Jump to content
Alonzo

Combat Box by Red Flight

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CIA_Elanski said:

dang, i cant get on the server so I can't scratch the friggin' paint on a 190 with my .50s.  Is the server having probs or am I screwed after doing the update?

 

Don't forget i the argument about .50s that they work fine on most planes...just not some  hur hur hur  as has always been the case.

 

Never mind, i couldnt get into mitchells but i was able to join Paravane....time to scratch paint.

 

Sorry about that, there was some sort of glitch. We did a restart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

I believe I've provided real reasons in the past and in other posts and am tired of repeating it over, especially again to folks that don't understand physics. And it's not just about the .50BMG. It's also about the new 37mm in the Yak 9. I mean FFS here was a guy in another thread who claimed that in order for the projectile to be deflected at all, that the substrate had to first absorb ALL of the KE of the projectile. Lol. Hello, if the projectile has transfered 100% of its energy, then it is no longer moving.

 

@II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson

 

Don't sweat it buddy, the information and responses you and others have already provided is there for them on several threads  - if they wish to absorb it.

 

The fact that many pilots who fly both sides have conveyed that the .50 caliber is sufficient when trained correctly says enough.

 

Some people are just looking for answers by winding everyone else up.. rather than doing an in-depth self-examination or deep dive themselves.

 

The combination of net code issues, excessive rear fuselage strength to heavy hits (regarding many aircraft) and unrealistic expectations of the .50 calibre machine gun by some is a bit of a toxic mix at the moment. I think all of that is generalised though, and hardly specific to Combat Box server which seems very efficient as a setup really.

 

Cheers,

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ZOOM

Are we allowed to use a moded zoom to improve on the default ? if so which is recommended one taking into consideration all the recent patches ?

Share this post


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

 

@II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson

 

Don't sweat it buddy, the information and responses you and others have already provided is there for them on several threads  - if they wish to absorb it.

 

The fact that many pilots who fly both sides have conveyed that the .50 caliber is sufficient when trained correctly says enough.

 

Some people are just looking for answers by winding everyone else up.. rather than doing an in-depth self-examination or deep dive themselves.

 

The combination of net code issues, excessive rear fuselage strength to heavy hits (regarding many aircraft) and unrealistic expectations of the .50 calibre machine gun by some is a bit of a toxic mix at the moment. I think all of that is generalised though, and hardly specific to Combat Box server which seems very efficient as a setup really.

 

Cheers,

 

I also firmly believe that netcode issues have a massive impact on what people are seeing. I believe its part of the reason why I can smoke T34s all day with single passes in the Hs129 in SP but online sometimes it takes 5 or 6 passes. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Exactly. These folks don't realize this and are assuming that the last time I played on CB was under this name. I'm still not even entirely sure why they are SOOO adamant about looking at my stat page. Oh, I know why; they are going to see that I fly Axis only on CB and use that fact as their reasoning for why they think my comments regarding the lethal ability of .50BMG have no basis.

 

You misunderstand.

 

If I update my name to Talon2 today and fly on CB this evening, all my historical sorties will be displayed under "Talon2".

Share this post


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

 

You misunderstand.

 

If I update my name to Talon2 today and fly on CB this evening, all my historical sorties will be displayed under "Talon2".

 

No, I understand perfectly. These folks are searching hard for my stats on combat box using my current forum name but they won't find them because the last time I played on CB I was using a different name; so all my stats are displayed under that name. They have to know which name I played under last on that server to find my stat page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the mix of planes this server has at the moment. Yaks and Il2s need some seat time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

No, I understand perfectly. These folks are searching hard for my stats on combat box using my current forum name but they won't find them because the last time I played on CB I was using a different name; so all my stats are displayed under that name. They have to know which name I played under last on that server to find my stat page.

 

The data is out there somewhere and our researchers *will* find it!!!!  😁

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

The data is out there somewhere and our researchers *will* find it!!!!  😁

 

I don't know why people are so coy. My stats are all just dangling out there in the wind like nature intended.

Share this post


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

I don't know why people are so coy. My stats are all just dangling out there in the wind like nature intended.

 

Ewwwww nice imagery... from this day forth I'm going to envision you flying that P-47 wearing a kilt....

 

Coy means being mysterious and therefor desirable and a object of envy.  Us regular Joes are just easy pickin's, the IL2 equivalent of Mary Jane Rottencrotch back in high school.   We're like the first piece of bread... sure, everyone touches us, but no one wants us...  (sob!)  😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

Ewwwww nice imagery... from this day forth I'm going to envision you flying that P-47 wearing a kilt....

 

Coy means being mysterious and therefor desirable and a object of envy.  Us regular Joes are just easy pickin's, the IL2 equivalent of Mary Jane Rottencrotch back in high school.   We're like the first piece of bread... sure, everyone touches us, but no one wants us...  (sob!)  😄

I actually wear liederhosen in case I have to bail out over enemy territory and blend in with the locals.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for VR to come back on the competitive scene again. Hows the server population been holding up? Any other VR users in the same boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2020 at 2:36 AM, dog1 said:

Cannot spot or see the enemy planes attacking ground targets issues

 

When  intercepting enemy aircraft over airbases  defending with AAA i am unable to spot the attacking plane that is clearly attacking strafing targets on the base , the tracer is clear from both defending and attackers but i see no plane doing the shooting or even climbing later . My hardware is all default no tweaking . FPS 115 generally , lowest 90 FPS . i use track ir . Any tips would be appreciated . 

There is a bug with visibility . Plenty of talk over in the forums . Do a search . Your find some helpful tips . 

 

On 5/26/2020 at 2:13 PM, se-link said:

if the rule not allow attack aircraft on the ground, does that mean no levelbombing on airfield ?

Plenty of targets around the maps . No need to fly straight to a spawn point to too feel good . 

Use some skill . 

Talk to players . 

Use team tactics.

Enjoy the server . 

 

On 5/27/2020 at 3:19 AM, dog1 said:

ZOOM

Are we allowed to use a moded zoom to improve on the default ? if so which is recommended one taking into consideration all the recent patches ?

You can use Zoom . its not banned . Devs are working on a fix for poor visibility . 

In DCS you can now see targets upto 20-miles . Which is about right .  

I have not tried the new update yet . As i am upgrading and waiting for hardware to arrive . 

I have a bad time spotting also IPS - 32" - 1440p ar 2k res . 

 

On 5/25/2020 at 4:31 PM, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

 I think your just bullshiting just like your "competitive online flights that make you have a feeling" that no one has any record of you even playing the game.  

 

This one time I took a 109 and shot down 31 planes in one sortie and I had a feeling.  Lol. Now prove me wrong.  Lol. 

 

You are hilarious.  

 

I am having more fun with y'all two than I am playing m.y game.  

That's me hitting a 109.  I blew the wing right off with one round.  You can believe me cause I'm on the internet.  😁

m107-sniper-rifle-004.jpg

Is that YOU in the desert . That looks heavy how far did you carry that . . ?? 

Edited by ACG_KoN
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Still waiting for VR to come back on the competitive scene again. Hows the server population been holding up? Any other VR users in the same boat?

 

I can spot much better in 4.006 but have to get within a km to determine if it's a friendly or enemy. 

Share this post


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

Still waiting for VR to come back on the competitive scene again. Hows the server population been holding up? Any other VR users in the same boat?

I play in VR as much as possible, but yes spotting/ ID'ing is the worst aspect.

VR Zoom doesn't work as well as 2D zoom for me as it seems to mostly zoom the background, but not really a distant plane for some reason.

 

Been playing servers with labels recently just for the fun of dog figthing without the worry of who's where. The problem found is those servers get a lot of 'squad stomping' as a result of obvious visibility of a players vulnerable position to whole enemy team.

 

I wish they would find a better balance for plane visibility in VR, afterall, this is a game and lets face it realism has been stretched already for 2D where we've been given 'Zoom- eyes' at the press of a button! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ACG_KoN said:

 

Is that YOU in the desert . That looks heavy how far did you carry that . . ?? 

Na I didn't carry it out there.  I got my 3 year old daughter to carry it.  

 

She's a better shot than I am.  😉

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Na I didn't carry it out there.  I got my 3 year old daughter to carry it.  

 

She's a better shot than I am.  😉

Ah, the toddler years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, plenty of threads are getting derailed these days, I'd rather this one didn't.

  • VR discussion forum is here. We just run a server, we have no influence over the way the game works in VR. As an avid VR user I have some personal opinions but they're mine and not really related to Combat Box.
  • Damage model debates and "red is weaker!" "no, blue is weaker", "no, .50 cal sux!" aren't helpful here either. We determined that red's ability to ground attack took a bit of a nerf in the DM patch, and we've tried to adjust ground targets to compensate.

The most useful stuff for this thread is feedback that affects the server itself and the way we build missions. If you think it's too hard for one side to win or some planes are under-performing, let's have a discussion about mission balance and the things we could do to preserve people's ability to fly the planes but have a fairer matchup. Thread derails about .50 cal vs 30mm feel a lot like Reddit threads where people are going into hand-to-hand combat with each other rather than having constructive discussion.

 

I was surprised we got so little discussion of the pilot survey. Here's the link again. What do you think of the survey results? Anything surprising in there? Anything that we should take on board to change something about the way we build missions? (No promises, we take this as input, disclaimer disclaimer, etc etc).

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, it’s working for me now.

 

Not too surprised by what’s in there since I like the early/mid war stuff too. Also,  more of a fan of the semi-historical/historical stuff. Good missions all around though. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Folks, plenty of threads are getting derailed these days, I'd rather this one didn't.

  • VR discussion forum is here. We just run a server, we have no influence over the way the game works in VR. As an avid VR user I have some personal opinions but they're mine and not really related to Combat Box.
  • Damage model debates and "red is weaker!" "no, blue is weaker", "no, .50 cal sux!" aren't helpful here either. We determined that red's ability to ground attack took a bit of a nerf in the DM patch, and we've tried to adjust ground targets to compensate.

The most useful stuff for this thread is feedback that affects the server itself and the way we build missions. If you think it's too hard for one side to win or some planes are under-performing, let's have a discussion about mission balance and the things we could do to preserve people's ability to fly the planes but have a fairer matchup. Thread derails about .50 cal vs 30mm feel a lot like Reddit threads where people are going into hand-to-hand combat with each other rather than having constructive discussion.

 

I was surprised we got so little discussion of the pilot survey. Here's the link again. What do you think of the survey results? Anything surprising in there? Anything that we should take on board to change something about the way we build missions? (No promises, we take this as input, disclaimer disclaimer, etc etc).

I will say that when I looked at the data that it was broadly in line with my own feelings on the server. And largely positive in terms of the direction things are going. There appears to be broad agreement on the numbers of available planes - only a small subset of respondents seem to think there are way too many or way too few of most of the aircraft - I thought we'd see much more unhappiness there but it seems like there are relatively few people who want a LOT more of the uber-planes. And most of the mission mechanics have an overwhelming proportion of "I like this" and "I love this". So a lot of the feedback looks to me to be "more of the same, please". This is the kind of feedback that is gratifying but also frustrating because there are few obvious avenues for improvement.

The voice comms I found surprising. From the math it looks like 85% of players use voice comms. BUT only about 27% use the CB discord. If these numbers are representative then the vast majority of players are on voice comms, but a casual perusal of the CB discord shows that often nobody is on voice. Clearly any squads operating  are more often than not using their own discord or Teamspeak channels. However, even then the numbers seem pretty high. I suspect that people using voice chat are over-represented in the forums/discord and therefore also the survey.

64% of the respondents rated early or mid-war match ups are at least somewhat important to them.  I know this is a bit of a dillemma for the server since it has envisioned being a late war themed place to ensure that players attracted to the sim by the western aircraft. So an early war map, with MiGs, 109Fs, I-16s and Il-2s makes it impossible to play for people with only the late war module. But if you include the late-war superplanes there is no way in hell for the early planes to compete. Some of the collector planes sort of bridge the gap with the G-6, 190A-5, La-5FN and now the Yak-9, but lots of people don't get the collector planes so filling in the plane sets like that in an MP server is problematic.

What I think could work would be mid-war Kuban plane sets, with the Spit IX, P-47, 109G-14 and 190A-8 available in more limited quantities, along with the highest performing mid-war planes from Kuban and the collector planes. The Spit-IX and P-47 especially are in many ways 1943 aircraft, and the 190A-8 is in some ways a less effective fighter than the A-3 and A-5. The 1942-43 planes would be outclassed a bit but not by an order of magnitude like the Tempest or K-4 would do. For better balance and to encourage use of the earlier war attackers, you could restrict bomb loads on the fighter-bombers, though it has to be said that with the bomb DM now the huge loadouts of the P-38 and P-47 are not the world-beaters they once were. The new DM rewards precision and more ordnance, not heavier ordnance.

One thing missing, I think, from the survey was an idea of what modules and collector planes people owned. Making the choice to have a few early war maps might be easier to decide if we found out what percentage of the player base owns Battle of Moscow or Battle of Stalingrad. If a sizable chunk of players ONLY own Bodenplatte then you have your work cut out for you. But if 90% of people own all the modules or almost all of them, then early war maps become more viable. There's been a lot of frankly incredible sales lately and I suspect a lot of people who were attracted by Bodenplatte and were hooked by the sim took advantage of the sales to fill in their inventory. Of course suspicions are not data, even on a flight sim forum.

Before I got BoBP I flew a lot of Yak-7 and P-39L sorties and it was not impossible to be successful against the early releases of the Bodenplatte aircraft. Hell I get shot down by guys in A-5s and G-6s all the time. Ok, maybe I'm not the best example but still!

Overall I think the biggest problem with the survey is the small sample size compared to the player base as a whole. CB seems to fluctuate between 3500-4000 unique players a month but the survey had only 100 respondents. Not something you can control, unfortunately. Probably what you are getting are the most committed and enthusiastic players responding to the survey, as evidenced by the lion's share of people stating they fly at least a few times a week, and a large proportion flying every day. I think this accounts for the very high proportion of people using voice comms (the percentage of people using some kind of voice comms is almost the same percentage of people who fly at least a  few times weekly). 

Of course this is the issue with polls, unless you can force a census of all players on the server you are always looking at a sample, and a self-selected one at that, there's no real way around it. Still, as long as we know what bias might be present in the sample we can weigh the information accordingly. The good thing about sampling from the more frequent players is you get input  from people who understand well the state of the game and the server, and who most importantly have some idea of the limitations you have to deal with when they give feedback.
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I personally think that it's only worth doing early or mid war maps if you take the hit on the fact that some people are not going to have the right planes to fly. A server's never really done a eastern front map which has not been compromised by having a load of unnecessary planes for the sake of participation, which has made the map a bit of a safari.

I know some people like that but there's plenty of places to get that rather than make CB another WoL clone.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a mission with limited numbers of some Botenplate planes but a majority of earlier planes could work well. The higher end planes could be managed in a similar way to how they are in other missions. Put an objective on the map who's destruction will limit or prevent the use of them. I really like the way this kind of objective is handled in other missions. It gives things a dynamic feel in the way other targets just don't. Taking down one of these targets has an immediate effect on the flow of the mission from that point forward, rather than somewhat unceremoniously checking off a line on a 'how to win mission list.' It makes it feel a little bit more like a real mission where objectives have a purpose.

 

An example of this kind of mission, in the broad strokes, could be: Kuban setting. Planes ranging from the more competent Stalingrad stuff up through the Kuban pack for the main stays of both sides. Then you have a target for each side that trickles in some of the lower end Botenplate planes until it is destroyed. Say a ship convoy or something like that. Now we have something worth fighting over. There are stakes associated with a target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll go earlier when Normandy arrives guys don't worry 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I think a mission with limited numbers of some Botenplate planes but a majority of earlier planes could work well. The higher end planes could be managed in a similar way to how they are in other missions. Put an objective on the map who's destruction will limit or prevent the use of them. I really like the way this kind of objective is handled in other missions. It gives things a dynamic feel in the way other targets just don't. Taking down one of these targets has an immediate effect on the flow of the mission from that point forward, rather than somewhat unceremoniously checking off a line on a 'how to win mission list.' It makes it feel a little bit more like a real mission where objectives have a purpose.

 

An example of this kind of mission, in the broad strokes, could be: Kuban setting. Planes ranging from the more competent Stalingrad stuff up through the Kuban pack for the main stays of both sides. Then you have a target for each side that trickles in some of the lower end Botenplate planes until it is destroyed. Say a ship convoy or something like that. Now we have something worth fighting over. There are stakes associated with a target.

Yeah, like a lend-lease shipment coming in carrying late war fighters to the eastern front. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I personally think that it's only worth doing early or mid war maps if you take the hit on the fact that some people are not going to have the right planes to fly.

 

I voted  for mid war maps in CB I thinking not on east front but missions in west front with Typhoons, Hurricanes, Spits, eraly P47 and P51 etc (Dieppe, Donnerkeil Operation, etc...)....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've pushed some experimental changes to Rhineland Campaign and Battle of the Scheldt.

 

Both these maps feature the following:

 - Allied air bases are split into USAF and RAF bases, with airplanes exclusive to each field type. Total number of planes of each type on the map remains the same, they are distributed to different fields. In some cases we have opened a new field to help distribute planes more evenly across the map.


 - Almost all non-frontline airfields have Repair, Refuel, Rearm which is activated by flying near the field. Look for the yellow smoke. Basically if you can nurse your bird to a friendly field, you should be able to get a repair done. Some fields don't have RRR if they are too close to the front line, but most (on these two maps) now do.

 

These changes are a bit of an experiment for us. Please let us know how Rhineland Campaign and Battle of the Scheldt play out for you now and over the weekend.

 

Note: RRR is also active at spawn fields.

 

Tactical consideration: in this system RAF planes can only end sorties on RAF bases, USAAF planes can only end sorties on USAAF bases - but both RAF and USAAF can rearm and refuel at RRR bases.

This includes spawn bases, so e.g. an RAF sortie can land at a USAAF spawn base, RRR there then take off and continue on to their home base and vice versa.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

By flying near the field? So you don’t even have to land? Ruh roh.

Edited by MatthiasAlpha

Share this post


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

We just run a server, we have no influence over the way the game works in VR.

@Alonzo Not quite true as server admins have the ability to enable or disable labels, which can be a huge benefit to VR players. That was the point I was trying to make. 

 

Edited by Nake350

Share this post


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

Tactical consideration: in this system RAF planes can only end sorties on RAF bases, USAAF planes can only end sorties on USAAF bases - but both RAF and USAAF can rearm and refuel at RRR bases.

This includes spawn bases, so e.g. an RAF sortie can land at a USAAF spawn base, RRR there then take off and continue on to their home base and vice versa.

 

So if you takeoff from an RAF base and land at a US base and end your sortie, does it go down as a crash landing?  Or just lose the aircraft spawn?

 

With regard to survey results, it's clear that a lot of players enjoy Mitchell's Men and the high altitude combat aspect it presents.  Would it be possible to make some additional variations on that map set at different times?  It would be neat to end up with a July/August 1944 version focusing on early Mustangs and Thunderbolts along with some incentive to use the 410 once the Normandy aircraft arrive.  Right now we could do more of a Sep/Oct/Nov 1944 variation (G14/A8 focused or exclusive).  Having some variations with different tactical conditions might help to keep this one fresh for players.

 

Given the low popularity of Frantic, it might be a candidate for some adjustments.  I've always thought that one would be better if it had a "strategic bomber" element like Mitchell's Men (and like the real Frantic missions).  Have the bombers pop up early in the mission on the west side, bomb and land on Russian fields to the east.  Give the allies a limited air spawn for P-51 and P-38 escorts, with the number of escorts landing at Russian fields determining how many of these are available for the rest of the mission.  After the bombers and US fighters land, make a limited number of US fighter spawns available.  Then run a second East-West bomber mission with 51 and 38 spawns opened up from the Russian bases as the map is coming to a close (last 45 minutes or so).  Depending on the how the US fighter numbers were managed this could make for some interesting gameplay where these need to be husbanded for the later escort mission - or maybe just burn them all up in tactical fighting mid map.

 

One other map idea addresses the general hatred for the 262.  Build a map based around the heavy US effort against German jet airfields in March 1945.  Only have AI 262s, taking off and landing from time to time (just have them fly to and from the edge of the map or something to go attack a fictitious bomber formation, or fly a predetermined route over the front lines as a tac/recon sortie), with the allied forces tasked with killing these AI fighters and strafing the airfields.  Keep the jet airfields totally separate from German spawn airfields to avoid any vulching of players.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, MatthiasAlpha said:

By flying near the field? So you don’t even have to land? Ruh roh.

 

The system is activated. Yellow smoke animates and a little fuel tanker drives over to the area you need to taxi to 😅

 

To clarify, you absolutely need to land to use RRR.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Nake350 said:

@Alonzo Not quite true as server admins have the ability to enable or disable labels, which can be a huge benefit to VR players. That was the point I was trying to make. 

 

 

Did you know every one of the 6 Combat Box admins flies exclusively in VR? 😉

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also an option, possibly, is air starts for medium bombers to entice people into a level bomber role. Bombing from even just a medium height is almost never done online due to the time it takes to carry  a nominal load that high. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Did you know every one of the 6 Combat Box admins flies exclusively in VR? 😉

No I didn't; amazing experience isn't it!  😉

Great server btw.

 

Share this post


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

So if you takeoff from an RAF base and land at a US base and end your sortie, does it go down as a crash landing?  Or just lose the aircraft spawn?

 

With regard to survey results, it's clear that a lot of players enjoy Mitchell's Men and the high altitude combat aspect it presents.  Would it be possible to make some additional variations on that map set at different times?  It would be neat to end up with a July/August 1944 version focusing on early Mustangs and Thunderbolts along with some incentive to use the 410 once the Normandy aircraft arrive.  Right now we could do more of a Sep/Oct/Nov 1944 variation (G14/A8 focused or exclusive).  Having some variations with different tactical conditions might help to keep this one fresh for players.

 

Given the low popularity of Frantic, it might be a candidate for some adjustments.  I've always thought that one would be better if it had a "strategic bomber" element like Mitchell's Men (and like the real Frantic missions).  Have the bombers pop up early in the mission on the west side, bomb and land on Russian fields to the east.  Give the allies a limited air spawn for P-51 and P-38 escorts, with the number of escorts landing at Russian fields determining how many of these are available for the rest of the mission.  After the bombers and US fighters land, make a limited number of US fighter spawns available.  Then run a second East-West bomber mission with 51 and 38 spawns opened up from the Russian bases as the map is coming to a close (last 45 minutes or so).  Depending on the how the US fighter numbers were managed this could make for some interesting gameplay where these need to be husbanded for the later escort mission - or maybe just burn them all up in tactical fighting mid map.

 

One other map idea addresses the general hatred for the 262.  Build a map based around the heavy US effort against German jet airfields in March 1945.  Only have AI 262s, taking off and landing from time to time (just have them fly to and from the edge of the map or something to go attack a fictitious bomber formation, or fly a predetermined route over the front lines as a tac/recon sortie), with the allied forces tasked with killing these AI fighters and strafing the airfields.  Keep the jet airfields totally separate from German spawn airfields to avoid any vulching of players.

 

 

If you end sortie at an airfield that doesn't supply your aircraft type, it's a good finish to the sortie ('landed', not ditched) but the plane will be 'lost' from the pool.

 

For high altitude stuff, we like it a lot and want to find more excuses for it to happen. If you have ideas (and even map layout sketches) we love receiving those ideas. I've been trying to figure out a way to "swap the sides" on the bombers and have high altitude German bombers, but in 44 and 45 apparently there was very little strategic bombing by the Luftwaffe. Your idea about the 262s is really interesting. What if we had high altitude Ai 262s as well as some lower at air bases? The Allies could need to "kill 30 Me-262 bombers" or something, and the 262s, if they get through, could bomb Allied targets and make their side's ground offensive easier.

 

Your Frantic suggestions are interesting too. I think the main reason the map scored lower is simply fewer people have played it, it's not in our rotation much and it's on an nondescript part of the Moscow map, difficult to navigate. I actually quite like it as a map but it's certainly an older one. I'm going to copy your suggestions into my notes if and when we do a Frantic revamp.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I like flying with no chat or techno chat. If I do that on this server, will I still get mission notifications such as radar sightings on enemy planes etc? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 334th_WelshWarrior said:

Hi guys, I like flying with no chat or techno chat. If I do that on this server, will I still get mission notifications such as radar sightings on enemy planes etc? 

The server notifiations are linked to the 'HUD' -  the same thing that controls the appearance of the server chat. So you can fly with the technochat completely disabled in your options and you won't see messages from tech chat about your plane, but the chat from other players, kill notifications, that sort of thing, is all part of the same HUD overlay as the server notifications, so if you turn that off you will not see those.

 

 

Share this post


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

The server notifiations are linked to the 'HUD' -  the same thing that controls the appearance of the server chat. So you can fly with the technochat completely disabled in your options and you won't see messages from tech chat about your plane, but the chat from other players, kill notifications, that sort of thing, is all part of the same HUD overlay as the server notifications, so if you turn that off you will not see those.

 

 

Okay thank you.

Share this post


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

For high altitude stuff, we like it a lot and want to find more excuses for it to happen. If you have ideas (and even map layout sketches) we love receiving those ideas. I've been trying to figure out a way to "swap the sides" on the bombers and have high altitude German bombers, but in 44 and 45 apparently there was very little strategic bombing by the Luftwaffe. Your idea about the 262s is really interesting. What if we had high altitude Ai 262s as well as some lower at air bases? The Allies could need to "kill 30 Me-262 bombers" or something, and the 262s, if they get through, could bomb Allied targets and make their side's ground offensive easier.

 

I suppose you could have them take off in a pair and go bomb something and come back.  I know that 262s were used for bombing and recon to some extent, but a lot of that transitioned to the AR-234 in 1945.  The Ludendorff bridge at Remagen was a popular target and a number of 234s were encountered there.  You could build the map with 262s and later turn it into a mix of 262s and 234s. 

 

The 8th AF went after known jet bases on March 21st, with B-17s and B-24s bombing Hesepe, Achmer, Hopsten and Rheine.  The escorts then went down and strafed the airfields, destroying a number of various aircraft on the ground.

 

There was also a spate of aggressive strafing missions by 8th AF fighters in April of 45 as the Luftwaffe ran out of fuel and pilots that resulted in huge ground claims.  88 ground claims on April 9th largely in the Munich area.  328 ground claims on April 10th around Berlin.  265 ground claims on April 13th in the Schleswig region by Eggebek and Flensburg.    743 ground claims on April 16th near Munich and Prague!  And finally another 269 ground claims on April 17th around Dresden and Prague. 

 

Obviously all those target areas are off the map, but you could capture some of that in the jet mission by filling the jet airbases with a variety of planes to strafe.  That would make for a unique mission - Blue AI jet bombers that need some escort to various bridge type targets with Red trying to down the jets, as well as attacking the jet fields, primarily by strafing.

Edited by KW_1979

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I increased my internet speed just to be able to play online. Before it was perfect, but the pandemic drop my connection to only 40% of what it was before.

Any chance to make the ping limit bigger?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am having a lot of trouble with the ping. I am geting kicked all the time because ping limit. This happens to me since a week ago. Before it was perfect. I can increase my internet speed but I dont know if is related with the trouble because I was monitoring my ping when kicked and was stable arround 135ms. Maybe to increase ping limit will solve my problem I dont know.

 

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...