• Announcements

    • Dodger

      Seeking Squad Leaders!   04/09/2017

      Soldiers!

      We are seeking Squad Leaders to volunteer their squads to help us test the upcoming Squad Forums system. This system will integrate squads who wish to participate into a self-sustained "forum within a forum." You will be able to add members to your squad, assign permissions, and create forums/calendar events on your own. The idea behind this system is part of our commitment to support squads as a integral part of our community. This service will be offered free of charge to all squads of World War II Online upon launch. Our goal is to offer all of the services a squad off-site forum can offer but free of charge and tied in to our existing forum service. So what do you need tested? We need willing volunteers to test the whole system - make forums, post threads, assign permissions, etc. The idea is to have several squads giving it a test run to point out any flaws before we launch it publicly. What are the requirements? We are ideally looking for medium to large squads - Ideally ten people or so plus, but smaller squads feel free to apply - and a willingness to use our platform. It's important to note (as of now - these may be included at a later date) we are unable to convert posts from a private forum if your squad previously used one, and you (or your XO's and recruiters) will need to assign individual members permissions. It is entirely possible that in the future this system will be automatically linked to the game's squad roster, but as of now developer priorities are elsewhere (1.37 and steam, w00t!) How do I sign up? PM me ( @Dodger ) on the forums, or email me at dodger@playnet.com - Please indicate your squad name and how many members you have. I will get back to you with more instructions.

    • GVONPAUL

      Recruiting drive.   04/16/2017

      With the anticipated influx of new players on the heels of this summer's Steam release, there is a reasonable expectation that forum traffic will increase. I'm looking for volunteers, not just to moderate, but to help answer new players' questions or direct them toward the correct answers. The forums may be a player's first contact with the game and we want to ensure that it is a positive experience. A happy player is a player who sticks around and the more new players we can retain, the more resources we will have for development.
      With that in mind, we are looking for current players with a positive attitude and posting history. PM me if you are interested.
holmium

Tier 0 AA comparrison

54 posts in this topic

So accepting the premise that the FlaK 30 has too little lethality as a gun, compounded by the multiple shortcomings of the early-days model (hopping, bad sight, etc.):

What existing Allied model needs a similar quality audit and re-parameterizing to make it work realistically and game-effectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at that Flak 30 more in depth.....

Spit I, 0.77 KD, Spit II 0.67 KD

Hawk 75 0.83 KD, Hawk 81 0.70 KD

Hurricane I 1.23 KD, Hurri II 0.98 KD

 

Lets look at the Ca 38 a bit closer....

E1 3.48 KD, E4 1.35 KD

F2 3.23 KD, 110C 1.54 KD

 

A quick average (not weighted) gives Flak 30 0.86 and the Ca 38 2.40

Nearly 3x better, I'd say there could be a slight difference in light AA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jwilly said:

So accepting the premise that the FlaK 30 has too little lethality as a gun, compounded by the multiple shortcomings of the early-days model (hopping, bad sight, etc.):

What existing Allied model needs a similar quality audit and re-parameterizing to make it work realistically and game-effectively?

Mas40. Bad sight picture with a round, which for what reason I can't understand, doesn't hit hard. 

Mas-whatever-the 1st SMG. Fires a very light round with ridiculous recoil. 

The enfield round seems, and this could just be my view, to hit somewhat light for a full sized rifle round. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about as a start just increase the set up time for the Camle.

2 seconds is down right silly. No wonder they sometimes set up and shoot at a bolt action Rifle inf before he can cycle the next round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

Just change the rate of fire of the flak30 to the rate of fire of the flak38. They were similar looking anyway, and no one is gonna beotch about that. 

 

Problem solved with hardly any dev resources used up. 

They GOT TO get rid of that barrel climb, there is absolutely no reason for any barrel climb on any of the light medium deployable AA guns. If they just UP the ROF on the flak30 to be a flak38, they wont hit jacksh!t cause the barrel will recoil over their heads and into the loaders butt causing a jam

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, stankyus said:

They GOT TO get rid of that barrel climb, there is absolutely no reason for any barrel climb on any of the light medium deployable AA guns. If they just UP the ROF on the flak30 to be a flak38, they wont hit jacksh!t cause the barrel will recoil over their heads and into the loaders butt causing a jam

All the videos I've seen of the flak30/38 show almost no barrel movement when firing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

All the videos I've seen of the flak30/38 show almost no barrel movement when firing. 

 

yup, the recoil is toward the gunner via recoil springs... not up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct me if i'm wrong but it isn't even mechanically possible to recoil UP without also forcing the hand wheels to move as well given they're a geared mechanism?

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, madrebel said:

correct me if i'm wrong but it isn't even mechanically possible to reciol UP without also forcing the hand wheels to move as well given they're a geared mechanism?

Not like we see in game... gun barrels can flex while firing especially with larger calibres with longer barrels but that happens at the at the barrel (dispersion), not at the site picture.  None of the 20-25mm class AA guns have a simple blowback recoil system, they all are on a blowback spring recoil which directs the energy toward the mount which is forward of center at a low center of gravity which stabilizes the gun even more. The exception would be the Orlikon which has a solid Naval mount and an exceptional spring recoil system that even the gunner feels little of the effect.  To get barrel climb the recoil energy has to be greater than the center of gravity (simplistic). Recoil springs reduce the recoil energy or nearly eliminates it combined with the weight of the mount it does not move. That is why you see the gun mount as low as you do, using the ground to absorb energy also.  The designs paid close attention to make the mount as stabile as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what went wrong with the flak30? lack of recoil spring dampner or CoG placement problems? Perhaps the mass isn't correct where it needs to be such that the non deployed towed works fine but when deployed this 'central' mass maybe moves backwards with the spotter?

In theory i guess it really doesn't matter if they just shed the rain guard and changed the RoF. If they could do that and get rid of the barrel climb all the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, madrebel said:

so what went wrong with the flak30? lack of recoil spring dampner or CoG placement problems? Perhaps the mass isn't correct where it needs to be such that the non deployed towed works fine but when deployed this 'central' mass maybe moves backwards with the spotter?

In theory i guess it really doesn't matter if they just shed the rain guard and changed the RoF. If they could do that and get rid of the barrel climb all the better.

They shed the rain guard 4 years ago  or so.  Have no idea why the flak30 has barrel climb or what went wrong but I remember DOC saying at one point it would need a complete rework to get rid of it... years ago when I played Axis.  The problem with changing the ROF without dealing with the barrel climb is that the flak30 barrel climb already is extreme. It lends itself beneficial to a narrow window for targets which are incoming AC forward of the gun position.. anything that are flying horizontal or escaping are very difficult to track. IF the ROF is increased without getting rid of the climb, it will be near impossible to track EA let alone getting more rounds on target when you do hit.  Think the first run of the Grease Gun... all barrel no target. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, delems said:

A quick average (not weighted) gives Flak 30 0.86 and the Ca 38 2.40

Nearly 3x better, I'd say there could be a slight difference in light AA.

The main problem with the flak 30 versus single-engined fighters in this game is that from a head-on approach it takes 4-5 20mm hits to destroy a fighter's wing, and the engine is a damage sponge that can also take several hits. Even if you destroy the engine the block still shields the pilot and you're just going to kill-trade while the pilot suicides in to you before grabbing another one of the 150 aircraft usually available at twerp or bruss. No gunshield either so that plane that's firing from 600m away with his engine off just needs to spray the area and get a lucky hit. Experienced pilots don't fear it especially when you add in the cheese that's possible in this game.

 

also lol @ stankyus trying to come up with an excuse to not increase the fire rate on the worst AA gun in the game, and saying that the slow fire rate is what helps keep it usable

any player that has managed to make the gimped flak 30 work somewhat and get some kills will do much better with x2 the fire rate even with the bad modeling ; having to pull down on the mouse a little more for twice the ROF is an easy decision

most of my aircraft kills with the flak 30 are single-hit high deflection shots where the pilot gets hit or the shell starts a fire anyway, so putting more lead in the air and increasing the chances for a hit will gain a lot more kills than the increased vertical recoil loses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. CRS needs to fix every single gun in the game that does not work how we think it should.  Allies first please.  ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which allied gun is operating so poorly compared to what it ought to be that the german equivalent outperforms it by 3x?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know exactly that there is something wrong when a spitfire locates your little axis flak and goes straight for you. head on. in most cases you hit them a few times but they insta kill you with just a short burst. 

try that with a 109 ... and you will fail in most cases. hit in head. engine out/in flames and or tail off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, madrebel said:

so what went wrong with the flak30? lack of recoil spring dampner or CoG placement problems? Perhaps the mass isn't correct where it needs to be such that the non deployed towed works fine but when deployed this 'central' mass maybe moves backwards with the spotter?

None of the game's guns are fully modeled physical systems. The game doesn't have physics-based reciprocating barrels, recoiling within the mount against the recoil spring and damper. The game's gun models instead simulate the designer's idea of recoil effects by means of whole-gun motion parameters, based on the designer's determination of what the gun should do, possibly influenced to some extent by what was determined to be needed for the game to be marketable.

I think that non-reciprocating barrel approach to modeling cannons was driven partly by the limitations of much less powerful computers in ~1999 when the game was first conceived.

It also might have been the case that some of the early designers were better at achieving simulated physics-realism than others, or more aware of what it should look like.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I see gun shields on every one of those AA guns....   our game needs to put gun shields on every gun.

Also, see how camouflaged those flak 30 were in the snow and trees?  We need a way to make all AA far less visible to air.

Oh, and not have the crew stick up 1 meter above the shield, should be like half a head is all.  Maybe even make the head bob up and down as if looking and hiding.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed, infantry have been pampered far too long. model weapons as they were, chips fall, tweak if required - else let chips continue to fall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just killed once an EA with a 20mm Flak on probably after years of playing I pretty much don't ever used, I'm pretty good with the bofors tought.

I think the worst is the recoil and gunsight zoom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2017 at 2:14 PM, david01 said:

The main problem with the flak 30 versus single-engined fighters in this game is that from a head-on approach it takes 4-5 20mm hits to destroy a fighter's wing, and the engine is a damage sponge that can also take several hits. Even if you destroy the engine the block still shields the pilot and you're just going to kill-trade while the pilot suicides in to you before grabbing another one of the 150 aircraft usually available at twerp or bruss. No gunshield either so that plane that's firing from 600m away with his engine off just needs to spray the area and get a lucky hit. Experienced pilots don't fear it especially when you add in the cheese that's possible in this game.

 

also lol @ stankyus trying to come up with an excuse to not increase the fire rate on the worst AA gun in the game, and saying that the slow fire rate is what helps keep it usable

any player that has managed to make the gimped flak 30 work somewhat and get some kills will do much better with x2 the fire rate even with the bad modeling ; having to pull down on the mouse a little more for twice the ROF is an easy decision

most of my aircraft kills with the flak 30 are single-hit high deflection shots where the pilot gets hit or the shell starts a fire anyway, so putting more lead in the air and increasing the chances for a hit will gain a lot more kills than the increased vertical recoil loses

You are not reading well or comprehending what I am saying. The flak38 without a fix on the climb will make it a lighting rod planted firmly at the RATS feet.  Being that I have almost 100k kills in this game and very familiar with the history of change an the nuances of partial fixes that tend to be very detrimental as a whole. I can promise you a faster bouncing barrel will not take advantage of the it's increased ROF.  It will bring down a shat storm and a failed intrance. Not once did I say don't do it... just do it right. That way people are more confident in CRS ability to deliver well designed content. You know sometimes the motivation of criticism is well outside the scope of people with bias blinders all and see a bigger picture. I can't help those who can't pull those off.... hopefully this helps you. If not, I know there are many who are and understand my POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2017 at 4:41 PM, undercova said:

you know exactly that there is something wrong when a spitfire locates your little axis flak and goes straight for you. head on. in most cases you hit them a few times but they insta kill you with just a short burst. 

try that with a 109 ... and you will fail in most cases. hit in head. engine out/in flames and or tail off

The ne 25mm is worth 2.5 20mm hits, witch is pretty consistent toward ac damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2017 at 9:12 PM, jwilly said:

None of the game's guns are fully modeled physical systems. The game doesn't have physics-based reciprocating barrels, recoiling within the mount against the recoil spring and damper. The game's gun models instead simulate the designer's idea of recoil effects by means of whole-gun motion parameters, based on the designer's determination of what the gun should do, possibly influenced to some extent by what was determined to be needed for the game to be marketable.

I think that non-reciprocating barrel approach to modeling cannons was driven partly by the limitations of much less powerful computers in ~1999 when the game was first conceived.

It also might have been the case that some of the early designers were better at achieving simulated physics-realism than others, or more aware of what it should look like.

They can fix it, the 25mm jumps mb half that of the flak30, the orlikon barley climb. Even the single 20 on the fam, holds true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, stankyus said:

They can fix it, the 25mm jumps mb half that of the flak30, the orlikon barley climb. Even the single 20 on the fam, holds true.

Three key factors in game design-for-marketability are finding ways to decrease lethality; not providing effective hiding and camouflage; and achieving overall lethality balance between the sides.

These are essential so that players with the most firepower don't just wipe everyone else out; so that well-hidden defenders don't just wipe out attackers; and of course so that players will play both sides.

So, a weapon like this may have a lot of gun climb, or a lot of aim point scatter, or odd choices of ammo. Some game elements seem to be oddly survivable; others the opposite. Everything in the game starts out based on historical data. The game however has to be marketable, or it wouldn't matter at all how good a weapons-simulation it was. So maybe some weapons are less-faithful simulations than others by the time they get to release.

I suspect from Doc's prior comments that the gun recoil force is simply calculated from the shell mass and muzzle velocity, and this acts on an overall weapon mass parameter, ignoring the presence of the recoil mechanism and the design of the mount. If you start with such an oversimplified physics model, and if you assume that because some infantry automatic weapons have recoil-climb, autocannons should as well, then a gun like the FlaK 30 could end up with quite a bit of climb.

The gun's overall mass parameter must affect its game-movement, keeping in mind that this is a simplified simulation. Doc's comments might have been alluding to the inability within the constraints of the game engine's physics code to change the recoil behavior except possibly by dramatically increasing the weapon mass parameter.

And my guess is that it's relevant to the matter that the ineffectiveness of the FlaK 30 model in comparison to the CAMle 39 and Bofors helps to offset the high lethality of other German weapons compared to their French and British counterparts, and therefore helps to satisfy the core lethality-balance requirement for marketability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stankyus said:

The ne 25mm is worth 2.5 20mm hits, witch is pretty consistent toward ac damage.

 

it happens with the bofors too, plant 3 in the engine and he fly's away with white smoke.

the old rat response was the propeller detonates the shell and/or the angled armor up front deflects it. it only effects the spit though so both responses are BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Three key factors in game design-for-marketability are finding ways to decrease lethality; not providing effective hiding and camouflage; and achieving overall lethality balance between the sides.

These are essential so that players with the most firepower don't just wipe everyone else out; so that well-hidden defenders don't just wipe out attackers; and of course so that players will play both sides.

So, a weapon like this may have a lot of gun climb, or a lot of aim point scatter, or odd choices of ammo. Some game elements seem to be oddly survivable; others the opposite. Everything in the game starts out based on historical data. The game however has to be marketable, or it wouldn't matter at all how good a weapons-simulation it was. So maybe some weapons are less-faithful simulations than others by the time they get to release.

I suspect from Doc's prior comments that the gun recoil force is simply calculated from the shell mass and muzzle velocity, and this acts on an overall weapon mass parameter, ignoring the presence of the recoil mechanism and the design of the mount. If you start with such an oversimplified physics model, and if you assume that because some infantry automatic weapons have recoil-climb, autocannons should as well, then a gun like the FlaK 30 could end up with quite a bit of climb.

The gun's overall mass parameter must affect its game-movement, keeping in mind that this is a simplified simulation. Doc's comments might have been alluding to the inability within the constraints of the game engine's physics code to change the recoil behavior except possibly by dramatically increasing the weapon mass parameter.

And my guess is that it's relevant to the matter that the ineffectiveness of the FlaK 30 model in comparison to the CAMle 39 and Bofors helps to offset the high lethality of other German weapons compared to their French and British counterparts, and therefore helps to satisfy the core lethality-balance requirement for marketability.

Understood. Different game now from DOC,  and I have great respect for him... I wish I could melt Xoom with doc for each other's strengths. We are getting ready to enter a totally different game. All that is entering is different. Matter of fact since the dev of the FMS I have personally spoken with the rats about my concern about the flak30 specifically.. even sent pms to then about the new tank busters and my concern about not adding the flak38. I have done that behind the scences. I have a strong opinion, I have voiced it with my concerns about fantasy rounds etc... I guess to you my argument about the the flak30 in context specifically with you is, if leathality balance is hidden within the flak30 performance.. please make the argument why it should not be addressed or what changes should be relevant within the context you proposed?  To me in context of the games advancement it requires a lethality adjustment... please convince me otherwise. So far your argument is old school and not relevant to the game today and realized future.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.