IL2 Great Battles Easy Mission Generator

[Mtnbiker1998]

Haven't gotten the chance to play the new recon missions yet but I'm hearing good things, should we expect them in the next emg version? Looking forward to them alongside the new Spit and updated WW1 map!

[AKA_PumpkiCraterman1]

Well, I tried other maps and still the mission took me off the map.  I verified steam files, and had many unverified files and fixed them.  The problem still persisted.  So I deleted all the Easy Mission files and re-installed.  The problem still persisted.  So I deleted every file associated with IL2 BOS and the Easy Mission Generator.  And haven't installed on them again yet.

[kraut1]

On 4/1/2023 at 5:19 PM, Craterman1 said:

I have only noticed it on the Normandy map.  It seems to be with intercept missions mainly.

Have you tried v72?

I had yesterday a similar problem with v74 with a (allies&axis) intercept mission with air start.

But maybe the reason for my problem is that I had modified the setting files.

But one the other hand with v72 I have created dozens of intercept/intercept test missions with modded settings.

V72 is not anymore available on the EMG page. I have uploaded v72 for tests:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/illwvwn8xt1vdso/EasyMissionGenerator_v72.zip?dl=0

[kraut1]

On 3/31/2023 at 9:37 AM, SYN_Vander said:

 

Could you tell me which map and what type of target? It must be too close to the border?

 

With the in-game server I don't think so. If everyone will leave the "server" then for the host it will move to the next mission in the list.

 

On 4/1/2023 at 5:19 PM, Craterman1 said:

I have only noticed it on the Normandy map.  It seems to be with intercept missions mainly.

 

Hi Vander and Craterman,

I have tested an intercept vs intercept mission with air start / channel map which is normally no problem:

clean EMGv74.1:  missions design: waypoints far away from the map

clean EMGv74.1 but EMGv72 exe used: mission design okay (absolut same EMG settings for both missions)

EMG settings:

 

attached the 2 test missions.

test-missions.zip

[SYN_Vander]

1 hour ago, kraut1 said:

 

 

Hi Vander and Craterman,

I have tested an intercept vs intercept mission with air start / channel map which is normally no problem:

clean EMGv74.1:  missions design: waypoints far away from the map

clean EMGv74.1 but EMGv72 exe used: mission design okay (absolut same EMG settings for both missions)

EMG settings:

 

attached the 2 test missions.

test-missions.zip 1.55 MB · 0 downloads

 

Thanks. Yeah, looks more like a bug than a template issue. I'll investigate.

[percydanvers]

I hate to ask, but do you think Bf 109 F-4s could be included as attackers in the default plane set? In the Channel setting, there were specialist fighter bomber units active in the area (10. (Jabo) JG 2 and 10. (Jabo) JG 26), which used the 109F. If not I don't mind using the custom plane set.  

 

[AKA_PumpkiCraterman1]

On 4/6/2023 at 1:47 AM, kraut1 said:

Have you tried v72?

I had yesterday a similar problem with v74 with a (allies&axis) intercept mission with air start.

But maybe the reason for my problem is that I had modified the setting files.

But one the other hand with v72 I have created dozens of intercept/intercept test missions with modded settings.

V72 is not anymore available on the EMG page. I have uploaded v72 for tests:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/illwvwn8xt1vdso/EasyMissionGenerator_v72.zip?dl=0

Thanks kraut, I think v72 is the answer.  I re-installed 74 just to check, and the problem continued, but after installing 72, the problem has stopped.  I found v72 still available at the main download page BTW.

[kraut1]

22 hours ago, percydanvers said:

I hate to ask, but do you think Bf 109 F-4s could be included as attackers in the default plane set? In the Channel setting, there were specialist fighter bomber units active in the area (10. (Jabo) JG 2 and 10. (Jabo) JG 26), which used the 109F. If not I don't mind using the custom plane set.  

 

I agree with you.

Until it is changed in the next release it takes only some seconds for you to change the planes.json.

You can copy it from the BF109-E7:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/83308-some-notes-for-usage-modifications-of-emg-by-vander-update-15032023-not-completed/

 

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by kraut1

[percydanvers]

37 minutes ago, kraut1 said:

I agree with you.

Until it is changed in the next release it takes only some seconds for you to change the planes.json.

You can copy it from the BF109-E7:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/83308-some-notes-for-usage-modifications-of-emg-by-vander-update-15032023-not-completed/

 

 

 

Oh nice! I will do that! Thank you!

[kraut1]

20 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

 

Oh nice! I will do that! Thank you!

...And it is possible to change the bomb loads, see my manual.

I would use for 1941/1942 F4 fighter bomber missions at the channel the 1x SC250 bomb load for all ground attack mission types, because the SC250 bomb holder has much less air drag than the 4x50kg bomb holder (you must be fast to escape the Spitfires)

[percydanvers]

9 minutes ago, kraut1 said:

...And it is possible to change the bomb loads, see my manual.

I would use for 1941/1942 F4 fighter bomber missions at the channel the 1x SC250 bomb load for all ground attack mission types, because the SC250 bomb holder has much less air drag than the 4x50kg bomb holder (you must be fast to escape the Spitfires)

 

Good thinking! Where can I find that manual? I looked through your posts and didn't see it. 

[kraut1]

2 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

 

Good thinking! Where can I find that manual? I looked through your posts and didn't see it. 

It is not completed, but the planes.json is in it:

 

[percydanvers]

3 hours ago, kraut1 said:

It is not completed, but the planes.json is in it:

 

Awesome! I will play around with this - thanks!

[JSOflyer69]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:09 AM, Craterman1 said:

Well, I tried other maps and still the mission took me off the map.  I verified steam files, and had many unverified files and fixed them.  The problem still persisted.  So I deleted all the Easy Mission files and re-installed.  The problem still persisted.  So I deleted every file associated with IL2 BOS and the Easy Mission Generator.  And haven't installed on them again yet.

yes same for me.no missions work now all say out of combat area

[SYN_Vander]

I have found the bug, there was some experimental code for a new 'patrol' scenario that messed things up. I have removed all those changes so it will works as before.

 

Release Notes Version 75:

-Fixed bug for intercept scenario where intercept point would always be (0,0)
-Updated Western Front map and Verdun map with latest official template
-Changed Aerostat 'radius' parameter to 'spotter' parameter (compatibility)
-Added Bf 109 F-4 to "attacker" category.

 

Will be published later this evening.

[percydanvers]

1 minute ago, SYN_Vander said:

I have found the bug, there was some experimental code for a new 'patrol' scenario that messed things up. I have removed all those changes so it will works as before.

 

Release Notes Version 75:

-Fixed bug for intercept scenario where intercept point would always be (0,0)
-Updated Western Front map and Verdun map with latest official template
-Changed Aerostat 'radius' parameter to 'spotter' parameter (compatibility)
-Added Bf 109 F-4 to "attacker" category.

 

Will be published later this evening.

 

Thank you very kindly!

[SYN_Vander]

5 hours ago, percydanvers said:

 

Thank you very kindly!

 

New version has been released!

 

https://sites.google.com/view/il2-great-battles-emg/home

[SYN_Vander]

 

On 4/12/2023 at 11:06 PM, SYN_Vander said:

 

New version has been released!

 

https://sites.google.com/view/il2-great-battles-emg/home

 

Extract and drop the file in the "data" folder in you EMG install and it will give you access to the new planes (given correct date!). Will do an update later.

 

 

planes.zip

Edited April 25, 2023 by SYN_Vander

[SYN_Vander]

1 hour ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Extract and drop the file in the "data" folder in you EMG install and it will give you access to the new planes (given correct date!). Will do an update later.

 

 

 

I noticed I never added the Spitfire Mk XIVe. I have updated the planes list with the spit, new file in the previous post.

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by SYN_Vander

[kraut1]

 

[Charon]

I thought of some features that would be nice to have:

• Separate start dates for Eastern and Western fronts. Especially over Moscow, I find it's necessary to use a custom plane set because otherwise Spitfire Mk Vs and P-39s (which have entered service in the west, but not as lend-lease) will sometimes be generated.
• A "typical ceiling" parameter for each plane, which caps the waypoint altitude of ambient flights, and culls them if the mission height is grossly above it. I sometimes generate high altitude missions, and it's a bit jarring to find interdiction flights of Il-2s or I-16s at 6000+m. Similarly, ambient interdiction flights probably shouldn't be generated above 2500m or so, regardless of the plane used.
• A new loadout option: "Bombs (internal)".
• An ambient-balance option, with options "all axis/lean axis/balanced/lean allied/all allied". I'd like to be able to generate missions on e.g. Rhineland where the Allies have total air superiority and the players are the only axis flights in the sky.

Thanks again for the great tool.

[Sandmarken]

5 hours ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

I thought of some features that would be nice to have:

• Separate start dates for Eastern and Western fronts. Especially over Moscow, I find it's necessary to use a custom plane set because otherwise Spitfire Mk Vs and P-39s (which have entered service in the west, but not as lend-lease) will sometimes be generated.
• A "typical ceiling" parameter for each plane, which caps the waypoint altitude of ambient flights, and culls them if the mission height is grossly above it. I sometimes generate high altitude missions, and it's a bit jarring to find interdiction flights of Il-2s or I-16s at 6000+m. Similarly, ambient interdiction flights probably shouldn't be generated above 2500m or so, regardless of the plane used.
• A new loadout option: "Bombs (internal)".
• An ambient-balance option, with options "all axis/lean axis/balanced/lean allied/all allied". I'd like to be able to generate missions on e.g. Rhineland where the Allies have total air superiority and the players are the only axis flights in the sky.

Thanks again for the great tool.

This woud also be my list! ?

[Spidey002]

Could you add a front to the Kuban map that includes the mountainous region in the southeast? The airbases and territory from the Havoc over the Kuban campaign?

 

I love the Kuban map and would love to have some flights and fights over that area.

[SYN_Vander]

43 minutes ago, Spidey002 said:

Could you add a front to the Kuban map that includes the mountainous region in the southeast? The airbases and territory from the Havoc over the Kuban campaign?

 

I love the Kuban map and would love to have some flights and fights over that area.

 

Can you post a screenshot? I haven't finished that campaign, but I'm pretty sure the missions are in the same areas as my current templates...

[kraut1]

On 4/27/2023 at 3:10 PM, Spidey002 said:

Could you add a front to the Kuban map that includes the mountainous region in the southeast? The airbases and territory from the Havoc over the Kuban campaign?

 

I love the Kuban map and would love to have some flights and fights over that area.

 

On 4/27/2023 at 3:54 PM, SYN_Vander said:

 

Can you post a screenshot? I haven't finished that campaign, but I'm pretty sure the missions are in the same areas as my current templates...

In general I have added very many Airfields for  the Tunisia and my New Papua New Guinea EMG mod.

The quality is not as perfect as Vander's airfields, no taxying possible, but take off from runway and landing works.

Maybe you can use them as a source for new official EMG Airfields.

What I found out, and this is from my point of view a IL2 GB AI issue:

The Airfields near the mountains at the coast Tuapse and Lazarevskoye are not suitable for AI landings on the runway, AI crashs always into the mountains, take off is possible.

(But of course you can check this, maybe I did anything wrong, the airfield definitions are in my Templates).

The airfields of Sotchi and Adler are working for AI take off and landing. Sotchi runway is short, but ca. 8 planes will work.

At the northern border of the Mountains Maikop, Khanskaya and Belorechenskaya Airfield are in my templates included and working

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/82489-vanders-emgv72v74-for-kuban-autumn-nth-africa-desert-beta-revison-v03-update-24-feb-2023/

For my Papua New Guinea Adaption of EMG with the Kuban Map I have created an new "Jungle Airstrip Kokoda" in the mid of the mountains, can be used with slow and robust planes. It is shown in the video (this mission was generated automatically by EMG, nothing edited manually and flown by AI).

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/83844-papua-new-guinea-4244-for-easy-mission-generator-part1-1942/

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by kraut1

[Spidey002]

On 4/27/2023 at 8:54 AM, SYN_Vander said:

 

Can you post a screenshot? I haven't finished that campaign, but I'm pretty sure the missions are in the same areas as my current templates...

 

Here are the furthest southern bases in EMG:

 

Here's the mountainous mission area for Havoc Over the Kuban (far right).

(EMG bases are circled in red on the left.)

 

[Stonehouse]

@SYN_Vander Hoping you might entertain a request that the trigger range used to activate and deactivate AAA defenses in EMG missions more closely match the guns effective range. I've been testing changes to my AAA mod using an airfield attack mission built in EMG and I'm finding that Flak 37s for instance seem to activate at about 6 km to the target aircraft. However, the gun has an effective and often used range of about 10000 m. Plus the guns seem to be orientated away from the incoming aircraft when they spawn. For heavy flak this pretty much means that the guns have not enough time to orientate themselves before the attacking aircraft arrive overhead. In reality they would have been very likely tracking the aircraft for some time before they came into range or at least turned to the expected direction based on radar and observer reports from the defensive network. So, if it isn't too hard could the guns - particularly heavy flak - please be made to wake up further out or at least spawn facing the correct direction? 

 

I know the triggers are used for performance reasons so if it isn't able to be done that's fine, it just would make things more believable. Perhaps tie the activation range to the AAA skill? More competent = further out for heavy AAA?

 

The number of flak guns are also too low for airfield defense - realise again for performance reasons you may not be able to do anything.

 

Thanks as always for your great work with EMG.

[SYN_Vander]

9 hours ago, Spidey002 said:

 

Here are the furthest southern bases in EMG:

 

Here's the mountainous mission area for Havoc Over the Kuban (far right).

(EMG bases are circled in red on the left.)

 

 

So I created the layout for the new template, but I do see a couple of issues:

 

-The map is huge, flight times will be very long

-The map will be mostly empty:

   -There are almost no roads and railroads, so no ambient vehicles

   -because of the mountains there are few locations for ground targets or even AAA sites

-AI tend to crash into hills near airfields

 

I'll try make a minimal template first, maybe I can re-use some of @kraut1 's work.

 

 

[kraut1]

1 hour ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

So I created the layout for the new template, but I do see a couple of issues:

 

-The map is huge, flight times will be very long

-The map will be mostly empty:

   -There are almost no roads and railroads, so no ambient vehicles

   -because of the mountains there are few locations for ground targets or even AAA sites

-AI tend to crash into hills near airfields

 

I'll try make a minimal template first, maybe I can re-use some of @kraut1 's work.

 

 

Yes, near the mountains crashs are always a danger.

If you could make some attack objectives e.g. artillerie, vehicles,... again available for bombing attacks, it would be possible to attack them from a higher altitude with bombs.

My airfields have to be optimized for taxying / start from ramp. Take off / landing is working.

And I think you could define some "Port" target objectives at the coast near the mountains.

In my Papua New Guinea I placed additionally some random target ships in the harbours. Each time the mission is started the number / location of ships varies.

But it should not be to many to avoid fps issues.

[Spidey002]

2 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

So I created the layout for the new template, but I do see a couple of issues:

 

-The map is huge, flight times will be very long

-The map will be mostly empty:

   -There are almost no roads and railroads, so no ambient vehicles

   -because of the mountains there are few locations for ground targets or even AAA sites

-AI tend to crash into hills near airfields

 

I'll try make a minimal template first, maybe I can re-use some of @kraut1 's work.

 

 

A compromise: maybe somewhere in-between these two areas, so we still get some more mountains and valleys, but the flights aren’t QUITE as empty?

 

[CzechTexan]

I also would like to see more for southeast Kuban.  The mountainous region adds more excitement!

 

For south-east Kuban, the Germans main goal was to capture Tuapse and they eventually made it to the Indyuk area. Battles were in the mountains and both sides used Stukas and Shturmoviks to attack mountain artillery positions, etc. Unfortunately, many of the smaller towns in this region are not even on the map.  But, if you see an open space without trees near a road, then that means there should be a town there and most likely a battle for it.

Germans also bombed the port and shipping at Tuapse while the Russians had to defend it.

The main German airfields used for this region were at Krasnodar, Maykop, and Belorechenskaya.

 

I made some single player missions (Kuban-East) which have fairly accurate front lines for August 1942 which moved from Maykop down toward Tuapse.  During September-October the lines were even closer (near Indyuk).  

 

[SYN_Vander]

I have created a new front for the Kuban template. You can test by extracting the zip into your current EMG install. It will replace the following files:

\data\maps.json

\template\CoopTemplate_KUBAN.eng

\template\CoopTemplate_KUBAN.Mission

\media\kuban_map.png

 

kuban_maikop_front.zip

Still needs more locations for targets, but would like to get some feedback first.

 

19 hours ago, CzechTexan said:

I also would like to see more for southeast Kuban.  The mountainous region adds more excitement!

 

For south-east Kuban, the Germans main goal was to capture Tuapse and they eventually made it to the Indyuk area. Battles were in the mountains and both sides used Stukas and Shturmoviks to attack mountain artillery positions, etc. Unfortunately, many of the smaller towns in this region are not even on the map.  But, if you see an open space without trees near a road, then that means there should be a town there and most likely a battle for it.

Germans also bombed the port and shipping at Tuapse while the Russians had to defend it.

The main German airfields used for this region were at Krasnodar, Maykop, and Belorechenskaya.

 

I made some single player missions (Kuban-East) which have fairly accurate front lines for August 1942 which moved from Maykop down toward Tuapse.  During September-October the lines were even closer (near Indyuk).  

 

 

Thanks. I may need to extend the front area further west then.

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by SYN_Vander

[kraut1]

What I found out today when testing my Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track fronts in the high mountains:

For ground (no bombing attacks!) attacks near high mountains I had at first first problem with crashs.

The I deleted the artillery objectives, reduced the size (maybe not necessary) and place only few of them as good as possible at the highest points of the mountains.

With this targets attack missions worked.

Edited April 30, 2023 by kraut1

[kraut1]

5 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

I have created a new front for the Kuban template. You can test by extracting the zip into your current EMG install. It will replace the following files:

\data\maps.json

\template\CoopTemplate_KUBAN.eng

\template\CoopTemplate_KUBAN.Mission

\media\kuban_map.png

 

kuban_maikop_front.zip 2.5 MB · 0 downloads

Still needs more locations for targets, but would like to get some feedback first.

 

 

Thanks. I may need to extend the front area further west then.

 

Hi Vander,

I have tested the new EMG Agoy Airfield in respect of AI controlled landings:

It is better than mine, with a Spitfire Squadron of the first 4 landings 2 plane landed succesfully and 2 crashed into the mountains.

After my AI controlled plane crashed the mission was over.

I think 2 times the problem was that while circling before landing the planes lost too much altitude while fly parallel to the runway (180° opposite to landing dir.).

When a plane reached the last 90° before landing the chances were better.

 

 

 

 

[CzechTexan]

6 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Thanks. I may need to extend the front area further west then.

 

To keep things simple, like you have it, Krasnodar's airfields probably should not be included, IMO.  The airfields around Maikop should be enough and also make less work for you.  Unless, other pilots may want to include it???  However it may be, you are the author and I think most pilots would be happy with your choice.

[SYN_Vander]

11 hours ago, CzechTexan said:

To keep things simple, like you have it, Krasnodar's airfields probably should not be included, IMO.  The airfields around Maikop should be enough and also make less work for you.  Unless, other pilots may want to include it???  However it may be, you are the author and I think most pilots would be happy with your choice.

 

It's not that much work. I now have the following area:

 

The only drawback is that it doesn't fit in the window anymore :). At least you can now have scenarios where bombers can take-off from Krasnodar and bomb Tuapse. Not sure how relevant Adler airfield is in this, but perhaps best to keep it in.

 

12 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Hi Vander,

I have tested the new EMG Agoy Airfield in respect of AI controlled landings:

It is better than mine, with a Spitfire Squadron of the first 4 landings 2 plane landed succesfully and 2 crashed into the mountains.

After my AI controlled plane crashed the mission was over.

I think 2 times the problem was that while circling before landing the planes lost too much altitude while fly parallel to the runway (180° opposite to landing dir.).

When a plane reached the last 90° before landing the chances were better.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks! Not sure if it can be improved by mission editing. Perhaps if I reverse the direction? But then take-off might be compromised. All in all I think it's better to have working take-offs than landings. Just make sure you land first and end the mission :). 

[kraut1]

1 hour ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

It's not that much work. I now have the following area:

 

The only drawback is that it doesn't fit in the window anymore :). At least you can now have scenarios where bombers can take-off from Krasnodar and bomb Tuapse. Not sure how relevant Adler airfield is in this, but perhaps best to keep it in.

 

 

Thanks! Not sure if it can be improved by mission editing. Perhaps if I reverse the direction? But then take-off might be compromised. All in all I think it's better to have working take-offs than landings. Just make sure you land first and end the mission :). 

Yes, you could try. I have already tried both directions but maybe you have more success.

Yes, take off is more importent.

And if you land at first after returning to your airfield the other planes will be still circling.

[CzechTexan]

4 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

It's not that much work. I now have the following area:

The area and front line you have is good for September 1942.  In October the Germans pushed farther south toward Tuapse, near Indyuk... Do you plan on having a front line for October/November?  If so, I could work on that front line tonight and upload it.  

[SYN_Vander]

1 hour ago, CzechTexan said:

The area and front line you have is good for September 1942.  In October the Germans pushed farther south toward Tuapse, near Indyuk... Do you plan on having a front line for October/November?  If so, I could work on that front line tonight and upload it.  

Yes please, the further south the border is, the better for target placement etc. I think.

 

[CzechTexan]

Here is a zip file for the Kuban Front Line, October-December 1942. 

https://www.mediafire.com/file/0g8kxbbyntagkih/KubanFrontOct42.zip/file

 

It's the best I could do by eye-balling the maps.  Of course, the front line did move back and forth in some places with attacks/counter-attacks.  This will give you more places to position light artillery on mountain-tops and for sure in the valleys.