Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

Nothing is stopping you.;)

 

My squadron is. They decided to fly Axis. I hope i can persuade them to go for Allies next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, xJammer said:

 

 

Can we also limit the IL2 AT cannons or maybe remove free PE2 aircraft given out every mission rollover? IMO paratroopers are fairly balanced with how much better the red CAS is (just look at the anti-tank stats).

 

 

There are no free combat Pe-2s.  Educate yourself before you "counterattack" to lobby for your side.

 

Don't forget the gift Axis has with Stuka with later-war AT cannons from start of the campaign.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Map #4 was all day 2:1; and now get's even worse. If admins do nothing and this keeps goin on...i don´t see a bright future for TAW.

 

VDNEBs7.png

 

 

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

CAS is better red side because more people are willing to do it instead of crusing in109s.

 

Blues got the ju 88s which can superbly carpet bomb the non moving straight line columns with 2900kg of bombs (4x500kg + 18x50kg), heck even the 110 takes more kgs than Pe2 (2x500 + 4x50) If someone prefers shooting theres the duck , the ju87. later there'll be 110g with 3,7cm, not to mention the fact that all german fighters can take bigger bombs than red fighters ...

You're right that there are more "useless" fighter pilots on blue side than on the red. But I disagree that there is not enough CAS/bomber pilots on blue side.

 

About the CAS abilities. There's nothing as effective against tanks such as VYa canons. I made the testing about one year ago and I used about 13 to 15 direct hits to destroy PzIVg/PzIII/StuGIII (the heaviest armored tanks). That can be "easily" achieved during single pass in Il-2. Bk3,7 can kill T-34 by four direct hits. Scoring them in single pass is possible with some training but not as easy as using of VYa. This canon can kill even the KV-1 but each direct hit is worth of about 15 percent of damage. Thus you can kill single undamaged KV-1 for one ammo load. 30 mm Mk101/103 can kill T-34 by about 20 hits. That means one undamaged T-34 kill by Mk101 (30 rounds) or three (Mk103). These cannons are as easy to use as VYa. But they're mounted on the least user-friendly platform. That brings us to the second the most effective way of tank destruction which are...

 

small bombs. Every single 50 kg bomb can kill even the heavy KV-1. It just needs to hit directly (skip bombing is the best procedure). Ju88 seems very effective in this role (though I've never tried it), using maybe 44xSC50 instead of big bombs. At least I saw a clip where somone was describing the attack run one or two years ago. I can reliably use 109 with 4xSC50 to kill four tanks no matter how heavily armored they are. Of course you need a time since you are limited to one kill per one attack run. From this point of view the fastest way to deal with red tanks is probably Ju88 provided there is no AA in column anymore.

 

 

11 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

Map #4 was all day 2:1; and now get's even worse. If admins do nothing and this keeps goin on...i don´t see a bright future for TAW.

 

VDNEBs7.png

 

 

 

 

With all due respect, this figure prooves nothing. Yes, LW player higly overpopulated VVS during Euro prime. But that peak usualy last for one or two hour at best. I've never ever saw you submit  complains during the EU morning hours when the VVS overpopulated LW player by even 25 to 0 or 22 to 1 (as I saw it couple of days ago). The ratio of 5:1 to 10:1 is common for several hours during these period and last for several hours.

Edited by I./JG1_Pragr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

I've never ever saw you submit  complains during the EU morning hours when the VVS overpopulated LW player by even 25 to 0 or 22 to 1 (as I saw it couple of days ago). The ratio of 5:1 to 10:1 is common for several hours during these period and last for several hours.

 

Then you didn´t read forums enough, i'm the one asking and supporting the idea of having a 45/50 pilots limit per side, and also putting some kind of algorythm to prevent 1.0 damage to map when server is 25-4. 

 

That image proves a lot; when you have one side stacking a server (and flying most maps in a 2:1 difference) there is no competition, but a side having chances to win and the other simply sparring.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

About the CAS abilities. There's nothing as effective against tanks such as VYa canons.

 

On TAW the best ground attack weapons are bombs, that's it.  No amount of testing, efficiency, whatever matters outside the context of routine operations on TAW. The targets don't move and carpet bombing is the best way to have the chance to kill as many targets as possible with as little time spent at the target as possible with as little danger from AA as possible.

 

IL-2s are fun when you have 5 IL-2s and some fighters to drag and destroy AA with no Axis fighter opposition.  Even then some of the IL-2s will kill themselves on trees or crashing into the tanks.  The rest of the time, so 98% of the time, the best thing to do is to take a Ju-88/110 or Pe-2/A-20 and do a sloping dive down the length of the convoy( from the rear if there is AA) .

 

Look at the tank killer list.  Pe-2, 110(bombs), Pe-2, 110/Ju-88, 110.  What more proof do you want?  This myth of the magical VYa cannon is a joke.  Go ahead and remove it from the entire campaign next time and see how nothing changes.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@I./JG1_Pragr


Since the new tank DM a couple patches ago tank killing has become a lot of guesswork. Overall tanks are easier to "kill" with cannons for the most part because you can break their tracks with a few hits, however you can't really tell from an airplane if they are done. Once this happens in game they count as destroyed, and then in this state they absorb a ton of punishment until they blow up (much more than they would if the tracks aren't damaged) which I think it's some sort of bug or tech limitation. So you can expend half your ammo load in your IL-2 firing at a tank which was already taken out by someone else but looks fine externally from distance before it blows up (smoke is no guarantee anymore because quite some times it just disappears with the tank still there).

So really now the most efficient method is with small bombs hitting them directly, or from carpet bombing. Last TAW (before the new DM) I was for a good amount of time in the top 5 streak tank killers (I was killed/captured just before the end though and couldn't catch up in time) and the big mayority of those kills were with the Bf 110 with 12 x 50 Kg, if you can get the hold to it you can land them pretty accurately and in this regard all the tanks are the same BT, T-34, KV-1.. you just impact them directly and they blow up, one by one you can decimate a column with just a few 110s if they know what they are doing.

In the 72 AG training server, with an IL-2 with 37mm, with 6 impacts (3 salvos) the Pz IV gets detracked, it counts as  destroyed, but without icons other planes or yourself (if you don't monitor the stats count ,which also tend to be a bit delayed) can't tell this. I kept shooting at the tank, it took another 20 salvos (40 rounds) until it disappeared, not even blow up. However once detracked a single bomb seals the deal and blows it up (no kill awarded though). So the cannons in this new TAW "meta" aren't really good, you are most likely wasting your time and ammo shooting at dead tanks. Carpet bombing with Ju 88/Pe-2/A-20 or picking them up one by one in shallow dive bombing with Bf 110 is the most effective way to deal with them and make sure a column is destroyed

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, =LG=Kathon said:

They are grounded for 3 days.

 

There are also other type of cases like, shooting att crash planes that somebody else shot down. It is unbelievable. Risk your plane and your virtual life to shoot down the plane and somebody else is coming to shoot it to take the easy kill. Unmatured. 

Pvt_Ingvaar

 

Me and AsbyFoxtrot dived to the il2, try to shoot it down and avoid the gunner and after 6 successful passes we manage to shot down and when it finally crashed a pilot who was looking not diving decides to shoot it on the ground. 

 

Congrats what can I say. 

 

And believe me it is not the first time that happens!

 

tnx

@Daedalos 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

I have no idea of that patch. That explain why I've attacked so many tanks so far with no effect :) Anyway, you guys forced me to make my testing again. I have no idea whether the quick mission uses different tank models than TAW but the result seems to be the same they use to be. Attacking PzIVF1 with Il-2 and VYa is pretty damn easy. After two missions I was able to kill each PzIV during single pass and with some 50 rounds. And my aim was far from the top.

 

If I attack the PzIV from the side it ALWAYS starts to burn. The tank is destroyed once it is hit again while burning. If I pressed my first attack to 300meters or rather 200 meters, the tank was ALWAYS detroyed during that particular run. From fifth mission onward, I killed all three PzIVF1 in quick mission expediting about half of the ammo (150 rounds). Thus I expect that six kills sortie with full AP load shall be normal. Add rockets and bombs. Of course, I'm considering the ideal situation if there is time to six and/or more runs during the sortie.

 

Still I agree that the small bombs carpet bombing is the best option in TAW environment. 

Edited by I./JG1_Pragr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

 

 

The change was with 3.007 patch, on November 20th

Quote

13. New, more detailed damage modeling is used for simple (AI controlled) vehicles - it is now possible to damage their engines, wheels or tracks, crew and ammo rack;

 

54 minutes ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

If I attack the PzIV from the side it ALWAYS starts to burn. The tank is destroyed once it is hit again while burning. If I pressed my first attack to 300meters or rather 200 meters, the tank was ALWAYS detroyed during that particular run. From fifth mission onward, I killed all three PzIVF1 in quick mission expediting about half of the ammo (150 rounds). Thus I expect that six kills sortie with full AP load shall be normal. Add rockets and bombs. Of course, I'm considering the ideal situation if there is time to six and/or more runs during the sortie.

 


Yep you can still kill it, even easier than before in some cases, but without icons you see a tank column, get 5 or 6 tanks exploded firing all your 23mm ammo and then only be credited with 1 kill for example.

If I could change it I would make having the track destroyed or crew killed not counting as tank kill (after all the tank can be repaired and new crew assigned to it), and make it so it catches fire once officially destroyed (explosion if ammunition or fuel is hit) so it gives more feedback to the players.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, xJammer said:

 

 

Can we also limit the IL2 AT cannons or maybe remove free PE2 aircraft given out every mission rollover? IMO paratroopers are fairly balanced with how much better the red CAS is (just look at the anti-tank stats).

Ah the Classic XJammer Move, might as well ask them to Remove the P-39's 37mm Cannon so we dont land our planes in front of a tank column and farm easy points or maybe remove Bombers entirely cause we just park our bomber on the runway and just shoot Planes on take off. Its hard to take any of your words from Face when all you want to do is game the system. 

 

The Peshka's are perfectly fine, I mean its pretty fucking hard to RTFM to see that the Peshka is never given out for free unless its the Transport version of the plane. 

Edited by MentalishMan
.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Ah the Classic XJammer Move, might as well ask them to Remove the P-39's 37mm Cannon so we dont land our planes in front of a tank column and farm easy points or maybe remove Bombers entirely cause we just park our bomber on the runway and just shoot Planes on take off. Its hard to take any of your words from Face when all you want to do is game the system. 

 

The Peshka's are perfectly fine, I mean its pretty fucking hard to RTFM to see that the Peshka is never given out for free unless its the Transport version of the plane. 

 

 

Thankfully you don't have to take any of my words. Its up to the TAW admins to determine what they wish to do.

 

Learning how to RTB in a damaged PE2 is straightforward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Map #5 is not even up 24 hours and it looks like LW will kill VVS depots soon and run the map.  I predict a Saturday morning (possibly afternoon) East U.S. time zone victory for LW. 

 

EDIT:  I will be working to prove myself wrong.

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aspect ratio problem can be solved in two ways:

1. increase time ban for downed and captured pilots hand located in most

2. increase the number of combat missions required to recover the lost aircraft for the pilots of the party in the majority. as the development of option № 2 you can reduce policiesto combat missions for vosstanovlenija lost aircraft for pilots side of which is in the vast minority.

 

For example: Luftwaffe exceeds the red army air force 2 times the number of pilots directly in the air ( or for a certain accounting period, say 24 hours).

Accordingly to this mission \the next day to recover the lost pilots of the Luftwaffe aircraft need not 3 but let's say 5-6 combat missions.  

The deceased or captured pilot receives a ban not for 5, but for 10 minutes.

 

On the NULVAR project, this approach allowed to balance to some extent the imbalance of the parties. Those who were in the minority got a real possibility of concerted action to cause considerable damage to protivniku are in the majority, and reduce the number of its sorties. And those who were in the majority were forced to act much more carefully, because a higher penalty for the loss of aircraft and pilots could eventually lead to alignment of forces of the parties due to the availability of available aircraft.

 

I apologize for the automatic translation into English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why invent that kind of complex balancing methods that at the end might not work as intended at all, when there is a simple built-in capability already in the game to cap max player amount per side and/or player ratio?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only good solution for balance if you don't have balanced aircraft is to let people switch sides and not have a community full of selfish jerks.

Edited by BraveSirRobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

But why invent that kind of complex balancing methods that at the end might not work as intended at all, when there is a simple built-in capability already in the game to cap max player amount per side and/or player ratio?

 

I would be very cautious of the "work as intended" statement here. I guess that such feature would significantly decrease the number of players on TAW. I doubt this is what anyone wants to see and what could be called "work as intended". But I could be wrong in both presumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

But why invent that kind of complex balancing methods that at the end might not work as intended at all, when there is a simple built-in capability already in the game to cap max player amount per side and/or player ratio?

The built-in capability is quite lacking, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

My squadron is. They decided to fly Axis. I hope i can persuade them to go for Allies next time.

 Join or start a new squad if you want to fly Pe-2's so badly.  

Edited by =AVG77=Garven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

I would be very cautious of the "work as intended" statement here. I guess that such feature would significantly decrease the number of players on TAW. I doubt this is what anyone wants to see and what could be called "work as intended". But I could be wrong in both presumptions.

 

By this "work as intended" statement I mean that if someone's goal is to have more even number of players on both sides (for example) then doing a more-or-less complex code that changes some parameter about recovering lost planes, based on numbers of past time (like in the previous suggestion) or something similar might or might not have the desired effect. For example, if the last 24h average players amount is within 1-2 players, which is the typical case on TAW (check Pand's logger graph above) would it somehow prevent this 62:22 situation? Or even if there was a more noticeable difference in averages that would mean that for example Axis players would have to fly one more mission for +1 aircraft, how would it prevent this 62:22 situation? So, if someone's goal was to have more balanced amount of players on a server at any time, wouldn't it be more straight forward to balance that number directly, based on present situation? If there was some other goal, for example balance the victory conditions / objectives difficulty, then there could be other approaches, for example shutting down front line airfields etc that has been done, but then we are talking about different things.

 

59 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

The built-in capability is quite lacking, IMHO.

 

Obviously you know a lot more than me what is possible and what is easy or what is hard to do for missions/servers, I just know from what Coconut said, that there is some kind of built-in functionality in the game, where you could limit the max amount of players for both sides, x:y ratio for sides and at what number of players this limiter becomes active (if I remember correctly). Is not very advanced maybe, but sounds easy and straight forward, if the goal was to force more equal player numbers on the server for both sides. Now, if this type of limiter is a good or bad thing for TAW-like server, where people pick a side and fight until the end to win a campaign, is another discussion. For something like WoL, where the missions are not connected to each other and there is no other objective-balancing coded in (as far as I know), this limiter sounds like a better solution, if there were balance problems otherwise. It seems, though, that WoL has also been relatively well balanced lately.

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Obviously you know a lot more than me what is possible and what is easy or what is hard to do for missions/servers, I just know from what Coconut said, that there is some kind of built-in functionality in the game, where you could limit the max amount of players for both sides, x:y ratio for sides and at what number of players this limiter becomes active (if I remember correctly). Is not very advanced maybe, but sounds easy and straight forward, if the goal was to force more equal player numbers on the server for both sides. Now, if this type of limiter is a good or bad thing for TAW-like server, where people pick a side and fight until the end to win a campaign, is another discussion. For something like WoL, where the missions are not connected to each other and there is no other objective-balancing coded in (as far as I know), this limiter sounds like a better solution, if there were balance problems otherwise. It seems, though, that WoL has also been relatively well balanced lately.

I've seen the limiter in action (I think it was on DED Normal), and it's very clunky. It basically enables/disables all airfield spawns of the team based on the number of players on each team. It would be more usable if the balancing would be done so that you'd need to select the team first, and you couldn't join a team with too many players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

Still I agree that the small bombs carpet bombing is the best option in TAW environment. 

 

So it seems that reds don´t have an advantage in CAS capabilities thanks to VYa23 then, right? This is what you said previously and you've been proven wrong; being carpet bombing the best option in non moving+aligned columns in TAW. Same thing when you affirmed that i never asked for team balance when server was 25-4 to reds on few ocassions during early USA  time, ignoring the posts where i asked precisely that. So it's always like this, some people jump into wrong conclusions because they ignore things like you; others like xJammer and trolls like him do it on purpouse lobbying for their side asking for stupid things regarding planeset, lying, and gaming the system (like checking target positions by loading the mission in the editor, as he said...just to mention one) -place facepalm here-. 

 

The only thing i asked about planeset -which i think it has an overall balance- is why the VYa 23 are limited for Lagg-3 while better fighters like 109F4 and G2 can have 20mm gunpods, becoming little FWs190 already in map #3 (F4). This is just ridiculous and was accomplished after loud ones crying rivers about it. Think about it, LW has the faster planes, the better climbers, they outdive anything VVS has and have more firepower up to map #7 when it becomes a little ore balanced....and on top of that you add 20mm gunpods to them on early maps AND also remove the only useful thing a mediocre fighter plane like the Lagg-3 has. This is really unbeliaveable. So again, leave those 20mm i don´t care, but also let Lagg-3 have VYa23 with no restrictions...it was removed during the infamous "LW must win edition", even Kathon itself clarified at the forums that LW was given an advantage,  you remember that? It's when Ju-52 showed up+109F4 on map#2+Ju87 with 37mm in early maps+all importance to depots erased by heavy bombers+storm of panzer columns magically showing up and advancing like M1 Abrams...etc, etc. 

 

Anyway, all my recommendations have  always been about the ecuation between team balance/wining conditions. For the last three days (Maps #4 and #5 now) there was a revival of map #1, with LW outnumbering reds almost 24/7 (as i write this during the so called Red Storm US early time, there is a 8-1 difference to LW) reaching peaks of +40 pilots difference and not during 1 hour as you said, but for 2 full map loads, yes 4 hours LW having an average of 35 more pilots, and after those peaks the difference kept an average of 15+ pilots for two more missions. Imagine the ammount of damage those 35 extra pilots can make, the ammount of bombs and cover they can provide. There is no chance to win TAW if there is a continuous and important difference in team numbers map after map. Again, flying as underdogs for a while it can even be fun, but when it is constant, it becomes frustating for those who care about winning the campaign, and people lose interest as we can see now. 


 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

 

I would be very cautious of the "work as intended" statement here. I guess that such feature would significantly decrease the number of players on TAW. I doubt this is what anyone wants to see and what could be called "work as intended". But I could be wrong in both presumptions.

I think the best would be to set the max players numbers for each side to 42-45 And leave all the other complex triggers, restrictions out , except maybe the closing of front airfields as it is now. 

If one side would be populated to the full (mostly blues i guess) the ones that cant joint could be more inclined to create 2nd account for Red side

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think quorum system like ADW wouldn´t work; actually it wasn´t that good...it left the door open for too much speculation where people would leave missions or not join them just to not give the other side quorum, remember? Or people in squads wouldn´t join until 10 of them were ready and then stormed the server with little opposition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@666GIAP_Chimango

 

The attempt to discredit my concerns with so called "balancing" that red side is whining for right now is laughable. The mission editor "trick" is what I became aware from speaking with some people on the red side and discovering that they use it. However I did not use it myself. If we continue in this direction though - reds join the blue side for a bit to grab the locations of the drop zones and then switch back to go and patrol them...

 

Please understand the concept of asymmetrical balance. One side has an order of magnitude better CAS. The other side gets a bit better fighters (with new nerfed lineups) and bombers that aren't even able to defend themselves. I had a lagg sit on my 6 in ju88 until he ran out of ammo (because he really sucked at aiming). He landed with a radiator leak back home which was 60km away.

 

All things considered right now the mission leans towards blue side not because of 23mm or gunpods. But simply because one side coordinated and decided to win. You can do the same!.  And you did the same. 19FAB guys in larger group simply obliterate the blue side. Like they did both times the reds won.

 

 

@LG  I think the picture is clear. Reds demand a red-easy win campaign for the next round. I guess it would be fair.

Edited by xJammer
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

I think quorum system like ADW wouldn´t work; actually it wasn´t that good...it left the door open for too much speculation where people would leave missions or not join them just to not give the other side quorum, remember? Or people in squads wouldn´t join until 10 of them were ready and then stormed the server with little opposition. 

Quorum is the ability to not play cards without resistance. Players can destroy everything, but if there is no quorum, then this will not affect the situation at the front.
Of course, I remember cases with an artificial quorum, but here it will not work. If a player wants to play, he will play; if not, then he will not. It always has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of the sides have a huge advantage... the counterpart dont play. 

 

I think any what knows this fact dont wants a easy win edition 


In any case, actually we dont are on this situation and i  think current TAW is good and last changes help.  More things can be done.

 

Al least, like i read before. I agree, the actuations of big squads are the key.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

so called "balancing" that red side is whining for right now is laughable

 

There is a concern to avoid a stacked server and not only by "red side" but from people who wants a fair competition. "Right now" you say? This has been one of the main issues addressed for months, during many TAW editions, it seems there's nothing laughable about it. 

 

1 hour ago, xJammer said:

Please understand the concept of asymmetrical balance. One side has an order of magnitude better CAS. The other side gets a bit better fighters

 

I understand the concept quite clearly, don't worry about it. But currently is not present. You say Reds have better CAS? False; already discussed and showed by others this is not true specially after last few il2 patches. Both factions have equal chances and capabilities of tank busting and defenses suppression. Even if VVS had better CAS (which is not true), LW has superior fighters, better strategic bombers, and something not even present on the red side: ability to capture vital territory by paratroopers. Weird "asymetrical balance"  you have there; let's better call it symetrical imbalance.  Anyway, i still think planesets is not the most important issue here.
 

1 hour ago, xJammer said:

 I had a lagg sit on my 6 in ju88 until he ran out of ammo (because he really sucked at aiming). He landed with a radiator leak back home which was 60km away.

 

Yeah, nice tale. I can tell you about hiting a BF110 with more than 40x 20mm +12.7mm and it still flies home. Or a Bf109F4 hit 15 times with 20mm+12.7 and still fights and turns like nothing with -1 elevator and he survives and lands at home plate 40km away. We all have stories; those one sided loud tales lead nowhere.

 

1 hour ago, xJammer said:

All things considered right now the mission leans towards blue side not because of 23mm or gunpods. But simply because one side coordinated and decided to win. 

 

I never said the current outcome has anything to do with 23mm or gunpods, don´t misinform or try to confuse the reader. Coordination? Yes, probably blue outnumbering time after time red side had nothing to do with it. I wonder where was your so called "coordination" during map #2 and #3, where there was a balance in numbers (asymetrical, cause LW would have big numbers during the day, and VVS big difference during night). 

 

1 hour ago, xJammer said:

@LG  I think the picture is clear. Reds demand a red-easy win campaign for the next round. I guess it would be fair.


And here comes the troll again; and again you seem to forget who was complaining about Pe2-AAA-Vya23mm-stalinium-russian bias when they couldn´t win a single TAW. You say it's coordination? What a coincidence, the LW coordination started during TAW 14th edition, exactly at the same time Kathon said he gave LW "an advantage". Again, what a coincidence, prior to that edition were blue side got tons of goodies and wining conditions, they weren´t able to win a single campaign. 

 

41 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

If one of the sides have a huge advantage... the counterpart dont play. 

 

I think any what knows this fact dont wants a easy win edition 

 

Exactly, quite easy to understand..unless you don't want to do it, for whatever reason.

 

41 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

i  think current TAW is good and last changes help.  More things can be done.

 

I agree, it's better than two last editions, and can be tweaked a bit more with some good recommendations and ideas some people are proposing, and some of them already aknowledge by admins. That's good news. But in the meantime as we speak:

 

yA0u0jH.png

 

A +5:1 quorum. Those 3 reds are very dangerous...but i'm sure LW coordination will overcome this difficulty 😄

 

 

 

Edited by 666GIAP_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@666GIAP_Chimango

 

I was serious about giving reds an easy win. It will cause more blues to try out red side and maybe more players will stick to the red. The rest of balance discussion is futile as every side will always have something to whine about.

 

I never argued against balanced teams btw. Just balanced equipment. I am certain that reds have upper hand if they had more people on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

I understand the concept quite clearly, don't worry about it. But currently is not present. You say Reds have better CAS? False; already discussed and showed by others this is not true specially after last few il2 patches. Both factions have equal chances and capabilities of tank busting and defenses suppression. Even if VVS had better CAS (which is not true), LW has superior fighters, better strategic bombers, and something not even present on the red side: ability to capture vital territory by paratroopers. Weird "asymetrical balance"  you have there; let's better call it symetrical imbalance.  Anyway, i still think planesets is not the most important issue here.

 

Plain wrong. The Pe2 is by far the best CAS machine. Not because of it's ground destruction capabilities, but because of it's survival capabilities. The Pe2 is the only ground attacker/bomber in the game that can and will in many cases survive an attack by a capable fighter (at least until 190 or Mk108 come to play). This alone is a way bigger incentive to take it, then all ground attacking capabilities together. In contrary to all other bombers/ground attackers, it's not suicide to go attack some positions alone.

The second assumption is also false. LW doesn't have "superior fighters" per se. In an airquake fighter only server, yeah, then this statement is true. But for covering bombers and low level CAP, the Russians have better and more suited fighters. 

 

Instead of constant whining, you'd help your side more, if you would actually log on, when LW has numerical superiority. But it seems your kill streak is more valuable to you then actually playing the team game. You rather fight in Berloga when your side is outnumbered, just to not get in any position to lose the kill streak. Some others of the Red stats hunters are doing the same. This is, what's actually causing disbalance right now. It's enough when 5 or 10 people act this way at the same time, the cumulative effect is what you see at certain times.

 

If your side would men up and do the team game, join the server even when the numbers don't look so good, it would balance out in an instant. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After having expierienced quite a few TAW campaigns now, i sadly feel like it is impossible to discuss matters during a campaign because of too many people being too biased towards the faction they are currently playing. 

 

And then there are people who almost exclusively fly on one side (for whatever reason) and start making claims why their faction is so inferior without having any idea what the other faction has to struggle with. A clear example of grass being always greener on the other side.

 

Leave your bias (or at least be aware of it) at the door and start flying on both sides and the discussion might actually become constructive and people will take you more seriously.

Edited by Operation_Ivy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is always room for changes as long as are in a logical frame. The problem is to try to look to the forest and not to the tree. 

 

Palne sets, numerically balances won’t mean a think individually. We can not ask all the time changes because i think is a multi factor situation. By changing too much att the same time will only lead to more confusion. 

 

I have to agree with @Tumu once again about the action of big squads and add to that the coordination provided to small squads. This is probably where should we start.

 

My point is that I think that TAW is air war is not a dogfight server, not in the pure way at least. Maybe the formation of a headquarter from the beginning that could coordinate the actions of squad should be wise.

 

We can let’s say i.e divide after the finish of this TAW the squads first to the ones that finished in top 50 and the ones that finished in 50+. The second group will be free to shoose which side they want. The first 50 then they will be divided to the next groups:

 

1. 5 1st from blue and red side

2. 40 rest.

 

The first group has to change side unconditionally. 

 

The others have to change depended on the numerically balance. First they choose side and then if it is unbalanced they have to make a compromise to balance the sides.

 

Then every side forms a coordinate committee which will go through all the war.

 

About the plane sets changes if need to will be made every four rounds when everybody will have a better view of the situation and not based on theoretical points of view or personal likes or believes. The most important decide based on facts according to the outcome of the wars.

 

@Daedalos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Plain wrong. The Pe2 is by far the best CAS machine.


TAW is more than a yolo runner trying to get away a few bombs without escort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


TAW is more than a yolo runner trying to get away a few bombs without escort.

 

yet i feel like thats exactly what 90% of Bombers do in the campaign. Bomber Formations are sadly the very rare exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

TAW is more than a yolo runner trying to get away a few bombs without escort.

 

It's still more then enough incentive for the "rookies" to go take it out for a spin (actually a lot of spins) in the early maps. And it's how the majority of CAS operations happen. 

You could see a serious decrease in Pe2s lately, that's surely no coincidence.

The only thing that happened is that Axis got more dangerous fighters to shoot it down -> Pe2 runs are a lot more dangerous then in early maps -> a lot less "lonys" are taking it

 

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

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...