Jump to content

Combat Box by Red Flight


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

 

 

I really did see that many 262's, but I only brought it up in case this was a change. I get how it happened, and I like killing them as much as anyone, but will always think even one of them is too many in this tactical environment (that they had no part of historically), combined with a no-vulching rule.

 

 

 

Just chipping in on the 262 presence.. as much as I hate Vulching and spawn camping, I agree with @69th_Bazzer that it's historical fact that the allies used to destroy  262s whilst sitting ducks in their air fields. Maybe allowing that to happen would deplete their available numbers/ dissuade them from being used?

Edited by Nake350
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
8 minutes ago, TWC_Sp00k said:

^^^^ Winning idea^^^ Charlie Sheen stamp of approval.

 

Admins created a map where this could occur. It was a spawn airfield for 262s that could be attacked and destroyed. Once destroyed, the airfield was disabled as a spawn point. Unfortunately, some axis players decided to make a huge stink about it for various dumb reasons. I don't think the feature exists anymore. I'm an axis only player on CB server and I loved the feature. It's just too bad people couldn't see how it was a nicely realistic feature which inspire new style of gameplay. Platzschutzestaffel D9s were actually useful and needed just like in real life. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
3 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

Lastly, what's with taking the Tempests out of Bridge Too Far? It's a British op for crying out loud! As though we're winning too much here...

 

 

I don't see this in the Changelog. Mistake maybe?

1 hour ago, TWC_Sp00k said:

^^^^ Winning idea^^^ Charlie Sheen stamp of approval.

 

1 hour ago, Nake350 said:

Just chipping in on the 262 presence.. as much as I hate Vulching and spawn camping, I agree with @69th_Bazzer that it's historical fact that the allies used to destroy  262s whilst sitting ducks in their air fields. Maybe allowing that to happen would deplete their available numbers/ dissuade them from being used?

 

Sadly we learned than when you give an inch, some players will take a mile. That map caused so much confusion about our global "no vulching" rule that we felt it was better to take it back out rather than put the health of the server's sportsmanship at risk!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I don't see this in the Changelog. Mistake maybe?

 

 

Sadly we learned than when you give an inch, some players will take a mile. That map caused so much confusion about our global "no vulching" rule that we felt it was better to take it back out rather than put the health of the server's sportsmanship at risk!

 

How about you just allow 'vultching' as surely this was the whole bases IRL of Operation Bodenplatte?

WOL allowed it, however many players realised it wasn't that much fun when the AAA takes you out, so overall, the majority of players didn't do it and it sorted itself out.

Perhaps allow it as a trial for a month?

 

Regards

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
10 minutes ago, Haza said:

 

How about you just allow 'vultching' as surely this was the whole bases IRL of Operation Bodenplatte?

WOL allowed it, however many players realised it wasn't that much fun when the AAA takes you out, so overall, the majority of players didn't do it and it sorted itself out.

Perhaps allow it as a trial for a month?

 

Regards

 

Aside from all other issues the AA going off around spawn airfields is apparently taxing on the server. And largely ineffective on the much faster Bodenplatte aircraft. I've only seen vulchers get killed by AA when they start turning hard and make a large number of attack runs, and even then its usually a fighter that gets them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nake350 said:

Just chipping in on the 262 presence.. as much as I hate Vulching and spawn camping, I agree with @69th_Bazzer that it's historical fact that the allies used to destroy  262s whilst sitting ducks in their air fields. Maybe allowing that to happen would deplete their available numbers/ dissuade them from being used?

 

I think we should remember that to re-enact a historical event is great if you have all resources, however, this is a game that can't do that. Indeed, I'm sure Tempests weren't used during Operation Market Garden ( happy to be told otherwise), therefore, I think we need to embrace the limitations that are given. Indeed, I have previously argued that the Y-29 map should have the 262, but overall, I actually now think having it would unbalance the map.

Therefore, I think we should all just do the best we can with whatever aircraft are available.

 

Regards

17 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Aside from all other issues the AA going off around spawn airfields is apparently taxing on the server. And largely ineffective on the much faster Bodenplatte aircraft. I've only seen vulchers get killed by AA when they start turning hard and make a large number of attack runs, and even then its usually a fighter that gets them. 

 

I guess more air spawns might help, however you would then get air spawn campers and so the vicious circle keeps going.

I think the fact remains you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people  some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

Regards

 

Edited by Haza
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
9 minutes ago, Haza said:

 

I think we should remember that to re-enact a historical event is great if you have all resources, however, this is a game that can't do that. Indeed, I'm sure Tempests weren't used during Operation Market Garden ( happy to be told otherwise), therefore, I think we need to embrace the limitations that are given. Indeed, I have previously argued that the Y-29 map should have the 262, but overall, I actually now think having it would unbalance the map.

Therefore, I think we should all just do the best we can with whatever aircraft are available.

 

Regards

 

I guess more air spawns might help, however you would then get air spawn campers and so the vicious circle keeps going.

I think the fact remains you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

 

Regards

 

Yeah the few times we had air spawns I remember significant vulching there too. Plus I prefer to take off at the beginning of a sortie if possible. WOL also, IIRC, has AI flights orbiting the spawn airfields to make vulching more difficult, or they did at some point, so flak alone doesn't cut it there either. I don't think CB wants to put more AI into a map than they have to at this point with the server load being what it is.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ACG_Talisman

Re Mitchell's Men, may I suggest some air spawns actually with the bombers for Allied fighter escort aircraft, or at least at the correct altitude and on the correct track heading.  Apologies if that is technically not possible and perhaps a stupid suggestion.  I would not mind taking pot luck with the air spawn location if it was not shown on the map.

 

Second possibly stupid suggestion, is it possible to air spawn in a bomber as part of the bomber formation.  Apologies again if this is not a viable option.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Re Mitchell's Men, may I suggest some air spawns actually with the bombers for Allied fighter escort aircraft, or at least at the correct altitude and on the correct track heading.  Apologies if that is technically not possible and perhaps a stupid suggestion.  I would not mind taking pot luck with the air spawn location if it was not shown on the map.

 

Second possibly stupid suggestion, is it possible to air spawn in a bomber as part of the bomber formation.  Apologies again if this is not a viable option.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

 

Hi Talisman,

I would be interested to see how many guys would actually escort the bombers, or would players wait for the bombers to be under attack then spawn in.

Either way, anything that stops the continual accusations from either side, I would be happy to at least try.

 

Regards

 

PS How are you mate? 

Edited by Haza
Link to post
Share on other sites
ACG_Talisman
Just now, Haza said:

 

Hi Talisman,

I would be interested to see how many guys would actually escort the bombers, or would players wait for the bombers to be under attack then spawn in.

Either way, anything that stops the continual accusation from either side, I would be happy to at least try.

 

Regards

 

PS How are you mate?

 

I suggested the above because I can never find the bombers to escort them so have given up on it, even though I wanted to escort them.  Also, thought it would be fun to be part of the bomber formation in a bomber.

 

P.S.  I am good, but not going out much, lol, I am in the old git and vulnerable category.  You must drop in and visit next time you are on this side of the world.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

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

Tempests weren't used during Operation Market Garden

 

44 Tempests flew in support of Market Garden, on +11lbs boost, and that's why they were included in our mission. If they're absent now that is an oversight. 

 

1 hour ago, Haza said:

 

How about you just allow 'vultching' as surely this was the whole bases IRL of Operation Bodenplatte?

WOL allowed it, however many players realised it wasn't that much fun when the AAA takes you out, so overall, the majority of players didn't do it and it sorted itself out.

Perhaps allow it as a trial for a month?

 

Regards

 

 

This will categorically never happen even if playerbase was overwhelmingly in favour, which it isn't. The other admins and I all hate it so there's no chance.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TU=flynvrtd

If the players in the server work the objectives of the map, then vulching should never be a concern. Except for the regular new player that doesn't read the rules or the intentional troublemaker.

I find it amusing the players whose limited perspective allows them to see only one side of things in thinking the other side ALWAYS has an unfair advantage....as in the availability of the 262 for instance.

 

Yet, these same folks don't have a problem with a map setup that gives them late war allied rides and no 190D9 or 109K4 for the Axis. A bridge too far for instance.

 Remember in playing this gameulation, if you give the other side no hope of a chance of victory, you might not have any opposition to play against.

 

  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Birdman

Don't know if it's just me, but this week end seemed pretty bad as far as spawn camping. Plenty of vülcher experten™ out solo or in squads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VBF-12_Snake9
20 minutes ago, flynvrtd said:

 Remember in playing this gameulation, if you give the other side no hope of a chance of victory, you might not have any opposition to play against.

121 blue missions won 53 red

11531 blue kills 9153 red

53227 blue ground kills 35088 red 

Flight time equal

 

 

Wow, you just proved the allied point🤣  Your better at proving our point than anyone on red side.  🤣

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SqwkHappy
29 minutes ago, Birdman said:

Don't know if it's just me, but this week end seemed pretty bad as far as spawn camping. Plenty of vülcher experten™ out solo or in squads.

 

 Yup. I saw a few people reporting that in chat last night. Not a good sign.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel

The issue right now seems to be that in terms of closing ground targets the allies are getting beaten on most of the maps. The idea that its a team coordination issue doesn't hold much water for me frankly. Pre-patch, the allies were holding their own pretty good on most maps. Now we see they are losing the lion's share of the maps that have more than 100 players. It's not like the patch dropped and the Allies suddenly all became solo flyers, player behaviours are close to the same as before, but the Allies are having more trouble rolling ground targets. 

The new DM 'nerfs' big bombs and many of the more hardened ground targets now require nearly a direct hit from a bomb regardless of size, so larger numbers of smaller bombs are likely more efficient. Aside from the A20, the Allies don't really have a plane that carries loadouts like that, and the A20 is an extremely vulnerable platform, especially with its flashing light visible from halfway across the map whenever the bomb bay doors are open. The Bf-110G2 can carry 12 SC50 bombs and a ton of 20mm cannon ammo for soft targets so I think it is the most efficient ground attack aircraft on the server at the moment. Frankly I think if the Allies had the Typhoon in the numbers that were present in the real war, I think we wouldn't be seeing the imbalance as the Allies would have a numerous cannon-armed ground attack platform with a good bomb and/or rocket load.

It's not uncommon for the allies to fail to close even one ground target on a map despite repeated attacks. Even when the allies lost a map before at least one or two would be closed before map end, now often none get closed. Usually I would get two sorties in on a ground target before it would get closed through allied efforts including my solo sorties. Sometimes not even. Now I can be attacking the same target for the entire map. And its not just solo guys, often my attacks coincide with organized squad efforts working over the target. Things are just straight up harder to kill now.

 I was in on an airfield attack at one point after the patch and I saw a coordinated squad of at least 6 allied fighters and fighter bombers dropping bombs, firing rockets, and strafing the hell out of the airfield for what must have been 10 minutes with no interruption by Axis fighters - when I left with no ammo the others were still going, and they had been attacking before I got there. Before the patch that airfield would have been toast. As it was I dropped 2500 lbs of bombs on a group of hangar buildings and only killed one, whereas before that would have cleared the entire row. This may be more realistic than before, but regardless the  targets were balanced based on the previous DM and the new one is producing very different results.

The bottom line is the new ground attack DM appears to favor axis ground attack platforms and tactics more than before and the Allies need to adjust tactics, and possibly the target balancing needs looked at again. Not that it matters, but I'm in favour of waiting at least a little longer to see if the Allies can balance things out through adapting new tactics (more use of rockets, more focused attacks, prioritizing different targets, whatever.) and also to see if a new patch is coming soon that may shake things up again. Han has stated that they think the new building damage is closer to RL than before but they have plans to improve things. If so then attempts to rebalance now may just be fruitless if we get another patch next week or something and big bombs get more effective again.  Seeing as how we've only had the new DM with fixes applied for a week I don't think a little more time for data gather will kill us.
 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
1 hour ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

121 blue missions won 53 red

11531 blue kills 9153 red

53227 blue ground kills 35088 red 

Flight time equal

 

 

Wow, you just proved the allied point🤣  Your better at proving our point than anyone on red side.  🤣

Irreplaceable. Said everything

Link to post
Share on other sites
=TU=flynvrtd

Or is it possible that there are more team players organizing on the red side?

 

Instead of all wishing to be Chuck Yeager or Walter Mitty.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
2 hours ago, flynvrtd said:

If the players in the server work the objectives of the map, then vulching should never be a concern. Except for the regular new player that doesn't read the rules or the intentional troublemaker.

I find it amusing the players whose limited perspective allows them to see only one side of things in thinking the other side ALWAYS has an unfair advantage....as in the availability of the 262 for instance.

 

Yet, these same folks don't have a problem with a map setup that gives them late war allied rides and no 190D9 or 109K4 for the Axis. A bridge too far for instance.

 Remember in playing this gameulation, if you give the other side no hope of a chance of victory, you might not have any opposition to play against.

 

  

Really this? You don’t have K-4 and D-9 on one map only, the same as the reds don’t have Tempest or 150 octane fuel on the P-51 and Spitfires and is that cause for indignation?

And what about the maps that the blue side has almost two hundred K-4 and D-9 added and the red side has a maximum of 12 Tempest and 150 oct Mustangs and Spitfires only in around 50% of all the maps?

As they say in my country, "pepper in other people's tail is soda"

Link to post
Share on other sites
NO.20_Krispy_Duck

My biggest concern at this point is the effect of the recent patch on ground attack. At this point, ground attack with a fight-bomber is difficult in exchange not a whole lot of return (less than before, it seems to me). I'm getting maybe one dugout building and similar per 500kg bomb. Strafing works against the soft stuff but not everything. You get some points for knocking stuff out, but it's not as many points as the people who have good aerial victory sorties. The bomb effectiveness in particular has been kind of a jarring change, in my book. Now if that is indeed more realistic, then I would recommend increasing the number of points awarded for a successful ground strike. If it's a bug, then the bug should be fixed. I've heard both stories - one player in-game was telling me that the reduced damage was a "bug", but I've had other players say it was not a bug but was a realism increase. I'm not sure which, but I think the ground attack side has to adapt to this change somehow.

 

I do mostly ground attack and then patrol around or RTB, but maybe aerial starts for a select number of escorts for the bombers would be helpful on Mitchell's Men. I think the comments above on that map have some merit. The comments about Axis being better-organized on comms has been true for the mostpart  in the Combatbox Discord for a couple months now. Allied has had a few well-organized strikes on comms when I've been on, but Axis seems to have it more consistently. Either way, comms are the way to go on Combatbox, whether the official Discord or your own place. But going it alone can be tough in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
17 minutes ago, Krispy_Duck said:

My biggest concern at this point is the effect of the recent patch on ground attack. At this point, ground attack with a fight-bomber is difficult in exchange not a whole lot of return (less than before, it seems to me). I'm getting maybe one dugout building and similar per 500kg bomb. Strafing works against the soft stuff but not everything. You get some points for knocking stuff out, but it's not as many points as the people who have good aerial victory sorties. The bomb effectiveness in particular has been kind of a jarring change, in my book. Now if that is indeed more realistic, then I would recommend increasing the number of points awarded for a successful ground strike. If it's a bug, then the bug should be fixed. I've heard both stories - one player in-game was telling me that the reduced damage was a "bug", but I've had other players say it was not a bug but was a realism increase. I'm not sure which, but I think the ground attack side has to adapt to this change somehow.

 

I do mostly ground attack and then patrol around or RTB, but maybe aerial starts for a select number of escorts for the bombers would be helpful on Mitchell's Men. I think the comments above on that map have some merit. The comments about Axis being better-organized on comms has been true for the mostpart  in the Combatbox Discord for a couple months now. Allied has had a few well-organized strikes on comms when I've been on, but Axis seems to have it more consistently. Either way, comms are the way to go on Combatbox, whether the official Discord or your own place. But going it alone can be tough in there.

This is usually how I play as well and have noticed the same thing WRT fighter-bomber sorties.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Birdman

P-38s with 2x2,000lbs used to be decently efficient on battle of the scheldt to go strike Lommel. It has been a lot more difficult to clear objectives as a whole since the update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
9 minutes ago, Birdman said:

P-38s with 2x2,000lbs used to be decently efficient on battle of the scheldt to go strike Lommel. It has been a lot more difficult to clear objectives as a whole since the update.

6 x 500lb is probably the better loadout now to increase chances of direct hits on targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Birdman
17 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

6 x 500lb is probably the better loadout now to increase chances of direct hits on targets.

Yes for sure, it's too bad as the rigging performance penalty is quite substantial compared to 2 bombs on the pylons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
16 minutes ago, Birdman said:

Yes for sure, it's too bad as the rigging performance penalty is quite substantial compared to 2 bombs on the pylons.

I'm mostly running 2500 lbs bombs + 6 rockets in the P-47, so I feel your pain in terms of drag! I never used to bother with rockets because of the performance penalty but now it makes sense to drag as much ordnance as possible to the fight, unless you want to just take out a dugout and scoot home. As I get better with the rockets I'm finding them pretty effective, just gotta learn to hit stuff with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Birdman
3 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I'm mostly running 2500 lbs bombs + 6 rockets in the P-47, so I feel your pain in terms of drag! I never used to bother with rockets because of the performance penalty but now it makes sense to drag as much ordnance as possible to the fight, unless you want to just take out a dugout and scoot home. As I get better with the rockets I'm finding them pretty effective, just gotta learn to hit stuff with them.

Same and now rockets are a staple, at least we can drop the tubes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

44 Tempests flew in support of Market Garden, on +11lbs boost, and that's why they were included in our mission. If they're absent now that is an oversight. 

 

 

This will categorically never happen even if playerbase was overwhelmingly in favour, which it isn't. The other admins and I all hate it so there's no chance.

 

Talon,

Thanks for the clarification regarding the Tempest. I always thought it was the Typhoon that was involved.

 

Regards

 

7 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

I suggested the above because I can never find the bombers to escort them so have given up on it, even though I wanted to escort them.  Also, thought it would be fun to be part of the bomber formation in a bomber.

 

P.S.  I am good, but not going out much, lol, I am in the old git and vulnerable category.  You must drop in and visit next time you are on this side of the world.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

 

I totally agree! Fingers crossed, I'm looking forward to a human controlled B-25 as that would be fun spawning into the formation.

I was due back in Aug for a work related reunion at the training place near you before it closes, however, not sure if travel restrictions will be lifted in time.

Anyway, take care mate.

 

PS The pedals are still working 😀.

 

Regards

Edited by Haza
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
5 hours ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

121 blue missions won 53 red

11531 blue kills 9153 red

53227 blue ground kills 35088 red 

Flight time equal

 

 

Wow, you just proved the allied point🤣  Your better at proving our point than anyone on red side.  🤣

 

All this proves is that cowpokes and pardners wearing chaps, jean jacket, 10 gallon stetson, and a large skillet for a belt buckle get their snakeskin high heels stuck in their rudder stirrups and don't perform as well on their "ponies" and "stangs" as they thought they would. I wouldn't surprised to see them hop out of their trough, I mean cockpit, and do the boot scoot boogie across the wing when they make it home after a hard ride out in the pastures.

 

I can always tell when I'm about to meet up with some "stangs" and "ponies" because I start to hear dueling banjos intensifying in the distance.

 

Bet the pony riders get their denim flight jackets at Burt Longhorns Western Wear Depot.

Edited by ProfesseurDePhysique
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Birdman
3 minutes ago, ProfesseurDePhysique said:

 

All this proves is that cowpokes and pardners wearing chaps, jean jacket, 10 gallon stetson, and a large skillet for a belt buckle get their snakeskin high heels stuck in their rudder stirrups and don't perform as well on their "ponies" and "stangs" as they thought they would. I wouldn't surprised to see them hop out of their trough, I mean cockpit, and do the boot scoot boogie across the wing when they make it home after a hard ride out in the pastures.

Good job in missing the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
=ABr=422nd_RedSkull
9 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

44 Tempests flew in support of Market Garden, on +11lbs boost, and that's why they were included in our mission. If they're absent now that is an oversight. 

 

 

@Talon, I was in Bridge too far now, and no Tempest in map.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
21 hours ago, thatguy said:

Speaking of complex triggers, I just decided to get into mission editor and holy ballsack CB's missions are complex.  Hats off to you and your team, that has got to have been some serious work

 

Yep. I'd say 30-40 hours to get to a 0.9 version of a map, then as much time as we want to throw at it tuning them. They're complicated because they do cool stuff (although arguably we could tone it down a bit and still have cool-ish things).

 

17 hours ago, ProfesseurDePhysique said:

@Alonzo

As far as escorting bombers on Mitchell's Men, is there a way to add a multiplier to the points awarded for an aerial kill within a certain radius of a B25s location? Kill an enemy anywhere else, get regular points. Kill an enemy within a 1000m radius of a B25, get 5x the points. Something like that.

 

Not really. The stats system is a bit of a black box and we haven't done a lot of tweaking. I'd love if we had a real scripting language built into the server, then you'd see some really cool features on CB, but we work with what we have.

 

15 hours ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

Perhaps also make it so the B-25's destroy a target if they get through - even just one of the three objectives they hit. AI Ju-52's can win an objective on Crossing the Rhine even if axis players do nothing.

 

The AI Ju52s will actually only get that objective to 67% or so, you need at least a few players to succeed to get it over the line for the victory point.

 

The most recent change to Mitchell's was that blue doesn't get a point for a bomber wave unless they destroy it before it drops bombs, but it looks like that hasn't helped red win yet. There are some more tweaks we can do but I'm reluctant to add air spawns unless absolutely necessary because they're quite 'gamey'. I think we have just 2 missions with air spawns currently. I'll take another balance pass at that map, I see a couple times red has done a good job ground attacking but still didn't win. The times where blue does 95% of the ground attacking and wins, well, I'm ok with that, they played the objectives. I'll take another look at it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

I don't see this in the Changelog. Mistake maybe?

 

 

Sadly we learned than when you give an inch, some players will take a mile. That map caused so much confusion about our global "no vulching" rule that we felt it was better to take it back out rather than put the health of the server's sportsmanship at risk!

Maybe go back to the fuel train missions . No fuel no 262s . means then it needs caping and attacking win win for both sides . 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
6 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

The bottom line is the new ground attack DM appears to favor axis ground attack platforms and tactics more than before and the Allies need to adjust tactics, and possibly the target balancing needs looked at again. Not that it matters, but I'm in favour of waiting at least a little longer to see if the Allies can balance things out through adapting new tactics (more use of rockets, more focused attacks, prioritizing different targets, whatever.) and also to see if a new patch is coming soon that may shake things up again. Han has stated that they think the new building damage is closer to RL than before but they have plans to improve things. If so then attempts to rebalance now may just be fruitless if we get another patch next week or something and big bombs get more effective again.  Seeing as how we've only had the new DM with fixes applied for a week I don't think a little more time for data gather will kill us.

 

Yep, good analysis here and I think I agree with you. 'Splash' has been significantly nerfed and so bigger bombs are worse than before. If I was taking a P47 I'd avoid the 1,000lb now, for sure. I used to take a D9 with a 500kg, I'd switch that out for a 250 now as it'll do basically the same damage. Now add the fact that MGs have difficulty killing soft target like tents, but cannon rounds still work on them, and it's a definite disadvantage for the Allies. I've run my durability update script and quickly looked at the various "must kill X of Y to destroy objective" numbers and they all look reasonable, but I think it's an uphill battle for red.

 

The problem though is we're chasing a moving target if there are more DM tweaks incoming. It would be fairly rapid to nerf the durability on dugouts to the point where a single rocket can kill them, but then they're probably killable with a 30mm too, which isn't really what we want. A 'better' fix is to look again at all the objectives Allies need to kill and maybe tone down the total damage required. That's quite a lot of effort, and I can do it, but if another DM tweak makes splash damage work again then it's all for naught.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
VBF-12_Snake9
4 hours ago, ProfesseurDePhysique said:

 

All this proves is that cowpokes and pardners wearing chaps, jean jacket, 10 gallon stetson, and a large skillet for a belt buckle get their snakeskin high heels stuck in their rudder stirrups and don't perform as well on their "ponies" and "stangs" as they thought they would. I wouldn't surprised to see them hop out of their trough, I mean cockpit, and do the boot scoot boogie across the wing when they make it home after a hard ride out in the pastures.

 

I can always tell when I'm about to meet up with some "stangs" and "ponies" because I start to hear dueling banjos intensifying in the distance.

 

Bet the pony riders get their denim flight jackets at Burt Longhorns Western Wear Depot.

What in the hell …………. lol 

 

7 hours ago, flynvrtd said:

Or is it possible that there are more team players organizing on the red side?

 

Instead of all wishing to be Chuck Yeager or Walter Mitty.

 

Yeaaaaaaaa that's it.  lol

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel

 

58 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Yep, good analysis here and I think I agree with you. 'Splash' has been significantly nerfed and so bigger bombs are worse than before. If I was taking a P47 I'd avoid the 1,000lb now, for sure. I used to take a D9 with a 500kg, I'd switch that out for a 250 now as it'll do basically the same damage. Now add the fact that MGs have difficulty killing soft target like tents, but cannon rounds still work on them, and it's a definite disadvantage for the Allies. I've run my durability update script and quickly looked at the various "must kill X of Y to destroy objective" numbers and they all look reasonable, but I think it's an uphill battle for red.

 

The problem though is we're chasing a moving target if there are more DM tweaks incoming. It would be fairly rapid to nerf the durability on dugouts to the point where a single rocket can kill them, but then they're probably killable with a 30mm too, which isn't really what we want. A 'better' fix is to look again at all the objectives Allies need to kill and maybe tone down the total damage required. That's quite a lot of effort, and I can do it, but if another DM tweak makes splash damage work again then it's all for naught.

The last thing Han said in the thread was that they had plans to improve some remaining issues around static buildings. But no timeline given. I do think there are further changes coming sooner rather than later, since any fix they do to static objects pretty much  has to be relatively simple to avoid performance issues, there can’t really be a detailed DM for buildings. But none of us are fortune tellers so who knows? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
=EXPEND=CG_Justin
1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

 A 'better' fix is to look again at all the objectives Allies need to kill and maybe tone down the total damage required. That's quite a lot of effort, and I can do it, but if another DM tweak makes splash damage work again then it's all for naught.

 

The bomb nerfs are definitely a tough thing to address currently, and as a dedicated attacker it really makes my life difficult, but not insurmountably so. My squad and I are usually attacking together so it makes things marginally better. I would love to see the better splash on targets again, but I have to agree, there is no sense doing the same work twice or even three times if we have no idea if more adjustments are coming down the pipe in the near future. Perhaps if we were told it might be 4-6 months before the splash damage is revisited it would be more feasible. Thanks for all you guys do anyway @Alonzo, I really enjoy the server.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
14 hours ago, =ABr=422nd_RedSkull said:

150 oct Mustangs and Spitfires only in around 50% of all the maps?

 

150 octane is allowed based on historical presence, not as a balancing measure, in all maps except A Bridge Too Far.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
11 hours ago, =EXPEND=CG_Justin said:

 

The bomb nerfs are definitely a tough thing to address currently, and as a dedicated attacker it really makes my life difficult, but not insurmountably so. My squad and I are usually attacking together so it makes things marginally better. I would love to see the better splash on targets again, but I have to agree, there is no sense doing the same work twice or even three times if we have no idea if more adjustments are coming down the pipe in the near future. Perhaps if we were told it might be 4-6 months before the splash damage is revisited it would be more feasible. Thanks for all you guys do anyway @Alonzo, I really enjoy the server.

There seems to be a catch-22 situation where reducing the durability enough to make splash damage effective essentially makes everything killable by 20mm cannon/HMG. It's a pickle. It does seem likely that the previous level of splash damage was too much but maybe this has gone too far.
 

Edited by RedKestrel
Link to post
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
×
×
  • Create New...