Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: leitwolf on January 22, 2012, 04:07:29 PM

Title: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: leitwolf on January 22, 2012, 04:07:29 PM
I know, the CV ack discussion is a dead horse.
But it's so annoying I reckon it needs another round of thrashing.

Here's my CV ack game. You need:

A dice.
A Hammer, preferably large and heavy.


Roll the dice. If it shows 6 you take the hammer and hit your toes as hard as you can.
Rinse and repeat.


This is exactly what our ack coad is like. I have not played a lot lately and just wanted a bit of a2a action today. My fighter had no bombs and was several miles out. Second dice roll - my left wing is gone.
Please, can we have some solution to the CV ack hits fighters problem? It's not working right now, it kills fighters easily but has yet to impress any bomber pilot on a CV run. I don't mind getting shot down by other players, but dice rolls of some flak coding that decide if you live is aggravating in a multiplayer game.

Yes, cheese, please.  :)

Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: mthrockmor on January 22, 2012, 04:11:41 PM
Leitwolf,...+1 from me. Let's the crap out of this dead horse until it's fixed.

Boo
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: dhyran on January 22, 2012, 04:15:11 PM
well,

i allways say, if the ack in RL was like the AH2 CV acks, noone ever would build any planes, all you need are 12 88 flaks and thats it to win the war!
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Butcher on January 22, 2012, 04:20:19 PM
well,

i allways say, if the ack in RL was like the AH2 CV acks, noone ever would build any planes, all you need are 12 88 flaks and thats it to win the war!


CV ack is just a score tard trying to compete with trees for #1 spot on "who gets the most kills"
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: hotard on January 22, 2012, 05:19:20 PM
well,

i allways say, if the ack in RL was like the AH2 CV acks, noone ever would build any planes, all you need are 12 88 flaks and thats it to win the war!


If RL ack were like AH2 ack japs would never have laid a bomb/kamakazie on an american cv.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Melvin on January 22, 2012, 05:23:43 PM
well,

i allways say, if the ack in RL was like the AH2 CV acks, noone ever would build any planes, all you need are 12 88 flaks and thats it to win the war!



If RL ack were like AH2 ack japs would never have laid a bomb/kamakazie on an american cv.


Such misguided statements are almost laughable... almost.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: AWwrgwy on January 22, 2012, 07:01:11 PM


Such misguided statements are almost laughable... almost.

+1

Look up the stats for the number of Japanese planes shot down during the invasion of Okinawa.

I have found the cv ack that gives me the most trouble is the manned kind. Otherwise it hasn't really been a problem for me.



wrongway
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Raphael on January 22, 2012, 08:06:41 PM
lol make AH ack even close to what it was in RL and you wont even get close to the ships. never ever.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: dstrip2 on January 22, 2012, 11:31:34 PM
well still, id like to know im actually being shot at than just having a range where you depend on chance to not die. if im being engaged by a cv gun or battery there are things i can do in a fighter to make their fire less effective. the chance method we have right now entirely discounts the pilot. warbirds 1.x had better 'heavy' ack imo
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: infowars on January 22, 2012, 11:35:15 PM
I learned to increase my odds of surviving ack my constantly moving.  Whether up and down or side to side,  you go straight for more than a few seconds you're done.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Butcher on January 22, 2012, 11:35:30 PM
Want to have some fun with puffy ack, take up an I-16 to 2,900ft then level and get as fast as you can, climb straight up and see if you can survive the ack before you stall out. One of these days ill have to try it with an Me-262 to see how long I can last.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: TheDudeDVant on January 23, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
well still, id like to know im actually being shot at than just having a range where you depend on chance to not die. if im being engaged by a cv gun or battery there are things i can do in a fighter to make their fire less effective. the chance method we have right now entirely discounts the pilot. warbirds 1.x had better 'heavy' ack imo

think of it this way.. It only took about 8years to get the puffy a second look and fix the 'kill all around bug'... At least now its only randomizing one plane at a time.. I call it progress!
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Vasco on January 23, 2012, 02:49:35 AM
The point is:

CV ack does deadly hits to fighters, no matter how far away they are and no matter how much you are evading.
I'd expect it would get at least more inaccurate at distance, but this seems not to be the case.
Flying a fighter you can only game around it by flying lower than somebody else, so the ack concentrates its fires on him or her.

In contrast, I did a lot of bombing runs on CVs recently in B-17s/26s and I never got any hits in those (maybe a fuel or oil leak at best), except from manned 5" mosty right above the CV.
Programmed ack simply can't hit anything that flies slow on a linear course.

The CV or field auto acks always concentrating on a single target (the highest one) is another issue...


Cheers,
Vasco
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Ack-Ack on January 23, 2012, 03:15:33 AM
well,

i allways say, if the ack in RL was like the AH2 CV acks, noone ever would build any planes, all you need are 12 88 flaks and thats it to win the war!


You have it completely backwards.  If AH modeled AA realistically, you'd rarely get near the CV.


ack-ack
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: dhyran on January 23, 2012, 04:15:29 AM
more dispersion is the solution, because a flak or cannon fired from a ship has do deal with the rolling of ships. That means nothing more, add some more dispersion and all is fine
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: MK-84 on January 23, 2012, 04:28:51 AM
You have it completely backwards.  If AH modeled AA realistically, you'd rarely get near the CV.


ack-ack

This ^
And they Rarely did historically compared with the numbers who tried.

I have two frustrations with CV ack.  And this is from a gameplay perspective
    1.  With my graphics settings the ack will often start firing on me before the CV is in visual range.  It's just on the edge of visual really.
    2.  Puffy ack uses a randomizer which I understand (i.e. I know about speed,distance,maneuvering variables)  But essentially once you are in the zone, it is impossible that any amount of flying style, or "skill"  allows you to avoid it. This is not a complaint about lethality...it SHOULD be lethal.  It isnt alot of fun knowing that there is nothing i can do about it.  This is hard to describe but it a "lack of ability to control my surroundings"*

*I am aware that I can control whether i fly into the puffy "range bubble" (when it does not conflict with #1)  but I mean this for when I have purposely flown into it to say attack a target.

Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: MK-84 on January 23, 2012, 04:29:54 AM
more dispersion is the solution, because a flak or cannon fired from a ship has do deal with the rolling of ships. That means nothing more, add some more dispersion and all is fine

You're really just saying make it less lethal?
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Klam on January 23, 2012, 04:36:30 AM
Can't really moan about getting squished by puffy ack.  Seen the old films of the fire put up by
carriers in the Pacific.  An immense wall of lead and shrapnel bursts.
If you're dumb enough to fly into it.......

Not nice when the boat is 1" offshore though and Puffy is over the field.  But hey!  It's a game.
Go Lanca-Stuka the bucket and laugh.

Maybe a few tweaks to it would help the poor suicidal souls who want to play in it.  
Could it be set so that it would nail you when heading towards the fleet
but cease when heading away.  Or have it set in layers, so leaving a bare 1k every 3.

It won't stop the whine whatever happens.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Noir on January 23, 2012, 04:56:09 AM
HT said in the last puff ack whine thread that he could coad something to enhance the ack....I have yet to see it in the patch notes :noid
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Oddball-CAF on January 23, 2012, 07:10:06 AM
While I find the CV ack an incredible nuisance, what most riles me is
how easily -bombers- can pass through the auto-puffy so easily which
makes the CV groups basically a joke (and a poor one at that) in
the arena. Simply put, they just don't last and contribute nothing
other than at most a trade-off. (One CV sunk to capture one field.)
 
IMHO, what needs to be done consists of two things to make the
game more enjoyable for all and to balance things out so that
the CVs have a chance at surviving.

First is perhaps to pull in the range at which the -auto- puffy ack can
hit anything in the air.

Second is to take away the seemingly magical damage resistance that
bombers have to the puffy ack.

In ALL of WW2, not a single, repeat, not a single, CV was ever sunk by
heavy bombers.

Doing both of these things would take away the gamey aspect of bombin'
CVs with magic buffs and perhaps engender some organized dive-bombing
and/or torpedo strikes against CVs which was historical fact.

Flame retardent skivvies on!
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Vasco on January 23, 2012, 08:32:53 AM
Full Ack, Oddball.

Problem in AH's MA is nobody ever does  divebombing or torpedo runs on a CV because you will never survive it.
Either due to manned 5" killing your tiny little plane way out or the autoguns always killing you on the dive or on the run.

So everybody ups a set of Buffs and comes in at 9k ft, 250 mph and drops a full load and the CV is gone.
The only complicated part is the CV turning in the last moment.
Puffy ack never hits you - even over the CV.

Whereas in a fighter you easily take direct hits at the visual range of the CV.


Cheers,
Vasco
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: MK-84 on January 23, 2012, 10:00:12 AM
A possible concept:

Puffy's effectiveness is increases for true bombers (the idea is that the path is predictable)
Puffy's effectiveness is decreaced for maneuvering targets, but increased when they are not.
Puffy's effectiveness towards speed of the aircraft remains similar
Puffy's effectiveness towards altitude/distance remains similar

Auto Ack, decreases effectiveness towards planes flying at extremely low altitudes to promote the torpedo as being an effective weapon which currently is so suicidal it it's curious as to why it was even added.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: wil3ur on January 23, 2012, 10:09:20 AM
I think puffy itself is fine the way it is.  What needs to be fixed is sailing a CV to within 1K of the shoreline, and setting them up as a field cap for bases.  It's extremely frustrating to have an umbrella over your entire airfield of puffy ack.

Simplest fix is increase the distance carriers have to be from the shore, that way their puffy ack remains a defensive screen and not an offensive umbrella.  Only change would need to allow LVT's to spawn in from a farther distance out.

Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: leitwolf on January 23, 2012, 10:46:29 AM
If you have bombs/rockets -> puffy ack volume of fire++;
If you dont have a bomb -> volume of fire--;

This could actually improve CV survivability if the system would tend to ignore fighters (without bombs) and spend more time spewing lead into incoming buff formations. Ofc this is somewhat gamey as CV gunners would rarely have the knowledge about inbound fighter loadouts, but going for "bombers first" seems to be a reasonable average threat assessment.

Maybe add a switch for scenarios and other special events to get the current behavior back (although it is worth mentioning that in  scenarios where correct levels of anti aircraft fire would be most appropriate, puffy ack lethality is commonly dialed way back to prevent the frustration of flying in formation for an hour and then getting killed by an Act Of The Cruel God Of Randomness and Entropy)
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: titanic3 on January 23, 2012, 10:52:28 AM
Flying above 3K near a CV is like playing Russian roulette.

My idea: Give the 5" positions ability to direct puffy ack. Remove auto AI ack all together.

Ex: You jump into a 5" gun, you point the barrel at an enemy plane, and puffy ack starts shooting at the closest one. You press "Primary Weapon Fire" and the normal 5" guns start shooting.

What this means is that if you happen to fly across an enemy CV accidentally, you won't get insta killed in the middle of a sortie or on your return trip or whatever. It'll also promote better communication for the country with the CV because guys need to be on the constant look out.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Butcher on January 23, 2012, 08:43:14 PM
You have it completely backwards.  If AH modeled AA realistically, you'd rarely get near the CV.


ack-ack

I was going to post some numbers, but my stupid Chrome crashed and I lost it - however I was going to show the AAA armament for the Battle of Midway (USS Yorktown) compared to the USS Franklin in late 44, if we had a Late war compliment of AAA then you wouldn't be getting near a CV period.

For example we don't have CLAA's which were designed as AAA platforms, Battleships such as IOWA's were a floating arsenal with 20x 5in/38 cal guns, some 80x 40mm Bofers and 50x 20mms, even the Late war carriers were a beast to reckon with.

Interesting to note the wartime upgrade, Carriers and other warships were not designed entirely to stop Air attacks at the start of the war, however
if you look at the gradual increase of AAA firepower, in 1945 it was just pure nasty, with good reason too - surface ships were not much a threat the entire war (as they were from the start in which ships were feared) for example the Mogami class Cruiser, the US built the Brooklyn-class light cruiser to combat it.

Anyhow, I am thankful we don't have the possible floating arsenal that was available in 1945.



Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Ack-Ack on January 23, 2012, 08:52:29 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/USS_Enterprise-Bat_Santa_Cruz.jpg/300px-USS_Enterprise-Bat_Santa_Cruz.jpg)

ack-ack
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Butcher on January 23, 2012, 08:56:25 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/USS_Enterprise-Bat_Santa_Cruz.jpg/300px-USS_Enterprise-Bat_Santa_Cruz.jpg)

ack-ack

I think a website would be setup that generate's whines to help accommodate those who would spam the forums if we had that kind of ack.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Kazan_HB on January 24, 2012, 08:33:07 AM
+1

Look up the stats for the number of Japanese planes shot down during the invasion of Okinawa.

I have found the cv ack that gives me the most trouble is the manned kind. Otherwise it hasn't really been a problem for me.



wrongway

They were untrained
How many guns have the fleet? 18 battleships, 40 aircraft carriers, 32 cruisers, 200 destroyers

funny
Flak can be small fighter plane shot down, but not the big bomber  :noid :noid :noid
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: AWwrgwy on January 24, 2012, 12:04:54 PM
They were untrained
How many guns have the fleet? 18 battleships, 40 aircraft carriers, 32 cruisers, 200 destroyers

funny
Flak can be small fighter plane shot down, but not the big bomber  :noid :noid :noid

Because a bomber will take much more damage than a small fighter before it goes down, just like when it is shot by another aircraft....?

 :noid :noid



wrongway

Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Wiley on January 24, 2012, 03:25:12 PM
Because a bomber will take much more damage than a small fighter before it goes down, just like when it is shot by another aircraft....?

 :noid :noid



wrongway



However, buffs are much slower and predictable targets, therefore should be easier to hit.  Over 90% of shots that miss don't do any damage, y'know. ;)

For gameplay purposes, I'm torn.  I'm not a huge fan of puffy knocking fighters down, but I feel buffs should fear puffy more than they do.  As it stands now, the only decent threat to a bomber at reasonable alt over a CV is manned ack.

Wiley.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: AWwrgwy on January 24, 2012, 03:30:19 PM
However, buffs are much slower and predictable targets, therefore should be easier to hit.  Over 90% of shots that miss don't do any damage, y'know. ;)

For gameplay purposes, I'm torn.  I'm not a huge fan of puffy knocking fighters down, but I feel buffs should fear puffy more than they do.  As it stands now, the only decent threat to a bomber at reasonable alt over a CV is manned ack.

Wiley.

But the issue is "ahhhh, my fighter got hit once by puffy and I died" versus "I flew my buffs through puffy and nothing happened".

Who says the buffs aren't getting hit? It just takes more hits.



wrongway
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Vasco on January 24, 2012, 03:55:33 PM
Every flak burst that has enough power to rip off a fighter's wing (that's the  usual dmg encountered) must be close enough that it should tear off a buff one's too.

Shrapnel should create PW, oil/rad hits or leaking fuel tanks.

I rarely get such hits in a fighter over a CV - usually it's a direct hit and the wing is gone.
In a buff you just receive direct hits from manned 5".
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Daddkev on January 24, 2012, 04:45:34 PM
 :x :x I love shooting the 5 inchers.....alot of people send me Mad PMs! Priceless :rock :O :x :joystick:
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Vasco on January 24, 2012, 05:03:48 PM
:x :x I love shooting the 5 inchers.....alot of people send me Mad PMs! Priceless :rock :O :x :joystick:

Manawar is that you?  :noid
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: caldera on January 24, 2012, 05:04:53 PM
I was going to post some numbers, but my stupid Chrome crashed and I lost it - however I was going to show the AAA armament for the Battle of Midway (USS Yorktown) compared to the USS Franklin in late 44, if we had a Late war compliment of AAA then you wouldn't be getting near a CV period.

The Franklin didn't fare any better than the Yorktown:

(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/ship_franklin7.jpg)


Still, there should be something done about auto-puffy tracking bombers better.  If you can get hit in a maneuvering fighter at 3,001 feet, you should get hammered in buffs flying straight and level right to the CV.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Kazan_HB on January 24, 2012, 06:13:38 PM
Manawar is that you?  :noid

 :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Ack-Ack on January 24, 2012, 07:02:04 PM
The Franklin didn't fare any better than the Yorktown:

(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/ship_franklin7.jpg)


Still, there should be something done about auto-puffy tracking bombers better.  If you can get hit in a maneuvering fighter at 3,001 feet, you should get hammered in buffs flying straight and level right to the CV.


The crew on USS Franklin and the rest of Task Force 58 were caught with their pants around their ankles by the surprise attack of the lone Japanese bomber.  USS Franklin never fired her AA guns as she had lost the incoming Japanese bomber in the radar clutter of other USN planes of TF 58 taking off.  Franklin also had come off GQ and crews were preparing for breakfast and a burial at sea later in the morning in addition to getting planes ready to bomb a base on the Japanese home land and then later re-armed with AP bombs to take on a Japanese battleship and cruiser.  I think the other ships in TF 58 were in a similar state of readiness because hardly any, if at all, AA was fired at the attacking Japanese plane. 

Not a good example to refute Butcher's post.

ack-ack
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Butcher on January 24, 2012, 07:21:20 PM
The Franklin didn't fare any better than the Yorktown:

(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/ship_franklin7.jpg)


Still, there should be something done about auto-puffy tracking bombers better.  If you can get hit in a maneuvering fighter at 3,001 feet, you should get hammered in buffs flying straight and level right to the CV.

As AKAK points out, I made a poor choice pointing out both CV's for examples, however use the USS Enterprise for its AAA Armaments from 1/42 to 4/44.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: DMGOD on January 24, 2012, 07:45:08 PM
(http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb414/noelle1231/flak1.jpg)

(http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb414/noelle1231/flak2.jpg)

(http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb414/noelle1231/flak3.jpg)

Me thinks we have it easier here then they did
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Ack-Ack on January 24, 2012, 07:57:13 PM

Me thinks we have it easier here then they did

A lot easier than they did.
(http://spitfirespares.com/SPITFIRESPARES.COM/Website%20products%20Dave%20hanst/Flak.jpg)

(http://www.reddog1944.com/RAST_97th%20BG%20414th%20BS_files/image039.jpg)
Above is AA from both shore based AA and shipboard AA in the harbor

(http://users.rlc.net/catfish/liberatorcrew/06_B-24/USAF%20Museum/Flak%20hit-wing.jpg)

ack-ack
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: AWwrgwy on January 24, 2012, 09:58:27 PM
Every flak burst that has enough power to rip off a fighter's wing (that's the  usual dmg encountered) must be close enough that it should tear off a buff one's too.

By that logic, the same amount of damage should be needed for a single fighter to kill a P-51 as a B-17.

Quote
Shrapnel should create PW, oil/rad hits or leaking fuel tanks.

It does.

Quote
I rarely get such hits in a fighter over a CV - usually it's a direct hit and the wing is gone.
In a buff you just receive direct hits from manned 5".

So, you have been hit directly by a 5" round in a bomber and nothing happened?   :rofl




wrongway

Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Vasco on January 25, 2012, 05:55:06 AM
As I said, if the round is close enough to rip off the wing of a fighter due to the blast it should also inflict critical dmg to a buff.
Can't remember that puffy ack ever downed a bomber or a drone.
In a fighter I always get complete wings removed and and almost never receive light dmg (let's say due to nearby misses' shrapnels).

Quote
So, you have been hit directly by a 5" round in a bomber and nothing happened?   :rofl

I wrote I never get direct hits from puffy ack in a buff, just from manned 5" (which are usually deadly).


Cheers,
Vasco
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Vasco on January 25, 2012, 06:07:48 AM
Just a comment to above's pictures:

AAA in WW2 was terribly inefficient (kills/rounds fired), they created mostly black smoke in the sky.

One can argue the proximity fuzes of 5" dual purpose on US ships weren't, but nonetheless they hadn't AEGIS back then and I'd be surprised if the AA radars (if any!) could track more than one contact's altitude, range and heading. And I suppose datalinks to 5" turrets weren't invented either.

Even if you have proxy fuses I suspect you still lead the gun (therefore you need an estimation of range, alt and heading of the target).

Does anyone have more info on this?
(Please omit info on surface radars and 14"/16" main guns)
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: leitwolf on January 25, 2012, 06:44:22 AM
I'll hijack ack-ack's link:

(http://users.rlc.net/catfish/liberatorcrew/06_B-24/USAF%20Museum/Flak%20hit-wing.jpg)

How common is this effect on bombers in AH? It never happens to buffs, even on a straight and level run towards the CV. If you do the same in a fighter, you're toast. This needs to change.
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: Kazan_HB on January 25, 2012, 07:01:23 AM
I'll hijack ack-ack's link:

(http://users.rlc.net/catfish/liberatorcrew/06_B-24/USAF%20Museum/Flak%20hit-wing.jpg)

How common is this effect on bombers in AH? It never happens to buffs, even on a straight and level run towards the CV. If you do the same in a fighter, you're toast. This needs to change.

genau!  :aok
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: icepac on January 25, 2012, 07:15:54 AM
High altitude killing of buffs over germany took between 4000 and 16000 rounds fired per kill.

Certain acks had better numbers because of the altitude of the planes they were targeting with small ack having higher hit percentages for the simple fact that the planes were far closer.

http://www.amazon.com/Flak-German-Anti-Aircraft-Defenses-1914-1945/dp/0700614206

Another discussion here.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/anti-aircraft-weapons-15023.html
Title: Re: CV Ack vs Fighters
Post by: thndregg on January 25, 2012, 08:15:28 AM
As it stands now, the only decent threat to a bomber at reasonable alt over a CV is manned ack.

I agree, along with a good fighter defense. I've sunk a lot of CV's in the game, mostly attributed to ease of access. The only two factors that prevent me from hitting and/or sinking it is a good 5" gunner, or fighter patrols. The CV's maneuvers are too predictable due to the unchanging speed in which it travels, therefore it is easy to position the bombsight ahead of the CV while it is in it's turn arc. At 8K altitude, anywhere it moves to evade getting bombed is too little, too late.