Tactical Air War

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

2 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

How very few? At the moment only 45 Axis pilots have F-4 out of 638  so it's only 7%.

 

How many of those 638 people flew less than 5 sorties?

 

Why does this logic only apply to the F-4 and not for VVS aircrafts that were also present at the battle of moscow? 

 

Thank you for your reply

[Psyrion]

Why exactly does blue get the F4 on the second map? I get that blue always looses TAW for various reasons but thats not a good way to fix it. You are basically limiting red players (which we know are the less numerous) to I16s, which is arguably the worst fighter performance wise, a p40 if you have it and lets be real, p40 vs f4 is laughable, and a mig3 if youre willing to grind it (which would be fine against the f2). 

 

So the question is why should the blue team get one of their best aircraft on the second map? If I were flying blue I'd fly nothing else for the whole campaign. 

 

Cheers, 

Psy 

Edited June 27, 2018 by =FEW=Psyrion

[SCG_ItsDrifter]

Had a great time with Coldman, some of the SCG members, and another person, (Forgot his name, sorry!)

 

But this is what true teamwork is, Thanks for the great time coldman...

 

[angus26]

On 6/26/2018 at 12:41 PM, LLv24_Zami said:

Looks like 31 blue vs 49 red at the moment. Is this the right place to complain about it?

Just now it was 16 red vs 46 blue

[Norz]

@=LG=Kathon,

 

at least 4 players do not fly with 109f4...And i suppose there are a lot of these players, not only 4, who ignore 109f4. It is just a wrong decision from the admins to add it to the map N2.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Norz

[CamusB455]

22 : 4 In server right now.  It seems VVS is going to either quit the campaign entirely or wait until the Yak is available at the start.  Not blaming anyone who does.  Solo fliers are really just fodder for organized packs of 109s.

Edited June 27, 2018 by CamusB455

[ESCOMM_FlyMaker]

This server really needs quorum. Is almost impossible to fly. And now we have to counter f4 in second map.

This is why i prefer to stay in WoL

[FTC_DerSheriff]

19 minutes ago, ESCOMM_FlyMaker said:

This server really needs quorum. Is almost impossible to fly. And now we have to counter f4 in second map.

This is why i prefer to stay in WoL

Quorum doesn't work. And F-4s aren't a probem. Generally speaking. Just pure numbers. Thats all. Tho I am sure it gets better the more Stalingrad planes are coing in. Some russian players have not other games.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, DerSheriff said:

Just pure numbers. Thats all.

 

 

What does that that even mean?  Do you think that the server got to 22:3 by random chance?

Edited June 28, 2018 by BraveSirRobin

[CamusB455]

24 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

 

What dors that that even mean?  Do you think that the server got to 22:3 by random chance?

 

This happened because the last few campaigns have been a curb stomp by the Soviets, and it's speculated that's because most random solo players picking Germany.  So every organized group picked GER.  At the same time, TAW devs went all out in making sure the Luftwaffe had the most advantage possible to even things up, so this campaign won't turn out like the last couple.  The current player proportion is the result.  Things might even out when BoS planes get their chance.  Alot more solo players on the russian side at least.  It's hard to be effective solo, however.

Edited June 28, 2018 by CamusB455

[ESCOMM_FlyMaker]

30 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Quorum doesn't work. And F-4s aren't a probem. Generally speaking. Just pure numbers. Thats all. Tho I am sure it gets better the more Stalingrad planes are coing in. Some russian players have not other games.

 

Sorry but i can't agree with you. We flyed Bellum and AFW for years with a lot of fun and less complains, equal numbers is the best way to make people more happy

With that nobody can complain 

[-SF-Disarray]

25 minutes ago, CamusB455 said:

 

This happened because the last few campaigns have been a curb stomp by the Soviets, and it's speculated that's because most random solo players picking Germany.  So every organized group picked GER.  At the same time, TAW devs went all out in making sure the Luftwaffe had the most advantage possible to even things up, so this campaign won't turn out like the last couple.  The current player proportion is the result.  Things might even out when BoS planes get their chance.  Alot more solo players on the russian side at least.  It's hard to be effective solo, however.

 

You seem to be new here, so you might not know this, but it is common to see a fairly consistent numbers advantage to the German side. It isn't just on this server either. Why this happens, exactly, is up for debate though. And, for what it is worth, giving one side a clear advantage because they keep losing is lame as hell in my opinion. It is especially lame when that same side enjoys the numbers margins they do in the first place and given the fact that the German planes can out perform the competition in most meaningful ways. If the Blue team can't win with better numbers and better equipment there is a problem with that team, not the set up of the game.

 

To further this discussion, why won't quorum work? It is well and good to hold that opinion but just saying it is bad  and walking away isn't enough. I should think it is obvious that this player number issue is something that needs addressing, unless someone would like to argue that point too?

Edited June 28, 2018 by Disarray

[Coldman]

2 hours ago, SCG_DR1FT3R said:

Had a great time with Coldman, some of the SCG members, and another person, (Forgot his name, sorry!)

 

But this is what true teamwork is, Thanks for the great time coldman...

 

Clip from this flight is on its way. That was spectacular and many thanks to cover guys who keept us super clear from enemy that was lurking on us. Great victory

Edited June 28, 2018 by =L/R=Coldman

[DickDong]

20 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

If you have nearly as many deaths as ground targets destroyed, you're not doing much to support the ground war either.

You mean dropping bombs then getting flak's attention from the other four stukas im leading so my wingman make it home.  Stats are a meaningless number unless you look at the context. Stats will always be the bane of these campaigns.

 

War has much more than stats, been there survived to fly IL2, bonds with the men you fight with, worth more than a +CM.  You should try it.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Banzaii

[BraveSirRobin]

57 minutes ago, Banzaii said:

  Stats are a meaningless number unless you look at the context. Stats will always be the bane of these campaigns.

 

um...  The "getting killed" stat is actually pretty meaningful.  In real life you only get 1.

[Cpt_Siddy]

18 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

um...  The "getting killed" stat is actually pretty meaningful.  In real life you only get 1.

 

In real life fascist  also lost, how real life you want to go? 

[Cpt_Siddy]

 

 

 

on another note, does the Pe-2 87 transport work?  I cant get one out without server kicking me out. No matter what load out configuration i pick for transport. 

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Love the early maps. I am enjoying the challenge of the early VVS stuff vs the F4.

 

Not sarcasm. I'm having a lot of fun. Thanks.

[AKA_Relent]

10 hours ago, =LG=Kathon said:

 

The F-4 is not available at the beginning and it's 0/1 after F-2 0/1 so it takes a while to get this plane.

 

 

 

Kathon - I wondered how added aircraft were chosen.  So, assuming you checked fighters only on your profile, are you saying that the next available fighter (meaning the numerator is less than the denominator for that aircrafts inventory - e.g. 0/1, 0/2, 1/2,  0/3, 1/3, 2/3) from top to bottom on the list of fighter aircraft in your profile is chosen next?

 

I thought I saw some randomness to it, but maybe I just missed the obvious pattern :).  Thanks in advance for clarifying/verifying.

 

[=KK=Des_]

On 6/27/2018 at 12:09 AM, =FEW=Hauggy said:

Congrats on adding more 109 F4s the absence of this plane in the early maps was one of the only reasons I played on your server.

At least I had a reason to fly the F2 and the campaign was all the more enjoyable on the Russian side.

What's the next step? G14 on map 3?

That's a terrible choice...

We are not using f4 this map! I told our guys do not fly it.

i think lg returned to blue and give themselves some advantage. That what are we thinking!

[JG1_Shadepiece]

LG said that they were going for a more historical planeset rather than balanced. The F-4 was present at the time. Maybe not in this particular configuration, but it was there. It's not single-handedly going to win the entire campaign for blue.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

6 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Shadepiece said:

LG said that they were going for a more historical planeset rather than balanced. The F-4 was present at the time. Maybe not in this particular configuration, but it was there. It's not single-handedly going to win the entire campaign for blue.

 

Wouldn't be an issue if VVS would have gotten the yak, which was also present at the battle of Moscow in an earlier version. Due to this selective picking it leaves questions open.

[HR_Tumu]

nice picture

I hope next edition , red  team, have same oportunities for fun ( and win ) , capturing bases.

 

any enemy fighter oposition conquering bases last night?? how many "kamikaze ju52" death?

 

 

[Shively]

15 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

Wouldn't be an issue if VVS would have gotten the yak, which was also present at the battle of Moscow in an earlier version. Due to this selective picking it leaves questions open.

Agreed on the need for another Yak variant for Moscow, but I'm unsure what can really be done here seeing as the -1b wasn't in service until midway through 1942, some months after our current date on the TAW map.  Likewise, the numbers of them in the skies would be limited due to being a one-off collector's plane, so I don't know to what extent, really, this would help Red out.  I know the series 69 Yak-1 in BoS's base content may not have flown over Moscow, but perhaps it's a better fit?  Though, we'd still run into issues of realism/historical accuracy, as the engine that plane sports likewise wasn't around 'till 42 - I don't know much about the plane otherwise, so maybe you all could better judge whether it should be around.

Just gonna go out on a limb and say that German pilots flying one F-4 at a time isn't going to win the war for anyone.  Air to air combat is practically useless for moving the lines anyway.  Can they really kill attackers/bombers that much better than anything else?  I'm not convinced.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Shively

[KoN_]

Come on guys , Hmmm....Lots of sly comments being made  here are the kids of school. 

You do know it's a computer game . Right . !!!.

We are all here for same reason we love combat flight sims . And I'm sure a lot of effort has gone into making this server .

Just fly and enjoy your free time . 

Edited June 28, 2018 by II./JG77_Con

[LLv34_adexu]

10 hours ago, SCG_DR1FT3R said:

Had a great time with Coldman, some of the SCG members, and another person, (Forgot his name, sorry!)

 

But this is what true teamwork is, Thanks for the great time coldman...

 

It was actually operation by Finnish LLv34, LLv24, LLv32 and LLv44 squads. We were going to take 5 Ju-52 there, but as we noticed there was more of Ju's on field, many took 109 instead from another AF's We had some Ju-52s in air and 109s covering them and keeping those enemies away from action. We found enemy fighters nearby their AF at 5-7 km alt. We had all around 10-15 guys during that operation in the air.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by LLv34_adexu

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

24 minutes ago, Shively said:

Just gonna go out on a limb and say that German pilots flying one F-4 at a time isn't going to win the war for anyone.  Air to air combat is practically useless for moving the lines anyway.  Can they really kill attackers/bombers that much better than anything else?  I'm not convinced.

 

Again, over and over again, its not about balance. Its about historical accuracy. 

Beside that, following your logic VVS could also get the Yak 1b on map 2. It has less fire power than the I-16 with 20mm therefor it is better at killing attackers/bombers?

 

 

In the end there is simply nothing to add to this discussion anymore and i think nobody is disagreeing that having the F-4 but not the Yak is historically wrong (following Kathons logic). It would be nice to know the reason for this selective picking of historical accuracy though @=LG=Kathon. Did you guys simply not know about the Yak being present as well? in that case, why don't you release the change log before the campaign starts so people can actually voice their opinions and or fix things?.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

4 hours ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

Love the early maps. I am enjoying the challenge of the early VVS stuff vs the F4.

 

Not sarcasm. I'm having a lot of fun. Thanks.

I think its right to take the challenge and go and do the best. Even outnumbered. But I think its right as well to ask what the intenttion was with the change.
Some poeple interpreted it as crying. Which is fun since many players who have complained are flying both sides. They would profit from powerful planes next campaign.
 

Edited June 28, 2018 by DerSheriff

[LLv34_adexu]

27 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

Again, over and over again, its not about balance. Its about historical accuracy. 

Beside that, following your logic VVS could also get the Yak 1b on map 2. It has less fire power than the I-16 with 20mm therefor it is better at killing attackers/bombers?

 

 

In the end there is simply nothing to add to this discussion anymore and i think nobody is disagreeing that having the F-4 but not the Yak is historically wrong (following Kathons logic). It would be nice to know the reason for this selective picking of historical accuracy though @=LG=Kathon. Did you guys simply not know about the Yak being present as well? in that case, why don't you release the change log before the campaign starts so people can actually voice their opinions and or fix things?.

I can understand that it seems unfair and I personally would be ok w/o F4 as I still don't have it. But like Kathon said, not that many pilots have F4. Also F4 saw front line in June 41. Yak-1b was 42 plane? That would be inaccurate. Map #2 is almost over, but if in future projects removing F4 would make ppl more happy and we could get more pilots on the VVS side to fight first maps, that should be done.  

[=LG/F=Kathon]

3 hours ago, AKA_Relent said:

 

Kathon - I wondered how added aircraft were chosen.  So, assuming you checked fighters only on your profile, are you saying that the next available fighter (meaning the numerator is less than the denominator for that aircrafts inventory - e.g. 0/1, 0/2, 1/2,  0/3, 1/3, 2/3) from top to bottom on the list of fighter aircraft in your profile is chosen next?

 

I thought I saw some randomness to it, but maybe I just missed the obvious pattern :).  Thanks in advance for clarifying/verifying.

 

Planes are not added to hangar randomly but in an order e.g. F2 is added first before F4.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

Again, over and over again, its not about balance. Its about historical accuracy. 

Beside that, following your logic VVS could also get the Yak 1b on map 2. It has less fire power than the I-16 with 20mm therefor it is better at killing attackers/bombers?

 

 

In the end there is simply nothing to add to this discussion anymore and i think nobody is disagreeing that having the F-4 but not the Yak is historically wrong (following Kathons logic). It would be nice to know the reason for this selective picking of historical accuracy though @=LG=Kathon. Did you guys simply not know about the Yak being present as well? in that case, why don't you release the change log before the campaign starts so people can actually voice their opinions and or fix things?.

I will not write that this solution is perfect or ideal and it will stay like that forever  We wanted to give Axis slight advantage (Allied have advantage in Il-2). It's a kind of test how impact this solution would have on the game play. Some decisions are good some are bad but we can draw conclusion after testing them. 

 

Here are numbers of sorties of Bf 109 F4 and other Axis planes. You can see that F4 sorties are minority. 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by =LG=Kathon

[=KK=Des_]

Yes because most of us do not fly them. Bat we have!

Edited June 28, 2018 by =KK=Des_

[=GW=a9305093]

1 hour ago, LLv34_adexu said:

 

Congratulations on your successful mission.
But be careful not to be as funny as we were a few days ago...

 

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by III./JG5_a9305093

[Shively]

55 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

Again, over and over again, its not about balance. Its about historical accuracy. 

Beside that, following your logic VVS could also get the Yak 1b on map 2. It has less fire power than the I-16 with 20mm therefor it is better at killing attackers/bombers?

 

I find it curious that you elected to ignore the majority of my post that already delved into questions of historical accuracy, but such is the way of things.

 

109 F-4 took to the skies over Moscow.  Yak-1b did not.  That's the long and short of it. 

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

32 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

I will not write that this solution is perfect or ideal and it will stay like that forever  We wanted to give Axis slight advantage (Allied have advantage in Il-2). It's a kind of test how impact this solution would have on the game play. Some decisions are good some are bad but we can draw conclusion after testing them. 

 

Here are numbers of sorties of Bf 109 F4 and other Axis planes. You can see that F4 sorties are minority. 

 

First of all, thank you for engaging in this discussion!

 

So historical accuracy played no major part in that. I understand that there is some need to balance things, after all i supported a "buff" to axis for a very long time. However i think that the majority plays this Sim for historical accuracy and therefor i am very much against this approach to change the plane set that way. So what would i suggest?

 

I think in order to make a historical plane set viable, the Mission itself needs to get re-balanced. At the moment the impact of tank columns is huge which gives VVS the advantage. Creating different objectives and/or giving depots/train stations/supply columns and airfields a more important role would have a way bigger and more positive impact than any plane set change can ever achieve.

 

 

For example airfields could be much more affected by damage when it comes to plane selection. In turn this would make supply columns and train stations more valuable. Honestly, after playing several TAW campaigns the mentioned objectives never really felt like they would make a difference in the bigger picture. All it boils down to is disabling airfields with tanks or level bombing. 

 

It would be nice to get a change log before the mission starts in the future.

 

Also providing numbers/graphs only on the F-4 doesn't give us a lot to compare it to. @=LG=Kathon can you maybe compare the numbers of the F-4 to the MiG 3? should give us a better perspective. 

 

14 minutes ago, Shively said:

I find it curious that you elected to ignore the majority of my post that already delved into questions of historical accuracy, but such is the way of things.

 

109 F-4 took to the skies over Moscow.  Yak-1b did not.  That's the long and short of it. 

 

 

I only used the Yak 1b to show that your argument is flawed. Just because something might not be better at killing attackers/bombers doesn't mean it has no impact on the game or that it should be in the plane set. That is all.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Operatsiya_Ivy

[HandyNasty]

 

Just now, Shively said:

109 F-4 took to the skies over Moscow.  Yak-1b did not.  That's the long and short of it. 

The F-4 that took to the skies above Moscow didn't have clearance for 1.42 ata. The F-4 we have in game has engine clearance of July 1942. Hence the post of Operation_Ivy : Since yaks (in early forms) were present over Moscow, VVS should have access to yak1. 

 

 

The F4's presence isn't the issue I think. What is the issue is the discrepancy in player numbers in the early maps - map 1 especially. I think it's due to people's perception/opinion on the VVS planeset for these maps (mostly ishaks and P-40's, arguably hard planes to fly). The presence of the F-4 might discourage VVS pilots to effectively take part in map 2 leading to less VVS pilots for map 2 than expected, just a hypothese though.

I predict that, once the mig comes available in numbers, the lagg and yak are available too, the numbers will equal out more, and VVS will once again start winning the maps through objectives. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

Well, answer is simple, if the F-4 in question was not historic for the time period, then add the Yak-1 of the comparable series that is *also* not historic.

 

You cannot justify of using non time period F-4 if you use the same rationale to disqualify Yak-1. This right here is the double standard that gets peoples back hair standing. 

 

Either add both or add neither. 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

14 hours ago, SCG_DR1FT3R said:

Had a great time with Coldman, some of the SCG members, and another person, (Forgot his name, sorry!)

 

But this is what true teamwork is, Thanks for the great time coldman...

 

That was indeed a great sortie. SCG flew 5 of the Ju-52s, one redundant to make sure we capture Ryabinki in one go, albeit one had to return early due to an engine failure. So it was all right. Shame that no individual points are given for such missions

Edited June 28, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[Coldman]

3 hours ago, LLv34_adexu said:

It was actually operation by Finnish LLv34, LLv24, LLv32 and LLv44 squads. We were going to take 5 Ju-52 there, but as we noticed there was more of Ju's on field, many took 109 instead from another AF's We had some Ju-52s in air and 109s covering them and keeping those enemies away from action. We found enemy fighters nearby their AF at 5-7 km alt. We had all around 10-15 guys during that operation in the air.

As i said earlier Without fighter escort on multiple levels of altitude this mission would end drastically worse. We were aware of high altitude red fighters by our scout cover high and know the positsion of front line artillery due to scout fighters on low altitude so we could avoid all threats and luckly land in base safetly without losses. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by =L/R=Coldman

[=LG/F=Kathon]

2 hours ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

I think in order to make a historical plane set viable, the Mission itself needs to get re-balanced. At the moment the impact of tank columns is huge which gives VVS the advantage. Creating different objectives and/or giving depots/train stations/supply columns and airfields a more important role would have a way bigger and more positive impact than any plane set change can ever achieve.

 

For example airfields could be much more affected by damage when it comes to plane selection. In turn this would make supply columns and train stations more valuable. Honestly, after playing several TAW campaigns the mentioned objectives never really felt like they would make a difference in the bigger picture. All it boils down to is disabling airfields with tanks or level bombing. 

 

It would be nice to get a change log before the mission starts in the future.

 

Also providing numbers/graphs only on the F-4 doesn't give us a lot to compare it to. @=LG=Kathon can you maybe compare the numbers of the F-4 to the MiG 3? should give us a better perspective. 

 

 

God ideas about objectives 

 

F-4 vs Mig3 

[Skybroke]

This is probably the wrong place to ask and a little random. Where do I get the login info for the server?