Jump to content

Combat Box by Red Flight


Recommended Posts

CIA_Yankee_
58 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Elanski knows what he's talking about. .50" cals do nothing + bombs do nothing = dedicated allied ground attackers sad.

I will say though, that I can vouch that Alonzo is adjusting the objectives to the new DM as we speak, (which cannot happen overnight as it's an iterative process) so please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, the Allied side needs you!

As for the .50" cals, it's a bummer. Hopefully the devs will suck back on how low they've dialled in the aerodynamic penalty for being hit with .50" cal, and the incendiary ammo comes soon. If all that happens I'll be happy.

Please bear in mind though that there were plenty of complaints before the DM update that the p51 was ridiculously tough in the face of mg151/20, and there was still a lot of blue victories.

 

 

Aye, these will help. So would applying historical restrictions equally (either to both side, or neither).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
3 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

 

I'll second that where ground attack is concerned. It is much harder now - so the same amount of risk (high) for even less reward. Last night I shot six rockets at a row of tents covering aircrafts - scored direct hits and destroyed nothing but the tents lol. 

I’m finding rockets are decent against buildings and small structures but static planes seem a lot harder to kill now just in general. I just fire the full salvo at dugouts or bunkers to make sure I get one or two of those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnacles
6 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I’m finding rockets are decent against buildings and small structures but static planes seem a lot harder to kill now just in general. I just fire the full salvo at dugouts or bunkers to make sure I get one or two of those.

Rockets are great on the allied planes. 2 RP3s or the USAAF ones will destroy a bunker. The ones on the A8 are harder to use and generally will require 4 to destroy a bunker, but you get 12 of them.

Static planes I'll use guns. *


There's little point in taking large bombs, if the smaller bombs give you more shots, ie 4x sc50s is better than 1 sc250 for example, if you're wanting to kill the most stuff. Some larger buildings do still benefit from a larger bomb though.


* Although I'll have to check static planes with .50" cals.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to post
Share on other sites
69th_Mobile_BBQ

I agree with Elanski.   .50s do suck.  But, they still work on anti-aircraft guns quite well.  Do the community a favor.  Destroy the AAA assets at all the targets and help the server run with less lag! 

Be aware that by doing so, your Yak-51s and Pe-47s will be easier to hit and fighting back with sticks of butter for weapons is idiotic.  But, at least your rapid death, and that of your Allied team mates, won't be as much of a slideshow.    

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
1 hour ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

I agree with Elanski.   .50s do suck.  But, they still work on anti-aircraft guns quite well.  Do the community a favor.  Destroy the AAA assets at all the targets and help the server run with less lag! 

Be aware that by doing so, your Yak-51s and Pe-47s will be easier to hit and fighting back with sticks of butter for weapons is idiotic.  But, at least your rapid death, and that of your Allied team mates, won't be as much of a slideshow.    

Eh, in the few times I’ve engaged aircraft with fifties since the patch it’s not that bad. Not what it was before but doable, but then I’m not an ace by any stretch so my experience is limited. At least my engine isn’t made of glass anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

* Although I'll have to check static planes with .50" cals.

 

They seemed fairly easily destroyable in my testing, especially fighters with 1000 durability. Static bombers with 1500 take a few more hits. Both are 1-shot with a German cannon, though (predictably). 50 cal against AA is also still good.

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

 

They seemed fairly easily destroyable in my testing, especially fighters with 1000 durability. Static bombers with 1500 take a few more hits. Both are 1-shot with a German cannon, though (predictably). 50 cal against AA is also still good.

Yeah as far as the DM affecting ground attack I think the Germans have actually lost a bit of advantage, as it's unrealistic to get bunkers with cannons now. The only difference gun wise is static planes and AAA aren't necessarily one shot with .50" cals, but then allied rockets are better.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Black-Witch

I used to really enjoy Combat Box as it promised realistic scenarios for the Rheineland map in late '44 and '45. but a few things have taken the edge off of it for me lately.

 

I don't do ground attack, and I don't mind that other people do, they can play the game how they like too.

 

I fly both sides and prefer to carry out "fighter sweeps" in Blue or Red fighters, whatever the "available" 109 version or the Tempest. I've heard the Tempest described as too good and therefore it's restricted, perhaps people aren't aware just what a beast this plane was, but, not wanting to have that discussion repeated here, it's frustrating when there are only a few available and if I don't get one on a server reset then usually they're gone. Taking the bombs/rocket option off of the Tempest helps, and is historically accurate.

 

But in the conversations about 109K and Tempest numbers and availability no-one mentions the Bf110? there were no Zerstorer ground attack units on the Western front.

 

In 1942/43 the 110 had found its niche as a night fighter in the N/JG units.

 

All 110 & 410 ZG units on the western front were employed solely as bomber interceptors, this they did with some success against the 8th USAAF until early '44, when the Mustangs arrived and were going all the way to and from the bombers targets, after the ponies arrived the Bf110, and the Me410 were being destroyed in large numbers and were removed from service on the western front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110_operational_history#Defence_of_the_Reich

 

ZG1 was disbanded in June '44.

ZG26 & ZG76 were disbanded In September '44.

All the ZG pilots were sent to 109 units.

 

9th Air Force

The P-38 equipped three groups of the tactical 9th Air Force. These groups went operational in the spring of 1944 (474th FG on 25 April 1944, 370th FG on 1 May and 367th FG on 9 May). At first these groups lent their aircraft to the 8th Air Force, acting as bomber escorts. They also took part in providing fighter cover on D-Day. All the units then moved onto the continent, providing tactical support for the allied armies as they advanced across France.

By October 1944 all three P-38 groups in the 9th Air Force had been equipped with the Droop Snoot equipment. This consisted of a specially modified version of the P-38 with a bombardier in a glass nose. This single aircraft dropped the bombs of an entire formation of P-38s.

The 474th FG was the only fighter group in the 8th and 9th Air Forces to keep the P-38 until VE day. The 370th FG converted to the P-51 in January 1945 and the 367th FG to the P-47 Thunderbolt in February.

 

Looking through the history of the 2nd TAF, the few 110's shot down were night fighters caught during the day.

 

Blue ground attack missions were usually done by the "Ground attack" squadrons in the Fighter groups, by the 109G's and 190A's.

 

But, for me the must frustrating, and an instant "log off" is the weather, too much weather, almost overcast double layer cloud and even low cloud and rain! no thanks, not in VR, too much of a frame rate hit, And "back then" they didn't fly too much in rubbish weather, that's why the Battle of the Bulge got off to a good start for Blue, no Allied AF flying.

 

But of course Alonzo has to balance gameplay against the historical realities.

 

If I could have 1 "wish" for Combat Box it would be that all planes had their fuel "locked" at 100%, apart from the pony and Lightning, they could be around 60%-68%, I'm guessing here though as I rarely fly them.

 

Oh, and if people think the the Tempest is OP, wait til the Spitfire MkXIV arrives.

 

Witch

 

 

Edited by Black-Witch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
58 minutes ago, Black-Witch said:

I've heard the Tempest described as too good and therefore it's restricted

 

The real reason is that there were only 5 squadrons of Tempests flying compared to 25 Spitfire squadrons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Black-Witch
13 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

The real reason is that there were only 5 squadrons of Tempests flying compared to 25 Spitfire squadrons.

Ah, reading the posts it seemed they are considered OP by some. I don't mind the Tempest being restricted, just find it annoying that people "lose them" carrying bombs.

 

So both sides will have "historical balance" to availability?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
3 minutes ago, Black-Witch said:

Ah, reading the posts it seemed they are considered OP by some. I don't mind the Tempest being restricted, just find it annoying that people "lose them" carrying bombs.

 

So both sides will have "historical balance" to availability?

 

To a degree. We only have 1-4 Me262s at most even though by production numbers there were more buzzing around than Tempests by quite a large margin - though they tended to fly fewer hours per airframe. We try to keep the flavour to "As a [Allied/Axis] pilot I should mostly see plane X followed by roughly the same number of plane Y and sometimes but rarely plane Z" based on the geographical and chronological placement of the mission and the real life introduction dates and squadron movements of the aircraft - e.g. no/very few P-38s in the North during late 1944 but lots in the South.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Black-Witch
6 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

To a degree. We only have 1-4 Me262s at most even though by production numbers there were more buzzing around than Tempests by quite a large margin - though they tended to fly fewer hours per airframe. We try to keep the flavour to "As a [Allied/Axis] pilot I should mostly see plane X followed by roughly the same number of plane Y and sometimes but rarely plane Z" based on the geographical and chronological placement of the mission and the real life introduction dates and squadron movements of the aircraft - e.g. no/very few P-38s in the North during late 1944 but lots in the South.

Cheers :)

 

Southampton, nice museum btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Faucon
2 hours ago, Black-Witch said:

But of course Alonzo has to balance gameplay against the historical realities.

 

I think everything is said there. 

We have a 110G2 in the game, but no possibilities to fly night mission or large bomber interception at high altitude. Not sure it would be a good idea to remove this plane from the planeset just for this reason. 

 

I definitely don't understand why you would like to lock the fuel to 100% :huh:

And the worst weather I've ever seen in Combat Box is the SCT/BKN double cloud layer. Far from being overcast. 

Edited by JG300_Faucon
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Black-Witch
29 minutes ago, JG300_Faucon said:

We have a 110G2 in the game, but no possibilities to fly night mission or large bomber interception at high altitude. Not sure it would be a good idea to remove this plane from the planeset just for this reason. 

 

 

But that isn't a "balance" is it?

not removing 110G-2's, that weren't there, but limiting Tempests, that were there.

That's all gameplay.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41Sqn_Riksen
3 hours ago, Black-Witch said:

 

But in the conversations about 109K and Tempest numbers and availability no-one mentions the Bf110?

 

No one mentions? You are late to the party Sir. I have been saying that in both Discord and here. Look a few pages back when I listed all the 110 units and their bases + operational planes for 1944 and 45.

 

2 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

The real reason is that there were only 5 squadrons of Tempests flying compared to 25 Spitfire squadrons.

 

There were 0 Bf-110 units and they are still represented there. By your logic, we should have none. Btw, Im not saying we need to remove all of them from the maps but I believe the use of "... But historically ..." should not be used only for certain cases and not others. Either we use historic data or we dont IMHO. Without looking biased, then there should be at least some consideration in dramatically reducing the numbers of 110s, Stukas, abd other planes that were not there and not just the Tempest. If not being too strict is the plan and prioritizing gameplay and balance is the goal like Alonzo said, then that is a different argument but the historical one is just making the server look biased.

35 minutes ago, JG300_Faucon said:

 

I think everything is said there. 

We have a 110G2 in the game, but no possibilities to fly night mission or large bomber interception at high altitude. Not sure it would be a good idea to remove this plane from the planeset just for this reason. 

 

The 110s that operated as night interceptor were not the same as the ones we have in game first of all. Secondly, IMHO, we should not completely remove it from the missions but drastically reduce the numbers.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Black-Witch

@Riksen my apologies for not seeing your posts about this, I rarely visit the forums and do so only on this occasion because I miss flying on ComBox. Finnish just isn't the same.

 

I would rather have more 262's on the map than planes that weren't there.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Faucon

I just feel like it's not a problem to make a gameplay arrangement for ground attack aircrafts. 

They are just flying around, dropping their bombs, hoping ennemy fighters will leave them alone. Not disturbing anyone*. 

 

* Even though Bf110 can be very disturbing for any fighters with it's crazy FM 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
VBF-12_KW

While I agree that there weren’t a ton of P-38s present, there were some.  JG26 was generally on the northern edge of German lines during the late war timeframe.  And yet they were still encountering 9th AF P-38s, at least in 1944.  According to Donald Caldwell’s excellent “JG26 Luftwaffe Fighter Wing War Diary” there were at least 2 formation sized encounters in September 44, 3 in October, and 2 in December.

 

The 110 on the other hand just wasn’t employed in a daylight role on the western front.  Unfortunately, these two planes are now the core of the ground attack Meta on the server.

 

[edit] Just to add some more perspective on my earlier post about the presence of 8th AF Mustangs based in the UK, during that same Sept-Dec of 1944 period JG26 had 17 encounters with P-51s.  Of these, 2 were with RAF units still based in Europe (early on in Sept),  2 were with 8th AF units based on the continent (late December) and the remaining 13 were with UK based 8th AF fighters.

Edited by KW_1979
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_

Regarding balancing

 

Alonzo and I are in talks about making a host of pretty drastic changes to some of the maps. We're aiming to rebalance and also refresh, so some locations might move around a little. It will hopefully keep things fresh!

 

I don't want to overpromise and subsequently underdeliver, so I won't say what changes exactly - but I will say this:

 

When the Allied planes were new we had a lot of people flying them and a lot of Allied wins. Maps designed during this time initially tended to make things harder for Red due to this. Time went by, the balance evened out and we started making changes to those maps that would keep the winrates level. We are still committed to this. Balance is a moving target based on DM changes, weapon changes, flight model changes, ground unit changes and even spotting changes. It takes time to react and not every change we make can be instant.

 

We have a commitment to maintaining a balance on the server that does not favour either side. Winrates very rarely change because one side "stops trying to win". There is no single consciousness that controls each side. We're not trying to set up a playground for Red or Blue - but if a change happened that made Blue 50% better due to whatever reason, maps that seemed balanced before would suddenly "favour Blue".

 

We are here to create a level-ish playing field for everyone to have fun. We're paying attention and we are acting.

 

Talon

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
5 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

 

I think everything is said there. 

We have a 110G2 in the game, but no possibilities to fly night mission or large bomber interception at high altitude. Not sure it would be a good idea to remove this plane from the planeset just for this reason. 

 

I definitely don't understand why you would like to lock the fuel to 100% :huh:

And the worst weather I've ever seen in Combat Box is the SCT/BKN double cloud layer. Far from being overcast. 

I would honestly love to see some heavy cloud cover but I know that for some people it causes extreme performance issues, and might increase server load, though I am not sure. Some really bad weather could change the dynamic of the missions entirely. 

But there's also people who just straight up will not play without mostly clear skies.

 

3 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

I just feel like it's not a problem to make a gameplay arrangement for ground attack aircrafts. 

They are just flying around, dropping their bombs, hoping ennemy fighters will leave them alone. Not disturbing anyone*. 

 

* Even though Bf110 can be very disturbing for any fighters with it's crazy FM 

I like to think its pretty disturbing for someone to kill me, then see me back 10 minutes later over the same target. "Oh mein gott, this schweinhund again????"
 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Capt_Stubing
5 hours ago, Riksen said:

 

No one mentions? You are late to the party Sir. I have been saying that in both Discord and here. Look a few pages back when I listed all the 110 units and their bases + operational planes for 1944 and 45.

 

 

There were 0 Bf-110 units and they are still represented there. By your logic, we should have none. Btw, Im not saying we need to remove all of them from the maps but I believe the use of "... But historically ..." should not be used only for certain cases and not others. Either we use historic data or we dont IMHO. Without looking biased, then there should be at least some consideration in dramatically reducing the numbers of 110s, Stukas, abd other planes that were not there and not just the Tempest. If not being too strict is the plan and prioritizing gameplay and balance is the goal like Alonzo said, then that is a different argument but the historical one is just making the server look biased.

 

The 110s that operated as night interceptor were not the same as the ones we have in game first of all. Secondly, IMHO, we should not completely remove it from the missions but drastically reduce the numbers.

So let me get this straight.  You want to reduce the number of 110s because they weren't flying during day time during this period right?  You want things to be historically accurate regardless of balance right?  You want a reenactment of the war right?   As an Allied Pilot I don't want to fly with the odds we had in the war given this sim represents a tactical portion of the war and there will be NO Axis pilots flying knowing they will be swarmed.    As an Axis pilot I don't want to be relegated to flying Jabo missions (kills performance) JU87s (worthless) and JU88 which are giant targets.  We already have a limited planeset and you want to take our most viable striker out of the mix.  Yet we have no 410s which were operational.  Can't wait to hear the crying when they show up.  Sorry brother but I'm not interested in a historical reenactment to satisfy some fighter pilots dream of being Bud Anderson or Johnny Johnson.  We know who won the war.  This is a tactical sim game at best and if you want people to actually fly and have a reasonable chance at winning a map there has to be balance and not just history. 

 

Allies have Tempest 51s 38s which are a much better Jabo option than the FWs and 109s.  They don't suffer nearly as much as the Axis in terms of carrying bomb racks etc. The 38 is a dream compared to the scary 110G2.  Carries way more is faster climbs better and a very good fighter when used properly.  

 

The Zerg comment is fitting.  Only recently a few of us have been focused almost 100 percent striking with support and that is what wins maps.  You want to win maps I suggest the Allies start paying the price for striking like we do but I see some have given up with new DM.  FYI In most cases we don't make it home.  

 

As I mentioned before the door swings both ways in terms of ground attack now.  Sure the 20s are better than the 50s but that is true anyways.  I too can hit tents with 20s and only get the tent.   1000kg bombs if you're lucky will kill a single dugout so they are currently porked.  Also our bombers are restricted to what they can carry.  Currently we are not allowed to take large bombs... not that it matters much with the new DM.  Not sure why we are restricted to using smaller bombs.  Oh wait that's right balance. 

Edited by Capt_Stubing
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
CSW_606_Temp

Close bombs for Tempest. First Bomb attack with Bombs had Tempest in Februar 45. Tempest was pure Fighter!

Tempest was leading figter RAF in Europe. With Spit XIV had most kills on late 44 and 45. Mayby only 5 squadron, but full numbers of planes with multiple action for day. 
Dora is german equivalent. Slighly more production. In use the same (Doras have more losses). German have not 5 full equiped Gruppen. Only mix A-8 and D-9. Tempest was numerous then Dora on western front.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41Sqn_Riksen
47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

You want to reduce the number of 110s because they weren't flying during day time during this period right?

 

Yes. Although historically it should be zero, I think the server benefits from plane variability and the 110s as well as the 410s should be there, although in small numbers.

 

47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

You want things to be historically accurate regardless of balance right?

 

Never said that as such situation is impossible to achieve without ruining the fun and important features of the game. Not sure where you read that in my statement. Maybe you need some new pair of glasses?

 

47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

You want a reenactment of the war right?

 

Nope. I would like to either have a historically based planeset applied to both sides OR a balanced planeset applied to both.

 

By suggesting I want to reenact history means you clearly don't understand the major factors that determined the Allied victory in WW2:

- The Luftwaffe was in poor shape at the end and, although they still managed to produce a great amount of planes, they lacked supplies like fuel, methanol, and pilots to actually put the planes in action. In addition, the pilots that did manage to fly them had very little training. Does this mean I want to simulate having noobs only playing for the LW? NO.

- The Luftwaffe had lost control of the air space over Europe at the end of the war due to the factors listed above as well as having to fight on multiple fronts and face the vast amount of enemy planes. These factors directly impacted the strategies used by the Allies. Instead of applying all of their efforts in gaining air superiority and employing interceptors all over the place, the Allies switched to mostly ground-attack mode to support infantry movement since they controlled the skies at that time. This meant that planes like the Spitfire and Mustangs were tasked with ground attacking missions more often than not. This also meant that planes like the Tempest were pretty much useless in the fighter-only role since there was a low need for them (again, no LW around). Am I here arguing to allow unlimited number of planes, especially the top tier ones? NO. I'm also not advocating for limiting to 8 the slots for the LW in the server. So again not reenacting anything here.

- Although in reality, the LW was in a state of despair and had all the issues above that does not mean they did not have capable fighters ... Quite the opposite really. The G14, K4 and Dora are more than capable and mostly superior to the ones available to the Allies. But again, if we are to use the historical argument for limiting the amount of Tempests in the maps, then the same should be done about LW planes.

 

The simple fact that we do not choose to simulate these into the missions is NECESSARY to have a functional, fun, and balanced server but we must acknowledge that they affect the overall strategy the Allies employed at that time (see above discussion about switching to mostly ground attacks). This explains why they only had a limited number of planes like the Tempest and avoided the use of 100/150 oct fuel later in the war. Why would they decrease engine life if that extra performance was not needed anymore? But in Combat Box, we choose to simulate 100/150 oct fuel restrictions and limited number of planes for the Allies based on the historic argument while, at the same time, we have planes, like the Bf-110, that never participated in those operations in large numbers. If we are going to use the historic argument for one side than we should do the same for the other. If we are not going to use the historic argument, which is also fine, then there is no reason to limit those planes in the first place.

 

47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

As an Allied Pilot I don't want to fly with the odds we had in the war given this sim represents a tactical portion of the war and there will be NO Axis pilots flying knowing they will be swarmed.

 

Me neither and I dont understand why you are trying to say I want this to take place.

 

47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

Yet we have no 410s which were operational.

 

Wrong again. 410 just like the 110 were  not operational.

 

47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

Sorry brother but I'm not interested in a historical reenactment to satisfy some fighter pilots dream of being Bud Anderson or Johnny Johnson.

 

Me neither. Just want the factors to be applied evenly to both sides. If balance and gameplay is the only factor we are going to consider then so be it for both sides. If a historical factor is going to be applied then so be it .. again for both sides.

 

47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

This is a tactical sim game at best and if you want people to actually fly and have a reasonable chance at winning a map there has to be balance and not just history. 

 

I agree and never said otherwise.

 

47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

The Zerg comment is fitting.  Only recently a few of us have been focused almost 100 percent striking with support and that is what wins maps.  You want to win maps I suggest the Allies start paying the price for striking like we do but I see some have given up with new DM.  FYI In most cases we don't make it home.  

 

Im not at all discussing who is doing what and why people care about winning. You are missing my point and must be confusing my comments with someone elses.

 

47 minutes ago, Capt_Stubing said:

So let me get this straight.

 

Clearly you didnt.

Edited by Riksen
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Capt_Stubing
37 minutes ago, Riksen said:

 

Yes. Although historically it should be zero, I think the server benefits from plane variability and the 110s as well as the 410s should be there, although in small numbers.

Agreed.  We don't have a full representation of everything that was flying at the time so plane variability is a good for tactics planning etc. 

Quote

 

 

Never said that as such situation is impossible to achieve without ruining the fun and important features of the game. Not sure where you read that in my statement. Maybe you need some new pair of glasses?

Yeah no.   I just asked the question for clarification purposes.  It does sound like  you are aiming in that direction.  Sensitive are we?  

Quote

 

 

Nope. I would like to either have a historically based planeset applied to both sides OR a balanced planeset applied to both.

My only problem with historically accurate means one side might have an advantage over another given years months etc.  This played out for years on 46 servers and people bitched and complained very much like what is happening now.  In fact it got so bad on some servers Axis was flying 42 and 43 airplanes only against 44-45 planes on the Allied.  No thanks.   I agree on the balance side of things. Again with our limited planset we can't fully represent every plane out there so there has to be some balancing.  

Quote

 

By suggesting I want to reenact history means you clearly don't understand the major factors that determined the Allied victory in WW2:

- The Luftwaffe was in poor shape at the end and, although they still managed to produce a great amount of planes, they lacked supplies like fuel, methanol, and pilots to actually put the planes in action. In addition, the pilots that did manage to fly them had very little training. Does this mean I want to simulate having noobs only playing for the LW? NO.

- The Luftwaffe had lost control of the air space over Europe at the end of the war due to the factors listed above as well as having to fight on multiple fronts and face the vast amount of enemy planes. These factors directly impacted the strategies used by the Allies. Instead of applying all of their efforts in gaining air superiority and employing interceptors all over the place, the Allies switched to mostly ground-attack mode to support infantry movement since they controlled the skies at that time. This meant that planes like the Spitfire and Mustangs were tasked with ground attacking missions more often than not. This also meant that planes like the Tempest were pretty much useless in the fighter-only role since there was a low need for them (again, no LW around). Am I here arguing to allow unlimited number of planes, especially the top tier ones? NO. I'm also not advocating for limiting to 8 the slots for the LW in the server. So again not reenacting anything here.

- Although in reality, the LW was in a state of despair and had all the issues above that does not mean they did not have capable fighters ... Quite the opposite really. The G14, K4 and Dora are more than capable and mostly superior to the ones available to the Allies. But again, if we are to use the historical argument for limiting the amount of Tempests in the maps, then the same should be done about LW planes.

I have yet to make a suggestion to the map makers.  In the current state the Tempest is arguably one the best planes in the entire set.  As some have stated it may do things a little better than in real life.  That's for the Devs to look into.  Just to be clear I'm not suggesting a well flown G14 or K4 can't win a fight.  Against a Anton all things being equal... Not even close.  

Quote

 

The simple fact that we do not choose to simulate these into the missions is NECESSARY to have a functional, fun, and balanced server but we must acknowledge that they affect the overall strategy the Allies employed at that time (see above discussion about switching to mostly ground attacks). This explains why they only had a limited number of planes like the Tempest and avoided the use of 100/150 oct fuel later in the war. Why would they decrease engine life if that extra performance was not needed anymore? But in Combat Box, we choose to simulate 100/150 oct fuel restrictions and limited number of planes for the Allies based on the historic argument while, at the same time, we have planes, like the Bf-110, that never participated in those operations in large numbers. If we are going to use the historic argument for one side than we should do the same for the other. If we are not going to use the historic argument, which is also fine, then there is no reason to limit those planes in the first place.

The reason for the restriction is the 150 oct fuel makes a drastic performance difference.  I don't see how 150 Oct fuel and 110s are related.  You guys do a good job of killing 110s as you should with relative ease in a Tempest 51 38 or Spit.  Not to mention Yak or LA5  The 110 is a good plane but not a game changer.   What I have seen personally is most allies who get bested by the 110 comes down to tactics and mistakes.  Tempest and Spit insta kill all the time.  As for the poor performance of the 50s sure you might not be able to shoot off a wing like before but I can't tell you how many times I get PKed by 50s.  Not to mention massive engine problems and fuel leaks to boot.   

Quote

 

 

Me neither and I dont understand why you are trying to say I want this to take place.

 

 

Wrong again. 410 just like the 110 were  not operational.

 

 

Me neither. Just want the factors to be applied evenly to both sides. If balance and gameplay is the only factor we are going to consider then so be it for both sides. If a historical factor is going to be applied then so be it .. again for both sides.

 

 

I agree and never said otherwise.

 

 

Im not at all discussing who is doing what and why people care about winning. You are missing my point and must be confusing my comments with someone elses.

 

 

Clearly you didnt.

Looks like we agree.  

Edited by Capt_Stubing
Link to post
Share on other sites
69th_Mobile_BBQ
19 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Eh, in the few times I’ve engaged aircraft with fifties since the patch it’s not that bad. Not what it was before but doable, but then I’m not an ace by any stretch so my experience is limited. At least my engine isn’t made of glass anymore.

 

The more I flying QMB single player, the more I see less and less results that seem feasible for the damage I should be dealing out with the .50s.  Granted, a lot of it seems right-on but, I still get a lot of Axis planes still flying and fighting long after they should have been disabled or outright dead.  

 

In MP, results all seem to be about server load with the current state of SP being the base line for results.   Berloga, with a handful of plane AI and no ground assets delivers plane kill results similar to SP.  WoL, with an "average" load setup gives a few results that would make one say "that's not right".  CB, with a load level that really does "push" winds up giving almost no love to right-on face-full-of-.50s convergence shots and other good shooting.  Meanwhile, The heavy rounds of Axis and MGs cause easy fires, 1-hit PKs and the occasional explosion. This is in addition to ground attacking giving little result for the effort.  I find it very odd since I have 36 ping to CB and I'm sure it's at least 4-6 times higher on WoL and Berloga. 

 

I want to make clear that I don't think it's a CB issue.  I think that the Netcode needs to be tuned for 2020 and the current complexity of product that 1c has created. 

I also think that poor flight modelling of the P-51 in addition to the poor modelling of a wide variety of Allied guns is something that 1c needs to address too.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
15 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

The more I flying QMB single player, the more I see less and less results that seem feasible for the damage I should be dealing out with the .50s.  Granted, a lot of it seems right-on but, I still get a lot of Axis planes still flying and fighting long after they should have been disabled or outright dead.  

 

In MP, results all seem to be about server load with the current state of SP being the base line for results.   Berloga, with a handful of plane AI and no ground assets delivers plane kill results similar to SP.  WoL, with an "average" load setup gives a few results that would make one say "that's not right".  CB, with a load level that really does "push" winds up giving almost no love to right-on face-full-of-.50s convergence shots and other good shooting.  Meanwhile, The heavy rounds of Axis and MGs cause easy fires, 1-hit PKs and the occasional explosion. This is in addition to ground attacking giving little result for the effort.  I find it very odd since I have 36 ping to CB and I'm sure it's at least 4-6 times higher on WoL and Berloga. 

 

I want to make clear that I don't think it's a CB issue.  I think that the Netcode needs to be tuned for 2020 and the current complexity of product that 1c has created. 

I also think that poor flight modelling of the P-51 in addition to the poor modelling of a wide variety of Allied guns is something that 1c needs to address too.  

 

 

 I have seen hits on enemy aircraft with my guns and then checked my logs later and found no hits. Checked video recording, confirmed impacts of my bullets in a wingtip or something. Never enough damage that I thought it would make a difference, maybe one or two hits. But possibly the netcode is dropping some hits from MGs if there are too many projectiles in the air, or showing it client side and not registering it server side, who the hell knows. With the fifties now doing less structural damage though those extra few hits can be clutch I guess. Not something easy to fix I imagine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
3 hours ago, Riksen said:

Nope. I would like to either have a historically based planeset applied to both sides OR a balanced planeset applied to both.

 

It's actually the expansions that we've been using that are subject to differing balance. Especially in the early days, CB had a population problem. We decided to base the number of Bodenplatte expansion planes on their real life availability but included a number planes from earlier packages that had a reasonable argument for their presence even if they weren't there IRL to make sure everyone that joined had something to play.

 

This means P-40s as stand-in Mustangs and yes, 110s as stand-in 410s. When Normandy arrives we'll be applying the same "strict historicity" to those planes and phasing out the extras from the Eastern Front. We can base their numbers on real life presence. When it comes to planes that weren't really there, we don't have such data to go on - but removing them altogether means excluding some of the playerbase from the server.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
vonduck

Sorry of this is a sill question, im new to combat box with the IL2 series...how do i get access to the discord domain for voice while flying? I have discord but not sure what i need to do?

Cheers folks

 

D

Link to post
Share on other sites
41Sqn_Riksen
1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

 

It's actually the expansions that we've been using that are subject to differing balance. Especially in the early days, CB had a population problem. We decided to base the number of Bodenplatte expansion planes on their real life availability but included a number planes from earlier packages that had a reasonable argument for their presence even if they weren't there IRL to make sure everyone that joined had something to play.

 

This means P-40s as stand-in Mustangs and yes, 110s as stand-in 410s. When Normandy arrives we'll be applying the same "strict historicity" to those planes and phasing out the extras from the Eastern Front. We can base their numbers on real life presence. When it comes to planes that weren't really there, we don't have such data to go on - but removing them altogether means excluding some of the playerbase from the server.

 

And I get that and like I said above Im all for having them in the mission but with some restrictions to, at least, give an impression that they were not as common as they are now. Dont get me wrong, I love the server and you guys know that ... I just want things to be applied evenly across the board to both sides.

 

Note: We do have data to support plane availability for some of these models like the Me-410 and Bf-110 (see my post a few pages back).

Edited by Riksen
Link to post
Share on other sites
StaB/Tomio_VR***

There is nothing shocking to see so many 110's which werent there because we would meet only 109/190's if not...

We miss some LW twin engined planes and this plane adds a lot in terms of variety of planes encountered

 

 

Speaking about that, i would like to see more 262 and i think there might be a way to see more

Of course everyone knows, this is a very particular aircraft so here is what i suggest in exchange of having it on every Rheinland map.

 

Restrict 262's to ground attack modification with

Bombs locked and 2 cannons only.

 

- Half Reduced Firepower gives a chance to any victim and is still very strong

- Reduced Speed gives a chance to any red fighter to catch it

 

As of now, getting a 262 on a full populated server is a nightmare as

You don't have really time to select loadouts like gyro gunsight or remove headrest if you want to get the plane...

 

As of now, they are unlocked by pair when there is more red flying and after some time in the mission

but this is useless if we have only a fighter-bomber version

so I suggest to make one available for each 10 LW aircraft which take off.

 

There is no four-engined bombers flying high in our sim, the natural target of 262 so let's say Hitler did use them  as he wanted : A Schnell bomber

 

There was twice more 262 produced than Tempest in WW2.

Of course, not all of them made it operationnal but they were used on a shorter timeframe (Autumn-44 till the end versus April-44 till the end for the Tempest).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
2 hours ago, vonduck said:

Sorry of this is a sill question, im new to combat box with the IL2 series...how do i get access to the discord domain for voice while flying? I have discord but not sure what i need to do?

Cheers folks

 

D

There is an invite link that you use to connect to the discord, then it will show up in your server lists. It’s available on the combat box.net website

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
2 hours ago, StaB./Tomio_VR*** said:

Restrict 262's to ground attack modification with

Bombs locked and 2 cannons only.

 

Cannot be done in current version

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bremspropeller
On 5/4/2020 at 10:23 PM, III./ZG15_Siggie said:

Hallo,
es nützt nichts, sich darüber aufzuregen, warum du die Karten nicht gewinnst.
Es ist besser, darüber nachzudenken, warum dies so ist.
Wir, die ZG15, fliegen normalerweise die Me110. Wir greifen Bodenziele an, um die Karte zu gewinnen.
Auf der anderen Seite gibt es meist nur Jäger in der Luft, die über unsere Ziele fliegen, um uns abzuschießen.
Aber eine Karte kann nur gewonnen werden, wenn die Bodenziele zerstört werden. Die meisten haben das noch nicht verstanden.
Dieses ewige Jammern über den Flugzeugtyp ist nutzlos, solange die Bodenziele nicht zerstört werden.

 

For those not understanding the germanic language:

They're flying 110s and wondering why red instead of jumping to fighters and looking for german bombers/ jabos, they never attack targets on their own.

 

 

Well, I can tell you that since the cal 50 has effectively dropped to an instant-effect of a squirt gun and nailing somebody down RIGHT HERE and NOW ("stopping power") is effectively impossibru, flying red fighters against axis airplanes that shoot back is relatively ineffective.

 

I have flown a twoship of Heinkels on the Crossing the Rhine map, and they ate through two or three red attackers. On the other side, I have had a twoship of Mustangs put out of the fight by a single-ship Heinkel, that continued to their target, popping red flares.

 

The Luftwaffe enjoys the advantage of being armed up with potato-guns in most fighter airframes which will eat through even a larger formation of bombers/ jabos in one pass.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Black-Witch
17 hours ago, Talon_ said:

Regarding balancing

 

Alonzo and I are in talks about making a host of pretty drastic changes to some of the maps. We're aiming to rebalance and also refresh, so some locations might move around a little. It will hopefully keep things fresh!

 

I've used the STEditor and I have nothing but awe and respect that you and Alonzo put so much work into providing so many maps on your server.

 

Regarding balance of available ground attackers (P-38 & Bf110) and how much ordnance they can carry, I'm guessing that must be reflected on the amount of damage they're expected to do against a certain amount of targets. Historically the LW, in the West, weren't doing anywhere near as much G/A as the Allies, they had the 8th USAAF to worry about much more than front-line support.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
StaB/Tomio_VR***
6 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Cannot be done in current version

 

i'm very surprised of this...

I guess you've tried personally right ?

 

Whatever, is it possible to see it on every rheinland map ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
23 minutes ago, StaB./Tomio_VR*** said:

Whatever, is it possible to see it on every rheinland map ?

 

Unlikely. We're analysing some poll data we took with a decent sample size from our Discord and it appears 40% of our playerbase think there are already too many Me-262s on the server, with 50% more thinking we have about the right number. That leaves only 10% who wish to see an increase.

 

 

Edited by Talon_
Link to post
Share on other sites
StaB/Tomio_VR***

I don't suggest to increase their number per map but to have them on more maps with the current conditions...

 

Unless of course if we can restrict them in fast bomber version only.

Speed of a bomber version is reduced by 75 to 150 km/h and with 2 cannons (160 rounds instead of 360), it is much less scary ;)

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

 

For those not understanding the germanic language:

They're flying 110s and wondering why red instead of jumping to fighters and looking for german bombers/ jabos, they never attack targets on their own.

 

 

Well, I can tell you that since the cal 50 has effectively dropped to an instant-effect of a squirt gun and nailing somebody down RIGHT HERE and NOW ("stopping power") is effectively impossibru, flying red fighters against axis airplanes that shoot back is relatively ineffective.

 

I have flown a twoship of Heinkels on the Crossing the Rhine map, and they ate through two or three red attackers. On the other side, I have had a twoship of Mustangs put out of the fight by a single-ship Heinkel, that continued to their target, popping red flares.

 

The Luftwaffe enjoys the advantage of being armed up with potato-guns in most fighter airframes which will eat through even a larger formation of bombers/ jabos in one pass.

 

 

Also the gunners are so broken it's a borderline exploit. Especially combined with crap ping.

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/596411/?tour=22

 

This gunner didn't land hit after hit. There were tracers anywhere other than my plane and then suddenly they all came in the post at once.

 

Luckily the new DM mean that I got home and shot down another clown wagon gunner armed aircraft, which didn't hit me at all. 

And no, my approach wasn't wrong, in fact, when the hits were landing, I'm pretty sure I was in a blind spot.

This isn't an Allied/Axis thing because of course the Allies have the a20 as well, and although its gunners are constrained by very small magazines, they're still capable of utter BS.

 

But it's worth pointing out I shot them both down with .50" cals, so it is possible, (111 caught fire, 110 must have lost elevator control) it's just very inconsistent.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon_
15 minutes ago, StaB./Tomio_VR*** said:

I don't suggest to increase their number per map but to have them on more maps with the current conditions...

 

Unless of course if we can restrict them in fast bomber version only.

Speed of a bomber version is reduced by 75 to 150 km/h and with 2 cannons (160 rounds instead of 360), it is much less scary ;)

 

The only changes we'll be making to Me262s - if we make any changes at all - is to reduce their number further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Faucon
34 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

it appears 40% of our playerbase think there are already too many Me-262s on the server

 

Wait. How the hell such a number of players can think this, when there can't be more than 2 262 in the air at the same time (may be more, but from what I see, it's very rare).

EDIT: and not on every maps

Edited by JG300_Faucon
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
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...