Carrier Flak

[The Fugitive]

.........., 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.

[moot]

Let's also get rid of realistic ballistics on gun planes, then..

[dirtdart]

Now there is a comment.    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  At what point does the preservation of realism get superceded by the need to prevent everything from getting "porked"?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. 

[moot]

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.

[SlapShot]

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.

[SlapShot]

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.

[moot]

I didn't know about the shells themselves having radio detection, thanks   That changes the picture..

[SlapShot]

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.

[Adonai]

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.

[Blooz]

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.

[The Fugitive]

Now there is a comment.    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.

[moot]

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. 

[dirtdart]

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.     

[FTDEEP]

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.

[SlapShot]

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.