Tactical Air War

May 16, 2018

Some photos of the last TAW campaign:

Cheers

Edited May 16, 2018 by SCG_Riksen
Forgot the spoiler

May 16, 2018

7 hours ago, 19//Darbzy said:

Looking forward to the next campaign already

Where is the fighter cover ...???

Nicer one guys A well deserved Win for RED.

Edited May 16, 2018 by II./JG77_Con

May 16, 2018

A great campaign, thanks to everyone. I hope the next ..

regards

May 16, 2018

3 hours ago, =LG=Kathon said:

And AA stats from this campaign.

12 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

you come to forums and dare to criticize il2 devs, TAW management, and red AA for your incompetence! Do you always go like that blaming others for your own mistakes?

Please, compare the score stats of the Russian AAA vs German AAA, ... are all the Germans pilots losers, or incompetent?
Russian AAA shootdown: 1670 German aircraft
German AAA shootdown: 1264 Russian aircraft
Russian AAA shootdown 406 airplanes more than Germans AAA.
What's happen here more Germans attacking than Russians?? I don´t understand

May 16, 2018

maybe germans flying he111 100m over tank column with 300km/h...Just trolling.

Those stats are much better than before changes and i think it shows the difference beetwen durability of russian and german planes.

May 16, 2018

43 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Please, compare the score stats of the Russian AAA vs German AAA, ... are all the Germans pilots losers, or incompetent?
Russian AAA shootdown: 1670 German aircraft
German AAA shootdown: 1264 Russian aircraft
Russian AAA shootdown 406 airplanes more than Germans AAA.
What's happen here more Germans attacking than Russians?? I don´t understand

Statistics aren't so easy. Maybe just more aircraft were in reach of the AAA. U can't just jump to conclusions by comparing one number.

Edited May 16, 2018 by DerSheriff

May 16, 2018

2 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

U can't just jump to conclusions by comparing one number.

Oh but some really can, and they love to do it!

Thanks very much again to =LG= for TAW; this time i couldn´t participate much but the few sorties i flew i enjoyed them as usual.

May 16, 2018

3 hours ago, ATAG_dB said:

Every time now that I come on this page it's on and it's blocked, weird only here

In the past this was attributed to an image in someone’s signature, not something specific to the forums/thread/TAW.

May 16, 2018

They are from

7 hours ago, ATAG_dB said:

Recently I have phishing warning for this (TAW) subforum. Anyone else have this with Malwarebytes?

From looking at the screenshot, looks like a block on a site that is hosting someone's signature images, possible Otto's G6 and MK108 image?

Edited May 16, 2018 by =EXPEND=Tripwire

May 16, 2018

47 minutes ago, =L/R=Coldman said:

maybe germans flying he111 100m over tank column with 300km/h...Just trolling.

Those stats are much better than before changes and i think it shows the difference beetwen durability of russian and german planes.

Do you have any document with specification that the He-111 can't not be used for low level bombing against tank or vehicle columns??,.. please show here.
As far as i know, He-111 was used for low level attack missions, and torpedo bomber too.

And the CASA-Heinkel C-2111 (Spanish version of the He-111) was used after the WWII, in "Ifni war" 1957, for reconnaissance, and low level attack, without problems.

Spoiler

Edited May 16, 2018 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

May 16, 2018

10 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Statistics aren't so easy. Maybe just more aircraft were in reach of the AAA. U can't just jump to conclusions by comparing one number.

Well there is clearly a discrepancy every campaign though, so if you compare the stats from all taws you can see there is something wrong. Probably the fact that lw aircraft are more fragile and russian AA better (not in accuracy, just the gun itself). It's not game breaking and lw should adapt and do better attack runs.

May 16, 2018

47 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

They are from

From looking at the screenshot, looks like a block on a site that is hosting someone's signature images, possible Otto's G6 and MK108 image?

You know how can I check this?

Edit: I think you re right, I ignore Otto and I have no more warning.

Thank you

Edited May 16, 2018 by ATAG_dB

May 16, 2018

Happy to report even numbers when I was online last night. 0 to 0

May 16, 2018

40 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Kamm said:

I agree sheriff, often times I noticed that RED tanks and defensive positions would stay on the map all mission long with a full server while BLUE tanks and defensive positions might not last even half of the mission. It could be a multitude of things, maybe RED ground attackers know exactly how to approach these targets to eliminate the AA as quick as possible, maybe there are BLUE players who don't know how to approach these targets and basically throw their lives away, and maybe RED fighters just do a great job in defending and dragging the AA for the ground attackers.

Having flown both you are mistaken my friend. Especially in our shared EST time zone there was no large contingent of blue ground attackers. Sure some individuals here and there but no concerted effort. You could see how this changed during popular Euro time zone where Blue was much more effective at taking out objectives.

Now with the AA there are so many variables. Yes an IL-2 will take more AA damage than anything on the Blue side. And yes - even more than the 129. The 129 is deceptively very weak against AA. The average Red ground attack pilot is no better than the average Blue one. I think the major difference is that the IL-2 has the ability to kill tanks not only with bombs, and rockets, but also with even the VYa 23mm cannon. Blue doesn't have anything close to it's ability to annihilate a column in a single sortie. But back to pilot skill I would however, argue about top end talent combined with the people who have the most flight time in the sever - here there is a STARK difference between Red and Blue that also contributes to such lopsided war results.

Top 25 All Pilots		Avg Score
VVS	17 Pilots	3,589
OKL	8 Pilots	4,362

Top 25 Flight Hours		Avg Score
VVS	12 Pilots	2,210
OKL	13 Pilots	910

Top 50 Flight Hours		Avg Score
VVS	24 Pilots	786
OKL	26 Pilots	623

Top 25 in Deaths		Avg Score
VVS	8 Pilots	332
OKL	17 Piilots	131

The top 25 leans heavily to VVS. And even more so when you go Top 50, with only a total of 14 OKL pilots in the top 50. The majority of the top level talent decided to fly Red this campaign. But the real problem comes with the flight hours. Here in the Top 25 we see a 2-1 advantage in score. So on average the Red pilot you ALWAYS see online flying is good enough to warrant someone on Blue side getting them a girlfriend . Whereas the Blue guy should dump his and go to flight school. It starts to balance out a bit when you stretch it out to the Top 50 as expected.

So in conclusion it's a lot less about the 'average' pilot. Because the average pilot on both sides is very equal. It's the top 1% of the really good - and really bad pilots that also contributes to Blue's woes.

May 16, 2018

8 hours ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Added to my to-do list.

You are not registered. You have registered slightly different name.

What is the cure? Maybe try to simplify your name to avoid errors during registration.

Let's hope as few as possible

And AA stats from this campaign.

I went to the TAW webpage. I tried to re-register a new account. They said I could not because, that account already exists. There are no mistakes in the name. Email address or anything. So went back to the sign in page and requested a new password, maybe that would make a difference. But again, the same results, they would not let me sign into my account. So, here we have TAW acknowledging my account, but not allowing me to sign in. You say it is my name. Well, my name should not be too complicated, seeing as how the new password they sent to me is about 50 digits long. Meaning, if their password suggestion was not too complicated then my name sure as heck is not too complicated, and I am not about to change my name and mess up all of my stuff here on IL2 to appease TAW. So how about a more thought out suggestion rather then change my name. Or fix the issue on the side of TAW.

May 16, 2018

16 minutes ago, S.A.C.G._RCAF_LYNX said:

I went to the TAW webpage. I tried to re-register a new account. They said I could not because, that account already exists. There are no mistakes in the name. Email address or anything. So went back to the sign in page and requested a new password, maybe that would make a difference. But again, the same results, they would not let me sign into my account. So, here we have TAW acknowledging my account, but not allowing me to sign in. You say it is my name. Well, my name should not be too complicated, seeing as how the new password they sent to me is about 50 digits long. Meaning, if their password suggestion was not too complicated then my name sure as heck is not too complicated, and I am not about to change my name and mess up all of my stuff here on IL2 to appease TAW. So how about a more thought out suggestion rather then change my name. Or fix the issue on the side of TAW.

I shall predict a future LG comment:

"Door is that way. --->"

May 16, 2018

17 minutes ago, S.A.C.G._RCAF_LYNX said:

I went to the TAW webpage. I tried to re-register a new account. They said I could not because, that account already exists. There are no mistakes in the name. Email address or anything. So went back to the sign in page and requested a new password, maybe that would make a difference. But again, the same results, they would not let me sign into my account. So, here we have TAW acknowledging my account, but not allowing me to sign in. You say it is my name. Well, my name should not be too complicated, seeing as how the new password they sent to me is about 50 digits long. Meaning, if their password suggestion was not too complicated then my name sure as heck is not too complicated, and I am not about to change my name and mess up all of my stuff here on IL2 to appease TAW. So how about a more thought out suggestion rather then change my name. Or fix the issue on the side of TAW.

When you use the website the email and the account name are different. you reset with your email address, and take the password and use it with your login name, not email...stumped me at first too.

May 17, 2018

9 hours ago, StG77_Kondor said:

Having flown both you are mistaken my friend. Especially in our shared EST time zone there was no large contingent of blue ground attackers. Sure some individuals here and there but no concerted effort. You could see how this changed during popular Euro time zone where Blue was much more effective at taking out objectives.

Now with the AA there are so many variables. Yes an IL-2 will take more AA damage than anything on the Blue side. And yes - even more than the 129. The 129 is deceptively very weak against AA. The average Red ground attack pilot is no better than the average Blue one. I think the major difference is that the IL-2 has the ability to kill tanks not only with bombs, and rockets, but also with even the VYa 23mm cannon. Blue doesn't have anything close to it's ability to annihilate a column in a single sortie. But back to pilot skill I would however, argue about top end talent combined with the people who have the most flight time in the sever - here there is a STARK difference between Red and Blue that also contributes to such lopsided war results.

Top 25 All Pilots Avg Score
VVS 17 Pilots 3,589
OKL 8 Pilots 4,362

Top 25 Flight Hours Avg Score
VVS 12 Pilots 2,210
OKL 13 Pilots 910

Top 50 Flight Hours Avg Score
VVS 24 Pilots 786
OKL 26 Pilots 623

Top 25 in Deaths Avg Score
VVS 8 Pilots 332
OKL 17 Piilots 131

The top 25 leans heavily to VVS. And even more so when you go Top 50, with only a total of 14 OKL pilots in the top 50. The majority of the top level talent decided to fly Red this campaign. But the real problem comes with the flight hours. Here in the Top 25 we see a 2-1 advantage in score. So on average the Red pilot you ALWAYS see online flying is good enough to warrant someone on Blue side getting them a girlfriend . Whereas the Blue guy should dump his and go to flight school. It starts to balance out a bit when you stretch it out to the Top 50 as expected.

So in conclusion it's a lot less about the 'average' pilot. Because the average pilot on both sides is very equal. It's the top 1% of the really good - and really bad pilots that also contributes to Blue's woes.

As for VVS 30% flight hours where spend on the ground trying to start the Pe2 engines..as you know

I would love to see the cold engines out for the next campaign

Edited May 17, 2018 by ATAG_dB

May 17, 2018

Thanks for this campaign, really appreciated it !

-IRRE- should fly RED again next one, hoping to avoid the classic "everybody switch at the same campaign".

@ =EXPAND= : sorry for the ram during a dogfight one day... did not understand what happened, maybe a small lag due to my bad connection... anyway, that was my only death of the campaign, I'm really not used to this kind of behavior

May 17, 2018

As always a very good and a this time very balanced campaign. So even the following nags shouldn't distract that TAW is still my(our) favourite server.
But following things I would like to change:

1. A critical look at the plane set is again needed. Some Maps had almost no change in planes while on others planes vanished for some reason.
The La-5 S.8 was not available at all in the last map. And was available while the F-2(!) of the Germans was the CM+1 Aircraft. This "tiering" Plane set is really not what I want to see in BoX.
I want a more historical approach. Same goes for the first maps which are fights from fantasy land. imho from the first map on we should have F-2s, F-4s, MIGs and P-40s. I-16s as the main fighter for the VVS, and the F-2 for the germans.
Imho Fighters should be added not by Maps, but by date. You have a date on your maps, maybe we can use it in the future? So on 06.06.1943(I actually dont know the excat date) the La-5 FN appears. With placeholders for Gameplay sake. That the Ju-87 is available earlier. I know that is hard, but I think should benefit the Gameplay and enjoyment. Pretty sure this forum und my Discord community can help getting some valid dates.

2. I personally would like to see the CM+1 revised. While the purpose is clear, it's kinda frustrating that every suicide ground attacker gets at least one dumb sortie in per mission.
maybe grant a +1 replenishment every 2-3 Maps instead. So that a destroyed ground attacker is actually felt. Maybe grant ground attackers the multiple CM Bonus as well. That way they get aircraft fast, but reckless ground attackers do not.

3. I think it was possible to use transport planes as bombers, pls take a look in the loadouts of transports. That got exploited.

4. Reinstate the JU-88 as a transport. The Russians have the fast Pe-2 as a transport aircraft. Why hampering the germans with the He-111? Alternatively raise the supply percentages of He-111 and Ju-52. I may even buy that thing when it has more purposes.

5. The Cold engine start serves no real purpose. Its not realistic, the engines don't heat up in a realistic way, the aircraft can take off anyway on a cold engine, and some engines need multiple tries to get them running. Looking at you Pe-2 S.35. I see no reason to keep it.

6. While this campaign was much better in terms of balance, I can't express enough how frustrating it is to play a few hours and to make some progress only to see after the night, that without resistance the team lost four airfields in 8 hours. I would like to see some kind of "progress-limiter". Basically the simulation of stretched supply lines. Alternatively that front progress is a little bit coupled to the team balance in the placed round. (defences get a boost when outnumbered for example) That would still mean that a team who wipes a defense can make progress but its a little harder.

Thats it for now. Cheers.

Edited May 17, 2018 by DerSheriff

May 17, 2018

16 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

3. I think it was possible to use transport planes as bombers, pls take a look in the loadouts of transports. That got exploited.

There's currently a game bug, where a plane with only the "empty" loadout defined will have bombs selectable.

Edited May 17, 2018 by LLv34_Temuri
Added link to bug post

May 17, 2018

1 hour ago, DerSheriff said:

6. While this campaign was much better in terms of balance, I can't express enough how frustrating it is to play a few hours and to make some progress only to see after the night, that without resistance the team lost four airfields in 8 hours. I would like to see some kind of "progress-limiter". Basically the simulation of stretched supply lines. Alternatively that front progress is a little bit coupled to the team balance in the placed round. (defences get a boost when outnumbered for example) That would still mean that a team who wipes a defense can make progress but its a little harder.

Thats it for now. Cheers.

I like that idea

May 17, 2018

Hi,
First thank you for this amazing server. It's the kind of experience I'm looking for. I love these virtual battlegrounds and the feeling of playing your pilot's career like in the amazing Red Baron 2 (1997) but online this time.

Few ideas :
- Maybe slow down the tank column spawn frequency (not every round) so we can focus a while on other tasks than just trying to destroy it for the whole round :D

- Link this tank column spawn frequency to the "defense/offensive/neutral" state. I saw a german offensive map that started in the morning with no/few german players online and axis got rushed before being able to connect when they were supposed to be the attacking ones. Example on defensive there should be a lower frequency of tank columns or they should spawn only few rounds after map start to simulate a counterattack but not right from the start.

- Maybe destroying fuel/ammunition depots in the back could prevent these tank columns from spawning for a while to offer a different way to stop them.

Edited May 17, 2018 by akmotte

May 17, 2018

2 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

1. A critical look at the plane set is again needed. Some Maps had almost no change in planes while on others planes vanished for some reason.
The La-5 S.8 was not available at all in the last map. And was available while the F-2(!) of the Germans was the CM+1 Aircraft. This "tiering" Plane set is really not what I want to see in BoX.
I want a more historical approach. Same goes for the first maps which are fights from fantasy land. imho from the first map on we should have F-2s, F-4s, MIGs and P-40s. I-16s as the main fighter for the VVS, and the F-2 for the germans.
Imho Fighters should be added not by Maps, but by date. You have a date on your maps, maybe we can use it in the future? So on 06.06.1943(I actually dont know the excat date) the La-5 FN appears. With placeholders for Gameplay sake. That the Ju-87 is available earlier. I know that is hard, but I think should benefit the Gameplay and enjoyment. Pretty sure this forum und my Discord community can help getting some valid dates.

Like Germans having Ju 88 from the start. Considering how campaigns are going it probably won't tip the scale too much and it was there from the beginning of Barbarossa.

This would be nice feature in my opinion. It is always nice when you have that "wait until next week when I am going to have my...!" -thing going on

May 17, 2018

4 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

As always a very good and a this time very balanced campaign. So even the following nags shouldn't distract that TAW is still my(our) favourite server.
But following things I would like to change:

1. A critical look at the plane set is again needed. Some Maps had almost no change in planes while on others planes vanished for some reason.
The La-5 S.8 was not available at all in the last map. And was available while the F-2(!) of the Germans was the CM+1 Aircraft. This "tiering" Plane set is really not what I want to see in BoX.
I want a more historical approach. Same goes for the first maps which are fights from fantasy land. imho from the first map on we should have F-2s, F-4s, MIGs and P-40s. I-16s as the main fighter for the VVS, and the F-2 for the germans.
Imho Fighters should be added not by Maps, but by date. You have a date on your maps, maybe we can use it in the future? So on 06.06.1943(I actually dont know the excat date) the La-5 FN appears. With placeholders for Gameplay sake. That the Ju-87 is available earlier. I know that is hard, but I think should benefit the Gameplay and enjoyment. Pretty sure this forum und my Discord community can help getting some valid dates.

2. I personally would like to see the CM+1 revised. While the purpose is clear, it's kinda frustrating that every suicide ground attacker gets at least one dumb sortie in per mission.
maybe grant a +1 replenishment every 2-3 Maps instead. So that a destroyed ground attacker is actually felt. Maybe grant ground attackers the multiple CM Bonus as well. That way they get aircraft fast, but reckless ground attackers do not.

3. I think it was possible to use transport planes as bombers, pls take a look in the loadouts of transports. That got exploited.

4. Reinstate the JU-88 as a transport. The Russians have the fast Pe-2 as a transport aircraft. Why hampering the germans with the He-111? Alternatively raise the supply percentages of He-111 and Ju-52. I may even buy that thing when it has more purposes.

5. The Cold engine start serves no real purpose. Its not realistic, the engines don't heat up in a realistic way, the aircraft can take off anyway on a cold engine, and some engines need multiple tries to get them running. Looking at you Pe-2 S.35. I see no reason to keep it.

6. While this campaign was much better in terms of balance, I can't express enough how frustrating it is to play a few hours and to make some progress only to see after the night, that without resistance the team lost four airfields in 8 hours. I would like to see some kind of "progress-limiter". Basically the simulation of stretched supply lines. Alternatively that front progress is a little bit coupled to the team balance in the placed round. (defences get a boost when outnumbered for example) That would still mean that a team who wipes a defense can make progress but its a little harder.

1. 100% I've attached a link below to a spreadsheet file made for the old IL-2 1946. Obviously many more planes on this list than what we have - but the ones that we do have are on the list. I would suggest a planeset based on this list. With modifications of course since we are so short of proper 41 and early 42 planes for VVS.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VxBeaI_l8Gr4nvjxBXytsshw5kgXjh5k

2. Maybe. Not sure if this will have the desired effect as it could also dissuade people from flying ground attack, and in the end you'll have a stalemate front line and have maps won/lost solely on attrition. But could be worth a try I guess.

4. Agreed. I'd also be curious as to how many successful Ju-52 paradrops there were in the campaign. By successful - I mean actually captured the enemy AF.

5. Not only does it server NO purpose. Every. Single. Plane Can take off with cold engines as long as it's below 'combat/emergency power'.

6. The player balance was good. However the results as we can all see were as one-sided as ever. We could be here all day going through every single variable that shares responsibility! But I think you're on the right track. The ability this campaign of Red - to just steamroll AF after AF because their tank columns IMO are better defended. You will see in future .

Edited May 17, 2018 by StG77_Kondor

May 17, 2018

Kondor, thx for yogui planetset excel. I have it many years ago and lost.

May 17, 2018

22 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

They are from

From looking at the screenshot, looks like a block on a site that is hosting someone's signature images, possible Otto's G6 and MK108 image?

21 hours ago, ATAG_dB said:

You know how can I check this?

Edit: I think you re right, I ignore Otto and I have no more warning.

what´s the problem with my signature image? ..I was webmaster years ago and i ussally upload some images in my own website from decades ago. It's that forbidden?
It´s simple JPG file painted by me, I'm proud to be a pre-owner of a G6 in this simulation.. I think that we must be supporting that things that we want in the simulator..

. ...please tell me if it is a problem.

Edited May 17, 2018 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

May 17, 2018

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

what´s the problem with my signature image? ..I was webmaster years ago and i ussally upload some images in my own website from decades ago. It's that forbidden?
It´s simple JPG file painted by me, I'm proud to be a pre-owner of a G6 in this simulation.. I think that we must be supporting that things that we want in the simulator..

. ...please tell me if it is a problem.

I don't have a problem with your image (nor does my PC). The issue is that the domain/webserver that the image is hosted on is being flagged as malicious for some reason for the users that have posted screenshots.

I was just trying to help them identify the cause.

http://lawebdelvespino.webcindario.com/dir1/IL2_BOS_G6_FRAME_ICO.jpg

lawebdelvespino.webcindario.com is the domain that their software is taking issue with.

Edited May 17, 2018 by =EXPEND=Tripwire

May 17, 2018

Wow! What a fun campaign! I had a lot of newcomers for my squad in the early maps, but they did peter off a bit. However, I had a few dedicated members that I flew some amazing sorties with!

This was a special campaign for me because, I am typically a LW flyer, but after the balance issues of the previous TAW I decided to go full in on VVS. We attempted to do a two sided approach last time, and it really ruined the magic of the server for me, so I was very much happy to commit to the VVS Aircraft this time around.

Like my previous experiences with TAW I was absolutely forced to take all of the aircraft in my hanger out for a spin, and boy am I glad I finally got to get into the cockpit of some amazing aircraft I hadn't ever flown before. Thank you to the TAW team!

Like many of you though I would enjoy a bit more of a competition between Red and Blue. It was a steamroll in terms of the maps this time around, even if in the air it didn't feel so one-sided. There is definitely a large teamplay component to why the LW did worse, but I think the problems go much deeper than that. It's without a doubt time to look at why the LW gets smashed repeatedly in these campaigns. Even the last one where the balance was absolutely and overwhelmingly in favor of the LW the VVS still came out on top.

I believe the way the objectives are set up in the server lend a hand to the VVS planes and allow them to fully utilize their potential, while the strengths of the German Aircraft are quite limited. Either way, I would really like to see some good discussion on how to improve this situation.

Cheers!

-Shadepiece

May 17, 2018

On 16/05/2018 at 7:17 PM, 19//curiousGamblerr said:

In the past this was attributed to an image in someone’s signature, not something specific to the forums/thread/TAW.

23 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

They are from

From looking at the screenshot, looks like a block on a site that is hosting someone's signature images, possible Otto's G6 and MK108 image?

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

what´s the problem with my signature image? ..I was webmaster years ago and i ussally upload some images in my own website from decades ago. It's that forbidden?
It´s simple JPG file painted by me, I'm proud to be a pre-owner of a G6 in this simulation.. I think that we must be supporting that things that we want in the simulator..

. ...please tell me if it is a problem.

As soon as I ignore your signature the phishing warning stop

May 17, 2018

Another wonderful campaign!

JG5 will back to LW in the next campaign.

May 18, 2018

Another one:

Fenris Wolf's 109 getting some last repairs before next flight ...

Edited May 18, 2018 by SCG_Riksen

May 18, 2018

When will new TAW start again?

Our team ITAF will be more operative next time.

Best regards

May 18, 2018

7 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

When will new TAW start again?

Our team ITAF will be more operative next time.

Best regards

Good question

by the way, 1/Jspan is flying as usual in the blue side for the next one :D

Edited May 18, 2018 by 1/JSpan_Zetas

May 18, 2018

The idea of supply lines is a good one. You could even have missions where you need to defend your supply convoy to continue your offensive. Realistic and appropriate in this theater of war.

May 19, 2018

On 5/17/2018 at 6:18 AM, StG77_Kondor said:

6. The player balance was good. However the results as we can all see were as one-sided as ever. We could be here all day going through every single variable that shares responsibility! But I think you're on the right track. The ability this campaign of Red - to just steamroll AF after AF because their tank columns IMO are better defended. You will see in future .

I camped the absolute crap out of my tanks for hours. Tanks win the maps and I find that Red co-ordinates far better having played Blue, Blue/Red and straight Red TAW campaigns. I am seeing a trend. Blue pilots tend to not be as experienced. Blue also tends to be spread across more communications. I see this in Cliffs as well. When I fly Red even if I am not with ACG boys I can often find a wingman in TS. Almost NEVER as a blue pilot.

I'd like to see a sign up sheet for sides paired with experienced units being assigned a side. I play both sides but I understand some guys only fly one specific plane which is your right however, your wish to fly ONLY one side should not be at the detriment of everyone else. I'd like to see sign up sheets and assigned sides to keep the fight fun across time zones. It's a wish, not a demand. Some squads might voluntarily sign up to be a balance. I prefer to fly short side for example. I'll fly where I am needed most. More fun for me anyway with more shit to shoot. That's just me I don't speak for my unit.

My only complaint is TAW goes WAY TOO FAST!!!! Love it. Thanks guys. I would like to see it go a little longer though. I especially love the early war. So fun.

Edited May 19, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

May 19, 2018

I think numbers of tanks, planes trucks should only start decreasing once depots are destroyed. Until then they should slowly increase unless they are being destroyed at an alarming rate by the enemy. As the depots get destroyed the number of replacements can decrease until your base number starts to fall. As depots repair over time deep strikes into enemy territory will be continuously needed. I do not know if this would be possible to implement but something similar would increase the longevity of the campaigns? My 5 cents

Edited May 19, 2018 by =69.GIAP=Shvak

May 19, 2018

25 minutes ago, =69.GIAP=Shvak said:

I think numbers of tanks, planes trucks should only start decreasing once depots are destroyed. Until then they should slowly increase unless they are being destroyed at an alarming rate by the enemy. As the depots get destroyed the number of replacements can decrease until your base number starts to fall. As depots repair over time deep strikes into enemy territory will be continuously needed. I do not know if this would be possible to implement but something similar would increase the longevity of the campaigns? My 5 cents

That's exactly what it is

3.6 Depots

Depots are strategic points located far away from the front lines. They consist of many buildings representing factory industries and storages. Depots are heavily defended by AA. You should attack them by the horizontal flight with heavy bombers. The more buildings are destroyed the bigger impact it has on the gameplay.

If two enemy depots are completely destroyed then:

· number of enemy vehicles in tank and supply convoy is reduced by 30%

· supply by enemy trains is reduced by 30%

· strength of enemy defense position is reduced by 30%

· some payload are not available on enemy airfields

· friendly tank convoys spawn more frequently

Destroyed depot is partially rebuild after 15 missions. Damaged depot is repaired a little after each three missions in which it wasn’t attacked. Destroyed buildings are counted as tanks lost in 3:1 ratio.

May 20, 2018

On 19.05.2018 at 10:04 AM, ATAG_dB said:

That's exactly what it is

3.6 Depots

Depots are strategic points located far away from the front lines. They consist of many buildings representing factory industries and storages. Depots are heavily defended by AA. You should attack them by the horizontal flight with heavy bombers. The more buildings are destroyed the bigger impact it has on the gameplay.

If two enemy depots are completely destroyed then:

· number of enemy vehicles in tank and supply convoy is reduced by 30%

· supply by enemy trains is reduced by 30%

· strength of enemy defense position is reduced by 30%

· some payload are not available on enemy airfields

· friendly tank convoys spawn more frequently

Destroyed depot is partially rebuild after 15 missions. Damaged depot is repaired a little after each three missions in which it wasn’t attacked. Destroyed buildings are counted as tanks lost in 3:1 ratio.

As for me depots do not have enough defend against diving bombers. It should be safe to bomb target from level flight but suicide to dive.

Edited May 20, 2018 by =KK=Des_

May 20, 2018

Hello to all.
We have finished Tactical Air War season XIII. Was it an unlucky number? I hope it was for a few of you. Now we can take a little rest awaiting the next edition.
At the beginning we want to congratulate the two pilots for whom The Enkas Cup and The Golden Statue of Kuznechik Statue are going.
These are:

SCG_Riksen and 666GIAP_Muyahidin

Good job!