Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

119 Excellent


About [110]xJammer

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1306 profile views
  1. Good point wrt HE cannons / rockets. Alternative would be to reduce the number of buildings needed to bomb, slash the 50/100 bomb loadouts and buff the building HP so that you require direct-hit tonnage to get them. (iirc some large hangars always needed 250kg at minimum to kill on TAW). Finnish does the kicking already, not many are complaining tbh. and TAW does too if you took wrong aircraft. Locking loadouts isn't that far fetched.
  2. You can't lock-in mods, but you can check which mod the AC is being taken off with (and respectively inform/kick the player) I would argue for removal of low-yield bombs (50/100kg loadouts) due to the current way the game treats direct hits from bombs (any size bomb directly hitting majority of buildings = kill). This will also allow to reduce building durability to improve the AOE of the 250/500/1000kg bombs (which currently do basically nothing on depot raids).
  3. 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.
  4. 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 enou
  5. 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)
  6. [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)
  7. [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 wi
  8. [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
  9. 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.
  10. 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).
  11. Yeah, I agree. Balance sides by their victories and capability, not commentary on the forums.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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).
  15. No, my double account is going to be Kosmatix28 just to sow more confusion into the matter.
  • Create New...