Battle of Britain Campaign Feedback

[keith 0]

re: MiG message - it was in the Me109E 3 Hangar screen. I think the problem may be that I had used a WoV install instead of SFP1 for BoB. I have since reinstalled over SFG and alles ist gut!

 

This is getting better and better! What a fantastic community!

[Bandy 3]

Another quick thought I had about the fighter/bomber issue is about the almost infallible formations that they fly in the face of attack. Those Luftwaffe pilots must have nerves of steel!!!

 

I read an account of a skilled RAF pilot over Dunkirk attacking a formation of Do17's from the side, taking one out then diving beneath, popping up and over another Do17, then diving down and so on, making hits as he went across the whole formation at speed. Amazing tale. His less experienced (or perhaps somewhat less insane...) wingmates however were managing only one hop per pass. In this mannner, they broke up the formation and went after the strays.

 

Not sure who mentioned it in the forums, but they suggested diving through the formations as a tactic t break them up. I've lead my wing into battle by trying this several times, and I guess my aim ain't too good at that speed, as well as the angles involved, 'cause I've never hit anything, and afterwards I'm only left chasing the solid block of the intact formation but now with greatly reduced airspeed and no altitude advantage should there be escorts. While it doesn't work for me, perhaps it does for others???

 

Anecdotally, I attack from beneath and find I can break up the Stuka formations easily, but the He111, Do17, and Ju88's seem to maintain a solid "core" with perhaps only a few AC breaking off. Not sure where the "reality" is on bomber formations, but from the squadron histories (Baltika put me on these, great reading, thanks!) there is mention of the RAF recording mission encounters as "frightening off" the bombers on many occasions. They obviously had a lot of respect for the fighters.

 

Perhaps there is a need to tweak the "WWII formations" mod to loosen them up a bit??? Would like to hear what you guys think.

 

I'm not suggesting turning this into an ego-fest, where the bombers are fish-in-a-barrel, there is no fun in that; I'm trying to search for that holy grail of a balanced challenge, and currently find the bomber cross fire murderous (even with the gunners toned down, and with tremendous evasive action by me), especially to our AI wingmates who seem to wander about inside the formation like they're going for a walk on Hampstead Heath...

Edited June 27, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+Tailspin 3]

I'm sure some of you have already seen this site. If not then its a good read. The only problem I have with it is that it relies heavily on theory based on mathematics. I would imagine there are many, many poor Luftwaffe aircrew souls that would earnestly dispute the "numbers" where the "puny" rifle caliber guns of the RAF are concerned. The sections on bomber defensive guns and aircraft armor are interesting.

 

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/han...un/fgun-in.html

[Bandy 3]

Another excellent site if you haven't already found it is Lone Sentry which has links to dozens of articles from:

"Tactical and Technical Trends" was published by the U.S. Military Intelligence Service in WWII from June 1942 to June 1945. Publication was initially biweekly, and later monthly. "Tactical and Technical Trends" covered much of the same material as the Intelligence Bulletin, although generally more in-depth. The same articles frequently appeared in both publications.

While not an aircraft specific publication, there are some really good short takes on quite a few that include armament, armour placement and thickness, as well as self-sealing fuel tanks etc. (excellent for modding your DATA INIs historically), for example see the Bf109G article.

 

Some of the "Intelligence Bulletin" articles are also on that site. Very interesting stuff...

 

Also just saw mention of this in another CA post, Spitfire Ace Parts 1 to 4

Edited June 28, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+Baltika 84]

Perhaps there is a need to tweak the "WWII formations" mod to loosen them up a bit??? Would like to hear what you guys think.

 

Hi Bandy,

 

Fair comment, the Luftwaffe bomber formations do seem to have nerves of steel. However, the WWII Formations mod is simply directed towards (a) putting more planes in the air per formation than the stock install (whatever flavour) and (b) providing them with enough slots to sit in so you don't get planes "piled up" on top of one another in formation. There is a good thread on this somewhere, with screenies, who knows where now, that shows what happens if you have WW2 formation sizes without the formations mod - basically lots of overlapping planes.

 

Now, by all means it is possible to tweak the WWII formations mod to spread the planes out a bit - look in the FORMATIONS.INI file and you will see a straightforward x,y,z matrix of formation positions (in metres) which determines where each plane flies in formation relative to the others (the base point being 0,0,0 or lead plane - the player). However, that is not the root of the issue. Charles has set it up so that bombers fly in combat boxes and their defensive fire is concentrated - the ultimate example of the technique being the USAAF B-17 style combat box. You'd have to be crazy to go anywhere near a formation like that But that's what the bombers did, for obvious reasons.

 

The real issue you are getting at (and quite properly, too) is the AI behaviour of the planes in that formation when confronted with a mad RAF pilot making ahead-on attack and zooming between the individual bombers. Now, where do we get at the AI?

 

A number of factors (as I understand it - I'm happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable) come in to play. There is the "Waypoint" transition routine which the AI will fly - I'm not getting into that argument here, but it has been the subject of criticism elsewhere - maybe the bombers just don't "see" enemy planes when they are en route. There is the overall training level of the particular nation's pilots (see the NATIONS.INI) and there is the morale and experience level of each individual unit (as defined in the BOB_DATA.INI). And then, as capun pointed out earlier in this thread, there is the [AIDATA] entry for each aircraft which controls game-engine AI responses for builds of the core game engine which were introduced after some of the planes included in this campaign were released.

 

Where does that take us?

 

There's a lot to fiddle with, basically. It might be worth looking at Stuka formations - I have noticed they do tend to break up when attacked, and replicating that response for other formation types is the name of the game. As ever with SFP1/WOV/WOE/FE, finding out how it all works can often become more time-consuming than flying the missions. But, hey, when something works out, it's fantastic. (Still loving that gun convergence mod).

 

And the changelog for v0.60 of the campaign pack just keeps getting longer. One of these days I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and fire it out where I've got to already. But, as you know, Bandy, you got me started on implementing the different phases of BoB - Channel Shipping attacks, Airfield/Radar Station attacks, then the "Terror over London." Let's just say that it's not been as fiddly as I thought it would be - and it's damn scary sitting in your 109E-3B trying to bomb a convoy protected by destroyers with nothing but sea out to the horizon

 

Cheerio for now,

 

baltika

Edited June 28, 2007 by Baltika

[Bandy 3]

A sobering and excellent assessment and presentation of the relevant points Baltika. I mentioned one time before, this game is like peeling an onion, and can inspire religious zeal !!! I'm still mostly hacking at the skin, looking in with my eyes watering

 

Funny, on retrospect over the weekend, the interception missions I've flown lately (where I go after the bombers rather than the escorts), I'm actually not getting knocked out as often, or maybe not as soon.... I've abandoned the head-on and dive-into tactics, and instead have adopted that historic tactic mentioned earlier: Approach from the side at speed as this is apparently a blind spot (I've found it best to go for the lead AC, maybe because I imagine it to be the group leader, and thus a morale hit for the rest when he goes down-in-flames...). Then afterwards some zig-zagging and rolling around etc. to keep the gunners on their toes... (and out of their yaw angle limits ). Yeah, I know, you guys likely already figured that all out... Now to get the AI wingmates to do it...

 

And I have to agree, the convergent fire has made a difference on those earlier tough bombers... Guess I was just used to the First Eagles bombers, which have been mostly a cake walk, until I installed Laton's AI Tweak (not sure why that hasn't been made into a regular FE/CA download...) now the AI bomber pilots maneuver to give their gunners a line of sight to you -- what they really would have done. I even had a group of bombers go into a circle-train the other night providing defense for each other... But I'm off topic...

 

Looking forward to the fruits of your much appreciated labor...

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Regarding why one can break up the Stuka formations but not the bomber formations may have something to do with AircraftRole. The Ju-87 has an ATTACK role and the others are BOMBERS. Might want to change that and see what happens. The waypoint "mission" problem will still be there. It's a real immersion killer when a flight of fighters or fighter-bombers flies straight and level after completed their bombing mission totally ignoring all threats. Like shooting clay pigeons.

[+Baltika 84]

I am trying to work up 3 separate phases for the campaign, as Bandy suggested, Channel Shipping Strikes, Airfield/Radar Station attacks, then attacks over London.

 

All the pieces of the puzzle seem to be in place:-

The Airoffensive types listed in the campaign.ini for each force, the targets themselves on the terrain in the Battle of Britain_targets.ini, and the target types to match up with ther airoffensive types as defined in, you guessed it, the Battle of Britain_types.ini.

 

I have successfully added extra target areas to give 5 or 6 Channel Convoys, complete with 7 or 8 Cargo Ships in each and a few Destroyer escorts (OK, they don't move, but hey, it's a start).

 

However, when I start altering the Airoffensive types as defined in the campaign.ini, in order to force attacks only on certain types of targets at different stages of the campaign, the game engine seems not to like the targets I have selected. Very occasionally, I will successfully be assigned strike missions on my new Channel Convoy target areas. Most of the time, however, I get endless runs of Recon missions (even when set to 0 for the particular squadron) other times I get CTDs when clicking "Accept" after a failed or successful strike mission. There seems to be some rhyme and reason to it, but I can't fathom it out.

 

Any suggestions on how this fits together? I have scoured the forums on this issue but info seems pretty scant in this area.

 

Cheers,

 

Steven

[+Baltika 84]

Yes, it's a tough one, isn't it?

 

A follow up question to my previous post:-

 

Has anyone who flies strike missions ever been given a runway as a primary target?

 

I am trying to force attacks on runways, for obvious reasons, and I can't make the campaign engine do it. And I am getting hard crashes to desktop a lot ever since I started messing about with the "AirOffensive[XXX]=" settings. It is getting so frustrating that I have taken up skinning for light relief - well, I can't have 603 (City of Edinburgh) Sqdn flying about with the wrong squadron codes, can I?

 

Let me just say that that experience is making me realise how lucky we are with all the talented skinners around.

 

S! to everyone who ever posted a skin. You guys are great

 

Cheers for now,

 

baltika

[+Tailspin 3]

Would the convoy missions work better as Anti-Shipping?

[+Baltika 84]

Would the convoy missions work better as Anti-Shipping?

 

Probably, yes, however:-

 

All strike squadrons are already tasked a high percentage of anti-shipping missions, e.g. "MissionChance[ANTI_SHIP]=60".

Those Missions are assigned, as I understand it, depending on the "StartInterdiction=" flag for each force, the variable being the number of successful strike missions carried out. So, the lower the number, the higher proportion of anti-ship missions you get. The problem is, for that type of Anti-Shipping Mission, the game engine will only pick CARGO_SHIP objects as targets (which is why many warships have that as their object role) and only one type of ship. So it is impossible to generate convoys of cargoships with, say, Destroyer escorts, as a pure Anti_shipping mission. My workaround has been to add target areas with a mix of destroyer and cargoship targets, which at least looks like a convoy, and ensures you get a ton of flak fired in your direction when you are lining up to bomb a cargo ship - just more fun that way.

 

So, if you have a low StartInterdiction number, you get a lot of anti-ship missions, or at least you ought to. I am finding that the way the game assigns strike mission targets is less than clear - at least to me. I am trying to set it up so you get a distinct phase of Channel Missions, followed by anti-airfield missions, followed by attacks on London. So far, it's not really working out.

 

I will keep plugging away. There are so many variables that it is difficult to work out what exactly is happening when you change things, and get a CTD for your trouble. Next thing to try is effectively separate campaigns for each "phase" - but that will take a little time to set up.

 

Cheers,

 

baltika

[+Baltika 84]

OK, here are a few WIP shots to show you what I'm getting at:-

 

Quick pass over convoy to ID targets

 

Coming round to start my attack approach

 

Lining up - Watch that defensive fire!

 

Closing in - is that small arms fire coming from those Cargo ships? What the. . .

 

Dodging flak on final approach to target - at least my wingman is diverting some heat from the destroyer escort

 

Cargo Ship shooting back

 

Too low for comfort. . . Watch out for the blast!

 

Egress from target zone - a few ships going to the seabed. Getting out of there before the destroyers get lucky.

 

 

Successful mission, generated by campaign engine - then CTD after pressing "accept" at mission result screen. WTF?

[Bandy 3]

Baltika!!!

 

I'm loving the way this is looking! Hopefully an answer is forthcoming, it just needs that right person to see this thread.

I see from your Bf109 packing that you're implementing the Erprobungsgruppe 210 (the experimental squadron of strike fighters).

 

Nice...

[+Baltika 84]

Baltika!!!

 

I'm loving the way this is looking! Hopefully an answer is forthcoming, it just needs that right person to see this thread.

I see from your Bf109 packing that you're implementing the Erprobungsgruppe 210 (the experimental squadron of strike fighters).

 

Nice...

 

 

Thanks Bandy,

 

I hope this will work out.

 

BTW, for those who missed it, RussoUK2004's Bf-109E-3B Fighter Bomber and 3 Staffel/Erpr.Gr.210 as a flyable unit equipped with it are included in the latest Hotfix to the Campaign pack, v0.59, available as a separate download to the main pack (currently v0.56).

 

I have a release version 0.60 which will consolidate the two main packages, but it has been delayed due to the above, and a few other things which hopefully will be included which are more straightforward, but a bit time-consuming.

 

Meantime, to get up to date, you have to install v0.56 then install v0.59 over the top of it.

 

Cheers,

 

baltika

[Redddevil911 0]

Great Camp, I love it. What adds a little something to the mod for me is the use of the music from the Movie The Battle of Britain. That was/is a great touch. If any of you have not seen The Battle of Britain (1969) look for for it or ask at your local vid store its a great movie. Just wish we had some English voice work in the camp, that wouls add a ton the the over all feel. As the idea every been kicked around to make to voice files, that way we could change the flight names to something more WWII sounding.

[Redddevil911 0]

I did have one thing, no visible damage to my A/C I get the heck shot out of me and all that happens is my engine cuts out. No missing parts or bullets holes

[+Stary 2,426]

Great job Baltika !!!

 

I really enjoy it's mood -old good EAW spirit- aswell as the Burning Sands 1944.

 

I started mayor rework of my previously released effects (guns_fx and enchanced_explosions) to make them more WW2 themed. Also working on new ones specially for your campaigns. Interested in it?

All below is WIP

 

 

 

 

 

completely new smoke tracers, I guess customisable for diffetent types of guns (thru weapon editor) but havent played with that yet

 

 

 

New smoke effects; darker, longer lasting, with nice little "bang" on start (screen from BS1944)

[Redddevil911 0]

Great job Baltika !!!

 

I really enjoy it's mood -old good EAW spirit- aswell as the Burning Sands 1944.

 

I started mayor rework of my previously released effects (guns_fx and enchanced_explosions) to make them more WW2 themed. Also working on new ones specially for your campaigns. Interested in it?

All below is WIP

 

 

 

 

 

completely new smoke tracers, I guess customisable for diffetent types of guns (thru weapon editor) but havent played with that yet

 

 

 

New smoke effects; darker, longer lasting, with nice little "bang" on start (screen from BS1944)

 

 

WOW WOW WOW, that looks great. Can't wait until you are finished with that project! You are going to put it out for D/L right?

 

PLEASE!

 

Great work, it looks like the old gun cam shots from WWII doco's.

[Redddevil911 0]

Tarnation, you guys are fast on a good idea!!!

 

Here I slavishly "worked" at this all night, and didn't get around to seeing this thread at all... Even prepared some pics to show effects to those not convinced! Well, I'm posting my results anyways!!!

The values below will put the bullet convergence (4 lbs of lead per second!!!) right on the pip when the wingtips of a Bf 109 touch the margins of the ring sight.

 

STOCK AIM ANGLES for Spit:

 

My CONVERGENCE ANGLES:

 

AND CONVERGENCE AGAIN at Work:

 

AIM ANGLES I DECIDED UPON (No math, just trial and error, which appear damn close to the math!) I found the pitch convergence needed 0.5 (the middle number) and it landed right on the pip, maybe a wee bit high, which is fine for me since I go for lead pursuit everytime I can I changed the last variable by up to 10 and saw no result in the path, and as I mentioned earlier, logically figured this was the case that it rotated the gun in the axis of fire. Not sure why TK kept that space there...

 

// Internal Guns------------------

 

[GunL01]

SystemType=FIXED_GUN

GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning

InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN

MuzzlePosition=-3.826,1.917,-0.315

LightPosition=-3.826,1.917,-0.315

AimAngles=1.0,0.5,0.0

MaxAmmo=350

EjectShells=TRUE

EjectPosition=-3.8260,1.02,-0.30

EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

 

[GunR01]

SystemType=FIXED_GUN

GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning

InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN

MuzzlePosition=3.826,1.917,-0.315

LightPosition=3.826,1.917,-0.315

AimAngles=-1.0,0.5,0.0

MaxAmmo=350

EjectShells=TRUE

EjectPosition=3.826,1.02,-0.301

EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

 

[GunL02]

SystemType=FIXED_GUN

GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning

InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN

MuzzlePosition=-3.02,2.01,-0.378

LightPosition=-3.02,2.01,-0.378

AimAngles=0.8,0.5,0.0

MaxAmmo=350

EjectShells=TRUE

EjectPosition=-3.02,1.10,-0.350

EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

 

[GunR02]

SystemType=FIXED_GUN

GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning

InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN

MuzzlePosition=3.02,2.01,-0.378

LightPosition=3.02,2.01,-0.378

AimAngles=-0.8,0.5,0.0

MaxAmmo=350

EjectShells=TRUE

EjectPosition=3.02,1.10,-0.350

EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

 

[GunL03]

SystemType=FIXED_GUN

GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning

InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN

MuzzlePosition=-2.695,2.01,-0.390

LightPosition=-2.695,2.01,-0.390

AimAngles=0.6,0.5,0.0

MaxAmmo=350

EjectShells=TRUE

EjectPosition=-2.695,1.10,-0.375

EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

 

[GunR03]

SystemType=FIXED_GUN

GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning

InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN

MuzzlePosition=2.695,2.01,-0.390

LightPosition=2.695,2.01,-0.3590

AimAngles=-0.6,0.5,0.0

MaxAmmo=350

EjectShells=TRUE

EjectPosition=2.695,1.10,-0.375

EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

 

[GunL04]

SystemType=FIXED_GUN

GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning

InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN

MuzzlePosition=-2.07,2.01,-0.450

LightPosition=-2.07,2.01,-0.450

AimAngles=0.5,0.5,0.0

MaxAmmo=350

EjectShells=TRUE

EjectPosition=-2.07,1.20,-0.435

EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

 

[GunR04]

SystemType=FIXED_GUN

GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning

InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN

MuzzlePosition=2.07,2.01,-0.450

LightPosition=2.07,2.01,-0.450

AimAngles=-0.5,0.5,0.0

MaxAmmo=350

EjectShells=TRUE

EjectPosition=2.07,1.20,-0.435

EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

 

Hey B, thanks for this gun fix, i added it last night went on a test flight over dover to check oil pressure (thats what i told the CO anyway) and mixed it up with the Germans I got two 110's before a 109 got in behind me, ended up hitting the silk and getting a ride home from a fishing boat! All's well that ends well, was in the Pub with the lads for a pint, just not looking forward to what the CO has to say in the morning! LOL

Edited July 7, 2007 by Redddevil911

[+Stary 2,426]

Reddevil911, sure it will be avaiable for D/L, but only when everything is finished, which will take "some" time, I assume. Matching with guncams is my priority

[+Stary 2,426]

Ok men, here's tiny preview of what I'm working on now:

 

New smoke tracers

 

New aircraft smoke

 

New guns effects

 

Unzip to your effects folder. If you have any of my previous releases let it overwrite older files.

 

!!! VERY IMPORTANT!!!

 

In your PARTICLESYSTEM.INI (if you don't have it in your Flight folder, extract it from FlightData.cat)

 

change the following (2nd row from top):

MaxParticlesPerEmitter=512

to

MaxParticlesPerEmitter=2048

 

otherwise it won't work&look as it should

 

Get it here:

 

 

EDIT:

Bad thing is that there's FPS impact which i will hopefully reduce in future. In TracerSmokeEmitter.ini is a line with descriptions how to change quality -you'll find it easily

Remember it's BETA

 

Feedback, opinions and suggestions welcome

Edited July 7, 2007 by CA_Stary

[+Baltika 84]

Redddevil911 & CA_Stary,

 

Hi there & welcome to the fold - glad you're enjoying the campaign. I am also loving the BoB music pack, kudos to allenjb42 for putting that together - cheers mate

 

Red, so far as damage effects are concerned, what you need are The Wrench's damage tgas which add bullet-hole effects for damaged aircraft, voila:-

 

 

You can get them here at Combatace, in the skins section. There are three packs which between them cover the main WW2 planes. Wrench has granted permission for them to be included in the next update for the main BoB package, but as I said earlier, the changelog for v0.60 just keeps getting longer. Meantime, grab 'em & install them yourself for added battle damage.

 

 

 

CA - OMG those screens of your new WW2 weapon effects are INCREDIBLE

 

I use your earlier weapon effects pack on all my installs, so thanks for that, I think it's great, and d*mn right I would be interested in your new effects - the WIP shots are just stunning. Thanks for posting a sneak preview, I am off to D/L and install right now - well, my parents have gone home, I have put the baby to bed - she is sound asleep bless her - and my wife asked me if it was OK for her to have an early night - I could hardly deny her, now could I Time to take to the skies :yes:

 

BTW, glad you're enjoying Burning Sands '44 - I have not forgotten my promised v1.1 upgrade, and it is coming together extremely well - it is a massive upgrade to the original. The reason it's not out yet is that I fired out the BoB campaign as a beta for those who may be interested, and I was simply stumped on how to take it forward, but the response has been great and it has absorbed all of my modding time recently.

 

S! to all the WW2 propheads round here. I'm having a great time with this thanks to this community.

 

Cheers all,

 

baltika

[+Baltika 84]

Just wish we had some English voice work in the camp, that wouls add a ton the the over all feel. As the idea every been kicked around to make to voice files, that way we could change the flight names to something more WWII sounding.

 

 

Red, this sort of thing has been discussed previously, and so far as I understand it, it is possible. What is required is replacement of the game's various voicefiles with more theatre-appropriate alternatives. There are a lot of files, so it is a big job, but perhaps we can enlist some community assistance? If we identify what's required and share it out, with some suitably-accented volunteers we can maybe put something together. My Scots brogue might be alright for the token drunken Glaswegian of 602 Squadron ("Ah'm jist aff tae stick the heid on thae hun, ya bams") but what we really need are some BBC English Home Counties accents. Of course, BoB was a truly international affair, so Canadians, Poles, Czechs, Ozzies, Kiwis, South Africans and all the various nationalities from the Commonwealth should feel free to apply. We'll even take the odd gung-ho Yank pretending to be Canadian to circumvent Uncle Sam's ban on its citizens actively participating in hostilities against Germany at that stage in the war. (And no, I haven't forgotten the Eagle Squadrons, thanks guys, but as I understand it they weren't operational until early '41).

 

So how about it?

 

Who wants to be the new voice we hear bursting into our headphones, "I say chaps, Jerry at 3 o'clock, Tally-ho!"

 

Toodle-pip for now,

 

baltika

[Redddevil911 0]

Red, this sort of thing has been discussed previously, and so far as I understand it, it is possible. What is required is replacement of the game's various voicefiles with more theatre-appropriate alternatives. There are a lot of files, so it is a big job, but perhaps we can enlist some community assistance? If we identify what's required and share it out, with some suitably-accented volunteers we can maybe put something together. My Scots brogue might be alright for the token drunken Glaswegian of 602 Squadron ("Ah'm jist aff tae stick the heid on thae hun, ya bams") but what we really need are some BBC English Home Counties accents. Of course, BoB was a truly international affair, so Canadians, Poles, Czechs, Ozzies, Kiwis, South Africans and all the various nationalities from the Commonwealth should feel free to apply. We'll even take the odd gung-ho Yank pretending to be Canadian to circumvent Uncle Sam's ban on its citizens actively participating in hostilities against Germany at that stage in the war. (And no, I haven't forgotten the Eagle Squadrons, thanks guys, but as I understand it they weren't operational until early '41).

 

So how about it?

 

Who wants to be the new voice we hear bursting into our headphones, "I say chaps, Jerry at 3 o'clock, Tally-ho!"

 

Toodle-pip for now,

 

baltika

 

Well i can do the Engish after all thats where I'm from! It would not be a Hugh Grant English accent as I was not born with a silver spoon and all that. But i could still do my part.

 

T.T.F.N. for now old boy.

[+Stary 2,426]

About the Brit voice pack. Great idea indeed. But the 3 o'clock thing can be tricky. My wingmen often gives me warning of bandits on my tail, but full clock reference? Is it in SF? I haven't meet with it. And how about german chatter in background? There's mod for WoV with continuous carrier ops background chatter-so it's possible to do something like that for BoB. Also things like your unlucky teamate saying: "Damn I'm hit!" and german "Ich habe eine!" in the background. We always can borrow wavs from abandoned titles like Jane's WW2 Fighters

 

The odd thing is that they still say such things even when they vaporize in ground crash.

 

btw. Glad to hear about BS'44 update