Heavy Caliber Flak

[Sable]

Is there any way this could just get removed until we get a better model for it?  As it is now, it's just a joke.  For instance today I'm flying through an enemy zone at about 15,000ft and I start taking fire from a flak battery.  So i jink a bit as I'm flying through and don't get touched.  About 2 minutes later I see an enemy bomber below me, so I roll over and dive down to about 5000ft, and nail him.  I've now gone from 15,000ft at 350mph to 5000ft at 550mph heading the opposite direction and the flak still has me bracketed.  I then zoom back up to regain my altitude, and right as I peak and reverse direction - BANG.  Back in the tower, no one awarded the kill for my death.

So let me get this straight.  A battery of 88mm Flak can't score a hit on a target moving at a fairly steady course and speed, but as I start violently manuevering it can easily track me, while still maintaining maximum rate of fire and score hits!?!?!?!

Remember that the lead gunner would be using either a predictive sight or Radar to determine my altitude, course and speed (which would take a couple seconds at least to determine for a target moving in a straight line at constant speed and alt), who would then give that information to the men handling the gun (this would take another couple seconds at least), who would then aim the gun (another couple seconds just for small corrections, and it's unbelieveable that they could traverse their 88 fast enough to keep on a small fighter doing aerobatics) and finally fire.  Note that it has now been probably 5-10 seconds since they took a measure of the targets range speed and altitude, and it's going to be another second or two before the round reaches the range it was fused for and explodes.  If the target changed course, altitude or speed at any point during that sequence, the chance of a hit should be right about zero.  And this is assuming that the initial range taking was correct, and that the gunners sighted their guns perfectly!  No wonder thousands of rounds were expended just to bring down one bomber flying straight and level.

As it is now in the game, they only time it ever seems to hit you is when you are in a dogfight.  Besides the fact that it is totally unrealistic that it can track you like this, it really detracts from the game when you are busy fighting an interacting with other players, and the AI just randomly decides to kill you.  Most of the time when you aren't even attacking the objective it protects.

[lasersailor184]

Like I have said many times before:

Make it a mannable position, but take away the AI from using it.

[Hack9]

I agree that heavy ack should be a mannable position over airfields.  We can get into a CV large calibre ack gun, so we should have access to larger field ack guns as well.  I'm not sure about disabling it entirely though from AI in those situations. There are in my opinion, pros and cons to this.

In the case of strat targets and CV's, there has to be some kind of danger involved in attacking and overflying those type targets or strats would be porked routinely to rediculously low levels and the services those strats help regenerate would remain out of service for rediculously long periods of game play.  CV's already drop like flies with the current ack programming so disabling AI heavy ack would be catastrophic to CV survivability as well.

Real life strategic type targets of various types would be dispersed across the realm and not necessarily concentrated all in one location to be easily knocked out for a time by a single group of bombers with some skill...or a big enough bomb load.  As it is in AH, we have one stop shopping to greatly reduce a particular strat capability. Thus, the unrealistic 88mm ack can be rationalized as being a balancing factor in that situation.  Unrealistic? Yes.  Appropriately unrealistic?  I think so.

Having uncannily supernaturally accurate large calibre ack is also the price paid for flying over defended enemy targets...or overflying a CV group.  Nearly every American WW2 pilot I have ever read quotes from absolutley despised the idea of heading for the deck and flying close to the ground unless there really was no other option. The reason usually stated is: Groud Fire.  Enemy territory, and in some cases, even friendly territory could errupt with small arms or light ack gun fire at just about any time without warning.  Heck, wasn't one of the great US aces downed by FRIENDLY ground fire?  I think Preddy was killed in such a situation.  So ground fire was a serious issue to contend with in WW2.

We don't contend with such issues in AH and are immune to friendly fire.  As a result, so long as we're not over an enemy target area that has ack positions still active, we are free to roam the map at any altitude we please...even tree-top level.  In areas where Osti's and M16's are active, you keep a certain safe distance from them and you are not likely to get hit.

So I consider having large calibre ack being capable of being unrealistically accurate at the most inopportune times as a balancing factor to the luxury of flying through any enemy territory other than within range of defended ground targets without danger from ack at all.  

We've all been popped and sent to the tower before when the ack gods pointed their boney fingers at us and decide it was our time to go.  There's just never a good time to die to ack, manned or not.   But I think other than adding the capability to man heavy ack positions at airfields, and maybe reducing the overall amount of unmanned heavy ack that is thrown at attackers over such airfields, the ack gods should retain their current powers.

[lasersailor184]

The 37mm ack will still be AI.  However, if you want to use Puffy Ack, you have to do it instead of the computer doing it.

[Swoop]

Not too long ago HT responded to the question of 88mm ack.  He explained that the guns do indeed have a lesser chance of hitting you the more you manouver and faster you're moving despite the impression most players seem to have.  He also said "Not planning on changing it."


Well, I'd like to ask the question:   Why not?

[hitech]

Swoop: Because it is not very effect as is. Do some real testing once. Fly in the ack for long periods of time. Find out how much time you have to be in the ack to experiance a hit.


HiTech

[Jinx]

Originally posted by hitech
Find out how much time you have to be in the ack to experiance a hit.

HT, its not the times when I fly around in the flak, when I see the bursts around me and I stay there. Its the times when I stray in to range of an 88 and it kills me with one ping and no warning. I know its random, but that makes me log off and do something else for a while...

[Swoop]

Originally posted by hitech
Swoop: Because it is not very effect as is.

Yes it is.  Not because it doesn't often hit you, because the one time it does hit it's generally sortie ending.

Originally posted by hitech
Do some real testing once.

Excuse me?  Here's me trying to be polite and you reply in that tone?  Comon man, let's discuss like adults.  I can if you can.

Originally posted by hitech
Fly in the ack for long periods of time. Find out how much time you have to be in the ack to experiance a hit.  

Have done.  Lots.  Yes really I have.  And there isn't a set amount of time needed to be spent in ack in order to receive a hit, if there was we'd all have stopwatches by now.  The point a lot of people are trying to make is that, due to the random factor, ack tends to just get lucky sometimes and hit a manouvering fighter.  It's not that it's unrealistic despite some peoples claims, it's that from a players point of view the ack is not a hindrance (because it doesnt hit often enough), it's merely an annoyance because when it does it it's usually game over.  Which is mildly frustrating.

A change to the ack to make it hit waaay more often than it does but not cause anywhere near the damage......how bout that?  Lots of ack pings, especially if flying straight and level, which cause very, very minor damage which'll eventually bring a plane down if the pilot does nothing to counter it.

Yes, I know, an 88mm flak hit to a plane won't leave too many pieces behind and the pilot will be toast.......but you've seen the flak in B17-2?   That was the best flak I've seen on a PC, scarey as hell and not game ending.

All we're asking for here is your consideration, have a thunk about it will ya?

[Easyscor]

I've noticed two things.

1. Most Flack bursts miss the bombers and those that hit usually have little effect.

2. A small plane like the 109 seems to be a magnet for Flack and I catch many more hits compared to a bomber.  That single hit on a small plane like the 109 is really bad news, which is reasonable but it happens much more often then I would expect.

[Hack9]

I've had critical damage done to bombers and drones due to puffy ack before, and I've heard the "clunk" of shrapnel slamming into my bombers often enough as well, with or without much accompanying damage.  I don't think it's really accurate to say that bombers don't take heavy damage from the flak hits they do receive, or that they get hit less often.  They are bigger targets and while they can absorb a bit more damage than a small fighter, they are also generally slower and a bit easier to hit.   A 109 is a fairly fragile plane to begin with, and an 88 burst in proximity to it, without having to be a direct hit, is likely to do quite a bit of damage.  

The one hit instant deaths are frustrating when they happen, but I don't really think they're all that unreasonable considering how often we seem to be able to avoid getting seriously damaged by auto puffy ack at all.  If that puffy ack was mannable, deaths to puffy ack would be even more frequent.  Try flying over a well manned cv's 5" guns.  There are some gunners who know just how to lead and compensate for shell drop at long and short ranges alike.  At most, 2 or 3 shots to get the right shot placement and you're toast.  They don't have to get a direct hit to kill you either.

My point is that a well practiced gunner can be far more effective and consistent than the AI.  I'd rather see the AI remain as it is and let it get that "lucky" hit that kicks me back to the tower every once in awhile, than to have to deal with an AI which is modeled to be far more accurate but with a lesser damage potential.  That accuracy is what kills.  If a good gunner hits you once, he's going to hit you again and again until you're down.  If AI ack can hit you as often as a manned 5" position can, even with less damage taken per hit, we'd find ourself quickly up the creek without a paddle.  We may not die instantly, but die we most likely will, and probably more often.

[DREDIOCK]

I routinely fly through tons of it all the time. I dont even bother trying to avoid it as it rarely ever hits me let alone kills me.

Got my engine knocked out by it fr the first time in many months the other day.
Consideringt he amount of sorties I fly through it. I dont see it as being a problem.

[Kweassa]

I actually agree with HT on this one.

 There are some fishy stuff with flak - such as flak fire when there's no line of sight.. or etc.

 However, if I really begin to count how often I get hit by it, there's no denying that getting hit by flak is a really rare thing to happen in any plane, at alt, at any speed. It's more or less totally random, and the frequency of that random instance is very very low.

 In real life barrage of flak batteries were as much feared as enemy interceptors - death tolls were high, and flying directly across enemy flak zone was always a risky business.

 With no disrespect, Il must point out when people say "the flak is wrong", I can't grasp what they think is "right" then.

 Is it "right" when you never get hit by flak? Or is it right if the flak threat is entirely neutralized?

 Or, is it "right" if people man the flaks? The result of players in flaks is gonna be sheer murder if it is modelled anything like the real-life machine that depended on radar calculation, timed-fuses, and massive groups of batteries firing at a single con.

 Or.. is it "right", if the flak is supposed to be manned, something like CV 5" guns which is totally dependant on eyesight and guesstimates, and most people unless the really skilled ever have a chance of hitting anything flying over 10k?

 ...

 Heck, why not. Let's do it "realistically".

 HT, please model "Flak Bases" near airfields. These bases will be packed with some 20 flaks batteries, fully destroyable.

 When people man a flak, it  will have some basic radar-calculation utilities.. people will set the detonation altitude with "+" "-" keys to adjust, and when a single mannned battery fires, all other batteries will be linked to that battery and fire simultaneously.

 That oughta make it a pretty interesting deal to try and vulch bases.

[RTSigma]

Even tho I haven't flown in a month, the ack wasn't that bad. Sure there are random hits but thats it, random. You are upping as one of many pilots, many times, and doing multiple sorties. WW2 pilots didn't get that chance if they were downed by 88's.


I think the big fix (when I was able to fly) was the ack going through mountains.

It needs a LOS system

[Hack9]

Shooting through mountain and other terrain might be a stretch, but I say leave it alone considering that we have to otherwise deal with no real groundfire threats in the game, regardless of altitude, unless flying over enemy vehicles, manned ack or auto ack positions.  

Historically ground fire was a big enough deal that flying on the deck was considered an option only in the most dire circumstances.  Even in the Vietnam era, ground fire, whether from small arms or AA positions, was responsible for many US aircraft being brought down.  We don't have to face that same type of threat level from ground fire.  So the occasional instant death or snuffed out engine is a small price to pay for that luxury.

Of course, a solution to getting popped by heavy ack without warning is:  don't fly in airspace defended by puffy ack unless you absolutely have to.  WW2 pilots tried to set courses around and between known flak positions where ever possible.  So avoid those areas unless you are intent on attacking the target the flack is defending.  If you're over an airfield to be attacked, de-ack the place first BEFORE you decide to engage the fighters and you'll minimize the chances of being hit by flak while trying to shoot down enemy aircraft.  If you don't want to de-ack, then try to lure your intended prey away from flak defended areas instead of allowing him to lure you into the flak zone.

The rest is a roll of the dice.

[dedalos]

Well, I'll go down once a day from it and it is never when I fly slow and strait.  Its always after a sharp turn or dvive/clime.  My luck I guess.

If you think thats upsetting, try this:  I find a loaded 47 heading for our CV.  He is about 12 or 13K so I start climing.  The guy totaly ignors me.  He is determined to kill himself with the CV.  I figured once I got within 1K he would dive straight down.  So, clime above him at 2k from him in hope that I can surprise him with a high speed dive.  And so I, dive in.  CV ack is firing at him for the past 2,3 mins already but it cannot hit him (he is flying straight and slow).  1.5k, 1k, 800, Zoom on, 600, ack takes my left wing off.  That really encurages me to try and deffend our CVs.

Not asking for removal.  Make it more accurate so it can help deffend what ever it is deffending or make it manable.  Right now it is just anoying.