Combat Box by Red Flight

[Nicol21]

On that particular mission i fly P-47D mostly.... and I enjoy it.. About week of flying G-14 and A-8 - thanks but im not interested in planes designed without soul and/or balls ? Not my cup of tea....

[Hawk-2a]

Saying the g-14 is good enough is like saying the spit 9 is good enough, no need for mustangs. It‘s just bullshit.

the g-14 is competitive, i agree. The k4 is more of a challenge to perform as well in. But holy shit, do you want germans to only fly 1 fighter? The Fw190 hardly counts as one. It‘s a damn shame for everybody who bought bobp to be able to only fly g14 as a fighter (online)

i‘m not saying don‘t restrict the amount of k4s somewhat, but the whole tempest spam is not nearly any more realistic than 50x k4

i do not say the g-14 is useless, but personal favorites should not impact game balance.

 

you got shit on for not having a p38 in one mission, leaving still 3 BoBP fighters available. But then the 262 / k4 /D9 should be restricted or completely removed, leaving only 1 pure fighter available? of course you get negative feedback from LW pilots. It is not rocket science, but one would have to be willing to look at it in an independent manner.

go fly g14 for days and days against tempests, p51, boosted spits and p38. It will bore the hell out of you rather quick. Then do the same with alternating k4 / d9 and g14. Be surprised about how much more attractive the game becomes.

5 hours ago, ZVP_Zdenek said:

About week of flying G-14 and A-8 - thanks but im not interested in planes designed without soul and/or balls ? Not my cup of tea...

That statement of yours says all about you. I‘m not even mad. Very constructive

Edited November 15, 2019 by IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz

[Talon_]

8 minutes ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

But then the 262 / k4 /D9 should be restricted or completely removed, leaving only 1 pure fighter available?

 

I never said this ?‍♀️

 

I just spoke up in defence of my 2nd favourite Luftwaffe fighter.

[Alonzo]

The Spitfire actually *is* a great fighter, and pre-patch the Spit IX vs Dora/K4 fight was totally winnable by a smart Allied pilot. Go ask Nines, one of the top pilots on the server. He said he felt icky sometimes with how maneuverable the Spit was (pre-new physiological effects).

 

Regardless of the hyperbole being posted here, Combat Box is regularly full 84/84, and generally has reasonably balanced team stacks. With the recent changes to Ruhr Pocket were also starting to see win rates climbing for blue. I don’t see any sign that LW pilots are packing up their toys and going home. With the release of the Y-29 mission later today, K4 and D9 will feature on 75% of the maps, and the 262, problematic as it is, on 25%. 
 

We are going to keep producing varied, historically inspired missions and match ups. Sometimes Allies will be missing a bird or an engine mod or bombs will be restricted. Same for German fliers. Objectives will be asymmetric between the two sides. Sometimes a map will favor one side or another.

 

A server with all stuff unlocked all the time is an uninteresting arena—we might as well stick a front line straight north to south with targets equally spaced up and down it. Dull. No thank you.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

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

So you want a reenacting of history in a game where people choose to fly either red or blue. with teams not being balanced due to "extreme" realism, players will simply not join anymore just because they know they can only fly lawnmowers and get dusted by a fleet of tempests etc.

 

Will result in the server being empty due to missing opposition, based on very historically accurate, but gameplay wise unbalanced settings for a GAME.

Just as pre patch, where there was only LW planes flying cuz you guys did not want to fly spitIX and P47D anymore because they could not compete.

K4 was heavily restricted by then already, and now where there is some opposition on par with it, giving it a reason to enable more K4s and D9s, you guys cannot stop bitching about how they should be limited due to low amount of built planes IRL.

All you red jocks need a week of only flying G-14 and A8 to really understand.

 

G-14 and A-8 can pretty much compete with P51Ds(without 150oct), Spit IX(without 150oct) and Tempests(without +11boost)

 

and hell it is just one map running that setting which many people enjoy a lot, out of 3 maps overall.

[=RvE=Windmills]

Hoping to see more maps that have more limited planesets.

 

I don't mind seeing it every now and then but some capped numbers on K4 and especially the DC engine mod would up the variety a bit.

 

Also some P38s available on earlier maps pretty please.

[69th_Bazzer]

Interesting, I came here to opine on the difficulty of turning the map for Allies on A Bridge Too Far. After reading comments from blue side complaining on aircraft selection and difficulty of winning this map, and admin comments on purposely not making every map even, making it unlikely to turn, and reflecting on Allied difficulties in this operation, I have to admit you probably have the balance spot on.

 

I would say, while I appreciate the desire to enable level-bombing, without a real Allied level-bomber I think it would be more fitting if 2 out of the 3 level bombing targets (munitions, fuel and factories) were transformed to vehicle convoys moving to the front, or airfield targets.

 

That said, love the server and the work you put in, thanks!

[Voodoo_Slayer]

6 hours ago, Alonzo said:

The Spitfire actually *is* a great fighter, and pre-patch the Spit IX vs Dora/K4 fight was totally winnable by a smart Allied pilot. Go ask Nines, one of the top pilots on the server. He said he felt icky sometimes with how maneuverable the Spit was (pre-new physiological effects).

 

Regardless of the hyperbole being posted here, Combat Box is regularly full 84/84, and generally has reasonably balanced team stacks. With the recent changes to Ruhr Pocket were also starting to see win rates climbing for blue. I don’t see any sign that LW pilots are packing up their toys and going home. With the release of the Y-29 mission later today, K4 and D9 will feature on 75% of the maps, and the 262, problematic as it is, on 25%. 
 

We are going to keep producing varied, historically inspired missions and match ups. Sometimes Allies will be missing a bird or an engine mod or bombs will be restricted. Same for German fliers. Objectives will be asymmetric between the two sides. Sometimes a map will favor one side or another.

 

A server with all stuff unlocked all the time is an uninteresting arena—we might as well stick a front line straight north to south with targets equally spaced up and down it. Dull. No thank you.

Well said sir and thanks for your efforts. Your sever is good 

[FeuerFliegen]

One other thing...

 

The last 4-5 times I played "A Bridge Too Far," it ended in a stalemate.  Is this normal or just happens to be my experience by coincidence?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

People seem to not like the size of the maps.  I, on the other hand, do like the larger maps. I also like longer match timers.  I like flights (for example) that make it so that it would be wise to leave some extra gallons of gas in the rear tank of the Mustang and make sure you've burned it before getting into combat, or take a full(er) tank for other planes.  

 

Just my opinion but, my Ideal daily rotation for maps would include seven, 3-hour maps.  3 maps would be early and mid war scenarios. The other 4 would be BoBp.  The extra 3 hours in the day would be empty so that the rotation would not be the same map at the same time as yesterday.   

Edited November 15, 2019 by Mobile_BBQ

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

it would be wise to leave some extra gallons of gas in the rear tank of the Mustang

You have more than 680 liters of fuel in the wing tanks alone. That is good for at least two hours and a half of flight and fight. And you want more?? How many times do you want to fly around the whole map?

Edited November 16, 2019 by ZachariasX

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

At least twice, heavily leaking, of course. 

[CrazyGman]

So back in the Day. wings of liberty could lock certain options on planes you selected without the ability to remove said option. For example on some early 1941 maps they had rockets locked on Yak 1 series 69 planes without the ability to remove them. Is this no longer availible to do on servers?

 

I would really think that Me-262 sturmvogels in the Y-29 map should be included. As KG-51 definitely participated in that attack. While I am unsure of JG-7s involvement, so you could perhaps aurgue not wanting the fighter version availible. 

 

Heck, if you have to lock the 262 with the 2 250kg bombs to discourage people from dropping them right off the bat, fine. As the pilon drag severly effects it's performance.

Edited November 16, 2019 by CrazyGman

[Sketch]

6 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

So back in the Day. wings of liberty could lock certain options on planes you selected without the ability to remove said option. For example on some early 1941 maps they had rockets locked on Yak 1 series 69 planes without the ability to remove them. Is this no longer availible to do on servers?

 

I would really think including 262 sturmvogels in the Y-29 map should be included. As KG-51 definitely participated in that attack. While I am unsure of JG-7s involvement so you could perhaps aurgue not wanting the fighter version availible. 

 

Heck, if you have to lock the 262 with the 2 250kg bombs to discourage people from dropping them right off the bat fine, as the pilon drag severly affects it performance.

 

Yes you can lock loadouts/force bombs.

[FeuerFliegen]

On 11/15/2019 at 6:41 PM, Mobile_BBQ said:

People seem to not like the size of the maps.  I, on the other hand, do like the larger maps. I also like longer match timers.  I like flights (for example) that make it so that it would be wise to leave some extra gallons of gas in the rear tank of the Mustang and make sure you've burned it before getting into combat, or take a full(er) tank for other planes.  

 

Just my opinion but, my Ideal daily rotation for maps would include seven, 3-hour maps.  3 maps would be early and mid war scenarios. The other 4 would be BoBp.  The extra 3 hours in the day would be empty so that the rotation would not be the same map at the same time as yesterday.   

 

 

I also vote for longer match timers.  If there must be a huge map, then I'm only ok with it when there is 3+ hour timer.  The combination of just over 2 hours and such a large map is what I'm against.

 

I also would like more early and mid war scenarios too.

[Alonzo]

14 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

I also vote for longer match timers.  If there must be a huge map, then I'm only ok with it when there is 3+ hour timer.  The combination of just over 2 hours and such a large map is what I'm against.

 

I also would like more early and mid war scenarios too.

 

Could you be more specific about the maps that are too big, and exactly how they are too big? I've flown a bunch of Pocket and Y-29 this weekend and both seem reasonable in size. On Pocket I was flying from the southern German base and getting into action within 5 minutes of takeoff.

 

In terms of early/mid war scenarios, at the moment we are keeping our late-war BoBP focus. We might produce a couple of maps that have more of the Kuban plane set (or upcycle a previous map with one of those plane sets) but currently people seem very enthusiastic about the BoBP planes and map.

[350th_Buzz]

Hello Alonzo and all the players,

  I'm a little upset ...
Since one of the last three updates (Bodenplatte) I encounter 1 problem in CombatBox. The game turns off (back office) sometimes at the beginning of flight after 5 or 6 minutes or after + or- half an hour. It must have happened 6 or 7 times in less than a week. Half of the time this is taken into account as disconnection and of course I lose my stats ... What annoys me very much: D But I'm really not the kind of player who voluntarily disconnects in flight ... Never!
Now I am more stressed by this failure than by my dear blue enemies
In short, did anyone encounter this kind of problem? Is there a solution?

I will do a test in TAW

Please excuse my approximate English I am using an automatic translator.

[Stoopy]

30 minutes ago, jackdaw said:

Since one of the last three updates (Bodenplatte) I encounter 1 problem in CombatBox. The game turns off (back office) sometimes at the beginning of flight after 5 or 6 minutes or after + or- half an hour. It must have happened 6 or 7 times in less than a week. Half of the time this is taken into account as disconnection and of course I lose my stats ... What annoys me very much: D But I'm really not the kind of player who voluntarily disconnects in flight ... Never!
Now I am more stressed by this failure than by my dear blue enemies
In short, did anyone encounter this kind of problem? Is there a solution?

Please excuse my approximate English I am using an automatic translator.

 

It sounds like you are describing the game is crashing and exiting to the desktop unexpectedly while flying online in Combat Box,   If so, yes I have experienced it since the release of the Battle Of Bodenplatte map and when Combat Box started using that map, particularly the "Battle for Eindhoven" scenario.  I believe it is related to the new map and higher resources required from our systems.   Combat  Box is singled out here only because they were the first popular server to use the new map, or at least they're the only server I fly on that does.  To be very fair, I was also able to duplicate the problem in Single Player mode also, using the BoBp map in the Quick Mission Builder I flew for an hour and also had the program crash to desktop unexpectedly.   So while it feels like it could be a problem with this server, I do not believe it is, however having a lot of targets and players online doesn't help. 

 

Many of the times it has happened right as some action has taken place, such as dropping bombs at low level or shooting up another aircraft.  At other times it occurs as I fly near a city.  Which seems as if it is related to system resource overload.   I have been testing system settings extensively and have found that turning down some settings has helped address the problem and I am able to fly for longer periods now  - disabling the new setting for drawing distant buildings, and turning off 4K textures has helped.   I'm not yet sure I can say it's fully fixed though, because as soon as I do, I will probably experience another crash.

 

My system is an i7-4790K w/16Gb RAM and an NVidia GTX970 card, running Win10.  Frames are locked at 60 with VSync enabled.  Sharpness and AA etc are handled in the NVIDIA system settings per Geronim0's graphic settings guide, and I'm using a current version of ReShade.   Current system settings are shown below.

 

 

Good luck.

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by =[TIA]=Stoopy

[350th_Buzz]

Hello Stoopy, thanks for that clarification. I forgot to mention that I only fly on CombatBox and a little on TAW. In fast mission mode I did not fly a lot on the Bodenplatte map.
My config is:
i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20 GHz 4.50 GHz
16.0 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB

I'm watching my settings in the game.

[Stoopy]

41 minutes ago, jackdaw said:

Hello Stoopy, thanks for that clarification. I forgot to mention that I only fly on CombatBox and a little on TAW. In fast mission mode I did not fly a lot on the Bodenplatte map.
My config is:
i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20 GHz 4.50 GHz
16.0 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB

I'm watching my settings in the game.

 

 

Good luck - that's a pretty healthy system.  I forgot to mention that I also turned off the "Game Bar" option in the Windows 10, System Settings, Gaming Options menu.  Just to rule out any conflict with system resources.  So far I am in "fingers crossed" mode and as soon as Mrs. Stoopy slows down on assigning weekend tasks I will have more time to really confirm success.

 

If possible it would be great if you keep track of what mission it happens to you in and what you were doing at the time to help figure this out...

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by =[TIA]=Stoopy

[Ribbon]

I see a lot of discussiona about balance and limiting bombload and plane numbers.

I don't believe that will help, or it will but with opposite effect.

My experience when flying (EU timezone);

-most of the time balance is pretty good, usually only few allied players more than axis.

-allied mindset is concetrated more on objectives while axis players usually camp around allied airfiels or are deep in their teritory close to spawn airfields covering closest friendly objectives.

Only few axis players go for enemy objectives doing one pass, drop the bombs than go camp at the airfields.

They are just more fighter oriented and playing safe tactic scenarios.

Allied players have their new toys so objective oriented they are more, but it won't last forever so i guess things will balance by itself as time passes, at least i will fly both sides again after i got bored of new planes.

 

[Cecil]

Whatever happened to all the missions listed here?  http://combatbox.net/en/maps/  Why aren't they in rotation any more?  I miss playing Kalinin and the two Kuban maps, and I haven't played the D-Day map in forever.  It's just the same 4 missions (now with Y-29) over and over again.  And the new maps are getting too large in my opinion.

[Talon_]

4 hours ago, Cecil said:

Whatever happened to all the missions listed here?  http://combatbox.net/en/maps/  Why aren't they in rotation any more?  I miss playing Kalinin and the two Kuban maps, and I haven't played the D-Day map in forever.  It's just the same 4 missions (now with Y-29) over and over again.  And the new maps are getting too large in my opinion.

 

The latest patch caused every AAA gun on all the old maps to stop working, pretty much forcing us to start over from scratch. Player feedback is also much more favourable to using the new terrain as it's historically correct for these planes, as opposed to Russia which is not. Additionally, D-Day has always had balance problems and as a result hasn't been in rotation for a few months.

 

Edit: also the new planes are so fast that the smaller map distances from our early days just turn the server into Berloga-style furballs constantly.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Talon_

[Cecil]

Aw, does that mean none of the older missions will be brought back?  Also, I played some of those old missions and I don't think they were Berloga-like, unless you count anything at distances closer than the current mission rotation "Berloga-like".   There's a whole continuum there.  It's not like you're spawning people in the air with 10-15km separation in the old missions.  

 

Is there a way to vote on what mission comes next?  When I play later in the day and there's only 40 people in the server, the new maps can be a bit of a ghost town.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

5 minutes ago, Cecil said:

 

Is there a way to vote on what mission comes next?  When I play later in the day and there's only 40 people in the server, the new maps can be a bit of a ghost town.

 

During western hemisphere prime time it's difficult to get an open spot.  On average 40 on a server is on the low side of "not bad".

_

I do miss Stalingrad Scramble though.  Is CB going to be exclusively BoBp-centric or is there some potential for consideration re: earlier-war Eastern Front maps?

[Cecil]

51 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

On average 40 on a server is on the low side of "not bad".

 

Yeah, I suppose I'm grateful it's populated at all.  It just seems that the inclusion of a map vote would solve the problem and let people choose a map that's well situated to the number of players currently in the server.

[FeuerFliegen]

3 hours ago, Cecil said:

Is there a way to vote on what mission comes next?  When I play later in the day and there's only 40 people in the server, the new maps can be a bit of a ghost town.

 

I would love this.  kinda like GTA5 online.

 

It seems like some of these maps and server settings are made assuming there will be 70+ players in a game.  While I am on the US east coast time zone, I usually don't play until late at night, when there is rarely ever more than 30-40 players.  Maybe this is why nearly every time I play "A Bridge Too Far," it ends in a stalemate.  I honestly can't remember a time when I was playing it when either side won, although I'm sure it's happened.

 

12 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

Could you be more specific about the maps that are too big, and exactly how they are too big? I've flown a bunch of Pocket and Y-29 this weekend and both seem reasonable in size. On Pocket I was flying from the southern German base and getting into action within 5 minutes of takeoff.

 

In terms of early/mid war scenarios, at the moment we are keeping our late-war BoBP focus. We might produce a couple of maps that have more of the Kuban plane set (or upcycle a previous map with one of those plane sets) but currently people seem very enthusiastic about the BoBP planes and map.

 

I'm mainly just referring to "A Bridge Too Far"

 

It seems to have longer travel distances than the other maps; and while I usually enjoy larger maps, I think this one is pushing it too far.

Edited November 18, 2019 by FeuerFliegen

[Alonzo]

5 hours ago, Cecil said:

Aw, does that mean none of the older missions will be brought back?  Also, I played some of those old missions and I don't think they were Berloga-like, unless you count anything at distances closer than the current mission rotation "Berloga-like".   There's a whole continuum there.  It's not like you're spawning people in the air with 10-15km separation in the old missions.  

 

Is there a way to vote on what mission comes next?  When I play later in the day and there's only 40 people in the server, the new maps can be a bit of a ghost town.

 

There's no voting as yet. Maybe if the IL2 developers put it in game, we would use it.

 

I hope we can bring back some of the older missions, as I put a lot of time into creating them. Plenty of them still make sense even with a newer plane set, and if we restrict some of the fastest options for the planes (150 octane, DC engine) they aren't too small in my opinion. The AA bug killed them dead for a month, though, and lots of players are keen to play on the new map having spent years playing already on the old ones.

 

2 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

It seems like some of these maps and server settings are made assuming there will be 70+ players in a game.  While I am on the US east coast time zone, I usually don't play until late at night, when there is rarely ever more than 30-40 players.  Maybe this is why nearly every time I play "A Bridge Too Far," it ends in a stalemate.  I honestly can't remember a time when I was playing it when either side won, although I'm sure it's happened.

 

http://combatbox.net/en/missions/?tour=15

 

Looking at that, I would say ABTF tends to end in stalemate for very low player counts (less than 30-40 total players), but at higher player counts either side can win, or force a draw.

 

The other factor is that TAW has started today and tends to draw a big proportion of the player base (as it should -- it's an extremely well produced campaign and deserves its success). We'll see how it goes, whether there's enough of an impact for us to change up our maps (for example, to smaller maps for the duration of TAW). The last 4 missions this afternoon and evening have reached well over 100 total players, so I'd say things are still fairly healthy at the moment.

[Talon_]

10 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I do miss Stalingrad Scramble though.  Is CB going to be exclusively BoBp-centric or is there some potential for consideration re: earlier-war Eastern Front maps?

 

We're going to maintain the focus we originally set out in the OP. As the only BoBp server, if we start running missions from previous versions of the game those that only own Bodenplatte will have nowhere to play.

[RedKestrel]

13 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

There's no voting as yet. Maybe if the IL2 developers put it in game, we would use it.

 

I hope we can bring back some of the older missions, as I put a lot of time into creating them. Plenty of them still make sense even with a newer plane set, and if we restrict some of the fastest options for the planes (150 octane, DC engine) they aren't too small in my opinion. The AA bug killed them dead for a month, though, and lots of players are keen to play on the new map having spent years playing already on the old ones.

 

 

http://combatbox.net/en/missions/?tour=15

 

Looking at that, I would say ABTF tends to end in stalemate for very low player counts (less than 30-40 total players), but at higher player counts either side can win, or force a draw.

 

The other factor is that TAW has started today and tends to draw a big proportion of the player base (as it should -- it's an extremely well produced campaign and deserves its success). We'll see how it goes, whether there's enough of an impact for us to change up our maps (for example, to smaller maps for the duration of TAW). The last 4 missions this afternoon and evening have reached well over 100 total players, so I'd say things are still fairly healthy at the moment.

I really do miss the Paravane map, I love me a ship strike mission. That one I don't think would be too small. Some anti-shipping strike missions would be doable in the NW portion of the Bodenplatte map...maybe a scenario involving the Allies having to defend the port facilities of Antwerp and incoming ships from enemy attackers? I'm not sure the Luftwaffe was ever able to attack the facilities after they fell into Allied hands but it might be a plausible what-if scenario. 

[9JG54_GermanWolF]

I'm sorry, but a map worse than another to fly, please review this, where is the maps of Kuban, is horrible especially that map of the bridge, huge I gave up.

A Bridge Too Far

one of the worst maps i ever saw in BOS

[FTC_Riksen]

20 minutes ago, 9./JG54_GERMANWOLF said:

I'm sorry, but a map worse than another to fly, please review this, where is the maps of Kuban, is horrible especially that map of the bridge, huge I gave up.

A Bridge Too Far

one of the worst maps i ever saw in BOS

 

You give up? Does that mean you are going back to Wol? Yyyyyeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy!

[Hawk-2a]

15 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

You give up? Does that mean you are going back to Wol? Yyyyyeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy!

Why oh why can‘t this be upvoted multiple times??

[9JG54_GermanWolF]

17 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

You give up? Does that mean you are going back to Wol? Yyyyyeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy!

I'll play bf1 ...

Alonzo chains the maps of Kuban? No more bridges!

[RedKestrel]

I don't find the Bridge Too Far map to be too bad for flight distances. The Ruhr Pocket map seems longer, especially the rear target areas. But I like longer flight times, it really improves my ratio of  time not on fire/being on fire.

 

[Talon_]

The bridges on A Bridge Too Far are all the actual bridges from Operation Market Garden. Be thankful you don't have to fly all the way from England to fight over them!

 

I should rename it "A Bridge Not Actually That Far In Reality" ?

[Creep]

How about naming the map "This Is Not Berloga"

[RedKestrel]

23 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

The bridges on A Bridge Too Far are all the actual bridges from Operation Market Garden. Be thankful you don't have to fly all the way from England to fight over them!

 

I should rename it "A Bridge Not Actually That Far In Reality" ?

1944, Some poor sod flying a P-47 through crappy weather on a several hour round trip flight. "F***ing mission designers!"

[Voodoo_Slayer]

18 hours ago, 9./JG54_GERMANWOLF said:

I'm sorry, but a map worse than another to fly, please review this, where is the maps of Kuban, is horrible especially that map of the bridge, huge I gave up.

A Bridge Too Far

one of the worst maps i ever saw in BOS

Goodbye ?? 

[Cybermat47]

18 hours ago, 9./JG54_GERMANWOLF said:

I'm sorry, but a map worse than another to fly, please review this, where is the maps of Kuban, is horrible especially that map of the bridge, huge I gave up.

A Bridge Too Far

one of the worst maps i ever saw in BOS

Glad to hear that blue pilots will finally be safe from friendly fire.