PDA

View Full Version : Semi-realistic planes at bases (open discussion)



Salmo
Sep-15-2013, 02:45
Semi-realistic planes at bases

Developed a new scripting feature that better simulates planes at airbases. The concept is fairly straight forward.

1. There is one stationary plane at each airbase for each human-spawnable plane at that airbase.
2. When a player spawns-in at a base, a stationary plane corresponding to the player's plane-type is removed from the base. ie a static plane is replaced by the player's plane.
3. If there are no statonary planes of the correct plane-type, then the player will not be able to spawn-in in that type of plane at that base.
4. When a player lands at an airbase, the player's plane is despawned & a new stationary plane of the player's plane-type is added to the airfield. ie a new static plane replaces the player's plane.

This methodology has a number of quite interesting spin-offs:

a. Plane transfers between bases - Players can now fly a plane from another base where a particualr plane type may be available, and land at a base where that plane type is not available, and there will then be one plane of the new type at the landing airfield. ie. Plane transfers between bases becomes a reality. Perhaps we'll see missions where some pilots will act to 'transfer' planes from the rear to the front-line bases?

b. Limited plane numbers/types at bases - Having one static plane for each available 'real' plane at a base effectively introduces 'limited plane numbers & plane types at bases'. Don't bring you're plane home & you don't get another static plane to allow you to spawn-in again. Bring you're plane home to another base, that's OK, that plane will be available next time at the base where you landed, but not at the base where you tookoff from.

c. Ground-planes as targets - In addition, to bombing airfields out of action, stationary planes now become 'real' and meaningful targets to defend or destroy. It is worth your while to destroy a static plane since that would prevent a players spawning in at that base. It is worth your while defending static planes at bases beceause you'll need them to be able to spawn-in there again.

d. Destroying airfields - So in addition to destroying the airfield runws & ground with bomb craters, you can now also 'deactivate' an airfield by destroying all the available (static) planes at that airfield. But the enemy can make the field operational again by flying in other planes.

This concept is in final testing, but I need feedback about pro's & cons as it develops.

Salmo
Sep-15-2013, 02:47
Copy of post by Roblex i another thread...

I like the concept but....

1) I don't think anyone is going to be motivated to bring their Spit IIa to a base that only has inferior fighters because it just means that as soon as they despawn some suicidal pilot will spawn in and take it and waste it. Similarly I doubt anyone is going to devote their playing time to transferring fighters from rear fields just so someone else can waste them. Is it feasible for AI to ferry aircraft to front fields or for them to get teleported in a short time after the original has been destroyed? Maybe the whole field gets replenished 5 pr 10 minutes after the last plane is destroyed? How about a road convoy representing new aircraft on low loaders?

2) It is now possible for a couple of fighters to put an airfield out of action in just a few minutes. A handful of fighters could disable all the front line bases in the first ten minutes. I know that technically someone could bring more aircraft in but, as said in point (1), it won't happen that way.
Yes, Red could so the same to the Blue airfields but they would probably be doing Blue a favour forcing them to use rearward fields as they would be more likely to escort the bombers if they came from further back. Either way we will have changed the whole style of the mission from 'Hunt/Defend the bombers to a low level skirmish over the airfields. Perhaps we need better quality AAA to make straffing harder? That would also stop the complaints about 109 bombers being used too much.

3) You may find people joining the mission half way through and immediately leaving again because all the good aircraft have been destroyed.

To work properly we need a way for people to have their own supply of aircraft so losing a good one costs them personally but that is probably very difficult to script. Is it possible to script a simplified version of Refuel/Rearm that only has a 60 second delay and does not care if you are out of ammo? It does not even need the fuel tender animation. If you RTB with too much damage to make RR useful then at least you can still despawn and make a fresh one available for you or someone else.

Above all you need to make sure you are not changing the character of the mission to a low level furball over the fields as getting away from that and chasing high bombers is the whole reason this map is popular.

Roblex
Sep-15-2013, 02:51
I should add that Salmos original post was on a thread about Operation Homeplate (Blue AI bombers level bombing airfields to win the map) so some of the above points are specific to how it would affect that particular map.

If applied to other maps I think my point still stands about it encouraging low level furballs over the fields. Don't get me wrong, they can be a lot of fun, but it would be nice to have more maps that make people fly higher. I like the way he is thinking with these spawn rules but I just think it needs some heavy tweaking.

Perhaps Homeplate is just the wrong map to put it on but on an evenly matched map with both sides having identical win conditions and trying to disable each others airfields it might be fun though obviously Red is always going to be disadvantaged in terms of bombers and fighter ammo. When Red has a heavy bomber things might be a bit more even if closing fields relies on total tonnage dropped on an airfield rather than precision targets. I still can't help thinking that it would not take long for one side or the other to destroy every parked aircraft on every field then all they have to do is shoot down the ones still in the air or wait until they land and destroy the parked plane before anyone can respawn.

Gromit
Sep-15-2013, 07:55
Why does the fight need to be higher though?
The only reason anyone will fly higher is if they are going after bombers high up, otherwise the targets are on the ground or sea level and as such most fighting will take place around them!

This server revolves around missions, the missions mean attacking ground targets and as long as fighter bombers or light bombers are available almost everyone is going to go in low, I don't see how that will ever change unless you make level bombing the only realistic way to hit targets?

This game works more along the lines of Eastern front combat than Western!

Roblex
Sep-15-2013, 08:56
Gromit, I did explain that what Salmo reposted was my reply to him asking for thoughts on making those changes in the Home Plate map and that Map was specifically designed to get people away from low level furballs and encourage them to climb for the bombers.

He then moved his suggestion to another thread to be more general and my reply to that suggestion merely said 'It it would be nice to have more maps that make people fly higher' but that does not mean I was suggesting that any of the existing maps should be changed to stop low level furballs. I did say low level furballing can be fun and the rest of my second post was based on the assumption that his new map *would* have low level furballing. Any potential problems I suggested would apply whatever height the fighting was at.

III./ZG76_Keller
Sep-15-2013, 10:40
While this feature would make the game much more realistic, which I'm always up for, I think it would encourage vulching on a grand scale. The one major thing that would counter-balance this would be a system in which once your pilot gets killed or shot down in enemy territory, you're done for the mission.

Too many people are far too happy to die and spawn another plane just to get a couple "kills" on their stats. If the mission lasted the standard 6 hours both teams would be out of planes in 90 minutes.

Gromit
Sep-15-2013, 11:31
Gromit, I did explain that what Salmo reposted was my reply to him asking for thoughts on making those changes in the Home Plate map and that Map was specifically designed to get people away from low level furballs and encourage them to climb for the bombers.

He then moved his suggestion to another thread to be more general and my reply to that suggestion merely said 'It it would be nice to have more maps that make people fly higher' but that does not mean I was suggesting that any of the existing maps should be changed to stop low level furballs. I did say low level furballing can be fun and the rest of my second post was based on the assumption that his new map *would* have low level furballing. Any potential problems I suggested would apply whatever height the fighting was at.

My question was not about the specific mission but the general way the game plays out on the server, there is no benefit to climbing to high altitude unless your after the bombers, not that many people bother with the AI bombers so the fight stays low as that's where the targets are, what I am saying is how can you persuade people to climb and fight at high altitude when there's nothing up there?

It's not a criticism, simply a question?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Sep-15-2013, 11:45
how can you persuade people to climb and fight at high altitude when there's nothing up there?


1. Low level operations need to be made more dangerous (more ground based machine guns?)
2. there needs to be greater penalty for not making it "home", or at least to friendly territory. If that means revisions to the way stats are compiled, or some other measures that "reward" returns-to-base; then that needs to be explored.

9./JG26_Brigg
Sep-15-2013, 13:21
it is simple, make it so the only way blue can flip the map is by using certain bombers at certain altitudes and therefor have to escort them

Gromit
Sep-15-2013, 13:52
There's only a select few who are bothered about the altitude of a fight, the vast majority are happy to brawl it out on the deck dogfight server style, which is why we see so many fights around Hawkinge, whilst some are mission oriented I would say from my own experience most just want a dogfight and rack up kills, we often see people heading straight for enemy airbases to vulch despite it not being any part of the mission, I sometimes find myself CAP'ing a target and no one turns up only to hear of big brawls around the air bases!

If you try and force people away from the kind of fight they want you will in all probability just lose players!

Bear Pilot
Sep-15-2013, 14:03
1. Low level operations need to be made more dangerous (more ground based machine guns?)
2. there needs to be greater penalty for not making it "home", or at least to friendly territory. If that means revisions to the way stats are compiled, or some other measures that "reward" returns-to-base; then that needs to be explored.

This :thumbsup:

In reality, low level flying over enemy territory was incredibly dangerous. Just ask Johnnie Johnson how much he enjoyed Rhubarbs :grrr:

Making multiple passes over a target covered by AA fire was generally viewed as a death sentence. The element of surprise was usually the only thing that made the first pass possible at all. Many pilots were killed attacking targets that looked to be undefended but were actually traps set by the flak crews on the ground.

I do think people should be allowed to fly however they want, I myself prefer to fly realistically and in a group if possible but that's just me. However, I also think rewarding those that fly as if their lives depended on it is essential and honestly only makes sense in servers set to be as realistic as possible.

Talisman
Sep-15-2013, 14:17
it is simple, make it so the only way blue can flip the map is by using certain bombers at certain altitudes and therefor have to escort them

Very much agree. Others have said the same in the past but map makers have not yet taken up the challenge of producing this element of the BoB. The RAF defending and the LW attacking. Just one map like this amongst the many other standard types of map would be such a contrast. One map to try and represent the great battles in and around the bomber formations. I am not a map maker though, so I will have to dream on.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Klunker
Sep-15-2013, 17:15
While this feature would make the game much more realistic, which I'm always up for, I think it would encourage vulching on a grand scale. The one major thing that would counter-balance this would be a system in which once your pilot gets killed or shot down in enemy territory, you're done for the mission.

Too many people are far too happy to die and spawn another plane just to get a couple "kills" on their stats. If the mission lasted the standard 6 hours both teams would be out of planes in 90 minutes.

I'm in favor of the new concept as I believe it adds to the fun of the game. Anything that increases potential objectives and increases the game play above just a shooting match is a plus.

I'm not clear on how many play the game for the purpose of "Stats" but would think that some such "Stats Whore" would also be bothered by Stats that indicated they got killed as much as they killed.

It seems that "vulching" is already a design feature of this map. I say this because of my past experience playing. There is virtually no flak protecting Blue airfields and it is very easy to attack spawning pilots. Yesterday, while flying as Red over French Point I shot two Blue 109's taking off from a nearby field. It was a "no brainer" for two reasons: 1. Several of us were engaged below cloud height with 109's in the vicinity of the spawning airport, and the two victim 109's were spawning to join the fight overhead. 2. There was absolutely no deterrent to prevent the attack on spawning aircraft. No flak whatsoever.

Although "vulching" was real mission objective in the actual war, it came at a very high price, and if this new map aims at realism, it should make attacking airport traffic a very dangerous mission. Much like many of the ground objectives on the other maps that have a high level of flak protection. I have experienced "death" many times from flak when dive bombing heavily defended targets on other maps, both as Blue and Red. If airfields had the same level of protection, I doubt we would have as much vulching as is currently prevalent.

I don't agree that there should be a "death" equals elimination from the game until the next map. I frequently fly bomber missions which very often are "one way missions". If I thought I could no longer play if killed, I wouldn't volunteer for those kind of flights. Besides, as it is, there really aren't enough people playing on these maps to warrant eliminating people who die. In short order the map would be empty of players!

If Stats are really an issue, I recommend designating the map "Stats Free". No stats recorded for anything done on the map. Ultimately, I can't see how any stats recorded have a positive effect on game play. Playing without stats may potentially produce more teamwork and possibly reduce the occurrence of those over the shoulder shooters and airport vulchers who are more interested in stats than team work and game objectives.

Kling
Sep-15-2013, 18:04
I'm in favor of the new concept as I believe it adds to the fun of the game. Anything that increases potential objectives and increases the game play above just a shooting match is a plus.

I'm not clear on how many play the game for the purpose of "Stats" but would think that some such "Stats Whore" would also be bothered by Stats that indicated they got killed as much as they killed.

It seems that "vulching" is already a design feature of this map. I say this because of my past experience playing. There is virtually no flak protecting Blue airfields and it is very easy to attack spawning pilots. Yesterday, while flying as Red over French Point I shot two Blue 109's taking off from a nearby field. It was a "no brainer" for two reasons: 1. Several of us were engaged below cloud height with 109's in the vicinity of the spawning airport, and the two victim 109's were spawning to join the fight overhead. 2. There was absolutely no deterrent to prevent the attack on spawning aircraft. No flak whatsoever.

Although "vulching" was real mission objective in the actual war, it came at a very high price, and if this new map aims at realism, it should make attacking airport traffic a very dangerous mission. Much like many of the ground objectives on the other maps that have a high level of flak protection. I have experienced "death" many times from flak when dive bombing heavily defended targets on other maps, both as Blue and Red. If airfields had the same level of protection, I doubt we would have as much vulching as is currently prevalent.

I don't agree that there should be a "death" equals elimination from the game until the next map. I frequently fly bomber missions which very often are "one way missions". If I thought I could no longer play if killed, I wouldn't volunteer for those kind of flights. Besides, as it is, there really aren't enough people playing on these maps to warrant eliminating people who die. In short order the map would be empty of players!

If Stats are really an issue, I recommend designating the map "Stats Free". No stats recorded for anything done on the map. Ultimately, I can't see how any stats recorded have a positive effect on game play. Playing without stats may potentially produce more teamwork and possibly reduce the occurrence of those over the shoulder shooters and airport vulchers who are more interested in stats than team work and game objectives.

In Il2 1946 there was a server called Warclouds, and for a year or so they had a 3death limit meaning that if you got killed 3 times, you would be disconnected from the server for 30 mins or so. It worked pretty well. Maybe this can be something to look into?

ATAG_Snapper
Sep-15-2013, 18:25
In Il2 1946 there was a server called Warclouds, and for a year or so they had a 3death limit meaning that if you got killed 3 times, you would be disconnected from the server for 30 mins or so. It worked pretty well. Maybe this can be something to look into?

An interesting concept for other servers to consider if they wish to. The ATAG server will not penalize players for not playing as others think they should.

ATAG_JTDawg
Sep-15-2013, 19:14
An interesting concept for other servers to consider if they wish to. The ATAG server will not penalize players for not playing as others think they should.

+1 First think of all the new guys coming in , they could die 3 times just getting up , or not being smart enough to spawn at a diff. base when under attack . just look at comms at night right now . Most still don't know the basic land marks. don't make it harder on them . An I have never been a fan of making anyone fly my style. The smart player will always have the least deaths at the end of the month, :recon: I like the idea of missions with plane sets Salmo s new map is really good fun

ATAG_Colander
Sep-15-2013, 19:20
This approach could work in conjunction with R&R.
Another tweak could be if planes strafed got repaired and/or new planes arrive after X time.

But yes, this would be an issue with some players so I think it could be used in special events.

Salmo
Sep-15-2013, 20:28
An interesting concept for other servers to consider if they wish to. The ATAG server will not penalize players for not playing as others think they should.

This has long been the stated position of the ATAG server admins. You will never get everyone to fly in a aprticualr fashion, but the only way to encourage a particualr type of gameplay is for mission builders to be a lot smarter how they build their missions.

Some good points rasied so far regarding the 'semi-realistic planes' concept. I'm particularly interested in a couple of points:

A. Vulching - The SRP concept might encourage players to vulch bases to 'kill' static or spawning planes. This is not a bad thing. If a side is able to destroy all available planes at a base, then the army losing those should be penalised by having to fly out of another base. The trick is to make the straffing of stationary planes a 'dangerous' & risky thing to do, so that there is some 'balance' between the benefit of staffing an airfield to destroy enemy static planes & the cost of losing a straffing-plane because that plane will no longer be available for selection from it's home base. One solution might be to increase AA defences at bases. We'll have to see if the game can handle such an increase.

B. Stealing planes - It's been suggested that the concept may result in players 'stealing' other's planes. ie. You land a Spit 1a at an airfield that does not have Spit 1a's. This results in a Spit 1a static plane being spawn, & someone else spawn in that plane before the player has a chance to take the new Spit 1a. This is unlikely to occur, if it's just a player landing & selecting a new plane with new fuel & loadout, becuase it would take very little time between landing-despawning & reselecting the new static plane. Thus, the likihood of someone else taking that plane would be low. Atenatively, I could see if it could be scripted to 'reserve' the new static plane for a short period (say 2 min) for the pilot that landed, so noone else could take the plane during the reserved period.

spud3030
Sep-16-2013, 05:37
yep me to this would be cool, 'specially Luftwaffe bases in France which were AAA hell holes.
RTB should encouraged somehow.
ATAG rocks still...

Thanks all for hard work
spud



1. Low level operations need to be made more dangerous (more ground based machine guns?)
2. there needs to be greater penalty for not making it "home", or at least to friendly territory. If that means revisions to the way stats are compiled, or some other measures that "reward" returns-to-base; then that needs to be explored.

kopperdrake
Sep-16-2013, 06:15
I like the idea Salmo - and I really like the ideas of (both preferably) AI delivering new aircraft to bases, and aircraft being delivered by train. The AI aircraft would make great pickings for would-be vulchers, possibly even pulling the vulch radius away from the actual airfields, and the trains would make great targets for bomber crews, who mostly get static targets at the moment. I would love to take a Blenny out on a rhubarb for rolling stock - that would be a real hunt!

Bunny

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Sep-16-2013, 08:23
The AI aircraft would make great pickings for would-be vulchers, possibly even pulling the vulch radius away from the actual airfields

Can the statics be placed on the airfield edge, dispersed and under/ near trees etc.
Making them a little harder to find, and harder to hit would be nice, I think.

AKA_Recon
Sep-16-2013, 08:33
I'm all for destroying bases and plane transfers.

As far as destroying bases however, I would like to see more bases utilized.

The last time I played Operation Homeplate, by the time I'd get my He111 off at the front line base (the only base I believe I could use for He111) I was strafed over and over again.

Not sure if this is scriptable or not, but what if we had some sort of simulated repair as well - ie. you could do something to re-enable the base - or perhaps when the base is destroyed - it's more like 'inaccessible for 'x' amount of minutes' ?

We used plane transfers in our IL2:1946 campaigns and it was a great feature - we would even have ferry missions going on as well.

EG14_Marcast
Sep-16-2013, 10:29
Why does the fight need to be higher though?


This server revolves around missions, the missions mean attacking ground targets and as long as fighter bombers or light bombers are available almost everyone is going to go in low, I don't see how that will ever change unless you make level bombing the only realistic way to hit targets?


As a mainly bomber pilot, I don’t think that high level bombing will ever have a great success in ATAG kind of missions, for some reasons. First, most of ATAG players are individuals; there is no coordination between them (especially bomber pilots) except for some random opportunities (in which the fun is greater) when you meet some mate taking off at the same time and you join to the same target. High level has reasonable hope of success only if practiced by a great group, and heavily escorted. Flyng alone at high altitudes, easily visible and virtually undefended is a nonsense for me; better to take the risk of a deadly flak with ground attacks. Second, the time: some bombing mission need already enough time to get to the target. If you add also the time to reach altitude, it can be very discourageing. Third, the weather: one of last nights I tried to make a high level bombing over Littlestone. I took a long trip to avoid the fighters, and when after almost ½ hour I arrived the target was covered with heavy clouds. I know this is realistic (but they had weather reports..), but it’s not so funny , and this is still a game. Finally, let me say that promoting high level bombing making more difficult ground attacks should be a great disadvantage for the Red side. High level bombing with the Blenheim is practically impossible compared to german bombers’ automations and loadouts.

AKA_Recon
Sep-16-2013, 14:14
As a mainly bomber pilot, I don’t think that high level bombing will ever have a great success in ATAG kind of missions, for some reasons. First, most of ATAG players are individuals; there is no coordination between them (especially bomber pilots) except for some random opportunities (in which the fun is greater) when you meet some mate taking off at the same time and you join to the same target. High level has reasonable hope of success only if practiced by a great group, and heavily escorted. Flyng alone at high altitudes, easily visible and virtually undefended is a nonsense for me; better to take the risk of a deadly flak with ground attacks. Second, the time: some bombing mission need already enough time to get to the target. If you add also the time to reach altitude, it can be very discourageing. Third, the weather: one of last nights I tried to make a high level bombing over Littlestone. I took a long trip to avoid the fighters, and when after almost ½ hour I arrived the target was covered with heavy clouds. I know this is realistic (but they had weather reports..), but it’s not so funny , and this is still a game. Finally, let me say that promoting high level bombing making more difficult ground attacks should be a great disadvantage for the Red side. High level bombing with the Blenheim is practically impossible compared to german bombers’ automations and loadouts.


I know as a Blenheim pilot, coming into a land target can be suicide with the flak. I had a mission with several Blenheim pilots, and the Germans caught on and it was a killing field. We eventually brought in more fighters (luckily we were all on TS) and it made for a heck of a battle!

I would have *liked* to have been able to come in higher to avoid the deadly flak, and I feel it would be easier to get escorts up higher but since Allies don't have this capability there was no option.

That said, if we flip this around, for the Germans, (assuming you didn't have 109 jabo), you could have the Ju88/110/Stuka low level - but should have the same issue with being targets for the fighters down low + flak.

I was able to fly in with a He111 at +5km and bomb Manston last time. The benefit was survival over the flak, and it's much easier for the 109's to escort me in at 5km than on the deck where everyone is more vulnerable.

AKA has no problem escorting their bombers, the issue with us is we tended to fly Allied to keep the sides even, and we don't have anything that can really bomb at any altitude, it's all Blenheim jabo.

So I believe differently that we would get escort, the problem more is in the availability of the planes and the scenarios.

Course, all this is coming from a pilot that enjoys level bombing and welcomes any escort he can get!!! :)

AKA_Recon
Sep-16-2013, 14:18
(Should add though, I gave up last time I flew, as some guys spent the whole mission strafing me as I spawned. It was a legit strategy - rack up kills on French soil. But frustrating to someone trying to fly the mission - lol

I kept thinking 'how is it when I fly a Blenheim over an enemy airfield, I get ripped apart, but this guy can fly over and over again on this airfield without fear' - also kept wondering why I couldn't take off from a field deeper in France - as I need time to climb out anyway!)

Roblex
Sep-16-2013, 14:56
Marcastel, I have already answered Gromits points; just read the next thread down. The short version is that Gromit was objecting to comments I made on a completely different thread specifically about Operation Homeplate which is a map featuring AI high level bombers. It got reposted here by Salmo, not me.

gavagai
Sep-17-2013, 23:43
This is a neat idea, and I also second the argument that there needs to be more AAA defending airfields to make it work. Vulching is a valid tactic, but I have never seen anyone brought down by airfield AAA on the ATAG server.

Roblex
Sep-18-2013, 01:54
This is a neat idea, and I also second the argument that there needs to be more AAA defending airfields to make it work. Vulching is a valid tactic, but I have never seen anyone brought down by airfield AAA on the ATAG server.

Agreed. Read any WW2 autobiography and they will all agree that, while you might get away with one straffe, it was suicide to turn back and make another pass and *nobody* would make three of four. The problem may be that in real life the AAA was 'asleep' until you made the first attack then was lethal after. I am not sure how easy that is to recreate in game, especially when the field was probably attacked by someone else 5 minutes earlier. It needs to 'fall asleep' after five minutes without seeing any aircraft within dot-range then not wake-up again until an enemy plane is within 500yds or a bullet or bomb lands within the boundary (so it can open up on bombers staying above 500yds.) Even everything opening up as late as 500yds is maybe too much for a first pass so maybe we need a delay for all of part of it?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Sep-18-2013, 06:05
This is a neat idea, and I also second the argument that there needs to be more AAA defending airfields to make it work. Vulching is a valid tactic, but I have never seen anyone brought down by airfield AAA on the ATAG server.

yep.

AAA was reduced on most online maps before, or at the time of 3.00 patch.
It was found to be killing frame rates for most people, particularly the machine guns, which are effective at low level.

It might just be that he next patch will allow the return of some of these machine guns.

92Sqn.Strings (GZ-O)
Sep-18-2013, 06:28
what phil said

1lokos
Sep-18-2013, 13:25
but I have never seen anyone brought down by airfield AAA on the ATAG server.

I see a Bf.109 shot down by FLAK over Hawking. :D

Blenheim "Jabos", dont fly straight against heavy defended targets, need coming alternating your altitude and heading,
same to attack Minenshuchboot, this increase your change of survive.

Sokol1

indyscout
Sep-25-2013, 12:27
This is a neat idea, and I also second the argument that there needs to be more AAA defending airfields to make it work. Vulching is a valid tactic, but I have never seen anyone brought down by airfield AAA on the ATAG server.

Just the other day I was getting attacked while taking off in France by 3 Spitfires. I managed to win the 3v1 thanks to flak. I managed to take advantage of one of their mistakes and shoot him down. Shortly after one had his wing blown off by flak. Now in a 1v1 the spit had positioned on my six, just as he was about to fire, he was hit by flak and burst into a fireball.

However, I would like to point out that German flak is almost entirely absent on Homeplate, making vulching easy for the reds.

SoW Reddog
Sep-26-2013, 04:09
Funny, I see 109 after 109 pootle around Hawkinge at low level getting shot at by flak, yet never seen one go down to a single hit. Sure, eventually one will go down shot by every bofors in England but from one hit? Nope. Yet I've been shot down by German flak repeatedly.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Sep-26-2013, 04:38
Funny, I see 109 after 109 pootle around Hawkinge at low level getting shot at by flak, yet never seen one go down to a single hit. Sure, eventually one will go down shot by every bofors in England but from one hit? Nope. Yet I've been shot down by German flak repeatedly.

It does happen. a lot.
I've shared kills with the flak on numerous occasions.

SoW Reddog
Sep-26-2013, 08:20
Phil, not sure you understood me. The fact you're sharing a kill with flak says it all. I've never seen a 109 killed with a single flak burst.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Sep-26-2013, 09:15
1. Over the french side, reds are normally buzzing the tripods -> three airfields worth of flak. At Hawkinge, there is only 1 airfield's worth of flak

2. Over Hawkinge, there's almost always some spitfires ready to shoot at approaching 109s. The flak is less likely to get a "whole" kill, cos it's competing with RAF aircraft

3. 109 pilots are more likely to boom and zoom allied fields (it's their standard tactic) this gets them in-and-out of the flak faster. RAF aircraft tend to stick around more for turn fights when they go french-side. I've spent enough time turning around low over the "tripods" to know how dangerous this is.

4. 109s are (10%?) smaller than spitfires

All I can suggest is; make a map with a single RED airfield with flak guns around it. Put a BLUE air spawn nearby that has both blue and red aircraft at it.
Spawn in a blue 109, and fly level circles over the base at 250mph/ 400kph and time it until the aircraft is no longer flyable.
Spawn in a blue spitfire, and fly level circles over the base at 250mph/ 400kph and time it until the aircraft is no longer flyable.

If you get vastly varying results, do the tests another 5 times. If it doesn't even out, then there's a problem.

If there's no real difference (more than, say 15%) then it's a mission thing, not a DM thing. Remember though, that there is only one place on the map where two RAF airfields are close together (Manston/ Ramsgate). The area around Coquelles has 4, maybe 5 airfields in a very small land area. There are simply many more guns there, in the area between Wissant and Calais.

ATAG_Headshot
Sep-26-2013, 11:17
I have been instantly one hit pilot killed by flak many times in a 109 at varying altitudes.

9./JG52 Ziegler
Sep-26-2013, 11:43
I have been instantly one hit pilot killed by flak many times in a 109 at varying altitudes.

Myself as well Headshot. Cockpit goes black.............:ind:

SoW Reddog
Sep-26-2013, 11:54
Thats good to hear. As I said, i've not seen it myself, but not saying it doesn't happen. Will have to see how my tweaked AA works in my upcoming mission.