Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Excellent

About JG7_X-Man

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The (...not so) United States of America
  • Interests
    A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the experience is worth far more than a thousand pictures.

Recent Profile Visitors

969 profile views
  1. JG7_X-Man

    1966 carrier ops

    Thank you for your service! The only ship I was ever on was the USS San Bernardino (LST-1189) for a short hope b/w Subic Bay and Okinawa (with a 4 day stop in Hong Kong) OMG! flat bottoms are the worst!
  2. JG7_X-Man

    1946 BAT BoB

    Haha! Reinstalling this totally! Thanks for the reminder!
  3. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    Note: I said there are would be options: 1 Fighter Line 2 Bomber Line Fighter Line (Blue) 1. Bf 109 2. Fw 190 4. Mc 202 3. Mix Fighter Line (Red) 1. LaGG 2. Yak 3. Lend Lease (per Riksen) 4. Mix
  4. Placing an order as we speak! Going with the VPC MongoosT-50CM2 Grip paired with the VPC WarBRD Base (I don't do space sims so not getting the CosmoSim Cams). My MS FF2 was a great stick - but I think it's dying (...moment of silence please). She brought me tons of hours of both joy and anguish - exactly like my wife and I love them both dearly! --- Update: I put a hold on this purchase. Apparently, Vipril wants a bank transfer because it's a per-order item LOL (yeah - I am going to go ahead and say hell no to that). 90+ days minimum shipping date i.e June LOL!
  5. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    How about this idea, For a give fighter unit, they usually stuck with a single manufacturer - less training time when it came time to upgrade. JG52 flew only messerschmitts. Until the late war when they converted to Fw 190D-9s. 3 Gv. IAP flew only Lavochkins. So if I were given 8 fighters at my disposal, I can choose between what make I want i.e. Bf 109 or Fw 190 or both even (...not model because an Bf 109F-4 in 1944 is just stupid. Not to say I wouldn't want one, but that is a different discussion). Giving someone access to 2/2 of an aircraft they won't fly/own is really a waste. I will not buy the MC.202 so having 1 isn't important to me let alone 2. Giving us have the ability to select our own aircraft set would be great - but that also requires programming which takes time effort.
  6. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    Because =LG= is flying RED this campaign?
  7. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    Question: With the A-20 in circulation, why isn't the 20MM x2 Gun Pods not available?
  8. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    Because in real life, your kill would not have been reported Herr Riksen. The XO would have asked you and your wingman "Did you see the plane crash?", and your response would have been, "No! I saw a wing fly off." I have ejected my canopy before to throw someone off my tail. You can fly RED any time you want.
  9. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    I disagree - most of the kills in TAW are usually team work driven (be it planned or by chance). Rarely do planes meet and fight 1 vs 1 until there is a victor. What usually happens is someone spots tracers for 5km away and joins on the fight. Based on CSW_Hot_Dog's logic, If it were an F-4 vs LaGG-3/5 battle, the LaGG should already be in a defensive position by the time another LaGG pilot in the area spots the F-4's tracers. So it's your notion that even though the fight is a now 2 vs 1 engagement, whichever LaGG pilot ends up bringing down the F-4 should get 90 points? However, if the F-4 were to pull off a miracle and shot down both LaGGs (...assuming no one else joins the battle), the pilot will only get 80 points?
  10. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    Economics 101, Supply and Demand will always be there, the issue is % of disequilibrium. For our conversion - there will always someone to fly Axis or Allied in an online campaign, the question is - the % of balance.
  11. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    So you are saying 1. It's not the developers fault, it's the fact that no one wants to fly crappy early VVS aircraft is the cause of the TAW lopsidedness ? 2. You disagree with me that it has nothing to do with the Battle titles - thus if this were the Battle of Britain, the Allied side would have the same issues? I politely disagree with you. Everything else you said - isn't feasible because the admin isn't limiting numbers to simulate history, nor should they. If you want to fly RED - that's your choice, in as much as it's my choice not to.
  12. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    I went back and reviewed posts about in balance in TAW and it seems it's been happening for almost as long as TAW started. Actually - that was only 1 TAW campaign were RED outnumbered BLUE - and that was the last campaign. I have said this over and over again - blame 1C & 777 and not TAW admin It is easy to say RED side is always the underdog because no one like to fly RED. My answer is - who's fault is that? It's not TAWs admins. Also, it's definitely not the players for making a choice on what side they fly for.. The reason less people like to fly RED (VVS aircraft) is just personal preference. The beauty of being in Finance and Statistics is you see number patterns, then you start to understand what the patterns are telling you. The pattern I see is that more people would rather fly for the BLUE side than RED side. Let's put this in not so politically correct terms: More people are interested in virtually flying German built WWII aircraft (...not going to count the 1 Italian plane) than virtually flying Russian built WWII aircraft. For what reason - who knows really... This is not a knock on Russian aircraft - it's just personal preference of the broader scope i.e. the general public that flies TAW. The reason I blame 1C and 777 studios is because they came up with the idea of making this game Russia vs Germany/Italy. Imagine what would have happen if they had went with Pacific Theater WWII? I think it would be hard pressed to have enough people flying for the Japanese side for a campaign at all (then again, I might be wrong - I would not have bought the game anyway). However, what I know for sure is TAW admin are trying their best to make it more exciting for us to play (...I like the faster supply of aircraft idea personally ). Since the idea of server balancing on the back end is out, we are going to have to contend with the lopsided numbers. It is my opinion that a mixture of RAF, USAAF/USN and VVS (RED) verses Luftwaffe, IJN/IJA and Italian Air Force (BLUE) would have given everyone more choices and better overall campaign enjoyment. Just my two cents.
  13. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    Can someone help me understand what happened here: https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=50918&name=JG7_X-Man Thanks
  14. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    LOL with a call sign like that - I'd definitely keep that guy off my six!
  15. JG7_X-Man

    Tactical Air War

    During the IL-2 Sturmovik through IL-2 1946 days (2001 - 2006) We were taking part in online campaigns like Bellum War, VEF I & II, Czech War, SEOW, VoW etc... I don't recall ever having issues with imbalance, however - this may have been due to the format. Co-op host downloads mission, pilots join both sides until all slots are/close to full and mission is launched. With a dogfight format - we have to face it, without forced side balancing, there will always be lopsided times within a 24 hr period. The format inherently allows pilots to come and go as they please and chose whatever side they want. It is not anyone's (...we the players) duty to perform server balancing for the admin IMHO. Reason, if they wanted the sides to be balanced - they would have been implemented it.