. The Japanese had some heavy cruiser guns that had a high degree of elevation and were intended to have AA capability, and the British experimented with the same concepts with some of their 6'' and 8'' guns.

All in all, these types of efforts probably aren't as "garbage" as the ill-fated British "Unrotated Projectile" launchers -- IF one were somehow able to put a large caliber shell reasonably close to target, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be a serious threat to an attacking aircraft. The problem, unfortunately, is doing that against a plane that's, uh, moving.

Oh i know the issues with the ammo and I know about the launchers the british used,I just think it would be funny in this game if they had the yamato's main guns set as dual purpose as it would be realistic and funny to see~

[Zuul]

Originally posted by boris.glevrk:

Guys, I just had an interesting test.

20 Kates against 2 Farragut 2 Cleveland in Campaign, 11 shot down, none of the Clevelands sunk

Entirely same criteria, but in custom battle, 4 shot down, both Clevelands sunk.

Therefore, for those of you who feels that the AA guns are suddenly stronger, perhaps you should consider the possibility of a corrupt campaign save. It is obviously wrong when the same battle gives different outcomes in campagn/custom battle.

I should point out, that given how AAA works in this game, wildly different results can and should be expected from the same battle.

Ignoring most of the RNG elements involved in airplane damage, just the flak mechanics contain enough variance to create very different outcomes. Since flak can entirely miss, strike near enough to damage, or directly impact and instakill, and target sample sizes of only 2 dozen, huge variance is practically expected.

[boris.glevrk]

Originally posted by Zuul:

Originally posted by boris.glevrk:

Guys, I just had an interesting test.

20 Kates against 2 Farragut 2 Cleveland in Campaign, 11 shot down, none of the Clevelands sunk

Entirely same criteria, but in custom battle, 4 shot down, both Clevelands sunk.

Therefore, for those of you who feels that the AA guns are suddenly stronger, perhaps you should consider the possibility of a corrupt campaign save. It is obviously wrong when the same battle gives different outcomes in campagn/custom battle.

I should point out, that given how AAA works in this game, wildly different results can and should be expected from the same battle.

Ignoring most of the RNG elements involved in airplane damage, just the flak mechanics contain enough variance to create very different outcomes. Since flak can entirely miss, strike near enough to damage, or directly impact and instakill, and target sample sizes of only 2 dozen, huge variance is practically expected.

Yeah after more tests I'm less sure now. I think perhaps it's a simple as Cleveland/the whole US Navy needs a nerf.

[dead2571]

Originally posted by boris.glevrk:

Originally posted by Zuul:

I should point out, that given how AAA works in this game, wildly different results can and should be expected from the same battle.

Ignoring most of the RNG elements involved in airplane damage, just the flak mechanics contain enough variance to create very different outcomes. Since flak can entirely miss, strike near enough to damage, or directly impact and instakill, and target sample sizes of only 2 dozen, huge variance is practically expected.

Yeah after more tests I'm less sure now. I think perhaps it's a simple as Cleveland/the whole US Navy needs a nerf.

I think all aa does cause i lose the same amount as either side.

[boris.glevrk]

Originally posted by dead2571:

Originally posted by boris.glevrk:

Yeah after more tests I'm less sure now. I think perhaps it's a simple as Cleveland/the whole US Navy needs a nerf.

I think all aa does cause i lose the same amount as either side.

There is a file to nerf the explosion size for the AAA shells, but is there a way to nerf small-caliber?

[Zuul]

I mean, it’s really hit or miss. Last night I went in on 2 HC/DD and 6 MS with 24 dauntless. Sunk all 6 merchants and lost all of 0 fighters.

Sometimes AAA seems OP, sometimes it hardly seems to exist. It’s the nature of RNG and small sample sizes.

[dead2571]

Yeah after some more testing. Transport AA is just way too strong. I can attack a fleet of cruisers and destroyers multiple times in a row and not lose a single plane. I attack a fleet of transports with 1 cruiser with them and I lose 25%+ of my plane force every single time. And that is only counting my dive bombers. I lose 75% of my torpedo bombers against transports. And yet my fleet 8 cruisers struggles to shoot down a single squad of 4 japanese vals. It is honestly quite stupid.

[d1xsmle]

Originally posted by JungleSheep:

Yes, I agree with Boris. It's really hard to play with IJN as their planes are about half the toughness of USN planes and the USN flak is about twice as dense. Even after much micromanagement, I usually lose 30% of my air wing during an attack. For USN, I lose at most 10% which is about 1/3. It gets quite frustrating playing IJN after I've played USN for a while. Not to mention the Avenger rockets which eats DDs and subs reliably.

The book Neptune's Inferno: The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal by James D. Hornfischer contains several accounts of Japanese squadrons being decimated by U.S. AAA and CAP.

[boris.glevrk]

Originally posted by d1xsmle:

Originally posted by JungleSheep:

Yes, I agree with Boris. It's really hard to play with IJN as their planes are about half the toughness of USN planes and the USN flak is about twice as dense. Even after much micromanagement, I usually lose 30% of my air wing during an attack. For USN, I lose at most 10% which is about 1/3. It gets quite frustrating playing IJN after I've played USN for a while. Not to mention the Avenger rockets which eats DDs and subs reliably.

The book Neptune's Inferno: The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal by James D. Hornfischer contains several accounts of Japanese squadrons being decimated by U.S. AAA and CAP.

That's not the point. Dambusters also lost 50%+ of their planes but that doesn't mean Lancaster is a bad plane.
Not to mention no air force/army air force/naval aviation ever loses half or more or its planes on a daily basis, not even on the most dire days of the war.

Plus you said AAA and CAP. and CAP is the point. We're talking about pure AAA and there's no such thing as losing 80% of planes to AAA in 5 minutes.

[SonarShep]

I completely agree, when playing the US I would lose at least 1-2 of my dive bombers or torpedo planes when striking Japanese transports.

[dead2571]

Originally posted by TopShot_FMW:

I completely agree, when playing the US I would lose at least 1-2 of my dive bombers or torpedo planes when striking Japanese transports.

Lucky you. If i attack warships I lose 1-2. If i attack transports with US planes. I will lose atleast half the force if its torpedo planes and about 25% and sometimes more of the force if its dive bombers. With the japanese I have an easier time going after transports but worse time going after warships.

[boris.glevrk]

Originally posted by TopShot_FMW:

I completely agree, when playing the US I would lose at least 1-2 of my dive bombers or torpedo planes when striking Japanese transports.

That's rather low. Try using the Japanese and you'll lose like 3-8 every time. Some fleets can almost obliterate your air squad.

[dead2571]

Originally posted by dangiesey:

Several have commented here that the AA on transport ships seems excessively good, which I would agree with. Many US ships have extensive AA weaponry, especially in regards to DP guns. The Atlanta-class cruisers in particular are very fearsome in this arena.

I personally think that this area of the game still needs some tweaking. In particular, sustaining bomb hits doesn't seem to suppress the light and medium AA -- HE bombs exploding on the deck should silence these guns, or at least disrupt them for a period of time. I think the biggest beef I have right now (and it's a small one -- I LOVE this game) in terms of AA is that I'll hit a ship with 4-6 bombs, losing maybe 1-2 bombers on the way down, and then it'll shoot down another few as they egress, despite having hit the ship repeatedly and starting extensive fires.

I mean that is kinda realistic depending on where the bombs hit and the kind of ship. Unless the guns lost power or the bomb/fire was close enough to them,the gunners job is to you know...gun. They would keep firing while the damage control teams worked the rest out. An example would be USS Laffey. It came under attack by 50 japanese planes alone despite being a destroyer. They took multiple near miss bombs. 4 direct bomb hits,6 kamikaze hits,and strafing runs and except for guns that were damaged or had the crews killed,they continued fighting. The ship survived the encounter too. its currently a museum ship