Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: dirtdart on July 05, 2008, 10:52:29 AM
-
Wow, where to start. My first question would be about the fusing of the ack rounds. Were they fused on the deck to pop at a certain altitude? Are they proximity fused? I was in a 262, 450 MPH, 14K, at least 8K from the CV horizontally, headed in the opposite direction of the CV and got hit??? I do not think that for a second was realistic. How much of a lead would that human gunner, yes they were humans shooting those things, have to put on a plane that fast and at that altitude. I was varying my alt by 1000 feet and moving left and right. This is not a gripe, just a general discussion about realism. I would personally request that HITECH dumb down the range of the CV ack or the accuracy of the gunners. I have no experience as a WWII Flak gunner and would like to open this one up for discussion.
-
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.
-
They are armed with radio proximity fuses ... so like hand grenades and horseshoes ... "close" is good enough ... it doesn't have to be a direct hit like most think.
I doubt very strongly, according to your description, that there was a human behind the firing of those shells. When in a 5" guns, there is no way that they can see you, that high and that far away, to try a guesstimate a firing solution on you.
I agree that once the CV grabs onto you, it does pester you for way to long when you would think that you are definitely out of range, or behind a mountain range, but remember, again, they are proximity fuses, so the shell and you just need to be within it's detonation range ... it does not have to directly hit you.
-
Puffy ack randomly explodes within a virtual cube around your aircraft. This 'cube' expands the faster you go or if you are turning. To quote "sometimes your luck is just up".
...and yes, it annoys the hell out of me too. Did you know it can also magically shoot through hills?
-
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.
You've been around 6 months?
-
The CV we have is a US Essex class carrier, apparently fully upgraded to 1945 standards. If we had "early-war" CV group, or a Japanese CV group, the AA fire would not be as deadly. But by 1945, AA fire on US ships was radar-directed and used the proximity fuses, which took away a lot of the human guess work, and made them quite formidable.
-
search
:noid
-
You've been around 6 months?
He's been around for a while m00t. I think he started about the same time I did which was in '06.
-
If you can't take the mental anguish of losing your perk points then don't fly perked planes.
-
His post wasn't about losing perks, it was about the ability of ack to hit a jet doing 400 indicated 4 miles slant range from a CV.
That's a heck of a shot for puffy ack, and it happens way to often imo as well.
-
I doubt very strongly, according to your description, that there was a human behind the firing of those shells. When in a 5" guns, there is no way that they can see you, that high and that far away, to try a guesstimate a firing solution on you.
he was referring to the fact that in real life, it was manned by humans, humans not even remotely capable of tracking and firing at a maneuvering high speed target at long range.
what we have now, from a lethality to fighters standpoint, is less akin to WW2 5" flak and more comparable to...
(http://www.navy.gov.au/gallery/images/wpn951153-10.jpg)
:P :P :P
-
You think this games flak is hard!?
Try flying warbirds III, aces high AAA/ground ack ability is a JOKE to other games made years ago.
And like HTC said, if you make them to lame they cant hit a sitting duck, if you make them to ubber everything that gets into the air,gets killed.
Aces High is that perfect balance between lame duck and super A.i. gunnery.
ON POINT: The real problem with CV 5' guns is being so spot on is the ships do not move up and down, with sea swells or wave wakes, our carrier fleets right now act like object "sliding" over a flat, solid landmass.
We do not flow up and down, dipping from side to side. And as such our CV fleet will always have that advantage of a 100% pure stable gun platform. Change that, and everything from gunners to cheap lame UBBER 5' ack go's the way of the dinosaurs. Simply put, its not the guns, its the platforms being completely unrealistic.
-
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.
Well, if you bother to note the way he asked his question and the information he gave about himself and his opinions.....you will note that the odds of him getting flamed are relatively low. Just sayin........ :aok
-
Wow, walk away for an hour or two...
Yes, six months is all I have been playing. I merely was making an observation and delivering a question. The replies explaining the radar guided, radio proximity fusing allows me to palette an otherwise absurd notion that a human (meaning the computer representing a human, not being perfect) could hit a plane going that fast at that range. As to the cupcake who had the silly response about flying perked planes, I was merely illustrating the sheer speed and therefore the reduced probability for decent lead discernment by the carrier group (if it were a human, represented by the computer). These forums would be used a little more for discussion and the sharing of information (the radar / radio fuse comment, answers it all, thanks for the comment) if not for the sarcastic kool aid drinking such and such's who impede grown up discussion. Were they not raised if they had nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all?
BTW, those who posted about the real data, thanks, I will be much more wary of CVs and think twice about flying into their defenses.
-
And like HTC said, if you make them to lame they cant hit a sitting duck, if you make them to ubber everything that gets into the air,gets killed.
Aces High is that perfect balance between lame duck and super A.i. gunnery.
Its far from 'perfect' imho. I hate puffies not because they kill me in fighter occasionally (too often in fact), but because they cannt kill bombers at all. It just plain wrong. HTC need to make flak much more dangerous for big slow straight flying targets rather than small fast and agile one.
Look at manned 5' for example. You can nail furballing fighter sometimes but incoming bombers are much much easier targets.
Edit:
As I can see, HTC just need to add timer between 'shot' and 'puff' for 5', depending on range. It isnt 'new' solution, but i dont remember i saw why it wouldnt work.
-
.........., thanks, I will be much more wary of CVs and think twice about flying into their defenses.
This is the only part of the post that is important.
People have a hard time remembering that this is a GAME. It is not real life, nor is it suppose to reflect perfectly the actions of WWII. It doesn't matter that a CV in WWII couldn't the broad side of a barn that was doing 400 MPH going away from the CV. Much like in Monopoly when you get the card that says "go to jail" you really don't go to jail, there are no guards, and there isn't somebody in the shower waiting for you to drop your soap.
Just know, as part of this game, getting too close to a CV CAN result in getting hit by puffy ack, much like flying below the surface of the water can result in parts flying off your plane.
-
Let's also get rid of realistic ballistics on gun planes, then..
-
Now there is a comment. :aok When does "realism" take away from the gameplay, or lack of "realism"? The perhaps unrealistic and deadly ack protects carriers when they have no fighter cover, however is it historically accurate? At what point does the preservation of realism get superceded by the need to prevent everything from getting "porked"? That would be an interesting discussion. Why is there the ability to turn on a stall limiter, allowing people to fly the planes with the sticks dug into their guts, without losing control?
Personally, I think the balance they have in the game is fine, it just takes a little to palette it and understand it is a balance.
-
Palate.
It's not a balance... We used to have field auto ack that would rotate instantly, meaning you couldn't use a realistic tactic (which is what the air combat central is made of) to take care of it. One feature in the game that's not realistic but that's a proper balance is the trees and other objects. Trees could easily be rolled over by tanks, but they're a proper balance because a real open field would have had obstacles of some kind, such as holes large enough for the most agile tanks to get stuck in, stuff sticking up to get stuck over with the tracks left hanging in the air, etc.
But what does instantaneous flak simulate? What in all of WWII, or any other time, is simulated by gunfire instantly traveling to target, allowing for no counter by the player? Isn't the point of the game to play your luck and skill at defeating the odds? What's the fun of infinitely bad odds, against AI no less?
At this point it's unlikely HT/Pyro haven't run into these arguments in these flak threads, so either they already have tried this in the past (haven't heard this from anyone, yet) and it wasn't a good solution for some reason, or it's not feasible (would a (d/v)-seconds delay in flak detonations really be unfeasibly complicated and/or costly?), or they just got sick and tired of perceived whining.. Which would be a shame because I really only mean to point out a problem and what seems like a reasonable and adequate solution..
If the flak detonations, even kept in a box seeding area as they are now, were delayed for however long the shells require to travel the distance between guns and target, then we could (IMO) easily have more lethal and/or more flak puffs. Because you could then actualy dodge flak much better (shell flight time is probably something like 3+ seconds at the longest range) if you had the speed/distance/maneuverability, and flying predictably would be rewarded with precise and accurate zeroing down by the flak guns, just as in reality. Which in a sim, is the best design.
-
The CV we have is a US Essex class carrier, apparently fully upgraded to 1945 standards. If we had "early-war" CV group, or a Japanese CV group, the AA fire would not be as deadly. But by 1945, AA fire on US ships was radar-directed and used the proximity fuses, which took away a lot of the human guess work, and made them quite formidable.
The Essex class carrier was vintage 1942 ...
CV-9 was to be the prototype of the 27,000-ton (standard displacement) aircraft carrier, considerably larger than the Enterprise (CV-6) yet smaller than the Saratoga (CV-3) (a battlecruiser converted to a carrier). These were to become known as the Essex-class carriers, although this classification was later dropped in the 1950s. On September 9, 1940, eight more of these carriers were ordered and were to become the Hornet (CV-12), Franklin (CV-13), Ticonderoga (CV -14), Randolph (CV-15), Lexington (CV-16), Bunker Hill (CV-17), Wasp (CV-18) and Hancock (CV-19). The last two of the 13 originally programmed CV-9 class aircraft carriers, Bennington (CV-20) and Boxer (CV-21), were ordered on December 15, 1941.
The ship boasted four twin 5 in (127 mm) gun turrets, seventeen quad-barrel, 40 mm, anti-aircraft guns and 65 single, 20 mm, close-in defense guns. With a range of ten miles and a rate of fire of fifteen rounds per minute, the 5-inch guns fired the deadly VT shells. The VT shells, known as proximity fuzed-shells, would detonate when they came within 70 feet (21 m) of an enemy aircraft. The 5-inch guns could also aim into the water, creating waterspouts which could bring down low flying aircraft such as torpedo planes.
The VT 5"/38 ...
This test firing of proximity fuzed 5"/38 projectiles against drones was carried out in August 1942 aboard the cruiser [USS] Cleveland [CL-55]. Results of this test were entirely satisfactory and accordingly, full-scale production of proximity fuzes was initiated at the Crosley Corporation in September 1942. Early production was plagued with numerous difficulties but satisfactory material was finally produced. This fuze, which was designated the Mk 32, was delivered to the Fleet during November and December 1942, and the first Japanese plane was shot down with proximity fuzed projectiles by the cruiser [USS] Helena [CL-50] in January 1943.
I think that our Carrier is an Essex class carrier, but modified/outfitted to a Ticonderoga class due to the fact that we have the 40mm Bofors available.
Beginning in March 1943, one visually very significant change was authorized for ships then in the early stages of construction. This involved reshaping the bow into a rather elegant "clipper" form to provide deck space for two 40mm quadruple gun mountings, thus greatly improving forward air defences. Thirteen ships were completed to this "long-hull", or Ticonderoga, class. Four of these were finished in 1944, in time to join their Essex class near-sisters in Pacific combat operations. The rest went into commission between early 1945 and late 1946.
-
If the flak detonations, even kept in a box seeding area as they are now, were delayed for however long the shells require to travel the distance between guns and target, then we could (IMO) easily have more lethal and/or more flak puffs. Because you could then actualy dodge flak much better (shell flight time is probably something like 3+ seconds at the longest range) if you had the speed/distance/maneuverability, and flying predictably would be rewarded with precise and accurate zeroing down by the flak guns, just as in reality. Which in a sim, is the best design.
Not trying to "split hairs" here ... ;)
The 5 inchers use ... radio proximity shells ... they are not "timed" shells ... the VT 5"/38 proximity fuse detonated when an object passed thru it's 70 foot bubble.
So all you have to due is just lob a chitload of them, using some good Kentucky windage, into an area and if anything gets into the path of the shells during their flight ... BOOM ... shrapnel city.
With that, I believe the chances of dieing when there is flak all around you ... is more on the realistic side ... but continued firing while you duck behind mountains or flying, what one would think, far enough away from a CV group to not be of concern or even within human eye visibility ... that is what drives me crazy.
-
I didn't know about the shells themselves having radio detection, thanks :) That changes the picture..
-
I didn't know about the shells themselves having radio detection, thanks :) That changes the picture..
At least you thought they were "timed" fuses ... most believe that the shells have to DIRECTLY hit your plane ... much like the field AA ... which results in the ... "THAT BS !!! ... I was going 500 mph at 10K and the puff ack got me".
Speed - Alt - means doodily squat ... if one passes thru that 70ft bubble ... things aren't going to go right for you.
-
Carrier Ack i believe is JUST fine, while going fast and turning you are relatively safe - however slow and straight your pretty much doomed. I myself have lost a few 262's and tempests to carrier ack, my best judgement would be 1 outa every 10 sorties over a CV I get nailed right off bat (as my luck runs out)
Best advice - dont take a tempest/262 over or near a CV unless you got the perks to waste, I think my squadies paid for it also, 3 of us took tempests over to CV fight, I got nailed in engine right off bad, other 2 were fine till one zoom climbed over 3k and was pecked in the radiator.
I actually enjoy the CV ack now as it does a nice job on Jabo's and make people rely on higher alt bombers. Some reason maybe just me, I see Jabo's getting hit more so then bombers to puffy ack, but bombers can take a few puffs before they go boom.
Edit:
Reason I Like the CV ack least the CV's are protected some what, anyone flew over CV's in early AH2 knows you would get hit 1 in 100 flights over it.
-
Wow, walk away for an hour or two...
Yes, six months is all I have been playing. I merely was making an observation and delivering a question. The replies explaining the radar guided, radio proximity fusing allows me to palette an otherwise absurd notion that a human (meaning the computer representing a human, not being perfect) could hit a plane going that fast at that range. As to the cupcake who had the silly response about flying perked planes, I was merely illustrating the sheer speed and therefore the reduced probability for decent lead discernment by the carrier group (if it were a human, represented by the computer). These forums would be used a little more for discussion and the sharing of information (the radar / radio fuse comment, answers it all, thanks for the comment) if not for the sarcastic kool aid drinking such and such's who impede grown up discussion. Were they not raised if they had nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all?
BTW, those who posted about the real data, thanks, I will be much more wary of CVs and think twice about flying into their defenses.
Cupcake?
You're the one with the mascara running down your face and clutching the boo boo blanket.
Let's see...you lose a 262 to enemy fleet flak and run to the BBS and start a thread about how you thought you were far enough away (you obviously weren't) and how you thought you were moving fast enough (speed only limits the time you're exposed to the fire) to not get hit.
Had you not lost a hundred plus perk points you're experience would've been the same as the hundreds of others who get popped by fleet AA fire every day yet take it in stride.
I see the cupcake and it's not me.
So go dry your eyes, fix your makeup and soon enough you'll have enough perks to try it again.
-
Now there is a comment. :aok When does "realism" take away from the gameplay, or lack of "realism"? The perhaps unrealistic and deadly ack protects carriers when they have no fighter cover, however is it historically accurate? At what point does the preservation of realism get superceded by the need to prevent everything from getting "porked"? That would be an interesting discussion. Why is there the ability to turn on a stall limiter, allowing people to fly the planes with the sticks dug into their guts, without losing control?
Personally, I think the balance they have in the game is fine, it just takes a little to palette it and understand it is a balance.
The answer to most of these questions is BECAUSE ITS A GAME ! It just happens to have objects that appear to fly and resemble WWII aircraft. There should be a disclaimer on the main page "Any resemblance to actual objects is just coincidental, this is only a game" even then I'm sure we would still have people complain about ack, eny, the ground being to hard, and so on and so on.
But what does instantaneous flak simulate? What in all of WWII, or any other time, is simulated by gunfire instantly traveling to target, allowing for no counter by the player? Isn't the point of the game to play your luck and skill at defeating the odds? What's the fun of infinitely bad odds, against AI no less?
At this point it's unlikely HT/Pyro haven't run into these arguments in these flak threads, so either they already have tried this in the past (haven't heard this from anyone, yet) and it wasn't a good solution for some reason, or it's not feasible (would a (d/v)-seconds delay in flak detonations really be unfeasibly complicated and/or costly?), or they just got sick and tired of perceived whining.. Which would be a shame because I really only mean to point out a problem and what seems like a reasonable and adequate solution..
If the flak detonations, even kept in a box seeding area as they are now, were delayed for however long the shells require to travel the distance between guns and target, then we could (IMO) easily have more lethal and/or more flak puffs. Because you could then actualy dodge flak much better (shell flight time is probably something like 3+ seconds at the longest range) if you had the speed/distance/maneuverability, and flying predictably would be rewarded with precise and accurate zeroing down by the flak guns, just as in reality. Which in a sim, is the best design.
[/quote]
Who said the flak burst are instantaneous? Who's to say a gun hadn't fired that burst you just saw 3-5 seconds before? You're at 8K, just because you didn't SEE the gun fire it doesn't mean one didn't. I think the ack targeting a box like it does simulates the the umbrella protection a base should have. We have 8-10 guns on a base that are auto, targeting a box ups the protection with out adding more guns. Remember the out cry when more guns were added last time. I think as a game they have a nice balance that you can make it through ack sometimes, but not ALL the time.
-
Who said the flak burst are instantaneous? Who's to say a gun hadn't fired that burst you just saw 3-5 seconds before? You're at 8K, just because you didn't SEE the gun fire it doesn't mean one didn't. I think the ack targeting a box like it does simulates the the umbrella protection a base should have. We have 8-10 guns on a base that are auto, targeting a box ups the protection with out adding more guns. Remember the out cry when more guns were added last time. I think as a game they have a nice balance that you can make it through ack sometimes, but not ALL the time.
No one said it, but it is. There's no time of flight. The auto guns only point for show at what's catching flak downrange. There's only a box seeding the bursts. If I'm doing 450mph 8k away... well, why don't you show me your math of how that could be kept up with by a flak shell's ballistics? Assuming for a moment that they had a way to perfectly see my maneuvers from that distance.
It's not about simulating the umbrella or not, it's about the umbrella being realistic. It's not the balance either, like I said in a previous post.
-
Cupcake?
You're the one with the mascara running down your face and clutching the boo boo blanket.
Let's see...you lose a 262 to enemy fleet flak and run to the BBS and start a thread about how you thought you were far enough away (you obviously weren't) and how you thought you were moving fast enough (speed only limits the time you're exposed to the fire) to not get hit.
Had you not lost a hundred plus perk points you're experience would've been the same as the hundreds of others who get popped by fleet AA fire every day yet take it in stride.
I see the cupcake and it's not me.
So go dry your eyes, fix your makeup and soon enough you'll have enough perks to try it again.
Like I said... cupcake. I merely asked a question with parameters about aircraft, time, distance, speed, and other things some of the nice folk would have queried about. It would have been the same question if in a spit or pony. This question was answered in a reliable way by some very sage forum participants. Why you choose this as a forum to express anguish and spew invective about people you do not know, who are trying to expand their knowledge of the game, thus you making the dripping mascara comment (nice try cup cake) is beyond my comprehension. Do you have so little going on for you that you use these places as a way of venting some life long frustration? By a beer and chill.
Anyway..... If the ack is accurate and to some standard, say the radar / radio fuses, I know carriers had FDCs. If you have multiple cons, do the 5" guns fire independently or like airfields mass on one object? How does it decide? Can you get a plane out there as the red herring while others come in?
Man, these guys who attack others posts just make my blood boil. It never ceases to amaze me how anonymity emboldens people.
-
I think these 5" shells have little rudders and elevators on them...they are always in front of me.they should be poppin where i WAS going.i'm up and down left to right bobbin..and there they are.lately last few weeks they seem out of control. i dont always remember them being this accurate.
-
Like I said... cupcake. I merely asked a question with parameters about aircraft, time, distance, speed, and other things some of the nice folk would have queried about. It would have been the same question if in a spit or pony. This question was answered in a reliable way by some very sage forum participants. Why you choose this as a forum to express anguish and spew invective about people you do not know, who are trying to expand their knowledge of the game, thus you making the dripping mascara comment (nice try cup cake) is beyond my comprehension. Do you have so little going on for you that you use these places as a way of venting some life long frustration? By a beer and chill.
Anyway..... If the ack is accurate and to some standard, say the radar / radio fuses, I know carriers had FDCs. If you have multiple cons, do the 5" guns fire independently or like airfields mass on one object? How does it decide? Can you get a plane out there as the red herring while others come in?
Man, these guys who attack others posts just make my blood boil. It never ceases to amaze me how anonymity emboldens people.
I believe the "auto" guns will change targets ... as targets get within their coverage area.
You can sit above a CV and watch all auto guns train them selfs on 1 target as it dives, but if you see multiples diving, you will see some guns change their targeting to the other cons ... the same applies to field auto guns.
-
Wow, where to start. My first question would be about the fusing of the ack rounds. Were they fused on the deck to pop at a certain altitude? Are they proximity fused? I was in a 262, 450 MPH, 14K, at least 8K from the CV horizontally, headed in the opposite direction of the CV and got hit??? I do not think that for a second was realistic. How much of a lead would that human gunner, yes they were humans shooting those things, have to put on a plane that fast and at that altitude. I was varying my alt by 1000 feet and moving left and right. This is not a gripe, just a general discussion about realism. I would personally request that HITECH dumb down the range of the CV ack or the accuracy of the gunners. I have no experience as a WWII Flak gunner and would like to open this one up for discussion.
OMG! The same thing happened to me in a 262 yesterday. I was going 500mph at 10K atleast 9K away from the cv and I got hit and killed. That's a load of BS!! I really don't care about the perks that much, I have enough, but its so unrealistic to be hit 10k away going 500mph.... Besides I had 8 kills I wanted to land! :furious Ok, enough whining about that one incident. This has happened to me alot lately, infact, I got hit 5 times yesterday and killed by puffy ack when I wasn't even close to the CV or strat. It seems to me that the puffy ack (and auto ack) has become alot more accurate lately. Alot of people i talk to think the same. I just think it's too unrealistic.
-
I think these 5" shells have little rudders and elevators on them...they are always in front of me.they should be poppin where i WAS going.i'm up and down left to right bobbin..and there they are.lately last few weeks they seem out of control. i dont always remember them being this accurate.
What makes you think that they should be only popping where you WERE ?
If the guns have the right "lead", and you get within the detonation area, you will see them burst where you are GOING.
If you look all around you, you will see that they are popping behind, to the sides, and in front of you.
Maybe they did turned up the accuracy to see what the fallout would be ... and all this current gnashing of teeth is the result.
-
OMG! The same thing happened to me in a 262 yesterday. I was going 500mph at 10K atleast 9K away from the cv and I got hit and killed. That's a load of BS!! I really don't care about the perks that much, I have enough, but its so unrealistic to be hit 10k away going 500mph.... Besides I had 8 kills I wanted to land! :furious Ok, enough whining about that one incident. This has happened to me alot lately, infact, I got hit 5 times yesterday and killed by puffy ack when I wasn't even close to the CV or strat. It seems to me that the puffy ack (and auto ack) has become alot more accurate lately. Alot of people i talk to think the same. I just think it's too unrealistic.
10K in altitude is a walk in the park for 5 inchers to reach out and touch you ... you guesstimation of how far away you were is just that ... a guess ... you may very well have been within "kill" range ... and one more thing ... your speed has little or no bearing on getting whacked by the ack ... you just happened to be in the wrong area at the wrong time.
It seems to me that the puffy ack (and auto ack) has become alot more accurate lately. Alot of people i talk to think the same. I just think it's too unrealistic.
I am sure the Japanese pilots thought the same as they fell from the skys like flys after a "pest bomb" was set off.
Flying near a CV group should be a very dangerous undertaking ... I would tend to believe that most pilots that attacked carrier groups lost their lives to ack-ack, more than air-to-air combat.
-
If the guns have the right "lead", and you get within the detonation area, you will see them burst where you are GOING.
You cannt 'lead' unpredictablly moving targets, but puffies can. How often you kill 5k away furballing fighters from manned 5'?
-
Great posts back there Slapshot.
I never knew about that proximity fuses on the ack...I thought it was a timed burst.
I actually feel a bit better now about the flak in this game.
And not to derail, but Blooz I think you're a bit out of line here. This was a legit question that you read the wrong way (imo) and if anything you owe the OP an apology.
Just sayin.
Again, thanks for taking the time to post that Slapshot, I really didn't know about the proximity flak before this. <S>
-
You cannt 'lead' unpredictablly moving targets, but puffies can. How often you kill 5k away furballing fighters from manned 5'?
The real question is what the size of the wall of incoming shells (on target or not) is, what the time of flight is. From this we'd know how fast/far we'd have to be to dodge it... And whether the game allows that or not.
-
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.
:rofl :rofl :rofl So true. The people who defend AH in every detail are so cute. :devil
-
You cannt 'lead' unpredictablly moving targets, but puffies can. How often you kill 5k away furballing fighters from manned 5'?
Please ... take a look at that photo ... I don't care how "unpredictable" you try to be ... fly into that hell storm, and things are not going to go right for you. The guys laying that flak out there are "guessing" where your going to be and trying to lob shells to that area ... get enough guys doing the same thing ... and your in deep doo doo.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Flak-2.jpg)
-
Yep, you certainly couldn't dodge it by flying directly away from the guns.
-
Please ... take a look at that photo ... I don't care how "unpredictable" you try to be ... fly into that hell storm, and things are not going to go right for you. The guys laying that flak out there are "guessing" where your going to be and trying to lob shells to that area ... get enough guys doing the same thing ... and your in deep doo doo.
And how many flaks had all these ~200 US ships at Leyte Gulf?
Our strats have 5 flaks, CV group have few dozens i think. What works for hundreds guns wouldnt work for 5.
-
That salvo doesn't look like too many guns. Our flak clouds disappear a lot sooner than the real ones did, I suppose.
-
An interesting story. The development of the Proximity fuse. And the use of them changed warfare forever.
They must have come as quite a shock to both the Germans and the Japanese. If I remember right we used the new fuses in our land artillery shells against the Germans to devastating effect towards the end of the war. And the Japanese?? The 5" AA guns, when using the new proximity fuses, were devastating. In Britain the new shells increased the hit percentage against V1 buzz bombs 3-fold.
I dive into carriers all the time in the game. Just yesterday I was shot down while 12,000' on the fringes of a CV group. Just like in real life was, in late war, flying around a Yank CV group is very hazardous. The game is modeled correctly. I'd never take a 262 anywheres around a CV and if I was over water I'd be constantly on the lookout for them.
-
And how many flaks had all these ~200 US ships at Leyte Gulf?
Our strats have 5 flaks, CV group have few dozens i think. What works for hundreds guns wouldnt work for 5.
Your grasping at straws now.
-
Just like in real life was, in late war, flying around a Yank CV group is very hazardous. The game is modeled correctly.
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?
-
Your grasping at straws now.
lol. Most likely you ignore simple logics trying to defend absurd flak's behaviour.
That salvo doesn't look like too many guns. Our flak clouds disappear a lot sooner than the real ones did, I suppose.
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.
-
I agree with that last point.
-
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+
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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 :rofl
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
I suggested a solution to the puffy ack problem in the other threads, in my opinion i think it could me made more realistic with some coding changes.
Rather than the current instantaneous puffy ack exploding in a virtual box fixed to the aircraft, there should be a time variable so that the 'box' location is based on the aircraft's course and speed 'x' amount of time ago.
'x' amount of time should be the variable changed by the distance from CV. For example, if i am 5k from the CV, the virtual box will appear in a point in space where my aircraft was headed 5 seconds ago, 3k = 3 seconds and so on. If i have changed course during that time the ack will be innaccurate.
If i continue straight and level at a constant speed, the 'box' should not only be on target, but i think it should get progressively smaller around the aircraft the longer it remains straight, level and constant speed, irrelevant of distance - simulating correction by the CV gunners.
In my opinion this will make it more realistic, without overcomplicating the current system by modelling each individual gun trajectory.
-
Yep, that's the same thing I've been suggesting.
-
As I read it ...
As you fly into flak range ...
1) you are surrounded by a "flak box" and you are always in the "middle" of that "flak box" ... no matter what maneuvers you do.
2) the code randomly fires flak inside the "flak box"
3) the size of the "flak box" increases and decreases in size using ...
3a) distance from the "flak source"
3b) speed
3c) maneuvering
Once you enter the "range" your "flak box" is created and a randomizer throws flak shells into the confines of the "flak box". The variables (3a - 3c) will adjust the size of the "flak box". As the "flak box" gets the smaller the chances of getting hit increase.
BUT ... no matter what the size of the "flak box", if the randomizer throws a shell into the box (especially in the middle) close to your plane, you will get some sort of damage and/or death.
Also, I read in another thread as to why the flak continues to fire at you even when behind mountains.
Tracking the trajectory from the gun(s) to the target in the "flak box" and determining if there are any "objects" in the way would be ... these are HT's words ... "expensive".
-
Yes.. So it's basicaly that you'll be in the ships' flak bullseye (of varying densities) regardless of whether you could have completely dodged it in reality.
-
I suggested a solution to the puffy ack problem in the other threads, in my opinion i think it could me made more realistic with some coding changes.
Rather than the current instantaneous puffy ack exploding in a virtual box fixed to the aircraft, there should be a time variable so that the 'box' location is based on the aircraft's course and speed 'x' amount of time ago.
'x' amount of time should be the variable changed by the distance from CV. For example, if i am 5k from the CV, the virtual box will appear in a point in space where my aircraft was headed 5 seconds ago, 3k = 3 seconds and so on. If i have changed course during that time the ack will be innaccurate.
If i continue straight and level at a constant speed, the 'box' should not only be on target, but i think it should get progressively smaller around the aircraft the longer it remains straight, level and constant speed, irrelevant of distance - simulating correction by the CV gunners.
In my opinion this will make it more realistic, without overcomplicating the current system by modelling each individual gun trajectory.
So you are saying that the code should sample for x amount of seconds to determine direction, speed, and altitude to establish a box in front of you to lay the shells into ?
-
I have never heard an explanation why if you have just arrived near to the CV, you can get fairly close before puffy ack starts shooting at you.
When you go to fly away, the puffy ack continues to shoot at you much further out than when it started firing at you. If you go out of range and return again, still the ack shoots at you further away than you were earlier and not getting shot at.
This doesn't make sense to me. The gunners should be concentrating on inbound targets which are more likely carrying nasty stuff to drop on the boat, so if anything it should be opposite.
Or is this all just my imagination?
-
So you are saying that the code should sample for x amount of seconds to determine direction, speed, and altitude to establish a box in front of you to lay the shells into ?
x = me
O = puffy
here i am flying along: -
x
In 5 seconds i will be here based on my current course/speed: -
__________________x
Puffy ack calculates this while i am here: -
x
And puts the puffy ack: -
__________________O
5 seconds after the original calculation.
But i have since turned: -
__________________O
_________x
:D
-
So you are saying that the code should sample for x amount of seconds to determine direction, speed, and altitude to establish a box in front of you to lay the shells into ?
Like it would in reality, yep. It sounds like it's HTC's gameplay decision to not allow for that, though. Way out at 8k, at least a few planes in the game could probably completely sidestep the widest possible wall of flak a 6-ship TG (like we have) could throw at them.
Furball, that's analogous to a TG not IDing you as enemy before a certain distance. And then not needing to let you close enough for such an ID again before it starts firing if you get back in range. I don't know if there's a simple/cheap enough way to code for targeting biased on inbound bandits, though.
And now that I think about it, there wouldn't be only a position extrapolation required.. There could have to be a collision calculation, since the shells are proximity fused. Meaning that with a flak box as you and I have been suggesting, we wouldn't be hit in an evasive that'd cross the path of the shells, since the code only extrapolates the flak box's location without "seeing" that we'd just flown through the shells' proximity radius.
-
Ok ... I can read that.
But, lobbing shells at airplanes back then was just using good old Kentucky windage and with that, not all gunners are going to be experts at leading the target.
So ... with that, you should be getting shells going off behind you and on the sides of you ... not just in front. If the AI gunners always lead you properly, and using your schema, it would be ridiculously easy to defeat the flak and never fly into the "flak box" in front of you.
I think that is why HT has the plane in the middle of the box ... no matter what direction it's going ... and with the "random" shots being thrown into the box, you get the explosions all around you ... not just in front of you.
I would think that the closer you get the smaller, the box should get (this is what currently happens), but the rate of random firing into the box should increase (not sure if that part is in the code) dramtically as you get closer to the target.
The increase of firing into the box should only be determined by how close you are getting to the target, and speed, and maneuvering should not have an effect on the rate of fire.
-
And now that I think about it, there wouldn't be only a position extrapolation required.. There could have to be a collision calculation, since the shells are proximity fused. Meaning that with a flak box as you and I have been suggesting, we wouldn't be hit in an evasive that'd cross the path of the shells, since the code only extrapolates the flak box's location without "seeing" that we'd just flown through the shells' proximity radius.
But the current system does not take into account proximity fuses - if they were, we would not be seeing the flak bursts of shells completely missing the target?
So ... with that, you should be getting shells going off behind you and on the sides of you ... not just in front. If the AI gunners always lead you properly, and using your schema, it would be ridiculously easy to defeat the flak and never fly into the "flak box" in front of you.
Not necessarily, at short range the time variable would mean that it would be impossible to escape from the box in time because the shells are spending 'less time in air' between the shot calculation and then exploding round the aircraft. Would probably need some tweaking but i think it could work.
Not sure about the rate of fire thing, because the amount of guns is always the same, or did they use different guns with different ranges?
-
But the current system does not take into account proximity fuses - if they were, we would not be seeing the flak bursts of shells completely missing the target?
Not necessarily, at short range the time variable would mean that it would be impossible to escape from the box in time because the shells are spending 'less time in air' between the shot calculation and then exploding round the aircraft. Would probably need some tweaking but i think it could work.
Not sure about the rate of fire thing, because the amount of guns is always the same, or did they use different guns with different ranges?
Wait ... didn't flak shells with proximity fuses also detonate at some altitude so that they didn't rain down unexploded ?
The rate of fire would only simulate a priority target ... I would think that as a plane got real close to a CV group, most guns would train themselves on that target.
-
I would think that as a plane got real close to a CV group, most guns would train themselves on that target.
It doesn't always do that.
So ... with that, you should be getting shells going off behind you and on the sides of you ... not just in front. If the AI gunners always lead you properly, and using your schema, it would be ridiculously easy to defeat the flak and never fly into the "flak box" in front of you.
Well, it's not about easy or hard. It's about it being realistic.. Does it get better than having a realisticaly behaving flak umbrella? Does it have any downsides?
I think that is why HT has the plane in the middle of the box ... no matter what direction it's going ... and with the "random" shots being thrown into the box, you get the explosions all around you ... not just in front of you.
I'm not, and I don't think Furball is either, suggesting that the flak aim only ahead of the target. We're saying the flak box as it is ought to be centered not on the plane, but on where the plane would have been X time after the 5" salvo were fired, based on its velocity at the time the salvo was fired. Basicaly an extrapolation of its position substituting for the actual ballistics being modeled. As I mentionned though, this would effectively ignore the proximity fuse since the plane could fly through the shells' trajectory and not trigger any of them. Unless collision detection was calculated between the shells' and the target's trajectories, which is probably as likely to be too expensive. Like the terrain collision calculations are, to tell the flak whether the target's occluded.
I would think that the closer you get the smaller, the box should get (this is what currently happens), but the rate of random firing into the box should increase (not sure if that part is in the code) dramtically as you get closer to the target.
The increase of firing into the box should only be determined by how close you are getting to the target, and speed, and maneuvering should not have an effect on the rate of fire.
You mean like a doppler sort of thing?
But the current system does not take into account proximity fuses - if they were, we would not be seeing the flak bursts of shells completely missing the target?
Well, they're prox fuses, so we can't be asking for a changes to the flak model that wouldn't behave like them. That's what I mean :) I'm not sure what you mean, but the flak bursts that miss are (I guess) simulating dispersion and human error..