How do you lure your prey?

I've seen lots of good points and different points of view over the last 10-20 posts. Most don't really contradict each other. They mostly simply represent different aspects of the situation.

 

Training is a good idea, and IMHO probably not really to be expected on MP servers in a pick-up situation. Of course there is always the chance of meeting somebody online who would be willing to do that, but honestly on an airquake server, it would not be the best place to do so.

 

Yes, some aerial combat did take place at lower altitudes in Europe. Not nearly as much as is represented in airquake --which would be nearly 100%-- but it happened.

 

I would love to see missions where the main goal to escorting bombers well above 20k, but I don't expect to see them really outside blue flag missions, set up in advance where the players all come at a scheduled time to participate. You simply can't play as a pick-up player if the bombers are already even 10 minutes ahead of you. It simply won't work. Besides, the amount of time spent simply flying up to altitude and to the bombing target would be like 80-90% of playing time, and I don't imaging very conducive to attracting players.

 

That being said, I can imagine missions that only run for 10-20 minutes. Once completed they start over again. You would have one-mission = one-life, which would certainly change playing styles for many players. You would need that DCS allowed for a short period of time for players to choose sides and slots and organize themselves. Many games have such systems, allowing the players to organize, and then confirm when they are ready to start. Once all, or most, are ready, the mission would do an air-start with bombers, escorts, and interceptors already at mission designated altitudes and positions (possibly varying starting positions for interceptors, maybe for some escorts as well). Slots not occupied by players get controlled by AI, so that the mission is basically always balanced, even if most players want to be on one side. The mission ends when the bombers have completed their bombing mission, and bombers and escorts have left the area, and/or all interceptors have RTB'ed or been eliminated. One could also allow for escorts to conduct ground attacks before mission end, which interceptors could try to prevent.

 

Such a mission would have a fairly limited run time, so that pick-up players, or players who were shot down, would not have long periods of time to wait, before the next mission started.

 

Of course, to do this, ED would have to create the framework for the preparation phase and the mission start when players are ready.

 

What do you guys think?

Good idea Capt. Maybe we can get that to work if ED will help.

Hanns Scharff German Interrogator

Great watch, funny as hell....

what happens after you get shot down..

I would love to see missions where the main goal to escorting bombers well above 20k, but I don't expect to see them really outside blue flag missions, set up in advance where the players all come at a scheduled time to participate. You simply can't play as a pick-up player if the bombers are already even 10 minutes ahead of you. It simply won't work. Besides, the amount of time spent simply flying up to altitude and to the bombing target would be like 80-90% of playing time, and I don't imaging very conducive to attracting players.

 

That being said, I can imagine missions that only run for 10-20 minutes. Once completed they start over again. You would have one-mission = one-life, which would certainly change playing styles for many players. You would need that DCS allowed for a short period of time for players to choose sides and slots and organize themselves. Many games have such systems, allowing the players to organize, and then confirm when they are ready to start. Once all, or most, are ready, the mission would do an air-start with bombers, escorts, and interceptors already at mission designated altitudes and positions (possibly varying starting positions for interceptors, maybe for some escorts as well). Slots not occupied by players get controlled by AI, so that the mission is basically always balanced, even if most players want to be on one side. The mission ends when the bombers have completed their bombing mission, and bombers and escorts have left the area, and/or all interceptors have RTB'ed or been eliminated. One could also allow for escorts to conduct ground attacks before mission end, which interceptors could try to prevent.

 

Such a mission would have a fairly limited run time, so that pick-up players, or players who were shot down, would not have long periods of time to wait, before the next mission started.

 

Of course, to do this, ED would have to create the framework for the preparation phase and the mission start when players are ready.

 

What do you guys think?

Good idea, Orso. A couple of points:

*Back in the original IL-2 days, we had a brilliant mission writer (Hangar was his call sign) who came up with missions very similar to what you suggest: Everyone had to be on board when the mission started (often air starts), no late joiners, specific tasks for every pilot, chain of command, specified start times for each mission, AI filled the vacant slots., dead is dead (for that mission, although you could stay in as a spectator). Commanders for each side had authority to kick any of his members who was ignoring the plan. Missions didn't start over but they rotated among a variety of good ones. Challenging, realistic and great fun. I would welcome such on line missions in DCS.

*I took a break from flight sims for a few years and got involved in Steel Beasts, the most accurate tank sim ever. On Sundays were had only one on-line mission, force versus force, and it had some features I really liked. If your tank (or APC or IFV) was killed, you could request one of the AI units from your commander and he could give it to you, or you could fill a vacant AI spot in a vehicle (driver, gunner, etc.) with permission from the vehicle commander (human). Accurate radio procedures. This was a very hard core event. All of us were ex-military and many were former tankers (lots of Brits, Germans and Scandinavians, all spoke perfect English). The tactics were very real (I doubt we could find former pilots for DCS events). Once a week. Lasted half a day or more, and great fun!

This (or anything like it) would take some help from DCS to set up and it would require talented mission writers but we should pitch it to ED.

S!

HT

Yes, IL2 were good days. Certainly, we can do better now?

don't pretend you are also simulating WWII air combat. You aren't.

I never said I was; in fact, I specifically stated that I'm not. I'm simulating something very specific: dogfights between WWII fighters. No more, no less. I have no interest in war; I'm interested in dogfighting. If I am a "gamer" because of this, then so are the real pilots who enjoy similar mock dogfights in real life, but who (like me) have no desire to re-enact historical missions.

If you're simulating fiction, you're gaming.

Hey, guess what? If you're simulating historical battles for entertainment purposes, you're gaming. A war game is still a game, no matter how accurate the simulation. If you're going to throw the term "gamer" at those who prefer accurately simulated dogfights in a non-historical context, then you're going to need to put that term on yourself, as well.

I myself prefer to call us both "simmers," because while both terms (simmer and gamer) are technically accurate to describe both groups, "simmer" implies a desire for maximum fidelity, while "gamer" implies a desire to reduce the fidelity because of a lack of genuine interest in the subject. And while I do not like war, my interest in real WWII fighters, and in mock-dogfighting in them (in the real sky), is absolute.

We can't die in a sim, so we should be simulating WW2 missions just like the pilots did during the war.

Says who? Who are you to tell me that I should be simulating missions in an actual war, rather than simulating dogfights for the sake of dogfighting? What makes you think that simulating a real war makes you more a simmer than the guy who prefers to simulate just dogfights between real fighters? There's some real egotistical thinking going on here, and it isn't from me this time. I recognize your preference as legitimate; it is you (pl) who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of mine.

Imagine, for a moment, that the problems of health and finance were removed from the picture. At this point, now, I would own a real P-38 and a real Me 109 (exquisitely accurate replicas), and a friend and I would (in real life) fly them in mock dogfights with each other at 10,000 or 15,000 feet, every day, for as long as we could tolerate the G-forces. At this point, would you still think me a "mere gamer," who somehow isn't serious about flying real WWII fighters? Do you see my point yet?

.....

 

.....

Imagine, for a moment, that the problems of health and finance were removed from the picture. At this point, now, I would own a real P-38 and a real Me 109 (exquisitely accurate replicas), and a friend and I would (in real life) fly them in mock dogfights with each other at 10,000 or 15,000 feet, every day, for many hours. At this point, would you still think me a "mere gamer," who somehow isn't serious about flying real WWII fighters? Do you see my point yet?

Still gaming, maybe at the highest level.

You both still want to walk away alive and have a beer. don't you ?

Unless you intend to kill and risk of getting killed by the other guy you will never get the same "set & setting". That is what separates the boys and their toys from men fighting for their lifes.

..and chill out everybody, we are all sitting at a PC, trying to think we are great armchair pilots.

lets focus on what unites us instead

echo.....Your point is obvious. You seem to have a hard time seeing mine. The problem is you can fly what you like online, but I can't fly what I and others like.

So, why are you complaining? We aren't taking anything from you. We want to add what we like. Stop acting so butthurt.

I never said I was; in fact, I specifically stated that I'm not. I'm simulating something very specific: dogfights between WWII fighters. No more, no less. I have no interest in war; I'm interested in dogfighting. If I am a "gamer" because of this, then so are the real pilots who enjoy similar mock dogfights in real life, but who (like me) have no desire to re-enact historical missions.

 

 

 

Hey, guess what? If you're simulating historical battles for entertainment purposes, you're gaming. A war game is still a game, no matter how accurate the simulation. If you're going to throw the term "gamer" at those who prefer accurately simulated dogfights in a non-historical context, then you're going to need to put that term on yourself, as well.

 

I myself prefer to call us both "simmers," because while both terms (simmer and gamer) are technically accurate to describe both groups, "simmer" implies a desire for maximum fidelity, while "gamer" implies a desire to reduce the fidelity because of a lack of genuine interest in the subject. And while I do not like war, my interest in real WWII fighters, and in mock-dogfighting in them (in the real sky), is absolute.

 

Okay. I get you! :thumbup:

As I said earlier, no one is trying to take anything away from you. And if we get DCS set up and expanded to fly historic, no one will be required to fly them.

S!

HT

Peaceful resolution?

The problem is you can fly what you like online, but I can't fly what I and others like.

If you recall, my initial point concerned a problem with the choice of matchup, which is preventing my preferences from being a viable possibility. I'm having even more difficulties simming my way than you are simming your way. You could, hypothetically, host a historical style mission, and play it with like-minded players who likewise enjoy incredibly long transit times. I, on the other hand, cannot host a mission with P-51s equipped with their (historical) late-war WEP ratings, to be better able to fight 109s at low and medium altitudes. So, no, I can't fly what I like online.

So, why are you complaining? We aren't taking anything from you.

I pointed out a problem preventing simmers like myself from doing our type of hardcore simming, at which point you (pl) start throwing disrespect my way with the whole "gamer not simmer" thing, suggesting that my problem isn't a problem because my hardcore simming supposedly isn't hardcore simming. Hence the complaining.

Some guys are never happy.

Echo wants the last word.

Ridiculous.

Just for reference, the Burning Skies statistics for Sept/Oct:

Just for reference' date=' the Burning Skies statistics for Sept/Oct:[/quote']

 

If I read that web page aright, it says that the top pilot for that time period flew mostly P-51, but no other information about aircraft choices can be deduced from your screenshot. Yes?

If I read that web page aright, it says that the top pilot for that time period flew mostly P-51, but no other information about aircraft choices can be deduced from your screenshot. Yes?

No what it means is most of you dont know how to fight in a p51 and just making excuses

The gamers have arrived!

The gamers have arrived!

Please tell me why the last year i have flown BS server that guy is consistant in the P51. And why when i have come up against him its been bloody hard work to survive!

Id love to know why the P51 struggles soo much when i can see what it can do in a good pilots hands.

Please tell me why the last year i have flown BS server that guy is consistant in the P51. And why when i have come up against him its been bloody hard work to survive!

 

Id love to know why the P51 struggles soo much when i can see what it can do in a good pilots hands.

What plane are you flying?

What plane are you flying?

I have flown both 109 and 190

The gamers have arrived!

No gamer here! I have the pleasure with flying with this guy, and believe you me I have yet to find anyone on this forum (or any other) that knows more about the p51 and its capabilities.

What other forum has a good P-51?

Flew with Tecnam once. He's a really good DCS P-51 pilot, to say the least! :)

Use to be a show called dog fights on tv and that was a way a jap ace used to kill wildcat drivers..The hellcat came out as a secret(sorta)update that the japs didnt know at the time and that was how that jap ace got his azz waxed by tryin same moved but didnt know of the advances of the hellcat over the wild cat..