How do you feel about vulching in multiplayer?

[Y-29.Silky]

I define vulching as when a fighter aircraft strafes enemy aircraft on the ground with bullets.

 

I don't mind if people vulch with rockets or bombs to fufill ground strike roles, but when a Yak or 109 is just circling the airfield and strafing aircraft as they spawn in, is a cheap way to play.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Silky

[unreasonable]

Voted rockets and bombs: although if I had done that, I might make a second pass guns only if I felt lucky.

[SYN_Mike77]

Wouldn't it depend on the mission?  If the mission is to go shoot up the enemies airfield then go for it!  Anyway, mission builders should work to make loitering over airfields suicidal.

[39bn_pavig]

Vulching is ok in my book... but only if practiced in a sportsmanlike manner. Often it is not. I don't understand the psychology of this - but I am sure you have all seen instances when one team vastly outnumbers another and spends their fuel idly circling enemy airbases and vulching anything that spawns. We may want to simulate war, but do we really want to simulate one sided wholesale slaughter?

 

There is no skill in shooting fish in a barrell, nor in vulching an outnumbered enemy. The usual advice to "go for a rear airbase" doesn't really count for much if players are unwilling to self-balance the servers and even rear bases are unplayable. If we could trust players to self-manage the game to make it playable then we could encourage "whatever works" behaviour, but there is not enough maturity around to allow this. There will always be many players who are more interested in cheap victories than real challenges.

 

Bombing airfields and parked assets is a different matter. It can be argued that has a place in a strategic campaign. Waiting for a player to start their engine and immediately killing them before they get off the ground though, and doing it repeatedly, is just game breaking behavior. We are not WW2 pilots angry about our dead brothers who would kill at any cost - we are players who wish to challenge each other in a complex game of skill and tactics.

 

There is no argument that "they did it in the war" that justifies poor sportsmanship. If such realism arguments hold, I would ask those players to burn their copy of the game the first time their plane goes up in flame and not play again so their realistic roleplay wouldn't continue to annoy others.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I voted no but there is a caveat. I don't vulch unless I get hammered twice in short order, particularly if it's the same guy. Then I will make a pass or two to say hi to the other side.

 

Also, I enjoy flying CAP over my forward base and punishing vultures while my teammates get off the ground. Saves my teammates and pushes vultures off so we can get on with the air combat aspect of the game.

 

Everyone should fly CAP over the home base for a portion of a round, IMHO.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I would do it with rockets and bombs only. Circling like a vulture just to pad some stats, naah. In Aces High did vulch a lot, but that was to keep the field suppressed for capture.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

No go to me. Flying a fighter I'm here for one thing, dogfighting. Challenging other players, mastering the aircraft, enjoying the flight physics at their limit. It's an aerial combat flight sim after all, not CAS sim.

 

Airfield attacks are - if properly executed - not as bad in my eyes. Let's say a bomber formation is bombing the runway from 5km alt, I'd be totally fine with it. 2-3 IL-2 making 1 or 2 passes with bombs and rockets, well it's annoying but I can love with it.

 

Fighters acting like drones cercling few 100m above the field waiting for any spawning prey is a no go, call it lack of sportmanship or whatever. It's a bad behaviour for usually bad people to rack their useless kill stats and providing some self satisfaction for their pathetic ego.

 

Unfortunately as long as AAA logic is bugged we have to live with them. It's unfortunately not always the devs making MP games bad, it's the people who play them.

Edited November 6, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

2-3 IL-2 making 1 or 2 passes with bombs and rockets, well it's annoying but I can live with it.

Small typo here, just want to sort out any misunderstandings

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

Vulching is or was a natural recourse of war. Camping or lingering was never a healthy option in "REAL' life. You go in and do your thing then get the heck out of town. Unfortunately as big as these maps are many bases are very close together and even with Half fuel, pilots will linger around an airfield for a kill. I'll go so far as to say some have no thoughts of returning to their airfields to land as long as they are given an opportunity to kill something or someone.

 

This is where I give my immersion spiel which is NOT the subject of this topic. My belief though it may be singular or odd is that in Arcade battles you do not care if you loose or die as long as you get to KILL. In a simulation you try to accomplish missions or victories and return ALIVE to your home base (some where in ALL that snow). Now I'm truly NOT judging anyone here and what difference would it make? I don't control how anyone plays and my opinion, well truly, is just mine.

 

I voted for all's fair in love and war .....

 

Chief

[312_strycekFido]

I give no mercy and except none in return, sorry if my attitude is bit harsh for you ;-)

 

 

(not speaking for my squad)

[39bn_pavig]

Maybe it is easier to discuss if we differentiate between vulching and camping. If AAA was doing its job then protracted vulching of airbases would lead to eventual death, so getting in and out to do the job, then flying home would be preferable to camping over an airfield. I prefer the simulator attitude that it is less about going out in a blaze of glory than achieving victory and coming home for vodka (or schnapps) to toast the fallen.

[unreasonable]

Unfortunately as big as these maps are many bases are very close together and even with Half fuel, pilots will linger around an airfield for a kill. I'll go so far as to say some have no thoughts of returning to their airfields to land as long as they are given an opportunity to kill something or someone.

 

Chief

Agree. Many of the bases in use are too close to the front lines, even within artillery range of the enemy. If the bases used were pushed back to at around 50km inside your lines, this is still only a few minutes flying time but it makes a return trip with a damaged aircraft much more problematic.

[SYN_Vorlander]

I voted yes.

 

Think it's a beautiful thing.

[peregrine7]

So long as there is an alternate spawn point immune from vulching, yes. If that's all you have, no. I have abstained from voting.

 

(The above only applies if airfields can't be captured, if they can then yes, all's fair)

Edited November 7, 2014 by peregrine7

[Yakdriver]

Stalingrad was a rude environment.
anything goes.

[Y-29.Silky]

Vulching is ok in my book... but only if practiced in a sportsmanlike manner. Often it is not. I don't understand the psychology of this - but I am sure you have all seen instances when one team vastly outnumbers another and spends their fuel idly circling enemy airbases and vulching anything that spawns. We may want to simulate war, but do we really want to simulate one sided wholesale slaughter?

 

There is no skill in shooting fish in a barrell, nor in vulching an outnumbered enemy. The usual advice to "go for a rear airbase" doesn't really count for much if players are unwilling to self-balance the servers and even rear bases are unplayable. If we could trust players to self-manage the game to make it playable then we could encourage "whatever works" behaviour, but there is not enough maturity around to allow this. There will always be many players who are more interested in cheap victories than real challenges.

 

Bombing airfields and parked assets is a different matter. It can be argued that has a place in a strategic campaign. Waiting for a player to start their engine and immediately killing them before they get off the ground though, and doing it repeatedly, is just game breaking behavior. We are not WW2 pilots angry about our dead brothers who would kill at any cost - we are players who wish to challenge each other in a complex game of skill and tactics.

 

There is no argument that "they did it in the war" that justifies poor sportsmanship. If such realism arguments hold, I would ask those players to burn their copy of the game the first time their plane goes up in flame and not play again so their realistic roleplay wouldn't continue to annoy others.

 

Wow, you absolutely nailed what was on my mind!

[FS_Fenice_1965]

Vulching is unpleasant as long as airfields aren't protected correctly by anti aircraft. Our server has vulch allowed for 7 years now, but it is not so often used by pilots, given AAA settings around the bases.

If pilots decide to attack the airfields they need to approach the matter organizing an attack with real strategy (not alone but coordinated, eliminating AAA first and then the airfield assets) otherwise the risk makes not worthy the vulching attempt.

[Finkeren]

Can't vote in that poll. To me it's not so much about the method of attack as it is about the plane.

 

I rarely vulch when flying fighters (I do make exceptions though, for instance to prevent another enemy from joining a fight, where we are already outnumbered)

 

However, if I'm in an attack plane or bomber, I see vulching as one of my core duties. Destroying the enemy on the ground is what an IL-2 does, and that's what I use it for.

 

I don't like the idea of outright kicking or banning people from servers due to vulching. Just let vulching be what it always has been: Slightly frowned upon, but also a reality of war.

[Matt]

Nothing wrong with vulching imho. It's only ever a real problem if the airfields are too limited and there's no efficient AAA.

 

If one team manages to destroy the AAA at an airfield, they deserve a bit of vulching imho. Also i think every server is using this airfield radar system, so you know when enemies are near the airfield before you spawn. If you still spawn out of comfort (closer to the action or whatever) when enemies are inbound, the guy shooting at you is not too the person to blame.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Vulching is unpleasant as long as airfields aren't protected correctly by anti aircraft. Our server has vulch allowed for 7 years now, but it is not so often used by pilots, given AAA settings around the bases.

If pilots decide to attack the airfields they need to approach the matter organizing an attack with real strategy (not alone but coordinated, eliminating AAA first and then the airfield assets) otherwise the risk makes not worthy the vulching attempt.

This. Airfield attacks should be risky and prepared as a group, not a single derp Yak with bombs enjoying the kill fest of sitting ducks. I hoped such a thing would never happen in a game where MP kills don't matter at all.

 

Everybody isvoting yes for the sake of war realism, yet is a single yak srafe at spawning airplanes realistic? Guess the answer is obvious. In real war fighters would stand prepared on the airfield, ground troops owuld spot and report the incoming raiders, pilots would have time to start up their engines and eventually engage them. Not to mention the hostile forces attacked in groups, not single individuals.

 

It's one of the few things that turn me off MP and it's comunity.

[Trooper117]

Of course vulching should be allowed, it happened all to often during WWII...

[39bn_pavig]

True enough "they did it in the war" but such things would also be subject to standing orders and the discretion of command to allow or disallow. I am sure there was a time for vulching and a time for other mission priorities. Cowboy behavior would not be tolerated by squad leaders.

 

So as we can't simulate every aspect of the war we must temper some behaviors to balance realism and gameplay. Strategic vulching is certainly an option but should not be a default behavior if it starts to break gameplay or strays too far from realistic historical behaviors. I can't imagine historical pilots camping over foreign airfields until they are inevitably shot down by flak. Real pilots would value their own lives more and think less about their kill ratio than living to fight another day.

[Finkeren]

Well Pavig. The realities of war doesn't stop at 'vulching'. Take a look at this collection of 8th Air Force gun cam reels:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c25xFStNVw

 

There's some vulching going on from 6:35, but the more interesting shots happen between 3:05 and 4:00: apparently it was considered not only acceptable but was encouraged to repeatedly strafe an already crash landed aircraft. Presumably with the intention of completely destroying the downed aircraft and/or kill the pilot, which quite frankly would have been regarded as 'surrendered' by the current incarnation of the Geneva Conventions,

 

Imagine if someone did that in BoS MP. Everyone would think, he was a right prick, but apparently it was not a rare occurance IRL.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Finkeren

[Lusekofte]

I hate those good at vulching, they wait until your just airborne and shoot you down. It is the irony in a simulation vs the real thing. People do not care if they die if it give them a positive stats. And friendly fighters do not take the task of defending airfields.

This is why you cannot talk about vulching in a historical perspective, there where no lonely aircraft strafing airfields alone over enemy territory.

A joint effort between many is a airbase attack and not vulching.

This is why I do not like it, it happens a lot over airfield bomber take off and is the reason for me not flying online in this game as of yet.

I hope when the numbers of slots in server increase it will be more difficult to do, if not I am out of here . I have no problem with the sim itself, I am a offline player by nature, since the competition in online servers make people behave like asholes.

Edited November 7, 2014 by LuseKofte

[39bn_pavig]

Great footage Finkeren! I am not saying vulching didn't happen, but that we should temper our behavior online to keep it realistic. This is why I have an objection to blatant airfield camping, which is both unrealistic historically and can be game breaking for an MP session if unchecked.

 

By the way, I noticed that shell impacts are very bright flashes compared to BoS in that footage. I wonder if it reflects reality or an oddity of the black and white contrast of the film.

[Finkeren]

By the way, I noticed that shell impacts are very bright flashes compared to BoS in that footage. I wonder if it reflects reality or an oddity of the black and white contrast of the film.

 

I think it's a mix of two factors:

 

1. You see the flashes most clearly against a dark background (train engine, dark camouflaged aircraft etc) amplifying the flash a great deal on a B/W reel.

 

2. The flashes we see are most likely incendiary rounds hitting a hard object such as the boiler on a steam engine, allowing us to see the flash, that would normally happen inside the target.

[Reflected]

I wouldn't even use the term vulching. It's "airfield attack".

 

Yes, it's an easy way to down an opponent, but it should also be a risky business:

 

- Airfields are usually heavily defended by AA

- The element of surprise is gone after the first few passes, then you risk to have gaggles of bandits on your tail

- You get low and slow right at the bees' nest. Baaad idea.

 

Nothing un-historical, or unfair about it...

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Nothing un-historical, or unfair about it...

I woudln't coutn on that. Being a motivated fair player I susally switch sides to joing the inferiour one with less players. Everytime I do so I see excessive vulching happening.

Instead of fighting it back most players just switch over to the "stronger" side and join the vulch party. One can call it a vicious circle. In such a situation you don't want to come up with the term balance.

 

Oline comunities are always very critical. I remember my first days at RoF with it's outstanding online sportmanship, now it's more heavily driven by vulching and ramming "derp folks" who don't care about anything. A sad turning point for this absolutely distinctive flight sim.

 

The next thing people are going to argue about is ramming, shooting friendlies, than probably bailing out before an enemy can shoot at you and what else. It all happened in war and is realistic so let's do it ingame to ruin each other's fun...

Edited November 7, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

Maybe it is easier to discuss if we differentiate between vulching and camping. If AAA was doing its job then protracted vulching of airbases would lead to eventual death, so getting in and out to do the job, then flying home would be preferable to camping over an airfield. I prefer the simulator attitude that it is less about going out in a blaze of glory than achieving victory and coming home for vodka (or schnapps) to toast the fallen.

 

Flak is a great idea. But this openers the door to all the anti-flak folks.

 

Agree. Many of the bases in use are too close to the front lines, even within artillery range of the enemy. If the bases used were pushed back to at around 50km inside your lines, this is still only a few minutes flying time but it makes a return trip with a damaged aircraft much more problematic.

 

Locking fuel to not allow littering might work but it also opens another can of worms.

 

Over at New Wings have some of our missions are set up for our RoF servers where we have front line bases open to attack but with heavy flak and rear bases closed to attacks. We never have a 100% cancerous on this of course.

 

Chief

[Y-29.Silky]

There's some vulching going on from 6:35, but the more interesting shots happen between 3:05 and 4:00: apparently it was considered not only acceptable but was encouraged to repeatedly strafe an already crash landed aircraft. Presumably with the intention of completely destroying the downed aircraft and/or kill the pilot, which quite frankly would have been regarded as 'surrendered' by the current incarnation of the Geneva Conventions,

 

Imagine if someone did that in BoS MP. Everyone would think, he was a right prick, but apparently it was not a rare occurance IRL.

It looks like you're missing Pavigs point. You can't compare real war to a video game, there has to be a balance.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Vulching is or was a natural recourse of war. Camping or lingering was never a healthy option in "REAL' life. You go in and do your thing then get the heck out of town. Unfortunately as big as these maps are many bases are very close together and even with Half fuel, pilots will linger around an airfield for a kill. I'll go so far as to say some have no thoughts of returning to their airfields to land as long as they are given an opportunity to kill something or someone.

 

This is where I give my immersion spiel which is NOT the subject of this topic. My belief though it may be singular or odd is that in Arcade battles you do not care if you loose or die as long as you get to KILL. In a simulation you try to accomplish missions or victories and return ALIVE to your home base (some where in ALL that snow). Now I'm truly NOT judging anyone here and what difference would it make? I don't control how anyone plays and my opinion, well truly, is just mine.

 

I voted for all's fair in love and war .....

 

Chief

This. Vulching was historically limited by AAA fire, but where it was insufficient it was practiced par the course. Rudel in his memoirs describes a moment where his wing pulled out from defecting Romania and relocated to airfield in Hungar that had no AAA cover because it just became operational. His flight was jumped by squadron of Mustangs when landing; they destroyed all landing planes, then started circling over the field and strafing anything that moved - uncamouflaged parked planes, transport planes, ammunition and fuel, pilots and personnel. They left only after they expanded ammunition. Sounds like familiar bahaviour?

 

Rudel survived by jumping out of still rolling landed plane, throwing himself to the ground and not moving until they were gone. What's interesting, even with no AAA, he claims ground personnel downed 4 out of about 40 low flying Mustangs using small arms fire.

 

IMHO we need much more AAA around the airfields. And yes, I do overquote Rudels book. I need to read more.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Trupobaw

[Helyi]

Easy solved one of two ways or both:

You don't get credit for any kills on aircraft on the ground 
or
They just count as 'ground' kills instead and not 'air' kills.

After all people do this behaviour because they like taking screenshots of high "aerial kill" counts
And if you're bombing to destroy the airfield well, ground kills is exactly what you were wanting anyway.

Edited November 8, 2014 by LordHelyi

[II./JG77_Manu*]

i voted yes, all is fair in war. But i myself would only do it with planes, who got designed to do it IRL.. bomber/ground attacker/jabo

[AndyHill]

My favorite option is missing: server rules decide. If the mission is a deathmatch-style free for all it's best if all get a fair chance to join the fight on fair terms, if it's more mission oriented dominating an airfield might be just one of the ways to win.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

There are no such missions currently though. It's more or less "deathmatch" types of servers which aim for fun for all.

Nobody here really believs vulchers act that way because of historical correctness / war legitimation, do you? It's fun to see so mamy arguing with it still.

Vulching has only one aim, K/D ratio. If you are bad at dogfighting and want to feel stronk, go vulching. If's easy, everybody can do it and flak isn't even trying to stop you.
Give it a try, you may feel good for some time.
......
I really bope behaviour like this will be sorted out in future. There are servers in a popular jet sim banning vulchers immedently, hopefully theres going to be a better solution for BoS.

Edited November 8, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[Y-29.Silky]

i voted yes, all is fair in war. But i myself would only do it with planes, who got designed to do it IRL.. bomber/ground attacker/jabo

Yours would be the middle

 

I don't mind at all if I get "vulched" by bombers/ground attack aircraft as that's their role, especially in this game where the life expectancy of a Stuka pilot is probably 2 sorties.

 

I'm talking about the 109/Yak/190/Lagg/La's just shooting up aircraft to stack their kill count.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Silky

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Yours would be the middle

 

I don't mind at all if I get "vulched" by bombers/ground attack aircraft as that's their role, especially in this game where the life expectancy of a Stuka pilot is probably 2 sorties.

 

I'm talking about the 109/Yak/190/Lagg/La's just shooting up aircraft to stack their kill count.

ok changed my vote

[=LD=Hethwill]

Hard to choose one of the three.

 

IF it is a pure dogfight or similar mission type... Yes it is cheap.

 

IF it is a dynamic scenario with missions being generated then no, it is pretty much acceptable. A generated mission for a certain airfield bombers may well be attacking an airfield and that the fighters of the bombers airfield receive as mission to escort those bombers AND straffe targets of opportunity.

 

So yes, given the servers we have now:

 

- All BoS official ones are dogfight servers

- Private servers usually have training/duel/dogfight/custom in description so easy to understand

- Custom mission ones are not dogfight servers, so anything goes

 

as simple as that.

 

As soon as FMB gets on our hands

[JG300_Fried]

I got vulched quite often ..... I don't get mad because of it.

 

On a server with few people, when I'm fed up with roving between the airfields without seeing anybody, Yes I wander in the vicinity of the "other" airfield

 

 Unless, I wait till people get some angels and speed before attacking.

 

On the other hand - and I was a victim yesterday for the first time - Someone bagged me, ok, fair to me , BUT killed my chute.....W.H.Y.?????????????? That's REALLY useless, narrow-minded, childish  and more over...frightening!!!

 

I can't help but wonder how people who do that are IRL

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Dont see mich difference between shooting chutes and guys sgarting up their engines. Only difference between both is that one of them at least had his chance.