Tactical Air War

[Alonzo 571]

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 722]

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. 

[Mobile_BBQ 309]

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 157]

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 1128]

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 157]

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* 875]

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 171]

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 986]

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* 875]

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 108]

 

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 986]

i just doubt that got withdrawn. 

[II./JG77_Manu* 875]

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 986]

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* 875]

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 703]

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* 875]

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_Kondorsky 325]

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 157]

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

[Mobile_BBQ 309]

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! 

[ACG_Smokejumper 165]

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 49]

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.

[mincer 46]

I know that TAW is not perfectly balanced now, but IMHO this project is the very best experience the game can offer... Anything else is not even close.

Edited December 6, 2018 by mincer

[[TWB]Sketch 789]

2 hours ago, [GCA]T1m270 said:

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.

 

Oooorrr you could join your own channel in the provided TAW Teamspeak, and use Whisper lists and Channel Commanders.

[F/JG300_Faucon 371]

On 12/3/2018 at 9:36 PM, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

I'm red this round but I'm usually in a 109 as my Staffel tag implies, it's you. Stay out of the PE2 firing arc, easy peesy...... Low six is bad, shallow angle high six is bad. less than 45 degree attack from port or starboard is bad.

 

You really don't understand the fact there IS a problem with the aiming capability of gunners. I am not talking about tactics to attack a bomber without risk, I know them.

Edited December 6, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[ACG_Smokejumper 165]

1 hour ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

You really don't understand the fact there IS a problem with the aiming capability of gunners. I am not talking about tactics to attack a bomber without risk, I know them.

 

Knowing and employing them are two different things. If you where skilled at angling an attack outside gunner firing arcs you would not be whining.

 

Turning the gunners down at all makes bombers easy targets. The only real complaint you would have with gunners which we are not going to laugh at is if you said, "gunners are making miracle shots under high G loads."

 

We can get on side with that complaint.

Edited December 6, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[AirshowDisaster 9]

Hey guys,

 

I've got a minor point of confusion with the manual in this statement:

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.

Am I misreading this or are only frontline airfields (ones listed as 'Attacked!') vulnerable to level bombing or is this only in reference to their capacity to be attacked by tanks?

 

Essentially I'm asking if all airfields are susceptible to bombing at all times (unless closed/destroyed.) Thanks in advance.

 

[-IRRE-Centx 171]

48 minutes ago, AirshowDisaster said:

Am I misreading this or are only frontline airfields (ones listed as 'Attacked!') vulnerable to level bombing or is this only in reference to their capacity to be attacked by tanks?

 

 

Only frontline airfield can be bombed, yes

If you bomb an other airfield, it will not count anything in your TAW stats (I experienced it few days ago <_<)

Edited December 6, 2018 by -IRRE-Centx

[Otto_bann 39]

Hi Gents, I can't understand why I'm banned for limited time after last mission finished few min ago. Thanks for explaination

[SCG_Riksen 1129]

2 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

Hi Gents, I can't understand why I'm banned for limited time after last mission finished few min ago. Thanks for explaination

 

Maybe you tried to connect when it was full? I think there is a slot reservation feature during EU prime time to ensure the hosts of the campaign can connect to the server and if you try to connect when that is in place you get banned for 15 min

[=LG=Leutnant_Artur 370]

If server is full then people gets banned for few minutes to stop spamming the server because it can affect its performance.

[CSW_Cassius 41]

 Six attackers...

[-IRRE-Centx 171]

17 minutes ago, 3.IAP_Cassius said:

 Six attackers...

 

 

Hey I recognize this il-2, the missing left tail aileron is my job!
Really nice and intense fight 

I shot at 4 different aircrafts in 10 minutes, Voloko was the new Berloga this evening!

[busdriver 690]

23 hours ago, [TWB]Sketch said:

 

Oooorrr you could join your own channel in the provided TAW Teamspeak, and use Whisper lists and Channel Commanders.

 

So help a fella out. According to the TAW website I used taw-server.de:9988 for the server address, but I can't find the password.

Found it the server, I was looking for it on the website...silly me.

Edited December 7, 2018 by busdriver

[II./JG77_motoadve 902]

The scoring its different in the game than in TAW website.

In game got 2 kills , in TAW statistics 1 kill credited.

 

How does it work, why soem kills get credited and some others dont , are the shared ones assist in the statistics and credited in game?

[-IRRE-Centx 171]

3 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

How does it work, why soem kills get credited and some others dont , are the shared ones assist in the statistics and credited in game?

 

Basically the in-game system gives the kill to the pilot who made the most damage, while TAW system gives the kill to the last pilot who damaged the enemy.

I don't know if it's the exact way how TAW system works, but it looks like this.

[335th_GRDaedalos 23]

7 minutes ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

Basically the in-game system gives the kill to the pilot who made the most damage, while TAW system gives the kill to the last pilot who damaged the enemy.

I don't know if it's the exact way how TAW system works, but it looks like this.

 

It has to be a bug somewhere. I have not awarded 3 kills, which nobody else was involved. So the planes in falling down, no credit. 😞

 

Strange.

 

[II./JG1_Pragr 124]

Hopefully I don't start any balance flame again. But the numbers have been relatively well balanced during CET prime time last three days. It almost exactly correlates with the map #3 start. Anyway I'm surprised that nobody is complaining now when the server is flooded by 20+ VVS  fighting against 0 LW

 

 

[LLv24_Zami 778]

22 minutes ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

Hopefully I don't start any balance flame again. But the numbers have been relatively well balanced during CET prime time last three days. It almost exactly correlates with the map #3 start. Anyway I'm surprised that nobody is complaining now when the server is flooded by 20+ VVS  fighting against 0 LW

 

 

It's business as usual. Don't worry, you underestimate peoples imagination to complain.

[-IRRE-Centx 171]

54 minutes ago, 335th_GRDaedalos said:

 

It has to be a bug somewhere. I have not awarded 3 kills, which nobody else was involved. So the planes in falling down, no credit. 😞

 

Strange.

 

 

There are bugs for sure, some people yesterday were receiving 2 kills for 1 shot down plane.

 

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

Hopefully I don't start any balance flame again. But the numbers have been relatively well balanced during CET prime time last three days. It almost exactly correlates with the map #3 start. Anyway I'm surprised that nobody is complaining now when the server is flooded by 20+ VVS  fighting against 0 LW

 

 

 

 

Well, more than the imbalance this morning (which is countered by an imbalance in favor of Germans during the afternoon), the problem is the complete lack of strategy on German side.

 

Yesterday evening we could have taken Brykovo by all focusing it. I said it in-game, ZERO REPLY. The problem is that German tanks were also attacking Lotoshino at the same time. And I don't know why, every German attacked Lotoshino instead of focusing Brykovo.
BRYKOVO IS ONE BASE AWAY FROM RUSSIAN SOUTH DEPOT = if we took it, the Russian depot was doomed.

Result :
- Lotoshino was captured, Byrkovo was untouched.

- Russian depot was not finished, and during the night as always Russians counter-attacked hard and pushed us back west.

- Russian depot is still there, and self-repaired over the night.

 

= everything done by Germans yesterday was reduced to zero, because everybody focused a goddamn useless airfield in the center of the map instead of focusing a strategic one.

 

 

Meanwhile, VVS is winning hard by plane attrition, and the only solution for German is to win by territory domination.
Which will never happen because the strategy is (almost) inexistant blue side (kuddos to the few ones who try to bring strategy into German side, they will recognize themselves).

Edited December 7, 2018 by -IRRE-Centx