AAA fix for a more immersive experience

[Y-29.Silky]

There's 3 tactics for flak...

- Continuous Point Fire

- Predicted Concentration

- Barrage

I noticed this game has the same mechanics as (or it seems so) War Thunder, constant CPF that can adjust on the dime, direction and altitude, it's almost like your shadow following you (this may explain why some people spontaneously combust in the skies). I think if these 3 tactics were implemented, it would make for a far better experience. For an example, attacking an airfield would force you to do evasive maneuvers before you reach the airfield, as shown in the video below, that is, evading flak without it chasing you if you change directions like it does now.

 

Also, the shortest fuse for a flak shell is 3000ft, roughly 900m. Currently, the flak shoots at you when you're way lower than that, basically you can be on the deck and you'll receive flak (plus ack-ack). Flak was for high altitude, ack-ack was low altitude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP_-WUMi-nw

Edited October 25, 2014 by Silky

[Afwastus]

+1

 

Great post, immerse/realistic AAA would be a godsend and encourage reasonable tactics (without ruining player fun).

Edited October 26, 2014 by Afwastus

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Good post. Current implementation of heavy flak is rather arcade as it follows you precisely and fast. Smaller calibre AAA maybe needs some minor adjustments in their traverse and tracking too.

[3instein]

+1 to the OP, the flak now is very tame,  like a half dozen puffs then that's it,  should be a lot more IMO.

 

Mick.

[Y-29.Silky]

Fantastic post, love the video, particularly the cartoon duck! I would love to see this in the game at some point.

 

I seem to recall the old 1990s sim B17 having some pretty good flak, I don't know if they actually modelled these tactics correctly though, but from memory it looked like the continuous point fire. They did however have a command to drop/climb 1000 feet which was useful to avoid the flak.

I don't think they modelled them correctly either. It's funny I keep going back referencing Janes WWII Fighters concerning tactics, but they had the flak tactics implemented very good! It was always fun trying to evade it.

 

And yeah, there should be more flak bursts, just ones that don't follow you everywhere you go, but rather meet you there, unless you're flying straight for too long, then they should follow you. In real life, they were aiming at a massive formation of bombers, here, they are dialed in a lone, small, fast fighter and make quick work of him.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Silky

[FlyingNutcase]

That was a really good vid. Thanks for the post. It sure would be good to see this modelled.

[Tyberan]

This would be great, flak/AAA is either asleep at the wheel until some trigger point until it becomes laser accurate, immersion killer. I managed to circle an enemy airfield in campaign for a good 5-10mins whilst my shitty shooting was trying to destroy everything. AAA was hardly an issue, until at some point around 7mins it just went BS laser accurate.

[KoN_]

I think the flak is deadly , fly Stuka and try and hit the bridges , three attempts and  i got hit each time , direct hits too , bombs dropped on target , as i pull out of dive bag . hit . !! , also i think the bombs need to be more destructive . set off secondary explosives  .. or a near miss on AAA should take it out .

[Mikey]

im in the 3rd act of the campaign and i have noticed like 5-10 flak shells hitting in a small area simultaneusly, thankfully havnt been caught in it.

 

i dont remember seeing flak doing that before today, although ive never been hit by that and i would think 8 flak guns shooting all at once at one target would be deadly.

 

on the other hand i have found the small caliber aaa is extremely deadly, at least for me i havnt had problems with flak unless level bombing in HE-111

[Blutaar]

A few days ago i get a direct hit from a Flak in a Stuka and i bailed out, short after the bailout i get another direct hit at my Pilot and of course i was dead, i just think to my self "WTF".

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 So is AI AAA still targeting the player, even bailed out?

[Mikey]

S!

 

 So is AI AAA still targeting the player, even bailed out?

Yes seems like flak can hit a parachute pretty accurately

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Nothing has changed in over 10 years then AAA still chasing mostly the player

[EAF19_Charlie]

I can vouch for this too. Only 2 days ago I was in the SYN server flying the IL2 to bomb a fuel dump. The flak quickly flamed me (and an escorting LaGG) well before I got lined up on the run. I bailed and shortly after my pilot was 'chute killed by the flak.

[unreasonable]

Outstanding post by OP in all respect but one. Correct, analytic and backed by informative and entertaining period content. This would be useful in another context, for instance a discussion of a simulator of military aviation operations.

 

Unfortunately has no bearing on the game, since AA only exists to reduce the threat of "vulching" in MP, and all considerations of historic accuracy have to be sacrificed to try, mostly in vain, to change the behaviour of MP pilots who seem indifferent to a high probability of death if they have an opportunity to get their adrenalin rush.

 

Now if we could modify the characteristics of AA or other items in game then of course we could make them behave more realistically.

 

But we cannot. Why? Because MP players would complain that other MP players would use this to cheat, and of course they would be quite right.

 

The sooner everyone realizes that BoS is made by MP gamers for MP gamers the better and we can stop talking about this realism nonsense.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Playability vs realism.

[Blutaar]

Hmm im not sure but do you mean something like Airfield camping, if yes, do AAA respawn if you destroy it?

 

To me it looks not like that this game is for multiplayer only, i mean if it was a multyplayer focused game, why you need to unlock your stuff offline, why you dont get exp in mp, makes no sense sry?

Edited October 29, 2014 by Ishtaru

[Y-29.Silky]

Outstanding post by OP in all respect but one. Correct, analytic and backed by informative and entertaining period content. This would be useful in another context, for instance a discussion of a simulator of military aviation operations.

 

Unfortunately has no bearing on the game, since AA only exists to reduce the threat of "vulching" in MP, and all considerations of historic accuracy have to be sacrificed to try, mostly in vain, to change the behaviour of MP pilots who seem indifferent to a high probability of death if they have an opportunity to get their adrenalin rush.

 

Now if we could modify the characteristics of AA or other items in game then of course we could make them behave more realistically.

 

But we cannot. Why? Because MP players would complain that other MP players would use this to cheat, and of course they would be quite right.

 

The sooner everyone realizes that BoS is made by MP gamers for MP gamers the better and we can stop talking about this realism nonsense.

 

With all due respect, I completely disagree with everything you said. I'm talking about AAA, not AA. AA can easily handle vulchers, especially with how accurate they are now.

Sacrifice historical accuracy for entertainment? Historical accuracy is entertainment, which makes this game great, and is why we play it.

 

How would people use this to cheat? A player wouldn't know which tactic the AAA would use at a given time.

 

"we can stop talking about this realism nonsense."

 

Lol is this a joke? Seriously?? Troll Level: Ace

Edited October 29, 2014 by Silky

[unreasonable]

With all due respect, I completely disagree with everything you said. I'm talking about AAA, not AA. AA can easily handle vulchers, especially with how accurate they are now.

Sacrifice historical accuracy for entertainment? Historical accuracy is entertainment, which makes this game great, and is why we play it.

 

How would people use this to cheat? A player wouldn't know which tactic the AAA would use at a given time.

 

"we can stop talking about this realism nonsense."

 

Lol is this a joke? Seriously?? Troll Level: Ace

 

While I am obviously pleased to be an Ace at something, my comments were more motivated by the experience of seeing how this development team, and indeed this community (in which I am including the RoF community) handles these issues, and hence the need to manage your expectations with respect to what you are going to get to avoid disappointment.

 

For instance, SP flyers in RoF have been waiting in vain years for any sign that the two of the most unhistoric features of the RoF campaign would be improved, namely excessively low patrol heights and the AI obsession with balloons.  These are both really easy to fix!

 

Exactly the same type of posts were made years ago in RoF about the flak, (by me among other people), giving lots of technical and statistical evidence, but nothing was ever changed.  At least in RoF this was eventually subjected to 3rd party mods we could fuse in beta campaign mods on.  Will we be able to play the BoS campaign mods on? It seems likely the answer will be no, because it will allow some "cheating" of the unlock progression.

 

For me, historical accuracy is entertainment as you say, but all the evidence is that the developers are just not particularly interested in areas outside the FM/CEM area of handling individual aircraft, and this has been reflected in their choosing a bizarre misinterpretation of other game genres' unlock systems while ditching the pilot and unit centered part of RoF's beta campaign design.

 

My last comment was perhaps a little over sarcastic.

Edited October 30, 2014 by unreasonable

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

Bump.  Just got shot down instantly on 2 sorties by AAA.  

I can understand AAA by airfield being strong but when I approach a supply depot with 2 AAA emplacements, I should not get my face raped.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Bump.  Just got shot down instantly on 2 sorties by AAA.  

 

I can understand AAA by airfield being strong but when I approach a supply depot with 2 AAA emplacements, I should not get my face raped.

Unforntunately they have to be that way. AAA is still very bugged. If multiple people for example attack a supply depot AAA becomes "confused" with weird effects. It will for example start shooting on the ground or at fixed spots in airspace where enemies used to be.

 

It's not the accurancy that's buggy but the whole AAA logic itself. Thats why most servers have to use max AAA strengh to ensure less airfield camping by the enemy.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Joao611]

+1 for the OP.

[coconut]

 

 

It will for example start shooting on the ground or at fixed spots in airspace where enemies used to be.

 

That could be an AAA bug, or it could be a netcode glitch. If you have set a low bandwith in your settings, or if the server has limited outbound bandwidth (which is rather low by default), the server might be prioritizing the info for the planes, resulting in dropped packets for the AAA fire.

 

 

 

Thats why most servers have to use max AAA strengh to ensure less airfield camping by the enemy.

 

The AAA strength is set on an individual basis. For the anti-vulching setting, I use the highest AI level with respawn after damage. On objectives, I typically use softer settings.

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

Unforntunately they have to be that way. AAA is still very bugged. If multiple people for example attack a supply depot AAA becomes "confused" with weird effects. It will for example start shooting on the ground or at fixed spots in airspace where enemies used to be.

 

It's not the accurancy that's buggy but the whole AAA logic itself. Thats why most servers have to use max AAA strengh to ensure less airfield camping by the enemy.

AAA at airfields should be very strong and accurate.  I don't think it should all be that strong.  Playability becomes a huge concern with this.  

 

Are you sure you looked at the OP?

[FuriousMeow]

 

For instance, SP flyers in RoF have been waiting in vain years for any sign that the two of the most unhistoric features of the RoF campaign would be improved, namely excessively low patrol heights and the AI obsession with balloons.  These are both really easy to fix!

 

Exactly the same type of posts were made years ago in RoF about the flak, (by me among other people), giving lots of technical and statistical evidence, but nothing was ever changed.  At least in RoF this was eventually subjected to 3rd party mods we could fuse in beta campaign mods on.  Will we be able to play the BoS campaign mods on? It seems likely the answer will be no, because it will allow some "cheating" of the unlock progression.

 

So, you want the devs to keep building the beta campaign when they have a directly competing system developed by an individual that can put all of their effort into it because they are focused solely on that rather than new planes, fixing bugs, introducing new stuff, building the WHOLE game rather than focused on a small facet of it?

 

The beta campaign was neat, but Pat Wilson's is above and beyond because that was his sole focus. It's far easier for individuals, or groups of individuals, to build a great campaign system than the devs that have to focus on so much more. For example, Il-2's DCG built by Starshoy. Dedicated to just the campaign generator and look what he turned out. The devs had ZERO input and ZERO influence on it, they only integrated it's button presses into the GUI eventually.

 

I understand you wanted the beta campaign to add those functions, but why spend time on that when someone is already doing the exact same thing and that person is focused only on that?

[Cybermat47]

So, you want the devs to keep building the beta campaign when they have a directly competing system developed by an individual that can put all of their effort into it because they are focused solely on that rather than new planes, fixing bugs, introducing new stuff, building the WHOLE game rather than focused on a small facet of it?

 

The beta campaign was neat, but Pat Wilson's is above and beyond because that was his sole focus. It's far easier for individuals, or groups of individuals, to build a great campaign system than the devs that have to focus on so much more. For example, Il-2's DCG built by Starshoy. Dedicated to just the campaign generator and look what he turned out. The devs had ZERO input and ZERO influence on it, they only integrated it's button presses into the GUI eventually.

 

I understand you wanted the beta campaign to add those functions, but why spend time on that when someone is already doing the exact same thing and that person is focused only on that?

+1, PWCG is far superior thanks to the fact that it's Pat's sole developing focus. Sure, the UI might be a bit rough around the edges, but being able to have a gunner career, seeing tanks and infantry advance on enemy positions, an Eastern Front career, historical figures, more realistic heavy bomber missions, control over the mission size, the Channel map, Eastern Front, and Western Front maps all being part of the same career, the Austro-Hungarian airforce, Kaiserlichemarine, and RNAS all being properly playable, and a bunch more features make PWCG one of the best career modes available for any simulator.

[Y-29.Silky]

The AAA strength is set on an individual basis. For the anti-vulching setting, I use the highest AI level with respawn after damage. On objectives, I typically use softer settings.

Feels like Wings of Liberty server does the exact opposite. I haven't seen flak bursts around me in a very, very long time because they're always hitting me with their first shot. I just wish AAA wouldn't target me like they have a laser designator pointed at me. Unless it's AA but even so, they traverse their guns insanely fast. I was in a right bank once attacking a convoy and saw white tracers fly up towards me that was keeping up with my speed.

 

This isn't right as they should be predicting my flight path and aiming accordingly.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Y-29.Silky