Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Norz

  1. 21 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

    It is ridiculous to read, with what great efforts the Air Force overcame such a formidable and powerful enemy and with what tension they pulled out victory at the last moment


    Did this person visit the server "Berloga" at once? Just curious.


    I can bet: this player is one of them who said that 109g2 is better than 109f4.



    • Haha 1

  2. 1 minute ago, Operation_Ivy said:

    But the bottom line is, do you think that the yak being +1 would make vvs more attractive to the point that it would significantly change anything? I really don't think so.


    I think that the red players will use it instead of Lagg3. That is enough. Small changes, only next campaign will show, does it change something or not.

  3. 4 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

    Well i am concerned about the general balance of the campaign so we aren't really on the same page.


    Considering your problem, i don't think it is possible to change it. Axis is simply more popular than vvs. We already have a mechanic in place that limits the amount of numerical superiority. Which is by the way, not well liked by a lot of players. Do you have a suggestion that would make vvs more popular? keep in mind TAW is supposed to have a semi historical planeset.



    Ok, can you explain me, map No5. Why is it so important to use Lagg3 as the +1 plane instead of Yak1? Where is the problem here?


    Do you insist that the plane Yak1 is equal 109F4? Can we compare Lagg3 with 109F4?


    Answer 1 : no

    Answer 2 : no


    Solution: the best plane of these 2 should be +1 plane.

  4. 7 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

    First of all, if you want to play statistics, you have to go deeper than that. While this is in indication, it does not necessarily mean anything in terms of significance for the campaign.


    Secondly, 15% difference is not the real problem. The problem are player spikes in low player number scenarios, especially when combined with a timeframe over several missions. Can we agree on that?


    It is problem for me, on my hours:


    1. I do not like to play on the axis side when we have +15%.

    2. I do not like to play on the red side on these planes when we have -15%.


    My experience on TAW says that it is the same issue every time. But last 12 months it is better than before. True.


    For me it is not important who will win. Last campaign we lost (Axis), did I ask to change something? Yes, I asked to change the red plane set. Are you happy to destroy Yak1 again and again (or Lagg3) almost the whole campaign (With 109F4, 109G2, 190A3)? I am not.

  5. 8 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

    Maybe it is not possible technically to increase the map duration significantly but maybe there is a workaround for it. Our current problem is that targets die too quickly in hours where there are only very few players online. Maybe it is possible to "slow" the gameflow down by either making the missions longer or the targets tougher?


    It would help a lot if during a player spike they could only significantly influence one missions instead of being able to roll half the map or more.



    Once more. Do we have +15% on the red side? No. How to fix it? Small changes. Did I ask something that will change the ratio more than for 5%?

  6. 1 hour ago, WokeUpDead said:


    I'd love to see a stat that shows total hours flown per side, per map. I did it once for a map in a previous campaign; it was very interesting but my semi-manual method to put it together was too much work.


    Check the attachment. Here is the list of the players in the missions (Mission 1, 2, ...514)






    Flight Time

    Flight Time (Minutes)





    TAW Pilots.zip



    3 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:


    Checking statistic page, there really isn't any imbalance in terms of flight hours that would really support that. I am not downplaying your contribution but we also had certain people on Blue side who were playing a lot this campaign.




    Axis team, minutes Allied team, minutes Diff %


    844125 722450 15%



  7. 7 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

    If its your loss, its always the system (we were outnumbered, we did not have the fighters the map was terrible etc). If its your victory, it must be the effort of your fighters and the suckiness of the opponents :) I like that logic.


    What is about the last east campaign? (03.2020..05.2020). Can you explain why the axis team didn't win?



  8. 3 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:


    He is not wrong. Buildings on depo can be destroyed by rockets and 30 mm cannons, we have checked it.


    He mentioned IL2. 


    1.  2x23mm will not take 14..16 buildings.

    2.  2x37 will not take 14..16 buildings.

  9. 7 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

     I didn't notice any difference, you have any data on it?



    The bombsight is stable too late at this attitude (6k, 7k after a small turn). That is the reason why I didn't use it at 6k anymore (Pe2). In 2019 it was enough to drop the bombs in few meters to destroy the hangar.

  10. 10 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

    Lotfe IS way better bombsight, yes, as it's gyrostabilised and allows slight changes in course on approach to be made gently, while Peshka/A20 bombsight requires more care while starting bomb run and takes a second to set after turn, but other than that they work pretty much the same - we don't use the "automatic" mode of german sights at all.


    2 videos for the same target (the same attitude 7k) on Pe2 and Ju88 can tell more than words. As I said... you are not only the person who did it before.


    We started it with bomb/damage model. My words: Pe2 is not so effective as Ju88 because


    1. at 6..7k you see not damaged hangars too late (Pe2).

    2. Only few meters left and a hangar still alive. Depends of the No.1 it makes it not so effective as it was 8..12 months before.

  11. 6 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:


    We've been doing that - as I said, it only takes patience to climb to that altitude, and carefull planning of route. Really, the one and only difference is that you set different altitude in bombsight.


    Did I say that it is not possible? The idea was to show the difference how it looks like in Ju88 and Pe2 at 7k (in bombsight). 

  12. 3 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

    depo/AF were quite common. It only takes practice and patience - there is no black magic behind bombsight, and there really is no difference between dropping from 2k and 8k 


    Please make some video how you will attack the depot at 7k (Pe2). 

    P.S. I know good enough how it works. 

  13. 15 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

    This would significantly improve the pilot's survival rate on the blue side...

    The expert said... 

    My answer: wrong.

    15 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

    P.S. The red side was boring because of how trivial it was to ground pound in IL2/Pe2.


    I see. Can you explain where is the difference how to attack (not alone) ground targets with 110 <> Il2/Pe2.

  14. 7 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

    He isn't wrong though. Reds victory while in "apparent" minority and "unbalanced" fighter lineup, followed by further suggestions to buff the red lineup. And any time reds lost a map the amount of whining on the forums was quite unprecedented.


    I'd honestly rather remove the inter-campaign META of working to buff "your side" as much as possible.


    Please note where I asked once to buff the axis side. 


    P.S: Anyway, you can try to play next time the red side. As I can remember, your words: it is boring.

  15. 18 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

    Every red player here told us it is unbalanced and they have a really hard time being outnumbered...while winning. So i guess people tried to "even" it out for you guys ;)


    Can you explain your point..?


    Norz (axis team) Posted April 13:

    Sad to say...But seems that the last update ruined the balance for the fighters. Maybe i am wrong, will test on the WOL server.

  16. Dear Kathon, 

    better is not to change a mechanic how it works.


    The last campaign ended in 7 weeks and it is almost optimal (1 map=1 week). I find it more important to make it much easier for players to play instead to suffer.


    My suggestions:


    1. Small changes in planes.


    a) Map No4, Map No5 Map No6 Lagg3 should be available with 23mm for all cases.

    b) Map No5 Yak1 is +1 plane.

    c) Map No6 Yak7b is +1 plane.

    d) Map No7 La5F should be added. Only 1 Yak7b instead of 2Yak7b

    e) Map No7 La5F should be added. Only 1 Yak7b instead of 2Yak7b

    f) Map 3, 4 Mc202 20mm is allowed.




    2. Lock some features on 109F4 for the map No3. (Head armor always on). 


    3. The airfield should be repaired much quicker if the team played with a bad ratio. (x hours/y hours * basic repair).


    4. The tank column should be re-suppled  much quicker if the team played with the bad ratio. (x hours/y hours * basic resupple).


    P.S. See you all next campaign. I hope that next time we will see more red players.

    P.S.S.2 Can someone parse the whole html pages to provide me the raw data? I want to make some small analyses to see if the ratio was so bad as I think.






    • Haha 4
    • Upvote 2

  17. 2 hours ago, JG4_Karl_Gratz said:

    I am missing the blue whining about balancing!


    JG4_Karl_Gratz, as you know I play both sides.


    Do you need some facts that it balanced wrong way? I know, it is not about the balance (this server), but everyone knows that 3,4,5,6 maps are just a nightmare for the reds.

    • Upvote 2
  • Create New...