Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

Also, if you look at the last map (starting mission #216), the Axis captured 5 cities on the ground, 4 by paratroopers and 7 times damaged airfields. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mincer said:

Why do those paratroopers exist in the first place? 

 

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

 

30 minutes ago, mincer said:

Another problem with blue-only paratroopers is that it is a massively important target which distract pilots from other fronts.

 

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

 

Edited by ECV56_Chimango
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, =FPS=Cutlass said:

Reasons why you are against giving this opportunity to both parties....? ;)

You will also be able to" spy " and wait at the point of landing of enemy transport aircraft....:good:

 

 

Did I ever say that I was against giving paradrop aircraft to reds side? 

 

Just now, ECV56_Chimango said:

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

 

 

 

Honestly though the current score is 3:2. You make it sound like as if it is 5:0

 

 

P.S. I really have nothing against giving red side a fast-track win route next mission. They sure need some motivation.

Edited by xJammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, =LG=Coldman said:

cant wait for DC3 "Dakota" for VVS its faster and can carry more paratroopersÔĽŅ ūüėĄ

Don't wait. We need to make the Ju-52 available to both sides......:lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

 

 

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

 


Oh, i see. It is my first TAW, so I don't know the history. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some brief thoughts on Paratroopers:

Any paratrooper operation should be supported by a ground offensive (Tank Column) in my opinion.  Paratroopers would likely be on a suicide mission if no advancing ground units were on there way to relieve/resupply them.  There should also be a max number of paratroopers kind of like the max number of tanks as they are not an limitless asset due to being highly trained elite units.  They would only be lost if killed during the drop, in a plane crash, or if the operation isn't successful in capturing an airfield.  Also would like to see the implementation of commando operations where a deep behind the lines drop zone would stop the flow of supplies or damage assets.  Both sides would have the ability to do commando operations with the arrival of the PO-2.   

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

Don't wait. We need to make the Ju-52 available to both sides......:lol:

 

I am all for balancing the whole planeset like it is, but starting to give out aircraft from the other side would be kind of ridiculous. 

There are enough advantages for both sides right now and i think, the server admins managed a very good balance in maps 1-4 (and they all had Ju-52 and paratroopers).

So this is not the reason for any imbalance. In map 5 there was a bigger imbalance in numbers then in maps 1-4, that's the main reason the Reds got steamrolled.

Might be the right thing to investigate why that happened. Maybe because lone-bombing got a lot more dangerous for the Reds lately. Maybe another reason.

 

2 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

Just some brief thoughts on Paratroopers:

Any paratrooper operation should be supported by a ground offensive (Tank Column) in my opinion.  Paratroopers would likely be on a suicide mission if no advancing ground units were on there way to relieve/resupply them.  There should also be a max number of paratroopers kind of like the max number of tanks as they are not an limitless asset due to being highly trained elite units.  They would only be lost if killed during the drop, in a plane crash, or if the operation isn't successful in capturing an airfield.  Also would like to see the implementation of commando operations where a deep behind the lines drop zone would stop the flow of supplies or damage assets.  Both sides would have the ability to do commando operations with the arrival of the PO-2.   

 

This sounds like a nice approach. I'd be all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing that should happen ASAP is the appearing of drop-zones on VVS maps/briefing and on the front page. I think it is obvious.

Edited by mincer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

Don't wait. We need to make the Ju-52 available to both sides...…:lol:

 

 

I remember when this happened for a campaign.  Klaus Mann and his friends tricked me into something like four TKs with their Soviet Ju-52 "peace flights" back before they had their will broken and stopped flying(as much) .

 

Fun times. ‚̧ԳŹ

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

 image.png.06f5b3a3537d95e7633280e3f70f755a.png

 

Might help to give some context that VVS only has 1 airfield left which always turns out like this because the losing side can't really do much and won't start from that single airfield.

 

Nobody is doubting the numerical superiority of LW. It was ALWAYS an issue and everybody knows that - hence why there are so many proposed changes. You aren't telling anyone something new by keep posting about this.

 

2 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

 

Lets not pretend like balance changes weren't needed back then. I imagine it is very difficult to balance the campaign because of the many possibilities how to play it. For example a lot would change if everyone would be coordinated by some sort of commander. Neither side is playing to their maximum strength and it varies each campaign, depending a lot on the squadrons flying and how active they are.

I still think that there is a definite meta in the current balance that needs adjustments but blaming everything on it is wrong. It's obviously not impossible for the VVS to win as the past has shown.

 

Some people should remember that we are ALL playing the same campaign and that the majority wants it to be balanced. It's not a lot of fun playing for anyone when there are only 10 VVS flying against 40 LW. Actually I'd rather fly in the team with lesser pilots. Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Lets not pretend like balance changes weren't needed back then. I imagine it is very difficult to balance the campaign because of the many possibilities how to play it. For example a lot would change if everyone would be coordinated by some sort of commander. Neither side is playing to their maximum strength and it varies each campaign, depending a lot on the squadrons flying and how active they are.

I still think that there is a definite meta in the current balance that needs adjustments but blaming everything on it is wrong. It's obviously not impossible for the VVS to win as the past has shown.

 

 

I think it's especially hard to balance the campaign when ~90% of one side are surgically grafted into fighters and you have to tailor victory conditions for them.  This effect is especially evident in the impact of the 190 coming onto the field.  The 190 is the perfect machine for TAW.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.

 

 

I understand the desire to find moral symmetry in the problems here, but let's be honest about the facts on the ground.  Soviet-only pilots are NOT an issue here.  The balance issue is two-fold:  Generally excessive Luftwaffe-only pilot population and nationalities who largely fly one side dominating certain timezone brackets(which has been an issue with the VVS side this campaign as well) .

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

I understand the desire to find moral symmetry in the problems here, but let's be honest about the facts on the ground.  Soviet-only pilots are NOT an issue here.

 

i was referring to the way those people argue around here (very biased). I didn't mean that they are a balance issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Might help to give some context that VVS only has 1 airfield left which always turns out like this because the losing side can't really do much and won't start from that single airfield.

 

 

 

 

We tried. I spawned in looked left and saw my wingman slumped over his stick. I looked high 3'oclock and saw a 110 diving on me for a gun run.. Ditched out of the server with an alt F4. My other wingman spawned in just as I bailed on server. The 110 killed him before he fully spawned in.

 

Was funny. Sucked a little as I wanted to try and fight those odds but we where unable to spawn and go engine start.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 6:31 PM, Operation_Ivy said:

I can only speak for myself but it is utterly boring. Hydra is considering to switch to red if the numbers don't change.

 

2 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

It's not a lot of fun playing for anyone when there are only 10 VVS flying against 40 LW. Actually I'd rather fly in the team with lesser pilots. 

 

You've been saying it since map #1; numbers didn¬īt change. I wonder what's¬†stopping you.¬†

 

 

Edited by ECV56_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I am all for balancing the whole planeset like it is, but starting to give out aircraft from the other side would be kind of ridiculous. 

There are enough advantages for both sides right now and i think, the server admins managed a very good balance in maps 1-4 (and they all had Ju-52 and paratroopers).

So this is not the reason for any imbalance. In map 5 there was a bigger imbalance in numbers then in maps 1-4, that's the main reason the Reds got steamrolled.

Might be the right thing to investigate why that happened. Maybe because lone-bombing got a lot more dangerous for the Reds lately. Maybe another reason.

 

 

This sounds like a nice approach. I'd be all for it.

It's not funny.

It is ridiculous to deprive one of the parties of a historically reliable type of aircraft, in this case, the transport thereby violating the balance, which becomes much worse with the numerical superiority in favor of the Luftwaffe.  

The task of the Ju-52 - delivery of cargoes and the landing of troops, not melee strikes or bombing logistics warehouses and factories.

There is no fundamental difference between Li-2 and Ju-52 neither in speed nor in the functions performed.

 

Especially in the Soviet Union used a number of purchased and captured aircraft of this type......:

http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/soviet/ju52/ju52_sssr.html

 

The other types of aircraft are simply available and it would be really funny to issue the Bf-109 to the side of the red army air force or the Yak-1 to the Luftwaffe side.

4 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Some people should remember that we are ALL playing the same campaign and that the majority wants it to be balanced. It's not a lot of fun playing for anyone¬†when there are only 10 VVS flying against 40 LW. Actually I'd rather fly in the team with lesser pilots. Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.ÔĽŅÔĽŅ

The last three campaigns I flew for the Luftwaffe so I have a fairly complete picture of what I'm talking about. Accordingly, the claims in a one-sided view of the balance problem personally in my address are not correct. However Chimanov absolutely right - the problem of the lack of air force capabilities of air aviation in the conditions of the numerical superiority of the Luftwaffe becomes too obvious.

Edited by =FPS=Cutlass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello @=LG=Kathon,

 

I had last flight yesterday and after a couple of minutes after take off, IL2 just crashed. OK, i did not lost my plane as i was not damaged. 

http://taw-server.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=51110&name==19FAB=AlterEgo

 

But today after restart, I do not have the yak 1b any more, bug ? restarts fault ?

 

Thanks in advance,

AlterEgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, =19FAB=AlterEgo said:

Hello @=LG=Kathon,

 

I had last flight yesterday and after a couple of minutes after take off, IL2 just crashed. OK, i did not lost my plane as i was not damaged. 

http://taw-server.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=51110&name==19FAB=AlterEgo

 

But today after restart, I do not have the yak 1b any more, bug ? restarts fault ?

 

Thanks in advance,

AlterEgo

 

I think the game has moved on to Map #6 plane set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning everyone.

 

About gunpods, 23 mm, planeset, etc. etc.

 

Whenever you discuss the ideas please, leave the links for the historical articles, books (with page numbers), own videos with game tests where we can check and confirm your requests

 

"I have right because I`m right" is not enough. Also saying that something "was" without the evidence is not an argument.

English translation warmly welcome

 

We have dozens of ppl here and everyone how own point of view & scale for own judgement so instead of presenting own individual opinion which is basically useless so bring the strong facts, not only few words of opinion

 

For example. 


I think the engine & airframe damage model, flight model,  ballistic &  amunition power for 20mm MG151/20 is a pure joke in this game compare to russian machines. 
I`m bored with performance of Spit IXe, La5FN which fly like they would be affected by differeny physics laws than other planes...

 

But...

 

Did I flew on real warbirds? No

Did I used MG151/20 on a flying plane?No

Can I rely only on the books and other ppl memories ? No

 

But I can launch my game. Open a quick mission and make a tests.

How long can fly soviet plane on damaged engine, how many burst seconds is enough to destroy german plane vs soviet.

Compare everything and make some logical conclusions

I can also record it and post on YT ie.

 

Then I can start a discussion, so I strongly suggest that if you want to be treated seriously

 

Cheers!

Thank You for being part of TAW community! ūüėĄ

 

 

Edited by =LG=Blakhart
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, =BES=Coyote-66 said:

 

I LOVE this.  @=LG=Kathon this would be a game changer for this server.

 

 

The question is if the dev-provided (not the TAW script) server program itself could even allow this.

11 hours ago, xJammer said:

 

P.S. I really have nothing against giving red side a fast-track win route next mission. They sure need some motivation.

 

Do you mean adding a comparable counter-strategy to red side next TAW cycle?  I just ask because this statement is a bit ambiguous.  It could be taken that you want blue to stand aside and sip their coffee a bit slower so red can tie up the matches and keep interest.  If so, that indicates to me either hubris from blue side or an indirect recognition that there is a balance problem favoring blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good morning blackhart . You know  my english is very poor.

 

I dont get your point.... i understand any kind of discurssion about ammo, planes, etc.  if we want a  historical recreation is obiously need some kind of support. I agree.

.

But here we dont are talking nothink about historical facts.... TAW dont folow historical facts.... we are talking about balance , the only evidence we need is particapte and observate results...

 

No sense ,  23mm are limmited  and no limit gunpods....  we dont need any historical fact ... we want a fair competition, thats all . 23 mm on lagg isnt limited by historicity, is limited because its too lethal.... same can apply to gunpods if u want more balance

 

The paratroopers is the most unfair point of all competition. And have easy solution... especially when we dont care about history.... ju52 for both teams and especial skin dor both sides

I can assure you, if reds have same chances have same tactical oportunities..... is curious we are playing to tactical air war... repeat if reds have this super tactical oportunity  . Then we will play with same oportunities and maybe TAW have one more point of difficult for blue, and for me more enjoyable , reds have avaliable one more tactical oportunity for fly interesting and very well rewarded capture missions

.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

The paratroopers is the most unfair point of all competition. And have easy solution... especially when we dont care about history.... ju52 for both teams and especial skin dor both sides

I can assure you, if reds have same chances have same tactical oportunities..... is curious we are playing to tactical air war... repeat if reds have this super tactical oportunity  . Then we will play with same oportunities and maybe TAW have one more point of difficult for blue, and for me more enjoyable , reds have avaliable one more tactical oportunity for fly interesting and very well rewarded capture missions

 

I am strongly against giving the Reds the Ju, it would only cause a lot of confusion and team killing. As others have already said, it was already tested and resulted in a lot of team kills.

If the Ju is really causing those big balance problems, rather limit it's capabilities in the current TaW, until the Allies get the Li-2/DC-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

good morning blackhart...

 

Tumu, TAW is still evolving. 
Every season gets better.


My request is for the future conversation about all the aspects affecting TAW, gameplay, balance, not only gpods-23mm issue ūüėĄ

 

(BTW this is my personal opinion as a player, not a LG member:
¬†from logical point of view they should locked, from historical - locked at the early maps, from balance perspective - they finally give some chance for 1 burst solving problem but decrease your manouverability, speed, rate of climb... well fair enough, 23mm is auto kill for no cost ūüėĄ
I dont use them, maybe flew few missions for a test)

 

p.s.

When you ll stop using your freezer as a wifi antenna ? ūüėĄ ūüėĄ ūüėĄ Its impossible to predict where your lagging plane will appear ūüėĄ ūüėĄ

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

No sense ,  23mm are limmited  and no limit gunpods....  we dont need any historical fact ... we want a fair competition, thats all . 23 mm on lagg isnt limited by historicity, is limited because its too lethal.... same can apply to gunpods if u want more balance

 

Gun pods are seriously hampering the airplanes flight characteristics while 23mm does not at all. I used gunpods once in TaW and won't do it again. I rather have weaker weapons but an aircraft that is behaving properly. It is always a trade-off with gun pods. Not so with the 23mm, it's a wonder-kill everything weapon that doesn't hamper the Lagg in any way. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys.

I've though long and hard on how to 'balance the game'

So let me explain.

 

AND DON'T JUMP ON ME ITS JUST AN IDEA!

 

In the first image below the sides have 5 forward airfields, these are Fighter/Ground Attack aircraft (limited to small max 250kg bombs)

And the 5 rear most airfields are a mix of Bomber/Transport/Fighter Bomber.

Both sides have an equal distance to fly to ground targets, resupply etc.

267551014_Stal1.thumb.jpg.93bc6e130e77f114bbf41b667713ce87.jpg

 

 

In the second image, as one side has advanced, the distance to target for the Bombers and Transports has greatly increased.

This will have the effect of reducing the number of flights available for the attacking side, or looking at it the other way, giving the defender the advantage by allowing them to carry out more Bomber and ground attack missions. (they have less distance to travel)

This will also nullify to some extent a large numerical advantage, because as in the example 10 v 40, if you have 4 times the distance to cover in bombers/transport to reach the front,

(fighters/ground attack will have lesser an impact with the reduced ordinance) you will in fact only be able to carry out the same number of missions as the defender in the same time period!

So the further you advance, the more your resupply etc is stretched, the harder it gets.

 

234053937_Stal2.thumb.jpg.cd6206f45dc9e58984779a1c217b368b.jpg

 

I think this will be a much better solution (although not perfect) than quorums etc

And go along way to leveling the game play.

 

The beauty of this is you can keep everything as close to Historically accurate as possible.

 

Front line airfields were invariably Fighter/ground attack units, defended with lighter AAA.

And Medium/Heavy bomber airfields further to the rear (out of harms way) with much heavier AAA.

Transports could fly from close to depots located in larger Industrial Cities for resupply.

Availability of aircraft types and weapons for a given Historical time period could also be used.

I would suggest having only 2 airfields with transport aircraft close to the Factories, thus knocking out these will have a greater effect by reducing or stopping resupply/Para drops etc.

 

And as =LG= Blakhart has asked for future conversation about the aspects of TAW, this would be my suggestion/solution.

 

 

PS

When exiting the game i would increase the time to 30 or 45 seconds, 15 is whey to short!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahha

 

good point blackhart about my "super" connexion....  im not sure... maybe on 2 or 3 moths i can have better conexion because is possible i must move from my actual residence. 

I doubt wherever i end have worst connexion than here. But how knows?

 

:)

Edited by 666GIAP_Tumu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion we either take the Ju52 out or let both sides have it. It is another balance issue with TAW and it only gets worse with the LW crazy numbers that we see most of the day.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

And please, no more Pe-2 fantasies, with the fighters VVS has up to map 6/7 we can not kill more than 2 LW bombers if we are lucky, sometimes expending all ammo on a single LW bomber. On the other hand...you can kill 5 Peshkas with a single FW. Yes, FIVE, it seems is not the mighty plane you guys want the community to believe=> https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=49794&name=Operation_Ivy

 

I was able to shoot them down because they were doing it wrong. They were strafing the depot and actively trying to fight me. With a lot of turning, the gunners are nearly useless and not a threat anymore. When they extracting they were flying level in a straight line and it was much more effective as i lost my vertical stabilizer and was forced to stop pushing the attack. Picking this as an example to prove anything is misleading. However it is true that Pe2s become much less of a problem the further the campaign progresses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riksen,

If you read my post above, 

I believe mate, this would go along way in leveling the playing field, whilst also allowing each side its own particular aircraft type.

In the case of the JU52, this would be effective at the start with short trips but the further the German side advances, the less effective it will become.

ie on the Stalingrad map a flight time to drop zone and back could take in excess of an hour!

The reduced effectiveness and amount of ordnance a fighter bomber/ground attack aircraft could carry would mean Bombers would become even more important, but once again longer flight times would help to even out the game play.

My suggestion is a Win/Win solution allowing both sides a Historically accurate plane set and weapons availability.

Each specific plane with its own unique character and ability would become important in a different way.

It will also go along way to help when the numbers are imbalanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ironic because the IRL Germans didn't actually make serious use of paratroopers on the Eastern front while the Soviets did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Operation_Ivy said:

I was able to shoot them down because they were doing it wrong. They were strafing the depot and actively trying to fight me. With a lot of turning, the gunners are nearly useless and not a threat anymore. When they extracting they were flying level in a straight line and it was much more effective as i lost my vertical stabilizer and was forced to stop pushing the attack. Picking this as an example to prove anything is misleading. However it is true that Pe2s become much less of a problem the further the campaign progresses.

 

So? What does this have to do with my post? What this has to do with the fact that LW has a fighter that can kill 5xPe2s on it's own? It shows the unmatched firepower LW have, not a single VVS plane can do that against 5xJu88 even if those Junkers were doing and aerobatic airshow with no gunners.  And also shows the Pe2 is not the staliniumn-uber-russianbias monster that some traumatized LW jockeys say

 

@=LG=Blakhart  hi mate; i agree with Tumu; what we are discussing here has nothing to do with DMs or FMs, but with TAW balance and decisions made by admins regarding many aspects of the campaign, as it can be read on many posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

So? What does this have to do with my post? What this has to do with the fact that LW has a fighter that can kill 5xPe2s on it's own? It shows the unmatched firepower LW have, not a single VVS plane can do that against 5xJu88 even if those Junkers were doing and aerobatic airshow with no gunners.  And also shows the Pe2 is not the staliniumn-uber-russianbias monster that some traumatized LW jockeys say

 

It means that it doesn't matter how good an aircraft is when you don't know how to use it. Spare me your tears, the Vya-23mm is probably the best bomber killer around until the Mk108 shows up and can easily down 5x Ju88. Also the P-39 is a good Bomber hunter. Additionally the P-47 will be a formidable Bomber killer. Is everything completely on par when it comes to balance? definitely not. You are cherry picking here that fit your agenda, which is btw very obvious. Maybe you should add a new nickname to your signature along the lines of being the equivalent of a wehraboo. And before you starting your next keyboard warrior campaign, let me tell you that i won't engage in it any further. This Thread is barely bearable already. 

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

It means that it doesn't matter how good an aircraft is when you don't know how to use it. Spare me your tears, the Vya-23mm is probably the best bomber killer around until the Mk108 shows up and can easily down 5x Ju88. Also the P-39 is a good Bomber hunter. Additionally the P-47 will be a formidable Bomber killer. Is everything completely on par when it comes to balance? definitely not. You are cherry picking here that fit your agenda, which is btw very obvious. Maybe you should add a new nickname to your signature along the lines of being the equivalent of a wehraboo. And before you starting your next keyboard warrior campaign, let me tell you that i won't engage in it any further. This Thread is barely bearable already. 

 

My only "agenda" is to have a more balanced TAW so we all have the chance to win it and specially have a good time during it. I posted many suggestions being the most importants about team balance regarding numbers and wining conditions. The only one about planeset i posted it's the  decision (still inexplicable) of making VYa23 limited on Lagg-3 while give unlimited gunpods to german fighters; it seems you are the one cherry picking here.

 

I agree Vya23mm is a great weapon, not that much after 3.008 but still the best one we have and oh what a coincidence, it's the only one we have limited. Anyway, show us one single sortie in current TAW where a Lagg-3 shot down 5 LW bombers.

 

P39? Read my post carefully, already mentioned the VVS firepower from map #6. P47? You mean the one it shows up at map #8? Wanna talk about A8 with 2xmk108 gunpods? I wonder what all this has to do with the vya/gunpods recommendation.

 

 

Edited by ECV56_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

That's your opinion, a biased one. My only agenda is to have a more balanced TAW so we all have the chance to win it and specially have a good time during it.

 

Yes, everyone's opinion is biased, there is no way around it, but at least i fly both sides frequently on TAW (This campaign being the first one that we stayed LW to get different opponents). Funny that you only raise your voice when VVS is at a disadvantage but maybe i just missed it in the past?.

 

9 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

I agree Vya23mm is a great weapon, not that much after 3.008 but still the best one we have and oh what a coincidence, it's the only one we have limited. Anyway, show us one single sortie in TAW where a Lagg-3 shot down 5 LW bombers.

 

Probably didn't happen thus far but that doesn't mean that is due to lack of weaponry but rather lack of targets. I would gladly jump in a quick mission with some of your friends where i can show you.

 

11 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

P39? Read my post carefully, already mentioned the VVS firepower from map #6. P47? You mean the one it shows up at map #8? Wanna talk about A8 with 2xmk108 gunpods? I wonder what all this has to do with the vya/gunpods recommendation.

 

You can consider the A8 already overkill for 2 engine bombers really. The P-47 will do just as fine. 

 

You seem to have not read my post then. TAW is riding a fine line between balance and historical setup (as far as this is possible). The Vya-23 is already only unlocked due to balance, otherwise it would/should be locked completely. 

 

You can only choose one  with your recommendations (where most of them will probably do more harm than good). Either you go full balance where you get all your toys to make it "fair" or you go full historical which will leave VVS in the dust for most of the campaign duration. TAW is trying to get a good mix out of both. Gun-pods afaik were widely used. Way more than Vya-23mms. If you make the Vya-23 unlimited based on your argument, you will go down a slippery slope where you can ask for much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

but at least i fly both sides frequently on TAW (This campaign being the first one that we stayed LW to get different opponents). Funny that you only raise your voice when VVS is at a disadvantage but maybe i just missed it in the past?.

 

I raise my voice when VVS is at disadvantage because the three TAW editions i flew actively (11th, 14th, current 16th) VVS was at disadvantage everytime. Funny you mention this, one of those editions you flew VVS, and you also were very loud at forums. 
 

47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Probably didn't happen thus far but that doesn't mean that is due to lack of weaponry but rather lack of targets. I would gladly jump in a quick mission with some of your friends where i can show you.

 

Lack of targets? Where have you been? VVS thanks to LW stacking servers don¬īt have that problem. All supositions, but nothing close to the truth; again, show a link in curent TAW where a Lagg-3 with 90xVYA23mm rounds shot down 5xLW bombers. Other than that it's just ¬†bla bla just as consistent as you saying that you would go VVS cause flying in big numbers is boring (twice¬†this TAW)¬†and then sticking to LW. Show facts, not guesses.¬†

 

47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

You seem to have not read my post then. TAW is riding a fine line between balance and historical setup (as far as this is possible). The Vya-23 is already only unlocked due to balance, otherwise it would/should be locked completely. 

 

I have read it, and i disagree with you, already explained several times.

 

47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

You can only choose one  with your recommendations (where most of them will probably do more harm than good). 

 

Just generic and not solid. Which of my 5/6 recommendations will do harm? You mean more harm than now where LW won previous campaign 7-1 and now you have again one team unable to do much in maps #4 an#5 due to numbers+wining conditions like the Ju-52 issue?  Engage those propositions with solid arguments.

 

47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 If you make the Vya-23 unlimited based on your argument, you will go down a slippery slope where you can ask for much more.

 

This is priceless, it sounds like the old ladies in my country who say "if you try a joint once you'll become a cocaine and heroin adict later" (facepalm here)

 

PS. this quote from previous post:

1 hour ago, Operation_Ivy said:

let me tell you that i won't engage in it any further. This Thread is barely bearable already. 

 

Another statement as solid as your suppositions.

Edited by ECV56_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

-snip-

 

Its just hopeless to try to argue with you if you are seriously in doubt that you can't down 5 Ju88 with a Vya-23mm - i'll truly leave it at this

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I am good on that front. Stop being personal, that's leading nowhere. Stay with the facts.

 

I am all for balance when it is in a sensible way. But your unreasonable whining is ridiculous. Maps 1-4 were balanced. Map 5 VVS was steamrolled, because they had a bigger player disadvantage and not because of the Ju-52. Is the paradrop very powerful? Apparently yes, then nerf it to a certain degree. But "take the Ju52 out" is the worst suggestion I have seen in this forum entirely. It's the most expensive aircraft in the game and TaW guys managed to give it some purpose in an online environment. That's the best thing that can happen to such an iconic aircraft many people (not knowing TaW) would deem "irrelevant". It's part of the battle, and that's good. If the Russians get the DC-3 and the Po-2 I am all for them being implemented in a similar, value adding way, even if the Po-2 can do stuff no German aircraft can.

I think it's awesome to give those iconic birds - far away from gloryhunter machines like 109 and Yaks - some purpose.


Paratroopers allow much faster advance during the numerical advantage, which happened on map #5. If there are no paratroopers but you have an advantage, you still have to fly CAS missions which take a lot more time because:

1) You can still screw things up and get shot down by AAA
2) You have to wait for the tanks to advance which may take more than one mission

3) You need a tank column spawned to begin with

While with paratroopers all those factors are out and you can do whatever you want.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mincer, among other things. Map #6 just started and red depots are wiped out in three missions by exploits of people gaming the system. Again 2-1 quorum, and we almost have no depots left. 

 

5QxxXTv.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×