PDA

View Full Version : Operation Dragoon - Pictures



Kat
10-02-2007, 10:54
Having researched the landings the coastline appears very similar to italy ( all be it angled 45 degree's the wrong way ) and is actually VERY close to italy. So the idea of italy based aircraft (includ 205's which where still being used by Germans then ) is correct.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The allies have launched a surprise attack just west of the border between southern France and Italy. German forces in the area have setup an artillery battery on the most direct route out of the landing and our fire fighting unit's have quickly flown to the area to strike at the landings. The Axis need to cut off the landings by destroying key bridges and harass the landings until emergancy re-enforcements arriving in 321 gliders, Gigant transports, He111 transports and Ju52 plus by train can hit back at them.

The allies, using shipborne Seafires, F4F Martlet FM-2's and F6F's need to protect the landings whilst striking at the axis artillery and re-enforcements.

Axis will hit the landings plus bridges (using train trucks under the bridges to indicate hits ) held by paratroopers.
Allies will hit the airfield, station and off to the east a artillery brigade.

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dragoon.jpg

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dragoon2.jpg

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dragoon3.jpg

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dragoon4.jpg

http://www.bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dragoon5.jpg

Task Group 88.1 :-
FM-2 (RN)
SeafireMkIII(RN)
SeafireFMkIII(RN)

Task Group 88.2 :-
F6F-5 (USN)
SeafireMkIII(RN)
SeafireFMkIII(RN)

French Based Airfield
Bf-109G-6_Late
Bf-110G-2
He-111H-6
Ju-87D-5
Ju-88A-4
Italy Based Airfield
Fw-190A-6
Fw-190F-8
MC-205_III

Kat
15-02-2007, 23:15
Added pictures of some of the target's, still need to prettify them a bit but feedback would be appreciated.

Algorex
16-02-2007, 00:01
As this will be the first map on the italy online, i think you should try to make it as lightweight as possible so we can test the performance of the map itself and maybe afterwards add more bling bling.

NS-IceFire
16-02-2007, 00:37
I think it'll be fine...its not too intensive. Not anything like the massive numbers of objects on NW Germany.

NS-IceFire
16-02-2007, 23:44
Well I have no complaints. This looks well put together with a good selection of targets and an interesting planeset. Look forward to seeing it.

Algorex
17-02-2007, 00:37
Few slight adjustments come to mind (after playing tirpitz tonight), ditch the fw-190 1.65 ata and use the LF seafire. The performance advantage of the 1.42 ata focke A5/6 is enough when there's no two stage merlins. On the seafires the LF was the standard machine as the seafire III is a navalized spit V and the standard V peformance wasn't enough in 1944.

NS-IceFire
17-02-2007, 00:41
Mmmm good point. The LF is the way to go there...the F is pretty darn slow. Actually I might suggest just including both. If someone wants to have a high altitude fight in the Seafire than they need the F...otherwise the LF is it.

Kat
25-02-2007, 11:01
Been looking at this more, concentrating on flight times. Revised the map to improve them a lot :)

Slightly concerned the sourthen axis base may have too short a flight time now though :/ Problem is next nearsest is 30Km south.

In using that base I shifted the allied targets all about 10Km north and moved the axis artillery position to an improved location.

Algorex
25-02-2007, 11:20
Been looking at this more, concentrating on flight times. Revised the map to improve them a lot :)

Slightly concerned the sourthen axis base may have too short a flight time now though :/ Problem is next nearsest is 30Km south.

In using that base I shifted the allied targets all about 10Km north and moved the axis artillery position to an improved location.

Do the blues really need a second base then? If you can't place it right why not get rid of it, you have a properly placed base for the blue all ready.

Kat
25-02-2007, 11:23
Do the blues really need a second base then? If you can't place it right why not get rid of it, you have a properly placed base for the blue all ready.

I can do but I like a reason behind things in my maps. In this case the northern base is a bomber base and the southern is forces coming up from Italy.

Firelok
26-02-2007, 11:46
I've added this to the server today.

Kat
27-02-2007, 00:11
Ok need to sort some bits out, targets where wrong ( and appear to be swapped ) and carriers need sorting.

On a more positive note had a fun moment with luxchamp, zoomed down from about 5000ft behind his He111, zoomed past at 300+mph, 1 burst and apparantly I killed every member of his crew!!! (in a seafire)

Kat
27-02-2007, 01:03
W00t Spotted the mistake on the config, had the targets swapped and I guess the target size was a bit small so increased the area of the targets.

Will also sleep the carriers.

Firelok
28-02-2007, 23:19
More carriers needed and bigger too, also dedicated landing carrier. The little Russian transport ships need to be added to as far as defensive AAA, destroyers might shell the shoreline maybe use the gray transport ships for close AAA.
The targets are probably wrong because of their radius, seem awful small to me (200m radius) If you intend to make a large proportion of red's fly the FM2(as you mentioned) then you really need to put a limit on the FW190F8.

Kat
28-02-2007, 23:57
More carriers needed and bigger too, also dedicated landing carrier. The little Russian transport ships need to be added to as far as defensive AAA, destroyers might shell the shoreline maybe use the gray transport ships for close AAA.
The targets are probably wrong because of their radius, seem awful small to me (200m radius) If you intend to make a large proportion of red's fly the FM2(as you mentioned) then you really need to put a limit on the FW190F8.

Added 1 more carrier and made it larger.

4 Generics plus an escort. The Escort carrier being the Landing Carrier. All carriers should be escorts and we can land on the escort and makes it clearer which it the landing carrier.

Two Carriers are FM-2
One Carrier is Seafire ( both versions)
One Carrier is F6F

I removed the F-8 for now. They have the A-6, 109's, the the MC205 so plenty of fighters to choose from.

Modified the dock/railway target and moved that flak from land based to using ship flak.

http://bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dragoon6.jpg

http://bananaz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dragoon7.jpg

Also revised the briefing and target radii to 700m

Algorex
01-03-2007, 00:27
Why did you remove the worse focke? Don't let the later number fool you the FW-190A6 is a vastly superior fighter, as the FW-190F8 is a dedicated jabo version with low geared engine, no outer wing cannons and permanent bomb racks. Futhermore most of the fockes in MTO were in jabo configuration for which the F8 is the best substitude, no need to limit anything and the performance is slightly less than that of the FW-190A5/6.

Kat
01-03-2007, 00:37
Why did you remove the worse focke? Don't let the later number fool you the FW-190A6 is a vastly superior fighter, as the FW-190F8 is a dedicated jabo version with low geared engine, no outer wing cannons and permanent bomb racks. Futhermore most of the fockes in MTO were in jabo configuration for which the F8 is the best substitude, no need to limit anything and the performance is slightly less than that of the FW-190A5/6.

Have to say I did find it strange when Firelok suggested restricting them as I believed they where Jabo versions and therefore surely inferior (or no better than ) a FM-2?

(can you drop it back in pls Firelok ;) )

Firelok
01-03-2007, 06:53
I recieved these files and have just spent another 20 minutes fixing all the sleep times, carriers landing craft etc. I really do have better things to do than check over code again and again like this one, would have thought you might have got a grip of it all by now five or six missions in.
We do have high standards it's true but not impossibly high and no Dogfight map is ever as complicated and exacting as a proper offline mission.

Kat
01-03-2007, 11:26
I recieved these files and have just spent another 20 minutes fixing all the sleep times, carriers landing craft etc. I really do have better things to do than check over code again and again like this one, would have thought you might have got a grip of it all by now five or six missions in.
We do have high standards it's true but not impossibly high and no Dogfight map is ever as complicated and exacting as a proper offline mission.

I honestly thought I'd done the carriers :( Sorry.

Firelok
01-03-2007, 15:49
No mate I've been a bit tetchy here, My apologies.:o

Firelok
08-03-2007, 00:46
A couple of final little problems here,
One: little the escort carrier is within the spawn area of the F6F3 carrier so some poor beggars ended up spawning where only the most skilled pilots can possibly take off.
Two: The blue harbour/train targets are a bit lively in terms of AAA and also fire at the red landing craft further south of them.

Kat
08-03-2007, 00:47
A couple of final little problems here,
One: little the escort carrier is within the spawn area of the F6F3 carrier so some poor beggars ended up spawning where only the most skilled pilots can possibly take off.
Two: The blue harbour/train targets are a bit lively in terms of AAA and also fire at the red landing craft further south of them.

1) Ooopss :eek:
2) :eek:

Lemme take a peek :)

Zorin
08-03-2007, 00:48
Kat, did you really put 21 active AAA guns as base defense for the northern blue base? Or is part of them from the objects folder?

Kat
08-03-2007, 00:59
Kat, did you really put 21 active AAA guns as base defense for the northern blue base? Or is part of them from the objects folder?

hehe didn't notice there was that many, was detailing it and filled the existing emplacements without counting.

Don't THINK it'll cause a problem unless people loiter too close as that base is fairly out of the way ( 10 bofors on Normandy doesn't that's for sure ). But can be cut down if the map is generally laggy with them not shooting.


Regarding the ships. Moved the escort carrier, slept anything with a gun that looked like it was large calibre ( i.e. beach reachable ) and slowed the rest. Also altered a couple of ships so there is one more torp boat ( but less flak overall ).

Firelok
08-03-2007, 11:28
hehe didn't notice there was that many, was detailing it and filled the existing emplacements without counting.

Don't THINK it'll cause a problem unless people loiter too close as that base is fairly out of the way ( 10 bofors on Normandy doesn't that's for sure ). But can be cut down if the map is generally laggy with them not shooting.

It's not a problem because I've removed half of them and replaced them with static versions. We came up with certain guidelines (6-8 flak pieces) because after countless maps and the benefit of experience gathered before UK2 even existed, these seem to work well. The difference between 21 Flak 38s and Flak88's and 10 BOFORS is very large.
It would cause a problem Kat, imagine trying to land when all this is kicking off, shooting through your plane to get to the enemy. This is why aircraft carrier are always switched off too, in fact the flak amount would be about the same.

I've added lights to the carriers red for takeoff, green for landing to make things a little more user friendly.

Kat
08-03-2007, 11:31
It's not a problem because I've removed half of them and replaced them with static versions. We came up with certain guidelines (6-8 flak pieces) because after countless maps and the benefit of experience gathered before UK2 even existed, these seem to work well. The difference between 21 Flak 38s and Flak88's and 10 BOFORS is very large.
It would cause a problem Kat, imagine trying to land when all this is kicking off, shooting through your plane to get to the enemy. This is why aircraft carrier are always switched off too, in fact the flak amount would be about the same.

I've added lights to the carriers red for takeoff, green for landing to make things a little more user friendly.

Ok - thanks - I'll adjust my version ( of course the one I edited had all 21 ) - sorry. Fair point.

Firelok
08-03-2007, 12:32
Ok - thanks - I'll adjust my version
I'll send the uploaded one to you via eMail.

Chatanooga
08-03-2007, 15:38
I have a small issue with this map.

I am a little concearned about the way certain planes are restricted by carrier spawn points.

I have quite a slow loading PC and every time I have flown on a test session on this map I never get the chance to fly a seafire unless somone leaves mid mission.

Whilst I think that limiting the number of certain planes in the air at once can be very usefull. I do not think it should be applied to planes that are likly to be the most popular choices. It does work on the late war map that has 262's on it as they arnt the most popular choice of plane.

I think that this setup kind of forces people with slow map loading times to fly planes they may not have chosen.

A good idea on the occasional map, but both I do not think we should restrict planes by spawn points to often as it will frustrate players and may cause people to leave / <vote more often.

So on a full server 17 vs 17, I think the numbers play out like this...

6 Seafires
6 F6's
everyone else forced to fly FM2's

whilst this may help with balance I can see it annoying people who join after the Seafire and F6's spawns are used.

I also have the similar concearns with the red side on PQ20.

Kat
08-03-2007, 15:49
I also have the similar concearns with the red side on PQ20.

PQ20 is much better now, there are 12 spawn points for the F4F/SBD now. The rest will take Hurricanes/SBD/Avenger.

I understand what your saying, not sure what the solution is as forcing a mix does help the balance. I certainly don't want to see 17 seafires in the air. FWIW I usually grab a FM-2 out of habit :)

Firelok
08-03-2007, 16:05
17 Seafires, There is however no reason why there can't be 17 FW190A6s flying. Something reds should hope they never see on this map, lol:D

Algorex
08-03-2007, 16:36
17 Seafires, There is however no reason why there can't be 17 FW190A6s flying. Something reds should hope they never see on this map, lol:D

How about 6 FW190A6s, 6 Bf109G6lates and 5 Mc205IIIs ;)

Firelok
14-07-2007, 00:03
....No Seafires...add Corsairs...

*lights blue touchpaper and runs* ;)

MajorDamage
14-07-2007, 00:08
....No Seafires...add Corsairs...

*lights blue touchpaper and runs* ;)

And can we have it in a thunderstorm in the middle of the night please?

NS-IceFire
14-07-2007, 00:47
And can we have it in a thunderstorm in the middle of the night please?

I think I'm the only person who would enjoy that :)

Firelok
20-04-2008, 14:37
I think the mission is bugged. Red destroyed all items in L-10 and there were still 6 left - the fires and smokes. I recommend the % to be lowered.

I took another 5% off