KNIGHTS OF THE AIR Multiplayer Server

[=FEW=N3cRoo]

Opinions of anybody != Rules or mechanics of the game

Admins == any other player in all aspects even to other admins, you still play the game. 

Leave the deletion/backpedaling of discussions or just dont post hasty responses, in general it always looks sketchy to other ppl when that happens.

I even asked hauggy to take back the minor namecall since having negative vibes during a judgement never helps. 

 

Chutekilling will and always has been a hot potato boolean, make up your mind

Do no kick without valid reason or even discussion if its not clear.

 

Simple

 

[Sketch]

I would think that making rules as clear as possible are important in server administration. Would a pilot get kicked if that pilot destroyed all the AAA at an enemy base, and then landed their plane on the runway and shot anyone spawning in? Probably not a 'knightly' action, but hey,  "They were helping their side of the war!" 

 

This is an example of where clear, concise rules and procedures are paramount.

Edited August 27, 2018 by [TWB]Sketch
grammar

[=IRSS=3wu]

Congratulate, finally competition for WoL.?

[CSW_606_Druindin]

google translator: Yesterday, I lost two victories due to disconnecting players. Please tick the rules that it is not allowed  

 

(original text: Včera jsem přišel o dva sestřely kvůli odpojujícím se hráčům. Prosím dopiště do pravidel, že to není povoleno )

[BubiHUN]

Just now, 606_Druindin said:

google translator: Yesterday, I lost two victories due to disconnecting players. Please tick the rules that it is not allowed  

 

(original text: Včera jsem přišel o dva sestřely kvůli odpojujícím se hráčům. Prosím dopiště do pravidel, že to není povoleno )

If they  keep disconnecting there is a little problem with their internet connection. 

[CSW_606_Druindin]

google translator: disconnect after damage, not before  

 

(odpojují se po poškození, ne před )

[BubiHUN]

2 minutes ago, 606_Druindin said:

google translator: disconnect after damage, not before  

 

(odpojují se po poškození, ne před )

Then they press ALT+F4. Game disconnects right after you press this combination. 

[ITAF_Rani]

Hi, I would suggest the idea of the "spy mission", performed by

German= ju52 or he 111 (not armed with bombs)

Russian= Pe2 (not armed with bombs) or maybe in the next future the Po2.

 

The plane should be take off from only one base, land in enemy territory in a specific point, stay there a couple of minutes than return back.

The result of mission can provide new targets or conquer enemy territory.

 

Just an idea..

Salute

[TP_Sparky]

4 hours ago, [TWB]Sketch said:

I would think that making rules as clear as possible are important in server administration. Would a pilot get kicked if that pilot destroyed all the AAA at an enemy base, and then landed their plane on the runway and shot anyone spawning in? Probably not a 'knightly' action, but hey,  "They were helping their side of the war!" 

 

This is an example of where clear, concise rules and procedures are paramount.

 

This is an example of "face palming."  Why would anyone ever contemplate something so stupid and unrealistic?  Ground personnel with small arms would immediately perforate your aircraft and set you ablaze.  No, that's not simulated in-game but it would happen in real life so don't ever try something so obviously "gamey" and "rules lawer-ey."   This is actually the most offensive practice I've ever heard suggested and has no place in IL2, IMHO.

[BubiHUN]

1 minute ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Hi, I would suggest the idea of the "spy mission", performed by

German= ju52 or he 111 (not armed with bombs)

Russian= Pe2 (not armed with bombs) or maybe in the next future the Po2.

 

The plane should be take off from only one base, land in enemy territory in a specific point, stay there a couple of minutes than return back.

The result of mission can provide new targets or conquer enemy territory.

 

Just an idea..

Salute

Thank you for your idea! I will save it, and when i master ME i will surely make "targets" like this

[ITAF_Rani]

I' m happy you have found it interesting

?

Edited August 27, 2018 by ITAF_Rani
Correction

[BubiHUN]

Just now, ITAF_Rani said:

I' m happy you have found it interesting

?

If you have any other idea, please, let me know.

[Sketch]

7 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

This is an example of "face palming."  Why would anyone ever contemplate something so stupid and unrealistic?  Ground personnel with small arms would immediately perforate your aircraft and set you ablaze.  No, that's not simulated in-game but it would happen in real life so don't ever try something so obviously "gamey" and "rules lawer-ey."   This is actually the most offensive practice I've ever heard suggested and has no place in IL2, IMHO.

 

Hi Sparky, sorry this has got you heated. Just want to be clear that I did not suggest this, but instead wanted to point out, with an example, that without clear rules people will game the game. And it has been done before (not by me), on other servers including WoL without any repercussions from the administration.

Edited August 27, 2018 by [TWB]Sketch

[TP_Sparky]

5 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Hi, I would suggest the idea of the "spy mission", performed by

German= ju52 or he 111 (not armed with bombs)

Russian= Pe2 (not armed with bombs) or maybe in the next future the Po2.

 

The plane should be take off from only one base, land in enemy territory in a specific point, stay there a couple of minutes than return back.

The result of mission can provide new targets or conquer enemy territory.

 

Just an idea..

Salute

 

Cool idea, but rather than land perhaps it flies to specified waypoints of interest.  I wouldn't land behind enemy lines.  Also, I'd use a Ju-88 or Me-110 rather than Ante Ju.  Corrugated is overrated when fighters find you.  ☠️

2 minutes ago, [TWB]Sketch said:

 

Hi Sparky, sorry this has got you heated. Just want to be clear that I did not suggest this, but instead wanted to point out, with an example, that without clear rules people will game the game. And it has been done before (not by me), on other servers including WoL without any repercussions from the administration.

 

My apologies.  Some rules shouldn't have to be specified and their punishment should be expulsion or the old infantry "wall-to-wall counselling."  ?

[ITAF_Rani]

Another idea to promote the fighter escort of bombers could be:

 

If the bombers ( better with the help of fighter escort) destroy the enemy factory plane in a specific part of the enemy territory ( north, center, south), the enemy base of this area will see reduced to 1/3 the number of plane available.

Supply mission could be created to make the factory working again.

 

[BubiHUN]

3 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Another idea to promote the fighter escort of bombers could be:

 

If the bombers ( better with the help of fighter escort) destroy the enemy factory plane in a specific part of the enemy territory ( north, center, south), the enemy base of this area will see reduced to 1/3 the number of plane available.

Supply mission could be created to make the factory working again.

 

We almost finished a mission wich is very close to your idea. Soon, it will be playable.

[ITAF_Rani]

2 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

6 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Another idea to promote the fighter escort of bombers could be:

 

If the bombers ( better with the help of fighter escort) destroy the enemy factory plane in a specific part of the enemy territory ( north, center, south), the enemy base of this area will see reduced to 1/3 the number of plane available.

Supply mission could be created to make the factory working again.

 

We almost finished a mission wich is very close to your idea. Soon, it will be playable

Lol?

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

30 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Hi, I would suggest the idea of the "spy mission", performed by

German= ju52 or he 111 (not armed with bombs)

Russian= Pe2 (not armed with bombs) or maybe in the next future the Po2.

 

The plane should be take off from only one base, land in enemy territory in a specific point, stay there a couple of minutes than return back.

The result of mission can provide new targets or conquer enemy territory.

 

Just an idea..

Salute

Wait if the LW have to use very slow planes like 52 or 111 then why not make VVS take IL2 or A20 with fuel
Or even better make the LW spotter or spy plane 110 E/G2 (G2 prefered) and make the VVS spotter pe2.

They can both climb to 9,000M pretty quick and act as spotter with little chance of many fighters reaching them, or zoom on the deck as a spy 

[ITAF_Rani]

Just now, =TBAS=Sshadow14 said:

Wait if the LW have to use very slow planes like 52 or 111 then why not make VVS take IL2 or A20 with fuel
Or even better make the LW spotter or spy plane 110 E/G2 (G2 prefered) and make the VVS spotter pe2.

They can both climb to 9,000M pretty quick and act as spotter with little chance of many fighters reaching them, or zoom on the deck as a spy 

Of course the right plane must be decided by the admins of the server , and I m pretty sure they will find the right one for this kind of mission...

For me spotter mission is not so attractive.

Fly low in enemy territory, be smart to avoid fighters land and pray, generate more adrenaline.

Fly over a target at 9k is non sense.

Land in enemy territory and come back seems to me more funny

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

13 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Fly over a target at 9k is non sense.

The 9K i was meaning for spotting plane  (like on the wings mission its takes 16 minutes of continuous circling to spot the target),
so the only safe place to do this from is 8.5KM or higher, even then we had migs trying to reach us. 

Also once we get a couple High Alt planes in BoBP then new Non sense alt will be like 12K

Edited August 27, 2018 by =TBAS=Sshadow14

[ITAF_Rani]

I d like see also the possibility of rescue a team mate if he has bailed out in enemy territory.

Try to land close the place where he bailed

Wait couple mins and take off.

The pilot bailed will see in the stats rescued by..

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by ITAF_Rani

[Ropalcz]

3 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

I d like see also the possibility of rescue a team mate if he has bailed out in enemy territory.

Try to land close the place where he bailed

Wait couple mins and take off.

The pilot bailed will see in the stats rescued by..

 

 

Could it be done with paratroopers? Drop "rescue team" (paratroopers) in the area of his crash landing and he will be saved for example in 5 mins after they land.

[TP_Sparky]

Just now, ITAF_Rani said:

I d like see also the possibility of rescue a team mate if he has bailed out in enemy territory.

Try to land close the place of him bailed

Wait couple mins and take off.

The pilot bailed will see in the stats rescued by..

 

 

I think this is the only situation whereby someone might land behind enemy lines but I fear it would create gamey behavior. Given it's ultra-rarity in real life I'd regretfully suggest we not do this because I'd be the first to try to rescue friends, as would we all. 

 

As for recon flights landing, no way.  If we did Western Front and simulated Occupied France and had Lysanders and SOE insertions and downed pilot pickups, maybe, but even SOE guys often parachuted in.  Landing recon flights behind enemy lines is as unrealistic as "land the spy on the train" from some old Playstation flying game.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

A couple interesting missions you guys could make:

-Mock up North Africa missions, with the Summer Stalingrad map it does look desertic enough imho, specially the South-Eastern and North-Eastern parts of the map.

For an early setting, the lineup could be: Bf 109 E-7, MC 202, Bf 110 E, Ju 87 D-3, He 111 H-6 and Ju 88 A-4 vs P-40E and A-20B.
For a mid setting, the Bf 109 F-2, F-4 and Spit Mk Vb could be added.
For a later setting, you could add the Bf 109 Gs, Hs 129, Bf 110 G, Fw 190 A-3 and P-39L.

I know there isn't much variance in the Allied planeset, Hurricanes for the early mission, and late P-40s and early Spit Mk IX would be nice for the late setting but well, still the planes we have are workable imho.

Another mission I was thinking about was one that could make use of the Bodenplatte planes, so I thought of a mid 1944 Eastern Front mock up:

The planes could be Bf 109 G-14, Bf 109 G-6, Fw 190 A-8, Hs 129, Ju 87 D, Ju 88 A-4, He 111 H-16 vs Yak-1B, La-5FN, P-39L, (maybe Spit LF Mk IX?), Pe-2 s87, A-20B, IL-2 1943.

What do you think?

I think it is possible to lock some of the standard skins, as I have seen once in a WoL mission (it looked like a mission designer error though, as it was one random LaGG-3 skin in a particular airfield). But for the North Africa missions you could make it so the Allied planes would only have US-British markings, it would give some immersive factor to it.

[ITAF_Rani]

I suggest also to lock the fuel disponibility for planes if the closest  factory or facilities have been destroyed.

[LuftManu]

Today on the server a Stuka squadron was overflying our airfield

 

 

[ITAF_Rani]

21 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

28 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

 

 

I think this is the only situation whereby someone might land behind enemy lines but I fear it would create gamey behavior. Given it's ultra-rarity in real life I'd regretfully suggest we not do this because I'd be the first to try to rescue friends, as would we all. 

This procedure require skill landing.

And also the pilot bailed has to be luky to have someone was flying close him.

In fact the rescue mission for me is possible in 5-6 minutes since he has bailed...after that he remain in status of captured

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

7 hours ago, [I./JG62]Knipser said:

I for sure don't want to warm up the old debate, but chutekilling sucks! In a dynamic campaign like TAW, chutekillers try to justify their actions with reducing the number of available pilots, since it's a winning condition. Fine, have to accept that. But on a server like this, with single misisons, pilot numbers don't count, the only purpose it serves is to f**k up someone else's streak. Shooting down your opponent, and getting credited for it just doesn't seem to be enough for some dudes playing this game. Please just make it an official rule on this server, that should help to get rid of this problem.

 

I understand why you might want a rule against it due to people sometimes using chutekilling as a personal insult.  However, I must agree with the idea that if you bail out undamaged after vulching, or are damaged while vulching and bail out - bye bye parachute.  Hell, even the airfield AAA should help kill your chute. 

I'm not even against vulching.  It's been done to me, and I have done it as well.   I may do it again sometime.  But, I think getting outright killed, dead in your chute, should be a reasonable risk to an unsuccessful vulch attack.

 

One would think if chutekilling was outlawed, the vulching should be too.  But, I don't want to see a whole bunch of rules about "etiquette" forcing rule-after-rule onto the main page. 

I think if players want some semblance of unwritten laws of server etiquette that follows the community to whatever server they mass to, then that needs to be another thread.

Don't get me wrong. I do support some idea of etiquette, but I'm not interested in becoming some server-roving forum squad saying, "These are the rules you MUST post if you want a successful server.".  IMO, people like that need to be banned faster than blatant abuse of another player in chat.

 

If abusive behavior is witnessed on KOTA, then the Admins should deal with it on a case-by-case basis, not by restricting gameplay options from those who are mature enough to regulate themselves. 

[BubiHUN]

33 minutes ago, LF_ManuV said:

Today on the server a Stuka squadron was overflying our airfield

 

 

That is a very nice formation SG2! 

Edited August 27, 2018 by -[HRAF]BubiHUN

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

26 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

This procedure require skill landing.

And also the pilot bailed has to be luky to have someone was flying close him.

In fact the rescue mission for me is possible in 5-6 minutes since he has bailed...after that he remain in status of captured

Fighter pilots didn't land in the countryside to save their downed wingmen. They would note the location and let command know. I heard of some plane landing for rescue in north africa but not in the east, not a very realistic aspect and very complicated to implement. 

[BubiHUN]

Just now, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

Fighter pilots didn't land in the countryside to save their downed wingmen. They would note the location and let command know. I heard of some plane landing for rescue in north africa but not in the east, not a very realistic aspect and very complicated to implement. 

There were some extreme situations. The most decorated Stuka pilot did that a few times. On enemy territory. 

[ITAF_Rani]

1 minute ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

Fighter pilots didn't land in the countryside to save their downed wingmen. They would note the location and let command know. I heard of some plane landing for rescue in north africa but not in the east, not a very realistic aspect and very complicated to implement. 

In the first bellum war tournament during the early 2000 was allowed....and made great fun and suspance..

[JonRedcorn]

45 minutes ago, LF_ManuV said:

Today on the server a Stuka squadron was overflying our airfield

 

 

Well that's just amazing.

[=[V]P=Grunf]

12 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I understand why you might want a rule against it due to people sometimes using chutekilling as a personal insult.  However, I must agree with the idea that if you bail out undamaged after vulching, or are damaged while vulching and bail out - bye bye parachute.  Hell, even the airfield AAA should help kill your chute. 

I'm not even against vulching.  It's been done to me, and I have done it as well.   I may do it again sometime.  But, I think getting outright killed, dead in your chute, should be a reasonable risk to an unsuccessful vulch attack.

 

One would think if chutekilling was outlawed, the vulching should be too.  But, I don't want to see a whole bunch of rules about "etiquette" forcing rule-after-rule onto the main page. 

I think if players want some semblance of unwritten laws of server etiquette that follows the community to whatever server they mass to, then that needs to be another thread.

Don't get me wrong. I do support some idea of etiquette, but I'm not interested in becoming some server-roving forum squad saying, "These are the rules you MUST post if you want a successful server.".  IMO, people like that need to be banned faster than blatant abuse of another player in chat.

 

If abusive behavior is witnessed on KOTA, then the Admins should deal with it on a case-by-case basis, not by restricting gameplay options from those who are mature enough to regulate themselves. 

I didn't want to interfere in this topic until now and yes the server rules didn't mention it, that it is forbidden. 

But please allow me to quote the Geneva Convention:

 

"OCCUPANTS OF AIRCRAFT

Article 42 [ Link ] -- Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article."

 

Source of quotation: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750051?OpenDocument

 

Good night chaps 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I don't recall either Germany or Russia having signed the Geneva Convention during the war.  

[JonRedcorn]

6 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Grunf said:

I didn't want to interfere in this topic until now and yes the server rules didn't mention it, that it is forbidden. 

But please allow me to quote the Geneva Convention:

 

"OCCUPANTS OF AIRCRAFT

Article 42 [ Link ] -- Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article."

 

Source of quotation: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750051?OpenDocument

 

Good night chaps 

what if he reaches for his cigarettes?

[BubiHUN]

4 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

I don't recall either Germany or Russia having signed the Geneva Convention during the war.  

Germany signed it.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

They did a great job of adhering to it too.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[BubiHUN]

Just now, Mobile_BBQ said:

They did a great of adhering to it too.

There is a difference between an officer and another. Let's leave this case as it is, please. 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Roger that.