72AG-DED- Random Expert +

[IRRE_Centx]

But for IRRE_Centx , regarding locking a side when numbers are not equals, it was done and tested on many servers in the past years .... And all server trying it ultimately died or reversed to no restriction.

 

Combat Fly sim is all about squad flying, formation and immersion. If a rule prevent a squad to play as a team, squads will move on server they can play together.

 

And secondly it takes days or weeks to manage an aircraft properly, and not everyone has time to learn to fly both sides. By locking a side, people will just leave if they cannot join the side they know how to fly, especially with the supply point restriction were any aircraft lost is heavly punished.

 

Never said anything about locking a side...

Just said that 35/45 approx. maximum is in my opinion the balance to achieve, when it's more unbalanced (like 30/50 or 25/55...) the side with the more players just wins because they outnumber their opponent, not because they use better tactics or whatever.

[actionjoe]

By locking a side, people will just leave if they cannot join the side they know how to fly, especially with the supply point restriction were any aircraft lost is heavly punished.

 

 

Or they learn to fly the other side? I did it, it is not that complicated or very long.

[Trinkof]

Or they learn to fly the other side? I did it, it is not that complicated or very long.

Fully agree with you, on this but sadly we are not that much with this philosophy, or having enough time to do so

Edited November 24, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[Trinkof]

Never said anything about locking a side...

Just said that 35/45 approx. maximum is in my opinion the balance to achieve, when it's more unbalanced (like 30/50 or 25/55...) the side with the more players just wins because they outnumber their opponent, not because they use better tactics or whatever.

Ideed , but then a side has 17 player the other one 25. A squad of 5 join the game, they want to fly on the 25 player side. Two of them join ... The other three are then locked because the balance is now 17vs27... Experience show the 5 will leave... Balance will still be shit, 12vs25

 

There has already been endless debate two years ago about it... And even if I stood for the side who wanted a balance between team, consensus and then rules on most of the succesful server were that artificial balancing do not work, and most of player do not want it.

 

Result of this will be people waiting to be able to join the side they want on map, and player waiting instead of playing is never a good thing. If the wait is too long people will quit and switch server ....

 

But yes : when you are in the underpopulated team , it feels very unfair , frustrating (even if somehow it is quite historical, total number of AC does not mean air superiority IRL)

Edited November 24, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[72AG_Crusader]

Translated english info!

http://72ag-ded.ru/en/info/

 

but there will be new changes in new campaign  

[VBF-12_Gosling-71]

As to balancing the guys above make good points, but in the end it seems that there is never a clear answer that all parties agree is the right way.

I agree, that it has been too short term to make an assessment, but feel its not necessary to assess as "it is war" and that is never balanced... I feel its a case of just getting on with it. I flew last night and got shot down quickly... But I was on my own (timezone thing with my squadron), I took a route that crossed a likely Axis flight path (although we were pretty hemmed in - well done Axis) and I was low and slow (due payload and power settings etc). Well done to the axis player and more fool me for trying when I was likely to get taken out.... Not a reason to stop trying....

Balancing within the supply system for valid historical reason (supply line length, manufacturing complexity, partisan resistance behind lines etc etc) may help a little.

As for better or worse aircraft flight model etc - who cares as long as they perform to the documentary evidence and Veteren experience, etc. This is not war thunder.

As to playing for both sides. Players should be able to choose... I play for allied and not for axis. Im not going to learn to fly Axis (I have no issues with buying axis planes that I'll never use as it helps the game survive and progress - I'll probabaly buy the Ju52 for fun but not fly it in anger - Can you hear the "Where Eagles Dare" music in the background !!!! )

I don't think the great guys running this server should spend too much effort trying to solve a perennial problem that never really has a satisfactory to all players solution.

 

Great server, absolutely love the moving frontline the discoverable targets, the outstanding mission briefings.

 

One tiny question about the brief - The wind. What does "North East, 215deg" mean please? I find that information ambiguous. Normal aviation. Standard (in UK) is to give the "From" heading, IE 045/10 would mean a wind blowing FROM 045 at 10 knots which is about 5m/s approximately.

 

Thanks everyone...

Edited November 24, 2016 by 12.OIAE_Gosling

[216th_Jordan]

A simple way to balance would be to factorize plane prices with team ratio.

 

For example:

 

20 RED, 20 BLUE - plane prize of both sides * 1.0

30 RED, 20 BLUE - plane prize of red side * 1.5

20 RED, 50 BLUE - plane prize of blue side * 2.5

 

The factores and price are set in the moment a player spawns with a plane.

 

 

That way everyone could join but the team with more players needs to be more careful.

Edited November 24, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[IRRE_Centx]

A simple way to balance would be to factorize plane prices with team ratio.

 

For example:

 

20 RED, 20 BLUE - plane prize of both sides * 1.0

30 RED, 20 BLUE - plane prize of red side * 1.5

20 RED, 50 BLUE - plane prize of blue side * 2.5

 

The factores are set in the moment a player spawns with a plane.

 

 

That way everyone could join but the team with more players needs to be more careful.

 

 

Was thinking about possible solutions during a (boring) formation at work this afternoon, and I thought about a similar system... then I come back home, log onto the forum, and I see your message 

 

In my opinion that's one of the most viable way to induce a bit of balance...

[Trinkof]

A simple way to balance would be to factorize plane prices with team ratio.

 

For example:

 

20 RED, 20 BLUE - plane prize of both sides * 1.0

30 RED, 20 BLUE - plane prize of red side * 1.5

20 RED, 50 BLUE - plane prize of blue side * 2.5

 

The factores and price are set in the moment a player spawns with a plane.

 

 

That way everyone could join but the team with more players needs to be more careful.

This would be indeed a very elegant solution !

 

This is more or less already the case on a campaign, as plane prices are adjusted depending of how popular they are. Team outnumber another for a whole campaign, then plane from that team are already excessively expensive (More than 3k points for some bf110 loadout, versus 2k for Pe2...), and this is actually good

 

I would rather divide the price of the outnumbered team, giving them a real advantage, to fly almost for free when the balance is broken. Because at 5vs1, the 5 player team will often win in air combat, with competent people, and also take a lot less risk. And loss of plane for the lesser side can still be very problematic.

 

Dividing instead of multiplying would also make the lesser side able to take the best planes for cheaper, and so balance the things better. Most expensive planes are already very risky to fly.

 

And more : boosting a side is always better percieved than punishing another

 

S!

Edited November 24, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[KG200KG200_Helmut]

Good work guys best server at il2 keep working.Nice missions and a lot of targets.

Also everybody noticed the unfair balance of German to Russian players sometimes 55 25 is something to be fixed somehow.

Congratulations for the great server!!

[IRRE_Genius]

As already said:

 

 

- Could you reduce the time penalty when switching side (actually; 15 min) = does not encourage to balance team ? (Maybe less than 3 min ?)

[SYN_Repent]

Some really great suggestions here guys, I'm glad I didn't get flamed for my post, the opposite in fact, we all want the same thing in the end don't we?

 

The best idea so far is some sort of modifier, if a 109 f4 costs 1200, then if the German team outnumbered the Russian by x amount, the 109 f4 cost multiplies by x amount, or as has been suggested, the Russian ac is divided by x amount, simple but brilliant

 

And as mentioned above, reducing time penalty for switching, i for one will fly for the side with least numbers, perhaps switching sides 2 or 3 times in a session depending on balance, but waiting for that time puts me off

Edited November 24, 2016 by SYN_Repent

[IRRE_Centx]

This would be indeed a very elegant solution !

 

This is more or less already the case on a campaign, as plane prices are adjusted depending of how popular they are. Team outnumber another for a whole campaign, then plane from that team are already excessively expensive (More than 3k points for some bf110 loadout, versus 2k for Pe2...), and this is actually good

 

I would rather divide the price of the outnumbered team, giving them a real advantage, to fly almost for free when the balance is broken. Because at 5vs1, the 5 player team will often win in air combat, with competent people, and also take a lot less risk. And loss of plane for the lesser side can still be very problematic.

 

Dividing instead of multiplying would also make the lesser side able to take the best planes for cheaper, and so balance the things better. Most expensive planes are already very risky to fly.

 

And more : boosting a side is always better percieved than punishing another

 

S!

 

Mh not sure if it's a good idea to reduce the prize of outnumbered side

It could cause "bad" behaviors like ("Ok this plane is cheap, I don't care if I destroy it so I go YOLO") and it wouldn't convince some players to change side ("If I have enough credits to stay in the advantaged side, why would I change side to go on a cheaper side?")

 

Maybe a mix of both: increase a bit the prizes for advantaged side, and decrease a bit the outnumbered side.

Would be both "punishing" for the player staying on advantaged side (but not too hard) and I guess more players could be convinced to change side

 

 

Would be interesting to test different configurations!

[-DED-ASF]

not sure if it's a good idea to reduce the prize of outnumbered side

We planned to use next formula - points earned for the flight multiplied by your ratio of stats (or squared ratio).

And/or divide aircraft price on your ratio of stats

e.g.  http://72ag-ded.ru/ru/pilot/7/72AG_Crusader/?tour=3

 

Also we removed supply flights.

Everyone will have a some amount of fireproof points.

Edited November 24, 2016 by -DED-ASF

[IRRE_Centx]

We planned to use next formula - points earned for the flight multiplied by your ratio of stats (or squared ratio).

e.g.  http://72ag-ded.ru/ru/pilot/7/72AG_Crusader/?tour=3

 

Also we removed supply flights.

Everyone will have a some amount of fireproof points.

 

Actually we're not talking about the same thing here.

You are describing how players will win credits in next campaigns (and I think that's an interesting new system by the way) and we were talking about a way to encourage players to balance teams by adding a multiplier into the current economy system.

 

I will try to summarize with my best English (a French and an Ukranian talking in English... misscommunication can happen  )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it will be easier if I take some examples, so here we go:

Let's assume that the current economy algorithm gives a 109 with a price 1000 credits and a Yak at 1000 credits too.

 

Situation 1:

40 players for LW, 40 players for VVS = ratio of 1, perfectly balanced team

New price of 109 = 1000 x (40/40) = 1000 credits

New price of Yak = 1000 x (40/40) = 1000 credits

 

Situation 2:

45 players for LW, 35 players for VVS = ratio is 1.29 in favor of LW 

New price of 109 = 1000 x (45/35) = 1290 credits

New price of Yak = 1000 x (35/45) = 778 credits

 

Situation 3:

25 players for LW, 55 players for VVS = ratio is 2.2 in favor of VVS

New price of 109 = 1000 x (25/55) = 454 credits

New price of Yak = 1000 x (55/25) = 2200 credits

 

 

I took arbitrary values for the multiplier, I'm not saying that it's ideal values (especially for Situation 3, the price differences is... a bit excessive!), it's just to make you understand the idea 

 

The goal is to make people think before choosing their side when they arrive on a map when it's an unbalanced situation:

"Will I go to the side with numerical advantage, and pay a lot for my planes, or will I go to the outnumbered side in order to have cheaper planes?"

 

And other solutions discussed:

- only increase the prices for the side which has the advantage in number of player

- only decrease the prices for the side which is outnumbered

 

 

 

 

Problems with this "solution":

- could work well when the server is full, but it doesn't work when the server is "empty" (9 players for LW and 2 players VVS => 4500 credits for 109 and 222 credits for Yak...   or even worse: 0 players for LW and 5 players VVS => 0 credits for 109... and "divided by zero" credits for Yak  ) => implement a limit in the algorithm like "if there are less than 20 players on the server, don't calculate multiplier"

- disadvantage for players who know how to play only one nation, since they "can't" switch side...

Edited November 24, 2016 by -IRRE-Centx

[Trinkof]

Increasing price based on ratio will be seen as a punishement and has no meaning. Some Planes are already very expensive , we actually have the most unforgiving system ever been on this server (and most of the others as well, "top performer" planes are even more limited than on TAW ! )

 

Punishing or restricting people will not encourage people to switch sides ... Just to leave and fly elsewhere.

 

Making things easier and much more rewarding for the ournumbered team is the way to go.

 

Edit : as I already said team with greater number has more take off and so ALREADY HAS MORE EXPENSIVE PLANES ... Double punishement would be too much I fear.

 

Agree with you Centx about a problem with low number of player ... BUT : playing when server is low populated is actually way to easy, and need a drawback regarding points earned.

 

I was not aviable a lot during peak time this campaign .... I played mostly end of afternoon european time ... And ended up 14th or 18th on the server with almost no risks ! And I do not diserve it as I missed most of the tense fights at 40vs40.

 

Anyway nice talking with a lot of ideas ! Hoping it helps the Server team improving things !

 

S !

Edited November 24, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[72AG_Crusader]

Thats our latest ratio-based balancing concept:

 

Each player has accumulative ratio in stats. In example, I have 0.78 ratio at the end of Campaign #2. That ratio means, that I play when my team got 40 players against 30-31 in other team. In average.

 

The idea is to apply this rule: if player has ratio >1, then his aircraft cost is divided by (ratio*ratio).

Example:

ROSS_Skipirich has 1.07 ratio.

For YAK-1B with 100% fuel basic cost is 2409. For him it will cost 2409 / (1.07*1.07) = 2104.

This means to play in outnumbered team is cheaper.

 

What do you think?

[IRRE_Centx]

Thats our latest ratio-based balancing concept:

 

Each player has accumulative ratio in stats. In example, I have 0.78 ratio at the end of Campaign #2. That ratio means, that I play when my team got 40 players against 30-31 in other team. In average.

 

The idea is to apply this rule: if player has ratio >1, then his aircraft cost is divided by (ratio*ratio).

Example:

ROSS_Skipirich has 1.07 ratio.

For YAK-1B with 100% fuel basic cost is 2409. For him it will cost 2409 / (1.07*1.07) = 2104.

This means to play in outnumbered team is cheaper.

 

What do you think?

 

Ah okay I didn't understand correctly the post of -DED-ASF. He talked about "points", not about "credits"... so I thought he was only talking about the score of the player, not the prices.

 

Thanks for the clarification, well I guess that it worth a try !

Edited November 24, 2016 by -IRRE-Centx

[Trinkof]

Thats our latest ratio-based balancing concept:

 

Each player has accumulative ratio in stats. In example, I have 0.78 ratio at the end of Campaign #2. That ratio means, that I play when my team got 40 players against 30-31 in other team. In average.

 

The idea is to apply this rule: if player has ratio >1, then his aircraft cost is divided by (ratio*ratio).

Example:

ROSS_Skipirich has 1.07 ratio.

For YAK-1B with 100% fuel basic cost is 2409. For him it will cost 2409 / (1.07*1.07) = 2104.

This means to play in outnumbered team is cheaper.

 

What do you think?

Seems right. Looks like a fairplay index applied to supply.

 

Points multiplier in stats with this mechanics would be great also.

 

An extra points like 200-300 at the end of each flight , even with lost plane ,for desperate situation ONLY, triggered when ratio in a specific battle is 1 for 2 or more could also help (if when the player take off his side has 15 player vs 30 or more), regardless of the ratio index of the specific player.

 

Can be seen as last reserve sent to battle by HQ.

 

Without this extras pounts, player with bad ratio index (<1) will have less willing to go on the outnumbered side, because they will not benefit from the ratio bonus.

Edited November 25, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[216th_Jordan]

My upvotes are spent for this day

And I'm absolutely for Trinkofs idea regarding extra points in highly outnumbered situations.

[IRRE_Genius]

Hi, sorry to insist but what mean all this formula if you can't switch side easely (long time penalty)?

Edited November 25, 2016 by Genius

[Trinkof]

Hi, sorry to insist but what mean all this formula if you can't switch side easely (long time penalty)?

Indeed reducing the switch time penalty to 5 minutes would be also great.

[TP_Silk]

Just an opinion, but removal of supply flights is not a good thing. I get a lot of pleasure out of flying supply flights for my squad during quiet hours when they can't all be around. I love picking a route that will (hopefully) be clear of enemy and away from areas of the map that will likely see a lot of traffic and the flying along anxiously scanning the skies in case I've miscalculated and am about to be bounced by the enemy. For me the resupply mechanism is not only a fun way to pass a little time in the game, but a great representation of the work done by many brave and mostly unrecognised pilots during the war years.

 

Please do not remove it entirely.

[Trinkof]

Perhaps supply could be changed to supply airfield more than player/squad wallet. Making some aircraft unaviable on frontline airfields under some conditions and player should ferry new planes to these airfield to make tham aviable !

 

It has the interest of being an historical type of mission, adding more to immersion than just ferry plane in random airfields.

 

(... With an award in il2 stats "ferry pilot" )

Edited November 25, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[TP_Silk]

The trouble with that is that people won't be interested in flying supply flights for people they don't know and will also be somewhat of a problem for those folks that are willing to fly as different factions depending on the balance (as my squad does). Imagine the situation under the 'airfield only resupply' system where you have just finished resupplying a particular airfield while your mates are offline then when they appear you suddenly find that they want to fly for the other side? That's going to be pretty galling.

 

Resupply of squad points gives a useful and significant way for less-skilled pilots like myself to contribute to my squad's overall performance. Removing this mechanic will discourage me and potentially others like me from playing with my friends on this server.

[72AG_Crusader]

Just an opinion, but removal of supply flights is not a good thing. I get a lot of pleasure out of flying supply flights for my squad during quiet hours when they can't all be around. I love picking a route that will (hopefully) be clear of enemy and away from areas of the map that will likely see a lot of traffic and the flying along anxiously scanning the skies in case I've miscalculated and am about to be bounced by the enemy. For me the resupply mechanism is not only a fun way to pass a little time in the game, but a great representation of the work done by many brave and mostly unrecognised pilots during the war years.

 

Please do not remove it entirely.

Next campaign flight time will be richly rewarded. So as before you can take aircraft and patrol over territory to gain more points. But much more now. 1 point each 5 seconds.

 

The problem was when 2 airfields stay close - it became source of huge credits amounts. 1 minute +1000 credits. It was fun, but not cool to see 10-20 aicrafts farming credits like on cookie clicker.

Edited November 25, 2016 by 72AG_Crusader

[TP_Silk]

Next campaign flight time will be richly rewarded. So as before you can take aircraft and patrol over territory to gain more points. But much more now. 1 point each 5 seconds.

 

The problem was when 2 airfields stay close - it became source of huge credits amounts. 1 minute +1000 credits. It was fun, but not cool to see 10-20 aicrafts farming credits like on cookie clicker.

 

I understand the problem you are trying to address and commend you for finding a reasonable compromise. If I may suggest something to refine that idea somewhat, how about 1 point each 5 seconds for regular, armed flights and maybe a greater amount for unarmed flights to reward the risk factor of flying a ferry mission with no ammunition to defend yourself? This would retain the excitement that can be so rewarding when flying the old-style resupply over longer distances while still discourage the short hop abuse that you are trying to combat.

 

Edit - the ideal goal would be to reward a 20 (or so) minute empty flight with similar credits too what the old system did - 500 for a fighter and 1000 for a bomber,

Edited November 25, 2016 by TP_Silk

[5.AA_WiSiPunK]

Hey mates, first i want to thank u for this great server! Really nice work, especially the Ground targets

When its going on? cant wait for it....

[Angus]

He is still online today ?

[VBF-12_Gosling-71]

Just an opinion, but removal of supply flights is not a good thing. I get a lot of pleasure out of flying supply flights for my squad during quiet hours when they can't all be around. I love picking a route that will (hopefully) be clear of enemy and away from areas of the map that will likely see a lot of traffic and the flying along anxiously scanning the skies in case I've miscalculated and am about to be bounced by the enemy. For me the resupply mechanism is not only a fun way to pass a little time in the game, but a great representation of the work done by many brave and mostly unrecognised pilots during the war years.

 

Please do not remove it entirely.

+1

[72AG_Crusader]

Server up and running. Enjoy new campaign!

 

Supply missions disabled. Players gain much more credits for flight time instead.

Jabos should gain more rewards for their job (kill tanks, trucks and arty) than before.

 

Also player account cant get less then 500 credits. So, you always can fly.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

could admin please change user "Tomten" to "SvAF/F19_Tomten"?

 

ty

[-DED-ASF]

could admin please change user "Tomten" to "SvAF/F19_Tomten"?

 

ty

It's already changed....

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Excellent.. ty

[IRRE_Centx]

Hey guys

 

One question regarding mission 280 (2nd mission of 3rd campaign), maybe a bug!

 

VVS destroyed 4 objectives on north key position (warehouse, artillery, trucks convoy and tanks column)

And we still had our "reserve" tanks alive in 0817.1, so 4 destroyed objective should give us the position.

But artillery was not shown as "destroyed" on the map, and we didn't win the key position at the end of mission

 

 

Is it a bug or I missunderstood something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[72AG_Crusader]

Hey guys

 

One question regarding mission 280 (2nd mission of 3rd campaign), maybe a bug!

 

VVS destroyed 4 objectives on north key position (warehouse, artillery, trucks convoy and tanks column)

And we still had our "reserve" tanks alive in 0817.1, so 4 destroyed objective should give us the position.

But artillery was not shown as "destroyed" on the map, and we didn't win the key position at the end of mission

 

 

Is it a bug or I missunderstood something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Key Positions capture. 

Here is the complete list of targets connected to a single KP: 

1 and 2. Two airfields — their connection to a KP is signified on the map by a heading line with the heading, range and approx. flight time stated next to it. 'Closing' and airfield counts as 2 points towards the KP capture (capture points). 

3 and 4. Two vehicle columns – one armored column (6 units) and the other can be either truck or armored column with the 50/50 probability (8 units). Eliminating either of the two columns equals 1 capture point. 

5. Artillery position counting 13 units equals 1 capture point. 

6. Field warehouse – 70-90 objects should be destroyed to 'close' the warehouse. Closing it will give 1 capture points. 

While you need 5 capture points to capture a KP there are two more targets that can influence this condition: 

1. There will be an enemy HQ located either in the Moscow or Vyazma industrial zone, the HQ have two 'destroyed' states:

• Destroying 170 objects of it counts as 'partially destroyed' and counts as +1 capture point towards all the enemy KPs on the map.
• Destroying 250 objects of the HQ counts as 'completely destroyed' and additionally reduces enemy's side planeset: the number of available YaK-1, LaGG-3 / Bf.109F-4, Bf.109G-2 (obviously side depending) is reduced to 10 for the whole side and all premium planes become unavailable (La-5, YaK-1b, P40 / Fw.190A-3, MC.202). rest of the planeset is unaffected.

2. Concealed armored group of 50 vehicles – is the side's 'attack reserve' and is located somewhere on the 'base' of an attack arrow on the map. Loosing this group will complicate the capture of the corresponding KP so you will require one more capture point than usual. The vehicles in the group are static and are intended to be destroyed by carried not internal weapons (that is rockets, bombs etc. rather than on-board guns). To destroy the column you will need to destroy 40 vehicles.

Edited November 26, 2016 by 72AG_Crusader

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Yesterday I got two guys of the blues just AltF4ing after getting damaged. I got no Kill for them and they didn't got a death. I would be glad if you guys could punish such a behaviour.
 

[-DED-ASF]

We launched a simplified version of Random server (with icons).

It named Random Normal. Stat's page  http://74.91.114.47/en/

Edited November 26, 2016 by -DED-ASF

[IRRE_Centx]

3. Key Positions capture. 

Here is the complete list of targets connected to a single KP: 

1 and 2. Two airfields — their connection to a KP is signified on the map by a heading line with the heading, range and approx. flight time stated next to it. 'Closing' and airfield counts as 2 points towards the KP capture (capture points). 

3 and 4. Two vehicle columns – one armored column (6 units) and the other can be either truck or armored column with the 50/50 probability (8 units). Eliminating either of the two columns equals 1 capture point. 

5. Artillery position counting 13 units equals 1 capture point. 

6. Field warehouse – 70-90 objects should be destroyed to 'close' the warehouse. Closing it will give 1 capture points. 

While you need 5 capture points to capture a KP there are two more targets that can influence this condition: 

1. There will be an enemy HQ located either in the Moscow or Vyazma industrial zone, the HQ have two 'destroyed' states:

• Destroying 170 objects of it counts as 'partially destroyed' and counts as +1 capture point towards all the enemy KPs on the map.
• Destroying 250 objects of the HQ counts as 'completely destroyed' and additionally reduces enemy's side planeset: the number of available YaK-1, LaGG-3 / Bf.109F-4, Bf.109G-2 (obviously side depending) is reduced to 10 for the whole side and all premium planes become unavailable (La-5, YaK-1b, P40 / Fw.190A-3, MC.202). rest of the planeset is unaffected.

2. Concealed armored group of 50 vehicles – is the side's 'attack reserve' and is located somewhere on the 'base' of an attack arrow on the map. Loosing this group will complicate the capture of the corresponding KP so you will require one more capture point than usual. The vehicles in the group are static and are intended to be destroyed by carried not internal weapons (that is rockets, bombs etc. rather than on-board guns). To destroy the column you will need to destroy 40 vehicles.

 

 

Ah, seems like nobody in IRRE squadron saw this modification 

 

Thanks for the clarification!

[KG200_Volker]

Thank for this server guys.

 

I was thinking about the balancing problems and the various ideas that have been mentioned here. I can't find a solution that will please all people at the same time.

 

So I thought something that might bring a "feeling" of balance by providing some help to the side with fewer number of planes. It has been probably mentioned allready in an older post but not a bad idea for community to say what they think about it.

 

Add patrolling AIs over KP targets. They can go in a loop route around the targets of the KP, or home AFs, or even along the border line, making an encounter with them random.

They can spawn if the balance of teams exceed a number e.g. 8. They can patrol in groups of 2 and with the wonderful job of Coconut http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20739-release-tools-overload-management/ de-spawn when teams are balanced again.

 

Since AIs are not as hard to kill as a human flyer, make them count only as supply points and not air-kills in stats. This will give an oprotunity to have some help by flying to your area where your sides AI might be while you are hunted, and some challenge for the lonesome bombers and fighters that wipe out KPs when nobody is there.

 

Waiting for community's thoughts.