New planes requests (from other threads/please pin it)

[sniperton]

Agree. Eastern ETO is basically complete, there's little to be done there, except updating some very old models (which would be a huge work BTW).

PTO, on the contrary, and sadly, will never be complete and well-balanced due to the NG issue.

What remains as a prospective field for improvement is MTO (perhaps with BoF and BoB added and proper attention paid to naval warfare). The Med was won by the Allied by gaining naval and aerial superiority almost hand in hand.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by sniperton

Agree. Eastern ETO is basically complete, there's little to be done there, except updating some very old models (which would be a huge work BTW).

There are a few rare birds which could be added to the Eastern Front, and of course, more planes made flyable. Filling in the gaps for the Soviets: Yer-2, Ar-2, Be-4, Yak-6, UT-2, and more Pe-2, and I-16. For the Germans: He-112, He-50, He-46, DFS 230, a variety of medium bomber types, and filling in the gaps for the Hungarian and Romanian AF.

Originally Posted by sniperton

PTO, on the contrary, and sadly, will never be complete and well-balanced due to the NG issue.

It depends. For late war US naval ops, we're screwed by NG. For US Army, Australian, Chinese, Dutch, Indian, New Zealand, and Royal Navy ops in the SW Pacific, CBI, Aleutians, and Japanese home islands, from 1941-45, and Sino-Japanese ops from 1937-41, there are entire theaters of war literally uncharted (as in, no maps for them) and dozens of planes which still aren't in the game.

Historically, the Japanese were dominant during the early war, and the allies dominated in the late war, but the individual planes used were more or less competitive. (e.g., Hurricane Mk. II vs. Ki-43, P-40N vs. Ki-44, P-51H vs. Ki-84)

Originally Posted by sniperton

What remains as a prospective field for improvement is MTO (perhaps with BoF and BoB added and proper attention paid to naval warfare). The Med was won by the Allied by gaining naval and aerial superiority almost hand in hand.

Currently, this seems like the easiest area for IL2 to expand into, since many of the necessary maps already exist, and most of the planes required are already in the game. The only real weakness in the MTO order of battle is the lack of early- to mid-war UK aircraft, although there would be some French, German, Italian, and US aircraft which would be very nice to have.

Another promising area for the game would be Western Front Ops over the North Sea, English Channel, and Bay of Biscay from 1941-44. Many of the necessary maps, ships, and planes already exist. The only gaps are for the UK, and a very few necessary planes for the Germans.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by sniperton

What remains as a prospective field for improvement is MTO (perhaps with BoF and BoB added and proper attention paid to naval warfare). The Med was won by the Allied by gaining naval and aerial superiority almost hand in hand.

The introduction of ai for ships would provide a major step forward in air v naval action. Currently all ships have a simple course set in missions from which they never deviate until sunk.

Ship formations should have a lead ship with all others positioning themselves relative to the lead depending on their defined role. (Battleline, screen, scout, etc).

Ships under attack should react (weaving, turning away from torpedoes, etc)

Ships should avoid collisions, such as sinking ships.

Smarter ship objects would make much more challenging targets for aircraft, so improve the game for pilots.

The stock game could do with a wider range of ships specific to the Med, maybe taking oob for operation pedestal as a theme, but that could be addressed later.

[Soldier_Fortune]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

The introduction of ai for ships would provide a major step forward in air v naval action. Currently all ships have a simple course set in missions from which they never deviate until sunk.

Ship formations should have a lead ship with all others positioning themselves relative to the lead depending on their defined role. (Battleline, screen, scout, etc).

Ships under attack should react (weaving, turning away from torpedoes, etc)

Ships should avoid collisions, such as sinking ships.

Smarter ship objects would make much more challenging targets for aircraft, so improve the game for pilots.

The stock game could do with a wider range of ships specific to the Med, maybe taking oob for operation pedestal as a theme, but that could be addressed later.

I'm agreed with you.

But for air-naval warfare, IMHO would be more important to fix de insane behaviour of the AI pilots when they attack with torpedoes.

When the previous waypoint to Gattack es reached, they change formation by default to 'Line Astern' and this action can't be reverted by the human flight leader: any order to switch to a different formation will be unheeded.

Actually the AI pilots release their torpedoes from a distance to the target of less than 1200 m, even against vessels with strong AAA, when the torpedoes might be released from a longer a safety distance becuase they have ranges greater than 5000 m.

A flight of big planes, like Bettys, He-111 or Ju-88, arranged in 'line astern' anf flying too low and too slow while they're approaching to their target, are easy prey for the AAA.

Therefore, the AI behaviour should be changed: the human flight leader should be able for to change the flight formation accordingly with his tactics at any moment. I.e.: 'line abreast' or 'echelon left/right' in open formation are better than 'line astern' becuase:

- The AAA must to disperse its fire instead of to concentrate it.

- Releasing all the flight's torpedoes at the same time than the human leaader like a salvo from a safe distance (not less than 3000 m), the probabilty of to hit the target would increase as well as the survival of most or all of the planes.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Soldier_Fortune

When the previous waypoint to Gattack es reached, they change formation by default to 'Line Astern' and this action can't be reverted by the human flight leader: any order to switch to a different formation will be unheeded.

That seems like a mistake, since typical torpedo attack doctrine was to attack in line abreast (or similar formation where the planes could release their torpedoes simultaneously), in order to "comb" the formation of ships they were attacking.

I also recall that torpedo bombers might attack by sections from different directions, so that the torpedo spreads would overlap.

That makes me think that there should be yet more "attack modifier" commands for AI:

* Attack on my command - AI only attacks when player does, or when player presses the appropriate key to launch a particular type of weapon).

* Attack at X distance (in meters) - AI only attacks when it gets within X meters of target.

* Begin attack from Y height (in meters) above/below target - AI only begins its attack when it gets to at least Y meters above/below the target. Setting the height to 0 means that the plane makes level attacks against aerial or elevated targets, or makes near ground level attacks vs. ground targets.

* Assume Station at Z o'clock relative to target - AI moves to assume position at Z bearing relative to the target.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Soldier_Fortune

Actually the AI pilots release their torpedoes from a distance to the target of less than 1200 m, even against vessels with strong AAA, when the torpedoes might be released from a longer a safety distance becuase they have ranges greater than 5000 m.
...
- Releasing all the flight's torpedoes at the same time than the human leaader like a salvo from a safe distance (not less than 3000 m), the probabilty of to hit the target would increase as well as the survival of most or all of the planes.

3000m is too much, IMHO. I doubt that torpedo bombers achieved any hits at this distance in WWII, unless flying in large numbers. On the other hand, smarter AI behaviour would be nice to have. For example, earlier torpedo releases if target ships have high skill levels and therefore AAA fire is more precise.
Distances of less 1000m are reasonable against single ships, especially light armed.

[Soldier_Fortune]

Originally Posted by dimlee

3000m is too much, IMHO. I doubt that torpedo bombers achieved any hits at this distance in WWII, unless flying in large numbers.

The USN aerial warfare doctrine during the 40's determined, for attacks against armed vessels, that dive bombers should begin the attack, and then torpedo- bombers should finish it launching torpedoes against the damaged and weakened targets.

Of course, the number of involved a/c should be really big for to achieve targets.

But, in the other hand, think about a medium bomber, like He-111 or Ju-88 or a Betty, into the role as torpedo attacker.

Against unescorted convoys they could launch torpedoes from less than 1000 m.
But against heavily escorted convoys with a good and dense screen of destroyers and also light cruisers, those big birds flying at 30-50 m @SL and at 200 km/h would mean the loss of several expensive flights or squadrons in one only mission.

No navy or air force could support such degree of attrition: the standard training for bomber's pilots demanded 55 weeks at least. Plus several weeks for specific misions like this which we're talking about.

3000 m becomes a good and safe distance if a convoy is sailing at steady speed and heading. But when enemy planes were spotted, the fleets started maneouvers for to avoid hits... and the torpedo-bombers should approach and penetrate into the dangerous range of the AAA, for to launch their attack from a shorter distance.

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Soldier_Fortune

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

Good description of tactics.

One possible change to ship movement, which would them maneuver realistically, would be to make ships zig-zag (or, more accurately, S-turn) on a regular basis.

This could either be achieved by changing the default pattern for ship movement, or by allowing mission builders to specify a zig-zag movement pattern along the ship's course in the FMB.

This option could be used for other vehicles as well, so make them deviate from their overall path in a predictable manner. For example, trucks could swerve, and aircraft could "corkscrew".

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Good description of tactics.

One possible change to ship movement, which would them maneuver realistically, would be to make ships zig-zag (or, more accurately, S-turn) on a regular basis.

This could either be achieved by changing the default pattern for ship movement, or by allowing mission builders to specify a zig-zag movement pattern along the ship's course in the FMB.

This option could be used for other vehicles as well, so make them deviate from their overall path in a predictable manner. For example, trucks could swerve, and aircraft could "corkscrew".

Zig Zags were for anti torpedo tactics, anti dive bombers tactics, they turn hard all the time. You could see a confusion of circles while trying to evade bombs on a fleet under dive bomber attacks.

I prefer to be made not for mission builders, but as an automatic behaviour while under air attack.

Still, it is quite complex because it is very difficult to avoid bombing and that ships don't collide with themselves. Also some realistic movements must be added to ships. Nowadays, they just move as told, and as close as the mission builder asks.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Soldier_Fortune

The USN aerial warfare doctrine during the 40's determined, for attacks against armed vessels, that dive bombers should begin the attack, and then torpedo- bombers should finish it launching torpedoes against the damaged and weakened targets.

Of course, the number of involved a/c should be really big for to achieve targets.

But, in the other hand, think about a medium bomber, like He-111 or Ju-88 or a Betty, into the role as torpedo attacker.

Against unescorted convoys they could launch torpedoes from less than 1000 m.
But against heavily escorted convoys with a good and dense screen of destroyers and also light cruisers, those big birds flying at 30-50 m @SL and at 200 km/h would mean the loss of several expensive flights or squadrons in one only mission.

No navy or air force could support such degree of attrition: the standard training for bomber's pilots demanded 55 weeks at least. Plus several weeks for specific misions like this which we're talking about.

3000 m becomes a good and safe distance if a convoy is sailing at steady speed and heading. But when enemy planes were spotted, the fleets started maneouvers for to avoid hits... and the torpedo-bombers should approach and penetrate into the dangerous range of the AAA, for to launch their attack from a shorter distance.

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

I don't put the doctrine in question but I doubt that "3000m+" attacks could be successful, unless in rare circumstances as high ratio torpedoes/ships launched in good visibility and calm seas. I just don't understand how a pilot(navigator?) without possibility to measure distance accurately to a target could calculate angle of torpedo launch. Here my submariner's education revolts. I might be wrong, or I miss something.