View Full Version : Winterraid, February 1942, somewhere in northern France

23-11-2006, 19:15
Simple setting. The RAF is raiding the coastal areas of occupied northern France, whilst the Luftwaffe is trying their best to counter these attacks with their new fighter, the Fw 190.


Bf 109E 7/B
Bf 109 F4
FW 190 A4

Bf 110G2



Spitfire Vc (2cannons)
Spitfire Vb

Mosquito FB.MK.VI



British convoy


Refueling harbor and U-boat bunker

Field airbase and nearby train station

Map (http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/5484/mapmx7.gif)

23-11-2006, 21:13
sounds quite good, I'd like to see it on UKD1 as well..

23-11-2006, 21:39
Very interesting is the combination of 190 and Emil I think! The FW as the speeder and the Emil as the vulnerable little brother or so.

It might be interesting too, how the reds will stop the blues' attacks because of their lack of fast aircrafts! I am really looking foward to fly on this map, for blue AND for red! :)

Cheers Sonko

23-11-2006, 22:32
Looks like a good setup. The Spitfire LF Vb and P-40E are just fast enough in a dive to be able to catch a FW190 if properly placed. Particularly if the FW190 is doing ground attack. The others are a solid match back and forth which is nice.

Thumbs up.

23-11-2006, 23:42
So many positive replys, I'm flattered :)

Yet I think I should give a bit of insight to what I plan with this. The HurriIIc and Mosquito should attack the station and airfield, which is why I'll place lots of soft and medium targets there for our ground attack friends.

The A20C, as a Beaufort with Torpedo, is supposed to attack the harbour.

On the German side, the Fw 190 will be the fast interceptor which is supposed to take on the fast Mossie and heavy armed Hurris, while the Bf 109 will be the cover for the German bombers, having a good time with the P40E and Spitfire.

And as a little extra, the Fw 200 as a maritime bomber, unlimited in loadout, which will have quite a bit of a journey to the target, but may wreck some havoc when finally arriving there. ;)

Harbour is taking shape (http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5001/harbourrp4.gif)

24-11-2006, 01:52
My only niggle is that the Spitfire Vb L.F goes 525 Km/h on the deck. It also climbs at over 4000 fpm, above 3000m it is crap however. This plane was a direct counterpart to the Fw 190 A5 not the Fw 190 A4 we have in game.

Good for balance, but net effect is a Spitfire IX vs Fw 190 A5 style scenario the performance is so close.

Why not just keep Spit Vc vs Fw 190 A4 ? and force people to counter Fw 190 A4 using teamwork.

24-11-2006, 01:54
I think you should look in to P-40Es and P-400s involvement in ETO. I'm not so sure either was present in early 42.

Few additional concerns (at 4am drunk i must add). Lag near riga? Flight times to targets/intercept (as in will fw catch mossies on approach on the first run etc)? Other than that i'm up for a test run.

24-11-2006, 11:57

RAF 601 Squadron
In February 1941, the squadron began taking part in offensive sweeps over northern France which continued until August, when re-equipment with Airacobras began. These proved useless and were discarded in favour of Spitfires in March 1942

Couldn't find anything on the P40 :( Maybe someone with a little more knowledge could help me out here.

The distances could need tweaking, we need to see if they are too short as of now. The lag over Riga..well, there shouldn't be too much action over Riga, so I don't think that it'll prove to be a problem.

24-11-2006, 13:03
Genuine question, was the Spitfire L.F Vb we have ingame flying in squadrons in February 1942 ? From Spitfire performance .com

"25 May 1943

Spitfire F. Mk.VB W.3228
(Merlin 50 M)
Climb and level speed performance when fitted with a
Merlin 50 engine with a cropped supercharger impeller


........Spitfire F. Mk.VB W.3228 has been fitted with a special Merlin 50 engine, on which the supercharger impellor was "cropped" to a diameter of 9.5". On this engine the maximum permitted boost at combat rating was +18 lb/sq.in. instead of +16 lb/sq.in. as on a normal Merlin 50 engine. Climb and level speed measurements have been made at this combat rating and form the subject of this report.

..(a) Climb.

Maximum rate of climb 4270 ft/min. at 3850 ft.
Maximum rate of climb at 10,000 ft. 3800 ft/min.
Maximum rate of climb at 20,000 ft. 2320 ft/min.
Service ceiling 35,700 ft.
Estimated absolute ceiling 36,400 ft.

........(b) Level Speeds.

Max. level true airspeed at 2,000 ft. 334 mph.
Max level true airspeed at 5,900 ft. (FTH) 350 mph.
Max level true airspeed 10,000 ft. 347 mph."

So for balance sakes we are using a 1943 year Vb against a 1941 performance Fw 190.

Remember the Fw 190 A2/3 was only just making itself known, and the RAF didnt know the Fw 190s true performance until late June 1942 when Fabers Fw 190 A3 was gifted to them. So reacting to the threat would imo have taken more than just 3 months from the 1st Fw 190 encounter in September 41 to our map in Feb 42.

I understand that the Fw 190 A4 is superior to the Spitfire L.F Vb at 4000m plus. This is like the Fw 190 A5 vs La5 FN, but this is a notional performance advantage and it is tough to implement on a small map designed for fighter bombing.

24-11-2006, 13:16
So for balance sakes we are using a 1943 year Vb against a 1941 performance Fw 190.

That sums it up perfectly I'd say. I'm not proud of it, but somehow I had to make the teams balanced and adding the LF VB was the simplest solution. Otherwise I would have needed to start limiting planes etc.

24-11-2006, 13:36
Its the Simple solution for the Red team, I agree.

Why not delete Fw 190A4 and add Bf 109 G2 then we will have a nice furball map with simple high performance turn fighting planes for both people.

Sorry for the sarcasm but essentially Flying the Fw 190 A4 well requires more experience, skill and patience than chosing a Spitfire Vb L.F and being almost as fast as the Fw 190 whilst outclimbing it easily and out turning it completely.

We are not really balancing things here, we are again making Energy tactics less feasible while artificially favouring Turn fighters. As I said real balance is like paper scissor stones.

What we are getting is plane X has 1 performance attribute ( Fw 190 A4 - Speed) so we counter it by adding plane Y which has 2/3 performance attributes attributes (Spitfire Vb L.F - climb, turn, speed) Instead of relying on team work and skill to level it.

24-11-2006, 13:50
Then we change it to the Spit Vb, is that what you want?

24-11-2006, 13:54
I'd like to see this map with the Vb removed and the Vc left in. After some testing the Vb may be needed in limited numbers. It would be nice to see how it goes without first though.

24-11-2006, 13:58
I like maps where the planes on one side have clear differences to the planes on the other side.

Your Archangel map with Hurricanes and Martlets vs Bf 109 F4s has it

The Balkans map whith Hurricanes vs Bf 109 F2s has it

Zero vs Wildcats and P40 maps have it

Yet there is a manical insistance in general that the Spitfire cant be allowed to be too much slower than the Fw 190 on a map otherwise no one will fly Red.

24-11-2006, 14:05
Ok, it is not like we wouldn't be able to change things if they don't work out. First tests will be without the LF and only the Vb and Vc. The P39 could own some fame on this map if taken proper use of, I'd say.

24-11-2006, 14:15
So A4/F4 vs spit Vb/c full wings and p-400? Shall we give it a go and analyse it after?

24-11-2006, 14:17
What is wrong with one side having a historical speed advantage.

Not everyone can or does fly the Fw 190 A4 like you JtD. The Fw 190s main advantage here is speed. The Spitfire Vb L.F lessens that advantage from 0m up to 3000m. Why artificially move aircombat up to 4000m plus ?

Its labeled Feb 42 which is fine why change it to winter 42

24-11-2006, 15:50
Well, at least it doesn't look too bad in RAF camo ;)


24-11-2006, 16:03
great screen shot, P39 D1 would be nice low level counter to Fw 190.

Where did you get cammo from?

24-11-2006, 16:11
Part of a P39 template. I may assemble a skin pack for this mission and this one will be included of course.

24-11-2006, 17:43
GUys, we all know what a turkey shoot channel '42 is for the FW190 against the Spitfire Vb.

Plus any Spitfire Vb has only 60rpg of ammo, meaning it has to go back home after sometimes one fight if it meets a Me110/FW190/He111.

As much as I love shooting up Spitfire V's in a FW190, I think reds should at least have the Spitfire Vb 1942.

Spitfire Vb's cannot even really use teamwork against FW190's becasue the FW190 can out zoom, outclimb and outrun the Spitfire Vb.

We already have a Fw190A4 vs Spitfire Vb map, so why not make this one with the Spitfire Vb 1942? WOuld at least give a bit of variety.

I would much rather be in the Fw190 than the Spitfire 1942 anyway.

Just my opinon.

24-11-2006, 18:08
What planes are on this map is in fact a side issue :eek:

The overall performance for online purposes is the major consideration and I'm concerned that without very careful attention to this side of the design any amount of beautiful targets and well balanced planesets will be wasted.
I know that there are no suitable coast/airbase combinations on the Kurland online map so you have used the offline one to gain access to Riga and the surrounding area but this may cause undue performance problems even if object counts are kept to a strict minimum.

I know also what I'm saying is a bit dull but it's very important to the final success of this project.

24-11-2006, 18:12
I tested dogfighting above Riga with my low end system and fps never dropped below 30, so I'd say we are on the safe side here.

25-11-2006, 00:43
To solve the Spitfire vs FW190 situation...why not the LF.Vb and LF.Vb clipped. Its a bit early but not as early as suggested by the dates attached on the aircraft in-game.

When the Spitfire V was the only Spitfire in game I managed to go and do a fair bit of havoc back in the day with a clipped wing version. You get a fair bit of speed out of it and the cannon isn't too much of a problem if you can shoot well. Even the average shooter should be able to guarantee a plane shot down before the guns run dry.

25-11-2006, 01:15
You could just move the timeframe forward since the first IXs came in june '42 anything up to that will do and at the same time we could move away from the potentially laggy offline kurland and get away from the apparent winter loll in cross channel air ops.

25-11-2006, 12:31
You could just move the timeframe forward since the first IXs came in june '42 anything up to that will do and at the same time we could move away from the potentially laggy offline kurland and get away from the apparent winter loll in cross channel air ops.

I don't think so. We have that on the outworn Normandy maps already and I wanted to do something different so don't tell me that different is not going to work for you , again.

25-11-2006, 15:24
It's a good challenge to fly the Mark Vb...the clipped wing version is fast enough if pitted against the FW190A-4 to do some damage. Its not as good but it is quite pleasant to fly. The P-400 will help a fair bit too.

I like the idea Zorin. Go for it man! :)

25-11-2006, 20:06
Ok, I'll finish a bare version without quality targets and airfields. A simple test for distances and plane set.

25-11-2006, 22:54
Finished the bare map and I'll send it to Fire as soon as I get his addy.

26-11-2006, 15:36
Files have been send to Firelok. It is a version with Vb and Vb CW. I hope you find the time to test it and report back what your experiences were.

26-11-2006, 18:37
Ok, I've got this ready to load-up as soon as I've finished arguing with the .properties file. On this note does anyone else's FMB crash out when they try to backspace or Delete the properties, it's so annoying me, I'm just using notepad now for months.
Arguement over, I won.
I've loaded this onto the server, current name is Winterraid.mis

26-11-2006, 20:06
Map looks great Zorin cant wait tto fly it, whatever the planeset ends up being I want to thank you for your efforts in attempting such a scenario.

27-11-2006, 01:31
Map looks great Zorin cant wait tto fly it, whatever the planeset ends up being I want to thank you for your efforts in attempting such a scenario.

You asked for a nice A4 scenario and as I don't like regular, that is what you get :D Glad you like it :)

27-11-2006, 02:03
Flew it tonight and liked it lots :). Ive been looking on IL2 compare, about the Fw 190 A4 vs Spitfire balance question. I still think Vb L.F is too good, but regular Vb isnt fast enough. I then looked at Seafire which is marginally slower than the Vb L.F but probably a better bet than the plain Vb.

Tell me what you guys think ?

27-11-2006, 03:24
I'm wondering how long the LF Vb can stay fast though, it get's hot as hell when I fly it.

The Clipped Vb is between the Vb and the LFVb how about that?

27-11-2006, 08:34
Didn't I include the CW Vb??

27-11-2006, 11:11
You did include it and the clipped Vb is better than the standard Vb but only in rate of roll.

From IL2 compare v 3.0 the Vb clipped goes 465 km/h on the deck, the Fw 190 A4 hits 540km/h.

The Vb L.F goes 520km/h compared to Fw 190 A4s 540 km/h and at 3000m it is only 3 km/h slower than the Fw 190 at 560 km/h.

This is a little too close for a plane that is much more manuverable and has a rate of climb of over 4000 fpm. To have correct performance gap A5 is needed. But this would change the rest of the map balance too.

An intermediate solution is the Seafire. It goes 510km/h on the deck, 30 km/h slower than the Fw 190 A4 and is slightly less uber than the Vb L.F

As you can see from those speeds the Vb L.F is a very very good low level fighter. It holds energy well and it will eat any other fighter for breakfast at low level in a dogfight. This includes IX and La5 because the Spit Vb's turn rate is incredible. Another way to look at the balance of the two aircraft is that the Spitfire Vb L.F is actually closer in spec to the Fw 190 A4 than the Spitfire IX/VIII is to the Fw 190 A5/6 up to 3000m altitude. It really is a bit of a hotrod.

27-11-2006, 16:46
By "far superior" do you mean 3 km/h difference at 3000m ? or a huge 20km/h difference at sea level? In a fight with a Spitfire Vb L.F you will be hard pressed to disengage unless you have a very large Energy advantage or you chose to make one pass then run away.

27-11-2006, 17:16
Do we even have a map where the LF mk.V and FW meet without mkIXs?

27-11-2006, 17:57
We used to have a Desert map where they met.

JtD, using 100% prop pitch technique and rad closed will give you more speed on Fw 190 A4 but it is not recommended if you want your engine to last more than 5 min

My figures are from IL2 Compare V 3.0 and show a 3 km/h performance gap at 3000m. Fw 190 was supposed to be untouchable by Spitfire Vbs in February 1942. With the L.F on the map this is far from the case. You dont need to be flying with your pants down to get caught out, any experienced IL2 pilot can and will give you a close run for your money.

Set up a Qmb and pilot the Spitfire Vb. LF against 4 x Fw 190 A4s. It is very competitive.

27-11-2006, 18:02
Just keep in mind that not everyone can fly the Fw the way it is supposed to and that the other Luftwaffe fighters here are E7 and F4.

27-11-2006, 19:53
Or have Spitfire Vb L.F vs Fw 190 A4 and it will be like any other IX/La5 vs Fw 190 A5 map.

I have actuallky looked for a solution which you didnt comment on which is to have Seafire instead of L.F Vb it goes 510 km/h and has a better performance curve at higher altititudes too.

27-11-2006, 21:06
3D model ? Oh yes the disapeering wing of the Seafire :)

I dont mind if Spit L.F Vb gets added so long as its like 12 planes or so.

27-11-2006, 21:32
What about this plane set?


Bf 109E 7/B
Bf 109 F4
FW 190 A4=20

Bf 110G2



Spitfire Vb
Spitfire Vb CW
Spitfire L.F. Vb=12

Mosquito FB.MK.VI=15

27-11-2006, 22:19
I like the look of that a lot Zorin :p can I ask a stupid question what is the P39 D1? Where does it fall performance wise compared to the very quick D2 and the average P400 ?

27-11-2006, 22:39
The D1 is a P400 only with a Lend-Lease-Label.

30-11-2006, 18:14
Would you want to test that new plane set?

30-11-2006, 22:15
The D1 is a P400 only with a Lend-Lease-Label.
Not sure if it is so in game but the P-400 should have .303 cal Brownings while the P-39D-1 would have .30 cal Brownings. Small difference :)

30-11-2006, 22:27
Hardball lists both with 0.30cals. :confused:

01-12-2006, 00:41
It should have .303s but you can't tell the difference as they are almost identical (they could very well be the same gun in IL-2). The difference in il-2 between p-400 and p39D1 is that the D1 has optional 37mm cannon and bombrack with ?500lb? bomb or 75 gal tank.

01-12-2006, 00:45
It has the option for the 500lbs and an extra fuel tank 75gal, but not for the 37mm.

02-12-2006, 00:19
Back to my question:

Would you want to test that new plane set?

08-12-2006, 00:19
Everything taking shape. New objects aren't that great. But a nice addition nonetheless.



08-12-2006, 02:32
Hardball lists both with 0.30cals. :confused:
Its wrong...but its a small detail that hardly anyone knows about and even fewer care about it. The .303s are rimmed differently but its otherwise essentially the same weapon. The .303 is a RAF version while the basic .30 is American services based.

08-12-2006, 06:06
Don't have the P400 or the P39 it's on soo many mid-war eastern front maps
It's just going to be a Russian front map in disguise,I would think about this...

Mosquito FB VI
Bf109 E7/B
Bf109 F2
FW190 A4
Bf110 G2 (default weapons only.)
Heinkel 111

All three main fighter types for blues are faster than the Spit's but the older
Bf109s puts more emphasis on FW190 flying (which is the point.)
Trying to chase down Fw's in Mossies could be good fun.
Or even don't have any Freidrichs at all, so the FW's are the only fighter protection for the bombers.

08-12-2006, 10:59
I'd like to keep the P39 cause this is the only scenario where it saw service in western europe before being send to the UDSSR.

The A20C is in cause people like to torpedo ships, easy as that. And Mossies catch fire rather easily from german AAA, so I don't want to see frustrated bomber pilots leave the server cause there is no other choice.

That the F2 is rather pointless vs Hurris is something we all should be aware of. At least on a dogfight server where you can't spend 20 minutes on chasing down an enemy with 7,62s...

Bf110 G2 (default weapons only.) ?? Why shouldn't the 110 be allowed to carry bombs? Especially since I wanted to leave out the Ju88.

08-12-2006, 12:14
I'll get me coat.

08-12-2006, 17:37
I'll get me coat.


08-12-2006, 18:37
Its a joke from a British TV show called The Fast Show, where a guy always puts his foot in to it and embarrasses himself. Everybody goes quiet and stares at him and he says as he gets up to leave.

" I'll just go and get my coat. "

08-12-2006, 20:44
Mission is ready and on hold till server is running 4.07. Size 62kb.

09-12-2006, 15:24
Train station:


13-12-2006, 19:28
Found a location and therefor a name for this map: Caen.

13-12-2006, 19:54
Im still looking fwd to this one mate, cant wait to try it out. Good job!

19-12-2006, 17:32
Good to know Boemher :)

I have a question regarding SC and 4.07. When we switch to the new server version without the SC update, will the new objects be visible? As far as I understand there'll only be issues with the limitations of the new planes, right?

19-12-2006, 17:44
Good to know Boemher :)

I have a question regarding SC and 4.07. When we switch to the new server version without the SC update, will the new objects be visible? As far as I understand there'll only be issues with the limitations of the new planes, right?
Yes pretty much my understanding but... I would be careful using 4.07m target objects too as SC might not be able to deal with these either.(there's some new motorcycles and static MG's etc)
As for limiting planes, the less the better really. It can be a bit irritating if most aircraft are limited in some way, don't get me wrong it's a nice feature but I think we all over-used it in the early summer because it was a 'new' feature to us.
I have to agree with Boemher hope this one works out (I do like a bit of snow.) and it means we are less limited over map choice by the offline Kurland map being useable.

19-12-2006, 17:46
My understanding of the problem is that using an old version of SC will prevent us from limiting any of the new planes in both number and loadout.

There may also be an issue with the recording of the stats, but again I would imagine this would be linked to what happens if you destroy or are destroyed by a new aircraft.

With regards to the using the new ground objects, I would be wary about using the new objects as the actual targets. SC could quite likely have an issue with recognising these and as such may not register them as being destroyed.

The stats database seems to be directly linked to the achieving of mission objectives. For example when you destroy the objects which are set as target objectives they go to the stats database where they are registered as being destroyed and then removed from the number of targets. There is often a lag in the server responding and updating things if there are lots of queries of a large number destroyed (This is a limitation of the database used).

So if the objects are not recognised by Server Commander, ie. being from the new version, there is the risk they will not actually be removed and therefore we end up with the map being unwinnable because the server does not "see" the targets being destroyed, even though the game will.

19-12-2006, 18:17
Ok, there should be no problem with the targets here as for one there are like 98% old targets and only new static objects here and there and the target percentage for the land-based red targets are both set to less than 90%. Only problem would be the A20C being unlimited as of yet, cause that way people will most likely take the 1000kg russian FAP bomb and destroy the trainstation and airfield on one sortie.

20-12-2006, 22:03
Have uploaded the new files named now named Caen.mis onto the server.

21-12-2006, 12:17
Played this last night and had fun, however we only had around 12 players and I think the map will work alot better with a more full server. The distance to targets is fairly large, not to large but on the limit for my personal tastes. (although with a full server these distances may seem shorter)

My other concearn was that on Blue side we were only showing 4 targets, im not sure if this is one of those SC ini file things or by design. If it is only meant to be 4 targets I think that on a full server it wont take long for a gaggle of He-111's to take out those 4 ships, probably in 1 sortie. I didnt get to see red targets as some muppets decided to unbalance the teams so I flew blue all map.

Hard to say how the plane balance worked as the red fighters were mostly made up of experienced pilots on teamspeak, and they were flying the "much improved new hurri"

21-12-2006, 12:25
I agree with you that this is a map for a full server. Distances were a bit long with only 12 players, but that should vastly improve with 30 players. The SC issue has been corrected and a proper front line is established.

21-12-2006, 12:30
Any decisions regarding SC target stuff really need to be delayed TBO because the poor old ServerCommander is a little confused about all this new technology.
The updated version is uploaded now BTW.

24-12-2006, 14:44
Could we put this somewhere earlier in the circle? You can't evaluate a map when it is only played by 15 players when it is made for 30.

24-12-2006, 20:04
Looks great online and it plays sort of OK (with some largish spikes).
After playing this with a full server this afternoon and have just inspected the map with FMB, I've got some recommendations.
In some far off corner of the map place static versions of the Red planes, this will help with loading/cache-ing the objects. Replace the static armour tanks on the airfield target site with stationary object versions and replace the artillery bunkers along the coast with object versions or remove them, this is to reduce the AI decision making load the server has to perform.
These suggestions are to aid the performance of the map for online play.

24-12-2006, 20:26
Placed the static planes, removed the bunkers and replaced the tanks. File has been send already.

24-12-2006, 21:20
Played this map this afternoon and approve wholeheartedly :)

I would have made similar suggestions to Firelok along the lines of there being spawn lag for the allies, but you seem to have fixed that already. So thanks!!

09-01-2007, 23:51
It's still quite laggy over the harbour targets with the AAA going on, i was chasing a a-20 with my focke-wulf and the performance hit over the harbour was considerable.

I would also move the bases a bit futher apart, i mean move the other blue base the the concrete AB on the west side of Riga and increase the spacing on the red airfieds. Just because now only one of the bases is used as the icons overlap.

Not a big issue but why does the RAF have the american P-39D1? I mean P-400 is basicly the same plane, but it was produced for the RAF with british equipment as Airacobra I. It got the p-400 designation when USA enter the war and requisitioned some the planes.

10-01-2007, 01:29
The harbor is defended by 1x20mm, 3x88mm and a M-Boat. I guess taking out one 88mm should help to fix the lag above the harbor. Or, as most red bombers come in low to skip bomb, take out all 88mm and replace them with one 37mm.

Relocating the blue base doesn't make much sense to me, cause that way blues would have an even shorter way to the harbor and will probably already intercept the bombers over the sea. As of now the blues are at the most eastern base available.

As far as I know, if you zoom in on the map it should be possible to pick either red base. The problem with setting them further apart is that I would need to add another 4 testrunways for no real gain.

And changing the D1 to a P400 shouldn't be a problem at all.

10-01-2007, 01:46
3 88's and a 20mm is not a really laggy AAA amount, The M Boats often put up a lot of tracer/trails that can slow things but If I remember right it's a bit off shore. Sleeping the M-Boat and swapping the 20mm for a 37mm might be a better way to go.Still be quite dangerous to low-flying (or rather sea-level a20s.) too.

10-01-2007, 01:51
3 88's and a 20mm is not a really laggy AAA amount, The M Boats often put up a lot of tracer/trails that can slow things but If I remember right it's a bit off shore. Sleeping the M-Boat and swapping the 20mm for a 37mm might be a better way to go.Still be quite dangerous to low-flying (or rather sea-level a20s.) too.

Yes, it is off shore, but I will do what you suggested. :)

06-03-2009, 14:41
The new FBDj version will feature the B.MKVI Mossie instead of the FB one as that was a 1943 plane.