|
Post by antonindvorak on Nov 10, 2019 20:14:02 GMT -6
This makes me wonder if it might have been worth putting fireworks stars in HAA shells, to make the burst size and volume of fragments from HAA visible. These lovely black puffs you see in many WWII scenes with bombers around ... these are HAA shells.
|
|
|
Post by broadsides on Nov 24, 2019 11:19:40 GMT -6
Reading this thread reminds me about a recollection my father-in-law, who served on an U.S. Destroyer in WW2, once told me. He said when you felt the 5" guns open up, no worries. When you felt the 40mm start firing , small worry. When you heard the 20mm firing, serious worry. When you heard the .50cal machine guns, you wished you were on a different ship.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Nov 24, 2019 15:44:09 GMT -6
Early on MAA is comparatively less effective than LAA. With tech advances, MAA gets more effective. So tech advances and rising aircraft speeds means that MAA is preferable later, while LAA is better earlier in the game.
|
|
|
Post by kaguya on Nov 25, 2019 0:08:37 GMT -6
Early on MAA is comparatively less effective than LAA. With tech advances, MAA gets more effective. So tech advances and rising aircraft speeds means that MAA is preferable later, while LAA is better earlier in the game. Is this a complete effectiveness increase or does LAA still hold advantages like better disruption per cost?
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Nov 25, 2019 2:09:33 GMT -6
Early on MAA is comparatively less effective than LAA. With tech advances, MAA gets more effective. So tech advances and rising aircraft speeds means that MAA is preferable later, while LAA is better earlier in the game. Is this a complete effectiveness increase or does LAA still hold advantages like better disruption per cost? This is *the* question that most of us are curious about. If there is any point in using LAA in lategame for the disruption effect, or if it's just better to go 100% MAA.
|
|
|
Post by spodermanspooooooody on Nov 25, 2019 3:03:47 GMT -6
thism makes me think of the bismarck fighting the swordfish Early on MAA is comparatively less effective than LAA. With tech advances, MAA gets more effective. So tech advances and rising aircraft speeds means that MAA is preferable later, while LAA is better earlier in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Nov 25, 2019 15:37:26 GMT -6
Is this a complete effectiveness increase or does LAA still hold advantages like better disruption per cost? This is *the* question that most of us are curious about. If there is any point in using LAA in lategame for the disruption effect, or if it's just better to go 100% MAA.
I cannot give any hard and fast rules. Most real ships carried both, with the proportion of MAA increasing towards the end of WW2. Experiment and see what seems to work best.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Nov 25, 2019 16:11:25 GMT -6
In my experience LAA seems to be better disruption per tonnage. My ships tend to have balanced AA loadouts, with increasing proportion of MAA towards late game. However it seems that ships with most MAA and some LAA are better suited to survive an airstrike than ships with MAA only. I didn't do any strict testing, but that was my observation.
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Nov 25, 2019 16:13:15 GMT -6
Don’t want to spoil the fun, do you? I’d probably use all three AA types, partly for redundancy, partly for layered defense and partly for RP. RTW2 isn’t supposed to be a game with a meta build for the win anyway.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Nov 27, 2019 9:34:05 GMT -6
Nowadays I use all 3 AA types as well. I feel like something is missing if there's no LAA.
I just wish we could have more detail in the battle log about disrupted and aborted planes during the attacks. I would imagine that is something the crews of the attacked ships can see, thus making it a reportable thing - and also your planes reporting back their own attacks.
|
|