Jump to content

Combat Box by Red Flight


Alonzo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I suspect it's a bit too early to tell whether this patch has significantly shifted the balance. It's been less than a week. We do have a couple of maps where blue is still trouncing red, specifically Mitchell's Men and The Rhineland Campaign, but they are also the newest maps and still need some tweaks. On the rest of the maps, I'm not seeing a clear pattern emerging.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my impression that there's almost always a blue group coordinating on the discord. That's not as frequent on the red side.

 

(My impression anyways)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Bazzer

I'm personally liking the update in terms of air-to-air combat a lot. 50's on the P-51 feel fine to me, although I have plenty of frustrating pump-them-full-of-lead-and-nothing-substantial-happens fights.

 

In terms of ground attack, it is just broken. The problem is the proliferation of bunker targets on CB. 500 lb bombs right next to a bunker do nothing, but a 110 or 190 can take a bunker out strafing in one pass, and they have the ammo to take out an entire objective on their own. Allies have nothing that can strafe bunkers with the effectiveness of these planes (limited ammo on Tempy and very limited number, and only 1x20mm on P-38).

 

Vehicles, buildings, ships, bridges, etc., are all fine. The problem is so many objectives are composed mainly of bunkers, and axis has a huge advantage killing them.

 

Also, it is absurd to suggest this has to do with organization. My squad kills more ground targets than any, by a lot, and we are organized. Our bombs have simply become ineffective. 

 

Now I can't wait to hear some convoluted axis player explanation for why 2x20mm are more effective on sand bags than a 500 lb bomb at 10m range...

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aurora_Stealth
8 hours ago, Nake350 said:

I had high hopes for this update to bring out the skill of dogfighting, and bring my interest back to this Sim as an allied fighter, but in my first test in SP mode shooting the control surfaces off a 109 and it still out manoeuvring a Spitfire, then first time out in MP getting killed after hearing the same old single shot from a 109 on my 6, so first impressions unfortunately its the same old same. 🙄

 

For Combat Box, for sure some of the best MP games of what there is on offer, even though suspicious why many/ most maps have 150 oct fuel, mirrors and bombs etc disabled.

 

Oh well, back to the AV-8B, F/A-18C 😀

 

 

 

Hey Nake,

 

Find it hard to believe that control surfaces had come off and tight turn sustained by 109 (could be the AI overcompensating in SP)..  there is still a fix to be made to the tailplane of the Bf 109 but destruction of ailerons, elevators and rudder should indeed be causing control loss.

 

I wouldn't place too much weight on one or two flights - this is far too premature to assess any game update, get some hours down across the board (flying both sides) and try quick missions with a range of different aircraft on several flights.

 

Regarding MP, the first few flights - even returning as an old hand are never easy until you get the gist of the specific map and where the enemy is typically flying. It took me weeks to be able to learn to cope with experienced enemy pilots online - and its the same story for people on both sides, its a steep and unforgiving learning curve - especially with some of the firepower certain aircraft have but that's the challenge.

 

Please give the game a fair chance and spend some decent time with it before dismissing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsure how many CB mods read this - But i'd like to thank them for the CB training server...  Its extremely useful for a relatively inexperienced player like me!

 

I use the drone area quite a bit.  Was wondering if this could be upgraded to two drones instead of one?  Keep one as the current slow turning target and a new faster 'evasive' plane maybe?  It would then provide trickier leading practice.

 

Cheers!

 

Orb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
8 hours ago, Alonzo said:

I suspect it's a bit too early to tell whether this patch has significantly shifted the balance. It's been less than a week. We do have a couple of maps where blue is still trouncing red, specifically Mitchell's Men and The Rhineland Campaign, but they are also the newest maps and still need some tweaks. On the rest of the maps, I'm not seeing a clear pattern emerging.

 

Its a joke no? Look the number of maps that de axis side win and the number os maps that de allies win!! And the question about the Tempest ?!?!?! 18 Tempest x 180 K4 DB 605C in Crossing the Rhine, 24 Tempest x 102 109 K4 DB 605C in Clossing the Ruhr Pocket, for you this is a balanced planeset ?!?!? No hope for red side....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, =ABr=422nd_RedSkull said:

 

Its a joke no? Look the number of maps that de axis side win and the number os maps that de allies win!! And the question about the Tempest ?!?!?! 18 Tempest x 180 K4 DB 605C in Crossing the Rhine, 24 Tempest x 102 109 K4 DB 605C in Clossing the Ruhr Pocket, for you this is a balanced planeset ?!?!? No hope for red side....

It is way too early to start making huge changes to the maps when there could easily be hotfixes still in the pipeline for bugs and maybe fixes for things like bomb damage (the TAW thread has people saying there may be a fix for damage to buildings coming this  week, for exampe). Then everything would have to be balanced all over again.

Give it at least two weeks so there can be clear data one way or another. We are all adults here, losing at our playtime game, unfairly or not, for a week or two should not hurt our feelings too much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

Hey Nake,

 

Find it hard to believe that control surfaces had come off and tight turn sustained by 109 (could be the AI overcompensating in SP)..  there is still a fix to be made to the tailplane of the Bf 109 but destruction of ailerons, elevators and rudder should indeed be causing control loss.

 

I wouldn't place too much weight on one or two flights - this is far too premature to assess any game update, get some hours down across the board (flying both sides) and try quick missions with a range of different aircraft on several flights.

 

Regarding MP, the first few flights - even returning as an old hand are never easy until you get the gist of the specific map and where the enemy is typically flying. It took me weeks to be able to learn to cope with experienced enemy pilots online - and its the same story for people on both sides, its a steep and unforgiving learning curve - especially with some of the firepower certain aircraft have but that's the challenge.

 

Please give the game a fair chance and spend some decent time with it before dismissing it.

 

Hey Aurora,

 

I kid you not,  I was dodging the stuff falling off the enemy whilst chasing it, I could clearly see there were no ailerons and daylight through what was left of the wings and fuselage lol. I thought I was recording and could share, but mistaken.

 

I believe the MP map was Bergola, it said there was one enemy in there. I'd just spawned and I had visual about 1 o'clock. I was heading over but then bang and dead from a single shot from my 6, even though checking my mirror (as always) just seconds before. I must have been looking at an AI plane in front.

Anyway, that was my fault, but the point being one single shot? really? I've played a fair while now and that is typical of my experience of air to air fighter combat in this sim..One shot wing off, engine dead or sudden death, no aerial fight for victory. I got to a point spending more time checking 6 than looking forward. Not really my idea of fun, so prefer bombing missions when I get on. 👍    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nake350 said:

 

Hey Aurora,

 

I kid you not,  I was dodging the stuff falling off the enemy whilst chasing it, I could clearly see there were no ailerons and daylight through what was left of the wings and fuselage lol. I thought I was recording and could share, but mistaken.

 

I believe the MP map was Bergola, it said there was one enemy in there. I'd just spawned and I had visual about 1 o'clock. I was heading over but then bang and dead from a single shot from my 6, even though checking my mirror (as always) just seconds before. I must have been looking at an AI plane in front.

Anyway, that was my fault, but the point being one single shot? really? I've played a fair while now and that is typical of my experience of air to air fighter combat in this sim..One shot wing off, engine dead or sudden death, no aerial fight for victory. I got to a point spending more time checking 6 than looking forward. Not really my idea of fun, so prefer bombing missions when I get on. 👍    

Depending on the round, its still possible to get one-shotted. And the higher the ping of the respective players, the more likely you are to get weird DM reactions. Since Berloga is in Russia and I'm in North America I get the worst ping there of any server I fly on, and that's where I see the really weird stuff.
 

7 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

I'm personally liking the update in terms of air-to-air combat a lot. 50's on the P-51 feel fine to me, although I have plenty of frustrating pump-them-full-of-lead-and-nothing-substantial-happens fights.

 

In terms of ground attack, it is just broken. The problem is the proliferation of bunker targets on CB. 500 lb bombs right next to a bunker do nothing, but a 110 or 190 can take a bunker out strafing in one pass, and they have the ammo to take out an entire objective on their own. Allies have nothing that can strafe bunkers with the effectiveness of these planes (limited ammo on Tempy and very limited number, and only 1x20mm on P-38).

 

Vehicles, buildings, ships, bridges, etc., are all fine. The problem is so many objectives are composed mainly of bunkers, and axis has a huge advantage killing them.

 

Also, it is absurd to suggest this has to do with organization. My squad kills more ground targets than any, by a lot, and we are organized. Our bombs have simply become ineffective. 

 

Now I can't wait to hear some convoluted axis player explanation for why 2x20mm are more effective on sand bags than a 500 lb bomb at 10m range...

 

I agree. I flew this weekend for about 5 hours in the P-47, flying a mix of ground attack and air-to-air. While a lot of people are talking about the .50 cal being nerfed I found that against soft targets like AA guns, trucks, etc it doesn't seem to require that much more in the way of shots to kill a target, if any. I had a few engagements against enemy fighters and shot down 3 - 1, FW190-A8, one D-9, and one Bf-110.

The 110 soaked up a bit of damage but I killed his gunner and wounded his pilot across two passes, for about 80 hits. A P-39 also got some hits in with MG fire, but not many.  For a two engine heavy fighter this doesn't seem to be an excessive amount of punishment to take before going down. As a note, i took hits from his gunner in my engine, and in contrast to before the patch, I was able to nurse the engine to a nearby airfield and ditch before the engine stopped. on almost every other occasion when a gunner has hit my P-47 in the engine, it has seized within 30 seconds. The Jug no longer feels too fragile IMO and the new engine modeling is much better.

In the case of the 190s I got relatively few rounds on target - if the logs are to be believed, 40 rounds to kill the D9 and 30 to kill the A8 (shared with a P-38, who appeared to get a few good hits in. The D9 caught fire and the A8 lost control and spun into the ground. Both of those seem like reasonable amounts of hits to get a kill. It also, IMO, reflects what we see in actual combat reports more closely - most of those reports talk about enemy fighters going out of control and going in, or pilots bailing out from smoking craft, or going down in flames.

The bombs are less effective in terms of area blast on a target. I think it is probably more realistic now in some cases but I think perhaps bomb damage to static structure needs a tweak (and as I noted above that may be incoming). Dugouts are  difficult to kill with bombs, they seem to require a direct hit...but of course, this is literally the entire point of a dugout or bunker. This in itself is not necessarily inaccurate in my opinion. They are low structures with thick slanted walls to withstand blast and fragmentation damage.

 The real issue is not the bombs but possibly the ability to destroy them effectively with cannon fire. I'm not saying its impossible, its just that I would think that a bunker or dugout would withstand most 20mm cannon rounds with minimal damage, since its purpose is a shelter from incoming fire. That said I think it may have to do with how the damage is now calculated - with the more realistic 'power law' (i.e. inverse square law), the game is reducing the damage from bombs at a distance, but is calculating any hits from cannon rounds as 100% of the explosive damage being applied directly on the target. 

So in theory, a few direct hits from a 20mm cannon is applying more explosive energy than a bomb blast that is 10 metres away. Because the buildings are modeled as having a single durability value it does not take into account all the structural variables of a building that would make destruction via cannon unlikely. It becomes a simple calculation of explosives delivered directly on target...which is not ideal when we are looking at structures like this.

Obviously the bunkers are a bit problematic at this point but I don't think its a good idea to start reworking maps just yet until we see if this is a bug or something that will be fixed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIA_Elanski

Dear ACG_KoN,

 

I have been hit twice in P51 where one aaa hit holed my right wing in three places outer 1/3rd.  The thing would not do anything but barely go straight.  I was hit with a round by a 109 in the wing near the outer 1/3rd.  Same effect.  Almost didn't make it back to base.  Quit the propaganda.  The 51 does not take loads of hits now...really.  Maybe the damage model some flyers have is out or the ordinary since we have all seen that but stock 51s are flimsy.  It was called the spam-can for a reason.  It did not have the strength of the P47 and P38 so it was given the nic spamcan.  Guess the devs got that right...wooot

oh, by the way KoN, I saw Rambo get a kill in a 109....he was missing 1/3 of his wing....yes it was gone and he was still flying.  Metabo has a video of me shooting a FW190 and the vertical was completely gone...he went home and landed.  talking shit is one thing...having facts is quite another.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
13 hours ago, Alonzo said:

I suspect it's a bit too early to tell whether this patch has significantly shifted the balance. It's been less than a week. We do have a couple of maps where blue is still trouncing red, specifically Mitchell's Men and The Rhineland Campaign, but they are also the newest maps and still need some tweaks. On the rest of the maps, I'm not seeing a clear pattern emerging.

 

Mitchell"s Men, other example of "balanced planeset" - 110 Bf 109 K-4 DB605C, 120 FW D-9 and around 06 Me 262 during the map. Allie side - 12 Tempst 11 Lbs, but it's ok so it's not really, well balanced...🙄

Edited by =ABr=422nd_RedSkull
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=FEW=ayamoth89

Hello!

After finding very hard to shoot down competent 110s, I decided to use one on Combat Box and see if it could be a good dogfighter even in my unskilled hands... And it was very good: 3 Spitfire Mk.IX in less than 3 minutes!

On the second clip I used a P-38 trying to defend a target from 6-8 germans... Too hard for me!
 

 

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
4 minutes ago, =FEW=ayamoth89 said:

Hello!

After finding very hard to shoot down competent 110s, I decided to use one on Combat Box and see if it could be a good dogfighter even in my unskilled hands... And it was very good: 3 Spitfire Mk.IX in less than 3 minutes!

On the second clip I used a P-38 trying to defend a target from 6-8 germans... Too hard for me!
 

 

Bf 110, the plane that was a historical 'sitting duck" in real world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray

I hate to say it, Red, but you are probably wasting your time with this. I've been over this a few months back with these guys. They are convinced that they have the numbers right. I've looked at the documents they used to figure those numbers out. Firstly they are counting BF 109 G10's as K4's so that accounts for some of the numbers. The biggest part of it comes from their considering the paper strength of German units as the actual strength. So even though most of the K4's in a unit's possession were in various states of disrepair, from needing some holes patched to being a collection of parts in a box at the back of a hanger, they count as usable planes as far as Combat Box is concerned. This is further compounded by the only Allied planes that are considered for mission use are those based in Europe, even though a considerable number of planes were flown over from the UK for the fight. If you continue pressing the issue you will be dismissed or told that you need to stop 'campaigning for red side advantage.' I don't like it, really, but that seems to be the way they want to run things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=FEW=ayamoth89
Just now, =ABr=422nd_RedSkull said:

Bf 110, the plane that was a historical 'sitting duck" in real world.

 

True, like many other sitting ducks planes, they are excellent dogfighters in this GAME

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CIA_Elanski said:

Dear ACG_KoN,

 

I have been hit twice in P51 where one aaa hit holed my right wing in three places outer 1/3rd.  The thing would not do anything but barely go straight.  I was hit with a round by a 109 in the wing near the outer 1/3rd.  Same effect.  Almost didn't make it back to base.  Quit the propaganda.  The 51 does not take loads of hits now...really.  Maybe the damage model some flyers have is out or the ordinary since we have all seen that but stock 51s are flimsy.  It was called the spam-can for a reason.  It did not have the strength of the P47 and P38 so it was given the nic spamcan.  Guess the devs got that right...wooot

oh, by the way KoN, I saw Rambo get a kill in a 109....he was missing 1/3 of his wing....yes it was gone and he was still flying.  Metabo has a video of me shooting a FW190 and the vertical was completely gone...he went home and landed.  talking shit is one thing...having facts is quite another.

Like i said its 50/50 . Strange things come with new updates its part of the parcel now days . There is a video were P-51 is getting hit after hit yet flys . Second online only in team-speak three of us attack same P-51 and he still flew wild rolls in the end died by hitting trees after i got good hits on his six . No Propaganda here . just facts . Let the patch settle down a bit . 

Oh by the way PM next time . gladly chat there . 

What is the rules for chute killing i thought it was banned . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
1 hour ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I hate to say it, Red, but you are probably wasting your time with this. I've been over this a few months back with these guys. They are convinced that they have the numbers right. I've looked at the documents they used to figure those numbers out. Firstly they are counting BF 109 G10's as K4's so that accounts for some of the numbers. The biggest part of it comes from their considering the paper strength of German units as the actual strength. So even though most of the K4's in a unit's possession were in various states of disrepair, from needing some holes patched to being a collection of parts in a box at the back of a hanger, they count as usable planes as far as Combat Box is concerned. This is further compounded by the only Allied planes that are considered for mission use are those based in Europe, even though a considerable number of planes were flown over from the UK for the fight. If you continue pressing the issue you will be dismissed or told that you need to stop 'campaigning for red side advantage.' I don't like it, really, but that seems to be the way they want to run things.

I appreciate your words -SF-Disarray,  but my group and I are very fond of the Combat Box and it disturbs us too much this distortion that will end up killing the server sooner or later.

If all the maps that have Tempest and K4 the ratio of number of available planes were at least as in the Map "Legend of Y-29" (32 Tempest x 90 Bf 109 K4), it would be much more acceptable.

No one is asking for an identical number of Tempest X K4, but that at least something around 30/50% Tempest available compared the number of K-4 in map.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I hate to say it, Red, but you are probably wasting your time with this. I've been over this a few months back with these guys. They are convinced that they have the numbers right. I've looked at the documents they used to figure those numbers out. Firstly they are counting BF 109 G10's as K4's so that accounts for some of the numbers. The biggest part of it comes from their considering the paper strength of German units as the actual strength. So even though most of the K4's in a unit's possession were in various states of disrepair, from needing some holes patched to being a collection of parts in a box at the back of a hanger, they count as usable planes as far as Combat Box is concerned. This is further compounded by the only Allied planes that are considered for mission use are those based in Europe, even though a considerable number of planes were flown over from the UK for the fight. If you continue pressing the issue you will be dismissed or told that you need to stop 'campaigning for red side advantage.' I don't like it, really, but that seems to be the way they want to run things.

 

There's a lot of people reading a lot into the aircraft availability and numbers. Let me try to state this clearly. We do not attempt to recreate history with 100% accuracy. At this point in the war, the actual history was wildly lopsided with Germany unable to field experienced pilots, or airframes, or have fuel to fly them. I guess we could try to recreate this by having the server force newbie pilots to fly blue with 25% fuel and stack 50 top-tier pilots on the red side in Tempests. I'm pretty sure blue wouldn't bother to show up.

 

Our design goals are first and foremost a fun server where pilots can have a good time, face challenging opponents and practice their skills. We use historical context because that makes things more fun, and gives us good story and motivation for the missions, not because we're trying to exactly recreate history. The plane sets are chosen with a nod to history, because that helps us have a reason to vary the plane sets for each map rather than have all planes on all maps. The aircraft numbers are chosen both with a nod to history and with a concern for balance. If every fight was <insert unbalanced combination here> then I think players would complain.

 

Here's an example with the K4 DC engine. Before the big patch which introduced the Tempest, P51 and P38, Combat Box maps did not allow the DC engine. Now, with the 150-octane P51 and the +11 Tempest, plenty of maps do feature the K4 with the DC engine. Why would we add the DC engine, given that the available information about the fictional/approved/not approved/saw action/never saw action engine is unchanged? Because  balance. When there was limited Allied aircraft options to counter the boosted K4, we removed the boosted K4. Now that there is an Allied response to it, the option is back in the game.

 

If you think the current aircraft availability, mods, and objectives create an unbalanced map, let's have a conversation about that. But don't use historical numbers of aircraft as a justification. This game is asymmetrical and we're not trying to fully balance everything. Is it roughly fair? Do you have a chance to win? Is pilot skill a large factor in determining a victor? If the answer to those questions is yes, we're probably ok. If you think the answer is no, have you flown both sides extensively? I was impressed to see Elanski flying blue for a change and I think more pilots should regularly fly both sides. It makes for a much better discussion. The admin team is going to weight people's opinions more strongly if that person actually has deep experience flying for both coalitions.

Edited by Alonzo
speling mustake
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
13 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

There's a lot of people reading a lot into the aircraft availability and numbers. Let me try to state this clearly. We do not attempt to recreate history with 100% accuracy. At this point in the war, the actual history was wildly lopsided with Germany unable to field experienced pilots, or airframes, or have fuel to fly them. I guess we could try to recreate this by having the server force newbie pilots to fly blue with 25% fuel and stack 50 top-tier pilots on the red side in Tempests. I'm pretty sure blue wouldn't bother to show up.

 

Our design goals are first and foremost a fun server where pilots can have a good time, face challenging opponents and practice their skills. We use historical context because that makes things more fun, and gives us good story and motivation for the missions, not because we're trying to exactly recreate history. The plane sets are chosen with a nod to history, because that helps us have a reason to vary the plane sets for each map rather than have all planes on all maps. The aircraft numbers are chosen both with a nod to history and with a concern for balance. If every fight was <insert unbalanced combination here> then I think players would complain.

 

Here's an example with the K4 DC engine. Before the big patch which introduced the Tempest, P51 and P38, Combat Box maps did not allow the DC engine. Now, with the 150-octane P51 and the +11 Tempest, plenty of maps do feature the K4 with the DC engine. Why would we add the DC engine, given that the available information about the fictional/approved/not approved/saw action/never saw action engine is unchanged? Because  balance. When there was limited Allied aircraft options to counter the boosted K4, we removed the boosted K4. Now that there is an Allied response to it, the option is back in the game.

 

If you think the current aircraft availability, mods, and objectives create an unbalanced map, let's have a conversation about that. But don't use historical numbers of aircraft as a justification. This game is asymmetrical and we're not trying to fully balance everything. Is it roughly fair? Do you have a chance to win? Is pilot skill a large factor in determining a victor? If the answer to those questions is yes, we're probably ok. If you think the answer is no, have you flown both sides extensively? I was impressed to see Elanski flying blue for a change and I think more pilots should regularly fly both sides. It makes for a much better discussion. The admin team is going to weight people's opinions more strongly if that person actually has deep experience flying for both coalitions.

 

I think the implementation of a ratio of around 30% of Tempest available compared to the number of K-4 in map is quite reasonable and that blues players would have nothing to complain about.

Now having a ratio of 10 Tempest to 100 K4 on almost all maps is nothing fun, Alonzo, on the contrary, it is demotivating to know that the server has planes to play with the opponent on equal terms and not have access to them.

If you are going to always be flying lower planes then you wouldn't have to leave Wol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, =ABr=422nd_RedSkull said:

I think the implementation of a ratio of around 30% of Tempest available compared to the number of K-4 in map is quite reasonable and that blues players would have nothing to complain about.

Now having a ratio of 10 Tempest to 100 K4 on almost all maps is nothing fun, Alonzo, on the contrary, it is demotivating to know that the server has planes to play with the opponent on equal terms and not have access to them.

 

So you're saying that the Tempest is the only Allied plane that is a match for the K4? An Allied pilot requires a Tempest to defeat a K4?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
14 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

So you're saying that the Tempest is the only Allied plane that is a match for the K4? An Allied pilot requires a Tempest to defeat a K4?

 

After the new patch it is noticeable that Tempest and K-4 are on the same level, so there is no reason for such a drastic reduction in Tempest compared to K-4. I return the question, why is there so much fear as the Tempest?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray

I'm confused. You tell us not to use historical numbers to make an argument. But when I was questioning why there were as many K4's as G14's on some maps a few months back you threw historical numbers at me; numbers that showed, in your reading, that there should be that many K4's because that is how many of them were 'there.' So what is the standard? Are historical numbers only appropriate some of the time? If so, when?

 

If there are other planes that can kill K4's aside from Tempests isn't the reverse true as well? Shouldn't there be cases when the top line German planes are available in fewer numbers than the top line Allied planes? When I was asking why 150 fuel wasn't available during missions where it was there historically I was told that it was for balance, German G14's and A8's just couldn't be expected to compete with better planes. But Allied planes can be expected to do that? I mean there are times when there are 262's zipping about the place and even with the performance boosts nothing the Allies have can match that. When can that be said to be the reverse? This seems to be the root of the problem, at least in so far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I'm confused. You tell us not to use historical numbers to make an argument. But when I was questioning why there were as many K4's as G14's on some maps a few months back you threw historical numbers at me; numbers that showed, in your reading, that there should be that many K4's because that is how many of them were 'there.' So what is the standard? Are historical numbers only appropriate some of the time? If so, when?

 

I don't actually recall that exchange. I'm sorry if I was rude and "threw it back at you" -- that doesn't sound like a productive discussion and that wasn't my intent. My apologies. I think we have plenty of maps where there are more G14s than K4s, so I think either we agree, or you made your point and we took it on board.

 

Historical numbers are useful to give us some kind of starting point, particularly in creating varied scenarios that don't all feel the same (same planes, same quantities, same mods, etc). On CB we tend to use the date of the map as the initial start point for what planes might participate. For some missions, notably A Bridge Too Far, we go a little further and say "what if we do a map without the P-38, because it actually wasn't there on the day?" But all of that is basically just input into making fun, mostly balanced, interesting missions.

 

As to when the top-tier German planes are not available, look at our 1944 maps. They tend to be missing the D9 and K4, since they were introduced in late September and late October, respectively.

 

This discussion has a lot of people making claims about a/c availability on the maps, and I'm not sure everyone has the full, factual picture. I could make a giant table of what aircraft are on what maps, but it would be quite a lot of effort going through, opening all the maps, checking all the airfields, etc etc. That's time I'd rather spend doing something else like building new maps or looking into existing balance issues (red hasn't won Mitchell's Men in forever, I need to tweak the bomber mechanics, but I've spent the last hour responding to complaints in this thread instead 😞 ).

1 hour ago, =ABr=422nd_RedSkull said:

After the new patch it is noticeable that Tempest and K-4 are on the same level, so there is no reason for such a drastic reduction in Tempest compared to K-4. I return the question, why is there so much fear as the Tempest?

 

Your last 12 straight sorties have been in the Tempest, and you fly it overwhelmingly more than any other aircraft. From a cursory examination of your sortie history, you fly it for maybe 95% of the time. It has limited availability, so you must be grabbing it early in each mission and holding onto it. That's a lot of effort. What's the attraction?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aurora_Stealth
6 hours ago, Nake350 said:

 

Hey Aurora,

 

I kid you not,  I was dodging the stuff falling off the enemy whilst chasing it, I could clearly see there were no ailerons and daylight through what was left of the wings and fuselage lol. I thought I was recording and could share, but mistaken.

 

I believe the MP map was Bergola, it said there was one enemy in there. I'd just spawned and I had visual about 1 o'clock. I was heading over but then bang and dead from a single shot from my 6, even though checking my mirror (as always) just seconds before. I must have been looking at an AI plane in front.

Anyway, that was my fault, but the point being one single shot? really? I've played a fair while now and that is typical of my experience of air to air fighter combat in this sim..One shot wing off, engine dead or sudden death, no aerial fight for victory. I got to a point spending more time checking 6 than looking forward. Not really my idea of fun, so prefer bombing missions when I get on. 👍    

 

Haha yeah? oh right well if you see potential issue then do take a pic / video and report it, but it sounds like an AI issue to me really which is a somewhat lesser priority overall - I have seen similar things in the past with the AI doing some very unrealistic recoveries that I know people are not able to pull off. There will be AI aircraft mixed in on various maps in MP and this is usually stated in the map data when you join the game.

 

I guarantee an actual player controlled aircraft won't be able to keep the aircraft running like that, on saturday I lost an aileron and took some hits in the same wing on MP to a P-47 .. that was it though for me with only a brief burst.. there was no recovery whatsoever as my aircraft was already in a diving turn and any further control input just agitated the aircraft further and steepened the dive so just had to bail out.

 

Yep - be careful - some of the servers such as Beloga are setup for quick action - so people sometimes camp behind your air start for easy kills and AI is sometimes mixed in which can from time to time behave weirdly - its just a thing but lower on the priority list for the devs.

 

Unfortunately you can still be one shotted and especially if you have a bubble canopy or something with lots of exposure. However shooting at a fighter at an angle of say even 15 to 20 degrees of deflection can cause a surprisingly quick penetration to kill a pilot or other elements which might not be exposed from directly behind.

 

My best recommendations would be, try and gain decent altitude - at least 2 - 3 km altitude I'd say as a minimum online (even on the quick and dirty dogfight servers if you can). You may also want to check your settings for spotting.. there are guides in the forum for this. Tweaking which graphics and view distance settings you have does make all the difference - it pays to check - trust me on that one. In fact that issue alone caused me several weeks of fretting about. Also a final rule is try not to approach the combat areas dead on but watch from some distance and then try to pick single isolated targets when people are distracted - get in, dive away and get out until you build up your "sixth sense". Avoid keeping a single straight direction for too long as well (no longer than 30 - 40 seconds) but make slight alterations even if minor so you don't present a static target in someone's gunsight and to allow you to watch different angles around your aircraft.

 

Try these threads regarding spotting / graphics:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/60073-contact-spotting/?tab=comments#comment-912582

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/49629-3000-steps-condensed-into-one-simple-performance-guide/

 

Hope some of it helps.

 

1 hour ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I'm confused. You tell us not to use historical numbers to make an argument. But when I was questioning why there were as many K4's as G14's on some maps a few months back you threw historical numbers at me; numbers that showed, in your reading, that there should be that many K4's because that is how many of them were 'there.' So what is the standard? Are historical numbers only appropriate some of the time? If so, when?

 

If there are other planes that can kill K4's aside from Tempests isn't the reverse true as well? Shouldn't there be cases when the top line German planes are available in fewer numbers than the top line Allied planes? When I was asking why 150 fuel wasn't available during missions where it was there historically I was told that it was for balance, German G14's and A8's just couldn't be expected to compete with better planes. But Allied planes can be expected to do that? I mean there are times when there are 262's zipping about the place and even with the performance boosts nothing the Allies have can match that. When can that be said to be the reverse? This seems to be the root of the problem, at least in so far as I can see.

 

What he's getting at Disarray is we aspire to be as historically correct as we can be. It is still a game but it is also a simulator trying to approximate history within people's realistic limitations and expectations (80 players max online, a few hours per multiplayer match, some balance parameters such as equal access to fuel and ammo). If you take away these basic things or attempt to limit it too far (as perhaps things were for real in desperate times of 1945), people won't want to actually play and we don't want people to leave the game because after paying $60 they don't get fuel for their aircraft lol. You would be a bit p****d off if someone took the "realism" that far no?

 

In other words we want an authentic experience, without having to literally cook the stove in -40 C outside Stalingrad and without having enough fuel to start the aircraft. We also don't want to be completely black and white, and reliving 1945 in its starkest sense. That just won't be fun, the game would be a turkey shoot for the Allies and no one would play Axis.

 

There are limits to how far historical accuracy can be implemented into a game.

 

The Me262 is quite limited in number as far as I'm aware, and yes the numbers of Tempests are somewhat thin - but then again in Sept. 1944 there were for real only five squadrons or 114 Tempests in operations in total so bare that in mind.

 

It is a balancing act for map makers, but its only been barely a week since the update. Give things a chance to catch up, some map settings may be adjusted once things settle down. As said too many times, its too fresh and too soon to make changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
8 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

….red hasn't won Mitchell's Men in forever, I need to tweak the bomber mechanics, but I've spent the last hour responding to complaints in this thread instead 😞

 

 

Might I suggest that the initial rally point / waypoint of the bombers be placed as far west or southwest as possible and that a fighter base be placed nearby?   If at least the first flights of each bomber group can get high cover in place before the Axis planes can set up to camp over the bomber's first waypoint (I don't recall if it's always Eindhoven), then the Allies might at least be able to get into a "rhythm" of meeting up with the bombers and getting in position to fend off the onslaught.  

 

The only way I can see that being accomplished is by making the initial bomber spawn-in point and first one or two waypoints take much more time and fuel for it to be effectively worth it for Axis to make the journey.  Most Allied planes have either enough fuel to make the flight or can be flown fuel-efficiently enough to make the flight (with combat happening as part of the flight) to the target area and back.  Axis, probably, but it's much riskier.  After all, now that Axis knows most of the waypoint locations near the frontline, they're going to definitely going to be there asap.  There's no way around that, unless you're going to manually edit the bomber flight plans every other day.   

 

Also, (I forget the name of the RRR map) but would you consider allotting available planes to the individual instead of the team?  The number is very limited and I get it that the idea is to "take care of your plane", but it's no fun to log in after the map has been running 45 minutes to find that your options for plane choice are already mostly expended.  IMO, everybody should at least get 1 chance to used the high performance stuff that usually gets taken, or spent, early on.  I forget if there are 262s on the map, which might create an issue though.  I don't think anybody on the Allies' side would appreciate a potential scenario where there were 42 jets buzzing around all at once.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray
5 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

Haha yeah? oh right well if you see potential issue then do take a pic / video and report it, but it sounds like an AI issue to me really which is a somewhat lesser priority overall - I have seen similar things in the past with the AI doing some very unrealistic recoveries that I know people are not able to pull off. There will be AI aircraft mixed in on various maps in MP and this is usually stated in the map data when you join the game.

 

I guarantee an actual player controlled aircraft won't be able to keep the aircraft running like that, on saturday I lost an aileron and took some hits in the same wing on MP to a P-47 .. that was it though for me with only a brief burst.. there was no recovery whatsoever as my aircraft was already in a diving turn and any further control input just agitated the aircraft further and steepened the dive so just had to bail out.

 

Yep - be careful - some of the servers such as Beloga are setup for quick action - so people sometimes camp behind your air start for easy kills and AI is sometimes mixed in which can from time to time behave weirdly - its just a thing but lower on the priority list for the devs.

 

Unfortunately you can still be one shotted and especially if you have a bubble canopy or something with lots of exposure. However shooting at a fighter at an angle of say even 15 to 20 degrees of deflection can cause a surprisingly quick penetration to kill a pilot or other elements which might not be exposed from directly behind.

 

My best recommendations would be, try and gain decent altitude - at least 2 - 3 km altitude I'd say as a minimum online (even on the quick and dirty dogfight servers if you can). You may also want to check your settings for spotting.. there are guides in the forum for this. Tweaking which graphics and view distance settings you have does make all the difference - it pays to check - trust me on that one. In fact that issue alone caused me several weeks of fretting about. Also a final rule is try not to approach the combat areas dead on but watch from some distance and then try to pick single isolated targets when people are distracted - get in, dive away and get out until you build up your "sixth sense". Avoid keeping a single straight direction for too long as well (no longer than 30 - 40 seconds) but make slight alterations even if minor so you don't present a static target in someone's gunsight and to allow you to watch different angles around your aircraft.

 

Try these threads regarding spotting / graphics:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/60073-contact-spotting/?tab=comments#comment-912582

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/49629-3000-steps-condensed-into-one-simple-performance-guide/

 

Hope some of it helps.

 

 

What he's getting at Disarray is we aspire to be as historically correct as we can be. It is still a game but it is also a simulator trying to approximate history within people's realistic limitations and expectations (80 players max online, a few hours per multiplayer match, some balance parameters such as equal access to fuel and ammo). If you take away these basic things or attempt to limit it too far (as perhaps things were for real in desperate times of 1945), people won't want to actually play and we don't want people to leave the game because after paying $60 they don't get fuel for their aircraft lol. You would be a bit p****d off if someone took the "realism" that far no?

 

In other words we want an authentic experience, without having to literally cook the stove in -40 C outside Stalingrad and without having enough fuel to start the aircraft. We also don't want to be completely black and white, and reliving 1945 in its starkest sense. That just won't be fun, the game would be a turkey shoot for the Allies and no one would play Axis.

 

There are limits to how far historical accuracy can be implemented into a game.

 

The Me262 is quite limited in number as far as I'm aware, and yes the numbers of Tempests are somewhat thin - but then again in Sept. 1944 there were for real only five squadrons or 114 Tempests in operations in total so bare that in mind.

 

It is a balancing act for map makers, but its only been barely a week since the update. Give things a chance to catch up, some map settings may be adjusted once things settle down. As said too many times, its too fresh and too soon to make changes.

 

I understand the need for basic balancing of various factors. Further I encourage it as without them you'd end up with a game that wouldn't be much of a game. What confounds me is this seeming double standard. There can be equal number of K4's and G14's and very few Tempests on these maps because of history. Fine. But there can't be 150 grade fuel in spite of history because that wouldn't be fair? K4's can be killed just as easily with standard Tempests and normal 51's. Yes they can if you put the work in. But can't a G14 kill a 150 fueled 51?

 

I'm not asking for 100% realism, you couldn't give it to me even if you wanted to in this game and I don't expect you to. What I would like is a little consistency. I get the impression that I have you a little bit on the defensive. That isn't my intent. I'm simply trying to be understood and, perhaps, help point out things you may not have seen or considered when developing the plane sets for the various missions. And it isn't that I don't think you guys are capable of seeing it, maybe just that you've missed this or that thing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

Your last 12 straight sorties have been in the Tempest, and you fly it overwhelmingly more than any other aircraft. From a cursory examination of your sortie history, you fly it for maybe 95% of the time. It has limited availability, so you must be grabbing it early in each mission and holding onto it. That's a lot of effort. What's the attraction?

 

You are going off on a tangent and still haven't answered. And why so afraid to double the number of Tempest on the maps from 12 to some 30?

 

1 hour ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

- but then again in Sept. 1944 there were for real only five squadrons or 114 Tempests in operations in total so bare that in mind.

 

And how many JG flying 109 K4 in the same period. Or in 1945 with the DB605C? Why so afraid to double the number of Tempest on the maps from 12 to some 30?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Might I suggest that the initial rally point / waypoint of the bombers be placed as far west or southwest as possible and that a fighter base be placed nearby?   If at least the first flights of each bomber group can get high cover in place before the Axis planes can set up to camp over the bomber's first waypoint (I don't recall if it's always Eindhoven), then the Allies might at least be able to get into a "rhythm" of meeting up with the bombers and getting in position to fend off the onslaught.  

 

The only way I can see that being accomplished is by making the initial bomber spawn-in point and first one or two waypoints take much more time and fuel for it to be effectively worth it for Axis to make the journey.  Most Allied planes have either enough fuel to make the flight or can be flown fuel-efficiently enough to make the flight (with combat happening as part of the flight) to the target area and back.  Axis, probably, but it's much riskier.  After all, now that Axis knows most of the waypoint locations near the frontline, they're going to definitely going to be there asap.  There's no way around that, unless you're going to manually edit the bomber flight plans every other day.   

 

 

 

For Mitchell's, at the moment Germany gets an "objective destroyed" if they kill a B-25 flight, regardless of whether they kill it before it drops bombs on the objective. Basically blue can pick at the bombers all the way back to Allied territory, and then get a victory point. My guess is that red is losing a lot because they never catch up from these 1-3 "easy" points for blue. I've seen plenty of red defence of the bombers, but not enough to protect them all the way home.
 

Quote


Also, (I forget the name of the RRR map) but would you consider allotting available planes to the individual instead of the team?  The number is very limited and I get it that the idea is to "take care of your plane", but it's no fun to log in after the map has been running 45 minutes to find that your options for plane choice are already mostly expended.  IMO, everybody should at least get 1 chance to used the high performance stuff that usually gets taken, or spent, early on.  I forget if there are 262s on the map, which might create an issue though.  I don't think anybody on the Allies' side would appreciate a potential scenario where there were 42 jets buzzing around all at once.

 

 

Unfortunately, unless we go to TAW-style scripting, the in-game server logic simply provide a pool of airplanes at each field. You can manipulate that pool to a certain extent (lock out the field, or you can unlock new planes and do 'resupply' mechanics) but fundamentally it's a shared pool. The more complex "kick a player if they're not allowed to actually fly the plane they picked" works for TAW because of their in-depth campaign mechanics, and everyone knows what they're getting into, but for Combat Box we think it's too complex and just reduces accessibility of the server. So for now, it's the shared pool model I'm afraid.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
1 hour ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

  The number is very limited and I get it that the idea is to "take care of your plane", but it's no fun to log in after the map has been running 45 minutes to find that your options for plane choice are already mostly expended.  

Correct, and not only in the RRR map, but in the others to.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man Redskull, you got some serious beef with the Tempest. lol I doubt your suggestions are going to be taken seriously, because it seems like you have a personal agenda instead of seeing the whole picture. Maybe you should post in Combat Box's Discord under the suggestion channel.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

1). For Mitchell's, at the moment Germany gets an "objective destroyed" if they kill a B-25 flight, regardless of whether they kill it before it drops bombs on the objective. Basically blue can pick at the bombers all the way back to Allied territory, and then get a victory point. My guess is that red is losing a lot because they never catch up from these 1-3 "easy" points for blue. I've seen plenty of red defence of the bombers, but not enough to protect them all the way home.
 

 

2). Unfortunately, unless we go to TAW-style scripting, the in-game server logic simply provide a pool of airplanes at each field. You can manipulate that pool to a certain extent (lock out the field, or you can unlock new planes and do 'resupply' mechanics) but fundamentally it's a shared pool. The more complex "kick a player if they're not allowed to actually fly the plane they picked" works for TAW because of their in-depth campaign mechanics, and everyone knows what they're getting into, but for Combat Box we think it's too complex and just reduces accessibility of the server. So for now, it's the shared pool model I'm afraid.

 

1).  a). Perhaps displayed messages that the bombers must be protected until they give an "All clear" would help to let players know when they can go back to free hunting. 

       b). Would raising the altitude of the bombers a little higher help at all?  From what I understand, most Axis planes had somewhat of a performance drop off above 18,000 feet. Most RL bomber sorties had a 20,000 ft. minimum.  I may be remembering wrong and they are already higher than I'm thinking.  Disregard if so. 

       c).  To be fair, the few times I've joined the escorts, most Allied pilots were more concerned with chasing the attackers down - as opposed to driving off the attackers while keeping pace with the bombers.  Perhaps there's not really a "cure" for bad tactics.  

 

2).  I see.  To be clear, I was only asking for that 1 particular map.  It's all good if it's just too much misery to make it a feasible option.  

 

Overall,  I do like Mitchell's Men and also (I forget the name offhand) the RRR-featured map.  Now... If there was only a way to reduce the lag, but that's about netcode and the fact this game can really push a server pretty hard.

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@=ABr=422nd_RedSkull Could you explain to me why you're so thoroughly convinced that the Tempest is now 'equal' to all axis fighters, when it can outrun, outturn, and outdive (and out zoom climb) most all of them? I'm curious why you chose this particular update to jump so hard on your argument, considering there were literally no changes to the flight model, and the Tempest's cannons are as good as ever.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=RMPinheiro
6 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

Na verdade, não me lembro dessa troca. Sinto muito se fui rude e "joguei de volta para você" - isso não soa como uma discussão produtiva e essa não era minha intenção. Me desculpe. Acho que temos muitos mapas onde há mais G14s do que K4s, então acho que ou concordamos, ou você fez o seu ponto e nós o levamos a bordo.

 

Os números históricos são úteis para nos dar algum tipo de ponto de partida, principalmente na criação de cenários variados que nem todos parecem iguais (mesmos planos, mesmas quantidades, mesmos mods etc.). No CB, tendemos a usar a data do mapa como ponto de partida inicial para quais aviões podem participar. Para algumas missões, principalmente A Bridge Too Far, vamos um pouco mais além e dizemos "e se fizermos um mapa sem o P-38, porque ele realmente não estava lá no dia?" Mas tudo isso é basicamente apenas uma contribuição para fazer missões divertidas, principalmente equilibradas e interessantes.

 

Para saber quando os aviões alemães de primeira linha não estão disponíveis, veja nossos mapas de 1944. Eles tendem a não ter o D9 e o K4, pois foram introduzidos no final de setembro e no final de outubro, respectivamente.

 

Essa discussão tem muitas pessoas fazendo reivindicações sobre a disponibilidade de a / c nos mapas, e não tenho certeza de que todos tenham uma visão completa e factual. Eu poderia fazer uma tabela gigante de quais aeronaves estão em quais mapas, mas seria muito trabalhoso abrir, abrir todos os mapas, verificar todos os campos de aviação, etc. etc. É nessa hora que eu prefiro gastar fazendo outra coisa como construindo novos mapas ou examinando problemas de equilíbrio existentes (o vermelho não venceu os Homens de Mitchell há muito tempo , preciso ajustar a mecânica dos bombardeiros, mas passei a última hora respondendo a reclamações nesse tópico 😞 ).

 

Suas últimas 12 tentativas consecutivas foram na Tempest e você voa muito mais do que qualquer outra aeronave. A partir de um exame superficial de sua história de triagem, você voa por talvez 95% do tempo. Como a disponibilidade é limitada, você deve pegá-lo no início de cada missão e segurá-lo. Isso é muito esforço. Qual é a atração?

Ok Alonzo, we already understand your preference ... In Brazil we say that the owner of the ball makes the rules of the game ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_Snake9

First of all I enjoy the sever and will keep flying.  (I might change what I fly.  lol  Much more 38s and temps and spits now)

 

The problem with fighting in the 51 now is the length of the engagement.  Having to take sometimes 3 passes on someone will always invite the bandits friend.  That friend is most of the time a k4 with the 108.  All it takes is one hit and done.  So one can spend two minutes mauling a 109 and get taken out in one pass.  Guys that's not fun.  I damn sure know how to aim, so don't give me that crap.  😉  Remember the other guy is trying like hell not to be in your sights.  

 

So now you take the 51 out of the fight, limit the temp, and what do you have left.  Your fighting k4s and D9s with 38s, and spits (or p39😁).  You can think about that a come to your own judgement.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

 

So now you take the 51 out of the fight, limit the temp, and what do you have left.  Your fighting k4s and D9s with 38s, and spits (or p39😁).  You can think about that a come to your own judgement.  

 

Don't forget the mighty P47.

 

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Bazzer
13 hours ago, Alonzo said:

If you think the current aircraft availability, mods, and objectives create an unbalanced map, let's have a conversation about that. But don't use historical numbers of aircraft as a justification. This game is asymmetrical and we're not trying to fully balance everything. Is it roughly fair? Do you have a chance to win? Is pilot skill a large factor in determining a victor? If the answer to those questions is yes, we're probably ok. If you think the answer is no, have you flown both sides extensively? I was impressed to see Elanski flying blue for a change and I think more pilots should regularly fly both sides. It makes for a much better discussion. The admin team is going to weight people's opinions more strongly if that person actually has deep experience flying for both coalitions.

I understand why you feel this way. I like flying axis when I can, but many of my friends refuse to do so for moral reasons, and my desire to fly with them far outweighs the fun of experiencing the other side.

 

Worse, if there's a Tempy available I nearly always take it, because for me it's far and away the best thing going on the Allied side.

 

I recognize these facts discount the value of my opinion for the admin team, and I'm not mad. I get it.

 

However, I'll offer that even as the clearly-best Allied fighter (imho), the Tempest is very close to the performance of a K4 or D9. Heck, just today I chased a K4 for 20+ minutes, (stupidly I might add) without a prayer of catching him. D9's routinely out speed me in a Tempy. It's simply not a 262, and on maps where there are essentially unlimited K4's and D9's, the allied side needs more Tempests to compete.

 

On another note, the tone of some of the criticism of the admins is overly harsh. Everyone should try to remain constructive. Personally, I am very thankful for this playground you guys give me and my buddies to play in.

 

Lastly, for the record, I hated Elanski going blue last month. Long may he remain on the good side!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, =ABr=422nd_RedSkull said:

Bf 110, the plane that was a historical 'sitting duck" in real world.

It's a sitting duck in the sim as long as you don't play to its strengths.

@=FEW=ayamoth89 has done well in the video, so credit where credit's due; the 110 is hardly an 'auto win' button.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aurora_Stealth
11 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

 

I understand the need for basic balancing of various factors. Further I encourage it as without them you'd end up with a game that wouldn't be much of a game. What confounds me is this seeming double standard. There can be equal number of K4's and G14's and very few Tempests on these maps because of history. Fine. But there can't be 150 grade fuel in spite of history because that wouldn't be fair? K4's can be killed just as easily with standard Tempests and normal 51's. Yes they can if you put the work in. But can't a G14 kill a 150 fueled 51?

 

I'm not asking for 100% realism, you couldn't give it to me even if you wanted to in this game and I don't expect you to. What I would like is a little consistency. I get the impression that I have you a little bit on the defensive. That isn't my intent. I'm simply trying to be understood and, perhaps, help point out things you may not have seen or considered when developing the plane sets for the various missions. And it isn't that I don't think you guys are capable of seeing it, maybe just that you've missed this or that thing.

 

Fair enough, I do see your thinking here and understand where you're coming from. It's not my intention to be defensive, sorry if it came across that way. What I am very aware of is that certain (other) individuals including on this particular thread are trying hard to use the update as a weapon to press their personal agendas which in some cases is strongly contradicting historical facts and engineering - this I do unfortunately find very... ignorant... considering the developers made a great effort to be as detailed as they can and go further than ever before.

 

Personally, with your point in mind regarding consistency of the plane set though I agree, if we can get DB605 DC engine in the Bf 109 K then I'd expect the Allies to have access to 150 octane. I think the complications with the timing of some of these maps in late 1944 and introduction of certain models probably doesn't help. I know at least a few models of Bf 109 G and K come into effect around August - October which makes map building and plane sets (+Settings) difficult to determine.

 

Thanks for raising that point though, its a fair one.

 

3 hours ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

First of all I enjoy the sever and will keep flying.  (I might change what I fly.  lol  Much more 38s and temps and spits now)

 

The problem with fighting in the 51 now is the length of the engagement.  Having to take sometimes 3 passes on someone will always invite the bandits friend.  That friend is most of the time a k4 with the 108.  All it takes is one hit and done.  So one can spend two minutes mauling a 109 and get taken out in one pass.  Guys that's not fun.  I damn sure know how to aim, so don't give me that crap.  😉  Remember the other guy is trying like hell not to be in your sights.  

 

So now you take the 51 out of the fight, limit the temp, and what do you have left.  Your fighting k4s and D9s with 38s, and spits (or p39😁).  You can think about that a come to your own judgement.  

 

 

Great to hear lol, well..  sounds a lot like my experience flying the Bf 109 K against P-51's online before the update.

 

Typically, it should be expected to take longer (as it does now in-game, as would be expected in real life) to shoot down an aircraft with a machine gun than with a high rate of fire cannon when all the factors are added up and considered. I don't think its an unreasonable change in that respect.

 

In a strange sense of irony (please don't take this the wrong way!), this is exactly what we wanted to see.. people are making different decisions now because there are strengths and weaknesses that are more distinct between the models of aircraft based on the new damage model. Just because an aircraft is great to handle or fly, doesn't mean it is the ideal gun platform and of course vice versa.

 

I'm finding the update is making me consider aircraft on both sides very differently, and has opened some new avenues I wouldn't have considered earlier tbh.

 

Frankly seeing someone take a Stuka on a 1944 multiplayer map made me smile and sit back in my chair, such is the effect of the update. Let's see where it goes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
12 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

@=ABr=422nd_RedSkull Could you explain to me why you're so thoroughly convinced that the Tempest is now 'equal' to all axis fighters, when it can outrun, outturn, and outdive (and out zoom climb) most all of them? I'm curious why you chose this particular update to jump so hard on your argument, considering there were literally no changes to the flight model, and the Tempest's cannons are as good as ever.

 

QB.Shallot,  69th_Bazzer answered for me, read what he wrote

 

4 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

However, I'll offer that even as the clearly-best Allied fighter (imho), the Tempest is very close to the performance of a K4 or D9. Heck, just today I chased a K4 for 20+ minutes, (stupidly I might add) without a prayer of catching him. D9's routinely out speed me in a Tempy. It's simply not a 262, and on maps where there are essentially unlimited K4's and D9's, the allied side needs more Tempests to compete.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SYN_Haashashin pinned this topic

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...