Jump to content

Operation_Ivy

Members
  • Content Count

    364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

356 Excellent

About Operation_Ivy

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

887 profile views
  1. I think its about HE ammunition doing nearly zero damage to human models. You can also see it when you put 20 HE rounds into a stalling aircraft for example.
  2. I think this might be an important detail. The main reason why airfield/depot aa (and aa in general) is as bad as it is, is because of how it works in general. It is easily exploitable when they are all at one place, fixating on one target. Without having done any testing myself, it could be a lot more difficult to attack when aa position are more spread out but still in range to support each other when under attack.
  3. Even the bottom 2 configurations (like on TAW) can completely destroy you in an inhumane fashion.
  4. How about playing in a team with escort? i know..crazy idea
  5. I agree that it is difficult to balance this but the current meta heavily favors just spamming bombers/attackers/jabos without any significant punishment for losing them. There needs to be a middle ground where Ground attackers have to worry about their virtual life (requiring escort) and not making it completely suicidal. Forces need to establish air superiority before any serious and relatively safe ground attack can be attempted.
  6. While i am generally not against such a system, i think it is difficult to implement. VVS already has a difficult time on most maps with the planeset as it is and you only have 1-2 aircrafts that can somewhat compete against LW until the last 1-2 maps. Forcing them into even worse aircrafts won't encourage anyone to fly red and that is a big issue. You can take the best pilot around and put him in an inferior aircraft and he won't stand a chance against a decent opponent (Yak s.69 vs F-4 for example). There are simply aircraft limitations that can't be changed. It is not like in an FPS game. While i really don't want to dismiss your opinion and arguments just like that, especially because you put a lot of thought into it but i think it would be beneficial to you (and your squadron) to play VVS actually for once to get an idea about the situation.
  7. As you can see, it is a much bigger timeframe then just EU night. (UTC-5:00)
  8. No you are just taking the easy road by being negative instead of adding anything constructive to the discussion. Europe prime time was never the real issue (even though LW were taking up red slots). The real issue are the non prime time hours as you can clearly see on the graphs linked several times in this thread.
  9. It's a straight up ad hominem, look it up... It's called Tactical Air War and no it won't make it into a purely attrition based meta.
  10. I don't know why you are getting personal again? If you would check my flight log from the campaign you would see that i rarely flew at the Depot but i know that you like to push a certain narrative. But thats beside the point. Frankly i don't understand what you even mean by "10km area". It is true however, and that's what i have said before, that it is a difficult thing to not discourage bomber pilots to level bomb depots but at the same time making it possible for the defender to prevent a bomb drop. Honestly with the current parameters i don't see a lack of motivation to attack objectives and what do you lot care about it anyway? it's not like you care if you get captured/killed anyway?
  11. I disagree, i don't think that only level bombing should be possible especially when you consider that the upcoming DLC Bodenplatte is specifically about low level attacks on enemy airfields. However, like i said before, it should not be possible by only a few determined enemy. It should need a larger scale operation. I think the inefficient airfield repair (including AA respawn) was a bigger is issue for the meta then necessarily the attacks by itself. It is simply to easy to deal massive damage with low level attacks to have any chance to get it repaired back to functionality. While i generally agree, it is a difficult topic and requires to walk a fine line between having too much spotting going and too little. I don't think that every single fighter should be spotted over enemy territory. In my opinion it would be the best if a system was in place that reports the more or less rough location of the enemy if there are X amount of enemy planes in the area. However this won't fix the short travel distance between most airfields which makes defending a large scale attack impossible even if you get a warning. You simply don't have enough time to react. Maybe frontline airfields should get a player spawn limit of some sort but thats just a rough idea. It is difficult to get the balance right. A lot of people are saying that the fighters/interceptors (no jabos) are useless when it comes to the outcome of a campaign and they got a point. Unless it boils down to an attrition war there is not a lot of need for them. Bombers don't really care about escorts (partly due to their inhumane AI gunners) and this should change and interceptors can't realistically prevent a bomb drop either. I am getting more and more confused by your line of argumentation. We are discussing balance on a broad scale and you are coming up with something that barely ever decided the outcome of a single map. Nobody can say if it is more or less realistic. As far as i know, and i am working in this field, there are no statistics about capture rates or something alike. However i think most of us can agree that the current capture system needs a rework. I don't think anyone besides Kathon fully knows how it works but it is weird that you have a 80%/65% chance to escape when getting shot down at the depot and at the same time you have the same chances of getting capture when you are in friendly territory but close to the frontline.
  12. In my opinion the 2 major things that break TAW when it comes to meta are not being able to effectively predict large scale attacks and being able to do too much damage to airfields flying alone / with a very small group of players. If these two issues would get solved, paratroopers wouldn't be so problematic anymore, especially if you nerf the effectiveness of them by increasing the number needed to get a certain %chance of capturing an airfield and by increasing the effectiveness of airfield repairs. The airfield repair ineffectiveness is one of the major key points when it comes to the current meta. Even with a supply level of 100% the airfield repairs at around 10-15% per mission as far as i know. It takes minimal effort to destroy the repair progress and to keep the airfield at 100% damaged. In the end, i don't think it is difficult to identify the issues that lead to the problematic current meta but the devil is in the detail.
  13. Yeah it got damaged when Akhtyrskaya was captured for a short while, thanks for fact checking!
  14. No need to get petty 🤔 The devs already identified the issue and stated their intentions to a degree. I can already tell you that your "play style" won't work in the future. Edit: @Norz well i guess it makes no sense to keep arguing with you because as someone who is part of the problem you are clearly blind to the issues it causes.
  15. Stop trying to reduce the issue at hand to simply having different play styles. You and the people you associate with repeatedly said that the devs could simply say that your "way of playing" is not intended and you would stop. Yet you are still at it. Anyway, the devs are painfully aware of this little group of players and next campaign will probably get a major overhaul.
×
×
  • Create New...