PDA

View Full Version : firepower and accuracy of ships is way to much



DedEyes
02-14-2004, 04:22 PM
AS the title says ,i don't know if this has been discussed before but ships can't be used in FMB , they slaughter everything before you have a chance ,even the poor old pilot after he bails out.

Set up a torpedo mission with 16 IL2's against 4 or 5 ships and your lucky if even one survives long enough to drop it's torpedo .

As far as I know torpedo's are dropped low and fast and not from 3000ft .

http://warbirdsart.freewebspace.com/images/pearl_harbour.jpg

DedEyes
02-14-2004, 04:22 PM
AS the title says ,i don't know if this has been discussed before but ships can't be used in FMB , they slaughter everything before you have a chance ,even the poor old pilot after he bails out.

Set up a torpedo mission with 16 IL2's against 4 or 5 ships and your lucky if even one survives long enough to drop it's torpedo .

As far as I know torpedo's are dropped low and fast and not from 3000ft .

http://warbirdsart.freewebspace.com/images/pearl_harbour.jpg

mike_espo
02-14-2004, 04:40 PM
I agree. Its not only the AI ships though, its the gunners and flak. It is way too accurate as modelled. I don't think it will change though.

DedEyes
02-14-2004, 05:06 PM
Gunners and flak arn't that bad iy's the ships that realy piss me off .
It is a whole part of FB that can't be used ,I wanted to set up a Pearl Harbour mission for a movie and seeing as Friendly planes won't bomb friendly ships I can't do it .

http://warbirdsart.freewebspace.com/images/pearl_harbour.jpg

|CoB|_Spectre
02-14-2004, 05:10 PM
Another aspect of FB's problem with ships is in trying to target them. I remember when IL-2 was first released as a demo you could padlock target a ship just as any other enemy ground target. What's more, you could actually damage and destroy the ship with heavy gunfire. A few patches into IL-2 and this vanished, never to return even though repeatedly requested. Ships will play an ever increasing role and need to be adequately addressed. At least they inhibited the ability for a ship to target and hit you over the horizon, which was happening when FB was first released, but it's still got a long way to go.

clint-ruin
02-14-2004, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Spectre:
Another aspect of FB's problem with ships is in trying to target them. I remember when IL-2 was first released as a demo you could padlock target a ship just as any other enemy ground target. What's more, you could actually damage and destroy the ship with heavy gunfire. A few patches into IL-2 and this vanished, never to return even though repeatedly requested. Ships will play an ever increasing role and need to be adequately addressed. At least they inhibited the ability for a ship to target and hit you over the horizon, which was happening when FB was first released, but it's still got a long way to go.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ships could still be destroyed by gunfire when I last checked [1.21]. The Ju87G1 is a fairly mean ship-killer.

As for peoples complaints against most of the robogunners - ships/flak/gunners - I seriously don't see the problem with this. In 1.11 I found it ridiculously easy to take down ships all by yourself, in 1.21 at some evasion is required to get through the flak curtain. Certainly I haven't seen the old FB 1.00 problem of large cal flak instantly destroying you as soon as you enter its tracking range, which is the only genuine problem I've ever found the gunners to have.

Some ships, particularly the soviet destroyer class, seem to have a greatly disproportionate shooting range, but I can't say I find the accuracy to be too much of a problem. The blast area from large shells is pretty woeful and I assume the accuracy is some way to make up for that.

Last anti-ship mission I made had 12 IAR-81as used as dive bombers and 8 DB3-Ts making an attack run on ships in port. Losses were about 70% vs 1x Destroyer, 1x Niobe AAA ship and 1x Illmarinen, 2x G5s, plus ~20 85mm flak emplacements, and 2x M-16 and 2x ZSU-37 AA. Plus 8x P-39N1 and 8x P-40.

I don't think that's too horribly out of whack from what I would expect. These are AI aircraft that fly straight and level all the way through their attack runs.

If you are doing worse than that, then I don't know - perhaps submitting a track would be useful for others to work out what's happening, or redesigning the mission itself.

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

WUAF_Badsight
02-14-2004, 06:53 PM
Clint-Ruin is wrong

AI in FB is waaay too good

all AI gunners are the same awsome shots

it should be biased for the player

all AI in planes can be set to rookie if you want ..... but you have to put up with a set level for AAA & Ships

an opition to incerase or lower the AI ability of the AAA & Ships would be excellent

VW-IceFire
02-14-2004, 07:02 PM
I'm all for some more options for the ships in relation to gunnery (through a Rookie through Ace level thing). I have seen a few shot clips and some descriptions of the AAA firepower of destroyers, cruisers, and battleships. Its somewhat true that they can put up one nasty barrage of fire...I think in FB they are a little too good...but I wouldn't want to see them too horribly disfigured. Loses were generally high with Torpedo bombers but everyone is probably right...they are just a little TOO good right now.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

clint-ruin
02-14-2004, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
Clint-Ruin is wrong

AI in FB is waaay too good

all AI gunners are the same awsome shots

it should be biased for the player

all AI in planes can be set to rookie if you want ..... but you have to put up with a set level for AAA & Ships

an opition to incerase or lower the AI ability of the AAA & Ships would be excellent<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Badsight,

Could you provide a track or .mis file for me, showing what you mean about the ship or ground AAA?

A good thing to do, as with the bombers, is to record a track and then play it back from the targets perspective. CTRL-F2-F6 is good for bombers, static cameras tend to work better when you're close to the ground. The relative movement to the target [or lack of it] is sometimes surprising to see on playback.

I would consider myself very far from the best combat/aerobatic pilot on these boards and I really don't have many problems with any automated gunners in FB. I'm curious to see what you're doing differently.

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

clint-ruin
02-14-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm all for some more options for the ships in relation to gunnery (through a Rookie through Ace level thing). I have seen a few shot clips and some descriptions of the AAA firepower of destroyers, cruisers, and battleships. Its somewhat true that they can put up one nasty barrage of fire...I think in FB they are a little too good...but I wouldn't want to see them too horribly disfigured. Loses were generally high with Torpedo bombers but everyone is probably right...they are just a little TOO good right now.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post, and I agree it would be great to have selectable AI for ground units. Probably a little late in FBs development to put in now, but I'd hope to see it in BOB.

I think the other factor is managing expectations from the pilots - making more than 1 pass on defended ground targets in real life seems to have been very rare, but it's quite common for people to hang around multiple AA emplacements in FB picking off targets at leisure.

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

WUAF_Badsight
02-14-2004, 07:43 PM
how about you post some WW2 footage showingB-17 formations all getting PK on their attackers

as for me pposting a track , why dont you instead try fighting Ace B-17

getting a PK whilst passing the Bomber at 900 shouldnt be a regular occurance

MandMs
02-14-2004, 08:56 PM
One American ship in the Pacific fired something like 500,000 rounds or so(5", 40mm, 20mm) at attacking Japanese a/c and could claim just 19 a/c. There was of coarse other naval units firing at the same claimed a/c.

The effective range of German 20mm weapons was ~1000m, for 37mm it was 1600m. One should be able to fly out side those ranges with relative safety. It was found that only a/c flying directly to or away from the gun could be engaged effectively.

clint-ruin
02-14-2004, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
how about you post some WW2 footage showingB-17 formations all getting PK on their attackers

as for me pposting a track , why dont you instead try fighting Ace B-17

getting a PK whilst passing the Bomber at 900 shouldnt be a regular occurance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Badsight,

Pardon me - I assumed you would have some evidence to go along with the blanket declaration "clint ruin is wrong", as well as that you might be serious about fixing whatever problem it is you think the game has.

I am sure that if you whine hard enough, the problem will just magically fix itself.

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

MandMs
02-15-2004, 07:27 AM
Can you post a track of you flying around for 30 minutes at 700-900m range from some B-17s showing that you cannot be hit with the Golden BB?

clint-ruin
02-15-2004, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Can you post a track of you flying around for 30 minutes at 700-900m range from some B-17s showing that you cannot be hit with the Golden BB?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What - am I supposed to replicate the tactics shown in "I Flew like an Idiot for the Fuhrer"?

We've been through this, many, many times before. Disciplined. Frontal. Attacks. You know - like the ones the Germans worked out to use after they lost enough interceptors.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=41610019&r=21110149#21110149

Time to put the pacifier back in your mouth.

It's interesting though - for some time now I've been asking for the bomber gunner AI to respond more along the lines of ship/static AA emplacements, using constant firing and "curved" sweeps over the target rather than firing off bursts when the hit probability is judged good enough, as the bombers seem to. That so many people seem to have the 'first burst' problem - where the first rounds fired from the turrets score a very damaging hit - implies to me more that the turrets have been tracking you long before they opened fire, but you found that you couldn't dodge a bullet travelling at you in the region of 1200m/s combined - uhh .. surprise!

It appears I have underestimated the whining potential of FB users by quite some margin. I am genuinely at a loss to come up with a way of solving the AAA/gunner issues to peoples satisfaction short of asking Oleg to code in a 'Matrix mode' for the more severely handicapable players.

As for the ship AAA - still waiting for tracks showing what's wrong with that, exactly.

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

MandMs
02-15-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

What - am I supposed to replicate the tactics shown in "I Flew like an Idiot for the Fuhrer"?

We've been through this, many, many times before. Disciplined. Frontal. Attacks. You know - like the ones the Germans worked out to use after they lost enough interceptors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you want to be an idiot, be my guest.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Prove that airgunners are crappy shots by flying around some B-17s at 700+m. Nowhere was it mentioned attacking the bombers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Time to put the pacifier back in your mouth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Time to use the soap and water to clean the brown stuff off your nose.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Frontal and rear attacks on American bombers was split 50/50.

|CoB|_Spectre
02-15-2004, 10:11 AM
Clint, I wouldn't stake out my email box waiting on those track files. Not because they couldn't be produced, but because people with whom you disagree don't feel the need to take the time to persuade you. You either agree that the AI gunners are adequately modeled or they aren't, it's as simple as that. Historical snippets using ballistics, rounds carried per gun, rounds fired per aircraft damaged/destroyed, etc., shed some light on the subject but kill claims are notoriously inaccurate in large formations with many gunners. Forums are a place for people to soundoff and express their impressions. I don't feel compelled to respond to every post with which I agree or disagree nor do I expect someone to go out of their way to change my mind. Oleg and crew are the only ones that can make a difference in any event and the probability in them making adjustments at this late date is fading for FB. There's always hope, if not for FB, for some future project. Statements like "put the pacifier back in your mouth" and "the whining potential of FB users..." do nothing to foster constructive discourse. In these forums it's a given that one man's observation is another man's whining and as to whether it is categorized as one or the other depends largely on whether you agree with them or not.

p1ngu666
02-15-2004, 10:23 AM
ai gunners are strange :\
they tend to fire at ac, then shoot somewhere else entirely http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif. or they just sit there and do nothing, sometimes they fire at nothing too:/
or they fire a burst or 2, then do nothing while enemy still in range, roughly same place ;\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

clint-ruin
02-15-2004, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ai gunners are strange :\
they tend to fire at ac, then shoot somewhere else entirely http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif. or they just sit there and do nothing, sometimes they fire at nothing too:/
or they fire a burst or 2, then do nothing while enemy still in range, roughly same place ;\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shh! How many times do the whiners have to tell you? They are SNIPERS WHO NEVER MISS - ignore the 98 to 92% of shots they fire that miss other planes entirely! They are in fact sniping Tiger tanks on the ground with their .50 cals. It's obvious. What are you, some kind of brown noser?

Spectre - I have my own theory about why track files seem never to materialise. I can do little but live in hope for the day when the person posting such problems thinks to make a track of it attached to their first post.

M&Ms - I must admit I am slightly at a loss understanding what it is you want to extract from such a test as you outlined. Should we be surprised if the gunners can hit a target that circles them for 30 minutes?

Evidently ze Germans could have done with you to tell them that gunners shouldn't be expected to hit anything even when offered a target drone. All that tactical development work that went into spending the shortest possible time in the turrets firezones, all the interceptors lost, all the R&D into standoff weapons done with the explicit purpose of staying the hell away from the bombers turrets - with a word, or perhaps in your case several near incomprehensible burbling whines, they could have been saved.

I was sick of talking about the gunners before I started :&lt;

So anyway. Ship AAA - what's wrong with it? The heavier ships in FB have very heavy AA armament indeed - Marat/Petropavlovsk has something like 6 x 45mm AA after the refit, plus being able to fire everything else onboard at aircraft, albiet with very poor tracking. Illmarinen held up as Turkas air defence during dozens of dozens of soviet air raids and has 4x40mm AA, same story with tracking for its other guns as the Marat. The Niobe was placed directly in the flightpath of aircraft crossing over from English bases as a floating AA platform - 4x 37mm, 8x 12.7mm, 3x 7.92mm. Most of the large battleships in the game really, really hurt when they do manage to score a hit, which might skew perceptions somewhat. Even an IL2 is only going to be able to take a certain number of 45/40/37mm hits. The other factor alluded to in the first posters message is that he's talking about a flight of 12 Il2s, which means relying on the AI to make a torpedo run.

What's the AIs favorite way to make a torpedo run? Hmm. Seems to be to launch the torp from about 600m out .. and then .. fly directly over the target ship, which is as yet undamaged by the torpedo.

If you want to play with ships in the FMB you may well need to distract them with dive bombers or other aircraft to come in ahead of the torp planes. The other thing that can help a great deal with the torpedo runs is to set up a waypoint 'set' to target the ship quite some distance [1KM+] from the target, then immediately stick in a waypoint that makes the flight reverse course. This needs to be fine tuned a fair bit to make it work properly.

The other factor that comes into play with the ships is that unlike bombers gunner positions, there's no way to clear the decks of the AA crewmen. You'd think bombs and rockets going off on top of them might do something, but they're just not present in the current ship DMs.

Anyhow - that said - back to the usual OMFG *** BROWN NOSER banter.

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

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2004, 12:10 PM
I wonder if gunners skill levels are randomly set? That would explain much disparity in observations with some remembering the best gunners very well.


Neal

Jetbuff
02-15-2004, 12:27 PM
Ships are deadly in FB, as they should be. Unfortunately, they're deadly for all the wrong reasons, namely they are super-accurate instead of putting up a barrage of fire that would grind a 3GHz PC to a halt.

In other words, the programmers went with better accuracy to compensate for lower volume. Now, not everyone is happy with this compromise and I see their point too.

Hell, I don't like it either because volume, unlike accuracy, can still be avoided by using proper tactics - sniper-AI will get you no matter what you do and their hits are usually immediately catastrophic.

The point is, I believe the AI is too accurate, but what sort of compromise can you think of to maintain ships' deadliness (as well as other AA) without having framerates go down the crapper? Only one I can think of is to have the accuracy be controlled by the mission builder as stated above.

Meanwhile, I'm hoping BoB will not hog out on the visuals in favour of some more headroom for stuff like this. (more complex AI routines, large bomber formations, heavier flak concentrations, etc.)

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

MandMs
02-15-2004, 03:59 PM
Clinty, if trainie airgunners could only, if they were lucky, get a 5% hit rate on a drogue target at much closer ranges, how do you expect them to shoot better in a high stress situation at manuevering targets. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif You are one that believes the USAAF gunners got ALL those German a/c? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Would seem so.

clint-ruin
02-15-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Clinty, if trainie airgunners could only, if they were lucky, get a 5% hit rate on a drogue target at much closer ranges, how do you expect them to shoot better in a high stress situation at manuevering targets. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif You are one that believes the USAAF gunners got ALL those German a/c? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Would seem so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe every reported kill from a bombers gunner was a real, confirmed kill, or even very many.

I don't believe the LW flew in circles 700m away from the formations for 30 minutes to give the gunners shooting practice, either - do you? Certainly you seem to think that test would be illustrative of something or other, but we're still no closer to working out what. Stats from FBs gunnery log have already been quoted as having gunnery running from between 2% and 8% accuracy, with 8% representing the real crack-shots of the bunch.

If you want to talk about the stress of combat, I shudder to think what you and your pink panties would be doing in a B-17 approach, given that you barely seem to be able to handle a very much reduced opponent in a computer game. You should go and read Future-'s posts in the thread I linked - in fact, read the whole thread again, and save us the bandwidth. From what you have posted so far, I would consider it unlikely that you are going to raise anything that has not been expressed more eloquently, months ago, by your betters.

What I do know is - it's entirely possible to take out 4 B17s on your lonesome, and quite a lot more if you're sensible about conserving ammunition. Gunners have been handicapped by reduced accuracy and reduced turret traverse rates. People still claim that it's too hard. The developer says his game has been deliberately skewed to be easier than it was in real life. Seriously - you are eventually going to have to learn how to do it properly. The compromises you are likely to get have already been made.

Short of a matrix mode, it can't be too hard for Oleg to code in two buttons. A pink one that sets all of the bomber gunners to rookie, and a yellow one that sets them to 'empty'. Satisfaction, guaranteed.

Re: ship AI accuracy - at the moment the usual results of a 4-plane torpedo run run over a single Destroyer or Illmarinen usually results in 50% casualties and one damaged for He-111 and DB-3Ts, with 25% casualties and 2 damaged running a close second. This is with the planes dropping their torpedos, running out ahead of them, and doing a direct overflight of the target. Is that really so out of proportion to what people would expect? What should be considered to be the likely result of that approach?

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

MandMs
02-15-2004, 05:10 PM
Sorry I won't wear other peoples undergarments, not even your pink panties, clintie.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Golden BB long range shot happens TOO OFTEN, especially with hand held weapons. Tracking of fast moving near objects is TOO good. I can live with the other AA gunnery.

You wanted a track for proof, well I wanted a track from you that you could fly around at long range and not get the Golden BB. I NEVER SAID IT WAS LW DOCTRINE TO DO SO. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WUAF_Badsight
02-15-2004, 09:29 PM
well if the AI are only getting a max of 8%

THEN THERE IS A HUGH RATIO OF THE 8 PERCENT HITTING THE PILOT DEAD ON

CUTTING INTO THE PK HIT RATIO OF THE 8 PERCENT IS THE MAGIC ONE BULLET-MOTOR DEAD SHOTS

your absolutly DREAMING Clint-Ruin if you think the AI gunners in FB are realistic

FAIRY LAND

NEVER NEVER LAND

WONDERLAND

these are the places that your point of view comes from

clint-ruin
02-15-2004, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
well if the AI are only getting a max of 8%

THEN THERE IS A HUGH RATIO OF THE 8 PERCENT HITTING THE PILOT DEAD ON

CUTTING INTO THE PK HIT RATIO OF THE 8 PERCENT IS THE MAGIC ONE BULLET-MOTOR DEAD SHOTS

your absolutly DREAMING Clint-Ruin if you think the AI gunners in FB are realistic

FAIRY LAND

NEVER NEVER LAND

WONDERLAND

these are the places that your point of view comes from<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Badsight,

I was wondering if you could clear something up for me.

What reason can you think of - any reason at all - why the FW-190A9/A8 refit and FW190F series had a great deal of extra armor fitted to the sides of the cockpit, engine, and had cockpit glass of a sturdier construction than the metal skin of many ground vehicles?

Perhaps simply something they did for fits and giggles? Was it like handicapping a horse with extra weight, just to even up the odds for the 8th AF?

Do you think it would have anything to do with trying to stop AAA and turret fire from entering the cockpit and engine, or is that an idea from fairy land? You seem to be very clear on the idea that turret fire was of absolutely minimal risk to the engine, and M&Ms has already told us that PKs were near-unthinkable. You're obviously the authority and the LW wouldn't have had a clue what they were doing - so I am sure they would be interested if you could let them know what they were doing wrong.

I'd be so interested if you could let us know your views .. no, wait - I mean, your typically thoroughly researched and supported conclusions - on this issue.

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

WUAF_Badsight
02-15-2004, 10:15 PM
ok first of all you have not yet given ONE SINGLE SHREAD of evidence that RL gunners in WW2 were as effective as FB gunners

second you have rightly said that AI gunners get a hit ratio under 10%

dont you think its amazing that they hit your pilot dead on so many times ?

thats a hugh amout of the up to 10 % hitting bullets that find the sweetest place to hit

& cutting into the hugh slice of the under-10-%-PK-hits is the INCREDIBLE one-bullet-motor-dead hits

The AI gunners are waaaaay to good

clint-ruin
02-15-2004, 10:22 PM
Debating with the ******ed was never so much fun.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

While the page leaves the matter of the 'burden of proof' open, in this case, I would suggest that it rests on those making threads with titles like "firepower and accuracy of ships is way to much".

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

WUAF_Badsight
02-16-2004, 12:53 AM
actually your the one saying that people are wrong about AI gunners in FB in different threads

& your the one asking for proof ....... wheres yours ?

owlwatcher
02-16-2004, 12:48 PM
It would be nice to improve the Ai flak .
Would not mind having kill rings on an 88 that I was shooting.
Having a battery of AAA weopons and being able to direct the fire would add to the game .
were sorta lucky game wise that the ships are out dated russian & german ships.
Given an late model US DD with a good fire control system would really bring some complains.
The ships mount around 5" guns, These are meant to bring down planes with a near miss. That owe they got me, thats alot of lead flying around. Being hit by a lucky shot. You sure it was not shapnel that got you.
There should be gun crew around the guns, That way you could kill or silance the gun crew without hurting the gun.
Also being able to setup a barrage would seem right.
As to the B17 sharp shooters. Maybe you are to close. With pratice the B-17 is easly meat on the table. The only bad thing is that any mistake in the attack will cost you.
The LW prefered FW190 to attack B-17s. Seems the 109s kept getting shot up to much. The game plays this out well.

jtasker
02-16-2004, 01:37 PM
First off..I agree the AI is VERY good when gunning.. but using the ships as an example is not a good one.. 16 IL2's against a large cobat surfacee ship would be a VERY VERY suicidal mission.. if one or 2 dropped I'd be surprised.. Torpedo's are dropped low and slow..and more specifically on a stead predictable heading.. Ships have massive firepower..and they tend to have almost unlimited ammo available for anti air efforts..

The real example of the problem is when you take a 109 on a high speed slashing pass at an IL2 who barrel rolls while his gunner fires inverted and kills your engine..

The key is where the AI is set to target.. and the amount of dispersion.. and the effects of G forces and movement of the platform on the gunners ability to aim..

Bill_Door
02-17-2004, 07:27 AM
I guess what makes AAA and ships so hard to handle is not their accuracy but their "Radar" tracking and their range.
Radar tracking means,
- you can approach behind clouds - they get you!
- you can approach at night - they get you!
- you can come out of the sun - they get you!
- you can skip the waves - err forget about radar tracking, they get you even when no radar would see you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
And the range of ships is even worse. The best way to find a target ship is not trying to find them. They find you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Just fly around until the air around you is full of explosions. Then follow the tracers. After a few minutes flight you see the ships http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
If this two things could change to a more humanly behavior the game would gain a lot more realism!

PlatinumDragon
02-17-2004, 08:10 AM
For the love of god folks they already dumb down the AI once since folks cried about it, what more to you want? Lifeless drones that couldn't hit the ground if they dropped their ammo?
Not to mention any old historic film of planes attacking ships were not in the planes favor, since the ships put up a wall of lead. SO to think one or even a squad or two can defeat them is just plain dumb.
I mean i'm not trying to be rube but take for example Midway the US lost 15 planes with 3crewmen going after the Jap fleet, they never even got off one torp at the ships. Another is the famus turkey shoot 300 plus Jap planes downed with minor losses to the US.
I mission i had done was with two destroyers and three cargo ships being attacked by two squads or 8 Ju dive bombers, not only were the targets hit and sunk but only one plane was lost due to the fact it circled back and flew by again with no ammo. The rest stayed their course and made it home.
Course some smashed into the side of a mountain because they were to lazy to pull up 50 feet but a minor adjustment to the mission corrected that.
This same mission was flown again online with other pilots 3 made it back, again it will not always be the same effect but its not impossible to sink them and making the AI any dumber will only make the game to easy which them whats the point if you can fly around and destroy everything on the map and never even have as much as a pop mark on your plane.

jtasker
02-17-2004, 01:14 PM
"Midway the US lost 15 planes with 3crewmen going after the Jap fleet, they never even got off one torp at the ships. Another is the famus turkey shoot 300 plus Jap planes downed with minor losses to the US."

The US TBD Strikes at Midway were decmated by IJN Zeros for the most part..not the CV groups guns.. and they did get off some Torps, they just missed. And FYI the TBD flew at about 100 MPH on a Torp run.. a sitting duck..

The IJN/IJA lost more than 400 aircraft in the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" However, the losses were mostly from the Hellcat CAP fighters flying frfom Task Force 58, against a large number of Jap pilots with barely the stick time to keep the aircraft airborne, not the shipboard guns.. And those shot down by ship guns were often targeted by proximity fused 5" shells.. a fearsome weaponfar ore effective than anything modelled in FB..

clint-ruin
02-17-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The US TBD Strikes at Midway were decmated by IJN Zeros for the most part..not the CV groups guns.. and they did get off some Torps, they just missed. And FYI the TBD flew at about 100 MPH on a Torp run.. a sitting duck..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While my reading concurs with yours about Japanese losses to US Navy AAA, I would just point out that 100mph on a torpedo run is 160kmh - if that's really is as fast as they flew - and I don't know if it was - then they could just as easily pull in and land on the enemy carrier, drop a bomb, then take off again :&gt;

Typical DB3-T / IL-2 / He-111 torpedo drop speeed is around 330kmh at most - faster than this tends to really muck up the AI torpedo aiming routine. Of course with the existing torpedo modelling a player can drop the torpedo from 10,000 metres up at one end of the map and have it hit a ship on the other end unaffected.

330kmh is about 205mph. Is that too hard for a ships guns to track or is it still not fast enough?

Does anyone know the real ideal torpedo drop speed for the Soviet/German torpedos we have in FB? Not that it matters much as far as in-game effectiveness goes, but I'd like to get it right in missions.

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

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2004, 05:31 PM
One thing not modelled is that ships are not sitting on the ground motionless while the gunners fire. At sea at least and usually elsewhere, ships wobble. They roll to some degree, they pitch a tiny bit to a lot, they turn. It doesn't have to be much to throw aim off at 500m enough to miss a fuselage. That is why curtains of fire got thrown up, the shots spread from ship movement as well as from gunners swinging the muzzles to correct aim.

Shrapnel from guns bursts is another thing. The shells are set to explode at a certain distance from the ship and then loaded and then fired, at least until proximity rounds came about which wasn't until late war if in the war at all. All the rounds in the clip of clip fed AAA explode at the same range. If the loader and gunner or FDC in ships that had them get it right then the plane will be flying through a section of air that has shells exploding in it for some fraction of a second. The shells do not track and explode next to the plane all the way in. That is modern ammo compared to WWII that I know of.


Neal

clint-ruin
02-17-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
One thing not modelled is that ships are not sitting on the ground motionless while the gunners fire. At sea at least and usually elsewhere, ships wobble. They roll to some degree, they pitch a tiny bit to a lot, they turn. It doesn't have to be much to throw aim off at 500m enough to miss a fuselage. That is why curtains of fire got thrown up, the shots spread from ship movement as well as from gunners swinging the muzzles to correct aim.

Shrapnel from guns bursts is another thing. The shells are set to explode at a certain distance from the ship and then loaded and then fired, at least until proximity rounds came about which wasn't until late war if in the war at all. All the rounds in the clip of clip fed AAA explode at the same range. If the loader and gunner or FDC in ships that had them get it right then the plane will be flying through a section of air that has shells exploding in it for some fraction of a second. The shells do not track and explode next to the plane all the way in. That is modern ammo compared to WWII that I know of.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case of large flak bursts, the same is true of ships as for 85 and 88mm flak - it autofuses to the targets altitude and there's not a lot of ways to get 'below' the flak. Unless you want to fly around at &lt;1000m, of course.

The small cal AA from ships does explode at a set distance from you - doing a flypast of a ship that takes you into and out of small AA range, you'll see and hear this for yourself. I'm reasonably sure this includes 40/45mm flak, but I'm not positive.

Ships don't tumble on the waves, but then, they don't take evasive action to dodge torpedos either.

As a player aircraft I find the small flak is only really dangerous when being fired on by 4 or more guns, and only then within about 400m of the ship. Avoid flying at the same alt/heading for more than 10 seconds at a time and you will usually make it through unscathed. It's really only dangerous on torpedo runs - Ju88s/87/IAR81s will occasionally take a hit at the top of their dive or on their way down, but aside from that they're pretty much immune to it. I've never in my entire time playing the game seen more than 1 divebomber out of a 4 plane formation get hit on the way down, just to give my personal experience with it.

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

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Tue February 17 2004 at 09:18 PM.]

MandMs
02-17-2004, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
[QUOTE]
Does anyone know the real ideal torpedo drop speed for the Soviet/German torpedos we have in FB? Not that it matters much as far as in-game effectiveness goes, but I'd like to get it right in missions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The German torpedos (F5B??) had to be dropped ~1000m from the intended target (min. distance 650m). The a/c would be travelling at ~270kph @ 50m.


Fuses were time set for heavy AA.

The Flak 41 required a cooldown time of 5 min after 25 rounds fired.

The Flak 38 had a practical RoF 10-15 rds/min.

From Price's Luftewaffe Handbook

[This message was edited by MandMs on Tue February 17 2004 at 09:22 PM.]

clint-ruin
02-18-2004, 12:44 PM
Thanks for the AA and torp data M&Ms :&gt;

Unfortunately 'barrel overheat' is another thing that just isn't in FB in any sense.

Found this site linked in a tangent from a SimHQ discussion:

http://www.naval-history.net/Cr03-53-00PQ17.htm

An attack force on a moderately well defended convoy [cruiser/submarine escort] was:

Tripitz + 4 destroyers + 8 [?] uboats
29 He-115s
30 Ju-88s
43 He-111s

I would propose that such an attack in FB would result in utter and complete annihilation of the convoy being attacked, even without the naval component of the strike force :&gt;

You can quite easily take down the Marat with 8 veteran Ju88s for the loss of one [!] attacking aircraft.

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

MandMs
02-18-2004, 01:35 PM
clint-ruin, just some extra info that I came across.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I eat the red ones last.

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2004, 06:36 PM
have you ever microwaved M&M's? Try for just a few seconds, you get liquid centers.

Still nobody says anything about ships not being the most stable gun platforms there are. The sine of just 1 degree multiplied by 500m is? Double that for 1km, etc. Ships should not be able to make or hold terribly accurate fire over long ranges without gyro-stabilized gun mounts. Later model Shermans had those but these ships?


Neal

CATHISTEFAN
02-19-2004, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike_espo:
I agree. Its not only the AI ships though, its the gunners and flak. It is way too accurate as modelled. I don't think it will change though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought it was just me, the flak is a mission killer, especially after spending 10 to 20 minutes on a mission.

buz13
02-19-2004, 02:18 PM
Can AI gunners on a ship be killed? I have used cannon and machine gun fire on ship's gunners but even after repeated hits they never seem to die....they just keep blasting away. If I wanted to survive in FB I would sign up to be a ship's gunner.

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2004, 07:10 PM
You can destroy the ground guns in IL2, and I suppose the ship AA must be armored pretty heavy if they can be seperately destroyed.


Neal

clint-ruin
02-19-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You can destroy the ground guns in IL2, and I suppose the ship AA must be armored pretty heavy if they can be seperately destroyed.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guns on many ships can be destroyed.

The best way to see this is in ship Vs ship duels, though it can also show up from dive bomber damage or torpedo hits.

Funnels, gun turrets, lifeboats, etc, on the Marat each have their own damage state models to show battle damage.

It is not possible to 'kill' human gunners on any ground object that I know of, only their hardware. As I mentioned in a previous post to the thread, it would be nice to be able to clear the decks with a fragmentation bomb or rockets sometime.

Maybe Luthiers Pac addon will reflect this due to the greater role of Naval engagements. Dunno.

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

jtasker
02-23-2004, 04:33 PM
"at least until proximity rounds came about which wasn't until late war if in the war at all"

The US Navy used Prox fuses on their 5" guns in late 1942 and then very widely in the early portion of 1943. They were not allowed to be used by land based Arty until the final 6 months of the war for security reasons.

MandMs
02-23-2004, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buz13:
Can AI gunners on a ship be killed? I have used cannon and machine gun fire on ship's gunners but even after repeated hits they never seem to die....they just keep blasting away. If I wanted to survive in FB I would sign up to be a ship's gunner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There seems to be an unending supply of gunners.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



I eat the red ones last.

altamont
02-24-2004, 03:51 AM
yep, and the shipguns fire all the time. in real its not possible to fire all the time. some reloading must be done. Ive seen pictures and movies about pacific-destroyers and other ships where the guns are loaded all the time. 5-6 guys are just loading and one is shooting. 20mm. guns must be reloaded every 5-10 seconds. 20mm.AA-guns used to be reloaded from the top with big clips which contained the ammo. Plus the fact that its very difficult to shoot a moving target plus the fact that these sailors or whatever had **** and piss in their pants.Firing a plane at 300-500km/h is nearly impossible. nowadays its easy to spray the skies with lead and bullets but in those days...