Tactical Air War

[=KK=Des_ 27]

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_

[=LG=Piciu 141]

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!

 

 

And now your diplomas.

BEST FIGHTER

 

 

 



 



 



 


 

 

BEST BOMBER

 



 



 



 

BEST TANK KILLER

 



 



 



 

BEST FIGHTER SQUAD

 



 



 



 

BEST BOMBER SQUAD

 



 



 



 

BEST TANK KILLER SQUAD

 



 



 



 

Edited May 20, 2018 by =LG=Piciu

[=FSB=HandyNasty 116]

Props for Atochi. Both in the top for kills and ground targets. A true example for fellow TAW'ers

[=FSB=Man-Yac 120]

Glad the awards are here, also congragulation to atochi for being both in top 5 fighters and top 5 bombers that's really impressive, if this fellow was on our side maybe we could have stood a chance. 

Thank you for another edition of taw I really enjoyed myself on this one, can't wait for the next one. This server really produces something special , when I grinded a pilot to a few victories and I find myself in a dangerous situation I get adrenaline rushes and I can even feel my heart beating, I never experienced that on other servers here.

[ECV56_Chimango 339]

Haha nice touch, thank you guys!  Honestly this edition i didn't expect to participate so i created 666°GIAP_Muyahaidin in case my mates needed me to fly a couple of occasional ninja (almost suicidal) missions; but it turned out to be different. Next campaign probably i will compete again like on the 11th edition , and i'm sure it will be a more bloody one.

 

Long live TAW!

[Raven_VR 80]

We would like to thank all of you who donated the last Tactical Air War Server 

 

[ATAG_dB 168]

Thank YOU guys for the work

[=LG=Wicher 62]

The diploma for LuftGangsta 

 

[Haza 658]

Gents/Admin,

 

I was wondering whether we could perhaps try something new with regards to TAW in the future?  Would it be possible  during the early stages of the war to be about the Luftwaffe on the Offensive supporting the Army/tanks with the Russians having to defend and as such the Reds are basically just defending.  However, as the war obviously progresses these rolls are changed. 

 

Although for realism, for me TAW is a fantastic server and I enjoy the way that it is so dynamic, recently it has felt similar to a medieval battle with both sides lining up as equals across the battle ground and then thrashing it out.  If perhaps we had smaller engagements, but more maps it might encourage greater co-operation between players, such as CAS for advancing tanks during the early stages of the war, rather than Blue fighters providing cover over Axis factories far from the front line and as such perhaps these factories just should be supply convoys!?

 

However, it is only a suggestion to try something new and to make things as realistic as possible, although within the limits of the game and is certainly not a whine.

 

Regards and thank you.

 

H

Edited May 22, 2018 by Haza
Changed Allied to Axis

[Norz 66]

Dear TAW team,

 

can we discuss the 1st map planeset?

 

I suppose i16 should be used with 20 mm Shvak starting from the first map.

 

I played last 2 rounds VVS side and next round i am going to Axis side... But these 4x7mm are really useless. Lets change it:) Or at least split 2x i16 7mm to 1xi16 7mm and 1xi16 20mm.

[LLv44_Mprhead 227]

1 hour ago, Norz said:

Dear TAW team,

 

can we discuss the 1st map planeset?

 

I suppose i16 should be used with 20 mm Shvak starting from the first map.

 

I played last 2 rounds VVS side and next round i am going to Axis side... But these 4x7mm are really useless. Lets change it:) Or at least split 2x i16 7mm to 1xi16 7mm and 1xi16 20mm.

 

Yes, because now VVS was totally toothless against LW

[Norz 66]

1 hour ago, LLv44_Mprhead said:

 

Yes, because now VVS was totally toothless against LW

 

Maybe I am wrong...But seems that last round more red players were online than before. 

[Randoz 4]

4 hours ago, Norz said:

Дорогая команда TAW,

 

можем ли мы обсуждать 1-ый план карт?

 

Я полагаю, что i16 следует использовать с Шваком 20 мм, начиная с первой карты.

 

Я играл в последних двух раундах VVS, а в следующем раунде я иду на сторону Axis ... Но эти 4x7mm действительно бесполезны. Позволяет изменить его Или, по крайней мере, разделить 2x i16 7 мм на 1xi16 7 мм и 1xi16 20 мм.

I-16 is stronger than Emil! Do you want to make it even stronger?

[Norz 66]

Do you have any problem on the map #2?

 

On the map #2 we have i16 (20mm) vs 109e7 and Mig3 vs 109F2.

 

Why do not use the same rule on the map #1 but just without Mig3 vs 109F2 ?

Edited May 22, 2018 by Norz

[StG77_Kondor 320]

4 hours ago, Norz said:

 

Maybe I am wrong...But seems that last round more red players were online than before. 

There were more than previous campaigns. But before Blue absolutely had the overall player # advantage. This time it was the closest 1:1 I've seen overall. But the result of the campaign was much the same as when Blue outnumbered Red. 

BTW: Red won Map #1 in convincing fashion this campaign, without the 20mm. Red pilots use the IL-2 as a heavy fighter with the 20mm for objective defense anyway. And clearly do quite well with it. 

[Cpt_Siddy 600]

2 hours ago, Randoz said:

I-16 is stronger than Emil! Do you want to make it even stronger?

wut?

[7.GShAP/Silas 384]

The numerical balance was the best I've ever seen this past campaign.

[=KK=Des_ 27]

1 hour ago, CptSiddy said:

wut?

I think he never try it)))

[=LG=Kathon 1122]

We would like to ask you for help regarding the new plane set.  It’s always trade-off between historical aspects, script limitations and a balance for the game play. If you would like to present your own idea then don’t hesitate and share your plane set with us. We may use it in the next campaigns. If you are interested then please read text below because we plan the change some rules in the plane set.

 

First of all we plan to introduce a new feature reducing number of available fighters types in the hangars. So during the registration a pilot will select one line of plane set (it won’t be able to change it later). Some aircraft may belong to many lines and some may belong exclusively only to one line.

 

Here are some general examples:

Axis Line A – Bf 109 only

Axis Line B – Fw 190 and some Bf 109

Allied Line A – Soviets planes only (Lagg-3 ,La-5, Yaks, …)

Allied Line B - Leased line planes mainly

Some lines may have better fighter for the first maps and other line may have better fighters on the latest maps. There are so many variants so we ask you for help.

There aren’t many attackers and bombers types so one common line for them is ok.

 

Here are general rules for a fighter line:

• Two (max three) types of planes on each map
• Total maximum number of planes on each map no greater than 4 (sum of MAX_QTY)
• Some better types of planes have quantity=0 on each map (combat missions are needed to increase this number)
• One type of “basic plane +1” (one plane of this type is added to the hangar after mission if a pilot has 0 of them)

It’s possible to lock some weapons (big bombs, 23mm, gun pods etc.) on all or front-line airfields on some maps. It’s also possible to lock some weapons on random airfields depending on the depot destruction (as it's now)

 

There are 8 maps:

1 -3  Moscow

4-5  Stalingrad

6  Kuban

7  Stalingrad

8  Kuban

 

 

We count on your creativity!!

[Norz 66]

2 =LG=Kathon

• Total maximum number of planes on each map no greater than 4 (sum of MAX_QTY)

Is very bad idea. You will not find any person on the server just after 2 days. Lets check my stat for the last round:

 

Aircrafts lost

106

 

Ok, for sure I can do it quite better..but not 3 times !

 

Maybe I am wrong and you mentioned 4x individual planes? For example, I cannot use more than 4x109e7 for the first map. Please clarify.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Norz

[ATAG_dB 168]

Personally I don't feel the need to do changes on things that are not broken. There is noting wrong with the current planes set IMHO apart form the current 25 min for a combat mission that prevent people to spawn the last half hour or so. Perhaps re installing 15 min for CM or extending the missions to 3 hours.   

 

 

AND Please, PLEase remove the cold engine  

[ACG_Herne 807]

so would this mean if I were to choose axis fighter line A for example, that I could only fly 109's for all 8 maps ? I'd never be able to fly ju87, ju88 or anything else ?

[ACG_Shadepiece 62]

40 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

so would this mean if I were to choose axis fighter line A for example, that I could only fly 109's for all 8 maps ? I'd never be able to fly ju87, ju88 or anything else ?

This is my question as well. I really enjoyed running a ton of transport mission in the later maps even though I mostly fly fighters. I could understand less attacker/bombers/transports if you're a fighter guy, but it'd be better to still have a few.

[BlackHellHound1 704]

This is quite an interesting idea Kathon. Well worth some of my thoughts. 

 

I can see this go both ways though.

On one side it does make the player more specialized and forces players to really focus on one roll. It will force bomber or ground attack squads to work together well with fighter squads. This can lead to some great team play and focus on objectives. 

 

On the other side, this removes the ability for varied gameplay for a single player. I know for a fact that we (Hydra) mostly fly fighters, but in order to not get bored over time, we put in the occasional bomber or ground attack mission. This variety of gameplay is what keeps us playing throughout a single campaign. If we only had to fly fighters. Most of us would get bored and stop playing after a few maps. I am sure we are not the only squad that this will happen to. 

 

Specializing roles per player could be a nice touch. However, it should still leave room for some variation in gameplay for a single player. If the system locks the player to a single type of gameplay, for instance, the Bf-109 line, then player numbers will dwindle and the gameplay will become stale. 

 

2 notes on the "rules" suggested by Kathon:

• Two (max three) types of planes on each map is going to scare players off.
• Total maximum number of planes on each map no greater than 4 (sum of MAX_QTY) is not going to work. Mainly the players that loose quite a few planes during a map will be out of planes in no time and could very well leave the campaign altogether.

Changes to the "rules" that I believe are needed to make this work:

• Players must be able to choose the exact aircraft to unlock. Not just a system of "X type of plane first and we won't tell you which one". The player must be able to directly select the plane he/she wants to unlock next. Even if it is not the type of plane of his/her speciality.
• A fighter line always starts with 2 fighters that can be used directly at the start of a map.
• A ground attack line always starts with 3 ground attackers (and for the Germans: at least 1 paratrooper plane).
• A bomber line always starts with 3 bombers (and for the Germans: at least 1paratrooper plane with +1)
• Each specialized lineup must still have access to at least one plane of each type (fighter, ground attacker, bomber, transport) but must be unlocked via CM.
• Non-specialized lines must exist. These are lines that are a bit of everything but not really excellent at anything. 
• A non-specialized line always starts with 3 planes. One of each type (not including the Ju 52 paratrooper)
• The current system of already unlocked planes are passed on to the next map must remain.
• At least 2 of the aircraft that are started with cannot be premium planes.
• Each line must have at least 2 transport planes at the start of a map. The transport planes are: Ju 88A-4, Ju 52/3m, and He 111H-6 for the germans and the Pe-2 Series 35 and Pe-2 Series 87 for the soviets.)
• Fighter specialized players get more XP for destroying planes then ground attackers and bombers specialized players
• Ground attack and bomber specialized players get more XP for destroying ground targets then fighter specialized players.
• Non-specialized roles are between the fighter specialized roles and ground attack/bomber specialized roles in terms of XP.
• Each Specialized roll should have a CM advantage that only applies to that specific role.
  • Only bomber specialization should have the following system: "target(s) destroyed (in a bomber) + x min. flight time = 1+ x/17 CM" (max. 4CM) and "target destroyed + ditched (outside of airfield) or bailed out = 1CM"
  • Only Ground attack specialization should have the following system: "x ground targets destroyed (in ground attacker) + Airfield return = x/n + 1 CM" (n is yet to be determined) (max. 4CM) and "x ground targets destroyed + ditched (outside of airfield) or bailed out = 1 CM"
  • Only fighter specialization should have the following system: "x planes killed (in fighter) + Airfield return = x + 1 CM" (max 3 CM) and "x planes killed + ditched (outside of airfield) or bailed out = 1 CM"
  • Otherwise, standard 1 CM per flight should count. (and yes, non-specialized roles are taking a huge disadvantage here)

If a system like this is introduced, then I would like to see lineups for Bf 109 aircraft like this:

1. Bf 109E-7 (2/3 +1), Bf 110E-2 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (0/1), He 111H-6 transport (2/2 +1)
2. Bf 109E-7 (2/2 +1), Bf 109F-2 (0/1), Bf 110E-2 (0/1), He 111H-6 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (0/1), He 111H-6 transport (2/2 +1)
3. Bf 109F-2 (2/2 +1), Bf 109F-4 (0/1), Bf 110E-2 (0/1), He 111H-6 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (0/1), He 111H-6 transport (2/2 +1)
4. Bf 109F-2 (1/2), Bf 109F-4 (1/2+1), Bf 110E-2 (0/1), He 111H-6 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (0/1), He 111H-6 transport (2/2 +1)
5. Bf 109F-4 (2/2 +1), Bf 109G-2 (0/1), Bf 110E-2 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (2/2 +1)
6. Bf 109G-2 (2/2 +1), Bf 109G-4 (0/1), Bf 110G-2 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (2/2 +1)
7. Bf 109G-4 (2/3 +1), Bf 110G-6 (0/1), Bf 110G-2 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (2/2 +1)
8. Bf 109G-4 (1/2 +1), Bf 109G-6 (1/1), Bf 110G-2 (0/1), He 111H-16 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (2/2 +1)

And for German ground attackers like this:

1. Ju 87D-3 (2/3 +1), Bf 110E-2 (1/1), He 111H-6 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (1/1),  Bf 109E-7 (0/1), He 111H-6 transport (1/2 +1)
2. Ju 87D-3 (2/2 +1), Bf 110E-2 (1/2), He 111H-6 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (1/1),  Bf 109E-7 (0/1), He 111H-6 transport (1/2 +1)
3. Bf 110E-2 (2/2 +1), Ju 87D-3 (1/2), Ju 88A-4 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (1/1),  Bf 109F-2 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (1/2 +1)
4. Bf 110E-2 (2/2 +1), Ju 87D-3 (1/2), Fw 190A-3 Jabo only (0/1), Ju 88A-4 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (1/1),  Fw 190A-3 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (1/2 +1)
5. Bf 110G-2 (1/2 +1), Ju 87D-3 (1/2), Fw 190A-3 Jabo only (1/2), Ju 88A-4 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (1/1),  Fw 190A-3 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (1/2 +1)
6. Bf 110G-2 (2/2 +1), Ju 87D-3 (1/2), Fw 190A-5 U-17 only (0/1), He 111H-16 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (1/1),  Fw 190A-3 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (1/2 +1)
7. Bf 110G-2 (2/2 +1), Fw 190A-5 U-17 only (1/1), He 111H-16 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (1/1),  Fw 190A-5 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (1/2 +1)
8. Bf 110G-2 (2/2 +1), Fw 190A-5 U-17 only (1/2), He 111H-16 (0/1), Ju 52/3m (1/1),  Fw 190A-5 (0/1), Ju 88A-4 transport (1/2 +1)

Example of a Russian non-speicalized line:

1. I-16 Type 24 (1/2 +1), IL-2 AM-38 (1941) (1/2),  Pe-2 Series 35 (1/1), Pe-2 Series 35 transport (2/2 +1)
2. I-16 Type 24 (1/1), P-40E-1 (0/1), IL-2 AM-38 (1941) (1/2 +1),  Pe-2 Series 35 (1/2), Pe-2 Series 35 transport (2/2 +1)
3. Lagg-3 series 29 (1/2 +1), IL-2 AM-38 (1941) (1/2), IL-2 AM-38 (1942) (0/1),  Pe-2 Series 35 (1/2), Pe-2 Series 35 transport (2/2 +1)
4. Lagg-3 series 29 (1/1), Yak-1 Series 69 (0/1), IL-2 AM-38 (1941) (1/1 +1), Pe-2 Series 35 (1/2), Pe-2 Series 35 transport (2/2 +1)
5. Yak-1 Series 69 (1/2 +1), IL-2 AM-38 (1942) (1/2), Pe-2 Series 35 (1/1), Pe-2 Series 87 (0/1), Pe-2 Series 35 transport (2/2 +1)
6. Yak-1 Series 69 (1/2), Spitfire Mk.Vb (0/1), IL-2 AM-38 (1942) (1/2), Pe-2 Series 87 (1/2 +1), Pe-2 Series 35 transport (2/2 +1)
7. Yak-7b Series 69 (1/2 +1), IL-2 AM-38 (1942) (1/2), IL-2 AM-38F (1943) (0/1), Pe-2 Series 87 (1/2), Pe-2 Series 87 transport (2/2 +1)
8. Yak-7b Series 69 (1/2), La-5F Series 8 (0/1), IL-2 AM-38F (1943) (1/2 +1), Pe-2 Series 87 (1/2), Pe-2 Series 87 transport (2/2 +1)

Specialized lineups like the first 2 focus on one specific role and do so with the "newest" of planes. However, this does not force the player to only play a single type of plane.

A nonspecialized line like the 3rd example gives the player the freedom to play whatever he/she likes while always being a step behind of the specialized roles. I did this to give players more the incentive to focus on the specialized roles while making room for the player that really likes to play a bit of everything. 

 

I am sure you guys can come up with some more idea's. 

 

BlackHellHound1

 

[ACG_Herne 807]

nice work hound !

[=LG=Kathon 1122]

2 hours ago, Norz said:

2 =LG=Kathon

• Total maximum number of planes on each map no greater than 4 (sum of MAX_QTY)

Is very bad idea. You will not find any person on the server just after 2 days. Lets check my stat for the last round:

 

Aircrafts lost

106

 

Ok, for sure I can do it quite better..but not 3 times !

 

Maybe I am wrong and you mentioned 4x individual planes? For example, I cannot use more than 4x109e7 for the first map. Please clarify.

 

 

Map#1 from the ended campaign for example: max 3x I-16 and 1x P40 so total fighters is 4.

 

2 hours ago, ATAG_dB said:

Personally I don't feel the need to do changes on things that are not broken. There is noting wrong with the current planes set IMHO apart form the current 25 min for a combat mission that prevent people to spawn the last half hour or so. Perhaps re installing 15 min for CM or extending the missions to 3 hours.   

 

 

AND Please, PLEase remove the cold engine  

Sometimes is good to try a new things. We can always switch to the previous setup. Cold engine will be turn off.

 

1 hour ago, =FEW=Herne said:

so would this mean if I were to choose axis fighter line A for example, that I could only fly 109's for all 8 maps ? I'd never be able to fly ju87, ju88 or anything else ?

Line is for fighters so you would have only 109's from fighters and rest of the attackers and bombers as before.

 

In general we only split fighters into two lines.

[ATAG_dB 168]

6 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Cold engine will be turn off.

 

Thanks Kathon

[Norz 66]

18 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Map#1 from the ended campaign for example: max 3x I-16 and 1x P40 so total fighters is 4.

 

Oh... Really bad idea. I see no reason to limit it at all. In this way the server will lost about 70% players just in 2..3 days. Better to limit some unlocks that can be used.

 

For example, you can use unlimited unlocks for first 4x fighters... but after that only started edition: no bombs, with head shield only, without navi compass  and so on.

 

And for sure red players will suffer for that rule, because USUALLY the AXIS player decides to attack or not but not the ALLIED player.

 

P.S: Maybe these start edition planes should be located not at the front side fields. The players that lost first 4x planes should fly extra 20..30 km.

 

P.S.2: Maybe the number of the CM should be doubled to get a plane after the player lost first 4.... 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Norz

[ACG_ItsDrifter 413]

IMHO all i feel could use a change is to make the lineups more historical.

 

And this is totally off topic but people were wondering why the Luftwaffe have been loosing so many campaigns. I feel its quite simple to turn around;

 

The Luftwaffe has some of the best level bombers in this sim. If we ( The Luftwaffe ) use more level bombers, and flying together; we can just bomb the hell out of enemy airfields and render them useless. And we just don't have the best Ground attack aircraft compared to the Russian IL2's.  When we compare its capabilities compared to a Ju87, its just amusing. So, Just use our level bombers to the best of our capabilities. And it should be quite easy

Edited May 23, 2018 by 1./JG26_DR1FT3R

[7.GShAP/Silas 384]

You and your friends just need to get in those bombers. 

[/SF/Disarray 317]

I think Hellhound is on to something with that system.

[StG77_HvB 602]

I’d like to make a few suggestions in response to Kathon’s request for input concerning the TAW plane set, and these suggestions are based on historical reality. I know it is a difficult line to walk between historical accuracy and play balance, and many people will disagree with some of my suggestions for play balance reasons, but here’s my take.

#1. I don’t want to rehash everything I put out in a video a year ago about the game’s Vya-23 cannon being way more lethal against Axis tanks than it ever was historically, It is what it is, probably never going to change, but I have something to say about its availability:

There’s a detailed rundown of the VYa-23 developmental timeline as concerns the IL-2 in Gordon’s book listed below, and to make a long story short, there were only a handful of VYa-23-equipped IL-2s delivered in 1941, likely 20 or less aircraft based on the available production data, due to assembly line delays and the eastward evacuation of the three main factories producing the IL-2. And in February 1942 the main factory at Kovrov producing the VYa-23 had some serious production delays of its own, which caused the factories to revert to arming the IL-2s with the 20mm ShvaK cannon. Bottom line – the VYa-23 was not the prevalent armament of the Il-2 until the summer of 1942, and historically speaking, we shouldn’t even be seeing this cannon in large numbers until map 4 or 5, and I know what you’re thinking and you’re right – to be fair – again speaking strictly historically……..

#2. ………. the Ju 87 armed with the 37mm cannons shouldn’t be showing up until map 7 (First operational sorties – 3/1943).  

#3. 37mm cannons on the IL-2: Although the Soviet State Defense Committee ordered a test batch of Sh-37 cannon- armed IL-2s be produced in November 1941, a combination of factory evacuations and production delays prevented this aircraft from seeing service until late December 42 and January 43 (Map 6 or 7), when a test batch of nine aircraft were deployed to the Stalingrad area (688 ShAP). The low position of the guns to accommodate the high-capacity ammunition boxes caused the aircraft to pitch downward when the cannons were fired. The heavy recoil and poor synchronization of the cannons’ firing mechanism caused the aircraft to veer off the sight line, making accuracy extremely problematic. The pilots who flew it hated it, and it was never put into large scale production.

And as for the NS-37-armed IL2,  a “small batch” underwent service trials at Kursk (208 ShAP) (Map 8), and it had exactly the same problems that the Sh-37 armed IL2s had, was once again very unpopular with the pilots, and never was mass produced.

And yet, in IL-2, we have a perfectly functioning digital version with none of these issues, probably because nobody would want to fly it if it performed like the actual aircraft. Personally, I don’t think either should be in TAW at all.

#4. The BK-37-armed Bf 110G-2 R/1 was only produced in small numbers as a test batch and was not operationally successful due to lateral stability issues caused by the attached gondola BK-37, which affected accuracy much like the issues with the Sh/NS-37 cannons on the Il-2. And yet again, the game version performs flawlessly, and again, for that reason, I don’t think it should be included in the server.

In TAW each side is required to kill large numbers of tanks; there are no large-scale armor vs. armor encounters. In reality, aircraft on both sides accounted for a very small % of overall tank kills. It was quickly realized by the Luftwaffe Command that the Ju 87 and Hs 129 should be deployed to attack Soviet tank incursions behind friendly lines, to minimize the threat of enemy fighters. This scenario rarely happens in TAW. 

#5. These are the Luftwaffe bomber numbers at the start of Barbarossa:

Junkers 88: 536 (56%)

Heinkel 111: 280 (30%)

Dornier 17: 133 (14%)

The Junkers 88 numbers were approximately a 50/50 split between the A-4 and older A-5 models. The Heinkel 111 H6 model had begun being produced in late spring 1941, and only 135 had been produced by 7/1941. By 11/1941 most of the Ju 88 A-5 models had been replaced by the A-4. Junkers 88 production numbers were roughly double those of the He 111 from 1940 until bomber production ceased later in the war.

I request that the Ju 88 be added to Map #1, and if something needs to be removed as a counter-balance, please remove the BK-37-armed Ju 87.

Sources:

Ilyushin IL-2/IL-10, Yefim Gordon, Sergey Kommissarov, Dmitriy Kommissarov

The Junkers 87 Stuka, Peter Smith

Junkers Ju87: From Dive-Bomber to Tank-Buster 1935-1945, Eddie J. Creek

Messerschmidt Bf 110/210/410: An Illustrated History, Heinz Mankau, Peter Petrick

Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation, Vol. IIA, Nigel Askey

Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation, Vol. IIB, Nigel Askey

[7.GShAP/Silas 384]

By September 1941 IL-2 regiments were already receiving 23mm armed IL-2s.

[StG77_HvB 602]

You write a one-sentence assertion with no references to back it up. Where are you getting your information? Here's what my references show:

 

on May 21, 1941, the Soviet NKAP issued Order #462S which directed factories 18, 380, and 381 (not factory #1) to produce VYa-23-armed IL2 aircraft in the following numbers:

 

August - 25

September - 50

October - 100

November - ALL

 

But things often don't turn out as planned, and all factories fell far behind Gvt-directed quotas in overall IL-2 production numbers, including the ones to be outfitted with the VYa-23, further exacerbated by the evacuation of all four factories eastward in October/November 1941, in which the main production Plant #18 did not produce a single aircraft for 35 days, resulting in the infamous Stalin telegram/threat to the IL-2 factory managers in late 1941.

 

SOME IL-2 regiments got the VYa-23-equipped aircraft in Sep/Oct 41, maybe even in August, but only a handful - not in any significant numbers. And for the reasons outlined in my previous post, I'll say it again - the VYa-23 was not the prevalent cannon of the IL-2 until Summer '42.

 

 

[=LG=Kathon 1122]

To clarify the new plane set idea here is a little exemple for the one map. On the right old plane set. On the left fighters divided into two lines. As you can see it doesn't have any impact on bombers and attackers. It only limits number of fighters forcing pilots to use more often bombers/attackers if run out of fighters. 

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann 1509]

@=LG=Kathon  Will you consider splitting up the Plane Types by Locking Modifications?

 

Meaning: 

I-16 becomes: I-16 Type 24 and I-16 Type 28 (Shvak Cannons)

Bf109E-7 becomes Bf109E-7 and Bf109E-7/B (Jabo Variant with Full Armor Package and always carrying Bombs)

Pe-2-87 becomes Pe-2-87 and Pe-2-110 (with UBS Turret)

Fw190A-5 becomes 190A-5 and 190A-5/U-17 or simply 190F-3 (with U-17 Modifications)

La-5 becomes La-5 and La-5F early

Spitfire becomes Mk.Vb Merlin 46 and Merlin 45

Ju-87 becomes Ju-87D-3 and Ju-87G-1 (3.7BK and Armor)

Il-2 1942 Model is Split up into Turreted and Non Turreted. 

 

 

 

[ACG_Smokejumper 165]

New complaint! Too much time between TAW!!!! Purely selfish complaint. I want more TAW!!! Need my fix!

 

Thanks guys. I have a lot of fun in your house.

 

For the proposed changes.

 

I don't care for the line fighters choice. I like to fly the imports and domestic when I fly VVS. My 2c on that idea.

 

 

Finally, HvB....... Great posts.

Edited May 24, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[JG7_X-Man 134]

Everyone (...except for 7.GShAP/Silas) have brought up some very good points!

 

What I am confused about is none of this addresses the fact that RED will always win the campaign as long as TAW remains over centralized on stopping ground advancement.

 

How about this: using some combination of Hellhound's,  Klaus_Mann plane-set and HvB's restrictions on both heavy anti-tank weapons and historically accuracy.

1. The goal would be to use "air-power" to capture cities by #of points lost from it's ability to supply adjacent airbases, camps and depots. Work in the use of transports and paratrooper drops as well.
2. The main objective is to use aircraft to prevent other aircraft from achieving their objective. Not using aircraft to prevent vehicles from achieving their objective (...because this is a flight combat simulation - not a ground strategy simulation).
3. Bridges, tanks or trucks are just to provide points for lowering supply - not to prevent them from advancing or retreat. This means that anti tank aircraft instrumental in stopping advancing armor i.e. winning maps before are now leveled drastically.
4. Strategy now will concentrate on fighters flying CAP, SWEEPS or bomber ESCORT (close or ahead). Ground attack aircraft will attack objects - they just won't be as crucial to the outcome of the map. Bombers are now attacking factories and other strategic targets more so than what they currently are used for in TAW. 

 

I am not saying this is a concrete solution - just one idea of many that will make both sides enjoy each campaign much more.

 

Special thanks to =LG=Kathon for soliciting suggestions for your users!

Edited May 24, 2018 by JG7_X_Man

[ACG_Smokejumper 165]

I like your idea X-Man.

 

To add to it I would like to see more emphasis on logistics. Smashing bridges and supply convoys to lower resupply points would be good. Having this effect how the advancing army performed would be realisticish..... No fuel, no bullets, advance stops. Even if the tank convoy gets wiped if the logistics have not been as well it comes back.

 

A tank/infantry advance should need more steps to kill it from the air. A concerted effort by a squadron can make short work of a tank convoy. Hitting it should help but not do the job on its own.

 

Can we mimic infantry battles with emplacements?

Edited May 24, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[/SF/Disarray 317]

The only problem with modeling air power taking cities is that it is impossible. No mater how well secured an airspace is, without ground elements you can't take territory. This is true now and it was true then. Coming up with a credible simulation of a war zone while adhering to points one or two simply cannot be done.