View Full Version : Gameplay (redux) - if the mods don't mind.....
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-03-2013, 06:34
I know Snapper closed the original thread because it became the old BvR dog's breakfast. But there are just one or two important things Wulf said that I think merit some thoughtful response, despite the attempts of some to go offtrack with the conversation.
My response mainly stems from this comment:
I've seldom heard expressions of such abject defeatism! There "isn't enough ammo, I can't dive fast enough, I can never catch the 109s, I've got a sore knee and a letter from me Mum" etc etc" This is just downright pathetic!
I want to point out, that it's important for readers to recognize the difference between explanations and complaints.
I'd like to see Wulf actually address the content and the flavor of the responses to his original questions, rather than jump to the apparently exaggerated and straw-man comparisons he has made in his reply. My reading of the thread makes is abundantly clear that the single greatest contributing factor as to why the "reds" (TM) don't climb up to Wulf's desired altitude in order to fight him is the following;
- Why should the RAF bother?
There are plenty of targets down low to shoot at, often right near our spawn locations. There's simply no need (based on mission objectives, or based on "entertainment") to climb up to 25,000ft. We don't play this game in order to establish air superiority for the sake of His Majesty, or to deplete the Luftwaffe strength over time as part of some grand strategic war of attrition (in which circumstances intercepting and escorting high/medium altitude bomber formations makes perfect sense). We play it for fun.
Fun determines the tactics, not strategic or operational requirements of the historical period. For some, "fun" dictates quick action, soon after take off (low level fights near the ground targets). For others, "fun" dictates bee-lining it for the place they know will provide quick action (Hawkinge), for others, fun dictates waiting at Calais to smack down Luftwaffe bombers, for others fun dictates jumping in a Blennie, or escorting a Blennie at low level to enemy ground targets.
For the remaining few (maybe 5% of the flying population) fun means climbing up and escorting the bombers. Once you factor in all the other various factors that influence how effectively the bombers can be found and supported, then you might get an escort rate of around 1%.
The "pathetic" excuses (identified in Wulf's words) were mainly offered in support, showing why, tactically, it makes better sense often for the red aircraft to stay down low. They are not the main contributor to the discussion, and for Wulf to insinuate that they were driving the conversation is unfair.
That all said, my personal opinion is to enjoy the high-altitude dogfights. However, time is limited. A single sorties climbing up and hunting at 25,000ft can easily use up 45 minutes, and the risk of not contacting is significantly higher than charging down to Hawkinge at 3,000ft.
I spent plenty of sorties flying up and down the channel at 25,000ft. It gets boring real quick.
The minute I drop down to 10,000ft suddenly I'm in the action.....
ATAG_Snapper
Jun-03-2013, 07:16
OK, let's give it a try. I received a PM earlier with a similar POV, and I told that member that the other thread would, regretfully, remain closed.
Discussion is good, but only if members remain respectful to fellow members. Any note of derision or sarcasm and the discussion will be over.
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-03-2013, 08:13
Thanks Snapper for having the generosity for allowing us to try again.
As an aisde, I just jumped online and flew escort with 2 other spitfires for a bunch of Blenheims.
We knocked down two 109s which were trying to intercept, at the cost of 2 Blenheims and 0 spitfires.
Both 109s made it home by the way; despite being severely damaged, which is partly the benefit of fighting at high altitude, you can dive away. The "kills" of these 109s were, however, awarded on de-spawn, so they must have been sufficiently damaged for the computer to think they were destroyed.
However, in the 35 minutes it took us to climb, form up and escort the bombers over, blue destroyed all our ground targets and the mission ended. So escorting bobmers can be detrimental to the mission objectives.
Protecting ground targets is what the missions are based on. Escorting bombers is not.
Injerin
Jun-03-2013, 10:42
Good Post P-style.
On the other hand, I believe that we can never re-create history due to the constraints of game mechanics ect. There are pro's and con's on both sides. I think this whole discussion is pointless due to the FACT that people are going to play to there strengths no matter what, and or to there flying preference.
ATAG_Snapper
Jun-03-2013, 14:14
There are some things that can be done to encourage the fight to go higher by way of mission design, I think. As discussed elsewhere, have high-flying AI LW bombers that are hitting targets that actually affect gameplay and winning the map. RAF airfields come to mind. These RAF airfields can and will be knocked out by repeated AI bombings. Human-flown Blue bombers can hasten the process. For Blues to win the map, all (or most -- whatever the mission designer finds works the best) of the RAF airfields must be knocked out. For Reds to win the map a certain percentage of airfields must remain operational by mission's end. To encourage Red Blenheim human fliers, perhaps some key targets (LW airfields?) could be knocked out to hamper the LW's efforts. Each RAF airfield knocked out results in lost spawn points for RAF pilots, further motivating them to fly high and knock out as many bombers as possible. 109's will want to prevent this; Spitfires will want to stop the 109's and allow the Hurricanes, with their more focused firepower, do their job on the incoming bombers.
There will always be those who are not interested in the mission objectives one whit; they want to dogfight. That's fine. It adds to the dynamic unpredictability of war. Strafing/vulching fighters add to the mix by way of airfield suppression.
Someday I would like to see landed kills ie. kills are only scored if the victor gets back to base safely -- perhaps 1/2 score for successful crash landing on friendly soil. Crash landing or parachuting on enemy soil results in no score, since you've been taken prisoner. Crash landing or bailing out into the Channel results in no score as well, the cold water took its toll. And of course, death at any time means no score recorded for that sortie as well.
Just my thoughts.
ATAG_Knuckles
Jun-03-2013, 14:31
Snapper: Thats perfect !!! seems that has a bit for everyone: it would encourage me in a Blenheim (more targets) as well as utilizing the Hurricane for the bomber groups
I say YEAH !!!!
Knucks
also doesn't sound like any of that would be pushing Frame rates ????
ATAG_Slipstream
Jun-03-2013, 14:49
Fantastic idea Snapper!
I was thinking also (after reading another thread) that maybe planes such as the E4/N and Mk IIA could be expendable.
That is, if a pilot loses one of the above planes he then can't use that plane for an amount of time and is restricted to an earlier, more abundant model.
Or put them in pools for each team with earlier models being more available. I think this would make pilots take more care of their aircraft.
It would probably stop my frequent and often disastrous low level displays over Manston and Hawkinge :stunned:
Fantastic idea Snapper!
I was thinking also (after reading another thread) that maybe planes such as the E4/N and Mk IIA could be expendable.
That is, if a pilot loses one of the above planes he then can't use that plane for an amount of time and is restricted to an earlier, more abundant model.
Or put them in pools for each team with earlier models being more available. I think this would make pilots take more care of their aircraft.
It would probably stop my frequent and often disastrous low level displays over Manston and Hawkinge :stunned:
I think it has to be *your* E4N or IIa that is lost because there are too many dweebs who don't give a monkeys that nobody else can fly the good aircraft because they have just used them all up in suicide attacks. As an alternative how about you 'earn' the right to fly the top aircraft after getting a kill then lose it when you die? :D
I am also a big supporter of the idea of kills not being recorded unless you land them and half points for crash landings in friendly territory etc. but ATAG stated a long time ago that they were not prepared to do anything that might cause players to log off. I suspect restricting the best planes would fall into the same category as refusing to let a player have another E4/N or IIa might cause that player to throw his toys out of the pram and go play angry birds instead.
ATAG_Snapper
Jun-03-2013, 15:28
I hasten to say that none of the ideas in my post above are mine; I'm just regurgitating smarter people's concepts. There's nary an original thought in this Shiraz-sodden brain. LOL
Roblex raises a good point that the aim of the ATAG server is to provide enjoyment for as many people as possible. With that in mind, there are some excellent thoughts expressed here that, with care, shouldn't intrude too heavily into anyone's pleasure zone. (Not to be confused with its erogenous counterpart).
I don't even know what is or isn't possible mission design-wise. Stealing smarter people's great ideas already makes my head hurt.....
:P
Nice post Philstyle, and some good ideas here.
I'm flying both sides but you'll never see me on 109E4/N. That plane is too good and you have enough power with 109E4
even if you meet "notorious" :whacky4: SpitIIa on the same E level.
Spit IIa was uber till 1.05 patch and was banned from the servers with reason even if it was possible to use some 109E4 advantages
against it with success, for me at least.
I'm not saying that FM of E4/N is wrong but only one squadron had that plane, it was very low in numbers.
One of the good pilots from the ACG LW side started to fly Spit recently and came to the same conclusion.
He immediately noticed the disadvantages of Spit against vanilla E4.
I really dont want to start Red vs Blue war, I'm flying both sides and I like all the planes :p
The above ties in with a discussion a while ago about having no RAF AI bombers at all. With Talisman, I believe it was, and I agree with this point of view. This is supposed to be the BoB after all, so Bomber Command in the form of Knuckles Snarglepuss and others, should principally be going after barges in the ports and the airfields as per Snapper's ''pinching of others' ideas'', and RAF AI bombers shouldn't be there. But then you have the 'balance' argument from a gameplay perspective, and the bomber formations are there on both sides for the 'easy' kills, not necessarily for either side to go up and escort, as they don't affect mission outcome on the older missions.
The idea of escorting formations of Wellies or Blennies at high alt just ain't the Battle of Britain, and I don't think I've once deliberately gone up to escort them over, in spite of what it might say in the mission brief. I have escorted piloted bombers on many occasions. The AI bomber deaths don't affect mission outcomes for the RAF unless they're counted in one of Salmo's missions, which to date I don't think they are (correct me if I'm wrong there).
But, I'm always popping over to Calais at 20k ft in order to catch the bomber formations soon after they've spawned. AI Bombers are relatively easy kills, but it's as rare to run into a LW escort, just as Wulf points out that it's rare to encounter an RAF escort. The whole argument works both ways, in other words. If we add into this pot-pourri the presence of the E4/Ns, as someone else suggested, why should we fly simply to play to the LW's strengths?
Sorry if this sounds disjointed and repetitive, I should've edited it, but couldn't be bothered. :D
Furious
Jun-03-2013, 17:17
Hi all,
I think the stats idea is a good one. I remember it being implemented in spits/109s back in the day, or maybe still! Why get any points when you're dead always puzzles me.
Injerin
Jun-03-2013, 21:33
Hi all,
I think the stats idea is a good one. I remember it being implemented in spits/109s back in the day, or maybe still! Why get any points when you're dead always puzzles me.
But.... Its historical :P lol
I know Snapper closed the original thread because it became the old BvR dog's breakfast. But there are just one or two important things Wulf said that I think merit some thoughtful response, despite the attempts of some to go offtrack with the conversation.
My response mainly stems from this comment:
I've seldom heard expressions of such abject defeatism! There "isn't enough ammo, I can't dive fast enough, I can never catch the 109s, I've got a sore knee and a letter from me Mum" etc etc" This is just downright pathetic!
I want to point out, that it's important for readers to recognize the difference between explanations and complaints.
I'd like to see Wulf actually address the content and the flavor of the responses to his original questions, rather than jump to the apparently exaggerated and straw-man comparisons he has made in his reply. My reading of the thread makes is abundantly clear that the single greatest contributing factor as to why the "reds" (TM) don't climb up to Wulf's desired altitude in order to fight him is the following;
- Why should the RAF bother?
There are plenty of targets down low to shoot at, often right near our spawn locations. There's simply no need (based on mission objectives, or based on "entertainment") to climb up to 25,000ft. We don't play this game in order to establish air superiority for the sake of His Majesty, or to deplete the Luftwaffe strength over time as part of some grand strategic war of attrition (in which circumstances intercepting and escorting high/medium altitude bomber formations makes perfect sense). We play it for fun.
Fun determines the tactics, not strategic or operational requirements of the historical period. For some, "fun" dictates quick action, soon after take off (low level fights near the ground targets). For others, "fun" dictates bee-lining it for the place they know will provide quick action (Hawkinge), for others, fun dictates waiting at Calais to smack down Luftwaffe bombers, for others fun dictates jumping in a Blennie, or escorting a Blennie at low level to enemy ground targets.
For the remaining few (maybe 5% of the flying population) fun means climbing up and escorting the bombers. Once you factor in all the other various factors that influence how effectively the bombers can be found and supported, then you might get an escort rate of around 1%.
The "pathetic" excuses (identified in Wulf's words) were mainly offered in support, showing why, tactically, it makes better sense often for the red aircraft to stay down low. They are not the main contributor to the discussion, and for Wulf to insinuate that they were driving the conversation is unfair.
That all said, my personal opinion is to enjoy the high-altitude dogfights. However, time is limited. A single sorties climbing up and hunting at 25,000ft can easily use up 45 minutes, and the risk of not contacting is significantly higher than charging down to Hawkinge at 3,000ft.
I spent plenty of sorties flying up and down the channel at 25,000ft. It gets boring real quick.
The minute I drop down to 10,000ft suddenly I'm in the action.....
Thanks Phil; comments noted.
I understand what you're saying and I agree with a lot of it. However at the end of the day I'd personally like to see a move away from the status quo and greater use being made of the available airspace and hopefully, as a result, the development of a somewhat more expansive whole-of-battlefield type of play. I accept that's not everyone's cup of tea. Clearly, many players and maybe most (red and blue), prefer something else. As you mention, a lot of the fighting occurs around the coastal airfields, both red and blue and quite often at extremely low altitude. From what Snapper has said it appears this issue has already been debated and that things may be being done in an effort to try and tilt the balance towards a more expansive style. If that happens I'd welcome it. However, whatever happens, I shall continue to devote my energies to trying to deny the enemy access to the upper atmosphere, whether they want it or not.
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-04-2013, 04:45
I understand what you're saying and I agree with a lot of it. However at the end of the day I'd personally like to see a move away from the status quo and greater use being made of the available airspace and hopefully, as a result, the development of a somewhat more expansive whole-of-battlefield type of play. I accept that's not everyone's cup of tea. .
Absolutely! so Would I.
I think there's a balance to be found.
I spent a couple of hours on ACG server last night. Amazing mission. Bombers at various altitudes that attacked mission-critical targets. Large formations and small formations coming in from various different vectors. Escorted by JG26 and others in 109s. We had a scrap at 15,000ft between about 10 human fighters and 36 AI bombers (in 3 flights of 12) that started at Deal, and continued all the way up to Rochester.
It was one of the best fights I've experienced yet in this game, and I hold the mission builders significantly responsible.
Talisman
Jun-04-2013, 09:53
The above ties in with a discussion a while ago about having no RAF AI bombers at all. With Talisman, I believe it was, and I agree with this point of view. This is supposed to be the BoB after all, so Bomber Command in the form of Knuckles Snarglepuss and others, should principally be going after barges in the ports and the airfields as per Snapper's ''pinching of others' ideas'', and RAF AI bombers shouldn't be there. But then you have the 'balance' argument from a gameplay perspective, and the bomber formations are there on both sides for the 'easy' kills, not necessarily for either side to go up and escort, as they don't affect mission outcome on the older missions.
The idea of escorting formations of Wellies or Blennies at high alt just ain't the Battle of Britain, and I don't think I've once deliberately gone up to escort them over, in spite of what it might say in the mission brief. I have escorted piloted bombers on many occasions. The AI bomber deaths don't affect mission outcomes for the RAF unless they're counted in one of Salmo's missions, which to date I don't think they are (correct me if I'm wrong there).
But, I'm always popping over to Calais at 20k ft in order to catch the bomber formations soon after they've spawned. AI Bombers are relatively easy kills, but it's as rare to run into a LW escort, just as Wulf points out that it's rare to encounter an RAF escort. The whole argument works both ways, in other words. If we add into this pot-pourri the presence of the E4/Ns, as someone else suggested, why should we fly simply to play to the LW's strengths?
Sorry if this sounds disjointed and repetitive, I should've edited it, but couldn't be bothered. :D
Some good posts on this thread now chaps me thinks :)) The 'balance' argument has never made much sense to me from a historical flight sim perspective in terms of the RAF vs LW plane set map, because I would have thought it logical that the balance would swing between the two sides anyway, depending on the historic time line. Unless both sides have all the same available aircraft, whether blue or red team, like on the dog fight servers (which I enjoy along with any other balanced fantasy fun map), I do not see how balance can always be achieved on individual historic maps; in fact, I believe that trying to achieve map balance by too much historic distortion is what often causes frustration amongst historic flight sim players on some servers. However, I would have thought that overall balance on a server with different plane sets for red and blue teams could be almost achievable by ensuring that the map rotation is set up to balance out the swing of advantage as far as is reasonably practicable. By the way, it might be fun to have a fantasy dog fight map with all planes available to both teams, for a change, in between historic map rotations; they need only last for an hour or perhaps 30 mad minutes, but they might help us lighten up a bit and try planes we might not normally fly. My other thought, probably not a popular one, is to do away with stats as I think they can make people crazy, LOL.
The way some maps appear to put up AI bombers for easy kills for both sides for balance is daft IMHO, we are just kidding ourselves surely if it is just a stats contest like that. The thing is, the bombers would not be an easy target if they were escorted and at the time in history that this current plane set represents, it was the LW that was attacking the UK with a strategic bombing campaign and the RAF that was defending against it. Later in WWII it was the other way around; the pendulum had swung.
Happy landings,
Talisman
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-04-2013, 10:09
The 'balance' argument has never made much sense to me from a historical flight sim perspective in terms of the RAF vs LW plane set map, because I would have thought it logical that the balance would swing between the two sides anyway, depending on the historic time line.
My thoughts exactly. There is a slight issue though, which I will raise to see where it leads.
Historic missions tend to be very unforgiving to the casual or new players. Historically based missions tend towards those of us who are lucky enough to be members of squadrons, where we can protect each other and set about achieving air-dominance and/or objectives as teams. Without the "easy kills" and the predictable "air-quakes" new players who have not yet learned to team up on coms will face the following exasperation;
1. Getting clobbered a lot
2. Not being able to find the action (how often do new player type into chat asking where the fight is - as though it will still be there when they arrive 5 minutes later?)
I can see the frustration leading to new players, and lone player abandoning the server.
However, I would have thought that overall balance on a server with different plane sets for red and blue teams could be almost achievable by ensuring that the map rotation is set up to balance out the swing of advantage as far as is reasonably practicable. .
Yes!
I'm happy to play missions where my particular side has a disadvantage. Provided that it's not a constant theme, mission after mission. One expects to be seriously under pressure in some maps, and then to have the lion's share of the winnings in other maps. Balance can be achieved over the course of maps, and does not need to be a pre-requisite for each individual mission -
^^
PROVIDED the missions are not too long. We always run the risk that the team with the map advantage will ignore their objectives, just to rack up easy kills for hours on end.
Although I'm not sure if ATAG market themselves as a "historic" sever. It's more a sand-box server.
I'd put ACG more in the "historic" box.
By the way, it might be fun to have a fantasy dog fight map with all planes available to both teams, for a change, in between historic map rotations; they need only last for an hour or perhaps 30 mad minutes, but they might help us lighten up a bit and try planes we might not normally fly.
It'd be interesting to see a quick 20 minute small-map all-out dogfight turn up between missions too. What an excellent suggestion!
No.54 Ghost (KL-G)
Jun-04-2013, 11:41
if its fast action with no strategy ppl want, then go play war thunder or some other brain dead arcade game.
i get the feeling that most players on this game want good historic battles where LW are attacking and RAF defending.
and for the new players, well they either learn to play the hard way (on there own) or they get on TS or play single player.
and i bet you that they would have a better chance if they had bombers to either escort or defend. then at least they would know where the battle will take place.
it would be cool as a fighter pilot to not just get the warning of an incoming air raid but also where to meat up with a squadron of friendly AI planes that are scrambling to intercept.
ATAG_Snapper
Jun-04-2013, 11:59
But ATAG loves the brain-dead amongst us! Some of us call 'em "easy meat"! LOL
Seriously, those who may be moving over from War Thunder or other sims can enjoy the increased challenge of complex engine management and are welcome to try dogfighting at any and all opportunity. No rules other than no deliberate friendly kills/harassment, and keep swearing to a minimum. There may be a completely separate air war going on 20 angels above their heads of which they're totally unaware.
:)
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-04-2013, 12:19
it would be cool as a fighter pilot to not just get the warning of an incoming air raid but also where to meat up with a squadron of friendly AI planes that are scrambling to intercept.
It would also be good if we had access to more information about where our own AI bombers were. A single message 10 minutes before they hit Dymchrch at 20,000ft leave plenty of room for missing them entirely. . .
No.54 Ghost (KL-G)
Jun-04-2013, 12:49
But ATAG loves the brain-dead amongst us! Some of us call 'em "easy meat"! LOL
Seriously, those who may be moving over from War Thunder or other sims can enjoy the increased challenge of complex engine management and are welcome to try dogfighting at any and all opportunity. No rules other than no deliberate friendly kills/harassment, and keep swearing to a minimum. There may be a completely separate air war going on 20 angels above their heads of which they're totally unaware.
:)
hahaha they must come down sooner or later....
what goes up... we shoot down
III./ZG76_Keller
Jun-04-2013, 19:21
Perspective of a Blue pilot on what the Reds do wrong. (Yeah I know, never correct your enemy when he's making a mistake.)
I'm adding these points in the interest of making things tougher for Blue and more enjoyable for Red.
Point 1 - 95% of the Red team do not seem to care about the objectives. The 5% that do care are the Blenheim pilots and those that escort them or fly CAP over objectives.
Point 2 - Reds are almost always below 3000m allowing Blue bomber pilots and their escorts to fly over-top of them and reach target unmolested.
Point 3 - In the current server missions AI planes have no bearing on the objectives. Blue has ceased their escort of AI planes because there is no point or advantage to protecting them, and if the Reds are up with the bombers then they're not chasing the human piloted bombers (the ones that actually matter).
Point 4 - Red seems MUCH more concerned with adding a 1.00 to their score than protecting the objectives or attacking the objectives. A certain group has it down to a fine art of being over France right as the German bombers spawn, that's an impressive routine, but again; has no bearing on the mission objectives.
Point 5 - Red seldom, if ever, escort their Blenheim pilots. I've shot down about 20 human-piloted Blenheims in the last couple weeks; 1 of those 20 had an escort. It's gotten to the point that the map goes like this:
-Map starts, people join the server.
-3 players choose Blenheims.
-A group of Blue pilots spread out in search of the Blenheims.
-Blenheims get shot down repeatedly before making their target.
-Blenheim pilots eventually give up and leave the server or switch to a fighter.
-Blue can now loosen its defenses and go on full offensive.
-Map ends, Blue wins.
III./ZG76_Saipan
Jun-04-2013, 20:48
keller nails it. c'mon red play the objectives. perhaps a map or 2 with NO ai would be nice.
RAF74_Buzzsaw
Jun-04-2013, 20:53
Some comments from a player whose focus is on historical accuracy AND fun.
Point 3 - In the current server missions AI planes have no bearing on the objectives. Blue has ceased their escort of AI planes because there is no point or advantage to protecting them, and if the Reds are up with the bombers then they're not chasing the human piloted bombers (the ones that actually matter).
This should not be the case.
If the AI bombers have no effect on winning the server, then they should not be there. Simply they are a misleading diversion which focuses Red attention on the wrong target.
AI should be aimed at real targets, so that their destruction means something. Airfields or Radar stations should be their primary attack, the tendency to aim some of them at tanks or ground units is not accurate, the Luftwaffe did not make attacks on any of this type of target.
I also agree there should be very few British AI bombers, historically, Wellington Squadrons made ZERO attacks in the daylight, and Blenheim Squadrons RARELY did.
The servers should be geared around the historical situation, with most formations of German bombers attacking airfields, and preferably making deeper penetrations, not attacking just the coastal airfields. If there are no British AI bombers, then the German human pilots who spend their time waiting around for British bombers will need to instead escort Blue bombers to see any action.
Additionally, I believe the British shipping targets should see fewer merchant ships, escorted by more minesweepers, and moving at higher speeds, and zig zagging, as per historical, therefore becoming more difficult and dangerous targets, skip bombing was not a viable or survivable method of attack in the BoB era, ships were level bombed from 3000 meters or higher, or dive bombed with the dive bombers pulling out at 1000 meters over their targets to avoid the flak. Skip bombing was only generally successful in situation where there were individual ships being attacked, as was common in isolated Pacific island re-supply situations, and additionally when the attacking aircraft had major flak suppression capabilities, as for example, B-25's with batteries of .50 cals or 75mm cannons in the nose. Against fully escorted convoys, skip bombing was suicidal. The common situation seen on servers, whereby 109 Jabos take out ships by skip bombing was not practiced at all. German Jabo pilots were not trained in anti-shipping attacks till later in the war, and they dive bombed, pulling out at 1000 meters. Re German convoys: There were none through the channel in 1940 in the daylight, they would have drawn immediate Royal Navy response. German shipping travelled at night. The most common targets for the Blenheims were invasion barges and small vessels moored in the Calais area harbours, and were usually attacked at night, only occasionally during the day. Individual Blenheims also made occasional sneak attacks on German fighter and bomber airfields in the day.
Regarding some of the setups:
The Early setup should not see any 109 Jabos, they were not organized at this stage. Perhaps in the next release when we get the E-1B, some could be added.
Victory should be dependent on whether or not the Germans achieve their bombing targets without suffering too many losses of aircraft.
III./ZG76_Keller
Jun-04-2013, 21:22
Great input Buzzsaw, but I fear that without AI bombers many pilots (Blue and Red) would not bother playing as the AI are the only target that they're interested in.
The missions are great on that ATAG server for several reasons, but they can't be everything to everybody. They have AI for the guys that just don't care about the objectives, they have targets for the human Blenheim and Luftwaffe bomber pilots, and they have enemy airfields that are only 5 minutes away for the air-quake-deathmatch players.
The main issue I see is that Red and Blue are playing completely different games; most Reds play for score and most Blue play for the Objectives. I don't even hesitate to take a He-111 on a 90 minute flight without an escort now because the only time I get shot down is if I fly past some AI bombers and get the attention of a Spit or Hurri; NOBODY is looking for me. The Blue team is always watching for Blenheim pilots to join the server and constantly checking the scoreboard looking for one to appear, if one does he is called out immediately and fighters begin the hunt.
I would be willing to bet that nobody on Red has ever said "There's ATAG_Torric270 in his 88 again, let's go get him!" or "There's Keller in a He-111, we'd better find him!".
Red and Blue players have a different mentality, occasionally they accidentally meet somewhere in the middle.
ATAG_Freya
Jun-04-2013, 22:45
"There's ATAG_Torric270 in his 88 again, let's go get him!"
Oh...if I had a dime for every time I said that and a nickel for every minute spent searching for him I'd be rich enough to pay Sir Torric to tell me where he was! ....nah, he would never tell, who am I kidding....I'll find you someday Torric! Not sure what I'll do about it, but someday! S!
Some comments from a player whose focus is on historical accuracy AND fun.
This should not be the case.
If the AI bombers have no effect on winning the server, then they should not be there. Simply they are a misleading diversion which focuses Red attention on the wrong target.
AI should be aimed at real targets, so that their destruction means something. Airfields or Radar stations should be their primary attack, the tendency to aim some of them at tanks or ground units is not accurate, the Luftwaffe did not make attacks on any of this type of target.
I also agree there should be very few British AI bombers, historically, Wellington Squadrons made ZERO attacks in the daylight, and Blenheim Squadrons RARELY did.
The servers should be geared around the historical situation, with most formations of German bombers attacking airfields, and preferably making deeper penetrations, not attacking just the coastal airfields. If there are no British AI bombers, then the German human pilots who spend their time waiting around for British bombers will need to instead escort Blue bombers to see any action.
Additionally, I believe the British shipping targets should see fewer merchant ships, escorted by more minesweepers, and moving at higher speeds, and zig zagging, as per historical, therefore becoming more difficult and dangerous targets, skip bombing was not a viable or survivable method of attack in the BoB era, ships were level bombed from 3000 meters or higher, or dive bombed with the dive bombers pulling out at 1000 meters over their targets to avoid the flak. Skip bombing was only generally successful in situation where there were individual ships being attacked, as was common in isolated Pacific island re-supply situations, and additionally when the attacking aircraft had major flak suppression capabilities, as for example, B-25's with batteries of .50 cals or 75mm cannons in the nose. Against fully escorted convoys, skip bombing was suicidal. The common situation seen on servers, whereby 109 Jabos take out ships by skip bombing was not practiced at all. German Jabo pilots were not trained in anti-shipping attacks till later in the war, and they dive bombed, pulling out at 1000 meters. Re German convoys: There were none through the channel in 1940 in the daylight, they would have drawn immediate Royal Navy response. German shipping travelled at night. The most common targets for the Blenheims were invasion barges and small vessels moored in the Calais area harbours, and were usually attacked at night, only occasionally during the day. Individual Blenheims also made occasional sneak attacks on German fighter and bomber airfields in the day.
Regarding some of the setups:
The Early setup should not see any 109 Jabos, they were not organized at this stage. Perhaps in the next release when we get the E-1B, some could be added.
Victory should be dependent on whether or not the Germans achieve their bombing targets without suffering too many losses of aircraft.
On the subject of RAF bombing techniques, here we have Coastal Command Bristol Beauforts (dropping torpedoes) and Blenheims (dropping/ skipping bombs) in attacks on Axis shipping in the Med in 1942.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yii8WlUs7y4
-Map starts, people join the server.
-3 players choose Blenheims.
-A group of Blue pilots spread out in search of the Blenheims.
-Blenheims get shot down repeatedly before making their target.
-Blenheim pilots eventually give up and leave the server or switch to a fighter.
-Blue can now loosen its defenses and go on full offensive.
-Map ends, Blue wins.
This is me, absolutely spot on. I have no idea why I enjoy flying blenheims....
Regarding reds not escorting Blenheims and blues hunting them down, I think you are seeing a distorted picture.
My personal experience is that for every ten trips I make in a Blenheim, I see a 109 once or maybe twice; about 15%. Yes I will die when I see that 109 but a fighter escort rarely keeps me alive and just makes it more likely I will be seen so going in low and alone is the best tactic.
I would also say that my squad regularly looks at the list and sees a 111 just joined and goes and kills it. I have never seen a 109 escorting one though sometimes one will turn up a minute later much as a spit might come to help a blenheim being attacked.
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-05-2013, 04:32
I would be willing to bet that nobody on Red has ever said "There's ATAG_Torric270 in his 88 again, let's go get him!" or "There's Keller in a He-111, we'd better find him!".
.
You'd lose that bet.
"oh, there's <022> in a JU-88, I'm going to go hunt him"
Checks tab-7-1, which tells me nearest bomber is 15 miles away in direction of Calais. It's probably not <022>, so I try to guess what objective he will be hitting. I turn towards Manston/ Ramsgate. Climbing to 8,000ft. I circle Ramsgate for five minutes waiting. Nothing.
Check tab-7-1 repeatedly for another 5 minutes I notice that nothing is within 15 miles still. Meanwhile I know other players are gettign lots of action down hawkinge way... but I try to be disciplined and hold off from charging down there....
Tab-7-1 now tells me there are bombers 15 miles south. But I know that an AI raid is inbound so I ignore it, cos I'm looking for <022>.
But, in spite of that I decide I might be over the wrong target. I turn south towards Dover, to defend the G7 target.
As I approach Dover, at 10,000ft still making for G7, I see flak. Then a 109 is on my tail and I'm barreling down to evade him. Finally I shake him and it's time to start climbing up to G7 again. But the 109 is back! ratta-tat-tat and my engine is blown, time to land.
3 seconds later a message form the server "Beaufighters at Ramsgate destroyed"
A little message pops up i the chat bar from <022> "!!!"
Variations of that go on and on. Chasing single bombers that can jabo targets with 2 or 3 well placed bombs.
On the other hand, I flew ACG the other night.
36 bombers were inbound. The server game me constant RDF, showing me all of the raids that it had sight of, with approximate heights, numbers and a course to steer for intercept with an estimate of the number of minutes that would be required to reach them.
I decided to intercept a raid inbound for "Dover" and caught them going feet-dry at Deal.
They were heading to Eastchurch to bomb the airfield which was a mission objective.
They had escorts, about 5 or 6 of them,. all human flown (JG26 + others).
Around 5 to 10 spitfires and hurricanes all showed up around the same time. We had an almighty scrap, at altitude (10k ft +).
There were no aircraft milling around at Hawkinge.
And were we not all on the same coms channel.
It worked because the mission was built in such a way that gave the RAF exactly the information it needed to do its job. RADAR.
It worked because the Luftwaffe knew that escorting the bombers would pay off, because (1) they would be hitting and objective and (2) because the RAF would be coming up to play.
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-05-2013, 04:34
The main issue I see is that Red and Blue are playing completely different games; most Reds play for score and most Blue play for the Objectives..
Many players play both sides.
If there's something about putting on the red jersey that makes players ignore the mission objectives then one needs to think long and hard about why that might be the case.
9./JG52 Ziegler
Jun-05-2013, 08:14
Great post Phil and spot on. I started (online) at the ATAG server. Mission objective? What is that? I can bearly fly and am looking only to stay alive and get into a dogfight or shoot down a Blennie.
Time in game and teamspeak, then joining a staffel taught me that there was so much more available to make this a sim. I must say that if ACG is populated, that is where I will fly for the very reasons Phil states. If I absolutely have to "arcade" I might go to Ravenhost! LOL.
I think ATAG is some where in the middle right now. I've never been a score guy (I'm not that good a fighter pilot), I never even knew how to get a 1.00! Hows that for an admission of objective awarness! :) I do appreciate realism and understand that we can never duplicate what really was happening because those pilots lived it 24/7. No oned went up and "scored" kills everytime they took off. There were many a mission that they just flew CAP and never saw an enemy. I understand that this is a game and gamers want to score or they won't play and that is the conundrum. Attract and keep more and new players, yet "keepin it real". Many people have thrown out some good ideas that address this. The AI's serve a purpose and should stay but also maybe count for something.
The nature of the beast is that people choose the path of least resistence and in the red case will follow "Map starts, people join the server" routine because that is that path or so some think. They know that blue will be making the channel crossing (our cross to bear ,wink) and who doesn't like fighting on home turf where if I get hit I can glide to a friendly field. I rarely see red incursions into France on ATAG where I see them quite a bit more on ACG. Of course much ofd this is due to the Dunkirk mission I suppose. But.......I digress........:thumbsup:
No.54 Ghost (KL-G)
Jun-05-2013, 10:16
"I rarely see red incursions into France on ATAG"
that is because the german flak gunners have been doing there homework compared to the british.
- bloody hell sir, i think thats a german plane up there. should i shoot him?
- preposterous, we are drinking tea right now.. dont worry, they have fuel for about 10 minutes over here... he will still be here when we are done.
Talisman
Jun-05-2013, 10:44
Perspective of a Blue pilot on what the Reds do wrong. (Yeah I know, never correct your enemy when he's making a mistake.)
I'm adding these points in the interest of making things tougher for Blue and more enjoyable for Red.
Point 1 - 95% of the Red team do not seem to care about the objectives. The 5% that do care are the Blenheim pilots and those that escort them or fly CAP over objectives.
Point 2 - Reds are almost always below 3000m allowing Blue bomber pilots and their escorts to fly over-top of them and reach target unmolested.
Point 3 - In the current server missions AI planes have no bearing on the objectives. Blue has ceased their escort of AI planes because there is no point or advantage to protecting them, and if the Reds are up with the bombers then they're not chasing the human piloted bombers (the ones that actually matter).
Point 4 - Red seems MUCH more concerned with adding a 1.00 to their score than protecting the objectives or attacking the objectives. A certain group has it down to a fine art of being over France right as the German bombers spawn, that's an impressive routine, but again; has no bearing on the mission objectives.
Point 5 - Red seldom, if ever, escort their Blenheim pilots. I've shot down about 20 human-piloted Blenheims in the last couple weeks; 1 of those 20 had an escort. It's gotten to the point that the map goes like this:
-Map starts, people join the server.
-3 players choose Blenheims.
-A group of Blue pilots spread out in search of the Blenheims.
-Blenheims get shot down repeatedly before making their target.
-Blenheim pilots eventually give up and leave the server or switch to a fighter.
-Blue can now loosen its defenses and go on full offensive.
-Map ends, Blue wins.
Depends on your perception of what is right and what is wrong and the context. Are you talking about the right/wrong way to try and win a map or perhaps the right/wrong way to play, get kills, or the right/wrong way to have fun? I would have thought that how a pilot chooses to take part on-line is their choice (within the limits of the server maps available) and would probably depend on why they purchased the historic combat flight sim (CloD) in the first place and what their particular interest was.
Imagine that you would like to fly historic aircraft in a historic way on what is a historic combat flight simulation game like CloD. Then imagine that the developers mess it up but some good chaps are keeping it going and there are a couple of decent on-line servers. However, the server maps do not much represent the type of action that took place at the time in history for the plane sets and the air forces involved. Battle map situations are set up with little regard to the fact that at this time in history one of the air forces concerned was equipped with a plane set and infrastructure very much geared for attack and the other geared very much for defence. You find that the air force that had infrastructure, planes and strategy very much for defence is expected to also attack and that its protection force multiplying enemy aircraft detection and fighter control system, the best in the world at the time, is not available to much effect.
Then imagine that you would like to act the part of the air force that was historically defending for your own enjoyment and interest. Now imagine that you are not so concerned about map objectives because, confusingly and unfortunately from your perspective, the map provided is somewhat distorted in terms of the situation represented for the times of the plane sets depicted, to apparently provide something called 'balance'. Never mind, silly old map objectives are not mandatory so one can at least fly as one chooses and maybe even sometimes try and fly the map in a more historic fashion. One might even try to convince the server map makers to provide at least one map a little more in keeping with the historic combat flight sim called CloD. Never mind, there is always a chance that this so called 'balance' thingy may fall out of fashion soon if the flight sim world moves on to depict events later on in WWII, otherwise hoards of LW bombers might be depicted coming across the Channel in 1945, LOL.
Perhaps I should call this post the perspective of a red pilot on what the map makers do wrong. Yes, CloD has its limitations and map makers will not be able to fully create the BoB, but some people are trying to fly CloD from the perspective of the BoB, even if that is against the odds in most cases. Other times they just give up and say what the hell and go for a quick easy kill fix.
PS. The first time I flew the Me 110 on this server as a complete Me 110 noob, I am ashamed to say that I shot down 9 and a bit RAF bombers on my first sortie just by hanging about over France and finding hoards of RAF bombers coming my way, all in formation in daylight with no escort (it was easier than vulching the bases on the English coast). I didn't carry on for long though as I thought it might not be the right thing to do from my perspective. I suppose the Spit and Hurry pilots may have been doing other things than escorting bombers. Things like trying to fly the BoB nearer to how it was perhaps; made me feel guilty I was just hanging about over France with my big cannons.
Happy landings (on your own side of the lines),
Talisman
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-05-2013, 10:50
"I rarely see red incursions into France on ATAG"
Fly over Dover, then over Wissant. Recording the track the whole time.
Save the track and enable external views on the ATAG utility.
Open the track in the in-game track editor
Move the track to the point where your aircraft is over Dover, and (using the key to cycle through objects) cycle through all objects and count all the flak guns until you get back to the first object
Move the track to the point where your aircraft is over Wissant, and (using the key to cycle through objects) cycle through all objects and count all the flak guns until you get back to the first object
compare results
The RAF/ British Army, in early 1940 had scant few (I think the number is around 30) large caliber artillery and flak gun pieces, having lost many (perhaps most) of theirs in the debacle in France.
The Luftwaffe had plenty of them, with trained veteran crews. These were already at the front, having moved with (or just behind) the Wehrmacht.
It would be unwise for the RAF to have sent spitfires over to France at 10,000ft. That would be, historically speaking, stupid.
92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jun-05-2013, 11:19
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4649
ATAG_Slipstream
Jun-05-2013, 12:21
I went on for a quick sortie last night, climbed out to 32,000 and proceeded to Dungeness. Then I crossed the channel and patrolled from Grey Nose Cape to Calais without seeing anything except for the odd flak burst that made it to that height.
Crossing back to Dover I started to play with the blues on comms and about 10 minutes later I noticed contrails forming from way below. At this point I was at 33,000ft and about 160 mph. I gave them time to get closer and gradually climbed to 35000 ft at about 120mph but its worth noting that the turn rate at these altitudes is very low and elevator trim is of paramount importance as its like walking a tightrope on the thin air.
Even though the speeds weren't high, the Mk-IIA outclassed the E4/N in straightline speed, however because of width of the turns the E4/N could catch up. I played it to my advantage and turned while maintaining the height and when he got right under me I flipped over and dropped on his tail, but his reactions were spot on and he bunted into a deep dive. I followed but lost him in the ground clutter before seeing him shoot up into a hammerhead. This repeated for what seemed like an eternity until we reached about 12,000ft and both of us were low on energy.
We began turn fighting, but I was so low on E that I stalled out, recovered and tried to fly straight for a minute to re-trim and gain some energy. I spotted another plane which I assumed was the 2nd 109 and he fired and took out one of my weapons. I flipped over into a dive to bring him to ground level and noticed a streak of yellow flash past and go into a steep climb into the sun, I fired on him but missed and he stalled out. I rolled over and got on him again, but he was flipping around like a fish on a line and I overshot. Next minute there is a loud crack and my engine stops dead so I glide down and land on a hilltop with incredible views, just in time for a spot of lunch!
/************************************************** ***********************************/
The point is that flying and fighting at altitude is a whole different experience. You can't fly at 290 IAS, but either can the other guy. The battle I describe above was with Coolhand3011 and it lasted about half an hour and was extremely intense but sadly a lot of people miss out on this because very few on both red and blue fly at high attitudes.
It's ok to make this a red vs blue topic, but the fact of the matter is that there are enough low flying 109's buzzing Hawkinge & Manston or E3/4B's attacking ships at low level, so the reds just need to swarm around between Hawkinge and Hell's Corner until something comes in.
Like Keller said, Blenheims are rarely protected by fighter escorts, and bombing at higher altitudes is hit and miss so people don't really bother.
Reds do seek out bombers but the blues can bomb at 6000m, ground-level or anywhere inbetween with a variety of different strategies.
And I guess another factor is that some people have limited time and just want a "fast fix" of the action.
~S~
RAF74_Buzzsaw
Jun-05-2013, 15:46
It can be rewarding to fly high, but you must have a lot of patience. Because sometimes the Germans don't come up high either.
Regarding flak levels:
I believe the level of flak should be higher, (although obviously this has to be balanced by server load) so that low level bombing raids are not rewarded as often.
There was a reason pilots historically did not bomb from low altitudes, and that was it was too dangerous. The Luftwaffe had several specialized ground attack units, the 9th Staffel of KG76, equipped with Dornier 17's was trained to attack from ground level, the rewards were greater accuracy and effectiveness, but their unit abandoned this tactic after heavy losses, for example, on August 18th in an attack on Kenley they lost 4 destroyed, 2 crash landed in France, and 3 seriously damaged out of 9 total aircraft. Ie. every aircraft was either destroyed, written off in a crashlanding or seriously damaged. These kinds of losses were unsustainable.
I went on for a quick sortie last night, climbed out to 32,000 and proceeded to Dungeness. Then I crossed the channel and patrolled from Grey Nose Cape to Calais without seeing anything except for the odd flak burst that made it to that height.
Crossing back to Dover I started to play with the blues on comms and about 10 minutes later I noticed contrails forming from way below. At this point I was at 33,000ft and about 160 mph. I gave them time to get closer and gradually climbed to 35000 ft at about 120mph but its worth noting that the turn rate at these altitudes is very low and elevator trim is of paramount importance as its like walking a tightrope on the thin air.
Even though the speeds weren't high, the Mk-IIA outclassed the E4/N in straightline speed, however because of width of the turns the E4/N could catch up. I played it to my advantage and turned while maintaining the height and when he got right under me I flipped over and dropped on his tail, but his reactions were spot on and he bunted into a deep dive. I followed but lost him in the ground clutter before seeing him shoot up into a hammerhead. This repeated for what seemed like an eternity until we reached about 12,000ft and both of us were low on energy.
We began turn fighting, but I was so low on E that I stalled out, recovered and tried to fly straight for a minute to re-trim and gain some energy. I spotted another plane which I assumed was the 2nd 109 and he fired and took out one of my weapons. I flipped over into a dive to bring him to ground level and noticed a streak of yellow flash past and go into a steep climb into the sun, I fired on him but missed and he stalled out. I rolled over and got on him again, but he was flipping around like a fish on a line and I overshot. Next minute there is a loud crack and my engine stops dead so I glide down and land on a hilltop with incredible views, just in time for a spot of lunch!
/************************************************** ***********************************/
The point is that flying and fighting at altitude is a whole different experience. You can't fly at 290 IAS, but either can the other guy. The battle I describe above was with Coolhand3011 and it lasted about half an hour and was extremely intense but sadly a lot of people miss out on this because very few on both red and blue fly at high attitudes.
It's ok to make this a red vs blue topic, but the fact of the matter is that there are enough low flying 109's buzzing Hawkinge & Manston or E3/4B's attacking ships at low level, so the reds just need to swarm around between Hawkinge and Hell's Corner until something comes in.
Like Keller said, Blenheims are rarely protected by fighter escorts, and bombing at higher altitudes is hit and miss so people don't really bother.
Reds do seek out bombers but the blues can bomb at 6000m, ground-level or anywhere inbetween with a variety of different strategies.
And I guess another factor is that some people have limited time and just want a "fast fix" of the action.
~S~
9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Jun-05-2013, 16:13
Regarding flak levels:
I believe the level of flak should be higher, (although obviously this has to be balanced by server load) so that low level bombing raids are not rewarded as often.
You must not fly bombers very often. It's very rare to return to base after a low level attack on ATAG.
III./ZG76_Keller
Jun-05-2013, 20:04
This is often how our Bomber boys get treated.
ATAG_DRock and I escorting ATAG_Torric270.
2975
It can be rewarding to fly high, but you must have a lot of patience. Because sometimes the Germans don't come up high either.
Regarding flak levels:
I believe the level of flak should be higher, (although obviously this has to be balanced by server load) so that low level bombing raids are not rewarded as often.
There was a reason pilots historically did not bomb from low altitudes, and that was it was too dangerous. The Luftwaffe had several specialized ground attack units, the 9th Staffel of KG76, equipped with Dornier 17's was trained to attack from ground level, the rewards were greater accuracy and effectiveness, but their unit abandoned this tactic after heavy losses, for example, on August 18th in an attack on Kenley they lost 4 destroyed, 2 crash landed in France, and 3 seriously damaged out of 9 total aircraft. Ie. every aircraft was either destroyed, written off in a crashlanding or seriously damaged. These kinds of losses were unsustainable.
I agree that low level bombing was extremely hazardous but that of course didn't stop the RAF - hell no! As demonstrated by the You tube link I supplied earlier, RAF Coastal Command strike squadrons specialized in low level attacks. That is what they did because that's what they were required to do. It was Coastal Command, not Bomber Command that was responsible for prosecuting the war against Axis shipping. In 1940 this work was done in the main with Beauforts and Blenheims. In 1941-42, Beaufighters were increasingly phased in, and towards the end of the War Mosquitoes were used. In 1940 tactics were in their infancy and strikes were typically undertaken by individual aircraft or perhaps 3-6 aircraft if the target was considered significant. However, as the Luftwaffe example you mention demonstrates, survival rates were woeful for this type of flying. In Coastal Command strike squadrons it was almost unknown for anyone to survive a tour. Crews were often killed on their first trip. Most wouldn't last more than a handful. Ultimately losses were up around the 90% mark. It would have been more like 100% but the severely wounded aircrew that could sometimes be scraped from the odd returning aircraft gave just enough latitude for the RAF to polish the stats. After the dark years 1940-42 things began to improve. The suicidal attacks undertaken by individual aircraft were replaced by massed attacks of 30+ aircraft against single ships which succeeded in swamping the defenses, but even towards the end it was always going to be hazardous work. My point in all of this is that even though low level attacks were essentially suicidal, the RAF establishment was always ready to meet the challenge!
Catseye
Jun-08-2013, 17:47
I don't even hesitate to take a He-111 on a 90 minute flight without an escort now because the only time I get shot down is if I fly past some AI bombers and get the attention of a Spit or Hurri; NOBODY is looking for me.
I would be willing to bet that nobody on Red has ever said "There's ATAG_Torric270 in his 88 again, let's go get him!" or "There's Keller in a He-111, we'd better find him!".
Hi Keller,
Actually, I do.
It is the only reason I fly - to hunt down human piloted bombers.
My problem is that I know exactly where they come from and I don't think it appropriate for me to lie in wait close to their takeoff pattern. I have done this and can still do but now I take on a patrol between the most likely target and a suspected route of ingress in order to enjoy the hunt and to give the Blue pilot a chance to get across the French coast.
Only once did I take a wingman with me to intercept an outbound Torric270 and quite frankly felt a little sheepish after the kill because he had no chance. He popped up exactly where predicted and as usual he had no Blue fighter cover.
Adding a few more Blue bomber bases around the map - up north perhaps would give more variety and options for Blue bomber pilots would certainly make the hunt and kill more adventuresome for both sides.
I certainly do admire Torrics inventive ways to try and get across and many times he succeeds. This game of cat and mouse is very enjoyable but needs tweaking.
Cheers,
Cats . . .
ATAG_Snapper
Jun-09-2013, 12:30
EDIT: Upon reflection I've removed the posts which have caused offence to contributors in this thread and don't further the discussion in a positive way. This thread remains closed.
-------------------
I think we can all agree that we could use some new missions as discussed earlier in this thread. Some excellent tips have been offered by Keller, Wulf, and others on how to best prosecute the existing missions from both Red and Blue perspectives. Other players who play predominantly Red have countered that the existing missions do not accurately reflect the 1940 Battle of Britain conflict and actually detract from their enjoyment of the game. Both points are valid in that those who wish to thoroughly engage in the missions would do well to consider the advice generously given.
By virtue of the fact that the server missions are optional and not mandatory, all players are welcome to play the game as they wish and disregard any tactics suggested, so long as they remain within the very few rules of the ATAG Server per Bliss' Mission Statement at the top section of this forum. If you wanna dogfight on the deck or vulch the other side, fine. Knock yourselves out and enjoy yourselves. Or, instead, wish to win the map per the mission parameters? Great. Read the fine advice given in the posts above, get organized, and do battle. Neither is more "right" than the other. Neither has the moral high ground.
Phil, this has been overall a good thread with good discussion.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.