AAA exploding after destruction

[YoYo]

In the IL-2 BoX, AAA would explode after neutralizing the target (the crew often left the position first). Unfortunately, in the IL-2 Korea, there are no FLAK/AAA explosions after its destruction (only the crew escapes). Here's an example: I destroyed six anti-aircraft guns in a mission, but none of them exploded.

Of course, one can speculate which option is more realistic, but one can always assume that our fire detonated artillery shells on the ground . However, this was good info for the user that the AAA had been neutralized (seeing it explode). I'd like to request that this feature be added to the IL-2 Korea as well – if the AAA is neutralized, it eventually explodes.

[Spasticus]

In currently tell if the AA is dead if I see the crew drop dead. I like that. Would be good if there was an ammo storage you could hit for an explosion though. Just like when you shoot the crates.

[Dash,Polder]

Korea doctrine was one pass only on a gun, to never re-engage, the other guns covering it will get you.  Besides you'll know it's out when it no longer fires at you. 

[YoYo]

6 hours ago, Dash,Polder said:

Korea doctrine was one pass only on a gun, to never re-engage, the other guns covering it will get you.  Besides you'll know it's out when it no longer fires at you. 

The doctrine will work if the AI behaves like humans, I'm talking about simultaneous attacks and a tactical approach like in real life. Until that happens (which I doubt, as there's no simulator that allows AI to plan ground attacks and determine who exactly has what target and what to aim at), re-engagement must occur based on the mission objective. The AI is largely stupid and, once orders are given, they don't attack exactly what you want. So you can literally fail every campaign mission if you only want to make one pass for targets. This isn't something that's done well in combat simulators, not any others. Maybe the future.

[Avimimus]

I'd personally prefer less explosions... and it should be the ammunition that explodes (or rather the powder bags / charges for the ammunition rather than the shells), if anything does explode.

Honestly, killing enough of the crew or damaging the gun fixtures should count as suppressing the guns... it might be useful though, to have an ability to distinguish between targets damaged and targets destroyed.

[Husar]

I would rather see explosions for things that would actually explode in real life. For AAA guns, a clearer and more visible destruction animation might be a better solution.

Ground dust and disturbed terrain would also provide valuable visual cues, making it easier to identify where combat has taken place.

Edited July 21 by Husar

[Mark_Krieger]

In this case I prefer having more difficulties knowing if the AAA or artillery is destroyed or not. I find it much more realistic now and anyway if the AAA doesn't shoot I count as supressed/destroyed. GB behaviour where cannons exploded everytime putted me quite out of the experience.

[YoYo]

21 hours ago, Mark_Krieger said:

In this case I prefer having more difficulties knowing if the AAA or artillery is destroyed or not. I find it much more realistic now and anyway if the AAA doesn't shoot I count as supressed/destroyed. GB behaviour where cannons exploded everytime putted me quite out of the experience.

But you had a signal that the AAA had been neutralized. Now we can only guess. This is quite important when playing online and completing complex co-op missions, when the first wave is tasked with destroying the AAA itself. Besides, the explosion of emplacements is also realistic; you could eventually cause a fire or detonate an artillery shell, so it's not as if the emplacements didn't explode.

The stations also had rubber elements, such as tires, that caught fire. This is also a solution; for example, it doesn't explode, but smoke appears. This may be a random effect.

Edited July 25 by YoYo

[Aapje]

Yes, ideally we would have several effects that can be triggered upon destruction. The identical results that we have in GB is not realistic and thus not optimal, but never having a fire/explosion/smoke seems just as unrealistic.

[Redeye]

Why would you expect an explosion when strafing with machine guns? Drop a bomb or shoot rockets for an explosion.

[Aapje]

There was an discussion on the old forum:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/84484-artillery-is-far-too-soft/

It does seem like setting off the munitions was almost impossible, and that silencing the gun was the normal way to detect a successful attack (although then it was unclear whether it they stopped firing due to morale issues or due to damage).

So I guess the new game is a win for realism, even if it is not as satisfying as watching things go boom.