Finnish VirtualPilots - Dynamic War

[TP_Silk]

Hi admins,

Any news yet on when you are going to add Mosquito and Arado info on the plane sets page http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/info/

Would be nice to see at a glance before entering the mission. Thanks.

[ACG_Bobo]

On my squad page my pilot's 'number of players'

is red...what does that mean?  Also, squad not listed in stats with other squads.

We are well known war criminals but I didn't know that excluded us from stats.

Edited July 2, 2022 by III./SG77-K_Bobo

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, III./SG77-K_Bobo said:

On my squad page my pilot's 'number of players'

is red...what does that mean?  Also, squad not listed in stats with other squads.

We are well known war criminals but I didn't know that excluded us from stats.

min squad menbers is set to 4, so when 4th guy shows up youll be recognised as squadron.

[ACG_Bobo]

Koolio!  Thanks Sir!
Makes sense too, only 3 have servered this month.  So far...

[Crious]

On 6/27/2022 at 9:23 AM, LLv34_Temuri said:

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.

Thank you. Please try to make stats system more rational .

[CIA_Elanski]

The map continues to spawn Allied defend targets many grids from our bases and lumps our bases all in one area.  It is impossible to effectively defend with this situation.  I've been told this is generated at random.  It ain't random because it happens most of the time.  Making it worse is the fact the allied teams have been outnumbered most of the last month.  Unclick the Axis preference in the campaign eh.  The last map the Axis defend targets were almost all between their bases while the Allied defend targets were 5 to 7 grids south of all our bases.  There is no chance of out running or limping a damaged plane home 5 to 7 grids.  They had an average of three grids to defend their targets.  Unbelievable.

[iFoxRomeo]

17 hours ago, CIA_Elanski said:

The map continues to spawn Allied defend targets many grids from our bases and lumps our bases all in one area.  It is impossible to effectively defend with this situation.  I've been told this is generated at random.  It ain't random because it happens most of the time.  Making it worse is the fact the allied teams have been outnumbered most of the last month.  Unclick the Axis preference in the campaign eh.  The last map the Axis defend targets were almost all between their bases while the Allied defend targets were 5 to 7 grids south of all our bases.  There is no chance of out running or limping a damaged plane home 5 to 7 grids.  They had an average of three grids to defend their targets.  Unbelievable.

If I look at the shape of the Kuban map, I immediately see a possible reason, why axis bases and the targets they had to defend were closer together than the allied ones. And if I check the numbers how often did the allies win and how often did the axis win, I don't see a "Axis preference in the campaign" checkbox clicked.

 

Why not change sides for a a few months. Axis in the east of the Kuban map, and allies in the west. If the allies still have their stuff so far apart and the axis not, then you could argue that there might be something that needed to be checked.... But regardless of the outcome of this sidechange, I'm pretty sure people will always find reasons to call the FVP admins biased.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 hours ago, iFoxRomeo said:

If I look at the shape of the Kuban map, I immediately see a possible reason, why axis bases and the targets they had to defend were closer together than the allied ones. And if I check the numbers how often did the allies win and how often did the axis win, I don't see a "Axis preference in the campaign" checkbox clicked.

 

Why not change sides for a a few months. Axis in the east of the Kuban map, and allies in the west. If the allies still have their stuff so far apart and the axis not, then you could argue that there might be something that needed to be checked.... But regardless of the outcome of this sidechange, I'm pretty sure people will always find reasons to call the FVP admins biased.

 

I agree that map shape can be a big factor in how the facilities and airfields might be placed.  The last time this discussion came up (months ago), I was the one saying just that.  

 

I will say that Allied had Axis pushed to the end until the AR-234 was introduced followed by plane set 1 and the summer sale came to be. 

 

I'll say the 234 because it's extremely difficult to catch with the fastest Allied fighters and also has a rather hard-to-see profile when it's low.  I don't blame the plane this time, just general failure by Allies with only propellor driven planes to adapt to jet bombers with jet fighter escort/support. ? 

 

Plane set 1 is pretty much the round where Axis gets to "take a Mulligan".  They have early war planes that are very lethal against any Allied pilot who gets suckered into playing their game.  Sadly, that's alot when it comes to long-term regular players. They just never seem to learn.

Add to that a whole bunch of new players that don't understand that just because a 109 E7 can do some Fokker Dr1 moves, the Allied planes are not, nor ever were, the Sopwith Camel equivalent of WW2.  Regardless, they rush to the frontlines looking for hot turn-and-burn action then, find out that the Hurricane is the only plane that comes close to that type of fighting.  

Basically, into the grinder the Allied pilots go... generating points for Axis while failing to protect any of the Allied faciities.

 

Tldr;    1). The map is hard to get balanced facility placement on.

           2). Allies didn't adapt quickly to the introduction of the AR-234.

           3). The summer sale caused an actual historical re-enactment by sending a whole bunch of noobs in LaGGs and i-16s to the front.

           

[CIA_Elanski]

Please look at current map and see it is not a Cuban thing.  They have no defend targets farther than 3 grids from their main spawn bases.  Advantage German.  AGAIN.  We have two out in the middle of no where 5,6, 7 grids from our bases.  More flight time to get there and defend.  More time to rtb, less time to defend.  More planes lost due to no RTB due to damage.  More time in resupply flights.  Advantage GERMAN.    Allied bases all within a few grids of each other in the middle of the map.  Takes longe4r to go around to german targets.  ADVANTAGE GERMAN.  END OF STORY iFoxRomeo.  Campaign setting "Advantage GERMAN"

Edited July 5, 2022 by CIA_Elanski

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Well, to be fair....  We're not fighting over Cuba.  

[CIA_Elanski]

who says?  lol

 

[iFoxRomeo]

I made screenshots when I had time to do so.

So there are distinctive advantages for the axis side?

 

 

 

04.07.2022 ca. 1700z

 

 

 

 

05.07.2022 ca. 0540z

 

 

 

 

05.07.2022 ca. 1230z

 

 

 

 

[CIA_Elanski]

yes

 

[JG1_Wittmann]

Kuban Map it seems brings many different levels of disadvantage for both sides, mainly depending on what part of the map the front line is in.  As it shifted further east the  german side seemed to have the better layout for targets.  Towards the west the allies had a better set up.  Other maps seem to fare better, but not always.  It seems that some programming changes are needed in order to make each mission session have a closer setup for each team with no major layout advantage.  The airfields are not something finnish controls, they are map based.  The target placement is directly under their control.  It should be set that each tgt in game is a maximum distance from the closest main AF.   To make it the most fair, that distance decided on is set,  and not a max or min, but a set #   Rear Depot, 10 km or whatever is decided from an airfield.  The other teams tgts are the same distance from an active airfield

[iFoxRomeo]

1 hour ago, CIA_Elanski said:

yes

 

Would you care to elaborate on this? I don't see a systematic or intended advantage for one or the other side. But that doesn't mean there is none.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I have seen times where the facilities of BOTH sides are placed very far from the nearest home field.  Then again, I have also seen placements where direct covering of the facility is a far flight but, flying to the most likely point to intercept the opponent on their most likely path to the target is much closer. 

 

For example, there is sometimes one high-value Rear Depot facility on the Allied side that spawns all the way to the south east corner of land and is (depending on AF placement) an 80+km flight 1 way.  Likewise, there are times the Axis facilities spawn on the far-west land mass but their home AFs are about the same distance away on the eastern side land mass.  In either situation, there is a long flight to get to the facility by both the attackers and defenders, but the defenders can 'free hunt' along the most direct route to get there and not be too far away from the indirect routes either.   Sure, it doesn't help individual stats like "kills per hour" but, if interceptions are successful, it sure helps with preventing enemy advancement on the map.

 

I know that many people have trouble with spotting enemies low on the ground due to the way on-screen pixels 'blend' the objects together so catching them halfway there isn't easy.  It's a lot better than waiting for the bombs to go off on the target and using the explosions as a reference point to track the enemy plane(s) - like many people tend to do. 

It kind of amazes me how many pilots take off without actually reviewing the map and weather or giving any forethought to a). what the enemy might be doing and where to catch them before they can make their attack or b). (if they are the bomber) what they can do to avoid detection and successfully complete the sortie.

 

If bombers and attackers get shot down after they attack, their personal score might get cancelled but, the damage they did still aids their team's advancement so, the sooner you catch them, the better.  

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I notice that the Stalingrad map got rolled rather quickly, again.  I'm probably one of few, but I like the Stalingrad map.  Perhaps a starting poit more toward the center of the map and objectives placed farther apart would make it last a bit longer?

[Arditi]

Hello, I am a tank player, on several occasions it happened to me that when I destroyed an enemy tank, this player respawned in a plane and came directly after me with an almost obvious result. Is there any chance to penalize the respawn in a plane after playing in a tank with a certain time? (for example 30 minutes) to avoid these situations that only serve frustrated players. I attach a screenshot that shows the event in question.

[ACG_Bob122]

8 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

I notice that the Stalingrad map got rolled rather quickly, again.  I'm probably one of few, but I like the Stalingrad map.  Perhaps a starting poit more toward the center of the map and objectives placed farther apart would make it last a bit longer?

Stalingrad might be my favorite map, though I do really like Rheinland for Finnish. There have been some pretty long Stalingrad maps, but without serious help from the map layout like on Kuban, the Germoids just get rolled. Nobody at all bombed on the 4 Stalingrad missions so the allies just pushed 50km each time.

[JG1_Wittmann]

5 hours ago, Arditi said:

Hello, I am a tank player, on several occasions it happened to me that when I destroyed an enemy tank, this player respawned in a plane and came directly after me

When a tank kills you do you respawn right away  or do you wait 30 minutes ?   It's  up to each player to evaluate and  most will relocate to make that type of thing harder.

What does suck in game is the ridiculous linus cloud behind the tank, on fields, roads, snow, cobblestone (rheinland)   even when it is raining.  Apparently where the programmers work the ground is never wet,  the snow is always dry, and the rain is somehow dry.   The tank crew game,  is simply an add-on to the IL2 game, which is flying. All of these visual cues to give tanks away on the ground  are there to help aircraft find and kill you. The good tank hunters,  see above,  know that they can spot a player tank when the terrain is outside the render range.   Most people that go looking for tanks in a plane  know that.  Trees do not provide cover.  The best hope you have is getting into a town as this type of spotting is made more difficult.   That's  on the developers,  if you didn't relocate after killing someone and they brought a plane back and killed you, that's on you

 

I would like to add,  17 or 18 mosquitos  were given a 57mm gun,  all of those were coastal command.  The #'s on this were so low that gun should never have been implemented in game.

Edited July 6, 2022 by JG1_Wittmann

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

5 hours ago, King_Bob said:

Stalingrad might be my favorite map, though I do really like Rheinland for Finnish. There have been some pretty long Stalingrad maps, but without serious help from the map layout like on Kuban, the Germoids just get rolled. Nobody at all bombed on the 4 Stalingrad missions so the allies just pushed 50km each time.

 

Regardless, it would be nice to see a scenario that takes longer than a few missions to win for either side AND has a good chance of fighting over Stalingrad.  Since we are so far away from 'crafted historical scenarios' I don't see why we can't fight 'over' Stalingrad while fighting to win other locations - even if those locations are 1 horse towns in opposite corners of the map.  

 

56 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

 

---- linus cloud -----  

 

Sorry to be that guy but, if you're referencing "Charlie Brown", the character you're thinking of is Pigpen.

 

58 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

 

I would like to add,  17 or 18 mosquitos  were given a 57mm gun,  all of those were coastal command.  The #'s on this were so low that gun should never have been implemented in game.

 

Well, we need to see just how much 'coast' is usable when the Normandy map comes out and what kind of anti-naval scenarios against Germany can be utilized.  Besides, AR 234 with 20mm cannons would like a word with you.  I'm pretty sure only 1 of these 2 planes actually fired its weapons in real combat.

[JG1_Wittmann]

Well, the coastal aspect so far in game is going to be a non-starter since AP rounds seem to not damage a ship.   Duck's  B2/R3  got the 37mm cannon the stukas got, with more ammo,  they also had the B3 with a 75mm cannon that had more produced then the 57 mosquito.    Fired in combat would not really be a good # to use for any argument as 57mm  fired at tanks, from mosquitos,  in combat was   zero.  Available to be added as a field mod is one thing,  total re-design of the ac's weapons bay at the factory is quite different   If it's capable to be adapted in game to be used however a player wants to is ok with me,   as long as weapons that were more numerous in use are modeled first.   The tank game is missing all kinds of  vehicles needing to be added  and I believe the general consensus is to add more common models first, not unicorns.

Edited July 6, 2022 by JG1_Wittmann

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Well, Ar234 with 20mm pods fired at nothing.   Mosquitos with the 57mm were used for anti-submarine patrols.   The point wasn't to sink the submarine outright - though it would be 'bonus' but to prevent it from diving before the follow-up attack with bombs/rockets or before more attack planes could be called in.  If the round penetrated into the crew compartments and bounced around a bit causing crew injury and general havoc - even better.   

I would be a bit surprised and disappointed if U-boats aren't an available asset in the Normandy full release. 

 

As far as the tanks go...  I understand the devs gave us what they gave us.  Maybe, they'll expand on the ground game at a good pace but, but it's probably not the highest priority.

[O_Mollusc]

Hi 69th_Mobile-BBQ

Speaking as an occasional and blind IL-2 pilot*, but an experienced War Thunder (air and ground) player, I think your last sentence needed an edit:

 

Maybe, they'll expand on the ground game at a good pace but, but it's hopefully not the highest priority.

 

 

* My new PC is being assembled and should arrive in 2-3 weeks. It should handle the graphical load much better

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

15 hours ago, O_Mollusc said:

Hi 69th_Mobile-BBQ

Speaking as an occasional and blind IL-2 pilot*, but an experienced War Thunder (air and ground) player, I think your last sentence needed an edit:

 

Maybe, they'll expand on the ground game at a good pace but, but it's hopefully not the highest priority.

 

 

* My new PC is being assembled and should arrive in 2-3 weeks. It should handle the graphical load much better

 

I'll put a 'like' on it for your PC upgrade.     Enjoy!

 

I see where you're coming from with the suggested 'edit' but, for those of us who have been here a few years (or more), it's pretty well-known that player-drivable tanks and ground vehicles are not anywhere near the top tier of priorities.  The devs stated right from the get-go that it was an experiment that 'went right' and is an extra bit of variety for the products they offer but - besides promised work (Prokhorovka expansion) that they have already delivered in full and an individual promised vehicle (or two) yet to be released - they promise nothing.  They have stated interest in making maps more 'ground vehicle friendly' but they'll get to it when they get to it - as most maps were built to be 'good enough for aircraft only', which satisfies the original intent of the project.

[ACG_Bob122]

So are the admins ever going to change the plane sets 3 and 4? With the 109 update, the F4/G2 just completely dominate set 3. It really feels like clubbing seal pups when flying an F4. The F4/G2 are just straight up equal to the Spit9 now and somehow people think it is fair to fight them in a fucking Yak or LA-5.

 

I am not really sure if set 3 or 4 is more unfair because again somehow people think the A3 is fair in set 4 when it is straight up equal to the Spit9. It can just instantly disengage from any fight and just completely dominates anything in the set. Why is it fun to have a completely dominate plane?

[beresford]

I've just flown a lengthy mission as a German to open the base at Strassfeld. After a fairly comfortable landing I was informed that it was a 'Forced Landing' and therefore (presumably) it wouldn't open the airfield. I've encountered this bug before and have a feeling that it might have been Strassfeld, only flying in from the west instead of the east. Rather than raise this as a bug against the game I am asking if there is anything unusual about Strassfeld that could be causing this.

[LLv34_Untamo]

4 hours ago, beresford said:

I've just flown a lengthy mission as a German to open the base at Strassfeld. After a fairly comfortable landing I was informed that it was a 'Forced Landing' and therefore (presumably) it wouldn't open the airfield. I've encountered this bug before and have a feeling that it might have been Strassfeld, only flying in from the west instead of the east. Rather than raise this as a bug against the game I am asking if there is anything unusual about Strassfeld that could be causing this.

 

Well, that is a weird one. Strassfeld was a temp in that mission, and your sortie ending coordinates correspond to the right location (it isn't unusual that players end up on a totally different airfield that they intend ) and well within the service radius ... For an unknown reason the campaign app couldn't find the airfield in that location...

[CIA_Elanski]

The current map is ridiculous.  Again the allied defend targets are 8 to 10 grids from a base in the north while the german defend targets are 2 or 3 grids from their bases and stuck in between their bases.  And the German temp base is like 3 grids from our targets in the north.  Just uncalled for.  The german bases are spread out in the north and south.  Allied bases lumped together with no chance of defending.

Edited July 14, 2022 by CIA_Elanski

[=LD=Nephrill]

9 hours ago, CIA_Elanski said:

The current map is ridiculous.  Again the allied defend targets are 8 to 10 grids from a base in the north while the german defend targets are 2 or 3 grids from their bases and stuck in between their bases.  And the German temp base is like 3 grids from our targets in the north.  Just uncalled for.  The german bases are spread out in the north and south.  Allied bases lumped together with no chance of defending.

As if Axis powers and Alied powers always had equal circumstances in WW2. It is called "Dynamic War" with a reason. My advice is to try to deal with it and look for advantages. For example: A longer distance to fly to the front gives you room to climb before getting there.

[iFoxRomeo]

11 hours ago, CIA_Elanski said:

The current map is ridiculous.  Again the allied defend targets are 8 to 10 grids from a base in the north while the german defend targets are 2 or 3 grids from their bases and stuck in between their bases.  And the German temp base is like 3 grids from our targets in the north.  Just uncalled for.  The german bases are spread out in the north and south.  Allied bases lumped together with no chance of defending.

Yes yes absolutely. Axis have super duper advantage because it's intended...

 

Who doesn't see the advantage for axis here...

 

 

Are you sure you play on the correct server?

Just as a sidenote: blue is axis, red is allies...

[ITAF_Cymao]

When this is the situation, obviously you don't write anything...

Paranoia is called and you would need a good doctor, a very good doctor!

[Otto_bann]

13 minutes ago, ITAF_Cymao said:

When this is the situation, obviously you don't write anything...

 

+1 : Since 15 years we have been reading the same ridiculous cries of one-eyed people who only want to see things from the side and at the time they want, forgetting everything else... It's childish, dishonest and tiring.

[CIA_Elanski]

current map.  3 of our defend targets 10 plus grids from our bases...ffs again

[DD_Friar]

Salute @CIA_Elanski

I am sure the creators and managers of the FVP are looking forward to playing on your server that is pretty much available 24/7, with maps that are generated to be complex in the number of bases and objectives, both in the air and on the ground, that are rotated on a regular basis, have front lines that move based on targets hit and that are totally balanced for both sides on every occasion.

 

[Leady_Brickov]

Hi FVP team

 

Can I ask you to think of the poor trucks? Specifically the poor AAA trucks? These guys just want to do their job and protect stuff, but currently they aren't allowed ? 

 

Well, without continuing to be cryptic, it would be great to be able to spawn in at the Depots and Railway stations and protect these high value targets. Currently the only option is using them at the front lines where either they are far too vulnerable to tanks and roving fighters or a player sits next to a troops target, waiting for enemy ground attack aircraft that never turn up (because they are likely attacking 1 of the other 17 troops bases and not the one you are parked next to, defending).

 

Currently the AAA at depots and stations gets knocked out by 2-3 fighters in the first 30min of the mission, then these targets are left mostly defenseless for the next 3.5hrs 

 

If a spawn point is placed next to each depot and station, AAA truck players can help contribute to the defense of these targets. This would result in a more dynamic game in FVP, giving players more ways of contributing to the play experience. Also if these vehicles see more use in game, the development team may consider adding in other interesting light combat vehicles.

 

 

[LLv34_Untamo]

15 hours ago, Leady_Brickov said:

Hi FVP team

 

Can I ask you to think of the poor trucks? Specifically the poor AAA trucks? These guys just want to do their job and protect stuff, but currently they aren't allowed ? 

 

Well, without continuing to be cryptic, it would be great to be able to spawn in at the Depots and Railway stations and protect these high value targets. Currently the only option is using them at the front lines where either they are far too vulnerable to tanks and roving fighters or a player sits next to a troops target, waiting for enemy ground attack aircraft that never turn up (because they are likely attacking 1 of the other 17 troops bases and not the one you are parked next to, defending).

 

Currently the AAA at depots and stations gets knocked out by 2-3 fighters in the first 30min of the mission, then these targets are left mostly defenseless for the next 3.5hrs 

 

If a spawn point is placed next to each depot and station, AAA truck players can help contribute to the defense of these targets. This would result in a more dynamic game in FVP, giving players more ways of contributing to the play experience. Also if these vehicles see more use in game, the development team may consider adding in other interesting light combat vehicles.

 

 

 

We've thought about it, and the only problem really is the spawns themselves, as they work as enemy indicators. If we had the power, we would remove this "radar" feature from all spawns. We'll give this some more thought...

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 hours ago, LLv34_Untamo said:

 

We've thought about it, and the only problem really is the spawns themselves, as they work as enemy indicators. If we had the power, we would remove this "radar" feature from all spawns. We'll give this some more thought...

 

Well, to be fair, most spawn point emplacements "should" at least have some way to simulate radio man capabilities.  I get that this is hard because without the "radar" showing in the map, the "Aircraft spotted at X location" messages would be a flood in the top corner of the screen.  

 

If the spawn for AAA trucks on-site could reliably be placed close enough to the facility, it most likely wouldn't give any extra warning than the messages we already have.

 

I'd like to see some more visual cues that don't require constant map checking too.  If Airfields and facilities shot flares when an enemy got into the "call-out/radar zone", IMO it would be very helpful.    

[FeuerFliegen]

I apologize if this has been mentioned recently, but has any more work or thought been put into the bugs/issues with the static tanks at the frontline?  I remember it was this way over a year ago, but some time before that, it didn't seem to be a problem from what I recall.

 

It seems like any time I drive a tank to the frontline, the only thing that will defend itself are the anti-tank artillery positions, whereas the tanks just sit there and do nothing.  On top of that, sometimes the tanks are impossible to destroy, even with a point-blank shot straight to the rear of a T34 from a Tiger.  Sometimes it does work through, not sure what causes it.  I don't know why it stopped working, but I recall a time a while ago when if you came anywhere near the frontline troops in a tank, you would be met with shells from any visible tank and it was very difficult, and there were no issues with destroying these tanks assuming you hit them properly.

 

I also wish that it was at least slightly more realistic, being that if you attacked the frontline with a single tank, you'd have hell coming your way from multiple AT guns and tanks, as well as AA guns turning their guns towards you, and the only solid way to attack the frontline would be with multiple tanks working together, flanking from different angles.

 

Another suggestion- in the same way a Ju-88, He111, A-20, etc. is used as transport planes since not everyone has the Ju52, use the AA trucks as supply trucks and be able to respawn ai AA units at various frontline troop positions.  That way the enemy couldn't just take out AA and count on no ground to air defenses being there for the next several hours.  And maybe do the same thing with the parachute cargo from the Ju-52?  You could implement the same idea with depots and station/industrial areas with Ju-52 parachute air cargo drops.

 

Also, do you guys ever consider opening up an early plane set rotation that only has the earliest of planes, i.e. I-16, Bf109 E-7, Stuka, 1941 IL-2, Pe-2 series.35, He111 H-6?  I would personally enjoy a few days at the start of each campaign of nothing but the earliest of planes.

 

One last question- do you guys ever put the server on other maps such as Velikie Luki, Prokhorovka, etc.?

 

Lots of potential!  I appreciate your hard work and look forward to future changes and improvements!

[LLv34_Temuri]

1 hour ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

has any more work or thought been put into the bugs/issues with the static tanks at the frontline?

On my TODO list to remove the static tanks as their DM seems to be borked regarding tank rounds. What should really be done is a video bug report to the devs about this.

 

1 hour ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

I also wish that it was at least slightly more realistic, being that if you attacked the frontline with a single tank, you'd have hell coming your way from multiple AT guns and tanks, as well as AA guns turning their guns towards you, and the only solid way to attack the frontline would be with multiple tanks working together, flanking from different angles.

We're running on the edge of how much AI there can be, but we can try adding one or two more AI. However, I'm currently thinking about implementing artillery spotting flights that trigger artillery barrages on enemy positions, so don't hold your breath.

 

1 hour ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Another suggestion- in the same way a Ju-88, He111, A-20, etc. is used as transport planes since not everyone has the Ju52, use the AA trucks as supply trucks and be able to respawn ai AA units at various frontline troop positions.  That way the enemy couldn't just take out AA and count on no ground to air defenses being there for the next several hours.  And maybe do the same thing with the parachute cargo from the Ju-52?  You could implement the same idea with depots and station/industrial areas with Ju-52 parachute air cargo drops.

I like this idea. It gives an incentive to do paradrops and adds a mission type to ground vehicles. This would need some target template changes and also some campaign app side changes, as the respawn logic needs to be added.