Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Something wrong when...

  1. #1
    Veteran Combat pilot
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New England, US
    Posts
    362
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Something wrong when...

    A BF-109 can single-handedly destroy all four Bofors guns at an airfield. No other enemy a/c in vicinity so he's the only target for the AI gunners, yet they're so inept he's undetered (and suicidal because he knows he can just go spawn another a/c). I took the last surviving Bofors and got hits on him as he attacked my gun, he then chandelled (smoking, sputtering motor and all) and attacked again. Another 40mm strike as he kamikazed into my gun, destroying it with MG (and cannon?) fire just before collision. The whole episode was not only a demonstration of crappy AI gunnery, but really lame behavior, in my opinion, on behalf of a pilot who doesn't value their virtual life and is therefore able to skew the mission. Once the AA guns are taken out by kamikazis, the target is virtually defenseless. New a/c and pilot-lives are unlimited, so have no (or little) value to some pilots, AA guns are irreplacable and have high value. I'm just venting, not sure there's a workable solution, but it sure is frustrating.

    ~S~

    AKA Knutsac

  2. #2
    Hood
    Guest

    Re: Something wrong when...

    That's just the way it is I'm afraid, like 109s constantly vulching forward RAF bases etc - the game allows it so people will do it. The only answer is having a huge amount of flak but that'll kill off any bomber or Jabo attacks.

    Hood

  3. #3
    Combat pilot palker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    430.8 KB

    Re: Something wrong when...

    AAA should respawn because exactly this reason. Not realistic but you have to realize that if there is no consequence for crashing and you can just respawn instantly they need to respawn after a some time.
    Skies of Valor had such set up in IL2 1946 and it worked well. If you destroy the AAA die and then come back for an easy vulch you will be disappointed.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member JG4_sKylon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hessen / Germany
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Quote Originally Posted by AKA_Knutsac View Post
    A BF-109 can single-handedly destroy all four Bofors guns at an airfield. No other enemy a/c in vicinity so he's the only target for the AI gunners, yet they're so inept he's undetered (and suicidal because he knows he can just go spawn another a/c). I took the last surviving Bofors and got hits on him as he attacked my gun, he then chandelled (smoking, sputtering motor and all) and attacked again. Another 40mm strike as he kamikazed into my gun, destroying it with MG (and cannon?) fire just before collision. The whole episode was not only a demonstration of crappy AI gunnery, but really lame behavior, in my opinion, on behalf of a pilot who doesn't value their virtual life and is therefore able to skew the mission. Once the AA guns are taken out by kamikazis, the target is virtually defenseless. New a/c and pilot-lives are unlimited, so have no (or little) value to some pilots, AA guns are irreplacable and have high value. I'm just venting, not sure there's a workable solution, but it sure is frustrating.

    ~S~

    AKA Knutsac
    Hope your venting helped.
    It seems the AA has some good and some bad days. From what i experienced the AA is extremely deadly.
    When we make low level bombing attacks 25% of the planes involved get shot down (often PK), 50% get damaged (medium to heavy damage).
    Yesterday i got PKed by a 88mm german AA gun (friendly fire) because of a Hurrie on my 6...thats real fun


    About Kamikaze:
    I am happy that "reds" discovered the fun of bombing with their Blennies. It´s really fun when they do organized raids with fighter cover.
    What frustrates me is (especially on the France map) the Kamikaze Blennies which come alone and low just to drop their bombs on the airfields with only little chance to make it back home.
    Instead of trying to take their little chance they keep circling over the AF to vulch some spawning fighters. The get shot down, they spawn again.
    This makes it very hard to defend. Also, Blennies are available on every AF while german bombers are not. Add the retarded german radar operator who mostly reports Blennies AFTER they bombed an airfield and you get an impression how blue fighters who want to defend their targets feel.

    So, we feel the same. In german we say "geteiltes Leid ist halbes Leid" which means "shared harm is half harm"... hope this helped.


    Same with some Spits and Hurries too.
    What i observerve also is that they are shot at by the AF AA, but can circle 3 or 4 rounds until they get shot down by a 109.

  5. #5
    Supporting Member 9./JG52 Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Coast of Maine - Halfway between the equator and the North Pole
    Posts
    1,195
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Yes the vulching happens on both sides and there seem to be some units (I won't mention names) but that is all they do. We find them at the rear bases in France and even way across the Kanalkamph in southern France.

    As far as AA gunner go, they seem to be off and on Knutsac? I had a six on me tight the other day over the three sisters in France and the only way I could shake him was to fly low over the bases and hope AAA would knick him and they did on the 3rd pass. So, it's really hit or miss but be aware that it is possible to make them (the mission builder) deadly to the point of , well deadly. I think they try to find a happy medium that can be difficult to achieve.
    Corsair 600T-Gigabite Gigabyte Z77-UD5 mobo-I7 Ivy Bridge 3770k@3.5ghz-Scythe Ninja 3 -16g HyperX- EVGA GTX 670 FTW-HyperX SSD-Logitech G19-Cyborg Ratz 9-CH Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS and throttle with MFG Crosswind pedals, BenQ 2420T monitor, Track IR-5, Obutto Rev3. http://9jg52.com/

    Glückliche sieben

  6. #6
    Supporting Member 92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bayern
    Posts
    2,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Quote Originally Posted by 9./JG52 Ziegler View Post
    So, it's really hit or miss but be aware that it is possible to make them (the mission builder) deadly to the point of , well deadly. I think they try to find a happy medium that can be difficult to achieve.
    It's a bit difficult right now, because the game lacks a weapon that has a range of, say, 1500m.

    The bofors is quite accurate, but it can also reach out quite high.
    The MG's tend to only fire on aircraft that are ~200m away, and a fast vulcher can easily skip past their turning turret.
    The 88mm is like the bofors, it can reach up too high.

    A weapon that was quite accurate to 1500mm range would be ideal at protecting airbases from low level. That would also allow people to fly higher up over bases without too much concern.

    Also, missions that penalised people when they died would be good too...but the Cliffs community is far from prepared to go down that path.

  7. #7
    Admin ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    11,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    406.29 MB

    Re: Something wrong when...

    This is good input on a number of fronts. Mission designers can use this feedback for modifications on existing maps and design for new missions. Team Fusion can use the information on relative flak effectiveness when evaluating any future tweaks. Squads and individual players can also take note of these observations and adjust their own gameplay accordingly.

    Mission Designers: Hopefully provide enough inland airfields with adequate selection of aircraft to lessen the effectiveness of coastal airfield suppression. With 4.3/4.312 increased flak accuracy (and provision for human gunners), vulching will be made more hazardous for strafers. Providing the ability for AAA to respawn after, say, 15 minutes would allow for coordinated air strikes to be effective at the time of bombing, but not leave airfields permanently defenseless. I only mention this for the benefit of fellow players, the Mission Designers do as they do.

    Team Fusion: as with the Mission Designers, they do as they do.

    Fellow players: Don't feed the vulchers! Vulched once, shame on them....vulched twice, shame on you. If an airfield is being suppressed/strafed/vulched then be smarter than the enemy. Coordinate with team players using TS or chat. Spawn in at neighbouring airfields, gain height, then dive down on the strafers. I can't tell you how often I'm at 22 angels hearing someone complaining he's "been vulched three times in a row" at Hawkinge/Manston/Lympne. I'm stalking the incoming high-flying 111's/88's flying in to achieve Blue objectives while their Blue team mates are tying up the hapless Red fighters below. The airfields I use are empty. I haven't been vulched on take off in months! (Emergency landings are another thing! LOL)

    The ATAG Server is a sandbox. The missions are there for those who choose to play them. Obviously, this is encouraged. But players are also and equally encouraged to fly and fight however they wish. The only rules are no team killing and no foul/abusive language on ATAG TS* or chat. Players who opt to fly the missions sometimes feel they are on the moral high ground, and that those who prefer to just dogfight or strafe enemy airfields are on some kind of substandard level. On the ATAG Server that is just not so. If an airfield is being vulched then it is being suppressed. It is an obstacle being randomly thrown in the path of the players playing the mission. It is a problem for the mission players to overcome or work around. It is part of the game.



    EDIT: *almost forgot - ATAG TS has the "ATAG Bar and Grill" channel in both Red and Blue created expressly for those who do wish to swear, curse, or utter horrible insults.
    Last edited by ATAG_Snapper; Apr-28-2014 at 09:54.


    HP Omen Laptop 15, AMD Ryzen 5 5600H 16 GB DDR4 RAM, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU 6 GB VRAM Win 11 64 bit 22H2 (KB5020044), Nvidia GeForce Driver ver 527.56, TrackIR 5, Gear Falcon Trim Box, Gear Falcon Throttle Quadrant, TM16000 joystick, TM Warthog HOTAS, CH Quadrant, Saitek Pro Combat rudder pedals
    VR: None
    Installation path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\IL-2 Sturmovik Cliffs of Dover Blitz

  8. #8
    Supporting Member 92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bayern
    Posts
    2,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper View Post
    Fellow players: Don't feed the vulchers! Vulched once, shame on them....vulched twice, shame on you. If an airfield is being suppressed/strafed/vulched then be smarter than the enemy. Coordinate with team players using TS or chat. Spawn in at neighbouring airfields, gain height, then dive down on the strafers. I can't tell you how often I'm at 22 angels hearing someone complaining he's "been vulched three times in a row" at Hawkinge/Manston/Lympne.
    This is absolutely true. Too many times I hear the same voices on teamspeak complaining about being "vulched"* at the same location again and again (guess where). Meanwhile, I am taking off a few minutes back in-land and climbing up above them completely untouched!

    The only time I do have sympathy is when the mission makers do not provide enough bases at the rear for Bombers to use. Bombers should have a choice of 5 to 10 bases to use in every mission.

    * Incidentally I've recently heard people using the term "vulched" when being shot down on finals, or even when just flying low. It seems to me that "vulched" now means "I was shot when I wasn't ready for it"..... lol.

  9. #9
    Ace 9./JG52 Hans Gruber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    577
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Quote Originally Posted by 92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P) View Post
    The 88mm is like the bofors, it can reach up too high.
    Bofors is 40mm so the 88 is somewhere in between the British 3" & 3.7" so it should have a higher range.

    Quote Originally Posted by 92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P) View Post
    * Incidentally I've recently heard people using the term "vulched" when being shot down on finals, or even when just flying low. It seems to me that "vulched" now means "I was shot when I wasn't ready for it"..... lol.
    Too true. Reminds me of the old arguments that always came up in my fps days with regard to spawn or spawn exit camping. For many players spawn camping became anywhere in between where you actually spawned and the objective.

  10. #10
    Supporting Member 92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bayern
    Posts
    2,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Quote Originally Posted by 9./JG52 Hans Gruber View Post
    Too true. Reminds me of the old arguments that always came up in my fps days with regard to spawn or spawn exit camping. For many players spawn camping became anywhere in between where you actually spawned and the objective.
    lol. classic.

  11. #11
    Supporting Member 92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bayern
    Posts
    2,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Quote Originally Posted by 9./JG52 Hans Gruber View Post
    Bofors is 40mm so the 88 is somewhere in between the British 3" & 3.7" so it should have a higher range.
    Sorry, I didn't mean "too high to be historical" I meant "too high for mission makers to use it as an option for the low/medium-only deterrent".

  12. #12
    Team Fusion ♣_Spiritus_♣'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
    Posts
    5,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    If I can finish my mission anytime soon we will see how it is received by the community.

    Certain targets are on some airfields but for airfields used just as spawn points... they will have enough ground defenses around them and in the surrounding, out-reaching areas that it shouldn't be a problem. The ones that have targets on them will be much of the same to encourage high alt. bombing but should leave the option open for low, fast, one pass attempts.

    With that maybe the amount of actual mission objectives for both sides are enough that it should keep people busy attacking/defending those rather than just flying around airfields to vulch.

  13. #13
    Veteran Combat pilot
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    754 Bytes

    Re: Something wrong when...

    I said it in the previous thread and I'll say it again here: I think it would be neat if not being shot down were a kind of objective. e.g. the other side has an objective to shoot down a certain amount of aircraft or something. suicide raids (not counting vulching which is easily circumvented) can take map objectives pretty much without consequence. you can take 4 blenheims, drop bombs on a target, have none make it back and that will have been a successful raid.

    or you can have suicide 109s vs AAA. goes both ways really

  14. #14
    Team Fusion ♣_Spiritus_♣'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
    Posts
    5,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    The only way to make not being shot down a true objective is to limit the lives or number of spawns each player gets. There are other servers the operate like this and its great, but I don't think we want that for ATAG, the numbers would disappear quickly.

    I for one wouldn't take the time to set up my system, get everything running, then only get to play for 5 minutes if I got killed right away, plus it puts the new guys in a frustrating pattern of not being able to learn as quickly.

    I did like the "shoot down a number of planes" idea for one side, but the issue with that is we have pilots who enjoy flying in many different ways, so if red has to shoot down ___ amount of aircraft, it basically means every red has to be a fighter pilot and the server already has low bomber numbers as it is.

    I think the only way to combat vulching is to make it impossible to circle around an airfield, sure they might get one pass in but that is it, and if someone is willing to fly for 30 minutes just to make a single pass on an airfield that may or may not have an aircraft there will learn after the first time, the ones who don't won't change for anything and only represent a small minority of pilots.

    While it is frustrating, I do not mind getting vulched at an airfield that is a target and there are bombers incoming, it makes perfect sense to see that happening but at airfields that are not a target then yes, I know the frustration of it.

    In the end though, Snapper is right, just move to a different airfield and enjoy the extra 5 minutes of flight time by cracking a beer and looking around at the eye candy.
    Last edited by ♣_Spiritus_♣; Apr-28-2014 at 16:19.

  15. #15
    Veteran Combat pilot
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    754 Bytes

    Re: Something wrong when...

    As I said before vulching isn't really a problem there are a lot of different airfields to spawn from in this game; besides if you're taking off from a front-line airfield you should be careful anyway since you're so close to the enemy.

    This doesn't quite go along with Knut's OP but I'm going to throw it out there because it's something I feel needs to be at least somewhat looked at. Having half a raiding force go down for any objective just doesn't cut it imo*; I feel every pilot should do everything in their power to get home (or even just front lines) in one piece, regardless of whether they hit their objective or not. Just goes a bit more in line with something that is historically immersive. There has to be, in my opinion, a small penalty for losing an aircraft. War is a battle of attrition, you can do very well in combat and still lose the battle of attrition (Eastern front, Germany against Russia).

    I definitely think it would be a mistake to limit the amount of spawns per player, or have this penalty be too important for new players (since new players are encouraged to mix it up and possibly get shot down). It would be especially stupid to discourage people from flying on ATAG. Basically, the penalty should be there to ensure that vulching or going all-in on an objective is "not worth it". Some people may view this as a simulator and that's great, others may view this as a game and see that objectively, to win the map, it makes a lot of sense to fill a bomber to the brim, drop the eggs on targets and then rinse and repeat. The map is more easily won if people disregard getting back home safely. That's what bothers me; it's just not realistic at all and the kind of action you get reflects that.

    Shooting down enemy aircraft, were it to be implemented, wouldn't be a primary objective. It would just be one objective out of many. e.g.

    Red:
    Take out x, y, z airfields located at...
    Take out a, b, c targets located at...
    Maintain air superiority over...
    Shoot down 60 aircraft.

    Blue:
    Take out q, r, s airfields located at...
    Take out t, u, v targets located at...
    Shoot down 60 aircraft.


    Basically if you do a suicide run on a target and get shot down, what happens is that you get (help get) an objective for your team but you also help the other team accomplish the aircraft shot down objective. So it's not really a success, since both sides are getting objectives in. If 6 bombers go and bomb a target and get home thanks to their escort and lose just 1 aircraft, then that's a success. This also reflects attrition in war, which should be taken into account just as much as flight mechanics and whatnot, in my opinion.

    This would also somewhat discourage vulching since there are few targets more vulnerable than fighters vulching airfields, especially if people are smart enough not to spawn when they see flak bursts and give the other team free kills.


    By the way, I'm curious as I've never though about it, what are the win conditions for a given map? Does one side need to finish every objective or is the map won by the team with the most objectives done by the end of the timer? I think it's the former but overall wouldn't the latter make more sense?


    Well that sums up my thoughts. Just to make sure I'll repeat it again: I'm looking for a constructive discussion on how to make maps more enjoyable, more realistic, more immersive and have them encourage team play. I'm NOT looking to criticize the ATAG server and discourage people from flying on it. That would be vertically stupid of me to do, ATAG is much more enjoyable when it's over 50% full..
    Last edited by Incog; Apr-29-2014 at 00:48.

  16. #16
    Team Fusion ♣_Spiritus_♣'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
    Posts
    5,600
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    I think a side has to roll all the objectives in order to win the map. I've been curious as well about if it can be done the other way, I think that would actually help.

    Maybe we could make a test run style map with some of these things in it and test it on the server for a week just to see what happens and what people think.

    The only problem I have is right now I would like to see better flak around targets and airfields, but if you put an objective for __ number of aircraft must be destroyed, then you would run the risk of having to thin out the flak, although having both of these things in place would drive things up in altitude.

    It is a revolving door problem... fix one issue, create a new one, make one happy, make one angry.


  17. #17
    ATAG Member ATAG_Endless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    662
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    1.5 KB

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Why not create two or three bases with horrendous flak barrages a little to the rear of the front line bases that will make even the most die hard vulches think twice thus giving the person spawning in a sence of ease while warming up

    Or non target front line bases eg if hawking manston ramsgate are targets then littlestone or limpne have extreemely heavy flak and same for blue bases
    Last edited by ATAG_Endless; Apr-29-2014 at 07:31.


    motherboard ASUS Z77
    CPU Intel i73770 k Liquid cooled overclocked to 4.5 ghz
    Gpu NVidia Geforce gtx 970
    memory 8 GB
    Power supply 850 watts
    Monitor ASUS PB278q 2560 x 1440 Native Resolution
    Saiteck x52 joystick and pedals
    Trackir 4

  18. #18
    Hood
    Guest

    Re: Something wrong when...

    As it's never going to be historical you could always go the complete opposite way and remove all flak at airfields. Then nobody will rely upon it as early warning or to clear one's 6. It might result in people spawning from more diverse airfields thus reducing the opportunity to vulch.

    If you want objectives based mission then protect the objectives with flak to counter bombers/jabos but have the targets docks/ports or whatever rather than airfields.

    Hood

  19. #19
    Team Fusion Kling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,958
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    23.07 MB

    Re: Something wrong when...

    Just give each side 300 planes and 200 pilots in total on top of the objectives you already have. Losing all planes on one side will make that side lose the map no matter how far they got at destroying their targets.
    Assuming 40 players on each side at any time on peak time, 300 planes or 200 pilots will run out fairly quickly!

    Ex. (lets say im the only one the map) If im the first to spawn on the map my side has 300 planes. As I spawn, we now have 299 planes available If I crash my plane my side has lost a plane but if I bring my plane back the pool is once again 300. Same for pilots. A ditch on a field will make my side lose a plane but not a pilot (assuming I survive the crash landing)

    IRL the amount of planes and pilots was the determining factor.

    If Im damaged and I know I wont make it back to base at least I can try to save the pilot.

    One could even add frontlines in the water close each sides shoreline. Make it across this line and the pilot is also likely to survive if he ends up in the water.
    This would for sure add a lot more realistic dynamic to the game.

    Anyway I have said this for a looooong time and people seem to want it but it always ends up leading nowhere.

    Reddog has a similar mission like this on the storm of war server so it is possible.

    Cheers
    Last edited by Kling; Apr-29-2014 at 09:41.

  20. #20
    Combat pilot Broodwich's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Something wrong when...

    I think a flak respawn of about an hour would strike a good balance. I've wanted to hop in a bofors since forever but it seems every time theres action around the guns are dead. As aforementioned since players have infinite lives, why not flak guns? An hour respawn still gives a bonus for killing the guns as someone can get back to target in that time easy, but it also doesnt mean there wont be flak for the remainder of the 6 hour mission.

    My 2 cents
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, complain

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •