Tactical Air War

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

Yeah, the paratrooper thing is a bit too much. It is the only "ground attack" target not covered by AAA, by the way. So fighters escorting 52s are not under the risk of being hit by AAA and don' t have to assist with taking them down.

[[110]xJammer]

I actually like the idea of making the dropzones be protected by one of those AAA outposts. Cool!

 

Honestly right now the tank column AAA is joke in comparison to the strength of IL2 I found this on the russian TAW discussion forum

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VPcclF_0V_k?feature=oembed

 

So it is not surprising how much of a reverse red side is able to pull off during the night.

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

There should be some restrictions on the para usage. The LW made whopping 40% of airfield captures with them so far, and VVS has no such opportunity at all.

[=FPS=Cutlass_RL]

On 12/15/2018 at 8:41 PM, xJammer said:

People get shot down, quit. The winning team ends up dealing less damage because the opponent gave up.

 

 

For the Luftwaffe registered 1.3 times more people than the red army air force.

In Prime-time for Luftwaffe flies in average in 1.5-2 times more people.

Loss - a consequence of including the numerical superiority.

You can't allocate people to cover the rear of the warehouse and other important goals because they simply do not, and not because their "hit as jammer in group with my team.".....

Your proposed logic will be relevant even when the ratio of the forces of 2,100 to 1.

I'm interested..personally, you will fly with such a balance of power is not in your favor....?

If the penalty for losses and bonuses for the destruction of the enemy depend on the balance of power - then you can fly alone and in the minority against a large number of opponents. Now this is not so your logic is not correct.

21 minutes ago, xJammer said:

I actually like the idea of making the dropzones be protected by one of those AAA outposts. Cool!

 

Honestly right now the tank column AAA is joke in comparison to the strength of IL2 I found this on the russian TAW discussion forum

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VPcclF_0V_k?feature=oembed

 

So it is not surprising how much of a reverse red side is able to pull off during the night.

What confuses you in this video...? The fact that Il-2 can withstand a few hits of 20mm anti-aircraft guns from long range....? The fact that two aircraft in the state in a coordinated manner to attack a tank column alternately diverting anti-aircraft artillerie...? By the way you do not mind the possibility of three planes to destroy all anti-aircraft artillery at the airport, but unfortunately their videos on this occasion you do not spread.....

Edited December 16, 2018 by =FPS=Cutlass

[II./JG77_Manu*]

55 minutes ago, mincer said:

There should be some restrictions on the para usage. The LW made whopping 40% of airfield captures with them so far, and VVS has no such opportunity at all.

 

By the next Taw, the Allies will hopefully have the Li-2/DC-3 and have similar capabilities.

 

I think one way to limit the effectiveness of paratroopers would be, to put AAA in the dropzones. This AAA should not only be dangerous for the aircraft, but also for paratroopers.

The more AAA, less paratroopers survive. This would also encourage ground attack planes to clear the dropzones first and bring a nice new mechanic.

Edited December 16, 2018 by II./JG77_Manu*

[=FPS=Cutlass_RL]

3 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

By the next Taw, the Allies will hopefully have the Li-2 and have similar capabilities.

 

I think one way to limit the effectiveness of paratroopers would be, to put AAA in the dropzones. This AAA should not only be dangerous for the aircraft, but also for paratroopers.

The more AAA, less paratroopers survive. This would also encourage ground attack planes to clear the dropzones first and bring a nice new mechanic.

While there is no available Li-2 it can be replaced by Ju-52 in the Soviet coloring

[[110]xJammer]

54 minutes ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

What confuses you in this video...? The fact that Il-2 can withstand a few hits of 20mm anti-aircraft guns from long range....? The fact that two aircraft in the state in a coordinated manner to attack a tank column alternately diverting anti-aircraft artillerie...? By the way you do not mind the possibility of three planes to destroy all anti-aircraft artillery at the airport, but unfortunately their videos on this occasion you do not spread.....

 

 

Nothing is confusing. It is just that "balance" wise IL2 tanking head-on multiple AAA guns on a tank column, while blue side has nothing that is comparably tanky that still can frontally take out the AAA trucks by itself.

 

There is a difference between taking out AAA at airfields with losses from even just a single hit of AA and an IL2 carelessly tanking the said AA  

[Talon_]

3 hours ago, mincer said:

Ok, here is some quick and dirty stats. So far LW captured cities 25 times by tanks, airfields 16 times by paratroopers, and damaged airfields by paratroopers 49 times. Below is the list of events. What do you guys think? 

 

  Hide contents

-snip-
 

 

 

 

VVS has no realistic way to respond to this which is pretty much handing an extra 30% airfield capture rate to Blue. They can fly the sorties during missions when blue is stacked as it is now and be under no threat.

 

 

 

It would make sense to allow the paratroopers to capture airfields when there is 24/7 danger to them but this is simply not the case.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Talon_

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

 

 

We're getting there I guess

 

 

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

Yes, I am pretty sure that the majority of para landings are done during 60-20 like situations. 

[=FPS=Cutlass_RL]

9 minutes ago, xJammer said:

 

 

Nothing is confusing. It is just that "balance" wise IL2 tanking head-on multiple AAA guns on a tank column, while blue side has nothing that is comparably tanky that still can frontally take out the AAA trucks by itself.

 

There is a difference between taking out AAA at airfields with losses from even just a single hit of AA and an IL2 carelessly tanking the said AA  

That's not balance. This is a historically accurate thing. The columns are 20-25mm anti-aircraft guns, which are equally successful shoot down fighters and bombers. Il-2 due to the armored corps and "magic damage model version 3.008" - out of competition...not YET anyway. When attacking airfields, the cover of which has anti-aircraft guns calibre 37mm no longer any difference between a fighter, a bomber or an armored Il-2, since all three can easily go astray anti-aircraft guns of this caliber.

[[110]xJammer]

Just now, =FPS=Cutlass said:

That's not balance. This is a historically accurate thing.

 

 

Oh so we are OK having 109f4 in 1941 then next TAW?  

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

25 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

By the next Taw, the Allies will hopefully have the Li-2/DC-3 and have similar capabilities.

 

I think one way to limit the effectiveness of paratroopers would be, to put AAA in the dropzones. This AAA should not only be dangerous for the aircraft, but also for paratroopers.

The more AAA, less paratroopers survive. This would also encourage ground attack planes to clear the dropzones first and bring a nice new mechanic.

Why do those paratroopers exist in the first place? To compensate for 40% extra field capture rate there should be either:

1) Paratroopers for both sides
2) No paratroopers for anybody

3) Paratroopers for LW and some asymmetrical red-only target. For example, Hitler visiting the front lines. If VVS destroy the dugout with Hitler, the whole campaign is won, the war is over.

Another problem with blue-only paratroopers is that it is a massively important target which distract pilots from other fronts. Also paradrop zones are not shown on map and in VVS briefings. I guess for obvious reasons.

Edited December 16, 2018 by mincer

[=FPS=Cutlass_RL]

9 minutes ago, xJammer said:

 

Oh so we are OK having 109f4 in 1941 then next TAW?  

Beyond question.

In complex with I-153, SB-2, Su-2, TB-3, Lagg-3 -41 ( 20mm+2x12,7mm+.2x7,62mm), Yak-1 M-105,  Mig-1 or Mig-3, IL-2 + VAP, AJ.

Why not....?  

You think we didn't fly like this...?

You don't quite understand what this could lead to.....

Edited December 16, 2018 by =FPS=Cutlass

[[110]xJammer]

Just now, mincer said:

Another problem with blue-only paratroopers is that it is a massively important target which distract pilots from other fronts. Also paradrop zones are not shown on map and in VVS briefings. I guess for obvious reasons.

 

 

Its fairly regular for red players as far as I noticed to first join blue side to check on the para locations and then switch back to red. I don't think it makes much of a difference if they are hidden. (I have never tested whether this tactic is actually possible, maybe there is a long timeout so only one red "sacrifices" himself to tell the rest of the team where the drops are).

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

Just now, xJammer said:

 

 

Its fairly regular for red players as far as I noticed to first join blue side to check on the para locations and then switch back to red. I don't think it makes much of a difference if they are hidden. (I have never tested whether this tactic is actually possible, maybe there is a long timeout so only one red "sacrifices" himself to tell the rest of the team where the drops are).

The problem with switching sides is that new players are not aware of the paradrops going on. While if the paradrop zone was shown on the map it would be obvious that something fishy may happen there. You also cannot switch sides to check the zones while in flight.

[=FPS=Cutlass_RL]

2 minutes ago, xJammer said:

 

 

Its fairly regular for red players as far as I noticed to first join blue side to check on the para locations and then switch back to red. I don't think it makes much of a difference if they are hidden. (I have never tested whether this tactic is actually possible, maybe there is a long timeout so only one red "sacrifices" himself to tell the rest of the team where the drops are).

Reasons why you are against giving this opportunity to both parties....?

You will also be able to" spy " and wait at the point of landing of enemy transport aircraft....

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

So probably para drop zones are not shown on the map with the hope of VVS pilots being distracted by the other targets, while they silently lose airfields by stealth infantry paradrops. Which seems to actually happen. 

Another thing is that those damn troopers damage airfields, which happened 49 times. To damage a front-line airfield with bombs you have to face AAA and fighters hanging around. While with paratroopers you just have to sneak in at the right moment.

Edited December 16, 2018 by mincer

[=BES=Senor_Jefe]

3 hours ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

 

4. Attack/defense objectives dynamically generating within the mission instead of between mission timeouts giving planes like Pe-2 reason to loiter over patrol points until one comes up.

 

 

 

I LOVE this.  @=LG=Kathon this would be a game changer for this server.

 

[Coldman]

cant wait for DC3 "Dakota" for VVS its faster and can carry more paratroopers ?

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

Also, if you look at the last map (starting mission #216), the Axis captured 5 cities on the ground, 4 by paratroopers and 7 times damaged airfields. 

[Aero*Bohemio]

30 minutes ago, mincer said:

Why do those paratroopers exist in the first place? 

 

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

 

30 minutes ago, mincer said:

Another problem with blue-only paratroopers is that it is a massively important target which distract pilots from other fronts.

 

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by ECV56_Chimango

[[110]xJammer]

Just now, =FPS=Cutlass said:

Reasons why you are against giving this opportunity to both parties....?

You will also be able to" spy " and wait at the point of landing of enemy transport aircraft....

 

 

Did I ever say that I was against giving paradrop aircraft to reds side? 

 

Just now, ECV56_Chimango said:

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

 

 

 

Honestly though the current score is 3:2. You make it sound like as if it is 5:0

 

 

P.S. I really have nothing against giving red side a fast-track win route next mission. They sure need some motivation.

Edited December 16, 2018 by xJammer

[=FPS=Cutlass_RL]

33 minutes ago, =LG=Coldman said:

cant wait for DC3 "Dakota" for VVS its faster and can carry more paratroopers ?

Don't wait. We need to make the Ju-52 available to both sides......

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

34 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

 

 

Exactly, that's what i've been saying since they were introduced and why the difference in team numbers were even more important than before, since they were introduced, we never had the numbers to accomplish all the task VVS had since then. It's been going on for the last 3 TAW editions including the current one; fortunately it seems that some tweaks will be done for future editions.

 

Oh, i see. It is my first TAW, so I don't know the history. Thanks.

[Garven]

Just some brief thoughts on Paratroopers:

Any paratrooper operation should be supported by a ground offensive (Tank Column) in my opinion.  Paratroopers would likely be on a suicide mission if no advancing ground units were on there way to relieve/resupply them.  There should also be a max number of paratroopers kind of like the max number of tanks as they are not an limitless asset due to being highly trained elite units.  They would only be lost if killed during the drop, in a plane crash, or if the operation isn't successful in capturing an airfield.  Also would like to see the implementation of commando operations where a deep behind the lines drop zone would stop the flow of supplies or damage assets.  Both sides would have the ability to do commando operations with the arrival of the PO-2.   

[II./JG77_Manu*]

42 minutes ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

Don't wait. We need to make the Ju-52 available to both sides......

 

I am all for balancing the whole planeset like it is, but starting to give out aircraft from the other side would be kind of ridiculous. 

There are enough advantages for both sides right now and i think, the server admins managed a very good balance in maps 1-4 (and they all had Ju-52 and paratroopers).

So this is not the reason for any imbalance. In map 5 there was a bigger imbalance in numbers then in maps 1-4, that's the main reason the Reds got steamrolled.

Might be the right thing to investigate why that happened. Maybe because lone-bombing got a lot more dangerous for the Reds lately. Maybe another reason.

 

2 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

Just some brief thoughts on Paratroopers:

Any paratrooper operation should be supported by a ground offensive (Tank Column) in my opinion.  Paratroopers would likely be on a suicide mission if no advancing ground units were on there way to relieve/resupply them.  There should also be a max number of paratroopers kind of like the max number of tanks as they are not an limitless asset due to being highly trained elite units.  They would only be lost if killed during the drop, in a plane crash, or if the operation isn't successful in capturing an airfield.  Also would like to see the implementation of commando operations where a deep behind the lines drop zone would stop the flow of supplies or damage assets.  Both sides would have the ability to do commando operations with the arrival of the PO-2.   

 

This sounds like a nice approach. I'd be all for it.

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

The first thing that should happen ASAP is the appearing of drop-zones on VVS maps/briefing and on the front page. I think it is obvious.

Edited December 16, 2018 by mincer

[7.GShAP/Silas]

1 hour ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

Don't wait. We need to make the Ju-52 available to both sides...…

 

 

I remember when this happened for a campaign.  Klaus Mann and his friends tricked me into something like four TKs with their Soviet Ju-52 "peace flights" back before they had their will broken and stopped flying(as much) .

 

Fun times. ❤️

Edited December 17, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

 

 

Might help to give some context that VVS only has 1 airfield left which always turns out like this because the losing side can't really do much and won't start from that single airfield.

 

Nobody is doubting the numerical superiority of LW. It was ALWAYS an issue and everybody knows that - hence why there are so many proposed changes. You aren't telling anyone something new by keep posting about this.

 

2 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

After LW not able to win for ages and the risk they started to lose interest, Ju-52s were introduced at the start of TAW 14th (iirc) among a ton of advantages to blue side so finally they could win and recover interest. It worked, but those "little" advantages in planset and more important wining conditions, just messed up the balance completely.

 

Lets not pretend like balance changes weren't needed back then. I imagine it is very difficult to balance the campaign because of the many possibilities how to play it. For example a lot would change if everyone would be coordinated by some sort of commander. Neither side is playing to their maximum strength and it varies each campaign, depending a lot on the squadrons flying and how active they are.

I still think that there is a definite meta in the current balance that needs adjustments but blaming everything on it is wrong. It's obviously not impossible for the VVS to win as the past has shown.

 

Some people should remember that we are ALL playing the same campaign and that the majority wants it to be balanced. It's not a lot of fun playing for anyone when there are only 10 VVS flying against 40 LW. Actually I'd rather fly in the team with lesser pilots. Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

2 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Lets not pretend like balance changes weren't needed back then. I imagine it is very difficult to balance the campaign because of the many possibilities how to play it. For example a lot would change if everyone would be coordinated by some sort of commander. Neither side is playing to their maximum strength and it varies each campaign, depending a lot on the squadrons flying and how active they are.

I still think that there is a definite meta in the current balance that needs adjustments but blaming everything on it is wrong. It's obviously not impossible for the VVS to win as the past has shown.

 

 

I think it's especially hard to balance the campaign when ~90% of one side are surgically grafted into fighters and you have to tailor victory conditions for them.  This effect is especially evident in the impact of the 190 coming onto the field.  The 190 is the perfect machine for TAW.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.

 

 

I understand the desire to find moral symmetry in the problems here, but let's be honest about the facts on the ground.  Soviet-only pilots are NOT an issue here.  The balance issue is two-fold:  Generally excessive Luftwaffe-only pilot population and nationalities who largely fly one side dominating certain timezone brackets(which has been an issue with the VVS side this campaign as well) .

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

2 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

I understand the desire to find moral symmetry in the problems here, but let's be honest about the facts on the ground.  Soviet-only pilots are NOT an issue here.

 

i was referring to the way those people argue around here (very biased). I didn't mean that they are a balance issue.

[JG1_Shadepiece]

Server has been down for a while now, can we get a reset?

[ACG_Smokejumper]

2 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Might help to give some context that VVS only has 1 airfield left which always turns out like this because the losing side can't really do much and won't start from that single airfield.

 

 

 

 

We tried. I spawned in looked left and saw my wingman slumped over his stick. I looked high 3'oclock and saw a 110 diving on me for a gun run.. Ditched out of the server with an alt F4. My other wingman spawned in just as I bailed on server. The 110 killed him before he fully spawned in.

 

Was funny. Sucked a little as I wanted to try and fight those odds but we where unable to spawn and go engine start.

Edited December 17, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[Aero*Bohemio]

On 11/26/2018 at 6:31 PM, Operation_Ivy said:

I can only speak for myself but it is utterly boring. Hydra is considering to switch to red if the numbers don't change.

 

2 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

It's not a lot of fun playing for anyone when there are only 10 VVS flying against 40 LW. Actually I'd rather fly in the team with lesser pilots. 

 

You've been saying it since map #1; numbers didn´t change. I wonder what's stopping you. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by ECV56_Chimango

[=FPS=Cutlass_RL]

6 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I am all for balancing the whole planeset like it is, but starting to give out aircraft from the other side would be kind of ridiculous. 

There are enough advantages for both sides right now and i think, the server admins managed a very good balance in maps 1-4 (and they all had Ju-52 and paratroopers).

So this is not the reason for any imbalance. In map 5 there was a bigger imbalance in numbers then in maps 1-4, that's the main reason the Reds got steamrolled.

Might be the right thing to investigate why that happened. Maybe because lone-bombing got a lot more dangerous for the Reds lately. Maybe another reason.

 

 

This sounds like a nice approach. I'd be all for it.

It's not funny.

It is ridiculous to deprive one of the parties of a historically reliable type of aircraft, in this case, the transport thereby violating the balance, which becomes much worse with the numerical superiority in favor of the Luftwaffe.  

The task of the Ju-52 - delivery of cargoes and the landing of troops, not melee strikes or bombing logistics warehouses and factories.

There is no fundamental difference between Li-2 and Ju-52 neither in speed nor in the functions performed.

 

Especially in the Soviet Union used a number of purchased and captured aircraft of this type......:

http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/soviet/ju52/ju52_sssr.html

 

The other types of aircraft are simply available and it would be really funny to issue the Bf-109 to the side of the red army air force or the Yak-1 to the Luftwaffe side.

4 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Some people should remember that we are ALL playing the same campaign and that the majority wants it to be balanced. It's not a lot of fun playing for anyone when there are only 10 VVS flying against 40 LW. Actually I'd rather fly in the team with lesser pilots. Problematic are the people who fly nearly exclusively one side but somehow are the loudest when it comes to complaining about balance.

The last three campaigns I flew for the Luftwaffe so I have a fairly complete picture of what I'm talking about. Accordingly, the claims in a one-sided view of the balance problem personally in my address are not correct. However Chimanov absolutely right - the problem of the lack of air force capabilities of air aviation in the conditions of the numerical superiority of the Luftwaffe becomes too obvious.

Edited December 17, 2018 by =FPS=Cutlass

[=989ShAP=AlterEgo]

Hello @=LG=Kathon,

 

I had last flight yesterday and after a couple of minutes after take off, IL2 just crashed. OK, i did not lost my plane as i was not damaged. 

http://taw-server.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=51110&name==19FAB=AlterEgo

 

But today after restart, I do not have the yak 1b any more, bug ? restarts fault ?

 

Thanks in advance,

AlterEgo

[Aap]

4 minutes ago, =19FAB=AlterEgo said:

Hello @=LG=Kathon,

 

I had last flight yesterday and after a couple of minutes after take off, IL2 just crashed. OK, i did not lost my plane as i was not damaged. 

http://taw-server.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=51110&name==19FAB=AlterEgo

 

But today after restart, I do not have the yak 1b any more, bug ? restarts fault ?

 

Thanks in advance,

AlterEgo

 

I think the game has moved on to Map #6 plane set.

[Blakhart]

Good morning everyone.

 

About gunpods, 23 mm, planeset, etc. etc.

 

Whenever you discuss the ideas please, leave the links for the historical articles, books (with page numbers), own videos with game tests where we can check and confirm your requests

 

"I have right because I`m right" is not enough. Also saying that something "was" without the evidence is not an argument.

English translation warmly welcome

 

We have dozens of ppl here and everyone how own point of view & scale for own judgement so instead of presenting own individual opinion which is basically useless so bring the strong facts, not only few words of opinion

 

For example. 

I think the engine & airframe damage model, flight model,  ballistic &  amunition power for 20mm MG151/20 is a pure joke in this game compare to russian machines. 
I`m bored with performance of Spit IXe, La5FN which fly like they would be affected by differeny physics laws than other planes...

 

But...

 

Did I flew on real warbirds? No

Did I used MG151/20 on a flying plane?No

Can I rely only on the books and other ppl memories ? No

 

But I can launch my game. Open a quick mission and make a tests.

How long can fly soviet plane on damaged engine, how many burst seconds is enough to destroy german plane vs soviet.

Compare everything and make some logical conclusions

I can also record it and post on YT ie.

 

Then I can start a discussion, so I strongly suggest that if you want to be treated seriously

 

Cheers!

Thank You for being part of TAW community! ?

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by =LG=Blakhart

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

11 hours ago, =BES=Coyote-66 said:

 

I LOVE this.  @=LG=Kathon this would be a game changer for this server.

 

 

The question is if the dev-provided (not the TAW script) server program itself could even allow this.

11 hours ago, xJammer said:

 

P.S. I really have nothing against giving red side a fast-track win route next mission. They sure need some motivation.

 

Do you mean adding a comparable counter-strategy to red side next TAW cycle?  I just ask because this statement is a bit ambiguous.  It could be taken that you want blue to stand aside and sip their coffee a bit slower so red can tie up the matches and keep interest.  If so, that indicates to me either hubris from blue side or an indirect recognition that there is a balance problem favoring blue.