PDA

View Full Version : Feature requests for ship vs ship and antiship missions



clint-ruin
03-31-2004, 10:03 PM
Hi Luthier [and the rest of the PF team],

I was wondering if you could give us any information on how the PF Torpedo and Ship AI might differ from FB.

Regarding FBs implementation of torpedo runs, most users seem to have noticed that there are quite a few things that could stand to be improved. The two issues out of these that are probably in most dire need of correction are the max drop altitude, and max drop speed modelling. As far as I have been able to determine, there's no limit of any kind on either the drop alitude or drop speed for a successful torpedo launch in FB.

The ability to use delayed-action fusing on bombs while making bomb runs on sea targets would seem to be pretty important for getting realistic anti-ship bombing runs into FB. This does not seem to be able to be done in FB at the moment either.

The third major ask would be for some greater control over ship to ship engagements, specificly:

Some limit on the amount of torpedos able to be fired at once, and reload delays on firing them. At the moment many torpedo capable ships in FB just 'rapid fire' off as many torpedos as they can.

Ship AI gunnery range seems very inconsistent between different ships. This may be due to different optics/artillery systems on different ships, but at the moment it seems that long-range engagements between many types of ships are almost impossible to implement without the longer ranged ship wiping out the shorter ranged ship almost immediately. Being able to control -when- a ship is able to open fire, at the very least [similar to V1s "respawn" and fire-time commands], would be of great benefit to mission designers.

Gunnery skill being able to be implemented on a per-ship basis would also be a great feature.

Ship damage modelling is another area of concern. At the moment, the most complex ships in FB [tripitz, marat] only seem able to have their gun stations knocked out by very large weapons [large-cal ship guns, rockets, bombs], with no real performance degradation otherwise. They're either alive or dead, with a very specific amount of hitpoints causing death. More variable stages of ship damage would be great to have.

Just some suggestions rather than demands :>

Thanks again for making this project a reality, really looking forward to it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
03-31-2004, 10:03 PM
Hi Luthier [and the rest of the PF team],

I was wondering if you could give us any information on how the PF Torpedo and Ship AI might differ from FB.

Regarding FBs implementation of torpedo runs, most users seem to have noticed that there are quite a few things that could stand to be improved. The two issues out of these that are probably in most dire need of correction are the max drop altitude, and max drop speed modelling. As far as I have been able to determine, there's no limit of any kind on either the drop alitude or drop speed for a successful torpedo launch in FB.

The ability to use delayed-action fusing on bombs while making bomb runs on sea targets would seem to be pretty important for getting realistic anti-ship bombing runs into FB. This does not seem to be able to be done in FB at the moment either.

The third major ask would be for some greater control over ship to ship engagements, specificly:

Some limit on the amount of torpedos able to be fired at once, and reload delays on firing them. At the moment many torpedo capable ships in FB just 'rapid fire' off as many torpedos as they can.

Ship AI gunnery range seems very inconsistent between different ships. This may be due to different optics/artillery systems on different ships, but at the moment it seems that long-range engagements between many types of ships are almost impossible to implement without the longer ranged ship wiping out the shorter ranged ship almost immediately. Being able to control -when- a ship is able to open fire, at the very least [similar to V1s "respawn" and fire-time commands], would be of great benefit to mission designers.

Gunnery skill being able to be implemented on a per-ship basis would also be a great feature.

Ship damage modelling is another area of concern. At the moment, the most complex ships in FB [tripitz, marat] only seem able to have their gun stations knocked out by very large weapons [large-cal ship guns, rockets, bombs], with no real performance degradation otherwise. They're either alive or dead, with a very specific amount of hitpoints causing death. More variable stages of ship damage would be great to have.

Just some suggestions rather than demands :>

Thanks again for making this project a reality, really looking forward to it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Bearcat99
03-31-2004, 10:09 PM
Will there be changes to the ships AAA fire... as it is now it is almost impossible to sink one.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Pentallion
03-31-2004, 10:22 PM
You're right on Clint! I can drop a torpedo from any height at any speed. In reality, I had to be low and slow, well, I THINK it had to be under 300km per hour, but the experts can correct me on that one and I THINK it had to be 100 m or lower but see above http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg

KG10_Damien
04-01-2004, 01:50 AM
On the "torpedo ships firing a load of torpedoes at once" : seconded. I made a topic on ORR but i got no answer. If we want to have credible convoy attacks by subs, realistic RoF is a must-have.

Bearcat : ship AAA is pretty much fine in FB as it is, and i hope it'll remain the same in PF, if not a bit more lethal. Of course, it will shred you to bits if you're flying a lone plane, but it damn well should. Group attacks are the way to go.

At any rate, bravo, Luthier. both for this upcoming sim that i'm really looking forward to, and for the way you coped with the incredible forum drama and negativity on the first day. Way to go http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KG10_Damien:
On the "torpedo ships firing a load of torpedoes at once" : seconded. I made a topic on ORR but i got no answer. If we want to have credible convoy attacks by subs, realistic RoF is a must-have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah - I remembered your post but I couldn't find it when I went looking in ORR for it. Thanks for mentioning the rapid-fire issue, I would've probably forgotten about it otherwise.

Another issue regarding submarine attacks is that it would be great to be able to use a single submarine object, and control when it surfaces and submerges and fires in the waypoints. The submerged subs are pretty much un-damageable in FB at the moment, and the surfaced ones go down in picoseconds if they're exposed to any heavy surface attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Bearcat : ship AAA is pretty much fine in FB as it is, and i hope it'll remain the same in PF, if not a bit more lethal. Of course, it will shred you to bits if you're flying a lone plane, but it damn well should. Group attacks are the way to go.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really have to agree with this. It would however be nice to have a skill setting for gunnery on the ships, just to please the users. People who're fine with it being deadly to single planes could set it to a higher setting, people who are having issues getting through the flak screen could turn it down. Much better than completely nerfing it wholesale all the time [see bomber gunner rotation speed in AEP 2.00].

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Bearcat99
04-01-2004, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Bearcat : ship AAA is pretty much fine in FB as it is, and i hope it'll remain the same in PF, if not a bit more lethal. Of course, it will shred you to bits if you're flying a lone plane, but it damn well should. Group attacks are the way to go.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really have to agree with this. It would however be nice to have a skill setting for gunnery on the ships, just to please the users. People who're fine with it being deadly to single planes could set it to a higher setting, people who are having issues getting through the flak screen could turn it down. Much better than completely nerfing it wholesale all the time [see bomber gunner rotation speed in AEP 2.00].

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree Clint.... adjustable AAA on bombers and ships would be nice.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

chris455
04-01-2004, 08:47 AM
[QUTOE]
"ship AAA is pretty much fine in FB as it is, and i hope it'll remain the same in PF, if not a bit more lethal. Of course, it will shred you to bits if you're flying a lone plane, but it damn well should. Group attacks are the way to go".



Agreed that group attacks are "the way to go".

That's where the agreement ends. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

AAA in FB is altogether too accurate to be a credible rendition of the state of the art in the 1940's. It is almost 100% that in a mission of any duration, you will suffer moderate to severe damage when flying in proximity to AAA batteries. Pilots (EXCEPT on final run to target) constantly made slight variations in heading, speed, and altitude to throw of the aim of AAA crews, who then had to re-calculate a fire control solution based on the new observation. This will typically not protect a pilot in FB. Not for long, anyway. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

AAA gunnery in WWII was almost as much luck as science. Radar directed batteries were in their infancy. What fire control equipment that existed was considered state of the art at the time, but these devices were crude by todays standards, difficult to set up and adjust, and like the famous Norden bombsight, their performance UNDER COMBAT CONDITIONS was at great variance to the results that could be acheived at places like Aberdeen.

If the AAA isn't re-visited in PF- where most of the shooting will be done by AI ships, notorious for their deadliness in FB- I'm afraid it will impact not only playability but historical realism adversely.

I think Luthier probably knows this. Just my guess.
S!

PS- not that it makes me any kind of authority on the subject, but my dad was a crewmember(gun-layer-aimer) on a 40mm single trailer mount in the South Pacific in WWII.(Morotai-Halmahera) Believe me, I've heard many times how tough it was to hit an enemy plane flying over 200mph in the heat of battle! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Thu April 01 2004 at 07:56 AM.]

CHDT
04-01-2004, 10:41 AM
"You're right on Clint! I can drop a torpedo from any height at any speed. In reality, I had to be low and slow, well, I THINK it had to be under 300km per hour, but the experts can correct me on that one and I THINK it had to be 100 m or lower but see above"


Right, the Briss-Leavitt torpedos for instance were pure crapola!

CHDT
04-01-2004, 10:43 AM
About AA gunnery, I've been an AA gunner in the Swiss airforce and I can tell you that a WWII designed aircraft like the C-3605 we used until 1987 for training would have no chance to survive two passes in front of one or two batteries of 20mm (16 or 32 cannons)

Cheers,

chris455
04-01-2004, 11:00 AM
Hi CHDT,
What kind of fire contol did you use?
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

zoomar2
04-01-2004, 11:54 AM
I basically agree with what everybody is saying as long as it's understood we are talking about active ships during combat. But since a Pearl Harbour map is promised, we'd better be able to diasble or dumbdown the AA or there won't be a Pacific War to fight. The whole Japanese Naval airforce will be shot down riht off the bat.

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:

I think Luthier probably knows this. Just my guess.
S!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. Can't imagine they would go through the design process without figuring out how to fit ships in there.

I think it's important to mention these issues as soon as possible though, just to let them know that they're important to at least some of the users. It's going to be much easier to get the basic design features of ships/ship combat in before substancial technical details of the campaigns and missions are built in, rather than have to tiptoe around doing it so as not to break the campaign/missions.

Regarding ship AAA - honestly - I don't have a problem with it. Single aircraft can fly right over most ships in the game without taking damage as long as speed is kept up, even on a straight course. It's only when you start to wallow around them at low speed [&lt;400kmh] without substancial jinking that they're definitely going to get you. FB ship AA will usually concentrate on the nearest target to it, too, so being plane #1 coming towards a ship is kind of like being the first guy in line charging a machine gun nest :&gt;

Most heavy ships have some pretty credible AA defenses, in most cases, it's like flying past 10 to 20 to 80 [Tripitz] AA batteries all concentrated in a very small space. There's one WW2 plane I know of that was designed to go low and slow around AA fire .. and they stuck about 2 tonnes of armour on the thing just to give it even a moderate chance of survival. Some russian guy made a game about it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

|CoB|_Spectre
04-01-2004, 01:43 PM
In the original demo and early version(s) of IL-2 Sturmovik, ships were treated similarly to ground targets in that they could be padlocked. I do not recall which patch took this away, but despite repeated requests to reinstate this feature, it still is missing. It would be a good thing if this capability was available in Pacific Fighters.

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Spectre:
In the original demo and early version(s) of IL-2 Sturmovik, ships were treated similarly to ground targets in that they could be padlocked. I do not recall which patch took this away, but despite repeated requests to reinstate this feature, it still is missing. It would be a good thing if this capability was available in Pacific Fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes, good idea.

Something else on the topic of AA:

From memory the US was the only country in WW2 that managed to get proximity fused AA deployed. In FB at the moment, we have contact-fuses that explode when they hit an aircraft, and we can also see small AA fire self-destructing when you fly at the extreme outer limit of the AA fires range. Would it be possible to simulate proximity fused light AA for the US late war ships?

Second of all .. ship to ground engagements. At the moment there's absolutely bugger all blast radius for artillery fire landing on the ground in FB. Typically the massively large cal ship artillery will either make a single puff of smoke on the ground, or make an "explosion" effect, but that doesn't seem to have anything much in the way of blast radius either.

Could we get ship artillery fire to make at least some useful blast on the ground? At the moment it's "direct hit or bust".

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Fennec_P
04-01-2004, 02:32 PM
I agree that ship AAA has to be tweaked to make the game practical.

Even in cases where a ships AAA arament seems formidable, there are a lot of factors in that degrade its performance that are not currently modelled in the sim.

Preparedness is the big one. The flak guns on ships are not manned 24/7, and it takes a considerable amount of time to man them and prepare for firing. Everything from just getting to the guns, to loading them, to enabling the power for the guns and directors. The biggest example being the Pearl Harbor attack, where almost all the guns were silent during the initial attack, and even later on. It would take 10 minutes just to climb up to some of the guns in precarious places.

Accuracy, specifically rangefinding, is also simplified. Currently the rangefinding is automatic, so that all guns, even hand operated guns with static sights, have a constant range and lead solution. Anyone who's played WWII: Online knows how hard it is to use a AAA gun with a static sight. The only real chace of hitting is at point blanc, and even then, very unlikely. I remember firing my Flak38 at things that are only 200m away, and getting nothing but air. I think I scored 2 hits out of 1000 rounds fired, at planes close enough to throw a rock at. In a plane, you get behind your target to decrease the deflection, but as an AA guner, there is always a lot of deflection. That, and the target is much farther away and moving with a much higher relative velocity.

Think of how the crew of the Bismack, with plenty of advance warning, lots of firepower and perfect conditions managed to miss a few biplanes that flew right overhead. It must be very hard to aim optical guns. According to FB model, they are all dead.

The effectiveness of AAA in later battles, like in the Marianis Turkey Shoot, was due largely to advanced warning, and advanced rangefinding and gyroscopic lead computing directors. All those guns, aimed optically, would have accomplished very little. Also, those spectacular photos of Japanese kamikazes getting blased by 5 inch shells would not have been possible were it not for proximity shells.

Also, reliability is grossly overmodelled. In real life, a gun can be disabled many common ways, and its expected that a large proportion of flak guns are disabled or unusable at any given time. Guns jam to ammo failures, overheat, destroy themselves due to spontaneous failures, lose power, or simply run out of ammo.

A good example is the Prince of Wales which was sunk in 1941 by Japanese bombers. A few minutes into the attack, many of the light and medium flak guns were disabled by spontaneous failures. Things as simple as the feed mechanisms jamming, and defective ammo. Some guns spontaneously lost power, necessitating hand operation. After a few torpedo hits, power to more guns were lost, and others spontaneously failed. By the time it was sinking, almost all of the AA batteries had been disabled or degraded for one reason or another, even though none of the guns had been hit directly. Even had the ship not been under attack, most of the guns would have failed for one reason or another.

In FB, the only way to disable a gun is to hit it directly with a bomb or rocket. Usually when a ship sinks, all of the armament is in perfect working order, certainly not the case in real life. Simply injuring the crew or damaging the gun with machine gun fire should be enough to disable it, and large explosions should knock out AA guns within a wide radius. If a rocket hit an AA gallery on a carrier for example, it would probably kill or injure everyone there. A bomb hit or a fire would knock out AA for a large section of the ship.

So ultimately, AA gunnery is a lot harder and more hazardous in RL than in the game. Some times it is effective, other times useless, depending on many factors.

Something as simple as a skill level would work great. Recruit could be Pearl Harbor mode, and Ace could be Turkey Shoot mode. I imagine something like that will be implimented, or most of the Pacific battles will be impossible to recreate. If you think Tirpitz is a flak monster, wait till you see some of the things that will be in PF. A 20mm flakvierling is nothing compared to octuple 40mm gun...

clint-ruin
04-01-2004, 10:20 PM
Hi Luthier,

I was wondering if you could tell us if anything like any of the above ideas are under consideration.

If you can't talk about it or no decision has been reached that's fine :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Pentallion
04-01-2004, 11:43 PM
My main concern is that so much AAA ruins game performance. Frames about hit 1. Perhaps with all the ocean and not much else on the maps, this won't be such an issue.

Really looking forward to this! Thanks Luthier!

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg