A look ahead to the Pacific

[Alexmarine]

Attacking a manouvering carrier screend by cruisers and destroyers will be a tough mission too...

 

If the fighters will need more coordination than now, this will be even more true for bombers and attackers.

[von-Luck]

I think it will be a mix of dogged determination and plenty of complaining about the F4F not securing enough of an E advantage in dives. I don't think this game will see a more one sided setting though... I am rather concerned it won't be a big seller simply because the point of the title will be to penetrate into the American market. I expect most Americans will want to fly USN and most novice pilots will be miserable doing so.

 

von Luck

[CIA_Yankee_]

I think it will be a mix of dogged determination and plenty of complaining about the F4F not securing enough of an E advantage in dives. I don't think this game will see a more one sided setting though... I am rather concerned it won't be a big seller simply because the point of the title will be to penetrate into the American market. I expect most Americans will want to fly USN and most novice pilots will be miserable doing so.

 

von Luck

 

Depends on the missions too... if all we play is Team Deathmatch, sure, the USN is screwed unless it gets its act together and seriously coordinates (or, at least, learns to fly in a pack and assemble before going anywhere, and then focus on shooting the Zekes shooting up their buddies instead of trying to outmaneuver the one getting on their six)... but if there's an actual objective, well, having the best dogfighter in the world won't help you much if you're supposed to be shooting down those SBDs, and whenever you go after them those pesky Wildcats set you on fire.

 

It almost sounds like what we have on the eastern front: one side has good attack crafts and weaker fighters, and vice versa. Few would deny that the USN had a top notch dive bomber, after all.

 

Also, insane wall of crazy request: B-17s for the US side. They flew from Midway!

[curiousGamblerr]

... B-17s for the US side. They flew from Midway!

 

...and missed 

[Danziger]

I love the B17. I wish I were a millionaire and could fund a separate B17 as it's own dlc module like the Ilya Murmonets in RoF.

[Willy__]

 

 

Also, insane wall of crazy request: B-17s for the US side. They flew from Midway!

 

Jason already said that its not gonna happen in the near future.    

[Danziger]

Jason already said that its not gonna happen in the near future.

Anything is possible with enough money.

[Gambit21]

Anything is possible with enough money.

I can't imagine that ever penciling out - but never say never.

[InProgress]

I would like to see b17 even as AI only.

[CIA_Yankee_]

Granted, they were spectacularly ineffective at the battle itself, aside from stressing the already stretched resources of the Kido Butai.

 

But, you know, B-17!!!!

[von-Luck]

Given how gunners already over perform I honestly can't say I would be excited to see a B17 bristling with M2's. That actually sounds nightmarish...

 

von Luck

[Gambit21]

Set to "Ace" absolutely impossible to approach.

[InProgress]

Gunners are op on ace, just like aaa, i consider this cheating AI. They will hit engine, pilot etc. AAA will snipe you at 3k with first few shots, they know exactly your hight and speed.. but if it's not ace then it won't be nightmare.

[Gambit21]

Even 'normal' is seemingly radar guided with AA.

"Low" is about how they should perform at "Ace" IMO.

 

I've done a ton of testing in the mission editor.

[von-Luck]

Gunners are op on ace, just like aaa, i consider this cheating AI. They will hit engine, pilot etc. AAA will snipe you at 3k with first few shots, they know exactly your hight and speed.. but if it's not ace then it won't be nightmare.

I cannot attest to what WoL gunners are set to but I consider Pe-2's to be dangerous prey. To establish context here I do not park behind the plane. That said it feels very arbitrary if my high speed passes will result in gunners achieving strikes vs missing everything. I have taken to avoiding the firing arch of the gunner as completely as possible to avoid RNG. So long story short I still have my doubts about gunners.

 

von Luck

Edited November 1, 2017 by von-Luck

[Lusekofte]

Easiest thing in the world , looking for problems and find them. Developers here got enough resistance from the community for a lifetime when this game was launched. Sitting with no obligation and playing a wissard of negativity will not help. 

There is always a risk when you go for a new product, is it the right one?

In my opinion it is, but it got to be more at a later point. I hope Pacific will be covered like the old game in the end.

[InProgress]

Vs

 

Negativity or not, aimbot aaa and gunners is game breaking and it's something that should be fixed as fast as possible. It's just frustrating to die like this.

 

If they wont do anything with it, can't imagine pacific which will be full of aaa guns on ships. It's going to be slaughter..

Edited November 1, 2017 by InProgress

[blitze]

InProgress, agreed.  I would much prefer Team Fusion version of Flak to the aimbot version we deal with.  Reading up on ground sorties late war on the Western Front by Allied pilots, it was not that German Flak and AA was accurate but that they put up a wall of it, i.e. lots of it in what could be best described as area denial.

 

At the moment flying ground ops going against a convoy with a few light AA feels like hell.  Can be done on low or normal but still teeth gritting.  Lord help us going up against Pacific Ships with what they had on board in AA.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

At the risk of going off topic a bit more, doesn’t the increase in accuracy partly offset the decrease in quantity? We don’t face a “wall” of AAA in game as it was in real life. Ground attack was a particularly dangerous endeavor during the war. Many units adopted a single pass policy for this reason.

[Gambit21]

At the risk of going off topic a bit more, doesn’t the increase in accuracy partly offset the decrease in quantity? We don’t face a “wall” of AAA in game as it was in real life. Ground attack was a particularly dangerous endeavor during the war. Many units adopted a single pass policy for this reason.

I don't think so.

10 (or many more) guns, each with a very tiny chance of scoring a hit at range provides not only reasonable odds, but realistic ambience.

Whereas a single gun (or God forbid two) with laser accuracy and not only do you lack the atmosphere, but you're just dead.

 

I set all AA to "Low" and it works out reasonably well.

Any setting above that, even "normal" and you're just as dead - every other shell has your name on it.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Gambit21

[VBF-12_Snake9]

This thread is fresh air to a drowning snake. I might even update my game to get that warm feeling again.

 

Looking forward to it.

[sniperton]

A Fletcher-class destroyer typically had 2 to 5 twin 40mm Bofors and 7 single 20mm Oerlikons as AAA guns. Gambit could make a test mission where that amount of firepower is concentrated around a relatively small place, so that anyone could make an experience what it feels to attack such a thorny target even if each AAA is set to "novice".

Just my 2 cents, but I guess the devs will be forced either to reduce the number of guns or to decrease their accuracy to give attackers a slight chance to hit and survive.

 

PS, just for comparison:

The Yorktown at Midway had a screen consisting of 2 cruisers and 6 destroyers. Yorktown alone had 24 Oerlikons and 24 .50 cals, plus fighter cover. Out of the 18 Vals attacking the Yorktown, 3 scored hits and 5 survived.

I guess that such a mass of guns firing together would 1) blow up the game engine, and 2) destroy all incoming Vals (given the current gun accuracy).

Edited November 2, 2017 by sniperton

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I really like that Flak effects shown in TF video. Looks realistic and immersive. 

[von-Luck]

Anyways the Pacific should be interesting some fantastic planes served across the USAA, USN, USMC, IJN, and IJAA. I eagerly await a mature theater to spend my time play fighting other pilots. Here's to hoping for a resurgent combat flight sim community and the games to go with it.

 

 

von Luck

[Faust]

Looking forward to flying from Carriers again - its been way too long!!!

I am really looking forward as well.

 

Hope to see you and the rest of BSS in the air soon.

 

S!

[CUJO_1970]

At the risk of going off topic a bit more, doesn’t the increase in accuracy partly offset the decrease in quantity? We don’t face a “wall” of AAA in game as it was in real life. Ground attack was a particularly dangerous endeavor during the war. Many units adopted a single pass policy for this reason.

 

Research Soviet 61-K AAA gun - by their own estimate it took over 900 shells fired to take down a single German fighter. It was hand cranked for traverse and elevation and barrels would regularly overheat after only 100 rounds fired. (they used 5-round clips)

 

These guns perform in BoX based exactly on what they are - continuous-firing, computer guided aim bots that never overheat. The key is to get them not to perform in this manner, and in a way more consistent to reality.

 

Hopefully one day...

[PatrickAWlson]

This thread is fresh air to a drowning snake. I might even update my game to get that warm feeling again.

 

Looking forward to it.

Same here.  I also set AI bombers to novice.  The only time I go above that is AAA around a balloon in RoF.  Since there are no balloons in BoX it's novice all the way.

 

Out of curiosity, I wonder what the AI level of gunners in the players planes is set to.

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

 

Out of curiosity, I wonder what the AI level of gunners in the players planes is set to.

 

If it's my plane, they are set to numpty.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Regarding aircraft gunners (not ground to air)

 

Correct position firing as was taught will yield better results than what usual AI gunners achieve. Even in-game, when firing by hand, the likelihood of a hit per pass to an attacker is at 90% when firing correctly.

Hence, the ace gunners on aircraft seem kind of realistic to be honest. You may want to consider that observation. If anyone lacks comparison, the likelihood of him not knowing where to actually shoot at , when an attacker comes in at an angle, is quite high.

[Gambit21]

Even on the "low" setting, those AA gunners are lobbing shells within an admirably small radius of your AC.

Add too many guns even at that setting and you won't last long.

 

Right now it's easily mitigated by fewer guns.

With regard to naval engagements later on, I think Han and the boys will have to make some tweaks to allow the mass of AA that characterized those battles.

[Willy__]

 

 

Out of curiosity, I wonder what the AI level of gunners in the players planes is set to.

 

MP wise it depends on the mission maker, and I guess on the SP it will depent on the mission maker aswell ? We had some curious situation on WoL server where the gunners for the german planes were set to "regular-normal" while the russians got their "ace" gunners 

 

 

 

Right now it's easily mitigated by fewer guns. With regard to naval engagements later on, I think Han and the boys will have to make some tweaks to allow the mass of AA that characterized those battles.

 

 

If no tweaks are made it will simply be impossible to attack any of the big ships without dying, if you have luck maybe you get close to the target 

[216th_Jordan]

 

If no tweaks are made it will simply be impossible to attack any of the big ships without dying, if you have luck maybe you get close to the target 

 

Its almost impossible to do now already. Did a dive on 2 german destroyers on the Kuban map from 2.5k almost vertically and at 1000 meters I was hit by multiple shells: immediately catching fire, losing my wing and killing my pilot. I was picking an approach that should have been incredibly safe IRL. (coming from front over the ships, rolling upside down and doing a steep dive of ~10 seconds length with a pullout almost a kilometer high)

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Its almost impossible to do now already. Did a dive on 2 german destroyers on the Kuban map from 2.5k almost vertically and at 1000 meters I was hit by multiple shells: immediately catching fire, losing my wing and killing my pilot. I was picking an approach that should have been incredibly safe IRL. (coming from front over the ships, rolling upside down and doing a steep dive of ~10 seconds length with a pullout almost a kilometer high)

To put this into perspective Kido Butai (aircraft carriers, cruisers, battleships and destroyers all included) could group up to 195 high caliber guns (primarily 127 mm) and over 250 Type 96 25 mm guns. Closest in size to this was Task Force 16 that could bring up to 130 high caliber guns (again primarily 127 mm) and up to 230 1.1 inch and 20 mm Oerlikon guns. For all this huge numbers, actual losses caused by the anti-aircraft fire could be counted on one hand. Of course we have to take into account that ships were spread across a wide area so not all that firepower could be brought into action on one spot, also 1.1 inch, 25 mm and 20 mm cannons were ineffective beyond the range of 2-4 km. 

One can imagine what would have happened if such amount of cannons was spread across a similar area on any of the maps and formation of dive bombers or even fighters would fly over it. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Barnacles]

HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were both sunk after being caught without adequate air cover. They must have had a tremendous amount of AAA but I don't think they inflicted many losses on the attacking planes. I'm sure the RN increased the AA armament after those losses.

[sinned]

Oh man.. those flaks from clod is very nice.

 

I want'em in BOS.

[Porkins]

HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were both sunk after being caught without adequate air cover. They must have had a tremendous amount of AAA but I don't think they inflicted many losses on the attacking planes. I'm sure the RN increased the AA armament after those losses.

The challenge for the game when it comes to AA and naval air attacks is that the engine can't put enough planes in the game at once. Fleet AA was usually very effective in the Pacific, especially after 1942, but what made it possible to survive for a pilot was attacking in waves of 30-90 planes. As nice as this engine is, it won't be able to put nearly that many planes in the sky, so they'll have to scale back the AA from what would be realistic. 8 planes attacking a carrier in daylight is a suicide mission. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Porkins

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Here is how it should look: 

 

 

Obviously perspective is limited to a person that was recording it and quality of image is low, but still flight through the center of ship formation might be a deadly experience. 

[BSS_Vidar]

The Zero had a famously snappy roll rate with it's light weight and "barn door" ailerons.

Yup... below 170kts, and to the left. That very same light airframe struggled against the engine torque to the right... which is why heavy metal tactics was to roll right and dive... a characteristic not modeled in PF/'46.

 

The 350kt dive capability claims? yeah, no. All Zeke airframes had horrible compressibility issues at and above 250kts. The pilot in the video above (with more hours than anyone in the airframe) states 220, but I believe he was speaking generally in regards to over-all maneuverability.

 

There are post war reports where Japanese aircraft seemed to be in dives that augured in for no reason... meaning no surface targets to smash in to. These incidences are theorized to be due to elevator compressibility. Japanese tactics actually changed to avoid high speed dives in A2A combat scenarios.

 

V

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Whatever floats your boat man. 

I try to rely on technical documentation rather than pilot accounts, dive speeds in excess of 330 kts were design requirements and subsequently were confirmed in testing of the airframe. Those numbers were then stipulated in pilots handbook. Pilot above never flew his aircraft to its limits. Planes of Fame never did so as well. Why ? Because their goal is not to test and evaluate those airframes but preserve for this and future generations to see a living piece of history. I've spoken twice with Planes of Fame museum representative and he has stated that except for engine trials after overhaul or take-offs they rarely go beyond cruising power for the reasons indicated above. Flying to the limits carries the risk of damaging the airplane and killing of a pilot - which is unnecessary and is avoided at all times. 

 

In NACA evaluation A6M2 when flown in simulated combat maneuvers against F4F-3 and XF4F-8.  A6M2 reached during scissoring maneuvers, which consisted of rapid aileron reversals and maximum aileron deflections at average acceleration of 2-3 g's a maximum rolling acceleration of 4 radians per second² and at peaks rolling velocity exceeded 1.3 radians to the left and 1.2 radians to the right.  Above 220 mph stick forces were progressively heavier and with further speed increase, maximum rolling velocity was greatly reduced. 

[Willy__]

Yup... below 170kts, and to the left. That very same light airframe struggled against the engine torque to the right... which is why heavy metal tactics was to roll right and dive... a characteristic not modeled in PF/'46.

 

The 350kt dive capability claims? yeah, no. All Zeke airframes had horrible compressibility issues at and above 250kts. The pilot in the video above (with more hours than anyone in the airframe) states 220, but I believe he was speaking generally in regards to over-all maneuverability.

 

There are post war reports where Japanese aircraft seemed to be in dives that augured in for no reason... meaning no surface targets to smash in to. These incidences are theorized to be due to elevator compressibility. Japanese tactics actually changed to avoid high speed dives in A2A combat scenarios.

 

V

 

If you go by pilots account you will stumble upon the same barrier the LW guys  stumbled when the 190 was wrong, pilots accounts and anecdotes were dismissed. If you want to be heard seriously I suggest you gather hard data, documents and flight tests reports and post on forums or send via PM to the devs. E.g:

 

 

I try to rely on technical documentation rather than pilot accounts, dive speeds in excess of 330 kts were design requirements and subsequently were confirmed in testing of the airframe. 

-snip-

Edited November 4, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger