Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Asura]

I have a question, ok,maybe a very dumb question,but anyway...

O yes! Never-ending crowds of enemies in Pacific campaigns, especially at attacks on airfield of the player it that that impossible. Now the mechanism of replenishment and the accounting of losses it is possible to tell doesn't work absolutely. More true it isn't present and wasn't in the old generator in a normal look. To change it not a problem and I surely I am going to make it. It is necessary to think up only the mechanism, and to realize it not so difficult. If there are offers - with pleasure will listen.

[Juri_JS]

Thanks santobr, I tried this option but it doesn't seem to change anything.

Could someone please explain some of the more cryptic contents of the settingsXXX.dat file?
[AF_OFF] and [Airstart] seem self-explanatory, but I'm not sure about the contents of the [Distance] section: AFRange, ClustersRange, ClustersRadius and ClustersCount. What do they do? Are there any other available tweaks?

AFRange=3000 (default)
Objects in this Range around the airfield will be recognized as airfield targets and not, for example, as artillery or depot. It was necessary to add this setting for the Guadalcanal part of my Solomons campaign, because with the default setting all objects in the small American perimeter on the island were recognized as airfield objects. The setting is useful for other campaigns too, whenever an airfield is inside a small pocket, Stalingrad could be an example.

ClustersRange=2000 (default)
The distance between target clusters. If within this range a cluster already exists, a second cluster isn't formed.

ClustersRadius=1000 (defaul)
Radius in which objects are recognized as part of a target cluster.

ClustersCount=10 (default)
Number of objects that need to be in a cluster to be recognized as target for a mission. I am not sure if this is really needed for ETO campaigns, but in PTO campaigns it is useful.

[greybeard]

... but it does not matter how many enemys my squad and I kill in each mission.The frontline moves in the next mission but the same number of enemy fighters/bombers are in the air again!

Quoting from IL-2 Manual (PF):
"In any operation, your forces will advance or retreat. The front line moves historically, but you
can speed it up or slow it down to a limited degree. If you destroy an object, it will stay
destroyed for whatever time is determined by its nature. Every destroyed plane, friendly or
hostile, reduces the total number of planes of this type, making their appearance less likely.
Lost trains and transport columns will affect the supply rate. If you kill or capture an enemy
ace, he will not appear in future battles."

This could be a bogus, like many stated features in IL-2. What i see editing DB files is that front movements are time-set, while in OPS files a fixed number of planes per mission is set: you may got up to ten different sets for same kind of mission, but I've no evidence they may be dynamically reduced as a consequence of previous missions results. Also, I read on some official IL-2 document about possible "downgrading" of available planes, that's to say squadrons could get replacement aircrafts of older models when current ones have been exhausted. Actually, sometimes I saw in debriefings warning about low number of planes left, but never got a "downgraded" mount.

[Juri_JS]

Like most DGen campaign builders I try to create my campaigns as close to historical events as possible, so I don't want the players action to have any influence on the course of the campaign, that's the main reason why I use DGen instead of DCG.

If more player influence on campaigns depending on mission success is added in the future I would prefer that it is made optional.

 

[Boelcke]

Like most DGen campaign builders I try to create my campaigns as close to historical events as possible, so I don't want the players action to have any influence on the course of the campaign, that's the main reason why I use DGen instead of DCG.

If more player influence on campaigns depending on mission success is added in the future I would prefer that it is made optional.

 

+ 1

[jeanba]

Like most DGen campaign builders I try to create my campaigns as close to historical events as possible, so I don't want the players action to have any influence on the course of the campaign, that's the main reason why I use DGen instead of DCG.
 

A a simple player, that's why I use DGEN instead of DCG.

[Lagarto]

Like most DGen campaign builders I try to create my campaigns as close to historical events as possible, so I don't want the players action to have any influence on the course of the campaign, that's the main reason why I use DGen instead of DCG.

If more player influence on campaigns depending on mission success is added in the future I would prefer that it is made optional.

+1! I'm interested in history reenactment, not a 'game'.

[Semor]

jeeez....looks like I stich into a hornets nest.

+1! I'm interested in history reenactment, not a 'game'.

do you think,I not..??

Both,DGen & DCG have their advantages,and the timetable command in DCG can be a helpfull tool for historical accuracy.

@ greybeard,thanks for the explanation,I didn´t take a look into the manual for ages. I play a lot of Dgen campaigns before I discoverd DCG,and for example in one of the german eastfont campaigns I fly 89 missions in full real settings (no Hud,no padlock shit,no map icons,no external view,no zoom,etc.) before a russian Lagg-3 gave me the final shot,and honestly I didn´t had the feeling that our success/fail in one misson have a notable influence (dynamicly or historical accurate) in the next one.
So,maybe you´re right and this could be a bogus, like many stated features in IL-2.But I enjoy both,DGen and DCG.

Peace folks. 

[santobr]

I think now we can make big battles because of our newer machines, so, the influence of the player will be reduced or eliminated.



santobr.

[jeanba]

Not such a hornet nest (I hope not) : For me, DCG is very good, but when I tested it, several years ago, lot of campaigns were strongly influenced by the player and the "campaign history" was completly different from the "true history"
So what I have always looked for was an option too "stop this"

[greybeard]

+1! I'm interested in history reenactment, not a 'game'.

I agree.

The point is that historical reenactment must happen in a realistic environment.

I mean, again quoting the manual, if you destroy a static aircraft, you would not find it again in next air base attack; usually, they're set to be "restored if wrecked". Likewise, you would see a bombed bridge remaining wrecked, that I never saw, in this game. Still the manual says you'll never see in same campaign a killed ace: I flew with JG54 all the war and never saw Hannes Trautloft! Aces are missing at all, not only after being shot down!

Anything Asura will be able to improve I think will enhance player's enjoyment or at least reduce harassment.

[Boelcke]

+1! I'm interested in history reenactment, not a 'game'.

I agree.

The point is that historical reenactment must happen in a realistic environment.

I mean, again quoting the manual, if you destroy a static aircraft, you would not find it again in next air base attack; usually, they're set to be "restored if wrecked". Likewise, you would see a bombed bridge remaining wrecked, that I never saw, in this game. Still the manual says you'll never see in same campaign a killed ace: I flew with JG54 all the war and never saw Hannes Trautloft! Aces are missing at all, not only after being shot down!

Anything Asura will be able to improve I think will enhance player's enjoyment or at least reduce harassment.

aces only appear for the enemy