20mm flak, it's uses and information about it

[wodasini88]

We've probably all seen saving private ryan, and the part where the germans roll in some type of 20mm weapon or so the americans say, and watch it disitegrate several of their team. I've also heard(no idea if it's really that reliable) of the germans using 20mm flak guns against infantry.

Now my questions are; how realisticly modeled are the 20mm flaks in CM and how often were 20mm flaks used, in the ways I stated above, in realife.

PS I think the flak guns look kinda dumb with only 1 muzzle blast yet 3 rounds coming out

[M Hofbauer]

a) 2cm FlaK was used a lot.

automatic weapons often produce a muzzle flash that is or at least looks continous. Since the muzzle flash in CMBO is only cartoonish eyecandy and not meant to represent an accurate depiction of the actual muzzle flash by all the different weapons in CMBO I think your complaint is a minor issue.

c) the modeling of 2cm FlaK in CMBO is IMHO:

slightly over-effective vs aircraft

correct vs vehicles

considerably under-effective vs infantry, esp. moving infantry.

just IMHO, of course.

[ March 17, 2002, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Redwolf]

The current flak model in CMBO is that one displayed shot counts for three rounds going off. Everything I say here is based on loose observation, so don't get too enthusiastic about it.

BTS models this combined shot with a hit probablity that is a probablity addition as if 3 shots from a single-shot with similar muzzle velocity would be fired. But without the zeroing in, the single-shot equivalent would be four shots on a standing target which moved between (but not directly at) the shots. I guess that is meant to model firing a burst of several rounds with a "hasty" zeroing-in. You don't get the full precision of zeroing in while the gun is paused for reloading, but you see where the first shots fall and have a chance to adjust on the fly.

An example is a comparision of 50mm PaK and 37mm Flak, which have similar muzzle speed. At 1500 meter against a Greyhound the hit probablity of the PaK is 10%, the Flak has 27%. This is exactly the probablity addition for three shots, if the PaK fires three shots, but each aiming from scratch (not zeroing in), the overall hit proability is 27%. If the PaK fires at a standing target, so that you get full zero in, it will be 47% (BTS may always do something unexpected, but this is what I think they use).

I am not entirely happy with this model of the Flak guns. I fully recognize the need to do some kind of summary, otherwise computation becomes too heavy for BTS's target audience computers.

But I think it does not blend very well with the overall pricing and experience scheme - the resulting hit probablity is very high, compared to other combat factor costs BTS applied. The 37mm Falk costs 52 points, the 50mm PaK 36, although the PaK's penetration is better. The higher Flak price is for more ammo and for the better hit probablity. So far so good.

But lets look at what you pay for hit probablity elsewhere. To upgrade the PaK to veteran you pay 8 bucks more, to upgrade it to elite you pay 37 bucks (more than doubled). The veteran gets a raise in hit probablity from 10% to 12%, the elite one has 17%. The better hit proabability is not the only advantage you get out of upgrading a gun, amoung things like better morale and quite useless items such as less command delay, you also get higher rate of fire. So the overall hit probablity per turn is a little better than those base numbers of 12% and 17% imply (if the gun survives without supression that far). To take another example, the long 88mm PaK, which is probably the WW2 weapon known for its accuracy costs 118 points regular, 145 veteran, 205 elite. The hit probablity is 12%, 14% and 22%. The per-turn probablity to nail the Greyhound is lower than even with the single-shot 50mm Pak (not to speak of the Flak), because the PaK has the higher rate of fire. Before people start to cry bloddy murder, these numbers are based on physical facts. The muzzle velocity is not that much better, hence the hit probablity is not much better as long as you don't count extra circumstances like premeasured distances. Big guns suck as long as you don't need them.

Anyway, my point is, I think whatever price raise the Flak got for its hit probablity, it does not blend well with the raise in hit probablity you get out of paying points for upgrading guns in experience. You pay very big bucks to upgrade the PaK and they don;t come anywhere near the regular hit probablity of the Flak.

Still, 52 points for a gun with a max penetration of 57mm is pretty high, considering you might find no targets it can penetrate. And besides, trying to fix game mechanics limitations with pricing changes is futile.

So what is wrong? What is wrong, and yes this is subjective, is that the knockout probablity on successful penetration is too high for the small rounds. My pet project if I had some time would take photographs of tanks that were hit and count the number holes in them. There are plenty of small-hole operational tanks early in the war.

And the ability to knock down houses is too high, but I think Steve mentioned someone convinced them to trim that down for CMBB.

Last not least I think that applying the full 3-times probablity to model three shots is maybe too high. Given the rate of fire of the Flak, I would say that the second round cannot really be adjusted based on the first, but the later ones can. BTS kinda models this by not applying the hit chance raise if as you were shooting a a standing target, but appying only what you would get for three entirely new shots. Still, a bit trimming down might be in order because in my imagination the second round of a flak will probably go where the first went with only a very light chance to be properly adjusted. So instead of the normal formular 1.0 - (1.0 - baseprob)^numberofshots, I would say that taking (numberofshots - 1) to account for the difficulty of doing a good adjustment job on the second round would do a better job.

[ March 17, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

c) the modeling of 2cm FlaK in CMBO is IMHO:

[...]

considerably under-effective vs infantry, esp. moving infantry.

I think that is more a result of the inability to sweep an area with a continuous-fire weapon in CMBO. You get single shots somewhere, but no bursts sweeping an area. A similar issue like the MGs have.

[wodasini88]

ya redwolf I agree with you here theres no sweeping burst effect you can use which would make a big difference against infantry.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

c) the modeling of 2cm FlaK in CMBO is IMHO:

[...]

considerably under-effective vs infantry, esp. moving infantry.

I think that is more a result of the inability to sweep an area with a continuous-fire weapon in CMBO. You get single shots somewhere, but no bursts sweeping an area. A similar issue like the MGs have.</font>