RE: State of the Air War in AE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Hoplosternum -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/10/2012 6:19:49 PM)

LoBaron, TheElf, Alfred et al while I agree with a lot of what you say Greyjoy came across a clear bug in the code. You cannot seriously argue that the Escorts over a certain level making the bombers immune to CAP was either intended to work like that or has any basis in reality?

Lets start with what we probably agree on.

WitP AE has a much better air model than WitP and I appreciate the work done both before and after the release of AE.

The model works best with historical numbers being used historically. You don't have to use them in the historical areas, just avoid packing everything in to one area and then expecting the game engine to work pefectly, and things will go much smoother. For those that grumble many things can be house ruled. If you find multiple PT TFs in a port hex make the port immune to bombardment TF and you don't like this then House Rule it. No need for code changes to 'fix' it.

We can all see the Raedar/Greyjoy game pushed everything to the extremes and the fact that the game engine struggled was only to be expected. But they came across a bug that affects both sides and is all but impossible to avoid late war. And could not realistically be avoided by house rules. Even if Greyjoy was not battering on a very narrow front just off Japan it would be hard to avoid this in any hard fought over bit of real estate late war. There will be plenty of strikes with over 200 escorts. Even if you HR limit the number of escorts from one base/hex, coordination can occur from multiple bases/TFs.

The problem is that giving the bombers absolute immunity from any size of CAP be it 20 or 2000 (and regardless of the bomber strike size) just by having 200 escorts (and they don't have to be in anyway capable of fighting the CAP - just be there as targets for the CAP) will have big affects. And whether people divide up their CVs, attack in multiple areas or on a narrow axis they will come across this as plane densities increase in the late war. There are enough other people reporting it in the late game now for us to rule out it being a quirk of Greyjoy's experience and testing I think.

You may dispute that this is a real issue and have plenty of data or experience that large escorts don't block CAP (of any size) from getting at the bombers, thats fine. And if you want to quibble about the exact numbers thats fine too. My guess is that there are enough random elements that the number for bomber safety is not fixed. Or if you want to say that it is just a late war issue and so not that crucial I can accept that. And there may be no solution if code changes are needed and there is no one available or willing to make them. We will all have to live with that if thats the case. But to claim it is working as intended seems bizarre. It is neither realistic or a good game mechanic. It rewards one sides concentration while punishing the other for doing the same thing.

If you would accept there was a problem then there are potential fixes. Yes they would require code changes but they need not be ones that will affect other areas and so need not cause lots of unintended consequences.

Here are my two possible solutions. They both are based on an assumption about how the code works which the game suggests but may not actually be the case. That is that there comes a point in the air strike routine where the numbers are known on both sides BEFORE the combat is resolved. I believe it flashes the numbers up on screen before the combat replay is played out. At that point you insert some extra code which resolves the problem.

So you have all the code which determines who is coordinated and finds the target and the CAP appearing and gives you the numbers - say 240 Escorts, 480 bombers and 360 CAP. The new code then applies a limit to the strike size and simpley reduces the strike to that size. Lets say the limit we think the engine can handle is 300 we simply cut everything down to that in the ratios we have. So we would end up in this case with 100 escorts, 200 bombers and 150 CAP. The rest simply don't take part. We know the engine can handle that size of combat without uber CAP or the greyjoy bug issues.

Some might consider such a reduction in strike size too drastic, although I like it as it would discourage the fantasy mass air battles the current game model encourages. So as an alternative you put in code that breaks up the strike in to multiple waves and fight each one seperately. This would be harder to code as you would have to store the different waves (and results) and change what you display in the combat replay. Basically you would run multiple air battles in a series. Using the figures from my first example the total strike size is 720 (240+480) vs a maximum strike size of 300. So you split it in to 3 and run three air battles on the existing model. Each with 80 escorts, 160 bombers and 120 CAP. Even if CVs or air bases are put out of action on the first raid this should not affect the CAP of later waves. They are already up in the air and committed. They just take part in a different wave of combat.

Either of the above systems has the advantage of making sure the air combats are of a size the engine can handle. They are both relatively straight forward (assuming the code currently reaches apoint where it has determined the strike/CAP sizes but has not yet begun the combat). And because they don't interfere with the other mechanics - coordination, fatigue, altitude changes, number of passes etc. - there should be little chance of breaking other things. And we already know combat works for these numbers.




vettim89 -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/10/2012 6:53:40 PM)

JOMHO, but I think this thread is diverging from the OP's original intent.

First, I think the AE Team did a bang up job on the game. While there certainly things that are abstracted and quirky, the game does what it is supposed to do remarkably well. Is it perfect? No, it is not. That said, there is no other game like it that I have ever encountered.

With that out of the way, lets look at the initial question: have some things been introduced into the code that have created problems that were unanticipated? For all the talk about "legacy code", the truth is that the original WITP was altered for AE as far as the air combat routines are concerned. The introduction of pilot skills as well as experience, the altitude based maneuverability ratings, and the new CAP routines all indicate that the code was indeed altered. Now whether, the actualy guts of the system was changed vice new subroutines were added is a question for those that know. I suspect it was the latter. My point being that these facts disprove the premise that we are stuck with the legacy code because any change to the core program would require a complete rewrite of the code. I do concede that some of the things we see now may have always been there but hidden from us. I would specifically be referring to things like raid detection range, number of fighters in the air versus scrambling, etc.

From the day AE was released, there were concerns about how CAP subroutines were working. If you recall, many of us fired up the Coral Sea scenario immediately after installing the game. There were numerous posts about the ineffectiveness of CAP from those initial few days. Now some of that may have been the process of learning the new system, but I think the point could be made that there was some concern from the beginning. I personally remember posting something along the lines of "we have gone from Uber CAP to Useless CAP." Now after playing the game for a few years, I am not sure if things are or were nearly as bad as we first thought. One thing I can definitely say is setting an effective CAP in AE is much more fine grained with every little setting coming into play. I think some of the "faults" in the system are really just poor understand of the game sometimes combined with poor play.

The only thing that has been brought up that I would agree with is the "ablative armor" effect of Escorts. I have seen this in my own games and I think it is worth further investigation. I won't repeat myself completely, but I still think this has to do with the code "piece mealing" the CAP but allowing the escorts to act as a combined, very cohesive unit. Again repeating myself, if the goal of the AE Air Combat routine was to create leakers, then it should go both ways. If bombers can leak past even numerically superior CAP, then some CAP should be able to leak past the escorts. This should certainly be true if the CAP has a vast numerical superiority. Putting some sort of balance check into the CAP routine would not be that hard. Is it really too much to ask of the system for there to be a point where the escorting fighters would be overwhelmed by the CAP? I think this may actaully be in the system now going by some combats I have watched. Perhaps it just needs to be tweaked.




LoBaron -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/10/2012 8:11:00 PM)

Vettim, Hoplosternum:

Noone denies that we have an ablative armor effect of cheap escorts as soon as planes imvolved surpass a high but reachable threshold.
I also think that there are already some ideas around here which justify further investigation, keep in mind that ressources here are an issue.
Personally I am unable to invest much time into such a topic, and this probably applies to everybody else who needs to work for a living, including
devs like Iain.


But what astounds me a bit is, that only few notice this ablative escort effect comes at a pretty high cost.

The cost is:

1) High airframe usage of the player who implements this kind of method
2) Similary high usage of the pilot training programme
3) With the above the occupation of a large part of the Japanese industy, this is why there are more complaints in scen#2 than in scen#1
4) A decline in fighter pilot quality, either draining the pool of trained pilots or draining the recruit base for trained pilots, both effects are negative
5) A low sustainability against stubborn fighter defense as CAP is usually in advantage to escorts
6) A dependency on high-value or easy-to-hit targets in order to hold some balance between benefit and drawback of this strategy

If you look at the list above there are a lot of easy solutions to make such a strategy more costly and less damaging. This would be:

1) Defend from interlocking mutually supportive bases (use dispersal)
2) Stay flexible and engage the enemy fighter concentrations where they are based and not exclusively when they attck, this way you add another dimension
to What Alfred designates as "degradation of enemy force structure and pinning of the enemy forces "
3) Minimize the exposure of high value targets in the contested area to remove the benefit from ablative armor tactics
4) Cut the ressource flow where possible to drain the basis of a ressource intense strategy
5) Add as many new theat axes as possible, to force dispersal of enemy forces
5a) If reaction is not like expected in 5), engage the opponent where he chooses not to locate his force concentration

There are many more suggestions how to mount effective counters, but these would venture into tactical details, and there are lots of other threads on this topic.

An opponent playing such a strategy against me might soon have second thoughts on the cost/benefit balance.


I think that many of those experiencing issues are trying to mount a higher operational tempo than it is feasible in their situation.
This has always been a game which teaches patience.

A war must be won by moving forward, true, but it is true at the same time that the prerequisites to create a situation from where
winning is possible does not neccesarily include moving forward. And it does under no curcumstances include any imperative to move
forward at this specific moment in that specific area.

Time and location is the freedom of the player to chose. Both are often wrongly chosen.



I find this an extremely interesting an productive discussion by the way.



Rainer79 -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 8:30:32 AM)

While others have already pointed out that fiddling with the whole CAP vs. sweeps vs. escorts balance may introduce unwanted side effects, on the top of my personal wish list regarding air combat in general would be something else.

I would like to see bombers attacking land targets to have a chance to miss their targets completely. In history bombing the wrong target was quite a common occurrence. There is already such a functionality regarding naval strikes so hopefully it wouldn't even be that hard to code.

In the game though long drawn out battles like the reduction of Rabaul can't happen since the airbase will be closed after the first massed assault. Sure, allied losses may or not be pretty bad during that day but once the damage is done the base will never be able to reopen if even some modicum of pressure is kept up. And daily milk run to do just that can be flown pretty easily.

Just my € 0,02.



janh -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 1:15:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
I think that many of those experiencing issues are trying to mount a higher operational tempo than it is feasible in their situation.
This has always been a game which teaches patience.


A lot of strange outcomes simply come from "strange play". Certainly one could close all of these "loopholes", and a huge lot were already closed in the transition from WitP to AE. There are evidently some remaining, but most recurring ones were in my opinion successfully addressed by Dababes mod (SuperEs, AAA etc.). If resources were unlimited, it would be a worthy task to port them over to stock and fix the also other loopholes. But in the end, even if you did that, people would still play the game "unhistorically, irrationally, unprofessional" .-- you name it -- manner. Well, people will always play the way they like it, there is nothing to stop them from it other than learning how to perform operations etc. "the proper way" -- which, given the overall accuracy that this game achieves, is probably close to the "book". But I suppose most of us are just not professional staff officers of any sort.

Even then, this game -- like any -- is missing one key factor, which in my opinion leads to what LoBaron mentioned: high op-tempo. This game has no consequences, and allows to take risks and be bolder than a RL counterpart would be. This is actually one of the benefits why people play games, to change history, and see what risks are "manageable", or how "elegantly" we can beat the opponents. Yet also this high op-tempo leads to similarly "strange" situations, even for the "best" players who otherwise "play by the book" in very reasonable style. In the end, it is "only" a very realistic, detailed game, or simulation, depending on what definition you prefer.

Regarding the ablative armor effect: it usually takes a while to accumulate the airframes, Nates are too short legged later, but enough spare Oscars will only be available by mid/late 43 with no usage other than kamikaze missions. It is a one-shot thing, but sometimes loosing rookie pilots is what you want as IJ players since the pools can be so full with no button to release them, that they are just a drain on HI at the later stages (there are AARs indeed...).
Done with initial key attacks, like on a 4EB base, or an LBA on a amphibious attack and its carrier support, it might give you the lucky hit you need before the following attack from KB. Even small strike packages would be enough? As far as I toyed with it (against AI though), it works well, and since the IJ used kamikaze attacks, why not allow kamikaze escorts? If it is not a (serious enough) bug, it is a feature. If it were a bug, it ought to be addressed, right?

Yet this 200 pass limit for attacking CAP flights, where does it come from, and what exactly is the rationale behind it? On first look it seems arbitrary. Was it just to make air combat tractable? Probably not.
Is it a representation of duration and the spread out character of large scale battles? I will pick Europe for a guesstimate, since I can find info quicker for that theater for large scale situations: a "1000 bomber raid" in Europe would take some ~60-90 minutes over the target, a little more if you consider a larger radius for intial interception or pursuit. The typical time a fighter, say a Bf109, engaged was about some ~30 mins. So it "never" could have made passes at all of the bombers, which came in at ~300 per 30 mins. If this pass limit ought to mimic that, then I suppose the "200" should be the either a maximum or average rate (under adverse weather or coordination issues etc) at which planes pass a CAP sector? If it were, should that be a constant, or depend on weather, plane speed etc?
That brings up a subsequent question: Is the AE air model so detailed that it would be able to mimic European type raids of realistic scale, or would it fail just as AE is not meant to recreate European tank warfare?

A very interesting an productive discussion this really is. Probably no war ever fit a purely attritional scheme, nor was there probably one purely aimed at the enemy ability to wage war or enforce his "plans" by means of military force, though? Sounds like the usual academic question?



Miller -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 1:51:17 PM)

Coming very late to this one, but my view is the "Bombers always get through with enough escorts" problem can be negated to an acceptable level using the various work arounds already mentioned (splitting TFs into multiple hexes, attacking on a wide front etc...)

My big concern is the uselessness of the escorts in any capacity other than bullet sponges. 70 exp pilots in Franks are just as worthless as 30 exp pilots in Oscars.......well maybe the kill ratio will be 1:20 instead of 1:100 lol. As has been said though, this seems to be a very difficult problem to address without making potentially harmful changes elsewhere in the air model. We will probably have to live with it, AE is still a great game regardless.



btbw -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 6:10:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Posted this a few times, this is my rendition of what the A6M2-21 should look like in the game


Guns:

-7.7mm range incrased, effect decreased to 1 - it hits often but no serious damage
- 20mm accuracy massively decreased, effect increased from 4 to 5
- 10% penalty for gun accuracy due to heterogenous armament with large balistic incompatibility

MVR:

1-stage supercharger has good low altitude performance, but poor between 15-20 (50% penalty)
and cannot fight at above 20,000 feet - it was a historical fact.. that has been forgotten
A6M2 was unable to intercept B-17 flying at high alt and P-39 was unable to intercept G4M at high alt
due to 1-stage supercharger

Remember this is the year 2012, and 50 years from now history will be even less accurate
There is only one game I am conviced when these things were modeled accurately,
the flight sim Aces of the Pacific that was made 20 years ago with help from WW2 pilots


After your fix i wish GOOD LUCK to find japanese opponent.
7.7mm type 98 MG used for tracer. Game never can simulate real air combat when pilot can use his cannons only when enemy fill out gunsight. Game strafe out any weapon which have enough range.
I dont know who said you about 20k feet. Because it was 30k feet. And Zero can intercept B-17. Of course it fortress but still can be downed.
Please learn more about war history and forgot your alternative no-ideas-what-i-talking.



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 6:39:58 PM)

quote:

7.7mm type 98 MG used for tracer.


7.7mm was the primary weapon (ask the Japanese pilots), and it was found to be pretty useless against armor.

quote:

Game never can simulate real air combat when pilot can use his cannons only when enemy fill out gunsight. Game strafe out any weapon which have enough range.


90 exp kido butai pilots did that. 30 exp pilots at marianas fired at long range and hit nothing.

quote:

I dont know who said you about 20k feet. Because it was 30k feet. And Zero can intercept B-17.


A6M2 could not intercept B-17 at midway. Only A6M3 could intercept B-17 at 30,000 feet at Rabaul,
with 2-speed supercharger.

Remember it is supposed to be speed that changes at altittude, not MVR. Just because a plane can stay in the air at 30,000 feet without stalling, doesn't mean it can fight at this altitude.

---------------

Remember, if you could put 500 rounds per gun for 20mm ... you could shoot down 9 planes in one day.. just like the Hellcat did [;)]



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 6:51:41 PM)


Now here is a good fighter.. when you raise the muzzle velocity from 1970 ft/s to 2560 ft/s
and increase ammo from 60 to 250 rounds.. and put those 20mm guns on the cowling.. now you have some real accuracy

[image]local://upfiles/28382/D69258E85EA247D48B7BC05F422B137B.jpg[/image]



PaxMondo -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 8:29:59 PM)

According to the docs I have read, and the basis of its design the MaDeuce, the Ho-5 did not sync well with the prop.  So, in a CL configuration, your ROF drop by 75%.  This is in contrast to the German MG 151/20 which did lend itself quite well to prop sync.

If you're going to put the Ho-5 firing through the prop, you need to account for the ROF.



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 8:42:37 PM)


all guns drop ROF firing through the prop..

some pilots prefer lower ROF (Thatch)

doesn't matter really.. historically the Ki-61 and Ki-100
both used the Ho-5 with 250 rounds on the nose

historical ki-84 used 4x20mm with 150 rounds

and in either format that is still a lot less fire time
than Hellcat (40 seconds)

and remember Ki-44 only had 200 rounds per gun
for its Ho-103..

more velocity means bullet gets to the target faster
and more ammo means more chances to hit

so if you want to hit targets easily you need
lots of ammo, with a high velocity gun



PaxMondo -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 9:20:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


doesn't matter really..

Hehehehe. Sure.



LoBaron -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 9:21:53 PM)

The advantages you talk about are only relevant on deflection shooting. Of all kills in WWII, only a fraction
was achieved with high deflection.

The majority was from 6´o clock situations where the defending pilot did not even realize he was being
shot at until too late.

The average burst lenght for these kills was probably between 3-10 seconds, so even in worst case allowed for several kills
of average enemy planes, with the exception of heavy bombers or very tough fighters.

Aeronautical genius.



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 9:46:36 PM)

quote:

heavy bombers or very tough fighters


the entire USAAF



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 9:48:20 PM)

quote:

between 3-10 seconds


so an A6M2 had enough ammo for 1 burst - I agree for once



LoBaron -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 9:49:21 PM)

*click*



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 10:04:12 PM)


http://www.bestoldgames.net/eng/old-games/aces-of-the-pacific.php

click the download button [;)]

"play IJN historical mission *slaughter of the lambs* " [:D]



Erkki -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 10:06:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The advantages you talk about are only relevant on deflection shooting. Of all kills in WWII, only a fraction
was achieved with high deflection.

The majority was from 6´o clock situations where the defending pilot did not even realize he was being
shot at until too late.

The average burst lenght for these kills was probably between 3-10 seconds, so even in worst case allowed for several kills
of average enemy planes, with the exception of heavy bombers or very tough fighters.

Aeronautical genius.


Many here probably play(or "fly") WW2 flight sims as well. Funny thing is that playing Il-2 online in games with little to no helps on(such as exterior views and such), I'd say that 90% of the planes that I shoot down never knew what hit them. I've even recorded hundreds of flights and counted them, and on the average it could be even higher than that. That 90% is either completely surprised(most common), about to engage someone else(and looking away/not paying attention to surroundings) or already engaged and turning, chasing or in a zooming climb(after a bounce or while doing a high yo-yo).

Even 2 seconds is a long time in air combat with the relative speeds so the available shooting time isnt/wasnt often more than a second or 2. It was also rather rare to be engaged in multiple aerial battles in one sortie, so usually having ammo for just one encounter was enough.

If we're back to IRL again, there are plenty of USAAF fighter sortie reports printed and published in the Internet. One example is HERE Vast majority of the kills are "I saw an Fw 190 below, bounced him, shot a 2-3 second burst, saw parts disintegrate, disengaged, enemy seen falling beneath clouds trailing smoke". Longer than 10-15 sec pursuits are very rare and I've found maybe 2 or 3 proper "dogfights" so far. In the West Front 1 on 1 duels seemed to never happen. [;)] (We probably all know the East Front was different.)


EDIT:

quote:

*click*


[;)]



PaxMondo -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 10:20:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

*click*

Yep.



PaxMondo -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 10:23:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

... shot a 2-3 second burst, saw parts disintegrate, disengaged, enemy seen falling beneath clouds trailing smoke".

Consistent with my understanding as well ...



LoBaron -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 10:25:16 PM)

That a very cool link, Erkki. [:)]



Erkki -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/11/2012 10:43:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

That a very cool link, Erkki. [:)]


Take it with a grain of salt - that site isnt known for its objectivity. You will not find a single sentence or graph where something Allied(plane, pilot, gun, engine) performed worse than the axis Axis counterparts its compared to. [;)]

The reports are still real though.



Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/12/2012 2:00:51 AM)

Uh *click* ? [&:]



Dan Nichols -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/12/2012 2:05:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Uh *click* ? [&:]


Green button? [8|]



zuluhour -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/12/2012 2:24:15 AM)

Guten Abend fraulien



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/12/2012 2:24:35 AM)


Another example of High Rate of Fire.. and low ammo

Type 96 25mm AA Gun... [8|]

*the gunner waits until the enemy plane enters his full circle before opening fire for 3 seconds* [8|]



[image]local://upfiles/28382/9AFCA6A85FAE48D28BE39ACC2A896524.jpg[/image]



aoffen -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/12/2012 3:27:31 AM)

It appears the consensus (if there is one) is that the air combat model works well enough when "normal" numbers of aircraft are engaged but breaks down when the later war mega engagements take place. It also seems to me, that there are other systems outside the air combat model which actually allow these mega engagements to take place. Things such as the ability of Japan to produce vast quantities of airframes and the availability of generic supply are two, but the most obvious factor to me is the max requirement for 250 AV support and unlimited stacking at level 9 airfields.

If you look at the Grey/Rader AAR they were able to generate those huge co-ordinated strikes and break the combat system by stacking literally thousands of aircraft at the same base. The a-historical concentration of forces possible at these mega bases is a significant contributing factor to the problem. A code change that removed or at least modified the 250 AV max requirement and the unlimited stacking would probably force a change to player behaviour and help bring engagement numbers back to an area of historical plausibility and back within the parameters of the air combat model. I know this got mentioned somewhere already, but the more I think about it, the more I see it as the low hanging fruit. Increased co-ordination penalties are another area of possibility but what do people think of the stacking issue?

Regards
Andrew



btbw -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/12/2012 4:32:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


Another example of High Rate of Fire.. and low ammo

Type 96 25mm AA Gun... [8|]

*the gunner waits until the enemy plane enters his full circle before opening fire for 3 seconds* [8|]


LOL
Man, you really must read something about war history. 25mm AA gun never had problem with ROF (practical), but with train/elevation speed, gunsight, jams on high angles, low muzzle power/stoppage ability and zero fire control ability.
I even dont know why USN removed perfect (by your ROF) 20mm oerlikon from ships?



witpqs -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/12/2012 5:11:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Uh *click* ? [&:]


Where you been? [:)]



LoBaron -> RE: State of the Air War in AE (3/12/2012 7:24:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

That a very cool link, Erkki. [:)]


Take it with a grain of salt - that site isnt known for its objectivity. You will not find a single sentence or graph where something Allied(plane, pilot, gun, engine) performed worse than the axis Axis counterparts its compared to. [;)]

The reports are still real though.


I will, thanks. I was referring to the reports anyway, did not find any charts up to now. But there I always allow for bias. I am lurking
the IL-2 forums for more than 10 years now and there the battles of words over different climb rates are epic.
Won´t participate though. One discussion platform with one or the other irrational individuum is enough. [;)]

You are correct on the even shorter burst lenghts btw, I allowed for inexperienced pray and spray guys to flow into statistics, but
probably overdid.

Did you try Cliffs of Dover btw? As a long time vet of IL-2 as well, I bought it and shelved it for lack of content. FM and graphics are
superb, or at least have the potential to be superb after patch 153, and the model detail is the best I have ever seen.
Still it has nothing to do with a complete simulator yet. Also, I am still hoping for a decent AI as I am an offline player.

The follow up release, Battle for Moscow is supposed to bring the content that CoD severely lacked, but TBH I will wait until
I can assess if this is really true. It is currently nowhere near where IL-2 was in the end - though I was no fan of the 1946 addon with
the jet fighter sci-fi flight model.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6560059