Tactical Air War

[=KK=Des_ 27]

IMHO:

Depots need more AAA. Bat only before 3000m. It's target for level bombing and not for  JABO. But every bomber over 4000 need to leave this area alive, if there are no CAP there. Because it's a hard work to fly on depots on bomber. And i don't accept any opinions about that from fighters.

Jabo attack result screenshot attached.

Edited August 2, 2018 by =KK=Des_

[=FPS=Cutlass 36]

3 hours ago, LeLv76_Oke said:

Hello everybody, nice to be back after years and nothing have not change.....

Biggest broblem is system itself:  Everything is pinpointed in map....Early barbarossa was mostly search and destroy...what do we have to search ? Nothing.

What is the Flak ? we probably know this. Is the enemy covering target? probably. Is this target worth of bombing? yes , as u can see on the map ? Where is the tanks ?

Exactly on this road. as u can see on the map. How many enemies ? Just press tab !!! Server is for 84 pilots...so it is...how many red or blue ?  Nobody knows. 

 

- after ketting killed....one hour ban

- let the pilot decide if he/she let somebody coming gunners position

-add captured pilot rescue mission

-we only need to know airfield to start and if we are lucky land

-make this more harder

-and u are captured when closer enemy unit than own

-was there frontline in 1941 ? No

 

Happy holiday....see u

All indicated on the map due to engine restrictions.Even if you hide all the objects, nothing prevents especially smart participants to download the mission file, open it in the editor and see the location of the goals. The solution to this problem has been tested on the project NULL-WAR, when the intelligence on the object had to fly from 1 to 3 times with a delay between spans of at least 1 minute.  About Barbarossa and "search and destroy" you are not quite right. Ju-87 worked as long-range artillery at the request of infantry and motorized units, sensitively understand where at the moment the front line, despite its very dynamic change. Although the free hunting of bomber and assault aircraft during the active offensive has not been canceled. Fog of war-the thing is not bad, was also implemented on the project NULL-WAR, no special problems were not, although the observation posts worked and warned about the flight of single aircraft or groups of enemy aircraft. The duration of the ban after the death of the best made dynamic depending on the number of people on the server. NULL-WAR ban was if my memory serves me from 3 minutes for the first death in the course of the mission, up to 15 minutes for the third death. When the server is fully loaded, no one bothers to make a 60-minute ban for death in the mission.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf 728]

8 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

The TAW server has 84 slots.  Just set the max slots per team to 42.  There will be plenty of opportunities for BOTH sides to cry about being outnumbered (ex: 42 vs. 10, etc.),  and plenty of opportunities to collect salt when you're on the larger team.  At least 1 team won't be able to almost completely close-out the battle by occupying ALL the slots.  At least "major" battles with a full server will be even. 

 

Either that or give EVERYBODY regardless of team only I-16s equipped with one-hit god bullets. 

^This

 

People might actually start flying for the side that offers 20 attractive open slots 😍

[ECV56_Necathor 135]

On 8/1/2018 at 8:55 AM, SCG_DR1FT3R said:

Doubt a He 111 or a Stuka OR a 110 will pull trickshots like a peshka, a person brought up that they are the same, and they can provide video evidence, which i would love to see

I don;t think i was complaining about calibers of any type of gunner, please don't throw words in my mouth  

One picture of one or my books

[perdweeb 1]

Will the server ever be back up?

[BubbRubb11 6]

27 minutes ago, perdweeb said:

Will the server ever be back up?

 

It takes about a month on average between TAW campaigns. They make a bunch of changes, test stuff, improve stuff. Be patient, it's worth it

[perdweeb 1]

22 minutes ago, BubbRubb11 said:

 

It takes about a month on average between TAW campaigns. They make a bunch of changes, test stuff, improve stuff. Be patient, it's worth it

Thank you for the reply. <S>

[JaffaCake 173]

Interesting development on the Spanish forums regarding parachute killing : 

 

 

Quoting the author after google translate --- "The idea is the following. To agree with that part of the community that we share this idea, in banning from the server to the pilot who kills a parachute. I'm missing some data, but in principle within the server, you can open the list of players, select a pilot and vote to ban it. I do not know how many votes will be necessary, but if a part of the community is organized and coordinated, we can get enough votes."

 

Something to watch out for @=LG=Kathon

 

[666GIAP_Tumu 279]

Salute all

 

I think author was me   , i ask to rest of spanish users about parachute kill for think together what we can do.

 

Our last conclusion was 

 

- This tool " ban a pilot with votes " , can will be used in wrong way, and simply ban a pilot for other reasons.

And the most important.

 

- TAW have administrators and people are working to made posible, at the end they have the responsibility, for do they want to do , for example about "chutekill" they can lisent the community or no lisent.  At the end of the debate conclusions were ,  if we (like a comunity)  go one more step ago than rules, maybe we incurs on a fault of respect to TAW admins

In conclusion ( under my point of view ) parachute kill  is a TAW admin decision, they promove it, we can do nothing except assume or stop play TAW.  But organizate for ban a pilot for "chutekill " maybe can be interpreted like a fault of respect for actualy rules.

 

sry for my bad english

 

 

 

 

[=FSB=Man-Yac 121]

Let's not open the chute killing debate again please . LG cleary staded it is allowed. Let the pilots decide who they want to be. 

[JaffaCake 173]

1 minute ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

Let's not open the chute killing debate again please . LG cleary staded it is allowed. Let the pilots decide who they want to be. 

 

 

Well those guys were deciding if they wanted to decide it for others by abusing the vote ban system that the server provides. Intention was not to bring up chute killing again, but to make admins aware of the members of this community who think that it is OK to do so.

[HR_Tofolo 265]

29 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

Well those guys were deciding if they wanted to decide it for others by abusing the vote ban system that the server provides. Intention was not to bring up chute killing again, but to make admins aware of the members of this community who think that it is OK to do so.

 

Aparently either the translator didn't work well or you don't seem to understand what you are reading (or both). The OP of that thread was questioning the system and if you do a further reading you will see that none of the users that reply not even the OP are ok with using the ban system. Tumu even replied here but again you ignored him. 

 

It's not very nice to extract partial information from a thread and even worse without knowing the language in which it was written. It's worse  if used with hazardous purposes. And it's even worse if considering that the debate (of the ban system, the parachute shooting it's a never-ending topic) was from april and was already closed. 

[666GIAP_Tumu 279]

Excuse me, i have to rectificate you sir.

 

we dont think thats is OK to do so.  If u read and understand all our debate , you can appreciate , we arrives to your conclusion.  Maybe can end in a abusing vote ban system, and unrespectful to admins and TAW rules. 

 

I made a question to my  spanish comunity, many members drop their opinion , arrives to some conclusions and end debate. Thats all, Im proud to can talk with community this questions and apreciate their opinions.

 

i send u a PM Jaffa.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

[JaffaCake 173]

49 minutes ago, HR_Tofolo said:

 

Aparently either the translator didn't work well or you don't seem to understand what you are reading (or both). The OP of that thread was questioning the system and if you do a further reading you will see that none of the users that reply not even the OP are ok with using the ban system. Tumu even replied here but again you ignored him. 

 

It's not very nice to extract partial information from a thread and even worse without knowing the language in which it was written. It's worse  if used with hazardous purposes. And it's even worse if considering that the debate (of the ban system, the parachute shooting it's a never-ending topic) was from april and was already closed. 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but reading the first post of that thread what I have gathered is that Tumu was only interested to speak with those who were against chute killing, he was suggesting that they could organise and use vote-ban system that server allows to ban the chute killers and that was motivated by the fact that admins were not against chute killing and they were doing nothing to prevent it.

 

 

Its a relief that the rest of the posts were against the proposal, but its a significant issue that such a proposal was even made by, who I consider, a respected member of the community.

 

 

 

[=FSB=Man-Yac 121]

 

4 hours ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

 

Its a relief that the rest of the posts were against the proposal, but its a significant issue that such a proposal was even made by, who I consider, a respected member of the community.

 

 

 

Don't dramatise it, it's not like they would have apllied it. People like having ideas nothing wrong with that, and people get really salty after being killed in chute and it can cause such debate to take place. I think you are born in the wrong  era for witch hunting  

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf 728]

What is the topic?

 

Oh wait. Not interested in it. 🕹️

[Mobile_BBQ 312]

40 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

What is the topic?

 

Oh wait. Not interested in it. 🕹️

The current topic, if in fact it is a recycled topic for this thread, is off-topic.   

[curiousGamblerr 947]

On 6/26/2018 at 4:17 PM, Banzaii said:

Red's attitude torwards early planset?  "Oooh my I-16 or P40, is so worthless."........ suck less and play. I would love to be in a p40 right now over a stuka, but choices were made this round.

 

On 6/28/2018 at 3:18 AM, Banzaii said:

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.

 

You should try being less of a prick.

[Mobile_BBQ 312]

I think the P-40 is a great plane, for ground attacking and low level.  It might not be a great dogfighter, but anything the .50 cals can wreck on the ground will get wrecked.  It's probably the most stable and easy to aim soft ground target sniper the Allies currently have.  Put dot on the target, pull trigger when in range, pull up, repeat.

[leno 5]

As a dedicated level bomber I can tell you (for the depot debate) that the greatest deterrent is knowing there are dedicated patrols covering the target.

 

Last campaign, carl Infar was my nemesis. He shot me down 3 sorties in a row by predicting my likely target and route and got me before or just as I got there.

 

This campaign I noticed that Ivy and Ramawill, and others, were doing a lot of defensive patrolling.

 

There is nothing more disheartening than being 1 hour into a flight, and 10 minutes off a depot, and getting the notification "Ivy has joined the game" only to see a little dot appear at the airfield closest to the depot, because you know Ivy will be hunting for you!

 

Anyway, well played all and thanks to admins for another great campaign. 

[ACG_Nightrise 98]

Perhaps a solution to the depot defense would be having a few ai fighter patrols around the depots. wouldn't be many maybe 2 flights of 2 aircraft per depot but it should discourage the lone bomber pilots somewhat. 

[AKA_Relent 136]

Adding a few more random flak around each depot (maybe 10-20km out or more) might help notify pilots slightly sooner that their depot was about to be hit, getting more defensive fighters into the air.

[StG77_HvB 664]

5 hours ago, leno said:

 

Last campaign, carl Infar was my nemesis. He shot me down 3 sorties in a row by predicting my likely target and route and got me before or just as I got there.

 

That's an interesting phenomenon that develops when low player number periods occur at the same time every night with the same players. People start paying attention to the habits of specific individuals on the other side, and 1v1 or 2v2 cat and mouse games play out all over the map. It looks more like what I suppose WWI flying must have been like, and it's a very different dynamic than that of a full server.

[7.GShAP/Silas 437]

1 hour ago, StG77_HvB said:

 

That's an interesting phenomenon that develops when low player number periods occur at the same time every night with the same players. People start paying attention to the habits of specific individuals on the other side, and 1v1 or 2v2 cat and mouse games play out all over the map. It looks more like what I suppose WWI flying must have been like, and it's a very different dynamic than that of a full server.

 

[ACG_Smokejumper 165]

On 8/3/2018 at 2:52 PM, Mobile_BBQ said:

  It might not be a great dogfighter,

 LIES!

On 8/3/2018 at 3:12 AM, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

Let's not open the chute killing debate again please . LG cleary staded it is allowed. Let the pilots decide who they want to be. 

 

I agree, it's part of the game. I don't mind it. I do think it says something about a guy who does it. Then we all get to have a pooh talk trash session in TS later about it. As I like drama it's still a win.  

 

I think the game needs a manual chute pull option. The wait at high altitude is too short and low altitude too long. Manual ripcord pull is the answer. Pull too early and catch the tail, makes for more interesting low alt jumps.

Edited August 4, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Mobile_BBQ 312]

I would like to see a bit of better collision mechanics involving chutes vs. planes.  I was chute-killed (by guns) and RAMMED (body dead-center of the prop hub) simultaneously by a P-39 tonight with no ill effect to the plane at all....  Even if I was (hypothetically) blow to bits before the impact, the parachute itself would have been caught up in the propeller.   But then again, ramming survival seems to depend on ping and a coin toss.

[[TWB]Sketch 789]

An excerpt from Thunderbolt The P47 page 188:

 

 

 

 

[=FSB=Man-Yac 121]

Wow what an horrible way to go. The p51 pilot must have struggled to pull the trigger ever again after such a horrendous spectacle.

[StG77_HvB 664]

According to Grislawski, the exact same thing happened to Macki Steinhoff's wing man in Russia.

[wombatBritishBulldogs 106]

Is it modeled 😲

[7.GShAP/Silas 437]

4 hours ago, wombatBritishBulldogs said:

Is it modeled 😲

 

No, if you physically fly into someone in their parachute you just clip through, it doesn't hurt them or you.

Edited August 6, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[=FSB=HandyNasty 125]

I already bent my prop when flying through a chute. Don't quite know whether it is the shute itself or the body of the pilot (might have hit that one too) that bent my prop. Needless to say, I felt like a complete moron. 

[/SF/Disarray 342]

The interaction is there, but due to net code and ping it is kind of tricky to pull off. Like flying through a debris cloud after you take apart a bomber.

[=FSB=Man-Yac 121]

On 8/5/2018 at 10:11 PM, StG77_HvB said:

According to Grislawski, the exact same thing happened to Macki Steinhoff's wing man in Russia.

I tried to find some information about it but didn't have any luck, do you have a source by any chance?

[StG77_HvB 664]

I thought I read it in "Graf & Grislawski; A Pair of Aces," but I looked thru the book just now to tell you the page # and couldn't find the passage. Let me dig around a little more because it's quite a story; makes you stop reading and stare at the wall thinking about it.

[-332FG-Garven 287]

Any idea when the next TAW is up?

[Cpt_Siddy 804]

21 minutes ago, US103GarvenDreis said:

Any idea when the next TAW is up?

 

It is moved one week back every time someone asks this. 

[-332FG-Garven 287]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

It is moved one week back every time someone asks this. 

Okay, I just keep asking until we can use the P-47 in the next TAW.

[ACG_ItsDrifter 437]

5 hours ago, US103GarvenDreis said:

Okay, I just keep asking until we can use the P-47 in the next TAW.

Lol, definitly not, we had the G14 available before last campaign, they didn't add it. So i don't think they'll do the same with the P-47

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf 728]

The FW-190 A-8 went into service (early spring 1944) before the Bf-109 G-14 (midsummer 1944). Hence, by TAW's historical standards, I assume it would appear one map earlier anyway.

 

While I'd love an expanded timeframe, the VVS do need a counterpart! Their latest ingame aircraft would be the LA-5FN (summer 1943). The Yak-3 is missing here. It would be a formidable collector's plane for BoBP's timeframe in my opinion, and could challenge the G-14 in summer of 1944.

 

 

Would-be scenario:

 

The Bf-109 G-6 with injection (early winter 1943) could strike a last map balance, appearing one map after La5FN, and closing the performance gap. Unfortunately, the ingame G-6 has no injection system, not even by choice. Proposing that before the G-6's release led to a lot of flak against "Luftwaffle players". I read they were planning to put this in later as a patch, but that doesn't seem to be true. So now we are stuck with this underpowered heavy-drag beauty.. I don't know about you, but I would have liked the choice of a lockable module, at least.