Any missions where you have to stop the tanks from taking your airfield?

[Uriah]

Any missions where you have to stop the tanks from taking your airfield?

 

Even in an online multiplayer I think it would be cool if one side had to stop the tanks from taking an airfield.

There would be planes supporting the tanks and the defenders just with planes defending.

 

I remember in 1946 this happened a few times.

[Jupp]

~S~ Uriah,

 

Just last night I finished "roughing in" ( creating the logic of ) a new Multiplayer death match mission where :

 

 

1) The Germans operating out of Seleznev, occupy Stolyarov airfield, thus making their fighter units become available there also.

 

2) Five separately moving ( dynamic ) trucks ( place holders, for any vehicle, including tanks  ) then become the target of five inbound enemy AI ground attack aircrafts (5 - il2m42s).

 

3) When successfully having bombed (ground attackers each individually re-spawn, if killed, until they do make their individual drop) those trucks, the airfield then changes to Russian.

 

4) The Russians operating from Fedorovka, then have use of Stolyarov. When they take over, their fighters become available also, and five, "place holding trucks", spawn there as well.

 

5) Their five trucks then become the target ( of five inbound enemy ground attack aircraft (5 - ju87d3s) ), which, when destroyed, return the airfield into German control...

 

 

Because of the way the logic works, this goes on back and forth until the Germans lose three times, which, ends the mission, and, "rolls the map", when the Russians win. 

 

Which then, ( the point of building I am currently at now ) starts the next mission (Russia starts with Stolyarov) and then, rolls back to the first map, when the Germans win.

 

 

Thus, these missions book end, and form a completely endless logic loop, where you must stop the enemy AI ground attacking aircrafts and players from destroying your trucks.

 

 

What is interesting about this project, is that, when I am done, it will be "easy" for someone to change and use the elements of this scenario, to create other objective battles.

 

I'm aware that we'll be getting the drivable tanks and the bf-110s in the next patch, so, I will wait until then, to include the option, which, obviously tracks well with my own work.

 

So, hang tight. The rest of what I have to do is easy, compared to the "roughing in" that took 5 days to accomplish. As soon as the drivable tanks are issued, we'll have this too!

 

 

Keep on Trucking,

 

!S -Jupp-

Edited November 16, 2015 by Jupp

[Y-29.Silky]

I always wanted to see a mission like this in MP for an example..

Evacuation of Gumrak.

Soviet tanks advancing very close, taxiing and taking off with artillery rounds blasting near by. He-111's need to fly supply missions to and from, Stuka's have to stop the tanks, 109's have to cover. It would be awesome!

 

He-111 = Fly to and from Gumrak on supply/evacuation runs.

Stukas = Defend Gumrak from the advancing Soviets.

109's = Provide airfield cover.

Yaks/Laggs = Intercept He-111's/Cover advancing ground units.

Victory Conditions: (off the top of my head) Stop 5 waves of Russian tanks or reinforce the airfield with 10 He-111 Supply landings or, Gumrak is overran.

 

 

 

But there's a problem I think I see...

 

The MP community would get mad because there would be limited aircraft, no 190, 109 pilots would say it's biased because they wouldn't be able to stay at 6000m and actually win, and it would be a winter map.

 

Sounds harsh, but I see it happening. I'd rather have shorter, historical missions with limited aircraft like my outline above vs a dogfight free for all we have in WoL.

[Gump]

i recall seeing something of this sort on the DED normal server (ie:dogfight with icons)(online MP) a couple/few times. from personal observation, i'd say that anything that is not "dogfight" is not going to be a high priority to the players on that server, as it has come to be expected to be a dogfight/furball/beehive sort of play.

... so, what i saw happen in that tank to airfield mission is that the tanks eventually advanced to the airfield and did whatever they were programmed to do. the players, in general (not everyone), didnt care much  to stop the tanks, as that generally requires accurate bombs, and enemy fighters love to catch someone carrying bombs (easy target).

.

i havent seen WOL do this. from my experience, the only online MP servers that have a consistently sufficvient qty of players are the DED normal server and the WOL server. obviously, any complex mission is going to require a decent number of players.

[coconut]

Teaser...

 

 

(Disclaimer: "controllable ground vehicles" is unrelated to "driveable tanks", but the two should play well together)

[7.GShAP/Silas]

People just want some freedom within the bounds of a large, sprawling mission with multiple objectives, and if WoL were 25-30% better at this it'd be perfect at supplying my fix of a large dynamic multiplayer battle.  As it is it's the best I can get, so I'll play and say "спасибо!" with a smile on my face. Small, contained scenarios "on rails" are(usually) for playing coop with your comrades or within player squadrons because of the sacrifices and "playing along" that are inherent to them.

 

 

Back on track, I'm super excited to see these kinds of missions. To be honest, it's one of the things I very very much miss from War Thunder(terrible, I know!) .  I recall playing a remarkable Kuban-AO mission where the soviets had to cover their retreating troops as they filed into the port city and loaded onto transports that then launched into the Black Sea as the Axis panzer troopers advanced rapidly. I eagerly await similar missions, and hope WoL obliges(along with any others, but they're the only populated realism server soooo...) .

Edited November 16, 2015 by Silas

[No601_Swallow]

Teaser...

2015_11_16__18_28_43.jpg

 

(Disclaimer: "controllable ground vehicles" is unrelated to "driveable tanks", but the two should play well together)

 

Looks like a recipe for serious fun, Coconut. It looks like a bit of coordination and organisation would be necessary to win the day. Excellent.

 

Silas, why don't you put something together? If you don't want to get down'n'dirty (and frustrated!) with the mission editor, why not sit down with the map, sketch out a set of resources/objectives and then get together with a mission maker to do it?  The more people who design, make and host missions (of all descriptions) the better, natch!

[Quax]

Any missions where you have to stop the tanks from taking your airfield?

 

Even in an online multiplayer I think it would be cool if one side had to stop the tanks from taking an airfield.

There would be planes supporting the tanks and the defenders just with planes defending.

 

I remember in 1946 this happened a few times.

 

 

It has been running on the Eagles Nest for months. (mission by aborted man, if i remember correct)

[Uriah]

Jupp put together a game with some outstanding possibilities. Every time you take out a bomber another spawns until they take out the objective or fail in a given time.

Tanks coming soon.

[Skoop]

I like both concepts that Jupp and coconut are talking about. I was just thinking about a mission like this. I was playing the 72AG air domination mission the other day was thinking how cool the concept is and how cool it would be if I could get the AI to capture airfields to make mission more fun for a small group of players. My editor skills aren't good enough to make those tweaks, but it looks like you guys are doing something that fits the bill.

 

@ Uriah, to bad you didn't do the Friday Night Bomber Mission last week. I flew in an IL2 and we had the exact situation you described. 6 of us in IL2s were desperately trying to stop panzer columns from taking our airfield...meanwhile yaks and 109s dogfighting all around us....it was glorious.