Changes and tweaks to career mode

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

Hey LukeFF.

Ran a Moscow Career mission yesterday. The mission was a New Bridge Cover Mission for the Mig-3. On return to base and the initialization of my flights AI landing protocal the airfield was then attacked. The flight continued the attempt to land and offered no resistance as the attackers began to shoot them down.

 

Having recently created a logic stream to circumvent the AI landing protocal available here and in the Mission Builders Groups Sharing Topic:

 

 

I installed this logic group to my flight in the Moscow Career mission. The AI in my flight now halt landing protocal, engage the 110's then resume landing once the enemy is destroyed or departs.

 

One Drive link download for zip file which includes the original Career Mission and Track. Along with the adjusted Mission and it's Track called 02_Mig Alley. 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Am83M5MI8WLyjEkWo-ZDydh4KZze?e=hEqXnP

 

This logic, if applicable within auto-generation, should be included as a part of the players flight within the Career system. The logic itself for the 02_Mig Alley mission is in it's own Group above the Borki airbase in Sector 1106 kp9.

Tip

 

Nice - if you've not done so already, you might want to reach out to VikS about this - he's the one in charge of creating the templates for career mode.

[csThor]

Running a german fighter campaign in BoM and ... I think the Bf 109 F-4s need to be removed. There are way too many of them and they offer the R1 gondolas (which, IIRC didn't appear before spring/early summer 1942). Just saying ...

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, csThor said:

Running a german fighter campaign in BoM and ... I think the Bf 109 F-4s need to be removed. There are way too many of them and they offer the R1 gondolas (which, IIRC didn't appear before spring/early summer 1942). Just saying ...

 

Is it a case where the version of the F-4 we have is too early for Moscow and is more appropriate for Stalingrad? I need to confirm such a thing is ok with @BlackSix before making such a change - he has the last say on when and where planes appear in career mode.

 

If the F-4 does remain on the Moscow map, I can easily block the gunpods from showing up.

[csThor]

That would be a compromise, but l'd still say leaving BoM to the F-2 only would make it more unique (since the F-4 has its place in BoS). But that is just my personal preferance.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, csThor said:

That would be a compromise, but l'd still say leaving BoM to the F-2 only would make it more unique (since the F-4 has its place in BoS). But that is just my personal preferance.

 

Ok, thanks. I'll have a look at what can be done.

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, csThor said:

That would be a compromise, but l'd still say leaving BoM to the F-2 only would make it more unique (since the F-4 has its place in BoS). But that is just my personal preferance.

 

Doesn´t really make sense, because F-4 was flown from June 41 onwards on the eastern front. See Prien+Rodeike pages 23 ff. 20mm gondolas however might be another story.

 

 

R1 gondolas appear to be 1942 stuff. See page 29 of Prien+Rodeike

 

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by sevenless

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

Doesn´t really make sense, because F-4 was flown from June 41 onwards on the eastern front. See Prien+Rodeike pages 23 ff. 20mm gondolas however might be another story.

 

Thanks - I've modified the files so that the gun pods don't show up until the beginning of the Stalingrad campaign.

 

As for the appearance of the F-4, I think the hangup is that the DB 601 E wasn't cleared for full power until sometime around February 1942.

[sevenless]

18 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

As for the appearance of the F-4, I think the hangup is that the DB 601 E wasn't cleared for full power until sometime around February 1942.

 

Could well be. Maybe someone on this board has some further details on this. From Prien+Rodeike I can´t read a later intro date of the DB 601 E engine. He only mentiones that beginning with the 10000 and higher lots the machines received a larger supercharger air intake somewhen end of 1941.

 

As for the R1 mod. Prien and Rodeike give the 12/41 date as the first mentioned production by WNF:

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by sevenless

[csThor]

I've taken a quick look at F-4 deployments to the Eastern Front in 1941 and so far only Stab and III./JG 52 and III./JG 77 showed up as equipped with that type. It seems as if the other fronts (France and North Africa) had priority for the F-4 ... Add to this that the DB 601 N of the F-2 required C3 fuel and the DB 601E of the F-4 ran on B4 you also get a logistical incentive to refrain from muxing both types.

 

@sevenless

 

Your list includes all units that would eventually get the F-4, including unuts that only switched over in 1942 (like for example I./JG 77). Just saying. ?

[sevenless]

42 minutes ago, csThor said:

 

@sevenless

 

Your list includes all units that would eventually get the F-4, including unuts that only switched over in 1942 (like for example I./JG 77). Just saying. ?

 

Hi, I can´t exclude that. It is Prien+Rodeike who produced that list. Since that book is from 1993 there might be newer sources out there going deeper into detail that I´m not aware of.

 

However, we have at least two "firm" machines within the Prien book. One machine, first loss of a F4 in the east, WNr. 7020, a 8/JG52 machine lost 07/41 and the second the Cdr machine of JG52 WNr. 7079 also 07/41. Unfortunately we don´t have the Bewegungsmeldungen of 1941 on Michael Holms site (Jagdgeschwader 52 (ww2.dk), so there is still plenty of "grey area" open to guesswork.

 

I think there is a very high likelihood that JG3, JG51, JG54 and JG77 got their losses which they had in the 07/41-10/41 timeframe replaced with F4 machines, because F2 went out of production in 08/41 while F4 production ran from 5/41-5/42.

Edited July 27, 2021 by sevenless

[LukeFF]

Besides the changes mentioned in latest changelog, some other updates were made to the award system:

 

USAAF: reinstated the Bronze Star Medal (I found some examples where it was awarded to frontline pilots).

 

RAF: the DFM and DFC can now be awarded for destroying a large number of ground targets or for reaching a multiple of 200 flight hours (the tour of duty for a RAF fighter pilot in the West in 1944-45 was 200 hours; at the end of such a tour, it was not unusual for a pilot to be awarded such a medal). 

 

USSR: most medals can likewise be earned now for destroying a large number of ground targets. Also, the Medal for Battle Merit is now the first medal one earns, followed by the Medal for Courage.

 

Luftwaffe: most medals can likewise be earned now for destroying a large number of ground targets. Bombers now count twice as much as fighters and transports on the Rhineland (and eventually, Normandy) map. 

[LukeFF]

Some more changes that came with today's hotfix:

• The early Bf 109 G-6 now leaves the Rhineland map at the end of Chapter 1 of the campaign.
• There are now more ground attack missions for Luftwaffe day fighter units in March 1945 - vehicle and armor column attack missions, and troop concentration dive-bombing missions.
• From March 7-14, 1945, III./JG 2 can now be assigned to bridge dive-bombing missions in their Fw 190 D-9s armed with SC 500s. This is to reflect the fact that this unit was committed to trying to destroy the bridge at Remagen, which had recently been captured by American forces. Just note that I cannot tell the game to target the bridge at Remagen specifically, but in any case you should now be seeing bridge bombing missions during those days.

Edited August 19, 2021 by LukeFF

[sevenless]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Some more changes that came with today's hotfix:

• The early Bf 109 G-6 now leaves the Rhineland map at the end of Chapter 1 of the campaign.
• There are now more ground attack missions for Luftwaffe day fighter units in March 1945 - vehicle and armor column attack missions, and troop concentration dive-bombing missions.
• From March 7-14, 1945, III./JG 2 can now be assigned to bridge dive-bombing missions in their Fw 190 D-9s armed with SC 500s. This is to reflect the fact that this unit was committed to trying to destroy the bridge at Remagen, which had recently been captured by American forces. Just note that I cannot tell the game to target the bridge at Remagen specifically, but in any case you should now be seeing bridge bombing missions during those days.

 

Good work with improving the career missions. Variety is highly appreciated. Keep it up!

[csThor]

@ Luke

 

My Moscow career ended yesterday - rather abruptly - via a direct hit of a soviet medium AA gun. It was during the third bomber escort that was conducted at just 2,000m of altitude. This I find strange since the Luftwaffe considered altitudes up to 4,500m to be in range of "medium AA" and anything below 2,500m to be in "light AA" territory. As such a bomber altitude of just 2,000m seems awfully low, and unnecessarily so. It's not like they need to go in at 6k (the AA is not that thick) but going in this low just puts the bombers at an unneccesarily high risk. I'll need to look through BC/RS to check whether I can find some intel about altitudes for bomber sorties, but I think 4k should be the standard if not the absolute minimum for area target attacks.

 

PS: Yes, I know the Luftwaffe sometimes employed their medium bombers in low-level attacks but those were due to circumstances and always caused considerable losses. And those ops were not against area or infrastructure targets, they were in fact CAS sorties with bombers pressed into that role.

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, csThor said:

@ Luke

 

My Moscow career ended yesterday - rather abruptly - via a direct hit of a soviet medium AA gun. It was during the third bomber escort that was conducted at just 2,000m of altitude. This I find strange since the Luftwaffe considered altitudes up to 4,500m to be in range of "medium AA" and anything below 2,500m to be in "light AA" territory. As such a bomber altitude of just 2,000m seems awfully low, and unnecessarily so. It's not like they need to go in at 6k (the AA is not that thick) but going in this low just puts the bombers at an unneccesarily high risk. I'll need to look through BC/RS to check whether I can find some intel about altitudes for bomber sorties, but I think 4k should be the standard if not the absolute minimum for area target attacks.

 

PS: Yes, I know the Luftwaffe sometimes employed their medium bombers in low-level attacks but those were due to circumstances and always caused considerable losses. And those ops were not against area or infrastructure targets, they were in fact CAS sorties with bombers pressed into that role.

 

Yes, it's something I've brought up in the beta testing forum as well, so hopefully it is something that can be changed sooner rather than later.

[Eisenfaustus]

Varying altitudes would be a very welcome change. I think to have read that the most common attack altitude for Kampfgeschwader was around 4000m. The bombardier needs some distance to accurately orient and line up the bomb run. The dive bomber needs some time to aim. 
 

And I think it the blond knight of Germany were Hartmanns claims are listed with altitude - many seem to have Ben between 3000-5000m - which would fit well. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Eisenfaustus

[Juri_JS]

On 8/22/2021 at 8:48 AM, csThor said:

@ Luke

 

My Moscow career ended yesterday - rather abruptly - via a direct hit of a soviet medium AA gun. It was during the third bomber escort that was conducted at just 2,000m of altitude. This I find strange since the Luftwaffe considered altitudes up to 4,500m to be in range of "medium AA" and anything below 2,500m to be in "light AA" territory. As such a bomber altitude of just 2,000m seems awfully low, and unnecessarily so. It's not like they need to go in at 6k (the AA is not that thick) but going in this low just puts the bombers at an unneccesarily high risk. I'll need to look through BC/RS to check whether I can find some intel about altitudes for bomber sorties, but I think 4k should be the standard if not the absolute minimum for area target attacks.

 

PS: Yes, I know the Luftwaffe sometimes employed their medium bombers in low-level attacks but those were due to circumstances and always caused considerable losses. And those ops were not against area or infrastructure targets, they were in fact CAS sorties with bombers pressed into that role.

This could be interesting for you. Combat reports of III./KG 55 from 1941 and 1942:

http://www.yogysoft.de/pawel/3554_00.html

http://www.yogysoft.de/pawel/3557_00.html

 

Apparently attack altitudes of 2000 m weren't uncommon when troop movements/concentrations were attacked.

In 1941 altitudes when attacking strongly defended targets were surprisingly low, for example just 3000-4000 m during attacks on Moscow. Altitudes increased in 1942 and Black Sea ports were bombed from over 5000 m and Stalingrad from 5000-6500 m. Altitudes when attacking troops varied a lot in 1942 and could be anything between 1000 m and 4000 m.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Juri_JS

[LukeFF]

Hopefully a more robust system that takes into account weather, target type, and theater of war can be added in the future, instead of the more or less fixed, restrictive system we have now. For instance, I recently studied the bombing reports of RAF Mitchell and Havoc squadrons in 1944-45, and they practically always bombed above 10000 feet.

 

For instance, 98 Squadron's record from October 1944 - April 1, 1945:

• 1 target was bombed from less than 10,000 feet (a rail bridge on 26 November 1944).
• 4 targets were bombed from 10000 to 10500 feet.
• 15 targets were bombed from 11000 to 11500 feet.
• 19 targets were bombed from 12000 to 12500 feet.
• 10 targets were bombed from 13000 to 13800 feet.
• 22 targets were bombed from 14000 to 14500 feet.
• 5 targets were bombed from 15000 to 15400 feet.

So, for these 76 missions, the mean bombing height was about 12692 feet. The median value is 12450 feet, and the mode is 14000 feet.

[Dutchvdm]

Hi Luke,

 

During my yak-1 career at Stalingrad, my current missions are cover, intercepts and escort. Is my assumption correct that the soviets do not have thr free hunt option?

 

thnx

 

Grt M

[LukeFF]

8 minutes ago, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

Dring my yak-1 career at Stalingrad, my current missions are cover, intercepts and escort. Is my assumption correct that the soviets do not have the free hunt option?

 

Yes, that's right - it isn't until 1943 that you start to see Free Hunt missions for the Soviets, as I recall. 

[MarcoPegase44]

It is historical, in the doctrine of employment of Germans fighters, free hunting is very frequent.

On the other hand, the Soviets had a very rigid employment doctrine until 1943 and did not practice free hunting before 1943.

[Q_Walker]

Hello LukeFF, was there any changes to P-51 squadrons in the Rheinland Career as far as their mission loadouts? I am flying in the 328th FS, and every mission that is assigned has all 51s equipped with bomb racks, minus the bombs themselves. Do correct me if this is to reflect their historical loadouts in which they always had bomb racks on their planes even during free hunts and bomber escort duties. 

 

Here is a picture of what I am seeing:

[LukeFF]

10 hours ago, Q_Walker said:

Hello LukeFF, was there any changes to P-51 squadrons in the Rheinland Career as far as their mission loadouts? I am flying in the 328th FS, and every mission that is assigned has all 51s equipped with bomb racks, minus the bombs themselves. Do correct me if this is to reflect their historical loadouts in which they always had bomb racks on their planes even during free hunts and bomber escort duties. 

 

Yes, I didn't realize the P-51 had that option until recently, when I was going through each of its loadouts to update something else. But yes, it's supposed to be like that now and matches the P-47 - those racks were always there, because they were being used for either drop tanks (the 352nd FG was still flying long-range missions after moving to the Continent in late 1944) or for fighter-bomber missions in the spring of 1945.

 

So yes, the racks were permanently kept in place, since it was not worth the time and effort to remove them for the odd mission where they were not needed. 

[=RS=rulezcz]

While talking about he flight heights of the bombers...I think it would actually be nice if all the planes spawned in more variable heights. It seems to me that right now everyone is flying at roughly the same height. But I can' t see a reason why for example free hunt mission could' t be flown in 5000 m ...just to be able to use zoom and boom tactics and then run.

[Yogiflight]

Since update 4.603, in BOS and BOK most Stuka careers have as mission altitude 1500m, which is by far too low.

A second thing I noticed is, whenever I get an airfield attack with any ground attack aircraft or the Stuka, it is always an airfield we attack, which is no base for any enemy unit. It would make more sense to attack the air bases of the enemy.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Since update 4.603, in BOS and BOK most Stuka careers have as mission altitude 1500m, which is by far too low.

A second thing I noticed is, whenever I get an airfield attack with any ground attack aircraft or the Stuka, it is always an airfield we attack, which is no base for any enemy unit. It would make more sense to attack the air bases of the enemy.

 

Yes, it's an AI issue of some sort that limits dive-bombing to 1500 meters right now (hopefully that is changed sooner rather than later, since the Ar 234 bombed in a dive from far higher an altitude than that).

 

My guess is that the second part has to do with what sort of objects are defined as targets in the master mission templates.

[Yogiflight]

4 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, it's an AI issue of some sort that limits dive-bombing to 1500 meters right now

But it is not always. You can be lucky and get a Stuka career in which you have the old altitudes of 2500 and 3000m. And it worked the way it should. Only issue here was the cruising speed of 330 km/h is too fast for flying with the sirene. With bomb in 2800m altitude you need almost maximum combat power to hold the speed, especially as we were not flying high enough to get the second charger gear working.

 

11 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

My guess is that the second part has to do with what sort of objects are defined as targets in the master mission templates.

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for your answer.

[sevenless]

On 11/1/2021 at 11:44 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, it's an AI issue of some sort that limits dive-bombing to 1500 meters right now (hopefully that is changed sooner rather than later, since the Ar 234 bombed in a dive from far higher an altitude than that).

 

Not only the Ar 234s. The Me 262s of KG 51 also usually glide-bombed their targets in a similar way. Only way to change that at the moment is to fly as a squad leader in career and manually change the altitudes of your flight. I guess it is a lot of work to change all the templates, but as you said, the sooner the better.

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by sevenless

[Yogiflight]

@LukeFFHi, I am currently flying in a Hs 129 career. In 'Attack River Crossing' missions we also carry 6x SC50 bombs, but according to the briefing the main target is to destroy the river crossing, which absolutely makes sense. But for that purpose the SC 250 would make much more sense as a loadout option.

 Second point, when playing the game in German language, there is no translation for this mission in the 'Planning Room', it is called 'Attack River Crossing'. In the briefing in the mission it is translated with 'Angriff auf feindliche Flussüberquerung'. You wouldn't say this in German. Better translation would be 'Angriff auf Flussübergang'.

Third point 'Attack Railway Junction' seems a bit much to me. What we attack in game are small stations, sometimes even in the middle of nowhere. I think 'Attack Unloading Station' (German translation: Angriff auf Entladebahnhof) would hit it more, as you attack a train, which is being unloaded, as one can see by the tanks and trucks next to it.

[sevenless]

3 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

 

Third point 'Attack Railway Junction' seems a bit much to me. What we attack in game are small stations, sometimes even in the middle of nowhere. I think 'Attack Unloading Station' (German translation: Angriff auf Entladebahnhof) would hit it more, as you attack a train, which is being unloaded, as one can see by the tanks and trucks next to it.

 

Good points. May I add as an alternative: Attack on freight yard or freight depot (Angriff auf Güterbahnhof) would also fit the bill.

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

Attack on freight yard or freight depot (Angriff auf Güterbahnhof) would also fit the bill.

But for the small stations on the three Russian maps this is too big. For the Rhineland map and the coming Normandy map though, it would fit much better.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

@LukeFFHi, I am currently flying in a Hs 129 career. In 'Attack River Crossing' missions we also carry 6x SC50 bombs, but according to the briefing the main target is to destroy the river crossing, which absolutely makes sense. But for that purpose the SC 250 would make much more sense as a loadout option.

 

Ok, I'll make that change.

 

As for mission names, I can't do anything about that, but I can suggest changes to the devs. 

[Yogiflight]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

As for mission names, I can't do anything about that, but I can suggest changes to the devs. 

I had a feeling it might not be in your hands, but I wasn't sure whom I should ask for that.

Another thing, which always bothers me, when flying the duck in career mode is, when the mirrors were introduced. I know, I could use it for my aircraft, but I find it a bit odd to fly with the mirror, while my squadmates don't have them and I don't know when it would be historical correct. And the view to your rear section is... well... let's say... suboptimal.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Another thing, which always bothers me, when flying the duck in career mode is, when the mirrors were introduced. I know, I could use it for my aircraft, but I find it a bit odd to fly with the mirror, while my squadmates don't have them and I don't know when it would be historical correct. And the view to your rear section is... well... let's say... suboptimal.

 

Yes, it's difficult to track down when and how often mirrors were fitted to Hs 129s. I've looked at a lot of photos of the plane, and strangely enough it doesn't seem like many planes were fitted with that mirror. So, that's why I've left it not enabled by default. 

[LukeFF]

19 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

But for the small stations on the three Russian maps this is too big. For the Rhineland map and the coming Normandy map though, it would fit much better.

 

Yes, this one is a bit of a compromise. For instance, in RAF squadron reports, they are variably referred to as Railway Junctions, Railway Stations, Railyards, and Marshalling Yards, etc. Then you also have the Rail Interdiction missions, where the objective was to cut the tracks in a particular area.  I think that for now, we just will have to stick with the current name.

[Bill_Bates]

On 2/3/2021 at 1:41 AM, Bill_Bates said:

Some things off the top of my head that would keep me interested longer and relieve some frustration would be:

 

First and most important for me as a SP career only player would be the addition of a chance to escape or make it back to base after an extended amount of time after bailing out or crash landing in enemy territory. A lot of my careers have been ended due to being a prisoner of war and some of those have been a subtle crash landing near the front line next to ally ground troops. 

 

Second would be a bit more details when it comes to your squadron, specifically logbooks for pilots. stats, awards, and events tracked. 

 

Third would be the option to change mission diversity. Whether you want it historical based on your squadron, random, more/less air to air/ground missions. I guess mainly just more customization options for the career mode. 

 

Forth would being able to add a new pilot to an existing campaign so if the current pilot dies or is captured you can continue at or around the same time. 

 

 

Most if not all of these might be out of your control @LukeFF but I was curious if anything has been done regarding the Prisoner of War mechanic in SP career?

 

Thanks for keeping Career mode great!

[LukeFF]

1 minute ago, Bill_Bates said:

Most if not all of these might be out of your control @LukeFF but I was curious if anything has been done regarding the Prisoner of War mechanic in SP career?

 

Thanks for keeping Career mode great!

 

Thanks!

 

No, I'm not aware of any recent changes to the PoW side of things. 

[csThor]

Just curious: Am I the only one who noticed that the generator does sometimes have issues with the new clouds? I had a fighter sweep where it wanted me to fly at an altitude right in the middle of a very solid 2.5k cloudlayer. ?

But that happens only once in a while since the next two missions put me above/below said cloudlayer just fine.

 

EDIT: And again. Fighter Sweep, cloudbase at 1.6k with clouds reaching up to almost 3k the generator puts our flight alt at 2k. That's simply nonsensical.

Edited December 11, 2021 by csThor

[csThor]

Hmmm ... Target selection seems at times ... wonky. Targeting Veghel railway station on Sept 23 and on Sept 25 again while flying with I./KG 51 and its Me 262 only seens "potentially alright" until you look at the frontline and realize the Allies don't have control of even one railway line that can actually reach Veghel. 

 

On this note as a personal question: How much did - and for that matter: could - the Allies rely on the french railway system to begin with? Organizing something like the "Red Ball Express" doesn't come from nowhere, it was obviously a necessity given how much and how systematically the french railway network had been pounded prior to D-Day. But how successful were the Allies in repairing that damage? How much could they rely on railways (which at that time were far superior in transport capacity to trucks)? Because if they didn't (or didn't much) then attacking railway targets doesn't make that much sense for the Luftwaffe compared to i.e river crossings, bridges and supply dumps.

[Yogiflight]

The target selection for ground attacks is a big issue in career mode. Ground attacks by Schlachtflieger, but also Stuka (of course not so much in Bodenplatte times), and partially also bombers, were one of the ways to produce strong points at the front line, apart from massing ground forces. So there should be a big focus on attacking enemy troops at the front line in the sector, you have the attack arrows on the map. But in game these sectors rarely get attacked at all. And of course there have to be ground fighting going on. And I only can repeat it there are tank attacks missing in the career mode.