Something that should be changed

[Olham 164]

Okay, I had two flights together with A-flight, and that was a different story!

My, did we clobber the Tripes of RNAS-1 ! (see Claims report below). How could I have been so wrong since

February? I have done all my fights with just B-flight (4-5 wings), against 9 - 12 opponents, often more.

 

But you're wrong about the eyesight there, Dej - I spotted 9 Tripes at our 9 o'clock, about three miles away,

and another three Tripes ahead and above, about two miles away - before A-flight would show any reaction.

Well, here's the report:

 

3/;5/;1917 ;7h;21 ;Flanders ;Wasquehal

Patrol Enemy Front Lines ; Flying: Albatros DIII early.

On this day claims: ;2 ;Sopwith Tripe.

On our way to patrol enemy front lines, we where engaged by three flights of Triplanes, some from RNAS-1,

at an altitude of 9900 feet. I first cleared the six of Alois Heldmann by firing at the Tripe chasing him. Then I

climbed to help Erich Loewenhardt with two Triplanes. I hit one craft with about 200 rounds, it crashed at

07:08 over the front lines.

By now, more Triplanes had joined, and I recognised the red craft of Richard Minifie and the dark craft of

Roderick Dallas. Erich Loewenhardt and Paul Aue had a desperate fight low above a wood. I entered the

furball with only Otto Hartmann with me. I attacked Roderick Dallas and shot several bursts into his craft;

it crashed at 07:13 h E of Ypres.

After that, I found myself alone and tried to escape 5 Triplanes by zooming through the trees. But my craft

got hit several times, and I had to make an emergency landing near the front line east of Ypres.

Witnessed by: Otto Hartmann, Max-Burkart Steiner, Edgar Nitzsche, Alexander Zeuch, Carl Brandwurzel,

Erich Loewenhardt, Paul Aue, Alois Heldmann, Adam Barth Status : Pending ;72

Edited August 3, 2009 by Olham

[Flyby PC 23]

I could be very wrong here, but I think the Germain air superiority in 1917 which peaked in Bloody April wasn't numerical supremacy in the air, but more like numerical supremacy in kills. The German pilots and especially aircraft were better, with most allied aircraft being obsolete. Sopwith Camels, Se5a's, Spads and Brisfits won the advantage back in late 1917, but I think the allies were always superior in numbers. Happy to be corrected in this. I'm not that well read on WW1. I've read it somewhere, but couldn't tell you where...

 

Even in the dark days of German superiority, I seem to recall reading somewhere the losses never prevented the allied air forces from fulfilling their overall objectives -successful up to date reconnaissance, bombing raids etc. Indeed, the first official 'close air support' sorties flown by the RFC were flown in May 1917 during the Arrass offensive. The German Jastas were typically deployed in defensive rolls, and while successful in that roll for periods, they could never sieze the offensive initiative and take the war to the allies. In brutal arithmetic, the allies could sustain their losses, whereas a blockaded Germany couldn't afford them to anything like the same extent.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Flyby PC

[+Winder 32]

I could be very wrong here, but I think the Germain air superiority in 1917 which peaked in Bloody April wasn't numerical supremacy in the air, but more like numerical supremacy in kills. The German pilots and especially aircraft were better, with most allied aircraft being obsolete. Sopwith Camels, Se5a's, Spads and Brisfits won the advantage back in late 1917, but I think the allies were always superior in numbers. Happy to be corrected in this. I'm not that well read on WW1. I've read it somewhere, but couldn't tell you where...

 

Even in the dark days of German superiority, I seem to recall reading somewhere the losses never prevented the allied air forces from fulfilling their overall objectives -successful up to date reconnaissance, bombing raids etc. Indeed, the first official 'close air support' sorties flown by the RFC were flown in May 1917 during the Arrass offensive. The German Jastas were typically deployed in defensive rolls, and while successful in that roll for periods, they could never sieze the offensive initiative and take the war to the allies. In brutal arithmetic, the allies could sustain their losses, whereas a blockaded Germany couldn't afford them to anything like the same extent.

 

The OOB does not really specify 'numbers', but aggressiveness, effectiveness, morale and whether on offensive defensive or neutral.

I am simplifying things a lot in my description I guess because the code is extensive and complex.

 

The main issue we really have is that we are lacking CPU and GPU to effectively put the war into the perspective we require - but it will change.

What we have here is not a canned campaign and that is all I am trying to emphasise.

 

HTH

 

WM

[Olham 164]

Was that another hint on things to come, Winder?

Well, anyway - I wonder, how stupid I sometimes can be. Not to realise that flights 1 and 2 should

mostly fly together. But, in hindsight, I also see, that I did a damn good job with only half a crew (Lol!).

Now it IS great fun again!

Edited August 3, 2009 by Olham

[Bullethead 12]

I could be very wrong here, but I think the Germain air superiority in 1917 which peaked in Bloody April wasn't numerical supremacy in the air, but more like numerical supremacy in kills.

 

I've read otherwise. As I understand it, the Germans were outnumbered in general, but usually had local numerical superiority for 2 reasons:

1. They were on the defensive relying on an extensive early warning system, so could vector large numbers to the critical point.
   
2. They typically flew the whole Jasta in 1 wad whereas the Brits were sending out lone flights.
   

So when flying as the Brits in Bloody April, I fully expect to be outnumbered in the fights I have, because that's what I understand is historically correct for that time and place. And that's why I fly there so much

[77Scout 3]

As our PCs improve I would like to generate real air activity (qty wise) in these larger areas but guys we dont have the CPU power.

 

There is a small element of local air acitivity generation around your home field and your target to balance this CPU issue in the short term. But as you have seen we are still a way off from the CPU/GPU power we require realistically....

 

I might consider expanding the CPU weightings even for 1.32 if users whant to give this a go?

 

WM

 

Thanks for the explaination Winder. Interesting stuff.

 

I am running at 'heavy' on the 'Regional Air Activity' and my rig does not seem to struggle at all (E8400, 8800GT), so if you want to include an option for 'super heavy' I would personnally give it a try. Even at 'heavy' I am not seeing much in the way of other flights in the air (but then I am using no 'aids' so might just be blind :).

 

One suggestion, which I will bet you have already considered: Rather than managing the whole sector, generate air activity only within a certain radius of the players airfield that the player is unlikely to fly out of (200 miles?, whatever makes sense). This will remove the need for flights to be spread out over an entire sector, and would also remove the adverse density effects imposed by having different sized sectors. As a related change, it would make sense to limit the distance for campaign missions...filter out the unrealistic half-way-across-France missions that could take the player into 'dead air'. This last thing would be a good change regardless (saves the need to select 'alternate flight' over and over until a normal mission distance comes up).

 

Seems like the ebb and flow of airpower should ideally also effect changes in flight size, and plane types encountered (not just the number of flights per side). If only the number of flights per side is affected, then as a German in Bloody April you just won't see many enemy flights, but when you do it is likely to be a full-strength flight of good quality fighters (as Olham is experiencing). In reality I am guessing a German in Bloody April should actually see lots of enemy flights, but they should be mostly recon planes plus a few obsolete fighters, smaller flight sizes due to pilot shortages, low calibre pilots, etc. Again, I would bet lots of money you have long ago considered all of this and have all that and more on your 'want to do' list for the future, not to mention much of the guts of this in there already.

[Dej 17]

But you're wrong about the eyesight there, Dej - I spotted 9 Tripes at our 9 o'clock, about three miles away,

and another three Tripes ahead and above, about two miles away - before A-flight would show any reaction.

 

Ah, well. They might have been waiting to see what the Tripes would do... but 'A' Flight has warned me in the past. Glad it went better for you, Olham. I'd hate to think one of OFF's staunchest advocates wasn't having fun with it anymore.

[Olham 164]

Thanks, Dej, but OFF is just too good, as that this could ever happen.

And asthonishing too - that I still hadn't discovered all, means there is depth.

[Flyby PC 23]

Doing some reading, I stumbled across my reference by accident.... (Phew,...I knew I wasn't making it up).-

 

 

 

 

"Field commander Henderson was recalled to GREAT BRITAIN as head of the air staff in August

 

1915, and the aggressive TRENCHARD took his place. Insisting on offensive patrols over enemy

 

lines at all times, but unable to call on new designs to counter German combat superiority,

 

he relied on numbers, throwing aircrew into action after minimal training and pressing for

 

increased production of existing types which had been modified but were essentially

 

obsolete.

As a result, the RFC was saddled with hundreds of unsuitable machines long after competitive

 

FIGHTERS like the AIRCO DH-2 and NIEUPORT 11 became available in 1916, and many remained in

 

service well into 1917. Growing resentment of apparently useless sacrifice among field

 

officers was heightened by strong public and political criticism in Britain, where the

 

'Fokker Scourge' was regarded as a national disgrace

 

Attempts to stem losses by deploying aircraft in larger formations simply increased the number of obsolete targets without providing effective protection......".

 

 

[The Macmillan Dictionary of the First World War. p389 - (RFC Royal Flying Corps).]

Edited August 25, 2009 by Flyby PC

[horowae 0]

outnumbered? no Problem! lot of enemies, lot of honour. shot five then escape!

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

"hey! he shot harry! Get em!!!"

 

Thus was coined the new phrase: Dogpile!