Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[albx]

@David Hayward, I know I'm off-topic, but I quoted your latest 11 posts (and i stopped because the post will be too long), and you are only trolling and flaming on this forum... point me some useful posts you made or shut up and stop spamming everywhere trying to raise a ban for other users...

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Ze-Jamz, when are you planning to try to get rid of your "forum troll" tag?

Originally Posted by David Hayward

It's funny when trolls threaten to put other posters on their ignore list.

Originally Posted by David Hayward

I think we should `run a book' on how long before you are banned again.

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Consider yourself fortunate if they don't add a forum ban surcharge.

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Thanks for the advice, cupcake. I'll keep that in mind when responding to your off-topic "suggestions".

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Post some photographs to support your views. It's still a pointless thread, but at least then you'll have some cover to justify it.

Originally Posted by David Hayward

You don't even see the irony, do you?

Originally Posted by David Hayward

You got any examples?

Originally Posted by David Hayward

No, it doesn't. It's the same old tripe. They're still fixing the game and you're still complaining.

Originally Posted by David Hayward

There is an amazing invention called the camera. Google it.

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Yes, it sure is something. How long before you follow the dev team's lead and move on to something else?

[moilami]

Originally Posted by BGs_Ricky

Facts yes but Hans Wind was not fighting Hurricanes in a Bf-109E.

Originally Posted by Hooves

Ok then I'll see you in the skies hugging your bombers and not diving to chase me! I can't wait for our next simulated fight!


Yeah. That's my point. If you are going to "simulate" then let's go the whole 9, otherwise you have just tipped the balance of a pvp online GAME. Even further than it was already scued.

No, IL-2 is not RPG. It is not a MMORPG either. You are not supposed to roleplay in IL-2, though you could do it. So if a good online squadron make a campaign and state it is historical, then they could give orders for squadron leaders to do, for example, close escort for bombers and the pilots would RP the stupid tactics.

But one fancy thing in IL-2 is that you don't have to default to bad historical tactics but you can rather implement better tactics. This is very common in wargaming. There can be a historical scenario where you are supposed to change history with better tactics and strategy than commanders used in real.

[klem]

I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from. There are many accounts of the Spitfire being superior when in a dogfight against its contemporary 109. Read Al Deere's 'Nine Lives' and his acount of several 109s trying to dogfight two Spitfire MkIs over Calais Mark at the time of Dunkirk, they brought three 109s down. Read Johnny Johnsons's 'Wing Leader' and his early accounts of flying with Douglas Bader. The 109's preferred tactic wasn't dogfighting, it was what we would call energy tactics. The 109's wing loading was far higher than the Spitfire or Hurricane which reduced its turning capability but it had a much better power to weight ratio which is why it could outclimb them. Heinz Knoke wrote in his book 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' that his most reliable tactic for evading them was a spiral climb which would leave the allied fighters clawing for height and risking a stall. Even Adolph Galland infamously asked Goering for Spitfires when told he must fly close to the bombers because he was aware of their superior dogfighting capability. It was not how he wanted to fly the 109.

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Spot on. I agree fully what you say.

funny name.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by albx

@David Hayward, I know I'm off-topic, but I quoted your latest 11 posts (and i stopped because the post will be too long), and you are only trolling and flaming on this forum... point me some useful posts you made or shut up and stop spamming everywhere trying to raise a ban for other users...

You probably should look at your last few posts. Physician, heal thyself...

[He111]

Thks, excellent news.

.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

I imagine that they will most likely never change the map, and so a question for you. Do you think if they offered hedgerows of various shapes in the objects list, would that help.

Originally Posted by Chivas

There is a map builder type SDK planned which will allow the community to make smaller maps. I would think the same tool could be used to adjust existing developer maps. The developer only wants to deter the community from making larger maps that they plan to develop themselves. On that note its quite possible that in the future the community will be able to take trees out, add hedgerows, and other adjustments that will greatly improve the overall look of COD's terrain.

Take a look at my post from last week's update. It shows screens from the Igromir release which are very close to what some of us are looking for I think.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=212

Bear in mind that this is just 4 months prior to release and the map looked very different. Raises a question as to why it was changed at last minute and whether it will be changed BACK later?

(As a bonus I suspect there could also be a big performance boost by reducing the number of trees)

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

funny name.

Thanks, It was supposed to be so and somewhat humorously reflect to this forums moderation stance...

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Dick Tator

Very stupid and biased remarks towards spitfire myth post...

If at year 1940 Luftwaffe fighting doctrine would allow to use Bf 109 at it's full potential as a fighterplane in Battle of Britain, there would be no discussion anymore about spitfires nor miracle of BoB. The fact was and still is the spitfire is very inferior fighter plane compared to the Bf 109. Turn radius is only minor advantage which is so easily to countermeasured in terms of dogfight.
Why somebody thinks BoB was won by Brits and Spitfires specifically must be from the myth because Germans did switch their resources from Brit front to the eastern front to set up operation Barbarossa.


Read your history (not just winners very coloured history), you might gain something of it in terms of knowledge...

Dick Tator, let me introduce you to Sternjaeger - I think you two will get on famously...

Read Klem's post above for the reality.

In fact, everyone arguing about balance versus realism - read Klem's post.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by albx

@David Hayward, I know I'm off-topic, but I quoted your latest 11 posts (and i stopped because the post will be too long), and you are only trolling and flaming on this forum... point me some useful posts you made or shut up and stop spamming everywhere trying to raise a ban for other users...

+ oh, about several million