PDA

View Full Version : Orsha - Eastern Front 1943



NS-IceFire
13-10-2006, 01:21
Orsha (near Smolensk)

This is my latest map. I built it in response to the need for more middle war eastern front maps so as to incur more losses with the Yak-9 and Bf109G-6 :)

This map is centered once again around busting up some tanks and hitting some enemy installations. So there is a mix of softer more strategic targets with hardended tanks. So I think IL-2s and Stuka drivers will be having as much fun here as the Pe-2 and Ju-88 folks. This area of the map is also somewhat interesting for its hills and valleys.

Pictures!

http://colin.polariscreations.com/images/orsha-001.jpg
http://colin.polariscreations.com/images/orsha-002.jpg
http://colin.polariscreations.com/images/orsha-003.jpg
http://colin.polariscreations.com/images/orsha-004.jpg

NS-IceFire
13-10-2006, 01:22
http://colin.polariscreations.com/images/orsha-005.jpg
http://colin.polariscreations.com/images/orsha-006.jpg
http://colin.polariscreations.com/images/orsha-007.jpg
http://colin.polariscreations.com/images/orsha-008.jpg

The list of aircraft generally includes:

Yak-1B, Yak-9D, IL-2 Type 3, LaGG-3, LaGG-3IT, Pe-2, A-20G, La-5F, Bf109G-6, Bf109G-6 Late, Bf110G-2, He-111, FW190A-5, Ju-87D-5 and G-2, Ju-88 and a few others. Its semi-historical in the plane type layout with an eye towards being fun and having as many options open as possible to win the map.

Next: Balaton and IronCurtain!

stanford
13-10-2006, 01:25
Looks stunning as always my man, I look forward to flying it!

Thanks for being a top contributor!

Firelok
13-10-2006, 01:45
Looks great, I expect to be contributing heavily to 109G6/Yak9 losses :D

NS-IceFire
13-10-2006, 23:56
Thanks guys! I might have a INI file ready for the weekend. I just need to figure out how to restrict the Bf110 to the selections I want it to have and we'll be good.

Zorin
14-10-2006, 23:49
In the course of getting new and better missions in the same theatre and year, I'd say we should reconsider to take some maps out of the rotation again. I haven'T flwon for atleast a month now, so I can't comment on what is "IN" and what is "OUT" but the rest of your surely can. Especially with the new addon coming up, it could be quitea bit of work if all maps would get an overhaul, even if they arn't that well recieced. I hope you get my point.

NS-IceFire
15-10-2006, 05:07
In the course of getting new and better missions in the same theatre and year, I'd say we should reconsider to take some maps out of the rotation again. I haven'T flwon for atleast a month now, so I can't comment on what is "IN" and what is "OUT" but the rest of your surely can. Especially with the new addon coming up, it could be quitea bit of work if all maps would get an overhaul, even if they arn't that well recieced. I hope you get my point.
I think the more the merrier. Especially since we've seemingly got them locked into a 24 hour loop right now. I'm trying to break it :)

Firelok
16-10-2006, 14:32
I've added this map to the server for testing.

Firelok
20-10-2006, 13:04
Flew this earlier this week, no technical problems. But it's big, real big :eek:

NS-IceFire
21-10-2006, 00:24
Flew this earlier this week, no technical problems. But it's big, real big :eek:
I didn't think that'd be a problem...the closest bases are no different than other maps. I didn't think. There are bases that are further removed...usually with bombers so they have some time to setup if they want.

Firelok
21-10-2006, 02:33
I didn't think that'd be a problem...the closest bases are no different than other maps. I didn't think. There are bases that are further removed...usually with bombers so they have some time to setup if they want.
Problem is not Fighters, it is bombers. Fly from SW bomber base almost to target(7+minutes) and then get blasted by FW's and say you enjoyed it??
Fighters it's OK, but I think it needs focusing all on one area of the map. I feel weird slagging off map Guru(Ice) but I think this should involve only one or two airbases each side. Targets are great but...
Posting this has felt weird, as I usually do after posting critical stuff.
There are so many folks who fly these scenarios who have an opinion but so few who actually create things for us all to try.

NS-IceFire
21-10-2006, 02:42
Thats ok. Constructive criticism can be very useful. Above all, I want people to like the maps I build...even if sometimes I try and push the boundaries :)

My logic for the bomber bases was to give them time to climb to target so they don't have to face the FW190s (for instance). But maybe that doesn't work quite so well in practice. Have to see what others think...perhaps just adding bombers to more bases would help?

Algorex
21-10-2006, 11:15
One thing I just remember from when we first tested this, lack of static cameras over targets. This forced the bombers to circle around in not-so-friendly area.

Before judging the distances too great i feel we need to play this a few more times so we'll see how our bombers survive when they know the targets. Because the bigger distances open a chance for no contact raids (slip past the fighters unnoticed), as with the distances a fighter has to choose the target he is protecting.

Firelok
21-10-2006, 18:49
Just played this again with a full server and a 5 or 6 strong A20 squad and fighter escort, It was damned good fun.
I think my comments above were far too hasty, flying solo can often stretch out time and get shot down like a dog just as you arrive over the targets is very dis-spiriting. With a full server this one's going to be a doozy. :)
p.s. I recorded the A20 sortie and will post some screenies in the main part of the forum.

Algorex
23-10-2006, 22:29
Still no static cameras?

NS-IceFire
23-10-2006, 23:44
Still no static cameras?
I'm making a few modifications so its taken a bit longer than I expected. Static cameras will be at all target areas in the update.

Sonko
24-10-2006, 15:14
One problem I have to remark is that the routes to the target of red and blue seem not to cross each other so getting a FW fully loaded with bombs to the target area can destroy the whole target in one run even when there are red fighters around. On the way back with the FW its also possible to kill some red bombers while ignoring their fighter escort when the FW goes a bit west before turning north to the home base.

So maybe this map is better suited to fighter-bombers because of its size and because there are so many weak targets.

I have played this map only once and I took off only twice until mapchange.

Regards Sonko

NS-IceFire
24-10-2006, 23:37
I am moving the two tank groups a bit closer to each other so that may mix things up a bit. Do you find that Blue is winning more than read or that they have an easier time of it?

Firelok
24-10-2006, 23:44
No sign of anyone winning it either time I've called it up but I didn't notice blues making a real effort either time. I wouldn't change too much before we've played it quite a lot, I'm quite happy for it to go into the main sequence as it is but if you've got tweaks for it (such as cameras) I'll delay things until then.

NS-IceFire
25-10-2006, 00:01
Yep cameras and I moved the blue tanks forward a bit. In looking at the map and based on comments I felt that maybe the blue tanks were a little too close to the blue base for red to effectively attack them. IL-2s need a few minutes to make a serious impression on a large group of tanks and if blue fighters are on them constantly its a no go.

NS-IceFire
28-10-2006, 04:51
Almost ready now...will send to Firelok this weekend.

Firelok
20-11-2006, 20:26
In the course of cutting and pasting some loadout information I discoved a syntax error in the .ini file for this map. I've corrected and uploaded some alterations but I figured it would be wise to point it out as it must have affected the balance of things a lot.
The original.

Bf-110G-2,m1;m1m3;m1m5;r3;r3m1;r3m2sc250;r3m2ab250;r3m2sc500;r3m2sd500;r3r7m1;r3r7m2sc250;r3r7m2ab250;r3r7m5 ;r4_;r7m1
Fw-190A-5
Ju-87D-5
Ju-87G-1=20
Ju-88A-4,2xSC2000;2xSC1800;2xAB1000
He-111H-6,2xSC2000

The fix...

Bf-110G-2=m1;m1m3;m1m5;r3;r3m1;r3m2sc250;r3m2ab250;r3m2sc500;r3m2sd500;r3r7m1;r3r7m2sc250;r3r7m2ab250;r3r7m5 ;r4_;r7m1
Fw-190A-5
Ju-87D-5
Ju-87G-1=20
Ju-88A-4=2xSC2000;2xSC1800;2xAB1000
He-111H-6=2xSC2000

if there is no requirement to limit the number of planes, just the loadout then the equals sign leads into the first restricted loadout. The comma is used after a plane restriction amount. So above if we wanted to restrict the number and load of the He111 it would read He-111H-6=20,2xSC2000

NS-IceFire
21-11-2006, 00:05
Glad to hear it...and yes thats probably my bad for not doing the INI quite right. My bad and thank you for fixing it! :)

Firelok
28-11-2006, 01:26
Errm, not sure about the target info here anymore.
I was flying blue on Orsha today and typed < targets

Cover F5 Group 49
***********************
Destroy F5 Group 49, G4 Group 36.

The .ini file I have at the moment says the following in the
targets bit....

[Target1]
side=2
1=1 0 0 0 850 55311 42063 1000
2=1 0 0 0 850 67497 46284 1000
[Target2]
side=1
1=1 0 0 0 850 66862 38388 1000
2=1 0 0 0 850 55281 42019 1000

Are the target groups swapped over or something?
[Target2]Group2 looks very close to [Target1]Group1 in terms of coordinates
it's odd I thought this one all worked did it get changed?

Mission Objectives:
The REDS attack must destroy:
85% of the Artillery base in (F5)
85% of the Panzer division in (G5)
The BLUES must destroy:
85% of the Tank convoy in (H4)
80% of the Supply Depot in (J5)
Use the static cameras for recon.

NS-IceFire
28-11-2006, 23:24
Well those co-ordinates haven't changed since I sent in the mission. But that is odd....

Firelok
03-12-2006, 16:43
Looked at this again this morning and I figured the best way to get it on track quick was to add some new target coords, So a few minutes FMB with the trusty Norway lighthouse object as my guide...


[Target1]
side=2
1=1 0 0 0 850 55304 42199 2000
2=1 0 0 0 850 66878 38391 2000
[Target2]
side=1
1=1 0 0 0 850 75239 32498 2000
2=1 0 0 0 850 97920 42882 2000

These are smack bang in the middle of the various objectives with enough target radius to cover everything. I'm hoping this has fixed stuff.

NS-IceFire
03-12-2006, 16:46
Alrighty...next chance we're both on maybe we should switch to this map and make sure they work properly.

This IS the method I've been using...the lighthouse works wonders. Maybe I copied things in the wrong order.

Firelok
03-12-2006, 22:38
We are fully working on this one now. :)

Zorin
04-01-2007, 01:00
Hi Ice.

Could you please take a look at the loadout limitations for the Bf 110? I can accept that I don't get the MK 108 in late 1943, in a way, but please allow the use of the extra MG 151 pod and all its loadout varaiants.

NS-IceFire
04-01-2007, 02:26
Hi Ice.

Could you please take a look at the loadout limitations for the Bf 110? I can accept that I don't get the MK 108 in late 1943, in a way, but please allow the use of the extra MG 151 pod and all its loadout varaiants.
Ooh...ok...I'll double check the MG151 pod restrictions. I don't have any objections to making that available.

Happy
04-01-2007, 07:17
may I ask why the A20c isn't included for the reds since i think it will open more avenue's of groundpounding tactics besides going in low and fast u are able to climb up and toggle the payload on the unsuspected target. the only plane that could perform such action currently on this map, seems to be the PE2. :p

map seems very interesting, some great work has gone into it by the look of things.

Firelok
04-01-2007, 09:13
may I ask why the A20c isn't included for the reds since i think it will open more avenue's of groundpounding tactics besides going in low and fast u are able to climb up and toggle the payload on the unsuspected target. the only plane that could perform such action currently on this map, seems to be the PE2. :p

map seems very interesting, some great work has gone into it by the look of things.

Easy answer this one, I am only human ;)
Expect it to be added very soon.