Print

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

[Whiskey_Sierra_972]

Yes that's true , but I was thinking about such distance because I suppose their spacing for anti aircrafts protection....not for simple moving in untreatened areas....

Moreover , about the Korean and Vietnamese convoys , I was thinking more about the one targeted by UN driving south from China or targeted by American along the Ho Chi Min trail....

[UberDemon]

A heartfelt thank you for your testing.  This will no doubt lead to a patch.

[Whiskey_Sierra_972]

A heartfelt thank you for your testing.  This will no doubt lead to a patch.

Yes , I'm working to release an updated BAT...but I'm alone and 'll be a bit far in the year...I hope to give you a nice XMas BAT....

[cbradbury]

I adjusted the spacing extensively when preparing the new convoys and tanks for JTW in BAT 4.3. I generally gave them a BestSpace of 30m, as this seemed the best compromise for visual and playability. That spacing reduces the collisions at bottlenecks whilst not looking too sparse.

Still had to manually change some, though, specifically the Soviet missile columns, as the large trailers with missiles tended to collide with each other at 30m spacing.

Yours,

Clive

[Dimlee]

I wonder if there is a possibility of randomising the spacing in the convoys? In certain limits, from the safest minimum to avoid collisions to those 50 m or higher. It will be more realistic than keeping one distance through the whole trip.
Also, another observation from modern days. Mixed truck/armor columns tend to occupy most, if not all, lanes on the highways when rushing to the frontlines. For example: trucks on the right, tanks on the right and the left - they are less concerned about a head-on collision with a random civilian car.

[Frankiek]

well we all know that as a civilian is better to stay out of the way of military convoys

[Dimlee]

well we all know that as a civilian is better to stay out of the way of military convoys

Unless you have your friend with NLAW in the back seat.

[Kopfdorfer]

Really interesting work.

A comment regarding armour spacing - at the beginning of WW2 many nations AFVs were
without radios , or with limited radio technology ( Russian , Japanese , French the most significant examples ).
This resulted in AFVs moving as a small group within visual contact of the group
( Troop/Platoon/Peleton/Section ) Leader.
I understand that the behaviour of AI Vehicles in IL2 may preclude accuracy in this department ,
and any improvement will likely be very well received.

A Question regarding the Technics.ini file.
If there is any way to reduce the accuracy/effect of ship based artillery on fixed and
fortified positions ( Bunkers and Entrenchements ) compared to land based Artillery firing
against ships it would go a long way towards improving realism for Naval vs Land Based Artillery
engagements.
Anyone who has tested this knows that naval gunfire is way overpowered in terms of its effects
on land based artillery/entrenchments/forts , and that land based artillery has very little effect on
most ships.
Naval vessels treated land based artillery with great respect for good reason , butone of IL2s
greatest failings is the absolute supremacy of ship gunfire against the land to the point of
being ridiculous.
I don't know if anything can be done to address this , but if there is it would be a massive step
forward in terms of accurate simulation.

Keep up the interesting work !

Kopfdorfer

[Dimlee]

Sorry for my nit picking and going off-topic...
The Soviet (not Russian) armor forces were a significant example, indeed, but of the contrary. They were well equipped with radios on all levels from the company to the corps/divisions at the beginning of the war with Germany. 30% to 90% of tanks (depending on the type and unit) with radios. But yes, visual signals were mandatory since not all tanks carried radio and AM stations were noisy with the engines on.
"New" armor forces that appeared after the catastrophe of summer 1941 were poorly equipped until the situation improved thanks to the growth of domestic (relocated) production and lend-lease.

[cbradbury]

Really interesting work.

A comment regarding armour spacing - at the beginning of WW2 many nations AFVs were
without radios , or with limited radio technology ( Russian , Japanese , French the most significant examples ).
This resulted in AFVs moving as a small group within visual contact of the group
( Troop/Platoon/Peleton/Section ) Leader.
I understand that the behaviour of AI Vehicles in IL2 may preclude accuracy in this department ,
and any improvement will likely be very well received.

A Question regarding the Technics.ini file.
If there is any way to reduce the accuracy/effect of ship based artillery on fixed and
fortified positions ( Bunkers and Entrenchements ) compared to land based Artillery firing
against ships it would go a long way towards improving realism for Naval vs Land Based Artillery
engagements.
Anyone who has tested this knows that naval gunfire is way overpowered in terms of its effects
on land based artillery/entrenchments/forts , and that land based artillery has very little effect on
most ships.
Naval vessels treated land based artillery with great respect for good reason , butone of IL2s
greatest failings is the absolute supremacy of ship gunfire against the land to the point of
being ridiculous.
I don't know if anything can be done to address this , but if there is it would be a massive step
forward in terms of accurate simulation.

Keep up the interesting work !

Kopfdorfer

You have identified most of the key issues here.

The closer together vehicles are the number of collisions at bottlenecks increases, so you have the situation where vehicles are rear-ending each other and the entire convoy stops until the individual vehicles sort themselves out. Of course this is fairly realistic when a convoy has been attacked and a knocked out vehicle is blocking things. Unfortunately this also occurs during normal travel as well i.e. at bridges, towns, or even when the road passes through trees. This can also happen on clear roads if large vehicles, especially with trailers, are close together (I earlier quoted the example of the Soviet missile columns I added to JTW in BAT 4.3). 20-30m spacing seems to address most of these problems reasonably effectively.

The default convoys in il2 also tend to have a large number of individual vehicles included, and this frequently leads to an entire convoy taking an age to even get moving in the game. I have found that 8-10 vehicles per convoy is about optimal, and this is reflected in the new convoys I added to JTW. Any more than that things get ridiculously unwieldy.

Regarding ships - indeed their power against land targets is verging on fantasy - a couple of cruisers in il2 could virtually wipe out a large town with a couple of salvos. This is compounded by ship-to-ship combat, which is precisely the opposite. For the most part naval actions go like this: miss by thousands of yards with shells falling all over the battle area, then suddenly find the target and wipe out a battleship with one well-placed salvo! Unfortunately I suspect that this behaviour is hard-coded - I see nothing in technics.ini which could address this.

Yours,

Clive

[UberDemon]

In the future it would be nice to have the convoy spacing as a feature in the FMB itself, as well as potentially speed and loops.  (For example, once the pattern is laid in the map, the convoy would turn around and go to initial point or potentially trace back through the waypoints backwards)

Spacing:  10m to 1000m (why not)
Speed:  1Km/h to 200Km/h (with top speed limitation in GUI)
Loop Type:  Go to 1st Waypoint (useful for patrol loops), or, Trace back to first waypoint (useful for moving to and back to beginning using same waypoints - this would be useful for trains)
Loop Cycles:  0 to 1000 (0 means go through it as today, 1 means either proceed to first waypoint or trace back once, 2 is twice, etc...)

It would be important to keep old missions compatible with any new change in mission syntax.  Anyhoo... just something I thought about before.
   

[WxTech]

Clive,
Your comment regarding the ability of just a few ships with larger guns wreaking terrible destruction... That is the result of a too-large damage radius for explosive ordnance, in my opinion. I really feel the damage radius in a great many cases can be easily reduced to half. If necessary the power could be boosted a bit. The idea is to effectively establish a power/radius relationship that would exhibit a narrower Gaussian for a given peak value.

I have made my own little mod to 1,000kg bombs (having power type 0, or blast effect instead of splinters) to test this out, generally halving the radius but retaining the stock power, and I do prefer the results.