|
Post by williammiller on Jun 10, 2019 12:50:06 GMT -6
How is it with 5", 4" and 3" guns? Does it better or worse? there is a difference mainly from 4 to 5 and 6 because of vt fuse for 5 and 6 (i have absolutely no idea why 3 and 4 inch do not have vt fuses) 4 inch is worse than 5 and 6 inch guns but all in all the difference is not great and for the weight you save you might as well go with the smaller guns in my experience thus far the best anti air is friendly fighters aa guns are most of the time lackluster for their price a great example is anti aircraft cruisers are absolutely useless as they simply are not effective enough to do the job A MUCH better investment would be a light carrier with its capacity intirely filled with fighters a single one would provide cover for the main battleship force the main problem right now is just the low losses they inflict on ships they attack compared to what we see in real life especially due to post war findings that 36 % of all japanese planes that approached us warships were shot down About 7,600-7,800 enemy aircraft came within AA range of US ships during WWII. Of these, 2,773 were shot down by AA, and another 314 were lost through crashes (suicide crashes) on US ships. 36% of all the enemy planes that came within range of US naval AA were shot down. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/i can say for certain i do not shoot down 36% of the enemies strike
I am well acquainted with the report in question, and others as well (not just USN ones) - Unfortunately I don't have the free time to go into much detail or extended discussion, but there are quite a lot of stuff in that report (and others) that needs to be unpacked and carefully examined before you come to a set conclusion; as one example, one item is that the great bulk of USN AA kills were late in the war, when the Japanese aerial forces involved in the attacks were left with very poor pilots, generally poorer quality aircraft, and especially were making use of tactics that exposed their pilots & aircraft to more sustained and accurate AA fire by USN forces.
Also, of the 1100 some-odd aircraft in the area in your battle, can you tell how many actually flew within AA range of your ships/bases and were engaged? I suspect that figure is much less than the 1100 number.
Having said the above however, we are always open to looking at the data/results/reports and tweaking things, so please keep the reports coming and we will look at & consider/analyze them to see if we can do better.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Jun 10, 2019 15:28:14 GMT -6
There is a diminishing return on too many heavy AA guns on a ship, to simulate difficulties in firing arcs and fire control. Also, mixed calibres of heavy AA is less effective than the same number of guns in the same calibre. How large are these penalties? For example my lategame CA design has 12 x double 5 inch DPs and 24 x double 3 inch DPs. Would it be more effective to remove all 3 inch DPs and just switch it to 20 x double 5 inch DPs? How many double 5 inch DPs would be necessary to gain the same heavy AA after removing all the 3 inchers?
Also, do autoloaders matter for DP AA guns or are they only used against surface targets?
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by eaterofsuns on Jun 10, 2019 15:42:46 GMT -6
Just to add one more voice to the mix, I would love to see in the ship designer what the effective AAA values of my ships are for all three categories. Even if we don't know what the number exactly represents in terms of capability, it would be very handy to have for armament decisions.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 10, 2019 16:35:10 GMT -6
Just to add one more voice to the mix, I would love to see in the ship designer what the effective AAA values of my ships are for all three categories. Even if we don't know what the number exactly represents in terms of capability, it would be very handy to have for armament decisions. That is a good 'improve usability' suggestion - thanks.
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on Jun 11, 2019 3:48:28 GMT -6
this thing alone is about as good as 60 medium aa guns yes this intire ship is comparable to 60 medium aa guns How did you arrive at the number 60?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 11, 2019 3:55:47 GMT -6
this thing alone is about as good as 60 medium aa guns yes this intire ship is comparable to 60 medium aa guns How did you arrive at the number 60? This can be seen in battle or after battle opening ship window.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 11, 2019 7:06:35 GMT -6
To be honest that ship should not be very effective at all (in real life) for the time and investment in resources into it. Not in this time period... there is also a reason why the 6" never really worked as DP in real life and why it was never developed passed 1944-45. There is a thing as too much gunfire and then the gunners don't know which one are their fire in the same way when firing on an enemy ship. You could potentially get a ship that do LESS damage against an aircraft because of it. The other problem is suppression... if an enemy plane manages to score a few dive bomber hit for example they could suppress allot of that AA fire while many smaller more dispersed reasonable AA fire would be much more useful in general. In game it is as far as a I can tell more efficient and useful to have a decent amount of AA on many ships rather that some super purpose build ship bristling with DP guns. I don't even bother with 6" DP guns... I just make secondary and tertiary batteries with DP and slap on as much medium as I can after that. That seem to work just fine in my experience... I then just screen my carriers and battleships with cruisers and destroyers. There is a diminishing return on too many heavy AA guns on a ship, to simulate difficulties in firing arcs and fire control. Also, mixed calibres of heavy AA is less effective than the same number of guns in the same calibre. is there any way to measure these at all ? or is it merely quessing a bit for example would having 24 3 inch guns activate diminishing returns like for example if you are creating a des moines aa cruiser ?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 11, 2019 7:11:31 GMT -6
there is a difference mainly from 4 to 5 and 6 because of vt fuse for 5 and 6 (i have absolutely no idea why 3 and 4 inch do not have vt fuses) 4 inch is worse than 5 and 6 inch guns but all in all the difference is not great and for the weight you save you might as well go with the smaller guns in my experience thus far the best anti air is friendly fighters aa guns are most of the time lackluster for their price a great example is anti aircraft cruisers are absolutely useless as they simply are not effective enough to do the job A MUCH better investment would be a light carrier with its capacity intirely filled with fighters a single one would provide cover for the main battleship force the main problem right now is just the low losses they inflict on ships they attack compared to what we see in real life especially due to post war findings that 36 % of all japanese planes that approached us warships were shot down About 7,600-7,800 enemy aircraft came within AA range of US ships during WWII. Of these, 2,773 were shot down by AA, and another 314 were lost through crashes (suicide crashes) on US ships. 36% of all the enemy planes that came within range of US naval AA were shot down. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/i can say for certain i do not shoot down 36% of the enemies strike
I am well acquainted with the report in question, and others as well (not just USN ones) - Unfortunately I don't have the free time to go into much detail or extended discussion, but there are quite a lot of stuff in that report (and others) that needs to be unpacked and carefully examined before you come to a set conclusion; as one example, one item is that the great bulk of USN AA kills were late in the war, when the Japanese aerial forces involved in the attacks were left with very poor pilots, generally poorer quality aircraft, and especially were making use of tactics that exposed their pilots & aircraft to more sustained and accurate AA fire by USN forces.
Also, of the 1100 some-odd aircraft in the area in your battle, can you tell how many actually flew within AA range of your ships/bases and were engaged? I suspect that figure is much less than the 1100 number.
Having said the above however, we are always open to looking at the data/results/reports and tweaking things, so please keep the reports coming and we will look at & consider/analyze them to see if we can do better.
Thanks!
id like to note the tests i conducted were with 1920s torpedo aircraft which were barely able to do 100 knots i could understand if i was getting less than 36% planes shot down with elite training on and so on but considering i had 1920s planes fight against what is basically 1950s radar guided aa and said planes had no elite training for their pilots (feature was unselected) my only conclusion is aa is either HORRIBLE or plane performance dosent scale right something seems to be wrong il run some tests later tomorrow in 1970 with my oldest torpedo bomber and aa cruisers and battleships and also a test with the newest planes and best aa cruisers
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 11, 2019 7:13:58 GMT -6
There is a diminishing return on too many heavy AA guns on a ship, to simulate difficulties in firing arcs and fire control. Also, mixed calibres of heavy AA is less effective than the same number of guns in the same calibre. is there any way to measure these at all ? or is it merely quessing a bit for example would having 24 3 inch guns activate diminishing returns like for example if you are creating a des moines aa cruiser ? I expect that it would be in number of "heavy AA" shown in battle.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 11, 2019 7:59:22 GMT -6
is there any way to measure these at all ? or is it merely quessing a bit for example would having 24 3 inch guns activate diminishing returns like for example if you are creating a des moines aa cruiser ? I expect that it would be in number of "heavy AA" shown in battle. true but it would be nice to know how much of a diminishing return you are getting from more aa guns my heavy aa in battle started at over 400 with the heavy dp gun ships btw
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 11, 2019 11:37:36 GMT -6
I expect that it would be in number of "heavy AA" shown in battle. true but it would be nice to know how much of a diminishing return you are getting from more aa gunsĀ my heavy aa in battle started at over 400 with the heavy dp gun ships btw I think you should not know this, you should evaluate it by experience. Nobody knew what was best in history they found it by trial and fire.
|
|
|
Post by warspite1995 on Jun 11, 2019 12:06:46 GMT -6
6 Inch on main guns til i get Auto loader, then i go for 5 Inch Autoloaded, like Atlanta Class AA-CL's For Escorting.
|
|
|
Post by warspite1995 on Jun 11, 2019 12:08:51 GMT -6
This reminds me: what do you consider 'DP' in this context? One could argue that "heavy AA shells" for BB Mainbattery can be considered 'DP' aswell... then the answer is 18" DP guns. And...we have a winner!
I was wondering if anyone had discovered that Fredrik included super-heavy AA shells capability in-game, this question was my way of poking towards that without posting a spoiler.
Thanks!
Wait, That is a spoiler? In my case 20 Inch then . My super Heavy 90,000 ton US BB with 9x20" Guns had the Heavy Shells AA.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jun 11, 2019 12:53:21 GMT -6
Just to add one more voice to the mix, I would love to see in the ship designer what the effective AAA values of my ships are for all three categories. Even if we don't know what the number exactly represents in terms of capability, it would be very handy to have for armament decisions. That is a good 'improve usability' suggestion - thanks. And while we are on the ship designer topic:
Please show us the maintenance costs and ASW rating in the ship designer as well!
I want to know whether a new design is more cost effective for foreign stations or hunting subs, than the design currently in service.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 11, 2019 14:52:17 GMT -6
That is a good 'improve usability' suggestion - thanks. And while we are on the ship designer topic:
Please show us the maintenance costs and ASW rating in the ship designer as well!
I want to know whether a new design is more cost effective for foreign stations or hunting subs, than the design currently in service.
Problem is that designs are, by definition, untested. No one knows how well it can fight submarines, or how difficult it is to clean and fuel until it actually goes into war.
|
|