Jump to content
Alonzo

Combat Box by Red Flight

Recommended Posts

I'm working on the stats problem, it's something to do with upgrading to the latest version of the stats software. For some reason some old logs haven't been moved/deleted by the stats script, so they are coming up as duplicates. I'm now on my third try to get things processed correctly.

 

Today is a day I am relieved I have a backup of the database immediately before attempting the upgrade. ūüėČ

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Combat Box is pretty popular these days, and as a result some of the best IL2 pilots are regularly on the server looking for action. If you are getting shot down a lot, you need to adjust your tactics: Use in-game chat to ask for cover, join up with other ground attackers who are also taking off, get reports about how strong is the defence at a target, go for targets that are not part of a "hot spot" etc. Join voice comms either on Discord or elsewhere.  Look for a wingman in #looking-for-wingman. Consider joining a squad and flying with a bigger group. Fly higher en-route to target, make a single high speed pass, and bug out immediately. "One pass, haul ass." Try level bombing from 6,000m.

 

To be fair though, I did just flyout to 13,000 feet in a P-38 in light clouds conditions and spot an incoming Ju-88 flying at 1km from 20+km away.  The sun lit him up like a Christmas tree. I even blew my first pass and had plenty of time and energy to make another. 

 

Tactics are great and all, but I'm starting to be of the opinion that even expert mode spotting can, at times, be quite overdone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tactic does not matter flying heavy in a P 47.  
Nothing wrong getting shot down in thise conditions. No matter when you spot enemy you simply are too slow getting away. 
I simply want more people on comms get things a tad more organized. 
When I am in no one ison discord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

My tactic does not matter flying heavy in a P 47.  
Nothing wrong getting shot down in thise conditions. No matter when you spot enemy you simply are too slow getting away. 
I simply want more people on comms get things a tad more organized. 
When I am in no one ison discord

I've experienced this a bit as well. Last night I was flying for a couple hours, server nearly full, and Discord was quiet. A couple people popped in briefly but one switched to the axis to balance sides and the other I think got disconnected because of bad ping. I find the Discord is more active during the weekends or during the coordinated fly outs that Sketch mentioned above. I think maybe we have a lot of new players, or at least players new to the server, so we get a lot of solo flyers in between the squads who probably have their own voice channels, and people are reluctant to jump onto the general voice chat on the CB discord.

I was running the same missions last night that you are basically, P-47 fighter-bomber sorties. I did get some cover via the text chat on a couple sorties but they weren't able to get to me before I got shot down. So my mortality rate was basically 100%. When the server is full and the sides are even, all the targets are buzzing with fighters so getting in and out without being attacked is extremely difficult, even if you go for one-pass-haul-ass.

I'm not sure what time of day you usually fly, your typical flying time is probably drastically different than mine, but if you see me on the server I'm almost always on the Discord, and if I'm not call me out in the chat and I can get on it and fly escort. Last time we did that I was at least a semi-effective bullet sponge if I'm remembering correctly lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I venture on to CB I'm usually on Team Speak, and there are a good bunch of guys using it while in CB.  I'm talking about the IL2 Battle of Stalingrad team speak server.  Last time I was on there were at least nine guys in CB flying together. 

 

Cheers

Hoss

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 361st_Hoss said:

When I venture on to CB I'm usually on Team Speak, and there are a good bunch of guys using it while in CB.  I'm talking about the IL2 Battle of Stalingrad team speak server.  Last time I was on there were at least nine guys in CB flying together. 

 

Cheers

Hoss

Do you have an address for the Teamspeak Server? Last time I tried to connect to it it was down or I had the wrong address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 361st_Hoss said:

When I venture on to CB I'm usually on Team Speak, and there are a good bunch of guys using it while in CB.  I'm talking about the IL2 Battle of Stalingrad team speak server.  Last time I was on there were at least nine guys in CB flying together. 

 

Cheers

Hoss

Ok as long as I know where they are. 
please note that my post here was not ment as a critique. 
I like the people flying there, many but in good atmosphere

Edited by No.322_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I always see planes before I see tracers. That's the exact opposite of how it should be.  It doesn't matter the mode.  

 

As far as spotting during winter, I'm sure that IRL with the snow reflecting and scattering light all around, it's harder to see planes in general.  Planes with chrome finish like the 38, 47 and 51 ought to blend in against the shiny, snowy ground a lot better under such conditions.  Planes with white paint obviously do too.  

 

It's not the spotting mode.  

 

Why would you expect to see the tracers first? In reality, during daylight hours, tracers aren't that bright and can be fairly difficult to see even from close range unless you are behind the shooter. At night or dawn/dusk they are easier to see but they aren't exactly a major light source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Combat box is OFF :cray:

Taken down for the hotfix maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came here to check the signups for Friday Night Fights (previous page) and almost didn't find anything...is it my imagination or didn't this thread used to be stickied?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it did use to be stickied. By far one of the best servers around and one of the fullest both in EU and US timezones. Can we get this fixed @Jason_Williams?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, [TWB]Sketch said:

I believe it did use to be stickied. By far one of the best servers around and one of the fullest both in EU and US timezones. Can we get this fixed @Jason_Williams?

 

+1 Pretty please with sugar on top and thank you in advance.

 

Edited by =[TIA]=Stoopy
forgot to say thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talon,

 

You mentioned before that Oct was a bit of a hype regarding reds and that you would sort the balance out!

Therefore, one week into Nov and reds winning almost 7:1, I was wondering what balancing is being proposed?

 

V/R

Haza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Haza said:

Talon,

 

You mentioned before that Oct was a bit of a hype regarding reds and that you would sort the balance out!

Therefore, one week into Nov and reds winning almost 7:1, I was wondering what balancing is being proposed?

 

V/R

Haza

 

Axis just aren't ground attacking a lot of the time and we're still figuring out how to encourage it. That being said, when they do they normally win.

 

Bridge Too Far has axis mostly fighting behind friendly lines with little risk of capture, plus no 150 octane fuel for Allies even though it was historically there. It's also the map that seems most balanced in terms of outcomes even though Axis don't have access to jets, Doras or Kurfursts.

 

Eindhoven has jets, though instead of bombing with them as they were used historically players are mostly using them to attack other players during takeoff and landing. It's also the map with the least historical basis so it's kinda bottom of the list for a balance pass in case we replace it with something a little more "real".

 

Ruhr Pocket is brand new and we have addressed several issues with it recently such as the tents overinflating the ground kills per side and obfuscating the data in terms of actual important targets being knocked out. It's very much a work in progress though - AB2F hasn't always been as balanced as it is, it took a few weeks to get there, and we're still at that stage with Ruhr Pocket.

 

We have some ideas and are tweaking the maps as we go but @Alonzo has been administrating remotely for the past few weeks which makes major changes hard.

 

We are working on it but we only get one "busy" run of each map per night for useful data analysis so the process is a little glacial. Encourage all your friends to fly so we can have full server mission results all day and we can get more data ūüėÖ

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Talon_ said:

 

Axis just aren't ground attacking a lot of the time and we're still figuring out how to encourage it. That being said, when they do they normally win.

 

Bridge Too Far has axis mostly fighting behind friendly lines with little risk of capture, plus no 150 octane fuel for Allies even though it was historically there. It's also the map that seems most balanced in terms of outcomes even though Axis don't have access to jets, Doras or Kurfursts.

 

Eindhoven has jets, though instead of bombing with them as they were used historically players are mostly using them to attack other players during takeoff and landing. It's also the map with the least historical basis so it's kinda bottom of the list for a balance pass in case we replace it with something a little more "real".

 

Ruhr Pocket is brand new and we have addressed several issues with it recently such as the tents overinflating the ground kills per side and obfuscating the data in terms of actual important targets being knocked out. It's very much a work in progress though - AB2F hasn't always been as balanced as it is, it took a few weeks to get there, and we're still at that stage with Ruhr Pocket.

 

We have some ideas and are tweaking the maps as we go but @Alonzo has been administrating remotely for the past few weeks which makes major changes hard.

 

We are working on it but we only get one "busy" run of each map per night for useful data analysis so the process is a little glacial. Encourage all your friends to fly so we can have full server mission results all day and we can get more data ūüėÖ

 

Talon,

 

Thank you for the reply!

 

This month I'm playing either sides to try and keep things level, therefore, I care little for either side winning, however, as the Axis towards the end were very much on the defensive, how about limiting the Axis ground objectives and place the winning requirements for the axis on the number of aircraft shot down?

 

The bomber 262 are very limited even as bombers, however, if you were to lock them in the bomber configuration this might alter the mind-set rather than assuming players will do the right thing and use them as bombers!?  

 

Encouraging players to play just to get your numbers up to gain more data when the facts speaks volumes, perhaps is inferring turning a blind-eye as long as the server is populated, or would I be reading to much into that?

 

V/R

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

Axis just aren't ground attacking a lot of the time and we're still figuring out how to encourage it.

 

My 2 cents: 

 

- Why not having Ju88 available on all maps? It's the most efficient bomber and blue side doesn't have it on A bridge too far. 

 

- On that same map, bridges objectives looks hard to complete. What do we need to do? Does one bomb on the bridge is enough? How many bunkers, tanks and vehicles we need to destroy?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

- On that same map, bridges objectives looks hard to complete. What do we need to do? Does one bomb on the bridge is enough? How many bunkers, tanks and vehicles we need to destroy?

Good point. Just the other day I took out the Arnhem bridge with the He-111. Yet after the bridge was destroyed, it didn't say so on the map. I mean, who cares about a bunker if the bridge is gone? Or is this as a mean to not make the tearget too easy to destroy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Good point. Just the other day I took out the Arnhem bridge with the He-111. Yet after the bridge was destroyed, it didn't say so on the map. I mean, who cares about a bunker if the bridge is gone? Or is this as a mean to not make the tearget too easy to destroy?

 

Perhaps the map should be called ‚Äú A bridge, bunkers, ammo dumps, vehicles and flak guns too¬†far‚ÄĚ? ūüĎćūüŹĽ

 

 

Edited by Haza
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We set out to bomb the bridges in Nijmegen[1,2] yesterday and I told my mate not to expect anything, because the actual target might be a bicycle leaning on a tree somewhere there.

 

[1] Actually we wanted to do a divebomb attack in the JU88, but -- alas! -- no JU88 available.

[2] There is two and the icon is inbetween.

Edited by JG4_dingsda
Hehe bycicle -> bicycle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JG4_dingsda said:

We set out to bomb the bridges in Nijmegen[1,2] yesterday and I told my mate not to expect anything, because the actual target might be a bycicle leaning on a tree somewhere there.

 

[1] Actually we wanted to do a divebomb attack in the JU88, but -- alas! -- no JU88 available.

[2] There is two and the icon is inbetween.

 

Alas, it was a unicycle!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the mission info it is listed that you have to kill more than just the bridge ;)

 

I've asked Alonzo to add the Ju88. I thought it was in the map already and this is the first I've heard about it!

29 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Or is this as a mean to not make the tearget too easy to destroy

 

If we ran with just the bridges then 7 players could end the map with a co-ordinated strike in 15 minutes. The current solution actually leads to some pretty even winrates which is nice to see!

2 hours ago, Haza said:

Encouraging players to play just to get your numbers up to gain more data when the facts speaks volumes, perhaps is inferring turning a blind-eye as long as the server is populated, or would I be reading to much into that?

 

In terms of facts, we generally only pay attention to wins when the mission has had 100 or more players log in. This is because during quieter times, one co-ordinated squad can cause a big swing one way or another compared to busier times when there will often be squads on both sides.

 

All the data we have for November is here:

image.png.c1bd360de802542d6203dd117b5ea315.png

 

You can see that actually, Bridge is pretty balanced. Eindhoven isn't great and still leans Red but for now we should probably not prioritise it, because Pocket is just a redwash every time. This is despite the fact that we have made the targets for Blue easier in several steps as the month has gone on - for instance you can now actually knock out an Allied tank convoy without killing any tanks, just shooting all the trucks and flak is enough. Blue actually have an airspawn too just to help them cover more ground.

 

I don't really like discussing exact plans at the moment because @Alonzo is still away from his editing setup and having to do everything remotely, so if I start making promises and they don't get implemented immediately people will start to get frustrated.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the win ratios on A Bridge Too Far are the ultimate aim for every mission. We will re-add the Ju88 but otherwise I'm pretty satisfied with that mission and honestly it seems like players are too!

 

 

2 hours ago, Haza said:

The bomber 262 are very limited even as bombers, however, if you were to lock them in the bomber configuration this might alter the mind-set rather than assuming players will do the right thing and use them as bombers!?  

 

They drop the bombs after takeoff and go on their merry way vulching players as normal sadly!

Edited by Talon_
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

In the mission info it is listed that you have to kill more than just the bridge ;)

 

I've asked Alonzo to add the Ju88. I thought it was in the map already and this is the first I've heard about it!

 

If we ran with just the bridges then 7 players could end the map with a co-ordinated strike in 15 minutes. The current solution actually leads to some pretty even winrates which is nice to see!

 

In terms of facts, we generally only pay attention to wins when the mission has had 100 or more players log in. This is because during quieter times, one co-ordinated squad can cause a big swing one way or another compared to busier times when there will often be squads on both sides.

 

All the data we have for November is here:

image.png.c1bd360de802542d6203dd117b5ea315.png

 

You can see that actually, Bridge is pretty balanced. Eindhoven isn't great and still leans Red but for now we should probably not prioritise it, because Pocket is just a redwash every time. This is despite the fact that we have made the targets for Blue easier in several steps as the month has gone on - for instance you can now actually knock out an Allied tank convoy without killing any tanks, just shooting all the trucks and flak is enough. Blue actually have an airspawn too just to help them cover more ground.

 

I don't really like discussing exact plans at the moment because @Alonzo is still away from his editing setup and having to do everything remotely, so if I start making promises and they don't get implemented immediately people will start to get frustrated.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the win ratios on A Bridge Too Far are the ultimate aim for every mission. We will re-add the Ju88 but otherwise I'm pretty satisfied with that mission and honestly it seems like players are too!

 

 

 

They drop the bombs after takeoff and go on their merry way vulching players as normal sadly!

 

Talon,

The 262 with a standard pylon has a speed limitation IIRC of about 70mph, however if you were to limit the guns and add armour as default you would very quickly limit the 262 as a fighter!

That said, looking forward to your "Battle of the Bulge" map

ūü§ę

 

PS I like watching the Mitchell's taking off and landing in some of the maps! Nice touch 

Edited by Haza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, JG4_dingsda said:

We set out to bomb the bridges in Nijmegen[1,2] yesterday and I told my mate not to expect anything, because the actual target might be a bicycle leaning on a tree somewhere there.

 

[1] Actually we wanted to do a divebomb attack in the JU88, but -- alas! -- no JU88 available.

[2] There is two and the icon is inbetween.

 

47 minutes ago, Haza said:

Perhaps the map should be called ‚Äú A bridge, bunkers, ammo dumps, vehicles and flak guns too¬†far‚ÄĚ?

 

Maybe you could both read the mission briefing! (I was initially going to reply saltily to these, but I realize you both could be suggesting them in good humor, and I'm just jetlagged and reacting saltily). So I shall reply in good humor.

 

Seriously, if the targets were just the bridges, blue would win this map in 30 minutes every single time. The rationale is the Allies took thousands of tons of engineering equipment with them to repair the bridges if they were damaged during the course of the operation. The idea is you need to kill at least some dugouts at each bridge, or the engineers will repair them. (No actual repair mechanic -- remember, stuff that seems like a cool idea in the mission editor actually turns out to be bugged or cause server stability problems if you try it for real).

 

Bicycle on a tree somewhere. C'mon, that's not how I design mission objectives! It's me! Alonzo! From Combat Box where you like the missions and where it's not that you absolutely must kill the control tower for the airfield to be marked destroyed. C'mon! ūüėȬ†¬†

 

Our goal is to achieve better balance than we currently have. It's way too red-sided. We're going to make some tweaks, such as requiring fewer targets for blue to win a map and stuff like that. Depending on map. No guarantees. Warranty invalid if submerged in water. Your mileage may vary. Financing subject to pre-approved credit.

  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Haza said:

The 262 with a standard pylon has a speed limitation IIRC of about 70mph

 

The difference isn't really enough to write home about even with as much extra weight as possible considering the fastest Allied ship on the deck is still a further 120kph slower. I think the better course of action may end up being removal of the Me262 altogether and seeing how that impacts the balance. Not sure yet.

 

image.thumb.png.9722412f1522836cc7d2f652410877ae.png

 

image.png.4af72c6af1b3c98fbd5b44c507ac22d3.png

 

image.png.97c6307b9bfea3f95d4f8d9f4e445503.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

 

Maybe you could both read the mission briefing! (I was initially going to reply saltily to these, but I realize you both could be suggesting them in good humor, and I'm just jetlagged and reacting saltily). So I shall reply in good humor.

 

Seriously, if the targets were just the bridges, blue would win this map in 30 minutes every single time. The rationale is the Allies took thousands of tons of engineering equipment with them to repair the bridges if they were damaged during the course of the operation. The idea is you need to kill at least some dugouts at each bridge, or the engineers will repair them. (No actual repair mechanic -- remember, stuff that seems like a cool idea in the mission editor actually turns out to be bugged or cause server stability problems if you try it for real).

 

Bicycle on a tree somewhere. C'mon, that's not how I design mission objectives! It's me! Alonzo! From Combat Box where you like the missions and where it's not that you absolutely must kill the control tower for the airfield to be marked destroyed. C'mon! ūüėȬ†¬†

 

Our goal is to achieve better balance than we currently have. It's way too red-sided. We're going to make some tweaks, such as requiring fewer targets for blue to win a map and stuff like that. Depending on map. No guarantees. Warranty invalid if submerged in water. Your mileage may vary. Financing subject to pre-approved credit.

May I just say thank God and all the saints* and Alonzo that CombatBox doesn’t require hunting for the last fking hidden stack of crates under a tree in a target zone that has been smashed to bits. I’ve gotten killed on other servers so many times circling the target trying to find the last thing to hit.

 

*not yet including Alonzo unfortunately, despite my best efforts. The Pope has stopped returning my calls.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi !

 

The new map Closing of the Ruhr Pocket Apr 1945 is in my opinion definitely to big even when the server is full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the Combat Box team for providing a great server. 

 

One of the people I flew Tempests with last night lost a vertical stabilizer on the ground during the mission "closing_of_the_ruhr_pocket_apr_1945". This is not the same issue as described in this post.

 

I believe the problem is with the orientation of the Koln airfield object (en:9000). The spawn pattern extends for 135m to the right of the object. So planes that spawn on the extreme right of the pattern may have part of the vertical stabilizer inside Block (en:8895). I think if you rotate the airfield object slightly to the left that will bring the 135m spot away from the block object enough to clear the vertical stabilizer.

Edited by JimTM
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

The difference isn't really enough to write home about even with as much extra weight as possible considering the fastest Allied ship on the deck is still a further 120kph slower. I think the better course of action may end up being removal of the Me262 altogether and seeing how that impacts the balance. Not sure yet.

 

image.thumb.png.9722412f1522836cc7d2f652410877ae.png

 

image.png.4af72c6af1b3c98fbd5b44c507ac22d3.png

 

image.png.97c6307b9bfea3f95d4f8d9f4e445503.png

 

 

 

Talon,

My suggestion of handicapping the 262 by fixing and limiting the guns, adding the armour and pylons was to allow it to be used as you had intended it as a bomber. Interestly the Tempest that saw very limited action as a bomber appears to be able carry bombs on most maps! As it stands the maps already have enough "fuel" targets in place to limit the 262 availability so removing it seems a bit extreme and actually do not think that the 262 makes such an impact for it to be removed, however I'm sure you will have stats to show why it should be removed.

That said, I guess if you remove the P-51 for balance, I'm sure that would work as well, as you have previously mentioned that you are not here to be biased, so limiting the BoBp plane-set accordingly for both sides might work!?

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Haza said:

That said, I guess if you remove the P-51 for balance, I'm sure that would work as well, as you have previously mentioned that you are not here to be biased, so limiting the BoBp plane-set accordingly for both sides might work!?

 

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Of all the planes, the P-38 is the most feasible to limit as it never really made it too far north in the map - hence the lack of P-38 on AB2F. Also we've been meaning to lock out the Tempest bombs for a while, thanks for the reminder!

 

The 262 doesn't impact win ratios, but the way players use it just makes the game un-fun for others. People like to skirt the rules and wait until the second after somebody takes off, then zoom up and kill them then leave before AAA can respond. If people can't be trusted not to abuse it I'll take away their opportunity.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

 

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Of all the planes, the P-38 is the most feasible to limit as it never really made it too far north in the map - hence the lack of P-38 on AB2F. Also we've been meaning to lock out the Tempest bombs for a while, thanks for the reminder!

 

The 262 doesn't impact win ratios, but the way players use it just makes the game un-fun for others. People like to skirt the rules and wait until the second after somebody takes off, then zoom up and kill them then leave before AAA can respond. If people can't be trusted not to abuse it I'll take away their opportunity.

 

Talon,

The P-51 was merely an example as I guess you guys have the data!

I have used the 262 a number of times as the bomber version and then had to run home on the deck! Conversely, I have tried to use it as a bomber intercepter against the ai guys, both types of missions I have really enjoyed, although the 262 as a bomber on its own has very little effect.

Therefore, I was not aware guys are using the 262 as a base camper on the deck and as such this is what you are trying to address. As such I will stop the "save the 262 campagne" with this new knowledge ūüôā

 

Regards

 

Edited by Haza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, could you guys do "a bridge too far" just as it was before?

With the nearest luftwaffe airfield just for landing. And with the same goals as before? Arnhen is became hard to complete, has up to T-34s and many targets that need bombs and the luftwaffe doesn't do that...  Most guys fly with fighters and when they try to bomb they end having accidents ... 

Keep the autumn map is beautiful!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Of all the planes, the P-38 is the most feasible to limit as it never really made it too far north in the map - hence the lack of P-38 on AB2F. Also we've been meaning to lock out the Tempest bombs for a while, thanks for the reminder!

 

The 262 doesn't impact win ratios, but the way players use it just makes the game un-fun for others. People like to skirt the rules and wait until the second after somebody takes off, then zoom up and kill them then leave before AAA can respond. If people can't be trusted not to abuse it I'll take away their opportunity.

I do this against 262s and is imo a valid tactic that shouldn't be taken away. If 262 players want to do this so be it, I'll be waiting at their airfield once they take off or land and return the favor.

Limiting certain actions can be just as un-fun as allowing everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I do this against 262s

 

I ran the data and you don't have any 262 kills on CB?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious if anyone is having connection problems with the server? I can fly in Wings and Knights of the Air w/out a problem but  in Box my Discord connection goes down and my game will lock up.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I do this against 262s and is imo a valid tactic that shouldn't be taken away. If 262 players want to do this so be it, I'll be waiting at their airfield once they take off or land and return the favor.

Limiting certain actions can be just as un-fun as allowing everything.

 

I vote to reinstate full level vulching.  No more of this have to be 1m off the ground before you're a valid target stuff.  Let the P-38's dive bomb the 262 base and pickle a steady rain of 4, 1000-pounders onto runways and spawns.  Sure, the Allies would get it too on the spawn points occasionally but, with the other server regulations regarding how many 262's can be on the map, it might reduce vulching all around.  

 

That would be the balance of it. 

 

Limited 262's (even more so if Allies complete the jet fuel/train objective) vulnerable on the ground. 

 

vs. 

 

Allied strike aircraft which would be slower to get to the enemy base, easier to catch along the way, have 0 guarantee that there will even be a 262 in the area when they get there and may have to choose to switch to another target area or just get rid of the bombs onto static airfield objects in order to evade or fight local fighter patrols.

15 minutes ago, TWC_Target said:

Just curious if anyone is having connection problems with the server? I can fly in Wings and Knights of the Air w/out a problem but  in Box my Discord connection goes down and my game will lock up.

 

 

Sometimes I get full router crashes from connecting to the Euro side of the pond.  It's probably just odd traffic from the KGCIAB mucking up the signal and wrecking our fun time.  

Edited by Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alonzo

 

@9./JG54_GERMANWOLF has recently stated that he’ll happily teamkill anyone who happens to be between him and and enemy aircraft. Would it be possible to ban him from the server for this?

364E2342-9387-4C01-A9C0-425304B59EA6.thumb.jpeg.a9fa27190e5fd27a531917b1904b0d66.jpeg

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if you pick blue you couldn't see the Red bases and vice versa, it wouldn't stop the practice but might slow it down some.  They would have to patrol more and be susceptible to being intercepted a bit more. 

 

Hoss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

 

Maybe you could both read the mission briefing! (I was initially going to reply saltily to these, but I realize you both could be suggesting them in good humor, and I'm just jetlagged and reacting saltily). So I shall reply in good humor.

 

Seriously, if the targets were just the bridges, blue would win this map in 30 minutes every single time. The rationale is the Allies took thousands of tons of engineering equipment with them to repair the bridges if they were damaged during the course of the operation. The idea is you need to kill at least some dugouts at each bridge, or the engineers will repair them. (No actual repair mechanic -- remember, stuff that seems like a cool idea in the mission editor actually turns out to be bugged or cause server stability problems if you try it for real).

 

Bicycle on a tree somewhere. C'mon, that's not how I design mission objectives! It's me! Alonzo! From Combat Box where you like the missions and where it's not that you absolutely must kill the control tower for the airfield to be marked destroyed. C'mon! ūüėȬ†¬†

 

Our goal is to achieve better balance than we currently have. It's way too red-sided. We're going to make some tweaks, such as requiring fewer targets for blue to win a map and stuff like that. Depending on map. No guarantees. Warranty invalid if submerged in water. Your mileage may vary. Financing subject to pre-approved credit.

 

Alonzo,

Having just read your comments, my naming suggestion was very much tongue and cheek mate and an attempt at humour and was not meant to be anything else! 

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...