I-16 Career Mode for BoM Frustrations

[76SQN-Minimayhemtemp]

Hi,

 

Decided to try an I-16 career mode in BoM.  Currently 9 missions in.  I'm finding the career mode incredibly frustrating, to the point where it feels pretty broken.

 

Most of my missions, bar 1 intercept ground attack aircraft mission, tend to be ground support or bombing light targets.  This is great, I love a bit of variety.  And they always give a chance to engage fighters.

 

The problem is that regardless of the type of mission, I get bounced every single time half-way to the objective.  Occasionally getting bounced I would understand, but every time, pretty much exactly half-way every time, a flight of enemy fighters intercept.  So, off go the bombs, wasted on the tree's to shed some weight, and into the fight we go.  Except there is almost always 2-3 extra enemy planes than there are in my flight.  Sometimes there are a flight of support aircraft, but their spawn or engagement trigger is much closer to the target than my flight is when we get bounced. 

 

Last mission I was lucky, I was only outnumbered by 1 enemy fighter (5 vs 4) on a bomb the bridge mission, I managed to down one before deciding to limp home after the 3 other pilots were shot down.  I landed, and actually felt quite proud until I saw a 'Mission Failed' at the debrief.  I mean, come on! Yes I didnt bomb the bridge but neither did the support flight come to my flights aid, and I could spot them circling closer to the bloody objective!

 

This was the first mission of the day, so now I'm on the second of the day, ground support, where I'm the only plane in the flight because the squadron has not been able to replenish. 

 

It just feels like there is an enemy flight that is bound to your flight as an objective so will seek it ASAP and engage, even if this is before the support flight is active, and even if you surive this engagement if you dont make it to the objective, you fail the mission.  Pretty poor mission crafting in my opinion, and makes for a very frustrating and dissapointing experiance.

 

I don't expect it to be easy flying an I-16 in career mode, but when the structure and outcome of the mission is so predictable, there's no enjoyment.

 

And dont even get me started on how the AI can see through clouds...

 

Off to PWCG I guess.

 

Sorry, rant over.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

One thing I hated with my I-16 BOM career were escort missions that were so long that my flight went bingo fuel before the bombers reached their target. 

 

Also for some reason this BOM russian career was so short, like 35 missions and it was over. And it was at the realistic length setting. I dont understand why it was so short. The progress bar went from like 33% to 90% suddenly. I didnt get injured. Weird. At this point I was no longer flying the I-16 but the Hurricane.

[Majpalmer]

Two things you can do regarding numbers. 

 

1) Start your campaign at the highest rank so that you command the squadron. That will allow you to bring along extra planes. Bring six if you want. 

 

2) Try Pat Wilson's campaign generator for Great Battles. Even if you're at the lowest rank you can assign additional aircraft to your flight. You can also change assigned waypoints, altitude, etc. 

 

But even with Pat's generator, when I do get assigned ground attack or escort missions as a fighter, I rarely get to the target with bombs or with the bombers. 

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, Majpalmer said:

Two things you can do regarding numbers. 

 

1) Start your campaign at the highest rank so that you command the squadron. That will allow you to bring along extra planes. Bring six if you want. 

 

2) Try Pat Wilson's campaign generator for Great Battles. Even if you're at the lowest rank you can assign additional aircraft to your flight. You can also change assigned waypoints, altitude, etc. 

 

But even with Pat's generator, when I do get assigned ground attack or escort missions as a fighter, I rarely get to the target with bombs or with the bombers. 

 

You should always get an escort when you are flying ground attack, except for raid missions which are low altitude strikes.  Anyhow, try letting the escort do its work.  Sometimes enemies bleed through but sometimes they do their job.

[LukeFF]

20 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

You should always get an escort when you are flying ground attack, except for raid missions which are low altitude strikes.  Anyhow, try letting the escort do its work.  Sometimes enemies bleed through but sometimes they do their job.

 

In stock career mode over Moscow, the Soviets do not give their fighter-bombers an escort flight, due to the real-world fact that the Soviets were still chronically short of fighter planes for such tasks in late 1941.

Edited August 21, 2022 by LukeFF

[Majpalmer]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

In stock career mode, the Soviets do not give their fighter-bombers an escort flight, due to the real-world fact that the Soviets were still chronically short of fighter planes for such tasks in late 1941.

Makes sense. If you get intercepted, drop your bombs and go at it. 

[KevPBur]

As for failing the mission. In black and white terms, you were tasked with bombing a bridge. If you didn't bomb the bridge you failed.

Your Russian superiors don't really care if you get back to base or even live, just that you bombed that bridge!

[Avimimus]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

In stock career mode over Moscow, the Soviets do not give their fighter-bombers an escort flight, due to the real-world fact that the Soviets were still chronically short of fighter planes for such tasks in late 1941.

 

I was thinking about this. I remember back in the days of Starshoy's campaign generator, discussions about encountering any enemies.

 

The argument was that flying sorties in which one didn't encounter enemy aircraft were boring, and thus it made sense to simply not include them in a campaign. This makes sense for fighter pilots.

 

However, it occurs to me that many transport pilots, bomber pilots, and sturmovik pilots would be quite happy to have the occasional mission without enemy contact (in the air at least).

 

So I wonder if this should be included as a realism option that we can turn on?

 

P.S. Of course it varies depending on side and time period - in Normandy Allied pilots could fly multiple sorties and only encounter anti-aircraft fire... whereas Jabos were being bounced three or more times per sortie at some points. Still though - I bet a lot of I-16 ground attack missions had no contact with enemy aircraft.

[Vendigo]

On 8/23/2022 at 9:32 PM, Avimimus said:

 

Still though - I bet a lot of I-16 ground attack missions had no contact with enemy aircraft.

 

As I remember from reading about VVS fighter pilots - an outstanding (above average) pilots's statistics look smth like this: conducted 100+ combat sorties, participated in about 30 dogfights, has maybe up to 5 enemy aircraft shot down personally and maybe 5 more as "group kills".. So a lot of sorties didn't have any contact with the enemy aircraft even for the air patrol missions. But of course we don't want to experience this while playing through a campaign.    

Edited September 11, 2022 by Vendigo

[Noisemaker]

11 minutes ago, Vendigo said:

 

As I remember from reading about VVS fighter pilots - a regular pilots's statistics looks like this: conducted 100+ combat sorties, participated in about 30 dogfights, has maybe 5 enemy aircraft shot down personally and maybe 5 or 7 "group kills".. So a lot of sorties didn't have any contact with the enemy aircraft even for the air patrol missions. But of course we don't want to experience this while playing through a campaign.    

Speak for yourself.

[Vendigo]

16 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

Speak for yourself.

 

@Noisemaker could you please pay more attention: 

 

41 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I remember back in the days of Starshoy's campaign generator, discussions about encountering any enemies.

 

The argument was that flying sorties in which one didn't encounter enemy aircraft were boring, and thus it made sense to simply not include them in a campaign. This makes sense for fighter pilots.

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Vendigo

[Noisemaker]

21 minutes ago, Vendigo said:

 

@Noisemaker could you please pay more attention: 

 

 

I read that.  Doesn't excuse you using the collective "we".  I didn't participate in the discussion of Starshoy's campaign generator (In fact, this is the first I've heard of it), but had I, I would have argued that having missions where nothing happens, is actually quite a relief.

[Vendigo]

Just now, Noisemaker said:

 I would have argued that having missions where nothing happens, is actually quite a relief.

 

You would have been one of like 5% or even less who can appreciate an uneventful mission of a fighter pilot campaign.

Most are like: I have not enough time in my life to waste 30-40 minutes on a boring mission when I can spend just an hour or two playing IL-2 in the evening after my kids are asleep.

Some people don't enjoy even historical flight times to and from the target area (I am talking about offline single player). I have known this since the IL-2 Forgotten Battles..         

[Noisemaker]

28 minutes ago, Vendigo said:

 

You would have been one of like 5% or even less who can appreciate an uneventful mission of a fighter pilot campaign.

Most are like: I have not enough time in my life to waste 30-40 minutes on a boring mission when I can spend just an hour or two playing IL-2 in the evening after my kids are asleep.

Some people don't enjoy even historical flight times to and from the target area (I am talking about offline single player). I have known this since the IL-2 Forgotten Battles..         

Oh, I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd honestly like the option of having a realistic campaign, along with the the option of realistic career progression that we already have.  If I'm pressed for time and want action, I have QMB and AQMB to whet my taste for blood.  What I don't want, but, in fact have, is a P40 Moscow career with over 180 A2A kills, because every mission throws 20+ enemy aircraft against you.  Or even better a Spitfire IX career in Bodenplatte with close to 70 A2A kills, where a single pilot would never have even seen 70 enemy aircraft during the course of their tour.  I want to be excited/scared when I encounter enemy aircraft, and relieved when I don't.   For me, that's one of the differences between a simulator and a game like WT.
 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

I started a topic in SUGGESTIONS about getting an historically accurate campaign setting that would influence both the AI level and the amount of friendly/enemy AI aicrafts.

 

Feel free to chip in guys.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, Vendigo said:

 

As I remember from reading about VVS fighter pilots - a regular pilots's statistics looks like this: conducted 100+ combat sorties, participated in about 30 dogfights, has maybe 5 enemy aircraft shot down personally and maybe 5 or 7 "group kills".. So a lot of sorties didn't have any contact with the enemy aircraft even for the air patrol missions. But of course we don't want to experience this while playing through a campaign.    

 

Well it depends if one is cruising in a P-51 looking for a fight... or if one is flying Ju-52/C-47, or U-2VS, or a Ju-87 or an I-16... like there are some aircraft where one would probably appreciate not being killed off immediately

 

Anti-aircraft guns provide a lot of tension and a certain casualty rate - amplifying that by always ensuring the enemy manages a successful intercept...  Well, it isn't necessarily desirable in some planes.

[Guest deleted@219798]

The flight route is unrealistic too. My Stalingrad career flight of Yak-1s were routed right over enemy AA. One plane got hit and had to turn back. It would be good if there was something like historical settings for aircraft numbers.

[CountZero]

On 8/23/2022 at 9:54 PM, Vendigo said:

 

You would have been one of like 5% or even less who can appreciate an uneventful mission of a fighter pilot campaign.

Most are like: I have not enough time in my life to waste 30-40 minutes on a boring mission when I can spend just an hour or two playing IL-2 in the evening after my kids are asleep.

Some people don't enjoy even historical flight times to and from the target area (I am talking about offline single player). I have known this since the IL-2 Forgotten Battles..         

Most used keys in SP are time accelaration ?

Yes i dont know how ppl expect SP player to just fly for 30min-1h in most of the missions without any enemy or action, ppl would try it maybe one time and get done with that SP expiriance. 

SP is unrealistic when it comes to amount of enemys and action encountered for a reason, and if they dont have time to make two types of SP, they will make action packed version only insted historical.

SP needs better comands with AI wingmans, so i dont have to kill every single enemy...

 

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Most used keys in SP are time accelaration ?

Yes i dont know how ppl expect SP player to just fly for 30min-1h in most of the missions without any enemy or action, ppl would try it maybe one time and get done with that SP expiriance. 

SP is unrealistic when it comes to amount of enemys and action encountered for a reason, and if they dont have time to make two types of SP, they will make action packed version only insted historical.

SP needs better comands with AI wingmans, so i dont have to kill every single enemy...

 

 

In PWCG I do mission spacing such that the mission you are flying is the one that generates contact.  I credit three missions flown (the stat is used for purpose of promotion) for every actual mission flown.  Some PWCG missions do not generate contact but most do.  The point being that the missions you are flying are the ones where you actually fight. 

 

For me the most important thing is not knowing what is going to happen.  I do not want to create missions where the same enemy is waiting in the same place all the time.  I am not interested in creating missions that have realistic levels of no contact.  If people want that then IMHO Microsoft Flight Simulator does a better job of it. Or they can fly Ju52s on transport missions (which is fun to do every once in awhile).

 

And yes, I use time acceleration.  I enjoy takeoff and landing.  I enjoy combat.  I enjoy a fair amount of flying.  I don't necessarily want to take an hour to fly one mission.

Edited August 26, 2022 by PatrickAWlson

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, CountZero said:

Yes i dont know how ppl expect SP player to just fly for 30min-1h in most of the missions without any enemy or action, ppl would try it maybe one time and get done with that SP expiriance. 

SP is unrealistic when it comes to amount of enemys and action encountered for a reason, and if they dont have time to make two types of SP, they will make action packed version only insted historical.

For fighters, I tentatively agree. But for ground attackers or bombers, I definitely don't. If I start a 1944 Typhoon campaign, I expect ground action and not to be intercepted by a flight of bf-109s almost every mission. It's alright and good fun if it happens occasionally, especially for fighters like most of the Allied ground attackers, but IMO the action should be mainly focused on ground attack and quickly raking up kills at a tempo unseen for 1944 Allied pilots is an immersion-breaking experience for me.

Edited August 26, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Majpalmer]

I once met a guy who had flown 35 missions as a B-24 pilot for 15th AF. I asked him what it was like to be attacked by German fighters. His response? "Hell, if I know! Never saw one." Plenty of FLAK, but never a single German fighter. 

 

Simulate that career. 

 

BTW, he flew his missions in late 1944 and early 1945. 

[Avimimus]

  

On 8/26/2022 at 6:28 AM, CountZero said:

Yes i dont know how ppl expect SP player to just fly for 30min-1h in most of the missions without any enemy or action, ppl would try it maybe one time and get done with that SP expiriance. 

SP is unrealistic when it comes to amount of enemys and action encountered for a reason, and if they dont have time to make two types of SP, they will make action packed version only insted historical.

 

Ah, well the thing is, you see, if you are engaging in ground attack you are experiencing plenty of enemy action... anti-aircraft fire, vehicles to engage, timing attacks to disrupt the coordination of enemy fire... and of course bombing everything in sight.

 

So in a SP ground attack aircraft you are guaranteed enemy contact (excepting the historical situations where you have to RTB due to mechanical failure, or you fail to make contact with enemy ships etc.)

 

But the point is that there can be plenty of excitement and satisfaction without being jumped by enemy fighters every single time.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Avimimus

[PB0_Roll]

I wouldn't mind a "generate empty missions for Noisemaker's pleasure" option as long as it is:

 

-unchecked by default

 

-an option, not the norm

 

heck, I may even use it for my own pleasure when flying a ground attack campaign.

[PatrickAWlson]

On 8/27/2022 at 10:18 AM, Majpalmer said:

I once met a guy who had flown 35 missions as a B-24 pilot for 15th AF. I asked him what it was like to be attacked by German fighters. His response? "Hell, if I know! Never saw one." Plenty of FLAK, but never a single German fighter. 

 

Simulate that career. 

 

BTW, he flew his missions in late 1944 and early 1945. 

 

If you set fighter opposition to 0 in advanced configuration, you can  

[BlitzPig_EL]

At an airshow many years ago there was a Bf109E, the one that used to be from somewhere in Canada, and a former Luftwaffe pilot who flew E7s on the Eastern Front.  Someone asked him about his thoughts on Russian fighters, and he said essentially the same thing, he never saw a VVS fighter his whole time in the East.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

On 8/23/2022 at 10:35 PM, Noisemaker said:

Oh, I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd honestly like the option of having a realistic campaign, along with the the option of realistic career progression that we already have. 

 

On 8/27/2022 at 4:18 PM, Majpalmer said:

Simulate that career. 

 

Some of you may be interested to know that Wings over Flanders Fields, the SP WW1 simulator, has the option to turn "Forced encounters" off. When turned on, the mission generator will try to deliberately place enemy's objectives in your mission area. When set to off, it won't have this consideration. Great for a realistic experience.

[jollyjack]

On 8/26/2022 at 12:28 PM, CountZero said:

Most used keys in SP are time accelaration ?

 

These buttons are also on my Throttle ... ready for my tuhmb. This as the ones on my keyboard wore out ...

[Majpalmer]

On 8/31/2022 at 8:50 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

At an airshow many years ago there was a Bf109E, the one that used to be from somewhere in Canada, and a former Luftwaffe pilot who flew E7s on the Eastern Front.  Someone asked him about his thoughts on Russian fighters, and he said essentially the same thing, he never saw a VVS fighter his whole time in the East.

Two reasons he was still alive. Flew on the Eastern Front. Never saw a fighter.