Tactical Air War

[AKA_Relent]

I suspect after this 2 hour cycle, there should be no more German tanks showing up in map #2, since they lost more than their current maximum (except those that are part of the defenses and supply depots).  The only way would be if there was a mission with the extra (third) depot, which increases that sides planes and tanks maximums if it survives.

[=19GvFAB=Vlad-Executor]

32 минуты назад, AKA_Relent сказал:

Running out of tanks has never been a winning/losing condition.

 

It just means that the side without tanks can’t attack cities/airfields.  In this case, I believe that since the blue side ran out of tanks while there were tanks already attacking a city/airfield (turn 2 out of 3), they continue to spawn until that “turn”’is up (which should be this one more mission since they are close to Gzhatsk).

The limit of tanks on both sides is a draw.
One side tank's over limit - continue map, or reds win in next mission?
If the side has no tanks to attack, it can no longer claim air fields and win in any way.

Edited April 11, 2020 by =19GvFAB=Vlad-Executor

[=AD=Str1ke]

Tanks   671 / 665,

tanks ended but colomn of tanks near Gzhatsk...

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

5 minutes ago, =19GvFAB=Vlad-Executor said:

If the side has no tanks to attack, it can no longer claim air fields and win in any way.

Blue side can capture airfield with paratroopers if it is damaged enough.

That would be quite the comeback 

[AKA_Relent]

12 minutes ago, =19GvFAB=Vlad-Executor said:

The limit of tanks on both sides is a draw.
One side tank's over limit - continue map, or reds win in next mission?
If the side has no tanks to attack, it can no longer claim air fields and win in any way.

The side with tanks remaining would still need to have them continue to take territory as before, until a winning condition.  It’s just that the German side would only be defensive now.
 

10 minutes ago, -=RedS=-Str1ke said:

Tanks   671 / 665,

tanks ended but colomn of tanks near Gzhatsk...

As I mentioned before, I believe it’s only because the tanks were already attacking that town the previous mission, so it needs to finish this “turn”.  LG can verify...

 

4 minutes ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

Blue side can capture airfield with paratroopers if it is damaged enough.

That would be quite the comeback 

Given there is a limit of two captures by para’s per map, that would indeed be a tall order! :).

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

4 minutes ago, AKA_Relent said:

Given there is a limit of two captures by para’s per map, that would indeed be a tall order! :).

Hahaha. It can give enough time to stall the map to win by planes/ pilot attrition does it not . But yeah I forgot about that  

Edited April 11, 2020 by =FSB=Man-Yac

[HR_Tumu]

AKA_Relent

 

If im not wrong... on past  running out of tanks was a winn condition, that  changes some editions ago.

 

:=)

 

[Norz]

2 hours ago, -=RedS=-Str1ke said:

Tanks   671 / 665,

tanks ended but colomn of tanks near Gzhatsk...

 

Every campaign the same question. This column was already spawned before.

 

https://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=117

[=AD=Str1ke]

51 минуту назад, Norz сказал:

 

Every campaign the same question. This column was already spawned before.

 

https://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=117

Спасибо! Понял.

THX, i realized.

[FTC_Prancing]

so i just bailed over friendly lines, and i've been captured.. is that rule been changed? can't the manual be updated? i think the rules should be clear for everyone, not like you need to search rules in the endless thread of TAW, just keep the manual updated, and you'll have to answer way less question too!

the only information in the manual about that right now is:

If pilot crashes or bails out over enemy territory there is always a chance he will not be captured

[FTC_Prancing]

So asking people that knows and are over childish age, is being captured behind friendly lines a thing or not? i've now heard by some users that you can get captured behind friendly lines, can't we add that in the manual if that's the case?

[Coldman]

Let me be your game master. You were shoot down over friendly lines but some times over friendly lines are enemies advancing too like random troops that reporting enemy planes. They saw you jumping and they drive to place where you landed and they execute You because they can. End of Your sad adult life. cheers. I wish You better luck next time. Now enjoy Your real life for those next 18hours of ban. ? 

[FTC_Prancing]

so is that a rule or not? there is a chance to get captured behind friendly lines? maybe we want people to know the rules and have access to all of them on a single place , maybe update the manual with actual usefull rules is a good idea @=LG=Kathon , so we can have less discussion on the forum where some kids feeds their needs to appear somewhere.

[Coldman]

You want to fly or you want to read the rules? Kathon wrote here that he wanted to give us oportunity to fly while lockdown than updating the rules. It is quite old rule that not the front line is deciding factor to be or not to be captured but how close to the enemy or friendly troops you are like tanks defence random troops  briges etc.

[FTC_Prancing]

ok good, since it is quite an old rule there's no reason for it to not be in the manual, i'm reading the post about the multiple languages problem, but we can simply ask people to translate it and i'm pretty sure that in the entire community you'll have it translated very quickly in any language, if it's not enough to have it in english anyway..

and yeah, i'd like to fly being sure i know the rule, like everyone i guess.

[FTC_HK]

1 minute ago, =LG=Coldmanovich said:

You want to fly or you want to read the rules? Kathon wrote here that he wanted to give us oportunity to fly while lockdown than updating the rules. It is quite old rule that not the front line is deciding factor to be or not to be captured but how close to the enemy or friendly troops you are like tanks defence random troops  briges etc.

To be fair, reading to rules is quite important on TAW. Maybe you/LG/Kathon could look at updating the, at this point quite obsolete manual as a whole?

[HR_Tumu]

Prancingkiller.

 

U can perfectly be captured over friendly territory... especially if u bail close to the border... and i think , now, in this edition, you can be captured too, over friendly territory if you are close to any objective. 

it happened to me on my first bail out.

 

[FTC_Prancing]

2 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

Prancingkiller.

 

U can perfectly be captured over friendly territory... especially if u bail close to the border... and i think , now, in this edition, you can be captured too, over friendly territory if you are close to any objective. 

it happened to me on my first bail out.

 

yeah i was surprised cause i tought it wasnt possible, thanks for the info, looking forward to see more updates on the manual, and if needed, requests of help for the translations

[AKA_Relent]

7 hours ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

AKA_Relent

 

If im not wrong... on past  running out of tanks was a winn condition, that  changes some editions ago.

 

:=)

 

Hey Tumu - I stand corrected then.  It’s never been a winning condition as long as I’ve been playing (over at least the last 10+ editions).

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

I asked this a while back but can we have medals and stats for tank busters? Only glory for fighters bois and bombers chads.  ? 

[JAGER_Drewes]

Gentlemen, I am new to this server, I would like to know the criteria used for the punishments of hours and fifty-nine minutes, just to understand in the most thanks.

[KoN_]

22 hours ago, D-Rock said:

Direct hits with 500s = 3% damage to untouched target?

 

Bombing is now pointless.

 

i strafed trucks today and nothing happened . They used to catch fire . 

On 4/10/2020 at 12:58 PM, JG300_Faucon said:

It's quite fun and interesting to see how, on this server, chutekilling became some kind of national sport, something to be pround of. It's even more weird when it's the admin team itself that proudly defends this way of playing. 

 

After a lot of thinking, scientific observations, studies ... this leads to a single and an unique conclusion  : dickheads

I find chute killing very sad . After all you have won the fight and disarmed the enemy . Chute kills may have happened in WWII but not to an extent that this game play has become . 

On 4/10/2020 at 11:05 PM, JG1_Pragr said:

So, finally there is a reason for various loads for various targets. Train is better to hit by 28 SC50s rather than 4xSC500 (though more data is needed anyway):

 

https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=26502&name=JG1_Pragr

https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=25072&name=JG1_Pragr

 

 

That don't make sense . Thats 2000lb bomb load on a target . There would be nothing left plus secondary explosions .  

11 hours ago, Prancingkiller said:

so i just bailed over friendly lines, and i've been captured.. is that rule been changed? can't the manual be updated? i think the rules should be clear for everyone, not like you need to search rules in the endless thread of TAW, just keep the manual updated, and you'll have to answer way less question too!

the only information in the manual about that right now is:

If pilot crashes or bails out over enemy territory there is always a chance he will not be captured

Depends how close to front line or distance from front line . 50/50 . Advancing enemy ect . 

Edited April 12, 2020 by KoN_

[SE.VH_Knoke]

Please, what are The rules to take a 20hs BAN on this TAW edition?

[SCG_Darbzy]

Is it just me, or do the .50 cals on the P-40 seem a lot less effective since the new damage model patch?

[-FISTN-Ugly_Eric]

1 hour ago, PK_Knoke said:

Please, what are The rules to take a 20hs BAN on this TAW edition?

You have three lifes. When you run out, you get 20h penalty until you re-generate new life. 

1 hour ago, StG77_Darbzy said:

Is it just me, or do the .50 cals on the P-40 seem a lot less effective since the new damage model patch?

All the kinetic energy ammunition needs to get direct hits to critical parts now. HE is more effective to unaccurate shooters. 

[todeskvlt]

13 hours ago, JAGER_Drewes1 said:

Gentlemen, I am new to this server, I would like to know the criteria used for the punishments of hours and fifty-nine minutes, just to understand in the most thanks.

 

5 hours ago, PK_Knoke said:

Please, what are The rules to take a 20hs BAN on this TAW edition?

 

? ? ?

  

On 5/10/2019 at 9:15 PM, =LG=Kathon said:

• there are 3 lives for each map (there are 8 maps in total during the campaign). If pilot dies, captured or disco his live counter is reduced by:
  • 1 when he is in bigger team
  • X when he is in smaller team where X = #smaller_team/#bigger_team. Example: Axis players: 28, Allied players: 20 so X for Allied is 20/28 = 0.71.

             Every time “Lives on map” counter (shown in pilots hangar) <= 0 then pilot has 20 hours time penalty. After this penalty counter is increased by 1 so he may fly again.

  

On 2/16/2019 at 1:10 AM, =LG=Kathon said:

• When number of spawned players on one side is bigger than 10 then players from that side get time penalty (can't spawn for some period of time) when their sortie is ended as:

              death - 15 min
              captured\bail out\ditch\crash\disco - 10 min
              no time penalty for ditching on the friendly airfield (emergency landing)
           

            You can check your remaining time penalty in pilot details (hangar) under the experience.

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by =L/R=todchenko

[CSW_Hot_Dog]

Can i ask, why there is rule "It's forbidden for squadron members to fly on the both sides at the same time." when it can be broke and no one cares?

 

 

[Blackhawk_FR]

That make me think shooting at chutes may waste the evening of someone because he only had 1 live left. 

 

This confirms how primitive chutekillers's brain is. Keep being pround of it 

Edited April 12, 2020 by JG300_Faucon

[HR_Tumu]

young padawain Relent.

Im too old and my memory fails... maybe was before 10 edition....

im playing from  beginning

 

:=)

[SV7_Vase]

On 4/11/2020 at 3:53 AM, D-Rock said:

Direct hits with 500s = 3% damage to untouched target?

 

Bombing is now pointless.

 

yesteday i red in russian forum anpetrovich´s statement about less boming damage after patch. they located the problem and will fix it next week. its a problem with static object like buildings and static ground targets which are set in a mission builder as a "enitity". 

there is also an option to set static objects to be more weak or strong against boming blast

[[GCA]T1m270]

3 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

That make me think shooting at chutes may waste the evening of someone because he only had 1 live left. 

 

This confirms how primitive chutekillers's brain is. Keep being pround of it 

 

My first death of this campaign was being chute killed by someone with a JG name. Since then I have felt no remorse unless we had a very fun 1v1.

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

[Polybymanus]

9 hours ago, TSB_Helmut_Von_Sairait said:

Can i ask, why there is rule "It's forbidden for squadron members to fly on the both sides at the same time." when it can be broke and no one cares?

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

The rule is surely there to prevent eavesdropping on other non-squadron member players. I am sure you can try to trust some players by their word of honor, that they won't spy on the enemy team for their friends on the opposing side. But there is no way to be completely sure this won't be exploited by members of some squadron, the urge to gain an unfair advantage is simply overwhelming for some, with victory to be paid at any cost.

 

There are many squadrons flying on both sides at the same time, it is just a question of whether the rule will be enforced or not, or if eventually too much cheating through this activity is reported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KoN_]

5 hours ago, Polybymanus said:

 

The rule is surely there to prevent eavesdropping on other non-squadron member players. I am sure you can try to trust some players by their word of honor, that they won't spy on the enemy team for their friends on the opposing side. But there is no way to be completely sure this won't be exploited by members of some squadron, the urge to gain an unfair advantage is simply overwhelming for some, with victory to be paid at any cost.

 

There are many squadrons flying on both sides at the same time, it is just a question of whether the rule will be enforced or not, or if eventually too much cheating through this activity is reported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good point . 

 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Let's say it's a powder keg ready to get ignited.

[=LG/F=Kathon]

On 4/12/2020 at 11:20 AM, TSB_Helmut_Von_Sairait said:

Can i ask, why there is rule "It's forbidden for squadron members to fly on the both sides at the same time." when it can be broke and no one cares?

 

 

 

ACG_ItsDrifter has been grounded for 36 next missions.

 

17 hours ago, Polybymanus said:

 

The rule is surely there to prevent eavesdropping on other non-squadron member players. I am sure you can try to trust some players by their word of honor, that they won't spy on the enemy team for their friends on the opposing side. But there is no way to be completely sure this won't be exploited by members of some squadron, the urge to gain an unfair advantage is simply overwhelming for some, with victory to be paid at any cost.

 

There are many squadrons flying on both sides at the same time, it is just a question of whether the rule will be enforced or not, or if eventually too much cheating through this activity is reported.

 

 

They are in different squadrons but the name is the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Norz]

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.

[SCG_ItsDrifter]

5 hours ago, =LG=Kathon said:

 

ACG_ItsDrifter has been grounded for 36 next missions.

 

 

 

Since when has this been a rule? and since when has it been enforced? I've seen my fair share of people in squadrons who fly opposing sides, especially last TAW, if this was JUST implemented this TAW campaign I obviously didn't know until i got suddenly banned, which is poor in my opinion because i ask what is the point of restricting squadrons from flying one side? in ACG we are a clan of mixed pilots that have our own squadrons within ACG, we have people who ONLY fly german and people who ONLY fly russian. We never give info to one another of the opposing team if thats where this idea of restricting squadrons came from. 

 

I think it was quite obvious i was banned in order to be made an example for others, but it was a poor decision in my opinion. May i ask where this idea of restricting squadrons came from?

[SCG_Limboski]

Enforcing the "squadron members flying on the same side only" is going to be difficult for large squadrons like ACG where many of their members barely know each other if at all.  I perfectly understand why the rule is in place--to try to prevent collusion--but any cheaters can easily circumvent it anyway by changing their IL-2 names anyway.  When you have a large squadron, you will have players that refuse to play one side and/or enjoy mixing it up often to balance sides.

[WokeUpDead]

9 minutes ago, SCG_Limboski said:

Enforcing the "squadron members flying on the same side only" is going to be difficult for large squadrons like ACG where many of their members barely know each other if at all.  I perfectly understand why the rule is in place--to try to prevent collusion--but any cheaters can easily circumvent it anyway by changing their IL-2 names anyway.  When you have a large squadron, you will have players that refuse to play one side and/or enjoy mixing it up often to balance sides.

 

Technically it's not "squadron members flying on the same side only" but "squadron members flying on the same side at the same time on the same mission."

 

Personally I think the remote possibility of a squadron member leaking useful info to a squad member on the other side is more than offset by the benefit of the sides being more balanced by a split squad.