Artillery is far too soft

[Charon]

Artillery goes up like a hydrogen balloon as soon as you touch it with anything. Even a quick burst of 7.92mm will make it explode in a big fireball. That's obviously not how it was in real life. Sure, gun crews will flee if strafed, but you can't expect to permanently disable the gun by strafing. In real life you used bombs, or better yet napalm.

 

But in game, why bother ever taking bombs to hit artillery when anything, up to and including the U-2VS with a single ShKAS, is capable of destroying the entire battery with gunfire?

 

Am I the only one bothered by this? I've got other gripes about the damage model of ground assets, but this is far and away the most conspicuous.

[FurphyForum]

Nope, you're not on your own about this.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I think it's more a matter of giving immediate visual feedback to the player and simplifying the modeling detail of the gun.  Full detail of each gun position would require more than: killable crew, resistant sandbag barriers and exploding gun/ammo combo.  It's also possible to hit the dirt inside each gun position if you miss the crew/gun/ammo/sandbags by a millimeter or two.  Fully detailing each gun position with multiple damage options ranging from crew kill only to non-exploding damage to gun and ammo or damage that does not render the gun/ammo useless and specific reactions to the plane armament's ammo type would require extra resources in a game that doesn't multithread CPU cores, is using an engine that's almost reached the end of its functional lifespan and is uncertain whether it can be upgraded or replaced.  This gets really heavy when there's like a dozen+ guns in the same combat area.

I don't know about you but, I already can't play career mode or the campaigns on the simplest settings due to time slowing to a crawl when I get over the front line.  I wouldn't want the same happening in multiplayer servers or Quick Misson Builder as well. 

 

That said, in a perfect world, I totally agree with you, OP. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Mobile_BBQ

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 5/28/2023 at 4:58 PM, Mobile_BBQ said:

I think it's more a matter of giving immediate visual feedback to the player and simplifying the modeling detail of the gun.

This. Althought the rest of your post contains some assumptions about the game and its engine that I don't agree with, as well as some straight untruths.

 

For the duration of the average attack in IL2, the immediate effects of a gun exploding vs killing some of its crew are similar. Crew needs to be replaced, so in both cases it'd likely be out of action for some time. While obviously IRL not every gun explodes when hit, this does make it apparent it's out of action in a game where a limited resolution compared to your real-life eyes might not make it possible to see details you otherwise would (think dead bodies etc).

 

That said, if you're flying on the Western front, the concrete Flak emplacements do make the guns they contain *much* harder to destroy. While testing a Hurricane campaign I'm developing, I think I destroy perhaps a third of all guns I'm firing at, even though my aiming is good. Usually the crew runs away so the guns are out of action for a couple of minutes anyhow, but they don't explode nearly as often as they do without the concrete protection.

[Charon]

18 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

While obviously IRL not every gun explodes when hit

 

I'll go further than "not every gun explodes" -- I suspect that IRL the number of guns which exploded when strafed was near zero. I've watched plenty of period guncams, I've searched /r/combatfootage, I've read plenty of memoirs, and I just can't find anything that looks or sounds like a gun brewing up from a strafing attack. I'd love to see it if it exists, but I've not found it.

 

Quote

b) guns (MG and 2cm cannons)

Firing with guns can only be considered from low altitudes during a low level attack and has primarily a morale effect, especially due to tracer ammunition; the operating crews at the ballistic director and at the guns are unnerved, and increasingly disrupted. The ammunition consumption is to be limited to allow defense against fighter attacks, which may subsequently become necessary.

Pamphlet on Attacking AA Defenses with Bombers, reproduced in Stuka, Bergs and Kast, p69 (Germany)

 

Quote

"You can use long range fire effectively to attack targets such as [...] anti-aircraft gun-crews on ships or ground (demoralizing effect)."

Fighter Gunnery, 1st edition, p10 (USA)

 

Note there's no mention of actually destroying the guns in the above manual, even with .50 cals.

 

Quote

Don't waste your fire on the gun that a half track might be pulling. Hit the truck. An immobile gun is useless on the roadside.

Capt Leslie P Cles, 352nd FS/353rd FG quoted in 'Down to Earth' Strafing aces of the eight air force, William Hess, p96

 

Quote

The P-47 airplane has been extensively used with very great success in strafing locomotives, trains, motor transport, horse-drawn transport and armored vehicles.  [...] It has been proven quite conclusively that our .50 cal API ammunition can, and has, destroyed enemy armor. Pilots have repeatedly reported tanks being set afire by low-altitude strafing from the rear. Evidently ricochet bullets found their way into the engine section through exhaust and cooling vents.

XIX Tactical Air Command's First Month of Operations in Support of Third US Army in France. Dated 30th Sept 1944. p2-3

 

Note the conspicuous absence of guns among the targets against which .50 BMG is effective.

 

Quote

Napalm was found to be a very good weapon if properly employed on the proper targets. Among its advantages are the fact that: (1) it can be dropped from a low altitude without danger to the aircraft, and (2) it completely smothers the target with intense flames, burning everything combustible and destroying personnel by anoxia, carbon monoxide and burning. It is particularly adapted for attack on deep shelters, because of its effect on the ventilating system. In attacks on gun positions the effectiveness of artillery pieces was found to be impaired or destroyed by Napalm's intense heat.

ibid, p3

 

In that document's day by day account of XIX TAC's operations, gun positions are almost always reported as bombed as well as strafed, and even then the guns are typically only reported as "silenced", rather than destroyed.

 

----

 

In summary, the manuals don't say strafing is effective for destroying guns, the AARs don't report strafing as effective for destroying guns, and the footage we have doesn't show guns being clearly destroyed by strafing.

 

Yet in game, bombing gun positions is a waste. Guns can simply be destroyed more easily by strafing.

Edited June 8, 2023 by I./JG3_Charon

[migmadmarine]

I've always sort of handwaved it for myself as being the detonation of ammunition staged (likely improperly) in the immediate vicinity of the gun. But yea, on the whole I can agree with it being silly that the guns always explode, especially with how trucks and things can be counted as destroyed with killed drivers, broken axels, and one or two other destroyed states rather than always detonating. 

[Charon]

From https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p4013coll8/id/4304/download :

 

Quote

In general, ordnance material has stood the test of battle extremely well. The belief that
for years persisted, that the fire-control equipment was not sufficiently rugged to withstand the
impact of shells, bombs, and torpedoes, is now seen to be unjustified.

 

[...]

 

Shields.—The heavy shields and splinter protection about our directors and guns is
of questionable value. Splinter casualties other than from direct hits on board have been few.
A good deal of strafing has been done by the enemy with few casualties. Where weight is critical,
priority should be given to offensive weapons in large numbers rather than to the passive pro
tection offered by shields.

 

p173-174

 

This whole document has extensive information about shipboard AA guns, including damage reports after attacks. I was not able to find any mention of guns destroyed by strafing. On page 29, mention is made of one fire in a machine gun battery due to bombing.

 

https://tradocfcoeccafcoepfwprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/fires-bulletin-archive/1943/AUG_1943/AUG_1943_FULL_EDITION.pdf

 

p15: "In the afternoon our positions were strafed and bombed several times by a small flight of enemy planes. Damage was very slight, one gun being damaged and 3 men killed."

 

https://tradocfcoeccafcoepfwprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/fires-bulletin-archive/1944/DEC_1944/DEC_1944_FULL_EDITION.pdf

 

p40 "Shortly after occupying a position three miles east of the Oasis n March 21 we were attacked savagely twice, in rapid succession, enemy aircraft. We were inexperienced to the shock and sound of battle. The thunder of the bombs and the noise of our ack-ack ere terrifying and ominous. Our casualties were two killed and eight wounded, including part of an attached AA gun crew who suffered a direct hit in their gun pit. Materiel losses were one AA gun destroyed, three trucks damaged."

 

p40 "During the week that followed we were repeatedly bombed and strafed. Two wounded and one who's nerves cracked under the strain were the sum of our casualties. Fragments and bullets passed through tops and doors of some vehicles, but none were destroyed"

[Charon]

I've now reviewed every issue of Field Artillery Journal from 1940 to 1945 (thankfully OCR'd) and can find no clear case of a dug-in gun being destroyed by strafing. Where guns are reported destroyed it is because they are bombed, shelled, or strafed while moving (it is unclear if these were destroyed by strafing directly, or burnt out at their tow vehicle burned)

 

https://tradocfcoeccafcoepfwprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/fires-bulletin-archive/1943/NOV_1943/NOV_1943_FULL_EDITION.pdf

 

p5: "Next to receive its baptism of fire was "C" Battery. Five enemy
planes strafed and bombed the bivouac, firing two ammunition
trucks, which exploded"

 

p39: "The battery departed with 200 yards' interval between
vehicles; air sentries, front and rear, were alert on each
truck. After about a 20-mile march, two ME's came out of
the sun and attacked the column from the rear. The rear
machine guns opened up, and the signal for dispersal was
passed from sentries in the rear of the truck to the driver by
beating on the cab with a pick handle. Trucks dispersed as
per training. Men dismounted, scattered, hit the ground,
and fired everything they had. The ME's went down the
road and scored direct hits on gas tanks of three vehicles.
They began to burn. Machine gunners on the prime movers
(with 105 ammunition around their feet) and on the ¾-ton
M.G. trucks, held their ground and returned fire. The
planes circled and returned, machine guns and 20-mm.
cannon roaring. Hits were scored on two more vehicles,
including a battery ammunition truck and an ammunition
truck and trailer attached from the battalion train. Flames
reached the ammunition after about ten minutes. All hell
broke loose as the 105's exploded. One machine gunner
was blown from the truck to the ground. Net result: five
vehicles and three howitzers destroyed by fire; two men
slightly wounded; one ME-109 shot down; one ME-109
last seen smoking, going over the horizon. [...] The Germans went after prime movers and ammunition
trucks."

 

 

https://tradocfcoeccafcoepfwprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/fires-bulletin-archive/1944/FEB_1944/FEB_1944_FULL_EDITION.pdf

 

p27 "On the first day at Medjez-el-Bab, on the reconnaissance
flight which disclosed to the Germans the presence of U. S.
troops in Tunisia, one of two Me-109s attacked Btry B at 0900
hours. This battery, with other units of the battalion, returned
its fire. The plane seemed to be hit, and was reported by the
French to have crashed some miles away. No casualties were suffered by the Americans. An hour and three quarters later the battalion area was attacked by 22 enemy planes which bombed
and strafed for 35 minutes; no casualties were suffered. Two
hours later the battalion area was attacked by a group of 14
enemy planes; it was bombed and strafed, but again there were
no casualties. Two of these aircraft attacked the battalion CP
and dropped a 500-kilo bomb 150 yards from it. The CP
gunner stayed at his .50-cal. machine gun and apparently hit
one of the planes. The French later reported that it had crashed.
Exactly two hours after the 14-plane attack the battalion area
was attacked by a group of 15 enemy planes. The area was
bombed and strafed, but the battalion suffered no casualties to
personnel; Btry C reported one truck gutted"

 

 

https://tradocfcoeccafcoepfwprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/fires-bulletin-archive/1944/JAN_1944/JAN_1944_FULL_EDITION.pdf

 

p72

"Battery c, 27th Field Artillery Battalion
Cited for outstanding performance
On December 6, 1942, the battery position near Tebourba, Tunisa, was strafed and bombed by ten Messerschmitts for ten minutes when thirty enemy tanks, supported by infantry, attacked the battery in front and flank. All the battery guns engaged in direct fire against this superior force, but at 1120 hours the tanks, fring their machine guns, passed through the battery positions and overran the machine gun posts, then turned and again passed through the battery positions. Shelling from the tanks eventually drestroyed all the 105-mm self-propelled guns of the battery, which continued in action until set afire and the crews dispersed, injured, or killed by machine gun fire. The last section seen in action discharged its gun point blank at a Mark IV tank; but tank and gun fired simultaneously and each was destroyed by the other's direct hit. At this point, another battery arrived at the scene of the melee and, firing directly on the tanks, caused their withdrawl and the retirement of the enemy infantry, thus enabling the scattered remnants of Btry C to assemble. During the melee all members of the battery remained at their posts performing assigned duties until killed, injured, or their equipment destroyed."

 

https://tradocfcoeccafcoepfwprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/fires-bulletin-archive/1945/SEP_1945/SEP_1945_FULL_EDITION.pdf

p21
"The matter of air defense did not present itself until we reached Lyete, where we were dive bombed, strafed, and attacked by paratroopers. We have credit for assisting in shooting down two low flying bombers that strafed our position. The only damage that we have suffered so far from these attacks was a near bomb hit on our fire direction center that caused a few personnel and material casualties."

 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by I./JG3_Charon

[AEthelraedUnraed]

6 hours ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

 

I'll go further than "not every gun explodes" -- I suspect that IRL the number of guns which exploded when strafed was near zero. I've watched plenty of period guncams, I've searched /r/combatfootage, I've read plenty of memoirs, and I just can't find anything that looks or sounds like a gun brewing up from a strafing attack. I'd love to see it if it exists, but I've not found it.

 

Pamphlet on Attacking AA Defenses with Bombers, reproduced in Stuka, Bergs and Kast, p69 (Germany)

 

Fighter Gunnery, 1st edition, p10 (USA)

 

Note there's no mention of actually destroying the guns in the above manual, even with .50 cals.

 

Capt Leslie P Cles, 352nd FS/353rd FG quoted in 'Down to Earth' Strafing aces of the eight air force, William Hess, p96

 

XIX Tactical Air Command's First Month of Operations in Support of Third US Army in France. Dated 30th Sept 1944. p2-3

 

Note the conspicuous absence of guns among the targets against which .50 BMG is effective.

 

ibid, p3

 

In that document's day by day account of XIX TAC's operations, gun positions are almost always reported as bombed as well as strafed, and even then the guns are typically only reported as "silenced", rather than destroyed.

 

----

 

In summary, the manuals don't say strafing is effective for destroying guns, the AARs don't report strafing as effective for destroying guns, and the footage we have doesn't show guns being clearly destroyed by strafing.

 

Yet in game, bombing gun positions is a waste. Guns can simply be destroyed more easily by strafing.

Like migmadmarine, I think of it as nearby ammo that explodes. Anyhow, whether Flak guns "rarely" or "virtually never" explode when hit with MG fire is beside the point (no-one is arguing that it did happen often) and doesn't address my points of similar short-term effects and visual feedback.

 

Anyhow, there's a third, technical, reason. The game doesn't differentiate between different ammo types when considering which "destroyed model" to use. There are occasions where a Flak gun does end up as a deformed heap of steel (e.g. a direct bomb/artillery shell hit) so I think the current "destroyed model" is fine. Importantly, here too you need a clear visual distinction between the default and destroyed models to compensate for the fact that on a PC monitor, it's quite impossible to see whether the crew is still around or not.

 

Given that there are very dissimilar default and destroyed models, you need to have some transition between them to maintain the suspension of disbelief. This is extremely common in game design, and similar to how in many city building or RTS games whenever you place a building somewhere, there's a smoke cloud to obscure the model suddenly popping in. If an object simply jumps from one model to another, our brain refuses to believe it and it becomes quite noticeable and ugly. Believe me, there'd be more complaints if there *wasn't* an explosion to obscure the switch between models. Or if there wasn't any visual feedback to show whether a gun is out of action or not.

 

Of course, one might add an armour value to the guns to make them pretty much invulnerable to MG fire. I think the crew will still run away so the gun would still be disabled, at least until the crew respawns after some time. The question then becomes:

A) Even if they didn't explode; were Flak guns disabled by MG/cannon fire (impact damage on critical components; I imagine a direct hit on the gunsight would render a gun effectively out of action for at least a couple of hours)?

B) Were strafed flak guns "claimed" by fighters?

C) Is it desirable from a gameplay perspective to make guns indestructible by anything but bombs, rockets and artillery?

C is a matter of opinion and up for debate; A and B are honest questions that I don't know the answer to. Anyhow, if the answer to any of these questions is "yes", I think an armour value is a bad idea. Also note that I don't know whether AI aircraft would still attack a disabled-but-intact AI gun; I suspect they would.

Edited June 8, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Charon]

19 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

doesn't address my points of similar short-term effects and visual feedback.

 

Short-term effects are already represented by the crew leaving the gun when it is strafed.

 

As for the permanent destruction of the gun, I don't see why the player should get visual feedback.. XIX's TAC's reports say things like "... report came from 371st Group: 'Seven 500-pound bombs on gun position T-6712. Area was marked with smoke and bombed accurately. No results observed. Murphy [Combat Command B of 2nd Armored Division, First US Army] reported guns silenced." (p14) or "The ground forces marked the target with white smoke and our Thunderbolts attacked it with six 500-pound bombs, four frag clusters, and strafing. Results were not observed, but the ground forces indicated the guns were destroyed and congratulated the squadron leader." (p23). Damage assessment, even when targets were bombed, seems to have been limited limited to putting munitions on the target and asking ground forces what effect was had.

 

23 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

being the detonation of ammunition staged (likely improperly) in the immediate vicinity of the gun

 

I'm not going to claim this never happened, but I can't find any reports of it, and not for lack of trying. Several of the FAJ issues I quote above mention trucks loaded with ammo blowing up, but not even one account of a gun destroyed by strafing detonating ammunition in the immediate vicinity.

 

The October 1944 issue of Field Artillery Journal even says (p32) "Projectiles, especially those with no fuze and booster assembled, are relatively safe from detonation by small arms fire and shell fragments. [...] Detonation of one projectile is not apt to detonate adjoining projectiles sympathetically if they are separated by as much as the diameter of the projectile."

 

19 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

A) Even if they didn't explode; were Flak guns disabled by MG/cannon fire (impact damage on critical components; I imagine a direct hit on the gunsight would render a gun effectively out of action for at least a couple of hours)?

It probably happened on occasion. But even when it happened, how would the pilot know?

 

19 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

B) Were strafed flak guns "claimed" by fighters?

 

It doesn't seem like it, unless the gun was attached to a truck which was destroyed. They might claim flak guns "silenced" or "neutralized" with strafing or frag bombs, but this seems to be purely a matter of killing or discouraging the gunners. They might claim a gun position destroyed, but that seems to be a matter of putting sufficient bombs on the target and then judging it destroyed. Fighter pilots don't seem to view guns as worth strafing except to suppress, and they say things like "do not fool around with flak towers or gun positions unless they are in use" (Col Vic L Byers, 351st FS/353rd FG, quoted on p91 of 'Down to Earth', William Hess).

 

19 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

C) Is it desirable from a gameplay perspective to make guns indestructible by anything but bombs, rockets and artillery?

 

A matter of opinion. I will admit that Il-2 lacks important soft targets like marching troops and horse-drawn carts, and that stationary tanks can be used as stand-ins for artillery (and maybe mission designers should do so, when trying to represent artillery batteries)

[AEthelraedUnraed]

5 hours ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

Short-term effects are already represented by the crew leaving the gun when it is strafed.

You've got a point there. Although in real life, the crew would probably remain under cover when they'd left their posts rather than return to their guns after a fixed amount of time, if the enemy was still around.

 

5 hours ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

As for the permanent destruction of the gun, I don't see why the player should get visual feedback.

For starters, because the limited resolution of a screen makes it harder to see things than in real life. With a monitor (or even VR set), we get less visual cues about targets than we would in reality. In real life I have no trouble at all spotting people from many hundreds of metres away. Obviously I've got no real-world experience, but it doesn't seem altogether unrealistic to me that with careful watching, a pilot would be able to see if a gun is manned, or if it's turning towards a target. In-game I wouldn't be able to see any of that unless I'm using external view close to the target. If I'm looking closely though, I am able to see whether a gun uses the default or destroyed model.

 

I guess this is a similar discussion to the age-old issue of whether to artificially make distant contacts more visible; proponents often point to how that would only compensate for the fact that they are made *less* visible by playing on a monitor.

 

Also, how do you feel about how the flak should look after a direct bomb hit, or a tank shell? By necessity, that needs to be the same 3d model as the model used when the flak is destroyed by MG fire, and by virtual necessity an explosion or smoke cloud is needed to hide the transition. (Of course, an armour value would solve this as it'd make flak pretty much indestructible by MG fire.)

 

5 hours ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

It doesn't seem like it, unless the gun was attached to a truck which was destroyed. They might claim flak guns "silenced" or "neutralized" with strafing or frag bombs, but this seems to be purely a matter of killing or discouraging the gunners. They might claim a gun position destroyed, but that seems to be a matter of putting sufficient bombs on the target and then judging it destroyed. Fighter pilots don't seem to view guns as worth strafing except to suppress, and they say things like "do not fool around with flak towers or gun positions unless they are in use" (Col Vic L Byers, 351st FS/353rd FG, quoted on p91 of 'Down to Earth', William Hess).

Hmm, I've scanned a couple of ORBs of No.174 Sq. RAF (flying the Hurribomber) I've got lying about. Flak or guns don't seem to be treated differently than other kinds of ground targets, although straight-out claims against ground targets are extremely rare at best and exclusively reserved for very large targets (i.e. ships). Whenever ground targets are attacked, the accuracy of the attack is described rather than the supposed effects it had on the target, using phrases like "effectively bombed", "bursts were seen on and among", "one direct hit is reported", "attacked with MG" and "all bursts but two on target".

 

So if you want to do it fully realistically, there probably shouldn't be *any* ground kills in IL2 and points should be awarded according to how close your fire was to the intended target.

 

Whether guns were worthy strafing targets seems to at the very least depend on the period, location and perhaps air force. In the 1942 ORBs I'm speaking of, there are very many entries detailing how they strafe both artillery and flak. Sometimes as part of the primary or secondary objective(s), but more often on the way home to use up unspent ammo. If you read through the reports, it really seems to have been a favourite pastime.

 

5 hours ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

A matter of opinion.

Yes, it is, and that's what much of this in the end boils down to. Ultimately, IL2 is both a game and a simulator, and those two are not always compatible. If done fully realistically, guns should not explode, should not (generally) be destroyed by MG fire, and should not be claimed even if they are destroyed. But how attractive is that for an audience of which at least a part wants to receive some kind of "points" for whatever they attacked?

Edited June 9, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Calos_01]

5 hours ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

As for the permanent destruction of the gun, I don't see why the player should get visual feedback.

Because, after all, it´s a game and visual feedback is more fun? ? A matter of opinion, of course.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Calos_01

[Calos_01]

On 6/7/2023 at 9:33 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

a Hurricane campaign I'm developing

This is I´m really looking forward to.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On 6/7/2023 at 3:33 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Although the rest of your post contains some assumptions about the game and its engine that I don't agree with, as well as some straight untruths.

 

 

 

OK. Since the rest of the reply I snipped this from fails to define these "straight untruths", care to elaborate?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

14 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

care to elaborate?

Why not?

 

First, two things you say that are pure conjecture:

On 5/28/2023 at 4:58 PM, Mobile_BBQ said:

using an engine that's almost reached the end of its functional lifespan and is uncertain whether it can be upgraded or replaced.

The Devs haven't said anything about the matter, so whether it's reached the end of its functional lifespan is very much unknown.

The next part, when taken literally, is a falsehood as literally every engine *can* be upgraded. Many of the current popular game engines are many years old, often even older than IL2. The Windows 11 Operating System for the Gods' sake is not much more than an upgraded version of Windows NT which celebrates its 30th birthday in a month. You can ask whether IL2's engine *will* be upgraded or if it's *worth* to upgrade it, but there's no uncertainty whatsoever about whether it *can* be upgraded.

The more important question (and which I suspect you might mean even though it isn't exactly phrased like that) of whether it *will* be upgraded or not is, again, nothing more than a wild guess. Although, to your credit, you already mention this as "uncertain".

 

Then there's the following:

On 5/28/2023 at 4:58 PM, Mobile_BBQ said:

a game that doesn't multithread CPU cores

The incorrect phrasing aside (you don't "multithread cores", you run a multithreaded process, each of whose threads may or may not run on different cores depending on the whims of the OS), this is simply not true. As the Devs have stated multiple times and as you can easily check yourself using an app like Process Explorer, IL2 uses multithreading.

 

And finally this:

On 5/28/2023 at 4:58 PM, Mobile_BBQ said:

Fully detailing each gun position [...] would require extra resources[...].  This gets really heavy when there's like a dozen+ guns in the same combat area.

While it's not untrue that it would require *some* extra resources, it's clear from the context that you're especially talking about CPU resources. This is only true when a gun gets hit (it needs to check more internal hit boxes). As long as you don't fire directly at the gun, no extra CPU resources are needed so it doesn't make things any more heavy if there are loads of guns around compared to how heavy it is already.

 

Apart from this slight increase in CPU usage when fired on and, I imagine, a very slight increase in RAM usage, the only extra "resources" it requires are development time/money, which might not be insignificant if you want to realistically upgrade every gun currently in the game.

Edited June 10, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Charon]

I finally found one account of strafing setting off stored ammo:

Quote

The one-point-one gun crews were down in a bloody mess. Their magazines had been stacked in a circle behind them, and bullets from a strafing plane had caused them to fire at knee level into the gun tub.

Crossing the Line, Alvin Kernan (USS Hornet ordnanceman). p80

 

On 6/8/2023 at 12:57 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

C) Is it desirable from a gameplay perspective to make guns indestructible by anything but bombs, rockets and artillery?

I've recently implemented a script to modify missions such that artillery will flee when strafed, but can only be destroyed with a bomb or rocket. Thanks @Sketch for showing me how to do this. I've been using it with PWCG and I've found that it does actually add a lot to my enjoyment (despite a few bugs I still need to stamp out). It makes destroying artillery batteries really quite challenging and a test of skill.