190 A-6 and Bf 109 G-6 Late

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The G-6 U-2/U-3 are a bit of a difficult call to make I imagine. There were only around 300 ever in Service, that's 2.5% of the G-6s that Served. I can fully understand either Decision. 300 is intself a Number Substantial enough to matter, and also insignificant enough in the Grand Scheme of Things that I can excuse it's exclusion.

 

Without MW50, it will be able to slug it out with the P-47 Razorbacks and Typhoons on relatively even Terms, while posing little Threat to Mustangs and Mk.XIV Spits, leaving them to the A-6 which will also have a very hard Time against them.

 

With MW50 the G-6 becomes the German Top Dog, Fighting the Mustang on even Terms, with the Griffon Spit still being the absolute King of the Sky until it meets a K-4.

[Bremspropeller]

If modelled correctlv, the germans will descend into a valley of tears - german airplanes were not competitive for spring and summer '44.

The A-8 would even need to have it's Erhöhte Notleistung pulled for that timeframe - this special boost was only introduced in late summer.

[Raven109]

Actually, it won't be the blue side who descends into a valley of tears. It will be the server owners, if they choose to implement this period; unlike real life, in game no one is forcing you to fight for the weaker side. So, you'll have servers which will look like 40 red : 1 blue.

 

Modelling a period which was one sided is not so good for gameplay. It will be enjoyed perhaps just by the history buffs.

 

Hopefully a balance will be struck, somehow. Perhaps server owners will introduce limited  numbers of the G-14 as a stand-in for the G-6/U3.

 

Offline, this aspect is much less of a problem. The AI doesn't yet know how to use the advantages of the planes its flying, so G6/A8 should be enough to clobber them.

[Bremspropeller]

8 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Actually, it won't be the blue side who descends into a valley of tears. It will be the server owners, if they choose to implement this period; unlike real life, in game no one is forcing you to fight for the weaker side. So, you'll have servers which will look like 40 red : 1 blue.

 

I don't mind that. Finally some time to fly realisticly as a fighter-bomber and not being harassed by late-war german überfighters with one-shot guns.

[Pikestance]

This sin't about the "fallacy of balance" for MP servers. This is about presenting a planeset consistent with the time period. there isn't any other consideration. 

[Raven109]

54 minutes ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

This sin't about the "fallacy of balance" for MP servers. This is about presenting a planeset consistent with the time period. there isn't any other consideration. 

 

Well, I think the actual fallacy is to think that you can recreate history in a game, where the players from each side don't have the relative skill levels as they had them back then, and where the same players aren't historically motivated, or constrained by the same limitations from the past. 

 

I think there are other considerations. Most players play this game to have fun, not to relive the misery, confusion and helplessness of 1944. I would not ignore the fact that we are people in the 21st century, sitting at our warm desks, and that people today, unlike 1944, can just choose not to buy and play BoN, if it's too unbalanced, or to just jump to the red side, be it on-line or off-line.

 

I mean, if we want accuracy, why not recreate Barbarossa in its initial months. And the red side would just sit on the ground watching the blue strafe their aircraft, or perhaps Case White (the invasion of Poland), or maybe the Allied bombing campaigns, where the blue side would have to climb to intercept bombers, with strict orders not to engage fighters, all this while getting pounced by high altitude P-47/51s. Not much gameplay there, but still, they all happened.

 

I know, I like historic events as well, but we're not here to simulate suffering, or boredom, or frustration, are we now? We can get this from real life really easily, no need to pay for it.

 

But then again, perhaps it's enough for the US/Common Wealth markets to buy BoN, since I have a feeling that this theater was added mostly for them. Servers will find a way, they don't have to stick to the proposed aircraft line-up.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[Bremspropeller]

17 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

I know, I like historic events as well, but we're not here to simulate suffering, or boredom, or frustration, are we now?

 

Flying a (fighter-)bomber in MP right now is exactly that.

[CountZero]

On WoL they have now 2 west front only maps, one is late with all mods and bobp airplanes exept cheat 262, and other is normandy with no boosts for reds and no k4 and d9s and cheat 262s for blues, and no problems they still have more blue players on them. You aint gona be fighting only g6 and a6 vs Spit XIVs online on bon missions, i expect to have pre invasion missions with g2 g4 g6 and a3 a5 a6 vs early 47s 51s spits and after invasion similar to what they have now on normandy mission. If players advocate for historical airplanes then numbers on side also need to be historicly set, and you aint gon have that so balanced is what you get in most cases.

[Pikestance]

1 hour ago, Raven109 said:

 

Well, I think the actual fallacy is to think that you can recreate history in a game, where the players from each side don't have the relative skill levels as they had them back then, and where the same players aren't historically motivated, or constrained by the same limitations from the past. 

 

I think there are other considerations. Most players play this game to have fun, not to relive the misery, confusion and helplessness of 1944. I would not ignore the fact that we are people in the 21st century, sitting at our warm desks, and that people today, unlike 1944, can just choose not to buy and play BoN, if it's too unbalanced, or to just jump to the red side, be it on-line or off-line.

 

I mean, if we want accuracy, why not recreate Barbarossa in its initial months. And the red side would just sit on the ground watching the blue strafe their aircraft, or perhaps Case White (the invasion of Poland), or maybe the Allied bombing campaigns, where the blue side would have to climb to intercept bombers, with strict orders not to engage fighters, all this while getting pounced by high altitude P-47/51s. Not much gameplay there, but still, they all happened.

 

I know, I like historic events as well, but we're not here to simulate suffering, or boredom, or frustration, are we now? We can get this from real life really easily, no need to pay for it.

 

But then again, perhaps it's enough for the US/Common Wealth markets to buy BoN, since I have a feeling that this theater was added mostly for them. Servers will find a way, they don't have to stick to the proposed aircraft line-up.

 

 

You making a strange argument in a forum for a Combat flight simulator. 

I mean I am not going to fly a WWI plane, then turn down the A/c turn on a high power fan, sit on a block of ice, and wear all sorts of gear to replicate the experience of flying during WW1. No, that would be silly. Let's not make silly arguments. 

 

Ironically, you proved my point. There is no such thing as a balance in a sim. You are never going to have players of equal skill on both sides. Of course, this isn't manufactured difference, this actually could be the reality in wars. Aircraft were design to be superior to what they were facing or to at least the previous aircraft. The nature of war is to achieve an imbalance of power not balance. MP servers will be forever chasing their tails trying to get balance. The best they could do is create scenarios. They could be based on fiction, history or, for a limited duration, a historical battle. Unless you can manipulate the participants, you will never get "balance." It is silly to think that you can. 

 

BTW, they are people here would would like to see a Pearl Harbor. What challenge would that be to first get into the air and then to fight outnumbered the Japanese? I do not see why the initial stages of Barbarossa would be problem. Some people enjoy the challenge. I supposed the do- dos with one eye on their stat page probably would boo hoo about it, but they don't really want a challenge if they require "balance to enjoy a combat flight simulator. For me that is game-play that is a challenge and that is fun. Heck who doesn't want to refight Waterloo and win or re-fight Bunker Hill and win for the Americans? Or better yet, the Battle of Thermopylae, both the first day of battle or the famous third day of 1000 hoplites (including the famous 300 Spartans). Could you do better? Who wouldn't want that challenge? I do not see why a combat flight simulator would change that.  

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, Raven109 said:

if they choose to implement this period; unlike real life, in game no one is forcing you to fight for the weaker side. So, you'll have servers which will look like 40 red : 1 blue

Yet you see this since the very beginning. 50 blue against 5 red. 
I believe some blue fighterpilots got to grow some balls. And it would not surprise me if this happened. But fortunately I know quite a few dedicated  blue pilots like being the underdog. You might be surprised 

Edited June 13, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Raven109]

47 minutes ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

 

You making a strange argument in a forum for a Combat flight simulator. 

I mean I am not going to fly a WWI plane, then turn down the A/c turn on a high power fan, sit on a block of ice, and wear all sorts of gear to replicate the experience of flying during WW1. No, that would be silly. Let's not make silly arguments. 

 

Ironically, you proved my point. There is no such thing as a balance in a sim. You are never going to have players of equal skill on both sides. Of course, this isn't manufactured difference, this actually could be the reality in wars. Aircraft were design to be superior to what they were facing or to at least the previous aircraft. The nature of war is to achieve an imbalance of power not balance. MP servers will be forever chasing their tails trying to get balance. The best they could do is create scenarios. They could be based on fiction, history or, for a limited duration, a historical battle. Unless you can manipulate the participants, you will never get "balance." It is silly to think that you can. 

 

BTW, they are people here would would like to see a Pearl Harbor. What challenge would that be to first get into the air and then to fight outnumbered the Japanese? I do not see why the initial stages of Barbarossa would be problem. Some people enjoy the challenge. I supposed the do- dos with one eye on their stat page probably would boo hoo about it, but they don't really want a challenge if they require "balance to enjoy a combat flight simulator. For me that is game-play that is a challenge and that is fun. Heck who doesn't want to refight Waterloo and win or re-fight Bunker Hill and win for the Americans? Or better yet, the Battle of Thermopylae, both the first day of battle or the famous third day of 1000 hoplites (including the famous 300 Spartans). Could you do better? Who wouldn't want that challenge? I do not see why a combat flight simulator would change that.  

 

I wasn't talking about having equal skill on both sides, because in the sim, due to natural distribution, we do have equal skill on both sides. There are many who fly on both sides. I was talking about having the same skill level as the pilots who flew IRL. 

 

Yes, the nature of war is to achieve in-balance, no doubt about that; on the other hand the nature of games is to achieve fun, otherwise there will be no sales. Here's an example. I build a chess game where the AI is always set to maximum difficulty, so that not even expert chess players can beat it consistently. How many people do you think will buy such a game? How many people enjoy fighting uphill? Those are in minority. More so, how many of those who buy it will play it for a long time, getting their behind kicked 99% of the time. Will the game sell well? Will the game have good reviews?

 

The question about your last paragraph is: do people who like challenges represent the majority, or the minority? Games are usually made for the majority of the player base, not for the minority. Minimum implementation effort for maximum gain. 

 

No, there is no such thing as perfect balance, but should we go and make it even worse by simulating unbalanced scenarios? Do the majority of people generally like unbalanced scenarios? Don't think so...

 

I like realism too and challenges too, but I am in no way representative for what the majority likes. 

 

47 minutes ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

I mean I am not going to fly a WWI plane, then turn down the A/c turn on a high power fan, sit on a block of ice, and wear all sorts of gear to replicate the experience of flying during WW1. No, that would be silly. Let's not make silly arguments. 

 

I wasn't making such an argument, not sure where that comes from.

------------------------------

 

47 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Yet you see this since the very beginning. 50 blue against 5 red. 
I believe some blue fighterpilots got to grow some balls. And it would not surprise me if this happened. But fortunately I know quite a few dedicated  blue pilots like being the underdog. You might be surprised 

 

Well, If I understand correctly, you're saying that 50 blue : 5 red is bad. So is 50 red : 5 blue. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is my point.

 

-------------------------------

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Flying a (fighter-)bomber in MP right now is exactly that.

 

Ok, so then another guy on the blue side flying a jabo and getting consistently blown out of the sky is the solution?

 

I think we can come up which much better solutions.

 

Didn't Jabos/Fighter-bombers/bombers have extremely high loses, which changed when they got cover? Do you have cover in-game?

 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[=621=Samikatz]

3 hours ago, Raven109 said:

Actually, it won't be the blue side who descends into a valley of tears. It will be the server owners, if they choose to implement this period; unlike real life, in game no one is forcing you to fight for the weaker side. So, you'll have servers which will look like 40 red : 1 blue.

 

You don't hear LaGG-3 pilots or I-16 fans complain online, I'm sure it'll be fine

 

If it isn't, then there's tools for server owners to encourage or even enforce team balance, and if that becomes necessary they'll use it

[Lusekofte]

11 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Well, If I understand correctly, you're saying that 50 blue : 5 red is bad. So is 50 red : 5 blue. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is my point.

Well in 8 years the servers was side heavy to blue side. If blue pilots chicken out on one time era it is because they change side. Then I say fuck them. They have no clue what having fun is , they are here for the wrong reason and good riddance. 
They wont be missed. 
You talk like it suddenly has becomes unfair. I had to read in this forum that red have to live with flying bricks and get shot down. It been whining blue cannons is not powerful enough until 30 mm came along. 
But you are wrong. There will be blue pilots, not the few vocal ones but the many you never see here. They be there fighting. All the Finnish ones, zerstoerer groups. Flying the 110 e when it had glass wings. Plenty of goid pilots knowing how to get a kill in a underdog. I know I am right

[Bremspropeller]

22 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Ok, so then another guy on the blue side flying a jabo and getting consistently blown out of the sky is the solution?

 

I think we can come up which much better solutions.

 

Didn't Jabos/Fighter-bombers/bombers have extremely high loses, which changed when they got cover? Do you have cover in-game?

 

You're missing the point:

MP tends to turn into unrealistic airquake-matches, which kills any type of immersion-experience for anybody who doesn't just want to blow a semi-invisible airplane out of the sky.

 

Even the smartest approach by bombers or jabos will usually just merge with the opposing fighter-cover, unrealisticly circleing over the target and ready to pearl-necklace down onto you either just before bombing, or just past the attack. One pass will usually render you totally useless/ kill your pilot/ have your airplane go out of control. The exercise is extremely un-satisfying in the long run - either turning you into another airquake-dude or have you quit the server for the night altogether.

 

Allied fighter-bombers flew unescorted and had the vast lion's share of all their losses due to flak. The Luftwaffe was quite literally a non-factor in 1945.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[Raven109]

13 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

You're missing the point:

MP tends to turn into unrealistic airquake-matches, which kills any type of immersion-experience for anybody who doesn't just want to blow a semi-invisible airplane out of the sky.

 

Even the smartest approach by bombers or jabos will usually just merge with the opposing fighter-cover, unrealisticly circleing over the target and ready to pearl-necklace down onto you either just before bombing, or just past the attack. One pass will usually render you totally useless/ kill your pilot/ have your airplane go out of control. The exercise is extremely un-satisfying in the long run - either turning you into another airquake-dude or have you quit the server for the night altogether.

 

 

"MP tends to turn into unrealistic airquake-matches" - that's because this game is an over simplification of reality, the player skill is different from reality and so on. Why is there an expectation for a simplified game to abide to the complex rules of a world war, a thing that is bigger than most people can comprehend? Are the expectations too high, and thus disappointment soon follows? It is much much easier to get kills in game than IRL, and this can't be helped, unless maybe, the planes are made much more difficult to fly, the aiming is made much more difficult to achieve, the planes are made much more sturdier (they weren't IRL). But even so, you will still have pilots that don't feel fear and will attack a JaBo, where as IRL pilots would have been much more prudent.

 

It's just normal that in game attrition is much much higher than real life, you are going against experts at aiming, who have no fear of being shot down, and as such they will not miss, and will do things pilots didn't do IRL.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[Bremspropeller]

It's quite simple:

If I wanted to fly Warp Thunder, I'd just do it.

 

[JG13_opcode]

48 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

You don't hear LaGG-3 pilots or I-16 fans complain online, I'm sure it'll be fine

 

Red pilots complaining about OP 109s was like 85% of the online experience before Kuban came out.

[Lusekofte]

On 6/13/2020 at 2:52 PM, JG13_opcode said:

 

Red pilots complaining about OP 109s was like 85% of the online experience before Kuban came out.

That is [edited]  And you know it. At best you counted answers [edited] into it. 
But I stop here on the subject. There are servers obtaining serious flyers playing with the toys their got. On both sides. 
there will be unbalance as long as a sim do not simulate strength of force, fuelquality logistics and training
because these where allied advantages

Edited June 15, 2020 by SYN_Haashashin
Language

[Raven109]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's quite simple:

If I wanted to fly Warp Thunder, I'd just do it.

 

 

Well, this is the point I'm making. You cannot get real life behavior (attrition) unless you are also ready to deal with real life consequences.

 

Take a normal server. Unlike IRL, currently all objectives are known ahead of time by the opposing team. Then consider the number of objectives. 4-5 objectives per map, and many players who know exactly where you're coming from and what you're attacking. Of course the enemy will be patrolling those objectives. And of course the chances of being intercepted are higher in game than in real life.

 

These issues are not solved by creating in-balance. These issues are solved by making it harder for one team to know where the other team will strike, just like it was IRL (i.e having imperfect information). The consequence of this will be that players will meet less often, and it will lead to a boring game. I.e, you'll have patrols where nothing happens. This coupled with the fact that most people have little time to play will lead to an unpleasant game experience.

 

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Allied fighter-bombers flew unescorted and had the vast lion's share of all their losses due to flak. The Luftwaffe was quite literally a non-factor in 1945.

 

Ok, so what you're saying is that you want the full WW2 experience, i.e no opposition and just a turkey shoot? You can get that against the AI, no need to play against humans. Humans cannot give you that experience, because they are much more experienced at shooting down virtual aircraft relatively to how the real pilots were.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[Bremspropeller]

4 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Take a normal server. Unlike IRL, currently all objectives are known ahead of time by the opposing team. Then consider the number of objectives. 4-5 objectives per map, and many players who know exactly where you're coming from and what you're attacking. Of course the enemy will be patrolling those objectives. And of course the chances of being intercepted are higher in game than in real life.

 

Which is a limitation of the present game and not the fact that we're sitting at a computer.

The original IL-2 COOPs could give you an experience very similar to RL.

 

6 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

The consequence of this will be that players will meet less often, and it will lead to a boring game. I.e, you'll have patrols where nothing happens. This coupled with the fact that most people have little time to play will lead to an unpleasant game experience.

 

Only if you're into airquake.

A fighter-bomber pilot will have no issues flying across the map and dodging heavy and partially randomly appering ground-fire.

He'll also love to shoot-up targets of opportunity.

 

6 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Ok, so what you're saying is that you want the full WW2 experience, i.e no opposition and just a turkey shoot? You can get that against the AI, no need to play against humans. Humans cannot give you that experience, because they are much more experienced at shooting down virtual aircraft relatively to how the real pilots were.

 

No.

I'm saying I want a more real and less artificial environment, where as (fighter)bomber pilot you're not pretty much running the gauntlet.

The full WW2 experience for a 9th AF dude in 1945 was flying 50 missions over Germany and never seeing a single Luftwaffe aircraft.

Well, maybe if he strafed a Luftwaffe airfield...

 

[Raven109]

18 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Which is a limitation of the present game and not the fact that we're sitting at a computer.

The original IL-2 COOPs could give you an experience very similar to RL.

 

Ok, which just shows that the game was built with the intent of quick contact and high attrition.

 

18 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Only if you're into airquake.

A fighter-bomber pilot will have no issues flying across the map and dodging heavy and partially randomly appering ground-fire.

He'll also love to shoot-up targets of opportunity.

 

Well yes, only if you're into air quake, which many here are. And to which the game does cater by bringing them quickly into action and having simplified physics. You cannot dismiss part of the community, just because your play style is different. Even on TAW, which is a more realistic server (the most), it takes you 5-10 minutes to get in combat, on average, so much so that in 1 hour you could've been part of 3 different engagements. Compare this with real life where pilots were mostly flying without any contact.

 

18 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

No.

I'm saying I want a more real and less artificial environment, where as (fighter)bomber pilot you're not pretty much running the gauntlet.

The full WW2 experience for a 9th AF dude in 1945 was flying 50 missions over Germany and never seeing a single Luftwaffe aircraft.

Well, maybe if he strafed a Luftwaffe airfield...

 

 

Ok, but then I think we can agree that we can achieve what you wish for some other way, i.e by mission design, this way you can let both sides have fun, just so both sides invest in the product. 

 

A good virtual pilot will blow you out of the sky even if he/she is flying a G6 with holes in one wing. That cannot be fixed, as I said, because the skill level is different to real life. Some scenarios can just not be recreated without taking the fun out of the game for one side or the other, or if they are recreated it will not match the real world experience, due to how people fly in this game.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[Bremspropeller]

10 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Ok, which just shows that the game was built with the intent of quick contact and high attrition.

 

It was built as a WW1 sim with no deeper intent whatsoever.

 

12 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Well yes, only if you're into air quake, which many here are. And to which the game does cater by bringing them quickly into action and having simplified physics. You cannot dismiss part of the community, just because your play style is different. Even on TAW, which is a more realistic server (the most), it takes you 5-10 minutes to get in combat, on average, so much so that in 1 hour you could've been part of 3 different engagements. Compare this with real life where pilots were mostly flying without any contact.

 

As pointed out above, that's not the point.

Currently - no matter how you plan and engage as a (fighter)bomber - the odds of being shot down by a stream of airquakists sitting above a target and waiting for prey to come by are just too large. If there's little chance of survival, there's little incentive to try in the first place.

 

16 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

A good virtual pilot will blow you out of the sky even if he/she is flying a G6 with holes in one wing. That cannot be fixed, as I said, because the skill level is different to real life. Some scenarios can just not be recreated without taking the fun out of the game for one side or the other, or if they are recreated it will not match the real world experience, due to how people fly in this game.

 

I'm usually being shot down (when flying fighters) by somebody I didn't see, or by T-IR randomly doing weird stuff, arriving at the same effect. Sometimes I'm being shot-down by just being stupid. There are relatively few *good pilots*.

[Raven109]

13 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It was built as a WW1 sim with no deeper intent whatsoever.

Ok, the fact that current attrition rates are intentional or not, it doesn't matter. I think that if someone makes a game where it takes you an hour to get to the target, another hour to get back, and have no contact for days, will just not have many sales. And sales are what keeps these niche products alive. I'm talking about the big picture, not the small one where only the minority's needs are covered. So, whether the attrition rates are intentional or not it doesn't matter, all it matters is that it leads to sales.

 

13 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

As pointed out above, that's not the point.

Currently - no matter how you plan and engage as a (fighter)bomber - the odds of being shot down by a stream of airquakists sitting above a target and waiting for prey to come by are just too large. If there's little chance of survival, there's little incentive to try in the first place.

 

Yes, and that's my point, you won't fix that by creating unbalanced scenarios, where one side totally dominates the other. Furthermore, you will only lose by handicapping the other side (be it for historical or non-historical purposes).

 

13 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

There are relatively few *good pilots*.

I'm comparing to real life, where the best pilot is worse than the best virtual pilot, just because the latter one gets much more training time in less stressful conditions, and of course, the virtual pilot never dies.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[Bremspropeller]

2 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Ok, the fact that current attrition rates are intentional or not, it doesn't matter. I think that if someone makes a game where it takes you an hour to get to the target, another hour to get back, and have no contact for days, will just not have many sales. And sales are what keeps these niche products alive. I'm talking about the big picture, not the small one where only where the minority's needs are covered. So, whether the attrition rates are intentional or not it doesn't matter, all it matters is that it leads to sales.

 

Again:

 

You

 

 

 

. <- point

 

 

3 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Yes, and that's my point, you won't fix that by creating unbalanced scenarios, where one side totally dominates the other. Furthermore, you will only lose by handicapping the other side (be it for historical or non-historical purposes).

 

It's not about unbalanced scenarios, it's about a different approach in mission-design. Like enabling proper COOPs '46-style.

 

5 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

I'm comparing to real life, where the best pilot is worse than the best virtual pilot, just because the latter one gets much more training time in less stressful conditions.

 

You mean like constantly pulling Gs, deploying flaps as a game-exploit and other handy tricks?

Disagree.

[Raven109]

I'm sorry, you said a few posts ago that you are happy to get an unbalanced plane set just so you can fly your bomber missions. And now you're saying the contrary, basically now agreeing to what I said.

 

You before:

7 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

7 hours ago, Raven109 said:

Actually, it won't be the blue side who descends into a valley of tears. It will be the server owners, if they choose to implement this period; unlike real life, in game no one is forcing you to fight for the weaker side. So, you'll have servers which will look like 40 red : 1 blue.

I don't mind that. Finally some time to fly realisticly as a fighter-bomber and not being harassed by late-war german überfighters with one-shot guns.

 

You now, after I've said that mission design is much more important, than unbalanced plane sets:

6 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's not about unbalanced scenarios, it's about a different approach in mission-design. Like enabling proper COOPs '46-style.

 

 

I'll take that we're in agreement.

 

I won't go into how it's me who's missing the point. We still want to have a civilized/productive discussion here...

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[41Sqn_Skipper]

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's not about unbalanced scenarios, it's about a different approach in mission-design. Like enabling proper COOPs '46-style.

 

What's missing/limiting in Great Battles COOP compared to 46? (Honest question)

 

IMHO the whole dogfight environment is totally flawed compared to COOP.

[Raven109]

4 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Well in 8 years the servers was side heavy to blue side. If blue pilots chicken out on one time era it is because they change side. Then I say fuck them. They have no clue what having fun is , they are here for the wrong reason and good riddance. 
They wont be missed. 
You talk like it suddenly has becomes unfair. I had to read in this forum that red have to live with flying bricks and get shot down. It been whining blue cannons is not powerful enough until 30 mm came along. 
But you are wrong. There will be blue pilots, not the few vocal ones but the many you never see here. They be there fighting. All the Finnish ones, zerstoerer groups. Flying the 110 e when it had glass wings. Plenty of goid pilots knowing how to get a kill in a underdog. I know I am right

 

No, I don't talk like it's suddenly become unfair. I wasn't here last year, let alone 8 years ago. Just because it was bad before, it doesn't have to be from now on.. that's the point. I see people encouraging unbalance just so they can get back at the other side... I really hope the devs don't listen to this partisan mindset, and that they base all their development on real world specs, when it comes to aircraft performance, but also keep an eye on balance, via plane set design and scenario design.

 

When you say that good pilots will fly, sure, not arguing whether the minority will fly, arguing whether the majority will.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[Bremspropeller]

17 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

I'm sorry, you said a few posts ago that you are happy to get an unbalanced plane set just so you can fly your bomber missions. And now you're saying the contrary, basically now agreeing to what I said.

 

Unbalanced and "balancing" has a different meaning:

One side gets to have their toys with all the bells and whistles, while the other side has crapplanes. It's kind of what BoN will be, when complying with historical performance-capabilities (and much more when accounting for numerical ratios!).

 

"Unbalancing" in your sense happens quite a lot over one evening on a server. Usually because people want to play their favourite toys, instead of expanding their horizon and contemplating about trying out the opposing equipment (that would cut some whining short...).

 

19 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

won't go into how it's me who's missing the point. We still want to have a civilized/productive discussion here...

 

You're constantly arguing there needs to be a quickly gratifying component to a DF server, which is not the case.

The old IL2 COOP-system showed that you can have megatons of fun, not looking for instant gratification and flying 1-1.5hr missions with the fun just starting after half the time in.

VOW and VOW2 were the golden days.

 

18 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

What's missing/limiting in Great Battles COOP compared to 46? (Honest question)

 

The most crippling aspect is the apparent lack of Hyperlobby-support.

[esk_pedja]

1 hour ago, Raven109 said:

I'm comparing to real life, where the best pilot is worse than the best virtual pilot, just because the latter one gets much more training time in less stressful conditions, and of course, the virtual pilot never dies.

 

That is absolutely true, especially from spring 44 till the end...

 

On allied side, very few fighter pilots have the opportunity to participate in some wild dogfights, where thy could improve they fighter skills - simply due to vast numerical superiority on allied side. If you occasionally participate -  in 12 Mustangs chasing 3 - 4 FW-190 (that are mostly focused to desperate attempt - to inflict some damage to the endless formations of B-17 monsters) it is certainly not the situation - to survive your first 5 dogfights and become skilled fighter pilot, like in 1941/1942... 

 

On the Luftwaffe side, they had a serious problem to defend themselves from formations of allied fighters, let alone to defend the "Reich"... Due to permanent loss of experienced fighter pilots during intense WW2 engagement, most of Luftwaffe pilots were kids that two weeks ago learned how to take off and land... 

 

And to be honest, many USAF fighter "aces" scored their kills due to described favorable  situation... rather than their "amazing" flying skills...

 

For that reason, I find more challenging to fly "blue" side in SP missions (Often QM) with numerical inferiority...

 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by esk_pedja

[Raven109]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

You're constantly arguing there needs to be a quickly gratifying component to a DF server, which is not the case.

The old IL2 COOP-system showed that you can have megatons of fun, not looking for instant gratification and flying 1-1.5hr missions with the fun just starting after half the time in.

VOW and VOW2 were the golden days.

 

 

I'm not arguing that there needs to be a quickly gratifying component. That already exists, I don't have to argue for it. It exists because there is a demand for it. Demand is what sells products. And apparently this demand is much higher than the demand for realistic airplane operations. There are more dogfight/quick contact servers than realism servers, and the demand is for simplified take off procedures, simplified navigation procedures, HUDs etc. I'm just saying that this is the reason why you're getting much higher attrition rates than IRL... not agreeing with it...

 

I was also talking strictly about PvP not COOP. For COOPS, the balance of the plane set is irrelevant. If the humans are flying a superior aircraft to the one flown by the AI it won't matter, because AI simply doesn't care, won't get upset, and won't leave the server.

 

The balance you are talking about (i.e everyone flying what they want) is up to the server admins to sort. Also, if you want to do COOP/off-line missions, where you just fly in a P-51 along a formation of bombers, without opposition, that is still on the table, you don't need a strict/unbalanced plane set delivered by the next Il2 installment, just because it's called Battle of Normandy. Although it is realistic, it's not good (IMHO) for sales.

 

Also, people want to get quickly into combat, because it is, after all, a combat simulator. If it were anything else, you'd probably have fully modeled cockpits by now, perhaps even clickable.

 

You define instant gratification as someone who wants to get quickly into a fight, but then again you say that you like flying 1-1.5 hrs to the target. You like flying to the target, isn't that instant gratification? How about before flying to the target I force you to do something you don't like, like polishing your boots or peeling some potatoes, and call you an instant gratification seeker because all you want to do is fly to the target.

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Raven109

[Bremspropeller]

COOP is PvP.

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, Raven109 said:

No, I don't talk like it's suddenly become unfair. I wasn't here last year, let alone 8 years ago. Just because it was bad before, it doesn't have to be from now on..

Yes the luftwaffe pilots wanted historical preferences all these years. And I see no reasons to stop now when it bites their asses

[Bremspropeller]

39 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

You define instant gratification as someone who wants to get quickly into a fight, but then again you say that you like flying 1-1.5 hrs to the target. You like flying to the target, isn't that instant gratification? How about before flying to the target I force you to do something you don't like, like polishing your boots or peeling some potatoes, and call you an instant gratification seeker because all you want to do is fly to the target.

 

 

 BS

[Raven109]

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

COOP is PvP.

 

Then we are clearly defining 

 

COOP: Cooperative gameplay (often abbreviated as co-op) is a feature in games that allows players to work together as teammates, usually against one or more non-player character opponents.

 

and

 

PvP: Player(s) versus player(s), better known as PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants.

 

differently.

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, esk_pedja said:

 

On the Luftwaffe side, they had a serious problem to defend themselves from formations of allied fighters, let alone to defend the "Reich"... Due to permanent loss of experienced fighter pilots during intense WW2 engagement, most of Luftwaffe pilots were kids that two weeks ago learned how to take off and land... 

 

And to be honest, many USAF fighter "aces" scored their kills due to described favorable  situation... rather than their "amazing" flying skills...

 

B.S. The old argument that P-51s were flying wing tip to wing tip all over Europe is a fallacy created by those trying to justify getting their asses handed to them. It does brave men a disservice perpetuating that myth. All those super men of the Luftwaffe did exactly what you describe. Racking up incredible scores often against inferior A/C as often as not, flown by inexperienced pilots. A lot of those same pilots have said that when they came back to defend Germany from the Western Allies in 1943 and later, they soon found themselves on the defensive still flying with bad habits learned over Russia. I'd suggest you read some of the USAAF P-47 unit histories from 1943/44 to see how tough the air war was. Add to the fact the Allied pilot were hundreds of miles from home over enemy territory and cold channel waters on most of their flights. When the Mustang came with its even long range, it only made the USAAF pilot's day longer and tougher. To imply that the Allied pilots just put in their time and went home is a load of crap.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Rjel

[41Sqn_Skipper]

7 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

Then we are clearly defining 

 

COOP: Cooperative gameplay (often abbreviated as co-op) is a feature in games that allows players to work together as teammates, usually against one or more non-player character opponents.

 

and

 

PvP: Player(s) versus player(s), better known as PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants.

 

differently.

 

COOP in "IL2" means it's like a a single player mission but human player take control of some of the aircraft of the mission. Humans can be on both sides, so it can be PVP.

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, Rjel said:

A lot of those same pilots have said that when they came back to defend Germany from the Western Allies in 1943 and later, they soon found themselves on the defensive still flying with bad habits learned over Russia.

 

Yes. 209 victory ace Hans Phillip learned it the hard way at 8th Oktober 1943, as did 155 victory ace Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke on 23rd March 1944. Business in the west was a totally different affair compared to the eastern experience.

[Raven109]

Just now, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

COOP in "IL2" means it's like a a single player mission but human player take control of some of the aircraft of the mission. Humans can be on both sides, so it can be PVP.

 

COOP and PvP are mutually exclusive. If you are taking control of an opposing aircraft the COOP has just become PvP. It probably was COOP before you did that, it's not once you did that. 

 

Anyway, not trying to get into semantics, my posts above were about the situation where two people engage in combat against each other, we can call it what ever we want as long as everybody agrees on the definitions.

[esk_pedja]

10 minutes ago, Rjel said:

B.S. The old argument that P-51s were flying wing tip to wing tip all over Europe is a fallacy created by those trying to justify getting their asses handed to them. It does brave men a disservice perpetuating that myth. All those super men of the Luftwaffe did exactly what you describe. Racking up incredible scores often against inferior A/C as often as not, flown by inexperienced pilots. A lot of those same pilots have said that when they came back to defend Germany from the Western Allies in 1943 and later, they soon found themselves on the defensive still flying with bad habits learned over Russia. I'd suggest you read some of the USAAF P-47 unit histories from 1943/44 to see how tough the air war was. Add to the fact the Allied pilot were hundreds of miles from home over enemy territory and cold channel waters on most of their flights. When the Mustang came with its even long range, it only made the USAAF pilot's day longer and tougher. To imply that the Allied pilots just put in their time and went home is a load of crap.

 

I was talking about summer 1944 onwards... not 1943/1944. 

From February 1944 the neck of Luftwaffe was broken... Just see what resistance Luftwaffe could pose above D-Day activities.

Regarding the Mustang and Jug formations, it is well known that in a period I mentioned originally - they often returned with a full ammo load, as they met no resistance, so they end up in strifes of airfields, trains, lighthouses,...etc. on the flight back.

How many Luftwaffe fighters could afford to fly hundreds of miles deep behind allied lines ? Do you estimate that they would turn back alive ? They would certainly have far bigger problems than "cold channel waters"...

 

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

let me guess, you (@ Raven) didnt flew "COOP" onlinewars with IL2'46 in the Hyperlobby ?

Because, IF, there would be not this discussion.

 

In VOW it was in General 8 Players versus 8 Players - sometimes 10 or 12  for one side , depended on the missions. With a lot of AI planes ( numbers increased over the years as the PC could handle more AI planes).

There were AI bomberescort/intercepts, human Bombers with human escorts and itercepts, ground- , shipattack missions with escorts and intercepts - and some Special Mission.

And yes, espacially in the PTO, we build sometimes missions that lastet around one hour from starting to landing (if you were still alive...)

Edited June 13, 2020 by III/JG53Frankyboy