PDA

View Full Version : Limits in Aircraft Type numbers?



92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-20-2013, 06:30
Hi all,

Are limits to the number of different aircraft types which can be used going to be considered in missions?

I'm prompted to ask mainly in light of the Bf109 E4/N - of which I understand only 15 were ever built. Last night I saw 13 of them online at the same time, and I wondered if we were going to crack the 15 mark ;)

Ca someone correct me if more E4/Ns were put into service?
Are there other types which had very low numbers built which might warrant restrictions?

By the way - the 109 E4/N looks beautiful! I bumped into a couple at 22,000ft yesterday. They looked stunning!

Cheers!

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-20-2013, 16:51
Hi all,

Are limits to the number of different aircraft types which can be used going to be considered in missions?

I'm prompted to ask mainly in light of the Bf109 E4/N - of which I understand only 15 were ever built. Last night I saw 13 of them online at the same time, and I wondered if we were going to crack the 15 mark ;)

Ca someone correct me if more E4/Ns were put into service?
Are there other types which had very low numbers built which might warrant restrictions?

By the way - the 109 E4/N looks beautiful! I bumped into a couple at 22,000ft yesterday. They looked stunning!

Cheers!

E-3N's/E-4N's equipped a complete Gruppe. (approx. 3 1/2 Squadrons)

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-20-2013, 18:30
We have to be careful when talking about limiting planes to their historical numbers. If that were the case more than half the red side would have to fly Hurricanes. :thumbsup:

ATAG_Septic
Mar-20-2013, 18:43
We have to be careful when talking about limiting planes to their historical numbers. If that were the case more than half the red side would have to fly Hurricanes. :thumbsup:

Would the Blues have to fly historic tactics though?

Just mischief :devilish:

Septic.

palker
Mar-20-2013, 18:45
We have to be careful when talking about limiting planes to their historical numbers. If that were the case more than half the red side would have to fly Hurricanes. :thumbsup:

Nothing wrong with that. I have not flown spit yet on the server because whenever i join its spits from top to bottom with only a few hurris. SoV has limited planes in many missions and it had always worked flawlessly also it has the best missions with incredibly detailed briefings. Although the full real snobs would dismiss its difficulty settings I spent hundreds of hours on it. The best server for 1946.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-20-2013, 18:52
Salute

I believe you will see server setups with limited numbers or no E-4N's and Spit IIA's.

In fact I think we will see Dunkirk setups with just the early planes.

LG1.Farber
Mar-20-2013, 21:26
In Il2 Fb everyone (most people) want a fast aircraft with good armament... They want the best one they can get. This leads to snobbishness about the earlier aircraft and in the end its all 44/45 stuff with 30mm cannons and extreme high speeds and boosts... But really all that happens is you rush to the end of the game! Its like using a password to get to the last levels and finishing the game. Wishing your life away also.

Thing is if you use the Western side of the map- most people leave the server... In the beginning, game would crash after 40 mins max so we had to use the Eastern side... Now it doesnt we still use only the Eastern side.

If you only have the fighters; Bf109 E1 and Hurricane DH5-20 and SpitI, same thing will happen... Most people will leave.

They will go to the server which has the "best planes". - Which is sad because it means in public play we only fly a select few or you have an extreme disadvantage. It would be really nice to see some different scenarios but the community will have to be brave... Can this become a reality?


I really enjoyed the Buffalo and the BF109F4 in the old game but rarely did I get to fly with, it was always FW190 and Bf109 G6, G10, G14 - even K models!

Mattias
Mar-20-2013, 21:30
We have to be careful when talking about limiting planes to their historical numbers. If that were the case more than half the red side would have to fly Hurricanes. :thumbsup:

One should be careful for what is wished for roflmao

Dutch
Mar-20-2013, 21:36
If that were the case more than half the red side would have to fly Hurricanes. :thumbsup:

I'd be up for this actually. If it were possible to limit availability of a/c on both sides according to the date of the battle being played, i.e. Dunkirk, it would make perfect sense to limit the ratio of a/c available on both sides.

I've no idea whether that's possible without mammoth scripting exercises, but I'd certainly endorse it if it were possible. Roughly speaking, the ratio was 66% Hurris, 33% Spits, roughly speaking, and if a similar ratio of availibility were applied to the LW squads with the various marks of 109s and 110s, it'd bring a lot more realism to the game.

In my humble opinion of course, and please don't shoot me Mr Snapper sir! :D

ATAG_Naz
Mar-20-2013, 22:51
Salute

In fact I think we will see Dunkirk setups with just the early planes.

Would love to see that in the ATAG map rotation.

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-20-2013, 22:55
One should be careful for what is wished for roflmao


I'm happiest flying an E-1, but with IIa's in the server it's just "plane" outclassed.

See what I did there? Huh huh? :)

ATAG_Torian
Mar-21-2013, 04:26
In fact I think we will see Dunkirk setups with just the early planes.

We have had the Dunkirk map in the past and it was fun flying the early Mark Is. The Brit fighters for the most part got their asses handed to them but we need to remember that the RAF did suffer very heavy fighter losses at that stage of the war. The 109 did have the edge (and still does imho in CloD). As a predominantly red fighter pilot I just accept that once a 109 has alt and e advantage on u the best u can do is get out of Dodge as best u can. What happens on our server is by and large not historic (ie 109s stay at same alt and speed as bomber formations) but perhaps more like what the historic Luftwaffe fighter pilots wanted all along ie free hunting which is where they excel. If we are going to limit planes then it needs to be in the context of some sort of historical scenario that every1 is abiding by. This is not likely on what is essentially an open DF server.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-21-2013, 05:06
We have to be careful when talking about limiting planes to their historical numbers. If that were the case more than half the red side would have to fly Hurricanes. :thumbsup:

I've no issue with that in principle. Although that's not strictly the situation I'm talking about, the comparison is not entirely fair.

LG1.Farber
Mar-21-2013, 06:19
Ca someone correct me if more E4/Ns were put into service?
Are there other types which had very low numbers built which might warrant restrictions?



Allot of aircraft were retro fitted in the field, for example to E1 to E3 or E4, so dont look solely at numbers built. Its impossible to know accurately. I looked in my Bf109 Recognition guide but could not find any evidence.

3.5 Gruppe as Buzzsaw said based on 12 aircraft per Staffel would be 42. However a Staffel could be 6 to 16 aircraft but this is early war so likely less than 16? Plus each Gruppe would have a Stab - a command section each containing around 4. So my guess would be 54? I am only speculating though as I cant find the figures.

I like the idea or early, mid and late maps. :thumbsup:



I'm happiest flying an E-1, but with IIa's in the server it's just "plane" outclassed.

Me too. I remember when the E4 came out and someone at 1c made a post about reading the E1 and E3 their funeral rights. It was kinda funny but also kinda true.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-21-2013, 11:16
Allot of aircraft were retro fitted in the field, for example to E1 to E3 or E4, so dont look solely at numbers built. Its impossible to know accurately. I looked in my Bf109 Recognition guide but could not find any evidence.
3.5 Gruppe as Buzzsaw said based on 12 aircraft per Staffel would be 42. However a Staffel could be 6 to 16 aircraft but this is early war so likely less than 16? Plus each Gruppe would have a Stab - a command section each containing around 4. So my guess would be 54? I am only speculating though as I cant find the figures.
.

Thanks Farber, that's enough to convince me that a restriction would not be necessary. Much appreciated.

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-21-2013, 12:04
We have had the Dunkirk map in the past and it was fun flying the early Mark Is. The Brit fighters for the most part got their asses handed to them but we need to remember that the RAF did suffer very heavy fighter losses at that stage of the war. The 109 did have the edge (and still does imho in CloD). As a predominantly red fighter pilot I just accept that once a 109 has alt and e advantage on u the best u can do is get out of Dodge as best u can. What happens on our server is by and large not historic (ie 109s stay at same alt and speed as bomber formations) but perhaps more like what the historic Luftwaffe fighter pilots wanted all along ie free hunting which is where they excel. If we are going to limit planes then it needs to be in the context of some sort of historical scenario that every1 is abiding by. This is not likely on what is essentially an open DF server.

We now have 2-speed Spits and Hurries that are no longer being fed 87-octane petrol from the corner gas station. :D

Also, in the latter stage of the Dunkirk map, Bliss introduced the 100 octane Spitfire 1a out of Manston to more historically represent 54 Squadron's 1a's flying out of Hornchurch to Dunkirk ("Nine Lives" -- Air Commodore Alan C. Deere, a Kiwi pilot who flew one of 'em). This completely changed the dynamic of the mission in that the 109's now had serious opposition.

Furious
Mar-22-2013, 12:59
Ok, we need to be careful here.

If we (not we obviously, you) introduce limits to models flyable, you must make sure you do so in proportion to historical numbers. I already see the luftwaffe up to its usual tricks. We have no evidence for retro-fitting, therefore there must have been way more than available numbers suggest... YEAH RIGHT! MODERATOR EDIT: Direct attack on another forum member deleted. This is in direct contravention of forum rules. Please do not do this again. -- Snapper

The E4N was a rarity. Not so the Mk2a. And remember when we couldn't fly those at all? I would hate to see availability of the 2a linked somehow to that of the E4N. Now that would be utter balls.

Sorry if I seem a little highly strung about this, but I have seen the amount of propaganda growing here lately and said nothing.

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-22-2013, 13:11
Ok, we need to be careful here.

If we (not we obviously, you) introduce limits to models flyable, you must make sure you do so in proportion to historical numbers. I already see the luftwaffe up to its usual tricks. We have no evidence for retro-fitting, therefore there must have been way more than available numbers suggest... YEAH RIGHT! MODERATOR EDIT: Direct attack on another forum member deleted. This is in direct contravention of forum rules. Please do not do this again. -- Snapper

The E4N was a rarity. Not so the Mk2a. And remember when we couldn't fly those at all? I would hate to see availability of the 2a linked somehow to that of the E4N. Now that would be utter balls.

Sorry if I seem a little highly strung about this, but I have seen the amount of propaganda growing here lately and said nothing.

Furious, your point on proportional numbers is well taken. Hopefully mission designers will take that point into consideration as they strive for historical representation.

That said, please realize that you are a valued guest on this forum, as are the other members. I strongly request you recognize that in future posts.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-22-2013, 13:14
I would hate to see availability of the 2a linked somehow to that of the E4N. .

Fortunately no-one is proposing this.. yet.

It seems to me that restrictions on types should be based purely on the set mission date.
If the map is set for August 25 1940, then the plane set available at that time should be available with no limit on how many of each type could be used by the players . If it's set for May 12 1940, then the plane set would be different - with no limit on how many of each type could be used by the players .

I think that would be the best solution.
We simply lack the historical information to make a call when it comes to limiting to specific numbers of certain types, particularly the Luftwaffe types where record survival rates is much lower.

HOWEVER, that said, if we were able to get good documentation about actual numbers of each type available (operational) at any particular date, I would like to think that missions could be adapted accordingly.

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-22-2013, 13:37
I think we are giving too much credit to the planes. An early model plane flown well is still better than a late model plane flown poorly.

LuseKofte
Mar-22-2013, 13:51
Hmmm, is there a border between Blue and red outside the game server also ?
My experience is that it is tactics and not nessersery the plane. If you fly alone you are dead, if you are two or more maybe you survive. I fly mainly BF-110 JU-88 , HE-111 do I do any Luftwaffe tricks.

As for flying 110 we should be able to outrun Hurrycanes atleast out dive them. It does not happened. It would not help at all if I yelled RAF tricks. It is the way this sim works.
What really amaze me is the realism in things, every day I see the reason for Luftwaffes big losses over English coast. I think we have every reason for being satisfied of the sim

Furious
Mar-22-2013, 14:06
Ok Snapper. When you take a public position, you should shoulder the responsibility though...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6e-1aZ8yj4

I am surprised I didn't hear the "it's the pilot, stupid" argument very much from certain people when red were severely limited in the availability of certain planes. Funny that!

Anyway, the past is the past, and I'll leave it there from now on.

I disagree with philstyle though on unlimited numbers of E4s. It's just not historical. Might as well give them all 109 F's cause that's more or less what they are.
When the IIb comes out - if it does- we'll see how that goes down. Anyway, I'm jumping the gun here.

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-22-2013, 14:15
Furious, you misunderstand me. As a moderator and player I had no problem whatsoever with your point on plane types. It was your direct attack on another forum member and the overall inflammatory nature of your post. Neither flies in this forum.

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-22-2013, 14:17
I think we are giving too much credit to the planes. An early model plane flown well is still better than a late model plane flown poorly.

Agree to a point. It's not the poorly-flown E4/N's that are the concern! ;)

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-22-2013, 14:19
Hmmm, is there a border between Blue and red outside the game server also ?
My experience is that it is tactics and not nessersery the plane. If you fly alone you are dead, if you are two or more maybe you survive. I fly mainly BF-110 JU-88 , HE-111 do I do any Luftwaffe tricks.

As for flying 110 we should be able to outrun Hurrycanes atleast out dive them. It does not happened. It would not help at all if I yelled RAF tricks. It is the way this sim works.
What really amaze me is the realism in things, every day I see the reason for Luftwaffes big losses over English coast. I think we have every reason for being satisfied of the sim

If it were just tactics we'd all be content with G.50's and 87 octane Hurricane MK1 5-20's! :)

ATAG_Colander
Mar-22-2013, 14:20
Actually, is my understanding that the 4N's are worse then the plain 4's at lower than contrail altitudes.

ATAG_Headshot
Mar-22-2013, 14:34
To me it honestly feels quite balanced right now.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-22-2013, 14:35
Actually, is my understanding that the 4N's are worse then the plain 4's at lower than contrail altitudes.

This may or may not be the case.
However I don't think the issue is about "balance" or competitiveness between types; Furious (it seems to me) is talking about historical accuracy.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-22-2013, 14:38
I think we are giving too much credit to the planes. An early model plane flown well is still better than a late model plane flown poorly.

True. But a moderately well flown late plane might still be better than a well flown early plane.
Either way, that's not the point of this thread - this is not about "balance", it's about whether or not we want historical missions, that reflect BoB limitations.

My opinion, which I probably share with Farber (which Furious disagrees with, and fairly enough) is that we do not have the documentation to support any limitation with respect to type numbers. This is a position derived out of concern for historicism, and not balance - which was the intent of the patch, as I understand it.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-22-2013, 15:12
Actually, is my understanding that the 4N's are worse then the plain 4's at lower than contrail altitudes.

No, wouldn't say that.

The E-4N is the overall best climbing aircraft at low/med/high alts.

E-3b/E-4b are a little faster than it on the deck with WEP, climb comparable at low alts at WEP, but overheat faster. And they aren't good up high.

E-4N is faster over 4-5k meters

E-4N overheats less generally.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-22-2013, 15:19
.... we do not have the documentation to support any limitation with respect to type numbers. .

Actually we do.

E-3N's/E-4N's were approx. 40 operational aircraft in later stages of the BoB.

Spit IIA's were approx. 36 operational aircraft in late August early September, increasing to approx. 84 operational aircraft by October 15th.

Neither of these two types were present during the Dunkirk period, or in any significant numbers during July.

So they could be restricted on the servers, but I think the server managers wanted to give everyone a chance to try out new planes.

Also the E-3b and E-4b's could be restricted. Only about 75-80 of these aircraft were in service with DB601Aa engine.

100 octane was used by all types from March of 1940.

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-22-2013, 15:38
...It seems to me that restrictions on types should be based purely on the set mission date.
If the map is set for August 25 1940, then the plane set available at that time should be available with no limit on how many of each type could be used by the players . If it's set for May 12 1940, then the plane set would be different - with no limit on how many of each type could be used by the players .

I think that would be the best solution.
We simply lack the historical information to make a call when it comes to limiting to specific numbers of certain types, particularly the Luftwaffe types where record survival rates is much lower.

HOWEVER, that said, if we were able to get good documentation about actual numbers of each type available (operational) at any particular date, I would like to think that missions could be adapted accordingly.

The major issue is that Hurricanes were far more abundant than Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. The RAF has two single engine fighters with different sub-variants to choose from; the Luftwaffe only has one.

If you set a mission to a time frame that excludes the E-4, E-4/N and the Spit IIa then you'll see a mixture of E-3's and E-1's on the blue side, but I'm willing to bet that the red side will still be mostly Spitfires. The obvious reason for this is that the Hurricane just doesn't perform as well as the Spitfire in dogfights with 109's. I can't say that I'd blame the red side though, who wants to fly a plane that is an underdog? So now we're right back where we started, an un-historcal representation of plane types in the server.

Limiting planes will always hit a nerve with people, everyone has their favorite and if you force them to fly something else they will either accept it and fly a different model, fly on another server, or just not fly at all.

The two most desired planes in the game seem to be the IIa and the E-4/N; these planes are a very good match for each other with each one having its strengths and weaknesses. I've had a few 1 on 1 dogfights with my E-4/N vs a IIa and one of them even lasted 38 minutes without a decisive winner, S! Cujo. The only reason it ended at 38 minutes was because I took a reduced fuel load and ran out of gas.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-22-2013, 16:23
If you set a mission to a time frame that excludes the E-4, E-4/N and the Spit IIa then you'll see a mixture of E-3's and E-1's on the blue side, but I'm willing to bet that the red side will still be mostly Spitfires. The obvious reason for this is that the Hurricane just doesn't perform as well as the Spitfire in dogfights with 109's. I can't say that I'd blame the red side though, who wants to fly a plane that is an underdog? So now we're right back where we started, an un-historcal representation of plane types in the server.
.

Yes, I must agree with you here.

ATAG_JTDawg
Mar-22-2013, 16:43
ok short an simple. an just my oppinion. we have been down this road before, with the uber so called spit 2a. (an i didn't even fly it) they were limited to 5 which i thought was bs. , i'm not into limiting any planes ! i can still get kills in rotol . all be it there are some very good match ups now , an picking your fight in rotol is a must. an it is nice to have that spit as your wingman, i agree with some statements , if historical numbers apply . then 100 oct debalcle, even after being proved . thats all in the books now. an needs to be left there . we have what is basicly a new game , that most are enjoying again after a long time. but from what i'm seeing which is a lot of them there new 109s are taking a beating, all i ever wanted in this game was a chance , not a 1 sided turkey shoot as we had with so many other patches. historical speeds etc, then it's up to the pilot. an with the anti cheat , it in its self is a nice piece of mind , an look already the amazing climb is gone ! do what you want its your house your rules . although i would like to see something beside the new 109 being flown , which a few are still doing. i still feel that it is wrong to limit any plane unless it's a certain time spot in history , an the map or mission , has a set of certain planes . but maybe a happy middle ground , so many of this or that in a map till the end , when there gone there gone , but then there is away around that to , as bombers can change a map in 35 mins to at most a hour . so now all numbers restarted. an the howling begins again. all be it the new 109 is a beast , it can be slain, i flew a spit 2a last night first time in game , except for testing , in about a year, shot down 3 of those e4n in 1 flight , they are a very good match up salute

Ohms
Mar-22-2013, 16:57
My take on this is, fly and have fun. If the plane is in the game then fly it, lots of spit 2 few hurries not right but who cares just have fun and smite each other and then respawn.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-22-2013, 18:30
The major issue is that Hurricanes were far more abundant than Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. The RAF has two single engine fighters with different sub-variants to choose from; the Luftwaffe only has one.

If you set a mission to a time frame that excludes the E-4, E-4/N and the Spit IIa then you'll see a mixture of E-3's and E-1's on the blue side, but I'm willing to bet that the red side will still be mostly Spitfires. The obvious reason for this is that the Hurricane just doesn't perform as well as the Spitfire in dogfights with 109's. I can't say that I'd blame the red side though, who wants to fly a plane that is an underdog? So now we're right back where we started, an un-historcal representation of plane types in the server.

Limiting planes will always hit a nerve with people, everyone has their favorite and if you force them to fly something else they will either accept it and fly a different model, fly on another server, or just not fly at all.

The two most desired planes in the game seem to be the IIa and the E-4/N; these planes are a very good match for each other with each one having its strengths and weaknesses. I've had a few 1 on 1 dogfights with my E-4/N vs a IIa and one of them even lasted 38 minutes without a decisive winner, S! Cujo. The only reason it ended at 38 minutes was because I took a reduced fuel load and ran out of gas.

Also need to remember, that historically, the German side was 50% bombers.

No one would expect the blue side to fly that percentage bombers in the game.

Also remember 1/4 of the Luftwaffe fighter strength was 110's, most 110's were used in the fighter role, not as fighter-bombers.

June 29th Luftwaffe Strength:

1,380 bombers

1,107 single engined fighters

357 twin engined fighters

Even counting AI bombers, in most server setups, there are nowhere near the correct numbers of bombers.

Also, the British very rarely sent over their own bombers in daylight, just didn't happen like it does on the servers. Most British bomber raids were at night when they didn't have to worry about 109 intercept.

Dutch
Mar-22-2013, 18:34
Good point well put Buzzsaw. So if the ratio of Spits to Hurris was limited, the ratio of 109s to 110s should also be limited. And from those numbers, it seems to be a similar ratio, but reversed, if you get me.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-22-2013, 18:45
Good point well put Buzzsaw. So if the ratio of Spits to Hurris was limited, the ratio of 109s to 110s should also be limited. And from those numbers, it seems to be a similar ratio, but reversed, if you get me.

I'd like to see the types restricted by numbers. Limited Spitfires, limited 109 types, more 110's.

But if you did that, you'd also need to replicate the historical enviroment. Which means a lot more German bombers coming over in larger raids for the Hurricanes to knock down. If the Blue flyers wanted combat, they'd need to act as escorts. Because there would be no targets in the way of British bombers coming over France.

And the German bombers would need to penetrate further to their targets, so the issue of fuel limits would come up, and Germans would be fighting over hostile territory with all the issues that presents.

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-22-2013, 18:47
I wish we could get 50% of the blue side flying bombers!

I would love it if we could turn off the server scoreboard or find a way to count ground targets. Then we might see more people in bombers for both sides.

ATAG_Lolsav
Mar-22-2013, 18:50
My personnal note over this topic:

I believe there are other places where to fly realistically to the limits, like a "ghostskies" type of missions/battle. For ATAG the purpose is to have a evryday fight/enjoyment, thus i see no need to restrict anything.

Of course i wouldnt oppose some particular maps, with limited aircraft for both sides, but i fear those kind of maps tend to drive ppl away.

Furious
Mar-22-2013, 20:16
I'd like to see the types restricted by numbers. Limited Spitfires, limited 109 types, more 110's.

But if you did that, you'd also need to replicate the historical enviroment. Which means a lot more German bombers coming over in larger raids for the Hurricanes to knock down. If the Blue flyers wanted combat, they'd need to act as escorts. Because there would be no targets in the way of British bombers coming over France.

And the German bombers would need to penetrate further to their targets, so the issue of fuel limits would come up, and Germans would be fighting over hostile territory with all the issues that presents.



That does sound quite attractive. Longer flight times, and a bit less of a circus...:P

Dutch
Mar-22-2013, 20:24
I would love it if we could turn off the server scoreboard .

Amen.

I'd suggest that personal scores be eliminated, and all that matters is blue victory or red victory.

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-22-2013, 20:58
Amen.

I'd suggest that personal scores be eliminated, and all that matters is blue victory or red victory.

We certainly have that now, at least until the Stats scripting gets updated.

A few things I'd love to see implemented (that others have suggested in other threads):

1) Only "landed" kills will actually count towards the individual fighter pilot's score. Bomber targets, OTOH, are counted as destroyed regardless as to whether the pilot makes it back or not.

2) Most bomber formations fly higher -- 20+ angels. Throw in some low level raids to keep us on our toes.

3) AI bombers actually bomb map-victory targets. Forces defending fighters skyward to stop 'em (or lose the map). Forces offensive fighters even higher as escorts. Forces other defending fighters higher yet to counter the escorts. Etc.

4) If possible, more AI bomber formations with more bombers in 'em.

5) Lighten the AAA over map-victory targets. Exception: airfield AAA maintained high.

Just my 2p. :D

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-22-2013, 21:37
We certainly have that now, at least until the Stats scripting gets updated.

A few things I'd love to see implemented (that others have suggested in other threads):

1) Only "landed" kills will actually count towards the individual fighter pilot's score. Bomber targets, OTOH, are counted as destroyed regardless as to whether the pilot makes it back or not.

2) Most bomber formations fly higher -- 20+ angels. Throw in some low level raids to keep us on our toes.

3) AI bombers actually bomb map-victory targets. Forces defending fighters skyward to stop 'em (or lose the map). Forces offensive fighters even higher as escorts. Forces other defending fighters higher yet to counter the escorts. Etc.

4) If possible, more AI bomber formations with more bombers in 'em.

5) Lighten the AAA over map-victory targets. Exception: airfield AAA maintained high.

Just my 2p. :D


1) Excellent idea, but include bombers. I've seen pilots attacking bombers and when they realize that there are escorts that are about to engage they get as many hits as they can and then ram into a bomber to get one more kill score.

2) This would be nice too, as it might help to drag some of the "low-level-easy-target-seekers" up to a higher altitude.

3) Another good idea though I'd like to see more bombing objectives added. If each team had 10 objectives allow the AI bombers to target 6 of them leaving 4 for humans to get. When there are human bomber pilots working together they can actually roll a mission way too fast. (I'm talking to you Torric270!)

4) Yes as long as server performance doesn't take a hit.

5) Could not agree more, flak is too thick at targets. Maybe thin out the flak at targets and add another battery (9 gun cluster) to each airfield.

Torric270
Mar-22-2013, 22:53
:goofy

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-23-2013, 00:33
1) Excellent idea, but include bombers. I've seen pilots attacking bombers and when they realize that there are escorts that are about to engage they get as many hits as they can and then ram into a bomber to get one more kill score.

.

Agree 100%. I worded #1 badly. I meant that ground/naval targets that bomber pilots destroy remain destroyed even if the bomber pilot doesn't make it back.

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-23-2013, 02:04
Agree 100%. I worded #1 badly. I meant that ground/naval targets that bomber pilots destroy remain destroyed even if the bomber pilot doesn't make it back.

The planes will still get destroyed, you just won't get credit for it. :thumbsup:

ATAG_Torian
Mar-23-2013, 02:35
We certainly have that now, at least until the Stats scripting gets updated.

A few things I'd love to see implemented (that others have suggested in other threads):

1) Only "landed" kills will actually count towards the individual fighter pilot's score. Bomber targets, OTOH, are counted as destroyed regardless as to whether the pilot makes it back or not.

2) Most bomber formations fly higher -- 20+ angels. Throw in some low level raids to keep us on our toes.

3) AI bombers actually bomb map-victory targets. Forces defending fighters skyward to stop 'em (or lose the map). Forces offensive fighters even higher as escorts. Forces other defending fighters higher yet to counter the escorts. Etc.

4) If possible, more AI bomber formations with more bombers in 'em.

5) Lighten the AAA over map-victory targets. Exception: airfield AAA maintained high.

Man I remember this being discussed way back when.
+1 to all the suggestions. The only addon I would make is (and u may have implied this in point 3 Snapper) that a successful defence of a target from a bomber attack...ie say 60-70% of bombers taken down could count as a successfully completed objective. This would put an imperative on both sides to either attack or defend bomber formations as it has a direct effect on objective outcomes. Of course it means that in quiet times on the server there simply won't be the pilots available to mount a successful attack/defence. My (wet) dream would be to see 3 or 4 Spitties accompanying 6 or more Hurries up to attack a large, defended bomber formation.

Oh and of course there must be scripting to ensure that 109s stay at the same alt and speed as the bombers as per Goering's explicit order :huh:

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-23-2013, 03:06
Man I remember this being discussed way back when.
+1 to all the suggestions. The only addon I would make is (and u may have implied this in point 3 Snapper) that a successful defence of a target from a bomber attack...ie say 60-70% of bombers taken down could count as a successfully completed objective. This would put an imperative on both sides to either attack or defend bomber formations as it has a direct effect on objective outcomes. Of course it means that in quiet times on the server there simply won't be the pilots available to mount a successful attack/defence. My (wet) dream would be to see 3 or 4 Spitties accompanying 6 or more Hurries up to attack a large, defended bomber formation.

Oh and of course there must be scripting to ensure that 109s stay at the same alt and speed as the bombers as per Goering's explicit order :huh:

Actually most raids came in at between 10,000 ft - 20,000 ft, because the accuracy at higher alts was too compromised. This was particularly the case for attacks on airfields or tactical targets, against these it was most likely 15,000 ft or under. Against something like the London Docks, bombers could come in at 20,000 ft since accuracy was not so much of a concern.

Stukas would come in at 10-15,000 ft, and dive from 10,000 normally, pulling out at 3000 ft.

Anyone who has tried to bomb accurately from altitude knows it is not easy to hit from over 20,000 ft.

The bombers which came in at over 20,000, and sometimes 30,000 ft, were the Recon single aircraft, which were constantly scouting the British airfields and other targets. The British would normally scramble no more that a Flight of 3 to attack these.

Re. Goering orders: Not all 109 groups were told to stay with the bombers. Typically a Jagdgeschwader would be assigned to close escort, and another to Free Hunt which would sweep out in front of the bombers. Also the Fighters were not tied to the same altitude as the bombers, they were almost always positioned above, and to the front, side or behind them.

ATAG_Torian
Mar-23-2013, 03:21
Re. Goering orders: Not all 109 groups were told to stay with the bombers. Typically a Jagdgeschwader would be assigned to close escort, and another to Free Hunt which would sweep out in front of the bombers. Also the Fighters were not tied to the same altitude as the bombers, they were almost always positioned above, and to the front, side or behind them.

Yeah my comment was definitely tongue firmly in cheek. I can't imagine too many 109 pilots took a particularly strict interpretation of a ludicrous order like that. Although I do remember a documentary somewhere where there was comment made by 109 pilots of how difficult it was to make their plane fly at that slower speed with a bomber group.

Furious
Mar-23-2013, 05:01
hi,

Could the targets/airfields possibly be a little further inland. We have a reasonably large map -only one map- and only ever see a tiny portion of that.

Dutch
Mar-23-2013, 07:46
We certainly have that now, at least until the Stats scripting gets updated.

I thought Keller meant the 'netstats' in game. Post mission analysis is great, once the stats are up and running again, but the netstats focus too much on individualism for my liking.

I chastize myself everytime I look at them. :D

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-23-2013, 08:56
I thought Keller meant the 'netstats' in game. Post mission analysis is great, once the stats are up and running again, but the netstats focus too much on individualism for my liking.

I chastize myself everytime I look at them. :D

Ahhh, good point, Dutch! :thumbsup:

XE9O
Mar-23-2013, 10:35
I would not limit planes, i am doing ok just the way it is. To do well in this patch you must change tactics .

Stay with the basics have Fun!

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-23-2013, 11:53
I would not limit planes, i am doing ok just the way it is. To do well in this patch you must change tactics .

Stay with the basics have Fun!

+1

The beauty of rotating missions is that there's usually something for everyone. One man's spinach is another man's steak, be it pre-dawn take offs, unlimited (or limited) plane sets, airfield suppression tactics, etc etc. More missions are being developed to better take advantage of the bigger TF sandbox and introduce more challenges. It's all good!

And those E4/N's ain't so tough. Then again, neither am I......:ind:

Furious
Mar-23-2013, 15:08
E4ns are tough Snap. 4/5 of us attacking bombers up high today, got attacked by a lone 109 (littleD), fight went up to 26/29000 ft, couldnt get close enough to shoot, for a good 20/25mn. tried to bracket him, to go high and catch him in the turn, everything. He disengaged cause he eventually ran out of fuel. That thing is like a space shuttle.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-23-2013, 15:53
E4ns are tough Snap. 4/5 of us attacking bombers up high today, got attacked by a lone 109 (littleD), fight went up to 26/29000 ft, couldnt get close enough to shoot, for a good 20/25mn. tried to bracket him, to go high and catch him in the turn, everything. He disengaged cause he eventually ran out of fuel. That thing is like a space shuttle.

And I bet you were in Spit IIA's. Hurricanes up at very high altitudes are completely helpless in comparison.

Which is why it is important to have most of the bombers at lower alts where the Hurricanes can actually fight.

Personally I think some contrailing bombers are a fun addition, but they should be placed at the lowest possible height for contrails, ie. 6500-7000 meters.

Maybe we need to see some single bomber Recon flights added up at 8500 m.

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-23-2013, 15:56
E4ns are tough Snap. 4/5 of us attacking bombers up high today, got attacked by a lone 109 (littleD), fight went up to 26/29000 (tel:26/29000) ft, couldnt get close enough to shoot, for a good 20/25mn. tried to bracket him, to go high and catch him in the turn, everything. He disengaged cause he eventually ran out of fuel. That thing is like a space shuttle.

Deja vu?

Furious
Mar-23-2013, 17:22
Deja vu?

Unfortunately yes. For near on ten years now.

Ok, won't mention it again.

Salmo
Mar-24-2013, 05:11
I'll chime in here with my thoughts as a mission builder/designer.

Best v best DF's battles or tactical battle scenarios

Firstly, on the ATAG1 server tonight we have 12 blue (6 Bf109E4-N's) and 11 red (5 Spit Mk2a's) with the same mission that's been running for months now. For me this is getting pretty boring.

As a mission builder this tells me that at least 50% of the players have no interest in the mission objectives, they are primarily interested in taking a 'good' plane & dogfighting. Night after night, battle after battle of the 'best' axis plane v the 'best' allied plane. Some players prefer a straight-out DF with best v best, there's nothing wrong with that. But other players prefer battles that simulate important RL events/circumstances/milestones. These types of battles require the mission builder to be much more innovative than just plonking all available plane types down at a spawn-base. The battle needs to have a well constructed planeset, with or without plane number limits. Well thought out battle scenarios that enourage players to achieve the battle objectives (rather than just engage in best v best DF's). This is not easy to do. Despite current ATAG server missions having bombing 'objectives', the missions are poorly designed & only encourage 1v1 DF's while discouragaging tactical/objective/team based gameplay.

IMO we need to have two types of battles on the server: one that facilitates 1v1 DF's, best v best etc. The other with limited planesets/numbers that encourage tactical & teamwork gameplay. At the momnet we have just the former type of mission. That's why you're seeing so many 109E4-N's & Spit2a's. More than that, there's is a distinct lack of innovative thinking by mission builders/scripters. How about thinking outside the box? There are so many more possibilities with COD than were ever possible with IL2-1946. What about planesets/numbers that improve as objectives are reached? Say a transport column reaches an airfield then that airfield gets a plane upgrade? What about if you loose too many of a particular plane type then the base 'degrades' it's planeset & you step down from having a 109E3 to only having E1's? You really have to open your mind & realise that there is an infinite number of ways to change the gameplay to develop more exciting missions. Part of this may be the limiting of plane numbers, but there's so much more that can be done.

Little_D
Mar-24-2013, 09:01
E4ns are tough Snap. 4/5 of us attacking bombers up high today, got attacked by a lone 109 (littleD), fight went up to 26/29000 ft, couldnt get close enough to shoot, for a good 20/25mn. tried to bracket him, to go high and catch him in the turn, everything. He disengaged cause he eventually ran out of fuel. That thing is like a space shuttle.

Hi Furious,

Was a little nice fight with you up there :), but i dont think 109-E4/N is a little spaceshuttle. i think both planes are quite close together. the problemm for you guys was, i was coming in from over 9000m, so i had the a lot of energy advantage over you and i tryed to hold this advantage over the complete fight. this is wy i was able to get distance from you to make my high-jojo manover to atack you guys in headons and got distance again. I had to breake off, because i went out of ammo. and there where some tactical mistakes you guys make, that makes the life little easyer for me against you up there and let me hold my energy advantage and give me the possibility to decide how i fight against you guys.
Wow this fight takes about 20 minutes? felt like only 10 minutes, need to check trak :).

see you in the air (high alt)

regards

Little_D

Macro
Mar-24-2013, 09:20
I have been flying all the spits, and its quite clear that only the spit 2a can fight the e4n at higher alts.

I have tried to stay lower in spit 1 / 1a / 100ct planes and they perform quite well against the earlier model 109's, until the the 109 goes high and there is nothing red can do, cept fly the spit 2 to keep in the fight. i think other missions with plane limits would shake this up and bit and add some variety. I flew one of the the other day when planeset was being upgraded as mission went along. great idea! would it be spossible to have a moving front, so the dunkirk mission led into another one?

I think Buzz (or someone else) said having all the planes in was just so everyone could have a go in all the planes before restricting them. I just hope this doesnt mean some people will join another server instead of playing with the earlier planes. :-P

Robo.
Mar-24-2013, 10:52
I second what macro said, that is my experience, too. I flew all Spitfire marks as well E-4 and E-4/N on ATAG for several hours since the patch came out and I also did some high alt speed tests that revealed the N is indeed a little space shuttle. That is fair enough because that's how the plane(s) performed, except now when it's new, everybody is having a go in it to check it out so all you see is E-4/Ns vs IIa. I don't mind that at all as the missions are not strictly historical and it's still fun. But as for the 'quite close together' bit, I suggest you check the Spitfire Mk.IIa performance at the altitude of 6-9km, you'll find the top speed difference alone is absolutely huge :thumbsup:

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-24-2013, 13:03
As a mission builder this tells me that at least 50% of the players have no interest in the mission objectives, they are primarily interested in taking a 'good' plane & dogfighting.

I think you'll find that this number is closer to 90 - 95% Salmo.

I really hate to say it, but the vast majority of players do not care about the objectives.

Little_D
Mar-24-2013, 13:20
I second what macro said, that is my experience, too. I flew all Spitfire marks as well E-4 and E-4/N on ATAG for several hours since the patch came out and I also did some high alt speed tests that revealed the N is indeed a little space shuttle. That is fair enough because that's how the plane(s) performed, except now when it's new, everybody is having a go in it to check it out so all you see is E-4/Ns vs IIa. I don't mind that at all as the missions are not strictly historical and it's still fun. But as for the 'quite close together' bit, I suggest you check the Spitfire Mk.IIa performance at the altitude of 6-9km, you'll find the top speed difference alone is absolutely huge :thumbsup:

Hi Robo,

a frind and me have other results, i tested it with a friend ( he is a 109 and Spitfirepilot and i dont know to fly the Spit as good as he can) to see witch plane is stronger at high alt. The 109E-4/N VS Spit MK IIa. we did the test when ATAG-Server I switched to TF MoD. we both take 100% fuel, start and met outside the action at 1000m went into formation and climbed with climbcondition set for each plane, together up to 9000m. he had no problem to stay in formation.
at 9000m we leveld out set every thing to crusecodition and still fly in formation. then we prepared everything for 100% power count down to 0 and then went to 100% trottle ( I have to say i dont know if he was forced to use boost cut out). the hole time he was in close formation without problems. after a longer time he needs to throttle down a bit to stay in formation ( maby because of bad flying from me). so looks quite close toghter for me.

regards

Little_D

Robo.
Mar-24-2013, 14:02
Hi Robo,

a frind and me have other results, i tested it with a friend ( he is a 109 and Spitfirepilot and i dont know to fly the Spit as good as he can) to see witch plane is stronger at high alt. The 109E-4/N VS Spit MK IIa. we did the test when ATAG-Server I switched to TF MoD. we both take 100% fuel, start and met outside the action at 1000m went into formation and climbed with climbcondition set for each plane, together up to 9000m. he had no problem to stay in formation.
at 9000m we leveld out set every thing to crusecodition and still fly in formation. then we prepared everything for 100% power count down to 0 and then went to 100% trottle ( I have to say i dont know if he was forced to use boost cut out). the hole time he was in close formation without problems. after a longer time he needs to throttle down a bit to stay in formation ( maby because of bad flying from me). so looks quite close toghter for me.

regards

Little_D

Roger that, perhaps that is a better method, flying side by side. I admit I only tested this on my own and simply compared the TAS achieved. (btw. Boost cut out would have no effect at 9000m). I will definitely test this again and come back to you :thumbsup: My experience with high altitude combat on both sides indicated that in the E-4/N, I was extending from any IIa co-alt with no problems at all and this was consistent with what I've seen from Spitfire's cockpit - I could not catch the E-4/Ns no matter what. The difference measured via IAS were as much as 400kph IAS in the E-4/N vs. 200mph IAS in the IIa at full power level flight at 8000m (26000ft.).

Little_D
Mar-24-2013, 15:44
Roger that, perhaps that is a better method, flying side by side. I admit I only tested this on my own and simply compared the TAS achieved. (btw. Boost cut out would have no effect at 9000m). I will definitely test this again and come back to you :thumbsup: My experience with high altitude combat on both sides indicated that in the E-4/N, I was extending from any IIa co-alt with no problems at all and this was consistent with what I've seen from Spitfire's cockpit - I could not catch the E-4/Ns no matter what. The difference measured via IAS were as much as 400kph IAS in the E-4/N vs. 200mph IAS in the IIa at full power level flight at 8000m (26000ft.).

Hi Robo,

sounds good :-) and sorry, but i cant tell you how i fight against Spit MK IIa at high alt :),
but had some fights at 9000m with Spit MK IIa and i was in a normal E4 and got the same result as i had in the E4/N, they could catch me, it takes longer to get distance and advantage back again than in a E4/N. and this happens not, because the E4 is as strong as the E4/N or the Spit MK IIa at 9000m. it is because of how i fight at high alt and how the reds fight at high alt. i had to learn this lesson and find a tactic/flyingstyle against the MK IIa at high alt, so as soonest red find out how to counter my tactic/flyingstyle, i have to think about something new :-). and i still have mutch to learn again for high alt fights, because i get to often under fire, forced down to deck, forced to run, etc. :-).

regards

Little_D

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-24-2013, 16:46
Salute

Team Fusion Flight Modelling team quote for you:

"Flight Models are not perfect and they never will be."

We are dealing with a bugged game, using work arounds to solve the issues.

The E-4N is approx. 10mph/16kph faster than the Spit IIA at higher altitudes. It also outclimbs it by approx. 10-15%. It should be faster, and should outclimb it, perhaps not quite by this margin.

However, because of the issues with the game, and in particular the 109's, we have had to make compromises. All the 109's are a little low in their climbrates at lower altitudes, and a little high in their climbs at high alt. An E-4N will not have such an easy time down low.

The Spit IIA is probably the best modelled aircraft in the game currently, its performance is very close to the historical tests.

Flight modelling is a case of continual tweaking and improvement, nothing is set in stone. As our knowledge of the code improves, we expect to get closer to that elusive 'truth'.

PS

Took a Spit I 100 Octane (two pitch) up to 29,000 ft and forced (one at a time) what I have to assume was two lower E-4N's to run for the deck as I had alt when I attacked. All aircraft when positioned well tactically, have a chance.

Historically the German aircraft had higher ceilings. (exception: Spit IIA had higher ceiling than standard E-3/E-4) This formed the tactical pattern which held through much of the early to mid war, of the Germans attacking from altitude. Until the Spit IX arrived.

Osprey
Mar-24-2013, 19:57
It's late so I didn't read it all. Seems a lot of appeal for historical missions, trouble is that "everyone wants the Spitfire" (quoted from Morgan and Shacklady), even No.56 Squadron, whose historical ride was the Hurricane but they don't want to fly it :recon: If you try and ram the Hurricane down people's throats in a mission they just leave - sorry but that's what happens. Such a shame, a fantastic machine especially after the patch, you can really fight in it but people seem to have written it off.
In the SOW campaigns we have historical proportions and it actually works really really well but people are there for different reasons, a common objective, and in the 'dogfight' server (ie not Sunday from 7pm-9pm when the pw is off) the missions are historical, portray the large raids and have objectives for blue like 'escort these bombers or lose' (i just uploaded August 18th, 60+ bombers on one raid deep into England). The options are out there to make these missions, but if nobody is patient enough when they are running or minded to look at their own habits then you just end up with those low mid channel furballs and base strafing regardless and that's frustrating for mission maker who are aiming for something else.

LG1.Farber
Mar-24-2013, 20:10
Yup, true Osprey, I started flying Hurricane. It is not to be sniffed at. However i could only find 109 teachers when I started out. I prefer the E1 and the spit IIa is a serious concern for me.

501 and 615 squadron RAF get my respect for flying the Hurricane day in and day out.

Osprey
Mar-24-2013, 20:20
Man I remember this being discussed way back when.
+1 to all the suggestions. The only addon I would make is (and u may have implied this in point 3 Snapper) that a successful defence of a target from a bomber attack...ie say 60-70% of bombers taken down could count as a successfully completed objective. This would put an imperative on both sides to either attack or defend bomber formations as it has a direct effect on objective outcomes. Of course it means that in quiet times on the server there simply won't be the pilots available to mount a successful attack/defence. My (wet) dream would be to see 3 or 4 Spitties accompanying 6 or more Hurries up to attack a large, defended bomber formation.

Oh and of course there must be scripting to ensure that 109s stay at the same alt and speed as the bombers as per Goering's explicit order :huh:

I feel quite rude saying this on ATAG forums and I don't wish any disrespect but we have this kind of mission on ACG all the time. When No.64, No.501 and No.615 are at any reasonable strength we chuck 20 into a bomber stream at once. Just because it's you Torian, and I'm nice, I'll give you a shout when it's a good time and you can jump in with us for a mission :thumbsup:

Robo.
Mar-25-2013, 04:45
Oh I am not particularly interested in pilots tactics in here, of course initial advantage and its perseverance is the key no matter what you're flying, my comment was strictly regarding machine performance and I found the E-4/N enjoys considerable performance advantage as it should do. I was only replying on the 'quite close together bit'. I also enjoy high altitude fights and I don't see any problem - I understand the Fms are still matter of compromises but what we have is already so much better and enjoyable than what we used to have. No matter if you're after quick dogfight or large scale historical reenactment mission, everything is much more possible now with the planes closer to real life specs. :thumbsup:


Hi Robo,

sounds good :-) and sorry, but i cant tell you how i fight against Spit MK IIa at high alt :),
but had some fights at 9000m with Spit MK IIa and i was in a normal E4 and got the same result as i had in the E4/N, they could catch me, it takes longer to get distance and advantage back again than in a E4/N. and this happens not, because the E4 is as strong as the E4/N or the Spit MK IIa at 9000m. it is because of how i fight at high alt and how the reds fight at high alt. i had to learn this lesson and find a tactic/flyingstyle against the MK IIa at high alt, so as soonest red find out how to counter my tactic/flyingstyle, i have to think about something new :-). and i still have mutch to learn again for high alt fights, because i get to often under fire, forced down to deck, forced to run, etc. :-).

regards

Little_D

VO101_Kurfurst
Mar-27-2013, 06:16
No, wouldn't say that.

The E-4N is the overall best climbing aircraft at low/med/high alts.

E-3b/E-4b are a little faster than it on the deck with WEP

Huh? Doesn't make much sense to me given that the max power of both aircraft is exactly the same, 1175 PS on the deck...

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-27-2013, 19:42
Huh? Doesn't make much sense to me given that the max power of both aircraft is exactly the same, 1175 PS on the deck...

The game physics engine is not perfect. In fact we gave the 109E-4N hp based on the DB601N's 1270 PS peak at 2200 meters, more power than the DB601Aa in the E-4B, yet for whatever reason it is slightly slower at sea level. Both generate 1175 PS at sea level. The DB601N is approx. 25kg heavier than the DB601Aa.

Climb and speeds at higher altitudes are far superior and likely optimistic, since they exceed F2 speeds and climb.

There are no performance tests that we have that are available on the E-4N, we had to simply put in the numbers for hp and weight and see what we got.

If you'd like to provide original test documents, we'd be happy to see them.

Otherwise if you have a problem, we'd suggest you create your own mod.

Bounder!
Mar-27-2013, 22:03
I'm not a mission designer and so am happy whatever I get and love flying CLoD. In a perfect world for me there would be a bit of both - some missions with unrestricted plane sets like we have now and other missions that are have a more historical plane set typical of BoB.

Variety is the spice of life and along side what we have now, it would be great to have some missions with planesets that more reflect the Battle of Britain, namely many Hurricanes, limited Spit 1a 100 Octs vs E1, E3 and limited E4s, with twin engine bombers (edit: and Stuka's too!). I myself tend to fly the Spitfire on the server - this is because as I'm a member of a virtual Spitfire squadron and I practice with squad mates in Spits along side other squad mates who fly Hurricanes. I think a lot of us Spitfire types end up flying the 2a because the 1a 100 oct is quite outclassed by the E4 and E4N above 15,000ft. The 2a gives us a more equal footing and with unlimited numbers of E4s and E4Ns, people are going to pick the Spit 2a to compete and vice versa. As long as the best planes are unlimited, they will remain the popular fighters. I'd love to see some missions if possible without 2a's and E4Ns and see the Spit 1a 100 oct and 109E4 limited to historical proportions. This would give a nice variety to the missions in rotation. I think in general, if there were some missions on rotation with a more historical planeset it might naturally help encourage more to try/fly the Hurricane since the disparity between it and the 1a 100 oct at altitude isn't so great and so the advantages/disadvantages of the Hurricane 100 oct vs Spit 1a 100 oct stack better against each other. I used to love flying the Hurricane on the Dunkirk map which was nicely set up and balanced map and would love to see something like that again on ATAG.

disclaimer: obviously I am an idiot and my opinions are just my own, they should probably not be taken seriously, and please note I don don't speak for the rest of my squadmates (or anyone else)!

Cheers, Bounder

ATAG_Torian
Mar-28-2013, 01:18
I feel quite rude saying this on ATAG forums and I don't wish any disrespect but we have this kind of mission on ACG all the time. When No.64, No.501 and No.615 are at any reasonable strength we chuck 20 into a bomber stream at once. Just because it's you Torian, and I'm nice, I'll give you a shout when it's a good time and you can jump in with us for a mission :thumbsup:

That would nice Osprey. I'm sure there are a lot of pilots who prefer this sort of managed mission scenario. Unfortunately time zone differences prove to be a major barrier to joining in. There are times on the ATAG server when we get a great bunch of mature pilots on and spark up the bombers and get gr8 fighter escort coverage. These are the times I really live for and every1 seems to have gr8 job satisfaction. The ATAG server always has something to do. Even if evry1 on at the time is in the best fighter available you can still find a bomber formation to attack/defend. At those times I have rolled maps on my own in a Blenhiem as no one is defending objectives either. So u can still have fun but organised fun is so much more...well...fun.

Stigler
Mar-28-2013, 22:18
Concerning historical balance and availability.

Correct me if I am wrong, and links would be nice.

I do not question the RAF as having all front line fighter squadron stations and most all the others (Hurricane/Spitfire) stockpiled with 100 octane. I do question, (based on the arguments I have read between publishers on this subject on what percent of the squadrons were converted for the 100 Octane use. I do not agree in March that 100% were converted for 100 octane use, hence limited boost for those not converted, and from what I have read, it may be possible that in the first couple weeks of June, not 100% of frontline squadrons were fully converted. Props upgraded 100% yes. They also warned against not using the +12 boost except in emergencies for the first couple weeks of June.

The problem I see is that the +12 Boost is easily exploited in the game vs its use in RL, IE using on climbout, using it whenever more speed or climb is wanted out of combat ect.... which is not really historical as any time RAF used it it had to be logged so engines could have a more thorough check.

As it stands there were some 110 w/ N engines but not in many numbers so we dont have access to them.

I would like to see the % of each limit on the server if they could institute something for it. Based on the map/time reflected. So that not so much the numbers pulled, but the amount of each percent being flown at any one time can be server controlled.

Salmo
Mar-29-2013, 06:53
I would like to see the % of each limit on the server if TF institutes something for it. Based on the map/time reflected. So that not so much the numbers pulled, but the amount of each percent being flown at any one time can be server controlled.

TF is working to fix game bugs & improve game performance & features. We are not involved in server-side plane number limits. Plane numbers can be controlled by the mission builder using scripts.

Stigler
Mar-29-2013, 08:06
TF is working to fix game bugs & improve game performance & features. We are not involved in server-side plane number limits. Plane numbers can be controlled by the mission builder using scripts.

I realize the mission builder and scripts are used for plane number limits, I mistakenly interpreted a prior post that had me thinking more features / options might be made available down the road for the mission builder.

Even if they could control the percentages in the air at any given time, people would probably just sit and wait for someone to die so they could get the better plane. With the IIa and the E-4/N, and everyone dogfighting, even with objectives, it doesnt sound like the broken AI Gunner bombers, unless flown by organized group with player escort stand much of a chance still.

Flying full switch Spit vs 109 or Wildcat vs Zeke or SOV was a much more survivable experience and rewarding as your bombing stats were all tracked. I just finished tweaking my settings and running black death track 40 times till everything was running good and tried out the new FM's, suppose I will just see how quickly I become fodder online.

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-29-2013, 09:45
Hi Stigler,

I admit, speaking as a virtual Spitfire 1A/2a pilot, I was a little puzzled by your references about "exploiting the 12 lbs boost" and the requirement for Real Pilots to log the use it upon returning from the mission. To avoid overheating the Merlin, I use it very sparingly or not at all -- glycol temps rise alarmingly fast with its use, with oil following closely at the higher rpms where 12 lbs boost is most effective. In short -- mainly to save my skin.

The 2a is getting an unfair rap here. Yes, it's effective against high-flying bombers above 15 angels and their escort. Against human-flown LW bombers that are attacking the designated mission targets, the Spitfire 1a 100 octane is definitely the bad boy below 15 angels where the majority of them operate. Tactics, such as never flying through the high-traffic areas bounded by Dunkirk and Point Gris Nez to the east, and Ramsgate and Dungeness to the west will increase a bomber pilot's survivability immensely -- which I'm sure you're aware. The 110's and Ju88's are fast, from a Spitfire/Hurricane's perspective. Flown expertly to follow the landscape contours and approaching from unexpected routes frequently have us RAF pilots scratching our heads as we see the server announcing successive targets destroyed. Frequently sweeps of 109's and 110's are sent in ahead to effectively distract us and take what few RAF fighters are actually capping away from the target area. I'm sure the Blue bomber pilots here can give a far more detailed perspective that they may not wish to disclose here.

So, if you fly a LW bomber straight across the Channel in broad daylight, at any altitude, you're very likely to be intercepted. And I may use 12 lbs boost to overtake you before any 109's can intervene. In fact, the 109's are likely to use WEP if they see me coming to more quickly stop ME!

I can only suggest you jump on Teamspeak and confer with fellow Blue bomber and fighter pilots and see for yourself first hand how things actually go.

-Sven-
Mar-29-2013, 11:52
I haven't flown the E4N yet so I can't comment or their role in the servers.

Often I split my sorties into bomber and fighter activities. I would fly the Stuka more if I could get some decent cover but whenever I broadcast on the chatbar I'm loitering Calais nobody shows up :(
And getting shot down in a Stuka is pretty likely without cover. The Ju-88 can handle more on it's own, but it's not my favourite ride :)

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-29-2013, 12:32
. I would fly the Stuka more if I could get some decent cover but whenever I broadcast on the chatbar I'm :)

Chatbar! - avoid it - unless you're just messing about.
Some people don't even have the chat bar showing. Other times, the messages scroll so fast you don't see them. People don't resound to the chat bar as readily as you need for tactical support.

Get on teamspeak. Seriously.

Teamspeak.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-29-2013, 13:12
Salute

Historically Stukas were withdrawn from the battle after August 18th because they were suffering too high losses, even with heavy escort. Without escort, they were completely helpless.

The Stuka is a very accurate dive bomber, which can place its bombs on target more precisely than any other aircraft in the planeset, except perhaps a Ju-88 divebombing, but it is slow and has poor defensive armament.

If a group of Stukas, ie. 2-3, was escorted by 5-6 109's, they would have a decent chance of getting to their target, doing serious damage, and escaping. Single unescorted Stukas are basically dead meat on the table.

6./JG26_Warjunkie
Mar-30-2013, 11:50
To me it honestly feels quite balanced right now.
I think also, and when we get an E4 / N of TF given, we want to fly them too.

Osprey
Apr-05-2013, 07:21
That would nice Osprey. I'm sure there are a lot of pilots who prefer this sort of managed mission scenario. Unfortunately time zone differences prove to be a major barrier to joining in. There are times on the ATAG server when we get a great bunch of mature pilots on and spark up the bombers and get gr8 fighter escort coverage. These are the times I really live for and every1 seems to have gr8 job satisfaction. The ATAG server always has something to do. Even if evry1 on at the time is in the best fighter available you can still find a bomber formation to attack/defend. At those times I have rolled maps on my own in a Blenhiem as no one is defending objectives either. So u can still have fun but organised fun is so much more...well...fun.

Ah I didn't see your timezone there. Yes that is a problem, for some reason only mainly Europe migrated from 1946 to COD giving the peak numbers in the eurozone. I guess you often have little choice if you want humans in the server. :(

Osprey
Apr-05-2013, 07:28
Concerning historical balance and availability.

Correct me if I am wrong, and links would be nice.

I do not question the RAF as having all front line fighter squadron stations and most all the others (Hurricane/Spitfire) stockpiled with 100 octane. I do question, (based on the arguments I have read between publishers on this subject on what percent of the squadrons were converted for the 100 Octane use. I do not agree in March that 100% were converted for 100 octane use, hence limited boost for those not converted, and from what I have read, it may be possible that in the first couple weeks of June, not 100% of frontline squadrons were fully converted. Props upgraded 100% yes. They also warned against not using the +12 boost except in emergencies for the first couple weeks of June.

The problem I see is that the +12 Boost is easily exploited in the game vs its use in RL, IE using on climbout, using it whenever more speed or climb is wanted out of combat ect.... which is not really historical as any time RAF used it it had to be logged so engines could have a more thorough check.

As it stands there were some 110 w/ N engines but not in many numbers so we dont have access to them.

I would like to see the % of each limit on the server if they could institute something for it. Based on the map/time reflected. So that not so much the numbers pulled, but the amount of each percent being flown at any one time can be server controlled.

The BoB did not start until July, the channel map does not cover the Fall of France area properly. 100 octane Rotol Hurricanes were in France, I suspect early on there would have been 2 stage 87 octane ones as well but no Spitfires until cover was required for Dunkirk, and these were of the 100 octane CSP type too.

Your main issue is the ratio of Spitfires to Hurricanes online. It was about 2/3rds Hurricane, but online it is 9/10ths Spitfire. I do find it amusing though that the Hurricane is so under-rated by both sides, I imagine quite a few shot down 109 pilots claiming to their online buddies that it was a Spitfire which got them ;)

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-05-2013, 08:01
Although I have no data to support this, my overall impression online is that it's largely very experienced pilots that are flying Hurricanes, perhaps in a higher ratio than us numerous Spittie pilots. All to say that online the Hurri pilots may be less apt to make a fatal mistake in a dogfight.....

ATAG_Torian
Apr-05-2013, 08:37
Been flying the Hurricane 100 oct Rotol a bit lately and I gotta agree it's been underrated. I've narrowed my convergence to 250 yards and now load up with 50-50 AP and white incendiary. The closer gun positioning on the Hurricane really seems to rip into bombers more efficiently than the Spits wider spaced guns....just my impression. Performs better than I expected up at 20,000ft too. Have avoided trying to dogfight (tearing thru bomber formations is so much more satisfying) but any 109 flying thru that gun arc is gonna be in a world of hurt real qwik.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-05-2013, 09:01
Been flying the Hurricane 100 oct Rotol a bit lately and I gotta agree it's been underrated. I've narrowed my convergence to 250 yards and now load up with 50-50 AP and white incendiary. The closer gun positioning on the Hurricane really seems to rip into bombers more efficiently than the Spits wider spaced guns....just my impression. Performs better than I expected up at 20,000ft too. Have avoided trying to dogfight (tearing thru bomber formations is so much more satisfying) but any 109 flying thru that gun arc is gonna be in a world of hurt real qwik.

:thumbsup: :)

With the bomber AI gunners being so deadly now, I try to dive in from abeam at high speed and line up three bombers to slide through my gunsight on each pass. I'm not always successful (ie skillful), but my survivability goes up, at least. :D

Osprey
Apr-06-2013, 06:25
Although I have no data to support this, my overall impression online is that it's largely very experienced pilots that are flying Hurricanes, perhaps in a higher ratio than us numerous Spittie pilots. All to say that online the Hurri pilots may be less apt to make a fatal mistake in a dogfight.....

I think you are right Snapper, I am definitely an old lag but a lot of the chaps in our Hurricane squadrons are former Spit pilots whom I've persuaded to try the Hurricane and they've been impressed. These are often more green chaps but they are surrounded by old lags to support them. The Hurricane is more challenging but perfectly able to score very highly, essentially the same skills work in both types anyway. And Torian is correct, as a gun platform the Hurricane is superior to the Spitfire, just about. Any 109 which misses or miss-times their attack is in very serious danger and I've had no problem catching out 109's which are lower, distracted or not running at their best speeds. It can also be a tough beast and take a lot of punishment if the right systems are not hit.

Hurricane pilots and those wanting to try the Hurricane contact me please ;)

Gromit
Apr-12-2013, 11:57
Hurricane is definatly for the conniseur, it has virtues but it also has vices, the performance difference between a 109n and the Hurri is huge, they can dive down slow up to your speed then climb away at an alarming rate and angle waay above you whilst you can't pick your nose up without stalling, this dramatically limits your options in an engagement, and if your caught low you can do nothing to convert to the offence, you just have these guys shut the throttle , swoop then power up and zoom back up a couple of thousand feet, the acceleration and climb seem excessive from low speeds.

the danger is the more people fly the 109N the fewer will fly the Hurri , unless your like me and stubborn enough to keep plugging away!

having said that, whats the chance of getting a lewis gun mounted on the top wing of a tiger moth?:-)

LG1.Farber
Apr-12-2013, 13:09
Dont all aircraft have pros and cons? The more people who fly the E4/N, the more people fly the Spit IIa... - and vice versa, lets not forget this works both ways. Which means I dont have much fun on ATAG because I like flying the E1. On Storm of War server the plane sets are more historical to certain points of the battle, so in Dunkirk you might get the early stuff and by June and August you get the appropriate more advance aircraft but not the Spit IIa and E4/n. Moving through the plansets is allot more fun.

However when I do fly on ATAG I find myself quite fond of the E4/B, ground attack and low alt hi performance works well. Not such a fan of the cannons but you cant have everything...

Gromit
Apr-12-2013, 14:14
There certainly are pro's and conns, but, if you want the game to reflect the original events your not going to achieve that if the planeset makes certain aircraft impotent!

Gamers have a nasty habit (especially when there's stats to keep up) of only flying the very best available flight model, it then turns into a 2 plane race, by limiting the numbers of available aircraft you then open up the possibility of variation in the planesets, it's not such an issue to fly an E1 or a Hurricane if you know there are numbers of lower spec aircraft out there to engage with, but if everyone flies the very best flight model the lower spec aircraft become untenable to all but the most dedicated!

I'm not shouting for plane limitations as such, I'm just saying there are considerations that need to be taken into account if we are to see the variety of aircraft that the game provides!

LG1.Farber
Apr-13-2013, 04:49
I totally agree. One of the best ways to experience this is in "online wars" and campaigns which have limited resources and if you fly it to the limit and leave it in the ocean you wont have one next week! :D

Macro
Apr-22-2013, 13:25
yes I really like flying the spit1 (100 oct) 2 stage prop but its hard against the e4n especially at alt.

I would love to see the missions restrict the planes to early/mid and late battles with the different planesets. vary it up a bit

I dont get why people stat whore, they dont mean anything.

Foul Ole Ron
May-02-2013, 15:50
Dont all aircraft have pros and cons? The more people who fly the E4/N, the more people fly the Spit IIa... - and vice versa, lets not forget this works both ways. Which means I dont have much fun on ATAG because I like flying the E1.

I don't think this is true actually. Although I don't have access to the stats I check the front page fairly often and in the mission where the E4/N & Spit IIa is available the E4/N is selected significantly more as a % of blue pilots compared to the % of Spit IIas chosen by red pilots. Right now it's 12/30 (40%) for Spit IIa compared to 19/27 (70%) for E4/N. This is common. Personally I think that even a 50% server limit would be a step in the right direction.

Talisman
May-03-2013, 10:19
yes I really like flying the spit1 (100 oct) 2 stage prop but its hard against the e4n especially at alt.

I would love to see the missions restrict the planes to early/mid and late battles with the different planesets. vary it up a bit

I dont get why people stat whore, they dont mean anything.

2 stage prop was replaced with Rotol prop on front line as a matter of urgency for start of Battle of Britain and was available for late Battle of France (as was 100 octane fuel) as far as I understand.

Cannot understand why we have the latest new map on ATAG that is not historical as it does not provide a Spit with Rotol prop and 100 octane fuel (Spit 1a 100 octane) but does have the Hurricane with Rotal prop and 100 octane fuel. Sometimes the map makers seem to make plane set decisions that are at odds with history and a great puzzle. For example, the same new map also has large formations of Condor bombers. I thought that the Condor was anti-shipping (low level) and did not fly in large formations, however on the latest map we have Condors in large formations at alt flying over the South of England!

Talisman
May-03-2013, 11:03
We have to be careful when talking about limiting planes to their historical numbers. If that were the case more than half the red side would have to fly Hurricanes. :thumbsup:

Yes, the control of the historic BoB ratio of aircraft might not be popular. For example, the LW had more bombers than fighters. The ratio of LW bombers to LW fighters would mean that more LW planes should be bombers than fighters on a BoB map. Most of the planes that the RAF meet should be bombers and most of the planes that the LW meet should be RAF fighters.
RAF Fighter Command was always outnumbered, but had the advantage of a number of force multipliers that are not replicated in CloD.

-Sven-
May-03-2013, 11:57
Yes, the control of the historic BoB ratio of aircraft might not be popular. For example, the LW had more bombers than fighters. The ratio of LW bombers to LW fighters would mean that more LW planes should be bombers than fighters on a BoB map. Most of the planes that the RAF meet should be bombers and most of the planes that the LW meet should be RAF fighters.
RAF Fighter Command was always outnumbered, but had the advantage of a number of force multipliers that are not replicated in CloD.

If only roughly 50 % of blue is allowed to fly fighters, they will face 100 % fighter opposition, how true is this to reality? I thought the number of fighter planes was pretty even.

I think the situation right now is pretty representative, a lot of AI bombers, yet retaining the Luftwaffe's fighter arm since were limited to 100 players in the server.


Your suggestion would work out okay if the number of slots in the server are also divided historically, is this what you mean?

Bear Pilot
May-03-2013, 15:32
Actually as Talisman said the RAF was always outnumbered. It was common practice for the Luftwaffe to send twice as many fighters as bombers. Facing a raid of 50 bombers escorted by 100 fighters was just another day in the office for RAF pilots in the mid August to early September stage of the battle. Most 11 Group pilots averaged about 6 sorties a day of course they didn't always intercept raids before bombs away or at all.

ATAG_NakedSquirrel
May-03-2013, 19:05
having said that, whats the chance of getting a lewis gun mounted on the top wing of a tiger moth?:-)

No, the tiger moth is already too OP.

Its FM has already come into question hundreds of times on numerous forums. Increasing its armament would only add fuel to the fire.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-03-2013, 20:29
No, the tiger moth is already too OP.
.

There's a reason it's called the uebermoth.

Talisman
May-04-2013, 12:45
If only roughly 50 % of blue is allowed to fly fighters, they will face 100 % fighter opposition, how true is this to reality? I thought the number of fighter planes was pretty even.

I think the situation right now is pretty representative, a lot of AI bombers, yet retaining the Luftwaffe's fighter arm since were limited to 100 players in the server.


Your suggestion would work out okay if the number of slots in the server are also divided historically, is this what you mean?

Hi Sven,

The Battle of Britain was not the first major battle to be fought entirely in the air, as the British mainland had already suffered a campaign of attacks by Zeppelins and long range bombers during World War I. However, the battle was the largest and most sustained bombing campaign yet attempted and the first real test of the strategic bombing theories that had emerged since the previous World War. So when you say above "a lot of AI bombers" I have to say that far too many are red when they should be blue! So I do not agree with you that the situation right now is pretty representative. Do you still think it is representative after reading this post?
Britain was defending and was not equipped for or attempting a sustained bombing campaign. What RAF Bomber Command sorties there were took place more often under cover of darkness or poor weather, were few in number compared to Fighter Command sorties of the time and had little or no effect on the outcome of the BoB. RAF Fighter Command was the fighting force of the Battle of Britain on the British side and it was RAF Fighter Command that the LW was attempting to destroy in a sustained attack. By the way, I was not making a suggesting, but was pointing out that too much attention to the ratio of aircraft types might not be popular with red or blue players and that to 'cherry pick' an aircraft ratio without considering the whole picture might not be very fair.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Roblex
May-06-2013, 05:05
I hesitate to contradict my own C/O but...

While Talisman is 100% correct in saying that British bombers should be a negligible factor in a BoB *recreation* or even removed completely, COD is at heart here for our entertainment and adjustments have to be made to keep the players coming back. I have been flying online combat flight sims since Air Warrior was wire-frame and I still suck at dogfighting and single engine tactics, as Talisman saw last night :-). Given a choice I would rather be in a Mossie or a Lanc, though a Beaufighter, Beaufort or Welly would be OK. Technically the Beaufighters and Beauforts did not really start anti-shipping and bombing operations until the BoB was pretty much over but as we already have beaufighters in the game it would be lovely to be able to use them :)

On the other hand, Team Fusion getting a the beaus or wellies flyable is probably a long way down the line and I don't often fly the Blenny because it is so stupid to expect the pilot to leave the controls during a bombing run and hope it stays level without any autopilot while the pilot operates the bombsight so maybe I should just bite the bullet and start flying Blue bombers when not on a squad night (and to be fair Talisman does frequently suggest we fly Blue on squad nights)

Gromit
May-06-2013, 07:17
moved to a more appropriate thread.

Talisman
May-06-2013, 08:22
I hesitate to contradict my own C/O but...

While Talisman is 100% correct in saying that British bombers should be a negligible factor in a BoB *recreation* or even removed completely, COD is at heart here for our entertainment and adjustments have to be made to keep the players coming back. I have been flying online combat flight sims since Air Warrior was wire-frame and I still suck at dogfighting and single engine tactics, as Talisman saw last night :-). Given a choice I would rather be in a Mossie or a Lanc, though a Beaufighter, Beaufort or Welly would be OK. Technically the Beaufighters and Beauforts did not really start anti-shipping and bombing operations until the BoB was pretty much over but as we already have beaufighters in the game it would be lovely to be able to use them :)

On the other hand, Team Fusion getting a the beaus or wellies flyable is probably a long way down the line and I don't often fly the Blenny because it is so stupid to expect the pilot to leave the controls during a bombing run and hope it stays level without any autopilot while the pilot operates the bombsight so maybe I should just bite the bullet and start flying Blue bombers when not on a squad night (and to be fair Talisman does frequently suggest we fly Blue on squad nights)

I fully support human red bomber pilots and enjoy flying the Blenny myself on historical type missions. It is the large numbers of red AI bomber formations that map makers seem intent on using that I find detract from the historical situation and dilute the potential for some really good ding-dong BoB style air battles involving LW fighters and bombers and RAF fighters. I used to like to fly the Blenny to attack shipping on the early morning mission map that was sadly taken off the roster. Human bomber pilot historical sortie types is all we need to represent red bomber action for the BoB timeline. It is blue AI bombers that we need in extra numbers, not red, to supplement blue human bomber pilots in order to come anywhere near to representing the BoB timeline.

Roblex
May-07-2013, 02:59
I wonder sometimes if the emphasis should be on Blue targets that need large numbers of AI bombers to take them down.

For example, the Blues need to close Biggin Hill and to do that need to get 12 full bombloads on the field which is a tall order for human bombers alone. If six high alt AI bombers head out every 30 minutes (each raid from a different direction) then the Reds have more reason to target the bombers as a priority and the Blues have more reason to defend the bombers as a priority. Human bomber pilots can hit the target too but they are not going to be the main threat any more and unlikely to close the map themselves, though their extra help could be the straw that breaks the red camels back.
As an alternative to sheer 'tonnage of bombs' maybe the targets could be widely distributed in a certain area, eg warehouses in the East End docks, so that carpet bombing is unlikely to get them all in one raid but the more bombers get through the more likely it is that the remaining targets get hit plus human pilots get a chance to finish it off with precision bombing.

This way we get away from a few sneak attacks in fighter bombers closing the map while everyone dogfights and instead get red fighters concentrating on the bombers while the blue fighters try to keep the bombers alive. Currently red fighters do attack AI bombers but only for a easy kills and the blues only occasionally defend them for the chance to get fighters kills, they have no reason to care if the bombers survive as they are just bait.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-07-2013, 07:07
I wonder sometimes if the emphasis should be on Blue targets that need large numbers of AI bombers to take them down.
.

Endorsed!

Somehow, there must be a way of building targets that require carpet-style bombing.

Salmo, I think, is aware of a script that requires a certain tonnage to be dropped over a specific area for an objective to be destroyed.
Why not assign such values to, say 5 airfields across Kent and East Sussex?

Also, drop the Red A.I bomber flights. Red can still have ground targets in France to attack, but they should be there just for the humans who want to go after them.

-Sven-
May-07-2013, 08:46
I wonder sometimes if the emphasis should be on Blue targets that need large numbers of AI bombers to take them down.

For example, the Blues need to close Biggin Hill and to do that need to get 12 full bombloads on the field which is a tall order for human bombers alone. If six high alt AI bombers head out every 30 minutes (each raid from a different direction) then the Reds have more reason to target the bombers as a priority and the Blues have more reason to defend the bombers as a priority. Human bomber pilots can hit the target too but they are not going to be the main threat any more and unlikely to close the map themselves, though their extra help could be the straw that breaks the red camels back.
As an alternative to sheer 'tonnage of bombs' maybe the targets could be widely distributed in a certain area, eg warehouses in the East End docks, so that carpet bombing is unlikely to get them all in one raid but the more bombers get through the more likely it is that the remaining targets get hit plus human pilots get a chance to finish it off with precision bombing.

This way we get away from a few sneak attacks in fighter bombers closing the map while everyone dogfights and instead get red fighters concentrating on the bombers while the blue fighters try to keep the bombers alive. Currently red fighters do attack AI bombers but only for a easy kills and the blues only occasionally defend them for the chance to get fighters kills, they have no reason to care if the bombers survive as they are just bait.

This would result in less blue bomber pilots flying because it won't matter to them if only AI can destroy a target effectively, and forming up an effective human flown formation is just too hard, and not worth anyone's time. If there's only a few of these AI 'only' ( realistically speaking) deep in-land targets then it wouldn't draw away too many blue human bombers, because there would still be 'one-run' targets present good for a Ju-88 or Heinkel.

This raises another point, as blue fighters like to stick to the English coastline for obvious reasons they also prefer to cover human flown bombers/Jabos (Jagdbomber). And I predict that any AI flight heading deep in land will not be covered by blue fighters, the result would still be a red paradise for the largest part of the mission. Only when the blues will notice there's still this big target up they might bother flying such a distance in essentially a dogfight server.

It's really hard to figure out a way which pleases every side of this server, but bomber pilots shouldn't be getting the largest burden on top of their vulnerable existence in this server.


I do have one suggestion which should help prevent this easy strafing of targets: more effective light flak and/or machine guns on airfields, now they can shoot up to ~4km height, which is rediculously high, limit that to about 1.5/2.0km and you'll see more heavy bombers and less Jabos.

Gromit
May-07-2013, 09:23
then remove the Bf109b or limit it to the single bomb, because at the moment there's no real benefit to flying a bf110 or Ju88 when a bf109 can destroy four ships then go off to dogfight!

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-07-2013, 09:30
then remove the Bf109b or limit it to the single bomb, because at the moment there's no real benefit to flying a bf110 or Ju88 when a bf109 can destroy four ships then go off to dogfight!

True. Why bother with the 88 the 111 or any other blue bomber?**They are significantly slower, and no more capable of destroying targets (possibly less capable) than the 109b variants.

The medium bombers will only show their true worth when the targets require more tonnage.


** The only reason I can think of is for an extra challenge - kinda like lying the hurri eh Gromit?.

Talisman
May-07-2013, 11:10
This would result in less blue bomber pilots flying because it won't matter to them if only AI can destroy a target effectively, and forming up an effective human flown formation is just too hard, and not worth anyone's time. If there's only a few of these AI 'only' ( realistically speaking) deep in-land targets then it wouldn't draw away too many blue human bombers, because there would still be 'one-run' targets present good for a Ju-88 or Heinkel.

This raises another point, as blue fighters like to stick to the English coastline for obvious reasons they also prefer to cover human flown bombers/Jabos (Jagdbomber). And I predict that any AI flight heading deep in land will not be covered by blue fighters, the result would still be a red paradise for the largest part of the mission. Only when the blues will notice there's still this big target up they might bother flying such a distance in essentially a dogfight server.

It's really hard to figure out a way which pleases every side of this server, but bomber pilots shouldn't be getting the largest burden on top of their vulnerable existence in this server.


I do have one suggestion which should help prevent this easy strafing of targets: more effective light flak and/or machine guns on airfields, now they can shoot up to ~4km height, which is rediculously high, limit that to about 1.5/2.0km and you'll see more heavy bombers and less Jabos.

Sven,

Just one map, just one, that is all. No one is saying that other maps must go. Just one map in the rotation to try and give a more historical scenario and the chance for some great aerial BoB style action. Would you have all maps the same? I would enjoy an air start in a He 111 with a large AI and human mix bomber formation heading for England. Just being a gunner could be great fun, let alone pilot. Your fighter mates escorting you, lots of bomber mates and the RAF about to pounce! Use your imagination; where there is a will there is a way. I would fully expect blue to win such a map most of the time anyway because of the limitations in CloD. I am willing to bet that most pilots don't mind too much who wins a map, it is the aerial action that counts. Just surviving can be fun at times, like when you have been in the thick of the action and just make it back to home base with your aircraft shot up.
I do hope it can be done. Think positive.

Happy landings,

Talisman

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-07-2013, 11:52
I am willing to bet that most pilots don't mind too much who wins a map, it is the aerial action that counts.

Agreed. I don't give much thought to winning the map.

What I care about is how the mission feels. Is it exciting, what kind of scenario does it create?
Is each mission/ map different from the last? Is there any unpredictability to it?

I do think that map makers should try an Target a 3-4 hour period for winning it. This means 3 to 4 hours of fairly hard work from a fairly full server. 3 ground targets can be polished off by 6 Blenheims in a single attack. We rolled a map the other night in 25 minutes..

If maps were more of a tactical and skill challenge, Id be trying my damnedest to win them more often.

III./ZG76_Saipan
May-07-2013, 13:39
Agreed. I don't give much thought to winning the map.

What I care about is how the mission feels. Is it exciting, what kind of scenario does it create?
Is each mission/ map different from the last? Is there any unpredictability to it?

I do think that map makers should try an Target a 3-4 hour period for winning it. This means 3 to 4 hours of fairly hard work from a fairly full server. 3 ground targets can be polished off by 6 Blenheims in a single attack. We rolled a map the other night in 25 minutes..

If maps were more of a tactical and skill challenge, Id be trying my damnedest to win them more often.


so whats the point of a map then if you don't want to do the objectives? if all you want is a dogfighting just have airspawns and open water.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-07-2013, 13:50
so whats the point of a map then if you don't want to do the objectives?

I don't know what the point is for those people. I am unable to speak on their behalf.


if all you want is a dogfighting just have airspawns and open water.

I think you might mean "if all you want is a dogfight with air spawns and open water, then just have air spawns and open water"

Roblex
May-07-2013, 14:41
This would result in less blue bomber pilots flying because it won't matter to them if only AI can destroy a target effectively

I don't think this would be the case as AI bombers will not manage to get *all* the targets, just the majority so there would be a need for some precision bombers to sneak in and get the ones they missed (or waste time waiting for several AI raids to get them all by the law of averages).


If there's only a few of these AI 'only' ( realistically speaking) deep in-land targets then it wouldn't draw away too many blue human bombers, because there would still be 'one-run' targets present good for a Ju-88 or Heinkel.

I was not saying take away all the other targets but I still think the other targets should need 111s & 88s and not be doable with 109s.


And I predict that any AI flight heading deep in land will not be covered by blue fighters, the result would still be a red paradise for the largest part of the mission.

1. There is no need to have targets too far inland for 109s to escort but equally there us no need to put them on the coast just because some pilots are too lazy to go further than Hawkinge.

2. Red Paradise? We already have waves of blue AI bombers being destroyed before they leave French Point because Blue has no reason to defend them.


Only when the blues will notice there's still this big target up they might bother flying such a distance in essentially a dogfight server.

1. Yes, Blue deciding to escort the AI bombers because it is the only way to finish the map now they can't do it it 109s is the whole point.

2. We already have 'essentially a dogfight server', this just adds another dimension.

As previously stated, we are only suggesting one map in the rotation to simulate the actual situation in the BoB ie RAF trying to stop the bombers getting through while the LW tries to keep them alive. Of course even in real life there were pilots who did not care if the bombers reached their targets as long as they got a chance to shoot some down as they returned :-)

III./ZG76_Saipan
May-07-2013, 15:05
I don't know what the point is for those people. I am unable to speak on their behalf.



I think you might mean "if all you want is a dogfight with air spawns and open water, then just have air spawns and open water"

no, not at all. if you are not interested in winning the map( which you have stated ), ie completing the objectives and only interested in dog fighting ( your choice ), then all you need is an air spawn over open water. what statics are on the map or what the objectives are is meaningless. why should a map maker spend time scripting and testing when nobody even bothers.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-07-2013, 15:10
no, not at all. if you are not interested in winning the map( which you have stated ), .

Which I did not state.

Reading Skills: Must do better.

III./ZG76_Saipan
May-07-2013, 17:06
post 113? looks like it.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-07-2013, 17:33
post 113? looks like it.

I despair of this....

Dutch
May-07-2013, 20:26
No disrespect Saipan, but you're making this place look like the banana place. You're arguing with Phil for argument's sake.

About a year ago, i flew the Blenheim pretty exclusively. That was because I was unhappy with the RAF Fighter FMs. When I flew the Blennie, all that mattered was achieving the objectives and winning the round.

Then I realised that people now considered me a 'Bomber Pilot', so I changed back, and since TF have sorted out the fighters, I think I'm almost back in the saddle (and not doing very well, by the way), but when I take off in my RAF fighter, I am no longer considering the objective of 'winning the map'. I spend my time assessing the aircraft, my ability, the aircraft's performance against an adversary, thinking 'is this how it was?'

So, I agree with Phil. As a fighter pilot, he doesn't give a flying fandango what RAF Bomber Command are doing to win the map. As a consequence of the arguments of the last two years, the emphasis has been placed far too heavily on fighter vs fighter performance.

We as RAF fighter pilots should be spending our time defending our airfields, our factories, our homes. But we don't. We just want to know how good we are against another chap in another aircraft. And more importantly, 'How does this Spit II stack up against the E4/N?'

It's early days mate, very early days. :thumbsup:

ATAG_Snapper
May-08-2013, 10:00
Philstyle's OP on numbers of aircraft restricted according to historical availability has been thoroughly discussed in an overall excellent thread with lots of member participation and information provided. It's starting on a downward spiral, so this is the best point to move on to new issues.

Thanks, PhilStyle, for initiating this discussion, and thanks to all for your contributions to this lively thread.

:)