Finnish VirtualPilots - Dynamic War

[Carl_infar]

Could You consider adding set 0 with flying circus planes? Ground vehicles would be aaa half truck and gaz.

The gotha and hp bomber raids would be epic.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

9 minutes ago, Carl_infar said:

Could You consider adding set 0 with flying circus planes? Ground vehicles would be aaa half truck and gaz.

The gotha and hp bomber raids would be epic.

What a great Idea!!!!!!!????????

[Ribinski]

Am I right, that the

1. Paradrop bridge healing the same way as front supply in the smoke.. and

2. The vehicle healing the same way as the Control Point is taken..

both require triggers set to the bridges (every single one) or some other object nearby?

 

OK, so what if the ”engineer” vehicle (tank/aa-truck) would fire its guns/cannons 1 time-10 times at the bridge location, would the LOG then ”know” the coordinates?

Even when the bullets would not hit the target/non-target bridge.

Or .. the other way round, what actions must a vehicle do, so its coordinates are saved in the LOG?

 

Are you, Temuri, thinking that the engineer vehicle would ”die” after it has healed the brIdge… much like the aircraft after supply missions to temporary airfields do?

Edited August 15, 2022 by Ribinski

[ITAF_Cymao]

I am against a fast repair, because it would no longer make sense to destroy bridges to block enemy tanks.

Any repair of the bridge should be graduated and slow, very slow.

And with the arrival of the C47 also to use planes for the repair of the bridge, now with only Ju52 there would be too much confusion.

For repair from the ground could the same control point system be used?

 

S!

[Leady_Brickov]

I'm in two minds here regarding bridge destruction. Yes for game play sometimes this might make sense. Destroying a bridge to prevent enemy tanks from getting to a temp field etc.

 

On the other hand, having a well meaning fighter or bomber pilot destroy a bridge between the enemy temp and the CP often prevents our friendly tanks from reaching enemy troops targets. Bridge blowers often then spend the rest of the mission doing pointless stuff that doesn't advance the moment of the front line, oblivious of the fact they have removed the ability of friendly tanks to influence the front movements. In some circumstances this can prevent any tank v tank combat for the whole mission. When this happens it can be seriously frustrating (I.e away from home and joystick so no options to hop in an aircraft) Blown bridges are a serious negative game experience for the Tank Crew only crowd. 

 

If we are looking at game enjoyability I would suggest that destroyable bridges have more negatives than positives. Was destroying bridges done historically? Yes. Were bridges blown up willy nilly just because one pilot thought it was a good idea? No. We have a mechanic in the game that says "this bridge is a strategic target" we get to go on missions to destroy them. 

 

As a way to allow every one to have a bit of fun. Enable a univeral bridge repair. I think that rather than a using CPU intensive complex trigger logic, possibly just use check zone vehicle trigger. If bridge destroyed activate check zone, when vehicle enters check zone begins a repair timer for 15 min. Add in a counter and it can check to see if a vehicle is still in the zone by reactivating the check zone at the end of the 15min, so the bridge only gets repaired if a vehicle is still there.

 

Would you like me to send through a mission file with the logic?

 

Kind Regards 

[LLv34_Temuri]

14 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

Could You consider adding set 0 with flying circus planes? Ground vehicles would be aaa half truck and gaz.

The gotha and hp bomber raids would be epic.

This would require that the AAA and AI tanks/AT guns in the target groups are WWI too. I don't want to do this kind of special handling now.

8 hours ago, Leady_Brickov said:

As a way to allow every one to have a bit of fun. Enable a univeral bridge repair. I think that rather than a using CPU intensive complex trigger logic, possibly just use check zone vehicle trigger. If bridge destroyed activate check zone, when vehicle enters check zone begins a repair timer for 15 min. Add in a counter and it can check to see if a vehicle is still in the zone by reactivating the check zone at the end of the 15min, so the bridge only gets repaired if a vehicle is still there.

 

Would you like me to send through a mission file with the logic?

Good idea. Send the example to gameserver@virtualpilots.fi.

13 hours ago, Ribinski said:

Am I right, that the

1. Paradrop bridge healing the same way as front supply in the smoke.. and

2. The vehicle healing the same way as the Control Point is taken..

both require triggers set to the bridges (every single one) or some other object nearby?

 

OK, so what if the ”engineer” vehicle (tank/aa-truck) would fire its guns/cannons 1 time-10 times at the bridge location, would the LOG then ”know” the coordinates?

Even when the bullets would not hit the target/non-target bridge.

Or .. the other way round, what actions must a vehicle do, so its coordinates are saved in the LOG?

 

Are you, Temuri, thinking that the engineer vehicle would ”die” after it has healed the brIdge… much like the aircraft after supply missions to temporary airfields do?

1. Could be done, but requires complex trigger that is heavy for the dserver.

2. CPs use the flag object, but in a way they are triggers. I'm interested to see Leady_Brickov's checkzone logic, as CZs are rather light load.

 

IIRC, you need to hit something to produce a log entry. In addition, that something must have something else than "neutral" set as its side (country). We use neutral bridges on the frontline, so that we don't trigger the TK system.

 

If any firing of weapon would be shown in the logs, we could do interesting things, like dynamic recon flights, in addition to what you suggested.

[DD_Friar]

Having destroyable / repairable bridges is a great tactical implementation in a play v player mission.

I am using exactly this device in the campaign the DangerDogz V 352nd are currently running.

 

My logic allows planes or tanks to take out a bridge. It then puts a yellow cross on the map to indicate that the bridge is down so players can see it.

When a vehicle then parks next to the bridge it starts a repair delay. In my logic the vehicle does not have to wait next to bridge. When the bridge is being repaired the map puts a box around the cross to signal the repair process has started. Attacking the bridge whilst under repair will not extend the repair time.

 

On the current maps I have experienced disappointment having driven many KM in a tank to get to an objective only to find the only bridge I can use has been taken out, a fair tactic but I should be able to repair it.

 

Another option would be perhaps an auto repair. A bridge could be taken out but when killed it kicks off a timer to auto repair after say 15 minutes. 

[Ribinski]

4 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

 

2. CPs use the flag object, but in a way they are triggers. I'm interested to see Leady_Brickov's checkzone logic, as CZs are rather light load.

 

 

2 hours ago, DD_Friar said:

 

My logic allows planes or tanks to take out a bridge. It then puts a yellow cross on the map to indicate that the bridge is down so players can see it.

When a vehicle then parks next to the bridge it starts a repair delay. In my logic the vehicle does not have to wait next to bridge. When the bridge is being repaired the map puts a box around the cross to signal the repair process has started. Attacking the bridge whilst under repair will not extend the repair time.

 

 

Both Leady_Brickov and DD_Friar have really interesting (technical) solution suggestions indeed!

This could be leading somewhere!

(I know NOTHING of Dserver stuff, so my thoughts are only questions I can throw in the air...)

 

 

ABOUT DESTROYING BRIDGES "HERE AND THERE"

 

12 hours ago, Leady_Brickov said:

 

If we are looking at game enjoyability I would suggest that destroyable bridges have more negatives than positives. Was destroying bridges done historically? Yes. Were bridges blown up willy nilly just because one pilot thought it was a good idea? No. We have a mechanic in the game that says "this bridge is a strategic target" we get to go on missions to destroy them. 

 

 

 

I would like to add stuff to the conversation of a real situation in a tank the other day, trying to explain my thoughts about bridge busting....

After driving a long time, deep behind into enemy lines to the target, a station, on the west side of the city, I noticed that all bridges (3 = three: 2xauto and 1xrailroad) to the  EAST of the city had been demolished.

 

To get to the station I would have had to drive approximately 50 km more.... no way, its a game and life is short.

This is OK strategy in the game logic, because the bridges where a chokepoint, as their destruction meant, that I could not drive to the station, right ? .... well kind of...

 

In real life this would have meant, that the pilot who demolished the bridges would have seriously DAMAGED the LOGISTICS of HIS OWN COALITION to the front (in east) in the process!

 

OK, so what you ask, well this kind of action would effect negatively the FRIENLY FRONT in real life... and if it was possible (but its probably not), should do so in the game also.

Suppose that this bridge bustin would take out 50% of all material flow to the east, other 50% could be rerouted.

 

I would make it COST something to the friendly side (not TK-point, no), but by weakening that sectors' health for that coalition by 3-5% per team killed bridge!

That would make them (US!) think twice.

You could fix the front health by healing the bridge(s) yourself (your coalition), or by supplying the front many, many times, in the normal way.

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Ribinski

[Ssak2001]

LLv34_Untamo 

 

Hi Untamo. Im writing to you in regards to change my password. 

[LLv34_Temuri]

1 hour ago, Ssak2001 said:

LLv34_Untamo 

 

Hi Untamo. Im writing to you in regards to change my password. 

I enabled the password reset from the stats site. You can use that

[JG1_Wittmann]

The answer to blown bridges. On the way to a station or rear depot.....   attack the frontline emplacements.   Or. Does finnish. Want to model the game after some half-@s. Version of kelly"s heroes ?

 

[DD_Friar]

@JG1_Wittmann, Salute

Myself and a couple of squad mates often enjoy the navigation challenge of going deep behind enemy lines in tanks to attack rear depots and stations. Coming across bridges that have been taken out after driving for a considerable time with no other options to get round can be a real downer.

I am sorry but I do not get your reference to Kelly's Heros?

[56RAF_Stickz]

at a guess presumably a reference to oddball phoning a bunch of engineers to build him a bridge. Bit hard to follow with all the full stops littering his messages.

[Oboe]

 

This maybe?

[JG1_Wittmann]

The reference is clear if you"ve seen.  KH"s.  Except in that it was a small squad of tanks. Deep behind the lines.   I take a tank. To. Close rear tgs also. But let"s all. Be honest. It"s ridiculous on it"s face because it would never.  Happen.   Using the blowing of bridges is the only way to effectively stop that.   I do that all the time. And get zero points,  but I deny the other team. Points.  We all know. That a lone tank,  especially the t34 with an erroneously generous ammo loadout,  can take out. An entire depot alone.

When you couple that. With the ff if u shoot with an ac. In the target. And ur not even sure a kill,  and also the. Fvp. Propensity for placing russian tank spawns. Closer to roads and closer to german targets. You do what you have to. For some1 willing to drive 45 plus minutes to a tgt. Making them wait 15 minutes is not a deterrant anymore,   unless the other team gets a message flash declaring a bridge in. Sector xxxx is being repaired.  With that message. It would. At least give defenders a chance.   Also. A message callint out nme armor near. X target would be nice as well

[Carl_infar]

13 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

This would require that the AAA and AI tanks/AT guns in the target groups are WWI too. I don't want to do this kind of special handling now.

 

Imo as those are only targets You bomb, they could be left as they are now. (who cares what Your bombs hit  from 3 or ,4k) And only add the 0 planeset and see how it playes out.

 

The aaa would be of course more dangerous for those ww1 planes, but this would either force a cooperation and dragging of the aaa, or level bombing (which would also make finnally higher alt ( for the ww1 crates most prob up to 4k ) combat more frequent (level bombing, escorting and intercepting of heavy bombers).

The usuall over front furball would be of course totally unaffected

[LLv34_Temuri]

AAA on airfields, depots, stations, and bridges should now spawn only when there are enemy planes/tanks near.

[[U99]OttoU99]

IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles- =Finnish VirtualPilots - Dynamic War =-

 

 

[JG1_Wittmann]

On 8/16/2022 at 11:46 AM, 56RAF_Stickz said:

at a guess presumably a reference to oddball phoning a bunch of engineers to build him a bridge. Bit hard to follow with all the full stops littering his messages.

Typed on a cell phone,  excuse the english test failure.  The message is fairly clear in the context of the subject.   I think   the subject  of the  "voting" for the front placement should be addressed.  It seems like it  can erroneously award a side that is facing a loss in both sectors.  Perhaps  if your team is not going to gain in a sector, you should not have a vote in Sector "X"and have the ability to unduly influence the front-line movement ?

[LLv34_Untamo]

2 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Typed on a cell phone,  excuse the english test failure.  The message is fairly clear in the context of the subject.   I think   the subject  of the  "voting" for the front placement should be addressed.  It seems like it  can erroneously award a side that is facing a loss in both sectors.  Perhaps  if your team is not going to gain in a sector, you should not have a vote in Sector "X"and have the ability to unduly influence the front-line movement ?

 

The voting doesn't have an effect on the movement of the frontline. The frontline is already moved when you are presented by the choices where the next sectors will be, on that new frontline.

[JG1_Wittmann]

8 hours ago, LLv34_Untamo said:

 

The voting doesn't have an effect on the movement of the frontline. The frontline is already moved when you are presented by the choices where the next sectors will be, on that new frontline.

Understood,  voting does not effect frontline movement.   However,  if a side needs to gain ground in a certain sector,  and no frontline is placed near there,  the advance does not gain ground towards the flag, instead it moves from the fronts.  If the front gets voted away from the sector that needs the advance,  the grid, then  it happens that a team that loses ground in a sector can unduly influence where the front is, therefore where the possible gain can occur next mission.   I would say remove the voting all together and just have each sector advance fwd and back from the opposing capture points

[LLv34_Untamo]

1 hour ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Understood,  voting does not effect frontline movement.   However,  if a side needs to gain ground in a certain sector,  and no frontline is placed near there,  the advance does not gain ground towards the flag, instead it moves from the fronts.  If the front gets voted away from the sector that needs the advance,  the grid, then  it happens that a team that loses ground in a sector can unduly influence where the front is, therefore where the possible gain can occur next mission.   I would say remove the voting all together and just have each sector advance fwd and back from the opposing capture points

 

No, you misunderstand. The frontline has already advanced when you cast your vote. You cannot see this on the game map, as we cannot change it in real time. You only affect where the next battle will be, along that new frontline. The voting options are on that new frontline.

Edited August 22, 2022 by LLv34_Untamo

[JG1_Wittmann]

And if the opposing team  votes and the front is not near where u need to gain you are screwed  even if that team lost both sectors the battle before

 

I believe that only the team that wins a sector  should be able to vote for that sectors next map position

Edited August 22, 2022 by JG1_Wittmann

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

What does it matter anyway?  This round of Kuban is settled and now with Stalingrad, the very first frontline generated put 1 of the Axis goals 2km from the frontline.  Amazingly, Allied players pushed back but, the entire match could have been half lost in 1 round.  

 

Also, if you want to save server resources, eliminate the message about "consider team balance" that auto-plays in the chat.  Nobody cares and it's just chat spam at this point.  75% of any given hour on any given day, Axis is going to be the larger force.  Since this is business as usual anyway and won't change any time soon, there's no need for the message.

[LLv34_Untamo]

22 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

And if the opposing team  votes and the front is not near where u need to gain you are screwed  even if that team lost both sectors the battle before

 

I believe that only the team that wins a sector  should be able to vote for that sectors next map position

 

Again, you misunderstand. You cannot vote on an option where "the front is not near", because you won't get such an option. The options are ALONG the NEW, updated frontline. The mission ends -> the frontline update is calculated -> you get the voting options along that frontline -> new mission rotates after voting ends.

Edited August 23, 2022 by LLv34_Untamo

[JG1_Wittmann]

Ok. Perhaps. There is a misunderstanding.  Doesn"t matter. The map.  If. "X" team. Needs to gain say 5km. To capture an objective. In say grid 525.  And the voting places the 2 fronts. In say 1225. And. 2025 and then the team needing 5k. Gains. 30 in both. It appears the gains are centered around. 1225 and 2025. And the area in 525 sees no movement until a front is placed near. This affects both sides. The gains should be towards "x" teams objective,  always.  If the opposing team gains it is toward their respective objective.   The voting screws that up if it exists

[Crious]

How on earth is this gun accuracy possible?

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/2925900/?tour=54

[Nazgul*]

1 hour ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

How on earth is this gun accuracy possible?

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/2925900/?tour=54

 

Landing and rearming

[LLv34_Untamo]

14 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Ok. Perhaps. There is a misunderstanding.  Doesn"t matter. The map.  If. "X" team. Needs to gain say 5km. To capture an objective. In say grid 525.  And the voting places the 2 fronts. In say 1225. And. 2025 and then the team needing 5k. Gains. 30 in both. It appears the gains are centered around. 1225 and 2025. And the area in 525 sees no movement until a front is placed near. This affects both sides. The gains should be towards "x" teams objective,  always.  If the opposing team gains it is toward their respective objective.   The voting screws that up if it exists

 

Well, it does matter as it doesn't work like that. First, the frontline is updated, with the advances gained, as shown by the <s command.

 

 

And then, after the frontline is updated, the four voting candidates are selected from the new frontline (thick black line). You see this updated situation, with the voted sector locations, once the mission rotates.

[Dusty_Steppes]

3 hours ago, LLv34_Untamo said:

 

Well, it does matter as it doesn't work like that. First, the frontline is updated, with the advances gained, as shown by the <s command.

 

 

And then, after the frontline is updated, the four voting candidates are selected from the new frontline (thick black line). You see this updated situation, with the voted sector locations, once the mission rotates.

Would it be possible to first display a map with an updated frontline, then have the vote, and after the vote have a new map rotate in that displays the updated frontline with all the objectives, spawn areas, CP's, etc placed in a manner that reflects the vote?

[LLv34_Temuri]

47 minutes ago, Dusty_Steppes said:

Would it be possible to first display a map with an updated frontline, then have the vote, and after the vote have a new map rotate in that displays the updated frontline with all the objectives, spawn areas, CP's, etc placed in a manner that reflects the vote?

No. Game limitation.

 

Only way to work around this would be to have a short mission only for voting, after which the proper mission would be generated. Too clumsy.

[FeuerFliegen]

Server down?

[LLv34_Untamo]

3 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Server down?

 

Back up again.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Right before the server froze, the current map - Stalingrad - was won by the Allies.  Now we're back to Stalingrad with the front in almost the same position. Looks like Allies are going to have to win it TWICE to get 1 victory...

[Carl_infar]

As we again are nearing slowly set 1 in rotation, would it be possibile for a trial period to add before it (after set 8 rotates) set 0 with flying circus planes (and only aaa as ground player controlled vehicles).

 

Also all targets would be left as they are now to make the amount of work less for You. (So only the set of player controlled planes & tanks would be added)

 

We could see than for that one set rotation how it goes. 

 

It would be a nice change. 

Thanks for your consideration.

[JG1_Wittmann]

The answer could be a simple error.  Upon trying to adjust the allied multiplier, that kicks in immediately after an axis win,  in too large of a step caused the crash.  Instead of reducing it from 300%  to 150%   perhaps moving from 300% to 200 % would have worked smoother

5 minutes ago, Carl_infar said:

As we again are nearing slowly set 1 in rotation, would it be possibile for a trial period to add before it (after set 8 rotates) set 0 with flying circus planes (and only aaa as ground player controlled vehicles).

 

Also all targets would be left as they are now to make the amount of work less for You. (So only the set of player controlled planes & tanks would be added)

 

We could see than for that one set rotation how it goes. 

 

It would be a nice change. 

Thanks for your consideration.

Maybe a better option would be to have one of the primarily Ww1 squadrons host something like that for Ww1. Like they had the other squad host the overflow server ?   The #"s of people currently here that fly that. Seems to be kuch smaller

[Carl_infar]

58 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The answer could be a simple error.  Upon trying to adjust the allied multiplier, that kicks in immediately after an axis win,  in too large of a step caused the crash.  Instead of reducing it from 300%  to 150%   perhaps moving from 300% to 200 % would have worked smoother

Maybe a better option would be to have one of the primarily Ww1 squadrons host something like that for Ww1. Like they had the other squad host the overflow server ?   The #"s of people currently here that fly that. Seems to be kuch smaller

The idea is to have it at least once on finnish so it gets bigger when people see how fun the crates, especially the big bombers are

As many people voiced their longing for big bombers like lancasters , B17 , high alt bomber intercepts and the gotha, HP and FC fighters are nearest to that experience now.(as You want go down in  a gotha or hp just in one fighter pass). The fc comunity is not so large, so hosting such on finnish might make it bigger

[JG1_Wittmann]

Well,  I believe. Thet a very large # of the players here,  possibly a big majority,  have no interest in flying Ww1. Crates. On finnish,  but do enjoy the ww2 ones.  Server #"s. Across the board. For ww2. Is. Getting lower than it previously was, even on finnish.  Why would you want to water that down. With ww1 flying ?    The campaign system they have. Is the draw,  why not cohost. Somewhere else as a pilot program ?  It was done before on LD. And im sure there are plenty of ww1 groups that would be willing to coop that

[JG1_Wittmann]

Why does that confuse you ?   Most. On finnish. Do not want a ww1 set,   many probably dont even have ww1 game.  What is hard to understand

[Carl_infar]

4 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Why does that confuse you ?   Most. On finnish. Do not want a ww1 set,   many probably dont even have ww1 game.  What is hard to understand

Because :

i was asking the Finns admins and You are not one of them.

Some people are interested in early war,other middle some only late, some also ww1, adding one set with ww1 would make also the latter happy.

Moreover your opinion as a person who flyies only one side and doesnt ever try anything new is hardly representative

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Carl_infar