Changes and tweaks to career mode

[Yogiflight]

Hi Luke,

I just saw you changed the bombload for river crossing attacks with the Hs 129. Thanks for that. One thing which should also be changed is, you often fly dozens of kilometers through enemy territory or attack targets forty and more kilometers behind the frontline. this is certainly not realistic for the lame duck.

[LukeFF]

46 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

Hi Luke,

I just saw you changed the bombload for river crossing attacks with the Hs 129. Thanks for that. One thing which should also be changed is, you often fly dozens of kilometers through enemy territory or attack targets forty and more kilometers behind the frontline. this is certainly not realistic for the lame duck.

 

Is this Stalingrad or Kuban? I know that at Stalingrad, the Hs 129s were still not fully committed to the anti-tank role yet.

 

Also, what sort of targets are you seeing where they are flying deep behind the frontlines? I may just need to eliminate certain types of missions from the config files for this plane. I've already done that with troop concentration attacks but might need to do that with others.

[Yogiflight]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Is this Stalingrad or Kuban? I know that at Stalingrad, the Hs 129s were still not fully committed to the anti-tank role yet.

It was the first phase of the stalingrad career, and it was an attack on an armored column with the 30mm gun.

But it is also the flying through enemy territory instead of around it, when attacking targets in the south or north. The flight paths would need some adjustments.

And it is very noticeable, that there are almost no attacks into the direction of Stalingrad or Moscow. But these should be the main directions for the support of the ground troop attacks by the ground attack aircrafts.

[Alexmarine]

29 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

The flight paths would need some adjustments.

 

While I agree I think that the algorithm generating the missions flight plans will never be up to a real human being planning them, though I concede that it's possible to have it consider in the waypoint placement the position of enemy ground units in between  (along with the flight altitude and the cloud coverage, this is something I would really like to see)

 

34 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

there are almost no attacks into the direction of Stalingrad or Moscow. But these should be the main directions for the support of the ground troop attacks by the ground attack aircrafts.

 

Don't forget that in both cases the Red Army kept a fair heavy pressure on the flanks of the German troops (Kalinin for Moscow and the Kotluban offensives for Stalingrad as an example) which definitely required the Luftwaffe to operate outside the actual main thrust.

 

Now I do not know exactly each area Luftwaffe units striked at each day of both battles, ideally there would be a day per day database for each strike unit from which the mission generator algorithm will pick the data needed to have the missions take place more or less in the sector they actually took place. How hard is such a task I do not really know, but it is something I would like to see aiming at by the game career mode.

 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

It was the first phase of the stalingrad career, and it was an attack on an armored column with the 30mm gun.

But it is also the flying through enemy territory instead of around it, when attacking targets in the south or north. The flight paths would need some adjustments.

And it is very noticeable, that there are almost no attacks into the direction of Stalingrad or Moscow. But these should be the main directions for the support of the ground troop attacks by the ground attack aircrafts.

 

Ah, ok. Yes, that is something beyond my ability to change. That would be for @=FB=VikS to adjust.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, Alexmarine said:

Don't forget that in both cases the Red Army kept a fair heavy pressure on the flanks of the German troops (Kalinin for Moscow and the Kotluban offensives for Stalingrad as an example) which definitely required the Luftwaffe to operate outside the actual main thrust.

I don't say, there should be no missions to the north and south, but take the first phase of the Stalingrad career, for example. It ends august, 29th and august 30th the front line is about fifty kilometers to the east ( of course IRL this didn't happen from one day to the other, but that is how the game models it). There was the focus of the German attack operations. This means there was lots of CAS, bombings and ground attacks of ground troop concentration areas, logistics and commanding structures, to support the attack. But this doesn't happen in the game.

 

2 hours ago, Alexmarine said:

Now I do not know exactly each area Luftwaffe units striked at each day of both battles, ideally there would be a day per day database for each strike unit from which the mission generator algorithm will pick the data needed to have the missions take place more or less in the sector they actually took place. How hard is such a task I do not really know, but it is something I would like to see aiming at by the game career mode.

I am absolutely with you. But we would need some more mission types, like attacks on assaulting enemy tanks or support of an attack of your own ground troops. Or for the Hs 129 seal off an enemy tank incursion (I hope this is the correct term (Google Translator))

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I don't say, there should be no missions to the north and south, but take the first phase of the Stalingrad career, for example. It ends august, 29th and august 30th the front line is about fifty kilometers to the east ( of course IRL this didn't happen from one day to the other, but that is how the game models it). There was the focus of the German attack operations. This means there was lots of CAS, bombings and ground attacks of ground troop concentration areas, logistics and commanding structures, to support the attack. But this doesn't happen in the game.

 

When I have the chance I'll look again at the mission configuration file to see where improvements may need to be made. Late November 42 - January 43 are good to go now, but before that there are probably improvements that need to be made. 

[LukeFF]

Ok, so for Stalingrad pre-December 1942 (up to the end of Chapter 5), this is the typical mission set for the Hs 129s:

 

Highest priority (0.9):

 

Vehicle column attack

Armor column attack

Artillery position attack

Frontline attack

Railway junction attack

River crossing attack

 

Lowest priority (0.1):

 

Airfield attack

 

For Ju 87s pre-December 1942, all bombing missions have equal priority:

 

Bomb Artillery

Bomb Strongpoint

Bomb Troops

Bomb Enemy Airfield

Bomb River Crossing

Bomb Railway Junction

Bomb Supply Dump

Bomb Bridge

 

Bf 109 E-7s have a similar mission priority as the Hs 129s, except of course they dive-bomb

 

I'm open to any changes that need to be made, so just let me know.  

 

4 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I am absolutely with you. But we would need some more mission types, like attacks on assaulting enemy tanks or support of an attack of your own ground troops. Or for the Hs 129 seal off an enemy tank incursion (I hope this is the correct term (Google Translator))

 

One can only hope those mission types come, since they are listed in the mission editor, namely:

 

Advancing troops support

Armored division support mission

 

There's also Defense Lines Support listed there, which may also have to do with attacking enemy tank incursions

[Alexmarine]

6 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I am absolutely with you. But we would need some more mission types, like attacks on assaulting enemy tanks or support of an attack of your own ground troops. Or for the Hs 129 seal off an enemy tank incursion (I hope this is the correct term (Google Translator))

 

Indeed, but at the moment it seems that the career mainly supports more static type of operations with units squarely inside their own frontline.

 

Like Luke said it seems that there are plans for having missions types depicting more mobile situations and I definitely remember that RoF career used to depict way more moving units both on the frontline and behind (I remember that it's able to generate moving vehicles, trains and even spawning intercepting fighters taking off if flying too close to an enemy airfield)

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, Alexmarine said:

I definitely remember that RoF career used to depict way more moving units both on the frontline and behind

The strange thing is, we had a mission type 'Attack assaulting enemy ground troops' back in the old campaign system, in which you attacked advancing enemy tanks in company strength. This was introduced about half a year before the career mode was implemented with BOK. I really wonder, why this mission type didn't make it into the career mode. It was by far the best mission type the game ever had.

 

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Bomb Strongpoint

As not native English speaking I would like to ask if strongpoints really are those 360° defences, we have in game. Because from what I know, this was something, which would better fit to the German situation in the later years of the war. Moscow, Stalingrad and I think even Kuban had closed defensive lines, while 360° defense points were more later, as the Germans didn't have enough troops anymore to build a closed frontline.

[LukeFF]

7 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

As not native English speaking I would like to ask if strongpoints really are those 360° defences, we have in game. Because from what I know, this was something, which would better fit to the German situation in the later years of the war. Moscow, Stalingrad and I think even Kuban had closed defensive lines, while 360° defense points were more later, as the Germans didn't have enough troops anymore to build a closed frontline.

 

I'd have to look again at a generated mission, but from what I recall these are the sorts of missions where the task is to attack a group primarily consisting of tanks and some AT guns along a stretch of the front lines, so not necessarily a 360-degree perimeter.

[Yogiflight]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

I'd have to look again at a generated mission, but from what I recall these are the sorts of missions where the task is to attack a group primarily consisting of tanks and some AT guns along a stretch of the front lines, so not necessarily a 360-degree perimeter.

Yes, tanks, AT guns and AA guns. But they are in 360° defence, as I always look, which tanks I attack (I don't attack the tanks looking away from the front, when there are tanks facing the front).

[Alexmarine]

I concur with Yogi, I definitely saw some defense line targets being grouped into a 360 hedgehog formation in some cases, especially on the Stalingrad career, though in the others they usually had more natural composition with a facing toward the front line

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, Alexmarine said:

I concur with Yogi, I definitely saw some defense line targets being grouped into a 360 hedgehog formation in some cases, especially on the Stalingrad career, though in the others they usually had more natural composition with a facing toward the front line

These are two different mission types. The first one with the 360 is attacking an enemy strongpoint, while the second one with the enemy facing to the frontline is attacking frontline. But in the second one you only have AT guns and machineguns with AA defense. I had that several times about a month ago with the Hs 129. It was a bit unsatisfying, as we were flying with the 30mm gun and only two SC50s. But no armored target. But things like this surely happened back then as well.

[Alexmarine]

54 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

These are two different mission types. The first one with the 360 is attacking an enemy strongpoint, while the second one with the enemy facing to the frontline is attacking frontline. But in the second one you only have AT guns and machineguns with AA defense. I had that several times about a month ago with the Hs 129. It was a bit unsatisfying, as we were flying with the 30mm gun and only two SC50s. But no armored target. But things like this surely happened back then as well.

 

On Moscow I remember getting frontline targets with tanks also in along the MG and guns positions, though at the time I was flying with an Il-2 unit against the Germans, same for some other career I had back then... Maybe the appearance of armoured units is linked to the historical presence of them?

[=621=Samikatz]

13 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I am absolutely with you. But we would need some more mission types, like attacks on assaulting enemy tanks or support of an attack of your own ground troops. Or for the Hs 129 seal off an enemy tank incursion (I hope this is the correct term (Google Translator))

 

AQMB actually has something like what you're describing I think, they're just called "ground support". Your faction has a defensive line of guns and the opposing one has a bunch of tanks advancing towards yours for you to destroy. I don't know how hard it would be to reuse these templates for career, but I assume it's easier than starting from nothing?

[Yogiflight]

53 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

AQMB actually has something like what you're describing I think, they're just called "ground support". Your faction has a defensive line of guns and the opposing one has a bunch of tanks advancing towards yours for you to destroy.

Makes sense, that it is in the AQMB, as it should be more or less the old campaign system.

[csThor]

BTW any news from the powrrs that be about the issues with flight altitudes and the new clouds. Just escorted bombers which were flying at 2k while the upper reaces of the clouds were at roundabout 3k. The cloud layer was broken enough to make the mission not totally impossible, but it made escorting the bombers a serious chore. You lost sight of them frequently and had to constantly turn around when they reappeared.

[messsucher]

27 minutes ago, csThor said:

BTW any news from the powrrs that be about the issues with flight altitudes and the new clouds. Just escorted bombers which were flying at 2k while the upper reaces of the clouds were at roundabout 3k. The cloud layer was broken enough to make the mission not totally impossible, but it made escorting the bombers a serious chore. You lost sight of them frequently and had to constantly turn around when they reappeared.

 

I think the clouds are not to blame but the AI, which completely ignores the clouds regarding navigation and formation flying. The clouds are pretty awesome.

[csThor]

It's IMO more of a configuration issue. Flight altitudes are obviously pre-determined according to some "template" (since they are so overwhelmingly similar for the same type of mission) but said template needs to be adapted to the new reality of the new cloud system. That's what I was talking about.

[Yogiflight]

1 minute ago, csThor said:

Flight altitudes are obviously pre-determined according to some "template" (since they are so overwhelmingly similar for the same type of mission) but said template needs to be adapted to the new reality of the new cloud system.

Not to forget, that the mission altitudes for bombers and fighters are far from historical correct.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, csThor said:

BTW any news from the powrrs that be about the issues with flight altitudes and the new clouds. Just escorted bombers which were flying at 2k while the upper reaces of the clouds were at roundabout 3k. The cloud layer was broken enough to make the mission not totally impossible, but it made escorting the bombers a serious chore. You lost sight of them frequently and had to constantly turn around when they reappeared.

 

Nothing yet, but if I had to make a guess such a fix would come with the implementation of Normandy's career mode.

[Alexmarine]

Indeed, linking expected cloud coverage with the mission parameters generator to avoid having to hang behind the AI flying through total cloud cover would be really nice

[csThor]

Thx Luke. BTW how much tweaking can you do WRT what happens during a mission? I just had a totally weird Free Hunt north of Rzhev where my wingleader was circling for ages over basically nowhere (at an atrociously low speed at that) after twenty minutes I thought maybe the mission was broken and went home. I ran into three MiG 3s and decided not to test my luck, but in the end the mission was deemed a failure. Personally I don't care, but what I find odd is that one always comes across enemy fighters in such missions but very very rarely bombers, attackers or even recon aircraft. I find this fighter fixation a little off-putting TBH. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by csThor

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, csThor said:

Thx Luke. BTW how much tweaking can you do WRT what happens during a mission? I just had a totally weird Free Hunt north of Rzhev where my wingleader was circling for ages over basically nowhere (at an atrociously low speed at that) after twenty minutes I thought maybe the mission was broken and went home. I ran into three MiG 3s and decided not to test my luck, but in the end the mission was deemed a failure. Personally I don't care, but what I find odd is that one always comes across enemy fighters in such missions but very very rarely bombers, attackers or even recon aircraft. I find this fighter fixation a little off-putting TBH. 

 

Yes, unfortunately that's not anything I can change. @=FB=VikS is in charge of all the mission templates. If/when you encounter this happen again, the best thing to do is to extract the _gen mission file from data/missions and post in the Technical Issues forum.

Edited February 7, 2022 by LukeFF

[Ram399]

I feel like I have to make a variety appreciation post in here for the latest update as it seems like we're really finally getting somewhere on that front.

I've been flying a bit more with my JG 52 Kuban career and am so glad to finally see Pe-2s, Yak-7s, and even Spitfires again- as well as different friendly aircraft like the HS-129 and the long-absent Ju-88 and He-111. 

I do have a question with regard to special AI units and skins however, as today I had a surprising encounter over Kuban with a flight of Yaks wearing the colors of the Escadrille Normandie Niemen (pics related). 

Spoiler

 

I knew that at least one AI unit had been using unique skins for at least a little while, namely the 28th IAP PVO in Moscow using the relatively generic "For Motherland" skin on their MiG-3s, as they always seem to have it out for me in my current He-111 career- but up until now I didn't know this also extended to any other units, especially one as notable as Normandie Niemen.

To say I am excited by this development would be an understatement, but I can't remember seeing any information about it in any recent changelogs.

 

So my question in short would be, what other units in career mode are currently using different skins?
(And also can the 13.(slow)/JG 52 be incorporated into this if they aren't already- it feels odd that I've never seen them despite their supposed attached status to II./JG 52.)
 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Ram399 said:

I do have a question with regard to special AI units and skins however, as today I had a surprising encounter over Kuban with a flight of Yaks wearing the colors of the Escadrille Normandie Niemen (pics related). 

 

Hmm, that's an interesting one. My guess is something was altered when the Yak skins were updated, since I haven't changed anything in terms of skin assignments for Kuban in quite a while. I'll take a look at it.

 

1 hour ago, Ram399 said:

So my question in short would be, what other units in career mode are currently using different skins?
(And also can the 13.(slow)/JG 52 be incorporated into this if they aren't already- it feels odd that I've never seen them despite their supposed attached status to II./JG 52.)

 

In Rhineland, there are 2 different blank skins for the K-4, so you'll see a mix there. Otherwise, the only other big variety right now with skins is the change in invasion stripes on the Allied planes. 

 

I'd love to have a unique skin for the Slovak staffel, but the only stock skin we have for them right now has a number on it. ?

[Ram399]

11 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

I haven't changed anything in terms of skin assignments for Kuban in quite a while.

Well in that case I suppose I'm glad to have been of service in finding this anomaly.
Make no mistake however, the default skin for the Yak-1b is still very much prevalent in every other mission I have seen the fighter in today.

This Normandie Niemen flight was encountered as an unusual three-ship formation during an attack plane escort mission, the mission difficulty was set to moderate so I knew something odd was up once I saw that there were only three fighters coming in to face our six Bf-109s- it could have just been a coincidence but it seems too unusual to not be a set encounter.

Unfortunately I didn't start recording until I got close enough to see the French tricolor on the nose, and by that point I had already downed one and another was heavily damaged by my wingmen, so I don't know if they took off from a field and were vectored to intercept or simply spawned in-air like most encountered enemies do.

If you want I can upload the recording as well as the mission log files if someone can remind me where to find those.

Also, out of curiosity, would one be able to look at the skin assignments themselves somewhere in the scg or swf .GTP files?

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Ram399 said:

Well in that case I suppose I'm glad to have been of service in finding this anomaly.
Make no mistake however, the default skin for the Yak-1b is still very much prevalent in every other mission I have seen the fighter in today.

This Normandie Niemen flight was encountered as an unusual three-ship formation during an attack plane escort mission, the mission difficulty was set to moderate so I knew something odd was up once I saw that there were only three fighters coming in to face our six Bf-109s- it could have just been a coincidence but it seems too unusual to not be a set encounter.

Unfortunately I didn't start recording until I got close enough to see the French tricolor on the nose, and by that point I had already downed one and another was heavily damaged by my wingmen, so I don't know if they took off from a field and were vectored to intercept or simply spawned in-air like most encountered enemies do.

If you want I can upload the recording as well as the mission log files if someone can remind me where to find those.

Also, out of curiosity, would one be able to look at the skin assignments themselves somewhere in the scg or swf .GTP files?

 

Ok, thanks - I see what happened now. The Yak-1B skins were reordered when they were upscaled to 4K. The old skin in that slot was the alternate camo scheme I'd placed at random. I'll get it fixed right away. Good catch!

 

And yes, the skin assignment files are in the scripts.gtp file, under these names: 13skins (Moscow), 14skins (Stalingrad), 15skins (Kuban), and 18skins (Rhineland).

Edited February 10, 2022 by LukeFF

[Ram399]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

The Yak-1B skins were reordered when they were upscaled to 4K.

If I'm reading the 15skins file correctly then I assume the culprit units in question are the ones which have yak1s127_skin_12.dds listed alongside the generic yak1s127.

Since I see there are two available patterns listed under these unit's skins sections, is it the "probweight" value that dictates which is chosen or are they picked as a 50/50?  Asking because I might consider replacing one of the in-game G4 skins with a custom-made generic Slovakian pattern and then plugging it in.

Also, despite this Normandie encounter being a fluke, I have to admit it was a rather cool surprise and I hope we will one day get a bit more variety in aircraft appearance.  And, as I mentioned prior, even as is the current build makes the entire career mode seem far more varied, and with the improved AI and new clouds its like a whole new game.

Now if only I could workout why the AI pilots aren't getting any high-level awards again.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Ram399

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Ram399 said:

If I'm reading the 15skins file correctly then I assume the culprit units in question are the ones which have yak1s127_skin_12.dds listed alongside the generic yak1s127.

 

Yes, that's the one. Skin_12 used to be the Tricolor skin, but now that one has been moved up higher in the list.

 

1 hour ago, Ram399 said:

Since I see there are two available patterns listed under these unit's skins sections, is it the "probweight" value that dictates which is chosen or are they picked as a 50/50?  Asking because I might consider replacing one of the in-game G4 skins with a custom-made generic Slovakian pattern and then plugging it in.

 

Yes, that value comes into play when you want to use two different skins for the same time period. I'm not certain, but I think for the player's squadron it means you can have a mix of different skins for each mission, chosen at random.

 

For career mode, I only use one default skin per unit per time period, because otherwise it does funky things with the display that shows the number of planes available and those under repair (it'll divide the planes up into multiple displays by skin). For instance, if you are using two skins for a given time period, it'll then show 5 planes serviceable with skin 1 and 5 planes serviceable with skin 2.

 

Otherwise, yes, you should be able to use custom skins and then enable the file via mods on. That's how I always test things before submitting my changes to the developers.

 

1 hour ago, Ram399 said:

Also, despite this Normandie encounter being a fluke, I have to admit it was a rather cool surprise and I hope we will one day get a bit more variety in aircraft appearance.  And, as I mentioned prior, even as is the current build makes the entire career mode seem far more varied, and with the improved AI and new clouds its like a whole new game.

 

I hope so too. One thing I'd like to see is German planes with unique Reich defense fuselage bands.

Edited February 10, 2022 by LukeFF

[Yogiflight]

Hi Luke,

Maybe one or two years ago, when you were flying ground attacks or bombings, your fighter escort was flying away after the player had landed (after the escort leader gave the command to rejoin formation and go on with the mission). This was one of the things, which added some immersion to the missions. It was changed to the fighter escort will now land on your airfield, too. Also the additional fighter flight 'Adler' (Eagle), which in most missions is fighting somewhere, lands on the players airstrip, even if it is far away from the frontline and any fighter bases. Can you change this, so they fly away again and either despawn after some time or simply fly away until the player ends the mission?

Also something, which was there earlier, the command to rejoin formation and go on with the mission by your flightleader, when a ground attack job was done and he wanted to RTB. Now the AI simply turns away and leaves, so the player always has to look, do they turn away after an attack run to fly a circle for the next attack run or do they turn away to RTB. The behavior to give this command for RTB still exists. You can hear it given by the flightleader of a ground attack flight, when you are the flying in the fighter escort. It just doesn't exist anymore, when you are in the ground attack flight. This command would also be nice, when you are in a dogfight and the flightleader wants to go on with the mission.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Maybe one or two years ago, when you were flying ground attacks or bombings, your fighter escort was flying away after the player had landed (after the escort leader gave the command to rejoin formation and go on with the mission). This was one of the things, which added some immersion to the missions. It was changed to the fighter escort will now land on your airfield, too. Also the additional fighter flight 'Adler' (Eagle), which in most missions is fighting somewhere, lands on the players airstrip, even if it is far away from the frontline and any fighter bases. Can you change this, so they fly away again and either despawn after some time or simply fly away until the player ends the mission?

 

That would have to be something for the developers to change, as that has to do with the mission templates, and those aren't easy to change.

 

7 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Also something, which was there earlier, the command to rejoin formation and go on with the mission by your flightleader, when a ground attack job was done and he wanted to RTB. Now the AI simply turns away and leaves, so the player always has to look, do they turn away after an attack run to fly a circle for the next attack run or do they turn away to RTB. The behavior to give this command for RTB still exists. You can hear it given by the flightleader of a ground attack flight, when you are the flying in the fighter escort. It just doesn't exist anymore, when you are in the ground attack flight. This command would also be nice, when you are in a dogfight and the flightleader wants to go on with the mission.

 

Oh yes, it would be great, and it's something I miss as well. But, like with the above issue, this is something out of my control. Best thing I can suggest for both of these matters is to make a report about it in the Technical issues forum.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Oh yes, it would be great, and it's something I miss as well. But, like with the above issue, this is something out of my control. Best thing I can suggest for both of these matters is to make a report about it in the Technical issues forum.

Done.

I thought this might be out of your control, but I wanted to ask first.

[Yogiflight]

On 2/5/2022 at 1:58 PM, Alexmarine said:

 

On Moscow I remember getting frontline targets with tanks also in along the MG and guns positions, though at the time I was flying with an Il-2 unit against the Germans, same for some other career I had back then... Maybe the appearance of armoured units is linked to the historical presence of them?

I just had the attack frontline mission with two tanks, one AA machinegun mounted on a truck and two ground machineguns in the first phase of the Stalingrad career. So it seems to be random, which kind of frontline you get, which makes sense. Defensive positions do not always look the same. Some variety in the ground targets would be a good thing anyway. Especially at the frontline. And movement. The frontlines are too static.

[csThor]

The document Eisenfaustus linked in his January 19 post is a goldmine with regards to how the Luftwaffe conceptualized the employment of Schlachtflieger and what kind of targets they're supposed to attack, where to operate and how to attack (pages 45 to 52 of the document). It also clearly discerns between Schlachtflieger and Zerstörer ops in so far that it strongly recommends not employing Zerstörer over the battlefield (Gefechtsfeld 0 - 30 km from FLOT) but in the tactical zone (roughly 30 to 60 or even 100km behind the enemy front).

 

The document lists target categories for Schlachtflieger and they generally mention enemy troops on the march or in positions, troop concentrations, artillery positions or supply convois and emphasizes rolling attacks in order to suppress enemy forces and heavy weapons and/or break up enemy attacks. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by csThor

[csThor]

Adding to what Yogy said re: Hs 129. 

 

I dug out Martin Pegg's "Panzerjäger" and this is what he has to say about the employment of Mk 101 cannons:

 

1.) 4./SchG 1 left Germany with just three cannon-equipped Hs 129s for its deployment to Crimea (Unternehmen "Trappenjagd"). Additional cannons were made available (mostly via stocks at E-Stelle Rechlin), but were not touched as VIII. Fliegerkorps was wary of the idea of cannon-armed Schlachtflieger (GFM Milch meeting minutes of May 26 1942)

2.) Just prior to the soviet offensive at Kharkov 4./SchG 1 received new Mk 101s and was sent into action. After the battle pilots uttered statements of distrust in the weapon based on a lack of soviet tanks with signs of damage by their cannons. Many (most?) pilots of the Staffel had the cannons dismounted and their standard bomb racks installed. 

 

Note: On page 89 Pegg states that aircraft of 4./SchG 1 were not equipped with the ETC for carrying the SC 250. They used old 10kg bomb stocks in an improvised (and really dangerous) "package" or 4 racks for SD 2.

 

3.) The first systematic attempt at employing the Hs 129 as tank-buster was with 13.(Pz)/JG 51 which was transfered to the central sector in August 1942. In early September an expert on the Mk 101 and MG 151 was sent by the RLM to train pilots and mechanics in its employment/maintenance which lasted until the end of November 1942 (page 91).

 

4.) II./SchG 1 had been left alone on those matters and had overwhelmingly reverted to using bombs and the onboad guns. On November 28 the RLM expert arrived at Millerovo (where the remains of II./SchG 1 were based at that time) but the demands of the frontline left no time for training and instruction so after reiterating Galland's order to remove the bomb racks and install the cannon pods the pilots were sent into action (again) without any instructions. Results proved meager (partially due to the extreme cold which factually disabled the tungsten-cored special ammo).

 

So, basically, all Stalingrad campaigns with the Hs 129 should operate only bombs and ordinary guns (since the Mk 101 had been discarded by the Gruppe due to lack of training and distrust). And as for targets ... Here's an excerpt from Oblt. Franz Oswald's flight book (page 87):

 

24.07.42 - Destroyed AA gun with bombs

28.07.42 - Attacks against AA positions

01.08.42 - Attacks against artillery positions and fuel train

02.08.42 - attacks against soviet field positions (100th sortie of the pilot)

03.08.42 - destroyed artillery positions (confirmed by 297th ID via radio)

07.08.42 - attacks against artillery positions

09.08.42 - destroyed an armored train - afterwards ops discontinued to extreme heat

10.08.42 - several attacks against artillery positions

14.08.42 - attacks in support of advancing ground troops

 

Personally this points to employments only over or slightly behind the frontlines. In conjunction with operational theory and the plane's characteristics it shouldn't be sent against rear-area targets due to its relatively low speed and low flight profile.

Edited February 13, 2022 by csThor

[LukeFF]

35 minutes ago, csThor said:

Adding to what Yogy said re: Hs 129. 

 

I dug out Martin Pegg's "Panzerjäger" and this is what he has to say about the employment of Mk 101 cannons:

 

1.) 4./SchG 1 left Germany with just three cannon-equipped Hs 129s for its deployment to Crimea (Unternehmen "Trappenjagd"). Additional cannons were made available (mostly via stocks at E-Stelle Rechlin), but were not touched as VIII. Fliegerkorps was wary of the idea of cannon-armed Schlachtflieger (GFM Milch meeting minutes of May 26 1942)

2.) Just prior to the soviet offensive at Kharkov 4./SchG 1 received new Mk 101s and was sent into action. After the battle pilots uttered statements of distrust in the weapon based on a lack of soviet tanks with signs of damage by their cannons. Many (most?) pilots of the Staffel had the cannons dismounted and their standard bomb racks installed. 

 

Note: On page 89 Pegg states that aircraft of 4./SchG 1 were not equipped with the ETC for carrying the SC 250. They used old 10kg bomb stocks in an improvised (and really dangerous) "package" or 4 racks for SD 2.

 

3.) The first systematic attempt at employing the Hs 129 as tank-buster was with 13.(Pz)/JG 51 which was transfered to the central sector in August 1942. In early September an expert on the Mk 101 and MG 151 was sent by the RLM to train pilots and mechanics in its employment/maintenance which lasted until the end of November 1942 (page 91).

 

4.) II./SchG 1 had been left alone on those matters and had overwhelmingly reverted to using bombs and the onboad guns. On November 28 the RLM expert arrived at Millerovo (where the remains of II./SchG 1 were based at that time) but the demands of the frontline left no time for training and instruction so after reiterating Galland's order to remove the bomb racks and install the cannon pods the pilots were sent into action (again) without any instructions. Results proved meager (partially due to the extreme cold which factually disabled the tungsten-cored special ammo).

 

So, basically, all Stalingrad campaigns with the Hs 129 should operate only bombs and ordinary guns (since the Mk 101 had been discarded by the Gruppe due to lack of training and distrust). And as for targets ... Here's an excerpt from Oblt. Franz Oswald's flight book (page 87):

 

24.07.42 - Destroyed AA gun with bombs

28.07.42 - Attacks against AA positions

01.08.42 - Attacks against artillery positions and fuel train

02.08.42 - attacks against soviet field positions (100th sortie of the pilot)

03.08.42 - destroyed artillery positions (confirmed by 297th ID via radio)

07.08.42 - attacks against artillery positions

09.08.42 - destroyed an armored train - afterwards ops discontinued to extreme heat

10.08.42 - several attacks against artillery positions

14.08.42 - attacks in support of advancing ground troops

 

Personally this points to employments only over or slightly behind the frontlines. In conjunction with operational theory and the plane's characteristics it shouldn't be sent against rear-area targets due to its relatively low speed and low flight profile.

 

Good points. Re-posting what I wrote above, this is the mission set for Hs 129s on the Stalingrad map right now:

 

Highest priority (0.9):

 

Vehicle column attack

Armor column attack

Artillery position attack

Frontline attack

Railway junction attack

River crossing attack

 

Lowest priority (0.1):

 

Airfield attack

 

(The config files use a priority number to determine what missions should be generated, from 0 to 1.0).

 

I can remove or modify the priority for any of these missions, so please let me know where changes need to be made. I can also definitely remove the MK 101 as a default armament type for this particular battle.

[csThor]

Personally, given the limitations of the game and the ground objects we have, artillery should rank highest followed by frontlines and then columns. Personally I'd rather see the "attack armor column" and "attack vehicle column" removed entirely and replaced by either "Armed recon" or "Traffic interdiction" with different briefings and without mentioning what the player will encounter. It was rare for the Schlachtflieger to know exactly what to expect traffic-wise. They were mostly told to attack enemy movements on the roads between A and B and be done with it.

 

Secondly I think river crossings and railway junctions aren't exactly the Hs 129 would attack since both usually entailed serious AA defenses and the Henschels were told to avoid those. Those make a lot more sense for Bf 109 Es and Fw 190s (and the allied ground-pounders later on).

[Yogiflight]

4 hours ago, csThor said:

So, basically, all Stalingrad campaigns with the Hs 129 should operate only bombs and ordinary guns

I don't know. With what you described before...

4 hours ago, csThor said:

On November 28 the RLM expert arrived at Millerovo (where the remains of II./SchG 1 were based at that time) but the demands of the frontline left no time for training and instruction so after reiterating Galland's order to remove the bomb racks and install the cannon pods the pilots were sent into action (again) without any instructions.

...I would say, that it would be most hisrorically correct to introduce the MK 101 with the phase Air Bridge 11/26/1942-12/11/1942 or at least with Operatopn Wintergewitter 12/12/1942-01/01/1943.

 

4 hours ago, csThor said:

In early September an expert on the Mk 101 and MG 151 was sent by the RLM to train pilots and mechanics in its employment/maintenance

Keeping in mind that it was an expert in MK 101 and MG 151, it might make sense, as the developers don't seem to give the 30mm guns an own weapon group, to bind the MKs to the MG 151s instead of the MG 17s, as they both have armor piercing qualities. And only give the MK 101/103 together with the MG 151(/15). Then, if this is historically correct, the phases before the introduction of the MK 101, could be with the MG 151/20, instead of the 15mm version, in addition to the bombs.

5 hours ago, csThor said:

Personally this points to employments only over or slightly behind the frontlines. In conjunction with operational theory and the plane's characteristics it shouldn't be sent against rear-area targets due to its relatively low speed and low flight profile.

This, plus as I mentioned earlier, not flying long distances through enemy territory instead of around it, to spare some kilometers of flying.