Archie's skill level

[HagarTheHorrible]

Can the Archie (AAA) skill level be set to change for different heights ?

 

For example, could it be set to Ace skill, below 3000 ft, Veteran skill below 8000 and couldn't hit a barn door above that ? (maybe that's the way it's always worked ?)

 

I ask, because if you knew you were going to get hammered by flak, when going over to the opposition side of the field, below a certain altitude, then people might fly higher, and stay higher.  Also having a few random spawning flak battery's, along with regular concentrations, to keep players on their toes, at each map change, so that flying lower, between known flak concentrations, is Ok but still risky, even for players who get to know the map well.

 

Obviously the heights I've used are just numbers plucked from the air rather than well considered altitudes.

Edited October 25, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[BMA_Hellbender]

We should probably wait for WWI flak first. Either way, flak should look and sound scary but be mostly harmless.

 

Small arms fire down by the trenches, however...

[HagarTheHorrible]

20 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

We should probably wait for WWI flak first. Either way, flak should look and sound scary but be mostly harmless.

 

Small arms fire down by the trenches, however...

 

I think we have to understand that the purpose of flak, in the game, is different to that that pertained 100 years ago, they are two seperate things and their function is not necessarily the same. It is a fundimental error, to assume that just because it did such and such during the war it should, or will, have the same function in FC. It needs to do a job, rather than just fill in the gaps, a minefield in the air, as it were. It's purpose is to corral us into certain types of good behaviour and dissuade us from bad habits, it's job, in the game, is NOT to kill us.  We aren't fighting against the computer driven guns, that know EXACTLY where we are, height, speed and direction, we are competing against other aircraft, the flak simply adds colour and drama.  Actually it does more than that, it can and does point to opposition aircraft, it does distract and increase a targeted pilots workload allowing opponents to take advantage and sneak up behind them.

 

But, it could do more. If the threat of being destroyed was more prevelant the lower you flew, over enemy lines, then pilots would tend to fly higher. Diving low, over enemy territory would carry greater risk, if trying to evade, deterring dragging fights down to the deck.  If it were taken further, then opposition sides of the line would be devoid of targets on the map at the begining of a game, especially flak, it would be there, but camouflaged, flak bursts would just bloom beside you, where are the guns ?  Send a recon flight over, take pictures, return to base, targets in the photos are revealed on the map, no longer camouflaged.  Flak concentration areas can be identified, and avoided, or attacked, allowing bombers to (more) safely attack other priority targets, from lower altitudes.

 

Planes would fly higher, recon flights would become REALLY useful, they would need to be protected etc etc.

 

I don't think small arms fire, at lower altitude, is overly helpful.  It doesn't provide the drama that flak provides, you aren't facing hords of enemy ground troops, either it is too effective to compensate for the lack of numbers or it is useless and because a bullet, that doesn't hit, goes entirely un-noticed then the times is does hit you seems arbitrary or sniper like, just like the hand of God appearing out of nowhere and smaking you down.  VERY UN-FUN !!!!

 

[HiIIBiIIy]

23 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Can the Archie (AAA) skill level be set to change for different heights ?

In a word, No.

The skill level is constant no matter the altitude of the target.

Remember  WW2 flak was fairly accurate at 25000 feet. 

[JGr2/J34b_Matthias]

On 10/25/2019 at 6:41 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:

Can the Archie (AAA) skill level be set to change for different heights ?

 

For example, could it be set to Ace skill, below 3000 ft, Veteran skill below 8000 and couldn't hit a barn door above that ? (maybe that's the way it's always worked ?)

 

I can't tell you how hard I wished for this in ROF and still wish for it in IL2...  No, we don't have anywhere near that level of control as mission builders.  Uppiing AAA skill level increases not only their overall accuracy but also the rotation speed of their gun mounts.

Edited October 26, 2019 by J5_Matthias

[HagarTheHorrible]

5 hours ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

 

Remember  WW2 flak was fairly accurate at 25000 feet. 

 

My opinion, is that we should forget about trying to cram flak into the narrow confines of strict historical accuracy, there are too many short comings (quantity, A.I etc) to regard it as truly representative.  Instead we simply need to think of it as a game play element, a tool, that we use, as far as possible in a believably realistic manor, to encourage players into playing in a more historically believable way.  It is, after all, an air combat simulator and not a flak simulator.

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

My opinion, is that we should forget about trying to cram flak into the narrow confines of strict historical accuracy, there are too many short comings (quantity, A.I etc) to regard it as truly representative.  Instead we simply need to think of it as a game play element, a tool, that we use, as far as possible in a believably realistic manor, to encourage players into playing in a more historically believable way.  It is, after all, an air combat simulator and not a flak simulator.

 

You make players behave in a more historically believable way by simulating as many of the factors that affected behaviour as accurately as possible.  At the end of the day, however, you cannot simulate the fear of death.  (Payment per dead-is-dead account might do it  )  

 

As an MP server option, have death rays, but what what is important is that the base simulation is the best estimate of actual performance.  If you want to increase the risk of low level flight on the wrong side of the lines, just add more AAMGs.  These are the weapons that made the lower levels dangerous, not Archie.  

[JGr2/J34b_Matthias]

3 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

My opinion, is that we should forget about trying to cram flak into the narrow confines of strict historical accuracy, there are too many short comings (quantity, A.I etc) to regard it as truly representative.  Instead we simply need to think of it as a game play element, a tool, that we use, as far as possible in a believably realistic manor, to encourage players into playing in a more historically believable way.  It is, after all, an air combat simulator and not a flak simulator.

 

39 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

As an MP server option, have death rays, but what what is important is that the base simulation is the best estimate of actual performance.  If you want to increase the risk of low level flight on the wrong side of the lines, just add more AAMGs.  These are the weapons that made the lower levels dangerous, not Archie.  

 

You both make good points.  The use in ROF of elite level "AAA Walls" over the front during campaign gameplay, which were designed specifically to keep traffic over the front above minimum appropriate heights was a fairly effective solution.  If IL2 can handle it, more WW1 MGs is the correct option (the ww2 are just too dang good), and if we get flaming onions, there's actually an even better way to way to do it using those.

[Zooropa_Fly]

49 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

  (Payment per dead-is-dead account might do it  )  
 

 

I like this - £10 resurrection penalty.

We'll have FC8 in no time !

[unreasonable]

3 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

I like this - £10 resurrection penalty.

We'll have FC8 in no time !

 

Indeed: it is amazing what people will pay for their preferred dopamine hit. 

 

Sadly this idea will be ignored by the developers, just like my other suggestion that would have funded the series for decades: a dragon air combat add on, with dragon riding elf princesses in chain mail bikinis.  

[HagarTheHorrible]

3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Indeed: it is amazing what people will pay for their preferred dopamine hit. 

 

Sadly this idea will be ignored by the developers, just like my other suggestion that would have funded the series for decades: a dragon air combat add on, with dragon riding elf princesses in chain mail bikinis.  

 

Do the chain mail bikinis disintigrate when they get shot at ?  If so,  I'm in, were do I sign up ?

 

That said , on second thoughts, given the modern world and all those who can, potentially, SELF DEFINE as princesses maybe I'll pass.

[DD_Arthur]

How about a chain mail leotard?

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Takes me back, I love Kate's Bush.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Keep in mind WW1 archie shoot down ratio was something like 4-5,000 rounds fired for every kill they recorded. 

 

As others have said, rifle and MG fire should be utilized down low.