To setup dive bombing, set the waypoint before GAttack to something higher or equal to 1500 meters. The same for the GAttack point. You must use the set button to assing the target. Then just after the GAttack waypoint, set alt to no more than 600 meters. Your dive bombing attacks will always be successful, even with rookies.
Tactical: tactical flights that flies from high above should descend to no more than 500 meters 10 km from target. Put the Gattack point much lower, and always assing a tactical boming attack, about no more than 100 meters, or even less.
Level Bombing: stay high, put the GAttack right over the target, and never assing the target with the set button. If you set the target with the set button, the flight will begin a shallow dive just like tactical bombing, and it will look odd. In level bombing the only thing that should move are the bomb day doors. Aircraft should stay straight and level. 10 km from target, align the path on a direct course to target. You might want to use even more than that, especially if there is a tight turn just before.
Torpedo attack: fly low, between 50-100 meters from sea level, at least for the last 10-20 km, until GAttack point that you assing to the ship you want to destroy. Try to use wenever possible a slight angle in your waypoint toward the stern of the target if the flight is attacking a moving ship. Assign the target by using the set button at the GAttack waypoint. Make sur you put an alt of about 500 meters after the GAttack waypoint, giving 5-10 km for the flight to pull up. Might not always work.
Kamikaze Bombing. This one is the easiest of all to set up. Just make the last waypoint of the flight to Gattack, and assing it to a target. It will ram into it. And since 4.10.1m, the bomb also detonate. Aircraft crashing into ships are actually doing real damage too.
would it be possible to include this kind of "predefined setup routines" into some future release MP for various kinds of different bomber attack patterns ?
Automating some functions of SEOW planning is a good idea, it would eliminate some mistakes made by people new to the game. The amount of work is of course always relevant as the SEOW development team seems pretty small. Someone could look at the script that 4Shades wrote for the operation detachment campaign and perhaps do something with that? A script to automate supply appeals to me, it would relieve the commanders of a tedious task while giving the enemy the chance to disrupt supply as a strategy. Same thing may be possible for command and control I'm not sure. People with programming skills could look into these things and submit them for review to 4Shades as SEOW is open source?
I'm inclined to disagree about automating certain functions or attacks. Maybe if these were hard coded in IL2 maybe...
As soon as your supply line was under attack I imagine you would want immediate control to change how that supply arrives making it manual anyway. The commander always needs options even when there are almost none. That is what making command decisions is all about and what makes SEOW so immersive for me anyway.
Features can be turned on that create more complex campaigns. Maybe just leaving some off is what some people would be happier with? That is what makes SEOW so scalable in that it can be as simple or complex as you need to suite your tastes.
If commanders know how to plan attacks as shown in the methods Cmirko has posted then that is all you need to know. The dive bombing attack method has already had success with Stukas in the JG26 campaign. All it took was knowing how to plot it better and having 100% recon the rest worked out very well.
Educating commanders in attack techniques in campaign forums and wiki isn't so hard is it? Testing a method and getting success or failure can be frustrating I know but is also very rewarding when it works.
I have had success plotting AI to sink ships in SEOW when the ship location was known, they didn't move and mission was plotted in a similar way as noted.
The hard bit is getting AI to attack successfully when you don't have recon and fly lead to where you suspect they may be then fly an approach vector to the enemy ship, put the AI to work and get results. That is a good mission!
Sure Hawk improvements to the game engine itself is more vital than other elements at this time. My suggestion goes to the ability of managing more and more complex campaigns as features are added. Is there any hope of getting true multicore support for the game? I would like to see hundreds of AI Bombers, tanks, infantry moving about. With that in mind the simulation of real world combat conditions are something that computers are perhaps more capable of than humans. That would be my counter argument if I wished to continue this line of reasoning which I don't. The design decisions made by the development team are not really in question. I'm not suggesting that anything specific be added or changed but simply agreeing with the philosophical point of view in the OP.
