The reason why AP is so powerfull on the game.

[JtD]

24 minutes ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

In a video game, against a player or (even worse) an IA who doesn't care about his life, you need more ammo because you need to completely DESTROY your opponent.

 

Good point. AI is really special in that regard. I particularly noticed it when shooting Ju88's. It wouldn't bail or at least emergency release bombs even when the wingtip was missing...very dedicated. :)

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

panic of a young pilot who takes 20mm shot in the wing and jump instantly because he thinks his plane is out.

That is why the the English didn‘t provide paracutes initially. Those bloody buggers, they just jump then, don‘t they? When cowardice spread amongst the ranks and infested the deep state and military-industrial complex *, a heroic last ditch effort for keeping those lemings in the box was done by instructing pilots that „it is not advisable to bale out over a target that you just bombed“.

Some say that the P-47 had a such a roomy cockpit was for the pilot leave controls and run away in case of sudden panic instead of baling out. He then had the possibility to walk back to the controls and fly home once he cooled off. This was the secret of the low loss rate of the Thunderbolt.

 

* Making money from taxpayers by selling useless parachutes and encouraging cowardice to sell more parachutes. A vicious cycle.

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

In real life, where a pilot would instantly jump after few hits to save his life, yes.

In a video game, against a player or (even worse) an IA who doesn't care about his life, you need more ammo because you need to completely DESTROY your opponent.

 

 

Always the same, some things can't be simulated like the panic of a young pilot who takes 20mm shot in the wing and jump instantly because he thinks his plane is out.

Should the dev make planes more fragile to "compensate" this? No.

 

Very true. Not just a problem for comparing losses in the game and RL either. You can find enough accounts of pilots or even whole formations refusing to engage, or even turning tail and running to know that morale mattered in the air war.  As you say, if you were hit and had an enemy on your tail bailing immediately could be a very rational response.

 

You could make an AI pilot's behaviour more "fragile" without weakening DMs if the damage threshold at which an AI pilot bails out were linked to it's ranking (Ace, Novice etc) and also made random. ATM I think it is a rigid % , although I am not sure. Why not propose that in the suggestions thread? 

 

Making undamaged aircraft refuse to engage might be harder, also I suspect players would find that frustrating.  

[ZachariasX]

23 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Very true. Not just a problem for comparing losses in the game and RL either. You can find enough accounts of pilots or even whole formations refusing to engage, or even turning tail and running to know that morale mattered in the air war.  As you say, if you were hit and had an enemy on your tail bailing immediately could be a very rational response.

I don‘t think giving tail and bailing out is the same thing.

 

Baling out is a dangerous thing to do. It only works if you can assume that you will not get killed upon arrival, be it through angry pesants or soldiers with uncontrolled temper. An Allied baling out over Japanese held territory had a good chance being decapitated. Any German baling out over Russia had a dim fate, same as vice versa. Allied pilots over Germany (and vice versa) held territories often had relatively good chances. If there was sea underneath you near your target (that is where you get shot at), chances were good that either the opposing team or local marine life would enjoy your company.

 

It takes a lot for a pilot to leave his ship. Main criteria for baling out would be „can I still control the plane?“. If the answer is yes, exiting is always a worse situation, as the empenage might put an end to the situation before problems mentioned above come into play.

 

On the other hand, if you are catching your bomber in a stiuation where you‘ll shoot it to pieces anyway, why shouldn‘t he get out after a first bad hits? Should he wait to get shot to pices such he‘s falling out along with his chair and then use the chute? Or better leave as long as he has arms and legs? Would he be a coward?

 

Comparing a bale out to the likes of, „uhm, let‘s drop these bombs and turn home, too much flak further on“ does not seem fair to me.

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I don‘t think giving tail and bailing out is the same thing.Baling out is a dangerous thing to do.

 

I not really comparing the situations, at least not in all cases, simply saying that these are two kinds of behaviours that are not simulated well in BoX AI, but could be. Morale has been simulated in war games for donkey's years.

 

Bailing out of a damaged plane could be a sensible decision: the least worst option if it is likely that you will be hit again and again, potentially taking away your option to bail.  But it could also be a panic reaction: not every pilot would behave rationally or well when, for the first time, they found bits of their plane coming off and a nasty big Hun in their mirror.

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

 

I not really comparing the situations, at least not in all cases, simply saying that these are two kinds of behaviours that are not simulated well in BoX AI, but could be. Morale has been simulated in war games for donkey's years.

 

Bailing out of a damaged plane could be a sensible decision: the least worst option if it is likely that you will be hit again and again, potentially taking away your option to bail.  But it could also be a panic reaction: not every pilot would behave rationally or well when, for the first time, they found bits of their plane coming off and a nasty big Hun in their mirror.

True. But players don't behave like they would when they had just one life either.

 

It would be interestng if one could influence AI behaviour not only in terms of flying proficiency, but their attitude and stamina as well.

[unreasonable]

4 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

True. But players don't behave like they would when they had just one life either.

 

 

 

I try to, playing the game Career dead-is-dead as opposed to just messing about with BoX as a toy in QMB. When you have sunk some hours into one virtual life you become much more cautious.  In MP - well, the solution is obvious: your account tracks your life, and if you die (or disconnect in flight) you have to pay again, x amount per life.  This is just the same incentive structure as entering a card game. 

 

 

[3./JG15_Kampf]

12 hours ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

In real life, where a pilot would instantly jump after few hits to save his life, yes.

In a video game, against a player or (even worse) an IA who doesn't care about his life, you need more ammo because you need to completely DESTROY your opponent.

 

 

Always the same, some things can't be simulated like the panic of a young pilot who takes 20mm shot in the wing and jump instantly because he thinks his plane is out.

Should the dev make planes more fragile to "compensate" this? No.

I was thinking just this after the new DM. So I commented with my comrades in the squad. We have more resistance planes, but we do not have the simulation of the pilot panic or, that the pilot would do to save his life instead of being struggling like in the game. They had no reflay
I like the new DM where the wings are more durable (no wings you do not go home)

[D3adCZE]

That is why servers like TAW exist. You value your virtual life. For example I got one hit into wing from a yak while I was flying in 190 deep in the enemy teritory and I rushed back home as fast as I could. Every lost airplane or pilot has serious impact on the outcome of the mission.

[E69_geramos109]

I found that if  you want to win the TAW competition is more important to be effective instead that being alive. You can keep a good streak if you fly cautious but you would did nothing for your side for the win flying as a fighter that cautious. 

[unreasonable]

Good to see the Trenchard philosophy is still alive, somewhere.  

[Aero*Bohemio]

On 1/2/2019 at 6:13 AM, E69_geramos109 said:

I found that if  you want to win the TAW competition is more important to be effective instead that being alive. You can keep a good streak if you fly cautious but you would did nothing for your side for the win flying as a fighter that cautious. 

 

This is very far from true; you can stay alive and still be effective flying important sorties in TAW...but you need a lot of skill, experience, and luck of course. If you can only stay alive by being "cautious",  then you are lacking some of those three.

 

Anyway...what was the thread about? Kind of losing track with you Geramos, you must have the record of complaints in il2 forums. Instead of complaint, complaint, complaint...try enjoy, enjoy, enjoy. You'll age better this way!

[E69_geramos109]

1 hour ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

This is very far from true; you can stay alive and still be effective flying important sorties in TAW...but you need a lot of skill, experience, and luck of course. If you can only stay alive by being "cautious",  then you are lacking some of those three.

 

Anyway...what was the thread about? Kind of losing track with you Geramos, you must have the record of complaints in il2 forums. Instead of complaint, complaint, complaint...try enjoy, enjoy, enjoy. You'll age better this way!

You can go to the first page to check what the topic is about. I complain about what I think is wrong and I try to add some explanations, tests, videos etc no just words on the forum.

Maybe you have other view about what tactics on the TAW are. My thougts are that. Is better to make a cloud over the targets with some casualties to destroy the target and even some enemy fighter than to be the clever fighter out there. The russian fighter suit better that rol on my opinion as the bombers. Everyone who is flying the TAW is not as skilled as you or even than myself with my limits as well. So for the average Pilot/Squad who lacks excelent CS, Skill, Experience, Luck etc is worth to go for the efectiveness ratio (not suicide) rather than just survival ratio. 

I tried both tactics on Taws and I got my own feel about what is better but whnen I fly cautious I have to take some cares to evade the situation about being in a 109G with 3 or 4 yaks behind on the deck or just being killed by flack. Even I got killed by friendly fire quite often on Taw. I use to fly alone as well so that has some influence as well ans when not most of the fellas are novices with great lack of experience so I must take care of them. Of couse flying with 3 more aces things change and you can be more agressive. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by E69_geramos109