Tactical Air War

[7.GShAP/Silas]

10 hours ago, StG77_HvB said:

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.

 

 

 

 

On August 20th 1941 the 4th Ground-Attack Regiment handed over the last three remaining IL-2s in its inventory to the 215th Ground-Attack Regiment and flew to Voronezh for re-formation.  Re-formation was completed by September 4th 1941 with the regiment having two squadrons rather than five.  All of those new IL-2s had 23mm cannons installed.  Source:  "Red Star Over The Swastika", with this section written by Vladimir Vershinin, who was there.

 

I've seen this corroborated elsewhere and have no reason to doubt it.

Edited May 24, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[FTC_DerSheriff]

I have to express my doubts as well. I like to switch between Fw 190 and Bf on a regular basis depending what I plan to do. Focussing on Fws would limit my high alt/anti bomber/high cover capabilites and only 109s would mean that I can't use the Fws for low level jabo/bad weather operations.

imho a very bad idea.

Edited May 24, 2018 by DerSheriff

[Guest deleted@103832]

2 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

On August 20th 1941 the 4th Ground-Attack Regiment handed over the last three remaining IL-2s in its inventory to the 215th Ground-Attack Regiment and flew to Voronezh for re-formation.  Re-formation was completed by September 4th 1941 with the regiment having two squadrons rather than five.  All of those new IL-2s had 23mm cannons installed.  Source:  "Red Star Over The Swastika", with this section written by Vladimir Vershinin, who was there.

 

I've seen this corroborated elsewhere and have no reason to doubt it.

Thanks for the reference - I own this book as well and have read Vershinin's introduction mentioning that re-formation.

 

The passage states,

 

"The regiment was re-formed in Voronezh by 4 September, but now it consisted of two squadrons instead of five. It received new Sturmoviks armed with 23mm wing guns designed by Volkov and Yartsev...."

 

It does not state, like you did, that all of the regiment's replacement aircraft were armed with the VYa-23, though I can see how you might infer that. NKAP Order 462S is a matter of historical record, as is its production directive of 25 aircraft for August 1941. The VYa-23 was not cleared for installation in production aircraft until July 26, 1941, and production started at Plant 18 sometime in August after receiving technical drawings of the modifications and carrying out the required re-tooling. If Plant 18 managed to actually deliver 25 VYa-23-equipped IL2s in August, which is doubtful, and the 4th GA Regiment received 20 new VYa-23-equipped IL2s in August to equip two squadrons, then it was the first and only regiment to receive them at that point in time. Since it was re-formed in Voronezh, the same location as Plant 18, it is possible that they got whatever had been produced by Sep 4.

Edited May 24, 2018 by deleted@103832

[Herne]

Is there a plan for introducing the BoBP plane sets to TAW ? will you wait for BoBP maps, or something else ?

[7.GShAP/Silas]

4 hours ago, StG77_HvB said:

Thanks for the reference - I own this book as well and have read Vershinin's introduction mentioning that re-formation.

 

The passage states,

 

"The regiment was re-formed in Voronezh by 4 September, but now it consisted of two squadrons instead of five. It received new Sturmoviks armed with 23mm wing guns designed by Volkov and Yartsev...."

 

It does not state, like you did, that all of the regiment's replacement aircraft were armed with the VYa-23, though I can see how you might infer that. NKAP Order 462S is a matter of historical record, as is its production directive of 25 aircraft for August 1941. The VYa-23 was not cleared for installation in production aircraft until July 26, 1941, and production started at Plant 18 sometime in August after receiving technical drawings of the modifications and carrying out the required re-tooling. If Plant 18 managed to actually deliver 25 VYa-23-equipped IL2s in August, which is doubtful, and the 4th GA Regiment received 20 new VYa-23-equipped IL2s in August to equip two squadrons, then it was the first and only regiment to receive them at that point in time. Since it was re-formed in Voronezh, the same location as Plant 18, it is possible that they got whatever had been produced by Sep 4.

 

 

Yes, that is possible, though I have in a notebook three other quotes speaking to the 23mm armed IL-2s being at least not uncommon, in autumn 1941.  I'll see if I can find their original sources(I neglected to keep them, I searched them out of my own curiosity a couple of years ago) .

 

I don't at all mind if the 23mm is restricted to a later date on the IL-2, if that is appropriate.  But I WOULD like to see a source from a regimental level that backs up your timeline before they are restricted(of course we do not get everything that we wish for) .  Brano would know, I think.

Edited May 24, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[=69.GIAP=Shvak]

Instead of limiting the plane numbers. Make dead is dead for each map. You can make it the same for bailouts and ditching a plane. You are out for the duration of the map. It will make you protect your virtual life. Also nothing counts unless you land. It will put an end of map bomber attacks and raids. A two  hour map is long enough to take-off bomb a target anywhere on the map and the land. If it is a bigger map extend map time. To clarifies when I say map, I mean mission. This will open the map up for players battling to get in as well.  Lastly why not consider when someone dies or is captured you not only reset their AK and GK streak but  you remove all benefits with CMs the pilot has earned. This would make pilots go to great lengths to stay alive.

Edited May 24, 2018 by =69.GIAP=Shvak

[StG77_Kondor]

Take a two day break and woah! Lots to catch up on.

First of all, Kathon, thank you for removing cold start. 

 

On the matter of the proposed changes. In short, I don't think it is a good idea to limit fighters in individual map, and really restricts what makes TAW great in terms of flexibility. A map could present itself with a dire situation over one of your AFs or precious columns that above all needs to be protected. But if you picked ground attack, you will only have a 110E to fly CAP? In a current state of the game where we are already limited on types of aircraft that we can historically use, why further restrict ourselves? 

 

11 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

HvB, about the 23mm discussion i'm not so sure about being that big of a problem in TAW. I know it's quite effective in ideal conditions (no winds, tanks in an unobstructed position) but in TAW there's generally crosswinds, turbulence, or the tanks can be in forest areas, that hampers it's effectiveness quite a bit because you need a good 1.5 sec or so continuous burst to take them out, once you need to take 2 or 3 passes per tank it becomes rather innefficient imho and me personally tend to use rockets/bombs or even the 37mm cannons to destroy them with the IL-2.

It's more effective than the 101 and 103 in the Hs-129, and in the end, more effective than the 37mm on the Ju-87. The VYa set at a ~400m convergence, you can kill any tank from the side in one pass. Even in horrible wind conditions, it is MUCH easier to get rounds to hit with it than with the 37mm. The 37mm isn't a guaranteed one shot hit either. It is if you hit convergence perfectly. But in tough conditions I would still much prefer having the VYa. 

 

But your plane set is the best one I've seen so far proposed! Just make sure to give the A-20 to the Russians by the winter Stalingrad map. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by StG77_Kondor
I can has spelling

[JG1_Shadepiece]

1 hour ago, =69.GIAP=Shvak said:

Instead of limiting the plane numbers. Make dead is dead for each map. You can make it the same for bailouts and ditching a plane. You are out for the duration of the map. It will make you protect your virtual life. Also nothing counts unless you land. It will put an end of map bomber attacks and raids. A two  hour map is long enough to take-off bomb a target anywhere on the map and the land. If it is a bigger map extend map time.

It already bad enough that no one spawns in during the last 30 minutes as it is. Making it so you had to land would basically force bombers to not even take off if there isn't at least an hour left. That'd leave a pretty hollow server.

 

Dead is dead every map isn't a terrible idea, but again I think it might just limit the numbers too much. It'd probably be better if anything increase the death timer. I really think there much better ways to handle the changes.

[=gRiJ=ToReRo]

3 hours ago, =69.GIAP=Shvak said:

En lugar de limitar los números de los aviones. Hacer muerto está muerto para cada mapa. Puede hacer lo mismo para rescatar y abandonar un avión. Estás fuera mientras dure el mapa. Te hará proteger tu vida virtual. Además, nada cuenta a menos que aterrices. Pondrá fin a los ataques y las incursiones de los bombarderos de mapas. Un mapa de dos horas es lo suficientemente largo como para lanzar una bomba a un objetivo en cualquier lugar del mapa y la tierra. Si es un mapa más grande se extiende el tiempo del mapa.

1+ 

 

this would be fine for the maximum moments and the server's influence it would make sense to be waiting for members of squad that run out of site, we can rarely enter all unless we agree with the restart

Edited May 24, 2018 by =gRij=ToReRo

[Cpt_Siddy]

10 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

Focussing on Fws would limit my high alt/anti bomber/high cover capabilites 

 

This alone would make it VERY GOOD idea.

 

The axis ground ponders and targets might actually get the cover they so very badly need. 

 

 

5 hours ago, =FEW=Herne said:

Is there a plan for introducing the BoBP plane sets to TAW ? will you wait for BoBP maps, or something else ?

 

 

Is there any BOBP content out yet? 

[-SF-Disarray]

The first two planes are out now for those who pre-order.

 

The more I think about setting a hard limit on the planes a player can use the less I like it. It works fine in a war time setting, the pilots don't have a choice but to show up and do their job and those same pilots are presumably trained and some kind of proficient at that job. In game though the player base is inconsistent in both play time and reliability. What if the bombers show up but none of the fighters? Or vise versa. Hellhoud's method could work well, I think. It incentives those who declare as fighter pilots to be fighter pilots but still allows the flexibility for them to jump into a bomber or attacker when needed. The only thing I'm not sure of is how his system would treat a fighter pilot's bombing mission in the tally towards CM. Would it be half credit or something like that?

[Coldman]

I think Kathon didn't mean that You have 4 fighters on all duration of map but just you have 4 fighters to choose from. You will be able to earn fighters by CM but just from your specialization

[JG5_Schuck]

8 hours ago, =69.GIAP=Shvak said:

Instead of limiting the plane numbers. Make dead is dead for each map. You can make it the same for bailouts and ditching a plane. You are out for the duration of the map. It will make you protect your virtual life. Also nothing counts unless you land. It will put an end of map bomber attacks and raids. A two  hour map is long enough to take-off bomb a target anywhere on the map and the land. If it is a bigger map extend map time. To clarifies when I say map, I mean mission. This will open the map up for players battling to get in as well.  Lastly why not consider when someone dies or is captured you not only reset their AK and GK streak but  you remove all benefits with CMs the pilot has earned. This would make pilots go to great lengths to stay alive.

 

Now this idea along with a greater emphasis on historical accuracy of plane sets for the time period gets my vote.... 

 

Not for everyone i know.

 

Maybe they could trial a map and see how it goes.

 

 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

8 hours ago, =L/R=Coldman said:

I think Kathon didn't mean that You have 4 fighters on all duration of map but just you have 4 fighters to choose from. You will be able to earn fighters by CM but just from your specialization

Precisely. It came across as an idea born from the will to also get people to fly ground attackers more often, as soon as their fighters run dry. With 4 aircraft that is much earlier. However, having such a short fighter pool means you need to choose what to get. Hence, specialization on lines. 

 

But most guys I've seen just switch to transports, once they have no fighters left. So the idea may miss the problem. 

 

Also, a big issue and often mentioned reason on why people don't like to fly ground attackers as Axis is that the AAA is perceived as randomly incredibly deadly to Stukas, Ju88s and even 110s. That is what I hear. 

 

If that is the case, maybe it's an idea to take out one piece of gun completely from convoys, make it very deadly, and only install it around airfields. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[cashing]

When will the next campaign start? Is there a date already defined?

[7.GShAP/Silas]

22 hours ago, =69.GIAP=Shvak said:

Instead of limiting the plane numbers. Make dead is dead for each map. You can make it the same for bailouts and ditching a plane. You are out for the duration of the map. It will make you protect your virtual life. Also nothing counts unless you land. It will put an end of map bomber attacks and raids. A two  hour map is long enough to take-off bomb a target anywhere on the map and the land. If it is a bigger map extend map time. To clarifies when I say map, I mean mission. This will open the map up for players battling to get in as well.  Lastly why not consider when someone dies or is captured you not only reset their AK and GK streak but  you remove all benefits with CMs the pilot has earned. This would make pilots go to great lengths to stay alive.

 

 

When you fly a ground attack mission(especially on TAW with high-level AA AI) , no matter how good you are and how careful you are, you take a risk with the anti-aircraft guns.  There is always an element of chance.  It seems like if you implement this kind of rule, the only people who really benefit are the top-tier 'experten' in their fighters who are supremely careful around enemy fighters and never fly ground attack.  If I could hear a single good dedicated ground attack pilot support this idea and explain to me his reasoning, I would be happy to listen.

Edited May 25, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[Antiguo]

Hi ... Shvak ... with your theory, with the attack planes, ... what about the medals that were given to the dead in action? Without people flying on the ground and without bombers, that boring would be the TAW ...

 

if you do not risk it, nothing is achieved   ?

 

Trying to survive is my premise   ? but sooner or later I run into someone who knocks me down (I usually fly bombers and I usually loose at a level of 5000 m more

regards    

Edited May 25, 2018 by Ala13_Antiguo

[JG4_Widukind]

hello

i think too Ju88 should be aviable on Map 1 and loadout schould be historical for Ju88 and Heinkel(without 2500KG SC Bomb)

So iam happy to see Bomber (Heinkels and Ju88) with 1800Kg and 1000kg on the back Airfields and with a limit.(We fly it on Coconut Server,and the Plane is very slow need extrem long too climb too 4k,so the Server run time must be longer.

AAA is in my eyes a big Problem,i hope the Admin can do a bit for that.

The MC. 202 can leave after Map 3,so better u become a 109 faster back.

On Map 1 we should have no special Weapons for the Figthers (I16,Lagg and Mig and Il2,Bf109 Gunpods),lets play a early War-map.

I prefer to fly all Planes on TAW,so Line A or B is not good for me ?

Edited May 25, 2018 by JG4_Widukind

[JG700_Rammjager]

On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 1:28 PM, =LG=Kathon said:

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.

 

It's really bad idea.

I saw it on old ADW. Few reds on beggining ("poor" I-16 against F2), and at the end few blues (G6 against Yak-3 and La-7).

Actuall planeset is fine and no need to change it.

 

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:13 AM, DerSheriff said:

I have to express my doubts as well. I like to switch between Fw 190 and Bf on a regular basis depending what I plan to do. Focussing on Fws would limit my high alt/anti bomber/high cover capabilites and only 109s would mean that I can't use the Fws for low level jabo/bad weather operations.

imho a very bad idea.

 +1

 

Ramm.

[Cpt_Siddy]

On 5/24/2018 at 4:45 PM, =69.GIAP=Shvak said:

Instead of limiting the plane numbers. Make dead is dead for each map. You can make it the same for bailouts and ditching a plane. You are out for the duration of the map. It will make you protect your virtual life. Also nothing counts unless you land. It will put an end of map bomber attacks and raids. A two  hour map is long enough to take-off bomb a target anywhere on the map and the land. If it is a bigger map extend map time. To clarifies when I say map, I mean mission. This will open the map up for players battling to get in as well.  Lastly why not consider when someone dies or is captured you not only reset their AK and GK streak but  you remove all benefits with CMs the pilot has earned. This would make pilots go to great lengths to stay alive.

 

 

I would start carry a bomb or a rockets on my Yak just to kill ditched pilots. 

 

 

 

 

 

But lets address the real elephant in the room.

 

How do you get the 7+km cover down to the altitude where it can actually cover, on the Axis side, i mean. 

This phenomena is now reaching ridiculous proportions, when at worst, i saw no less than 14  contrails from uber-Luftwaffe mounts (no doubt manned by blue eyed heroes with ice-flowing-in-their-veins and willpower-like-steel: Knights of the Fatherland)  above blue tanks "covering" them. All while dirty peshkas and ILs were making short work of them, covered by mere 5 inferior Asiatic peasants in LAGG's and yaks (contraptions that arguably don't even deserve to be called an aeroplane, as by all rights they should catch fire and disintegrate if one of the Knights should ever look at them).

 

After few of them dropped down (and no one totally saw that contrail descending and diving, no sir, total surprise for us) and were dispatched in short order, rest of them just... fucked off and let us have our way with the column...

Edited May 25, 2018 by CptSiddy

[JG7_X-Man]

3 hours ago, CptSiddy said:

But lets address the real elephant in the room.

 

Well as long as there are rewards for not dying (like  7.GShAP/Silas said), there will be people flying at 7K looking to preserve their pilot's life. I personally don't have the discipline. 

 

So this rules out DiD in my humble opinion. BLUE would have to rely on AAA to the work for us.

 

Well it takes a lot of rounds to bring down an IL-2, Pe-2 and now A-20. So while I am trying to take out RED bombers (...which is hard with sniper AI gunners), RED fighters are having a me for lunch if the gunners don't first.

 

Same story, RED GATK aircraft are harder to bring down then BLUE GATK aircraft. If I am limited to the # of fighters at my disposal, I am leaving the supply column to defended themselves and I will hover at 7K waiting do bored RED fighters to come up and fight. At least the odds a little more even. 

 

As for the out come of the map - same as always. With no real incentive for BLUE fighter pilots to risk loosing a precious aircraft to kill bombers - and a kill is a kill, why bother? Thus at that rate, RED will always destroy more tanks/trucks than the BLUE side. QED!

 

On 5/23/2018 at 10:51 PM, Disarray said:

The only problem with modeling air power taking cities is that it is impossible. No mater how w

 

Since we are all playing make believe anyway - WTFC! Well is this isn't about both sides having an equal chance of winning a campaign, not a single map.

Edited May 26, 2018 by JG7_X_Man

[7.GShAP/Silas]

3 hours ago, JG7_X_Man said:

 

Well as long as there are rewards for not dying (like  7.GShAP/Silas said), there will be people flying at 7K looking to preserve their pilot's life. I personally don't have the discipline. 

 

So this rules out DiD in my humble opinion. BLUE would have to rely on AAA to the work for us.

 

Well it takes a lot of rounds to bring down an IL-2, Pe-2 and now A-20. So while I am trying to take out RED bombers (...which is hard with sniper AI gunners), RED fighters are having a me for lunch if the gunners don't first.

 

Same story, RED GATK aircraft are harder to bring down then BLUE GATK aircraft. If I am limited to the # of fighters at my disposal, I am leaving the supply column to defended themselves and I will hover at 7K waiting do bored RED fighters to come up and fight. At least the odds a little more even. 

 

As for the out come of the map - same as always. With no real incentive for BLUE fighter pilots to risk loosing a precious aircraft to kill bombers - and a kill is a kill, why bother? Thus at that rate, RED will always destroy more tanks/trucks than the BLUE side. QED!

 

Since we are all playing make believe anyway - WTFC! Well is this isn't about both sides having an equal chance of winning a campaign, not a single map.

 

 

But Siddy is talking about Axis covering their OWN ground attackers, not killing enemy ground attackers.  There is a 'cultural' difference between the sides here.  The VVS fighter pilots generally fly aggressively at a reasonable altitude to protect us and I am endlessly grateful.  A large proportion of the Axis fighter pilots refuse to do the same to protect their comrades, and they pay for it as a team.  The fact that he only mentioned protecting your own guys and you didn't speak to that at all is revealing of that cultural divide.

 

I disagree with the idea of creating a server environment where any simulation of our efforts as part of a bigger picture is removed.  Desiring total realism in plane sets and then wanting airplanes to be able to capture cities on their own without any representation of ground forces is dissonant.  Regardless, a large part of the spirit of the campaign would be removed and we'd be a few steps closer to Berloga.  I can only speak for myself, but I will not to be a sacrificial lamb in such a context.

Edited May 26, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[BOO]

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 2:45 PM, =69.GIAP=Shvak said:

Instead of limiting the plane numbers. Make dead is dead for each map. 

Ive no idea about the answer but I'm sure its not this. 

[CisTer-dB-]

3 hours ago, JG7_X_Man said:

BLUE would have to rely on AAA to the work for us.

You hit the nail right there. That should force the blue to come down, if the AAA was reduce a little bit 

Edited May 26, 2018 by ATAG_dB

[Carl_infar]

3 hours ago, JG7_X_Man said:

 

Well as long as there are rewards for not dying (like  7.GShAP/Silas said), there will be people flying at 7K looking to preserve their pilot's life. I personally don't have the discipline. 

 

So this rules out DiD in my humble opinion. BLUE would have to rely on AAA to the work for us.

 

Well it takes a lot of rounds to bring down an IL-2, Pe-2 and now A-20. So while I am trying to take out RED bombers (...which is hard with sniper AI gunners), RED fighters are having a me for lunch if the gunners don't first.

 

Same story, RED GATK aircraft are harder to bring down then BLUE GATK aircraft. If I am limited to the # of fighters at my disposal, I am leaving the supply column to defended themselves and I will hover at 7K waiting do bored RED fighters to come up and fight. At least the odds a little more even. 

 

As for the out come of the map - same as always. With no real incentive for BLUE fighter pilots to risk loosing a precious aircraft to kill bombers - and a kill is a kill, why bother? Thus at that rate, RED will always destroy more tanks/trucks than the BLUE side. QED!

 

 

Since we are all playing make believe anyway - WTFC! Well is this isn't about both sides having an equal chance of winning a campaign, not a single map.

 

35 minutes ago, ATAG_dB said:

You hit the nail right there. That should force the blue to come down, if the AAA was reduce a little bit 

 

so to say it short:

- i don't care about the mission objectives of my team and what happens to my team ground attackers (and i just dont know why the reds always win, it must be that red bias)

- I don't have to learn the strenghts and weaknesses of both  enemy and my machines so I can play to my strenghts and enemy weaknesses, beacuse my flying is perfect

- I'm perfect and refuse to try to learn any new tactics and improve my flying

- the aaa gets me every time when i'm diving alone, straight into the barells of the guns, so thers something wrong with aaa because my attack pattern is perfect and I dont have to change it

- I'm sitting on bombers six and that sniper gunners are hitting me every time - ther's something wrong with gunners , because my attack pattern like always is perfect

- the whole world is biased and should change, because i'm perfect and dont have to learn anything new

- its always that red biased machines and not the man

Edited May 26, 2018 by Carl_infar

[CisTer-dB-]

I take it as you didn't get the ironic point of my post Carl

[Carl_infar]

6 minutes ago, ATAG_dB said:

I take it as you didn't get the ironic point of my post Carl

I got it that's why I quoted it as support to mine  (mine post was not a reply to yours)

[=KK=Des_]

On 5/23/2018 at 6:18 PM, =LG=Kathon said:

Cold engine will be turn off.

I don’t want you to turn it off. It,s pretty cool and realistic. Also you have time to think about your next flight! And more pilots use runway while heating!!! Do not turn it off plz.

[CisTer-dB-]

9 minutes ago, =KK=Des_ said:

I don’t want you to turn it off. It,s pretty cool and realistic. Also you have time to think about your next flight! And more pilots use runway while heating!!! Do not turn it off plz.

May I ask you what make you think it's realistic? If you want to have time to think about your next flight how about you just wait before spawning. 

[=KK=Des_]

20 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

When you fly a ground attack mission(especially on TAW with high-level AA AI) , no matter how good you are and how careful you are, you take a risk with the anti-aircraft guns.  There is always an element of chance. 

There are no risks if you know how to do it. We always attacked aaa first to give chances for single attackers to be alive, because I saw a lot of them who diving on target and has been killed. Crazy people.

35 minutes ago, ATAG_dB said:

May I ask you what make you think it's realistic? If you want to have time to think about your next flight how about you just wait before spawning. 

Because I never will use runway if my engine is hot! It’s not needed then. And cold engine is a cherry of this server. Some green pilots can’t use planes and beginning asking how and what to do. Next time they will fly alone and die. A lot of benefits of cold start. I think we should vote for this.

[=KK=Des_]

40 minutes ago, ATAG_dB said:

May I ask you what make you think it's realistic? If you want to have time to think about your next flight how about you just wait before spawning. 

Because I never will use runway if my engine is hot! It’s not needed then. And cold engine is a cherry of this server. Some green pilots can’t use planes and beginning asking how and what to do. Next time they will fly alone and die. A lot of benefits of cold start. I think we should vote for this.

Also vouching fields will be more difficult with hot engines.

[CisTer-dB-]

9 hours ago, =KK=Des_ said:

There are no risks if you know how to do it. We always attacked aaa first to give chances for single attackers to be alive, because I saw a lot of them who diving on target and has been killed. Crazy people.

Because I never will use runway if my engine is hot! It’s not needed then. And cold engine is a cherry of this server. Some green pilots can’t use planes and beginning asking how and what to do. Next time they will fly alone and die. A lot of benefits of cold start. I think we should vote for this.

LOL You make my day 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by ATAG_dB

[Norz]

4 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

But Siddy is talking about Axis covering their OWN ground attackers, not killing enemy ground attackers.  There is a 'cultural' difference between the sides here.  The VVS fighter pilots generally fly aggressively at a reasonable altitude to protect us and I am endlessly grateful.  A large proportion of the Axis fighter pilots refuse to do the same to protect their comrades, and they pay for it as a team. 

 

Are you kidding?

 

P.S. Seems that only a player who doesn't play both sides can make these conclusions.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Norz

[=KK=Des_]

9 minutes ago, ATAG_dB said:

LOL You make my day 

I’m glad for u)) but 1-2 minutes is good to cold your mind after death for example. Or you will never spawn on cold plane while vouching.

[-SF-Disarray]

Des, what is realistic about cold starts? Would you have me believe that the pilots would go to the briefing for the mission, get their target info and all that, walk over to their plane and only then would the preparations for starting it up for the mission be undertaken? You mean that in war time they had all this extra fuel and, more importantly, time to waste letting an engine start cold? What do you think the ground crews did all day? Play cards or swap stories about he girls back home?

 

If you have a problem not using the runway, there are better ways to fix the problem. Like using the runway, for example.

[CisTer-dB-]

I think there is a language barrier here and the choice of "realistic" is the wrong word. Perhaps fun or convenient is what he mean 

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Yeah that cold start is everything but realistic.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

5 hours ago, =KK=Des_ said:

There are no risks if you know how to do it. We always attacked aaa first to give chances for single attackers to be alive, because I saw a lot of them who diving on target and has been killed. Crazy people.

 

There are people who kill themselves foolishly, yes.  But there are only no(very little) risks once you've spent a lot of time to figure out how to game the system.  That is natural in any game after a while.

 

5 hours ago, Norz said:

 

Are you kidding?

 

P.S. Seems that only a player who doesn't play both sides can make these conclusions.

 

 

 

I flew a campaign as Axis on TAW something like 4 campaigns ago, and I've flown Axis previously on Random Expert.  This is a problem that has existed ever since I started flying BOS online in early access. 

 

EDIT: There was a great comic someone(Silky maybe) drew on the forums something like three years ago with all the 109s up with the rainbows and clouds and one burning, raging stuka down around the houses with a swarm of yaks.  I wish I could find it.  Some things never change.

 

EDIT2:  Got it!  It was Silky.

Edited May 26, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[JG7_X-Man]

Cold Starts are not realistic! Any Osprey book, pictures and other sources and even real life operations show that machanincs haves the aircraft ready to go by the time the pilots shows up on the flight line. Not sure why we are still having that conversation.

[JG7_X-Man]

@Carl_infar I know it's hard to not get combative or resort to ridicule to make your point.  Let's try bro!

 

Everyone has to agree that with the current format, the side that has the better ground attack aircraft will always win the campaign (...not bomber not transport and not even fighter). It has nothing to do with the better pilots either.

 

However, if the BLUE side were to change tactics and focus on putting airfield out of commission with our He 111s. We might have a fighting chance - someone else has suggested this tactic in the not so distant past. Issue there is that this requires coordination and that is lacking on the BLUE side. Certain squads have there TS channels locked for their use only - so we (BLUE) will never have a full strength to strategist such a feat. Also, the automatic prop pitch and other technological advances modeled in the German aircraft means new pilots will gravitate towards the blue side then slow stick to Russian aircraft as they get more comfortable (...just a hypotheses).

 

BLUE will always loose if something doesn't change and at this rate - why bother even playing? When RED runs out of BLUE players because no one what's to play for a team that looses all the time, what then?

 

Take a look at Coconut's Server - it's more balanced to both ground and air attack.