Fear & Penetration - (Non)Sexual Musings On Flak & The Il-2

Yeah. US should be forced to use airplanes against heavy tanks and flak should get nerfed abit. :slight_smile:

Good to know I’m not crazy.

Yes, most recent changes have made air worthless. If enemy has just one german mobile AA then your air will do only limited damages. Fighters are now a lot less usefull than AA and so nearly worthless too.

Yuritch added the fear tolerance multiplier, which is set up on 10 (or more) in most our multiplayer games. Even with this, your planes will be shot down fast.

With JAL we tried to add the armor of the IL2 in our mutator. The IL2 is supposed to undure 20mm german mobile AA, but in game this AA is so accurate that IL2 armor doesn’t help it much.

JAL’s main reason to start this mutator is the removal of naval units (which he has balanced better now), we began to fix the air uselessness with IL2’s armor and the PTAB weapon (a weapon we thought initialy overpowered) but I have the feeling it will not be enough.
Fear= should be removed, do you think bombers at midway became cowards approaching a japanese carrier ? ?
AA flaks= lets begin to reduce accuracy, and may be damages

Fear was initially put in to make it possible to reduce flak damage. Else we had to make flaks be able to basically 1-shot planes (or the target they are protecting will get bombed). It’s a hard aspect to balance.

I think flak should be super inaccurate vs air and mostly just frighten planes

Currently flak both scares the planes and kills them while they are slowly turning back because they manouver slowly once they are scared. When fear tolerance is multiplied by 10 airplanes do much better because they can be controlled and made to make sharper and more addequate turns. They still dies quite fast if they make the wrong turns though.

I suggest that flak is more innaccurate/makes less damage and that fear is keept around the same.

actually flak should do lots of damage since most planes were un armored

Right, but in terms of game design, part of modelling the effectiveness of flak is including how much people try to avoid it.

Playing with the accuracy is iffy, I think there were dozens of revisions about that in the distant past.

Well, Nemo buffed AA because I owned them with interceptors until all of a sudden he disabled Interceptors attacking ground targets. From then on air can really be considered underpowered against even the 2 starting AA as they just rape whatever you send against them.

First he buffed AA and then disabled Interceptors land attack which meant that all of a sudden it costed more than twice the command to have 4 planes attacking a flak and if you failed it just meant you lost like 12000 command instead of 4000.

Heres another idea. Planes that take damage could lose fuel so they have to return sooner.
Realistically damaged planes would have to return to the airbase sooner because damaged fuel tanks, weapons, rudders, etc…

Alternatively they could lose fuel as they get scared. That way we could even have intereceptors strafing the ground again but a few flak would send them running home.

Actually I was thinking about buffing German flak a little; the single 2.0 cm FlaK 38 was really considered inadequate for AA work by 1944. It was replaced in a lot of cases by the 2.0 cm Flakvierling 38 quad mount but also by the 3.7 cm FlaK 43, which did a much better job against aircraft (20 mm shells were pretty useless against the Il-2 “Cement Bomber”).

Both weapons were mounted on a variety of mobile platforms, from halftracks to Flakpanzer IV mounts (the Wirbelwind and Ostwind being the “coolest-looking” of the bunch, but the Mobelwagen being more common). Using either of those weapons would put the Germans on par with the 40 mm US/UK and 37 mm Soviet AA pieces. Perhaps we could make the Germans more reliant on mobile AA rather than interceptors for air defense, and the Allies more reliant on air cover. That might involve making German air sorties more expensive relative to other factions, which would reflect the realities of 1944 - Luftwaffe sorties were few and far between and had to be spent wisely. Allied SPAA on the other hand would be much more fragile (truck or halftrack mounted) and possibly lighter (the British and the Soviets did use truck-mounted 40mm and 37 mm guns, but the primary US SPAAG seems to avbe been the M15 and M16 halftracks with quad 0.50-inch MG mounts).

That said though, I like Godde’s ideas - making flak a little more inaccurate and making it spook planes rather than giblet them outright. I miss being able to use interceptors for ground attack; in the Lyuban release not only was that my prime means of killing flak but it also did a treat for beating off early halftrack/infantry rushes.

actually the sturmoviks armor was adequate for little more then 7.62mm rounds maybe a hal inch but not a 20mm

No, single barrel 20mm german AA was not enough to down the Il2 in one shoot en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_I … ng_tank.22 .
The Il-2 could stand many shoots of 20mm. A single barreled 20mm gun (like the one used in game) did not have either the rate of fire either the accuracy to destroy it, this was probably why germans switched to Flakvierling quad 20mm AA .

37mm AA and 40mm Bofors (bofors should one-shoot=kill the Il-2 but accuracy should not be 100%) were the most dangerous weapons for the il2. In game the player should rely on deployed AA guns vs Il2, the mobiles AA used in game didn’t have enough punch for the Il2.

Not only that, but 37 mm and 40 mm weapons had 2-3x the effective range. Granted aircraft in Spring fly at relatively low altitudes, but 20 mm flak was essentially useless on targets flying above 2200 meters.

actually the sturmoviks armor was adequate for little more then 7.62mm rounds maybe a half inch but not a 20mm

The Russian pilots were primarily concerned with 20 and 40mm guns as 88s and 76s lacked the response time, but the aircraft could weather the former. The homogenous steel plating is riveted and curved around the body. It varies from 4.8 to 12 millimeters in thickness. Assuming 8 millimeters is the average, and you’re usually hitting either the wing or a 45 degree point, plus deflection, the frame behind the metal…

A 40mm should down an Il-2, a 20mm usually could not, though bullets often penetrated non-armoured sections.

Actually 20mm could penetrate the armor and many historians wonder why the aircraft remained in use long after efficient weapons such as the quad 20mm or single 37mm were made.

I said they usually couldn’t down them with a single 20mm, not that the armour wasn’t penetrated.

with a single but I’ve often wondered why there’s a single and not a quad 20mm in the game though the 20mm did lack the range to take on high altitude aircraft

I remember play IL-2 simulator , when i tried to bomb something under heavy flak fire it was very hard to hit accurate (everything was shaking) .
Bombers should drop very inaccurate while under fire.

Il-2 had particularly low accuracy due to low bomb mass.