Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
CaptainTeddybear

FLAK is conceptually wrong

56 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,725 posts

FLAK is currently being treated as airborne minefields. The ship lays a static floating minefield in the sky and if planes fly through them they take damage. Nothing about this is correct. AA shells and FLAK fragments move much faster than planes. If this were corrected it would do a lot to alleviate the skill gap problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,613 posts
9,825 battles

I mean playing CV, I have my issues with flak. I think it's a little too effective as is.

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KSD]
[KSD]
Members
228 posts
10,031 battles

Last thing we would want is flak be so easy to hit that being Skilled means nothing.  then CVs would be Impossible to use

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,830
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,762 posts
2,134 battles

Ah... that's how flak works. Until VT fuses became widespread, the role of heavy AA was essentially to throw up barrage patterns in front of incoming aircraft, which they would hopefully fly through. There wasn't much else heavy flak could do at that point.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,451 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Ah... that's how flak works. Until VT fuses became widespread, the role of heavy AA was essentially to throw up barrage patterns in front of incoming aircraft, which they would hopefully fly through. There wasn't much else heavy flak could do at that point.

Yeah but I don't think that WW2 pilots were dodging flak bursts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,830
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,762 posts
2,134 battles
Just now, CommodoreKang said:

Yeah but I don't think that WW2 pilots were dodging flak bursts.  

You may be surprised, but it was a practice. Swordfish were particularly effective at it, as due to their low speed they could more easily and violently 'jink' out of the way of an expected flak burst without ruining the lineup for their torpedo run, compared to faster aircraft. This made them significantly more difficult to hit with flak than modern AA FC systems were capable of.

It's perhaps incorrect to explicitly describe it as 'dodging', but pilots had various methods of making it more difficult for ship-based heavy AA to hit them. Unexpected maneuvers such as what I described above were part of such tactics. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,451 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, Phoenix_jz said:

You may be surprised, but it was a practice. Swordfish were particularly effective at it, as due to their low speed they could more easily and violently 'jink' out of the way of an expected flak burst without ruining the lineup for their torpedo run, compared to faster aircraft. This made them significantly more difficult to hit with flak than modern AA FC systems were capable of.

It's perhaps incorrect to explicitly describe it as 'dodging', but pilots had various methods of making it more difficult for ship-based heavy AA to hit them. Unexpected maneuvers such as what I described above were part of such tactics. 

How do you jink out of the way of something that is traveling at many hundreds of feet per second?  I mean, you can jink and it might miss you but I doubt that the jinking caused the missing.  You can change your altitude randomly but that's avoiding shells that haven't been fired yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[DISST]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,030 posts

Radar proximity fuse limited the need for blanket coverage but that was only 5 inch and aboves  .. I think... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[MPIRE]
Beta Testers
1,809 posts
10,350 battles
1 minute ago, CommodoreKang said:

How do you jink out of the way of something that is traveling at many hundreds of feet per second?  I mean, you can jink and it might miss you but I doubt that the jinking caused the missing.  You can change your altitude randomly but that's avoiding shells that haven't been fired yet.

Many hundreds of feet over several kilometers.  It's pretty much how one dodges torps in-game, by being too unpredictable to let them saturate your path.

And actually in-game you're very rarely dodging the flak once it's fired either.  When I play CVs I'm always making erratic maneuvers and it basically removes the need for any "active" flak dodging.  So I'd say so far everything is working pretty ok conceptually!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,451 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, Kenjister said:

Many hundreds of feet over several kilometers.  It's pretty much how one dodges torps in-game, by being too unpredictable to let them saturate your path.

And actually in-game you're very rarely dodging the flak once it's fired either.  When I play CVs I'm always making erratic maneuvers and it basically removes the need for any "active" flak dodging.  So I'd say so far everything is working pretty ok conceptually!

That's cool but can you "dodge" the flak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,878 posts
11,515 battles

Here is something everyone seems to not get either. By T8 all UK and USN ships would have Funny fuse or VT fuse shells for any aa gun system 76mm or greater. So thats 3,4,5,6 inch guns. The effect of this would be stacking flak auras. So your long/medium flak would stack. It would also be faster in terms of reaim. Historically these shells had a 33% fail rating but even still a single Cleveland could completely devour a squad of bombers before they could drop, but since flak is 100% avoidable in a 1v1 situation if played right it would not really matter. It should also be stated Germany had a similar, though less effective system, RUSSIA/France/Japan had no such systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,451 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

It's backwards. The plane dodges first and the FLAK tries to guess where the plane will be. In the game the FLAK throws it up ahead of time so the plane knows where it is.

Unfortunately, the AA system has to let some strikes through regardless of how its modeled.  It basically comes down to what level of viability the devs want in CVs.  They can move the damage around a little.  Make it more or less skill based the CV.  But at the end of the day, the CV has to be able to strike the target even when attacking the highest of AA ships.  Without that, CVs wouldn't be viable.  

The bots have just got to accept what the devs allow them to do in the AA realm.  The bots have no control over what the AA does.  Why would they.  They are bots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[MPIRE]
Beta Testers
1,809 posts
10,350 battles
11 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

That's cool but can you "dodge" the flak?

Are you talking about in real life or in the game?

In real life you simply try to preemptively juke it, since you can't exactly move your lumbering bomber around flak that easily, nor can you "see" the fragments you're trying to dodge anyways.  In game, you should be playing the same way too.  Of course there's more leeway, but if you start trying to dodge flak after it already shows up on your screen it's like trying to dodge torps only after they're spotted.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
150
[WOLF6]
Members
402 posts
3,284 battles
41 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

Yeah but I don't think that WW2 pilots were dodging flak bursts.  

Maybe not in large bomber formations at 30k feet, because that was a low chance of hit anyway, but medium to low altitude?  You bet they were.

22 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

How do you jink out of the way of something that is traveling at many hundreds of feet per second?  I mean, you can jink and it might miss you but I doubt that the jinking caused the missing.  You can change your altitude randomly but that's avoiding shells that haven't been fired yet.

Because aircraft are also traveling at hundreds of fps.  It only takes small changes in altitude/heading to cause a miss.  Modern fighter aircraft train to dodging guided missiles, after they are fired.

6 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

It's backwards. The plane dodges first and the FLAK tries to guess where the plane will be. In the game the FLAK throws it up ahead of time so the plane knows where it is.

Because it's a game.  There is almost nothing realistic about how ANYTHING works in this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441
[K0]
Members
1,754 posts
7,888 battles

Even high altitude bomber formations were trained to move in irregular patterns on their way to the target to avoid being hit by long-range flak.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,451 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, Kenjister said:

Are you talking about in real life or in the game?

In real life you simply try to preemptively juke it, since you can't exactly move your lumbering bomber around flak that easily, nor can you "see" the fragments you're trying to dodge anyways.  In game, you should be playing the same way too.  Of course there's more leeway, but if you start trying to dodge flak after it already shows up on your screen it's like trying to dodge torps only after they're spotted.  

Yeah, i get you.   I think dodging in real life was more after the fact reaction with maybe a tiny bit of effectiveness.  I don't think dodging in game makes a ton of historical sense but i completely understand why the devs put that in there.  My guess is to insert some level of skill into AA mitigation.  I don't necessarily agree that you should be able to use skill to mitigate AA since the bot deploying the AA doesn't get that advantage.  But, I can understand why the devs wanting to try to insert skill somewhere in the AA equation.

At the end of the day, as I said to someone else, the CV has to be able to get strikes through.  The AA system has to be designed to allow that to happen.  It's just one more of the many kludges the game needs to accommodate CVs in it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,725 posts
4 minutes ago, ZoomieG said:

Because it's a game.  There is almost nothing realistic about how ANYTHING works in this game. 

The problem is it is no longer a good game. I know fixing FLAK is part of the solution because right now it's just a skill check. I'm not sure how to fix it but that is where they need to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,551
[PVE]
Members
19,836 posts
12,005 battles
1 hour ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

FLAK is currently being treated as airborne minefields. The ship lays a static floating minefield in the sky and if planes fly through them they take damage. Nothing about this is correct. AA shells and FLAK fragments move much faster than planes. If this were corrected it would do a lot to alleviate the skill gap problem.

 

1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Ah... that's how flak works. Until VT fuses became widespread, the role of heavy AA was essentially to throw up barrage patterns in front of incoming aircraft, which they would hopefully fly through. There wasn't much else heavy flak could do at that point.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[MPIRE]
Beta Testers
1,809 posts
10,350 battles
2 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

The problem is it is no longer a good game. I know fixing FLAK is part of the solution because right now it's just a skill check. I'm not sure how to fix it but that is where they need to start.

Well everyone has their opinion I suppose.  But why do you think flak being a skill check is the place to start?

Right now AA has two elements: continuous and flak.  Flak by design is the skill element, and continuous is the unavoidable aspect to balance it out.  Are you saying there should be no place for skill-based mitigation in AA, or more along the lines of shifting the power away from flak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
150
[WOLF6]
Members
402 posts
3,284 battles
3 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

The problem is it is no longer a good game. I know fixing FLAK is part of the solution because right now it's just a skill check. I'm not sure how to fix it but that is where they need to start.

Well, that's much more encompassing than your original post implied.  WG isn't finished with rework tweaks; maybe provide this feedback in the update section, rather than general discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,722
Alpha Tester
6,247 posts
3,091 battles
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

You may be surprised, but it was a practice. Swordfish were particularly effective at it, as due to their low speed they could more easily and violently 'jink' out of the way of an expected flak burst without ruining the lineup for their torpedo run, compared to faster aircraft. This made them significantly more difficult to hit with flak than modern AA FC systems were capable of.

It also helped that the Swordfish could fly so close to the water that the AA guns on ships couldn't depress low enough to hit them. This is what happened when the Bismarck was crippled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,451 posts
5,943 battles
19 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

The problem is it is no longer a good game. I know fixing FLAK is part of the solution because right now it's just a skill check. I'm not sure how to fix it but that is where they need to start.

You can't fix it.  It has to be automated and it has to let strikes through.  You can move the damage around a little.  Tweak it up or down a little but beyond that, the target bots just have to take it.  And don't get any fancy ideas of blobbing and such.  The devs will put a stop to that immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×