Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

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?

 

:):):)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Shively

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by II./JG77_Con
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

utOW2SK.jpg

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 by LLv34_adexu
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by DerSheriff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

image.png

Edited by =LG=Kathon
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by =KK=Des_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

 

c9DxmzL.gif

 

PMUpYUX.gif

 

Edited by III./JG5_a9305093
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Operatsiya_Ivy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

utOW2SK.jpg

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 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :salute:

Edited by =L/R=Coldman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

image.png.df47e6bb4cb95e5afbddb5b50b24f41b.png

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

utOW2SK.jpg

 

Agree, great fun capturing Ryabinki by 8 (?) x Ju52. I flew in second Group - 6 x Ju52 in close Formation from start to landing, escort fighters around saving our ass. Coldmans advices '80% Throttle....drop 3-2-1...go left 3-2-1' let us keep together. After extra circle with lights on and flares we landed like ducks, one behind the other in Formation, without collision. THX guys!! looking Forward for the Videos ;-) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

God ideas about objectives ;)

 

F-4 vs Mig3 

image.png.df47e6bb4cb95e5afbddb5b50b24f41b.png

 

 

Reminder, that Map2, you have 1 plane that is competitive against F2 and F4. Its the Mig.  VVS literally have nothing else that can compete.  Now add F2 + F4 and MC 202 vs Mig and we have accurate picture. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Reminder, that Map2, you have 1 plane that is competitive against F2 and F4. Its the Mig.  VVS literally have nothing else that can compete.  Now add F2 + F4 and MC 202 vs Mig and we have accurate picture. 

 

 

Pe2 seems to be fairly competitive vs. any fighter aircraft blue has. My only serious fear flying one is the angry AAA

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DerSheriff said:


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.
 

 

 

Oh there is some farming going on in the F4. I'll be happy to be in a more competitive fighter. Right now I'm feeling happy with my 5 kill streak in an I16.    :)

 

 

Server is 31 Vs 1 right now lol.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

 

Oh there is some farming going on in the F4. I'll be happy to be in a more competitive fighter. Right now I'm feeling happy with my 5 kill streak in an I16.    :)

 

 

Server is 31 Vs 1 right now lol.

No point in flying when there's only one base to take off from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Either add both or add neither. 

 

I don't mind a challenge but if you want to avoid whining make it fair. Not even monkeys like unfairness.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great video Coldman, beautiful flight of Ju52s! 

Red pilots unite, let's knock at the devs office and demand: WE WANT OUR LI-2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cmon guys!  35 vs 3 !! new challenge for capture airfield.

 

Really i have to Joke. Sorry ;)

 

Chima i was thinking .. one possible solution is made available ju 52 to red side and force use some kind of skin. ( until red side no have li-2 )

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of registered red players are not playing. I fail to see how it is blue sides fault when obviously they are waiting for something. I thought stats doesn't mean anything for the glorious vvs pilots but the superior teamplay and so on... Maybe I have misunderstood something.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't like Ju-52 as red transport; LW has this advantage, VVS has other advantages regarding what planes can do. I can wait for Li-2.

Now:

5 hours 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. 


I like your honesty Kathon, and like and agree on those changes you made in order to do some testing. Unfortunately for admins, with such a difference in current quorums there is not much useful data you can get about how those changes really impact in gameplay balance; LW are winning not because of F4s on the second map, or Ju52s, or the funny self proclaimed propaganda "we are finally doing some good teamwork", they are winning and will win this TAW because of quorums 3-1 most of the time reaching even 9-1 or more sometimes.

We will have to wait a more balanced quorum TAW, to really see the real impact of those changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:


We will have to wait a more balanced quorum TAW, to really see the real impact of those changes.

 

 

I learnt a new word today. Quorum,  : 3  a Mormon body comprising those in the same grade of priesthood 

 

I assume you meant this meaning though.   :P

 

1: 1 a select group
2 : the number (such as a majority) of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business

 

41 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Lots of registered red players are not playing. I fail to see how it is blue sides fault when obviously they are waiting for something. I thought stats doesn't mean anything for the glorious vvs pilots but the superior teamplay and so on... Maybe I have misunderstood something.

 

 

So? A lot of Blue are registered who are not flying.

 

It's not just VVS who are better at team play. RAF in Cliffs of Dover are also better in general at team play. Blue suffers from individualism and multiple comms across multiple games. It's not opinion, it is observable in my 3000 hours of SIM stick time. I started RAF but Blue was always short in Cliffs hence being in a German staffel. As teamwork and flying short side is my bag I find myself flying RED.

 

I fly alone most often as a 109 driver.

 

 

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

 

So? A lot of Blue are registered who are not flying.

Seems to me that theres lot more blue players online right now. Where are the reds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Seems to me that theres lot more blue players online right now. Where are the reds?

 

Where are the people who switch to vvs? you know you aren't forced to stay blue right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Seems to me that theres lot more blue players online right now. Where are the reds?

 

There is quite the stack for blue in most rounds. I am not sure the point you are trying to make. This isn't the first time either. I predicted this to Shadepiece before we declared sides. The round before last had a MASSIVE blue stack when a lot of VVS switched to help blue. Last round those guys moved back to VVS and now they are blue again. I saw it coming and said we should wait till next one to switch blue.

 

Every time the Luftwaffe gets it's face stomped in there is a mass exodus of VVS to blue.

 

Currently it is 0926 PST. I'd be online now but I have job quotes to do.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

Where are the people who switch to vvs? you know you aren't forced to stay blue right?

I know that. Why should I change sides when theres a lot of red players who are not playing? I can fly reds but I wont change in the middle of the campaign.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

I know that. Why should I change sides when theres a lot of red players who are not playing? I can fly reds but I wont change in the middle of the campaign.

 

 

Why should I?!?!?!? The Luftwaffe mantra........ Remember when I said Blue side in general is more poor at teamwork compared to RED? This right here is an example of that in your own words.

 

I do understand a switch not being ideal however, this stack was easily seen coming. It happened EXACTLY like this two campaigns back.  In my blue stack example I am speaking of I flew BOTH sides and it absolutely ruined it for me. Its so early you can easily switch but "why should I" is your attitude so........

 

I do not recommend flying both sides, ruins the magic.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During previous campaign each time when the blue side had 2 airfields left the situation was same ( 3 blue against  30 red) and funny thing, the comments were identical "ahh 3 against 30 ..." but this time coming from blue side...

Anyway currently its not like all the places are takenand red side can easyly join if they wish -ith the balance now 18 blue to 13 red(instead of fighting on the forum- which I guess is safer, you'll not loose your kills...)

As I wrote before the current balance is much better than many campaigns which I've flown (to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm a dedicted red side pilot with only 2 campaigns flown on blue side - the 2nd i'm flying now).

And I must say that the team work is much better to the one which I experienced during the previous campaign (2 campaign ago) which I was flying on blue side.

I just dont understand why some pilots who now went red , but usually go blue, are constantly writing about the team work of the side which they are not flying now…

with constant excuse that there are to many flying blue - start to fly to change it!

 

Edited by Carl_infar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

There is quite the stack for blue in most rounds. I am not sure the point you are trying to make. This isn't the first time either. I predicted this to Shadepiece before we declared sides. The round before last had a MASSIVE blue stack when a lot of VVS switched to help blue. Last round those guys moved back to VVS and now they are blue again. I saw it coming and said we should wait till next one to switch blue.

 

Every time the Luftwaffe gets it's face stomped in there is a mass exodus of VVS to blue.

 

Currently it is 0926 PST. I'd be online now but I have job quotes to do.

It's best playing time in europe right now

. Point is I think theyre just waiting for Yaks etc to arrive before jumping in. Btw Im at work myself right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

It's best playing time in europe right now

. Point is I think theyre just waiting for Yaks etc to arrive before jumping in. Btw Im at work myself right now.

 

 

That's just "like, your opinion man".

 

It is possible. I see this across multiple games. Guys do not like early war stuff. I frickin love it. I hope we get the Battle of France in the future.

 

I love how difficult the early stuff can be. No automation just pure machine management.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

 

Why should I?!?!?!? The Luftwaffe mantra........ Remember when I said Blue side in general is more poor at teamwork compared to RED? This right here is an example of that in your own words.

 

I do understand a switch not being ideal however, this stack was easily seen coming. It happened EXACTLY like this two campaigns back.  In my blue stack example I am speaking of I flew BOTH sides and it absolutely ruined it for me. Its so early you can easily switch but "why should I" is your attitude so........

 

I do not recommend flying both sides, ruins the magic.

Do you speak english? I just said I have no problem flying reds. This is in practice my first Taw where I have time to fly at least for now and I want to spend it with my squad. I have no problem flying red in later events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...