Carrier Flak

[moot]

I agree with that last point.

[Charge]

I've shot down planes outside icon range a few times and I bet they were like WTF?! too.

If you spend time in 5" gun shooting at long range targets and you get a hang of the proper lead it is easy to kill a plane that carelessly comes too straight towards TG. Add to that that shells not hitting do not explode if they miss so you do not know that you are being shot at, and when they do start to explode in your proximity you are in a deep doodoo already.

I usually just track the distant dot and shoot all the time varying the angle and lead slightly all the time so there is at least two or three rounds flying into target's current flight path, so when the first one explodes theres still at least one or two following the same way ensuring the kill.

It is always a bad idea to fly straight towards (or away from) a TG if you think they have noticed your presence. Those are the easiest shots a 5" gunner can get.

-C+

[SD67]

If I can hit an aircraft out of icon range in the 5" guns, you can bet your sweet donkey an AI an do it too.
I get peeved when I cop puffs from a CV I cannot even SEE

[SlapShot]

lol. Most likely you ignore simple logics trying to defend absurd flak's behaviour.

Well, i dont know how many ships fire in this case, not all 200 of them of course. But if there are so many 'puffs' just because they stay long enough time, then real flak fire density was low. There are no threat for plane if it pass through 'old' explosion cloud.

I will repeat my main point about flaks, because some guys constantly miss it: until AH flak dangerous for fighters and useless agains bombers in same time, they are wrong.

LOL ... and you keep on trying to convince yourself and people that it should be no big deal flying thru flak barrages ... I am sure that any pilot that encountered flak barrages weren't the least bit concerned.

I am not defending how they are implemented in the game, I am just trying to make the point that flying into flak is and should be dangerous, and those in this game that think that it isn't a dangerous are only kidding themselves.

I do have to agree that bombers, in the game, don't seem to get hit as often as they should ... but as of late, I have seen them dieing to the flak more now than in the past.

[Nilsen]

it shouldent try to engage maneuvering fighters at all IMO..


btw, you questioned something about the game, prepare to get flamed, this game is perfect, nothing has ever been changed due to input from the community, its always been the way it is now.

This is true. Glad you finally figured it out.

Back on topic. It is hard but not impossible to get hit like that in real life. That beeing said this is not real life, nor is it realistic or supposed to be realistic. If it was then you would not fight spits in spits while living in a land called rook, knit or bish.

It is a game and odd things can happen.

[Oleg]

I am not defending how they are implemented in the game, I am just trying to make the point that flying into flak is and should be dangerous, and those in this game that think that it isn't a dangerous are only kidding themselves.

I never said you must be safe while flying inside flak range. In short, i said you are must be significantly harder target if you maneuvering, in comparison with flying straight (take note, i said 'harder' on 'impossible' target). Theoretically, it implemented already by extending 'flak box', but i fail to see any difference.

[moot]

Oleg, a wall of shells with 70ft proximity trigger radius is pretty effective. You don't even need to worry about the depth of your aim, only that the corridor that the salvo of shells trace in the air intersects the path of the target... Proximity triggers pretty much remove the need to worry about the Z coordinate in aiming.  Now that it's known that the shells aren't time-fused, and considering the number of auto 5" guns in an AH TG, there really needs to be precise numbers to back an argument that the box flak model, as it is, needs to change. 

[Rich46yo]

In same time you can fly in bombers group around CV for hours w/o any significant damage (leave alone manned guns). Paradox, isnt it?

Seems to be far more hazardous now. But yes, in the past, there have been many times I flew bombers overhead of them, at 10,000', and never took a scratch. Even now I sometimes dive into one, an undamaged group, to 3,000' and emerge in one piece. But not often.

If AH wanted to build the vicissitudes of dive bombing into the game I think they hit it spot on. CVs are one of the most dangerous, but the most dangerous are the Large airfields. This, mind you, for when you are attacking alone. Its not so bad if you are just dropping bombs but if you want to get into rocket range then good luck. Your best chance is in staying as vertical as possible. Thats why I dive bomb CVs almost straight down, starting off upside down, looking down, until I have it centered. And even then you can take a beating. I dont take heavy bomber groups after CVs anymore. I'd rather the thing plays out with Jabos.

The closer you actually come to the CV the worse the ack gets. We got some guys in the game that are murder with those 5" guns.

If I remember right the proximity fuses of WW-ll were set at the lethal range of the shell. More like 70 yards then feet.

[Redlegs]

Seems to be far more hazardous now. But yes, in the past, there have been many times I flew bombers overhead of them, at 10,000', and never took a scratch. Even now I sometimes dive into one, an undamaged group, to 3,000' and emerge in one piece. But not often.

If AH wanted to build the vicissitudes of dive bombing into the game I think they hit it spot on. CVs are one of the most dangerous, but the most dangerous are the Large airfields. This, mind you, for when you are attacking alone. Its not so bad if you are just dropping bombs but if you want to get into rocket range then good luck. Your best chance is in staying as vertical as possible. That's why I dive bomb CVs almost straight down, starting off upside down, looking down, until I have it centered. And even then you can take a beating. I dont take heavy bomber groups after CVs anymore. I'd rather the thing plays out with Jabos.

The closer you actually come to the CV the worse the ack gets. We got some guys in the game that are murder with those 5" guns.

I never even try to dive bomb CVs any more. I'll be perpendicular to the CV  and I'll get blasted before I drop 1,000 ft by a manned 5'.

[dedalos]

it shouldent try to engage maneuvering fighters at all IMO..


btw, you questioned something about the game, prepare to get flamed, this game is perfect, nothing has ever been changed due to input from the community, its always been the way it is now.

Prepare to roast lol.  There have always been complains about the puff.  It seems that the faster you go, the better chance of a hit you have.  However, by the time you read this, it should have been explained to you that everything is perfect and that it was your fault 

[Rich46yo]

I never even try to dive bomb CVs any more. I'll be perpendicular to the CV  and I'll get blasted before I drop 1,000 ft by a manned 5'.

You have to come in with a full head of steam and be at least 12,000' in Alt. If you come in lower, and slower, chances are your going to get hit. A small Jabo cant take the damage a heavy bomber can.
Even then Ive had lights out put on me at 12k going 340 mph.

[Oleg]

Oleg, a wall of shells with 70ft proximity trigger radius is pretty effective. You don't even need to worry about the depth of your aim, only that the corridor that the salvo of shells trace in the air intersects the path of the target... Proximity triggers pretty much remove the need to worry about the Z coordinate in aiming.  Now that it's known that the shells aren't time-fused, and considering the number of auto 5" guns in an AH TG, there really needs to be precise numbers to back an argument that the box flak model, as it is, needs to change. 

Lets talk not about 'effective' or 'not effective' but 'more effective' or 'less effective'. Do you agree what shooting at non-maneuvering target always 'more effective' than shooting at maneuvering one?

About 'wall of shells', yes, it should be quite effective. But how many guns you need to create it, 5, 10, 100? In any way, I strongly doubt gunners will intentionally miss to prevent plane's evasion moves. Everyone try to aim plane and lead it, most shots will be inside some area - box, sphere or something else, but you cannt always be in center of this area. Changing of speed vector will move you away from 'box'. The closer you come or more guns they have the harder to leave 'flak box' and vice versa.

Rich46yo, i talk about 'auto' flaks. In one of last update CV group got many new manned 5'' positions.

[moot]

Lets talk not about 'effective' or 'not effective' but 'more effective' or 'less effective'. Do you agree what shooting at non-maneuvering target always 'more effective' than shooting at maneuvering one?

Yep..

About 'wall of shells', yes, it should be quite effective. But how many guns you need to create it, 5, 10, 100?

Thats the quantifier we need to make any argument good enough for HTC's attention, now.

In any way, I strongly doubt gunners will intentionally miss to prevent plane's evasion moves. Everyone try to aim plane and lead it, most shots will be inside some area - box, sphere or something else, but you cannt always be in center of this area. Changing of speed vector will move you away from 'box'. The closer you come or more guns they have the harder to leave 'flak box' and vice versa.

They won't intentionaly miss, but the effective result is the same as what we have now: there's some dispersion and other noise in the perfect aim.  There's also some scattering that I think would be worth adding to the perfect aim, in case the "perfect aim" is erroneous.. And this margin is acceptable, because like Slap said and Rich (if he's correct) added, the shells each cover 70 meters.  That's a lot of volume, multiplied by however many guns the TGs now have (12?), so the gunners can definitely afford to spread out their shots to ensure hits. There's no need to hit a fighter with more than 1 or 2 shells' bursts.
Other than that, yes I agree the shells' aim needs to lag in proportion to the distance and velocity of the target.  Now the next step is showing with exact numbers whether the instantaneous box flak model isn't doing what it should.  That will show HTC we aren't just complaining, but have a real point.

[SlapShot]

From a previous thread on the same subject ...

my motivation to post this was as follows:-

zooming along at about 420mph on deck, clear megadud's 6, pull up into a shallow climb, as soon as i am above 3k, first salvo,  <BOOM> engine out.

bye bye tempest, bye bye 9 kills.

I may be wrong but wouldnt a 350mph or so climbing single engined fighter about 3+ miles from the ack, with many other aircraft nearer to the cv/airfield, be pretty impossible to hit?

This is why you got hit.  HT said that there is a box around the plane and the puffy ack hits randomly around you in that box.  That means that statisticaly, the safest place to be is in your plane flying strait and at a constand slow speed.  Any kind of movement and your chances of being hit increase.  Another way to die in this game that models things acuratly is to follow the bud guy through your friendly ack.  Again, puff will shoot randomly around him increasing the chances of you getting hit, and believe me you will.

dedalas: You are completly incorect in your assesment.

HiTech

If i remember rightly it takes into account acceleration/deceleration, along with speed. which means, theoretically, that turning does have a slight impact on your chances of getting nailed from 20 miles away.

slower = smaller box the ack shoots into

faster = bigger box

This game would be improved if puffy ack was far less effective versus fighters, and far more effective vs bomber formations - as it was historically.

This isnt a major whine, although it is infuriating when AI puffy ack kills you like this when you are only trying to have fun.

the random shots fall into a virtual box around the aircraft

the faster you are moving, the bigger this virtual box extends around the a/c

so the faster you are going = bigger the box = the less chance you will be hit

at least, that was my understanding on how it works.

If you move however, you increase the chances of meeting the shot.

This is totaly incorect even if the size of the box was not altered.

Basic probabily theory.

The chances of getting hit remain the same no mater where you are in the box,  I.E. manuvering would neather raise nor lower your chances.

Now as a real note, you are always at the center of the box no mater if you manuver or not, the box is realy just a way of describing what is going on.

But as stated before manuvering or changing speed do increase the size of the box, there by lowering your chances of getting hit when turning or going faster.


And now for the insult:

Ive explained it before (furball understood how it worked correctly) , you obviously have read it (but didn't understand it, nor basic probabilty ) , It is realy is not my job to teach you how things work. But when you make completly inacurate statments I let you know they are incorect so other people will not belive incorect facts.

And finaly letting you in on the way things work (like ack) is not a right on your part. Infact you have crossed the line when you personaly attacked me with.

 

And I would apreciate an apology.

HiTech

[moot]

So is this like the WGr21 rocket tubes?  I think that if you want to dodge the flak, and that your plane would have been able to dodge the flak from those exact 5" guns we have, it ought to be able allowed to in the game too.   There's the 3kft floor for that, but is it so sure that no plane in the game could have dodged flak from these guns as it flew fast and far enough, that it makes no difference whether the box is instantaneous or lagging?
I really doubt that...