Reduce Cv puffy ack

[SmokinLoon]

I think it should be suicide to attack a carrier group in singles and maybe even pairs.  Unless the buffs are 20k or higher, they should expect to lose a drone or two to puffy ack.  Only the suicidal wold attack a CV alone or with a suicidal buddy.

If anything... bump it up.

[Saxman]

Loon,

The problem is there's a pretty consistent history that puffy ack in the game is more effective against fast moving and constantly maneuvering fighters than it is the Buff formations flying straight and level at low speeds. Part of it has to do with the way it's generated around the target. IIRC, puffy ack is generated in a box around the target. This box changes size depending on the size of the target, however the AMOUNT of ack does NOT change. This means if you have ten flak bursts for each box, for a small fighter that's ten ack bursts in a tighter space than those same ten ack bursts in the bounding box for a formation of bombers. Automatically, this means a small fighter has a higher chance of getting hit because of the greater density of the flak.

As Doug suggests: Change the modeling of puffy ack so there's actually guns on the ship FIRING those shells, rather than having the flak bursts randomly generated in a bounding box around the target. That would solve a LOT of the problems.

Also, the AI for puffy ack is pretty screwed up. We've ALL seen puffy ack ignore an approaching bomber formation RIGHT overhead and ready to drop only to attack a small fighter engaged with CAP five miles away.

Do I really need to mention the puffy ack that can shoot through mountains...?

[10thmd]

I agree the Puffy is a joke. I fly JU-88's at 210 and 10k and never get hit once. Fly a Ta-152 at 450 and 25k 1 hit tower everytime.

[guncrasher]

so true about the ack.  I'll fly at 5.5 above the cv and ack starts hitting around me about 7 seconds before drop and for 30 seconds after, and once I drop turn and start maneuvering to opposite direction of CV while diving below 3k. most of the time I'll get hit some but no biggie.  and yet the moment I go 3001 alt on my spit8 puff goes the wing If I am lucky, really unlucky i get killed right away  .

semp

[waystin2]

I do not think CV puffy ack lethality should be altered.  I do think that the CV's are still allowed to close to shore.  If I can be whacked by manned or unmanned ack right above my own field, then they are getting to close.

[bustr]

Double the shore battery's at every feild to allow a broader arc of coverage. As for the puffy ack response itself. By the Okinawa campaign in 45, wasnt american ship board ack about this dense in it's coverage? As for ack density bombers vs fighters, dialing back the lethality seems fair to the fighters. I rarely ever see auto ack down a bomber unless its about to crash on the CV's deck Lankstukaing.

[Jayhawk]

Although many of you have experienced it, here's a quick low quality video of some dang puffy ack.  Alt was just below 15k.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7VyKYTuvg

[Crash Orange]

I do not think CV puffy ack lethality should be altered.  I do think that the CV's are still allowed to close to shore.  If I can be whacked by manned or unmanned ack right above my own field, then they are getting to close.

Abso-freakin-lutely. You should not be able to use ship ack as an offensive weapon.

[grizz441]

Puffy ack is a joke, get rid of the whole thing.

[bustr]

The 5inch Proximity fuze model HiTech is using seems historicly on for the auto 5inch and rate of fire from 4 destroyers. I don't know if HiTech is programing 100% of the fuzed rounds to work 100% of the time though. 100% of the rounds working did not happen in real life. The british had about a 79% kill rate against the 400mph V1 using the fuzed round.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
For more information on the VT fuze, see the Ralph Baldwin book, "The Deadly Fuze - Secret Weapon of World War II."  An analysis in this book of the 278 aircraft shot down by VT fuzed projectiles between October 1944 and August 1945 indicates that only 46 of these would have been destroyed if time fuzed projectiles had been employed.  However, Will Jurens, noted ordnance authority, estimates that Baldwin's 6:1 ratio apparently assumes that 70% of the VT fuzes worked.  A 50% failure rate - the Navy's lower limit of acceptability - meant the effectiveness ratio was closer to 4:1.  In comparison, mechanical time fuzes such as the Mk 18 typically worked about 90%-95% of the time.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The earlier naval stats against kamikaze was 310 fuzed rounds per plane.

Type of Attack       Planes Shot Down                               Rounds per Plane
                                                                     20 mm     40 mm    5"/38 MT*      5"/38 VT 
Kamikaze                    24                                  27,200     6,000        1,000             200
Non-Kamikaze              41                                  30,100     4,500        1,000             550

* MT = Mechanical Timer (i.e., Time Fuzed AA Common)

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-075.htm

[Saurdaukar]

AI puffy ack

Dont care about it.



Remove the player's ability to load laser-guided, heat-seeking, homing, proximity-triggered AA rounds into the 5 inchers.  That, or eliminate their ability to traverse below a certain horizontal plain consistent with the 3K AI limitation; subject to reasonable distance from the CV.

Nothing ruins a good ol' Army/Navy game faster.

[JunkyII]

CV puffy forces one side to stay under 3k.......I dont think that ever happened at an airfield in WW2

[Saurdaukar]

CV puffy forces one side to stay under 3k.......I dont think that ever happened at an airfield in WW2

OMGF!!11 TIS IS NT WW2!!!111   

[JunkyII]

OMGF!!11 TIS IS NT WW2!!!111   

Shhhh, Im fishing

[bustr]

If AI ack is disabled we can assume most CV will be sitting on the bottom most of the night.

Then we will be repeating this conversation but, the complaint will be about milk runners gaming the CV groups, bases and strat for easy points to avoid fighting. Isn't a CV group really a movable airfield and city style strat with auto ack? We used to have AI puffy ack protecting towns that players complained was unfair. In that case this argument should include disabling field ack and strat ack since its all Lazar guided unfair death and spoils a good furball.

So once the AI ack for everything in the MA is disabled, what do we do? If logic is followed a bit, the furball lake environment in the DA is all we will be left with but on a Macro scale with better scenery. Everything becomes a milk run but for the risks related to furballing. Except the maps are too big for furballers to protect everything or hunt down all the nonfurballers. But, there would be no hiding in the AI ack to frustrate the hardcore furballer. Then I suppose the next complaint would logicly be to make the maps smaller to give the milk runners no way to hide from the furballers. What vicious circular reasoning. Is this a profit sustainable scenario for HiTech?

1. So why turn the MA into a giant DA with better scenery?
2. Honestly, what percentage of the community would that benifit?
3. Why not ask HiTech to change the DA instead, if it's so boring to the hard core furballers? No milk runners and AI Lazer guided ack in the DA.