Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

192 Excellent

About Johnny-Red

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Народная Республика Южный Йоркшир
  • Interests
    Aviation History, Il-2 Sim Family, RoF, Skin Art, Film Making, Mission Design, LAN Gaming.

Recent Profile Visitors

1138 profile views
  1. The Eagles are coming! The Eagles are coming!
  2. What you describe was tested, almost exactly as you suggest (as part of a bigger mission build test): A mission limit of 2x Me262, parked at a rear field. Within a few minutes our first 262 pilot had reached an air start reserved for Battle of Kuban era aircraft: http://ohmydog.mooo.com:8080/en/sortie/9603/?tour=3 When he was at ~800m he shot down another player (who had just very skillfuly flown a sustained guns-D), almost direcly under the air start. Melting the Spitfire VB's engine in a dive I went down 3000m in seconds. He was pulling away as I levelled out. I finished in flight: http://ohmydog.mooo.com:8080/en/sortie/9612/?tour=3 I have to go with the evidence of my own eyes. I had hoped to rehabilitate the Me262 but holding it back on a more distant field, forcing a full engine start, making it climb and and limiting numbers just don't address the issue of one sided combat. If weapons and armour loadout, fuel load and mods controls were readily available I'd consider having a version loaded out for JaBo or bomber interception, but not this freehunting set up we see whenever its available. I'm done with it for now. I've asked this question to several people today, whilst considering how to respond to CUJO_1970 and RAYEU: how messed up would Il-2 have to be before the 262 became a balancing influence? I want them to be able to fly what they want, but not at any cost.
  3. There is a lot of inconsistency between the different missions, so some will yield points for every single object destroyed, while others won't. Obvious tactical targets like fuel and parked aircraft won't reward a player on some missions while on others they will yield points along with other destructable airfield objects. There are also issues around bomb sizes. Some Luftwaffe munitions are of a strategic nature and don't really have a functional role in our tactical combat simulation. The 1800kg bomb would be a Blockbuster in USAAF parlance, the 2500kg bomb I can't imagine being used outside the context of strategic bombing - ever. This is especially salient. Many objects which yield points for their destruction don't have icons. The very crude principle in tactical warfare is: If the enemy can use it; destroy it. Look out for bunkers, cammo netting, ammo stockpiles, fuel dumps and crates etc. ___ I'm currently working on a multiplayer mission for -DED- Normal in which everything but civilian residences are up for grabs, as I feel that this is in keeping with the type of total war fought between the Axis and Allies: If it's resources, infrastructure or military material, have a crack at it. It will likely be killable and should yield points. It may untimately be the case that the central streets of some villages near the front also become tactical targets if the background suggests enemy forces may be headquarted there. Of course, making everything destructable (and count for scoring) may impact performance so we'll see how it plays out. One consequence is likely to be that the points rating of the missions will need to be raised from 500 to 1000, like on OMD, if not whoever scores fastest will end the mission with nobody else having the chance to score. This currently happens on Kuban where single player can finish the game in about 15-20 minutes and three players can finish the mission with one sortie each. In the long term a review of pre-existing -DED- missions would be a good idea, with a view to rationalising their ground scoring arrangement, but that's some heavy lifting work. I'm 2 weeks behind with the mission I'm on already...
  4. I was writing this when JW commented: We read this devblog and it was by this guy who works in what we may imagine to be the best job in the world, developing a top notch flight sim which we all love. It was a story of travels around the world trying to find the best evidence upon which to base this product, and of the endeavour of many and valued allies. He describes being moved as a child by the alure of this brutish and purposeful foreign fighter. The power and lines of the thing. He describes his ambition to make it fly, to experience it in simulation, and to simulate the most realistic Tempest ever seen as a personal quest. Allied bias confirmed? I don't think so, but I do recognise the devs acting in good faith. I don't get a whif of anything phoney in that. The last DD reads like a revelation of personal pride and good intent. I'm almost there with them. I have some very specific preferences for current and future content, but what's far more important to me is that they just do their best work.
  5. The Tempest is looking really beautiful. One half of Thomas and Shores' 2ndTAF "Superfighter" pairing with the Spitfire F/FR XIV. I can't wait to see how she handles. Great Story Jason - Great Job Everyone!
  6. I've spoken with @Tyggz and @0rsum_Smellz, both of whom are veteran online tankers: I would be happy to form a 3 man Tank Crew with them if this is useful. Our game times often coincide without any effort, and we communicate well together. We are currently working cooperatively on two TC centred Il-2 community projects; online mission design with an emphasis on improving the tanking experience for normal difficulty / casual gamers and one to produce skins for larger armoured formations. We want TC to be a great success, and possibly the first of many such titles in the genre.
  7. Beautiful! I am counting the days. Thank you.
  8. It's amusing that you alternate between feigning reason behind what you do and say, and pretending not to understand what others do or say. I've already stated that explaining things to you personally is not worth the effort. _______________________________ The 262 again. This is truly unfortunate for us all; but not entirely surprising. Where have you been? It appears that once again Germans have helped start a Russian Revolution. The Russians burned their own capital, starved out the invaders, killed their royal family and got off their knees after taking over 9,000,000 military casualties and people still throw stones and run away laughing. Now, faced with a plane nobody can kill, they eject pilot. Welcome to their world? I tried to explain that they weren't food in some stupid one sided exchange. In some quarters that seems to have been mis-translated "as whining unworthy Reds can't take the heat! Ha ha ha ha! Die Red Scum!”. If people are too sectarian to review a balanced argument against the 262, it's not my problem. Instead people show up demanding justice and that THEIR rights be upheld. As I said before, I'm sorry they kicked you, but that's just an expression of sympathy. YOU have a vested interest in understanding THEIR greivance. I hope not. I won't support it or anyone who advocates it. Try not to dramatise or mis-frame the debate. Please understand that the issues people have with the 262 are without precedent. This has been discussed on both forums. On the Russian forum Marengo has challenged us to go back to a pre 1944 plane set. Some of our friends would be more than happy. I argued against (though not out of strong personal preference; more common sense). One day Red side will have the Yak-3, the La-7 and Yak-9U. Banning late war aircraft would be a blunt tool to address a single point of critical unfairness. I also don't think it would benefit the game in general to impose widespread limitations on access to content. I'm not advocating a complete ban on the 262, but clearly without some form of effective control there's gonna be no peace. I'm sorry if it's not obvious why that hurts us all. If this community gets splintered by a group of out of control power-gamers, this will be on them alone. I strongly suspect that any further development in this type of gaming community will take place without them. I would advise engagement with the "other" as a matter of urgency.
  9. Sorry - with all this melodrama I'd quite forgotten: Spock reported the server outage a couple of days ago on the Russian forum (along with some other identified issues). Obviously since then it's been restarted and gone down again. I'll post on there this evening if it's not fixed shortly.
  10. Thank you Tyggz for throwing some light on recent events. _____________________________________ I'd also like to express my regret that you got banned RAYEU. I hope that with the server back online you won't have any more problems. I would also reiterate what Spock has said: About winning individual missions. Fighter combat is not the objective of any of the missions, but can only be useful in support of other players. Also, I can tell you on behalf of a large number of Reds (and I speak for myself here too): There is not much interest in either winning missions or winning most missions in the month. These "objectives" almost never enter conversation and I don't know anyone who thinks they are really important. Except CUJO_I970. _____________________________________ With regard to Ruthless_Killer's kicking/ban I have spoken to several people who were present and some others who have had issues with this player's conduct: I have complete confidence that those who voted to kick him did so because there is no rule to moderate this kind of behaviour: Nor should there need to be a rule prescribing what counts as the abuse of a system or disrespect to the player base. These ideas are fundamental to an adult mind state. I'm not explaining that to anyone who doesn't get it. Racking up an endless tally of easy kills (in a situation where one's opponent has no reasonable access to defence or retaliation) doesn't demonstrate skill. I see some suggestion that he was banned because he was “too good”. Too good at what precisely? Using the server wide chat facility to gloat and goad ones opponents, then feigning ignorance and innocence in equal measure when challenged. Perverse, but consistent with a certain psychology. It demonstrates a high boredom threshold; and an internal reward system at least partially fed by the distress of others. I would define it as parasitic. Nobody voted to kick him because he was too “good” for them. They voted to kick him after one person made a reasonable request that he moderate his behaviour. This was met with derision. I can't be responsible for my actions – I need more rules to tell me where the boundaries are... No. Rules won't help. Time for him to take ownership of what he does: It's not me, it's you criminals! You can't prove anything... Again: No: The assertion is dishonest, the challenge hollow. _____________________________________ In the meantime, there are people who have used this server for years, (many are Russian speakers or players who prefer to use Soviet aircraft) joining the server, seeing a 262 in play and leaving. I have witnessed this several times and also heard report of this from a number of other regulars. The presence of that aircraft without agreed limitations is rotting away at the centre of all this. People are now voting “No” with their feet and walking away. I heard that JG27 flew Allies today because Allied players are staying away. On that basis alone I'd advocate ditching the 262 until some semblance balance is restored. _____________________________________ As for Ruthless, I commend him to his angry mob.
  11. Never doubted! 4 Allied birds waiting in the wings, visibility raised by 1000% and realistic physiology modelled... Content update and additional DD in a week. Legends Keep calm and carry on.
  12. Fair point. I didn't mean to misrepresent you, and If you feel that I have, I apologise. I presented the fact that you 1: asked for the Spitfire to be restricted and that you 2: flew it. I acknowledge that much reasonable consideration can exist between these two facts and that neither requires the exclusion of the other. I am in favour of controlling the use of the 262 and I was being somewhat crude in my argument against restricting other aircraft. I respect your ability as a player / virtual pilot, and I did not wish to attack your integrity. There was a historically based server (with icons) supported by -DED- and 72AG, and it did have Eastern Front scenarios with balanced plane sets, but sadly that seems to have gone quiet. I think a lot of us found the procedural flying too boring, especially earning points for planes, the startups, the taxiing and the long haul to the front line. People wanted faster action and unrestricted plane sets; so -DED- Normal was usually populated and the the campaign server was usually empty. There's a lot that could be done to promote balance and historicity and to reward effort and teamwork; but that all starts at the level of mission design.
  13. In no particular order: 3.IAP_Vasilij - You have lobbied against the Spitfire on this server since November last year, and now the 262 too. That said, you haven't excluded yourself from flying either the Spitfire IXe or 262 this month. What's that about? What's the deal with the Spitfire? We know it's well armed and easy to fly: Is it like Epee says; that it makes average (unworthy) pilots more successful; or that it makes an above average pilots a real pain in the ass? Carrying around a “BAN THE SPITFIRE” placard whilst conspicuously ignoring the G-14, A-8, K-4 and D-9. I'd call that “funny”. 7 months after your inaugural post and you've doubled your membership (see below): Epee – At least you recognise 262 saturation for the menace it is. I'm confused by your bundling it with the rather dissimilar Spitfire though. I've heard you mention the Spitfire many times with this "broken" flight model claim: That public information film in your signature shows some real fancy flying. It fits the standards of a work of propaganda. It's selective in its subject matter and demonstrates evidence gathered under circumstances that can't readily be recreated. It demonstrates that PapaFly's an edge gamer of exceptional ability. Personally I'd love to know how he does it and to see a more even handed coverage of a wider range of flight models. I haven't witnessed any Allied player reproduce the extreme flight characteristics he identifies and I've spoken to a good number of other regular Spitfire players. The flight model is imperfect. They all are. So is the engine. Show me perfection anywhere on earth. I think the devs do a damn fine job everywhere they go. I don't think they have any credible competition for what they have created. You're entitled to your opinion, but try to have a little respect for those who may hold you in the same regard. For a more even-handed appraisal of the Spitfire I recommend you speak to players who don't have an obvious axe to grind. AeroAce and Tasmanaut are both very capable whichever side they are on. Cujo Always nice to see a post that isn't a demand for attention, an accusation of bias or some prophecy of doom: lol Player numbers have been increasing since February, but well done anyway. Selective inference. What will be interesting to see is if they start to dip out now. 500+ in those first few days, now some people who never played online before might not be coming back, but hey ho... The sunshine really suits your smile. The issue of game balance: We have two unpopular aircraft, the Spitfire IXe and the 262, and both are a real pain to kill if the pilot knows what's going on around him. So far nobody disagrees? One can reach any part of the map in approaching half the time of most other planes and kill in a one half second burst of fire. This wouldn't be a massive issue if the fire was harder to bring to bear, but demonstrably effective shooting techniques have rendered this aircraft a killer with NO equal in the hands of many players. Even AFK you can put this thing on a level and go answer the door and know that the only thing that threatens you is the edge of the map. The other plane is the Spitfire (easy as it is to fly). Try putting the Spitfire on auto-level in the wrong half of the map while you go and pour another drink (of milk obviously)... Would you like to ask an expert? We have a few on the server: I don't have time for the lauding weak arguments in favour of banning a plane that barely effects balance, and cheering for the one that's killing it. Personally I'm bored of major league gamers treating other players like a source of food; and when they turn out to be difficult targets, crying about it. The developer has given us a beautiful, diverse and unrivalled tactical combat simulator. They have clearly stated that it's our job to find the balance.
  14. A somewhat belated contribution: Apologies if this is no longer useful: I was hoping to have dug up some useful PR data, but found the archive I have access to to be incomplete and catalogued by people didn't necessarily have our mission at the forefront of their minds... Fürstenau (aka: Lonner Tannen or Handrup) was located to the immediate south of the village of Vechtel. A grass airfield of limited size and minimal infrastructure - including a prefabricated / temporary hangar and wooden billets for aircrew. It was used as a base by Stab and I Gruppe of JG26 quipped with FW190A's / D's. The Geschwaderstab were billeted in Handrup Monastery 3km away. Aircraft dispersal appears to have been in neighbouring woodland. The base was operational between 24/11/1944 and 25/031945 before being heavily damaged by air attack, with units relocating to Drope. In addition to JG26, the base was briefly used by III/JG54 (29/12/1944-05/01/1945). Considering the dates it would appear that sorties of the Bodenplatte strike flown by III/JG54 would originate from Fürstenau. See the link below for details of the location, history, units deployed there and maps. The page contains a link to an English translation. https://www.relikte.com/vechtel/ I've marked the airfield boundary for scaling: I've centred this map reference to illustrate the field boundaries that made up the airfield perimeter: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5586311,7.6316363,2209m/data=!3m1!1e3 Drope was a better appointed site with a longer occupancy. Again it appears to be a grass-only airfield with limited overt infrastructure. It served as a satelite field other larger air bases in the region until more westerly airfields fell to the Allies. II/JG1 operated from Drope between 17/12/1944 and 19/01/1945, making this base the nexus of operations for the FW190A's of II/JG1 during the Bodenplatte air operation. It was used by the RAF as a base for a Typhoon Wing during the closing days of the war, and I believe in this respect was host the squadron which conducted operational trials with Typhoons armed with napalm. See the link below for details of the location, history, units deployed there and maps. The page contains a link to an English translation: https://www.relikte.com/drope/index.htm As above I've marked the airfield boundary for scaling: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5967769,7.4704277,2213m/data=!3m1!1e3
  • Create New...