Jump to content


Now Presenting the WOWP Cheatsheet!


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

WafflesOfWrath #21 Posted 15 November 2017 - 12:03 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostARCNA442, on 14 November 2017 - 11:38 PM, said:

 

I'm curious as to why you say machinegun planes shouldn't take a gunsight. From my understanding how accuracy works, it should provide a flat 10% dpm boost regardless of range and gun type.

 

That's completely incorrect. All a gunsight does is tighten up the cone of fire by 10%, as in the area where your shots can randomly go. Machinegun planes by design should open fire when their target is point-blank, ensuring all of your rounds land on target anyway

Edited by WafflesOfWrath, 15 November 2017 - 08:52 AM.


CamuMahubah #22 Posted 15 November 2017 - 03:26 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 226 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
Data like this is GOLD for me.  My OCD brain will now slowy begin to absorb what is before me.  Thanks OP.

Tablecat #23 Posted 15 November 2017 - 03:29 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 444 battles
  • 20
  • [PZMOE] PZMOE
  • Member since:
    02-07-2012

P.neat

 

This has confirmed the sanity of some of my plane builds. :great:



mnbv_fockewulfe #24 Posted 15 November 2017 - 03:47 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 52 battles
  • 1,513
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013
Yuck, google spreadsheet. :bajan:

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


ARCNA442 #25 Posted 15 November 2017 - 03:54 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 299 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    09-10-2016

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 15 November 2017 - 12:03 AM, said:

 

That's completely incorrect. All a gunsight does is tighten up the cone of fire by 10%, as in the area where your shots can randomly go. Machinegun planes, by design, should open fire when their target is point-blank, ensuring all of your rounds land on target anyway

 

Okay, can you point me to any resource that explains how accuracy in WoWP works? The only theory I can find is that there is an invisible beam and as long as you point it in the right place RNG determines how much damage you do. This seems to be right since you can see tracers miss while still dealing damage. However, by that explanation there really wouldn't be a cone of fire since the game is not actually tracking individual bullets.

WafflesOfWrath #26 Posted 15 November 2017 - 05:18 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostARCNA442, on 15 November 2017 - 03:54 AM, said:

 

Okay, can you point me to any resource that explains how accuracy in WoWP works? The only theory I can find is that there is an invisible beam and as long as you point it in the right place RNG determines how much damage you do. This seems to be right since you can see tracers miss while still dealing damage. However, by that explanation there really wouldn't be a cone of fire since the game is not actually tracking individual bullets.

 

http://blog.worldofw...uipment-part-2/

"Any aircraft can be equipped with an improved sight that decreases the firing spread for the forward-facing armament. The exact type of sight depends on aircraft tier and historical data."

Gunsights only affect spread as confirmed by WG. For some reason they say not to use them with cannon and to use them with MGs, which is absurd

 

Destroyer_Suzukaze #27 Posted 15 November 2017 - 05:43 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 277 battles
  • 171
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 14 November 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

 

http://blog.worldofw...uipment-part-2/

"Any aircraft can be equipped with an improved sight that decreases the firing spread for the forward-facing armament. The exact type of sight depends on aircraft tier and historical data."

Gunsights only affect spread as confirmed by WG. For some reason they say not to use them with cannon and to use them with MGs, which is absurd

 

 

How I interpret this is improved sights decrease dispersion; long range high caliber cannons have low dispersion and so don't see much improvement if any. Probably because of the longer barrels. Shorter barreled cannons like 20mm and 23mm do see a gain. Which makes sense

ARCNA442 #28 Posted 15 November 2017 - 06:21 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 299 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    09-10-2016

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 15 November 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

 

http://blog.worldofw...uipment-part-2/

"Any aircraft can be equipped with an improved sight that decreases the firing spread for the forward-facing armament. The exact type of sight depends on aircraft tier and historical data."

Gunsights only affect spread as confirmed by WG. For some reason they say not to use them with cannon and to use them with MGs, which is absurd

 

 

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

 

Reading it the logic seems to be that if you have a lot of guns it gives you a narrower beam with higher damage. So it effectively becomes harder to hit but deals more damage when you do. In short, it seems like a mostly useless piece of equipment. It also appears that the pilot accuracy skill does the same exact thing.



SaintCelestine_WH40K #29 Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:39 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 259 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-08-2013

View Postsimplepleasures, on 14 November 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

This is a quick reference guide for equipment and pilot skills.    

Should be handy for newcomers and vets alike.

Post your thoughts/suggestions.

THIS IS AN EVOLVING WORK IN PROGRESS
UK TREE INCOMPLETE AT THIS TIME.
ONCE AGAIN THIS IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS

https://docs.google....t#gid=601624856

 

TL;DR version:

Equipment: Engine Tuning, Lightweight Airframe, and Improved Covering (+% engine power, +% maneuverability in all axes, and +% health) for every single plane in the friggin game, save for some ground attackers and some bombers.

 

Pilot skills: Engine Guru, Acrobatics Expert, Aerodynamics Expert (+% engine power, +% bonus to things that boost maneuverability, and +% to things that boost health and reduce crit chance on modules). Once again, this is the same as the equipment. You take the same damn skills for every single plane in the friggin game, save for some ground attackers and some bombers.


Look OP, I saved you a boatload of work.

Yes i'm pissed, yes I'm salty. I'm no genius though I have been looking for something like this. But everything you're stating basically makes it sound like every single plane is the same.


Edited by SaintCelestine_WH40K, 15 November 2017 - 08:42 AM.


Mercsn #30 Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:46 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 432 battles
  • 2,487
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostARCNA442, on 15 November 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

 

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

 

Reading it the logic seems to be that if you have a lot of guns it gives you a narrower beam with higher damage. So it effectively becomes harder to hit but deals more damage when you do. In short, it seems like a mostly useless piece of equipment. It also appears that the pilot accuracy skill does the same exact thing.

 

All of this fails to take into account WG's aim-assist.  Where, if you get your shots close enough to a target they will be "pulled in" to it, essentially like a satellite being pulled into a planets gravity.  Think of each plane as having a small gravity bubble.  Get the shots into that bubble and you'll hit.  I have screenshots of how this works from when they first implemented it in 0.9-ish.  With the new pilot skills, if you read the text on the skill and then read between the lines and then think like a WG dev, what you'll see is that the skills likely don't just tighten up the dispersion cone or increase impulse (impulse is how likely the shots are to be at the center), they actually buff that aim-assist gravity well.

 


 

My previous testing partner (shout out to Rev01ution) doesn't currently play, but I would be very interested in conducting training room tests with the new perks as well as with the gunsight, to prove or disprove my theory.  However, based on "seat of the pants" testing by removing gunsight and respec'ing into and out of marksmen perks, I notice a greater likelihood to hit when I'm aiming poorly (or flat out think I should not be hitting a target), when using gunsight and especially when spec'd into the marksmen perks.


 

As for those who say the "firing cone" for aircraft with nose mounted guns is unaffected by the gunsight, I disagree.  Being newly returned to the game (after 3.5 years), I'm out of date on mechanics and am looking to see what might be different from then to now.  So, when I read that gunsight doesn't affect nose mounted weapons, I promptly went and tested it...by flying straight and shooting and watching where the shots went.  Nose mounted guns don't appear to have any smaller dispersion and only slightly higher impulse than wing mounted weapons.  The gun may be centerline, but those tracers sure do go everywhere.


 

The theory of "get right on their tail" to fire when using MGs, so you don't need improved dispersion is all well and good...except if you can't get right on their tail.  Then what? Being able to land shots on a target, that is chasing a friendly, without having to spend time closing the distance can be the difference between that friendly living and dying.  Plus, if you have to close that distance, you are not maneuvering.  If you are not maneuvering, you are an easier target.  So, having to close the distance to "get right on their tail" is doubly dangerous, to the player and the teammate that might otherwise be saved more quickly.


 

Either way, theory crafting is fine, but trying different things out and seeing what works best for YOU, is the way to go.   Personally, I'm a decent flyer but a bad shot, always have been.  I'll take all the auto-aim/aim-assist they'll give me!  (Even though, I'm an advocate of not having any aim-assist, and minor, more realistic dispersion -ie, the bullets go where you point them.  Again, I have screenshots of 45 degree dispersion, what gun barrel shoots a bullet out sideways?) I use gunsight and spec marksmen as I've worked through my La-5, La-7 and into La-9, along with the same pilot flying the Yak-3RD (only has 1 gun, center of the nose).  With the gunsight and perks, I often get hits that I know I shouldn't, hits that I don't get when I have changed up the spec.


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

WafflesOfWrath #31 Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:04 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMercsn, on 15 November 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

 

All of this fails to take into account WG's aim-assist.  Where, if you get your shots close enough to a target they will be "pulled in" to it, essentially like a satellite being pulled into a planets gravity.  Think of each plane as having a small gravity bubble.  Get the shots into that bubble and you'll hit.  I have screenshots of how this works from when they first implemented it in 0.9-ish.  With the new pilot skills, if you read the text on the skill and then read between the lines and then think like a WG dev, what you'll see is that the skills likely don't just tighten up the dispersion cone or increase impulse (impulse is how likely the shots are to be at the center), they actually buff that aim-assist gravity well.

 


 

My previous testing partner (shout out to Rev01ution) doesn't currently play, but I would be very interested in conducting training room tests with the new perks as well as with the gunsight, to prove or disprove my theory.  However, based on "seat of the pants" testing by removing gunsight and respec'ing into and out of marksmen perks, I notice a greater likelihood to hit when I'm aiming poorly (or flat out think I should not be hitting a target), when using gunsight and especially when spec'd into the marksmen perks.


 

As for those who say the "firing cone" for aircraft with nose mounted guns is unaffected by the gunsight, I disagree.  Being newly returned to the game (after 3.5 years), I'm out of date on mechanics and am looking to see what might be different from then to now.  So, when I read that gunsight doesn't affect nose mounted weapons, I promptly went and tested it...by flying straight and shooting and watching where the shots went.  Nose mounted guns don't appear to have any smaller dispersion and only slightly higher impulse than wing mounted weapons.  The gun may be centerline, but those tracers sure do go everywhere.


 

The theory of "get right on their tail" to fire when using MGs, so you don't need improved dispersion is all well and good...except if you can't get right on their tail.  Then what? Being able to land shots on a target, that is chasing a friendly, without having to spend time closing the distance can be the difference between that friendly living and dying.  Plus, if you have to close that distance, you are not maneuvering.  If you are not maneuvering, you are an easier target.  So, having to close the distance to "get right on their tail" is doubly dangerous, to the player and the teammate that might otherwise be saved more quickly.


 

Either way, theory crafting is fine, but trying different things out and seeing what works best for YOU, is the way to go.   Personally, I'm a decent flyer but a bad shot, always have been.  I'll take all the auto-aim/aim-assist they'll give me!  (Even though, I'm an advocate of not having any aim-assist, and minor, more realistic dispersion -ie, the bullets go where you point them.  Again, I have screenshots of 45 degree dispersion, what gun barrel shoots a bullet out sideways?) I use gunsight and spec marksmen as I've worked through my La-5, La-7 and into La-9, along with the same pilot flying the Yak-3RD (only has 1 gun, center of the nose).  With the gunsight and perks, I often get hits that I know I shouldn't, hits that I don't get when I have changed up the spec.

 

Who says the gunsight doesn't affect nose-mounted armament? Gunsights tighten up the spread of all forward mounted guns on an aircraft, nose guns included. 

I've also seen the autoaim in action from earlier builds of WoWP, but I'm pretty sure it's been completely removed from 2.0. I use a joystick setup and I don't notice any autoaim at all (would be nice to have, right? xD)

Mercsn #32 Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:04 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 432 battles
  • 2,487
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostSaintCelestine_WH40K, on 15 November 2017 - 02:39 AM, said:

 

TL;DR version:

Equipment: Engine Tuning, Lightweight Airframe, and Improved Covering (+% engine power, +% maneuverability in all axes, and +% health) for every single plane in the friggin game, save for some ground attackers and some bombers.

 

Pilot skills: Engine Guru, Acrobatics Expert, Aerodynamics Expert (+% engine power, +% bonus to things that boost maneuverability, and +% to things that boost health and reduce crit chance on modules). Once again, this is the same as the equipment. You take the same damn skills for every single plane in the friggin game, save for some ground attackers and some bombers.


Look OP, I saved you a boatload of work.

Yes i'm pissed, yes I'm salty. I'm no genius though I have been looking for something like this. But everything you're stating basically makes it sound like every single plane is the same.

 

Maybe I just like to be different.  But, I usually don't use improved covering.  I believe the best defense against crits is not getting shot or shot at.  My strength is in maneuvering, so I can often manage to avoid incoming fire, if I react quick enough and maintain my SA (situational awareness) and wits to see that it might be coming.  Knowing that I am more susceptible to crits keeps me aware, always in the back of my mind when playing, that I need to evade quickly and play to my strengths.


 

I think things like this are a good baseline.  A place where a player can start, but not an end-all, be-all.  A player should feel free to experiment and set up their plane and pilot skills in such a way that compliments their play style and affinity with certain craft. 


 

Regarding the improved covering, I've lived through several matches with everything red/yellow from taking damage through the course of the match, but evading enough to live and kill things.  The P-39, in my case, is a great example of a craft that can operate well even if it sustains crit damage, but by choosing to boost it's maneuvering instead of taking covering can help it evade and get on target quicker.  On that craft, I run gunsight, and both pieces of maneuvering equipment along with the consumable to repair wing damage and it's a hoot.


 

I'm sure the spreadsheet or pro-player opinion would be to boost it's speed, since it has handling in abundance. With this craft, P-39, I disagree.  On the flip side, with the Spitfire, I do agree and run engine tuning and polish...and gunsight.


 

This game has always been strong on player preference.  Min-maxing in 3 dimensions is overated compared to min-maxing in a standard game with more limiting rules like a standard RPG MMO, for example.  In three dimensions, on a busy map, there's just so much going on.  Each player will have different things that may work in their favor, in a given situation.


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Mercsn #33 Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:14 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 432 battles
  • 2,487
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 15 November 2017 - 03:04 AM, said:

 

Who says the gunsight doesn't affect nose-mounted armament? Gunsights tighten up the spread of all forward mounted guns on an aircraft, nose guns included. 

I've also seen the autoaim in action from earlier builds of WoWP, but I'm pretty sure it's been completely removed from 2.0. I use a joystick setup and I don't notice any autoaim at all (would be nice to have, right? xD)

 

hmmmm....I can't recall the name, but in my search for info to catch me up on the game, I saw a recent post where someone said gunsight didn't help dispersion on nose guns.


 

Regarding aim-assist...I think it's more tied into the perks now. Although, seat of the pants (and knowing WG, especially if they're going more "casual") tells me that there's still some small "gravity" tied to each craft.  I tried a speed build for my fw-190 which didn't include marksmen perks.  This was rough on me as I wasn't able to land enough damage on high speed passes.  So, I went back to marksmen and noticed that I'd get more hits on a pass.  Sure, I was a little bit slower, but my aim wasn't any better and I was scoring more hits.


 

I have literally been chasing people in my La-x planes and been thinking, "I should not be hitting that guy with this lead".  When the match is a comfortable victory and the bot is much less maneuverable, I've played around with it a bit, varying my shooting lead as well as aiming off his centerline to see where I can still score hits...hits that really shouldn't land.  I'd really be interested in testing it out in a training room.  My guess would be that you need a red plane to try it out on, green planes probably wouldn't have the same "gravity", if it exists at all now (I'm not discounting "placebo" effect, until I have seen aim-assist proved or disproved in the current version).


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

WafflesOfWrath #34 Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:38 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMercsn, on 15 November 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

 

hmmmm....I can't recall the name, but in my search for info to catch me up on the game, I saw a recent post where someone said gunsight didn't help dispersion on nose guns.


 

Regarding aim-assist...I think it's more tied into the perks now. Although, seat of the pants (and knowing WG, especially if they're going more "casual") tells me that there's still some small "gravity" tied to each craft.  I tried a speed build for my fw-190 which didn't include marksmen perks.  This was rough on me as I wasn't able to land enough damage on high speed passes.  So, I went back to marksmen and noticed that I'd get more hits on a pass.  Sure, I was a little bit slower, but my aim wasn't any better and I was scoring more hits.


 

I have literally been chasing people in my La-x planes and been thinking, "I should not be hitting that guy with this lead".  When the match is a comfortable victory and the bot is much less maneuverable, I've played around with it a bit, varying my shooting lead as well as aiming off his centerline to see where I can still score hits...hits that really shouldn't land.  I'd really be interested in testing it out in a training room.  My guess would be that you need a red plane to try it out on, green planes probably wouldn't have the same "gravity", if it exists at all now (I'm not discounting "placebo" effect, until I have seen aim-assist proved or disproved in the current version).

 

I *do* know that you get an accuracy penalty if your pilot isn't 100% trained on the aircraft, but for all this other gunnery stuff I'd need to do some testing (testing that would be easier if WG would actually share some of the mechanics with us)

TwistedKestrel #35 Posted 15 November 2017 - 02:11 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 168 battles
  • 313
  • [KAIJU] KAIJU
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012

Just based on my experience on the last week alone, I'd say there *has* to be some auto aim. There is no way my aim is that good. Mercsn's description seem to fit with what I was seeing.

 

Possibly worth noting that I had gunsights on pretty much everything (started pulling them off though). FWIW I'd be willing to help test


Edited by TwistedKestrel, 15 November 2017 - 02:15 PM.


Einssniper #36 Posted 15 November 2017 - 07:21 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 622 battles
  • 284
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    09-11-2015

I do like players do their homework and prepare cheat sheet

for their exams;

it helps them understand the game better



Catch21 #37 Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:42 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 466 battles
  • 63
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

As a newbie, just commenting on tiers 1-3. Maybe post 2.0 it's a somewhat different game, because I'm finding flak a real problem. So on Tier 1-3 (multi-role) fighters, I go with as defaults:

 

1) Concealed Livery I- reduces efficiency of enemy AA and rear gun fire by 30%. That's a big bang for the buck. Every pilot deserves this.

2) Improved Covering I- 20% less chance of crits to wings/tail and 5% extra HPs.

3) Depends, default is Improved Optical Sight (+10%), but on the fire-prone Self-Sealing Fuel Tank I (for example).

 

So these are defaults for these machines, and then I have to persuade the pilot why to give up one for something else...

 

Given these %age boosts (30%, 20%, 10%), I just don't see the point on +3% on Lightweight Airframe I/Control Surface Adjustment or a 5% Engine Tuning I boost on machines where, for the most part, it'd be like putting lipstick on either a pig (low base airspeed) or the [edited- let's try again w h o r e] of Babylon (high base maneuverability). 

 

For Ground Attack Aircraft, defaults would be:

 

1) Concealed Livery I- rationale as above.

2) Reinforced Airframe I- 10% less chance of crits to engine(s), crew, wings, tail and 15% extra HPs.

3) Additional Armor Plates I- 20% less chance of injury to pilot and crits to engine(s)/rear gun(s)

 

These I've seen no reason to adjust for any machine (yet). Improved Covering I is double the protection (20%) but only 5% extra HPs, but it only covers wings/tail and I need the engine(s) covered too and crew (particularly tail gunner) alive longer. Level bombing runs are the order of the day, so crits to wings/tail when level already I view as less important than crew protection, and flying straight, low and close, sights seem a lesser priority than protection.

 

Of course, you can say these are expensive items in low tiers, but I bought all of them in the weekend sale @ 50% off so not too many missions to cover costs. Besides aren't the lives of your boys (girls?) worth it?

 

I've just started on tiers IV-V after some 50% weekend purchases, but I'm not feeling like I'm going to change my attitude here, unless someone persuades me otherwise- maybe the game has changed significantly in 2.0+ (I wouldn't know but guesses: Flak? Bombers?). My IL-2 (mod) Premium GAA is kitted out as described here- also here in more detail) and all my Soviet Tier V (MR) Fighters have Improved Covering II as default (persuade the pilot otherwise) plus in some cases Self-Sealing Fuel Tank II in the fire-prone and Improved Reflector Sight I. If not fire-prone the third slot goes to Engine Tuning or Improved Radiator (these both dismountable), and again persuade the pilot otherwise.

 

I like the idea of defaults and making a case for deviation from default per aircraft/aircraft type. But am open to suggestion and appreciate the insights I get from hearing the thoughts of others and veterans here.


Edited by Catch21, 15 November 2017 - 09:47 PM.


WafflesOfWrath #38 Posted 16 November 2017 - 02:05 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

 

 

 

View PostCatch21, on 15 November 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

As a newbie, just commenting on tiers 1-3. Maybe post 2.0 it's a somewhat different game, because I'm finding flak a real problem. So on Tier 1-3 (multi-role) fighters, I go with as defaults:

 

1) Concealed Livery I- reduces efficiency of enemy AA and rear gun fire by 30%. That's a big bang for the buck. Every pilot deserves this.

2) Improved Covering I- 20% less chance of crits to wings/tail and 5% extra HPs.

3) Depends, default is Improved Optical Sight (+10%), but on the fire-prone Self-Sealing Fuel Tank I (for example).

 

So these are defaults for these machines, and then I have to persuade the pilot why to give up one for something else...

 

Given these %age boosts (30%, 20%, 10%), I just don't see the point on +3% on Lightweight Airframe I/Control Surface Adjustment or a 5% Engine Tuning I boost on machines where, for the most part, it'd be like putting lipstick on either a pig (low base airspeed) or the [edited- let's try again w h o r e] of Babylon (high base maneuverability). 

 

For Ground Attack Aircraft, defaults would be:

 

1) Concealed Livery I- rationale as above.

2) Reinforced Airframe I- 10% less chance of crits to engine(s), crew, wings, tail and 15% extra HPs.

3) Additional Armor Plates I- 20% less chance of injury to pilot and crits to engine(s)/rear gun(s)

 

These I've seen no reason to adjust for any machine (yet). Improved Covering I is double the protection (20%) but only 5% extra HPs, but it only covers wings/tail and I need the engine(s) covered too and crew (particularly tail gunner) alive longer. Level bombing runs are the order of the day, so crits to wings/tail when level already I view as less important than crew protection, and flying straight, low and close, sights seem a lesser priority than protection.

 

Of course, you can say these are expensive items in low tiers, but I bought all of them in the weekend sale @ 50% off so not too many missions to cover costs. Besides aren't the lives of your boys (girls?) worth it?

 

I've just started on tiers IV-V after some 50% weekend purchases, but I'm not feeling like I'm going to change my attitude here, unless someone persuades me otherwise- maybe the game has changed significantly in 2.0+ (I wouldn't know but guesses: Flak? Bombers?). My IL-2 (mod) Premium GAA is kitted out as described here- also here in more detail) and all my Soviet Tier V (MR) Fighters have Improved Covering II as default (persuade the pilot otherwise) plus in some cases Self-Sealing Fuel Tank II in the fire-prone and Improved Reflector Sight I. If not fire-prone the third slot goes to Engine Tuning or Improved Radiator (these both dismountable), and again persuade the pilot otherwise.

 

I like the idea of defaults and making a case for deviation from default per aircraft/aircraft type. But am open to suggestion and appreciate the insights I get from hearing the thoughts of others and veterans here.

You should never put concealing livery on GA. Attack aircraft as a class take less AA damage and have the capacity to kill all the AA on a cap point. You should wipe out most, if not ALL AA on your first pass, and AA can't damage you if it's dead, making livery useless


Edited by WafflesOfWrath, 16 November 2017 - 02:05 AM.


__ThisMachine__ #39 Posted 16 November 2017 - 05:29 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 8 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    08-01-2013

why do you all want to believe what you see in the gun animations makes any difference? it doesnt. the engine does the math first, and then tries to draw results which match. which is why what you see often does not match what is actually happening to the target. if it was actually tracking shots, you should be able to start directly above a ground target, begin firing well beyond maximum range and still cause damage, but that will never happen because you have a zero hit chance at some point in the probability engine which is actually calculating damage. and until you cross that magic threshold, you will not score any hits.

 

gun sights do "work" they provide the indicated accuracy bonus around the aim point, but there is no "cone" its strictly a probability engine based on type of weapon, range, crew skill level and any perks, and before garbage mode at least, target motion. (plus nonsensical perks from attacker flight aspect... but again, thats just put into a probability engine based on aim point)

 

yes, you will get more hits with a gun sight and any weapon at any given range (if on correct aim point), but you will get a lot of hits with MGs at close range anyway, and because it is reducing the "spread" in its calculations around aim point you will get fewer hits at mid/longer range with MGs (if you are not right on the magic aim point), but all you are doing shooting MGs at long range is heating up your guns because of the overall very low hit probability.

 

so its not that gun sights dont work, they do, but its a matter of "opportunity costs". is that advantage in the relatively small flight regime where they matter on an MG plane worth the loss of another piece of equipment that can be of benefit in a wider range of situations?

 

also momentum is modeled both poorly and inconsistently, so "power" whether its from engine boost or "energy" from diving is extremely important in maneuvering. i cannot speak to how changes have been implemented to boost in garbage mode, but it comes as no surprise to see engine "boosts" recommended on virtually every plane/perk, because of the inconsistent way the game engine has always handled momentum. when actual airframe differences mattered a lot more in pre-garbage mode, you could often overcome what should have been more agile planes in turning if you could run them out of power before you did through, equipment, crew perks, or energy management, which frankly only the much better players ever did or will understand.

 

if what im reading is correct that they have significantly "nerfed" BNZ play through allowing the lights and multis to now be able to close an elevation gap easily its just another classic example of WG "dumbing down" its game rather than forcing players to learn proper tactics for their planes or as general principles of air combat.

 

the game has never been a "hard core" simulator but its obvious they have wrecked it they same way they wrecked their flagship game. for the old timers who want to stick around and dominate an ever increasingly weak player base, have at it. but its not entertaining for me anymore, and im not going to reward WG for defecating (and you all know what i mean) in the face of the players who kept the game alive when they deliberately make changes to reduce the importance of player skill..


Edited by __ThisMachine__, 16 November 2017 - 05:32 AM.


SaintCelestine_WH40K #40 Posted 16 November 2017 - 06:58 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 259 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-08-2013

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 15 November 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

 

Who says the gunsight doesn't affect nose-mounted armament? Gunsights tighten up the spread of all forward mounted guns on an aircraft, nose guns included. 

I've also seen the autoaim in action from earlier builds of WoWP, but I'm pretty sure it's been completely removed from 2.0. I use a joystick setup and I don't notice any autoaim at all (would be nice to have, right? xD)

 

There's your problem. Stop playing the game with that thing and use a keyboard and mouse. You'll do far better. If you wanna use a joystick, go play War Thunder Realistic and Simulator battles, a game and game modes that were actually designed to be played with the joystick.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users