Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
comtedumas

Let’s look at current AA objectively.

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles

Someone posted this document as a source and a defense of the current AA meta.  

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

Antiaircraft Action Summary · World War II

October 1945
Headquarters of the Commander in Chief
UNITED STATES FLEET

UNITED STATES FLEET HEADQUARTERS OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF NAVY DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.

8 OCTOBER 1945

 

Ok, so it has some relevance to the topic.  However, that person is wrong, it’s actually a argument against the current meta.  Let’s have a look.  

If you read just the beginning, it looks like aa was very effective.  

“AA. successes for the war by 6-month periods follow:

Period: Assessed kills
  Pearl Harbor 26
  First half 1942 56
  Second half 1942 146
  First half 1943 72
  Second half 1943 300
  First half 1944 171
  Second half 1944 310
  First half 1945 964
  July and August 1945 11
        Total 2,056
  Armed Guard total 200
  Grand total 2,256”

The "kills" listed in the foregoing table occurred within sight of the ships being attacked. The 5,500 planes not shot down immediately were so harassed by antiaircraft gunfire that comparatively few were able to carry out their missions successfully. Damage to ships caused by enemy planes is outlined later in this chapter.”

2256 planes seems like a lot.  But that’s over 4 years.  And let’s look at the amount of shells needed to kill those planes and average rounds per bird (RPB, their term.)

Totals for War

  Rounds Kills R.P.B.
5" Com 223,770 342.0 (15%) 654
5" VT 117,915 346.5 (15%) 340
3"/50 29,614 87.5 (4%) 338
40 mm 1,271,844 742.5 (33%) 1,713
1".1 85,996 44.5 (2%) 1,932
20 mm. 3,264,956 617.5 (28%) 5,287
.50-cal 729,836 65.5 (3%) 11,143
.30-cal 112,506 4.0   28,127
 

As you can see, it’s not good.  According to this it took 1,271,844 40mm rounds to shoot down just 742 planes.  (1713 RPB).  Wow.  

And it took 3,264,956 20mm rounds to shoot does 617 planes ( 5287 RPB). Simply amazing.  

Those are basically the inner and middle rings of AA in the game.  That’s where most of the plane losses are currently happening.  

And then add in what WG has done to the flight model.  They locked the planes into a rail system, they can’t go up and down, only right and left.  Their movement is even more restricted when they begin their attack run and you are basically held in a predictable path so that every AA gun knows where you are precisely.  It removes all the variables involved in shooting an attacking plane for the ships and also adds instantaneous computer control to those guns.  Then on top of all that it compresses the AA so it is about 1000x (or) more effective than it was in real life in that one minuscule piece of airspace.  

Everyone who thinks about this without a bias will see just how messed up this formula is.  

So let’s just admit now that the current AA is broken and needs major changes.  

Edited by comtedumas
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,953 posts
11,269 battles

Calling what airplanes do in World of Warships as a "flight model" is an insult to flight models.  I have to take deep breaths anytime I'm working with them and remind myself it's just an arcade game -- it's not a simulator.  Still, I admit that I cringe watching dive bombers begin their attack runs.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,040
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,112 posts
16,890 battles

Let's look at what carriers attack objectively.

At Midway carriers sank or crippled 5 carriers, a destroyer and a heavy cruiser. At the Coral Sea carriers sank 2 carriers, 2 destroyers and an oiler. Carrier aircraft never outright sank a British, German, Italian, Russian or American battleship at sea.

In game carriers don't attack each other, sink battleships of all nation's, have the best survival rates and generally don't reflect history at all.

 

So let's just admit now that current carrier attack patterns are broken and need major changes.

 

Wow, you can say whatever you like with bits of history!

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,016
[NONE]
Members
4,078 posts
12,612 battles
18 minutes ago, comtedumas said:

Someone posted this document as a source and a defense of the current AA meta.  

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

Antiaircraft Action Summary · World War II

October 1945
Headquarters of the Commander in Chief
UNITED STATES FLEET

UNITED STATES FLEET HEADQUARTERS OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF NAVY DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.

8 OCTOBER 1945

 

Ok, so it has some relevance to the topic.  However, that person is wrong, it’s actually a argument against the current meta.  Let’s have a look.  

If you read just the beginning, it looks like aa was very effective.  

“AA. successes for the war by 6-month periods follow:

Period: Assessed kills
  Pearl Harbor 26
  First half 1942 56
  Second half 1942 146
  First half 1943 72
  Second half 1943 300
  First half 1944 171
  Second half 1944 310
  First half 1945 964
  July and August 1945 11
        Total 2,056
  Armed Guard total 200
  Grand total 2,256”

The "kills" listed in the foregoing table occurred within sight of the ships being attacked. The 5,500 planes not shot down immediately were so harassed by antiaircraft gunfire that comparatively few were able to carry out their missions successfully. Damage to ships caused by enemy planes is outlined later in this chapter.”

2256 planes seems like a lot.  But that’s over 4 years.  And let’s look at the amount of shells needed to kill those planes and average rounds per bird (RPB, their term.)

Totals for War

  Rounds Kills R.P.B.
5" Com 223,770 342.0 (15%) 654
5" VT 117,915 346.5 (15%) 340
3"/50 29,614 87.5 (4%) 338
40 mm 1,271,844 742.5 (33%) 1,713
1".1 85,996 44.5 (2%) 1,932
20 mm. 3,264,956 617.5 (28%) 5,287
.50-cal 729,836 65.5 (3%) 11,143
.30-cal 112,506 4.0   28,127
 

As you can see, it’s not good.  According to this it took 1,271,844 40mm rounds to shoot down just 742 planes.  (1713 RPB).  Wow.  

And it took 3,264,956 20mm rounds to shoot does 617 planes ( 5287 RPB). Simply amazing.  

Those are basically the inner and middle rings of AA in the game.  That’s where most of the plane losses are currently happening.  

And then add in what WG has done to the flight model.  They locked the planes into a rail system, they can’t go up and down, only right and left.  Their movement is even more restricted when they begin their attack run and you are basically held in a predictable path so that every AA gun knows where you are precisely.  It removes all the variables involved in shooting an attacking plane for the ships and also adds instantaneous computer control to those guns.  Then on top of all that it compresses the AA so it is about 1000x (or) more effective than it was in real life in that one minuscule piece of airspace.  

Everyone who thinks about this without a bias will see just how messed up this formula is.  

So let’s just admit now that the current AA is broken and needs major changes.  

What part of "arcade" do you not understand?

Want a flight sim? See you on IL-2: Battle of Stalingrad. I fly the Bf-109F.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,807
[CYNIC]
Members
3,090 posts
8,742 battles

AA is a "spray and pray" mechanic -- at least until it got broken into magical fairy land where all guns on all ships magically target the same random aircraft.  These clowns just don't get it.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,016
[NONE]
Members
4,078 posts
12,612 battles
15 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Calling what airplanes do in World of Warships as a "flight model" is an insult to flight models.

Totally agree.

There are tons of good aviation games out there (the latest IL-2 Stormovik is my favorite) and WG even has their own Warplanes. What passes for aviation in Warships is a joke.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,963 battles
2 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

Totally agree.

There are tons of good aviation games out there (the latest IL-2 Stormovik is my favorite) and WG even has their own Warplanes. What passes for aviation in Warships is a joke.

Sky Arty.  WG......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
29 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

What part of "arcade" do you not understand?

Want a flight sim? See you on IL-2: Battle of Stalingrad. I fly the Bf-109F.

Even flight sims like Falcon 4.0 had better modeled AA than this does.  I flew a F16.  probably before you were born.  

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
33 minutes ago, mofton said:

Let's look at what carriers attack objectively.

At Midway carriers sank or crippled 5 carriers, a destroyer and a heavy cruiser. At the Coral Sea carriers sank 2 carriers, 2 destroyers and an oiler. Carrier aircraft never outright sank a British, German, Italian, Russian or American battleship at sea.

In game carriers don't attack each other, sink battleships of all nation's, have the best survival rates and generally don't reflect history at all.

 

So let's just admit now that current carrier attack patterns are broken and need major changes.

 

Wow, you can say whatever you like with bits of history!

Please attempt to stay on topic. 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,963 battles
1 minute ago, comtedumas said:

Please attempt to stay on topic. 

Did AA in WWII self nerf when it got too concentrated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,016
[NONE]
Members
4,078 posts
12,612 battles
2 minutes ago, comtedumas said:

probably before you were born.  

I'll take that bet. Put up or shut up, shipmate.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
48 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Calling what airplanes do in World of Warships as a "flight model" is an insult to flight models.  I have to take deep breaths anytime I'm working with them and remind myself it's just an arcade game -- it's not a simulator.  Still, I admit that I cringe watching dive bombers begin their attack runs.

The AA is bad in WOWP too, their other title.  but not as bad as this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
679
[WOLF5]
Members
1,695 posts
12,204 battles
32 minutes ago, mofton said:

Let's look at what carriers attack objectively.

At Midway carriers sank or crippled 5 carriers, a destroyer and a heavy cruiser. At the Coral Sea carriers sank 2 carriers, 2 destroyers and an oiler. Carrier aircraft never outright sank a British, German, Italian, Russian or American battleship at sea.

In game carriers don't attack each other, sink battleships of all nation's, have the best survival rates and generally don't reflect history at all.

 

So let's just admit now that current carrier attack patterns are broken and need major changes.

 

Wow, you can say whatever you like with bits of history!

Carriers attacked other carriers, with this being essentially their sole target. At Midway the above mentioned cruiser was bombed after all the carriers were aflame and sinking. I have never understood way the CV component of this game involving carriers has been set. Carriers striking only other carriers as a separate battle event would solve a lot of the AA and other issues as the systems between CVs could be more easily "balanced".....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
Just now, CommodoreKang said:

Did AA in WWII self nerf when it got too concentrated?

AA in WWII NEVER got as concentrated as it is modeled in WOWS.  NEVER.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,040
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,112 posts
16,890 battles
1 minute ago, comtedumas said:

Please attempt to stay on topic. 

Please attempt not to cherry pick history to support your own in-game position in a crusade of bizarrely playing a victim.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
2 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

I'll take that bet. Put up or shut up, shipmate.

54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,963 battles
Just now, comtedumas said:

AA in WWII NEVER got as concentrated as it is modeled in WOWS.  NEVER.  

Perhaps that's because most naval battles occurred over a much, much, much larger area than that modeled in game?  Still, I don't recall AA in WWII self nerfing so that the enemy CV could get its strikes through.  I'm pretty sure the combatants on both sides would have had a tiny bit of a problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
1 minute ago, mofton said:

Please attempt not to cherry pick history to support your own in-game position in a crusade of bizarrely playing a victim.

I didn't, I simply pointed out the flaws in the AA system.  Why does that bother you so much?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
1 minute ago, So_lt_Goes said:

66. You owe me a coke.

Fine, if we ever meet I will buy you a coke, maybe even a burger to go with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
4 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

Perhaps that's because most naval battles occurred over a much, much, much larger area than that modeled in game?  Still, I don't recall AA in WWII self nerfing so that the enemy CV could get its strikes through.  I'm pretty sure the combatants on both sides would have had a tiny bit of a problem with that.

There was never a reason to self nerf because there was never such concentrated fire in WWII, even the flak towers Nazi Germany built could not put up that much flak in such a concentrated space and they did pretty much know exactly the route the bomber streams were going to their targets.  

Edited by comtedumas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,963 battles
Just now, comtedumas said:

There was never a reason to self nerf because there was never such concentrated fire in WWII, even the flak towers Nazi Germany built could put up that much flak in such a concentrated space and they did pretty much know exactly the route the bomber streams were going to their targets.  

Yeah but in game AA self nerfs.  So is that historical?  Or is that a kludge to make CV game play more fun and engaging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles
Just now, CommodoreKang said:

Yeah but in game AA self nerfs.  So is that historical?  Or is that a kludge to make CV game play more fun and engaging?

How does the in game AA self nerf?  Not that I have seen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,963 battles
Just now, comtedumas said:

How does the in game AA self nerf?  Not that I have seen.  

It's that number of ships in the AA bubble thing.  The more ships, the bigger the nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
2,039 posts
14,276 battles

Sorry, you are going to have to explain that.  the more ships, the worse aa is and the faster planes die from what I have seen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×