Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[major_setback]

Thanks B6, thanks Luthier, thanks to all the development team and the testers.
God bless you all!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a big more exciting for everyone.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I'm hoping with the improved stability the patch will provide that more suitable online missions can be created that give both sides equal chances to win the mission.

Yes on public servers I suppose that fine.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

The simulator stuff may not be fair to both sides, but the gaming side stuff should be.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Indeed.



Yes on public servers I suppose that fine.

Regarding the sim not fair/ game fair thing:

The simulation aspects of the game should be as close to reality as they can get them. So 109 / Spit / Hurricane / damage model, etc etc. Get all that stuff functioning as close as possible to real, regardless of which 'side' the details favour.

But the GAME aspect. Like, "Score 500 points to win the map!" stuff. THAT stuff should DEFINITELY be tuned to make the chances of winning equal to both sides.

If Luftwaffe fighters have the advantage in dogfighting (on average taking into account mistakes or a lapse in SA, etc.), or by a margin as you put it, then having a mission that is "First to 50 kills!" isn't exactly a fair gameplay target for both sides.

I don't really know how exactly I'd tweak missions to suit this kind of simulation / game issue, but I'd certainly make an attempt.

If a mission's objective is just to present a Battle of Britain scenario, ala Campaigns and the like, then this kind of thing isn't really necessary. Whatever happens happens.

But in a win/lose setup mission with points and targets and objectives and things, why not make an attempt to give both sides the same chances?

I don't think anyone can really seriously argue that the objectives and mission points systems in missions like the ones on ATAG are meant to be serious 'simulations' of action during the Battle of Britain. They're meant to be fun objectives to provide purpose to the action that might otherwise just be dogfighting.

If Red's strength is in taking on bombers, then give Red's target more emphasis on that. Vice versa, if Blue's strength is on air superiority fighting and bombing targets, make those the objectives for Blue. So for example:

RED OBJECTIVES: Destroy 50 bombers
BLUE OBJECTIVES: Destroy 25 ground targets and 25 fighters

Obviously that's just an example so please no one start posting "But 50 bombers is easier than 25 ground targets and 25 fighters!" That's not the point.

Right now, most missions I see have way too much symmetry. Each side has pretty much the same objectives, just opposite. "Red attacks parked Ju88s. Blue attacks parked Beaufighters. Red attacks tanks here. Blue attacks tanks there." Symmetry like that doesn't take into account the different weapon sets these teams have.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Even Hartmann got shot down a few times...

Totally agree with your post, except this part.
He wasn't shot down, but had a habit of running into pieces of his kills......something like 14 times
To quote the man himself "I was never another pilots victory".

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

It is, through non rose tinted glasses, widely acknowlegded that the most superior fighter, by a margin, in 1940 was the 109. Later in the war the arms race sees the spit and 109 leap frogging each other however many many other factors must be taken into consideration. Its simply NOT who had the best plane won. As you mentioned - orders for one hampered the 109 driver late in BoB.

Yeah I don't get these guys that seem to believe that the 109 was better than the Spit at practically everything. If that were the case, which it patently isn't, then that means that the 109 pilots must've been crap to lose with such fantastic machines But we hear from the same people how good the LW pilots were compared to everyone else - something doesn't add up.............

..............and that's where blaming Goering comes in isn't it.....


You are correct Farber, the 109 was superior to the Spitfire, until the CPS and 100 octane was shoved in it (May/June 1940). Then it was all down to the engineers.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Hooves

I'm sorry but you have it absolutely backwards. In historical context the RAF actually had an advantage as the LW were ordered to stay with the bombers negating their boom and zoom advantage. In a video game with unrestricted
ROE the 109's make mints meat of the RAF birds as they can do whatever they want to. In an online game arena with no orders. Realism falls on it's face, with one side constantly getting beat for the sake of historical flight model. So tell ya what I'll continue to try to get a height advantage if you 109 drivers never stray from your bombers. After all we are being "realistic" aren't we?

Depends a bit on the time frame, eh? Only the later stages of the BoB were the 109s tied to the bombers. Then, however, I agree.

Looking forward to the patch, I have an itch in my finger.

[BigC208]

Originally Posted by Hooves

I'm sorry but you have it absolutely backwards. In historical context the RAF actually had an advantage as the LW were ordered to stay with the bombers negating their boom and zoom advantage. In a video game with unrestricted
ROE the 109's make mints meat of the RAF birds as they can do whatever they want to. In an online game arena with no orders. Realism falls on it's face, with one side constantly getting beat for the sake of historical flight model. So tell ya what I'll continue to try to get a height advantage if you 109 drivers never stray from your bombers. After all we are being "realistic" aren't we?

Don't be sorry, you're right. I dont play a whole lot online. Especially not in historical scenario's. The 109's hands were tied by Goerings orders but the BoB was not lost because of this tactical oversight.
I've read many accounts of RAF Squadrons being jumped by 109's because they arrived thousands of feet below the Germans, despite radar. 109's closely escorting bombers are still going to mess you up if you show up 4000 ft too low. This happend so often that Squadrons would add 5-6 thousand feet to their assigned altitude when being vectored or adjust course for better positioning. What I tried to convey was that "IF" the scenarios and tactics online where followed historically, the 109 would be superior(as it is now and will be even more so after the patch). What Joe sixpack actually does online I have no say over. Most of these things turn into airquake and have, indeed, nothing to do with what happened in the summer and fall of 1940.

What I'm worried about is if you try to balance the planesets performance for game balance sake you cannot ever create a realistic scenario. At some point historical scenario's will be part of the online game by mission design and the real weak and strong points will come out and be utilised. Realistic tactics worked pretty good in the old air warrior days where efforts where made by participating squads to keep it real. If you were asigned to protect your bombers, that's whay you did. They tried to lure us down where they performed better or got the bombers uncovered but we stayed high or B&Z'd and fought on our own terms. Worked well in 40 or 44 scenario's. Maybe a pipedream but I keep my hopes up that the airquake mentality lessens when more squads come over to Il2CoD from Il2 when the game is patched.