Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by =LG=Blakhart
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good morning blackhart . You know  my english is very poor.

 

I dont get your point.... i understand any kind of discurssion about ammo, planes, etc.  if we want a  historical recreation is obiously need some kind of support. I agree.

.

But here we dont are talking nothink about historical facts.... TAW dont folow historical facts.... we are talking about balance , the only evidence we need is particapte and observate results...

 

No sense ,  23mm are limmited  and no limit gunpods....  we dont need any historical fact ... we want a fair competition, thats all . 23 mm on lagg isnt limited by historicity, is limited because its too lethal.... same can apply to gunpods if u want more balance

 

The paratroopers is the most unfair point of all competition. And have easy solution... especially when we dont care about history.... ju52 for both teams and especial skin dor both sides

I can assure you, if reds have same chances have same tactical oportunities..... is curious we are playing to tactical air war... repeat if reds have this super tactical oportunity  . Then we will play with same oportunities and maybe TAW have one more point of difficult for blue, and for me more enjoyable , reds have avaliable one more tactical oportunity for fly interesting and very well rewarded capture missions

.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The paratroopers is the most unfair point of all competition. And have easy solution... especially when we dont care about history.... ju52 for both teams and especial skin dor both sides

I can assure you, if reds have same chances have same tactical oportunities..... is curious we are playing to tactical air war... repeat if reds have this super tactical oportunity  . Then we will play with same oportunities and maybe TAW have one more point of difficult for blue, and for me more enjoyable , reds have avaliable one more tactical oportunity for fly interesting and very well rewarded capture missions

 

I am strongly against giving the Reds the Ju, it would only cause a lot of confusion and team killing. As others have already said, it was already tested and resulted in a lot of team kills.

If the Ju is really causing those big balance problems, rather limit it's capabilities in the current TaW, until the Allies get the Li-2/DC-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

good morning blackhart...

 

Tumu, TAW is still evolving. 
Every season gets better.


My request is for the future conversation about all the aspects affecting TAW, gameplay, balance, not only gpods-23mm issue 😄

 

(BTW this is my personal opinion as a player, not a LG member:
 from logical point of view they should locked, from historical - locked at the early maps, from balance perspective - they finally give some chance for 1 burst solving problem but decrease your manouverability, speed, rate of climb... well fair enough, 23mm is auto kill for no cost 😄
I dont use them, maybe flew few missions for a test)

 

p.s.

When you ll stop using your freezer as a wifi antenna ? 😄 😄 😄 Its impossible to predict where your lagging plane will appear 😄 😄

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

No sense ,  23mm are limmited  and no limit gunpods....  we dont need any historical fact ... we want a fair competition, thats all . 23 mm on lagg isnt limited by historicity, is limited because its too lethal.... same can apply to gunpods if u want more balance

 

Gun pods are seriously hampering the airplanes flight characteristics while 23mm does not at all. I used gunpods once in TaW and won't do it again. I rather have weaker weapons but an aircraft that is behaving properly. It is always a trade-off with gun pods. Not so with the 23mm, it's a wonder-kill everything weapon that doesn't hamper the Lagg in any way. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys.

I've though long and hard on how to 'balance the game'

So let me explain.

 

AND DON'T JUMP ON ME ITS JUST AN IDEA!

 

In the first image below the sides have 5 forward airfields, these are Fighter/Ground Attack aircraft (limited to small max 250kg bombs)

And the 5 rear most airfields are a mix of Bomber/Transport/Fighter Bomber.

Both sides have an equal distance to fly to ground targets, resupply etc.

267551014_Stal1.thumb.jpg.93bc6e130e77f114bbf41b667713ce87.jpg

 

 

In the second image, as one side has advanced, the distance to target for the Bombers and Transports has greatly increased.

This will have the effect of reducing the number of flights available for the attacking side, or looking at it the other way, giving the defender the advantage by allowing them to carry out more Bomber and ground attack missions. (they have less distance to travel)

This will also nullify to some extent a large numerical advantage, because as in the example 10 v 40, if you have 4 times the distance to cover in bombers/transport to reach the front,

(fighters/ground attack will have lesser an impact with the reduced ordinance) you will in fact only be able to carry out the same number of missions as the defender in the same time period!

So the further you advance, the more your resupply etc is stretched, the harder it gets.

 

234053937_Stal2.thumb.jpg.cd6206f45dc9e58984779a1c217b368b.jpg

 

I think this will be a much better solution (although not perfect) than quorums etc

And go along way to leveling the game play.

 

The beauty of this is you can keep everything as close to Historically accurate as possible.

 

Front line airfields were invariably Fighter/ground attack units, defended with lighter AAA.

And Medium/Heavy bomber airfields further to the rear (out of harms way) with much heavier AAA.

Transports could fly from close to depots located in larger Industrial Cities for resupply.

Availability of aircraft types and weapons for a given Historical time period could also be used.

I would suggest having only 2 airfields with transport aircraft close to the Factories, thus knocking out these will have a greater effect by reducing or stopping resupply/Para drops etc.

 

And as =LG= Blakhart has asked for future conversation about the aspects of TAW, this would be my suggestion/solution.

 

 

PS

When exiting the game i would increase the time to 30 or 45 seconds, 15 is whey to short!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahha

 

good point blackhart about my "super" connexion....  im not sure... maybe on 2 or 3 moths i can have better conexion because is possible i must move from my actual residence. 

I doubt wherever i end have worst connexion than here. But how knows?

 

:)

Edited by 666GIAP_Tumu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion we either take the Ju52 out or let both sides have it. It is another balance issue with TAW and it only gets worse with the LW crazy numbers that we see most of the day.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

And please, no more Pe-2 fantasies, with the fighters VVS has up to map 6/7 we can not kill more than 2 LW bombers if we are lucky, sometimes expending all ammo on a single LW bomber. On the other hand...you can kill 5 Peshkas with a single FW. Yes, FIVE, it seems is not the mighty plane you guys want the community to believe=> https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=49794&name=Operation_Ivy

 

I was able to shoot them down because they were doing it wrong. They were strafing the depot and actively trying to fight me. With a lot of turning, the gunners are nearly useless and not a threat anymore. When they extracting they were flying level in a straight line and it was much more effective as i lost my vertical stabilizer and was forced to stop pushing the attack. Picking this as an example to prove anything is misleading. However it is true that Pe2s become much less of a problem the further the campaign progresses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riksen,

If you read my post above, 

I believe mate, this would go along way in leveling the playing field, whilst also allowing each side its own particular aircraft type.

In the case of the JU52, this would be effective at the start with short trips but the further the German side advances, the less effective it will become.

ie on the Stalingrad map a flight time to drop zone and back could take in excess of an hour!

The reduced effectiveness and amount of ordnance a fighter bomber/ground attack aircraft could carry would mean Bombers would become even more important, but once again longer flight times would help to even out the game play.

My suggestion is a Win/Win solution allowing both sides a Historically accurate plane set and weapons availability.

Each specific plane with its own unique character and ability would become important in a different way.

It will also go along way to help when the numbers are imbalanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ironic because the IRL Germans didn't actually make serious use of paratroopers on the Eastern front while the Soviets did.

Share this post


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

I was able to shoot them down because they were doing it wrong. They were strafing the depot and actively trying to fight me. With a lot of turning, the gunners are nearly useless and not a threat anymore. When they extracting they were flying level in a straight line and it was much more effective as i lost my vertical stabilizer and was forced to stop pushing the attack. Picking this as an example to prove anything is misleading. However it is true that Pe2s become much less of a problem the further the campaign progresses.

 

So? What does this have to do with my post? What this has to do with the fact that LW has a fighter that can kill 5xPe2s on it's own? It shows the unmatched firepower LW have, not a single VVS plane can do that against 5xJu88 even if those Junkers were doing and aerobatic airshow with no gunners.  And also shows the Pe2 is not the staliniumn-uber-russianbias monster that some traumatized LW jockeys say

 

@=LG=Blakhart  hi mate; i agree with Tumu; what we are discussing here has nothing to do with DMs or FMs, but with TAW balance and decisions made by admins regarding many aspects of the campaign, as it can be read on many posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

So? What does this have to do with my post? What this has to do with the fact that LW has a fighter that can kill 5xPe2s on it's own? It shows the unmatched firepower LW have, not a single VVS plane can do that against 5xJu88 even if those Junkers were doing and aerobatic airshow with no gunners.  And also shows the Pe2 is not the staliniumn-uber-russianbias monster that some traumatized LW jockeys say

 

It means that it doesn't matter how good an aircraft is when you don't know how to use it. Spare me your tears, the Vya-23mm is probably the best bomber killer around until the Mk108 shows up and can easily down 5x Ju88. Also the P-39 is a good Bomber hunter. Additionally the P-47 will be a formidable Bomber killer. Is everything completely on par when it comes to balance? definitely not. You are cherry picking here that fit your agenda, which is btw very obvious. Maybe you should add a new nickname to your signature along the lines of being the equivalent of a wehraboo. And before you starting your next keyboard warrior campaign, let me tell you that i won't engage in it any further. This Thread is barely bearable already. 

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

It means that it doesn't matter how good an aircraft is when you don't know how to use it. Spare me your tears, the Vya-23mm is probably the best bomber killer around until the Mk108 shows up and can easily down 5x Ju88. Also the P-39 is a good Bomber hunter. Additionally the P-47 will be a formidable Bomber killer. Is everything completely on par when it comes to balance? definitely not. You are cherry picking here that fit your agenda, which is btw very obvious. Maybe you should add a new nickname to your signature along the lines of being the equivalent of a wehraboo. And before you starting your next keyboard warrior campaign, let me tell you that i won't engage in it any further. This Thread is barely bearable already. 

 

My only "agenda" is to have a more balanced TAW so we all have the chance to win it and specially have a good time during it. I posted many suggestions being the most importants about team balance regarding numbers and wining conditions. The only one about planeset i posted it's the  decision (still inexplicable) of making VYa23 limited on Lagg-3 while give unlimited gunpods to german fighters; it seems you are the one cherry picking here.

 

I agree Vya23mm is a great weapon, not that much after 3.008 but still the best one we have and oh what a coincidence, it's the only one we have limited. Anyway, show us one single sortie in current TAW where a Lagg-3 shot down 5 LW bombers.

 

P39? Read my post carefully, already mentioned the VVS firepower from map #6. P47? You mean the one it shows up at map #8? Wanna talk about A8 with 2xmk108 gunpods? I wonder what all this has to do with the vya/gunpods recommendation.

 

 

Edited by ECV56_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

That's your opinion, a biased one. My only agenda is to have a more balanced TAW so we all have the chance to win it and specially have a good time during it.

 

Yes, everyone's opinion is biased, there is no way around it, but at least i fly both sides frequently on TAW (This campaign being the first one that we stayed LW to get different opponents). Funny that you only raise your voice when VVS is at a disadvantage but maybe i just missed it in the past?.

 

9 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

I agree Vya23mm is a great weapon, not that much after 3.008 but still the best one we have and oh what a coincidence, it's the only one we have limited. Anyway, show us one single sortie in TAW where a Lagg-3 shot down 5 LW bombers.

 

Probably didn't happen thus far but that doesn't mean that is due to lack of weaponry but rather lack of targets. I would gladly jump in a quick mission with some of your friends where i can show you.

 

11 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

P39? Read my post carefully, already mentioned the VVS firepower from map #6. P47? You mean the one it shows up at map #8? Wanna talk about A8 with 2xmk108 gunpods? I wonder what all this has to do with the vya/gunpods recommendation.

 

You can consider the A8 already overkill for 2 engine bombers really. The P-47 will do just as fine. 

 

You seem to have not read my post then. TAW is riding a fine line between balance and historical setup (as far as this is possible). The Vya-23 is already only unlocked due to balance, otherwise it would/should be locked completely. 

 

You can only choose one  with your recommendations (where most of them will probably do more harm than good). Either you go full balance where you get all your toys to make it "fair" or you go full historical which will leave VVS in the dust for most of the campaign duration. TAW is trying to get a good mix out of both. Gun-pods afaik were widely used. Way more than Vya-23mms. If you make the Vya-23 unlimited based on your argument, you will go down a slippery slope where you can ask for much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

but at least i fly both sides frequently on TAW (This campaign being the first one that we stayed LW to get different opponents). Funny that you only raise your voice when VVS is at a disadvantage but maybe i just missed it in the past?.

 

I raise my voice when VVS is at disadvantage because the three TAW editions i flew actively (11th, 14th, current 16th) VVS was at disadvantage everytime. Funny you mention this, one of those editions you flew VVS, and you also were very loud at forums. 
 

47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Probably didn't happen thus far but that doesn't mean that is due to lack of weaponry but rather lack of targets. I would gladly jump in a quick mission with some of your friends where i can show you.

 

Lack of targets? Where have you been? VVS thanks to LW stacking servers don´t have that problem. All supositions, but nothing close to the truth; again, show a link in curent TAW where a Lagg-3 with 90xVYA23mm rounds shot down 5xLW bombers. Other than that it's just  bla bla just as consistent as you saying that you would go VVS cause flying in big numbers is boring (twice this TAW) and then sticking to LW. Show facts, not guesses. 

 

47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

You seem to have not read my post then. TAW is riding a fine line between balance and historical setup (as far as this is possible). The Vya-23 is already only unlocked due to balance, otherwise it would/should be locked completely. 

 

I have read it, and i disagree with you, already explained several times.

 

47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

You can only choose one  with your recommendations (where most of them will probably do more harm than good). 

 

Just generic and not solid. Which of my 5/6 recommendations will do harm? You mean more harm than now where LW won previous campaign 7-1 and now you have again one team unable to do much in maps #4 an#5 due to numbers+wining conditions like the Ju-52 issue?  Engage those propositions with solid arguments.

 

47 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 If you make the Vya-23 unlimited based on your argument, you will go down a slippery slope where you can ask for much more.

 

This is priceless, it sounds like the old ladies in my country who say "if you try a joint once you'll become a cocaine and heroin adict later" (facepalm here)

 

PS. this quote from previous post:

1 hour ago, Operation_Ivy said:

let me tell you that i won't engage in it any further. This Thread is barely bearable already. 

 

Another statement as solid as your suppositions.

Edited by ECV56_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

-snip-

 

Its just hopeless to try to argue with you if you are seriously in doubt that you can't down 5 Ju88 with a Vya-23mm - i'll truly leave it at this

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


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

 

I am good on that front. Stop being personal, that's leading nowhere. Stay with the facts.

 

I am all for balance when it is in a sensible way. But your unreasonable whining is ridiculous. Maps 1-4 were balanced. Map 5 VVS was steamrolled, because they had a bigger player disadvantage and not because of the Ju-52. Is the paradrop very powerful? Apparently yes, then nerf it to a certain degree. But "take the Ju52 out" is the worst suggestion I have seen in this forum entirely. It's the most expensive aircraft in the game and TaW guys managed to give it some purpose in an online environment. That's the best thing that can happen to such an iconic aircraft many people (not knowing TaW) would deem "irrelevant". It's part of the battle, and that's good. If the Russians get the DC-3 and the Po-2 I am all for them being implemented in a similar, value adding way, even if the Po-2 can do stuff no German aircraft can.

I think it's awesome to give those iconic birds - far away from gloryhunter machines like 109 and Yaks - some purpose.


Paratroopers allow much faster advance during the numerical advantage, which happened on map #5. If there are no paratroopers but you have an advantage, you still have to fly CAS missions which take a lot more time because:

1) You can still screw things up and get shot down by AAA
2) You have to wait for the tanks to advance which may take more than one mission

3) You need a tank column spawned to begin with

While with paratroopers all those factors are out and you can do whatever you want.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mincer, among other things. Map #6 just started and red depots are wiped out in three missions by exploits of people gaming the system. Again 2-1 quorum, and we almost have no depots left. 

 

5QxxXTv.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mincer said:


Paratroopers allow much faster advance during the numerical advantage, which happened on map #5. If there are no paratroopers but you have an advantage, you still have to fly CAS missions which take a lot more time because:

1) You can still screw things up and get shot down by AAA
2) You have to wait for the tanks to advance which may take more than one mission

3) You need a tank column spawned to begin with

While with paratroopers all those factors are out and you can do whatever you want.

 

I tend to disagree. In map 2 and map 3 there were situations during European sleeping time when VVS have been more or less alone (numbers like 20:3 in favour of the VVS). This was often enough to not only claim back what LW took during day time, but conquer almost double the ground. This has been at least as effective as the paradrops from the Ju52. The time-based numerical superiority is the main factor, not the Ju52. Russians lost the time-based numerical superiority during European sleeping times (I don't know why) and the result is what we see now. But like I said, I am all for making it harder for the Ju52 paradrop (like putting AAA in those zones or similar).

2 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

and red depots are wiped out in three missions by exploits of people gaming the system

Now what do wiped out depots have to do with "exploits" and the Ju52???😳

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Its just hopeless to try to argue with you if you are seriously in doubt that you can't down 5 Ju88 with a Vya-23mm - i'll truly leave it at this

 

Still here? And still cherry picking? Anyway, let's do that test, you take a Lagg-3 and i'll gather some friends and grab 5xJu88 and lets see if you shoot us down. It only happens in your dreams.

 

Even then, you are missing the point, like i.e all other aspects of TAW imbalance (a lot more important than VYa/gunpods) which you don´t seem willing to change unless it affects you, and have no arguments to add apparently. 

 

Ivy I'm not surprised with you, before 3.008 when all guns became less effective, the LW 20mm was a great weapon able to demolish any VVS plane, but you didn´t like this advantage, it was not enough for you apparently, and wanted more hit power asking devs to make it even better (your signature). Crying about weapon performance when it's already an excellent weapon is nothing i could ever respect, and become instantly hugely biased. I did a test after so much luftwhining at forums, cause what they said was nothing comparable to what i was experiencing during years flying this sim, specially:

 

1. 20mm it's crap

2. VVS are made of stalinium.

3. Red is easy, russian bias.

 

Yes, check how weak your LW 20mm was, check russian biased uber planes, and the stalinium VVS:
 

 

 

Edited by ECV56_Chimango
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty apparent that both sides have time zone 'swings' to their favor.  I do wonder, however, which side has the greater average number advantage and who has the most average time being at said advantage?   Seriously, I haven't looked up stats or done the math and would like to delegate the job to a volunteer.  Sorry for my laziness. 

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


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

 

I tend to disagree. In map 2 and map 3 there were situations during European sleeping time when VVS have been more or less alone (numbers like 20:3 in favour of the VVS). This was often enough to not only claim back what LW took during day time, but conquer almost double the ground. This has been at least as effective as the paradrops from the Ju52. The time-based numerical superiority is the main factor, not the Ju52. Russians lost the time-based numerical superiority during European sleeping times (I don't know why) and the result is what we see now. But like I said, I am all for making it harder for the Ju52 paradrop (like putting AAA in those zones or similar).

Now what do wiped out depots have to do with "exploits" and the Ju52???😳

 


The numerical advantage of VVS in NA timezone was still there in map #5 except the last few missions. The difference between the last one and first maps was that LW found a way to advance so fast (paratroopers) that it could not be cancelled out effectively by the numerical advantage in NA timezone (no paratroopers). Also, LW can very easily grab back the fields they lost during sleep time. They are already damaged to 100%, so guess what happens. If you don't believe, look what happened from #216 to #254 in the logs I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

I think it's pretty apparent that both sides have time zone 'swings' to their favor.

 

Negative BBQ, this was the case till the end of map #3; never happened since then and mostly it's been an average of 2:1 to LW; reaching peaks of 3:1 (60-20) for whole three map loads.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

Still here? And still cherry picking? Anyway, let's do that test, you take a Lagg-3 and i'll gather some friends and grab 5xJu88 and lets see if you shoot us down. It only happens in your dreams.

 

Even then, you are missing the point, like i.e all other aspects of TAW imbalance (a lot more important than VYa/gunpods) which you don´t seem willing to change unless it affects you, and have no arguments to add apparently. You are fully biased to your beloved LW, it doesn´t matter if every now and then chose to fly red.

 

Ivy I'm not surprised with you, before 3.008 when all guns became less effective, the LW 20mm was a great weapon able to demolish any VVS plane, but you didn´t like this advantage, it was not enough for you apparently, and wanted more hit power asking devs to make it even better (your signature). Crying about weapon performance when it's already an excellent weapon is nothing i could ever respect, and become instantly hugely biased. I did a test after so much luftwhining at forums, cause what they said was nothing comparable to what i was experiencing during years flying this sim, specially:

 

1. 20mm it's crap

2. VVS are made of stalinium.

3. Red is easy, russian bias.

 

Yes, check how weak your LW 20mm was, check russian biased uber planes, and the stalinium VVS:
 

 

 

The planes that were attacked in this video did not disintegrate into small enough bits.  Proof of Axis nerfing and Russian bias?  Probably.  :lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Yes Mincer, among other things. Map #6 just started and red depots are wiped out in three missions by exploits of people gaming the system. Again 2-1 quorum, and we almost have no depots left. 

 

5QxxXTv.png

 

Well if my suggestion were to be used, it would be impossible to 'game the system',

as bomber flights would just take to long.

Example with current map:

hyg.thumb.JPG.8cb0fa2f8fb46c36cf5e328a8d4f9422.JPG

 

A bomber flight from Taman to the depot near Mirskaya would take a cool 1hr 26mins return.

Only enough time for 1 flight in the 2hrs

It would certainly take a large and coordinated attack to wipe out a depot in one go!

And a resupply flight to Timashevskaya would take 40mins. 

 

Also the effectiveness of Para drops would decrease the further you advanced as limited time would decrease the number you could carry out!

 

I believe this would give all round balance to the Campaign not achievable by any other means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mincer said:


The numerical advantage of VVS in NA timezone was still there in map #5 except the last few missions. The difference between the last one and first maps was that LW found a way to advance so fast (paratroopers) that it could not be cancelled out effectively by the numerical advantage in NA timezone (no paratroopers). Also, LW can very easily grab back the fields they lost during sleep time. They are already damaged to 100%, so guess what happens. If you don't believe, look what happened from #216 to #254 in the logs I posted.

 

 

Paratroopers were used constantly throughout many of the TAW campaigns since they were introduced. Those that do it knew the way long before this iteration of TAW began.

Share this post


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


The numerical advantage of VVS in NA timezone was still there in map #5 except the last few missions. The difference between the last one and first maps was that LW found a way to advance so fast (paratroopers) that it could not be cancelled out effectively by the numerical advantage in NA timezone (no paratroopers). Also, LW can very easily grab back the fields they lost during sleep time. They are already damaged to 100%, so guess what happens. If you don't believe, look what happened from #216 to #254 in the logs I posted.

 

Like I already said, I acknowledge the paradrop problem. But just getting rid of it, as Riksen wants, is just ridiculous and the worst possible solution. I am sure the Admins will find a way to balance it out and make it harder (=similar effective for the overall mission goal as bombing tanks or destroying depots)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That endless these debates, and Sorry Chimango but what only fly in blue like you only fly Red is by tradition of squadron, or why we only fly a plane well and not all do not you think? That to talk about easy kill, I think it's good from a children's forum, before flying alone in this sim, and I never seemed easy kill fly a 109, low visibility weapons do not hit anything, with much more dispersion than a yak or a lagg, the only thing that does very well climb more than the red and dive stronger, I never saw an F4 turn more than a Yak I do not know where you get those nonsense, data and official specifications of the Il2 is available in Quikmission you go to the specifications tab and compare all the planes, the only BLUE plane that rotates almost equal to a Yak1 is the Bf109E.
However, if you want to always talk about how wrong the sim is, is it a SIM or a Balancer?
If we talk about obvious advantages that you spend saying, I suggest you try the dipersion of any 109 vs yak or lagg the LA5 (it has enough dispersion), but the Blue planes have much worse dispersion, you can shoot from a yak at distances of 400m and hit a target well, with the 109 that's impossible. The Red planes are much more armored than the Blue airplanes. This is indisputable, the i16 to balance against the 109E they made of Titanium. The Flags of the Yak that are combat ?, the cabins of all Red planes can be opened at any speed and stay open to 5000mts, to see this is a SIM I believe, not a balancer if they want balance there are other sim arcades known by all to try. In my humble opinion I think the Reds are already balanced to match the historical data of the Blue planes, what they ask now is that they also take the F4 in the Taw because it is very good? Seriously????'😑

And I need to talk about the Peshka? It is a B17 now with a 190 you have to do 2 passes and throw all the bullets to fall, and do not talk about much because the gunner have a GAU directed by radar, the JU 88 are paper compared

  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JG5_Schuck said:

 

Well if my suggestion were to be used, it would be impossible to 'game the system',

as bomber flights would just take to long.

Example with current map:

hyg.thumb.JPG.8cb0fa2f8fb46c36cf5e328a8d4f9422.JPG

 

A bomber flight from Taman to the depot near Mirskaya would take a cool 1hr 26mins return.

Only enough time for 1 flight in the 2hrs

It would certainly take a large and coordinated attack to wipe out a depot in one go!

And a resupply flight to Timashevskaya would take 40mins. 

 

Also the effectiveness of Para drops would decrease the further you advanced as limited time would decrease the number you could carry out!

 

I believe this would give all round balance to the Campaign not achievable by any other means.

Normally, I'd go for this but the fact is ANY airfield deemed serviceable, reasonably secure, having long enough runways and able to be sufficiently supplied was used as a heavy bomber base. 

More accurately, what would count as sufficiently supply-able could be the main factor counted as Axis had a logistical nightmare shipping by railway.  Germany and Russia used 2 different widths of train tracks, so their locomotives and cars were not compatible. Captured Russian trains with loaded with cargo that was transferred from German trains at the end of the German lines weren't that commonplace and seeing German trains at the doorstep(s) of Moscow and Stalingrad simply did not happen.  This problem was never solved by Germany.  If captured trains weren't available to use, then weapons, ammo and maintenance parts for heavy bombers would only be moved up as far as trucks could go before dedicating a single truck to a single large bomb and/or a single truck to a single-mission full loadout of smaller bombs for one bomber became painfully inefficient.  Perhaps that's the limiter right there. If Axis can't get the captured Russian train and trucks to the Airfield, then reduced loadouts and bomber availability at the under-supplied field.    

 

There's your counter-tactic, AND it's historical:  Keep dropping your paratroopers.  We'll  keep killing trains and trucks and prevent the He-111s and Ju-88s from ever being able to advance forward for faster flights and quicker sortie output.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Yes Mincer, among other things. Map #6 just started and red depots are wiped out in three missions by exploits of people gaming the system. Again 2-1 quorum, and we almost have no depots left. 

 

 

Clarify what you mean by gaming the system?

 

Those depots were a lot of work btw. But no reds were harmed in the process ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so hard to understand regarding VYa and Gunpods?

 

Chima is only pointing that reds have limited cannons (even the I-16 shvaks!!) while blues have them unlimited (the only limitation is the Macchi on the first map). Even the stuka has its 37mm gunpods unlimited on the first map.  Just limit them the same way the reds have. 

 

Regarding paratroopers, on the first editions (way before Ju-52s) both sides had them but since the pe-2 is faster than its homonyms, the airfield capturing system was limited to tanks only. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobile BBQ,

While you analysis may in some respect be true regarding the size of rail lines, and the logistics of resupply.

I have yet to read of any front line airfields (at this stage of the war) containing Medium or Heavy bombers.

These were kept at a safe distance, for obvious reasons, it takes much longer to get these aircraft airborne or move them to safety.

Also the distance required to form up and to gain sufficient altitude to target means a greater distance is required.

It is also quicker, safer and easier to move large amounts of ordnance to the target (and dropping it on it) by flying it there in the designated aircraft than transporting it to forward airfields via  truck or train (or horse drawn carriage!)

There is a reason bombers carried fuel enough for several hours flight, not 20 mins there and back!

Smaller bombs could, and were flown in to forward airfields, but i wouldn't fancy trying to man handle a 500/1000kg bomb into a transport plane!

 

And i should add rail line sizes are not modeled in game, so i believe this would be the best solution.

Edited by JG5_Schuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JG5_Schuck said:

Mobile BBQ,

While you analysis may in some respect be true regarding the size of rail lines, and the logistics of resupply.

I have yet to read of any front line airfields (at this stage of the war) containing Medium or Heavy bombers.

These were kept at a safe distance, for obvious reasons, it takes much longer to get these aircraft airborne or move them to safety.

Also the distance required to form up and to gain sufficient altitude to target means a greater distance is required.

It is also quicker, safer and easier to move large amounts of ordnance to the target (and dropping it on it) by flying it there in the designated aircraft than transporting it to forward airfields via  truck or train (or horse drawn carriage!)

There is a reason bombers carried fuel enough for several hours flight, not 20 mins there and back!

Smaller bombs could, and were flown in to forward airfields, but i wouldn't fancy trying to man handle a 500/1000kg bomb into a transport plane!

 

And i should add rail line sizes are not modeled in game, so i believe this would be the best solution.

 

I did say "reasonably secure" as in not very vulnerable to short-strike bombers or artillery attacks.  So yes, frontline heavy bomber bases were out.  Keep in mind, that the idea was to move forward as many "secured" airfields as possible to reach progressively deeper into enemy territory.  This doesn't mean they moved so close to the frontlines to endanger the bombers on the ground, but as the frontline pushes forward more, so do the rear heavy bomber bases. 

Obviously, it makes more sense if you're going to load a He-111 fully it's best to deliver those bombs to the enemy (with fuses armed, of course) than to deliver them to a storage bin on the frontline field. 

Still, trains and trucks would be very important in advancing supplies to newly-forwarded bomber bases, with trains being able to transport exponentially more tonnage than trucks or cargo planes. 

Rail line sizes may not modeled in-game, but I think it would be safe to assume EVERYTHING east of Poland (hence, all the maps we play on) was Russian rail size.  If you wanted to fudge it a bit, then only German depots could be counted as transfer points where trains from Germany were offloaded and the cargo was transferred onto captured Russian trains or other German trains refitted to the correct track size.  Destroy the German depot and trains cannot come from it.  Destroy both and Germany gets zero trains to use.  Either way, for transport by rail from Germany to points within occupied Russian territory, the transfer between the two train types HAD to happen. Like I said Germany never solved this problem.

Why not allocate German depots as that place of transfer?  I understand that Russia did not have this problem with railway shipping and Russian depot destruction would not stop trains from running, but it would be historical.   

If we're going to stick to history but try to enact in-game balance, you can see with this example it increasingly becomes a slippery slope.  

Share this post


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

 

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

 

I don't think so... the Po-2 project by the 3rd party was announced in November 2017.. it's been over a year and it didn't come yet. For a different team developing the planes for BoX takes a good bit of time. I would guess Li-2 would come around 6 months after Po-2 release imho.
 

9 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I am strongly against giving the Reds the Ju, it would only cause a lot of confusion and team killing. As others have already said, it was already tested and resulted in a lot of team kills.

If the Ju is really causing those big balance problems, rather limit it's capabilities in the current TaW, until the Allies get the Li-2/DC-3


I don't know about this idea.. because there isn't much multiplayer play style for the Ju 52 and some people like it. Maybe not limit the feature in itself but make it so that VVS players can counter it better (giving a rough estimate where the landing zone could be, not neccesarily accurate, saying when all troops were delivered so they don't have to waste more time patrolling it like it's with other objectives).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobile BBQ.

If i understand you correctly,

What you are advocating is having along side my suggestion/solution, the German depots as transfer depots/hubs,

the destruction of which, would in some way reduce or remove the ability of front line aircraft to have unlocks/modifications, (or even their availability?)

in order to simulate the disruption of supply and logistics,

In the same way the destruction of supply convoys and trains would for the Russians?

If so, it sounds a fair point to me........

 

 

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...