LachenKrieg Posted June 5, 2021 Posted June 5, 2021 3 hours ago, Monostripezebra said: It really is painfully useless as single vehicle in MP and while it is fun, to have a 3 GAZ battery, that is at least somewhat of a minor nuisance.. it means essentially 3 players are doing mostly nothing for most of the time, which in a time-limited server environment is kinda an automatic contribution to the other sides progress. It is however pretty effective in urban environments against early (non-heavy) german tanks and with roads can be used as tank destroyer somewhat.. Regarding the gun sight control, I am not sure if I understand you fully. I mean your explanation was clear, but I would have to try it out myself to be sure. But regarding the distance setting, when a plane is attacking you head-on, does the distance setting still have the same importance as when you are tracking a plane moving across your field of view? My understanding is that the greater the distance, the more lead-time you will need. I would have thought that when a plane is coming directly at you, you would be able to make any small adjustments needed in lead-time using just the tracer of your shells, but I haven't gotten around to really practicing using the GAZ that much yet. But in terms of usefulness of the AAA vehicles, assuming both sides would want the same ability to provide protection against planes, I would argue the contribution from these vehicles is to help capture the flag/objective for your team. And as you demonstrated, the GAZ can end the PzIV's time on CAP pretty quick.
Monostripezebra Posted June 6, 2021 Author Posted June 6, 2021 (edited) 21 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: Regarding the gun sight control, I am not sure if I understand you fully. I mean your explanation was clear, but I would have to try it out myself to be sure. But regarding the distance setting, when a plane is attacking you head-on, does the distance setting still have the same importance as when you are tracking a plane moving across your field of view? Just try it out.. you´ll see. When someone is diving on you it is slower and easier in quickmission though, compared to online... with HE area effect, good players can kill a Gaz at around a kilometer distance easy.. while the GAZ can´t really realistically engage beyond 2 kilometer, so even at a normal "level" speed around 500ish km/h of a fighter you only got a maximum of 7 seconds of usefull time to defend.. (5 if he is diving at 700ish) including traverse, aim and sett the gun settings. Edited June 6, 2021 by Monostripezebra
LachenKrieg Posted June 6, 2021 Posted June 6, 2021 I hear you and your quite right, using Triple A effectively will require a lot of skill. This is not really a beginner player position IMO. And you could have added that the maximum amount of time you have assumes you spotted the plane as it started its attack run on you. But my point was just that once you do spot a plane attacking you head-on, you probably don't have to worry about distance quite as much because your line of fire, and his/her line of attack are near equal.
Monostripezebra Posted June 7, 2021 Author Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: And you could have added that the maximum amount of time you have assumes you spotted the plane as it started its attack run on you. 7 seconds is the math based on speed, the time for a 500km/h aircraft to cover 1Km.. so why 1Km? 2KM is about your max engagement range in GAZ and at the "down the troat"-charge scenario competent diving enemies can send HE shells with an area effect that kills you from around 1kM into that maybe 20m-ish circle around you where splinters hurt you and mission-kill the unarmored truck... or release bombs. Getting closer (too close) is a thing for less experienced players, but that is how I got that 7sec number. For THAT scenario. The down-the-throat charge of an enemy who does not care to try and surprise or doubleteam you. that is where you got 7 seconds. The time from when you can fire to twart the attack to when you are dead, theoretically under idealised conditions. Off course that time can in praxis vary, that was just a model, don´t get hung up too much on that. But on "adding the max amount of time since spotted to attack run".. well noone is ever going to do a 5km long attack run. That is one of the big the differences between quickmissions and MP.. you don´t have 1-4 groups of enemies who nicely show up on the horizon and you know they gonna come to where you are with a nice clear line of path to an "attack waypoint" and all the time in the world to set a gunsight. If you are in a MP point of interest.. you have a ton of friendlies swirling around and dogfights and a ton of enemies.. or ones loitering out of range spotting, you can see ground units from 3-4Km up, way out of range and still rat you out... Others down at treetop level may be on coms with the ones spotting up high and you will face attacks with very little to no warning from single enemies but coordinated from different directions.. withhin seconds from each other. In practice you will get killed online without ever seeing the attacker in a lot of cases. Nothing like that happens in singleplayer, ever. and if you spent most of the time in the gunsight tracking an enemy.. you are dead, because another one not tracked will get you. 8 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: But my point was just that once you do spot a plane attacking you head-on, you probably don't have to worry about distance quite as much because your line of fire, and his/her line of attack are near equal. I don´t think you get it.. it is not the gun or the shot, but the sight. When you re-set the sight, because you NEED the 0 aspect set to counter the attack.. (this means you can use the vertical line to line up shots with a head-on target) but the also deleted range (auto-reset to minium) and speed will mean you sight is off zero, this means you can not use the center horizontal line to aim, because your tracers will show way above the middle horizontal line.. (and off course, if you move the slightest left or right, the auto aspect correction with the wrong values will make it way worse and you´ll end up just watching tracers and ignoring the sight.) Essentially you´ll miss shots you probably would not have with a fixed iron sight, in the typical self defense scenario. It is not that GAZ sight is bad.. on the contrary, it can be fun and especially for non-fighting back far out targets its good.. but in MP it is somewhat of a factor why people struggle... and especially in that "I don´t-care-down-the-throat" attack.. where it is super hard to defend. Not that that matters, because even if you do kill him.. most of the time the crash-explosion, shell damage or still lost bombs means your long drive has come to an end... that is simply the way of the GAZ. (and my argument, why more armored, higher fire rate AAAs like the M-17 and whirwind etc would have actually been a wiser choice, in terms of game mechanics. They would still be at a disadvantage compared to aircraft, but would be a better tank sided escort.. same reason why they prevailed IRL... Edited June 7, 2021 by Monostripezebra
LachenKrieg Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Monostripezebra said: 7 seconds is the math based on speed, the time for a 500km/h aircraft to cover 1Km.. so why 1Km? 2KM is about your max engagement range in GAZ and at the "down the troat"-charge scenario competent diving enemies can send HE shells with an area effect that kills you from around 1kM into that maybe 20m-ish circle around you where splinters hurt you and mission-kill the unarmored truck... or release bombs. Getting closer (too close) is a thing for less experienced players, but that is how I got that 7sec number. For THAT scenario. The down-the-throat charge of an enemy who does not care to try and surprise or doubleteam you. that is where you got 7 seconds. The time from when you can fire to twart the attack to when you are dead, theoretically under idealised conditions. Off course that time can in praxis vary, that was just a model, don´t get hung up too much on that. But on "adding the max amount of time since spotted to attack run".. well noone is ever going to do a 5km long attack run. That is one of the big the differences between quickmissions and MP.. you don´t have 1-4 groups of enemies who nicely show up on the horizon and you know they gonna come to where you are with a nice clear line of path to an "attack waypoint" and all the time in the world to set a gunsight. If you are in a MP point of interest.. you have a ton of friendlies swirling around and dogfights and a ton of enemies.. or ones loitering out of range spotting, you can see ground units from 3-4Km up, way out of range and still rat you out... Others down at treetop level may be on coms with the ones spotting up high and you will face attacks with very little to no warning from single enemies but coordinated from different directions.. withhin seconds from each other. In practice you will get killed online without ever seeing the attacker in a lot of cases. Nothing like that happens in singleplayer, ever. and if you spent most of the time in the gunsight tracking an enemy.. you are dead, because another one not tracked will get you. I don´t think you get it.. it is not the gun or the shot, but the sight. When you re-set the sight, because you NEED the 0 aspect set to counter the attack.. (this means you can use the vertical line to line up shots with a head-on target) but the also deleted range (auto-reset to minium) and speed will mean you sight is off zero, this means you can not use the center horizontal line to aim, because your tracers will show way above the middle horizontal line.. (and off course, if you move the slightest left or right, the auto aspect correction with the wrong values will make it way worse and you´ll end up just watching tracers and ignoring the sight.) Essentially you´ll miss shots you probably would not have with a fixed iron sight, in the typical self defense scenario. It is not that GAZ sight is bad.. on the contrary, it can be fun and especially for non-fighting back far out targets its good.. but in MP it is somewhat of a factor why people struggle... and especially in that "I don´t-care-down-the-throat" attack.. where it is super hard to defend. Not that that matters, because even if you do kill him.. most of the time the crash-explosion, shell damage or still lost bombs means your long drive has come to an end... that is simply the way of the GAZ. (and my argument, why more armored, higher fire rate AAAs like the M-17 and whirwind etc would have actually been a wiser choice, in terms of game mechanics. They would still be at a disadvantage compared to aircraft, but would be a better tank sided escort.. same reason why they prevailed IRL... I'm not sure you understood me. I am not questioning your math, I was trying to point out that the situation you describe could be even worse if you only notice the attacking plane when he/she is 800/700/600 meters away. So you might not even have 7 seconds. Regarding the issue with distance, again I think you seem to be missing my point. The distance of a plane that travels across you field of view will affect the amount of lead required to hit the target, so you have to account for distance in the gun sight. Your original point was: "Experienced aircraft players know about the piñata-esque GAZ physique and WILL charge you frontally down your throat (ie 30min setting) but when you re-set the gunsight to that, your distance setting, the important one is gone, too. I am questioning whether the distance of a plane that is attacking you head-on is as important as a plane that is traveling across your field of view in terms of adjusting your gun sight.
Monostripezebra Posted June 7, 2021 Author Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said: I am questioning whether the distance of a plane that is attacking you head-on is as important as a plane that is traveling across your field of view in terms of adjusting your gun sight. just try it out.. Edited June 7, 2021 by Monostripezebra
LachenKrieg Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 Nice video MSZ, but again the importance/relevance of distance and speed for a plane traveling across your field of view changes when compared to a plane traveling in a straight line toward you. In the first scenario, you have to adjust the gun sight to allow for the appropriate amount of lead. In the second scenario, distance and speed become less focused on the issue of lead, and more an issue regarding time ie time it takes your shots to reach the target/amount of time for engagement. In other words, if two planes were attacking you head on from the exact same aspect but at different speeds and different starting distances, the only thing that would change in terms of using the gun sight would be the amount of time you use it. Going back to your video, you were close man. Most of your shots were going just over the top. If you would have corrected your aim just slightly down, he would have burst into flames. But what your video demonstrates, and I watched it 5 times, is how to use tracers to adjust your aim. Clearly, I think you are really starting to get the hang of the triple "A" gun, and you will prove to be a valuable asset for any team needing good T"A" support. 1
Monostripezebra Posted June 8, 2021 Author Posted June 8, 2021 23 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: if two planes were attacking you head on from the exact same aspect but at different speeds and different starting distances, the only thing that would change in terms of using the gun sight would be the amount of time you use it. Going back to your video, you were close man. Most of your shots were going just over the top. If you would have corrected your aim just slightly down, he would have burst into flames. But what your video demonstrates, and I watched it 5 times, is how to use tracers to adjust your aim. Clearly, I think you are really starting to get the hang of the triple "A" gun, and you will prove to be a valuable asset for any team needing good T"A" support. That "relative" unimportance would be correct for a fixed sight and flat trajectory weapon However, in the GAZ for the head-on defense scenario, you are firing long rang arcing shots.. very much arcing. Due to the GAZes vulnerability to HE area effect fire you need to hit such an attack very far out, like over 1000m or you will be dead.. even if you hit, due to the low fire rate and damage planes can tank your hits and just drive over you. At that range, just tracer observation gets more difficult and acutally using the guns sight (ie: setting range) matters because it makes it much easier to judge fall of shot and correct when in relation to the gunsights lines. That is why range and speed settings matter so much.. it is, so to speak, a speciality of the GAZes gunsight which has no real zero. In that above vid you can see some errors under MP-stress: the re-set of the gunsight was done out of alignement with the attacking planes axis (ie: horizontal movement to the left after setting 0° aspect angle throws the sight of more in the sense that your idea of where the tracer and gunsight relate really gets thrown off with the wrong settings and moving the sight) and you can see how I wrongly tried to aim with the crosshair and concentrated on the sight (see the first shot going very high and left of center of gunsight) rather then on the tracer and then in the last bit firing overhead kinda anticipating the plane would pull off any moment to fly into the tracer line.. NOW, in quickmission which is much less mental resource taking then driving through an arena-style tank infested landscape switching sudden attention from ground foe to air attacker, it is relatively easy to to score single hits on head on attacks.. with the calmness to set some more usefull gun values in speed and range: However: 2-3 hits not far enough out are still not enough for self-defense.. "he would have burst into flames" mostly applies still to the GAZ:
LachenKrieg Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Monostripezebra said: That "relative" unimportance would be correct for a fixed sight and flat trajectory weapon... All guns/cannons have an arc. The arc flattens out as velocity increases, but it will also increase as distance to target increases. So no, the decreased importance of adjusting for distance and speed is very relevant to the GAZ AAA truck. Most of your post here is talking about a different issue really, and your point is well made, you have to practice up if you want to be able to threaten planes with the GAZ. This was the case IRL as well I am sure. As I have already said, the GAZ is not a new player position when on MP servers. It will take time and practice to get real good at hitting planes. But once you are able to achieve that, you will be an asset to any team. But back to the issue of distance and speed, maybe a visual explanation will demonstrate the point better. Have another look at the two videos you linked, and you should be able to notice that when the plane is attacking you head-on, it is not moving left/right in your field of view, so you don't really use/need the horizontal marker in the gun sight. If the plane is in a straight on attack, you should be able to keep it on the vertical, and just adjust the height of your aim as needed by following your tracer. Hope this helps. Edited June 8, 2021 by LachenKrieg
Monostripezebra Posted June 9, 2021 Author Posted June 9, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: All guns/cannons have an arc. The arc flattens out as velocity increases, but it will also increase as distance to target increases. So no, the decreased importance of adjusting for distance and speed is very relevant to the GAZ AAA truck. That is like.. your very theoretical oppinon? I have lazerbeam-zapped things flat trajectory in games since the early 90ies and never seen something as hard as frontal defence in the GAZ... with its need to kill far out or be dead... and a highly curved shot that is very difficult to judge far out, just by tracer and fall of shot. But hey, experiences may differ. I don´t know, do you even play the GAZ? How many head-on attacking aircraft have you defeated, just out of curiosity? I mean, I am not ever claiming to be be stellar player, but I have made considerable time online to test different ways of getting aircrafts (currently place 5 in destroyed aircraft by ground vehicles on the dynamic war server.. ) which means nothing much, but rather just say that to show that I am hopefull to not be spectacularly worse or incompetent then others... and thus my judgement may hold some truth. I am however, normally prefering to play aircraft in the anti-vehicle role and wanted to know what and how the GAZ can do stuff.. and my assesment is: easy kill, just frontally and just run them over if you can´t doubletime them, it is very low risk and the best even the best AAA players can hope for is a draw. And I have yet to met a GAZ player to prove me wrong.. and most of my aircraft kills on flying aircraft where actually on clearly inexperienced players doing silly circles beeing blind or outdated equipment like Henschels.. 11 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: Most of your post here is talking about a different issue really, and your point is well made, you have to practice up if you want to be able to threaten planes with the GAZ. This was the case IRL as well I am sure. As I have already said, the GAZ is not a new player position when on MP servers. It will take time and practice to get real good at hitting planes. But once you are able to achieve that, you will be an asset to any team. ah, the "git good" argument.. I don´t think that cuts it. IRL WW2 is a very very different thing then online MP... and especiallly when it comes to flak and numbers. One of the main things is that you don´t really have limited assets but with thousands of men and rifle and mg close in defense returnfire.. but much rather limited player slots.. IRL flak works never alone, but in a battery. And there were a shit ton of batteries.. because having them was way much cheaper and low-skill and maintainable then doing that job airforce wise... and armys would train people to return fire to low flying fighters with rifles etc.. so IRL the ground attack job was way more dangerous, If you have 10 players forming a flak battery, it may be fun.. but in terms of efficiency for their side their chosing (compared to what you can do in the limited server run time) will limit their sides competative ability absolutely severly... and in fact, any single GAZ is an easy free kill for a fighter aircraft with low risk. IRL single GAZes facing aircrafts probably happened next to nowhere.. online, that is the norm. And that is the reason why I said in terms of gameplay mechanics, vehicles that are more along those lines like "Wirbelwind" / "Ostwind" flaktanks or M16 gun carriages or M17s would have been a better choice, because their role fits the scenario of online gameplay much better... then an ultra vulnerable truck But then off course you are all invited to prove me wrong and show the devastating might of the GAZ.. come on guys, show me! I love to see it.. Edited June 9, 2021 by Monostripezebra 1
moustache Posted June 9, 2021 Posted June 9, 2021 6 hours ago, Monostripezebra said: IRL flak works never alone I think everything has been said...
LachenKrieg Posted June 9, 2021 Posted June 9, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, Monostripezebra said: That is like.. your very theoretical oppinon? I have lazerbeam-zapped things flat trajectory in games since the early 90ies and never seen something as hard as frontal defence in the GAZ... with its need to kill far out or be dead... and a highly curved shot that is very difficult to judge far out, just by tracer and fall of shot. But hey, experiences may differ. I don´t know, do you even play the GAZ? How many head-on attacking aircraft have you defeated, just out of curiosity? I mean, I am not ever claiming to be be stellar player, but I have made considerable time online to test different ways of getting aircrafts (currently place 5 in destroyed aircraft by ground vehicles on the dynamic war server.. ) which means nothing much, but rather just say that to show that I am hopefull to not be spectacularly worse or incompetent then others... and thus my judgement may hold some truth. I am however, normally prefering to play aircraft in the anti-vehicle role and wanted to know what and how the GAZ can do stuff.. and my assesment is: easy kill, just frontally and just run them over if you can´t doubletime them, it is very low risk and the best even the best AAA players can hope for is a draw. And I have yet to met a GAZ player to prove me wrong.. and most of my aircraft kills on flying aircraft where actually on clearly inexperienced players doing silly circles beeing blind or outdated equipment like Henschels.. ah, the "git good" argument.. I don´t think that cuts it. IRL WW2 is a very very different thing then online MP... and especiallly when it comes to flak and numbers. One of the main things is that you don´t really have limited assets but with thousands of men and rifle and mg close in defense returnfire.. but much rather limited player slots.. IRL flak works never alone, but in a battery. And there were a shit ton of batteries.. because having them was way much cheaper and low-skill and maintainable then doing that job airforce wise... and armys would train people to return fire to low flying fighters with rifles etc.. so IRL the ground attack job was way more dangerous, If you have 10 players forming a flak battery, it may be fun.. but in terms of efficiency for their side their chosing (compared to what you can do in the limited server run time) will limit their sides competative ability absolutely severly... and in fact, any single GAZ is an easy free kill for a fighter aircraft with low risk. IRL single GAZes facing aircrafts probably happened next to nowhere.. online, that is the norm. And that is the reason why I said in terms of gameplay mechanics, vehicles that are more along those lines like "Wirbelwind" / "Ostwind" flaktanks or M16 gun carriages or M17s would have been a better choice, because their role fits the scenario of online gameplay much better... then an ultra vulnerable truck But then off course you are all invited to prove me wrong and show the devastating might of the GAZ.. come on guys, show me! I love to see it.. I think you have misunderstood my intentions here. It is clear to me from the videos you linked that I do not have your level of experience, or know how using the GAZ. I am simply suggesting that streamlining use of the settings needed to adjust the gun sight on the GAZ will help address the problem of switching back and forth between planes that are tracking across your field of view, and ones that are attacking you head on. Personally, I would like to see you do another instructional video on how to use triple-A to better showcase your experience. You seemed to have latched on to using it pretty quick, but don't underestimate the amount of effort it will take for the average on-line player here to reach the same level. So if you are interested in helping the on-line community grow, I would encourage you to share your experience in the form of a "how-to-guide". But IMO, a point worth stressing is that it is not about being able to shoot down all the planes. Imagine the problem that would be created if all the IL2 pilots were being shot down in flames as soon as their landing gear were retracted? The focus should be on team work. No one can capture all the objectives on their own. The triple-A vehicles are just one piece in the puzzle of winning the match, and like planes and tanks, it is the skill of the person using it that will determine how effective it is. Edited June 9, 2021 by LachenKrieg
Monostripezebra Posted June 9, 2021 Author Posted June 9, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: But IMO, a point worth stressing is that it is not about being able to shoot down all the planes. Imagine the problem that would be created if all the IL2 pilots were being shot down in flames as soon as their landing gear were retracted? The focus should be on team work. No one can capture all the objectives on their own. The triple-A vehicles are just one piece in the puzzle of winning the match, and like planes and tanks, it is the skill of the person using it that will determine how effective it is. While I think part of that is true.. you have to bear in mind, that ground based low-range AAA is always at a disadvantage to fast (ie: high dive, climb) aircraft. IL2s beeing shot down quickly with the current ground AAA is not going to happen.. albeit the fights for slower aircraft like Il2s, Stukas and Henschels against GAZes are much more balanced and in the GAZes league and are good gameplay, because they are not so much a forgone conclusion but have a more open outcome. (albeit still in aircraft favour) But, considering what the servers planeset will allow, as soon as faster fighter-bombers are available, those planes are very effectivly outclassed and actually relatively rare on the servers, with the clear exception of the Il2 . (like who is silly enough to go after ground targets in Stuka when you can get a Bf110 G?) In essence, what makes GAZ gameplay largely "for masochists only" is, that when you drive long hour-drives or wait for 30-45min for action (as a groundvehicle you kind of wait for planes to come to you.. and often that is just not) any low-medium-skill guy with a Fw190 or 110 that can hit the broadside of a barn can see you and kill you in seconds, he doesn´t even need a shot on target.. any HE in a barnsized vecinity and your effort is over. In the same time you waited for your demise, you could have had 3 exiting aircraft missions and flaming wrecks with a ton more action! ;=) This is kind of excerbarated by how the grafics work in IL2: for instance in my settings, I see tanks on tree-filled roads before the trees show up and in the open player ground units are very good detecable on most maps/textures, more so then in the real world, if my experience of trying to look for cars of people from a glider is anything to go by. I think that is because, lets face it, flightsims still have a very monotous landscape comparing to the real world and orders of magnitute less objects and less varied objects, making recognition of player ground vehicles from afar a quite learnable thing. So, what terrain works for the GAZ? Open Terrain, Roads? while you can fire freely, you are very much a sitting sitting duck. Trees? While it is harder in the trees.. the way Il2s trees work, still makes that a bit of disadvantage: due to the non-voluminous nature of the trees, you can see quite good through them from above.. and the trees have invisble parts which block HE and if you shoot from near trees thinking you have a clear line of sight, you often will damage yourself due to your shots exploding close (to which the GAZ as unarmored vehicle is particularly vulnerable).. while enemy AP will go through easy. So "in the trees" is not good for the GAZ.. but edge of the trees can work.. Settlements? Overall, I find settlements in the gameworld as is are DEFINATELY the best concealment. A Gaz is a small, square shape and in the vecinity of other small squares like the village objects, you are harder to spot and have still somewhat sideway cover and free.. A settlement with a point of interest that attracts enemy aircraft such as a tank-capturable flag is probably the most fun GAZ territory, in my oppinon. Especially when anti-tank cannon armed aircraft try to loiter down low there (which is not overly smart, on the aircrafts side) Other Strategies: I have cooperated with other GAZes online and I think that 3 is kind of like a magic number: with 3 GAZes, you are at least starting to make an attacking single fighter sweat a little.. but it is imperative that all of the group agree when to open fire and when not to and off course you need to be all thinking about conserving ammo, staying within reasonable distance from each other and having somewhat similar fields of fire..because if someone sticks out alone the sequential snacking is a very low effort pinata-bash for fast cannon armed fighters and wont take 2mins. Overall, that is not a remedy at all for the extreme area-effect vulnerability of the GAZ. Anything that farts in your general direction will put you out of action. Hiding and waiting for the right moment is probably the name of the game.. unless you meet someone who is actually experienced and smart enough to keep looking for you from out of reach.. but as long as he is distracted looking to the ground, at least your derpy fighter guys can have a snack. 8 hours ago, moustache said: I think everything has been said... Naa. Flightsim forums hot air production never stops! ;=P But as serious note: vehicles as Wirbelwind where in practice rather single often, so actually that would kinda fit gamemechanics and history together Edited June 9, 2021 by Monostripezebra
moustache Posted June 9, 2021 Posted June 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said: 7 hours ago, moustache said: I think everything has been said... Naa. Flightsim forums hot air production never stops! ;=P Yes, i think it, you said it : 7 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said: Other Strategies: I have cooperated with other GAZes online and I think that 3 is kind of like a magic number: with 3 GAZes, you are at least starting to make an attacking single fighter sweat a little.. but it is imperative that all of the group agree when to open fire and when not to and off course you need to be all thinking about conserving ammo, staying within reasonable distance from each other and having somewhat similar fields of fire..because if someone sticks out alone the sequential snacking is a very low effort pinata-bash for fast cannon armed fighters and wont take 2mins. AA are made to be used in battery, with several, and more in a fire of interdiction than to bring down a precise target ... the rest being left to the chance ... The implementation of AA in-game is a strange thing ... they have to be played in groups, outside nothing is done in the game to get players to play together (if you want to communicate by radio, you have to use and download discord, teamspeak, or use SRS ... nothing is planned base) worse than in a tank, there normally needs 2 people in AA to observe the surroundings and estimate the distance / speed of the target ... if in tank, alone, it remains playable, in AA, with the speed and the commitment time, good luck ... In my opinion, it is above all a pretty toy to look at, but which in its current form has no strategic interest (unless the players play it in a coordinated group ... it would be necessary to squad with the player AI maybe ...) 1
Monostripezebra Posted June 9, 2021 Author Posted June 9, 2021 1 hour ago, moustache said: The implementation of AA in-game is a strange thing ... they have to be played in groups, outside nothing is done in the game to get players to play together (if you want to communicate by radio, you have to use and download discord, teamspeak, or use SRS ... nothing is planned base) worse than in a tank, there normally needs 2 people in AA to observe the surroundings and estimate the distance / speed of the target ... if in tank, alone, it remains playable, in AA, with the speed and the commitment time, good luck ... In my opinion, it is above all a pretty toy to look at, but which in its current form has no strategic interest (unless the players play it in a coordinated group ... it would be necessary to squad with the player AI maybe ...) That is kind of why my argument is that in terms to fit the gameplay narrative better, a vehicle set of M-17 Gun Carriage and some Flakpanzer like Wirbelwind would fit better and would kind of offer a smoother integration of the tank part to the aircraft part of the game.. as of yet, tanks really are kinda onesided without aircover.. Or at least that is my wish as anti-tank aircraft guy who is either smashed without fighter cover by people just circling down low waiting for tracers to then feast on distracted aircraft looking on the ground or having a rather onesided picking away at tanks with some cannon hurricane
LachenKrieg Posted June 9, 2021 Posted June 9, 2021 55 minutes ago, moustache said: In my opinion, it is above all a pretty toy to look at, but which in its current form has no strategic interest (unless the players play it in a coordinated group ... it would be necessary to squad with the player AI maybe ...) I don't know whether you participate in multi-player or not, but coordinated game play is sort of the intent in terms of a team capturing an objective. What often ends up happening of course is that some players will do their own thing, but for the most part people in MP servers will pay attention to which flag is being captured, or which flag needs to be defended. So in this way, it kind of forces the players on each team to work together. And even if you don't know anyone else on your team, you will often get in-game chat messages from your team mates requesting help, or advising on the situation as it unfolds, it is up to each team member to respond. Of course it works best if the coordination is at an even higher level where guys in Triple-A trucks work with guys in tanks, or call for air support. But before the T-A trucks arrived, all we had were planes attacking tanks, with the tanks having very little ability to shot back unless you are in a Sherman. So I don't know how you can conclude that the T-A trucks have no strategic interest/value? They essentially give each team the tool set to defend against air attack. So if your team mate in a tank capturing a flag is being harassed by a plane, you don't see the value in at least trying to stop the plane from preventing your team to capture the objective? Because that is strategic value/interest IMO. 46 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said: That is kind of why my argument is that in terms to fit the gameplay narrative better, a vehicle set of M-17 Gun Carriage and some Flakpanzer like Wirbelwind would fit better and would kind of offer a smoother integration of the tank part to the aircraft part of the game.. as of yet, tanks really are kinda onesided without aircover.. Or at least that is my wish as anti-tank aircraft guy who is either smashed without fighter cover by people just circling down low waiting for tracers to then feast on distracted aircraft looking on the ground or having a rather onesided picking away at tanks with some cannon hurricane The fact that a plane can easily kill a ground vehicle is a given. The point to war simulators is not to be invincible. So yes, it is well understood that air craft usually have an inherent advantage for obvious reasons. Are you saying that your expectation was for the T-A trucks to dominate the planes in IL2? If so, then I understand your disappointment, but not your logic. Going back to the point about coordinated game play, even if the players are not communicating to work together, they are at least working for the same goal, which is to win the match. So while a T-A truck/tank remains vulnerable to air attack, the plane remains vulnerable to not just the return fire of a T-A gun, but from the air craft on the opposite team. So the balance in game play comes from the fact that both sides have the same strengths and weaknesses, and it is the team that executes a more coordinated attack that is likely to win the objective. If you get knocked out 10x, but took out 4 aircraft over the course of the match, I would say your efforts likely helped your team a lot. Lets not forget, players in planes and tanks are also getting knocked out and have to spawn back in. Its funny, when I first got into the IL2 GBS with Tank Crew, one of the most common responses when asking about MP game play for tanks was that it was no fun to play target practice for planes. Now after that issue was addressed with the introduction of T-A trucks, they are just pretty toys to look at? Having 2 to 3 T-A trucks is going to be a lot more effective then just having one, so you working with other players to encourage them to get better at using the GAZ is exactly what you should be doing if you want to help improve the MP experience. That is why I encourage you to share you experience in another instructional video done from your perspective. 1
Monostripezebra Posted June 9, 2021 Author Posted June 9, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: Are you saying that your expectation was for the T-A trucks to dominate the planes in IL2? If so, then I understand your disappointment, but not your logic. I never said anything like that, only things but to the contrary.. Ground units WILL always be disadvantaged. 4 hours ago, Monostripezebra said: round based low-range AAA is always at a disadvantage to fast (ie: high dive, climb) aircraft. However, the GAZ is, due to gamemechanic reasons and timeframe, even more at a disadvantage then makes sense for a player AAA. While there can be contexts where it can do something (with only slower opposition planes present), HE-effectivty, GAZ vulnerability and weapon ranges as well as aircraft speeds mean insta-death for GAZ players in 99% of all cases of attack by Jabo with the best possible outcome beeing a draw (ie: damaged Jabo that crashes on the way home). You can see in the MP stats, that most have very high loss-to-kill ratio even for the better players and the kills of the better players are to a huge chunk slower soviet planes (ie: they are playing the GAZ on the german side and shooting Il2s, which are kind of the slower end planes that persist more in MP settings.. for every Stuka you see online you see like 20 Il2 or so.. which may or may not have something to do with the bullet resistance and funky energy retention and high AoA capability of early Il2s in game which make it at light loads a surprisingly able fighter.. however realistic one may consider that.) A more area effect lightly armored vehicle like M-16s, M-17s or german flakpanzers would introduce a more skill based gameplay, because you can damage and kill them with direct hits, ie: the player aircraft need to hit. And they would be the historical choice, too.. the Sd.Kfz. 10/5 single Flak 38 and GAZ AA are both 1939ish early war things thouroughly outdated in the prevailing late-war online scenarios. With the GAZ I can spray from miles away in their general direction and even if I don´t anihilate them, they are mission killed. That is a fact. They do not offer any great value as tank escort, if the opposing late war fast aircraft knows what it is doing.. and from an aircraft perspective my best fight yet was Hurricane against a PzIII who really was really good. But in the end after shooting me down once could not defend anymore when I switched to steeper attacks out of his gun elevation, due to the PzIII limits.. that why I feel an armored AA would provide more fun/use for both sides or at least that is the best I can offer from a GAZ: a fair fight to those brave souls taking things like Stukas or Henschels out and be a sneaky surprise for newish players circling cap zones. Tank protection against divebombers or bombing Jabos? Not so much. 2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: But before the T-A trucks arrived, all we had were planes attacking tanks, with the tanks having very little ability to shot back unless you are in a Sherman. Well.. I would disagree.. as long as people don´t not realize how to do steep attacks, tank self defense is surprisingly effective and there is usually at least one "tank kills aircraft" kill every server session. 2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: Its funny, when I first got into the IL2 GBS with Tank Crew, one of the most common responses when asking about MP game play for tanks was that it was no fun to play target practice for planes. Now after that issue was addressed with the introduction of T-A trucks, they are just pretty toys to look at? without aircover, it is still only target practice.. while in turn for the anti-ground aircrafts it becomes a veryoneside affair if they have no fighter cover, because the tactic of circling an arena-style area very low (ie: you are not a dot against the sky, so hard to see for low aircraft) and waiting for tracers to indicate easy prey distracted by looking for tanks is super effective.. (IRL you would have a problem doing that if high fighters showed up, energywise..) But the problem here is that that may collide with the server setting and goals.. But essentially the issue with the "herding cats" like art-school soldering of MP gameplay is that there is no Plan, no High Comand, no beeing shot when not following orders and most people play for what is their idea of fun like their prefered plane/vehicle and want personal statistic, ie: KILLS over "side wins" While "side wins" are usually the go-to consolidation of the side which goes "yeah, we were farmed, but in the end we won we played objective" while people on the other side basically where in it to present themselves as cool in a YT video, I mean most players are the first to cry "realism" if they want an advantage for their side but can´t even be bothered not to join the side with a 20+ player overhang.. (slight exaggeration here, but I feel a bit of sarkasm is apropriate here.. in essence: lets face it, side wins means nothing, if you are not into that... but a good game still needs people who actually want a good game and not a self-projection of "I am the greatest Kozhedubber" in a Yak 9ufo or a spawncamping "I got 2 T-34, I am sooo great, watch my YT!!" Tiger) 2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: I would say your efforts likely helped your team a lot. That is a harsh insult.. ;=P Edited June 9, 2021 by Monostripezebra
moustache Posted June 10, 2021 Posted June 10, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: I don't know whether you participate in multi-player or not, but coordinated game play is sort of the intent in terms of a team capturing an objective. What often ends up happening of course is that some players will do their own thing, but for the most part people in MP servers will pay attention to which flag is being captured, or which flag needs to be defended. So in this way, it kind of forces the players on each team to work together. And even if you don't know anyone else on your team, you will often get in-game chat messages from your team mates requesting help, or advising on the situation as it unfolds, it is up to each team member to respond. Of course it works best if the coordination is at an even higher level where guys in Triple-A trucks work with guys in tanks, or call for air support. But before the T-A trucks arrived, all we had were planes attacking tanks, with the tanks having very little ability to shot back unless you are in a Sherman. So I don't know how you can conclude that the T-A trucks have no strategic interest/value? They essentially give each team the tool set to defend against air attack. So if your team mate in a tank capturing a flag is being harassed by a plane, you don't see the value in at least trying to stop the plane from preventing your team to capture the objective? Because that is strategic value/interest IMO. no, please don't distort my words ... I never said that AA is useless, but that this one, in the current configuration of the game, with his characteristics and by gaming habits on the serv, is not of interest ... it's not the same ... of course, there is communication by chat, but giving precise and complete information by written chat is really not optimal, responsive ... for good communication, you need Discord, Teamspeak or SRS, but it is not it is not that a part is on this or that software, another on another ... and it is not uncommon to come across teams that do not use or communicate at all on the written chat ... 16 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: Going back to the point about coordinated game play, even if the players are not communicating to work together, they are at least working for the same goal, which is to win the match. a part of player play just to kill plane and tank, not for objective... 16 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: Its funny, when I first got into the IL2 GBS with Tank Crew, one of the most common responses when asking about MP game play for tanks was that it was no fun to play target practice for planes. Now after that issue was addressed with the introduction of T-A trucks, they are just pretty toys to look at? this AA is no efficient in this actual form, actual situation... the problem is not solve... 16 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: Having 2 to 3 T-A trucks is going to be a lot more effective then just having one, so you working with other players to encourage them to get better at using the GAZ is exactly what you should be doing if you want to help improve the MP experience. That is why I encourage you to share you experience in another instructional video done from your perspective. just to remember, you must pay to play AA... not many player want pay 25$ for 1 AA, that they don't know if they like to play it... So logically, less AA player, less AA present on the server ... difficult to promote ... P.S .: One last thing, I don't like the way you talk to us, this passive / aggressive, condecive side, it's not pleasant when we try to exchange ideas ... for a rich and interesting exchange, let's remain courteous between us ... (unless it is the machine translation which sets this tone ...) Edited June 10, 2021 by moustache ,
Bodenplatte Posted June 10, 2021 Posted June 10, 2021 Please Gentlemen, no fighting in the War Room. 1
LachenKrieg Posted June 10, 2021 Posted June 10, 2021 7 hours ago, moustache said: no, please don't distort my words ... I never said that AA is useless, but that this one, in the current configuration of the game, with his characteristics and by gaming habits on the serv, is not of interest ... it's not the same ... of course, there is communication by chat, but giving precise and complete information by written chat is really not optimal, responsive ... for good communication, you need Discord, Teamspeak or SRS, but it is not it is not that a part is on this or that software, another on another ... and it is not uncommon to come across teams that do not use or communicate at all on the written chat ... a part of player play just to kill plane and tank, not for objective... this AA is no efficient in this actual form, actual situation... the problem is not solve... just to remember, you must pay to play AA... not many player want pay 25$ for 1 AA, that they don't know if they like to play it... So logically, less AA player, less AA present on the server ... difficult to promote ... P.S .: One last thing, I don't like the way you talk to us, this passive / aggressive, condecive side, it's not pleasant when we try to exchange ideas ... for a rich and interesting exchange, let's remain courteous between us ... (unless it is the machine translation which sets this tone ...) I think you have spun off your spool dude. First of all, go back and read my last post to you. There is nothing passive/aggressive/condecieve (what ever that means). You made a comment, and I asked you a question in return. The question I asked you is if you don't see any value in being able to defend yourself from air attacks? P.S. I don't like the way you answer questions.
LachenKrieg Posted June 10, 2021 Posted June 10, 2021 (edited) On 6/9/2021 at 1:14 PM, Monostripezebra said: I never said anything like that, only things but to the contrary.. Ground units WILL always be disadvantaged. However, the GAZ is, due to gamemechanic reasons and timeframe, even more at a disadvantage then makes sense for a player AAA. While there can be contexts where it can do something (with only slower opposition planes present), HE-effectivty, GAZ vulnerability and weapon ranges as well as aircraft speeds mean insta-death for GAZ players in 99% of all cases of attack by Jabo with the best possible outcome beeing a draw (ie: damaged Jabo that crashes on the way home). You can see in the MP stats, that most have very high loss-to-kill ratio even for the better players and the kills of the better players are to a huge chunk slower soviet planes (ie: they are playing the GAZ on the german side and shooting Il2s, which are kind of the slower end planes that persist more in MP settings.. for every Stuka you see online you see like 20 Il2 or so.. which may or may not have something to do with the bullet resistance and funky energy retention and high AoA capability of early Il2s in game which make it at light loads a surprisingly able fighter.. however realistic one may consider that.) A more area effect lightly armored vehicle like M-16s, M-17s or german flakpanzers would introduce a more skill based gameplay, because you can damage and kill them with direct hits, ie: the player aircraft need to hit. And they would be the historical choice, too.. the Sd.Kfz. 10/5 single Flak 38 and GAZ AA are both 1939ish early war things thouroughly outdated in the prevailing late-war online scenarios. With the GAZ I can spray from miles away in their general direction and even if I don´t anihilate them, they are mission killed. That is a fact. They do not offer any great value as tank escort, if the opposing late war fast aircraft knows what it is doing.. and from an aircraft perspective my best fight yet was Hurricane against a PzIII who really was really good. But in the end after shooting me down once could not defend anymore when I switched to steeper attacks out of his gun elevation, due to the PzIII limits.. that why I feel an armored AA would provide more fun/use for both sides or at least that is the best I can offer from a GAZ: a fair fight to those brave souls taking things like Stukas or Henschels out and be a sneaky surprise for newish players circling cap zones. Tank protection against divebombers or bombing Jabos? Not so much. Well.. I would disagree.. as long as people don´t not realize how to do steep attacks, tank self defense is surprisingly effective and there is usually at least one "tank kills aircraft" kill every server session. without aircover, it is still only target practice.. while in turn for the anti-ground aircrafts it becomes a veryoneside affair if they have no fighter cover, because the tactic of circling an arena-style area very low (ie: you are not a dot against the sky, so hard to see for low aircraft) and waiting for tracers to indicate easy prey distracted by looking for tanks is super effective.. (IRL you would have a problem doing that if high fighters showed up, energywise..) But the problem here is that that may collide with the server setting and goals.. But essentially the issue with the "herding cats" like art-school soldering of MP gameplay is that there is no Plan, no High Comand, no beeing shot when not following orders and most people play for what is their idea of fun like their prefered plane/vehicle and want personal statistic, ie: KILLS over "side wins" While "side wins" are usually the go-to consolidation of the side which goes "yeah, we were farmed, but in the end we won we played objective" while people on the other side basically where in it to present themselves as cool in a YT video, I mean most players are the first to cry "realism" if they want an advantage for their side but can´t even be bothered not to join the side with a 20+ player overhang.. (slight exaggeration here, but I feel a bit of sarkasm is apropriate here.. in essence: lets face it, side wins means nothing, if you are not into that... but a good game still needs people who actually want a good game and not a self-projection of "I am the greatest Kozhedubber" in a Yak 9ufo or a spawncamping "I got 2 T-34, I am sooo great, watch my YT!!" Tiger) That is a harsh insult.. ;=P What is insulting about telling someone they were helpful?... ;=P But your point seems to be that you simply want to inform everyone that the T-A trucks are not worthwhile regardless of how you have to bend reality to get it to support your opinion. I contributed to this thread because I thought you hit a wall in terms of getting the GAZ to perform. In describing your use of the GAZ, you made it sound like you were trying to make all kinds of manual adjustments to the gun sight in order to transition from planes flying overhead to ones attacking you head-on, and 7 seconds just wasn't enough time for you. So I tried to offer a different perspective to ease you pain a little. Apparently part of the learning curve with the GAZ is to learn how to think on your feet. Make the least number of adjustments for the most accuracy. Well I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it, but the best advice anyone could give you then is just don't use the GAZ anymore if you think it is too much for you to handle. Go back to dive bombing where you can feel more safe I guess. Better yet, instead of helping the online community to grow into a richer combined arms experience, maybe you can find a big enough following to kill it all together. That way you can just fly around hunting for other players in planes, because then you might have a better chance to survive. But regarding your opinion on the GAZ, you claim that it isn't capable in its role as an AAA, which BTW is what it was designed for, and then use a video of someone shooting down a plane with a T34 (1942) on a MP server? Really, that's your proof that the GAZ isn't useful in the current game mechanic? So lets be clear about the opinion you are trying to sell here; according to you if the T-A GAZ and a T34 (1942) were sitting side-by-side targeting planes, your opinion is what, that the T34 would shoot down more planes? I'm just trying to understand what the T34 video is supposed to represent. I would think/expect that the most number of planes shot down from players in tanks would be from the Sherman's 50 cal. The 50 cal could definitely do the job, but remember it is only 12.7mm and has an effective range of 1700m compared to the 25mm/2400m of the GAZ AAA. And so your point is what, that they did the last war wrong? You mean what they should have done to improve their chances of knocking planes out of the sky is have MG mounted flak batteries? I think we can all agree that knocking planes out of the sky is no easy task. But most of us come to IL2 for the realism of the simulation. I don't know about you, but I appreciate all the detail that has been modeled into the GAZ AAA. And in terms of knocking down planes with it, did you watch the video we both linked in this thread? Because he doesn't seem to be able to hit multiple targets in the same formation? He was also able to hit faster moving targets (190's), but clarifies that hitting planes is not easy. But I get it, you want to inform everyone that instead of equipping your team with a couple GAZ trucks for air cover, they should use the T34 (1934) instead. Edited June 10, 2021 by LachenKrieg 1
Monostripezebra Posted June 10, 2021 Author Posted June 10, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: But your point seems (..) to bend reality to get it to support your opinion. I contributed to this thread because ... The best advice anyone could give you then is just don't use the GAZ anymore if you think it is too much for you to handle. Go back to dive bombing where you can feel more safe I guess. Better yet, instead of helping the online community to grow into a richer combined arms experience, maybe you can find a big enough following to kill it all together. No matter how hard you try, this is not about me.. or you giving unsoliticed advice as someone not even playing the GAZ... This topic is about collecting helpfull things, but for that you need to play GAZ and have some knowlege or at least do look at the data. If you don´t, then please stop posting misinformation. To reiterate: My point is, that both the GAZ AA as well as the Sd.Kfz. 10/5 Flak 38 are vehicles from earliest war (1939) and as such where considered outdated in the real world by their respective users in late war and against fast Jabos and that, due to the specifics of how game mechanics in Il2 work and due to what happens in MP, these problems are exaberated. And while I expect the Flak 38 to perform somewhat better, the GAZ is especially hampered in its role by firerate, gunsight, vulnerability to HE area effect and inability to keep up with tanks off road (again here I hope the Sd.Kfz. 10/5 will be better suited to that role of moving with ground forces) So it is, as IRL in these scenarios obsolete, only significantly worse so, in an online game context due to game restraints. Again, my proposed solution is not to "kill" combined arms, I am merely proposing either setting scenarios in which the GAZ is more competative and at home (ie: with more Stuka/Henschel use) or that introducing vehicles from the historical time period designed for the purpose which is a predominat concern for combined arms in Il2, tank escort, like the M-17 or Wirbelwind Flakpanzer would possibly be way more adequate and might result in a more integrated gameplay. Lets see how the Flak 38 performs. This oppinon is based on my experience and server kill stats.. if that is "reality bending" for you, that is.... you know, like YOUR oppinion, but I would care more for it, if it was actually based on at least playing the GAZ yourself or put up some evidence. Or at least a more friendly tone, beeing all accusing does not make your oppinon more valuable or truthfull. And I do have made an effort to put time in the GAZ to test it, online... and yet I´d still love someone to prove me wrong. I like the GAZ.. But it does not perform even to poor standards and will not against fast, cannon armed late fighters, regardless if solo or in groups. And it is not a good "escort" for moving tanks, as it is road bound. That does not mean, one can´t play it, it only means what I wrote.. and that it simply will be very frustrating for most players depending on your expectations and tolerance for sitting through deaths and actionless waiting time... and that aircover and close air support are leaps ahead in efficiency of covering for a moving tank force then player sitting in GAZes in most online gameplay modes. I consider that facts. Edited June 10, 2021 by Monostripezebra 1
LachenKrieg Posted June 10, 2021 Posted June 10, 2021 On 6/5/2021 at 4:56 AM, Monostripezebra said: I can now say I have extensively tested the GAZ online.. and still think the way the auto-manual settings are linked is a major usability obstacle: To quote Requiems tutorial vid "If ASPECT is inaccurate, your shooting will be too!" so out of a triplet of 3 values, the most important one is always automated.. but in a wrong way: it assumes the aircraft turns when you turn the gun...and it changes every gun movement, making the sight in quick combat useless, because to reset that back to 0, you can only reset ALL values. and it can never be switched off. Experienced aircraft players know about the piñata-esque GAZ physique and WILL charge you frontally down your throat (ie 30min setting) but when you re-set the gunsight to that, your distance setting, the important one is gone, too. In reality, it seems that dial is disconnectable via a footpedal, at least that is how the re-set is animated in our GAZ.. so the GAZ would definately benefit from beeing able to pedal "aspect auto mode" off.. It really is painfully useless as single vehicle in MP and while it is fun, to have a 3 GAZ battery, that is at least somewhat of a minor nuisance.. it means essentially 3 players are doing mostly nothing for most of the time, which in a time-limited server environment is kinda an automatic contribution to the other sides progress. It is however pretty effective in urban environments against early (non-heavy) german tanks and with roads can be used as tank destroyer somewhat.. To start, I never said I don't play the GAZ. The points I was responding to, which has now somehow morphed into a claim/opinion that the GAZ is not historically relevant, are contained in this post of yours. Among other comments, you stated: "Experienced aircraft players know about the piñata-esque GAZ physique and WILL charge you frontally down your throat (ie 30min setting) but when you re-set the gunsight to that, your distance setting, the important one is gone, too." "It really is painfully useless as single vehicle in MP and while it is fun, to have a 3 GAZ battery, that is at least somewhat of a minor nuisance.. it means essentially 3 players are doing mostly nothing for most of the time, which in a time-limited server environment is kinda an automatic contribution to the other sides progress." First of all, there is nothing historically inaccurate about the GAZ. It was in use in 1943 at the time of the battle of Prokhorovka, which is the conflict Tank Crew is based on. The Panzer I was introduced in 1934, but it was used during the invasion of Poland in 1939. Regardless of opinion, the 25mm projectile coming out of the end of that gun is going to do as much damage when it hits a plane in 1943 then it did when it was first introduced. Second, I was trying to be helpful. I get how you might be having problems making the GAZ work for you if what you are doing for 6.9 seconds of the time you have to respond is playing with settings. Third, in the hands of capable players, a battery of 3 GAZ vehicles could make it very hard for the attacking planes on the other team. It has been acknowledged by any one interested in the topic that knocking planes out of the sky is no easy task. In terms of the GAZ vehicle itself, it has been modeled to a very high level of detail, which I fully appreciate. The fact that it has been so intricately modeled means that the DEV team has gifted the community with an extraordinary effort all so that we can get a feel for what it must have been like to shot the real thing. I think that is a real good thing for both this community, and the IL2 GBS franchise as a whole. Lets not forget that planes have been a thing in IL2 for years, while the AAA vehicles haven't even been fully released yet. You yourself probably have years of practice in the various planes, but only a month or two with the GAZ. Watch Requiems video again, he couldn't have had more than a few weeks with it even if he was given a pre-release trial, and I wouldn't exactly say he was struggling to knock a few down. But just like the BF109 pilot, you are definitely going to have to respawn no matter what vehicle/tank/plane you take. I would love to see more capable AAA guns in the game, but having slightly more armor isn't going to do jack squat if that 109 is able to lay it down on you. Your still going to have to respawn. You aren't even safe in a tank! And finally, I was really trying to be helpful, but just remind me again how your topic is supposed to be "collecting helpfull things"? I find it amazing how someone can respond to multiple threads that are begging/pleading/asking the Dev team to make more collector vehicles and which tanks we need, and then to turn around to dump on the concept of collector vehicles. I get how you are struggling to perfect what is probably the most challenging machine in the IL2 GBS. I understand that it is not easy. But the only thing standing between you and a down 109 is you, the GAZ has little to do with it. 1
Monostripezebra Posted June 11, 2021 Author Posted June 11, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: To start, I never said I don't play the GAZ. No, what you said was: On 6/9/2021 at 1:30 PM, LachenKrieg said: I I do not have your level of experience, or know how using the GAZ. On 6/5/2021 at 3:22 PM, LachenKrieg said: I would have to try it out myself to be sure. So.. Maybe i missread that, and remember we´re talking about online gameplay, you could possibly show how and where that that it is happening that the GAZ is as fast as tanks offroad or not super vulnerable to HE? Or has an adequate firerate for fast aircraft? Or a gunsight that is not a pain to use against fast moving aircraft bent on killing you, online? Or is actually efficiently used as batteries in conjunction with tanks in an online setting with late war cannon fighters that in a meaningful way protects tanks? The proof is in the pudding. Go ahead, show how your wisdom translates into pratice. 16 hours ago, LachenKrieg said: Third, in the hands of capable players, a battery of 3 GAZ vehicles could make it very hard for the attacking planes on the other team. But the only thing standing between you and a down 109 is you, the GAZ has little to do with it. Yeah, right fine.. Now if you say so, it is all me.. and and more importantly, fine, that also applies for all the other struggeling GAZ players online... but now you can surely be the hero show us all how its done and disprove the myth of "GAZ beeing a really outclassed vehicle for an endemic amor AA component." by action, stats or example? or Luke? Anyone? just go ahead, prove all my points wrong. Edited June 11, 2021 by Monostripezebra
LachenKrieg Posted June 11, 2021 Posted June 11, 2021 Yes I said, "I do not have your level of experience, or know how" using the GAZ. And it means exactly what it is meant to mean. Nothing there is suggesting that I don't play the GAZ. All I said is that based on the videos you linked of your own game play in the GAZ, I believe you have mastered it to a higher degree then I have. I also said that I thought it would be useful if you would consider doing another instructional video from your own perspective. This could potentially provide a huge benefit to the online community and especially for those that are struggling to master it like me. But it is just a friendly request, I realize you are not getting paid by the hour here. Regarding movement of T-A vehicles, unless your team is in a secured location and you are just setting up defenses on CAP, it is probably not wise to send lightly armored vehicles charging into battle against tanks. So there is probably nothing out of the ordinary to see armored columns being trailed by lighter armored vehicles (in this case the GAZ). Regarding the GAZ itself, its ROF and function are modeled correctly as far as I can tell. I think one of the most common expectations for people that have found their way to the IL2 GBS simulated battle world is REALISM. At least it is for me. So I have to tell you that I am extremely impressed with the finished product with the exception of a few minor flaws that I hope will be corrected in future updates. If this is the level of quality we can expect for collector vehicles going forward though, then they can count on my support, and I can hardly wait to see whats next. Regarding all its vulnerabilities, these are just part of the challenge of game play IMO. It is what makes the game play interesting don't you agree? I am not saying I enjoy getting knocked out, but getting knocked out in a war game simulation is not a valid reason to complain. If you are in a PzIV and you spot and penetrate a Sherman multiple times with no effect before he even figures out where you are, then you have a valid complaint. But if a Sherman spots you and knocks you out with a single shot, you don't really have any room to complain because the Sherman could take out a PzIV with a single shot. Driving the GAZ does not mean you will be invincible, nor does it mean you will be able to shoot down all the planes. And being effective in an air support role will take practice, but the payoff will be huge for anyone able to achieve a high efficiency as they will likely be able to change the outcomes of matches. So yes being able to use the GAZ effectively will be a challenge, and no its not all you. You are not the only one struggling. I think it is probably safe to say that everyone is struggling with the learning curve. One of the things that makes it so difficult in comparison to tanks and planes is that your target moves at such a high speed relative to yours. In a tank, most battles play out with both tanks firing from a standing position. With planes, the speed and movement of both makes it so that the target in front of you appears to almost be floating in a stationary position. While in the GAZ, the target is not only moving at a very high speed relative to your own, but its direction can change radically in 3-dimensional space. Good luck, and by all means, have fun. And seriously, I hope to see more of your exploits/achievements in the GAZ.
Avimimus Posted June 12, 2021 Posted June 12, 2021 I think a lot of the weight of this discussion could be removed simply through making AI anti-aircraft gunners quite a bit worse ?
LachenKrieg Posted June 12, 2021 Posted June 12, 2021 19 minutes ago, Avimimus said: I think a lot of the weight of this discussion could be removed simply through making AI anti-aircraft gunners quite a bit worse ? As odd as this might sound to you... I know what you mean.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now