Tactical Air War

[curiousGamblerr]

Kinda lame the map 4 plane set is identical to map 3 for Germans. As far as I can tell, the only difference is I've lost my F4.

 

Definitely have to second Manu's suggestion above that planes carry over between maps (as long as they are still available on the next one in general).

[Willy__]

 

 

Definitely have to second Manu's suggestion above that planes carry over between maps (as long as they are still available on the next one in general).

 

 

My guess is that they never intended you to lose your planes when the map changes, its just something that either got overlooked or it would take too much time to code and they decided "fuck it, lets start the campaign this way anyways" instead of hold it off.

[JG4_dingsda]

It's merely a starting point from what I can see as providing appropriate incentive to the players to keep the game balanced, while keeping the calculations easy enough to implement from a coding standpoint---- while allowing the ability to modify in a simpler way once implemented.  

 

Obviously it would be up to the TAW development team to execute if they decided to move forward with my suggestion, or if they modify the numbers in any way.  

 

I am very much for it and would like to add calculating like so: 2*baseline*(1-ownPlayerCount/allPlayerCount) to the suggestion-pool.    (With baseline being the amount of points awarded for AK, GK etc atm) 

[Leutnant_Artur]

Why make calculations to balance teams ? Maybe we'll lock numbers (32) for each side.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Sorry Pand, I understand your reasoning but just think the current method for calculating CMs is fine.  As you say, it won't actually help to balance sides.  Anyway, I'm not sure "balancing" is needed either.  The sides get unbalanced in both directions at times and many times they are balanced.  Just makes for a different challenge.

[Herne]

Why make calculations to balance teams ? Maybe we'll lock numbers (32) for each side.

shouldn't that be 37 ?

[Leutnant_Artur]

shouldn't that be 37 ?

Probably yes    I just hit this number because I don't remember how many slots is available

[ER*Melhilion]

Why make calculations to balance teams ? Maybe we'll lock numbers (32) for each side.

 

 

 

This is only a solution when the server is full . With a limit of 37 it doesn't look better with 5 : 37.

[curiousGamblerr]

I like all the suggestions.

 

My only other suggestion would be to use some sort of lottery to assign teams. Folks throw in as groups (squads, lone wolves are just a group of one) and are assigned a team for each campaign. Sign up could accept a time zone to in an attempt to create balance around the clock.

 

The main issue would be people not flying if they don't get assigned the team they want, something I can see quite a few LW squads doing to be honest. So perhaps it's a bad idea but I figured I'd throw it out there.

 

People respond to incentives. I think Pand's idea is worth a shot because it gives folks an incentive to balance teams. Of course, there are people like me that don't give a crap about TAW stats besides minimizing deaths, so it might not work for everyone, but I think most people would respond. The only issue is that constant team switching to maintain balance loses that magic of playing for one side, which is why I thought of the lottery thing. Who knows.

 

i hope you're all right about Allies being stacked in Pacific, because there I actually want to be stuck on the Japanese side, unlike eastern front where I'm mostly on Allies out of necessity while preferring the German planes somewhat.

Edited September 13, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[StG77_Kondor]

Interesting suggestions! My .02...

 

Trying to force balancing one way or the other will be very detrimental to the server. The team stacking happens on both sides. For example, look at the server right now 10v24 in favor of Red. Not only that, but only 2 of Blue's players are above the rank of Feldwebel; Russians are at 15. But that speaks to another combination of factors that have already been discussed. 

 

Personally I only have a very limited amount of hours every week or so to play the game. If I'm in a timezone let's say, that heavily favors one side or the other (using Pand's system) I'd be unfairly punished/rewarded just because of when I have free time available. IMO, it comes down to, yes, life is unfair, but why create a system that will be purely determined by when a player has time to fly? It takes our problem of team stacking and creates more problems and inequalities. Not to mention that for a blue ground attacker, all it takes is 1 ShVAK cannon to the back of the head from 1 fighter, or 1 hit of a flak gun to end it all for you. If an IL-2 (which has much higher survivability - and apparently tank killing capability) gets full points whereas me in a Ju88 going through deadlier flak in a weaker plane against on average better pilots...

We will not have perfect balance unless TAW turns into a Coop mission style war. Which is something we will never have in this game, no fault of TAW since it's a game issue.

[FTC_Riksen]

Interesting suggestions! My .02...

 

Trying to force balancing one way or the other will be very detrimental to the server. The team stacking happens on both sides. For example, look at the server right now 10v24 in favor of Red. Not only that, but only 2 of Blue's players are above the rank of Feldwebel; Russians are at 15. But that speaks to another combination of factors that have already been discussed. 

 

Personally I only have a very limited amount of hours every week or so to play the game. If I'm in a timezone let's say, that heavily favors one side or the other (using Pand's system) I'd be unfairly punished/rewarded just because of when I have free time available. IMO, it comes down to, yes, life is unfair, but why create a system that will be purely determined by when a player has time to fly? It takes our problem of team stacking and creates more problems and inequalities. Not to mention that for a blue ground attacker, all it takes is 1 ShVAK cannon to the back of the head from 1 fighter, or 1 hit of a flak gun to end it all for you. If an IL-2 (which has much higher survivability - and apparently tank killing capability) gets full points whereas me in a Ju88 going through deadlier flak in a weaker plane against on average better pilots...

We will not have perfect balance unless TAW turns into a Coop mission style war. Which is something we will never have in this game, no fault of TAW since it's a game issue.

I agree with the points above and I think the best solution would be to limit available slots for eacg side like 37 each. I for one don't mind when I'm playing for the outnumbered side as long as I'm flying the plane I like. Unfortunately it looks like I'll be out for longer than I expected as the current county I live in is still out of power.

[[TWB]Pand]

Interesting suggestions! My .02...

 

Personally I only have a very limited amount of hours every week or so to play the game. If I'm in a timezone let's say, that heavily favors one side or the other (using Pand's system) I'd be unfairly punished/rewarded just because of when I have free time available. IMO, it comes down to, yes, life is unfair, but why create a system that will be purely determined by when a player has time to fly? It takes our problem of team stacking and creates more problems and inequalities. Not to mention that for a blue ground attacker, all it takes is 1 ShVAK cannon to the back of the head from 1 fighter, or 1 hit of a flak gun to end it all for you. If an IL-2 (which has much higher survivability - and apparently tank killing capability) gets full points whereas me in a Ju88 going through deadlier flak in a weaker plane against on average better pilots...

 

From my perspective that's why I like my system.   As it stands, depending on the timezone, one side is completely and totally outnumbered, limiting the fun and balance for many people.  Historically these time zones consistently favor one side or the other.  Isn't the team stacking/timezone problem already unfair and the reason for this discussion?    I don't consider my system to be an unfair punishment/reward, but instead more of a balance to an already unfair situation.

 

Take the example below:

If you know that it's almost always Russian heavy during your time to fly, and you prefer to fly Russian, maybe you would consider going German during your TAW tour this time to get the benefits of being on the outnumbered side.   If enough people consider and do that, the gap is much smaller and the numbers achieve more of a balance.  Everyone wins.

 

 

 

Sorry Pand, I understand your reasoning but just think the current method for calculating CMs is fine.  As you say, it won't actually help to balance sides.  Anyway, I'm not sure "balancing" is needed either.  The sides get unbalanced in both directions at times and many times they are balanced.  Just makes for a different challenge.

 

I can definitely see this point of view as well as far as "earning aircraft" from a CM standpoint.  

 

My reasoning in this area is:

If the numbers are 20 Russians versus 10 Germans, it would be much easier for an overpopulated Russian with extra help to complete a successful combat mission, compared to an underpopulated German with minimal help to achieve the same value received with a successful CM.

 

That being said, I would be willing to compromise the design in this area, and say leave the CM calculations the same as they are today; however, update the scoring system to use the modifier to create the AKM (Air Kill Modified) / GKM (Ground Kill Modified) statistics and experience that would be used for scoring and streaks represented on the TAW website.  This system would not impact the game style or combat mission acquisition, but instead only provides website scoring penalty/awards based off of how much help you have (or don't have) during that mission.

 

I think this would more accurately represent the effectiveness of a pilot vs the system in place today which does not currently account for how balanced (or unbalanced) the teams are during that pilot's flight time.

[Nocke]

This is only a solution when the server is full . With a limit of 37 it doesn't look better with 5 : 37.

It absolutely IS a solution. It makes it possible to enter for those trying to join the side with low numbers. Personally, I have given up even trying to join. At my hours the server is usually full, with that 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. And I can't get in to balance.

[Willy__]

 

 

Pand' timestamp='1505321881' post='510274']   That being said, I would be willing to compromise the design in this area, and say leave the CM calculations the same as they are today; however, update the scoring system to use the modifier to create the AKM (Air Kill Modified) / GKM (Ground Kill Modified) statistics and experience that would be used for scoring and streaks represented on the TAW website.  This system would not impact the game style or combat mission acquisition, but instead only provides website scoring penalty/awards based off of how much help you have (or don't have) during that mission.

 

I like this idea much more than the previous one!

 

+1 

[StG77_Kondor]

From my perspective that's why I like my system.   As it stands, depending on the timezone, one side is completely and totally outnumbered, limiting the fun and balance for many people.  Historically these time zones consistently favor one side or the other.  Isn't the team stacking/timezone problem already unfair and the reason for this discussion?    I don't consider my system to be an unfair punishment/reward, but instead more of a balance to an already unfair situation.

 

Take the example below:

If you know that it's almost always Russian heavy during your time to fly, and you prefer to fly Russian, maybe you would consider going German during your TAW tour this time to get the benefits of being on the outnumbered side.   If enough people consider and do that, the gap is much smaller and the numbers achieve more of a balance.  Everyone wins.

 

 

Understandable. I don't have faith in people in those heavily stacked time zones to switch sides to even it out. Mainly because I myself would not switch sides in my time zone. All for an extra 1.5x points? There are tons of TAW pilots who are all about their points and kills, so maybe you're right and they see the extra points and switch. As for me, I'll keep flying my 87, 88, 110 and 129 regardless - preferably in TAW but if that's made more complicated I guess I'll spend my limited free time in other servers. Personally, I find these planes infinitely more challenging (to survive in) compared to an Il-2 or Pe-2, especially how TAW ground attack is constructed. 

[[TWB]80hd]

 

Personally I only have a very limited amount of hours every week or so to play the game. If I'm in a timezone let's say, that heavily favors one side or the other (using Pand's system) I'd be unfairly punished/rewarded just because of when I have free time available.

 

Just to be clear here, no timezone "heavily favors" either side.  No one is stopping anyone from learning and flying either side's planes.

 

When it's 56 to 16, *you* are unfairly punishing ( the Red pilot who only gets to fly during that certain time frame).  Your risk is significantly less than his.  The premise that rewards should not also be adjusted accordingly does not hold up to that logic.

 

Don't get me wrong, not saying that Pand's idea is 100% perfect, and I think his numbers are all thrown out for example purposes and would most certainly need tweaking, but the truth here is that scoring is pointless unless it gives as much of an unbiased indicator of skill vs. adversity as possible.

 

Certainly there should be room for shrewd pilots who are observant and take advantage, but for glaring issues such as ~4 or 5 to 1 odds, having that directly accounted for in scoring should not be an issue to any objective pilot.

Edited September 13, 2017 by [TWB]80hd

[StG77_Kondor]

Just to be clear here, no timezone "heavily favors" either side.  No one is stopping anyone from learning and flying either side's planes.

 

When it's 56 to 16, *you* are unfairly punishing ( the Red pilot who only gets to fly during that certain time frame.  Your risk is significantly less than his.  The premise that rewards should not also be adjusted accordingly don't hold up to that logic.

 

Don't get me wrong, not saying that Pand's idea is 100% perfect, and I think his numbers are all thrown out for example purposes and would most certainly need tweaking, but the truth here is that scoring is pointless unless it gives as much of an unbiased indicator of skill vs. adversity as possible.

 

Certainly there should be room for shrewd pilots who are observant and take advantage, but for glaring issues such as ~4 or 5 to 1 odds, having that directly accounted for in scoring should not be an issue to any objective pilot.

 

Yes. I'm the bad guy for buying the same game as everyone else and playing how I want to play . Honestly, the balancing when I play the game (evening EST) has gotten much better the last few weeks. Euro prime time is a different story it seems. 

 

My argument was never against the rewards or a new incentive system. I just don't think it would work or have the intended effect, that being using points/rank to move pilots to one side. But I'm perfectly capable of being 100% wrong . 

 

Nothing against "learning" other planes in the game. It's the best way to appreciate weaknesses/strengths of your opposition. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have my 'favorites' I like what I like, TAW gives me an opportunity to fly them in an extremely challenging scenario. Even when it is 30vs10, because the majority of those 30 are either beginners or 109 pilots who never cross enemy lines. But this is just rehashing conversations already had on this thread regarding quality/quantity of pilots vis a vis campaign results.

[[TWB]80hd]

Understandable. I don't have faith in people in those heavily stacked time zones to switch sides to even it out. Mainly because I myself would not switch sides in my time zone. All for an extra 1.5x points? There are tons of TAW pilots who are all about their points and kills, so maybe you're right and they see the extra points and switch. As for me, I'll keep flying my 87, 88, 110 and 129 regardless - preferably in TAW but if that's made more complicated I guess I'll spend my limited free time in other servers. Personally, I find these planes infinitely more challenging (to survive in) compared to an Il-2 or Pe-2, especially how TAW ground attack is constructed. 

 

The score changes would complicate nothing.  If your play is solely based on scores, then why would you not wish for scoring to be as meaningful as possible? Your streak doesn't change based on numbers. 

 

I do agree with you on the last point, however.  I believe Germans should be able to carry all of the historical bomb loads, especially considering that every LaGG after their introductory map is flying with a 23mm, etc.

 

Certainly a Stuka is substantially more difficult to operate than an IL2, is woefully underpowered and undergunned as well, then add to that the armor of the KV-1... wellllllllllllllllll.....

 

But the balance issues stand... no solution is likely to fully correct the issue, but incremental changes could do much to help the problem. And the bottom line? It is a problem. 

Yes. I'm the bad guy for buying the same game as everyone else and playing how I want to play . Honestly, the balancing when I play the game (evening EST) has gotten much better the last few weeks. Euro prime time is a different story it seems. 

 

My argument was never against the rewards or a new incentive system. I just don't think it would work or have the intended effect, that being using points/rank to move pilots to one side. But I'm perfectly capable of being 100% wrong . 

 

 

No one is saying you're a bad guy, and you trying to play the victim will see this thread degenerate from an objective discussion.

 

My response was in regard to the idea that this was somehow "punishing" you.  Nothing changes, except the validity of points vs. risk.

 

 

Nothing against "learning" other planes in the game. It's the best way to appreciate weaknesses/strengths of your opposition. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have my 'favorites' I like what I like, TAW gives me an opportunity to fly them in an extremely challenging scenario. Even when it is 30vs10, because the majority of those 30 are either beginners or 109 pilots who never cross enemy lines. But this is just rehashing conversations already had on this thread regarding quality/quantity of pilots vis a vis campaign results.

 

It's just input on refining what is an ongoing problem.  Huge numerical imbalances are a problem.  This is a fact.  It's not only the odds/balance, it's also the fact that it keeps solo players from even wanting to log in and risk their planes.

 

"the majority of those 30 are either beginners or 109 pilots who never cross enemy lines" <--- attempting to dismiss the issue with hyperbolic assumptions isn't going to solve the issue.

Edited September 13, 2017 by [TWB]80hd

[[TWB]80hd]

Good ideas there Pand,

 

The only thing that I feel, is that a successful combat mission should be just that.  A score of 1 CM.

 

I don't disagree with you, but I would further adjust this to:

 

A Combat Mission can never be less than 1, but could be given a bonus of X (where x is derived from the average balance) for the German or Soviet pilot that lands a CM against the odds. 

I.e., if it's 50:10 Sovijet vs. Germania, and that works out to like a .5 CM bonus, a successful CM would net a Sovijet pilot 1.0 CM, and the German pilot 1.5 CM.

[StG77_Kondor]

The score changes would complicate nothing.  If your play is solely based on scores, then why would you not wish for scoring to be as meaningful as possible? Your streak doesn't change based on numbers. 

 

I do agree with you on the last point, however.  I believe Germans should be able to carry all of the historical bomb loads, especially considering that every LaGG after their introductory map is flying with a 23mm, etc.

 

Certainly a Stuka is substantially more difficult to operate than an IL2, is woefully underpowered and undergunned as well, then add to that the armor of the KV-1... wellllllllllllllllll.....

 

But the balance issues stand... no solution is likely to fully correct the issue, but incremental changes could do much to help the problem. And the bottom line? It is a problem. 

 

No one is saying you're a bad guy, and you trying to play the victim will see this thread degenerate from an objective discussion.

 

My response was in regard to the idea that this was somehow "punishing" you.  Nothing changes, except the validity of points vs. risk.

 

 

It's just input on refining what is an ongoing problem.  Huge numerical imbalances are a problem.  This is a fact.  It's not only the odds/balance, it's also the fact that it keeps solo players from even wanting to log in and risk their planes.

 

Woah. Not intended to play a silly victim card here. Just responding to your comment singling me out as being part of the problem. But moving on.

 

The Ju-87 is not under-powered. It may be aerodynamically challenged but the same engine powers the Ju-88 and eventually (with further development) the Fw-190D. The Jumo isn't the problem . Now that I've successfully defended my favorite engine.

 

My comments weren't about the limiting loadouts that constrict most blue ground attack. More about flak effectiveness imbalance per side. If anything I welcome more bomb and loadout restrictions! If we're going to go for full historical loadouts for every plane, both sides are going to be heavily disappointed.

 

1. ​Map #1 having Ju-87s with 37mm cannon to start in a '41 scenario. Yikes. 37mm should be available no earlier than the Spring/Summer '43 plane set.
2. The Ju-88 was the most common bomber among the Kampfgeschwader during Barbarossa - unavailable Map #1.
3. Bombs larger than 250kg (for blue side, I don't have stats for me for red) were rare, and obviously on a sliding scale. SC1000's and larger were basically requested for special missions. KGs and StGs didn't just have a pile of them on hand. The most common bombs were the SC250 and the SC50. So limiting bomb loadout is 100% accurate IMO, I'd welcome it.
4. 109F should be available Map #1 (obviously this is difficult due to the Russians not having a realistic 1941 planeset)
5. The Il-2 currently in game has a tank destruction capability (with the 23mm) that is not historically accurate. The cannon clearly outperforms all published information regarding armor penetration. Until the game fixes this (unlikely) the 23mm for the Il-2 should be severely limited.

Obviously just from the top of my head. There is tons of other stuff that could be added here, I'm sure more experienced Red pilots have other things they'd like to add. 

 

[JG5_Schuck]

If a multiplier helps those pilots who score kills while heavily outnumbered gain extra Experience points, that kind of makes sense,

as its harder to stay alive.

But i don't fly with one eye on the 'scoreboard' so it doesn't bother me.

Whats always baffled me is when i see people who have died 20 times or more and still have a better plane set and more points than someone who flies clever has never died at all!

Completing a successful CM (ie staying alive) should be just as important as wracking up kills, especially from a bombers point of view.

Surely the pilots virtual life should count for something!

And like Kondor, i've flown LW (and Japanese) almost exclusively for 20 years, 13 years in JG5, i would struggle to fly anything else, its in my blood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NB. The squad is 18 years old

Edited September 13, 2017 by JG5_Schuck

[blitze]

Hoe about allowing people to fly on either side with one registration with the stats being for the pilot showing both German and Soviet stats for that pilot but as separate columns.

 

I am registered for Soviet so that is what I fly and can't be bothered with a second account to fly given when I start BoS, I do not know the TAW team numbers.  Make it accessible for people to team balance when they first join the server with time penalties for team switching.

 

As for German ground pounding, try the 110 E with added armour. Fun and as survivable as an il2, bout as sluggish too but at least you can take some hits from aa.

Edited September 13, 2017 by blitze

[Willy__]

As for German ground pounding, try the 110 E with added armour. Fun and as survivable as an il2, bout as sluggish too but at least you can take some hits from aa.

 

The extra armour wont make a difference against medium and heavy aaa (20mm, 37mm and flak). It does protect a bit against smaller rounds (rifle caliber).

 

Since taking the armour will make the plane much more sluggish and less manoueverable while having no apparent benefits against the really dangerous AAA, i would not take it.

Edited September 13, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger

[-SF-Disarray]

Kondor, your absurd notion that flying 30 to 10 isn't so bad because most of the 30 might  be inexperience 109 pilots is just that, absurd. Fighting outnumbered, regardless of the skill of your opponents, is more difficult. Fighting outnumbered against opponents in faster planes is more difficult. Even if every pilot on the outnumbered team is better than every pilot on the team with numbers, it is more difficult for the team with fewer pilots. These are facts. Another fact is that there are many skilled German pilots in the mix. Even if only 1 in 5 of them are the skilled ones the Soviet pilots don't get to fight you all one on one. This being the case the quality of an individual combatant, both plane and pilot combined, takes a back seat to shear numbers. Even the best pilot in the world can't see everything around them at all times and there are only so many bullets that can be dodged before one lands home. Making these weak rationalizations for imbalance are counter productive. Please stop.

[[TWB]80hd]

 

The Ju-87 is not under-powered. It may be aerodynamically challenged but the same engine powers the Ju-88 and eventually (with further development) the Fw-190D. The Jumo isn't the problem . Now that I've successfully defended my favorite engine.

 

Haha! Point taken!

 

 

 

My comments weren't about the limiting loadouts that constrict most blue ground attack. More about flak effectiveness imbalance per side. If anything I welcome more bomb and loadout restrictions! If we're going to go for full historical loadouts for every plane, both sides are going to be heavily disappointed.

 

 

I fly both sides and I feel like the AA is pretty similar, just that the blue planes can't take it as well.  That's the medium and lower AA, not the HE artillery stuff, I don't really get hit by that much on either side, as much as my headphones have recently begun telling me I am.

 

 

 

 

• Map #1 having Ju-87s with 37mm cannon to start in a '41 scenario. Yikes. 37mm should be available no earlier than the Spring/Summer '43 plane set.

   

• The Ju-88 was the most common bomber among the Kampfgeschwader during Barbarossa - unavailable Map #1.
• Bombs larger than 250kg (for blue side, I don't have stats for me for red) were rare, and obviously on a sliding scale. SC1000's and larger were basically requested for special missions. KGs and StGs didn't just have a pile of them on hand. The most common bombs were the SC250 and the SC50. So limiting bomb loadout is 100% accurate IMO, I'd welcome it.
• 109F should be available Map #1 (obviously this is difficult due to the Russians not having a realistic 1941 planeset)
• The Il-2 currently in game has a tank destruction capability (with the 23mm) that is not historically accurate. The cannon clearly outperforms all published information regarding armor penetration. Until the game fixes this (unlikely) the 23mm for the Il-2 should be severely limited.

 

 

 

Agreed on the historicity front, but with the ground mechanics and balancing available, it'd be tough... I argue for the inclusion of heavier bombs only from a purely balance-based perspective in that if I can take an Il-2 loaded with rockets, bombs, and 23mm AP... ALL capable of killing hard targets, then the other side should get some kind of trump card... plus, the danger of a level bomber dropping a Satan or a Max on an airfield or depot would really force the CAP issue for Red.

 

But yeah, historically that'd be a no-go.

 

[curiousGamblerr]

Kondor, your absurd notion that flying 30 to 10 isn't so bad because most of the 30 might be inexperience 109 pilots is just that, absurd. Fighting outnumbered, regardless of the skill of your opponents, is more difficult. Fighting outnumbered against opponents in faster planes is more difficult. Even if every pilot on the outnumbered team is better than every pilot on the team with numbers, it is more difficult for the team with fewer pilots. These are facts. Another fact is that there are many skilled German pilots in the mix. Even if only 1 in 5 of them are the skilled ones the Soviet pilots don't get to fight you all one on one. This being the case the quality of an individual combatant, both plane and pilot combined, takes a back seat to shear numbers. Even the best pilot in the world can't see everything around them at all times and there are only so many bullets that can be dodged before one lands home. Making these weak rationalizations for imbalance are counter productive. Please stop.

Honestly as someone that switched to Axis and is normally on the understaffed side, I think you're wrong here. In a 30 German v 15 Russian situation, given the general skill levels and the durability of the aircraft, I feel much safer in an Il-2 or something on the Allies than I do in a Stuka on Axis. The slightest misstep on LW in TAW and I'm dead, whereas I have a tiny bit more room to make a mistake on Russian in my experience.

[-SF-Disarray]

My last sortie in an IL 2 resulted in my death because there weren't enough fighters to properly cover the attack. A single 109 killed me in a single pass while the escort was otherwise occupied. Numbers count for a lot. In that 30 to 15 scenario of yours there will never be enough Soviet fighters to cover friendly ground attackers and defend the Soviet ground targets. This is the problem.

[StG77_Kondor]

My last sortie in an IL 2 resulted in my death because there weren't enough fighters to properly cover the attack. A single 109 killed me in a single pass while the escort was otherwise occupied. Numbers count for a lot. In that 30 to 15 scenario of yours there will never be enough Soviet fighters to cover friendly ground attackers and defend the Soviet ground targets. This is the problem.

Then blue should easily win every single map. However...

 

I still stand by my generalization. On average, blue has a higher # of less experienced pilots. Especially when it comes to fighter pilots. Which means more lone wolfers in fighters and attack aircraft. Which means more easy prey for fighters and AA. 

 

 

 

As for German ground pounding, try the 110 E with added armour. Fun and as survivable as an il2, bout as sluggish too but at least you can take some hits from aa.

 

It does add some extra survivability sure. It's still nowhere near that of an Il-2 or Pe-2 for that matter. It's intended for rifle caliber, and even then not guaranteed. It won't do anything to help you survive a 37mm AA round - nor should it. But in TAW it's the most common type of AA. So in reality the weight it adds is more of a hindrance to a ground attacker. 

[curiousGamblerr]

I just wanna say, before we get any deeper in this discussion, that I am having a freakin' blast this TAW.

 

Whether it's because I have a chance to fly German aircraft for the first time in a while, or a few dope Stuka raids led by Kondor, or my new stick and pedals, or the Nineteenth guys working well together, idk... but it's been wicked fun.

 

Just figured it was worth saying, and thanking Kathon and the admin team for making it happen. I think it's important to express my appreciation given all the suggestions I'm making o7

[-SF-Disarray]

If you look at the front line shift of the last two maps, the ones the Soviets won, the Germans were gaining ground towards the end. We didn't win those maps because out fighter and ground attack pilots are better. We won because you guys got too many of your pilots killed. If you guys didn't have so many more people playing for your side the map may have drug out long enough to take the rest of the ground. As to this mythical superiority of the Soviet team's players... Well the raw numbers tell a different story. Sort the server's pop by total kills, K/D, Win/Loss and total EXP earned records and you'll find the top 25 players are just about evenly split. If you look deeper, into the list, down where the K/D or win/loss ratios are closer to and equal to 0 you find a similar mix of German and Soviet pilots. If you were right, then surely the majority of the top 25 in these categories would be Soviet and the bottom end would be packed with Germans... If you look at the squadron stats you will find a similar distribution of kills among both sides. Further, the numbers advantage makes up for less skilled pilots. A swarm of low skilled pilots will kill an enemy just as dead as a single skilled pilot. I don't know why there is such push back against having balanced teams. Am I really asking for all that much?

[curiousGamblerr]

Lol nobody is pushing back against even teams. Kondor is just pointing out it isn't quite so simple.

 

But yes, you are asking for so much, because this is an issue we've been trying to solve for as long as I've played this game and surely before that. It's a tricky problem, and we're all in this together looking for a solution.

Edited September 13, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[Pharoah]

Guys

 

right now, VVS 2 Luftwaffe 1. Current map = 

 

Axis lost: A/c 470/1300, Pilots 342/900

VVS lost: A/c 406/1300, Pilots 251/900

 

Thats from one night of fighting. 

 

Everyone was complaining about how the LW had more numbers and were stacked and yet, we're down 2-1 and map 4 is looking the same. This is how it was in the last campaign. So please stop with the arguments. Its not how many pilots, its how we're using our a/c. Last night I saw and heard VVS pilots bombing our tanks in 1618 (I think) who were covered by fighters. Meanwhile the LW team are quiet and going to bomb individually. The key here is probably team work. 

 

One thing that is definitely missing though is a coordinated plan of attack. With other online campaigns (for other games) I've always seen locked discussion areas for both opposing teams where we can discuss tactics, etc. We don't currently have that in TAW so everyone just does what they think is best. Thats not working. 

[[TWB]dillon_biz]

More pilots flying = more pilots that can be killed.

 

If the situation was reversed and red side had a higher average number of pilots I posit that they would also have more pilots killed.

[tailwheel]

Well, my main Problem with the Aircraft System Right now is the harsh treatment of Ground Pounders. The Threats to the Ground Pounders are just far more plentiful.

We are slower, larger targets. We are easy to Kill by Flak, and spend a lot more time under Fire. We HAVE to cross the Front Line to perform our duties (while fighers can just sit back and wait for their prey to come) and that simply means that our attrition is far worse. 

 

Just think how different the threat levels are to

• 4 Friends in Fighters patrolling over the friendly positions (a totally legitimate Mission Profile for a Fighter) waiting for some Attackers to come in and
• 4 Friends, 2 in Attackers, 2 in Escorting Jabos crossing the Front Line to attack exactly these targets. 

Guess who is gonna get massacred despite coordinated flying, Escorts etc?

 

Right now the guys doing the offensive work are getting shafted. Not only will they loose more Aircraft, but they will be punished the same way the guys who do low Risk work defending. 

 

And adding insult to injury the Server Flak will actively Chutekill Bailed out Pilots. It will kill even landed Pilots. 

 

Because of that I will never join the Side with inferior Numbers. It's not worth the Risk at all, if I can enjoy the safety of 3:1 Balance and only have to deal with Flak mostly. 

 

 

The Fighters rarely ever have to think about Flak at all, to them it's no danger most of the time as they are fast, small and far away and above. 

And they don't have to think about enemy fighters as much as well. Fighters can pretty much always choose to disengage and run and even if they have to fight, their skill levels are ultimately decisive. 

And often enough they will find lightly protected prey to feast on, often with Escort focussed too much on keeping Visual with their Protégés  to notice you before you have secured all advantages and the Surprise on your side. 

And all of that over friendly territory. So if you bail out you are fine. 

 

In Attackers and Bombers Flak is a Major Concern. Not only is it a direct threat, as you are slow and large and normally quite low, but it also draws all the attention of enemy defenders towards you. 

Against the fighters you barely stand a 20% Chance 1v1. Your Rear Gunners are only effective in straight flight and your Dogfight attributes will normally not allow you to do more than Potshots after an Overshoot. 

And you will find yourself in Enemy Territory pretty much every single Sortie. Getting Shot down will result in capture most of the time. 

huh... doesn't sound like much fun. I know I tried the TAW training and the flak is killer. I like ground pounding too, but if getting knocked down does a player reset... hmmm...

[JG4_Widukind]

There are easy Rules:

1:if u allone go not attack

2:join Teamspeak TAW and fly as Group

3:if u want stay allone, have a look on Damagd on Citys and Airfields and fly suply

 

This will increase your Pilots Deaths and Plane lose

[FTC_Riksen]

There are easy Rules:

1:if u allone go not attack

2:join Teamspeak TAW and fly as Group

3:if u want stay allone, have a look on Damagd on Citys and Airfields and fly suply

 

This will increase your Pilots Deaths and Plane lose

 

Wise words Widu. Although, it is possible to be successful as a lone wolf in any server, TAW is meant to be a cooperative environment. Expect to die a lot when attacking the ground by yourself without proper coordination with other players. Having this kind of teamwork is the most rewarding feature of TAW but a lot of people still ignore that and fly TAW like they would WoL or just don't care about the team efforts. You can clearly see the latter when playing for the blue side when you request support in the game chat or by the lack of team coordination in TAW's teamspeak. What irks me the most, however, is having the majority of blue players picking up fighters and being completely horrible at it by providing ineffective CAP (like flying at 8k when they need to protect tanks for example), strafing airfields by themselves, protecting an area that is already filled with other fighters, lone wolfing with no purpose, or simply dying all the time. If you suck at being a fighter, there are other ways to help, like ground attacking, supply missions and all that but everyone wants to be Hartmann and they keep insisting on it no matter how many planes/pilots they lose ...

[HR_slamelov]

Please, I need to unlock my pilot:

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot.php?name=HR_slamelov

 

Thanks

[Leon_Portier]

How does one communicate effectively on TS and chat?

I like to announce my actions with an ETA and kinda hope for the best. Haven´t tried Ts yet.

It is also pretty hard to announce contacts when on fire

[blitze]

Wise words Risken.

For those wanting to team up look for fields with decent player count and spawn there.

 

I had a great expierience today with a VVS ground attack group. I spawned in my il2 just in time to take off with a group attacking a German forward base. We had 4 il2s and 2 fighters. I flew tail end of the il2s and it was fun pounding the one target together. Unfortunately for me I law darted pressing home a cannon attack against parked German half tracks but I had HE ammo which didn't seem to do much against those vehicles.  Should have stuck to mixed ammo or AP as aa was taken out the previous mission.

 

Team / group flying is fun.

[curiousGamblerr]

How does one communicate effectively on TS and chat?

I like to announce my actions with an ETA and kinda hope for the best. Haven´t tried Ts yet.

It is also pretty hard to announce contacts when on fire

 

TS is infinitely better than chat, where you just have to hope for the best as you mentioned.

 

You just communicate by talking, nothing special about it. The key benefit is that a channel of pilots tend to fly a mission together, from takeoff to form up, through the attack or patrol and back to base. So instead of saying "ill be attacking X in Y minutes" you can plan a mission with a handful of folks and execute it together.

 

Honestly it takes this server and this game to the next level.