Tactical Air War

[SCG_Riksen 901]

2 minutes ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

And when the server isn't full?
That's the main argument of many people here.
Trying on a future campaign to add a cap to 42vs42, I would give it a try, maybe it's good, maybe it's not, I don't know.

But if you only cap to 42vs42 when the server is full, what about the hours when the server is NOT full, and there are 30 Soviets against 5 Germans?

You're asking for balance?
Fine.
But then, balance everything, at EVERY HOURS.

 

The other hours would no see balance. What you are saying is an ideal situation but will never happen. Even numbers at all times will never happen but then you have the front line AF limiter that we currently have to, at least, give some advantage to the minority side. But again, one side would never go over 42 players and this would give the chance for more players to join the inferior side. The current system does not allow that and if 84 players want to play as LW, they can without allowing anyone to join on the other side.

[Redich 1]

53 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Number of new posts here is bigger than my ability to read them all so it takes time.

 

Did you read the manual?

 

You should have changed your pilot's name from Player-13844 to Redich in the "Pilot profile". But you created another account which was automatically locked. 

Now:

1. Change Redich to something else

2. Change Player-13844 to Redich

3. Join the server

Hi,

Thank you very much for your reply and yes I have read the manual but obviously not good enough   - many times sorry and I apologize for all the unnecessary hassle I might have created.

Redich

[7.GShAP/Silas 377]

1 minute ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Of course it will have the same effect over the course of a day. If there are similar numbers during the course of the day, they have similar impact (if we expect them to perform on the same level). That's again simple statistics.

 

 

How is 30 is the same as 15?

[II./JG77_Manu* 874]

2 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

How is 30 is the same as 15?

 

What are you talking about? Allies have on average 20 players online, Axis on average 21 players. That's the only number that counts. Is it really so hard to understand simple statistics?

[-IRRE-Centx 168]

12 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

The other hours would no see balance. 

 

So you are basically asking to balance only certain hours, when Germans are more, and let Russians destroy everything when there are no Germans to counter them

Your notion of balance is really weird.

 

 

Since you seem to like football, here is an example for you:

Football teams are capped to 11v11.
It's balanced because it is ALWAYS 11v11, at every match, in every country, at every hour (well except if a player take a red card, I give you that)

 

Try a football match with 11v5. Guess who wins.

Edited December 4, 2018 by -IRRE-Centx

[StG77_Kondor 300]

At the risk of getting in between this most recent and riveting back and forth on numbers...

I think a good compromise is to set the hard cap of total # of players per team to 50. 50 vs 34 is not that bad actually, and allows for some fluctuation and not have it be such an egalitarian cap at 42. 
 

What is clear is the effect of not having Ju-52 be a +1 airplane in this edition of TAW. I think Blue has only captured a few bases this way, where in the previous version we could see a map ended within 48 hours.

[SCG_Riksen 901]

24 minutes ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

So you are basically asking to balance only certain hours, when Germans are more, and let Russians destroy everything when there are no Germans to counter them

Your notion of balance is really weird.

 

 

Since you seem to like football, here is an example for you:

Football teams are capped to 11v11.
It's balanced because it is ALWAYS 11v11, at every match, in every country, at every hour (well except if a player take a red card, I give you that)

 

Try a football match with 11v5. Guess who wins.

 

Negative. Because the cap will always be 42 for each side, this will apply for every hour and all the times. Each side will only be able to have 42 players regardless of how many join and this is fair. Now, will we have 42 x 42 all the time? Of course not and it is like this already and nothing will change that. For example, we may have 25 x 12 or 42 x 20 during non-peak hours but when this happens the server would use the frontline airfield limiter in order to give some advantage to the minority side (which BTW, it already in place this campaign). Again, the combination of both features would create balance and a more fair environment for those in the mission and would allow players to join the side with less players ALL the time.

 

Going back to soccer, it would be like saying each side can only field 11 players all the time but if they decide to field less it is on them but you would always be 11 max to each side. 

3 minutes ago, StG77_Kondor said:

At the risk of getting in between this most recent and riveting back and forth on numbers...

I think a good compromise is to set the hard cap of total # of players per team to 50. 50 vs 34 is not that bad actually, and allows for some fluctuation and not have it be such an egalitarian cap at 42. 
 

What is clear is the effect of not having Ju-52 be a +1 airplane in this edition of TAW. I think Blue has only captured a few bases this way, where in the previous version we could see a map ended within 48 hours.

 

I would be fine with 50 limit as well TBH. Some limit is better than none.

[ACG_Sketch-LW 572]

I think a 50 pilot cap per side is a good idea too.

[7./JG26_Smokejumper 163]

I would like to see time zone sign up sheets. Balance swings the other way in Pacific Evening. I saw 41 red vs 4 blue the other night. Kinda funny but it kept me from playing. It's not fun to play against 4 guys.

8 hours ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

 

I see that you bombed Zubtsov depot.

I'm sorry for you, but it seems you missed your target

Look here (scroll down a bit to see depot) : http://taw.stg2.de/fra/airfields.php?map=Moscow_South&name=Zubtsov
 

When you plan to bomb a depot/airfield, always check the aerial recon before going there (on the TAW website mainpage, you click on the targeted city in the list, on the left or right of the map depending on your side)

If I match the aerial recon with your bomb screenshots, you obtain this :

 

 

Regarding your second problem, I have no idea why you first bomb did a smaller explosion 😕

 

 

Wow, I've never used these. Frickin awesome!!! Thanks for the tip!

[II./JG77_Manu* 874]

8 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

I would like to see time zone sign up sheets. Balance swings the other way in Pacific Evening. I saw 41 red vs 4 blue the other night. Kinda funny but it kept me from playing. It's not fun to play against 4 guys.

 

And that's exactly why a player cap would only help the Russian side. It would not at all prevent scenarios as you described. The only fair implementation would be that one side can only have a certain % of the other team. But that's pretty unrealistic. If we want a solution, it should prevent all disbalance, and not only the disbalance in 3 out of 24 hours.

[-IRRE-Centx 168]

35 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

Negative. Because the cap will always be 42 for each side, this will apply for every hour and all the times. Each side will only be able to have 42 players regardless of how many join and this is fair. Now, will we have 42 x 42 all the time? Of course not and it is like this already and nothing will change that. For example, we may have 25 x 12 or 42 x 20 during non-peak hours but when this happens the server would use the frontline airfield limiter in order to give some advantage to the minority side (which BTW, it already in place this campaign). Again, the combination of both features would create balance and a more fair environment for those in the mission and would allow players to join the side with less players ALL the time.

 

Going back to soccer, it would be like saying each side can only field 11 players all the time but if they decide to field less it is on them but you would always be 11 max to each side. 

 

I would be fine with 50 limit as well TBH. Some limit is better than none.

 

 

I would agree on a 42v42 cap if server was full 24h/24h, which is not possible.

 

But if you look at the stats posted on last page, you will see that Russians almost never reach 42 players, or only for 1-2hours per day.

Which means a 42 cap will almost only affect Germans.

That's my point since the beginning, maybe I didn't express it clearly. 

A 42 cap would unbalance the other way because Germans wouldn't be able to compensate the fact that Russian have peak hours too outside of EU primetime, when there are basically not enough German pilots to fly.

 

 

A 50 player cap (or 55 with airfield limitation) would seem more adapted regarding stats, and I would gladly test this kind of limitation.

Edited December 4, 2018 by -IRRE-Centx

[7./JG26_Smokejumper 163]

6 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

And that's exactly why a player cap would only help the Russian side. It would not at all prevent scenarios as you described. The only fair implementation would be that one side can only have a certain % of the other team. But that's pretty unrealistic. If we want a solution, it should prevent all disbalance, and not only the disbalance in 3 out of 24 hours.

 

 

 

Only way is time zone sheets and sign ups. When your preferred side is full fly opposite or not at all. Easy for me to say I admit, I fly everything.

[7.GShAP/Silas 377]

3 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

 

 

Only way is time zone sheets and sign ups. When your preferred side is full fly opposite or not at all. Easy for me to say I admit, I fly everything.

 

 

And if the times you fly vary?

[SCG_Riksen 901]

10 minutes ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

 

I would agree on a 42v42 cap if server was full 24h/24h, which is not possible.

 

But if you look at the stats posted on last page, you will see that Russians almost never reach 42 players, or only for 1-2hours per day.

Which means a 42 cap will almost only affect Germans.

That's my point since the beginning, maybe I didn't express it clearly. 

A 42 cap would unbalance the other way because Germans wouldn't be able to compensate the fact that Russian have peak hours too outside of EU primetime, when there are basically not enough German pilots to fly.

 

 

A 50 player cap (or 55 with airfield limitation) would seem more adapted regarding stats, and I would gladly test this kind of limitation.

 

Exactly. It would most likely affect the Germans the most because, as said earlier, they are the ones with most registered players and with a lot of them being composed of LW-only guys. It is this selfish behavior that put us here in the first place. With the cap, they would have to either start flying for the other side as well or simply not join the server. At least, in this way, it would be fair to those that do balance the campaign and switch sides between campaigns and everyone would have a turn playing as Germans. 

[StG77_Kondor 300]

3 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

Only way is time zone sheets and sign ups. When your preferred side is full fly opposite or not at all. Easy for me to say I admit, I fly everything.

Simple problem with this is not every pilot is equal (...in terms of flight hours of course ). We could have the most egalitarian sign ups for every time zone, but the fact is not everyone plays every single day. It would be crazy to conduct a 'fair' war on a piece of paper.

 

For a 24 hour campaign you will have times during the day that are lopsided - on both ends. If it's tweaked like the ability to select front line AFs currently, and it is a set % AND hard cap number like 55 even - then that would solve both issues of 60+ Blue sometimes and the other times it is 25 Red vs 5 Blue. 

 

At the same time I think something this drastic should take into account how the rest of this current campaign plays out. Map #1 was a stalemate won by attrition. Map #2 seems to be heading in the same direction. Let's see what happens balance and results wise. Some of these things you can't fairly fix if TAW remains a 24 hour server.

[=LG=Coldman 211]

Guys...this TAW in my opinion is super balanced first map ended in atrittion. Second map will end in attrition and thus is the best way to have the longest campaign ever. Enjoy it, do what you can to push  your side forward and stop writing here and fly whenever you can.

[7.GShAP/Silas 377]

1 hour ago, StG77_Kondor said:

What is clear is the effect of not having Ju-52 be a +1 airplane in this edition of TAW. I think Blue has only captured a few bases this way, where in the previous version we could see a map ended within 48 hours.

 

 

I agree, this was a very good change.

[JG1_Vikner 0]

Need the admins to delete the registration for II./JG1_Vikner for the current campaign.  I mistakenly registered for allied and I need to change to German.

[Alonzo_LW 315]

15 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Number of players on TAW server during last week, from [TWB] Pand's logger:

 

Can I get this data as a CSV? We've got people bickering over whether a 42 player hard cap would have this effect or that effect, we could just model it based on actuals and cut through the arguing.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf 555]

60vs20 players, how many tons of bombs can those +40 Axis drop? 

 

20vs10 players, how many tons of bombs can those +10 Allies drop? 

 

Merely having a numerical advantage isn't as interesting, as the weight of this advantage is. 

[=AVG77=Mobile_BBQ 209]

I guess VVS doesn't care to replace the LAGG-3 I just lost to friendly AAA...  Good thing the parachutes aren't of unacceptable quality like the ground gunnery. 

 

Friendly AAA over airfield too brutal. Pleeze nerf.

[Carl_infar 154]

2 hours ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

60vs20 players, how many tons of bombs can those +40 Axis drop? 

 

20vs10 players, how many tons of bombs can those +10 Allies drop? 

 

Merely having a numerical advantage isn't as interesting, as the weight of this advantage is. 

Good that You wrote "can" . But they did And will not because 90percent of the blues are crusing in fighters 😂 

If at least 20percent would fly bombers And would target little more the airfields both map would finish in no time.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Carl_infar

[=LG=Kathon 1076]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 2:22 PM, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Well, as already said, TaW isn't historical but uses their own battlerating for plane sets. That said, even with an F4 it will be a problem.

Manu what would you change in the current TAW planeset to make it more historical? Here http://taw-server.de/img/TAW_planeset_tmp.xls you can download an example of the planeset in the xls file and easily edit it.

 

We can test it in the next campaign.

[Carl_infar 154]

The plane set is ok And it worked well for so many taws. No need to fiddle with it And let the most vocal  complainers which make whining their living  have their way. They will never be satisfied. 

 

[II./JG77_Manu* 874]

31 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Manu what would you change in the current TAW planeset to make it more historical? Here http://taw-server.de/img/TAW_planeset_tmp.xls you can download an example of the planeset in the xls file and easily edit it.

 

We can test it in the next campaign.

 

I wouldn't make it historical, that was not at all the point. Especially in the first half of the campaign, historical would probably not be too much fun for the Allies, at least for the fighter pilots.

I was merely pointing out, that the planeset in TaW is not set after historical deployment, but for a good balance between the sides, because some folks actually thought it is historical correct the way it is.

 

That said, if you ask me so direct, I would make a couple of balance changes, but only slightly.

- Give the Germans the same amount of Ju-88 then the Russians have the Pe2, and at the same timeframe. This would also be more historical, since the Ju-88 was operational before the Pe2 S.37. I'd actually put both of them in in map#2, because the E7 is too slow and weak to do anything against Pe2, while the I16 will have a hard time to catch the Ju-88. 

- Put the La-5FN in one mission later. Performance-wise it is more on 109 G14 level, then on G6 level. The Yak 1b and the La-5F are more then enough to counter the G4/6 or the 190-A5. In addition, it would also be more historical - there was no La5-FN in Kuban campaign, and apart from two dozen combat trials in Kursk, no combat sorties before 1944.

 

[-IRRE-Centx 168]

1 hour ago, =LG=Kathon said:

We can test it in the next campaign.

 

(I quote you just to be sure you see this message when you will scroll the topic)

I spotted a big flaw in the French translation of the manual, if it is possible it would be nice to correct it.
Compared to the English version, two sentences are missing, and one sentence has to be deleted.
I give you the updated French version below.

 

English version :

3.5 Airfields and cities

Airfield is a vital strategic point on the map. If tank column captures the city it also capture nearby airfield. Airfields are very well defended by the strong AA. You should attack them from the horizontal flight with heavy bombers. To completely destroy the airfield you need to destroy hangars, fuel dumps and aircraft. Only frontline airfields can be attacked (they have info “Attack!” on the map in game). If airfield is damaged more than 75% then it’s closed. If it’s damaged more 85% then it’s destroyed completely. Destroyed static planes are counted as aircraft lost.



Updated French version :

3.5 Aérodromes et villes

L'aérodrome est un point stratégique vital sur la carte. Si une colonne blindée capture la ville alors l’aérodrome qui en dépend sera également capturé. Les aérodromes sont généralement défendus par une forte artillerie anti aérienne. Il peut être nécessaire de les attaquer en vol horizontal avec des bombardiers lourds. Pour détruire complètement l'aérodrome, vous devez détruire les hangars, les réservoirs de carburant et les avions statiques. Seuls les aérodromes proches de la ligne de front peuvent être attaqués (ceux-ci sont marqués avec le tag "Attaquez!" sur la carte dans le jeu). L'aérodrome est fermé lorsqu'il est endommagé à plus de 75%. Lorsque l'aérodrome est endommagé à plus de 85% il est considéré complètement détruit (pas d'AA et plus de bâtiments). Les Aérodromes en cours de réparation peuvent être fermés pour 1 ou 2 mission. Les avions statiques détruits sur les aérodromes sont comptabilisés dans les pertes d'appareils ennemis.

 

[DerSheriff 858]

45 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

[On the FN]

and apart from two dozen combat trials in Kursk, no combat sorties before 1944.

 

That would deeply surprise my and makes no sense to me.







From Lavochkin fighters of the 2WW.

Edited December 5, 2018 by DerSheriff

[II./JG77_Manu* 874]

7 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

That would deeply surprise my and makes no sense to me.







From Lavochkin fighters of the 2WW.

 

Just as I said. Two dozens of La5FN in the Bryansk/Kursk battle area. After August La-5FN got withdrawn because of overheating problems and fumes getting into the cockpit. They got reworked and reintroduced in late 1943, not being in another combat sortie until 1944. 

[SCG_OpticFlow 76]

 

54 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I wouldn't make it historical, that was not at all the point. Especially in the first half of the campaign, historical would probably not be too much fun for the Allies, at least for the fighter pilots.

I was merely pointing out, that the planeset in TaW is not set after historical deployment, but for a good balance between the sides, because some folks actually thought it is historical correct the way it is. 

 

That said, if you ask me so direct, I would make a couple of balance changes, but only slightly.

- Give the Germans the same amount of Ju-88 then the Russians have the Pe2, and at the same timeframe. This would also be more historical, since the Ju-88 was operational before the Pe2 S.37. I'd actually put both of them in in map#2, because the E7 is too slow and weak to do anything against Pe2, while the I16 will have a hard time to catch the Ju-88. 

- Put the La-5FN in one mission later. Performance-wise it is more on 109 G14 level, then on G6 level. The Yak 1b and the La-5F are more then enough to counter the G4/6 or the 190-A5. In addition, it would also be more historical - there was no La5-FN in Kuban campaign, and apart from two dozen combat trials in Kursk, no combat sorties before 1944.

 

 

10 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

That would deeply surprise my and makes no sense to me.





From Lavochkin fighters of the 2WW.

 

Seems like you're both saying the same thing -- one squadron in 32. GvIAP to test the aircraft in Kursk mid 1943.

[DerSheriff 858]

i just doubt that got withdrawn. 

[II./JG77_Manu* 874]

5 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

i just doubt that got withdrawn. 

 

Plenty of sources around, you'll find them with google. Had too many teething problems, to unsafe at that time. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by II./JG77_Manu*

[DerSheriff 858]

58 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Plenty of sources around, you'll find them with google. Had too many teething problems, to unsafe at that time. 

I don't want to derail the TAW topic
after looking around I found no source, you don't have to google for me, but maybe you can give me a authors name or a book title.
The usually very detailed Book "Lavochkin Fighters of the Second World War" does not mention a withdrawal. it mentions the persisting problems, but thats it.

And thinking about it, it still makes no sense. the La-5 and the F had both the issues you described. Actually the overheating got better with the F.
That the planes get withdrawn for a persisting problem which is there for years makes no sense to me.
The superiors of the soviets usually gave zero fucks about teething problems.

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by DerSheriff

[II./JG77_Manu* 874]

19 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

I don't want to derail the TAW topic
after looking around I found no source, you don't have to google for me, but maybe you can give me a authors name or a book title.
The usually very detailed Book "Lavochkin Fighters of the Second World War" does not mention a withdrawal. it mentions the persisting problems, but thats it.

And thinking about it, it still makes no sense. the La-5 and the F had both the issues you described. Actually the overheating got better with the F.
That the planes get withdrawn for a persisting problem which is there for years makes no sense to me.
The superiors of the soviets usually gave zero fucks about teething problems.

 

 

I don't have the sources here right now, I posted them years ago in the forum. I know, i also had the Lavochkin Book in PDF, it's not mentioned there.

The biggest problem of the La5-FN have been fumes in the cockpit which lead the pilots to fly with open cockpit, which obviously decreased the performance a lot (below La-5F level). There were also other specific 5FN problems, don't remember them right now, I researched about this issue two years ago. Lost a lot of my documents when my Mac gave up last year, silly me not saving it in the cloud. I am at work right now, and while I can write a post here and there when waiting for slow programs to load, I surely can't go on the search now. When I have the time I look for it and get back to you. 

You are right about derailing the topic - rest of the conversation in PM i'd say

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard 583]

6 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

- Give the Germans the same amount of Ju-88 then the Russians have the Pe2, and at the same timeframe. This would also be more historical, since the Ju-88 was operational before the Pe2 S.37. I'd actually put both of them in in map#2, because the E7 is too slow and weak to do anything against Pe2, while the I16 will have a hard time to catch the Ju-88. 

 

 

But that would leave the Soviets without a bomber for the first map, I don't think it's a good idea, they wouldn't be able to do dive bombing or level bombings of depots, airfields etc. You can use the Bf 110 to deal with the Pe-2s, I did so in the previous TAW when flying German, we had combined 109 and 110 flights protecting depots/airfields etc.

Edited December 5, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[II./JG77_Manu* 874]

3 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

But that would leave the Soviets without a bomber for the first map, I don't think it's a good idea, they wouldn't be able to do dive bombing or level bombings of depots, airfields etc. You can use the Bf 110 to deal with the Pe-2s, I did so in the previous TAW when flying German, we had combined 109 and 110 flights protecting depots/airfields etc.

 

I know..it's really a shame there is no Il-4 or Su-2.

Well you could also use Ju-88 in map one and introduce 111 in map 2 instead. I know, i scored my one and only Pe2 kill also in a 110. But if you are only 2 or 3 people it's hard (impossible) to set up a defence that can stop Pe2s with fighter cover

[StG77_Kondor 300]

44 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I know..it's really a shame there is no Il-4 or Su-2.

Well you could also use Ju-88 in map one and introduce 111 in map 2 instead. I know, i scored my one and only Pe2 kill also in a 110. But if you are only 2 or 3 people it's hard (impossible) to set up a defence that can stop Pe2s with fighter cover

You could give Red the A-20 earlier just to give it something else. Additionally you could lock the load out to only allow the external bombs early (since the external hard points add a lot of drag and reduce speed by almost 50kph). Like this it is still slower than a Pe-2 Ser 35 with similar load out - and it is less armored than Peshka with a shall we say...110E style worthless rear gunner. Afterwards in later maps the A-20 can be unrestricted and allowed to remove the outer bombs.

[Carl_infar 154]

And maybe remove all gunners to protect the ego of some wannbe hartmans who have all the tools avialable like110s. If they dont want to make better attack runs

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Carl_infar

[=AVG77=Mobile_BBQ 209]

If you really want plane set balance then each side should get +1 planes of everything the game currently has to offer - both axis and allies - for every mission map.

Of course we'll need custom opposing forces paint jobs for the Axis/Allies and Allies/Axis planes to avoid friendly fire.  I suggest day-glow yellow and day-glow pink. 

The first person to call "Not it!" gets to choose yellow as their preferred team's color! 

[7./JG26_Smokejumper 163]

On 12/4/2018 at 9:22 AM, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

And if the times you fly vary?

 

My times also vary but as I live Pacific time I still have time trends and would sign up for a PST time slot.. A simple Asia, Europe and North America zoning would be simple and alleviate some imbalance in my opinion. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[[GCA]T1m270 35]

PLEASE all on Red. Type in team chat when you are attacking objs or big flights, it makes the gameplay amazing going in 15 man flights! 

 

Not everyone is on the Ts or some small discord, Just type in chat at the least to improve the teamwork.

 

TAW has had some real highlights in the gameplay for me, Red flight and friends missions in big wings!!! Just need the rest of the team to keep it up and call out objectives, so we can group up more! it improves the game so much.