Jump to content
Alonzo

Combat Box by Red Flight

Recommended Posts

MP in general needs changes. There is absolutely no benefit in racking up air to air kills as it does not really benefit the missions outcome other than slowing enemy progress a bit.

But the shot down guy can just as fast hop in a loaded plane again and do the same again. death is not punished in any way other than on the personal stats which nobody actually seems to give a sh*t about.

so even if an attacker does not technically want to Drinkins the objective, it‘ll end up just being that, not because he wants to, but because he wants to fly attackers. After a crash or death, this pilot will want to fly his preferred plane again, which happens to be an attacker. Can‘t blame it, I do the same, just with fighters.


I guess it‘s just as it was meant to be, fighters win fights, bombers will win missions.

the trick in this will have to be a balance in either objectives or loadouts that are acceptable for both sides to make the missions worth playing and winnable no matter what side you fly for.

 

currently flying attackers as german does not seem to be attractive as a mission win is very unlikely (i don‘t fly them,

but referring to the stats page...).

what‘s left is fighters to at least get some satisfaction in shooting down other players for your personal happiness, not for the mission goal as that‘s not reachable anyway in the current setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

so even if an attacker does not technically want to Drinkins the objective, it‘ll end up just being that, not because he wants to, but because he wants to fly attackers. After a crash or death, this pilot will want to fly his preferred plane again, which happens to be an attacker. Can‘t blame it, I do the same, just with fighters.

 

Allies are quite happy to attack the objectives though. There aren't really any strict attackers in Bodenplatte - everything is a fighter bomber 😅

 

I find it interesting that you write off objective strikes as a death sentence. Most of the objectives in CB die to guns only so why not start strafing things while you hunt down other players? It works for me in my Mustang!

Share this post


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

Well, it's a tough position you are in, balance is a b*** :)

One could allow "advanced" planes only to thoses having shown their ability to do things while returning home, but I bet CB popularity would be tanking under such kind of strict rules... There's no win solution. I was just pointing that Scharfi's position is perfectly understandable, in my eyes moreso than the "win in any way or form", but that's my old eyes...

 

Kalbuth,

Knocking somebody who plays on another server is one thing, however knocking them for trying to win, while having no interest in trying to win perhaps just wastes a position on the server!

I can't think of many if any games I have played where I didn't play to win and this is after all a game.

Regarding twin engine bombers, currently no matter how high you go there are always P-51s higher and it takes forever to climb to altitude to attack tactical rather than strategic targets so perhaps that is why we see fewer blue multi bombers.

Now, if as per the old CLOD game, the number of aircraft shot down was to be used as a way of winning, perhaps the blues might be able to even things up, although once again it is only a suggestion. Indeed, I have read that US bomber loses got to the stage where the Yanks were going to stop day-light bombing, however, that was in my 262 book.

Anyway, regardless, we all know that the Germans lost, however, to keep the interest going in this server, perhaps things need to be changed, otherwise the server becomes stale and will die, although I guess players will just move to the next server to get their fix if they become bored!

 

Regards

Share this post


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

Regarding twin engine bombers, currently no matter how high you go there are always P-51s higher and it takes forever to climb to altitude to attack tactical rather than strategic targets so perhaps that is why we see fewer blue multi bombers.

 

The multi engine bombers are in our missions however they're high risk high reward types that's for sure. I guess it's a little slice of Peshka for Blue this time 😅

 

The fact is that it's easy to see why Germany stopped building twin engine prop bombers in September 1944. They're so vulnerable to these late war Allied birds that are 50% faster and pack enough of a punch to cripple them. At least the Antons and Doras can get away or fight back! We keep the big level bombers in the missions because we know players like to fly them but in reality they're dinosaurs in the age of the fighter-bomber.

 

I think another thing we need to see is that more Axis pilots need to swallow their pride and get into the habit of taking a bomb on their fighter. A big change from this game's history no doubt! Yes there is a performance loss but the K-4 and Dora are still blisteringly fast with a pylon attached - it doesn't turn them into Po-2s! Almost every Allied fighter seems to take off with bombs now but I so rarely see racks on German planes.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

The multi engine bombers are in our missions however they're high risk high reward types that's for sure. I guess it's a little slice of Peshka for Blue this time 😅

 

The fact is that it's easy to see why Germany stopped building twin engine prop bombers in September 1944. They're so vulnerable to these late war Allied birds that are 50% faster and pack enough of a punch to cripple them. At least the Antons and Doras can get away or fight back! We keep the big level bombers in the missions because we know players like to fly them but in reality they're dinosaurs in the age of the fighter-bomber.

 

I think another thing we need to see is that more Axis pilots need to swallow their pride and get into the habit of taking a bomb on their fighter. A big change from this game's history no doubt! Yes there is a performance loss but the K-4 and Dora are still blisteringly fast with a pylon attached - it doesn't turn them into Po-2s! Almost every Allied fighter seems to take off with bombs now but I so rarely see racks on German planes.

 

 

 

 

Well I guess when reds are winning 7:1 you talk about blues swallowing their pride yet you restrict the 262. I'm now struggling to understand how you talk about not being biased, yet of all of the BoBp aircraft the 262 is limited or has other ways of restricting it via the fuel train and the oil refinery. Perhaps reds need to swallow their pride and the 262 should be given unlimited availablity and let's see what happens, just for sh*ts and giggles!? Just a thought!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Well I guess when reds are winning 7:1 you talk about blues swallowing their pride yet you restrict the 262. I'm now struggling to understand how you talk about not being biased, yet of all of the BoBp aircraft the 262 is limited or has other ways of restricting it via the fuel train and the oil refinery. Perhaps reds need to swallow their pride and the 262 should be given unlimited availablity and let's see what happens, just for sh*ts and giggles!? Just a thought!

 

The 262 and the P-38 are the biggest balancing headaches due to speed and bomb load respectively, so they're getting hit the hardest with the nerf bat. Also I don't think limiting a jet fighter screams of bias considering it has no real counter while AAA can't track it.

 

Usually when I see German ground attackers I see 110s loaded to the teeth with ordnance mixed with 109s flying clean. When I see Allied ground attackers it's a bunch of the same fighter, all with 2 bombs. Germans don't actually need bombs to kill 90% of their ground targets so I'm a little surprised by this situation. We're trying to tip the balance in favour of Germany but in terms of encouragement it's hard to tempt the fighters down from the clouds.

 

Notably this has always been an issue blue has suffered in IL-2 history, with red being more likely to ground strike. It seems to be playing out similarly here which is why we're letting the Axis forces play downhill right now.

 

For a time after its introduction we had very light restrictions on 262s - all that happened was that Red went and played other games and the jets flew around unopposed.

Edited by Talon_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to you @Talon_, how would you approach a more balanced setting? All I see here and on discord 

is you smacking down any point suggested by players with more or less shady answers but not offering any real idea of solving this. It might even seem that you quite enjoy the unbalanced carnage at its current state.

You do blame players for not taking bombs on 109/190. A fair amount of guys actually do take bombs (not me, i know i know...)

You blame it on teamplay, not being as organized as red. However, there is loads of teams out there flying organized. Still the results don‘t show any difference.

 

How do you imagine balance is being achieved? By blaming it on the player? Just „get good“?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

According to you @Talon_, how would you approach a more balanced setting? All I see here and on discord 

is you smacking down any point suggested by players with more or less shady answers but not offering any real idea of solving this. It might even seem that you quite enjoy the unbalanced carnage at its current state.

You do blame players for not taking bombs on 109/190. A fair amount of guys actually do take bombs (not me, i know i know...)

You blame it on teamplay, not being as organized as red. However, there is loads of teams out there flying organized. Still the results don‘t show any difference.

 

How do you imagine balance is being achieved? By blaming it on the player? Just „get good“?

 

I spent all night defending the decision to remove bombs from Tempests and P-38s so please don't accuse me of enjoying the current situation. You can also find me on discord and earlier in this very thread pointing out that A Bridge Too Far is the gold standard for us in terms of balance and that the current focus is bringing Ruhr Pocket to that same standard.

 

 

Screenshot_20191111-114732.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see that, don't worry. And I appreciate the effort on this.

Now if you look at this:

16 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

 

19 hours ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

And then you look at the stats page, realize that other than the flight time, the axis have done more of all categories. More air kills, more ground targets destroyed, etc etc. And yet, the reds have won 90% of all missions. I do not think that allied bombers were more coordinated. More like the germans have to destroy a lot more stuff to finish an objective on the map.

 

Germans actually have to destroy fewer targets than Allies on Ruhr Pocket to win.

 

It is merely a statement, which you turn down by stating that it is already like that. Now funny enough, the one map that you use as reference is the one with probably the worst balance at it's current state. Is your argument even valid then? You turn it down with an example that sounds better than it in reality is. This makes me wonder if you just say this stuff to make us shut up. I might be wrong on this one and don't mean to offend you here, but that's how it looks like to me and the little results we currently see somehow underline it.


I look back on how fast the 262s have almost vanished completely after a huge shitstorm of them being SO op (yeah they still are and the odds there were extreme too). It took less than 2 weeks and it was back to G14 against Spit 9.

Now we are almost 5 weeks in with the other extreme, blue complaining about balance just as red complained about balance and barely anything has happened that one could notice from a mission results point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

Now we are almost 5 weeks in with the other extreme, blue complaining about balance just as red complained about balance and barely anything has happened that one could notice from a mission results point of view.

 

We have three current maps, one of which (Eindhoven) was a rush job to get the new update running on the server. That map is not great but it is winnable by blue and features all the planes and almost all the mods so players can still try out the new toys. We will look at it but right now it's "okay" so we're focusing elsewhere.

 

Edit: this map will undergo big revisions in future to plane set and layout.

 

The first fully-designed map we produced, A Bridge Too Far, is playing really nicely and about to reach 1.0 state with a dead even win rate between the two sides over the last 11 days. We first ran it on the 16th October and is now at 0.9.9 just under a month later.

 

The second fully-designed map is Ruhr Pocket, and this features many more plane choices than Bridge. We also try to tell the story of a particular historical battle with our maps, which means certain sides are shooting at certain kinds of targets. Ruhr Pocket ran for the first time on the 2nd November and is only 9 days into the balancing process. This stuff takes time I'm afraid!

 

The next map is rapidly approaching release candidate and will almost certainly be blue-heavy on victories at first. That's just how it is. We design these maps but how players actually use them and the tools on them is often surprising to us and we have to then work to find a new level for the playing field.

Edited by Talon_

Share this post


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

Yeah I asked Alonzo if we could zero out the point value for tents and I think that's worked😅

 

I think it's worked on the stats page (out of game) but in-game you can still see someone with 300 'building' kills and have their side lose the match. So it looks quite weird.

 

17 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

That is a reasonable explanation.  It certainly did look strange though. I guess it would only be an issue if CB looked at overall points to determine match winners.  But, it appears CB doesn't do that, so..... very good, carry on.  

 

That's right. Each objective is individually wired up so that a reasonable spread of damage needs to be done before the target counts as destroyed. For example, an airfield target has hangars, buildings, parked planes and other-random-stuff that all need to be destroyed in various numbers.

 

14 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

Do i get extra XP by winning a map, or what do I get by winning a map?

 

No, but when we surveyed our players many people said they cared about winning maps for their side. I think there are a mixture of play styles.

 

14 hours ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

cool, what's that? 1 map?

 

Maybe you can give me some hints as to which targets are imbalanced. To open a map, run the mission editor, ctrl-O to open a map, then navigate to your data/Multiplayer/Alonzo folder. Load the binary mission by typing its name. You can browse around the targets and let me know which ones are wrong.

 

Go on, load the missions and give me specific feedback. I'll wait.

 

5 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

http://combatbox.net/en/pilot/6682/Player-19370/?tour=15

 

Has an affinity for team killing. 

 

Perma-banned, thank you for the report.

 

5 hours ago, SCG_Limbo said:

First and most importantly, I have to say that I've been really enjoying flying Combat Box (CB) since the new American aircraft (P-38, P-51, and Tempest) have come out despite  stutter issues due to the high volume of players. 

 

Having said that, I have noticed that the Allied side has never lost a map when I've played...so I did a quick check of the last 3 pages of the CB map results: 42 allied wins versus 4 Axis wins.  I don't think there's an easy solution here but it might be nice to drop down the size of the bomb load of the p-38 for starts to help with parity.

 

Usually we look at maps where > 100 players played, as sometimes smaller player counts you can have a big swing just by killing one objective. But even then, it's like 6:1 red favored. We're working on it.

1 hour ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

According to you @Talon_, how would you approach a more balanced setting? All I see here and on discord 

is you smacking down any point suggested by players with more or less shady answers but not offering any real idea of solving this. It might even seem that you quite enjoy the unbalanced carnage at its current state.

You do blame players for not taking bombs on 109/190. A fair amount of guys actually do take bombs (not me, i know i know...)

You blame it on teamplay, not being as organized as red. However, there is loads of teams out there flying organized. Still the results don‘t show any difference.

 

How do you imagine balance is being achieved? By blaming it on the player? Just „get good“?

 

Wow, dude. We've spent like 8 months running this server, trying to achieve good game balance, and you come into the thread and talk like we're biased idiots who've never balanced anything before. Prior to the new Allied superprops we had almost a 50:50 win ratio on our maps, so we know a thing or two about balance.

 

It's easy to come into a thread and shoot your mouth off, but until you've spent hundreds of hours map building and doing server admin, I think you should pipe down.

 

We are working on balance. Every time we do something to try to get more balance, we get people complaining that we restricted something. All night last night people complaining about bomb load restrictions on the P38 and, of all things, the Tempest.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

I think it's worked on the stats page (out of game) but in-game you can still see someone with 300 'building' kills and have their side lose the match. So it looks quite weird.

 

 

That's right. Each objective is individually wired up so that a reasonable spread of damage needs to be done before the target counts as destroyed. For example, an airfield target has hangars, buildings, parked planes and other-random-stuff that all need to be destroyed in various numbers.

 

 

No, but when we surveyed our players many people said they cared about winning maps for their side. I think there are a mixture of play styles.

 

 

Maybe you can give me some hints as to which targets are imbalanced. To open a map, run the mission editor, ctrl-O to open a map, then navigate to your data/Multiplayer/Alonzo folder. Load the binary mission by typing its name. You can browse around the targets and let me know which ones are wrong.

 

Go on, load the missions and give me specific feedback. I'll wait.

 

 

Perma-banned, thank you for the report.

 

 

Usually we look at maps where > 100 players played, as sometimes smaller player counts you can have a big swing just by killing one objective. But even then, it's like 6:1 red favored. We're working on it.

 

Wow, dude. We've spent like 8 months running this server, trying to achieve good game balance, and you come into the thread and talk like we're biased idiots who've never balanced anything before. Prior to the new Allied superprops we had almost a 50:50 win ratio on our maps, so we know a thing or two about balance.

 

It's easy to come into a thread and shoot your mouth off, but until you've spent hundreds of hours map building and doing server admin, I think you should pipe down.

 

We are working on balance. Every time we do something to try to get more balance, we get people complaining that we restricted something. All night last night people complaining about bomb load restrictions on the P38 and, of all things, the Tempest.

If they ever model the b29, I bet some people will complain if you were to block them equipping a 'little boy'. You have done a great job on this server. I'm sure most people with perspective see that you're going in the right direction and change doesn't happen overnight.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

If they ever model the b29, I bet some people will complain if you were to block them equipping a 'little boy'. You have done a great job on this server. I'm sure most people with perspective see that you're going in the right direction and change doesn't happen overnight.

 

Thanks Barnacles. We're really trying to do a good job of this admin business (I've been refreshing discord and this thread at my desk all morning instead of working!) but this stuff is neither quick nor easy!

 

We do have a good record of balance on the server and we have no intention of changing that. Personally I'm a Red pilot mostly but Alonzo switches between both and some of the other Red Flight members are almost exclusively blue so we do have our fingers on the pulse of both teams. We know Ruhr Pocket is unbalanced right now but there are a lot of factors at play that contribute and we need to make sure we don't change too much at once.

 

The next version of Ruhr Pocket going live as soon as it's ready moves some of the Allied objectives out from under the umbrella of friendly air cover near their airfields.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wow, dude. We've spent like 8 months running this server, trying to achieve good game balance, and you come into the thread and talk like we're biased idiots who've never balanced anything before. Prior to the new Allied superprops we had almost a 50:50 win ratio on our maps, so we know a thing or two about balance.

 

It's easy to come into a thread and shoot your mouth off, but until you've spent hundreds of hours map building and doing server admin, I think you should pipe down.

 

We are working on balance. Every time we do something to try to get more balance, we get people complaining that we restricted something. All night last night people complaining about bomb load restrictions on the P38 and, of all things, the Tempest.

Look, I supported the server for almost 6 months via Patreon. I guess I do have at least the right to mouth my thought about it. I did defend a lot of decisions you guys made over the time despite the sometimes harsh criticism, so I can at least apply some criticism myself when I feel like it is justified. I may do him wrong by calling him out like that but that is just how it sounds to quite an amount of people. But to shit on me for some negative feedback, well thank you. As little as you guys like to be called out or criticized, as little do i like to get told to shut up when i‘m not really praising some missions current state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

Look, I supported the server for almost 6 months via Patreon. I guess I do have at least the right to mouth my thought about it. I did defend a lot of decisions you guys made over the time despite the sometimes harsh criticism, so I can at least apply some criticism myself when I feel like it is justified. I may do him wrong by calling him out like that but that is just how it sounds to quite an amount of people. But to shit on me for some negative feedback, well thank you. As little as you guys like to be called out or criticized, as little do i like to get told to shut up when i‘m not really praising some missions current state.

 

I appreciate your support on Patreon. That means a lot. So thank you.

 

My previous philosophy was "all feedback is good feedback" but I'm starting to struggle with that because as we grow in popularity, we're getting a lot of feedback, and much of the time suggestions directly conflict with each other, are unimplementable, or buried in the suggestion is the implication that we're deliberately biased or so incompetent that we're building biased objectives.

 

This stuff is also extremely hard to get right. If there's a skewed winrate on a map, why is that? Sheer player numbers imbalance? Skill imbalance? Best squads flying one side? Biased objectives? Bug in the map? Everyone flying one side flies fighters? Everyone on one side has given up on trying to win and just wants to farm air to air kills?

 

Anyhow, we have a major change coming to Pocket as Talon mentioned, so this afternoon/evening people will be able to fly the updated map and see how it feels.

 

Ruhr Pocket updated to 0.9.9: Repositioned Allied Infantry Encampment and Mechanized Infantry so they receive less 'umbrella' air cover from nearby Koeln. Moved frontline accordingly. Slightly increased target 'spread' within several objectives. Slightly increased strength of German Fortified Troops, Fighter and Bomber base objectives. Added 'H' indicators for hospital portions of targets.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Added 'H' indicators for hospital portions of targets.

 

Hope you guys are ready to get your warcrime on! 😅

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Hope you guys are ready to get your warcrime on! 😅

"Sir, in my defense, that field hospital's H was done in an extremely aggressive font! I felt personally attacked!"

Share this post


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

 

Hope you guys are ready to get your warcrime on! 😅

That's a perfect incentive not to take the 'nukes' (ie the special heavy bombs): collateral damage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to add a few thoughts on the "red versus blue" debate. But first, a disclaimer: I recognize that I am a relative newb here compared to many of you, I do not profess to know more than anyone else, and I do not mean to offend anyone. Also, I fly both Allied and Axis in BoX, but since the release of the new BoBP planes in October I have predominately flown Axis planes. I am guilty of flying fighters almost exclusively, and rarely taking bombs.

 

With that out of the way, here are my observations and thoughts:

  • The vast majority of Axis players fly fighters at high altitude and do not attack ground targets. This makes sense if you are approaching the game with your own pilot's life in mind; attacking a ground target makes you extremely vulnerable. Whenever I fly blue fighters, I am very cautious and do my best not to give up my altitude as I cannot compete toe to toe with the opposition's fighters once energy states are equal. 
  • I believe that fewer people that fly Axis exclusively are communicating with each as much as people that fly Allied exclusively. Very rarely do I see any organization in team chat on Axis. I see it more frequently in Allied team chat.
  • I see many more people in the Allied voice comms on CB Discord than I see in Axis voice comms. It's possible that more Axis players are using TS or other DC servers, but I think it is telling that there is less of a presence on the blue side within the CB Discord server as compared to the allied channels.
  • Team balance on servers where the new planes are available is almost always skewed in favor of the Allied team. I think this puts people in a defensive mindset from the beginning. When I see that, I generally stick to the line and do my best to defend blue objectives.
  • I believe that part of the 'fix' for this is up to the community - we need to do a better job when it comes to balancing the teams, coordinating, and communicating with each other:
    • On balancing the teams: if you are just joining the server and see that Allies have 52 players and Axis have 30, do not join Allied! Simple as that. (These were the actual numbers I saw when I joined CB yesterday afternoon).
    • On coordination: before you start a sortie, talk to your teammates. What are they doing? Where are they planning on going? There is safety in numbers and I think people would be more likely to attack ground targets (or cover those attacking ground targets) if they were flying together rather than going 'lone wolf'.
    • On communication: if you are not already on voice comms with your friends, join the CB discord server, advertise it in "looking for a wingman", and post about it in team chat! I get it, people can be shy, myself included, but someone has to speak up to get the ball rolling. You'll have a lot more success in-game by flying in numbers and you might make new friends in the process!
Edited by QB.Creep
grammar
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, QB.Creep said:

Just want to add a few thoughts on the "red versus blue" debate. But first, a disclaimer: I recognize that I am a relative newb here compared to many of you, I do not profess to know more than anyone else, and I do not mean to offend anyone. Also, I fly both Allied and Axis in BoX, but since the release of the new BoBP planes in October I have predominately flown Axis planes. I am guilty of flying fighters almost exclusively, and rarely taking bombs.

 

With that out of the way, here are my observations and thoughts:

  • The vast majority of Axis players fly fighters at high altitude and do not attack ground targets. This makes sense if you are approaching the game with your own pilot's life in mind; attacking a ground target makes you extremely vulnerable. Whenever I fly blue fighters, I am very cautious and do my best not to give up my altitude as I cannot compete toe to toe with the opposition's fighters once energy states are equal. 
  • I believe that fewer people that fly Axis exclusively are communicating with each as much as people that fly Allied exclusively. Very rarely do I see any organization in team chat on Axis. I see it more frequently in Allied team chat.
  • I see many more people in the Allied voice comms on CB Discord than I see in Axis voice comms. It's possible that more Axis players are using TS or other DC servers, but I think it is telling that there is less of a presence on the blue side within the CB Discord server as compared to the allied channels.
  • Team balance on servers where the new planes are available is almost always skewed in favor of the Allied team. I think this puts people in a defensive mindset from the beginning. When I see that, I generally stick to the line and do my best to defend blue objectives.
  • I believe that part of the 'fix' for this is up to the community - we need to do a better job when it comes to balancing the teams, coordinating, and communicating with each other:
    • On balancing the teams: if you are just joining the server and see that Allies have 52 players and Axis have 30, do not join Allied! Simple as that. (These were the actual numbers I saw when I joined CB yesterday afternoon).
    • On coordination: before you start a sortie, talk to your teammates. What are they doing? Where are they planning on going? There is safety in numbers and I think people would be more likely to attack ground targets (or cover those attacking ground targets) if they were flying together rather than going 'lone wolf'.
    • On communication: if you are not already on voice comms with your friends, join the CB discord server, advertise it in "looking for a wingman", and post about it in team chat! I get it, people can be shy, myself included, but someone has to speak up to get the ball rolling. You'll have a lot more success in-game by flying in numbers and you might make new friends in the process!

When we look at the server stats right now, what we see is that dedicated allied and axis flyers are about even, and flying hours are roughly the same. For this all to be true there should be roughly equal sides on average. When I've flown lately I've really never seen truly bad odds. 35 to 20 at worst, or 50 to 30, but more often its within 5 players of each other for good chunks of the match. 

I've flown enough allied side in other server that my perception of what constitutes bad odds is probably badly skewed. Until Combat Box came around I considered 2 to 1 odds against me to be good. Playing on the side with more players on it is still something of a novelty to me. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Kestrel points out the time plaid for each side is about the same. This tells me it isn't team disbalance that is the root cause for the outcome disparity. It seems to me it is a lack of adaptation to the new environment on the part of the Blue team. No matter how you 'balance' the P-38's ability to bomb stuff that won't change. Further the numbers indicate that the Blue team have killed more things, both in the air and on the ground. That is parity in spite of the "OPness" of the P-38's bombing capability as it has only recently been addressed, and the Tempest being reportedly unkillable by many on the Blue side and all the other things one might see in the chat or in this thread. So whatever Blue is doing it isn't working. Perhaps trying something new is the answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should it change anything? The ground kills are basically even between the two sides this month. In point of fact the Blues have slightly more kills in that respect. The shortfall isn't in equipment or capability of the available planes. The problem lies elsewhere. Perhaps targets that have been destroyed are still being struck? Perhaps there is an excess of ground kills on things that are not mission critical? At any event, having bigger bombs won't solve this issue and could hardly be called balance when the corresponding Red planes are having their bomb loads trimmed down in spite of their netting fewer total ground kills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact it'd get me more ground kills 😄

 

In all seriousness, I haven't seen any A20s on the server at all.  I take it they're been shelved by the red team just like the 88s and 111s are for the blues since they are absolute death magnets?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can confirm, they're death magnets lol - at least for those solo fast strikes that i've managed to pull off in the past.

 

These days you really must have some escorts, i'd say 2 or three fighters per bomber.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, /SF/Disarray said:

Why should it change anything? The ground kills are basically even between the two sides this month. In point of fact the Blues have slightly more kills in that respect. The shortfall isn't in equipment or capability of the available planes. The problem lies elsewhere. Perhaps targets that have been destroyed are still being struck? Perhaps there is an excess of ground kills on things that are not mission critical? At any event, having bigger bombs won't solve this issue and could hardly be called balance when the corresponding Red planes are having their bomb loads trimmed down in spite of their netting fewer total ground kills.

A lot of the ground kills that are showing up are apparently little tents set up around the target that are just for flavor and don't count towards the target. So a single big axis bombing run might net you a crapton of ground kills for no real effect on the target. That could be what's happening. 

I don't think unlocking big bombs for the 110 would really help much as the damage from one big bomb is usually just overkill on a number of targets. But hey, if people want to haul the big bombs why not let them? It might make the difference but TBH 2 500kg is probably a better loadout for these targets than 1 1000kg. 

Talon has noted that many targets don't require bombs or rockets to kill at all. The FW-190s are excellent ground attack platforms and combined strike packages of FW-190s/110G2s and 109s for high cover really work over a target and be well able to defend themselves afterwards or CAP the target for followup strikes with heavier loadouts, if necessary.
 

 

Just now, =Elite=BlitzPuppet said:

I know for a fact it'd get me more ground kills 😄

 

In all seriousness, I haven't seen any A20s on the server at all.  I take it they're been shelved by the red team just like the 88s and 111s are for the blues since they are absolute death magnets?

 

I took off with an A20 the day before last, a few weeks ago I escorted one home and soaked up some bullets on his behalf. They're rare but they're out there. They are fast but in a way they are worse than the 111s and 88s because when you open the bomb bay a bright-as-balls light turns on that is visible from a great distance, advertising your location and approach to the target. 

The main reason you don't see as many of them is that the Allied fighter bombers have as good of bomb loads and better survivability after dropping their bombs. 

on another note, checking side numbers randomly throughout the day, I see ratios going between 1:1 to 1.75:1 in favour of the Allies. Not great, sure, but nothing like the odds I've seen on other servers in favour of Axis in the past.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, /SF/Disarray said:

The ground kills are basically even between the two sides this month. In point of fact the Blues have slightly more kills in that respect. 

Take into consideration that there is an issue with tents at red targets which is skewing the numbers quite a bit this month - afaik it is only affecting the Ruhr Pocket map. I don't want to call any players out on it because it's not an exploit or anything, but if you look at the leaderboard you will see what I am talking about. Pretty sure I saw Alonzo mention it recently, too. EDIT: RedKestrel already said this.

Edited by QB.Creep
woops, didn't read to the end of the thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, /SF/Disarray said:

Wasn't it mentioned that those kills don't translate to the stats page? I thought I saw that but may have misread it.

They changed it so it doesn't, but only recently.

Share this post


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

 

That's right. Each objective is individually wired up so that a reasonable spread of damage needs to be done before the target counts as destroyed. For example, an airfield target has hangars, buildings, parked planes and other-random-stuff that all need to be destroyed in various numbers.

 

 

The Ruhr pocket map is the one with the German evac convoys and airfields to the south, correct?    

Myself and 2 friends went on a P-38 anti-airfield spree a couple of nights ago when there was jus us and like 2 Axis players on.   Even though we bombed each target until it was closed, there was still plenty left on the table.  For example, I only killed one vehicle in the static convoy next to the southeast-most AF so most of that and intact buildings and planes/trucks/stores within the AF perimeter were still there even though we closed it.  The same with the next airfield west of that.  There were intact buildings and stores that probably could have warranted another trip or, at least a solo P-38 clean-up flight that we left because we were out of bombs and the target was already closed.  

 

Perhaps targets like that could be beefed up for % destroyed requirements. Maybe it will reduce the need to stab the Allies' new planes in the ass so they can't run as fast (equipment restriction) is the way to balance the map.  After all the Germans did have a lot of time to fortify many targets before the Allies even set foot in mainland Europe. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how recently they think they changed it, but as of last night at around 6PM EDT, it was still possible to rack up 150+ kills as blue by dropping on tents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I don't know how recently they think they changed it, but as of last night at around 6PM EDT, it was still possible to rack up 150+ kills as blue by dropping on tents.

 

Well, the server counts wins on closed-out targets, not team score, so it's kind of a non-issue?  It does look strange but, it doesn't win maps unless the target area is fully closed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mobile_BBQ I point this out because someone was saying ground kills look roughly equivalent this month between red and blue. Since the number of blue ground kills can be easily inflated by tent kills, I think that metric is not such a great one to look at when deciding whether or not there is a balance issue in CB. I am fairly certain that "ground targets destroyed" is not the same as "closed-out targets". Make sense? Forgive me if I am being dense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about it a little and I still think the ground target kill rate is a useful metric, skewed though it may be. The claim that Allies are winning because they have better bomb loads that are just better in every way is false. It isn't the case that the Axis team can't keep up with ground target destruction the numbers don't lie. There is obviously something strange happening or the mission outcome would look more like the ground target destruction rates, but it cannot be that the Blues don't have the capacity for destruction the Reds do. Figure out why the Blues are killing as many or more ground targets as the Reds but aren't winning at a similar rate and you will have the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@/SF/Disarray I don't believe that the Allies are winning solely because they have better ground attack aircraft with the release of BoBP, but I do believe it is a factor. As for the ground target destruction rates, I think the skew is more than you realize. Not 100% sure on this but I believe the tents were not a factor until the new mission (Ruhr Pocket) was released and that was quite recent. Take a look at the ground kill metric in October, then look at the current month to date - it looks to me like it is quite heavily skewed. 

As I stated in my earlier post, I think many of the imbalance problems can be solved by the community itself by balancing the teams and having more blue players communicate and coordinate with each other.

Edited by QB.Creep
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

@/SF/Disarray I don't believe that the Allies are winning solely because they have better ground attack aircraft with the release of BoBP, but I do believe it is a factor. As for the ground target destruction rates, I think the skew is more than you realize. Not 100% sure on this but I believe the tents were not a factor until the new mission (Ruhr Pocket) was released and that was quite recent. Take a look at the ground kill metric in October, then look at the current month to date - it looks to me like it is quite heavily skewed. 

As I stated in my earlier post, I think many of the imbalance problems can be solved by the community itself by balancing the teams and having more blue players communicate and coordinate with each other.

 

As I posted above your "150 tents" post, it seems to me the Ruhr Pocket map can afford to beef up the targets the Allies need to attack.  Not necessarily add more objects but, require more that are already there to be destroyed before the target(s) is/are done.  

 

The AB2F map is also a bit strange for how the Axis has to not only destroy the bridges but wipe out the defenses around too.  In reality, once the bridges became useless, uncapturable, or the follow-up logistics/reinforcements were unable to arrive in force or on time, the Allies had no choice but to retreat.  In game, if it was as simple as trash the bridges, win the map, or trash the bogged-down reinforcement convoy, the match would only last 30 minutes.  It's almost like the map would be served best by triggering a per-bridge retreat phase after each is destroyed but, most likely that would be hell to script and get working properly.   

 

On a different note, I think a lot of us thought the novelty of the new Allied planes would have lessened by now and things would have gotten more balanced.  I really think it comes down to the players that refuse to fly anything but the best performing aircraft (excluding the 262).  The Never-Blues keep the status quo and tell the formerly Never-Reds "We were here first, you beat the shit out of us for years with your 109s and 190s. Go back", while the formerly Never Reds say "Were not leaving. If we did, we'd have to learn about 'come-up-ance'. F==K that noise!" 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said, sir. I would simply upvote and save myself the typing, but it appears I have reached my daily quota for upvotes lol.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the visibility server settings change? I can actually see other planes now!!! Thank you so much guys’d love 💓 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Did the visibility server settings change? I can actually see other planes now!!! Thank you so much guys’d love 💓 

 

Maybe not changed but, the weather/clouds and time of day are randomized for each time the map plays.  Clouds and sun position can make drastic changes depending on your relative position to them and the object(s) you are spotting.  

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...