Jump to content

ACG_Vietkong

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About ACG_Vietkong

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "Until engagement was over." That isnt indicative of how long an engagement is. I haven't researched how long a typical engagement was, but i doubt longer than 10 min. When you have all those G to pull, after a few minutes of pull and strain you are looking to disengage. Furthermore, to take this into the context of this sim, in TAW(the hardcore server) , it is very rare that you have to fight longer than 5 minutes on WEP. Why? By then, either you won the engagement by shooting them down, the bandits dove away and you leave them be, or you are trying to dive away and escape or you are dead.
  2. Sure the timer may be unrealistic, But what isn't realistic is max performing your engine setting parameters 100% of the time WITHOUT looking at your instruments. By enforcing this server option to remove the chat, you look down at instruments occasionally and listen to engine sounds. Also i doubt real pilots pushed their aircraft in emergency settings as often as we do in the sim. This is why this feature is a good addition for SERVERS looking for HARDCORE REALISM. How many full hardcore realism servers are there?
  3. Well if that would be the case, you will do just fine in adapting, as you already do not conform to WoL,,😁
  4. Well your worries are completely unfounded. Even back in the hyperlobby days with il 2 1946, this option was available, and only ONE server of the mainstreams went full Hardcore Mode. Like I said only 2 will probably will adapt it. Furthermore, id guess other servers will open a poll to see if they enable it or not. The more flexibility in options, the better the sim, IMO.
  5. I really don't get what the problem is either. It's like if all of a sudden, their favourite servers will enable this option. In my mind there is only one server that will certainly do it and that's ACG. Possibly, a second being TAW, which the devs stated in a post that they would be interested in that. It is the only hardcore mainstream server that may implement that. Will Combat Box, WoL and KOTA enable this?Frack no. They'll lose their player base.
  6. I understand that. My point is this is Il2 is a flight sim and the vast majority are interested mainly in planes, not tanks and it would have been better to introduce the tanks into a air combat scenario, once you have a cohesive combination of the two aspects of warfare. AKA what Marshall will bring to the table. That will pique user's interest in trying it out and not be held back by that high price tag for tank commander by itself.
  7. I hope they will add a mod for the yak 9D version, increasing the fuel load, as this version was produced in the thousands(2-3 k i think), in contrast with the 459 units from yak 9 series 1. I know many pilots disliked that version and and intentionally sealed the added tanks in the wings and carried less fuel, but nevertheless, it would still impact performance with that extra weight. The yak 9T was a more popular plane and usually flown by flight leads in the regiments while the wingmen sported the the yak 9/yak9Ds. Yet there isn't really a scenario depicted currently in BoX where the yak 9T were used. Apparently in kuban in oct 1943, after the period in the career but I haven't seen any references. Then there is Kursk.... Well I think devs approached the scenario the wrong way. They should have made the prokhorovka map for air combat or air to ground combat and then include the tank commander aspect after. Not the other way around as they actually did. End Result, a miniscule map unsuited for large scale a2a, filled with glitches and FPS issues if you want to fly the ya9 T on it. Maybe Im just too much of a historical accuracy taliban.
  8. ??? First iterations of Yak9 were faster at 4k but slower on the deck . Had a tighter turn and climbed a bit better than the yak 1b, though marginally. He might have been refering to another yak 9 variant. All in all there isn't ba lot of difference between them and also I thought the armament was the same.
  9. ACG_Vietkong + BoN Thank you for your generosity! Unreal!
  10. No shit sherlock. Unless you force them. My previous post was about removing the +1on 110s. Now, I´d like to the LW to be forced to use the ju 87 from time to time, but with all the options its hard. So at least take away the +1...
  11. I don't give two shits about what the luftwaffe pilots decide to take after they lose their planes. I give a shit about both sides being somewhat equally punished for being sloppy. In this case, LW are not as they get a fast twin engine fighter-bomber at the start of each mission, regardless of they perform on their previous one... And in the later stages of campaign LW bombers have quite a few options to choose from...
  12. Has anyone experienced the invisible bug not only with planes, but with contrails? Its happened more than once, where i spot contrails 12 oclock high, in somewhat close range. No more than 8-10 km and my wingman can't see them. Then 30 sec later he spots them. And sometimes never spots them.
  13. First off, i congratulate all pilots and immensely thank the LG devs and everyone involved in making this server happen. This was my 3rd or 4th TAW campaign and it has been by far the most enjoyable, despite flying on the undermanned side. Mostly because this round on the english TS for red side, there were at least 6-8 pilots almost consistently on prime time, which made bombing/attack raids with fighter escort possible. I thank the GCA, FLAPs squads and all the other guys that made it happen. I believe this is how TAW should be played. That said, i do think some changes in planeset, mission design or a more active role from admins in assigning squads to teams for balance must be implemented. I agree with some of the planeset proposals voiced above, but the BIGGEST problem to me is why the BF 110 is a +1 recoverable plane throughout most of the campaign. It defeats any purpose of including the Stuka in the set, in the first place , and have a decent ground attacker at the start of every mission without worrying about losing it. It is like the luftwaffe is setup to have the fighter and bomber aircraft to fly and fight with little risk and high reward. The il 2 doesn't fair much better than the stuka when the FW come 'round. Furthermore, in comparison, the red fighter lagg 3 +1 aircraft has to fight +1 109 f4s...I also think removing that status for the 110 will offset some of the imbalances, forcing the erich hartmann wheraboos to come down from the stratosphere and enjoy a little risk to protect the Stukas from time to time, if they want to win the ground war. Anyways, just my thoughts and suggestions towards making TAW a bit more enjoyable. Again, thank you all and till next round folks!
×
×
  • Create New...