Jump to content

Combat Box by Red Flight


Alonzo
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

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

 

I know this is probably said tongue in cheek to some extent... but honestly, it should be the opposite. More folks that fly one side exclusively should fly the other to get some perspective. I think that would eliminate a lot of the negative back-and-forth here.

Shifting gears a little... I hope that most of us can agree that the damage model changes for ground attackers using bombs is a big headache for map makers right now. Curious as to what can be done to mitigate - lower hit point values for statics, reduce the number of targets at an objective, change the logic for clearing objectives, etc?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2020 at 3:16 PM, J2_Seya said:

I also agree that bunkers are really hard to kill with bombs. 

Rockets are pretty good for bunkers, and all the US planes can carry 6 of them with some bombs too. Plus when you have fired them and ejected the tubes there is little drag penalty.

 

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

19 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

 

I know this is probably said tongue in cheek to some extent... but honestly, it should be the opposite. More folks that fly one side exclusively should fly the other to get some perspective. I think that would eliminate a lot of the negative back-and-forth here.

Shifting gears a little... I hope that most of us can agree that the damage model changes for ground attackers using bombs is a big headache for map makers right now. Curious as to what can be done to mitigate - lower hit point values for statics, reduce the number of targets at an objective, change the logic for clearing objectives, etc?

I fully admit I pretty well exclusively fly Allied - my favourite planes are there. But I'm not going to be asking for 150 Octane mustangs and 11lb Tempests vs. 109G-14s and 190A-8s. I've been on the other side of the coin for too long on other servers, outnumbered and outgunned by superior fighters, and I know that what that ends up being is wild side imbalances and people having less fun.

Battle of Bodenplatte's plane set is the most balanced in the whole series in terms of fighter performance, it's really the only entry where axis doesn't have a significant advantage. It's great for online play that we can finally have two sides going toe-to-toe on largely equal terms. It's really a waste if you just reverse all the previous installments setup by giving the Allies all their super planes and severely limiting axis planes. Even if it is historical for the Allies to hold all the cards, it's squandering the potential of the planeset for a really competitive server where each side has to squeeze everything from their planes to get an edge. 

I feel like if one side has its top of the line fighters and mods, the other side should too, just in the interests of challenging competition, but I'll leave the exact apportionment up to the admins. 

As far as target tweaks, it's probably a combination of the things you suggested. Also more tightly packed objectives could make bomb usage a little more attractive. Previously, you had to avoid that because otherwise a single 1000 kg bomb would take out almost the entire objective. 

Possibly, including more armored targets at objectives like tanks and other things that aren't destroyable by lower calibre cannons/MG could make bombs and rockets more effective and worthwhile. 

 

2 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Rockets are pretty good for bunkers, and all the US planes can carry 6 of them with some bombs too. Plus when you have fired them and ejected the tubes there is little drag penalty.

 


I really suck with rockets, enough that I didn't know you could even kill a bunker with them. Guess I need to practice more.
 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

 

I really suck with rockets, enough that I didn't know you could even kill a bunker with them. Guess I need to practice more.
 

They're immensely satisfying to use. The key to getting effective ASAP is to use qmb and infinite ammo to practice doing a consistent approach ( i.e. practice a particular dive angle and speed ) and for each aircraft, get used to where the rockets fly relative to the reticle.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought on Mitchell’s Men.  I was playing late last night and noticed that the bombers appeared to be immediately descending after dropping bombs and landing just past the front lines.  No wonder they get wiped out on the return leg, they’re entering the landing pattern barely 20km from an active blue airfield.  Would it be a better option to give them a checkpoint they cross in friendly territory that sets up a check zone to despawn them if no enemies are in sight?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

Shifting gears a little... I hope that most of us can agree that the damage model changes for ground attackers using bombs is a big headache for map makers right now. Curious as to what can be done to mitigate - lower hit point values for statics, reduce the number of targets at an objective, change the logic for clearing objectives, etc?

 

Do we have any idea if the bugs have been ironed out in the update? It looks like we need to do a target durability update pass, which I can do fairly easily with a script I wrote, but if the actual damage model is still being tweaked I don't want to rebalance objectives only to need to rebalance them again in a week. What we usually do when testing a map is count number of P38 or 110 bomb loads needed to kill the objective, then tune from there so it's reasonable. What I'm hearing is that the damage model tweaks have drastically changed how tough targets are, but then my own testing is conflicting. Two specific data points from me:

  • On Friday I took out the AvGas depot on the new map using 6 x SC500 bombs and a bunch of 110 cannon, using single player mode, invulnerable infinite ammo, and admin knowledge of what you need to kill to destroy the objective (hint: spread the damage around, make sure you get a good chunk of the fuel storage/processing stuff)
  • Last night at Walcheren Island my P51's machine guns did absolutely nothing vs low-durability ammo tents/storage

Sometimes with a patch the devs recalibrate their expected durability values for objects, but existing maps need to be manually updated to track those values. I'm wondering if that happened in this case.

 

33 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

A thought on Mitchell’s Men.  I was playing late last night and noticed that the bombers appeared to be immediately descending after dropping bombs and landing just past the front lines.  No wonder they get wiped out on the return leg, they’re entering the landing pattern barely 20km from an active blue airfield.  Would it be a better option to give them a checkpoint they cross in friendly territory that sets up a check zone to despawn them if no enemies are in sight?

 

It depends on both the specific bomber wave (alpha, bravo, charlie) and the sub-group within that flight, but they land at different airfields. The "despawn if no blues are near" is horribly immersion breaking if you're a red escorting the bombers, so I'd like to avoid that if possible. I've made the change where blue only gets a point if they destroy (most of) the bomber wave before they bomb their target, so I'm hopeful the fact that the bombers are an easy target on approach/landing is less of a factor now. But yes, despawn could be an option, let's keep an eye on how things go with this latest tweak first.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

A thought on Mitchell’s Men.  I was playing late last night and noticed that the bombers appeared to be immediately descending after dropping bombs and landing just past the front lines.  No wonder they get wiped out on the return leg, they’re entering the landing pattern barely 20km from an active blue airfield.  Would it be a better option to give them a checkpoint they cross in friendly territory that sets up a check zone to despawn them if no enemies are in sight?

Yes , last night as soon as bombs dropped they descended quickly too down too 2km and were getting picked off even when landing , Also they had  lights on landing very close too front line . A - 262 was in the area . I was lucky too see message that bombers were on their way to a way-point . Can we extend message time to longer . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Do we have any idea if the bugs have been ironed out in the update? It looks like we need to do a target durability update pass, which I can do fairly easily with a script I wrote, but if the actual damage model is still being tweaked I don't want to rebalance objectives only to need to rebalance them again in a week. What we usually do when testing a map is count number of P38 or 110 bomb loads needed to kill the objective, then tune from there so it's reasonable. What I'm hearing is that the damage model tweaks have drastically changed how tough targets are, but then my own testing is conflicting. Two specific data points from me:

  • On Friday I took out the AvGas depot on the new map using 6 x SC500 bombs and a bunch of 110 cannon, using single player mode, invulnerable infinite ammo, and admin knowledge of what you need to kill to destroy the objective (hint: spread the damage around, make sure you get a good chunk of the fuel storage/processing stuff)
  • Last night at Walcheren Island my P51's machine guns did absolutely nothing vs low-durability ammo tents/storage

Sometimes with a patch the devs recalibrate their expected durability values for objects, but existing maps need to be manually updated to track those values. I'm wondering if that happened in this case.

 

 

It depends on both the specific bomber wave (alpha, bravo, charlie) and the sub-group within that flight, but they land at different airfields. The "despawn if no blues are near" is horribly immersion breaking if you're a red escorting the bombers, so I'd like to avoid that if possible. I've made the change where blue only gets a point if they destroy (most of) the bomber wave before they bomb their target, so I'm hopeful the fact that the bombers are an easy target on approach/landing is less of a factor now. But yes, despawn could be an option, let's keep an eye on how things go with this latest tweak first.

If you don't mind third-hand rumor...someone in the TAW thread said that the devs have been speaking on the Russian side of the forum and they expect another hotfix this week to deal specifically with damage to static structures/objects. If this is true, then starting any work on tweaking the map now would be a waste of time. I don't know what thread it was in so take it with a grain of salt.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Han himself thirty minutes ago with the hotfix!

As far as your conflicting tests, I think it's simply down to the P-51's HMG vs the 110's cannons. It seems that HE-firing guns are now capable of destroying hardened buildings like dugouts (not sure if this was possible before, I never tried).The .50 cals, on the other hand, appear to do next to no damage to static structures - my own attempts to strafe boxes, tents, and buildings in a P-47 yielded no obvious results, same as your P-51 sortie. However other soft targets like AA guns, trucks, and half tracks are still quite destroyable by machinegun fire, it did not seem that those needed more hits to get a kill than previously.  I have not had an opportunity to strafe static aircraft yet.
 

Edited by RedKestrel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New hotfix may help with some of the ground target problems that we have been seeing. I'll try to find some time to do single player testing of the Combat Box objectives, to get a sense for whether they are the proper strength or not. Any feedback, with specific maps and objectives and approximate total ordinance expended would be helpful.

 

 

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

As far as your conflicting tests, I think it's simply down to the P-51's HMG vs the 110's cannons. It seems that HE-firing guns are now capable of destroying hardened buildings like dugouts (not sure if this was possible before, I never tried).

 

It used to be that the 110's cannons needed to be shot through the open door of a dugout in order to kill it, I'm not sure of the behavior post-patch. I was ok with it before because you need quite a bit of skill to make a shot like that.

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

3 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

New hotfix may help with some of the ground target problems that we have been seeing. I'll try to find some time to do single player testing of the Combat Box objectives, to get a sense for whether they are the proper strength or not. Any feedback, with specific maps and objectives and approximate total ordinance expended would be helpful.

 

 

 

It used to be that the 110's cannons needed to be shot through the open door of a dugout in order to kill it, I'm not sure of the behavior post-patch. I was ok with it before because you need quite a bit of skill to make a shot like that.

Next time I am online I will try and keep notes. I usually run at least a couple ground attack sorties/session. I will try and keep tracks and video too to capture any odd behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@=ABr=422nd_RedSkull What Bazzer said is plainly incorrect. Its not "very close", it's better. It will outrun every Axis A/C on the deck. It will out turn them. It will out dive them (and dive with the hot sauce K4). It will zoom climb with them. The only thing it won't do is out climb, and its raw roll rate can't match the 190's, not that it matters much. The Tempest, with its flaps and low speed capability, is broken in my opinion. It's clearly stated in performance trials that the A/C will get out turned by a Mustang, yet the damn thing can turn inside a Spitfire IX.

 

Instead of flying 100% allied aircraft, and then complaining that they're outclassed, try out an A-8 or G-14, and see how fun it is to deal with a 7lb Tempest. Pretty much the same story if they get the 11lb boost and you're in a D9 or K4.

Edited by QB.Shallot
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

Instead of flying 100% allied aircraft, and then complaining that they're outclassed, try out an A-8 or G-14, and see how fun it is to deal with a 7lb Tempest. Pretty much the same story if they get the 11lb boost and you're in a D9 or K4.


You've hit the nail on the head here, without actually going up against the plane you're advocating being unlimited, it's hard argue that you can see the bigger picture.


I think the reduced Tempest numbers actually, by themselves, are a good thing, because when flying axis, it means you are not just seeing majority Tempests when they were relatively quite rare planes. Also when picking a plane, if you know you're going to be facing Tempest spam, you think to yourself, "well I was going to pick an a8 but sod it I'll have to bring the big guns out and take a k4" and so every map will be k4 v tempests and mustangs, which is great sometimes, but a bit samey all the time. The plane set has so much more variety and interest than that.

 

But if there is one point that was coming across that I do agree with, is that the k4 is effectively unlimited, meaning on the face of it it seems like CB have got it right; in the 1945 maps there's around 50:50 ratio of K4vG14 (historically about right when you considerer G10s to be the equivalent of k4s). But human nature being what it is, when you fly on the allied side, the G14 seems to be a rare beast indeed. You see nowhere near a 50:50 ratio.

Now I broadly think the balance on the maps is fine so I am not advocating any change, just pointing out that, if the intention is to tweak the plane set so it's not just k4 spam on the maps where it's available, having 60 of the things at every base, is effectively unlimited number.

If that's what's intended @Alonzo you'll get no beef from me, I'll happily go up against k4s in spits and p47s, I just wanted to point out that with the numbers available they might get to zero at a base or two right at the end of a map (Rhineland excepted) but other than the 262 and the Tempest all other planes are available to such an extent it doesn't effect what you see at the 'coal face'

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complaining about the k4s and Tempests and I'm over here flying my p40, G-2s and G-4s at 40fps.. Being outmatched and shot down every sortie is a normal thing. You guys have got it good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SqwkHappy said:

People complaining about the k4s and Tempests and I'm over here flying my p40, G-2s and G-4s at 40fps.. Being outmatched and shot down every sortie is a normal thing. You guys have got it good.

How are you flying BoM and BoS planes if you don't own the modules? 😕

 

image.png.01ee96b617aae6f76e2a1d9c51cd9f1d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SqwkHappy said:

People complaining about the k4s and Tempests and I'm over here flying my p40, G-2s and G-4s at 40fps.. Being outmatched and shot down every sortie is a normal thing. You guys have got it good.

I'm not complaining. It's not about me being bothered about facing x or y plane in z plane, I just think its fun if you're not facing the same planes all the time. And it makes the times you do run into something like a Tempest or a k4 a bit of a rush because you're not in a situation where every single plane you face is a k4 or a Tempest.

6 minutes ago, Sketch said:

How are you flying BoM and BoS planes if you don't own the modules? 😕

 

image.png.01ee96b617aae6f76e2a1d9c51cd9f1d.png

I don't think you get the badges if you buy from Steam

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I don't think you get the badges if you buy from Steam

Ahh okay! TIL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIA_Yankee_
31 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:


You've hit the nail on the head here, without actually going up against the plane you're advocating being unlimited, it's hard argue that you can see the bigger picture.


I think the reduced Tempest numbers actually, by themselves, are a good thing, because when flying axis, it means you are not just seeing majority Tempests when they were relatively quite rare planes. Also when picking a plane, if you know you're going to be facing Tempest spam, you think to yourself, "well I was going to pick an a8 but sod it I'll have to bring the big guns out and take a k4" and so every map will be k4 v tempests and mustangs, which is great sometimes, but a bit samey all the time. The plane set has so much more variety and interest than that.

 

But if there is one point that was coming across that I do agree with, is that the k4 is effectively unlimited, meaning on the face of it it seems like CB have got it right; in the 1945 maps there's around 50:50 ratio of K4vG14 (historically about right when you considerer G10s to be the equivalent of k4s). But human nature being what it is, when you fly on the allied side, the G14 seems to be a rare beast indeed. You see nowhere near a 50:50 ratio.

Now I broadly think the balance on the maps is fine so I am not advocating any change, just pointing out that, if the intention is to tweak the plane set so it's not just k4 spam on the maps where it's available, having 60 of the things at every base, is effectively unlimited number.

If that's what's intended @Alonzo you'll get no beef from me, I'll happily go up against k4s in spits and p47s, I just wanted to point out that with the numbers available they might get to zero at a base or two right at the end of a map (Rhineland excepted) but other than the 262 and the Tempest all other planes are available to such an extent it doesn't effect what you see at the 'coal face'

 

Agreed, though I think the last months seem to argue about balance being fine, to be honest. Rather it seems to have flipped, no doubt due to repeated balancing passes that occurred because everyone was flying the new allied planes for quite a while, and now that numbers aren't so lopsided anymore those changes seem to favor blue.

 

Specifically, I'm referring concessions that were made to history vs balance. Things such as limiting Tempests, removing bombs from them, lightening bomb loads on the 38, limiting 150 octane fuel, and so on. Whereas, on the other hand, balance changes led to mediums and 110s being available for the LW, sometimes with large bombs, and so on. Needed changes at the time, to be sure, but it appears to me they may have served their purposes and now it's time to step back from some of them (while ensuring everyone has fun, obviously).

 

Thank you.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

Agreed, though I think the last months seem to argue about balance being fine, to be honest. Rather it seems to have flipped, no doubt due to repeated balancing passes that occurred because everyone was flying the new allied planes for quite a while, and now that numbers aren't so lopsided anymore those changes seem to favor blue.

 

Specifically, I'm referring concessions that were made to history vs balance. Things such as limiting Tempests, removing bombs from them, lightening bomb loads on the 38, limiting 150 octane fuel, and so on. Whereas, on the other hand, balance changes led to mediums and 110s being available for the LW, sometimes with large bombs, and so on. Needed changes at the time, to be sure, but it appears to me they may have served their purposes and now it's time to step back from some of them (while ensuring everyone has fun, obviously).

 

Thank you.

Either way, I don't think the Allies are suddenly going to start winning more maps because they've got more Tempests.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I'm not complaining. It's not about me being bothered about facing x or y plane in z plane, I just think its fun if you're not facing the same planes all the time. And it makes the times you do run into something like a Tempest or a k4 a bit of a rush because you're not in a situation where every single plane you face is a k4 or a Tempest.

I don't think you get the badges if you buy from Steam

It is very frustrating because I've been buying IL2  since the 1946 edition, I bought CoD, I bought BoS and BoM and Kuban. If I wasn't forced to buy FC from the website's store I would have zero bars because my intent was to buy FC in steam. Would be nice if the devs/whoever would get that sorted out sooner than later. I've got a few years of proud badge displaying I've been refused because of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Either way, I don't think the Allies are suddenly going to start winning more maps because they've got more Tempests.

 

 

I think we have to remember that thankfully at the end of the day this is just a game and to encourage people to play and stay, people have to feel that things are at best a level playing field. I've watched how the admins here, have tried to maintain that balance although it appears at times to be a thank-less task. 

Therefore, I agree that the Allies may not start winning, however, I'm glad that things are tweaked continually to keep both sides interested, as without interest, the server becomes very empty and boring.

 

Regards

11 minutes ago, SqwkHappy said:

It is very frustrating because I've been buying IL2  since the 1946 edition, I bought CoD, I bought BoS and BoM and Kuban. If I wasn't forced to buy FC from the website's store I would have zero bars because my intent was to buy FC in steam. Would be nice if the devs/whoever would get that sorted out sooner than later. I've got a few years of proud badge displaying I've been refused because of it. 

 

If you look on the forum there are guys who have provided downloads of the badges, so you can display them in your signature block to show others that you do own other games.

In addition, I believe that only the game badges purchased directly from the store are displayed, whereas collector aircraft aren't displayed, therefore once again lots of players have these badges of collector aircraft in their signature blocks.

Currently BoN is only available from store, so you could be one of the first to have that badge.

 

Regards

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 9:02 AM, Riksen said:

 

No man ... There is no such feature in the game. Only people that are in either in the same Discord/Teamspeak channel will be able to hear you. These are seperate applications and have no relationship to the game but they ate often used by those who play in order to coordinate in flight but, again, they also need to be logged in.

 

So is there a specific TeamSpeak channel for Combat Box on the Official IL2 Teamspeak server?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance we'll see bomber escort type missions? I just need a reason to fly up high, escorting some ai b-25s would be nice.

I'm really itching for some higher altitude combat but I rarely experience that online. It would be nice to have some altitude specific objectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there problems with stats . Seems not to be recording kills or what has happend to air-frame or whats going on in game .

Also Tried recording last night frames dropped to 20fps . 

Please people identify your foe before firing there is too many people attacking friendly aircraft . 

We all know there is very poor visibility  in this game  Now  and  that should not extend to some people just shoulder shooting to get that kill .  

9 hours ago, Haza said:

 

I think we have to remember that thankfully at the end of the day this is just a game and to encourage people to play and stay, people have to feel that things are at best a level playing field. I've watched how the admins here, have tried to maintain that balance although it appears at times to be a thank-less task. 

Therefore, I agree that the Allies may not start winning, however, I'm glad that things are tweaked continually to keep both sides interested, as without interest, the server becomes very empty and boring.

 

Regards

 

If you look on the forum there are guys who have provided downloads of the badges, so you can display them in your signature block to show others that you do own other games.

In addition, I believe that only the game badges purchased directly from the store are displayed, whereas collector aircraft aren't displayed, therefore once again lots of players have these badges of collector aircraft in their signature blocks.

Currently BoN is only available from store, so you could be one of the first to have that badge.

 

Regards

I fly both , and all i can say is the Axis team is more organised , simple answer .

They ground pound and ask all the time for cover . Very rare have i seen Allies ground pound  lots of  P51 and tempest taking off with out eggs , but as some one said its a dog-fight server and ground targets are there for the few . ????

However destroying the ground targets actually wins the maps .  lol . 

So Allies pilots need to step up there game and some team work may help along the way .

But 70% of people just want that Ace badge and too look good .  

Edited by ACG_KoN
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Any chance we'll see bomber escort type missions? I just need a reason to fly up high, escorting some ai b-25s would be nice.

I'm really itching for some higher altitude combat but I rarely experience that online. It would be nice to have some altitude specific objectives.

The map, 'Mitchell's Men' has those

 

1 hour ago, ACG_KoN said:

 

I fly both , and all i can say is the Axis team is more organised , simple answer .

They ground pound and ask all the time for cover . Very rare have i seen Allies ground pound  lots of  P51 and tempest taking off with out eggs , but as some one said its a dog-fight server and ground targets are there for the few . ????

However destroying the ground targets actually wins the maps .  lol . 

 

Bingo, that's exactly why.

Now why do you think that people stopped ground pounding so much on the Allied side? Just after BoBp came out, as far as I remember, the Allies were steamrollering maps. What changed?

TBH I'll hold up my hands and say, I fly both sides, but I rarely attack ground targets (like the majority of people on who fly on the server) whilst still trying to play the objectives by intercepting enemies with bombs, protecting friendly bombers etc. So I really don't know the answer. I agree with @Haza though is that if people, who identify with a particular 'side', *feel* they're being asymmetrically treated, it *may* require a tweak or something to keep their (real or imagined) theory from demotivating them. As to whether there is a balance issue or not, as Haza says, it's a thankless task and I'll leave it to someone who does ground attack a lot to opine about that, because the winning and losing maps thing is primarily effected by ground attack.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56RAF_Roblex

Am I the only one that finds it hard to escort the bombers in Mitchells Men because I cannot find them?   I know we get messages with WTTE 'Bomber group B is at XXXX' but I just end up rushing all round the map barely missing them 🙂     

 

In an ideal world,  they would launch from a very rear field and we would get a warning 'Bomber Group B launching from XXX in 5 minutes' so we could go there and take-off with them  or at least be waiting overhead.  Perhaps 'Bomber Group B will be overhead (not so rearward) XXX Airfield at 10K and climbing NW in 5 minutes' so we could quickly spawn and join them'  The latter might allow a sneaky Blue to listen in and prepare an ambush but OTOH if there are lots of Reds launching too then it might make it hard for them to hang around there, especially if the bombers only spawn a minute before reaching the field. 

 

It may sound very similar to what already happens but it is just that extra info to make it easier to be in the right place at the right time.  In the real world the escorts would know exactly where to meet them and when to expect them within a few minutes.  Perhaps I am mistaken, and I freely admit that is possible as I have only flown the map a few times,  but it seems to me that all I know is 'There are three possible bomber groups going to three different targets and they will spawn *sometime* without advance warning and tell you when they are already over certain towns you have probably never heard of so don't know where they are.'   Am I missing something or are people just learning where to be by repetition?

 

Please don't take this as a complaint. I am just trying to learn how to get the most out of this map.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

Am I the only one that finds it hard to escort the bombers in Mitchells Men because I cannot find them?   I know we get messages with WTTE 'Bomber group B is at XXXX' but I just end up rushing all round the map barely missing them 🙂     

 

In an ideal world,  they would launch from a very rear field and we would get a warning 'Bomber Group B launching from XXX in 5 minutes' so we could go there and take-off with them  or at least be waiting overhead.  Perhaps 'Bomber Group B will be overhead (not so rearward) XXX Airfield at 10K and climbing NW in 5 minutes' so we could quickly spawn and join them'  The latter might allow a sneaky Blue to listen in and prepare an ambush but OTOH if there are lots of Reds launching too then it might make it hard for them to hang around there, especially if the bombers only spawn a minute before reaching the field. 

 

It may sound very similar to what already happens but it is just that extra info to make it easier to be in the right place at the right time.  In the real world the escorts would know exactly where to meet them and when to expect them within a few minutes.  Perhaps I am mistaken, and I freely admit that is possible as I have only flown the map a few times,  but it seems to me that all I know is 'There are three possible bomber groups going to three different targets and they will spawn *sometime* without advance warning and tell you when they are already over certain towns you have probably never heard of so don't know where they are.'   Am I missing something or are people just learning where to be by repetition?

 

Please don't take this as a complaint. I am just trying to learn how to get the most out of this map.

The best thing to do is to climb to your combat altitude over your friendly airfield and wait for the warning on where they are forming up. I found that when spawning at the beginning of the map, I had enough time to climb to 20000 feet in a fully-fueled P-47 on continuous settings before the bombers spawned, then I was able to link up with them by following the cues and looking for contrails. So there is usually time to get up high and then look for the bombers.

You could also do the Doolittle approach and, knowing where the bombers are heading and where they are coming from, conduct a high-altitude fighter sweep ahead of them on likely approaches to the bomber formation. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIA_Yankee_
2 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

The map, 'Mitchell's Men' has those

 

Bingo, that's exactly why.

Now why do you think that people stopped ground pounding so much on the Allied side? Just after BoBp came out, as far as I remember, the Allies were steamrollering maps. What changed?

TBH I'll hold up my hands and say, I fly both sides, but I rarely attack ground targets (like the majority of people on who fly on the server) whilst still trying to play the objectives by intercepting enemies with bombs, protecting friendly bombers etc. So I really don't know the answer. I agree with @Haza though is that if people, who identify with a particular 'side', *feel* they're being asymmetrically treated, it *may* require a tweak or something to keep their (real or imagined) theory from demotivating them. As to whether there is a balance issue or not, as Haza says, it's a thankless task and I'll leave it to someone who does ground attack a lot to opine about that, because the winning and losing maps thing is primarily effected by ground attack.

 

A very good point. What's changed?

 

Well, one major element is that over the first months of BoBP being out, when the allied used to steamroll maps, many balancing passes were made to try and rectify that win ratio. This was done in the anme of balance and historical accuracy. Tempest had their bombs removed and their numbers limited, as Tempests were historically used as air superiority fighters, and at the same time it was one of the most popular attack options. P-38s were limited from certain maps and their bomb load drastically limited, again in the name of balance and historical accuracy (in some scenarios they weren't present, and the higher bomb loads were ostensibly not much used). Likewise 150 octane and higher boost was restricted.

 

On the other hand, in the name of balance (since, let's be clear, red absolutely steamrolled maps at first), several changes were made on the LW side to encourage ground attack and "playing the objectives", despite it being historically inaccurate. Stukas, 110s, and medium bombers were introduced, and permitted to carry some of the larger bombs. Historically, of course, none of these should be available, but that wouldn't be much fun IMO.

 

So, given the above, it's not a surprise that ground pounding has taken a back seat on the allied side and made a resurgence on the axis side. After all, that was the intent of all those changes. And now that the shiny-newness of flying the new allied planes has worn out and the factions have relatively even numbers again, those changes mean that blue is doing significantly better than red. After all, in the name of balance blue has had many "a-historical" choices added in order to improve their attack potential, while red has had many options removed because they were "a-historical".

 

So, given the above, that leaves two options IMO:

 

1- Gradually remove the a-historical choices that were added to the axis side until balance is restored.

2- Gradually relax the historical restrictions that were placed on the allied side until balance is restored.

 

I would personally prefer #2, simply because more choices is fun. Also, I appreciate that adding 110s and mediums on blue has provided greater variety and we should definitely encourage ground attacking in the first place.

 

Thank you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56RAF_Roblex

OK.  Someone outside the forum has explained the copious clues the mission posts. It seems that they *do* give warning of 'Forming Up' before it actually starts.  It also gives you an ETA for each waypoint including the first one.   I did not notice these on the two occasions I flew the map so....   

 

TL:DR  The map gives me all the information I could ever ask for  & more. I am just not reading the messages. Emoji    

 

You can ignore my question.

 
Roblex 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

OK.  Someone outside the forum has explained the copious clues the mission posts. It seems that they *do* give warning of 'Forming Up' before it actually starts.  It also gives you an ETA for each waypoint including the first one.   I did not notice these on the two occasions I flew the map so....   

 

TL:DR  The map gives me all the information I could ever ask for  & more. I am just not reading the messages. Emoji    

 

You can ignore my question.

 
Roblex 

Ive asked for messages to be extended longer so to read . As when flying checking six and maps some times ive missed them messages . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2020 at 3:41 PM, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Rockets are pretty good for bunkers, and all the US planes can carry 6 of them with some bombs too. Plus when you have fired them and ejected the tubes there is little drag penalty.

 

Post hotfix though, my experience hasn't been so great. Has anyone had any joy with destroying bunkers with rockets?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update: You can destroy the bunkers with rockets (post 15 Apr hotfix), just takes a few hits (no one-shotting). Still worth taking them for fun and reasonably effective.

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Update: You can destroy the bunkers with rockets (post 15 Apr hotfix), just takes a few hits (no one-shotting). Still worth taking them for fun and reasonably effective.

 

 

More fun, but more drag :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

So, given the above, that leaves two options IMO:

 

1- Gradually remove the a-historical choices that were added to the axis side until balance is restored.

2- Gradually relax the historical restrictions that were placed on the allied side until balance is restored.

 

I would personally prefer #2, simply because more choices is fun. Also, I appreciate that adding 110s and mediums on blue has provided greater variety and we should definitely encourage ground attacking in the first place.

 

We've started working towards #2. Tempests have had their bombs unlocked on a couple of maps, and the larger P-38 bomb loadouts are now sometimes allowed. We're focusing on maps that have very lopsided results at first, we'll see how we go from there. I do think a variety of options are important to help the maps 'feel' different, so it's important to play several to see all the combinations.

 

5 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

OK.  Someone outside the forum has explained the copious clues the mission posts. It seems that they *do* give warning of 'Forming Up' before it actually starts.  It also gives you an ETA for each waypoint including the first one.   I did not notice these on the two occasions I flew the map so....   

 

TL:DR  The map gives me all the information I could ever ask for  & more. I am just not reading the messages. Emoji    

 

You can ignore my question.

 

I would never ignore a politely worded question, but I'm glad someone else answered.

 

4 hours ago, ACG_KoN said:

Ive asked for messages to be extended longer so to read . As when flying checking six and maps some times ive missed them messages . 

 

This is a great idea. I also think it's possible the bomber messages get overwritten with "under attack!" messages since there's no 'priority' to them, the game just displays the most recent thing that has happened. So if a "bombers coming soon" message goes out, it might be unlucky and get overwritten with an "under attack" or "enemy spotted" message after just a few seconds. The bomber messages are important enough on the map that it might be better to put them at the bottom of the screen rather than the top, so they don't get overwritten. I'll look into that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIA_Elanski

The Tempest.  If you pull to hard the damn wing falls off.  Seriously..there goes the ability to turn at high speed.  If you pull even more than a little at high speed while chasing anything the pilot blacks out for much longer the the FW our ME pilots.  So in order out perform the 190 and 109 the Tempest must be in slower speed fight.  That means you are dead when the next high speed axis plane comes through or the 110 who then out turns, out climbs and out reverses you...There should be 3 110s per base.

 

Many have said how dominate the Tempest is....I disagree.  I really disagree with only having 2 or 3 per base.  Most of the people who join the server after the first two minutes won't get to fly a Tempest on that map....and is that fun for those who want to fly the Tempest?  Were Tempest so rare in the history of WWII that there were only three per base?  Are the allied kills twice what the axis have this month?  

 

When the axis were losing every month i told you all it was because they were not trying.  Now they are trying and winning over 2/1 ratio and they have the same damn planes they had last year when I posted about it. (maybe it was earlier this year...i'm getting old lol)  

 

This months Shot down aircraft.  

Allied                             7006                              axis              8726

ground targets             28376                           axis              46096

flight hours                   6421                             axis              6159

 

So it is very simple eh?  Same hours yet wildly different results and skewed way in the axis favor.  Time to move the front lines.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Bazzer
12 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

We've started working towards #2. Tempests have had their bombs unlocked on a couple of maps, and the larger P-38 bomb loadouts are now sometimes allowed. We're focusing on maps that have very lopsided results at first, we'll see how we go from there. I do think a variety of options are important to help the maps 'feel' different, so it's important to play several to see all the combinations.

Appreciate the changes, and in general that you're looking to re-balance.

 

I still think something is just off with the axis 20mm effectiveness on bunkers, but maybe the devs will tweak it. If not, I hope you'll consider revising the target composition some, because no amount of bombs or rockets can keep up with what 190's and 110's can do strafing bunkers right now.

Edited by 69th_Bazzer
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

Appreciate the changes, and in general that you're looking to re-balance.

 

I still think something is just off with the axis 20mm effectiveness on bunkers, but maybe the devs will tweak it. If not, I hope you'll consider revising the target composition some, because no amount of bombs or rockets can keep up with what 190's and 110's can do strafing bunkers right now.

The recent hotfix C made bunkers pretty resistant to 20mm I think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CIA_Elanski said:

The Tempest.  If you pull to hard the damn wing falls off.  Seriously..there goes the ability to turn at high speed.  If you pull even more than a little at high speed while chasing anything the pilot blacks out for much longer the the FW our ME pilots.  So in order out perform the 190 and 109 the Tempest must be in slower speed fight.  That means you are dead when the next high speed axis plane comes through or the 110 who then out turns, out climbs and out reverses you...There should be 3 110s per base.

 

Many have said how dominate the Tempest is....I disagree.  I really disagree with only having 2 or 3 per base.  Most of the people who join the server after the first two minutes won't get to fly a Tempest on that map....and is that fun for those who want to fly the Tempest?  Were Tempest so rare in the history of WWII that there were only three per base?  Are the allied kills twice what the axis have this month?  

 

When the axis were losing every month i told you all it was because they were not trying.  Now they are trying and winning over 2/1 ratio and they have the same damn planes they had last year when I posted about it. (maybe it was earlier this year...i'm getting old lol)  

 

This months Shot down aircraft.  

Allied                             7006                              axis              8726

ground targets             28376                           axis              46096

flight hours                   6421                             axis              6159

 

So it is very simple eh?  Same hours yet wildly different results and skewed way in the axis favor.  Time to move the front lines.

There were around 700 Tempest Mk. Vs ever produced, compared with about 5600 Spitfire Mk. IXs, so they were quite 'rare', but then so was 'any LW plane' by 1945, so clearly there can be some artistic licence with plane availability for the sake of a good game.

However, I recall that if all planes are unlimited you tend to see Tempest spam (Just like now you see the majority of fighters are k4s on the axis side, if the map has them). But that may have been because it had just came out.

Although restricting planes is seen as anti-fun, spam is anti-fun too.

 

I'm kind of in favour of having some control over spamming of a particular plane, because it's less fun when all maps are just p51/tempests v k4s and p38 2000lb bombs v 110s. Of course balanced with the fun of the people who like to fly those planes.

 

I think it's a viscious circle sometimes, you go up and see that the other side has all k4s/d9s then you think, ok I'll counter with a tempest/p51. Meanwhile, the guy on the other side sees only Tempests and 150 oct P51s so he's thinking, I'll have to take my souped up k4

At the moment it seems as if only the Tempest has meaningful restrictions on the number of airframes, so I can see how Allied only pilots see that as them having a 'counter' taken away from them.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CIA_Elanski said:

The Tempest.  If you pull to hard the damn wing falls off.  Seriously..there goes the ability to turn at high speed.  If you pull even more than a little at high speed while chasing anything the pilot blacks out for much longer the the FW our ME pilots.

 

We really need an accelerometer to talk about that. 

But what I can say is that Tempest may have the best high speed elevator authority in that game. Not the best advantage by the way. That's why we see many Tempests loosing their wings. Question is: how much G the Tempest is taking when the wing break. 

Anyway, it won't affect your high speed turning ability as your pilot will black out anyway. 

 

I didn't know germans pilots had a better G lock tolerance. If you say so, it must be true ?? :rolleyes:

 

Edited by JG300_Faucon
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...