Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant
More cynically, I think that the persistent requests for player-controlled flak comes from really bad online mission design and the perverse onliner dislike of "campers" (i.e., people engaging in the historically accurate tactic of orbiting enemy airbases, attacking planes which have just taken off).
The historical solutions are more flak around airbases, having standing CAP, and sending up friendly planes from another airbase to ambush the "campers" (since you should know their exact position, altitude and vector). If you can't do any of those things, the historical term for the situation is "loss of air superiority" AKA "Luftwaffe 1945."
The IL2 solutions are for mission builders to put lots of flak around airfields, place enough airfields, and have sufficient separation between opposing airfields that it's not a viable tactic to "camp" - at least for very long.
|
Perverse? Get down off that horse.
The problem is that Il-2 battles rarely reflect historical reality, even on the full-real servers. There is no structure as everyone comes and goes as they please. Very rarely have I seen people use real-world tactics and fight as team. No one has the patience to wait around and get into a formation, climb to 10km and fight as if they could only die once.
Secondly, most of the complaints about camping comes from the even less realistic quick-action servers. In those situations, getting shot on takeoff is thoroughly enraging. There is often only one airfield on each side, and getting someone to work together in those situations is like herding cats. One team is pinned to the floor, and for no good reason, as there aren't any mission objectives the other team is trying to achieve - they're solely after easy points.
For 90% of players, Il-2 is an escape, and something to do for fun. Full-real is not the only way to play, nor the best way to play (and there is no Glorious Full-Real Master Race). I say this is a predominantly full-real player.
My vote is with Bearcat on this one.