Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Ala13_Antiguo said:

Mi escuadrón, alterna el bando, una campaña de rojo, azul, rojo, azul, rojo, azul ...
Vuelo exclusivamente bombarderos (a veces Jabo , y rara vez combatientes).
Muchas veces volamos en grupo, dependiendo de los asientos disponibles.
Pero a veces hago vuelos  en solitario , y no por eso soy un Kamikace, como algunos de ustedes quieren  hacernos ver .
No todos los pilotos que hacen un vuelo  en solitario  son Kamikaces.
..... y por supuesto, aquellos que bombardeamos  bases a 6000m, atacamos puntos de defensa a 6000m, intentamos destruir trenes a 6000m ......... NO SOMOS KAMIKACES ...

Valorar  más vuestro  tiempo en volar y tratar de ayudar a vuestro  bando .

 

... cuando no es discutido por A ... es discutido por B.

 


Antiguo, yo no me referia a quienes hacen salidas solos, sino mas bien a quienes hacen salidas suicidas con el objetivo de romper lo más posible sin tener en cuenta su supervivencia. Por ejemplo el caso del usuario que hablabamos antes, si te fijas sus salidas él se dedica a ir con un 109 o 110 a una base 4 o 5 veces hasta destruir toda la antiaérea, no importa que muera en el intento, mientras se lleve 1 o 2 le vale. Así hace que la base o el depósito quede totalmente desprotegido y ahí otros compañeros de equipo van y lo finalizan.

Varias veces he visto como este usuario se jactaba de su eficacia y como "me hice una base/depósito solo" y al jugar ver como el equipo contrario siempre tenia la ventaja en depositos y bases destruidas al 100%, constantemente ganando terreno sin importar la coordinación nuestra.

En ese sentido eso a mi me sacan las ganas de jugar, porque no puedo competir contra eso y me causa frustación. Yo no me voy a rebajar a su nivel para ser competitivo, simplemente quiero que estas cosas no ocurran y que la gente trate de volar eficientemente para conservar su vida y su avión.

Share this post


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

Can't wait to tackle the balance issue when that penalty is in effect for 5v40.... 

 

I have to ask, do any of you even attempt to understand downstream affect when providing input?

 

+1

 

Penalizing death is one thing when teams are balanced or if that death is on the side with the majority players.  It’s another thing entirely for the side being outnumbered.

 

You can “fly smart” when you have the numbers, as by default each pilot has less risk of dying than the side being outnumbered.  If you join a mission when your side is outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, flying smart might mean not joining at all!  So it’s really not fair to say “fly smart”.

 

“If” a death penalty revision is to be made, I would strongly suggest its dynamic.  If the sides are balanced, or you are on the larger team, sure.  But if you are on the outnumbered side, it’s not in affect.  Otherwise it can make an already bad situation (e.g. 50-30) much worse (e.g. 45-15).

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

While definitely true, it is a knockout-argument. Everything stands and falls with the player balance.

 

Concerning the example video:

 

It is advisable, when escorting low level flying aircrafts which are very vulnerable, to fly ahead to try and clear the airspace. It is true however that is exceptionally difficult to escort aircrafts flying on the deck, especially as LW. That's why level bombing is so crucial.

 

Also nice shooting there.

Complete agreement. Just a question...where to take so many fighter escort with the numerical superiority of the enemy in more than 2 times ...?     ;)

 

This I mean that the question of balance is primary.

 

Share this post


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

Complete agreement. Just a question...where to take so many fighter escort with the numerical superiority of the enemy in more than 2 times ...?     ;)

 

This I mean that the question of balance is primary.

 

 

Like i said, balance is an issue here as with every other balance topic. 

 

When it comes to depots however there is mostly just one max three enemy defending it. An escort of two will already make a huge difference. 

 

I was able to shoot down 5 enemy bomber because they had no escort. If they had a single one with them I might not have been able to shoot down a single one. It is always worth it to get an escort, especially when it comes to depots.

Share this post


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

 

+1

 

Penalizing death is one thing when teams are balanced or if that death is on the side with the majority players.  It’s another thing entirely for the side being outnumbered.

 

You can “fly smart” when you have the numbers, as by default each pilot has less risk of dying than the side being outnumbered.  If you join a mission when your side is outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, flying smart might mean not joining at all!  So it’s really not fair to say “fly smart”.

 

“If” a death penalty revision is to be made, I would strongly suggest its dynamic.  If the sides are balanced, or you are on the larger team, sure.  But if you are on the outnumbered side, it’s not in affect.  Otherwise it can make an already bad situation (e.g. 50-30) much worse (e.g. 45-15).

 

If by 'fly smart' you mean flying straight into teeth of the enemy hoping to take down as many as possible before you are killed, then no, i agree.

But if you mean, fly transports away from the front line,  bomber flights taking alternative routes to avoid being found (or just over the front line in case you are hit and have to bail), or maybe CAP a depot in the rear until others join.......

Now that's flying smart.

You don't always have to attack to win, you can also strengthen your defense so you don't lose..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

 

If by 'fly smart' you mean flying straight into teeth of the enemy hoping to take down as many as possible before you are killed, then no, i agree.

But if you mean, fly transports away from the front line,  bomber flights taking alternative routes to avoid being found (or just over the front line in case you are hit and have to bail), or maybe CAP a depot in the rear until others join.......

Now that's flying smart.

You don't always have to attack to win, you can also strengthen your defense so you don't lose..

 

Well yes I was being a little facetious, but if you are outnumbered, flying smart as you say still often doesn’t help.  The larger side has a surplus of pilots that can afford to cap over their airbases, defensive positions and tanks/convoys (and enemy airfields), such that no matter how smart you fly, you will eventually be seen and attacked - not so for the outnumbered side.

 

I always try to take indirect routes when I can and it makes sense.  If a fighter(s) is circling the target, safe goes out the window once you’re spotted :).

 

My main point is, just because you die in a sortie doesn’t mean you didn’t fly smart.  Especially if you’re outnumbered - you often have to fly even smarter if you’re going to survive in those situations.  I just don’t care for the generalization.

Edited by AKA_Relent
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Like i said, balance is an issue here as with every other balance topic. 

 

When it comes to depots however there is mostly just one max three enemy defending it. An escort of two will already make a huge difference. 

 

I was able to shoot down 5 enemy bomber because they had no escort. If they had a single one with them I might not have been able to shoot down a single one. It is always worth it to get an escort, especially when it comes to depots.

I shot down 2 or 3 Luftwaffe bombers in the warehouse area. The bombers had no cover.

You know what the fun part is....?

Two points.

The first: Luftwaffe had numerical advantage in 1.5-2 times.

Second: 7-10 minutes after landing at the rear of the airport and re-departure to cover the warehouse I was shot down...enemy fighter...arrived in the number of 5 cars, of which four were with bombs, and one carried out the cover of the strike group from a height.  :lol:

 

As you think...which of the parties was easier to hold the bomber to the rear warehouse and provide him with normal cover....?

Second question...did it make sense for my side to accompany the bomber in the departure to the rear warehouse, even one fighter, if as a result of even a successful strike without losing the bomber, the damage to the warehouse will be minimal, and the enemy tanks will block or seize our front-line airfield...?

Edited by =FPS=Cutlass

Share this post


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

As you think...which of the parties was easier to hold the bomber to the rear warehouse and provide him with normal cover...?

 

I hope i understand you correctly: Depends on the execution. Fighters with Bombs can be very effective but they need more resources (pilots and aircrafts) to achieve the same amount of damage as Bombers, even when you consider having escort fighters. That's why i think level-bombing is superior if done right. Dive bombing is much easier though but it relies more on outnumbering the enemy than the level-bombers, especially when flying axis. VVS has a tougher time to do level bombing, Dive bombing might be better for them.

 

Quote

Second question...did it make sense for my side to accompany the bomber in the departure to the rear warehouse, even one fighter, if as a result of even a successful strike without losing the bomber, the damage to the warehouse will be minimal, and the enemy tanks will block or seize our front-line airfield...?

 

Warehouses are crucial and most of the time the most important objectives in the game. The problem is that they are very difficult to take out in time (something that probably needs to get looked at by the devs). I would pretty much always sacrifice an airfield for a destroyed warehouse. 

 

It is always a bad outcome if you spend resources on an objective but fail to destroy it. Warehouses are no exception. That's why team coordination is very important. Having an active big squadron online helps a lot because they can usually achieve objectives alone without too much coordination with randoms.

 

I remember the Stalingrad map 2 campaigns ago where Axis destroyed the VVS depots very early and they pushed us hard with multiple tank columns. VVS barely managed to hold on to the last airfields across the volga (shkolny and staritsa i think?) with great teamplay. Axis nearly ran out of tanks and aircrafts until a warehouse spawned and VVS wasn't able to defend against the tank columns and the warehouse. The warehouse survived and gave Axis plenty of additional tanks and aircrafts and they won the map.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


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

 

I hope i understand you correctly: Depends on the execution. Fighters with Bombs can be very effective but they need more resources (pilots and aircrafts) to achieve the same amount of damage as Bombers, even when you consider having escort fighters. That's why i think level-bombing is superior if done right. Dive bombing is much easier though but it relies more on outnumbering the enemy than the level-bombers, especially when flying axis. VVS has a tougher time to do level bombing, Dive bombing might be better for them.

 

 

Warehouses are crucial and most of the time the most important objectives in the game. The problem is that they are very difficult to take out in time (something that probably needs to get looked at by the devs). I would pretty much always sacrifice an airfield for a destroyed warehouse. 

 

It is always a bad outcome if you spend resources on an objective but fail to destroy it. Warehouses are no exception. That's why team coordination is very important. Having an active big squadron online helps a lot because they can usually achieve objectives alone without too much coordination with randoms.

 

I remember the Stalingrad map 2 campaigns ago where Axis destroyed the VVS depots very early and they pushed us hard with multiple tank columns. VVS barely managed to hold on to the last airfields across the volga (shkolny and staritsa i think?) with great teamplay. Axis nearly ran out of tanks and aircrafts until a warehouse spawned and VVS wasn't able to defend against the tank columns and the warehouse. The warehouse survived and gave Axis plenty of additional tanks and aircrafts and they won the map.

The technology of victory through the destruction of rear warehouses is clear.

I'm just saying that implementing any strategy for victory:

 

1. destruction of all enemy aircraft

2. capture all of the airfields

3. the destruction of logistical warehouses with the subsequent blitzkrieg - easier and faster to do with 1.5-2 fold advantage in numbers.

 

Let's look at the potential of the teams.

Horizontal bombing Ju-88 and he-111 is about 2 times more effective than the PE-2 when attacking the warehouses. When storming warehouses with fighters and their subsequent finishing off bombers from low altitudes, the gap is even more noticeable.The usual Bf-109 can destroy bombs SC-50 4 buildings, I-16, LaGG-3, La-5 can destroy 2 buildings and Yak-1\7B only one.  

Pe-2 can destroy 10 buildings at 100% efficiency, Ju-88 can destroy 28 buildings (if it takes only on the internal suspension) and 44 buildings if it takes SC-50 on the internal and external suspension. Note that this is under equal conditions.

If the numerical superiority of 1.5-2 times allows you to allocate 5-6 aircraft including 1-2 bombers Ju-88 to hit the warehouse, the target is very likely to be damaged by 60-8% or more. After the destruction of anti-aircraft artillery achieves everything else without any problems one Ju-88 with the cover of a pair of fighters.

 

Calculate the outfit forces necessary to obtain a similar result for the red army air force.

5 fighter LaGG-3 gives at 100% efficiency 10 destroyed buildings.

Pe-2 gives you the same amount.  

Total get 20 buildings destroyed by the red army air force against 48-64 buildings destroyed by the Luftwaffe.

 

After that, it is possible to share advice on the organization of the cover of attack aircraft, protection of bombers from sudden attacks from the front hemisphere, etc.....:lol:

 

As they say in Russia :

"Do not teach me to live, better help financially."  ......:umnik2:

 

If that - the previous three campaigns I flew for the Luftwaffe......:bye:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@=FPS=Cutlass perfect analysis of current TAW situation. This is the reason why i recommended admins to populate much more main depots and sorrounding areas with fast AAA, make it as a suicide to approach them at low alt (also make them respawn if they get destroyed). This way they stay as an strategic target and can not be exploited as it has been by both sides using fighters for suppressing all AA and finishing it with attack planes picking depots one by one with small bombs, something that favours LW by big margins because of the bombload as shown by Cutlass.

 

This is what happened at the start of current Kuban map (it was during early EU time with few pilots in the server); in 4 hs -only 2 mission loads- a couple of blue guys who took advantage of their numbers reduced red depots to ashes by exploting this flaw, again, this is also done by red side. So when most people joined this new map, they found out that VVS was already at the defensive after only two missions.

 

Make depots a strategic target again, it will favour LW too, but not so much like now and it can be more balanced, specially if VVS has an advantage in CAS.

Edited by ECV56_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @ECV56_Chimango for once ;)

 

Additionally i would really like to see additional spotters that are placed somewhere around the depot. It doesn't make much sense that the first warning you likely get is the depot itself, which makes preventing a bomb drop near impossible. Last time i proposed this, i got a lot of flak from some people as if i wanted to steal their sweet candy but it actually makes a lot of sense especially when you consider the number imbalance.

 

People were saying that you simply had to patrol certain areas to catch the enemy Bomber on its way but never even considered how impractical this actually is, again, especially when outnumbered. To catch a single bomber with a good probability you would at least need around 4 pilots on patrol. Something that the outnumbered side simply can not spare and even then there is a high probability that the enemy sneaks past you because you have absolutely no knowledge on the target.

 

This proposed idea would also make the whole depot defense/attack mechanic a lot more interesting. Currently it is probably the most boring but necessary thing you can do. Circle the Depot semi afk on high alt and wait till the message pops up. Even if you stay on your toes and look for incoming bombers you usually don't have enough time to position yourself and prevent the drop. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is the problem of covering warehouses can be facilitated through the installation of 4-8 guns 85-88mm at a distance of 10-15km from the warehouse. This will provide support anti-aircraft fire, which will facilitate the detection of gaps enemy aircraft at medium and high altitudes. How to cover a warehouse anti-aircraft artillery and small caliber I don't know...it all depends on the available resources of the computing ability of the server. Just do a partial solution is to put to cover stock socket 2-3 anti-aircraft gun, about the same as is done on the ground, at a distance from each other, not allowing to destroy them reset one bomb caliber 500-1000kg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More flak, better spotters, and since Axis is relying on a supply chain with some very major logistical problems and Russia has lots of back-line shipping that Axis can't touch, make Russian depots require 1.5 to 2 times more damage than Axis to destroy. 

Share this post


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

How to cover a warehouse anti-aircraft artillery and small caliber I don't know...it all depends on the available resources of the computing ability of the server. Just do a partial solution is to put to cover stock socket 2-3 anti-aircraft gun, about the same as is done on the ground, at a distance from each other, not allowing to destroy them reset one bomb caliber 500-1000kg

 

Yes, i have no idea if it is doable. If it's not due to server load limitation maybe just post a rule: "It's forbidden to attack main depots with anything other than bombers"; or something else admins come up with but the important thing is:  depots must not be able to be attacked by jabos/attack planes.

@Operation_Ivy don't let Christmas soften you! :biggrin: Now seriously, it's true that we disagree many times (maybe most of them), but this is not the first time we are in agreement; you also think the balance in numbers issue needs to be tackled; we also agree  on extending the time kick for KIA/captured pilots; and probably we agree on other things. It's just fine if we disagree, like we do on Vya23/gunpods subject, each one of us have our own reasons and it's ok, you are not my enemy for thinking different, and you are not a weaker guy when you accept the other one is right, actually the opposite.

 

S!
 

Edited by ECV56_Chimango
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

 

So uh... when is the server coming back online?

Edited by =KG76=flyus747
Didnt mean to quote anyone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

1 more week?

 

Server says Christmas break until 25th.  Accounting for the different time zones, even the West Coast is on the 25th already though.

 

Did you know that Gullible is written on the ceiling :P. Its probably coming back on the 26th.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 8:04 PM, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

It's a slippery slope that that leads to increasing calls for more and more restrictions as to what is fair and what's not.  Use a legit tactic that's even slightly frustrating to opponent players? Ban.  Shoot the chute of someone who's known to boil over about getting chute killed? Ban.  Land the wrong way at the end of the sortie? Ban.  Launch a massive raid knowing that the mission timer will end 2 minutes after your team makes their attack? Ban.  Strafe a plane that's got a dead propeller but an obviously still-live pilot? Ban.  Use +1 planes to ram non +1 planes from the sky knowing you'll get it back next round? Ban. Use Nav. lights when in trouble instead of flares to call for help? Ban.  Go on a solo mission that has an almost zero chance of returning from? Ban.  Fly solo at all except for transports? Ban.  The list of nitpicking little things can go on and on...

 

 

Pretty much this. I would also add that I personally consider @ECV56_Chimango's exploit of the 3.009 DM/MP bug in a PE2 (which was at the time the least vulnerable aircraft to the bug) to get 12 kills and pad his streak further to be a worse case than all of the above listed even if you include my "landing" on an undefended runway. 

 

@=RS=Stix_09 if "common sense" rules were not need to be written, TAW wouldn't bother to specify things like "Friendly fire is forbidden. You will be banned for deliberately shooting at the team mates or friendly ground units". To some parachute killing is an unwritten rule, but on TAW it is encouraged to parachute kill if you have the opportunity to do so.

 

In any case. My position is quite simple - my goal is to maximise my contribution to the victory of my team by whatever legal means available to me. Some people identified me as "gamer" and I guess that would be somewhat correct, given that I value victory over the roleplay / stat-padding aspects of the game. I can understand how that can frustrate the role-players of the community, who have been quite vocal in the last few of the forums pages, but I promise it is about as frustrating to see people decline high-risk high-reward missions simply because they care too much for their life or prefer to do things "their" way, which usually ends up being a waste of time (level bombing depots). Majority of the tactics that I use were not invented by me, but mostly taken by observing the attempts of other players and perfecting them in terms of survival rate and impact per time invested.

 

@=AVG77=Mobile_BBQ You attempt to differentiate yourself from "exploiters", but do not actually bring up what you consider an exploit. All of my missions are flown with the survival in mind - I would never have enough aircraft to take out AAA on an airfield if I just traded 1 aircraft per 1 AAA gun and that would be a clear waste of the aircraft. I am not an exceptional pilot, so these missions are very dangerous to me, but if I am able to take out 2-3 AAAs per sortie, what is there to stop me from improving further to eventually learn to take out all of the AAA without a loss of an aircraft? (something I have managed to do several times this TAW actually). At this point your sortie of 2 pe2 aircraft against a well-defended tank column could be considered a more of a suicide mission (both of you died) than what I do.

 

I strictly abide by the rules of the servers I play on to the best of my ability (KOTAR bans ramming, but sometimes lag / the other guy simply don't leave you an option to evade). And I have no attachment to the tactics I currently employ - change of the rules simply changes the META of the game.

 

For example, the multiple calls to penalise the deaths "more" by longer bans and even reset of player's hangar would very quickly drive me from attacking ground targets to farming pilot kills and thus depopulating the opponent's team, which in turn would allow my team to safely engage the ground. 

 

Merry Christmas to you all :)

Edited by xJammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xjammer,

 

I hesitate to comment on the subject too much because I have only ever flown a couple of sorties on TAW (maybe some day I'll get into it more), but wow, if I were running a tournament-style server and some guy exploited the game by landing on a field and spawn-killing players, I would boot that guy out -permanently-, first time, no warnings, completely non-negotiable. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Xjammer,

 

I hesitate to comment on the subject too much because I have only ever flown a couple of sorties on TAW (maybe some day I'll get into it more), but wow, if I were running a tournament-style server and some guy exploited the game by landing on a field and spawn-killing players, I would boot that guy out -permanently-, first time, no warnings, completely non-negotiable. 

 

 

KOTAR had similar issue when their admin banned a player for parachute killing when they did not have the rule in place to specify it. Some people associate parachute kill with direct disrespect of the player who was killed. Others do it because it is has gameplay value (though I honestly do not know why that player chute killed on KOTAR as there was no value at the time). They introduced a specific rule to forbid chute killing after that incident and unbanned the player in question. Personally that is a lot better way to handle the situation than the knee-jerk reaction so many players propose here.

 

Especially if you consider that practically, on TAW, an aircraft patrolling 500m above the spawn location, able to immediately respond to a spawned aircraft will kill the player just the same - it takes around 10-15 seconds for most players to "boot in" to their aircraft, and TAW enforces 15 second logout timer if you choose to finish your mission. More than enough time to do 2 passes on the aircraft and take a good aim at the cockpit. A landed aircraft in this case is actually giving up its ability to defend itself if someone were to arrive from outside of the airfield.

 

In any case, I do not wish to stir up the drama yet again by trying to "defend" what I did - some people feel strongly against it, others have shown reason with regard to introducing a rule if it is truly such an atrocious tactic. It wasn't very effective in my mind as it makes you so weak, so I likely won't be repeating it even if the rule isn't introduced (and certainly won't even attempt it if the rule was made).

Edited by xJammer
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you are still rationalizing and trying to justify such a trollish action is all the more reason I would ban you (and forever).

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

The fact that you are still trying to justify such a trollish action is all the more reason I would ban you. 

 

Fair enough. I guess there is no point to try to communicate with you, as anything I would say you'd consider either an attempt to defend/justify, or an attempt to avoid being banned. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

 

...

 

 

Not sure what you are trying to show there other than my incompetence at completing the set mission? None of those missions were a guaranteed failure and with a better skill and methodology could be perfected to 80-90% survival rate. Here is an example where it worked:

 

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=50224&name=xJammer

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=50271&name=xJammer

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=50326&name=xJammer

 

The airfield that originally had 11% damage was 100% damaged the next mission.

 

Lol I decided to sort by deaths

 

image.thumb.png.c3ccd0e0bcd5371b5c7d90bcecd22a0c.png

Edited by xJammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 3:33 PM, xJammer said:

 

I apologise I got bored strafing you guys originally, so I decided to land and lose any chance to defend myself if one of you decided to come from elsewhere rather than spawn.

 

There is no exploit as I have taken out all of the AAA at the airfield so it was completely undefended. Had there been any AAA it would have shot me until I died. The sortie just before actually was me cleaning up the airfield AAA.

 

@xJammer As you stated you got bored, All your next actions just appear to be you having fun at the expense of other players. Killing people before they can even enter the game is an exploit. There is no way to justify that. And most people can see it that way, even if you refuse to.

Sure they can spawn at another airfield , but tell that to the guys you killed , before they even knew you were there.

 

So you justify it as playing within the rules to help your team win " by whatever legal means available to me". I think many of those people on your own team would not even agree with that, in this context. Using an exploit like this. This does not make a fun game for anyone but you.

 

This is the kind of behavior that causes us to loose  many of our freedoms by rules and  regulations and laws, because of the minority of people doing stupid stuff. Rather than the individual being punished. ( (as an example of what I mean :it's why in my country some of the best fireworks don't exist any more and in some countries only public displays now allow you to use them, because people do stupid things within the law/rules, everyone gets punished and not the individual, because its easier.)

 

So ya (as you have now made clear) we will need another rule sadly.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, a while back xjammer did the same thing on the DED normal server, which resulted in some lively forum debate, and just within the last few weeks, based on comments on coconut's discord forum, he was at it again, come to think of it, I haven't seen any posts on that forum from xjammer in a while. Now it comes up again on TAW. Whose server will be next? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

@xJammer As you stated you got bored, All your next actions just appear to be you having fun at the expense of other players.

 

Getting bored was a justification to choose an inferior approach - landing instead of continuing to strafe the spawn as people spawned into the airfield. I was killed on the airfield as a result.

 

14 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Killing people before they can even enter the game is an exploit.

 

There is no connection between a landed aircraft and "killing people before they can spawn exploit". Currently the aircraft appears around 10-30 seconds before the player actually takes control of the said aircraft. This aircraft can be strafed, bombed or shot by the gunner of landed aircraft. So what you call an "exploit" factually applies to every single player who vulches or bombs the ramp. There is also no indication when the aircraft has actually become controllable by the player in question - so even if people wanted to avoid such an "exploit" they wouldn't be able to without letting the aircraft first start its engine.

 

 

 

@No_85_Gramps  Coconut server actually implemented a rule to auto-kick any landed aircraft that is outside of a friendly airfield within 30 seconds (which is something I proposed at the time). Again, its the same as parachute killing - servers make their choice as to what they are willing to allow, players play by the rules given.

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's follow the rules. Usually in disputable situations in order to reach a consensus it is necessary to observe the rule: "what is not forbidden - is allowed".

Jammer, did not violate the written rules of the server directly prohibiting Vulc as such.

All the more that he did it in some missions to the map of Kuban without using the server errors, which consisted in the absence of anti-aircraft cover airfields.

And in some missions in order to achieve the removal of the airfield from the system, he and his group suffered quite heavy losses from anti-aircraft artillery and several accidentally flying enemy aircraft. Quite logical reward for it was a legal possibility of destruction appeared in the Parking lot of enemy aircraft.

Such actions are not explicitly prohibited by the rules of the server, so the claims to the Jammer are not justified.

Another thing is that striving to win by all means, Jammer creates a situation:"winning always - lose a partner."

It is this consideration was the reason that I was forced to go to fly for three campaigns for the Luftwaffe team.

And exactly the same considerations prompted me in the current campaign to fly for the air force team of the red army.

 

At the moment, the administration server must find a solution to the problem of team balance.

How they will be able to implement it technically is a matter of their preferences and competence. In principle, "everything has been invented before us."

NULL-WAR team in most receiving more penalty for the lost aircraft and pilots, shatterstone team being in the minority had a strategy : to "act tough defense to shoot down as much as possible, denying the opponent's most dangerous aircraft".

There was binding of the titles ( which are implemented on TAW) to the choice of maximum downloads and the most effective types of weapons.

How much controversy is the presence or absence of a gun on the plane VYA LaGG-3....?

At NULL-WAR, the issue was resolved quite gracefully :

the aircraft with excellent characteristics or weapons was available in minimum quantities from a certain period of the war for a certain, high enough rank.

For example 42G on the first map LaGG-3-VYA-23mm will be available with the title of "major General" and Chimanov and not only him will be something to strive for.

From the next map, the access bar can be lowered to the rank of "Colonel" and so on.

This is a question of fine-tuning access to aircraft and weapons on the principle of "war period - the title from which the aircraft is available or its modification."

The same was implemented with attack aircraft and bombers.

Died we assume the Jammer during a strafing of the airfield, received a reduction in rank and a certain number of downloads for its attack aircraft were unavailable.

Shot down let's say a bomber near the warehouse..poll he was captured - he lost the title and instead of being able to hang with the maximum loading 6х250кг or 2х500кг + 4х250кг can take only 4х250кг or 28х50кг.

Pe-2 to ZERO-the WAR limited download 6хFAB-100 for the title of "Sergeant" Il-2 limited load in 4хFAB-100.  

This system is stimulated to act in groups.

To provide cover for the attack aircraft and minimize potential losses.

In that system, the Jammer simply wouldn't be able to act as effectively after two consecutive deaths in a single mission.

In combination with increased bonuses for the team in the minority - the balance problem was minimized so much that sometimes the teams flew in a ratio of 4 to 25-30 and the "magnificent four" could keep the enemy team in suspense, causing it at the slightest possibility of loss and thereby reducing its impact potential even in the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, xJammer said:

 

@=AVG77=Mobile_BBQ You attempt to differentiate yourself from "exploiters", but do not actually bring up what you consider an exploit. All of my missions are flown with the survival in mind - I would never have enough aircraft to take out AAA on an airfield if I just traded 1 aircraft per 1 AAA gun and that would be a clear waste of the aircraft. I am not an exceptional pilot, so these missions are very dangerous to me, but if I am able to take out 2-3 AAAs per sortie, what is there to stop me from improving further to eventually learn to take out all of the AAA without a loss of an aircraft? (something I have managed to do several times this TAW actually). At this point your sortie of 2 pe2 aircraft against a well-defended tank column could be considered a more of a suicide mission (both of you died) than what I do.

 

I strictly abide by the rules of the servers I play on to the best of my ability (KOTAR bans ramming, but sometimes lag / the other guy simply don't leave you an option to evade). And I have no attachment to the tactics I currently employ - change of the rules simply changes the META of the game.

 

For example, the multiple calls to penalise the deaths "more" by longer bans and even reset of player's hangar would very quickly drive me from attacking ground targets to farming pilot kills and thus depopulating the opponent's team, which in turn would allow my team to safely engage the ground. 

 

Merry Christmas to you all :)

 

Um... I admit I did get pissed when you rammed me on that mission, but I believe I even said to you personally that I accepted that it was fair game.

You did choose to attack 2 Pe-2s with a 110 and got chewed up by rear gunners bad enough that you chose to ram the second one to get the kill. We were already finished with our attack and RTB when you attacked us.  It seems to me that our choice to take on the mission vs. your choice to attack us alone resulted in an equal amount for both parties involved of whatever it is that's being called "suicide".

 

The thing that ticks me off is that others I have talked to have specifically recounted people waiting until Pe-2s and other "earned" planes are flaps down, wheels down and on final landing approach to ram them with their +1 109s only having to wait 2 hours to pick another target.

 

I also do consider the whole landing on an enemy airfield and rear-gunner-ing spawning planes to be an exploit. 

 

I will hand it to you though, looking back at older pages, you have made efforts to report various exploits only to see no action from the server admins to fix it in-game.  That said, providing your own example of these things overlooked or ignored doesn't come down to whether you could do it (apparently, yes), whether you would do it (again, apparently, yes), but whether you should do it.   It seems that by choosing "yes", you would - and did, instead of considering what the reaction would be if you did.  Apparently, many players find this to be of poor sportsmanship and also of vitriolic spirit.  It's no surprise to me that some don't want you allowed to fly on TAW.  I could care less either way.  I don't find you've violated rules, but I also feel no reason to not publicly support my squad mates should the majority vote they want you banned. 

 

My main concern is that whatever solution to control exploit abuse should not be based in blanket rules that A) punish everybody and do nothing to make an example out of the specific offenders, and B) Punish people who do not exploit, but use legitimate tactics which - depending on skill and/or even luck could make them look identical on a stat page. 

 

Instead, if rules are to be made, then those rules need to A) be able to specifically identify those who are INTENTIONALLY using exploits and leave out those who's poor or unlucky EXECUTION of valid tactics makes their stats look similar, and B) not pander to those who wish to restrict valid tactics from legitimate players simply because others who don't like such tactics.  

 

It's apparent to me that some players wish to use poorly-proposed "anti-exploit" rules as a way to justify the "collateral damage" caused to legitimate players whose legitimate tactics they cannot cope with.  Perhaps it's a control freak thing.  Perhaps it's an ego thing.  Perhaps it's just an overall lack of intelligence that make them desire their opponent to be restricted into predictable patterns. Perhaps they think that the mutual restriction of their own teammates from having these tactics available will create a better sense of teamwork due to having a much-more limited tool set to work with.  Rhetorically speaking, if they can only all do the same thing, then they should be more prone to do said "same thing" in a group.   

Whatever the reason, I find this potential outcome unacceptable.  

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Make rules that specifically identify and target the poor/exploitative behavior. Make rules that specifically apply to the offenders without causing non-offenders to be potentially targeted as well.  Make rules that don't apply the "it's close enough for a hand grenade" philosophy to legitimate and valid, but similar looking, tactics thereby eliminating them and punishing or ostracizing players who employ them.  Make rules that are logical and without further exploitable loopholes.  Do these things, and I'll get off the soapbox and (figuratively speaking of course) go away. 

 

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2018 at 7:29 PM, SCG_Riksen said:

Ok, after this one I'm out ... thanks LG and everyone else for TAW and all the work you do but it is people like xJammer that destroys this community. Some things are just common sense man, and it is obvious that he lacks any ... I mean, cmon, what kinda person would join TAW and start crash landing aircrafts instead of properly landing them because it took him 15 extra seconds to deploy the landing gears? What kind of person would land in an enemy AF and sit there to shoot people spawning? The dude is just an old troll and does not deserve a place in TAW.

 

It's not really Jammers fault..... This is the nature of pub play. Even a campaign. You have to take some silly lumps. For full immersion a closed campaign is the way to go. Come join Drifter.   :)

 

Tongue in cheek of course.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

It's not really Jammers fault..... This is the nature of pub play. Even a campaign. You have to take some silly lumps. For full immersion a closed campaign is the way to go. Come join Drifter.   :)

 

Tongue in cheek of course.

What is annoying is your bragging multiple times in this thread how your exclusive closed ACG campaign is better than anyone else's that is basically inaccessible to those whose daily schedule doesn't work, those who don't want to be a member of your squad, or don't want to leave their current one. 

 

It comes across as arrogance which for me is more likely to push me away than make me interested.

Edited by =AVG77=Garven
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as an organizer of several campaigns of the seow type HRCODWAR
 I would never approve that one of my pilots landed in the enemy's field to kill newly generated aircraft
, in the air is where you have to face them that is the nature of this server everyone is free of thinking
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow. Like many I stepped away to have a nice Christmas and then about five pages of cat vomit happens. 

It's clear the person in question loves the attention as much as a Kardashian. Repeat offender, not only here but on several other popular servers. Ban him and be done with it. His behavior clearly shows he has no remorse.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's inexcusable, in my opinion, to land on an airfield and shoot spawning players on the ground. I know this is a sim/game and there is a lot of unrealistic things happening, but this is beyond immersion breaking. It's just unfortunate that there wasn't all sorts of ground crew with rifles to shoot the offender on site.

 

It was clearly an inflammatory thing to do, and was done with the intention of being so. I'd be in favor of a temporary ban followed by a specific rule about landing on an enemy airfield being illegal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Tawoholics!!!
Merry christmas for all of you!
DRzNcp2W0AANA1Q.jpg.1e67f62221b775771422266b42e06a0f.jpg

Currently I`m gathering all the historical data about operational service of planes &operational history of the LW and VVS units (including info how they were replacing planes during the war ) used in TAW maps.

 

If you have any links, pdf & word files, books, etc. which might be helpful in creating a historical planeset lines, please share it with me on private message in forum

 

All the additional comments are welcome.
( if you have data in your native language plz send it in a form which I could retranslate via online tools )

Blak

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =LG=Blakhart said:

 historical data about operational service of planes &operational history of the LW and VVS units (including info how they were replacing planes during the war )

 

Good to hear this! If you come across black holes you could ask BlackSix or use the single player campaign as reference o7

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

×