Vulching is OK and more people should do it!

[jaydee]

Hi All ! ..One of my first online flights 12 years ago was on a "Wonder View" easy "Air Start" server. At first I thought, How is the guy I just Shot down back on my six when I spawn again. I had flown back to Base and landed. How is he now 1000m above me when I have just  spawned in at slow speed with wobbly controls ? I figured it out quickly...And I thought , if this is what "Online" flying is like, I will go back to SP and DCG.

I didn't try "Online" for 5 years. ( I missed out heaps).

I don't have any numbers but I wonder what percentage of people that Own BOS actually fly "Online" regularly ?...Would it be fair to say that there are 2 or 3 Hundred "regulars" in the servers ?

Have some BOS owners tried "Online" and came to the conclusion I did years ago. Who knows ?

 

None of us have the right to tell other BOS players how they must play BOS. If they want to Vulch to get their Fun, that's ok by me...So I don't agree with a "No Vulching " Rule.

If other BOS players ,for example, Bombers want to take off safely,navigate, bomb and rtb (with all the transit risks) to enjoy BOS, that's ok by me too.

BOS has a few servers for  varying degrees of Difficulty options which is good.

I want to Fly BOS as "realistic " (I hate Other "Terms") as possible from my PC...

What to do to keep everyone happy on a( I Hate the Term) "Expert" Server ?

Here is my Tuppence !

(1) If you don't LAND , NO Score !

(2) Closest Enemy Base = 5mins flying...Furthest enemy base = 15mins fly.(Im guessing the bomber guys wont mind the extra transit).

 IF there was a server like that, I would say let the Vulching Begin ! ..Im in to take-off well behind my lines and gain A and E.

~S~

[Dakpilot]

I agree with Jaydee on some of his points, the newcomer to BoS joining on the (only populated) normal server will find a lot of experten/VVS aces and the potential to get 'seal clubbed' rapidly and frequently

 

Unfortunately there is not the depth in numbers to have a beginner friendly server with 'rules' to avoid people having similar experiences to his, it would be interesting to hear if many people have felt the same and not wanted to try online again,

 

This is not saying that experienced players should have to fly on expert (realistic) servers, everybody should be able to choose their gameplay style

 

However the cost of maintaining a beginner friendly server, making it fun and being able to direct/attract newcomers who will usually just head to the most populated Normal server is something to think about...

 

Or maybe I am just overthinking and natural selection should just run its course...

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Trooper117]

Or maybe I am just overthinking and natural selection should just run its course...

 

 

I think you are right to be honest, natural selection should just be allowed to run...

 

When the original IL2 first came out I was a player that was new to flight sims. 

It took me about 2 months of painstakingly learning how to fly, let alone dealing with combat... asking and hunting for help using the forums and buying pilots notes etc.

 

By the time I felt confident enough to try flying online and delving into Hyperlobby, 'Forgotten Battles' had come out, so I had lots more of the learning curve to take in.

I was thrilled to be online, but was easy meat/prey for anyone out there I met in combat. 

 

Yes, I was 'vulched' many times, yet I never felt it was wrong, or that people should cut me some slack because I was new etc... 

What I did learn though was to start from a base much further back from the front, but even then there was no guarantee of safety.

 

I eventually joined a squadron and often there was a CAP put over our home base, because often an enemy squadron or lone vulcher would try to take out aircraft when they were most vulnerable, as they were committed to landing, or even better, when pilots were struggling with a damaged aircraft. (yes, this did happen for real)

 

I can't remember ever being mad about the fact I'd been taken out at my home base... more often I was mad that the CAP had got bored and buggered off and left the base unprotected.

Still, that was then and this is now... and people expect that everything should be fair and 'balanced'  (hate hearing this)... for me war isn't balanced. It's all about catching the other lot off guard, getting them before they get a chance to get you.

 

Having said this, I don't vulch, I don't chute kill... but I'm also not interested in 'scores' or 'stats'... for me it's all about completing a mission and getting back in one piece.  If some chap catches me out as I return to base or attempt taking off, then so be it.

I haven't lost my life, scores don't mean a jot, and I can respawn again and give it another go.

 

I appreciate that others have a differing viewpoint, and that's alright as we are all different, and as someone has mentioned, people should be allowed to play the game as they see fit...

Finding an answer that satisfies all comers is a difficult task however... Me, I don't fly online a lot, but I don't let this kind of stuff bother me when I do... Bung Ho chaps!

[xvii-Dietrich]

I do not have any problems with vulching.
 
I have been the victim of it many times and, when it happens, I simply move to a different airfield... and one not so close to the front line. If there are no distant airfields, I find a different server. If you have airfields right at the front, then you can expect this sort of thing. If there is decent choice of airfields way back from the front line, then the chances of it happening are decreased dramatically and you also have alternatives to go to.

 

Sure, being vulched might seem a bit unfair at times, but it makes up for the myriad of other unfair things that are not modelled in the sim (fatal illness, political arrests, car accidents... all of which happened to some of the greatest pilots). In my mind, if I'm wiped out on the ground, then its just "one of those things".
 
I also vulch myself, if the circumstances allow it. I only fly the He 111 H-6 here on BoS or Ju 88 A-1 on CloD. When the Ju 88 A-4 becomes available on BoS/BoM, I will use that too. My experience is that pilots say they are fine with bombers hitting airfields until they happen to be caught in the blasts.... then it suddenly erupts into complaints and accusations of vulching. Fine.... I'm a bomber pilot and if people are whining that I am vulching them with SC50s then I'm doing my job correctly. Thanks for the compliments! If I'm at 4500 m, I'm not going to suddenly postpone my attack just because someone spawns in on my target. That's their problem.
 
 
CloD/BoS/BoM are flight sims, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to drawn historical comparisons. However, here is one of my favourites. Give me a Ju 88 A-4 and Finnish markings and I would absolutely love to re-enact this at every opportunity I get.
 

One of the more remarkable missions was a bombing raid on 9 March 1944 against Soviet Long Range Aviation bases near Leningrad, when the Finnish aircraft, including Ju 88s, followed Soviet bombers returning from a night raid on Tallinn, catching the Soviets unprepared and destroying many Soviet bombers and their fuel reserves ...

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_88

[Xenunjeon88]

Is it vulching if it's difficult to do? I mean, if we put up a historical amount of AAA to defend the base, (and they regenerate/respawn after remaining destroyed for a set period of time,) it would be difficult given their good aim for a single plane to completely dominate the airspace of one airport. And if vulchers are usually unsuccessful in vulching when alone or in small, disorganized groups, wouldn't that change player behavior to stop vulching in such a way? I'd suggest to mission makers not only putting up more AAA around the base, but on the low level approaches to the base to get at treetop flying vulchers.

 

I mean why not? it seems mostly established that what people want is large-scale, organized airfield attacks, but are almost unanimously against single plane or small group vulching... which can be stopped with just more numerous and proper AAA emplacements.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Xenunjeon88

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Correctly modeled AAA would be a resource hog and that is why it is not implemented.

[Lusekofte]

Ok Luse, be sure to read my ENTIRE post...thats a good lad...

 

Actually not wrong.  Airfield attack on the Eastern Front was a common occurrence, particularly on the Eastern Front where lines were close and Forward Airfields within easy striking distance.  The 8th & 16th VA in fact frequently attacked German Airfields in the counteroffensive at Stalingrad.  Some light reading on the internet will tell you that, or god forbid you might try a book on the subject... 

 

I guess I should have spelled it out more clearly and saying Vulching was historically correct confused you.  My bad, poor choice of words for the short-attention-spanned who classify any air attack at all as Vulching.  By saying "Vulching" is historically correct, I meant the act of attacking the opponent's airfield was historically correct, and yes historically one did not want to "hang around".  I further went on to clarify the definition of vulching vis a vis BoS/BoM so that people like you wouldn't confuse a coordinated attack by strike aircraft against a valid Airfield target, which IS correct, with the selfish act of "hanging around" over fresh meat like a vulture.

[Edited]

I love to hear what was edited, I am not native  English, but I understand all you said, this is why I quoted one specific line and did my definition of vaulting. I did not comment what you meant. However my bad skills in English surface in my answer, I can understand your irritation. I should not quoted you, I was in reality just pointing out the fact that a organized attack was not vulching, a loner staying around a airfield and killing off spawning aircraft is not historical in any way, other than it is always in the history of simulators been someone doing it. I am sorry for offending you, it was not my meaning at all. Should not have quoted you, since I agree in the point you did

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I do not have any problems with vulching.

 

I have been the victim of it many times and, when it happens, I simply move to a different airfield... and one not so close to the front line. If there are no distant airfields, I find a different server. If you have airfields right at the front, then you can expect this sort of thing. If there is decent choice of airfields way back from the front line, then the chances of it happening are decreased dramatically and you also have alternatives to go to.

 

Sure, being vulched might seem a bit unfair at times, but it makes up for the myriad of other unfair things that are not modelled in the sim (fatal illness, political arrests, car accidents... all of which happened to some of the greatest pilots). In my mind, if I'm wiped out on the ground, then its just "one of those things".

 

I also vulch myself, if the circumstances allow it. I only fly the He 111 H-6 here on BoS or Ju 88 A-1 on CloD. When the Ju 88 A-4 becomes available on BoS/BoM, I will use that too. My experience is that pilots say they are fine with bombers hitting airfields until they happen to be caught in the blasts.... then it suddenly erupts into complaints and accusations of vulching. Fine.... I'm a bomber pilot and if people are whining that I am vulching them with SC50s then I'm doing my job correctly. Thanks for the compliments! If I'm at 4500 m, I'm not going to suddenly postpone my attack just because someone spawns in on my target. That's their problem.

 

 

CloD/BoS/BoM are flight sims, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to drawn historical comparisons. However, here is one of my favourites. Give me a Ju 88 A-4 and Finnish markings and I would absolutely love to re-enact this at every opportunity I get.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_88

What you described is a bombing run - not vulching at all.

[SharpeXB]

Easy solution. Just orbit one of your own airfields and wait for a vulcher. Then bounce them :-D

Vultch the vulture. All's fair in war.

[beepee]

I reckon it just takes two people flying together as CAP to either outright kill or distract any vulchers enough for others to take off.

Exactly!

 

Once again, Air Superiority is the answer.

 

Get organised on TS, CAP the likely route the vulchers will fly from their base and knock them out of the sky.

Edited January 6, 2016 by beepee

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Easy solution. Just orbit one of your own airfields and wait for a vulcher. Then bounce them :-D

Vultch the vulture. All's fair in war.

 

People did that when radar was commonly activated for all airfields and everybody complained that no one cared for objectives. You can't have it all I guess...

 

Maybe the not so long ago suggested spawn invincibility has a right to be considered.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SharpeXB]

The reason players attack the airfields is that it's guaranteed action. Right now, the only populated server is WoL and they put the targets so far away none of the players will ever see each other even with 60 people online. So people get bored after flying around with no action for 40 minutes and go for an airfield.

Just design some better missions and the problem solves itself.

Rise of Flight had the same problem. I really prefer the realistic style servers myself but they need missions designed with the numbers of players in mind. Those WoL missions would need hundreds of players to fill them out.

[xvii-Dietrich]

What you described is a bombing run - not vulching at all.

 

Only until I hit someone. Then I get told not to "vulch".

 

In my experience, victims tend not to make a distinction between strafing and level-bombing.

[Asgar]

 Fighting Legends is good if you want pretty much guaranteed action, the targets being pretty much along a singular stretch of the map, numbers of players does fluctuate though.

 

 

you can take Fighting Legends out of your equation. the server is dead. they made it official today :/

Edited January 6, 2016 by I./JG3_Asgar

[TheElf]

I love to hear what was edited, I am not native  English, but I understand all you said, this is why I quoted one specific line and did my definition of vaulting. I did not comment what you meant. However my bad skills in English surface in my answer, I can understand your irritation. I should not quoted you, I was in reality just pointing out the fact that a organized attack was not vulching, a loner staying around a airfield and killing off spawning aircraft is not historical in any way, other than it is always in the history of simulators been someone doing it. I am sorry for offending you, it was not my meaning at all. Should not have quoted you, since I agree in the point you did

 

 

Ok fair enough.  No worries.  You're english was good enough that I didn't think there was any misunderstanding.  I think we agree on all points.

[Hollywood_]

Funny to see this topic come up and I do have several points of input to make... I remember leading that 5 ship flight of heinkels over the base and thinking to myself, man this is a blast level bombing at 3k with dual 1k bombs at a vastly populated airfield, but what was on my mind was how much fun I would be having if I was on the ground receiving that kind of spectacle... I remember reading comments in chat like "I guess all we can do is duck" from the VVS pilots on that particular runway and laughing hysterically because I knew they were having just a much fun watching such a highly coordinated strike as much as it was to deliver it. My point is that taking the time and effort (lots and lots of flight time) to make it in a heavy to a distant enemy airfield to deliver and a strategic strike provides a fun factor to both parties, because I know that if I were the VVS pilot on the ground a) I'd be pooping my pants but having a fun time watching my impending doom creep upon me b) laughing as I watch the expert marksman flak teare them apart and c) excited to try to catch them on their egress on my next spawn because..."for the motherland"... how every sitting at 4k over an airfield in a 109 and repeatedly swooping in to kill parked aircraft just to stat pat your beautiful score on the leader boards (WoL) (I have my own opinions I'll keep to myself on the negative effects on the mentality of virtual pilots by having a leader board) is silly and just makes people quit the server and overall degrades fun for no one's satisfaction other than the one dishing out the undesputeable onslaught

[Lusekofte]

Ok fair enough.  No worries.  You're english was good enough that I didn't think there was any misunderstanding.  I think we agree on all points.

 

 

Thx. I am glad you addressed it tho, I  have read your inputs on many topics and have not once disagreed in what you said. It better that I had a chance make another try explaining my meaning, than having anyone holding a  grudge without knowing it. I am glad this is settled. 

[Willy__]

 

 

you can take Fighting Legends out of your equation. the server is dead. they made it official today :/

 

R.I.P Fighting Legends, you will be missed.       

[AbortedMan]

The reason players attack the airfields is that it's guaranteed action. Right now, the only populated server is WoL and they put the targets so far away none of the players will ever see each other even with 60 people online. So people get bored after flying around with no action for 40 minutes and go for an airfield.

Just design some better missions and the problem solves itself.

Rise of Flight had the same problem. I really prefer the realistic style servers myself but they need missions designed with the numbers of players in mind. Those WoL missions would need hundreds of players to fill them out.

Well, if people are having issues with the poorly laid out mission objectives on that server they could always ask about whatever icon/map hacks the guys topping the Wings of Liberty kills per minute stat boards are using. There's three or four guys on the leaderboards that seem to have zero trouble regularly getting ~4-6 kills every ten minutes in every sortie they fly. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by AbortedMan

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It already been said but from a personal viewpoint, I have no issue with bombers attacking airfields or a swift coordinated fighter sweep or rocket attack. The problem for me is when you have individuals who lurk around enemy airfield waiting for re-spawns etc.

[KoN_]

Well, if people are having issues with the poorly laid out mission objectives on that server they could always ask about whatever icon/map hacks the guys topping the Wings of Liberty kills per minute stat boards are using. There's three or four guys on the leaderboards that seem to have zero trouble regularly getting ~4-6 kills every ten minutes in every sortie they fly. 

Thank you ` glad i am not the only one seeing this . And good bye .

Edited January 7, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

In 70 years virtual combat historians shall gather and fight each other, with some saying the top chart was over claiming while others will say those kills were vulching and another party will state these were confirmed air combat kills with the wrecks to prove it.

[Hollywood_]

In 70 years virtual combat historians shall gather and fight each other, with some saying the top chart was over claiming while others will say those kills were vulching and another party will state these were confirmed air combat kills with the wrecks to prove it.

Is this in reference to Abortedmans quip about the WoL leader boards or are you talking about something else? Because there are people on that list that were CONFIRMED cheaters in prior IL2 games and it honestly wouldn't be a surprise to anyone if their legacy was upheld til this day... the proof is in the pudding(the ratios kdr) and the pudding smells like poo

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It was, in the sense that even though there are (and have been) confirmed cheaters there will always be those who despite all evidence say there was no cheating and everything was 'fair and square' and that those who don't believe are somehow 'jealous'.

 

The analogy I made was because there are (and will always be) people who legitimately believe mission reports from all Air Forces that mention a flight of four brought down 86 fighters in two minutes, even when this is completely bollocks just like the stats cheating we see in this century

[Wulf]

The reason players attack the airfields is that it's guaranteed action. Right now, the only populated server is WoL and they put the targets so far away none of the players will ever see each other even with 60 people online. So people get bored after flying around with no action for 40 minutes and go for an airfield.

Just design some better missions and the problem solves itself.

Rise of Flight had the same problem. I really prefer the realistic style servers myself but they need missions designed with the numbers of players in mind. Those WoL missions would need hundreds of players to fill them out.

 

Agreed.  IMO there're just far too many targets spread out across the maps, which greatly reduce the potential for encounters, given the limited numbers of players typically available.   If your idea of success/fun is to destroy enemy targets without encountering the opposing air force then you probably love the status quo.  However, if you have limited time and 'air combats' are your thing, you're probably disillusioned and bored. 

 

By all means spread the airfields far and wide but what about a single battle front, albeit on a larger scale than the current offerings, maybe plonked somewhere near the middle of the map that tends to concentrate players in a reasonably predictable area of operations? 

[Hollywood_]

Agreed. IMO there're just far too many targets spread out across the maps, which greatly reduce the potential for encounters, given the limited numbers of players typically available. If your idea of success/fun is to destroy enemy targets without encountering the opposing air force then you probably love the status quo. However, if you have limited time and 'air combats' are your thing, you're probably disillusioned and bored.

 

By all means spread the airfields far and wide but what about a single battle front, albeit on a larger scale than the current offerings, maybe plonked somewhere near the middle of the map that tends to concentrate players in a reasonably predictable area of operations?

I think there's literally 1 mission that they have in rotation that does the "condensing" of confrontation well and it's the one where the front line runs east to west and the objectives make a backwards L... that's abput the only one I think that adds a sense of "I'm going to encounter player resistance here" other than that it definitely is a "hunt" so to speak... it does give you quite a rush when you finally do find some one though, but it's only a placebo in the grand scheme of things

[Feathered_IV]

Circling one of your own friendly targets and pouncing on the steady stream of unescorted ground attack aircraft can be very lucrative.  It also saves you a long trip, places you near friendly flak and contributes to the success of the mission.  I'm surprised people don't do this more often.  Indeed, I'm surprised people do not seem to do it at all.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Vulching is historically correct, and in real life is the RIGHT thing to do.  Its how you win wars.  In BoS/BoM I have absolutely no problem with a He-111, a Peshka, IL-2 etc attacking an airfield.  There are often many valid ground targets that should be attacked to disable or help a multiplayer server match take down an enemy field.  This is all good and proper.

 

Unfortunately there is a population of players that just Vulch, and they do it in fighters with no intent of actually attacking the AF proper but padding their score by killing players who just took 10 minutes to respawn, taxi, and take off.

 

Vulching is defined in Merriam Websters as : the selfish, repetitive act of either specifically targeting player aircraft on the ground, and therefore ignoring the actual airfield targets, or waiting until a player is just getting wheels in the well to snipe him and put him down.  

[Edited]

 

This is Vulching, and there are several personalities that are known for it because they aren't skilled enough or are too lazy to do anything else.  They don't want to be bothered to fly to an objective and actually PLAY the game as presented by MP server map makers.

If an aircraft is airborne, cleared the terminal area of his Airfield but in the vicinity of his radar/spotting radius that becomes a little more gray. 

 

My personal code, since I came up on a full switch 1946 server that prohibited Vulching for Noob preservation...

 

1.  I don't vulch.  

2.  I don't target single player aircraft within the terminal area of an airfield, UNLESS we engage at some distance and he RUNS to the AF.  I will kill that guy until his wheels touch the deck...everytime.

3.  I will attack larger formations within AF terminal areas, as those are clearly Squad players who can and will be able to defend themselves, but I rarely see this.  I Think I've done it once, and it was 4 109s I was attacking...

4.  I will absolutely CAP outside the Spotting coverage of an active airfield and engage any aircraft I find at any altitude, and will decide whether to give chase on how neutral our fight was when it started.  More neutral = more likely to give chase.

5.  If I get Vulched, or perceive to be vulched I will absolutely make a snide comment congratulating the offender on there astute tactical prowess and immeasurable skill shooting down a MiG or Yak a 500m and 300 kmh as that is not hard...

 

I also agree with whoever it was that stated that vulching is enabled by the server limitations on AAA and such.  

 

This is the correct definition of vulching

 

Airfield attacks are not vulching and even fighters making an attack on an airfield is not vulching either providing they don't hang around for people to respawn.

 

Vulching is where someone sits up high waiting for people to spawn in and then shooting them either on the ground or just as they get off the ground. That is basically a kind of exploit if you think about it. Anyway server rules should be stated and then followed by everyone, either the airfields need lots of flak or you simple have a rule that no one can attack an airfield but the latter is boring for bomber pilots. There's not much greater a feeling than rocketing or bombing an airfield and getting player kills....people are very happy to blow player piloted bombers out of the skies with ease on a DF server and think nothing of the frustration and so they shouldn't moan when they get a 500Kg egg dropped on their head every now and then.

[Wulf]

Circling one of your own friendly targets and pouncing on the steady stream of unescorted ground attack aircraft can be very lucrative.  It also saves you a long trip, places you near friendly flak and contributes to the success of the mission.  I'm surprised people don't do this more often.  Indeed, I'm surprised people do not seem to do it at all.

 

 

People do this all the time.  However, unless a map is close to being won, that is to say, with a greatly reduced number of available target destinations, you may find yourself doing significantly more orbiting than you do pouncing.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Exactly.

 

You could say dropping a bomb on planes on the ground is the perfect attack and shows up the deficiencies in the defending side's abilities.

 

If such bomb attacks could lead to diminished plane availability too that would be awesome...

 

 

...but then you'd just have full on fighter strafing vulching as this is quicker and easier,... and once again we're back chasing our tails in this discussion!

 

Trying to take off whilst an airfield is being bombed is just top fun in my opinion. It was one of the best experiences in the SP missions of CloD!

 

That's why co-ops are so much better or at least DF servers with limited planes available. It would at least encourage some teamwork as losing aircraft on the ground or just taking off would be a disaster and probably lead to that side losing. I think this is why Klaus's point is a good one the airfields become the target, destroy or disable them and run the enemy down by attrition and the battle is closer to being won and it seems fairly realistic since the LW frequently went after the soviet aircraft on the ground during WW2. From a game play perspective it might get frustrating to be strafed repeatedly but then there are other airfields further back from the front line to take off from, which is what your squad and ours does. I personally enjoy the longer flights in to battle anyway so it's a win win for me

[Jade_Monkey]

Exactly.

 

You could say dropping a bomb on planes on the ground is the perfect attack and shows up the deficiencies in the defending side's abilities.

 

If such bomb attacks could lead to diminished plane availability too that would be awesome...

 

 

...but then you'd just have full on fighter strafing vulching as this is quicker and easier,... and once again we're back chasing our tails in this discussion!

 

Trying to take off whilst an airfield is being bombed is just top fun in my opinion. It was one of the best experiences in the SP missions of CloD!

Agree.

 

It used to be so much easier to take off under attack before they introduced the ground physics.

 

Now you might get caught taxiing.