|
Serversidemodding (r)
|
|
| SimoHayha | Date: Monday, 2013-06-17, 11:24 PM | Message # 161 |
 Colonel
Group: Gold Donator
Messages: 377
Status: Offline
| i think the most modern fighter the germans had access to in the afrika corps at the time was bf-109 g-4
. . . . ./▌ ︻╦╤─
. . ░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
. ▂▄▅████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████]
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤
|
| |
| |
| starking018 | Date: Tuesday, 2013-06-18, 3:30 PM | Message # 162 |
|
Colonel
Group: Friends
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| Quote (Mr_J) allright, I removed the wreck mod so you are gonna see if it leads to better game stability.
Thanks.
Quote (Endless_Nameless) My only request is to add planes which fit in the time frame, so no Bf109 K-10 please.
Sure, I was thinking of something like (thanks Manns and Mr_J for compiling and posting all Bf109 variants in FHSW) a:
Bf 109 G6/R6 : 2x MG 131 / 3x MG 151/20 (which fires 20mm shells)
replacing the Bf 109 G2 (2x MG 17 / 1x MG 151/20, which btw is an even weaker armament than that of the basic E4 variant) which is no good for anything except maybe fighting the enemy fighters, where it also lacks in every respect. BTW I also checked Bf 109 G2/R6, but it has even poorer performance and maneuverability, so although it may be capable of defeating a Wellington, it would be very hard to beat the Spitfire or the Hurricane with it.
Quote (SimoHayha) i think the most modern fighter the germans had access to in the afrika corps at the time was bf-109 g-4
There is no G4 in FHSW, but the next thing that there is is G6. It was introduced about three months after the battle, so I guess it is possible that it might have been in pre-production field evaluation or something like that (a "secret weapon"). It should be a good balance both against Wellington and against Spitfire Vb.
The other fighter I was thinking about was the basic Fw 190, but on second thought it has several advantages such as too much firepower (2x13mm + 4x20mm), high speed and rate of climb and more hitpoints, which combined can make it too deadly on that map when you can engage from a big distance.
As for the fighter-bomber Bf 109 E4B (2x MG 17 + 2x MG FF (20mm shells but slower) / 1x 250 kg ) I think a good substitute is:
Fw 190G : 2x MG131 + 2x MG151/15 (which fires 15mm shells) / 4x 50 kg bombs
The bomb load is a bit weaker, and the guns have similar firepower, maybe a bit weaker, but more accurate and effective at longer range, and carry more ammo. I think it should be sufficient to shoot down a Wellington with 2-3 players in, but I'm not sure. It should at least be an improvement over Bf 109 E4B.
So I propose that the Bf 109 G2 be replaced with a Bf 109 G6/R6 and default spawn time for all aircraft be restored. Additionally, the Bf 109 E4B could be replaced with a Fw 190G, which I think would make the game more interesting and fun, although I don't insist on that change.
Air Troll a.k.a. starking018
|
| |
| |
| Mr_J | Date: Tuesday, 2013-06-18, 8:24 PM | Message # 163 |
 Accessory Admin
Group: Admins
Messages: 635
Status: Offline
| Quote (starking018) So I propose that the Bf 109 G2 be replaced with a Bf 109 G6/R6 and default spawn time for all aircraft be restored. Additionally, the Bf 109 E4B could be replaced with a Fw 190G, which I think would make the game more interesting and fun, although I don't insist on that change. |
| |
| |
| SimoHayha | Date: Tuesday, 2013-06-18, 8:55 PM | Message # 164 |
|
Colonel
Group: Gold Donator
Messages: 377
Status: Offline
| is there a way of modding the accuracy of a weapon server side? if so i think the bullet spread of bren gun whilst walking(not running or crouching) should be greatly reduced, it was frequently fired from the hip during the war, and was well known for its accuracy, in fact some troops had to modify their brens witha muzzle brake, so the bullet spread was wider over a long distance
. . . . ./▌ ︻╦╤─
. . ░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
. ▂▄▅████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████]
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤
Message edited by SimoHayha - Tuesday, 2013-06-18, 11:50 PM |
| |
| |
| SimoHayha | Date: Friday, 2013-07-05, 1:34 PM | Message # 165 |
|
Colonel
Group: Gold Donator
Messages: 377
Status: Offline
| I would like to request that the Flettner be added to the Battle of Bulge, the basis for this being that i recently read that " During the Battle of the Bulge a formation of five of these aircraft conducted the world's first helicopter strike against armour. Operating
low over the Ardennes Forest they destroyed two American tanks at a loss
of two of their own, one to a British Spitfire, the other to
groundfire.". To make sure it doesn't offset balance too much you could add some sort of AA like a quad fifty cal. half-track or whatever the allies use. Could we perhaps have a poll to decide?
. . . . ./▌ ︻╦╤─
. . ░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
. ▂▄▅████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████]
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤
|
| |
| |
| Endless_Nameless | Date: Friday, 2013-07-05, 5:26 PM | Message # 166 |
 General
Group: Admins
Messages: 1237
Status: Offline
| Interesting but I couldn't find any German sources about that incident, do you have any reliable source for that?
My Youtube Channel
aka eYe.ris
|
| |
| |
| SimoHayha | Date: Friday, 2013-07-05, 9:44 PM | Message # 167 |
|
Colonel
Group: Gold Donator
Messages: 377
Status: Offline
| i think this may be a source though i couldnt find a copy of the text to verify
Source: "Helicopters - Military, Civilian and Rescue Rotorcraft", General editor: Robert Jackson. The Aviation Factfile, ©
2005 International Masters Publishers BV, ISBN 1-84013-812-2 pp.110
. . . . ./▌ ︻╦╤─
. . ░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
. ▂▄▅████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████]
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤
Message edited by SimoHayha - Friday, 2013-07-05, 10:06 PM |
| |
| |
| RADIOSMERSH | Date: Saturday, 2013-07-06, 9:17 AM | Message # 168 |
 FHSW Wikia Co-Admin
Group: Bronze Donator
Messages: 664
Status: Offline
| Here is it, but I haven't found any reference to Battle of the Bulge:
|
| |
| |
| SimoHayha | Date: Saturday, 2013-07-06, 12:56 PM | Message # 169 |
|
Colonel
Group: Gold Donator
Messages: 377
Status: Offline
| hmmm thats disapointing, im a bit annoyed i cant find a source for this, as ive read it in many forums etc, oh well i guess we will have to leave it then
. . . . ./▌ ︻╦╤─
. . ░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
. ▂▄▅████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████]
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤
|
| |
| |
| SimoHayha | Date: Saturday, 2013-07-06, 10:20 PM | Message # 170 |
|
Colonel
Group: Gold Donator
Messages: 377
Status: Offline
| i like the photo with the two dudes in the back of the flettner, makes me think they should make transport version!
. . . . ./▌ ︻╦╤─
. . ░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
. ▂▄▅████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████]
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤
|
| |
| |
| starking018 | Date: Friday, 2013-07-19, 10:30 PM | Message # 171 |
|
Colonel
Group: Friends
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| Quote (Mr_J) Default respawn time is good for 80 slots Japanese FHSW server, not for us, and you seem to miss the tanker's point of view. They really do not want to be raped by stuka nonstop just after leaving the spawn.
Fair enough. But when an aircraft is in the air and it attacks ground targets, you have to deal with that aircraft.
The increased respawn time does not matter when the aircraft is already there, and it is the more skilled pilots or the pilots in the team that is stronger at that moment or the better aircraft types that have a better chance to survive longer (also encouraging pilots to land to repair as I often do). The thing is that the time for a vehicle to respawn is more or less constant, while the time you can use it depends on how good you are, how defensively you play, how strong the vehicle is and how strong a position the team has compared to the other team. So while increased spawn time for aircraft can lead to fewer aircraft in the air on average, or to less preferred aircraft being used, what you will usually get is that those aircraft will all be on one team, which will hold air superiority for longer, and have pilots and aircraft that are harder to kill.
In other words the increased spawn time just amplifies the advantage of some pilots/aircraft/teams and the game becomes less balanced and does not become fairer.
The way to deal with ground attack aircraft is to actually threaten them when they are in the air.
Let me reveal a little "secret": even 1 aircraft in the sky is a serious issue for all aircraft in the opposite team. Suppose I am doing some ground attacks and see an enemy aircraft. It immediately becomes my primary target. It takes priority before all ground targets (except anti-aircraft weapons) and so I stop attacking them until the sky is clear (which can take a lot of time). This is so, because if the enemy aircraft has any machine-guns or cannons it is a threat to me. Aircraft are pretty much defenseless, strictly speaking, because usually they have nowhere to hide and every bullet damages them. That's why the only course of action is to attack the enemy aircraft as soon as possible. If the enemy aircraft is a ground attack aircraft, even if it can't disturb my ground attacks, I can't just leave it alone. What's the point of destroying the enemy ground targets if my teammates on the ground also get bombed and can't advance. So whatever aircraft the enemy brings, I would have to deal with it before all else.
Mind you, aircraft that can effectively attack ground targets often aren't the best fighters. Also, air combat generally takes a lot of attention, ammunition and countless maneuvers, even if it is between a stronger pilot/aircraft and a weaker one. So that means even one enemy fighter or medium/heavy bomber in the sky can be a problem for a long time, potentially a fatal one.
So, in my opinion, the best way to limit the attacks on ground targets by aircraft is to make sure there are enough threats to aircraft when they are in the air.
For El Alamein there are a few ways this can be done. Air-to-air power can be increased without increasing ground attack capabilities by using some of the fighters that aren't effective against armor, such as Spitfire Mk. Ia which only has 7.7mm machine-guns. One way is to replace the Spitfire Mk. Vb with Spitfire Mk. Ia. I'm not sure if it will be effective enough against He 111 though. If it turns out to be insufficient maybe we can set an even lower than default spawn time or add two of them. Another possibility is to replace the Defiant.
Another good challenge for aircraft are anti-aircraft weapons. If I am in an aircraft and there are active enemy AA weapons in tactically important places I cannot just ignore them, so even just one of them means enemy tanks will either be left alone for a while until this AA is dealt with or there will be a wrecked aircraft.
On El Alamein this is an important issue. Axis team has some pretty decent AA weapons, including mobile ones while the Allies are miles behind in that respect. In FH/FHSW Bofors is a very bad anti-aircraft weapon at long and even medium ranges, due to the poor muzzle velocity and accuracy. Any weapon with a higher muzzle velocity and accuracy and at least as much firepower would be a great improvement. Did the British have QF 3.7inch cannons or 3inch AA (Battery of four) in Africa? Even Vierlings could be used, as they are on Gazala (I would bet that there was a lot of captured materiel on both sides in the North African campaign due to the extremely fluid front lines, e.g. a lot of territory changing hands back and forth 5 times or more). Their AA tank there is also weak in firepower. There must be better replacements that would fit the time frame and theater, although I haven't looked into it so I can't propose particular replacements at the moment.
As for the axis fighter, I saw the Bf 109 G2 has been replaced with an Italian aircraft, which is very nice. I just didn't think about the Italian aircraft last time I wrote, even though historically it makes a lot of sense to have Italian forces in that battle. As far as I could judge it was a very good, balancing replacement.
Let me suggest another mod that may be possible. If the rate of repair from the crew of bombers could be reduced, in my opinion it could be used to restore some realism and balance. I suggest reducing the rate of repair for both medium bombers in half or even lower, and then maybe that would make it possible to shoot them down with weaker fighters. Axis fighters would still get shot down, but if they respawn quickly, the bombers could be attacked again before they are fully repaired. So together with this mod I propose replacing Spitfire Vb with Spitfire Mk. Ia, and the Axis team can revert back to Bf 109 G2.
The effect of this is less flight time for the bombers and generally fewer ground attacks by them, and also fewer aircraft that can do effective ground attacks (Bf 109 G2 has only one 20mm cannon).
I hope that I have convinced you that increasing spawn times does not do any good and that there are other things that can be done that directly address the issues you raise. I would also like to hear more suggestions.
Air Troll a.k.a. starking018
|
| |
| |
| marduk | Date: Saturday, 2013-07-20, 4:41 PM | Message # 172 |
 General
Group: Admins
Messages: 1681
Status: Offline
| @Starking: can you please sum that up to four or five sentences?! I am sure this issue can not be that important that you have to write an essay about it.
This is a gaming community. People come here to relax. If you start an argument you will get kicked.
Quid pro quo.
Marduk aka Postduk
|
| |
| |
| starking018 | Date: Saturday, 2013-07-20, 10:18 PM | Message # 173 |
|
Colonel
Group: Friends
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| Sure.
I really didn't feel like writing all that but I fear that you guys might make more and more server side mods without properly considering all their effects, which are sometimes much more complex than they seem.
Increasing spawn times makes the game less balanced and less fair.
To reduce ground attacks by aircraft in a balanced way you can: make sure there are always some fighters and/or effective AA weapons available; use aircraft types that are less effective against ground targets; reduce the rate of repair of bombers to make them easier to destroy; etc.
Air Troll a.k.a. starking018
|
| |
| |
| Endless_Nameless | Date: Wednesday, 2013-08-21, 4:58 PM | Message # 174 |
|
General
Group: Admins
Messages: 1237
Status: Offline
| What do you guys say about
Kharkov_Winter: added 2 horses (with rifles) per side (requested by slobo)
Operation Kikusui Day 1: In an attempt to improve the balance (and reduce lag) I removed all extra Japanese ships, so it's Yamato only.
If you approve the changes, you can get the modified maps here: Available to users only (only for the server)
My Youtube Channel
aka eYe.ris
|
| |
| |
| slobodan | Date: Wednesday, 2013-08-21, 5:28 PM | Message # 175 |
 Koń
Group: Friends
Messages: 434
Status: Offline
| Thank you eYe 
|
| |
| |
| Mr_J | Date: Thursday, 2014-02-13, 7:11 PM | Message # 176 |
|
Accessory Admin
Group: Admins
Messages: 635
Status: Offline
| Arty battery for both sides on Alpenfestung, yes / no ?
|
| |
| |
| Stefan1990 | Date: Thursday, 2014-02-13, 7:21 PM | Message # 177 |
 General
Group: Admins
Messages: 1428
Status: Offline
| i ithink it would be cool!
also i think we need an each map a spawnvehicle
|
| |
| |
| Robert_von_Eberhahn | Date: Thursday, 2014-02-13, 8:08 PM | Message # 178 |
|
Lieutenant General
Group: Silver Donator
Messages: 969
Status: Offline
| Quote Mr_J (  ) Arty battery for both sides on Alpenfestung, yes / no ?
hm, yes I think.
Additional: please change the ME 262 "Pulkzerstörer" on Alpenfestung with the Focke Wulf 190 F-8 (horizontal Panzerschrecks). Why? Because there are no heavy Bombers on allied side that the Pulkzerstörer is designed for to destroy and only one other map (OP black night) where the FW 190 F-8 is located and overall the germans had mostly no planes with real tankdestroyer capabilitys on late war maps although they are available.
 Gameserver admin on our FHSW Europ server
Message edited by Robert_von_Eberhahn - Thursday, 2014-02-13, 8:08 PM |
| |
| |
| crazygamelover | Date: Friday, 2014-02-14, 6:04 AM | Message # 179 |
 Colonel
Group: Trusted
Messages: 308
Status: Offline
| I would like to see some more non-jet German planes appear in some Western front maps as well. Just to get some classic dogfights. P47 vs Me109, P51 vs Fw190
|
| |
| |
| Mr_J | Date: Friday, 2014-02-14, 6:48 PM | Message # 180 |
|
Accessory Admin
Group: Admins
Messages: 635
Status: Offline
| ok so i added FW190 F-8 SG113, Wespe Battery and US Howitzer x5 Battery + Ammo Carriers
@crazy: I got your point. However I'm not going to do a lot of ssm as the FHSW 0.55 will overwrite all of that anyways.
|
| |
| |
