PDA

View Full Version : i want a map where we just attack and protect our airfields



Daytrader
07-10-2006, 20:52
i want a map where we just attack and protect our airfields, the targets can be planes etc around each airstrip, would be great trying to take off and getting into battle, i know i have said this before :p

LeadSucker
07-10-2006, 23:46
Good idea! Maybe even allow some serious vulching with guns allowed. A lot of AAA would be needed though...

Daytrader
07-10-2006, 23:48
would be good to have 1 map come up now and again in rotation so we can all let off some steam :)

Zorin
07-10-2006, 23:52
You can't have special rules for only one map, that would corrupt all efforts we put into establishing our non vulching politics.

And if you allow airfield raids, bomber gunners will constantly attack planes on the ground, which will cause lag. Heavy AAA amount will cause lag. Spawning planes will cause lag. Impossible to take off with all that lag. So it is simply impractical.

TheDawg
08-10-2006, 00:17
I had a map- 39 and earlier only.
Vulching allowed, the tripA was a machine gun. Not to heavy to rip frames apart, but enough to kill open cockpit fliers if you didn't duck and weave on the way in.

Gordano
08-10-2006, 00:29
Sounds a fun idea,

However I don't think it should be in the normal rotation, as the confusion it would cause over the normal server rules would be ridiculous.

Something for special events only.

Along those lines, I not sure if I mentioned, I saw on the another server's forums the idea of having a "no rules" day - basically anything goes! Maybe fun as an evening for us and other regulars?

System-M-
08-10-2006, 00:50
There was a map like this which has been removed from rotation and i would like to be put back.

MIDWAY

I loved being red or blue and having to scramble up off the beck. The best was with red where the dogfights would open up in th ebay it was brilliant.

The targets were near to the airfeilds/ carriers but we never had any problems with vulching etc.

Midway to be re-introduced i say!

NS-IceFire
08-10-2006, 01:24
I tinkered with Midway a while back. I might produce a new one to satisfy everyone's needs to go after an airfield target (afloat and on the land). The targets would generally be the Midway island. Maybe the new A-20C soon to be introduced can sub in for the torpedo armed B-26's that were on Midway island during the battle.

Firelok
08-10-2006, 17:07
There was a map like this which has been removed from rotation and i would like to be put back.

MIDWAY

I loved being red or blue and having to scramble up off the beck. The best was with red where the dogfights would open up in th ebay it was brilliant.

The targets were near to the airfeilds/ carriers but we never had any problems with vulching etc.

Midway to be re-introduced i say!
you loved Midway but from my impression I can't say a lot of other folks did; If ever there was a map where it was hard to stop the kill-happy muppets from flying blue it was this one as usual leading to very imbalanced teams and admins spending more time fruitlessly typing even the teams even the teams even the teams. What I'd do with Midway would be airstart the torpedo bombers/divebombers at the rear of their respective fleets. Make Midway Island a juicy target for Blue's bombers; airbase loaded with static planes, fuel depots,supply ships in the lagoon etc. Can't see why we can't have a A20G for the moment, it's just a bit harder for blues(who let's face it get a bit of a free turkey shoot anyway with this planeset.) I might be wrong but I thought Midway Atoll had B17's too. Anyway's trying to encourage more bombers on both sides would seem a good idea to me.

Day's idea that started this thread is asking for loads of trouble, even if there was a 'one-off' no rules night. Someone would claim the following week that 'it was OK the other night why not now.' I agree with Zorin here it's a nightmare of an idea.
The 'War of Aerodromes' idea is actually very historical indeed; can only wonder how crazy such a map would get. My gut feeling is that it'd be 'sausage factory' level porked.

System-M-
08-10-2006, 17:23
you loved Midway but from my impression I can't say a lot of other folks did; If ever there was a map where it was hard to stop the kill-happy muppets from flying blue it was this one as usual leading to very imbalanced teams and admins spending more time fruitlessly typing even the teams even the teams even the teams. What I'd do with Midway would be airstart the torpedo bombers/divebombers at the rear of their respective fleets. Make Midway Island a juicy target for Blue's bombers; airbase loaded with static planes, fuel depots,supply ships in the lagoon etc. Can't see why we can't have a A20G for the moment, it's just a bit harder for blues(who let's face it get a bit of a free turkey shoot anyway with this planeset.) I might be wrong but I thought Midway Atoll had B17's too. Anyway's trying to encourage more bombers on both sides would seem a good idea to me.

Day's idea that started this thread is asking for loads of trouble, even if there was a 'one-off' no rules night. Someone would claim the following week that 'it was OK the other night why not now.' I agree with Zorin here it's a nightmare of an idea.
The 'War of Aerodromes' idea is actually very historical indeed; can only wonder how crazy such a map would get. My gut feeling is that it'd be 'sausage factory' level porked.


Ok can we have a tinkered and improved midway re-introduced?

Repoker
09-10-2006, 10:33
Yes please more pacific maps! :D

I love flying both sides on pacific scenario :mp5:

Firelok
09-10-2006, 13:10
Ok can we have a tinkered and improved midway re-introduced?
I'll have a tinker certainly, look for posts in the UK2 maps thread.
Then if we need a whole brand new Midway I'm sure someone will oblige, other 42-43 Pacific maps are sorely needed too.

Boemher
09-10-2006, 13:32
i want a map where we just attack and protect our airfields, the targets can be planes etc around each airstrip, would be great trying to take off and getting into battle, i know i have said this before :p

Day, tell them the real reason ... you just want a map where you can shoot me down and firing at spawing planes is your only real chance
:D

Boemher
09-10-2006, 13:38
I don't think that blue has too much of an advatange in 1942 Pacific scenarios. I personally prefer the F4F over the A6M2. I wouldn't if the A6M wasn't modelled as slow as it is.

The F4F3 is a far better option than the A6M2, you can attribute that to the slow speed given to the Zero and the exceptional performance of the .50 cal at ranges exceeding 500m.

Both of these oddities can be directly attributed to pro US whining on UBI.

Cant have a Zero flown by pilots using proper tactics owning every allied type until the P38 and Hellcat arrive. No casual US gamers or hardcore US fans would have bought the game.

Firelok
08-11-2006, 16:50
*BUMP*
Not wanting to disappoint our Budski Daytrader I've been at work on a plausible idea for this and involving JtD's thread about aircraft losses it's a G6 1943 map also some ideas from Dawgs thread about incoming bomber raids/scrambling for an attack.


Main Blue Airfield (Red Target)
Bf-109G-6
Bf-110G-2
Fw-190A-5
He-111H-2
Ju-87D-5
Satellite Blue Air Defence Field
Bf-109G-2
Blue Heavy Bomber Flight (Airstart)
FW-200C-3U4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Red Airfield (Blue Target)
Il-2I
Il-2_3
LaGG-3series66
P-39D2
Pe-2series110
Yak-1B
Yak-7BPF
Yak-9D
Satellite Red Air Defence Field
La-5F
Red Heavy Bomber Flight (Airstart)
Pe-8


This is set on the Kuban map in the Tasman peninsula area and as a bit of a departure the mission criteria would be based on destroying the enemy planes in the sky and on the ground.
Using the CountStaticPlanes=1 function in the map .ini file.
None of our UKD2 maps use this feature. So no targets just kill planes on the enemy airfield or in the air. Lucky that the main airfield of both sides is littered with about 70 static planes just ripe for attack. Airfield AAA is strong and there are flak batteries en-route to target airfields too.A shorter respawn time for AAA will probably be a feature here too.(maybe 10/15minutes)


I wanted a map that legitimized the great Pe8 fun that was had on the Prokhorovka map we used to have trying to vultch Blue base with 'Nukes'
The Pe8 is only present on the Tirpitz map currently. Although the FW200 only has a 4000kg bombload this is quite a lot of havoc too,(I'm thinking that it being 50kph faster will have a bearing overall too.) Ok, next objection is going to be why isn't there a Ju88 instead? mainly because an fully flyable plane is an advantage and here both sides have a large 4 engined AI plane to shoot at.(Both of which are awkward swine to fly)
The Calm Before the Storm...
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/Anapa2.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/firelokc/Anapa1.jpg

Gordano
08-11-2006, 16:55
Superb!!

My only concern is that if the action is centred around the airfields, people could possbily start complaining about lag which could be caused by too much smoke etc. from crashed/shot down planes.

But this is only something testing will show up, so upload and we can test away :)

Daytrader
08-11-2006, 17:37
cant wait and thx for makeing it.

Firelok
08-11-2006, 19:11
Superb!!

My only concern is that if the action is centred around the airfields, people could possbily start complaining about lag which could be caused by too much smoke etc. from crashed/shot down planes.

But this is only something testing will show up, so upload and we can test away :)
finding suitable airfields on all of our maps, Ideally with a bit of sea nearby to use the FW200 was a problem, but Kuban solved both these problems.
Distances between the enemy airfields are adequate and are mostly water, plus there is a fair amount of water near the airfields too, this might help. There are no clouds set which might help too. But lets face it all of the large ordinance, 2000kg plus causes lags when it goes off there's going to be a fair amount.
The smoke plumes from crashed planes really should have a much shorter lifespan than they do, we'll just have to deal with it and see what happens.
I've just got to do the Boring brief stuff and that sort of thing and i'll announce this puppy in a thread of it's own to make room for some proper argueing :p

Zorin
08-11-2006, 19:21
I hope the distances between the airfields of a team are big enough, so no team can get total air superiority.

Oh and how do you want to prevent people to shoot at planes on take off? If you say that the mission goal is to destroy all enemy planes this will enforce people to shoot at every plane, disregarding in what phase of flight they are.

Remember, people are stupid and every exception from that rule is a reason that calls for celebration ;)

Skinny
08-11-2006, 19:52
Maybe I'm openening a big can of worms with this, but...
.. shouldnt we reconsider the rules regarding vulching ?

I see a number of reasons to allow vulching:
1) vulching most certainly was a historical tactic
2) its hard to enforce, especially rules like allowing planes reasonable alt. I mean, how high is reasonable? If I engage your FW at 200, 500, 1000, 3000m,.. not all that much difference if I'm in my La 2000m above you.
3) it can be a valid tactic that requires teamwork to avoid (defending base, warning landing planes of nearby enemies, ..)
4) lets be honest, its fun to do :)
5) being vulched ruins you stats. good! :)

Now I do realize there are good arguments against vulching
1) it also ruins my stats :D (J/k)
2) Its frustrating to be shot on the runway. Solution: just get over it, and forget your stats.
3) It could result in an inbalance if one team totally dominates enemy airfield. TO avoid this, maps should have sufficient AAA, airfields should be seperated by tangible distances (very important), and teams should have more than one airbase. Possibly even an airstart base to revert to with crappy planes to come to the rescue of an airbase under attack
4) it may encourage people from focusing on vulching rather than going for targets. Same remedies as above, but they may be less effective
5) much AAA could cause lag I guess


All in all, I think I would be in favour of allowing vulching, on the condition all maps would be revised to ensure it won't result too quickly into unbalanced situation.

What do you think ?

Wardy
08-11-2006, 19:55
I would be seriously pissed off if I were constantly vulched however it would make admins lives easier in one sense....

Algorex
08-11-2006, 20:24
Vulching is not allowed simply because the DF server environment differs from real life. First of all the tactical situation is different without command structure ie wings and groups. Secondly the flying distances are far from RL, ever seen anyone actually benefit from drop tanks on their mustangs? And thirdly the number of players is nowhere near the numbers in real life. Fourthly vulching ruins the playability of the maps as would the use of actual power balance between the fighting sides ie imagine dortmund with 10 b-17s escorted by 16 mustangs against 6 bf-109s and 4 fw-190s.

Zorin
08-11-2006, 20:28
All in all, I think I would be in favor of allowing vulching, on the condition all maps would be revised to ensure it won't result too quickly into unbalanced situation.

What do you think ?

And you are going to alter 50 maps? Wish you all the best.

Excuse me for being sarcastic, but you don't seem to have an idea of what Firelok is going through when altering only simple stuff, say, in the brief. But if we would need to change every map, even vitally, I say NO, leave it as it is.

Vulching, especially after a long flight on my final approach, will always result in a kick from my side, come what may. We can't expect good sportsmanship, no shoulder shooting and kill stealing, when at the same time allow vulching. That doesn't work for me.

Firelok
08-11-2006, 20:37
I hope the distances between the airfields of a team are big enough, so no team can get total air superiority.

Oh and how do you want to prevent people to shoot at planes on take off? If you say that the mission goal is to destroy all enemy planes this will enforce people to shoot at every plane, disregarding in what phase of flight they are.

Remember, people are stupid and every exception from that rule is a reason that calls for celebration ;)
1. Yes, essential in my view. So quite a long way.

2. If you return to the beginning of this thread and what Daytrader wants, this is exactly what he wants. To be shot at on the runway, isn't it? So athough I don't encourage it I wouldn't spend all of this map kicking people out for it or sorting out squabbles either.

3.Undoubtably the best air defence planes are at the secondary airfield, camping your own base in a 109G2 or an La5F might be the killer tactic here. If your enemy is nose down vulching away at the airfield he's not paying attention to the air defence fighters screaming down from above.

4. This map is asking for trouble. I know that, it's err...heretical :)

5. Question: Does having one map where a certain rule is relaxed (and stated to be relaxed) weaken it's application elsewhere?

6. Your base is under attack what do you do? take-off under fire or refly from the other base? this is a tactical decision,no?

Zorin
08-11-2006, 21:09
5. Question: Does having one map where a certain rule is relaxed (and stated to be relaxed) weaken it's application elsewhere?

Usually I am the one who is told to keep the noobs in mind, but as it seems now it is my turn ;) How do you want to explain a newcomer that a rule does apply for one map and not for all the others? If you are already puzzle cause of all the regulations you'll never understand any special rules, it'll only end in more confusion.

Skinny
08-11-2006, 22:15
Usually I am the one who is told to keep the noobs in mind, but as it seems now it is my turn ;) How do you want to explain a newcomer that a rule does apply for one map and not for all the others?

Simple, refer to the briefing which they should read every new map anyhow :)
I think the problem would rather be the regulars that will be confused, since they no longer read the briefings, but it only takes a fraction of a second the check if eg vulching is allowed on that map, or you can ask in chat.

That said, you will obviously get people vulching on other maps, either honestly or dishonestly claiming they thought it was ok on that map.

Zorin
08-11-2006, 23:55
Nobody reads the briefs. Has nothing to do with noob or regular. And I simply don't see the point in risking a rule that is one of the few that people learned to obey to, for one single map. I wouldn't mind this if it would be an admin called map and not in the regular circle, so admins could explain before the map is loaded that a special exception is given for that particular map.

NS-IceFire
09-11-2006, 00:22
5. Question: Does having one map where a certain rule is relaxed (and stated to be relaxed) weaken it's application elsewhere?

Usually I am the one who is told to keep the noobs in mind, but as it seems now it is my turn ;) How do you want to explain a newcomer that a rule does apply for one map and not for all the others? If you are already puzzle cause of all the regulations you'll never understand any special rules, it'll only end in more confusion.
Gotta agree with Zorin there. And usually we debate these things back and forth :D

I think if you folks do change the vulching rule...it'll have to apply to all maps. Mind you the bases are already in pretty good shape for preventing some vulching but you'd probably still want double the AAA we have and that stands for lag-o-fest on some maps.

I'm not strictly against vulching...just that its a hazardous sport ...or should be.

Scrappy_D
09-11-2006, 00:25
When you start relating ANY 'game' to real life then you have to start asking yourself "am I getting too serious about this?" .... The Only thing that is realistic in IL2 is how the planes actually look! Nothing else ;) .... The idea is to have FUN, and if you've got 4 or 5 half decent chaps pounding the cr@p out of enemy bases (with guns and cannons) then it very quickly becomes no fun at all and masses leave and never come back. If you want to vulch, then please go to a quake server! ..... The whole thing about the no vulching rule was caused by a few 'idiots' (But they were bloody good at it!) who persistantly hung around bases and vulched. If we allowed it then I would not fly on our servers ever! It really would screw everything up in my book.

Firelok
09-11-2006, 00:52
5. Question: Does having one map where a certain rule is relaxed (and stated to be relaxed) weaken it's application elsewhere?

I'm of the opinion that we are best served by our current rule, no vultching with guns.And we shouldn't change this...

However airfield targets are popular and rarely does an evening go by without players (some very experienced and members here too.) going to bomb the enemy base. Even IF this has no effect on the mission outcome.

Now I've said on other threads that I'm not keen on airfield 'Targets' because of the problems it can throw up but does that mean we should never have the 'War of the Aerodromes' that is such a feature of WWII? here BTW there actually wouldn't be a 'Target' other than kill the enemy planes.

For example we flew Libau this evening and returning to base we spotted 2 Ju88s headed NorthEast their objective... Reds base which is miles further away than the plotted targets and no way could it ever provide the points gained from hitting the 'legitimate' targets. Why did they do this... A powerful urge to bomb the enemy base.

Shooting up the Static planes or the AAA at a base isn't vultching and dropping bombs on the enemy base is something we all have done and is a popular pastime.

Hmm...line up enemy base...drop 4 metric tons of bombs...run away... :eek:

Gordano
09-11-2006, 11:22
I do not think that we need to change any of the rules for the server, or for this particular map, with regards to vulching.

This map is a bit of a deviation from our norms, however I feel no need to start changing rules etc. as this will just make things completely confusing, how many people will vulch on other maps and simply claim "But I was allowed on map xxxx why not here??"

The vulching rule is designed to give things a modicum of balance, as with the server being dogfight based, the bases are very close together. If we were to allow vulching with guns, I would demand that we make other changes to the maps such as introducing a proper flight time to the targets. I'm looking at 1 hour plus, so you simply won't have enough fuel to reach the enemy base - as it was in real life. Realistic, as is vulching with guns, but throughly unpractical for the server - again as is vulching with guns!

Of course there we are going to have a few who may get carried away on this map, but we also get that on other maps so I don't feel that Firelok's proposal is going to degenerate into chaos.

My only concession would be to adjust the brief slightly and at the very top in capitals have something along the lines of "THIS IS AN AIRFIELD ATTACK MISSION - HOWEVER ONLY ATTACK OTHER PLAYERS WITH BOMBS AND ROCKETS" this should hopefully make the rules clear.

Boemher
09-11-2006, 14:09
"THIS IS AN AIRFIELD ATTACK MISSION - HOWEVER ONLY ATTACK OTHER PLAYERS WITH BOMBS AND ROCKETS"


Would it be possible for server commander to flash this message or a slightly revised one on all of our maps? Like it currently flashes warning points are viewable only by you ect.

"ONLY ATTACK STATIONARY, LANDING OR TAKING OF AIRCRAFT AND AIRFIELDS WITH BOMBS AND ROCKETS"

I bet it would lesson the amount of carnage from well meaning new pilots who think because were an externals on server we allow it.

I agree with Zorin on the part that few people read briefings.

Firelok
09-11-2006, 15:27
I agree with Zorin on the part that few people read briefings.
The flipping blighters... Need to sort out an examination/receipt program to
prove you read the brief, or admins could 'stop and seach' passing planes for knowledge of the brief. :D

Yellow 2
09-11-2006, 16:07
On balance I wouldn't be in favour of it.While it may sound fun, as Scrappy said we would end up have a few, or not so few, vulching specialists who sole aim was to kill you before you got your wheels up or before you hit refly if you were landing. Any maps where the rule is relaxed invites players who don't or can't read the briefs to plead 'why is it not ok on this map when it was on the last'.

If vulching was allowed and airfields were regularly under attack take offs would become a lottery. If the vulcher didn't get you a team mate careering across the airfield to avoid the attack probably would.

Firelok
09-11-2006, 18:22
i want a map where we just attack and protect our airfields, the targets can be planes etc around each airstrip, would be great trying to take off and getting into battle, i know i have said this before :p

This is exactly what I've done with a few refinements, like adding another airdefence base for each side and airstarted heavy bombers. Really there are two threads intertwined here,
1. discussing the thorny question of vultching with guns. (not a good idea IMO.)
(although worth talking about...Are online wars servers bound by the no-vultching rule?)
2. discussing whether this map (Anapa) would wantonly and destructively create and atmosphere that promoted gunvultching. After all it effectively directs players to bombvultch an airfield. But so does Tirpitz,Malta,Channel43 ,Okinawa,Marianas44 and other attack the carriers missions.

Given that I've planned in suitable airdefence measures(secondary airfield with advanced interceptors and AAA that respawns after 10 minutes) with the aim in mind to make the main airfield a legitimate target. Should I upload this map now as it's finished, normally I'd declare that I'd done it and just get on with it, I'm not sure that's right approach here. I've decided to consult here first to see what the interested parties think.
So... Anapa.mis should we try it?

Algorex
09-11-2006, 18:57
In regard to gun vulching in general i have said my bit earlier.

On the map i'd say we should try it a few times as a admin-call map, although i doubt that it never will make it to the standard map rotation.

Gordano
09-11-2006, 21:14
Another quick thought,

Maybe have the crappest fighter in each sides planeset as an airstart a good few minutes flying time away the airfields. This will give each side something to use if their base gets overwhelmed by rocket and bomb carrying enemies. Sort of get on the phone and call your chums to help style.

If we have a bad fighter as well (with all loads except guns restricted) it will mean that there will be no incentive to use it as an excuse to be lazy and not have to take off. The lack of bombs/rockets will mean that it only really has one use, as a fighter, and to real use other than one of last resort to defend the airfield.

What do you all think?

Firelok
10-11-2006, 00:30
Gordano's idea is easily done as there is a bomber airstart fairly near both bases
what crap plane though in 1943? (and no way do I include the Ilyushin planes in this.)
A Basic MiG 3 ? an Bf-109 E-7/Z Emil ? (or maybe something Italian? did they fly here??)