If you put us on radar when we spawn, we quit

Can someone explain this to me? This is apparently coming from the same people demanding radar. Apparently they are worried that if they have to spawn in and spend 40 minutes preparing for take-off, showing a blip on radar at their airfield the whole while, the enemy will see that and attack them.

Would it only be the other guy that had radar, hence you couldn’t see him coming? Or is it that what they are trying to solve is the problem that they can’t find the other guy, and as a result the other guy is doing heinous things like bombing factorys and vulching airfields?

It just seems like the same people saying “if we don’t have some way to see the enemy coming we’re gonna quit” are simultaneously saying “but if the enemy sees me coming, I’m gonna quit”. 

All fæcetiousness aside – I am genuinely perplexed by this seeming dichotomy – if people don’t appear on radar with plenty of time for you to vector to and intercept them … then whats the point of the feature? And if they do, erh, you’ll see them coming if they fly towards where you are parked, right?

Footnote: We’ve already made sure you won’t appear on radar before you take off and for some time afterwards. I imagine this will give rise to people quitting because someone was able to attack them without ever appearing on radar. La, la, la.


i think it’s mainly the fighter only pilots not wanting their precious surprise to be spoiled because OMG realism!!!! these same pilots refuse to give up plane circles because “oMG its just a game with limitations on visibility etc”.

well, which is it? a game you want to have fun in or an exact duplication or realism? cause the latter just isn’t possible ever because, it’s not fucking real!

lots of fillibustering over unknown quantities IMO. frankly i think what has been proposed thus far will be nice. escorts will have some heads up that interceptors are close and interceptors will know bombers can’t ide from them and, OMG, they can see escorts too!

that almost sounds like an air battle, perish the thought.

as a follow up to my comment. i really don’t think anything near, on, or around the front will really change all that much. as it is, unfortunately, air brigades can and are stacked as near the front as possible. this more or less killed off the BARCAP.

if airfields are ever made more vulnerable (please god please!) and HCs are forced to think about brigade placement a bit more then radar could in theory alert people heading to target of enemy precense. this is only bad for the prowler in that the prowlee, if he is concious (fiarly low probability), may be staying more alert and will see the prowler coming.

at any rate, this proposed radar really is the first step to enabling the strategic airwar. now we need more targets (airfields!!!!!) and eventually more (real/big) bombers.

oh, and STO bombs :D.

I didn’t mean “the same general group of people” but in many cases, literally the same individuals.

That sounds an alarm for me. When someone says “I want toast, but I want it raw”, I figure there is a miscommunication in progress.

So when someone says “I want both sides to see very vaguely where enemy planes are, but don’t let the enemy see me so he can attack me without warning” – it defies logic, it HAS to be a misunderstanding. What I’m hearing is “let us see each other”, an unbiased, bi-partisan system, and yet there is a partisan, one-sided caveat. Or seen another way – the problem only exists if you don’t have radar.

I’m guessing I’m one of the guys you’re talking about, but I can only speak for myself. From the start I’ve only wanted radar to cover a certain distance around the factories to end the skirting… sure, that one could display fighters as well but we’re getting radar over the entier map (righ?) and from what I understand, that’s about as realistic as showing just bombers on it. as long as it’s not realistic, why not make it so that it so that it removes skirting, but doesn’t mess with other things where we don’t really know the outcome.

if you look at it reality wise, well… I haven’t read anything about allied bombers knowing where the interceptors were at until they had visual on them. all they knew was that they were probably detected and fighters had most likley been sent up to hunt them.

so, there you have it… my view on radar.

sniff, and yet bombers/escorts could realistically acquire ID from more than 5 times our visual range and in many accounts from WW2, large flights of bombers were like hearing thunder as it approaches on the horizon.

lets also not forget that this is a game, not a real war. playing whack a mole in the air isn’t fun.

fighters cruise at anywhere from 250-550kph the proposed system is at this point suggested to be 20km^2 grids with update rates between 30-60 seconds on top of that the updates won’t be accurate like friendly radar.

as fast as fighters move, as slow as the updates are, as inaccurate as they may be …. what exactly are you worried about?

You guys screwed yourselves back at the concept’s earliest mentions, by seeding the notion that you were simulating radar. Radar systems have limitations and can be evaded. The game clearly needs a system that has no equivalent limitations and cannot be evaded.

IMO your marketing team needs to do a better job of deciding in advance when “simulation” is an apt description of what’s going to be added to the game and should be the message, and when what’s being added must be non-simulative and the message needs to aggressively *deny and refute* the relevance of simulation and realism. And, the message effort needs to be phase-coherent, including forumz and blogs. Negative energy is contagious, and message control is about avoiding self-inflicted damage.

actually jwilly the system (when officially mentioned by a rat that it was coming) was always pitched as something that would encompass all aspects of detection. players assumed it was ‘just radar’. at least i never recall reading that from any rat.

We didn’t call it “radar” for the longest time. I’ve only started calling it radar since the specs and conversations came across my desk. That will no-doubt be cited by the “don’t give in to the player’s giving things name” camp within CRS.

Thanks for replying, sniff; that clarifies what you aren’t looking for :) But the point of this post was that there seems to be a conflict between what people want (ability to find other planes to fight, warning of bombers approaching factories to curtail skirting, incentive for fighters to escort bombers by increasing likelihood of engagement – all thru some kind of indicator system) vs what they don’t (unrealism of knowing where the enemy is)

Yes, a vague, abstract system which isn’t radar detracts from realism, but it also isn’t remotely “enemy plane at N50.0.0 E39.2.34 hdg 118 spd 350” which would also detract from realism.

I think that in many cases it is a fair representation of various things and that the less rules you have the cleaner it is and less gamey (c.f. guys on an airfield who die *because* they’re not on radar, and those same rules mean that the guy who killed them hadn’t shown up on radar yet – he didn’t know they were there, but its an airfield. DUH)

And we’re talking about a system that is neccessary, in part, to counter the fact that you are players, not pilots (skirting). It’s quite conceivable that people would drive planes around on the ground to avoid detection, so once you’re painted we can’t unpaint you.

Adding a realistic radar wouldn’t solve the unrealism problem at the heart of the issue; conceeding to an unrealistic grid system is a gameplay choice with the objective of achieving realistic flights and formations and escorts.

I think the problem here is that you read the forums. ;)

What I still don’t understand is, how is an all-encompassing grid of 400 km^2 cells that show presence better than the arguably more realistic non-all-encompassing grid of 400 km^2 cells that show presence and heading? I think the latter makes much more sense.

well, honestly… if you’re just looking to fight an enemy plane you can look around at AOs. I usually don’t have any trouble finding action doing that, but it does require that the enemy has planes in the air at all and that’s the real problem imo.

on the radar… one of the things about this game that caught my attention in the first place is the fact that we have WTF!? moments. I like it when my adrenaline starts to pump after 7 of the 9 grey circles I found just turned red and I know I’m in trouble. That can easily be avoided by staying 20k away from any large groups of enemy fighters you see on the map and turning the radar in to the opposite of what you’re looking for.

I guess what I’m most worried about loosing here is that “feeling”… like when we got ammo counters and gone were those “oh I’m f***ed now!” moments when you forgot to count the rounds in a busy right.

btw. just so I know… will the radar just give grey circle information like “there are planes here” or “there are enemy planes here”?

A word of advice, take the nuggets that KFS1 is handing out. Return back to your hanger and smokem. Come up with a plan. So that when “Radar” does make it into the game. You will be able to take advantage of it.

We’ve talked about TOE’s here for a year, gleaning what it was going to mean to the game. Wrapping our heads about how the brigade is the supply and supply can be cut off. You can see the results on this last map of executing a plan and seeing what happens.

The whole intent of “Radar” is to get bigger air battles going.

Right now 99% of air battles start like this:

All of the air just shoots things on the ground until enemy air shows up. Enemy air trickles in 1-2 at a time. Combat quickly breaks down to 1-1 or 3-1. Enemy shot down, resume shooting things on the ground.


Imagine battles of 10 on 10 or 20 on 20. In the Air the ground will become something you don’t want to get close to. Most of the air combat is happening to low on the deck right now.


YOur implementation of “radar” will be fine – I think you are over-reacting! Bear in mind that many of the sane and rational people stopped strat bombing long ago – its just not that fun.

As you know, simulating strategic bombing with the intent of getting semi-realistic, fun gameplay is VERY difficult. Your radar system is a step in the right direction.

However, nobody wants it to result in the mass slaughter of bomber flights on a regular basis. If you want to establish control over this, could you perhaps use TOEs of the interceptor squadrons? You could:

a) Create an “interceptor squadron” template with a smaller number of aircraft, and not allow any other squadron types to deploy near the RDP airfields. or,

b) Let the HCs decide where they should deploy fighter squadrons, and hope they bias it towards front line fields.

c) look to a revised mission system for some solution that prevents strat bomber sorties without escorts

By the way, I cant think of another game element that highlights the short-comings of the mission system better than strat bombing.



Lets face it, we’re adults (mostly) that play games. There’s bound to be some childish irrationality in the community base. What’s important is to look past those types of people.

WWIIOL should be simple and just do just one thing, help players find each other to fight. The rules should be simple:
* If the A/C is on the ground and not moving faster than taxiing speed, it should not be visible on radar
* If the A/C is in the air, it’s visible no matter where it is on the map.

This whole nonsense of limiting radar penetration is exactly that, nonsense. Since both sides can see each other, you know exactly when and where to Take-off and find the enemy. It worked incredibly well in other games, it’s fun, it’s all that we need. What about the ‘realism’?

a) Anal-obsessive realism is strangling this game. Realism is good, it is what makes WWIIOL unique, so don’t get me wrong **I’m all for it*, but it can’t be at the expense of a fun playing experience. And given CRS’ limited resources, it’s better to quickly spit out a simple fun solution that we can have now, then a complex fun solution two years from now.

b) In a true war situation, airfields were heavily spied on. The Germans and Allies often knew the A/C where in the air before the crews did.

c) It would make the project a hell of a lot simpler so we can get it that much sooner. No need to bother with complex code to figure how to solve the skirting issue, etc.

My overall view of WWIIOL is that CRS really needs to take a step back from obsessive realism and focus on the important need for the game to be fun and accessible to a wider group of players. I don’t know maybe I’m wrong and the WWIOL player base has tripled in the 2 years I’ve been away, but somehow I don’t think that is the case.


“WWIIOL should be simple and just do just one thing,”

scratch that, it should say

“Radar should be simple and just do just one thing,…”

Although, honestly both statements are valid.

The reason people don’t like all encompassing map wide radar which shows you forming up on the ground is surely really easy to understand.
Currently we have almost all our Air brigades stacked at the front lines except maybe two at the back for Startegic Bombing. when the enemy can look at their map and see a large number of aircraft reported on EWS at Amiens they know that a bomber flight will be inbound to the factories. this gives them ample time to form a flight of their own and intercept the bomber flight not long after it leaves the AF. This would be a slaughter.
I am an escort pilot for the Dambusters and have done hundreds of missions in WWIIOL, and can say that if the enemy know we are coming as early as this new radar provides then we will have no chance of ever getting through. Yes more people may get involved as bomber or escort, but even more people will be eager to grab a fighter and intercept the flight, and if this leads to a succession of flight getting hammered before they get to the factories then we will just give up.

People wanted radar in the first place solely as a way to defend against skirters, nobody ever mentioned a problem with finding EA anywhere else over the front lines, but we are now given this new map wide radar system and told it is going to solve problems that nobody actually ever mentioned.

the radar people had envisioned in their minds would only cover a circle around each factory with say a 100klm radius maximum, we never requested anything that covered the whole map, just an ample warning system to defend against skirting bomber flight.


I think you just mentioned the solution to your own concern. It lies in the way fighters are deployed in the game, as well as the number of fighters.

And I would add, the real weakness in the mission system that allows sombody who is SUPPOSED to be on a BARCAP east of Antwerp, to drop everything and go racing after a bomber formation in the middle of the map.

Radar is necessary, but perhaps CRS may have to look at ways to constrain fighter activities if the bombers find it difficult to get through.

(although sombody did point out that the bombers could just fly higher. There are only so many interceptor dudes willing to put the time into climbing up that high)


I am 100% with Allibone, as a bomber “expert” myself.

I don’t think we need map wide radar, just like allibone said, a ring of x distance that will give more clues to the bombers approach. We already have ews for while we are flying over enemy territory which is more than enough info. This was only to stop skirting. Besides can you imagine trying to find something on the map like a AO if there are these extra 100-200 icons all over the map

So what your saying is that bomber pilots are a bunch of wusses who can’t take a little heat, eh?

*I joke.* Bomber pilot myself. Visit my website for bombing material.

Radar will be good for everyone, fighters and bombers. There’s no question pilots will have to improve their tactics, but that doesn’t mean it’s just one big disaster like you’re making it out to be. Intercepting a 350kt cruising bomber (not to mention a group of bombers with escorts) at 30,000ft+ with a ‘radar’ that gives you a huge 2000km search area every 30-60sec is not going to be easy at all.

Bomber runs, escort and interception is not only what WWII pilots did 90% of the time, it is also hands down the hottest air action there is (speaking from exp. in WBs, etc)


Currently we have Axis interceptors that sit at an altitude of 9000metres over the front lines waiting to intercept the bomber flight which is at 6000metres. (the bombsight only goes to 6klm) If we get intercepted by an organised group of only 4 109s then we are usually suffer very heavy losses. It is practically impossible to stop a fighter on his initial pass on the formation if he comes in at co alt with the escorts or higher.

I am not just saying that the Axis will do this against the current Allied bombign raids. I will do this. I will sit at the map screen and check for the Axis bomber brigade deployments and watch for activity in and around these Airfields. The very moment that I see bomber activity at say Monchen Gladbach or Koln then I will be organising flights to go and intercept that formation, and no matter how good their escorts will be, I will have them jumped and destroyed before they get within 100klm of the Allied Factories. It is very easy to get 10+ people minimum invovled in an inercept mission on the Allied side, when we know that there is a flight coming over our current EWS system, it will be far easier to do this with new proposed radar system.

Zheriz, when you say that all-seeind radar worked well in other games, which games are you actually talking about? Aces High at least has destroyable radars and “radar horizon”.

Unsurprisingly, strikes to airfields are often done below the radar coverage. This of course good, because it’s relatively easy to intercept an unseen strike coming in at 100 meters compared to an strike unseen strike coming in at 5000 meters.

AH also has are AI drone wingmen for bombers. These make bomber flights of dozens of aircraft a common sight, and take back some of the advantage radar gives to the defender.

I think the AH model works very well, but the proposed WW2OL model seems really rather optimistic if the designer assumes that any bombers are actually going to get to target.


With all due respect, from one bomber pilot to another, you’re just being protective of the comfy bombing runs you enjoy. The scenarios you are presenting are set-piece outcomes. The reality will be, any fighter swarm buzzing around waiting for a bomber formation is going to be visible on radar as well, and sure enough an enemy fighter swarm is going to notice this buzzing around up there and promptly come along to knock them out of the sky.

There is about a million and one things that can happen. Including:
* a ‘smart’ escort that sweeps far ahead of the formation and engages the swarm far in advance of any bombers
* fighter sweeps
* decoy flights …remember, the radar only tells you it’s an A/C not a bomber or fighter. You can do all sorts of decoy and bait tactics
* huge bomber runs to overcome any casualties
* CRS is guaranteed to make the factories more sensitive to damage to compensate for higher attrition.
* since they can find each other faster with radar, pilots are going to be much more busy dogfighting to have the time to go around chasing bombers all the time. There will be gaps, fog of war, higher A/C attrition meaning less available supply, etc, and those bombers will make it through frequently.

I agree with one thing, bombsights will need to be improved to work up to 10-12km


Allibone speaks from experience as do I. Reddog and others have been flying the Strat War in this game for 4 years now. We do not speak about these things lightly. In fact, you’ll find that I have spoken very little about it until now. Allibone is not being protective of any “Comfy Bombing Runs” as you describe it. We get decimated often when our counterparts are flying factory defense.

You make statements that have no basis in reality, even game reality. It would be nice, screw that, it would be super freaking fantastic to have a sight that went to 12km. Now couple that with a new bomber, oh you forgot, DB7 and Havoc Service Ceiling is no where near that. So that assumption is out the window.

Now, coming from someone who actually worked RADAR, GCI as well ASR, PAR, both Raw and computer generated radar, and enroute radar, what I think we need is as simple as allibone and reddog mention. We need RADAR Type information from 60km maybe 100km around the facility that you are protecting. I assume we’ll have more targets in the future, so let’s not limit it to Factories only with our thinking as we implement this feature.

Now with the ability in the future to protect other facilities, the RADAR Unit must be a destroyable entity in game. It gives Bomber pilots new targets to hit. Let’s not forget the bomber pilots in this scenario.

Radar in World War two was not very accurate, especially in the early years. It was not a precise instrument. It was easy to defeat with “Window”, “Chaff” to those too young to know. It was certainly not able to see several hundreds of kilometers away.

I think you’re on the right track KFS, I just think complete map wide coverage is not what we need. I agree with the WTF moments in game and complete map wide RADAR will tend to end most of those climatic moments in game.

I was tasked with creating ASLAR procedures for the Air Force in the eraly 80’s. Aircraft Surge Launch and Recovery procedures. With this reduced minimum separation Air Traffic Control Procedure came the ability to defend yourself and your facilities.

We developed a procedure with roving Stinger teams. A Jeep and a Stinger launcher with 4 spare onboard a trailer. The Army handed me a grid map and it was quickly shown how that did not work. Before a contact could be given, he was through the grid. Think of corridors leaving your facility in a straight line away from the facility. Aircraft normally approach a target with a good portion of their inbound flight within or near the same radial outbound from a facility.

When you’re in the Air, it’s Radial and DME from a specific point. Aircraft bearing 220 degrees 80 DME (Distance Measuring Equipment). This would relate to the game radar as Enemy Aircraft bearing sw of Koln 80 kilometers. As was true in world war two, this radar should be generalized information and not flight specific location and altitude.

OK, enough for me. I’m looking forward to the increased Air War this could produce. But it must be produced with caution, not helter skelter.

I should point out, I’m not opposed to radar limits behind the front line. I even posted a link on German & Allied radar information, that includes detailed specs and range capability. I’ll post the link again here:


My points are:
* if a complex radar system is going to take months more to make (the rats first mentioned radar for patch 1.20 IIRC) then it’s better to go with a simple clean setup and get it out the door already
* because, while the few bomber runs that do occur may or may not suffer from it, the dogfight war will be vastly improved
* which is important to draw back the many pilots that have fled the game (from what I hear)
* if the ‘radar’ is just going to be around the factories, then there is no point even bother with it, we already have EWS. The difference between the two is marginal, the coding effort would be hardly worth it

I like bombing. I was one of the first in WWIIOL to put together a comprehensive set of guides on bombing for WWIIOL. But my perspective is different, I value the fight. I would look at KFS1s radar as a fun challenge and I would welcome the fight. But that’s just me. Other people like milk runs, so fine, I’m sure KFS1 will take all this input and find a solution he thinks is best.


Zheriz i think im going to have to join axis to enjoy these comfy bomber runs :P.
Im all for a zone of radar around important targets (or even front line radar) but certainly NOT map ranging radar, as any advantage of taking off from rear airfields to gain height will be totally pointless as we’d be giving every fighter in the game time to rtb and take off again to intercept.

If you put map wide radar on…hell we may aswell put in a star wars defence system while your at it.


1) kfs1 has already mentioned exclusions. i don’t think anyone wants planes on the ground showing up.

2) if the interceptors know you’re coming, you know they’re coming too.

it is entirely possible that a few escorts can patrol well ahead of the bombers seaking out the interceptors.


Just by reading your description of the problem, and thinking back to when I was a virtual pilot in WWII Online I believe the problem is two fold.

1) Factories need protection from bombers and adequate warning of approaching Enemy aircraft in order to sound the air raid sirens and allow interceptors to well… intercept.

Very few people want to spend their time hunting ghosts, and they want a good bomber stream to attack. They want to see a huge bomber formation approaching, dive in, let their guns blaze in that huge Aerial circus.

2) Friendly Airfields and airspace for that matter need protection from indirect enemy observation to allow big game plans to form up. These raids take a lot of planning, a lot of time forming up, and a lot of patience.

The bombers travel at a lot slower speed then the interceptors, and the moment they are painted, they will suffer attack ,after attack, after attack, until they are worn down, demoralized, and decimated.

Given both sides of that same coin, I definitely can see why someone would scream from both of those directions.

After reflecting some more on my experiences on WWII Online, I really don’t think any of these will really even come remotely close to achieving what you want out of it.

The Air war really just needs more bomber pilots. The AI bomber wingman would go a long way to getting bigger fights. It would allow the bomber pilots more substance to withstand the abuse, and escort pilots more chances to protect their big friends.

As someone mentioned above, you are not going to achieve realism or even remotely close to it, because it is a game, without the fear of death, and everyone is a damn highlander with year, and years, and years of combat experience.

The number of people in here still saying “But radar doesn’t really work like that” make me despair for the human race.


It’s an amalgam, of which a radar system would be ONE COMPONENT. The end point is to bring bodies to the fight, and increase the content of the game (because combat = content).

I would have to agree as one of those who get shot at alot over the factories that wide map radar would kill the rdp war altogether. We have to have realism in here too, and in reality the radar was very primitive. sure radar at a certain distance from the target is what would work 50-100 mile range.

radar wasn’t limited to single fixed locations X distance from something important. it was deployed all over.

also, this isn’t JUST radar. it’s also ground spotters recon and any other type of early detection rolled into one.

this is just like LMGs, mortars, snipers et al. you guys are freaking out about something that actually offers LESS accurate detection than what we have now.

Firstly, let me expression honest appreciation for those of you replying to my question. It was a gamble throwing the gauntlet down the way I did, but reading the replies I’m glad to see it taken the way I hoped.

Allibone wrote:nobody ever mentioned a problem with finding EA anywhere else over the front lines

Exit polls (for a start) … It actually seems less difficult right now because fog and stutters earlier this year did for our pilot population what bird flu is doing for dodo’s in china. To be honest, I think the problem is a similar problem to what we see on the ground – people either find 1 on 1s or they find furballs, and what they want is the more-than-occasional middle ground.

I feel I have to re-iterate part of my original question though: Why 100km? Is that some sort of safe cutoff at which your chances of making the factories exceeds the enemy’s chance of intercepting you, and if so, what value does that have? It means pilots who scramble early will have a nice guide to you and you won’t know they’re coming. Surely a low-fi system that covers the whole map will (a) have a much higher signal:noise ratio (b) not give all of the advantage to the other guy – you’ll see him coming so that as an escort you’ll be better able to defend your formation?

I’d like you to consider a thought experiment. Picture yourself and a squad form sitting on the AF at Berry. Mentally hit ESC and despawn out of your group and zoom the image out to the map. Imagine, for a moment, the map gridded with thousands of 20×20 squares shaded orange or red depending on whether theres (thumb-in-air figure) 1-10 or 10+ aircraft, updating once a minute as aircraft depart, fly toward, fight over, return from and land all over the map. Does it still sound like you’re going to be so under the microscope that the cons outweigh the pros?

The good news is – the first thing on our “can we do an air warning” system was to make sure we didn’t paint people sitting on the AF.

Kizmet: Very good points, very well written. Try to remember that this isn’t radar, though, I make no bones about the fact that its a gameplay system :) And while I am continually trying to find ways to get more air objectives into the game getting real radar objects into the game prior to OSG and TEII is just not an option :(

Killer tends to describe the “air grid” or “air warning” system as the air raid wardens calling up HQ and saying “hey man we just saw a whole bunch of those big enemy birds flying overhead”. So I’m guessing it will probably be territorially limited, but the final design hasn’t crossed my desk yet.

Kfsone, a territorially limited system of “air raid wardens” soundss good. It’s also hugely different from the non-territorially-limited system that so many seem to think they dislike.

I just wish our “air raid wardens” had the discipline to report “9 two-engined enemy planes spotted over FOOBAR, heading 80, altitude over 5 km” instead of just “hey man, we just saw a whole bunch of those big enemy birds flying overhead” :)

I think in trying to find a solution to the problem it is important to understand how we got to this discussion in the first place.

There was a time when EWS showed bombers and fighters at airfields and factories only. As such most bomber formations heading for the factories would fly a course that avoided enemy airfiled thus avoiding setting off EWS.

That was changed a couple of years ago, Fighter ews was removed and all enemy towns set off Bomber ews. When this happened many bomber pilots chose to fly around the map to avoid EWS. They were accused of cheating etc, yet it was pointed out in return that the English channel, (having no towns) meant that it was possible for axis bombers to reach target and drop bombs just after EWS was active.

Radar (for want of a better word) was suggested to cover the area over the English channel and along the edge of the map to prevent skirting.

The discussion has now moved on to a system that pin points enemy aircraft possitions to enhance game play, something that is not totaly historicaly correct. Both sides had limited Radar capability, both sides had observers on the ground.

As such, I would suggest that a simple system (simple as in I have no idea how much coding this takes) would be to include Fighter EWS on all enemy towns. Increase the EWS range of all towns around the edge of the map and on the English coast.

Personaly I do not feel that the spirit of this game would be enhanced if we had a high tech pin point accurate (20kmsq’) system that shows where enemy air is.

This is after all a simulation of WW2, yes its a game and all players have to have fun and enjoyment from thier $’s but there are already systems inplace that points us to where the fight is. It just needs to be tweeked rather than something new put in place.

This is just my opinion and others will have their own. So I offer an alternative suggestion, perhaps more radical.
How about the creation of a player Flight Controller as a “spawnable” unit, His job would be to watch a map that specificaly shows air contacts.

When selected he would spawn in at the “tower” on each airfield as a inf, He would see a different map, one that shows only air contacts and his job is to direct the Pilots on his mission to the Fight. As a reward he would get a percentage of the points scored by pilots on his/her mission. I am sure that some might find this tactical side of the game very rewarding and it enhances the idealism of team play.

I must confess I am concered that with the increased information recieved by lots of air contacts, lag could be an issue.

To answer your thought experiment, I don’t see a problem with the system you described. There is so much going on in the map and there are a lot of competing demands on pilots (CAP, A2A, A2G,…). The Air Grid you describe has a low ‘resolution’ in space and time, that while it will change air combat in game it would be ridiculous to think it strangles all air activity. As players we’ll need to adapt and improve our tactics –why?– because we’ll be bumping into each other way more often. If adapting and improving and fighting more is not fun, I don’t know what is.

KFS1: Would the simple air grid make it out by the next patch vs a complex system that might take 2-3 more patches?

What would be good is to whip up this simpler version you describe in the thought experiment and the community can test it out in beta and intermission. I bet the objections seen here will evaporate quickly as the pilots enjoy a lot more combat and we get to see what the real effect would be.


I look at the 100km limit as something that will make it harder for the bomber to get through, but not impossible and to go with that a bigger impact on the game when they do get through.

and ok, air raid warden… now it just sounds like an EWS redo. I’d probably wait to get the radar stations and such even though it’s probably ways off. would be nice though to know when, like 6 months away, 12 months?, 24? if you guys spend alot of time on this mix between ews and radar system, how long until radar is gonna float up to the top of the list after OSG and TEII?


YOu cant extrapolate based on your x years of flying in WW20, because frankly, the air war has NEVER worked properly in this game

But it DID work in AW & WBs, and in those game we had radar.
And yes, we DO want radar coverage of the whole map because perhaps some day, CRS will see the light, and create many more facility targets for us (AFs, Train stations, ports, wharehouses, 2ndary factories ect.)

What do you think will happen if/when bridges have an impact on brigade movement and resupply rates?

Interception will become much harder (even with radar) when there are 10x more targets for the bombers in the rear areas. FUrthermore, all those bomber pilots who a) dont want to fly all the way to the factories, and b) cant hit a tank with a blen, havoc or HE111, will come back to the game.



Well if that link you left for us to view was meant to give me a hard on, it did. We actually cannot wait to see heavy or heavier bombers in game. It’s something we’ve been waiting on for a long time.

My comments did not intend for the notification system to be limited to factories only. 100km is just a number. I’d have to do more research on Chain Home, etc and see what the actual ranges were. I still like as much realism injected into game play as we can. In fact, when you do get done with RADAR I certainly hope it’s implemented with a realistic scope. I’d love to play with that.

I see your point about information overload. I understand the need for a notification system. I guess my only real objection to this is realism. It just seems archade-ish to me at first glance. I’m not sure about the 1 minute updates. Is that too much notificaiton? The only way to test that is to put it in play and let’s see.

With my background, I see, when I close my eyes, many ways to take advantage of what you are discussing here. But that’s just me. I’m not sure many would or could take real advantage of the information the notification system may provide.

In any case, I know you guys will work with us on this and if necessary make changes, just like what is happening with TOE’s so I’m not going to “freak out” about it. I actually welcome some type system.

Now for the million dollar question. Is this going to help us with map skirtting? Whatever you do, please try to include something that makes map skirting impossible any more. As a group, the Allied Air Forces, we’ve challenged ourselves to learn to fight and fly through EWS. It has not been much fun at times, and one hell of a lot of fun at other times. It’s just very frustrating to fly through EWS only to have bombers who more than double our payload, skirt to the factories. I’m not placing any blame on anyone nor saying they can’t play the game the way they want. Right now, there is nothing to stop that and being a part of the game, nothing cheating or illegal about it. Well, other than plain old frustration.

When you get this ready to test KFS1, I hope you will call on the DamBusters to help you stress it and let’s see what it can do. We’d be very happy to participate in testing right from the very instant it’s first coded.

Radar will ruin this game….radar=easy mode…no longer do I have to check my 6 or anything lol…just fly to the enemy… How about this…[sarcasim]The german planes are too fast….and i cant kill a tiger tank with Hurr IIC so I want a A-10 with a 30mm of uber AP!….[/sarcasim]

Hey KFS1,

I had a thought:

How about if the fidelity of the “radar” reporting alternated randomly? What I mean by that is that if it simulates spotters and recon AND actual radar, and even spies all into one system, it stands to reason that the reports coming in from all over would vary from “ten HE111’s headed ESE” to “aircraft engines heard overhead, but no visual as there is could cover” to no report at all.

Could it vary to that degree?

Then if there was a flight heading in a certain direction you wouldn’t necessarily see the grid square light up in sequence perfectly showing its course, and you would keep some F.O.W.. A bomber flight could even change course several times throughout its mission to keep the enemy guessing.

I think it would probably rest easier with the naysayers if, like a RL spotter grid, our “radar” system was inherantly fallible.

I can see how there would be a fear of making it TOO innacurate, and I agree because it would render it almost useless. At eh same time, a real system should also often have extremely specific reporting, like “ten HE111’s headed ESE”.

What you think?

trevor8, you will make a nice flaming wreck.

Like others have already stated 100km is only a number and should be amended to fit the games needs, but going by your comment Kfsone “I feel I have to re-iterate part of my original question though: Why 100km? Is that some sort of safe cutoff at which your chances of making the factories exceeds the enemy’s chance of intercepting you, and if so, what value does that have? It means pilots who scramble early will have a nice guide to you and you won’t know they’re coming.”

One can’t help feeling that you may be anti RDP bombing? (just a question)

Speaking as a Dambuster, I can say that we as a squad are all for fair play and in go to lengths to be fair every time we play!

I trust that we do not need a system that may ruin the game, just because its the easyest way to implement radar, not that I’m saying it is, I’m no developer! But I would rather wait and continue to let those who wish to skirt do so, than see a map wide radar that is not needed!

Kfsone! don’t take any of this as a personal m8, I have respect for you guys. I just feel I should speak out when I see something that I believe will have a negative effect on the game.


hughes wrote:
The discussion has now moved on to a system that pin points enemy aircraft possitions to enhance game play,

Not here, it hasn’t. 20km x 20km x 8km is far from pin-point :)

zheriz wrote:
The Air Grid you describe has a low ‘resolution’ in space and time, that while it will change air combat in game it would be ridiculous to think it strangles all air activity

That’s really how I’m seeing it; consider it as a goal of the system. The simple air-grid would more-or-less piggy back directly off the way we quantize player positions into the game server into a “grid”.

I imagine that host-side it’ll take about 15-20 hours of coder time, maybe 5-8 hours of adjustment, and maybe 10-15 hours of host/client work to finish up.

sniff wrote:
and ok, air raid warden… now it just sounds like an EWS redo.

EWS is anchored, ARW would be gridded and unilateral, tipping its hat to several requirements while trying not to surrender to any of them outright.

kizmet wrote:
My comments did not intend for the notification system to be limited to factories only. 100km is just a number. I’d have to do more research on Chain Home, etc and see what the actual ranges were.

That’s actually a good reason not to use radar is that it just doesn’t make for good gameplay.

I can’t deny the realism point – when iMagic opened up the historical arena in WarBirds, 617 were there in a heartbeat. Absolutely loved it, but it breaks down so fast once engaged by the enemy. You have to “simulate”.

Killing map skirting is a primary goal for the system, its not based on towns or populated map areas, its based on the internal co-ordinate system used by the servers/client. The display system could be anchored to towns.

trevor8 wrote, without reading:
Radar will ruin this game….radar=easy mode…no longer do I have to check my 6 or anything lol…just fly to the enemy…

Try reading this. You only really need to read the first sentence.

drk: I think the result is that people will blame one state or the other for their deaths and demand that it be consistent :)

One can’t help feeling that you may be anti RDP bombing? (just a question)

Nope, not at all. “And while I am continually trying to find ways to get (link, click me) more air objectives into the game“…

The fact that it is easy is only part of its appeal :)

ehhh, just to be clear, I believe KFS1 and I are in agreement now about Air Grid, yeah? We’re sympatico.

Next on the menu: have a good weekend and Monday we’ll start that discussion on WWIIOL’s business model. ;)

I too fondly remember organizing a large B17 raid in WB, and I just moved and went through a bunch of old stuff and found a binder of SOP for the WB scenario “Point Blank” in 1998, which was simulating allied bombing raids over Germany. Good times! I really wish we had more strategic bombing going on.

My thoughts on this are:

* All enemy flights over friendly territory should be known. The scheme kfsone is voicing sounds appropriate to me. There should be no limits on altitude here.

* Enemy flights over enemy territory… Here I think there should be a distance limit and maybe also a min alt. After all, there were no spotters on enemy territory. IIRC, the British radar reached some distance into France, right? It was enough to be able to scramble Spits to meet incoming LW, but not so far they could see the flights forming up.

* From a gameplay issue it does not seem advantageous to see enemy planes when you are over enemy territory. You should feel exposed and unsure about what’s about to hit you here.

* On the other hand, the bomber flights are going to be vulnerable while forming up and climbing. If the enemy can spot them over their friendly AF then enemy fighters can get them when they are the most vulnerable. So that doesn’t seem good for gameplay to me.

* IIRC, you only got the radar info in WB when you were on the ground, right? That way you need someone to “vector” you in, you can’t just fly towards the blip. A scheme like that would add a little more challenge to tracking down an enemy flight, but on the other hand also might make it not do the other thing they want, which is help fighters find action.

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: