![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
109 is not easy. Never said that. 109 has great potential above that of Ia and Hurri. I shoot down my share of 109s, but usually not the ones flown by competent pilots. And the 109 view on your six is significantly better, at least in my opinion. The rear armour slants backwards leaving you much better high six viewing. The hurricane rear view is a big steel wall that makes checking your own six nearly useless. I'd use the mirror but...exactly. The biggest part of my frustration comes from blue pilots saying 'it's not hard, fly to your strengths, and the fight is equal'. Yes, absolutely. If I fly at 15k ft and dive only on targets that I have an advantage over, I will kill and not be killed for quite a while. This will not give me much action though. It will also leave all the ground targets undefended. Flying to the strengths of the Red aircraft basically leaves our targets open for business to attacking bombers. Engaging a 109 co-alt is almost always a death wish. Running from a 109 co-alt is a death wish. Diving from a 109 co-alt is a death wish. You need the height. Baring that, you hope for a head on pass that doesn't kill you...wait, he's got nearly 0 convergence and cannon rounds. ARG! It's very difficult if you've not followed good procedure and done your homework on when and where to engage. That's GREAT! I love that it's like that. But it's FRUSTRATING because that method of play means Red will lose the map. Until bombers attacking the targets start flying in at 10k+, Red will continue to mostly be bait for 109s. Unless you don't care about winning or losing the map, which some people don't - they just want to get in and kill hun. We win sometimes, but only when we're lucky enough to have dedicated bomber pilots like Tonka or Torian flying red and systematically throwing blenheims at the charnel house that is France. To be clear, I don't think the real problem here is flight models or what have you. I think the problem is that the mission setup on ATAG forces Red players who want to play for the mission to fly to their weaknesses and not their strengths and more often than not it results in being shot down. The only thing we could really try, I think, to level things up is to start bombing from altitude, but with maybe two blenheims at a time trying to put it in the pickle barrel, I think that would take more time to hit the targets than there is time in the mission. So when I get frustrated or pissed off about blues bragging upon winning a map its because they've already got Red by the short and curlys the moment the map starts. I've seen plenty of skill in dogfights. I've yet to see skill win the map. It's either luck or time.
__________________
Pilot #1 (9:40 hours flying time, 3/0/1 Fighters, 7/2/0 Bombers). RIP No.401 Squadron Forum ![]() ![]() ![]() Using ReconNZ's Pilot Log Book Last edited by bw_wolverine; 03-28-2012 at 11:01 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() Also, this is exactly what happens with Boom and Zoom vs Turn n Burn. Historically (and in games) BnZ tends to come out ahead. My only advice is to convert to the dark side ![]() About the Flaks, we blues get taken down just as much. Flying once or twice on the other side doesn't really give you a good picture. Half of my abandons have been due to flaks. As for winning the mission - really currently it depends on how many bomber pilots each side has, and how closely knitted the teams are on comms. As I have observed, bomber runs from both sides are kamikaze runs. If they reach their target, they either get taken down by flak or succumb to fighters on the way back. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The blue are less affected by flak because they have the high energy doctrine. Flying at high speeds over the enemy territory turn them less vulnerable to enemy anti air.
The reds has little excuse to turn and burn, and go to low speed fights were they are more vulnerable. Always when i was shot down i argue myself. What i do wrong? Most o f the cases the answer is that i spent to much time in a fight and lost my SA trying to counter a single ac a get shot by another ac. If you ask i am a pilot who fly better with a wingman. Acctualy my squad mate are busy but we were very succesfull in many virtual war like il2.org.ru using teamwork tactics. One of the tactics we would like to use is to send 2 or 4 fighters ahead over the target at very high altitude while the bomber climb to bombing altitude in a safe area. Once there we track for enemies. Our main objective is simply obligate the enemy leave the area or dive for safe. We put them in a defensive situation. Shot them down is not realy necessary. We dive over and obligate them to go to a low energy condition (diving to base, flaks etc.) We never folow them to lower to 3 or 2k. Once the dive we call the bombers that come high and do the job impunished. If the try to climb once they reack 3k or more we dive over them. This puts the enemy in situation of dispair and frustation. Desperate them start to make mistakes that allow us to shot them down. The key in my opinion is the patience to wait the right moment. You have to create a method or RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. and follow them always. Sometimes i simply send RoE to hell, but always when i join my squad mates and decide to fly under RoE i ll be not modest but we are very good. Fly RoE is very good for the EGO while the enemies go down in mass and your team remains untouchable. May you would like to see IN PURSUIT section 18.9 Engagement and Disengagement page 144. http://web.comhem.se/~u85627360/inpursuit.pdf The secret of the dark side is this. If the Sith go open against the jedi they should be defeated. You have to use tactics and dispersion to reach the objectives. You have to destroy the enemy SA and keep yours to win the fight. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Maybe Goering should have sent all his bombers to England at 10ft above the deck. ![]()
__________________
Pilot #1 (9:40 hours flying time, 3/0/1 Fighters, 7/2/0 Bombers). RIP No.401 Squadron Forum ![]() ![]() ![]() Using ReconNZ's Pilot Log Book |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
When did diving from above suddenly go from being "flying smart" to "unacceptable"? Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that no one has yet posting anything that would/could be remotely considered as proof either for or against the realism of the Bf109 FM
Due to the limitations of the human sense observations from the plane itself, or worse yet, the opposing plane consist of too many unknowns to say with any certainty.. Unless the values are way off.. For example a Bf109 climbing straight up for 20kft like an F15 is an error the human senses could detect.. But the human senses are not good enough to even begin to quantify the error (say how big the error is) That is the reason plane makers more so than not go to all the trouble of instrumenting a plane to 'measure' the variables during the test flight.. As opposed to relying solely on the test pilots real time (radio) or memory of the flight With that said When testing how realistic an FM is you need to do the following three things as a 'minimum' 1) Know what the real world values should be for a given test flight. 2) Be able to reproduce the test flight method and reproduce or account for the configuration used during the test flight. 3) Log the same or equivalent in-game data while reproducing the test flight in-game. Than and only than can you say with any certainty how realistic the FM is.. And know that the acceptable rule-of-thumb error between the real world data and in-game data is about +/-5% Note.. you will be hard pressed to find any real world data on the energy state or power of a Bf109 performing a 180°! Thus failing one of the three minimum requirements for a test. At which point you would have to 'calculate' in advance what the values 'should be' but that in and of itself can be a real can of worms. Thus it is best to limit your FM testing to the types of testing they did in WWII, in that you will stand a much better chance of finding some real world data to compare to. Anything less than that is just opinion at best PS you can log data in CoD using C#
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 03-29-2012 at 02:47 AM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Stop being so aggressively antagonistic about this discussion. If you're not a high flying 109 diving onto your targets, I will be the first to say you're doing it wrong. I'm happy to fly at 15k+. The ACTION I'm talking about is MISSION CRITICAL action. How many bombers attacking Ramsgate Beaufighters have you seen coming in at 10k+? Maybe I need to get my eyes checked, but I have seen ZERO. The only bombers I ever see going for targets are chopping the water with their props. If I'm a Spit or a Hurricane that low to the deck, I am a sitting duck for you or any 109 pilot. Even a bad one. If you want to treat ATAG's server as a dogfight server, go ahead. I'm thankful for ATAG. It's helped create an online presence for the game if not a cohesive community. But the way things usually play out in the missions these days, it's not much fun most of the time. There are other servers running other missions that I like more, but no one plays there. As everyone has said, AI fighters are BAD to dogfight with. Not much fun there either. So I occasionally vent like in the above posts and I get back to it. Maybe one time someone will think "Hmm, maybe if we try this it'll make it better for everyone." I'm not out to ruin anyone's fun. I'm out to improve everyone's fun. And, yes, that includes people who like to fly Spitfires and Hurricanes. Sue me.
__________________
Pilot #1 (9:40 hours flying time, 3/0/1 Fighters, 7/2/0 Bombers). RIP No.401 Squadron Forum ![]() ![]() ![]() Using ReconNZ's Pilot Log Book |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You can counter the enemies low but make sure that you have friends flying higher. The difficult is to find a team that want to take different roles and fly that way:
examples: you can do a low CAP since you have other guys flying high. I doubt that high enemies ll dive knowing that there are enemies higher too. If they dive to attack they ll become nice targets too. You only have to join some guys with enough tactical discipline and put the things in practice. Invite some friends and make a plan: while i and 2 go to low CAP, another 4 go to a high CAP over the area etc. The enemy ll think to times before dive and give their altitude advantage. The problem is to find some to fly this way. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() So yes, this kind of organization is what we need. I will keep trying. Like I said many times. These are mostly just vent posts. Back to business as normal.
__________________
Pilot #1 (9:40 hours flying time, 3/0/1 Fighters, 7/2/0 Bombers). RIP No.401 Squadron Forum ![]() ![]() ![]() Using ReconNZ's Pilot Log Book |
![]() |
|
|