Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[F19_Klunk]

@Hooves

The missions' design are imperative .. for me anyway... to achive some kind of sensation of accomplishment. That is why I prefer servers for IL2-1946 such as "Spit vs 109" / "Zeke vs Wildcat".. they are objective driven(!). For me it has the past 5-6 years only been "winning the mission" that is the main goal.. not scoring as many kills as possible. That is why F19 and F16

F19's and F16's

(our squadrons ) get killed in droves online flying inferior bombers/attackplanes.... chasing to win the map.

In that aspect, IL2 1946 would never have been what it is to me and many others without the 3rd party development such as FBDj.

So far the multiplayer aspect of CloD is only in it's beginning in comparison; ATAG-server is pretty much the only server that comes even close to beeing objective driven -but then again; how many online servers are there? A handful?
So instead of balancing FM.. away from realism, MG should focus on developing tools for missionbuilders to design just that; objective driven missions.... with ..as u mentioned.. symmetry to objectives.
If they don't come up with these tools, I am sure the community will eventually - just as they did with IL2:1946. As I said - without US all servers for Il2:1946 would be quakewar.

EDIT: That particular IL2-T attack showed aboved was actually one of those missions in which we all survied when going for target ..NOT dying in droves

In short; I prefer balancing mission objectives rather than "balancing" FM/DM and other characteristics of these historical airplanes we all love. We can never really simulate the actual war (too many aspects), but we can simulate the actual planes.

[klem]

I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from. There are many accounts of the Spitfire being superior when in a dogfight against its contemporary 109. Read Al Deere's 'Nine Lives' and his acount of several 109s trying to dogfight two Spitfire MkIs over Calais Mark at the time of Dunkirk, they brought three 109s down. Read Johnny Johnsons's 'Wing Leader' and his early accounts of flying with Douglas Bader. The 109's preferred tactic wasn't dogfighting, it was what we would call energy tactics. The 109's wing loading was far higher than the Spitfire or Hurricane which reduced its turning capability but it had a much better power to weight ratio which is why it could outclimb them. Heinz Knoke wrote in his book 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' that his most reliable tactic for evading them was a spiral climb which would leave the allied fighters clawing for height and risking a stall. Even Adolph Galland infamously asked Goering for Spitfires when told he must fly close to the bombers because he was aware of their superior dogfighting capability. It was not how he wanted to fly the 109.

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by klem

..
The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

...

I really like the sound of that. If COD can come close to that count me in.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by klem

I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from. There are many accounts of the Spitfire being superior when in a dogfight against its contemporary 109. Read Al Deere's 'Nine Lives' and his acount of several 109s trying to dogfight two Spitfire MkIs over Calais Mark at the time of Dunkirk, they brought three 109s down. Read Johnny Johnsons's 'Wing Leader' and his early accounts of flying with Douglas Bader. The 109's preferred tactic wasn't dogfighting, it was what we would call energy tactics. The 109's wing loading was far higher than the Spitfire or Hurricane which reduced its turning capability but it had a much better power to weight ratio which is why it could outclimb them. Heinz Knoke wrote in his book 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' that his most reliable tactic for evading them was a spiral climb which would leave the allied fighters clawing for height and risking a stall. Even Adolph Galland infamously asked Goering for Spitfires when told he must fly close to the bombers because he was aware of their superior dogfighting capability. It was not how he wanted to fly the 109.

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

good post, we seem to have similar historical information

i like your idea of a different point scoring system. i believe that type of system could be worked into online server "successful mission" point system currently implemented by by luthier (as it was already partially functioning that way in the later server versions of the il2 series), and hopefully we could also get this in the (eventual) dynamic campaign server we will get.

the point however is, how can we get this concept across to luthier ? it would be a crying shame if this new advanced il2 simulator we are now at long last getting our hands on, would just go to waste with the teen air quake servers we get online right now, under the hood is a huge resource of realism and complexity we could potentially tap into, we just need luthier to wake up to its importance.

[adonys]

Originally Posted by zapatista

good post, we seem to have similar historical information

I can point you towards statements (interviews/books) from LW pilots who said exactly the opposite: that actually 109 could outturn a spit IF the pilot would dare to use the plane up to its limits.

So, this quoting is useless, what we need are hard facts: ie performance charts and that's it.

There are many things you have not mentoned in there, or some you got wrong: there's a big difference between left and right turn for a 109vsSpit fight. Also, 109 had actually better roll rate, and so on..

Regarding for losing the BoB, again you got many things wrong: actually, the RAF pilots were even more used and ruined than LW ones, rotation and all. And it was mostly lost because the order was given two months before getting the damn fuel drop tanks, which would extend the LW fighters battle allowed time over england with at least half an hour, and that would have changed everything.

Of course, the tactical roles switching (from lose high altitde escort to close escort) also had a big percent in this. LW shoud have kept fighters spit into two teams: one close escorting, to keep the RAF from downing too many bombers, and a high alt one, to bounce on the RAF trying to reach the bombers.

And no one is liking DF servers. They are totally off when it comes about simulating the war, exactly because the tactical briefing an requirements of most actual mission would greatly change the battle start situation.

You must not forget how actually these weapons appeared: from the need.. bombers were needed to destroy tactical and then strategical objectives. fighters appeared to hunt down those bombers. escort misssions to have your own bombers protected against enemy's hunters. and so on..

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by adonys

I can point you towards statements (interviews/books) from LW pilots who said exactly the opposite: that actually 109 could outturn a spit IF the pilot would dare to use the plane up to its limits..

that is not correct.

point being of course, that we are presuming it is a matchup between equally expert pilots, each knowing how to fully exploit the strength/weaknesses of their own plane and that of their opponent in the 109. generally speaking, the only times a 109 pilot could get away with this is if it was against an inexperience spitfire pilot who wasnt able/willing to push his own machine to the limit. with both machines at their turning limits, the 109 lost out in this maneuvre

please provide references to your unusual claim, and dont use single anecdotal statements from one individual to try and resolve it.

what i stated is generally accepted knowledge on both sides of the debate

[5./JG27.Farber]

Ive seen that interview and heard that the 109 could turn inside a spit - no problem. However I think its circumstanstial... For example if a Spit is in a constant horizontal turn a 109 above could dive in vertical rolling inside the spit and shoot. Essentially having "turned" inside the spit. Allot of fear and adrenaline in war, its not so good for the memory.

The spitfire and the 109 ar both great fighters!

Anyway. The OP. Great update!

[Martin77]

Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. [During this] battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by adonys

Also, 109 had actually better roll rate, and so on..

Let's put this one to bed shall we.

The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed.

I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons


"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

[Insuber]

I warmly suggest to open a topic in the "performance" section, where 90% of the latest posts belong.