PDA

View Full Version : zzzzzz



gavagai
Jul-26-2013, 17:21
So, regarding the thread, how to get more people to play Clod...

The first that comes to mind is that people need to reliably find combat. I just had my first little sojourn on the ATAG server in a couple months and despite there being 30 players, it was a real snoozefest. In the past I have found combat here and there, but today it was bad. I never fired my guns, and wasn't even shot at until I was parked on the ground trying to remember how not to "abandon" my aircraft when I was vulched. I had forgotten how people are so starved for action on the ATAG server they circle around runways at low altitude waiting for something to shoot at. Lesson learned.

Fortunately, people were in one of the dogfight servers, and that was good fun. But the ATAG server is the only reliably populated server for Clod, so that's where people are going to end up frequently. I like the big-sandbox concept you guys have, but please, please consider some adjustments that might make it more exciting when there are so few people online. Here are some things I can think of:

1. The contact positions that name a geographical location instead of a map coordinate are bewildering. Algebraic coordinates are more user friendly.

2. The AI bomber streams could be sent down a predictable pipeline to concentrate combat. At the moment they seem to spread out the action by 30-40 miles North to South along the channel.

3. Until TF releases the LOD fix, seriously consider some kind of minimalistic icon for the range/fov where aircraft disappear. Even if it's only black with no range information, it would help. I am spoiled by RoF and Falcon BMS where aircraft are still readily visible in a no-icon environment. In Clod they are not, and there have to be others who have equally cursed and moaned when a dot they saw a moment ago suddenly turned invisible.

Well, those are some of my suggestions for improving attendance. A lot of the suggestions focus on people who are new to the game and haven't experienced much of what you have to offer. But there are many who have experienced it and just didn't see much reason to come back, and some of the above suggestions might change that.

Thanks!:thumbsup:

Salmo
Jul-27-2013, 03:08
* Lack of localised 'action' - Many players have commented on this same experience (lack of contact/action even when several player online). It's a turnoff. To the above suggestions I would add Dynamic Ai spawning ie. More Ai spawn-in when there are fewer players, & progressively fewer Ai spawn-in as online player numbers increase. This keeps the action going even when player numbers are low. See http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4973

* Target locations - I agree with the observation that the 'action' in most missions is too spread out. A mission with (say) 3 widely seperated targets means that 1/3 of players will be going to each target. This can only reduce the liklihood of air-to-air encounters. Not what you want to create an action-packed mission. Can I suggest that target numbers be reduce to (say) just ONE, or perhaps TWO but close together. Of course, some adjustment will be needed for the win objectives (say by increasing the number of object needed to be destroyed) so the mission is not completed too fast.

* Mission length - There's probably no good reason why each ATAG mission should last for 5 hrs or so. This too is a turn-off for some players who log-on to find that a battle they don't favour is running. Perhaps consideration can be given to making battles (say) 2-3 hrs in length before the next rotation.

Roblex
Jul-27-2013, 03:43
Here are some things I can think of:

1. The contact positions that name a geographical location instead of a map coordinate are bewildering. Algebraic coordinates are more user friendly.

2. The AI bomber streams could be sent down a predictable pipeline to concentrate combat. At the moment they seem to spread out the action by 30-40 miles North to South along the channel.

3. Until TF releases the LOD fix, seriously consider some kind of minimalistic icon for the range/fov where aircraft disappear. Even if it's only black with no range information, it would help. I am spoiled by RoF and Falcon BMS where aircraft are still readily visible in a no-icon environment. In Clod they are not, and there have to be others who have equally cursed and moaned when a dot they saw a moment ago suddenly turned invisible.

:

1. Not sure what you are suggesting. The game *does* give map coordinates. The players themselves choose to use locations because that is what they prefer.

2. You are being told where they were five minutes ago and what alt and bearing. Why dumb it down to aerial 'ducks in a row'? The SoW system where the controller gives you an intercept course is better and I am not sure why ATAG does not use it. It does not work perfectly all the time but neither does Tab-7.

3. I kind of agree that some minimal aid could be put in place but I also get the impression the fix is very imminent so it is probably not worth the effort right now. It is silly to argue that icons are unrealistic when the LOD bug is also unrealistic. If possible the tag itself would just be a single grey character, maybe just a period, that does not even tell you what team the aircraft is and vanishes again when the target becomes visible; it just fills in that 'LOD gap'. The existing system allows you to switch to a better icon at closer range so needs to switch to 'no icon' instead. I suspect it does not allow that but if the aircraft is now close enough to see then I suppose a single pale grey dot above it would be hardly noticeable. If the dot could be positioned 'on' the aircraft instead of above it then it would be perfect but I am not sure how 'hackable' the icon system is.

All three of Salmos ideas are good and I am looking forward to the day when he has the spare time to try them out.

indyscout
Jul-27-2013, 04:12
* Lack of localised 'action' - Many players have commented on this same experience (lack of contact/action even when several player online). It's a turnoff. To the above suggestions I would add Dynamic Ai spawning ie. More Ai spawn-in when there are fewer players, & progressively fewer Ai spawn-in as online player numbers increase. This keeps the action going even when player numbers are low. See http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4973

I give a big thumbs up to this! As a North American player, there is often 2-12 people on during the North American "Peak Hours". This can lead to some really boring game play, as it becomes more of a sight seeing flight than a combat sortie. I would love to see this implemented.

gavagai
Jul-27-2013, 09:11
Thanks Salmo, you said it better than I did!

Roblex, I'm talking about the orange messages that ask you to rendezvous with bombers for escort, etc. They use location names and not map coordinates. Sometimes I have really wanted to escort bombers but couldn't find the name on the map!

ATAG_Lewis
Jul-27-2013, 09:47
Is there any reason that this thread has been started seperately....Folks following the 'How can we make more people play CLOD' thread won't find this one easily (I didn't) and there is some interesting points here..

gavagai
Jul-27-2013, 10:27
Is there any reason that this thread has been started seperately....Folks following the 'How can we make more people play CLOD' thread won't find this one easily (I didn't) and there is some interesting points here..

I'll move my suggestions to the other thread if you think it would help.

JG5_Emil
Jul-27-2013, 12:04
* Lack of localised 'action' - Many players have commented on this same experience (lack of contact/action even when several player online). It's a turnoff. To the above suggestions I would add Dynamic Ai spawning ie. More Ai spawn-in when there are fewer players, & progressively fewer Ai spawn-in as online player numbers increase. This keeps the action going even when player numbers are low. See http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4973

* Target locations - I agree with the observation that the 'action' in most missions is too spread out. A mission with (say) 3 widely seperated targets means that 1/3 of players will be going to each target. This can only reduce the liklihood of air-to-air encounters. Not what you want to create an action-packed mission. Can I suggest that target numbers be reduce to (say) just ONE, or perhaps TWO but close together. Of course, some adjustment will be needed for the win objectives (say by increasing the number of object needed to be destroyed) so the mission is not completed too fast.

* Mission length - There's probably no good reason why each ATAG mission should last for 5 hrs or so. This too is a turn-off for some players who log-on to find that a battle they don't favour is running. Perhaps consideration can be given to making battles (say) 2-3 hrs in length before the next rotation.

Regarding your second point I think it would be better if only one side had AI bombers and targets per mission. Sometimes you can be escorting a flight of LW bombers back to France and as you arrive at Dungeness you see RAF bombers on their way out. Also it spreads out the fighting a lot. So on any given map there are multiple missions going on with both sides attacking/defending (on top of the low level scraps) and it is rare to ever see more than 2 or 3 RAF attacking a bomber formation which doesn't encourage people to group up and escort them. Maybe shorter missions which are simpler and diverse could be a good idea?

Roblex
Jul-27-2013, 16:53
Thanks Salmo, you said it better than I did!

Roblex, I'm talking about the orange messages that ask you to rendezvous with bombers for escort, etc. They use location names and not map coordinates. Sometimes I have really wanted to escort bombers but couldn't find the name on the map!

Oh I see. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe there are only two places where bombers spawn and need an escort. For the Brits it is St Marys Bay, which is the area North of Dungeness aka English point, and for the Germans it is Coquelles, just inland of CapGriz Nez aka French Point. No real need to rewrite the code when there are only two places to learn :D

gavagai
Jul-27-2013, 18:21
I still don't know where either of those places are. Pulling up google maps in flight is not very convenient.

This is how people are pushed away from Clod.

Wisey
Jul-27-2013, 19:39
I still don't know where either of those places are. Pulling up google maps in flight is not very convenient.

This is how people are pushed away from Clod.

I made a map.

ATAG_Colander
Jul-27-2013, 19:48
I still don't know where either of those places are. Pulling up google maps in flight is not very convenient.

This is how people are pushed away from Clod.

You can press the "M" (default key) and it will bring up an ingame map.
You can zoom in and out in the map and see more details (and more names).

gavagai
Jul-27-2013, 22:11
Yes, it's on the in-game map that I have sometimes not been able to find location names. You have to remember that I also have to worry about being shot at during these times. That's why I suggested algebraic coordinates as a helpful thing for people who don't play a lot of Clod. I'm not going to argue the point any more, though. I'm not very invested in Clod and I'm simply trying to explain why.

Good luck with your server missions!

Roblex
Jul-28-2013, 03:13
OK I am confused again. I have pointed out that when you are told the bombers are over St Marys Bay you need to be North of Dungeness (or near Littlestone Airfield if you prefer) and if it says Coquelles then you need to be just East of Cap Gris Nez (Or just South of Calais if you prefer) That is it! Two places. You look at the map once, do it now, and then you never have to bring up a map again when escorts are asked for.

The locations are only approximate, there is no need to position your aircraft exactly. Personally if the position was given as a grid reference *that* is when I would find myself continually bringing up the map to see where that is! :D

Wulf
Jul-28-2013, 04:42
Well, let's not go shooting the messenger here. If gavagai is having difficulty with these issues then I imagine others are as well. If we're serious about getting new people into the game then it's important mission builders know these things.

DUI
Jul-28-2013, 05:38
Maybe this map helps you to identify and communicate important points along the French and English coast that are typical for ATAG and Storm of War Missions:

3451

French coast (from East to West):
- Dunkirk
- LW Calais Marck
- Calais
- LW Coquelles
- LW Pihen
- French cliffs
- Cap Griz-Nez ("French point")
- Boulogne

English coast (from South to North):
- Dungeness ("English point")
- RAF Littlestone
- RAF Lympne
- Folkstone with RAF Hawkinge
- English cliffs between Folkstone and Dover
- Dover
- English Cliffs between Dover and Deal
- Deal
- RAF Manston + RAF Ramsgate
- RAF Eastchurch

JG5_Emil
Jul-28-2013, 05:50
Turning on map icons and other easy mode stuff because someone can't be bothered to learn the map...

This is what makes the sim so satisfying for most people who play.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jul-28-2013, 06:35
why not just fly another server, gavagai?

Some of them give you a grid reference, a map location a steering course and a time to intercept.

DUI
Jul-28-2013, 07:28
There are not so many popular servers - so please stay on ATAG or Storm of War, gavagai!

I think you definitely have a point. For someone being new to Cliffs of Dover there is so much more important and interesting to learn in the first days than to study every detail of the map. For example, how to get the plane in the air, how to get it down in one piece and how to get bandits down in "several pieces". :)

I like the idea of having grid coordinates added to the server messages - does not harm anyone and surely hardly makes any effort to the server admins. Of course, showing icons on the map would be something totally different.

ATAG_Snapper
Jul-28-2013, 10:02
I agree with the earlier post -- please don't shoot the messenger! It's instructive to see Cliffs of Dover through the eyes of someone coming fresh into the sim.

Let's face it, during the BoB locations were never radio'd by actual geographical name or coordinates. Code names (changed daily) were used. That would ball ALL of us up!

:)

Dutch
Jul-28-2013, 10:23
I'm not very invested in Clod and I'm simply trying to explain why.

Do you mean 'invested' or 'interested'?

So, starting a seperate thread, relating it to Lewis' thread, and complaining that you can't read the map, is somehow constructive?

Tell me Gavagai, as a dedicated RoFfer, how did you learn where all the places on the Western Front are? Or are all airfields, rendezvous points, targets, all given a map grid ref by all mission builders in RoF? Do you not know the locations of anything on that map without the help of a grid reference?

This whole thread is coming across to me as a troll post.

Gromit
Jul-29-2013, 04:03
All games have learning curves, If you join the guys on teamspeak it takes just a few sorties to understand where the main reference points are (English/French point, Dover, Calais etc) without even looking at the map, you can familiarise yourself with the terrain in a reasonable timeframe!

The LOD is a bugbear for us all we just get on with it for now, adding icons would ruin the game however, you cant surprise an enemy when there's a coloured reference icon marching across the screen, diving into a dogfight would become childlike as you can identify who's who with no aircraft recognition skills whatsoever, that to me would be dumbing down to an unacceptable level.

ATAG_Knuckles
Jul-29-2013, 08:41
One of the first think I had to do was "Learn the Map" Pretty sure thats how it was done back in the day. Can't tell you how many time I was looking for an airfield while I was still in France, Now I know the lay out, Towns, Rivers ect Makes the immersion that much better

Oh yeah: I still get lost from time to time

1lokos
Jul-29-2013, 13:40
Incidentally the "Channel Map" is one off most friendly map in "il-2's" (You can compare with fantasy map Pacific Islands), and is historical.

-You see across the channel wheres is the "Indian country, are good land marks for reference (English point, French point...)
-At least in 10/15 minutes you are in hot area (of course, if you know where to go).
-Fly East to find german's.
-Fly West to find british's.

If someone want something easier than that, only the symmetric Scimitar fantasy map.

Sokol1

III./ZG76_Saipan
Jul-29-2013, 13:57
Incidentally the "Channel Map" is one off most friendly map in "il-2's" (You can compare with fantasy map Pacific Islands), and is historical.

-You see across the channel wheres is the "Indian country, are good land marks for reference (English point, French point...)
-At least in 10/15 minutes you are in hot area (of course, if you know where to go).
-Fly East to find german's.
-Fly West to find british's.

If someone want something easier than that, only the symmetric Scimitar fantasy map.

Sokol1

I miss the pacific maps, a lot of the 3rd party ones were very good.

Salmo
Aug-01-2013, 01:12
Can I point out to ATAG some flaws in their mission designs that, quite frankly, are killing player interest. Let me summarising the mission I found when I entered the ATAG server today.

BATTLE
* 5 red players & 5 blue players online.
* Red briefing - The red brief asked pilots to destroy 3 targets while defending 5 targets
* Blue briefing - The blue brief asked pilots to destroy 5 targets while defending 3 targets
* Red objectives - 3 targets spread over 120 km2 enemy landmass
* blue targets - 5 targets spread over 400 km2 enemy landmass
* 4 & 1/2 hrs into a 5 hrs battle, and just one blue object objective achieved (no red objectives achieved)
* Virtually all flyable planes were available from all spawn base
* All players had either a Spitfire IIa or a Bf109-E4N

Battle size
Simple math will reveal that it's a virtual impossibility for any meaningful air engagements between red & blue players. It's not possible for 5 red players to attack/defend simultaneously at 7 locations. Similarly, it's not possible for 5 blue pilots to simultaneously attack/defend 7 locations. Have a look at the map, look at the total area that red & blue have to fly-in to cover their offensive & defensive targets. It's about 1,300km2. So for 10 pilots, thats just 1 pilot for every 130 km2, or if you like, 1 pilot for every 13 (10km) grid squares on the map. To achieve meaningful & frequent air encounters, I believe you'd need something like 1 pilot every 2-4 (10km) grid squares.

It's a no-brainer. The targets are too numerous, & spread too far apart, & the objectives (attack/defend) are too many for anything less than very large (> 80) player numbers.

Planesets
What can I say? I think I'll go potty if I join the server again & find the same-old -> same-old. 'Best' red plane v's 'best' blue plane scenario. Surely, we can be a bit more creative with planesets than to just make all planes available at all bases.

Spawn bases
Large number of spawn bases for both sides. Most often I spawn-in & there's no-one else at the airfield so I warm-up & takeoff in what amounts to a 'sterile' airfield environment. Minimise spawn base numbers to create a bit a atmosphere at bases (multiple players warming up, taxiing etc) to liven up the place.

Briefings
The briefing texts are very long (most players don't read them anyway). How about shortening the text to just essential information.

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-01-2013, 05:15
Can I point out to ATAG some flaws in their mission designs that, quite frankly, are killing player interest. Let me summarising the mission I found when I entered the ATAG server today.

BATTLE
* 5 red players & 5 blue players online.
* Red briefing - The red brief asked pilots to destroy 3 targets while defending 5 targets
* Blue briefing - The blue brief asked pilots to destroy 5 targets while defending 3 targets
* Red objectives - 3 targets spread over 120 km2 enemy landmass
* blue targets - 5 targets spread over 400 km2 enemy landmass
* 4 & 1/2 hrs into a 5 hrs battle, and just one blue object objective achieved (no red objectives achieved)
* Virtually all flyable planes were available from all spawn base
* All players had either a Spitfire IIa or a Bf109-E4N

I don't agree with you Salmo. I initially started out putting all same side targets within a 20km radius of each other. This obviously put the fight in one spot on each side, but at the same time, it put the already vunerable mud drivers into an even worse situation. They don't even have a rear gunner that works right as it stands.

The comments at the time were the BoB took place over many different parts of England. Many raids also historically went to multiple targets located much much further than any targets in the current missions. The idea of having spread out objectives is that a bomber guy actually has a chance of trying to fly a bomber. But it obviously gets harder to win the last few objectives when the opposing team is circling that one particular area where the last objective is. Now just imagine being a bomber pilot and your targets are constantly covered with fighters? How long is that going to make you want to fly anything with bombs?

I understand your point about wanting to see action, but understand not everyone is a fighter pilot and there has to be concessions made for those types pilots as well. What maybe fun for you (shooting down people / fast action) isn't going to be fun for a bomber pilot who's already spent 45 minutes getting across just to run into the entire opposition defending a target area all in one spot.

About the # of objectives for each side. This is all depends on target density and the difficulty in taking out targets. Generally if the Blue side has more targets to destroy it's because the planeset allows them to do it much more easily, such as having 109/B variants. Believe it or not, there is a reason why many of the missions are setup the way they are. If there is 3 targets for each side, and the 109's can sling bombs, how fast do you think 109's can take out the targets compared to the small bomb loadouts of the only bomber available to the Red side, the blenhiem? Lets just say the blue side will be taking out the targets much much faster. So instead of thinking in simple terms like number of targets per side, think of the big picture such as the distance certain aircraft have to fly to get to target, the planesets (those with bombs etc.) and then you'll soon see just how balanced those missions are as far as targets go. I've seen blue and red win as many times as each other.


Battle size
Simple math will reveal that it's a virtual impossibility for any meaningful air engagements between red & blue players. It's not possible for 5 red players to attack/defend simultaneously at 7 locations. Similarly, it's not possible for 5 blue pilots to simultaneously attack/defend 7 locations. Have a look at the map, look at the total area that red & blue have to fly-in to cover their offensive & defensive targets. It's about 1,300km2. So for 10 pilots, thats just 1 pilot for every 130 km2, or if you like, 1 pilot for every 13 (10km) grid squares on the map. To achieve meaningful & frequent air encounters, I believe you'd need something like 1 pilot every 2-4 (10km) grid squares.

It's a no-brainer. The targets are too numerous, & spread too far apart, & the objectives (attack/defend) are too many for anything less than very large (> 80) player numbers.

Sounds pretty realistic to me. You have to tactically think where the opponent is going to come from (from all the airfield choices), to what they are flying, what they are attacking, having to patrol, spending time searching for targets etc. Should I instead have airstarts that point towards each other and just let people duke it out and repeat? Is what is going on in the server not realistic? There are servers out there that have a flight time of 3 minutes to engage the enemy if you need that quick action. There are plenty of airquake type of servers out there etc, that can cater to what seems to be what you want. But we are still trying to give that BoB feeling.

I also don't understand the mission time complaints either. If I were to be the lone bomber guy on the server, I could not complete all the objectives in a 6 hour window by myself on any mission. There isn't enough time to for all the flying required. So the entire point is to give those guys that like to fly bombers, some time to get their bearings and possible hit some targets. Do you have any idea how long it takes an He111 to get to altitude for level bombing? Then the time it takes to plan your route so you won't waste all that time for nothing? Then actually getting to target and possibly hitting the target? I've done He111 flights that lasted over 3 hours for a single sortie, and all that for a miss!! Please, you must think about other types of pilots when it comes to how missions are made. Again, not everyone is a fighter pilot, and we try to cater so everyone can have a chance at enjoyable time. Will that always happen? Of course not. But you really need to look at the big picture when you are talking about mission stuff because while you may make a certain group of pilots happy, you will completely alienate another with that way of thinking.


Planesets
What can I say? I think I'll go potty if I join the server again & find the same-old -> same-old. 'Best' red plane v's 'best' blue plane scenario. Surely, we can be a bit more creative with planesets than to just make all planes available at all bases.

Don't know what to tell you. 50% of the missions have the E4n/IIa and the other 50% have an earlier planeset. I would say the "best vs best" is only there 1/2 the time. What's wrong with that?


Spawn bases
Large number of spawn bases for both sides. Most often I spawn-in & there's no-one else at the airfield so I warm-up & takeoff in what amounts to a 'sterile' airfield environment. Minimise spawn base numbers to create a bit a atmosphere at bases (multiple players warming up, taxiing etc) to liven up the place.

This is done for several reasons. I'm sorry that your time from the other side of the world doesn't get the amount of players on the server as the rest of the day, but there needs to be a plentiful amount of bases for people making low level airfield attacks. If there was only a few places to spawn and one particular side was camping the small amount of airfields to spawn at, people would never be able to get off the ground. This type of thing happens on both the front line bases all the time. Now couple this with the fact that there also needs to be a few bomber bases to take off from in case the scenario happens where one of those bases is being perched on, and you start to see why it's a must have to have multiple spawn bases. Again, this was very thought out.


Briefings
The briefing texts are very long (most players don't read them anyway). How about shortening the text to just essential information.

How do you know this? You're on at the time of day when hardly any players are around, why would you make the assumption that noone reads the briefing? And if noone did truly read the briefing, how would it's length bother anyone when it's going to show up regardless if there's any text in it in the 1st place?

Kling
Aug-01-2013, 11:02
Well I still think we should skip the british bomber formations and instead have twice as big german bomber formations each time...

No.401_Wolverine
Aug-01-2013, 13:15
Can I point out to ATAG some flaws in their mission designs that, quite frankly, are killing player interest. Let me summarising the mission I found when I entered the ATAG server today.

BATTLE
* 5 red players & 5 blue players online.
* Red briefing - The red brief asked pilots to destroy 3 targets while defending 5 targets
* Blue briefing - The blue brief asked pilots to destroy 5 targets while defending 3 targets
* Red objectives - 3 targets spread over 120 km2 enemy landmass
* blue targets - 5 targets spread over 400 km2 enemy landmass
* 4 & 1/2 hrs into a 5 hrs battle, and just one blue object objective achieved (no red objectives achieved)
* Virtually all flyable planes were available from all spawn base
* All players had either a Spitfire IIa or a Bf109-E4N

Battle size
Simple math will reveal that it's a virtual impossibility for any meaningful air engagements between red & blue players. It's not possible for 5 red players to attack/defend simultaneously at 7 locations. Similarly, it's not possible for 5 blue pilots to simultaneously attack/defend 7 locations. Have a look at the map, look at the total area that red & blue have to fly-in to cover their offensive & defensive targets. It's about 1,300km2. So for 10 pilots, thats just 1 pilot for every 130 km2, or if you like, 1 pilot for every 13 (10km) grid squares on the map. To achieve meaningful & frequent air encounters, I believe you'd need something like 1 pilot every 2-4 (10km) grid squares.

It's a no-brainer. The targets are too numerous, & spread too far apart, & the objectives (attack/defend) are too many for anything less than very large (> 80) player numbers.

Planesets
What can I say? I think I'll go potty if I join the server again & find the same-old -> same-old. 'Best' red plane v's 'best' blue plane scenario. Surely, we can be a bit more creative with planesets than to just make all planes available at all bases.

Spawn bases
Large number of spawn bases for both sides. Most often I spawn-in & there's no-one else at the airfield so I warm-up & takeoff in what amounts to a 'sterile' airfield environment. Minimise spawn base numbers to create a bit a atmosphere at bases (multiple players warming up, taxiing etc) to liven up the place.

Briefings
The briefing texts are very long (most players don't read them anyway). How about shortening the text to just essential information.

I agree with Salmo on a lot of points here.

RE. Battle Size:

Offering such wide area targets for bombers is certainly helpful to those who would like to make an attack run without being harrassed by fighters, but making those targets meaningful to the outcome of the mission seems a bit much. Especially considering what defending pilots would have to do in order to prevent those targets from being hit. For example, on one map there is a target of some tanks near Wilmington. A few of us decided to try defending that target which essentially resulted in us flying around in circles for nearly two hours before a single low flying JU88 that wasn't spotted by any radar came in and destroyed it before we could catch and shoot him down. I doubt that even the LOD fix rumoured to be coming would have changed this result. We could just as easily spent the entire mission time flying around in that area and not seen ANY action if Blue didn't have any bomber pilots or just didn't get time to attack that target. It is literally miles and miles and miles away from any of the other action. And yet we're, as RED, expected to devote pilots to defend it. When some players only have an hour (if that) to play, those targets may as well be in Scotland. There are plenty of attack vectors that can be taken against targets. Covering all attack vectors to any target is a pretty huge problem for a defending force that doesn't have working RDF when you consider the height of attack as well as the approach.

RE Planesets:

There's not much you can do about this unfortunately. Whatever plane set you supply, the best aircraft available will be the ones selected. Also, unfortunately, many people simply don't want to take up an aircraft they feel is 'inferior' to its opposition. Hence the disappearance of many players when the set is 1a 100oct vs E1 / E3. So to keep players playing, you have to give them what they want to fly and we end up with IIa vs E4/N (not much fun for a Hurricane pilot, I can assure you). The only thing I can think of that might mitigate this is to have the best aircraft taking off from rear airfields so that the people who want to take up the better aircraft have to spend time getting to the front. This will likely have the effect of reducing the numbers of those aircraft overall to something more reasonably approximating the ratios of the war. Even a diehard pilot who takes up a Spitfire IIa may switch to a Ia to get back into action after being shot down.

RE Spawn Bases:

Multiple bases to spawn at is generally an answer to the complaint of 'vulchers' lurking over an airfield, or as a deterant for concentrating combat entirely to a single area at low altitude. I think an appropriate number of airfields would be three. Two relatively near the front ( Hawkinge & Manston / Audembert & Calais Marck for example) and then one rear airfield (Eastchurch / Tramecourt). Put the IIa and the E4/N at Eastchurch and Tramecourt and keep any bomber targets contained within (or very close to within) the triangles created by those airfields.

RE Briefings:

People read the briefings I think, but mostly they just scroll until they see sector co-ords, so definitely a shorter briefing would make reading it easier and perhaps encourage more players to participate by making the objectives of each map easier to identify. Maybe standardize the briefing style into three headings.

AIRFIELDS
Hawkinge - Spitfire Ia (100oct) , Hurricane Rotol (100oct)
Manston - Spitfire Ia (100oct) , Hurricane Rotol (100oct)
Eastchurch - Spitfire IIa

TARGETS
BB 20 - HE111's at Caffiers
BB 21 - Landing barges at Calais Docks
BE 17 - German Army Command Post north east of Fruges

DEFENSE POINTS
AY 23 - CH Radar station near Dover Castle
AX 25 - British Infantry Base north west of Sandwich
AT 25 - Merlin engine parts factory near Sittingbourne

And then offer a similar briefing for the BLUE side. There's no reason not to include more in the briefings, but put this information at the top so that people don't need to scroll for it. This is especially helpful for people who like to switch between the map and briefing while flying.

No.401_Wolverine
Aug-01-2013, 14:00
Well I still think we should skip the british bomber formations and instead have twice as big german bomber formations each time...

A good suggestion. And have the bombers target active airfields and their spawn points to give taking out the bombers something worth doing in lieu of having air targets be valued against the mission result.

IE:

In the above suggestion of the three airfields (Hawkinge, Maston, Eastchurch):

15minutes into the map
9 Do17s attack Manston @ 15,000 ft
9 He111s attack Hawkinge @ 17,000 ft

45minutes into the map
9 Ju88s attack Hawkinge @ 20,000 ft
9 Ju87s attack Manston @ 10,000 ft

1h15minutes into the map
6 BR20s attack Hawkinge @ 18,000 ft
6 Do17s attack Eastchurch @ 19,000 ft
6 He111s attack Manston @ 16,000 ft

1h45minutes into the map
9 Ju88s attack Manston @ 20,000 ft
6 Do17s attack Hawkinge @ 16,000 ft
6 He111s attack Eastchurch @ 18,000 ft


Or, if those are spaced too far apart, halve the numbers of aircraft and double the rate at which they attack (every 15 min instead of every 30).

No.401_Wolverine
Aug-01-2013, 15:07
If the reason for not putting targets in a smaller radius is because the attacking bombers were getting attacked by the defending fighters...isn't that the whole point of defending a target? To get a crack at the incoming enemy?

I realize there's a lot of time spent in getting a 111 up to altitude and to make an attack run, but to intentionally create conditions on a multiplayer server to reduce the chances of multiplayer seems a bit weird. I sympathize with the 111 pilot. Most especially because as someone who likes to defend targets, I'll run out of fuel waiting for someone to approach my target. Twice. At least the 111 pilot doesn't have to rely on a player driven tank column to head down from North London in order to get a shot at him...and only if a player decides to do it.

If bombers are finding a hard time getting through a fighter screen, get an escort flight to take you over. Isn't that more realistic? To use the Wilmington example, realistically, wouldn't RDF be able to locate the incoming raid and put up a full squadron of intercept fighters from Tangmere or Biggin Hill?

In the absense of a real CH station system, there's very little Battle of Britain feel to the missions without concentrating the area a little more.

I've heard that you guys are working on making the AI bombers the mission target for RED fighters. That may make all the difference. I look forward to seeing how that can change mission design.

56RAF_klem
Aug-01-2013, 17:23
Thanks Salmo, you said it better than I did!

Roblex, I'm talking about the orange messages that ask you to rendezvous with bombers for escort, etc. They use location names and not map coordinates. Sometimes I have really wanted to escort bombers but couldn't find the name on the map!

I understand what you mean but one of the first things anyone posted to a region had to do was area familiarisation. Believe me if you are on ATAG Teamspeak with the allies guys you'll soon get that 'training' and know where these places are. If you are flying alone you will be in the dark.

Salmo
Aug-01-2013, 22:47
I don't agree with you Salmo. I initially started out putting all same side targets within a 20km radius of each other. This obviously put the fight in one spot on each side, but at the same time, it put the already vunerable mud drivers into an even worse situation. They don't even have a rear gunner that works right as it stands.

The comments at the time were the BoB took place over many different parts of England. Many raids also historically went to multiple targets located much much further than any targets in the current missions. The idea of having spread out objectives is that a bomber guy actually has a chance of trying to fly a bomber. But it obviously gets harder to win the last few objectives when the opposing team is circling that one particular area where the last objective is. Now just imagine being a bomber pilot and your targets are constantly covered with fighters? How long is that going to make you want to fly anything with bombs?

I understand your point about wanting to see action, but understand not everyone is a fighter pilot and there has to be concessions made for those types pilots as well. What maybe fun for you (shooting down people / fast action) isn't going to be fun for a bomber pilot who's already spent 45 minutes getting across just to run into the entire opposition defending a target area all in one spot.

About the # of objectives for each side. This is all depends on target density and the difficulty in taking out targets. Generally if the Blue side has more targets to destroy it's because the planeset allows them to do it much more easily, such as having 109/B variants. Believe it or not, there is a reason why many of the missions are setup the way they are. If there is 3 targets for each side, and the 109's can sling bombs, how fast do you think 109's can take out the targets compared to the small bomb loadouts of the only bomber available to the Red side, the blenhiem? Lets just say the blue side will be taking out the targets much much faster. So instead of thinking in simple terms like number of targets per side, think of the big picture such as the distance certain aircraft have to fly to get to target, the planesets (those with bombs etc.) and then you'll soon see just how balanced those missions are as far as targets go. I've seen blue and red win as many times as each other.



Sounds pretty realistic to me. You have to tactically think where the opponent is going to come from (from all the airfield choices), to what they are flying, what they are attacking, having to patrol, spending time searching for targets etc. Should I instead have airstarts that point towards each other and just let people duke it out and repeat? Is what is going on in the server not realistic? There are servers out there that have a flight time of 3 minutes to engage the enemy if you need that quick action. There are plenty of airquake type of servers out there etc, that can cater to what seems to be what you want. But we are still trying to give that BoB feeling.

I also don't understand the mission time complaints either. If I were to be the lone bomber guy on the server, I could not complete all the objectives in a 6 hour window by myself on any mission. There isn't enough time to for all the flying required. So the entire point is to give those guys that like to fly bombers, some time to get their bearings and possible hit some targets. Do you have any idea how long it takes an He111 to get to altitude for level bombing? Then the time it takes to plan your route so you won't waste all that time for nothing? Then actually getting to target and possibly hitting the target? I've done He111 flights that lasted over 3 hours for a single sortie, and all that for a miss!! Please, you must think about other types of pilots when it comes to how missions are made. Again, not everyone is a fighter pilot, and we try to cater so everyone can have a chance at enjoyable time. Will that always happen? Of course not. But you really need to look at the big picture when you are talking about mission stuff because while you may make a certain group of pilots happy, you will completely alienate another with that way of thinking.



Don't know what to tell you. 50% of the missions have the E4n/IIa and the other 50% have an earlier planeset. I would say the "best vs best" is only there 1/2 the time. What's wrong with that?



This is done for several reasons. I'm sorry that your time from the other side of the world doesn't get the amount of players on the server as the rest of the day, but there needs to be a plentiful amount of bases for people making low level airfield attacks. If there was only a few places to spawn and one particular side was camping the small amount of airfields to spawn at, people would never be able to get off the ground. This type of thing happens on both the front line bases all the time. Now couple this with the fact that there also needs to be a few bomber bases to take off from in case the scenario happens where one of those bases is being perched on, and you start to see why it's a must have to have multiple spawn bases. Again, this was very thought out.



How do you know this? You're on at the time of day when hardly any players are around, why would you make the assumption that noone reads the briefing? And if noone did truly read the briefing, how would it's length bother anyone when it's going to show up regardless if there's any text in it in the 1st place?

Thankyou so much for the information & rationale behind your mission design. It's great to get an insight into a mission designer's thoughts when preparing a mission, because the process is always a compromise between many competing factors. There's certainly no right or wrong way to construct a missions.

Salmo
Aug-02-2013, 01:15
A good suggestion. And have the bombers target active airfields and their spawn points to give taking out the bombers something worth doing in lieu of having air targets be valued against the mission result. <snip>

Operation Homeplate? http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4507

Kling
Aug-02-2013, 04:04
Operation Homeplate? http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4507

Salmo your missions sound great but are you sure they can run on a server without lag or server crash etc etc with 90 players?!

No.401_Wolverine
Aug-02-2013, 11:12
I'd rather have great missions running with max 45 players than other missions running at 90. It might even be one of the ways wanted to grow the game. Make the gameplay better and spread the load around multiple servers. The 'thrill' of a 90+ server is rather low for me and I suspect others. Especially when in my time zone finding 90 players online across ALL servers (let alone one server) is quite rare.

Gromit
Aug-02-2013, 11:55
How about a slightly different approach as an experiment?

Instead of several targets spread out over a large area , how about one larger target?

for instance the blue target could be Manston, red could be Calais Merk, with several objectives spread out at the field and surrounding area, requiring a concerted effort to complete.

the idea being even with say 50 players online, that's only 25 opposing aircraft if the teams are balanced, not all the aircraft are going to be airborne or in the vicinity at the same time (especially if there are bombers, escort, CAP's) yet it concentrates the attackers and defenders in an area requiring a determined bomber force with escort to complete the mission but also creating a scenario where contact between the teams is likely.

the next map could then be in a completely different area?

Just a thought.

SoW Reddog
Aug-02-2013, 12:19
I'm working on a mission (my first) which I hope to be able to send to Bliss to get some bits and pieces scripted in.

What are the views of players to the question, Does every map HAVE to have a Red objective that is bombable, ie fly blennie to france to blow something up? I wouldn't want to see every map a clone of the previous one (which is a bit what we have now in some respects).

Whether what I want to do is achievable yet I am not sure but I'll sure give it some time and effort.

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-02-2013, 13:00
I'd rather have great missions running with max 45 players than other missions running at 90. It might even be one of the ways wanted to grow the game. Make the gameplay better and spread the load around multiple servers. The 'thrill' of a 90+ server is rather low for me and I suspect others. Especially when in my time zone finding 90 players online across ALL servers (let alone one server) is quite rare.

I disagree there's nothing better than knowing you have 100 other human players to fly with. Joining a server that performs badly is an utter turn off for me. Rather it be a server bandwidth problem, hardware, or mission design, missions should be designed to be stable within the limits of the game. The same goes for IL2. There's a pretty lengthy topic about online servers do's and don't as far as objectives / stability / static object / AI object count. People need to realize clod is like 46 in this regard. I tried for the moon early on and soon found out what caused huge delays when people joined, server crashes, stability etc. You push a mission over these limits and all the above happens long before you get to a certain amount of players.

I understand people wanting to push the boundaries of all the scripting possibilities in clod, but realize the game engine is just like 46 with more options. The limits didn't change with them. So when you are scripting you can't shoot for the moon either. There are compromises that need to be made. That's why all our missions and server could be left running for months on end without touching it and the server will never crash. That's stability and from my experience, is one of the most important things to have. A mission should act the same with 1 person joining or 45 people joining or 90 people joining. If it gets one more player and the server crashes its either a mission or server problem. So just realize these compromises have to be made and guidelines kept just like in 46.

As far as the gameplay, I don't really understand. This is what has been going on in IL2 servers for years. The difference is old IL2 couldn't have AI in missions up till about a year ago. You join the most popular IL2 servers and their objectives aren't close together either. I think some are just getting bored of having one map to do it all in. That part is understandable, but I don't think I've ever seen some complaints about WoP (for instance) where the targets should all be in close proximity of each other. In fact, it's usually the opposite.

When you have 300 flyable a and 100 maps to choose from, I guess people are ok with it. But the lack of content in Clod isn't my fault.

Regarding the real BoB, you seem to think fighters knew exactly where the Axis forces planned to attack during their raids, as if there is real time spy intelligence for every sortie before hand. The beauty of setting mission objectives that both teams know about takes all that guess work away. You already know what targets need to be hit along with what planes/types are being flown. The CH radar helped in finding where the enemies were but did nothing to show what they planned on attacking. This information is given to both sides.

So I'm kind of at a loss to your comments. Did you play 46 online?

No.401_Wolverine
Aug-02-2013, 13:01
Operation Homeplate? http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4507

I never got a chance to play it, unfortunately.

Even a change as simple as making the AI bombers in the current missions the actually objective target for RED side instead of targets in France, but leave the targets in England for BLUE would make a big difference and probably not be toooo hard on the server.

If there are people who absolutely need to fly a Blenheim to bomb an objective, there can be missions tailored to that as well. Every mission need not be all things to all people.

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-02-2013, 13:18
I'm working on a mission (my first) which I hope to be able to send to Bliss to get some bits and pieces scripted in.

What are the views of players to the question, Does every map HAVE to have a Red objective that is bombable, ie fly blennie to france to blow something up? I wouldn't want to see every map a clone of the previous one (which is a bit what we have now in some respects).

Whether what I want to do is achievable yet I am not sure but I'll sure give it some time and effort.

Well I don't think it does. The big problem is the triggers inside the game that you can use for objectives are typically for a destroyed object. So in that regard think about how you will want to allow red's to win the map. A scoring system could be put into place, but then again, that entire scoring system would have to be coded to make it work. The included triggers in the game are what we have for win/lose for either side. If you have an idea for how red could win without using a trigger/writing 1000 lines of code, I'd love to hear it. But I think objectives (like in old IL2) is the only system that's already put in place in the game. Until more 3rd party content comes out we are stuck with what the game gave us.

No.401_Wolverine
Aug-02-2013, 13:37
I'm kind of at a loss to your comments. Did you play 46 online?

Yes, I did. And made missions for 46.

I'm sure you're aware of everything CH / RDF could do for the British, so I won't go over it. RED is not getting proper control info and therefore has no indication of the likely targets of confirmed enemy raids (players, not ai since ai doesn't attack the targets). So as a RED defender, I have to roll the dice to defend targets unless there's only a single target left.

Even if there's a single target left, or if I've chosen the point I'm defending, my problem as a defender (without CH) is still ridiculous. A single target still has 360 degrees of attack vector. In order to maximize my chance of successfully catching and eliminating an enemy raider before he has a chance to drop bombs on target, I have to position myself and wingmen out in front of the target along a suspected attack vector (again rolling the dice, hopefully with some intelligent thought added to enhance the chances of being right). Now I have to guess at altitude as well. Low raid coming in fast on the deck? High altitude bomber from 15,000 ft +? Once more, have to guess.

1. Guess which target is going to be attacked (If I could get locations of raids as they leave France, I could make the guess myself)
2. Guess which attack vector he's going to be on. (I could use multiple location readings from RDF to calc this myself)
3. Guess which altitude he's coming in at (This info would be clear)

Sure, there should be some delay in receiving any of that info, but it's better than nothing.

It's a pretty demoralizing thing to try and defend without RDF. If anything it certainly shows how vital it was in the real Battle of Britain.

If the game isn't up to hosting 90+ players and having a functioning CH system for RED defenders, then I'd like to play missions more like what I suggested earlier. They don't even require more code than you're already using so you could have your 90 players still. That's just me, though, so I don't expect to see missions just appear to appease me. But, the thread was here and a discussion was ongoing, so I put in my two cents.

S!

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-02-2013, 19:12
Yes, I did. And made missions for 46.

I'm sure you're aware of everything CH / RDF could do for the British, so I won't go over it. RED is not getting proper control info and therefore has no indication of the likely targets of confirmed enemy raids (players, not ai since ai doesn't attack the targets). So as a RED defender, I have to roll the dice to defend targets unless there's only a single target left.

Even if there's a single target left, or if I've chosen the point I'm defending, my problem as a defender (without CH) is still ridiculous. A single target still has 360 degrees of attack vector. In order to maximize my chance of successfully catching and eliminating an enemy raider before he has a chance to drop bombs on target, I have to position myself and wingmen out in front of the target along a suspected attack vector (again rolling the dice, hopefully with some intelligent thought added to enhance the chances of being right). Now I have to guess at altitude as well. Low raid coming in fast on the deck? High altitude bomber from 15,000 ft +? Once more, have to guess.

1. Guess which target is going to be attacked (If I could get locations of raids as they leave France, I could make the guess myself)
2. Guess which attack vector he's going to be on. (I could use multiple location readings from RDF to calc this myself)
3. Guess which altitude he's coming in at (This info would be clear)

Sure, there should be some delay in receiving any of that info, but it's better than nothing.

It's a pretty demoralizing thing to try and defend without RDF. If anything it certainly shows how vital it was in the real Battle of Britain.

If the game isn't up to hosting 90+ players and having a functioning CH system for RED defenders, then I'd like to play missions more like what I suggested earlier. They don't even require more code than you're already using so you could have your 90 players still. That's just me, though, so I don't expect to see missions just appear to appease me. But, the thread was here and a discussion was ongoing, so I put in my two cents.

S!

Let me ask a question since this entire post deals with a radar system that does not come with Cliffs of Dover nor is publicly available. Would you rather have the programmers at ATAG release content to the entire community in the form of helping TF or work just on the ATAG server? ATAG has released utilities and tools for the public and now those people who work on server stuff is working on releasing TF content for everyone.

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to call not having CH radar "ridiculous" when A.) it's not part of the game to begin with and B.) it's nowhere publicly available?

This would be like having Zuti never release his moving dogfight server utility and only Zuti's server having it, and then going to another server forum and complaining at them because they don't have moving dogfights. Maybe try to get the people that made a working CH radar to release it to the community or as part of a TF patch. But please don't try call our missions ridiculous for not having something that's not available to the game. That's pretty short sighted.

No.401_Wolverine
Aug-02-2013, 22:08
Let me ask a question since this entire post deals with a radar system that does not come with Cliffs of Dover nor is publicly available. Would you rather have the programmers at ATAG release content to the entire community in the form of helping TF or work just on the ATAG server? ATAG has released utilities and tools for the public and now those people who work on server stuff is working on releasing TF content for everyone.

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to call not having CH radar "ridiculous" when A.) it's not part of the game to begin with and B.) it's nowhere publicly available?

This would be like having Zuti never release his moving dogfight server utility and only Zuti's server having it, and then going to another server forum and complaining at them because they don't have moving dogfights. Maybe try to get the people that made a working CH radar to release it to the community or as part of a TF patch. But please don't try call our missions ridiculous for not having something that's not available to the game. That's pretty short sighted.

Where did I say not having CH is ridiculous?

I said the task of defending targets spread out to such a wide area with so few people without CH is ridiculous. This is a topic about mission design and my suggestions were about how to make missions that make up for flaws in the game (ie the lack of working CH - move targets within the confines of the available airfields, keep airfields not so far apart but not too close, etc.). My points were about how the lack of CH makes widespread targets unfeasible to effectively defend, not about how ATAG mission makers need to bow to my demand and make working CH.

Please try to stay on the topic and not read constructive criticism in such a way to simply to pick a fight.

I offered straight up ideas on how I thought missions could be made. You disagreed. I tried to outline my reasoning regarding targets. And you call me short sighted and passively take an insulting shot at ACG / Storm of War while doing it.

I'm sorry if I offended you.

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-02-2013, 22:19
Where did I say not having CH is ridiculous?

I said the task of defending targets spread out to such a wide area with so few people without CH is ridiculous. This is a topic about mission design and my suggestions were about how to make missions that make up for flaws in the game (ie the lack of working CH - move targets within the confines of the available airfields, keep airfields not so far apart but not too close, etc.). My points were about how the lack of CH makes widespread targets unfeasible to effectively defend, not about how ATAG mission makers need to bow to my demand and make working CH.

Please try to stay on the topic and not read constructive criticism in such a way to simply to pick a fight.

I offered straight up ideas on how I thought missions could be made. You disagreed. I tried to outline my reasoning regarding targets. And you call me short sighted and passively take an insulting shot at ACG / Storm of War while doing it.

I'm sorry if I offended you.

To your question: Where did I say not having CH radar is ridiculous. You said it right here in the post I responded to. Your exact words:
Even if there's a single target left, or if I've chosen the point I'm defending, my problem as a defender (without CH) is still ridiculous. I even put it in bold so you could read it. You said defending a target without CH radar is ridiculous. So essentially trying to play any objective based mission where you are trying to defend a mission without the use of CH radar, in your opinion, is ridiculous. Now maybe you can understand my response. It is not ridiculous at all. People have been doing that for years.

And if you read earlier, or played IL46 (the reason I asked) is because most online missions on the popular servers were setup with missions with no radars whatsoever (as it hadn't been 3rd party made yet) and yet had targets that weren't all grouped on top of each other. This happened for years, and I don't ever remember anyone saying it was ridiculous to play such a mission without radar. WoP did stuff like this for years.

And I did not attack anyone. I suggest reading what I said again.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Aug-02-2013, 23:31
Salute All

I think everyone posting here is genuinely interested in improving the game and our enjoyment of it.

I think we have a great community of very knowledgeable people. :salute:

As long as we all have respect for others opinions, everyone is entitled to suggest changes.

But of course, all posters should also remember before writing constructive criticisms, that some people have put a lot of time, sweat and energy into the setups.

And I'm sure those who are the builders, will keep an open mind for new ideas. :thumbsup:

Cheers Buzzsaw

Roblex
Aug-03-2013, 04:01
The idea of having spread out objectives is that a bomber guy actually has a chance of trying to fly a bomber. But it obviously gets harder to win the last few objectives when the opposing team is circling that one particular area where the last objective is. Now just imagine being a bomber pilot and your targets are constantly covered with fighters? How long is that going to make you want to fly anything with bombs?

I read this and I thought 'That makes a lot of sense. Attacking targets close together would be as silly as trying to bomb a target right in the middle of the furball off Folkstone' then my next thought was '.....err, people *do* bring JU88s and HE111s into the middle of the furball off Folkstone!' So maybe I don't find the reasons quite so compelling after all :-) I do fly bombers and have been known to deliberately choose a target way out with little chance of being intercepted by enemy fighters but if I am honest I always end up feeling like I have cheated and may as well have just played in an empty map or offline. Now that map with a well defended British convoy in the Thames Estuary North of Manston and fighters always nearby did feel satisfying to get a JU88 in and out of alive.

Little_D
Aug-03-2013, 09:11
hi gents,

please dont feel atacked by my words, because it is maby a language thing and it is only my view of the situation i see on the server or lets say it a better way, how the realety on the server is out of my view.

i read this thread all over and post here too, but in the moment i dont realy care about the maps or if they are historical, because it makes no sence to me, because there is no need for historical missions, because there is no historical flying from 75% of the players on the server. why?

think about this:

1. how often you try to clear a six from a friend, you damaged the enemy bad ( parts mission, black smoke from the engin, 1 weel is down, etc. ) and what does he? he still try to kill his target, instead of brake off and try to run home or bail.

2. how often you have a long dogfight with an enemy that you damaged bad ( parts mission, black smoke from the engin, 1 weel is down, etc. ) and he still try to fight you instead of brake off and try to run home or bail, even when you turn away, because you know he is finished and will not realy make it home, he trys to fight with you.

3. how often the bombergroup that you whant to escord is atackd and killed at there spawnpoint.

4. how often you see a voulcher stay for over 5 minutes over the base and atack every plane that spawn in, even when they are badly damaged they try to kill a last plane befor they chrash or die. and this is the biggets problem it center the fights ofer the bases and not over the targets.

and dont come now with the argument it is a historical tactic, i dont realy know how do you think it was in WW 2 when they atacked an airfield, what i can say to you is, it was not like it is practise on this server from the voulchers, definitive not like this. but if you think you make it historical corect, than maby it is better you learn a little bit more about fighting in WW2.

5. the funnyest thing for me is that guys that claim that they want to fly historical show in there videos record with fps that they have all infos on ( engin management ( trottle, rpm, cooler settings), damaged report for own plane and enemy plane, and where they can find the enemy, or the classics point they fly with open canopy. this is very historical.
use you cockpit instruments when you whant to fly historical or dont say when you use it you whant to fly historical.

i can go on with more points, but i think this points are enough.

My observation is, that from the historical flying of 1946 on online server i know and love, it when down to non historical acarde flying on CoD and i have the fear that it will go on in BoS. and has nothing to do with how the maps are build its the behavior from most of the people on the server. why?

1. 75% of the online pilots dont care about there pilots life and the kill is all that counts for tham, even when 90% of there kills are non return a life kills, they think they are good pilots or aces.

2. 75% of the pilots dont go for objectives exept the bomberpilots, they only whant quick action, no need for escord, no need for cap over own target, now need for fightersweep over enemy target, etc.

3. in the good old times of 1946 it was a kind of respect to the enemy side that you dont shoot at landing planes, starting planes ( even when it was allowed ), that you let the enemy try to make a chrashlanding or let him go home, when you know he is finished. but here it is like damn he is not death and the basthard try to run or make a chrash landing.

4. in 1946 on the comon online server it was more like a arena where you can test your skills against other players with respect and the rules of angatment. i know that this count not for all pilots in 1946 but for at least 75% and we still flow for the objectivs and to win the map.

and i think as long we get all kills count, even when the enemy land at his base, make a chrashlanding in frindly territory, or the worst thing we get a kill counted for us when we die, ,nothing will change.

to stop this nonsens fighting to the end i think it would be a good idea to make the planes weaker or the wepons mutch stronger, so we come close to 1946 again, even when it is not historical, this will make it more historical, because this fighting to the end stops, because you cant do it aney more.

here the post from Ultra Pack:

Weapons Addons

After almost 1 year of intensive work, data collecting and 1000s of hours testing i present you the Weapons addon that will be included by default in next UP. No more unfair performance for specific guns and cannons.
Every gun/cannon was trimmed not only regarding its actual performance but also in comparison with the rest guns/cannons in game.

After several months of testing we found that for some weapons, mainly small caliber guns and few of the cannons, there was the need to change their real life data so they could perform realistic and accordingly to the rest of the weapons.

Here is the methodology we used to achieve this:

A) if the performance of a weapons is lower or higher we tried to trim its penetration ability and explosive radius to achieve realistic performance.
B) If the above method was not enough to achieve this then the next step was to alter its belting to achieve satisfactory results.
C) If the above method was unsatisfactory then we tried to lower or increase the HE ammount of the bullet to achieve historical accuracy.

The characteristics that were not changed are the Rate Of Fire, the Bullets Weight and the Velocity.

Our data were mainly from the Flying Guns of WWII By Emanuel Gustin and Tony Williams, from Williams webpage here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/
and from other reliable sources on the internet.

Now the testing methodology and our theory of the weapons damage in real life is this:

A) Theory of Weapons lethality in WWII:

Data taken from the Cartridge lethality table in Williams page: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Theory:

We know that historically it took in average 4bullets of a MG151/20 to down a fighter.
The average Cartridge Damage of a MG151/20 bullet is 151,67. SInce for bullets a needed to down a fighter plane, we can assume that 606,68 is the average damage that a fighter can take before he is going down.

Which leads us to the following table:
Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
Browning.303 7.7x56R 1 10,25 (2x8.6/4x11) 59,5
MG 17* 7.92x57 1 10 60,988

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
MG 131 13x64B 3 31,67 (27/2x 34) 19,27
Ho-103 12.7x81SR 3 ? ?
.50 Browning M2 12.7x99 4,5 46 12,25
12.7mm UB 12.7x108 6 57 10,7
MG 151/15 15x96 13-17 77,8 (61/4x82) 7,84

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
20mm ShVAK 20x99R 11 118,3 (86/19x120) 5,128
Berezin B-20 20x99R 11 118,3 (86/19x120) 5,128
20mm Type 99-1 20x72RB 12 123 4,932
MG-FF 20x80RB 14 136,2 (2x90/89/2x206) 4,454
20mm Ho-5 20x94 10 141,5 (78/127) 5,918
MG 151/20 20x82 16 151,67 (110/109/236) 4
20mm Type 99-2 20x101RB 15 154 3,94
Ho-1 / Ho-2 20x125 18 177 3,43
Hispano II 20x110 20 197,5 (201/194) 3,07
Hispano V 20x110 20 197,5 (201/194) 3,07
VYa-23 23x152B 26 276 (228/2x300) 2,2

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
MK 108 30x90RB 58 580 1,046
MK 103 30x184B 99 990 0,628

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
37mm M4 37x145R 64 645 0,94
NS-37 37x195 106 1060 0,572

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
Ho-301 40mm CL 27 269 2,255

but maby it is only me because i get it teached this way and i am count to the old generation and the younger flight sim generation only interestet in quick unrealistic non hostorical acarde x-box gaming. what makes me sadly is, that the fun i had over yeas with 1946 on onlineserver goes down and down and i dont think it will not go up again because i notice even i start to dont care about my pilots life or return a life kills and how i fly, because it makes no sence to me to try to fly historical and with honor, respect or rules of angatement, when 75% dont carer about this.

this is only my view of what happens here when i compare flying with other people on different servers with 1946 and flying with people online with CoD.

regards

Little_D

Kling
Aug-03-2013, 09:57
Well... ATM we currently seldom have more than 50 players and that is at its busiest time so I think this is a perfect opportunity to test some of Salmos more demanding missions.
I would happily see missions made for max 60 players if they were to include huge german bomber formations that attack fields where the objective for the red side is to shoot down as many planes as possible and the objective for the blue side is to bomb as many airfields as possible. Since the server is never super busy, most people wont even notice that the mission cant handle more than 60 players...

Why not try new missions on server nr 2??
I think its clear that people are a bit tired of the same missions over and over again and the only way of learning is learning by doing so why not try it?
I know Bliss that some of Salmos missions have limitations but why not test and see how many players it allows instead of saying it wont work and not letting him try them at all? (on server 2 as i said, what do we have to lose??)
Im sure that if he sees that his missions had flaws he will edit the missions accordingly. And if they dont work, then you were right and he was wrong. If they do work they the community just some more missions.. a win win if you ask me.

Regards
Kling

vranac
Aug-03-2013, 10:11
Little_D, with all due respect, I agree with some parts of your post and also think that organized pilots will make missions better and more immersive.


1. how often you try to clear a six from a friend, you damaged the enemy bad ( parts mission, black smoke from the engin, 1 weel is down, etc. ) and what does he? he still try to kill his target, instead of brake off and try to run home or bail.

2. how often you have a long dogfight with an enemy that you damaged bad ( parts mission, black smoke from the engin, 1 weel is down, etc. ) and he still try to fight you instead of brake off and try to run home or bail, even when you turn away, because you know he is finished and will not realy make it home, he trys to fight with you.

You looking at this from Blue side point of view.RAF planes don't have a luxury to leave the fight.109s accelerate better and they can extend and leave the fight.


4. in 1946 on the comon online server it was more like a arena where you can test your skills against other players with respect and the rules of angatment. i know that this count not for all pilots in 1946 but for at least 75% and we still flow for the objectivs and to win the map.

I don't see any difference here in CloD.Have you been flying any online war?


to stop this nonsens fighting to the end i think it would be a good idea to make the planes weaker or the wepons mutch stronger, so we come close to 1946 again, even when it is not historical, this will make it more historical, because this fighting to the end stops, because you cant do it aney more. there was a good post back in the days of Ultra Pack where they show with a science report from the the british war science goverment ( sorry i dont know the right word for this ) i think, that shows that in WW2 a average of 4.5 bullets of 20mm, 1.3 bullet of 30mm round, 25 bullets of .50 rounds and about 70 rounds of 7.6 mm where needed to destroy a fighterplane complet or let the pilot bail. in the moment you can hit a enemy with more than 4.5 bullets of 20mm rounds or with more than 70 rounds of 7.6 mm and he still flys and fight.

And this is the part that made me write this post.What do you want with this?
Do you think 20mm shell is air to air missile.It is not. Put 1 into engine, cockpit or tail and that plane is out. Put one into the wing and it can't turn good anymore.
Fly on the red side for a few weeks and you will see what happens.

What makes me sad is that I noticed that nice new missions with older planesets are not popular like ones with 109e4/N vs spitII. Especially low numbers are on the blue side.

I fly on both sides and never on 109e4/N.Good 109 pilot don't need it to win against spitIIa.That plane is to strong and allows lot of mistakes.
It is similar like old spitIIa from 1.05 patch which was firstly limited and then banned from servers.I'm shure if two pilots (with similar experience and fly both sides) fight and then change sides
result will be 9:1 or 8:2 in favour of 109e4.
And IMO and some of experienced RAF pilots that is the main reason why you don't see many RAF planes at high alt.

Little_D
Aug-03-2013, 11:04
You looking at this from Blue side point of view. RAF planes don't have a luxury to leave the fight.109s accelerate better and they can extend and leave the fight.

sorry i dont do it, what i wrot counts for both side. no blue and red comments in my post, sorry if you missunderstood it, because i wrote it wrong. there is no differents between red and blue in this behavior. and to the RAF planes, they can do it too, but you need to know how. it is easyer in the 109 that is true, but this dont means that in RAF planes you cant do it.



I don't see any difference here in CloD.Have you been flying any online war?

yes i dit but i am talking from other onlineserver in 1946, that where open and where no online war server and there is a hugh different between 1946 and CoD from the behavior.




And this is the part that made me write this post.What do you want with this?
Do you think 20mm shell is air to air missile.It is not. Put 1 into engine, cockpit or tail and that plane is out. Put one into the wing and it can't turn good anymore.
Fly on the red side for a few weeks and you will see what happens.

i dit this too and i had bad damaged in the wing and still was able to outturn a 109, what i cant do is aiming in red planes :). and to the 20mm, sorry i think you post your post when i was fitting in the post from Ultra Pack i searched for, so please red my post again, than you know what i mean i think.



Good 109 pilot don't need it to win against spitIIa.

your right, but in the moment i dont fly the E-4, because of 1 reson, it is porkt or wrong moddelt to get the E-4/n running or what ever. you ever try the 109 E-4 with outoprop since we have the E-4/N?
the outoprob runs as an example at 1.25 ATA (climb settings) 2000 rpm, only at full ATA the rpm is correct and sorry i am not a 100% power flyer. and when i have the opotunety to fly with autoprop like it was in WW2 than i whant right rpm. we dont have it in the moment so i take the e-4/N with right autoprop. and to high alt, sorry the Spit MK II is at high alt faster, can turn better and climb better than even the E-4/N and this is like it should be, but the problem there is a high alt fight is totaly different from a low level fight. but most MK II pilots i meet up high turn like in low level fights and loos, but this is not the false of the E-4/N, it the pilots false. some good MK II pilots give me up there a hard time and force me to brake off because they know how to fight at high alt. and with high alt i mean from 6k to 9k the rest is normal alt, for me.

regards

Little_D

Kling
Aug-03-2013, 11:23
your right, but in the moment i dont fly the E-4, because of 1 reson, it is porkt or wrong moddelt to get the E-4/n running or what ever. you ever try the 109 E-4 with outoprop since we have the E-4/N?
the outoprob runs as an example at 1.25 ATA (climb settings) 2000 rpm, only at full ATA the rpm is correct and sorry i am not a 100% power flyer. and when i have the opotunety to fly with autoprop like it was in WW2 than i whant right rpm. we dont have it in the moment so i take the e-4/N with right autoprop. and to high alt, sorry the Spit MK II is at high alt faster, can turn better and climb better than even the E-4/N and this is like it should be, but the problem there is a high alt fight is totaly different from a low level fight. but most MK II pilots i meet up high turn like in low level fights and loos, but this is not the false of the E-4/N, it the pilots false. some good MK II pilots give me up there a hard time and force me to brake off because they know how to fight at high alt. and with high alt i mean from 6k to 9k the rest is normal alt, for me.

regards

Little_D

Hm my experience flying BOTH SpitIIa and 109E4N at high altitude is that the SpitIIa has no chance up there. Its the 109E4 that completely dominates the battle terms. Unless there are two SpitIIa vs one 109E4, the Spit will stand no chance. And as I said, I fly both the 109 and Spit!

Regards

vranac
Aug-03-2013, 12:15
Hm my experience flying BOTH SpitIIa and 109E4N at high altitude is that the SpitIIa has no chance up there. Its the 109E4 that completely dominates the battle terms. Unless there are two SpitIIa vs one 109E4, the Spit will stand no chance. And as I said, I fly both the 109 and Spit!

Regards

I agree completely Kling.

Little_D I really don't understand what are you trying to say.I will repeat, spit can't go home from the fight if he felt threatened or damaged, 109 can(if not damaged hard ).
I never saw you flying red, but I might be wrong.

I also don't understand your problem with 109e4, I fight a lot in it against 109e4/N's on dogfight server and I don't see any difference in turning,
only one is 109e4/N climbs better.
So you like to fly on 1,2 ata, you don't like 109e4 and than you take 109e4/N.
109e4 can be flown on 1.4 ata with pauses of 20-30 sec without any problem for the engine, so I don't see any logic taking 109e4/N instead.
Bit controversial.
You can use manual PP if you want to fly on 1.2 ata but I don't think RPMs are wrong with auto PP.

And I would like to see that spitIIa which would outclimb me in 109e4, really.

Sorry for offtopic a bit, but IMO thats the reason why we lack hi alt RAF planes. I was recording lot of tracks and thanks to Track editor could see did I maybe missed
some enemy planes when flying high.Very rarely, maybe over ground with a few km alt difference.

Wulf
Aug-03-2013, 12:31
Hm my experience flying BOTH SpitIIa and 109E4N at high altitude is that the SpitIIa has no chance up there. Its the 109E4 that completely dominates the battle terms. Unless there are two SpitIIa vs one 109E4, the Spit will stand no chance. And as I said, I fly both the 109 and Spit!

Regards


Well, I can't say that's been my experience at all. From what I can see the two types are pretty close at altitude with the 'N' maybe having a slight edge, but only slight. I'd say that if the two pilots are about the same in terms of their high alt. experience, the fight would usually go to the one with the tactical advantage (alt/speed). As Little mentioned, I think a number of Spit pilots make the mistake of relying too heavily on turn-fighting tactics at high alt. This approach is fine if you're intending to evade and then leg-it for the deck, but if you want to stay and fight, you've just made yourself a B'nZ target. Just because the Spit will out turn a 109 in most circumstances doesn't necessarily mean that it's always appropriate to use it as a turn fighter. Down on the deck it makes perfect sense because a co-energy 109 can't dive away or out turn you, but up high you need to re-think your tactics - IMO.

Roblex
Aug-03-2013, 12:35
1. how often you try to clear a six from a friend, you damaged the enemy bad ( parts mission, black smoke from the engin, 1 weel is down, etc. ) and what does he? he still try to kill his target, instead of brake off and try to run home or bail.

2. how often you have a long dogfight with an enemy that you damaged bad ( parts mission, black smoke from the engin, 1 weel is down, etc. ) and he still try to fight you instead of brake off and try to run home or bail, even when you turn away, because you know he is finished and will not realy make it home, he trys to fight with you.



.. and i dont think it will not go up again because i notice even i start to dont care about my pilots life or return a life kills and how i fly, because it makes no sence to me to try to fly historical and with honor, respect or rules of angatement, when 75% dont carer about this.

regards

Little_D

Don't accuse everyone else of being the same as you! I always disengage when I am damaged and make every attempt to get home alive unless I am too low over France and will have to bail out or crash-land and be taken prisoner anyway in which case I might try to take someone with me and still get down alive. In Heinz Knokes autobiography he describes having one leg on the wing of his fighter about to bail when he saw his attacker overshoot so leaned back in and shot him down. There was also a RAF pilot, I forget his name, who was given an award after doing something similar.

I, and many others, have campaigned several times to have a system put in place to only count kills if the pilot survives but others feel it would scare pilots away from CLOD when we are already short of pilots. I don't use it as an excuse for flying like a suicidal twat myself. Honour is not dependent on how others behave or whether someone else acknowledges your honour, it is an absolute and the only person you do it for is yourself. I also don't 'esc' out of mortally damaged planes to avoid having a death counted against me.

By the way, the scoreboards for the Storm Of War server do have a subsection that lists pilots based on a scoring system that gives more points for bringing kills home. Neither SoW or ATAG scoreboards have a column for kills/deaths or a 'best streak' but the deaths are recorded and you can do the maths yourself.

Little_D
Aug-03-2013, 12:40
Hm my experience flying BOTH SpitIIa and 109E4N at high altitude is that the SpitIIa has no chance up there. Its the 109E4 that completely dominates the battle terms. Unless there are two SpitIIa vs one 109E4, the Spit will stand no chance. And as I said, I fly both the 109 and Spit!

Hi Kling,

i cant remamber exactly, but i think there was some post in an TF thread where they fm makers say spit MKII is even at high alt with 109E-4/N and get stronger when the fights go higher.
from my fights at high alt it is that the spit MKII can handle 2 109E-4/N`s, it is not easy for the MK II pilot but possible, the same counts for the 109 driver. it depents a lot of how was the energy, speed, alt atvantage, etc. when the fight starts. and when you fight, how you fight, hard turns, hard climbs, etc. some other thing i noticed from a test and when fighting at high alt is, when i stay under 8500m i can handle the spit MKII, even when there are more of them. but as soonest i go higher than 8500m the spit hold the cards in his hand.


the test:

we both had the same fuel in 400 ltr. i dont know many gallons this is, but he also take 400 ltr.

we met at an alt of 5000m fly in formation and start to climb with full power up to 10000m. in the beginning it was not a problem for him or me to stay in formation. after we reached 8500m i get problems to hold formation and the climbing angle. as we reached 10000m he was 750m away from me, he levelt out and i tryed to come back in formation, it was not possible and this was in a 109E-4/N. in levelflight at 8000m with full power i gain distance and he was not able to come back in formation.


Little_D I really don't understand what are you trying to say.I will repeat, spit can't go home from the fight if he felt threatened or damaged

this is not thrue! the spit can go away from a fight even when it is damaged.
you are right if you are low and slow on the deck where most red pilots are than you cant go away, but this is your problem not the problem of the spit and it counts for the 109 too, low and slow on the deck = death
it happens not often to me, but often enough that a spit that i damaged go out of the fight and i can t follow here fast enough to gave here the rest and he gets enough distance to be save.. but in this case the spit pilot did the right manover in the right moment and was higher than 3000m.


regards

Little_D

Roblex
Aug-03-2013, 14:25
it happens not often to me, but often enough that a spit that i damaged go out of the fight and i can t follow here fast enough to gave here the rest and he gets enough distance to be save.. but in this case the spit pilot did the right manover in the right moment and was higher than 3000m.


regards

Little_D

I usually choose the Spit 1a (100oct) even when the IIa is offered. It will outrun everything except the E4N at lower altitudes and will also allow you to gently climb again while still pulling away. It is not very good in a dogfight over 6000m but my squad still patrols to 7000+ knowing that if we get in trouble we can just disengage. The IIa might be better at high alt but even on the rare occasion when fights start high they trend to descend quite quickly and as for fighting over 8500, that will never happen unless someone writes a mission with AI bombers at that alt.

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-03-2013, 18:36
hi gents,

please dont feel atacked by my words, because it is maby a language thing and it is only my view of the situation i see on the server or lets say it a better way, how the realety on the server is out of my view.

i read this thread all over and post here too, but in the moment i dont realy care about the maps or if they are historical, because it makes no sence to me, because there is no need for historical missions, because there is no historical flying from 75% of the players on the server. why?

think about this:

1. how often you try to clear a six from a friend, you damaged the enemy bad ( parts mission, black smoke from the engin, 1 weel is down, etc. ) and what does he? he still try to kill his target, instead of brake off and try to run home or bail.

2. how often you have a long dogfight with an enemy that you damaged bad ( parts mission, black smoke from the engin, 1 weel is down, etc. ) and he still try to fight you instead of brake off and try to run home or bail, even when you turn away, because you know he is finished and will not realy make it home, he trys to fight with you.

3. how often the bombergroup that you whant to escord is atackd and killed at there spawnpoint.

4. how often you see a voulcher stay for over 5 minutes over the base and atack every plane that spawn in, even when they are badly damaged they try to kill a last plane befor they chrash or die. and this is the biggets problem it center the fights ofer the bases and not over the targets.

and dont come now with the argument it is a historical tactic, i dont realy know how do you think it was in WW 2 when they atacked an airfield, what i can say to you is, it was not like it is practise on this server from the voulchers, definitive not like this. but if you think you make it historical corect, than maby it is better you learn a little bit more about fighting in WW2.

5. the funnyest thing for me is that guys that claim that they want to fly historical show in there videos record with fps that they have all infos on ( engin management ( trottle, rpm, cooler settings), damaged report for own plane and enemy plane, and where they can find the enemy, or the classics point they fly with open canopy. this is very historical.
use you cockpit instruments when you whant to fly historical or dont say when you use it you whant to fly historical.

i can go on with more points, but i think this points are enough.

My observation is, that from the historical flying of 1946 on online server i know and love, it when down to non historical acarde flying on CoD and i have the fear that it will go on in BoS. and has nothing to do with how the maps are build its the behavior from most of the people on the server. why?

1. 75% of the online pilots dont care about there pilots life and the kill is all that counts for tham, even when 90% of there kills are non return a life kills, they think they are good pilots or aces.

2. 75% of the pilots dont go for objectives exept the bomberpilots, they only whant quick action, no need for escord, no need for cap over own target, now need for fightersweep over enemy target, etc.

3. in the good old times of 1946 it was a kind of respect to the enemy side that you dont shoot at landing planes, starting planes ( even when it was allowed ), that you let the enemy try to make a chrashlanding or let him go home, when you know he is finished. but here it is like damn he is not death and the basthard try to run or make a chrash landing.

4. in 1946 on the comon online server it was more like a arena where you can test your skills against other players with respect and the rules of angatment. i know that this count not for all pilots in 1946 but for at least 75% and we still flow for the objectivs and to win the map.

and i think as long we get all kills count, even when the enemy land at his base, make a chrashlanding in frindly territory, or the worst thing we get a kill counted for us when we die, ,nothing will change.

to stop this nonsens fighting to the end i think it would be a good idea to make the planes weaker or the wepons mutch stronger, so we come close to 1946 again, even when it is not historical, this will make it more historical, because this fighting to the end stops, because you cant do it aney more.

here the post from Ultra Pack:

Weapons Addons

After almost 1 year of intensive work, data collecting and 1000s of hours testing i present you the Weapons addon that will be included by default in next UP. No more unfair performance for specific guns and cannons.
Every gun/cannon was trimmed not only regarding its actual performance but also in comparison with the rest guns/cannons in game.

After several months of testing we found that for some weapons, mainly small caliber guns and few of the cannons, there was the need to change their real life data so they could perform realistic and accordingly to the rest of the weapons.

Here is the methodology we used to achieve this:

A) if the performance of a weapons is lower or higher we tried to trim its penetration ability and explosive radius to achieve realistic performance.
B) If the above method was not enough to achieve this then the next step was to alter its belting to achieve satisfactory results.
C) If the above method was unsatisfactory then we tried to lower or increase the HE ammount of the bullet to achieve historical accuracy.

The characteristics that were not changed are the Rate Of Fire, the Bullets Weight and the Velocity.

Our data were mainly from the Flying Guns of WWII By Emanuel Gustin and Tony Williams, from Williams webpage here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/
and from other reliable sources on the internet.

Now the testing methodology and our theory of the weapons damage in real life is this:

A) Theory of Weapons lethality in WWII:

Data taken from the Cartridge lethality table in Williams page: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Theory:

We know that historically it took in average 4bullets of a MG151/20 to down a fighter.
The average Cartridge Damage of a MG151/20 bullet is 151,67. SInce for bullets a needed to down a fighter plane, we can assume that 606,68 is the average damage that a fighter can take before he is going down.

Which leads us to the following table:
Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
Browning.303 7.7x56R 1 10,25 (2x8.6/4x11) 59,5
MG 17* 7.92x57 1 10 60,988

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
MG 131 13x64B 3 31,67 (27/2x 34) 19,27
Ho-103 12.7x81SR 3 ? ?
.50 Browning M2 12.7x99 4,5 46 12,25
12.7mm UB 12.7x108 6 57 10,7
MG 151/15 15x96 13-17 77,8 (61/4x82) 7,84

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
20mm ShVAK 20x99R 11 118,3 (86/19x120) 5,128
Berezin B-20 20x99R 11 118,3 (86/19x120) 5,128
20mm Type 99-1 20x72RB 12 123 4,932
MG-FF 20x80RB 14 136,2 (2x90/89/2x206) 4,454
20mm Ho-5 20x94 10 141,5 (78/127) 5,918
MG 151/20 20x82 16 151,67 (110/109/236) 4
20mm Type 99-2 20x101RB 15 154 3,94
Ho-1 / Ho-2 20x125 18 177 3,43
Hispano II 20x110 20 197,5 (201/194) 3,07
Hispano V 20x110 20 197,5 (201/194) 3,07
VYa-23 23x152B 26 276 (228/2x300) 2,2

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
MK 108 30x90RB 58 580 1,046
MK 103 30x184B 99 990 0,628

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
37mm M4 37x145R 64 645 0,94
NS-37 37x195 106 1060 0,572

Weapon Dimension Cartridge Power Cartridge Damage Bullets/ Fighter
Ho-301 40mm CL 27 269 2,255

but maby it is only me because i get it teached this way and i am count to the old generation and the younger flight sim generation only interestet in quick unrealistic non hostorical acarde x-box gaming. what makes me sadly is, that the fun i had over yeas with 1946 on onlineserver goes down and down and i dont think it will not go up again because i notice even i start to dont care about my pilots life or return a life kills and how i fly, because it makes no sence to me to try to fly historical and with honor, respect or rules of angatement, when 75% dont carer about this.

this is only my view of what happens here when i compare flying with other people on different servers with 1946 and flying with people online with CoD.

regards

Little_D

Hi Little_D!

I agree with many of your points, but do not agree with the damage piece. One of the greatest things about Cliffs is it has a component damage model. Where you aim and what you hit matters so much more than the amount of bullets you land on the target. A single bullet can get a pilot kill. 20 bullets can rip off a wing if in the right spot. But 1000 bullets in the wrong spot just leave a plane that's covered in holes :D

But to address your 1st points that I agree with. I think the main difference between 46 and Clod is definitely the scoring system. I think that alone changes the style of people's play. We join a server in cliffs and the only type of score we see on screen is the amount of kills we have. There is no score for bomber pilots, nor is there any sort of reduction in score based on how carelessly you fly and lose planes. This in itself allows people to fly carelessly, to only care about getting kills, to not care about getting back to base or landing your kills.

One of the, if not the best things to happen to IL246 was WildWillies FBDj. The way the stats and scoring system was setup rewarded you for flying right. It rewarded you for landing your kills. I'm sure there's been many times in 46 you've gotten a few good kills which will net you a nice score if you could land them. So you are trying to make it back to base, nursing your heavily damaged plane, possibly without an elevator or other control surface, just so you could attempt a landing to get your points. Then what happens? You are on final approach and crash and burn on the runway. All those points gone!!

My point is, you were really trying to make it back because you were rewarded for it. This is something you could see in your stats. The main problem I see, which would go a heck of a long way to changing how people play on a public server, is giving them an incentive to play differently. That's exactly what WildWillie's stats setup did.

So if you were the type of person that likes to vulch and could maybe get 6 or 7 kills before you were shot down, you would be awarded those kills in Cliffs. But in 46, lets say you get 6 kills and the scoring system is 100 points per landed kill for a single engine fighter being killed, you would have 600 points if you could land your kill. But if you were shot down over enemy territory, killed, or lost your plane you are only left with 10% of that = 60 points out of that 600.

Well it doesn't take long to realize the guy that is flying right, say in a 109, perched above the enemy, flying a 2 hour sortie waiting for his chance to strike, soon realizes that his 2 landed kills he received = 200 points. While the guy trying to get all the kills by vulching and dieing has only received 60 points in the same amount of time. So immediately the stats and that prospective player's sorties/points that is flying right, trying to stay alive, and land his kills is far surpassing the score of the guy that goes in on the deck straight to the enemy to get kills.

When you have this type of system coupled with a highlighted area that shows the top fighter pilot scores, top scores by squadrons, and top scores by bomber pilots all publicly displayed on the stats board, people soon want to try to get a piece of this action and put their name there. That completely changes the way many people fly.

The best part, as I've not mentioned them until now, also goes hand in hand with the bomber pilots. It was not uncommon to take an hour getting to altitude, take another hour meticulously planning your course to avoid the enemy, and another hour getting to target to finally level bomb one of the main mission objectives. If you were successful as a bomber pilot, you could see 3000+ points waiting for you if you are able to come home and land your kill. But if you got shot down, all that work, all that successful on target bombing turns that 3000 points into 300 (10%).

So I've harped about a scoring system for a while now. And it really does no good as I could not create one. To do something like this in Cliffs, with it's already atrocious system would require a very knowledgeable programmer. I know Colander has talked about re-writing the stats, and I'm pretty sure this is the format that he would want to do or something similar, but the man can only do so much.

My point in all of this is people are going to fly however the game will allow them to unless there are rewards and penalties put forth to change it. The best solution that did just that was WildWillie's stats for Il246. We get that type of setup in Cliffs and I can guarantee many players will play to try to be rewarded with the most points, just as many are playing to try to get the most kills (the only scoring system Cliffs has right now).

My .02c

Salmo
Aug-04-2013, 01:16
So if you were the type of person that likes to vulch and could maybe get 6 or 7 kills before you were shot down, you would be awarded those kills in Cliffs. But in 46, lets say you get 6 kills and the scoring system is 100 points per landed kill for a single engine fighter being killed, you would have 600 points if you could land your kill. But if you were shot down over enemy territory, killed, or lost your plane you are only left with 10% of that = 60 points out of that 600.

I've been thinking quite a deal about why so many people vulch & have come to conclusion it has less to do with being awarded kills and more to do with the fact that people want to see combat. They don't want to fly for hours without being involved in some sort of fight. So where can you find combat? Where can you find an enemy aircraft? Over an enemy airfield of course. That's why you get red players flying all the way to France to vulch the tripod bases rather than defending targets in England.

Regarding your point about the scoring system. This already exists, it's just not implimented in ATAG mission scripts. There are several scripts out there that allocate custom points to pilots when they destroy enemy objects. You might even consider having total points as the battle objective rather than destroying X number of enemy objects as the battle-win objective.

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-04-2013, 01:36
I've been thinking quite a deal about why so many people vulch & have come to conclusion it has less to do with being awarded kills and more to do with the fact that people want to see combat. They don't want to fly for hours without being involved in some sort of fight. So where can you find combat? Where can you find an enemy aircraft? Over an enemy airfield of course. That's why you get red players flying all the way to France to vulch the tripod bases rather than defending targets in England.

Regarding your point about the scoring system. This already exists, it's just not implimented in ATAG mission scripts. There are several scripts out there that allocate custom points to pilots when they destroy enemy objects. You might even consider having total points as the battle objective rather than destroying X number of enemy objects as the battle-win objective.

Nothing like the scoring system exists that I am talking about. WildWillie made an FBDj for Cliffs but much of it doesn't work correctly or reliably. Sure, we can assign points during a mission to players, but I'm talking about parsing those points, having set boundaries for landing your kills, showing gun stats, etc. There's extensive work needed to be done to get anywhere near how the system works in 46.

The scoring system I'm talking about is recorded and parsed in real time not in a mission script for temporary points that only last for that mission. I'm talking real stats. Surely you must remember FBDj for 46? Please send me a link to anything WORKING like that for Cliffs. Because the stats program made for Clod doesn't do 20% of the stuff it does for 46, let alone accurately record those stats. That's why I said a real program will need to be made.

And if you are spending hours searching for aircraft then you aren't listening to the radar callouts. There are never a point in time where AI flights are not in the air in my missions.

Roblex
Aug-04-2013, 03:28
We had a nice long discussion about giving extra points for landing kills and how much to allocate for crash landings and bailing in friendly territory etc. and Salmo & Bliss & Pstyle were amongst the supporters then ATAG_Doc stepped in and said basically that we have no right to impose our ideas on players that just want to jump in and kill things until they die or run out of ammo then despawn and re-launch to do it again so the scoring system will not be changed. I think the main reason he objected is because half way through the thread someone mentioned 'a certain pilot' (not by name) who was getting a lot of kills then despawning as soon as he ran out of ammo so he could get back quicker. At this point Doc decided the whole thread was a personal attack on that player. Doc also rejected all ideas about delaying respawns or restricting planesets for players who have just died and I agree with that as we can't afford to make players decide to log out but unfortunately the scoring system changes got thrown out at the same time :-(

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2497&highlight=scoring

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-04-2013, 03:54
We had a nice long discussion about giving extra points for landing kills and how much to allocate for crash landings and bailing in friendly territory etc. and Salmo & Bliss & Pstyle were amongst the supporters then ATAG_Doc stepped in and said basically that we have no right to impose our ideas on players that just want to jump in and kill things until they die or run out of ammo then despawn and re-launch to do it again so the scoring system will not be changed. I think the main reason he objected is because half way through the thread someone mentioned 'a certain pilot' (not by name) who was getting a lot of kills then despawning as soon as he ran out of ammo so he could get back quicker. At this point Doc decided the whole thread was a personal attack on that player. Doc also rejected all ideas about delaying respawns or restricting planesets for players who have just died and I agree with that as we can't afford to make players decide to log out but unfortunately the scoring system changes got thrown out at the same time :-(

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2497&highlight=scoring

Yes - I remember that thread.

But I wouldn't say the scoring system idea has been thrown out. Colander has stated a few times he's wanting to rewrite the stats etc. But time and real life has gotten in the way, along with TF stuff etc. We need to clone him :D

Gromit
Aug-04-2013, 06:01
If you want to change peoples behaviour and get them to fly in a more realistic way then have the stats reset to zero each time you die or are captured.

Stats can drive some pretty lame behaviour, from firing on aircraft already going down obviously destroyed, to vulching whilst already under attack to grab an easy kill, to hanging around spawn points for AI aircraft.

if you have nothing to lose by being shot down then your not going to care!

Roblex
Aug-04-2013, 10:11
If you want the stats to show 'Best Streak' (highest number of kills before dying) or pilots ranked by number of kills landed then your campaign must make no reference to forcing people to fly differently as that is the main objection Doc put up. He feels that if a player wants to fly like a moron scattering bullets in all directions until he dies or runs out of ammo then despawn and re-launch, the player has that right. We *might* be able to get someone to add the stats we want to see but even then it may be seen as 'penalising' the Air-Quake players (though why the existing stats system is not seen as 'penalising' the more mature players escapes me :D)

Little_D
Aug-05-2013, 07:26
Hi Little_D!

I agree with many of your points, but do not agree with the damage piece. One of the greatest things about Cliffs is it has a component damage model. Where you aim and what you hit matters so much more than the amount of bullets you land on the target. A single bullet can get a pilot kill. 20 bullets can rip off a wing if in the right spot. But 1000 bullets in the wrong spot just leave a plane that's covered in holes :D

Hi Bliss,

i like the dm moddle too but not all of it, maby i read it wrong or i missunderstood it because of the language, but i was thinking this tables come frome scientists that where scientifically investigate the power and destructive force from the guns and how many bullets are needed in average to bring a plane down in WW 2. 1st reason was to the point to stop this damn fighting to the end, even when there where some pilots in WW 2 that fight s to the end the rest and smarter pilots where trying to get the hell out of there plane when bad damaged. in 1946 with the bullet setup like in this scientists report the fight was over when you hit right and this counts for red and blue. would be nice to know what an efect we get with the DM of CoD and the scientists report bullet power.

the last ingame track i watched from a good fight with a spit: i saw the spit starts to hitting me a little bit out of his convergens in the right wing and than he hits me at his convergence in my right wing at the same spot, ( nice aiming by the way ). my gun whent out, no cooler problems ore some other problems. normaly i would say this fight has to be over. hitting with a good salvo at convergence range at the same wingsection normaly should break down the wing, when not from the guns damaged, than as soonest i put more pressure on the wing to breake away. dosent matter if 8 guns hit the same spot or 2 20mm guns hit at the same spot at convergence, result should be the same, with a little advantage to the 20mm and a little more with the 20mm Mienengeschoss.

but maby i am totaly wrong.

Little_D

Roblex
Aug-05-2013, 15:07
Re. requests to have ammunition artificially boosted to get more kills and make the newbs happier.:-

I was reading a new book recently that follows the development of the Aircraft Carrier and it was quite an eye-opener when it came to the effectiveness of .303 machine guns. One comment from a hurricane pilot was basically that when the carrier was attacked by JU88s they could not bring any of them down because they did not have the firepower to do enough damage. Another account talked about four hurricanes being launched to shoot down a Heinkel float plane that was dogging the fleet and the float plane shooting down one of the hurricanes and flying away because the hurris had used up all their ammo!
People expect to bombers to explode after a quick burst from dead six with no danger of the bomber shooting back. In reality shooting down bombers was more like a series of cautious slashing attacks that occasionally hit something vital. If it was as easy as people think it should be then all those BoB pilots, faced with huge formations of bombers several times a day, would have scores in the hundreds and London would never have been hit! With Clod as it stands, any undefended LW bomber formation with two or more fighters on it will not even reach England (yes I know that in 1940 they did not get engaged until England but the distance from Calais to Dover is less than Dover to London).
Some of the reason for greater success in CLOD is of course due to us being less concerned about being shot down. Bomber gunners effectiveness lay more in scaring the fighters enough to ruin their aim than in actually hitting any.

Kling
Aug-05-2013, 18:30
I was reading a new book recently that follows the development of the Aircraft Carrier and it was quite an eye-opener when it came to the effectiveness of .303 machine guns. One comment from a hurricane pilot was basically that when the carrier was attacked by JU88s they could not bring any of them down because they did not have the firepower to do enough damage. Another account talked about four hurricanes being launched to shoot down a Heinkel float plane that was dogging the fleet and the float plane shooting down one of the hurricanes and flying away because the hurris had used up all their ammo!
People expect to bombers to explode after a quick burst from dead six with no danger of the bomber shooting back. In reality shooting down bombers was more like a series of cautious slashing attacks that occasionally hit something vital. If it was as easy as people think it should be then all those BoB pilots, faced with huge formations of bombers several times a day, would have scores in the hundreds and London would never have been hit! With Clod as it stands, any undefended LW bomber formation with two or more fighters on it will not even reach England (yes I know that in 1940 they did not get engaged until England but the distance from Calais to Dover is less than Dover to London).
Some of the reason for greater success in CLOD is of course due to us being less concerned about being shot down. Bomber gunners effectiveness lay more in scaring the fighters enough to ruin their aim than in actually hitting any.

Also the fact that bomber formations in game never are bigger than 9 planes and most of the time without escort...

AKA_Blasto
Aug-05-2013, 19:46
S!~
So much bitching and moaning here - and then nice guys trying to make things nicey-nice. Remember- if you have a better server- go build it - pay for it - and brace yourselves for more dip-sh*t's to tear it down. Fly ATAG and have fun- or go watch Netflix BS re-runs and talk to your cats! ( Or yourselves- weirdo dissenters...)
Ridiculous micro-criticism from people who have nothing to add to ATAG- except for more griping- so put a sock in it complainers- because MOST of us- really like the server. Again- come up with your perfect missions- put perfect pilots in them- and fly perfect sorties- and post here asap- so we can all go there and use your bathroom- going No.2 and 3- without a fan.
Thanks again ATAG for a great server from The AKA Wardogs!

S!~ AKA_Blasto

Wulf
Aug-05-2013, 20:03
I was reading a new book recently that follows the development of the Aircraft Carrier and it was quite an eye-opener when it came to the effectiveness of .303 machine guns. One comment from a hurricane pilot was basically that when the carrier was attacked by JU88s they could not bring any of them down because they did not have the firepower to do enough damage. Another account talked about four hurricanes being launched to shoot down a Heinkel float plane that was dogging the fleet and the float plane shooting down one of the hurricanes and flying away because the hurris had used up all their ammo!
People expect to bombers to explode after a quick burst from dead six with no danger of the bomber shooting back. In reality shooting down bombers was more like a series of cautious slashing attacks that occasionally hit something vital. If it was as easy as people think it should be then all those BoB pilots, faced with huge formations of bombers several times a day, would have scores in the hundreds and London would never have been hit! With Clod as it stands, any undefended LW bomber formation with two or more fighters on it will not even reach England (yes I know that in 1940 they did not get engaged until England but the distance from Calais to Dover is less than Dover to London).
Some of the reason for greater success in CLOD is of course due to us being less concerned about being shot down. Bomber gunners effectiveness lay more in scaring the fighters enough to ruin their aim than in actually hitting any.

This is of anecdotal interest only but my Father once told me that on his final and least successful encounter with the Luftwaffe, they put over 160 bullet holes through the aircraft. Unfortunately, unlike the more solidly built Heinkel, they crashed, but in a semi-controlled kind of way :D

ATAG_Colander
Aug-05-2013, 20:30
Blasto,

We like suggestions on improvements to missions, servers or whatever as long as they are made in a respectful way and understand that our reply might not agree with their opinion just as we understand that not every one thinks like we do.

By the way, what a hell is "3- without a fan." ? :D

ATAG_Snapper
Aug-05-2013, 20:40
Helluva first post, Blasto! LOL

ATAG_Bliss
Aug-05-2013, 20:44
Blasto,

We like suggestions on improvements to missions, servers or whatever as long as they are made in a respectful way and understand that our reply might not agree with their opinion just as we understand that not every one thinks like we do.

By the way, what a hell is "3- without a fan." ? :D

Exactly!

Perhaps #3 is #1 + #2 at the same time? :)

Skoshi_Tiger
Aug-06-2013, 01:58
Once, a long long time ago, after a late night mexican chilli blitz in conjunction with an alcoholic frenzy (Tequila, margaritas and various mexican beers... red wine, cider and what ever else was in the place) I think that I experienced a "number 3"! To think of the consequences of not having a fan is just too horrible to consider!

Luckly our bodies are normally programmed to forget these kinds of events, though the mere mention of the term has given me flashbacks of things best left forgotten! All I can say is "Thank God for high pressure hoses!"

SoW Reddog
Aug-07-2013, 04:55
In fairness last night I was up against 4 109's on my own and by fluke of fortune managed to get a burst into one as they each boomed and zoomed me. He immediately turned for home streaming rather than continuing to duke it out even though he was almost certainly at no further risk from me. Another 109 I hit hard last night also went for home rather than continuing to fly so there are guys out there playing both "styles". I'll even admit to staying in my 1 winged Spit last night to empty my ammo across the sky at an enemy fighter before bailing out.

AKA_Recon
Aug-07-2013, 08:57
The server setup is great!

I have an idea - rather than 'wipe the stats clean' when you die - Create an 'active streak vs historical' - so you can see your historical stats, but also you current streak


The only, somewhat annoying stat, is that when you spawn in it counts as a sortie vs when you lift off.

I chewed up 10 sorties one night trying to get my trackir to work. Other times Id grab the wrong plane, etc. but most the time it's due to a system issue! Or maybe you accidentally spawn into wrong base when the rest if the squad is at another,etc...

But, I think the missions are fun - many times I see the Germans doing a good job trying to accomplish mission objectives and allies trying to stop them! Anything to reward pilots that do this is in my opinion a step in the right direction!

Kudos to the mission creators - and I'm 100% with Blasto - we love the server and its the best, and quite honestly, only great online server!!!

At this point, we just keep telling our friends to come retry CloD and we brag about the ATAG server and the work done by TF!

S!

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Aug-07-2013, 09:34
Can I point out to ATAG some flaws in their mission designs that, quite frankly, are killing player interest. Let me summarising the mission I found when I entered the ATAG server today..

Hi Salmo, without responding to each point in succession, ATAG (and ACG for that matter) do have a tough balancing act on their hands. Some times the servers are nearly full (35+ each team). During these periods. The airbases are busy, so busy that spawn points start failing. Targets can be wiped out in 30 minutes with a couple of coordinated set of bombers strikes (2 x flights of 3).
To have very small/ compact mission on during this time would be painful.

How to work around this?

The best solution, to my mind, is MORE targets, but within a much tighter geographical area, per map.

For example, one of the missions would be focused on raids on Dover harbour (blue) and, say Calais (red). All targets would be concentrated in these areas, but there would still be multiple objectives.

Then, the next mission the targets might be a small set or airfields... located close together.

The next missions, perhaps targets further apart, say Wilmington and Bologne, for example.

For each map, the spawn bases would be slightly different. Some maps would NOT even use Hawkinge, for example.

SoW Reddog
Aug-07-2013, 10:30
Some maps would NOT even use Hawkinge, for example.

Heretic, burn him!:-P

AKA_Recon
Aug-08-2013, 08:22
I see nothing wrong with the missions. There are typically 3 objectives - one primary that each side seeks to accomplish.

This idea to condense in a small area will remove the beauty of this large awesome map we have and revert back to simple DF airquake style of play.

Two nights ago, the Germans were attacking the ships hard, we were defending, there was tons of action around that target. In addition to this low alt fight/defend, bombers at 20,000 were bombing airfields and other targets, so we had to also balance our defense by climbing up to defend.

This is fantastic arraignment for both sides, as it provides variety based on your preference - bnz the high alt bombers/defend them, or tnb to defend, and it allowed jabo 109s/110s to try to sink the ships.

As long as that balance exists in the missions they are fun!

AKA_Recon
Aug-08-2013, 08:32
If you want to change peoples behaviour and get them to fly in a more realistic way then have the stats reset to zero each time you die or are captured.

Stats can drive some pretty lame behaviour, from firing on aircraft already going down obviously destroyed, to vulching whilst already under attack to grab an easy kill, to hanging around spawn points for AI aircraft.

if you have nothing to lose by being shot down then your not going to care!

honestly, I think different personalities will fly how they fly no matter what the stats are. Stats won't change flying behavior. Those who take personal pride on survival will do so regardless and those that don't care too much won't.

I think stats should be kept minimal, and as I mentioned, to track someone's 'streak' as well as 'historical' is more for the individual that cares, to see. And it is impressive to see those that can survive.

But if too much attention is on individual stats, then the missions suffer. ie. people need to try to sink ships. It's risky. But it's war, and those ships need to be sunk! We need people to take those risks. The reward of accomplishing mission objectives should outweigh the individualistic awards.

I think a conversation on how to tie in mission objectives to stats would be more interesting as well. ie. if an objective is to stop the bombers from hitting England, and our squadron eliminates a group of Ju88s as part of that, then we are acting within the mission structure. Same as Stuka's hitting ships, etc... To me, these actions mean 1000% more importance than how many 109's or Spitfires I shoot down that mission.

I also think this promotes more teamwork and a need for collaboration on comms.

Summary:
1. tracking 'streak' is still good. It's a motivator, and it's a good thing to check 'hey, I have 10 sorties with no deaths!' mentality. I would still keep historical as it is now
2. balance that with mission objective rewards. perhaps everytime your on a team that accomplishes a mission you get 'bonus points' on the stats page.
3. side request to not count a sortie until you take off

glad to see the discussions on the topic