Combat Box by Red Flight

[Fern]

6 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

If something isn't changed, even the 'balance' of equal wins on this server is gone.

 

 

Lol really? Where else you gonna play BoB maps? This is the only North American server. Go start your own server if it's so bad.

 

Wings of Liberty has been giving everyone the middle finger with their loadouts and it's still kicking. Did the Germans ever get their 1000

 

Everyone should be happy Alonzo is even in here talking and considering anyone's inputs at all.

[CIA_Elanski]

My sarcasm was just that.  I don't expect to get any changes.  Don't care if they do really.  I just wanted to point out I was right.  I've been watching servers do this for 20 years.  I originally posted that WHEN the german flyers want to they can compete and win.  All they have to do is try.  It is not the load out or the planes.  It is about trying.  I just used way to much sarcasm and my point was missed.

 

WHEN THE GERMAN TEAM WANTS TO,  THEY CAN WIN.

 

So limit the Allied planes, plane set, loud outs, targets way deeper than those of the germans.  Fine....I'm still right.  When the german team wants to...they can.  

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Either Team can Win If they want to and choose to.
(The entire point of war - of which the devs are simulating WW2, not some random "War Games") 

The Teams just have to Attack! Bomb and Cover Their Attackers and Bombers.
- Cannot win Defending a map or dog fighting then both teams just lose if 0 zero objectives cleared and time runs out
- The worst outcome is a draw AKA both team losing 

[Otto_bann]

All these debates would not be if the pleasure of having fun outweighed that of winning. Counting who wins or loses like the statistics can be harmful if the players give too much importance to the result.

 

This server was pretty well balanced.

 

Those who want changes want compensate their own weakness by the back door.

[Barnacles]

29 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

All these debates would not be if the pleasure of having fun outweighed that of winning. Counting who wins or loses like the statistics can be harmful if the players give too much importance to the result.

 

This server was pretty well balanced.

 

Those who want changes want compensate their own weakness by the back door.

Otto, you join the list of great philosophers!

[Creep]

21 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

Red herring - P-38 has a better bomb load, but the 110 has a rear gun and turns better. Every plane has some relative advantages. I feel like we're in crazy town arguing about balance here. Literally just look at the layout of targets in the maps! On what map do Germans have to fly past Allied bases to hit their targets?

Hi Bazzer!  I do not understand how what I said was a red herring (or any other kind of logical fallacy for that matter). I was responding to Elanski's assertion which, to paraphrase, is that there is an imbalance between Axis and Allied which should be addressed, at least in part, by giving the P-38 it's 4 1000lb bomb loadout. I do not agree with that point of view because the P-38 already has a bomb loadout (in its limited state which is 2 1000s or 6 500s) that far exceeds that of any Axis plane of roughly comparable performance. Think of it as a classification. Yes the 110 has a rear gunner and turns better, but it is still in the same class in that it has the ability to dogfight (whereas a Ju88, He111, or Ju87 cannot). I don't remember who I heard say this (and I wish I did so I could give them credit), but it was something to the effect of:

Quote

"You know the game is balanced when both sides complain that the other has an unfair advantage."

Every plane has strengths and weaknesses, and if the pilot flying it knows how to apply those strengths and compensate for those weaknesses, they will win the day. Oh yeah, having thousands of hours of time in the sim and flying with a wingman doesn't hurt either.  Let me also say that I recognize my own bias. That is why I try to fly both sides as much as I can (without stacking the teams unfairly). Fly Axis once in awhile and you might see things a little differently.

 

Regarding specific objective placement on maps - that is a far more complicated topic, one which Alonzo and his team have spoken about quite a lot and taken action on. I am hopeful that they will continue to use data (heat maps, aggregated stats, etc) to drive their map making activities. 

[Barnacles]

6 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Hi Bazzer!  I do not understand how what I said was a red herring (or any other kind of logical fallacy for that matter). I was responding to Elanski's assertion which, to paraphrase, is that there is an imbalance between Axis and Allied which should be addressed, at least in part, by giving the P-38 it's 4 1000lb bomb loadout. I do not agree with that point of view because the P-38 already has a bomb loadout (in its limited state which is 2 1000s or 6 500s) that far exceeds that of any Axis plane of roughly comparable performance. Think of it as a classification. Yes the 110 has a rear gunner and turns better, but it is still in the same class in that it has the ability to dogfight (whereas a Ju88, He111, or Ju87 cannot). I don't remember who I heard say this (and I wish I did so I could give them credit), but it was something to the effect of:

Every plane has strengths and weaknesses, and if the pilot flying it knows how to apply those strengths and compensate for those weaknesses, they will win the day. Oh yeah, having thousands of hours of time in the sim and flying with a wingman doesn't hurt either.  Let me also say that I recognize my own bias. That is why I try to fly both sides as much as I can (without stacking the teams unfairly). Fly Axis once in awhile and you might see things a little differently.

 

Regarding specific objective placement on maps - that is a far more complicated topic, one which Alonzo and his team have spoken about quite a lot and taken action on. I am hopeful that they will continue to use data (heat maps, aggregated stats, etc) to drive their map making activities. 

And remember if you're flying a plane that you feel is outclassed, you're more likely to be chosen to ride eternal in Valhalla 

[adler_1]

Sheldt missions

 

There is a target which is ships in the port , many are stationary and occasionally there are a couple steaming into the port area . I attacked twice the stationary ships with rockets but nothing at all happens . On one occasion i saw 2 ships steaming into the port but i did not try attacking them . My question is do we attack only moving targets ?  if so if we dont see them moving when arriving over the port area does that mean they arrived at destination and no longer a target ?

[-SF-Disarray]

It might be an issue of your rocket not being big enough to kill the ship. Bombs, generally, do the job though.

[RedKestrel]

11 minutes ago, dog1 said:

Sheldt missions

 

There is a target which is ships in the port , many are stationary and occasionally there are a couple steaming into the port area . I attacked twice the stationary ships with rockets but nothing at all happens . On one occasion i saw 2 ships steaming into the port but i did not try attacking them . My question is do we attack only moving targets ?  if so if we dont see them moving when arriving over the port area does that mean they arrived at destination and no longer a target ?

Have you looked at the stats for that sortie? Did it show any hits or damage to the ships? I can't find your username on the stats page, how are you identified in game?

My understanding of the way the damage model works for static objects is that objects have a single durability value. Hits from all weapons affect this durability value. So, in theory, you could destroy any tank in the sim by pouring enough machine gun fire into it since each bullet takes off a tiny fraction of its durability. 

Moving targets like vehicles have a more complex damage model, and can be partially immobilized and/or damaged. the durability applies but there are different components with their own durability values and the damage will be more visible, and damage from fire and things like that is modeled. So if you set a moving ship on fire it may eventually burn  up enough that it sinks or explodes. 

 

If you attack a static ship with rockets and you hit it, its probably done a certain percentage of damage, but it may not be visible until the ship actually sinks. If you do enough damage to a moving ship, it will start to smoke or catch fire well before actually being destroyed. 

Some ships, like the little gunboats on some maps, can be destroyed even just by machine gun fire, so smaller ships are worth strafing. 

For anti-ship operations, I just go for bombs. You can skip bomb or dive bomb the ships pretty effectively. 

[69th_Bazzer]

I apologize my prior comments had an over-negative tone and came across as whining. As I have said before, I really enjoy this server. They ask for specific suggestions rather than just complaints, so I tried to offer some regarding objective placement and plane loud-outs.

 

We'll see how the rest of this month (and beyond) plays out. So far, blue is winning maps at greater than a 3:2 ratio, with fewer hours flying. I think the imbalance is objectively obvious, although recognize the sample size is relatively small.

 

There is also an obvious disparity in target distance in many maps. I recognize airfield placement is limited by the map, but target placement and type is not. 

 

Again, I still greatly appreciate the work of the admin team and the server in general. I also appreciate flying against great pilots and good people like those who are arguing against me, Creep, Otto, etc., and certainly wouldn't want to see changes that would drive you away.

[422nd_RedSkull]

I don't usually give my opinion on this question of balance because I know that the effort of the adm is very great and must be respected.
As I am on vacation it is being possible to see the progress of the maps at various times and what I realize that is greatly influencing this significant difference to the blues are the times where there are no more than around 05, 10 players on the server.

They are usually blue and as one side destroys a target more than the opponent to win the map this distorts the final result.

Maybe if you change the criteria somewhere between 40% and 60% of targets to one side to gain bring more balance and force more ground attack missions.

[Otto_bann]

1 hour ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

...Creep, Otto, etc., and certainly wouldn't want to see changes that would drive you away.

 

Don't worry amigo, we will stay in your 6, even after any changes ?

 

CU soon around clouds

[BRSQD_Xipan]

On 07/01/2020 at 16:36, Otto_bann said:

 

Novamente um outro que quer oponentes mais fáceis quanto possível e o tempo todo.

 

262 e um K4 só estão disponíveis em alguns mapas quando todos os melhores caças vermelhos estão disponíveis em todos os mapas e o jato tem velocidade e não pode virar. 2 razões pelas quais é tão pouco usado e executa tão poucas vítimas. É por isso que também nas estatísticas, você não pode ver nenhum piloto alemão de topo com o jato como o avião favorito.

 

O problema para alguns caras vermelhos é que, na maior parte do tempo, eles não conseguem pegá-lo com velocidade, como de costume contra os outros aviões alemães. Eles estão frustrados ...

 

Sem 150 octanas para os vermelhos, o K4 já não é um avião uber e o patrimônio líquido em FM é o mais próximo do que é bom o suficiente. Mas quando o melhor avião alemão é o G14 contra os mesmos caças vermelhos (sem 150 de outubro), o lado alemão inicia a missão claramente com uma desvantagem (e G6 ou 190As são apenas as piores escolhas, mas as melhores maneiras de resgatar ou morrer rapidamente) .

 

O avião mais perigoso disponível em todos os mapas deste servidor é obviamente o Tempy nas mãos de um piloto comum. Todos os lutadores azuis experientes dirão isso, mesmo que alguns dos melhores pilotos vermelhos possam preferir os 51.

We have been fighting the superiority of German technology for years, suffering from our slow planes and with little reason to climb. And now that we have planes with similar technology and an easy plane for a regular pilot?
I'm very friendly, but Tempest itself is similar to the power that German aircraft have made in the latest il-2 expansions. We must all learn from our difficulties and accept what is available for combat, as the Reds have been doing for a long time. 

[Alonzo]

A Bridge Too Far updated to 1.1.0: Now 20% less far! Allied operations have expanded in Gilze and Bomber Command has selected closer German targets as the mission priority. German air operations have moved from Lette to Venlo. Pilots operating fighter-bombers from Boenninghardt are advised to use caution but may operate there if they are confident with short field techniques.

 

Hopefully folks like the updated map.

 

On the subject of balance, looking at the front page of IL2 stats can be very misleading. It lists every map played including those where just a handful of pilots flew, which don't really represent game balance. If you scroll up a bit you can see the 14 day summary for maps with over 80 pilots, and the win ratio is much more even for those. That's what we balance for, not the smaller numbers. We could do something like requiring a minimum of N objectives destroyed to win, but it's complicated to write logic using the map editor and even the one we have now (first to kill M objectives wins, otherwise side with most destroyed objectives wins, otherwise it's a draw) is relatively complex to implement.

 

We are planning a special event map for April which will unleash the best planes that both sides have, in a titanic struggle for the air. Stay tuned...

[=SFG=Canuck52]

2 hours ago, Alonzo said:

A Bridge Too Far updated to 1.1.0: Now 20% less far! Allied operations have expanded in Gilze and Bomber Command has selected closer German targets as the mission priority. German air operations have moved from Lette to Venlo. Pilots operating fighter-bombers from Boenninghardt are advised to use caution but may operate there if they are confident with short field techniques.

 

Hopefully folks like the updated map.

 

On the subject of balance, looking at the front page of IL2 stats can be very misleading. It lists every map played including those where just a handful of pilots flew, which don't really represent game balance. If you scroll up a bit you can see the 14 day summary for maps with over 80 pilots, and the win ratio is much more even for those. That's what we balance for, not the smaller numbers. We could do something like requiring a minimum of N objectives destroyed to win, but it's complicated to write logic using the map editor and even the one we have now (first to kill M objectives wins, otherwise side with most destroyed objectives wins, otherwise it's a draw) is relatively complex to implement.

 

We are planning a special event map for April which will unleash the best planes that both sides have, in a titanic struggle for the air. Stay tuned...

262s vs Po-2..both with air starts..can't wait!

[Talon_]

On 1/8/2020 at 5:52 PM, 69th_Bazzer said:

Give us 150 octane, +11 Tempy, and +25 spit on all 1945 maps

 

Is this not already the case? It should be.

 

On 1/8/2020 at 5:52 PM, 69th_Bazzer said:

On what map do Germans have to fly past Allied bases to hit their targets?

 

Also worth noting that not every target needs to be destroyed to win. These targets were added because players wished for opportunities to use the A-20 in a level bombing role (personally I disagreed with this move). We're a team though and we vote.

 

 

On 1/9/2020 at 12:23 AM, Alonzo said:

 

 

 

 

Just a note to say that our talented admin @haluter developed this tool with customisable fields specifically to help us balance the server, because IL2stats is skewed so much by low-population outcomes.

 

We wouldn't have put the time in to developing tools like this if we wanted to look at 100% blue pie charts ?

[BRSQD_Xipan]

18 hours ago, =ABr=422nd_RedSkull said:

Normalmente, não dou minha opinião sobre essa questão de equilíbrio, porque sei que o esforço do adm é muito grande e deve ser respeitado.
Como estou de férias, é possível ver o progresso dos mapas em vários momentos e o que percebo que está influenciando muito essa diferença significativa para o blues é o momento em que não há mais do que 05, 10 jogadores no servidor .

Eles geralmente são azuis e, como um lado destrói um alvo mais que o oponente para vencer o mapa, isso distorce o resultado final.

Talvez se você mudar os critérios em algum lugar entre 40% e 60% dos alvos para um lado, para obter mais equilíbrio e forçar mais missões de ataque ao solo.

I also think it is better for dynamics to have to destroy 70 to 90% of targets to define the map wins.

[Creep]

2 minutes ago, =ABr=BR_Xipan said:

I also think it is better for dynamics to have to destroy 70 to 90% of targets to define the map wins.

 

If you set the bar that high, then it becomes impossible to turn a map when the server population is low. That means people that play during non-peak hours have less of an incentive to play. I could see that having a detrimental impact on overall server population.

[RedKestrel]

3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Is this not already the case? It should be.

 

 

Also worth noting that not every target needs to be destroyed to win. These targets were added because players wished for opportunities to use the A-20 in a level bombing role (personally I disagreed with this move). We're a team though and we vote.

 

 

 

Just a note to say that our talented admin @haluter developed this tool with customisable fields specifically to help us balance the server, because IL2stats is skewed so much by low-population outcomes.

 

We wouldn't have put the time in to developing tools like this if we wanted to look at 100% blue pie charts ?

As it is, these pie charts look like a bizarre mixture of blueberry, strawberry, and meat pie.
/as God intended

[Alonzo]

4 hours ago, Talon_ said:

[ 150 octane on 1945 maps]

Is this not already the case? It should be.

 

I've just checked the maps and confirmed with Talon:

• Legend of Y-29, 1st Jan 1945: Tempest +11 boost, 150 octane unavailable (it arrived 2 weeks later), DC engine unavailable for the K4.
• Subsequent 1945 maps: Tempest +11 boost, 150 octane available, DC engine for the K4 available.

Note that we jump from January to March currently, so if we do a map in between those we'll still need to consider which mods are appropriate.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

As @QB.Creep Said Still need to leave the maps so if only 2 people or 1 person on each team 1 side can still win instead of both losing when map ends after 2.5 hours of hard work. 

Or you end up with other problems like another server currently in the list
has the maps that need all objectives completed to win (everything on the map) As a result of that for the last 50 missions run on that server only 5-10 have been won by either team with 40 odd maps have both teams Losing (draw = map lost as you did not win) 


 

Edited January 10, 2020 by =TBAS=Sschatten14

[RedKestrel]

10 hours ago, Canuck52 said:

262s vs Po-2..both with air starts..can't wait!

You jest but this possibility makes me want to buy a Po-2. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

You jest but this possibility makes me want to buy a Po-2. 

i think the po2 would win. 

i mean the me262 would be going to fast. 
the po2 gun would easily set the me262 on fire with 1 burst 

 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

WOL not worried about Balance at ALL or that problem as all the maps built on purpose so the Reds always win the Monthly Campaign every month for last 4 years! (thats not a joke or exaggeration in anyway, ). Also Wol You can win maps by plane count or points Cbox you cannot.

On combat box some of the maps it would be impossible for even 2 people to Complete 60% of the targets to win in 2.5 hours. 
already now with 3-4 people in Formation and 3-4 covering it takes Back to Back Sorties for 2.5 hours no toilet stop to clear 5 objectives. 
 

[422nd_RedSkull]

28 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

As @QB.Creep Said Still need to leave the maps so if only 2 people or 1 person on each team 1 side can still win instead of both losing when map ends after 2.5 hours of hard work. 

Or you end up with other problems like another server currently in the list
has the maps that need all objectives completed to win (everything on the map) As a result of that for the last 50 missions run on that server only 5-10 have been won by either team with 40 odd maps have both teams Losing (draw = map lost as you did not win) 


 

 

I think that 60% of the targets destroied to win one map is the best solution. 

8 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

WOL not worried about Balance at ALL or that problem as all the maps built on purpose so the Reds always win the Monthly Campaign every month for last 4 years! (thats not a joke or exaggeration in anyway, ). Also Wol You can win maps by plane count or points Cbox you cannot.

On combat box some of the maps it would be impossible for even 2 people to Complete 60% of the targets to win in 2.5 hours. 
already now with 3-4 people in Formation and 3-4 covering it takes Back to Back Sorties for 2.5 hours no toilet stop to clear 5 objectives. 
 

But only destroied one target and also win the map its ridiculous. Much easy for the side that fly in the time that have few players.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Love the new map, but it was way too laggy.  All my wingmen said the same thing.  I think some tweaking is needed.  Planes were lagging and jumping all over the place.  Its sad but I think the map is pushing the game engine more than it can handle.  

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

I fly both sides, whichever I happen to want to try in an evening. I must say I really like most of the missions on Combat BoX. The only mission I have not cared much for is the Bridge Too Far mission, but I haven't tried the updated version yet. I'm glad to see it was updated. Someone mentioned stuttering above and I have the same on Combat BoX - occasional stutters when there are a lot of clouds around. No issues in single player or on the FC servers. My machine is brand new this fall - Intel I7; GeForce 1660 series; GSync; etc. I don't have any insight into why it's happening though.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Well no cose if more people joined Cbox instead of other servers that would also fix the problem

Its better to have every map winnable then only half of them winnable when enough people online. 

Otherwise you get map after map which are a Draw and a draw means Both Teams Lost not Both Teams Won. 

 

[Barnacles]

39 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

Otherwise you get map after map which are a Draw and a draw means Both Teams Lost not Both Teams Won. 

 

 

No, it means the map is both won and lost at the same time, only by being bothered about semantics does then the wave equation break down and the result is resolved into a binary value.

Edited January 10, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Alonzo]

1 hour ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

Also Wol You can win maps by plane count or points Cbox you cannot.

 

We're considering "airframe attrition" as a first-class mechanic on an upcoming map. Some frontal airfields would have very limited aircraft numbers, but would have repair/rearm, so it might encourage pilots to try to nurse a wounded bird back home. In addition, your side could get a victory point for destroying X many opposing aircraft. It's not an outright win just on airframes, but it would contribute to the mission. We'd make sure it was front-and-center in the mission briefing and the in-mission text hints. Just an idea but we're thinking about it.

 

1 hour ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

Love the new map, but it was way too laggy.  All my wingmen said the same thing.  I think some tweaking is needed.  Planes were lagging and jumping all over the place.  Its sad but I think the map is pushing the game engine more than it can handle.  

 

Is is the map (Rhineland) or the mission (our use of the map) do you think? We've had some feedback on lag/client performance and are always trying to tune things better. If one of the missions feels worse than others, that's good data, please let us know the mission name and version number from the briefing screen and we can track it down.

[RedKestrel]

51 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

We're considering "airframe attrition" as a first-class mechanic on an upcoming map. Some frontal airfields would have very limited aircraft numbers, but would have repair/rearm, so it might encourage pilots to try to nurse a wounded bird back home. In addition, your side could get a victory point for destroying X many opposing aircraft. It's not an outright win just on airframes, but it would contribute to the mission. We'd make sure it was front-and-center in the mission briefing and the in-mission text hints. Just an idea but we're thinking about it.

 

 

Is is the map (Rhineland) or the mission (our use of the map) do you think? We've had some feedback on lag/client performance and are always trying to tune things better. If one of the missions feels worse than others, that's good data, please let us know the mission name and version number from the briefing screen and we can track it down.

I haven't flown much lately but the map I noticed was the worst for stuttering was A Bridge Too Far. On Battle of the Scheldt I didn't notice as much stuttering. 

Caveat: I'm one of the unfortunates that has stuttering in MP since the 4.001 patch, so for me performance ranges from decent (with minimal stutters) to unplayable (hard stuttering over extremely crowded targets). I haven't run into any unplayable levels of stuttering on Combat Box. A Bridge Too Far is middle of the pack.

[Otto_bann]

Overcloud (or 2 layers of clouds) makes the mission laggy IMO

Edited January 10, 2020 by Otto_bann

[Hawk-2a]

9 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

Overcloud (or 2 layers of clouds) makes the mission laggy IMO

Found this to be the case too when i last played on i think it was battle over eindhoven(?) with 2 layers of clouds and noticed some micro stutters. I havent had any stutters on other maps even when the server is highly populated.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Just the new mission battle of scheldt.  I have had no other laggy problems but that mission.  I should have said mission.  My flight thought maybe there was too much going on with all the boats up north and Antwerp.

 

No wonder they scrapped the pacific.  ?

Edited January 10, 2020 by VBF-12_Snake9
By the way it was very light cloud cover during our two flights.

[Padre*]

Hi @Alonzo

 

My squad mate noticed what might be a small oversight on the "A Bridge Too Far" mission so I took a screenshot and just posting here to bring it to your attention.

It seems the front lines in the Allied areas north of the main front line might be the wrong way around. Inside of the circles shows blue line and outside shows red line. Should they not be the other way around with red inside and blue outside, so that if allies land/ditch in the 2 northern zones they are ditching/landing in friendly territory and not captured? See pic below which is a screenshot from last night's mission

S! and thanks for the great maps

 

[Stu-Dh]

I agree that if we blues would fight as a team, even when outnumbered by the red, the reds would never win! Even with the new aircraft.  I see it so much when several of us attackers get a small escort, we take out our targets much faster and win more maps!  But for some reason "we" cant seem to get working together as well as we should. I get shot down so many times because our fighters are out doing something else, and most don't answer when we call out for help.  There are some who do and they give it their best but also get overwhelmed by the enemy.  But that's what also happened in the war. too few, too late. I just wish we flew as team blue or team red and all wanted to win for their side!  However I really enjoy Combat Box and hope for new missions! I also liked the old ones, maybe they could come back from time to time?

[Alonzo]

7 hours ago, 334th_Padre* said:

Hi @Alonzo

 

My squad mate noticed what might be a small oversight on the "A Bridge Too Far" mission so I took a screenshot and just posting here to bring it to your attention.

It seems the front lines in the Allied areas north of the main front line might be the wrong way around. Inside of the circles shows blue line and outside shows red line. Should they not be the other way around with red inside and blue outside, so that if allies land/ditch in the 2 northern zones they are ditching/landing in friendly territory and not captured? See pic below which is a screenshot from last night's mission

 

Thanks for pointing it out and for asking. The "captured" mechanic is actually different than what we use to create the front lines. The lines on the map are just that -- a guide for players. The actual "influence zones" that determine if you get captured are different. On the Bridge map for example, all of that area by the bridges is actually "no man's land" where neither side will get captured. The red/blue line thing is a side effect of whether players have chosen "blue = friendly" or "always use red for allies" in their settings. The red/blue lines are therefore the wrong way around for 50% of players. But it's just a line on the map, not the real influence zone.

 

3 hours ago, Stu-Dh said:

However I really enjoy Combat Box and hope for new missions! I also liked the old ones, maybe they could come back from time to time?

 

Yes! I was busy this week but people had a lot of interest in Operation Paravane, so that will go into the rotation for a week. The idea is to have one "classic" non-Rhineland map in the rotation each week.

[ROCKET_KNUT]

Hello guys! Here are some impressions of yesterdays Battle over Eindhoven:

 

Getting lost over the Netherlands:

 

 

Going for the wrong target (No Vassili, windmills aren´t legit targets!) ?:

 

 

Ignoring the actual target:

 

 

Finally causing some destruction:

 

 

Getting a lot of unwanted attention by the wrong crowd in return with the usual results:

 

 

Getting revenged:

 

 

Thank you very much @67th_SiLLA for your support!

See you guys soon! ?

 

 

 

[Turban]

@Stu-Dh , @=TBAS=Sschatten14 ,

 

People like you are why the blue are winning. We wouldn't if we didn't have people like you.

 

It has been a pleasure to fly blue lately because of you. I thought about flying red next month but the spirit you and others have shown was uplifting, so I realised it's probably still more enjoyable to stay blue.

I've seen people helping, fighting to their death, joining fights against the odds (furball against Tempest and P51s is straight suicide) just to help others..it was great.

 

When I read the blues would win because of some mission parameters I think it's really unfair to you.  Gear wise it sucks being blue but we have good people and they make up for it that's all.

Keep it up,

 

Cheers