ITAF_Cymao Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: If you're asking for the A3 to be moved up a planeset, my opinion is that I'm fine with it - as long as the Yak-1b is also added to that set. You have almost double the axis fighters, if we have to play the game of having a russian fighter for a axis fighter, you lose this game because you should choose which russian fighter to eliminate. For example, Yak1b is not part of the planes of the various battles as is the La5 or FW190 A3 which are part of BoS premiun version. So be careful to ask for analogies that if they are satisfied they would not be pleasant. Complaining for 4 262 in the last planeset means not having many things to say. S! and sorry for my English Edited June 25, 2022 by ITAF_Cymao
CountZero Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, ITAF_Cymao said: You have almost double the axis fighters, if we have to play the game of having a russian fighter for a axis fighter, you lose this game because you should choose which russian fighter to eliminate. For example, Yak1b is not part of the planes of the various battles as is the La5 or FW190 A3 which are part of BoS premiun version. So be careful to ask for analogies that if they are satisfied they would not be pleasant. Complaining for 4 262 in the last planeset means not having many things to say. S! and sorry for my English So you think 190A3 , mid 1942 airplane should be in set 3 , and 190a5, mid 1943 airplane, in set 4 for first time? and nothing need to be shifted on allied side? What is your opnion about Typhoon starting first in set 6 ? do you have any idea why its first showing up in set 6 as late 1942 airplane ? Edited June 25, 2022 by CountZero
iFoxRomeo Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: ...I do absolutely think that if people are not playing and are posting their opinions here anyway, they should feel free to screw off. Also, if they are playing, but using a different account to post on the forum, they should screw off twice as hard... How much time is too much between last time played and last time posted a complaint? Is 2 years within acceptable limits? CountZero probably won't like this comment... 5 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: The 262 and Arado are for people who don't have the courage to risk anything. That's all I'll say for now. These two senteces tell more about your character, than you probably wanted to reveal. You could see it like that: Unfortunately this last planeset lasts only for two days per 16 day complete rotation. So you have only 2 days to show your courage by opposing this phantom menace...of maximum four 262s at the same time... This is a game. It's only a game. Treat it like that. And like Cymao said: 2 hours ago, ITAF_Cymao said: Complaining for 4 262 in the last planeset means not having many things to say. Of the 13000 allied aircraft shot down in may, 212 have been shot down by 262s. That is 1.6% April: 1% March: 1.2% February: 0.9% January: 0.9% December: 0.8% I don't understand how these extremely small numbers create such a pain for some people here. Edited June 25, 2022 by iFoxRomeo typo 1 1 1
ITAF_Cymao Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 1 hour ago, CountZero said: So you think 190A3 , mid 1942 airplane should be in set 3 , and 190a5, mid 1943 airplane, in set 4 for first time? and nothing need to be shifted on allied side? What is your opnion about Typhoon starting first in set 6 ? do you have any idea why its first showing up in set 6 as late 1942 airplane ? That's what I asked and I keep asking! And I think it is also reasonable to ask for this. Then do you want more historicity? Ask more historicity! Do you want a plane? Ask for a plane! Instead you don't ask but then trolling on requests from others. So if for each German plane there must be a Russian plane, then you have to start talking about which plane to remove! You have double the axis planes with any type of feature and you also have the way to complain. Evidently for someone it isn't a game or a sim, but it is only an ideoligical war. Sad thing. S! 1
CountZero Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, ITAF_Cymao said: That's what I asked and I keep asking! And I think it is also reasonable to ask for this. Then do you want more historicity? Ask more historicity! Do you want a plane? Ask for a plane! Instead you don't ask but then trolling on requests from others. So if for each German plane there must be a Russian plane, then you have to start talking about which plane to remove! You have double the axis planes with any type of feature and you also have the way to complain. Evidently for someone it isn't a game or a sim, but it is only an ideoligical war. Sad thing. S! But i say planset is perfect as its now, you wont to change it, even unlimited 234 is great as i belive axis dont win missions not because planset but because how they play and unlimited 234 shows that clearly and that even cheet airplane wont change a thing. Only thing i would change is give tempest V +11lbs in set 5, i say that since this planset got changed, and i dont expect that to be changed. Me pointing out typhoon is to clearly show you they dont make planset by historical, they go by balance, and its not balance in number of differant types in set, ala if red have 6fighter types axis have to have 6 fighter types, its balance in airplane performances. From what i understand you think balance planset cant be balance if for example in some set red side have 5 fighter type and blue 3 fighter type, to be balanced what i get is that you think it should be red have 5 fighter type and blue have 5 fighter type ? 1
JV44Stacko Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 Tempest Mk V from planeset 5! ROFL!!!!! Hahaha You do know that only 800 or so of Tempest V’s were ever built right? And yet there were over 1400 Me 262’s? Tempest should be on planeset 8 only and restricted to maybe 5 or 10 airframes per field. I agree that the people calling players who fly the jets cheats and cowards are revealing more about their own character flaws rather than offering any positive contribution to the discussion. 1 2 2
CountZero Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 21 minutes ago, JV44Stacko said: Tempest Mk V from planeset 5! ROFL!!!!! Hahaha You do know that only 800 or so of Tempest V’s were ever built right? And yet there were over 1400 Me 262’s? Tempest should be on planeset 8 only and restricted to maybe 5 or 10 airframes per field. I agree that the people calling players who fly the jets cheats and cowards are revealing more about their own character flaws rather than offering any positive contribution to the discussion. 4 Tempest +11lbs in set 5, not tempest from set 5 lol Same limit like 262 have, because if 4 262 in set 8 is not a problem then why would 4 tempest +11lbs in set 5 be a problem, it just makes one set same like set 8 is for axis. But it seams having mutch better fighter airplane in one set is not problem if its in favor of axis, but its crazy idea if its in favor of allieds ? 1
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 I'm going to say, in my honest opinion, that commenters in this thread that fly, and comment should have more weight than those that those who just comment without actually joining the server or using a different account in game. I had an idea that might solve this if it's possible to implement. Players start the first of each month at plane set 1 and unlock the further plane sets based on points accumulated throughout the month. Each Pilot can unlock the next plane set for themselves in the next round by flying transport planes, bombers, attackers or fighters. Obviously, fighters would collect points based on air kills and ground strafing. Transports would be able to accumulate unlock points with successful deliveries. All main airfields start match with a supply of 10 planes - player's choice based on the plane set unlocks they have earned. Airfields will also "cap" out at 35. If you land a transport on a full field, zero points. Transports that land when the airfield is supplied at 30 get half points as they only supply the last 5 planes. This way transport spam to full fields is not an option. Bomber pilots both, ground takeoff or air start, or attacker pilots would be able to unlock the next plane set based on ground damage and if the sortie was returned to base. That way ground damage output matters for both sides. Bomber and attacker air kills and assists get points toward unlocking next plane set. Planes yet to take off ARE worth standard points but no bonus to scoring towards unlocking plane sets throughout the month. If the opponent's wheels leave the ground and the server records a takeoff, then you shoot them down in the first 15 seconds of their flight earns small points towards advancing the set but, chump change points. Of course, bomber and attacker pilots would unlock the same plane set as fighter pilots. Plane set point requirements would become more expensive per plane set earned but, not so prohibitive that the average pilot couldn't have acquired set 8 by the 26 of each month but, top pilots can probably grab it by day 20. Once a pilot reaches set 8, you keep it for the month. Plane set 8 Unlocks every available plane the player on their account, from planes in set 1 all the way up to set 8. Fly it like you stole it. No restrictions. This includes Ar234 and Me262. Top scoring pilots can achieve set 8 a bit earlier in the month and there's always a chance that at the lower end of the scoring, a pilot can still get set 8 for at least 1 day of the month before the next month resets to plane set 1 again. Who gets what plane when, would be dependent on each pilot so it should reasonably self-regulate based on the speed at which the top and average players unlock the next set for themselves. That way, there's not a flood of plane set 8 around too early in the month but by the end of the month, let's say the top 500 scoring pilots should reach it before month's end. More, and later planes would appear gradually as the month progressed and the early war planes would "phase out" until a full unlock of all planes at set 8. The likelihood of mass players flying set 1 planes by the time a healthy portion of the regular player base is reaching set 8 is, I would guess, low. The amount of players choosing to fly the 262 and Ar234 permanently during plane set 8 is probably not that high either, to be fair. That's the most I was able to think up right now but, I'll put it out and see what y'all think. 1
JV44Stacko Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 14 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: I'm going to say, in my honest opinion, that commenters in this thread that fly, and comment should have more weight than those that those who just comment without actually joining the server or using a different account in game. I had an idea that might solve this if it's possible to implement. Players start the first of each month at plane set 1 and unlock the further plane sets based on points accumulated throughout the month. Each Pilot can unlock the next plane set for themselves in the next round by flying transport planes, bombers, attackers or fighters. Obviously, fighters would collect points based on air kills and ground strafing. Transports would be able to accumulate unlock points with successful deliveries. All main airfields start match with a supply of 10 planes - player's choice based on the plane set unlocks they have earned. Airfields will also "cap" out at 35. If you land a transport on a full field, zero points. Transports that land when the airfield is supplied at 30 get half points as they only supply the last 5 planes. This way transport spam to full fields is not an option. Bomber pilots both, ground takeoff or air start, or attacker pilots would be able to unlock the next plane set based on ground damage and if the sortie was returned to base. That way ground damage output matters for both sides. Bomber and attacker air kills and assists get points toward unlocking next plane set. Planes yet to take off ARE worth standard points but no bonus to scoring towards unlocking plane sets throughout the month. If the opponent's wheels leave the ground and the server records a takeoff, then you shoot them down in the first 15 seconds of their flight earns small points towards advancing the set but, chump change points. Of course, bomber and attacker pilots would unlock the same plane set as fighter pilots. Plane set point requirements would become more expensive per plane set earned but, not so prohibitive that the average pilot couldn't have acquired set 8 by the 26 of each month but, top pilots can probably grab it by day 20. Once a pilot reaches set 8, you keep it for the month. Plane set 8 Unlocks every available plane the player on their account, from planes in set 1 all the way up to set 8. Fly it like you stole it. No restrictions. This includes Ar234 and Me262. Top scoring pilots can achieve set 8 a bit earlier in the month and there's always a chance that at the lower end of the scoring, a pilot can still get set 8 for at least 1 day of the month before the next month resets to plane set 1 again. Who gets what plane when, would be dependent on each pilot so it should reasonably self-regulate based on the speed at which the top and average players unlock the next set for themselves. That way, there's not a flood of plane set 8 around too early in the month but by the end of the month, let's say the top 500 scoring pilots should reach it before month's end. More, and later planes would appear gradually as the month progressed and the early war planes would "phase out" until a full unlock of all planes at set 8. The likelihood of mass players flying set 1 planes by the time a healthy portion of the regular player base is reaching set 8 is, I would guess, low. The amount of players choosing to fly the 262 and Ar234 permanently during plane set 8 is probably not that high either, to be fair. That's the most I was able to think up right now but, I'll put it out and see what y'all think. Terrible idea for FVP. It sounds a bit like TAW only it really hampers casual players. I travel for work and can’t play sometime for two weeks… imagine showing up halfway through a month and having the 109 E7 to fight against Tempests. Ludicrous idea. But at least your putting forward a suggestion so bravo for that. I don’t think FVP needs to change too much from what it is. Everything can be achieved through better balancing of the plane sets. FW190 A3 in planeset 3 for example to counter the Mosquito threat, and unlimited Me 262’s in planeset 8 as it’s really just a niche plane and is only better then a Tempest in one area - outright top speed.
Crious Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 Hi i had ask the same question 3-4 months ago but i think didn't get an answer. I shall ask once more. Is it possible to have the same point system for ranking pilots/tankman points and map's border movement? E.G For pilot ranking an enemy fighter shotdown ads 60 points to the pilot but 400 points in map movement Destroying enemy dugout ads 25 points to the pilot but 250 in map movement Destroying enemy small or big oil supply adds 25 points to the pilot but 200 -400 in map movement. Deferences are huge and it would be nice if point system was the same. This way choosing targets would be more rational. E.G. As it is now most players including me choose to attack navy ships instead merchant despite that the latter contribute much more in winning the mission, only because navy ships giving more points in pilots and squadron ranking... Is it possible to equalize the score for both calculations pilot ranking and map border movement?
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 3 hours ago, JV44Stacko said: Terrible idea for FVP. It sounds a bit like TAW only it really hampers casual players. I travel for work and can’t play sometime for two weeks… imagine showing up halfway through a month and having the 109 E7 to fight against Tempests. Ludicrous idea. But at least your putting forward a suggestion so bravo for that. I don’t think FVP needs to change too much from what it is. Everything can be achieved through better balancing of the plane sets. FW190 A3 in planeset 3 for example to counter the Mosquito threat, and unlimited Me 262’s in planeset 8 as it’s really just a niche plane and is only better then a Tempest in one area - outright top speed. I see your point. If players that join later in the month were given an appropriate starting plane set compared to the overall progress obtained by that time - up to set 6, would you still be against it? You would still have to earn plane sets beyond that point but, players with limited time, such as yourself, wouldn't fall "behind the curve" so to speak. Yes, players from day 1 would have to score up to set 8 for the month and players who join late enough to default to set 6 would only have to score the needed amount to get to 7 and 8 but I don't think that's too far away from breaking it by being a fair concession to late joiners. You might be asking what's the point if players who play early in the month must build their plane set from scratch but, a late player can just join and get whatever plane set is prevalent, then have to earn new sets from that point. There will be players who get 'advanced' plane sets before everybody else, and some players will still be lagging behind to get to the next level. Somewhere in between will be the most current stuff, with occasional planes from old plane sets sometimes flying and occasional players who are ahead of the curve making occasional appearances with planes from a set ahead as increasing amounts of players move to the next plane set unlock. This is more about being able to rotate through the plane sets in a way the "adds atmosphere" to the server while the plane set advances based on more and more people unlocking them individually along the way. As a base, players that play early and play often would be the plane set pace setters but, it wouldn't be such a hardcore system that players who are unable to fly that much can't still come in and have a plane set that's competitive with the current set unlocked by the majority of regular players. Join on day 1 or day 20, you would have a competitive selection of planes to start with but, would have to earn further set progression from that day on. Instead of having plane sets just switch on a schedule, they kind of 'overlap' for a while as the next set takes over main usage, then the next set would overlap and eventually phase out that set, etc. Planes could be mostly limited not by how many are available, but by how many players currently have plane set required to fly them. However, for the players that have little time or choose to not play and wait, can at least start their stats page for the rest of the month with a workable "scheduled" plane set. It shouldn't really disrupt plane set progression enough to be a nuisance. I'm more concerned with how the plane sets would change as people earn the next plane set overall. I imagine that as the majority of monthly regular pilots 'level up' would help a more 'natural progression' overall, over time. For example: Starting with plane set 1, there would be players that get plane set 2 earlier than others followed by an increasing amount of player also getting the unlock. Then, plane set 2 planes would begin to "trickle in" to the theatre and increase in numbers gradually as more players get set 2. After that, set 2 planes, then set 3 planes, etc. would begin to dominate and older planes would get 'phased out. Rinse and repeat until set 8 is in play for the majority of players. Out on the battlefield players could see planes from the set ahead of them appear in small amounts with more showing up as people get 'on par' with the current plane set. By the time the majority of players have reached the same plane set (with a few leading to unlock the next), planes from earlier sets would kind of "fade from common use" so to speak and the newer planes would be the majority. As far as the 190 A3 goes in the current set, like I said, I'm fine with it being changed to set 3 as long as the Yak 1.b gets added. As far as the sentiment that the 190 is needed to "counter the mosquito" threat, please allow me to point out Allied planes available in set 1 can barely intercept and Axis bombers at high altitude - if at all. That's very low risk (if not no risk on certain map conditions) points for anybody who level bombs and can RTB. Even if the level bombing attack only nets small points, the likelihood of RTB-ing those points, when no Allied plane available can mount an effective interception is very good. We should at least start set 1 with MiG-3 if Ju-88s and He-111s are in set 1 as well. As far as 262 vs. Tempest, I think the system I'm proposing could have the benefit keeping itself regulated, with neither side constantly spamming "that one plane the other side hates" but, those planes still being part of appropriate plane sets. I also think that this might work well without any plane having to be limited at all by set 8. Not everybody flies 262 and mot everybody flies Tempest, there might be occasions where many players spamming Jets or Tempests could still occur but, I would venture that it would more of a rare occurrence than one might guess it would be.
ITAF_Cymao Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 10 hours ago, CountZero said: From what i understand you think balance planset cant be balance if for example in some set red side have 5 fighter type and blue 3 fighter type, to be balanced what i get is that you think it should be red have 5 fighter type and blue have 5 fighter type ? It is your way of reasoning that I bring to the paradox. It isn't my thought, I only asked to evaluate the possibility of using the FW190 A3 from planeset 3, and you replied that then also the Yak 1b, or the Typhoon, without considering the Mosquito that starts from planeset 3 and that even the FW190 A3 would struggle to take. 10 hours ago, CountZero said: Only thing i would change is give tempest V +11lbs in set 5, i say that since this planset got changed, and i dont expect that to be changed. 7 hours ago, CountZero said: 4 Tempest +11lbs in set 5, not tempest from set 5 lol Same limit like 262 have, because if 4 262 in set 8 is not a problem then why would 4 tempest +11lbs in set 5 be a problem, it just makes one set same like set 8 is for axis. But it seams having mutch better fighter airplane in one set is not problem if its in favor of axis, but its crazy idea if its in favor of allieds Tempest from planeset 5 means Tempest also in 6 but you complain of 4 262 in a single planeset. Taking your suggestion into consideration would not change the balance for performance. You only speak to go against, against the suggestions of others. In the end you speak only for ideology. Very sad thing 39 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: As far as the sentiment that the 190 is needed to "counter the mosquito" threat, please allow me to point out Allied planes available in set 1 can barely intercept and Axis bombers at high altitude - if at all. That's very low risk (if not no risk on certain map conditions) points for anybody who level bombs and can RTB. Even if the level bombing attack only nets small points, the likelihood of RTB-ing those points, when no Allied plane available can mount an effective interception is very good. We should at least start set 1 with MiG-3 if Ju-88s and He-111s are in set 1 as well In planeset 1 almost all Russian fighters can easily intercept and shot down the German bombers, also the Ju88. I admit that however it would perhaps be more logical to start the Ju88 from Planeset 2. S!
JV44Stacko Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 “I also think that this might work well without any plane having to be limited at all by set 8. Not everybody flies 262 and mot everybody flies Tempest, there might be occasions where many players spamming Jets or Tempests could still occur but, I would venture that it would more of a rare occurrence than one might guess it would be. “ So in effect, the simpler solution would be to just allow the 262 in unlimited numbers like you are suggesting. For all the reasons you have outlined. But changing the whole scope and concept of FVP by your idea is totally pointless. Just fix the plane sets and all will be right in the world.
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 8 hours ago, ITAF_Cymao said: In planeset 1 almost all Russian fighters can easily intercept and shot down the German bombers, also the Ju88. I admit that however it would perhaps be more logical to start the Ju88 from Planeset 2. S! Set 1 Allied planes can intercept easily below 5km altitude. Ju-88s and 111s above that usually get away safe. 5 hours ago, JV44Stacko said: “I also think that this might work well without any plane having to be limited at all by set 8. Not everybody flies 262 and mot everybody flies Tempest, there might be occasions where many players spamming Jets or Tempests could still occur but, I would venture that it would more of a rare occurrence than one might guess it would be. “ So in effect, the simpler solution would be to just allow the 262 in unlimited numbers like you are suggesting. For all the reasons you have outlined. But changing the whole scope and concept of FVP by your idea is totally pointless. The idea I'm proposing (if gated/balanced right) allows the majority of average players to move to the next plane set in reasonable time while the top-scoring players get a chance to get the next set early. Players that join later in the month could have a chance at receiving the "current" or sometimes even the "leading" plane set by a schedule list when they first join for the month but, could fall behind if they don't upkeep from there. That way, it should be possible for motivated players to do things like get the 190 A3 while the bulk of players are still using set 3 or get a 262 while the bulk of players are using set 7 but, are almost reaching set 8. Just because the planes themselves would have 'no limits' the overall pace the regular players advance to the next plane set would be the limiter. The result would be that the gradual introduction of each set as increasing amounts of players reach parity with where the plane set 'should' be for the month would be the limiter. If 262s were just set to unlimited by set 8 on the current "schedule" system and everyone gets unlimited the day the card flips, then I disagree and think that the spam would be horrendous. 262s dragging P-51s and Tempests around while D-9s and K4s bag them and Allies being totally suppressed in the bomber and attacker department while axis bombers and attackers can have more freedom to operate than they already do is a game-breaker. In short, I think that just giving out unlimited 262s at set 8 without some other 'regulation' in the system is what is in fact, pointless. Yes, more people would be flying K4 and D9 spam but, as it stands, 262s drag, K4s and D9s bag. Once spotted, losing sight of the 262 is death so keeping track of baggers becomes nearly impossible. Also, let's be honest here, if you can't counter Tempests with a 262 that has major speed superiority, the ability (most of the time) to enter and leave the opponent's visual range quickly and at will from ANY altitude, packs 4 30mm, and is often supported by K4s and D9s that attack the pilots distracted by the 262 (and now Arado)..... You're doing it wrong. As you, yourself like to throw around in the server chat when someone Allied comments that they couldn't understand how they lost: "SKILL ISSUE" 6 hours ago, JV44Stacko said: Just fix the plane sets and all will be right in the world. In other words, "I arbitrate what is 'broken'. I view the plane sets as 'broken' by MY standards. Fix them the way I want, and all will be right with MY world." I'm trying to explore ideas that could benefit both sides in how planes are matched in the rotation cycle. Perhaps it doesn't "balance" things perfectly but, I do think that at least "putting it on paper and weighing the pros and cons" is worth it. You cited no real examples of what's good or bad about my ideas before you wrote it all off as "pointless" except the strongest point you want to benefit you (unlimited 262s). That shows me that I have put forth some good ideas and you just "can't be arsed" because it's not the shortest way to your goal. You seemingly just want what you want. Therefore, it's obvious that you're going to be contrarian to most suggestions that reach beyond keeping the established system as long as said system keeps giving you more and more concessions to suit your fancy. I mean if you want to have unlimited 262s by set 8, then BOTH sides should have them. Forced paint jobs - Day glow GREEN or day glow ORANGE. You can pick which color will become the standard Axis paint. 1
ITAF_Cymao Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 29 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: Set 1 Allied planes can intercept easily below 5km altitude. Ju-88s and 111s above that usually get away safe. He 111 P40 Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Climb: 369 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Take-off: 494 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Climb: 398 km/h Maximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Climb: 405 km/h Maximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Take-off: 601 km/h He 111 Hurricane Mk.II Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Climb: 369 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, 3000 RPM, boost +9: 435 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Climb: 398 km/h Maximum true air speed at 4200 m, 3000 RPM, boost +9: 514 km/hMaximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Climb: 405 km/h Maximum true air speed at 6550 m, 3000 RPM, boost +9: 543 km/h He 1111 LaGG-3 Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Climb: 369 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Nominal: 505 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Climb: 398 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 548 km/hMaximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Climb: 405 km/h Maximum true air speed at 4000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 573 km/h He111 I-16 Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Climb: 369 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 448 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Climb: 398 km/h Maximum true air speed at 1800 m, engine mode - Nominal: 460 km/hMaximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Climb: 405 km/h Maximum true air speed at 4500 m, engine mode - Nominal: 490 km/h Ju-88 P40 Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Climb: 424 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Take-off: 494 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Climb: 462 km/hMaximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Climb: 486 km/h Maximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Take-off: 601 km/h Ju-88 Hurricane Mk.II Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Climb: 424 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, 3000 RPM, boost +9: 435 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Climb: 462 km/h Maximum true air speed at 4200 m, 3000 RPM, boost +9: 514 km/hMaximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Climb: 486 km/h Maximum true air speed at 6550 m, 3000 RPM, boost +9: 543 km/h Ju-88 LaGG-3 Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Climb: 424 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Nominal: 505 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Climb: 462 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 548 km/hMaximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Climb: 486 km/h Maximum true air speed at 4000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 573 km/h Ju-88 I-16 Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Climb: 424 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 448 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Climb: 462 km/h Maximum true air speed at 1800 m, engine mode - Nominal: 460 km/hMaximum true air speed at 5000 m, engine mode - Climb: 486 km/h Maximum true air speed at 4500 m, engine mode - Nominal: 490 km/h Obviously the speeds of the German bombers is without the bombs, otherwise the speed described is much lower. Either we play different games or you have a serious problem with your joy throttle. Tertium non datur! S! PS The source of the data is this: https://aergistal.github.io/il2/
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 Notice how Allied planes above 4500 m are running at settings that blow engines or if the engine isn't one that dies running constant full power, lose a lot of performance above 5000m. While I do say that bombers at 5km and below are still able to be intercepted, bombers that operate above 6km have the best chance. I-16 at those altitudes: Maybe can follow without gaining or losing distance but, has to start with a big altitude and energy advantage to catch them. Almost impossible if the I-16 hasn't gone to its ceiling and waited for a target. From a low intercept position, having to climb and pursue the target: just forget it. LaGG-3: at equal altitude can gain on them but slowly. In order to not be a sitting duck for even braindead AI gunners or pilots that fly from the gunner positions and shoot at the same time an altitude and energy advantage needs to be achieved. From a low intercept position: Pack a lunch. It's going to take a long time to get into a usable attack position. Chances are that by the time one spots a bomber, fails to stop his attack and gets close enough to shoot them, they are already max-diving into the cover of their home AAA cover. P-40 and Hurricane are both collector planes. There's no option for players who have only purchased 'basic' editions or have not purchased planes that can only be bought as "collector". The P40 severely drops off above 5km and climbs terribly at all altitudes. Full power at those alts. will not afford the P-40 enough manifold pressure to blow the motor, provided the RPM is also set to "nominal". With the RPM increased to combat mode/takeoff or full, you get, maybe, (and I'm being generous by saying "maybe") 10 minutes maximum before failure. From a low intercept position: Very similar to LaGG-3 but with worse climb. I won't deny that the Hurri is the plane that looks most likely to get it done above 6km, it still has manifold pressure drop-off and engine damage timers for higher than nominal RPM settings. I'll concede that "climb" and "combat" power RPM settings are generous and the timer "slows" even more when full manifold pressure at full throttle is not possible due to altitude. From a low intercept position: Best overall but, still going to struggle. On paper, I hear you. On paper these factors only account for straight and level flying at specified conditions. In practice, performance for the Allied planes either drops off to the point that it's not worth it to try and stop them, is just plain too much to even try, requires the plane to be well above the bomber and already running at best speed at the beginning of the engagement or at equal with a good position that closes the distance quickly and hopefully allows the interceptor a good 1-chance shot or the ability to keep energy after the pass to try again. This doesn't even account for escort fighter cover or the fact that most level bombers I've seen only attack at 5km due to ground target rendering issues with the game. After that, they tend to climb to 7km+ for the return trip and will continue to climb higher if the gunners start giving engagement warnings. At that point it's almost impossible to even get close with any of the available Allied planes. 1
Robli Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 Man, this is even better comedy than the previous ammo theories. Next time you see a He-111 climb away from allied fighters at 7km+, you should report it to devs. P.S. If you really have no clue of plane capabilities from game experience, at least try to check their specs before inventing stories like that.
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Robli said: Man, this is even better comedy than the previous ammo theories. Next time you see a He-111 climb away from allied fighters at 7km+, you should report it to devs. P.S. If you really have no clue of plane capabilities from game experience, at least try to check their specs before inventing stories like that. You don't even fly on this server. Your opinion means nothing. Go be the peanut gallery somewhere else please. Edit: Yes, I have looked who flies and who doesn't. For those that don't fly on the server, regardless of side of the debate, I carry the same sentiment. Edited June 26, 2022 by 69th_Mobile_BBQ 1
Robli Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 (edited) So, you are claiming that Finnish server is running some kind of mod that allows He-111 climb away from fighters at 7km+, gives E7 600 rounds per gun, changes how ammo works compared to the rest of the game etc? Is there a law somewhere that total nonsense can't be called out without playing on Finnish server? P.S. While it is irrelevant to the topics at hand, if it gives you any comfort, I play through steam, not through my forum account, and have not observed this wild mod on Finnish server that you are writing stories about. P.P.S. Anyway, I am a lot less in IL2 overall nowodays and obviously not as passionate about how things should be run on this or that server. Just some absurdish statements caught my eye, when looking over what's new on the forum. If you choose to believe in your own truth, so be it, but you could also open up your mind to actual facts. Your choice of course, I have no issue with that. Anyway, interesting way to let your opinion of CountZero be known ? No hard feelings, just have fun! Edited June 26, 2022 by Robli
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 15 minutes ago, Robli said: So, you are claiming that Finnish server is running some kind of mod that allows He-111 climb away from fighters at 7km+, gives E7 600 rounds per gun, changes how ammo works compared to the rest of the game etc? Is there a law somewhere that total nonsense can't be called out without playing on Finnish server? P.S. While it is irrelevant to the topics at hand, if it gives you any comfort, I play through steam, not through my forum account, and have not observed this wild mod on Finnish server that you are writing stories about. If the account you use in-server is different than your forum account and you decline to show what account you use to record time in the server, then by all means your opinion shouldn't count. I think that should apply to all players. Yes, I see that I did make a mistake. I got it right the first time (in a previous post) at 60 rounds for each gun and mistakenly wrote 600 in the next post. As far as the other factors such as volume of fire per second, explosive power per HE round, aiming requirements based on bullet spread and loss of energy over time, trajectory and distance, I'll stick by what I said. Other than that: Prove that you participate in the server, or we're done.
Robli Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 27 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: Other than that: Prove that you participate in the server, or we're done. Haha, we are already done, mate. Like I said, it is up to you, if you want to believe in your own truth or if you want to educate yourself. 1
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 26, 2022 Posted June 26, 2022 2 minutes ago, Robli said: Haha, we are already done, mate. Like I said, it is up to you, if you want to believe in your own truth or if you want to educate yourself. Then I expect to hear from you no more. Have a nice life.
LLv34_Temuri Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 On 6/26/2022 at 7:12 AM, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said: Is it possible to equalize the score for both calculations pilot ranking and map border movement? Not without kludges/rework on the stats system. Reasons: 1. The campaign manager has assigned points for "blocks" (a collection of buildings that are one single object in the game). We've defined the blocks on the campaign manager side in a way that e.g. fences, outhouses, stacks of hay and other insignificant buildings aren't taken into account. For example, a block that is comprised of five "significant sub-blocks" buildings has a value of 1000 in campaign manager, and that block happens to be surrounded by fence "sub-blocks". If we assign the same 1000 points to it in the stats, we get discrepancy: campaign manager treats each significant sub-blocks as 200 points each, whereas the stats would give 1000 points for each building. To work around this, we'd need to go through each block and give them some value in stats that would make it close to the campaign manager's points system. It still wouldn't be perfect, as stats would give points for destroying crap buildings/objects that are in the blocks. Perhaps, what could be done is to have the stats system check the campaign manager blocks definition file (which is in JSON) and only award points for the same sub-blocks as the campaign manager does. This to me sounds kludgey, but would probably be doable and would increase work on stats maintenance. I don't remember if I've discussed this with @=FEW=Revolves who we have to thank for quite a lot of the special features on the stats system already. 2. The stats system has bonuses/penalties that are applied on top of the score. 1
JG4_Moltke1871 Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 13 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: Notice how Allied planes above 4500 m are running at settings that blow engines or if the engine isn't one that dies running constant full power, lose a lot of performance above 5000m. While I do say that bombers at 5km and below are still able to be intercepted, bombers that operate above 6km have the best chance. I-16 at those altitudes: Maybe can follow without gaining or losing distance but, has to start with a big altitude and energy advantage to catch them. Almost impossible if the I-16 hasn't gone to its ceiling and waited for a target. From a low intercept position, having to climb and pursue the target: just forget it. LaGG-3: at equal altitude can gain on them but slowly. In order to not be a sitting duck for even braindead AI gunners or pilots that fly from the gunner positions and shoot at the same time an altitude and energy advantage needs to be achieved. From a low intercept position: Pack a lunch. It's going to take a long time to get into a usable attack position. Chances are that by the time one spots a bomber, fails to stop his attack and gets close enough to shoot them, they are already max-diving into the cover of their home AAA cover. P-40 and Hurricane are both collector planes. There's no option for players who have only purchased 'basic' editions or have not purchased planes that can only be bought as "collector". The P40 severely drops off above 5km and climbs terribly at all altitudes. Full power at those alts. will not afford the P-40 enough manifold pressure to blow the motor, provided the RPM is also set to "nominal". With the RPM increased to combat mode/takeoff or full, you get, maybe, (and I'm being generous by saying "maybe") 10 minutes maximum before failure. From a low intercept position: Very similar to LaGG-3 but with worse climb. I won't deny that the Hurri is the plane that looks most likely to get it done above 6km, it still has manifold pressure drop-off and engine damage timers for higher than nominal RPM settings. I'll concede that "climb" and "combat" power RPM settings are generous and the timer "slows" even more when full manifold pressure at full throttle is not possible due to altitude. From a low intercept position: Best overall but, still going to struggle. On paper, I hear you. On paper these factors only account for straight and level flying at specified conditions. In practice, performance for the Allied planes either drops off to the point that it's not worth it to try and stop them, is just plain too much to even try, requires the plane to be well above the bomber and already running at best speed at the beginning of the engagement or at equal with a good position that closes the distance quickly and hopefully allows the interceptor a good 1-chance shot or the ability to keep energy after the pass to try again. This doesn't even account for escort fighter cover or the fact that most level bombers I've seen only attack at 5km due to ground target rendering issues with the game. After that, they tend to climb to 7km+ for the return trip and will continue to climb higher if the gunners start giving engagement warnings. At that point it's almost impossible to even get close with any of the available Allied planes. So much Talking…. ? A simple Solution: Close the Bomber Airspawns!!! To climb on with Ju88/He111 on 7K needs a lot of time, effort and a bit knowing how to do. In time can use a airspawn spit out the Bomber on 5k, a gifted lazy advance. Meanwhile have 4 Bomber airspawns ??? Delete em from the server and you have the chance attack em while climb.
LLv34_Untamo Posted June 27, 2022 Author Posted June 27, 2022 (edited) Oh boy, just spent the midsummer weekend on the cottage, and got back to a huge wall of text (again)... I just don't have time to read all that ... If you have suggestions about the planesets etc, write us (me+Temuri) PM/DMs (in concise format), so they won't get lost in the spam. Edited June 27, 2022 by LLv34_Untamo
CountZero Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 33 minutes ago, LLv34_Untamo said: Oh boy, just spent the midsummer weekend on the cottage, and got back to a huge wall of text (again)... I just don't have time to read all that ... If you have suggestions about the planesets etc, write us (me+Temuri) PM/DMs (in concise format), so they won't get lost in the spam. in short: remove lagg-3 from set 1 add 190a3 to set 3 add 190a5 to set 4 keep rest as it was over weekend
=FEW=Revolves Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 11 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said: [...] Perhaps, what could be done is to have the stats system check the campaign manager blocks definition file (which is in JSON) and only award points for the same sub-blocks as the campaign manager does. This to me sounds kludgey, but would probably be doable and would increase work on stats maintenance. I don't remember if I've discussed this with @=FEW=Revolves who we have to thank for quite a lot of the special features on the stats system already. [...] I think I gave pretty much this suggestion with the JSON file or otherwise - if you could provide me with a snapshot of that JSON, then I'd probably be able to hack together something like that.
ITAF_Cymao Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 Someone forgot that he proposed the Tempest from planeset 5.
CountZero Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 5 minutes ago, ITAF_Cymao said: Someone forgot that he proposed the Tempest from planeset 5. Thats proposed and caned last year, its all about new things now.
ITAF_Cymao Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 Really? It is that I had read it in a post written saturday. Oh well, maybe they reconside the thing.
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said: So much Talking…. ? A simple Solution: Close the Bomber Airspawns!!! To climb on with Ju88/He111 on 7K needs a lot of time, effort and a bit knowing how to do. In time can use a airspawn spit out the Bomber on 5k, a gifted lazy advance. Meanwhile have 4 Bomber airspawns ??? Delete em from the server and you have the chance attack em while climb. If you go back far enough, you will see that my stance on bomber airspawns, at the time they were introduced, was this: If they're there, I'm going to use them but, I'd really rather not that they were there. I understand the 'meta' of bombers "coming from far away" but, that's just an "atmosphere" thing. After all, bomber on airspawns don't get ANY fuel level penalty to start and have to fly back to bases that would technically be "not home", making the trip even shorter than it would in reality. If airspawns for bomber were kept then. I suggest that fuel be reasonably reduced to represent the 'travel time' to the point where they spawn and MUST return to the base(s) furthest back from the front. Land at a temp or regular base: no score. The exception would be that Bombers could refuel at temps then go 'home' and finish the mission but cannot rearm or repair. Increase time it takes to refuel by minutes and not the quick seconds it takes now. Otherwise, I'm ok with removing bomber airstarts and keeping the 2 bases furthest back from the frontline as the only bomber bases - with the requirement to RTB to either of the 2 to register points worth moving the map. Finish mission at main fighter bases or temps and get in-game points but zero for the stats system. Temps would be able to refuel but not repair or rearm bombers. Increase time to refuel in this scenario also. Give all repair trucks at least 2 AA in very close proximity that can be killed but will replace over a period of time. Vulching is as vulching does... and it goes around regularly on BOTH sides so, I don't think that any more should be said about it in relation to these suggestions. You wanna strafe freshly spawned bombers? Make the long-distance flight there without getting intercepted. Catch a bomber refueling at the temporary so he can take off and fly to a 'home' base? Fair game. Have at it. Yes, this also applies to me not giving a sh=t about Axis jets making the journey during the late war sets. It is what it is. Due to the lack of late war bombers on the Allied side, most players resort to using attackers anyway. The historical fact that, with some exceptions, Axis never really produced many distinct bomber model types and (mostly) upgraded what they had from beginning to end of war is not my problem. 4 hours ago, LLv34_Untamo said: Oh boy, just spent the midsummer weekend on the cottage, and got back to a huge wall of text (again)... I just don't have time to read all that ... If you have suggestions about the planesets etc, write us (me+Temuri) PM/DMs (in concise format), so they won't get lost in the spam. I won't take much of your time but, I do request moderation of any commenter who cannot or will not prove they have put flight time into the server. If they have a Steam account and post under the forum in a different name, they should still have to show the account that they use in-game. Otherwise, it cannot be verified that they actually participate or that they aren't cheerleading for their own posts with alt. accounts. I ask that this apply to all regardless of what side of any given debate they are on. If they can't verify they actually fly in the server, they should have no validity given to their opinions or should be blocked from commenting in this thread. Whether you contact them privately and get verification or ask them to show their account publicly would (obviously) be at your discretion. If you say "they're ok" that is enough but, in my opinion, in some form or other, if they fly they should be verified. If they don't fly they should be nullified. Edited June 27, 2022 by 69th_Mobile_BBQ 1
Robli Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 16 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said: I do request moderation of any commenter who cannot or will not prove they have put flight time into the server. Haha, you just could not let it go now, could you? So, you would like people like Revolves or CountZero be banned from all commenting, even though they have contributed to the stats system or medal system of Finnish server, but not flying there actively? People like Sokol1, coconut, CuriousGambler and many others that have posted here before and actually helped people and server admins (and similar people that might say something useful in the future), many Finnish Pilots own squad members should be banned, because you really want to invent criteria against one single person, who called you out? Like Untamo said before, twice actually, this has nothing to do with their server. This is universal bullshit that you are throwing out there. Wing cannons with normal convergence just don't have less spread or better accuracy at 1 km compared to nose cannons. That is common sense, even if math is too hard for somehow. Bullets with lower muzzle velocity don't have better range than bullets with higher muzzle velocity. That is physics. E7's did not have more cannon ammo than Lagg3,s. He-111 won't climb away from fighters at 7km+, if their service ceiling is 6.3 to 6.8 km. This comes straight from specs. You are throwing this server-unrelated bullshit in this thread and now just try to find ways to make your bullshit uncontested. Out of respect to Untamo, Temuri and other people here, I will avoid replying to you in this thread from now on. Anyway, Untamo's previous suggestion to take it elsewhere was directed to you, too. If you want to spread bullshit, you should maybe open a separate thread for it, otherwise another unsuspecting visitor might step into it and it would all start to stink again. 1
ulmar Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 Is there any way to prevent a gunner player to place into your plane?
69th_Mobile_BBQ Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Robli said: Out of respect to Untamo, Temuri and other people here, I will avoid replying to you in this thread from now on. You've been saying that. You're still talking. Nice how the qualifier changed from "we're done" to "will avoid". 4 hours ago, Robli said: So, you would like people like Revolves or CountZero be banned from all commenting, even though they have contributed to the stats system or medal system of Finnish server, but not flying there actively? People like Sokol1, coconut, CuriousGambler and many others that have posted here before and actually helped people and server admins (and similar people that might say something useful in the future), many Finnish Pilots own squad members should be banned, because you really want to invent criteria against one single person, who called you out? Well, if they're contributors to the backend of creating the server, then fine. If they're participating in some form that Untamo recognizes as either development help or participating in the server and giving observations and opinions about it, fine. If it's Untamo's OWN SQUAD, I think anybody would be smart enough to understand they count by default, except apparently, you. Long-standing community members that neither help build nor fly but, give observation and opinions - Admin's choice. I don't think anybody would be dumb enough to immediately 'police' newbie commenters until they became 'hang arounds'. These things shouldn't need to be said but, for you, it's obvious that it does. All it seems you contribute is to get abusive when somebody makes a mistake (some of which I've admitted and corrected) or missed a detail. It should not need to be said that those who do work 'behind the scenes' get a pass. You, and accounts like you, on the other hand could be another player's second account that they use to cheerlead themselves as they lobby for changes in the server for all anybody knows. 4 hours ago, Robli said: Like Untamo said before, twice actually, this has nothing to do with their server. Well then, the next time plane specs or performance or guns and ordinance become the reason for people asking for plane set changes.... If I can't speak of it, neither can they. History, production numbers, and available equipment series 1, day 1 not locked, go! If you want Axis to "be the blitz" in the first few plane sets then, get totally ass stomped despite have a few "unicorns" running around when plane sets 6, 7, and 8 roll around... it's a bet. Let's make that happen. 4 hours ago, Robli said: He-111 won't climb away from fighters at 7km+, if their service ceiling is 6.3 to 6.8 km. This comes straight from specs. 111 H-6, 111 H-16 or both? I've got sortie logs and witnesses. Perhaps I'll have to start gathering more evidence and sending more PMs. I was looking for an excuse to buy another SSD drive for recording anyway. I'd respond to the cannon vs. cannon comments but, Admin says it's dead topic, then it's dead topic. I won't do the "I respect you, Admin" act, then try to find a way to necro it like you just did with your last post. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 minutes ago, ulmar said: Is there any way to prevent a gunner player to place into your plane? In flight: Escape key menu > Gunner stations > lock gunner stations. If I recall correctly. Edited June 28, 2022 by 69th_Mobile_BBQ 1
MisterSmith Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 Take it to PM immediately or timeouts (plural) will be forthcoming. Enough of the sniping. Smith 1
LLv34_Untamo Posted June 29, 2022 Author Posted June 29, 2022 9 hours ago, ulmar said: Is there any way to prevent a gunner player to place into your plane? Yes, once in the plane (or tank), hit Esc and then you have a gunner-something menu where you can lock the seats so other players cannot enter. 1
=[V]P=vad-asz Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 Hi! Connecting to the server is not possible...
72AG_lnf Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 Salute to everyone! Admins, in this mission, our pilot 72AG_Bzzzt was repeatedly kicked off the server. Please take a look, maybe the reason why is recorded in the logs?
LLv34_Temuri Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 1 hour ago, 72AG_lnf said: Salute to everyone! Admins, in this mission, our pilot 72AG_Bzzzt was repeatedly kicked off the server. Please take a look, maybe the reason why is recorded in the logs? No kicks or bans in place, so likely connection issues.
72AG_lnf Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 18 минут назад, LLv34_Temuri сказал: No kicks or bans in place, so likely connection issues. Kiitos!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now