Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

119 Excellent


About [110]xJammer

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1236 profile views
  1. I guess I should have been more specific -> human pilot won't give you the best avenues of attack to begin with. On top of it he will be able to fly the damaged IL2 much longer than an equivalent AI would do.
  2. After recent DM changes IL2 can soak up even more 20mm fire than it used to. The suggestion to go for wing/tips/ailerons is a very sound one, especially if you focus only on one wing (to make it as painful to fly as possible for the IL2). Rudder/Elevator is no longer a weak spot and can easily take 5-10 20mm hits before going down (historically was a weak spot, but I guess there was too much drama about IL2s getting severed elevators). Engine is heavily armoured, and new engine damage model means that even oil cooler hits are not critical and generally give the IL2 enough lifetime to finish the mission. If you see IL2 flying with an open cabin you could try aiming for it, however forget trying to go for a pilot kill if it is closed (20mm direct HE hit will only wound the pilot and usually not even cause a blackout). in a 1v1 situation you could just dump flaps in a 109, and sit behind an IL2 showering it with lead. If you go for BnZ attacks however be very mindful of return fire with 23mm vyas having effective range of up to 1.5km (and skilled IL2 pilots can precision aim them to up to 1km). Thus generally attempt to exit with a dive while making small continuous course adjustments to throw off the aim. Immediately climbing after a pass will usually result in your death if the IL2 has the energy. P.S. generally "I have shot down 20 AI Il2s" is quite meaningless, as AI bails / does a lot worse job at keeping aircraft in the air than a typical pilot can.
  3. It had always been this way. 100kg bombs are hilariously easy to use against tanks, and almost any bomb kills buildings with a direct hit (not always the case for 50kgs)
  4. [110]xJammer

    HELP US !

    first image 113 and 112 vs. lone 73 meant to me that using them as direct reference is meaningless. Therefore the assumption that I provided seemed reasonable (every "island" of pixels fully separated by black is considered as 1)
  5. [110]xJammer

    HELP US !

    Good point, I mostly based the suggestion on the initial picture. However this can be easily solved by simply running a recursion as soon as "new pixel" is found, i.e. while neighbouring_pixels are not black and not marked: mark neighbouring_pixels as the same number do the same for these pixels now. (or if you prefer doing this without recursion just re-scan the picture until you get a full row that does not satisfy the condition) once you have island_map sorted correctly, for each island you could simply convolve the matrix with a square of the required size. As a result you'll get a matrix of positions where the numbers would fit. (that way you could even check which island has space for 1 or 2 or 3 digits etc). Centre of gravity would not work as shape like the one you mentioned (circle) has something else there entirely. unsure what are you trying to ask here. Colour of the island does not matter, as long as its not interrupted by black it belongs to the same "island" as per assumption yup, see the convolution option above that I mentioned not me. I'm happy to help with the logic but I wouldn't touch code for this sort of problem.
  6. [110]xJammer

    HELP US !

    Assuming the background is black and every coloured "island" is separate the following logic would be much simpler than shape detection. Parse image left to right top to bottom: colour (matrix holding the image) island_map (2D matrix (no colour dim) of the same size as the image filled with 0s) island_counter = 1 for x in range(width): for y in range(height): if colour[x,y] == black: ## if we are in black, just move on skip else: if any island_map(around x,y) is not 0: ## we are on a non-black pixel, need to assign the "island number" to it now island_map[x,y] = the neighbouring value on the island map ## some neighbours already have an island number, so we assign the same one here (can't have conflict here under assumption) else: island_map[x,y] = island_counter ## no neighbours but we are on coloured pixel, therefore its a new island island_counter += 1 ## next "new" island will need to be incremented. The output of the above is a 2D matrix with "numbered" islands.
  7. If its your loss, its always the system (we were outnumbered, we did not have the fighters the map was terrible etc). If its your victory, it must be the effort of your fighters and the suckiness of the opponents I like that logic.
  8. 2/3 fighters take out AAA and bring bombs / cannon the buildings -> 2-5 buildings per fighter. Ju88/A20 comes along, further 20-50 buildings are destroyed (my personal best was 54 buildings at depot with 6x250 + 28x50kg bombs) (Equivalent IL2 can take out ~30 buildings with rockets / bombs / cannons) The fact that a kamikaze squad was able to stop such a favourable position that you describe shows little of the effort, and much more the flaws of the current system (i.e. 20h ban vs. team imbalance).
  9. Yeah, I agree. Balance sides by their victories and capability, not commentary on the forums.
  10. This would significantly improve the pilot's survival rate on the blue side... P.S. The red side was boring because of how trivial it was to ground pound in IL2/Pe2.
  11. He isn't wrong though. Reds victory while in "apparent" minority and "unbalanced" fighter lineup, followed by further suggestions to buff the red lineup. And any time reds lost a map the amount of whining on the forums was quite unprecedented. I'd honestly rather remove the inter-campaign META of working to buff "your side" as much as possible.
  12. Well a few points after this campaign: AAA defences As it currently stands the AAA is basically harmless to a coordinated pair of aircraft. They are too easy to destroy, too predictable with firing pattern and do not switch targets quickly enough to be dangerous to those killing them. A simple strategy of using a single "dragger" and 1 or more "AA killers" enables the group to clear up convoy, airfield or depot AAA in a matter of 60 seconds. (Its kind of silly how some groups have not figured this out yet and took heavy losses trying to raid airfields). Furthermore the new DM changes mean that even if AAA manages to hit the target it rarely is fatal and most of the time the aircraft can stay on target and even make it home. This is especially true for il2/pe2 as they can soak up an incredible amount of damage (to some extent making it possible to solo AAAs in IL2 even with minimal skill) Suggestion: fast flak at depots should be invulnerable / respawn in 1-5 minutes. This would guarantee that vast majority of depot attacks will be done via high altitude bombing. In turn increase the impact of destroying depots completely, as otherwise it would make them worthless targets (also please do consider the fact that destroying enemy depots results in more of your own tank spawns, and thus causes more tank losses on your side) fast flak on airfields should respawn in 5-10 minutes. This would encourage large coordinated group raids that are motivated to depart quickly. Considering that the current META of TAW is to nuke fields as soon as it is possible, almost anything to discourage it would be great. Honestly I'd go as far as to suggest spawning a wing of AI fighters if there are enough enemies over the field (just to give AAA a little bit more of a chance). In addition, add several mg positions around the field with very fast respawn time. This is a good emulation of random infantry running out to shoot at aircraft, while also being sufficiently annoying to motivate aircraft to depart quickly. tank convoys need a rethink. They are too easily carpet-bombed (especially red 100kg bomb or ju88's 6x250kg bomb, A20 with 20x100kg can deal an incredible amount of damage in a single pass). And their AAA can be trivially destroyed in minimal time, while dealing not too much damage to the attacking aircraft. I think, similar to AF proposal, a few mg positions that respawn around the convoy could make sustained attack not immediately trivial, while spreading the column a bit would make it less convenient to both carpetbomb or directly strafe it. and IMO the randomness of tank columns can be very frustrating at times for both teams. Lives Too easy to grind them back, opposing team having 1 more player means your lives basically do not matter, encouraging outright suicidal behaviour especially in +1 aircraft. Suggestion: Make lives similar to CM streak required to gain an aircraft. I.e. 5 CMs without death/capture would net +1 life for the pilot. Permit dead pilots to fly during team imbalance, however permit the life counter to go into the negative. After the ban time runs out, check the life counter, and if negative, increment life counter by +1 and apply another 20h ban. Such pilots can still grind out their lives by running safe/supply missions, rather than turning into a temporary kamikaze. Bomber missions Currently you gain +1CM per 20 minutes of flight as long as you damaged at least something. Provides a straighforward way to grind +5/6CMs in a single flight. Just find random flak position, drop a bomb in their general direction, auto level your aircraft back into friendly territory and go do something else for the remaining 1h45m. Come back to 2 new aircraft and an extra life. Suggestion: Maybe its worth to actually reward the bomber for the quality of the sortie, rather than the length? Consider the depot buildings destroyed, airfield bombed, tanks etc and provide equivalent CMs then. Or maybe at the very least require the bomber to hit a depot for the 20min/+1CM to be "enabled". Kuban map Tuapse airfield has only 1 strategic connection to the nearby city, and Maikop is the only airfield that is decently close to the "frontline". Please fix Aircraft hangar IMO especially for reds, the aircraft hangar is becoming a bit of a mess. We already have the combos of yak7/9t and yak1b/9. Why not organise the aircraft into 3 classes? "Basic" "Advanced" and "New arrival" ones? This could also mean that one can make the higher tier aircraft more expensive, i.e. 4/5CMs. That way the really recent additions will actually be quite rare, and require more effort to acquire. (Its quite common for some pilots to only fly the "best" aircraft, and, if lost, simply grind it back out with a quickie 3 transport missions). Tank-draw Basically entirely removes the consideration of pilot/aircraft losses from the game. On a few maps the pilot/ac loss disbalance was almost 2x between the teams with almost no repercussions to either side. An option is to come back to the original design which would likely extend the time the campaign would run... but is that really a bad thing? Spawn-spying Happens on both teams. When someone joins, hop in briefly to the opposite side and check where they are flying out from. Unsure how to fix this reliably, however. Dead airfields Are too easy to keep dead. they only get 1-2 AAA respawn per map, and destroying 2-3 buildings brings them back into the 100% damaged state. With more people being aware of the META one can almost guarantee that the only time airfield will get repaired is when it is no longer attackable. Suggestion: I would not make the supply runs directly repair the airfield. However do respawn full complement of the AAA and more than just 2-3 buildings (I'd say respawn at least half of them). Meantime indeed keep the "damage" percentage as it is now. This would make follow-up cleanup runs much more challenging.
  13. No, my double account is going to be Kosmatix28 just to sow more confusion into the matter.
  14. Maybe you should ask one of these guys to share a spare account with you
  15. and still reds do better job taking out tanks than blues... logic! 😄 The victim complex on some of the red pilots is getting fairly annoying at this point...
  • Create New...