Jump to content
Alonzo

Combat Box by Red Flight

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

There is a max ping but it is fairly high, I'm not sure what it is off hand. I have noticed that this server is having a hell of a time lately. On missions where there are bots the server lag is becoming intolerable. I can put up with a little stuttering every now and then but this is a pause in the game for a good half second. After a while I was completely unable to rejoin the server when the mission rolled. My ping to the server should only be around 100 on the high end.

Don't know what's the reason is, but I constantly being kicked out at ping ~ 130-140.

Edited by Tora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

The in-game map description seems to say players are fair game at this target too, but we didn't want to risk it. Would appreciate clarification of the rules on attacking players on the ground there.

 

Player kills do not count towards shutting down the airfield. The rule of not attacking players who are on the ground still stands -- if it's got an engine and a player, wait until it's in the air. Players who are taking off from a field with flak firing and air raid sirens going off should consider asking for cover first!

 

1 hour ago, Tora said:

Are there some limitations on a ping latency on the server?

 

We use a custom script to kick players who have over 350 ping. This is averaged over more than a minute, so if you're getting kicked you unfortunately have a poor connection to the server. It's in New York, and we have players from Australia playing fine. If you're on home wifi, you can save a few milliseconds by switching to a wired connection from your PC to home router.

 

We are not increasing this limit. Even at 350 you get players bouncing around the screen sometimes, if anything we might decrease it in future.

 

18 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

There is a max ping but it is fairly high, I'm not sure what it is off hand. I have noticed that this server is having a hell of a time lately. On missions where there are bots the server lag is becoming intolerable. I can put up with a little stuttering every now and then but this is a pause in the game for a good half second. After a while I was completely unable to rejoin the server when the mission rolled. My ping to the server should only be around 100 on the high end.

 

Mitchell's Men seems to be stable for the first couple of bomber waves, but by the end of the map it's getting unstable. We're still tuning. People really like the concept.

21 minutes ago, Tora said:

Don't know what's the reason is, but I constantly being kicked out at ping ~ 130-140.

 

Your ping is fairly inconsistent. These are 'half' ping times used internally by dserver:

 

    Line 86971: 2020/03/27 19:11:42 ban-hammer.pl:225    INFO    Tora has ping (210) above limit
    Line 86973: 2020/03/27 19:12:42 ban-hammer.pl:225    INFO    Tora has ping (252) above limit
    Line 86974: 2020/03/27 19:12:42 ban-hammer.pl:228    INFO    Tora has high ping twice in a row, kicking them
    Line 88766: 2020/03/28 18:09:20 ban-hammer.pl:225    INFO    Tora has ping (381) above limit
    Line 88768: 2020/03/28 18:10:21 ban-hammer.pl:225    INFO    Tora has ping (371) above limit
    Line 88769: 2020/03/28 18:10:21 ban-hammer.pl:228    INFO    Tora has high ping twice in a row, kicking them
    Line 88775: 2020/03/28 18:13:27 ban-hammer.pl:225    INFO    Tora has ping (346) above limit
    Line 88777: 2020/03/28 18:14:27 ban-hammer.pl:225    INFO    Tora has ping (355) above limit
    Line 88778: 2020/03/28 18:14:27 ban-hammer.pl:228    INFO    Tora has high ping twice in a row, kicking them
    Line 90394: 2020/03/29 13:36:25 ban-hammer.pl:225    INFO    Tora has ping (211) above limit
    Line 90396: 2020/03/29 13:37:25 ban-hammer.pl:225    INFO    Tora has ping (187) above limit
    Line 90397: 2020/03/29 13:37:25 ban-hammer.pl:228    INFO    Tora has high ping twice in a row, kicking them

A ping of 210 is actually a ping of 420ms round trip. You were kicked for a round-trip ping of 504ms, 740ms, 710ms and 380ms. Where in the world are you located? These ping times are wildly variable and a lot more than 130-140.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your ping of 210 is actually a ping of 420ms round trip. You were kicked for a round-trip ping of 504ms, 740ms, 710ms and 380ms. Where in the world are you located? These ping times are wildly variable and a lot more than 130-140.

 

Thanks for the diving into that. I am in Moscow. More likely, it's my domestic problem due to high load during the quarantine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why does Combat Box only use the same 4-5 missions (A Bridge too Far, Mitchell's Men, Closing of the Ruhr, Y-29 and Stalingrad Scramble)- Over and Over again. It's completely annoying. Especially when they have several Kuban and Crimea missions. 

 

I can't say I speak for the majority but I see plenty of discontent on the actual server about the missions of A Bridge too Far and Y-29... Yet those are two of the most played maps. 

 

I don't get it. 

 

Edited by -BRS-Edelweiss_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New week, new maps! (Unrelated to previous post -- we change the maps each week, and there are 7+ in rotation). This week we're bringing back Operation Paravane to the mix. Here's the lineup:

  • Operation-Paravane-Sep-1944
  • Crossing_the_Rhine_Mar_1945
  • Battle-for-Kalinin-Aug-1944
  • Closing_of_the_Ruhr_Pocket_Apr_1945
  • Mitchells_Men_Mar_1945
  • A_Bridge_Too_Far_Sep_1944
  • Battle_over_Eindhoven_Mar_1945
  • Legend-of-Y-29-Jan-1945

We have removed Battle of the Scheldt temporarily while we make changes to the way the 262s function on the map. When we moved the 262 base to Helmond and made it attackable, it really became a case of "admin-sponsored vulching" and that's not a good thing. We think vulching is anti-fun and we don't want to encourage it. We'll put Scheldt back once we've made changes to it.

 

Big shout out to @Riksen @haluter @Mordrac @Psyrion and @Roach46☭ for all their work on Combat Box website banners. The current banner is a seriously mean looking Tempest, and we have a bunch of equally awesome stuff in the bag for future rotations. Please visit the website every so often and enjoy the banners!

 

cb-new-banner.thumb.png.9882e567c34a6b3c9394088a2706b5a5.png

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

New week, new maps! (Unrelated to previous post -- we change the maps each week, and there are 7+ in rotation). This week we're bringing back Operation Paravane to the mix. Here's the lineup:

  • Operation-Paravane-Sep-1944
  • Crossing_the_Rhine_Mar_1945
  • Battle-for-Kalinin-Aug-1944
  • Closing_of_the_Ruhr_Pocket_Apr_1945
  • Mitchells_Men_Mar_1945
  • A_Bridge_Too_Far_Sep_1944
  • Battle_over_Eindhoven_Mar_1945
  • Legend-of-Y-29-Jan-1945

We have removed Battle of the Scheldt temporarily while we make changes to the way the 262s function on the map. When we moved the 262 base to Helmond and made it attackable, it really became a case of "admin-sponsored vulching" and that's not a good thing. We think vulching is anti-fun and we don't want to encourage it. We'll put Scheldt back once we've made changes to it.

 

Big shout out to @Riksen @haluter @Mordrac @Psyrion and @Roach46☭ for all their work on Combat Box website banners. The current banner is a seriously mean looking Tempest, and we have a bunch of equally awesome stuff in the bag for future rotations. Please visit the website every so often and enjoy the banners!

 

cb-new-banner.thumb.png.9882e567c34a6b3c9394088a2706b5a5.png

Mmm, love me some Paravane. Still one of my favourite maps. I hope Scheldt doesn't stay out of the rotation for too long, though, that one is another favourite.

Share this post


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

We have removed Battle of the Scheldt temporarily while we make changes to the way the 262s function on the map. When we moved the 262 base to Helmond and made it attackable, it really became a case of "admin-sponsored vulching" and that's not a good thing. We think vulching is anti-fun and we don't want to encourage it. We'll put Scheldt back once we've made changes to it.

 

I wonder if there is a way to put the required targets 'near' but not 'on the active field?  For example,  262 parked on the far side of the field from the spawn areas and Fuel & ammo dumps in the next field on that same side.   Then there would be no accidental crossover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

I wonder if there is a way to put the required targets 'near' but not 'on the active field?  For example,  262 parked on the far side of the field from the spawn areas and Fuel & ammo dumps in the next field on that same side.   Then there would be no accidental crossover.

 

So sick of players complaining about vulching. It's usually people I know who whine about it when it happens to them because they know the rules back up their whine; but they would very well be doing it themselves if it were legal.

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

New week, new maps! (Unrelated to previous post -- we change the maps each week, and there are 7+ in rotation). This week we're bringing back Operation Paravane to the mix. Here's the lineup:

  • Operation-Paravane-Sep-1944
  • Crossing_the_Rhine_Mar_1945
  • Battle-for-Kalinin-Aug-1944
  • Closing_of_the_Ruhr_Pocket_Apr_1945
  • Mitchells_Men_Mar_1945
  • A_Bridge_Too_Far_Sep_1944
  • Battle_over_Eindhoven_Mar_1945
  • Legend-of-Y-29-Jan-1945

We have removed Battle of the Scheldt temporarily while we make changes to the way the 262s function on the map. When we moved the 262 base to Helmond and made it attackable, it really became a case of "admin-sponsored vulching" and that's not a good thing. We think vulching is anti-fun and we don't want to encourage it. We'll put Scheldt back once we've made changes to it.

 

Big shout out to @Riksen @haluter @Mordrac @Psyrion and @Roach46☭ for all their work on Combat Box website banners. The current banner is a seriously mean looking Tempest, and we have a bunch of equally awesome stuff in the bag for future rotations. Please visit the website every so often and enjoy the banners!

 

cb-new-banner.thumb.png.9882e567c34a6b3c9394088a2706b5a5.png

 

Banners are indeed nice. Wish I had photo editing skills. We gonna see some German planes shooting down some allies in the future? Hahaha. 😉

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

We have removed Battle of the Scheldt temporarily while we make changes to the way the 262s function on the map. When we moved the 262 base to Helmond and made it attackable, it really became a case of "admin-sponsored vulching" and that's not a good thing. We think vulching is anti-fun and we don't want to encourage it. We'll put Scheldt back once we've made changes to it.

 

Agree with your vulching comment.  It is however fun to attack airfields and the way you have handled it, with separate airfields with plenty of targets to attack and AAA that defends making it challenging, works out well.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

So sick of players complaining about vulching. It's usually people I know who whine about it when it happens to them because they know the rules back up their whine; but they would very well be doing it themselves if it were legal.

 

Woah!  We are you quoting me before making that comment?   The Server Owners & Map Designers are the ones saying they don't want vulching and have withdrawn the Scheldt map so they can stop people vulching the 262s at their airfield..  I merely suggested a possible way to separate the targets and player flown aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

Banners are indeed nice. Wish I had photo editing skills. We gonna see some German planes shooting down some allies in the future? Hahaha. 😉

 

We will, I think the last banner was a 262 smashing someone. We are definitely intending to have 'balance' in our banners as well as in the actual missions. 🙂

Share this post


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

 

We will, I think the last banner was a 262 smashing someone. We are definitely intending to have 'balance' in our banners as well as in the actual missions. 🙂

 

Please consider my past suggestion (if possible) to make some sort of way to periodically make banners indicative of which side is winning (or has won).  That would take the "balance" argument right out of the banner discussion, at least.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a conversation with a guy years ago about maps.  All I care about is the air to air intensity.  Those fights where you circle and oh shit he got behind me.  Then to scissors and what ever you can pull out of your ass in the moment move.  He misses by a few feet and you finally get a round into him.  Who cares what the ground looks like.  

 

Yup, I bomb quite a bit.  It sure attracts attention and I like winning the maps.  But really, does the aaa on one map look just like the last AI aaa that kicked your ass on the last map?

 

well?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

We will, I think the last banner was a 262 smashing someone. We are definitely intending to have 'balance' in our banners as well as in the actual missions. 🙂

 

I was just jesting with that comment haha.

 

I actually like the mechanic you guys implemented with the 262 base on Scheldt and I know for a fact that it was just people bawling about vulching that ruined that one for us. It was a very realistic mechanic that gave a good compromise to both the vulchers and anti-vulchers. Hope you guys bring it back.

 

5 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

Woah!  We are you quoting me before making that comment?   The Server Owners & Map Designers are the ones saying they don't want vulching and have withdrawn the Scheldt map so they can stop people vulching the 262s at their airfield..  I merely suggested a possible way to separate the targets and player flown aircraft.

 

No I wasn't referencing you specifically. I'm referencing folks that I know who bawl in the server chat when they get vulched but that I know for a fact would be vulching today if the rules didn't forbid it.

Edited by III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson

Share this post


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

New week, new maps! (Unrelated to previous post -- we change the maps each week, and there are 7+ in rotation). This week we're bringing back Operation Paravane to the mix. Here's the lineup:

  • Operation-Paravane-Sep-1944
  • Crossing_the_Rhine_Mar_1945
  • Battle-for-Kalinin-Aug-1944
  • Closing_of_the_Ruhr_Pocket_Apr_1945
  • Mitchells_Men_Mar_1945
  • A_Bridge_Too_Far_Sep_1944
  • Battle_over_Eindhoven_Mar_1945
  • Legend-of-Y-29-Jan-1945

 

 

On the topic of maps, have you guys ever considered doing something based on Operation Frantic?  Particularly the missions from Italy?  It provides a nice historical platform to mix the P-51 and P-38 (and even some Mitchells Men style bombers if you choose) into an otherwise Eastern Front map.  You could potentially just limit the US fighters to a temporary air spawn for the intial (Northeast bound) bomber mission.  Then have some temporary US fighter spawns at Soviet airfields for a fighter sweep/strafing mission.  And then a last set of US spawns for a Southwest bound bomber mission - along the lines of the 3 bomber groups in Mitchells Men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:

On the topic of maps, have you guys ever considered doing something based on Operation Frantic?

 

This operation is the primary focus of our map "Operation Frantic".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

This operation is the primary focus of our map "Operation Frantic".

 

I did enjoy the concept of the frantic map; the only thing that bothered me was the inclusion of British aircraft like the Spitfire and Tempest. Maybe the next iteration should exclude them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/03/2020 at 14:52, Alonzo said:

 

Um grande grito para @Riksen @haluter @Mordrac @Psyrion e @ Roach46☭ por todo o seu trabalho nos banners do site da Combat Box. O banner atual é um Tempest de aparência séria e temos um monte de coisas igualmente incríveis na mochila para futuras rotações. Visite o site de vez em quando e aproveite os banners!

 

cb-new-banner.thumb.png.9882e567c34a6b3c9394088a2706b5a5.png

 

Its a Tyhoon. Hope that this skin and from his brother with red and Yellow spinner comming in BoN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

 

On the topic of maps, have you guys ever considered doing something based on Operation Frantic?  Particularly the missions from Italy?  It provides a nice historical platform to mix the P-51 and P-38 (and even some Mitchells Men style bombers if you choose) into an otherwise Eastern Front map.  You could potentially just limit the US fighters to a temporary air spawn for the intial (Northeast bound) bomber mission.  Then have some temporary US fighter spawns at Soviet airfields for a fighter sweep/strafing mission.  And then a last set of US spawns for a Southwest bound bomber mission - along the lines of the 3 bomber groups in Mitchells Men.

 

14 hours ago, Talon_ said:

This operation is the primary focus of our map "Operation Frantic".

 

Heheh. Talon with the biting sarcasm as usual 😉  But yes, we did do this mission, it's just not always in the rotation. KW in case you're interested, we also did Operation Paravane and Operation Eisenhammer based on historical ops. We also did a recreation of the D-Day landings (actually that might be a fun one to dust off for a special event in future).

 

12 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I did enjoy the concept of the frantic map; the only thing that bothered me was the inclusion of British aircraft like the Spitfire and Tempest. Maybe the next iteration should exclude them? 

 

Yes, I think for an occasional map we can hold off on all the super late-war stuff. Maybe stick to lend-lease planes like on the updated Battle for Kalinin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 10:14 AM, Alonzo said:

If you're on home wifi, you can save a few milliseconds by switching to a wired connection from your PC to home router.

 

Mitchell's Men seems to be stable for the first couple of bomber waves, but by the end of the map it's getting unstable. We're still tuning. People really like the concept.

 

Taking your PC off wifi is probably the biggest improvement you can do for something real-time like gaming.

 

I've noticed the targets on this server have a TON of static objects that don't actually get you any points.  Because of this, it's hard to know if what I'm blowing up is actually worth anything regarding closing the target.  Earlier this month I dropped on some important looking stuff, destroyed 230 objects, and got a total of 0 points for it.  If I'm going to blow meaningful stuff up, it's certainly nice to get points for it.

 

I'd like to propose changing targets up a bit: 

Replacing static objects worth 0 points with fewer, tougher objects at targets will give ground pounders some more credit.  It will also reduce the load on the server, which is part of the reason Mitchell's Men lags so often.  Blowing up a bunch of objects frequently causes the whole server to stutter, and I think people will appreciate more points and stability over pretty looking targets any day of the week.

 

My 2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I landed in a P47 after doing a bombing run, and destroyed about 8-10 buildings.

 

Got shot up bad on the way home, but somehow escaped.  Then I landed directly on the same runway I took off from,, pilot alive, everything was fine.  I exit, and then...

 

"No Victories, 0.5x Killed, 0 points"

 

How??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone (Alonzo) tell me why when I landed my damaged aircraft at Ophoven(active runway) airfield (after being picked out after taking off) once my planes wheels touched the ground it awarded the kill to the other player, even though my engine was running, gear was down (i'd say a pretty good landing for the amount of damaged my P47 sustained after a getting hit with a 30mm) Pilot was still alive yet it said i was killed. NEED ANSWERS!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only static objects worth zero points (on the stats site) are tents, since they are so easy to destroy. Even a static truck should get you a few points. The stats site and in-game do not match, use the stats site for best accuracy. 


As for why you were killed on landing, that’s not anything to do with me as a server operator. Maybe you bled out and died? Sometimes an aircraft is flyable but any tiny piece of damage on landing will mark it dead and give a kill to your opponent.

Share this post


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

The only static objects worth zero points (on the stats site) are tents, since they are so easy to destroy. Even a static truck should get you a few points. The stats site and in-game do not match, use the stats site for best accuracy. 


As for why you were killed on landing, that’s not anything to do with me as a server operator. Maybe you bled out and died? Sometimes an aircraft is flyable but any tiny piece of damage on landing will mark it dead and give a kill to your opponent.

So with bullet holes, left aileron and rudder damaged/Shot off  it automatically marks it dead? even if the person flying is able to make it home safe for a landing?Alive? i'm confused. How is that accurate?

Share this post


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

Heheh. Talon with the biting sarcasm as usual 😉  But yes, we did do this mission, it's just not always in the rotation. KW in case you're interested, we also did Operation Paravane and Operation Eisenhammer based on historical ops. We also did a recreation of the D-Day landings (actually that might be a fun one to dust off for a special event in future).

 

Thanks for the response.  Yeah I hadn't seen it in the rotation in the past few months that I've been playing.  I love the server so please take any criticism with the constructive intent it's meant with - you guys are doing a fabulous job.  I understand that Paravene for example is supposed to look at RAF operations over northern Norway - but with basically the full BoK and BoBp planesets on the Kuban map - it just feels like it doesn't have much "historical flavor" to it.  I guess I'm just in the category of folks that would prefer to see a more restrictive planeset on a few of the maps.  Late war Norway screams RAF Mustangs/Mosquitos vs 109Gs and 190As to me.  I realize we don't have the pieces to do exactly that right now, and if you get too restrictive some players who only own certain Battles can't participate, and there's only so many maps right now.  Anyway - it was just an idea of an alternative planeset scenario.  Again, love the server and keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the decision to remove Scheldt, although I thought it was a good mechanic on the 262 base. We showed it can be done while obeying the server rule against hitting players on the ground. Hope you find another way red team can fight to deprive blue of the 262 menace, without vulching.

 

On Battle over Eindhoven, does the jet fuel mechanic work still? We took out the jet fuel depot and the only train at the beginning of the map, yet a 262 was able to fly around killing everyone, land, and still get a new one up again:

https://combatbox.net/en/mission/4564/

 

As always, appreciate all you do - server just gets better and better! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

On Battle over Eindhoven, does the jet fuel mechanic work still?

IIRC there is initially 2 262s available at mission start. Fuel depot and train seems to only affect its resupply and additional jets. If the 2 initial ones always make it home safe, they will be able to take off again

Share this post


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

So with bullet holes, left aileron and rudder damaged/Shot off  it automatically marks it dead? even if the person flying is able to make it home safe for a landing?Alive? i'm confused. How is that accurate?

It's not accurate, its a deficiency with how the game decides something is 'dead'. Lost control surfaces are often enough for the game to think of the plane as destroyed. There are plenty of issues with the in-game calculations for kills, ground targets, etc. Sometimes I fly a mission and it tells me I got a no ground kills and the stats think I did. The server stats are the only ones Combat Box has control over, and the server stats pages are often very different than the ones in-game.

Sometimes, if your plane is shot up, the game thinks its dead even if you get back to the airfield. And sometimes it messes up if your pilot is dead or alive at the end. Usually the server stats are better and do not show that to be the case. Check those on the site for that sortie to see how it looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, -EAGLE-Shifter said:

Hi, its possible on Combat box refuel and rearm?

Cheers and good health for All.

 

Not on the current maps, but we are looking into adding it in future maps if it proves to work reliably.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have mentioned preferring historical situations.

 

So in your quest for a historical flavor,

  Are you seeking to re-create/re-enact history? 

 Because I think you'll find that not many want to participate from the ""losing" side with the  odds totally against them in these servers.

 Insisting on pure historical situations will not lure people to fly on the "bad guy" side of things and then the "good guys" will have no one to spar with.

No one wants to enter into a hopeless situation. I'll accept a challenging situation in a game/server, just not hopeless.

 The main problem with the changes to the sheldt, was making a player spawn base an objective to destroy. I don't believe this server has any other maps that allow attacks on

player spawn bases. Coupled with the fact that the jet base was moved closer to the front with a smaller runway and less defenses. Also, destroying this objective removed the use of not just the 262, but also the 190D9.

This was all precipitated as I have heard, by just a few instances of some folks being borderline vulchers and a few more whining about it.

This change opened up a whole mess of possibility of other maps with jet bases, Crossing the Rhine, Battle over Eindhoven, Stalingrad Scramble, having those jet bases attacked in the same manner.

This is already a problem in all maps from both sides, with players that either don’t read the rules or don’t care about the rules.

Seemed to me, we already have an uphill struggle in a couple maps where the late war axis planes aren’t available, while the allied side has the full compliment. So why allow the D9 to be taken away in this map?

Fly behind the lines all you want to hunt your enemy while on climb out, or RTB. Just DO NOT SHOOT THEM ON THE RUNWAY/FIELD they are departing from/returning to in Combat Box.

Were I predisposed to fly the white hat airplanes, I’d damn sure make it a priority to patrol near the jet bases to limit their ability to be effective.

And the people that whine about “vulching”, YOU MADE THE DECISION to launch from a base with an enemy nearby. If you do so and don’t have your SA at 150%, that’s on YOU!

Standing off from an enemy base to find/attack and prevent them leaving for an attack on your resources is a SMART way to conduct our simulated combat.

As long as you’re not blasting at someone within a few miles/kilometers of their base, you should be good. And the victim doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering if anybody else is getting widely varied results between in-game and the stats page.  

 

For example: 

 

1.) A few days ago I took 1 bullet from a Ju-88 which the in-game chat instantly reported as "I was destroyed" even though I was flying fine, though RTB-level damaged.

Shortly after, while RTB the mission ended.  Looking at the stats showed I was o.k. when the mission ended and was not destroyed.  It also said that I was only hit by 1 bullet from the Ju-88 top gunner, which is interesting because it blew the flaps off of both my plane's wings. 

 

2.)  Last night, I got an in-game kill, but a team mate tagged him on the way down.  The in-game message and scoring gave me the credit, but the stats gave it to the team mate.  

 

I have 35 ping to this server and am struggling to understand why stats reporting on WoL, which I have 140 ping to, is more accurate to reporting what really went on in a sortie. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, flynvrtd said:

People have mentioned preferring historical situations.

 

So in your quest for a historical flavor,

  Are you seeking to re-create/re-enact history? 

 Because I think you'll find that not many want to participate from the ""losing" side with the  odds totally against them in these servers.

 Insisting on pure historical situations will not lure people to fly on the "bad guy" side of things and then the "good guys" will have no one to spar with.

No one wants to enter into a hopeless situation. I'll accept a challenging situation in a game/server, just not hopeless.

 The main problem with the changes to the sheldt, was making a player spawn base an objective to destroy. I don't believe this server has any other maps that allow attacks on

player spawn bases. Coupled with the fact that the jet base was moved closer to the front with a smaller runway and less defenses. Also, destroying this objective removed the use of not just the 262, but also the 190D9.

This was all precipitated as I have heard, by just a few instances of some folks being borderline vulchers and a few more whining about it.

This change opened up a whole mess of possibility of other maps with jet bases, Crossing the Rhine, Battle over Eindhoven, Stalingrad Scramble, having those jet bases attacked in the same manner.

This is already a problem in all maps from both sides, with players that either don’t read the rules or don’t care about the rules.

Seemed to me, we already have an uphill struggle in a couple maps where the late war axis planes aren’t available, while the allied side has the full compliment. So why allow the D9 to be taken away in this map?

Fly behind the lines all you want to hunt your enemy while on climb out, or RTB. Just DO NOT SHOOT THEM ON THE RUNWAY/FIELD they are departing from/returning to in Combat Box.

Were I predisposed to fly the white hat airplanes, I’d damn sure make it a priority to patrol near the jet bases to limit their ability to be effective.

And the people that whine about “vulching”, YOU MADE THE DECISION to launch from a base with an enemy nearby. If you do so and don’t have your SA at 150%, that’s on YOU!

Standing off from an enemy base to find/attack and prevent them leaving for an attack on your resources is a SMART way to conduct our simulated combat.

As long as you’re not blasting at someone within a few miles/kilometers of their base, you should be good. And the victim doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

 

Crossing the Rhine also involves killing a couple bases that players can spawn at. I hope the airlift mechanic isn't next to go, it's also a fun one.

 

In general, I just think different mechanics to enable allies to remove or limit 262's helps equalize things. They also make for intense engagements, as both sides fight desparately to preserve/defeat this asset.

 

What maps have the full compliment of allied planes but no late axis stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@flynvrtd

 

I'm 100% for historically accurate plane sets. That means limiting the Tempest and K4 and likely simply not allowing the D9, K4, and 262 on pre-october maps.

 

I'm also 100% for allowing killing players on the ground but I've been told I'm alone in that respect. Hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/30/2020 at 8:59 PM, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

So sick of players complaining about vulching.

 

Same. And many people doesnt know what is vulching...

They call "vulching" to be shot down in the air near their airfield,

then they claim it in the chat so many believe some vulching on the ground was really done

 

 

Edited by StaB/Tomio_VR***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StaB/Tomio_VR*** said:

 

Same. And many people doesnt know what is vulching...

They call "vulching" to be shot down in the air near their airfield,

then they claim it in the chat so many believe some vulching on the ground was really done

 

 

That's like shooting parachutes, you can do it but you shouldn't be upset when people call you out for your lack of fair play.

Share this post


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

That's like shooting parachutes, you can do it but you shouldn't be upset when people call you out for your lack of fair play.

 

Shooting parachutes is a good thing to do if they linger. If an enemy bails out and stays in parachute for more than 10 or 15 seconds I'll shoot if I'm set up to do it. Reason is this; many people stay in parachute and are in voice chat and are guiding their wingmen using their new advantageous view of the entire surrounding area. This is akin to cheating in my book. Realistically, if you bail out, the radio went away with the plane. Being able to guide your friends in a fight while in the silk is creating unrealistic imbalance in the fight. 

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight, on Legend of Y-29, a Ju-87 pilot landed on the runway of B-78 (the AAA defenses were already destroyed of course) and decided to go for a drive with his tail gunner shooting parked planes.  What are the rules on vulching in that situation?  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Tonight, on Legend of Y-29, a Ju-87 pilot landed on the runway of B-78 (the AAA defenses were already destroyed of course) and decided to go for a drive with his tail gunner shooting parked planes.  What are the rules on vulching in that situation?  

 

I swear into you today, whomever did this is deserving of legendary status from now until forever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...