Combat Box by Red Flight

[Otto_bann]

Lol! You have to manage your propeller most correctly IMO

[Talon_]

27 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

Lol! You have to manage your propeller most correctly IMO

 

Full power is +9/+11lbs 3700rpm for 5 minutes. Reducing RPM reduces power and therefore is not maximum.

[Alonzo]

3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Alonzo - do what you want bro, it's your server.

• Worst case scenario - it will end up at the bottom of the Multiplayer - Dogfight list when you sort by # of players.
• Best case scenario - it will remain at the top of the Multiplayer - Dogfight list when you sort by # of players.

 

Being top server is kind of bittersweet. It's nice, but then I get my ass handed to me much more compared to when we were a little-known server ?  I don't think I've gotten worse as a pilot, I think the competition has gotten better...

 

47 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I take back my suggestion lol.

 

It's not a bad suggestion, these are all ideas that are worth thinking about.

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

My impression is the allies have stronger "variety" in what the planes offer ('something for everyone'), but that the German planes are more rewarding of expert (and punishing of rotten) flying (the 109K and the 262 come to mind). I don't think either side has pushover planes. I have a few favorites, but then again everyone does. I do think there are a few issues with some of the planes (the elevator on the P38 maybe and the P47 durability and flight model perhaps), but I think pretty much everyone can find a plane they really like.

 

In Combat BoX, my impression is that the team that wins usually is the one who most actively engages the ground targets in an organized way. I've seen both the allies and the Germans dominate games, and usually it's because people are working together to accomplish the mission goals and not just free-float individually looking for kills. I know the squads have their own voice comms, but I recommend people who aren't in a squad try the Combat BoX Discord comms. We have a few regulars and it's nice that people try to help each other out even if they're not in a squadron.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[Otto_bann]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

Full power is +9/+11lbs 3700rpm for 5 minutes. Reducing RPM reduces power and therefore is not maximum.

It's a mistake or we don't talking about same thing.

5 minutes ago, Krispy_Duck said:

... I know the squads have their own voice comms, but I recommend people who aren't in a squad try the Combat BoX Discord comms...

 

It would be nice if all can spoke english and it's not the case. So squadrons use their own com system in their natal language (Teamspeak for ex.) , this is indeed a serious handicap.

It's one thing to write few words in chat, but an other one to translate, understand, and speak correctly in foreign language at middle of fights.

[Alonzo]

On 1/11/2020 at 8:58 AM, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Alonzo, pleas don't make this server unfriendly for squadrons.  Please keep this server squadron friendly.  If it starts to become difficult for a squadron of pilots to operate with the same aircraft and fly in cooperation with other squadrons, then it just becomes a complete frustration to run a squadron of pilots and joint squadron operations on a server.

 

I somehow missed this section of the discussion at the weekend. Thank you for mentioning squadrons. As someone who has flown as part of a squad, I understand your concern. I think it's reasonable for a squadron to expect to be able to field aircraft all of the same type in the beginning stages of a map, but towards the later stages I think some flexibility is needed. IRL, squadrons flew mixed-performance aircraft, mostly the same type but maybe different models within that type. You may need to accept that mixed-aircraft operation is a reality towards the end of a mission.

 

I guess we have to ask ourselves "why are airframe numbers limited at all?" -- why not just set them all to infinite? The answer, to me, is to attach at least some value to the airframe in each match, so that losing a plane has a potential impact on your side and the match outcome, not just on your personal stats as a pilot. Because airframe numbers are a first-class in-game mechanic, it's good to use that if we can -- secondary effects like points on the stats website can only be seen by those of us who bother looking. But the in-game effect of running out of airframes is very visible. We probably have 3 categories of players -- those who just wanna fly and will log off if their preferred airframe isn't available, those who want to play and care about their points and winning matches but only look at in-game stats, and those who are also looking at website stats. So for 2 out of the 3 categories of player, airframe attrition is something they would care about (and actually even the first category cares, sort of).

 

Another reason to limit airframe numbers is to give players a feeling, as a match wears on, of things actually changing based on the performance of their team. Fewer airframes gives a feeling of the war dragging on, of combat losses, and so on. 

 

To me, there's a balance here. If it's always annoying to find the airframe you want, well that's too little availability. If you never have to even think about it, well that's too much availability. We want the Goldilocks Zone of "just right" somewhere in there. As an admin one thing that's difficult is to know how much airframe availability there is at the end of the match. We don't get direct feedback on that unless we log in at the end of each map and screenshot all the available aircraft.

 

Here's a request to pilots. If you feel airframes have become too limited on a particular map, please screenshot the following:

• Map name and version number (from mission briefing)
• Top of scoreboard showing time remaining in mission as well as an indication of the top pilots and what they were doing (default scoreboard view is fine, just scroll it to the top)
• Airframe availability at each airfield (not just the airfield you think is too limited, need to see all of them for both sides)

This will help us do some tuning, and we can discuss whether airframes got too limited too quickly, or if we feel it's a valid situation (end of a long map, lots of kills, etc).

 

I'd also be interested in opinions on whether players feel mixed-mod aircraft availability adds anything. For example on 1945 maps, both 150 and non-150 octane versions of a plane, and both DC and non-DC K4s. 

[Talisman]

12 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Biggest problem is not in server (balance and loadout) it's rather in game, plane LOD's are bugged;

Allied planes with camo skin shine like christmas trees on higher distances making them easy targets while axis planes camo blends in and sometimes you can't see plane 100m up to 2km from you until it's too late....flak shooting on invisible planes.

 

 

Very much agree with you Ribbon.  This is the biggest thing that has spoilt my enjoyment of IL-2 lately and to be honest I started to fly less and less towards the end of last year because of it :(

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Barnacles]

4 hours ago, Fern said:

Give them 150 octane, but in exchange move tempest to a rear airfield. Or 150 octane planes to rear. Common planes on the front airbases, not so common on rear airbases. Better loadouts to the rear?

 

I really like this idea, as it makes it more likely that you'll meet representative aircraft, rather than rare or anachronistic planes with unicorn loadouts. It also satisfies people who want to fly what they want, or you can put in things like p39s and 110 g2s for people who don't have bodenplatte.

Edited January 14, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Edit, not that 150 octane didn't exist, just the 'compromise' planes like a20s and 110 g2s

[Talon_]

58 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

or you can put in things like p39s and 110 g2s for people who don't have bodenplatte

 

Now TAW is over and the server is rammed again, we have to ask ourselves if encouraging non-Bodenplatte owners is a priority. Consider that every P-39 or 110G2 is an unused P-51 or D-9 when the server is full. Those players take up slots that people who only own Bodenplatte could use (adding authenticity to the mission), while they themselves could fly those planes elsewhere.

 

It's a consideration we must face.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Talon_

[Talisman]

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

I somehow missed this section of the discussion at the weekend. Thank you for mentioning squadrons. As someone who has flown as part of a squad, I understand your concern. I think it's reasonable for a squadron to expect to be able to field aircraft all of the same type in the beginning stages of a map, but towards the later stages I think some flexibility is needed. IRL, squadrons flew mixed-performance aircraft, mostly the same type but maybe different models within that type. You may need to accept that mixed-aircraft operation is a reality towards the end of a mission.

 

I guess we have to ask ourselves "why are airframe numbers limited at all?" -- why not just set them all to infinite? The answer, to me, is to attach at least some value to the airframe in each match, so that losing a plane has a potential impact on your side and the match outcome, not just on your personal stats as a pilot. Because airframe numbers are a first-class in-game mechanic, it's good to use that if we can -- secondary effects like points on the stats website can only be seen by those of us who bother looking. But the in-game effect of running out of airframes is very visible. We probably have 3 categories of players -- those who just wanna fly and will log off if their preferred airframe isn't available, those who want to play and care about their points and winning matches but only look at in-game stats, and those who are also looking at website stats. So for 2 out of the 3 categories of player, airframe attrition is something they would care about (and actually even the first category cares, sort of).

 

Another reason to limit airframe numbers is to give players a feeling, as a match wears on, of things actually changing based on the performance of their team. Fewer airframes gives a feeling of the war dragging on, of combat losses, and so on. 

 

To me, there's a balance here. If it's always annoying to find the airframe you want, well that's too little availability. If you never have to even think about it, well that's too much availability. We want the Goldilocks Zone of "just right" somewhere in there. As an admin one thing that's difficult is to know how much airframe availability there is at the end of the match. We don't get direct feedback on that unless we log in at the end of each map and screenshot all the available aircraft.

 

Here's a request to pilots. If you feel airframes have become too limited on a particular map, please screenshot the following:

• Map name and version number (from mission briefing)
• Top of scoreboard showing time remaining in mission as well as an indication of the top pilots and what they were doing (default scoreboard view is fine, just scroll it to the top)
• Airframe availability at each airfield (not just the airfield you think is too limited, need to see all of them for both sides)

This will help us do some tuning, and we can discuss whether airframes got too limited too quickly, or if we feel it's a valid situation (end of a long map, lots of kills, etc).

 

I'd also be interested in opinions on whether players feel mixed-mod aircraft availability adds anything. For example on 1945 maps, both 150 and non-150 octane versions of a plane, and both DC and non-DC K4s. 

 

Thank you for your response and consideration Alonzo and for continuing with Combat Box

Running a server like this will be fraught with difficulty and I appreciate what you are saying and doing, so I don't want to get into a big discussion because it is up to you and the Combat Box team how things are done.  Just a few points though before I sign off.

 

I don't appear to fall into any of the above 3 categories and I am not sure categorising folks is so helpful.  Squad players are often thoughtful, mature and historically minded and some don't bother with stats at all as it is all about something else, as I have alluded to in a previous post above.

 

If a squad has formed in a historical sense it usually, but not always, likes to be able to fly the aircraft historically flown by that particular squadron, especially if the aircraft/Sqn concerned was one of the main stays of the historic theatre map in play and there was no historical shortage of that aircraft. 

 

Before anyone jumps on me, I am not trying to demand anything or say that something should be so on Combat Box, I am just flagging up something about what can make a flight simulation more enjoyable and fun for folks from a squad perspective; this is a hobby for enjoyment, after all and there are many different ways to enjoy it.  

 

No problem flying mixed aircraft types in terms of, for example, 4 x P38 bombers escorted by 4 x Tempest, but when there are not enough of a particular type of bomber or fighter left to fly a sortie like that, it is far from ideal to fly mixed bombers and mixed fighters, perhaps 2 different odd numbers of fighters or 2 different odd numbers of bombers, if we can help it.  Still, we take what we can get and do what we can do by mixing and matching as best we can.  I still make no demand, just ask for as much consideration that can be given, bearing in mind that not everyone wants to fly as a squad and there are other pilots with different thoughts to cater for.

 

As the war moved on, supply of aircraft just got better and better, not worse and worse.  As I read it in the history books, aircraft production and associated logistics support was phenomenally high during late 1944 into 45.  Replacing lost aircraft was a speedy affair and was just not an issue.  Moreover, flying the aircraft types of WW2 that appeal to us in a near historical setting, sometimes as a squad, in a combat flight simulation is why we are here, so restricting aircraft supply is not only not historical, it defeats the object of why we purchase and log-on to fly IL-2. 

 

In a nutshell, I am concerned that Combat Box might become on of those MP servers that I find completely over-scripted to a point that it is just not enjoyable any more.

 

P.S.  It was no fun for the 3 bears to find their porridge eaten and baby bears chair broken!  LOL.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman 

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

Very much agree with you Ribbon.  This is the biggest thing that has spoilt my enjoyment of IL-2 lately and to be honest I started to fly less and less towards the end of last year because of it

 

56RAF_Talisman

When player ratio allows i jump to the other side, but still knowing something is unfair takes away enjoyment.

Let's hope it'll be fixed in upcoming patch!

 

S!

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

I like the idea having a few older/collector aircraft appearing in smaller numbers in the server. You sometimes see the Spitfire V, 109G2, 190A3, P40 used this way. It draws in people from other theaters and allows people to at least make some potential use of collector aircraft. I don't think I see them used in such numbers that they outnumber P51s, Tempests, 109K/G14.

[Barnacles]

22 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

Thank you for your response and consideration Alonzo and for continuing with Combat Box

Running a server like this will be fraught with difficulty and I appreciate what you are saying and doing, so I don't want to get into a big discussion because it is up to you and the Combat Box team how things are done.  Just a few points though before I sign off.

 

I don't appear to fall into any of the above 3 categories and I am not sure categorising folks is so helpful.  Squad players are often thoughtful, mature and historically minded and some don't bother with stats at all as it is all about something else, as I have alluded to in a previous post above.

 

If a squad has formed in a historical sense it usually, but not always, likes to be able to fly the aircraft historically flown by that particular squadron, especially if the aircraft/Sqn concerned was one of the main stays of the historic theatre map in play and there was no historical shortage of that aircraft. 

 

Before anyone jumps on me, I am not trying to demand anything or say that something should be so on Combat Box, I am just flagging up something about what can make a flight simulation more enjoyable and fun for folks from a squad perspective; this is a hobby for enjoyment, after all and there are many different ways to enjoy it.  

 

No problem flying mixed aircraft types in terms of, for example, 4 x P38 bombers escorted by 4 x Tempest, but when there are not enough of a particular type of bomber or fighter left to fly a sortie like that, it is far from ideal to fly mixed bombers and mixed fighters, perhaps 2 different odd numbers of fighters or 2 different odd numbers of bombers, if we can help it.  Still, we take what we can get and do what we can do by mixing and matching as best we can.  I still make no demand, just ask for as much consideration that can be given, bearing in mind that not everyone wants to fly as a squad and there are other pilots with different thoughts to cater for.

 

As the war moved on, supply of aircraft just got better and better, not worse and worse.  As I read it in the history books, aircraft production and associated logistics support was phenomenally high during late 1944 into 45.  Replacing lost aircraft was a speedy affair and was just not an issue.  Moreover, flying the aircraft types of WW2 that appeal to us in a near historical setting, sometimes as a squad, in a combat flight simulation is why we are here, so restricting aircraft supply is not only not historical, it defeats the object of why we purchase and log-on to fly IL-2. 

 

In a nutshell, I am concerned that Combat Box might become on of those MP servers that I find completely over-scripted to a point that it is just not enjoyable any more.

 

P.S.  It was no fun for the 3 bears to find their porridge eaten and baby bears chair broken!  LOL.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman 

 

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

I somehow missed this section of the discussion at the weekend. Thank you for mentioning squadrons. As someone who has flown as part of a squad, I understand your concern. I think it's reasonable for a squadron to expect to be able to field aircraft all of the same type in the beginning stages of a map, but towards the later stages I think some flexibility is needed. IRL, squadrons flew mixed-performance aircraft, mostly the same type but maybe different models within that type. You may need to accept that mixed-aircraft operation is a reality towards the end of a mission.

 

I guess we have to ask ourselves "why are airframe numbers limited at all?" -- why not just set them all to infinite? The answer, to me, is to attach at least some value to the airframe in each match, so that losing a plane has a potential impact on your side and the match outcome, not just on your personal stats as a pilot. Because airframe numbers are a first-class in-game mechanic, it's good to use that if we can -- secondary effects like points on the stats website can only be seen by those of us who bother looking. But the in-game effect of running out of airframes is very visible. We probably have 3 categories of players -- those who just wanna fly and will log off if their preferred airframe isn't available, those who want to play and care about their points and winning matches but only look at in-game stats, and those who are also looking at website stats. So for 2 out of the 3 categories of player, airframe attrition is something they would care about (and actually even the first category cares, sort of).

 

Another reason to limit airframe numbers is to give players a feeling, as a match wears on, of things actually changing based on the performance of their team. Fewer airframes gives a feeling of the war dragging on, of combat losses, and so on. 

 

To me, there's a balance here. If it's always annoying to find the airframe you want, well that's too little availability. If you never have to even think about it, well that's too much availability. We want the Goldilocks Zone of "just right" somewhere in there. As an admin one thing that's difficult is to know how much airframe availability there is at the end of the match. We don't get direct feedback on that unless we log in at the end of each map and screenshot all the available aircraft.

 

Here's a request to pilots. If you feel airframes have become too limited on a particular map, please screenshot the following:

• Map name and version number (from mission briefing)
• Top of scoreboard showing time remaining in mission as well as an indication of the top pilots and what they were doing (default scoreboard view is fine, just scroll it to the top)
• Airframe availability at each airfield (not just the airfield you think is too limited, need to see all of them for both sides)

This will help us do some tuning, and we can discuss whether airframes got too limited too quickly, or if we feel it's a valid situation (end of a long map, lots of kills, etc).

 

I'd also be interested in opinions on whether players feel mixed-mod aircraft availability adds anything. For example on 1945 maps, both 150 and non-150 octane versions of a plane, and both DC and non-DC K4s. 

 

 

I think a good compromise here would be to have most airframes limited, with the exception of one sort of plane on each side. A particularly good choice would be a plane that's under represented, in the opinion of the admins.  From my experience from just what I see when I play, it seems that 190A8s and P47s are overlooked in favour of things that really shouldn't be so ubiquitous such as 110G2s and A20s together with p38s, at least on the ground attack side, and it's not surprising as they are, in the confines of the server with the objectives how they are arguably more effective. So I'd have an airfield or two with those unlimited (190A8s and 47s) which means you can always bomb or go fighter in the same plane.

That way if you were in a large squad you'd always be able to have a homogeneous flight of planes, (being a mature set of folks I'm sure they wouldn't be too picky about having to have exactly what they want and were flexible enough to fly maybe not their first choice, but a choice which adds to the authenticity of the server.)

Also, it won't compromise Alonzo's vision of valuing airframes too much, as demonstrated, people value the other airframes more.

 

Of course there are other factors, people do have their pet planes, I'm not privy to the figures of what is actually flown (p47s may be a lot more common than I think), and it would be important to make sure every time you wanted to fly in a squad with the same plane, you weren't stuck in exactly the same airframe every time.

 

2 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

I'd also be interested in opinions on whether players feel mixed-mod aircraft availability adds anything. For example on 1945 maps, both 150 and non-150 octane versions of a plane, and both DC and non-DC K4s. 

Absolutely don't mind this at all, I like the peril of encountering a plane and (not that I'm good enough to have tactics anyway) have a bit of jeopardy in what tactics you choose to fight it. after all, in real life they didn't have the luxury of saying "ok Hans, we know they don't have 150 octane so we will definitely be safe if we attempt to run" or, "Biggles, you can outclimb that 109, it doesn't have the engine mod" ?

 

 

All of these are just suggestions of course, I'm well aware that most people (including me) are perfectly happy with the server exactly how it is, and are concerned that excessive tweaking could make it start being one of those servers which is too prescriptive. But overall I trust Alonzo and the crew to strike the right balance, stagnation is also a bad thing too.

[Barnacles]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

 

Now TAW is over and the server is rammed again, we have to ask ourselves if encouraging non-Bodenplatte owners is a priority. Consider that every P-39 or 110G2 is an unused P-51 or D-9 when the server is full. Those players take up slots that people who only own Bodenplatte could use (adding authenticity to the mission), while they themselves could fly those planes elsewhere.

 

It's a consideration we must face.

It's be interesting to find out if the people flying those planes are doing so because it's purely their 'pet' plane, or just because they see it as the most effective for what they want, or they simply do not have BoBP. It does seem to me that 110s are popular because of their effectiveness in this environment. (twin engine resilience, large bomb load, good guns and R2D2 to warn you of incoming attack), so maybe it's not such a deal breaker to get rid? I personally like the occasional A20 jaunt because it's awesome, but if it's not available I'd happily ride shiny and chrome into Valhalla in a p47.

 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

I think leave the TAW Special mechanics that make No sense to a War Simulator in TAW.

 

[Barnacles]

17 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

I think leave the TAW Special mechanics that make No sense to a War Simulator in TAW.

 

I don't think dogmatically discounting everything (even the good stuff) used on TAW just because it has some nonsensical rules is necessarily the way to go; yes I don't want a TAW clone but if something could add value to the server it should be considered on its merits and acceptability to the current player base, regardless of if TAW uses it or not. What specific mechanic did you have in mind?

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Alonzo]

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

I don't appear to fall into any of the above 3 categories and I am not sure categorising folks is so helpful.  Squad players are often thoughtful, mature and historically minded and some don't bother with stats at all as it is all about something else, as I have alluded to in a previous post above.

 

If a squad has formed in a historical sense it usually, but not always, likes to be able to fly the aircraft historically flown by that particular squadron, especially if the aircraft/Sqn concerned was one of the main stays of the historic theatre map in play and there was no historical shortage of that aircraft. 

 

Before anyone jumps on me, I am not trying to demand anything or say that something should be so on Combat Box, I am just flagging up something about what can make a flight simulation more enjoyable and fun for folks from a squad perspective; this is a hobby for enjoyment, after all and there are many different ways to enjoy it.  

 

No problem flying mixed aircraft types in terms of, for example, 4 x P38 bombers escorted by 4 x Tempest, but when there are not enough of a particular type of bomber or fighter left to fly a sortie like that, it is far from ideal to fly mixed bombers and mixed fighters, perhaps 2 different odd numbers of fighters or 2 different odd numbers of bombers, if we can help it.  Still, we take what we can get and do what we can do by mixing and matching as best we can.  I still make no demand, just ask for as much consideration that can be given, bearing in mind that not everyone wants to fly as a squad and there are other pilots with different thoughts to cater for.

 

As the war moved on, supply of aircraft just got better and better, not worse and worse.  As I read it in the history books, aircraft production and associated logistics support was phenomenally high during late 1944 into 45.  Replacing lost aircraft was a speedy affair and was just not an issue.  Moreover, flying the aircraft types of WW2 that appeal to us in a near historical setting, sometimes as a squad, in a combat flight simulation is why we are here, so restricting aircraft supply is not only not historical, it defeats the object of why we purchase and log-on to fly IL-2. 

 

Well maybe we have 4 categories of people. All models are wrong, but some are useful, after all.

 

The big problem is that there are conflicting interests, often between multiple different groups. For example, your squadron would like to recreate a historical feel and would like to be able to fly P-38s escorted by Tempests. So there would be lots of P38s and Tempests on the maps. It's September 1944 so the Tempests would have +11 boost and there would be no K4 or D9s to oppose you. That's historically accurate, but I'm pretty sure that German pilots would stop flying if they were stuck in a G14/A8 vs waves of P-38/Tempests. I guess that's historically accurate too, because by this point in the war the Luftwaffe was decimated and couldn't field pilots or machines to oppose the Allies! ? 

 

In this case the desire to fly historically accurate missions conflicts with the goal to make a fun and balanced server. If it's not at least approximately fair, one side or the other won't show up, and the other side will have nothing to shoot at. I think we're quite lucky to have the numbers as balanced as they currently are. It's one reason why our missions will remain "inspired by" history rather than trying to 100% accurately portray it.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong to want to fly as a squad in a historically accurate simulation, that's reasonable. But I think asking for real players to oppose you in limited numbers in clearly inferior machines with inferior support logistics and odds is a tough sell.

[RedKestrel]

16 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

 

 

 

I think a good compromise here would be to have most airframes limited, with the exception of one sort of plane on each side. A particularly good choice would be a plane that's under represented, in the opinion of the admins.  From my experience from just what I see when I play, it seems that 190A8s and P47s are overlooked in favour of things that really shouldn't be so ubiquitous such as 110G2s and A20s together with p38s, at least on the ground attack side, and it's not surprising as they are, in the confines of the server with the objectives how they are arguably more effective. So I'd have an airfield or two with those unlimited (190A8s and 47s) which means you can always bomb or go fighter in the same plane.

That way if you were in a large squad you'd always be able to have a homogeneous flight of planes, (being a mature set of folks I'm sure they wouldn't be too picky about having to have exactly what they want and were flexible enough to fly maybe not their first choice, but a choice which adds to the authenticity of the server.)

Also, it won't compromise Alonzo's vision of valuing airframes too much, as demonstrated, people value the other airframes more.

 

Of course there are other factors, people do have their pet planes, I'm not privy to the figures of what is actually flown (p47s may be a lot more common than I think), and it would be important to make sure every time you wanted to fly in a squad with the same plane, you weren't stuck in exactly the same airframe every time.

 

Absolutely don't mind this at all, I like the peril of encountering a plane and (not that I'm good enough to have tactics anyway) have a bit of jeopardy in what tactics you choose to fight it. after all, in real life they didn't have the luxury of saying "ok Hans, we know they don't have 150 octane so we will definitely be safe if we attempt to run" or, "Biggles, you can outclimb that 109, it doesn't have the engine mod" ?

 

 

All of these are just suggestions of course, I'm well aware that most people (including me) are perfectly happy with the server exactly how it is, and are concerned that excessive tweaking could make it start being one of those servers which is too prescriptive. But overall I trust Alonzo and the crew to strike the right balance, stagnation is also a bad thing too.

100% agreed on all fronts.

The server is going really good right now, we have a good variety of missions, sides are balanced for the most part (probably the best balance I've seen on any server I've flown on regularly), and win-rates are pretty well balanced as well. 

Right now, Combat Box has IMO hit its stride as an approachable expert server that manages to make good experiences for a variety of players . New players who know the basics of operating the aircraft can come right into the server without having to deal with a bunch of complicated rules, but the missions have interesting mechanics and strategic requirements that can keep the squads engaged.

Penalties for dying or getting captured can be interesting but for new players or people like me who have a Ph.D. in Creative Airborne Mortality they're just a pain. And on top of that, they punish ground attackers more than fighters, and they punish those flying on the smaller-numbers side more than those flying on the side with the advantage. It would exacerbate any imbalance issues, since flying in a risky environment means you might take a penalty and have to sit and wait, so more people will take the low risk path - flying high in a  high-performance fighter on the side with more pilots.

 

TAW only manages it with the lives system and the algorithm that means that if you are flying outnumbered your lives are basically worth more, which they can only do because you have the registration system. And to be honest, that hasn't really resolved side stacking or numbers or even the one-way-death sorties, which people still complain about.

If we were going to do 'death penalties' I think it could work well as a kind of event night - like Dead Is Dead Night or something, where any death on the server results in a timeout for the remainder of the mission (or just for a long period of time if that is difficult to script). 

3 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

 

 

I'm not saying you're wrong to want to fly as a squad in a historically accurate simulation, that's reasonable. But I think asking for real players to oppose you in limited numbers in clearly inferior machines with inferior support logistics and odds is a tough sell.

That is the issue for sure - it has to be fun for both sides and you need to make sure that your idea of fun is the same as the other person. This is why squads like ACG run their own historical campaign servers, to cater to that type of play. Everyone knows what they're getting and that's what they signed on for.

 

Plus, lots of people love historical realism until they're fighting vastly superior forces. For truly, is it not written, everyone's gangsta until they're flying I-16s against 109F-4s.

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

For truly, is it not written, everyone's gangsta until they're flying I-16s against 109F-4s.

 

Or indeed A-8s against 150 grade Mustangs and Spits!

[RedKestrel]

2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Or indeed A-8s against 150 grade Mustangs and Spits!

Not quite so bad. On the seal-clubbing scale we're talking adolescent seal vs. club, rather than full on baby seal.

/the scale goes from baby seal to walrus

[Turban]

Yo, it just came to me...

 

Y'all complaining about them "one-way-death sorties" but maybe if y'all stop shooting at us all the time we wouldn't be having this conversation would we ?

 

[Barnacles]

12 minutes ago, Turban said:

Yo, it just came to me...

 

Y'all complaining about them "one-way-death sorties" but maybe if y'all stop shooting at us all the time we wouldn't be having this conversation would we ?

 

Genius.

[Talisman]

3 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

But I think asking for real players to oppose you in limited numbers in clearly inferior machines with inferior support logistics and odds is a tough sell.

 

That is not what I have suggested at all.  At no point have I suggested that opposition or either side should be limited or given inferior logistics at the expense of the other.  I would have thought that both sides should be treated the same.

 

Please, I don't want to get hung up on aircraft types; the Tempest and P38 were examples to try and illustrate things.  Read any aircraft types and squads on either side and my points stand.  At no point have I been expressing concerns specifically about one side or the other, rather my concerns are for all sides.

 

My point is simply to request caution regarding a mechanic to limit aircraft numbers too much in terms of attrition, that in real life aircraft production and supply was extremely high over the period in question (both sides) and was not a problem and that too much restriction and over-scripting can hinder pilots trying to work constructively and effectively as a squad, particularly in a historic sense.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

 

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by 56RAF_Talisman

[LUZITANO]

Pls remove Venlo and Gilze airfields in a bridge too far mission. This mission is professional and perfect because the distance is important to simulate a natural map difficulty.

Edited January 14, 2020 by LUZITANO

[Alonzo]

5 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

That is not what I have suggested at all.  At no point have I suggested that opposition or either side should be limited or given inferior logistics at the expense of the other.  I would have thought that both sides should be treated the same.

 

Ah ok. I think I read too much into your comment. We've had a lot of complaints recently about the lack of 150 octane for the Allies, and I think I extrapolated it into your suggestion too quickly. Sorry about that.

 

Using closer-to-historical aircraft availability numbers still won't work though, in my opinion. Some of the aircraft outclass those on the other side so much that they are simply not fun or fair to fly against in large numbers (I'm thinking about the Tempest and the 262 here). 

 

If you do run into a situation that you feel is hampering squadron operations too much or has gotten into the "not fun" type of annoying lack of airplanes, please screenshot the briefing (for map version), scoreboard (for time left and an idea of what pilots were doing), and the planes at each field. We can then take a look at the numbers. There are basically two numbers we can tweak -- starting number of aircraft (maximum # in the pool) and "renew" speed, the rate at which +1 plane is added to the pool.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

On 1/10/2020 at 3:20 PM, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

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.  ?

Well something very weird with this mission.  

 

As I stated earlier on 1-10-20 me and two other wingmen flew this mission and we all noticed heavy stutters.  Thus the above quote.  Then on 1-11-20 flew the same mission twice with the same wingmen and all of us noticed the stutters were completely gone.  Great!  We thought maybe the mission had been tweaked.  We flew again on 1-13-20 and again no stutters.  Great!

Well tonight I jumped on tonight 1-14-20 this mission and noticed right away the horrible micro stutters were back.  I took a quick flight and landed to restart my computer just to check it wasn't me.  Restarted and logged back in and took off from the same airfield a-92 down south.  I noticed the stutters were better but still not quite smooth.  I circled the airfield until a saw a 47 take off.  As soon as he went wheels up the micro stutters were awful once again.  Very confusing.  So I landed and wrote this post up.  

Again this is the only mission that I have had micro stutters on.  All other missions are smooth.  What makes it even more confusing is that we flew this same mission for several days smoothly until tonight.  Very confusing.  

I believe it has to do with the netcode or something like that due to when the 47 went wheels up the stutters started bad again.  But why would it be just this mission and not the others?  Very confusing.  

Edited January 15, 2020 by VBF-12_Snake9
by the way I have 200mb down, would not be my bandwith

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

19 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

 

 

sorry i should have clarified a bit more. 

I meant only the 1 mechanic of a Fake Economy System / micro game regarding planes as so on. 

"sorry the war is going great for us but sorry you not allowed to fly today i heard you ran into a flag pole yesterday and that was your last Stuka for this week sorry come back next week."

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by =TBAS=Sschatten14

[RedKestrel]

12 hours ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

Well something very weird with this mission.  

 

As I stated earlier on 1-10-20 me and two other wingmen flew this mission and we all noticed heavy stutters.  Thus the above quote.  Then on 1-11-20 flew the same mission twice with the same wingmen and all of us noticed the stutters were completely gone.  Great!  We thought maybe the mission had been tweaked.  We flew again on 1-13-20 and again no stutters.  Great!

Well tonight I jumped on tonight 1-14-20 this mission and noticed right away the horrible micro stutters were back.  I took a quick flight and landed to restart my computer just to check it wasn't me.  Restarted and logged back in and took off from the same airfield a-92 down south.  I noticed the stutters were better but still not quite smooth.  I circled the airfield until a saw a 47 take off.  As soon as he went wheels up the micro stutters were awful once again.  Very confusing.  So I landed and wrote this post up.  

Again this is the only mission that I have had micro stutters on.  All other missions are smooth.  What makes it even more confusing is that we flew this same mission for several days smoothly until tonight.  Very confusing.  

I believe it has to do with the netcode or something like that due to when the 47 went wheels up the stutters started bad again.  But why would it be just this mission and not the others?  Very confusing.  

Also, follow up: the only stuttering I really got on this mission was around the boats, but only when I got near them the first time. I was arriving around the same time as some enemy planes though.

My gameplay experience was completely smooth when I got tag-teamed and shot down by a couple 109s escorting a Ju-88 lol.

[Barnacles]

1 hour ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

sorry i should have clarified a bit more. 

I meant only the 1 mechanic of a Fake Economy System / micro game regarding planes as so on. 

"sorry the war is going great for us but sorry you not allowed to fly today i heard you ran into a flag pole yesterday and that was your last Stuka for this week sorry come back next week."

 

Too right, I don't think that's a desirable thing to implement, in my opinion.

[67th_SiLLA]

The server is great, I wouldn't be in il-2 that often without combat box,
 

better planes at rear AF is a great idea,

the only thing i don't like right now are all the [edited] vulching arround our AF, really frustrating

thx alonzo for that server + dsicord, u made IL-2 multiplayer great again

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by SYN_Haashashin
Language

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, 67th_SiLLA said:

The server is great, I wouldn't be in il-2 that often without combat box,
 

better planes at rear AF is a great idea,

the only thing i don't like right now are all the [edited] vulching arround our AF, really frustrating

thx alonzo for that server + dsicord, u made IL-2 multiplayer great again

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best way to avoid vulching is to launch from the airfield farthest away from the front, and then do your climb out in the direction away from the front. Most of your vulchers will be around the airfield in the direction of the front line to stay out of the flak and the warning area so that you don't know they're there.

If you're flying fighters, its not a bad idea to do your climb out and then stick around for five or ten minutes to cover your airfield. When the vulchers come in at relatively low altitudes to bounce people after takeoff, you can bounce them. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by SYN_Haashashin

[adler_1]

this morning  crossing the rhine mission  10 am thailand time i tried to take off from allied base Y-70 in a A20 only to find myself in the air at 2000 mt heading at 45 dgrs at an unknown location . I then exited and tried again this time in a spitfire and the result was the same . 

[Creep]

19 minutes ago, dog1 said:

this morning  crossing the rhine mission  10 am thailand time i tried to take off from allied base Y-70 in a A20 only to find myself in the air at 2000 mt heading at 45 dgrs at an unknown location . I then exited and tried again this time in a spitfire and the result was the same . 

Yes, this is an air start - it is not an airfield. The recovery base is not a airfield, either. It is just a clearing with a few static objects and the fires to mark the “runway”. Be very careful on your approach to land at the recovery field.

[adler_1]

ok this explains why we dont have the base on the map , adjust the heading and proceed . thanks

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

11 hours ago, 67th_SiLLA said:

The server is great, I wouldn't be in il-2 that often without combat box,
 

better planes at rear AF is a great idea,

the only thing i don't like right now are all the [edited] vulching arround our AF, really frustrating

thx alonzo for that server + dsicord, u made IL-2 multiplayer great again

 

 

On the upside, the vulchers aren't allowed to attack players until their wheels come off of the ground or after their wheels touch down again, which can be useful.  If the vulchers are attacking static set pieces - planes and buildings, it does nothing to aid their team.  You can always sit back and enjoy the show until AAA or an in-flight player takes them down.  If the vulcher hits you on the ground while attacking the set pieces, then simply report them. 

 

If you're being attacked in-flight only a few kilometers away from home base... That's technically not vulching. Call for help from friends to clear the area or find another way around. 

On some maps, there's a few landmark cities right next to home airfields that they usually hang around and catch planes at.  Identify these areas and plan accordingly.  Either choose a different path leaving the airbase or get set up for the advantage and go get the jump on them.   

 

[Otto_bann]

5 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

If you're being attacked in-flight only a few kilometers away from home base... That's technically not vulching. Call for help from friends to clear the area or find another way around.

 

In this case, the "almost vulcher" should has downed your plane around the aifield before any friend has enough time to come help you. 10km and closer, plane attacks around spawn base should be not allowed IMO (for let time to climb a little bit) because it's not fair, not fun, not rewarding.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Otto_bann

[PeterZvan]

Well - before you spawn in you can see if airfield is under attack or not.

If you decide to take off under this condition than its very probable that you will get attacked. Just spawn on the other airfield to avoid this issue.

I personally take off from such fields in any case and go chase the vulcher. Its usually a very easy kill.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 hours ago, Otto_bann said:

 

In this case, the "almost vulcher" should has downed your plane around the aifield before any friend has enough time to come help you. 10km and closer, plane attacks around spawn base should be not allowed IMO (for let time to climb a little bit) because it's not fair, not fun, not rewarding.

 

Perhaps you might find Candy Crush to be a more suitable game.  There's no wet paper bags one might be arsed to fight their way out of in that game.

[Birdman]

Put more flak (light and heavy) on the spawn airfields, if someone wanna vulch they get a warmer welcome.

[JG7_X-Man]

All this talk about vulching is pretty exhausting - Remember the primary role of JV44? 

 

The Me 262 was especially vulnerable during take-off and landing. General Galland thus established his own protection flight. Five Fw 190D-9s and D-11s were attached to JV44, the Platzschutzstaffel (Airfield protection squadron), headed by Leutnant Heinz Sachsenberg, to provide air cover for the ME 262s during takeoffs and landings. Flights were to be undertaken in a two-aircraft Rotte up to altitudes of 500 metres, covering both the Me 262s taking off or landing and monitoring the surrounding skies for Allied fighters.

The Platzschutzstaffel flew the long-nosed 'Dora', Fw-190 D-9, or Fw-190 D-11 variant of the well-known Fw 190. These aircraft were painted bright red on their wings' under surfaces with contrasting white stripes so anti-aircraft batteries could distinguish them from Allied aircraft, leading to their humorous postwar nickname of the Papagei Staffel (Parrot squadron). The Staffel was nicknamed "Die Würger-Staffel", a play on the common nickname for the BMW 801 radial-engined original A-version of the Fw 190, which was Würger or Butcher-bird.

 

 

 

We would all like to believe that every kill reported was as a result of some huge full ball or some organized/disorganized dogfight.

The fact is this is far from the truth - most kills were as a result of sneak attacks, usually from below/above and behind. The victim was usually unaware until it was too late.

Edited January 16, 2020 by JG7_X-Man