Combat Box by Red Flight

[Talon_]

16 hours ago, /SF/Disarray said:

But on that same mission, on the German side we find equal numbers of K4's as G14's, a situation that is frankly a historical fantasy. That early in year there simply weren't that many K4's built, let alone deployed to that part of the front.

 

Aircraft serviceable, Operation Bodenplatte:

Fw190A/G/F 339

Fw190D 167

Bf109G-6 2

Bf109G-14 250

Bf109G-10/K4 155

Bf109G(unknown number) 33

 

Source 1

Source 2

 

I'm not convinced that dropping it to 20 K-4s per field instead of 30 will have a noticeable impact on mission outcomes.

[adler_1]

and a good online bashing new year 

[Alonzo]

20 hours ago, /SF/Disarray said:

[Y-29] Allied planes aren't afforded 150 octane fuel because it wasn't in use. Fine. But on that same mission, on the German side we find equal numbers of K4's as G14's, a situation that is frankly a historical fantasy. That early in year there simply weren't that many K4's built, let alone deployed to that part of the front.

 

Ah well now here's a suggestion we could debate on its merits. There were less K4s historically, why not have reduced K4 numbers compared to G14 numbers? That's a reasonable thing to ask. Talon's replied elsewhere but I wanted to point out that this is a useful thing to say that we could potentially incorporate to make adjustments. I agree with Talon that slightly reducing the K4 numbers probably won't materially affect outcomes, but we could consider doing it if it's something that lends a bit of a nod to history on the lineup and doesn't wildly imbalance a map.

 

Quote

And before Otto comes in telling me that I should fight the good fight with the under powered machines and then talk, I've been there and done that for years. Learn to win against G4's in a Yak 1 or a LaGG 3 and we can talk.

 

Allied birds without 150 octane are "under powered" ?   I mean, maaaybe in terms of raw horsepower, but if you look at the things those birds can do, and especially the fact that the P51 pilot has a g-suit, I'd say they are still quite competitive.

 

Anyhow. Maps on Combat Box will continue to have a mixture of planes, engine mods, and weapons loadouts depending on the map. We're striving for fun, diverse, approximately balanced gameplay over historical accuracy. I'm sure we'll make mistakes, and I am now (having run this server for the best part of a year) absolutely 100% sure that we won't be able to please all of the people all of the time. ? 

 

[Creep]

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

I'm sure we'll make mistakes, and I am now (having run this server for the best part of a year) absolutely 100% sure that we won't be able to please all of the people all of the time. ? 

 

 

In all seriousness though, I think you guys have done a tremendous job balancing the gameplay on Combat Box. 

[-SF-Disarray]

5 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Aircraft serviceable, Operation Bodenplatte:

Fw190A/G/F 339

Fw190D 167

Bf109G-6 2

Bf109G-14 250

Bf109G-10/K4 155

Bf109G(unknown number) 33

 

Source 1 126.86 kB · 0 downloads

Source 2 110.66 kB · 0 downloads

 

I'm not convinced that dropping it to 20 K-4s per field instead of 30 will have a noticeable impact on mission outcomes.

 

According to your own sources only 64 of those 155 planes were in fighting shape (41%), and of the 155 only 114 of the paper strength planes are K4's. Inflating the number of planes by nearly 2.5 times of effective air frames by including planes that couldn't be used or were different models seems like it might have an effect. Still I'm supersized that there were that many built, at least on paper, by that late in '44/early in '45 considering the state of German industrial capacity by then. Maybe I'm wrong but a plane that is gone all to pieces on the hanger floor seems about as useful as fuel that is still on the truck trundling to the front.

 

Alonzo, that last bit wasn't intended to say the Allied rides are under powered. But there is this impression from some that German planes are somehow incapable of competing with their Allied counterparts, as Otto will tell you for example. So, the logic goes, it is only natural that Allied planes not be allowed to be used at their full potential, with their full horsepower, so as to give the poor German players a chance. I have not found this to be the case, however. In both head to head testing of various planes and in combat I have found German planes, particularly the 109's, to be very competitive pound for pound. That aside I know what it is like to be in a situation where the only choices available to a team are planes that are objectively less powerful in most categories and I know that it is a fight that can be won. I am nothing special in the game play department, if I can win the fight with fewer horsepower and a lower top speed surely others can too. They just might have to get creative.

[Alonzo]

14 minutes ago, /SF/Disarray said:

Alonzo, that last bit wasn't intended to say the Allied rides are under powered. But there is this impression from some that German planes are somehow incapable of competing with their Allied counterparts, as Otto will tell you for example. So, the logic goes, it is only natural that Allied planes not be allowed to be used at their full potential, with their full horsepower, so as to give the poor German players a chance. I have not found this to be the case, however. In both head to head testing of various planes and in combat I have found German planes, particularly the 109's, to be very competitive pound for pound. That aside I know what it is like to be in a situation where the only choices available to a team are planes that are objectively less powerful in most categories and I know that it is a fight that can be won. I am nothing special in the game play department, if I can win the fight with fewer horsepower and a lower top speed surely others can too. They just might have to get creative.

 

Yep, agreed. And at the end of the day, if anyone is choosing to fight fair (equal numbers, equal energy, whatever) then they've missed the whole point of air combat. If you watch Sheriff's videos I'd estimate at least 50% of the kills are sneaking up on someone who doesn't have enough SA and then shooting them in the cockpit point blank. Plus as Talon said to me on Discord the other day, in response to me whining about my bad choices leading to me being shot (I was complaining about lacklustre German performance, as it happens), that "five thousand feet of altitude is worth about a million horsepower". He's not wrong...

 

Anyhow. There are maps where neither side gets their full range of a/c and mods, and there are other maps that unlock (mostly) everything, and there are plenty of maps in between too. Maybe we will think about a specific map that is absolutely everything unlocked, but I need to think about target strength and the P-38 with its unfettered loadout before we can do that.

[Creep]

52 minutes ago, /SF/Disarray said:

In both head to head testing of various planes and in combat I have found German planes, particularly the 109's, to be very competitive pound for pound.

 

Very interesting - can you elaborate on this? I am curious which versions of the 109s you are comparing to which Allied planes. I did testing with my squad mates when BoBP came out and found the opposite to be true. We focused on the K4 and G14 against the Tempest and P-51 using a variety of loadouts in duels on Berloga. The proximity and altitudes of the engagements may have skewed the results a bit but in general we found that the German planes are definitely outclassed now. We did find a few tactics to be viable against them, but it was definitely an uphill battle. I would be happy to demonstrate this for you anytime you like!

[-SF-Disarray]

I didn't keep my notes from the tests so I can't give hard numbers but here is the broad strokes. Tempest v K4 both boosted: The Tempest accelerates a little faster at most altitudes though the top speeds are similar with the K4 being just slightly slower down low. The Tempest picks up speed in a dive slightly slower in a dive but will catch the K4 if there is enough vertical space (most of the time there isn't) and will slowly pull it in once things level out at the ground. In terms of maneuverability they are close but the Tempest has an edge if you maintain good throttle control; that said I have managed to get inside turns of Spitfire 9's with the K4 by taking some liberties in vertical manuring while the Spit stayed in a flat turn. The biggest edge in maneuverability the K4 has over the Tempest is in the G-forces. While neither has the G-suit blackouts in the Tempest are rapid in their onset and harsh in their effects while in the K4 they seem to come on slower giving more time to react and allowing you to ride the edge of blackout a little more reliably. All told it is a great fight and often decided by who has the better set up or can execute their plan better. The Tempest is strictly faster than the 190's down low, even the D9 can be run down by it but it takes time.

 

In terms of raw power the 51 is faster than the G14 in a strait line and in a shallow dive but if the G14 can force a maneuvering engagement, say the catch them low or in the middle of another fight, the power to weight ratio of the G14 and the, I'm being charitable here, 'interesting' way the leading edge slats are modeled give the G14 some strengths to work with. Like with the K4-Tempest match up it isn't cut and dry and there is no advantage that stands head and shoulders above, once the fight is joined, but it is a very dynamic fight that often comes down to who has the better starting position, who sees and exploits situational advantages first/best or who's friend comes in to settle matters first.

 

This is in the frame of low and middling altitude fighting. I haven't had many fights in any of the planes at or above 20k feet. Certainly not enough to draw any intelligent conclusions, though from what little information I have I suspect the trends would be similar. I just haven't found that many people that high that will take the fight, or who were up there in the first place. I also don't have much to say where flying the 190 is concerned. I don't much care for them as fighters. I like the kind of fight where you get stuck in, a knife fight if you like, and the 190 isn't at all well suited to this role. As bomber interceptors they are good, with the hard hitting cannon in numbers and they make great light bomb trucks, though.

[adler_1]

question about game play

I was strafing an enemy airfield and it was right at the begining of the mission . there was just me and an opponent until that moment  in the game , then 3 planes appeared with landing lights on i checked the statistics but we were stil just 2 players . i went into battle with the player and the 3 planes landed . My question is were the 3 planes part of the game set up and therefore you are allowed to shoot them down or not ?

[Alonzo]

1 hour ago, dog1 said:

question about game play

I was strafing an enemy airfield and it was right at the begining of the mission . there was just me and an opponent until that moment  in the game , then 3 planes appeared with landing lights on i checked the statistics but we were stil just 2 players . i went into battle with the player and the 3 planes landed . My question is were the 3 planes part of the game set up and therefore you are allowed to shoot them down or not ?

 

Which map? Were you flying Allied or German? I'm guessing it's Crossing the Rhine. On that map, the "airlift" objectives are player + Ai airfields, and both players and Ai are valid targets at that airfield, because it is an objective. If you are are other player airfields, the ones at the back of the map, those are "normal" airfields and not objectives. At those airfields, players who have their wheels on the ground are not valid targets.

[adler_1]

It was an allied airbase target west of WEET about 2 mn west . This is where it all happened this morning .  OK so they were objectives while in the air . It was my first encounter of this kind so i'm glad i asked .

[Alonzo]

On 12/22/2019 at 11:00 AM, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

The problem with such asymmetric missions is this: what is a win condition for the Lw? Or allies? How do you measure that? How does this guarantee replayability for the next time that mission is on?

how do you balance something like that to make it equally fun no matter the side you play?

 

I really like asymmetric missions. But you're right in that they are very difficult to pull off. We have an old D-Day map which included a moving front line and different phases to the battle, and it was balanced enough that people didn't hate flying one side or the other, but it was very difficult to make it 'fair'. Mind you, given that each side has different aircraft, it's never going to be fully symmetric, the best you can hope for is "fair" and "balanced".

 

StarCraft is one of my favorite games because it has 3 different races that play very differently, yet the designers achieve very comparable winrates. Hats off to them.

[Otto_bann]

On 12/23/2019 at 8:00 PM, /SF/Disarray said:

... I also don't have much to say where flying the 190 is concerned. I don't much care for them as fighters. I like the kind of fight where you get stuck in, a knife fight if you like, and the 190 isn't at all well suited to this role.

 

The situation is pretty well summarized, that's why the 190s (and the G6 / G4 / G2) are so few used. So the G14 which is still available is the most used because it's the least risky choice to fight the 51, 38 and Tempest, which are already all clearly faster (without the 150 oct) and with their g-suits.

 

Creativity don't have to be reserved for one side only and all the advantages (150 octane) should decently not be claimed as if it were an injustice because it's a bad argument which don't manage to hide the real one: try to make opponents as targets always easier on all maps.

Edited December 26, 2019 by Otto_bann

[-SF-Disarray]

Otto, don't assign me motives and I'll do you the same favor. The issue isn't that one side needs to be stronger all the time. I have been clear that this is an issue of a sensible standard being used for one side and an unreasonably favorable standard being used for the other; either that or ignoring historical factors for balance but seemingly when it benefits one side only. There really isn't more to it than that. Shocking, perhaps, but there it is.

 

Were I a cynical and partisan person I'd say you are just trying to hold onto every advantage you can find for your side. I only ever see you on one side and were that one side have to face some of the historic realities of the game's setting you seem to think that your side wouldn't do very well. But, fortunately I'm not that cynical or partisan so you don't need to stave off such accusations.

[adler_1]

hello

today i shot down a P38 close to Eindhoven i think  Weet and i did not get credit on screen but was marked in the statistics as light when it was medium with no points gained . What is the reason ?  player aminx504 approx noon thailand time . 

[Alonzo]

11 hours ago, dog1 said:

today i shot down a P38 close to Eindhoven i think  Weet and i did not get credit on screen but was marked in the statistics as light when it was medium with no points gained . What is the reason ?  player aminx504 approx noon thailand time . 

 

In-game statistics/scoreboard are only an indicator. They generally have problems and are unreliable. We use IL2 Stats to post-process the mission logs and determine who killed what. Here are aminx504's recent sorties. You can look at the sortie log to determine what happened.

 

http://combatbox.net/en/sorties/3678/aminx504/?tour=16

[Creep]

This video is a compilation of flight recordings taken on the Combat Box Server in November and December of 2019 while flying the Me 262. The vast majority of my kills in the Me 262 are against unsuspecting opponents; these were some of the more interesting ones. Hope you guys enjoy it!

 

[THERION]

8 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

This video is a compilation of flight recordings taken on the Combat Box Server in November and December of 2019 while flying the Me 262. The vast majority of my kills in the Me 262 are against unsuspecting opponents; these were some of the more interesting ones. Hope you guys enjoy it!

 

 

Yep! I was one of your unsuspecting "victims" - flying home in my FW190D, not far from my airfield, after a successful ground attack mission! Thank you.

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by -=-THERION

[=SFG=Canuck52]

14 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

This video is a compilation of flight recordings taken on the Combat Box Server in November and December of 2019 while flying the Me 262. The vast majority of my kills in the Me 262 are against unsuspecting opponents; these were some of the more interesting ones. Hope you guys enjoy it!

 

I know for a record friendly axis forces have been killed by your 262. I did not see any of those "highlights" ?

Update: Reread Therion..he knows whats up haha

 

Update update: Great video overall though!

Edited December 28, 2019 by Canuck52

[Creep]

12 hours ago, -=-THERION said:

 

Yep! I was one of your unsuspecting "victims" - flying home in my FW190D, not far from my airfield, after a successful ground attack mission! Thank you.

 

FF accidents happen. I apologize.

[Y-29.Silky]

The BLW guys are being toxic af. Disconnecting, camping, and shooting parachutes. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Y-29.Silky

[Hawk-2a]

@Y-29.Silky Interesting to read this from you. I dont see any recent BLW disconnect in combat. Camping AF is allowed as long as they dont strafe the grounded planes.

cant say about chat, never seen them toxic.

 

but then there is you, last sortie i see is a combat disconnect:

http://combatbox.net/en/sortie/276434/?tour=16
 

pretty bold of you to call guys out for shit you do yourself without having proof of such actions from them.

Edited December 28, 2019 by IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

The BLW guys are being toxic af. Disconnecting, camping, and shooting parachutes. 

 

Only disconnecting is forbidden on this server.  As long as they wait until the plane on the ground separates from it's shadow (taking off) or get planes before they touch down, they can camp all day long.  Chute killing serves no real purpose on a non-campaign server, but it's not illegal on CB.  If it's pissing you off, take a break. Otherwise, SITFU.

[Alonzo]

2 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Only disconnecting is forbidden on this server.  As long as they wait until the plane on the ground separates from it's shadow (taking off) or get planes before they touch down, they can camp all day long.  Chute killing serves no real purpose on a non-campaign server, but it's not illegal on CB.

 

This is correct. There's also only a short 5 second "finish mission" timer, so if you're worried about being shot in your chute, you can end mission fairly quickly. Personally I am against shoot killing as it serves no purpose, but pages and pages of rules are a pain to enforce (even the "don't be a dick" rule we have takes a lot of admin time).

 

If someone is repeatedly disconnecting please let us know, preferably with a link to their sortie. A pattern of repeated "convenient" disconnects will result in action being taken against a player.

[CIA_Luth]

4 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

The BLW guys are being toxic af. Disconnecting, camping, and shooting parachutes. 

be cool silky.  just give them a dose of their own medicine.  

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

@Y-29.Silky Interesting to read this from you. I dont see any recent BLW disconnect in combat. Camping AF is allowed as long as they dont strafe the grounded planes.

cant say about chat, never seen them toxic.

 

but then there is you, last sortie i see is a combat disconnect:

http://combatbox.net/en/sortie/276434/?tour=16
 

pretty bold of you to call guys out for shit you do yourself without having proof of such actions from them.

http://combatbox.net/en/sortie/270571/?tour=16

http://combatbox.net/en/sortie/256121/?tour=16

research,  its a useful thing

[Alonzo]

Tomorrow we will debut a new mission! Battle for the Scheldt is set in the northwest corner of the Rheinland map and is all about control of the approach to the port of Antwerp. Map will be live at 2130 GMT Sunday 29th December (1630 Eastern, 1330 Pacific). Please join us to try the new mission!

[Hawk-2a]

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

any recent BLW disconnect in combat.

@CIA_Luth reading carefully can be useful too, my guy.

[CIA_Luth]

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

@CIA_Luth reading carefully can be useful too, my guy.

Those are recent. Your bias is showing. 

[Bremspropeller]

16 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Tomorrow we will debut a new mission! Battle for the Scheldt is set in the northwest corner of the Rheinland map and is all about control of the approach to the port of Antwerp. Map will be live at 2130 GMT Sunday 29th December (1630 Eastern, 1330 Pacific). Please join us to try the new mission!

 

Was a nice mission!

But why no P-38s?

[THERION]

17 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Tomorrow we will debut a new mission! Battle for the Scheldt is set in the northwest corner of the Rheinland map and is all about control of the approach to the port of Antwerp. Map will be live at 2130 GMT Sunday 29th December (1630 Eastern, 1330 Pacific). Please join us to try the new mission!

 

Thank you for proposing more variety for the new map and that we can finally see new action and learn different corners of the map. This is a nice mission.

 

Cheers

[=Abutres=Mutley1]

Thanks for new mission, possible we have 1t bombs for our HE-111?

 

[Otto_bann]

On 12/29/2019 at 1:43 AM, Alonzo said:

...  but pages and pages of rules are a pain to enforce (even the "don't be a dick" rule we have takes a lot of admin time)...

 

 A few more specific words in the rules would not make another page, just a line.

 

Some seem happy to be specialized in these behaviors. They are therefore sometimes repetitive or even consecutive on a victim. I have often seen guys when complaining when chute killed or vulched leave the server ( it's not a surprise) and therefore reduce the number of players (when we are few, it's a problem).

 

If newbies and a few pilots wich they have such limited skills that they have difficulty getting some kills by regular ways, these behaviors work against the interest of the game for most of the other players: it's a pity and tiring.

 

Just one more small line of words in rules please...;)

 

PS : great new mission, thanks

Edited December 30, 2019 by Otto_bann

[Alonzo]

15 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Was a nice mission!

But why no P-38s?

 

It's the same rationale as the Bridge too Far mission, in that P-38s simply weren't operating in the theatre at the time of the mission. On the plus side, it does give the P47 a role for this mission rather than gathering dust.

 

29 minutes ago, =Abutres=Mutley1 said:

Thanks for new mission, possible we have 1t bombs for our HE-111?

 

We've found it quite difficult to balance the bigger bombs. Against a small target you can just nuke the target in one pass, so we're mostly balanced around the smaller bombs, for now. Some maps do feature bigger bombs but that is usually only after we have seen players fly the map and learn it, as the results change once a 'meta' is established for the map. For example on the Closing of the Ruhr Pocket map, Dortmund airfield was a total meat-grinder the first time the map was played, and on the new Scheldt map the meat grinder is the V1 launch sites. But that may change as players learn the map and experiment with different attack strategies.

 

16 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

Just one more small line of words in rules please...;)

 

PS : great new mission, thanks

 

Glad you like it! The "pilots on the ground are not valid targets" thing is in the rules and in a server message every ~30 minutes. Do you mean that or a different rule?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

 

 ...But that may change as players learn the map and experiment with different attack strategies.

 

 

Well since earlier maps have been "learned already, how about you put some heavy AAA at the points just outside of Allied airbases where the Axis loiter and get free kills on incoming and outgoing planes?  The 262 base in the Jet Fuel Depot map has not only AAA on the field but external positions as well, and those suckers in large numbers and are cranked to max level. but I guess the Allies just didn't have the logistics to protect their airbases and close by friendly air traffic.  Nope. Not at all.  Not in '45. Certainly not in '44. 

 

(P.S. I know it's called "The Battle for Eindhoven", but in reality, it's the "Jet Fuel Depot Map".)

[Alonzo]

12 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Well since earlier maps have been "learned already, how about you put some heavy AAA at the points just outside of Allied airbases where the Axis loiter and get free kills on incoming and outgoing planes?  The 262 base in the Jet Fuel Depot map has not only AAA on the field but external positions as well, and those suckers in large numbers and are cranked to max level. but I guess the Allies just didn't have the logistics to protect their airbases and close by friendly air traffic.  Nope. Not at all.  Not in '45. Certainly not in '44. 

 

Extra flak is already in the mission. Here's a screen grab of the mission editor. Concentric rings are indestructible heavy flak near player airfields.

 

 

There's a limit to what the flak can do, but it's designed to help highlight bandits in the area. Players currently get flares at the airfield, an air raid siren, heavy flak firing and lighting up bandits and an icon on the map when an enemy plane is within 10km.

 

There's also a limit to how much stuff the server can run. On Crossing the Rhine the amount of guns and Ai units was fairly high, and was ok for the server, but it started to cause network and even client performance problems with the amount of objects the clients were processing. With the new map spotting distances -- which we all wanted and appreciate in the multiplayer community -- the server is constantly sending much more data to game clients over a wider area of the map. So while it might be nice to pepper friendly territory with loads of flak guns, it's both ineffective (only very bad vulchers get shot down by it) and causes a big performance hit.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

3 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

... (only very bad vulchers get shot down by it)  …. and causes a big performance hit.

 

If that's the case, then you can afford to cut back on the AAA at that 262 base I mentioned.  If 10+ rounds of flak exploding accurately within a 20 cubic meter area around your plane every 5-10 seconds is only for spotting aid or getting "very bad vulchers" and that ineffective, then why not re-distribute the resources from there or trim them for better performance?

[Alonzo]

16 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

If that's the case, then you can afford to cut back on the AAA at that 262 base I mentioned.

 

Oh right. I thought you were talking about the new map, not campaigning for red favors on other maps. We've thrashed all that out previously. In any case, AAA groups are generally reused and tweaked between maps, so they should be roughly equivalent. Feel free to open up the maps in the editor and have a look. If there are cases where it seems like things are off, based on you looking in the editor, let me know and I'll take a look.

[Otto_bann]

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

Glad you like it! The "pilots on the ground are not valid targets" thing is in the rules and in a server message every ~30 minutes. Do you mean that or a different rule?

Different rule like ''chute shooting and vuching are not admitted''.

 

I don't know if you was flying at time of Spit vs 109s server on Il2-1946 (long time ago). It was the most popular server (full at most part of time) and where behaviors was clean because chasing around spawn bases was forbiden  (if flak poped on you = you was too close). On this server, chute kill or break a rule was punished (ban) and it was very efficient and less AA was needed around bases.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Otto_bann

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

1 minute ago, Alonzo said:

I thought you were talking about the new map.

 

I haven't had more than a few minutes on the new map so, I couldn't comment.  

 

If there are, in fact, AAA positions spread farther out from airfields to at least aid in spotting commonly-camped landmarks just out side of the airfield flak zone, I've never seen them activate.  Perhaps there's too much going on in other areas of the map.  But, apparently pointing out one area that has such a powerful defense ring and suggesting it could be cut back is "campaigning for red favors".  Perhaps if I campaign for blue favors I'll get a more "favorable" response? 

[Alonzo]

This server is provided by volunteers. We put loads of time into it. I personally put 30-40 hours into each map before it’s first public play through, and probably another 20 hours or more to get it to a “v1.0” state.

 

Its really insulting for you to use language like “if there are, in fact, AA positions.” You’re implying I’m either lying or incompetent. As I have said many times, you are welcome to open the editor and the map and take a look for yourself. I’m not going to respond to any more impolite commentary from you or anyone else.

 

For others reading this, I welcome input from players when it is balanced, fact-based, and polite. Those of you who fly exclusively red or blue and then campaign for stuff that benefits your faction will not be taken seriously. 
 

Again, this is a volunteer effort. We hope you like the server. We welcome considered, polite feedback.