Fun with 109s and Other Thoughts

Had a fun little engagement with a 109 (human) last night. I was up around 19,000ft and playing with 109s coming out of France when eventually one took the time to climb up to altitude before attempting to engage me. I spotted him as he was climbing to me but I misjudged my turn and we became co-alt. At 19,000ft he had the advantage on my Ia and he started to climb away and boom/zoom me. I pulled a manoever that left me in a good position to turn into his attacks and we made a single head on pass.

I'm not sure if he couldn't see me or if he didn't have tracers or what, but it didn't look like he fired. I fired a half-second shot at him as he came in, and I could already see the radiators venting as he passed my canopy. Now, we're at around 21,000ft at this point and I'm as slow as a rock on the ground due to the hard turn into his attack. We're over Cap Gris Nez and I thinks to myself "all I need to do is get him low and away from friendly territory". Fortunately, at 21,000ft I have lots of room to work with.

So after plugging his rads with a few .303s I simply nose down for home. I was also low on fuel at this point, so it made perfect sense on a number of levels. Sure enough, 109 gives chase. He chases me all the way down to the deck at Folkestone, rads steaming the whole time. Not long after passing the coastline, he crash lands on English soil, captured.

Probably not a terribly experienced pilot, but it just goes to show you how ridiculous this simulation can be when the human element is involved. A lot has been said about 'kill or be killed' realism of such situations, but I think what it really comes down to in most cases is 'kill or die trying to kill'.

*

I notice this mantra quite often when encountering players engaged in map objectives. These bomber pilots never abort a mission. They never break off an attack to get home if they've been intercepted with bad odds. They push push push to get their bombs on the target and then, if the aircraft is too severely damaged, bail out or crash. By the same token, I very rarely see a fighter disengage from a bomber if it is clearly not getting home. Perhaps this is because of the previous point. It might even be a chicken/egg argument looping around as to why we see this behaviour. I never see 110s or /B fighters jetison their bombs if they are engaged. They keep holding onto them until they drop bombs on targets, usually after taking heavy damage. If that's not 'kill or die trying to kill', I don't know what is.

Maybe this is a feature of how maps and map objectives are designed. Lots of targets, not enough time to make multiple sorties, unlimited numbers of aircraft. Some map designs have experimented with quotas for fighters, but I'm not sure if they've tried bomber quotas.

I think I might like to try once more to design a public mission that asks pilots to be more conservative with their airframes and crews. Two missions maybe (one for RAF attack, one for Luftwaffe attack). If the bombing side loses too many bombers, they're out. Other side wins. Targets would be limited, maybe one or two medium sized targets in randomized locations. Bomber numbers also quite limited. Maybe 12. Enough so that the loss of one is felt. Maybe such a system would encourage the altitude bomber. Less accurate, but safer.

Maybe bombs hitting the target could alert people of the attack being successful, but not give an indication as to the damage caused. Recon needed for that. Only if the targets are all destroyed would a notification be given that the bombing campaign was a success. Or maybe even not then. Maybe with the requirement of recon, the mission simply goes to the time end and results given then. If recon says the target has been heavily damaged, the bombing side simply holds back the bomber forces and fights it out fighter to fighter.

Other than that, it wouldn't need to be terribly complex. Perhaps add a wins/losses record for the mission to be persistantly carried over.

Hmm. I'll think about it.

Yes, the kill or die trying attitude is exceptionally prevalent because there is no disincentive to death, and plenty of incentives to kill. Bombers in particular can rarely afford a single foiled sortie if they want to roll the map (unless its one of those nights where fifteen people decide to be bombers), and ironically being shot down after bombs off is mathematically preferable.

Fighters in turn, get points and satisfaction for kills, and other than some personal frustration, usually have no more than a few minutes time out for dying. And on the over all, most people consider a one kill one death sortie more preferable/enjoyable to a no kill no death sortie.

It certainly raises the question of whether the hobby has changed from simulation of WWII air combat to gladiator games using WWII equipment.

I remember seeing a Star Trek episode where the aliens were using holographic technology to recreate 1941 France as a simulation for their hunting grounds. Most of the aliens just wanted to shoot the good guys right away, but one wanted the game to be played properly according to the 'rules'. He didn't do so well.

I get the feeling a lot of CloD players are the aliens... .

Interesting discussion Wolverine/Glorious.

I made quite a few campaigns in il-2 at M4today and while I'm having a rest from campaign building at the moment I have got an idea in mind for building one for COD and have been thinking of some of the ideas / issues you have identified thus far.

I haven't got to the stage of really thinking them thru so they may end up going no where, or may not be achievable from a fmb or scripting perspective. But here are some of them and the mission is Sealion +10 with blue well established in southern England.

A. Try and design the map/mission to cater for both types of player (the furball fly/die/respawn type and the others who like to balance survival/kills/objectives). Or have 2 versions of the same map -a furball focused one and a survival one and rotate them.

B. give the fighters something to do other than furball each other. Ideas could be ground attack (against trains, convoys etc), recon type missions ( ie a certain number of unarmed fighters have to fly within a certain radius of selected ground tgt) or protect the bombers by ensuring no more than a certain number are shot down in a given time period. All would somehow count towards mission objectives. Not sure if any of these could be scripted though.

C. Include recon missions for the bombers/110s as well. If side a successfully conducts X recon missions over selected tgts and lands back at base each time then that ticks a mission objective box.

D. Maybe have a system where it's a race to a number (let's say 100). Each side starts at 0 and each kill adds 1 to this score. Each death or capture takes 1 off this score and the first to 100 ticks a mission objective ( or maybe rolls the map for the furball version).

E. maybe a similar one for ships to encourage maritime strike and convoy protection.

F. Find a way to provide incentive for pilots to fly long range missions and get back home safely. Maybe set up big tgts at long range from the front very well protected by low alt aaa (to encourage high alt bombing) and their destruction rolls the map only if the bombers get home. Again not sure if this is possible.

That's about it. I'm new to online stuff so some/all of these could have been tried before and not worked. Or they may not be possible due to scripting/fmb or they might just be dumb ideas with bad second or third order effects that don't achieve what their intended purpose.

Just thought I'd put them out there to see what you think

Ezzie



D.

All of the things you describe are possible, with the possible exception of F.

It's a very strange thing, you see. We hear very often after the Saturday missions a lot of 'thank you for hosting this, it's so much fun' sorts of comments, but the reality is that our server, running the same mission is online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The only real thing missing to do exactly what we do on Saturday is players playing. I'm not sure what I could/would do differently that would have people start coming in larger numbers but still keep the experience the way it is.

It's long been a debate about how to bring players over. The only real suggestion I can give you is not to use any AI in your mission. That way, you can offer it to ATAG and have it potentially entered into their rotation. That will at least ensure players.

My biggest problem with designing a large appeal public map is that you almost by necessity have to make it all things to all people. The objectives for both sides almost have to mirror each other except in name so that everyone can do whatever they desire doing when they join your server. If the guy who likes shooting down german bombers shows up and there is no enemy AI formations, he's not likely to stick around too long. If the guy who likes dogfights with lots of people shows up and the map is too large to concentrate people around a specific objective, he won't stick around too long. Et cetera, et cetera.

I think CloD has seen a lot of great content created for it, but unfortunately much of it has been put in boxes on shelves much like that last scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Longer format missions, and all the enjoyment people get from them, just don't work in the online environment unless it's an organized event.

Too bloody true Wolverine.

There is so much potential within CLOD that is never going to be realised while players continue to furball at low alt over Hawkinge/tripods etc and then bitch about the self same thing. People want immersion and realism, right up to the point they get it and then realise that an hour long flight across the channel to get to the action isn't what they wanted after all. *facepalm

There's plenty of things we can do, that are possible right now, and are massively different to what ATAG offers. The issue has, and always will be, that players are essentially sheep. They flock together and are scared of trying something new.

I bet you when SoW relaunches soon with "dead is dead" stats all on a plate for players, the first thing that happens is they clamour for the same on ATAG.

You see, we differ slightly in opinon there, Reddog. I don't think when people fly long format missions they decide they don't like them. They DO like them! They get a kick out of it. It's a quantity over quality culture, though, and that's why it all happens on the deck in the same old familiar places.

I was flying the other night under my 'Nom de Plane' identity incognito and lurking in the comms with a bunch other pilots so I could join up with flights going out. Even the organized pilots who flew in groups were only going up to about 10,000 ft, on almost all the time they'd quickly get involved with low down fights before that point. It's frustrating to be flying as a wingman and going into a combat area at 6,000 ft when you know there are enemies up at 14+.

I'm not the best pilot, so I can't claim that its not a survivable tactic, but I do know that when I went eventually forced the issue and just kept climbing to 18,000+ ft, I had a complete success of 3 claims to no loss. I had to RTB because I was out of brass and out of gas, not because I was wounded/damaged. My combat for time investment was much lower, of course (actually, two of the three claims amounted to me simply dropping onto the target, shooting out his oil radiator, and then climbing back up - about 15 seconds work and one second of gun each), but it was immensely satisfying.

Back to the topic, though. People do like long missions, I think they just need/want to know that is what they're coming in for before they arrive. It's encouraging to see people arranging group bomber flights and escorts in larger numbers, but it's a charnel house. The bombers I escorted were a group of 4 or 5 heading out to France from Deal and they went out basically on the deck. I couldn't believe it. Not one bomber reached target and not one escort escaped. Part of the problem might be that you can't afford to miss targets in these missions due to the time limit. You have to decide on throwing a lot of bombers at them vulnerable on the deck or fewer bombers at height with low accuracy and long flight times. If these people had all showed up at 8:00pm with the understanding that they were going to fly a big long route with course changes and drop from altitude, etc, I have no doubt they'd have enjoyed it quite a bit - at least until the 109 players saw the blenheim aircraft on the netstats list and then used Tab7-1 to locate them and shoot them down.

I guarantee that's what happens. Players monitor the netstats list to see who's in what. When they see larger numbers of bombers, they go hunting for them using the infallible Tab7-1 like the bombers have a homing beacon on them and with the restricted map size, they can't even attempt to flank unless they're willing to fly alll the way out and back, which would mean no escort pilot could remain with them.

Map design is very fickle, isn't it....

Of course, there's another reason large bomber raids get smoked - all it takes is one. A single fighter that spots 6x 88s/Blennies will announce it, their location, and altitude to every single player on the chat. And players, desperate for a change from their low altitude furball, will all endlessly congregate on that point until the bombers die. This is compounded by about one billion if the bombers are low. Every respawning plane, every decked out furball victor/escapee, every guy coming up from RR or just entering the game, can spawn in at the nearest airfield and be making a straight path to the enemy with no time spent climbing.

I have escorted a wide variety of 88/111 raids, and those that flew at 5 KM + (16,500 feet) usually had vast survivability, to include the return trip, simply because the average player would need plenty of time to climb up to the bombers - it didn't hurt that the escorts got to dive in on energy low climbers below them of course. In a way, this helps turn the "forward airfield spawn" against the defender because the closer to the front he spawns, the more he has to choose between the vertical and the horizontal. In contrast, FB raids with 110s and dive bombing with 87s usually have minimal survival chances because even if the air is cleared prior to their arrival, the endless stream of fighters can make it right back to the engagement area and altitude shortly. Only in truly dedicated suppression missions combined with "one pass, haul ass" low level bombing have I seen survivability go up. In contrast, high altitude bombing almost always makes it to target and often makes it back.

I think we are similar Wolverine from the perspective of what we find satisfying. I tend to fly in ~ 2 hr sessions and if I only fly 1 sortie and get 1 engagement and get home I'm happy, even if it was a defensive engagement against a Spit/Hurri and I managed to survive. Snapper's long chase of me last week was one of the most enjoyable missions I've had -if only I could have got him on the head on pass......

Re bomber escort. It will be interesting to see if the recent large-ish Blenny raids continue and if so, whether the escorts will improve. I'm no expert but there's a couple of things they could do that would make it much harder for people like me. When we were engaging the Blenny raid on the weekend I heard one of the 109 pilots call out that he had 6 or 8 spits on him and he was diving taking them with him. Contrast that with how the 401 Spits fly on our weekly mission where you take a more disciplined and coordinated approach and have on a couple of times prevented us from getting thru in numbers.

Re tab 7 1. I'm as guilty as anyone re using it but do find there is still some fog of war which does make it a bit harder. If there are multiple Blennys tab 7 1 doesn't always give me the direction to the nearest one and I've sometimes tracked a lone Blenny and missed a large raid. But it does make it very difficult for small number of bombers to survive on the map for any length of time which would be disheartening. If/when I get the urge to fly bombers I will probably try to fly indirect routes and see who could be bothered to fly a long way to get me. As you and Glorious have pointed out already there don't appear to be many who will invest the time to fly high and far to get a bomber. I escorted Keller the other day in his 111 and he said his survival rate for sorties at over 5k metres is 80%+.

I really enjoy our weekly session - long may it continue - but also still enjoy the random-ness of ATAG as well where I can fly around the periphery and pick and choose what to do. Blenheim hunting over England is still my favourite thing to do and if they make the Beaufighter fly able then doing intruder type missions in that will be on the agenda. One day maybe the mossie.......

As I said earlier I think we have and will continue to have 3 pools of people ( the furball lovers and the non furball crowd with another bunch spread out between these two poles) and I think it would be hard to satisfy all every time.  Maybe with time the furball-ers will get bored and migrate to the other pools but I suspect they will just go looking for the next furball somewhere. I have no problem with this as we are who we are as long as there is still an outlet for COD flyers who like something a bit different. Which is why I appreciate your time and effort re the 401 server. Might be time to make another donation sometime soon...,