Tactical Air War

[Operatsiya_Ivy 475]

how quickly things can change.

[41Sqn_Riksen 1457]

1 minute ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

how quickly things can change.

 

Yeah ... having the slot limit and the limiter in place should solve that.

[ITAF_LG965 23]

I thought I would do something for everyone: "Forgot TAW"
it is nothing but a copy of the old editions.
If this should be in contrast with the creators of the TAW campaign, contact me and I will eliminate everything.

http://forgotten-taw.tuttovola.org/

[ACG_ItsDrifter 454]

3 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

the limiter won't change anything. I think nothing will besides a hard cap. On the later maps it will probably be a different story though when the P-47 and Spit Mk. IX are available.

 

wasn't SCG saying they are going red this time? 

 

2 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

Yes, we are but our DiD events (usually once a week) will still be held in the LW side. We, in our unit, have an internal campaign system where u try to keep ur virtual persona alive. If you look in the squadrons tab, you will also see our VVS unit registered. The latter will be our main unit (5-6 times a week) unit for the campaign so you can rest assured that we will fly way more VVS missions this campaign. This was a compromise between pur members so we all cpuld be happy and be able to fly red as well.

 

It is not perfect but, at least, we are doing our part.

 

 

[Mm1ut1 32]

I was on for a while earlier today until I lost connection. Tried to get on now and says I have to register on taw. 

"......

 

never mind...

got logged in finally!

Edited November 26, 2018 by Mm1ut1

[ACG_ItsDrifter 454]

Is there a reason why the TAW server has been really laggy lately? Has the servers hamster got old?

[ACG_Smokejumper 202]

On 11/24/2018 at 6:01 PM, Operation_Ivy said:

Frankly i don't understand why we never get to discuss upcoming changes to give the taw devs some input on their ideas but i guess that's another issue. While there are many technical limitations, i think there would have been better solutions. In the end all we can do is to see how it plays out this campaign and hope that it doesn't cause major problems.

 

Simple, if they listen to the many gripes and screaming it will destroy TAW long term like every other campaign before it across many games. ACG is one of the longest running campaigns in flight simming. We pulled it off by being private giving us complete control.

 

I approve of LG building their project their way and changing what they believe needs changing.

 

 

EDIT////

 

ADMIN HELP REQUEST

I have made duplicate red accounts and locked myself out. Wanted to change my squadron tags, how do I fix what I did?

 

Thanks!

Edited November 26, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Garven 371]

I ran out of pe-2 bombers and it is kicking me when I go to do a transport sortie, I made sure I had 100% fuel and no ordnance.

[StG77Jeevesovich 65]

5 minutes ago, Kilrain said:

I ran out of pe-2 bombers and it is kicking me when I go to do a transport sortie, I made sure I had 100% fuel and no ordnance.

 

Ditto.

[Hoogs 5]

AAA is mental. Good bye TAW

[Alonzo 1658]

7 hours ago, Banzaii said:

Im a little concerned with the smount of dudes just sitting and hanging out in spectators. It could completly innocent, or not, either way a consistent 20 just sitting there clobbers the server.  Maybe 5 min limit on idle then you kicked.

 

When I was on earlier, one side had 15+ players logged in and flying, the other side had very few players but there were like 20 spectators. Could this be some kind of tactic to deliberately close front-line airfields due to player imbalance? (I am not accusing either side of anything, but I am curious -- could the limiter be "gamed" in some way to gain a temporary advantage?)

33 minutes ago, Hoogs said:

AAA is mental. Good bye TAW

 

Nah, you just need 5+ aircraft circling and attracting AA so others can destroy it. Attacking a target alone is a suicide mission, but a coordinated strike will give the AA too many targets to handle. I flew a sortie just now with only 3 of us, but when we got to target there were maybe 3 friendlies already engaged. Lots of AA firing. We engaged too and between us took out all of the AA, which gave us time to focus on the real targets.

[77th_Knipser 317]

11 hours ago, Banzaii said:

Im a little concerned with the smount of dudes just sitting and hanging out in spectators. It could completly innocent, or not, either way a consistent 20 just sitting there clobbers the server.  Maybe 5 min limit on idle then you kicked.

 @=LG=Kathon  That would be a nice feature! If you could implement a script that kicks spectators from the server when they are idle for more than 10 minutes. I guess that would really help to free some server slots during the rush hours. 

[HR_Eldamar 22]

19 hours ago, =19FAB=AlterEgo said:

LG's, @=LG=Kathon

 

Hello, is there any problem with supply ? no +1 CM

 

Problem 1
Plane: Pe-35, 100% fuel, no modifications (transport)
Take off: Dyatlova, not attacked,

Landed: Lotoshino, damage: 51%, in stats it's ditched

http://taw-server.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=502&name==19FAB=AlterEgo

 

Problem 2

Plane: Pe-35, 100% fuel, no modifications (transport)

Take off: Nesterovo, not attacked,

Landed: Kalinin, damage: 7%

http://taw-server.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=452&name==19FAB=Fin

 

Thanks in advance to take a look at this.

Regards,

AlterEgo

 

 

 

 I had the same problem, two transport missions without CM, one gave it to me diched (the airfield was closed but with 3% damage) and another in an open airfield with 15% damage. The two occasions with Pe2 empty and 100% fuel.

 

 

[LLv44_Mprhead 227]

54 minutes ago, I./JG62_Knipser said:

 @=LG=Kathon  That would be a nice feature! If you could implement a script that kicks spectators from the server when they are idle for more than 10 minutes. I guess that would really help to free some server slots during the rush hours. 

Downside of this would be that it would make it harder for organized squads to do anything together. Sometimes you have to wait for quite a long time to get everyone in.

[77th_Knipser 317]

32 minutes ago, LLv44_Mprhead said:

Downside of this would be that it would make it harder for organized squads to do anything together. Sometimes you have to wait for quite a long time to get everyone in.

then make it 20 mins. 

[Operatsiya_Ivy 475]

10 hours ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

Simple, if they listen to the many gripes and screaming it will destroy TAW long term like every other campaign before it across many games. ACG is one of the longest running campaigns in flight simming. We pulled it off by being private giving us complete control.

 

There is a difference between making a upcoming change public for discussion and listening to everything that is written in it.

 

There are many instances where, what was considered a very good idea within a limited group of people, turned out to be the exact opposite. Mainly due to group dynamics and other factors. I am not suggesting to judge changes by a poll or something like that but i don't see anything wrong with having the chance to get additional input.

[JaffaCake 173]

Really good numbers on CCCP side I hope that stays. We were able to clean up several tank columns while the Waffles failed to handle even just one. AAA at airfields seems a bit easier too

[41Sqn_Riksen 1457]

1 hour ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

There is a difference between making a upcoming change public for discussion and listening to everything that is written in it.

 

There are many instances where, what was considered a very good idea within a limited group of people, turned out to be the exact opposite. Mainly due to group dynamics and other factors. I am not suggesting to judge changes by a poll or something like that but i don't see anything wrong with having the chance to get additional input.

 

While I do get ur point Ivy and believe you are correct, I think the change implemented was a good one. We need something to penalize the selfshness of some players torwards side alligance. If they cared about others or the whole game experience we wouldnt be having this discussions in the first place. Despite of being a bad or a godd decision by the LG and StG2 teams, I do appreciate their acknowledgement and effort to remedy the issue.

[Operatsiya_Ivy 475]

there is no doubt that we need a system that penalizes this but i doubt that hardly anyone will switch sides because of this change. The wehrabooism in these people is so strong that i think even when you force every squadron to switch each campaign they would simply not play vvs when its their turn.

[41Sqn_Riksen 1457]

12 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

there is no doubt that we need a system that penalizes this but i doubt that hardly anyone will switch sides because of this change. The wehrabooism in these people is so strong that i think even when you force every squadron to switch each campaign they would simply not play vvs when its their turn.

 

And that is why what they are trying to do is smart. They are not forcing the stackers to switch sides, not at all, but forcing them to take off from far away airfields. They can play in the server still but this at least gives a chance to the minor side. Only thing we need to make this better is the cap limit 42 x 42. No one needs to fly for a side they dont want to but we are should not be discouraged to join the server because of their selfishness.

 

Hey but what if it is like 42 LW (reached cap limiti) vs 20 VVS and we have more 10 LW players wanting to join the server?

They will be blocked and sit out. This way for those in the server, the experience is a more balanced and fair one. Those 10 players can either make an account for the red side and enjoy the campaign as such or just go somewhere else but, like I said, those in the server have a better experience and a chance to fight back. Not to mention it is easier for the minority side to have more players join the server this way as well since the remaining spots will be open for their side.

Edited November 26, 2018 by SCG_Riksen

[41Sqn_Riksen 1457]

Right now 28 LW vs 5 VVS. Out of these 21 LW in mission/flying and 4 VVS flying/mission but no AFs are closed. It does not look like the limiter is working properly.

[Operatsiya_Ivy 475]

1 hour ago, SCG_Riksen said:

Hey but what if it is like 42 LW (reached cap limiti) vs 20 VVS and we have more 10 LW players wanting to join the server?

They will be blocked and sit out. This way for those in the server, the experience is a more balanced and fair one. Those 10 players can either make an account for the red side and enjoy the campaign as such or just go somewhere else but, like I said, those in the server have a better experience and a chance to fight back. Not to mention it is easier for the minority side to have more players join the server this way as well since the remaining spots will be open for their side.

 

Something like this was proposed a couple of times but yeah...

 

Now we have the "limiter system" and we have to deal with it and see how it will turn out.

[=LG=Coldman 407]

34 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

Right now 28 LW vs 5 VVS. Out of these 21 LW in mission/flying and 4 VVS flying/mission but no AFs are closed. It does not look like the limiter is working properly.

from frontline airfields there is a 5 players in air. thats why they are not closed

rest of LW are from lukovnikovo so there is no need to kick the limiter

[Operatsiya_Ivy 475]

1 minute ago, =LG=Coldman said:

from frontline airfields there is a 5 players in air. thats why they are not closed

 

So the amount of players per airfield is limited and not the numbers of airfields in general? that actually sounds way better.

[=LG=Coldman 407]

I think it should work like this but im not sure if it is for now. From my observation it turn off all frontline airfields if the limit of the players on all forward airfields is exceeded but we have to look at it.

Edited November 26, 2018 by =LG=Coldman

[ACG_Smokejumper 202]

4 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

 I am not suggesting to judge changes by a poll or something like that but i don't see anything wrong with having the chance to get additional input.

 

 

If you run a campaign you will find that an open discussion is just a flame war. Long term it tears to effort to pieces.

18 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

It is not perfect but, at least, we are doing our part.

 

 

Thanks SCG boys.

[Talon_ 1703]

I got a squad of 45 Reds together for this TAW so the rest of you reds had better show up when we're not around and carry on the pushes we can make!! We're going to win Map 1 in I-16s gentlemen!

[[308]Banzaii 139]

44 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

I got a squad of 45 Reds together for this TAW so the rest of you reds had better show up when we're not around and carry on the pushes we can make!! We're going to win Map 1 in I-16s gentlemen!

A cookie for you.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Banzaii

[SCG_Sinerox 129]

First TAW I've seen so many red, good for a change!

[Cpt_Siddy 1146]

Transport PE-2 is fuqered again. You have 0 normal Pe-2 and cant take transport one. I removed everything but the fuel, ammo too, and it still wont work. 

 

 

[-IRRE-Centx 178]

Same for He-111 by the way, seems like transport missions don't work at all for both sides.
No CM and we don't get the +4% resupply.
Seems like it's also the same for Ju52s, but I didn't test it myself.

Edited November 26, 2018 by -IRRE-Centx

[Cpt_Siddy 1146]

Just to rub home the gravity of the situation.

 

We cannot do supply missions, that means getting P-40 and Pe-2 resupplied is solely reliant in your predominance in Il-2 and I-16 in situation where there is more axis with better +1 planes in the air. 

 

 

[41Sqn_Riksen 1457]

60 x 18 is getting hard to do anything against that. We need a cap limit asap or perhaps we should all fly Luftwaffe next campaign and pretend to shoot at invisible planes?

 

Could the brave pilots flying under these conditions at least be able to keep their planes if they get shot down or something like that?

Edited November 26, 2018 by SCG_Riksen

[69th_Mobile_BBQ 619]

9 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

60 x 18 is getting hard to do anything against that. We need a cap limit asap or perhaps we should all fly Luftwaffe next campaign and pretend to shoot at invisible planes?

 

Could the brave pilots flying under these conditions at least be able to keep their planes if they get shot down or something like that?

 

It's not even all that possible to sneak around and attack out-of-the-way targets such as random enemy posts or lesser-staffed enemy airfields.  I want to participate, but I'm not going to feed a meat grinder with very little possibility of jamming its gears.   

Edited November 26, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[Talon_ 1703]

Well I have a squad up to 50 men registered for Red now but even if half (25) of us were ready to play there's only 7 spots for us.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Talon_

[StG77_Kondorsky 331]

Well, here we are again friends. 

The front line AF limiter is a good idea, and I actually think with some minor tweaks it should be permanent moving forward. However, I fear that unless it is a situation that is 3v1 - then it is too harsh of a penalty otherwise. For example last night was 20v25, Red had the 5 pilot advantage but the front line fields shut down. That penalty when you are only ahead by a few pilots is way too harsh for numbers like this, IMO, especially in Map #1. 

But the lopsided balance numbers again are a cause for concern. Part of it has to be due to the usual Map #1 plane set. So maybe the numbers improve in the following maps, and this TAW isn't a Blue bullet train like that last one . 

 

Currently we have:

 Allies (415 players registered)

 Axis (536 players registered)

 

Now I know some of these are 'doubles' with several guys flying both sides. But still, that is a sizable advantage for Blue already. But let's see what happens, it has only been a few days since we started this new campaign, hopefully the numbers improve. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by StG77_Kondor

[Sketch 903]

3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

I got a squad of 45 Reds together for this TAW so the rest of you reds had better show up when we're not around and carry on the pushes we can make!! We're going to win Map 1 in I-16s gentlemen!

Is this an exclusive 45 man squad or are you going to open it up so that singles and double pilots can share input with the whole team and help support each other?

[Talon_ 1703]

Just now, [TWB]Sketch said:

Is this an exclusive 45 man squad or are you going to open it up so that singles and double pilots can share input with the whole team and help support each other?

 

They're my friends man. Pretty sure every squad on the board is invite-only.

[Sketch 903]

So that I understand, you want us to work together,  but you do not want to have us to be in an administrated Discord channel - that you would have full powers over. How the f does this make any sense?

[Talon_ 1703]

2 minutes ago, [TWB]Sketch said:

So that I understand, you want us to work together,  but you do not want to have us to be in an administrated Discord channel - that you would have full powers over. How the f does this make any sense?

 

The idea is that you work together with your friends. You're a member of TWB and they are highly regarded squadron. Can't you put together a strike package from your not insignificant talent pool?

Edited November 26, 2018 by Talon_