Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

124 Excellent

About II./JG1_Pragr

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Budweis, Czech Republic

Recent Profile Visitors

576 profile views
  1. Can someone explain me how the capture system and ditching plane works? Today I was captured after landing in sector 1627 (right in town Defanovka) which at that time was about 20 km in friendly territory. Is it really possible to be captured even when I land on friendly ground?
  2. I'm curious about the VYa/gunpods as well. What's the hell is so hard on understanding that while gunpods are trade off load providing higher fire power at the cost of significantly hampering plane's performance, while VYa improves the firepower significantly for no cost at all? Moreover the VYa limitation is in force on the map #1 (Il-2) and map #3 (Lagg-3) only. There is no ShVAK limitation regarding the I-16 mentioned in TAW manual. The VYa restriction should be compare to the Mk103 restriction in case of Hs129 (map #3 and #4) rather than fighter plane gunpods. I tend agree that the early map availability of Bk3,7 could be an issue. Personally, I think that bombs are better option for tank buster operation specifically on Stuka, since they do not affect the plane performance as much (not at all once they're dropped) and are more reliable than Bk. But that's just my opinion. Another case which could be take out of the context is the bomber load. Using your and Chimango's logic the LW shall whine all the day that they are not allowed to use SC1000+ bombs (except Stuka and He-111). Do you really mean that the Heinkel with e.g. SC1800/2500 would be such devastating "über" bomber? I doubt. Still I see the reason why these big bombs are/should be restricted. Thus there's no reason for whine. Nor is regarding the VYa restriction. The only point I agree with you to some extent are paras. Yet they balance the overall advantage VVS has in CAS abilities. I know some people argued with me regarding that statement few days ago, saying that everything was changed since last patch. I made few tests since then realizing only that Il-2 armed with two all-AP VYas is perfectly capable of killing about six PzIV/III tanks for single ammo load with ease. Add bombs and rockets. No LW planes can get as close to such effectiveness in terms of dealing with armor units at comparable "easiness" (since guns are always easier to use than pin-point accurate bombing). Still paras are using to transport the slowest and weakest plane and usually the most predictable approach (since any other option would limit each Ju52 pilot for single flight per mission).
  3. I would be very cautious of the "work as intended" statement here. I guess that such feature would significantly decrease the number of players on TAW. I doubt this is what anyone wants to see and what could be called "work as intended". But I could be wrong in both presumptions.
  4. I have no idea of that patch. That explain why I've attacked so many tanks so far with no effect Anyway, you guys forced me to make my testing again. I have no idea whether the quick mission uses different tank models than TAW but the result seems to be the same they use to be. Attacking PzIVF1 with Il-2 and VYa is pretty damn easy. After two missions I was able to kill each PzIV during single pass and with some 50 rounds. And my aim was far from the top. If I attack the PzIV from the side it ALWAYS starts to burn. The tank is destroyed once it is hit again while burning. If I pressed my first attack to 300meters or rather 200 meters, the tank was ALWAYS detroyed during that particular run. From fifth mission onward, I killed all three PzIVF1 in quick mission expediting about half of the ammo (150 rounds). Thus I expect that six kills sortie with full AP load shall be normal. Add rockets and bombs. Of course, I'm considering the ideal situation if there is time to six and/or more runs during the sortie. Still I agree that the small bombs carpet bombing is the best option in TAW environment.
  5. You're right that there are more "useless" fighter pilots on blue side than on the red. But I disagree that there is not enough CAS/bomber pilots on blue side. About the CAS abilities. There's nothing as effective against tanks such as VYa canons. I made the testing about one year ago and I used about 13 to 15 direct hits to destroy PzIVg/PzIII/StuGIII (the heaviest armored tanks). That can be "easily" achieved during single pass in Il-2. Bk3,7 can kill T-34 by four direct hits. Scoring them in single pass is possible with some training but not as easy as using of VYa. This canon can kill even the KV-1 but each direct hit is worth of about 15 percent of damage. Thus you can kill single undamaged KV-1 for one ammo load. 30 mm Mk101/103 can kill T-34 by about 20 hits. That means one undamaged T-34 kill by Mk101 (30 rounds) or three (Mk103). These cannons are as easy to use as VYa. But they're mounted on the least user-friendly platform. That brings us to the second the most effective way of tank destruction which are... small bombs. Every single 50 kg bomb can kill even the heavy KV-1. It just needs to hit directly (skip bombing is the best procedure). Ju88 seems very effective in this role (though I've never tried it), using maybe 44xSC50 instead of big bombs. At least I saw a clip where somone was describing the attack run one or two years ago. I can reliably use 109 with 4xSC50 to kill four tanks no matter how heavily armored they are. Of course you need a time since you are limited to one kill per one attack run. From this point of view the fastest way to deal with red tanks is probably Ju88 provided there is no AA in column anymore. With all due respect, this figure prooves nothing. Yes, LW player higly overpopulated VVS during Euro prime. But that peak usualy last for one or two hour at best. I've never ever saw you submit complains during the EU morning hours when the VVS overpopulated LW player by even 25 to 0 or 22 to 1 (as I saw it couple of days ago). The ratio of 5:1 to 10:1 is common for several hours during these period and last for several hours.
  6. It seems that many people (on either side) cannot see the "overall" balance. They usually select one specific example and then whine all around. The only way of how to achieve perfectly balanced situation is to give both side the exact same plane set. That's impossible if there should be "historical" campaign of Axis vs Allied or more specific Germany vs Soviet Union. There are many imbalances in TAW environment of course. Germans have the paratroopers. Soviets have way better (or rather more user-friendly - really no offence here) CAS abilities. These two side specific imbalances balancing each other quite well from tactical point of view. The same stands for bombers. Though Pe-2 vs Ju88/He111 are hardly comparable, they seems to be balanced as well. Pros and cons are mostly depending on each pilot preferences. Balancing fighters is the trickiest things of all. It can provide quite different results depending on what goal should be achieved: e.g. whether the goal is to provide the pilot with highest possible chance to survive or best possible option to achieve local air supremacy. In short, from state of the current TAW campaign it seems that TAW provides us with very well overall balance.
  7. You know I went under friendly fire twice in last three days. I understand the first incident. 109 hit and damaged my Stuka in high speed attack while I was attacking the random enemy unit which was not on the map and on the edge of the front line. From that guy point of view, it was on the edge and he considered I'm attacking German unit within German territory. He realized his mistake almost immediately and break the chase. But the case I described above was different. These guys were attacking the same column I did at the same time. Then they spotted Lagg attacking the 129 and inconceivably attacked friendly plane persistently while ignoring that enemy fighter. They were occupied by getting me down so much that they even allowed this Lagg shot two of them down. I would really like to know what the hell they were thinking about they do.
  8. I deeply appologize for next text. But I'm in rage: https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=41477&name=I./JG1_Pragr I killed two tanks in fact during that sortie. I even was able to shot down Lagg-3 which overshoot my Hs129! Then come three fancy 109 jockies which were not even aware there is another enemy fighter over enemy tanks I was attacking. No, beacuse they're focusing on their most important job: shotting down friendly plane. Please guys go to the hell and learn the aircraft recognition first! It's impossible to win campaign with such ... "ersatz" material. For rest of community: Once again I'm sorry for exhausting my rage publicly.
  9. Hopefully I don't start any balance flame again. But the numbers have been relatively well balanced during CET prime time last three days. It almost exactly correlates with the map #3 start. Anyway I'm surprised that nobody is complaining now when the server is flooded by 20+ VVS fighting against 0 LW
  10. I see your point and it has some validity. I would like to know hard numbers of players during the EU prime time (since it's the only period when server is overcrowded) just to see how many of each side players are actually not connected. You know, to see whether the situation is really so bad because there are more VVS players than LWs unable to join or whether there are (in the 64 vs 20 case you mentioned above) like 2 VVS players unable to join and 10 LWs. Because in such case I would vote against any such slot-cap feature resulting in low population on the server. Moreover, slot-cap feature doesn't solve the imbalance we can often see during non-EU primes. The 30 vs 6 I mentioned above cannot be solved unless you close the server for two thirds of players in particular time zones. Which I hope is not in anyone's mind. Anyway the well balanced campaign (in terms of numbers, planes, capabilities, etc.) results in stalemate. I'm not convinced that anyone would enjoy that.
  11. You totally missed my point. I don't argue for any specific side. In fact I agree with that the LW side is severely affected by "Hartmann's" issue. Trust me I was shocked and mad when I joined the TAW on Friday about one and half hour in mission when LW had absurd numerical advantage of like 40 to 10, just to realized there is still tank column not destroyed, not a single defense point destroyed, train untouched and undiscovered supply column. I was in rage what the hell all these people were doing during the mission. This of course cannot be generalize, there are few squads (such JG4) that try to cooperate as much as possible. But I don't want to start the flame about this. I just argue that each player has the same right to go to the server no matter which side he wants to join. I don't care whether this particular player wants to join LW or VVS. Introducing the limited number of slots for each side doesn't solve the problem. It just allows less players will be able to join the server, unless you suppose the server/game actively prefers LW players. That's not the case. Let's say there are 120 players wanting to join TAW server during EU prime time. 80 out of these player are flying LW while 40 are flying VVS. With the same probability of connecting to server, the numbers will be 56 vs 28. 36 (24 vs 12) of players are not connected. The ratio of connected and not connected players are the same for both sides. Now imagine the 42 slot-cap. All those 36 players want to fly for LW but they can't even though there are free slots on the server. On the other side, all player flying for VVS are connected to the server. Additionally, the unbalanced numbers are usually the early maps issue. It's usually mitigating once the VVS gets Yaks. So the issue seems to be associated with aversion that part of VVS player base feels towards these early setups rather than some overall imbalance in numbers. This of course stands vice versa, part of LW player base dislike late war setups where more competitive VVS planes are introduced.
  12. Not being able to connect to the server is a general issue associated with server capacity. Your statement supposes that your rights to join to the server are supreme because you're a part of "minority", to anyone who is at that exact moment part of "majority". That's not the case. Your rights are equal. There's no easy solution to the imbalance issue. You should either kicked someone who joined the server before you (unfair due reason I described above) or you should forbid connecting players of the side, which has majority (again it's unfair providing each and every player has the same right to join). To show how bad balancing approach could be I use the situations I saw few days ago. There were imbalanced numbers like 30:6 and 4:20 (just illustrates both side imbalance). Let's say there would be some kind of artificial limitation to balancing numbers specifying that no new players can join the side with 50 per cent player advantage. In first case the number would be 9:6 with 21 people unable to join, 4:6 in latter case with 14 people forbid to join. In both cases there would be more players refused to play than those playing. The idea of player joining the "minority" is pure chimera. Most of them would join different servers just because they want to fly the plane they like, not the one they are forced to.
  13. True to the point. I only don't understand the last sentence. Is the 110 faster than 109E-7? Just asking.
  14. There are no intel pictures available for Dyatlevo and Zubtsovo (at least on two PCs I've checked it so far). Is there any secondary source I could use?
  • Create New...