Discussion of GAZ-MM 72-K and Sd.Kfz. 10/5 Flak 38 Vehicle Mounted AAA Pre-Orders

[simfan2015]

Anything added to BoX is a bonus and this is more than I, personally, expected about the introduction of new (collector-item) vehicles.

I feared TC (and similar 'vehicle'-game modes) was over and done with, but not so.

It is hard (for me) to be 'dissapointed' in any way when I get something new ?!

Nobody is forcing me to buy (but did it anyway) any of of the collector items ... so I see no problem at all.

Maybe with the upcoming "Air Marchal" it gets even more interesting/order/place(?) and/or to use these vehicles.

 

 

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 minutes ago, dprumph33 said:

Instead of trying to defend your bad attitude, how about just answering with a timeframe that these were active.

 

Lets just toss a few hundred throughout Arras to deal with the Fokker scourge.  Seems fair.

 

it's SP career vs. MP servers with custom maps. You guys are talking about 2 different things.

[JG1_Vonrd]

1 minute ago, Trooper117 said:

FC however seems to be totally left out in the void. 

This! Quite a few of the old guard WW1 players are returning to Rise of Flight in frustration, the current FC damage model of losing use of control surfaces with just minor damage being one of the chief reasons. Most frustrating.

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, dprumph33 said:

 

Lets just toss a few hundred throughout Arras to deal with the Fokker scourge.  Seems fair.

 

If you’d like - that’s not how I’d use them.

[CountZero]

3 minutes ago, Didney_World said:

 

I think you're possibly mixing up your desires and expectations vs. what's actually happening in these full real servers.

 

Also, what do you mean by 'don't have free tanks' due to a bug?  Are you saying that 2 tanks that are included in BoS aren't playable?  I've never tried to actually play in them, but they are definitely available to me if I select the tank spawn in MP..

 

They are playable for me, and i play with them on other servers that have them , just that server dont use them because of players say there is bug with them (ven thought i could not reproduce that bug and dont see problems with them).

[Jade_Monkey]

Excited to see these come true. This development opens up a whole new side of the game and hopefully in the future the 88 and other AAA can be manned as well.

 

I don't see the need to poo poo it, if you don't like it or think it's too expensive then don't get it. 

[Beazil]

1 hour ago, ACG_Vietkong said:

Sit there and think about the gameplay for a minute. A lot of driving around. stopping at waiting for that chance to shoot up an aircraft, which by the way is very dificult to achieve if they model the balistics realistically. In theory its sounds nice, in practice not so much. Very Boring and frustrating in a MP scenario. A purchase you will make, try out a few times and never use it again.

 

On top of it they are charging a ludicrous price on it, same as collector aircraft. It´s a lazy attempt to get some more margins on their products and with less man hours to achieve it. The cost and man hours of this vehicle can´t possibly equate a collector aircraft?

 

Or have we been fooled and the amount work they put in aircraft isn´t as much as they make out to be?...

 

 

In a different product at another time, I've seen entire squadrons of players solely devoted to providing AA cover for planes over mission objectives.  One of whom in particular showed an extraordinary level of accuracy that was both respected and feared.

The developers are giving us the toys to play with.  It's up to us to find ways to use them.

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Excited to see these come true. This development opens up a whole new side of the game and hopefully in the future the 88 and other AAA can be manned as well.

 

I don't see the need to poo poo it, if you don't like it or think it's too expensive then don't get it. 

 

Exacly.

A welcome addition and something I’ve been hoping for, for a long time.

 

I’d love to see some playable fixed AA as well.

[forktailedflyer7]

6 minutes ago, Didney_World said:

 

it's SP career vs. MP servers with custom maps. You guys are talking about 2 different things.

 

Are both not set up due to timeframe?  SP career is available only to planes that were available in that theater (or at least timeframe).  Most all scripted campaigns strive to do the same.  TAW creates scenarios set at a current date and only planes that were in operation during the time period can be used.

 

Thus, my question:

 

Which timeframe are these thing active during? 

Edited September 23, 2020 by dprumph33

[616Sqn_Johnny-Red]

18 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

26 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Well I guess it will provide a very useful learning experience for the programmers, to develop the necessary aiming assists to make them even moderately useful.  

Aiming assist probably isn’t that difficult to program.  It’s already been available in RoF for years.

 

I've witnessed many player aircraft shot down by player tank gunners. I'm not anxious about accuracy. So long as there are good control ergonomics re: mouse controlled training and elevation, players will get good at this.

 

The other half of the battle to make these guns significant is in siting or re-siting them. Targets are usually very predictable, and the approaches to ground targets are often predicatable too. Search lights and MG's at the periphery of an AA defence zone can be used to direct players to inbound hostiles, as can other spotting units. Flak guns should use concealment to ambush low-flying raiders.

 

I'm also totally down with the idea of hopping into a AA gun for a short burst of action rather than sitting watching the sky unblinking. I expect this desire will be anticipated. I also hope our talented and dedicated dev team have the presence of mind to place at least one crew model on the tank who indicates or otherwise visually directs fire (if we are to play the gunner's role).

 

Aside from functioning as AA defences for both fixed and mobile units, I can think of some serious surface to surface mischeif you could put these little beasts to work on.

 

Mine are already ordered. I'm going all in because more content (when successful) leads to more content:

 

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@134347]

Just now, dprumph33 said:

 

Are both not set up due to timeframe?  SP career is available only to planes that were available.  Most all scripted campaigns strive to do the same.  TAW creates scenarios set at a current date and only planes that were in operation during the time period can be used.

 

Thus, my question:

 

Which timeframe are these thing active during? 

 

- TAW doesn't need player controlled AA because they use aimbot for their AA, which is much better than any human controlled AA. It's not in their interest to provide this functionality.

- SP career/scripted campaigns follow the appropriate timeframes.

- MP? Well, MP is for fun.  You want the historical grind fun? Get on SP dynamic campaign or TAW.  You want to have fun in general? Then join MP with various historical, ahistorical or fantasy setups. The driveable AA's are for that.

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

There are players who seem to enjoy "camping" waiting in ambush for an enemy tank to roll in, so not much different waiting for an aircraft. 

[kendo]

52 minutes ago, Blitzen said:

PAID FOR & ORDERED ! Now all I need are the C-47 targets to come along at the same time!

 

 

I like the scenario: Normandy map, night time, search lights, waves of paratrooper-laden C-47s flying over....and blazing away at them with your 20mm flak ?

 

Sounds positively evil!

 

[forktailedflyer7]

1 minute ago, Didney_World said:

 

- TAW doesn't need player controlled AA because they use aimbot for their AA, which is much better than any human controlled AA. It's not in their interest to provide this functionality.

 

Thats fair, but its also fair to say that the functionality wasn't there yet even if they wanted to.  

[Guest deleted@134347]

Just now, dprumph33 said:

 

Thats fair, but its also fair to say that the functionality wasn't there yet even if they wanted to.  

 

I honestly don't follow your line of arguments. If you want historical setups then someone somewhere can research the use of these driveable AA's and set them up for some scenarios.

 

Or they can just use them a-historically. The devs are giving us (well, selling us) another tool, it's up to us when and how to use it.

[forktailedflyer7]

2 minutes ago, Didney_World said:

 

I honestly don't follow your line of arguments. If you want historical setups then someone somewhere can research the use of these driveable AA's and set them up for some scenarios.

 

Or they can just use them a-historically. The devs are giving us (well, selling us) another tool, it's up to us when and how to use it.

 

Yeah I get that.  Im not disputing that.  All I want to know is during what timeframe were these active.  I want to know that regardless of what impact it has on gameplay.  I gave my gameplay reasons for asking.  No one seems to want to answer the actual question and instead just seems to  want to tell me that I shouldn't want to know because I can use them however I want.

Edited September 23, 2020 by dprumph33

[Tuesday]

7 minutes ago, dprumph33 said:

Which timeframe are these thing active during? 

 

A quick google:

 

Sd.Kfz. 10/5 flak 38 was in use from 1938-1945

 

Gaz-MM 1938-1950 but with the 72-K for AA purposes was from 1942 on (if I understood correctly).

 

If people respond to you with a non-answer to a question you didn't ask, I suggest you don't engage them here. 

[forktailedflyer7]

14 minutes ago, Tuesday said:

 

A quick google:

 

Sd.Kfz. 10/5 flak 38 was in use from 1938-1945

 

Gaz-MM 1938-1950 but with the 72-K for AA purposes was from 1942 on (if I understood correctly).

 

If people respond to you with a non-answer to a question you didn't ask, I suggest you don't engage them here. 

 

Thank you.  They stayed roughly the same throughout other than the gun change? The plane details are pretty well logged on what revision is being used. Not that it really matters a whole bunch for the trucks, but the smallest engine or frame changes show up in the sim not to mention the array of armaments.  Seems like these were good choices given that they were available throughout.  If the gun is really the only change, hopefully we get the option to use the original gun for Moscow/VL Summer.

Edited September 23, 2020 by dprumph33

[Avimimus]

Say - Is there any chance that we will be given the option of removing/unbolting the gun?

 

I would pay extra for the ability to just drive a supply column (it'd be great for campaign narratives too - if occasionally one had to relocate by driving across the map instead of flying!)

 

I figure it wouldn't take the devs much extra work to just remove the gun (and it would be pretty cheap to even give us a couple of cargo options too)... but I think there would be enough people interested in exploring the maps by road that it'd make back the additional dev cost.

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 minutes ago, dprumph33 said:

 

Yeah I get that.  Im not disputing that.  All I want to know is during what timeframe were these active.  I want to know that regardless of what impact it has on gameplay.  I gave my gameplay reasons for asking.  No one seems to want to answer the actual questions and instead just seems to be wanting to tell me that I shouldn't want to know.

 

the Internet and its vast informational archives are at your finger tips, my friend. Use it! It can bring pleasure and enjoyment to an otherwise mundane task of the yesteryears. ?

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, Avimimus said:

Say - Is there any chance that we will be given the option of removing/unbolting the gun?

 

So you can run around with it like Jesse Ventura or Rambo? I’m in.

[616Sqn_Johnny-Red]

4 minutes ago, Didney_World said:

- TAW doesn't need player controlled AA because they use aimbot for their AA, which is much better than any human controlled AA. It's not in their interest to provide this functionality.

 

The problem with AI is that however good the devs (or modders) make it, it will be predictable in its behavioural range and inflexible in its response to attempts to outwit it. Targetting priority and target fixation is an ongoing issues for AI. Having imaginative and motivated AA evaluating the tactical situation in real time will be a significant step towards realism.

 

Having a player lead a connected battery of AA would be sublime. I might be getting ahead of myself here... but you can always hope

[Thad]

31 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I find it interesting just how much more attractive these are to me than tanks... I'd also like a driveable staff-car if I'm honest... fun to explore the map.

 

Basically - we're getting a truck and a half-track - both of which have much better visibility than being buttoned-up in a tank. The GAZ also gives us the experience of driving wheeled vehicles in the sim...

 

P.S. I'm kindof hoping that some of this might rub-off on other vehicles - the new damage model is good - but last I checked the drivers of trucks are invulnerable to fire through the windshield ...and we could really do with a separate hit-box for the radiator!

 

 

 

I've driven tanks in Fighters Anthology and FS-WWI - and it was fun... not perfectly realistic landscapes, and the FA tanks actually floated slightly off the ground... but it was still fun... it is amazing how people's standards climb!

 

Did I say anything about having fun in my posts? The topic for me was map detail and how the lack of it prevents creation of HISTORICALY BASED missions or campaigns due to the lack of map detail in Rhienland flight map and I expect the Normandy map to be much the same. If one is a historically based armored mission creator or want to be.... expect to be disappointed.

[Gambit21]

There some awesome convoy or airfield defense scenarios possible here given the various cloud decks etc.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Not good PR. People had paid for TC and BoN, were hopeful for new content but were greeted with a new per-pay module that - to be honest - is of little interest to 90% of users.

 

I get paying for stuff, but I do not think that this was the best way to advertise.

[Guest deleted@134347]

24 minutes ago, 616Sqn_Johnny-Red said:

 

The problem with AI is that however good the devs (or modders) make it, it will be predictable in its behavioural range and inflexible in its response to attempts to outwit it. Targetting priority and target fixation is an ongoing issues for AI. Having imaginative and motivated AA evaluating the tactical situation in real time will be a significant step towards realism.

 

Having a player lead a connected battery of AA would be sublime. I might be getting ahead of myself here... but you can always hope

 

I completely agree with you if you're dealing with AA set on medium. But TAW AA? That's something else entirely    I personally experienced its wrath when I was at 3K altitude, diving on the objective in FW190 in a parabola curve path at almost 700kmh when a SINGLE flack took me out. ?  I mean.. .. i'm still speechless .. i can't come up with any arguments for that, man.. lol

 

edit: and by "SINGLE" flack I mean there were neither flack explosions prior nor after my ultimate demise. It was literally a "one shot=one kill" flack. That's some Gandalf "you shall not pass" stuff right there.. ? ? ?

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Didney_World

[Ribbon]

I'd rather they put resources into the medium bombers development as it would be true addition to the flight sim and something that is really missing from Great Battles!

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by =VARP=Ribbon

[=gRiJ=Alado]

hump day??????  its a plane? no , its a map? no,   its ........................ supercoco 

[JG4_Nutella]

I'm really hyped about the announcement and I'm looking forward to the new vehicles. But at the same time I feel like they are just not needed... If you take a look at the multiplayer servers you will see that there are not that much people that drive tanks. Also there are just a few servers providing tank spawns. Most of the people fly an aircraft... Also it is still a flight sim.

Personally I feel like Normandy is staying behind everything else right now. Is Normandy still a priority target for development or are other projects more important? I'm asking this because all of the people I know are hyped about the new planes that will be added and I'm too.?

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, JG4_Nutella said:

 

Personally I feel like Normandy is staying behind everything else right now. Is Normandy still a priority target for development or are other projects more important? I'm asking this because all of the people I know are hyped about the new planes that will be added and I'm too.?

How did you reach the conclusion that the development of trucks with guns bolted to them would affect the development of aircraft?

[616Sqn_Johnny-Red]

Just now, Didney_World said:

completely agree with you if you're dealing with AA set on medium. But TAW AA? That's something else entirely    I personally experienced its wrath when I was at 3K altitude, diving on the objective in FW190 in a parabola curve path at almost 700kmh when a SINGLE flack took me out. ?  I mean.. .. i'm still speechless .. i can't come up with any arguments for that, man.. lol

 

I must admit I don't know TAW - my experience is mostly on -DED- Normal and OMD, but I really do sympathise with anyone who is killed (or believes themself to be killed) by the first shot. Heavy flak should give plenty of notice, and with the flight time of the shell to 3k it should never be able to hit a manuoeuvering fighter. I suspect your enemy has perfected a death-ray.

 

Raymond Baxter (leading bombed-up Spitfire IXs/XVIs) describes how they routinely shrugged off heavy flak with by executing gentle climbing and descending curves. They treated this activity as a kind of dangerous sport, with the flak bursts close enough to confirm their evasion, but not close enough to be considered threatening.

 

Automatic flak at low level though, that's the fighter-killer (just as it should be)

[EAF19_Marsh]

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

How did you reach the conclusion that the development of trucks with guns bolted to them would affect the development of aircraft?

Opportunity cost?

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Opportunity cost?

You’re going to have to be a little more specific.

[BlitzPig_EL]

As someone that regularly maintains and drives Model A Fords for my customers, the GAZ AA will be an instant buy, as will the German vehicle.

The shot of the cab of the GAZ AA is spot on for a Model A or AA Ford.

 

So cool.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

You’re going to have to be a little more specific.

Even a module outsourced requires time and energy of the core team so that it properly works in the sim. That time and energy cannot by the same core team be devoted to concurrent work. So there is a cost, albeit unclear to what degree.

[Chief_Mouser]

Well I like the idea of having a player-controlled AA gun. Much more than I do the idea of driving a tank around in a flight sim. To me TC feels like a totally separate game, albeit a fairly interesting one at that. The two original driveable tanks were ok to muck about in, but driveable and player-controlled ack-ack seems much more integrated with the flying side of things and will probably get much more use. From me at least. Looking forward to giving it a go.

Cheers.

Edited September 23, 2020 by 216th_Cat

[[DBS]Browning]

This is a fantastic way to bridge TC and BoX Planes together. I'm excited about what this might add to the multiplayer environment.

Whilst the price point is a little too high for me, this will be on my radar when I'm richer or a sales comes.

I hope many other people buy it so I can shoot them from my attack aircraft.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Even a module outsourced requires time and energy of the core team so that it properly works in the sim. That time and energy cannot by the same core team be devoted to concurrent work. So there is a cost, albeit unclear to what degree.

But probably not aircraft, since that’s a very specialized area of development. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

But probably not aircraft, since that’s a very specialized area of development. 

In my response, I very specifically precluded aircraft development.

[Beazil]

44 minutes ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

I'd rather they put resources into the medium bombers development as it would be true addition to the flight sim and something that is really missing from Great Battles!

 

But it will be interesting being targeted from the ground by human AA.

I'll grab one of those once on sale!

 

Just want to point out that Jason stated this was the work of a third-party that was contracted to deliver this project.  The cost of each module is (for me) $9.99 CAD.

That's it.

Each addition to the overall project is just that; an addition.  The work of a third party fulfilling a contractual obligation has nothing to do with the work of others in different areas of Great Battles development.  Why are we talking about other areas of work and getting ourselves upset about it?  

Planes?  Great!  Tanks?  Cool!  Mobile AA vehicles?  Cool!  

If past is indicative of the future, we know this team will work on all areas of our sim in an ongoing fashion like they always have.  I have faith in this team and its vision.