Finnish VirtualPilots - Dynamic War

[moustache]

5 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

7 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

has any more work or thought been put into the bugs/issues with the static tanks at the frontline?

On my TODO list to remove the static tanks as their DM seems to be borked regarding tank rounds. What should really be done is a video bug report to the devs about this.

completely agree, moreover, unlike playable tanks, the absence of real visual DM is very penalizing: we wonder if we really hit the target or if our shell did not pass through a space fault temporal because of our connection...

 

5 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

7 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Another suggestion- in the same way a Ju-88, He111, A-20, etc. is used as transport planes since not everyone has the Ju52, use the AA trucks as supply trucks and be able to respawn ai AA units at various frontline troop positions.  That way the enemy couldn't just take out AA and count on no ground to air defenses being there for the next several hours.  And maybe do the same thing with the parachute cargo from the Ju-52?  You could implement the same idea with depots and station/industrial areas with Ju-52 parachute air cargo drops.

I like this idea. It gives an incentive to do paradrops and adds a mission type to ground vehicles. This would need some target template changes and also some campaign app side changes, as the respawn logic needs to be added.

it would be great, it would launch logistics supply missions, (which are in reality a very very very important part of the battle...), and (I allow myself to deepen this idea) if you put a system of several CP in the chain, an idea of a moving front in the middle of a mission, where each CP could be captured and fortified with the appearance of AT and AA guns, as well as MGs (but maybe it would be too heavy for the server, I don't know ...). it would also be necessary to reduce the tank sector to only one per mission if we multiply the sub-missions...

 

I wonder if putting one (or more) ammunition / fuel depot near the front would not be nice: if this one is destroyed, the stock of ammunition and the stock of gasoline while spawning and reduced, and we can also imagine that this would cut off the heavy tank spawn (like on the AAS server of @super-truite). moreover, the fact that it is closer to the front line, and therefore tank spawns, makes it more easily defensible, and also prevents the attacker from ending up shooting at AI targets that do not react. ..

 

a example ( to what i think ) :

 

we can even imagine that a captured CP could become, for a limited number of tanks (half a dozen for example...), a new spawn point...

Edited July 21, 2022 by moustache

[JG1_Wittmann]

The moveable frontline while the mission is in progress is very appealing for realism sake.  It would prob require alot of programming but good.  The problem many can imagine is that it would need to be seperated from influence or much influence by air attacks.  Reality is no amount of ground attack aircraft capture territoy without ground troops moving into that territory.  A side could air attck frontlines and advance it without that side ever spawning a tank in the sector.  The downside is if tanks and trucks are required to move and supply that will necessarily reduce the #s flying since the cap is 81.  Would have to be carefully thought out and balnced so as not to detract from flying which in reality is what most on the server do

[moustache]

12 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Reality is no amount of ground attack aircraft capture territoy without ground troops moving into that territory.

you're right !

 

12 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

A side could air attck frontlines and advance it without that side ever spawning a tank in the sector.  The downside is if tanks and trucks are required to move and supply that will necessarily reduce the #s flying since the cap is 81

that's why I think it's better to have only one tank combat sector rather than 2. the tank players will be concentrated there (and that would avoid the thing where we don't meet anyone because we is only 2 tanks on each point, without enemies, and that in addition we spend our time switching sectors without ever meeting...)

 

but I think we have to keep the inter-arms combat, it's one of the positive things about this server

[FeuerFliegen]

Regarding the logistics of supply, would it be possible to add random convoys and trains throughout the map, that wouldn't be a specified locationon the map, but would simply have to be found by doing recon and communication?  I remember one of the last times I flew on Coconut's dynamic campaign server, I randomly saw a train as I was flying through the map, and I loved the aspect of being able to randomly find targets, unlike the way it is now, where vast majority of ground targets are known where their location is.

 

I would also be up for requiring recon missions to find the depots, station/industrial areas, etc.

Edited July 22, 2022 by SCG_FeuerFliegen

[FeuerFliegen]

I recently did a paradrop; I got the troopers very close to the blue smoke, and even saw them all land safely.  I never got any acknowledgement from server and it says zero paradrops done.  Could this be a bug?

[FeuerFliegen]

5 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

I recently did a paradrop; I got the troopers very close to the blue smoke, and even saw them all land safely.  I never got any acknowledgement from server and it says zero paradrops done.  Could this be a bug?

 

 

ugh... just happened a 2nd time after a 45 minute flight

[JG1_Wittmann]

On 7/19/2022 at 11:18 AM, LLv34_Untamo said:

 

We've thought about it, and the only problem really is the spawns themselves, as they work as enemy indicators. If we had the power, we would remove this "radar" feature from all spawns. We'll give this some more thought...

The targets  already have a built in 10k radar for nme planes.   Adding a spawn point  for  ground vehicles   simply gives the # of AC involved.    Radios were mentioned  and that is a part not simulated in game, most likely larger formations or some details would be relayed regarding types and amounts of AC near a high value target .  It would give defenders an opportunity to defend with player flak guns, and would also allow tank support for the lone tank raids which currently do not get detected until a brief message about an attack occurs

[FTC_Derplo]

I like one combat tank sector as well

Edited July 25, 2022 by Derplo

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On 7/21/2022 at 4:07 AM, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

 

 

One last question- do you guys ever put the server on other maps such as Velikie Luki, Prokhorovka, etc.?

 

 

 

I'm not sure about Velikie Luki (maybe too small a map area) but, I'm pretty sure Prokhorovka isn't used because the high-def building damage area - the area inside the big grey square - lags out multiplayer servers pretty strongly.  That's even on servers like WoL that don't necessarily use as much resource per-mission as FVP does.

[LLv34_Temuri]

The planesets were updated. Two changes:

1. "Obsolete" planes are removed earlier from the sets.

2. There's now two new max number values for specific planes: 'maximum per player per mission' and 'maximum in the air simultaneously'. These numbers are shown in the planeset image in parentheses where first number is the 'maximum per player per mission' and the second is the 'maximum in the air simultaneously' (if limited at all). Currently, only the 262 has the 'maximum in the air simultaneously' limitation.

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/static/img/RPSObsoletingAllies.png

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/static/img/RPSObsoletingAxis.png

 

Effective next mission rotation.

 

Edit: Naturally, the max numbers are a starting point. We can adjust them if need be.

Edited August 5, 2022 by LLv34_Temuri

[=[V]P=Grunf]

Hi, 

I hope you can explain this what happened today to me. 

I was on a bombing mission and suddenly when I was about to drop a bomb on the target, the game shut down. 

I tried to open the track I have recorded. It starts loading in the game but when the video is about to start, the game just shuts down. 

 

[ulmar]

8 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/static/img/RPSObsoletingAllies.png

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/static/img/RPSObsoletingAxis.png

Still no Mosquito and Me-410 in charts

[iFoxRomeo]

4 minutes ago, ulmar said:

Still no Mosquito and Me-410 in charts

press CTRL+F5

[ACG_Bob122]

So with 5 F4s and 5 G2s in set 3, there is no change. The problem isn't that people spam them, it is they are even in the set to begin with. Then they allow 5 A3s in set 4. Again, the problem isn't that people spam them, it is they are in set to begin with. Also 5 is a crazy high number for each person, most people don't even lose 5 planes in a set unless they suck. The third thing that is funny is limiting the FN in set 6. Almost nobody flies it anymore because it is super outclassed in the set.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Yak 1.b, 7 and 9/9T models ran until the end of the war but, ALL Yak types are phased out for set 8.  I don't know why this would be.  It's not like they are huge balance-breaking threats to the 262s and Arados dragging 'marks' for the K4s and D9s to pounce on. 

 

 

 

 

[FeuerFliegen]

How do you reload a tank's ammo when near a supply truck?  I turned off the engine, and all it did was refuel.  I tried right CTRL+A like in a plane, but nothing.  It works perfectly fine in an AA truck, but in my Panther, nothing.  The icon for reloading was lit up in the lower left corner too.

 

 

Also, sometimes when I despawn a tank, it is not available to respawn in again.  Do I have to bring the tank back to the spawn point to get it back again?   How does that work?

[JV44HeinzBar]

10 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

How do you reload a tank's ammo when near a supply truck?  I turned off the engine, and all it did was refuel.  I tried right CTRL+A like in a plane, but nothing.  It works perfectly fine in an AA truck, but in my Panther, nothing.  The icon for reloading was lit up in the lower left corner too.

 

 

Also, sometimes when I despawn a tank, it is not available to respawn in again.  Do I have to bring the tank back to the spawn point to get it back again?   How does that work?

S!,

IIRC, you need to be within the spawn area and the resupply truck needs to be alive. A destroyed truck means you won't be able to resupply there. To rearm/refuel, you need to turn the engine off and have at least one hatch open, e.g. driver's hatch. However, I have had it happen to me where I wasn't able to rearm/refuel for a couple of minutes...net code?

 

If you despawn in a limited tank, such as a panther or tiger, and there are no more in the supply, that's it. You will be forced to use pzIII, IV, or AA truck. It's my understanding on FVP, advanced tanks are not resupplied, so once they're used up, there will be no more advanced tanks at that location until the map rotates.

 

I hope I got that right.

 

HB

 

[72AGk_Maiskiy_Juk]

As of today, I can't connect to the server. There is a connection to other servers. Is this a problem with the server, or with me?

[ulmar]

 

[15[Span.]/JG51Navarro]

4 hours ago, SV7_Zommer said:

As of today, I can't connect to the server. There is a connection to other servers. Is this a problem with the server, or with me?

 

I can´t connect either...

[-250H-Ursus_]

On 8/5/2022 at 9:44 AM, LLv34_Temuri said:

The planesets were updated. Two changes:

1. "Obsolete" planes are removed earlier from the sets.

2. There's now two new max number values for specific planes: 'maximum per player per mission' and 'maximum in the air simultaneously'. These numbers are shown in the planeset image in parentheses where first number is the 'maximum per player per mission' and the second is the 'maximum in the air simultaneously' (if limited at all). Currently, only the 262 has the 'maximum in the air simultaneously' limitation.

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/static/img/RPSObsoletingAllies.png

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/static/img/RPSObsoletingAxis.png

 

Effective next mission rotation.

 

Edit: Naturally, the max numbers are a starting point. We can adjust them if need be.

I personally advocate more for limited planes per airfield, with logical numbers, not 5, which leads to less time per mission in order to not empty the airfields in 3 minutes, rather than limited planes per player. Except for 262, 2 262 in the air is enough. Off course, this suggestion is focused if we take the "balancing the set" way instead of "historical date time accuracy" for each plane in sets. But, i'll keep some historical sense anyway in some points.
And why limited in the airfield? Usually unless someone has the worst day of his life, or does everything wrong always. Is strange got killed 5 times or got shot down 5 times. This only will generate another problem, to much passive behaviour. Somethign TAWish like everyone at 12000. Virtual lifes are a pain in the neck.

My suggestion is next. I always tell this in discord, but i think is better discuss it in forum.

I'll leave my "sets" in the spoilers. Before open it, i will clarify something.

• Purple: Means that the plane is on rotation, but id will change something about it.
• Yellow: Means that plane is not on rotation, and should be added.
• Black: Removed.

I'll explain the "Whys?" of those decitions in each spoiler. And I DO NOT TAKE SIDES. I will be fair as i consider with each side.
 

Spoiler

• MiG-3 to Set 1, No ShVAK, Limited numbers, 12,7mm modification allowed, 12,7mm pods allowed: MiG-3 was flying on the first days of Barbarrosa, there is no reason to forbid the plane. Off course, wasn't the rule, was the exception, considering all factors, those limitations given are fair to me. Specially with MiG-3 performane in earliest stages of war.
• LaGG-3 splited in 2 versions Set 1, 23mm should be allowed, but in a limitated number variant.: With current perfomance of ShVAK, low ammount of HE bullets in the belt, and low ammo of LaGG-3. Is fair letting the LaGG-3 having 23mm. But true that is LaGG-3 overperforms a few of the earliest planes, so is fair having more availables LaGG-3 of 20mm than LaGG-3 of 23mm 
• Spitfire Mk V, Yak-7, P-39L, limited in numbers for set 3: Those planes are ok if Germans had plenty of 109G-2 and F-4. This is not the case. With limited numbers are ok. But, off course, the limitation in numbers should be LESS STRICT THAN GERMANS WILL HAVE, due to the difference in perfomance in case that they keep their planes or they replenish their planes.
• Yak-1B, Yak-9s1 Added into Set 3, in limitated numbers:  This planes are perfectly fine vs 109G-2 and F-4. But, following the same rules as above.
• La-5S8 F engine available: Same statements as the 2 previous.
• P-38J Removal from Set 4: A 1944 plane in middle of 1943 with the capability of do whatever he wants if pilot is smart doesn't sounds fair at all.
• P-47D-22/28 150 Octane added in set 4 to the end, But as Fighters Only in set 4.: This collides directly with my previous argument. But, everyone who have flown the 47 knows the poor performance one has with it without 150 octane and the difficulty for the pilot for beign succesfull. Also, the key for allowing the 47 and 38 not is the climbrate. One just doesn't climb with the same speed with a Thunderbolt, without consider that one must know perfectly a Thunderbolt for use its max potential.
• Yak-9T and Yak-9s1 in less strict limitated numbers for set 4: Speaks for itself. Yak-1B is not limitated why Yak-9 should be.
• P-51B Removal of Set 5: Time has proveen that this plane is a total monster when one actually uses it as intended, turning it into a plane of another league, even without the V-1650-7 engine.
• Spitfire Mk IX less strict limitation in set 5: Plane is not so OP for doing that. Considering the intention of changes, Spitfire is preciselly the one which shouldn't be so limited.
• La-5FN Addition, in limitated numbers:  This plane rocks and seems to be in another league, untill one tries to fly with it in 1944-5 with it, and is not so great, also is a bit accurate add it there. Considering how the plane will be, is ok give it a limitated number of planes per airfields in order to encourage a carefull use of La-5FNs
• La-5FN Less strict limitation in Set 6: Plane is no longer the most OP stuff in the realm.
• Typhoon addition, limitated numbers, bomber task only, only 3 bladed: Seems fair to me. As an early version of Typhoon doing bomb tasking or limited to that.
• Spitfire Mk XIV less strict limitations in Set 6: Plane is good, but in the end, is not as good and reliable as P-51s, specially without 150 octane fuel. In fact, people tends to like more the Mk IX than XIV.
• Spitfire Mk IX 150 octane allowed in set 6: Plane just needs that to face 109G-14 in fair conditions. Usually the argument about not allow this is just turnfight. And that is well a supported argument. But if a 109G-14 starts to fight as intended, against a Spit IX without 150 octane fuel, basically laughs on its face.
• P-51B/D 150 octane not allowed in set 7: After 109 FM patch, this is kinda... Not needed any longer. 100 octane is more than enough to face K4 DB (Not DC)
• Removal of Tempest from Set 7: Tempest behaviour speaks for me. Just no...
• Aditonal note: La-5FN is the plane for ppl without Normandy / Bodenplatte in last set. 

Spoiler

• M.C202 Cannons allowed set 1: Plane is just... Weak without it. And the performance penalty compensates. Also is a higly friendly fired plane.
• Bf-109F-2 Addition in set 1, MG151/20MM forbidden, limitated numbers: Plane should be available, but with the same rules for MiG-3 in allied side.
• Bf-109F-2 Removal in set 4: Just why is there after so long?
• Fw-190A3 Removal form set 4: Just like Tempest. Behaviour of plane speaks for it and why shouldn't be there. But i have some solutions for "But a 190 should be doing this"
• Bf-109G-6 G-6 Late splitted in 20mm and limiteds 30mm "for bomber hunt tasking" in set 4: Kinda doesn't make any sense ( i get it ) but is a bit early to let 109G have 30mm, but, since 190A3 is no longer in set 4, that should be a solid option for hunt bombers, off course.
• Bf-109F-4 Removal in set 5 and so far: Replaced by 109G variants.
• Fw-190A3 locked for bomber task only in set 5 and limited in numbers: Again, behaviour of the plane speaks for itself and WHY should be only used for bomb tasking if ppl wants to take it. They can use 190A6 and A5 for fighter task. Or bombing. Since they perform that better with their mods for it.
• Fw-190A3 Removal from Set 6 and so far: Replaced with 190A8, A6, A5, in its entirety
• (NOT ON TABLE) Fw-190A5-6 In less numbers in set 6: Relegated to give 190A8 most dominance for fighter and bomber tasks as it should for 1944
• Bf-109G-2 Removal from set 6 and so far: Replaced with Bf-109G-4 G-6 variants
• Bf-109G-14 Less strict numerical limtations in set 6: Is totally unfair limit the Bf-109G-14 against P-51B, P-51D, Spitfire Mk IX 150 octane, and Spit XIV, sorry if i have to be this direct.
• Fw-190A5 and A6 Removal from set 7 and so far: Replaced with 190A8 and D9
• Bf-109K4 and Fw-190D9 less strict limitation in numbers in set 7: Same point as i told for 109G-14 in set 6, is unfair. But, G-14 and A8 Should be the plane "most common" in comparison to those 2
• Addition of Bf-109G-4 and G-6 in last set: For ppl without modules.

 

Off course, that is what I  think, and anyone can discuss that with me, because is my point of view, and my point of view is based on the fastest plane, climbrate, acceleration, e-retention and tolarance to damage as most important features, and less important if it turns well at deck. Except in a few cases.

 

Edited August 9, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[FeuerFliegen]

On 8/6/2022 at 2:24 PM, JV44HeinzBar said:

S!,

IIRC, you need to be within the spawn area and the resupply truck needs to be alive. A destroyed truck means you won't be able to resupply there. To rearm/refuel, you need to turn the engine off and have at least one hatch open, e.g. driver's hatch. However, I have had it happen to me where I wasn't able to rearm/refuel for a couple of minutes...net code?

 

If you despawn in a limited tank, such as a panther or tiger, and there are no more in the supply, that's it. You will be forced to use pzIII, IV, or AA truck. It's my understanding on FVP, advanced tanks are not resupplied, so once they're used up, there will be no more advanced tanks at that location until the map rotates.

 

I hope I got that right.

 

HB

 

 

 

There was a resupply truck (as I was able to refuel, and it even gave me the icon on the lower left showing I could do so).

 

Hatches were open, engine off, , right next to supply truck, etc.  I see no instance in which you should be able to refuel but not rearm.  It worked just fine with AA truck but not with panther (hadn't tried with other tanks.

[JG1_Wittmann]

There. Is a sometimes bug with re-arming tanks.  I have only experienced it with Ferdinand. May affect others.  Sometimes you have to fire a round from the main gun,  I believe an AP round,  then it will reload

[FeuerFliegen]

14 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

There. Is a sometimes bug with re-arming tanks.  I have only experienced it with Ferdinand. May affect others.  Sometimes you have to fire a round from the main gun,  I believe an AP round,  then it will reload

 

Thanks... shooting an AP round made it work.  At the time I had only shot HE rounds, and it wouldn't reload... just tested it and as soon as I shot an AP round, it fully reloaded

[Ribinski]

Tankers using enemy target objects as cover or "hostage" to stop the enemy to attack them, (mainly) aircraft to bombing, strafing or rocketing them

 

 

Tankers are doing this so that the enemy pilots would not try to take them out, because they are afraid of the TK punishment... and they are right!

 

Is there any way to avoid punishment for team killing in such a case?

Obviously one could leave that enemy tank alone, but if it is pounding front objects or friendly tankers at spawn... who can leave it like that?

 

I mean, is there any way to avoid tk punishment that could be programmed in the servers "logic"?

Or changing the parameter to a higher value for the tk punishment threshhold or whatever is effecting this tk-thing?

 

I understand it is (probably) impossible to somehow understand the real intent of the pilot, say when the pilot is actually targeting (bombing, strafing, rocketing) an enemy tank, but destroys friendly target objects in the process, collateral damage....

 

Just asking.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Ribinski

[LLv34_Untamo]

Tankers can use enemy buildings as cover, and this is a valid tactic. Best defense would be tanks, taking it out with precise shots. But, I can also investigate if it would be easy to make it so, that the ground object TK is ignored, if there is also damage to / kill of enemy tank in the same log (or in some time period)...

[Ribinski]

Sounds promising, may I throw in a couple of thoughts on this...

 

This LOG you are referring to, if I understand it correctly, is .. hmm .. logging everything a player is doing in a sortie, and it is presented (at least a part of the info collected) to us in the stats -> Sortie log.

 

So the log knows for example coordinates, time, and what vehicles/aircraft has had an effect on our hardware and what the player has been able to hit, the AMMOtype and bullet count and so on...

 

Suggestions ON your ideas:

 

IF damage is inflicted to enemy vehicle/aircraft/ships AND at the same time FRIENDLY ground/air targets/objects are hit by:

• ANY BULLETS from machine guns, cannons, flares!?, the stray/ricochet bullets SHOULD count to TEAM KILL
  Why: Because I consider cannons and other guns to be "sniper" weapons, so one should be able to hit very close to target.
  Choosing the right direction when strafing, you can minimise collateral damage.
  This way we would make sure no one could get un-punished for say, destroying friendly aa/at guns on front/depots, which would have an impact on the game balance.
  That's because if you kill a friendly aa/at cannon on front/depo/station, would effect greatly on the defence capability of that target, for the rest of the mission...
   
• ANY ROCKETS should NOT count to TEAM KILL IF AND ONLY IF the rocket(s) inflict damage (any amount) on ENEMY vehicles/targets AT the SAME TIME?
  Why: As we do not have laser-guided rockets, its not an accurate weapon, unless the pilot is experienced.
  Especially when operating in dense target rich environment, ie front/depos.
  The rockets (HE) seem to have a blast radius somewhere around a 50 kg bomb, so you need to hit exactly on an (friendly) object to destroy it.
   
• ANY BOMBS should NOT count to TEAM KILL IF AND ONLY IF the bomb(s) inflict damage (any amount) on ENEMY vehicles/targets AT the SAME TIME?
  Why: As we do not have laser-guided bombs, its not an accurate weapon, unless the pilot is experienced.
  Especially when operating in dense target rich environment, ie front/depos.
  The medium and large bombs have an actual blast radius that can destroy objects from, say, 10-30 meters?
  Maybe a restriction here would be in order?
  
  IF POSSIBLE (if you can determine which bomb size has been used), I would suggest that: 
  a) SMALLER OR EQUAL to 250kg/500lbs would NOT count in to team kill (250kg has a considerable blast radius actually)
  - OR -
  b) SMALLER OR EQUAL to 100kg/200lbs
  
  a) vs. b) -> because if allowing 250kg bombs could be have an "un-acceptable" collateral damage, to the leadership ie generals (non-existent)
  
  We would also make sure no one uses, say >=1000kg bomb to destroy (probably) only ONE enemy vehicle and destroying 10 friendly objects.
  What is your opinion on this kind of restriction?
  Is it technically possible?
  Would it use the much compute capacity?

Game balance/Real world thought

We could think that this no TK-KILL points -mechanism could somehow simulate the real world situation where the (non-existent in game) ground troops and/or local population on front/depos/stations/etc. would try to kill enemy tanks/vehicles with Molotovs/bazookas/Panzerfausts/other explosives, that when used, could inflict also collateral damage by blowing things up or setting fire to friendly infrastructure.

 

Hope you can consider/try-out this idea at some point!

 

 

 

 

FYI: I have been tanking heavily for the last 6 months, of the 20?! years of playing IL2 -series, and as a pilot I nowadays tend to do ground attacking.
Been playing on this GREAT server for while (years?) also...
Because of this tanking/ground attacker background, I know and USE all of these "cover" tactics myself too, when tanking.

 

PS.

There are "crazy" tankers, like myself, that actually go for far out targets depos/stations, say 30-60 minutes drive.

After, if successfully, destroying the aa/at batteries (or calling for air-support), tanker tends to first destroy targets from distance and then go inside to mop-up everything that is left, to get the maximum effect for the frontline to move.

Using tank for destroying the target totally is sometimes the only option, because aircraft can't level everything out, they can't always see or recognise a "live" target objects.

And if the depo/station is partially located in a forest ... only tanks can mop-up properly.

 

It is very frustrating for the ENEMY PILOT to see, that a tank is levelling the INSIDE of the depo, but unable to do really anything about it ... because TK restricts heavily the action.

 

For making the game even more interesting, maybe this could be one small detail?

 

 

 

 

While I am in this "creative flow", I would like to suggest one more thing...

 

A mechanism for repairing destroyed bridges?

 

Would it be possible to REPAIR ANY DESTROYED BRIDGE (target bridges AND/OR non-target) by:

1. Paradrops
   Dropping paratroopers ON destroyed bridge?
   The REPAIRING would be INSTANT, so that the pilot could see, it has been repaired.
   With a tech message/log message that "non-target/target Bridge at x,y has been repaired"
   Message for both sides or only for the side that has initiated the repair?
2. Using a vehicle in the same way a Control Point is "taken"
   But in this case, the healing process would take a longer time.
   Say 5 minutes for NON-TARGET bridges?
   And 10 minutes for TARGET BRIDGES?
   With a tech message/log message that 9, 8, 7 minutes left?
   With a tech message/log message that "non-target/target Bridge at x,y has been repaired" 
   Message for both sides or only for the side that has initiated the repair?

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Ribinski

[LLv34_Untamo]

4 hours ago, Ribinski said:

This LOG you are referring to, if I understand it correctly, is .. hmm .. logging everything a player is doing in a sortie, and it is presented (at least a part of the info collected) to us in the stats -> Sortie log.

 

Yes, it is the log file(s) created by the DServer software that our campaign app reads in real time and reacts to the events, and also the stats system (which is not made by us, but by FB-Vaal, and further modified by Revolves).

 

4 hours ago, Ribinski said:

Would it be possible to REPAIR ANY DESTROYED BRIDGE (target bridges AND/OR non-target) by:

 

We'll take this into consideration.

[ulmar]

Gents, i can see onmap elevation of depots but stations can't.

Can be fixed it?

 

[LLv34_Temuri]

10 minutes ago, ulmar said:

Gents, i can see onmap elevation of depots but stations can't.

Can be fixed it?

 

Not a bug, as stations and depots are placed on the map differently, so no "fix" . 

But yes, we could have the campaign app read the elevation data of certain object in the station group and use that. Need to investigate.

[JG1_Wittmann]

A bridge being knocked out. Is a valid tactic to stop enemy tanks. And realistic.

 

A bridge being repaired in under 5 hours and then capable of driving a heavy vehicle acronn. Is. Not realistic at all.

[Ribinski]

Thank you Wittmann for your input...

 

And I know..., I blow up bridges all the time myself for tactical reasons, but this is a game....

 

In real life, you can´t rise from the dead either... well there is one person that is said to have done it... but lets not go there.

 

I mean, if you die in the game today, you could not return to it anymore, with that kind of logic.. or if we believe in incarnation (which is the main religion in ANY GAME), maybe in 13-to 15 years, and THAT my friend, is a far too long time without IL2, at least for me.

I would be 75, if I would have to wait 15 years, so, before I kick the bucket in real life, I could die in IL2 only, maybe, once.

And that does not sound like fun for me!

 

But seriously, the 5 min healing time for non-target bridges, comes from the fact that when driving for 30 minutes only to find the bridge destroyed, your out of luck.

In real life there would (should) always be (nearby) Bridge Mechanic Division (or whatever they are called) ready to lay out pontoon bridges for the tanks to cross rivers, right?

 

The 10 minutes for the TARGET BRIDGE comes from the "inactivity timer" setting on this server and because the target bridge has a BIG value in points.

Both repair types includes built-in repair-time simulation (short it is), but you have to travel to the bridge by vehicle or slow transport aircraft, which in the game time-scale is enough in my opinion.

 

Naturally, if this suggestion advances, the healing time is up to the Admins/Server logic programmers of this server.

 

 

A report from the front from sat 13.08.2022, of destroyed bridges and the "rumoured" 30 minute autohealing of bridges.

 

I heard from LLv26_AM_Speed, that he had confirmation on Mosquito meeting in July, that all bridges should have repairing timers set to 30 minutes.

I double checked the time from him on the chat.

 

I had just explained that 2 bridges at the same spot had been destroyed, so no advancing for me.

I do not know how much earlier they were destroyed, before I got to the location.

 

Now, I had invested well over an 1 hour at that point to get there alive, and decided to sit and watch it for 30 minutes.

Well I set a 7 minute timer on for a couple of times and did other stuff in the meanwhile....  and did that for 30 mins ... 40 mins ... what the hell 60 mins... I dont give up easily.

 

And then I stopped "bug test" when about that 60 minutes had passed from my arrival to the location, total mission time 2.45.

 

Both bridges (auto and railway -type) had not healed to that point in time.

(At least not visually!)

 

So question:

Is there/should there already be an autohealing logic on ANY kind of bridge, be it target or non-target?

What IS the timer setting?

 

If so, at least this time it did not intitiate!

Is it a bug, logic error, this map, that particular (one) place.

I remember the place, if needed.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Ribinski

[JG1_Wittmann]

Well,  I think the server admins should go the other way with bridges.  If bridges are knocked out, they should stay down for a full day, or that mission, plus 4 more.   If you drive 30 minutes and a bridge is blown,  that is on you and unnecessary as the game is filled with pilots mostly, on both sides and asking your team pilots for a visual on a bridge could save you a drive.  Due to the nature of the game,a single tank can take out an entire target alone.   If the bridges auto repair then each and every target and airfield should have a tank spawn right there as a means of defending against the lone tank attack.  Right now, you either blow bridges to stop, you drive a tank there yourself

[Ribinski]

Good point about he possibility to destroy a whole target.

 

Adding a spawn is a good idea, but there is a technical thing i have heard, that you can not switch off the  radar by desing, at the moment.

The radar would ruin the tank suprise attack, which I think is really nice touch for the dynamic.

whithout   it the tank would have no chance, but one can still see using the <s command that something suspicious is going on.

 

About the spawns, I think it should then be restricted, how many tanks can spawn per mission or time window. 

Maybe 2-3 max, after which supply should be carried out. 

Why, because if tank spawning would not be restricted, it could be defended forever.

 

About the destroyed bridges, as I earlier explained, there are/were bridge-laying troops to take care of destroyed bridges, either by fixing, or laying out a new one, in real life. 

 

If we want to have land and airforces on the server at same time we need to make changes to balancing once in a while to keep the server interesting for all.

Maybe a vote here?

 

Lets see what the admin-gods decide. 

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Ribinski

[JG1_Wittmann]

Having a spawn near a target giving away. Planes or tanks. And their #"s. Is not at all a valid reason for not having a tank spawn near there.  Most likely. IRL. There would already be a handful of tanks there.  Also, unlike the game. People on the ground at a target would hear them coming a long ways off.  They would be spotted and radioed in long before they got near a big depot. Train ststion. Etc.   The same thing goes for aircraft.  They did have radios and phones during ww2. And would have used them.  The chances of sneaking in to a target duri g the war was probably much less likely than in game.    In addition.  Thanks to the graphical limitation of the game. Aircraft can not be spotted and id"d at distances. Possible Irl.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

I have (again) a request for a rear supply and Bomber airfield. I know, there are airstarts but it's not my understanding of a flight sim jump in the air in 5k without starting engines, take off and climb. And I know some other purists have the same opinion. Meanwhile we have two airstarts, up to the front very close to each other. It’s not for me but others like to use, so I have to deal with that. In time often I have to start from the ground very close to enemy Targets or front and I have to fly in the wrong direction for my climb, that's strange.

My Idea is a Bomber and Supply airfield in the far rear. Give em heavy AA and maybe some fighters for those want protect the field and starting Bombers. I think it will bring a bit more realism and fun on the battlefield for those who like it. And also some new tasks because the guys will have a Bomber snack will come for sure ?

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

I have (again) a request for a rear supply and Bomber airfield. I know, there are airstarts but it's not my understanding of a flight sim jump in the air in 5k without starting engines, take off and climb. And I know some other purists have the same opinion. Meanwhile we have two airstarts, up to the front very close to each other. It’s not for me but others like to use, so I have to deal with that. In time often I have to start from the ground very close to enemy Targets or front and I have to fly in the wrong direction for my climb, that's strange.

My Idea is a Bomber and Supply airfield in the far rear. Give em heavy AA and maybe some fighters for those want protect the field and starting Bombers. I think it will bring a bit more realism and fun on the battlefield for those who like it. And also some new tasks because the guys will have a Bomber snack will come for sure ?

 

 

I think that supply and bomber airstarts should be restricted to the first 30km of the edges of the map for each side and there should be a bit of a locked fuel reduction. 

The reason I think that fuel should be reduced and locked is that - even though players might want to choose less, these planes are supposed to represent supply and bomber flights coming from airbases that are far away from the combat zone. Hence, these planes would have started from their far-away bases with 100%.

[LLv34_Temuri]

On 8/14/2022 at 10:34 AM, JG1_Wittmann said:

A bridge being knocked out. Is a valid tactic to stop enemy tanks. And realistic.

 

A bridge being repaired in under 5 hours and then capable of driving a heavy vehicle acronn. Is. Not realistic at all.

 

21 hours ago, Ribinski said:

And then I stopped "bug test" when about that 60 minutes had passed from my arrival to the location, total mission time 2.45.

Not all bridges have the repair. Bridges that are between the frontlines should have it. Of course, the system isn't perfect, so there might not be repair.

 

What I'd like to do is remove the automatic repair completely, and have players drive "engineer" vehicles to repair the bridge. Trouble with this is that sometimes the ground vehicle sorties don't contain the coordinates for where the sortie was ended, so we can't do it on the campaign app side reliably. We could add a trigger for the bridge, but that will add dserver load.

[ITAF_Airone1989]

8 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I think that supply and bomber airstarts should be restricted to the first 30km of the edges of the map for each side and there should be a bit of a locked fuel reduction. 

The reason I think that fuel should be reduced and locked is that - even though players might want to choose less, these planes are supposed to represent supply and bomber flights coming from airbases that are far away from the combat zone. Hence, these planes would have started from their far-away bases with 100%.

It's not possible to lock fuel for just some plane.

[Chaintong]

1 hour ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

 

Not all bridges have the repair. Bridges that are between the frontlines should have it. Of course, the system isn't perfect, so there might not be repair.

 

What I'd like to do is remove the automatic repair completely, and have players drive "engineer" vehicles to repair the bridge. Trouble with this is that sometimes the ground vehicle sorties don't contain the coordinates for where the sortie was ended, so we can't do it on the campaign app side reliably. We could add a trigger for the bridge, but that will add dserver load.

The engineer vehicle sounds like the only option if you can overcome these problems. Bridges are few and far between on most maps and one out can mean a long drive to another if you are lucky to have another bridge or game over for both sides. Blowing bridges although it seems a good idea at the time is normally only a short term solution!