Hey TD is this doable?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Can you make a ground gunnery object that is manable?

I'm sure it's possible. Modders have created a jeep with a .50 cal MG on it that you can use.

The only reasons I can think of as to why a player-operated flak gun doesn't exist are, A) it is content which might have been embargoed as IL2: CloD content, B) Ground objects aren't really the focus of the game.

That said, player-operated flak guns are something that players have been asking for for years, so it's a legitimate request. I'd add to that, some sort of ground control or radar, like the SEOW mod-pack has.

The idea of allowing shot-down players to man a gun is about as realistic as allowing them to jump into another plane and take off again. Maybe it's realistic if you actually get shot down or land on or near a friendly airbase, otherwise, it's just a way to make dogfight servers even more arcade-like.

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.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I'm sure it's possible. Modders have created a jeep with a .50 cal MG on it that you can use.

The only reasons I can think of as to why a player-operated flak gun doesn't exist are, A) it is content which might have been embargoed as IL2: CloD content, B) Ground objects aren't really the focus of the game.

That said, player-operated flak guns are something that players have been asking for for years, so it's a legitimate request. I'd add to that, some sort of ground control or radar, like the SEOW mod-pack has.

The idea of allowing shot-down players to man a gun is about as realistic as allowing them to jump into another plane and take off again. Maybe it's realistic if you actually get shot down or land on or near a friendly airbase, otherwise, it's just a way to make dogfight servers even more arcade-like.

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.

+1. Agree 100%.

I'm sure a lot of things are "doable", but it's debatable whether or not all that goes against the core philosophy of this sim. Just because something "can" be done doesn't necessarily mean it should.

[Bearcat]

I'm not talking about realism.. I'm talking about fun. I do think that the idea of being shot down over home plate is a good way to do it.. Everything doesn't have to be always about realism and as long as the ballistics are modeled the same way I see nothing wrong or arcade about it or having it with it as an option if it is doable time wise and man power wise. Fun.... remember that?

[Kittle]

There is a mission that came with the stock IL2'46 that has you on the runway at Pearl during the attack in the rear gun of an SBD. You sit there on the runway and basically use the rear gun as a AAA position.

[wheelsup_cavu]

Originally Posted by Kittle

There is a mission that came with the stock IL2'46 that has you on the runway at Pearl during the attack in the rear gun of an SBD. You sit there on the runway and basically use the rear gun as a AAA position.

Pearl Harbor AAA Gunner is the name of the mission. It's definitely fun but as the AI improved I had a much harder time surviving the mission.


Wheels

[Black_Sage29]

This is what I'm reminded of when i hear the words "fun game"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EyAznFhh-es

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I'm not talking about realism.. I'm talking about fun.

I've got no problem with player-controlled AAA if TD wants to do it. Heck, I don't even mind if there's a server option that allows people who have been shot down, even killed, from manning AAA guns or even taking up a new plane. But, it should be a server-admin controlled option.

For the option of manning planes or guns if you're shot down, it would be simplest to just allow that option if the player is a) alive, b) unwounded, c) within X miles/km of his home base. That gives people some incentive to try to nurse a badly damaged plane back home. But, the server admin should have final say on who gets to "respawn" and the criteria required to do it.

So, +1 to Bearcat's original request.


As for my mini-rant about camping and its causes and solutions, I know exactly why onliners don't like campers. I'm just pointing out the problem of camping comes from grossly unrealistic scenarios. To me, that's as much of an immersion killer, and detracts from my enjoyment of the game, much as a grossly unrealistic flight model would. That's one of the reasons that I don't fly online. But, I also respect that different people play the game differently and enjoy different aspects of it. I happen to like realistic operational and tactical details, and love campaigns which try to faithfully recreate historical situations, but that's just me.

But, if you're flying on a server where opposing sides spawn from just one base each, you can practically see the enemy base from your airfield, and people can join and leave the game at random, I can see a real need to artificially discourage camping.

One way to get rid of the camping problem by allowing people to do air starts (if the server admin allows it, of course). To make things even more random, the server admin could have player-controlled aircraft spawn at random altitudes, random vectors, within a range of altitudes and within a range of grid squares on the map. To make things a bit fair, the server admin could set parameters that you can't spawn within X km/miles of an enemy plane and/or that you can't spawn in a position where you are advantaged or disadvantaged by an enemy.

Another simple way to discourage campers would be to subtract points from the offending team's score if you orbit an enemy airbase for more than N minutes. After all, artificial situations require artificial rules, just like any other sporting contest. Again, this could be a simple setting designated by the server admin.

There are probably other methods which might work as well.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Black_Sage29

This is what I'm reminded of when i hear the words "fun game"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EyAznFhh-es

First off I said nothing about "fun game" in the manner in which you refer to .. which has a totally different connotation from what I am talking about.. Second.. if you are not having fun in IL2 then you are taking it way to seriously. I don't know about you but I still have fun every time I fire up 46 beit online, offline, COOP, DF or campaign.. rgardless to my settings whether it is full switch or some thing other than that (I personally like to have externals on regardless but I will drop into full switch servers on occasion) because that is why I do it.. to have fun. I am not trying to re live history or practicing to be a drone pilot.. I am trying to have fun... and I have been.. al,ost daily for the past 11 years with this product.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I've got no problem with player-controlled AAA if TD wants to do it. Heck, I don't even mind if there's a server option that allows people who have been shot down, even killed, from manning AAA guns or even taking up a new plane. But, it should be a server-admin controlled option.

For the option of manning planes or guns if you're shot down, it would be simplest to just allow that option if the player is a) alive, b) unwounded, c) within X miles/km of his home base. That gives people some incentive to try to nurse a badly damaged plane back home. But, the server admin should have final say on who gets to "respawn" and the criteria required to do it.

So, +1 to Bearcat's original request.


As for my mini-rant about camping and its causes and solutions, I know exactly why onliners don't like campers. I'm just pointing out the problem of camping comes from grossly unrealistic scenarios. To me, that's as much of an immersion killer, and detracts from my enjoyment of the game, much as a grossly unrealistic flight model would. That's one of the reasons that I don't fly online. But, I also respect that different people play the game differently and enjoy different aspects of it. I happen to like realistic operational and tactical details, and love campaigns which try to faithfully recreate historical situations, but that's just me.

But, if you're flying on a server where opposing sides spawn from just one base each, you can practically see the enemy base from your airfield, and people can join and leave the game at random, I can see a real need to artificially discourage camping.

One way to get rid of the camping problem by allowing people to do air starts (if the server admin allows it, of course). To make things even more random, the server admin could have player-controlled aircraft spawn at random altitudes, random vectors, within a range of altitudes and within a range of grid squares on the map. To make things a bit fair, the server admin could set parameters that you can't spawn within X km/miles of an enemy plane and/or that you can't spawn in a position where you are advantaged or disadvantaged by an enemy.

Another simple way to discourage campers would be to subtract points from the offending team's score if you orbit an enemy airbase for more than N minutes. After all, artificial situations require artificial rules, just like any other sporting contest. Again, this could be a simple setting designated by the server admin.
There are probably other methods which might work as well.

My suggestion has less to do with discouraging campers and more to do with just adding another layer of fun.. especially in coops. That is one reason why I prefer to leave externals on particularly in coops. I cannot tell you how many times I have nursed a plane back to my base only to have some AI plane strafe me on the runway.. It would just add another level of something to do while waiting for the next mission. I also like the idea of making it so that you have to be at a certain proximity to the gun and you also have to be alive.. If say you bail or crash and make it top the ground alive and you are within say I dunno .5 or under clicks to a gun .. tnen you can man it.. I have no idea how doable something like this is and am not expecting TD to say "Great idea BC we'll get right on it!!" I am just asking.. is it even doable... ?

[IceFire]

I'm not sure Bearcat but my guess is that yes, it is something that would be possible with at least some degree of programming. The actions wouldn't... at least to a non-programmer like myself (with a minimum of high school OOP as my basis) be all that different than a turret station on an aircraft. For dogfight servers it could be as simple as selecting a flak battery from the plane list and using the spawn in stationary plane feature. Or a modification of that.

It's a bunch of work so it might not be my first choice personally... but I think its a neat idea, it has merit, and aside from effort involved I don't think there is any reason not to do this. If the spawnable flak isn't someones idea of fun then it doesn't have to be enabled/included.

[Luno13]

Landing in close proximity to flak would make it more of a challenge to use, and make it more rewarding, but it's not "more realistic" to do that. Pilots generally wouldn't be manning the guns in any situation, so saying something is more or less realistic is sort of moot point in this regard.

Think of it as any regular res pawn that you do in the game. You landed, and you re-spawned instantly in a fresh plane. All this is doing is giving you another option on where to re-spawn.

Highly unrealistic. But practical, and more importantly, fun.

One of my favorite things to do in Silent Hunter was load up a mission with airplanes all around and try to shoot them down with the 20mm AA before they sank the sub. In Il-2 that would be really interesting with the full-fledged DM and FM, or against human players.