Tips for flying and fighting in Soviet planes

[FlatSpinMan]

Yes, bit of survivor's bias, perhaps.

[sturmkraehe]

That would be 'German pilots that hadn't been shot down by a Soviet fighter on their six'. Room for a sampling error here...

This is a bit simplistic as well if I may say so. Not everybody who got shot at and received hits inevitably did not return home. Sometimes (even if it was not very common) they could get away with their plane peppered. Just remember the story of the guy in his P47 who got his plane looking like swiss cheese but could make it back to England. I forgot his name. Johnson perhaps? An extreme example but I am sure other less severe cases existed quite a lot.

Edited April 1, 2013 by sturmkraehe

[BlitzPig_EL]

I hope you guys realize that no matter how the planes are modeled, the virtual combat we engage in will never turn out to fit anyone's historical models.

 

Why?

 

We are all aces many time over.  I dare say there are members of the community with thousands of kills, and heaven only know how many thousands of "combat" flight hours.

Flight simmers make Hartman and Khozedub look like n00bs.

 

Honestly.  Any real fighter pilot would have been a bowl of mental jelly long before he hit the number of hours we have.

 

Something to think about.

[sturmkraehe]

I daresay that no virtual pilot comes even close to the real aces because who can claim to have shot down hundred or more planes without having been killed or captured virtually at least a couple of times in the meanwhile ...

 

Nevertheless, I think the planes can be modelled to be close to what might be considered as historically correct but I concede that it will never be 100% perfect. And it will always be the result of a certain compromise. This said my guess is that nobody here really would like to have planes with fantasy characteristics. Or would you like to have an i16 with the flight model of a Me262?

Edited April 1, 2013 by sturmkraehe

[JG13_opcode]

I daresay that no virtual pilot comes even close to the real aces because who can claim to have shot down hundred or more planes without having been killed or captured virtually at least a couple of times in the meanwhile ...

Well, there was this guy: http://www.aveimil.com/IL2/

 

I hope you guys realize that no matter how the planes are modeled, the virtual combat we engage in will never turn out to fit anyone's historical models.

+1 Edited April 1, 2013 by JG13Doggles

[sturmkraehe]

Well, he bailed several times over enemy territory. But for sure he's good if he did score this online. We also do not know for how long he played IL2 before he started to make this score list. He had probably a considerable amount of exercise being killed more often than appears on this list while the real aces could not do so. 

 

I made this point as a reaction to the previous post which appeared to basically say that historically truthfull modelisation does not matter in a flight sim.

[Furio]

As far as the Airacobra goes, look at it this way: You're dealing with pilots who are used to the rather squirrelly I-16. I'm sure the P-39 was luxurious by comparison, and I'm sure that its aerodynamic quirks didn't bother them considering the aircraft on which they cut their teeth in the past.

 

 

Just for a moment, forget about Russian pilots, their bad radios and bad training. Think of a squadron of well-trained British pilots going in combat in February 1945 flying Spitfire V with low-rated Merlin plus ?

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

I made this point as a reaction to the previous post which appeared to basically say that historically truthfull modelisation does not matter in a flight sim.

 

 

That is NOT what I am saying at all.   Of course it matters.  We all want the most accurate models that can be made.

 

What I'm saying is that no matter how accurate the models, how historically perfect the maps, how carefully laid out a virtual campaign is, historical outcomes should never be expected.

 

Why?  Because beyond even the amazing amount of experiecne that most of us have, we also have something that the pilots in the real aircraft in the day didn't have.  The knowledge of how it all happened.

 

For example, how many of us that are going to fly for the VVS are just going to plod along in formation, never checking six, and pay no attention as the enemy closes from behind?  How many of us are going to turn our Team Speak off because the Russians didn't have radios for the most part?

 

See what I mean?

Edited April 1, 2013 by ElAurens

[sturmkraehe]

So we basically agree. I have heard this argument many times before and although I do not deny its truthfullness I just do not see how this is going to help in getting the best flight model. Personally I think the best flight model is that that is close to the real one and then that's it. I cannot see how one could ever take into account what you say apart from artificially imposing stupid constraints to the player (for instance to prevent the player to look at is six, just in order to stick with your example). 

Edited April 1, 2013 by sturmkraehe

[BlitzPig_EL]

I think we are struggling with a language barrier here sturmkraehe.

 

I'm not saying that anything should be done about the points I have made.

 

I'm just saying that they are a big factor in why historical outcomes are very rare in combat flight simulation.

 

In the scenario that is coming in the new sim I don't think either side is going to have it easy.

[JG13_opcode]

Yes, I think something in this thread is being lost in translation.

[FlatSpinMan]

I think you are both in agreement that flight models should be as accurate as possible, yeah?

 

But El, you're just adding that its not only the FM that dictates success in a flightsim because players know more and fly differently from the real pilots in WW2.

 

Does that sound right to everyone?

 

This has been an interesting thread so far. I wonder if I will actually fly these Russian planes or stick with my trusty 109 though.

 

Ha! This whole thread has been a deception - in actually a Luftie looking for tips on how to beat the Red pilots! Mwahahaaaaaah!

[BlitzPig_EL]

Yes FSM, that is it exactly.

 

As for you really being a Lufty spy, well, I'm sure the boys at the NKVD are waiting to have a few words with you, in Siberia.

 

MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Furio]

As for you really being a Lufty spy, well, I'm sure the boys at the NKVD are waiting to have a few words with you, in Siberia.

 

NKVd boys are always suspicious, El. None of us is really safe, both spies and loyal guys???

[6S.Manu]

A bit more seriously, if we think at us as super aces, with unbelievable experience and courage (we rarely get killed by a simulated enemy), then the only real difference can come from the mission.  If the mission is purely air-to-air, the guy with a faster fighter will choose to fight only when at advantage, keeping away when at disadvantage. No way to win with a Yak, I fear!

 

You've hit the nail on the head here: this is one of the reason I stopped from having fun with IL2... all expert pilots know how to fight well and the planeset is the critical factor.

We know exactly the airplane's performance, and so our tactic will always be dictated by the planeset.

 

Because of this I would really welcome a "dynamic performance" feature in the FM engine, to simulate aircrafts of different production quality randomly at runtime. In this way you have to be aware that the difference between your plane and the enemy's one can be narrower than you think.

Edited April 2, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[JG13_opcode]

I think the solution there is to simply build missions that are more realistic, rather than just Air Quake. Escorting bombers force the fighters to stay and fight.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The problem Doggles is that the virtual "Aces"  will let the bombers go as soon as an enemy shows up anywhere on the map.

 

It's the rare player that will really cover the strike package.

[6S.Manu]

The problem Doggles is that the virtual "Aces"  will let the bombers go as soon as an enemy shows up anywhere on the map.

 

It's the rare player that will really cover the strike package.

 

Mhm... if those enemies are the attackers I think it's ok if part of the escort leaves the bombers to engage them. One thing I've learned escorting bombers is that you need to stop the enemy before he reach the bombers, otherwise they will damage them seriously with the first attack (German bombers are quite fragile, while the tougher allied bombers have to go against FW190s and mk108s): this is quite true for every kind of defense.

 

Remember that close escort is a bad tactic, as the Americans learned in 1943 (and Germans a pair of years earlier). The fighters need to be at least out of sight by the bombers to be effective.

 

Also here, you see, you don't find many expert players going for the bombers' six. Simply many of us are aware of the best tactics and learned, usually scoring some KIAs, to avoid the bad ones.

Edited April 2, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[JG13_opcode]

The problem Doggles is that the virtual "Aces"  will let the bombers go as soon as an enemy shows up anywhere on the map.

 

It's the rare player that will really cover the strike package.

Well, that right there is the reason I stopped flying dogfight servers beyond casually. Online wars are where the real game used to be.

[6S.Manu]

I think the solution there is to simply build missions that are more realistic, rather than just Air Quake. Escorting bombers force the fighters to stay and fight.

 

You know, there was a feature in the CloD Mission builder that I really liked: you could probably create a script to force the fighter to fly in a defined airspace, adding alerts and penalties if the pilot was flying out of that position.

 

In that way we could simulate the infamous Goering's order. But you know, there are guys here who will find it not realistic...

 

Online wars are surely better than dogfight servers, but still many are so irrealistic because of fighter's roles and unhistorical tactics (Tempest escorting B17 at 10km? no close bomber escort during the BoB? ).

Edited April 2, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[JG13_opcode]

Online wars are surely better than dogfight servers, but still many are so irrealistic because of fighter's roles and unhistorical tactics (Tempest escorting B17 at 10km? no close bomber escort during the BoB? ).

Well sure, but I think it's unreasonable to demand that pilots purposely fly in a manner that they know is bad, if there's no upside.

 

In an online war you escort your bombers because they're your most important assets, so there's a reason.

 

As for Tempests escorting B17's, that's not a fault of online wars. That's a fault of mission design. If the map was 1:1 then the Tempest wouldn't have enough range... but then again nobody wants to fly a 6-hour escort mission to get to a 15 minute dogfight.

 

But taking points away from people who don't fly in a Vic in a BoB scenario or who don't fly close escort is asking too much. Above all else, the game is supposed to be fun.

[brook]

I think I will have to disagree with your assessment of the 190 vs VVS planes. Any FW pilot who is competent and confident enough to fight it out with Spitfires is not going to be troubled by Yaks, LaGGs and Las. The contemporary Spitfires are usually every bit as good as the "bread-and-butter" Yaks and then some. Compare a 1942 Mk.V Spitfire @ 16lbs boost vs an early 1943 vanilla Yak-9 (the best performing variant actually) and you'll see that the former is better in about every single way, and we are not even talking Mk.IX yet...

 

The only fighters that might fight the A model 190s on even terms are the late FN model La-5s & 7s and the Yak-3, simply because their speed at low level puts them on par with the FW.

 Agree 190  tactics used against spits will work just as well against VVS 

[6S.Manu]

Well sure, but I think it's unreasonable to demand that pilots purposely fly in a manner that they know is bad, if there's no upside.

 

In an online war you escort your bombers because they're your most important assets, so there's a reason.

 

As for Tempests escorting B17's, that's not a fault of online wars. That's a fault of mission design. If the map was 1:1 then the Tempest wouldn't have enough range... but then again nobody wants to fly a 6-hour escort mission to get to a 15 minute dogfight.

 

But taking points away from people who don't fly in a Vic in a BoB scenario or who don't fly close escort is asking too much. Above all else, the game is supposed to be fun.

 

I agree.

[MiloMorai]

As for Tempests escorting B17's, that's not a fault of online wars. That's a fault of mission design. If the map was 1:1 then the Tempest wouldn't have enough range... but then again nobody wants to fly a 6-hour escort mission to get to a 15 minute dogfight.

 

Actually, the Tempests had the range to escort B-17s to Berlin but at 10km is a bit much.

[Furio]

Looks like this thread is taking an unforeseen route, but looks interesting to me. In my opinion, many people place too emphasis on air-to-air combat. Everybody wants to be an ace, even if the most successful aces in history didn???

Edited April 3, 2013 by Furio

[FlatSpinMan]

If people played that way, it'd be great. That's pretty much why I don't play online much. I did a couple of co-ops  with the DangerDogz which were really enjoyable, but just joining a multiplayer server I missed the sense of mission.

 

Also I live in an inconvenient timezone and am pretty crap.

[JtD]

I think the game is what you make of it. I usually play Il-2 on the BF-1 dogfight server, which as such has pretty much arcade settings. However, there are always some people online who want to go after the ground targets, escort bombers and play for the mission instead of fun or personal glory. If you can get that type of game on BF-1, I don't know why it would be hard to get in a more 'serious' environment.

 

I don't really know what this has to do with flying Soviet planes, and Spitfire vs. 190 doesn't seem to be that relevant either. Or P-39's. So, what do you think - will the small disadvantage of the Soviet fighters be made up by their possibly better performing bombers? Looking at Il-2 vs. Ju 87 here, mostly, but Pe-2 vs. He 111 could be interesting, too. Which fighter will be best used against German fighter bombers, if so, how and will the Soviets have useful fighter bombers at all?

[6S.Manu]

Which fighter will be best used against German fighter bombers, if so, how and will the Soviets have useful fighter bombers at all?

Without knowing the planeset, I guess the best fighters against german bombers are the ones with the most lethal weapons (cannons). P39, La5, late I16?

Edited April 3, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[FlatSpinMan]

Interesting ideas, JtD. If I were flying them, I'd much rather be in an IL2 or a Pe-2 than their German counterparts, and similarly, if I'm opposing strike aircraft then I'd much rather fly against the German ones than the Russian.

[Caudron431]

" A soldier who is familiar with his weapon can only achieve a maximum effect with it when he believes in the way it is tactically employed" Adolf Galland.

 

We don't know the relation that will exist between the Russian and the German planes, but quickly after the new simulator release people will find out what works best and adapt to the new environment: then realism and historical accuracy, the way an actual army operates in the real world (orders objectives tactics strategy), nowadays and at the time, all this kind of considerations will be forgotten.

 

Sims are often criticized for lack of realism and accuracy, but it is not often aknowledged that it is because of the human factor (the simmer) that the simulating attempt of the "historical reality" is spoilt. Reds and blues will quickly find out what works best to win the points battle, and the sim environment will evolve accordingly, without references to historical reality, i guess, just like other sims did.

 

Not a majority of simmers is wanting to sacrifice the points system for such concepts : a fighter pilot is often looking for competition, and it is not bad: it's just an important trait in his character, useful for the role. Only one thing i see could help the game to develop towards something less linked with achieveing personal scores is the possibility (as a server option) not to record personal points for aerial kills and ground objectives, but just record them anonymously to compute what side is winning the map.

 

Of course a sim is for fun, and if the majority likes it this way, then there's no reason to change.

 

The thing is that there seems to be a paradox with air combat sims in general, for in one hand pilots (real or virtual, there's no difference here) have to adapt and act using all their knowledge and training for maximum efficiency, but on the other hand some of them want them to be historical too.

Problem is virtual pilots do not die: their experience can only increase, reaching incredible amount of talent, they know the different designs exact performances, etc., and with all these enormous advantages over the real pilots of the time they still want history to repeat itself in the game.

But reproducing historical tactical choices and force today's simmers to fly accordingly would be in total opposition with what the ultimate fonction of a pilot is about! There is a contradiction between the freedom a fighter pilot has to have when he chooses his tactic, and the fact that the game is supposed to represent past battles realistically. What i want to say is that I think that we simply cannot make sims "historically accurate" without making them a mere role-play game and rule out the essence of what a good fighter pilot must be in the real world.

Because we are knowledgeable human beings playing a sim, the real balance of power will never be simulated adequately enough to call a sim something realistic or historical. Yet there are very good and fun simulators

Edited April 3, 2013 by RegRag1977

[JG13_opcode]

I think the game is what you make of it. I usually play Il-2 on the BF-1 dogfight server, which as such has pretty much arcade settings. However, there are always some people online who want to go after the ground targets, escort bombers and play for the mission instead of fun or personal glory. If you can get that type of game on BF-1, I don't know why it would be hard to get in a more 'serious' environment.

 

I don't really know what this has to do with flying Soviet planes, and Spitfire vs. 190 doesn't seem to be that relevant either. Or P-39's. So, what do you think - will the small disadvantage of the Soviet fighters be made up by their possibly better performing bombers? Looking at Il-2 vs. Ju 87 here, mostly, but Pe-2 vs. He 111 could be interesting, too. Which fighter will be best used against German fighter bombers, if so, how and will the Soviets have useful fighter bombers at all?

I think in Many vs. Many combat, the performance differences are small enough to be overcome by Red teamwork, or at least they were in FB. It's really an unanswerable question until we see the performances in-game. It might not end up being a problem, or Blue might be on the short end of the stick. Lots of us remember DeltaWood

[Furio]

" A soldier who is familiar with his weapon can only achieve a maximum effect with it when he believes in the way it is tactically employed" Adolf Galland.

 

We don't know the relation that will exist between the Russian and the German planes, but quickly after the new simulator release people will find out what works best and adapt to the new environment: then realism and historical accuracy, the way an actual army operates in the real world (orders objectives tactics strategy), nowadays and at the time, all this kind of considerations will be forgotten.

 

Sims are often criticized for lack of realism and accuracy, but it is not often aknowledged that it is because of the human factor (the simmer) that the simulating attempt of the "historical reality" is spoilt. Reds and blues will quickly find out what works best to win the points battle, and the sim environment will evolve accordingly, without references to historical reality, i guess, just like other sims did.

 

Not a majority of simmers is wanting to sacrifice the points system for such concepts : a fighter pilot is often looking for competition, and it is not bad: it's just an important trait in his character, useful for the role. Only one thing i see could help the game to develop towards something less linked with achieveing personal scores is the possibility (as a server option) not to record personal points for aerial kills and ground objectives, but just record them anonymously to compute what side is winning the map.

 

Of course a sim is for fun, and if the majority likes it this way, then there's no reason to change.

 

The thing is that there seems to be a paradox with air combat sims in general, for in one hand pilots (real or virtual, there's no difference here) have to adapt and act using all their knowledge and training for maximum efficiency, but on the other hand some of them want them to be historical too.

Problem is virtual pilots do not die: their experience can only increase, reaching incredible amount of talent, they know the different designs exact performances, etc., and with all these enormous advantages over the real pilots of the time they still want history to repeat itself in the game.

But reproducing historical tactical choices and force today's simmers to fly accordingly would be in total opposition with what the ultimate fonction of a pilot is about! There is a contradiction between the freedom a fighter pilot has to have when he chooses his tactic, and the fact that the game is supposed to represent past battles realistically. What i want to say is that I think that we simply cannot make sims "historically accurate" without making them a mere role-play game and rule out the essence of what a good fighter pilot must be in the real world.

Because we are knowledgeable human beings playing a sim, the real balance of power will never be simulated adequately enough to call a sim something realistic or historical. Yet there are very good and fun simulators

 

 

Bringing this reasoning to the extreme consequences is easy. A fair competition simply requires identical fighters. For example: Red Bf109 against Blue Bf109 of the same subtype always flown in even numbers and without advantage for any side. In this way, the best pilots will emerge and debates about ???

[AndyJWest]

What I would like is a little more complex simming experience, taking into account that warplanes were flown to destroy targets, not for sport, and that the most important target were on the ground. Perhaps this is easier to obtain offline, with carefully designed missions.

 

Absolutely. What I'd like to see would be a multiplayer server option that eliminated the usual points scoring system entirely, and instead awarded points according to the role that individual players played towards achieving their team's designated goal. Probably a pipe dream, but something to think about for the distant future...

Edited April 3, 2013 by AndyJWest

[BlitzPig_EL]

" A soldier who is familiar with his weapon can only achieve a maximum effect with it when he believes in the way it is tactically employed" Adolf Galland.

 

We don't know the relation that will exist between the Russian and the German planes, but quickly after the new simulator release people will find out what works best and adapt to the new environment: then realism and historical accuracy, the way an actual army operates in the real world (orders objectives tactics strategy), nowadays and at the time, all this kind of considerations will be forgotten.

etc... etc... etc...

 

This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

 

Well said sir.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Absolutely. What I'd like to see would be a multiplayer server option that eliminated the usual points scoring system entirely, and instead awarded points according to the role that individual players played towards achieving their team's designated goal. Probably a pipe dream, but something to think about for the distant future...

 

+1

[JG13_opcode]

What I would like is a little more complex simming experience, taking into account that warplanes were flown to destroy targets, not for sport, and that the most important target were on the ground.

Ehh, that's not really true. For the Luftwaffe in the ETO, by far the most important targets were the bombers laying waste to city after city, and for the US escort fighters, the most important targets were Luftwaffe fighters coming up to shoot down their B-17's.

Perhaps this is easier to obtain offline, with carefully designed missions.

Definitely easier to attain, but then you have to play offline, against the AI. Yuck.

 

Absolutely. What I'd like to see would be a multiplayer server option that eliminated the usual points scoring system entirely, and instead awarded points according to the role that individual players played towards achieving their team's designated goal. Probably a pipe dream, but something to think about for the distant future...

That would be a truly awesome (and complicated) scoring system. Perhaps you should start a new thread somewhere, we can get some actual ideas. Edited April 3, 2013 by JG13Doggles

[Furio]

Ehh, that's not really true. For the Luftwaffe in the ETO, by far the most important targets were the bombers laying waste to city after city, and for the US escort fighters, the most important targets were Luftwaffe fighters coming up to shoot down their B-17's.

 

I get your point, but ???

[Caudron431]

Bringing this reasoning to the extreme consequences is easy. A fair competition simply requires identical fighters. For example: Red Bf109 against Blue Bf109 of the same subtype always flown in even numbers and without advantage for any side. In this way, the best pilots will emerge and debates about ???

Edited April 4, 2013 by RegRag1977

[Furio]

I did not get the meaning of the first part of your post, to me a good sim should not be something like a fair competition anyway, if possible i would like the balance of power more or less respected, especially on the more historical oriented mission, like online wars, which is the greatest part of the online fun for me.

 

As for the second part of your post, i must say i completely agree , that's why i suggested (post 110):

 

"Only one thing i see could help the game to develop towards something less linked with achieveing personal scores is the possibility (as a server option) not to record personal points for aerial kills and ground objectives, but just record them anonymously to compute what side is winning the map."

 

Perhaps I didn???

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

The idea to have a point system linked to the mission, and not to air combat kills is very sound, in my opinion.

 

Very good point!

 

In IL2, my  best on-line experiences where in SEOW, where mission targets were always related to ground objectives. Knowing your performance could ultimately decide the success or failure of the whole mission, not to say campaign, made gave involvement and immersion on a whole different level. Sure, air-quacke is fun too, but as a combat flight sim IL2 really shone when doing on-line campaigns.